Tuesday Night Open Mic for August 31, 2010

Tuesday night has again crept up on me. I offer some more good articles for discussion this week, including one sent to me by a friend. I included it because it really did kind of speak directly to how I was feeling about Beck’s rally this last weekend. It is the first article below, so thanks for sending that over. Elsewhere we have UCLA firing a scientist because his scientific results didn’t match their political opinions, the possibility that the Republican party could embrace gay rights, and absolute impotency of the federal regulatory agency that always lets us down, the SEC. I will be posting a guest commentary on Thursday night but will be largely unavailable this weekend, as my sister is getting married. JAC, if you could bring the topic forward that I mentioned would be good for open mic, I would appreciate it greatly. Still taking applications for regular contributors to the site as well! Enjoy your Tuesday everyone. I will be weighing in all day when possible.


  1. USWeapon Topic #1


    I tried to keep up on today’s festivities at the Lincoln Memorial, but as the dust settles, I find myself confused.

    For a year and a half, we’ve seen rallies and town-hall shouting and attack ads and Fox News special reports. But I still haven’t the foggiest idea what these folks actually want, other than to see like-minded Republicans winning elections. To be sure, I admire their passion, and I applaud their willingness to get involved in public affairs. If more Americans chose to take a more active role in the political process, the country would be better off and our democracy would be more vibrant.

    But that doesn’t actually tell us what these throngs of Americans are fighting for, exactly. I’m not oblivious to their cries; I’m at a loss to appreciate those cries on anything more than a superficial level.

    This is about “freedom.”

    Well, I’m certainly pro-freedom, and as far as I can tell, the anti-freedom crowd struggles to win votes on Election Day. But can they be a little more specific? How about the freedom for same-sex couples to get married? No, we’re told, not that kind of freedom.

    This is about a fight for American “liberties.”

    That sounds great, too. Who’s against American “liberties”? But I’m still looking for some details. Might this include law-abiding American Muslims exercising their liberties and converting a closed-down clothing store into a community center? No, we’re told, not those kinds of liberties.

    Read the rest of the article here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025426.php

    I found this article, from someone who obviously doesn’t like the Tea Party movement, to be a really interesting take on the Beck organized rally in Washington DC this past weekend. I think I found it interesting because his sentiments also resonated with me. I urge you to go and read the entire article.

    Don’t get me wrong. His absolute liberal bias on the issues was obvious and I fundamentally disagree with him on many of them, even though he tried to dance around them in a generic way. But when it came down to it, I agreed with him on one very important point: I didn’t actually feel like I understood what it was that the people who gathered in Washington DC on Saturday are actually wanting to accomplish.

    I wanted to support the rally. After all, I don’t like big government. I don’t like the progressive agenda. I don’t like the move away from liberty that has been increasing for the last 100 years. I don’t like freeloaders on the system and I am all for personal responsibility and conducting ourselves with honor. But is there anyone who wouldn’t say they are in agreement on those issues? I watched part of the rally, which attracted a lot of people. And I thought to myself, “meh… restoring honor?” I guess part of my issue was that a man who takes everything to the political extreme, Glenn Beck, was the one leading the honor chant. I don’t know that I am convinced that Beck has any. Maybe he does and I just don’t understand. But he certainly doesn’t exude it.

    It appeared to me that a major part of the message was that there should be a re-insertion of the church into the landscape. I have nothing against the church, but I don’t think that it needs to be forced back into the mainstream. More important, that is not a message that is, frankly, going to resonate with a whole lot of people. Those who believe in the church do so whole-heartedly and fully. Those who don’t, in general, are not going to change their mind. Which in my opinion, registers Beck’s “movement DOA.

    If those who want to start a movement in America really want to get anywhere, I would suggest that they choose one or two major goals, to identifiable things they want to change, and run with them. For example, limiting government spending and creating a system of accountability for representatives of the people. Those are two goals that actions can be built around. And they are both supported, in theory, by the Constitution. In contrast, blocking same sex marriage is NOT supported by the Constitution.

    Movements such as Beck’s are doomed to failure unless they identify a real purpose and strategy to be followed. They are certainly going to have to do better than “restoring honor to our government.” That is a lost cause. And my personal opinion is that those truly dedicated to the teachings of the Christian churches are a shrinking demographic. Making that a part of the platform is doing little more than alienating an entire group of people who otherwise may have supported your ideas.

    • USW Stated:”It appeared to me that a major part of the message was that there should be a re-insertion of the church into the landscape. I have nothing against the church, but I don’t think that it needs to be forced back into the mainstream. More important, that is not a message that is, frankly, going to resonate with a whole lot of people.”

      TC:All the polls I could find stated that 85 to 92% of Americans believe there is a God.

      Well there are 1.5 billion Christians, 1 billion Muslims, 0.8 billion Hindus, 0.5 billion Budahsim so 1.5+1+0.8+0.5 = 4.1 billion World population…= almost 6 billion in the world that believe in God…

      Perhaps a return to Christian morals, ethics and idealogy is exactly what the country needs.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        TC – Not everyone who believes in a god would like a return to ‘Christian morals, ethics and ideology’ (see: Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) Further, not all who believe in Christianity want that Christianity entwined in our government.

        • I’ve been watching over the years as judges ban nativity scenes, crosses, and even Santa Claus. Now we have to start practicing “Religious Tolerance” by allowing the Trophy to be built at Ground Zero. So which is it? This is a rhetorical question, as I’m convinced that our Gov’t believes in religious freedom as long as it’s not Christian or Jewish.

          Hope you folks on the east coast will be safe from Earl.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            As I’ve said in the past – sure we’ve gone a bit too far in certain instances with ‘separation of church and state’. It really comes down to a judgment call in many cases, and not an easy call to make.

            To me personally, you want to put up a nativity scene in the center of your town and sponsored by your town? Go for it. But would it kill you to put up a menorah somewhere nearby as well? Growing up my neighborhood had a circle running through the middle of the town – on one side was a Christmas tree and on the other was a Menorah; in the center was a sign wishing a ‘Happy Holidays to Everyone’.

            For Earl, I’m just hoping it doesn’t interfere with my flight on Friday night! Weather tracker is showing that it will be about parallel to NYC at the time.

            • I understand your position on the nativity scene, but I completely disagree.

              You should have nothing to say about someone else putting a nativity scene up whereever. And they should have nothing to say about YOU putting up a Menorah. It is forcing the diversity or whatever that simply drives PC over the edge. LIBERTY is what needs to be the focus.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                The issue is what the town/city/state/nation does in its own name. Clearly you have the right to put up any display you desire; you won’t hear a peep from me.

                • If the city is using taxpayer funding, then it should not be done at all. If they are not, but are merely allowing use of the public property, then there should be no mandate for what gets displayed. I should not have to pay to put up a Minorah and a giant Santa next to my nativity to be allowed to put it up. It is usage of the commons area, it should be up to the community to decide it, not some general rule or law.

                  • Buck the Wala says:

                    I pretty much agree – which is why I have said that we have gone too far in certain instances in making that judgment call.

                    My only caveat though is Does usage of the commons area by a private individual lead to an appearance of endorsement by the township? Easily avoided by having a simple sign/disclaimer: “Nativity scene courtesy of Jon Smith”

        • So Buck do me a favor and research Christian morals, ethics and ideology.

          Come back and let me know which you disagree with and why please.

          I’ll start you out with a few sir.

          Love Others as yourself — do not do anything that will cause your brother to stumble or sin, do not hate, do not steal, do not lie, do not become jealous of your neighbor’s life, do not lust, do not commit adultery, do not fornicate, treat your body as it is a temple of the Holy Spirit, do not become drunk on alcohol, let your speech be that of thankfulness not course talking or vulgar language, bear the burdens of others, pray for one another about all things.

          • Do not just look at the literal meaning but dig deep into the reasoning behind this list.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            If you want to live your life in accordance with your take on Christian morals, ethics and ideology, be my guest. I commend you for it.

            I take issue with you imposing your Christian morals, ethics and ideology on me.

            Would you advocate for laws based on your Christan morals?

            • Buck Stated:”Would you advocate for laws based on your Christan morals?”

              TC:A goodly number of our laws are already based upon Christian morals.The founding documents are chocker block full of them…but, to answer your question no not all Christian morals and ethics should be criminal offenses.

              Buck Stated:”I take issue with you imposing your Christian morals, ethics and ideology on me.”

              TC:I do not impose my views upon anyone UNLESS they pose a threat to my family, myself or my community.
              If I catch a thief in my house he is about to experience some very painful imposing!

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Which Christian morals SHOULD be criminal offenses then? How do you make that determination?

          • I disagree with none of it, but I do not want a LAW taking away my freedom to get drunk (we tried that, it was a friggin disaster, remember?), to fornicate (that has a loose definition anyway, a lot of theologians consider masturbation fornication), or to treat my body as less than a temple (thats what the fat police and the anti-smoking crowd are after, its called nanny state, and it NOT good, nor is it even Christian).

            You see, I have no problem with your beliefs, and I share many of them. I DO have a problem with them being made law. Law is not about morality, it is about protecting individual rights.

            More importantly, faith is not about law. God cares about what is in your heart, not what you do on the outside. Putting your moral code into law might seem like it would make a good society, but it is merely a mask on the heart, and historically, EVERY time a religion is mixed with government, it gets corrupted, and the state is also corrupted, drunk on the combined power of true believers and the power of law. IT IS A BAD MIX.

            Yes, there are overlapping aspects. Theft is a violation of rights, thus it should be illegal. Theft is also a violation of Christian morals. Indecently, it is also a violation of Islamic morals, and would be included in Sharia law. That does NOT mean I support Sharia law.

      • TC,

        Thanks for your thoughts. I have a few of my own. First, I have no problem with people believing in God. What I do have a problem with is when people believe that the christian religion, or any other religion for that matter, should have a place directing political discourse or policy. I find it especially hypocritical that so many who advocate for a re-introduction of religion to the masses mean specifically only their particular religion.

        I am unsure of where you are getting your information, but please consider the following. I will say only that studying religion is something I am as passioanate about as politics. I tend to keep my religious views out of the debates here. But don’t assume that I don’t have a lot of knowledge in that arena.

        Let’s start with your overall numbers. There are more Muslims in the world than there are Christians. A Pew study released a year or two ago confirmed that Islam had passed Christianity as the largest. A small footnote: You included Buddhism in your numbers and stated that they believe in God. That is incorrect. Buddhists do NOT believe in Gods or even a God. And yet they do believe in God. You see Buddhism has nothing to do with God or a set of Gods. Buddhists can believe whatever they like because it is irrelevent to the religion itself. What matters is self enlightenment.

        I can find plenty of polls that show far lower numbers of people believing in God than your numbers, but that isnt’ the point. Lots of people believe in God, let’s just leave it at that. But that does not, however, mean that they feel that religion should be a focal point of one’s life. Merely look around SUFA. Of all the people who populate this site, I bet you couldn’t find ten who don’t believe in God. But I also bet you couldn’t find ten who believe religion should be shaping political discourse or being pushed in this country.

        And that is a major point. Because the majority of people who do believe in God, are not as adamant as you are about it. They want to believe and nothing else. They don’t go to church (church attendance has been steadily declining for the last 30 years). They don’t pray daily. They don’t want religion to be a central point in their existence. And that is OK. But I promise you that Beck’s rally is far more hurt by the religious overtones than helped. For every devout religious person who heeds the call, there are five who walk away from the movement because of the religion aspect of it.

        TC said: Perhaps a return to Christian morals, ethics and idealogy is exactly what the country needs.

        Or perhaps a return to the concept of personal responsibility, individual liberty, and tolerance of different lifestyles and choices that aren’t anyone else’s business is exactly what this country needs.


        • USW

          “But I promise you that Beck’s rally is far more hurt by the religious overtones than helped. For every devout religious person who heeds the call, there are five who walk away from the movement because of the religion aspect of it.”

          Let me add this qualifier. It will all depend on how he pushes this point in the future. It is possible this could be done in a way that does not push others away. But this gets to what I said to Kathy. I am not sure Beck has the talent to pull that off. And he may not have the desire to avoid it or to suffer the nuance required.

          How about Freedom, Liberty and Justice for All.

          Oh, and I don’t think Buddhism really qualifies as a religion does it? How can a religion have no GOD or at least something resembling GOD (like Mother Earth to the greenies)?

          🙂 🙂

          • Actually, it doesnt really matter if it is hurt, if it unifies a group that can be allied with towards freedom, it is a success. If the 5 for every 1 who are turned off by the religion will not at least ally with them for the purposes of achieving greater freedom, then I submit that the 5 are the ones at fault and are being bigoted, so much so that they are willing to hamper their own supposed belief in freedom. Ridiculous.

            As for Buddhism, JAC, religion is not about a God or gods. It is simply an organized belief system. There are personal beliefs, and then there are beliefs that get defined and attract people as a group to follow. The group one is a religion, whether it worships/follows a god or a moral code or the color orange.

        • USW Stated:”But I also bet you couldn’t find ten who believe religion should be shaping political discourse or being pushed in this country.”

          TC:This is what goads me USW.It seems to a lot of posters that they are perfectly fine with the spread of Islam throughout the United States (which incorporates SHARIA LAW into its political views and government)AND YET these posters are perfectly fine with this !*!*!??

          • Bah forgot the rest of my post …

            Anyways so some of you are perfectly fine with Islam building their Mosque as a sign of conquest,allowing them communities in which to grow their numbers and vote locally these Sharia laws into effect (just as in Europe!) yet heaven forbid we try to incorporate the freedoms and liberties first expressed through our founding fathers christian heritage.Baffling.

            • TC, I dont care if it is a sign of conquest or a sign that they deliver pizza, its just a sign. More importantly, its their property, bought and paid for. They can build whatever they want. I will fight tooth and nail to protect their right to do so. I will fight tooth and nail to protect the right of a church to be built on private property as well.

              I will also protect the right of both to spread through evangelism, preaching, spreading the word, leading by example, whatever.

              However, I will draw the line at the point where they try to put their beliefs into law. I will fight tooth and nail to keep such moral law out of the land of the free. Morality is a matter of the heart and soul, it is encouraged by others in the cultural free market. Government has no business being involved, neither to promote or restrict any religion. This is a basic right of mankind, and as a free man I will fight for that right.

          • BUT TC…. They are not fine with Sharia Law being implemented in this country or injected into our political system. There is a difference between tolerance and adoption. Islam is welcome to adopt Sharia Law in muslim countries, but not in this country, where the law forbids both Islam and Christianity from shaping the political spectrum.

              • Tex

                So what exactly is it in this clip that is supposed to cause me such heartburn?

                When you become obsessed with demons you will find them everywhere you look my friend.

                The only valid question from this is does he accurately portray the interpretation of sharia by the “jurist” as he portrays it.

                Do you have any proof one way or the other on that?

                • So if Sharia Law is just like the declaration of Independence then why are we not having honor killings, stonings,executions for adultry,physical eye for an eye reparations and so on ?

                  Do you not see my point with the problems in Europe already arising because of the Muslim immigration and setting their Sharia Law into place?I suppose you are under the impression that it can’t happen here.This is America after all.We would never have a Marxist in the whitehouse with 50 other Czars that are socialist marxist commies either hunh?

              • And what exactly does this guy’s view of Sharia Law have to do with the people on this site not believing that any religion should be injected into politics. You said, specifically:

                This is what goads me USW.It seems to a lot of posters that they are perfectly fine with the spread of Islam throughout the United States (which incorporates SHARIA LAW into its political views and government)AND YET these posters are perfectly fine with this !*!*!??

                I countered that they are not OK with Sharia law being made law in the US or being injected into our political spectrum. And your answer is to show me a muslim who believes what he believes? What has that got to do with SUFA members?

                So long as you aren’t forced to live under sharia law, what business is it of yours whether this man chooses to do so.

                • This “guy” is the Imam behind the movement to build the mosque in New York.

                  • So what? He gets to do whatever he wants up to the line where he affects the freedom of others, then he must be stopped hard. That is the role of law and government. If you want to protest the mosque and that guy and whatever else, you have the freedom to do so. If you try to get the government to stop them, you are COMPLETELY out of line, and you too must be stopped hard.

        • USW Stated:”Or perhaps a return to the concept of personal responsibility, individual liberty, and tolerance of different lifestyles…”

          TC:These are just a few of those freedoms and liberties espoused by the founding fathers.They also happen to be Christian principles.

          • I will give you the first two, but tolerance of different lifestyles has never been, in practice, one of the christian principles. It may say so in the Bible, but I sure don’t see many devout christians who are tolerant of anything they disagree with….. Would you describe your stance as tolerant?

            • I am tolerant of anything that does not pose a threat to my family, myself or my community, now or in the future.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Like gay marriage?

              • Texaschem,

                And there lies your problem.

                You believe you can predict the future.

                Thus you claim you can deem anything that does not appeal to you to be a threat to your future, granting yourself the right to act today.

                • Flag. That is wholly unfair. TC does not claim, and has never claimed, any special knowledge of the future. He simply believes that the US should be a Christian theocracy and that Sharia law poses a threat to that. Therefore, since all Muslims apparently believe in forcing their system of religious law on the rest of us, we should declare war on Islam

                  (Interesting link: http://www.allied-media.com/AM/ .. there are 227 mosques in CA, 140 in NY, and 1,209 total in the US)

                  • I do not believe we should be a christian or any other kind of Theocracy.

                    I just believe that the Separation of Church and state is carried to ridiculous extremes.

                    The Constitution states that there will be no state established and sponsored religion.

                    That has been stretched to become anything that even suspiciously smells of religion not being allowed within a mile of a state buliding or property.

                    I am suprised that the President still has to swear on a bible for the oath of office.

                    You know Buck. When he SWEARS to protect and defend the Constitution itself?

                    Restoring God back in this Nation’s mind is a good idea.

                    Ain’t gonna happen though. We have gone too far down the wrong path to turn around now.

    • PT Barnum is famous for many reasons. But one his famous “tricks” was a personality analysis machine. By answering just a few simple (and seemingly random/irrelevant) questions, it would print out a card showing it’s detailed analysis of your personality. The vast majority of people who used this machine found it simply amazing that it could tell all that with those questions. Barnum was hailed as a genius for inventing it.

      Q. What is your favorite color?
      A. Blue

      Q. Are you male or female?
      A. Male

      Q. Chocolate or vanilla?
      A. Both


      You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others’ statements without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in life.

      Except for the “worrisome and insecure inside” part, that’s pretty much spot on for me. And all that from just a few simple questions. Amazing.

      Of course, if you look at it, that profile fits almost everyone. So most people, upon seeing this, are going to find you brilliant. They will agree with you. They will follow you. They will study you. They will emulate you. They will buy whatever crap you happen to be selling at the time.

      And so now, it should be obvious where I’m going with this. Beck isn’t interested in a political movement capable of making real and palpable changes. He isn’t interested in setting an identifiable agenda. Like standing for “hope and change,” standing for “freedom and liberty” is delightfully vague.

      You can use that rallying cry “FREEDOOOM!!!” (a la William Wallace), and everyone will get behind you. Glen Beck knows this. He’s a showman.

      • Mathius

        You assign “motives” to Beck. Curious as to what your source is for these motives.

        He has said he is a showman. But he has also said he is serious about this political stuff.

        So why is it so easy for you to simply discard him and some dishonest charlatan?

        • Actually, I don’t. I take him at his word. He says he is a showman and a rodeo clown.

          I think, given that he is honest about that, he is a phenomenal actor, highly charismatic, very competent (as opposed to everyone who seems to want to dismiss him as an idiot). He has (obviously) a fantastic work ethic (radio show + tv + books + rallies + TheBlaze.com, etc). For these reasons, I actually am impressed by him.

          I know that he has distorted the truth on numerous occasions. I know he has been blatantly hypocritical at times. I know that he has been caught in outright lies. I know that he is frequently very manipulative of his audience. For these reasons, I have little respect for him. But, to be fair, the same can be said of many public personalities who thrive on controversy and have made enough public statements.

          So, I could reach the conclusion that he’s serious about politics (that is, making a change in politics), but I see his general goal as “going back to a simpler time” – which is neither political nor possible. But it is something that any showman knows appeals to the masses.

          • Mathius

            I find that interesting. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

            Do you think your view of him was influenced in any way by his strong vocal opposition to Mr. Obama from the outset?

            It appears to me that many Progressives and Liberal Dems just can’t get past that point to evaluate and discuss the merits of his points.

            • No. I feel much the same way about Al Sharpton.

              He thrives on divisiveness and ham-fisted cult followings. He has skills, I’ll give him that, but otherwise, I just don’t like him.

              That he espouses politics that are diametrically opposed to mine doesn’t help his case, but it’s not the original source of my opinion.

          • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:


            I find that most peoople who knock Beck, including two of my own children, don’t listen to Beck. they listen to what other people say about Beck or to what others say that Beck says. This is not a particularly good way to judge anyone.

            Now, I am lucky, I’m in the car a lot in the morning and do get a chance to listen. Outside of the fact that he is a master showman, I being a pretty knowledgeable guy don’t find him far off on most issues.

            Most of the knock Beck crowd are guilty of that wonderful habit of gilding the lily. If Beck says we have to as individual people get back to our spiritual/religious roots, then that is turned into, The NATION as an institution must get closer and of course this means theocracy. Even O’reilly did this the other night as does USW up on top. Of course Beck specifically and categorically says not to do that but then you couldn’t very wall scare people about him then, could you?

            It is exactly like the illegal alien thing. If I am against illegal aliens than MSM and my local congressmen and Senators tell me I am anti-immigration (no distinction between legal and illegal). If I disagree with Obama it is because I have not yet accepted that Blacks have equal rights not because I might not like socialism.

            If I don’t want the friggen Mosque two blocks or for that matter two miles from Ground Zero, then I am against freedom of religion for Muslims, not that I distrust the motives, finances and intent of the sponsors.

            I am not allowed to ask questions these days. maybe that’s one of the freedoms I want back. Maybe that’s why I went to the Mall last Saturday.

            If you think me wildly off the mark here, I suggest you hit You Tube and check out the 1964 anti-Goldwater commercials about the little girl with the daisy, the cutting off of the Eastern seaboard, the tearing up the Social Security card and my favorite, the Strontium 90 ice cream cone. That my friend taught me to BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY NO ONE unless I saw or heard it myself.

            If you have a specific where Beck has lied, distorted the truth, been hypocritical, please, just lay out the chapter and verse for the rest of us, don’t just generalize. If I am to believe that he is Andy Griffith in “A Face in the Crowd”, I’m going to need more than he, blank, blank, blank…..

            Maybe guys, we should think of Beck more in the way Frank Capra might have portrayed him as opposed to the cynical way. I’m sure we all teared up over “Mr Smith”, a “Wonderful Life”, “Mr. Deeds” or “Meet John Doe”. As my daddy used to say, take a man at his word until he proves otherwise. If he’s not real, he will show it soon enough.

            • Someone listed the other day about a dozen websites listing his dishonesty in detail with quotes, video, and evidence. The best I can do for you right now is this:


              Very busy today, but I’ll be happy to hash this out with you another time.

              • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:


                Gotta be honest with you Matt, those are some sick puppies out there. Despite my absolute dislike for Bobby & Ted Kennedy followed by my absolute dislike of Carter, Clinton and Obama, I wouldn’t come anywhere near, on my worst day to anything like what is on that site.

                To me, chapter and verse is CONTEXT, followed by Chapter and verse of comment followed by CONTEXT. Anything less is a downright lying.

                What I saw there was INNUENDO, followed by out of Context comment followed by smarminess and more INNUENDO.

                This nis why, as much as it pains me, I watch the President, listen to the White House spokesman and watch everybody on C-Span, not just the guys I like. Now, that’s the way to decide who you should back.

                I was not kidding before about those anti-Goldwater commercials. They were incredibly effective and incredibly false.

                Here’s a question for you. Don’t cheat, in 25 words or less give me your take on Malcom X. I want to see what a bright young man (sincerely meant) like yourself thinks about Malcom and his positions. How far off the track (or on) will you be?

                • Hey, just saw this…

                  Malcolm X:
                  He militantly accused whites of black oppression, but was too extreme. Unlike King, he advocated for violence. He (imho) is far less worthy of respect.

                  It was tough to boil down to 25 words..

                  • Mathius,

                    You are wrong about Malcolm X.

                    Though he advocated that whites oppressed blacks, he had long ago abandoned violence while in prison for robbery. It was in prison where he turned to Islam.

                    He advocated that blacks must defend themselves from white people hostilities, but he never advocated blacks to initiate violence against white.

                    He did not believe King’s non-violence in the face of violence was a good tactic.

                    But both he and King did NOT advocate for black violence on white.

                    • I only had 25 works allowed. I would have clarified that point if I had had more space. However, I still think that violence as a response is counterproductive.

                    • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:


                      Thanks for filling in for me while my router was fried. Good answer to Matt.

                      Our young friend should read Haley’s biography.

                      Killing him when they did deprived this country of perhaps the only man who had it pretty much figured out.

                  • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

                    Matt, hope you read this, my thanks for participating in my little experiment here. I was trying to understand the take that people have today on Malcom. You are a bright young guy with a better than average understanding of recent history. I liimited it to 25 words because I wanted a QUICK, off the top of your head response. You are not alone in your view of perhaps one of the greatest Americans of the 20th century.

                    I liked Malcom X even before the Haj. He seemsed to me, an 18 year old at the time, to be the only black leader who understood White Liberal paternalism and was a victim of it.

                    His break with Elijah Muhammad and Louie Farrikhan sealed his death warrant. It also left us with poverty pimps like jackson and Sharpton who have the unmitigated gall to “speak” for black people everywhere.
                    I can only imagine the world today or at least the America of today had he, and Dr. King lived. Actually make it a trifecta, had he, MLK and JFK lived.

                    Historical trivia, I lived five blocks away from the Audubon Ballroom back then. My friend and I went down there right after we heard about the assassination. There were some very unhappy folks there.

                    Years later, I had a tenant, Phil Miller who was in the hall that day. He shared some of his thoughts of Malcom with me and I him. I think this white boy surprised him a bit. On his apartment door he had a poster of Malcom, holding a .30 carbine with the words “by any means necessary” underneath.

            • S.K.

              I wanted to comment on your comment about feeling uncomfortable about public acknowledgment of your religion the other day. Following the Beck Rally.

              I think it is part of the American Culture. Religion belongs in church as most private matters should be private.

              Most folks I know were raised that way. I am guessing it is a cultural value that stems from the time of the nations founding. We often forget that the “Christian Revival” in the “public” arena came about in the middle of the last century. It was not that prevalent before WWII.

              When Beck started talking about God on his radio show a few weeks ago I started feeling strange. Just as if someone was standing on my curb preaching at me. I think that is also what alienates so many of the “christian” Democrats when it comes to the “conservative” movement. They share the religion but don’t want it paraded around in public and especially don’t want it used as a political football.

