Good positive comment Square Peg to begin the day.
It’s just now about 6:30 AM Sunday morning, just as the leading edge of the Sun streaks up over the eastern horizon. Because we are now about two days past the Full Moon, the Moon is no longer directly opposite the earth from the Sun. In fact the Moon now lags behind about two hours so it won’t pass over the western horizon for another two hours … but still looking fairly full as it “wanes” away from Full.
It’s supposed to approach 100 degrees later today, so Kansans enjoy the cool morning.
Sean Tevis met his fund raising goal of $25,000 in less than 48 hours. It’s the power of stick figures and the appeal of a progressive Democratic candidate.
Good morning cosmos! Look what I found, just for you!
“Consensus” on Man-Made Warming Shattering
By Dennis Avery
The “consensus” on man-made global warming may have received a mortal wound. Physics & Society, The journal of the 46,000-member American Physical Society, just published “Climate Sensitivity Revisited,” by Viscount Christopher Monckton. Monckton is an avowed man-made warming skeptic, and former science advisor to the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. (If you want to see the science, click here )
Viscount Monckton contends that the climate alarmists have mistakenly pre-programmed their computer models with equations that overstate the earth’s sensitivity to CO2 by 500 to 2,000 percent-thus creating a senseless First World panic that itself threatens the future of society. Physics & Society says: “There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S.”
The journal then offers both the Monckton paper and a response by David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, of the California Polytechnic Institute. P&S also issued an open invitation to “further contributions from the physics community.” It had to happen. Too much evidence has mounted against CO2 as a cause of the modern warming.
Sea ice is expanding globally, not retreating (especially in the Antarctic).
The oceans have stopped rising, and actually started to fall; that might be because they “stopped warming 4-5 years ago” according to NASA, based on data from the 3,000 new Argo floats now scattered world-wide.
The number and intensity of hurricanes, cyclones, and tornadoes hasn’t increased.
Rain has returned to Australia, reminding us again it is naturally the driest continent on earth.
The crowning blow: After nine years of non-warming, the planet actually began to cool in 2007 and 2008 for the first time in 30 years. The net warming from 1940 to 1998 had been a miniscule 0.2 degree C; the UK’s Hadley Centre says earth’s temperature has now dropped back down to about the levels of 100 years ago. There has thus been no net global warming within “living memory”!
The current cooling doesn’t mean another Ice Age is looming. There is massive global evidence of a 1,500-year warming cycle, going back 1 million years. It may be driven by the slightly varying distance between the earth and the sun. The sunspot index has had a 79 percent correlation with the earth’s thermometer record since 1860, during this time, the temperature correlation with CO2 is a dismissive 22 percent.
NASA’s Jason satellite tells us the Pacific Ocean has entered a cool phase. Historically, these have lasted 25-30 years. After that, there may be some additional warming. However, the 1,500-year cycles typically shift abruptly; we should already have most of this one’s warming. When we’ll get the inevitable cooling? Probably centuries from now.
The warming debate is far from over, but an actual debate looks likely. Reputations and huge bundles of cash have been bet on man-made warming, including billions in government funding for climate research. The UN’s reputation-and perhaps its future-are on the line. The American Physical Society itself has issued a statement: It stands by its belief that human-emitted CO2 is “changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the earth’s climate” and notes that Physics & Society is not peer-reviewed.
Nonetheless, the debate is finally and openly joined, after 20 years of the Greens proclaiming humanity’s guilt for wrecking the planet as beyond sane discussion. Now, we look forward to a full-scale exploration of the science. We have heard quite enough from the computers.
Scholars have traced the roots of many of the Old Testament stories to the ancient, pagan myths of the ancient Mesopotamian cultures. In the Fertile Crescent, the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in present-day Iraq, gave birth to some of the worlds first civilizations.
In this early flowering of civilization, many religious myths abounded, seeking to explain what was then unexplainable. From this context comes the oldest complete literary work we have, the age of which we are certain, dating back at least 7,000 years. The Epic of Gilgamesh is a lengthy narrative of heroic mythology that incorporates many of the religious myths of Mesopotamia, and it is the earliest complete literary work that has survived.
Many of the stories in that epic were eventually incorporated into the book of Genesis. Borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh are stories of the creation of man in a wondrous garden, the introduction of evil into a naive world, and the story of a great flood brought on by the wickedness of man, that flooded the whole world.
In this Mesopotamian basin civilization, known to us today as the Chaldean Empire, tribal alliances that predated the amalgamation into a single empire, continued to exist and flourish. Many were allied to the palace, many opposed, all retained elements of their pre-conquest cultures.
The patriarchs first appear in our story with the journey of one of them, Abraham, who, the story tells us, led members of his tribe from the city of Ur, west towards the Mediterranean, to the “promised land” of Canaan, sometime between the 19th and 18th centuries B.C.E. Or so the story goes.
The problem is that we don’t really have any good archeaological evidence to support the Abraham story, and there is much archaeological evidence to contradict it. The land where Abraham supposedly settled, the southern highlands of Palestine (from Jerusalem south the the Valley of Beersheba) is very sparse in archaeological evidence from this period. It is clear from the archaeological record that its population was extremely sparse - no more than a few hundred people in the entire region, and the sole occupants of the area during this time were nomadic pastoralists, much like the Bedouin of the region today. We know from clear archaeological evidence that the peoples known as the Phillistines never even entered the region until the 12th century B.C.E., and the “city of Gerar” in which Isaac, the son of Abraham, had his encounter with Abimelech, the “king of the Phillistines” (in Genesis 26:1) was in fact a tiny, insignificant rural village up until the 8th century B.C.E. It couldn’t have been the capital of the regional king of a people who didn’t yet exist!
This isn’t the only problem with the account of the Age of the Patriarchs, either. There’s the problem of the camels. We know from archaeological evidence that camels weren’t domesticated until about the late second millenium B.C.E., and that they weren’t widely used as beasts of burden until about 1000 B.C.E. - long after the Age of the Patriarchs. And then there’s the problem of the cargo carried by the camels - “gum, balm and myrrh,” which were products of Arabia - and trade with Arabia didn’t begin until the era of Assyrian hegemony in the region, beginning in the 8th century B.C.E.
Yet another problem is Jacob’s marriage with Leah and Rachel, and his relationship with his uncle,…………..
Why thanks Apophis, I’m just following up on the advice of another blogger who suggested I learn some history. Look at some of the neat tidbits the google has shown me. From the same site,
So the second great revision of Judaic religion has happened. In the original Pentatuch, written in the 8th century B.C.E., there isn’t a clearly monotheistic statement to be found, but by the time of the writings of the Deuteronomist, a century or so later, the Deuteronomist has Joshua threatening the Israelites and making sure they became monotheistic under threat of being destroyed. The Deuteronomist pulls off this neat harmonization of two competing gods by having the Israelites reminded that their fathers had promised Yahweh that he would be their god, and so they made him their elohim, their high God. So now, Elohim, who originally was the king of the gods of Fertile Crescent, is now Yahweh, the god of Israel. If you have two conflicting gods, its a neat trick to just get rid of the conflict by declaring they’re the same being.4
A god has to have a home, and the home of the god Yahweh was in heaven. But his priests on earth had to have a place for the ritual sacrifices that were handed down as part of the ritual of the “El” pantheon, as well as the original pagan Canaanite god, Yahweh, which of course had been descended into the Hebraic monotheism. This place was the temple, of course, whose construction was attributed to Solomon, a mythical king. The reality is that it was built at least a century later than the period attributed to the rule of Solomon. The whole story of Solomon, his father David and the events surrounding that dynasty were created during this era to explain the fading splendor of Jerusalem and provide a centering myth around which to rally the culture towards a monotheistic religion, under assault from the Assyrian culture that politically was hegemonous in the region.
In the year 742 B.C.E., while the Deuteronomist writers were still busy getting rid of Elohim, a member of the Judean royal family had a vision. In it, he saw Yahweh sitting on his throne, directly above the temple in Jerusalem. In the vision, Isaiah is commanded to bring a new message to Israel. Isaiah is filled with foreboding and with good reason; King Tigleth Pilesar, who had recently ascended to the throne of Assyria had designs on Israel, and now the god of Israel had to take up the duties of defending the people of his covenant.
Isaiah was commissioned by his god to carry the message to Israel that he is the only god there is; this comes as a great problem to the Israelites who see Isaiah’s concept of God as being the very god who had aided the Assyrians in their victories against them. Isaiah is largely rejected with his message, and Yahweh becomes a pensive, introspective god, who invites his followers to enter into a dialogue with him. Isaiah’s second innovation was the notion that the commandments of the god should be integrated into the very lives of those who follow him, and not just be restricted to temple observance and ritual. Only by doing so would Yahweh be appeased and Israel saved. This also did not have much resonance in the lives of the average Hebrew.
In punishment for disregarding the prophet’s message, Yahweh conveniently permits King Sargon II of Assyria to occupy the northern portion of Palestine and deport the population. Suddenly, the warnings of Isaiah are taken a bit more seriously as the ten “lost” tribes of Israel are marched off into forced assimilation in Assyria and Palestine becomes the land of the Jews. The reality of course, is that Sargon was punishing Israel for its insurrection and refusal to pay tribute. Israel, with a wetter, more productive climate and much easier geography was much easier pickings than the dry, rocky, thinly populated and more distant Judah. So it was only natural that Sargon would choose to occupy Israel rather than Judah. Yet even as Sargon occupied Israel his own empire was beginning to crumble. Assyrian power was fading, but Babylonian power was increasing.
Mornin’ Hank,
“Here’s good news: George W. Bush says that he is committed to fighting global warming. Yeah, well, he nipped that in the bud, didn’t he? … President Bush says he’s really going to buckle down now and fight global warming. As a matter of fact, he announced today he’s sending 20,000 troops to the sun” –David Letterman
“According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet.” –Jay Leno
“The report on climate change said that humans are very likely making the planet warmer. To which Hillary Clinton said, ‘Hey, can’t blame me for that one.’” –Jay Leno
“President Bush has a plan. He says that if we need to, we can lower the temperature dramatically just by switching from Fahrenheit to Celsius” –Jimmy Kimmel, on fighting global warming
“Scientists say because of global warming they expect the world’s oceans to rise four and a half feet. The scientists say this can mean only one thing: Gary Coleman is going to drown.” –Conan O’Brien
“Some good news. Finally, President Bush is going to do something about global warming. He became alarmed when another chunk of ice fell off his mother.” –David Letterman
“Has anybody seen the Al Gore movie about global warming and the environment? Well, the Bush administration has seen it and they are very annoyed about the whole thing. As a matter of fact, earlier today, Dick Cheney shot a projectionist. … One very dramatic scene in the Al Gore global warming movie is when a glacier melts and they find more Al Gore ballots from the election.” –David Letterman
“President Bush told reporters he won’t see Al Gore’s documentary about the threat of global warming. He will not see it. On the other hand, Dick Cheney said he’s seen the global warming film five times, and it still cracks him up.” –Conan O’Brien
“According to a survey in this week’s Time magazine, 85% of Americans think global warming is happening. The other 15% work for the White House.” –Jay Leno
“Al Gore has a hit movie called ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ I have an inconvenient truth for him: you’re still not the president. … This past weekend, Al Gore’s movie, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ earned more per screen than any film in the country. … I dare say Gore’s movie is the highest grossing PowerPoint presentation in history. … Global warming: Can we live with it? … It is time we did something, namely resign ourselves to doing nothing [on screen: Follow Congress' Lead]. … For instance, when sea levels rise, we’ll just build levees [on screen: Worked for New Orleans]” –Stephen Colbert
“Experts say this global warming is serious, and they are predicting now that by the year 2050, we will be out of party ice.” –David Letterman
“Former Vice President Al Gore starring in a new documentary about global warming. I believe it’s called [Leno snores]. … The film actually features Al Gore and explores his journey on how he first got interested in temperature change. It started back when he was vice president. He noticed how the temperature would change, like whenever Bill would walk into the room, it would get warm and whenever Hillary walked into the room, it got cold.” –Jay Leno
“President Bush said global warming is happening much quicker than he thought, and then his staff pulled him aside and said ‘It’s just springtime.’” –Jay Leno
“Arnold Schwarzenegger is blaming man for global warming. And today, Al Gore agreed with him. That’s so typical. Two cyborgs, ‘Oh, let’s blame the humans.’” –Jay Leno
“Al Gore is coming out with a movie about global warming called ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ It’s described as a detailed scientific view of global warming. President Bush said he just saw a film about global warming, ‘Ice Age 2; The Meltdown.’ He said, ‘It’s so much better than that boring Al Gore movie.’” –Jay Leno
“Don’t kid yourself. Global warming is no joke. Here’s how serious global warming has gotten to be in the United States. In this country global warming is so bad, we are now actually starting to warm up to Barry Bonds.” –David Letterman
“According to Time magazine, global warming is 33% worse than we thought. You know what that means? Al Gore is one-third more annoying than we thought.” –Jay Leno
“They say if the warming trend continues, by 2015 Hillary Clinton might actually thaw out.” –Jay Leno, on global warming
“Al Gore announced he is finishing up a new book about global warming and the environment. Yeah, the first chapter talks about how you shouldn’t chop down trees to make a book that no one will read.” –Conan O’Brien
“We estimate that there are perhaps 20,000 prehistoric hunter-gatherers frozen up in those glaciers. Now, if they simply thaw and wander around, it’s not a problem, but if they find a leader — a Captain Caveman, if you will — we’ll be facing an even more serious problem.” –Daily Show correspondent John Hodgman, on the dangers of global warming
“At a press conference yesterday NASA announced that 2005 was the hottest year on record. It is so hot, and global warming is so bad, if the presidential election were held today, Al Gore would still lose.” –Jay Leno
“Heating bills this winter are the highest they’ve been in five years, but President Bush has a plan to combat rising bills. It’s called global warming.” –Jay Leno
Previous
Tip No. 1: Replace incandescent bulbs with much brighter incandescent bulbs.
