"UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article
The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent and Rebecca Lefort
Published: 9:00PM GMT 30 Jan 2010
The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.
The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.
In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.
However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.
The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.
The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.
It comes after officials for the panel were forced earlier this month to retract inaccurate claims in the IPCC's report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.
Sceptics have seized upon the mistakes to cast doubt over the validity of the IPCC and have called for the panel to be disbanded.
This week scientists from around the world leapt to the defence of the IPCC, insisting that despite the errors, which they describe as minor, the majority of the science presented in the IPCC report is sound and its conclusions are unaffected.
But some researchers have expressed exasperation at the IPCC's use of unsubstantiated claims and sources outside of the scientific literature.
Professor Richard Tol, one of the report's authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: "These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.
"Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.
"There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense."
The IPCC report, which is published every six years, is used by government's worldwide to inform policy decisions that affect billions of people.
The claims about disappearing mountain ice were contained within a table entitled "Selected observed effects due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming".
It states that reductions in mountain ice have been observed from the loss of ice climbs in the Andes, Alps and in Africa between 1900 and 2000.
The report also states that the section is intended to "assess studies that have been published since the TAR (Third Assessment Report) of observed changes and their effects".
But neither the dissertation or the magazine article cited as sources for this information were ever subject to the rigorous scientific review process that research published in scientific journals must undergo.
The magazine article, which was written by Mark Bowen, a climber and author of two books on climate change, appeared in Climbing magazine in 2002. It quoted anecdotal evidence from climbers of retreating glaciers and the loss of ice from climbs since the 1970s.
Mr Bowen said: "I am surprised that they have cited an article from a climbing magazine, but there is no reason why anecdotal evidence from climbers should be disregarded as they are spending a great deal of time in places that other people rarely go and so notice the changes."
The dissertation paper, written by professional mountain guide and climate change campaigner Dario-Andri Schworer while he was studying for a geography degree, quotes observations from interviews with around 80 mountain guides in the Bernina region of the Swiss Alps.
Experts claim that loss of ice climbs are a poor indicator of a reduction in mountain ice as climbers can knock ice down and damage ice falls with their axes and crampons.
The IPCC has faced growing criticism over the sources it used in its last report after it emerged the panel had used unsubstantiated figures on glacial melting in the Himalayas that were contained within a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report.
It can be revealed that the IPCC report made use of 16 non-peer reviewed WWF reports.
One claim, which stated that coral reefs near mangrove forests contained up to 25 times more fish numbers than those without mangroves nearby, quoted a feature article on the WWF website.
In fact the data contained within the WWF article originated from a paper published in 2004 in the respected journal Nature.
In another example a WWF paper on forest fires was used to illustrate the impact of reduced rainfall in the Amazon rainforest, but the data was from another Nature paper published in 1999.
When The Sunday Telegraph contacted the lead scientists behind the two papers in Nature, they expressed surprise that their research was not cited directly but said the IPCC had accurately represented their work.
The chair of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri has faced mounting pressure and calls for his resignation amid the growing controversy over the error on glacier melting and use of unreliable sources of information.
A survey of 400 authors and contributors to the IPCC report showed, however, that the majority still support Mr Pachauri and the panel's vice chairs. They also insisted the overall findings of the report are robust despite the minor errors.
But many expressed concern at the use of non-peer reviewed information in the reports and called for a tightening of the guidelines on how information can be used.
The Met Office, which has seven researchers who contributed to the report including Professor Martin Parry who was co-chair of the working group responsible for the part of the report that contained the glacier errors, said: "The IPCC should continue to ensure that its review process is as robust and transparent as possible, that it draws only from the peer-reviewed literature, and that uncertainties in the science and projections are clearly expressed."
Roger Sedjo, a senior research fellow at the US research organisation Resources for the Future who also contributed to the IPCC's latest report, added: "The IPCC is, unfortunately, a highly political organisation with most of the secretariat bordering on climate advocacy.
"It needs to develop a more balanced and indeed scientifically sceptical behaviour pattern. The organisation tend to select the most negative studies ignoring more positive alternatives."
The IPCC failed to respond to questions about the inclusion of unreliable sources in its report but it has insisted over the past week that despite minor errors, the findings of the report are still robust and consistent with the underlying science."
Mother Nature already had it under control .... without global taxation OR Cap & Trade.
"Water vapour is a major cause of global warming and cooling find scientists
Water vapour is a major cause of global warming and cooling, according to a new study that will spark further debate over the science of climate change.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 10:58AM GMT 29 Jan 2010
"The research by scientists at the American weather service found water vapour high in the atmosphere is far more influential on world temperatures than previously thought.
During the 1990s one third of the increase in global temperatures was due to an increase in water vapour. In the same way a drop in water vapour after 2000 could explain the recent slowdown in global warming.
The researchers insist their findings do not mean that global warming is not caused by man made greenhouse gases. But the effect of natural water vapour high up in the air may also be having an effect.
The research comes amid fears global warming has been exaggerated. The United Nations’ climate science panel the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted last week that it made a mistake by claiming that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
It followed another row surrounding the science behind climate change, dubbed “Climategate”, when it was alleged leaked emails showed scientists at the University of East Anglia were willing to manipulate climate change data.
The new research by US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is published in the journal Science, one of the most respected in the world.
Susan Solomon, who led the research and worked on the IPCC, said climate scientists need to take into account the effect of water vapour high in the atmosphere when studying global warming.
“Current climate models do a remarkable job on water vapour near the surface. But this is different — it’s a thin wedge of the upper atmosphere that packs a wallop from one decade to the next in a way we didn’t expect,”
Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office, said the research does not change the long term trend of warming caused by man made greenhouse gases. But it does show how water vapour in the stratosphere is also affecting temperature."
"New Jersey Firm Recalls Instant Noodle Products Imported from an Unapproved Source
Recall Release CLASS II RECALL
FSIS-RC-007-2010 HEALTH RISK: LOW
"January 27, 2010 - Well Luck Co., Inc., a Jersey City, N.J., establishment, is recalling approximately 50,000 pounds of instant noodle products that were ineligible for import to the U.S., the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.
Well Luck Co., Inc., is recalling the instant noodle products because they do not meet product inspection or exemption requirements for poultry, beef, and pork. The foreign inspection system of the country where the beef, poultry, and pork ingredients originated, China, has not been deemed to be equivalent as required by federal regulations.
The following product is subject to recall: [Sample Recall Labels] (PDF Only)
Cases of 12 packages containing five 110g-packs of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Stew Beef Flavour.” Each package bears a use by date of 10/5/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42894.
Cases of 12 packages containing five 112g-packs of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Stew Pork Flavour.” Each package bears a use by date of 10/8/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42895.
Cases of 12 packages containing five 110g-packs of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Spicy Beef Flavour.” Each package bears a use by date of 10/8/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42896.
Cases of 12 packages containing five 110g-packs of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Spicy Beef Flavour.” Each package bears a use by date of 10/8/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42896.
Cases of 12 packages containing five 110g-packs of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Spicy Hot Beef Flavour.” Each package bears a use by date of 10/8/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42897.
Cases containing 18 143g-packs of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Korean Style, Stew Beef Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/9/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42903.
Cases containing 18 143g-packs of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Korean Style, Stew Pork Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/9/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42904.
Cases containing 18 141g-packs of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Korean Style, Spicy Beef Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/9/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42905.
Cases containing 18 140g-packs of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Korean Style, Mushroom Chicken Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/12/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42936.
Cases containing 12 116g-bowls of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Stew Beef Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/9/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42920.
Cases containing 12 116g-bowls of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Stew Pork Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 9/28/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42921.
Cases containing 12 119g-bowls of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Stew Pork Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/9/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42922.
Cases containing 12 110g-bowls of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Mushroom Chicken Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/9/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42919.
Cases containing 12 83g-cups of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Stew Beef Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/10/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42934.
Cases containing 12 86g-cups of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Stew Pork Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/10/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42933.
Cases containing 12 83g-cups of “JIN MAI LANG Instant Noodles, Spicy Pork Flavour.” Each pack bears a use by date of 10/10/2010. Each case bears a case code of 42932.
The problem was discovered after FSIS identified the products in the marketplace. The instant noodle products were distributed to retail establishments nationwide. FSIS has received no reports of illness as a result of consuming these products.
FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers.
Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact company coordinator, Shany Chang, at (201) 434-1177 ext. 141.
FSIS works with other federal agencies to ensure the safety of imported meat, poultry and processed egg products. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service issues import permits based on animal health considerations, specific to a country or region. Customs and Border Protection provides oversight of all products entering the United States.
Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.
Can't blame this one on Bush.
"Zero Private-Sector Jobs Created In Past 11 Years
By Jed Graham
I"t’s been pretty widely discussed that the past decade was a lost one for job creation. But focusing on private payrolls alone would also wipe out nearly all of the employment gains from 1999, among the better years on record.
Next Friday’s employment report comes with an annual benchmark revision that the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated would erase 855,000 private jobs (and add 31,000 government jobs).
Subtract that from the seasonally adjusted December payroll number of 108.44 million and that would leave just 107.59 million private payroll jobs. That’s the least since January 1999, when there were 107.40 million. ..........."
Live links for reference.
"State of the Union Fact Check
"Cato experts put some of President Obama’s core State of the Union claims to the test. Here’s what they found.
The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That’s right — the Recovery Act, also known as the Stimulus Bill. Economists on the left and the right say that this bill has helped saved jobs and avert disaster.
Back in reality: At the outset of the economic downturn, Cato ran an ad in the nation’s largest newspapers in which more than 300 economists (Nobel laureates among them) signed a statement saying a massive government spending package was among the worst available options. Since then, Cato economists have published dozens of op-eds in major news outlets poking holes in big-government solutions to both the financial system crisis and the flagging economy.
Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas, and food, and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers.
Back in reality: Cato Director of Tax Policy Studies Chris Edwards: “When the president says that he has ‘cut taxes’ for 95 percent of Americans, he fails to note that more than 40 percent of Americans pay no federal incomes taxes and the administration has simply increased subsidy checks to this group. Obama’s refundable tax credits are unearned subsidies, not tax cuts.”
Visit Cato’s Tax Policy Page for much more on this.
Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years.
Back in reality: Edwards: “The president’s proposed spending freeze covers just 13 percent of the total federal budget, and indeed doesn’t limit the fastest growing components such as Medicare.
“A better idea is to cap growth in the entire federal budget including entitlement programs, which was essentially the idea behind the 1980s bipartisan Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law. The freeze also doesn’t cover the massive spending under the stimulus bill, most of which hasn’t occurred yet. Now that the economy is returning to growth, the president should both freeze spending and rescind the remainder of the planned stimulus.”
Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 200,000 work in construction and clean energy. 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders. And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.
Back in reality: Cato Policy Analyst Tad Dehaven: “Actually, the U.S. economy has lost 2.7 million jobs since the stimulus passed and 3.4 million total since Obama was elected. How he attributes any jobs gains to the stimulus is the fuzziest of fuzzy math. ‘Nuff said.”
"A sound bite too far
January 28, 2010 Posted by Paul at 12:22 PM
"During the oral argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Seth Waxman, the former Solicitor General of the United States who was representing John McCain and other campaign finance law sponsors, asserted that the plaintiffs' position was contrary to the thrust of more than 50 years of Supreme Court precedent. Justice Alito said that this argument -- or "sound bite," as he characterized it -- is "perplexing." He noted that the issue before the Court was merely the validity of two precedents that don't date back that far.
Justice Alito's concern turned out to be prescient when, in his State of the Union address, President Obama (Mr. Sound Bite, himself) claimed that the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections." Even Waxman had not made this claim at oral argument, although Solicitor General Kagan and Justice Sotomayor threw the number 100 around in this connection.
Last night, Justice Alito reportedly responded to Obama's sound bite by quietly saying something like "that's not true." Alito was right at least two levels. First, as noted above and as Linda Greenhouse acknowledges, Citizens United did not disturb any principles that date back 100 years.
Second, as Shannen Coffin points out, the decision in Citizens United is quite clear that it does not address whether the government can regulate improper foreign influence over our electoral process. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy stated: "We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process."
Presidents should feel free to criticize important Supreme Court decisions with which they disagree. It's bad form, however, to do so at an event where Justices are in attendance by invitation. And it is unconscionable to do so by blatantly misrepresenting what the Court has said.
It also seems like bad politics. It's understandable that Obama wants to pose as a populist, although he's not terribly convincing in the role. But the Supreme Court isn't a bank or an insurance company; it's a reasonably respected institution, as branches of government go. Moreover, Obama and his writers must have known they would be called on his misrepresentation of the Citizens United decision. Nor is it likely that the Court's swing voter, Justice Kennedy (author of the decision) was amused.
I'm pleased that Justice Alito did not wait around for bloggers and media fact checkers to discover that Obama's statements about the decision are false. Now the president has a reason, other than the apparently insufficient one of good manners, not to attack the Supreme Court when its Justices are present.
JOE adds the videotape:
"Certain Fascist Affinities
By Jeffrey Kuhner
July 11, 2009
"Soviet dictator Josef Stalin achieved one of the greatest propaganda victories of the 20th century. He convinced the West's political and intellectual class that communism and fascism are polar opposites. In fact, the very opposite is true: fascism is a variant of left-wing ideology. Marxism and Nazism are political twins, offshoots of totalitarian socialism.