              Anyway, just wanted to share my thoughts that cropped up after posted your post Beck report.

              I would be interested in any other observations/impressions you had regarding the rally.


              • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:


                The whole first part of this stream of conciousness disappeared without a trace. I will try and reconstruct it later. Here is the last half.

                I have great difficulty in publically acknowledging that this comes from my religious upbringing first and my reasoning second. I am frankly ashamed to admit it and I don’t know why. I actually know people who go to church every Sunday but if they are out with the guys will dismiss or deny it. Why? This is not the way it used to be.

                I disagree that religion belongs in a church. Religion belongs in your everyday actions. “Do unto others….” I think you are talking about proselytizing, I’m not, I’m about living according to those basic ten rules and not being ashamead to answer that when asked. Not to wear it on your sleeve, again there is the bibical reference to the stuffed shirt in the front of the synagogue saying over and over, look how good I am but to the humble and modest person living the life, walking the walk.

                “The Lives of the Saints” really influenced me as a kid. To stand up and be willing to die for what you believe in. Frankly I’m glad I was never tested. I think of Fr. Maxmillian Kolbe in Aushwitz or the Maryknolls in Communiust China. Even the murder of the medical missionaries by the Taliban in Afghanistan a few weeks ago awes me and shames me at the same time.

                Back to Beck. I have listened pretty carefully in the run up to the rally and I have to say, listen very closely to him. This is not Billy Sunday or Amy Semple MCPherson or even Billy Graham, this is a man calling on us INDIVIDUALLY to rediscover our relationship with God and through that our connection with both the founders and their principles.

                Today I heard a rebroadcast of an MSNBC commentator, the quote, as near as I can remember it was, “Who is this Mormon to tell us Christians how to interpret the scriptures?” This from some SOB who probably hasn’t seen the inside of a church in years. I personally don’t care if it is a Buddhist monk, a Caholic priest or a Rabbi with the message to reconnect with God. The message is good. Hope this gives you a bit to chew on.

                • S.K.

                  I think we are on the same page. Perhaps religion should stay in church was not the best phrase. Yes I am talking more about the “proselytizing” and general “in your face” way that some folks carry their religion.

                  I do not see Beck crossing that line. At least not yet. But I felt discomfort the minute he started talking about it. And all I am saying is that I think those feelings relate to our cultural standards that you mentioned.

                  I noticed the anti Mormon thing cropping up all over Huff Po and Mother Jones earlier today. And this from the “tolerant” left. What a freaking joke these people are.

                  Look forward to your other observations later.

                • I will make no comment SK. You have already said it better than I could have.

                  I like Glenn Beck.

              • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

                JAC Part 1 again (hopefully)

                Well the rally was great, some terrific people there. Not all were lily white. The ones who were not believe that this country is headed down the wrong road too.

                I think Beck blew away the media. They expected a political anti Obama rally and got something quite different. I went with strangers to the event. We were all there for slightly different reasons. On the bus trip back we got to talking about the event and despite the almost total anti-administration sentiment, they were happy with the rally and its message. They all wanted to be part of that message. Freedom, Justicfe, Liberty may be hard to define but as that judge said years ago, I know them when I see them and I know when they are gone.

                In the lead up to the event for the past few weeks, Beck actually, I thought, downplayed the politics. I knew this was not going to be an RNC pep rally. His calling for no signs (there were very few) left the MSM in a quandry. The “Don’t Tread on Me” shirts had to fill in and become a symbol of hate to them. The message that Martin Luther King did not just speak for blacks was incredibly well received by the audience. To me the fact that it was and that it repeatedly led to a groundswell of cheers and applause has convinced me that we have come a lot farther along in this country than I thought we did. Now if we just could get people to understand Malcom’s message too.

                I think his message is aimed at us as individuals not as some kind of collective beehive. He is asking us to act on our own to rediscover our individual connection with God and through that our direct connection with the founders. We forget too easily that the men who founded this country believed in Providence and believed that our rights, our natural rights came from God. We do not remember this, it is not the first thing that jumps into our minds when someone suggests we give up a little more freedom. It should be the first thing and he is pointing that out to us. “Faith, Hope and Charity, That’s the Way To Live Successfully, How do I Know, the Bible Ttells Me So”. (Title of a popular song of the 1950’s) Imagine that getting on the hit parade today.

                Now for that stream of conciousness thing.

                About four year ago, in church, I woke up and realized that 90 percent of the homilies had to do with “God Loves You”. Now, I am a born, raised and educated Roman Catholic and I have stuck to the church in spite of some of the nonsense that has gone on but to sit in that pew week after week in the United States of America, with all I have and be told this pap over and over again, has become too much. I feel like standing up and yelling “of course God loves us dummy, otherwise we wouldn’t be here”(and I don’t mean in the church).

                I look around me in that church and I see the dull glazed look in the young peoples eyes. Where is the challange to them? What we have is given to us by God. What are we expected to give in return? Back in the dark ages, when I grew up, we were told that we were to do unto others. I cannot remember the last time I heard that simple ditty in a church. Almost all my life has been a life of service to others and I have a deep satisfaction from it. Not a hell of a lot of money maybe but a deep satisfaction. Where is the challenge today? What does my church or most churches tteach about personal responsibility? Not much, they are too busy punting that to government.

                I do judge others based on their actions are they right or wrong? By that I mean do they do harm or not? BF would say do they do violence to others or not? Condemnation, no, I leave that to the big guy upstairs at the end. I do however reserve the right to not associate with you if I have judged you harmful. If paradise is what it was advertised to me as, the mere fact of not being there is hell itself. Hell may very well just be the absence of being, a thought which may not mean anything to an atheist but should scare a believer to death (no pun intended).

                My personal quandry has to do with an inability to acknowledge my faith publically. Now I am not going to stand on a street corner and testify, it’s not me but often, I feel like Peter who did not have the courage when questioned to acknowledge he knew Jesus, he denied him three times. I ask myself if I am doing the same? I will argue things from a moral standpoint. (End part 1)

                • S.K.

                  What you describe at the end is not the “cultural” constraint I was referring to. At least it doesn’t look like it to me.

                  Perhaps it is and you haven’t recognized it. But by your description it sounds more like an inner struggle.

                  And yes, “Jesus loves me yes I know, because the bible tells me so”.

                  Of course I also grew up with Jimmy crack Corn, Workin on the Railroad, She’s coming round the mountain, and other such folk songs.

                  I greatly appreciate you sharing your thoughts in such detail.

                • SK – thank you for filling in the details of Saturday’s events and your personal feelings. I agree with much of what you say and really had not thought about it, especially how the church has let the government creep in with its own message.

                • Thanks so much for sharing that SK!

                  I have the utmost respect for you for sharing your thoughts with us.Not many on this site are willing to delve that deeply into themselves and see the truth for what it is.

      • Bottom Line says:


        If you like Barnum’s means of personality analysis, you might find this interesting as well…



      • Matt…Chocolate….what is vanilla?

    • I don’t know why you are so confused or why you feel movements like Beck’s are doomed to failure, USW. Isn’t this what a lot of the last 1-1/2 years has been about on this site? Getting people to get up off their duffs and educate themselves and get involved? Haven’t we talked about the pointlessness of trying to pin labels on people as no group believes exactly the same on all topics? Yet that is what it seems like you are trying to do with Beck and the thousands that came to DC.

      If there was one common belief among those in attendance I would say it was that government has gotten too big – which transfers to a lot of losses for the people, including freedom and liberty that the guest writer doesn’t seem to get.

      It’s easy to bash if there was some message that didn’t quite resonate or if someone doesn’t care for Beck, but what happened on Saturday is a good sign and a solid message that the masses are awake and paying attention and ready to take action. I wish I could have been there.

      • Kathy

        I think USW raises a valid point. What was this all about. You have one idea that wasn’t shared by all that attended or was the message being given.

        That is the point. Beck has been very focused on the political side. This rally started out as a political event. Remember, planning started almost a year ago. But then it morphed into something else.

        I am not certain the purpose was wrong. But the speaking I heard via internet and radio clips sure fell “flat” for me. Even if it was about restoring Honor. On Friday Beck was telling his radio audience he hadn’t written a speech. God would fill him with the words when the time came.

        Maybe he should let God work with a speech writer. It doesn’t always have to be a direct link.

        You know I have defended this guy to the hilt. I listen to him more than any other and have followed him for about 4 years now. Lately, I am starting to feel concern about where he is going with all this. Perhaps he is just starting to get beyond his abilities as a communicator. I don’t know. But something seems different, odd, and a little disconcerting to me.

        I am withholding judgment for now, and listening intently for further evidence.

        • I think one of Beck’s issues is that people want him to be a leader, however, he is not in politics, so the what, where and how are huge questions. He has stated he is not interested in running for any office so the best he can do is encourage people to educate themselves, to ask questions and just generally, get involved. He has done very well with that and I think those in attendance feel far more knowledgeable and empowered than they did previously.

          Don’t look or expect for one person to be the answer.

          • Kathy

            You are preaching to the choir on that point my dear.

            I don’t expect nor do I wish for him to be a LEADER, except in the area that he has tackled the past two years.

            I am concerned he is moving from that place towards a “leadership” place. I think you are correct that many want him to do that. The pressure may be moving him. I think it will end badly if he does.

            I also think that the crowd was reflective of the support he has from the public. Many seemed confused about the purpose as well. But they came because he said it was important. That is good, but obviously is a potential for problems down the road.

            As I said, I am watching and listening. I sincerely hope that my misgivings are misplaced. He has done a great service for this country, in my personal opinion. I would hate to see that legacy lost.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “Movements” ARE INDEED about “something real”:

      The offal which is within our bowels….


    • Restoring honor is essential to the success of any other venture towards freedom.

      Trying to put honor back into government is, indeed, a lost cause, it cannot start there. Trying to use God as the sole means of restoring honor will certainly limit your appeal, but if you are truly honorable, it will not be at odds with those who choose another path.

      Beck’s speech lately has been very god-centric, tho I do not think that is bad, it just is. Obviously a lot of people are all about the movement, some of them because of the inclusion of faith. I am the first to oppose theocracy, but I see no problem with people of like faith getting back to the principles the country was founded on of honesty, integrity, respect for each other, hard work, etc. Is it quantifiable? Maybe not. Is it political? Well, it should not be too directly involved. Beck spends a lot of time talking about the founders tho, and if, as many on here say, the founders were not religious men, then I do not see the issue in getting back to that. I would say that, by and large, they were honorable men. They may have been blind in some areas, such as in reference to the fact that all men being created equal means all mankind, all races and genders and classes included. Nowdays we have to keep in mind that it means all faiths and nationalities too. I see a lot of high and mighty criticism of the founders for having slaves followed immediately by statements wanting to not issue freedom to certain people because of their citizenship or personal beliefs.

      If Beck can reach a lot of people and they are moving toward a freer, more honorable life built on trust and hard work, then they are at least my allies in this fight.

      In a movement led by me, I would be pushing for strict reduction in spending, auditing of government programs, and limitations on time served. I would be pushing to forge a seperation of business and state, and a seperation of church and state that was real. By that I mean that anyone of any faith could practice as they saw fit so long as rights were not violated. EVEN IF THEY WERE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. I would reach out to the Tea Partiers as my allies, since I have not seen anything that would put us at odds in the mission of the movement. There are individuals who would choose to limit certian religions or limit rights they claim are inalienable to only US Citizens, but on the whole, the Tea Party movement is not about that. If they want to add in some faith based perspective to their personal struggle, I have no problem with that. So long as they are not attempting to strive for a government that limits religious freedom or mandates morality based on religion rather than inalienable rights, then we have no quarrel.

      As for how well the agenda was laid out, well, what good is the perfect agenda if you are all alone. I know there is a lot of danger in a nebulous or feel-good list of goals that are not really going to be worth anything, or might open the door for negative things, but from what I have seen, this is not the issue so far. Not from the ground anyway. People can talk crap about the leaders all they want, but the people are headed in the right direction, and are, at least, a lot better off than they were before they got off their collective butts and did SOMETHING. It takes both. Broad appeal and action, as well as clear plans. Too much focus on protecting either and you lose it all.

    • I believe the honor he was talking about restoring was the individual honor among individuals. Kind of a personal thing. Like if you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything – and the majority of voters in this country have been falling for the progressive lies for almost a century now, and while doing so we have lost our personal honor. restore that and then maybe we can get away from this headlong rush into oblivion.

      FYI – Did you know that there is a TENURED professor at UCSD that teaches his students that the only way to save our country is to DISSOLVE the the USA and replace it with something akin to social democracy? I think you can find the story at theblaze.com

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Tenured professor Paul Ehrlich at Stanford started teaching the same thing back in the 1960’s, so such teaching is nothing new… it has been happening for over 40 years now.

        Read “The Population Bomb” by Paul Ehrlich sometime.

        Then take note that he is one of the greatest pushers of Global Warming Theology currently.

    • Well USW. I guess there is a first for everything. I must repectfully disagree totally with you about Glenn Beck. Especially about the Restoring Honor Rally.

      Since you and others obviously must not have watched it. Because it was not hard to understand. He only said that the people need to restore our personal honor.

      It was not really a political rally. Obama was not spoken about, nor even Congress.

      He thinks we as Americans have lost our way.

      And I think he is right to the extent of most of us.

      I believe it to be the only way out for America now. Sad that, like you, I do not believe it will ever happen. Beck is at worst a dreamer. America is doomed by it’s own people. They have forgotten where we came from, and don’t care.

  2. USWeapon Topic #2

    Scientist’s Firing After 36 Years Fuels ‘PC’ Debate at UCLA

    A longtime professor at UCLA, told that he would not be rehired because his “research is not aligned with the academic mission” of his department, says he’s being fired after 36 years at the prestigious school because his scientific beliefs are “politically incorrect.” But UCLA says Dr. James Enstrom’s politics have nothing to do with its decision.

    Enstrom, an epidemiologist at UCLA’s School of Public Health, has a history of running against the grain. In 2003 he wrote a study, published in the British Medical Journal, in which he found no causal relationship between secondhand smoke and tobacco-related death – a conclusion that drew fire both because it was contrary to popular scientific belief and because it was funded by Philip Morris.

    Now Enstrom says his studies show no causal link between diesel soot and death in California – findings that once again set him far apart from the pack and put him in direct conflict with the California Air Resources Board, which says its new standards on diesel emissions will save 9,400 lives between 2011 and 2025 and will reduce health care costs by as much as $68 billion in the state.

    The expected benefits of the new standards have been used to justify their estimated $5.5 billion price tag, which opponents say will cripple the California trucking industry at a time when the state can least afford it. The new standards, the critics warn, also could set the stage for national regulations.

    Enstrom questions the science behind the new emissions standards, and he has raised concerns about the two key reports on which they were based – exposing the author of one study as having faked his credentials and the panel that issued the other study as having violated its term limits.

    He says his views are what have gotten him fired, raising serious concerns not only about the diesel regulations but about academic freedom and scientific research as a whole.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/31/pc-professors-firing-fueling-exhaustive-debate/?test=latestnews

    Remember just a couple of days ago when we discussed man-made global warming and there was discussion around academia breeding nothing but like minded individuals who only go along with whatever the “religion” of the moment is? Take that a step further and you get exactly what we see here.

    This man is a scientist. I don’t care who funded his research. I care whether his studies were done properly and whether his research methods were sound. I haven’t looked at his studies. But it is certainly intriguing that a man who bucks the system because his scientific results differ from what the industry wants is suddenly looking for a new job.

    This is how science becomes perverted. This is how we end up in a world where there are lots of “scientists” supporting global warming theories that are not backed up by science. This is what the environments evident in the East Anglia emails breeds in the scientific community.

    My personal opinion is that the university should be investigated. If it is found that the professor was fired because his research didn’t fit what the university wanted the results to be, the university should be sanctioned and have all research grants from the government suspended. Science is supposed to look for accurate answers based on sound scientific process. No scientist should lose his job because the science didn’t back up the political ideology in play.

    • I agree with your views here.

    • I’m junnin’ all over this open mic like a hound dog on a ham bone!

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @USW – couple of comments on this article and your write-up/analysis:

      (1) You personally may not care who funds the research, but most all research review boards (most every school has one or several) do actually consider the source of funding for any research that requires such – this helps determine the level of potential bias that may be introduced into the research and what firewalls are in place to prevent it if needed. Further, the article is not clear on WHO was “up in arms” over the Phillip Morris funding. One cannot assume it was the school – if it was (big IF) – then its their own fault for allowing the research to continue with that funding structure.

      (2) Your analysis seems to cherry-pick some of the article content. You left out gems such as the fact that many non-tenured positions such as what was filled by Enstrom are funded by grant money. If that grant money dries up and there aren’t any more money trees to pick for the topics he specializes in researching, then what are they supposed to do with him? If he has a history of being contraversial ask yourself “why now” – I would think the second hand smoke study to be far more polarizing than the trucking study that actually shows an overall net of 62.5 billion dollars in the State. My point is – you’re basing a lot of analysis on but one side of the story. Until his own due process is followed Enstrom just sounds like a disgruntled employee to me.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I find it REALLY funny when people question the motives and the research of scientists if their funding comes from private sources, but they completely fail to question the motives and the research of scientists if their funding comes from government.

      The government is just as biased, and in many cases more biased in what it requires of scientists in order to obtain funding.

      I do not know if any of you have EVER seen a grant application form for government funding of “climate science”. Let me tell you, I have seen several such grant applications.

      The wording on the forms basically says, “Tell us how your project will demonstrate the human impact on global climate, and tell us how your conclusions will support government action to reduce or eliminate human impact on global climate.”

      If your research doesn’t fit the “humans are causing climate change and human activities must be curtailed in order to mitigate this impact” meme, then you are going to have your grant application thrown in the trash.

      But yeah, sure, if your research is funded by the government, it is pure and unbiased….


      • A similar situation with govt. funded research is being played out here (UW-Madison) and it’s funny to watch. Madison is a big stem cell research university and it keeps many, many people employed and due to the recent embryonic stem cell restraining order, university researchers are in a panic. Questions are being asked, like, “what are the successes so far” and “if it’s so necessary, why hasn’t a private company funded it”, these university officials stumble all over themselves trying to justify their existence.

    • What I want to know is how Progressives reconcile ‘saving lives’ and their ACTIONS to reduce the global human population? Hmmmm….

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Life (and the planet) must be “sustainable” in order for both humans and the planet itself to live in peace and harmony.

        As such, if there are too damn many people on the planet, we will deplete the resources of the planet, cause terrible pollution and climate change, and damage the already-dwindling bio-diversity of the planet.

        As such, for the greater good, it will be necessary to limit the human population to a reasonable number, such that our being here on the planet will be sustainable, and will not inflict grevious harm upon the planet and its ecosystems.

        We have no more right to be here than any other species, so we MUST not exploit the planet at the expense of any other species. To do so would be unethical, immoral, and unsustainable.


        The Evironmentalist Progresive.

        • Can I suggest that all the enviro-progressives offer up their own bodies first to start getting the population down, followed by the radical muslims.

        • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

          Don’t worry, nature will take care of the problem. Overpopulation equals war, famine and pestilence.

          Good read from the 1940’s, never out iof print very long “Earth Abides” by George Stewart. One of the first, to my knowledge, serious Sci Fi works to touch on this subject.

          • SK,

            Don’t worry, nature will take care of the problem. Overpopulation equals war, famine and pestilence.

            Please provide me any historical evidence that human overpopulation causes war, famine and pestilence.

            There are 7 billion people alive today. About 6% of all humans that ever have lived in all history are alive today

            In other words, we have the largest population ever – and we have more food, less pestilence, and greater prosperity then ever in our history.

            • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

              The book extrapolates from what has happened to animal populations to what may happen to human populations. You may be right, we may be able in the future to defeat any and all threats to our existance but there is always the chance for a more serious disease to pop up like Spanish influenza did or a variation on Ebola. May not but then again, may.

              • SK,

                The book extrapolates from what has happened to animal populations to what may happen to human populations.

                But we are not merely animals.

                We are the Thinking Animal.

                Looking at hyena’s will not give you an accurate account of human behavior.

                You may be right, we may be able in the future to defeat any and all threats to our existance

                Oh, I didn’t say that – there are great threats that exceed the capacity of the Earth to survive, such as an asteroid strike.

                However, our capacity to solve our problems is infinite.

                but there is always the chance for a more serious disease to pop up like Spanish influenza did or a variation on Ebola.

                Ebola – never. Kills too fast and too well to spread quickly.

                Flu – bullcrap. The Spanish Flu was not just because of a flu, but because of a war. 1918 ring a bell?

                All great epidemics follows a collapse in human hygiene. They are not spontaneous or unpredictable.

                We tried very hard to kill humans in the 20th century and the population still grew.

                We would have to try a whole lot hard – and that approaches an inconceivable massacre.

        • Hmmmmmmm…Logan’s Run comes to mind…..Soylent Green….

  3. USWeapon Topic #3

    Steve Schmidt, Former McCain Campaign Chief, On Mehlman Fundraiser: Same-Sex Marriage Becoming Conservative Cause

    A major same-sex marriage fundraiser hosted by former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman and other Republicans provides one of the sharpest illustrations of how gay rights is becoming a cause among more elite, establishment members of the GOP.

    In addition to Mehlman, who recently announced that he was gay, the list of attendees includes several surprises, such as Ben Ginsburg, one of the Republican Party’s top lawyers, and Henry Kravis and Paul Singer, two of the biggest donors to the GOP. According to one gay-rights activist involved in similar efforts, the fundraising pool goes even deeper.

    “There is a strong conservative case to be made in favor of gay marriage,” former McCain campaign manager and fellow same-sex marriage fundraiser Steve Schmidt told the Huffington Post on Tuesday. “Marriage is an institution that strengthens and stabilizes society. It is an institution that has the capacity to bring profound joy and happiness to people and it is a matter of equality and keeping faith of one of the charters of the nation, the right to live your life.

    “More and more conservatives are saying that opposition to gay marriage would not be a litmus test for membership in the GOP,” Schmidt added. “And more conservatives are making the case that no more do you want big government conservatives in the bedroom than big government liberals telling you how to live your life.”

    To be sure, the Mehlman fundraiser is not entirely a Republican-driven affair. Some of the big names on the ticket are Democrats, including former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt and former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta.

    But reading through the list of attendees, it’s remarkable to see how many prominent conservatives are not just comfortable associating with the gay-rights cause but are eager to fundraise for it. Pair that with rumblings from elsewhere in the party (most notably from Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels) that conservatives should have a “truce” on social issues for the time being and the frictions within the GOP tent become even more apparent.

    If anything, the hostility between the social conservative element of the party and those less adherent to that doctrine is already palpable. As one prominent Republican who supports gay rights put it:

    “I think there is a growing mass of people in Republican politics who are fundamentally sick and tired about being lectured to about morality and how to live your life by a bunch of people who have been married three or four times and are more likely to be seen outside a brothel on a Thursday night than being at home with their kids… There is a fundamental indecency to the vitriol and the hatred directed against decent people because of their sexuality. People have reached a critical mass with this.”

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/31/mccain-campaign-chief-sch_n_700623.html

    You know, the other day, Todd asked the question of someone about people changing their opinions over time here at SUFA. He asked for specific examples of where anyone has changed their mind based on the discussions here. I would like to point to this particular topic as one example. Go back and look at the original articles and discussions on gay marriage written by yours truly and compare that to the positions that I take today. Thank your local pirate for challenging me, presenting a valid and logical argument, and changing the way that I view gay marriage.

    It used to be that a very large portion of the participants at SUFA were anti gay marriage. Upon having the concepts of individual liberty and personal freedom explained in detail by folks like JAC and BF, I can honestly say that I saw many folks turn a corner on this issue. Oh, they may not have crossed over as far as I did, but they definitely became more tolerant of the idea. They might not support it outright quite yet, but they see the contradictions in the positions that they used to hold, and that is still working itself out in their head. These things take time and thought. Years of teaching isn’t undone in a day.

    Of course there are some that are never going to change their opinion on the subject. And that is OK, they don’t have to. The only requirement at SUFA is that they discuss it respectfully. There is no rule saying that they have to agree with my, or anyone else’s opinion. I don’t fault them for their beliefs so long as they don’t fault me for mine.

    But articles like the one above tell me that it isn’t just SUFA that is looking deeper at the gay marriage issue and re-evaluating their position. It is happening across the country. More and more people are coming to the understanding that there is something fundamentally wrong with denying people equal treatment and rights based on something that is none of your business. When we reach a point where prominent GOP folks are talking about the GOP taking a pro-same sex marriage stance, I begin to really believe that perhaps the LGBT community is one step closer to gaining the equal rights they have long been denied.

    • So those of us that do not want our children exposed to homosexual behavior (such as turning the TV on and seeing two homosexual men kissing,or even taking the kids out in public and seeing the same thing) just have to give up our rights to raise our kids in a normal mother/father family structure so another can freely act against Natural Law?(Don’t tell me because a wolf mounts another to show dominance its natural in nature…that’s stretching it quite a bit too far)
      Another issue I have.I just do not see how raising a child from a baby through their teens cannot have an impact upon the child by being in a same sex family.My boys adore me and want to be just like their daddy.How can the same feelings not apply towards a same sex couple?

      Any of you keeping up with the new Emo trends amongst teens?Bi-sexuality is becoming the norm amongst them!Do you guys ever turn on the news these days and wonder at the lack of respect and civility?Ever wonder where morals and ethics went?Like riding down the street seeing grown men in their underwear because their pants are hanging half off their asses?Our society has lost its direction with politically correct idiocy thats’ only design is to cause further strife in our society.

      Those of you that believe in homosexual rights to marriage do not feel a bit of something just may be wrong when you see two men kissing?I don’t get it.Do you just watch fascinated or does it wrench your stomach and make you feel ill?I’m just being honest people.It makes absolutely no sense to me.

      Personally I believe those that become gay feel insecure in their own manhood and see something of what they wish themselves to be in other men.Now given I know some people are born with two sets of genitalia and the like and I can understand them being confused with physical circumstances such as that.I just don’t get the Adam and Steve thing people.

      • See yall when I wake up this evening! ‘)

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        “So those of us that do not want our children exposed to homosexual behavior (such as turning the TV on and seeing two homosexual men kissing,or even taking the kids out in public and seeing the same thing) just have to give up our rights to raise our kids in a normal mother/father family structure so another can freely act against Natural Law?”

        1st of all, “Natural Law” says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about what the definition of “marriage” is, so your assertion that homosexuals are acting “against Natural Law” is patently false.

        2nd of all, if “Gay Marriage” were allowed, why do you insist this would involve you “giving up your rights”? That position makes no sense.

        Whether you watch in fascination or revulsion when 2 men kiss, that is completely irrelevant as far as any discussion of freedom, liberty, and rights go.