A 250-watt bulb burns brighter than a 100-watt bulb: a lot brighter. Don’t listen to the “dim bulbs” who insist that lower-wattage light bulbs are somehow more energy efficient. There’s nothing efficient about staggering across a dark room bumping into furniture. Also, remember that 30 percent of the energy consumed by a light bulb is expended when the bulb is switched on. Keeping your lights on all the time is a simple but effective way to conserve energy.
Tip No. 2: Turn the air conditioning down to “medium” when you’re not in the room.
By simply turning the air conditioning down to the medium setting (about 62 degrees) before you leave a room, you’ll reap significant savings, while you and your family stay comfortable. You can further keep costs down by closing off sections of your house to trap cool air in occupied areas. At my ranch in Wyoming, for example, I like to blast the AC in the living room, family room, parlor, rec room and den, while keeping the AC set to “medium” in the library, conservatory, antiques room and aviary.
Tip No. 3: Wrap your hot water tank with “jacket” insulation.
More than 20 percent of the heat from your hot water tank escapes into the surrounding air. Wrap your water tank with a suitable “jacket” insulator. An old mink coat or chinchilla wrap is ideal.
Tip No. 4: Keep your SUV well-maintained.
SUVs are already incredibly energy efficient, meeting or exceeding federal mileage standards for large trucks and buses. But a little TLC for your SUV can make your mobile home-away-from-home even more energy-friendly. Keep power windows and locks well oiled, slow down to 75 mph on freeways, switch into two-wheel drive whenever practical and consider replacing the in-dash stereo system with a more efficient multiple-CD changer.
Tip No. 5: Replace old appliances with really big new ones.
Small appliances mean big energy bills. Think about it: By using an extra-large capacity washer and dryer, you’ll only have to do laundry half as often, a 50 percent savings. Replace your current washer, dryer, refrigerator and dishwasher with the largest models you can fit through the door. Don’t forget to upgrade minor appliances such as electric knife sharpeners, automatic can openers, juice squeezers, ice cream makers, bagel slicers, golf ball washers, etc.
Tip No. 6: Upgrade your hot tub.
Natural gas hot-tub heaters use less energy than electric heaters, cost less to operate and heat water faster, so you won’t have to wait as long for the water to warm up. A low-cost motion detector (available at most hardware stores) connected to an appropriately licensed firearm (available most everywhere) will help keep out unwanted guests, further reducing your tub’s energy consumption.
Tip No. 7: Be an energy-smart landscaper.
Cut down any trees on your property that block the sun, an important source of light and heat. Apply generous amounts of fertilizer and pesticide to your lawn weekly, or instruct the Mexican gardener to do so. Be sure to have your lawn watered at least twice a day. Remember, a green lawn is a “Green” lawn.
Tip No. 8: Don’t fall for solar or wind power promises.
So-called renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power are, in fact, unreliable and even dangerous. During a typical 24-hour period, the sun is “off” 50 percent of the time, while oil, gas and coal still burn brightly. Wind power is practical only when it’s windy, and a windmill’s revolving blades pose a danger to unsuspecting children and pets. By contrast, there’s an almost limitless supply of safe, clean-burning fossil fuels, provided we adopt sensible energy exploration policies.
Tip No. 9: Take control of your power needs.
America needs to build 1,300 new power plants over the next 20 years, or one additional plant every week. But don’t expect the politicians in Washington to get off their keisters and make it happen. Instead, consider drilling for oil or gas in your own backyard. Many oil companies (including my old shop, Halliburton Co.) offer a Home Drilling Starter Kit, which provides everything you’ll need to explore for energy right in your own backyard. Don’t let the scaremongers convince you that a natural gas well in your yard is unsafe for children — statistically, it’s far less dangerous than a swing set or a jungle gym.
Tip No. 10: Make your voice heard.
Even the best conservation plan won’t matter if our country doesn’t adopt a coherent long-range energy strategy, one that includes oil and gas exploration in national parks and wildlife refuges, relaxed fuel efficiency standards and “fast-tracking” new oil, coal and nuclear power plants. We can all make a difference. The single greatest contribution you can make to America’s energy independence is at the ballot box. Vote Republican.
FOR THE
ARCH OF TRIUMPH OF THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY
AND
INTERNATIONAL SHRINE OF THE
Holy Innocents
I. INTRODUCTION
This Prospectus describes the Arch of Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and International Shrine of the Holy Innocents, to be constructed on the eastern shore of Lake Erie, on the headwaters of the Niagara River and adjacent to downtown Buffalo, New York. The proposed Site, more particularly described below, is a slender, green peninsula in Buffalo’s Outer Harbor, between the mouth of the Buffalo River and Lake Erie; another large tract of vacant lakefront property, immediately to the west along the Lake Erie shore, is also under consideration. Just northeast of the proposed Site, is a Coast Guard station that includes an historic lighthouse and a beautiful, little-used public park.
This great and exciting Project is undertaken in a spirit of profound devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and with the deepest sorrow, and a fervent desire to make reparation, for the grave sin of worldwide abortion. It will serve as an international signal call to conversion and a return to God, and to an ever-greater love of purity and detestation of abortion and immorality. Mary’s golden Arch of Triumph, to be the world’s tallest monument, will draw global attention also to the Holy Innocents Shrine, whose internationalism will be heightened by both its ready visibility from the Canadian shore, and its focus on Our Lady of Guadalupe, Patroness of the Pro-life Movement, revered and loved throughout Latin America.
This great Project is undertaken further with an implicit belief in the pastoral importance of sacred shrines, their great value for spiritual edification, and their well-chronicled ability to prompt conversions, as articulated in an article by Bro. John M. Samaha, S.M., in the May/August 2000 issue of The Shrine of the Holy House of Loreto. Approximately 40% of visitors to Catholic shrines are non-Catholic, and many such visitors have deep spiritual experiences.
As Brother Samaha notes, a Vatican instruction letter for Marian Shrines in the 1987-88 Marian Year encouraged such shrines to “reveal the presence of Mary in word and symbol,” and “to cultivate . . . a sense of God’s beauty revealed in Mary.” These and other instructions of such letter will be fulfilled to an excellent degree by Mary’s majestic Arch of Triumph, which will possess truly dazzling beauty and grace. Directly under it the Holy Innocents Shrine, strongly Marian itself, will powerfully inspire renewed respect for the sacredness of unborn human lives, indeed of all life, through the clear message and striking beauty of its murals, sculpture and architecture.
As National Advisory Board member Fr. Frank A. Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life (http://www.priestsforlife.org/), has stated:
One of the key characteristics of the Gospel of Life is that it must be proclaimed publicly. The protection of life will not be achieved if the activities of the Church and the pro-life movement are directed only toward those who voluntarily seek out the message. We need to stir the attention of the public to these issues whether they want to hear about them or not.
A sign as public and visible as the proposed Arch and Shrine will certainly serve this purpose, as well as many other noble purposes.
Timeline of the Seven Thousand Years of Measured Time
This timeline was produced because of the Prophetic Call. Your only protection against false prophets is the Holy Word of God. Because the Devil will misuse the Holy Word of God in order to deceive, The counsel of the Holy Spirit is essential for understanding the Holy Word of God.
This is a hypertext document, with every word, phrase, or sentence linked to a Scripture or a document for proof or substantiation.
Wow. I love the way their “worldview” just frees them from reality with respect to time. They also take all the ordinality out, which must make history a little confusing. I guess they only have to keep track of 7,000 years, though, so what’s the harm.
There ain’t a lot of emphasis on math in that church, but I bet the socials are fun. I bet sinnin’ is a TON of fun, too, what with the hellfires of eternal damnation and all lickin’ at things from below. :D
“your church, theocracy or democracy?” What was that, like an advertisement in their own timeline?!?
Oooops! Bet the Iraqis are even more convinced Americans should leave their country!
———-
U.S. troops kill son of Iraqi governor
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. forces shot dead the 17-year-old son and another relative of the governor of northern Iraq’s Salahuddin province in a raid on Sunday, local officials said.
The U.S. military said it shot two armed, adding it was later found they were both related to the governor.
Governor Hamad al-Qaisi’s brother, Lieutenant-Colonel Saad al-Qaisi, said American troops stormed a family house in the town of Beiji, where the governor’s son Hussam and his cousin were staying.
“They shot dead Hussam and wounded three others. This is barbaric and inhuman,” he said.
The quickest way to win an argument with an evolutionist is to get them to admit they come from the animal kingdom according to their beliefs — and that’s what it is, a belief –. And they will admit that, they have no shame about saying: “Yeah, I believe I come from the animal kingdom.”
Well, when you get them to admit that you can then say: “Okay, as a creationist I can no longer take you seriously. And even as an evolutionist I wouldn’t be able to take you seriously cause well, I don’t take animals seriously when they have anything to say. And, well, since you believe you’re from the animal kingdom, I have no reason to take you seriously. You can try and rationalize that all you want, and say “Well, I’m an modified monkey” or “I’m an evolved animal, with intelligence”, well, that’s your own oppinion, which is the oppinion of a modified animal. So, I can’t take you seriously.”
Conversation’s over.
Annie-Moose I am sure that being a curious member of the liberal tribe you would want to look at both sides to every issue. You have tried to discount the entire Christian faith by one days research so I will challenge you to take a little longer before accepting your conclusion that was more than a little time challenged.
Josh McDowell wrote a book with information he uncovered while writing his Masters thesis from the prospective of an athesist. During his indepth research he discovered something he hadn’t expected to find. ‘Evidence That Demands a Verdict’ was the book that came out of that research.
Bluejay once told me he would read the book if I watched Algores ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. I did he didn’t. This seems to be a liberal trait.
I would lay this challenge before you and then will look forward to a detail report about the lack of evidence you are espousing above. BTW there is physical evidence that does tie in to the stories in the bible in several instances.
Just keep up the great work. I am looking forward to a truthful ‘next chapter’.
Annie-Moose I am sure that being a curious member of the liberal tribe you would want to look at both sides to every issue. You have tried to discount the entire Christian faith by one days research so I will challenge you to take a little longer before accepting your conclusion that was more than a little time challenged.
Now that’s not entirely true. I have been at this for quite awhile. I became an atheist in 1967. Lately my true inspiration has come from brother Rush Limbaugh whose unrelenting efforts in questioning all things perceived as liberal, from the msm or Democratic party has given me much energy for the task. I can see why your side would find a return to the fairness doctrine days quite unpalatable. I must say I have found my research thus far very enlightening and entertaining. Thanks for the words of
encouragement.
If you care to read a very good book about the Bible, try “Don’t Know Much About the Bible” by Kenneth C. Davis, published by Harpercollins. It is an excellent read, quite witty, but a serious study of the Bible from a historical perspective.
“For example (p.363) Josh states “The fact that I’m alive and doing things I do is evidence that Jesus Christ is raised from the dead.” I wonder if this statement could be considered as an objective scientific observation? I think not!”
I just do not understand why, for some of the faith-based, faith is not enough fom them, and they want historical, verifiable scientific evidence to back up their mystical beliefs.
And then, when faced with hard evidence of evolution, they can dismiss it….
LOL, let’s settle this religion business for once and for all today!!! Whahahah!
“okobserver
Posted July 20, 2008 at 11:31 am | Permalink
Annie-Moose I am sure that being a curious member of the liberal tribe you would want to look at both sides to every issue.”
….typical right wing crap, try to frame that “there are two sides to every discussion”
“Good morning cosmos! Look what I found, just for you!
