One piece of evidence the world is ending may be found in student behavior. Of course I realize that this is a bit extreme - the world will not end, but most assuredly, the delicate balance between faculty and student will erode when they are being throttled for their impertinence.
I was explaining, not an opinion, but an understood fact as to whole language and phonics, when a student begins making a hand gesture - the squawking hands, the hand gesture one makes for a puppet. It is true the nexus between the subject and the example was a struggle, it was none the less, my example and my class. That was not the issue, and instead, should have been a learning exercise for all.
Unfortunately, one student decided they did not learn to read using phonics and strongly disagreed with my assertion that all students can learn to read with phonics. I am sure some students can learn to read through osmosis while others learn to read through smoke rings, and others still learn to read by drawing pictures - all of which say nothing and is irrelevant to my point.
At a ripe age of maybe 18 or 19, the student knows more than I about the issue and has decided that their opinion invalidates my opinion (the hand gestures were the give away that they regarded what I had to say as an opinion). In fact, their opinion somehow supersedes mine in terms of authority - although I am always at a loss to understand this condition. The fact that the student would so boldly say aloud that it was just my opinion is another not so indirect way to make that point equally as clear.
First, can a student learn to read using whole language - yes. They are exceptional and the outlier - not the norm, usual, average. They are statistically, irrelevant. I also question whether they did indeed learn to read without phonics as that language tool was resurrected by the time the student was old enough to benefit from it. LAUSD reintegrated it in their education program by the early / mid 90s which would be just in time for our winning student to reap the benefit.
Second, to state as clearly as the student might utter their name, that it was my opinion as to the deficiencies of whole language is stupefying and it is on this point, I stop. The end of civilization.
The fact every study, every policy, every position, and the outcome of the failed system all prove me correct is a bit overwhelming. The fact the state of California along with every other state has reverted to another system and away from whole language as the functionary tool for a classroom to learn, is also, I suppose my opinion.
Had it been my opinion, every state and the federal government, and the educational system in Australia would not have reverted back and or away from whole language, if it was anything but an abysmal failure. Stupefying what substitutes for opinion now.
NEWS FLASH - A meteor 14 miles wide is hurtling toward earth and will impact in five minutes, killing hundreds of millions and sending the earth hurtling off into the sun, ending earths existence.
The mind-numbingly impertinent student would naturally respond with the wit and wisdom of their age - that is just your opinion.
In either case - the end of civilization.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Sunday, November 4, 2007
La Francais
Que pouvons-nous dire du francais ?
A l'Universite de Delaware, les 'Resident Assistants' subissent un programme d'entrainement dans lequel tous brins sont definis dans un de deux groupes : les racistes ou les racistes dans le dementi.
Les idiots sur le cote gauche de l'equation n'ont jamais compris le racisme jusqu'a ce qu'ils commencent a detruire leur propre philosophie et ils doivent commencer avec le francais.
It is so deeply held that it is not racism as much as a way of life. In considering the southern states through the 1860s, racism was palpable and one could sense it in words and expressions. Racism was very nearly a tangible thing throughout the early and mid 19th century in the US. It was never so tangible nor palpable in Europe yet it was more pervasive - then and now.
One may argue the US is racist and the US invades poor little countries whose inhabitants are merely peace loving families, while Europe stands ready to protect the down-trodden. While this is an exageration of the condition many believe and accept, it is a foolish pipe dream believed by those who are in the later stages of dementia.
We need to fix and repair and help - may seem inoculous enough, but is no more inoculous than the US position of invading and installing. In fact, it is intellectually more dishonest and as immoral or more, for it hides its true intentions and motivations in a cloak of goodwill.
The French may not even know how deeply racist they and their actions really are, but that is why we have the University of Delaware and other stellar instiututions - to let us know that there are les racistes ou les racistes dans le dementi.
Zoe's Ark does exactly what and for what reason? Why do they need to and who says they should, based upon what international law are they entitled.
A l'Universite de Delaware, les 'Resident Assistants' subissent un programme d'entrainement dans lequel tous brins sont definis dans un de deux groupes : les racistes ou les racistes dans le dementi.
Les idiots sur le cote gauche de l'equation n'ont jamais compris le racisme jusqu'a ce qu'ils commencent a detruire leur propre philosophie et ils doivent commencer avec le francais.
It is so deeply held that it is not racism as much as a way of life. In considering the southern states through the 1860s, racism was palpable and one could sense it in words and expressions. Racism was very nearly a tangible thing throughout the early and mid 19th century in the US. It was never so tangible nor palpable in Europe yet it was more pervasive - then and now.
One may argue the US is racist and the US invades poor little countries whose inhabitants are merely peace loving families, while Europe stands ready to protect the down-trodden. While this is an exageration of the condition many believe and accept, it is a foolish pipe dream believed by those who are in the later stages of dementia.
We need to fix and repair and help - may seem inoculous enough, but is no more inoculous than the US position of invading and installing. In fact, it is intellectually more dishonest and as immoral or more, for it hides its true intentions and motivations in a cloak of goodwill.
The French may not even know how deeply racist they and their actions really are, but that is why we have the University of Delaware and other stellar instiututions - to let us know that there are les racistes ou les racistes dans le dementi.
Zoe's Ark does exactly what and for what reason? Why do they need to and who says they should, based upon what international law are they entitled.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Vote here, there, anywhere, anytime, and anyone, as often as you wish
Representative Ellison (MN) does not deserve to be a member of the judiciary committee or a member of congress.
He is an idiot. He is also a dangerous idiot. He knows full well what he is suggesting and he knows the consequences of his action and he is ploughing ahead.
When I read about people like Ellison, or Harry " 'We have lost in Iraq' before the surge is complete and in place" Reid, or Hillary 'Doublespeak' Clinton, I am amazed at the temerity of anti-Bush people. We really must be on different planets, which does not bode well for the Republic (despite this concern being raised since the inception of the Republic).
The Examiner has an article from October 31, 2007, with Ellison's mind-numbingly stupid proposal.
He is an idiot. He is also a dangerous idiot. He knows full well what he is suggesting and he knows the consequences of his action and he is ploughing ahead.
When I read about people like Ellison, or Harry " 'We have lost in Iraq' before the surge is complete and in place" Reid, or Hillary 'Doublespeak' Clinton, I am amazed at the temerity of anti-Bush people. We really must be on different planets, which does not bode well for the Republic (despite this concern being raised since the inception of the Republic).
The Examiner has an article from October 31, 2007, with Ellison's mind-numbingly stupid proposal.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
What did she say
It has become a very common catch-phrase for anyone who dislikes or loathes President Bush to attack him for a seemingly incomprehensible manner of speech. He continues to demonstrate why some people should not be allowed near a microphone. He cannot speak, probably does not read, and is generally ignorant. Granted. After all, what else would you expect from a hard drinking cowboy Yalie.
After all, such behavior would never occur among people who have any class, among people who speak well for Bush is the poster child for the antithesis of all that spoken language should not be. We expect our politicians and leaders to speak and make sense and Bush seems to mess it all up.
We all accept that, but why then does Hillary sound like a bat with a mouth full of cotton when she explained her position on an Iran vote as:
"In my view, rushing to war we should not be doing that but we shouldn't be doing nothing. And that means we should not let them acquire nuclear weapons, and the best way to prevent that is a full court press on the diplomatic front."
And that means exactly what? Distinguish that mumble jumble from Bush and his stumble mumble.
She had not had enough and spoke to the Boston Globe saying that she didn't "know what, if anything, would come from such negotiations, but I am confident that our failure to engage in them is a terrible miscalculation."
So for the sake of negotiation we should negotiate whether or not it is useful or accomplishes anything. We should just talk because talk is good regardless of outcome.
That is something to chew on. It is also not diplomatic nor is it smart nor is it useful and it is certainly not rational.
Unfortunately, the other dwarfs have let her get too far ahead and she is near unstoppable. Sad for the Democrats when 50% of the American people say they will never vote for her and she does not have all Democrats on board. Watch for her to win the nomination and take Obama on as VP. Gore will get an Ambassadorial position - UN or something equally as useful. Edwards could be offered a cabinet role and the whole dwarf factory is taken on board ship. Well, except Richardson who would not accept nor would he be offered. Possible Gore wouldn't accept - he walked behind one Clinton for eight years - unlikely to do it again EXCEPT the opportunity to get in the UN may be too great a whale to lose. Edwards - he may piss her off and find himself out in the cold. Obama has the VP slot and its all race all the time. She would never offer it otherwise - pandering before it even begins, that's Hillary.
After all, such behavior would never occur among people who have any class, among people who speak well for Bush is the poster child for the antithesis of all that spoken language should not be. We expect our politicians and leaders to speak and make sense and Bush seems to mess it all up.
We all accept that, but why then does Hillary sound like a bat with a mouth full of cotton when she explained her position on an Iran vote as:
"In my view, rushing to war we should not be doing that but we shouldn't be doing nothing. And that means we should not let them acquire nuclear weapons, and the best way to prevent that is a full court press on the diplomatic front."
And that means exactly what? Distinguish that mumble jumble from Bush and his stumble mumble.
She had not had enough and spoke to the Boston Globe saying that she didn't "know what, if anything, would come from such negotiations, but I am confident that our failure to engage in them is a terrible miscalculation."
So for the sake of negotiation we should negotiate whether or not it is useful or accomplishes anything. We should just talk because talk is good regardless of outcome.
That is something to chew on. It is also not diplomatic nor is it smart nor is it useful and it is certainly not rational.
Unfortunately, the other dwarfs have let her get too far ahead and she is near unstoppable. Sad for the Democrats when 50% of the American people say they will never vote for her and she does not have all Democrats on board. Watch for her to win the nomination and take Obama on as VP. Gore will get an Ambassadorial position - UN or something equally as useful. Edwards could be offered a cabinet role and the whole dwarf factory is taken on board ship. Well, except Richardson who would not accept nor would he be offered. Possible Gore wouldn't accept - he walked behind one Clinton for eight years - unlikely to do it again EXCEPT the opportunity to get in the UN may be too great a whale to lose. Edwards - he may piss her off and find himself out in the cold. Obama has the VP slot and its all race all the time. She would never offer it otherwise - pandering before it even begins, that's Hillary.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Conversations
I thought the following was interesting for its various perspectives.
Three characters: Bob, Sam, and John.
John parked his car and began walking toward the orchard.
In the orchard, Sam and Bob ran in to each other after many months of not speaking and Sam began ranting and raving about insane ideas - Sam was a follower of conspiracy theories and was explaining why September 11, 2001 was an inside job. he explained the roll Bush played, bin laden was really a puppet for Bush, that it was all fabricated to allow the US to invade a middle eastern country to seize its oil and ... and Sam kept going, explaining all the holes in the official story until finally, after twenty minutes, Bob interrupted him. At that moment John was making his way through the orchard and was in time to hear Bob exclaim: '...believe that Bush did it all, he caused it all to happen, he was the mastermind and it is all a fabrication, a lie, and Bush killed 3000 people to get gold and oil ..."
John stopped then continued forward into the opening and Bob stopped in mid sentence, John believed it was because he was trying to hide or prevent anyone from hearing what he had previously been saying aloud. Bob dropped the conversation and began talking to John, telling him that he though Sam was a bit nutty.
