Al Gore says that anyone who doubts global warming is the equivalent of someone who still thinks the earth is flat. In his mind and the minds of all the "climate change" miniions, to disbelieve in the dogma of global warming is sheer heresy, if not outright stupidity. They speak of the scientific "consensus" and how gobal warming is now accepted by all scientists with an IQ higher than an ice cube.
Well, the earth may not be flat, but Al Gore's brainwaves certainly are. The consensus in the scientific community that Gore so often speaks of, upon closer inspection, has little merit. A medical researcher named Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte studied a total of 528 peer reveiwed papers concerning global warming published between 2004 and 2007. What he discovered blows glacier-sized holes into Al Gore's 'consensus." Of the 528 papers published by scientists, only 45% unequivocally endorsed the theory of global warming.For some reason, Al failed to mention this in his recent "60 Minutes" interview.
So if you are one of those skeptics who is unconvinced the world is coming to an overheated end, you are not alone. Despite what Al Gore tells you, you are in the company of many of the world's most astute scientific thinkers.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Saturday, April 26, 2008
CHILDREN OF THE CORN REVISISTED
I hate to say I told you so, but I TOLD YOU SO! Back in November 2007 I posted an article about the boondoggle and scam that is the ethanol program and how it presented a potential danger to our food supply. Well, the danger has already materialized.
In this country and around the world, food prices are skyrocketing and shortages have begun to appear on food shelves. Even in the United States, a staple like rice has started to be rationed by some major retailers.One of the causes of the price hikes and shortages is the ever-increasing price of oil. The second reason is the rush to produce biofuels. It is not too difficult to see why we have escalating food prices for basic commodities. It takes 400 pounds of corn to produce 25 gallons of ethanol. Right now, 30% of our corn is being used, not for food, but for ethanol production.Tons of corn that would be going to feed people is now being diverted away from the market. As a result, the law of supply and demand kicks in and prices go up. And because corn prices are so high, farmers are devoting more acreage to growing corn, causing the supply of other crops like wheat and soybeans to decrease, which in turn makes their prices increase. Senator John McCain called our ethanol program "highway robbery perpetrated on the American public by Congress."
Ethanol is a dubious alternative fuel for many reasons: It is expensive to produce; it costs more per gallon than gasoline; it gives less gas mileage than gasoline; it produces less horsepower than gasoline. In addition, we now know it is reeking havoc with our food supply.
This all boils down to one basic question. Do we want to raise crops to feed human beings, or do we want to raise crops to put in the gas tanks of our cars? Human deprivation and starvation is a mighty high price to pay for fuel.
In this country and around the world, food prices are skyrocketing and shortages have begun to appear on food shelves. Even in the United States, a staple like rice has started to be rationed by some major retailers.One of the causes of the price hikes and shortages is the ever-increasing price of oil. The second reason is the rush to produce biofuels. It is not too difficult to see why we have escalating food prices for basic commodities. It takes 400 pounds of corn to produce 25 gallons of ethanol. Right now, 30% of our corn is being used, not for food, but for ethanol production.Tons of corn that would be going to feed people is now being diverted away from the market. As a result, the law of supply and demand kicks in and prices go up. And because corn prices are so high, farmers are devoting more acreage to growing corn, causing the supply of other crops like wheat and soybeans to decrease, which in turn makes their prices increase. Senator John McCain called our ethanol program "highway robbery perpetrated on the American public by Congress."
Ethanol is a dubious alternative fuel for many reasons: It is expensive to produce; it costs more per gallon than gasoline; it gives less gas mileage than gasoline; it produces less horsepower than gasoline. In addition, we now know it is reeking havoc with our food supply.
This all boils down to one basic question. Do we want to raise crops to feed human beings, or do we want to raise crops to put in the gas tanks of our cars? Human deprivation and starvation is a mighty high price to pay for fuel.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
CAN OBAMA WIN PRESIDENCY?
Going into the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, Barack Obama is still the frontrunner for Democrat presidential candidate. When the feverish primary campaigning and debates began early in 2007, the pundits had all but sent out invitation to Hilllary Clinton's coronation.A substantial number of Americans didn't even know who the hell Barack Obama was. Now he's on the verge of running for president. The big question is: Should he get his party's nomination, can an African American be elected President of the United States in 2008?
Obama's main support has come from African Americans (no surprise) who have given him 95% of their votes.His second largest block of supports have been young people, particularly those of college age. But to win in November, he would require support from a much broader section of the electorate. That gives rise to a second question: How many white Americans are prepared to cast their presidential vote for a black man?
It is one thing to cast a vote for an African American in a primary contest; afterall, it doesn't put him in the White House; it merely makes him eligible for residency. It is quite another thing to cast a vote in a general election, where the votes do determine the next White House occupant. Given the history of this country, I truly believe that when it comes time to cast that vote, many white Americans will have second thoughts and serious misgivings about casting their vote for an African American.
