Friday, June 26, 2009

Cap & Trade: Stop This Plague!!!

Eeeegads! The House just passed the Waxman-Markey "Cap & Trade" bill! The Dems' victory, however, came with a tough battle from the Republicans -- 219-212. All but 30 Dems voted for the bill; but all of the GOPs reps voted against it. Now, the bill is headed for the Senate.

Here's what the AP reported (source) -- emphasis added:
House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

WASHINGTON -- The Democratic-controlled House, dealing a legislative victory to President Obama, narrowly passed sweeping legislation Friday that calls for the nation's first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, yet more costly energy.

The vote was 219-212, capping months of negotiations and days of intense bargaining among Democrats. Republicans were overwhelmingly against the measure, arguing it would destroy jobs in the midst of a recession while burdening consumers with a new tax in the form of higher energy costs.

The House's action fulfilled Speaker Nancy Pelosi's vow to clear major energy legislation before July 4, and sent the measure to a highly uncertain fate in the Senate.

... Al Gore posted a statement on his Web site saying the measure represents "an essential first step towards solving the climate crisis." ...

On the House floor, Democrats hailed the legislation as historic, while Republicans said it would damage the economy without solving the nation's energy woes.

It is "the most important energy and environmental legislation in the history of our country," said Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts. "It sets a new course for our country, one that steers us away from foreign oil and towards a path of clean American energy."

But Rep. John Boehner, the House Republican leader, used an extraordinary one-hour speech shortly before the final vote to warn of unintended consequences in what he said was a "defining bill." He called it a "bureaucratic nightmare" that would cost jobs, depress real estate prices and put the government into parts of the economy where it now has no role.

The legislation would require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by about 80 percent by mid-century. That was slightly more aggressive than Obama originally wanted, 14 percent by 2020 and the same 80 percent by mid-century ...

Under the bill, the government would limit heat-trapping pollution from factories, refineries and power plants and issue allowances for polluters. Most of the allowances would be given away, but about 15 percent would be auctioned by bid and the proceeds used to defray higher energy costs for lower-income individuals and families ...

The final bill also contained concessions to satisfy farm-state lawmakers, ethanol producers, hydroelectric advocates, the nuclear industry and others, some of them so late that they were not made public until 3 a.m. on Friday.

Supporters and opponents agreed the result would be higher energy costs but disagreed vigorously on the impact on consumers. ...

If you interested in seeing who voted how, go here. Also, here's an interesting article about the Australian legislature considering abolishing its carbon emissions plans due to growing numbers of scientists and politicians questioning the "science" of human-caused global warming.

Sadly, many of the proponents point to Europe as a model for the U.S. to follow, ignoring some of the problems Europe has faced with its attempts to limit green house gases. Go here and here to see Cap & Trade has not been all sweetness and light for the Europeans.

Go here for 15 reasons for opposing Cap & Trade.

I recommend contacting your senators ASAP. Go here for contact info.

Death Comes in Threes: Icons and Genius

The well-worn expression of "death comes in three's" surely comes to mind at the news of the deaths of three big entertainers this week: Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, and Michael Jackson. It sounds so cliché, and yet so appropriate given these high-profile deaths occurring so close together: McMahon two days ago, and Fawcett and Jackson yesterday. I'm sure there will be thousands of bloggers posting with the same title or thoughts, and, yet, all three were big icons of my youth.

Ed McMahon, who passed away Tuesday at 86 years of age after a long bout with cancer and related pneumonia, was Johnny Carson's sidekick for 30 years on "The Tonight Show." Many of us stayed up a bit past the 10:00 news just to at least watch Johnny's monologue. To be honest, I never really cared for McMahon, finding him annoying at times, but when I put that aside and think of how much he permeated American society, it is impressive. All of us adults know the "Heeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Johnny!" Trademark! We saw him promoting countless products on TV, and he was a trusted face and voice.

Farrah Fawcett was someone in my high school years that all of us girls idolized and all the boys lusted after. We girls all wanted her hair, and I think every boy must have had her famous poster pinned up in their rooms. Watching "Charlie's Angels" was one of the high points of our week, back in the days of "Happy Days" and "Starsky and Hutch." I was always impressed with how this 70's pin-up girl maintained her beauty and the awe of everyone even into her 60s.

Michael Jackson's passing on the same day as Farrah brought a too early and so sad ending to Jackson's life. His last years were wrought with scandal, accusations, astronomic debt, and an overall weirdness his appearance and actions. But, given his alleged abusive childhood followed by the hounding he endured as an adult, who wouldn't develop weird behaviors?

