Thursday, May 31, 2007
Quote of the Week - Arrogance of Global warning
is found here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276722,00.html
"First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown," he continued. "And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
While I won't be quoted, I maintain 1) there is no man-caused global warming and 2) we ought not to do anything about the appearance of global warming.
But maybe one good thing can come of all of the religious movement that calls itself environmentalism, ecology, green, etc.. An alternative to oil -- not for the sake of the environment, which is not really much at risk from a global perspective, but to end our dependance on foreign oil.
As long as I'm rambling -- here is another prediction: Gas prices will continue to rise, making the oil in the U.S., which is currently too expensive to extract, a profitable venture. Americans will keep paying more and alternative fuel supplies will also become more cost effective.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276722,00.html
"First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown," he continued. "And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
While I won't be quoted, I maintain 1) there is no man-caused global warming and 2) we ought not to do anything about the appearance of global warming.
But maybe one good thing can come of all of the religious movement that calls itself environmentalism, ecology, green, etc.. An alternative to oil -- not for the sake of the environment, which is not really much at risk from a global perspective, but to end our dependance on foreign oil.
As long as I'm rambling -- here is another prediction: Gas prices will continue to rise, making the oil in the U.S., which is currently too expensive to extract, a profitable venture. Americans will keep paying more and alternative fuel supplies will also become more cost effective.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Dirk Benedict
http://www.dirkbenedictcentral.com/home/articles-readarticle.php?nid=5
This is a piece by Dirk Benedict called "Lost in Castration" a just indictment of the new Battlestar Galactica -- as well as much else -- just can't bring myself to watch it. But I still enjoy the reruns of the original.
This is a piece by Dirk Benedict called "Lost in Castration" a just indictment of the new Battlestar Galactica -- as well as much else -- just can't bring myself to watch it. But I still enjoy the reruns of the original.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Sharpton not so sharp -- a glass house divided
Sharpton is one more who should go the way of Zumbo and Imus, but who will continuesto rage into that night. His recent comment, in spite of his feeble explanations are clear religious bigotry and the epitome of that which he purports to fight against.
These are Sharpton's words with regard to Mitt Romney:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270853,00.html
"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation,"
The words are unequivocal. The plain language of his speech is not subject to any alternative meaningful interpretation. Let's break it down: "As for the one Mormon running for office" -- Do you think he means McCain or maybe Brown, or Hunter? It is obvious to whom his remark made reference and even his explanation admits that he was talking specifically about Romney, and referring to Romney by his religion, not by political affiliation, position on issues or even nice teeth and big hair. This is the great problem that all of the excuses, discussions and spindectomies have missed: The fact that he would single out Romney, or any other candidate by his religious faith alone demonstrates Sharpton's problem: He is a bigot.
When I was a kid, a sort of public service commercial aired frequently that featured an old guy and his grandson fishing in a boat. The kid tells his grandfather that "Jimmy" (I forget the actual name used) told him that he was prejudiced. The kid asks the grandfather, why Jimmy would say that. The grandfather then asks the boy, "Who is Jimmy?" To which the kid responds, "Oh, he's my Jewish friend." And the grandfather informs the boy that he is prejudiced because he thinks of Jimmy as Jewish instead of just as his friend. I guess Sharpton never paid attention to simple messages like that.
Of course, Sharpton can't stop with just one Wylie Coyote step out into nothingness. He continues with "those who really believe in God" -- Sharpton has created a dichotomy. On the one hand we have Romney, i.e., "the one Mormon," and on the other hand we have "those who really believe in God." That would be two mutually exclusive and separate (but not equal) sets. The image is clear and simple. But wait, Sharpton explains that the one hand and the other hand are actually the same hand. He explains that he was including Romney as one of those who believe in God. Amusing but not convincing sleight of hand. If Sharpton had been trying to dispute Hitchens, who does not hide his atheism, Sharpton could have left out the word "really." Hitchens doesn't believe in God, so there would be no need for the emphasis intended by the word pairing "really believe." Sharpton would only need to make such an emphasis if he were making a comparison between those who have a sort of, or perhaps a pretend belief in God, and those like himself, who really and truly do believe. Sharpton's excuse is an attempt to graduate from coyote to pharisee. The pharisee's accused the Savior of casting out devils by the power of the devil. Sharpton would have us believe a species of the same befuddled argument: Those who really believe in God, including Mitt Romney, will defeat Mitt Romney. I think Romney understands that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and Sharpton should understand that too. His explanation has no substance and the leftist pundits defending him are insisting that the emperor looks great in those clothes -- and the clothes are not even new.
The concise translation of Sharpton's words are: Mormons, like Romney, don't really believe in God, they are mere poseurs in the Christian world.
Sharpton refuses to apologize. Why? Because Mormons are still fair game and the flap over his remarks will be short lived. The real problem for Sharpton and/or Christians is that a house divided against itself cannot stand and the criticisms that are routinely leveled at the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (e.g., belief in miracles, revelation, heavenly messengers, etc.) are fundamentally the same arguments that athiests, like Hitchens, also make against Christianity in general but too many Christians fail to think beyond their own prejudices and forget there own glass house is subject to the same stones that they throw at Mormonism.
These are Sharpton's words with regard to Mitt Romney:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270853,00.html
"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation,"
The words are unequivocal. The plain language of his speech is not subject to any alternative meaningful interpretation. Let's break it down: "As for the one Mormon running for office" -- Do you think he means McCain or maybe Brown, or Hunter? It is obvious to whom his remark made reference and even his explanation admits that he was talking specifically about Romney, and referring to Romney by his religion, not by political affiliation, position on issues or even nice teeth and big hair. This is the great problem that all of the excuses, discussions and spindectomies have missed: The fact that he would single out Romney, or any other candidate by his religious faith alone demonstrates Sharpton's problem: He is a bigot.
When I was a kid, a sort of public service commercial aired frequently that featured an old guy and his grandson fishing in a boat. The kid tells his grandfather that "Jimmy" (I forget the actual name used) told him that he was prejudiced. The kid asks the grandfather, why Jimmy would say that. The grandfather then asks the boy, "Who is Jimmy?" To which the kid responds, "Oh, he's my Jewish friend." And the grandfather informs the boy that he is prejudiced because he thinks of Jimmy as Jewish instead of just as his friend. I guess Sharpton never paid attention to simple messages like that.
Of course, Sharpton can't stop with just one Wylie Coyote step out into nothingness. He continues with "those who really believe in God" -- Sharpton has created a dichotomy. On the one hand we have Romney, i.e., "the one Mormon," and on the other hand we have "those who really believe in God." That would be two mutually exclusive and separate (but not equal) sets. The image is clear and simple. But wait, Sharpton explains that the one hand and the other hand are actually the same hand. He explains that he was including Romney as one of those who believe in God. Amusing but not convincing sleight of hand. If Sharpton had been trying to dispute Hitchens, who does not hide his atheism, Sharpton could have left out the word "really." Hitchens doesn't believe in God, so there would be no need for the emphasis intended by the word pairing "really believe." Sharpton would only need to make such an emphasis if he were making a comparison between those who have a sort of, or perhaps a pretend belief in God, and those like himself, who really and truly do believe. Sharpton's excuse is an attempt to graduate from coyote to pharisee. The pharisee's accused the Savior of casting out devils by the power of the devil. Sharpton would have us believe a species of the same befuddled argument: Those who really believe in God, including Mitt Romney, will defeat Mitt Romney. I think Romney understands that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and Sharpton should understand that too. His explanation has no substance and the leftist pundits defending him are insisting that the emperor looks great in those clothes -- and the clothes are not even new.
The concise translation of Sharpton's words are: Mormons, like Romney, don't really believe in God, they are mere poseurs in the Christian world.
Sharpton refuses to apologize. Why? Because Mormons are still fair game and the flap over his remarks will be short lived. The real problem for Sharpton and/or Christians is that a house divided against itself cannot stand and the criticisms that are routinely leveled at the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (e.g., belief in miracles, revelation, heavenly messengers, etc.) are fundamentally the same arguments that athiests, like Hitchens, also make against Christianity in general but too many Christians fail to think beyond their own prejudices and forget there own glass house is subject to the same stones that they throw at Mormonism.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Republican Presidential Debate
I watched the debate and actually enjoyed it.
Hewitt had a few thoughts; this was this first:
"1) Mitt Romney – Romney was clearly the class of the field. I know, I’m biased, blah, blah, blah. But if you saw the debate, believe your own eyes. Romney has a command of the facts and an effective delivery that must be the envy of the field. As America gets to know him in forums like this (not that I’m hoping there will be other forums precisely like this hideous one – perish that thought), the country will come to understand why Romney has generated such excitement among insiders and people who know him."
I thought his first 3 observations were right on. I disagree with Hewitt on Tancredo -- but it is true that he did look a little uncomfortable.
Hewitt had a few thoughts; this was this first:
"1) Mitt Romney – Romney was clearly the class of the field. I know, I’m biased, blah, blah, blah. But if you saw the debate, believe your own eyes. Romney has a command of the facts and an effective delivery that must be the envy of the field. As America gets to know him in forums like this (not that I’m hoping there will be other forums precisely like this hideous one – perish that thought), the country will come to understand why Romney has generated such excitement among insiders and people who know him."
I thought his first 3 observations were right on. I disagree with Hewitt on Tancredo -- but it is true that he did look a little uncomfortable.
Illiteracy and Literacy
This
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269533,00.html
story has a few important facts: 1) The top dems are illiterate on the Iraq War.
2) Eco friendly light bulbs are actually hazardous to the environment.
This
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May02/0,4670,ReaganDiaries,00.html
one refers to journal entries of a great man.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269533,00.html
story has a few important facts: 1) The top dems are illiterate on the Iraq War.
2) Eco friendly light bulbs are actually hazardous to the environment.
This
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May02/0,4670,ReaganDiaries,00.html
one refers to journal entries of a great man.