The polls, in my opinion, will not give an accurate picture.Cowed by political correctness and a desire to avoid coming off like a racist and bigot, I believe many whites will tell pollsters that they would cast a vote for Obama. As a result, virtually all the polls will overestimate the strength of Obama's support among white voters. I am not suggesting that the vast majority of white Americans are racially biased and will cast their vote on the basis of skin color. I am saying that a signifigant number of whites will vote on that basis.
Of course there are many diverse factors and issues other than race that will influence a person's choice of candidate. What we can be sure of is race has been and will continue to be a major issue in the political life of America.
Obama's main support has come from African Americans (no surprise) who have given him 95% of their votes.His second largest block of supports have been young people, particularly those of college age. But to win in November, he would require support from a much broader section of the electorate. That gives rise to a second question: How many white Americans are prepared to cast their presidential vote for a black man?
It is one thing to cast a vote for an African American in a primary contest; afterall, it doesn't put him in the White House; it merely makes him eligible for residency. It is quite another thing to cast a vote in a general election, where the votes do determine the next White House occupant. Given the history of this country, I truly believe that when it comes time to cast that vote, many white Americans will have second thoughts and serious misgivings about casting their vote for an African American.
The polls, in my opinion, will not give an accurate picture.Cowed by political correctness and a desire to avoid coming off like a racist and bigot, I believe many whites will tell pollsters that they would cast a vote for Obama. As a result, virtually all the polls will overestimate the strength of Obama's support among white voters. I am not suggesting that the vast majority of white Americans are racially biased and will cast their vote on the basis of skin color. I am saying that a signifigant number of whites will vote on that basis.
Of course there are many diverse factors and issues other than race that will influence a person's choice of candidate. What we can be sure of is race has been and will continue to be a major issue in the political life of America.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
BOYCOTTING THE OLYMPICS
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi--among others--is urging President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in China this summer. There are also a number of people who say we should completely boycott the competition like we did in 1980. This is one of those extremely rare instances where I find myself in agreement with Speaker Pelosi. Given the recent incidents of violence against Tibet, along with China's generally abysmal track record of violating basic human rights, a Presidential boycott of the opening ceremonies would be the appropriate symbolic gesture to the Chinese government and the rest of the world. Given that we consider our country to be the bastion of liberty and human rights, it would appear inconsistent for the President to attend the ceremonies, and thereby indirectly paying tribute to this repressive Marxist regime.
What do we have to lose by not attending? Is President Bush afraid of offending the political leaders who brutalize and terrorize their own citizens? And what if they are offended? Are they going to stop trading with us, their number one buyer of Chinese goods? Are they going to turn off the flow of billions of our dollars into their country?
The next logical step would seem to be a complete boycott of the Olympics; however, to do so would be to interfere with the lives of thousands of American athletes. Olympians devote their lives to the competition. They spend years in hard work, intense training, pain and sacrifice all for the hope of basking in the Olympic spotlight of athletic glory. The government has no right to trounce on those dreams. It should be left to the individual conscience of each competitor to decide whether or not they will compete.
The root of the problem lies with the Olympic Committee. They should have never awarded the Games to a country that spits on human rights. Tens of thousands of ordinary Chinese have been ruthlessly uprooted from their homes for the sole purpose of constructing the necessary infrastructure for the Games. Their suffering and anquish rests not only on the shoulders of the Chinese government, but on the Olympic Committee as well.
The Olympics should be hosted only by countries whose governments recognize and respect the rights of their citizens. The Games are about celebrating and rewarding
individual human acheivement. To award the Games to a country like China is to denigrate the spirit that symolizes the best that human beings can be.
What do we have to lose by not attending? Is President Bush afraid of offending the political leaders who brutalize and terrorize their own citizens? And what if they are offended? Are they going to stop trading with us, their number one buyer of Chinese goods? Are they going to turn off the flow of billions of our dollars into their country?
The next logical step would seem to be a complete boycott of the Olympics; however, to do so would be to interfere with the lives of thousands of American athletes. Olympians devote their lives to the competition. They spend years in hard work, intense training, pain and sacrifice all for the hope of basking in the Olympic spotlight of athletic glory. The government has no right to trounce on those dreams. It should be left to the individual conscience of each competitor to decide whether or not they will compete.
The root of the problem lies with the Olympic Committee. They should have never awarded the Games to a country that spits on human rights. Tens of thousands of ordinary Chinese have been ruthlessly uprooted from their homes for the sole purpose of constructing the necessary infrastructure for the Games. Their suffering and anquish rests not only on the shoulders of the Chinese government, but on the Olympic Committee as well.
