This video was taken about two years ago, when she was about two years old.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Jackie the Dog (~2007-2011), RIP
Today we had to put down little Jackie, who was sick but still in good spirits. She was a great and devoted little dog, full of lots of enthusiasm, fun, and affection. She'll be missed. I'm pretty sure she's gone where all good dogs go, and we won't be surprised to see her again.
This video was taken about two years ago, when she was about two years old.
This video was taken about two years ago, when she was about two years old.
Monday, April 04, 2011
Pro-aborts censor pro-life message
Q: Why can't the anonymous vandals pay for their own billboard and express their own message, like the pro-lifers did?
True Answer #1: Because these pro-abortionists apparently don't respect free speech or tolerate diverse viewpoints any more than they respect the lives of the unborn who neither speak, vote, nor pay taxes.
True Answer #2: Because what they defend -the legally tolerated killing of unborn children by parents and physicians- is so barbaric and inhuman that any discussion of its reality tends to be an intolerable outrage to pro-aborts.
True Answer #3: Unlike the pro-lifers, who openly identified themselves and peacefully attempted to advance public discouse on the abortion issue, these pro-aborts -perhaps at heart ashamed of the reality of their position- resorted to anonymously trespassing, defacing private property, and censoring their opponents. They'll use the law to protect their own position, but happily disregard private property laws when it's to their advantage.
True Answer #1: Because these pro-abortionists apparently don't respect free speech or tolerate diverse viewpoints any more than they respect the lives of the unborn who neither speak, vote, nor pay taxes.
True Answer #2: Because what they defend -the legally tolerated killing of unborn children by parents and physicians- is so barbaric and inhuman that any discussion of its reality tends to be an intolerable outrage to pro-aborts.
True Answer #3: Unlike the pro-lifers, who openly identified themselves and peacefully attempted to advance public discouse on the abortion issue, these pro-aborts -perhaps at heart ashamed of the reality of their position- resorted to anonymously trespassing, defacing private property, and censoring their opponents. They'll use the law to protect their own position, but happily disregard private property laws when it's to their advantage.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Pro-life billboard ignites controversy
We'll see how long it is before the billboards and their sponsors are attacked by individuals provoked to teeth-clenching fury by this peaceful exercise of civil discourse and free speech.
After all, suggesting openly that it might not be good for parents to kill their children is an outrageous thought. And observing that the epidemic of elective abortion is a plague particularly in the black community is an offense sure to enflame the righteous indignation of those who, well, profit handsomely from killing the unborn.
After all, suggesting openly that it might not be good for parents to kill their children is an outrageous thought. And observing that the epidemic of elective abortion is a plague particularly in the black community is an offense sure to enflame the righteous indignation of those who, well, profit handsomely from killing the unborn.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Fukushima radiation levels
1) Fukushima Update
2) radiation risks -Wikipedia
3) Low Levels of Radioactive Material Begin to Be Detected Across Pacific -Wall Street Journal
Source 1 claims that a radiation level of 21.4 uSv/h (microSieverts per hour) was detected on 17 March 2011 at Fukushima City, 60km (~38 miles) west of the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
Source 2 claims that 100 mSv/yr (milliSieverts per year) are the "lowest clearly carcinogenic level".
Source 3 claims, "As a rule, doubling the distance from the source cuts exposure by a factor of four, says the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency."
Conclusions:
1. 100mSv/year = ~11uSv/hour, which, accumulated over a year, represent a dosage at a "clearly carcinogenic level".
2. The 21.4uSv/h level reported at Fukushima City, 38 miles west of the nuclear accident, is approximately twice the "lowest clearly carcinogenic level". Note that this assumes a constant dosage at this level for an entire year.
2) radiation risks -Wikipedia
3) Low Levels of Radioactive Material Begin to Be Detected Across Pacific -Wall Street Journal
Source 1 claims that a radiation level of 21.4 uSv/h (microSieverts per hour) was detected on 17 March 2011 at Fukushima City, 60km (~38 miles) west of the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
Source 2 claims that 100 mSv/yr (milliSieverts per year) are the "lowest clearly carcinogenic level".
Source 3 claims, "As a rule, doubling the distance from the source cuts exposure by a factor of four, says the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency."
Conclusions:
1. 100mSv/year = ~11uSv/hour, which, accumulated over a year, represent a dosage at a "clearly carcinogenic level".
2. The 21.4uSv/h level reported at Fukushima City, 38 miles west of the nuclear accident, is approximately twice the "lowest clearly carcinogenic level". Note that this assumes a constant dosage at this level for an entire year.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
House votes to defund Planned Parenthood
House votes to defund Planned Parenthood - David Nather and Kate Nocera - POLITICO.com"
That's great news. Now what's the chance of success in the Senate?
That's great news. Now what's the chance of success in the Senate?
Friday, October 22, 2010
Why does Fido shake?
The Wet Dog Shake: Scientists (apparently don't) Uncover Secret Formula - ABC News: "
An important physical factor not mentioned in the article: wet fur physically is "loosely coupled" to the interior of the dog. The "wet fur shake" is similar to a flywheel driven by a spring, and made to oscillate rotationally. The rotational intertia of the fur and the nature of its coupling to the dog's musculature result in a resonant system which oscillates easily at one frequency and with greater difficulty at different frequencies. Increasing the radius of the flywheel tends to increase its rotational intertia and reduce the resonant frequency of the system.
Why does Fido shake himself dry at a particular rotational frequency? Because he can get enough rotational velocity to disperse the water only if he shakes near the system's resonant frequency. In other words: why does he shake at that frequency? Because he can. Why doesn't he shake at a different frequency? Because it's hard, and it doesn't do anything for him. Good dog.
An important physical factor not mentioned in the article: wet fur physically is "loosely coupled" to the interior of the dog. The "wet fur shake" is similar to a flywheel driven by a spring, and made to oscillate rotationally. The rotational intertia of the fur and the nature of its coupling to the dog's musculature result in a resonant system which oscillates easily at one frequency and with greater difficulty at different frequencies. Increasing the radius of the flywheel tends to increase its rotational intertia and reduce the resonant frequency of the system.
Why does Fido shake himself dry at a particular rotational frequency? Because he can get enough rotational velocity to disperse the water only if he shakes near the system's resonant frequency. In other words: why does he shake at that frequency? Because he can. Why doesn't he shake at a different frequency? Because it's hard, and it doesn't do anything for him. Good dog.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Clarendon Hills Middle School wind turbine blows $51,000
Middle school starts up new wind turbine — Hinsdale news, photos and events — TribLocal.com: "
Sanity check: $51,000 for a wind turbine that produces $582 per year will recover its initial cost in 87 years, if we naively assume it can be maintained at zero cost. Even if we assume steep growth in the cost of electricity (7% per year) and zero maintenance, the break-even point still is at least several decades, much longer than the equipment will actually survive. Economically this project is unjustifiable, and amounts to $51,000 that no longer can be spent usefully inside the school building on teachers, books, lab equipment, or computers.
Who are the wind turbine's biggest beneficiaries? Follow the money.
Sanity check: $51,000 for a wind turbine that produces $582 per year will recover its initial cost in 87 years, if we naively assume it can be maintained at zero cost. Even if we assume steep growth in the cost of electricity (7% per year) and zero maintenance, the break-even point still is at least several decades, much longer than the equipment will actually survive. Economically this project is unjustifiable, and amounts to $51,000 that no longer can be spent usefully inside the school building on teachers, books, lab equipment, or computers.
Who are the wind turbine's biggest beneficiaries? Follow the money.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Middle school wind turbine benefits equipment makers, not students
Turbine whips up interest - Triblocal - Voice of the town
Dear Editor,
The new, $24,000 wind turbine at Thomas Middle School poses some thorny questions: What is its economic value, and what is its educational value?
With a peak rated output of 2.4 kilowatts, this wind turbine can generate 57 kWh (kilowatt-hours) per day if there is constant wind. But wind isn't constant, and wind turbines typically operate at about 30% peak capacity.[1] This offers the school electricity worth about $1.38 per day at today's electric rates. Let's figure out when the turbine will "pay for itself". We start with several assumptions biased in favor of the wind turbine:
Given these assumptions, our wind turbine will “break even” in the year 2044, when today's 7th graders are 46 years old: that is, after 34 years operation without repair or maintenance, and only after a hypothetical tenfold increase in electric rates. Using more realistic assumptions, there's no reasonable hope that this project ever will recover its cost to taxpayers.
How will the wind turbine benefit our students educationally? Will they learn how wind turbines generate electricity? Great! But this can be taught in the classroom, and in hands-on labs with much less expensive equipment.
Will the wind turbine be used to teach students how to think critically, how to estimate the costs and benefits of such a project? Will they learn that some projects advertised as "green" actually waste more resources than they conserve: that sometimes "green" is only skin deep?
True conservation, true "green renewal", requires good use of our resources, and minimizing economic waste is part of the environmental equation. Our science students need to learn this, and we can teach the concept, but wasting money on unneeded equipment teaches a perverse lesson: that waste is good. In fact, we can teach science much better without our own turbine, because the funds wasted on this equipment could be better used to augment faculty, books, and labs... or to supplement next year's budget.
The solar panels installed at the school three years ago failed to generate much interest. Their economic benefit also has been uninspiring: a total generated output of 1252 kWh[2], worth only $100. Dare we ask what the solar panels cost to purchase and install? Have they proved to be a good investment either educationally or economically? Who profited most from the solar panels: the students, or those who sold the system? What other educational opportunities were lost when the solar panels were funded? What reason is there to believe the wind turbine will provide any greater benefit than the solar panels? How long will the wind turbine capture attention before there are proposals to buy the next New Thing?
Education dollars are precious and we can't afford to squander them. For the sake of our children we need to urge our schools to sharpen their priorities and make the best possible use of the available funds. We shouldn’t tolerate wasteful spending at the expense of our children.
________________________________________
[1] American Wind Energy Association: http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html.
[2] As of 9/13/2010. Arlington Heights School District 25: http://www.ahsd25.k12.il.us/schools/thomas/science/solarPanel.php, http://view2.fatspaniel.net/PV2Web/merge?view=PV/detailDC/HostedAdmin&eid=88637.
Dear Editor,
The new, $24,000 wind turbine at Thomas Middle School poses some thorny questions: What is its economic value, and what is its educational value?
With a peak rated output of 2.4 kilowatts, this wind turbine can generate 57 kWh (kilowatt-hours) per day if there is constant wind. But wind isn't constant, and wind turbines typically operate at about 30% peak capacity.[1] This offers the school electricity worth about $1.38 per day at today's electric rates. Let's figure out when the turbine will "pay for itself". We start with several assumptions biased in favor of the wind turbine:
- The equipment never requires repair or maintenance -such an assumption wouldn't be optimistic so much as foolish.
- The total upfront cost of the installation is $24,000, or $10,000 per kW. Yes, $10,000 of this came through a State of Illinois grant, but we taxpayers still foot the entire cost. And let’s assume that if this sum were invested elsewhere, it could earn about 3% annually.