When john got home he called Bob's wife and expressed his concern to her over Bob's erratic behavior. He told her that Bob was trying to cover things up and if he was covering up wacko beliefs, who knows what else he was trying to hide.
******************************
I thought that was a reasonably interesting story. My thoughts on it are - John should immediately apologize for being an idiot, for wasting another persons precious time, for being so childish and foolish and for appearing so to everyone. Then John should cease being annoying and make every effort to not annoy anyone ever again.
Three characters: Bob, Sam, and John.
John parked his car and began walking toward the orchard.
In the orchard, Sam and Bob ran in to each other after many months of not speaking and Sam began ranting and raving about insane ideas - Sam was a follower of conspiracy theories and was explaining why September 11, 2001 was an inside job. he explained the roll Bush played, bin laden was really a puppet for Bush, that it was all fabricated to allow the US to invade a middle eastern country to seize its oil and ... and Sam kept going, explaining all the holes in the official story until finally, after twenty minutes, Bob interrupted him. At that moment John was making his way through the orchard and was in time to hear Bob exclaim: '...believe that Bush did it all, he caused it all to happen, he was the mastermind and it is all a fabrication, a lie, and Bush killed 3000 people to get gold and oil ..."
John stopped then continued forward into the opening and Bob stopped in mid sentence, John believed it was because he was trying to hide or prevent anyone from hearing what he had previously been saying aloud. Bob dropped the conversation and began talking to John, telling him that he though Sam was a bit nutty.
When john got home he called Bob's wife and expressed his concern to her over Bob's erratic behavior. He told her that Bob was trying to cover things up and if he was covering up wacko beliefs, who knows what else he was trying to hide.
******************************
I thought that was a reasonably interesting story. My thoughts on it are - John should immediately apologize for being an idiot, for wasting another persons precious time, for being so childish and foolish and for appearing so to everyone. Then John should cease being annoying and make every effort to not annoy anyone ever again.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Whats Sexy? Whats on TV?
After watching several social-dramas / love stories on HBO or On-Demand, a few points become clear.
For whatever it is worth, the following gets added because, believe it or not, in some form or another, it is relevant.
Sexy is honesty. Sexy is truth. Sexy is direct and straight forward answers. Sexy is being considerate and treating others with respect.
It is not very passionate - granted. It is not exciting - granted. It is healthy. It is better for you and will bring you more happiness than all the rest of that crap combined.
Playing games, lies, obfuscation, half truths, refusing to answer questions, indirect and vague answers - NOT sexy. In fact, people who make it a habit to do more than one of the above listed deserve ignominy. I understand public ridicule may be a little extreme for someone who tells half truths, but (generalizing here) they are most likely to do more than just one hence the satisfaction of my requirement for ignominy.
It has nothing to do with the physical age of the person - that behavior is learned and it is unhealthy to get involved with those people. My suggestion - listen to them, talk to them, and put off ever being alone with them for fear they could turn mad as a hatter. Never let them know you will never meet them anywhere except at church and in public with hundreds of people around. Never let on because they will become easily offended and call you a hypocrite or worse.
Do not waste time on such people. Walk on the other side of the street when you see them. If Catholic, make the sign of the cross to ward off evil tendencies that may creep your way. Do not try to fix them or accept them - simply let them go off and drown in their miserable lives.
It may not seem that they are miserable BUT in most cases they are even if by all appearances the facade they show everyone is anything but unhappy.
Only they can help themselves and until they realize that games and lies will never make them happy nor will it attract the right people to them, until then - let them drown. The day will come when most of them will wake up - they may be too old, or used up, or thrown away, but many do wake up. You are permitted to pray they wake up sooner than later.
When they grow up (and I do not mean their physical age) be willing to give them the chance to prove it.
Some indications they have grown up:
1) they will not raise the names of people from their past.
2) they will not place demands on you, if they do not meet the smallest requirements you have asked of them (call on the phone or be willing to acknowledge feelings or mistakes)
3) when plans are mentioned, they keep their word or contact you when they cannot.
Those 3 points would be a start. Even if they get offended and claim you are at fault consider the following: if you have analyzed your comments and actions, perhaps consulted with 1-2 people, and provided them with the comments and consulted them for opinions, and if after all of that you seem to be the one who is less of a problem - stick to your requirements and do not give in. They may huff and puff and hiss - let them and say goodbye. One day if they are honest with themselves, they will understand what happened and will return and apologize. Until then you really do not need them near you. All of the above suggestions DO NOT MEAN, INTIMATE, SUGGEST, IMPLY, CONNOTE that you are not madly head over heels for them and may always be - rather - you do what you do because you must, for your own sanity.
Let them be angry, calm down, and get back to you when they feel better - or switch channels.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Liars, Scoundrels, and Scaliwags
Often the posts are in response to an article, event, or a comment made by a student or anyone else for that matter, and I feel the need to respond.
This is one of those cases.
In 2004, 2005, 2006, we, the people, heard from many Democrats, talk of impeaching Bush. These Democrats ranged from the far left (Moveon / Soros) to the left (Feingold), and more moderates who refused to comment but left the idea blowing in the wind.
Liars, scaliwags, and scoundrels.
No rational, thinking person believes Bush can be impeached. No member of Congress believes he could be. No member of congress believes he committed any crime, at any time - other than to have humiliated the democratic party since 2000.
EVERY word from the mouths of any congressman is rhetoric at best and slander/libel ... but for a few perks Congress has that you do not. No right-minded member of conrgess believes impeachment is deserved, would or could be done or should be done - anyone who has said anything to the contrary is a liar or an idiot.
An idiot - they do not understand, never paid any attention, and are undeserving of the position they were elected to.
A liar - if they say anything inciting the idiotic notion of impeachment and know the truth.
I believe they are liars. Pathetic pathological liars who do greater damage to our social and political system than any good they have done or will ever do.
1
2
3
fuck ups
This is one of those cases.
In 2004, 2005, 2006, we, the people, heard from many Democrats, talk of impeaching Bush. These Democrats ranged from the far left (Moveon / Soros) to the left (Feingold), and more moderates who refused to comment but left the idea blowing in the wind.
Liars, scaliwags, and scoundrels.
No rational, thinking person believes Bush can be impeached. No member of Congress believes he could be. No member of congress believes he committed any crime, at any time - other than to have humiliated the democratic party since 2000.
EVERY word from the mouths of any congressman is rhetoric at best and slander/libel ... but for a few perks Congress has that you do not. No right-minded member of conrgess believes impeachment is deserved, would or could be done or should be done - anyone who has said anything to the contrary is a liar or an idiot.
An idiot - they do not understand, never paid any attention, and are undeserving of the position they were elected to.
A liar - if they say anything inciting the idiotic notion of impeachment and know the truth.
I believe they are liars. Pathetic pathological liars who do greater damage to our social and political system than any good they have done or will ever do.
1
2
3
fuck ups
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Why Not Surrender Now
I wonder whether the brilliant writers at the WP sit around and take much time and or imagination to dream up different ways to present the same tired refrain - attacks on Bush, War on Terror, and for that matter anything Bush has done ... I read the article I will link below and at first it was sailing right along and it was quite interesting until I was hit in the head with a brick from the WP - yet another attempt to undermine.
They may as well surrender now. What was it the French were called - Cheese Eating, Wine Swilling Surrender Monkeys.
The WP should change its name.
They may as well surrender now. What was it the French were called - Cheese Eating, Wine Swilling Surrender Monkeys.
The WP should change its name.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Insanity
I have reached a conclusion - people who believe in conspiracies are mentally ill. Like any mental illness, there are stages and degrees. Some people are in the earliest stage and are afflicted to a lesser degree than others - for them there is hope. For others, there is no hope. They live to follow a conspiracy that is in the kindest words possible - idiotic, moronic, insane, foolish, assinine, stupid, and ignorant.
It is not a matter of being open minded - I have never considered it necessary to be open to bestiality to be fair when offering an opinion about bestiality. I have never felt it necessary to be open minded about human slavery to offer a condemnation of slavery. I do not need to consider what the genocidaires thought to dismiss them as murderers and evil.
Our education system has created this culture, in part - to be open minded is equated with a willingness to accept all things.
But not all things are equal and the September 11 conspiracies are the most stupid ramblings I have ever had the misfortune of hearing. People who utter those ramblings are as mad as a hatter. Like a hatter, they have no idea they are crazy, they simply regard everyone else as slow or shrouded in a fog.
They refuse to grasp the reality and instead feed off of every little idiotic thread of doubt. It is not academic and it is not mature. My only hope is that a majority of these people will grow up and leave their childish ways behind, and become contributing members of our society.
I have addressed enough of the claims in class or in earlier posts on my FAQs page to make it clear to the fools with the tin foil, that I have been exposed to their insane views and claims, and I reject them and the fools who utter them. It would indeed be a better use of their time if they got high all day and stared at their navel.
Instead, they infect others and each new semester I have one or two students who feel they have just had The Secret revealed to them and wish to enlighten me. What it does for me is it gives me indigestion, an ulcer, stomach ache, headache, back ache, fatigue, and flatulence.
You do not show your intelligence. You demonstrate nothing but stupidity and ignorance. When an academic hears you utter the insane ramblings you no doubt will utter in an attempt to impress them with your open-mindedness, they are not looking at you with interest as you speak, but with disdain and contempt. They only refrain from making that contempt clear for fear you will stab them with a sacred dagger from your sacred chest designed by some ancient mystic to kill the anti-Christ.
Please - stop with the insanity. You are not privy to some secret information the rest of us just refuse to see. We have seen it and reject it as stupid and idiotic.
What is even sadder is - for you to believe the crap you believe and maintain a logical framework in which you live your life, you will necessarily believe that when the next attacks occur, they are also perpetrated by the same people - that when millions of Americans are incinerated / vaporoized, or otherwise killed, the same men are responsible. For your brain to go down that road, and for some of you, it will, makes you as dangerous to our survival as the Islamo-fascists who will have committed the act and publicly claimed responsibility.
It is not a matter of being open minded - I have never considered it necessary to be open to bestiality to be fair when offering an opinion about bestiality. I have never felt it necessary to be open minded about human slavery to offer a condemnation of slavery. I do not need to consider what the genocidaires thought to dismiss them as murderers and evil.
Our education system has created this culture, in part - to be open minded is equated with a willingness to accept all things.
But not all things are equal and the September 11 conspiracies are the most stupid ramblings I have ever had the misfortune of hearing. People who utter those ramblings are as mad as a hatter. Like a hatter, they have no idea they are crazy, they simply regard everyone else as slow or shrouded in a fog.
They refuse to grasp the reality and instead feed off of every little idiotic thread of doubt. It is not academic and it is not mature. My only hope is that a majority of these people will grow up and leave their childish ways behind, and become contributing members of our society.
I have addressed enough of the claims in class or in earlier posts on my FAQs page to make it clear to the fools with the tin foil, that I have been exposed to their insane views and claims, and I reject them and the fools who utter them. It would indeed be a better use of their time if they got high all day and stared at their navel.
Instead, they infect others and each new semester I have one or two students who feel they have just had The Secret revealed to them and wish to enlighten me. What it does for me is it gives me indigestion, an ulcer, stomach ache, headache, back ache, fatigue, and flatulence.