“Consensus” on Man-Made Warming Shattering
By Dennis Avery”
——————–
Hank (again) found,
‘C. Monckton: Complaints and Critiques’ http://www.desmogblog.com/c-monckton-complaints-and-critiques
“Tim Lambert at Deltoid offers a cursory scientific critique of Chris Walter (the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley)’s recent newsletter submission to the American Physical Society. Lambert apologizes that he has only first-year physics, but notes, rightfully, that Monckton can make no such claim.
Even more entertaining is the shirty letter that Monckton himself penned to the APS after they added a note to his article making it clear that it was NOT peer reviewed and that it does NOT reflect the opinion of Editors or, really, of any good physicists of note.
Monckton, who apparently can’t tell the difference between being edited and submitting a scientific paper for peer review, is spitting mad. It’s wonderful.
(Thanks to John Mashey for turning this stuff up.)
But here’s a question. Why would ANY publication of the American Physical Society solicit an article from someone who is not physicist, not a scientist, who has not even got an undergraduate degree in any scientific field, who regularly shills for a host of oily think tanks spending Exxon’s money on climate change denial and who, seriously, can’t be trusted to report accurately on his own resume?
Really, why? Was there not a single practicing scientist in the world who might have submitted a paper suggesting that a legitimate climate science debate still reigns?”
—————-
(See links at DeSmogBlog)
Hank, do you AVOID organic food? The lying agricultural ECONOMIST, Dennis Avery, says that they’re dangerous.
“The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.“
Religion boils down to you either is, or you ain’t. If you is, you got around 40,000 religions to belong to, any one of which, by it’s own standards, will get you to the everlasting, should you follow it’s precepts, and if it indeed believes in the everlasting. If you ain’t, you got less to choose from.
So argue all you want. Me? I’m going to find brother Ben Bigot for some further bits of wisdom. Not to worry, though: I will not turn my back on him:-)
If you’re REALLY interested in really interesting and objective arguments concerning religion, I recommend “Religion: If There Is No God…On God, the Devil, Sin, and Other Worries of the So-Called Philosophy of Religion” by the Polish philosopher and famous anti-Marxist Leszek Kolakowski.
However. My guess is that you won’t like it very much. :D
I don’t understand why everything has to be FACT with you all!!! let me ask you something, “Have you ever seen the wind?” no, no one has, but you see the effects of the wind, which by that, you know that it is there. This is the same idea with God.. I haven’t seen him physically face-to face, but I can see Him moving in my life. How do you think miracles happen? Is there scientific data to explain those? By the way, none of the evolution theory is fact either. Also, if God isn’t real, why is our whole timeline named after Him?(B.C. and A.D.) Why is “In God we trust.” on American coins? Why to people blasphemy God’s name and not Buddha’s or Muhammid’s names. Also, just what if my idea of Creationism and Cristianity is real? you have nothing to loose by believing in it, but you have everyting to loose by not!
There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don’t know that much about it does not bother me in the least.
As far as I am concerned if an answer to a question isn’t in the bible, then the you have no business asking the question. A few years ago when my wife suddenly had to get an emergency c-section I was scarred. But I didnt turn to a science book for guidance. Luckily I had my palm pilot with me, which just happened to have the entire King James bible on it! I read a few passages that gave me the strength to pray for her and the baby to get through this ordeal. I sure didn’t need any useless trivia books about science to find comfort in.
I have very little use for science. In fact it is in impediment to getting close to God.
Trinity and Saviour God
“The works of art, the ideas, the expressions, and the heresies of the first four centuries of the Christian era cannot be well studied without a right comprehension of the nature and influence of the Horus myth.”
– W. R. Cooper, (The Horus Myth in its Relation to Christianity, p49)
Isis was part of a sacred triad. The Egyptians deified so-called ‘emanations’ of the supreme, unknowable godhead, typically grouping them into trinities (in fact, a whole hierarchy of trinities). Thus Isis-Osiris-Horus, Amun-Re-Mut-Khons, Atum-Shu-Tefnut-Mahet, etc., etc., reigned for forty centuries, an eternal, evolving godhead. Crucially, the Egyptian priests linked the gods directly to their ruling kings:
‘Throughout the 4000 years of Egyptian history every Pharaoh was the incarnation of the youthful Horus, and therefore the son of Isis, the Goddess Mother who had suckled and reared him. At death … as Osiris he held sway over ‘Those Yonder’ in the shadowy kingdom of the dead.’
– R. E. Witt (Isis in the Ancient World, p15)
Thus the ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ were inseparable, were of ‘one essence,’ the same stuff in continuous metamorphosis. The pharaohs stepped into the trinity on Earth (as Horus) and became the heavenly element (as Osiris) after death. In the endless cycle Isis functioned as sister, wife and mother, a sort of ‘holy spirit’, keeping the whole thing going.
“…I’ve been following Obama for a few years now and I still feel like I’m just learning about the guy. This week, two sides were on display.
First, his innate caution. His close friends keep telling me he is a cautious, establishmentarian kind of guy, and that’s evident from many of the aides he has been hiring. This week he made the brilliant move of signing up Dennis Ross to help him with Mideast affairs. I often tell candidates to hire Ross. You can wake him up at 4 a.m. and he will be able to spout off eight things the president should do right now to improve American interests in the region. The world is full of big thinkers. Few have that sort of practical intelligence.
In general, Obama is hiring many of the best Democratic thinkers. They are not fresh faces. They are not radical. But they are competent and smart. It shows his establishmentarian streak. You got at this in a very good column not long ago.
But then there is his ruthless political side, which I’m seeing more and more of. His Iraq statements are a sign of his thoroughly political nature. When the surge was being considered, he went on TV again and again and said the additional troops would not reduce violence. Today, he could just admit he was wrong. But, of course, it is an iron rule of politics that no politician — not Bush, not Obama — can ever admit a mistake. So Obama goes on TV and says he always predicted that the surge would reduce violence. In America it’s better to be seen as a confident liar than as someone who once got something wrong. And he rewrites his position with such confidence and bald-facedness it’s sort of scary.”
-David Brooks (Conservative)
Is Obama a colorful person, or just a person of color?
It appears many African-American leaders view this race as historically important to get Obama elected based upon the color of his skin.
It must be difficult to separate the facts and not be compelled to vote likewise.
Obama has served in the Illinois statehouse and really only served half of one term in the senate(he had been on the road the rest of it).
John McClame did a four year stint in the House, 22 years in the US Senate, and about 20 years as an officer in the Navy.
This well documented experience and voting record gets quickly discarded with rhetoric that he is just “Bush the third”. Yet Bush’s history is no comparison to that of McClame.
Maybe it’s not best to hire the most experienced worker for your business - one with decades of experience in the job.
Maybe it is truly just a matter of skin color for some Americans.
“Let’s drop the pretence that this is a fact-finding trip [by Obma] and call it what it is: the first of its kind campaign rally overseas,”
guardian.co.uk/world
Interestingly, the media overseas is somewhat startled by the disproportionate airtime given Obama.
I have no love for John MClame, but it should be of concern to Americans how our news is being slanted.
Not too far from George Orwells, ‘1984??
The offical controlled media was Newspeak.
Recall Syme, a Newspeak expert. “His job was destroying words. Synonyms and antonyms were used to create shades of meaning, and useless. The aim of Newspeak was to narrow the possible thoughts a person can have to a point where thought will be impossible because there will be no language in which to understand it.”
Hard to cut through all the Obama glamore and captivating speaking to find facts. For instance, what does “America cannot stand another president who doesn’t understand the threats which confront us.” really mean? Is there substance to any of the talking points?
“I Don’t Think The President’s Strategy Is Going To Work.” Obama: “But right now what we have is, I think by all accounts, a disaster unfolding in Iraq. We all have a responsibility, Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the White House, to make sure that we can come up with the best strategy. I don’t think the president’s strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum - military and civilian, conservative and liberal - expressed great skepticism about it.” (MSNBC’s “Reaction To The State Of The Union Address,” 1/23/07)
* Obama also said the surge would actually worsen sectarian violence in Iraq: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” (MSNBC’s “Response To The President’s Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07)
At least someone is taking the high road. Too bad it isn’t the U.S.
——-
UK ‘must check’ US torture denial
The committee highlighted the technique of “water-boarding” - a practice which simulates drowning. The US describes it as “a legal technique used in a specific set of circumstances” and President Bush has refused to ban it.
In its report, the committee said: “Given the clear differences in definition, the UK can no longer rely on US assurances that it does not use torture, and we recommend that the government does not rely on such assurances in the future.”
FACT: Barack Obama Said He Opposed The Surge In Iraq Because It Would Not Work Or Reduce Violence.
* October 2006: Barack Obama Says We Cannot “Through Putting In More Troops Or Maintaining The Presence That We Have, Expect That Somehow The Situation Is Going To Improve.” Obama: “Given the deteriorating situation, it is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we’ve been in right now.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 10/22/06)
* January 2007: Barack Obama Says The Surge Would Actually Worsen Sectarian Violence In Iraq. Obama: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” (MSNBC’s “Response To The President’s Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07)
* January 2007: Barack Obama Says He Did Not Know Of Any Middle East Expert Or Military Officer That Believed That The New Strategy Would “Make A Substantial Difference On The Situation On The Ground.” Obama: “We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 1/14/07)
* March 2007: Barack Obama Warns The Troop Surge Would Not Make A Long-Term Difference. Obama: “[E]ven those who are supporting — but here’s the thing, Larry — even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 3/19/07)
* May 2007: Barack Obama Says He Does Not Believe The Surge Is Working. Obama: “And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric, they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe that the course that we’re on in Iraq is working, I do not.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks To The Coalition Of Black Trade Unionists Convention, Chicago, IL, 5/25/07)
* July 2007: Barack Obama Says The Surge Had Not Worked In Iraq. Obama: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” (NBC’s “The Today Show,” 7/18/07)
* November 2007: Barack Obama Says The Surge Has Not Worked, And Had Potentially Worsened The Situation In Iraq. Obama: “Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a search and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 11/11/07)
FACT: Military Commanders And Troops On The Ground Say That There Is “No Way” For The 16-Month Timetable To Work.
* ABC News: Commanders In Iraq Say “No Way” Barack Obama’s Withdrawal Plan Could Work. “While Anderson and his troops have a positive attitude, several commanders who looked at the Obama plan told ABC News, on background, that there was ‘no way’ it could work logistically.” (Martha Raddatz, “Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult,” ABC News, 7/11/08)
* ABC News: “Physically Removing The Combat Brigades Within That Kind Of Time Frame Would Be Difficult, As Well.” (Martha Raddatz, “Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult,” ABC News, 7/11/08)
* ABC News: Removing The Equipment From Iraq Could Be “The Real Problem.” “It is the equipment that is the real problem. In the kind of redeployment that Anderson is talking about, the troops head home, but much of their equipment stays behind. Two combat brigades means up to 1,200 humvees in addition to thousands of other pieces of equipment, like trucks, fuelers, tankers and helicopters. And 90 percent of the equipment would have to be moved by ground through the Iraqi war zone, to the port in Kuwait, where it must all be cleaned and inspected and prepared for shipment. This is a place with frequent dust storms, limited port facilities and limited numbers of wash racks.” (Martha Raddatz, “Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult,” ABC News, 7/11/08)
FACT: Iraq Has Been Called “The Most Important And Serious Issue Today” By Al Qaeda And “The Central Front” By Our Commanding General.
* Osama Bin Laden: “The Most Important And Serious Issue Today For The Whole World Is This Third World War … Raging In [Iraq].” BIN LADEN: “I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world’s millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.” (Text Of Bin Laden’s Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Barack Obama Voted Against Providing Funding For Operations In Afghanistan.
* Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)
FACT: Barack Obama’s “Residual Force” Could Be As Many As 80,000 Troops In Iraq.
* The New York Sun Reported That A Key Adviser To Obama Is Recommending That 60,000 To 80,000 Troops Remain In Iraq As Late As 2010. “A key adviser to Senator Obama’s campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.” (Eli Lake, “Obama Adviser Calls For 60,000-80,000 U.S. Troops To Stay In Iraq Through 2010,” The New York Sun, 4/4/08)
* Barack Obama Would Not Say How Many Troops He Would Keep In Iraq. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria: “But you could imagine a situation where, if the Iraqi government wanted it, 30,000 American troops are still in Iraq 10 years from now.” Obama: “You know, I have been very careful not to put numbers on what a residual force would look like.” (CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” 7/13/08)
#
SquarePeg
Posted July 20, 2008 at 1:49 pm | Permalink
Very good Regular. Now show where Obama has supported more troops for Afghanistan. That is the surge he has supported. Not Iraq.
————————
No, you can do that.
I just showed where you were speaking out of your ass on what Obama has said and stood for on the war in Iraq.
Open Goodnight Bush: An Unauthorized Parody, and you might recognize the cozy green room with striped curtains, a fire glowing in the fireplace, a full moon outside in the starry sky.
