How do Global Warming Alarmist prepare for the rising sea levels they predict? Apparently, they buy ocean-front property for a first class view of the cataclysm.
Al Gore and family are doing their good work, fighting climate change by purchasing $9 million ocean front property, complete with massive water fountains, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.
Former Vice President Al Gore added the Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings sometime this week, according to the Montecito Journal.
The Italian style villa is placed on 1.5 acres, with a swimming pool and spa. All very carbon neutral, I’m sure. Apparently, Al Gore isn’t as concerned about actual Climate Change as he wants everyone else to be. Go figure….
April 27, 2010
Happy Meal Toys Causing Childhood Obesity?
The latest target in the battle over fast food is something you shouldn't even put in your mouth.
Convinced that Happy Meals and other food promotions aimed at children could make kids fat as well as happy, county officials in Silicon Valley are poised to outlaw the little toys that often come with high-calorie offerings.
The proposed ban is the latest in a growing string of efforts to change the types of foods aimed at youngsters and the way they are cooked and sold. Across the nation, cities, states and school boards have taken aim at excessive sugar, salt and certain types of fats.
Believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, the proposal would forbid the inclusion of a toy in any restaurant meal that has more than 485 calories, more than 600 mg of salt or high amounts of sugar or fat. In the case of McDonald's, the limits would include all of the chain's Happy Meals — even those that include apple sticks instead of French fries.
Supporters say the ban would encourage restaurants to offer more-nutritious foods to kids and would make unhealthful items less appealing. But opponents believe it amounts to government meddling in parental decisions. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors will consider the proposal Tuesday.
Even though it's largely symbolic — the proposed ban would apply only to the dozen fast-food restaurants within the jurisdiction of the board — the proposal has caused a bit of an uproar on the Internet, where comments on YouTube and other sites say it is another example of the "nanny state" gone wild.
The California Restaurant Assn. has taken out full-page newspaper advertisements against the proposed ordinance in local newspapers. One shows a little girl with her hands cuffed behind her back as she holds a stuffed animal.
Another opponent wrote in a YouTube posting, "I want to know when the pitchforks and torches and rope is going to come out.... We need to run these Frankenstein politician monsters the hell out of town!"
Ken Yeager, the Santa Clara County supervisor who is behind the effort, says the toys in kids' meals are contributing to America's obesity epidemic by encouraging children to eat unhealthful, fattening foods.
"People ask why I want to take toys out of the hands of children," said Yeager, who is president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. "But we now know that 70% of the kids that are overweight or obese will be overweight or obese as adults. Why would we want to burden anybody with a lifetime of chronic illness?"
NEWS FALSH: YOUR NOT BURDENING THEM! THEY ARE BURDENING THEMSELVES. YOU ARE NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE! GET A FRICKING HOBBY AND KEEP YOUR NANNY LAWS TO YOURSELF
"We went through a phase when my daughter wanted the Happy Meal just to get the toy," said Kristen Dimont, 37 (do you here the violin in the backround?) . The Sunnyvale blogger said that once her child tasted fast food, it took years to coax her back to the healthful variety (Takes me about a second. You say NO. It’s a very complex and emotionally straining word, but it works everytime). Dimont likes the idea of the ban — and thinks the supervisors should consider extending it to the play yards that also attract children to fast-food restaurants.
In this way, they can take all the responsibility away from the parents and blame someone else for their fat kid. It’s the American way!
Ok, here is a novel approach: DON”T TAKE YOUR KIDS TO MCDONALDS> IF YOU GO< DON’T BUY A HAPPY MEAL! Why is it always necessary for these freaking progressives to impose their choices on everyone around them. I take my kids to McDonalds and I have not once bought them a happy meal (they are expensive). My kids have somehow managed to avoid Obesity despite these trips to the fat farm. Perhaps, just maybe, kids have other reasons for being obese.
"To say that Burger King or McDonald's is the root cause or that giving toys with children's meals is a root cause is not right," said some parents
McDonald's declined to comment on the proposed ban. But the California Restaurant Assn. has played a major role in the opposition.
If County Supervisor Yeager "wants to take away the toys that are making kids fat, take away Xboxes, take away PlayStations, take away flat-screen TVs," said Daniel Conway, spokesman for the industry group.
Damn straight, unfortunately for us all-they will go after that too.
Yeager knows that even if the board passes his proposal, its effect would be small. Even so, he says, it's worth it.
"We're responsible for paying for healthcare in the whole county," Yeager said. "We pay close to $2 billion annually on healthcare, and the costs have done nothing but rise." A big part of the increase, he said, is costs related to obesity.
And so it begins….. We are responsible for your healthcare, so we can tell you what to eat. I told you this mentality would take hold. It is already is at the for front of every liberal tyrant out there. They want to control your behavior. Healthcare gives them an excuse to do so. Next will come the push for mandatory exercise, probably during work hours to assure compliance. I just can’t wrap my brain around the idea that a big nanny state government is what the American people want. Are we not able to make simple decisions about food without mandates from the federal government? Does anyone truly believe that childhood obesity is a result or even influenced by McDonald’s Happy meal toys? Even if it is responsible for developing bad habits, the government has no right to dictate what I or my children eat. If I want to eat myself to death, I have every right to do so as a free individual. It’s not their concern, or at least it shouldn’t be. But like the tyrant pointed out, they are paying for health care now…..
The progressive ideology is the problem. We have a very screwed up sense of morality in the 21st century. Peopl don’t take care of themselves, but to keep busy they dictate how everyone else should act. They believe in “helping others” through force. They use the government to do so because they have a monopoly on force, a monopoly that is supposed to protect our individual rights. They don’t care what one individual thinks, because what is the opinion of one man worth against the benefit of the greater good. The concept of a society of free individuals is lost on them. They view any law that forces a “progressively “favorable” behavior as beneficial to people, so its ok to impose on their right to make a choice. It’s only a little imposing anyway, and its for their own benefit. Like CS Lewis says – they do so with the approval of their own conscious. Which makes them the most dangerous tyrants of all.
Convinced that Happy Meals and other food promotions aimed at children could make kids fat as well as happy, county officials in Silicon Valley are poised to outlaw the little toys that often come with high-calorie offerings.
The proposed ban is the latest in a growing string of efforts to change the types of foods aimed at youngsters and the way they are cooked and sold. Across the nation, cities, states and school boards have taken aim at excessive sugar, salt and certain types of fats.
Believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, the proposal would forbid the inclusion of a toy in any restaurant meal that has more than 485 calories, more than 600 mg of salt or high amounts of sugar or fat. In the case of McDonald's, the limits would include all of the chain's Happy Meals — even those that include apple sticks instead of French fries.
Supporters say the ban would encourage restaurants to offer more-nutritious foods to kids and would make unhealthful items less appealing. But opponents believe it amounts to government meddling in parental decisions. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors will consider the proposal Tuesday.
Even though it's largely symbolic — the proposed ban would apply only to the dozen fast-food restaurants within the jurisdiction of the board — the proposal has caused a bit of an uproar on the Internet, where comments on YouTube and other sites say it is another example of the "nanny state" gone wild.
The California Restaurant Assn. has taken out full-page newspaper advertisements against the proposed ordinance in local newspapers. One shows a little girl with her hands cuffed behind her back as she holds a stuffed animal.
Another opponent wrote in a YouTube posting, "I want to know when the pitchforks and torches and rope is going to come out.... We need to run these Frankenstein politician monsters the hell out of town!"
Ken Yeager, the Santa Clara County supervisor who is behind the effort, says the toys in kids' meals are contributing to America's obesity epidemic by encouraging children to eat unhealthful, fattening foods.
"People ask why I want to take toys out of the hands of children," said Yeager, who is president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. "But we now know that 70% of the kids that are overweight or obese will be overweight or obese as adults. Why would we want to burden anybody with a lifetime of chronic illness?"
NEWS FALSH: YOUR NOT BURDENING THEM! THEY ARE BURDENING THEMSELVES. YOU ARE NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE! GET A FRICKING HOBBY AND KEEP YOUR NANNY LAWS TO YOURSELF
"We went through a phase when my daughter wanted the Happy Meal just to get the toy," said Kristen Dimont, 37 (do you here the violin in the backround?) . The Sunnyvale blogger said that once her child tasted fast food, it took years to coax her back to the healthful variety (Takes me about a second. You say NO. It’s a very complex and emotionally straining word, but it works everytime). Dimont likes the idea of the ban — and thinks the supervisors should consider extending it to the play yards that also attract children to fast-food restaurants.