- All the generated power is used productively by the school or returned to the grid. (Whether this is the case, the Trib article doesn't reveal.)
- The cost of electricity today is about 8 cents per kWh. Let's assume it will increase steeply at 7% every year.
 |
| "Honey... did we buy the extended warranty?" |
Given these assumptions, our wind turbine will “break even” in the year 2044, when today's 7th graders are 46 years old: that is, after 34 years operation without repair or maintenance, and only after a hypothetical tenfold increase in electric rates. Using more realistic assumptions, there's no reasonable hope that this project ever will recover its cost to taxpayers.
How will the wind turbine benefit our students educationally? Will they learn how wind turbines generate electricity? Great! But this can be taught in the classroom, and in hands-on labs with much less expensive equipment.
Will the wind turbine be used to teach students how to think critically, how to estimate the costs and benefits of such a project? Will they learn that some projects advertised as "green" actually waste more resources than they conserve: that sometimes "green" is only skin deep?
True conservation, true "green renewal", requires good use of our resources, and minimizing economic waste is part of the environmental equation. Our science students need to learn this, and we can teach the concept, but wasting money on unneeded equipment teaches a perverse lesson: that waste is good. In fact, we can teach science much better without our own turbine, because the funds wasted on this equipment could be better used to augment faculty, books, and labs... or to supplement next year's budget.
The solar panels installed at the school three years ago failed to generate much interest. Their economic benefit also has been uninspiring: a total generated output of 1252 kWh[2], worth only $100. Dare we ask what the solar panels cost to purchase and install? Have they proved to be a good investment either educationally or economically? Who profited most from the solar panels: the students, or those who sold the system? What other educational opportunities were lost when the solar panels were funded? What reason is there to believe the wind turbine will provide any greater benefit than the solar panels? How long will the wind turbine capture attention before there are proposals to buy the next New Thing?
Education dollars are precious and we can't afford to squander them. For the sake of our children we need to urge our schools to sharpen their priorities and make the best possible use of the available funds. We shouldn’t tolerate wasteful spending at the expense of our children.
________________________________________
[1] American Wind Energy Association: http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html.
[2] As of 9/13/2010. Arlington Heights School District 25: http://www.ahsd25.k12.il.us/schools/thomas/science/solarPanel.php, http://view2.fatspaniel.net/PV2Web/merge?view=PV/detailDC/HostedAdmin&eid=88637.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
CBS2 News can find no Obama critics in Chicago
As Economy Struggles, Confidence In Obama Wanes - Jay Levine, cbs2chicago.com:
You wrote, "[People] understand President Obama didn't create the crisis; he inherited it..." Nothing like unbiased journalism!
This article acknowledges the Chicago public's decreasing confidence in our president's policies, but seems desperate to conceal just how pervasive and deep is the discontent. You claim he enjoys a 51 percent approval rating in Chicago, yet quote only Obama supporters and reluctant critics, and say, "it's hard to get people here to criticize him". That's ridiculous! With only 51% approval in the Chicago area there are no critics to be found? You’d be more truthful to write, "it's hard to get the media here to criticize him." Your article is a case in point.
This article isn’t serious journalism. It's apologetic fluff, the sort of softball propaganda that merits little but ridicule, and a search elsewhere for some real news coverage.
You wrote, "[People] understand President Obama didn't create the crisis; he inherited it..." Nothing like unbiased journalism!
This article acknowledges the Chicago public's decreasing confidence in our president's policies, but seems desperate to conceal just how pervasive and deep is the discontent. You claim he enjoys a 51 percent approval rating in Chicago, yet quote only Obama supporters and reluctant critics, and say, "it's hard to get people here to criticize him". That's ridiculous! With only 51% approval in the Chicago area there are no critics to be found? You’d be more truthful to write, "it's hard to get the media here to criticize him." Your article is a case in point.
This article isn’t serious journalism. It's apologetic fluff, the sort of softball propaganda that merits little but ridicule, and a search elsewhere for some real news coverage.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Christopher Hitchens: I'm sorry that I probably won't live to see the death of 'elderly criminal' Benedict XVI
Christopher Hitchens: I'm sorry that I probably won't live to see the death of 'elderly criminal' Benedict XVI
The bitter figs that fall from Mr. Hitchens' branches may be a sign that the harvest is near. I pray that this tree bears more happy fruit before it's too late.
The bitter figs that fall from Mr. Hitchens' branches may be a sign that the harvest is near. I pray that this tree bears more happy fruit before it's too late.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Ahmadinejad's favorite hits
"Ring of Fire", from Ahmadinejad's favorite hits
Verse 1:
War -it's a lovely thing,
and it makes a fiery ring.
I can start one, watch me try.
Then, watch my enemies cry.
Refrain:
I will set the mid-East on fire.
My enemies will burn while I climb higher.
And Iran will rule from amidst the pyre,
Amidst the pyre.
Verse 2:
The race for nukes is sweet
With centrifuges beneath my feet.
Lots of uranium I've refined
For the holy war I have in mind.
Verse 3:
The Zionists will soon be gone,
Just as I've promised all along.
America will not defend,
and both will come to a fiery end.
Final Refrain:
I will set the whole world on fire.
The mushroom clouds will go high, high, higher.
And soon you'll know I ain't no liar,
I ain't no liar.
(-thanks to Johnny Cash)
War -it's a lovely thing,
and it makes a fiery ring.
I can start one, watch me try.
Then, watch my enemies cry.
Refrain:
I will set the mid-East on fire.
My enemies will burn while I climb higher.
And Iran will rule from amidst the pyre,
Amidst the pyre.
Verse 2:
The race for nukes is sweet
With centrifuges beneath my feet.
Lots of uranium I've refined
For the holy war I have in mind.
Verse 3:
The Zionists will soon be gone,
Just as I've promised all along.
America will not defend,
and both will come to a fiery end.
Final Refrain:
I will set the whole world on fire.
The mushroom clouds will go high, high, higher.
And soon you'll know I ain't no liar,
I ain't no liar.
(-thanks to Johnny Cash)
Monday, July 26, 2010
Kim Jong-il ...a saber-rattlin' man
I was born a saber-rattlin' man.
Tryin' to be a tyrant and doin' the best I can.
When it comes to diplomacy I hope you'll understand
I was born a saber-rattlin' man.
Verse 1:
My daddy was a commie down in Chŏnju.
He traded in his Bible for a gun.
And I was born in the backseat of a Pyongyang bus
rollin' down Highway Mao Tse-Tung.
Verse 2:
I've purged the country of my adversaries,
all troublemakers and their friends and sons.
My only enemy is every country in the world,
my hobby is provokin' them for fun.
Verse 3:
I've rockets I can launch when I get angry,
I've nukes in case they make me really mad.
My people might be starvin' but they love me.
I'm sure they'd let me know if times were bad.
Verse 4:
My Taepodongs have better range than ever.
I aimed one over Japan and let it fly.
Their knees down south were knocking when they saw it overhead,
I laughed so hard I swear it made me cry!
Verse 5:
I'm itchin' for a war, there's no mistakin',
Four million hungry troops at my command.
The imperialists have lots to lose, I'm thinkin',
and bad boys always get what they demand.
(-thanks to the Allman Brothers Band)
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
How Mayor Daley's administration contributes to the killing
Latest police slaying under investigation - chicagotribune.com
God bless and comfort the families of these murdered, heroic officers.
Mayor Daley, however, should be called to account for how his administration and policies have contributed to Chicago's ongoing orgy of murder.
God bless and comfort the families of these murdered, heroic officers.
Mayor Daley, however, should be called to account for how his administration and policies have contributed to Chicago's ongoing orgy of murder.
- Many areas of the city need more police protection, protection the city can not financially afford. Yet millions of dollars are wasted by this corrupt political machine, dollars that are badly needed for additional police and other vital services.
- Mayor Daley has armed police guards to protect him, and even the police are not safe from murderers. Most citizens don't have such protection. Yet the mayor has been a constant enemy of the constitutional right of citizens to own handguns to protect their families and homes.
- The mayor's support for elective abortion, and his big government, tax-more spend-more policies have cultivated an anti-life atmosphere corrosive to families, hostile to hope, and conducive to violent crime.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Abortion protest set at Aurora clinic following free speech victory
Abortion protest set at Aurora clinic following settlement - Chicago Tribune
It's OK to kill babies inside the Planned Parenthood chop shop, but for some reason the company doesn't like demonstrators displaying pictures of what actually happens to the babies.
Blood, guts, and the truth... can't be good for business.
It's OK to kill babies inside the Planned Parenthood chop shop, but for some reason the company doesn't like demonstrators displaying pictures of what actually happens to the babies.
Blood, guts, and the truth... can't be good for business.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Busting out the economy -since 1934
1934 Cartoon from Chicago Tribune
"What's past is prologue." -William Shakespeare
Monday, February 01, 2010
Mother and baby dead: abortion clinic says everything went "well"
Queens clinic A1 Medicine probed after Alexandra Nunez is fatally injured while undergoing abortion
And what is the clinic's concern after evidently causing the death of a patient? ...that they're not to blame. "Nothing happened here."
Detectives are investigating a Queens clinic where a 37-year-old woman was fatally injured while undergoing an abortion, officials said Tuesday.
Alexandra Nuñez began bleeding heavily during the procedure at A1 Medicine in Jackson Heights on Monday, officials said.
One of Nuñez's arteries was inadvertently severed and she went into cardiac arrest, according to police sources.
She was taken to Elmhurst Hospital Center, where she died a short time later.
...
An employee at the clinic - a one-stop gynecology and plastic surgery clinic that was still seeing patients yesterday - insisted that everything had gone well at the second-floor medical facility.
"The patient was transferred to the hospital, she didn't die at the clinic," said the woman, who refused to give her name. "Nothing happened here."
And what is the clinic's concern after evidently causing the death of a patient? ...that they're not to blame. "Nothing happened here."
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
ABC happy to insult Jesus and His followers
All Hail? Apple Expected to Unveil 'Jesus' Tablet Today - ABC News
The casual use of the name of Jesus is scandalous to many Christians, who love Jesus and worship Him as God.
It's one thing to acknowledge within the article that some have referred to the new Apple device as the "Jesus tablet". But to make that the focus of the article's title is unnecessary and truly in bad taste.
ABC is displaying a crass insensitivity toward the religious sensibilities of many individuals. Would ABC insult Islam in this way?
All Hail? Apple Expected to Unveil 'Jesus' Tablet Today
...Though Apple has been characteristically quiet on details, industry watchers say all signs seem to point to the announcement of a device so hyped it has been dubbed the "Jesus" tablet...
The casual use of the name of Jesus is scandalous to many Christians, who love Jesus and worship Him as God.
It's one thing to acknowledge within the article that some have referred to the new Apple device as the "Jesus tablet". But to make that the focus of the article's title is unnecessary and truly in bad taste.