You do not show your intelligence. You demonstrate nothing but stupidity and ignorance. When an academic hears you utter the insane ramblings you no doubt will utter in an attempt to impress them with your open-mindedness, they are not looking at you with interest as you speak, but with disdain and contempt. They only refrain from making that contempt clear for fear you will stab them with a sacred dagger from your sacred chest designed by some ancient mystic to kill the anti-Christ.
Please - stop with the insanity. You are not privy to some secret information the rest of us just refuse to see. We have seen it and reject it as stupid and idiotic.
What is even sadder is - for you to believe the crap you believe and maintain a logical framework in which you live your life, you will necessarily believe that when the next attacks occur, they are also perpetrated by the same people - that when millions of Americans are incinerated / vaporoized, or otherwise killed, the same men are responsible. For your brain to go down that road, and for some of you, it will, makes you as dangerous to our survival as the Islamo-fascists who will have committed the act and publicly claimed responsibility.
9/11
Remember the day, and all those who lost their lives that day, and all those who have given their lives since.
Time does not, and should not diminish our resolve, nor the anger we feel for what was done that day.
Time does not, and should not diminish our resolve, nor the anger we feel for what was done that day.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Fairness
I overheard a half dozen or so people talking amongst themselves the other day. The subject was how to conjugate the verb etre and aller (in French of course). I intruded on their conversation and explained that I had a fair amount of French in my past and asked who among them knew French. No one raised their hand, although 2-3 of them stammered a bit and said that didn't matter - they knew 'these things anyway' because they understood Spanish and English.
I was a bit taken aback by that statement and suggested maybe I had a little more authority on the subject and suggested they let me explain it to them and I did explain how the verbs were conjugated in French starting with etre (to be) ... 'Je suis ... Tu e..' and they interrupted me and told me I was being unfair and they had an opinion on the issue and I was not being respectful of them. Furthermore, one person among the group suggested I was not clear on my explanation of the verb conjugation anyway.
I repeated the conjugation, wrote it down for them and asked if anyone was unclear - no one raised a hand. I left and continued on walking. The next day I received a note from my neighbor who had no role in the prior days events except he received a note from someone who had listened and was actually quite vocal. The note explained how unclear I had been, how inconsiderate and disrespectful of others I had been and how I just confused a subject they already knew.
Then I woke up and realized it had been a nightmare.
I was a bit taken aback by that statement and suggested maybe I had a little more authority on the subject and suggested they let me explain it to them and I did explain how the verbs were conjugated in French starting with etre (to be) ... 'Je suis ... Tu e..' and they interrupted me and told me I was being unfair and they had an opinion on the issue and I was not being respectful of them. Furthermore, one person among the group suggested I was not clear on my explanation of the verb conjugation anyway.
I repeated the conjugation, wrote it down for them and asked if anyone was unclear - no one raised a hand. I left and continued on walking. The next day I received a note from my neighbor who had no role in the prior days events except he received a note from someone who had listened and was actually quite vocal. The note explained how unclear I had been, how inconsiderate and disrespectful of others I had been and how I just confused a subject they already knew.
Then I woke up and realized it had been a nightmare.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Iraq and the war on terror
An excellent blog. he has been writing since the start - hopeful, sad, realistic, angry, depressed, demoralized, resilient, and hopeful - all describe the stages this man has lived through. Better than reading stuff from newspapers that clearly show they have no sense of history or purpose and cannot fathom Bush winning at anything in their narrowly constructed paradigm.
Iraq The Model
Iraq The Model
Monday, July 23, 2007
Who is more serious about security
As simplistic as it may at first appear, the argument or question is valid. First we must consider what the bill, proposed and bantered about in the Congress - John Doe Bill, would do, according to Democrats:
- protect innocent law abiding Muslim Americans (or anyone for that matter) from being discriminated against.
In return, they ask that we permit lawsuits against anyone and everyone regardless of facts and let the courts sort it out.
They are more concerned with ensuring no one is discriminated against than they are with protecting our security. The problem, while a noble ideal - to prevent discrimination - will never be erased by virtue of a lawsuit.
An example - Muslim A and Non Muslim. Non muslim doesn't like his neighbor and called the police and or Department of Homeland Security and or the FBI on his neighbor and says he is a terrorist. The FBI/DHS go and arrest the guy, take his computer, his files, his phone records - and then they find nothing. Democrats want Muslim A to be able to sue Non Muslim.
Same people - Non muslim doesn't like his neighbor and called the police and or Department of Homeland Security and or the FBI on his neighbor and says he is a terrorist and has been acting strange. The FBI/DHS go and talk to the guy and after talking to him, they arrest the guy, take his computer, his files, his phone records - and then they find he had links to al qaida. Democrats want Muslim A to be able to sue Non Muslim but in court, the facts would win out and Non Muslim would be exonerated. ONLY after sepnding $10,000 - $20,000 in attorneys fees, days/weeks of stress, public ridicule, labeled as a Islamophobe ... and when exonerated, the labels would never be rescinded - they would remain, he would remain a symbol of tattling. he may be free, no lawsuits, but he would be tens of thousands of dollars poorer and would lose whatever he had of his name and reputation.
That is what the Democrats want to occur with the John Doe bill.
If I suspect a person about to get on a plane - I will have to consider: is there enough evidence to convict, or am I simply suspicious. If I am just suspicious, I should cancel my ticket and take another flight. THAT in itself demonstrates what the left would call Islamophobia even if no one else knows about it. Yte that will occur more often than not. Or, I will have to decide whether I want to be sued. what facts are known, do I have funds for lawyers, am I willing to undergo public attack and ridicule for good faith. No, so let the guy get on the plane, I won't and if it blows up - the Democrats are complicit in the deaths of the people on the plane for foolishly catering to their consituency - lawyers, at the expense of our security.
- protect innocent law abiding Muslim Americans (or anyone for that matter) from being discriminated against.
In return, they ask that we permit lawsuits against anyone and everyone regardless of facts and let the courts sort it out.
They are more concerned with ensuring no one is discriminated against than they are with protecting our security. The problem, while a noble ideal - to prevent discrimination - will never be erased by virtue of a lawsuit.
An example - Muslim A and Non Muslim. Non muslim doesn't like his neighbor and called the police and or Department of Homeland Security and or the FBI on his neighbor and says he is a terrorist. The FBI/DHS go and arrest the guy, take his computer, his files, his phone records - and then they find nothing. Democrats want Muslim A to be able to sue Non Muslim.
Same people - Non muslim doesn't like his neighbor and called the police and or Department of Homeland Security and or the FBI on his neighbor and says he is a terrorist and has been acting strange. The FBI/DHS go and talk to the guy and after talking to him, they arrest the guy, take his computer, his files, his phone records - and then they find he had links to al qaida. Democrats want Muslim A to be able to sue Non Muslim but in court, the facts would win out and Non Muslim would be exonerated. ONLY after sepnding $10,000 - $20,000 in attorneys fees, days/weeks of stress, public ridicule, labeled as a Islamophobe ... and when exonerated, the labels would never be rescinded - they would remain, he would remain a symbol of tattling. he may be free, no lawsuits, but he would be tens of thousands of dollars poorer and would lose whatever he had of his name and reputation.
That is what the Democrats want to occur with the John Doe bill.
If I suspect a person about to get on a plane - I will have to consider: is there enough evidence to convict, or am I simply suspicious. If I am just suspicious, I should cancel my ticket and take another flight. THAT in itself demonstrates what the left would call Islamophobia even if no one else knows about it. Yte that will occur more often than not. Or, I will have to decide whether I want to be sued. what facts are known, do I have funds for lawyers, am I willing to undergo public attack and ridicule for good faith. No, so let the guy get on the plane, I won't and if it blows up - the Democrats are complicit in the deaths of the people on the plane for foolishly catering to their consituency - lawyers, at the expense of our security.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Food, Fuel, and Ice Cream
We have real problems, here on terra firma - real problems, right now. Hunger, malnutrition, poverty, disease. Forget what the future holds for as catastrophic as some in the UN paint the dire global warming scenario - starvation will come first before anyone has water problems.
Assume that the supply remains the same or increases by a small percent each year.
6 billion people need to be fed.
China has 12% arable land. Its population increases and its ability to feed its people decreases. It buys up large supplies of food otherwise used for other areas of the world.
Someone will suffer. Someone will die.
Farmers are converting their fields to cash crops - in this sense - cash crops being biofuel crops. Not wheat or grains ... they pay much less.
As the farmers do this, someone will suffer, someone will die.
Combine China and the farmers converting their fields ... and you have major problems today and tomorrow it will be dire straits for millions upon millions.
As more conversion occurs, costs will rise.
Food for the world
The result will be someone will suffer, millions will starve.
And those cows we eat - need feed and that feed is now much costlier
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/united_states/article2080599.ece
The result will be millions starving, costs increasing by hundreds of millions world wide and the benefit - not much.
Build a nuclear power plant or four, cut back on use of petroleum by reducing plastics ... and you'll help the earth more than all the corn/fuel you produce and people won't starve and die and you'll be able to expend all your energy worrying about the glaciers melting and learning to swim.
It must be nice to have a clear conscience.
Assume that the supply remains the same or increases by a small percent each year.
6 billion people need to be fed.
China has 12% arable land. Its population increases and its ability to feed its people decreases. It buys up large supplies of food otherwise used for other areas of the world.
Someone will suffer. Someone will die.
Farmers are converting their fields to cash crops - in this sense - cash crops being biofuel crops. Not wheat or grains ... they pay much less.
As the farmers do this, someone will suffer, someone will die.
Combine China and the farmers converting their fields ... and you have major problems today and tomorrow it will be dire straits for millions upon millions.
As more conversion occurs, costs will rise.
Food for the world
The result will be someone will suffer, millions will starve.
And those cows we eat - need feed and that feed is now much costlier
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/united_states/article2080599.ece
The result will be millions starving, costs increasing by hundreds of millions world wide and the benefit - not much.
Build a nuclear power plant or four, cut back on use of petroleum by reducing plastics ... and you'll help the earth more than all the corn/fuel you produce and people won't starve and die and you'll be able to expend all your energy worrying about the glaciers melting and learning to swim.
It must be nice to have a clear conscience.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Religion of Peace
Back in April, an article about al Qaeda's plans for the UK.
then
ABC News Brian Ross reported on June 18, 2007 that 'large teams of newly trained suicide bombers" were "being sent to the United States and Europe" after "an al Qaeda/Taliban training camp graduation cermony held June 9."
Then the events in London and Glasgow.
ABC news Brian Ross is again reporting that secret documents show the US fears a spectacular attack during the summer. These warnings are reminiscent of those in the summer of 2001.
Further warnings were for Germany and the Czech Republic, and Britain.
Of course, Mayor Livingston in London, tells us not all Muslims are bad. Only a fool would believe all Muslims are bad, but thank you Mr Livingston for letting us know how you feel. I am sure, when the attck occurs wherever it might be, you will be sure to tell us it wasn't all Muslims as if that will make much difference to 100,000 people. But, just in case - you will be able to tell us all how you feel, if you are alive that is after the practictioners of the religion of peace show you how peaceful they can be.
It is not a matter of toleration - we can all get along. it isn't a matter of acceptance - we (non Muslims) are very accepting. It is a matter of the majority of good and decent Muslims taking their religion back, because if they do not, it is immaterial whether they are good and decent for they will be indirectly complicit in this most heinous crime. I understand the complexity of this and how complicated the issues are but for the 100,000 or more, the complexity will not matter. And please Mr Livingston do not explain to us that we caused this by Iraqor Afghanistan. All one need do is look at Gaza to see the true intent of these practitioners of peace - they have slaughtered one another and are not finished yet.