In this way, they can take all the responsibility away from the parents and blame someone else for their fat kid. It’s the American way!
Ok, here is a novel approach: DON”T TAKE YOUR KIDS TO MCDONALDS> IF YOU GO< DON’T BUY A HAPPY MEAL! Why is it always necessary for these freaking progressives to impose their choices on everyone around them. I take my kids to McDonalds and I have not once bought them a happy meal (they are expensive). My kids have somehow managed to avoid Obesity despite these trips to the fat farm. Perhaps, just maybe, kids have other reasons for being obese.
"To say that Burger King or McDonald's is the root cause or that giving toys with children's meals is a root cause is not right," said some parents
McDonald's declined to comment on the proposed ban. But the California Restaurant Assn. has played a major role in the opposition.
If County Supervisor Yeager "wants to take away the toys that are making kids fat, take away Xboxes, take away PlayStations, take away flat-screen TVs," said Daniel Conway, spokesman for the industry group.
Damn straight, unfortunately for us all-they will go after that too.
Yeager knows that even if the board passes his proposal, its effect would be small. Even so, he says, it's worth it.
"We're responsible for paying for healthcare in the whole county," Yeager said. "We pay close to $2 billion annually on healthcare, and the costs have done nothing but rise." A big part of the increase, he said, is costs related to obesity.
And so it begins….. We are responsible for your healthcare, so we can tell you what to eat. I told you this mentality would take hold. It is already is at the for front of every liberal tyrant out there. They want to control your behavior. Healthcare gives them an excuse to do so. Next will come the push for mandatory exercise, probably during work hours to assure compliance. I just can’t wrap my brain around the idea that a big nanny state government is what the American people want. Are we not able to make simple decisions about food without mandates from the federal government? Does anyone truly believe that childhood obesity is a result or even influenced by McDonald’s Happy meal toys? Even if it is responsible for developing bad habits, the government has no right to dictate what I or my children eat. If I want to eat myself to death, I have every right to do so as a free individual. It’s not their concern, or at least it shouldn’t be. But like the tyrant pointed out, they are paying for health care now…..
The progressive ideology is the problem. We have a very screwed up sense of morality in the 21st century. Peopl don’t take care of themselves, but to keep busy they dictate how everyone else should act. They believe in “helping others” through force. They use the government to do so because they have a monopoly on force, a monopoly that is supposed to protect our individual rights. They don’t care what one individual thinks, because what is the opinion of one man worth against the benefit of the greater good. The concept of a society of free individuals is lost on them. They view any law that forces a “progressively “favorable” behavior as beneficial to people, so its ok to impose on their right to make a choice. It’s only a little imposing anyway, and its for their own benefit. Like CS Lewis says – they do so with the approval of their own conscious. Which makes them the most dangerous tyrants of all.
Filtering History
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Many years ago, I was surprised to receive a letter from an old friend, saying that she had been told that I refused to see campus visitors from Africa. At the time, I was so bogged down with work that I had agreed to see only one visitor to the Stanford campus-- and it so happens that he was from Africa. He just happened to come along when I had a little breathing room from the work I was doing in my office.
I pointed out to my friend that whoever said what she heard might just as well have said that I refused to go sky-diving with blacks-- which was true, because I refused to go sky-diving with anybody, whether black, white, Asian or whatever. The kind of thinking that produced a passing misconception about me has, unfortunately, produced much bigger, much longer lasting, much more systematic and more poisonous distortions about the United States of America.
Slavery is a classic example. The history of slavery across the centuries and in many countries around the world is a painful history to read-- not only in terms of how slaves have been treated, but because of what that says about the whole human species-- because slaves and enslavers alike have been of every race, religion and nationality.
If the history of slavery ought to teach us anything, it is that human beings cannot be trusted with unbridled power over other human beings-- no matter what color or creed any of them are. The history of ancient despotism and modern totalitarianism practically shouts that same message from the blood-stained pages of history. But that is not the message that is being taught in our schools and colleges, or dramatized on television and in the movies. The message that is pounded home again and again is that white people enslaved black people.
It is true, just as it is true that I don't go sky-diving with blacks. But it is also false in its implications for the same reason. Just as Europeans enslaved Africans, North Africans enslaved Europeans-- more Europeans than there were Africans enslaved in the United States and in the 13 colonies from which it was formed. The treatment of white galley slaves was even worse than the treatment of black slaves picking cotton. But there are no movies or television dramas about it comparable to "Roots," and our schools and colleges don't pound it into the heads of students.
The inhumanity of human beings toward other human beings is not a new story, much less a local story. There is no need to hide it, because there are lessons we can learn from it. But there is also no need to distort it, so that sins of the whole human species around the world are presented as special defects of "our society" or the sins of a particular race.
If American society and Western civilization are different from other societies and civilization, it is that they eventually turned against slavery, and stamped it out, at a time when non-Western societies around the world were still maintaining slavery and resisting Western pressures to end slavery, including in some cases armed resistance.
Only the fact that the West had more firepower than others put an end to slavery in many non-Western societies during the age of Western imperialism. Yet today there are Americans who have gone to Africa to apologize for slavery-- on a continent where slavery has still not been completely ended, to this very moment.
It is not just the history of slavery that gets distorted beyond recognition by the selective filtering of facts. Those who go back to mine history, in order to find everything they can to undermine American society or Western civilization, have very little interest in the Bataan death march, the atrocities of the Ottoman Empire or similar atrocities in other times and places.
Those who mine history for sins are not searching for truth but for opportunities to denigrate their own society, or for grievances that can be cashed in today, at the expense of people who were not even born when the sins of the past were committed.
An ancient adage says: "Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." But apparently that is not sufficient for many among our educators, the intelligentsia or the media. They are busy poisoning the present by the way they present the past.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Many years ago, I was surprised to receive a letter from an old friend, saying that she had been told that I refused to see campus visitors from Africa. At the time, I was so bogged down with work that I had agreed to see only one visitor to the Stanford campus-- and it so happens that he was from Africa. He just happened to come along when I had a little breathing room from the work I was doing in my office.
I pointed out to my friend that whoever said what she heard might just as well have said that I refused to go sky-diving with blacks-- which was true, because I refused to go sky-diving with anybody, whether black, white, Asian or whatever. The kind of thinking that produced a passing misconception about me has, unfortunately, produced much bigger, much longer lasting, much more systematic and more poisonous distortions about the United States of America.
Slavery is a classic example. The history of slavery across the centuries and in many countries around the world is a painful history to read-- not only in terms of how slaves have been treated, but because of what that says about the whole human species-- because slaves and enslavers alike have been of every race, religion and nationality.
If the history of slavery ought to teach us anything, it is that human beings cannot be trusted with unbridled power over other human beings-- no matter what color or creed any of them are. The history of ancient despotism and modern totalitarianism practically shouts that same message from the blood-stained pages of history. But that is not the message that is being taught in our schools and colleges, or dramatized on television and in the movies. The message that is pounded home again and again is that white people enslaved black people.
It is true, just as it is true that I don't go sky-diving with blacks. But it is also false in its implications for the same reason. Just as Europeans enslaved Africans, North Africans enslaved Europeans-- more Europeans than there were Africans enslaved in the United States and in the 13 colonies from which it was formed. The treatment of white galley slaves was even worse than the treatment of black slaves picking cotton. But there are no movies or television dramas about it comparable to "Roots," and our schools and colleges don't pound it into the heads of students.
The inhumanity of human beings toward other human beings is not a new story, much less a local story. There is no need to hide it, because there are lessons we can learn from it. But there is also no need to distort it, so that sins of the whole human species around the world are presented as special defects of "our society" or the sins of a particular race.
If American society and Western civilization are different from other societies and civilization, it is that they eventually turned against slavery, and stamped it out, at a time when non-Western societies around the world were still maintaining slavery and resisting Western pressures to end slavery, including in some cases armed resistance.
Only the fact that the West had more firepower than others put an end to slavery in many non-Western societies during the age of Western imperialism. Yet today there are Americans who have gone to Africa to apologize for slavery-- on a continent where slavery has still not been completely ended, to this very moment.
