GeologicalScienceBlog - subjects include Geology, Climatology, Environmental Science, NASCAR, Beer, Property Rights, Random Thoughts, & Politics from a Christian Conservative/Libertarian/pragmatist viewpoint. As a Dad & Grandad, I am concerned about the overgrowth of government at the expense of freedom. Background - two degrees in Geology (BS '77, MS '90), started studying Geology beginning Senior Year of high school (1971 - 1972) <68>

Thursday, May 03, 2012

Why Modern Liberals Ain't - Agenda 21

Put aside an hour and a half, for the sake of the future and listen to these words from Rosa Koire, a Liberal Democrat from the San Francisco Bay-area.


/
From her organization's website Democrats Against U.N. Agenda 21:

"UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, and all human beings in the world. INVENTORY AND CONTROL."

More on the subject from Rosa Koire - "Behind the Green Mask" (set aside another hour and a half):



More on Agenda 21 (another hour and a half):



It's all about Power and Control.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

|

Thursday, December 29, 2011

192,000 Books and Manuscripts Reduced to Ashes...

by Islamist mobs in Egypt.

Kind of follows the actions of their WWII allies, Nazi Germany. From the article "Burning books in Cairo", by Ryan Jones, Israel Today Magazine, 27 December 2011:


"On December 17, an Egyptian mob - presumably of the type that has been voting for the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Nour - demonstrated that they have no intention of "modernizing" or adopting Western-style pragmatism when they torched the Institute of Egypt in Cairo.

Among the casualties of the Islamist assault were some 192,000 rare books and manuscripts.

The Institute of Egypt was established by Napoleon Bonaparte when he invaded Egypt in the late 18th century. For centuries the Institute of Egypt housed priceless chronicles of the nation's history, as well as the findings of hundreds of top scholars and scientists.

The Institute of Egypt symbolized Egypt's connection to the West, and for many its establishment was the start of the "modern era" in Egypt. And that is why it had to go. Because Egypt's Islamists have no intention of modernizing, not on Western terms, at any rate. Like the Ayatollahs in Iran and Hamas in Gaza, their ultimate goal is to return Egypt to a medieval form of life where a strict interpretation of Sharia Law governs the actions of all."


Nature abhors a vaccuum. Hosni Mubarak was certainly a problematic ruler (polite term), but there was some measure of secularism present in Egypt. I wonder if the libs that championed the "Arab Spring" in Egypt are at least uncomfortable with these events.

Labels: , ,

|

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Have You Heard of the Jaffe Memo?

From this LifeNews column:

It's been around for 40+ years.  It was produced by Planned Parenthood VP - World Population Frederick S. Jaffe, at the request of the U.S. Government to address the issue of "Overpopulation".  [Quotation marks were used as this issue is a matter of interpretation regarding the Progressive agenda and what they intend(ed).

Posted in a Landscape View on the 1-page pdf document, here are the proposals:

Social Constraints
Economic Deterrents

Modify tax policies:
a) Substantial marriage tax
b) Child tax
c) Tax married more than single
d) Remove parents tax exemption
e) Additional taxes on parents with more than 1 or 2 children in school
Reduce/eliminate paid maternity leave or benefits
Reduce/eliminate children's or family allowances
Bonuses for delayed marriage and greater child spacing
Pensions for women of 45 with less than N children
Eliminate Welfare payments after first 2 children
Chronic depression
Require women to work and provide few child care facilities
Limit/eliminate public-financing medical care, scholarships, housing, loans and subsidies to families with more than N children.

Social Controls

Compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies
Compulsory sterilization of all who have two children except for a few who would be allowed three
Confine childbearing to only a limited number of adults
Stock certificate type permits for children
Housing policies:
a) Discouragement of private home ownership
b) Stop awarding public housing based on family size

Other (not defined by a heading on the memo)

Payments to encourage sterilization
Payments to encourage contraception
Payments to encourage abortion
Abortion and sterilization on demand
Allow certain contraceptives to be distributred non-medically
Improve contraceptive technology
Make contraception truly available and accessible to all
Improve maternal health care, with family planning a core element

Sounds a bit like tyranny.  There are a few of these that are favored by Conservatives/Libertarians - BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS.

Will list these later...

Labels: , , ,

|

Wednesday, October 05, 2011

Forcing People into Cities...

for the purpose of further controlling them and every aspect of their lives.

 
From Fr. Orthohippo is a copied post from:

 
"Personal Liberty Digest September 10, 2010 by Bob Livingston

 
A social engineering bill to restrict residence in the suburbs and rural areas and force Americans into city centers has passed the United States Senate Banking Committee and is on the fast track to passage in the Senate.

 
The bill is called the Livable Communities Act of 2009.

 
It was introduced by corruptocrat outgoing Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.). It seeks to fulfill the United Nation’s plan Agenda 21, adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and signed onto by “New World Order” President George H.W. Bush."...

 
continuing:

 
..."The companion bill in the House is HR4690 Livable Communities Act of 2010.

 
This bill is designed to destroy your community. According to the non-profit American Policy Center the bill: 

 A carrot and stick policy will be used to get your local government to sign on. The carrot is billions of dollars in grants available if your local government agrees to amend zoning laws that restrict housing in outlying areas, forcing people to give up their homes and land and move into the city center."
 
