Border Patrol
Posted using ShareThis
Friday, February 26, 2010
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Many of you who have been reading my blog for a while know that the global warming subject is and has always been my pet-peeve (you can go back to the beginning of this blog and see all of the posts). With the revelations this week, I felt I had to return after a long absence and give my opinion on the developments in the news. I won't say I told you so (I DID, I DID, I DID), but I will offer this version of a news-article which encompasses much of the obsurdity that has surround the belief that Cow flatulence, Ford trucks, and halitosis are destroying our planet, (that is of course after the ice-age of the 1970's and acid rain of the 1980's failed to). Remember, I AM A LONG-TIME ENVIRONMENTALIST. BUT, I believe, with AMPLE proof that the whole movement has been nothing but a socialist scheme to redistribute the wealth of the Western world- and this has NOTHING to do with the health of the planet...
Global Norming Concensus Proves Climate Strange Is Real
December 2nd, 2009
Using a highly reliable measuring system know as the five senses, human beings in their billions have come to the conclusion, that the only certainty about the weather on planet earth, is that it keeps on changing in very strange ways. Some times hot, sometimes cold, sometimes wet, sometimes dry. This mind blowing discovery that affects all our lives has been dubbed Global Norming. Otherwise know as Climate Strange. What effects this will have on future generations nobody knows, but one thing everyone agrees on is that the effects of Global Norming will be devastating.
To help alleviate the terrifying effects of Climate Strange a panel of experts has been formed to collate scientific research from around the world into a series of reports to the United Nations, detailing exactly how strange Global Norming might be. As a result it has been found without doubt, through a data modelling process called normalisation, that the normality of strange climatic behaviour will continue for ever.
Everyone with a brain and even those without, now agree that this will result in the complete annihilation of mankind at an unknown point in the future. To ensure that this does not occur a system of global governance or Globatorship has been formed to organise the pre-annihilation of all peoples likely to be affected by the devastating effects of Climate Strange – which politicians agree will occur in direct relation to the amount pigmentation in their skin and/or money in their bank account or pocket.
This is to be financed by a Hardon tax that will help facilitate the study of the constantly rising and falling temparature and moisture levels at the very center of the Global Norming phenomena. But opposition is mounting as humans and animals alike, complain that Hardon is essential to all life on earth. But the absense of Hardon in the creation of plant life and in the upper atmosphere has left the pro-human lobby without a voice at the negotiating table.
Agreement on action to combat Climate Strange, is being sought at the highest levels at a summit in Copenhagen, where world leaders are meeting to discuss how far they are willing to go to save the planet. Through a show of normal behaviour that includes blocking out all information to the five senses, while demonstrating their own Hardon emission limits, they hope to convince each other and the world that Climate Strange can be controlled by the members of a coming Globatorship.
However concerns are growing that Global Norming theory is a sham after scientists were caught acting extreme abnormally themselves, by falsifying results and corrupting the review process to get more funding. The climatology community has rallied round, stating that this is in fact perfectly normal behaviour for scientists and therefore confirms the Global Norming hypothesis, even as their credibility continues to melt.
Despite this, world leaders are attempting to reassure the public that should Hardon emmissions exceed mandated levels, the merging of the EU and the UN into an EUgeNic Globatorship will guarantee pre-annihilation for all, after the capture and trading of emissions, before Global Norming gets out of control and things become even more strange.
Please forward this message via links and emails to all the presidents, prime-ministers, senators, commissars, member of parliament, ambassadors, rabbis, priests, imans, gurus and real people that you know, to help them understand the absurdity of the United Nations climate change agenda and open their senses to the strange climatological normality that is the weather.
The Truthorator
Truthorator.com
Global Norming Concensus Proves Climate Strange Is Real
December 2nd, 2009 by admin
Using a highly reliable measuring system know as the five senses, human beings in their billions have come to the conclusion, that the only certainty about the weather on planet earth, is that it keeps on changing in very strange ways. Some times hot, sometimes cold, sometimes wet, sometimes dry. This mind blowing discovery that affects all our lives has been dubbed Global Norming. Otherwise know as Climate Strange. What effects this will have on future generations nobody knows, but one thing everyone agrees on is that the effects of Global Norming will be devastating.
