Due to my personal experience, reason and common sense, it is clear to me that independent truck drivers (owner operators), are reaping windfall profits as a result of the recent skyrocketing prices of diesel fuel. The only thing that I find mysterious, is that I am constantly hearing reports in the mainstream media that independent truck drivers are suffering due to the high cost of diesel fuel, and that many are unable to keep up with their loan payments. I see heart-wrenching interviews with owner operators who claim that their trucks are being repossessed because they are unable to make their truck payments because of the high price of diesel fuel. When owner operators are asked, they dutifully report that their truck has two 150 gallon fuel tanks, and at $4.50 per gallon, it costs over $1,200 to fill-er-up. At 5 miles per gallon, they need to fill-er-up at least every two days with monthly fuel bills reaching nearly eighteen thousand dollars. They go on to say that they are taking a double hit, because the price of food and consumer goods are also skyrocketing because of the high price of fuel that is necessary to bring those items to the marketplace.
Have you noticed the obvious contradiction in the truck owners' statements? It is clear to me, but for some reason the interviewer never calls them on it. Either this contradiction sails right over their heads or the obvious truth does not fit the media's template, which is clearly to portray these blue collar working stiffs as the unfortunate victims of rich heartless corporations, like the oil companies.
If you too have been fooled by this media propaganda, and have been unable to figure it out for yourself, I will break it down for you to make this contradiction crystal clear. First off, the obvious contradiction is that these stories always make clear that the cost of living is rising due to the high cost of fuel being passed on to the consumer. This is because trucking companies and independent owner-operators charge their customers a "fuel surcharge" due to the rising cost of fuel. This fuel surcharge is tied to the current price of fuel.The higher the price of fuel, the higher the surcharge. The fuel surcharge more than compensates for the truckers' for the increase in fuel costs. When fuel prices increase, so does the surcharge, which actually decreases the independent truckers' net fuel cost. Therefore, as fuel prices rise, so do the truckers' profits. Currently fuel surcharges average 48 cents per mile. If a truck averages 5 miles per gallon, the owner-operator is getting reimbursed $2.40 for every gallon used by adding the fuel surcharge to his customers' freight bill. This effectively reduces the net fuel cost to $2.10 per gallon at a pump price of $4.50 per gallon. It would effectivly cost only $630.00 to fill up a semi with two 150 gallon fuel tanks after taking the fuel surchage into account. This fuel surcharge actually reduces fuel costs to independent truckers to prices not seen in over a decade.
You may ask: if it is not due to the high cost of diesel fuel; why are some truck drivers being forced out of business? The answer is simple. At any given time, some business owners, even in highly lucrative fields, are always going bankrupt for various reasons. These reasons always include the fact that their expenses are higher than their income. Over a period of time, they are unable to pay their bills and are forced out of business by their creditors.
I believe the truck drivers told the truth when they said that they were forced out of business because they couldn't afford to pay both their fuel bills and make their loan payments on their truck. But the rise in the cost of diesel fuel is clearly not the reason. As a matter of fact, the increase in the cost of diesel actually increased the income of independent truck drivers, as well as trucking companies in general, due to the fuel surcharge. It is clear to me that the owner operators who couldn't pay their fuel bills and truck payments simply did not have adequate income to cover their expenses for any of a number of reasons. Common reasons for independent truck drivers earning inadequate income include: not driving enough hours per month(goofing off, sleeping late, or just staying home too much), accidents (causing down-time and repair costs), poor truck maintenance (causing breakdowns, repair costs and down time), hiring unreliable drivers to drive their rigs so that they can take time off. Also, some truck drivers spend excessive time and money on vices, such as gambling, patronising prostitutes and illegal drugs. These vices cause less income, due to the time they devote to these vices instead of driving, and also higher expenditures associated with these extra curricular activities. There are many reasons why some independent truck drivers are unable to pay their fuel bills and truck payments. However, the rising cost of diesel fuel is not among these reasons. Because of the fuel surcharge, independent truck drivers are better off today than they were before the price of diesel shot up.
I happened to have had a similar personal experience in the late 1970's during a similar period of sudden and dramatic fuel price increase. I worked as a taxi driver in New York City at the time. I remember fuel prices doubling in a short period of time. Since I leased my cab on a daily basis, as is the practice for most cab drivers, I was responsible for paying my cab lease as well as my gasoline costs every day. When the fuel prices doubled, my average daily cost for gasoline doubled from about $12.50 per day to $25.00 per day. When fuel prices suddenly skyrocketed in the 70s, the city allowed all taxi-cabs to charge passengers a fuel surcharge of an additional 50 cents per trip. At the time, I remember making an average of 40 trips per day. Business did not decline due to the fuel surcharge and I continued to average 40 trips per day. However, I now netted an additional 20 dollars per shift due to the fuel surcharge and my fuel costs only went up an average of $12.50 per shift. My net cost for fuel was reduced to only $5.00 per shift after the fuel surcharge. I actually earned about $7.50 more per shift due to the high price of fuel and the subsequent fuel surcharge. Before the price of fuel skyrocketed, I averaged 100 dollars profit per shift (after paying my lease and fuel). After the cost of fuel doubled and the subsequent fuel surcharge, I now earned about $107.50 per shift, an increase of 7.5%.
At the time, I remember seeing many news reports about how the high price of fuel was putting the squeeze on cab drivers. I saw interviews with cab-drivers who claimed that they were often unable to pay their leases after working a 12 hour shift because of the high price of fuel. At the time, I knew several cab drivers who frequently were unable to pay their lease at the end of their shift, but the reason was always because they spent their shift at the racetrack, a bar, or they spent their money on dope and were too stoned to drive. Frequently, these drivers would blame the high cost of gas for their own failings. I often wondered why the media would always put deceitful excuses on the news reports, rather than reporting the truth that cabbies actually got a raise as a result of the skyrocketing fuel prices and subsequent fuel surcharges that were passed along to the ultimate consumer. Cab drivers were actually doing great during due to the high fuel prices of the '70s, but the media reported them as struggling victims.
Why does the mainstream media portray truck drivers and cab-drivers as victims, even when they reap increased profits due to the sharp rise in fuel prices and subsequent fuel surcharges? It seems to me that the media likes to sympathize with the little guy, even when he is a victim of his own failings. Time after time, I see the media go out of its way to avoid the obvious truth and seek out the least likely scenario that offers sympathy where it is not deserved. The unspoken truth is that most independent truck drivers are enjoying record profits during this period of record high fuel prices.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Legal Drug Pushers and Their Victims
I don't like watching those TV commercials for various prescription drugs. They seem to be pushing many of those drugs on people who don't even need them. At the same time, many people are abusing pharmaceutical medications. Have America's pharmaceutical companies become pushers of legal drugs?
I have heard reports that some healthy young people, are taking Viagra or Cialis, as a recreational drug in order to enhance their performance and pleasure. I have also heard that many people are taking these medications in order to counter the sexual side effects of cocaine or other illegal drugs. Cocaine increases a mans libido, but his body is unable to perform while under the influence without some outside help. They sell Viagra and Cialis on the black market and in night clubs to customers who use it recreationally or in combination with illicit drugs.
Pharmaceutical medications have replaced illegal drugs for many addicts, and the drug companies are happy to have their business. I often hear the media touting the fact that deaths from illicit drugs has dropped to 17,000, but they rarely mention that an additional 20,000 people also die annually from abusing legal prescription medications.
Heath Ledger,~~Anna Nichole Smith and~~ her son all died of overdoses legal drug cocktails. Recently I heard a statistic that said 40% of Americans are currently taking some kind of medication. I wonder how much of that is actually necessary.
I fear that many of our lawmakers in Congress are on some type of legal medications such as Prozac, Zoloft, Xanax, Ambien, Valium, Ritalin, etc. Although these medications can be legally prescribed; don't you think that they can affect a lawmakers judgment? Whenever I see Nancy Pelosi on TV, it looks like she is on some type of psychotropic medication. She has facial twitches and it appears that she has a dry mouth. Wouldn't it be prudent to ban lawmakers that have psychological issues that require medication? There is much hysteria about the widespread use of steroids in sports. If an athlete uses performance enhancing drugs, the worst result is that he is cheating & lowering the integrity of that sport. If our highest public servants are not held to the same standards, the mistakes that could be made while they are under the influence of drugs may be much more far-reaching than altering the result of an athletic contest. Some medications warn the user not drive or operate heavy machinery. Shouldn't psychotropic medications warn users not to make decisions affecting national security while under the influence these drugs? I propose random mandatory drug testing of all members of Congress, Cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, & up to & including the President. If a government official is taking a prescription drug for depression, for example, maybe (s)he shouldn't have all that power & responsibility if (s)he is so depressed.
I do not like the relationship between the government and the pharmaceutical companies. This has led to the overuse and abuse of prescription medication. First, they reversed the law that banned drug advertisements. Then they passed the Medicare Prescription drug program. As a result, 40% of Americans are now on some sort of medication and 20,000 Americans die annually from prescription drug overdose. Now they are pushing for universal health care. If that happens, these problems will only get worse because of the availability of free medication for everyone.
I have heard reports that some healthy young people, are taking Viagra or Cialis, as a recreational drug in order to enhance their performance and pleasure. I have also heard that many people are taking these medications in order to counter the sexual side effects of cocaine or other illegal drugs. Cocaine increases a mans libido, but his body is unable to perform while under the influence without some outside help. They sell Viagra and Cialis on the black market and in night clubs to customers who use it recreationally or in combination with illicit drugs.
Pharmaceutical medications have replaced illegal drugs for many addicts, and the drug companies are happy to have their business. I often hear the media touting the fact that deaths from illicit drugs has dropped to 17,000, but they rarely mention that an additional 20,000 people also die annually from abusing legal prescription medications.
Heath Ledger,~~Anna Nichole Smith and~~ her son all died of overdoses legal drug cocktails. Recently I heard a statistic that said 40% of Americans are currently taking some kind of medication. I wonder how much of that is actually necessary.
I fear that many of our lawmakers in Congress are on some type of legal medications such as Prozac, Zoloft, Xanax, Ambien, Valium, Ritalin, etc. Although these medications can be legally prescribed; don't you think that they can affect a lawmakers judgment? Whenever I see Nancy Pelosi on TV, it looks like she is on some type of psychotropic medication. She has facial twitches and it appears that she has a dry mouth. Wouldn't it be prudent to ban lawmakers that have psychological issues that require medication? There is much hysteria about the widespread use of steroids in sports. If an athlete uses performance enhancing drugs, the worst result is that he is cheating & lowering the integrity of that sport. If our highest public servants are not held to the same standards, the mistakes that could be made while they are under the influence of drugs may be much more far-reaching than altering the result of an athletic contest. Some medications warn the user not drive or operate heavy machinery. Shouldn't psychotropic medications warn users not to make decisions affecting national security while under the influence these drugs? I propose random mandatory drug testing of all members of Congress, Cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, & up to & including the President. If a government official is taking a prescription drug for depression, for example, maybe (s)he shouldn't have all that power & responsibility if (s)he is so depressed.
I do not like the relationship between the government and the pharmaceutical companies. This has led to the overuse and abuse of prescription medication. First, they reversed the law that banned drug advertisements. Then they passed the Medicare Prescription drug program. As a result, 40% of Americans are now on some sort of medication and 20,000 Americans die annually from prescription drug overdose. Now they are pushing for universal health care. If that happens, these problems will only get worse because of the availability of free medication for everyone.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Gas Prices Cause Louisiana Women to Resort to 'Pole Dancing'
Today I read an article that describes a Baton Rouge TV station's story about a local stripper. This Newbuster article is entitled: "Gas Prices Cause Louisiana Women to Resort to 'Pole Dancing" .