It's all about control.  More...
 
..."The idea of these social engineering initiatives is to force people to live in a congested area in high rise buildings with housing on the upper floors and stores on the bottom. The whole area will be linked by mass transit creating the “utopian” communities loved by socialists.


The result will be higher costs for housing (because overcrowding will make housing space a premium) and goods and services (because of less choice and competition) and less freedom to move about (because cars won’t be necessary and parking space will be prohibitively expensive).

As we pointed out here President Barack Obama is — not surprisingly — an advocate of this type of nonsense. And his cabinet is populated by elitists who think they know better than you how you should live."...

There is some value in future planning, but with this group, it is an obsession and for the elites, it is about controlling the masses, while the elites continue to play as they wish.  It won't happen all at once, just bits and pieces - advances and withdrawals (as people object), using different states as laboratories.

Whether you are in a "pack-em and stack-em" high rise apartment complex or a "Conservation Subdivision" - where you can spit and hit your neighbor's home - it is about control.  In either situation, it is impossible for you to "scratch the ground" and start a garden to feed yourself and your family.  In either case, by limiting parking spaces and concentrating people in small areas, they will offer the rationale of "public transportation".

Executive Order 13547 is just a part of it.

[Much more to say, stuff to do.]

Labels: , , , , ,

|

Sunday, October 02, 2011

Science, Lies, and Videotapes

A slight variation on the title of an American Thinker post.  It addresses some of what liberals think "they know" as to things within the realm of science and nature.

It is a potporri of urban legend, rumors, early conclusions from scientific studies, Luddite viewpoints, etc., and leftist agenda-driven "facts",... - with just enough truth thrown in as to make it believable - to some people.

As science is an ongoing endeavor, some of these concerns might turn out to be more true than we think, but it may take years-more of study before we reach firm conclusions and solid interpretations. 

Often, early interpretations are jumped upon for use in a political agenda.  It is usually leftist, but not always.  Sometimes the conclusions may be correct (or semi-correct), but not for the reasons cited by the "early believers".

From the post:

..."Among the positions progressives have taken which are false and unsupported by science are the following examples I culled there from posts by Mike Hanson of Purdue University and Ken Green. Collectively these men observe these fallacies supported by those who call themselves progressives: 
As an equal-opportunity skeptic, some of these concerns MIGHT be valid, but we are not at the point of investigation where we can justify harsh increases in government control.  As with many things in the "open system" that nature is, there may be more than one thing that affects the system.  A future post will list (and at least partially explain the 20+ inputs that may (or do) affect weather and climate.

Labels: , , , ,

|

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Oh, the Untold Damage Done by Racialists

Perhaps this is a new term to some. "Racialists" are people that find a "racial angle" (or make one up) for almost any societal, economic, cultural,... trend or event. Nevermind that there might be multiple other factors that produce the intepreted/extrapolated result. They have their agenda, which is to continually "pick at the wound" and keep it infected, rather than let it heal. They don't want us to get along with each other. Without the strife, they would have little reason for their existence (or rather they might have to engage in actual productive work, for a change).

We well know the names of some of them, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger,... If there is a minority group that can be whipped into a frenzy for political and monetary gain, they will be right there, ready to blame someone else for any problem, real or perceived. They thrive upon the use of stereotypes and group identities.

There are others that are not well as known - and may be more dangerous for that reason. Tim Wise is an example. A blog I discovered yesterday - A. R. Ward, spends a lot of time covering this despicable, for-profit race baiter.

Any sensible person knows that things will never be perfect between all white Americans and all black Americans. There will always be some racist/bigoted idiots, of all races. Humans cannot achieve perfection on Earth. We all know the basics of history (manipulated history notwithstanding - such as lies about the past histories of the Republican Party vs. the Democrat Party - in which sins committed by Democrats are projected upon Republicans and the Republicans do little to counter the lies).

The only way we will EVER get along with each other is to hold everyone to the same standards. No favoritism, no vendettas for past sins, no stereotypes,... No more of this "collective guilt/White Priviledge" crap, no more of this "oppressed persons/victimhood" crap for blacks and other minorities. We have too many challenges to be fighting among ourselves.

But then, maybe that is the idea. Keeping us at each other's throats, while they engage their control-freak agenda. Which - if some get their way - will result in martial law as a response to engineered chaos.

Labels: , , , , ,

|

Monday, July 11, 2011

Why Modern Liberal Ain't - Wanting to Ban Books in Chicago



I wonder about any outtakes from this video. Did any of the people say "none of these should be banned"? When I was a liberal, I hated tyranny, which would include censorship. I would hope that I would have had the courage to raise a fuss at this very question.

It seemed that Michael Savage and Andrew Breitbart flew beneath the radar.

No, after years of dealing with the unrepentant, unwilling-to-learn, this is not unexpected. Saddening, yes but unexpected - no.

Labels: , , ,

|

Wednesday, April 06, 2011

More Purloined Wisdom...

From the Right Margin (of course) of the blog Sipsey Street Irregulars:

The Gunwalker Scandal Made Simple

There are five key accusations against ATF and DOJ made by ATF whistleblowers and other sources within FedGov:

1. That they instructed U.S. gun dealers to proceed with questionable and illegal sales of firearms to suspected gunrunners.