The Olympics should be hosted only by countries whose governments recognize and respect the rights of their citizens. The Games are about celebrating and rewarding
individual human acheivement. To award the Games to a country like China is to denigrate the spirit that symolizes the best that human beings can be.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
HOUR OF DARKNESS
On saturday, March 29, between the hours of 8pm to 9pm everybody on the planet was supposed to turn off their lights as a symbolic gesture in our fight against climate change and the destruction of our environment. I didn't turn off my lights, and judging from my drive through the neighborhood at that hour, neither did any of my neighbors. Either everyone was too engrossed reading War And Peace and didn't want to stop, or most folks aren't really ardent believers in global warming. Attempting to plunge us into darkness for an hour truly was an ironic act of symbolism, because radical environmentalists would love nothing more than to usher us into an era of darkness. It is the mindset of the Luddites, the flat-earthers, anti-intellectuals and those who despise the human race and would choose any insect or dweller of the ocean floor over the wellbeing of your son or daughter.
They rationalize their actions by saying that even if we can't prove that global warming is real beyond the shadow of scientific doubt, we need to take drastic measure now, just in case it is true. That is the strategy of shamans, witch doctors and other assorted mental deviants. Let us examine this premise in more concrete terms. Let us suppose you receive a physical from a doctor who then tells you that he believes you have bone cancer and that you should have both legs amputated. You ask him if he's positive in his diagnosis. He says he's not positive but he's pretty sure, and anyway, why take the chance? Would you submit to such drastic action on the basis of your doctor being "pretty sure" ? Of course you wouldn't. You would get a second and maybe third opinion before agreeing to have your legs cut off.
So why do we allow radical environmentalists to scare us into drastic actions on the basis of their being 'pretty sure" about the unproven theory of climate change? Instead of cutting off our legs, they want to turn off our lights, stop our cars and end every activity that enhances our survival and brings pleasure to the lives of human beings the world over.
I would bet that fifty thousand years ago there were people who attempted to snuff out the fires in the caves of Europe. Had they been allowed to do so, no one would have experienced the uplifting experience of reading War And Peace.
They rationalize their actions by saying that even if we can't prove that global warming is real beyond the shadow of scientific doubt, we need to take drastic measure now, just in case it is true. That is the strategy of shamans, witch doctors and other assorted mental deviants. Let us examine this premise in more concrete terms. Let us suppose you receive a physical from a doctor who then tells you that he believes you have bone cancer and that you should have both legs amputated. You ask him if he's positive in his diagnosis. He says he's not positive but he's pretty sure, and anyway, why take the chance? Would you submit to such drastic action on the basis of your doctor being "pretty sure" ? Of course you wouldn't. You would get a second and maybe third opinion before agreeing to have your legs cut off.
So why do we allow radical environmentalists to scare us into drastic actions on the basis of their being 'pretty sure" about the unproven theory of climate change? Instead of cutting off our legs, they want to turn off our lights, stop our cars and end every activity that enhances our survival and brings pleasure to the lives of human beings the world over.
I would bet that fifty thousand years ago there were people who attempted to snuff out the fires in the caves of Europe. Had they been allowed to do so, no one would have experienced the uplifting experience of reading War And Peace.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
RANDOM RAILS
Hillary has come back from the dead with wins in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island. I get a sense that white and Hispanic middle Americans are having second thoughts about electing a candidate of African American descent. It may not be right or noble, but it is a part of human nature, particularly given race relations in this country over two centuries...
So the Russians have elected a new president. Can anyone seriously believe this will change the course of that country? What the Russian people actually elected was a form of alien body snatching. Putin took over the body of another middleaged Russian, and although the face and voice may be different, it is still Vladimir Putin who is running Mother Russia...
Could this be where the American nanny state is leading us? British newlyweds attempted to emigrate to New Zealand. The New Zealand oficials said the young man could stay in their country, but they would not permit the young bride to enter. Why not, you ask? Because she was considered to be too overweight, and the New Zealand nannies said she would present a strain and drain on their healthcare system. You just wait until the US liberal do-gooders mandate scales at the entrance of all restaurants. Exceed your desirable body weight and you will be barred from admittance. Big government advocates in this country need to consume a huge steaming bowl of leave-me-the-hell-alone!
So the Russians have elected a new president. Can anyone seriously believe this will change the course of that country? What the Russian people actually elected was a form of alien body snatching. Putin took over the body of another middleaged Russian, and although the face and voice may be different, it is still Vladimir Putin who is running Mother Russia...
Could this be where the American nanny state is leading us? British newlyweds attempted to emigrate to New Zealand. The New Zealand oficials said the young man could stay in their country, but they would not permit the young bride to enter. Why not, you ask? Because she was considered to be too overweight, and the New Zealand nannies said she would present a strain and drain on their healthcare system. You just wait until the US liberal do-gooders mandate scales at the entrance of all restaurants. Exceed your desirable body weight and you will be barred from admittance. Big government advocates in this country need to consume a huge steaming bowl of leave-me-the-hell-alone!
WE'RE BAAAAACK
There haven't been any recent posts because my lovely wife and I took a 7 day Caribbean cruise on Freedom of the Seas. Absolutely delightful. What made this cruise extra special was the fact that we shared it with my son Craig, his lovely wife Amy, and our 2 beautiful granddaughters, Lillian Eve and Camille Grace. Those are memories we will savour for the rest of our days. Thanks, guys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)