I am tired of hearing reports and watching movies about strippers and hookers, that make them out to be virtuous women who are forced to to lower their high moral standards for a noble cause. This story describes college student, who is a single mother, that was forced to resort to stripping, in order to buy milk and diapers for her baby.
It is typical of liberals to believe that the ends justify the means in tough situations. For example, they say that people resort to crime because they are poor. They say that people resort to drugs because of peer pressure and lack of after-school-programs. They say that people resort to terrorism because of social injustice. etc. If these excuses for bad behavior are true, then how come the crime rate during the great depression of the 1930's, during a period of economic strife and racial segregation, was lower that it has been ever since? Unbelievably, I heard the liberal media explain this by claiming that the crime rate was low during the 30s because there was less to steal during those lean years. Here is a short article that I found that blames everything for today's high crime rates except the decay in universal moral standards.
The truth is, people do bad things because they are bad people, for whatever reason. They do not follow universal spiritual principles which inevitably results in misery in their lives and those around them. Of course, redemption is possible, but becoming a stripper is not a path to redemption. Some principles that might lead to redemption are self discipline, selflessness, humility, honesty, integrity, forgiveness, self sacrifice, faith and family (family=mother+father+children, forever). I do not hear the news media and movies touting these principles as a way to deal with a tough situation.
Usually women who become hookers and strippers, (yes, most strippers will have sex with you in the back room for a substantial fee, or they will arrange for a tryst after work), do so because they have extremely low moral standards. Today's news media prefer to blame low self esteem. The truth is, low self esteem is a result shameful behavior. Shame should be used as a motivator to change negative behavior. Instead, today's media would have you think that there is no shame in stripping and prostitution.
Most often women become strippers/hookers to support their drug habit. Often these women are continually allowing themselves to be victimized by men (pimps, boyfriends, bosses, etc.) You might say that I am stereotyping, yes I am, but this stereotype happens to be true in the majority of cases. Why does the media look for the least likely scenario; a virtuous stripper/hooker, and then publicize her story? First off, I would not believe the story of a hooker/stripper, they are usually not credible.
In the case of the "Duke University Lacrosse Team" rape scandal (fabrication), it turned out that the stripper/hooker was lying all along. They found semen from 3 different men in her body, but not from the accused rapists. However the media did not question her credibility and never mentioned that she was a hooker.
Every policeman that I heard calling into talk radio stations said that stripper/hookers often lie to police about being raped. They often threaten men that they will "cry rape" if they don't give them money, drugs or even a ride. The media played up this lying hooker/stripper in Durham NC as if she were a virtuous women, who was forced to strip because of hard times. The truth is, she was a mentally ill, drug addicted prostitute that has a history of making false rape accusations.
The generalizations that I am making are true for the vast majority of hooker/strippers, yet they constantly make movies about the least likely scenarios for hooker/strippers. For example in the movie "Pretty Women", Julia Roberts was a good, honest, virtuous woman, just waiting for her prince charming to come along. I was amazed that in the movie she did not accept any money until the end of the week. How likely is that. In most cases a woman who is willing to sell her body is also willing to lie, cheat and steal for money, but Roberts was as honest and trusting as the day is long. There were times in the movie where she actually turned down money. I don't think that any hooker in history has turned down money from a client.
I also saw a "made for TV movie" portraying a hooker as struggling single mother who is working her way through school because her husband abandoned her and she had no choice. This is a very common theme, there were several movies made along these lines. The truth is that hookers who do have children, rarely take care of them. They are usually taken care of by a family member, the father, or they are wards of the state. They are often taken away from the stripper/hooker because she is an unfit mother, usually because of neglect or because she is a drug addict.
The movie "Taxi Driver" portrayed a hooker fairly accurately. The actual locations were actually real life "whore strolls" and hooker hotels. However, I think that she was rescued in the end from her life of prostitution (I don't remember). In real life, that wouldn't last long because they usually go back to their old habits of drugs and seeking out men that will abuse them. They are often addicted to the lifestyle.
I would be willing to bet that my stereotypes about hooker/strippers are accurate 90% of the time, yet the liberals in the media and in the arts, almost always portray them as innocent victims with a hard-luck story. The news story about a stripper/hooker that took to "that life" because of the high price of gas is preposterous, but it is not inconsistent that a stripper/hooker would make up that type of excuse. Stripper/hookers usually make up rationalizations for their bad behavior. If you research it further, it is likely that she has a criminal record for drugs, prostitution, shoplifting and trespassing. It is also likely that she has a record with the DCFS (department of children and family services). Of course it is possible that she is part of the small minority that doesn't fit that mold, but I do not think that the TV stations budget would be big enough to sift through hundreds of hooker/strippers until they found the right one to fit their template.
I am tired of hearing reports and watching movies about strippers and hookers, that make them out to be virtuous women who are forced to to lower their high moral standards for a noble cause. This story describes college student, who is a single mother, that was forced to resort to stripping, in order to buy milk and diapers for her baby.
It is typical of liberals to believe that the ends justify the means in tough situations. For example, they say that people resort to crime because they are poor. They say that people resort to drugs because of peer pressure and lack of after-school-programs. They say that people resort to terrorism because of social injustice. etc. If these excuses for bad behavior are true, then how come the crime rate during the great depression of the 1930's, during a period of economic strife and racial segregation, was lower that it has been ever since? Unbelievably, I heard the liberal media explain this by claiming that the crime rate was low during the 30s because there was less to steal during those lean years. Here is a short article that I found that blames everything for today's high crime rates except the decay in universal moral standards.
The truth is, people do bad things because they are bad people, for whatever reason. They do not follow universal spiritual principles which inevitably results in misery in their lives and those around them. Of course, redemption is possible, but becoming a stripper is not a path to redemption. Some principles that might lead to redemption are self discipline, selflessness, humility, honesty, integrity, forgiveness, self sacrifice, faith and family (family=mother+father+children, forever). I do not hear the news media and movies touting these principles as a way to deal with a tough situation.
Usually women who become hookers and strippers, (yes, most strippers will have sex with you in the back room for a substantial fee, or they will arrange for a tryst after work), do so because they have extremely low moral standards. Today's news media prefer to blame low self esteem. The truth is, low self esteem is a result shameful behavior. Shame should be used as a motivator to change negative behavior. Instead, today's media would have you think that there is no shame in stripping and prostitution.
Most often women become strippers/hookers to support their drug habit. Often these women are continually allowing themselves to be victimized by men (pimps, boyfriends, bosses, etc.) You might say that I am stereotyping, yes I am, but this stereotype happens to be true in the majority of cases. Why does the media look for the least likely scenario; a virtuous stripper/hooker, and then publicize her story? First off, I would not believe the story of a hooker/stripper, they are usually not credible.
In the case of the "Duke University Lacrosse Team" rape scandal (fabrication), it turned out that the stripper/hooker was lying all along. They found semen from 3 different men in her body, but not from the accused rapists. However the media did not question her credibility and never mentioned that she was a hooker.
Every policeman that I heard calling into talk radio stations said that stripper/hookers often lie to police about being raped. They often threaten men that they will "cry rape" if they don't give them money, drugs or even a ride. The media played up this lying hooker/stripper in Durham NC as if she were a virtuous women, who was forced to strip because of hard times. The truth is, she was a mentally ill, drug addicted prostitute that has a history of making false rape accusations.
The generalizations that I am making are true for the vast majority of hooker/strippers, yet they constantly make movies about the least likely scenarios for hooker/strippers. For example in the movie "Pretty Women", Julia Roberts was a good, honest, virtuous woman, just waiting for her prince charming to come along. I was amazed that in the movie she did not accept any money until the end of the week. How likely is that. In most cases a woman who is willing to sell her body is also willing to lie, cheat and steal for money, but Roberts was as honest and trusting as the day is long. There were times in the movie where she actually turned down money. I don't think that any hooker in history has turned down money from a client.
I also saw a "made for TV movie" portraying a hooker as struggling single mother who is working her way through school because her husband abandoned her and she had no choice. This is a very common theme, there were several movies made along these lines. The truth is that hookers who do have children, rarely take care of them. They are usually taken care of by a family member, the father, or they are wards of the state. They are often taken away from the stripper/hooker because she is an unfit mother, usually because of neglect or because she is a drug addict.
The movie "Taxi Driver" portrayed a hooker fairly accurately. The actual locations were actually real life "whore strolls" and hooker hotels. However, I think that she was rescued in the end from her life of prostitution (I don't remember). In real life, that wouldn't last long because they usually go back to their old habits of drugs and seeking out men that will abuse them. They are often addicted to the lifestyle.
I would be willing to bet that my stereotypes about hooker/strippers are accurate 90% of the time, yet the liberals in the media and in the arts, almost always portray them as innocent victims with a hard-luck story. The news story about a stripper/hooker that took to "that life" because of the high price of gas is preposterous, but it is not inconsistent that a stripper/hooker would make up that type of excuse. Stripper/hookers usually make up rationalizations for their bad behavior. If you research it further, it is likely that she has a criminal record for drugs, prostitution, shoplifting and trespassing. It is also likely that she has a record with the DCFS (department of children and family services). Of course it is possible that she is part of the small minority that doesn't fit that mold, but I do not think that the TV stations budget would be big enough to sift through hundreds of hooker/strippers until they found the right one to fit their template.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Voluntary Castration for Violent Rapists and Pedophiles
I have never understood why we don't rehabilitate, "tier three" incurable sexual deviants, with castration. This would include violent rapists and pedophiles who commit rape.
I frequently hear the argument that rape is not a crime of sex, but a crime of violence and control. Experts often say that castration will not prevent offenders from repeating these violent crimes. For example, if castrated, they will just use an object such as a broom stick or beer bottle to carry out a rape.
As a layman that argument seems ridiculous to me and I think that these so called experts are disingenuous. They have convinced gullible people of something that defies my personal experience, reason and common sense. I believe the real reason why "experts" are opposed to castration is because they think it is inhumane punishment. I disagree.
I believe that the main motivating factor for these criminals risking their freedom, their life and their very souls, is an uncontrollable urge and desire, that can only be satisfied one way. I believe that these criminals would welcome a solution to their hellacious dilemma, even before they attacked their first victim. "Tier three" sex offenders are afflicted with an incurable sexual perversion, I think that this is obvious even to the criminal sex offender himself. His uncontrollable desires put him in a lose-lose situation, where he is damned if he does and he is damned if he doesn't. I do not think that anyone would choose to have these unnatural, incurable, criminal desires.
I am sure that some men rape out of a desire to control someone through violence, although not all rapists have that motivation, not even most. Most rapists and pedophiles, commit their crimes out of a twisted sexual fetish that can only be satisfied in a particular way. Just as some men are afflicted with desires for bestiality, necrophilia, addiction to prostitutes, masturbation and pornography. However those disorders do not have the same horrific results that pedophilia and rape do, of course.
When I lived on a farm in Oregon, 25 years ago, we would castrate most of the male calves to make them into steers, rather than letting them grow up as bulls. The castration procedure took about ten seconds, it was done without anesthesia and caused no external bleeding. One reason why we did that was because only a few bulls were needed to impregnate the cows, and the farmer wanted to control the time of year that the cows gave birth. But the main reason was because bulls were very hard to handle, steers were not. As a matter of fact, the bulls were violent and dangerous. They would frequently break out of their corrals, break fences, and even kicked the owner and broke 3 of his ribs on one occasion. Often the reason why the bulls broke out of their enclosures was to have sex with the cows. On the other hand, the steers grew up to be docile, just like the cows and did not need to be confined.
I believe that castration affects a man's tendency toward aggression as well as his sexual urges, just like I witnessed with bulls and steers. In terms of the human experience, statistically, men are ten times more likely to commit murder than women. Women committing rape and pedophilia is almost unheard of. There is a connection between male hormones and violent crimes.
In this day and age of men surgically altering their genitals and taking female hormones, in so called sex-change operations; how could it possibly be considered cruel to castrate a man as a precaution to prevent him from committing horrific sex crimes?