It is not just the history of slavery that gets distorted beyond recognition by the selective filtering of facts. Those who go back to mine history, in order to find everything they can to undermine American society or Western civilization, have very little interest in the Bataan death march, the atrocities of the Ottoman Empire or similar atrocities in other times and places.
Those who mine history for sins are not searching for truth but for opportunities to denigrate their own society, or for grievances that can be cashed in today, at the expense of people who were not even born when the sins of the past were committed.
An ancient adage says: "Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." But apparently that is not sufficient for many among our educators, the intelligentsia or the media. They are busy poisoning the present by the way they present the past.
April 21, 2010
Densely Woven Lies
by Walter Scott Hudson
http://fightinwordsusa.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/densely-woven-lies/
Much hey has been made of the recent string of comments portraying conservative activism as support for domestic terrorism. Former President Bill Clinton insinuated, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, that the Tea Party movement is breeding the next Timothy McVeigh. Representative Betty McCollum, from Minnesota’s fifth district, placed House Republicans and conservative commentators on notice to “temper” their rhetoric lest anyone within earshot take up arms. Joe Kline, a political columinist for TIME magazine, accused Glenn Beck of sedition for “langauge inciting rebellion against the state.” Chris Matthews prefaced Kline’s accusation by declaring terms such as “un-American” to be “license words” or “permission words,” as if assassins lay in wait for talk show hosts to give a green light.
These moments are indicative of a progressive strategy to undermine the Tea Party movement. The misrepresentations, distortions, and outright falsehoods are numerous and tightly woven, intent to defy concise response. In the space of three minutes, McCollum managed to misrepresent Tea Partiers as anarchists – in spite of their obvious support of the Constitution, accuse them of racism – without any evidence whatsoever, and shamelessly distort a transcript of Sean Hannity – to pass off a plainly satirical comment as sincere. These were less than half the factually challenged statements in her brief remarks.
I believe this tactic, densely weaving lies, is intended to distract as much as discredit. Like obsessive compulsives counting grains of rice, bloggers feel compelled to unwind the deceitful knot and expose every thread. I do not begrudge them the task. However, at the root of the Democratic strategy are a couple unspoken assertions which are plainly wrong. Yanking at these makes light work of the knot.
http://fightinwordsusa.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/densely-woven-lies/
Much hey has been made of the recent string of comments portraying conservative activism as support for domestic terrorism. Former President Bill Clinton insinuated, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, that the Tea Party movement is breeding the next Timothy McVeigh. Representative Betty McCollum, from Minnesota’s fifth district, placed House Republicans and conservative commentators on notice to “temper” their rhetoric lest anyone within earshot take up arms. Joe Kline, a political columinist for TIME magazine, accused Glenn Beck of sedition for “langauge inciting rebellion against the state.” Chris Matthews prefaced Kline’s accusation by declaring terms such as “un-American” to be “license words” or “permission words,” as if assassins lay in wait for talk show hosts to give a green light.
These moments are indicative of a progressive strategy to undermine the Tea Party movement. The misrepresentations, distortions, and outright falsehoods are numerous and tightly woven, intent to defy concise response. In the space of three minutes, McCollum managed to misrepresent Tea Partiers as anarchists – in spite of their obvious support of the Constitution, accuse them of racism – without any evidence whatsoever, and shamelessly distort a transcript of Sean Hannity – to pass off a plainly satirical comment as sincere. These were less than half the factually challenged statements in her brief remarks.
I believe this tactic, densely weaving lies, is intended to distract as much as discredit. Like obsessive compulsives counting grains of rice, bloggers feel compelled to unwind the deceitful knot and expose every thread. I do not begrudge them the task. However, at the root of the Democratic strategy are a couple unspoken assertions which are plainly wrong. Yanking at these makes light work of the knot.
Muslim groups threaten to murder South Park creators.....
Foxnew.com
A radical Islamic website is warning the creators of "South Park" that they could face violent retribution for depicting the Prophet Muhammad during an episode broadcast on Comedy Central last week.
RevolutionMuslim.com posted the warning following the 200th episode of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "South Park." The Web posting also included a graphic photo of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 after making a documentary on violence against Muslim women.
"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," the posting reads. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."
So what was this evil depiction of Muhammad that broadcast on the show?..... Brace yourselves, this is pretty extreme:
The enitre episode was about how stupid society is for tip-toeing around this issue. That's why Muhammad is in a bear suite. Before he was in the suit, they were shipping him around in a Uhaul so you couldn't see anything but the truck. The episode made fun of every modern religion and even showed Buda Snorting Coccaine. The fact that this bear-suit is drawing the anger of the Muslim Community is more evidence of why we shouldn't care what Muslims think. It is ridiculious to the extreme that they are able to dictate proper free speech to the world by threatneing violence, while we walk on egg-shells to appease the sand-people. At some point people need to decide how long this non-sense can be tolerated. Kudos to Matt Stone and Trey Parker on this one. They seem to be the only people willing to show the insanity of our tolerance of Islamic Extremism.
Reaching by phone early Tuesday, Abu Talhah al Amrikee, the author of the post, said he wrote the entry to "raise awareness." He said the grisly photograph of van Gogh was meant to "explain the severity" of what Parker and Stone did by mocking Muhammad.
"It's not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome," al Amrikee said, referring to the possibility that Parker and Stone could be murdered for mocking Muhammad. "They're going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It's just the reality."
If this is the reality of the Muslim faith, then they have no more place in this world then the KKK, the Nazi party, or common white supremacy groups. They are threatning the livelihoods of people because they are offended! .........BFD! Get over it and worry about yourself. I don't understand how this threatning post is given free speech rights, while South Park is STILL prohibited from showing the image of Muhaamad. Is free speech only for those willing to force peoples obedience? Only in the politically correct insanity of todays world would this be able to continue.
Asked about the show, Amrikee commented: "This is not a small thing, We should do whatever we can to make sure it does not happen again."
His post also included a link to a 2009 story in the Huffington Post that gave details of Stone and Parker's mansion in Colorado.
But don't worry, the ACLU re-affirmed that Islam is a religion of peace and love. South Park is simply intolerant and evil. So really, this is all their fault. Islamic extremism is allowed way too much power for what they are actually capable of. They dictate free expression to the world, and get a pat on the back from liberal tyrants for their efforts. The left is all about force, thats why they defend this scum.
A radical Islamic website is warning the creators of "South Park" that they could face violent retribution for depicting the Prophet Muhammad during an episode broadcast on Comedy Central last week.
RevolutionMuslim.com posted the warning following the 200th episode of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "South Park." The Web posting also included a graphic photo of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 after making a documentary on violence against Muslim women.
"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," the posting reads. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."
So what was this evil depiction of Muhammad that broadcast on the show?..... Brace yourselves, this is pretty extreme:
Reaching by phone early Tuesday, Abu Talhah al Amrikee, the author of the post, said he wrote the entry to "raise awareness." He said the grisly photograph of van Gogh was meant to "explain the severity" of what Parker and Stone did by mocking Muhammad.
"It's not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome," al Amrikee said, referring to the possibility that Parker and Stone could be murdered for mocking Muhammad. "They're going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It's just the reality."
If this is the reality of the Muslim faith, then they have no more place in this world then the KKK, the Nazi party, or common white supremacy groups. They are threatning the livelihoods of people because they are offended! .........BFD! Get over it and worry about yourself. I don't understand how this threatning post is given free speech rights, while South Park is STILL prohibited from showing the image of Muhaamad. Is free speech only for those willing to force peoples obedience? Only in the politically correct insanity of todays world would this be able to continue.
Asked about the show, Amrikee commented: "This is not a small thing, We should do whatever we can to make sure it does not happen again."
His post also included a link to a 2009 story in the Huffington Post that gave details of Stone and Parker's mansion in Colorado.
But don't worry, the ACLU re-affirmed that Islam is a religion of peace and love. South Park is simply intolerant and evil. So really, this is all their fault. Islamic extremism is allowed way too much power for what they are actually capable of. They dictate free expression to the world, and get a pat on the back from liberal tyrants for their efforts. The left is all about force, thats why they defend this scum.
April 20, 2010
The Limits of Power
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
When I first began to study the history of slavery around the world, many years ago, one of the oddities that puzzled me was the practice of paying certain slaves, which existed in ancient Rome and in America's antebellum South, among other places.