ABC is displaying a crass insensitivity toward the religious sensibilities of many individuals. Would ABC insult Islam in this way?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Wael Farouk -the art of doing one thing well
Egyptian Piano Phenomenon Studies at Converse College -Connections Online Magazine (October 2007 issue)
I had never seen Wael Farouk before his recital at Steinway Pianos in Downers Grove, Illinois, on April 18, 2009. When he took the stage, I couldn't help but notice his very small stature and similarly small hands. I confess I felt a little disappointed, my expectations diminished, for the Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky, and Rachmaninoff on his program -as well as the Steinway Model D- promised to demand more power than Mr. Farouk could possibly be expected to deliver.
Never will I forget my astonishment, which remains vivid today, ten months later. Mr. Farouk's performance of Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition was bold, exciting, full of color and power.
The Rachmaninoff Piano Sonata No. 2 in B-flat minor, Op. 36, was unfamiliar and new to me. But Mr. Farouk did not simply play the piece so much as conjure a hurricane, an impassioned and unstoppable force that burst from the piano and unleashed its fury on all present.
I couldn't have been more wrong when I expected a pint-size performance from this physically small man. I thought I knew better than to judge a book by its cover, yet I misjudged this artist before hearing him. Wael Farouk helped me to see more clearly that making the piano speak to the heart depends much more on the heart than on the hands.
Converse graduate student and pianist Wael Farouk was turned away from the Cairo Conservatory of Music when he was seven years old.It wasn't because of his grades; they were exceptional. It wasn't because of his age; young students are not unusual. The reason? His small hands. But Wael and his father managed to convince the administration to just give him a chance. They did, and Wael began what would become a 15-year tenure of studying at the conservatory with consistent high marks.
"Ever since I was a boy, I have had to prove that I can play piano no matter what people say," said the 23-year-old. "People do different things well, and piano is the only thing I do well -even with my small hands. I do it through faith, will, and my trust in God."
Wael became the first Egyptian to ever play the Rachmaninoff's Third Concerto, and debuted the piece with the Cairo Symphony Orchestra in 2002. "That moment was the highest and happiest in my life," said Wael. This piece is extremely demanding for any pianist, and it has the longest stretch at the keyboard ever recorded. Wael debuted the piece in Russia in 2003, and he was invited back to play it again this March...
I had never seen Wael Farouk before his recital at Steinway Pianos in Downers Grove, Illinois, on April 18, 2009. When he took the stage, I couldn't help but notice his very small stature and similarly small hands. I confess I felt a little disappointed, my expectations diminished, for the Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky, and Rachmaninoff on his program -as well as the Steinway Model D- promised to demand more power than Mr. Farouk could possibly be expected to deliver.
Never will I forget my astonishment, which remains vivid today, ten months later. Mr. Farouk's performance of Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition was bold, exciting, full of color and power.
The Rachmaninoff Piano Sonata No. 2 in B-flat minor, Op. 36, was unfamiliar and new to me. But Mr. Farouk did not simply play the piece so much as conjure a hurricane, an impassioned and unstoppable force that burst from the piano and unleashed its fury on all present.
I couldn't have been more wrong when I expected a pint-size performance from this physically small man. I thought I knew better than to judge a book by its cover, yet I misjudged this artist before hearing him. Wael Farouk helped me to see more clearly that making the piano speak to the heart depends much more on the heart than on the hands.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Wael Farouk delivers Chopin
Chopin Preludes, Opus 28
Op 28, No. 3,4
Op 28, No. 13
Op 28, No. 14
Op 28, No. 15, "Raindrop"
Op 28, No. 24
Op 28, No. 3,4
Op 28, No. 13
Op 28, No. 14
Op 28, No. 15, "Raindrop"
Op 28, No. 24
Wael Farouk brings Pictures at an Exhibition to life
Mussorgsky Pictures at an Exhibition
Wael Farouk in Las Palmas, Spain (date?)
Mr. Farouk delivers a blazing and colorful performance!
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Wael Farouk -a Category 5 storm at the Steinway
Wael Farouk's Rachmaninoff Sonata No. 2 begins with a caress, then erupts with breathtaking ferocity and passion. Mr. Farouk clearly is much larger on the inside than his appearance suggests.
How does he do it? And why isn't he better known?
Solomon Mikowsky, student Wael Farouk, and conductor Philippe Entremont following a performance of the Rachmaninoff Concerto #3 at Manhattan School of Music, 2008. (*)
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Got Hope? The change will cost us another $1.9 trillion
Democrats propose $1.9T increase in debt limit -Yahoo! News
The Democrats' insatiable appetite for spending exceeds even the Republicans of the previous administration, who became intoxicated with the vision of a federal government as a limitless source of cash and solution to every problem.
But the Republicans apparently were Small Potatoes compared with the current Democrat administration, whose desire to control and consume All Things reminds me of a python preparing to swallow a goat.
"WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats on Wednesday proposed allowing the federal government to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion to pay its bills, a record increase that would permit the national debt to reach $14.3 trillion.
The unpopular legislation is needed to allow the federal government to issue bonds to fund programs and prevent a first-time default on obligations. It promises to be a challenging debate for Democrats, who, as the party in power, hold the responsibility for passing the legislation."
The Democrats' insatiable appetite for spending exceeds even the Republicans of the previous administration, who became intoxicated with the vision of a federal government as a limitless source of cash and solution to every problem.
But the Republicans apparently were Small Potatoes compared with the current Democrat administration, whose desire to control and consume All Things reminds me of a python preparing to swallow a goat.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Republican gives "Kennedy's seat" back to the people... White House yawns
White House: Mass. Vote Won't Change Anything -Newsmax
While many democrats begin to abandon the burning ship of the Obama agenda in order to save their own skin, a few will remain defiant to the end, determined to carry on their course against a rising sea of popular opposition. Public opinion, outcry, and outrage will not deter the diehard radicals. No matter the cost, they will blindly pursue the most radical -and increasingly hated- elements of the Obama agenda, even if it brings about catastrophic losses for the Democratic Party.
For the radicals, it's not about the public good, and it's not even about their own party. It's about power, personal political power, the power to tear down and rebuild according to their own statist vision. To hell with democracy: they're in charge.
"One reporter suggested the political blowback in Massachusetts might indicate the administration was out of step with the American people.
[White House Press Secretary Robert] Gibbs replied: 'I think, according to any reasonable measure, the answer to that is, of course not.'"
While many democrats begin to abandon the burning ship of the Obama agenda in order to save their own skin, a few will remain defiant to the end, determined to carry on their course against a rising sea of popular opposition. Public opinion, outcry, and outrage will not deter the diehard radicals. No matter the cost, they will blindly pursue the most radical -and increasingly hated- elements of the Obama agenda, even if it brings about catastrophic losses for the Democratic Party.
For the radicals, it's not about the public good, and it's not even about their own party. It's about power, personal political power, the power to tear down and rebuild according to their own statist vision. To hell with democracy: they're in charge.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Democrats pull all stops to pass Senate health care bill
Senior Dem: Kill the Senate health reform bill and start over - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Democracy? Representative government? Apparently things of the past. The ruling Democrat party will take power of the medical industry in any way it can, despite strong public opposition.
How many U.S. citizens think their senators and congressmen are representing their wishes in this matter?
Democracy? Representative government? Apparently things of the past. The ruling Democrat party will take power of the medical industry in any way it can, despite strong public opposition.
How many U.S. citizens think their senators and congressmen are representing their wishes in this matter?
Monday, December 21, 2009
Abortion rights group endorses Quinn, Schillerstrom
Abortion rights group endorses Quinn, Schillerstrom -Chicago Tribune
Anyone who supports the "right" to legally kill unborn children is not "moderate", and is not fit for public office.
...On the Republican side, Schillerstrom, the DuPage County Board chairman, is the lone abortion-rights supporter in the Feb. 2 primary contest for governor. Cosgrove said the group sent questionnaires to all of the governor candidates, but Schillerstrom was the lone Republican to return his and seek the endorsement.
"We’re comfortable with his positions on the issues," Cosgrove said of Schillerstrom.
In a statement today, Schillerstrom’s campaign said Personal PAC’s support "distinguishes him as the only moderate Republican running for governor and positions him as a centrist with the best chance of winning the general election."
Anyone who supports the "right" to legally kill unborn children is not "moderate", and is not fit for public office.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Caritas Internationalis clamors for climate control?
Caritas charges Japan, Russia attempting to subvert climate talks -Catholic Culture
Caritas is pushing for the Kyoto Protocol? How will the world's poor be better off if the world's largest wealth-producing economies are strangled to death? Who, then, will provide the goods, services, and consumer markets that developing nations need in order to develop and prosper?
Caritas Internationalis-- the consortium of Catholic relief agencies-- has charged that Japan, Russia, and other wealthy nations are attempting to subvert climate negotiations in Copenhagen by sidelining the controversial Kyoto Protocol. Referring to poorer nations' "fear that rich countries are trying to kill the strongest legal climate agreement we have," an Irish Caritas representative said, "As heads of state come to Copenhagen in this second week, it's up to rich countries to get the talks back on track by re-committing to the Kyoto Protocol."
"Abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be a step back for all countries, but especially for the world’s poorest. For them the negotiations are a matter of survival," added a Caritas representative from Scotland. "Vulnerable communities across the world need a fair, ambitious and binding climate agreement, of which the Kyoto Protocol is an essential element."
Caritas is pushing for the Kyoto Protocol? How will the world's poor be better off if the world's largest wealth-producing economies are strangled to death? Who, then, will provide the goods, services, and consumer markets that developing nations need in order to develop and prosper?
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
The worst scientific scandal of our generation?
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph
Whoops! It looks like the Warmers have been caught with their temperatures down. See who's feeling warm now.
But the Warmers are still after the greenbacks, so they won't easily be dissuaded from yoking the world to their Gospel of Warmth. To save the world, we and our children's children will have to give, give, give until it hurts.
...Perhaps the most obvious [revelation]... is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws...
The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction - to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards...
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods...
...Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.
Whoops! It looks like the Warmers have been caught with their temperatures down. See who's feeling warm now.
But the Warmers are still after the greenbacks, so they won't easily be dissuaded from yoking the world to their Gospel of Warmth. To save the world, we and our children's children will have to give, give, give until it hurts.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Illinois bureaucrats above the law
Abortion foes upset over delay in parental notice law - Chicago Breaking News
What authority does the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation have to "delay the enforcement" of a law that has been upheld in federal court?
This law has been on the books for 14 years. Hasn't it been delayed enough?
What authority does the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation have to "delay the enforcement" of a law that has been upheld in federal court?
This law has been on the books for 14 years. Hasn't it been delayed enough?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Americans Are Like ‘Teenage Kids’
Steven Chu: Americans Are Like ‘Teenage Kids’ When It Comes to Energy - Environmental Capital - WSJ
Dr. Chu's words are plain enough, despite the subsequent clarification, which unconvincingly attempts to explain away Dr. Chu's condescension.
When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sees Americans as unruly teenagers and the Administration as the parent that will have to teach them a few lessons. Speaking on the sidelines of a smart grid conference in Washington, Dr. Chu said he didn’t think average folks had the know-how or will to to change their behavior enough to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
"The American public... just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act," Dr. Chu said. "The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is."