Unfortunately, as these things go, by the time it gets to this stage, we will have to be very lucky or it is a matter of waiting it out and then responding.
then
ABC News Brian Ross reported on June 18, 2007 that 'large teams of newly trained suicide bombers" were "being sent to the United States and Europe" after "an al Qaeda/Taliban training camp graduation cermony held June 9."
Then the events in London and Glasgow.
ABC news Brian Ross is again reporting that secret documents show the US fears a spectacular attack during the summer. These warnings are reminiscent of those in the summer of 2001.
Further warnings were for Germany and the Czech Republic, and Britain.
Of course, Mayor Livingston in London, tells us not all Muslims are bad. Only a fool would believe all Muslims are bad, but thank you Mr Livingston for letting us know how you feel. I am sure, when the attck occurs wherever it might be, you will be sure to tell us it wasn't all Muslims as if that will make much difference to 100,000 people. But, just in case - you will be able to tell us all how you feel, if you are alive that is after the practictioners of the religion of peace show you how peaceful they can be.
It is not a matter of toleration - we can all get along. it isn't a matter of acceptance - we (non Muslims) are very accepting. It is a matter of the majority of good and decent Muslims taking their religion back, because if they do not, it is immaterial whether they are good and decent for they will be indirectly complicit in this most heinous crime. I understand the complexity of this and how complicated the issues are but for the 100,000 or more, the complexity will not matter. And please Mr Livingston do not explain to us that we caused this by Iraqor Afghanistan. All one need do is look at Gaza to see the true intent of these practitioners of peace - they have slaughtered one another and are not finished yet.
Unfortunately, as these things go, by the time it gets to this stage, we will have to be very lucky or it is a matter of waiting it out and then responding.
Friday, June 29, 2007
IMPEACH THEM ALL
Impeach Roseanne. Impeach Bill Moyer. Impeach Bill Maher. Impeach Hillary Clinton. Impeach Sicko Moore. Impeach Babra Streisand. Impeach them all.
I read a nauseating post by Roseanne earlier in which she rants about impeachment. She is as stupid as a bloody doorknob and for that matter - the rest of them just as bloody daft.
Impeach Stupid People. Make a bumper sticker.
I read a nauseating post by Roseanne earlier in which she rants about impeachment. She is as stupid as a bloody doorknob and for that matter - the rest of them just as bloody daft.
Impeach Stupid People. Make a bumper sticker.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Idiots and Losers
What do you think about the bin laden family owning a percentage of the US? Or the Bush regime’s money-hungry quest?
I believe that anyone who believes bin Laden owns a percentage of the US has a significant mental disorder.
Anyone who believes that Bush is on a money hungry quest - has a serious mental disorder.
You are in deep need of more help than is available today. A lobotomy would not be uncalled for or out of the question. You pose a danger to yourself and others. You should not vote. You should not operate heavy machinery. You are a fool.
Had the US taken 100 million and invested it in the US stock market in 2002, we could have made a gadzillion more dollars than invading a desert landscape for oil that is not helping anyone at the moment. Stop being such a waste case and look at the reality of your function.
Bin laden doesn't own a TV. He sure as heck doesn't own part of the US. neither does his family and they don't control Bush regardless of any plane stories or other foolishness.
Seriously - put down the aluminum hat, put away your subscription to 'Dots for Retards' and leave the house, go to work, talk to sane people, stop talking about little green men and stupid invasions. Get a life or a lobotomy but for heavens sake - DON'T TRY TO VOTE.
I believe that anyone who believes bin Laden owns a percentage of the US has a significant mental disorder.
Anyone who believes that Bush is on a money hungry quest - has a serious mental disorder.
You are in deep need of more help than is available today. A lobotomy would not be uncalled for or out of the question. You pose a danger to yourself and others. You should not vote. You should not operate heavy machinery. You are a fool.
Had the US taken 100 million and invested it in the US stock market in 2002, we could have made a gadzillion more dollars than invading a desert landscape for oil that is not helping anyone at the moment. Stop being such a waste case and look at the reality of your function.
Bin laden doesn't own a TV. He sure as heck doesn't own part of the US. neither does his family and they don't control Bush regardless of any plane stories or other foolishness.
Seriously - put down the aluminum hat, put away your subscription to 'Dots for Retards' and leave the house, go to work, talk to sane people, stop talking about little green men and stupid invasions. Get a life or a lobotomy but for heavens sake - DON'T TRY TO VOTE.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Global Warming
Global warming debate 'irrational': scientists
Stephanie Stein. Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 10:00 Local News -
The current debate about global warming is "completely irrational," and people need to start taking a different approach, say two Ottawa scientists. Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson said global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet. Patterson said much of the up-to-date research indicates that "changes in the brightness of the sun" are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate, he said. "I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," said Patterson. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles." Patterson explained CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential plant food. Billions of taxpayers' dollars are spent to control the emissions of this benign gas, in the mistaken belief that they can stop climate change, he said. "The only constant about climate is change," said Patterson. Patterson said money could be better spent on places like Africa. "All the money wasted on Kyoto in a year could provide clean drinking water for Africa," said Patterson. "We're into a new era of science with the discussion of solar forces. Eventually, Kyoto is going to fall by the wayside. In the meantime, I'm worried we're going to spend millions that could have been spent on something better like air pollution." Tom Harris, executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project - an organization that attempts to debunk some of the popular beliefs about climate change - supported Patterson's findings. Global warming assertions are based on inconclusive evidence put forth in science reports that had not been published yet, he said. "The media takes (inconclusive) information that only suggests there could be a climate problem and turns it into an environmental catastrophe," said Harris. "They continually say we only have 10 years left, and they've been saying it for 20 years, and it's ridiculous," he said. "The only reason I got involved in talking to media is that I think our resources are being mismanaged. "Go after something real and tangible like air pollution." After hearing a second scientist say climate change is part of a natural cycle, Elaine Kennedy - a local environmental activist - is interested in investigating the issue further. She looks forward to examining scientific reports that will be published in a couple of months by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "The problem may not be climate change, but the problem is still pollution," said Kennedy. She's not alone in her assertion global warming is a pollution problem. David Phillips, a senior government environment expert, believes there is more than one contributing factor to global warming. There's a human element, as well as natural cycles. Difficult to convince "I'm a man that's difficult to convince," he said. "What convinces me is the large body of evidence, and highly reputable people promoting global warming, who are not lobbyists, but only seeking truth in science. They say the the earth is warming up faster and greater now than in the past." People who are contradicting the global warming reality, Phillip thinks, have their own motives for doing so. "These skeptics are keeping the debate alive (for their own interests). They try to confuse people into inaction," said Phillips. Phillips believes global warming is solvable. "We solved the ozone and acid rain problem. With effort, and a new way of doing things we could solve this one too," said Phillips.
ID- 502332
© 2007 , Osprey Media. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Stephanie Stein. Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 10:00 Local News -
The current debate about global warming is "completely irrational," and people need to start taking a different approach, say two Ottawa scientists. Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson said global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet. Patterson said much of the up-to-date research indicates that "changes in the brightness of the sun" are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate, he said. "I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," said Patterson. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles." Patterson explained CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential plant food. Billions of taxpayers' dollars are spent to control the emissions of this benign gas, in the mistaken belief that they can stop climate change, he said. "The only constant about climate is change," said Patterson. Patterson said money could be better spent on places like Africa. "All the money wasted on Kyoto in a year could provide clean drinking water for Africa," said Patterson. "We're into a new era of science with the discussion of solar forces. Eventually, Kyoto is going to fall by the wayside. In the meantime, I'm worried we're going to spend millions that could have been spent on something better like air pollution." Tom Harris, executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project - an organization that attempts to debunk some of the popular beliefs about climate change - supported Patterson's findings. Global warming assertions are based on inconclusive evidence put forth in science reports that had not been published yet, he said. "The media takes (inconclusive) information that only suggests there could be a climate problem and turns it into an environmental catastrophe," said Harris. "They continually say we only have 10 years left, and they've been saying it for 20 years, and it's ridiculous," he said. "The only reason I got involved in talking to media is that I think our resources are being mismanaged. "Go after something real and tangible like air pollution." After hearing a second scientist say climate change is part of a natural cycle, Elaine Kennedy - a local environmental activist - is interested in investigating the issue further. She looks forward to examining scientific reports that will be published in a couple of months by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "The problem may not be climate change, but the problem is still pollution," said Kennedy. She's not alone in her assertion global warming is a pollution problem. David Phillips, a senior government environment expert, believes there is more than one contributing factor to global warming. There's a human element, as well as natural cycles. Difficult to convince "I'm a man that's difficult to convince," he said. "What convinces me is the large body of evidence, and highly reputable people promoting global warming, who are not lobbyists, but only seeking truth in science. They say the the earth is warming up faster and greater now than in the past." People who are contradicting the global warming reality, Phillip thinks, have their own motives for doing so. "These skeptics are keeping the debate alive (for their own interests). They try to confuse people into inaction," said Phillips. Phillips believes global warming is solvable. "We solved the ozone and acid rain problem. With effort, and a new way of doing things we could solve this one too," said Phillips.
ID- 502332
© 2007 , Osprey Media. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The Trouble with Alec and Crow
It is hard to miss, even those who claim (or feign) to have no interest or no desire to read or know about such personal issues as Alec Baldwin's bad behavior, lie and secretly pay attention in the dark of night while locked away in their computer room.
What is the trouble with Alec and why does it matter? After all, it is very personal and should never have been made public (the tape). Why? Because this is a man who on December 11, 1998, on the Late Night with Conan O'Brien stated that "if we were in another country... we would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families" - reference to the congressmen involved in the impeachment of Clinton.
Violently aggressive. A joke or not. Find the tirade he left for his daughter. A joke or not. Is everything a joke to Baldwin? Or is everything a joke after the fact!
he argues that it is his ex-wife who has created parental alienation and that caused the outburst. Just like Hyde impeaching Clinton instigated the outburst about killing Hyde and his family. Is everything a joke to Baldwin? Is Baldwin any different from many other spoiled and self-centered actors? I do not believe he is.
Sheryl Crow is not qualitatively different - apparently everything to her is a big joke - after the fact. She spent considerable time considering how to save the planet and came up with the inane idea to use 1-2 squares of toilet paper instead of however many you may use. When that idiotic idea made headlines Crow retorted that it was all a joke!
For Hollywood idiots everything is a joke. For the rest of us, we cannot afford to turn everything into a joke because we are working and raising families and paying taxes and sacrificing so joksters likes Alec Crow can joke.
What is the trouble with Alec and why does it matter? After all, it is very personal and should never have been made public (the tape). Why? Because this is a man who on December 11, 1998, on the Late Night with Conan O'Brien stated that "if we were in another country... we would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families" - reference to the congressmen involved in the impeachment of Clinton.
Violently aggressive. A joke or not. Find the tirade he left for his daughter. A joke or not. Is everything a joke to Baldwin? Or is everything a joke after the fact!
he argues that it is his ex-wife who has created parental alienation and that caused the outburst. Just like Hyde impeaching Clinton instigated the outburst about killing Hyde and his family. Is everything a joke to Baldwin? Is Baldwin any different from many other spoiled and self-centered actors? I do not believe he is.