Admittedly, this insight is not mine. Rather, it is that of National Review's Jonah Goldberg, whose brilliant book, "Liberal Fascism," has just been issued in paperback. Mr. Goldberg's central thesis is that, contrary to leftist myth, there is no such thing as "right-wing fascism."
During its golden age in the 1930s, fascism was widely viewed as a "progressive" ideology that championed economic modernization, active social welfare policies and the Leviathan state. Italian strongman Benito Mussolini and German dictator Adolf Hitler were self-proclaimed men of the left. Both leaders understood that fascism was a form of revolutionary socialism.
What differentiated Hitlerism from Bolshevism was its blood-and-soil ultra-nationalism and emphasis on the primacy of race.
Moreover, fascists sought to tether the private sector to statist social engineering. Fascism competed with Marxist-Leninism to be the successor to parliamentary democracy and capitalism -- widely viewed as moribund.
The only real opponent of fascism has been conservatism, which champions small government, free markets, Judeo-Christian civilization and individual rights. It's no accident Hitler's greatest foe was British Tory Prime Minister Winston Churchill.
Both Hitler and Mussolini were national socialists. They were militant pagans hostile to Christianity, religious orthodoxy and tradition. They believed in the cult of personality, mass propaganda and the pseudo-spiritual transformational nature of politics: charismatic leadership as a means of fulfilling people's deepest aspirations. They glorified the state, as well as the subordination of the individual and the family to the collective. They created a corporatist economy that combined big business, big labor and big government. They emphasized the nationalization of key industries, redistribution of wealth, massive public works projects and trade protectionism. They established a so-called "social safety net" through national health care, unemployment insurance and government pensions. They erected a cradle-to-grave welfare state.
Fascist social policy was so popular that President Franklin Roosevelt incorporated much of it in the New Deal.
Embarrassed by the horrors of World War II and Auschwitz, the West's liberal elite disowned Hitler and then falsely portrayed him as a reactionary right-winger.
Yet fascism's leftist heritage cannot be denied. It explains Mr. Obama's relentless consolidation of power. He is America's most radical president. At his core, Mr. Obama is a liberal fascist, fusing statism with postmodern multiculturalism.
During his first six months in office, he has expanded government power to an extent unimaginable even a year ago. He is spending hundreds of billions on infrastructure projects. He has nationalized banks, the financial sector and the auto industry. His regulatory policies represent an unprecedented intervention in the economy. He wants to nationalize health care. He supports the House-passed climate bill, which would impose the largest tax increase in U.S. history, enforce crushing environmental mandates on business and industry, and transform America into a "green" economy.
In short, Mr. Obama is slowly erecting a corporatist state that will solidify one-party liberal rule for generations.
Mr. Obama has fostered a cult of personality -- achieving almost mystical celebrity status among his supporters. During his presidential campaign, he constantly put forth a quasi-religious conception of his candidacy and movement: "We are the ones we've been waiting for." To many of his backers, Mr. Obama was simply "The One," a political messiah who at mass rallies often induced crying and hysteria.
Fascists have celebrated racialism and ethnic chauvinism; Mr. Obama's liberal fascism is no different -- except, it has morphed into postmodern identity politics. Take his Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is an unabashed racialist, who believes in Hispanic cultural supremacy. She also embraces the pernicious doctrine of "inherent physiological and cultural differences" among groups. For her, race, ethnicity and gender trump a common American heritage.
Under Mr. Obama's fascist regime, it is not Jews, Slavs or Gypsies who are murdered, but unborn babies. He is an extreme pro-choice supporter, even opposing the ban on partial-birth abortion. He has vowed to eventually pass the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify legalized abortion and dismantle all restrictions.
Mr. Obama is not a Hitler or a Mussolini. He is not a crypto-dictator. Nor does he believe in an authoritarian police state or territorial expansionism. But Hitler and Mussolini were men of a different age, time and national culture; their fascism was distinctly German and Italian.
Mr. Obama's fascism is uniquely American. His revolution is not of blood and iron, but of pork and bailouts. His fascism is a potent mix of incremental socialism, messianic liberalism and puritanical environmentalism. It is not the crude militarism of the jackboot but the sugar-coated, forced spoon-feeding of the nanny state.
It may be softer, more civilized and sophisticated. But it is just as destructive to economic freedom and individual liberty."
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and the President of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank.
"Obama's answer for America: more of me
Posted: 3:00 AM, January 28, 2010
Source New York Post
"There's a story of an ex hausted tenor at La Scala who, facing repeated cries of "Encore," responded that he couldn't go on. A man rose in the audience to say, "You'll keep singing until you get it right."
That seems to be the defining principle of the Obama administration -- whose response to every problem, every setback, every hiccup and challenge has been, simply, "more Obama."
Indeed, for people who aren't sticklers for political jargon, it will be a shock that last night was Obama's first State of the Union Address, since it was his third formal address to a joint session of Congress. Yet for all of the political déjà vu, what was most surprising last night was the degree to which Obama delivered even more of the same.
Washington graybeards and pundits have been insisting that Obama needs to "start over," "reboot" and "tack to the middle" after Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts. But Obama's response last night was to recommit himself to the agenda that has gotten him in so much trouble.
In fairness, the president took a French-bath of Clintonism before he took to his beloved TelePrompTer. He doused himself with the scent of the deficit-fighter and trade-promoter. He unveiled a slew of small, easy, applause-gathering proposals and populist appeals that he knows will go nowhere.
He also indulged in a lot of feel-your-pain pathos, trying to connect with the real Americans suffering from the recession and the misdeeds of a "Washington" that Obama seems to think is run by someone other than him.
But the eau-de-Clinton couldn't mask the stench -- and Obama, in his supreme arrogance, didn't really seem to care.
There was no "pivot to the center," no serious accounting for the Massachusetts miracle or his misfortunes. Instead, there was an innumerate, inaccurate and distinctly unpresidential whine -- blaming George W. Bush for nearly all of his problems (leaving out, among other things, that the Democrats have been controlling Congress and crafting budgets since 2006).
The White House insists that the new wave of populism created by Democratic governance is, in fact, the same populist wave that carried Obama to victory in 2008. In other words, Obama was elected president by the backlash against his own presidency.
This novel theory allows Obama to stick to his view that there's nothing wrong with his health-care plan, and anyone who feels differently hasn't heard or understood the president's explanations.
So, he not only implored Democrats not to "run for the hills" on the health-reform bill, but insisted that as "temperatures cool," hot-tempered opponents will, of course, realize they were wrong about the bill.
Obama began his presidency insisting that government is the answer to our problems. A year later, he still believes that the era of big government is upon us.
In the same speech in which he preened over a gallingly gimmicky "spending freeze," the president promised more jobs bills, more "investments" in schools, roads, trains and factories. He even reaffirmed his support for his carbon-tax legislation -- which would send far more jobs overseas than it would create here at home.
But Obama has a bigger problem: Aside from a few throwaway lines of self-deprecation, whenever he grew passionate, it was to blame others.
His predecessor topped his list, of course. But also everyone else who disagrees with him.
Obama insists that Americans need to muster the courage to agree with him, to sign on to his agenda. Just as at Omaha Beach and Bull Run, Americans need to show their mettle. "Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call." That "call" is the call of Obama.
"I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone." So come on, you slackers, fall into line.
He decried the politicians who are in "permanent campaign" mode -- the same week he brought into the White House his campaign manager.
Other politicians are vain, cowardly and insubstantial. They need the courage to change. Meanwhile, Obama is great the way he is.
That is the attitude that has gotten the president in so much trouble. And last night's State of the Union speech showed us that change really isn't easy, particularly for the president."
Whoever is doing Georgia Lottery commercials now has a great imagination! Good luck to all playing them!
YouTube - Georgia Lottery Maximum Green TV commercial
YouTube - Georgia Lottery Red Hot Millions TV commercial
Very interesting opinion voiced by Rep. Ron Paul. You decide.
"Glenn talks with Congressman Ron PaulJanuary 25, 2010 - 14:07 ET
"GLENN: Now, we always have Ron Paul on when we talk about the economy because Ron and I are well, he'd probably disagree with this, but and so would many of his supporters, but I think we're pretty close to lockstep on many of the things that he believes in the economy. The Fed is absolutely just evil. We have gone away from the gold standard. We're spending money like crazy people and we're destroying our nation. We're just destroying it. I also think that Ron Paul and I are in the same territory when it comes to progressives and the idea of a big government, and he is probably closer to our founding fathers than probably anybody else out there right now as far as an understanding of limited government. However, sometimes we go off the tracks and that's why I wanted to talk to him today because I'd like him to explain it to me.
Ron Paul, welcome to the program, sir, how are you?
RON PAUL: Good. Good to be with you, Glenn.
GLENN: Would you say what I just said about our viewpoints is accurate or not?
RON PAUL: No, I think that's pretty good and it seems like you've dodged your way over a little bit closer to it. So maybe you'll come over a little closer on these things we disagree on, too.
GLENN: You know, I have to Ron, I am not a guy who's afraid to admit when I'm wrong and I'm not afraid, I think anybody who stops growing is dead. And I've come a long way toward you, you know. I didn't really understand the progressive movement up until, I'd say two years ago, I really started to get a handle on it and I really started to look at the history of our country and couple that with the context of the founders. And I've come a long way towards your way of thinking.
RON PAUL: You know, Glenn, I might say that you are one of the few that will, you know, interview me. A lot of other times, you know, they don't interview me. They ask me a question and if they don't like the answer, then they start shouting. But you over these last couple of years have been willing to interview me, and I really appreciate that.
GLENN: Not a problem. And I want to make sure that this doesn't sound like a giant love fest between us because I do disagree with you, but I want to see if I can if you can make sense to me on this.
RON PAUL: Okay.
GLENN: You said in fact, can we play the audio? Do you have it? Here's the audio clip.
VOICE: They are almost like they live in a different world. The military's down, the morale is down, the money isn't there and they are looking for a couple more wars to fight. It makes no sense whatsoever.
GLENN: Okay, stop for a second. Stop for a second. I think you are right on this. You are saying that the military is I mean, we're looking for more wars to fight. The administration, both administrations I think you are saying, are saying let's go for more war. Morale is down, this doesn't make sense. You are right so far, okay?
VOICE: The military anymore because there's been a coup, the CIA coup. They run everything.
GLENN: Help me out here, Ron. This is where we go off the tracks.
RON PAUL: I wasn't able to hear that.
GLENN: That was you, I'm sorry.
RON PAUL: I didn't hear the last sentence. Why don't you formulate a question.
GLENN: The last sentence says, but it's not even the military anymore. There's been a coup, the CIA has taken our military in a coup.
RON PAUL: Not literally. Symbolically this has happened and it's been annoying to me because you know not too long ago we had, what was it, seven CIA people were killed over in Afghanistan? It was on a military base and there was no military on there. It was only the CIA, and the CIA had charge of launching the drones, and the drones were going into another country called Pakistan. And some innocent people were killed over there. So you can't separate the CIA from our foreign policy. So the people over there knew exactly what's going on. They didn't go after soldiers that particular day. They wanted to make the point that they were in war against the CIA.
GLENN: Okay. Now, hang on.
RON PAUL: And I just disagree with that. I think the military should fight our wars and they should only be when they're declared.
GLENN: Okay. I would agree with you with that on both of those statements.
RON PAUL: Okay.
GLENN: However, is it possible that the CIA is now fighting our wars because we can't look into anything because all the weasels in congress are questioning our soldiers on every we've forgotten that you fight a war by killing people faster than they kill you.
RON PAUL: I know. But if you don't endorse this war, then you can't endorse the whole principle. And I don't endorse the war because we don't know who the enemy is. And we haven't declared the war, and it's a movement we're talking about, not a country, that we're bombing countries and so it makes no sense if the military has trouble handling it, hardly should we go to some organization that has no, really no oversight at all. So I just think that this compounds our problem. And then if you really look into the CIA and all their activities, it becomes even more complex because they at times, when they want to pursue certain clandestine activities, they might not have enough funding. The $75 billion that all our agencies get isn't enough. So they make their own money. They can make their money in the drug trade, they can own businesses. I suspect that the Federal Reserve may well be involved when the CIA's in certain countries trying the reelections or pull off assassination. There's no reason under the way the Fed works that they can't loan money to other central banks and other governments. And you already agree with me we shouldn't have that type of secrecy. So all of a sudden it comes together because the CIA is doing these things that it shouldn't be doing.
GLENN: Okay. So I agree with you I think in premise. However you've got to solve a couple of things for me. One, would you agree that we do need an organization that gathers intelligence to find out what our enemies around the world are doing and we do need some things kept secret not from our congress but kept secret from, you know, the front page of the New York Times?
RON PAUL: Yeah. Yes, I agree with that and, you know, the CIA is not exactly a very old organization. The founders didn't sit around the table and say, well, how are we going to create this intelligence agency that can get involved in these internal affairs secretly and do these things. They didn't do that. They came out of World War II. We didn't have it before World War II. But up until that time we did recognize that you
GLENN: Yeah, we had spies. George Washington had spies.
RON PAUL: Pardon me?
GLENN: George Washington had spies.
RON PAUL: Yeah, you were allowed to get intelligence, and I recognize that as being proper. But today the intelligence agencies are so bloated, there are 16 of them, they spend $75 billion. And then when they get information, they get a hot lead, like a father coming in and warning them. They don't even know what to do with them.
RON PAUL: So that's one of my biggest beefs. They don't really protect this and they don't even act on it. And then we're right about the FBI making all these reports when these guys were learning how to fly airplanes about not landing? And it was totally ignored. So it's the ineptness and the failure for whatever reason that bothers me to no end. But I agree with you. You should have it. But so much of that information is readily available and they should get it and we will always have people coming to us and giving us information. So I separate the two. Intelligence gathering from this intrigue of overthrowing government.
GLENN: All right. So and I agree with you. I think we've I mean, what we've done to South America over the last hundred years.
RON PAUL: Right.
GLENN: Through the progressive movement has been a nightmare.
RON PAUL: Right.
GLENN: All right. So let me go one more step with you. Where I always go off the rails with you and really so many libertarians is I agree with the premise, and I didn't fully agree with this even, I don't know, three years ago, four years ago. But I agree now fully because I've seen the error of our ways and where it has led to of the idea that we should be more like Switzerland. That's what our founders wanted.
RON PAUL: Right.
GLENN: Now, and I think we differ on this a little bit. I think we should pound the bat snot out of anybody who you come over to our shores, you do something to us, we crush you. Then we leave. We don't rebuild you. We crush you and then we leave.
RON PAUL: The big question there is who did the attacking and who are you going to crush.
GLENN: I understand that. I'm not talking about anything specific. I'm talking about if somebody comes after us, they hit us, we have evidence, we crush them and then we leave.
RON PAUL: Okay. If a missile left Cuba and bombed New York City, we both would understand, yes, you go and you crush Cuba for doing what they do.
GLENN: And if Cuba, if it was just a cell and Cuba, we have evidence that Cuba was involved and hiding behind these people and have them do the dirty work, then still Cuba again.
RON PAUL: But the big danger today is if you apply that to, say, the underwear bomber, does that justify going in and start bombing Yemen? I mean, I don't buy that.
GLENN: Not unless Yemen, not unless Yemen was involved with the underpants man.
RON PAUL: Right.
GLENN: I mean, if they are turning out
RON PAUL: If it's a government function.
GLENN: Yeah, if they are turning people out and they know and they are involved and we have evidence, then yes, we do. But here's the other thing. I believe that we should get out of all the rest of the world, but I just think we should get out slowly. We built this nightmare over a hundred years, is that we can't leave the world in a vacuum. Would you agree that if we had a, you know, if we put everybody on notice, "Hey, by the way, Germany, you are going to be responsible yourself. Japan, you are going to have to start defending yourself." Everybody else, that we could develop a plan to pull back and to let the rest of the world know we're not we've gone awry in the last 100 years and we're going to change back to what our founders wanted, but it's going to take some time to not freak out the world and also not to give us, you know, to create a vacuum.
RON PAUL: Yeah. No, I agree with that, too, and I work for that all the time. I would be willing to do that. But the problem there is it's not going to happen and we're going to leave in a hurry like the Soviets left in a hurry. Their whole system broke down for financial reasons and you understand the economics of what is happening. If we have a dollar crisis on top of this financial crisis, the dollar crisis meaning we can't pay our bills and they will be coming home. We will leave. And then you are going to see the independent movement in this country, the Tenth Amendment people and the nullification people and welcome home. But that will not be the gradualism that you might like and I might be able to support.
GLENN: Right. I understand that. I mean, I see on the front page of the Drudge Report now Bin Laden indicator of coming attack. And I was just driving in this morning and I was thinking, you know, can we afford another 9/11, what would happen to us, you know. And you are right. We would at some point we're going to run out of money and then it's all going to change.
RON PAUL: Yeah, that's it.
GLENN: All right. Congressman Paul, thank you so much.
RON PAUL: Thank you for having me. "
Since stuff like this gets passed around in email, best to be forewarned.
Researchers from ESET and BitDefender have intercepted two destructive malware variants (Win32/Zimuse.A, Win32/Zimuse.B/zipsetup.exe), posing as an IQ test, and currently spreading in the wild.
Upon execution, the malware will attempt to spread through removable media using a time-based logic bomb, and overwrite the MBR (Master Boot Record) of all available drives after 40 days for variant A, and 20 days for variant B, making the host’s data inaccessible. .........."
I put on the chest high waders before posting this
January 25, 2010"Berry: Obama said "big difference" between '10 and '94 is "me"
"Rep. Marion Berry's parting shot, published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette [no link, subscription only] offers a warning to moderate Democrats and border state moderates — warning of a midterm bloodbath comparable to the 54-seat D-to-R swing in 1994.
But the jaw-dropper is Berry's claim that President Obama personally dismissed any comparison between Democrats now and under Bill Clinton 16 years ago — by saying his personal popularity would bail everybody out.
The retiring Berry, who doesn't say when the remarks were made, now scoffs at Obama's 50-or-below approval rating:
Writes ADG reporter Jane Fullerton:
Berry recounted meetings with White House officials, reminiscent of some during the Clinton days, where he and others urged them not to force Blue Dogs “off into that swamp” of supporting bills that would be unpopular with voters back home.
“I’ve been doing that with this White House, and they just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.” [snip]
“I began to preach last January that we had already seen this movie and we didn’t want to see it again because we know how it comes out,” said Arkansas’ 1st District congressman, who worked in the Clinton administration before being elected to the House in 1996... "I just began to have flashbacks to 1993 and ’94. No one that was here in ’94, or at the day after the election felt like. It certainly wasn’t a good feeling.”
Posted by Glenn Thrush 10:01 AM
Poised ready to shove climate change (aka global warming) down our throats in Copenhagen .... he's just now discovering OTHERS' errors?????????????????
From The Times
January 23, 2010
"UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report
Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent
Rajendra Pachauri (photo)
"The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.
Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.
But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.
“I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them,” he told The Times in an interview. “It was a collective failure by a number of people,” he said. “I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.”
The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.
But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.
The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.
Dr Pachauri said that the IPCC’s report was the responsibility of the panel’s Co-Chairs at the time, both of whom have since moved on.
They were Dr Martin Parry, a British scientist now at Imperial College London, and Dr Osvaldo Canziani , an Argentine meteorologist. Neither was immediately available for comment.
“I don’t want to blame them, but typically the working group reports are managed by the Co-Chairs,” Dr Pachauri said. “Of course the Chair is there to facilitate things, but we have substantial amounts of delegation.”
He declined to blame the 25 authors and editors of the erroneous part of the report , who included a Filipino, a Mongolian, a Malaysian, an Indonesian, an Iranian, an Australian and two Vietnamese.
The “co-ordinating lead authors” were Rex Victor Cruz of the Philippines, Hideo Harasawa of Japan, Murari Lal of India and Wu Shaohong of China.
But Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist erroneously quoted as making the 2035 prediction, said that responsibility had to lie with them. “It is the lead authors — blame goes to them,” he told The Times. “There are many mistakes in it. It is a very poorly made report.”
He and other leading glaciologists pointed out at least five glaring errors in the relevant section.
It says the total area of Himalyan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035”. There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.
A table below says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840m — a rate of 135.2m a year. The actual rate is only 23.5m a year.
The section says Himalayan glaciers are “receding faster than in any other part of the world” when many glaciologists say they are melting at about the same rate.
An entire paragraph is also attributed to the World Wildlife Fund, when only one sentence came from it, and the IPCC is not supposed to use such advocacy groups as sources.
Professor Hasnain, who was not involved in drafting the IPCC report, said that he noticed some of the mistakes when he first read the relevant section in 2008.
That was also the year he joined The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi, which is headed by Dr Pachauri.
He said he realised that the 2035 prediction was based on an interview he gave to the New Scientist magazine in 1999, although he blamed the journalist for assigning the actual date.
He said that he did not tell Dr Pachauri because he was not working for the IPCC and was busy with his own programmes at the time.
“I was keeping quiet as I was working here,” he said. “My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?”
Dr Pachauri also said he did not learn about the mistakes until they were reported in the media about 10 days ago, at which time he contacted other IPCC members. He denied keeping quiet about the errors to avoid disrupting the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen, or discouraging funding for TERI’s own glacier programme.
But he too admitted that it was “really odd” that none of the world’s leading glaciologists had pointed out the mistakes to him earlier. “Frankly, it was a stupid error,” he said. “But no one brought it to my attention.”
"Scorned Mistress of Married Obama Adviser Posts Billboards Nationwide
Friday, January 22, 2010
Jan 22: A mistress catapulted retribution by plastering the country with billboards that show her nuzzling her married lover, an Obama adviser.
On first glance, it could be the ultimate Valentine's Day card -- a gigantic billboard that towers over New York's Times Square, featuring a happy couple with the text: "You are my soulmate forever, Charles & YaVaughnie."
But as every scorned lover knows, looks can be deceiving. This billboard -- which also has gone up in Atlanta and San Francisco -- is the ultimate act of revenge -- a very public retaliation by a dumped mistress aimed at a very wealthy, and married, businessman who is an adviser to President Obama.
YaVaughnie Wilkins posted the signs after she learned that her lover, Charles E. Phillips — president and director of the tech conglomerate Oracle Corporation and a member of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board — had reconciled with his wife, the New York Post reported.
The billboards -- there are three in New York and one apiece in Atlanta and San Francisco, where Phillips lives -- may have cost Wilkins up to $250,000, at an estimated $50,000 each.
After the billboards surfaced, Phillips fessed up to his longtime affair through a spokesman on Thursday.
"I had an 8-and-a-half-year serious relationship with YaVaughnie Wilkins. The relationship with Ms. Wilkins has since ended, and we both wish each other well," he said.
The billboards also feature a URL of the Web site www.charlesphillipsandyavaughniewilkins.com, which features photos of Phillips' and Wilkins' lengthy relationship.
In an Oracle newsletter from 2006, Phillips was described as an ex-marine and "family man" who has a wife and 10-year-old son, Chas, the New York Times reported."http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583653,00.html
Found this on Powerline, way too good to pass up!
YouTube - The Day ObamaCare Died - Sung by Barack Obama.avi
Crystal clear demonstration of Specter's arrogance and rude demeanor. No excuse whatsoever for his level of impoliteness and condescension.
Second video follow up interview with Bachman.
RealClearPolitics - Video - Specter Tells Bachmann To Act Like A "Lady"
Link to this article found on Powerlineblog.com. Awesome background information about Mr. Larry Platt!
'Pants on the Ground': a scolding for young'uns on 'American Idol'
The ditty 'Pants on the Ground,' by Atlanta civil rights icon Larry Platt, made its debut Wednesday on 'American Idol' – and its ridicule of low-rider pants seems to be resonating.
Veteran civil rights activist and American Idol contestant Larry Platt performs his original composition, 'Pants on the Ground.'
Screenshot from YouTube
Source The Christian Science Monitor
By Patrik Jonsson Staff writer / January 14, 2010
"General" Larry Platt, whose original ditty "Pants on the Ground" cracked up everyone on "American Idol" Wednesday night, is not your standard "Idol" outtake (and not only because he's well over the cut-off age of 28).
Beaten by law officers during the 1965 "Bloody Sunday" march in Alabama, Mr. Platt was nicknamed "General" by Atlanta civil rights icon Hosea Williams for his heroic role in the civil rights era. (See a picture here. Platt is the young man on the left looking at the camera.) These days, Platt is going at it alone, protesting that too-stubborn urban fashion statement: pants worn low, crotch almost at the knees – a sign, to many, of disrespect and a thumb in the eye to many civil rights activists like Platt who fought to raise the profile of black Americans in US society.
Sure, some communities – including Atlanta – have tried (with dubious success) to outlaw the fashion statement, saying low-rider pants are obscene. But Platt's catchy ditty about youths with gold in their mouths, baseball caps turned sideways, and "looking like a fool with your pants on the ground" could do more to discourage the look than any local ordinance, especially now that his tune is getting remixed on YouTube. Unusually cheery, "Idol" grump Simon Cowell predicted: "I have a horrible feeling that song could be a hit."
Already, it's a ring tone, and there's a Facebook campaign charging ahead to get Platt a record deal. His message runs deeper, at least, than that of "Idol" hopeful William Hung (also on YouTube).
Platt has long been a presence at Atlanta City Council meetings, and his latest mission has been to protest widespread foreclosures in Atlanta's mostly black neighborhoods. Even the Georgia legislature has hailed Platt for his "outstanding service" in the community, and the city of Atlanta proclaimed Sept. 4, 2001, to be Larry Platt Day.
Seems appropriate that "Idol" would give him a nod, allowing America a perhaps overdue glimpse at one of Atlanta's unique personalities."
Sounds like some Representaitves stuck their finger in the air and found out which way the wind is blowing.
Bullies rule until they're confronted directly. Mass was one such confrontation of I hope many in coming elections.
"Pelosi: House lacks votes to OK Senate health bill
Salt 'n pepper on that crow??????
Hate hackers with a passion but the world is eternally endebted to whoever posted those climategate emails.
"UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning
"The UN’s top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said yesterday that the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was “poorly substantiated” and resulted from a lapse in standards. “In drafting the paragraph in question the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly,” the panel said. “The chair, vice-chair and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of IPCC procedures in this instance.”
The stunning admission is certain to embolden critics of the panel, already under fire over a separate scandal involving hacked e-mails last year.
The 2007 report, which won the panel the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”. It caused shock in Asia, where about two billion people depend on meltwater from Himalayan glaciers for their fresh water supplies during the dry seasons.
It emerged last week that the prediction was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. That scientist, Syed Hasnain, has now told The Times that he never made such a specific forecast in his interview with the New Scientist magazine.
“I have not made any prediction on date as I am not an astrologer but I did say they were shrinking fast,” he said. “I have never written 2035 in any of my research papers or reports.” Professor Hasnain works for The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi, which is headed by Rajendra Pachauri, head of the climate change panel.
Dr Pachauri has defended the panel’s work, while trying to distance himself from Professor Hasnain by saying that the latter was not working at the institute in 1999: “We slipped up on one number, I don’t think it takes anything away from the overwhelming scientific evidence of what’s happening with the climate of this Earth.”
Professor Hasnain confirmed that he had given an interview to Fred Pearce, of New Scientist, when he was still working for Jawaharlal Nehru University in 1999. “I said that small glaciers in the eastern and central Himalaya are declining at an alarming rate and in the next 40-50 years they may lose substantial mass,” he said. “That means they will shrink in area and mass. To which the journalist has assigned a date and reported it in his own way.” Mr Pearce was not immediately available for comment.
Despite the controversy, the IPCC said that it stood by its overall conclusions about glacier loss this century in big mountain ranges including the Himalayas. “This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment,” it said.
The scandal threatens to undermine the panel’s credibility as it begins the marathon process of drafting its Fifth Assessment Reports, which are due out in 2013-14. Georg Kaser, a leading Austrian glaciologist who contributed to the 2007 report, described the glacier mistake as huge and said that he had warned colleagues about it months before publication.
The error is also now being exploited by climate sceptics, many of whom are convinced that stolen e-mail exchanges last year revealed a conspiracy to exaggerate the evidence supporting global warming.
Jairam Ramesh, the Indian Environment Minister, said on Tuesday the scandal vindicated his position that there was no proof that Himalayan glaciers were melting abnormally fast. “The IPCC claim that glaciers will vanish by 2035 was not based on an iota of scientific evidence,” he said.
Monitoring Himalayan glaciers is extremely difficult because most of them lie in some of the most inhospitable terrain in the word at an altitude of more than 5,000 metres (16,000ft).
Most studies until now have therefore been based necessarily on a mixture of outdated and incomplete data, satellite imagery, photography, and anecdotal evidence.
Last year, however, TERI launched a project to install high-tech sensors on three glaciers which it will use as benchmarks to assess the situation across the Himalayas.
Professor Hasnain, who is running the project, said that he would soon be presenting a report on the status of Himalayan glaciers, based on research works by Indian and international scientists published in different peer reviewed journals across the world.
He hopes that these studies will help to produce more incontrovertible evidence that the Himalayan glaciers are under threat. In the short term, however, it seems they will do little to convince climate change sceptics, or to repair the image of the IPCC."
The government can not create money, it *collects* money through taxes.
The government can only create debt .... and puts us on the hook to repay it.
Get the big picture in the scenario below, the government obligates us to pay if lenders lose money. Lenders repay the government ... not us who are the guarantors of the of this deal ..... and the government finds something else to p|$$ it away on other than lowering taxes.
"Under this arrangement the government sets the interest rates lenders may charge students. In return, the government reimburses lenders if market interest rates rise above the interest rates on the loans – in essence, the government reimburses private lenders if they begin losing money on the loans.
In return, the lenders agree to return any windfall profits made from the loans to the government. In other words, if market interest rates fall below the interest rates of the loans, the lenders pay the government the difference.
The government also agrees to reimburse the lenders should a student default.
"Obama to Nationalize Student Lending with Pending Budget Bill
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer
Very plainly stated ... if you don't like plain talk don't click the link.
"A Warning To The Washington DC Establishment - The Market Ticker
Hope this vaporizes from her clawing grasp just like climate-gate did for global warming zealots.
Monday, Jan 18, 2010 20:19 EST
"Pelosi: "We will have healthcare -- one way or another"
"House speaker sounds confident of reform passage, even with a big loss for Democrats possibly on the horizon
By Alex Koppelman
Given what looks like the impending loss of the party's Senate supermajority, Democrats have reason to be down in the dumps about healthcare reform. But if that's the way House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's feeling, she's not showing it publicly.
"Let's remove all doubt, we will have healthcare one way or another," Pelosi said during an event in San Francisco on Monday. "Certainly the dynamic would change depending on what happens in Massachusetts. Just the question about how we would proceed. But it doesn't mean we won't have a health care bill."
There is one way to pass the bill, even without 60 votes in the Senate, that's getting a lot of attention now. But Pelosi probably won't like it, and neither will a fair amount of her members.
The procedure in question would involve simply having the House vote on the bill that the Senate has already passed. That would mean avoiding yet another cloture vote in the Senate, one Democrats would be likely to lose if their caucus is down to 59 members after the special election in Massachusetts on Tuesday.
House liberals will be upset about this idea, and progressive activists would likely be angry as well, but it may well be the only option left, and Democrats are reportedly leaning towards it. On Monday night, the New York Times reported: "The White House and Democratic Congressional leaders, scrambling for a backup plan to rescue their health care legislation if Republicans win the special election in Massachusetts on Tuesday, are preparing to ask House Democrats to approve the Senate version of the bill, which would send the measure directly to President Obama for his signature."
From Powerline, this is gooood!
"Remember the truck!
January 19, 2010 Posted by Scott at 7:27 AM
"They scheduled a coronation in Massachusetts and, against all odds, a campaign broke out. They took away the governor's power of appointment to foil Mitt Romney in the event that John Kerry was elected president in 2004. Thank you, Democrats of Massachusetts. Life is funny that way, and so therefore is politics, every once in a while.
Scott Brown is the man of the hour. With coolness and perspicacity, he has given voice to the present discontents and sober second thoughts of his fellow citizens. By staking his candidacy on opposition to the Democratic agenda, to one party rule, to the insane national security policy that passes as the higher wisdom in the Obama administration, and to the arrogance of the elites who brook no offense to their majesty, he has contributed to the tidal wave he is riding.
In doing so he has displayed grace under pressure. When moderator and twit for all seasons David Gergen came at Brown with a haymaker in the debate last week, Brown landed a telling blow of his own, and not just against Gergen. Brown's renaming of "the Kennedy seat" as "the people's seat" will survive this campaign whether he wins or loses.
Brown has the common touch. It is symbolized by his truck. He has toured Massachusetts in a 2005 GMC Canyon pickup truck with almost 200,000 miles on the odometer. USA Today notes: "He features the truck in his campaign ads to show he is an everyman in touch with blue-collar and independent voters."
George Burns is reputed to have said that sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you've got it made. But how about the common touch? As Martha Coakley has demonstrated, it's tough to fake.
There's something about that truck. How many times did Obama mention it in his speech at Coakley's rally in Boston at Northeastern on Sunday? I think the over/under is 15. With that truck Brown got inside Obama's head like a trash talking football stud running down his opponent's mama to throw him off his game.
"He's driving his truck around the commonwealth and he says that he gets you," Obama said of Brown at the rally. "Everybody can run slick games," he added. "Forget the truck. Anybody can buy a truck."
In a campaign that has contributed a lot of memorable quotes, Obama's late entry should not be ignored. Remember the truck! If you're registered to vote in Massachusetts, and if you have a message to deliver, don't forget to vote either."
Steve Quayle cartoon of the day. Concept has gone through several incarnations but this one seems most pertinent now.
Consumers should not use certain beef dog treats distributed by Merrick Pet Care because the pet food might be contaminated with salmonella, health authorities warned on Thursday.
Merrick Beef Filet Squares for dogs ......"
Discussion about Coakley's prosecution of two different cases providing an interesting picture of her judicial temperament.
Shifting gears Saturday morning, this gem came in email ...... great ideas. Toward the bottom contains live links to pretty cool source sites. Enjoy!
"30 Power Words To Activate Intention Setting
"Setting new year resolutions appears to be passe amongst spiritually-aware personal development experts. More people are recommending using intentions or themes to guide our directions at the start of a new year.
Since two years ago, I have also personally found it more helpful to be setting intentions rather than be engaged in traditional resolution setting. In fact, I have found that the use of power words and phrases – to encapsulate the essence or the meaning of the intent – very effective.
Setting Intentions and New Year Resolutions
What is the difference, you may ask? Well, my perspective comes from personal experience. For the most part, new year resolution setting has been pretty much a left-brained activity for me. My resolutions were externally driven or were chosen because they would make me look good. In fact, it was easy to simply adopt a few – if not one – from a pool of widely known ones. Well, as far as I could remember, I never quite stuck to my New Year Resolutions as soon as I have made them.
On the other hand, picking the right intentions involves our intuition. It requires an awareness of our inner desires, the stirring of our heart. It is about bringing ourselves into alignment. The alignment is with a desired aspect of life that we are working on.
Because it is about aligning ourselves, setting intentions also comes with addressing our resistances. Inner work may be required when we observe that we are out-of-alignment. Throughout the year, based on our ongoing experiences, it may be necessary to make any changes to our intents as appropriate.
The process does not generate any sense of perceived “failure” or not living up to our resolutions per se. Setting intents is not a once-a-year activity; rather it is a process that naturally unfolds as we evolve. Because of this, I keep an intention-setting journal by my bedside to keep track of changes arising throughout the year. It is interesting to note how my intents have shifted to today’s.
Power Words for Visioning
From studying the the science of visioning, I learn that it is a good idea to keep our intents or vision statements short and snappy. Having a power word, phrase or motto – that sums up the essence of what we desire – keeps us focused.
Indeed, the use of power words can serve as an ongoing mantra or motto. The Vision Board Book shared about the one compelling word for the Shroyers family that helped in achieving a life of their dreams. Keith Shroyer sprayed a wall – ten by twelve foot – in his living room with the word “freedom”. “Freedom” served as their guiding vision, motto and statement all rolled into one. Eventually, Keith moved from a dead-end job to a life of financial freedom. His family now lives in a boat.
While intention setting comes from within, it is not that we have to come up with something new. More importantly, choosing the appropriate power word or phrase to adopt for visioning must be able to elicit an emotional response from us. Power comes when we are able to connect deeply with the meaning behind the word, phrase or motto.
To help ignite inspiration, I came up with a list of 30 power words for those who are new to intention setting. I also provide some examples of actions that can be taken to support and activate each vision.
30 Power Words: A-Z Guide
1. Power Word: Abundance
Power Phrase: Inter-align with Abundance, Living in Abundance.
Power Action: Be expansive, let go of resistances and have a reverence for life.
2. Power Word: Action
Power Phrase: Just Do It, A thousand-Mile Journey Starts with a Single Step, Inspired Action.
Power Action: Take inspired action, avoid procrastination.
3. Power Word: Authenticity
Power Phrase: Authentic Expression, Be Who I am, Use My Voice.
Power Action: Connect to the truth of who I am.
4: Power Word: Balance
Power Phrase: Balance is Key to Wellness; Yin and Yang.
Power Action: Make time for priorities in life, restore inner and outer balance, study feng shui elements, go for yoga.
5. Power Word: Be
Power Phrase: Just Be.
Power Action: Focus more about being than doing, practice patience, just breathe.
6. Power Word: Clarity
Power Phrase: Insight, Be Awake, See Clearly.
Power Action: See big picture, avoid getting too caught up in the content of the story, practice insight meditation, wisdom from insight.
7. Power Word: Courage
Power Phrase: Live My Dreams, Fly.
Power Action: Take risks, be bold, go on adventures, master courage to do things differently.
8. Power Word: Creativity
Power Phrase: Creative Ideas on Tap, Creative Artist.
Power Action: Engage imagination, play and possibility.
9. Power Word: Dream
Power Phrase: Dare to Dream, I Dreamed a Dream, Dream Big, Dreams take Flight!
Power Action: Open myself to possibilities, engage in imagination.
10. Power Word: Equanimity
Power Phrase: Equanimity, Quality of Equanimity, Non-Attachment.
Power Action: Practice equanimity i.e. calm, centered, balanced and mindful awareness of the impermanence of things, sensations and experiences.
11. Power Word: Freedom
Power Phrase: Freedom from Fear, Financial Freedom, Freedom to Live.
Power Action: Let go of resistances, free to make choices.
12. Power Word: Gratitude
Power Phrase: Gratitude is Gold, Gratitude Rocks, Gratitude Now.
Power Action: Practice gratitude, count my blessings and share my gifts.
13. Power Word: Harmony / Peace / Serenity
Power Phrase: Let my Breath be my Guide; Love the Moment, Peace of Mind.
Power Action: Make peace with every moment, learn qi gong.
14. Power Word: Health
Power Phrase: Health is Wealth
Power Action: Practice mindful eating, make healthy food choices, exercise, stay healthy mentally.
15. Power Word: Intuition
Power Phrase: Intuitive Awareness, Intuitive Intelligence.
Power Action: Awaken and develop intuitive abilities.
16. Power Word: Joy
Power Phrase: Enjoy the Journey, Live it Up, Celebrate, Live Now, Happiness is Key to Success.
Power Action: Choose to be happy whatever the situation is, be light hearted, celebrate every small thing!
17. Power Word: Laughter
Power Phrase: Lightness of Being, Laughter is the Best Medicine.
Power Action: Look at the humor in each situation, avoid taking things too seriously, have fun.
18. Power Word: Love
Power Phrase: Love Thyself; Love is All Around.
Power Action: Practice unconditional self love and love for others.
19. Power Word: Money / Prosperity / Wealth
Power Phrase: I am a Money Magnet, Multiple Streams of Income, Financial Freedom
Power Action: Shatter limiting money beliefs, adopt prosperity consciousness, worry less but keep vibrations up.
20. Power Word: Oneness
Power Phrase: We are One.
Power Action: Let go of separation.
21. Power Word: Possibility
Power Phrase: Open to Possibility, Dwell in Possibility.
Power Action: Open to receiving, practice non-judgment, try new experiences.
22. Power Word: Power
Power Phrase: Step Into Power, Awaken My Potential.
Power Action: Let go of fears, step up, take charge.
23. Power Word: Presence / Mindfulness
Power Phrase: Live in the Now.
Power Action: Practice mindful awareness, give quality attention to the moment, meditate.
24. Power Word: Responsibility
Power Phrase: Live Deliberately, Take Charge, Power To Change.
Power Action: Commit to inner change, less blame of others, conscious living.
25. Power Word: Share
Power Phrase: Spread Love, Share my Divine Light.
Power Action: Practice loving kindness, lend a helping hand, share my gifts.
26. Power Word: Success
Power Phrase: I am a Winner, Success is Constancy to Purpose.
Power Action: Think success, dream big.
27. Power Word: Smile
Power Phrase: Window to My Soul, Language of Love.
Power Action: Smile to strangers, neighbors, etc.
28. Power Word: Space
Power Phrase: Make Space.
Power Actions: Clear the clutter, switch off TV, meditate.
29. Power Word: Spirituality
Power Phrase: Connect with God/Source/Guides, “I am a Spirit with a Human Experience”.
Power Action: Adopt good values, live consciously, mindful of ego, take wise actions, reverence for life, etc.
30. Power Word: Wellness
Power Phrase: Mind-Body-Spirit Harmony, Self Nurture.
Power Action: Make time for relaxation, de-stress, release negative emotions, let go of old baggage.
Sources for Power Words and Catchy Phrases
Still feeling stuck over what power phrases to use? The world is a huge resource. For inspiration, check out:
Less is More
Don’t make the mistake of cluttering your visioning or intention setting process with too many power words (see picture at the top of my post) either! My suggestion is to choose one or fewer than three at any one time. The picture below is a vision board that I made to illustrate the right use of power words….
Decided on yours already? What is/are yours, by the way?"
A bit more insight into the Dem Candidate in Mass. Each commentary has a video along with some interesting quotes. Permalinked.
YouTube - Coakley Thug Roughs Up Reporter
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Source Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
A hot story today is how a reporter for The Weekly Standard was shoved to the ground by a Martha Coakley campaign worker when the reporter tried to ask Coakley why she was attending a fundraiser with lobbyists.
But another part of the story, as pointed out at HotAir, was that Coakley witnessed the assault and did nothing. Here is a photo showing Coakley looking at the reporter on the ground with the assailant standing over him, from HotAir [via The Weekly Standard]:
(photo available on TwitPic)
Coakley's non-reaction to the assault, even though she knew that the reporter only was trying to ask a question, is the big story here.
There is something to see here, so do not move along.
Update: David Hogberg at Investors Business Daily asks:
First, will she dismiss Meehan from her campaign?
Second, will she call the D.C. police or the district attorney and ask them to investigate and agree to testify against Meehan? Seems like the least she could do.
"AP source: Obama seeking tax on biggest banks
" ......Asenior administration official said the tax, which officials arecalling a "financial crisis responsibility fee," would apply only tofinancial companies with assets of more than $50 billion. Those firms -estimated to amount to about 50 institutions - would have to pay thefee even though many did not accept any taxpayer assistance and mostothers already paid back their government infusions......."
"Amish families exempt from insurance mandate
HEALTH REFORM: People with religious objections can opt out
By MARC HELLER
TIMES WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT
SATURDAY, JANUARY 9, 2010
"WASHINGTON — Federal health care reform will require most Northern New Yorkers — but not all, it turns out — to carry health insurance or risk a fine.
Hundreds of Amish families in the region are likely to be free from that requirement.
The Amish, as well as some other religious sects, are covered by a "religious conscience" exemption, which allows people with religious objections to insurance to opt out of the mandate. It is in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, making its appearance in the final version routine unless there are last-minute objections.
Although the Amish consist of several branches, some more conservative than others, they generally rely upon a community ethic that disdains government assistance. Families rely upon one another, and communities pitch in to help neighbors pay health care expenses.
The Amish population has been growing in the north country, as well as in New York generally. The state ranks sixth nationally in Amish population and posted the biggest net increase in Amish households — 307 — from 2002 to 2007, according to the Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania.
Lawmakers reportedly included the provision at the urging of Amish constituents, although the legislation does not specify that community and the provision could apply to other groups as well, including Old Order Mennonites and perhaps Christian Scientists.
A professor and lawyer at Yeshiva University in New York complained last summer that exempting groups for religious reasons could run afoul of the Constitution. Marci A. Hamilton, who teaches at the University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, wrote at Findlaw.com in August, "If the government can tolerate a religious exemption, then it must do so evenhandedly among religious believers with the same beliefs. This is sheer favoritism for a certain class of religions, or even for one religion."
In her column, Ms. Hamilton speculated that lobbyists for the Christian Science Church were responsible for the provision, given their public stance that health care reform bills around the country should include religious exemptions. In an e-mail message Friday, she said she was unaware of the Amish interest in the bill and that their objections to the mandate surprised her because the Amish do buy vehicle insurance, for instance.
Ms. Hamilton said the exemption could harm the health of children whose families avoid medical care for religious reasons, although the Amish objections relate more to insurance than to medical care itself.
Congressional aides said the exemption is based on a carve-out the Amish have had from Social Security and Medicare taxes since the 1960s. Whether Amish businesses, however, would fall under the bill's mandates is still an open question.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., who was a key negotiator on the Senate bill, supports the religious exemption, said a spokesman, Maxwell Young, who called the provision a "no brainer."
DNC has to be doing its best Linda Blair right now, heads spinning spitting pea soup.
Powerlineblog.com linked to this story ... their comments about it were "
"There's more, but you get the drift. How humiliating for the Democrats! Sarah Palin can twist them into knots simply by doing...nothing. Meanwhile, if this is the best argument Coakley can make for why she should be in the Senate, Scott Brown's chances are looking pretty good."
"Desperate Dems try to Palinize Massachusetts Senate race
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
01/11/10 11:00 PM EST
"Frantic over the possibility that a Democrat might lose the race to replace Sen. Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts, the Democratic National Committee has sent its top spinner, Hari Sevugan, to the aid of Democratic candidate Martha Coakley, who appears to be rapidly losing ground to Republican Scott Brown. But what can Sevugan do to shore up Coakley's struggling campaign? Well, he spent his first day on the job trying to tie Brown to Sarah Palin.
Early Monday afternoon, Sevugan sent out an email to reporters featuring a link to a story on the lefty website TPM. The headline: "Is Sarah Palin Avoiding Mass Senate Race?" The story quoted a Democratic strategist saying that "it's interesting" that Palin is "nowhere to be found in this race." TPM conceded that GOP sources say there has been "no talk" about Palin visiting Massachusetts. But that didn't stop Sevugan, who is quoted declaring that Palin's supporters "are anxious for her to weigh in." At the top of his email to journalists, Sevugan wrote, "Come on, Sarah, why are you being so shy?"
A couple of hours later, Sevugan was emailing again, with a message entitled, "Has the Pit Bull lost her bark?" What followed was a statement from Sevugan on "the surprising silence from Sarah Palin on Republican Scott Brown's bid for the U.S. Senate." Sevugan demanded to know: "Where on earth is Sarah Palin herself? Clearly her supporters are anxious for her to weigh in."
Not long after that, Sevugan sent out another email to reporters, this one with a link to a post by TPM alumnus Greg Sargent, who now writes a lefty blog for the Washington Post. Sargent's post featured Sevugan's question with the headline, "Dems on Palin: 'Has the Pit Bull Lost Her Bark?'"
Finally, when a Brown spokesman, while not specifically mentioning Palin, said that "Scott is not looking for a lot of outside help" and that the race would not be determined by outsiders, Sevugan sent out yet another email to reporters, this one headlined "Weaselly." Sevugan directed journalists to his response to the "blatant dodge by the Scott Brown campaign on the issue of whether he is seeking and/or if he would accept an endorsement from Sarah Palin." Sevugan quoted himself challenging Brown: "That's a weaselly answer. And the people of Massachusetts deserve more than weaselly answers from their next senator…It's a yes or no question, Scott Brown -- Will you accept Sarah Palin's endorsement or won't you?"
Of course, Sevugan never had any evidence at all that Palin was set to endorse Brown and come to Massachusetts to campaign for him, or that Brown was seeking Palin's endorsement or help. It was just all in a day's work, trying to breathe life into a faltering campaign. What will Sevugan think of next? "
"It’s the people’s seat, and it’s up for grabs
By Jeff Jacoby Globe Columnist / January 12, 2010
"The policy differences between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown were as clear during last night’s debate as they have been throughout this short special-election campaign.
Coakley supports ObamaCare, opposes the war in Afghanistan, and favors higher taxes on the wealthy. Brown is against the health care legislation, backs the president’s surge in Afghanistan, and wants across-the-board tax cuts à la JFK. Coakley is an EMILY’s List prochoice hard-liner; Brown condemns partial-birth abortion and is backed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Coakley has no problem with civilian trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Brown thinks it reckless to treat enemy combatants like ordinary defendants.
But the most striking thing about the debate was not that the very liberal Democrat and the not-especially-conservative Republican disagreed on the issues. It is that they are both viable candidates in a race too competitive to call. In Massachusetts!
“I don’t know what’s going to happen on Jan. 19th,’’ Coakley said. She wasn’t being coy. Nobody knows what’s going to happen next week.
When Ted Kennedy died five months ago, who would have guessed that the contest to replace him would be anything but a slam-dunk for the Democrats? Yet there was no slam-dunk on that stage last night, and the race certainly doesn’t feel like a slam-dunk now.
“It’s not the ‘Kennedy Seat,’ ’’ Brown has been reminding Coakley lately. “It’s the people’s seat.’’ Amazing thing is, he could be right.
Our tax dollars at work.
"CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING WASTE IN COPENHAGEN; 21 MEMBERS, ALL-EXPENSES PAID
Mon Jan 11 2010 15:08:56 ET
An exclusive report that will air tonight on CBS EVENING NEWS WITHKATIE COURIC reveals the alarmingly high number of members of Congresswho got an all-expense paid trip to Denmark -- on your dime!
An embargoed script from Sharyl Attkisson's report:
Few would argue with the US having a presence at the Copenhagen Climate Summit.
NATS OBAMA I'M ALWAYS HOPEFUL
(VO: Denmark beauty shot)
But wait until you hear what we found about how many in Congress got all-expense paid trips to Denmark... on your dime.
Our camera spotted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the summit. She called the shots on who got to go.
That's House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
And there's the embattled Chairman of the Tax Committee Charles Rangel.
"NATS: YOU TAKIN' CARE OF MR. RANGEL? HE SURE IS!"
They were joined by 17 colleagues from both parties: Democrats:Waxman, Miller, Markey, Gordon, Levin, Blumenauer, DeGette, Inslee,Ryan, Butterfield, Cleaver, Giffords, and Republicans: Barton, Upton,Moore Capito, Sullivan, Blackburn.
And that's not the half of it. But finding out more was a bitlike trying to get the keys to Ft. Knox. Many referred us to SpeakerPelosi who wouldn't agree to an interview, give cost estimates or eventell us where they all stayed. Her office said it "will comply withdisclosure requirements."
Senator Inhofe is one of the few who provided us any detail. Heattended the summit on his own for just a few hours, to give an"opposing view."
They're going because it's the biggest party of the year. The worst thing that happened there is they ran out of caviar.
(MOVED) Our investigation found that the House delegation wasso large, it needed three military jets: two 737's and a GulfstreamFive. Up to 64 passengers -- travelling in luxurious comfort.
Add Senators and staff, most of whom flew commercial, and we counted atleast 101 Congress-related attendees. All for a summit that failed todeliver a global climate deal.
As a perk, some took spouses, since they could snag an openseat on a military jet or share a room at no extra cost to taxpayers.
(FLASH THRU VIDEO AT COPENHAGEN)
That's Congresswoman Giffords holding her husband's hand.
Moore Capito and her husband.
Markey took his wife - shown wearing red - (Susan Blumenthal) as did Sensenbrenner (Cheryl).
Congressman Barton-- a climate change skeptic-- even brought along his daughter, not shown here.
Until required filings are made in the coming weeks, we can only figure bits and pieces of the cost to you.
Three military jets at $57-hundred dollars an hour. ($5,740) Dozens flew commercial at up to two thousand dollars each.
More than 300 (321) hotel nights booked - the bulk at Copenhagen's five-star Marriott.
Meals add tens of thousands more.
Watchdog Steve Ellis wasn't against some sort of US presence but...considering the record deficit...
(SOT-STEVE ELLIS, TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE check)
7:22:48 EVERY PENNY COUNTS. CONGRESS SHOULD BE SHAKIN' THE COUCHCUSHIONS LOOKING FOR CHANGE, RATHER THAN SPENDING CASH FOR EVERYBODY TOGO TO COPENHAGEN. 23:00
Nobody we asked would defend the super-sized Congressionalpresence on camera. One Democrat said it showed the world the US isserious about climate change.
(GRAPHIC: MILITARY JET WITH SMOKE AND FIGURES) And all thoseattendees who went to the summit rather than hooking up byteleconference? They produced enough climate-stunting carbon dioxide tofill 10,000 Olympic swimming pools. (40,500 tonnes/source: UN FrameworkConvention on Climate Change)
(VO: US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations/US Senators andStaff Only) Which means even if Congress didn't get a globalagreement...
00:03:01 "EXCUSE ME" CRASH! (SLAMS DOOR on CAMERA)
... they left an indelible footprint all the same. Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News, Washington.
"Depoliticizing the Weather Forecasters
"Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism.—Mary McCarthy
Exploitation by governments of global warming as a vehicle to take control requires drastic reaction. As climate became a political issue, bureaucrats in all countries expanded their role, became political and excluded independent experts.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up for the political purpose of proving human CO2 emanating from developed nations was causing global warming. It continued as a political process as one of the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) from Mike Hulme to Phil Jones on April 22, 2002 notes, “All these decisions about IPCC chairs and co-chairs are deeply political (witness DEFRA’s support of Martin Parry for getting the WGII nomination).” We must eliminate the IPCC as the most corrupt, and then urge all countries to reduce weather agencies to data collection only. Any weather or climate related government agency must be reduced to a single function, the accurate collection, storage, and accessibility of data for citizens. Weather forecasting is so unreliable and inadequate nobody would suffer from its loss. If forecasting is essential companies can do it themselves or see a business opportunity. Piers Corbyn, a British climatologist consistently produces accurate weather forecasts months in advance for all regions of the world.
There are three main components to the CO2 deceptions
People are beginning to understand the level of the corruption; most of it related to CO2. There are three main components to the CO2 deceptions. First, the pre-industrial level, which they manipulated to show was lower than today.
Second the false assumption that CO2 increase preceded temperature increase. Third, the claim that increases in atmospheric CO2 was due to humans. Mann outlined the objectives when he joined CRU with an email on June 17, 1998,“I remain committed to doing this with you guys, and to explore applications to synthetic data sets with manufactured biases/etc remains high priority.” We now know how far they went.
They Only Learn To Protect Themselves Better
The IPCC made changes as people found flaws, but only to cover up, not improve. The most recent example is in the 2007 IPCC Report where they changed the definition of climate change. Here is the complete quote; “Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” This acknowledges criticism that you can’t determine human causes of change if you don’t know how much it changes naturally. However, it is another deception.
The Report then ignores major natural causes of temperature change and continues to focus on greenhouse gases specifically CO2. “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica).” They don’t mean greenhouse gases? They effectively ignore water vapor and claim, “Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. This is an unsubstantiated and inaccurate comment especially when you don’t know how much natural inputs and outputs change. We know they manipulated pre-industrial CO2 levels, but they ignore the fact methane levels have leveled and declined for 14 years. Atmospheric water vapor levels are difficult to measure with accuracies no better than 20%. In a January 2009 report, Professor Zondio concluded, “Surprisingly little is known about water vapor because it has been really hard to measure in the upper atmosphere. The new data suggests that these plumes are happening at a scale we had not imagined.” He’s talking about water rising in great updrafts in the atmosphere.
The IPCC use water vapor only to cover a problem and bolster another false claim
The IPCC use water vapor only to cover a problem and bolster another false claim. Even if CO2 doubles or triples temperature can only increase a small amount. The amount currently in the atmosphere, 385 ppm is almost 100% effective in delaying heat escaping to space. Imagine the atmosphere is like a window and you use one coat of black paint to block light by about 97%. A second coat reduces light but now by less than 3%. The IPCC got around this problem by using a positive feedback. They claimed increasing human CO2 caused a temperature increase, which increased evaporation. More water vapor acting as a greenhouse gas led to higher temperatures. They built this positive feedback into their models. The trouble is it does not occur in reality.
The claim human CO2 is responsible for global warming of the last 50 years is a based on two assumptions now falsified. First, was the claim CO2 stayed in the atmosphere (residency time) for at least 100 years. We now know it is about 5 years. Second, they said the level of human sourced CO2 would accumulate in the atmosphere. This is wrong as Professor Knorr showed in his November 7, 2009 article titled “Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?” His finding, “…the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero.”
All data manipulation is not covered by the leaked emails. They claim CO2 from human sources rose from 6.5 gigatons of carbon (GtC) in their 2001 Report to 7.5 GtC in the 2007 Report. Trouble is the IPCC are the source of these numbers. In a segment titled, “Source of National Inventories” they write, “Utilizing IPCC procedures, nominated experts from around the world draft the reports that are then extensively reviewed twice before approval by the IPCC.”
In 2008 I wrote, “They define the rules, determine who the “nominated experts “ are, and have the final say in the numbers used. This is in keeping with their process of control and determination to prove their dictated goal of finding a human source of global warming.” Now the public knows the extent of the deceptions. We are dangerously close to what happened in the Soviet Union in the 1950s when, “Under Lysenko’s guidance, science was guided not by the most likely theories, backed by appropriately controlled experiments, but by the desired ideology. Science was practiced in the service of the State, or more precisely, in the service of ideology.” We can shut down national and international government run weather and climate bureaucracies except as data collection agencies."
Can't post video here, link below.
70's global cold map compared with cold map today.
Jan 6, 2010; 8:40 AM ET
Lengthy but so worth the time to read.
"Here In The Long Solemn Dark: An Examination Of Global Elitism
By Giordano Bruno
Neithercorp Press - 1/02/2010
"Inherent in every human being lurk the qualities that make us capable of indelible and enduring good, or astounding and catastrophic evil. Many of us struggle with these natural inborn psychological dualities every day of our lives. With the help of conscience; the ever present voice of the unconscious which guides us towards balance, many of us survive the internal battle without inflicting too much damage on the innocent bystanders around us.
I used to believe that all people endured this same struggle equally, that everyone wanted to eventually achieve that ever elusive self awareness that cuts through the fog of life and makes us feel whole. I believed that all men who committed terrible crimes and injustices against others did so out of ignorance and blindness. Surely, they had lost their way, and did not fully understand the implications of their actions. This did not make them any less responsible, but could they not be redeemed? Had they not let their own shadows run wild in the daylight without knowing the consequences? Weren’t all of us, even the worst of us, deep down still striving to do what was right?
In this belief I must now admit, if I am to remain true to my conscience, I was terribly mistaken…
What I did not comprehend when I was younger was that not all men struggle against the dark corners of their own hearts. Some men revel in them. Some men embrace their failings, their hatred and their envy, their vicious desire for control over their environment and those in it, and they do it deliberately, completely aware of the imbalance and pain they are inflicting on others. Where I see weakness of character, they see untapped strength; the strength of cold and unrestrained malevolence. They were not “victims” of their own ignorance. These men had traversed the River Styx and glimpsed the mythological gates of hell, the psychological barrier between saints and madmen. They stood at the edge of reason and truth, looked out into the nightmarish abyss at the back of their own psyches, and liked what they saw!
If there was ever anything closer to the definition of “evil,” I have not heard of it.
This methodology, this philosophy of embracing one’s darker nature, is ever present in an organized group of people we have come to label “Global Elites.” They have existed in various forms for centuries but their goals have always been the same. In this article, we will examine some of the early influences that gave birth to the elitist philosophy, as well as some possible explanations as to why they do what they do.
Plato: Catalyst For Elitism
Elitism has existed perhaps as long as man has existed, but was not implemented on a broad social scale until the formation of empires such as Babylon. It later blossomed into a full fledged brand of “spiritualism” under the watchful eyes of the Greek aristocracy and the tutelage of Plato, or as elitists sometimes dub him, “The Divine Plato.”
It is hard to say so many centuries later what the real intention of Plato’s Dialogues were. Did he mean them to stand only as metaphorical sociological examinations, as questions designed to promote healthy debate? Or, did he write them as a blueprint for society expecting them to be translated literally and then implemented in the real world? Whatever he originally intended, his views on social structure became the underlying foundation for the monstrous organized brand of Global Elitism we now know today. These views are most prominent in Plato’s “Republic,” however, they are present in nearly all of his works.
Plato had a very low opinion of the majority of the human populace, often stating that the concept of Democracy; rule by the common man, was far less than ideal. In one of Plato’s famous arguments, he proposes that it is better to be ruled by a bad tyrant, than be a part of a bad democracy, since in a bad democracy, all the people would be responsible for the terrible deeds of a nation, rather than one individual (of course, Plato fails to realize that by letting a “bad tyrant” come to power in the first place, the people are still ALL responsible for any terrible act that tyrant commits). Instead, he believed, there were several levels in which society could form itself, and he listed them in order of significance:
Aristocracy (rule by the best)
Timocracy (rule by the honorable)
Oligarchy (rule by the few)
Democracy (rule by the people)
Tyranny (rule by one person, rule by a tyrant)
Plato seems to see no threat in the idea of Aristocracy, and the possibility of a group of men labeled “best” reverting to tyranny appears to have never dawned on him. This is even more evident in his idea of the “Philosopher Kings”; a “guardian class” who are so steeped in knowledge and wisdom as to be nearly infallible and ideally suited to rule over the lives of others. The elites of today salivate over such concepts, because they provide an easy avenue for the justification of their own political ideals of feudal rulership. In fact, Plato and his Philosopher King scenario were often expounded by University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss. Strauss’ teachings went on to become the political linchpin for what we now call “Neo-Conservatism:”
Strauss promoted many of Plato’s more questionable tenets, including the idea of the “Noble Lie.” In his book “Persecution and the Art of Writing”, Strauss outlines why secrecy is necessary. He argues that the wise must conceal their views for two reasons – to spare the people’s feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals (reprisals they likely deserve). He also believed that the only true balance in human nature was the will of the strong; the idea that morality is built upon the views of those who are strongest. The weak had no choice but to adopt the implicit morality of the strong.
Strauss often talked of the need for a moral imperative and even a benevolent God, but interestingly, Strauss was not only an atheist (according to some of his own colleagues), but also a moral relativist. Young and naïve students of Neo-Conservatism often argue that Strauss was a promoter of high morals because he mentions them so often in his books, but they do not seem to understand the context in which he uses them. Strauss felt that a moral framework was a useful tool in manipulating the masses, and nothing more. He was in no way a man of conscience. Religion or any other system that focused on the development of conscience was meant for the lowly serfs, while the elite “Philosopher Kings” would rule with their own set of virtues, virtues to which the commoners were supposedly not equipped to mentally grasp.
What Plato accomplished, and Strauss later expanded on, was the mutation of elitism from a mere political movement with many undesirable consequences, into a full fledged philosophy bordering on cultism. Elitists were no longer simply an overprivileged class of tyrants and sadists making the lives of common men miserable, now, they were “necessary” to the very mechanics of society. They were “guardians” with the godlike responsibility of molding and directing the course of all humanity. Without them, we would be “lost.”
The weaknesses of this methodology are numerous and obvious. It promotes the concept of “equality as illusion,” which may have some legitimacy since all people are born with inherent and unique qualities. However, men like Strauss take this fact and twist it, claiming that because we are all different, this means that some of us must be naturally “better” than others, and therefore, elite. This is an extremely childish interpretation of inborn dynamics.
According to the archetypal discoveries of Carl Jung, we are all born with the same psychological constructs, however, each person has a unique relationship to these constructs, meaning, the way in which we embody the archetypes we are born with is particular to each individual. This means that while every person may develop a different brand of intelligence, unless there is a physical brain impairment, we are ALL capable of being intelligent. The elitist philosophy extolled by Plato and Strauss claims that some people are simply born far more intelligent than others, and that these people, being so naturally advanced, should be given free reign to make our decisions for us.
Who is qualified to categorize human beings into such narrow labels? Who decides what intelligence truly is? While one group may focus more on intellect and critical thought, prizing logic above all else, another may see intuition and emotional advancement as true brilliance. How can one determine if a person is hindered rationally and emotionally to the point of being incapable of progress? Does the theory of Plato not limit all men into static states of being? Have people not proven century after century, generation after generation, that we have the ability to change, adapt, and grow?
Some may argue that the lack of intelligence in the average man is blindingly apparent if one only looks around himself. But this way of thinking is based on an invalid assumption; the assumption that because a man acts unintelligent, he is therefore incapable of ever being intelligent. One contradiction I find most interesting about elitists is that they often preach about the natural stupidity of common people, yet, they place most of their massive resources into keeping the public unaware and “out of the loop.” If the average man is so “naturally inept,” then why have elitists put so much energy into trying to keep us stupid? Why do they keep information, data, the truth of the world, to themselves? Are we not so mentally handicapped that we would not understand the truth even if we knew it?
The fact is, they KNOW we are intelligent, why else would they feel the need for secrecy and lies?
While given the appearance or the dressings of wisdom, the elitist ideal is actually a mish-mash of highly flawed theories and biases flung together so that they may absolve themselves of their crimes against conscience and against mankind. By the standards of logic alone, they have proven themselves to be far less intelligent than they wish others to believe.
Machiavelli: The Methods Of Control
If any historical figure wholly embodies the elitist ethic, it would have to be Niccolo Machiavelli. Most famous for his political treatise entitled The Prince, Machiavelli was an aristocrat extraordinaire, counseling numerous monarchies on the best methods for controlling their respective populace. He was also a military advisor and writer of strategies on war, giving his ideas for social manipulation a cold and violent edge.
Some historians argue that Machiavelli’s works on political subversion and tyranny are actually a form of satire, because no one would reveal his secrets of control in the way Machiavelli did unless he was trying to expose the horror of elitism. I find this theory highly unlikely. Machiavelli was an advisor to kings, not a revolutionary with any desire to rock the boat he had been sitting in his whole life. I think it much more likely that he was simply an egomaniac, perfectly willing to speak openly about his disdain for the masses, as many elites are.
The most important (and dangerous) philosophy Machiavelli put forward was his view on good results accomplished by evil deeds. Machiavelli lived at the edge of the Renaissance, and perhaps saw before many that the world was changing. In the past, elites could easily abuse the people through force of arms, and there was no need to paint a kinder picture on their own despotism. However, a sense of revolution, a hatred of monarchy was growing in the populace. The need to manipulate the public through rhetoric instead of only violence was becoming more evident. The people now had to be tricked into going along with their slavery, and Machiavelli was perfectly willing to devise strategies for this eventuality.
He did this by promoting the idea of “the end justifies the means.” That is to say, if elites wanted to remain in control of the public, they had to convince the public that evil deeds were necessary in order to achieve a “greater good.” This was the first truly cognizant formation of what would be later called “Moral Relativism,” although, Machiavelli was more of the opinion that rather than being amoral, all men were inherently bad. Here are some quotes from Machiavelli on these points:
“Men never do good unless necessity drives them to it; but when they are free to choose and can do just as they please, confusion and disorder become rampant.”
“As all those have shown who have discussed civil institutions, and as every history is full of examples, it is necessary to whoever arranges to found a Republic and establish laws in it, to presuppose that all men are bad and that they will use their malignity of mind every time they have the opportunity; and if such malignity is hidden for a time, it proceeds from the unknown reason that would not be known because the experience of the contrary had not been seen, but time, which is said to be the father of every truth, will cause it to be discovered.”
“The people resemble a wild beast, which, naturally fierce and accustomed to live in the woods, has been brought up, as it were, in a prison and in servitude, and having by accident got its liberty, not being accustomed to search for its food, and not knowing where to conceal itself, easily becomes the prey of the first who seeks to incarcerate it again.”
Among other things, Machiavelli taught that a tyrannical ruler must offer up a proxy, a sacrificial lamb to the public in order to maintain their complicity. In his time, rulers would execute former leaders, councilmen, advisors, and others who were expendable in order to satisfy the public’s need for justice, while at the same time maintaining control over them. This strategy has been honed to perfection in the U.S. political system, in which the elites control both major parties. By sacrificing the public image of George W. Bush, the elites were able to stave off the growing discontent among Americans over the government. They then replaced him with Barack Obama, a man whose policies are nearly identical to Bush’s. In this way, Machiavelli has influenced the cultures of today.
The problem with the “ends justify the means” argument is that it treats the “means” as a sine qua non.
Say my goal is world peace, but I use lies, war, genocide, and oppression to achieve it. Then, I make the claim afterwards that all this death and destruction is vindicated because world peace was in fact achieved. My assumption here is that world peace could not have been achieved without the destruction. What grounds do I have for this assumption? The answer is none, because no other method was attempted to achieve peace. I have also assumed that there are no new methods for achieving peace, methods which I had not thought of. Therefore, the “ends” DO NOT justify the “means,” because there are many means to an end, some far more honorable than others.
So, what point of reference do we have to determine whether means are justifiable? The answer is conscience, something we will discuss greatly in the next section.
The Marquis de Sade: Do What Thou Wilt
Many people have a tendency to become preoccupied with the elements of sexual perversion when examining the work of the Marquis de Sade, but this is really a side note to the bigger issues at hand. The real root of the Marquis’ message is one of corruption, dominance, and amorality. His sexual escapades were merely a means by which he expressed these “values.” He said:
“There is nothing either fundamentally good, nor anything fundamentally evil; Everything is relative, relative to our point of view.”
From this single rationalization, all the horrors of Global Elitism can be attributed. Through the philosophy of Moral Relativism, any crime, any injustice, any infliction of pain or death on others, can be easily placated as “natural” to the specific viewpoint or circumstance of the man committing the terrible act. The Marquis de Sade’s nihilist worldview can be summed up as follows:
(1) God’s nonexistence reduces the universe to a purely materialist Nature, a self-running mechanism; “the perpetual motion of matter explains everything.”
(2) People are determinist machines, which annuls moral responsibility. You cannot help it, then, if you are sexually perverse or depraved.
(3) There is no afterlife, so your conduct does not matter.
(4) Merely the child of local custom, morality is relative to culture and geography, and therefore fictive.
(5) Nature is our only ethical guide; humans are no more significant to Nature than insects. And since Nature uses matter from dead life forms to create new ones, crime, destruction, and death are necessary and pleasing to her. Therefore murder is good, and the mass murderer is the highest human type.
(6) Born isolated, the individual is solely important, with obligations to nobody and only selfish motivations. Each individual is pitted against all others. His only maxim is to “Enjoy myself, at no matter whose expense.”
(7) Man tends naturally to dominate others and inflict pain, which he enjoys.
(8) Ordinary people are utilitarian objects, the playthings of the wealthy, powerful and godlike libertines, who are utterly unloving.
(9) Beauty and innocence inspire only diabolical cruelty. Since materialism makes pleasure proportional to stimulus, the greater your cruelty, the greater your pleasure.
(10) Maximum selfishness and cruelty are therefore the proper course.
The key to the entirety of Moral Relativism is the belief that we are born as “blank slates,” and therefore our belief in right and wrong is completely dependent upon our environment, meaning, morality is an empty product of cultural taboo. This is, of course, entirely false, and has been proven incorrect by numerous scientists and psychologists. Watch the film linked below for an in-depth analysis of the failings of Blank Slate Theory:
Setting the debate over the existence of God aside, the psychological reality is, all human beings have an inherent archetypal sense of what we call good and evil, and this sense is common to every culture regardless of environmental conditions, proving The Marquis de Sade’s conclusions false. Conscience is the messenger, or the interpreter if you will, of the archetypal sense of balance.
Although the Marquis’ philosophy is logically impractical not to mention psychotic, it does illustrate very well the elitist mindset.
A rapist, for instance, often does not derive much pleasure from the sexual act itself, but the control involved over others. Thinking of elitists in such a way helps in understanding the warped reasoning behind their actions. Like the Marquis de Sade, elites are so possessed by their unlimited desire for power and control that they themselves fall into their own pattern of self created determinism. Finding that they will never have enough control to satiate their desires, and discovering that such power over the environment is unreachable, they turn towards thoughts of complete destruction. For them, destruction is the pinnacle of control.
What we also find is that the egotism of elites causes them to strive for what they feel is “true individualism.” They see conscience as psychological bondage, a will imposed on them by society, or the universe itself. By breaking free of conscience, they believe they have achieved ultimate freedom, and elevated themselves to a plane beyond the common man. This is called “transcendence through evil.”
But by disowning their inborn qualities, they have actually lost everything that gives them individuality, as well as humanity. They have essentially made themselves inwardly dead, soulless dolls driven by nothing but base desire. Instead of self-destructing under the weight of such ambition, they have focused it all into a single collective goal….
The New World Order: Destined For Failure
The New World Order which the Global Elites speak of so often is not just a political shift, or a social reformation; it is an attempt to subvert the human psyche. It is an attempt to defy nature. Controlling the lives of the masses is not enough. What they want most, is to transmute the human heart and bend it in any manner they wish until all traces of conscience and individualism have vanished from the species. Such an act could take centuries, perhaps millennia, and even then it may still be impossible.
When examining the shift towards the NWO, I often take into account the elitist fascination with the game of chess. Zbigniew Brzezinski makes this fascination laughably obvious in his book “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives.” I am an avid chess player myself, and I understand the game well.
In order to win consistently in chess, one must above all things become exceedingly ruthless. There can be no momentary lapses of compassion. This is something the elites strive for. You must also be willing to sacrifice any piece in order to meet the greater objective; another elitist trait.
In the game of chess, the greatest players do not win so much by attacking their opponent; they win by forcing their opponent to move in the way they want, until, in effect, the opponent defeats himself. This is a fulcrum point for the strategy of Globalism. They set the noose upon our necks, but it is our aimless struggling that tightens it until we suffocate.
The problem is, life is NOT a chess game. People do not follow straightforward patterns laid out beforehand. Some of us walk off the board entirely. Some of us make our own rules. Sometimes, the pawns change the entire dynamic of the game, and this is why the elites will fail. We aren’t playing anymore.
The elites often boast of possessing an unparalleled wisdom, an awareness that supercedes all others. If they had attained any wisdom, however, they would have already realized the futility in attempting to control the destinies of other men. Such power is in itself an illusion, for the only power over us is that which we give away. Therefore, the elites only have power over us in so much as we give them explicit consent. All it takes is for one man to say “no,” and the entire web begins to unravel. Control of the world is a fantasy, a cartoon, a cabaret, a childish whimsy that those with legitimate wisdom grow out of. The farce can only continue so long as everyone submits to deception.
Here humanity waits, standing still in the long solemn dark, poised to step from the cold cast shadow into daylight. The great threat to elitism has been and always will be the so called “common man.” We are the honest and faithful explorers of the soul, unhindered by presumptions of superiority or fixations of malice. We are the antithesis, the counterweight, the opposing force, for we seek no power, no dominance, no control over the world; only understanding. We are the future, not the elites. Their time is nearly over, and with their passing, may we see all the horrors they have wrought undone, until life can be lived the way it desperately needs to be lived; with wide eyes, with honor, with sincerity.
Strength, real strength, comes not from the exile of conscience, or surrender to the murky waters of amorality; it comes from trust in one’s own heart. It comes from that intuitive knowing, knowing without calculation or observation. It comes from the utter invincibility of truth; a force against which even the most depraved of elites cannot stand."Posted on Saturday, January 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 pm "
Muliple photos of train having to be dug out of snow.
Chinese site, Babelfish translation of first photo below.
"On January 4, the fire soldier receives nearby the passenger train which in the Inner Mongolian business the storm sieges to remove snow the emergency. On January 3 18:00, the Inner Mongolian area has the heavy snow suddenly, when sends out Baotou's 1814 train line by Harbin to Ulanchap city Chahar right wing north banner Ben Hongzhi the Shangdu County 18 kilometers place, is sieged by the heavy snow in the big ravine, on the vehicle 1500 passenger is stranded.
Hat tip to my son for this video.
Take a listen at 12:58, Mike Kim .... Cash for Clunkers was a Chinese brainchild program. The US "had to send them a bunch of metal and steel instead of US dollars for them [Chinese] to give any type of credit to the US."
Overwhelm to the breaking point. Here comes amnesty and automatic citizenship ...... shoving law abiding applicants for citizenship to the back of the line.
"Obama Readying Immigration Overhaul Despite Political Risks
Ran across this last night.
OBAMA AND BIDEN: Analyze the body language. From the White House Flickr page.
UPDATE: No, I don’t think Obama’s facial expression is just a fluke of when the shutter went off. His eyes aren’t closed, as some with poor displays seem to think. Here’s a detail from the frame:
"Wikipedia's Climate Doctor
Posted: December 19, 2009, 2:53 AM
"How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles
By Lawrence Solomon
"The Climategate Emails describe how a small band of climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem dangerously warm.
The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.
The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.
The Medieval Warm Period, which followed the meanness and cold of the Dark Ages, was a great time in human history — it allowed humans around the world to bask in a glorious warmth that vastly improved agriculture, increased life spans and otherwise bettered the human condition.
But the Medieval Warm Period was not so great for some humans in our own time — the same small band that believes the planet has now entered an unprecedented and dangerous warm period. As we now know from the Climategate Emails, this band saw the Medieval Warm Period as an enormous obstacle in their mission of spreading the word about global warming. If temperatures were warmer 1,000 years ago than today, the Climategate Emails explain in detail, their message that we now live in the warmest of all possible times would be undermined. As put by one band member, a Briton named Folland at the Hadley Centre, a Medieval Warm Period “dilutes the message rather significantly.”
Even before the Climategate Emails came to light, the problem posed by the Medieval Warm Period to this band was known. “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” read a pre-Climategate email, circa 1995, as attested to at hearings of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. But the Climategate transcripts were more extensive and more illuminating — they provided an unvarnished look at the struggles that the climate practitioners underwent before settling on their scientific dogma.
The Climategate Emails showed, for example, that some members of the band were uncomfortable with aspects of their work, some even questioning the need to erase the existence of the Medieval Warm Period 1,000 years earlier.
Said Briffa, one of their chief practitioners: “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. … I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.”
In the end, Briffa and other members of the band overcame their doubts and settled on their dogma. With the help of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the highest climate change authority of all, they published what became the icon of their movement — the hockey stick graph. This icon showed temperatures in the last 1,000 years to have been stable — no Medieval Warm Period, not even the Little Ice Age of a few centuries ago.
But the UN’s official verdict that the Medieval Warm Period had not existed did not erase the countless schoolbooks, encyclopedias, and other scholarly sources that claimed it had. Rewriting those would take decades, time that the band members didn’t have if they were to save the globe from warming.
Instead, the band members turned to their friends in the media and to the blogosphere, creating a website called RealClimate.org. “The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are doing the rounds” in aid of “combating dis-information,” one email explained, referring to criticisms of the hockey stick and anything else suggesting that temperatures today were not the hottest in recorded time. One person in the nine-member Realclimate.org team — U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley — would take on particularly crucial duties.
Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.
All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.
The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear."
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.
Well worth a 10 minute listen.
Something non-political for a change. Found this interesting, hope you do also.
"Instant Gratification-The Trap That Avoids Building Real Wealth
By Julian Burke January 3rd, 2010
Source Dream Manifesto
"Instant gratification is wanting everything now, and its converse is deferred gratification. Low impulse control provides short term satisfaction but causes long term chaos, imbalance, and personal failure, while high impulse control causes short term dissatisfaction but provides long term order, balance, and personal success.
Here are some classic examples of how the impulse of instant gratification works in real life:
- If you are seeking a relationship, you want it to unfold as magically as in the movies, and you’re impatient about building rapport and getting to know someone. Beguiled by Hollywood, you believe that romance is as simple as locking eyes across the room, talking breathlessly, and effortlessly plunging into a whirlwind of pleasurable experiences.
- If you are looking for prosperity, you want a complete business-in-a-box that tells you how to get rich quick, and you’re impatient about studying the many facets of business and the rules of sound money management.
- If you are not well, you want medication or surgery that will provide an instant cure so that you can get back to your normal life, and you’re impatient about carefully selecting the foods you eat, reducing your stress levels, and considering a holistic exercise routine.
- If you are worried about signs of aging, you may consider a botox injection to get firm skin and instant youth, and you’re too impatient to bother learning the facts about botox–thus, failing to discover that it is a botulinum toxin, a complex protein produced by a bacteria whose effect is as toxic as food poisoning.
- If you believe in the value of instant gratification, you believe that faster is better, and you want fast food, fast technology, fast education, and fast service. It can’t be much good, you reason, if it’s slow. You equate slow with inefficiency.
Overstimulated By Technology
Partially to blame for the cult of instant gratification is technology, in particular the technology of mass communication and rapid transportation.
Technology was supposed to make life easier. With more labor saving devices, we were supposed to have more time, not less. What technology has done is make us addicted to stimulation. People feel an urgent need to be dialing someone on their cell phone instead of merely driving or walking down the street. Faxes and email make ordinary mail into snail mail. Everything is faster, not only digital connectivity, but how fast we communicate and how fast we travel. We constantly hope to do more in less time.
Hollywood, The Entertainment Industry And Role Modeling
Although amplified by technology, the impulse of instant gratification has always been a part of human nature. In the past it used to be considered a character weakness, but today it is considered a sign of personal efficiency.
Nowadays, people who subscribe to instant gratification are often, fast-talkers, fast-thinkers, and fast-movers. They idealize a fast life. They believe that they are modern people, hip to technology, savvy, cosmopolitan. Even lighting up a cigarette is considered too time-consuming. Why use a match when you can use a lighter?
The modern self-image owes a lot to the stereotypes of Hollywood and the entertainment industry, which has created a subliminal pattern of mass role modeling. In Hollywood, for example, heroes and heroines glorify the hyped-up personality and extol the virtues of a volatile lifestyle.
The average viewer is primed for five times the action than previous generations of movie-goers. Why, settle for a few fist fights as in the old Westerns when your new screen hero can blow up a fleet of police cars, cause multiple car pileups and ruin numerous lives in the same time frame? Blockbusters are not built on people simply talking and behaving normally. Celluloid adventures without massive disasters are no adventures at all.
A Change In Perspective
In the earlier part of this century, according to Sigmund Freud‘s Theory of Personality, the urge of instant gratification was considered a symptom of poor impulse control, an expression of weak ego boundaries.
Since the superego represented the principle of morality, the ego the principle of reality, and the id the principle of pleasure, an inability to delay gratification was the result of a reckless id that could not be controlled by the ego or the superego.
Today, these ideas are considered quaint. Life is not about staying balanced but about getting the most satisfaction in the shortest amount of time.
The Brain And Instant Gratification
Besides the pervasive influence of digital technology and the entertainment industry, Neurobiologists, scientists interested in learning how the brain and nervous system work, have discovered some interesting things about how low impulse control often starts in childhood.
One of these findings is the effects of drugs and alcohol on children.
Due to the stress of modern life, women tend to drink more alcohol than during previous generations. In the United States, 15 percent of women admitted in a survey that they drank alcohol, and of that number, 30 percent admitted that they drank during pregnancy. Drinking during pregnancy causes harm to the embryo.
The alcohol crosses the barrier of the placenta and damages the growing brain of the embryo. Many children are born with mental health problems due to alcohol ingestion in the womb, a condition called fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS). Children with FAS are often impatient and find delayed gratification almost impossible. However, alcohol is only one cause of stunted mental development in babies.
Drugs, ingested by pregnant mothers, both prescriptive and recreational, have also created havoc on the brain and nervous system of children. The cumulative effect, culturally, of drug and alcohol abuse by pregnant mothers has been a new generation of children less equipped to handle the stresses of modern life and more inclined to seek instant gratification whenever they can.
Another discovery by neurobiologists is that children who are able to demonstrate delayed gratification are more intelligent than those who demand instant gratification.
One study, conducted during the 1960s, has been a landmark in showing the correlation between delayed gratification and intelligence. It has been called the marshmallow experiment.
Walter Mischel, a researcher at Stanford University, worked with a test group of four year old children. He offered each one a marshmallow, but promised another one if the child could wait for twenty minutes before eating it. Some waited, others did not. The researchers kept track of the children into adolescence and found that those who had the capacity for delayed gratification scored about 210 points higher in the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT).
Exploitation Of Instant Gratification By Industry
In any modern city, industrial interests, wishing to promote more wealth through consumerism fully exploit low impulse control.
In any city, billboards, slogans, banners, and shop signs assault the innocent pedestrian. The invisible fingers of the market manipulators are forever seeking to stimulate trivial desires and separate consumers from their hard-earned money, even enticing them to spend much more than they have through a credit system.
If people have a tendency to consume too many soft drinks, eat too many fast meals, take too many medications, and buy too many things that they simply don’t not need for their well-being, it’s because their sense of instant gratification is perpetually exploited. Neon signs, repetitive trigger words, colorful logos, and jingles influence consumers. This assault comes from gigantic billboards and electronic signs as well as from radios, commercials, computers, and print ads.
This exploitation of a need for instant gratification, does more harm than merely empty bank accounts. All kinds of aberrant behavior arises from distraught people, including domestic abuse, suicide, and criminal activity to compensate for cash shortages.
Instant Gratification And Emotional Intelligence
Daniel Goleman, the creator of the concept of emotional intelligence, believes that a person can handle difficult life situations well if they have emotional maturity – because they can clearly think about things, make the best decisions, and take the right action.
Positive emotions create positive thoughts and behaviors, and this is high emotional intelligence. Negative emotions, likewise, create negative thoughts and behaviors, and this is low emotional intelligence.
Emotions, triggered by the consequences of dealing with what happens after satisfying a moment of instant gratification, usually escalate problems. The fleeting happiness of consumption is followed by numerous negative emotions, spiraling from anger to despair
After dissipating income, people feel frustrated, and frustration leads to feelings of anger, and anger leads to acts of destruction, either through self-sabotage or lashing out at other people.
It is difficult to make sound decisions about self-worth, discipline, and proactive action in the grip of negative emotions. Those who feel negative emotions precipitate negative experiences for themselves and other people.
The higher a person‘s need for instant gratification, the lower their emotional intelligence.
How The Money System Has Changed And How To Think Long Term
The global recession is a symptom of how the money system has changed. The traditional money system is causing the human race to run out of resources, from fuel to food.
People need meaningful occupations. They also need to live within their means, avoiding irresponsible consumer spending. By reducing both national and personal debt, and by working on building goods and services of tangible value, it is possible to change for the better.
Although the modern world has been created by the ingenuity of generations of hard working people, few modern people have the patience to study, practice, and perfect skills. Young people want to have in a decade the level of wealth it took their parents a lifetime to acquire. This has resulted in people taking all sorts of economic shortcuts, including fraudulent practices in corporate boardrooms that affect stock exchanges.
Understanding the value of change, how do human beings turn their back on a culture of instant gratification that is causing havoc with the money system across the world?
How Thinking Long Term Can Lead To More Success For All
The most startling solution to date has come from the city of São Paulo. According to Business Week, in June, 2007, Brazilian populist mayor, Gilberto Kassab, did something unprecedented in the history of the modern world: he banned all advertising in São Paulo–making it the first city in the world to say no to advertising.
Although this sounds like a myth perpetuated by the radical magazine, Adbusters, a glossy American magazine that details how advertising perpetually feeds the neurosis of instant gratification, in São Paulo, Brazil, this dream has become the new reality.
The clean city laws brought down eight thousand billboards. A Brazilian can walk through the city streets without encountering manipulative messages from posters, flyers, billboards, and advertising on buses and trains.
Populist writer Roberto Pompeu de Toledo hailed it as “a rare victory of the public interest over private, of order over disorder, aesthetics over ugliness, of cleanliness over trash.”
The president of the city council, Roberto Tripoli, said, “What we are aiming for is a complete change of culture. Yes, some people are going to have to pay a price but things were out of hand and the population has made it clear that it wants this.”
Is Instant Gratification Short-circuiting Civilization Itself?
While it may seem rather dramatic to blame the ills of the world on something as simple as instant gratification, reviewing the story of how mass communication and transport technology, the sublime influence of Hollywood and the entertainment industry, the neurological problems caused by drug and alcohol on babies, and the brainwashing nature of modern advertising, the impulse of instant gratification does seem to heavily contribute to the foundations of reckless living on this planet.
With the virulence of commercialism reduced, people have a chance of establishing meaningful personal and cultural goals, spending more time getting to know each other better, and regaining an emotional maturity that will lead to long term benefits, like ideas on how to allocate resources so that everyone in the world can meet their basic needs for shelter, food, and drinkable water.
Long term success for all is only possible when intelligent thinking, feeling, and behavior is reintroduced to the world. Instant gratification is a trap that avoids building real wealth."
"Spy chiefs turn on President Obama after seven CIA agents are slaughtered in Afghanistan
By David Gardner
Last updated at 8:40 AM on 02nd January 2010
"Barack Obama was accused of double standards yesterday in his treatment of the CIA.
The President paid tribute to secret agents after seven of them were killed by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan.
In a statement, he said the CIA had been ‘tested as never before’ and that agents had ‘served on the front lines in directly confronting the dangers of the 21st century’.
He lauded the victims as ‘part of a long line of patriots who have made great sacrifices for their fellow citizens and for our way of life’.
Yet the previous day he had blasted ‘systemic failures’ in the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies for failing to prevent the Christmas Day syringe bomb attack.
Backlash: Agency officials are angry at the president's about face
‘One day the President is pointing the finger and blaming the intelligence services, saying there is a systemic failure,’ said one agency official. ‘Now we are heroes. The fact is that we are doing everything humanly possible to stay on top of the security situation. The deaths of our operatives shows just how involved we are on the ground.’
But CIA bosses claim they were unfairly blamed at a time the covert government agency has been stretched further than ever before in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
They point to the murder of seven operatives at a remote mountain base in Afghanistan’s Khost Province as an example of how agents are putting their lives on the line at the vanguard of America’s far-flung wars.
The agents – including the chief of the base, a mother-of-three - were collecting information about militants when the suicide bomber struck on Wednesday.
The attack was the deadliest single day for the agency since eight CIA officers were killed in the 1983 bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut.
The base targetted by Wednesday’s suicide bomber was a control centre for a covert programme overseeing strikes by remote-controlled aircraft along Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan.
‘Those who fell were far from home and close to the enemy, doing the hard work that must be done to protect our country from terrorism. We owe them our deepest gratitude,’ CIA Director Leon Panetta said.
Some CIA officials are angry at being criticised by the White House after Abdulmutallab, 23, was allowed to slip through the security net and board a US-bound flight in Amsterdam despite evidence he was a terror threat.
The president complained that a warning from the former London engineering student’s father and information about an al Qaeda bomb plot involving a Nigerian were not handled properly by the intelligence networks.
But CIA officials say the data was sent to the US National Counterterrorism Centre in Washington, which was set up after the 9/11 attacks as a clearing house where raw data should be analysed.
Agents claim that is where the dots should have been connected to help identify Abdulmutallab as a threat."
September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 January 2013 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 March 2011 January 2011 December 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 March 2005 November 2004 October 2004