Friday, November 30, 2007
With another hurricane season set to end this Friday, a controversy is brewing over decisions of the National Hurricane Center to designate several borderline systems as tropical storms.
Some meteorologists, including former hurricane center director Neil Frank, say as many as six of this year's 14 named tropical systems might have failed in earlier decades to earn "named storm" status.
"They seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to," said Frank, who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now chief meteorologist for KHOU-TV. "This year, I would put at least four storms in a very questionable category, and maybe even six."
Most of the storms in question briefly had tropical storm-force winds of at least 39 mph. But their central pressure — another measure of intensity — suggested they actually remained depressions or were non-tropical systems.
Any inconsistencies in the naming of tropical storms and hurricanes have significance far beyond semantics.
The number of a season's named storms forms the foundation of historical records used to determine trends in hurricane activity. Insurance companies use these trends to set homeowners' rates. And such information is vital to scientists trying to determine whether global warming has had a measurable impact on hurricane activity.
So now whenever there's a sprinkle outside, count on the stooges at the NHC to give it a name. Look forward to Scattered Shower Mike, Breezy and Cool Nancy, and Thunder Storm Hector. Rather than admit that man cannot dictate or change the weather by driving Priuses, reading by candle-light, or using less toilet paper, the shameless Gaia worshippers at the NHC will just name everything that produces wind and rain and keep their statistics up. Uh oh, it's starting to get cloudy, our home insurance might go up.
Let's name this Shemp...
This one Curly...
And this one we'll call Moe.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Does the US want the UN having (increasing) power that we have no control over at all?
When did the US get involved with
Was this woman's story[Teddy Bear named Mohammed] highly publicized?
Firstly, the U.S. signed on to the UN in San Francisco in 1945 following the end of WWII, along with all the other countries. It was devised as a collective body to diffuse conflicts between countries before they erupt into world war. It's a nice concept if that's all it did, but you and I know better. Let's assume for a minute that countries were willing to surrender their sovereignty to the UN, which we won't do but just for argument's sake, the UN resolutions are non-binding, meaning you don't have to comply if you don't want to. Without the teeth of enforcement, what's the point? Gulf wars I and II were begun because the US had to be the teeth of enforcement on behalf of the UN. And we were willing to be the teeth of the UN because it was America the terrorists were/are targeting. Over the years the UN has devolved into a bickering collection of self-serving representatives who're corrupt to the core. The Iraqi oil-for-food scandal, the largest scandal in the history of the world in terms of dollars, was administered by Kofi Annan himself, his son, the French, Germans, and others at the UN. Yet the US taxpayer continues to be mugged into underwriting the activities of the crooks under UN protection.
To answer the first question: if you are a multinationalist like Hillary and other democrats, you think the U.S. is too powerful and it's not fair that we are so rich and others are so poor by comparison. The idea of a world government overseeing a socialist utopia in which wealth is taken from those who earn it and given to other countries who didn't, is the stuff of your fondest dreams. In short, yes, liberals would cede sovereignty of the US over to the UN and would submit to it's will. The thought of that makes me vomit a little bit in my mouth. It should do that for anyone who truly loves this country.
Question 3: She was arrested a few months ago but the story didn't reach the news services until her sentence was announced. Curiously, the biggest defenders of womens' rights, N.O.W., is refusing to even comment on it. For the same reason Pat Ireland and the gals over at NOW sided with Bill Clinton in the face of multiple rape and harrassment accusations by numerous women, politics is the true trump card for feminists, not womens' rights. Right now, Muslims are the darlings of the media and as such, they can do no wrong. Just like Bill Clinton, as long as he advanced the abortion agenda, he could/and did literally get away with rape in the eyes of the gals at NOW.
I hope that helped freedom.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
When asked about the difference between his health care plan and Sen. Hillary Clinton's plan, Obama said they're not all that different.
But, he said, Clinton has not specified how she would enforce a mandate for coverage.
"[It's] more of a political point that she's trying to make rather than a real point," Obama said.
The issue of mandates for health care has driven the debate between Clinton and Obama for the past few weeks. Obama says he would enforce his mandate for health care for all children by fining parents if they refused to allow health care coverage for their children.
"I am happy to be very clear how we enforce mandates for children, and the reason is because children don't have an option."
So President Obama will use the power of the federal government to force American families to fork over money for a health-care program in which they do not want to participate? Then if they wisely refuse, he'll fine them? How much? What happens when they refuse to pay? Will he garnish their wages to generously pay for the health-care of degenerate riff-raff who choose to remain unemployed and poor? What if the family is self-employed? Will doctors become agents of the Imperial State, ratting out families who they know aren't participating? Will children in school be encouraged to alert teachers/snitches if they know their parents are against nationalized health-care? As a last resort, will BO throw parents in jail for non-participation? What will happen to children whose parents refuse to participate no matter what? Will they be placed in State orphanages?
You think I'm being hysterical but seriously think it through, once you start down he road of the federal government forcing free citizens to participate against their will, in a program based on socialism, what are the teeth of enforcement? Without teeth, there is only chaos and lawlessness....witness the immigration program. There is only one program I can think of in which each American is forced to participate....the seizure from our checks of federal income taxes. The enforcement teeth of that progam are heavy fines, financial ruin at the hands of the federal government agents, jail time, lasting credit and financial scars that follow over a lifetime. Is that the kind of teeth BO is talking about when he says "enforcement"? Is that the kind of President you want for America?
Finally and most importantly, where exactly in the Constitution is the power of forced socialized health-care awarded to the federal government?
The creeping rot of socialism is coming to America people and you'd better wake up and do something about it. Every day Congress is looking for ways to get around the Constitution and saddle us with socialist policies like universal health-care while we sit around watching MTV, pretending to be horrified when Britney shows her privates yet again this week. There is a lot at stake next year. Educate yourselves, pay attention, and vote for the candidate who most mirrors your ideals.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
VILLIERS-LE-BEL, France - Rampaging youths rioted for a second night in Paris' suburbs, firing at officers and ramming burning cars into buildings. At least 77 officers were injured, a senior police union official said Tuesday.
The overnight violence was more intense than during three weeks of rioting in 2005, said the official, Patrice Ribeiro. He said that "genuine urban guerillas with conventional weapons and hunting weapons" were among the rioters.
The riots were triggered by the deaths of two teens killed in a crash with a police patrol car on Sunday in Villiers-le-Bel, a blue-collar town in Paris' northern suburbs.
Notice anything missing from the article? Conspicuously absent is the common nationality of the "youths". Care to take a wild shot in the dark? That's right, they're the shiftless degenerate kids of Muslim immigrants. They dropped out of school, refuse to get jobs, and though they enjoy the generous socialist benefits of French citizenship, they remain hostile to conformity and authority.
This is what happens when you get a critical mass of unassimilated, disaffected, people of a foreign nationality who don't identify with the nationality of the host country. They become hostile and cause trouble. Don't be surprised when this sort of thing starts to happen in the southwest U.S. as huge numbers of unassimilated Mexicans overrun the cities there.
UPDATE: Yesterday I told you about the British first-grade teacher in the Sudan who was arrested for allowing her children to name a stuffed teddy bear Mohammed. She was sentenced to 80 lashes for defaming the name of the great and benevolent prophet. It is not uncommon for people to suffer permanent, even life-threatening, damage from such punishment. And for what, because her Muslim first-graders named a teddy-bear the most common name in Islam....Mohammed.
Monday, November 26, 2007
I know you're sitting out there frittering away your employer's valuable time reading TRR, and in addition to wondering, "How long before the boss fires me?", you're also probably wondering, "What's that Ed listening to these days?"
Well I'm glad you asked. Here's the eclectic mix to which I've been jamming today...
Meat Puppets...Too High To Die
Expanding Man...Head to the Ground
The Cure...The Cure
The Jayhawks...Tomorrow the Green Grass
Proposals to dump large quantities of nitrogen-rich chemical in the Pacific as a quick fix for climate change have emerged at a UN treaty meeting in London.
An Australian company is planning to dump 500 tons of urea into the sea between Philippines and Borneo in order to stimulate algal blooms.
Governments meeting to discuss whether the oceans should be used for experiments aimed at "fixing" carbon from the atmosphere heard that an Australian company is planning to dump 500 tons of industrially-produced urea - a substance that naturally occurs in urine - into the sea between Philippines and Borneo.
The idea is to pump the urea into barren areas of the ocean on the edge of the continental shelf to stimulate the growth of plant plankton.
Phytoplankton absorb carbon dioxide from sea water. Fish eat them and when they die some fall to the bottom, potentially removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
You know how when you're in the ocean swimming and that patch of warmer ocean water floats by? Turns out it's not just the sunshine differentially warming the water. It's a smug, annoying environmentalist standing next to you saving the whales by peeing on your leg. (Yuck!)
A British schoolteacher has been arrested in Sudan accused of insulting Islam's Prophet, after she allowed her pupils to name a teddy bear Muhammad.
Colleagues of Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, said she made an "innocent mistake" by letting the six and seven-year-olds choose the name.
Ms Gibbons was arrested after several parents made complaints.
The BBC's correspondent Amber Henshaw said Ms Gibbons' punishment could be up to six months in jail, 40 lashes or a fine.
Seriously, how many women have to get stoned, gang-raped, beaten to within an inch of their lives, how many homosexuals have to be hung by the neck, how many violent riots, how much destruction, misery, and chaos in the name of defending Islam does there have to be before you admit that Islam is a radical religion that is incompatible with what educated, reasonable people recognize as fundamental human rights?
And I don't want to hear, "But Ed, these instances are isolated, not the norm. Islam is peaceful when practiced as it was intended"
Wrong you are! Where exactly is Islam practiced peacefully? Only one place...the U.S. But that's only because stoning, rape, and hanging are crimes regardless of their religious mandate. You wait, at some point an Islamic sect will petition for and be awarded, in the U.S., an Islamic sanctuary in which they can practice Sharia law regardless of it's lawlessness and cruelty.
No, these actions are not isolated individuals acting on their own. Each instance we hear about is the result of nation state embracing parts of the radical form of Islam as law, then acting accordingly. Whether it's stonings in Pakistan, honor-killings in India, rapes and hangings in Iran, lashing in Saudi Arabia, or incarceration and whipping in the Sudan, these are States enforcing radical Islam as law.
Religion of Peace.....that phrase rings a tad hollow to the girl in Saudi Arabia who received at the hands of the State, 200 lashes last week for having gotten raped.
(11/3/2007) Tempo Interaktif reports that Angkasa Pura - the management of Bali's Ngurah Rai International Airport are concerned that the large number of additional private charter flights expected in Bali during the UN Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) December 3-15, 2007, will exceed the carrying capacity of apron areas. To meet the added demand for aircraft storage officials are allocating "parking space" at other airports in Indonesia.
The hypocrisy of UN bureaucrats, and American politicians, knows no bounds. I'm sure the Goreacle will be on hand to bless the proceedings by sprinkling holy water collected from melting glaciers or some such idiocy. I wonder how many American families could exist for a year, and still not equal the carbon footprint of one flight in a Leer jet to Bali?
Q: Why is the US taxpayer the primary funding source for this repulsive club for America-haters? Answer: Because breathless panic over climate change is only the red herring for what's really happening. By alarming everybody about phony climate change, politicians in the US of both parties, are counting on the stupid American populace to clamor for rescue and for our government to save us from the global warming boogey-man. They know that once we are sufficiently alarmed about the looming crisis, no matter how imaginary, we will submit to any curtailing of our activities because after-all, it's for the greater good. We'll allow our government to curtail our consumption of goods and food, our travel habits, our waste, our spending, where we can go on vacation, the list goes on and on of the facets of our lives our government desires to control. Politicians always want to control more and more of your lives. It's the source of the political power to which they are addicted.
And the bigger picture is that the UN wants to control our government, which is in control of us. The UN wants the US to cede control of the internet over to it. The UN wants to tax the US for having a carbon footprint that is too big. The UN wants to have control over the US military to use as it's private meals-on-wheels unit to send to anywhere in the world they wish....meals funded entirely by the US taxpayer of course. The UN wants to have observatory rights over our elections to make sure they are "fair"---translated, to make sure a good UN-loving liberal like Hillary is President. The UN wants the US to ask permission from it whenever we need to defend ourselves, either pre-emptively or reactionarily.
You see, this whole global warming nonsense isn't about saving the planet. It's about controlling the lives of the little people, specifically the lives of American little people. Heaven help us if Hillary gets voted queen of America.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
SYDNEY, Australia - Conservative Prime Minister John Howard suffered a humiliating defeat Saturday at the hands of the left-leaning opposition, whose leader has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and withdraw Australia's combat troops from Iraq.
Labor Party head Kevin Rudd's pledges on global warming and Iraq move Australia sharply away from policies that had made Howard one of President Bush's staunchest allies.
Rudd has named global warming as his top priority, and his signing of the Kyoto Protocol will leave the U.S. as the only industrialized country not to have joined it.
Kyoto, besides being a complete farce, is a huge threat to free-market capitalism. Adhereing to it's idiotic policies will dramatically cripple Australia's manufacturing power by drastically restricting industrial carbon emissions to 17th century levels...all to avoid the imaginary menace of global warming. Of course developing countries like India and China will be exempt and are free to pollute to their heart's content.
Another part of Kyoto that the media intentionally omit from their breathless reporting about the ice caps and polar bears, is once a nation signs it, the protocol allows for punitive fines to be levied against offending countries...i.e. the U.S. and Australia.
The Kyoto Protocol allows the world to seize the wealth of countries like the U.S. and Australia while punishing us, the way our Congress seizes the wealth of the tobacco, fast-food, and alcohol industries. Rather than develop their own countries, they'll just steal from ours...or punish us trying.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Go here and read the whole thing.
Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.
But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.
Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.
Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.
He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.
Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.
At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.
"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.
Apparently there's a whole movement of women in the UK who have sterilized themselves in order to reduce their carbon footprint. If only we could convince them all to stop having stupid eco-babies, we could finally be rid of them in a single generation.
My wife asked, only half jokingly, "Why doesn't she just kill herself? That'll really reduce her carbon footprint.".......I couldn't have summed it up any better myself.
I just wanted to bring your attention to a new feature which you may have noticed in the lower right corner below the hit counter. It's a hit locator. It refreshes every few days or after a certain number of new hits. You can click on the world map and see whose reading this blog, and with whom you're debating in the comments thread. Kinda cool!
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
SHENANDOAH, Iowa — Hillary Rodham Clinton ridiculed Democratic rival Barack Obama on Tuesday for his contention that living in a foreign country as a child helped give him a better understanding of the foreign policy challenges facing the U.S.
‘‘Voters will have to judge if living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face,’’ Clinton said. ‘‘I think we need a president with more experience than that, someone the rest of the world knows, looks up to and has confidence in.’’
I think Hillary would make an abysmal President, but electing Obama would be like me being elected to fly the next shuttle mission.
President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush said Tuesday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's experience as first lady has prepared her to handle the "pressure" of a presidential race and the White House...
That's almost as stupid as me saying my experience having my wisdom teeth removed has prepared me for a career in oral surgery. I think what we're seeing is lame-duck syndrome. The Bush's think that if they're magnanimous and nice to people here at the end, then history will judge his administration favorably, and maybe Hillary won't say nasty things about them during the campaign next year. I wouldn't hold my breath there W.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
FRANCE almost ground to a halt today as strikes by workers protesting against their President's plan to make them work harder and longer crippled the country's infrastructure.
Teachers, postal workers and other civil servants joined forces with protesting transport workers in strikes to challenge Nicolas Sarkozy's plans to reform the economy.
The French worker already only works 35 hours a week, gets weeks-long government paid vacations, and job security regardless of how shiftless and lazy he is as a worker. Sarkozy wants to bring his country back to the productive, competitive, world economic power France once was, but the French people are lazy and used to a care-free life of decadence and ease. They don't want to work harder or longer hours, take shorter vacations, or compete for job security the way Americans have to, and they resent being told so. And they are willing to cripple their country in order to protect their spoiled, self-indulgent life-styles.
The French workers, like many sniveling liberals here in the U.S., don't care that government-funded socialism is unsustainable over the long term and at some point, somebody's got to pay for it all. They want their slice of the free cake that somebody else paid for and nobody's going to deprive them of it. Look what France has devolved into, a sad second-rate country made of lazy degenerates crying for someone to provide for their needs...what a national embarrassment!
OK, for all you shiftless degenerates out there who think that single-payer, Hillary-style, free health-care would be a great thing for America, watch this short clip (about 5 minutes) and then argue in favor of socialized medicine in the comments thread.
She said that eating meat and dairy and chopping down trees in order to breed livestock was seriously damaging the environment and she suggested there were more eco-friendly alternatives to using cow's milk.
"Why don't we drink rat's milk or cat's milk or dog's milk?" she asked.
How exactly does one milk a rat, Heather? And how many rats does it take to provide enough milk for the bowl of Coco Puffs that I enjoy every morning? Would there be vast rat farms in the mid-west to satisfy the demand for milk?
Celebrity environmentalists are the single most annoying idiots in the idiot kingdom. Seriously, rat's milk? And I thought Sheryl Crowe and her one-square-of-toilet-paper campaign had plumbed the greatest depths of stupidity. Well there's a new champion of stupid....Heather Mills........rat's milk!
Hat tip to Moonbattery.
Question: Now why would SanFranNan object to businesses requiring that employees speak the accepted common language of business in America?
Answer: Because liberals envision America as a multicultural society in which all languages and cultures are equal and must be embraced. To liberals, there's no such thing as "American". Society must conform to and gladly accept whatever language or bizarre cultural rituals immigrants choose to practice, regardless of how difficult and unpleasant it makes life for the rest of us. To Nancy, no business can require an employee to speak English, rather that business must become multi-lingual to accommodate that employee. How dare we impose our culture and language on others?
I, and others, have said it before; a nation without defined and controlled borders, a common language, and a common culture will quickly cease to exist as a nation, and instead be reduced to a disparate, cacophonous collection of sniveling tribes.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Women are being given controversial "virginity repair" operations on the NHS, it emerged last night.
Taxpayers funded 24 hymen replacement operations between 2005 and 2006, official figures revealed.
And increasing numbers of women are paying up to £4,000 in private clinics for the procedure apparently under pressure from future spouses or in-laws who believe they should be virgins on their wedding night.
Doctors said most patients are immigrants or British of ethnic origin.
The trend has been condemned by critics as a sign of social regression driven by Islamic fundamentalists. Some countries have made hymen reconstruction operations illegal.
And just in case you think I'm unfairly impuning a culture not my own, out of xenophobia and ignorance, read this...
Dr Magdy Hend, consultant gynaecologist at the Regency Clinic, Harley Street, London, who started hymen reconstruction more than 18 years ago in the Middle East and the Gulf, said: "In some cultures they like to see that the women will bleed on the wedding night. If the wife or bride is not a virgin, it is a big shame on the family."
How absurd, stupid, and insecure are these Muslim men that they think hymen repair means their wives didn't have sex with people besides them already? And how barbaric to want to see the woman you love(and by "love" I mean "own") bleed in pain on your wedding night to prove she's a virgin? If your culture demands that you give your daughter's husband three pigs and a puka-shell necklace as a dowrey, fine. If your culture demands that you wear a bamboo pole on your penis as a sign of virility, fine. I can respect that, but even these primitive jungle tribesmen aren't deluded enough to think that hymen repair restores a woman's virginity.
The only funny thing about this story is that Great Britain's idiotic socialized medicine system is paying for it all. And in doing so, they're welcoming still more of the creeping infestation of radical Islamic culture into their own.
"I think there is going to be a commitment to universal coverage. I don’t think it’s necessarily going to be a sector by sector process. I think you either need to go in whole hog or not. We tried to sort of squeeze the middle here with doing children and doing seniors, and trying to squeeze it. If anything happens, it would more likely look something like this: you would extend eligibility for children from 200% of poverty to 300% of poverty, and create resources to insure the parents of those children.”
300% of poverty plus the parents?--that means that a family of four whose household income was roughly $64,000, would have their health-care paid for by other, more productive tax-payers. Even single adults who make up to $31,000 would be covered. As with all democrat proposals, regardless of how disastrous they might be, it's always for the children. But this new expansion of S-CHIP covers vast numbers of adults too. See where this is going? By incrementally covering more and more of the population, eventually enough voters will be dependent on "government"(read-fellow taxpayers) for their medical care, that it won't matter. Those hand-out voters will continue to vote for the people who guarantee that somebody else pays their medical bills. And the liberals will have succeeded in seizing control of the single largest slice of the American economy besides national defense.
"But Ed" you whine, "what about the poor little children whose parents don't have insurance?"
Fine, if their parents make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to pay for their own insurance, that's assuming their employers don't generously provide coverage, then cover only the children under 18 or 21 even. I don't have a problem with that. Why not just expand Medicaid if all you want to do is cover the children? But if what you want is to sneak universal, government-controlled, European-style, socialized health-care onto Americans while they're busy playing guitar hero and watching reality TV, then stealthily expanding the S-CHIP program during an election year is the perfect way to go about it.
You see entitlement-minded, MTV Americans have come to believe that employer-provided health-care is a birth right, an obligation. It's not! Employers offer coverage as a negotiating tool to compete for labor, that's all. You don't have a right to coverage by somebody elses money? But this is the mindset that democrats love because lazy, degenerate Americans will support making somebody else pay their medical bills.
I don't care who the nominee is, vote R next November or Hillary-Care v2.1 is right around the corner. It might be anyway.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
I'm growing a little tired of debating the whole man-made global warming charade, and up until now, the dreadful collection of despots, thugs, and criminals known as the United Nations has stayed safely at a distance. But that's all about to change, especially if Hillary gets elected queen. First, here are are a few paragraphs from a recent article reporting on the UN's latest declaration about the menace of global warming...
VALENCIA, Spain - The Earth is hurtling toward a warmer age at a quickening pace, a Nobel-winning U.N. scientific panel said in a landmark report Saturday, warning of inevitable human suffering and the threat of species extinction.
The report also offered blueprints to avert the worst catastrophes. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said climate change imperils "the most precious treasures of our planet."
The potential impact of global warming is "so severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action will do," Ban told the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change after it issued its fourth and final report this year.
That's the usual meaningless diatribe we've come to expect from the useless UN, but here's the kicker...
The report does not commit participating governments to any course of action. But it is important because it is adopted by consensus, meaning those countries accept the underlying science and cannot disavow its conclusions. It provides a common scientific baseline for the political talks.
Translated, that means the UN will reserve the right to levy taxes on countries which do not meet the ridiculous emissions goals set forth by them. The UN thugs have always wanted a larger piece of the American economic pie and punitive emissions taxes to save the Earth from the imaginary menace of global warming is how they'll go about it. A conservative in the oval office will simply tell the UN where to stick their taxes, but a liberal democrat, i.e. Hillary, will subserviently bow to the UN demand because liberals place the financial gluttony of the UN before the economic welfare of the US. Liberals don't think it's fair that America is richer than other countries and would gladly "share" our wealth with poorer countries....as if tax-payers don't fork over hundreds of times more in aid than any other country on Earth already.
Friday, November 16, 2007
I don't have a lot of time to participate on your blog, but I at least skim it daily - I learn a lot - very interesting!"
Well thanks for stopping by Freedom. I always enjoy your comments and I think you should dive in more often.
Here's my take on Ron Paul: That he's a libertarian tells you most of what you need to about his positions on the issues...he believes in the supreme rights of the individual, limited government meddling in our lives, a reactionary military rather than a pre-emptive one, and basically the right of the individual to pursue happiness in any way, both personal and economic, that doesn't obstruct any other individual from pursuing happiness. He's fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Actually, most conservatives fall into that category too, though they won't admit it. The big difference between Ron Paul and rank-and-file republicans is that he doesn't wish to legislate morality as do Bush, Rove, and others.
That's the basic question you have to ask yourself about the republican and libertarian parties.
That being said, the Libertarian party is a marginal party and you could say that voting for Ron Paul is a wasted vote or a vote not cast against Hillary. On the other hand, a purist would say voting your beliefs, regardless of chances of winning, is as useful as voting for a major party candidate. Because if enough people do that, other major candidates start to take notice the next time around, and compete for those votes by embracing the principles those voters respond to. To reflexively vote for republicans just re-enforces the dreadful big-government policies they have embraced. The point is that your vote counts regardless for whom it is cast.
Bottom line, the longer Ron Paul stays in the race, putting his ideas out there, and getting financial support for them, the more the other candidates will take notice and move in the libertarian direction in order to win those votes. To me, that can only be a good thing.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
A team of women who represented the United States at the world bridge championships in Shanghai last month is facing sanctions, including a yearlong ban from competition, for a spur-of-the-moment protest.
At issue is a crudely lettered sign, scribbled on the back of a menu, that was held up at an awards dinner and read, “We did not vote for Bush.”…
“What we were trying to say, not to Americans but to our friends from other countries, was that we understand that they are questioning and critical of what our country is doing these days, and we want you to know that we, too, are critical,” Ms. Greenberg said, stressing that she was speaking for herself and not her six teammates.
Look, when you represent your country overseas, you cannot go around undermining it's efforts. (Of course democrats, specifically Clinton and Carter, do this all the time, and that's why I think of them as America-haters) When you sign a contract with an organization, a contract that specifically forbids politicization of your position, and then you do something overtly political, you deserve to be punished.
And I know what your argument will be before the "thought" even forms in the rudimentary ganglion that serves as your brain..."But Ed, she's just exercising her first amendment right of free speech." Sorry hippie, your right of free speech ends where your signature on a contract banning such speech begins. Nothing's stopping her from making a jack-ass of herself any time she wants, but when she's officially representing an apolitical organization which paid for her to attend the event, political speech is forbidden. Virtually every employment contract in the world contains a clause in which dismissal is included as punishment for behavior that the organization deems unacceptable.
I hope this vile wretch gets mocked, ridiculed, and harrassed when she comes home.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
If a person of Hispanic origin rapes a woman and, in an attempt to catch this violent criminal, police publish a description identifying the suspect's general racial makeup, is that a "racist" thing to do? Apparently the folks at KMYL (1190 AM) in the metro Phoenix, Arizona area think it is. It appears that we cannot even discuss the basic appearance of a wanted criminal now without being "racist" about it all.
The story comes to us from The East Valley Tribune, where the paper quotes the vice president for programming at KMYL as saying that calling a criminal an Hispanic is "racial profiling."
How stupid! This isn't a race issue, it's a law enforcement issue. When somebody commits a crime and the police want everybody to be aware and alert so they don't fall victim too, they issue a description of the suspect. It doesn't matter if he's African-American, Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, or whatever. Saying what a wanted criminal looks like isn't racist, it's good police work. What are they going to say, "Be on the look out for a guy"? Yeah that really narrows the suspect pool down.
The problem is that nowadays everybody who views themselves as a minority has a hair trigger about perceived racism and racial profiling. The mere mention of race, skin color, ethnicity, or any characteristic that suggest it is perceived as a racially insensitive remark and the offending person must attend mandatory sensitivity training, where in the mother of all ironies, he'll be lectured about striving for a color-blind society even as he's lectured about the special privileges and protections of minority status based solely on skin color.
UPDATE: So at home this morning on the PC, all the fonts on the page were extremely small, unreadably small. In preview/edit mode everything looked normal. Now, I'm at work on my MAC and everything seems fine. Let me know in the comments thread if you notice anything wrong....and I don't mean "Ed, you're a horrible writer" or "Ed, you're a xenophobic homer who hates anybody who doesn't look like you" or "Ed, you think you're funny getting laughs at the expense of others, but you're not". I've heard it all and am unphased by it. What I mean is the physical appearance of the blog, but of course you knew that.
UPDATE #2: YEEEAAAA!!! Apparently something in the post about the Muslim car disagreed with the display on PCs. When I deleted it, everything reverted back to normal, so I took the opportunity to give the TRR a new look. I may or may not leave it this way. Feel free to criticize the new look and suggest different color schemes, as always, in the comments thread...heck, you feel free to criticize everything else, mine as well.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s campaign admitted Friday that it planted a global warming question in Newton, Iowa, Tuesday during a town hall meeting to discuss clean energy.
The story here will be how the media glosses over this deception. They want badly for Hillary to get elected so they will report no negative thing about Hillary unless they're forced to. You see, liberals(which 90% of the media are) see nothing wrong with doing literally anything to get elected if you are a liberal. They view conservatives as evil and the reigns of power a liberal birthright, therefore; using any means necessary to defeat conservatism is justified. If this had been a republican or liberterian who got caught cheating, there'd be no measure to the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the national media. It would make front page news for days, or until the poll numbers for that candidate were sufficiently low as to no longer pose a threat to their chosen liberal candidate.
This post is more about the hypocrisy of the media than about Hillary....we've known for years that the Clinton machine uses deception and lies to avoid tough questions and manipulate the dolts who're voting for her.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
WASHINGTON: Both sides in a closely watched legal battle over the District of Columbia's strict gun-control law are urging the Supreme Court to hear the case. If the justices agree - a step they may announce as early as Tuesday - the Roberts court is very likely to find itself back on the front lines of the culture wars with an intensity unmatched even by the cases on abortion and race that defined the court's last term.
The question is whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual right to "keep and bear arms." If the answer is yes, as a federal appeals court held in March, the justices must decide what such an interpretation means for a statute that bars all possession of handguns and that requires any other guns in the home to be disassembled or secured by trigger locks.
Look, every where gun-control has been tried, UK, Canada, Australia, campus gun-free zones, there is an immediate sky-rocketing of violence against the unarmed citizenry. Likewise, everywhere there are liberal conceal/carry permits, there has been a dramatic drop in violent crime. Which one of you out there is brave/stupid enough to claim that criminals will give back their guns if gun-control laws are passed? It'll be open season on innocent people if we allow the federal government to force us to disarm ourselves.
"But Ed" you whine, "they're talking about trigger guards and disassembling your home weapon, not confiscation". You moron, what good is a disassembled gun if a bad guy is crashing through your front door at 3 in the morning, or car-jacking your wife, or shooting up the school your kids go to?
If you are so in favor of gun-control, then I dare you to put a sign in your front yard declaring your property to be gun-free. The only reason you are alive today is because the bad guys don't know if you have a gun or not.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.
If you want to read the whole thing, go here. It's worth it.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
A woman who leaned over a station platform to vomit was hit in the head by a 65mph train – and SURVIVED.
Amazingly, the 28-year-old wasn’t knocked on to the tracks and suffered only a fractured skull and cut face.
Don't even think about accusing me of calousness. You know you laughed when you read that first sentence. I mean of all the places on Earth to vomit, you choose the path of a speeding train. I'm sorry, but that's funny as heck!
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Here's an exerpt from a study detailing the energy costs of vehicles from concept to disposal...
The nickel for the battery, for instance, is mined in Sudbury, Ontario, and melted at nearby Nickel Centre, just north of the province's massive Georgian Bay.
Toyota buys about 1,000 tons of nickel from the facility each year, ships the nickel to Wales for refining, then to China, where it's manufactured into nickel foam, and then onto Toyota's battery plant in Japan.
That alone creates a globe-trotting trail of carbon emissions that ought to seriously concern everyone involved in the fight against global warming. All told, the start-to-finish journey travels more than 10,000 miles — mostly by container ship, but also by diesel locomotive.
But it's not just the clouds of greenhouse gases generated by all that smelting, refining, manufacturing and transporting that worries green activists. The 1,250-foot-tall smokestack that spews huge puffs of sulphur dioxide at the Sudbury mine and smelter operation has left a large swath of the surrounding area looking like a surrealistic scene from the depths of hell.
On the perimeter of the area, skeletons of trees and bushes stand like ghostly sentinels guarding a sprawling wasteland. Astronauts in training for NASA actually have practiced driving moon buggies on the suburban Sudbury tract because it's considered a duplicate of the Moon's landscape.
"The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants, and the soil slid down off the hillside," David Martin, Greenpeace's energy coordinator in Canada, told the London Daily Mail.
"The solution they came up with was the Superstack. The idea was to dilute pollution, but all it did was spread the fallout across northern Ontario," Martin told the British newspaper, adding that Sudbury remains "a major environmental and health problem. The environmental cost of producing that car battery is pretty high."
In terms of energy-efficiency from concept to disposal, the Prius costs $2.94/mile while the Hummer2 costs $1.95/mile.
It turns out, you silly, self-righteous, envoro-zealots, that the Hummer you loathe so much leaves a far smaller carbon-footprint than your Prius that gives you so much self-satisfaction. If you drive a Prius, you'd better contact the Goreacle post-haste, and get a second job to pay for idiotic carbon-offsets, so you can sleep with pride at night, comforted by the knowledge that you're doing your part to save the world from man.
This is one of Canada's strip mines where nickel is mined. I suppose it's OK to strip-mine somebody elses' back yard as long as the result is you getting to drive around smugly gloating about how you're saving the world and everybody else isn't.
Do you "greenies" really care about polluting the environment, or is it really just about the sense of smug superiority it gives you over everybody in your imaginary "green" world?
The NYTimes reports Rosie O’Donnell “is in serious discussions to return to television atop a new soapbox: a prime-time show on the cable news channel MSNBC.” Jacques Steinberg and Bill Carter write, “Under one scenario, Ms. O’Donnell would be given the 9 p.m. slot where she would go head-to-head with two heavyweights of cable talk: Larry King Live on CNN and Hannity & Colmes on Fox News.
With increasing political polarization and competitive news outlets too numerous to list, I guess MSNBC will give up all pretense of journalistic objectivity(not that anybody believed they had any) and outrightly root for the extreme wing of the liberal democrat party in an effort to score ratings points. Why else would you give a hysterical bully like Rosie O'Donnel an hour of prime-time TV license to spew her idiotic conspiracy theories? Rosie O'Donnel is as big a failure at TV as she is at squeezing into a size 40 pants-suit. Sure people will watch her out of the same morbid curiosity as they watch a car crash, for about 3 weeks, and then she'll say something outrageous that offends even the most stridently moronic liberals and she'll grow tired of the controversey and quit.
I'll bet you can get the over/under in months in Vegas right now on how long she lasts. I'll say it's 10 months before the advertisers say enough is enough and pull out altogether leaving MSNBC no choice but to cancel her.
Monday, November 05, 2007
As if that weren't comical enough, they tossed to the morning show crew supposedly somewhere in the Arctic. Lauer and crew were there to bring attention to the imaginary plight of polar bears or some such nonsense. I guess they wanted viewers to ignore the deisel-powered lights which illuminated the Arctic night like a thousand suns, or the av-gas required to jet the irritatingly smug Matt, Ann Curry, and Al Roker, crew members, and equipment all the way up there just to lecture us little people about how we should be conserving energy. Apparently nobody told Matt that the polar bear population is increasing. Too bad one couldn't have wandered onto the shoot to enjoy a Matt Lauer-flavored appetizer before dining on the main course....Roker.
What everybody's pointing out today is that even in the sub-zero Arctic, you never saw Lauer's breath as he lectured us. They probably staged it in some Hollywood lot. I'm sure their stupid, pointless gesture made Al Gore proud....it showed everybody that returning to the 17th century is what's required to save the Earth....idiots!
That being said, so what? What difference does it make to the Jews in Israel why we conservatives support their existance as a State, as long as the aid money keeps flowing and the advanced military hardware is made available, but not to the Arabs? I don't seriously think they care as long as they know we will help them defend against Arab aggression.
Now to the more touchy point of Zionist expansion in the region of the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights, and Jerusalem. The Arabs who today call themselves "Palestinians" did not "own" the land on which Israel now sits. Jews inhabited and governed that land, historically known as Judea for the last 3,300 years or so, 2000 years before the rise of Islam. Around 2000 years ago, the Romans conquered Jerusalem resulting in the Diaspora in which the Jews were expelled from Judea and fled to various other countries. More recently, say the past 200 years or so, the Jews and Arabs lived in Judea peacefully prior to the official establishment of the Israeli state on Nov 29, 1947. Only then did the other Arab states get upset. All the Arabs who fled prior to the 1948 war became the refugees that now call themselves "Palestinians", thought they are indistinguishable from other Arabs in terms of language, culture, religion, etc.
I know what the argument will be before you make it so let me address it to save us all some time.
"But Ed" you whine, "America, and numerous other countries, were invented too, just like Palestine. If the Palestinians have to give their land back to Israel, shouldn't the U.S. give it's land back to the Indians and Mexicans from whom it was seized? Just because there is no language or culture called Palestinian, does that mean that those people who lived on the land for the last 1300 years, calling themselves Palestinians and speaking Arabic, do not qualify as a nationality? By that logic, Americans don't qualify as a nationality because we don't speak "American", we speak English as in England."
Weak points all. Look, nobody is trying to eradicate completely Americans from the map(except the radical Muslims and we're taking care of that). North America was a vast wilderness when we got here. There was no Indian sovereign nation, with a government, trade partners, diplomatic relations etc. And the U.S. didn't kick the Mexicans out of Mexico, we won some land fair and square in a war. By the way, Israel is the only nation that has ever voluntarily given land back that it won in a war. No Arab nation ever did that. The point is that Israel was a nation over 3000 years ago. The Diaspora happened, followed by hundreds of years of nomadic existence, and finally the holocaust. But for the holocaust, the establishment of Israel might not have happened still. The Jews are unique in their history and attempts to draw analagies with other countries will fail.
Quote from Charles Krauthammer - The Weekly Standard, May 11, 1998
"Israel is the very embodiment of Jewish continuity: It is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same God that it did 3,000 years ago. You dig the soil and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls written in a script remarkably like the one that today advertises ice cream at the corner candy store."
I won't deny that biblical relevance played a significant role in Israel's return to her original land, clearly it did. It plays a strong role in our support, financial and military, of her today.
Think about this, if the Arabs were to lay down their arms, there would be no more violence in the middle east. If Israel laid down her weapons, Israel would cease to exist the next day. That's the difference between Israel and any other nation with which you can try to draw similarities.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Was Tim Russert unfair to Hillary the other night in the dem debate? Did the other candidates pile on? Was it fair of her to whine that they shouldn't pick on her because she's a girl? Are male candidates at a distinct disadvantage when running against females because they risk looking like a cad if they attack her and look weak and feminine if they don't?
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Go here and read the article.