2. That they allowed or even assisted in those guns crossing the U.S. border into Mexico to "boost the numbers" of American civilian market firearms seized in Mexico and thereby provide the justification for more firearm restrictions on American citizens and more power and money for ATF.

3. That they intentionally kept Mexican authorities in the dark about the operation, even over objections of their own agents.

4. That weapons that the ATF let "walk" to Mexico were involved in the deaths of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE agent Jaime Zapata, as well as at least hundreds of Mexican citizens.

5. That at least since the death of Brian Terry on 14 December, the Obama administration is engaged in a full-press cover-up of the facts behind what has come to be known as the "Gunwalker Scandal."

Labels: , , , ,

|

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Are You Comfortable with a News Monopoly...Again?

The way it was before, when Walter Cronkite, et al, lied to us? When there was no viable alternative to ABC, CBS, NBC? There were times when there were some more objective reporters and reporting, but with the march-of-time and as the "100-year socialist plan" continues its forward lurch towards more thorough controls, nowadays, we need the balance that talk radio, the internet, and Fox News provides.

It seems that the political Left is incapable of meeting fairly on the "battlefield of ideas", i.e., to let the best-presented, most factually-supported ideas prevail. Mabe it is because - deep down - they somehow know that they will lose.

It would be nice to dismiss Media Matters as simply a George Soros-funded squawkbox of Leftist drivel, but unfortunately, some of their talking points make their way to social media sites, e.g. Facebook, as if said talking points had anything more than a shred of truth at their core.

We all know about the "Big Lie" concept. Sometimes the Big Lie is the stuff that isn't published, rather it is what is covered up. The lying-by-omission minions of the left will not tell you about the non-Conservatives that are part of the Fox News lineup.

Though he had a brief awakening after 9/11, Geraldo Rivera is not a conservative. Shepherd Smith is not a conservative. Juan Williams is clearly not a conservative. As I take in a broad range of information sources, I don't know about the politics of all of the major Fox personalities. But Hannity and Beck - to my knowledge - are the only somewhat doctrinaire Conservative/Libertarians. I am not sure John Stossel would even be comfortable with being called anything more than a Libertarian. I don't stay up late enough to be well-aquainted with Greg Gutfield, I guess I would classify him as a somewhat irreverent "South Park Conservative". Do any of the "alphabet media" networks have this much diversity of opinions? Need I ask?

Forgive the digression from the title-linked article, which is about the recently stepped-up Media Matters campaign to bring down Fox News, actually termed a "war on Fox".

From the article:

..."This isn’t unique language in the grassroots media-criticism industry. A few individual bloggers have expressed a desire to destroy certain media outlets through criticism, and it’s certainly not unusual for conservatives to cheer the misfortunes of the New York Times, for instance. However, the scale of MMFA (Media Matters for America) and its reported $10 million budget put those boasts in a different and somewhat more credible light."...

It is perfectly acceptible for there to be media watchdogs, as part of our series of checks-and-balances, though that is not the goal of the new MMFA campaign. Acceptible campaigns against particular news/opinions outlets should not employ "sabotage", if they hope to maintain any shred of purported objectivity. But then, that was never the goal of the Saul Alinsky school-of-thought.

[Dogged by a mild sinus headache, triggered by atmospheric pressure changes, I am not being as articulate with this post/rant as I would like. I may come back to this later. For a more complete source, please consult the linked article.]

Labels: , , , , , ,

|

Friday, March 18, 2011

When a Liberal "Gets It"

After throwing some "stink bombs" on Facebook (that will annoy libs),...I did some diverse reading. I tried to stay away from politics on FB for a few days, but...

Anyway, I sometimes read Huffington Post and sometimes I find things worth considering.

In this case, it is the post of Lee Stranahan, a textbook liberal, who after being hired by Andrew Breitbart to study the fraud in the Pigford Farmers Case - has immersed himself in the conservative blogosphere - with more of an open mind than most liberals are capable of having. And he has come to realize that most of the political hate and violence in this country is Left-wing. And he is very uncomfortable with that fact.

From the article:

..."On the other hand, if you read conservative blogs or listen to conservative media, you know all about these threats because people like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and websites like Newsbusters and BigJournalism have not only been talking about the death threats for days now but they have been talking about the mainstream and liberal media ignoring the threats for days.

Ignoring the story of these threats is deeply, fundamentally wrong. It's bad, biased journalism that will lead to no possible good outcome and progressives should be leading the charge against it."...

More:

..."I'm in an odd position. In the last few months, I've had one foot in the left wing news stream and one foot in the right. My media duality began when conservative publish Andrew Breitbart hired me to work with him on the Pigford 'black farmers' settlement story. I'm a pro-choice, pro-single payer, anti-war, pro-gay rights independent liberal with years of work in print and film backing those positions. Breitbart hired me to bring a different perspective to the non-partisan issue of corruption in Pigford.

Since then, I have written both here for the left-leaning Huffington Post and at Breitbart's right leaning BigGovernment.com. I've ended up reading a lot more conservative sites and dealing with a lot more conservatives than any time since I attended a high school dedicated to the principles of Ayn Rand about 30 years ago."...