In both places, slave owners or their overseers whipped slaves to force them to work, and in neither place was whipping a slave literally to death likely to bring any serious consequences.
There could hardly be a greater power of one human being over another than the arbitrary power of life and death. Why then was it necessary to pay certain slaves? At the very least, it suggested that there were limits to what could be accomplished by power.
Most slaves performing most tasks were of course not paid, but were simply forced to work by the threat of punishment. That was sufficient for galley slaves or plantation slaves. But there were various kinds of work where that was not sufficient.
Tasks involving judgment or talents were different because no one can know how much judgment or talent someone else has. In short, knowledge is an inherent constraint on power. Payment can bring forth the knowledge or talent by giving those who have it an incentive to reveal it and to develop it.
Payment can vary in amount and in kind. Some slaves, especially eunuchs in the days of the Ottoman Empire, could amass both wealth and power. One reason they could be trusted in positions of power was that they had no incentive to betray the existing rulers and try to establish their own dynasties, which would obviously have been physically impossible for them.
At more mundane levels, such tasks as diving operations in the Carolina swamps required a level of discretion and skill far in excess of that required to pick cotton in the South or cut sugar cane in the tropics. Slaves doing this kind of work had financial incentives and were treated far better. So were slaves working in Virginia's tobacco factories.
The point of all this is that when even slaves had to be paid to get certain kinds of work done, this shows the limits of what can be accomplished by power alone. Yet so much of what is said and done by those who rely on the power of government to direct ever more sweeping areas of our life seem to have no sense of the limits of what can be accomplished that way.
Even the totalitarian governments of the 20th century eventually learned the hard way the limits of what could be accomplished by power alone. China still has a totalitarian government today but, after the death of Mao, the Chinese government began to loosen its controls on some parts of the economy, in order to reap the economic benefits of freer markets.
As those benefits became clear in higher rates of economic growth and rising standards of living, more government controls were loosened. But, just as market principles were applied to only certain kinds of slavery, so freedom in China has been allowed in economic activities to a far greater extent than in other realms of the country's life, where tight control from the top down remains the norm.
Ironically, the United States is moving in the direction of the kind of economy that China has been forced to move away from. China once had complete government control of medical care, but eventually gave it up as the disaster that it was.
The current leadership in Washington operates as if they can just set arbitrary goals, whether "affordable housing" or "universal health care" or anything else -- and not concern themselves with the repercussions -- since they have the power to simply force individuals, businesses, doctors or anyone else to knuckle under and follow their dictates.
Friedrich Hayek called this mindset "the road to serfdom." But, even under serfdom and slavery, experience forced those with power to recognize the limits of their power. What this administration -- and especially the President -- does not have is experience.
Barack Obama had no experience running even the most modest business, and personally paying the consequences of his mistakes, before becoming President of the United States. He can believe that his heady new power is the answer to all things.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
When I first began to study the history of slavery around the world, many years ago, one of the oddities that puzzled me was the practice of paying certain slaves, which existed in ancient Rome and in America's antebellum South, among other places.
In both places, slave owners or their overseers whipped slaves to force them to work, and in neither place was whipping a slave literally to death likely to bring any serious consequences.
There could hardly be a greater power of one human being over another than the arbitrary power of life and death. Why then was it necessary to pay certain slaves? At the very least, it suggested that there were limits to what could be accomplished by power.
Most slaves performing most tasks were of course not paid, but were simply forced to work by the threat of punishment. That was sufficient for galley slaves or plantation slaves. But there were various kinds of work where that was not sufficient.
Tasks involving judgment or talents were different because no one can know how much judgment or talent someone else has. In short, knowledge is an inherent constraint on power. Payment can bring forth the knowledge or talent by giving those who have it an incentive to reveal it and to develop it.
Payment can vary in amount and in kind. Some slaves, especially eunuchs in the days of the Ottoman Empire, could amass both wealth and power. One reason they could be trusted in positions of power was that they had no incentive to betray the existing rulers and try to establish their own dynasties, which would obviously have been physically impossible for them.
At more mundane levels, such tasks as diving operations in the Carolina swamps required a level of discretion and skill far in excess of that required to pick cotton in the South or cut sugar cane in the tropics. Slaves doing this kind of work had financial incentives and were treated far better. So were slaves working in Virginia's tobacco factories.
The point of all this is that when even slaves had to be paid to get certain kinds of work done, this shows the limits of what can be accomplished by power alone. Yet so much of what is said and done by those who rely on the power of government to direct ever more sweeping areas of our life seem to have no sense of the limits of what can be accomplished that way.
Even the totalitarian governments of the 20th century eventually learned the hard way the limits of what could be accomplished by power alone. China still has a totalitarian government today but, after the death of Mao, the Chinese government began to loosen its controls on some parts of the economy, in order to reap the economic benefits of freer markets.
As those benefits became clear in higher rates of economic growth and rising standards of living, more government controls were loosened. But, just as market principles were applied to only certain kinds of slavery, so freedom in China has been allowed in economic activities to a far greater extent than in other realms of the country's life, where tight control from the top down remains the norm.
Ironically, the United States is moving in the direction of the kind of economy that China has been forced to move away from. China once had complete government control of medical care, but eventually gave it up as the disaster that it was.
The current leadership in Washington operates as if they can just set arbitrary goals, whether "affordable housing" or "universal health care" or anything else -- and not concern themselves with the repercussions -- since they have the power to simply force individuals, businesses, doctors or anyone else to knuckle under and follow their dictates.
Friedrich Hayek called this mindset "the road to serfdom." But, even under serfdom and slavery, experience forced those with power to recognize the limits of their power. What this administration -- and especially the President -- does not have is experience.
Barack Obama had no experience running even the most modest business, and personally paying the consequences of his mistakes, before becoming President of the United States. He can believe that his heady new power is the answer to all things.
April 15, 2010
Alright all you Bush Haters, Explain this……
The department of justice wants to tap into peoples emails without a warrant or court approval. This invasion of personal privacy is spearheaded by the Obama administration. The same administration that, during the election, claimed the patriot act was unconstitutional and violated people right to privacy. Their premise was that tapping international phone calls without a warrant was unconstitutional.
Obama of course went on to re-sign the patriot act once in office, but that’s just another of those pesky campaign lies that no one will ever talk about. As president, Obama wants to invade your privacy at a whole new level.
Are liberals screaming there outrage? Are they rioting in the streets and breaking FBI windows? No, they support it as a common sense measure. It is unbelievable the double standard for this China-Doll President. He is held to a standard of zero, and everything he does is dismissed or ignored. Obama is not accountable for any action he takes. His Tyranny goes unchecked, and he has already gone much farther than Bush ever dared. Will people respond in anger and protest? Only if they are racist. Because everyone who is against anything Obama does is a racist.
Didn’t you get the memo?
Here is the story.
Google and an alliance of privacy groups have come to Yahoo's aid by helping the Web portal fend off a broad request from the U.S. Department of Justice for e-mail messages, CNET has learned.
In a brief filed Tuesday afternoon, the coalition says a search warrant signed by a judge is necessary before the FBI or other police agencies can read the contents of Yahoo Mail messages--a position that puts those companies directly at odds with the Obama administration.
Yahoo has been quietly fighting prosecutors' requests in front of a federal judge in Colorado, with many documents filed under seal. Tuesday's brief from Google and the other groups aims to buttress Yahoo's position by saying users who store their e-mail in the cloud enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy that is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
"Society expects and relies on the privacy of e-mail messages just as it relies on the privacy of the telephone system," the friend-of-the-court brief says. "Indeed, the largest e-mail services are popular precisely because they offer users huge amounts of computer disk space in the Internet 'cloud' within which users can warehouse their e-mails for perpetual storage."
Obama of course went on to re-sign the patriot act once in office, but that’s just another of those pesky campaign lies that no one will ever talk about. As president, Obama wants to invade your privacy at a whole new level.
Are liberals screaming there outrage? Are they rioting in the streets and breaking FBI windows? No, they support it as a common sense measure. It is unbelievable the double standard for this China-Doll President. He is held to a standard of zero, and everything he does is dismissed or ignored. Obama is not accountable for any action he takes. His Tyranny goes unchecked, and he has already gone much farther than Bush ever dared. Will people respond in anger and protest? Only if they are racist. Because everyone who is against anything Obama does is a racist.