        You wish to limit SOMEONE ELSE’S rights because of your revulsion, and that makes you a Statist.

        If you follow a religion that states that homosexuality is wrong, and is a sin, that is absolutely fine, you are free to follow that religion.

        If you wish to teach your children that homosexuality is wrong, and is a sin, that is absolutely fine, you are free to teach them that.

        If you do not wish to see two men kissing on TV, that is fine, you are free to change the channel, and even to boycott any channels which show programming involving something you do not wish to see.

        However, the minute that you insist on LAWS to make things the way YOU think that they should be, you have left the path of freedom.

        • PeterB Stated:”However, the minute that you insist on LAWS to make things the way YOU think that they should be, you have left the path of freedom.”

          TC:What the heck are you saying Peter?
          I mean cmon man; is Congress trying to enact legislature to allow homosexuals marriage?Isn’t that THEM making laws the way THEY think they should be?I suppose they have left the path of freedom ehh?Don’t hold me to a set of actions and expect me to JUST accept what I feel is wrong while another group enacts what they feel and think law should be.Hypocrite.The majority in California ALREADY voted to ban same sex marriage and yet a homosexual judge overturns that majority vote?

          I suggest you educate yourself a bit more with the concept of Natural Law as well since its obvious you are clueless as to the concept.Once you have done that lets talk some more on the subject.

          • You are confusing positive law with natural law Peter.

          • On the contrary…. what exactly is it that allowing same sex marriage requires of YOU, TC? What they are legislating is an end to the oppression of one group’s rights because another group feels they have the right to dictate what they will accept. It is the belief that you have a right to define marriage for someone else that flies in the face of freedom and liberty.

            • USW Stated:”What they are legislating is an end to the oppression of one group’s rights because another group feels they have the right to dictate what they will accept.”

              TC:No.They are legislating AGAINST the will of the majority which voted AGAINST same sex marriage.So thankfully there seems to be a majority in America with enough knowledge of right/wrong to understand the implications of allowing deviant behavior to be accepted in mainstream society.

              No, what they are doing is demeaning the institution of marriage, lessening its importance to society.An institution that has been around for thousands of years; to appease some politically correct cuckoos vision of some freaked out utopia.

              What’s next NAMBLA rights?

              • TC,

                They are legislating AGAINST the will of the majority which voted AGAINST same sex marriage.So thankfully there seems to be a majority in America with enough knowledge of right/wrong to understand the implications of allowing deviant behavior to be accepted in mainstream society.

                And that, sir, is exactly what the founders hoped very much to avoid…. a tyranny of the majority. Because a majority of people don’t like something does not make it right. The majority of Germans thought is was OK to slaughter the Jews. A majority of Americans chose a “Marxist in the White House with 50 Czars”. The intent of being a Representative Republic rather than a pure Democracy was exactly so that the majority did not have the right to deny the minority the fundamental rights that they should have. If the gay community looks for legislation that usurps YOUR rights, I will stand for you 100%. But they don’t want to touch your rights, they just want you to get out of the way of theirs. Gay marriage doesn’t hurt you, hurt society, or anything else. It is two people who love each other and wish to form a union. It baffles the mind that the “religion of love” opposes this. You are crowing about the “majority” without even thinking about the fact that you may one day find yourself in the minority. Will it be OK for them to outlaw Christianity in America then? Of course not. Your right to practice Christianity doesn’t infringe on anyone any more than their gay marriage infringes on you.

                No, what they are doing is demeaning the institution of marriage, lessening its importance to society.An institution that has been around for thousands of years; to appease some politically correct cuckoos vision of some freaked out utopia.

                Demeaning the institution of marriage? Are you aware that in areas where gay marriage is legal, the rate of infidelity in those marriages is below 30%? The rate of infidelity in straight marriages in America is over 60%. The divorce rate in America is over 60%. Domestic violence is present in over 20% of marriages. And you have the gall to say that GAY people are the ones demeaning the institution of marriage? If anyone is demeaning the institution of marriage, it is the people who are injecting religious doctrine into an agreed upon contract that should be about love and commitment.

                I understand marriage has been around for thousands of years. And that worked out just fine until a couple hundred years ago when christians decided that government should control the business of marriage. It stopped being the same thing when christians decided that when they marry they should get special treatment from the government. At that point, it was no longer in the realm of the church, it was in the realm of the government. And once it is in the realm of the government, christians no longer have a say as to who is entitled to government loot and privileges. You know what else has been around for thousands of years? Love. and homosexuality. And in some societies both trumped the church.

                What’s next NAMBLA rights?

                There is a very large difference between two consenting adults professing a commitment to each other and grown men taking advantage of children. That slippery slope argument won’t work here.

            • What in interesting topic sometime….. Majority Rule vs Freedom.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            If you have ever paid attention to my posts on this subject in the past (which seems unlikely given your response), I have advocated that GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS BEING IN THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS AT ALL.

            As such, there should be NO LEGISLATION WHATSOEVER regarding marriage.

            Do I want Congress or the Courts to legislate that gay people can or cannot marry? NOPE.

            YOU seem to be the one that wants legislation… don’t pin that one on me!

            • EXACTLY Peter!

              Is it a violation of rights to restrict marriage for gay? Yes.

              Is it a violation of rights to force acceptance of gay marriage? Yes.

              Marriage is between the persons being married, and, if applicable, whatever deity, group of witnesses, etc. that are required according to the beliefs of the persons being married. I understand that for most Christians, marriage is an institution of faith and love before God, meant for one man and one woman. That is the predominant definition in this country. For the law to force the acceptance of other definitions of marriage is a violation of those religious beliefs.

              TC, you, and others like you, should not have to have marriage cheapened by having the government say that marriage can include gay couples. You should have the right to not recognize a gay couple as married, regardless of whatever ceremony they had or what location or even their understanding of Christianity, if they are Christians. I know that a law accepting gay marriage as legal does exactly that. It is a violation of freedom.

              I also understand that, for some, marriage is about love and commitment between individuals. If that involves more than 2 persons, or if if involves a single sex, then that is fine. They should not be restricted from being married in the sense that they understand marriage. A law preventing this and giving strict definition to marriage is a violation of freedom.

              The solution? NO MARRIAGE LAWS AT ALL. The government has no business deciding who can marry, or making money from licenses, or how many can be involved, or whether they love each other, or whether God thinks its cool, or any of that. It is an abomination to the institution of marriage even within Christian theology to have government involvement and oversight to begin with. THAT is what really cheapens marriage.

              This, unfortunately, started a LONG time ago, I believe around the 1200s if memory serves, and was one of the things that England was doing that we adopted into our system because the founders did not quite get the negative aspects of such law. Also, they recognized the contractual aspects of a marriage that involve ownership or property and custody of children, etc. I guess they did not see a need to handle that stuff separately, bit there definitely is such a need. A contract between adults is needed, but that is a separate issue.

            • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

              So therefore, we let the states decide for themselves, right? I can live with that.

              I am not much of a lawyer but I do know that certain contracts cannot be enforced if they are against public policy. Fior example, if I agree to pay you not to marry my daughter, you take my money and marry her, I cannot enforce that conract. I also cannot enter into an enforceable contract for something illegal which is why it is so hard to break into the hit-man business.

              This is one of these areas where we can argue forever. I agree with Tex.

              USW, I got married in 1973. Up to that point both the wife and I as singles got fairly hefty, for the time, tax refunds. Lo and behold, when I sat down to do my taxes in ’74 I found I owed the buggers a grand and, they wanted me to start paying estimated taxes! So you are going to have to enlighten me on those special benefits I get.

              These are the same points I always make on the issue.

              If it was wrong for 4,000 years or so, why is it suddenly right? Why did no one think of this before?

              What ever happened to the concept that the majority will shall prevail?

              What is wrong with giving all the supposed benefits of marriage, including a ceremony, but not using the term MARRIAGE? Is the use of that term as deliberately in your face provocative as I think it is?

              Is this argument really any different than the inappropriateness of building that Mosque at Ground Zero and refusing to compromise?

              Why does our side, the social conservatives, always have to be the one to compromise? As an aside on that I have had an issue with civil unions but got beyond that to preserve the institution of marriage. So much for compromise. It’s like trying to compromise with the Third Reich on Czechoslovakia.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                If you are a “Social Conservative” and you want the government to LEGISLATE who can be married and who cannot, then you support a large and powerful government. As such, you have no real reason to complain when that large and powerful government legislates OTHER THINGS which you are NOT happy with.

                This is what most “Social Conservatives” do not understand. Many “social consevatives” are exactly like the progressives. They actively WANT the government to pass legislation which will support the “Greater Good”. They just have a different view of what the “Greater Good” is than the progressives have.

                As a result, you don’t get a smaller, more manageable government, EVER.

                What you get is group A telling group B, “My legislatively enforced “Greater Good” is better than yours!” and then group B says, “No it isn’t!!!”

                Thus, we end up with a nation of voters who CONTINUALLY vote for larger, more powerful, and more overbearing government, regardless of which version of the “Greater Good” that they believe in.

                • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

                  Small and unpowerful governments have legislated who can marry throughout history. If legislating that marriage is between a man and a woman makes a government “strong and powerful” I guess you are right and I guess that I’m there.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Why is it a compromise to allow someone else to be free, as long as that other person’s freedom does not impose upon you in any way?

                • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

                  Don’t consider it a freedom issue. Why must a civil union be called “Marriage”? Same rights, different name but you won’t compromise with me over the name, not the issue. Why?

            • This is my view of the subject also.

              TC, I am as disgusted by Gay’s who flaunt their disgusting crap in public as you personally, It is not the Government’s job to legislate marriage one way or the other.

              I don’t care whether they “marry” each other or not. And what they do in private is not my business.

    • “More and more conservatives are saying that opposition to gay marriage would not be a litmus test for membership in the GOP,”

      TC: Yup, giving up their morals and beliefs for votes from the gay community.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Or perhaps they are realzing that this should be a non-issue as all people are deserving of equal rights and maintaining a stance of anti-gay marriage goes against their message of liberty and freedom?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Or since Obama came out opposed to gay marriage they figure that requires them now to support it? 😉

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Didn’t even think of that explanation…

          • Ray and Buck

            That was pretty clever and I am guessing would actually work with some “lefties”. In fact you made me laugh out loud on that one.

            But here is the reality, as seen by someone who was IN the R party up until this spring.

            This issue, and abortion, has been growing in the R party as divisive issues. There is a large group of R’s, including most of the younger ones, who DO NOT want these issues involved in the Party’s platform in any way. They are much more “Libertarian” in their thinking.

            That is why Steele was handed the Chair. He is from the “moderate” side. But that was a slap in the face to the “religious conservatives” who think they and they alone are responsible for getting Republicans both houses in 1994.

            There is a battle ongoing within the Republican Party. The Tea Party has not helped resolve it because those who turned out fit in BOTH camps. They are not all “Cons” nor are they all “Mods”.

            But on the fiscal issues the Tea Party crowd seems pretty united. And thus where Repubs have voted for Tarp, Stimulus, Health Care and other normal cookie programs, you have seen them beaten in the Primaries or at least scared “conservative”.

            Hope you guys have a great day.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Hey JAC – it was just a joke. That’s all. 😉

              • Bottom Line says:


                Intended as a joke or not, I think you nailed it.

                I’m not saying that that is their sole motivation, but I bet it has something to do with it.

              • Ray

                I know that, and as I said, I found it funny. And sadly, holding a grain of truth.

                I simply took it as an opening to share my understanding of what is going on within the elephant party.

                I was not criticizing either of you. Don’t forget who I put in the “lefty” category. 🙂

        • Sure Buck, and lets let felons convicted of child molestation have equal rights and be allowed to play on school playgrounds…

        • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

          Why can’t I marry four women?

          Even better, should I be allowed to marry four women?

          Should the government be in the business of telling us anything about marriage at all?

          Should the government be in the business of telling us anything at all about any type of personal behavior?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            No, the government should not be in the marriage business at all.

            If you wish to marry four women, and you can find four women who agree to marry you, more power to you.

            However, just remember that women who live together long enough tend to synchronize their cycles, so if you don’t want a house with 4 women having PMS at the exact same time, you might want each of them to have separate houses 🙂

    • I also think there are really, really so many other pressing issues, LIKE JOBS AND THE ECONOMY, that you can only fight so many battles at one time.

    • USWep,

      More and more people are coming to the understanding that there is something fundamentally wrong with denying people equal treatment and rights based on something that is none of your business.

      Well said, sir!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I wish to point out the following:

      In many dictionaries, the #1 definition of marriage is as follows:

      1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

      If that is the definition of marriage, then “gay marriage” cannot exist, because IT DOES NOT FIT THE DEFINITION.

      SOME newer dictionaries have added at the end the following”

      “a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage”

      Thus, making “gay marriage” fit the newer definition.

      Even in older dictionaries however, the 2nd or 3rd definition of marriage is as follows:

      3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities.

      In this definition, gender is not present; that is, “man and woman” are not specified, it merely says “two people”.

      So, SOME of this argument comes down to the definition of terms. I am CERTAIN that TexasChem would insist that definition #1 WITHOUT the later modification, was the only correct definition, and so he would argue that “gay marriage” cannot exist, because it does not fit his definition of the term “marriage”. I have to admit, I used to be right there with him.

      Then I came to the realization that it was impossible for me to actually DEMONSTRATE REAL HARM to myself if gay couples were allowed to get married. In the absence of the ability to demonstrate actual harm, gay marriage cannot be a violation of my rights in any way; however, any desire on my part to “outlaw” gay marriage would be a violation of the rights of the gay couple who wished to be married.

      A big part of me still does not “like” the idea of gay marriage. My ability to “like” the idea is, however, irrelevant. If I wish to be consistent, I must support gay marriage, even though part of me still doesn’t “like” it.

  4. USWeapon Topic #4

    SEC Threatens Credit Rating Agencies With Fraud Charges

    The Securities and Exchange Commission has declined to seek fraud charges against Moody’s Investors Services over its ratings of risky investments that led to the financial crisis.

    But the SEC said it decided against seeking civil charges only because it determined it lacked authority to charge a foreign affiliate of Moody’s.

    Instead, in a report on its investigation, the SEC warned all credit rating agencies that they could face charges if they mislead investors with deceptive ratings.

    Investors rely on the statements these agencies make in their applications and reports to the SEC, Robert Khuzami, the SEC enforcement director, said in a statement.

    “It is crucial that (rating agencies) take steps to assure themselves of the accuracy of those statements and that they have in place sufficient internal controls over the procedures they use to determine credit ratings,” he said.

    The warning is the latest step by the SEC to address the conduct of major financial firms that contributed to the Wall Street meltdown. Goldman Sachs & Co. agreed in July to pay $550 million to settle civil fraud charges related to its sales of mortgage investments. And Citigroup Inc. agreed to pay $75 million to resolve charges it misled investors about billions of dollars in potential losses from subprime mortgages.

    The financial overhaul law enacted in July calls for reducing the influence of the big three rating agencies – Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings. They were discredited in the financial crisis for giving high ratings to risky mortgage securities.

    The financial overhaul law also gave the SEC authority to pursue alleged fraud by foreign affiliates of U.S. rating agencies that could have a significant effect within the U.S.

    The SEC accused Moody’s of failing to disclose ratings misconduct by a European affiliate when it registered with the agency, as required by law at that time. Because the alleged misconduct occurred before the financial overhaul law took effect, the SEC said it lacked jurisdiction to pursue an enforcement case against Moody’s.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/31/sec-threatens-credit-rating-agencies-fraud_n_701135.html

    I am not going to say a ton about this particular article. I will throw it up here and let everyone have their say. But I wanted to just throw a few very quick thoughts out on it.

    As someone who vehemently feels that regulations and regulatory agencies are worthless and far more of a hinderance than a help, I always feel a little bit justified in my position when I see an article like this that points out just how impotent federal watchdogs really are. This is the SEC, for god’s sake. And they cannot control or regulate the fundamental areas that they are charged with overseeing. Moody’s was in clear violation of their “regulations,” yet they won’t be pursuing fraud charges. Why, because a foreign section did it, and they have no jurisdiction to do so.

    Welcome to the global world SEC. Every company will ensure that the divisions of their organization that will actually do the things your regulations don’t permit are based outside of the US. See how ridiculously easy it is for gigantic companies, who have gigantic ability to impact our economy and our industries, to sidestep your little rules and ignore your edicts?

    For all you people who stand pat on the idea that regulation is the answer, even effective and efficient regulation, here is another example of how impotent the US regulatory environment is. Five million Americans employed by US regulatory agencies, and they can’t stop corporations from doing anything. Their only recourse is punishment after the damage is done, and even then, they are thwarted because business is smarter than government, and more agile to boot.

    So the answer? You already know. Get the hell out of the way. My favorite part of this article: The financial overhaul law enacted in July calls for reducing the influence of the big three rating agencies – Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings. They were discredited in the financial crisis for giving high ratings to risky mortgage securities. They were already discredited. Let that be publicly known and open the market. An alternative company that hasn’t been discredited will emerge. And it will put those three discredited ones out of business. Why? Because people who invest want information they can trust. That is the best way for them to make money on that investment. Why would they want to invest based on information provided by discredited companies? Oh, that’s right, because the government gives them no choice.


      • Not that I agree with the above.That is just what the feds are using to justify their actions.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Its no secret that I would not agree with your position here USW – I have stated before that the free market is not even remotely equipped to offer the right safeguards – ESPECIALLY in FinServices. Having said that – I am very familiar with the shortcomings of both the SEC and the utter corruption in the ratings agencies – Michael Lewis’ book does a decent job describing much of this. IMHO there are people from the SEC who should be sitting in a Federal Pen right now. Their responsibility is not as unclear and gray as they make it seem – they just chose to look the other way because they don’t want to ask the hard questions any more than the media does.

      • Ray

        I understand your concerns. But I must ask, How many times must a system fail before you admit it is the system itself that is flawed and not just the parts within it?

        Federal Regulations hamper the “moral hazard” as well as the “legal hazard”. Both the regulated and the regulator are covered by the umbrella. What might normally be viewed as open to some civil action is prevented by regulation if the “regulations” were followed. And if the “regulations” are a bit foggy, well then they were followed.

        The ONLY thing that will stop this idiotic cycle is Criminal and Civil action against the INDIVIDUALS who made the decisions and acted against their promises. Until INDIVIDUALS in the industry feel the heat directly I doubt anything will change. And Govt Regulations and controls act in the opposite to this needed goal.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          JAC – folks telling me to “try it” (“it” being the free market) because its “different” or philosophically sexy is not very compelling at all. I also take issue that complex systems will somehow flourish under a free market approach wherein critical variables such as information and visibility likely become more scarce or even more controlled – it may have worked in a day and age when we visited the market with the family pack animal with pots clanging together on the side and we used bartering – I just don’t find it practical today and no one can provide a robust example to convince naysayers like me that its more than a twinkle in the eye versus a stain in the underwear.

          The “system” that is NASA has had a few notable fails – the parts that cause those failures have been addressed/fixed have they not?

          • Ray

            Regarding NASA. I would say NO. There will be another FAIL because the underlying problems can not be addressed by mgt directly. In the end, it is our own “personal” ethical standards that lead to these failures. But NASA also makes a terrible example of what we are talking about, which is Federal Regulation and control.

            You seem to always ignore the fact that “trial by jury” whether for “civil or criminal” action is PART of the free market concept, at least under our current system or JAC’s Village if you will.

            Lets assume that information is more hidden. The transaction is still up to the two parties involved. Perhaps the Wall Street crowd would shrink if everyone had to start doing their own due diligence before investing their money. Perhaps more money would be put into real tangible investments that produce outputs instead of gambling on AIR.

            I think I have laid out a logical explanation as to why it would work but your rebuttal always comes down to “I feel”. I see no reason that “complexity” necessitates Federal Govt or any Govt “control” over an industry. Why don’t you think it is practical?

            If business harms someone then it should be prosecuted. The only question becomes whether that harm was accidental or deliberate. One being a civil remedy and the other being criminal.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            “I also take issue that complex systems will somehow flourish under a free market approach wherein critical variables such as information and visibility likely become more scarce or even more controlled”


            Before I even attempt to respond to that, please explain to me why information would be subject to more CONTROL in a FREE market, and explain to me what the heck you even mean by “visibility”.

            I think that the vast majority of people here have somewhere between very little and ZERO understanding of what a free market actually is.

            Most of you seem to think that because Michael Moore called our current system “Capitalism” that we actually currently HAVE a capitalist system! (Hint: we do NOT currenlty have a capitalist system!)

            Anyway, once I understand why you feel like information would be more controlled in a free market, and once I have some idea what you mean by “visibility” then I may be able to offer a cogent response.

  5. Don’t Count the Democrats Out!!

    I have laughed these past few weeks as the Republicans and media have all jumped on the Dems are Dead bandwagon. Predictions of a Republican take over of both houses is now openly discussed at least weekly. The generic polls have the Dems 10% behind the Republicans. They can’t turn it around in time, the experts say.

    JAC says Bulldookey. All they need is a red white and blue issue that puts them back in the “middle” before the elections. Now what do you suppose that issue might be? You know, one the Republicans could never argue against and the Dems could say, “see WE did this for you”?

    Fading now into the recent past………………..JAC is arguing with lefties that the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts will create a significant increase in taxes on the lower and middle class. Exactly the people the “lefties” claim to be trying to save. He is called a lunatic among other endearing things by the salivating Hyenas. He sticks to his guns but they are not moved. Down with the Bush Tax cuts they SCREAM at the top of their lungs. It will save the budget, eliminate the deficit and of course “get even” with the evil rich people. JAC, undaunted continues jilting at the windmills. He knows there has to be at least a few rational people left on the left. Fading now………….forward to the more recent past.

    JAC is explaining to some Republican die hards that all is not a slam dunk. They can expect the Dems to pick up the TAX issue after recess and SLAP the Republicans up side the head with it. The “lefties” howl in laughter. Fading now………..forward to the present..

    Senator Baucus is touring Montana during the recess and telling everyone not to worry. The Bush Tax Cuts ARE NOT going to expire for those in the lower and middle class brackets. Note: He started this two weeks ago. JAC hears the news via the grapevine and smiles. Told ya so can be gratifying when things are slow. JAC calls his “lefty” Republican friends and tells them to watch their backs. They still haven’t stopped laughing. “Haven’t you heard about the Ohio polls?” they ask.

    TODAY, from HuffPo: “In a Rose Garden address Monday, President Barack Obama said he was aiming to identify “additional measures that could make a difference in both promoting growth and hiring in the short term.

    Among the ideas he cited were extending tax cuts for the middle class and renewing a mix of tax credits for businesses, such as the research tax credit.

    The administration hasn’t settled on whether to take bigger—and more expensive—steps, such as a payroll tax cut or additional tax cuts for small businesses. Complicating the talks are concerns about the cumulative federal deficit, which could rise by $11 trillion over the next decade.”

    AND, this little gem buried within the article: “Mr. Manley said Democrats wanted to hold a vote this fall to extend the tax cuts passed during the Bush administration for families earning less than $250,000 a year.”

    JAC is pondering what this all means, when he notices what appears to be a school of Great White Sharks, there off in the distance, starting to circle the ship “Republican”.

    JAC to SUFA. How confident are you that the American Voter will NOT fall for the “free cookies” play one more time?

    • I don’t think they will this time, JAC. Too many of us realize we’ve been played for too long. We know better than to be happy with crumbs. We now understand the play with language, the hapless MSM, the need to look behind the curtain.

      I don’t know how the elections in November will bear out, but I think many of us new activists realize it took us a long time to get here and it will take us a long time, and many elections, to get government out of our way.

    • I agree JAC. The Dem’s may be backed into a corner, that does not mean the have given up, or that they can’t talk their way out. Consider also, that viewed nationally, they are doing poorly, but this will be settled at the state and local level. Many will still support their guy, for the bacon he brings home, accepting that it’s the others who are mostly at fault.

      I have not heard, does Pelosi have a credible challenger?


        On a Saturday afternoon, in Washington, D. C., an aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited the Bishop of the Catholic cathedral in D.C.

        He told the Cardinal that Nancy Pelosi would be attending the next day’s Mass, and he asked if the Cardinal would kindly point out Pelosi to the congregation and say a few words that would include calling Pelosi a saint.

        The Cardinal replied, “No. I don’t really like the woman, and there are issues of conflict with the Catholic Church over certain of Pelosi’s views.”

        Pelosi’s aide then said, “Look. I’ll write a check here and now for a donation of $100,000 to your church if you’ll just tell the congregation you see Pelosi as a saint.”

        The Cardinal thought about it and said, “Well, the church can use the money, so I’ll work your request into tomorrow’s sermon.”

        As Pelosi’s aide promised, House Speaker Pelosi appeared for the Sunday worship and seated herself prominently at the forward left side of the center aisle.

        As promised, at the start of his sermon, the Cardinal pointed out that Speaker Pelosi was present.

        The Cardinal went on to explain to the congregation,

        “While Speaker Pelosi’s presence is probably an honor to some, the woman is not numbered among my personal favorite personages.
        Some of her most egregious views are contrary to tenets of the Church, and she tends to flip-flop on many other issues.
        Nancy Pelosi is a petty, self-absorbed hypocrite, a thumb sucker, and a nit-wit.
        Nancy Pelosi is also a serial liar, a cheat, and a thief.
        I must say, Nancy Pelosi is the worst example of a Catholic I have ever personally witnessed.
        She married for money and is using her wealth to lie to the American people.
        She also has a reputation for shirking her Representative obligations both in Washington, and in California.
        The woman is simply not to be trusted.”
        The Cardinal concluded,
        “But, when compared with Pres. Obama, House Speaker Pelosi is a saint.”

    • They’ll lick it up like a porn movie starlet….

      Yes, that comment was meant to be disgusting, just like the behavior of your run of the mill American Sheople.

  6. Shock at CNN: Banks Doing More than Obama for Homeowners
    By Matthew Philbin
    Mon, 08/30/2010 –

    To the surprise of CNNMoney.com’s Tami Luhby, the market is doing something more efficiently than a government program. While this isn’t news to many, at CNN, it’s a revelation.

    It seems “banks are doing nearly twice as many modifications under their own foreclosure prevention initiatives than under the Obama administration’s signature Home Affordable Modification Program, known as HAMP,” Luhbi wrote in her Aug. 30 article. Banks made 644,000 “proprietary permanent modifications” in the first half of 2010, almost twice the 332,000 under HAMP.

    Loan modifications are an alternative to foreclosures, in which the debtors usually receive “interest rate and principal reductions.” The HAMP program, according to Luhby, “lowers monthly payments to 31% of pre-tax income.”