After posting a quote in reference to FDR's opinions about public-sector unions, Stranahan continues:

..."Roosevelt's statement makes sense to me; it does seem that public employees are different than private. I'm not at all anti-union. (I've publicly supported unionizing the visual effects industry, for example.) I'm open to a good rational argument against the case FDR made but in discussions on Twitter and elsewhere, all I got in response from people on the left was anger and insults. I saw little light and felt much heat.

That tone of extreme hostility I experience brings me back to the death threats in Wisconsin. Frankly, the bile and invective in that threat reminded me of the tone I saw directed at me from many so-called liberals because I committed the heresy of taking a different position from them on the issue of collective bargaining for public sector employees... based on something FDR said.

Is this really what liberalism has come to in 2011? [Well no, it has been going on for a while. Liberalism ain't what it used to be, not since it has been infiltrated by the likes of Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, et al, on the Hard Left.]

Since I began working with Breitbart, my position on political issues hasn't changed but I'd be lying if I didn't say I'm deeply disappointed by the virulent, lockstep attitude I see on the left. My experience in the last few months tells me what I would not have believed possible; on any number of issues (including Pigford, by the way) I've seen liberals act much nastier and with less factual honesty than the conservatives... and this includes on issues where I disagree with conservatives.

Burying the death threat story is a clear example of intellectual dishonesty and journalistic bias."...

Not that I am anybody important, but Lee - welcome to the real world. As I said, Liberalism ain't what it used to be. And I salute you for having the courage to say this in public.

So, it appears that I can add Lee Stranahan to the short list of honest liberals that I respect, though I may disagree with many of their viewpoints. Natt Hentoff, Juan Williams, Lee Stranahan,...uh, uh,...I can't think of any others right now.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

|

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Why Modern Liberals Ain't - Liberal Facism in Wisconsin

So many incidents, so little time...

This particular incident occurred in Merrill, WI last week during a Recall Jim Holperin rally. Holperin, a Democrat member of the Wisconsin Senate, was one of the "fleebaggers" that ran from their responsibilities to try to prevent a vote.

A female union supporter tore up several petitions, rather than engage in thoughtful debate. Not surprising, it is easier to destroy than to create. Liberalism is intellectual laziness.

There are some ongoing efforts to investigate this as a crime, perhaps a felony.

From the original Blogs for Victory post:

..."This is what fascism really looks like, good people - attempts to shut down debate, prevent votes, and intimidate people into silence. I know our liberals will go ballistic and insist that there is no similiarity [sic] between modern liberalism and fascism...but that is simply because they've bought the age-old, Stalinist line (and, yes, they don't even know whence it comes) that all on the left are "anti-fascist" (and, thus, they are the good guys)."...

From decades of observation, it seems that as liberals project their worst characteristics onto conservatives, we conservatives project our best characteristics onto liberals. They accuse us of being narrow-minded when they themselves are unable to tolerate dissenting viewpoints, especially when voiced by individuals belonging to minorities claimed by liberals. When we disagree with the political viewpoints of a minority person, they accuse us of racism, whereas they make blanket judgements of what those minorities are supposed to believe and that they are incapable of thinking for themselves, i.e., they are infected with the "soft racism of low expectations."

We who attempt to live lives of politeness and restraint during political debates make the mistake of projecting our goodness onto liberals. Because we make an effort to allow dissenting voices (even though we may roll our eyes to the point of fatigue), we make the mistake of thinking that they will do the same thing. We make the mistake of thinking that because we uphold traditional morals and accepted societal norms (such as cleaning up after ourselves and being polite) - they will do the same. [There are of course, some liberals that are polite and open-minded, but they often do not have the courage to speak up against their brethren, lest they be turned-upon.]

[Yes, I have engaged in making generalities - as is done for the sake of conversation or making a point - on talk radio and in personal debates/conversations. I don't see a problem with that, as long as everyone knows and accepts that they are generalities, that do not apply to everyone.]

"...attempts to shut down debate, prevent votes, and intimidate people into silence."... That is not Classical Liberalism, there is no aspect of open-mindedness within these efforts. Those are the methods of Saul Alinsky.

In this previous post on Classical Liberalism, these are the core principles presented (slightly paraphrased):

1) Preservation of liberty is paramount. Do particular actions increase the liberty (as opposed to hedonistic libertine behavior) of responsible individuals?

2) Individualism is more important than collectivism.

3) Skepticism about power. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts, absolutely."

4) The rule of law is paramount. This includes long accepted principles, i.e. concepts of "natural law" and "Robert's Rules of Order" on a smaller scale. These have arisen through the interactions of countless individuals and have been deemed as successful behaviors. It also includes those laws that are designed to preserve the sovereignty of a nation.

5) Maintenance of a civil society is paramount. Voluntarily organizations are better at engaging in most interactions, without the imposition of top-down, inflexible rules.

6) Spontaneous order. Spontaneous order can arise from the voluntary interaction of open-minded, respectful people.

7) Maintenance of free markets is paramount. Morally-rooted individuals are capable of engaging in voluntary interaction with one another, without artificial relationships and rules being forced from "above".

8) Toleration for speech and viewpoints with which we disagree. This doesn't mean we have to accept clearly harmful behaviors within our midst. It means that we don't try to use the government (or mob intimidation) to shut down dissent.

