Just a note to let you know I haven't forgotten about this blog. I started my new job Tuesday and am concentrating my brain cells on learning that instead of wasting them on our current regime in D.C.
Plus, there's really no concern anyway, right? I mean, now that the Obama Administration has taken responsibility for the oil in the Gulf. I heard his rhetoric today (did anyone else notice there was only 1 microphone on his lectern?) I heard he was controlling the media, but looks now like it's exclusive coverage only. Also, wasn't the size of the crowd for his news conference just a tad small? Where were all of his supporters? I don't think I've EVER seen a US Presidential news conference draw so few...might be a telltale sign of his continued decline --- we can only hope.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand. So Obama says "the buck stops here," and "we have assumed responsibility of the situation," and "we will take all necessary steps," and my favorite, "we will still look to BP for their expertise in this crisis."
The reality is that nobody knows how to fix this, and that's because the domino-effect failure of all of the fail-safes was inconceivable. I heard a talk show host saying that the Navy could send their submarines down there to assist. He said, "I don't know, but I'm sure they can go down that far." I don't know, and won't pretend I do, but I am pretty sure if they could, the next question would be, "Okay, we're here, now what?" Any idea how much pressure we're talking about at 5,000 feet underwater? I did a free-fall dive to 150 feet and my body compressed enough to reduce my waist size by over 2 inches...multiply that by 33 and you begin to understand the problem. Now realize that it's not linear, but rather exponential, and you really grasp the challenge.
It seems that BP is making progress with this "heavy mud" approach. Hopefully, it will work and this crisis will change to a recovery and restoration operation. However, I don't think it's coincidental that our government "assumed responsibility" once an idea starts showing promise.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Serious Threats Through Mexico
Okay, so if you don't think illegals coming into our country through Mexico should be diligently caught, detained, and deported - check out this news report (I apologize for it not being a direct link; haven't figured out how to do that yet):
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html.
So how diligent should we be? What would be a good ratio regarding catching people trying to cross the border illegally? 1 out of 100, 1 out of 1,000. Personally, I like even odds, so for me 1 out of 1 sounds appropriate.
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html.
So how diligent should we be? What would be a good ratio regarding catching people trying to cross the border illegally? 1 out of 100, 1 out of 1,000. Personally, I like even odds, so for me 1 out of 1 sounds appropriate.
Friday, May 21, 2010
You've GOT To Be Joking, Right?
COMMENT: The size of the cross was the reason cited for its removal, even though it was clearly a replica (made of metal pipe) of the original cross stolen in April. What I find amazing though is that if the reason cited here is correct (1/2 inch larger than the original), we're talking about it being 90-1/2 inches tall instead of 90 inches - are you serious?!?!?!?! Exactly how wrong is this ordeal anyway? How much government money has been spent to visit, investigate, and litigate this issue?
Ironically, I took a motorcycle ride through that area last Saturday. What amazed me about the entire region was the number of "God" references and symbols we saw along our route. There were crosses on hillsides made of stones, a rock wall along the border of a person's property that was built with different stones embedded to state, "Jesus is Lord." One of our riders had a "Jesus" patch on his vest and received 3 separate comments from the locals (all positive). What I'm getting at is that the people in this region of our great country not only are not offended by the Mojave Cross, they are proud of it and proud of their faith. What gives a man residing in Seattle the right to waste government money litigating this case?
ARTICLE:
Replica cross in Mojave Desert is taken down
Associated Press - 5/21/2010 7:25:00
Associated Press MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE, CA - Authorities say a Mojave Desert cross that replaced the stolen one honoring America's war dead was illegal, so it's been taken down too.
Linda Slater, a spokeswoman for the Mojave National Preserve, says a maintenance worker spotted the replica cross Thursday morning in the federal park. Nobody claimed credit for putting it up.
The new cross was a half-inch larger than the original one, which was stolen more than a week ago. That cross was the subject of a lawsuit arguing that a Christian symbol didn't belong on public land. (See related article)
Congress had reacted by transferring land under the cross to private ownership.
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to order removal of the cross while a lower court decided whether the land transfer was legal. But Slater says the new cross wasn't covered by the Supreme Court ruling, so workers removed it Thursday afternoon.
Ironically, I took a motorcycle ride through that area last Saturday. What amazed me about the entire region was the number of "God" references and symbols we saw along our route. There were crosses on hillsides made of stones, a rock wall along the border of a person's property that was built with different stones embedded to state, "Jesus is Lord." One of our riders had a "Jesus" patch on his vest and received 3 separate comments from the locals (all positive). What I'm getting at is that the people in this region of our great country not only are not offended by the Mojave Cross, they are proud of it and proud of their faith. What gives a man residing in Seattle the right to waste government money litigating this case?
ARTICLE:
Replica cross in Mojave Desert is taken down
Associated Press - 5/21/2010 7:25:00
Associated Press MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE, CA - Authorities say a Mojave Desert cross that replaced the stolen one honoring America's war dead was illegal, so it's been taken down too.
Linda Slater, a spokeswoman for the Mojave National Preserve, says a maintenance worker spotted the replica cross Thursday morning in the federal park. Nobody claimed credit for putting it up.
The new cross was a half-inch larger than the original one, which was stolen more than a week ago. That cross was the subject of a lawsuit arguing that a Christian symbol didn't belong on public land. (See related article)
Congress had reacted by transferring land under the cross to private ownership.
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to order removal of the cross while a lower court decided whether the land transfer was legal. But Slater says the new cross wasn't covered by the Supreme Court ruling, so workers removed it Thursday afternoon.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Perhaps I'm Not On An Island After All
Living in California, I very often feel as if I'm the only one who is concerned about our current government and who strongly defends the Constitution in the spirit and intent with which it was written. However, it appears from the recent Primaries that Americans are making their voices heard about the way this country is being managed by our government. Virtually every race was not divided along party lines nearly as much as along how the incumbents supported or opposed legislation over the past 1-1/2 years.
As of now, our democratic process seems alive and well with a united voice showing displeasure over uncontrolled spending and invasive government. What we saw in the Primaries is essentially the heart and soul of the Tea Party Movement.
As I stated before, the Tea Party is not about Republican, Democrat, or any other party line - it's about fiscal responsibility, government limitation, and freedom of the states to govern their areas. This is why they chose the "Tea Party" as their battle cry...their displeasure mirrors the early settlers' concerns about governments (not ours at that time, but rather the British).
As of now, our democratic process seems alive and well with a united voice showing displeasure over uncontrolled spending and invasive government. What we saw in the Primaries is essentially the heart and soul of the Tea Party Movement.
As I stated before, the Tea Party is not about Republican, Democrat, or any other party line - it's about fiscal responsibility, government limitation, and freedom of the states to govern their areas. This is why they chose the "Tea Party" as their battle cry...their displeasure mirrors the early settlers' concerns about governments (not ours at that time, but rather the British).
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
America's Apology Tour Continues
COMMENT: The following was a Facebook post by Sarah Palin (I love her common sense talk as much as I liked Reagan's). Can our government drop any further in their rhetoric? Equating the Arizona Law with China's record on human rights - I keep waiting for Robin Williams to come out in his Aladdin genie costume and say, "Just kidding guys!" Sadly, that's not happening.
ARTICLE:
Today at 10:18am
On Fox News this morning, State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley became the third Obama administration official in short succession to admit that he hadn’t actually bothered to read Arizona’s 10-page long “secure the border” bill before condemning it and criticizing Americans who support Arizona’s necessary efforts to do the job the Obama Administration should be doing. Crowley’s statement follows similar admissions from Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.
At first blush this revelation seemed unbelievable, but maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. This now seems “the Washington way” of doing things. If the party in power tells us they have to pass bills in order to find out what’s actually in them, they can also criticize bills (and divide the country with ensuing rhetoric) without actually reading them.
Still I can’t help but feel outraged on behalf of Arizona’s citizens for the incompetence shown by these Administration officials. Arizonans have the courage to do what the Obama administration has failed to do in its first year and a half in office – namely secure our border and enforce our federal laws. And as a result, Arizonans have been subjected to a campaign of baseless accusations by the same people who freely admit they haven’t a clue about what they’re actually campaigning against.
The absolute low point of this campaign came last Friday, when a U.S. State Department delegation met with Chinese negotiators to discuss human rights. Apparently, our State Department felt it necessary to make their Chinese guests feel less bad about their own record of human rights abuses by repeatedly atoning for American “sins” – including, it seems, the Arizona immigration/pro-border security law. Asked if Arizona came up at all during the meeting, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner answered:
“We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.”
Note that he said “We brought it up” – not the Chinese, but the U.S. State Department’s own delegation. Instead of grilling the Chinese about their appalling record on human rights, the State Department continued the unbelievable apology tour by raising “early and often” Arizona’s decision to secure our border.
Arizona’s law, which just mirrors the federal law, simply allows the police to ask those whom they have already stopped for some form of identification like a driver’s license. By what absurd stretch of the imagination is that the moral equivalent of China’s lack of freedoms, population controls (including forced abortions), censorship, and arbitrary detentions?
Surely our U.S. Ambassador to China, John Huntsman, must disagree with the Obama Administration’s continued apology tour? We have nothing to apologize for. If Administration officials want to apologize to anyone, apologize to the American people for the fact that after a year and a half in office, they still haven’t done anything to secure our borders, and they join our President in making false suggestions about Arizona’s effort.
- Sarah Palin
COMMENT: I'm quickly reaching the boiling point with our leaders reaching conclusions and condemning people without first getting the facts. How many times has this happened already with this Administration? "Shooting from the hip" only works if your gun is loaded with common sense, but the Obama Administration's pistols are loaded with blanks --- a lot of noise, but no substance.
ARTICLE:
Today at 10:18am
On Fox News this morning, State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley became the third Obama administration official in short succession to admit that he hadn’t actually bothered to read Arizona’s 10-page long “secure the border” bill before condemning it and criticizing Americans who support Arizona’s necessary efforts to do the job the Obama Administration should be doing. Crowley’s statement follows similar admissions from Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.
At first blush this revelation seemed unbelievable, but maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. This now seems “the Washington way” of doing things. If the party in power tells us they have to pass bills in order to find out what’s actually in them, they can also criticize bills (and divide the country with ensuing rhetoric) without actually reading them.
Still I can’t help but feel outraged on behalf of Arizona’s citizens for the incompetence shown by these Administration officials. Arizonans have the courage to do what the Obama administration has failed to do in its first year and a half in office – namely secure our border and enforce our federal laws. And as a result, Arizonans have been subjected to a campaign of baseless accusations by the same people who freely admit they haven’t a clue about what they’re actually campaigning against.
The absolute low point of this campaign came last Friday, when a U.S. State Department delegation met with Chinese negotiators to discuss human rights. Apparently, our State Department felt it necessary to make their Chinese guests feel less bad about their own record of human rights abuses by repeatedly atoning for American “sins” – including, it seems, the Arizona immigration/pro-border security law. Asked if Arizona came up at all during the meeting, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner answered:
“We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.”
Note that he said “We brought it up” – not the Chinese, but the U.S. State Department’s own delegation. Instead of grilling the Chinese about their appalling record on human rights, the State Department continued the unbelievable apology tour by raising “early and often” Arizona’s decision to secure our border.
Arizona’s law, which just mirrors the federal law, simply allows the police to ask those whom they have already stopped for some form of identification like a driver’s license. By what absurd stretch of the imagination is that the moral equivalent of China’s lack of freedoms, population controls (including forced abortions), censorship, and arbitrary detentions?
Surely our U.S. Ambassador to China, John Huntsman, must disagree with the Obama Administration’s continued apology tour? We have nothing to apologize for. If Administration officials want to apologize to anyone, apologize to the American people for the fact that after a year and a half in office, they still haven’t done anything to secure our borders, and they join our President in making false suggestions about Arizona’s effort.
- Sarah Palin
COMMENT: I'm quickly reaching the boiling point with our leaders reaching conclusions and condemning people without first getting the facts. How many times has this happened already with this Administration? "Shooting from the hip" only works if your gun is loaded with common sense, but the Obama Administration's pistols are loaded with blanks --- a lot of noise, but no substance.
A Peek Under Obama's Pile of Pebbles
COMMENT: You all know my "pebble" mantra regarding Obama's "fundamental change in America." As I'd thought previously, he used some of those pebbles to bury his true beliefs and ideologies. Don't just read this to get Jeremiah Wright's statement, but read the entire article closely - some good insight into Obama's past ties and possible loyalties (I've ITALICIZED and BOLDED what I consider to be the real interesting points).
ARTICLE
By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer Larry Neumeister, Associated Press Writer – Tue May 18, 4:03 am ET
NEW YORK – The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's controversial former pastor, said in a letter obtained by The Associated Press that he is "toxic" to the Obama administration and that the president "threw me under the bus."
In his strongest language to date about the administration's 2-year-old rift with the Chicago pastor, Wright told a group raising money for African relief that his pleas to release frozen funds for use in earthquake-ravaged Haiti would likely be ignored.
"No one in the Obama administration will respond to me, listen to me, talk to me or read anything that I write to them. I am 'toxic' in terms of the Obama administration," Wright wrote the president of Africa 6000 International earlier this year.
"I am 'radioactive,' Sir. When Obama threw me under the bus, he threw me under the bus literally!" he wrote. "Any advice that I offer is going to be taken as something to be avoided. Please understand that!"
The White House didn't respond to requests for comment Monday about Wright's remarks. Several phone messages left by the AP for Wright at the Trinity United Church of Christ, where he is listed as a pastor emeritus, were not returned. Wright's spokeswoman, his daughter Jeri Wright, did not immediately comment on the substance of the letter.
Then-Sen. Obama cut ties with Wright when his more incendiary remarks became an Internet sensation in the spring of 2008. At a National Press Club appearance in April 2008, he claimed the U.S. government could plant AIDS in the black community, praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and suggested Obama was putting his pastor at arm's length for political purposes while privately agreeing with him.
Obama denounced Wright as "divisive and destructive" and later cut ties to the pastor altogether and left Wright's church.
The letter was sent Feb. 18 to Joseph Prischak, the president of Africa 6000 International in Erie, Pa. Wright subsequently agreed to write a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the group's behalf to try to get access to millions of dollars.
Wright's original letter ranting against Obama's treatment of him surfaced in an appeal filed by federal inmate Arthur Morrison, boxing great Muhammad Ali's one-time manager, who was convicted of making phone threats.
Charles Lofton, Wright's executive assistant, told The Associated Press that he faxed a copy of the letter to Morrison's attorney as requested. A copy of the faxed letter signed by Wright showed that it was sent from the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago on March 31 to the fax number for Goodwin's law office in Tulsa, Okla.
Prischak, of Africa 6000 International, is a business partner of Morrison, who has been imprisoned for nearly 18 years after he was convicted of making phone threats between 1989 to 1992 to hospitals where an ex-girlfriend worked.
Prischak told Wright in a Feb. 11 letter that he was seeking the clergyman's help in reaching out to the U.S. Treasury Department. He said that Uday Hussein, the son of Saddam Hussein, had entrusted 87 million British pounds in 1990 to Morrison and Ali to buy pharmaceuticals, milk and food for the children of Iraq.
Prischak said the money was never spent because Morrison was imprisoned. He sought Wright's help in lobbying U.S. authorities to permit 25 million British pounds in interest from the money held in an overseas account to be allowed to be sent to faith-based groups for the children of Haiti.
COMMENT:
What is it going to take for all Americans to wake up and see the ties, alliances, and allegiance of our current President? Why is it unimportant to so many? Remember the old saying, "You're known by the company you keep," why does Obama have a Teflon suit?
ARTICLE
By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer Larry Neumeister, Associated Press Writer – Tue May 18, 4:03 am ET
NEW YORK – The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's controversial former pastor, said in a letter obtained by The Associated Press that he is "toxic" to the Obama administration and that the president "threw me under the bus."
In his strongest language to date about the administration's 2-year-old rift with the Chicago pastor, Wright told a group raising money for African relief that his pleas to release frozen funds for use in earthquake-ravaged Haiti would likely be ignored.
"No one in the Obama administration will respond to me, listen to me, talk to me or read anything that I write to them. I am 'toxic' in terms of the Obama administration," Wright wrote the president of Africa 6000 International earlier this year.
"I am 'radioactive,' Sir. When Obama threw me under the bus, he threw me under the bus literally!" he wrote. "Any advice that I offer is going to be taken as something to be avoided. Please understand that!"
The White House didn't respond to requests for comment Monday about Wright's remarks. Several phone messages left by the AP for Wright at the Trinity United Church of Christ, where he is listed as a pastor emeritus, were not returned. Wright's spokeswoman, his daughter Jeri Wright, did not immediately comment on the substance of the letter.
Then-Sen. Obama cut ties with Wright when his more incendiary remarks became an Internet sensation in the spring of 2008. At a National Press Club appearance in April 2008, he claimed the U.S. government could plant AIDS in the black community, praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and suggested Obama was putting his pastor at arm's length for political purposes while privately agreeing with him.
Obama denounced Wright as "divisive and destructive" and later cut ties to the pastor altogether and left Wright's church.
The letter was sent Feb. 18 to Joseph Prischak, the president of Africa 6000 International in Erie, Pa. Wright subsequently agreed to write a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the group's behalf to try to get access to millions of dollars.
Wright's original letter ranting against Obama's treatment of him surfaced in an appeal filed by federal inmate Arthur Morrison, boxing great Muhammad Ali's one-time manager, who was convicted of making phone threats.
Charles Lofton, Wright's executive assistant, told The Associated Press that he faxed a copy of the letter to Morrison's attorney as requested. A copy of the faxed letter signed by Wright showed that it was sent from the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago on March 31 to the fax number for Goodwin's law office in Tulsa, Okla.
Prischak, of Africa 6000 International, is a business partner of Morrison, who has been imprisoned for nearly 18 years after he was convicted of making phone threats between 1989 to 1992 to hospitals where an ex-girlfriend worked.
Prischak told Wright in a Feb. 11 letter that he was seeking the clergyman's help in reaching out to the U.S. Treasury Department. He said that Uday Hussein, the son of Saddam Hussein, had entrusted 87 million British pounds in 1990 to Morrison and Ali to buy pharmaceuticals, milk and food for the children of Iraq.
Prischak said the money was never spent because Morrison was imprisoned. He sought Wright's help in lobbying U.S. authorities to permit 25 million British pounds in interest from the money held in an overseas account to be allowed to be sent to faith-based groups for the children of Haiti.
COMMENT:
What is it going to take for all Americans to wake up and see the ties, alliances, and allegiance of our current President? Why is it unimportant to so many? Remember the old saying, "You're known by the company you keep," why does Obama have a Teflon suit?
Monday, May 17, 2010
AZ SB1070 - Perfect Analogy
COMMENT: Analogies are very often useful to get people to understand your position. I would very much like all opponents to Arizona's bill to read this analogy.
ARTICLE:
If you had tickets to a sports event, concert, Disneyland , or on an airplane, and when you got to your assigned seat, and someone else was in that seat, what would you do? You would call for a person in charge of ticket checking and have the person in your seat removed. You would be properly asked to show your ticket, and you would gladly and proudly do so, for you have bought and paid for that seat. The person in your seat would also be asked for a ticket, and they would not be able to produce one. They would be called “gate crashers” and they would be properly removed.
Now in this huge stadium called the USA we have had millions of gate crashers. We have been asking security to check for tickets and remove the gate crashers. We have been asking security to have better controls in checking at the door. We have asked security to lock the back doors. Security has failed us. They are still looking the other way. They are afraid to ask to see the tickets. Many people say there is unlimited seating, and whether there is or not, no one should be allowed in for free while the rest of us pay full price!
In section AZ, of Stadium USA , we have had enough of the failures of Security. We have decided to do our own ticket checking, and properly remove those who do not have tickets. Now it seems very strange to me that so many people in the other 49 sections, and even many in our own section do not want tickets checked, or even be asked to show their ticket! Even the head of Security is chastising us, while not doing his own job which he has sworn to do.
My own ticket has been bought and paid for so I am going to proudly show it when asked to do so. I have a right to my seat, and I want the gate crashers to be asked to show their tickets too. The only reason that I can imagine anyone objecting to being asked for their ticket is that they are in favor of gate crashing, and all of the illegal activities that go with it. Such as drug smuggling, gang wars, murder, human smuggling for profit, and many more illegal and inhumane acts that we are trying to prevent with our new legislation. Is that what I am hearing from all of the protestors such as Phoenix Mayor Gordon, US Rep. Grijalva, even President Obama? If you are not in favor of showing tickets, (proof of citizenship, passport, green card, or other legal document) when asked, as I would proudly do, then you must be condoning those illegal activities.
Tom Moody
United States citizen
Globe Arizona
ARTICLE:
If you had tickets to a sports event, concert, Disneyland , or on an airplane, and when you got to your assigned seat, and someone else was in that seat, what would you do? You would call for a person in charge of ticket checking and have the person in your seat removed. You would be properly asked to show your ticket, and you would gladly and proudly do so, for you have bought and paid for that seat. The person in your seat would also be asked for a ticket, and they would not be able to produce one. They would be called “gate crashers” and they would be properly removed.
Now in this huge stadium called the USA we have had millions of gate crashers. We have been asking security to check for tickets and remove the gate crashers. We have been asking security to have better controls in checking at the door. We have asked security to lock the back doors. Security has failed us. They are still looking the other way. They are afraid to ask to see the tickets. Many people say there is unlimited seating, and whether there is or not, no one should be allowed in for free while the rest of us pay full price!
In section AZ, of Stadium USA , we have had enough of the failures of Security. We have decided to do our own ticket checking, and properly remove those who do not have tickets. Now it seems very strange to me that so many people in the other 49 sections, and even many in our own section do not want tickets checked, or even be asked to show their ticket! Even the head of Security is chastising us, while not doing his own job which he has sworn to do.
My own ticket has been bought and paid for so I am going to proudly show it when asked to do so. I have a right to my seat, and I want the gate crashers to be asked to show their tickets too. The only reason that I can imagine anyone objecting to being asked for their ticket is that they are in favor of gate crashing, and all of the illegal activities that go with it. Such as drug smuggling, gang wars, murder, human smuggling for profit, and many more illegal and inhumane acts that we are trying to prevent with our new legislation. Is that what I am hearing from all of the protestors such as Phoenix Mayor Gordon, US Rep. Grijalva, even President Obama? If you are not in favor of showing tickets, (proof of citizenship, passport, green card, or other legal document) when asked, as I would proudly do, then you must be condoning those illegal activities.
Tom Moody
United States citizen
Globe Arizona
The Truth Is Offensive?
Have you heard the latest on Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan? In response to all of the lesbian questions surrounding her nomination, with several former classmates, colleagues, and roommates speaking out for and against her, she remains silent on the subject except to say, "I reject heterosexual labels to avoid offending gays." CBS News reported last week that she was gay, but no refutable proof has surfaced either way.
My concerns don't revolve around whether she is, or is not, a lesbian. My fear is having a Supreme Court Justice who refuses to stand up and make a statement of fact for fear of offending a group. How has our country arrived at this point? How can a nominee even be considered for a position in our "pillars of justice" and at the pinnacle of our legal system who refuses to make a statement regarding her personal preference? Is it clear she has extreme bias for a specific group in the U.S.? Ummm, yep. Is it clear she will not be able to reach an unbiased ruling regarding a specific group? Ummm, yep. Should she recuse herself from further consideration because of a clear bias in numerous cases she will probably sit on? Ummm, yep.
"I'm heterosexual." There, I've said it. Have I offended anyone? Has the heterosexual world stood up and cheered because I made this statement? Are the gays in West Hollywood pouring into the streets in protest? If I screamed this statement over the airwaves, would it be offensive to anyone? The answer is, "It shouldn't be." It's a simple statement of fact, not meant to be inflammatory; not derogatory or judgmental toward any group; not a condemnation of a lifestyle I don't share. It's simply a personal opinion utterance.
At this critical time in our country, we need courageous leaders. We need people of integrity and conviction in positions of leadership. We need people who will stand up for what they believe in without fear of being politically correct to a fault.
Failure to have this kind of leadership was evident during the last presidential campaign where many questions went unasked for fear of the "race card" being pulled - the electoral effect was devastating. We needed courage from the Republican party to ask the tough questions and not cease until answers were provided. Instead, we had a "tip-toe around the real concerns" campaign and two years later the questions remain.
Obama's citizenship, faith, legal proceedings records, affiliations, associations, and character should have been vigorously explored to the public's satisfaction before he ever took the oath of office. They weren't asked because of the "PC Cloud" looming over the Republican head. To coin a WWII phrase, it's time to "Damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead!"
I pray it's not too late for this country to recover from that lack of courage. Unfortunately, it seems history is repeating itself with our Supreme Court.
My concerns don't revolve around whether she is, or is not, a lesbian. My fear is having a Supreme Court Justice who refuses to stand up and make a statement of fact for fear of offending a group. How has our country arrived at this point? How can a nominee even be considered for a position in our "pillars of justice" and at the pinnacle of our legal system who refuses to make a statement regarding her personal preference? Is it clear she has extreme bias for a specific group in the U.S.? Ummm, yep. Is it clear she will not be able to reach an unbiased ruling regarding a specific group? Ummm, yep. Should she recuse herself from further consideration because of a clear bias in numerous cases she will probably sit on? Ummm, yep.
"I'm heterosexual." There, I've said it. Have I offended anyone? Has the heterosexual world stood up and cheered because I made this statement? Are the gays in West Hollywood pouring into the streets in protest? If I screamed this statement over the airwaves, would it be offensive to anyone? The answer is, "It shouldn't be." It's a simple statement of fact, not meant to be inflammatory; not derogatory or judgmental toward any group; not a condemnation of a lifestyle I don't share. It's simply a personal opinion utterance.
At this critical time in our country, we need courageous leaders. We need people of integrity and conviction in positions of leadership. We need people who will stand up for what they believe in without fear of being politically correct to a fault.
Failure to have this kind of leadership was evident during the last presidential campaign where many questions went unasked for fear of the "race card" being pulled - the electoral effect was devastating. We needed courage from the Republican party to ask the tough questions and not cease until answers were provided. Instead, we had a "tip-toe around the real concerns" campaign and two years later the questions remain.
Obama's citizenship, faith, legal proceedings records, affiliations, associations, and character should have been vigorously explored to the public's satisfaction before he ever took the oath of office. They weren't asked because of the "PC Cloud" looming over the Republican head. To coin a WWII phrase, it's time to "Damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead!"
I pray it's not too late for this country to recover from that lack of courage. Unfortunately, it seems history is repeating itself with our Supreme Court.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Another "Obama Pebble"
COMMENT: Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan has never been a judge. This bothers me on many levels, chief of which is simply the lack of judicial experience (that is, after all, the job she's being nominated to do). Also troubling is the sense that she is a very opinionated individual, and one who has already strongly voiced her disdain for many moral policies in the U.S. It almost feels as if she is coming from another country and her vision is to change America to her way of thinking.
That is EXACTLY what we DON'T need in a Supreme Court Justice. The job is to meticulously, correctly interpret the letter of the law as it applies to the case before them, NOT to rule based on what they think is good and right for America; that's the job of our elected officials (although they are woefully failing at present). There have already been far too many Justices who incorrectly interpret their role in government as policy-making.
Unfortunately, even our President seems to think that a Supreme Court Justice's job goes beyond this. On May 26, 2009, in his nomination speech of Sotomayor, he stated:
"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court."
Is compassion a necessary and required trait of an effective judge? Isn't that the opposite of what a judge must do? How difficult it must be for a judge to have to consistently rule and pass sentence on people when he knows the impact it will have on their lives and those of their mostly innocent families. Should he exercise compassion and tailor the law to fit the situation? NO!!! That is the job of the other branches of government.
Our forefathers were very careful to establish three separate arms of government to safeguard against exactly this. At issue now is that her confirmation would place two of those arms (Executive and Judicial) strongly in favor of this "fundamental change of America." Our only hope is that the safeguarding balance of power envisioned by the framers of the Constitution will save the day as the Legislative branch fails to confirm her as our next Supreme Court Justice.
ARTICLE:
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 5/10/2010 9:30:00 AM
President Barack Obama has nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, saying she will demonstrate independence, integrity, and passion for the law. If confirmed by the Senate, Kagan will become the third woman on the high court. Obama introduced her Monday in the White House's East Room. He called her "my friend" and one of the nation's foremost legal minds.
Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University Law School, is opposed to Kagan partly because she has never been a judge and has limited experience in practicing law. And there are other reasons, he says.
"[I'm opposed] because I think her judicial philosophy is one of an activist, particularly of a transnationalist that wants to use foreign law to interpret our own domestic law," Staver explains, adding that she is "very much in favor of the homosexual agenda and very capable of bringing consensus among a diverse group of people."
Kagan now goes through the committee hearing to a Senate vote -- and Staver tells OneNewsNow that it should not be a rubber-stamp process.
Matt Staver"There's no question that these issues ought to be brought out," the attorney advises. "Obviously the issue of her judicial philosophy and her lack of experience are major concerns -- and all of those need to be brought out during these confirmation hearings.
"Those are significant reasons to not confirm this nomination," he concludes.
Staver recalls an incident while Kagan headed Harvard Law School when she barred the ROTC from the campus because of military policies on homosexuals. He says Kagan has tried to be quiet about the issue of abortion, but has been very vocal on the issue of homosexuality.
COMMENT: Interestingly, the incident at the Harvard Law School eventually came before the Supreme Court, in March 2006, and the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously, 8-0, against FAIR (Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights). I believe that shows just how out of touch she is with reality regarding the constraints and parameters of the legal system. By the way, my source for the Supreme Court story was ABC News.
That is EXACTLY what we DON'T need in a Supreme Court Justice. The job is to meticulously, correctly interpret the letter of the law as it applies to the case before them, NOT to rule based on what they think is good and right for America; that's the job of our elected officials (although they are woefully failing at present). There have already been far too many Justices who incorrectly interpret their role in government as policy-making.
Unfortunately, even our President seems to think that a Supreme Court Justice's job goes beyond this. On May 26, 2009, in his nomination speech of Sotomayor, he stated:
"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court."
Is compassion a necessary and required trait of an effective judge? Isn't that the opposite of what a judge must do? How difficult it must be for a judge to have to consistently rule and pass sentence on people when he knows the impact it will have on their lives and those of their mostly innocent families. Should he exercise compassion and tailor the law to fit the situation? NO!!! That is the job of the other branches of government.
Our forefathers were very careful to establish three separate arms of government to safeguard against exactly this. At issue now is that her confirmation would place two of those arms (Executive and Judicial) strongly in favor of this "fundamental change of America." Our only hope is that the safeguarding balance of power envisioned by the framers of the Constitution will save the day as the Legislative branch fails to confirm her as our next Supreme Court Justice.
ARTICLE:
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 5/10/2010 9:30:00 AM
President Barack Obama has nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, saying she will demonstrate independence, integrity, and passion for the law. If confirmed by the Senate, Kagan will become the third woman on the high court. Obama introduced her Monday in the White House's East Room. He called her "my friend" and one of the nation's foremost legal minds.
Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University Law School, is opposed to Kagan partly because she has never been a judge and has limited experience in practicing law. And there are other reasons, he says.
"[I'm opposed] because I think her judicial philosophy is one of an activist, particularly of a transnationalist that wants to use foreign law to interpret our own domestic law," Staver explains, adding that she is "very much in favor of the homosexual agenda and very capable of bringing consensus among a diverse group of people."
Kagan now goes through the committee hearing to a Senate vote -- and Staver tells OneNewsNow that it should not be a rubber-stamp process.
Matt Staver"There's no question that these issues ought to be brought out," the attorney advises. "Obviously the issue of her judicial philosophy and her lack of experience are major concerns -- and all of those need to be brought out during these confirmation hearings.
"Those are significant reasons to not confirm this nomination," he concludes.
Staver recalls an incident while Kagan headed Harvard Law School when she barred the ROTC from the campus because of military policies on homosexuals. He says Kagan has tried to be quiet about the issue of abortion, but has been very vocal on the issue of homosexuality.
COMMENT: Interestingly, the incident at the Harvard Law School eventually came before the Supreme Court, in March 2006, and the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously, 8-0, against FAIR (Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights). I believe that shows just how out of touch she is with reality regarding the constraints and parameters of the legal system. By the way, my source for the Supreme Court story was ABC News.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
What Happened To Greece?
According to an article in the New York Post: "The Greek government, with its high taxes and profligate spending to support large bureaucracies and social programs, is bankrupt."
COMMENT: With intelligent people knowing that history repeats itself, is anyone in America worried? Under the Obama Administration, are there any parallels to this? Hmmmmm........
COMMENT: With intelligent people knowing that history repeats itself, is anyone in America worried? Under the Obama Administration, are there any parallels to this? Hmmmmm........
Chicken Quip Grounds High-Flying Senate Candidate
COMMENT: In a nutshell, this is what's wrong with politics in America today - when the American voter is so fickle that one comment can drastically alter the electability of a candidate, it's a sad day for America. When a simple statement of fact can be misconstrued, taken out of context, and twisted to paint a candidate in a negative light, it's a sad day for America. When a failing campaign supporting a failing incumbent can get their second wind by derailing the issues in such a way, it's a sad day for America.
Sadly, this is exactly how many aspects of America are going these days - from politics to courtrooms to civil rights to religious beliefs to.....America's demise.
ARTICLE:
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD and SANDRA CHEREB, Associated Press Writers Michael R. Blood And Sandra Chereb, Associated Press Writers – Fri May 7, 9:01 pm ET
CARSON CITY, Nev. – Right wing, left wing, chicken wing. Suddenly Nevada politics is all about chickens — bad news for the Republican Senate front-runner but a ray of hope for struggling Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid.
Sue Lowden recently suggested bartering with doctors for medical care — "our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor." The line from the millionaire casino executive and former beauty queen immediately became a late-night joke and YouTube sensation, and upended a GOP race that had been hers to lose.
Democrats set up a website, "Chickens for Checkups," and dispatched a volunteer in a chicken suit to one of her fundraisers. GOP rival Danny Tarkanian circulated a video of her comments and asked if she were the best candidate to take on Reid.
Early voting begins May 22 for the June 8 primary and the inevitability that was building around Lowden's candidacy has eroded as others in the field of 12 Republicans sense an opening.
And somewhere Reid is cackling.
The Senate majority leader is considered one of the most vulnerable incumbents, struggling with low approval ratings in a state that's reeling economically from an unemployment rate of 13.4 percent — well above the national average — and the highest home foreclosure rate in the nation. Infighting among Republicans and the possibility that Lowden could emerge from the crowded primary as a scuffed-up winner would be a blessing for Reid.
"If the November race is about Harry Reid, Republicans win. If it's not about Harry Reid, it's a flip of the coin," said Ryan Erwin, senior adviser to John Chachas, a Wall Street banker who returned to his native state to enter the Republican race.
NOTE: For remainder of article, visit ATT.net news.
COMMENT: And what's truly sad is that politics can pander to a public whose intelligence level allows them to be swayed by such a misrepresentation of the message (along with ignorance of our history) and end up with the majority of votes. Wake up and wise up America!
Sadly, this is exactly how many aspects of America are going these days - from politics to courtrooms to civil rights to religious beliefs to.....America's demise.
ARTICLE:
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD and SANDRA CHEREB, Associated Press Writers Michael R. Blood And Sandra Chereb, Associated Press Writers – Fri May 7, 9:01 pm ET
CARSON CITY, Nev. – Right wing, left wing, chicken wing. Suddenly Nevada politics is all about chickens — bad news for the Republican Senate front-runner but a ray of hope for struggling Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid.
Sue Lowden recently suggested bartering with doctors for medical care — "our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor." The line from the millionaire casino executive and former beauty queen immediately became a late-night joke and YouTube sensation, and upended a GOP race that had been hers to lose.
Democrats set up a website, "Chickens for Checkups," and dispatched a volunteer in a chicken suit to one of her fundraisers. GOP rival Danny Tarkanian circulated a video of her comments and asked if she were the best candidate to take on Reid.
Early voting begins May 22 for the June 8 primary and the inevitability that was building around Lowden's candidacy has eroded as others in the field of 12 Republicans sense an opening.
And somewhere Reid is cackling.
The Senate majority leader is considered one of the most vulnerable incumbents, struggling with low approval ratings in a state that's reeling economically from an unemployment rate of 13.4 percent — well above the national average — and the highest home foreclosure rate in the nation. Infighting among Republicans and the possibility that Lowden could emerge from the crowded primary as a scuffed-up winner would be a blessing for Reid.
"If the November race is about Harry Reid, Republicans win. If it's not about Harry Reid, it's a flip of the coin," said Ryan Erwin, senior adviser to John Chachas, a Wall Street banker who returned to his native state to enter the Republican race.
NOTE: For remainder of article, visit ATT.net news.
COMMENT: And what's truly sad is that politics can pander to a public whose intelligence level allows them to be swayed by such a misrepresentation of the message (along with ignorance of our history) and end up with the majority of votes. Wake up and wise up America!
Saturday, May 8, 2010
John Rich Responds to Alleged Anti-Gay Remarks Made to Chely Wright
COMMENT: Okay, I stated in my purpose statement that this blog is not all about politics, but rather how events affect the country I love. My opinion is that Chely Wright "came out" to help sell her book - to be a hot topic. She seems to be screaming for tolerance and understanding of who she is while displaying nothing but intolerance and blame for someone with an opposing view. I've included the entire article below, but the part that really bothers me is the last paragraph. Read the rest of the article if you like, but my comments following it will be focused on that last paragraph.
John Rich has responded to a story told by Chely Wright in her new book, 'Like Me,' that some might argue paints him in a very unflattering light. Chely, who recently came out to PEOPLE, tells 'Access Hollywood' that when John (with whom she had performed in an Opryland show years ago) asked her point blank if she was gay, she lied to avoid embarrassment.
"[John] said, 'You're not gay are you?'" Chely recalls. "I said, 'No, John, I'm not.' He said, 'Good, thank God.' And that began a spiral for me ... I had a meltdown shortly after that."
Chely revealed to 'Today' that she nearly committed suicide over the secret life she was living, admitting that she "had a 9 millimeter gun in my mouth."
John is now offering his apologies for a conversation he insists was misconstrued. "I would never pass judgment on any friend of mine," John tells 'Access Hollywood.' "I feel awful that, at this time in Chely's life, my decade old comment -- 'Good, thank God' -- was taken the wrong way. I was clumsily trying to express my relief that even a country boy like me had a one-in-a-million chance of having a beer with a woman as talented and attractive as Chely."
But Chely also claims that during this same conversation, John called homosexuality "sick ... deviant ... and unacceptable to country music fans," though it's not clear whether he was expressing his own opinion or warning her of what many country fans would think if she were to come out. Regardless, John is questioning the timing of Chely's re-telling of the story.
"For years after that conversation, Chely invited me to perform at charity events," he says. "In all that time, I wish she would have said something directly to me before the book's publicity tour, especially since some of the comments attributed to me in the book are not mine. But I am happy for her and only wish her the best in her personal and professional life."
Chely isn't buying his explanation completely, though, partly due to John's history of expressing his conservative views on homosexuality. Back in 2007, he made remarks opposing gay marriage on a Nashville-based talk radio show ... comments met with bad publicity and outcry from the gay community. Chely doubts he's changed his tune since then and questions his apology. "I think he sees what it feels like to take on the gays, and he didn't like it," she tells EW.com. "And I think he may not want to take this on. So he may say, 'Um, I love Chely. I can love the sinner, hate the sin.' He may say that. I don't have to believe it."
COMMENT: I find if almost comical that she places so much weight on his comments while totally glossing over the fact that she lied and wasn't adult enough to be honest when asked point-blank.
However, what bothers me most about this statement is that it clearly shows how Judeo-Christian beliefs are being met with intolerance, abuse, and outrage. Why must someone receive so much bad publicity and outcry for stating one's views? Our society is moving quickly from a position of tolerance to one of "openly embrace my view or be ostracized." Are we, as a society, moving forward? How much different is this reaction from the racists back in the 70s who ostracized people for stating their views supporting equal rights for Blacks?
The only difference I see is that the "good ole boys" have been replaced with the "Godless ole boys."
John Rich has responded to a story told by Chely Wright in her new book, 'Like Me,' that some might argue paints him in a very unflattering light. Chely, who recently came out to PEOPLE, tells 'Access Hollywood' that when John (with whom she had performed in an Opryland show years ago) asked her point blank if she was gay, she lied to avoid embarrassment.
"[John] said, 'You're not gay are you?'" Chely recalls. "I said, 'No, John, I'm not.' He said, 'Good, thank God.' And that began a spiral for me ... I had a meltdown shortly after that."
Chely revealed to 'Today' that she nearly committed suicide over the secret life she was living, admitting that she "had a 9 millimeter gun in my mouth."
John is now offering his apologies for a conversation he insists was misconstrued. "I would never pass judgment on any friend of mine," John tells 'Access Hollywood.' "I feel awful that, at this time in Chely's life, my decade old comment -- 'Good, thank God' -- was taken the wrong way. I was clumsily trying to express my relief that even a country boy like me had a one-in-a-million chance of having a beer with a woman as talented and attractive as Chely."
But Chely also claims that during this same conversation, John called homosexuality "sick ... deviant ... and unacceptable to country music fans," though it's not clear whether he was expressing his own opinion or warning her of what many country fans would think if she were to come out. Regardless, John is questioning the timing of Chely's re-telling of the story.
"For years after that conversation, Chely invited me to perform at charity events," he says. "In all that time, I wish she would have said something directly to me before the book's publicity tour, especially since some of the comments attributed to me in the book are not mine. But I am happy for her and only wish her the best in her personal and professional life."
Chely isn't buying his explanation completely, though, partly due to John's history of expressing his conservative views on homosexuality. Back in 2007, he made remarks opposing gay marriage on a Nashville-based talk radio show ... comments met with bad publicity and outcry from the gay community. Chely doubts he's changed his tune since then and questions his apology. "I think he sees what it feels like to take on the gays, and he didn't like it," she tells EW.com. "And I think he may not want to take this on. So he may say, 'Um, I love Chely. I can love the sinner, hate the sin.' He may say that. I don't have to believe it."
COMMENT: I find if almost comical that she places so much weight on his comments while totally glossing over the fact that she lied and wasn't adult enough to be honest when asked point-blank.
However, what bothers me most about this statement is that it clearly shows how Judeo-Christian beliefs are being met with intolerance, abuse, and outrage. Why must someone receive so much bad publicity and outcry for stating one's views? Our society is moving quickly from a position of tolerance to one of "openly embrace my view or be ostracized." Are we, as a society, moving forward? How much different is this reaction from the racists back in the 70s who ostracized people for stating their views supporting equal rights for Blacks?
The only difference I see is that the "good ole boys" have been replaced with the "Godless ole boys."
Friday, May 7, 2010
Whatever Happened to the Hole in the Ozone Layer?
COMMENT: Interesting read and raises a question in my mind --- did banning aerosols truly help repair the hole in the ozone layer? Read the article, then I've got some questions/assertions/opinions/comments.
Stuart Fox
Life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer
LiveScience.com Stuart Fox
life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer
livescience.com – Thu May 6, 8:50 am ET
Three British scientists shocked the world when they revealed on May 16th, 1985 - 25 years ago - that aerosol chemicals, among other factors, had torn a hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole. The ozone layer, which protects life on Earth from damaging solar radiation, became an overnight sensation. And the hole in the ozone layer became the poster-child for mankind's impact on the planet.
Today, the ozone hole - actually a region of thinned ozone, not actually a pure hole - doesn't make headlines like it used to. The size of the hole has stabilized, thanks to decades of aerosol-banning legislation. But, scientists warn, some danger still remains.
First, the good news: Since the 1989 Montreal Protocol banned the use of ozone-depleting chemicals worldwide, the ozone hole has stopped growing. Additionally, the ozone layer is blocking more cancer-causing radiation than any time in a decade because its average thickness has increased, according to a 2006 United Nations report. Atmospheric levels of ozone-depleting chemicals have reached their lowest levels since peaking in the 1990s, and the hole has begun to shrink.
Now the bad news: The ozone layer has also thinned over the North Pole. This thinning is predicted to continue for the next 15 years due to weather-related phenomena that scientists still cannot fully explain, according to the same UN report . And, repairing the ozone hole over the South Pole will take longer than previously expected, and won't finish until between 2060 and 2075. Scientists now understand that the size of the ozone hole varies dramatically from year to year, which complicates attempts to accurately predict the hole's future size.
Interestingly, recent studies have shown that the size of the ozone hole affects the global temperature. Closing the ozone hole actually speeds up the melting of the polar ice caps, according to a 2009 study from Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.
So even though environmentally friendly laws have successfully reversed the trend of ozone depletion, the lingering effects of aerosol use, and the link between the ozone hole and global warming, virtually ensure that this problem will persist until the end of the century.
COMMENT: Okay, so the article seems to dispute itself several times which, to me, pretty much calls the "experts" assertions into question. First, the aerosol ban helped stabilize and close the ozone layer; secondly, another hole over the North Pole cannot be explained, but is possibly weather-related; thirdly, the layer at the South Pole changes dramatically from year to year; fourthly, closing the ozone layer may actually speed up global warming; BUT lastly, an assertion that "environmentally friendly laws have successfully reversed the trend..."
Could it be faulty logic tying the aerosol ban to the repair of the hole? Is there truly proof that banning aerosols fixed the hole? It seems more logical to me that holes in the ozone are cyclic and are the planet's own air conditioning system to regulate global temperatures. It also seems very clear to me that the experts really don't know, and are passing off intelligent guesses as matters of fact.
Here's another question --- How much of our current "global warming" problem is the result of banning aerosols? Sounds ludicrous on the surface, BUT what is the #1 indicator the global warming drum beaters use as proof --- melting polar ice, right? The only "expert" reason we've heard recently for the polar ice melt is CO2, am I right? So riddle me this...IF the ozone layer affects polar ice, AND if the ozone layer is a global A/C system, AND if we successfully changed the setting on that system with banning aerosols, THEN why is it now all about CO2? Granted, the "A/C" theory was my assertion, but supported by the "experts'" statement. What seems to happen every time man screws with Mother Nature?
I'm no expert, so anything I state here is pure conjecture and opinion based on what I read from the "experts." I do think there are questions that should be answered before the "experts" pass additional intelligent guesses off as fact to the public.
I think there are strong indications here that a political agenda is driving these assertions and professional opinions. I hate it when science and politics jump into the same bed. Hell, I hate when politics jumps into any bed.
Stuart Fox
Life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer
LiveScience.com Stuart Fox
life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer
livescience.com – Thu May 6, 8:50 am ET
Three British scientists shocked the world when they revealed on May 16th, 1985 - 25 years ago - that aerosol chemicals, among other factors, had torn a hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole. The ozone layer, which protects life on Earth from damaging solar radiation, became an overnight sensation. And the hole in the ozone layer became the poster-child for mankind's impact on the planet.
Today, the ozone hole - actually a region of thinned ozone, not actually a pure hole - doesn't make headlines like it used to. The size of the hole has stabilized, thanks to decades of aerosol-banning legislation. But, scientists warn, some danger still remains.
First, the good news: Since the 1989 Montreal Protocol banned the use of ozone-depleting chemicals worldwide, the ozone hole has stopped growing. Additionally, the ozone layer is blocking more cancer-causing radiation than any time in a decade because its average thickness has increased, according to a 2006 United Nations report. Atmospheric levels of ozone-depleting chemicals have reached their lowest levels since peaking in the 1990s, and the hole has begun to shrink.
Now the bad news: The ozone layer has also thinned over the North Pole. This thinning is predicted to continue for the next 15 years due to weather-related phenomena that scientists still cannot fully explain, according to the same UN report . And, repairing the ozone hole over the South Pole will take longer than previously expected, and won't finish until between 2060 and 2075. Scientists now understand that the size of the ozone hole varies dramatically from year to year, which complicates attempts to accurately predict the hole's future size.
Interestingly, recent studies have shown that the size of the ozone hole affects the global temperature. Closing the ozone hole actually speeds up the melting of the polar ice caps, according to a 2009 study from Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.
So even though environmentally friendly laws have successfully reversed the trend of ozone depletion, the lingering effects of aerosol use, and the link between the ozone hole and global warming, virtually ensure that this problem will persist until the end of the century.
COMMENT: Okay, so the article seems to dispute itself several times which, to me, pretty much calls the "experts" assertions into question. First, the aerosol ban helped stabilize and close the ozone layer; secondly, another hole over the North Pole cannot be explained, but is possibly weather-related; thirdly, the layer at the South Pole changes dramatically from year to year; fourthly, closing the ozone layer may actually speed up global warming; BUT lastly, an assertion that "environmentally friendly laws have successfully reversed the trend..."
Could it be faulty logic tying the aerosol ban to the repair of the hole? Is there truly proof that banning aerosols fixed the hole? It seems more logical to me that holes in the ozone are cyclic and are the planet's own air conditioning system to regulate global temperatures. It also seems very clear to me that the experts really don't know, and are passing off intelligent guesses as matters of fact.
Here's another question --- How much of our current "global warming" problem is the result of banning aerosols? Sounds ludicrous on the surface, BUT what is the #1 indicator the global warming drum beaters use as proof --- melting polar ice, right? The only "expert" reason we've heard recently for the polar ice melt is CO2, am I right? So riddle me this...IF the ozone layer affects polar ice, AND if the ozone layer is a global A/C system, AND if we successfully changed the setting on that system with banning aerosols, THEN why is it now all about CO2? Granted, the "A/C" theory was my assertion, but supported by the "experts'" statement. What seems to happen every time man screws with Mother Nature?
I'm no expert, so anything I state here is pure conjecture and opinion based on what I read from the "experts." I do think there are questions that should be answered before the "experts" pass additional intelligent guesses off as fact to the public.
I think there are strong indications here that a political agenda is driving these assertions and professional opinions. I hate it when science and politics jump into the same bed. Hell, I hate when politics jumps into any bed.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Arizona's Immigration Bill - You Be The Judge
COMMENT: Following are the provisions of Arizona's controversial Bill (source was Wikipedia, but I think it's accurate). Personally, I'm still confused why there is such emotional response and racial profiling accusations. The Bill clearly limits the police action and restricts them even more than before regarding when they can call immigration status into question. Has EVERYONE forgotten that this Bill is aimed at people who are here illegally? It's not targeting every brown person in the country. It's not even targeting Mexicans - it's targeting people in the country illegally, and the Bill's purpose was to give law enforcement the ability to hold those individuals found to be in the country illegally. Prior to this Bill, state law enforcement had no authority to hold these people even when they found them to be undocumented.
ARIZONA SENATE BILL 1070: The act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law, and obligates police to make an attempt, when practicable, to determine a person's immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien, during a police stop for some other offense. Police may arrest a person if there is probable cause that the person is an unlawful alien; a person arrested cannot be released without confirmation of the person's legal immigration status by the federal government pursuant to § 1373(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code. A first offense carries a fine of up to $100, plus court costs, and up to 20 days in jail; subsequent offenses can result in up to 30 days in jail. A person is "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: (a) a valid Arizona driver license; (b) a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; (c) a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or (d) any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance. SB 1070 also prohibits state, county, or local officials from limiting or restricting "the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law" and provides that Arizona citizens can sue such agencies or officials to compel such full enforcement.
In addition, the law makes it a crime for anyone, regardless of citizenship or immigration-status, to hire or to be hired from a vehicle which "blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic." Vehicles used in such manner are subject to mandatory impounding. Moreover, "encourag[ing] or induc[ing]" illegal immigration, giving shelter to illegal immigrants, and transporting or attempting to transport an illegal alien, either knowingly or while "recklessly" disregarding the individual's immigration-status, will be considered a class 1 criminal misdemeanor if fewer than ten illegal immigrants are involved, and a class 6 felony if ten or more are involved. The offender will be subject to a fine of at least $1,000 for each illegal alien so transported or sheltered.
ARIZONA HOUSE BILL 2162
On April 30, the Arizona legislature passed, and Governor Brewer signed, House Bill 2162, which modified the law that had been signed a week earlier, with the amended text stating that "prosecutors would not investigate complaints based on race, color or national origin." The new text also states that police may only investigate immigration status incident to a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest", lowers the original fine from a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $100, and changes incarceration limits from 6 months to 20 days for first-time offenders. Arizona is the first state with such a law. Prior law in Arizona, and the law in most other states, does not mandate that law enforcement personnel ask about the immigration status of those they encounter.
COMMENT: I really want to hear from opponents of this Bill. I want to hear the other side from people AFTER they have read the provisions - not those whose "knee-jerk" reaction is that it's an invitation for racial profiling. Thanks to the Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, all law enforcement and judicial actions in Arizona are more closely scrutinized than any other state in the country. In an interview, Sheriff Arpaio stated there have been 9 Federal authorities going over all of his operations for 1-1/2 years without a single infraction noted.
I'm confident they worded this Bill very carefully AND will be very restrictive in it's enforcement - they can ill afford an actual racial profiling charge with the microscope they find themselves under.
ARIZONA SENATE BILL 1070: The act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law, and obligates police to make an attempt, when practicable, to determine a person's immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien, during a police stop for some other offense. Police may arrest a person if there is probable cause that the person is an unlawful alien; a person arrested cannot be released without confirmation of the person's legal immigration status by the federal government pursuant to § 1373(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code. A first offense carries a fine of up to $100, plus court costs, and up to 20 days in jail; subsequent offenses can result in up to 30 days in jail. A person is "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: (a) a valid Arizona driver license; (b) a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; (c) a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or (d) any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance. SB 1070 also prohibits state, county, or local officials from limiting or restricting "the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law" and provides that Arizona citizens can sue such agencies or officials to compel such full enforcement.
In addition, the law makes it a crime for anyone, regardless of citizenship or immigration-status, to hire or to be hired from a vehicle which "blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic." Vehicles used in such manner are subject to mandatory impounding. Moreover, "encourag[ing] or induc[ing]" illegal immigration, giving shelter to illegal immigrants, and transporting or attempting to transport an illegal alien, either knowingly or while "recklessly" disregarding the individual's immigration-status, will be considered a class 1 criminal misdemeanor if fewer than ten illegal immigrants are involved, and a class 6 felony if ten or more are involved. The offender will be subject to a fine of at least $1,000 for each illegal alien so transported or sheltered.
ARIZONA HOUSE BILL 2162
On April 30, the Arizona legislature passed, and Governor Brewer signed, House Bill 2162, which modified the law that had been signed a week earlier, with the amended text stating that "prosecutors would not investigate complaints based on race, color or national origin." The new text also states that police may only investigate immigration status incident to a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest", lowers the original fine from a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $100, and changes incarceration limits from 6 months to 20 days for first-time offenders. Arizona is the first state with such a law. Prior law in Arizona, and the law in most other states, does not mandate that law enforcement personnel ask about the immigration status of those they encounter.
COMMENT: I really want to hear from opponents of this Bill. I want to hear the other side from people AFTER they have read the provisions - not those whose "knee-jerk" reaction is that it's an invitation for racial profiling. Thanks to the Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, all law enforcement and judicial actions in Arizona are more closely scrutinized than any other state in the country. In an interview, Sheriff Arpaio stated there have been 9 Federal authorities going over all of his operations for 1-1/2 years without a single infraction noted.
I'm confident they worded this Bill very carefully AND will be very restrictive in it's enforcement - they can ill afford an actual racial profiling charge with the microscope they find themselves under.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The Blueprint
Hello blogger friends! In my endeavor to piece together what's going on in America, I came across a book that is very intriguing. It's called "The Blueprint" and is written by Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski. Their bios were very interesting and gave me the impression it would not be too radical of a viewpoint and possibly form a better framework than I'm attempting. As the references encompass 23 pages at the back of the book, I felt pretty comfortable that they had done their research.
I'll read this book and post my thoughts here. Anyone who knows me well knows that I usually try to see things objectively and normally ensure the sources and facts are being fairly represented (yes, I recently removed a post on my blog because I failed to do this), so I'll be scrutinizing this book pretty closely.
Stay tuned for further information.
I'll read this book and post my thoughts here. Anyone who knows me well knows that I usually try to see things objectively and normally ensure the sources and facts are being fairly represented (yes, I recently removed a post on my blog because I failed to do this), so I'll be scrutinizing this book pretty closely.
Stay tuned for further information.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Letter To The Editor (Refused Publication)
COMMENT: I cannot verify the authenticity of this "Letter To The Editor," nor can I prove that the Orange County Register refused to print it. However, I include it in my blog because the essence is true and is at the crux of the issue regarding our immigration problems.
From: "David LaBonte"
My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to "print" it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register:
Dear Editor:
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer.
Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.
They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.
Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy , France and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan . They were defending the United States of America as one people.
When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.
And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.
(signed)
Rosemary LaBonte
COMMENT: I would love for someone opposed to the law Arizona passed to state their feelings on the content of this letter. I would prefer it be someone who actually KNOWS the law Arizona passed, or is at least informed about the facts. My guess is I will not hear from anyone matching that description as I don't believe that person actually exists. :-)
From: "David LaBonte"
My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to "print" it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register:
Dear Editor:
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer.
Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.
They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.
Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy , France and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan . They were defending the United States of America as one people.
When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.
And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.
(signed)
Rosemary LaBonte
COMMENT: I would love for someone opposed to the law Arizona passed to state their feelings on the content of this letter. I would prefer it be someone who actually KNOWS the law Arizona passed, or is at least informed about the facts. My guess is I will not hear from anyone matching that description as I don't believe that person actually exists. :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)