I recommend that all violent, incurable sex offenders be given life imprisonment for their crime. But if they voluntarily choose to be castrated, they will be allowed to make a deal for early release or parole after serving a minimum sentence of 25 years perhaps. Also, I recommend that less violent sex offenders also be offered the option of castration to mitigate their prison sentences. Thirdly, I recommend an aggressive public relations campaign (TV, radio, billboards, etc) to persuade potential sex offenders to voluntarily have themselves castrated. If a person has these abnormal, violent desires, it would be to their own benefit, as well as society at large, if they nipped it in the bud and got themselves castrated, before they offended, or before they get caught.
This would be a win-win situation for society and the offender. Some criminal offenders would be given a second chance without putting society at risk. Other potential predators will nip their desires in the bud, thus protecting themselves from a lifetime in prison, and eternity in hell. At the same time they would be protecting innocent victims from the crimes they will never commit.
I frequently hear the argument that rape is not a crime of sex, but a crime of violence and control. Experts often say that castration will not prevent offenders from repeating these violent crimes. For example, if castrated, they will just use an object such as a broom stick or beer bottle to carry out a rape.
As a layman that argument seems ridiculous to me and I think that these so called experts are disingenuous. They have convinced gullible people of something that defies my personal experience, reason and common sense. I believe the real reason why "experts" are opposed to castration is because they think it is inhumane punishment. I disagree.
I believe that the main motivating factor for these criminals risking their freedom, their life and their very souls, is an uncontrollable urge and desire, that can only be satisfied one way. I believe that these criminals would welcome a solution to their hellacious dilemma, even before they attacked their first victim. "Tier three" sex offenders are afflicted with an incurable sexual perversion, I think that this is obvious even to the criminal sex offender himself. His uncontrollable desires put him in a lose-lose situation, where he is damned if he does and he is damned if he doesn't. I do not think that anyone would choose to have these unnatural, incurable, criminal desires.
I am sure that some men rape out of a desire to control someone through violence, although not all rapists have that motivation, not even most. Most rapists and pedophiles, commit their crimes out of a twisted sexual fetish that can only be satisfied in a particular way. Just as some men are afflicted with desires for bestiality, necrophilia, addiction to prostitutes, masturbation and pornography. However those disorders do not have the same horrific results that pedophilia and rape do, of course.
When I lived on a farm in Oregon, 25 years ago, we would castrate most of the male calves to make them into steers, rather than letting them grow up as bulls. The castration procedure took about ten seconds, it was done without anesthesia and caused no external bleeding. One reason why we did that was because only a few bulls were needed to impregnate the cows, and the farmer wanted to control the time of year that the cows gave birth. But the main reason was because bulls were very hard to handle, steers were not. As a matter of fact, the bulls were violent and dangerous. They would frequently break out of their corrals, break fences, and even kicked the owner and broke 3 of his ribs on one occasion. Often the reason why the bulls broke out of their enclosures was to have sex with the cows. On the other hand, the steers grew up to be docile, just like the cows and did not need to be confined.
I believe that castration affects a man's tendency toward aggression as well as his sexual urges, just like I witnessed with bulls and steers. In terms of the human experience, statistically, men are ten times more likely to commit murder than women. Women committing rape and pedophilia is almost unheard of. There is a connection between male hormones and violent crimes.
In this day and age of men surgically altering their genitals and taking female hormones, in so called sex-change operations; how could it possibly be considered cruel to castrate a man as a precaution to prevent him from committing horrific sex crimes?
I recommend that all violent, incurable sex offenders be given life imprisonment for their crime. But if they voluntarily choose to be castrated, they will be allowed to make a deal for early release or parole after serving a minimum sentence of 25 years perhaps. Also, I recommend that less violent sex offenders also be offered the option of castration to mitigate their prison sentences. Thirdly, I recommend an aggressive public relations campaign (TV, radio, billboards, etc) to persuade potential sex offenders to voluntarily have themselves castrated. If a person has these abnormal, violent desires, it would be to their own benefit, as well as society at large, if they nipped it in the bud and got themselves castrated, before they offended, or before they get caught.
This would be a win-win situation for society and the offender. Some criminal offenders would be given a second chance without putting society at risk. Other potential predators will nip their desires in the bud, thus protecting themselves from a lifetime in prison, and eternity in hell. At the same time they would be protecting innocent victims from the crimes they will never commit.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Liberal Bullying Silences the Majority
I came across this excellent article from the Washington times. It is an editorial about the liberal bias in Hollywood. The article is called: "Mr. Spielberg, Tear Down This Wall", By Andrew Breitbart. Please take the time to read it and let me know what you think.
This article states that there is "political bullying" in Hollywood. Breitbart wrote, "And because of bullying (or what Democrats would call blacklisting or “political discrimination” if the shoe were on the other foot), Hollywood has become a one-party town." Breitbart goes on to say: "But while it is true that the ratio of Obama to McCain bumper stickers in West L.A. is about 250 to 1, there are indeed untold closet Republicans in the entertainment industry who dare not advertise their beliefs in movie studio parking lots. (Unfortunately, car keying is a tactic wielded liberally by the self-described “tolerant.”) ".
The article also writes about the few openly conservative players in Hollywood. The only one who I am familiar with is Dennis Miller. Dennis Miller is a famous comedian who turned conservative after 9/11. Dennis Miller now has a radio talk show and is also a frequent guest on "the O'Reilly Factor" on Fox news. I have heard Miller talk about how open conservatives in Hollywood are ostracized and have a hard time finding work and invitations to social events. He says that the liberals in Hollywood are clearly intolerant of opposing political view-points. He says that conservatives must remain "in the closet", lest they lose their chance of getting lucrative contracts and advancing in Hollywood.
I have also noticed a similar type of bullying on the Yahoo Answers web-site. This is a web-site where you can ask and answer questions on a variety of topics in any of about a hundred categories. I usually participate in the categories of politics & elections, religion & spirituality, lesbian, gay, bi-sexual &transgendered and global warming. I have had scores of questions and answers reported and removed and over a dozen accounts suspended. The reasons are usually because I am critical of "gay pride", atheism, and Barack Obama. My questions and answers are usually thoughtful, reasoned, non confrontational and non insulting. However, because of my opinion, my answers often get reported and removed and eventually my account gets suspended. Apparently, I am not the only one that this is happening to, because I notice that a majority of people who post in the "religion and spirituality" category are atheists, witches, and followers of pagan religions. Often they make very hateful, intolerant comments about Christianity. I believe that Christians are being intimidated by having their questions and answers removed and their accounts suspended, just like me. After a while they just give up, and the atheists have taken over. The same thing happens in the "LGBT" category if you are critical of celebrating homosexuality, and in the political & elections category if you are critical of Obama. So far, the global warming enthusiasts seem to be more tolerant of differing views.
I mention this bullying on Yahoo Answers, because I think it is exemplary of what is happening in Hollywood and on college campuses. For example, you see many hateful bumper stickers on automobiles mocking and insulting President Bush, but you rarely, if ever, see bumper stickers praising Bush or mocking Obama. People dare not affix conservative bumper stickers, lest they risk vandalism to their car, yet liberals often go ever-the-top, calling for Bush's conviction and impeachment and they are widely accepted. Students at a Georgia university, recently protested to have Supreme Court Justice, Clarance Thomas, dis invited from speaking at their commencement hearing. It has been reported that over 80% of all speakers invited to speak at University commencement ceremonies this year were liberal. Often conservative speakers on University campuses get booed, heckled or bullied out of appearing in the first place.
Just like the article in the Washington Times says, I find liberals, homosexuals and atheists to be very intolerant of opposing views. There are many examples of liberals who are actively stifling free speech when they disagree. I have written about some of these in previous articles. This is a far cry from the liberals of the 60s who said " I may disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it". Ben Stein's movie "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" is another example of liberal bullying by the Universities.
Most people, especially conservatives, just want to get on with their work or their studies without getting hassled. They maintain a low profile, so as not to attract the ire of pacifists, gay activists, atheists, and believers in man-made global warming. Those activist groups may be small in number, but they are quite vocal, offensive, intimidating, aggressive and "in-your-face". Most sane people don't want to get into a confrontation with these "loons", so they either join them or keep their mouth shut. As a result, it appears that everyone is on their side and more people join them, just to fit in with what seems to be popular on college campuses, Hollywood and in most major cities".
Liberals often are opposed to anything that judges or restrains people's behavior. Of course they don't see the irony, that good judgment, self restraint and discipline, offers us the most freedom, prosperity and peace. I have seen the most bizarre and negative behavior condoned by liberals. Celebrating the gangster culture and hip-hop music is a good example. Anything unusual and weird is celebrated and considered hip and cool, in Hollywood and on most of today's college campuses, in the name of art, self-expression and diversity. At the same time, many of the more extreme liberals mock Christianity, the traditional family and even our country.
What Andrew Breitbart writes about in his article is a microcosm of what is now happening on university campuses, major cities, and on the major websites (Google & Yahoo). It seems that a vocal and intimidating minority is bullying the majority to join their cause or just shut up. I am disappointed to see such limited opposition to these misguided bullies that are succeeding in indoctrinating much of the American public and silencing the rest.
This article states that there is "political bullying" in Hollywood. Breitbart wrote, "And because of bullying (or what Democrats would call blacklisting or “political discrimination” if the shoe were on the other foot), Hollywood has become a one-party town." Breitbart goes on to say: "But while it is true that the ratio of Obama to McCain bumper stickers in West L.A. is about 250 to 1, there are indeed untold closet Republicans in the entertainment industry who dare not advertise their beliefs in movie studio parking lots. (Unfortunately, car keying is a tactic wielded liberally by the self-described “tolerant.”) ".
The article also writes about the few openly conservative players in Hollywood. The only one who I am familiar with is Dennis Miller. Dennis Miller is a famous comedian who turned conservative after 9/11. Dennis Miller now has a radio talk show and is also a frequent guest on "the O'Reilly Factor" on Fox news. I have heard Miller talk about how open conservatives in Hollywood are ostracized and have a hard time finding work and invitations to social events. He says that the liberals in Hollywood are clearly intolerant of opposing political view-points. He says that conservatives must remain "in the closet", lest they lose their chance of getting lucrative contracts and advancing in Hollywood.
I have also noticed a similar type of bullying on the Yahoo Answers web-site. This is a web-site where you can ask and answer questions on a variety of topics in any of about a hundred categories. I usually participate in the categories of politics & elections, religion & spirituality, lesbian, gay, bi-sexual &transgendered and global warming. I have had scores of questions and answers reported and removed and over a dozen accounts suspended. The reasons are usually because I am critical of "gay pride", atheism, and Barack Obama. My questions and answers are usually thoughtful, reasoned, non confrontational and non insulting. However, because of my opinion, my answers often get reported and removed and eventually my account gets suspended. Apparently, I am not the only one that this is happening to, because I notice that a majority of people who post in the "religion and spirituality" category are atheists, witches, and followers of pagan religions. Often they make very hateful, intolerant comments about Christianity. I believe that Christians are being intimidated by having their questions and answers removed and their accounts suspended, just like me. After a while they just give up, and the atheists have taken over. The same thing happens in the "LGBT" category if you are critical of celebrating homosexuality, and in the political & elections category if you are critical of Obama. So far, the global warming enthusiasts seem to be more tolerant of differing views.
I mention this bullying on Yahoo Answers, because I think it is exemplary of what is happening in Hollywood and on college campuses. For example, you see many hateful bumper stickers on automobiles mocking and insulting President Bush, but you rarely, if ever, see bumper stickers praising Bush or mocking Obama. People dare not affix conservative bumper stickers, lest they risk vandalism to their car, yet liberals often go ever-the-top, calling for Bush's conviction and impeachment and they are widely accepted. Students at a Georgia university, recently protested to have Supreme Court Justice, Clarance Thomas, dis invited from speaking at their commencement hearing. It has been reported that over 80% of all speakers invited to speak at University commencement ceremonies this year were liberal. Often conservative speakers on University campuses get booed, heckled or bullied out of appearing in the first place.