But look closer and you’ll see that the painting over the fireplace shows an oil derrick with stealth bombers flying around it. In the fireplace, there’s a ballot box burning that says, “Florida 2000.” And snaking around the side of the fireplace is a tiny microphone.
“The book obviously isn’t for children,” Origen says. “At the same time, it lets us look at the past eight years through the eyes of a child. And it lets us see how far Bush’s reality is from the reality anyone would want for their children.”
Barack Obama Voted Against Providing Funding For Operations In Afghanistan.
* Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)
A laugh for everyone no matter their political persuasion.
——
A Bra’s Tale: Detour On A Daughter’s Trip Abroad
But things didn’t go smoothly during a plane trip in South America. The plane was flying near the Andes Mountains when Jenkins began to feel pressure and sensed there was a problem.
It turned out the cabin was not pressurized, and the bra was expanding.
“As the thing got bigger, I tried to stand up,” Jenkins said, “and I couldn’t see my feet.”
The instructions said that the bra’s pads could be inflated up to a size 48.
“I thought, ‘What would happen if it goes beyond 48?’” Jenkins recalled.
Global warming dazzled fact at God averted face. It is, ultimately, an unconvincing struggle into reality. The governor was awarded to Moriah Nachbaur.
Every five years, Texas Monthly goes on a quest for the Holy Grail — to find the best barbecue in a state that reveres smoked meat. It takes the mission seriously.
This year, the magazine dispatched 18 writers who traveled nearly 15,000 miles to 341 establishments. In an unheard-of upset, a tiny cafe in central Texas beat out the longtime favorites to take first place.
Snow’s BBQ is in the little town of Lexington, an hour’s drive northeast of Austin. It’s open only on Saturday mornings.
“I wrote that it was as soft and sweet as cookie dough,” Burka says. “It almost transcended meat.”
“Are y’all just now puttin’ ‘em on fat side down?” she barks. “I don’t want ‘em fat side down. Flip ‘em back. I want ‘em fat side up, all times.” Two men with insulated gloves obey wordlessly, turning the briskets.
Once upon a time, Miss Tootsie cooked mainly for local customers. But that was before “the article,” as they say around Snow’s.
“We were named No. 1 in Texas and from that point on our whole business has changed drastically,” Bexley says. “We’ve gone from cooking from 300 pounds to cooking in excess of 1,000 pounds, and last week we sold out before 10 [a.m.].”
“Obama voted against increasing funding in Afghanistan. I don’t have to connect the dots do I?” [Regular]
“* Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)”
Ummmm Why is the Senate voting on a H. R.?? AND… please note that the funds are “connected” — Iraq AND Afghanistan. If he votes FOR the funds to Afghanistan, he would also be voting funds to Iraq, which he oopposes. Right?
What Barak Obama voted against to support the troops and the nation of Afghanistan
The Emergency Supplemental Provided The Following For U.S. Operations In Afghanistan:
* $40 million for new power generation
* $314 million for rural road rebuilding
* $155 million for rural development
* $19 million for agriculture
* $174 million for Provincial Reconstruction Teams
* $25 million for governance capacity building
* $10 million for a Civilian Assistance Program
* $79 million to support Diplomatic and Consular Programs
* $16 million for Migration and Refugee Assistance
* $16 million for International Disaster and Famine Assistance for Internally Displaced Persons Assistance
* $47 million for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement activities (Stephen Daggett, Amy Belasco, Pat Towell, Susan B. Epstein, Connie Veillette, Curt Tarnoff, Rhoda Margesson, and Bart Elias, “FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations For Defense, Foreign Affairs, And Other Purposes,” Congressional Research Service, 7/2/07)
What Barak Obama could have done about Afghanistan with his roles in the Senate, but didn’t.
FACT: As Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs, Barack Obama Has Failed To Hold Any Hearings On Afghanistan.
* Barack Obama Has Served As Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs From 2007 — 2008. (U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Website, http://www.senate.gov, Accessed 2/15/08)
* The Subcommittee On European Affairs Has Jurisdiction Over The Countries Of Europe As Well As NATO Activities. “Jurisdiction: The subcommittee deals with all matters concerning U.S. relations with the countries on the continent of Europeand with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.” (U.S. Senate Committee On Foreign Relations Website, http://foreign.senate.gov, Accessed 2/27/07)
* As Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs, Barack Obama Could Have Held Hearings On The Role Of NATO In Afghanistan. “[A]mbassador John Ritch, who served for two decades as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s senior staffer on European affairs and East-West relations[P]oints out that as subcommittee chair, Obama could have examined a wide variety of urgent matters, from the role of NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq to European energy policy and European responses to climate change…” (Joe Conason, “Obama’s European Problem,” http://www.salon.com, 12/29/07)
* Barack Obama: “I became Chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven’t had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 2/27/08)
“…One of my points about Barack Obama is not only that he’s more political than I thought. He’s more unimaginatively political. In my view he’d open eyes if he admitted he was wrong about the surge not being able to reduce violence and halfway wrong when he said the surge wouldn’t produce political gains. It might cause heartburn among some die-hard surge haters, but most of the country would see a guy who can respond to obvious facts and learn from them. That’s what normal people do.
As to your point about John McCain, my creeping sensation is that the campaign is diminishing both of these outstanding men. I just wonder if it is inevitable. It seems as if presidential campaigns now follow their own logic and are completely divorced from the real-life considerations of policy making.
Here’s one example, with a news scoop inside: McCain says he would like to permanently base United States troops in Iraq, the way they are permanently based in South Korea or Germany. My interviews with tippy top members of the Bush administration persuade me that it is a bad idea. They think basing large numbers of troops in other countries is a relic of the past and would certainly harm American interests in the Middle East. It’s far better to have small teams of advisers and forward operating bases that could be ramped up quickly. On this subject the Bush administration sounds a bit more like Obama than McCain.
That’s because people who make policy have to face certain realities that people who are campaigning never have to confront.”
-David Brooks (Conservative)
Barack Obama called Monday for sending an additional two combat brigades to Afghanistan as part of a refocused war-on-terror strategy. “Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and al-Qaida has a safe haven,” Obama wrote in a New York Times commentary. “Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been.”
[From Eagle Lead]
#
SquarePeg
Posted July 20, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
Barack Obama called Monday for sending an additional two combat brigades to Afghanistan as part of a refocused war-on-terror strategy. “Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and al-Qaida has a safe haven,” Obama wrote in a New York Times commentary. “Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been.”
[From Eagle Lead]
====================================
Flip
Remember “Mission Accomplished?” There is no way to know if the surge worked. Certainly progress in Iraq was made after we increased the number of troops there, but other factors were at play too. Are the refugees returning, are the Christians coming back to their homes and temples, are forces in opposition to U.S. interests and the Iraqi govenment merely biding their time? Did they focus elsewhere? We’ll know in 20 years if the surge worked, just as we’ll know in a decade or two if the mission was really accomplished. My guess is that none of this will mean a hill of beans by then.
“Addressing the Washington Policymakers in Seattle, WA, Dr. Don Easterbrook said that shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) from its warm mode to its cool mode virtually assures global cooling for the next 25-30 years and means that the global warming of the past 30 years is over. The announcement by NASA that the (PDO) had shifted from its warm mode to its cool mode (Fig. 1) is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and is not an oddity superimposed upon and masking the predicted severe warming by the IPCC. This has significant implications for the future and indicates that the IPCC climate models were wrong in their prediction of global temperatures soaring 1°F per decade for the rest of the century.
Instead of a rise of 1°F during the first decade of this century as predicted by IPCC climate models (Fig 2), global temperatures cooled slightly for the past nine years and cooled more than 1°F this year (Fig 3). Global cooling over the past decade appears to be due to a global cooling trend set up by the PDO cool mode and a similar shift in the Atlantic. The IPCC’s prediction of a 1° F warming by 2011, will require warming of about 1° F in the next three years and unless that happens, the IPCC models will be proven invalid.”
Climate science is such swiss cheese. Against this backdrop of cooling global temperatures and energy scarcity, Al Gore tries to gin up the sense of urgency.
Let’s get started building the nuclear power plants.
By that definition, I am sure that TVMOB’s paper was not given proper peer review. Indeed, I’m not certain TVMOB has a proper peer on this Earth. Perhaps Senator Inhofe or President Bush.”
Yeah, that hunk of Antarctic glacier the size of Northern Ireland breaking off during winter is because the planet is cooling down. I wonder if you science denialists actually believe what you say.
188 Comments
Good Morning, Wichita! It looks like another beautiful day in the old Air Capitol!
Keep the day fresh! Keep it forever young!
Good positive comment Square Peg to begin the day.
It’s just now about 6:30 AM Sunday morning, just as the leading edge of the Sun streaks up over the eastern horizon. Because we are now about two days past the Full Moon, the Moon is no longer directly opposite the earth from the Sun. In fact the Moon now lags behind about two hours so it won’t pass over the western horizon for another two hours … but still looking fairly full as it “wanes” away from Full.
It’s supposed to approach 100 degrees later today, so Kansans enjoy the cool morning.
I posted at http://www.HerbertWest.com and at http://www.wen2k.com , Herbert West 3rd. west.herb@yahoo.com
http://www.HerbertWest3rd.com
Im telling all of my Paola friends not to vote for you Herb.
PMom, I think most of the people up that way already know that he’s just another crackpot.
Does he really think he can get elected sheriff when he actually did jail time? Look at his website, it’s as scary as his posts!
I didn’t know that he’s got a record.
Sean Tevis met his fund raising goal of $25,000 in less than 48 hours. It’s the power of stick figures and the appeal of a progressive Democratic candidate.
http://seantevis.com/kansas/3000/running-for-office-xkcd-style/
Good morning cosmos! Look what I found, just for you!
“Consensus” on Man-Made Warming Shattering
By Dennis Avery
The “consensus” on man-made global warming may have received a mortal wound. Physics & Society, The journal of the 46,000-member American Physical Society, just published “Climate Sensitivity Revisited,” by Viscount Christopher Monckton. Monckton is an avowed man-made warming skeptic, and former science advisor to the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. (If you want to see the science, click here )
Viscount Monckton contends that the climate alarmists have mistakenly pre-programmed their computer models with equations that overstate the earth’s sensitivity to CO2 by 500 to 2,000 percent-thus creating a senseless First World panic that itself threatens the future of society. Physics & Society says: “There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S.”
The journal then offers both the Monckton paper and a response by David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, of the California Polytechnic Institute. P&S also issued an open invitation to “further contributions from the physics community.” It had to happen. Too much evidence has mounted against CO2 as a cause of the modern warming.
Sea ice is expanding globally, not retreating (especially in the Antarctic).
The oceans have stopped rising, and actually started to fall; that might be because they “stopped warming 4-5 years ago” according to NASA, based on data from the 3,000 new Argo floats now scattered world-wide.
The number and intensity of hurricanes, cyclones, and tornadoes hasn’t increased.
Rain has returned to Australia, reminding us again it is naturally the driest continent on earth.
The crowning blow: After nine years of non-warming, the planet actually began to cool in 2007 and 2008 for the first time in 30 years. The net warming from 1940 to 1998 had been a miniscule 0.2 degree C; the UK’s Hadley Centre says earth’s temperature has now dropped back down to about the levels of 100 years ago. There has thus been no net global warming within “living memory”!
The current cooling doesn’t mean another Ice Age is looming. There is massive global evidence of a 1,500-year warming cycle, going back 1 million years. It may be driven by the slightly varying distance between the earth and the sun. The sunspot index has had a 79 percent correlation with the earth’s thermometer record since 1860, during this time, the temperature correlation with CO2 is a dismissive 22 percent.
NASA’s Jason satellite tells us the Pacific Ocean has entered a cool phase. Historically, these have lasted 25-30 years. After that, there may be some additional warming. However, the 1,500-year cycles typically shift abruptly; we should already have most of this one’s warming. When we’ll get the inevitable cooling? Probably centuries from now.
The warming debate is far from over, but an actual debate looks likely. Reputations and huge bundles of cash have been bet on man-made warming, including billions in government funding for climate research. The UN’s reputation-and perhaps its future-are on the line. The American Physical Society itself has issued a statement: It stands by its belief that human-emitted CO2 is “changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the earth’s climate” and notes that Physics & Society is not peer-reviewed.
Nonetheless, the debate is finally and openly joined, after 20 years of the Greens proclaiming humanity’s guilt for wrecking the planet as beyond sane discussion. Now, we look forward to a full-scale exploration of the science. We have heard quite enough from the computers.
Hurry price, Al Gore is on Meet the Press!
Good Morning Kansas
Did you know?
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm
Scholars have traced the roots of many of the Old Testament stories to the ancient, pagan myths of the ancient Mesopotamian cultures. In the Fertile Crescent, the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in present-day Iraq, gave birth to some of the worlds first civilizations.