The administration aims to teach them -literally. The Environmental Protection Agency is focusing on real children. Partnering with the Parent Teacher Organization, the agency earlier this month launched a cross-country tour of 6,000 schools to teach students about climate change and energy efficiency.
An update: Energy Department spokesman Dan Leistikow added: "Secretary Chu was not comparing the public to teenagers. He was saying that we need to educate teenagers about ways to save energy. He also recognized the need to educate the broader public about how important clean energy industries are to our competitive position in the global economy. He believes public officials do have an obligation to make their case to the American people on major legislation, and that’s what he’s doing."-Wall Street Journal, 2009.09.21
Dr. Chu's words are plain enough, despite the subsequent clarification, which unconvincingly attempts to explain away Dr. Chu's condescension.
Friday, September 18, 2009
President Obama's opponents are violent racists?
Carter again cites racism as factor in Obama's treatment - CNN.com
Does this mean that everyone who has expressed any strong disapproval of the President Obama's policies and actions is motivated by racism?
The CNN article states that Bill Cosby agrees with Jimmy Carter, so it must be true. And Nancy Pelosi warned us yesterday that the president's opponents are inciting violence.
Is there a coordinated effort to silence and discredit the president's political opponents by smearing them as violent racists?
"'I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American,' Carter told 'NBC Nightly News.'"
Does this mean that everyone who has expressed any strong disapproval of the President Obama's policies and actions is motivated by racism?
The CNN article states that Bill Cosby agrees with Jimmy Carter, so it must be true. And Nancy Pelosi warned us yesterday that the president's opponents are inciting violence.
Is there a coordinated effort to silence and discredit the president's political opponents by smearing them as violent racists?
Monday, September 14, 2009
Offended by Life, Death strikes a blow
Michigan Gunman Was Offended by Victim’s Pro-life Message -EWTN.com
A clash of world views:
1) A man peacefully holds a pro-life sign, advocating the right of each person to be permitted to live.
2) Another man, "offended" by the sign, shoots him dead, advocating a "right" to kill someone who offends or inconveniences him.
A clash of world views:
1) A man peacefully holds a pro-life sign, advocating the right of each person to be permitted to live.
2) Another man, "offended" by the sign, shoots him dead, advocating a "right" to kill someone who offends or inconveniences him.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Fallen Czar: Van Jones blames "vicious smear campaign"
Controversy over fiery remarks fells Obama adviser -Lake County Record-Bee
Last week word got around that "Green Jobs Czar" Van Jones publicly described Republicans as "a**holes". Many people thought that this was a bit over the top for an official appointed by the president -even for the Obama administration. This, on top of increased awareness of Van Jones' past statements and activities, created enough heat to raise the temperature in the White House.
Many citizens, now awakening from their political passivity because of the threat of a federal deconstruction of the world's greatest health care system, voiced loud disapproval of Van Jones' unseemly outburst, and the White House responded by quietly announcing Van Jones' "resignation" this morning, on the Sunday of a three-day weekend.
Jones, of course, has his own view. It wasn't his own derogatory name-calling that cost him his job. His speedy de-czarification is a result of "vicious smear campaign against me." Obviously those who objected to his performance must be "a**holes".
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's environmental adviser Van Jones, who became embroiled in a controversy over past inflammatory statements, has resigned his White House job after what he calls a "vicious smear campaign against me."
Last week word got around that "Green Jobs Czar" Van Jones publicly described Republicans as "a**holes". Many people thought that this was a bit over the top for an official appointed by the president -even for the Obama administration. This, on top of increased awareness of Van Jones' past statements and activities, created enough heat to raise the temperature in the White House.
Many citizens, now awakening from their political passivity because of the threat of a federal deconstruction of the world's greatest health care system, voiced loud disapproval of Van Jones' unseemly outburst, and the White House responded by quietly announcing Van Jones' "resignation" this morning, on the Sunday of a three-day weekend.
Jones, of course, has his own view. It wasn't his own derogatory name-calling that cost him his job. His speedy de-czarification is a result of "vicious smear campaign against me." Obviously those who objected to his performance must be "a**holes".
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Charles Rangel, D-NY, pays members investigating his ethics
Rangel-ing: Charlie Pays 'Angels' In Ethics Probe - wcbstv.com: "Harlem Congressman Gave Campaign Contributions To 3 Dems On Ethics Committee Charged With Investigating Him"
CBS 2 HD has discovered that since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him.
Charlie's "angels" on the committee include Congressmen Ben Chandler of Kentucky, G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina and Peter Welch of Vermont. All have received donations from Rangel.
Only Welch sees something wrong with being financial beholden to Charlie.
"In an abundance of caution, he has returned all campaign contributions from Mr. Rangel," said spokesman Bob Rogan, Welch's Chief of Staff.
It amounted to nearly 20 grand...
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Your government speaks: Republicans are "a**holes"
RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama's Green Jobs Czar Van Jones: Republicans Are "A**holes"
Question from audience: "How are the Republicans able to push things through, when they had less than sixty senators, but somehow we can't?"
Answer from Green Jobs Czar Van Jones: "Well, the answer to that is, they're a$$holes."
-From a lecture Van Jones gave at the 2nd Annual Berkeley Energy & Resources Collaborative (BERC) event, February 11, 2009, Berkeley, CA.
Question from audience: "How are the Republicans able to push things through, when they had less than sixty senators, but somehow we can't?"
Answer from Green Jobs Czar Van Jones: "Well, the answer to that is, they're a$$holes."
-From a lecture Van Jones gave at the 2nd Annual Berkeley Energy & Resources Collaborative (BERC) event, February 11, 2009, Berkeley, CA.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Why do I oppose the current Obama health care plan?
A few thoughts...
The "reforms" being pressed by the president and ruling party are very unpopular with the public... so much so that thousands of citizens who have never before been involved in political demonstrations are seeking out their congressmen to express their concerns, indignation, and anger. It's amazing to see the reaction of the public.
The democrats' plan is increasingly unpopular not because the plan is being widely misrepresented, but because people are increasingly realizing what the current proposals would bring. The plan is getting more public scrutiny than Congress and the president want, and the better people understand the plan the more they oppose it.
Public anger is increasing also because people who raise concerns or objections to the democrats' plan find they frequently are dismissed by elected officials and the media as misinformed freaks, lobbyists, or even racists. But the town hall videos I've seen recently show meetings attended mostly by intelligent, passionate, middle-aged and older citizens expressing their own concerns, not pawns operated by mustache-twirling lobbyists intent on putting down the poor.
Why are people so agitated about the "reforms"? Several big reasons:
These are a few of the big concerns I have about the democrats' plan for the federal government to take over the health care industry, and they are reasons why I oppose the current plan. I'm persuaded that there are some things government should do to improve the health care system, but a massive take-over, a government-run "public option" would badly damage our system of health care which is second to none in the world.
The "reforms" being pressed by the president and ruling party are very unpopular with the public... so much so that thousands of citizens who have never before been involved in political demonstrations are seeking out their congressmen to express their concerns, indignation, and anger. It's amazing to see the reaction of the public.
The democrats' plan is increasingly unpopular not because the plan is being widely misrepresented, but because people are increasingly realizing what the current proposals would bring. The plan is getting more public scrutiny than Congress and the president want, and the better people understand the plan the more they oppose it.
Public anger is increasing also because people who raise concerns or objections to the democrats' plan find they frequently are dismissed by elected officials and the media as misinformed freaks, lobbyists, or even racists. But the town hall videos I've seen recently show meetings attended mostly by intelligent, passionate, middle-aged and older citizens expressing their own concerns, not pawns operated by mustache-twirling lobbyists intent on putting down the poor.
Why are people so agitated about the "reforms"? Several big reasons:
- The democrats would like to provide health care coverage as a "right" to an additional 47 million individuals, and claim they will do so without increasing public debt. Does anyone believe this isn't a lie?
- Where are all the new doctors who will care for those 47 million individuals? Congress can't manufacture them.
- Many believe that under the proposed plan, their access to medical care and the quality of that care will decrease: millions more recipients will stretch thin the existing pool of medical providers.
- The so-called "public option" is hardly an "option". It would be the ONLY option permitted to people who don't already have coverage. They would be legally barred from buying private coverage.
- Who really believes that the government plan will not ultimately destroy the existing private providers, resulting in total government domination of health care? People increasingly view our federal government as insatiable in its appetite to nationalize one industry after another, and the medical industry is currently in the crosshairs.
- Does anyone really believe that the government can do a better job of providing health care than the private sector? In which countries has this been the case? Cuba? England? Canada?
- Many people do not believe it is just or fair to grant comprehensive medical benefits to illegal aliens -many of whom pay no taxes- and expect taxpaying citizens to pay the cost, especially when so many citizens are already struggling to provide for their own families.
- The American medical industry is the greatest in the world, despite its flaws. Who thinks that a government takeover really will improve it?
- Many people -myself included- deeply mistrust the federal government's ability to administer medical benefits fairly without violating the basic human rights of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly. The danger is that government will have a strong financial motivation to make medical decisions not to benefit individuals, but according to some other criteria.
- And why have the president and Congress been pressing for such rapid passage of such a monumental bill? If it's so important to get it right, why did they press so hard to pass it before the August recess, even before many members had had a chance to read it?
These are a few of the big concerns I have about the democrats' plan for the federal government to take over the health care industry, and they are reasons why I oppose the current plan. I'm persuaded that there are some things government should do to improve the health care system, but a massive take-over, a government-run "public option" would badly damage our system of health care which is second to none in the world.
Cash for Clunkers: spreading debt and chaos the socialist way
Cash for Clunkers Ends Monday
The Cash for Clunkers program... let us count its many wonderful benefits:
Like many government programs, Cash for Clunkers does benefit a few... but at a high cost born by the many. The program produces not a net benefit, but a net loss. The total costs to individuals and businesses outweighs the total benefits.
And this is the curse of most every government program which meddles with the economy in order to "improve" it.
The Cash for Clunkers program... let us count its many wonderful benefits:
- All taxpayers are compelled to shoulder the cost of subsidizing the purchase of new cars for a few taxpayers. That's called, "spreading the wealth", and our president likes to do that.
- The "clunkers" are cars that were being used; they were working. They had some value. But now they will be destroyed, discarded not because they are worthless, but because the law requires it. Destroying private property and replacing it with federally funded property: our president likes that too.
- Car dealers benefit from this program -at least if they actually ever receive the promised rebates. Yet, other businesses and industries do not enjoy these benefits. Mr. President, how is it fair to use tax money to selectively benefit only certain sectors of the market?
- We are supposed to believe that the program benefits the environment and will save energy. Yet will energy actually be saved? How much energy was used to manufacture the new cars that will be sold to people who otherwise were not prepared to purchase a new car? How much energy is wasted in the premature destruction of the functioning "clunkers".