    Luhby’s surprise stems from her assertion that:

    “Banks have long come under fire not doing enough to help troubled homeowners, particularly when the mortgage crisis started spinning out of control in 2007. Many loan servicers initially addressed the problem by tacking on the missed payments, which only increased strapped homeowners’ monthly burden.”

    So banks were at fault for operating on the creditor-debtor model that has existed almost since there’s been money: a creditor provides a loan expecting repayment plus (reasonable) interest; a debtor repays according to a set schedule, and failure to pay brings penalties or foreclosure.

    However, market conditions changed and banks have changed with them. As Luhby wrote, “Banks have realized that foreclosing on home after home after home may not be in anyone’s best interest – least of all their own.”

    But banks aren’t off CNN’s hook, since they still are trying to get the most favorable terms for the business that they can. “Before homeowners rejoice, they should take a close look at the terms of their bank modification offers, consumer advocates say. Many may not be as good as HAMP, which lowers monthly payments to 31% of pre-tax income.”

    Luhby had no trouble finding mortgagee to complain about a proprietary modification. Ida Ward, an Atlanta middle school teacher, had her monthly payment cut nearly in half in a HAMP trial modification. When she received her permanent modification from Chase, the reduction was about half as much as under HAMP.

    “‘These banks should be ashamed of the terms that they are giving to borrowers,’ said Ward, who said she had no choice but to accept the offer. ‘The loan modification process is flawed and deceptive to borrowers.’”

    No mention in the article of the “flawed and deceptive” loan origination process that put borrowers in homes they couldn’t afford, or the shame of borrowers who can’t meet the terms they agreed to when they contracted with the bank.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-philbin/2010/08/30/shock-cnn-banks-doing-more-obama-homeowners#ixzz0yI1xfZ00

  7. In honor of this weekend’s opening of the college football season, I present the (supposed) best mascots out there! Go Badgers!


    (yeah, yeah, Anita, I saw Sparty there – bad team, good mascot, OK?)

  8. JAC on the Revenue Sharing Proposal by NY TIMES.

    USW asked me to bring a comment forward from a post I made the other day. He also asked that I explain my revulsion as this proposal seemed reasonable on the surface. My comment was on a NY Times article which I shared with Kathy. Here is my comment to Kathy at the time.

    August 30, 2010 at 12:35 am
    Since you posted one, I figured I would as well. Seems the full moon has brought them out of the wood work.
    WARNING !!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Keep a bucket handy if you are going to read this article. It will make you sick.

    Following is a copy of the article along with my commentary inserted in BOLD TYPE. Sorry but I don’t have the skill to use different colors, or block quotes. There was so much that ticked me off I figured a complete reconstruct would be more informative that composing a summary. Unfortunately it make the post quite long, but here it goes.

    The Case for Reviving Revenue Sharing
    Published: August 28, 2010

    PROTRACTED unemployment is eating away at millions of people. And the economy’s failure to create enough jobs for them is part of a vicious circle that could keep turning for years to come. AND THE MORE GOVT TRIES TO FIX IT THE GREATER THE CHANCE THIS WILL COME TRUE.

    In my last column, I called for big, temporary government programs aimed directly at putting people back to work. But how might we best accomplish this? The clock is ticking, and we don’t have time to create new national organizations to employ people. NOTE: HE IS HINTING THAT GOVT EMPLOYMENT WOULD BE BETTER, LIKE THE CCC DAYS. Instead, the most efficient approach is to use existing organizations for specific ideas and projects. GOOD IDEA, IT WAS USED TWO YEARS AGO. SEE BELOW

    State and local governments as well as nonprofit and other organizations need to be mainstays in this effort. We need to enlist their help — without telling them exactly what to do. THIS IS EXACTLY HOW MUCH OF THE STIMULUS WAS PASSED THROUGH THE SYSTEM. THE METHODOLOGY WAS PUT IN PLACE AND FINE TUNED BY BOTH THE LAST DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS.

    As for a framework, think of the general revenue sharing program adopted by Congress in 1972. AHHH. SO YOUR REALLY NOT INTERESTED IN USING THE LOCALS, YOU SIMPLY WANT TO RATIONALIZE MORE FEDERAL TAXES.

    In his 1971 State of the Union message, President Richard M. Nixon advocated general revenue sharing to offset the tendency for power to be concentrated in Washington. Give local governments the money and “put the power to spend it where the people are,” he said. Support for the idea was not confined to Republicans. A leading Democrat, Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, supported it in 1972, saying that federal taxes were more progressive than state and local ones and that federal money could be spent more effectively by people with local knowledge than by “some agency head in Washington.”

    General revenue sharing came under attack in the Reagan years, and Congress ended it in 1987, arguing that by breaking the link between taxation and local needs, it encouraged higher taxes. REAGAN ADMINISTRATION ACTUALLY PUSHED FOR A “BLOCK GRANT” CONCEPT BUT THE DEMS WERE FIGHTING IT HARD.

    We are in a different time now. State and local governments are in severe fiscal trouble, and their constitutions often prevent deficit spending. In these circumstances, the federal government, which does not face such constraints, needs to raise revenue for them. OK, HERE IS THE STATEMENT THAT HAD ME REACHING FOR THE PUKE BUCKET. IT IS A “CONFESSION” BY THE ELITIST THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT CONSTRAINED. IT CAN RAISE THE TAXES ON ALL OF US, WHEN THE INDIVIDUAL STATES CAN NOT. EVEN THOUGH IN TOTAL, THE STATES REPRESENT ALL OF US.




    Legislation providing the states with $26 billion, which President Obama signed into law this month, took an important step in this direction. IT DID NO SUCH THING, AS YOU ARE ABOUT TO ADMIT WITH YOUR NEXT SENTENCE. It did not create true general revenue sharing, because it tied the funds to specific needs — mostly hiring teachers and paying for Medicaid. But it did free states to use other resources as they saw fit. IN OTHER WORDS, NOW THAT THE FEDS ARE PAYING THE TEACHERS YOU CAN USE THOSE “EDUCATION TAX REVENUES” TO SPEND ON YOUR PET BIKE TRAIL PROJECT. OH, BUT I WONDER IF THE STATE LAWS MAY IMPEDE THE USE OF THESE FUNDS FOR OTHER PURPOSES? HOW LONG BEFORE THE FEDERAL SIMPLY OVER TURNS THOSE STATE LIMITS, IN THE NAME OF JOB CREATION? THIS IS A DIRECT ATTACK ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY.


    Hundreds of articles in political science and public policy journals have studied past efforts, and analyzed the concept of fiscal federalism, without establishing general revenue sharing as a fundamental pillar of Keynesian stabilization policies. OF COURSE THEY HAVE. YOU HAVE JUST DECIDED TO PUT A NEW TERM ON IT IN HOPES OF MAKING IT MORE PALATABLE. IN THE FUTURE YOU CAN CLAIM THAT IT IS REALLY NOT “TAX AND SPEND” IT IS REALLY JUST “REVENUE SHARING”.

    This lapse is understandable: most of these articles were written before the current economic crisis, the most serious since the Great Depression. IF YOU DOUBTED THE POLITICAL MOTIVES OF THE AUTHOR, THE FACT THAT HE HAD TO SLIP THIS IN SHOULD BE A RED FLAG.



    Martin Shubik, a professor of mathematical institutional economics at Yale, has proposed creating a “Federal Employment Reserve Authority,” a permanent agency that would do extensive research and maintain a detailed list of ready-to-go public works projects should a recession come. That’s a great idea, but we do not have such an agency now, and, if we did, it might still suffer from a Washington bias. GREAT IDEA? I THOUGHT YOUR PREMISE WAS THE STATES HAD A BETTER HANDLE ON PRIORITIES. SARCASM ASIDE, I WANT YOU ALL TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR SOME TIME. GOVT STAFF HAVE TOLD ME THEY SEE A FUTURE WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVT IS FUNDING PROJECTS SUBMITTED BY THE STATES UNDER SOME TYPE OF COMPETITIVE PROCESS. YOU KNOW, THE ONE WITH THE HIGHEST PNV OR SOME OTHER METRIC, LIKE WHOSE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT ITS IN, WILL GOVERN THE FINAL AWARD OF MONEY.

    Now, local governments are laying off a wide variety of employees, including teachers, police officers and social workers. So why don’t we embrace general revenue sharing? YOU MEAN WHY DON’T WE EMBRACE FEDERAL TAKE OVER OF LOCAL GOVT RESPONSIBILITY. ONCE THE FED’S ARE PAYING FOR THE LOCAL POLICE, FIRE AND TEACHERS DO YOU THINK EVERYONE IS GOING TO BE JUMPING TO RETURN TO THE BAD OLD DAYS WHEN THEIR PAYCHECKS DEPENDED ON PASSING A LOCAL MILL LEVY?

    Unfortunately, when faced with a need for stimulus, members of Congress seem to prefer to start their own projects, for which they are likely to get more credit from voters. Local governments, meanwhile, which are more likely to know where spending is really needed, remain in deep trouble. GOOD GOD. WHERE DO YOU THINK THOSE CONGRESSMEN GET THE IDEA FOR THE PET PROJECT? IT DOESN’T JUST FALL FROM THE SKY DIPSTICK.

    It’s time for the public to assert loftier expectations. We need to respect existing government bureaus and organizations for their ideas, and get down to the business of financing important jobs temporarily, and on a huge scale. This will avert more layoffs, and perhaps give cities and states time to recover to the point they can pay local employees from local revenue. OK, IF THESE JOBS ARE SO “IMPORTANT” WHY ARE WE FUNDING THEM “TEMPORARILY” AND ON A “HUGE SCALE”? JUST WHAT WE NEED, A BROAD BASED TEMPORARY WORK FORCE. THAT WILL SURE STABILIZE THE ECONOMY.

    When the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt began its vast job creation program in 1933, it had to accept certain practical realities, which limited the immediate stimulus that could be provided. Foremost among them was that the government had to work largely within the framework of existing organizations — whether state and local governments, the military or nonprofit groups — which provided much of the economy’s infrastructure. OH, SO NOW FDR’S EFFORTS FAILED BECAUSE THERE WASN’T A FEDERAL STRUCTURE IN PLACE TO ALLOW RAPID SPENDING INCREASES. I THOUGHT THE FDR PROGRAMS WERE A COMPLETE SUCCESS?



    When the Roosevelt administration and Congress created the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1933, it was done within the framework of the Army. There seemed to be no other organization that could move hundreds of thousands of young men into wilderness encampments where they could work on conservation efforts. But the Roosevelt C.C.C. placed no more than a half-million people in jobs. We need to reach further than that. FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS WOULD PREVENT SUCH AN EFFORT TODAY. JUST IN CASE ANYONE THOUGHT A SIMILAR PROGRAM WOULD BE POSSIBLE IF THE LOGISTICS WERE OVERCOME. FDR DIDN’T HAVE TO DEAL WITH NEPA, ESA, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, ETC.


    Labor unions, which represent workers who naturally fear displacement by people in new jobs, might seem to be an obstacle. But unions do have an idealistic base, and working union members have sons and daughters and friends and relatives who are unemployed. The unions need to be consulted if new jobs are to be created in a relatively nonthreatening way. In a savvy move, President Roosevelt made a union leader the head of the C.C.C. OK, STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES. JUST CAN’T ADD MUCH MORE THAN THAT. DO YOU WANT JOBS OR DO YOU WANT UNIONS TO “NONTHREATENED”? I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT I THINK THIS IS MENTIONED BECAUSE FEDERAL AND STATE UNIONS HAVE BEEN LOBBYING AGAINST THE USE OF “CONTRACTING” TO ACCOMPLISH STIMULUS WORK.

    The concept of general revenue sharing can also be extended to the nation’s nonprofits, including charities and foundations. The government has long given support to such organizations, but usually in the form of narrow grants. But broader general revenue grants could be made in times like these. A LITTLE BAIT FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT BALK AT THE IDEA? SO WHICH NONPROFITS DO YOU ALL THINK WILL GET THESE BROAD “REVENUE GRANTS”?

    Millions of people need jobs, and there are organizations that could help put them to work. It’s time to move forward.
    Robert J. Shiller is professor of economics and finance at Yale and co-founder and chief economist of MacroMarkets LLC.




    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “And the economy’s failure to create enough jobs for them is part of a vicious circle that could keep turning for years to come.”

      Notice the SUBJECT of this sentence. The SUBJECT is “the economy”.

      Blame for the failure to create enough jobs is placed on “the Economy”.

      I stopped reading right there.

      If the NYT is clueless enough to imbue the economy itself with the ability to take blaim for the current level of unemployment, the rest of the article is not even worth reading, which is a shame, because I missed all of JAC’s comments 🙂

    • Will you please analyze all articles like that? I understood everything perfectly with your help! That was awesome!

    • And oh yeah….

      We are so screwed!

  9. http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

    $2.6 Million by US Gov to Get Prostitutes in China to Drink Les
    I am not sure what could be said about this.

    The federal government is spending $2.6 million to make sure prostitutes in China drink less on the job.

    That’s the goal of a five-year study, bankrolled by the National Institutes of Health, designed to help lower HIV infections among China’s “female sex workers,” who are referred to in the study as “FSWs.”

    Researchers will visit 100 houses of ill repute — a whole hamlet of harlots — to collect data on 700 prostitutes and 150 pimps and madams, referred to as “gatekeepers” in the study’s sterile abstract.

    Phase one of the study is intended to research “alcohol use/abuse and related sexual risk among FSWs in China,” according to the abstract — a cold hard look at why prostitutes engage in dangerous sex while drunk. . . .

    The project comes thanks to a grant from the NIH’s National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, which is also funding a $400,000 study of bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk — and just what can be done about it. . . .

  10. .

  11. You TEXICANS are sure a dramatic bunch.

    More proof of the failed Texas curriculum changes. Apparently they don’t teach basic Anatomy anymore.



  12. A while back there was a short dialogue on Thorium


    Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium

    • It’s 2010! How are they coming along with the antimatter reactor?

    • BF, et al.

      Wanted to share one of the comments I found under BF’s link. Remember what I told ya’ll about the Algorians?

      You’re right about thorium being a very promising energy source but the “Manhattan Project” you’re calling for has already been carried out by and large at Argonne National Laboratory in Idaho. The USA gave them 10 billion dollars to develop clean, safe, sustainable (from a fuel point of view), reasonably proliferation resistant and low waste nuclear power. They by and large succeeded with the IFR. It could fission all the uranium (ie including U-238), was inherently safe (operates at atmospheric , is resistant to meltdown because if it overheats the metallic fuel expands stopping the fission process) and produces short lived waste (due to all actinides being fissioned – only technetium’s a problem but is relatively small in volume and not too intensely radioactive). The plutonium is never separated chemically from other actinides and is heavily contaminated with other materials which means it’s very difficult to make a bomb from it. There is enough uranium already above ground and also obtainable at prices of say $1000 per kg (economical with breeding) to power the world for hundreds of thousands of years.

      Dr Till and his colleagues had pulled it off: only the “pyroprocessing” nuclear fuel reprocessing had to be demonstrated in a commercially sized operation. The project was pulled by the Clinton Administration at this point. The final part of the project would have cost about 60 million dollars and the Japanese had offered to put up some of the money (perhaps they could spot a winner when they saw one). It was all to no avail. After spending 10 billion with only 60 million to go they scrapped the project. All because of their antinuclear “religion”.
      Google it and weep. Read Tom Blees’s book “Prescription for the Planet” (I believe he’s already commented on this site) and I suspect you’ll feel quite angry at old Bill and Kerry.”

      I also remember when Clinton/Gore pulled funding for the INEL, now IEL. But I didn’t know what the projects were they had been working on. Gee, if only Al had been invested in this tech instead of windmills and carbon trading.

      • Wow.I’m impressed JAC!

        I read A LOT and have never ran across this story.
        I am speechless.

      • Jac,

        Would you say that, at $1,000/lb, this is an economically viable alternative to coal power?

        • Mathius,


          $1,000 x 2,000lb (1 Ton) = $2 million a ton Thorium = Energy equal of 3,500,000 tons of coal.

          Coal = $30 per ton x 3.5 million = $105 million

          $2 million <<<< $105 million.

          Thus, yes, incredibly economical.

          • Ok, great..

            And now the 105 million dollar question:

            If this is a superior option to coal, why hasn’t the free market funded the project?

            • Mathius

              If you read the supporting article it appears that the Nuclear Industry went to Gov to get some protectionist laws passed making it difficult for the research to move forward.

              But you question is a good one. It seems if it had that much potential that some wealthy types might pursue it in hopes of getting a “patent”.

              Or, Maybe we have forgotten how to innovate without Govt cookies?

              Acculturation can be a deadly thing.

            • Mathius,

              As JAC pointed out, the government prevents (currently) any possible development.

              No one will invest the billion dollars required without a reason.

              The reason: sell the energy.

              The problem: against the law.

              Therefore, no investment.

              That billion bucks can be used drilling for oil.

            • Back in the late ’70s and early ’80s Exxon had a program (actually several) in laser isotope separation. The Hanford Exxon program was on the verge of going commercial and was technically ahead of Livermore and Los Alamos Labs. In 1981, the government first agreed to commercialization and then changed their mind pulling the plug. The government even refused to buy the technology and move it to one of the government labs. Exxon shut the doors and walked away.

  13. Every now and then you read something from a journalist that, well, restores your hope for journalism.

    This was good enough that I copied the whole thing for you to read here.

    My Iraq mistake

    By Matt Miller
    Thursday, September 2, 2010

    My fellow Americans: I’m a pundit, not a president, but since it’s a moment for taking stock of America’s role in Iraq, I want to remind you that I blew it.

    I supported the war in 2003 because I thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Along with Ken Pollack, the former Clinton national security council staffer, whose 2002 book, “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq,” was influential at the time, I believed a nuclear-armed Hussein was both inevitable and intolerable.

    A lot of people — from Bill Clinton to the German and Israeli intelligence services — believed the same thing. But I’m skeptical of what people claim to “know” in many other areas of public life. I wasn’t skeptical enough about this. I argued back then about the risks of inaction outweighing the risks of action. When I look over those columns today, from the distance of nearly eight years, they seem reasonable and serious.

    Except, of course, that their premise was utterly wrong. If I’d known beforehand that Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, I would not have supported the war. I don’t believe President Bush misled the country about these facts, because many other sources held the same view of Hussein’s capabilities. (I don’t believe Colin Powell was intentionally misleading anyone at the United Nations either, but it turned out not to be his finest hour.)

    I’ve been struggling with what my mistake means ever since. When he was at the center of events in the Clinton years, Bob Rubin spoke often about what he called “probabilistic reasoning.” You do the best you can to assign rough probabilities to the complex scenarios you face, he said, and to the likely outcomes of decisions — and then make your call as best you can. His corollary was that you couldn’t judge the quality of a decision after the fact, when more became known. You could only judge the quality of a decision based on the information available at the time.

    This used to strike me as sound. I don’t think so now. It may not be “fair,” but, as political leaders know better than most, the quality of decisions, in every way that matters, turn on their outcome. That’s why it’s better to be lucky than smart. There’s something depressing about the futility of human reason in all this, but also something undeniable.

    History doesn’t allow mulligans. If it did, Iraq’s might have meant a stepped-up version of the post-Gulf war “containment” regime of sanctions, inspections and no-fly zones. It’s surreal to recall that the no-fly zones were once thought to be “expensive,” before we dropped a trillion dollars on a war. Hussein would have died one day of old age or been slain by rivals, and a bloody succession battle would have ensued. He would have done many awful things in the meantime. But America can’t solve every evil in the world. Hussein’s villainy was never a reason for war, just as the plight of Afghan women can’t be reason to devote 150,000 troops and untold billions to chase down what the CIA says are 60 to 80 members of al-Qaeda.

    Still, I’m torn. I can’t help thinking that, 100 years from now, America’s readiness to send its brave youth half a world away to topple a heinous dictator and then flush him out of a hole will be seen as noble. And not just about oil. For better or worse, I lack the moral clarity and strategic certainty of the war’s ardent supporters or foes.

    Instead, in retrospect, invading Iraq strikes me as a bad decision that the United States has had no choice but to make the best of. Our troops have performed remarkably. Whether they’ve been well served by their political leaders — or their political pundits — is another matter.

    For my part, I’m chastened. I’m less confident in my judgments on foreign affairs. Politicians rarely admit they’re mistaken (as our surge-opposing president and vice president proved again this week). Neither do . But politicians can be held to account. Pundits prattle on regardless. Not to be holier (or wronger) than thou, but that turns people off. It ought to.

    I’m hoping for the best, in the spirit the president urged Tuesday night, though he can’t admit he fought the surge that’s created the chance for a happier ending. But in the end I’m with Cher, who’s still singing her heart out in Las Vegas: “If I could turn back time . . . ”

    Thank you, God bless you, and may God save America’s unaccountable chattering class.

    Matt Miller, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and co-host of public radio’s “Left, Right & Center,” writes a weekly column for The Post. He can be reached at mattino2@gmail.com.

  14. A LITTLE while ago Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, called the economic outlook “unusually uncertain”.

    This might be because Bernanke and the Federal Reserve Board do not know how to differentiate a helthy economy from a suffering one. Further, expressing ‘uncertainty’ is helpful, for then you have hedged your statement and cannot be blamed (severely) if you turn out to be wrong.

    The Fed has lately been a source of a lot of that uncertainty. Its officials maintained an upbeat outlook for the economy as the news in recent months went from bad to worse, then on August 10 they seemed to abruptly embrace the opposite view by announcing new steps to stimulate the economy. Matters have not been helped by the public airing of divergent views from officials.

    At least divergent views provide the public with a variety of official, qualified statements to choose from. If the Fed officials provide us with a buffet of diverse and contradictory statements, chances are that at least one of them will be reasonably right.

    Mr Bernanke cleared up a lot of the confusion with a long speech to the Kansas City Fed’s annual symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming today.

    Great. So he eventually found out where we are headed, and spelled that out clearly.

    In a nutshell, Mr Bernanke said the economy has, indeed, underperformed, but it will get better.

    Everyone should like him for that statement. Thanks a bunch!

    And if it doesn’t,

    Oh, crap… Didn’t he just tell us that things will get better? Clearly, without hesitating or hedging? Then, it is more rational to have one person present dissenting views than spreading the task to several.

    the Fed will do more unconventional things.

    That’s Fed-speak.

    ‘Unconventional’ in this context usually means “Moneyprinting dressed up in clever ways”. But that wording has an unpleasent ring to it – it is much less alarming to take pride in the creativity in solving the problems than it would be to be accurate about the actual means to be employed.

    The same morning Mr Bernanke spoke, the Commerce Department was reporting that the economy grew at a miserable 1.6% annual rate in the second quarter, down from its initial estimate of 2.4%. The betting is that the current quarter won’t be much better.

    ‘Underperform’, indeed. Wonder if this is the expected result from the stimulus policy of Bernanke and the Obama administration? Worth also noting the term ‘betting’. Bernanke does not seem to actually know where we are headed.

    Mr Bernanke admits this is unexpected and disappointing,

    Well, it shouldn’t be, really. It is the unexpected result of what they promised would restore the economy, but which independent analysts doubted, more or less vocally. The vocal doubters were right, Obama and Bernanke were wrong. Not that it would cause any of them to resign, of course.

    but it’s not a double dip.

    ‘Double dip’ seems to be the bogeyman of these days. The Fed has employed massive ‘Unconventional means’ to prevent the Double Dip (contraction, growth, then again a contraction of GDP) to happen. He does seem somewhat concerned that his trillion-dollar quantitative easing does not deliver the promised result.

    The economy will “continue to expand in the second half of this year, albeit at a relatively modest pace [and] the preconditions for a pickup in growth in 2011 appear to remain in place.”

    As measured by GDP. Job count in the private sector tell a different story. But as it is easier to manipulate GDP through monetary policy, which is the responsibility of the Fed, it is natural that he focuses on this, rather than unemployment and other facts closer to the lives of ordinary citizens.

    Though puzzled that consumption has been so weak,

    Wonder if he imagines he can control the spending habits of the public? At least he admits incompetence again, though it didn’t make him submit a resignation this time. Perhaps next time he is caught by surprise by the developments?

    more at,

  15. The Russian answer to their government finance problem…

    Russians urged to smoke, drink more

    Wed Sep 1, 11:14 AM

    MOSCOW (AFP) – Smoke and drink more, Russia’s finance minister Alexei Kudrin urged citizens on Wednesday, explaining that higher consumption would help lift tax revenues for spending on social services.

    “If you smoke a pack of cigarettes, that means you are giving more to help solve social problems such as boosting demographics, developing other social services and upholding birth rates,” Kudrin said, quoted by the Interfax news agency.


  16. Texaschem,

    He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself. — Thomas Paine (1737–1809)


    • “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.—Thomas Jefferson

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        Your problem is that you are only interpreting Thomas Jefferson’s quote from the perspective of how YOU PERSONALLY view God.

        You may believe that your personal view of God is “correct”. You may be right about that… then again, you may be way off-base.

      • TexasChem

        Whose God did this gift come from?

        God of Christians?
        God of Muslims?
        God of Jews?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I like to think it was Odin with the help of Thor.

        • Cmon BF you know all three religions share the belief in one creator.

          Point made.

          My point is all three have similiar and at the same time very different idealogical beliefs.These differences should be what one uses when intelligently disecting the beliefs to see which are beneficial to society and which are not!

  17. USW:” What I do have a problem with is when people believe that the christian religion, or any other religion for that matter, should have a place directing political discourse or policy.”

    TC:Well I state and firmly believe that EVERY governing body throughout the course of human history has been influenced in political discourse and policy by religion in some sense or fashion.Given, most of the influence was at the whim of rulers whom were just metting out there desires upon their subjects yet there is no disputing the fact that some of these governing bodies upheld beneficial policy to society.

    For all intents and purposes I would like to state that: I have absolutely no doubt that mankind will never be able to govern himself successfully without using Natural Law as set forth by the creator as the guideline for his government.America is the only country to even come close to upholding the basic principles of this doctrine and it seems as if that experiment is coming to an end soon due to man interpreting the Constitution to use for a select fews benefit.

    • Tex

      By definition Man could never run his life contrary to Natural Law. It is after all, Natural Law.

      Meaning that the law can not be broken or violated.

      So if your God law or Man law can be violated then it is not Natural Law.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        I disagree here – attempts are made, and often very successfully, to run the lives of men contrary to Natural Law. It happens all the time! The results are categorically disasterous when this happens, but it does indeed happen, and quite often.

        • Peter

          You can not defy a Natural Law.

          That is because it is a Natural Law.

          Tell me how you defy the laws of gravity.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            Ever heard of “simulated weightless environments?”

          • Or easier,

            Fly in an airplane.


            Launch a rocket into space.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            My point is, when it comes to the Natural Rights of Man, man attempts to defy these rights nearly all of the time.