Just like the article in the Washington Times says, I find liberals, homosexuals and atheists to be very intolerant of opposing views. There are many examples of liberals who are actively stifling free speech when they disagree. I have written about some of these in previous articles. This is a far cry from the liberals of the 60s who said " I may disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it". Ben Stein's movie "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" is another example of liberal bullying by the Universities.
Most people, especially conservatives, just want to get on with their work or their studies without getting hassled. They maintain a low profile, so as not to attract the ire of pacifists, gay activists, atheists, and believers in man-made global warming. Those activist groups may be small in number, but they are quite vocal, offensive, intimidating, aggressive and "in-your-face". Most sane people don't want to get into a confrontation with these "loons", so they either join them or keep their mouth shut. As a result, it appears that everyone is on their side and more people join them, just to fit in with what seems to be popular on college campuses, Hollywood and in most major cities".
Liberals often are opposed to anything that judges or restrains people's behavior. Of course they don't see the irony, that good judgment, self restraint and discipline, offers us the most freedom, prosperity and peace. I have seen the most bizarre and negative behavior condoned by liberals. Celebrating the gangster culture and hip-hop music is a good example. Anything unusual and weird is celebrated and considered hip and cool, in Hollywood and on most of today's college campuses, in the name of art, self-expression and diversity. At the same time, many of the more extreme liberals mock Christianity, the traditional family and even our country.
What Andrew Breitbart writes about in his article is a microcosm of what is now happening on university campuses, major cities, and on the major websites (Google & Yahoo). It seems that a vocal and intimidating minority is bullying the majority to join their cause or just shut up. I am disappointed to see such limited opposition to these misguided bullies that are succeeding in indoctrinating much of the American public and silencing the rest.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Former Press Secretary Tony Snow Dies, AP Rips His Memory
I was astounded at the callousness in which an AP article eulogized Tony Snow today. There it was, on my home page, when I clicked on the Internet and the Yahoo home page came up.
I am usually critical of Yahoo news for not having real news, but celebrity news, scandals, fashion, and articles of interest for today's demoralized popular culture instead. Now I am wishing that they would return to their popular puff pieces, rather than tearing down the best presidential press secretary of all time on the day following his death. They reprinted this eulogy, turned smear piece from the AP, which has become a propaganda machine for the far left, just like MSNBC and Newsweek magazine.
The article started off as as any obituary would. It listed his accomplishments and career. They quoted President Bush's warm remarks, remembering his past secretary, who stepped down from his post about a year ago. Oddly, the article did not mention the family Snow left behind, a wife and three children. However, the article suddenly took a sharp turn to the left and bashed Snow as an uninformed, confrontational, show-boater. Snow was anything but those inaccurate charges. He was one of the most informed, humble and friendly journalists that I had ever heard. However, he would not allow unfounded attacks and smears to go unchallenged from the white house press corps or anyone else. This is probably why, the mainstream media and the AP had turned against him. They also used Snow's death as another opportunity to Bash President Bush. How classless of them to rip Snow apart on the day following his death.
Quotes from the AP article: "With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster's good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook — if not always a command of the facts — he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses."
"Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation."
"Although a star in conservative politics, as a commentator he had not always been on the president's side. He once called Bush "something of an embarrassment" in conservative circles and criticized what he called Bush's "lackluster" domestic policy."
I first became aware of Tony Snow about 15 years ago, when he was an occasional guest-host, filling in for a vacationing Rush Limbaugh. Although I tuned in to hear Rush, I was not disappointed when I heard Snow instead, I continued listening and I began to look forward to Snow's guest host appearances. In later years, I looked forward to seeing Snow on Fox news as a guest and a host on the Fox news channel.
When President Bush appointed Snow as his press secretary, I was thrilled that the white house finally had a surrogate that would not be afraid of holding the extremely liberally biased white house press corps at bay. Tony Snow did not let me down. When the press corps laid into Bush's policies with loaded and hateful questions, Snow always, politely, humorously and informatively, put them in their place. Snow exposed the liberal bias in the press and at the same time he clearly and accurately explained the president's policies.
In stark contrast, several weeks ago when journalist Tim Russert passed away, the entire media, press and TV, held a week long eulogy and praise-fest, as if Russert's life was the second coming of Christ. Russert was also a dedicated journalist who was also a stickler for the facts and a very likable fellow, just like Snow. Russert had a passion for his work and devoted himself to it, just like Snow. Both men were adored and admired by their wife and children. Both men were devoted to their family, faith and country. The only difference was that Russet leaned toward the left and Snow leaned toward the right.
I am outraged that the AP has taken this solemn occasion of a great newsman's death to perpetuate their dishonest criticism of anything or anyone conservative.
Here is a brief clip of one of the countless times that Snow faces a hostile press corps, and puts the reporter in his place and answers his question. Time has now proved that Snow's answer was correct, as the surge of troops in Iraq has been successful..
I am usually critical of Yahoo news for not having real news, but celebrity news, scandals, fashion, and articles of interest for today's demoralized popular culture instead. Now I am wishing that they would return to their popular puff pieces, rather than tearing down the best presidential press secretary of all time on the day following his death. They reprinted this eulogy, turned smear piece from the AP, which has become a propaganda machine for the far left, just like MSNBC and Newsweek magazine.
The article started off as as any obituary would. It listed his accomplishments and career. They quoted President Bush's warm remarks, remembering his past secretary, who stepped down from his post about a year ago. Oddly, the article did not mention the family Snow left behind, a wife and three children. However, the article suddenly took a sharp turn to the left and bashed Snow as an uninformed, confrontational, show-boater. Snow was anything but those inaccurate charges. He was one of the most informed, humble and friendly journalists that I had ever heard. However, he would not allow unfounded attacks and smears to go unchallenged from the white house press corps or anyone else. This is probably why, the mainstream media and the AP had turned against him. They also used Snow's death as another opportunity to Bash President Bush. How classless of them to rip Snow apart on the day following his death.
Quotes from the AP article: "With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster's good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook — if not always a command of the facts — he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses."
"Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation."
"Although a star in conservative politics, as a commentator he had not always been on the president's side. He once called Bush "something of an embarrassment" in conservative circles and criticized what he called Bush's "lackluster" domestic policy."
I first became aware of Tony Snow about 15 years ago, when he was an occasional guest-host, filling in for a vacationing Rush Limbaugh. Although I tuned in to hear Rush, I was not disappointed when I heard Snow instead, I continued listening and I began to look forward to Snow's guest host appearances. In later years, I looked forward to seeing Snow on Fox news as a guest and a host on the Fox news channel.
When President Bush appointed Snow as his press secretary, I was thrilled that the white house finally had a surrogate that would not be afraid of holding the extremely liberally biased white house press corps at bay. Tony Snow did not let me down. When the press corps laid into Bush's policies with loaded and hateful questions, Snow always, politely, humorously and informatively, put them in their place. Snow exposed the liberal bias in the press and at the same time he clearly and accurately explained the president's policies.
In stark contrast, several weeks ago when journalist Tim Russert passed away, the entire media, press and TV, held a week long eulogy and praise-fest, as if Russert's life was the second coming of Christ. Russert was also a dedicated journalist who was also a stickler for the facts and a very likable fellow, just like Snow. Russert had a passion for his work and devoted himself to it, just like Snow. Both men were adored and admired by their wife and children. Both men were devoted to their family, faith and country. The only difference was that Russet leaned toward the left and Snow leaned toward the right.
I am outraged that the AP has taken this solemn occasion of a great newsman's death to perpetuate their dishonest criticism of anything or anyone conservative.
Here is a brief clip of one of the countless times that Snow faces a hostile press corps, and puts the reporter in his place and answers his question. Time has now proved that Snow's answer was correct, as the surge of troops in Iraq has been successful..
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Women In The Workplace
Today I heard an audio clip of Barack Obama who said this before a cheering crowd: “When women still make just 77 cents for every dollar men make - black and Latina women even less - that doesn't just hurt women, it hurts families who find themselves with less income, and have to work even harder just to get by.” That statement made me very angry because it is deceptive, disingenuous, and just plain wrong on many levels.
First off, I would like to know, why do liberals confuse level of income, with the level of meaning in their lives? Next, I would like to know, why do liberal crowds always cheer when they are told that America is an unfair, mean place? Also, why are liberals always trying to achieve equality of outcomes, regardless of peoples choices and behaviors? But most importantly, I would like to discuss why Obama's statement is deceptive and disingenuous.
Obama's statement is deceptive for several reasons. That particular statistic does not compare women who work at the same type of jobs as the men that they are compared with. When you compare equal jobs, the disparity shrinks. When you include equal experience, it shrinks even more. That statistic also does not compare women who work the same number of hours as men. When you compensate for hours worked, the disparity shrinks even more. On average, women work 200 hours less per year when compared with men.
Many would say, women are discriminated against and forced to take lower paid jobs, such as receptionist or waitress. They claim that discrimination keeps women from holding high paying jobs because of a glass ceiling. Fortunately, in the US we are still given a free choice of what occupations we choose to peruse and we are also free to choose among a variety hours and times required to work at various jobs. It just so happens that women on average, choose to work at jobs that do not require as many hours to be worked annually. It is very deceptive and disingenuous to leave this fact out when quoting that statistic, yet I hear liberals constantly using that statistic unchallenged.
Another thing that Obama conveniently left out of his comment was that women, have similar, if not better education than men. Nobody is denying the fact that women have equal or better opportunities and higher education than men on average. Currently women make up 55% of all college enrollments. However, often women have more education but less experience than the males at the same jobs.
On jobs that I have held, I have always noticed that when there is a job opening, the manager always has a hard time finding a good person to fill the slot. As an auto mechanic, I worked on commission. The manager is always looking for someone who can work fast and with a minimum of mistakes or accidents. He is looking for someone who can get the most work done. Most managers would be looking for these qualities. But in commission work, they want to find the person that will make the most money for himself, because that person will be earning the most money for the company and keeping its customers happy. Since the customer never sees the mechanic it doesn't matter what he/she looks like, what race they are, what sex they are or how good their communication skills are. The manager is desperately looking for someone who can fix cars right the first time, and get it done quickly and safely.
I have worked in many repair shops and auto dealerships, but I have never worked alongside a female mechanic. However, women did work as service-writers, cashiers, in the parts department, in office jobs, and even as service managers. Out of all those job categories, the mechanics usually earned the most money (save some service managers). Do you think that auto dealerships discriminated against women by not allowing them to work as mechanics? I do not. I think that very few women choose to do the dirty, sweaty work required as an auto mechanic. Also, I think as a whole, women's innate talents, and desires do not lie in this area. Of course there are exceptions. And I have heard stories about very competent and happy women mechanics, but on the whole, women are not auto-mechanics because they choose not to work as auto mechanics, not because they are being discriminated against or relegated to lower positions at the auto dealerships. The free market determines how much each job category will pay depending upon how much money qualified and trained people are willing to do the work for, and the amount of supply viruses demand in the employment market.
Is it possible that many women choose not to work as many hours as men because they would rather have more time to spend raising their children, or doing other things? I believe that most women have an innate tendency toward child rearing, while most men have an innate tendency to be more competitive in their career. Most divorcées, and family courts also believe in this these innate tendencies. In most divorce settlements, the woman is usually awarded custody of the children, because she fights for it, and the judge usually agrees with the woman when awarding child custody. I do not hear Obama and liberals complaining about this disparity, because women are making these choices. So why do I hear them complaining when women choose to work less hours or choose less competitive careers?