Sheryl Crow is not qualitatively different - apparently everything to her is a big joke - after the fact. She spent considerable time considering how to save the planet and came up with the inane idea to use 1-2 squares of toilet paper instead of however many you may use. When that idiotic idea made headlines Crow retorted that it was all a joke!
For Hollywood idiots everything is a joke. For the rest of us, we cannot afford to turn everything into a joke because we are working and raising families and paying taxes and sacrificing so joksters likes Alec Crow can joke.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Al-Qaeda Has Plans ... whether you believe they do or not.
Al-Qaeda Has Plans for the UK
I was wondering tonight, as I sat reading the article linked above - what would I do if I knew for a fact someone was on their way to burn my car at a specific moment during the day. What would I do?
What would I do if I knew that sometime in the next three years someone would break a window in my home? What would I do?
What would I do if I knew someone would crash into my car, sometime while I was driving, sometime in the future?
Some people in this country do not believe anyone is on their way over to burn the car. Some people do not believe anyone would intentionally break a window in my home, although maybe by accident, but the chances were slim. Some people believe that while a car crash may happen, there is no certainty and the best you can do is drive safely, buckle up and not worry about it.
Some people. Some people sound good some times. Some people have good advice some times, but some people are fools when it comes to the greatest issues of their lives.
Someone - al-qaida has told us repeatedly that they want to kill us and or convert us and or destroy us and then convert us. It is not just al-qaida, it is a percentage of Islam, however small, that agrees either explicitly or implicitly with their grand delusions.
One cannot live with those who murder and butcher innocents. They wish to do it again and due to the failure of governments to prevent the spread of deadly technology / weaponry, it will be used against the West.
The article from Times Online suggests al-qaida has a plan to attack the UK.
Some people think it is exaggeration, that al-qaida is bluffing. Some people are trying very hard to be a greater threat than al-qaida.
I was wondering tonight, as I sat reading the article linked above - what would I do if I knew for a fact someone was on their way to burn my car at a specific moment during the day. What would I do?
What would I do if I knew that sometime in the next three years someone would break a window in my home? What would I do?
What would I do if I knew someone would crash into my car, sometime while I was driving, sometime in the future?
Some people in this country do not believe anyone is on their way over to burn the car. Some people do not believe anyone would intentionally break a window in my home, although maybe by accident, but the chances were slim. Some people believe that while a car crash may happen, there is no certainty and the best you can do is drive safely, buckle up and not worry about it.
Some people. Some people sound good some times. Some people have good advice some times, but some people are fools when it comes to the greatest issues of their lives.
Someone - al-qaida has told us repeatedly that they want to kill us and or convert us and or destroy us and then convert us. It is not just al-qaida, it is a percentage of Islam, however small, that agrees either explicitly or implicitly with their grand delusions.
One cannot live with those who murder and butcher innocents. They wish to do it again and due to the failure of governments to prevent the spread of deadly technology / weaponry, it will be used against the West.
The article from Times Online suggests al-qaida has a plan to attack the UK.
Some people think it is exaggeration, that al-qaida is bluffing. Some people are trying very hard to be a greater threat than al-qaida.
Mass Shootings More Common Since 1960s
Mass Shootings More Common Since 1960s
Apr 21, 2007. 7:09 PM (ET)By MATT CRENSON
NEW YORK (AP) - Mass public shootings have become such a part of American life in recent decades that the most dramatic of them can be evoked from the nation's collective memory in a word or two: Luby's. Jonesboro. Columbine.
And now, Virginia Tech.
Since Aug. 1, 1966, when Charles Whitman climbed a 27-story tower on the University of Texas campus and started picking people off, at least 100 Americans have gone on shooting sprees.
And all through those years, the same questions have been asked: What is it about modern-day America that provokes such random violence? Is it the decline of traditional morals? The depiction of violence in entertainment? The ready availability of lethal firepower?
Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox blames guns, at least in part. He notes that seven of the eight deadliest mass public shootings have occurred in the past 25 years.
"I know that there were high-powered guns before," he said. "But this weaponry is just so much more pervasive than it was."
Australia had a spate of mass public shooting in the 1980s and '90s, culminating in 1996, when Martin Bryant opened fire at the Port Arthur Historical Site in Tasmania with an AR-15 assault rifle, killing 35 people.
Within two weeks the government had enacted strict gun control laws that included a ban on semiautomatic rifles. There has not been a mass shooting in Australia since.
Yet Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota State Department of Corrections, said the availability of guns was not a factor in his exhaustive statistical study of mass murder during the 20th century.
Duwe found that the prevalence of mass murders, defined as the killing of four or more people in a 24-hour period, tends to mirror that of homicide generally. The increase in mass killings during the 1960s was accompanied by a doubling in the overall murder rate after the relatively peaceful 1940s and '50s.
In fact, Duwe found that mass murder was just as common during the 1920s and early 1930s as it is today. The difference is that then, mass murderers tended to be failed farmers who killed their families because they could no longer provide for them, then killed themselves. Their crimes embodied the despair and hopelessness of the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression, the sense that they and their families would be better off in the hereafter than in the here and now.
On Dec. 29, 1929, a 56-year-old tenant farmer from Vernon, Texas, named J.H. Haggard shot his five children, aged 6 to 18, in their beds as they slept. Then he killed himself. He left a note that said only, "All died. I had ruther be ded. Look in zellar."
Despondent men still kill their families today. But public shooters like Virginia Tech's Seung-Hui Cho are different. They are angrier and tend to blame society for their failures, sometimes singling out members of particular ethnic or socio-economic groups.
"It's society's fault ... Society disgusts me," Kimveer Gill wrote in his blog the day before he shot six people to death and injured 19 in Montreal last year.
In the videos and essays he left behind, Cho ranted about privileged students and their debauched behavior.
He also mentioned the Columbine killings, referring to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris as "martyrs." Imitation undoubtedly plays a role in mass shootings as well, said Daniel A. Cohen, a historian at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
"Certain types of crimes gain cultural resonance in certain periods," Cohen said.
So many post office employees gunned down their co-workers during the 1980s and early '90s that they spawned a neologism. To "go postal," according to the Webster's New World College Dictionary, is "to become deranged or go berserk."
The most recent postal shooting was in January 2006 when Jennifer San Marco, a former employee who had been fired a few years earlier because of her worsening mental state, walked into a letter sorting facility in Goleta, Calif., and killed six people with a handgun.
Criminologist Fox speculates that the increasing popularity of workplace killings, and public shootings generally, may be partly due to decreasing economic security and increasing inequality. America increasingly rewards its winners with a disproportionate share of wealth and adoration, while treating its losers to a heaping helping of public shame.
"We ridicule them. We vote them off the island. We laugh at them on 'American Idol,'" Fox said.
But there has also been an erosion of community in America over the past half-century, and many scholars believe it has contributed to the rise in mass shootings.
"One would think that there's some new component to alienation or isolation," said Jeffrey S. Adler, a professor of history and criminology at the University of Florida.
People used to live in closer proximity to their families and be more involved with civic and religious institutions. They were less likely to move from one part of the country to another, finding themselves strangers in an unfamiliar environment.
Even so, the small-town America of yesteryear wasn't completely immune. On March 6, 1915, businessman Monroe Phillips, who had lived in Brunswick, Ga., for 12 years, killed six people and wounded 32 before being shot dead by a local attorney. Phillips' weapon: an automatic shotgun.
Remarkably, violence in today's media seems to have little to do with mass public shootings. Only a handful of them have ever cited violent video games or movies as inspiration for their crimes. Often they are so isolated and socially awkward that they are indifferent to popular culture.
Ultimately, it is impossible to attribute the rise in mass shootings to any single cause. The crimes only account for a tiny fraction of homicides.
And a significant fraction of those who commit them, including Cho, either kill themselves or are killed by police before they can be questioned by investigators.
Apr 21, 2007. 7:09 PM (ET)By MATT CRENSON
NEW YORK (AP) - Mass public shootings have become such a part of American life in recent decades that the most dramatic of them can be evoked from the nation's collective memory in a word or two: Luby's. Jonesboro. Columbine.
And now, Virginia Tech.
Since Aug. 1, 1966, when Charles Whitman climbed a 27-story tower on the University of Texas campus and started picking people off, at least 100 Americans have gone on shooting sprees.
And all through those years, the same questions have been asked: What is it about modern-day America that provokes such random violence? Is it the decline of traditional morals? The depiction of violence in entertainment? The ready availability of lethal firepower?
Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox blames guns, at least in part. He notes that seven of the eight deadliest mass public shootings have occurred in the past 25 years.
"I know that there were high-powered guns before," he said. "But this weaponry is just so much more pervasive than it was."
Australia had a spate of mass public shooting in the 1980s and '90s, culminating in 1996, when Martin Bryant opened fire at the Port Arthur Historical Site in Tasmania with an AR-15 assault rifle, killing 35 people.
Within two weeks the government had enacted strict gun control laws that included a ban on semiautomatic rifles. There has not been a mass shooting in Australia since.
Yet Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota State Department of Corrections, said the availability of guns was not a factor in his exhaustive statistical study of mass murder during the 20th century.
Duwe found that the prevalence of mass murders, defined as the killing of four or more people in a 24-hour period, tends to mirror that of homicide generally. The increase in mass killings during the 1960s was accompanied by a doubling in the overall murder rate after the relatively peaceful 1940s and '50s.
In fact, Duwe found that mass murder was just as common during the 1920s and early 1930s as it is today. The difference is that then, mass murderers tended to be failed farmers who killed their families because they could no longer provide for them, then killed themselves. Their crimes embodied the despair and hopelessness of the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression, the sense that they and their families would be better off in the hereafter than in the here and now.
On Dec. 29, 1929, a 56-year-old tenant farmer from Vernon, Texas, named J.H. Haggard shot his five children, aged 6 to 18, in their beds as they slept. Then he killed himself. He left a note that said only, "All died. I had ruther be ded. Look in zellar."
Despondent men still kill their families today. But public shooters like Virginia Tech's Seung-Hui Cho are different. They are angrier and tend to blame society for their failures, sometimes singling out members of particular ethnic or socio-economic groups.
"It's society's fault ... Society disgusts me," Kimveer Gill wrote in his blog the day before he shot six people to death and injured 19 in Montreal last year.
In the videos and essays he left behind, Cho ranted about privileged students and their debauched behavior.
He also mentioned the Columbine killings, referring to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris as "martyrs." Imitation undoubtedly plays a role in mass shootings as well, said Daniel A. Cohen, a historian at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
"Certain types of crimes gain cultural resonance in certain periods," Cohen said.
So many post office employees gunned down their co-workers during the 1980s and early '90s that they spawned a neologism. To "go postal," according to the Webster's New World College Dictionary, is "to become deranged or go berserk."
The most recent postal shooting was in January 2006 when Jennifer San Marco, a former employee who had been fired a few years earlier because of her worsening mental state, walked into a letter sorting facility in Goleta, Calif., and killed six people with a handgun.
Criminologist Fox speculates that the increasing popularity of workplace killings, and public shootings generally, may be partly due to decreasing economic security and increasing inequality. America increasingly rewards its winners with a disproportionate share of wealth and adoration, while treating its losers to a heaping helping of public shame.