9) Maintenance of Peace. This is to allow the free movement of Capital, Labor, People, Goods, and Services. In a truly equal, libertarian society, this would include the movement of law-abiding citizens across borders, when the cultures and practices of adjacent nations are relatively similar. However, in the real world, when people (not of good faith) cross a cultural boundary when they also cross a national boundary, i.e., from a less-free historically-corrupt society and they have no intention of assimilating into their new "home", this is injurious to the host society.

10) Limited government is paramount. Self-government though needs self-discipline.

So, who fits these definitions better? Modern conservatives or modern liberals? Need I ask?

Labels: , , , , , ,

|

Tuesday, March 08, 2011

The Equivalent of Screaming Into a Pillow...

is one reason why I still blog here. To write things that I can't say (in the spirit of some sort of diplomacy) on Facebook. Plus, it is cheaper than therapy.

I write here in relative anonymity because there are terribly misguided liberal cousins and foolish friends of my wife who still don't "get it" due to their intellectual laziness. Without doing their own research, they swallow anything served up to them by their masters, including a recent, sloppy leftist attack on Tea Partiers, just because it buttresses their worldview. No skepticism exists that will drive them to dig a bit deeper, no reading challenging views with an open mind. If Media Matters, Huffpo, or Jon Stewart say it, it is gospel to them.

From the linked NewsBusters post:

"Recently, the Los Angeles branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA) released a video showing a group of protestors exhibiting anti-Muslim sentiments outside an ICNA fundraising dinner. Liberal media outlets ran with the press release as a way to highlight bigotry towards Muslims, with the video showing up on The Guardian, Think Progress, Salon, Mediaite, Huffington Post, and Hillary Clinton’s source for ‘real news’, Al Jazeera. Problem being, the video and press release is so bereft with false statements, distortions, and a cut and paste documentary style, it could have passed as a Michael Moore film."

Right away, if CAIR is involved, it is dubious at best. The gist of the subject is that outside of this ICNA fundraiser, there was a largely-peaceful protest by American citizens.

More:

..."The video attempts to portray the obnoxious portion of the protesters as the whole of the entire crowd. However, the Orange County Register paints a picture of a much more serene group of protesters, with many in the crowd waving American flags, singing patriotic songs, and tying red, white, and blue bandannas on their dogs. The report stated that, “the event had the atmosphere of a July 4th picnic.”

Problems began when a small group of individuals, separate from the several hundred peaceful protesters, started yelling and booing a mere 50 yards from the entrance to the event.

“As the fundraiser started, a splinter group of about 100 stood about 50 yards from the community center entrance and booed, yelled "go home" and chanted "no Sharia law" as attendees entered the building.”

The rogue faction was nothing more than a small percentage of the entire protest, and stood in their own separate area, but is clearly being featured in the video clip as representative of the entire group."


But this rogue faction is what was presented as the entirety of the "Tea Party" mindset, when the words "Tea Party" ARE NEVER MENTIONED in the NewsBusters post nor in two different Orange County Register articles. But truth and accuracy are not the pervue of CAIR or their cohorts.

Labels: , , ,

|

Saturday, February 26, 2011

So, I Guess Today is the Day...

for SEIU planned protests across the country. Don't let anybody fool you that these are spontaneous and grass-rooted. Someone had to co-ordinate the permitting process for 50 state capitals. It wouldn't surprise me if they got some help from inside the White House, in addition to any moral support from the No. 1 "community organizer".

And the alphabet news media will probably lie about the goals of these demonstrations. This is not about unions vs. large corporations. This is about unions vs. taxpayers. Yet on Facebook, there is the usual contingent of kneejerk useful idiots who will do what their masters want, by saying that all unions are good. They apparently don't even think about who signs the paychecks for the public-sector union workers.

There is no plan to destroy unions. In the private sector, unions (when well-behaved) do serve as part of our checks-and-balances. But as the public sector is taxpayer-funded, even George Meany and FDR thought that unionization was a bad idea. I gather that it was JFK that signed the executive order that made this possible.

The larger goal is about generating chaos and anarchy. At a time of high unemployment and rising food and gasoline prices, do we really need riots in the streets? I don't have to tell you that there will be the usual number of Leftist groups attaching themselves (like leeches) to this "labor movement". They are simply there for the thrills. For the worst of them, they are caught up in the mob mentality and if a few windows of "evil corporations" get broken and they don't get caught, they feel as if they have actually accomplished something. They haven't a clue as to how they would suffer if they actually got their way and the "system" collapsed.

Yes, perhaps I should be there counter-protesting against this, but today (as is common in the "spring-time"), I am "blessed" with a sinus headeache and a minor earache. If not taken care of these can turn into migraines. I have missed Tea Party events for this same reason. It is just me and my ongoing sinus congestion in the springtime, coupled with the weather changes. For anyone familiar with migraines (or pre-migraines), light and noise are not good.

So - perhaps I am rationalizing - being on the sidelines and "cheerleading" and informing others is better than saying or doing nothing. As these are orchestrated events (with the hand of Van Jones, Jr. involved), I am just not comfortable with inserting myself into this when I am not at my best.

Labels: , , , , ,

|

Thursday, February 10, 2011

De Facto Censorship of Scientific Debate

While adding to the Blogroll of my science-only blog - geosciblog-science - I glanced at the first couple of posts on a particular Geoblog.

Sadly, as happens too often, the word "Denier" was used, vis-à-vis the climate debate. And I reached my limit. Even when I was a Classical Liberal, I hated tyranny. [I try to avoid using the word and the practice of "hate", but I think in regards to tyranny, it is OK to express such thoughts.] Censorship of public debate, especially the suppression of scientific debate, is a form of censorship and tyranny.

Aside from attempting to shut down debates, the users of the word "Deniers" (Denialists, etc.) are dishonest. Most climate skeptics DO NOT DENY that humans MIGHT cause catastrophic Climate Change - BUT - using our scientific training and powers of logic - WE DON'T THINK SO. In other words, in our scientific interpretation, IT IS POSSIBLE, BUT UNLIKELY.

It is the same mindset that uses the word "hate" or "haters" to label those with different political points-of-view. Dishonesty and intellectual laziness. And it needs to be politely "called out". [I may lose another Facebook "Friend" or two, but that is OK. The important ones will stay.]

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

|

Friday, January 14, 2011

The Fairness Doctrine - During and After

The Fairness Doctrine was in existence between 1949 and 1987. There were no national conservative talk shows at that time. Rush Limbaugh started in August 1988.

During that time, the following high-profile persons were either shot at, wounded, or killed by shootings.

(et al means that others were wounded and/or killed during the event. Not including their names is not to demean the importance of their wounds or death, it is just for the sake of brevity).

John F. Kennedy, et al - Leftist shooter
Robert F. Kennedy - Leftist shooter
Martin Luther King - Bigot/racist shooter
Alberta King, et al - Nutcase
George Wallace - Nutcase
Gerald Ford - 1 Nutcase/1 Leftist shooter
Ronald Reagan, et al - Nutcase
George Moscone/Harvey Milk - Nutcase/marginally conservative shooter
John Lennon - Nutcase
Malcolm X - Leftist/Black Muslim shooter
Medger Evers - Bigot/racist shooter
James Chaney/Andrew Goodman/Michael Schwerner (3 Mississippi civil rights workers)/Viola Liuzzo - Bigot/racist shooters
Vernon Jordan - Bigot/racist shooter
Larry Flynt, et al Bigot/racist/nutcase shooter
others,...?

Since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine:

Gabrielle Giffords, et al - Nutcase
others,...?

Talk radio provides common citizens a way to interact in political discussions on a national scale, when they call into talk shows. Not all caller can get in to popular shows, but being articulate - even if you disagree with the host - will help you get on the air. These are common Americans exchanging ideas and engaging in public debate and education. Those on "the fringe" will be (and have been) winnowed-out as listeners will tire (or have tired) of the fringe elements, i.e., fringe broadcasters don't get radio stations by the dozens and hundreds to pick them up.

Most of the above-shooters were apolitical, Left-Wing, or outright racist/bigoted (not part of any organized mainstream conservative group - because that is not what we are about).

The Left has a bigger agenda and they are simply acting as Opportunists to try to shut down free speech, first talk radio, then the internet, seizing on any crisis event, as their arguments cannot be sustained in civil debates.

Labels: , , , ,

|

Friday, December 10, 2010

A Game-Changer or More Importantly, a Life-Changer

We just found out last night that my 78 year-old father in-law is having surgery next Tuesday to take out a cancerous "mass" on (or near) his intestines. Up until now, he and my mother in-law have been well, except for minor health issues. [And yes, in contrast to all of the stereotypes, I get along well with my in-laws.] I think they have good insurance and savings (though I am sure those savings have been eroded in the last few years).

Having lost my Dad 30 years ago and my Mom 10 years ago, I always knew that has to happen to everyone, sooner or later. If you live a distance away from your parent(s), you are going to get "that phone call". It is just life. It still doesn't make it any easier. You are just sort of prepared, in some fashion.

Nothing will be known about a prognosis until after the surgery. In the meantime, it is worry and prayers.

If Obamacare had been fully-implemented, it is likely that a "death panel" (that Paul Krugman now admits to) would decide that it was better to consign my father in-law to drugs and hospice, rather than the expense of surgery, despite their being able to pay for it. As it is now, if insurance is available, but they won't pay for it, personal savings can be used and/or donations can be sought. But when the government controls it all, alternatives cannot be allowed, as everyone doesn't have those alternatives available. In their Marxist view, if everyone can't have it, no one can (except the Ruling Class - funny how that works).

It wouldn't matter to the death panel that my in-laws started off in a humble fashion and worked their way up-the-ladder. It wouldn't matter that my father in-law almost literally started in the mailroom of a prominent energy company (a post-Korean War Navy vet, without a college degree) and worked his way up, through accounting positions, through extra jobs and correspondence courses to a high-level management position. After the last of their three kids were in school, my mother in-law worked for years as a dental assistant. In their government-Marxist eyes, it isn't fair, so he (they) must be denied their earned advantage. Thankfully, they haven't gotten their way, yet.

So we may face a dilemma in the short term, if the prognosis is not good. Do we go back to Oklahoma for Christmas so my wife can spend a little more time with her Dad or do we go visit our daughter's family (and all-important grandson)? We were just there for Thanksgiving.

This hasn't even come up as a possibility (in conversation), I guess I am just considering near-future scenarios. Just in case.

Labels: , , , , ,

|

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Environmental Tyranny...is Still Tyranny

By way of Wizbang, is this cross-posted article on what is being done to the common people of Hatteras Island, NC.

In another Leftist agenda-driven power (and land) grab is just another step along the way towards John Holdren's goal of de-development (and depopulation, initially local areas) of the United States.

The soft RINOs, willing to make deals with Leftists, are not going to stop this sort of tyranny.

There are ways to work with people to help protect bird (and other) habitats, rather than government seeking to depopulate (de-develop) an area, at the behest of elitist environmentalists. This sort of agenda-driven tyranny only produces a backlash effect against other environmental protection efforts, even sensible efforts will be greated with skepticism, at best.

The people that have lived on Hatteras Island have learned - over the course of decades and generations - what works and what doesn't.

They have no desire to destroy anything. These are reasonable people that would cooperate with reasonable environmental efforts.

It is the same story as what goes on in the rural Western United States, where environmentalists, in collusion with the Federal Government are working to put ranchers out of business, by hook or crook (or both). The ranching families that have been there for decades could not have survived if they hadn't learned (on their own) what constitutes sustainable behaviors. They are willing to listen to sensible suggestions.

More than anything else, it is a power game.

Labels: , ,

|

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Hurricane Katrina's Fifth Birthday...

Oh, joy!

So, what have we learned in the last five years?

"The more things change, the more they stay the same"? That is nothing new. Just human nature and politics as usual.

I haven't watched any of the specials, yet - as I have been busy and I kind of know what to expect from the likes of CNN or other news networks (besides Fox), as far as political bias. Just something else to blame on President Bush. It wouldn't surprise me if someone doesn't blame monies spent on the War on Terror for there not having been enough post-Katrina spending.

Though I haven't read the report, "A Failure of Initiative," Congress' investigation into Katrina - it reputedly shows failure and breakdown at all levels of government – local, state and federal. As one might expect.

If the National Geographic Channel or the Discover Channel has a special, I would expect a little more balance from them.

We did learn that we don't know as much about hurricanes as we thought we did. After a very active 2004 & 2005 hurricane seasons, both climate hysterics and climate skeptics thought that we were in for more active hurricane seasons (for different reasons).

The climate hysterics were wanting to blame Katrina and other hurricanes (+ future hurricanes) on global warming and our Presidents' (and the U.S. Senate's in 1997) refusal to climb aboard the Kyoto bandwagon. The skeptics explained that we were in an active hurricane cycle and might be for the next 20 years, due to natural conditions. Neither side seemed to expect how quiet the next five years would be, though this season isn't over, yet.

Collected here are a compilation of most of my Katrina-related blog posts from 2005 and beyond. Though I haven't reread all of them, I stand beside them with the only considerations being to take things in context (of the time). Some of the links will not work, for a variety of reasons.

My final thoughts for this 5th Anniversary are that if President Gore or President Kerry had been in office, the final results would be 90 - 95% the same. There is only so much that government can do, before it starts getting in the way of itself and the efforts of common citizens.

When you have an area of 90,000 square miles damaged or destroyed by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it is going to take a while for things to be "right" again.

Labels: , , , , , ,

|

Friday, April 16, 2010

Genocide and Future Famine Coming to South Africa

Those that forget the past...

This began close to 10 years ago when I read a Christian Science Monitor article about Robert Mugabe's efforts in Zimbabwe. When challenged by a more Marxist political adversary, Mugabe moved left and began stealing farm land from white farmers to give as political favors.

The white farmers (and their black African employees) at the center of this unfolding travesty had decided to stay and "make a go of it" when many other whites fled the Rhodesia-to-Zimbabwe transition. At that time and for the next 20 years or so, Zimbabwe was known as "the breadbasket of Africa", fully capable of feeding itself and contributing to the food supply of surrounding nations. Some of the white farmers had no where else to go, after their families had lived in the area for a couple of generations. Others were making a good-faith effort to cooperate with the new majority-black government.

Some Leftists will make the weak argument that "the ancestors" of the white farmers "stole" the land from the Rhodesian natives, decades earlier. Though there is some partial truth in this notion, we all know "two wrongs do not make a right". In the early 1900s, it is doubtful that natives of what became Rhodesia had any system of land surveys and legal land titles, making the case of white settlers "stealing the land" kind of fuzzy.

There had been a program by which white farmers were "encouraged" to move towards a farm system that included more black Zimbabweans and one could make the weak point that the white farmers didn't make enough of an effort towards this goal (while disregarding the black employees that would be learning farming while working for the white farmers).

Commercial farming is a learned skill. Though a few white farmers managed to sell their farmlands, many were murdered (as were some of their black employees), others had to flee the country, abandoning their land.

Anyway, as I told my students at the time (in 2001), this policy led to famine and starvation. The confiscation of farmland (under mortgage contracts) also helped wreck their banking system. [I guess it didn't matter, Marxists don't have much need for private banks, anyway.]

So despite the famine, starvation, and collapse of life in Zimbabwe, the Leftist-dominated international media and their Leftist political cohorts looked the other way, some even praised Mugabe. Some African leaders of neighboring countries weakly protested Mugabe's actions, but were not supported by widespread public pressure from citizens and leaders in European and Western nations (partially because of the media coverups).

Ignoring the lessons of recent history, Leftists in South Africa - especially members of the African National Congress - seem to think killing white farmers and shutting down productive farms is a good idea.

From this American Thinker article:

"Last week, South Africa's ruling African National Congress (ANC) finally told its members to stop singing the song "Kill the Boer" -- that is, murder white South Africans. (Boer is Afrikaans for "farmer," but colloquially is a disparaging term for any white South African.) This came after ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema defied a court ruling and kept singing the song (he still refuses to stop),...

...Whites in South Africa are keenly aware of the plans to kill them. They expect mass killings to begin very soon after the death of Mandela, but to tell this to the world is a waste of energy. More than 3,000 white farmers have already been murdered, and Genocide Watch lists the Boer farmers in South Africa as victims of genocide -- but the media couldn't care less. Malema has praised Zimbabwe's murderous seizure of white-owned farms as "courageous and militant." White South Africans know what's coming."...

More from the article:

..."Under ANC rule, the government has stopped reporting the race of murder victims and the race of the murderer. This is because the international community (mainly GenocideWatch.org) was starting to notice the disproportionate number of whites being murdered in South Africa. The ANC stopped reporting the race of the victims of murder so there would be no way to track the number of black-on-white murders. Problem solved."...

Author Pamela Geller continues:

..."The American media says little or nothing about the genocide in South Africa, because it's black against white; it's politically incorrect to notice. The mainstream media portrays all white South Africans as racist monsters like Eugene Terreblanche [leader of the noxious and hateful neo-Nazi Afrikaner Resistance Movement (AWB), who was savagely bludgeoned to death at his farm in South Africa's North West province.] This is simply not true. And remember: a key step on the road to genocide is to dehumanize the intended victims.

What is happening in South Africa against the white population is a crime against humanity. Savage. And no one will speak of it. The leftist media (all big media) and the international community (notoriously left) ignores it entirely. Their silence is affirmation; it sanctions the evil. Most decent people are perplexed by the uneven humanity and inhumanity of our leftist moral "superiors." I am not. They unremittingly vilify the Jewish people and Israel, the most benevolent government and army in the Middle East, but pay scant attention to jihad and the Islamic culture of honor killings, clitorectomies, child slavery, forced marriage, child marriage, etc. Why?

Because the leftists are bigots and racists, that's why. Because as morally superior as they think they are, they have no regard for the perpetrators of violence on the left, like the black South Africans. Their subliminal message is clear: "They're animals, whaddaya expect?" That is their prejudice. It's the soft bigotry of low expectations."... [Emphasis added for following commentary.]

Personally, I disagree with the highlighted sentences. I think this is more of the Leftist mindset of "social justice" (REVENGE for past generations' misdeeds), regardless of repercussions. [Remember, while highlighting past grievances and ginning-up ethnic crises, they grab for more power. Sound familiar?]

This has been going on in South Africa - under the radar - for a while. I don't recall the Bush Administration of strongly protesting (because of Political Correctness). And I damn sure don't expect the Obama Administration (or the UN) to threaten to withhold monetary and food aid for the future famine and starvation that are likely to follow in South Africa, if this policy of killing white farmers continues. If sensible voices do not speak up, the only support the white farmers may get is from the other political extreme, e.g., the neo-Nazi Afrikaner Resistance Movement (AWB).

Those that forget the past...

In the 20th Century, Socialist/Marxist governments (including Nazi Germany) killed between 100 million and 120 million of their own citizens (not soldiers). It looks like nothing has changed as we are one decade into the 21st Century.

The only way to effectively fight tribalism (and its offspring racism) is to hold everyone to the same standards, while stopping the cycle of revenge on the present generations, because of the sins of past generations. And that is highly relevant for this country, as well as elsewhere in the world.

But then again, Leftists (Progessives) do not gain power when everyone gets along with each other. They depend upon infighting (along with "free bread and circuses") to serve as a distraction.

It may take a few years to unfold, as it did with Zimbabwe, but if this genocide against established white farmers continues in South Africa, famine will likely follow, especially if there happens to be a coinciding drought or unusual cold spell. These days, with the ability to move food worldwide, most famines may begin with a natural event, but they are exaggerated and continued by political vendettas.

This doesn't have to happen.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

|

Sunday, January 24, 2010

About Those Himalayan Alpine Glaciers...

from NewsBusters: "IPCC Scientist: Fake Data Used To Put Pressure On World Leaders", go read the above-linked article and the links within it.

Basically, if you haven't heard about this on the MSM or read about it in the paper, for the last week or so, there have been revelations - that the UN's statement that Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035 - are unraveling.

It seems that the Climategate revelations have caused scientists to take a second look at other data and it seems that there was nothing to back up the Himalayan glacier claim. It also seems that it was from a statement uttered during a phone call, not years of exhaustive study.

If the Russian solar scientists are right about the lessened solar activity over the next few years/decades, it would be better for humanity to determine how people will adapt and cope with the cold.

Warm is better for agriculture, warm is better for biodiversity, warm is better for life...than cold.

[If time permits, I will add some more links, later.]

Labels: , , , ,

|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?