- Many citizens using this program perhaps would not have purchased a car at this time had the program not been in place. Why? Because for many, buying a new car is a big expense, and they had not judged it wise to make such a purchase at the time. Does a $3500 or $4500 reduction in the upfront cost of the car mean that it's no longer expensive to buy that new car? Of course not. So, many buyers will have been wooed by the program to make an expensive purchase at a time when things financially are pretty tough for many people.
Like many government programs, Cash for Clunkers does benefit a few... but at a high cost born by the many. The program produces not a net benefit, but a net loss. The total costs to individuals and businesses outweighs the total benefits.
And this is the curse of most every government program which meddles with the economy in order to "improve" it.
Monday, August 17, 2009
White House disables e-tip box
White House disables e-tip box - POLITICO.com
Apparently the White House received more than a small outcry of opposition to its "tip box".
"Following a furor over how the data would be used, the White House has shut down an electronic tip box - flag@whitehouse.gov - that was set up to receive information on "fishy" claims about President Barack Obama’s health plan."
Apparently the White House received more than a small outcry of opposition to its "tip box".
Monday, August 10, 2009
Congress treads upon a dangerous serpent
Column: 'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate - Opinion - USATODAY.com
Speaker Pelosi, here are some facts that You seem not to want to acknowledge:
The American people don't trust You, and they don't trust the plan for nationalized health care that Congress is hellbent on ramming down their throats.
Increasingly, Americans are horrified by the federal government's insatiable hunger to dominate the health care industry and other private sector industries. We're appalled that our government has become so insatiable, so overreaching, and so reckless in piling unsustainable debt upon future generations. And now it seems to be shedding any pretense that its members are required to listen to their constituents and represent their concerns. Rather, we are lectured about the predefined goals that Congress "must reach", "despite the disruptions" of a majority of citizens who strongly oppose the plans.
President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and all members of Congress, should take heed. Their actions are causing cries of alarm to sound throughout the nation: the alarm of citizens who see that their government is increasingly out of control, increasingly deaf to their voices, increasingly menacing to the future prosperity and security of the United States. The rising voices have an edge of defiance and patriotic anger that only fools will attempt to dismiss as "manufactured" and "organized". Common cause has organized this uprising, and a domineering government has started the machine which is manufacturing the newly minted resistance.
Continue to tread on us, and we will strike back. We will sweep You from office, we will find new public servants who will share our ideals and represent our concerns. We will find a way to restore democracy and rid government of those bad apples who view public office solely as a path to power and profit.
Press on, Congress, show Yourselves... and discover what mettle still stiffens the spine of the American people.
"...These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views - but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."-Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer
Speaker Pelosi, here are some facts that You seem not to want to acknowledge:
The American people don't trust You, and they don't trust the plan for nationalized health care that Congress is hellbent on ramming down their throats.
Increasingly, Americans are horrified by the federal government's insatiable hunger to dominate the health care industry and other private sector industries. We're appalled that our government has become so insatiable, so overreaching, and so reckless in piling unsustainable debt upon future generations. And now it seems to be shedding any pretense that its members are required to listen to their constituents and represent their concerns. Rather, we are lectured about the predefined goals that Congress "must reach", "despite the disruptions" of a majority of citizens who strongly oppose the plans.
President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and all members of Congress, should take heed. Their actions are causing cries of alarm to sound throughout the nation: the alarm of citizens who see that their government is increasingly out of control, increasingly deaf to their voices, increasingly menacing to the future prosperity and security of the United States. The rising voices have an edge of defiance and patriotic anger that only fools will attempt to dismiss as "manufactured" and "organized". Common cause has organized this uprising, and a domineering government has started the machine which is manufacturing the newly minted resistance.
Continue to tread on us, and we will strike back. We will sweep You from office, we will find new public servants who will share our ideals and represent our concerns. We will find a way to restore democracy and rid government of those bad apples who view public office solely as a path to power and profit.
Press on, Congress, show Yourselves... and discover what mettle still stiffens the spine of the American people.
Friday, August 07, 2009
When government turns ugly
Peggy Noonan: ‘You Are Terrifying Us’ - WSJ.com
To: flag@whitehouse.gov
President Obama,
I call on You to disavow and shut down the flag@whitehouse.gov program, which is so clearly intended to intimidate and stifle voices critical of Your administration.
Until You shut down this program, and for as long as pursue Your nationalized health care plan and other programs harmful to this country, You can expect energetic opposition and loud criticism from me and many others who will not be cowed into silence.
Until then, You can add my name to the Dissidents List.
Sincerely,
John Robin
(address and phone number provided)
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Is the White House building an "Enemies List"?
GOP Senator: White House Encroaching on First Amendment - The Note
To: The White House, flag@whitehouse.gov
Subject: Is the White House assembling an "ENEMIES LIST"?
Re: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/08/gop-senator-white-house-encroaching-on-first-amendment.html
I call upon President Obama to shut down this surveillance program in which citizens are asked to report directly to the White House (flag@whitehouse.gov) when they encounter private communication critical of the president's proposals and policies. Such a program, if it does not directly abridge the right to free expression, at least undermines and threatens this right, because it raises a legitimate concern that one's exercise of free speech, rightly or wrongly interpreted, may result in being counted a member of a government "enemies list", a target for harassment and retaliation.
Even if there is no intention to assemble such a list, the program reasonably can be perceived as a heavy-handed effort to stifle political opposition and intimidate those critical of the government. Is this really the image that President Obama wants to cultivate?
The president should shut down this citizen surveillance program immediately.
Sincerely,
John F. Robin
(address and phone number provided)
Yesterday, White House director of new media Macon Phillips wrote a blog posting urging readers to flag questionable claims about health care proposals.
"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
-ABC News
To: The White House, flag@whitehouse.gov
Subject: Is the White House assembling an "ENEMIES LIST"?
Re: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/08/gop-senator-white-house-encroaching-on-first-amendment.html
I call upon President Obama to shut down this surveillance program in which citizens are asked to report directly to the White House (flag@whitehouse.gov) when they encounter private communication critical of the president's proposals and policies. Such a program, if it does not directly abridge the right to free expression, at least undermines and threatens this right, because it raises a legitimate concern that one's exercise of free speech, rightly or wrongly interpreted, may result in being counted a member of a government "enemies list", a target for harassment and retaliation.
Even if there is no intention to assemble such a list, the program reasonably can be perceived as a heavy-handed effort to stifle political opposition and intimidate those critical of the government. Is this really the image that President Obama wants to cultivate?
The president should shut down this citizen surveillance program immediately.
Sincerely,
John F. Robin
(address and phone number provided)
Friday, July 31, 2009
Compact Fluorescent Lamps -what are the real costs?
Jack, thanks for Your informative article, Compact Fluorescent Lamp.
Here’s a CFL concern I’ve been thinking about but really haven’t seen addressed elsewhere…
When I flip a wall switch at home to turn on one or more CFLs, I often hear a pretty large arc in the switch: “snap!”. It’s not just one switch, this happens on different circuits. I suspect that CFLs perhaps have a rather high inrush current, and this may cause accelerated wear of switch contacts. Time will tell whether a few years down the road people will begin to discover that light switches are failing prematurely and need to be replaced. Bad switch contacts can pose a fire hazard, but many people may never recognize such a problem or its risk. Among those who do, many may never decide to seek repairs.
CFLs offer attractive savings in energy use to the consumer, but I don’t see that the disadvantages of CFLs are being addressed seriously in the public square.
It would be good to see more evaluation and discussion of these CFL concerns:
Thanks again for Your report, which is a helpful contribution to this discussion.
Here’s a CFL concern I’ve been thinking about but really haven’t seen addressed elsewhere…
When I flip a wall switch at home to turn on one or more CFLs, I often hear a pretty large arc in the switch: “snap!”. It’s not just one switch, this happens on different circuits. I suspect that CFLs perhaps have a rather high inrush current, and this may cause accelerated wear of switch contacts. Time will tell whether a few years down the road people will begin to discover that light switches are failing prematurely and need to be replaced. Bad switch contacts can pose a fire hazard, but many people may never recognize such a problem or its risk. Among those who do, many may never decide to seek repairs.CFLs offer attractive savings in energy use to the consumer, but I don’t see that the disadvantages of CFLs are being addressed seriously in the public square.
It would be good to see more evaluation and discussion of these CFL concerns:
- How much health risk does accidental CFL breakage pose to consumers?
- At a national and global level how much mercury is projected to be released into the environment through CFL disposal? How might we manage CFL disposal to minimize this environmental damage?
- What is the risk of fire and smoke damage due to failure and abnormal overheating of CFLs?
- How does the rate of catastrophic failure compare between CFLs and incandescent bulbs?
- How do CFLs impact the reliability of electrical switches?
- How can CLF manufacturers and users address the unpleasant color rendering of many CFLs in home environments?
- Do CFLs pose a risk of UV damage to fabrics, home, and office furnishings?
- How do all these risks impact the long term economic, environmental, and health costs of CFLs?
- How will widespread adoption of CFLs impact power generation and distribution (-an issue raised in Your report)?
Thanks again for Your report, which is a helpful contribution to this discussion.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Big blobs of mystery goo floating off Alaska coast
Big blobs of mystery goo floating off Alaska coast - McClatchy
I think I know what it is. The scientific term is "mucosa terrestrium", but it's basically the chewy nougat leaking from the outer mantle of the earth through a bad gasket, and floating to the surface of the crust. This happens only every few hundred million years or so, but when it does it's a bit of a problem. The leak will worsen until the gasket is replaced, and if it's neglected too long then it will eventually cover most of the earth's marine surface. The last time this happened the dinosaurs couldn't agree on how to finance the repairs, and their inaction cost them their lives.
A project of this size can be tackled only by the federal government. Nancy Pelosi, please queue this up as justification for a second or third stimulus package.
Something big and strange is floating through the Chukchi Sea between Wainwright and Barrow.
Hunters from Wainwright first started noticing the stuff sometime probably early last week. It's thick and dark and "gooey" and is drifting for miles in the cold Arctic waters, according to Gordon Brower with the North Slope Borough's Planning and Community Services Department.
I think I know what it is. The scientific term is "mucosa terrestrium", but it's basically the chewy nougat leaking from the outer mantle of the earth through a bad gasket, and floating to the surface of the crust. This happens only every few hundred million years or so, but when it does it's a bit of a problem. The leak will worsen until the gasket is replaced, and if it's neglected too long then it will eventually cover most of the earth's marine surface. The last time this happened the dinosaurs couldn't agree on how to finance the repairs, and their inaction cost them their lives.
A project of this size can be tackled only by the federal government. Nancy Pelosi, please queue this up as justification for a second or third stimulus package.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Independence Day: why do we celebrate?
U.S. independence from England came at a high price, as did uniting the colonies into one nation. The HBO mini-series "John Adams", based on David McCullough's biography, is a fascinating insight into the life and times of one of the key founding fathers.
We live in momentous times. It's important to be clear about what's important, and what was important to those who devoted their lives to founding our nation.
McCullough's book is excellent. So is the HBO mini-series.
John Adams mini-series
We live in momentous times. It's important to be clear about what's important, and what was important to those who devoted their lives to founding our nation.
McCullough's book is excellent. So is the HBO mini-series.
John Adams mini-series
Monday, June 29, 2009
"Gay pride" parade can't redefine marriage
Chicago's Gay Pride Parade dazzles - Chicago Breaking News
You want to live with your same-sex partner? Fine, go ahead. The law should not infringe upon your rights to pick your friends and those you live with. You claim to be gay? Who asked?
Parade or no parade... marriage by its nature is heterosexual. Homosexual relationships are not equipped by nature for producing either children or parents. Does this mean that gays should be treated as less than full citizens? Of course not, but it does mean that heterosexual marriage produces vital and necessary benefits that society has a just and legitimate interest to protect.
This is why traditional heterosexual marriage should be defended, and why not every partnership should be considered equivalent to marriage. Certain restrictions are necessary to protect both individuals and society.
You can't marry a 5-year old. You can't marry three people simultaneously. You can't marry someone who's already legally married, or your daughter, brother, or mother. You can't marry a person who is unable or unwilling to give free consent. You can't marry a dead person, or one who isn't yet born, or a squirrel or a tree. And you can't marry a person of the same sex.
For the good of society marriage should not be redefined to satisfy the demands of any interest group. And the law should make no attempt to recognize as "marriage" any relationship that is not between one woman and one man.
You want to live with your same-sex partner? Fine, go ahead. The law should not infringe upon your rights to pick your friends and those you live with. You claim to be gay? Who asked?
Parade or no parade... marriage by its nature is heterosexual. Homosexual relationships are not equipped by nature for producing either children or parents. Does this mean that gays should be treated as less than full citizens? Of course not, but it does mean that heterosexual marriage produces vital and necessary benefits that society has a just and legitimate interest to protect.
This is why traditional heterosexual marriage should be defended, and why not every partnership should be considered equivalent to marriage. Certain restrictions are necessary to protect both individuals and society.
You can't marry a 5-year old. You can't marry three people simultaneously. You can't marry someone who's already legally married, or your daughter, brother, or mother. You can't marry a person who is unable or unwilling to give free consent. You can't marry a dead person, or one who isn't yet born, or a squirrel or a tree. And you can't marry a person of the same sex.
For the good of society marriage should not be redefined to satisfy the demands of any interest group. And the law should make no attempt to recognize as "marriage" any relationship that is not between one woman and one man.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Chicago school to march in Pride Parade
Chicago school to march in Pride Parade - Chicago Tribune
It's tragic that the school children are being indoctrinated to think that engaging in immoral homosexual acts is normal and good, something to be celebrated.
Most people experience temptations to immoral and destructive behavior of one type or another. But a person who repeatedly gives in to destructive desires ends up hurting himself and those around him, and increasingly loses the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. He gradually becomes enslaved to his desires, and loses the ability to rationally choose his actions freely.
Homosexual feelings or desires are just that: feelings. Feelings are personal, but they don't determine your identity as a person any more than your taste in music. Like any feelings, they urge you to make a decision: to recognize what is good, and pursue it... or to recognize what is harmful, and to avoid it.
What children need to see is, yes, tolerance and respect toward all kinds of people. But they also need to be taught that not all actions are good, and not all desires are for healthy and good things. Some desires, such as homosexual inclinations, should be rejected as harmful and unworthy of mature consent.
True human freedom isn't the ability to do everything you desire. It's the ability and struggle to do what is good and avoid what is bad.
It's tragic that the school children are being indoctrinated to think that engaging in immoral homosexual acts is normal and good, something to be celebrated.
Most people experience temptations to immoral and destructive behavior of one type or another. But a person who repeatedly gives in to destructive desires ends up hurting himself and those around him, and increasingly loses the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. He gradually becomes enslaved to his desires, and loses the ability to rationally choose his actions freely.
Homosexual feelings or desires are just that: feelings. Feelings are personal, but they don't determine your identity as a person any more than your taste in music. Like any feelings, they urge you to make a decision: to recognize what is good, and pursue it... or to recognize what is harmful, and to avoid it.
What children need to see is, yes, tolerance and respect toward all kinds of people. But they also need to be taught that not all actions are good, and not all desires are for healthy and good things. Some desires, such as homosexual inclinations, should be rejected as harmful and unworthy of mature consent.
True human freedom isn't the ability to do everything you desire. It's the ability and struggle to do what is good and avoid what is bad.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Slain Kansas abortion provider's clinic to close
Slain Kansas abortion provider's clinic to close
"Christian Taliban"? Doesn't make a lot of sense. Christians strongly oppose killing the innocent, and most oppose killing the guilty, except in extreme situations such as those demanding lethal military action. Many are opposed to capital punishment even for the most heinous crimes. And they overwhelmingly condemn premeditated murder as a means of accomplishing their goals.
It is rather the pro-abort forces which might better be labeled as a sort of Taliban. For them, no amount of killing is enough -it's their right!- and they want the "freedom" to kill the innocent and defenseless for any reason or no reason at all. Although neither right reason nor any just law could ever justify such carnage, they have conjured from the "penumbra" of the Constitution a dark right to murder their own offspring.
And it's not enough to kill within in their own national borders: the Pro-Abort Taliban demand public money to export death around the world, funding coercive abortion "services" overseas through governments and private agencies.
Their sense of self-righteousness seems limitless, their contempt and religious indignation boundless, toward those who object to the killing. But they can not tolerate to have their acts discussed openly or brought into the light. All who insist upon speaking the obvious truth are labeled "hateful", "oppressive", "fundamentalist", "anti-choice".
In their wake lies a bloody path strewn with 50 million corpses.
The Christian Taliban gets its way.
They hate our laws. They hate our freedoms. And just like their Islamic brethren, they are willing to commit acts of terror if their bleating is ignored.
-Comment by simkatu
"Christian Taliban"? Doesn't make a lot of sense. Christians strongly oppose killing the innocent, and most oppose killing the guilty, except in extreme situations such as those demanding lethal military action. Many are opposed to capital punishment even for the most heinous crimes. And they overwhelmingly condemn premeditated murder as a means of accomplishing their goals.
It is rather the pro-abort forces which might better be labeled as a sort of Taliban. For them, no amount of killing is enough -it's their right!- and they want the "freedom" to kill the innocent and defenseless for any reason or no reason at all. Although neither right reason nor any just law could ever justify such carnage, they have conjured from the "penumbra" of the Constitution a dark right to murder their own offspring.
And it's not enough to kill within in their own national borders: the Pro-Abort Taliban demand public money to export death around the world, funding coercive abortion "services" overseas through governments and private agencies.
Their sense of self-righteousness seems limitless, their contempt and religious indignation boundless, toward those who object to the killing. But they can not tolerate to have their acts discussed openly or brought into the light. All who insist upon speaking the obvious truth are labeled "hateful", "oppressive", "fundamentalist", "anti-choice".
In their wake lies a bloody path strewn with 50 million corpses.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
To each according to his need -Karl Marx gets religion
To Each According to Need - Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good
It's notable that the title, "To Each According to Need", while taken from Scripture, has also been used by others to justify coercive government programs which confiscate private property supposedly for the "common good".
These programs view citizens not as virtuous and generous individuals ready to voluntarily assist others, but as greedy "haves" from whom revenue must be squeezed to support the "have-nots".
The author acknowledges,
Very true. Yet the author does not seem to let this fact enter his thinking when he directs his contempt toward "a pathetic and mean-spirited outpouring of resentment" by thousands of citizens at the recent "Tea Parties". Their offense? Many attended to demonstrate their opposition to super-sized government programs that perpetuate poverty and dependence, depleting the resources of the many while failing to effectively meet the needs of the few they claim to benefit. How dare they oppose ever-increasing deficit spending for social programs that are based on the false and unchristian premise that private property should be managed not by its owners, but by the state, and must be forcibly redistributed by politicians! How mean-spirited to insist on one's right to act as responsible stewards of the fruits of one's own labor!
As government spending increases and our taxes increase, this right of private ownership of property is increasingly denied. And as government takes a larger and larger portion of our income, we gradually lose the ability to support families, and provide help to those causes and individuals that conscience and discretion show to be most in need of our help. Can government do this better than the individual? Should government be permitted to usurp this responsibility?
The early Christians willingly donated money to the Church, which used it to assist the poor according to prudent Christian principles. Why do some Catholics now argue that this responsibility to care for the poor should be fulfilled primarily by the state? Why should the biblical model of voluntary alms for the poor, administered by the Church according to right moral criteria, be overturned in favor of morally flawed, wasteful government programs that depend on coercive taxation instead of willing generosity?
"The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need." (Acts 4:32-35)
The Acts of the Apostles describe the Christ-like spirit of the first days of the Church. Acts 4:32-35 accounts for how the community provided for the material shortcomings of its members. How marvelous this scripture is to set side-by-side with the resentment of the tea partiers...
It's notable that the title, "To Each According to Need", while taken from Scripture, has also been used by others to justify coercive government programs which confiscate private property supposedly for the "common good".
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." -Karl Marx
These programs view citizens not as virtuous and generous individuals ready to voluntarily assist others, but as greedy "haves" from whom revenue must be squeezed to support the "have-nots".
The author acknowledges,
"It would be mistaken to read the text's argument for possessions "in common" as in some way equivalent to our contemporary notions of political ideas such as socialism."
Very true. Yet the author does not seem to let this fact enter his thinking when he directs his contempt toward "a pathetic and mean-spirited outpouring of resentment" by thousands of citizens at the recent "Tea Parties". Their offense? Many attended to demonstrate their opposition to super-sized government programs that perpetuate poverty and dependence, depleting the resources of the many while failing to effectively meet the needs of the few they claim to benefit. How dare they oppose ever-increasing deficit spending for social programs that are based on the false and unchristian premise that private property should be managed not by its owners, but by the state, and must be forcibly redistributed by politicians! How mean-spirited to insist on one's right to act as responsible stewards of the fruits of one's own labor!
As government spending increases and our taxes increase, this right of private ownership of property is increasingly denied. And as government takes a larger and larger portion of our income, we gradually lose the ability to support families, and provide help to those causes and individuals that conscience and discretion show to be most in need of our help. Can government do this better than the individual? Should government be permitted to usurp this responsibility?
The early Christians willingly donated money to the Church, which used it to assist the poor according to prudent Christian principles. Why do some Catholics now argue that this responsibility to care for the poor should be fulfilled primarily by the state? Why should the biblical model of voluntary alms for the poor, administered by the Church according to right moral criteria, be overturned in favor of morally flawed, wasteful government programs that depend on coercive taxation instead of willing generosity?
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
U.S. bishops push comprehensive healthcare plan for illegal aliens
US bishops back comprehensive health coverage for illegal immigrants - Catholic World News
How does Bishop Murphy and the bishops at the USCCB suggest that the nation pay the staggering cost of such a plan? Predictably no answer is provided, because for statists the answer to funding every new program is taken for granted and is always the same: "the government". If You press for a more specific answer, it becomes, make "the rich" pay for it. And who are the rich? Well, anyone who has any money left after taxes are deducted.
Why does this bloated bureaucracy of bishops -does the USCCB itself pay any taxes?- why does this episcopal committee of little (if any) authority lobby Congress to support yet another gigantic federal program at a time when the entire nation is sinking under the weight of an unsupportable debt? Do they wish to destroy us, or have they simply given themselves totally to the gospel of socialism?
The bishops hail this socialist dream of universal healthcare as if it were the Great Commission handed down by Jesus... as if Jesus Himself announced that individuals should be compelled by Caesar beyond the limits of their generosity... as if He wanted on earth the State -not the Church- to be the first and best help of the poor, and to accomplish by policy, taxation, and bureaucracy what the Church has failed to do through leadership, generosity, and resourcefulness.
But Jesus didn't teach such things, and I'm quite sure that lots of Catholics won't agree that the bishops' proposal is the only way -or even a good way- to help the poor and advance the reign of Christ. Thoughtful Catholics realize that the poor are better served in a society that is prosperous and productive, rather than in one crushed by grinding debt and paralyzed by suffocating taxation. And we recall that while there are moral absolutes that must always be respected, political solutions to real problems are matters of opinion and debate.
Faithful Catholics desire their bishops to preach unambiguously the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to apply it with wisdom to the questions and circumstances of modern life.
What we don't want is for our bishops to: be used as pawns by those seeking to manipulate public opinion; promote reckless and economically disastrous government programs; confuse the Gospel of Christ with the gospel of socialism.
If bishops promote a political agenda that many Catholics consider doubtful, harmful, or even opposed to authentic Christian principles, we believers may begin to reconsider whether these bishops deserve our continued financial support or our energetic and vocal opposition.
The American Catholic bishops have apparently thrown their support behind a proposal to offer comprehensive health care to illegal immigrants.
In a May 20 letter to members of the US House of Representatives, Bishop William Murphy-- writing in his capacity as chairman of the Domestic Justice and Human Development committee for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)-- argues that the federal government should ensure 'comprehensive and affordable health care for every person living in the United States.' Bishop Murphy writes that individuals' access to comprehensive coverage should not depend on 'where they live or where they come from.' -CWNews.com
How does Bishop Murphy and the bishops at the USCCB suggest that the nation pay the staggering cost of such a plan? Predictably no answer is provided, because for statists the answer to funding every new program is taken for granted and is always the same: "the government". If You press for a more specific answer, it becomes, make "the rich" pay for it. And who are the rich? Well, anyone who has any money left after taxes are deducted.
Why does this bloated bureaucracy of bishops -does the USCCB itself pay any taxes?- why does this episcopal committee of little (if any) authority lobby Congress to support yet another gigantic federal program at a time when the entire nation is sinking under the weight of an unsupportable debt? Do they wish to destroy us, or have they simply given themselves totally to the gospel of socialism?
The bishops hail this socialist dream of universal healthcare as if it were the Great Commission handed down by Jesus... as if Jesus Himself announced that individuals should be compelled by Caesar beyond the limits of their generosity... as if He wanted on earth the State -not the Church- to be the first and best help of the poor, and to accomplish by policy, taxation, and bureaucracy what the Church has failed to do through leadership, generosity, and resourcefulness.
But Jesus didn't teach such things, and I'm quite sure that lots of Catholics won't agree that the bishops' proposal is the only way -or even a good way- to help the poor and advance the reign of Christ. Thoughtful Catholics realize that the poor are better served in a society that is prosperous and productive, rather than in one crushed by grinding debt and paralyzed by suffocating taxation. And we recall that while there are moral absolutes that must always be respected, political solutions to real problems are matters of opinion and debate.
Faithful Catholics desire their bishops to preach unambiguously the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to apply it with wisdom to the questions and circumstances of modern life.
What we don't want is for our bishops to: be used as pawns by those seeking to manipulate public opinion; promote reckless and economically disastrous government programs; confuse the Gospel of Christ with the gospel of socialism.
If bishops promote a political agenda that many Catholics consider doubtful, harmful, or even opposed to authentic Christian principles, we believers may begin to reconsider whether these bishops deserve our continued financial support or our energetic and vocal opposition.
Monday, June 01, 2009
U.S. government carjacks automotive industry
GM Files for Bankruptcy Protection - WSJ.com
Which article of the Constitution authorizes the government to use public funds to "rescue" a private company?
This administration -to some extent like its predecessor- has an insatiable and rapidly growing appetite for expansion of its powers without regard for constitutional limits.
The American dream of liberty, self-reliance, and freedom from undue government intrusion, is being transformed systematically to a bleak, marxist nightmare in which the entire economy -and every aspect of life- is subsumed under government control.
When will the American public wake up and begin to exert pressure on Congress to stop this headlong race to a totalitarian future?
Monday, U.S. President Barack Obama defended government intervention in GM as the auto maker enters Chapter 11 bankruptcy, saying the actions are part of a 'viable, achievable plan that will give this iconic company a chance to rise again.'
Which article of the Constitution authorizes the government to use public funds to "rescue" a private company?
This administration -to some extent like its predecessor- has an insatiable and rapidly growing appetite for expansion of its powers without regard for constitutional limits.
The American dream of liberty, self-reliance, and freedom from undue government intrusion, is being transformed systematically to a bleak, marxist nightmare in which the entire economy -and every aspect of life- is subsumed under government control.
When will the American public wake up and begin to exert pressure on Congress to stop this headlong race to a totalitarian future?
American Capitalism Gone With a Whimper
Mat Rodina: American Capitalism Gone With a Whimper
This article, published on the Mat Rodina blog and reprinted by Pravda (4/27/2009), is worth quoting in its entirety:
This article, published on the Mat Rodina blog and reprinted by Pravda (4/27/2009), is worth quoting in its entirety:
It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.
True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.
Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.
First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite tv dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blindth the foolish.
Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.
The final collapse has come with the election of Barrack Obama/ His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.
These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?
These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.
Then came Barrack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.
So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.
Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.
So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.
The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.
The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.
Notorious abortionist murdered in church
Kan. abortion doc killed in church; suspect held - Yahoo! News
May God have mercy on George Tiller, the serial killer who personally murdered thousands of children for profit through gruesome late term abortions. Yesterday he himself was murdered, in an unjust and evil act that violated his own right to life.
His murder, an illegal and despicable act, did nothing to advance either the peaceful pro-life movement or the Culture of Life generally. Such lawless violence deserves the unreserved condemnation of all persons. The inalienable right to life can not be upheld or defended by vigilante killing, not even by the killing of one of the abortion industry's most committed practitioners.
The murder of this abortionist will be used by some to try to demonize those committed to non-violently ending the evil of legalized abortion. Yet this murder serves to show the tragic consequences of denying another's inalienable rights in order to achieve a personal or political gain... which is exactly what happens when a mother kills her child to be rid of a problem.
May God have mercy on George Tiller, the serial killer who personally murdered thousands of children for profit through gruesome late term abortions. Yesterday he himself was murdered, in an unjust and evil act that violated his own right to life.
His murder, an illegal and despicable act, did nothing to advance either the peaceful pro-life movement or the Culture of Life generally. Such lawless violence deserves the unreserved condemnation of all persons. The inalienable right to life can not be upheld or defended by vigilante killing, not even by the killing of one of the abortion industry's most committed practitioners.
The murder of this abortionist will be used by some to try to demonize those committed to non-violently ending the evil of legalized abortion. Yet this murder serves to show the tragic consequences of denying another's inalienable rights in order to achieve a personal or political gain... which is exactly what happens when a mother kills her child to be rid of a problem.
Friday, May 29, 2009
A Russian view of American life?
Mat Rodina: usa
Just today I came across this blog apparently by a Russian man. Judging from the pointed excerpt above, this blog might be worth a closer look.
I wonder if the blog anywhere comments on the number of abortions that have taken place in Russia over the past few decades.
"...The Baby Boomers aborted 40 million babies and thus are now larger than the combined next two generations. In their Christless greed to spend on themselves, they have not only damned their souls through the murder of children but their old age as well, to poverty."
Just today I came across this blog apparently by a Russian man. Judging from the pointed excerpt above, this blog might be worth a closer look.
I wonder if the blog anywhere comments on the number of abortions that have taken place in Russia over the past few decades.
University of Illinois -where clout greases the skids
Clout goes to college -Chicago Tribune
U. of I. chief says clout list had little impact -Chicago Tribune
It's an outrage that college admissions should depend on political connections -especially at a public school. This should be stopped.
But it's also outrageous for schools to consider ethnicity or gender in their admissions criteria. College admission should not be based on who you know. Nor should it depend on your religion, sex, race, or ethnicity.
Trying to right historic wrongs through "affirmative action", by giving special consideration to individuals because of their sex or color, only exchanges one form of discrimination for another. You can't promote justice or fight racism by using race as an admission criterion. Besides, who wants to graduate college under a cloud of suspicion that you "made it" only because less was expected due to your racial background?
Fairness demands equal requirements and equal opportunity. This is the way to combat discrimination and protect the dignity of every person.
U. of I. chief says clout list had little impact -Chicago Tribune
It's an outrage that college admissions should depend on political connections -especially at a public school. This should be stopped.
But it's also outrageous for schools to consider ethnicity or gender in their admissions criteria. College admission should not be based on who you know. Nor should it depend on your religion, sex, race, or ethnicity.
Trying to right historic wrongs through "affirmative action", by giving special consideration to individuals because of their sex or color, only exchanges one form of discrimination for another. You can't promote justice or fight racism by using race as an admission criterion. Besides, who wants to graduate college under a cloud of suspicion that you "made it" only because less was expected due to your racial background?
Fairness demands equal requirements and equal opportunity. This is the way to combat discrimination and protect the dignity of every person.
Do Sotomayor's prejudices make her unfit for the Supreme Court?
Sotomayor's Controversial 2001 Remarks -- and Their Context -Political Punch
Further excerpts from her speech indicate that her "wise Latina woman" comment was not a careless and embarrassing gaffe. It rather was a conclusion reached through thoughtful consideration. All the more reason for concern that Sotomayor does not embrace a judicial philosophy blind to race and gender.
On what basis can we hope she will impartially uphold the rule of law, providing equal justice regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, and gender?
In 2001, Judge Sonia Sotomayor delivered the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, where she said "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Further excerpts from her speech indicate that her "wise Latina woman" comment was not a careless and embarrassing gaffe. It rather was a conclusion reached through thoughtful consideration. All the more reason for concern that Sotomayor does not embrace a judicial philosophy blind to race and gender.
On what basis can we hope she will impartially uphold the rule of law, providing equal justice regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, and gender?
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Does prohibition of gay marriage deny the fundamental rights of gays?
Prop. 8 stands; more ballot battles ahead
The opponents of Proposition 8 have a point: that a minority group's fundamental rights should not be subject to repeal by majority vote. Yet for the public to take measures to preserve the ancient, heterosexual institution of marriage does not do anything of the sort.
The state has a legitimate interest in protecting heterosexual civil marriage, and among these protections are regulations about who may enter into it with whom. A man may not marry his four year-old son. A woman may not marry her father or brother, or a chimpanzee. A man may not marry a dead woman, or three other women simultaneously. These restrictions do not deny my rights, but promote the good of society by respecting and favoring traditional marriage between one man and one woman.
Yes, a minority group's fundamental rights should not be subject to repeal by majority vote. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether a majority of the people should be forced to tolerate a redefinition of traditional civil marriage to accommodate the demands by a vocal minority, demands which undermine both marriage and weaken society.
And most people in most states oppose redefinition of marriage in this way.
California's voters, not its courts, are the final judges of same-sex couples' right to marry. And even if they're barred from marrying, gays and lesbians are not the victims of unconstitutional discrimination...
The main legal argument by Prop. 8's opponents - two groups of same-sex couples, local governments led by the city of San Francisco, and a collection of civil-rights, gay-rights and feminist organizations - was that the state Constitution contains a 'core guarantee' of equality that limits voters' amendment powers. A minority group's fundamental rights, they argued, should not be subject to repeal by majority vote.
The opponents of Proposition 8 have a point: that a minority group's fundamental rights should not be subject to repeal by majority vote. Yet for the public to take measures to preserve the ancient, heterosexual institution of marriage does not do anything of the sort.
The state has a legitimate interest in protecting heterosexual civil marriage, and among these protections are regulations about who may enter into it with whom. A man may not marry his four year-old son. A woman may not marry her father or brother, or a chimpanzee. A man may not marry a dead woman, or three other women simultaneously. These restrictions do not deny my rights, but promote the good of society by respecting and favoring traditional marriage between one man and one woman.
Yes, a minority group's fundamental rights should not be subject to repeal by majority vote. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether a majority of the people should be forced to tolerate a redefinition of traditional civil marriage to accommodate the demands by a vocal minority, demands which undermine both marriage and weaken society.
And most people in most states oppose redefinition of marriage in this way.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor’s View of Judging
Sotomayor’s View of Judging Is on the Record - NYTimes.com
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." -2001Taken out of context, this quote really is offensive. I wonder whether, heard in the context of the speech from which it came, it sounds any less offensive.
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences," she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." -2001, speech at BerkeleyDoes this mean that Judge Sotomayor believes judges must do their best to exercise objectivity in interpreting the law, overcoming their personal background? Or does she mean that judges should permit their "gender and national origins" to bear on their judgment?
This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a "court of appeals is where policy is made." She then immediately adds: "And I know - I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m - you know." -2005Do we know? Does she really believe, four years after this speech, that the Constitution establishes courts to be "where policy is made"? Judge Sotomayor seems embarrassed to be caught on tape making this statement, and quickly claims she's not "promoting" or "advocating" this view. But she doesn't reject or denounce the view. She's just, -you know...
Thursday, May 21, 2009
House Democrat worker bees swarm to defend their addled queen
CIA documents say Speaker Pelosi was told about enhanced interrogation techniques - PolitiFact
Nancy Pelosi made some very harsh accusations against the CIA and its employees, and used them to politically attack the Bush administration. She has not only failed to produce evidence to substantiate her claims, but changed her story repeatedly as inconvenient facts emerged. After initially calling for a "truth commission" to investigate her claims, both she and the entire Democratic Party now just want the fracas to go away ...now that the political fallout is becoming increasingly unfavorable to them.
At this point the honorable thing would be to launch a bipartisan investigation or to recant her claims and offer an sincere apology for "mistakenly mischaracterizing" the performance of the intelligence community. But now it is clear that for the Democrats these honorable options must be avoided at all costs. Rather, they are united in their determination to provide cover for Pelosi's reckless, defamatory claims, and to stonewall any attempt to uncover the truth. They will move on, firmly committed to pretend it all never happened.
Rather than let Pelosi bear the consequences of her own compulsive attacks on the long defunct Bush administration (NEWS FLASH... DEMOCRATS CONTROL WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS!), House Democrat worker bees couldn't resist swarming to defend their addled queen.
I look forward to seeing how this dishonorable display of party loyalty to Her Majesty is rewarded.
"We were not, I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." -Nancy Pelosi, 23 April 2009
"They [CIA] mislead us all the time... they misrepresented every step of the way." -Nancy Pelosi at press conference, 14 May 2009
"Under fire from Republicans for what she knew about harsh questioning of terror detainees, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday acknowledged that she had learned in 2003 that the C.I.A. had subjected suspects to waterboarding, but she asserted that the agency had misled Congress about its techniques." -The Caucus, 14 May 2009
"HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi has claimed that the CIA lied to her about the use of waterboarding on alleged terrorists held in secret prisons. Ms Pelosi said that the CIA told her in September 2002 that although waterboarding - a form of controlled suffocation by water - was approved by the Bush administration, it had not been used." -Irish Times, 15 May 2009
"This is partisan politics and an attempt by the Republicans to distract from the real issue of creating jobs and making progress on health care, energy and education," -Nadeam Elshami, Pelosi spokesman, 21 May 2009
"House Democrats on Thursday defeated a Republican push to investigate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claims that the CIA misled her in 2002 about whether waterboarding had been used against terrorism suspects." -Breitbart, 21 May 2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday she won't talk any more about her charge that the CIA lied in 2002 about using waterboarding on terrorism suspects. "I have made the statement that I'm going to make on this," she told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. "I don't have anything more to say about it. I stand by my comment." -Breitbart, 22 May 2009
Nancy Pelosi made some very harsh accusations against the CIA and its employees, and used them to politically attack the Bush administration. She has not only failed to produce evidence to substantiate her claims, but changed her story repeatedly as inconvenient facts emerged. After initially calling for a "truth commission" to investigate her claims, both she and the entire Democratic Party now just want the fracas to go away ...now that the political fallout is becoming increasingly unfavorable to them.
At this point the honorable thing would be to launch a bipartisan investigation or to recant her claims and offer an sincere apology for "mistakenly mischaracterizing" the performance of the intelligence community. But now it is clear that for the Democrats these honorable options must be avoided at all costs. Rather, they are united in their determination to provide cover for Pelosi's reckless, defamatory claims, and to stonewall any attempt to uncover the truth. They will move on, firmly committed to pretend it all never happened.
Rather than let Pelosi bear the consequences of her own compulsive attacks on the long defunct Bush administration (NEWS FLASH... DEMOCRATS CONTROL WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS!), House Democrat worker bees couldn't resist swarming to defend their addled queen.
I look forward to seeing how this dishonorable display of party loyalty to Her Majesty is rewarded.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Media supports administration's interference in auto industry
Obama's new rules will transform US auto fleet -My Way News
The U.S. auto industry hasn't yet been completely subjected to federal control, so in order to crush its chance to survive as a private sector industry, the federal government must impose more onerous restrictions. But the federal government doesn't have to do this on its own... it has the help of the fawning media, whose enthusiastic support and nearly constant refusal to investigate and criticize the administration's claims is obvious:
-Really? Where does the electricity come from? Electric power in today's cars is generated by an alternator, which is a device that converts mechanical energy from the engine into electrical energy. But some of the energy it uses inevitably is wasted in the conversion process, which is one reason why somethings in a car, such as the power-hungry air condition compressor, have long been powered directly by the engine, and not electrically. So why does now powering these items electrically necessarily reduce fuel consumption? ...this question isn't mentioned much less explained in this article.
"100 mpg" from an electric vehicle? 100 miles per gallon of what? Per gallon of electricity?? Who wrote this, a fifth grader?
And why, when hybrid and electric vehicles are praised in the press, do we never seem to hear anything about the long-term cost and environmental impact of manufacturing, recycling, and disposing of all the millions of tons of lithium, cadmium, and other toxic materials used in the batteries? Or the cost in increased injuries and loss of life associated with the widespread use of miniature clown cars sharing the road with trucks and larger, older vehicles?
The U.S. auto industry hasn't yet been completely subjected to federal control, so in order to crush its chance to survive as a private sector industry, the federal government must impose more onerous restrictions. But the federal government doesn't have to do this on its own... it has the help of the fawning media, whose enthusiastic support and nearly constant refusal to investigate and criticize the administration's claims is obvious:
"Car companies are rewiring vehicles so components such as air conditioners and power steering pumps are powered by electricity rather than by the engine, saving fuel."
-Really? Where does the electricity come from? Electric power in today's cars is generated by an alternator, which is a device that converts mechanical energy from the engine into electrical energy. But some of the energy it uses inevitably is wasted in the conversion process, which is one reason why somethings in a car, such as the power-hungry air condition compressor, have long been powered directly by the engine, and not electrically. So why does now powering these items electrically necessarily reduce fuel consumption? ...this question isn't mentioned much less explained in this article.
"Rechargeable electric vehicles, which under government calculations could get 100 mpg or more, will help automakers meet the standards..."
"100 mpg" from an electric vehicle? 100 miles per gallon of what? Per gallon of electricity?? Who wrote this, a fifth grader?
And why, when hybrid and electric vehicles are praised in the press, do we never seem to hear anything about the long-term cost and environmental impact of manufacturing, recycling, and disposing of all the millions of tons of lithium, cadmium, and other toxic materials used in the batteries? Or the cost in increased injuries and loss of life associated with the widespread use of miniature clown cars sharing the road with trucks and larger, older vehicles?
Thursday, May 14, 2009
ABCnews: where propaganda is called news
"Troubled Times for Republican Party -GOP Divide
We're going to take a closer look at an intense debate within the Republican Party: whether it can attract new voters by becoming more conservative or more moderate..."
-Charles Gibson, World News Report, 5/13/2009
ABC proposes a political spectrum whose endpoints are "conservative" and "moderate".
The adjective "moderate" can be defined as "kept within due bounds; observing reasonable limits; not excessive, extreme, violent, or rigorous..." -Dictionary.net
For ABC, the reasonable, not-extreme "moderates" are opposed by "conservatives", who, obviously, are not "observing reasonable limits", and by contrast are "excessive, extreme,..." perhaps even "violent".
What happened to the familiar "conservative / moderate / liberal" model, or "right / centrist / left"?
Many liberals -including those largely dominating the media- don't want to view themselves as living near the extreme of any political spectrum. They prefer to view themselves as inhabiting the reasonable, high ground above and in opposition to one extreme: conservatism, that radical fringe. Appropriating to themselves the term "moderate" redefines political discourse, obviously in their favor.
Liberals are the new "moderates". They can't be criticized for being "too liberal", because "liberal" no longer defines a political extreme. And of course, nobody can be "too moderate".
For them, today's "moderates" embrace all that was once considered "leftist", "liberal", or "progressive". Those who don't, can't be "moderate", and belong to an immoderate and even extreme fringe.
Clearly this is the premise of the entire ABCnews report: that the Republican Party is too conservative, and needs to become more moderate in order to attract voters.
Could the Republican Party be floundering because it has failed to be clearly and enthusiastically conservative? That it has become too liberal and too much like the Democratic Party? That it has compromised its conservative principles and become nearly indistinguishable from its opponents, and consequently has alienated large numbers of conservative voters? ABCnews may have considered this possibility, but didn't find it worth addressing in their report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