In this early flowering of civilization, many religious myths abounded, seeking to explain what was then unexplainable. From this context comes the oldest complete literary work we have, the age of which we are certain, dating back at least 7,000 years. The Epic of Gilgamesh is a lengthy narrative of heroic mythology that incorporates many of the religious myths of Mesopotamia, and it is the earliest complete literary work that has survived.
Many of the stories in that epic were eventually incorporated into the book of Genesis. Borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh are stories of the creation of man in a wondrous garden, the introduction of evil into a naive world, and the story of a great flood brought on by the wickedness of man, that flooded the whole world.
In this Mesopotamian basin civilization, known to us today as the Chaldean Empire, tribal alliances that predated the amalgamation into a single empire, continued to exist and flourish. Many were allied to the palace, many opposed, all retained elements of their pre-conquest cultures.
The patriarchs first appear in our story with the journey of one of them, Abraham, who, the story tells us, led members of his tribe from the city of Ur, west towards the Mediterranean, to the “promised land” of Canaan, sometime between the 19th and 18th centuries B.C.E. Or so the story goes.
The problem is that we don’t really have any good archeaological evidence to support the Abraham story, and there is much archaeological evidence to contradict it. The land where Abraham supposedly settled, the southern highlands of Palestine (from Jerusalem south the the Valley of Beersheba) is very sparse in archaeological evidence from this period. It is clear from the archaeological record that its population was extremely sparse - no more than a few hundred people in the entire region, and the sole occupants of the area during this time were nomadic pastoralists, much like the Bedouin of the region today. We know from clear archaeological evidence that the peoples known as the Phillistines never even entered the region until the 12th century B.C.E., and the “city of Gerar” in which Isaac, the son of Abraham, had his encounter with Abimelech, the “king of the Phillistines” (in Genesis 26:1) was in fact a tiny, insignificant rural village up until the 8th century B.C.E. It couldn’t have been the capital of the regional king of a people who didn’t yet exist!
This isn’t the only problem with the account of the Age of the Patriarchs, either. There’s the problem of the camels. We know from archaeological evidence that camels weren’t domesticated until about the late second millenium B.C.E., and that they weren’t widely used as beasts of burden until about 1000 B.C.E. - long after the Age of the Patriarchs. And then there’s the problem of the cargo carried by the camels - “gum, balm and myrrh,” which were products of Arabia - and trade with Arabia didn’t begin until the era of Assyrian hegemony in the region, beginning in the 8th century B.C.E.
Yet another problem is Jacob’s marriage with Leah and Rachel, and his relationship with his uncle,…………..
That is a great post annie!
Thanks!
Why thanks Apophis, I’m just following up on the advice of another blogger who suggested I learn some history. Look at some of the neat tidbits the google has shown me. From the same site,
So the second great revision of Judaic religion has happened. In the original Pentatuch, written in the 8th century B.C.E., there isn’t a clearly monotheistic statement to be found, but by the time of the writings of the Deuteronomist, a century or so later, the Deuteronomist has Joshua threatening the Israelites and making sure they became monotheistic under threat of being destroyed. The Deuteronomist pulls off this neat harmonization of two competing gods by having the Israelites reminded that their fathers had promised Yahweh that he would be their god, and so they made him their elohim, their high God. So now, Elohim, who originally was the king of the gods of Fertile Crescent, is now Yahweh, the god of Israel. If you have two conflicting gods, its a neat trick to just get rid of the conflict by declaring they’re the same being.4
A god has to have a home, and the home of the god Yahweh was in heaven. But his priests on earth had to have a place for the ritual sacrifices that were handed down as part of the ritual of the “El” pantheon, as well as the original pagan Canaanite god, Yahweh, which of course had been descended into the Hebraic monotheism. This place was the temple, of course, whose construction was attributed to Solomon, a mythical king. The reality is that it was built at least a century later than the period attributed to the rule of Solomon. The whole story of Solomon, his father David and the events surrounding that dynasty were created during this era to explain the fading splendor of Jerusalem and provide a centering myth around which to rally the culture towards a monotheistic religion, under assault from the Assyrian culture that politically was hegemonous in the region.
In the year 742 B.C.E., while the Deuteronomist writers were still busy getting rid of Elohim, a member of the Judean royal family had a vision. In it, he saw Yahweh sitting on his throne, directly above the temple in Jerusalem. In the vision, Isaiah is commanded to bring a new message to Israel. Isaiah is filled with foreboding and with good reason; King Tigleth Pilesar, who had recently ascended to the throne of Assyria had designs on Israel, and now the god of Israel had to take up the duties of defending the people of his covenant.
Isaiah was commissioned by his god to carry the message to Israel that he is the only god there is; this comes as a great problem to the Israelites who see Isaiah’s concept of God as being the very god who had aided the Assyrians in their victories against them. Isaiah is largely rejected with his message, and Yahweh becomes a pensive, introspective god, who invites his followers to enter into a dialogue with him. Isaiah’s second innovation was the notion that the commandments of the god should be integrated into the very lives of those who follow him, and not just be restricted to temple observance and ritual. Only by doing so would Yahweh be appeased and Israel saved. This also did not have much resonance in the lives of the average Hebrew.
In punishment for disregarding the prophet’s message, Yahweh conveniently permits King Sargon II of Assyria to occupy the northern portion of Palestine and deport the population. Suddenly, the warnings of Isaiah are taken a bit more seriously as the ten “lost” tribes of Israel are marched off into forced assimilation in Assyria and Palestine becomes the land of the Jews. The reality of course, is that Sargon was punishing Israel for its insurrection and refusal to pay tribute. Israel, with a wetter, more productive climate and much easier geography was much easier pickings than the dry, rocky, thinly populated and more distant Judah. So it was only natural that Sargon would choose to occupy Israel rather than Judah. Yet even as Sargon occupied Israel his own empire was beginning to crumble. Assyrian power was fading, but Babylonian power was increasing.
Mornin’ Hank,
“Here’s good news: George W. Bush says that he is committed to fighting global warming. Yeah, well, he nipped that in the bud, didn’t he? … President Bush says he’s really going to buckle down now and fight global warming. As a matter of fact, he announced today he’s sending 20,000 troops to the sun” –David Letterman
“According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet.” –Jay Leno
“The report on climate change said that humans are very likely making the planet warmer. To which Hillary Clinton said, ‘Hey, can’t blame me for that one.’” –Jay Leno
“President Bush has a plan. He says that if we need to, we can lower the temperature dramatically just by switching from Fahrenheit to Celsius” –Jimmy Kimmel, on fighting global warming
“Scientists say because of global warming they expect the world’s oceans to rise four and a half feet. The scientists say this can mean only one thing: Gary Coleman is going to drown.” –Conan O’Brien
“Some good news. Finally, President Bush is going to do something about global warming. He became alarmed when another chunk of ice fell off his mother.” –David Letterman
“Has anybody seen the Al Gore movie about global warming and the environment? Well, the Bush administration has seen it and they are very annoyed about the whole thing. As a matter of fact, earlier today, Dick Cheney shot a projectionist. … One very dramatic scene in the Al Gore global warming movie is when a glacier melts and they find more Al Gore ballots from the election.” –David Letterman
“President Bush told reporters he won’t see Al Gore’s documentary about the threat of global warming. He will not see it. On the other hand, Dick Cheney said he’s seen the global warming film five times, and it still cracks him up.” –Conan O’Brien
“According to a survey in this week’s Time magazine, 85% of Americans think global warming is happening. The other 15% work for the White House.” –Jay Leno
“Al Gore has a hit movie called ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ I have an inconvenient truth for him: you’re still not the president. … This past weekend, Al Gore’s movie, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ earned more per screen than any film in the country. … I dare say Gore’s movie is the highest grossing PowerPoint presentation in history. … Global warming: Can we live with it? … It is time we did something, namely resign ourselves to doing nothing [on screen: Follow Congress' Lead]. … For instance, when sea levels rise, we’ll just build levees [on screen: Worked for New Orleans]” –Stephen Colbert
“Experts say this global warming is serious, and they are predicting now that by the year 2050, we will be out of party ice.” –David Letterman
“Former Vice President Al Gore starring in a new documentary about global warming. I believe it’s called [Leno snores]. … The film actually features Al Gore and explores his journey on how he first got interested in temperature change. It started back when he was vice president. He noticed how the temperature would change, like whenever Bill would walk into the room, it would get warm and whenever Hillary walked into the room, it got cold.” –Jay Leno
“President Bush said global warming is happening much quicker than he thought, and then his staff pulled him aside and said ‘It’s just springtime.’” –Jay Leno
“Arnold Schwarzenegger is blaming man for global warming. And today, Al Gore agreed with him. That’s so typical. Two cyborgs, ‘Oh, let’s blame the humans.’” –Jay Leno
“Al Gore is coming out with a movie about global warming called ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ It’s described as a detailed scientific view of global warming. President Bush said he just saw a film about global warming, ‘Ice Age 2; The Meltdown.’ He said, ‘It’s so much better than that boring Al Gore movie.’” –Jay Leno
“Don’t kid yourself. Global warming is no joke. Here’s how serious global warming has gotten to be in the United States. In this country global warming is so bad, we are now actually starting to warm up to Barry Bonds.” –David Letterman
“According to Time magazine, global warming is 33% worse than we thought. You know what that means? Al Gore is one-third more annoying than we thought.” –Jay Leno
“They say if the warming trend continues, by 2015 Hillary Clinton might actually thaw out.” –Jay Leno, on global warming
“Al Gore announced he is finishing up a new book about global warming and the environment. Yeah, the first chapter talks about how you shouldn’t chop down trees to make a book that no one will read.” –Conan O’Brien
“We estimate that there are perhaps 20,000 prehistoric hunter-gatherers frozen up in those glaciers. Now, if they simply thaw and wander around, it’s not a problem, but if they find a leader — a Captain Caveman, if you will — we’ll be facing an even more serious problem.” –Daily Show correspondent John Hodgman, on the dangers of global warming
“At a press conference yesterday NASA announced that 2005 was the hottest year on record. It is so hot, and global warming is so bad, if the presidential election were held today, Al Gore would still lose.” –Jay Leno
“Heating bills this winter are the highest they’ve been in five years, but President Bush has a plan to combat rising bills. It’s called global warming.” –Jay Leno
Previous
Dick Cheney’s 10 tips to conserve energy:
Tip No. 1: Replace incandescent bulbs with much brighter incandescent bulbs.
A 250-watt bulb burns brighter than a 100-watt bulb: a lot brighter. Don’t listen to the “dim bulbs” who insist that lower-wattage light bulbs are somehow more energy efficient. There’s nothing efficient about staggering across a dark room bumping into furniture. Also, remember that 30 percent of the energy consumed by a light bulb is expended when the bulb is switched on. Keeping your lights on all the time is a simple but effective way to conserve energy.
Tip No. 2: Turn the air conditioning down to “medium” when you’re not in the room.
By simply turning the air conditioning down to the medium setting (about 62 degrees) before you leave a room, you’ll reap significant savings, while you and your family stay comfortable. You can further keep costs down by closing off sections of your house to trap cool air in occupied areas. At my ranch in Wyoming, for example, I like to blast the AC in the living room, family room, parlor, rec room and den, while keeping the AC set to “medium” in the library, conservatory, antiques room and aviary.
Tip No. 3: Wrap your hot water tank with “jacket” insulation.
More than 20 percent of the heat from your hot water tank escapes into the surrounding air. Wrap your water tank with a suitable “jacket” insulator. An old mink coat or chinchilla wrap is ideal.
Tip No. 4: Keep your SUV well-maintained.
SUVs are already incredibly energy efficient, meeting or exceeding federal mileage standards for large trucks and buses. But a little TLC for your SUV can make your mobile home-away-from-home even more energy-friendly. Keep power windows and locks well oiled, slow down to 75 mph on freeways, switch into two-wheel drive whenever practical and consider replacing the in-dash stereo system with a more efficient multiple-CD changer.
Tip No. 5: Replace old appliances with really big new ones.
Small appliances mean big energy bills. Think about it: By using an extra-large capacity washer and dryer, you’ll only have to do laundry half as often, a 50 percent savings. Replace your current washer, dryer, refrigerator and dishwasher with the largest models you can fit through the door. Don’t forget to upgrade minor appliances such as electric knife sharpeners, automatic can openers, juice squeezers, ice cream makers, bagel slicers, golf ball washers, etc.
Tip No. 6: Upgrade your hot tub.
Natural gas hot-tub heaters use less energy than electric heaters, cost less to operate and heat water faster, so you won’t have to wait as long for the water to warm up. A low-cost motion detector (available at most hardware stores) connected to an appropriately licensed firearm (available most everywhere) will help keep out unwanted guests, further reducing your tub’s energy consumption.
Tip No. 7: Be an energy-smart landscaper.