            Because such attempts to defy Natural Law are unnatural, the results are often disasterous.

            In spite of that, it does happen rather frequently.

            • Peter

              Natural Rights are NOT Natural Laws.

              I asked a week ago for people to provide me with specific Natural Laws.

              I got only one solid response that I remember. That was BF’s Law of Mutuality.

              Tex gave me God’s law. Well that is violated all the time, so that can not be Natural Law either.

              When you start talking about Natural Laws you should be able to give examples or a complete list.

              Neither flying in a plan, launching into space or “simulated weightlessness” are defying the laws of gravity. You can not defy those laws.

  18. USW Stated:”Demeaning the institution of marriage? Are you aware that in areas where gay marriage is legal, the rate of infidelity in those marriages is below 30%? The rate of infidelity in straight marriages in America is over 60%. The divorce rate in America is over 60%. Domestic violence is present in over 20% of marriages. And you have the gall to say that GAY people are the ones demeaning the institution of marriage? If anyone is demeaning the institution of marriage, it is the people who are injecting religious doctrine into an agreed upon contract that should be about love and commitment.

    I understand marriage has been around for thousands of years. And that worked out just fine until a couple hundred years ago when christians decided that government should control the business of marriage. It stopped being the same thing when christians decided that when they marry they should get special treatment from the government. At that point, it was no longer in the realm of the church, it was in the realm of the government. And once it is in the realm of the government, christians no longer have a say as to who is entitled to government loot and privileges. You know what else has been around for thousands of years? Love. and homosexuality. And in some societies both trumped the church.”

    TC:Curious as to where you got your statistics USW.I found a few also if you want to read them below.

    There is no way possible to convince me that it is normal human behavior for men to have sex with each other.It goes against Nature and Natures God.It allows openings for other deviant sexual behavior (which is how NAMBLA got started) that is harmful to society.Every homosexual I have come across is mentally screwed up in the head…much like that psycho Perez Hilton.You guys think that normal behavior?I do not give a rats arse what you say; it is absolutely immoral and disgusting and I hope eventually you figure that one out for yourself.


    • I had a friend that I went to school with that was raped by his gay Uncle when he was in the 5th grade.He never was right in the head after that happened to him.I would never allow a gay male couple to live near my family for fear of something happening to one of my boys.So yes I am very biased when it comes to my views on homosexuality.But hey, I’m sure some of you just believe it is just a small percentage of homosexuals that aren’t stable mentally.Me, I think they are all unstable.Any man that is attracted to another man and would have sex with another man is just not right in the head!

      • Tex

        So a Gay couple moves in two houses down from you.

        What are you going to do about it?

        • Well it’s not just me JaC.The community I live in we take care of our own.I am certain the aspect of being shunned and not welcome would work quite well.It’s worked the last 200 years.No one wants to live where they are not happy or welcome.Harsh?No, not at all, we just have standards we live up to.We don’t have crack houses or prostitution.Crime is virtually non- existant.We are just a community of Alabama Coushatta Native Americans and Southron gentlemen.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Right…so the actions of one gay man can be assigned to all gay men? This is the same argument you try to make with respect to Muslims. It doesn’t work, and you know it.

        By the way, I know a Christian man – devout Christian, reads the Bible, attends Church, leader in his community. He beat his wife, at least once, probably more often than that. I will never allow another Christian man to move next to me or my family because they have a clear and obvious tendency to beat their wives. Just not something I want near my family.

        • Pit bulls have been known to turn on their owners.Does this make all pit bulls bad?No.Does this negate the fact that their behavior tends towards a certain stance?No.They are known to be aggressive.If you had children would a pitbull or a labrador retriever make the best family pet?

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Curious why TexasChem only mentions men were referring to homosexuality? Is it “okay” as long as its two attractive women on a video versus two hairy men? Do tell TexasChem!

        • I am not really as concerned over women as men.I am not worried a lesbian woman will take advantage of a young boy or girl.Even though gay men seem feminine they still have the same hormones and aggressive tendencies as hetero men.Gay men are the most violent when comparing statistics of domestic crimes committed.

          • TexasChem

            I am not aware of what stats you are claiming, however, social studies studying why women commit less violent crime have focused on a biological reason.

            To back up this study, they studied gay men and have found a correlation – that men with a lower testosterone commit less crime.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        Just because you believe that all homosexuals are mentally unstable child-molesters does not make it so.

        It just means that you are incapable of critical evaluation of individuals due to your own biased view of a certain segment of the population.

        • I never said all Peter.Rattlesnakes are animals that have been known to attack both when provoked and when in ambush mode.If just walking down a trail you could be bitten before you even knew it was there.

          This does not mean that they are not dangerous though.

        • I don’t think they are all child molesters.
          I do think they are all mentally defective.

          Not normal.By the literal popular definition of normal I do not think it normal to place a mans genitalia in another mans arse or mouth.I apologize for being brunt but hey at least I’m honest.

          Do the rest of you think that normal behavior?Honestly you can tell me! 🙂

          • Texaschem,

            So “normal” is merely a matter of “vote”?

            Homosexuality was a norm in Greece and other cultures. You claim they are normal because of the “vote” or they are not normal because of your vote?

        • @-Peter,

          I critically evaluate EvErYthIng!Just because my conclusion is different from yours does not mean I am being biased.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I know a boy who was raped by his gay uncle; therefore all gays are mentally unstable child molesters!

        I know a boy who was molested by a Priest; therefore all Priests are gay, mentally unstable, child molesters!

        I know a girl who was molested by her uncle; therefore all heterosexual men are child molesters!

        I know a boy who was sexually assaulted by his (female) teacher; therefore all women are mentally unstable and molest little boys!

        I know a man who beats his wife; therefore, all men are misogynistic wife-beaters!

        I know a black guy who beat up a white guy; therefore all black people hate white people and want nothing more than to perform acts of violence against them!

        I know a Mexican kid who is in a gang where all the members carry guns and sell drugs; therefore all Mexicans are violent, drug-selling thugs!

        As I hope ALL of you noticed, not ONE, NONE, NOT A SINGLE SENTENCE ABOVE is actually logical. They ALL fail.

        • Peter Stated:”As I hope ALL of you noticed, not ONE, NONE, NOT A SINGLE SENTENCE ABOVE is actually logical. They ALL fail.”

          TC:Well no S*%$ sherlock!
          Don’t put words into my mouth nor attempt to second guess my thoughts because you have FAILED already with that attempt.

          How about:

          Males that are mentally defective are more likely to engage in behavior that is deemed unacceptable in society.For example a little boy being raped by a homosexual man.

          • Texaschem,

            Males that are mentally defective

            Please provide an objective definition that claims gays are mentally defective.

            • @-BF,

              Defective:Marked by subnormal structure, function, intelligence, or behavior.

              If it follows in nature for a creature with two seperate sexes to have one of each sex mate in order to reproduce offspring then wouldn’t it go against nature for two of the same sex to mate?Not normal behavior is it?Not Natural Law running its course to fulfill Gods Eternal Law is it?Do you see animals of the same sex in nature mating for life?

      • The gay couple in my neighborhood does not mow the grass often enough (gets knee high, then they use a weed wacker on it and it looks like crap), I thought all gay people were clean and tidy. Now I will never allow a gay couple to move next to me because they won’t cut their grass and are slobs!

  19. Would calling for treason charges to be filed against our current admin. be going to far? Because I wouldn’t mind at all.

    Lead Story
    Arizona vs. the U.N. human rights police
    By Michelle Malkin • September 1, 2010 09:07 AM

    Arizona vs. the U.N. human rights police
    by Michelle Malkin
    Creators Syndicate
    Copyright 2010

    An indignant President Obama complained last week, “I can’t spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead.” Fine. How about plastering a copy of his presidential oath of office there instead? The kowtowing commander-in-chief is in dire need of a daily reminder that his job is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” — not international law or global diktats.

    Case in point: Last week, Obama’s State Department handed in America’s first-ever report to the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights in conjunction with something called the “Universal Periodic Review.” In short, the 29-page document (pdf) is a self-aggrandizing report card touting the administration’s far-left domestic and foreign policy initiatives for the world’s approval. The report boasts of racial- and gender-bean-counting in the executive branch; Justice Department outreach to Muslim grievance groups opposed to post-9/11 security measures; teachers’ union payoffs in the federal stimulus law; continuing commitment to closing the Gitmo detention facility for enemy combatants; and the illusory lifesaving effects of Obamacare on minorities through “expanding community health centers” (which have yet to be built, but not that it matters in our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president’s age of post-achievement).

    The report also includes a section on “values and immigration,” which essentially singles out Arizona’s immigration enforcement law as a human rights deficiency “that is being addressed in a court action.”

    In response, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer rightly blasted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration for succumbing to “internationalism run amok.” Brewer pointed out in a letter to Clinton, “Human rights as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions are expressly protected in S.B. 1070 and defended vigorously by my Administration. In fact, the Department of Justice has correctly not included these so-called ‘human rights’ issues in the current litigation against the State of Arizona.” Somehow, that inconvenient detail escaped the Foggy Bottom bureaucrats’ notice.

    No one should be surprised, of course, that the Department of Blame America First is prostrating itself before the likes of repressive U.N. Human Rights Council members Libya, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and China. No one should be surprised that Obama’s globalist panderers couldn’t simply keep their mouths shut and refrain from trashing Americans with whom they disagree. In May, you’ll recall, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner preemptively trashed our country’s human rights record to Chinese government officials and humiliated Arizonans — and all Americans — who support states’ rights to protect their borders and enhance their security through strict immigration enforcement. An obsequious Posner called S.B. 1070 “a troubling trend in our society” in his bow-and-scrape conversations with the ChiComs.

    The inclusion of Arizona in a politically correct catalogue of human rights and wrongs is more than “downright offensive,” as Brewer put it. It’s a national travesty. In the very same Obama administration document, the State Department praises the administration for its “robust protections for freedom of expression.” The report notes sanctimoniously: “As a general matter, the government does not punish or penalize those who peacefully express their views in the public sphere, even when those views are critical of the government. Indeed, dissent is a valuable and valued part of our politics.”

    Yeah? Tell that to the Democratic members of Congress leading the punitive economic boycott and political demonization of Arizona. Or to Attorney General Eric Holder, who rushed to attack S.B. 1070 before he had even read it. Fresh off this U.N. mess, Holder’s Social Justice Department has launched yet another vendetta against Arizona. On Monday, DOJ filed suit against Phoenix-area community colleges because they imposed strict citizenship screening of potential employees.

    As Obama throws America under the bus for the cause of open borders, the shady U.N. human rights police must be laughing their jackboots off.


    • I’ve said it here before and been scoffed at. I’ll say it again: IMPEACH OBAMA. And to the rest: GOOOH!

  20. Wonder if he’ll follow this ruling or just ignore it like he does other laws that he doesn’t like.

    Another ass-kicking: Judge rejects Obama drilling ban again
    By Michelle Malkin • September 1, 2010 01:53 PM

    Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and the Obama job-killing machine get kicked in the ass one more time. They wanted federal judge Martin Feldman to dismiss the drillers’ lawsuit challenging their original moratorium. No dice.

    Via Reuters:

    A federal judge in New Orleans rejected on Wednesday the U.S. government’s request to dismiss a lawsuit challenging its original 6-month deepwater drilling moratorium…The drilling halt was subsequently amended, so the government sought to toss out the Hornbeck lawsuit, arguing it was no longer relevant.

    But U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, who earlier this summer blocked the first drilling halt, said in a 20-page ruling that the government’s amended moratorium offered “no substantial changes” from the first one.

    More scathing criticism for Salazar, via the WSJ:

    Judge Feldman also noted that in crafting the second moratorium, Mr. Salazar appeared to have relied heavily on documents and data that he had at the time of the first moratorium order. “Nearly every statement in the July 12 decision memorandum is anticipated by documents in the May 28 record, or by documents that were otherwise available to the Secretary before May 28,” the judge said.

    Related: A bipartisan call to lift the de facto shallow drilling ban NOW:

    Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) and Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) have again written to Department of the Interior Secretary Salazar regarding the issuance of new permits for shallow water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The letter, co-signed by 37 Democrats and Republicans from across the country, is the second letter that Rep. Green and Rep. Boustany have sent to Secretary Salazar reminding him of the significance of the Gulf Coast economy and urging the immediate issuance of new permits.

    “Before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, new shallow water drilling permits were being issued at the rate of 10-15 per week,” Rep. Green stated. “Since the shallow water moratorium was lifted on May 28, a total of 4 new permits have been issued.”

    In a letter to Secretary Salazar sent May 20, Reps. Green and Boustany with 54 of their colleagues warned of the potential impact of losing shallow water oil and natural gas production. Since then, 14 rigs have been idled in the Gulf which represents 30% of the shallow water fleet. If the pace of new permits does not accelerate by the end of September, over 70% of the shallow water rigs will be inactive.

    “There are thousands of jobs directly connected to shallow water drilling,” Rep. Green continued. “At a time when the economy is still coming back from the worst recession in recent memory, we just can’t afford to lose more jobs. My colleagues and I continue to share concern over this de facto moratorium and the deepwater moratorium as domestic energy production is not only vital to energy independence, but to the Gulf Coast economy.”


    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @VH – would it bother you if another oil rig exploded?

      Ooops – one just did: http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_15972821?nclick_check=1

      • Went to your link and something weird came up-said this site isn’t trusted get out now??????? I got out 🙂

        Yes, I would hate for another rig to blow up but I’m also concerned about the economy, lost jobs, and our need for oil. If we stopped completely doing things that come with some risk our world will come to a standstill. We need oil-a fact that some seem to discount as a valid point.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          To be fair the details are still developing. It is worth noting how Deep Water directly impacted job loss versus the reactive measures that were correctly applied post incident.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            To be fair, the well that just exploded was not “in production”. That is, it was not currently producing any oil or gas.

            If you jumped to the conclusion that this was anything even vaguely like the Deepwater Horizon incident, you unfortunately leapt too far too fast.

            Oh, and for V.H. the score so far is:

            Deep water rig explosions under Obama in less than 2 years = 2

            Deep water rig explosions under Bush in 8 years = 0

            I personally attribute this to the fact that inspections of offshore rigs seem to have been performed pretty regularly while Bush was President, but while Obama has been President, most offshore rigs have been issued waivers rather than have regular inspections.

            I suspect that this is intentional. I believe that Obama WANTS offshore rigs to have major safety issues, and if they have a major negative environmental impact, so much the better, at least in his eyes.

            • Ray Hawkins says:


              (1) The Vermilion 380 is in 340 feet of water – considered shallow. If Deep Water Horizon was 1 of 2 deep water oil rig blow-ups then what was the second?

              (2) It was producing 9.2 million cubic feet of natural gas and 1400 barrels of oil per day – why is that not considered “production”

              (3) Please share your “fact” that inspections have somehow intentionally fallen in frequency under Obama.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


              According to the reports I have read, the rig which exploded today was in 2500 feet of water, so I am not sure what you are talking about.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                I sit corrected, I just read an updated report that says that the rig in question is in about 340 feet of water (not 2500) and it was at least in a state of “limited production”. Ray was ahead of me on the information on this one 🙂

            • Hmmm, I was suspicious of the first explosion coming so soon after BO’s “support” of drilling statement and on earth day and all.

              Now the judge again lifts the drilling ban and there’s another explosion?


      • Is this an increase, decrease, or no change to the amount of oil rigs that exploded under the Bush Regime?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Don’t know. Not sure its relevant. Bush is old news unless we’re talking about memoirs.

          • I got the impression that you were pointing out a trend. If that’s correct then I’d say that the years prior to the current regime IS relevant.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @Cyndi – Malkin is mashing up some issues here.

              My position:

              (1) Shallow water permits should not be held up – the moratorium was lifted on 5/28 so lets move forward.

              (2) The Deep Water issue is more troubling and much higher risk. If this second rig is deep water than its time to take a big pause and ensure there is not a systemic issue here. What is not helpful are mindless rants to ignore what happened earlier this year and not have some clue on root cause.

              That’s all!


              • Let’s move forward = ignore any information that doesn’t back up my pro-Obama position…..


                • Ray Hawkins says:

                  You’re confused Cyndi – my position is that absent some legal reason then the Obama folks need to get the hell out of the way for shallow water permits. The issuance numbers are not where they should be. How is that pro-0bama?

                  • You asked VH is she was bothered by another rig exploding. I saw that as implying that more rigs are now exploding. If that’s the case then the lack of permits is justified. If there is no change in the amount of exploding rigs is the regime’s lack of permitting justified?

                    Are you saying that you hold obama and Bush in equal regard?

                    • Ray Hawkins says:

                      I hold Bush in low regard.

                      I hold Obama in ever diminishing regard (not quite at Bush but is quickly picking up steam and may zoom past with more damage done in 4 years than what took Bush 8 years to accomplish).

      • Ray,

        Would it bother you if we started drilling in ANWR instead of the gulf?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @LOI – ANWR? – you mean one of the most hostile/difficult places on Earth to provide Emergency Services? Have you gone mad?

          • Not only there but all the other intapped resources on Federal lands.

          • Ray,

            Yes to all questions. It seems we have been pretty successful in safely drilling in such area’s, much safer than being a US coal miner. And it’s such a hellhole, not even polar bears will waste their time
            living there. I understand during the summer, mosquitos are bad, they might kill a bunch of them, call Greenpeace!

        • LOI,

          Why not drill in both places at the same time?

        • CNBC’s Najarian: Drilling Moratorium ‘Shows a Tone-Deafness From This Administration’

          By Jeff Poor (Bio | Archive)
          Thu, 09/02/2010 – 18:29 ET

          With a 9.6 percent unemployment rate overall in the United States and unemployment rates showing an uptick in states on the Gulf of Mexico that allow offshore oil drilling, one has to wonder what the Obama administration is thinking its Draconian wide-sweeping moratorium halting deepwater drilling in the Gulf after the BP oil spill.

          While environmentalists are using today’s explosion on a oil production platform in the Gulf to support a drilling moratorium, critics like CNBC’s “Fast Money” panelist Jon Najarian have questioned the wisdom of the Obama administration’s decision to put up to 75,000 in limbo.

          “As far as what was going on in the Gulf, it shows a tone-deafness from this administration,” Najarian said on the Sept. 2 broadcast of “Fast Money.” “I mean, I’ll pound the table for that because I’m not running for office. But I mean, this guy is tone deaf that 75,000 jobs in the Gulf of Mexico that have been idled for no good reason. It’s costing all of us and it costs all the places where they would normally spend money as well.”

          On Sept. 2, a federal judge denied the federal government’s request to dismiss a lawsuit challenging that moratorium.

          The 75,000 jobs number is a figure backed up by the Dr. Lee Hunt, president of the International Association of Drilling Contractors. In a May 13 letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Hunt warned then the ban would eventually impact that many job in the Gulf Coast states.

          “Due to the Department’s order, rigs completing wells in the next weeks will be unable to take on new work,” Hunt wrote. “Over the next six weeks, up to 50 drilling rigs will complete wells and be unable to accept new work. These rigs will be idled, and those employees working directly on the rig face the prospect of unemployment, even if only temporarily. Additionally, employees of supporting service companies will also face unemployment. These workers represent a significant portion of the 75,000 hard-working individuals employed in the offshore Gulf of Mexico. The ripple effects of this abeyance of all new drilling will adversely impact coastal communities across Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and Alabama.”

          Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/09/02/cnbcs-najarian-drilling-moratorium-shows-tone-deafness-administration#ixzz0yTDBxiYL

  21. Ray Hawkins says:

    SK – you asked about the lies of Glenn Beck? Here ya go:

    Glenn Beck the Liar:


    Now SK, I suppose you’ll say that the Glenn Beck in this clip was Glenn Beck the entertainer – the class clown – the storyteller – that maybe that gives him some bandwidth to say whatever the hell he wants to say and not be concerned with annoying things like the truth. Hell – even if he’d responded to say c’mon Rachel – it was all good clean fun then maybe it wouldn’t underscore that this guy consistently stretches the truth. This simple one smells SK – no denial there.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Glenn Beck the ridiculous:

      (the flyover of geese: “I think it was God’s flyover”)


      • Not everyone thinks this is out of the realm of possibilities. What is one person’s ridiculous is another’s hopeful possibility.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Glenn Beck Lying Again

      Over a stupid train seat? Really?

      • Can’t defend him here-he acted like a jerk. But I will add some possibilities on why-maybe the view participants weren’t as nice as they think-maybe he was irritated that they got the seats when they shouldn’t have. So maybe this is more of a, I see it one way and you see it another leading to exaggerations of the encounter-sorta like the I caught a fish this——————–big.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Glenn Beck Lying About “Cash for Clunkers”


      • Don’t know what to say about this one-they say they can’t but the way there written makes it sound like they can-someone says he doesn’t think they have the capacity to anyway at least not yet.?????????????

        • I assure you they don’t have the capacity to. But just to be sure, you should switch to a Mac or to Linux.

    • Thanks ray.. you can have this out with him. I don’t follow Beck as closely as I should – probably because I write him off as an entertainer rather than a serious pundit..

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      Very enlightening stuff! Now, in an effort to appear “fair and balanced” please repeat the same exercise with Keith Olbermann. Shouldn’t be difficult!

      Of course the main difference is that Beck admits he is a rodeo clown and an entertainer, while Olbermann claims he is a serious news reporter! 🙂

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @Peter – its actually quite easy – Olbermannwatch has improved dramatically in better showing how Keith goes over-the-top on a daily basis to make a point. I can applaud Keith for being such an attack dog from the left, but the embellishment (read: lying) robs his message and renders him in the same boat as Beck.

    • Please take note of the sentence following the one that Ms. Maddow decided to jump on an claim was evidence of him lying. And yes, Ray, Beck acts like a clown sometimes and makes sarcastic statements but sometimes the fact that it was an obviously sarcastic statement followed by his true feelings makes it not a lie.

      Glenn Beck: Eco-alarmists in full spin mode
      [Insider] Audio Available:

      February 12, 2010 – 13:28 ET

      GLENN: Now we have Howard Dean wanting you to know that you just, if you don’t believe in global warming, you just don’t believe in science.

      VOICE: One of the most disturbing things about the Republican Party over the last couple of decades is they don’t believe in science anymore, it’s not likely, not an approach that’s likely to generate any kind of creative thinking or any serious thinking about the future.

      GLENN: Right.

      VOICE: People who use snowstorms as an example of why global warming doesn’t exist don’t understand the science and they don’t care.

      GLENN: I can’t tell you how glad I am to have that science monkey off my back. You know what I mean? Oh, my goodness, I am so

      PAT: Keeping us down, hasn’t it?

      GLENN: Oh, my goodness. I’ve been watching the evil magic box, you know, that shows pictures of evil ghost people in my bedroom. You know what I mean? And they have been filling me with all sorts of nonsense.

      PAT: Really?

      GLENN: Yeah. And I’m like, oh, thank goodness the magic box is here now to set things straight. Man. It’s like I was listening to this guy and he was like, he asked some politician: Do you believe that the Earth goes around the sun? And I’m in my car: Of course not. The sun is an illusion! Oh, man.

      PAT: Man.

      GLENN: All right. So thanks, Howard Dean. By the way, you know, anybody who’s talking about snowstorms, you know, they don’t care about the science, let me just, let me give you some highlights.

      VOICE: We need a climate change strategy.

      PAT: Senator Robert Byrd.

      SENATOR BYRD: Think of the kind of winter we’ve had. Think of the kind of winter we’ve had here in Washington.

      GLENN: 10,000 year old.

      SENATOR BYRD: One snow.

      GLENN: Three inches.

      SENATOR BYRD: Three inches?

      PAT: Global warming, huh.

      SENATOR BYRD: Look at the drought and the winters, the difference, differences in the summers.

      PAT: Global warming.

      VOICE: Also remarked the most optimistic

      GLENN: Hang on just a second. You notice that if you say a snowstorm, it doesn’t disprove global warming.

      PAT: Yes.

      GLENN: But if you say no snowstorm, it proves global warming.

      PAT: Yes.

      GLENN: Nothing really ever disproves their theory.

      PAT: Yes. Now you have it. Now you have it.

      BOXER: Climate models for the second half of this century suggest that 30 to 70% of the snow pack

      PAT: Barbara Boxer.

      GLENN: Snow pack. Snow, snow.
      PAT: Disappear, gone, no snow.

      BOXER: Of the snow pack will disappear. No wonder we have people visiting our offices

      PAT: Get this.

      BOXER: who are just already hurting

      GLENN: They are hurting.

      BOXER: from the recreation industry in this nation.

      PAT: Big recreation is upset.

      GLENN: Oh, my goodness.

      PAT: Yes, big recreation is upset. No skiing.

      GLENN: Oh, my goodness.

      PAT: No skiing, no snow.

      GLENN: May I go to Bill Nye, the science guy, please?

      PAT: Yes, you may.

      GLENN: Here’s Bill Nye, the science guy. There’s no better statement. Remember, I believe it was Susan Sarandon’s husband, Mr. Sarandon, that said, there’s a chill wind blowing.

      VOICE: A chill wind is blowing in this nation.

      GLENN: He was saying there was a chill wind because if you disagreed with going in to kill Saddam Hussein, a chill wind was blowing. “We are called unpatriotic. We are called un American.” Here’s Bill Nye the science guy.

      VOICE: Seasonally appropriate storms and to have the kind of climate forecast and change that’s been discussed by most of the reputable scientists in the world.

      Bill Nye: You’re unpatriotic?

      NYE: I know what you’re driving at. Necessity, this would be consistent with such a thing, as is no snow near the City of Vancouver on Mt. Cypress there, as is the big mudslides we had here in Southern California day before yesterday and last night.

      GLENN: Stop, stop, stop, stop.

      PAT: So all of this stuff is consistent with global warming, the lack of snow and the plenty of snow and the mudslides and the lack of mudslides!

      GLENN: Oh, my goodness.

      PAT: Sandstorms? Global warming! Wind? Global warming!

      GLENN: No wind?

      PAT: Global warming!

      GLENN: No sandstorms?

      PAT: Global warming!

      GLENN: It’s unbelievable. I love this.

      PAT: Unbelievable.

      GLENN: “You know, I think what a real sign of global warming is, mudslides.” There have been mudslides my whole life! I believe we could probably dig up underneath the mud some probably dinosaurs with a big booboo on their head from the mudslide that killed them! I think mudslides in California really? Mudslides are new because of global global warming. All right. Go ahead, Bill.

      NYE: There’s more energy in the atmosphere and this is stirring things up.

      GLENN: Oh, boy.

      NYE: If you want to get serious about it.

      GLENN: Serious.

      NYE: These guys claiming that the snow in Washington disproves climate change

      GLENN: Nobody’s saying that. Stop, stop!

      NYE: Are almost unpatriotic.

      GLENN: Oh, boy! Hit the Mr. Sarandon bite again, will you?