Didn’t you get the memo?
Here is the story.
Google and an alliance of privacy groups have come to Yahoo's aid by helping the Web portal fend off a broad request from the U.S. Department of Justice for e-mail messages, CNET has learned.
In a brief filed Tuesday afternoon, the coalition says a search warrant signed by a judge is necessary before the FBI or other police agencies can read the contents of Yahoo Mail messages--a position that puts those companies directly at odds with the Obama administration.
Yahoo has been quietly fighting prosecutors' requests in front of a federal judge in Colorado, with many documents filed under seal. Tuesday's brief from Google and the other groups aims to buttress Yahoo's position by saying users who store their e-mail in the cloud enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy that is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
"Society expects and relies on the privacy of e-mail messages just as it relies on the privacy of the telephone system," the friend-of-the-court brief says. "Indeed, the largest e-mail services are popular precisely because they offer users huge amounts of computer disk space in the Internet 'cloud' within which users can warehouse their e-mails for perpetual storage."
April 14, 2010
Can Ron Paul beat Obama in 2012?
Probably not. but thats not what a new poll from Rasmussen says. (Excerpt below)
Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.
Ask the Political Class, though, and it’s a blowout. While 58% of Mainstream voters favor Paul, 95% of the Political Class vote for Obama.
So there you have it. 95% of the people responsible for destroying the wealth and prosperity would vote for Obama over Ron Paul. The choice is clear. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012!
Think about that, 95%! If there was a better endorsement for Ron Paul than the hate of the established political class I couldnt think of one. I was never huge on Ron Paul during last election, but the fact is he is the only current member of congress that I trust to uphold the constitution. He may be the only one in congress who has even read it.
Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.
Ask the Political Class, though, and it’s a blowout. While 58% of Mainstream voters favor Paul, 95% of the Political Class vote for Obama.
So there you have it. 95% of the people responsible for destroying the wealth and prosperity would vote for Obama over Ron Paul. The choice is clear. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012!
Think about that, 95%! If there was a better endorsement for Ron Paul than the hate of the established political class I couldnt think of one. I was never huge on Ron Paul during last election, but the fact is he is the only current member of congress that I trust to uphold the constitution. He may be the only one in congress who has even read it.
Nothing left to say.....................
According to Gallup Polls, 45% of Americans think they are being federally taxed at the correct amount. Meaning, they find their tax burden to be fair, and see no reason why others feel this way. The poll is being trumped by those on the Left as proof that half of Americans support the governments spending policies and initiatives (at the federal level).
Interestingly enough, according to the Tax Policy Center, 47% of Americans will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Any Questions? I guess if I paid zero, and had all my activities subsidized, I would feel like it was fair too.
We have nothing going on in our government but wealth redistribution. It is as wrong now as it always has been. This country can't survive on the production of the top one percent, while the leaches of society demand the wealth produced by others.
I've come to this realization: Americans don't deserve freedom. They no longer recognize what it is, or what it takes to preserve it. What we now have is the beginning stages of servitude, through the imprisonment of false altruism. In our noble effort to help the downtrodden, we will enslave everyone who does live in excess wealth. Self respect and pride in personal accomplishments will no longer be possible. The evilness of Mans nature will be shoved down your throat. Every common sense instinct will be deemed as selfish greed. Nothing will get done, and it will always be someone else’s fault. This is the future of a country that does not allow for personal responsibility. We will be a collection of the greater good, which will radically change us from prosperous to pathetic. This is the what will happen unless Americans realize what they are giving up for the approval of tyrants.
So many people already live in that entitlement world, dead to life. They may never again know the greatness that comes with having pride in yourself. But hey, what is the opinion of one man mean in relation to the greater good. Welcome to Socialism. I think it hear to stay
Interestingly enough, according to the Tax Policy Center, 47% of Americans will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Any Questions? I guess if I paid zero, and had all my activities subsidized, I would feel like it was fair too.
We have nothing going on in our government but wealth redistribution. It is as wrong now as it always has been. This country can't survive on the production of the top one percent, while the leaches of society demand the wealth produced by others.
I've come to this realization: Americans don't deserve freedom. They no longer recognize what it is, or what it takes to preserve it. What we now have is the beginning stages of servitude, through the imprisonment of false altruism. In our noble effort to help the downtrodden, we will enslave everyone who does live in excess wealth. Self respect and pride in personal accomplishments will no longer be possible. The evilness of Mans nature will be shoved down your throat. Every common sense instinct will be deemed as selfish greed. Nothing will get done, and it will always be someone else’s fault. This is the future of a country that does not allow for personal responsibility. We will be a collection of the greater good, which will radically change us from prosperous to pathetic. This is the what will happen unless Americans realize what they are giving up for the approval of tyrants.
So many people already live in that entitlement world, dead to life. They may never again know the greatness that comes with having pride in yourself. But hey, what is the opinion of one man mean in relation to the greater good. Welcome to Socialism. I think it hear to stay
Printing money.....................
I received an email today from a friend of mine that I wanted to share. He has built up significant credibility with me, by continually providing accurate predictions of the Stock Market. He researches the trends of the market on a daily basis, and has been dead on in everything he has passed to me. I wouldn't call him an expert, but he understands all of this better than anyone else I know.
His email was in response to a poll I sent him. The poll showed that 86% of respondants believe the government will continue printing money, until it's too late to recover. Here is what he told me in response:
As you know, we cannot print our way out of this, somehow the "powers" at large think this is possible, but what's the end game? All of a sudden we'll be back to prosperity, and we'll do the honorable thing, which is to pay the money back......it will never happen. We're over 60 Trillion dollars in the hole, the interest alone will bury us, as a matter of fact, this year marks the year in which, we can no longer afford to even pay the interest on the debt.......at that point, the IMF is suppose to come in and shut us down, deeming us BANKRUPT!
I read an article the other day, which said our debt alone is currently 90% of our entire GDP! Again, when it reaches 100% it's game over! And the stock market is a very poor indicator of the real economy, although it's been rising, it's all manipulated, and the banks are blatantly doing it right out in the open. They are currently not borrowing money, or very little, so you have to ask, how are they posting such huge profits...? They are speculating in the market, while the "market makers" run the price of stocks super high, in order to entice mutual funds into the market, they sell into the dumb mutual funds for huge profits. One example, look at Ford Motor company, at the stock market bottom, their stock hit $1, now it's hit as high as $14.....that's 14 times your money. Banks are selling into the mutual funds, the 401k's are buying at these outrageous price
Here's how: Let's say there is 2 banks involved for this example. Bank A values their assets for 10M dollars, while Bank B does the exact same thing, then Bank A agrees to buy Bank B's assets for 30M dollars, as long as Bank B will buy Bank A's for the same amount......Wa-La! They both profited thanks to the Government bailouts and especially the tax payers!
It's the largest PONZI scheme ever! And like all ponzi schemes, they never end well.
His email was in response to a poll I sent him. The poll showed that 86% of respondants believe the government will continue printing money, until it's too late to recover. Here is what he told me in response:
As you know, we cannot print our way out of this, somehow the "powers" at large think this is possible, but what's the end game? All of a sudden we'll be back to prosperity, and we'll do the honorable thing, which is to pay the money back......it will never happen. We're over 60 Trillion dollars in the hole, the interest alone will bury us, as a matter of fact, this year marks the year in which, we can no longer afford to even pay the interest on the debt.......at that point, the IMF is suppose to come in and shut us down, deeming us BANKRUPT!
I read an article the other day, which said our debt alone is currently 90% of our entire GDP! Again, when it reaches 100% it's game over! And the stock market is a very poor indicator of the real economy, although it's been rising, it's all manipulated, and the banks are blatantly doing it right out in the open. They are currently not borrowing money, or very little, so you have to ask, how are they posting such huge profits...? They are speculating in the market, while the "market makers" run the price of stocks super high, in order to entice mutual funds into the market, they sell into the dumb mutual funds for huge profits. One example, look at Ford Motor company, at the stock market bottom, their stock hit $1, now it's hit as high as $14.....that's 14 times your money. Banks are selling into the mutual funds, the 401k's are buying at these outrageous price
Here's how: Let's say there is 2 banks involved for this example. Bank A values their assets for 10M dollars, while Bank B does the exact same thing, then Bank A agrees to buy Bank B's assets for 30M dollars, as long as Bank B will buy Bank A's for the same amount......Wa-La! They both profited thanks to the Government bailouts and especially the tax payers!