Cut down any trees on your property that block the sun, an important source of light and heat. Apply generous amounts of fertilizer and pesticide to your lawn weekly, or instruct the Mexican gardener to do so. Be sure to have your lawn watered at least twice a day. Remember, a green lawn is a “Green” lawn.
Tip No. 8: Don’t fall for solar or wind power promises.
So-called renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power are, in fact, unreliable and even dangerous. During a typical 24-hour period, the sun is “off” 50 percent of the time, while oil, gas and coal still burn brightly. Wind power is practical only when it’s windy, and a windmill’s revolving blades pose a danger to unsuspecting children and pets. By contrast, there’s an almost limitless supply of safe, clean-burning fossil fuels, provided we adopt sensible energy exploration policies.
Tip No. 9: Take control of your power needs.
America needs to build 1,300 new power plants over the next 20 years, or one additional plant every week. But don’t expect the politicians in Washington to get off their keisters and make it happen. Instead, consider drilling for oil or gas in your own backyard. Many oil companies (including my old shop, Halliburton Co.) offer a Home Drilling Starter Kit, which provides everything you’ll need to explore for energy right in your own backyard. Don’t let the scaremongers convince you that a natural gas well in your yard is unsafe for children — statistically, it’s far less dangerous than a swing set or a jungle gym.
Tip No. 10: Make your voice heard.
Even the best conservation plan won’t matter if our country doesn’t adopt a coherent long-range energy strategy, one that includes oil and gas exploration in national parks and wildlife refuges, relaxed fuel efficiency standards and “fast-tracking” new oil, coal and nuclear power plants. We can all make a difference. The single greatest contribution you can make to America’s energy independence is at the ballot box. Vote Republican.
Really, I ain’t making this up:
PROSPECTUS
FOR THE
ARCH OF TRIUMPH OF THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY
AND
INTERNATIONAL SHRINE OF THE
Holy Innocents
I. INTRODUCTION
This Prospectus describes the Arch of Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and International Shrine of the Holy Innocents, to be constructed on the eastern shore of Lake Erie, on the headwaters of the Niagara River and adjacent to downtown Buffalo, New York. The proposed Site, more particularly described below, is a slender, green peninsula in Buffalo’s Outer Harbor, between the mouth of the Buffalo River and Lake Erie; another large tract of vacant lakefront property, immediately to the west along the Lake Erie shore, is also under consideration. Just northeast of the proposed Site, is a Coast Guard station that includes an historic lighthouse and a beautiful, little-used public park.
This great and exciting Project is undertaken in a spirit of profound devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and with the deepest sorrow, and a fervent desire to make reparation, for the grave sin of worldwide abortion. It will serve as an international signal call to conversion and a return to God, and to an ever-greater love of purity and detestation of abortion and immorality. Mary’s golden Arch of Triumph, to be the world’s tallest monument, will draw global attention also to the Holy Innocents Shrine, whose internationalism will be heightened by both its ready visibility from the Canadian shore, and its focus on Our Lady of Guadalupe, Patroness of the Pro-life Movement, revered and loved throughout Latin America.
This great Project is undertaken further with an implicit belief in the pastoral importance of sacred shrines, their great value for spiritual edification, and their well-chronicled ability to prompt conversions, as articulated in an article by Bro. John M. Samaha, S.M., in the May/August 2000 issue of The Shrine of the Holy House of Loreto. Approximately 40% of visitors to Catholic shrines are non-Catholic, and many such visitors have deep spiritual experiences.
As Brother Samaha notes, a Vatican instruction letter for Marian Shrines in the 1987-88 Marian Year encouraged such shrines to “reveal the presence of Mary in word and symbol,” and “to cultivate . . . a sense of God’s beauty revealed in Mary.” These and other instructions of such letter will be fulfilled to an excellent degree by Mary’s majestic Arch of Triumph, which will possess truly dazzling beauty and grace. Directly under it the Holy Innocents Shrine, strongly Marian itself, will powerfully inspire renewed respect for the sacredness of unborn human lives, indeed of all life, through the clear message and striking beauty of its murals, sculpture and architecture.
As National Advisory Board member Fr. Frank A. Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life (http://www.priestsforlife.org/), has stated:
One of the key characteristics of the Gospel of Life is that it must be proclaimed publicly. The protection of life will not be achieved if the activities of the Church and the pro-life movement are directed only toward those who voluntarily seek out the message. We need to stir the attention of the public to these issues whether they want to hear about them or not.
A sign as public and visible as the proposed Arch and Shrine will certainly serve this purpose, as well as many other noble purposes.
http://www.archoftriumph.org/prospectus.html
Why buy calendars when you can have this:
Timeline of the Seven Thousand Years of Measured Time
This timeline was produced because of the Prophetic Call. Your only protection against false prophets is the Holy Word of God. Because the Devil will misuse the Holy Word of God in order to deceive, The counsel of the Holy Spirit is essential for understanding the Holy Word of God.
This is a hypertext document, with every word, phrase, or sentence linked to a Scripture or a document for proof or substantiation.
http://www.cynet.com/jesus/timeline/timeline.htm
Yeah right….
My though tfor the day:
“Parenting is the hardest job you’ll ever have and nobody ever does it right”
author unknown
JWink…great editorial in the paper this AM!
Wow. I love the way their “worldview” just frees them from reality with respect to time. They also take all the ordinality out, which must make history a little confusing. I guess they only have to keep track of 7,000 years, though, so what’s the harm.
There ain’t a lot of emphasis on math in that church, but I bet the socials are fun. I bet sinnin’ is a TON of fun, too, what with the hellfires of eternal damnation and all lickin’ at things from below. :D
“your church, theocracy or democracy?” What was that, like an advertisement in their own timeline?!?
Oooops! Bet the Iraqis are even more convinced Americans should leave their country!
———-
U.S. troops kill son of Iraqi governor
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. forces shot dead the 17-year-old son and another relative of the governor of northern Iraq’s Salahuddin province in a raid on Sunday, local officials said.
The U.S. military said it shot two armed, adding it was later found they were both related to the governor.
Governor Hamad al-Qaisi’s brother, Lieutenant-Colonel Saad al-Qaisi, said American troops stormed a family house in the town of Beiji, where the governor’s son Hussam and his cousin were staying.
“They shot dead Hussam and wounded three others. This is barbaric and inhuman,” he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2071611420080720?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
Mary, Our own JWink isn’t Wink Hartman. It was a good letter to the editor. Our JWink would probably have done an even better job!
I havent been to church in over 35 years… But somehow, I have the greatest feeling that I have just been “sermonized”.
Guess I am good for the whole day now! LOL
Thanks all!
The quickest way to win an argument with an evolutionist is to get them to admit they come from the animal kingdom according to their beliefs — and that’s what it is, a belief –. And they will admit that, they have no shame about saying: “Yeah, I believe I come from the animal kingdom.”
Well, when you get them to admit that you can then say: “Okay, as a creationist I can no longer take you seriously. And even as an evolutionist I wouldn’t be able to take you seriously cause well, I don’t take animals seriously when they have anything to say. And, well, since you believe you’re from the animal kingdom, I have no reason to take you seriously. You can try and rationalize that all you want, and say “Well, I’m an modified monkey” or “I’m an evolved animal, with intelligence”, well, that’s your own oppinion, which is the oppinion of a modified animal. So, I can’t take you seriously.”
Conversation’s over.
Weird….I suggest you watch Desmond Morris’s “The Human Animal” sometime.
I take my cats seriously when they talk to me!
Yeah that was all sorts of…weird..RWB.
You believe in something you cannot see hear or feel, but yet, you can ignore a ‘talking’ animal as unreal.
Sounds about on par for fundies.
And yes, we’re all animals.
ummmm…are you sure you’ve “won” the argument…or do they just think you’re ignorant and walk away?
LOL Mary great minds think alike…we both called that post weird.
and it was…creeeeeeepy.
yeah…some people just are..creepy that is.
What a wonderful little nugget there “RedwhiteNblue”
Even better than the one the other day where you extolled the virtues of beating your children.
Uh. . .hate to tell you this folks, but RWB is a running joke.
The previous link to the Landover Baptist Church site (a satire of fundamentalism) was a sly hint.
Given some of the “serious” posts we see here, I can understand not getting it. I didn’t at first.
HA! Just like the cover of The New Yorker! I get it now! Funny!!
Annie-Moose I am sure that being a curious member of the liberal tribe you would want to look at both sides to every issue. You have tried to discount the entire Christian faith by one days research so I will challenge you to take a little longer before accepting your conclusion that was more than a little time challenged.
Josh McDowell wrote a book with information he uncovered while writing his Masters thesis from the prospective of an athesist. During his indepth research he discovered something he hadn’t expected to find. ‘Evidence That Demands a Verdict’ was the book that came out of that research.
Bluejay once told me he would read the book if I watched Algores ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. I did he didn’t. This seems to be a liberal trait.
I would lay this challenge before you and then will look forward to a detail report about the lack of evidence you are espousing above. BTW there is physical evidence that does tie in to the stories in the bible in several instances.
Just keep up the great work. I am looking forward to a truthful ‘next chapter’.
“This seems to be a liberal trait.”
Shouldn’t you be in church pray for lost souls like Annie and J R?
Ksgrm, wouldn’t it just be easier for annie to use the googles for “CS Lewis triumvirate”?
My guess is that McDowell spends a couple hundred pages working up Lewis’s simple syllogism, and wants annie’s twenty bucks to do it with.
Life is pretty short, you know. :D
BlackAndBlueRedWhite… we don’t want to talk to you anyways…
Annie-Moose I am sure that being a curious member of the liberal tribe you would want to look at both sides to every issue. You have tried to discount the entire Christian faith by one days research so I will challenge you to take a little longer before accepting your conclusion that was more than a little time challenged.
Now that’s not entirely true. I have been at this for quite awhile. I became an atheist in 1967. Lately my true inspiration has come from brother Rush Limbaugh whose unrelenting efforts in questioning all things perceived as liberal, from the msm or Democratic party has given me much energy for the task. I can see why your side would find a return to the fairness doctrine days quite unpalatable. I must say I have found my research thus far very enlightening and entertaining. Thanks for the words of
encouragement.
Anonymous=annie_moose
If you care to read a very good book about the Bible, try “Don’t Know Much About the Bible” by Kenneth C. Davis, published by Harpercollins. It is an excellent read, quite witty, but a serious study of the Bible from a historical perspective.
“Evidence” ?
“For example (p.363) Josh states “The fact that I’m alive and doing things I do is evidence that Jesus Christ is raised from the dead.” I wonder if this statement could be considered as an objective scientific observation? I think not!”
A nice little essay on the book.
http://www.islandnet.com/~luree/evidence.html
I just do not understand why, for some of the faith-based, faith is not enough fom them, and they want historical, verifiable scientific evidence to back up their mystical beliefs.
And then, when faced with hard evidence of evolution, they can dismiss it….
LOL, let’s settle this religion business for once and for all today!!! Whahahah!
“okobserver
Posted July 20, 2008 at 11:31 am | Permalink
Annie-Moose I am sure that being a curious member of the liberal tribe you would want to look at both sides to every issue.”
….typical right wing crap, try to frame that “there are two sides to every discussion”
Sorry, I don’t buy it.
Hank Price posted July 20, 2008 at 7:39 am
“Good morning cosmos! Look what I found, just for you!
“Consensus” on Man-Made Warming Shattering
By Dennis Avery”
——————–
Hank (again) found,
‘C. Monckton: Complaints and Critiques’
http://www.desmogblog.com/c-monckton-complaints-and-critiques
“Tim Lambert at Deltoid offers a cursory scientific critique of Chris Walter (the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley)’s recent newsletter submission to the American Physical Society. Lambert apologizes that he has only first-year physics, but notes, rightfully, that Monckton can make no such claim.
Even more entertaining is the shirty letter that Monckton himself penned to the APS after they added a note to his article making it clear that it was NOT peer reviewed and that it does NOT reflect the opinion of Editors or, really, of any good physicists of note.
Monckton, who apparently can’t tell the difference between being edited and submitting a scientific paper for peer review, is spitting mad. It’s wonderful.
(Thanks to John Mashey for turning this stuff up.)
But here’s a question. Why would ANY publication of the American Physical Society solicit an article from someone who is not physicist, not a scientist, who has not even got an undergraduate degree in any scientific field, who regularly shills for a host of oily think tanks spending Exxon’s money on climate change denial and who, seriously, can’t be trusted to report accurately on his own resume?
Really, why? Was there not a single practicing scientist in the world who might have submitted a paper suggesting that a legitimate climate science debate still reigns?”
—————-
(See links at DeSmogBlog)
Hank, do you AVOID organic food? The lying agricultural ECONOMIST, Dennis Avery, says that they’re dangerous.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Avery
“Bluejay once told me he would read the book if I watched Algores ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. I did he didn’t. This seems to be a liberal trait.”