Personally I believe that families would be better off, if women did not work while there are young children in their homes. Families would surly be better off if there was a full time mother and wife in the home. But we live in a free country, where women and men are free to individually choose how they will live their lives. We are free to choose how we divide our time between work, family and leisure. In today's day and age, many women choose a full time career. But some women also choose to be full time “stay-at-home-moms”, and others choose flexible jobs that will allow them more time at home. On the other hand, a vast majority of men choose to be full time breadwinners. As a result of “women's right to choose”, women, on average choose to earn 77 cents for each dollar that a man earns on average. Women have different priorities than men. As a result, many are not tied to a restrictive career path, they are free to leave the work force for years at a time.
Often, many women have a desire to “have it all”, a family and a meaningful, rewarding career. Unfortunately, in real life, compromises often have to be made, sometimes at the expense of the family, and sometimes at the expense of the career. In any case, it is today's women who are making these choices, not a sexist society who is trying to keep women down. I do not believe that in today's day and age, women are being held down in the work place.
I do not understand why liberals politicians are constantly trying to deceive the public about this. Why are liberal constituents so eager to celebrate anything that advances the premise that America is a mean and unfair country? Why do so few conservatives have the courage to hold Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other liberals, accountable for this disingenuous deception? I do not know the answer to these questions, but I do know that today's liberal culture prefers to believe in causes that makes them feel good, rather than perusing the truth. The biggest danger that America faces today, is putting emotion above reason and losing interest in the truth.
First off, I would like to know, why do liberals confuse level of income, with the level of meaning in their lives? Next, I would like to know, why do liberal crowds always cheer when they are told that America is an unfair, mean place? Also, why are liberals always trying to achieve equality of outcomes, regardless of peoples choices and behaviors? But most importantly, I would like to discuss why Obama's statement is deceptive and disingenuous.
Obama's statement is deceptive for several reasons. That particular statistic does not compare women who work at the same type of jobs as the men that they are compared with. When you compare equal jobs, the disparity shrinks. When you include equal experience, it shrinks even more. That statistic also does not compare women who work the same number of hours as men. When you compensate for hours worked, the disparity shrinks even more. On average, women work 200 hours less per year when compared with men.
Many would say, women are discriminated against and forced to take lower paid jobs, such as receptionist or waitress. They claim that discrimination keeps women from holding high paying jobs because of a glass ceiling. Fortunately, in the US we are still given a free choice of what occupations we choose to peruse and we are also free to choose among a variety hours and times required to work at various jobs. It just so happens that women on average, choose to work at jobs that do not require as many hours to be worked annually. It is very deceptive and disingenuous to leave this fact out when quoting that statistic, yet I hear liberals constantly using that statistic unchallenged.
Another thing that Obama conveniently left out of his comment was that women, have similar, if not better education than men. Nobody is denying the fact that women have equal or better opportunities and higher education than men on average. Currently women make up 55% of all college enrollments. However, often women have more education but less experience than the males at the same jobs.
On jobs that I have held, I have always noticed that when there is a job opening, the manager always has a hard time finding a good person to fill the slot. As an auto mechanic, I worked on commission. The manager is always looking for someone who can work fast and with a minimum of mistakes or accidents. He is looking for someone who can get the most work done. Most managers would be looking for these qualities. But in commission work, they want to find the person that will make the most money for himself, because that person will be earning the most money for the company and keeping its customers happy. Since the customer never sees the mechanic it doesn't matter what he/she looks like, what race they are, what sex they are or how good their communication skills are. The manager is desperately looking for someone who can fix cars right the first time, and get it done quickly and safely.
I have worked in many repair shops and auto dealerships, but I have never worked alongside a female mechanic. However, women did work as service-writers, cashiers, in the parts department, in office jobs, and even as service managers. Out of all those job categories, the mechanics usually earned the most money (save some service managers). Do you think that auto dealerships discriminated against women by not allowing them to work as mechanics? I do not. I think that very few women choose to do the dirty, sweaty work required as an auto mechanic. Also, I think as a whole, women's innate talents, and desires do not lie in this area. Of course there are exceptions. And I have heard stories about very competent and happy women mechanics, but on the whole, women are not auto-mechanics because they choose not to work as auto mechanics, not because they are being discriminated against or relegated to lower positions at the auto dealerships. The free market determines how much each job category will pay depending upon how much money qualified and trained people are willing to do the work for, and the amount of supply viruses demand in the employment market.
Is it possible that many women choose not to work as many hours as men because they would rather have more time to spend raising their children, or doing other things? I believe that most women have an innate tendency toward child rearing, while most men have an innate tendency to be more competitive in their career. Most divorcées, and family courts also believe in this these innate tendencies. In most divorce settlements, the woman is usually awarded custody of the children, because she fights for it, and the judge usually agrees with the woman when awarding child custody. I do not hear Obama and liberals complaining about this disparity, because women are making these choices. So why do I hear them complaining when women choose to work less hours or choose less competitive careers?
Personally I believe that families would be better off, if women did not work while there are young children in their homes. Families would surly be better off if there was a full time mother and wife in the home. But we live in a free country, where women and men are free to individually choose how they will live their lives. We are free to choose how we divide our time between work, family and leisure. In today's day and age, many women choose a full time career. But some women also choose to be full time “stay-at-home-moms”, and others choose flexible jobs that will allow them more time at home. On the other hand, a vast majority of men choose to be full time breadwinners. As a result of “women's right to choose”, women, on average choose to earn 77 cents for each dollar that a man earns on average. Women have different priorities than men. As a result, many are not tied to a restrictive career path, they are free to leave the work force for years at a time.
Often, many women have a desire to “have it all”, a family and a meaningful, rewarding career. Unfortunately, in real life, compromises often have to be made, sometimes at the expense of the family, and sometimes at the expense of the career. In any case, it is today's women who are making these choices, not a sexist society who is trying to keep women down. I do not believe that in today's day and age, women are being held down in the work place.
I do not understand why liberals politicians are constantly trying to deceive the public about this. Why are liberal constituents so eager to celebrate anything that advances the premise that America is a mean and unfair country? Why do so few conservatives have the courage to hold Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other liberals, accountable for this disingenuous deception? I do not know the answer to these questions, but I do know that today's liberal culture prefers to believe in causes that makes them feel good, rather than perusing the truth. The biggest danger that America faces today, is putting emotion above reason and losing interest in the truth.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Why Are Our Politicians Leading Us To Hell-in-a-Hand-basket?
Why are our politicians unresponsive to the public? How come they are constantly trying to convince us that they will solve the same old problems that they themselves have caused? Does it seem like this country is headed in the wrong direction? Why is this happening and what can we do? The answer is that our lawmakers are not being held accountable by the public. Today's culture considers it wrong to be judgemental if no laws are broken. America has lost its moral compass. The people who write the laws are experts at using the law to their advantage, especially if they are not held morally accountable.
Our politicians have found new ways to become corrupt while still working within the constraints of the law. For example, an alarming number of congressmen have family members who work for companies that benefit from legislation before their relative in Congress. For example, Congressman Murtha has a brother who sits on the board of directors for 10 different defense contractors. Congressman Murtha is the chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, and authorizes defense contracts that benefit his brothers firms. Murtha is one of the most outspoken anti-war congressmen in the Congress. This is the perfect cover for him to hide behind while he funnels hundreds of millions of dollars towards his brothers businesses that produce the machinery and weapons of war.
Also, as many as ten percent (some sources claim 25%) of congressmen have a family members being paid as a lobbyist by a company or country that benefits by pending legislation before congress. Congresswoman Barbara Boxer's husband's business, that involves trade with China, is booming. She is among the wealthiest people in the congress due to her husband's business dealings and favorable trade policies that the congress has approved with China.
Another legal form of corruption that high government officials engage in, is working as lobbyists themselves after leaving government office. Former secretary of state, Madeline Albright, now works as a registered foreign agent, as a lobbyist for the United Arab Emeritus. President Clinton has been hired to give speeches for the UAE. He was payed fees of over a million dollars per speech by the UAE. Are Clinton's words actually worth that much or is the UAE actually buying his influence?
Another outrageous congressman is William Jefferson. Congressman Jefferson was the target of a two year investigation which culminated when investigators found 90,000 in cash in the congressman's home freezer. The congressman was charged last year with racketeering, soliciting bribes for himself and his family, fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. His brother and sister were also indicted on related charges. The congressman is fighting the case, claiming that he was set up, and that the subsequent search of his congressional office was illegal. Congressman Jefferson has remained in office for nearly two years since he was in indicted on these charges and is planning to run for re-election in November. Congressman Jefferson has used technicalities in the law to have evidence suppressed, and has a good chance of beating his case legally. In my wildest imagination, I can not come up with a rational explanation for Jefferson to have 90,000 dollars hidden in his home freezer. Especially since two men have already been convicted of bribing the Congressman.
Why is this man still in office? How can this man run for re-election. The sad truth is that he will probably win the election and hold on to his congressional seat in November because of a practice called gerrymandering and public apathy. Gerrymandering is the practice of mapping out congressional districts so that they are either predominantly democratic or predominantly republican. This practice usually insures that an incumbent candidate wins in congressional elections. Both parties support the practice of gerrymandering because it helps the lawmakers retain their seat regardless of the general approval of the voters. Since democrats usually vote for democrats, Jefferson will probably get re-elected because his congressional district has been mapped out in such a way that the residents are probably 90% democrat. Gerrymandering is clearly an unfair, unethical practice, but it remains in practice because it benefits the people who write the laws.
What is most astounding to me, is that there is no outrage from the public about these obvious cases of conflict of interest that impact on our nations national security and political system. The public is either asleep at the switch(not paying attention) or have no moral compass of their own and are unable to distinguish right from wrong. Or worse than that, they have been taught that passing judgment is wrong. If no laws were broken, who are they to judge. But these are the people who write the laws, they must be held accountable to the universal spiritual principles that our country was founded upon. Few people are holding our lawmakers accountable and the vast majority of the public just does not care. Just like the law-makers are ignoring their moral obligation to serve the public and carry out their duties in a fair, honorable and selfless manner, the public is ignoring their moral obligation by not holding them accountable to high moral and ethical standards.
Where is the outrage. The above issues are much more important to the country than holding a congressional investigation on baseball players who take steroids. But the steroid investigation and most of the highly publicized business of this congress, serves as a distraction. Why am I the only one who sees through all of these obvious distractions? Why am I the only one who is outraged by the obvious conflict of interest of many of our top lawmakers? The reason is that much today's popular culture has been so confused, they no longer can tell right from wrong, good from evil, moral from immoral. They are completely incapable of holding our leaders' feet to the fire because they have been taught that all forms of moral restraint is wrong. They have given our political leaders "Carte Blanche" when in comes to immoral and unethical behavior as long as they are convinced that their intentions are good and that they really care about them.
This first became clear to me when President Clinton was disbarred and impeached for lying in a court disposition and suborning perjury. This case involved Clinton having sex with a 21 year old intern (Monica Lewinsky) while Clinton was at work as president in the oval office. Clinton then lied in a court disposition about the incident, lied in a TV announcement specifically about the incident and urged Miss Lewinsky to lie in court. Clinton was not held accountable by the US Senate and was allowed to complete his term in office. Clinton left office the following year with an extremely high approval rating. This is when I first realized that our nation was in trouble. Not because of what the president did, but because the public and the Senate were apathetic, and did not hold him accountable. They justified his behavior and subsequent cover-up by saying that it was no big deal, he just lied about sex.
Today's politicians are not held accountable by the public. In today's popular culture, our moral standards have become blurred and watered down. In a world where boys are dressing like girls, girls are dressing like hookers, suburban teenagers emulate the gang-banging hoodlums of the ghettos, and obscene rap music is on the top ten hits list, how are we able to judge our legislators and hold them accountable? Our culture is too interested in demanding freedom of expression or speaking out for causes that they know little about. They rally behind popular catch phrases that make them feel good, like save the whales, save the planet, 'make love, not war', down with greedy corporations, no war for oil, 'Bush lied, people died', no tax cuts for the rich, AIDS awareness, gay pride, sexual freedom, freedom of expression, etc. Unfortunately they have little understanding of the importance of character and integrity or the unintended consequences of the causes that they support. They can't see how they are being used by the very politicians and special interests that they think are on their side. There are fewer and fewer people that are informed enough or motivated enough to hold our politicians accountable.
Human nature dictates that if nobody is holding you accountable, you will probably do something selfish, greedy and wrong if you are not restrained by moral and ethical standards. Once upon a time, most of us went to church on Sunday to remind us of this aspect of human nature. Today, Christianity is mocked and ridiculed because it is considered judgmental and restrictive. While everyone is having a good time letting it all hang out, the politicians and their associates are taking advantage of the public's gullibility. As they rake it all in, they recklessly destroy the future of a nation that took over two hundred years of hard work, perseverance and moral restraint to build. If we don't hold our politicians ethically and morally accountable, they will lead us all to hell-in-a-hand-basket.
Our politicians have found new ways to become corrupt while still working within the constraints of the law. For example, an alarming number of congressmen have family members who work for companies that benefit from legislation before their relative in Congress. For example, Congressman Murtha has a brother who sits on the board of directors for 10 different defense contractors. Congressman Murtha is the chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, and authorizes defense contracts that benefit his brothers firms. Murtha is one of the most outspoken anti-war congressmen in the Congress. This is the perfect cover for him to hide behind while he funnels hundreds of millions of dollars towards his brothers businesses that produce the machinery and weapons of war.
Also, as many as ten percent (some sources claim 25%) of congressmen have a family members being paid as a lobbyist by a company or country that benefits by pending legislation before congress. Congresswoman Barbara Boxer's husband's business, that involves trade with China, is booming. She is among the wealthiest people in the congress due to her husband's business dealings and favorable trade policies that the congress has approved with China.
Another legal form of corruption that high government officials engage in, is working as lobbyists themselves after leaving government office. Former secretary of state, Madeline Albright, now works as a registered foreign agent, as a lobbyist for the United Arab Emeritus. President Clinton has been hired to give speeches for the UAE. He was payed fees of over a million dollars per speech by the UAE. Are Clinton's words actually worth that much or is the UAE actually buying his influence?
Another outrageous congressman is William Jefferson. Congressman Jefferson was the target of a two year investigation which culminated when investigators found 90,000 in cash in the congressman's home freezer. The congressman was charged last year with racketeering, soliciting bribes for himself and his family, fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. His brother and sister were also indicted on related charges. The congressman is fighting the case, claiming that he was set up, and that the subsequent search of his congressional office was illegal. Congressman Jefferson has remained in office for nearly two years since he was in indicted on these charges and is planning to run for re-election in November. Congressman Jefferson has used technicalities in the law to have evidence suppressed, and has a good chance of beating his case legally. In my wildest imagination, I can not come up with a rational explanation for Jefferson to have 90,000 dollars hidden in his home freezer. Especially since two men have already been convicted of bribing the Congressman.
Why is this man still in office? How can this man run for re-election. The sad truth is that he will probably win the election and hold on to his congressional seat in November because of a practice called gerrymandering and public apathy. Gerrymandering is the practice of mapping out congressional districts so that they are either predominantly democratic or predominantly republican. This practice usually insures that an incumbent candidate wins in congressional elections. Both parties support the practice of gerrymandering because it helps the lawmakers retain their seat regardless of the general approval of the voters. Since democrats usually vote for democrats, Jefferson will probably get re-elected because his congressional district has been mapped out in such a way that the residents are probably 90% democrat. Gerrymandering is clearly an unfair, unethical practice, but it remains in practice because it benefits the people who write the laws.
What is most astounding to me, is that there is no outrage from the public about these obvious cases of conflict of interest that impact on our nations national security and political system. The public is either asleep at the switch(not paying attention) or have no moral compass of their own and are unable to distinguish right from wrong. Or worse than that, they have been taught that passing judgment is wrong. If no laws were broken, who are they to judge. But these are the people who write the laws, they must be held accountable to the universal spiritual principles that our country was founded upon. Few people are holding our lawmakers accountable and the vast majority of the public just does not care. Just like the law-makers are ignoring their moral obligation to serve the public and carry out their duties in a fair, honorable and selfless manner, the public is ignoring their moral obligation by not holding them accountable to high moral and ethical standards.
Where is the outrage. The above issues are much more important to the country than holding a congressional investigation on baseball players who take steroids. But the steroid investigation and most of the highly publicized business of this congress, serves as a distraction. Why am I the only one who sees through all of these obvious distractions? Why am I the only one who is outraged by the obvious conflict of interest of many of our top lawmakers? The reason is that much today's popular culture has been so confused, they no longer can tell right from wrong, good from evil, moral from immoral. They are completely incapable of holding our leaders' feet to the fire because they have been taught that all forms of moral restraint is wrong. They have given our political leaders "Carte Blanche" when in comes to immoral and unethical behavior as long as they are convinced that their intentions are good and that they really care about them.
This first became clear to me when President Clinton was disbarred and impeached for lying in a court disposition and suborning perjury. This case involved Clinton having sex with a 21 year old intern (Monica Lewinsky) while Clinton was at work as president in the oval office. Clinton then lied in a court disposition about the incident, lied in a TV announcement specifically about the incident and urged Miss Lewinsky to lie in court. Clinton was not held accountable by the US Senate and was allowed to complete his term in office. Clinton left office the following year with an extremely high approval rating. This is when I first realized that our nation was in trouble. Not because of what the president did, but because the public and the Senate were apathetic, and did not hold him accountable. They justified his behavior and subsequent cover-up by saying that it was no big deal, he just lied about sex.
Today's politicians are not held accountable by the public. In today's popular culture, our moral standards have become blurred and watered down. In a world where boys are dressing like girls, girls are dressing like hookers, suburban teenagers emulate the gang-banging hoodlums of the ghettos, and obscene rap music is on the top ten hits list, how are we able to judge our legislators and hold them accountable? Our culture is too interested in demanding freedom of expression or speaking out for causes that they know little about. They rally behind popular catch phrases that make them feel good, like save the whales, save the planet, 'make love, not war', down with greedy corporations, no war for oil, 'Bush lied, people died', no tax cuts for the rich, AIDS awareness, gay pride, sexual freedom, freedom of expression, etc. Unfortunately they have little understanding of the importance of character and integrity or the unintended consequences of the causes that they support. They can't see how they are being used by the very politicians and special interests that they think are on their side. There are fewer and fewer people that are informed enough or motivated enough to hold our politicians accountable.
Human nature dictates that if nobody is holding you accountable, you will probably do something selfish, greedy and wrong if you are not restrained by moral and ethical standards. Once upon a time, most of us went to church on Sunday to remind us of this aspect of human nature. Today, Christianity is mocked and ridiculed because it is considered judgmental and restrictive. While everyone is having a good time letting it all hang out, the politicians and their associates are taking advantage of the public's gullibility. As they rake it all in, they recklessly destroy the future of a nation that took over two hundred years of hard work, perseverance and moral restraint to build. If we don't hold our politicians ethically and morally accountable, they will lead us all to hell-in-a-hand-basket.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
The Global Warming Myth Revisited
I believe that a concerted effort is being made to deceive the American public on the issue of man-made global warming. I am not saying that a conspiracy exists between Al Gore, the teachers union, the university professors, the mainstream media, the politicians, the Hollywood elite, and many private corporations. What I am saying is that all of these groups have their own reasons to further the deception of man-made global warming. Most people have a propensity for blaming human activity on the current global climate cycles and like to feel that they are part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. We all like to think of ourselves as the good-guys, and by getting on the man-made global warming bandwagon, we can prove that we are good people because we care about the planet. Some see an opportunity to make money or gain power and popularity. What could be a more worthy and noble cause? To doubt them or debate them on the science is often taken as a personal insult, as if you were calling their character into question.
I can simply prove my point by using Al Gore's words. On the subject of man made global warming Al Gore said: "the science is settled, the debate is over." He also said "global warming is the number one moral issue of our time." The debate is over as far as Al Gore is concerned because he does not wish to participate in debate. When he is asked about specific opposing studies, he attacks the character of the group making the studies and calls the source of their funding into question. Recently Al Gore said people who do not believe that global warming is real and caused by man-made Co2 emissions, are a tiny minority, and can be compared with those who still think the Earth is flat or that the moon landing was staged. In effect he stifles all opposing views. In fact, there is a petition signed by 31,000 scientists, who say that the debate is not over and are trying to make their views heard. Click here to read more about this petition.
Al Gore is just one man. Where the greater deception lies is that the news media, the government, the public schools, the universities and the arts all perpetuate this myth. Many business also take advantage. Such as motels that have placards in the rooms that say “Save the planet”, and then instruct you how to save energy by requesting that your towels and bedding not be changed daily. Polls show that the number one reason why people buy the hybrid Toyota Prius, is not to reduce global warming, it's not to save gas. The number one reason for Prius ownership is to make a statement that shows I care about the planet. Up until recently when fuel prices skyrocketed, the high cost of buying a hybrid automobile did not justify the fuel savings. People bought Priuses as a status symbol to prove that they were willing to spend extra money to help fight global warming. This whole man made global warming myth is the perfect ruse for altruists. What better moral cause that saving the planet with all it's inhabitants. This ruse is sure to bring much self esteem, self worth to millions of unsuspecting altruists.
To me it is clear that the science is not settled. This is a scam, a deception and/or a manipulation, not a moral issue. The global warming myth is being perpetuated like a well run publicity campaign, based on emotion rather than reason. I am constantly seeing images of drowning polar bears on melting arctic ice. The truth is that out of the dozen populations of polar bears worldwide, only two populations are declining in number. The rest are either stable or increasing in size. The worldwide polar bear population stands at 25,000 which is up from a meager population of 5,000 in the early 1970's. The media is also showing images of melting ice in the arctic. What they are failing to mention is that the icepack in the antarctic is at record high levels. The truth is that our climate is a dynamic system that is constantly changing.
Few people remember the "great American dust-bowl" of the 1930s. The highest temperatures on record occurred during the 30s. The massive heatwave and drought lasted a decade and rendered most of the farmland in 5 mid-west states unusable. There were storms of huge black dust clouds, made up of dried up soil, that blew hundreds of miles and turned the sky black in the heat of a cloudless day. This ten year heatwave and drought caused over a million people to migrate to other parts of the country in order to survive and find work. All of this was on the heals of the great depression. This climate disaster exacerbated the economic slowdown as food prices skyrocketed. This all happened during the 1930's, before the bulk of so-called greenhouse gasses entered our atmosphere. This climate catastrophe of the 30's was never attributed to man-made global warming, however, in today's political climate, each and every weather anomaly is blamed on man-made global warming.
I've read dozens of articles on both sides of the global warming debate (a debate that doesn't exist according to Al Gore). Click here to link to a page that directs you to dozens of scientific articles that question the status quo of global warming.
I will now relate a few of my own common sense observations which are irrefutable in my opinion. I may be wrong, but it is certainly worth discussion and study. To say the science is settled is an outright lie. The arguments that I make are mostly based on reason, experience and common sense. For example, plants need co2 in order to survive and produce oxygen and food. Higher co2 levels and higher temperatures would result in more plants and more food and more oxygen. Thus co2 is good for humanity, it is not a pollutant. Another point I make is that the global climate has always been in flux, it has always been changing, long before man inhabited this planet. Ice ages and warm periods have always come and gone throughout geological history. The Earth's climate has never been fixed. Another point that I make is that co2 is merely a trace gas at 380 PPM in the atmosphere. Water vapor is much more abundant in the atmosphere and has a much larger effect as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor also "self regulates" the earths temperature because when the temperature gets hotter, more water evaporates, and this produces more clouds which reflects the sun and cools the Earth. So in effect water vapor is a greenhouse gas unless it is in the form of clouds, then it reflects the sun and has a cooling effect. Another thing that I discovered is that co2 is also dissolved in the oceans just like in soda pop. When the ocean temperature rises, co2 is released from the ocean into the atmosphere. This may explain why the records show that global temperature rise, always precedes the increase in co2 in the atmosphere. Articles that I have recently read reiterate these conclusions that I have come to on my own using reason, logic and common sense. Not to mention the fact that Al Gore keeps insisting that the science is proved and the debate is over and that this is the number one moral issue of our time.
If global warming is such a serious threat that everyone knows is true, why do many Hollywood celebrities and wealthy people live on oceanfront property or near the ocean. According to Al Gore's documentary, sea levels are expected to rise and coastal flooding is imminent. In a time of falling real estate prices nationwide, why is expensive oceanfront property increasing in value?
All I am trying to say in this modest article is that the debate is not over, but it is being suppressed. What if Gore is wrong and we are actually entering a period of global cooling. Man's intervention, in an attempt to stave off global warming, could exacerbate the problem if global cooling was happening. During the 1970's a consensus of scientists published articles that stated global cooling was happening, and we were on the verge of the next ice-age. Global cooling would be much more harmful to life than global warming. Global cooling would reduce plant life which would lead to famines worldwide, not to mention decreased livable land mass.
Environmentalists give us meager humans too much credit. Human activity is insignificant when compared with the awesome powers of mother nature. The Earth's climate changes in natural cycles due to solar activity, magnetic fields, changing planetary orbits, volcanic activity, collisions with objects from space and other causes beyond human control and understanding. The Earth's climate has been in a constant state of flux for billions of years and there is little to indicate that these cycles are influenced by human activity. Scientists have also determined that global warming is currently also occurring on Mars, the moons of Jupiter and Pluto. Surely humans have no influence in these remote places.
All I am asking is: Why are school children and university students being taught that man-made global warming is a fact when this is just a theory? This is only one of the many areas where today's youth are being deceived and manipulated into believing things that are politically correct, but have not been proven to be true.
On a lighter note, click on the video below to hear a parity of John Lennon's song "Imagine(there's no global warming)".
I can simply prove my point by using Al Gore's words. On the subject of man made global warming Al Gore said: "the science is settled, the debate is over." He also said "global warming is the number one moral issue of our time." The debate is over as far as Al Gore is concerned because he does not wish to participate in debate. When he is asked about specific opposing studies, he attacks the character of the group making the studies and calls the source of their funding into question. Recently Al Gore said people who do not believe that global warming is real and caused by man-made Co2 emissions, are a tiny minority, and can be compared with those who still think the Earth is flat or that the moon landing was staged. In effect he stifles all opposing views. In fact, there is a petition signed by 31,000 scientists, who say that the debate is not over and are trying to make their views heard. Click here to read more about this petition.
Al Gore is just one man. Where the greater deception lies is that the news media, the government, the public schools, the universities and the arts all perpetuate this myth. Many business also take advantage. Such as motels that have placards in the rooms that say “Save the planet”, and then instruct you how to save energy by requesting that your towels and bedding not be changed daily. Polls show that the number one reason why people buy the hybrid Toyota Prius, is not to reduce global warming, it's not to save gas. The number one reason for Prius ownership is to make a statement that shows I care about the planet. Up until recently when fuel prices skyrocketed, the high cost of buying a hybrid automobile did not justify the fuel savings. People bought Priuses as a status symbol to prove that they were willing to spend extra money to help fight global warming. This whole man made global warming myth is the perfect ruse for altruists. What better moral cause that saving the planet with all it's inhabitants. This ruse is sure to bring much self esteem, self worth to millions of unsuspecting altruists.
To me it is clear that the science is not settled. This is a scam, a deception and/or a manipulation, not a moral issue. The global warming myth is being perpetuated like a well run publicity campaign, based on emotion rather than reason. I am constantly seeing images of drowning polar bears on melting arctic ice. The truth is that out of the dozen populations of polar bears worldwide, only two populations are declining in number. The rest are either stable or increasing in size. The worldwide polar bear population stands at 25,000 which is up from a meager population of 5,000 in the early 1970's. The media is also showing images of melting ice in the arctic. What they are failing to mention is that the icepack in the antarctic is at record high levels. The truth is that our climate is a dynamic system that is constantly changing.
Few people remember the "great American dust-bowl" of the 1930s. The highest temperatures on record occurred during the 30s. The massive heatwave and drought lasted a decade and rendered most of the farmland in 5 mid-west states unusable. There were storms of huge black dust clouds, made up of dried up soil, that blew hundreds of miles and turned the sky black in the heat of a cloudless day. This ten year heatwave and drought caused over a million people to migrate to other parts of the country in order to survive and find work. All of this was on the heals of the great depression. This climate disaster exacerbated the economic slowdown as food prices skyrocketed. This all happened during the 1930's, before the bulk of so-called greenhouse gasses entered our atmosphere. This climate catastrophe of the 30's was never attributed to man-made global warming, however, in today's political climate, each and every weather anomaly is blamed on man-made global warming.
I've read dozens of articles on both sides of the global warming debate (a debate that doesn't exist according to Al Gore). Click here to link to a page that directs you to dozens of scientific articles that question the status quo of global warming.
I will now relate a few of my own common sense observations which are irrefutable in my opinion. I may be wrong, but it is certainly worth discussion and study. To say the science is settled is an outright lie. The arguments that I make are mostly based on reason, experience and common sense. For example, plants need co2 in order to survive and produce oxygen and food. Higher co2 levels and higher temperatures would result in more plants and more food and more oxygen. Thus co2 is good for humanity, it is not a pollutant. Another point I make is that the global climate has always been in flux, it has always been changing, long before man inhabited this planet. Ice ages and warm periods have always come and gone throughout geological history. The Earth's climate has never been fixed. Another point that I make is that co2 is merely a trace gas at 380 PPM in the atmosphere. Water vapor is much more abundant in the atmosphere and has a much larger effect as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor also "self regulates" the earths temperature because when the temperature gets hotter, more water evaporates, and this produces more clouds which reflects the sun and cools the Earth. So in effect water vapor is a greenhouse gas unless it is in the form of clouds, then it reflects the sun and has a cooling effect. Another thing that I discovered is that co2 is also dissolved in the oceans just like in soda pop. When the ocean temperature rises, co2 is released from the ocean into the atmosphere. This may explain why the records show that global temperature rise, always precedes the increase in co2 in the atmosphere. Articles that I have recently read reiterate these conclusions that I have come to on my own using reason, logic and common sense. Not to mention the fact that Al Gore keeps insisting that the science is proved and the debate is over and that this is the number one moral issue of our time.
If global warming is such a serious threat that everyone knows is true, why do many Hollywood celebrities and wealthy people live on oceanfront property or near the ocean. According to Al Gore's documentary, sea levels are expected to rise and coastal flooding is imminent. In a time of falling real estate prices nationwide, why is expensive oceanfront property increasing in value?
All I am trying to say in this modest article is that the debate is not over, but it is being suppressed. What if Gore is wrong and we are actually entering a period of global cooling. Man's intervention, in an attempt to stave off global warming, could exacerbate the problem if global cooling was happening. During the 1970's a consensus of scientists published articles that stated global cooling was happening, and we were on the verge of the next ice-age. Global cooling would be much more harmful to life than global warming. Global cooling would reduce plant life which would lead to famines worldwide, not to mention decreased livable land mass.
Environmentalists give us meager humans too much credit. Human activity is insignificant when compared with the awesome powers of mother nature. The Earth's climate changes in natural cycles due to solar activity, magnetic fields, changing planetary orbits, volcanic activity, collisions with objects from space and other causes beyond human control and understanding. The Earth's climate has been in a constant state of flux for billions of years and there is little to indicate that these cycles are influenced by human activity. Scientists have also determined that global warming is currently also occurring on Mars, the moons of Jupiter and Pluto. Surely humans have no influence in these remote places.
All I am asking is: Why are school children and university students being taught that man-made global warming is a fact when this is just a theory? This is only one of the many areas where today's youth are being deceived and manipulated into believing things that are politically correct, but have not been proven to be true.
On a lighter note, click on the video below to hear a parity of John Lennon's song "Imagine(there's no global warming)".
Friday, July 4, 2008
My Views On Homosexuality
First I would like to say that it is a deception to try to convince the public, including school children, that homosexually is a normal and positive behavior. It is not normal behavior. No parent wants their child to be a homosexual. When a parent finds out that their child is homosexual, even the most loving, open-minded parents are usually disappointed.
Many homosexuals feel some sort of resentment that they were cheated out of a normal life through no fault of their own. Often they over-react with "in your face" public displays of homosexuality, sado-masochistic displays, completely inappropriate behavior in "gay pride " parades and the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco. I find these public displays inappropriate and offensive.
Families are the foundation of a healthy society. In recent times we have been seeing the breakdown of the intact nuclear family due to teenage pregnancy, divorce, single parents, remarriage and blended families. By gays insisting on gay marriage, it only serves to dilute the importance of the intact family even more. It is clear that children do best on average when brought up in an intact natural family with both of their biological parents. The black population has a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate, the Hispanic community has a 35% rate and the white community has a 20% rate of out-of-wedlock births. The crime and poverty level of the children brought up in these homes is proportional to their family status. Children from families, with both a mother and father, do better. Their is no question that an intact family benefits children and thus the entire future of our society.
Nobody cares what homosexuals do in private, but most people feel that homosexuality is nothing to be proud of. It is an unfortunate condition, and I have sympathy for homosexuals. But flaunting and glamorizing this abnormal condition is disingenuous and sends the wrong signal that homosexuality is something that should be celebrated and embraced. Many teenagers who may have some propensity toward homosexuality are being encourage to experiment with it. That is wrong. They should be encouraged to get married, have children and keep their family together.
By in large, homosexuals are not discriminated against and make more money on average than straights do. For the most part, most homosexuals are law abiding productive citizens and stay out of trouble. Homosexuals are free to live their lives the way that they choose.
We are all dealt a different hand in the card game of life and we all have our challenges and strengths. Homosexuality is a challenge and should not be confused with a strength. To ask our children to celebrate, embrace and experiment with homosexuality is wrong. We should accept and tolerate homosexuality, but not celebrate and embrace it.
There are also many other far more abnormal, negative, harmful and destructive sexual attractions and behaviors. These behaviors include, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, desire to rape, and sexual addiction to prostitutes or child pornography. The unfortunate people afflicted with these abnormal sexual desires must not give in to their strong desires or they and their victims will suffer severe consequences. I am not equating these criminal behaviors to homosexuality. But these people are also powerless over their abnormal attractions through no fault of their own. They have my sympathy but not my approval. They cause horrible suffering and must be prevented from acting on their desires. The difference is that garden variety homosexuality is between consenting adults and is not criminal.
Gay activists claim that gay teenagers have a suicide rate four times higher than normal kids. They blame this on intolerance and bullying. The media, schools, and universities think that by normalizing homosexuality they will reduce bullying and thus reduce gay suicide rates. The truth is that all people with psychological disorders have high suicide rates. Homosexual activists have successfully lobbied mental health authorities to remove homosexuality form the list of mental disorders. However, I feel that homosexuality is a disorder, and health officials were bullied into changing its classification, just as the activists are now bullying the public to accept gay marriage.
The psychiatric profession is quite subjective. There are no blood tests, cultures, CT scans, ultrasounds or other diagnostic tests used to determine a disorder or to prescribe the proper treatment. Most diagnoses are opinions only and have no medical data to back them up. Psychiatric medications are often prescribed in a trial and error fashion. They rely on feedback from the patient to adjust dosages or change medications. The psychiatric community has changed the classification of homosexuality based on nothing more than opinion and pressure from activist groups.
The whole idea of gay marriage is put forth so that gays can prove that they are normal, just like everyone else. Unfortunately they are not in a very important and obvious way. A marriage between two men or two women will not produce any children. The whole point of marriage is to provide the best possible environment to raise children. This is why marriage is given tax benefits and children are tax deductions. Our tax codes are used to encourage behavior that is beneficial to our society, such as tax breaks for business development in enterprise zones(depressed communities), tax credits for solar and wind power, and tax benefits for families to raise our next generation of children.
In my opinion, the only time homosexuality is harmful, is when it is presented to children and the public, as a normal, acceptable lifestyle to be proud of, it is not. That is a deception put forth by today's homosexual activists, schools, universities, the arts and the mainstream media. They do this under the banner of diversity. All forms of diversity are not necessarily positive, normal and healthy. Today's popular culture is celebrating many forms of diversity that are negative, abnormal and unhealthy. Some examples are the gangster culture, teenage promiscuity, casual sex, rap music and satanism which mocks Christianity. In today's popular culture anything that is abnormal, weird, negative or wrong is considered cool. Homosexuality is actually being portrayed as cool by today's media and the arts. At the same time, the intact monogamous family is considered square. They are sending out the exact wrong message. By condemning the Boy Scouts, the military and the Catholic Church, and supporting gay marriage, gay activists seek to blur the line between what is healthy for our society, and what is destructive. Today's children are being so confused that they no longer can tell the difference between right and wrong, good from bad, strengths from weaknesses and normal from abnormal. It is no wonder that we are seeing our families, values, cultural strengths and society decay before our very eyes.
This is my heartfelt opinion and I believe that many good hearted straight people feel the same way.
Many homosexuals feel some sort of resentment that they were cheated out of a normal life through no fault of their own. Often they over-react with "in your face" public displays of homosexuality, sado-masochistic displays, completely inappropriate behavior in "gay pride " parades and the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco. I find these public displays inappropriate and offensive.
Families are the foundation of a healthy society. In recent times we have been seeing the breakdown of the intact nuclear family due to teenage pregnancy, divorce, single parents, remarriage and blended families. By gays insisting on gay marriage, it only serves to dilute the importance of the intact family even more. It is clear that children do best on average when brought up in an intact natural family with both of their biological parents. The black population has a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate, the Hispanic community has a 35% rate and the white community has a 20% rate of out-of-wedlock births. The crime and poverty level of the children brought up in these homes is proportional to their family status. Children from families, with both a mother and father, do better. Their is no question that an intact family benefits children and thus the entire future of our society.
Nobody cares what homosexuals do in private, but most people feel that homosexuality is nothing to be proud of. It is an unfortunate condition, and I have sympathy for homosexuals. But flaunting and glamorizing this abnormal condition is disingenuous and sends the wrong signal that homosexuality is something that should be celebrated and embraced. Many teenagers who may have some propensity toward homosexuality are being encourage to experiment with it. That is wrong. They should be encouraged to get married, have children and keep their family together.
By in large, homosexuals are not discriminated against and make more money on average than straights do. For the most part, most homosexuals are law abiding productive citizens and stay out of trouble. Homosexuals are free to live their lives the way that they choose.
We are all dealt a different hand in the card game of life and we all have our challenges and strengths. Homosexuality is a challenge and should not be confused with a strength. To ask our children to celebrate, embrace and experiment with homosexuality is wrong. We should accept and tolerate homosexuality, but not celebrate and embrace it.
There are also many other far more abnormal, negative, harmful and destructive sexual attractions and behaviors. These behaviors include, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, desire to rape, and sexual addiction to prostitutes or child pornography. The unfortunate people afflicted with these abnormal sexual desires must not give in to their strong desires or they and their victims will suffer severe consequences. I am not equating these criminal behaviors to homosexuality. But these people are also powerless over their abnormal attractions through no fault of their own. They have my sympathy but not my approval. They cause horrible suffering and must be prevented from acting on their desires. The difference is that garden variety homosexuality is between consenting adults and is not criminal.
Gay activists claim that gay teenagers have a suicide rate four times higher than normal kids. They blame this on intolerance and bullying. The media, schools, and universities think that by normalizing homosexuality they will reduce bullying and thus reduce gay suicide rates. The truth is that all people with psychological disorders have high suicide rates. Homosexual activists have successfully lobbied mental health authorities to remove homosexuality form the list of mental disorders. However, I feel that homosexuality is a disorder, and health officials were bullied into changing its classification, just as the activists are now bullying the public to accept gay marriage.
The psychiatric profession is quite subjective. There are no blood tests, cultures, CT scans, ultrasounds or other diagnostic tests used to determine a disorder or to prescribe the proper treatment. Most diagnoses are opinions only and have no medical data to back them up. Psychiatric medications are often prescribed in a trial and error fashion. They rely on feedback from the patient to adjust dosages or change medications. The psychiatric community has changed the classification of homosexuality based on nothing more than opinion and pressure from activist groups.
The whole idea of gay marriage is put forth so that gays can prove that they are normal, just like everyone else. Unfortunately they are not in a very important and obvious way. A marriage between two men or two women will not produce any children. The whole point of marriage is to provide the best possible environment to raise children. This is why marriage is given tax benefits and children are tax deductions. Our tax codes are used to encourage behavior that is beneficial to our society, such as tax breaks for business development in enterprise zones(depressed communities), tax credits for solar and wind power, and tax benefits for families to raise our next generation of children.
In my opinion, the only time homosexuality is harmful, is when it is presented to children and the public, as a normal, acceptable lifestyle to be proud of, it is not. That is a deception put forth by today's homosexual activists, schools, universities, the arts and the mainstream media. They do this under the banner of diversity. All forms of diversity are not necessarily positive, normal and healthy. Today's popular culture is celebrating many forms of diversity that are negative, abnormal and unhealthy. Some examples are the gangster culture, teenage promiscuity, casual sex, rap music and satanism which mocks Christianity. In today's popular culture anything that is abnormal, weird, negative or wrong is considered cool. Homosexuality is actually being portrayed as cool by today's media and the arts. At the same time, the intact monogamous family is considered square. They are sending out the exact wrong message. By condemning the Boy Scouts, the military and the Catholic Church, and supporting gay marriage, gay activists seek to blur the line between what is healthy for our society, and what is destructive. Today's children are being so confused that they no longer can tell the difference between right and wrong, good from bad, strengths from weaknesses and normal from abnormal. It is no wonder that we are seeing our families, values, cultural strengths and society decay before our very eyes.
This is my heartfelt opinion and I believe that many good hearted straight people feel the same way.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Remebering George Carlin
The famous comedian George Carlin passed away last week. I was never a fan of George Carlin and I didn't like his irreverence toward God and religion. Nor was I fond of his hippie appearance, his liberal views, and his vulgar language.
I blame Carlin for legitimizing foul language with his bit called "Seven Words That You Can Never Say On TV". This bit became famous when it was played on a New York radio station, and subsequently, the station was brought up on charges of "obscenity". Finally the case was decided by the US Supreme Court in 1978. Ever since that time, I have noticed that more and more foul language has crept into TV, the movies, music, cable and the popular culture. Even programs that do not specifically use bad words, use euphemisms for them such as friggin or biatch. When they choose to bleep out the bad words, they do it in such a way that you can still fully understand what word that they bleeped out. Sometimes they only bleep out a portion of the word and the explicit meaning is blatantly obvious. Anyhow, I always felt that this slippery slope toward allowing, condoning and glamorizing obscenity on the public airwaves, in music and in the popular culture, started with George Carlin.
Many people herald Carlin as a hero for being ahead of his time and breaking through cultural barriers. I look at him as someone who has encouraged, aided and abetted the decay of our society. Whenever I happened upon Carlin on TV, like an HBO special or something, I usually quickly changed the channel because I couldn't stand to hear is dirty language.
However, recently I have seen several interviews with top comedians and celebrity friends of Carlin, who remember and eulogize Carlin. They all say that he was the most brilliant comedian of all time. They played some of his work and I agree with them in many cases. Carlin could see and express what is obvious, but many people are to "politically correct" to admit. He wrote all his own work and delivered it with sincerity and passion because he believed in his material and spoke from his heart. In order for comedy to work, there must be an element of truth in it. Carlin brought this truth to the forefront and made it obvious for all to see.
Recently, I saw two of his short comedy bits and I agree wholeheartedly with these heartfelt ideas. I have often spoken those very same words myself. George Carlin has proven to me that we are all unique creatures with differing opinions and passions. No two people are alike. Many are very different in their religious and political views. But Carlin has proven to me that we all share some common beliefs, even with people who we are diametrically opposed to. It is unfortunate that Carlin's death and subsequent celebration of his work, is what has made this so crystal clear to me.
Below, I will print two links to some of Carlin's brilliant work that I agree with completely. These bits appear to be 10 to 15 years old and were truly ahead of their time. I hope that you will appreciate George Carlin's brilliance and honor his memory by taking the time to watch these two hilarious but true comedy bits.
(click either on the links or the embedded video to view the one of the greatest comedians of all time, George Carlin)
"Soft Language" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2gQCHztRAE
"Environmentalists and Global Warming" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbFD4NC60EA
I blame Carlin for legitimizing foul language with his bit called "Seven Words That You Can Never Say On TV". This bit became famous when it was played on a New York radio station, and subsequently, the station was brought up on charges of "obscenity". Finally the case was decided by the US Supreme Court in 1978. Ever since that time, I have noticed that more and more foul language has crept into TV, the movies, music, cable and the popular culture. Even programs that do not specifically use bad words, use euphemisms for them such as friggin or biatch. When they choose to bleep out the bad words, they do it in such a way that you can still fully understand what word that they bleeped out. Sometimes they only bleep out a portion of the word and the explicit meaning is blatantly obvious. Anyhow, I always felt that this slippery slope toward allowing, condoning and glamorizing obscenity on the public airwaves, in music and in the popular culture, started with George Carlin.
Many people herald Carlin as a hero for being ahead of his time and breaking through cultural barriers. I look at him as someone who has encouraged, aided and abetted the decay of our society. Whenever I happened upon Carlin on TV, like an HBO special or something, I usually quickly changed the channel because I couldn't stand to hear is dirty language.
However, recently I have seen several interviews with top comedians and celebrity friends of Carlin, who remember and eulogize Carlin. They all say that he was the most brilliant comedian of all time. They played some of his work and I agree with them in many cases. Carlin could see and express what is obvious, but many people are to "politically correct" to admit. He wrote all his own work and delivered it with sincerity and passion because he believed in his material and spoke from his heart. In order for comedy to work, there must be an element of truth in it. Carlin brought this truth to the forefront and made it obvious for all to see.
Recently, I saw two of his short comedy bits and I agree wholeheartedly with these heartfelt ideas. I have often spoken those very same words myself. George Carlin has proven to me that we are all unique creatures with differing opinions and passions. No two people are alike. Many are very different in their religious and political views. But Carlin has proven to me that we all share some common beliefs, even with people who we are diametrically opposed to. It is unfortunate that Carlin's death and subsequent celebration of his work, is what has made this so crystal clear to me.
Below, I will print two links to some of Carlin's brilliant work that I agree with completely. These bits appear to be 10 to 15 years old and were truly ahead of their time. I hope that you will appreciate George Carlin's brilliance and honor his memory by taking the time to watch these two hilarious but true comedy bits.
(click either on the links or the embedded video to view the one of the greatest comedians of all time, George Carlin)
"Soft Language" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2gQCHztRAE
"Environmentalists and Global Warming" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbFD4NC60EA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