I never got around to buying his music until right now ... downloading a greatest hits album from iTunes as I type ... due to his odd life and the accusations and charges against him. But, I always wanted to think the accusations were false and that Jackson truly was a good guy. I do recall how everyone waited with so much excitement surrounding his Thriller video on MTV. Back in the 80s, he cranked out hit after hit and truly was the King of Pop. No one has taken his place since.

Now as I look back on the hey day of his career, I believe that Jackson played a pivotal role in helping tear down many racial divides. It seemed everybody -- Black and White -- was a fan and feverishly buying his music. This one-of-a-kind entertainer ... no, musical and entertainment genius ... had a talent that was admired by everyone. Everyone loved his music, wanted to be him, to imitate him, to dress like him. I remember the wild leather jackets that were the hottest trend at the time, a lá "Thriller." His genius was undeniable.

How sad that he was on the verge of making a comeback, having lined up 50 concerts in London to start next month on July 13th. We will all forever wonder if he would have been successful at this enormous attempt and re-establishing himself in the good graces of society.

How many entertainers have experienced such worldwide worship and adoration? How many entertainers have caused a groan to fall over New York's Time Square as the news of his death passed across the big screens? How many entertainers, let alone events, have actually caused the Internet to slow down as people and websites spread the news of his death?

An Obama Democrat

An oldie but goodie .... and still oh so true!!!

Photobucket

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.

"She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican."

"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."

The man smiled and responded, "You must be an Obama Democrat."

"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you are going. You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it's my fault."

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Summer Movies: Part 1

UPDATE!!!

Not to rub it in to you working stiffs, but I am enjoying being on summer vacation. I do find, however, that I'm having a hard time relaxing. Several times I a day, a sudden mini-panic bursts into my calm mind, gasping: "Huh? What do I need to have ready for tomorrow? What am I supposed to be working on right now?" But, then I take a deep breath and tell myself: "Self, relaaaaax. You're on vacaaaaation. You have nothing to do and all day to do it. Nowhere to go and all day to get there." (Well, until next week when I begin another University of Phoenix online course ... that will keep me busy and out of trouble.)

So, I've been taking myself to the movies quite a bit lately. I thought I would share with you my "movie reviews."

Star Trek: I'm a bit late writing on this, because I actually saw it back when it first opened in early May. LOVED IT!!!! I'm not necessarily a Trekkie. I watched the original show quite a bit when growing up; but, never could get into the newer shows or the movies. However, this movie is awesome! The plot is very clever: we see the beginning of the original series' careers with Star Fleet and see how the individuals fit into the TV show we know so well. The special effects are phenomenal, too. I put it on a level with Star Wars. My highest praise of a movie is when I would be willing to see it a second time and pay full price. Star Trek is definitely one of those rare movies. 5 of 5 stars

The Hangover: HATED IT!!!! The only good thing about this movie is watching Bradley Cooper for 2 hours. I don't understand what all the hoopla surrounding this movie. I found the humor very middle school level stupid and gross. OK, I know I shouldn't expect a movie to be high level humor with a plot about 3 friends having a wild bachelor party in Vegas. It could have been the bad mood I was in contributing to my crabby appraisal of it. (I had just gotten back from Germany, having brought back some wonderful chocolate-covered marzipan candies. My dog found them while I was grocery shopping and devoured just about all of them -- foil wrappers included. I was in a really pissed off mood while watching the movie, also worrying a bit about the amount of chocolate my knuckle-head dog had consumed.) Honestly, I got so bored I almost walked out after about 30 minutes. Be warned: it is very crude and raunchy -- something to consider when going to the theater with others, such as kids or your mother. 1 of 5 stars

The Proposal: Your typical cute date movie. The story is a bit predictable, but I really enjoy the two actors -- Sandra Bullock and cutie pie Ryan Reynolds. Betty White has a fun role as Reynold's grandmother. The best part, besides Reynolds, was the beautiful Alaska scenery. I gotta go!!! 4 of 5 stars

Up in Disney 3D: Very cute! I paid the extra $2.50 for the 3D glasses. You could just see in in the regular 2D format, but I splurged for the better experience. This is another terrific movie from Pixar/Disney. The animation was beautiful, and the 3D added extra fun. The story was adorable as well -- one that both kids and adults will enjoy. I am amazed at how an animated story can get me a bit choked up. The two main characters, Mr. Frederickson and Russell, are a great mismatch of personality, Russell's cheerful and optimistic cuteness paired up with Frederickson's Walter Mathau-like stodginess. The dogs are hilarious, especially lead dog Doug.
5 of 5 stars

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian: I can't really give a decent review of this movie, because I kept falling asleep! (I had just gotten back from Germany, so I was doin' the head-bob off and on due to jet lag. Plus, I had a belly full of yummy Mexican food.) What parts I did see were a bit boring ... so, I'm not inspired to go back when I'm fully conscious and give it a second chance. (No rating, sorry!)

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
: After posting some mini-movie reviews yesterday, I then went to see "Transformers 2", so I decided to tack this on to the end. The special effects were phenomenal, as to be expected from the great results with Transformers 1 and from its executive director Steven Spielberg. I would, however, caution parents on the PG-13 rating. Given the language and sexual content, I found it inappropriate for audiences as young 6th graders. You don't "see" any sex or nudity; but, there are sexual situations that I think would make some parents uncomfortable. There seemed to be some interesting political messages in the movie ... almost like cheap shots at Obama and those who are weak on national defense. From looking around on the Internet, I read that politics have always been a part of Transformers. (I was "too old" for Transformers when they were popular, so I didn't grow oup with them.) If you're interested, you can go to Free Republic and USAToday (although about the 1st movie) for input about the political messages of the movie.

ObamaCare: Will It Solve Or Confound Our Health Care Problems?

I found this alarming opinion piece over at Canada Free Press ...

One-man and multi-Czar mission to turn the USA into--at least--a third world country

Obama Resolutely Turning US into Third World Country

On a one-man and multi-Czar mission to turn the USA into -- at least -- a third world country, Obama is in the process of taking over all major US industries -- thus far, he’s commandeered the auto industry and banking. He is now going after the creme de la creme -- healthcare and the attendant insurance companies. ObamaControl of this industry will give him ultimate power over all of us.

During a recent speech to the American Medical Association (AMA), he said: ‚"What accounts for the bulk of our costs is the nature of the healthcare delivery system.” Translation: ‚"I don’t like this entire US system and plan to trash it.” He then said: "We spend vast amounts of money on things that aren’t necessarily making people any healthier.” Translation: ‚"I know how to manage healthcare better than doctors. Besides, I not only want a piece of this action, I want it ALL!”

In order to support his claims of ‘cheaper healthcare is better than expensive healthcare’, he decided to tell a story -- one which probably will never be verified by the still-fawning ObamaMedia. As supposed support for his argument, he advised the group in attendance that McAllen, TX has higher healthcare costs than does El Paso, TX. He said this is due to doctors giving their patients ‚"in some cases, treatment they don’t need and in some cases [treatment that] can actually do people harm by raising the real risk of infection and medical error. This error is being repeated across America!” Translation: ‚"As I have virtually all of my State-run news channels covering this speech--and they love me and will do anything and everything I tell them--this message will get to the American people. If I can scare them enough, continue to confuse them with my double-speak and convince them that less healthcare really means more healthcare I’ll get this miserable program passed! Then, we can really do some real damage to American and my opposition. Then, I’ll control almost EVERYTHING and EVERYONE! Heh-heh.”

Like Socialism, Communism, Fascism and other forms of totalitarian governments, Universal healthcare (for the USA it’s called ObamaCare) has never worked ...

[Go here for the entire article with links.]

In a related story, John Lott on FoxNews reported yesterday that several studies show that Americans are overwhelmingly happy with their health care, including most uninsured Americans. Here are excerpts (emphasis added):
As Obama Pushes National Health Care,
Most Americans Already Happy With Coverage

As the Obama administration pushes for a national health care plan, studies show that most Americans are overwhelmingly happy with their own health care -- but they are dissatisfied with the country's overall system, because most Americans who have insurance believe that those who don't have it are not receiving care.

Those same studies, however, show that a surprisingly large 70 percent of the estimated 46 million Americans who don't have insurance say they do, in fact, receive health care, and that a vast majority of them are satisfied with it.

A survey conducted jointly by the Kaiser Family Foundation, ABC News and USA Today, released in October 2006, found that 89 percent of Americans were satisfied with their own personal medical care, but only 44 percent were satisfied with the overall quality of the American medical system. The survey is the only recent poll for which data is publicly available that allows for a comparison of the satisfaction of insured and uninsured Americans. (The data from a just-completed New York Times/CBS poll won't be publicly available for several months; the results that have been reported so far don't make the comparisons discussed in this article.)

Those with recent serious health problems, possibly the people with the best knowledge of how health care is working, were generally the most satisfied. Ninety-three percent of insured Americans who had recently suffered a serious illness were satisfied with their health care. So were 95 percent of those who suffered from chronic illness.

President Obama, in his press conference on Tuesday, seemed to understand that degree of satisfaction. While promising to help people who are "out of luck" on insurance, he said: "If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing. You keep your plan; you keep your doctor. If your employer's providing you good health insurance, terrific. We're not going to mess with it."

But while insured Americans say overwhelmingly that they are satisfied, more than half of them -- 52 percent -- believe that becoming uninsured poses a "critical problem," 36 percent view the threat as "serious but not critical," and another 7 percent see it as a "problem, but not serious." Only 4 percent view it as "not much of a problem."

Uninsured Americans, not surprisingly, are not as satisfied as people who have insurance. Nonetheless, 70 percent of the uninsured who indicated their level of satisfaction said they were either "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their health care, and only 17.5 percent said they were "very dissatisfied."

Analysts say legislators should pay close attention before enacting a national health care plan.

"If the insured come to believe that the uninsured are not that dissatisfied with their health care, it is extremely important. It could throw a real wild card into the whole health care debate," Jack Calfee, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, told FOXNews.com.

"It is a common finding in public opinion research," Henry Aaron, a senior fellow for economic studies at the Brookings Institution, told FOXNews.com. "People are satisfied in the small, but dissatisfied in the large. People are satisfied with their child's teachers or school, but dissatisfied with schools generally.... They are satisfied with their doctor or their last visit to the hospital, but they are dissatisfied with what they perceive is happening with medical care as a whole. This finding is just one additional example."

The Kaiser/ABC News/USA Today survey found that about 13.4 percent of Americans were uninsured (a number slightly smaller than the 15.5 percent estimate used in policy debates from a Department of Labor survey). In crunching the numbers, since 13.4 percent multiplied by the 17.5 percent of the uninsured said that they were "very dissatisfied," it follows that out of all Americans, only 2.3 percent are both uninsured and "very dissatisfied" with the care they receive. The number rises to 3.9 percent when you include all the uninsured who are dissatisfied in any way with their health care.

To put those numbers differently, 5 million uninsured Americans are very dissatisfied with their health care. Including those dissatisfied in any way raises that to 8.4 million.

The survey of patient satisfaction also asked about the aspects of health care that dissatisfy Americans. The uninsured were most dissatisfied with their "ability to get the latest, most sophisticated medical treatments" (35 percent were "very dissatisfied"), followed by their ability to get non-emergency medical treatments without having to wait" (32 percent), and their "ability to see top-quality medical specialists, if you ever need one" (31 percent). At the other end, only 10 percent of the uninsured felt "very dissatisfied" with "the quality of their communication" with their doctor.

A majority of the uninsured are not desperately poor; about 60 percent of them have personal incomes over $50,000 per year and pay out of their own pockets when necessary, rather than paying for insurance. Others manage to obtain care at highly discounted rates as charity cases.

...
The studies also compared patient satisfaction in Canada and the U.S.

A May 2008 survey by Harris/Decima TeleVox asked Canadians the same questions that appeared in the Kaiser/ABC News/USA Today survey two years earlier. In most comparisons, Canadians were more satisfied than uninsured Americans, but just barely, and they were nowhere as satisfied as insured Americans. Canadians are most similar to insured Americans in terms of their happiness with their ability "to get non-emergency care without having to wait." While 77 percent of insured Americans and 41 percent of uninsured Americans were satisfied with timely non-emergency care, the figure for all Canadians was 60 percent.

Among the biggest differences between percentage of Canadians and insured Americans who were satisfied were the "ability to see top-quality medical specialists, if you ever need one" (26 percentage points difference) and the "ability to get emergency care" (24 percentage points difference).

Another comparison between the U.S. and Canada can be made in terms of how egalitarian the two systems are. That is, is there much difference in levels of happiness between people based on race, education, income, marital status, age, political views, or income? For both Americans and Canadians, higher incomes don't buy higher levels of satisfaction with their health care. In the U.S., there is no difference in happiness by race; blacks are just as satisfied as whites or Asians or Hispanics. Canadians do experience greater differences in happiness across provinces than Americans face across states.

Lott's article is lengthy and well-researched with links to his sources. I encourage you to read it in its entirety.

It is important that we have an open debate that encompasses various viewpoints of this very complicated issue ... something that OBC ... er, ABC ... was not willing to do! (Go here for that story.)

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Another Lying Spoiled Brat

Last week's story of Belgian teenager, Kimberley Vlaminck, who supposedly fell asleep while her face was being tattooed, is admitting this week that she lied.

Helllooooo! No surprise here!
Was anybody really fooled by her cockamamie story? I thought the story smelled like horse hockey when I first heard it. My initial thought was if she indeed had fallen asleep, then she must have been extremely drunk or stoned, because who could FALL ASLEEP while getting tattooed?!?! You know the ones right below her eye, on her nose and her temple had to have been excruciating. Fell asleep? Really?!? Her story sounded no different from the situation of a crashing sound being heard in the house, the parents asking "What's going up there?" and the kids responding with "Nothing!"

Here's what FoxNews and The London Daily Telegraph are reporting (source):

She initially insisted she dozed off after asking the tattoo artist for just three small stars – then awoke in horror to find her face was covered with 56 stars. The Belgian teenager blamed the Flemish-speaking tattoo artist for not being able to understand her French and English instructions and threatened to sue.

"I asked for 56 stars and initially adored them,” Vlaminck told a Dutch TV crew. “But when my father saw them, he was furious. So I said I fell asleep and that the (he) had made a mistake."

I hope the tattoo artist sues her little brat ass and that her daddy paddles it!!!!

Neo-Nazis: Laugh of the Day

I busted a gut when I read this AP story yesterday:
Road Cleaned by Neo-Nazis May Be Named for Rabbi

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Two Adopt-a-Highway signs on a Missouri road acknowledge a neo-Nazi group's participation in the state's litter prevention program.

But if Gov. Jay Nixon signs a large transportation bill, that half-mile section of road will be renamed "Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel Memorial Highway" in honor of a rabbi who narrowly escaped the Nazis in World War II and later marched with Martin Luther King Jr.

The Springfield unit of the National Socialist Movement committed last year to clean up trash along the section of Highway 160 near the city limits in west Springfield. Two signs noting the group's membership in the Adopt-A-Highway program went up last October.

"For the National Socialist movement to be in the Adopt-a-Highway program is well within their rights," said Rabbi Alan L. Cohen of the Jewish Community Relations Board of Kansas City, which worked on selecting Heschel's name for the highway.

"But obviously there were people raising the concern that this is the wrong message for people to see driving down a Missouri highway, that there are National Socialists out here," Cohen said Sunday. "Wouldn't it be nice to have someone who stands for justice."

The state says it had no way to reject the group's application. A 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling arising from a similar effort by the Ku Klux Klan says membership in the Adopt-A-Highway program can't be denied because of a group's political beliefs.

That 2005 Supreme Court ruling also had to do with a racist group here in Missouri. (Oh, and we have some other radical group in the bootheel of Missouri ... something like the "Covenant, Sword and Arm of the Lord" whack jobs. The Show-Me state excels in home-grown radicalism / terrorism.) The case found that the state cannot deny any organization's application to the program on grounds of political beliefs; but, a group can be denied if any its members have been convicted of violent criminal activity in the past 10 years.

What happened in that 2005 case was that the Missouri Department of Transportation lost a long legal battle in trying to prevent the Ku Klux Klan from adopting a highway on freedom-of-speech grounds. So, the state decided to get in a "cheap shot" by getting the Missouri legislature to officially designate that part of highway 55 as the "Rosa Parks Highway" in honor of the courageous woman arrested in 1955 for refusing to give up her bus to a white man in Montgomery, Alabama.

[Go here for more of the story.]

Oh the sweet irony of having yet another white trash group picking up trash named in honor of a Rabbi!

Sarkozy Wishes to Ban Burqas

There is a recent, growing trend in France of women wearing full-body burqas, the traditional head-to-toe black covering worn by many Islamic women. The trend has raised concern among many Frenchmen .... so much so, that dozens of legislators have called for the formation of a parliamentary commission to study this increasing use of burqas. It is possible that the commission could impose a ban on wearing them.

President Nicolas Sarkozy very boldly stated his personal concerns about the burqa, calling it a sign of debasement of women and that its wearing would not be allowed in France.

Here are some of the things Sarkozy commented on (source):

In the first presidential address in 136 years to a joint session of France's two houses of parliament, Sarkozy laid out his support for a ban even before the panel has been approved—braving critics who fear the issue is a marginal one and could stigmatize Muslims in France.

"In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity," Sarkozy said to extended applause in a speech at the Chateau of Versailles southwest of Paris.

"The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement—I want to say it solemnly," he said. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."

Wow! -- pretty doggone bold, especially given that France hosts Europe's largest Islamic population -- estimates of approximately 10% of the general population. (It is difficult, however, to get fairly precise numbers due to the French authorities not asking about a person's ethnic or religious identity.)

This current debate calls to mind a ban declared back in 2004 on the wearing of Islamic headscarves and other conspicuous religious symbols in French public schools. This time, if a ban against burqas were to be enacted, would effect the wearing of them outside of the home -- not just in schools.

Sarkozy's cabinet members are divided over the issue. France's secretary of state in charge of
regenerating poor urban neighborhoods, feminist Fadela Amara, supports a total ban. Immigration Minister Eric Besson believes that a ban won't work and would only create tensions. Nadine Morano, secretary of state in charge of families, fears that some women would wind up being confined to their homes if they are not allowed to wear burqas.

A government-approved body representing French Muslims spoke out against a ban Saturday, saying it would breach individual freedoms and stigmatise Muslims.

A leading French Muslim group warned against studying the burqa.

[sources: Breitbart and Yahoo]

Gotta love that political INcorrectness of Sarko!!! Wish we had more people like him in our country and around the world.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

He's Barack Obama! He's Come To Save The Day!

Check out Jib Jab's newest video -- it's great! [Sorry -- I tried several times to embed the video here; but, there must be something wrong with the code. But, just click on the link and go directly to Jib Jab's website to see it.]

The song is to the tune of "When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again."
He's Barack Obama

When darkness had descended all across the land
a lone voice in the distance uttered "yes, we can!"
he gave good speeches, never sweat
he was real good at the internets
he's Barack Obama
he's come to save the day

he passed a major stimulus for the bourgeois
then said he'd half the deficit, hee hee, hah hah
stop unemployment, fix health care in his spare time
he's Barack Obama
he's come to save the day

He’ll use his super powers to win in Iraq,
Then kung-fu chop the Taliban! Ka-chow! Ka-cha!
Our image in the world he’ll mend,
Then make the Jews and Arabs friends!
He’s Barack Obama,
He’s come to save the day!

[Oval Office scene: phone rings
"Sir, we have a situation."
"Pirates!"]

He'll spend the dough, write the checks
Disregard the mounting debt

Stop the globe from getting warm
Fill your car with nuts and corn

Leap a building, run industry
Save a kitten from a tree

Fix the schools, go to space
Punch a robot in the face

Stop a train, wrestle bears
Smoke a butt, we don't care

'Cuz you're Barack Obama
You've come to save the day
So just snap your fingers
and fix the USA!
You can go to here to see and read about how the video was produced -- from the writing and recording of the song to the animation. Very interesting!

Thursday, June 18, 2009

The Pelosi 2012



I like the "thoughtful appointments" that come with this new car, intended for 2012 by "Congressional Motors" -- the in-dash condom dispenser and the fairness radio system that will help me to never miss another segment of NPR ever again! Tee, hee!

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

The World's Most Amazing Holes


These holes are not only amazing, but some of them are truly terrifying. The sheer scale of these holes reminds us just how tiny we are.

1. Kimberley Big Hole, South Africa


Apparently the largest hand-dug excavation in the world, this 1,097-meter-deep mine yielded over three tons of diamonds before being closed in 1914.



2. Glory Hole - Monticello Dam, California


This is the "glory hole" at Monticello dam, and it is the largest spillway of its kind in the world, its size enabling it to consume 14,400 cubic feet of water every second.



3. Bingham Canyon Mine, Utah


This is supposedly the largest man-made excavation on earth. Extraction began in 1863 and still continues today, the pit increasing in size constantly. In its current state the hole is miles deep and 2.5 miles wide.



4. Great Blue Hole, Belize


This incredible geographical phenomenon known as a blue hole is situated 60 miles off the mainland ofBelize ... There are numerous blue holes around the world, but none as stunning as this one.



5. Mirny Diamond Mine, Serbia


This one is an absolute beast and holds the title of largest open diamond mine in the world. At 525 meters deep, with a top diameter of 1200 meters, there's even a no-fly zone above the hole due to a few helicopters having been sucked in.



6. Diavik Mine, Canada


The mine is so huge and the area so remote that it has its own airport with a runway large enough to accommodate a Boeing 737. It is equally impressive when the surrounding water is frozen.



7. Sinkhole in Guatemala


These photos are of a sinkhole that instantaneously appeared when the soil beneath was eroded as a result of a broken water main early this year (2008) in Guatemala . The hole swallowed a dozen homes and killed at least 3 people..



8. Rat Hole, Washington, D.C., USA

This horrific hole is capable of sucking down trillions of U.S. dollars annually. Once the money disappears within its gaping jaw it is never seen again

Obama: "You Scare Me"


An interesting forward I received today ...

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
By Lou Pritchett

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett


Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.

Mr. Pritchett
confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter." “I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Left v. Right: Legal v. Moral

I found an interesting commentary written by Dennis Prager back in September 2004, in which he tries to explain the difference in thinking between the Left and Right. Here are some of the excerpts (emphasis added):
The Left Thinks Legally, The Right Thinks Morally

To understand the worldwide ideological battle -- especially the one between America and Western Europe and within America itself -- one must understand the vast differences between leftist and rightist worldviews and between secular and religious (specifically Judeo-Christian) values.

One of the most important of these differences is their attitudes toward law. Generally speaking, the Left and the secularists venerate, if not worship, law. They put their faith in law -- both national and international. Law is the supreme good. For most on the Left, "Is it legal?" is usually the question that determines whether an action is right or wrong.

Take the war in Iraq. The chief leftist argument against the war -- before it began, not later when no weapons of mass destruction were found -- was that without U.N. sanction, attacking Iraq violated international law.

Whatever their feelings about George W. Bush or about attacking Iraq, for most of those on the Left, the rightness or wrongness of toppling Saddam Hussein's regime was determined by its legality (i.e., whether it was authorized by the U.N. Security Council). On the other hand, for those who supported attacking Iraq, whether the war was deemed legal played no role in their assessment of its rightness or wrongness.

To those who supported removing Saddam Hussein by force, if the United Nations did not authorize it, it was a reflection on the morality of the United Nations, not the morality of the war.

International law thus provides a clear example of the Left-Right divide. To the Left, an international action is right if nations such as China, Russia, France and Syria vote for it, and wrong if they vote against it. To the Right and to the religious, an action is good (or bad) irrespective of the votes of the world's nations. They judge it by a code of morality higher than international law.

To cite one other contemporary example, the Left throughout the world opposed Israel's 1981 air strike razing Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor, thereby destroying his ability to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Among major American newspapers, only the conservative Wall Street Journal supported the strike along with various religious Jewish and Christian groups. From The New York Times to Le Monde to your local university, there was outrage that Israel had acted against international law. It meant nothing to their judgment of Israel's action that the leading mass murderer of the time had his nuclear weapons facility destroyed with the loss of but one life. All that mattered was that it was illegal.

To the Left, legality matters most, while to the Right, legality matters far less than morality. To the Right and to the religious, the law, when it is doing its job, is only a vehicle to morality, never a moral end in itself. Even the Left has to acknowledge this. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Ala., bus in 1955, she violated the law. Therefore, anyone who thinks she did the right thing is acknowledging that law must be subservient to morality. Why, then, must the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein be subject to international law as determined by Communist China, neo-KGB Russia, amoral France and the thugs who rule Syria?

The answer is to be found in the Left's substitution of legal for moral.

And why is the Left so enamored of law?

First, the Left, which is largely secular, regards morality not as absolute, but as relative. This inevitably leads to moral confusion, and no one likes to be morally confused. So instead of moral absolutes, the Left holds legal absolutes. "Legal" for the Left is what "moral" is for the Right. The religious have a belief in God-based moral law, and the Left believes in man-made law as the moral law.

Second, whereas they cannot change God's laws, those on the Left can and do make many of society's laws.

In fact, the Left is intoxicated with law-making. It gives them the power tomold society just as Judeo-Christian values did in the past. Unless one understands that leftist ideals function as a religion, one cannot understand the Left.

Laws are the Left's vehicles to earthly salvation. Virtually all human problems have a legal solution.

Some men harass women? Pass laws banning virtually every flirtatious action a man might engage in vis a vis a woman. Flood legislatures with laws preventing the creation of a "hostile work environment." Whereas the religious world has always worked to teach men how to act toward women, the secular world, lacking these religious values, passes laws to control men.

In fact, since it lacks the self-control apparatus that is a major part of religion, the Left passes more and more laws to control people. That is why there is a direct link between the decline in Judeo-Christian religion and the increase in governmental laws controlling human behavior.

Of course, the more laws that are passed, the less liberty society enjoys. But to the Left, which elevates any number of values above liberty -- e.g., compassion, equality, fairness -- this presents little problem.

All this helps to explain the Left's preoccupation with controlling courts; passing laws; producing, enriching and empowering lawyers; filing lawsuits; and naming judges. Laws and the makers of laws will produce heaven on earth.

And that's one reason the Left hates the America represented by George W. Bush. This country under this president says morality is higher than man-made law. To the Left, that, not Saddam Hussein's torture and rape rooms, must be fought.

Dennis Prager is a radio show host and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
What an interesting summation of legal versus moral ... leftist versus rightist thinking.

Monday, June 8, 2009

Rachel Carson: A Rival to Pol Pot?

Two years ago, I posted an item about if Rachel Carson was wrong in her belief that DDT was wreaking havoc on the environment and humans. It was a time when the local bookstores were stocked full of books commemorating Carson's 100th birthday, offering her famous book "Silent Spring", published in 1962, launching the environmental movement.

Her book lead to many countries banning the use of DDT; however, in 2006 the World Health Organization reversed its 30-year ban on the use of DDT to fight malaria. DDT has proven to be the most effective tool against this disease that annually kills 1 million children and sickens millions more. Such a devastating toll on human health and resources reduces economic development in poverty-stricken countries of the world. 90% of these deaths occur in Africa. (Go here to see my post from two years ago.)

On May 28th, James Delingpole posted an interesting observance of Rachel Carson's 102nd birthday over at the UK's Telegraph [emphasis added]:
Rachel Carson: environmentalism's answer to Pol Pot

Yesterday would have been her 102nd birthday and I'm sorry I missed it, but my sharp-eyed fellow-traveller David Hinz at The Minority Report celebrated with a lively dance on the old fraud's grave. He doesn't mince his words: Rachel Carson - poster girl of the international eco movement - was a "mass murderer" to rival Stalin and Pol Pot.

Was she really responsible for the deaths of as many as 50 million people? That's just an estimate. What we do know is that her landmark 1962 bestseller Silent Spring - the book that set a million and one green activists on the path of eco righteousness - was responsible for the worldwide ban on the insecticide DDT, the most effective preventative against the mosquitos which spread the world's deadliest disease, Malaria. In this way countless millions of people, mostly Third World children, were condemned to death in the name of ecological correctness.

Rather as so many people do now with the global warming/climate change story, readers in the 1960s just couldn't get enough of Rachel Carson's apocalyptic predictions of man-made eco doom. There might, she claimed, be a cancer epidemic which would hit 'practically 100 per cent' of the human population; bird life would be wiped out. And all because of the evil DDT. As a result of this scare-mongering DDT was banned first by an eco-activist administrator at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), subsequently by the UN and the World Health Organisation.

Problem was, few if any of the claims made by Carson were true. They were derived from a complete misrepresentation of research by Dr James DeWitt.

She claimed: "Dr DeWitt's now classic experiments [show] that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched."

In fact DeWitt's research had shown the exact opposite:

"DeWitt reported no significant difference in egg hatching between birds fed DDT and birds not fed DDT. Carson omitted mentioning DeWitt's report that DDT-fed pheasants hatched about 50 percent more eggs than "control" pheasants."

DDT doesn't cause cancer. (Carson blamed DDT for something that was actually, later research found, caused by aflatoxin, a toxic by-product of fungi). Nor does it damage bird reproduction. In 1971-72 an EPA judge concluded after seven months and 9,000 pages of testimony:

"DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."

In 2006, the WHO tacitly acknowledged its mistake by partially rescinding the ban. "We must take a position based on the science and the data. One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual spraying. Of the dozen or so insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT," said Arata Kochi of WHO.

Do the utterly misleading "extreme scenarios" posited by Rachel Carson remind you of anyone? Prince Charles, maybe? Al Gore? Dr James Hansen? No surprise if they do. Carson's bestselling brand of junk science and misanthropic, anti-capitalist doom-mongering has provided the model for the international green movement ever since.

What an interesting parallel he draws between the 60s fear-mongering created by Carson and the present-day apocalypse being predicted by Al Gore and his cronies.

NOTE: Earlier last month, the UN announced its renewed efforts to ban DDT worldwide, beginning with 10 projects targeting 40 African countries. (Go here for more info.)

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Bad Guys Givin' Obama The Finger

Ah, that British humor .... This is from Gerald Warner of the UK's Telegraph [emphasis added]:

Barack Obama: all the bad guys are giving
President Pantywaist the finger

Kim Jong-il, the charismatic and popular (if you are a Pyongyang resident and covet a life expectancy of more than 24 hours) Dear Leader of North Korea, is on his sixth or seventh missile this week. See the pretty vapour trails streak across Asian skies, in an impressive firework display to celebrate the arrival of President Pantywaist in the Oval Office.

School's out! Suddenly it is playtime for all the naughtier elements in the more "reclusive" parts of the world who enjoy kicking Uncle Sam's butt but didn't much relish tangling with Dick Cheney and (what was that other guy's name?). This time Comrade Kim is really throwing his toys out of the playpen. He has even unilaterally revoked the 1953 armistice between the Korean War belligerents, which means, in case anybody is interested, that North and South Korea are once more at war.

So, what is the response of the Messiah in the Oval Office? Really severe rhetoric, is the answer. The soundbite manufacturers have been burning the midnight oil and the auto-cue is going into meltdown. So is the confidence of Asian leaders. The word is out: the most powerful nation on earth has got itself a pussycat for a president and all the bad guys are queuing up to give him the finger.

It is a measure of Obama's acknowledged impotence that some of those who are now cheeking him are doing so with a degree of sophistication they had not previously exhibited. Irony and sarcasm are being deployed in an unlikely place: Tehran. It is the worst-kept secret in the world that Iran is dependent on North Korea for the development of its nuclear programme. When Kim last lit the blue touch-paper, in 2006, Tehran roundly supported him. This time the mullahs have come up with a more teasing ploy: they have righteously condemned him.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said piously: "We recommend all countries not to waste national resources and their people's wealth on moving toward nuclear proliferation and making weapons of mass destruction." You have to have respect for a man who can deliver a statement like that with a straight face. On Britain's Got Talent such a virtuoso performance would have knocked Susan Boyle off the radar.

President Pantywaist's enemies are taking his measure and they are liking what they see. Perhaps, in some Macchiavellian way, Obama thinks the appointment to the Supreme Court of a Latina woman of apparent bias, who seems unlikely to find in favour of a white male American, will either appease or frighten his foes. Come back, Dick Cheney, all is forgiven.