The book is not available at the library and I am not about to go and buy it.
Secondly? A book is a significantly greater investment in TIME than watching a film.
Last? You didn’t watch the film with an open mind. I could afford your book little better.
If “God” cares to make his existence known to me he should make with the blessings.
‘Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered’
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
“The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.“
Religion boils down to you either is, or you ain’t. If you is, you got around 40,000 religions to belong to, any one of which, by it’s own standards, will get you to the everlasting, should you follow it’s precepts, and if it indeed believes in the everlasting. If you ain’t, you got less to choose from.
So argue all you want. Me? I’m going to find brother Ben Bigot for some further bits of wisdom. Not to worry, though: I will not turn my back on him:-)
Somehow I dont think a 41 year long atheist has chosen to find questions about christianists in just one day. LOL funny joke!!
If you’re REALLY interested in really interesting and objective arguments concerning religion, I recommend “Religion: If There Is No God…On God, the Devil, Sin, and Other Worries of the So-Called Philosophy of Religion” by the Polish philosopher and famous anti-Marxist Leszek Kolakowski.
However. My guess is that you won’t like it very much. :D
I don’t understand why everything has to be FACT with you all!!! let me ask you something, “Have you ever seen the wind?” no, no one has, but you see the effects of the wind, which by that, you know that it is there. This is the same idea with God.. I haven’t seen him physically face-to face, but I can see Him moving in my life. How do you think miracles happen? Is there scientific data to explain those? By the way, none of the evolution theory is fact either. Also, if God isn’t real, why is our whole timeline named after Him?(B.C. and A.D.) Why is “In God we trust.” on American coins? Why to people blasphemy God’s name and not Buddha’s or Muhammid’s names. Also, just what if my idea of Creationism and Cristianity is real? you have nothing to loose by believing in it, but you have everyting to loose by not!
RedWhiteNBlue
Posted July 20, 2008 at 12:09 pm | Permalink
I don’t understand why everything has to be FACT with you all!!!
—
RWB: we’re not even AT evilution yet and our conversations are STILL gettin’ shorter and shorter. :D
An angry man stirs up dissension, and a hot-tempered one commits many sins.
Proverbs 29:22
There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don’t know that much about it does not bother me in the least.
Thanks, Red, your celebration of your ignorance is modern CONservativism in a nutshell.
RWB has his/her mind made up. Do not try to confuse him/her with facts.
Interesting, Annie.
This supports what I’ve seen too.
The Biblical editors tried to eliminate all the old pantheistic references, but they didn’t entirely succeed.
See where Yahweh says to the other gods, “you are all Gods and Sons of Gods.”
I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie
You meant “evilution is a lie,” right? :wink:
:lol:
You’re good, very very good! And thanks for the great perspective and fun!
Too many words. When you start using that many words you might need to give John Galt some lessons!
“Evolution is a lie” = THREE words??? OoooK
As far as I am concerned if an answer to a question isn’t in the bible, then the you have no business asking the question. A few years ago when my wife suddenly had to get an emergency c-section I was scarred. But I didnt turn to a science book for guidance. Luckily I had my palm pilot with me, which just happened to have the entire King James bible on it! I read a few passages that gave me the strength to pray for her and the baby to get through this ordeal. I sure didn’t need any useless trivia books about science to find comfort in.
I have very little use for science. In fact it is in impediment to getting close to God.
OooooK - So, RWB had to look in some book, to get the courage to pray. Great religion you got there, RWB.
Would you care to enlighten us as to what the bible has to say about a C-Section?
There is a lot of science involved in performing a proper C-Section.
Children are most always a blessing Squarepeg.
That would be true. Except or when they arent.
What do you know square?
There’s all sorts of mentions of ceasar in the Bible and guess what the c in c-section stands for?
If your going to attack the Bible try reading it first
RWB - Your stupidity is overwhelming!
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/out-of-egypt.html
Trinity and Saviour God
“The works of art, the ideas, the expressions, and the heresies of the first four centuries of the Christian era cannot be well studied without a right comprehension of the nature and influence of the Horus myth.”
– W. R. Cooper, (The Horus Myth in its Relation to Christianity, p49)
Isis was part of a sacred triad. The Egyptians deified so-called ‘emanations’ of the supreme, unknowable godhead, typically grouping them into trinities (in fact, a whole hierarchy of trinities). Thus Isis-Osiris-Horus, Amun-Re-Mut-Khons, Atum-Shu-Tefnut-Mahet, etc., etc., reigned for forty centuries, an eternal, evolving godhead. Crucially, the Egyptian priests linked the gods directly to their ruling kings:
‘Throughout the 4000 years of Egyptian history every Pharaoh was the incarnation of the youthful Horus, and therefore the son of Isis, the Goddess Mother who had suckled and reared him. At death … as Osiris he held sway over ‘Those Yonder’ in the shadowy kingdom of the dead.’
– R. E. Witt (Isis in the Ancient World, p15)
Thus the ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ were inseparable, were of ‘one essence,’ the same stuff in continuous metamorphosis. The pharaohs stepped into the trinity on Earth (as Horus) and became the heavenly element (as Osiris) after death. In the endless cycle Isis functioned as sister, wife and mother, a sort of ‘holy spirit’, keeping the whole thing going.
“…I’ve been following Obama for a few years now and I still feel like I’m just learning about the guy. This week, two sides were on display.
First, his innate caution. His close friends keep telling me he is a cautious, establishmentarian kind of guy, and that’s evident from many of the aides he has been hiring. This week he made the brilliant move of signing up Dennis Ross to help him with Mideast affairs. I often tell candidates to hire Ross. You can wake him up at 4 a.m. and he will be able to spout off eight things the president should do right now to improve American interests in the region. The world is full of big thinkers. Few have that sort of practical intelligence.
In general, Obama is hiring many of the best Democratic thinkers. They are not fresh faces. They are not radical. But they are competent and smart. It shows his establishmentarian streak. You got at this in a very good column not long ago.
But then there is his ruthless political side, which I’m seeing more and more of. His Iraq statements are a sign of his thoroughly political nature. When the surge was being considered, he went on TV again and again and said the additional troops would not reduce violence. Today, he could just admit he was wrong. But, of course, it is an iron rule of politics that no politician — not Bush, not Obama — can ever admit a mistake. So Obama goes on TV and says he always predicted that the surge would reduce violence. In America it’s better to be seen as a confident liar than as someone who once got something wrong. And he rewrites his position with such confidence and bald-facedness it’s sort of scary.”
-David Brooks (Conservative)
—
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/from-the-mountaintop/
Is Obama a colorful person, or just a person of color?
It appears many African-American leaders view this race as historically important to get Obama elected based upon the color of his skin.
It must be difficult to separate the facts and not be compelled to vote likewise.
Obama has served in the Illinois statehouse and really only served half of one term in the senate(he had been on the road the rest of it).
John McClame did a four year stint in the House, 22 years in the US Senate, and about 20 years as an officer in the Navy.
This well documented experience and voting record gets quickly discarded with rhetoric that he is just “Bush the third”. Yet Bush’s history is no comparison to that of McClame.
Maybe it’s not best to hire the most experienced worker for your business - one with decades of experience in the job.
Maybe it is truly just a matter of skin color for some Americans.
Take a comparative religion class Annie Moose, it will save everyone time.
I was duly chastised for posting this elsewhere:
“Let’s drop the pretence that this is a fact-finding trip [by Obma] and call it what it is: the first of its kind campaign rally overseas,”
guardian.co.uk/world
Interestingly, the media overseas is somewhat startled by the disproportionate airtime given Obama.
I have no love for John MClame, but it should be of concern to Americans how our news is being slanted.
Not too far from George Orwells, ‘1984??
The offical controlled media was Newspeak.
Recall Syme, a Newspeak expert. “His job was destroying words. Synonyms and antonyms were used to create shades of meaning, and useless. The aim of Newspeak was to narrow the possible thoughts a person can have to a point where thought will be impossible because there will be no language in which to understand it.”
Hard to cut through all the Obama glamore and captivating speaking to find facts. For instance, what does “America cannot stand another president who doesn’t understand the threats which confront us.” really mean? Is there substance to any of the talking points?
“So Obama goes on TV and says he always predicted that the surge would reduce violence.”
Actually, he has always predicted that — for Afghanistan. Check it out.
Was there a surge in Afghan too?
Obama’s original reaction to Iraq and the surge.
“I Don’t Think The President’s Strategy Is Going To Work.” Obama: “But right now what we have is, I think by all accounts, a disaster unfolding in Iraq. We all have a responsibility, Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the White House, to make sure that we can come up with the best strategy. I don’t think the president’s strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum - military and civilian, conservative and liberal - expressed great skepticism about it.” (MSNBC’s “Reaction To The State Of The Union Address,” 1/23/07)
* Obama also said the surge would actually worsen sectarian violence in Iraq: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” (MSNBC’s “Response To The President’s Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07)
FLIP
FLOP
FLIP
FLOP
FLIP
FLOP
At least someone is taking the high road. Too bad it isn’t the U.S.
——-
UK ‘must check’ US torture denial
The committee highlighted the technique of “water-boarding” - a practice which simulates drowning. The US describes it as “a legal technique used in a specific set of circumstances” and President Bush has refused to ban it.
In its report, the committee said: “Given the clear differences in definition, the UK can no longer rely on US assurances that it does not use torture, and we recommend that the government does not rely on such assurances in the future.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7515517.stm
The Obama Spin Machine: FACT versus Myth Part I
FACT: Barack Obama Said He Opposed The Surge In Iraq Because It Would Not Work Or Reduce Violence.
* October 2006: Barack Obama Says We Cannot “Through Putting In More Troops Or Maintaining The Presence That We Have, Expect That Somehow The Situation Is Going To Improve.” Obama: “Given the deteriorating situation, it is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we’ve been in right now.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 10/22/06)
* January 2007: Barack Obama Says The Surge Would Actually Worsen Sectarian Violence In Iraq. Obama: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” (MSNBC’s “Response To The President’s Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07)
* January 2007: Barack Obama Says He Did Not Know Of Any Middle East Expert Or Military Officer That Believed That The New Strategy Would “Make A Substantial Difference On The Situation On The Ground.” Obama: “We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 1/14/07)
* March 2007: Barack Obama Warns The Troop Surge Would Not Make A Long-Term Difference. Obama: “[E]ven those who are supporting — but here’s the thing, Larry — even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 3/19/07)
* May 2007: Barack Obama Says He Does Not Believe The Surge Is Working. Obama: “And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric, they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe that the course that we’re on in Iraq is working, I do not.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks To The Coalition Of Black Trade Unionists Convention, Chicago, IL, 5/25/07)
* July 2007: Barack Obama Says The Surge Had Not Worked In Iraq. Obama: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” (NBC’s “The Today Show,” 7/18/07)
* November 2007: Barack Obama Says The Surge Has Not Worked, And Had Potentially Worsened The Situation In Iraq. Obama: “Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a search and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 11/11/07)
http://americassentinel.com/2008/07/14/mccain-press-release-myth-vs-fact-barack-obamas-iraq-op-ed/
The Obama Spin Machine: FACT versus Myth Part II
FACT: Military Commanders And Troops On The Ground Say That There Is “No Way” For The 16-Month Timetable To Work.
* ABC News: Commanders In Iraq Say “No Way” Barack Obama’s Withdrawal Plan Could Work. “While Anderson and his troops have a positive attitude, several commanders who looked at the Obama plan told ABC News, on background, that there was ‘no way’ it could work logistically.” (Martha Raddatz, “Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult,” ABC News, 7/11/08)
* ABC News: “Physically Removing The Combat Brigades Within That Kind Of Time Frame Would Be Difficult, As Well.” (Martha Raddatz, “Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult,” ABC News, 7/11/08)
* ABC News: Removing The Equipment From Iraq Could Be “The Real Problem.” “It is the equipment that is the real problem. In the kind of redeployment that Anderson is talking about, the troops head home, but much of their equipment stays behind. Two combat brigades means up to 1,200 humvees in addition to thousands of other pieces of equipment, like trucks, fuelers, tankers and helicopters. And 90 percent of the equipment would have to be moved by ground through the Iraqi war zone, to the port in Kuwait, where it must all be cleaned and inspected and prepared for shipment. This is a place with frequent dust storms, limited port facilities and limited numbers of wash racks.” (Martha Raddatz, “Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult,” ABC News, 7/11/08)
FACT: Iraq Has Been Called “The Most Important And Serious Issue Today” By Al Qaeda And “The Central Front” By Our Commanding General.