"We ridicule them. We vote them off the island. We laugh at them on 'American Idol,'" Fox said.
But there has also been an erosion of community in America over the past half-century, and many scholars believe it has contributed to the rise in mass shootings.
"One would think that there's some new component to alienation or isolation," said Jeffrey S. Adler, a professor of history and criminology at the University of Florida.
People used to live in closer proximity to their families and be more involved with civic and religious institutions. They were less likely to move from one part of the country to another, finding themselves strangers in an unfamiliar environment.
Even so, the small-town America of yesteryear wasn't completely immune. On March 6, 1915, businessman Monroe Phillips, who had lived in Brunswick, Ga., for 12 years, killed six people and wounded 32 before being shot dead by a local attorney. Phillips' weapon: an automatic shotgun.
Remarkably, violence in today's media seems to have little to do with mass public shootings. Only a handful of them have ever cited violent video games or movies as inspiration for their crimes. Often they are so isolated and socially awkward that they are indifferent to popular culture.
Ultimately, it is impossible to attribute the rise in mass shootings to any single cause. The crimes only account for a tiny fraction of homicides.
And a significant fraction of those who commit them, including Cho, either kill themselves or are killed by police before they can be questioned by investigators.
Impact of global warming looms on the horizon
By Glenn ShawPublished April 22, 2007
http://newsminer.com/2007/04/22/6603
In the 1970s as a young scientist at the Geophysical Institute I wrote passionate letters complaining that for the first time in the geologic era man was changing the atmosphere of the planet. I argued that continued dumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere would be associated with a warming of the entire Earth and pled for attention to this matter. The letters were ignored.
They were ignored because in the 1970’s Newsweek, the Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times and countless books and articles were warning of the dangers of global cooling.
Things have changed. Global warming is now being noted, and I in the meantime have become a little skeptical about some of the claims being put forth. I’m skeptical despite the fact that “everybody knows that the science is in.” The science isn’t even close to being in.
A significantly large fraction of the science being done on global climate change is perhaps not wrong, but not enough, a little naive, repetitive and incorporating only a fraction of the complexity required to base policy on. Though we scientists don’t advertise it much, science is often muddled when it is working on difficult new problems and most especially when the problems start to become political. And the issue of global warming has become massively political. Special interests abound. Try getting funding while being a skeptic.
There are many instances in which so-called objective science became crossed up in early investigations. Science advances in paradigm shifts and by falsification. One paradigm shift was made a century ago when Arrenhius discovered that carbon dioxide was warming the earth. Another was made by Twomey twenty years ago; he discovered that pollution affects clouds and rain distribution in ways that promote cooling and though the underlying physics is valid, we know little about it and clouds are poorly parameterized in models.
Let me illustrate how viewpoints on “global climate” can suddenly shift by sharing a few personal examples. Thirty years ago there was a strong consensus when my colleague Ken Rahn and I discovered that the entire arctic’s air mass is contaminated. Up to that point “everybody knew” that the arctic air mass was the cleanest in the world, especially in winter. All the electronic computer modelers had that fact incorporated. Quite the opposite proved to be true. Now we understand that arctic haze is the largest contamination cloud on the planet, so large it could be noticed from Mars. It also has a larger impact on arctic climate than carbon dioxide.
Nor was there consensus, in fact there was a great deal of hostility, when I wrote a paper in 1979, proposing that desert dust blown into the air over the Gobi Desert crosses the Pacific Ocean and makes its way to the Hawaiian Islands. This was an unpopular idea and it made a lot of people angry. One reviewer even wrote, “this idea is obviously erroneous and I reject the paper unequivocally.”
But in spite of that, we got the paper published and now we realize that the dust not only commonly reaches Hawaii, but California and Alaska also. Additionally, this dust contains pollutants in increasing amounts as China expands its industrial activities. The dust impacts climate. None of these things are in the models. These are two examples on which virtually the whole science community had adopted wrong ideas.
There is much more in climate science that we simply do not understand. Believe it or not, nobody has any sustainable theory, other than a few clues, about the causes of the ice ages. They are resonant with some of the orbital movements of the planets, but only roughly so and other things are going on that cause and end these spectacular events. We do not know.
I wish to end this column in a way that may surprise you. In spite of my slight skepticism, global-scale impacts are indeed beginning to loom. We are perturbing Earth’s cloud cover with human-induced condensation nuclei and over exploiting. Concern about the environment is needed and is a clarion call now adopted by increasing numbers of the world’s great spiritual leaders. The interest in “global warming” might yet prove to be a good cause if its end result is promoting conservation and better stewardsmanship of this gorgeous planet.
Glenn Shaw is an atmospheric scientist specializing in global environmental feedback mechanisms. He is a professor of physics at the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks.
http://newsminer.com/2007/04/22/6603
In the 1970s as a young scientist at the Geophysical Institute I wrote passionate letters complaining that for the first time in the geologic era man was changing the atmosphere of the planet. I argued that continued dumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere would be associated with a warming of the entire Earth and pled for attention to this matter. The letters were ignored.
They were ignored because in the 1970’s Newsweek, the Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times and countless books and articles were warning of the dangers of global cooling.
Things have changed. Global warming is now being noted, and I in the meantime have become a little skeptical about some of the claims being put forth. I’m skeptical despite the fact that “everybody knows that the science is in.” The science isn’t even close to being in.
A significantly large fraction of the science being done on global climate change is perhaps not wrong, but not enough, a little naive, repetitive and incorporating only a fraction of the complexity required to base policy on. Though we scientists don’t advertise it much, science is often muddled when it is working on difficult new problems and most especially when the problems start to become political. And the issue of global warming has become massively political. Special interests abound. Try getting funding while being a skeptic.
There are many instances in which so-called objective science became crossed up in early investigations. Science advances in paradigm shifts and by falsification. One paradigm shift was made a century ago when Arrenhius discovered that carbon dioxide was warming the earth. Another was made by Twomey twenty years ago; he discovered that pollution affects clouds and rain distribution in ways that promote cooling and though the underlying physics is valid, we know little about it and clouds are poorly parameterized in models.
Let me illustrate how viewpoints on “global climate” can suddenly shift by sharing a few personal examples. Thirty years ago there was a strong consensus when my colleague Ken Rahn and I discovered that the entire arctic’s air mass is contaminated. Up to that point “everybody knew” that the arctic air mass was the cleanest in the world, especially in winter. All the electronic computer modelers had that fact incorporated. Quite the opposite proved to be true. Now we understand that arctic haze is the largest contamination cloud on the planet, so large it could be noticed from Mars. It also has a larger impact on arctic climate than carbon dioxide.
Nor was there consensus, in fact there was a great deal of hostility, when I wrote a paper in 1979, proposing that desert dust blown into the air over the Gobi Desert crosses the Pacific Ocean and makes its way to the Hawaiian Islands. This was an unpopular idea and it made a lot of people angry. One reviewer even wrote, “this idea is obviously erroneous and I reject the paper unequivocally.”
But in spite of that, we got the paper published and now we realize that the dust not only commonly reaches Hawaii, but California and Alaska also. Additionally, this dust contains pollutants in increasing amounts as China expands its industrial activities. The dust impacts climate. None of these things are in the models. These are two examples on which virtually the whole science community had adopted wrong ideas.
There is much more in climate science that we simply do not understand. Believe it or not, nobody has any sustainable theory, other than a few clues, about the causes of the ice ages. They are resonant with some of the orbital movements of the planets, but only roughly so and other things are going on that cause and end these spectacular events. We do not know.
I wish to end this column in a way that may surprise you. In spite of my slight skepticism, global-scale impacts are indeed beginning to loom. We are perturbing Earth’s cloud cover with human-induced condensation nuclei and over exploiting. Concern about the environment is needed and is a clarion call now adopted by increasing numbers of the world’s great spiritual leaders. The interest in “global warming” might yet prove to be a good cause if its end result is promoting conservation and better stewardsmanship of this gorgeous planet.
Glenn Shaw is an atmospheric scientist specializing in global environmental feedback mechanisms. He is a professor of physics at the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
If our enemies know the history of Karbala, they will never go to war against us.
An interesting comment for a title. Not mine.
And it does not have to do with the Battle of Karbala, although it is one of the most fascinating battles I have read or learned of, accounts of heroism and cruelty, of compassion and love, and faith. A very interesting man - Ali.
However, this post was not about that battle - it came in an email and while I respect the writer of the email for the logic and reason they display more often than most, I am left shaking my head when I consider the gulf which exists between us. Us personally, us as a culture, and us as religious. A gulf that grows daily almost independent of actions or thought.
This 'title' was part of an email that dealt with the 15 British military personnel held hostage in Iran.
Perhaps they are right and perhaps this writer is correct in making statements concerning the fall of western liberalism and democracy. Perhaps. There are indicators the writer is correct. Sadly.
Note: This, for some unknown reason, is the single most popular post to locate of the hundreds of posts and articles I have made available. Please, whoever - find something else to look for. I used the title line because it was the subject line in an email to me. If it meant anything seriously I wouldn't have used it. I find it very sad that anyone can believe in their faith that much and believe God will guide their righteous fist of anger because most assuredly, if He is about to guide anyones fist it would not be child killers and murderers of innocent women and children on buses and pizza parlors.
And it does not have to do with the Battle of Karbala, although it is one of the most fascinating battles I have read or learned of, accounts of heroism and cruelty, of compassion and love, and faith. A very interesting man - Ali.
However, this post was not about that battle - it came in an email and while I respect the writer of the email for the logic and reason they display more often than most, I am left shaking my head when I consider the gulf which exists between us. Us personally, us as a culture, and us as religious. A gulf that grows daily almost independent of actions or thought.
This 'title' was part of an email that dealt with the 15 British military personnel held hostage in Iran.
Perhaps they are right and perhaps this writer is correct in making statements concerning the fall of western liberalism and democracy. Perhaps. There are indicators the writer is correct. Sadly.
Note: This, for some unknown reason, is the single most popular post to locate of the hundreds of posts and articles I have made available. Please, whoever - find something else to look for. I used the title line because it was the subject line in an email to me. If it meant anything seriously I wouldn't have used it. I find it very sad that anyone can believe in their faith that much and believe God will guide their righteous fist of anger because most assuredly, if He is about to guide anyones fist it would not be child killers and murderers of innocent women and children on buses and pizza parlors.
MIDDLE
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Articles
Some of these links may no longer be usable.
Several are more than two years old and the original site may have removed the
story/link. I hope I have provided enough information (date, subject) that you
could search and locate it elsewhere.I will continue adding articles to this page out
**************************************************************
of the ease it provides in locating articles.
July 24, 2005: NBC, Meet the Press with Tim Russert. Interview with Senator Dick DurbinThe interview concerns Durbin's standard for questioning of Judge John Roberts for the Supreme Court. The last couple questions deal with his recent comparison of US troops in Guantanamo Bay to Nazis. You decide whether he is sorry for those comparisons or not.
September 2, 2005: Reuters: World stunned as US struggles with Katrina.I am not sure what to say about this. Perhaps it was punishment for the US removing Saddam - so say some. The world has forgotten and perhaps it is time we show them again.
September 7, 2005: OPEC: Oil production exceeding demand Strange. The more they pump the higher the cost. Would a Senator come forward and do more than mouth concern!