      VOICE: A chill wind is blowing in this nation.

      GLENN: It’s un American, unpatriotic, unpatriotic to claim. First of all, who has claimed that this snowstorm is proof that global warming doesn’t exist? How many times have I said both for hurricanes and no hurricane, this doesn’t one storm, one storm does not prove anything. It is a trend. But let’s look at the trends, shall we, Mr. Science Guy? I like you know I can put a lot of stock and credibility into anybody who is, the end of their job title is “Guy.” Mr. Radio Guy, Mr. Science Guy. Yes, Mr. President, we have a real problem. Can we get the Science Guy on the phone?

      Let’s look at the trends. Stu, you follow this much more. When did the trend of really getting hot end?

      STU: You mean as far as just the

      GLENN: The trends of, you know

      STU: Well, 1998 was the warmest year on record.

      GLENN: Wait. I’m sorry, what?

      STU: 1998.

      GLENN: Let me do the math here. I should get Mr. Math guy on. But it seems like 12 years ago.

      GLENN: 12 years ago.

      STU: It’s probably a mistake but it does seem that way.

      GLENN: Mr. Math guy should probably get together with Mr. Science guy.

      PAT: Twelve years of cooler temperatures don’t mean anything.

      GLENN: That’s Mr. Idiot Guy.

      PAT: That’s only a dozen years. That doesn’t mean anything. Don’t confuse twelve years with a pattern. We’re looking at trends here.

      GLENN: I’m having a hard time figuring out the difference between Mr. Idiot Guy and Mr. Science Guy.


      • Ray Hawkins says:

        You’re missing the point VH – the second clip she played contradicts his statements in the 3rd and 4th sentences of the section you’re referring to – Glenn cannot seem to get his own facts straight on what he says and how it relates to the truth.

        • Could you be a little more specific-I must be missing something and I’m sick of watching this same video. 🙂

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            The clip that starts at :58 is different from the piece at 1:16.

            • Okay here is the quote that she is using-if you read this -he is not saying that snow disproves global warming. He is basing people who say that storms prove global warming.

              AMBER ALERT: Al Gore MIA during blizzards
              [Insider] Audio Available:

              February 10, 2010 – 12:35 ET

              GLENN: Well, the snow is hammering Washington D.C. again. I believe God is just saying, “I got your global warming here, eh? You want a piece of global warming?” Meanwhile we have the apologist over at NBC News saying that this is proof do we have the audio?

              PAT: Uh huh.

              GLENN: This is proof that global warming is real.

              It’s cold because it’s warm…

              VOICE: Here’s the problem. These snopocalypses that have been going through D.C. and other extreme weather events are precisely what climate scientists have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming. Why is that? The thinking that warmer air temperatures on the Earth, a higher air temperature has a greater capacity to hold moisture at any temperature. And then as winter comes in, that warm air cools full of water and you get heavier precipitation on a more regular basis. In fact, you could argue these storms are not evidence of a lack of global warming but are evidence of global warming. Thus the 26 inches of snowfall in the D.C. area and the second giant storm this year.

              GLENN: This is why NBC wonders why, what was it, Monday night I saw the ratings? We beat NBC or MSNBC by 18 times. At 18 times the ratings of MSNBC. And they wonder why. They keep switching up the host now. They are talking about switching up some more hosts. It ain’t the host, man. It’s your news. Nobody is buying that the cold is caused by the heat. I mean, that’s just ridiculous. You know what I tell you, that there’s a story in The Wall Street Journal today. Climate Group Admits Mistakes. Okay. These are the mistakes, claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 based on the 1999 new scientist article. Scientist quoted in the article now says there’s no scientific basis for the claim. The glaciers are melting. The scientist that wrote it said, there’s no scientific evidence that that’s… no, uh uh, no.

              Next one, a claim that agricultural yields in some African countries could half by 2020 is based on a report by a Canadian environmental thinktank, not peer reviewed science. Remember how many times, “These are peer reviewed, peer reviewed, peer reviewed!” No, not that one, no. A claim that up to 40% of the Amazonian rainforest could react drastically to falling precipitation… wait a minute. To falling precipitation? Why would there I just turned from MSNBC. There’s so much heat in the sky that when winter comes, it keeps moisture in the air.

              STU: Yeah, MSNBC has a different definition of peer review which is, only their friends watch. It’s a little different.

              GLENN: This on the Amazonian rainforest was done by World Wildlife Federation, but they reviewed it. They wrote it and then they reviewed it. Is this good? Huh? Is this good? Yeah.

              And then how about this one, a statement linking the rising temperatures to increased economic losses from the natural catastrophes contradicts the findings of the research the report cites. The IPCC says that one, okay, that one has a lot of important qualifiers in it that you should read. Oh, okay. There’s not enough knives. If this, if the IPCC had been done by Japanese scientists, there’s not enough knives on planet Earth for Harry Carey that should have occurred. I mean, these guys have so dishonored themselves, so dishonored scientists.

              STU: Glenn Beck calls for the suicide of all scientists! Did you hear that? He might as well have said they should be all slaughtered!

              PAT: I did hear that, darling. It was unbelievable how he called them to slaughter.

              GLENN: We should take away his First Amendment rights. There must be some sort of mechanism for someone like him.

              PAT: You know what I love is that all through the Nineties were they not claiming that the lack of snow in the winter was global warming?

              GLENN: RFK 15 months ago said this isn’t going to happen.

              PAT: Yep. And now

              GLENN: 15 months ago he said nobody

              PAT: No snow in D.C.

              GLENN: Nobody has a sled. I remember we used to have snowstorms. We don’t have snowstorms. It’s not happening anymore.

              PAT: So that’s what discredits them so badly is first they claim the lack of snow is global warming, then the plenty of snow is global warming. You can’t have it both ways. Which is it?

              GLENN: These people, it’s really, truly amazing to me that they are still going for it. You know what? If we don’t find Al Gore by 5:00, I’m starting an amber alert. I’m afraid he’s been taken by some dirty old man and he’s currently driving around in a Buick in the back seat of the trunk. I’m not sure. I’m afraid he may be molested and then buried in somebody’s backyard. Please keep your eye out for Al Gore. Let’s put an amber alert. I don’t want to panic anyone. But it is strange that he’s just disappeared in the largest snowfall in Washington D.C. history.

              STU: There’s a lot of money invested into this, though. You don’t just give up.

              GLENN: No, no.

              STU: I mean, I think the advice would be don’t throw good money after bad money at this point because I mean, the case is really having a lot of issues at the moment. But I mean, you know, these people have invested decades into getting them to this point.

              GLENN: It really is a point again I go back to my Harry Carey point. It’s not just honor, but you’d have to think, wow, I really wasted my life, haven’t I? Wow, everything that I worked on seems to be a miserable failure.

              PAT: You would think they would at least wait until summer, though, to reemphasize the point rather than when it’s freezing cold, snowing everywhere. It’s cold in Los Angeles this morning. And they might wait until you that’s kind of out of your system like in July when it’s hot everywhere and it’s supposed to be. Then you could make a better case, couldn’t you? “See, I told you, hot again.”

              GLENN: I don’t think they are trying to make a better case. I don’t think these people care.


      • Ray,

        I have watched and listened to the video’s, read the text, and I think it comes down to personal bias. Beck did make what I would call jokes or sarcasm about the snow, but never did I hear him state it dis-proves
        AGW. I also hear him again and again(he repeats himself a lot) saying “the debate is not over”. Sorry, but I don’t here that much from Maddow. I also hear Beck saying on nearly every show, for people to check out what he is saying, not to take his word, but to read and research these issues for themselves. Scary words for a media commentator to use.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          LOI – he mixes sarcasm and joking and preaching and commentary and analysis so he doesn’t have to, and the end of the day, really own up to anything he says. As he stumbled through on the View – he basically said he is just a commentator not a fact checker or investigative journalist. On that account he is right. That makes him different than a pompous ass like Olbermann. It’s be great if we could say whatever the hell popped in our heads – then if called on a lie just fight it with more lies or dismiss it that you were joking or just kidding around and being class clown. My issue is this is the posterboy for restoring honor? This is Glenn Beck University? I’d suspect most of his fan base does not really give much credence to the “don’t take my word for it” bit.

          • Funny at one point on his show he said that because of all the criticism that he was taking a tremendous amount of time to research and back up his stuff. I guess people learn with experience-and if people don’t take his research for yourself bit serious-that is their short coming-not his.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Its my shortcoming that I don’t accept what he says at face value? Wow.

              For all the money he makes he could employ some fact checkers.

              I guess we just don’t care enough to get it right.

              • Not sure where that came from-he says check everyone including me-you say-people ignore that advise-now I am some how blaming you for not taking him at face value-confused here.

  22. Ray Hawkins says:

    Glenn Beck – still lying:


    Charles Darwin is the father of modern day racism? What!?!?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Oh – and you asked about hypocritical? What happened to one of his fave mouthpieces Ted Nugent? Ted is a great example of restoring honor right? Mosey on down about halfway on this link to the Ted Nugent section – such a shining example of honor is dear Ted. (Oh – and I love the “Love Grenade” album cover – women are best depicted as naked pigs on a roasting platter with their hands tied up and a grenade in the mouth.)

      SK – I could literally spend all day posting more and more links on what a colossal asshole Glenn Beck is, and what a liar he is. The pure core of his message, which I tend to agree with, gets so muddled and clouded over by his “entertainment” (read: lying, preaching/pontificating) that I cannot stomach the guy anymore.


      • Yes, you can, which is why you might want to start questioning the motivation of all those thousands of links.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          “Yes, you can” – not sure what you’re referring to. I cannot stomach listening to Beck for more than 15 minutes straight – I can stomach researching nonsensical comments like “show me where he is lying”.

          • Hey Ray, is this one of your bud’s?

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @LOI – I’m not well versed in what Deval Patrick believes. If we apply the Glenn Beck Theorem – what he said was said in jest so it wasn’t really meant to be taken as fact (“1. That which is side while class clowning or with any hint of sarcasm cannot be taken as absolute fact and 2. If one has ever used sarcasm in any form of speech then it cannot be assumed that any future speech was not intended as sarcasm even if not apparent.”) Similar is the Olbermann Corollary – that which is said while in “pompous ass mode” cannot be scrutinized as fact as the emphasis is on pompousness rather than necessarily truth.

              Make sense?

    • DOn’t know enough about Darwin to comment-but his statement was that Darwin planted the seed for modern day racism which makes him the Father of Modern Day Racism. I don’t understand the comment so I have nothing to say about it, either negative or positive.

      • Wow, have read many articles since writing this-have a better understanding of what he meant now. Here’s one. Although, I want to qualify from the beginning that the Bible has been used to justify racism too.-Man is of course the problem.-But saying Darwinism planted the seed-is true it seems -at least in the minds of some. Maybe even many.

        “Stein is Right: Darwinism Led to the Holocaust
        Ken Ham
        Answers in Genesis
        Email thisPrint thisDiscuss thisShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on DeliciousShare on DiggShare on StumbleUponmore

        April 15, 2008

        Ben Stein, star of the forthcoming movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” can usually be counted on to provide interesting conversation fodder.

        With “Expelled,” Stein makes a compelling case that the scientific community quashes views opposing evolution. There is one thing Stein says that shouldn’t be overlooked in evolution controversies.

        “Darwinism led—in a pretty much straight line—to Nazism and the Holocaust,” he declares.

        Although racism of course did not begin with Charles Darwin, he did more than any other person to popularize it. After he “proved” that all humans descended from apes, it was natural to conclude that some races had descended further than others.

        In his opinion, some races (namely the white ones) left the others far behind, while other races hardly matured at all.

        The subtitle of Darwin’s 1859 book, “The Origin of the Species,” was “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” The book dealt with the evolution of animals in general, and his later book, “The Descent of Man,” applied his theory to humans.

        Darwin wrote that he would rather be descended from a monkey than from a “savage.” In describing those with darker skin, he often used words like “savage,” “low,” and “degraded” to describe American Indians, pygmies, and almost every ethnic group whose physical appearance and culture differed from his own.

        In the 1860s, around the time of the abolition of slavery, Darwinism made its way to American shores. It was used to justify racism against blacks, as well as the elimination of “savage native tribes” who hindered westward expansion in the name of “manifest destiny.”

        The fruit of Darwin’s theories was (and is) being reaped in my homeland of Australia, which was involved in a gruesome trade in “missing link” specimens fueled by early evolutionary and racist ideas. Documented evidence shows that the remains of perhaps 10,000 of Australia’s Aborigines, many murdered, were shipped to British museums in a frenzied attempt to prove the widespread belief that they were the “missing link.”

        As the seeds of Darwinism continued to spread in the 1900s, the question being asked was: “Who is human and what is not?” The widely held view was that blacks evolved from the strong but less-intelligent gorilla, Asians from the orangutan and whites from the most intelligent of all primates, the chimpanzee.

        Across the globe, such conclusions led to racism, oppression, and genocide. Within decades, however, evolution would be used as justification for the whites of Europe to turn upon themselves.

        Perhaps the most infamous abuse of evolution to justify racism was Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime, which promoted a master race and sought to exterminate so-called inferior races.

        In Asia, the Japanese justified their expansionist aggression by saying that they were the most “highly evolved” race on earth. After all, the Europeans, with their longer arms and hairy chests, were clearly closer to the ape, weren’t they? Westerners, in turn, justified their acts of mass destruction by portraying the Japanese as uncivilized savages.

        Today, Darwinism and evolutionary thinking also enable ordinary, respectable professionals — otherwise dedicated to the saving of life — to justify their involvement in the slaughter of millions of unborn human beings, who (like the Aborigines of earlier Darwinian thinking) are also deemed “not yet fully human.”

        The murder of Australian Aborigines, the oppression of African Americans, the slaughter of European Jews — the list goes on and on and the only way humans can justify their evil actions is to abuse the truth about science, history, and religion.

        As Ben Stein says, there’s nothing morally neutral about Darwinism. It is a worldview with deadly fruits.”


        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @VH – the Father of “modern Lutheranism” can be said to be Martin Luther (he also initiated the Protestant Reformation). In 1543, two of Luther’s books were published:

          Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen or “On the Jews and Their Lies”


          Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi or “On the Holy Name and the Lineage of Christ”

          These two gems asserted amongst other things that:

          1. Jews were the “Devil’s People” or “Poisoned Envenomed Worms”

          2. It is a good work to set their synagogues on fire, destroy their prayerbooks, forbid Rabbis from preaching, seize Jewish property and money and destroy their homes.

          This Luther guy is a swell guy isn’t he?

          Can it be said he is also the Father thus of “Modern Anti-Semitism”?

          Well, I am Lutheran. I can assure you that in my 38.5 years across 8 different Lutheran Churches in very different locations (one was a small ultra-traditional Lutheran Church nestled in a remote field in North Dakota where services at the time were still strictly in German and Icelandic) there was never an utterance of these particular teachings or beliefs of Luther. Most will tell you that these ramblings were emblematic of a culture and time were that was the prevailing sentiment or feeling both religiously and culturally. Most will also tell you that the good of what Luther proposed and advocated was readily accepted and improved upon in the generations since. I have run across several people in my life that make no bones about how they feel about Jews. Do I think their views are based on a solid reading of Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen? Clearly I would not. Do I think those writings influenced their thinking at least a little? Sure. Maybe less than 1%. Someone consumed by such hate may readily quote Luther and others from that time as “proof” that such hate was embraced by prominent people in history. But it would be a lie imho to say Martin Luther is the Father (or a cousin or uncle) of Modern Antisemitism.

          And so with Darwin – it has been years since I read his works – I don’t have a strong recollection of being influenced to think of racial superiority. Darwins work has been expanded upon many times over in the 150 years since it was released and rests more so now in what is referred to as neo-Darwinian Synthesis – which has been around in some form since the early 20th Century. The meritorious aspects of Darwin’s work have been re-soundly accepted and molded to other works since then. The less than meritorious aspects have been rejected. I highly doubt that many of the racists I ran across in Georgia and in parts of Pennsylvania will quote you any Darwin. Are some of their thoughts rooted in Darwin? Maybe. A minute percentage. I would more so point towards a perversion of the way we learn (we learn by our ability to identify how two things/objects are different – we are wired to be discriminatory) combined with social and cultural constructs that water that bad seed (e.g. being raised by racist parents).

          On that account – to assert that Darwin is the Father of Modern Racism is utter bullshit.

          • I think you are misunderstanding the point-Beck, didn’t lie-people use religion and they use Darwinism to defend the stupid and despicable things that they do-hence laid the seed. Whether or not Darwin believed that white was better-I don’t know.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              VH – I was simply assessing verbatim and contextually what he said. It is not true and therefore a lie.

          • Ray

            Your arguments are not logical. You may not like it and the distance of time may have washed out the linkage for modern bigots, but the facts are the facts.

            Just as the Progressive Movement is the father of fascism and then back to the Progressive Movement of today. The links are there. It is irrational to deny them.

            But what we need to do is understand the changes and how things are different today than then. While Darwin was used to rationalize and actually spread racist views, that is no longer the case. And it doesn’t change the other scientific work or theories.

            To claim it is all bullshit is wrong. But to claim that Stein and others are bringing it up now as a deliberate attempt to denigrate Darwin in an attempt to get creationism included as “science” is bullshit…………well that IS Bullshit and you are justified in saying so.

            In my humble opinion.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              JAC – you’re entitled to your opinion even if it is wrong. To assert therefore that Darwinism is the Father of Modern Racism necessitates elimination or at least diminishing of other casual factors. Sorry sir – your logic fails on that one. Also – I didn’t assert or even imply that it is being brought up to insert Creationism as science.

              • Ray

                Is Aristotle the Father of Philosophy?

                It is completely appropriate to label Darwin as such, because there was a direct link from his theories and the use of HIS theories. This ‘rationalization’ had not been used before.

                And from some of his writings it appears he may have believed the same.

                I know you didn’t raise the Creationism argument. I am saying IF you did I would say you were DEAD ON.

                That means I raised it……… 🙂

      • And this -shows the sickness of just about everybody. People who believed in Darwin’s theories and those who didn’t. Man sometimes I wish I didn’t know this stuff happened. Makes one feel sick inside.


      • I do have to say, Ray, that I have spent a fair amount of time today researching two of the claims made on these blogs, and I’m not seeing where they proved Beck was a liar.

        • No where have they proven him a liar. But you can’t tell them that. I don’t know why ya’ll bother trying.

          Going to another liberal progressive site to prove someone a liar does nothing but make them look foolish.

  23. If the US doesn’t buy these, I wonder if the Mexican government will. And since a large portion of firearms issued to their military end up in the hands of drug cartel’s, US LEO’s and soldiers may end up being shot by US made firearms, that our government didn’t want US collectors to own. Note “M1s are semi-automatics, not machine guns, meaning the trigger has to be pulled every time a shot is fired”.
    from FOX

    The South Korean government, in an effort to raise money for its military, wants to sell nearly a million antique M1 rifles that were used by U.S. soldiers in the Korean War to gun collectors in America.

    The Obama administration approved the sale of the American-made rifles last year. But it reversed course and banned the sale in March – a decision that went largely unnoticed at the time but that is now sparking opposition from gun rights advocates.

    A State Department spokesman said the administration’s decision was based on concerns that the guns could fall into the wrong hands.

    “The transfer of such a large number of weapons — 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines — could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes,” the spokesman told FoxNews.com.

    “We are working closely with our Korean allies and the U.S. Army in exploring alternative options to dispose of these firearms.”

    Gun control advocates praised the Obama administration for taking security seriously.

    “Guns that can take high-capacity magazines are a threat to public safety,” said Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “Even though they are old, these guns could deliver a great amount of firepower. So I think the Obama administration’s concerns are well-taken.”

    But gun rights advocates point out that possessing M1 rifles is legal in the United States — M1s are semi-automatics, not machine guns, meaning the trigger has to be pulled every time a shot is fired — and anyone who would buy a gun from South Korea would have to go through the standard background check.

    “Any guns that retail in the United States, of course, including these, can only be sold to someone who passes the National Instant Check System,” said David Kopel, research director at the conservative Independence Institute. “There is no greater risk from these particular guns than there is from any other guns sold in the United States.”

    M1 carbines can hold high-capacity ammunition clips that allow dozens of rounds to be fired before re-loading, but Chris Cox, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, noted that is true about any gun in which an ammunition magazine can be inserted — including most semi-automatics.

    “Anything that accepts an external magazine could accept a larger capacity magazine,” Cox said.

    “But the average number of rounds fired in the commission of a crime is somewhere between 1 and 2 … this issue just shows how little the administration understands about guns.”

    He called the administration’s decision “a de facto gun ban, courtesy of Hillary Clinton’s State Department.”

    Asked why the M1s pose a threat, the State Department spokesman referred questions to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. ATF representatives said they would look into the question Monday afternoon, but on Wednesday they referred questions to the Justice Department. DOJ spokesman Dean Boyd referred questions back to the State Department.

    According to the ATF Guidebook on Firearms Importation, it would normally be legal to import the M1s because they are more than 50 years old, meaning they qualify as “curios or relics.” But because the guns were given to South Korea by the U.S. government, they fall under a special category that requires permission from the State Department before any sale.

    Kopel said that he hopes the State Department spokesman’s statement that it is working to “dispose” of the guns does not mean they want to melt them down.

    “It seems to have this implication of destruction, which would be tremendously wasteful,” he said. “These are guns that should be in the hands of American citizens for marksmanship and safety training.”

    Asked whether melting the guns down would be a good option, Henigan said: “Why let them into the country in the first place? If there is a legally sufficient way to keep them out, we think it’s perfectly reasonable to do so.”

    Past administrations have also grappled with the issue of large-scale gun imports.

    The Clinton administration blocked sales of M1s and other antiquated military weapons from the Philippines, Turkey and Pakistan. It also ended the practice of reselling used guns owned by federal agencies, ordering that they be melted down instead.

    • M1 Garand and Carbine are very popular collectors guns. I own a garand and would love to get another and maybe a carbine. But the price of these guns have become more and more expensive and harder to find. But I completely see the state departments view because of all that crime with antique WWII rifles going on around here, drive-bys and hold-ups.

  24. There’s an awful lot of sarcasm flying around this page today. Dissent IS Patriotic. Sounds like some here are trying to quiet the dissenters. Can we not have opinions anymore? 😦 I’ll see ya’s another day.

  25. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
    • He had his “awakening” after Algorians “An Inconvenient Truth” came out. Nice! Wonder if Al “release my chakra” will attend the guy’s funeral?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Over at “Think Progress” (a Progressive site obviously) they are trying to call this guy a “right-wing nutjob”.

        Yeah, followers of Paul Ehrlich and Al Gore are “right wing”…


      • I kind of like his game show format suggestion. Here’s my idea: All the ‘warmistas’ who truly believe that there are too many useless eaters effing up Gaia get to participate in the Prime time reality TV show “Putting My Useless Eater Ass Where My Mouth Is”. Before each night’s show, the warmistas can sign a contract offering to take a chance at being “Culled for Gaia”. Once the contract is signed the studio audience of ‘useless eaters’ plays a lottery. Several ‘volunteers’ will be chosen for execution! The fun part is that the remaining warmistas get to choose the method! (how fun is that?) Each volunteer that is culled will get two minutes to state/read their last words to the world. No last meal here, I mean, they’ve already admitted to being vermin who have consumed way too much while soiling Gaia. Once the culling takes place, a little vignette about how their composted remains have been recycled to repair the damage their useless eating ass did in life. Hey, is this a brilliant idea or what? I think Al Gore would jump at the chance to host, or better yet, lead by example! Hell, I’d watch!

  26. So BF, let’s look into your crystal ball. What are your predictions of the Obama Adm’s actions over the next few months, now that he can quit focusing on the Iraq war and concentrate on domestic issues. (sarc)

    Bush tax cuts? Spending?

    Would like to hear your take.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I am not BF, but for the next 60 days I predict that he will talk a whole lot, but not really try to do anything whatsoever.

      Then, after the election in November, he is gonna try to do a shitton of stuff as quickly as possible, and when it fails he will blame it on the increased number of Republicans in both the House and the Senate.

      • That sounds about right. Though to be fair, the Republicans in Congress are going to do little but obstruct him. They’ll block everything that moves. They’ll pass bad legislation with warm and fuzzy sounding names that will make the D’s look bad for opposing* (see: patriot act).

        And here’s the fun thing: then they’re going to start investigating. Birth certificate panels, citizenship investigation, Muslim sleeper investigations, communist sympathizer investigation, and every little non-story “gate” will be opened up and investigated. And, eventually, they’ll find something that’ll still – nothing major – but something. It’s inevitable that if they dig enough something will turn up, but this is true of almost everyone alive. Then they’ll go for impeachment.

        Nothing will get done in congress, nothing that needs fixing will be fixed, there will be no consensus building or compromises. There will likely be a government shut down over the budget. The R’s are going to hold everyone and everything hostage as they look to score political points and nothing else.

        (not that any of this is very different from what the blue shirts do in the same position.. it’s just that the red shirts are more effective at it)

        *I predict that they will pass something along the likes of the “Taking Back America Act” or the “Freedom Act” both of which do something awful so that the Dems have no choice but to oppose them.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Mathius, I agree with you, 95%!!!

          The 5% which I disagree with is as follows:

          NOTHING will get done in Congress (correct).

          HOWEVER, this means that the things which need fixing WILL GET FIXED!

          WHY??? Because without the government involved in everything and mucking it all up, the people can finally get back to solving their own damn problems, and the people will do a hell of a lot better job than the government ever could!

          Other than that, your summary was spot-on.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          If there is no consensus building or compromise in the government, THAT WILL BE AWESOME!

          They are FAR MORE DANGEROUS when they are actually “accomplishing something”. I hope and pray you are absolutely correct that they will get nothing done!!!

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Why does business BOG DOWN when there is gridlock in Government???

          Don’t we argue here that in a free market business would thrive?

          Wouldn’t governmental gridlock, at least temporarily, bring about more free-market-like conditions?



          A mercantilist system is built upon huge corporations which RELY UPON GOVERNMENT FOR THEIR VERY EXISTENCE. These large corporations manipulate the regulations so that they maintain their advantages over smaller, more agile competition. They shut smaller, more agile competition out of the market by making the COST OF COMPLIANCE prohibitively high for all but the largest corporations.


          Corporations rely upon a reasonable level of certaintly of what is coming next in order to maintain their wholly artificial advantage over the smaller, more agile competition!

          The main beneficiary of Gridlock in Congress will be small business. If no new regulations are passed for two years, this will give small buisness the chance to play “catch-up” and become competitive! (This would be a good thing).

          Unfortunately, as soon as the gridlock in government is resolved, unless we somehow magically elect a government which would seriously consider downsizing itself and getting out of 95% of the crap that government currently does (yeah like THAT is gonna happen.. what am _I_ smoking????), then new regulations will be passed once the gridlock has cleared, and the big corporations will then be able to squeeze out any small businesses that have begun to catch up.

          Got it?

          • No chance of a gov shutdown for two years… maybe a week or two tops.

            • Now Mathius it wasn’t very nice to ruin Peters hope like that-reality would have raised it’s ugly head soon enough.

              • You’re right, V. I apologize.

                Peter, I’m sure the government deadlock will last two years or longer.

    • Kathy,

      My question back at you….

      What are the options of a man falling of an airplane without a parachute?

      Does it much matter if he flaps his arms or flaps his tongue?

      The thing necessary to do is politically impossible to do.

    • Frak.. I need to go withdraw my money..

    • Cyndi,

      That has little effect on the US.

      This, however, is a serious concern.

      A Major European Bank Issues Investment Guidelines for a Worst-Case Scenario.

      Ambrose Evans-Pritchard summarizes a report from a major French bank. It is a worst-case scenario.

      Well, ok, it really isn’t. But it’s bad enough.

      Société Générale tells clients how to prepare for potential ‘global collapse’

      Société Générale has advised clients to be ready for a possible “global economic collapse” over the next two years, mapping a strategy of defensive investments to avoid wealth destruction.

      Why is this notable? There has rarely (never?) been a headline in recent memory from a major international bank like this.

      In a report entitled “Worst-case debt scenario”, the bank’s asset team said state rescue packages over the last year have merely transferred private liabilities onto sagging sovereign shoulders, creating a fresh set of problems.

      Overall debt is still far too high in almost all rich economies as a share of GDP (350pc in the US), whether public or private. It must be reduced by the hard slog of “deleveraging”, for years.

      “As yet, nobody can say with any certainty whether we have in fact escaped the prospect of a global economic collapse,” said the 68-page report, headed by asset chief Daniel Fermon.

      Under the French bank’s “Bear Case” scenario (the gloomiest of three possible outcomes), the dollar would slide further and global equities would retest the March lows. Property prices would tumble again. Oil would fall back to $50 in 2010.

      OK, it’s pretty bad.

      But if this is the worst-case scenario, I feel relieved.

      Governments have already shot their fiscal bolts. Even without fresh spending, public debt would explode within two years to 105pc of GDP in the UK, 125pc in the US and the eurozone, and 270pc in Japan. Worldwide state debt would reach $45 trillion, up two-and-a-half times in a decade.

      That’s where we are headed, with or without a major crisis in the next two years.

      The underlying debt burden is greater than it was after the Second World War,
      when nominal levels looked similar. Ageing populations will make it harder to erode debt through growth. “High public debt looks entirely unsustainable in the long run. We have almost reached a point of no return for government debt,” it said.

      This is all true. We are way beyond the point of no return. Few people care, even fewer then the few are considering the implications.

      Inflating debt away might be seen by some governments as a lesser of evils.

      If so, gold would go “up, and up, and up” as the only safe haven from fiat paper money.

      If this is a direct quotation — up, up, and up — it’s like nothing I have seen in a bank report. It’s true.

      Private debt is also crippling. Even if the US savings rate stabilises at 7pc, and all of it is used to pay down debt, it will still take nine years for households to reduce debt/income ratios to the safe levels of the 1980s.

      It will not be used to pay down debt. It never is.

      The bank said the current crisis displays “compelling similarities” with Japan during its Lost Decade (or two), with a big difference: Japan was able to stay afloat by exporting into a robust global economy and by letting the yen fall. It is not possible for half the world to pursue this strategy at the same time.

      SocGen advises bears to sell the dollar and to “short” cyclical equities such as technology, auto, and travel to avoid being caught in the “inherent deflationary spiral”. Emerging markets would not be spared. Paradoxically, they are more leveraged to the US growth than Wall Street itself. Farm commodities would hold up well, led by sugar.

      Mr Fermon said his report had electrified clients on both sides of the Atlantic. “Everybody wants to know what the impact will be. A lot of hedge funds and bankers are worried,” he said.

      This is not news to SUFA. But it is new to the world of conventional investing. That is why I regard the report as significant.

      There will be others like it. This is the beginning.

      The Establishment institutions are starting to doubt the central banks’ rhetoric.

      As this sort of information is released by conventions news media, the investing public will begin to reconsider the standard recommended avenues for their funds.

      Central bank policies and government spending policies are cutting off the possibility of avoiding either mass inflation or outright default.

      But it’s clear that most investors don’t pay attention to the numbers. When Warren Buffett thinks we can grow our way out of the new debt levels, why should the average investor become alarmed?

      Only because of this: the debts are too large to grow out of.

      No one -even Warren- thinks this is true.

      But I think it is true.

  27. Cyndi

    30 year Mortgage rates hit decades-low of 4.32 percent

    Good timing….!

    • That’s very nice if you have a conforming mortgage…

    • I talked to a mortgage broker at my bank. Even a 15 year @3.945 is a wash for me at this point. Most of my current payment is now going to the loan principle, lol. Not such good timing after all *sigh*. Instead of paying off my car, I’ll take that money and use it to impliment my pre-unemployment plan.


  28. http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-26.html

    This will anger a few people.

    Immigrants improve the economic situation of their respective States’

    The effects of immigration on the total output and income of the U.S. economy can be studied by comparing output per worker and employment in states that have had large immigrant inflows with data from states that have few new foreign-born workers. Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that immigrants expand the economy’s productive capacity by stimulating investment and promoting specialization. This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker. At the same time, evidence is scant that immigrants diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers.

    • Bottom Line says:

      I kinda find this study laughable.

      Here is the flaw in their data collection with respect to wages and job displacement:

      A lot of construction work and jobs typically filled by illegals are done and paid for “under the table”. How do you accurately determine the effects of something that is based on non-existent information. They only have data from that which is is reported.

      And to add, that which is reported is often not accurate. Contractors cook their books all of the time.

      I challenge any one of the people that did this study to go get a job in construction and remodeling. They would end up going back to the drawing board after only a few months of trying to compete with illegals.

      • Bottom Line,

        If you read their report, they do not use employment or such info. Their methodology was to look at the State economy on the whole

        Review the paragraph called “Method”

        • Bottom Line says:

          I got that part.

          And according to their method, I am an illegal immigrant.

          They don’t know how many immigrants move to an area because many are completely under the radar. They can’t say whether it displaced an American’s job, or who made what because much of business conducted is under the radar as well.

          “At the same time, evidence is scant that immigrants diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers.”

          Yeah, that’s because evidence as a whole is scant. There results are skewed and inaccurate.

          I’ll give you a typical example…

          American born Contractor X hires me(a virtual ghost)for $3/hr less than standard pay and two illegal immigrants(virtual ghosts(Jose,Jesus)) instead of American born Bob and Fred. He hires all of us under the table(ghost incomes). He doesn’t report the job or his profit on his taxes(ghost profit).

          We all spend our ghost money locally, which results in a measurable increase in profit for local businesses and tax revenue for the town.

          American born Contractor Y complies with the law and hires an American born citizen(Joe), and two legal immigrants with worker visas(Juan,Chico). All pay taxes. All income/profit is reported.

          They all spend their traceable money at local businesses which results in a measurable increase in profit for local businesses and tax revenue for the town.

          According to their method, Contractor Y, Joe, Juan, and Chico take credit for the contribution to the local economy that we ALL made.

          They have no idea that American born Contractor X made anything, that I agreed to work for $3 less an hour, or that Bob and Fred are out of work, or that myself, Jose, and Jesus even exist.



      • Restaurant businesses and hotels are also big cash payers to illegals.

        • Kathy,

          True, however, they depend strongly on a high discretionary spending, which equals good economic situations in their area.

          Lots of illegals working in restaurants = strong local economy

          • Correlation does not prove causation.

            • T-Ray,

              True. But it is a bet!

              The test, then, is to see if this happens in more than one place under similar conditions.

              Thus, the study so noted above did just that.

              And that is what they found.

              Thus, the correlation is demonstratively causation and likely.

          • So if they hire legals instead it means it’s not good economic conditions? Not sure I get your point.

            • Kathy,


              Think about it.

              If locals will lower their economic labor costs to be equal to illegals MUST mean the local economy is degrading.

              The reason illegals are hired over “legit” (whatever that means) is because there are few “legits” willing to take lower paid jobs – thus, there must be more higher paying jobs for them to take.

              Restaurants live on discretionary income. They are also a very low margin business – costs are very sensitive.

              Thus, they live when the local economy is good AND the labor is cheap.

              • BF

                You are ignoring the STATE induced costs in your evaluation.

                Under our current system it is not a free exchange and thus not indicative of free economic results.

                Fact is that the Americans workers are not allowed by law to work for less, assuming here minimum wage jobs. They are certainly not allowed by LAW to work without paying into SS/med/med.

                So you can not simply say that the illegals are taking jobs because there is a surplus of jobs at that pay scale.

                And I am not saying that they would or wouldn’t. We all know some who work under the table as well. What I am saying is the water is filled with mud, and clear conclusions are a stretch.

                I give you this reality from recent times. During the housing boom the average cost of labor declined in my area and others around the country. So during a time of increased demand for labor the cost dropped. Obviously the supply increased more rapidly. How? Largely due to an influx of “migrant” labor.

                My point here, mostly for others, is that claims about “economic health” depend on the perspective of the claim. In my example, the broader economy benefits, but the economic well being of the construction worker declined. He took a 5$/hour cut in pay.

                • JAC,

                  You point to precisely my argument.

                  A “local” can work “illegally” as easily as a Mexican.

                  He can accept a job “under the table” for lower than minimum as easily as the Mexican.

                  He chooses not to because for him, he has other opportunities

                  • BF

                    I understand that part but you are ignoring the other part.

                    The effect of govt coercion. The man may not be willing to break the law for the lower wage.

                    This is the mud in the equation.

                    Now lets look at a declining local market. The legal man may take a cut in wage. But the illegal will move lower as well, to some obvious break point. Thus the presence of an illegal worker is not evidence of economic health.

                    I understand the relationships and I agree that as the economy heats up and labor becomes short, there is usually an increase in migrant workers and under the table work. Thus one can conclude that a larger population of migrants occurs where the economy is healthy. But that is not the same as claiming that the large population of migrants “caused” the economic health.

                    Seems to me someone is trying to use an economic reality to rationalize a political position. Remember, per my friend BF, these are different and should be treated as such.

                    • JAC

                      The effect of govt coercion. The man may not be willing to break the law for the lower wage.

                      This is the mud in the equation.

                      Why does this mud the equation?

                      As I stated orginally, it was a matter of choice.

                      Because the local has more choices for his labor and the Mexican less is the reason that MORE Mexicans is a good sign.

                      It means that the man with less choices has a lot of choices and must mean the “local” must also have even more abundant choices as well.

                      More choices in an economy is a signal of prosperity.

                      Thus, seeing that Mexicans – with the fewest choices available are proliferating – is a sign of a growing and prosperous economy.

                • Bottom Line says:

                  JAC, Flag,

                  I live what you guys are discussing.

                  The dynamics of the situation are somewhat complex.

                  You’re BOTH right.

  29. Ray, an email a friend sent me. Care to fact check?

    By Dewie Whetsell, Alaskan Fisherman.
    As posted in comments on Greta’s article referencing the MOVEON ad about Sarah Palin.

    The last 45 of my 66 years I’ve spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska. I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year. Here’s the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it. It’s not about persona, style, rhetoric; it’s about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I’m about to mention here.

    1. Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor’s office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican’s “Corrupt Bastards Club” (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits The Democrats reacted by skipping a round the yard, throwing confetti and singing, “la la la la” (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar.

    2. Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called “ACES.” Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them, “don’t let the door hit you in the stern on your way out.” They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course, the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.

    3. The other thing she did when she walked into the govern or’s office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as “pork.” She went through the list, took 85% of them and placed them in the “when-hell-freezes-over” stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we’ll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor’s jet because it was extravagant.

    Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor’s cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning – I imagine – that she’s packing heat herself). I’m still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.

    4. Now, even with her much-ridiculed “gosh and golly” mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline buil t which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn’t impress you, then you’re trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.

    5. For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn’t start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started. Then, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.

    6. President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewable by 2025. We are already at 25%. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona. Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that’s just a cover-up. I’m still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won’t be holding my breath.

    By the way, she was content to return to AK after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn’t let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off Shoulda known better.

    You have just read the truth about Sarah Palin that sends the media, along with the democrat party, into a wild uncontrolled frenzy to discredit her. I guess they are only interested in skirt chasers, dishonesty, immoral people, liars, womanizers, murderers, and bitter ex-presidents’ wives.

    So….You go, Girl. I only wish the men in Washington had your guts, determination, honesty, and morals. There are only four states that are not in financial trouble, and yes, Alaska is one of the four.

    I rest my case. Only FOOLS listen to the biased media.

    • Nice!

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Sheesh LOI – like taking candy from a baby

      1. The CBC investigation is a Federal investigation not a State one – I wasn’t aware Sarah controlled the DOJ, the FBI and the IRS. Palin does not and shall not receive credit for this.

      2. ACES – this one is quite amusing. What is stated is relatively accurate. What is not stated with respect to this “system of oil profit redistribution” is that is this not the very same Socialism that duh Sarah rails against now? I guess its ok if it wins favor for you in your State – not ok if anyone else does it eh?

      3. Palin’s track record on Pork? Hang on – I need to fall out of my chair, roll on the floor, and laugh my ass off………………………………………………………………………………………………………..ok I’m back. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008154532_webpalin02m.html

      4. The Gas Pipeline? Let’s call this her Forrest Gump moment – being in the right place at the right time. The effort to move the pipeline forward had stalled for years because the oil companies sitting on it didn’t having a compelling variable (such as skyrocketing fuel prices) to alter their lobbying approach. When the variable changed everyone wanted to get on the bus – she just signed her name.

      5. Point Thompson – this is a lie – the Court filings indicate that all three companies had made significant investments to prep the site over the years they held the site. Troubling also is that the DNR termed their leases in 2006. Palin took office on 12/4/2006 – this one is a big fat lie.

      6. Um – sorry, der Palin was not the author of HB 306 OR SB 220 which were signed by Governor Parnell.

      Epic Fail LOI – Epic Fail!

  30. The Baptist & The Texas Cowboy…

    A Baptist Preacher was seated next to a cowboy on a flight to Texas .
    After the plane took off, the cowboy asked for a whiskey and soda, which
    was brought and placed before him.

    The flight attendant then asked the
    preacher if he would like a drink. Appalled, the preacher replied, “I’d
    rather be tied up and taken advantage of by women of ill-repute, than
    let liquor touch my lips.”

    The cowboy then handed his drink back to the
    attendant and said,

    “Me too, I didn’t know we had a choice.”

  31. For LOI…….and JAC

    Before I lay me down to sleep,
    I pray for a man who’s not a creep,
    One who’s handsome, smart and strong.
    One who loves to listen long,
    One who thinks before he speaks,
    One who’ll call, not wait for weeks.
    I pray he’s rich and self-employed,
    And when I spend, won’t be annoyed.
    Pull out my chair and hold my hand.
    Massage my feet and help me stand.
    Oh send a king to make me queen.
    A man who loves to cook and clean.
    I pray this man will love no other.
    And relish visits with my mother.

    I pray for a deaf-mute gymnast nymphomaniac with
    big tits who owns a bar on a golf course,
    and loves to send me fishing and drinking. This
    doesn’t rhyme and I don’t give a shit.

  32. JaC Stated:”By definition Man could never run his life contrary to Natural Law. It is after all, Natural Law.

    Meaning that the law can not be broken or violated.

    So if your God law or Man law can be violated then it is not Natural Law.”

    TC:Natural law or the law of nature has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.I aplly an Aquinas philosophical view when applying Natural Law.
    All Natural Law is Gods Law.
    You know your statement to be patently false because of free wills effect.
    Natural Law is broken every time a man makes the decision to have sex with another man.It is also broken when light enters a blackhole.
    I just wrote a 10 paragraph reply to you and am devastated because I hit the wrong button and lost it…writing it again when I get time though.

    Think about this until I get done with it again though, since you enjoy the syllogistic approach…

    Aquinas’ First Argument, Motion
    (1) Objects are in motion.
    (2) If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something outside of itself.
    (3) There can be no infinite chain of movers/movees.
    (4) So there is a first, unmoved mover.
    (5) Therefore, God exists.

    Aquinas’ Second Argument, Causality
    (1) Some events cause other events.
    (2) If an event happens, then it must be caused by something outside of itself.
    (3) There can be no infinite cause/effect chains.
    (4) So, there is a first, uncaused cause.
    (5) Therefore God exists.

    Aquinas’ Third Argument, Contingency
    (1) Contingent things exist.
    (2) Each contingent thing has a time at which it fails to exist (contingent things are not omnipresent).
    (3) So, if everything were contingent, there would be a time at which nothing exists (call this an empty time).
    (4) That empty time would have been in the past.
    (5) If the world were empty at one time, it would be empty forever after (a conservation principle).
    (6) So, if everything were contingent, nothing would exist now.
    (7) But clearly, the world is not empty (premise 1).
    (8) So there exists a being who is not contingent.
    (9) Hence, God exists.

    Aquinas’ Fourth Argument, Properties That Come in Degrees
    (1) Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
    (2) If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.
    (3) So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
    (4) Hence God exists.

    Aquinas’ Fifth Argument, From Design
    (1) Among objects that act for an end, some have minds, whereas others do not.
    (2) An object that acts for an end, but does not itself have a mind, must have been created by a being that has a mind.
    (3) So there exists a being with a mind who designed all mindless objects that act for an end.
    (4) Hence, God exists.

    Anselm’s Argument, The Ontological Argument
    (1) God is by definition the greatest possible being.
    (2) A being who fails to exist in the actual world (while existing in other possible worlds) is less perfect than a being who exists in all possible worlds.
    (3) Hence, God exists, necessarily.

    • Tex

      So your examples or definition of Natural Law is whatever Aquinas says it is?

      Natural Laws are “LAWS” of nature. That means by their very definition as a “law of nature” they can not be violated. Such as the laws of gravity, quantum mechanics and a myriad of other truths we have discovered.

      Men having sex with each other is proof that homosexual behavior does not violate natural law. It happens and there is no adverse effect caused by that action. As opposed to you stepping off a building and going splat on the pavement. Thus there is no natural law against acts of pleasure, regardless of who is doing it.

      If you want to tie it to procreation then the law would have to relate to procreation, but not acts of pleasure in and of themselves.

    • Texaschem,

      Every one of Aquinas proofs has been refuted in detail. The best, concise, refutation is Bertrand Russel in his book “Why I am not a Christian”. If you wish to debate them individually, we can.

      Only one of Russel’s refutation has been countered. The rest remain firm.

      Further, Natural Law exists immutably – this you agree. Thus it is impossible for man to resist it. Therefore, no act of man can resist an Immutable Law. Thus, any claim that a man HAS resisted an immutable law makes such a law NOT immutable, and therefore cannot be a Natural Law.

      • BF

        So is this the refutation that was supposedly countered or is it the one that agrees with me and remains firm?

        I will be forced to convert to the statist mold if this truth is not true.

        • JAC

          Aquinas’ Second Argument, Causality.

          Also knows as “The First Cause”.

          Godel’s Incompleteness Theory:
          (1) The set of all things includes itself, however, the system must be irrational but complete.

          (2) The set of all things cannot include itself, however, the system is rational but incomplete.

          The Universe is rational.

          Therefore, it is incomplete – there exists something “outside the system” that cannot be proven.

          If such a circumstance of this “unprovable premise” is defined to be God (as #2 Aquinas) – you can say this is God.

          This is also Stephen Hawkings position as well.

          Gravity created the Universe.
          What created “Gravity”? The question is moot – but if you wish to define that to be God, Hawkings shrugs his shoulder and says “Ok, but it really doesn’t much matter at all” (Pun intended — get it? “Really/Reality” “Much/not at all” “Matter/Not there” “All/none” … some days I am really good! 🙂 )

          • Except you forgot to answer my question.

          • BF

            Now to Godel as you have stated it.

            Seems there is a claim of rational and irrational being made here that has nothing to do with whether a thing is included in the group of all things.

            Can you explain how this connection was supported?

            • Godel stated that for the set to include itself requires the system to be irrational, that one can prove everything as long as the proof is irrational.

              But he found that there existed theories that though are true but could not be proved to be true.

              He also found there was no way to prove that a theory, though true, was unprovable to be different from a theory that was provable, but very difficult to prove.

              How long does one have to struggle to prove a theory before you claim it cannot be proven though true? 10 years, 100 years, a million years?

              (Rational: 1+1 = 2
              Irrational: True = False)

              Your answer: it remains firm. Hawking, Aquinas, Russel, Godel and Blackflag all agree.

  33. @-BF,
    I’m not finished with this yet!

    TexasChem said
    August 27, 2010 at 5:18 pm
    If time is purely quantitative and doesn’t really exist and was only created by humans to perceive and measure changes in our reality…would it be reasonable to assume if we had the correct means of sensing/percieving reality we would know EvErYtHiNg all at once?


    Just A Citizen said
    August 28, 2010 at 12:14 am

    A is false.

    A is not related and is thus independent of B.

    B may be possible, but there is no way to prove whether it is true because it is not in our nature.


    TexasChem said
    August 28, 2010 at 6:18 pm
    If A has been proved to all or to some B, then B

    must belong to some A: and if A has been proved to

    belong to no B, then B belongs to no A.


    If A does not belong to some B,

    it is not necessary that B should not belong to

    some A: for it may possibly belong to all A!


    You silly syllogist you!


    Just A Citizen said
    August 28, 2010 at 7:05 pm

    Your original statement is a fallacy.

    You have included two conditional statements (If, then)and questions within a longer statement.

    The second statement/question is not linked to the first in any way shape or form. In fact the first condition includes contradictions within itself.

    If time does not exist then it could not be created by man, unless of course man does not exist. But I do exist and therefore I exist.


    TexasChem said
    August 31, 2010 at 9:23 pm
    Think about it JaC.

    Time absolutely is quantitative.
    Time is merely a means of observing and measuring changes of the material aspects of our reality.

    I was merely stating that time had no actual physical measurable qualities with my statement.

    The intent of the statement was to question whether or not it possible to perceive reality from a different perspective somehow so that time as a quantitative force had no sway over perception!


    Black Flag said
    August 31, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    Err, sorry buddy – no.

    Time is not absolute, nor quantitative.

    Einstein showed time varies with velocity. It is an observable effect – time clocks on Helios satellite (the fastest man-made object) move slower than on Earth…


    TexasChem said
    September 1, 2010 at 2:29 am
    No… Einstein showed that perception of effect on a mass’ reality altered with speed.Time in and of itself has NO measurable physical properties.


    Black Flag said
    September 1, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    Atomic clocks are not a “perception”.

    Time is not a “perception”

    Time IS a measurable quantity.

    A second is defined to be the amount of time it takes light to travel exactly 299,792.458 kilometers in a vacuum.


    TexasChem said
    September 1, 2010 at 10:35 pm
    BF Stated:Atomic clocks are not a “perception”.

    Well duh, you mean we are not observing radioactive materia decaying?

    BF Stated:”A second is defined to be the amount of time it takes light to travel exactly 299,792.458 kilometers in a vacuum.

    TC:Hrmm…you mean were not measuring distance using a constant?

    Time is the observation of effect on materials.Time contains no mass.Are you stating that time contains quarks, leptons and bosons?


    Black Flag said
    September 1, 2010 at 11:36 pm

    BF Stated:Atomic clocks are not a “perception”.

    Well duh, you mean we are not observing radioactive materia decaying?

    That’s not what you meant.

    Time is NOT a perception. The atomic clocks MEASURE.

    BF Stated:”A second is defined to be the amount of time it takes light to travel exactly 299,792.458 kilometers in a vacuum.

    TC:Hrmm…you mean were not measuring distance using a constant?

    Duh… the speed of light IS a constant, that is why it is the BASE of the measure.

    Start counting…light 299,792.458 km later… that’s a second, folks!

    Time is the observation of effect on materials.

    Time is no such thing.
    You confuse time and entropy.

    Time contains no mass.Are you stating that time containsquarks, leptons and bosons?

    “Up and down” have no mass either. Neither does “left or right”. Nor does “in or out”.

    Try again, Tex.

    BlackFlag Stated:”“Up and down” have no mass either. Neither does “left or right”. Nor does “in or out”.

    TC:Exactly my point.They are perceptions of changes in our reality.They are not physically measurable.They are without mass.

    Time is purely quantitative and does not exist in a sense that is definable and measurable by physical means (even though the clock is ticking you are really just using a constant to percieve the tick!)and was only created by humans to perceive and measure changes in our reality.

    So anyways back to my original thought and question.If you do not agree fine just look at this concept out of the box and
    post your thoughts!

    If time is purely quantitative and doesn’t really exist and was only created by humans to perceive and measure changes in our reality…would it be reasonable to assume if we had the correct means of sensing/percieving reality we would know EvErYtHiNg all at once?

    • Tex

      My comment stands on your entire question. The first part is a fallacy that makes the second moot, because you made the second a condition of the first.

      Now lets ignore the first and get to your second question.


      You can not know what has NOT happened.

    • TexasChem

      They are perceptions of changes in our reality.They are not physically measurable.They are without mass.

      Up and down ARE physically measurable. That why we have a yard stick. They are NOT perceptions of reality, they are MEASURES of it.

      Time is purely quantitative and does not exist in a sense that is definable and measurable by physical means (even though the clock is ticking you are really just using a constant to percieve the tick!)and was only created by humans to perceive and measure changes in our reality.

      Time IS physically measurable. Again, a second is the TIME it takes LIGHT to go 299,000 km.

      Time is NOT a perception, it does not change depending on whether you live or die or are in a good mood or foul.

      It does not measure CHANGE! Are you saying if you change your shoes, time changes?

      Time exists because the Universe is entropic

  34. Queering Education

    By Mary Grabar

    The recent court rulings against students Jennifer Keeton in Georgia and Julea Ward in Michigan reveal the power amassed by the cabal of radicals in academia who have pushed the gay agenda into education. In both cases, judges upheld the right of counseling departments at public universities to expel Christian students who refused to counsel homosexuals in a manner that affirmed their homosexuality.

    In Keeton’s case, Augusta State University mandated that all students completing the master’s program adhere to professional standards that require counselors to counsel all clients in ways that do not criticize their sexuality or attempt to change it. According to affidavits, Keeton, whose attitudes towards homosexuality are rooted in her Christian faith, had stated a desire to refer gay clients to other counselors or to inform them about conversion therapies.

    Julea Ward, too, claimed that her rights to freedom of religion and free speech were violated by Eastern Michigan University when she was required to counsel gay clients in an affirming manner. Her suggestion that such clients be referred to other counselors was rejected.