It's the largest PONZI scheme ever! And like all ponzi schemes, they never end well.
April 13, 2010
Good Riddance!
When Supreme Court Justices retire, there is usually some pious talk about their "service," especially when it has been a long "service." But the careers of all too many of these retiring jurists, including currently retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, have been an enormous disservice to this country.
Justice Stevens was on the High Court for 35 years-- more's the pity, or the disgrace. Justice Stevens voted to sustain racial quotas, created "rights" out of thin air for terrorists, and took away American citizens' rights to their own homes in the infamous "Kelo" decision of 2005.
The Constitution of the United States says that the government must pay "just compensation" for seizing a citizen's private property for "public use." In other words, if the government has to build a reservoir or bridge, and your property is in the way, they can take that property, provided that they pay you its value.
What has happened over the years, however, is that judges have eroded this protection and expanded the government's power-- as they have in other issues. This trend reached its logical extreme in the Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London. This case involved local government officials seizing homes and businesses-- not for "public use" as the Constitution specified, but to turn this private property over to other private parties, to build more upscale facilities that would bring in more tax revenues.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the Supreme Court opinion that expanded the Constitution's authorization of seizing private property for "public use" to seizing private property for a "public purpose." And who would define what a "public purpose" is? Basically, those who were doing the seizing. As Justice Stevens put it, the government authorities' assessment of a proper "public purpose" was entitled to "great respect" by the courts.
Let's go back to square one. Just who was this provision of the Constitution supposed to restrict? Answer: government officials. And to whom would Justice Stevens defer: government officials. Why would those who wrote the Constitution waste good ink putting that protection in there, if not to protect citizens from the very government officials to whom Justice Stevens deferred?
John Paul Stevens is a classic example of what has been wrong with too many Republicans' appointments to the Supreme Court. The biggest argument in favor of nominating him was that he could be confirmed by the Senate without a fight.
Democratic presidents appoint judges who will push their political agenda from the federal bench, even if that requires stretching and twisting the Constitution to reach their goals.
Republicans too often appoint judges whose confirmation will not require a big fight with the Democrats. You can always avoid a fight by surrendering, and a whole wing of the Republican party has long ago mastered the art of preemptive surrender.
The net result has been a whole string of Republican Justices of the Supreme Court carrying out the Democrats' agenda, in disregard of the Constitution. John Paul Stevens has been just one.
There may have been some excuse for President Ford's picking such a man, in order to avoid a fight, at a time when he was an unelected President who came into office in the wake of Richard Nixon's resignation in disgrace after Watergate, creating lasting damage to the public's support of the Republicans.
But there was no such excuse for the elder President Bush to appoint David Souter, much less for President Eisenhower, with back-to-back landslide victories at the polls, to inflict William J. Brennan on the country.
In light of these justices' records, and in view of how long justices remain on the court, nominating such people was close to criminal negligence.
If and when the Republicans return to power in Washington, we can only hope that they remember what got them suddenly and unceremoniously dumped out of power the last time. Basically, it was running as Republicans and then governing as if they were Democrats, running up big deficits, with lots of earmarks and interfering with the market.
But their most lasting damage to the country has been putting people like John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.
Justice Stevens was on the High Court for 35 years-- more's the pity, or the disgrace. Justice Stevens voted to sustain racial quotas, created "rights" out of thin air for terrorists, and took away American citizens' rights to their own homes in the infamous "Kelo" decision of 2005.
The Constitution of the United States says that the government must pay "just compensation" for seizing a citizen's private property for "public use." In other words, if the government has to build a reservoir or bridge, and your property is in the way, they can take that property, provided that they pay you its value.
What has happened over the years, however, is that judges have eroded this protection and expanded the government's power-- as they have in other issues. This trend reached its logical extreme in the Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London. This case involved local government officials seizing homes and businesses-- not for "public use" as the Constitution specified, but to turn this private property over to other private parties, to build more upscale facilities that would bring in more tax revenues.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the Supreme Court opinion that expanded the Constitution's authorization of seizing private property for "public use" to seizing private property for a "public purpose." And who would define what a "public purpose" is? Basically, those who were doing the seizing. As Justice Stevens put it, the government authorities' assessment of a proper "public purpose" was entitled to "great respect" by the courts.
Let's go back to square one. Just who was this provision of the Constitution supposed to restrict? Answer: government officials. And to whom would Justice Stevens defer: government officials. Why would those who wrote the Constitution waste good ink putting that protection in there, if not to protect citizens from the very government officials to whom Justice Stevens deferred?
John Paul Stevens is a classic example of what has been wrong with too many Republicans' appointments to the Supreme Court. The biggest argument in favor of nominating him was that he could be confirmed by the Senate without a fight.
Democratic presidents appoint judges who will push their political agenda from the federal bench, even if that requires stretching and twisting the Constitution to reach their goals.
Republicans too often appoint judges whose confirmation will not require a big fight with the Democrats. You can always avoid a fight by surrendering, and a whole wing of the Republican party has long ago mastered the art of preemptive surrender.
The net result has been a whole string of Republican Justices of the Supreme Court carrying out the Democrats' agenda, in disregard of the Constitution. John Paul Stevens has been just one.
There may have been some excuse for President Ford's picking such a man, in order to avoid a fight, at a time when he was an unelected President who came into office in the wake of Richard Nixon's resignation in disgrace after Watergate, creating lasting damage to the public's support of the Republicans.
But there was no such excuse for the elder President Bush to appoint David Souter, much less for President Eisenhower, with back-to-back landslide victories at the polls, to inflict William J. Brennan on the country.
In light of these justices' records, and in view of how long justices remain on the court, nominating such people was close to criminal negligence.
If and when the Republicans return to power in Washington, we can only hope that they remember what got them suddenly and unceremoniously dumped out of power the last time. Basically, it was running as Republicans and then governing as if they were Democrats, running up big deficits, with lots of earmarks and interfering with the market.
But their most lasting damage to the country has been putting people like John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.
- Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
April 8, 2010
Another climate change assumption turns out to be BS..........(stop the presses)
The longer scientist study Climate Change, the more they realize they don't know what they are talking about. Not five months ago environmentalists, from Lord Stern to Sir Paul McCartney, urged people to stop eating meat because the methane produced by cattle causes global warming. However a new study found that cattle grazed on open grasslands can actually reduce another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide.
The researchers explained that this only applied to free range cattle who are able to eat and pad down grass that releases nitrous. Last fall, Lord Sterns laid the claim out that eating meat was causing extreme global warming. At the time he claimed that emissions from cows and livestock contributed a minimum of 18% of all greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. He based his claim on the fact that Methane is 4 times more effective than Carbon dioxide is in trapping the suns heat. He went on to say that when a climate deal is reached, meat prices must skyrocket in order to save the planet and change peoples eating habits
“I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “People need to change their notion of what is responsible and increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”
Yeah, I’ll get right ont that. “ Excuse me, waiter. Could you please let me know the carbon footprint of this burger?"
Actually now that I think of it, I’m going to start doing exactly that :-) It will drive the liberals I know absolutely bonkers.
The researchers explained that this only applied to free range cattle who are able to eat and pad down grass that releases nitrous. Last fall, Lord Sterns laid the claim out that eating meat was causing extreme global warming. At the time he claimed that emissions from cows and livestock contributed a minimum of 18% of all greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. He based his claim on the fact that Methane is 4 times more effective than Carbon dioxide is in trapping the suns heat. He went on to say that when a climate deal is reached, meat prices must skyrocket in order to save the planet and change peoples eating habits
“I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “People need to change their notion of what is responsible and increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”
Yeah, I’ll get right ont that. “ Excuse me, waiter. Could you please let me know the carbon footprint of this burger?"
Actually now that I think of it, I’m going to start doing exactly that :-) It will drive the liberals I know absolutely bonkers.
April 7, 2010
Race and Politics
No dogma has caused more mischief-- and, in some countries, tragedies-- than the notion that there is something strange and wrong when some groups are "over-represented" or "under-represented" in some occupations or institutions.
This dogma is so widely accepted, and so deeply entrenched, that no one asks for evidence and no speck of evidence is offered. Moreover, tons of evidence to the contrary are ignored.
Over the centuries, and in countries around the world, all sorts of groups have been disproportionately concentrated in particular occupations and at different income levels, and have had radical differences in their behavior, from rates of alcoholism to rates of crime and infant mortality.
Often some minority, with no political power, has outperformed the dominant majority in lucrative or prestigious professions-- the Tamils in colonial Ceylon, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, the Chinese minority throughout southeast Asia, the Huguenots in France, the Ibos in Nigeria, the Japanese in Brazil, the Lebanese in West Africa, the Jews in medieval Spain. The list could be extended almost indefinitely.
This dogma is so widely accepted, and so deeply entrenched, that no one asks for evidence and no speck of evidence is offered. Moreover, tons of evidence to the contrary are ignored.
Over the centuries, and in countries around the world, all sorts of groups have been disproportionately concentrated in particular occupations and at different income levels, and have had radical differences in their behavior, from rates of alcoholism to rates of crime and infant mortality.
Often some minority, with no political power, has outperformed the dominant majority in lucrative or prestigious professions-- the Tamils in colonial Ceylon, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, the Chinese minority throughout southeast Asia, the Huguenots in France, the Ibos in Nigeria, the Japanese in Brazil, the Lebanese in West Africa, the Jews in medieval Spain. The list could be extended almost indefinitely.
April 5, 2010
11 facts the government doesn’t want you to think about………..
http://www.uncommonwisdomdaily.com/11-startling-facts-that-obama-and-bernanke-do-not-want-you-to-think-about-3-9115
FACT #1: The official national debt now stands at $12.68 trillion — an amount equal to about 88.5% of all the goods and services our economy produces in an entire year.
FACT #2: Contingent obligations for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans, and pensions now stand at an additional $108 trillion over and above the "official" national debt.
FACT #3: State, county and local governments are nearly $3 trillion in debt. Many can't pay and will ultimately demand that Washington assume responsibility for that debt as well.
FACT #4: Total federal, state and local government indebtedness now stands at a mind-blowing $123.6 trillion.
FACT #5: Last year, Washington added $1.4 trillion to the debt. In this fiscal year, the Obama administration will add another $1.6 trillion!
FACT #6: In addition to funding the current trillion-dollar-plus deficits, the U.S. Treasury must borrow MORE each year to replace bills, notes and bonds that are maturing.
FACT #7: This record-shattering borrowing by the Treasury has resulted in a Mt. Everest of Treasury obligations being dumped onto the market, which naturally depresses bond prices and drives interest rates higher.
FACT #8: In a desperate attempt to keep interest rates low, the Bernanke Federal Reserve has created $1.25 trillion out of thin air to buy mortgage-backed securities ... another $300 billion to buy U.S. Treasuries ... and yet another $170.6 billion to buy other government bonds — a total of nearly $1.7 trillion in all.
FACT #9: From September 10, 2008 to March 10 of this year, Bernanke increased the nation's monetary base from $850 billion to $2.1 trillion — a 250% increase in just 18 months.
FACT #10: Despite this massive money-printing, the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note has STILL risen by more than one-fifth — from 3.2% to 3.86% — since December.
FACT #11: Because of this massive money-printing, the U.S. dollar has lost nearly 10% of its value in the past 12 months alone.
This unprecedented debt crisis is the single greatest threat to your wealth and standard of living in decades. With the debt that many State governments are now facing, there will be less and less opposition to the federal government assuming power over states. In time, States will be so overburdened with new mandates from the federal government that the only way to stay above water will be to cease state powers, and fall in line under a strong centralized government. Once the federal government has assumed total control, their own debt issues will begin to rise . The dependency bug will bite Washington and the process will begin all over again, but this time on a world wide level. This is just one way the USA could lose sovereignty in the near future, and fall under a central world government. At that point, the constitution will no longer hold sway and the “greater good” will be a rallying cry on the road towards continual poverty. If you don’t believe it, just keep watching Greece. We are not far from them.
The numbers above are outrageous, and true. If people don’t wake up and realize the government is spending too much money, we will all be doomed to a life a servitude through debt. There is simply no way around it. America needs to take some lumps right now to avoid the future catastrophe.
FACT #1: The official national debt now stands at $12.68 trillion — an amount equal to about 88.5% of all the goods and services our economy produces in an entire year.
FACT #2: Contingent obligations for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans, and pensions now stand at an additional $108 trillion over and above the "official" national debt.
FACT #3: State, county and local governments are nearly $3 trillion in debt. Many can't pay and will ultimately demand that Washington assume responsibility for that debt as well.
FACT #4: Total federal, state and local government indebtedness now stands at a mind-blowing $123.6 trillion.
FACT #5: Last year, Washington added $1.4 trillion to the debt. In this fiscal year, the Obama administration will add another $1.6 trillion!
FACT #6: In addition to funding the current trillion-dollar-plus deficits, the U.S. Treasury must borrow MORE each year to replace bills, notes and bonds that are maturing.
FACT #7: This record-shattering borrowing by the Treasury has resulted in a Mt. Everest of Treasury obligations being dumped onto the market, which naturally depresses bond prices and drives interest rates higher.
FACT #8: In a desperate attempt to keep interest rates low, the Bernanke Federal Reserve has created $1.25 trillion out of thin air to buy mortgage-backed securities ... another $300 billion to buy U.S. Treasuries ... and yet another $170.6 billion to buy other government bonds — a total of nearly $1.7 trillion in all.
FACT #9: From September 10, 2008 to March 10 of this year, Bernanke increased the nation's monetary base from $850 billion to $2.1 trillion — a 250% increase in just 18 months.
FACT #10: Despite this massive money-printing, the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note has STILL risen by more than one-fifth — from 3.2% to 3.86% — since December.
FACT #11: Because of this massive money-printing, the U.S. dollar has lost nearly 10% of its value in the past 12 months alone.
This unprecedented debt crisis is the single greatest threat to your wealth and standard of living in decades. With the debt that many State governments are now facing, there will be less and less opposition to the federal government assuming power over states. In time, States will be so overburdened with new mandates from the federal government that the only way to stay above water will be to cease state powers, and fall in line under a strong centralized government. Once the federal government has assumed total control, their own debt issues will begin to rise . The dependency bug will bite Washington and the process will begin all over again, but this time on a world wide level. This is just one way the USA could lose sovereignty in the near future, and fall under a central world government. At that point, the constitution will no longer hold sway and the “greater good” will be a rallying cry on the road towards continual poverty. If you don’t believe it, just keep watching Greece. We are not far from them.
The numbers above are outrageous, and true. If people don’t wake up and realize the government is spending too much money, we will all be doomed to a life a servitude through debt. There is simply no way around it. America needs to take some lumps right now to avoid the future catastrophe.
April 2, 2010
The "Tolerance" of the Left
With all the things said about the intolerance of the Tea-Party, I think it’s important to note that not one violent act has been documented and attributed to them. We’ll chalk that up to being an easily overlooked FACT. The media may not have been aware of this fact while reporting all the violence and threats directed at congress, but its true none the less. Also, it’s been 12 days since Congressional Black Caucus took place, and we still don’t have any evidence that anyone shouted a single racial epithet. MSNBC explained that they didn’t actually hear any racial slurs, they were just reporting hearing them. We do however, have evidence of the tolerance and love exhibited by progressives. In their never-ending love of diversity- and tolerance- of other peoples opinions, they physically attack people and throw eggs at the cars of those who disagree with them.
In a video recording of the egg throwing incident this week, Brian Dimarzio lied to the police in Searchlight Nevada on Saturday, March 27. After an egg was hurled passed Andrew Breitbart’s face and smashed against a bus carrying peaceful, law-abiding tea party members, the police came to investigate. ”They’re throwing eggs and blaming us” Dimarzio said, speaking to a police officer on the scene. When she looked at Breitbart and his associates, she asked who they were with. ”The Tea Party”, they responded. Without hesitation the police officer said “The Tea Party? You didn’t throw eggs at the bus.” Dimarzio, in his effort to imitate President Obama, continued his lie and then scurried away. Here’s the video
Dimarzio is the Field Director for the Nevada Democratic Party and prior to that job, he worked for the AFL-CIO ( Giant Government Union for those who don’t know). The Nevada Democratic Party has an important question to answer: What are you going to do with your employee who has been caught on video lying to law enforcement officials and throwing eggs at peaceful drivers.
Dimarzio is a typical liberal. He goes through life screaming the sanctity of tolerance, while throwing eggs at the people he is intolerant of. Liberals in America have no moral code to live by. To them, the ends justify the means, even if the ends they are trying for make our problems significantly worse. To liberals, its not about what works, Its about what “seems” the most fair. If they has a choice between 15% unemployment--with equal proportions of unemployment through all ethnic backgrounds-- or 2 % unemployment with --disproportional unemployment in ethnic backgrounds -- they would go with the 15%. They would do that even if more minorities were employed with the 2%, because it seems so unfair. It doesn’t matter what is better for most people, it only matters if the action appears fair to minorities. They are ideological tyrants, with the thought processing skills of a 12 year old who's angry about being sent to their room. They stomp their feet, throw a fit, and scream that they are being unjustly persecuted-while chucking eggs at people who haven’t said a word to them. Stay classy you entitlement commies.
In a video recording of the egg throwing incident this week, Brian Dimarzio lied to the police in Searchlight Nevada on Saturday, March 27. After an egg was hurled passed Andrew Breitbart’s face and smashed against a bus carrying peaceful, law-abiding tea party members, the police came to investigate. ”They’re throwing eggs and blaming us” Dimarzio said, speaking to a police officer on the scene. When she looked at Breitbart and his associates, she asked who they were with. ”The Tea Party”, they responded. Without hesitation the police officer said “The Tea Party? You didn’t throw eggs at the bus.” Dimarzio, in his effort to imitate President Obama, continued his lie and then scurried away. Here’s the video
Dimarzio is the Field Director for the Nevada Democratic Party and prior to that job, he worked for the AFL-CIO ( Giant Government Union for those who don’t know). The Nevada Democratic Party has an important question to answer: What are you going to do with your employee who has been caught on video lying to law enforcement officials and throwing eggs at peaceful drivers.
Dimarzio is a typical liberal. He goes through life screaming the sanctity of tolerance, while throwing eggs at the people he is intolerant of. Liberals in America have no moral code to live by. To them, the ends justify the means, even if the ends they are trying for make our problems significantly worse. To liberals, its not about what works, Its about what “seems” the most fair. If they has a choice between 15% unemployment--with equal proportions of unemployment through all ethnic backgrounds-- or 2 % unemployment with --disproportional unemployment in ethnic backgrounds -- they would go with the 15%. They would do that even if more minorities were employed with the 2%, because it seems so unfair. It doesn’t matter what is better for most people, it only matters if the action appears fair to minorities. They are ideological tyrants, with the thought processing skills of a 12 year old who's angry about being sent to their room. They stomp their feet, throw a fit, and scream that they are being unjustly persecuted-while chucking eggs at people who haven’t said a word to them. Stay classy you entitlement commies.
Need a second Opinion?....................
MOUNT DORA — A doctor who considers the national health-care overhaul to be bad medicine for the country posted a sign on his office door telling patients who voted for President Barack Obama to seek care "elsewhere."
"I'm not turning anybody away — that would be unethical," Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. "But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it."
The sign reads: "If you voted for Obama … seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years."
Estella Chatman, 67, of Eustis, whose daughter snapped a photo of the typewritten sign, sent the picture to U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, the Orlando Democrat who riled Republicans last year when he characterized the GOP's idea of health care as, "If you get sick, America … Die quickly."
Grayson also said republicans were committing atrocities on par with the holocaust, and accused Republicans of letting 50,000 people die every day by refusing medical attention. Which by the way, never happens. You find me a person refused immediate care in an emergencies, and I'll find you a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. Grayson is a lunatic. On television, and posted on this blog, he portrayed VP Dick Cheney as the Devil, and claimed he was deliberately trying to kill Americans. Grayson is absolutely out of his mind and would better serve Americans in a crazy house, then in congress.
Chatman said she heard about the sign from a friend referred to Cassell after his physician recently died. She said her friend did not want to speak to a reporter but was dismayed by Chassell’s sign.
"He's going to find another doctor," she said.
Cassell may be walking a thin line between his right to free speech and his professional obligation, said William Allen, professor of bioethics, law and medical professionalism at the University of Florida's College of Medicine.
Allen said doctors cannot refuse patients on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability, but political preference is not one of the legally protected categories specified in civil-rights law. By insisting he does not quiz his patients about their politics and has not turned away patients based on their vote, the doctor is "trying to hold onto the nub of his ethical obligation," Allen said.
"But this is pushing the limit," he said.
What is he pushing the limit of? Is he refusing care? Is he turning people away? No, he is simply saying he would prefer that those trying to take over his control of his profession can kiss his ass. If he doesn't have a right to say that at his private business, then how does America in good conscious claim to uphold free speech. He is not being violent, he is not hurting anyone. All he is doing is offending liberals, who have lobbied the government to ruin his business. What right does anyone else have telling him who he has to treat? Is he a slave to his job? Does he have a legal obligation to practice medicine? No, although that might be the next step for our President as doctors flee the field.
Cassell, who has practiced medicine in GOP-dominated Lake County since 1988, said he doesn't quiz his patients about their politics, but he also won't hide his disdain for the bill Obama signed and the lawmakers who passed it.
In his waiting room, Cassell also has provided his patients with photocopies of a health-care timeline produced by Republican leaders that outlines "major provisions" in the health-care package. The doctor put a sign above the stack of copies that reads: "This is what the morons in Washington have done to your health care. Take one, read it and vote out anyone who voted for it." -(I Love this guy)
Cassell, whose lawyer wife, Leslie Campione, has declared herself a Republican candidate for Lake County commissioner, said three patients have complained, but most have been "overwhelmingly supportive" of his position.
"They know it's not good for them," he said.
Cassell, who previously served as chief of surgery at Florida Hospital Waterman in Tavares, said a patient's politics would not affect his care for them, although he said he would prefer not to treat people who support the president.
"I can at least make a point," he said.
The notice on Cassell's office door could cause some patients to question his judgment or fret about the care they might receive if they don't share his political views, Allen said. He said doctors are wise to avoid public expressions that can affect the physician-patient relationship.
Erin VanSickle, spokeswoman for the Florida Medical Association, would not comment specifically.
But she noted in an e-mail to the Sentinel that "physicians are extended the same rights to free speech as every other citizen in the United States."
The outspoken Grayson described Cassell's sign as "ridiculous."
"I'm disgusted," he said. "Maybe he thinks the Hippocratic Oath says, ‘Do no good.' If this is the face of the right wing in America, it's the face of cruelty. … Why don't they change the name of the Republican Party to the Sore Loser Party?"
Oh my Gosh, what a ZINGER!! The Sore Loser Party, I'd like to see those racist Republicans try and come back to that sting. The observational skills of Congressmen Grayson, and his ability to put it into words; It's like listening to spoken word poetry. The government is taking over a third of the free market, and the people who are opposed to it (70% of Americans) are just sore losers. News flash to Grayson, ITS NOT A GAME, its our freedoms, were all losers because of greedy ass-holes like you. No-one in this country gives two shits about what you think is good medicine. Your a talking-ass, who has no grounds to criticize the decisions of a respected medical professional.
Grayson’s comment illustrates very well the lack of economic competence on the left, and their total disregard of the advice of people who actual practice medicine. Grayson goes after this guy, saying he broke his hippocratic oath, while Grayson and Democrats shredded their oath of office in less then 6 months of the Obama administration. He has helped tear apart the document that founded our country and rocketed us to prosperity. This doctor is, if anything, embracing his oath. He understands that this bill is unconstitutional, extremely bad for medicine and doctors and bad for our health. Grayson wants to believe that he is giving a basic human right to people who can't afford it, but his idea of basic a right requires the willing servitude of well educated medical professionals, who put years and years of effort and money into perfecting their craft. Doctor Cassell is trying to let people know how bad this bill is for them. He has not refused anyone the medical care they require, he is simply saying that if you voted to take over his profession, he would love for you to go somewhere else. One person mentioned in the article did go elsewhere. I hope they recover from the traumatic experience of meeting a non-socialist medical professional. I mean seriously, Its very hard to realize your doctor thinks differently then you on political issues. These overbearing idiots can't help but attack our right to free speech, because they are completely incapable of winning a public debate. That’s why all you get form libs is ridiculous rhetoric.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