September 8, 2005: Oil Prices Rise Ahead of Inventory ReportEven if OPEC tells us more oil was pumped and available - this reports suggests prices go up anyway because. Go figure - the less oil, the higher the price. The more oil - the higher the price because there is less oil. Makes perfect sense. FYI: I understand that if you produce 1000 barrels and I can only refine 10, the price will not be based upon 1000, but upon 10 with the 1000 barrels less useful in determining costs. This makes little sense in the macro view. Very little. Too many holes.
October 27, 2005: More Oil News. ExxonMobil's quarterly profit to exceed $8.5bnThis is a rather long article but it does explain issues concerning oil, types of oil, who has it, and what the issues might be. Between Oct 2005 and April 2006, the oil companies have posted profits that exceed every quarter past and each other. The answer is not a tax on oil companies, that provides revenue to the federal government without fixing the costs.
Oct 27 and 28, 2005: As oil profits soar, scrutiny rises. Record oil profits prompt calls for probe. Exxon, Shell Net Record ProfitsThree articles to choose from. The oil companies told us: OPEC raised the prices for us, so we must charge higher gas prices. It costs more to refuel, so we must raise prices. Katrina came along and blew over our oil refineries and oil pumps - consequently we must raise prices because we have to fix those broken bits. My question - how then can they make more money than ever in history if they are spending so much!!
October 27, 2005: Sex Workers Ask EU to Respect Their 'Rights'.
October 28, 2005: UN Team names firms in oil-for-food scandal.The UN and why they are not only irrelevant but dangerous and criminal. Nearly half of the companies in over 60 countries used bribes. Bribery, apparently, is the business as usual practice for them.
October 28, 2005: How some Gold Star Families feel about Cindy Sheehan. Military Families 'Disgusted' by Sheehan
October 29, 2005: Third night of trouble in Paris suburb following teenage deaths. Yahoo news. What is omitted from this news story by AFP. 'French leaders fiddled while France Burned' Best headline.
October 30, 2005: Bush administration as dangerous now as beforeHaroon Siddiqui writes in the Toronto Star about the dangerous and belligerent Bush Administration.
October 30, 2005: Caller claims Islamic group behind New Delhi bombings.The interesting fact to pay attention to is not the bombing which has killed between 58-60 people, but a lesser point.
On October 8, 2005, a major earthquake struck Pakistan. The numbers of dead range from 20,000 to 50,000. Pakistan's president pleaded with the world community for assistance and of all the countries who signed up to help Pakistan, one was unusual in that it has been in a low state of conflict with Pakistan over the Kashmir - India. India helped the earthquake victims. India sent medical aid and money, food, and supplies. In return, 20 some days later ... if the report/claim is to be believed.
October 30, 2005: Remember OHIO and Florida. How about we pay attention to Detroit! Absentee ballots tainted?
November 3, 2005: Court widens parental status in lesbian case: Ruling a win for non-birth parents.Ruling is a win for anyone.
December 19, 2005: Our Friends the Pakistanis: Support for the U.S. is surging in some parts of the Muslim world.
February 21, 2006: POLL: Youths Back N. Korea if AttackedWhat happens two generations removed! Look at South Korea.
March 17, 2006: Canadian Senator attacks US family and US policyAnother reason why we should not be interested in what Canada thinks
April - May YEARLY: POLAR BEAR HUNTOne safari company and description. Suggestion: leave the seals alone, polar bears will have food source, no need to place bears on endangered species list. Maybe we should send the suggestion to the Canadian Senator who cannot distinguish between the morality of years of criminal justice/appeals/right to counsel and shooting/clubbing an animal for a piece of fur - AND NOTHING more.UN position on polar bears
National Geographic - they need the ice, but what the magazine mentions yet fails to payt any attention to is the seal as the polar bears food source. Without the food source, readily available, the number of polar bears will decline regardless of ice.
What the Canadians say about their hunting polar bears: It's a tradition! All of this is fine. Kill the bears because it's a tradition. Kill the seals because it's a tradition. But don't tell us that the polar bear is endangered. Don't tell us to protect the environment you systematically are eliminating all life from. Save the polar bears which requires the seals which requires the ice. Without the seals, the bears will die off. Without the ice, the seals will swim and the bears will drown. A very odd world the Canadians live in. We may be a geographic neighbor, but surely not an intellectual neighbour.
March 22, 2006: China's Competitiveness May be on the decline
March 23, 2006: A former aide spills the dirt on Fidel CastroAs of April 2006, Castro is ranked by Forbes as worth over $900 million.
March 23, 2006: Chiac walks out of EU summit because a French businessman spoke EnglishAnother reason to really not care what happens to the French.
March 23 - 26, 2006: Islamic Law and Converting. Afghan man on trial for his lifeThis story is more important than is conveyed by words alone. Due to international pressure, the political leadership in Afghanistan has caved in (whether they did or not, it will be perceived as such) to Western demands. This may well be as significant an issue as Mohammad al-Durrah or the Danish cartoons, although it may be long simmering and more political than emotive.
March 24, 2006: Canada says annual seal hunt to start SaturdayAnother reason why we should not pay attention to what Canada thinks:
"At one time most thought the hunt would die out. By 1983, only 25,000 seals were being killed. But in the early 1990s the hunt was revived with the support of the Canadian Government, as a substitute for the failed cod fishery off Canada's Atlantic coast." http://smh.com.au/news/world/eight-weeks-of-pain-record-seal-kill-tipped/2006/03/24/1143083994112.html
March 24, 2006: No agreement in talks on French labor lawAnother reason why we should not be interested in what the French think
March 24, 2006: Russia gave Saddam US intelAnother reason not to be interested in what Russia thinks
March 24, 2006: Want a burger with that beer.In England, the concern was beer and burger could be poisoned. So heard the court.
March 24, 2006: Al-Qaeda's Nuclear OptionAs Iraq settles down, Iran involves itself - Bin Laden et al, find themselves with fewer options. Iraq will not fall to Sunni insurgency while Iran sits by. This leads us back to, what is described as the inescapable conclusion of a nuclear attack.
March 25, 2006: Freed UK Hostage: Full StatementI personally hope Norm enjoys his freedom after four months captivity, and has time to reflect. Read his statement and tell me - what isn't mentioned? And let us hope he does reflect or next time another person may not have the opportunity Norm has at this time.
March 26, 2006: More on Russia - Provided intel to SaddamOf course Russia and Canada are our friends and we must acknowledge their interests. We may also consider that not everything is as it may be portrayed on either side/case. However, giving Russian interest precedence over US, given the very questionable position they find themselves, places our national security at potential risk.
May 1, 2006: May Day and Protests. A Day Without MexicansWhat does Mexico, Boycotts, and McDonalds have to do with illegal immigration and immigration reform?
May 8, 2006: WSJ: A Dying Nation's Schizophrenia (This is a paid site and may not be available to non-subscribers)The social system some would impose upon us works fine until it doesn't. You do not purchase a large item knowing it will fail and when it does the social chaos will outweigh any benefit you think you received. Example: Germany. A great social welfare system that is now about to implode. In 12 generations there will be no more Germans.
May 8, 2006: WSJ: Cost of textbooks. A letter in the WSJ: Predatory Behavior in Textbook Buybacks (This is a paid site and may not be available to non-subscribers)I have heard this from more than one source as to why the textbooks costs so much.
May 21, 2006: Culture of Corruption in WashingtonEver wonder what happens to government funds to Louisiana
May 28, 2006: Washington Post: Murtha's Rush to JudgmentDo our Marines make mistakes? Are they human. A better question to ask is not whether a crime was committed at Haditha, but rather why a member of congress would make such prejudicial and ignorant statements.
May 28, 2006: London's Daily Mail: Babies Aborted for not being perfectStriving for perfection. Aren't we all. Just make sure you get out of my way or I will stomp all over you.
June 4, 2006: AP: Masked Gunmen in IraqIt is foolishness to believe what is happening in Iraq is purely Anti-Americanism, or for that matter anti-Americanism almost all together. It is something far worse in many respects than simply anti-American. Unfortunately, for the useful idiot types, they can not and will not ever understand this.
June 11, 2006: The Times of London. He Found God in the Human GenomeThe scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is to publish a book explaining why he now believes in the existence of God
June 12, 2006: Canada Free Press An Inconvenient TruthJust because Al Gore believes he created the internet and the world is melting, does not make it so.
July 2, 2006: Opinion Journal: Don't believe the Hype
As soon as we finish reading this article, the earth will simply implode, leaving only Al Gore to clean up, claiming he was correct after all.
July 4, 2006: UPI: N. Korean missile test apparently fails
On July 4th, North Korea test fired three missiles. Efforts by Japan, US, China, Russia, and South Korea have failed. The fact the long range missile failed is not important to the fact it tested it as if it would work and then covered up, in their little minds, by firing two short range missiles into the Sea of Japan. Engagement failed in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 .... and has failed again - having China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and the US all urge North Korea to NOT test-fire missiles. What would you suggest we do? Give them something? A hug perhaps. Kim Jong il is a despotic little tyrant. The very first article at the top of this page - Life under the Red Star, April 17, 2001. Read it, then consider what South Korea would be like if Kim Jong il reproduces his evil regime in the south.
July 16, 2006: Independent Online: President Jacques Chirac has accused Israel of possibly seeking the destruction of Lebanon
Do the French have any moral or legal authority to speak on this subject.
July 23, 2006: Daily Pioneer. War for the World
Ms Ganguli has an interesting position, one I believe to be morally clear - at a time when some find these issues to be foggy and vague.
August 4, 2006: You think it's hot now? Think Global Warming is to blame? Try 1930
September 2, 2006: HEADLINE: The Sky Is Falling - Global Warming Around the Corner. UPDATE: Not quite
From The Australian. Scientists have changed their dire predictions from DIRE to less DIRE. Quick, someone - tell Al Gore.
September 2, 2006: Global Warming is too important to leave to Al Gore.
One scientist at Cook University has it right - pathetic. With that stated - the governments of the world should make efforts toward repairing damage done.
September 3, 2006: Idiots on Parade: CBS: Chilling Effect on Free Speech Worries prompt questions on 9/11 program
When you read this you begin to feel as if words have every meaning yet no meaning. If the FCC fines CBS for the program, I will: 1) move out of the United States, and 2) pay a small percentage of the total fine, and 3) I will never vote for a Republican the rest of my life and will instead only vote for the Green party. Yet an Executive Vice President of CBS would make such a stupid and ignorant statement. he has no clue what a chill is nor what a chilling effect is. he is over reaching and me thinks the rationale doesn't live up to his concern - there must be another reason why he and CBS are pulling the programs!! Question: which markets, demographics!! Find the answers, follow the trail and you will find the truth. He (the Exec Vice Pres) is an idiot. The American Family Association is behaving irresponsibly as are all affiliates who cave in to these issues. Foolishness.
September 7, 2006: Disney / ABC - Path to 9/11. Read this very unthreatening letter to Mr Iger, from several concerned citizens.
Afterward, please spend a couple hours, less than the length of the film, read what the 9/11 commission did state, research the facts, research the history involved, and then write a very nice letter to the same concerned citizens expressing your sincere thanks for the gestapo nazi tactics employed.
September 11, 2006: Newsweek: The New First Grade: Too Much Too Soon?