    In both cases, the graduate students were in good academic standing until the final stages of their programs, when it came time to practice counseling clients. Both refused to undergo remediation programs with activities clearly intended to change their attitudes toward homosexuality.

    The judges cited the “professional judgment” and “academic standards” at the universities, both of which adhere to the American Counseling Association (ACA) code of ethics. The “professional judgment” and “academic standards” that determined the activities for remediation are more in line with Soviet-style reeducation, however. The twelve tasks assigned to Keeton, such as attending a gay pride parade, hardly involve legitimate scholarship.

    Another task assigned to Keeton was quoted in the ruling: to read “peer-reviewed counseling or psychological journals that pertain to improving counseling effectiveness with GLBTQ populations.” The department’s directive, as quoted in the decision, continues: “There is much research available on the ALGBTIC [Association for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues in Counseling] webpage under Resources.”

    Keeton is reported as aspiring to be a guidance counselor, so the “professionals” would probably want her to read resources under “Lesbian and Gay Youth.” Included are such titles: Young, Gay and Proud and Positively Gay, the latter a collection that features essays by gay rights advocates and a foreword by Congressman Barney Frank. It’s published by Celestial Arts.

    Even articles linked on the organization’s homepage have advocacy as their mission. Consider “Surviving and Thriving in the Midst of Anti-Gay Politics,” published in Angles, the “Policy Journal of The Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies.” (Emphasis added.)

    The gay-positive lifestyle is being promoted aggressively in K-12 schools, often under the cover of anti-bullying efforts, under the leadership of Kevin Jennings, Assistant Deputy Secretary, Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools. Before his federal appointment, Jennings founded and ran GLSEN, (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network). Under Jennings’ direction, GLSEN was involved in activities that affirmed homosexuality to children with explicit materials. Jennings also wrote the foreword to a book titled Queering Elementary Education.

    GLSEN, which in the 2008-2009 year enjoyed a $157,500 contribution from the NEA, the largest teachers union in the country, pitches its materials and training services to schools. It targets not only high school students, but middle school students. For example, the video and teachers guide for Out of the Past, about a 17-year-old who begins a gay-straight alliance group in her public school, is targeted for grades 7 through 12.

    But this spring, the Eagle Forum reported that the American College of Pediatricians urged all 14,800 U.S school district superintendents to avoid prematurely labeling children as homosexual. The College president cited studies showing that most adolescents who experience same-sex attraction no longer do so by age 25.

    Such studies are ignored by the organizations that put out a brochure titled “Just the Facts about Sexual Development of Youth.” These organizations include not only the two largest teachers’ unions, but also the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association. Who else is on the list? Why the American Counseling Association, the very group that provides the “professional” standards for the public universities where Ward and Keeton studied.

    Furthermore, “Just the Facts” is promoted aggressively on the (GLSEN) website.

    In such a way, the peer reviewers, the accrediting organizations, and professors assert their power; they actively exclude not only opposing religious views, but also studies and professional opinions of those who disagree with them. It’s a problem that plagues our entire educational system.

    It happens certainly in the humanities, as I can attest from my experience over nearly twenty years in earning a Ph.D. in English and then living on the crumbs of part-time teaching. Sure, one can have an opinion. She can value the writing of a conservative, Christian writer like Walker Percy, but unless she does scholarship that deals with the presumed privileges of his gender, class, and race, she will not have a scholarly paper accepted at the prestigious conferences, nor have her job application considered seriously. In the meantime, my colleague, a full professor, can direct the Sexuality Studies program in the English department and display a pornographic line drawing of a homosexual act on his office door.

    While undergraduates become acclimated to graphic displays of homosexual sex, they will not be exposed to the serious ideas of someone like Walker Percy.

    Perhaps there has been no outcry during the last year the drawing has been posted because students are used to such displays. A look through MTV or Comedy Central will reveal how cool and edgy homosexuality has become among teenagers and young adults.

    Such an attitude is nurtured by years of classroom exposure to the narrative of victimhood and tolerance. The troubled, confused, and abused young person, if he seeks counseling, will then have the benefit of someone sealed with the approval of the American Counseling Association and the radical gatekeepers at the university. This is what passes for “professional judgment” these days.

    Such prevailing “professional judgment” must be exposed for what it is: an assertion of power that promotes an agenda of “queering” education. This is where the public with its good sense must invade the ivory towers and demand that its tax dollars no longer fund the academic frauds.

    • Well now see? This right here is one reason that all the PC Gay bullshit pisses me off.

      You are not even allowed to not counsel Gays. You WILL bygod counsel them, and you WILL do so in a manner that reaffirms their commitment to be Gay!

      You are NOT allowed to decide who you will treat and who you will not.

      Speak when you are spoken to, do as you are told!

      OR IT’S YOUR ASS!!!

  35. Dread Pirate Mathius says:


    I was sipping a refreshing Dr. Pepper yesterday, when I got a call on my satellite iPhone aboard Thor’s Hammer. To my surprise, it was Mathius.

    Mathius: We live in a goddamn police state!

    Dread Pirate Mathius: Well yes, I have long been aware of this. So what happened?

    Mathius: I got a ticket.

    Dread Pirate Mathius: Oh? Well I’m sure it was for society’s benefit (note: remark oozing with sarcasm)

    Mathius: Yes, well, I’m sure society will derive some benefit. They are, after all going to receive my fine.

    Dread Pirate Mathius: And what, pray tell, are they going to do with your fine?

    Mathius: They’ll probably use it to pay for more police to protect everyone.

    Dread Pirate Mathius: More police, huh? Sounds good. What was the cop who pulled you over doing to protect everyone?

    Mathius: She was waiting to catch people who make an illegal left turn at an intersection with poor signage.

    Dread Pirate Mathius: And that protects you how, exactly?

    Mathius: Well, I suppose it keeps the intersection safe and prevents accidents.

    Dread Pirate Mathius: Couldn’t they have accomplished the same thing with better signage?

    Mathius: I suppose so…

    Dread Pirate Mathius: But instead, they allowed you to perform a “potentially dangerous” action so they could give you a fine..

    Mathius: But- well, not- well, yes, but-

    Dread Pirate Mathius: Exactly.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Maybe they’ll use your money for better signage?

      But seriously, another ticket. Didn’t we just have this conversation not too long ago…

      • Eat your veggies! Hee Hee HEE 🙂 Couldn’t help myself.

        • I’m being force fed my veggies.. I’ll eat them but it doesn’t mean I have to like it when it’s my turn.

      • It was actually for making a left on red, but I honestly think I beat the light. Not that it matters. The cop knocked it down to failing to signal.

        I’m trying to figure out what the fine/points are, but so far no luck online.

        However, since she wrote me up for failing to signal, I think what I’m going to do is buy a replacement bulb and tell the court it was burnt out and see if they’ll let me off.

        All of this, however, doesn’t change the fact that cops have stepped up traffic patrols because it’s a lucrative source of funds and their budgets are getting squeezed. They are not acting to protect us, they are acting to protect their bottom lines and I have a problem with this.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          True – major problem in my mind. The other day I pased 3 cop cars on my way to work. This may not sound bad, but I live less than a mile from the office!

        • Mathius,

          Let’s see how good your logic is.

          If you ran a red, but they ticketed you for a signal violation, who lied?

          Secondly, take it to court. It’s fun and entertaining, a good excuse to miss work for a day, and irritates the heck out of the “system”. Imagine if EVERYONE contested EVERY ticket!

          The odds the officer will be there the day your case is heard is zero. You will win your case.

          • My logic is just fine. That’s pretty much what I think.

            There are a couple ways fighting the system can play out.

            1. She doesn’t show. Ticket is tossed. I win.

            2. She shows. I say I fixed my light (and show a receipt for a new bulb).
            A. They reduce it to a fix-it. I (mostly) win.
            B. She tells the court that I actually ran a light. I say “so then you agree that I did signal?” She agrees, and the ticket is tossed. I win.

            It’s much better if she doesn’t show, but I kind of hope she does. She was really cute.

          • Y’AAARRRRGHHH, Matey!

            Imagine if EVERYONE contested EVERY ticket!

            You know as well as I do what would happen. They would change the system to make it harder and more time consuming to contest tickets.

            Further, they would make tickets more expensive to compensate for the increased expense of court.

            Which means that it’s more likely that people will fight them. Which means that The Man will make it even more difficult to fight. Which means that the courts will be even more expensive. Which means that they will raise the fees even more. Which means that even more people will fight the system anyway. Which means that ….

            … round and round she goes, until either people start obeying traffic laws for fear of draconian fines and nightmarish court procedures or the whole court/police system collapses.

            • Dread via Mathius,

              (1) If they could increase the fines, they would do that now. But they do not, thus there is an independent constraint to the price of the fine not attached to volume

              (2) Bureaucracy moves slow. It moves slower when buried in paperwork. When the avalanche hits it will slow them down even more and collapse them well before they get into policy meetings, etc. necessary for them to adjust the system to compensate.

              Law of Bureaucracy. Grows until overwhelmed by paper work.

              This strategy simply accelerates this Law.

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                I respectfully disagree. You missed the corollary to the Law of Bureaucracy: Bureaucracy moves slowly, except when its funding is threatened.

                • Dread,

                  Funding does not change its pace.

                  If that were true, students in public school would complete to Grade 12 in 3 years.

                  The opposite is true. Increase in funding slows the system to approaching a crawl.

                  Again, public school. As money accelerates in volume to it, the fewer courses are offered.

          • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

            Y’AAARRRRGHHH, Matey!

            Imagine if EVERYONE contested EVERY ticket!

            You know as well as I do what would happen. They would change the system to make it harder and more time consuming to contest tickets.

            Further, they would make tickets more expensive to compensate for the increased expense of court.

            Which means that it’s more likely that people will fight them. Which means that The Man will make it even more difficult to fight. Which means that the courts will be even more expensive. Which means that they will raise the fees even more. Which means that even more people will fight the system anyway. Which means that ….

            … round and round she goes, until either people start obeying traffic laws for fear of draconian fines and nightmarish court procedures or the whole court/police system collapses.

    • Someone’s going to be paying higher insurance!

  36. Migrant who survived Mexico massacre: Don’t leave home
    By the CNN Wire Staff
    September 3, 2010 6:28 a.m. EDT

    (CNN) — A survivor of a massacre in Mexico that left 72 dead is advising other would-be migrants to stay at home to avoid a fate like the one his companions met.

    The victims in the killings, which happened in northern Mexico, were migrants from Central and South America who were on their journey north.

    In an interview with Ecuadorean state television, the survivor, identified as Luis Freddy Lala, spoke about the harrowing ordeal. Although his name has been released, his face was blurred on camera.

    Lala said his journey began in Ecuador, and from there he traveled to Honduras and then to Guatemala. During that leg of the trip, “everything was fine,” he said.

    From Guatemala he crossed into Mexico and made it with a large group of migrants to the northeastern Mexican state of Tamaulipas.

    Three cars surrounded the vehicle he was riding in, and a group of heavily armed men stepped out, forcing him into another car.
    I’m telling all Ecuadoreans not to travel anymore.
    –Luis Freddy Lala, massacre survivor
    Video: 72 bodies found in Mexican ranch

    * Murder and Homicide
    * Mexico
    * Ecuador

    The migrants were taken to a house, where they were tied up in groups of four, Lala said.

    Then, at one point, the hostages were all thrown on the ground, face-down.

    “I heard them shooting at my friends,” he said. “They shot me and they killed everyone else.”

    From the broadcast portions of the interview, it was not clear what the motive for the massacre might have been.

    As soon as the gunmen finished, they left the premises, Lala said.

    “When they left I waited two minutes, got up and left the house,” he said. He walked all night and into the morning until he found a military checkpoint where he asked for help. Along the way, Lala said, he was denied help from two men he encountered.

    His advice to others wanting to go on the journey toward the United States is to not go because it is too dangerous to cross through Mexico.

    “I’m telling all Ecuadoreans not to travel anymore, because the Zetas are killing lots of people,” he said, referring to the cartel believed to be behind the killings.

    Mexican officials confirmed Wednesday that a second person survived the attack but authorities said they would not reveal the second survivor’s identity for safety reasons.


  37. SUFA Readers….0200 hrs…..smoke alarm goes off. D13 is awakened out of a real sound sleep…runs into kitchen and den to find flames reaching the ceiling from a couch that was on fire. Three fire extinguishers did not put it out…2 pounds of flour did not put it out…fire department arrives…as I was crawling out of front door because smoke was already filling house from a sleeper couch that would not die…15 x 20 foot of floor on fire but efforts with extinguishers kept it from spreading….heat very intense in smoke… Three exotic parrots did not survive from smoke inhalation…

    Fire was put out in 5 minutes with no structure damage except the floor and a heat cracked skylight. Smoke damage extensive…getting ready to meet with insurance and renovation experts to see what is salvagable and begin cleanup.

    My fault for fire, it appears. I have skylights that can be opened to the cooler night air. Forgot about storms moving in and rain blew in through the skylight and settled on a floor plug that had a lamp that I leave on at night. Water and floor plugs do not play well together. Circuit breaker tripped but not before a spark set the sofa bed on fire. The sofa bed, which is treated with a chemical to prevent stains, went up like fresh tinder…as stated, three extinguishers did not phase it nor the flour. Fire Department inspector told me that it would have taken more than that to put out that type of fire once the whole couch was involved. Chemical treatment of sort is hard to put out..but he did say, efforts probably saved the house. because the wood floor did not catch due to the flour and extinguishers and the fact that I dampened the flames somewhat. But, he went on to say….I was lucky that I have had some training that said to get out because of the smoke and burning chemicals from household goods overcome people quickly.

    So, please understand if I do not respond for a couple of days…. and I guess that I am glad I paid my taxes…because I think that everyone would agree three 25 pound chemical fire extinguishers and two pounds of flour and myself were not enough….and the fire department did come to my rescue….I have smoke damage but structure is sound.

    Thank you in advance for your thoughts. I will be back.


    • Glad you are ok and that you kept your head my friend. I hope the insurance people do you right.

      Be happy for the state taxes only. 🙂

      Seriously, this is one of those reasons I don’t mind government sponsored emergency services, altho I am sure a private firm could have done equally well.

      Take care buddy.

    • D13

      Sorry for your travails but very happy it wasn’t worse.

      Happy trails Colonel
      Hasta la Vista.

    • I’m sorry D13-glad you and your family are alright-very sorry about your pets. My house caught on fire years ago-was a hassle-but everything was replaceable but my pets.

    • Whew. Sorry for your troubles. Not a good way to start a holiday weekend. 😦

    • I’m glad you’re ok.

      I’m sorry for your birds.

      Stuff is just stuff.

      Best o’ luck with the insurance companies.

    • Wow!

      D13, you always go that extra step to help us learn something valuable, but really, you didn’t need to go this far! 🙂

      Glad to hear you are OK and so sorry for your birds.

    • Judy Sabatini says:


      So, so sorry to hear about the fire, and so very sorry to hear your birds didn’t make it, but very happy you came through okay. Will keep you and yours in my thoughts and prayers.

      Please Take Care


      • Judy, Any news on G-Man?

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Yeah, he’s doing fine, still healing though, but getting better and pretty much back to doing his normal thing. Sorry, I haven’t been keeping in touch here lately, just been kind of lying low for a while, but reading along when I can. Will try and participate more.

        • Hi Kathy!

          I’m fine, just been way too busy outdoors to be indoors. Hunting season is fast approaching and the pace will pick up on Sunday and continue (weather permitting) through December, depending on how fortunate I am in harvesting game. But, I’m looking forward to the bad weather days so I can get on here and join the fun once again. I love life in the country, today and tomorrow we will can about 50 quarts of applesauce. Put up 59 quarts of potatoes from the garden a few weeks ago, about 15 quarts of salsa, 12 quarts of tomatoes (ongoing) and waiting for the cabbage to come in and we’ll can 100 pounds of that. So, things can be very busy.

          I’ve taken some great pictures this summer of whitetail deer, mostly bucks. USW or Judy can give you my e-mail address and I can share a few, as the days become shorter, I will have more time to get online.

          Thanks for your concern! 🙂


          • Bottom Line says:

            HE LIVES!

          • Great to hear form you bud, glad your injury isnt slowing you down much 🙂

          • Hey G glad to hear things are good with you. Congrates on the canning success. It has been a busy canning season for my wife and I as we have canned over 200 quarts of vegetables this summer. We just finished 18 pints of jelly and pears will be in soon. I too am ready for deer season but have a few more months till the season starts in Alabama. You are right country living is fine.

          • Thanks everyone! 🙂

            Yes, I LIVE! Another broken bone in the back won’t stop me, just slowed me down a bit, but getting back to normal. Bama Dad, forgot to mention the 60 quarts of beets and the 40+ bottles of brandy! We now have pineapple, blueberry and rasberry on the shelf, with grapefruit and peace gettin ready to bottle.

            In a few months, I’ll be sending another guest post to USW. As things play out in real life, I’m keeping notes and ready too write something that is far different then my recent articles, as it is not broiled in controversy, just facts and a true story that will fit in well with everyones idealogies. Just a hint 🙂 I will show how the progressive movement is so harmfull to the law abiding citizen and present some thoughts on how to put it to death!

            Peace my friends!


    • Sorry to hear of your trouble and loss of pets. I too will keep you in my thoughts and prayers……

    • D13,

      Glad you are OK. And thanks for the lesson, I will have to increase my extinguishers level at home.

    • Glad your OK! Sorry for the loss of the pets, that’s a bummer. Stay safe Colonel!


    • Sorry for your losses Colonel Suh. But I’m glad it wasn’t worse. Everything can be replaced but the pets.

  38. Guns of Contention: If Philly says no, Florida can say yes

    By Stephanie Farr
    Philadelphia Daily News

    farrs@phillynews.com 215-854-4225

    In the last two years, Philadelphia police have confiscated guns from at least nine men – including four security guards – who were carrying them legally, and only one of the guns has been returned, according to interviews with the men.

    Eight of the men said that they were detained by police – two for 18 hours each. Two were hospitalized for diabetic issues while in custody, one of whom was handcuffed to a bed. Charges were filed against three of the men, only to be withdrawn by the District Attorney’s Office.

    The civil-rights unit of the City Solicitor’s Office confirmed that it is handling eight such cases. Two of the men interviewed by the Daily News said that they rejected settlement offers from the city ranging from $3,500 to $7,500. One accepted a $5,000 offer.

    Most of the cases hinge on what local authorities call the “Florida loophole,” under which a Pennsylvania resident can obtain a nonresident permit to carry a concealed weapon through the mail from another state, even without a permit in Pennsylvania.

    The “loophole” is unpopular with Philadelphia cops, who say that it allows those denied a permit here or whose permits were revoked to circumvent Philadelphia authorities and obtain it elsewhere.

    But proponents say that it’s necessary because Philadelphia has unusually strict criteria for obtaining a concealed-carry permit. Philadelphia, according to police and gun owners, relies heavily on a clause that allows denial of a permit based on “character and reputation” alone.

    The men interviewed by the Daily News had varying reasons for seeking nonresident permits from Florida or other states, including having been denied a Philadelphia permit because of unpaid parking tickets. Some said that they carry a Florida permit because it is recognized by more states than a Pennsylvania one.

    Two of the security guards said that they were on the job when their guns were taken, and that they were holding licenses issued by the state police to security officers under Pennsylvania Act 235, the Lethal Weapons Training Act.

    Despite following the law, all of the men said that they were treated like criminals by city cops who either ignored their rights or didn’t know the laws.

    Lt. Fran Healy, special adviser to the police commissioner, acknowledged that some city cops apparently are unfamiliar with some concealed-carry permits. But he said that it’s better for cops to “err on the side of caution.”

    “Officers’ safety comes first, and not infringing on people’s rights comes second,” Healy said.

    Both Healy and Craig Straw, chief deputy city solicitor with the civil-rights unit, said that they could not speak to individual cases because of pending litigation, but said that the main issue with Florida permits is that officers on the street are not able to check the validity of a permit 24 hours a day.

    “There’s a lot of bad guys out there,” Healy said. “I want to use my time on them and not waste it on this nonsense.”


    The nine men learned about each other because one of them, Richard Oliver, teaches safety courses required for nonresident permits from other states but not required by Pennsylvania.

    In interviews with the Daily News, each said that Philadelphia police had confiscated guns that they had been legally carrying.

    — Oliver, 42, of Northeast Philadelphia: Last year, Oliver, who had nonresident permits from three states and an Act 235 license, was driving to his job as a security guard when police pulled over his car for allegedly running a stop sign in West Philadelphia. He said that police did not honor any of his permits and held him in custody for 18 hours, forcing him to stand outside for four hours in winter and denying him his diabetes medication.

    His ordeal eventually landed him in Mercy Philadelphia Hospital, at 54th Street and Larchwood Avenue, in West Philadelphia, before he was booked on firearms charges and held on $15,000 bail, according to court records. In less than a month, his case was withdrawn by the District Attorney’s Office, and a week later his gun was returned on a judge’s order.

    Later, Oliver obtained a Philadelphia permit to carry. As owner of the Parapet Group, a protection-and-security company, Oliver continues to teach the safety courses.

    Although the charges were withdrawn, they’re still visible on Oliver’s online court record. He said that the city offered him a $7,500 settlement, which he rejected.

    Read more:Page 1 of 3,

  39. Speaking of holiday weekends–Have a safe and happy weekend everyone– I plan on seeing how many fish will take the bait and how many will hit the cast iron skillet. Thank God school starts Tuesday!

  40. Buck the Wala says:

    Have a wonderful Labor Day Weekend!

    I’m also embarking on vacation tonight (hurricane permitting, of course) so be nice to Mathius, Ray and the other evil liberal progressives in my absence!

    • Buck

      I hope your weekend goes well and as planned.

      Mine just got upended but I will recover.

      Spousal Unit Leader has been called to D.C. to help with hurricane response.

      That’s how we westerners are you know. We come running to help while you city folks run for the hills.

      OK, that was perhaps a little heavy. I’ll admit it.

      I am guessing it will be very quiet around here this weekend.

  41. In honor of this Labor Day weekend, Michelle Malkin has a nice piece on big labor:


    After high school football tonight, heading to northern Wisconsin (coming to see you Todd!!!) to visit some friends at their cabin. Have a good one SUFAers!

  42. Conditioning the sheep. Yes, its all SOOO convenient….


  43. Dread Pirate Mathius says:


    Re: Gumitup

    I had a similar experience. My college used to fill up my mailbox with spam – fliers for ever conceivable event and cause, petitions, surveys, etc. I asked the school to dial it down because I was getting annoyed. I had to sort through literally dozens of pieces of junk for every piece of real mail.

    The mail was accessible via a series of cubbyholes, each with a locked front (to which the students each had their own respective keys) and open backs accessible only to the post office employees so that they could load all the mail. This is a fairly standard setup.

    I came up with a gumitup response. Push it back. Every time I got my mail, I would sort it while standing next to my cubby. Once sorted, I would take all the spam and shove it back through the open back of the cubby hole and onto the floor of the employee-only portion of the mail room. I encouraged several of my friends to do so as well. I encouraged them to encourage their other friends to do so.

    I will never know how many people pushed their mail back, but after only a few days, there was a major drop in the amount of spam I was receiving.

    Could be a coincidence. But I doubt it.

  44. I got this in an email and thought it pretty funny…in a sad way.

    Gubmint and How Gubmint Works

    Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, “Someone may steal from it at night.” So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

    Then Congress said, “How does the watchman do his job without instruction?” So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

    Then Congress said, “How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?” So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

    Then Congress said, “How are these people going to get paid?” So They created two positions: a time keeper and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

    Then Congress said, “Who will be accountable for all of these people?” So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an
    Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

    Then Congress said, “We have had this command in operation for one Year and we are $918,000 over budget, we must cutback.” So they laid off the night watchman.

    NOW slowly, let it sink in.

    Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter.

    Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY….. during the Carter Administration?




    Didn’t think so!

    Bottom line. We’ve spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency….the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember!

    It was very simple…and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.

    The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977,


    Hey, pretty efficient, huh???


    33 years ago 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports.
    Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.

    Ah, yes — good old Federal bureaucracy.


    Hello!! Anybody Home?


    Take out the trash!!!

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      And what would you put in their place? More trash.

      • I didn’t strike a nerve did I? Ideally, you would replace them with people who know that that the people are the boss, and then replace them with the same before they become trash…

        • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          The people aren’t the boss.

          That’s where you’re mistaken.

          Inertia has set it in.

          The wheels are turning.

          We serve the government.

          Red shirt, blue shirt, polka dot shirt, it doesn’t matter.

          Anyone who runs for office is seeking power.

          Anyone seeking power is not going to give up power.

          Anyone who runs for office has a huge ego and thinks they know best.

          Anyone who thinks they know best will not listen to you.

          Anyone who is electable is already trash to some degree or another.

          You’re wasting your time.

  45. Bottom Line says:

    Thought I’d share this with SUFA.

    On another site, someone asked the question…

    Do you support or oppose a gay bar next to the mosque near Ground Zero?

    My answer:

    Put a gay bar on one side and a liquor store on the other.

    Across the street, put a BBQ pork restaurant and a synagogue.


  46. Just thought this would make a fitting kick off for the Labor Day weekend.


    V.H., been watching you and Ray go round on Beck. So heads up in the article to a couple of “embellishments” by a certain rather “famous” person that went unchallenged and unreported by the MSM and media matters and, and,………………. thought you would get a kick out of it. 🙂 🙂

    Happy weekend

  47. OT
    Thought you raptor jockeys out there would like this shot:

  48. D13 update….Hi group…thanks to everybody that responded. In the middle of clean up but am now having to wait (it is Labor Day Weekend)…the Fire Marshall and Arson investigators have to finish their investigation but not till Tuesday. All valuables removed and cleaned..all clothes removed and clean…now to the pictures and knick knacks…my war room survived without much smoke damage….the important items.. ( guns, knives, etc…all ammo ) all survived. Medals, certificates, pictures..all ok. Computers all ok…getting them cleaned from soot but no electronic damage. Most of the fabric furniture is going to be a loss but that is replaceable. all wall hangings in the front where the fire actually was is a total loss, of course.

    Biggest loss were my birds..they were my friends. A blue/gold Macaw (Zasu), An African grey (Colonel Mosby), and a Green quaker (Nub). All were over 20 years old each. SIGH…but life moves forward.

    TO: Dread Pirate….thanks for the broadside salute between your Grog and DP.

    NOte: From Fire Captain…treating furniture against stains…you use chemicals…most flammable and are accelerants….hence…dry chem fire ext do not work well…high pressure water on that type of fire.

    Have great day all.

  49. While I have sworn off calling Obama names (again), Doc has something for yous on the right today … http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2010/09/doc-says.html

%d bloggers like this: