Losers

When I first decided to write this entry, the title "Losers" was meant to pertain to Maine's extremely poor choice of representatives, Pingree and Michaud, because those jackasses voted for the Cap & Trade Energy Tax that is going to cost every family in America between $2000-$3000 each and every year, for starters. It will also force the emmigration of millions of jobs to India and China, as many large businesses are already planning to leave the U.S. rather than be bankrupted by this tax.

But almost immediately after writing the title, it occured to me that, because of those clowns, we are all going to be losers.

And I have to wonder if the people who voted for those mindless lemmings, Pingree and Michaud, actually ENJOY getting screwed all the time, or if they are simply apathetic to it, having been screwed by so many for so long.

Maybe apathetic is the wrong word - pathetic might be better suited.

As Thomas Jefferson so aptly put it, "everyone gets the government they deserve." Well, though we have a great country, we certainly have a government that sucks, big time. And while it might be easy to blame our representatives and senators, the ones at fault are the people who keep ELECTING them into office, over and over. Is that you? Anyone who voted for them, and anyone who never even showed up at the polls, are the people responsible.

If you are sadistic and like punishment, fine - that's your personal pleasure. But do not force your sadism on the rest of us by re-electing those bumpkins. They did not even have a clue what this cap & trade bill was really all about. They had no clue it would force jobs out of America. They had no clue that every single item you buy will now cost more, if the Senate also passes this socialist atrocity. Because, if a person uses more than one brain cell at a time, they would quickly realize that every single thing we use depends on energy to produce, and energy to ship. So, a tax on using energy will not simply affect your light and heat bill - it will affect the cost of bread, milk, clothes, medicine - every blessed thing, including the hairdresser - after all, if her costs are going to go up, she is going to pass it along to you. Get it? Your representatives didn't, and I seriously doubt if those mental midgets we call our senators, Snowe and Collins, will get it.

And guess what? If this bill passes, you probably will not be allowed to sell your home without first spending thousands bringing it up to the new "green code". That's right, folks. If your home is not as energy efficient as the government likes, you cannot sell it until you bring it in line. And forget about you or your kids ever building a new home, or buying a home - this bill states that no home can be built anywhere in America unless it meets the "green" standards of California liberals - you know, the same standards that forced Californians to pay twice as much to build a home, resulting in extremely high home prices. So, if it costs $300,000 to build the $150,000 home, your kids will either have to go in hock for $300K, or spend their lives in apartments. Nice, huh? So much for "change" and "hope".

And if you like it warm in the winter or cool in the summer? Forget it. You can be fined or taxed if you use more energy than the government thinks you should. The bill includes the cost of building and implementing a new "smart grid" which will effectively "ration" energy to each and every home.

And for car buffs who like to cruise their classics and go to shows - IF the government permits it, you can expect it to cost you a lot more.

And if you think heating with wood, cut from your own property will allow you to escape, forget it - the bill includes taxing the use of wood for fuel, regardless of the source.

Well, folks, you have a choice - you can just chalk it up, and allow government total control over your lives through this cap & trade energy bill, or you can do what you did NOT do with your representatives and actually get off the couch and call your senators, and tell them if they vote YES, you will vote NO come next election, and they will be on the same unemployment line as the rest of us.

After all, one passed, the damage cannot be undone, even if you elect all Republicans or Independents. Once a corporation expends tens of millions to move overseas, you cannot expect them to toss that away and move back. And once the "smart grid" is online, it will be the ONLY grid available. So, folks, you have ONE CHANCE to save yourselves and your families - contact your senators, and be very explicit about how you vote next time will be tied to the way they vote on this bill.

This one bill, if passed, will make the people the servants of the government - just the opposite of what the founding fathers designed, and the opposite of what made America great up until now.

Some actual highlights of the Cap & Trade Energy Bill:

• Tax on the use of energy, which will increase the cost of everything manufactured or transported - which is everything
• Businesses moving out of the U.S. to avoid the tax, so jobs will disappear
• "Smart grid", which will monitor your energy use and fine you for using more than the government thinks you should
• All new construction must meet expensive "green" standards, which has helped bankrupt California. This will push up the cost of all housing.
• Homesellers cannot sell without first bringing their home up to the "green code", at a cost of many thousands of dollars. Before selling, government inspectors will first have to inspect your home for efficiency.
• Although ethanol has proven to be worse for the environment than fossil fuel, the bill mandates the use of more, not less. This will increase the cost of food as agricultural land will be used to grow fuel instead of food.

All this to "fight global warming", even though the EPA reports none of it will reduce carbon emissions.

CALL!
(202) 225-4611
(202) 225-7761
(202) 225-3765
(202) 225-4165

Tell them NO to the Cap & Trade Energy Bill.

As a side note: Today the EPA released a 98 page report stating that worlwide temperatures are declining (getting COLDER, folks), and have been for several years (since 2001, as I reported months ago). The report also states these findings have been withheld by the government. Hm-m-m. Global warming, which is the "disaster" that this energy bill is supposed to address, is bogus. So, it seems the government has a different agenda than climate control. How about CITIZEN CONTROL?

/

A Slice of Fact

There has been a lot of bantering back and forth about "global warming", but it appears that most folks are completely unaware of a very important fact - perhaps the MOST important fact. And I believe they are unaware by design - the powers that stand to make billions of dollars fighting "global warming" certainly do not want the folks to know the whole truth.

With every Ice Age throughout history, the subsequent re-warming of the Earth would take many, many years - in the case of the last Great Ice Age 40,000 years ago, it took millennia for the Earth to normalize its temperature.

Now, here is a slice of fact that the GW crowd is not telling - the Earth suffered a "mini" Ice Age from about 1150 AD-1850 AD. (For complete info on this, and its impact on every segment of society, see http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html). This has been thoroughly documented. It is indisputable fact. During the Little Ice Age of 1150-1850, the records show that glaciers were on the move...

1595: Gietroz (Switzerland) glacier advances, dammed Dranse River, and caused flooding of Bagne with 70 deaths.

1600-10: Advances by Chamonix (France) glaciers cause massive floods which destroyed three villages and severely damaged a fourth. One village had stood since the 1200's.

1670-80's: Maximum historical advances by glaciers in eastern Alps. Noticeable decline of human population by this time in areas close to glaciers, whereas population elsewhere in Europe had risen.

1695-1709: Iceland glaciers advance dramatically, destroying farms.

1710-1735: A glacier in Norway was advancing at a rate of 100 m per year for 25 years.

1748-50: Norwegian glaciers achieved their historical maximum LIA positions.

The Little Ice Age ended roughly around 1850. Since then, the Earth has been attempting to normalize its temperatures. Normally, if cooling events were to never occur, the Earth's average mean temperature would be warmer than it is today.

Now here is another indisputable fact - it would take 100-300 years for the Earth's temperature to normalize from that period of cooling. The range is wide because other events can speed or slow the normalization, such as volcano emissions and solar flare activity.

Therefore, it is perfectly natural, and expected, that the temperatures throughout the 1900's would, on average, be getting warmer, as the Earth is simply getting back to "normal".

Another little known fact the GW crowd keeps hidden - throughout the 4.5 billion year life of this planet, more than 80% of that time the Earth has been warmer than it is now, and there were no ice caps at all (a bit of trivia - the famed Piri Reis map, originally drawn supposedly during the period of Alexander the Great or earlier, accurately shows the land mass that is beneath the ice in Antarctica, and shows no ice at all). The Earth is NATURALLY and NORMALLY warmer than what it is today. We are simply recovering from the last mini Ice Age. And it is entirely possible that circumstances beyond our control will cause yet another mini Ice Age at some point.

Is the climate changing? Of course it is!. And every SANE scientist will tell you it is always and constantly changing. That is why it is impossible for experts to tell us what the weather will be in 10 days, let alone in 100 years.

The National Weather Bureau states the Earth suffered a "cold spell" from 1950-1980, which is what generated all those Time Magazine articles by "experts" that cried we were heading into an Ice Age. But we did not, now did we?

So, folks, here is the truth of the matter. The earth is getting warmer, on average, because it is trying to normalize itself. And there is nothing we can - or should - do about it. Trying to hold back nature by artificial means is not unlike the Fed trying to artifically keep the economy growing, which caused a disaster when the bubble burst. Eventually, nature will win out. We can either accept the flowing river, or try to dam it up, then suffer a greater catastrophe when the dam eventually breaks (recall the New Orleans levies).

This is not to say that the Earth will continue to warm on a steady basis. Nature does not work that way. In the process of warming, there will be events that interrupt the warming, and mini ice ages may occur, or cooling spells may become evident, as happened from 1950-1980 (and seems to be happening again, as the temps have been generally cooler since 2001).

Wake up, people. Do not fall for "Chicken Little" cries that the sky is falling. Just because some self-proclaimed experts say it is true does not make it true. For a thousand years the "experts" taught everyone that the Earth was flat. The "experts" claimed the sun revolved around the Earth. The "experts" said we would never walk on the moon. And as recently as 1972 the "experts" were saying a new Ice age was upon us.

And now those "experts" are telling us that global warming is caused by man, and will destroy us.

I suggest you take the "experts" with more than a mere grain of salt.

/

Growing A Tree (Socialism In America)

Most informed Americans know who Saul Alinski was - he was a Leninist who wrote books in the 60's teaching the youth how to turn America socialist within their lifetime. Barak Obama admittedly studied under Alinski, and it is beginning to show.

But aside from that, let us look at what has happened, according to what is already known and proven, but to date, not many have made the connections.

Two of Alinski's most avid followers were Paul Booth and his current wife, Heather Booth. Those two individuals founded the "Students for Democratic Society", a group whose mandate was socialism, as defined by Alinski.

Now, two of the most notable members of the SDS were Wade Rafke, who founded ACORN, and Bill Ayers, the radical, socialist homegrown terrorist of the 60's and 70's. He even admitted to his bombings of the Pentagon and NY police Stations.

ACORN is being investigated for voter registration fraud in about 36 states. And although they have received $53 million in taxpayer funds, they refuse to open their books to public scrutiny.

ACORN is primarily responsible for the passing of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, under Jimmy Carter, which forced banks to make risky loans to people who could not afford to repay them. And Barak Obama, community organizer, worked with and respresented ACORN. Coincidentally, Mr. Obama was also closely associated with Bill Ayers. Remember, both Ayers and ACORN are branches of the Saul Alinski Tree of Socialism. Barak Obama studied under Alinski, worked with ACORN, and is personally associated with Ayers.

Yet, his glib tongue has allowed him to convince millions of uninformed Americans that he is not a socialist. And all the while he is socializing Wall Street, AIG, the auto companies, and now the health care system. And he is currently planning to change the Federal Reserve, making it the de facto government of the United States.

Frankly, I am a bit old fashioned. I happen to believe that the nut (ACORN) does not fall far from the (socialism) tree. And I believe that you can, indeed, know a person by the company he keeps.

And when I say Barak Obama is a socialist follower of Alinski and associate of ACORN, Ayers, Reverend Wright and many in the corrupt Chicago Political Machine, I am not guessing. Unlike those who are hypnotized by his glib tongue and charismatic smile, I judge the man by his actions and associations.

I know a socialist when I see one.

/

Bonny Eagle Graduation Snafu

Since I attended the Bonny Eagle graduation, a few folks have asked me to comment on the situation where two seniors were not given their diplomas at the ceremony - instead, they would have to pick them up later. And a lot of folks were outraged. In fact, the mother of one of the students even had half of the story posted on YAHOO, courtesy of WMTW-TV, who only reports half the story as well. Now the country is in an uproar BECAUSE the media is only reporting the part of the story the mother related to them, without even bothering to investigate.

I say half, because they neglect to tell the whole story.

Let me begin by saying that every senior was asked in advance to comport themselves as adults, without engaging in any antics that might disrupt the ceremony. They were also warned that if they were to engage in antics, they would not get their diploma at the ceremony.

Now, that is an important part of the story that the "angry" folks are not telling. It seems to me that graduation is a rite of passage into adulthood, and if the students are asked to act as such, they have an obligation to do so. And if the administrator warns that disruptive students will not receive their diploma, then the administrator must follow through or else she would be seen as a paper tiger, and would never again be able to command the respect of students, which is essential in a school.

Now on to the story. They were specifically asked not to use blow-up balls and the like. Yet, one student completely ignored the request - and the subsequent reaction - and sent beach balls flying. And it disrupted a ceremony that most people believe is a serious and solemn occasion.

When caught, that student was escorted out, and I believe that was appropriate under the circumstances - he knew the consequences, and was now an adult, and should be expected to accept the responsibilities of his actions. Not because he threw beach balls, but because he purposely and with intent disobeyed the administration, and in so doing, disrupted the ceremony for everyone else.

The second student to not receive a diploma is a somewhat different story. He walked halfway across the stage, then stopped. He blew a kiss to his mother. Fine. But then he took out his "academic cord" and flayed it around, as if showing off or bragging, and then bowed from the waist, which seemed arrogant, though it may have been meant otherwise. And it caused disruption in the ceremony. But here is something many are not aware of - according to teachers and students, the "academic cord" he pulled out from under his robe and shook at everyone was not even real - it was homemade, and he was told NOT to wear or display it. So it would seem that his "innocent actions" were not so innocent after all. Flailing that cord at the parents was a statement of "See! I have a cord, too! These idiots behind me are no smarter than I." He demeaned and belittled the academic achievements of those who really were honor students. He made a mockery of it.

Technically, since he, too, did not obey the rules set forth, and he, too, disrupted the ceremony, it would be technically correct for administration to keep his diploma. But I believe the administration could have exercised a little restraint in this instance, and the student may not have had malicious intent in mocking honor students. I think it would have been appropriate for the administrator to admonish him as he picked up his diploma, but his diploma should have been issued.

In closing: many people tend to dismiss such behavior as these students engaged in, without even bothering to note that there is an important principle at stake. By dismissing the behavior, the principles by which civilization exists are also dismissed.

The seniors are supposed to be entering adulthood. As such, they must know that any action will have consequences, and adults are expected to accept responsibility for their actions. In the case of the first senior, he simply made the (bad) choice to intentionally disrupt the ceremony for everyone, regardless of the consequences. He acted like a child, not an adult.

In the case of the second senior, he, too, knew that his actions were, at best, somewhat disruptive, and chose to do it anyway. But he figured his actions were too minor to warrant the consequences. He was wrong.

In this life, when you guess wrong, you get caught.

Now, here is my position: the first student deserved to be escorted out. His was a blatant determination to oppose the administration in charge. Had he done that in the military, he would be in the brig. On the job, he would be fired. It is better that he learn the lesson now, rather than later when it will cost him far more than a piece of paper.

The second student should have received his diploma. I think the administrator was a bit too self-absorbed and went too far. Certainly, she was within her right to do so, but the punishment simply did not match the offense. A simple reprimand would have been sufficient.

The graduation ceremony is a ceremony, not a celebration. The celebration comes afterward. And with 300 students graduating, if each were allowed even 30 SECONDS EACH to showboat, that would add 2.5 hours to the ceremony that is already two hours long! That is unacceptable. And that is why students are required to sign a code of conduct that prohibits such antics until after the ceremony.

These students need to learn an important "life lesson" - it's not all about YOU. We are all in this. And if you insist on making it about you, you are going to piss people off. Each of us needs to be respectful of others. What these students did, while not a major crime, certainly does disrespect everyone else present. And by stealing the limelight, they are taking away from the moment for all the others. And that is selfish.

Time enough to show your mom how you feel AFTER the ceremony, during the after-ceremony celebration.

"To every thing there is a season". The ceremony was neither the time nor the place for antics, grandstanding or selfish showboating.

And that is my take.

/

The Little Red Hen...Revisited

With an alternate ending...

One day as the Little Red Hen was scratching in a field, she found a grain of wheat.
"This wheat should be planted," she said. "Who will plant this grain of wheat?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

Soon the wheat grew to be tall and yellow.
"The wheat is ripe," said the Little Red Hen. "Who will cut the wheat?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

When the wheat was cut, the Little Red Hen said, "Who will thresh the wheat?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

When the wheat was threshed, the Little Red Hen said, "Who will take this wheat to the mill?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

She took the wheat to the mill and had it ground into flour. Then she said, "Who will make this flour into bread?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

She made and baked the bread. Then she said, "Who will eat this bread?"
"Oh! I will," said the Duck.
"And I will," said the Cat.
"And I will," said the Dog.
"No, No!" said the Little Red Hen. "I will do that." And she did

In today's socialist view held by liberals, the story would end like this:

Farmer Brown comes out and takes the bread, and divides it equally among everyone, depriving the hen of what she earned, and giving it to those who chose not to do anything to help her.

The next spring, the little red hen found more seed. She pondered spending months planting, harvesting, threshing, milling and baking so she would have bread, knowing that no one would help her.

Then she remembered that farmer Brown would simply take it from her, and she made her choice ...

She ate the seed. And the Duck, Cat and Dog all went hungry. And in their hunger and desperation, they turned on farmer Brown, and ate HIM.

Jobs, and strong economies, are created by the industrious ones, the ones who work harder, invest their money, and take the risks. If you take away their incentive to do so by taking away their profits, they will no longer choose to do so. If you take away the profits from which they would expand, create more jobs, buy more inventory and produce more products, you destroy the engine that moves the economy.

The poor do not create jobs, nor pay salaries. They do not buy investory, nor pay shippers to move their products. They do not advertise, and in so doing provide jobs for those in the media. Only the rich can do those things. If you milk the rich so they can no longer do those things, everything stops. No matter HOW many entitlements you bestow upon the poor, they will never fuel the economy.

Farmer Brown should take note.

Now, I don't think it would be wrong to give everyone an equal share of a harvest, PROVIDED they put IN an equal share of the effort, investment and risk. But that is not what happens in a redistribution of wealth under liberals - they think everyone should get an equal share regardless; that the HARVEST should be divided equally, but not the EFFORT. That the lazy fool that watches soap operas all day should share in the profits of those who busted their butts all day working. That the person who works at 7-11 because he was too lazy to get an education should share in the rewards of those who spent years and tens of thousands on a college degree. That the spendthrift who invests nothing, and takes no risks should receive the benefits of those who risked everything to be an entrepreneur. And that is wrong!

NO ONE should be able to take more out than they put in, unless they are deemed physically or mentally incapable of taking care of themselves. Imagine trying to take more out of the bank than you put in! You would go to prison.

If Joe Blow wants an equal share, fine. He needs to put in an equal effort and risk.

In a nutshell, conservatives and liberals both believe in "give and take". A conservative believes each individual should give, and thereby is entitled to take. A liberal believes some people should give, while others take.

/