What have we become that we begin sex education in kindergarten and first grade; testing, homework, essays, and reading by first grade. What fools we are. It would be a great moment to do the whole 'tsk tsk I told you so' when it implodes but for the fact there may not be a world left to exercise that moment of gloating. Silly, silly ... stupid people.
September 11, 2006: Five Years Later. Not an article, but an observation.
I have inserted it here as I cannot think of another page where it should be situated.
September 23, 2006: CBS Reports: Bin Laden: May be living his last few days. InshahAllah. Seattle Intelligencer: France looking into reports Bin Laden dead
It would not be a disappointment for this man to have celebrated his last Ramadan or viewed his last sunset. However, even if the man is dead, we will hear from him at least once more.
October 9, 2006: AP: Democrats Assail Bush on North Korea.
October 9, 2006: Reuters: North Korea conducted a nuclear test. Otherwise known as: The Day The World Changed For the Worse.
1994 Agreed Framework October 1994 between the Clinton Administration and the government of Kim Jung il.
November 11, 2006: Reuters: Another reason why people in Broward County Florida should have to pass a voting / eye exam
November 25, 2006: Reuters, WP: Rwanda cuts diplomatic ties with France
It was not bad enough the French trained and armed the Hutu, aided and abetted the Hutu genocidaires, now the French have decided that the President of Rwanda, a man who would have been butchered had the Hutu aided by the French succeeded, is responsible for the downing of the plane that sparked the genocide - even though no legitimate, respected, honest review of the facts or report on the events supports the conclusion the French have arrived at on their own. One should ask themselves why the French have now decided to file a legal action, what prompted it? And better still, what do the French have to gain? For all those who still somehow find an ounce of usefulness in the French or their leaders - this should be the final nail.
November 25, 2006: Reuters, NYT: Chad Rebels Seize Key Eastern Town
The French once again and perhaps the answer (in part) to the question of why the French are so interested in Rwanda's Kigame . They just can't seem to keep their hands off everyone else's country even though they make a big deal of the US and Iraq - all one needs to do is look at their actions practically everywhere else in the world.
December 23, 2006: Reuters. Islamists in Somalia urge Muslims worldwide to wage jihad against Ethiopia Somalia should be the showcase for anyone interested.
January 19-22, 2007
This newspaper is considered one of the finest in the world. Editorial staff come from the Ivy leagues and 'anyone' who is 'anyone' thinks of this newspaper as some beacon of newspaper journalism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/world/europe/21turkey.html?hp&ex=1169355600&en=cf5f785b70340095&ei=5094&partner=homepage
The other great paper, the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011900453.html
And finally, our own paper rag:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-journalist20jan20,1,4651120.story?coll=la-headlines-world
First, read each of the above stories. Then read the two articles (Reuters and the Telegraph)
REUTERS:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-01-19T155927Z_01_L1968420_RTRUKOC_0_US-TURKEY-AUTHOR-SHOT.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2
TELEGRAPH:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/20/wturkey20.xml
Then my question is, what is missing from the greatest and best of all news sources – NYT, LAT, WP and what is it that is in the other two and most importantly - WHY is that piece of information missing. It is NOT for the newspaper to decide what should be printed and what we should know for that is not printing the news, that is deciding what we see and hear - and that is he same attack leveled at FOX news and any conservative news site.
January 31, 2007. NYTimes: FRANCE tells US to sign Kyoto or get taxed. Inevitable that worldwide carbon tax.
February 6, 2007: Canada Free Press: Global Warming. yet another climatologist who disputes the fearmongering
March 25, 2007: Moderate Islam? What responsibility do they play in the greater war upon terror?
March 27, 2007: Sheep with 15% human DNA. http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444436&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=
Monday, September 11, 2006
9/11
Remember the day, and all those who lost their lives that day, and all those who have given their lives since.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
9/11/01
Remember the day, and all those who lost their lives that day, and all those who have given their lives since.
Four years since that evil of that day.
Four years since that evil of that day.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Property Seizures
Justices Affirm Property Seizures by 5-4 vote
And guess what? It was not the conservatives who made it possible to take your property from you!!
Be VERY CONCERNED.
Justices Affirm Property Seizures5-4 Ruling
Backs Forced Sales for Private Development
By Charles LaneWashington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 24, 2005; A01
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.
The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply is dwindling.
Opponents, including property-rights activists and advocates for elderly and low-income urban residents, argued that forcibly shifting land from one private owner to another, even with fair compensation, violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of property by government except for "public use."
But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, cited cases in which the court has interpreted "public use" to include not only such traditional projects as bridges or highways but also slum clearance and land redistribution. He concluded that a "public purpose" such as creating jobs in a depressed city can also satisfy the Fifth Amendment.
The court should not "second-guess" local governments, Stevens added, noting that "[p]romoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government."
Stevens's opinion provoked a strongly worded dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote that the ruling favors the most powerful and influential in society and leaves small property owners little recourse. Now, she wrote, the "specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams, who serves as president of the National League of Cities, issued a statement praising the court for upholding "one of the most powerful tools city officials have to rejuvenate their neighborhoods."
In addition to its national repercussions, the court's decision removed a possible obstacle to the District's plans to build a baseball stadium along the Anacostia River waterfront and to redevelop the Skyland Shopping Center in Southeast -- a project Williams said could generate 300 jobs and $3.3 million in tax revenue.
A number of property owners in those areas had hoped the court ruling would help them resist the city's exercise of eminent domain. But David A. Fuss, an attorney for several of them, acknowledged that the court's ruling "is going to have a major impact."
The redevelopment program at issue in yesterday's case -- the plan of the Connecticut city of New London to turn 90 acres of waterfront land into office buildings, upscale housing, a marina and other facilities near a $300 million research center being built by pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer -- was also expected to generate hundreds of jobs and, city officials say, $680,000 in property tax revenue.
New London, with a population of about 24,000, is reeling from the 1996 closing of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which had employed more than 1,500 people.
But owners of 15 homes on 1.54 acres of the proposed site had refused to go. One of them, Susette Kelo, had extensively remodeled her home and wanted to stay for its view of the water. Another, Wilhelmina Dery, was born in her house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life.
The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the city's plan, so the homeowners, represented by lawyers from the libertarian Institute for Justice, appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
According to the institute, the New London plan, which the City Council approved in 2000, is typical of "eminent domain abuse," which has spawned more than 10,000 threatened or filed condemnations involving a transfer of property from one private party to another in 41 states between 1998 and 2002.
Scott Bullock, a lawyer for the institute, said that the only recourse for property owners facing condemnation under eminent domain would be to sue in state court based on the property rights provisions of each state's constitution.
New London City Manager Richard M. Brown said he was "very pleased" by the court's decision. He said the city hopes to restart its redevelopment plan, which has lost money so far, partly because of the litigation.
In the disputed neighborhood, known as Fort Trumbull, most residents sold out and their homes were demolished. The site is now a flat expanse of dusty, rock-strewn soil dotted by the few remaining houses. Signs advertising the development site are withered and torn; builders who once considered projects have moved on, deterred by the controversy.
Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Kennedy's vote was something of a surprise because he had expressed strong sympathy for property-rights claims in past cases. But in a brief concurring opinion he explained that the New London plan showed no sign of improper favoritism toward any one private developer.
O'Connor was joined in her dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They wrote that the majority had tilted in favor of those with "disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
And in a separate dissent, Thomas sounded a rare note of agreement with liberal groups such as the NAACP, which had sided with the property owners in the case.
He protested that urban renewal has historically resulted in displacement of minorities, the elderly and the poor.
"Regrettably, the predictable consequence of the Court's decision will be to exacerbate these effects," he wrote.
The case is Kelo v. City of New London , No. 04-108.
Staff writer Kirstin Downey contributed to this report.
And guess what? It was not the conservatives who made it possible to take your property from you!!
Be VERY CONCERNED.
Justices Affirm Property Seizures5-4 Ruling
Backs Forced Sales for Private Development
By Charles LaneWashington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 24, 2005; A01
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.
The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply is dwindling.
Opponents, including property-rights activists and advocates for elderly and low-income urban residents, argued that forcibly shifting land from one private owner to another, even with fair compensation, violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of property by government except for "public use."
But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, cited cases in which the court has interpreted "public use" to include not only such traditional projects as bridges or highways but also slum clearance and land redistribution. He concluded that a "public purpose" such as creating jobs in a depressed city can also satisfy the Fifth Amendment.
The court should not "second-guess" local governments, Stevens added, noting that "[p]romoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government."
Stevens's opinion provoked a strongly worded dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote that the ruling favors the most powerful and influential in society and leaves small property owners little recourse. Now, she wrote, the "specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams, who serves as president of the National League of Cities, issued a statement praising the court for upholding "one of the most powerful tools city officials have to rejuvenate their neighborhoods."
In addition to its national repercussions, the court's decision removed a possible obstacle to the District's plans to build a baseball stadium along the Anacostia River waterfront and to redevelop the Skyland Shopping Center in Southeast -- a project Williams said could generate 300 jobs and $3.3 million in tax revenue.
A number of property owners in those areas had hoped the court ruling would help them resist the city's exercise of eminent domain. But David A. Fuss, an attorney for several of them, acknowledged that the court's ruling "is going to have a major impact."
The redevelopment program at issue in yesterday's case -- the plan of the Connecticut city of New London to turn 90 acres of waterfront land into office buildings, upscale housing, a marina and other facilities near a $300 million research center being built by pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer -- was also expected to generate hundreds of jobs and, city officials say, $680,000 in property tax revenue.
New London, with a population of about 24,000, is reeling from the 1996 closing of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which had employed more than 1,500 people.
But owners of 15 homes on 1.54 acres of the proposed site had refused to go. One of them, Susette Kelo, had extensively remodeled her home and wanted to stay for its view of the water. Another, Wilhelmina Dery, was born in her house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life.
The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the city's plan, so the homeowners, represented by lawyers from the libertarian Institute for Justice, appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
According to the institute, the New London plan, which the City Council approved in 2000, is typical of "eminent domain abuse," which has spawned more than 10,000 threatened or filed condemnations involving a transfer of property from one private party to another in 41 states between 1998 and 2002.
Scott Bullock, a lawyer for the institute, said that the only recourse for property owners facing condemnation under eminent domain would be to sue in state court based on the property rights provisions of each state's constitution.
New London City Manager Richard M. Brown said he was "very pleased" by the court's decision. He said the city hopes to restart its redevelopment plan, which has lost money so far, partly because of the litigation.
In the disputed neighborhood, known as Fort Trumbull, most residents sold out and their homes were demolished. The site is now a flat expanse of dusty, rock-strewn soil dotted by the few remaining houses. Signs advertising the development site are withered and torn; builders who once considered projects have moved on, deterred by the controversy.
Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Kennedy's vote was something of a surprise because he had expressed strong sympathy for property-rights claims in past cases. But in a brief concurring opinion he explained that the New London plan showed no sign of improper favoritism toward any one private developer.
O'Connor was joined in her dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They wrote that the majority had tilted in favor of those with "disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
And in a separate dissent, Thomas sounded a rare note of agreement with liberal groups such as the NAACP, which had sided with the property owners in the case.
He protested that urban renewal has historically resulted in displacement of minorities, the elderly and the poor.
"Regrettably, the predictable consequence of the Court's decision will be to exacerbate these effects," he wrote.
The case is Kelo v. City of New London , No. 04-108.
Staff writer Kirstin Downey contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments