A word from Peter Wehner | Power Line:
The linked article includes an excellent summary of the BO regime ... grossly incompetent but very negatively consequential. WELL worth the very short read.
My defining moment of the Jimmuh presidency was the Jimmy Carter Desert Classic -- the failed attempt to rescue the US hostages being held in Tehran resulted in 8 servicemen being killed and never even engaged the enemy. In my lifetime at that time, it was the lowest point for America -- we had gone from being the dominant super power at the end of WWII to being in economic decline, high inflation, losing ground around the world to the USSR and at that point unable to execute even a small military operation even "credibly" let alone successfully.
We recovered from that, but it wasn't easy -- a brutal recession that was virtually constant from '80-'83 was only part of the cost. The loss of faith in America as a worthy ally and the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism largely stem from that time.
Will we recover from BO at all? How difficult will this trough be? What seeds are being sown today that will haunt America 40 years in the future? These are questions that only time will tell, but the summary is a good place to pause and ponder them for a bit.
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Why We Don't Need Senate Oversight
A seminal nominee | Power Line:
Thanks to the Democrats, Republicans now have no power in the Senate to provide oversight to Presidential nominations ... actually they may as well just be appointed without review. As we know from BOcare, NSA, IRS, management of the economy, red lines in Syria, and a host of other items that we really don't need to talk about anymore now that we live in the Kingdom of BO, when you have "The One" in power, you can just relax.
In a Kingdom, what we really need is a predominantly near state controlled (or at least cowed) to fawning "tingle in my leg" media, "things are fine". We may as well think happy thoughts since the emperor is in control and what he says is going to happen anyway -- the plan for the SOTU tonight sounds like he is going to declare even more directly that the Constitution is beneath him and "he has a phone and a pen".
If you remember an America that was not an embarrassment and are willing to be dismayed as to where we have sank, I STRONGLY suggest you take the time to watch the video in the linked article.
When we have an R in the WH, we have an adversarial press. Since they have lost their objectivity, it goes overboard when there is an R, but it is completely missing when there is a D. I prefer the overboard.
This video explains in a way that words really can't why we NEED an UNBIASED AND PROFESSIONAL adversarial press and CHECKS AND BALANCES, including the Filibuster in our government! Like COMPETITION in our economy, these things used to make us strong, but now we have George Tsunis!
'via Blog this'
Thanks to the Democrats, Republicans now have no power in the Senate to provide oversight to Presidential nominations ... actually they may as well just be appointed without review. As we know from BOcare, NSA, IRS, management of the economy, red lines in Syria, and a host of other items that we really don't need to talk about anymore now that we live in the Kingdom of BO, when you have "The One" in power, you can just relax.
In a Kingdom, what we really need is a predominantly near state controlled (or at least cowed) to fawning "tingle in my leg" media, "things are fine". We may as well think happy thoughts since the emperor is in control and what he says is going to happen anyway -- the plan for the SOTU tonight sounds like he is going to declare even more directly that the Constitution is beneath him and "he has a phone and a pen".
If you remember an America that was not an embarrassment and are willing to be dismayed as to where we have sank, I STRONGLY suggest you take the time to watch the video in the linked article.
When we have an R in the WH, we have an adversarial press. Since they have lost their objectivity, it goes overboard when there is an R, but it is completely missing when there is a D. I prefer the overboard.
This video explains in a way that words really can't why we NEED an UNBIASED AND PROFESSIONAL adversarial press and CHECKS AND BALANCES, including the Filibuster in our government! Like COMPETITION in our economy, these things used to make us strong, but now we have George Tsunis!
'via Blog this'
Monday, January 27, 2014
No Fault Pregnancy
Opinion: Huckabee's 'libido' comment chilling - CNN.com:
First, let's get the actual offending comment out of the way in context (which BTW was actually a bit hard to find even with Google!).:
Then he gets into the part he needs to be called names for. He suggests that women can bear responsibility for their reproductive system like men often have to. You know, the woman gets pregnant and the man "through no fault of his own" is liable for child support? It is easy to see why the linked columnist and all sorts of Democrats find this comment "chilling"! I mean, the very idea that ANYONE (other than businessmen and those with money) ought to bear ANY responsibility for ANYTHING is completely "chilling"! The gall!! The idea that actions (other than making money) would have consequences! The horror!
In the ideal responsibility free world, why is it again that a man ought to have to pay child support when a woman doesn't even have to pay for her birth control?? Besides with abortion on demand, even if she fails to cover that, why ought it be the mans responsibility to pay support (unless he is "rich" of course!!). Isn't clear that those poor dweebs foolish enough to get educated, take risks, get higher paying / higher stress jobs, etc ARE RESPONSIBLE! Everyone else deserves a completely responsibility free existence!! Won't that make this a much more wonderful nation?
Chilling, isn't it?
First, let's get the actual offending comment out of the way in context (which BTW was actually a bit hard to find even with Google!).:
I think it’s time for Republicans to no longer accept listening to Democrats talk about a ‘War on Women.’ Because the fact is, the Republicans don’t have a war on women. They have a war for women – for them to be empowered, to be something other than victims of their gender.
Women I know are outraged that Democrats think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have a government provide for their birth control medication. Women I know are smart, educated, intelligent, capable of doing anything anyone else can do.
Our party stands for the recognition of the equality of women and the capacity of women. That’s not a war on them, it’s a war for them. And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control, because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government, then so be it. Let’s take that discussion all across America, because women are far more than Democrats have made them to be. And women across America have to stand up and say, “Enough of that nonsense.”
So he doesn't want to accept the Democrats absurd claim of "a war on women". Duh. It is a testament to the shared mendacity of the Democratic party and the MSM as well was the overly Sheeple nature of a lot of Americans that ANYONE would EVER accept that idiotic "war on women" fabrication. (but I can understand why the Democrats and the MSM hate to see anyone do so)
Then he calls women smart, educated, intelligent, and other bad things that would tend to make them not Democrats. Again, easy to see why Democrats and the MSM hate this, but women?
Then he calls women smart, educated, intelligent, and other bad things that would tend to make them not Democrats. Again, easy to see why Democrats and the MSM hate this, but women?
Then he gets into the part he needs to be called names for. He suggests that women can bear responsibility for their reproductive system like men often have to. You know, the woman gets pregnant and the man "through no fault of his own" is liable for child support? It is easy to see why the linked columnist and all sorts of Democrats find this comment "chilling"! I mean, the very idea that ANYONE (other than businessmen and those with money) ought to bear ANY responsibility for ANYTHING is completely "chilling"! The gall!! The idea that actions (other than making money) would have consequences! The horror!
In the ideal responsibility free world, why is it again that a man ought to have to pay child support when a woman doesn't even have to pay for her birth control?? Besides with abortion on demand, even if she fails to cover that, why ought it be the mans responsibility to pay support (unless he is "rich" of course!!). Isn't clear that those poor dweebs foolish enough to get educated, take risks, get higher paying / higher stress jobs, etc ARE RESPONSIBLE! Everyone else deserves a completely responsibility free existence!! Won't that make this a much more wonderful nation?
Chilling, isn't it?
Intellectual Krystallnacht
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/fear-progressive-kristallnacht
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/369417/love-time-obama-matthew-continetti
The "progressives", the modern heirs to "National Socialists" in Hitlerian Germany, never like to own up to their roots very much. There are two sides of the political spectrum, "right" meaning libertarian to anarchist, and "left" meaning heavy state control to tyranny. That the left in this nation has been powerful enough to call themselves "liberals" and foist the great charade that somehow the totalitarian Nazi government was "right wing", would be a gigantic joke were it not so serious.
What allows this charade to "progress" in an ever tightening noose toward tyranny is the complete loss of anything approaching intellectual honesty, awareness of reality, or basic reason.
The first linked column covers Steve Benen of MSNBC going ballistic over a letter to the editor or the WSJ written by one of the founders of Silicon Valley, billionaire Tom Perkins.
The second is an excellent analysis from NRO about a couple members of the REAL elite that want us to think they are NOT elite! A quote from that column is telling:
I was lucky enough to enter university and get a technical job in the short time when America was as true a meritocracy as it ever was. The old coalition of the Rockefeller Republicans and the Southern Racist Democrats had been torpedoed by Civil Rights, the War on Poverty, Vietnam and Watergate. Out of that debacle, the Reagan Republicans and the McGovern Democrats were born. There was a "power structure vacuum" that uneasily existed and eroded from Watergate through 9-11 that allowed an American resurgence nearly to pre-FDR levels with even obvious McGovernites like Slick Willy Clinton being forced to "triangulate" to an actual merit tune.
But with BO, the Pseudo Intellectual power brokers have struck back with a vengeance. In pre-Nazi Germany, a lot of Jews were a large part of the TRUE intellectual power base of Germany. The kind of real power that provides scientific, industrial and financial innovation. The sort that excels in the classic arts, philosophy and religion. The intellectuals that make a nation great, as opposed to blind as our current pseudo crop does. Merit is indeed very unequal, but so is pseudo intellectualism! Nazi or BOist!
Hitler didn't ONLY go after the Jews because he hated them. They also had status, REAL INTELLECTUAL STATUS. It was the destruction of that intellectual firepower that gave the US rather than Germany the bomb. It was almost entirely because the US was a haven for Jews that we were able to create the atomic bomb ... a perusal of this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_physicists gives a little idea of the import of key minds migrating away from rather than toward Germany around WWII. Had Hitler NOT attacked the Jews, he likely would not have been able to achieve power -- with their true intelligence, character and understanding of eternal truth, they could see the hole where his soul should have been, much as many conservatives today have no trouble understanding the danger of BO.
The Nazis were pseudo to anti intellectual in origin, much the same as todays Clinton, Obama, MSM, left university elite. Their hatred is of real character, expertise and meaning, so guys like Tom Perkins, especially when willing to draw the obvious parallels, MUST GO! When you can't actually DO ANYTHING, all you can do is attack someone! W, "the rich", "the congress", etc!
Even though Perkins and his ilk are the "golden geese" that provided that last infusion of the ever shrinking competitive capital that amazingly has kept our current vacuous "we aren't really elite" ACTUAL guided class semi-afloat enough to hold power mostly without killing folks directly. Fakes ALWAYS hate the real! Our current “butterflied roast chicken with tarragon and preserved lemons, faro risotto with wild mushrooms and leeks, and a green salad with buttermilk dressing, served with a Barbarescomade by friends in Italy" elite would get their derrières handed to them in any decent N WI bar.
The Chinese, the Russians and the Arab world are enjoying putting the comatose US mouth on the curb for the inevitable kick in the back of the head to provide the full "curb sandwich" of reality. The dish we have so richly earned by wallowing with BO.
'via Blog this'
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/369417/love-time-obama-matthew-continetti
The "progressives", the modern heirs to "National Socialists" in Hitlerian Germany, never like to own up to their roots very much. There are two sides of the political spectrum, "right" meaning libertarian to anarchist, and "left" meaning heavy state control to tyranny. That the left in this nation has been powerful enough to call themselves "liberals" and foist the great charade that somehow the totalitarian Nazi government was "right wing", would be a gigantic joke were it not so serious.
What allows this charade to "progress" in an ever tightening noose toward tyranny is the complete loss of anything approaching intellectual honesty, awareness of reality, or basic reason.
The first linked column covers Steve Benen of MSNBC going ballistic over a letter to the editor or the WSJ written by one of the founders of Silicon Valley, billionaire Tom Perkins.
The second is an excellent analysis from NRO about a couple members of the REAL elite that want us to think they are NOT elite! A quote from that column is telling:
A similar insularity and self-satisfaction, a stubborn refusal to ascribe rationality or good faith to those outside the circle of friendship, can be found in Weisberg’s article in Vogue.a second quote from that column:
” Senator Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) famously told the 2012 Democratic National Convention. What an odd situation in which we find ourselves, where the most influential figures in politics, media, culture, and the academy, the leaders of institutions from the presidency to the Senate to multinational corporations to globally recognized universities, spend most of their time discussing inequalities of income and opportunity, identifying, blaming, and attacking behind whatever the social problem of the day might be. This is the way the clique that runs America justifies the inequalities endemic to “meritocracy,” the way it masks the flaws of a power structure that generates Brown-educated cable hosts and personal chefs who open ballparks with a phone call. This is how a new American aristocracy comes into being, one as entitled and clueless as its predecessors, but without the awareness of itself as a class."The "Love in the Time of Obama" tells us what it means to have POWER and CONNECTIONS in this current regime.
I was lucky enough to enter university and get a technical job in the short time when America was as true a meritocracy as it ever was. The old coalition of the Rockefeller Republicans and the Southern Racist Democrats had been torpedoed by Civil Rights, the War on Poverty, Vietnam and Watergate. Out of that debacle, the Reagan Republicans and the McGovern Democrats were born. There was a "power structure vacuum" that uneasily existed and eroded from Watergate through 9-11 that allowed an American resurgence nearly to pre-FDR levels with even obvious McGovernites like Slick Willy Clinton being forced to "triangulate" to an actual merit tune.
But with BO, the Pseudo Intellectual power brokers have struck back with a vengeance. In pre-Nazi Germany, a lot of Jews were a large part of the TRUE intellectual power base of Germany. The kind of real power that provides scientific, industrial and financial innovation. The sort that excels in the classic arts, philosophy and religion. The intellectuals that make a nation great, as opposed to blind as our current pseudo crop does. Merit is indeed very unequal, but so is pseudo intellectualism! Nazi or BOist!
Hitler didn't ONLY go after the Jews because he hated them. They also had status, REAL INTELLECTUAL STATUS. It was the destruction of that intellectual firepower that gave the US rather than Germany the bomb. It was almost entirely because the US was a haven for Jews that we were able to create the atomic bomb ... a perusal of this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_physicists gives a little idea of the import of key minds migrating away from rather than toward Germany around WWII. Had Hitler NOT attacked the Jews, he likely would not have been able to achieve power -- with their true intelligence, character and understanding of eternal truth, they could see the hole where his soul should have been, much as many conservatives today have no trouble understanding the danger of BO.
The Nazis were pseudo to anti intellectual in origin, much the same as todays Clinton, Obama, MSM, left university elite. Their hatred is of real character, expertise and meaning, so guys like Tom Perkins, especially when willing to draw the obvious parallels, MUST GO! When you can't actually DO ANYTHING, all you can do is attack someone! W, "the rich", "the congress", etc!
Even though Perkins and his ilk are the "golden geese" that provided that last infusion of the ever shrinking competitive capital that amazingly has kept our current vacuous "we aren't really elite" ACTUAL guided class semi-afloat enough to hold power mostly without killing folks directly. Fakes ALWAYS hate the real! Our current “butterflied roast chicken with tarragon and preserved lemons, faro risotto with wild mushrooms and leeks, and a green salad with buttermilk dressing, served with a Barbarescomade by friends in Italy" elite would get their derrières handed to them in any decent N WI bar.
The Chinese, the Russians and the Arab world are enjoying putting the comatose US mouth on the curb for the inevitable kick in the back of the head to provide the full "curb sandwich" of reality. The dish we have so richly earned by wallowing with BO.
'via Blog this'
Pedo-Earth Religion
When Did Global Warming Begin? | Power Line:
Many Christians are "Young Earth Creationists". They believe that the earth is 6K years old because that is what they believe they have extrapolated from the Bible. For them, it often becomes a "faith test" for someone to deny glaciation, light from galaxies billions of years old, the huge number of craters on the moon, etc. If you don't believe the earth is less than some date old (say "10K years max"), then you are not a Christian.
My personal view, (as it is in many things) is that an all powerful, all knowing and eternal God can create the universe any way he sees fit. If he did it in the last 10 min, it would likely have "the appearance of age" to an "unbiased observer", not because he is trying to "fool anyone", but because babies for example are not going to be able to live on their own, so doing creation with no ready made adults would be very counterproductive.
As an old boot path computer guy, I'm typing on a good analogy for this. When this iMac booted, there were a series of "bootstraps" (as in pulling up from bootstraps model) that were loaded in memory to set up the environment for the "boot load", that at the moment it began execution at some fixed address had memory tables, open file handles, a series of processes, etc that to someone looking at memory that was NOT from the boot path team would look like a whole bunch of things had happened that actually had not ... certain files being "opened", certain memory spaces being "allocated", certain processes being "initiated", etc.
A perusal of the state of the system would have certain "appearance of age" that would be "fake", not to "fool anyone", but just because it is OFTEN that "initial conditions" are different from the standard state.
It happens that I know WAY less about creating a universe than I do about booting a computer, and humans in general were not on the "universe boot team". In the "it all just happened by accident" model, we only showed up after the thing had been running for like 14ish BILLION years.
I tend to be very magnanimous about allowing omniscient, omnipotent and eternal beings pretty much complete freedom in how they do their creation (call me libertine). I'm interested in "how creation looks to me" and as in the case of the early stages of the running iMac, I doubt if the Apple boot load team would sentence me to any punishment for looking at a little memory and trying to understand what they did. My guess is that God is even more unsurprised by our curiosity about creation. So relative to a lot of young earth creationists, I'm a very liberal sort!
**NOTE** there is a principle here! The more "out there" the position, the more radical and combative it's adherents. True "Flat Earthers" are very zealous compared to "Sphereists". Watch this tendency in yourself and others, and you will have a powerful ally in wisdom. ** END NOTE **
What I find utterly amazing though are the "Young to Pedo-Earth Warmists", and the fact that their faith requires absolute fealty to their dogma or you receive all sorts of attacks relative to your intelligence and unwillingness to believe.
To get all nuts about current climate, you have to:
1). Completely ignore 100's of thousands of years of very good data about climate as in the linked column.
2). Focus ONLY on 130 years of data on "global temps", that is actually limited to something like "30ish" years of GOOD data, meaning data from orbiting platforms that can actually have a good bead on something approaching "planetary scale", as opposed to a bunch of anything but random local measurements extrapolated together. Where thermometers and reporting stations were located in 1800 to say "1950" was NOT "random" in any sense ... cities, airports, universities, etc being the locations.
Even the most casual of skeptical people can see the difficulty of "global temperature". The heat island of the Twin Cities to the N of me tends to run 10 degrees warmer than the surrounding temps. The area along Lake Superior is often TWENTY or more degrees cooler than just a few miles away during the summer. Mark Twain once commented on "the coldest winter I ever spent was the summer I spent in San Francisco" ... a phenomenon I first experienced on my honeymoon, where **I** (who am almost always warm compared to everyone around me) FROZE in the damp fog in late June after sweltering up a Yosemite in 100+ degree blast furnace heat. The list of local climate variation difficulties on scales of 10 miles or less is gargantuan, and must be accounted for in "global temperature".
Naturally those of the Warmist Faith assure us "it's all been worked out" ... at least as long as we pay no attention to their secret e-mails.
Even with satellites and computers, the amount of data required to compute an accurate "global temp" is very daunting, and requires A LOT of really unbiased and detailed analysis to be "accurate" by some measure. Ideally, the globe would be split up into say "10 mile cubes" and the temps at all levels ... ocean surface and depths, air column and land surface (and possibly depths in areas like tundra) would be gathered on a "few times a day" basis, say sunrise, noon, dusk, middle of night".
That sort of a measurement over a few thousand years would give an excellent basis for understanding climate. Once we had such a record for say "500K years", we would have a number of samples of how climate fluctuates relative to continental glacial advance and retreat, etc. Once we had that, then it would be much easier to try to figure out what the causes of the global climate changes are.
It is a testament to man's capacity for inconsistency that on one hand, science can wax poetic about "billions and billions of years", and on the other, base supposedly "settled conclusions" costing billions of dollars and affecting billions of people on AT BEST 130 years of data, which is so minimal as to provide only the most minimal of backing for even a "fad", let alone the proposed religion that Global / Warming cum Climate Change have become for many. Sadly, the Warmist Faith has become a state religion, breaking the Constitutional separation of Church and State.
I have a hard time with people that have faith in a religion that hasn't been around at least a thousand years! Even Scientology is "tried and true" relative to Pedo-Warmism!
'via Blog this'
Many Christians are "Young Earth Creationists". They believe that the earth is 6K years old because that is what they believe they have extrapolated from the Bible. For them, it often becomes a "faith test" for someone to deny glaciation, light from galaxies billions of years old, the huge number of craters on the moon, etc. If you don't believe the earth is less than some date old (say "10K years max"), then you are not a Christian.
My personal view, (as it is in many things) is that an all powerful, all knowing and eternal God can create the universe any way he sees fit. If he did it in the last 10 min, it would likely have "the appearance of age" to an "unbiased observer", not because he is trying to "fool anyone", but because babies for example are not going to be able to live on their own, so doing creation with no ready made adults would be very counterproductive.
As an old boot path computer guy, I'm typing on a good analogy for this. When this iMac booted, there were a series of "bootstraps" (as in pulling up from bootstraps model) that were loaded in memory to set up the environment for the "boot load", that at the moment it began execution at some fixed address had memory tables, open file handles, a series of processes, etc that to someone looking at memory that was NOT from the boot path team would look like a whole bunch of things had happened that actually had not ... certain files being "opened", certain memory spaces being "allocated", certain processes being "initiated", etc.
A perusal of the state of the system would have certain "appearance of age" that would be "fake", not to "fool anyone", but just because it is OFTEN that "initial conditions" are different from the standard state.
It happens that I know WAY less about creating a universe than I do about booting a computer, and humans in general were not on the "universe boot team". In the "it all just happened by accident" model, we only showed up after the thing had been running for like 14ish BILLION years.
I tend to be very magnanimous about allowing omniscient, omnipotent and eternal beings pretty much complete freedom in how they do their creation (call me libertine). I'm interested in "how creation looks to me" and as in the case of the early stages of the running iMac, I doubt if the Apple boot load team would sentence me to any punishment for looking at a little memory and trying to understand what they did. My guess is that God is even more unsurprised by our curiosity about creation. So relative to a lot of young earth creationists, I'm a very liberal sort!
**NOTE** there is a principle here! The more "out there" the position, the more radical and combative it's adherents. True "Flat Earthers" are very zealous compared to "Sphereists". Watch this tendency in yourself and others, and you will have a powerful ally in wisdom. ** END NOTE **
What I find utterly amazing though are the "Young to Pedo-Earth Warmists", and the fact that their faith requires absolute fealty to their dogma or you receive all sorts of attacks relative to your intelligence and unwillingness to believe.
To get all nuts about current climate, you have to:
1). Completely ignore 100's of thousands of years of very good data about climate as in the linked column.
2). Focus ONLY on 130 years of data on "global temps", that is actually limited to something like "30ish" years of GOOD data, meaning data from orbiting platforms that can actually have a good bead on something approaching "planetary scale", as opposed to a bunch of anything but random local measurements extrapolated together. Where thermometers and reporting stations were located in 1800 to say "1950" was NOT "random" in any sense ... cities, airports, universities, etc being the locations.
Even the most casual of skeptical people can see the difficulty of "global temperature". The heat island of the Twin Cities to the N of me tends to run 10 degrees warmer than the surrounding temps. The area along Lake Superior is often TWENTY or more degrees cooler than just a few miles away during the summer. Mark Twain once commented on "the coldest winter I ever spent was the summer I spent in San Francisco" ... a phenomenon I first experienced on my honeymoon, where **I** (who am almost always warm compared to everyone around me) FROZE in the damp fog in late June after sweltering up a Yosemite in 100+ degree blast furnace heat. The list of local climate variation difficulties on scales of 10 miles or less is gargantuan, and must be accounted for in "global temperature".
Naturally those of the Warmist Faith assure us "it's all been worked out" ... at least as long as we pay no attention to their secret e-mails.
Even with satellites and computers, the amount of data required to compute an accurate "global temp" is very daunting, and requires A LOT of really unbiased and detailed analysis to be "accurate" by some measure. Ideally, the globe would be split up into say "10 mile cubes" and the temps at all levels ... ocean surface and depths, air column and land surface (and possibly depths in areas like tundra) would be gathered on a "few times a day" basis, say sunrise, noon, dusk, middle of night".
That sort of a measurement over a few thousand years would give an excellent basis for understanding climate. Once we had such a record for say "500K years", we would have a number of samples of how climate fluctuates relative to continental glacial advance and retreat, etc. Once we had that, then it would be much easier to try to figure out what the causes of the global climate changes are.
It is a testament to man's capacity for inconsistency that on one hand, science can wax poetic about "billions and billions of years", and on the other, base supposedly "settled conclusions" costing billions of dollars and affecting billions of people on AT BEST 130 years of data, which is so minimal as to provide only the most minimal of backing for even a "fad", let alone the proposed religion that Global / Warming cum Climate Change have become for many. Sadly, the Warmist Faith has become a state religion, breaking the Constitutional separation of Church and State.
I have a hard time with people that have faith in a religion that hasn't been around at least a thousand years! Even Scientology is "tried and true" relative to Pedo-Warmism!
'via Blog this'
Friday, January 24, 2014
Have The Paraplegic Walk in My Stilettos!
The Heroism of Wendy Davis - Ann Coulter - Page 1:
Ah Wendy Davis, roll model to women put through Harvard by Sugar Daddies!
I happened to hear a segment where her campaign, book, and oh so compassionate comments relative to her likely opponent, Greg Abbot were discussed on NPR.
Abbott BTW is Attorney General of TX, confined to a wheel chair since 1984.
Wendy indicated he ought "walk a day in her shoes"!
From the NPR view however, "none of this ought to damage her chances", which I suspect is true, since her chances of being elected approximate that of the MSM admitting human caused global warming "isn't looking so true", any time prior to a few thousand years into the next ice age.
NPR pretty much declared her book "fake but true" ... not in those words of course, but it is was pretty much the inverse of the fake W National Guard records.
Sure, all the actual facts of her life story were wrong ... she was a MARRIED mother at 19, divorced the first husband for not being able to cover her Harvard school bills, found a guy that could, married him, permanently dumped her kid with him and went off and went to Harvard on his dime. Once he finished paying off the schooling, she dumped him as well!
As Ann points out, sorta the "Cosmo Ann Nichole Smith" school of "strong women getting ahead".
BUT, she is a Democrat woman that isn't horribly unattractive, and relative to your standard Democrat woman candidate, pretty damned truthful. She IS a woman, she DID have a daughter, she DID go to Harvard ... you know, there are a few elements of truth there.
Hey, compared to Elizabeth "Faux-A-Hontis" Warren, who rather having ancestors ON the "Trail of Tears", had ancestors holding the guns on the folks walking the trail, Wendy is sort of a paragon of truth!
Ann's column on it is pretty good. I do love Ann trying to clue her second husband in on what "irony" means!
'via Blog this
Ah Wendy Davis, roll model to women put through Harvard by Sugar Daddies!
I happened to hear a segment where her campaign, book, and oh so compassionate comments relative to her likely opponent, Greg Abbot were discussed on NPR.
Abbott BTW is Attorney General of TX, confined to a wheel chair since 1984.
Wendy indicated he ought "walk a day in her shoes"!
From the NPR view however, "none of this ought to damage her chances", which I suspect is true, since her chances of being elected approximate that of the MSM admitting human caused global warming "isn't looking so true", any time prior to a few thousand years into the next ice age.
NPR pretty much declared her book "fake but true" ... not in those words of course, but it is was pretty much the inverse of the fake W National Guard records.
Sure, all the actual facts of her life story were wrong ... she was a MARRIED mother at 19, divorced the first husband for not being able to cover her Harvard school bills, found a guy that could, married him, permanently dumped her kid with him and went off and went to Harvard on his dime. Once he finished paying off the schooling, she dumped him as well!
As Ann points out, sorta the "Cosmo Ann Nichole Smith" school of "strong women getting ahead".
BUT, she is a Democrat woman that isn't horribly unattractive, and relative to your standard Democrat woman candidate, pretty damned truthful. She IS a woman, she DID have a daughter, she DID go to Harvard ... you know, there are a few elements of truth there.
Hey, compared to Elizabeth "Faux-A-Hontis" Warren, who rather having ancestors ON the "Trail of Tears", had ancestors holding the guns on the folks walking the trail, Wendy is sort of a paragon of truth!
Ann's column on it is pretty good. I do love Ann trying to clue her second husband in on what "irony" means!
'via Blog this
Iowa Lake Lot
Unless something unusual happens, we will be closing in a couple weeks on a lake lot, just to the north of Emmetsburg Iowa on Five Islands Lake.
Here is the little mini-plat with a pointer to #10
Here is capture from Google Earth of that area prior to the little road that is in there now and the lots being mapped out. The little green marker shows the lot location and you can map the little mini plat to the picture pretty well by using the point just to the north of the lot that looks a little like a horses head.
As most of you know, Marla grew up in West Bend, little over 20 miles from the lake. A lot of her family including her Mom is still in that area, and we tend to spend a good deal of time with them.
We have no moving plans. Dad is still doing well up in Barron, Keenan is in Minneapolis, Marla is still at IBM, we have church, friends, gun club and other things here, so the general idea would be to put up a good sized shed down there in a couple years that would have water/power and an insulated portion. Beyond that, the "general idea" would be to maintain both places for a good long while.
Lots of exciting future thoughts of family get togethers, putting around the lake in a pontoon and doing some fishing. I could see some future blog posts from an ice fishing shack.
Here is the little mini-plat with a pointer to #10
Here is capture from Google Earth of that area prior to the little road that is in there now and the lots being mapped out. The little green marker shows the lot location and you can map the little mini plat to the picture pretty well by using the point just to the north of the lot that looks a little like a horses head.
As most of you know, Marla grew up in West Bend, little over 20 miles from the lake. A lot of her family including her Mom is still in that area, and we tend to spend a good deal of time with them.
We have no moving plans. Dad is still doing well up in Barron, Keenan is in Minneapolis, Marla is still at IBM, we have church, friends, gun club and other things here, so the general idea would be to put up a good sized shed down there in a couple years that would have water/power and an insulated portion. Beyond that, the "general idea" would be to maintain both places for a good long while.
Lots of exciting future thoughts of family get togethers, putting around the lake in a pontoon and doing some fishing. I could see some future blog posts from an ice fishing shack.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
4th or 7th Most Settled?
Was 2013 4th or 7th Hottest Year? It Depends Who You Ask - weather.com:
When something is as settled as climate change, it is hard to pin the number down to 4th or 7th. Just imagine the vast amount of "science" that went into picking the "base climate" from the chart below as "Departure from the 1951-1980 average". Why, between 1880 and 2013, we have fluctuated as much as between .6 and .8 to the high, and .4 and .6 to the low! Why, in 130 years our temperature has fluctuated nearly 1.4 degrees, and a full .2 degrees more to the high side than the low side!
Think of the brilliance of choosing the "Mid 20th century baseline" of 1951 - 1980! How scientific! In fact, isn't it TOTALLY INCREDIBLE that in the 4-5 BILLION years of earth history, the period from 1951-1980 is especially representative? During a "very significant percentage" of earths history, I'm thinking even the most "settled" of today's "climate scientists" would classify the human impact as "small"?
Pause for a moment as you look at the big colored global temps map and consider the "accuracy" of that global temperature calculation in 1880. Satellite coverage must have been somewhat less than today, and I'm guessing that the many reporting stations at the poles, deepest Siberia and central Africa took slightly longer to get their data in! (polar bear / penguin couriers? listen to those drums ... temperature data!) I just finished the "Heart of Darkness" which was set around 1900, and amazingly Kurtz didn't seem to be that excited about reporting the climate data from the Belgian Congo. (I'm sure it was colder then, but it sounded hot)
The sea ice chart goes ALL THE WAY BACK to 1979! Wow, that REALLY gives a nice sample out of 4-5 B years! It is growing on one pole and shrinking on the other. How can anyone POSSIBLY question the veracity of folks that use 130 years and a bit more than 30 years to provide "irrefutable scientific proof" that man is changing the climate of the planet? Why, in order to be a "Denier", one would have to be paid off by the oil industry! There is NO OTHER ANSWER!
*** I pause here to admit that I am a fully paid apologist for "Oil Industry Incorporated" ... the NSA knows it anyway, so I may as well fess up! The amount of money they have given me so far is, well, "significant" ... er at least as significant as 130 / 4,500,000,000 (.0000000289 significance) ***
Whew! I finally got that off my chest! Oh the shame!
The main reason I Blogged this is the predictions at the end:
and so it goes.
'via Blog this'
When something is as settled as climate change, it is hard to pin the number down to 4th or 7th. Just imagine the vast amount of "science" that went into picking the "base climate" from the chart below as "Departure from the 1951-1980 average". Why, between 1880 and 2013, we have fluctuated as much as between .6 and .8 to the high, and .4 and .6 to the low! Why, in 130 years our temperature has fluctuated nearly 1.4 degrees, and a full .2 degrees more to the high side than the low side!
Think of the brilliance of choosing the "Mid 20th century baseline" of 1951 - 1980! How scientific! In fact, isn't it TOTALLY INCREDIBLE that in the 4-5 BILLION years of earth history, the period from 1951-1980 is especially representative? During a "very significant percentage" of earths history, I'm thinking even the most "settled" of today's "climate scientists" would classify the human impact as "small"?
Pause for a moment as you look at the big colored global temps map and consider the "accuracy" of that global temperature calculation in 1880. Satellite coverage must have been somewhat less than today, and I'm guessing that the many reporting stations at the poles, deepest Siberia and central Africa took slightly longer to get their data in! (polar bear / penguin couriers? listen to those drums ... temperature data!) I just finished the "Heart of Darkness" which was set around 1900, and amazingly Kurtz didn't seem to be that excited about reporting the climate data from the Belgian Congo. (I'm sure it was colder then, but it sounded hot)
The sea ice chart goes ALL THE WAY BACK to 1979! Wow, that REALLY gives a nice sample out of 4-5 B years! It is growing on one pole and shrinking on the other. How can anyone POSSIBLY question the veracity of folks that use 130 years and a bit more than 30 years to provide "irrefutable scientific proof" that man is changing the climate of the planet? Why, in order to be a "Denier", one would have to be paid off by the oil industry! There is NO OTHER ANSWER!
*** I pause here to admit that I am a fully paid apologist for "Oil Industry Incorporated" ... the NSA knows it anyway, so I may as well fess up! The amount of money they have given me so far is, well, "significant" ... er at least as significant as 130 / 4,500,000,000 (.0000000289 significance) ***
Whew! I finally got that off my chest! Oh the shame!
The main reason I Blogged this is the predictions at the end:
"In the second half of 2014, we're looking at the likelihood of an El Niño starting, which will help warm 2014 over 2013," added Schmidt. "Depending on the size of the El Niño, it is likely to push perhaps either 2014 or 2015 quite a way up the rankings."Note that in TRUE scientific fashion, if 2014 and 2015 ARE (by their own rather dubious calculations) "well up the rankings", then they will trumpet the OBVIOUS correctness of their "science". If '14 and '15 are "nothing special", or (gasp) cooler, then we will hear nothing about their prediction, and a "Denier" bringing it up is a non story.
and so it goes.
'via Blog this'
BO Admits He Wants Israel Nuked
Charles Krauthammer Admits What Senators Pushing Iran Sanctions Won't: They Want War:
Here is where Krauthammer "admitted" what the Senators are after:
Got that? So if Israel is prevented from defending herself and Iran gets the bomb and carries out it's stated intent, then the outcome is that Israel gets nuked. Why is that not as certain a conclusion as the headline?
Note, this is supposed to be a NEWS story! But I guess since we can predict the climate 100 years in the future now as "settled science", the political outcome of sanctions a few years in the future is a chip shot!
Why is it again that our conversations get "uncivil" and "inflammatory"??
'via Blog this'
Here is where Krauthammer "admitted" what the Senators are after:
"They're in a very difficult position," Krauthammer said of the Israelis during an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt. "This deal is designed as much by John Kerry and Barack Obama to prevent Israel from defending itself by attacking these facilities as it was supposedly to prevent Iran from going nuclear."
Got that? So if Israel is prevented from defending herself and Iran gets the bomb and carries out it's stated intent, then the outcome is that Israel gets nuked. Why is that not as certain a conclusion as the headline?
Note, this is supposed to be a NEWS story! But I guess since we can predict the climate 100 years in the future now as "settled science", the political outcome of sanctions a few years in the future is a chip shot!
Why is it again that our conversations get "uncivil" and "inflammatory"??
'via Blog this'
Cosmetic Energy
Katy Perry Talks Believing In "Cosmetic Energy" | PopStopTV.com:
I read the other day where she had a major impact in getting taking WI for BO in the last election. "Cosmetic Energy" seems as good an explanation as any other for the power of BO.
'via Blog this'
I read the other day where she had a major impact in getting taking WI for BO in the last election. "Cosmetic Energy" seems as good an explanation as any other for the power of BO.
'via Blog this'
Nature and Neurosurgery
CARSON: A physician's view on the sanctity of life - Washington Times:
Dr Ben Carson is another of those cases (like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Condoleeeza Rice, etc) of a brilliant self-reliant black person that you are never going to hear utter "some people just hate me because I'm black") like the illustrious BO did just the other day. No, the entire media and the Democratic party hate them for the fact that they are willing to THINK and act on their own convictions, something that "progressives" cannot allow to stand, especially for the black. No, they must be kept on the thought plantation or destroyed by one means or another.
We have known for thousands of years that "the heart is deceitful above all things, and exceedingly wicked" (Jer 17:9), and we have even known for over 2 thousand years that there is hope in Christ Jesus. In fact, Western civilization was built and matured in the Christian Faith.
But as things got better, the West became certain that it was really their own brilliance and goodness that had made the improvements. They were born on third, certain they hit a triple. So a civilization that had been prospering "under God" decided that "God was dead" in the 20th century and 100's of millions died as the godless Nazis and Communists expressed in action the true desires of the human heart.
Even after all of that, when Reagan and Thatcher were elected, and the West turned just slightly toward God and prospered once again for a short season. The majority were not swayed, and we quickly fell back into decay, worse in America then before because we failed to realize that liberty and justice are ALWAYS under attack!
Even 9-11, an obvious point where a false religion founded by a pedophile that subjugates women on earth and preaches that the same is going to happen in the afterlife (nobody seems to care what the 72 virgins for the martyrs think of the deal) was often embraced by the left, while the attack on Christianity intensified.
The scourge of abortion is a great example of how "progressivism" takes the natural desire to nurture and care for children and transfers it to killing hundreds of thousands of the children while falling faint at the prospect of even tiny fish being damaged by projects that could benefit man. The very folks that believe ENTIRELY in "natural selection" refuse to propagate the population bearing the memes that proved the most adaptive in history, thus ceding the future to those willing to raise up future generations.
and so we die.
'via Blog this'
Dr Ben Carson is another of those cases (like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Condoleeeza Rice, etc) of a brilliant self-reliant black person that you are never going to hear utter "some people just hate me because I'm black") like the illustrious BO did just the other day. No, the entire media and the Democratic party hate them for the fact that they are willing to THINK and act on their own convictions, something that "progressives" cannot allow to stand, especially for the black. No, they must be kept on the thought plantation or destroyed by one means or another.
We have known for thousands of years that "the heart is deceitful above all things, and exceedingly wicked" (Jer 17:9), and we have even known for over 2 thousand years that there is hope in Christ Jesus. In fact, Western civilization was built and matured in the Christian Faith.
But as things got better, the West became certain that it was really their own brilliance and goodness that had made the improvements. They were born on third, certain they hit a triple. So a civilization that had been prospering "under God" decided that "God was dead" in the 20th century and 100's of millions died as the godless Nazis and Communists expressed in action the true desires of the human heart.
Even after all of that, when Reagan and Thatcher were elected, and the West turned just slightly toward God and prospered once again for a short season. The majority were not swayed, and we quickly fell back into decay, worse in America then before because we failed to realize that liberty and justice are ALWAYS under attack!
Even 9-11, an obvious point where a false religion founded by a pedophile that subjugates women on earth and preaches that the same is going to happen in the afterlife (nobody seems to care what the 72 virgins for the martyrs think of the deal) was often embraced by the left, while the attack on Christianity intensified.
The scourge of abortion is a great example of how "progressivism" takes the natural desire to nurture and care for children and transfers it to killing hundreds of thousands of the children while falling faint at the prospect of even tiny fish being damaged by projects that could benefit man. The very folks that believe ENTIRELY in "natural selection" refuse to propagate the population bearing the memes that proved the most adaptive in history, thus ceding the future to those willing to raise up future generations.
and so we die.
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Shopping the Inorganic Aisle
Why Don’t We Merge These Disasters and Call It “ClimateCare”? | Power Line:
I sometimes ask to be shown to the Inorganic Foods aisle. Doesn't get one much beyond funny looks.
As the linked article points out, neither "Affordable Care" or "Climate Change" are doing very well this winter. Germany had some cool, calm and foggy weather and discovered that neither solar or wind produce power under those conditions. (Who knew??) They were forced to rely on coal and nuclear to keep most things working. Realizing that their nuclear power capabilities were limited and going away, they were forced to start the process of building MORE coal plants.
Green is "nice", but "white frozen solid" is not nice, and when after supposedly 20 years of predicted warming produces a winter just like 20 years ago, people tend to prefer having the lights and heat operating.
On the "Affordable Care" front, we are finding out that when a huge number of new requirements are put on insurance and the prices offered to some segments of the market need to be subsidized by others, the price goes up, meaning that a whole new set of people have trouble affording care ... or find out that "affordable" means a deductible that is not affordable. Again, who knew? Certainly not BO (he WASN'T lying about "if you like it you can keep it") ... perhaps someday he will also figure out that cool, foggy calm weather isn't conducive to solar or wind power.
"Progressivism" requires that "Common Sense" be repealed -- which means that reality must be repealed. Science becomes religion, lies become truth, private becomes public, ... Orwell covered it all extremely well. By law, by intimidation, by any means possible, one must be convinced to believe "the experts" in the place of your lying eyes and experience.
This is as old as "The Emperor's New Clothes children's story. Are they allowed to repeat that any more? With BO and the progressives in power, it seems WAY too close to home.
'via Blog this'
I sometimes ask to be shown to the Inorganic Foods aisle. Doesn't get one much beyond funny looks.
As the linked article points out, neither "Affordable Care" or "Climate Change" are doing very well this winter. Germany had some cool, calm and foggy weather and discovered that neither solar or wind produce power under those conditions. (Who knew??) They were forced to rely on coal and nuclear to keep most things working. Realizing that their nuclear power capabilities were limited and going away, they were forced to start the process of building MORE coal plants.
Green is "nice", but "white frozen solid" is not nice, and when after supposedly 20 years of predicted warming produces a winter just like 20 years ago, people tend to prefer having the lights and heat operating.
On the "Affordable Care" front, we are finding out that when a huge number of new requirements are put on insurance and the prices offered to some segments of the market need to be subsidized by others, the price goes up, meaning that a whole new set of people have trouble affording care ... or find out that "affordable" means a deductible that is not affordable. Again, who knew? Certainly not BO (he WASN'T lying about "if you like it you can keep it") ... perhaps someday he will also figure out that cool, foggy calm weather isn't conducive to solar or wind power.
"Progressivism" requires that "Common Sense" be repealed -- which means that reality must be repealed. Science becomes religion, lies become truth, private becomes public, ... Orwell covered it all extremely well. By law, by intimidation, by any means possible, one must be convinced to believe "the experts" in the place of your lying eyes and experience.
This is as old as "The Emperor's New Clothes children's story. Are they allowed to repeat that any more? With BO and the progressives in power, it seems WAY too close to home.
'via Blog this'
Monday, January 20, 2014
SALON Explains Food Stamps to Paul Ryan
What I learned from a week on food stamps: Paul Ryan couldn’t be any more wrong - Salon.com:
The entire "SNAP / Food Stamp" discussion is a great example of differing world views and people talking past each other. The MSM is of course extremely clear on the Republican view; "heartless, cruel, war on the POOR, blaming the poor, etc, etc ...." It often reminds me of the evil Tim Pawlenty being accused by Mike Hatch, and effectively by MPR commentators of wanting to "release the worst psychopathic sex offenders to save money".
That particular quote showed up on MPR a number of times, and each time it was uttered, one wondered what the person uttering it had between their ears. Really? Had there been a policy meeting in the Pawlenty office that went something like:
(Staffie A) "Hey, we have to save some money, let's release some sex offenders!"
(Sr Staff) "Great thought, but it seems a little weak as a news item ..."
(Staffie B)"Oh, wait, how about THE WORST sex offenders?"
(Sr Staff) "SUPER, I think you are REALLY on to something here, but let's hone it some more ..."
Eventually, the Pawlenty team apparently arrives at the ultimate idea, "Let's release the WORST psychopathic sex offenders to save money!!!"
So how does such an astute group of folks like those at MPR just repeat that back verbatim as being official policy from the Pawlenty administration without at least SOME little bell going off in their heads?
We ARE our biases!!! Unless we work VERY hard to THINK!
The current Republicans, SNAP and the media view are quite similar. Obviously Democrats including BO have signed off on everything to do with SNAP cuts -- BO has the vaunted veto pen, and the Senate is in the hands of Harry Reid, both willing to shut the government down rather than NEGOTIATE on delaying BOcare at all ... and we now KNOW what a WINNER BOcare is!
So they have been willing to negotiate on SNAP, which means that it must not be nearly as good as BOcare for starters (or at least not be projected to buy votes as well). Yet, we see column after column assuming (apparently correctly) that the American public believes something to the effect that Republicans have some sort of a Hitleran Concentration Camp fetish, or USSR Starving Gulag wish relative to "the poor".
For starters there is the small (and hard to find) matter of CUTTING THE RATE of GROWTH, vs CUTS! http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/15241-joint-bills-introduced-to-cut-skyrocketing-snap-food-stamp-costs only in the whacked out place called Washington, can a program like food stamps DOUBLE in size, and be projected to GROW at 20% a year for TEN YEARS, and someone that comes in an talks about "cutting" (reducing the rate of growth) on a program that would cost $760B, so it "only" might cost $730B!).
But after YEARS of trying to explain to lefties the difference between "cutting the rate of growth" and a CUT, I DO understand that when the choice is between "human beings" and "numbers", lefties simply care not for numbers ... so I'll focus on the "human interest". If I expect a 10% raise next year and only got a 5% raise, my salary was CUT! It is just too hard for the left to see it any other way!
Here are some revelations that crept up on the intrepid Salon reporter as he tried to live on SNAP:
'via Blog this'
The entire "SNAP / Food Stamp" discussion is a great example of differing world views and people talking past each other. The MSM is of course extremely clear on the Republican view; "heartless, cruel, war on the POOR, blaming the poor, etc, etc ...." It often reminds me of the evil Tim Pawlenty being accused by Mike Hatch, and effectively by MPR commentators of wanting to "release the worst psychopathic sex offenders to save money".
That particular quote showed up on MPR a number of times, and each time it was uttered, one wondered what the person uttering it had between their ears. Really? Had there been a policy meeting in the Pawlenty office that went something like:
(Staffie A) "Hey, we have to save some money, let's release some sex offenders!"
(Sr Staff) "Great thought, but it seems a little weak as a news item ..."
(Staffie B)"Oh, wait, how about THE WORST sex offenders?"
(Sr Staff) "SUPER, I think you are REALLY on to something here, but let's hone it some more ..."
Eventually, the Pawlenty team apparently arrives at the ultimate idea, "Let's release the WORST psychopathic sex offenders to save money!!!"
So how does such an astute group of folks like those at MPR just repeat that back verbatim as being official policy from the Pawlenty administration without at least SOME little bell going off in their heads?
We ARE our biases!!! Unless we work VERY hard to THINK!
The current Republicans, SNAP and the media view are quite similar. Obviously Democrats including BO have signed off on everything to do with SNAP cuts -- BO has the vaunted veto pen, and the Senate is in the hands of Harry Reid, both willing to shut the government down rather than NEGOTIATE on delaying BOcare at all ... and we now KNOW what a WINNER BOcare is!
So they have been willing to negotiate on SNAP, which means that it must not be nearly as good as BOcare for starters (or at least not be projected to buy votes as well). Yet, we see column after column assuming (apparently correctly) that the American public believes something to the effect that Republicans have some sort of a Hitleran Concentration Camp fetish, or USSR Starving Gulag wish relative to "the poor".
For starters there is the small (and hard to find) matter of CUTTING THE RATE of GROWTH, vs CUTS! http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/15241-joint-bills-introduced-to-cut-skyrocketing-snap-food-stamp-costs only in the whacked out place called Washington, can a program like food stamps DOUBLE in size, and be projected to GROW at 20% a year for TEN YEARS, and someone that comes in an talks about "cutting" (reducing the rate of growth) on a program that would cost $760B, so it "only" might cost $730B!).
But after YEARS of trying to explain to lefties the difference between "cutting the rate of growth" and a CUT, I DO understand that when the choice is between "human beings" and "numbers", lefties simply care not for numbers ... so I'll focus on the "human interest". If I expect a 10% raise next year and only got a 5% raise, my salary was CUT! It is just too hard for the left to see it any other way!
Here are some revelations that crept up on the intrepid Salon reporter as he tried to live on SNAP:
- Some people look down on taking them as "welfare". Ah yes, for some of the young, life's little embarrassments are rather harsh. Wait until after age 50 when you can go through hours on the porcelain throne preparing to have many FEET of tube inserted in through the out door in the interest of not dying of cancer. Yes, even death is less than optimum, but so far, not even the supposedly godlike BO has proposed a law against it -- no doubt one which would also be blocked by evil Republicans!
- Food Stamps don't cover lattes or even take out. Oh, the horror!
"At first, $41 seemed like a lot of money for a week’s worth of food, but this was $41, full stop — not $41 (unless I’m running late for work and need to stop by a coffee shop for a muffin) and not $41 (and then ordering from Seamless because the temperature has dropped and I wanted to cozy up with some hot soup). This was $41 to pay for three meals a day for seven days. This was going to require some planning." - Oh, the "planning", and the work of prep! Having to reduce meat and cut out "organic" ...
"Trying to stretch my meager food budget, I found that while some healthy items were expensive — anything organic or gluten free jumped in price, and meat prices are very high — fruits, veggies and oatmeal were far less expensive than frozen meals or cereal. The most difficult part was preparing and portioning out my meals." - "Time was an unexpected source of frustration. I was late to class because I mistimed how long it would take to cook and clean up after a stir-fried lunch. When running behind schedule on a Thursday night, I resorted to a meal of cold, leftover brown rice and carrot sticks. Hardly nutritional, or filling."
Dear me ... it takes time to cook! Perhaps the only human activity for which this is the case. No doubt it takes no time to GROW the food too -- if one was forced to think "holistically" !
We were once a nation founded by hardy souls that got on SMALL boats and migrated to a new land, taking MONTHS to arrive, with NO HOPE of assistance should they run into difficulty. Many of them were even aware they could not just "pick up a muffin", or "order Seamless" in the new land.
Even just 100 years ago, there were plenty of people in rural areas that had no power, no running water, no even "relatively instant" communications, and not only no "food stamps", but they also had to put up with the minor inconvenience of GROWING and preserving their food rather than just finding the time to cook it and clean up after!
Even just 100 years ago, there were plenty of people in rural areas that had no power, no running water, no even "relatively instant" communications, and not only no "food stamps", but they also had to put up with the minor inconvenience of GROWING and preserving their food rather than just finding the time to cook it and clean up after!
We are no longer that nation, and clearly a whole bunch of us believe that our sustenance ought to be delivered like mothers milk, with no effort at all on our part -- although no doubt even in mothers milk, this generation would demand more flavors and the assurance of "100% organic"!
The very idea that someone might have to shop, prepare, plan, cook and manage storage and such ON THEIR OWN! Is beyond the ken of people like this author.
So how DO we communicate with each other? Are the Chinese going to be willing to cover the tab so many of us don't have to bother to shop, cook, clean, plan, etc? One wonders how this poor reporter imagines that the foodstuffs show up at his local market or "Seamless"? He must view the sorts of people that deal with the much greater difficulties of working the ground, planting, tending, reaping, processing, etc as some sort of an alien race. (no doubt a race of aliens he is far superior to)
Can we possibly be a self-governing people when some write columns like this and think they are conveying useful information, and some farm thousands of acres raising the food so that someone that has extreme difficulty in just cutting it up and preparing it can complain that it's too hard / complicated / time consuming / etc? How DO we talk to each other?
So the policies of BO have created the worst economic recovery since the Depression, and the ONLY idea of the Statists is to double down on more of the same policies, including INCREASING the minimum wage, which will reduce the number of available low paying jobs, and to INCREASE the ease of the safety net, rather than putting SOME limit on how fast it grows!!
It is HEARTLESS to look at numbers, realize the difference between slowing rate of growth and "cuts", and it is HEARTLESS even if Democrats sign off on it! They bear no responsibility for that, because they ought not have to "negotiate" at all. There IS NO REALITY ... reality and Republicans should just shut up and die!
'via Blog this'
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Krugman Defines Fairness
The Undeserving Rich - NYTimes.com:
Paul Krugman knows what fairness is and isn't. He personally bought a $1.7M NYC apartment in '09 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/paul-krugman-buys-new-yor_n_258399.html ... there MAY be a few people in the country that would find THAT to be "rich", but no doubt Paul would set them straight.
Paul actually isn't even bothered by the sundry athletes, actors and such making 10's and hundreds of millions per year ... no, he reserves his bile for the "top 1%".
He doesn't even say what do with them. I'm not much of a mathematician, but I'd hazard a guess that the top (and the bottom) 1% will always be with us ...and for those of us in the "middle 90%, the lives of either class are so far removed from ours that we may as well think about life on the Star Ship Enterprise ... or the South Pole, or some other exotic or imaginary situation.
I can only assume his purpose is to make folks MAD at those "really really rich people" ... and maybe hint that "class warfare" would be a good idea ... although as some odd economist he seems to think that the top 1% getting some money in "taking" it from somewhere else. More likely, like the rest of us, they are taking a lot of it from future generations, what our current generation has excelled at like no other. Doing all that we can do to insure that the succeeding generation will be worse off then we are!
Of course that isn't new after all ... we kicked off the staling from the kids mantra way back in FDR days, we are just getting a lot more advanced at it today ... to the tune of $60T+.
Why DOES one write a column like that? BO has been in office 5 years now ... with Krugman largely applauding his policies, and "Income Inequality" by both Paul's and BO's own numbers is worse than ever.
Slick Willie entered the WH penniless and the Clintons are worth $300M today, more than the Romney's ... although somehow if Hillary runs, I doubt if "wealth" is gong to come up much. The Kerry's were worth $800M in the '04 election and wealth wasn't much of a concern then. Al Gore made himself into being worth a BILLION, by selling "carbon offsets" and then selling his cable channel to oil rich Arabs (Al Jazeera) ... no media types seem very concerned about that.
People that have worked hard and invested might think that folks like Paul, Slick, BO and Al are actually more interested in scamming us with taxes, BOcare, high energy prices and a few other sundry schemes than the "Wolves of Wall Street". Of course, we are just stupid rubes, not able to understand the brilliance of folks like Paul!
'via Blog this
Paul Krugman knows what fairness is and isn't. He personally bought a $1.7M NYC apartment in '09 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/paul-krugman-buys-new-yor_n_258399.html ... there MAY be a few people in the country that would find THAT to be "rich", but no doubt Paul would set them straight.
Paul actually isn't even bothered by the sundry athletes, actors and such making 10's and hundreds of millions per year ... no, he reserves his bile for the "top 1%".
He doesn't even say what do with them. I'm not much of a mathematician, but I'd hazard a guess that the top (and the bottom) 1% will always be with us ...and for those of us in the "middle 90%, the lives of either class are so far removed from ours that we may as well think about life on the Star Ship Enterprise ... or the South Pole, or some other exotic or imaginary situation.
I can only assume his purpose is to make folks MAD at those "really really rich people" ... and maybe hint that "class warfare" would be a good idea ... although as some odd economist he seems to think that the top 1% getting some money in "taking" it from somewhere else. More likely, like the rest of us, they are taking a lot of it from future generations, what our current generation has excelled at like no other. Doing all that we can do to insure that the succeeding generation will be worse off then we are!
Of course that isn't new after all ... we kicked off the staling from the kids mantra way back in FDR days, we are just getting a lot more advanced at it today ... to the tune of $60T+.
Why DOES one write a column like that? BO has been in office 5 years now ... with Krugman largely applauding his policies, and "Income Inequality" by both Paul's and BO's own numbers is worse than ever.
Slick Willie entered the WH penniless and the Clintons are worth $300M today, more than the Romney's ... although somehow if Hillary runs, I doubt if "wealth" is gong to come up much. The Kerry's were worth $800M in the '04 election and wealth wasn't much of a concern then. Al Gore made himself into being worth a BILLION, by selling "carbon offsets" and then selling his cable channel to oil rich Arabs (Al Jazeera) ... no media types seem very concerned about that.
People that have worked hard and invested might think that folks like Paul, Slick, BO and Al are actually more interested in scamming us with taxes, BOcare, high energy prices and a few other sundry schemes than the "Wolves of Wall Street". Of course, we are just stupid rubes, not able to understand the brilliance of folks like Paul!
'via Blog this
Why The Left Loves BO
Putin vs. Obama | Power Line:
The left loves America raped, beaten and bleeding to death along the highway. It is easy to see why they love BO so much.
'via Blog this'
The left loves America raped, beaten and bleeding to death along the highway. It is easy to see why they love BO so much.
'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)