To help alleviate the terrifying effects of Climate Strange a panel of experts has been formed to collate scientific research from around the world into a series of reports to the United Nations, detailing exactly how strange Global Norming might be. As a result it has been found without doubt, through a data modelling process called normalisation, that the normality of strange climatic behaviour will continue for ever.
Everyone with a brain and even those without, now agree that this will result in the complete annihilation of mankind at an unknown point in the future. To ensure that this does not occur a system of global governance or Globatorship has been formed to organise the pre-annihilation of all peoples likely to be affected by the devastating effects of Climate Strange – which politicians agree will occur in direct relation to the amount pigmentation in their skin and/or money in their bank account or pocket.
This is to be financed by a Hardon tax that will help facilitate the study of the constantly rising and falling temparature and moisture levels at the very center of the Global Norming phenomena. But opposition is mounting as humans and animals alike, complain that Hardon is essential to all life on earth. But the absense of Hardon in the creation of plant life and in the upper atmosphere has left the pro-human lobby without a voice at the negotiating table.
Agreement on action to combat Climate Strange, is being sought at the highest levels at a summit in Copenhagen, where world leaders are meeting to discuss how far they are willing to go to save the planet. Through a show of normal behaviour that includes blocking out all information to the five senses, while demonstrating their own Hardon emission limits, they hope to convince each other and the world that Climate Strange can be controlled by the members of a coming Globatorship.
However concerns are growing that Global Norming theory is a sham after scientists were caught acting extreme abnormally themselves, by falsifying results and corrupting the review process to get more funding. The climatology community has rallied round, stating that this is in fact perfectly normal behaviour for scientists and therefore confirms the Global Norming hypothesis, even as their credibility continues to melt.
Despite this, world leaders are attempting to reassure the public that should Hardon emmissions exceed mandated levels, the merging of the EU and the UN into an EUgeNic Globatorship will guarantee pre-annihilation for all, after the capture and trading of emissions, before Global Norming gets out of control and things become even more strange.
Please forward this message via links and emails to all the presidents, prime-ministers, senators, commissars, member of parliament, ambassadors, rabbis, priests, imans, gurus and real people that you know, to help them understand the absurdity of the United Nations climate change agenda and open their senses to the strange climatological normality that is the weather.
The Truthorator
Global Norming Concensus Proves Climate Strange Is Real
December 2nd, 2009 by admin
Using a highly reliable measuring system know as the five senses, human beings in their billions have come to the conclusion, that the only certainty about the weather on planet earth, is that it keeps on changing in very strange ways. Some times hot, sometimes cold, sometimes wet, sometimes dry. This mind blowing discovery that affects all our lives has been dubbed Global Norming. Otherwise know as Climate Strange. What effects this will have on future generations nobody knows, but one thing everyone agrees on is that the effects of Global Norming will be devastating.
To help alleviate the terrifying effects of Climate Strange a panel of experts has been formed to collate scientific research from around the world into a series of reports to the United Nations, detailing exactly how strange Global Norming might be. As a result it has been found without doubt, through a data modelling process called normalisation, that the normality of strange climatic behaviour will continue for ever.
Everyone with a brain and even those without, now agree that this will result in the complete annihilation of mankind at an unknown point in the future. To ensure that this does not occur a system of global governance or Globatorship has been formed to organise the pre-annihilation of all peoples likely to be affected by the devastating effects of Climate Strange – which politicians agree will occur in direct relation to the amount pigmentation in their skin and/or money in their bank account or pocket.
This is to be financed by a Hardon tax that will help facilitate the study of the constantly rising and falling temparature and moisture levels at the very center of the Global Norming phenomena. But opposition is mounting as humans and animals alike, complain that Hardon is essential to all life on earth. But the absense of Hardon in the creation of plant life and in the upper atmosphere has left the pro-human lobby without a voice at the negotiating table.
Agreement on action to combat Climate Strange, is being sought at the highest levels at a summit in Copenhagen, where world leaders are meeting to discuss how far they are willing to go to save the planet. Through a show of normal behaviour that includes blocking out all information to the five senses, while demonstrating their own Hardon emission limits, they hope to convince each other and the world that Climate Strange can be controlled by the members of a coming Globatorship.
However concerns are growing that Global Norming theory is a sham after scientists were caught acting extreme abnormally themselves, by falsifying results and corrupting the review process to get more funding. The climatology community has rallied round, stating that this is in fact perfectly normal behaviour for scientists and therefore confirms the Global Norming hypothesis, even as their credibility continues to melt.
Despite this, world leaders are attempting to reassure the public that should Hardon emmissions exceed mandated levels, the merging of the EU and the UN into an EUgeNic Globatorship will guarantee pre-annihilation for all, after the capture and trading of emissions, before Global Norming gets out of control and things become even more strange.
Please forward this message via links and emails to all the presidents, prime-ministers, senators, commissars, member of parliament, ambassadors, rabbis, priests, imans, gurus and real people that you know, to help them understand the absurdity of the United Nations climate change agenda and open their senses to the strange climatological normality that is the weather.
Scotty-D
with permission from the Truthorator
Monday, October 12, 2009
What happened to global warming?
even the Brits are starting to catch on to the fact that all may not be as simple as a movie hosted by a former presidential candidate who was caught lying 6 times during his debate.....will we figure it out before the cap-and-trade bill mortally wounds our economy and our way of life....?
By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News
Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.
Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases
Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.
But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.
The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.
And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.
Ocean cycles
What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.
In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down
According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.
But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.
These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.
So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.
Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."
So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.
They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.
But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.
The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.
In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.
In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.
To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.
The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume
Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.
But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.
So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.
One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.
By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News
Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.
Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases
Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.
But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.
The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.
And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.
Ocean cycles
What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.
In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down
According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.
But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.
These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.
So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.
Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."
So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.
They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.
But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.
The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.
In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.
In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.
To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.
The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume
Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.
But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.
So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.
One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
MUSE....where on earth have I been?
After wandering in the Pop desert for 20 years, I have finally found the oasis of pure pop music. I have often wondered why the greats like Depeche Mode, U2, Tears for Fears, and the Smiths had not produced even ONE band that gave homage to the genre and made it proud. That is a thing of the past- I discovered the new album "the Resistance" from Muse. I have never heard them before, but heard about them on a radio show which shall remain nameless. I wish I could sum up this album in one word, but I can't. Brilliant, a Masterpiece, beautiful and haunting,a timeless classic...these are all descriptions I would use in an official review of this album. The album opens with a catchy rocker called "Uprising" and beats you across the brain and intellect with both catchy,complicated musicianship, and poetic lyrics that would make Morrissey proud. There is an impressive homage to Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" called the "the United States of Eurasia" as well as a masterful 3 part Opus of orchestration and rock called the "Exogenesis Symphony" that I can only compare to the last part of Extreme's "III Sides to Every Story" album. I have read some reviews of long-time fans, and they range from best album - to worst album. My first thought was, "if this is their worst album, and its one of the best I've ever heard in ANY genre, how good are the ones before it?" I have yet to find out, but rest-assured, I will have the next best album in my collection VERY soon. Here is a promotional recording of the album followed by a VERY impressive live version of an older song of theirs called "Hysteria" (not the Leppard song).
Finally, since bands like the pop legends mentioned above left the spotlight (with the exception of U2), the pop universe in the United States has been dry- not any more. If you value your eardrums, pick up a copy of "the Resistance". You won't be disappointed.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Friday, August 7, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
behind the music of the coolest band ever....LOL warning EXTREMELY VULGAR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcbLhI1dkrc
Monday, August 3, 2009
I am SOOOO glad I am not alone in my outright HATRED for Transformers 2
I watched this movie, and sat their ANGRILY as I subjected myself to this retarded excuse for a movie...I won't go into too much detail, because these guys say it better than I ever could- but if you've ever had ANY desire to see a robot speak ebonics...or even worse TWO robots speaking ebonics, then this movie is for you. If you have a thinking braincell in your head, I HIGHLY recommend that you steer clear of this piece of trash..I usually don't mention movies on here, but I felt SO slighted by this movie, that I had to say something...so enough with my rant- these guys say it perfect....
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
My pet peeve issue should be a dead issue...
Many of the most noted scientists in the world are coming forward and calling man-made global warming a bunch of B.S, and now the majority of ALL climatologists believe the same thing...so why is congress trying to cap and trade anyway??? Not to be a conspiracy nut, but you have to admit something stinks in suburbia....
Below is an article from yet ANOTHER world respected scientist, in fact, he is the most respected scientist on the continent of Australia, one of the places Mr. Gore claims is being hurt by "us"...Again, I must say clearly, that there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect the environment.I AM a nature-lover,hell I'm even a vegetarian, and I recycle whenever possible and take bags to the natural foods store to re-use. NOTHING WRONG with being a naturalist.. But there IS something wrong with pushing a false agenda to combat something which is nothing more than a myth, and limiting our personal and economic freedom in the process...
Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites
Geologist Ian Plimer takes a contrary view, arguing that man-made climate change is a con trick perpetuated by environmentalists
By Jonathan Manthorpe, Vancouver SunJuly 28, 2009
Ian Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on him.
Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.
Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" -- man-made climate change to you and me -- and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed.
It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history. Many have made the argument, too, that it is rubbish to contend human behaviour is causing the current climate change. And it has often been well argued that it is totally ridiculous to suppose that changes in human behaviour -- cleaning up our act through expensive slight-of-hand taxation tricks -- can reverse the trend.
But most of these scientific and academic voices have fallen silent in the face of environmental Jacobinism. Purging humankind of its supposed sins of environmental degradation has become a religion with a fanatical and often intolerant priesthood, especially among the First World urban elites.
But Plimer shows no sign of giving way to this orthodoxy and has just published the latest of his six books and 60 academic papers on the subject of global warming. This book, Heaven and Earth -- Global Warming: The Missing Science, draws together much of his previous work. It springs especially from A Short History of Plant Earth, which was based on a decade of radio broadcasts in Australia.
That book, published in 2001, was a best-seller and won several prizes. But Plimer found it hard to find anyone willing to publish this latest book, so intimidating has the environmental lobby become.
But he did eventually find a small publishing house willing to take the gamble and the book has already sold about 30,000 copies in Australia. It seems also to be doing well in Britain and the United States in the first days of publication.
Plimer presents the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is little more than a con trick on the public perpetrated by fundamentalist environmentalists and callously adopted by politicians and government officials who love nothing more than an issue that causes public anxiety.
While environmentalists for the most part draw their conclusions based on climate information gathered in the last few hundred years, geologists, Plimer says, have a time frame stretching back many thousands of millions of years.
The dynamic and changing character of the Earth's climate has always been known by geologists. These changes are cyclical and random, he says. They are not caused or significantly affected by human behaviour.
Polar ice, for example, has been present on the Earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time, Plimer writes. Plus, animal extinctions are an entirely normal part of the Earth's evolution.
(Plimer, by the way, is also a vehement anti-creationist and has been hauled into court for disrupting meetings by religious leaders and evangelists who claim the Bible is literal truth.)
Plimer gets especially upset about carbon dioxide, its role in Earth's daily life and the supposed effects on climate of human manufacture of the gas. He says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide is only 0.001 per cent of the total amount of the chemical held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils and various life forms. Indeed, Plimer says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen. Human activity, he says, contributes only the tiniest fraction to even the atmospheric presence of carbon dioxide.
There is no problem with global warming, Plimer says repeatedly. He points out that for humans periods of global warming have been times of abundance when civilization made leaps forward. Ice ages, in contrast, have been times when human development slowed or even declined.
So global warming, says Plimer, is something humans should welcome and embrace as a harbinger of good times to come.
jmanthorpe@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
A mid-summer night's dream 2009 by Scotty-D
We had our night of drunken revelry, We won! We won! We won! Now it is the morning after and the bleary eyed liberals are waking up to find they have married the village idiot, and he ain't looking so good.
On the nightstand is our empty wallet. The house is a mess and a lot of stuff seems to be missing. The phone rings, it is our bank manager, someone has mortgaged our home for the next 50 years and our credit cards are maxed out. Looking outside we see the repo man leaving with our car. When we call our business a stranger informs us that all our interests have been sold to China for Monopoly money. Not only are we not the owner any more but a guy from the DMV is running things.
This news makes us violently ill, no car so we have to walk the 23 blocks to the hospital. After waiting in line for over 2 hours we are admitted to the waiting room. We recognize the administrator, he used to work a desk at the DMV. Another 3 hour wait and then we are informed that the union doctor is not expected back until next week and that until then we need to fill out forms, and of course, pay the waiting room tax.
We contact some old friends and are greeted with explicit language telling us how our new spouse has been very busy insulting them, we get no help there. The dog doesn't even want to associate with us. Then our new spouse shows up with some gang members from across town, it seems they will be living with us and be our new best friends.
Bad dream? You ain't seen nothing yet!
Monday, July 20, 2009
this is what happens when congress doesn't read their own 1000 page creation...you should be outraged America
SPENDING SCARED: WHITE HOUSE PUTS OFF RELEASE OF BUDGET UPDATE...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $2,531,600 FOR 'HAM, WATER ADDED, COOKED, FROZEN, SLICED, 2-LB'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $1,191,200 FOR '2 POUND FROZEN HAM SLICED'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $351,807 FOR 'REPLACE AND UPGRADE THE DUMBWAITER'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $1,562,568 FOR 'MOZZARELLA CHEESE'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $5,708,260 FOR 'PROCESS CHEESE'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $16,784,272 FOR 'CANNED PORK'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $1,444,100 FOR 'REPAIR DOOR BLDG 5112'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $541,119 FOR 'INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL'...
Agriculture Sec. Vilsack: 'Purchased 760,000 Lbs of ham at cost of approximately $1.50 per pound'...
FOOD LION: $.79 Lb...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $2,531,600 FOR 'HAM, WATER ADDED, COOKED, FROZEN, SLICED, 2-LB'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $1,191,200 FOR '2 POUND FROZEN HAM SLICED'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $351,807 FOR 'REPLACE AND UPGRADE THE DUMBWAITER'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $1,562,568 FOR 'MOZZARELLA CHEESE'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $5,708,260 FOR 'PROCESS CHEESE'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $16,784,272 FOR 'CANNED PORK'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $1,444,100 FOR 'REPAIR DOOR BLDG 5112'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $541,119 FOR 'INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL'...
Agriculture Sec. Vilsack: 'Purchased 760,000 Lbs of ham at cost of approximately $1.50 per pound'...
FOOD LION: $.79 Lb...
Friday, July 17, 2009
an Interesting commentary on the Middle-east from Reason magazine, the Libertarian version of the New Republic...
Their Audacity to Hope
Brave Individuals who challenge the status quo in authoritarian societies—and expect our support
Michael Young | July 15, 2009
To judge by the gush of many commentators, President Barack Obama can do no wrong in the Middle East—in contrast, it is said, to George W. Bush, who supposedly could do little that was right. But when it comes to advancing political liberty in the region, the current president has been more ambiguous than his predecessor.
Take Mr. Obama's recent speech in Cairo, hailed as a foundational moment for a new American approach toward Arabs and Muslims. Mr. Obama uttered generalities about democracy and political liberty. Some of it was confusing. He admitted that Iraqis were "ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein," but he added that the Iraq war had shown why diplomacy and international consensus were preferable. Yet since neither diplomacy nor consensus would have ever rid the world of savage Baathist rule—which war did—what lesson did Iraq hold for American policy? Mr. Obama could not explain.
Such confusion is not new. Indeed, the Cairo speech inadvertently captured a long-standing problem of U.S. policy in the Middle East: America's allies and interlocutors in the region are often autocrats sitting atop decaying, illegitimate regimes. Mr. Bush, to his credit, removed a mass murderer from power in Baghdad and helped end 29 years of Syrian hegemony over Lebanon. Mr. Obama has shied away from endorsing any such action: "America does not presume to know what is best for everyone," he insists.
Joshua Muravchik has no qualms about presuming that liberalism and democracy are best for everyone. In The Next Founders he offers admiring profiles of seven individuals who have thought and behaved as liberals in Middle Eastern societies where that kind of thing can be dangerous. The result is a engaging work of group portraiture that is especially welcome at a time when there is otherwise so little interest in making democracy an American priority overseas.
Mr. Muravchik believes that "there is no reason why the democratic idea cannot have a rebirth in the Middle East," where democracy has been "upstaged by the false promises of utopian ideologies." A democratic rebirth, he says, will depend on courageous individuals, and America's role must be to "encourage and assist them and to protect them from persecution to the extent that we can." With help, he believes, democracy can come to the Middle East within a generation. If it does, the democrats he writes about may be among the region's "founders."
Such a scenario may seem simplistic in its optimism, but Mr. Muravchik has caught just how simple the essence of the democracy debate really is. When all it said and done, it is really about individuals who have the audacity to hope that they can break free from the oppressive institutions governing them and who expect that they can count on assistance from like-minded comrades in democratic countries.
Mr. Muravchik introduces us to Wajeha Al-Huwaider, a female Saudi activist who has fought for women's rights in the kingdom against hopeless odds; and Bassem Eid, a Palestinian human-rights activist and journalist who has investigated Israeli human-rights abuses over the years but also the abuses of the Palestinian Authority. There is also Rola Dashti, who played a key role in helping Kuwaiti women earn the right to vote in 2005; and Mohsen Sazegara, an Iranian once close to Ayatollah Khomeini. He turned against the post-Revolution system when he headed a state-owned conglomerate, where he saw the inefficiencies of a command economy. He came to reject Iran's statist economic principles and then moved to a deeper embrace of liberal thought in general. All the democrats in Mr. Muravchik's narrative have been harassed or threatened by the governments they live under, or indeed pressured by members of their own families.
What The Next Founders says, without saying it, is that at the heart of Middle Eastern despotisms are stunted societies that never create a sense of shared purpose for their citizens. Considerable attention has been paid to how such societies breed Islamists, sometimes dangerous ones. Mr. Muravchik prefers to highlight the liberal rejoinder—the citizens who reject the status quo on behalf of freedom and human rights.
Mr. Muravchik's group portrait helps to counter an idea that is gaining ground—that Western governments must engage Islamists to better advance Western aims. He asks that we spare a thought for the fragile liberals who would pay a high price if international legitimacy were to shift decisively to autocratic religious parties.
Mr. Muravchik might have said more about why Western states should support liberals, in all their vulnerability. Take the Syrian dissident Ammar Abdulhamid. Audacious and articulate, Mr. Abdulhamid abandoned a life of privilege in Syria (he is the son of a famous actress) and chose exile in the U.S. so that he could give full force to his criticism of the Assad regime. Yet like many of those described by Mr. Muravchik, he has committed himself to a liberal ideal, and sacrificed a great deal, in return for very little so far. When Western governments revert to so-called reasons of state—where "realism" and supposed self-interest often triumphs—Middle Eastern liberals become a vanguard easily discarded.
The Middle East does not need generations of democratic practice to absorb democracy. That argument, beloved of political realists, is a convenient device for allowing the U.S. to spurn a pro-democracy agenda, which is often seen as undermining national interests. It is an argument that Mr. Muravchik convincingly dismisses. But The Next Founders might have itself argued more strongly that, by ignoring what liberalism there is in the region, the U.S. not only abandons a part of itself; it also makes more likely the proliferation of violent Islamists pining to take revenge against America, the too-frequent defender of their despotic tormentors.
Michael Young is opinion editor at the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut and a contributing editor at Reason magazine. This article originally appeared in The Wall Street Journal.
Brave Individuals who challenge the status quo in authoritarian societies—and expect our support
Michael Young | July 15, 2009
To judge by the gush of many commentators, President Barack Obama can do no wrong in the Middle East—in contrast, it is said, to George W. Bush, who supposedly could do little that was right. But when it comes to advancing political liberty in the region, the current president has been more ambiguous than his predecessor.
Take Mr. Obama's recent speech in Cairo, hailed as a foundational moment for a new American approach toward Arabs and Muslims. Mr. Obama uttered generalities about democracy and political liberty. Some of it was confusing. He admitted that Iraqis were "ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein," but he added that the Iraq war had shown why diplomacy and international consensus were preferable. Yet since neither diplomacy nor consensus would have ever rid the world of savage Baathist rule—which war did—what lesson did Iraq hold for American policy? Mr. Obama could not explain.
Such confusion is not new. Indeed, the Cairo speech inadvertently captured a long-standing problem of U.S. policy in the Middle East: America's allies and interlocutors in the region are often autocrats sitting atop decaying, illegitimate regimes. Mr. Bush, to his credit, removed a mass murderer from power in Baghdad and helped end 29 years of Syrian hegemony over Lebanon. Mr. Obama has shied away from endorsing any such action: "America does not presume to know what is best for everyone," he insists.
Joshua Muravchik has no qualms about presuming that liberalism and democracy are best for everyone. In The Next Founders he offers admiring profiles of seven individuals who have thought and behaved as liberals in Middle Eastern societies where that kind of thing can be dangerous. The result is a engaging work of group portraiture that is especially welcome at a time when there is otherwise so little interest in making democracy an American priority overseas.
Mr. Muravchik believes that "there is no reason why the democratic idea cannot have a rebirth in the Middle East," where democracy has been "upstaged by the false promises of utopian ideologies." A democratic rebirth, he says, will depend on courageous individuals, and America's role must be to "encourage and assist them and to protect them from persecution to the extent that we can." With help, he believes, democracy can come to the Middle East within a generation. If it does, the democrats he writes about may be among the region's "founders."
Such a scenario may seem simplistic in its optimism, but Mr. Muravchik has caught just how simple the essence of the democracy debate really is. When all it said and done, it is really about individuals who have the audacity to hope that they can break free from the oppressive institutions governing them and who expect that they can count on assistance from like-minded comrades in democratic countries.
Mr. Muravchik introduces us to Wajeha Al-Huwaider, a female Saudi activist who has fought for women's rights in the kingdom against hopeless odds; and Bassem Eid, a Palestinian human-rights activist and journalist who has investigated Israeli human-rights abuses over the years but also the abuses of the Palestinian Authority. There is also Rola Dashti, who played a key role in helping Kuwaiti women earn the right to vote in 2005; and Mohsen Sazegara, an Iranian once close to Ayatollah Khomeini. He turned against the post-Revolution system when he headed a state-owned conglomerate, where he saw the inefficiencies of a command economy. He came to reject Iran's statist economic principles and then moved to a deeper embrace of liberal thought in general. All the democrats in Mr. Muravchik's narrative have been harassed or threatened by the governments they live under, or indeed pressured by members of their own families.
What The Next Founders says, without saying it, is that at the heart of Middle Eastern despotisms are stunted societies that never create a sense of shared purpose for their citizens. Considerable attention has been paid to how such societies breed Islamists, sometimes dangerous ones. Mr. Muravchik prefers to highlight the liberal rejoinder—the citizens who reject the status quo on behalf of freedom and human rights.
Mr. Muravchik's group portrait helps to counter an idea that is gaining ground—that Western governments must engage Islamists to better advance Western aims. He asks that we spare a thought for the fragile liberals who would pay a high price if international legitimacy were to shift decisively to autocratic religious parties.
Mr. Muravchik might have said more about why Western states should support liberals, in all their vulnerability. Take the Syrian dissident Ammar Abdulhamid. Audacious and articulate, Mr. Abdulhamid abandoned a life of privilege in Syria (he is the son of a famous actress) and chose exile in the U.S. so that he could give full force to his criticism of the Assad regime. Yet like many of those described by Mr. Muravchik, he has committed himself to a liberal ideal, and sacrificed a great deal, in return for very little so far. When Western governments revert to so-called reasons of state—where "realism" and supposed self-interest often triumphs—Middle Eastern liberals become a vanguard easily discarded.
The Middle East does not need generations of democratic practice to absorb democracy. That argument, beloved of political realists, is a convenient device for allowing the U.S. to spurn a pro-democracy agenda, which is often seen as undermining national interests. It is an argument that Mr. Muravchik convincingly dismisses. But The Next Founders might have itself argued more strongly that, by ignoring what liberalism there is in the region, the U.S. not only abandons a part of itself; it also makes more likely the proliferation of violent Islamists pining to take revenge against America, the too-frequent defender of their despotic tormentors.
Michael Young is opinion editor at the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut and a contributing editor at Reason magazine. This article originally appeared in The Wall Street Journal.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
this is how Universal Healthcare works in a country with 1/10th of our population- this is the side that Michael Moore DOESN'T show you in "Sicko"....
Even the Canadian Healthcare system's CREATOR considers it "in crisis" and is recommending a move toward American-style Healthcare. SO, while the REST of the Western world (including much of Europe) is moving towards OUR system....our esteemed leaders are taking us the OTHER way, into a FAILED system...hmmmm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