* Osama Bin Laden: “The Most Important And Serious Issue Today For The Whole World Is This Third World War … Raging In [Iraq].” BIN LADEN: “I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world’s millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.” (Text Of Bin Laden’s Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
* General Petraeus: “Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda’s global campaign and we devote considerable resources to the fight against al Qaeda Iraq.” (Gen. David Petraeus, Press Briefing, Arlintong, VA, 4/26/07)
http://americassentinel.com/2008/07/14/mccain-press-release-myth-vs-fact-barack-obamas-iraq-op-ed/
The Obama Spin Machine: FACT versus Myth Part III
FACT:
Barack Obama Voted Against Providing Funding For Operations In Afghanistan.
* Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)
FACT: Barack Obama’s “Residual Force” Could Be As Many As 80,000 Troops In Iraq.
* The New York Sun Reported That A Key Adviser To Obama Is Recommending That 60,000 To 80,000 Troops Remain In Iraq As Late As 2010. “A key adviser to Senator Obama’s campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.” (Eli Lake, “Obama Adviser Calls For 60,000-80,000 U.S. Troops To Stay In Iraq Through 2010,” The New York Sun, 4/4/08)
* Barack Obama Would Not Say How Many Troops He Would Keep In Iraq. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria: “But you could imagine a situation where, if the Iraqi government wanted it, 30,000 American troops are still in Iraq 10 years from now.” Obama: “You know, I have been very careful not to put numbers on what a residual force would look like.” (CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” 7/13/08)
http://americassentinel.com/2008/07/14/mccain-press-release-myth-vs-fact-barack-obamas-iraq-op-ed/
Very good Regular. Now show where Obama has supported more troops for Afghanistan. That is the surge he has supported. Not Iraq.
#
SquarePeg
Posted July 20, 2008 at 1:49 pm | Permalink
Very good Regular. Now show where Obama has supported more troops for Afghanistan. That is the surge he has supported. Not Iraq.
————————
No, you can do that.
I just showed where you were speaking out of your ass on what Obama has said and stood for on the war in Iraq.
Another opportunity to see how satire works.
——–
‘Goodnight Bush’ Closes Chapter On Bush Years
Open Goodnight Bush: An Unauthorized Parody, and you might recognize the cozy green room with striped curtains, a fire glowing in the fireplace, a full moon outside in the starry sky.
But look closer and you’ll see that the painting over the fireplace shows an oil derrick with stealth bombers flying around it. In the fireplace, there’s a ballot box burning that says, “Florida 2000.” And snaking around the side of the fireplace is a tiny microphone.
“The book obviously isn’t for children,” Origen says. “At the same time, it lets us look at the past eight years through the eyes of a child. And it lets us see how far Bush’s reality is from the reality anyone would want for their children.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92325702
Barack Obama Voted Against Providing Funding For Operations In Afghanistan.
* Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)
I stated that Obama is not for the surge in Iraq. I dont see where you disproved that.
A laugh for everyone no matter their political persuasion.
——
A Bra’s Tale: Detour On A Daughter’s Trip Abroad
But things didn’t go smoothly during a plane trip in South America. The plane was flying near the Andes Mountains when Jenkins began to feel pressure and sensed there was a problem.
It turned out the cabin was not pressurized, and the bra was expanding.
“As the thing got bigger, I tried to stand up,” Jenkins said, “and I couldn’t see my feet.”
The instructions said that the bra’s pads could be inflated up to a size 48.
“I thought, ‘What would happen if it goes beyond 48?’” Jenkins recalled.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91943477
#
SquarePeg
Posted July 20, 2008 at 1:57 pm | Permalink
I stated that Obama is not for the surge in Iraq. I dont see where you disproved that.
——————–
Obama voted against increasing funding in Afghanistan.
I don’t have to connect the dots do I?
Evidently I do.
Carry on with being dense.
Global warming dazzled fact at God averted face. It is, ultimately, an unconvincing struggle into reality. The governor was awarded to Moriah Nachbaur.
Tiny Texas Cafe Fills Up After Barbecue Award
Every five years, Texas Monthly goes on a quest for the Holy Grail — to find the best barbecue in a state that reveres smoked meat. It takes the mission seriously.
This year, the magazine dispatched 18 writers who traveled nearly 15,000 miles to 341 establishments. In an unheard-of upset, a tiny cafe in central Texas beat out the longtime favorites to take first place.
Snow’s BBQ is in the little town of Lexington, an hour’s drive northeast of Austin. It’s open only on Saturday mornings.
“I wrote that it was as soft and sweet as cookie dough,” Burka says. “It almost transcended meat.”
“Are y’all just now puttin’ ‘em on fat side down?” she barks. “I don’t want ‘em fat side down. Flip ‘em back. I want ‘em fat side up, all times.” Two men with insulated gloves obey wordlessly, turning the briskets.
Once upon a time, Miss Tootsie cooked mainly for local customers. But that was before “the article,” as they say around Snow’s.
“We were named No. 1 in Texas and from that point on our whole business has changed drastically,” Bexley says. “We’ve gone from cooking from 300 pounds to cooking in excess of 1,000 pounds, and last week we sold out before 10 [a.m.].”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92677223
“Flip ‘em back. I want ‘em fat side up, all times.”
Always fat side up - it sears the opposite side and allows the juices to permeate the meat.
Damn, I just gave away one of my secrets!
“Obama voted against increasing funding in Afghanistan. I don’t have to connect the dots do I?” [Regular]
“* Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)”
Ummmm Why is the Senate voting on a H. R.?? AND… please note that the funds are “connected” — Iraq AND Afghanistan. If he votes FOR the funds to Afghanistan, he would also be voting funds to Iraq, which he oopposes. Right?
Linda - That is just too funny!
What Barak Obama voted against to support the troops and the nation of Afghanistan
The Emergency Supplemental Provided The Following For U.S. Operations In Afghanistan:
* $40 million for new power generation
* $314 million for rural road rebuilding
* $155 million for rural development
* $19 million for agriculture
* $174 million for Provincial Reconstruction Teams
* $25 million for governance capacity building
* $10 million for a Civilian Assistance Program
* $79 million to support Diplomatic and Consular Programs
* $16 million for Migration and Refugee Assistance
* $16 million for International Disaster and Famine Assistance for Internally Displaced Persons Assistance
* $47 million for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement activities (Stephen Daggett, Amy Belasco, Pat Towell, Susan B. Epstein, Connie Veillette, Curt Tarnoff, Rhoda Margesson, and Bart Elias, “FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations For Defense, Foreign Affairs, And Other Purposes,” Congressional Research Service, 7/2/07)
What Barak Obama could have done about Afghanistan with his roles in the Senate, but didn’t.
FACT: As Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs, Barack Obama Has Failed To Hold Any Hearings On Afghanistan.
* Barack Obama Has Served As Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs From 2007 — 2008. (U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Website, http://www.senate.gov, Accessed 2/15/08)
* The Subcommittee On European Affairs Has Jurisdiction Over The Countries Of Europe As Well As NATO Activities. “Jurisdiction: The subcommittee deals with all matters concerning U.S. relations with the countries on the continent of Europeand with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.” (U.S. Senate Committee On Foreign Relations Website, http://foreign.senate.gov, Accessed 2/27/07)
* As Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs, Barack Obama Could Have Held Hearings On The Role Of NATO In Afghanistan. “[A]mbassador John Ritch, who served for two decades as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s senior staffer on European affairs and East-West relations[P]oints out that as subcommittee chair, Obama could have examined a wide variety of urgent matters, from the role of NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq to European energy policy and European responses to climate change…” (Joe Conason, “Obama’s European Problem,” http://www.salon.com, 12/29/07)
* Barack Obama: “I became Chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven’t had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 2/27/08)
http://americassentinel.com/2008/07/14/mccain-press-release-myth-vs-fact-barack-obamas-iraq-op-ed/
“…One of my points about Barack Obama is not only that he’s more political than I thought. He’s more unimaginatively political. In my view he’d open eyes if he admitted he was wrong about the surge not being able to reduce violence and halfway wrong when he said the surge wouldn’t produce political gains. It might cause heartburn among some die-hard surge haters, but most of the country would see a guy who can respond to obvious facts and learn from them. That’s what normal people do.
As to your point about John McCain, my creeping sensation is that the campaign is diminishing both of these outstanding men. I just wonder if it is inevitable. It seems as if presidential campaigns now follow their own logic and are completely divorced from the real-life considerations of policy making.
Here’s one example, with a news scoop inside: McCain says he would like to permanently base United States troops in Iraq, the way they are permanently based in South Korea or Germany. My interviews with tippy top members of the Bush administration persuade me that it is a bad idea. They think basing large numbers of troops in other countries is a relic of the past and would certainly harm American interests in the Middle East. It’s far better to have small teams of advisers and forward operating bases that could be ramped up quickly. On this subject the Bush administration sounds a bit more like Obama than McCain.
That’s because people who make policy have to face certain realities that people who are campaigning never have to confront.”
-David Brooks (Conservative)
—
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/from-the-mountaintop/
—
It seems as if presidential campaigns now follow their own logic and are completely divorced from the real-life considerations of policy making.
I think Brooks is right, fwiw.
Damn, I thought Afghanistan would be considered a part of Asia. Hmmmm….
Barack Obama called Monday for sending an additional two combat brigades to Afghanistan as part of a refocused war-on-terror strategy. “Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and al-Qaida has a safe haven,” Obama wrote in a New York Times commentary. “Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been.”
[From Eagle Lead]
surge is working?
http://gorillasguides.com/2008/07/19/tal-afar-2008-07-17/
very graphic not for the weak hearted you have been warned
Annie - Something is not working there.
Think I will go catch some Elvis and Shakespeare, and get “All Shook Up” - Maybe grb some BBQ on the way. Later all! Have a nice evening!
#
SquarePeg
Posted July 20, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
Barack Obama called Monday for sending an additional two combat brigades to Afghanistan as part of a refocused war-on-terror strategy. “Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and al-Qaida has a safe haven,” Obama wrote in a New York Times commentary. “Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been.”
[From Eagle Lead]
====================================
Flip
Flop
Remember “Mission Accomplished?” There is no way to know if the surge worked. Certainly progress in Iraq was made after we increased the number of troops there, but other factors were at play too. Are the refugees returning, are the Christians coming back to their homes and temples, are forces in opposition to U.S. interests and the Iraqi govenment merely biding their time? Did they focus elsewhere? We’ll know in 20 years if the surge worked, just as we’ll know in a decade or two if the mission was really accomplished. My guess is that none of this will mean a hill of beans by then.
Annie? You asked me yesterday if I am in Wichita.
Where are you?
Wichita Chas.,
I have a vast estate in the south which is the envy of all my conservative neighbors.
Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’,
You haven’t answered my question yet.
DID J. A. Reiset make accurate measurements of well-mixed, uncontaminated, atmospheric CO2 levels? “Yes”, or “no”?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/07/open-thread-719-2/#comment-386450
‘Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Mauna Loa’
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
“Addressing the Washington Policymakers in Seattle, WA, Dr. Don Easterbrook said that shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) from its warm mode to its cool mode virtually assures global cooling for the next 25-30 years and means that the global warming of the past 30 years is over. The announcement by NASA that the (PDO) had shifted from its warm mode to its cool mode (Fig. 1) is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and is not an oddity superimposed upon and masking the predicted severe warming by the IPCC. This has significant implications for the future and indicates that the IPCC climate models were wrong in their prediction of global temperatures soaring 1°F per decade for the rest of the century.
Instead of a rise of 1°F during the first decade of this century as predicted by IPCC climate models (Fig 2), global temperatures cooled slightly for the past nine years and cooled more than 1°F this year (Fig 3). Global cooling over the past decade appears to be due to a global cooling trend set up by the PDO cool mode and a similar shift in the Atlantic. The IPCC’s prediction of a 1° F warming by 2011, will require warming of about 1° F in the next three years and unless that happens, the IPCC models will be proven invalid.”
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/WashingtonPolicymakersaddress.pdf
Climate science is such swiss cheese. Against this backdrop of cooling global temperatures and energy scarcity, Al Gore tries to gin up the sense of urgency.
Let’s get started building the nuclear power plants.
Michael Savage’s incompassionate conservatism has got him so far down in the dumps he’s gone to calling disabled kids ‘fake’ and ‘idiots’.
What a total POS.
http://mediamatters.org/action_center/savage_autism/stations
LOL!
Who would be a “peer” of The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (TVMOB)?
‘Irony-gate: Viscount Monckton, a British peer, says his paper was peer-reviewed by a scientist‘
http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/20/irony-gate-viscount-monckton-a-british-peer-says-his-paper-was-peer-reviewed-by-a-scientist-how-droll/
“Since TVMOB’s letter is straight out of Monty Python, let me rather make the point in kind that a peer is “a person who holds any of the five grades of the British nobility: duke, marquess, earl, viscount, and baron.
By that definition, I am sure that TVMOB’s paper was not given proper peer review. Indeed, I’m not certain TVMOB has a proper peer on this Earth. Perhaps Senator Inhofe or President Bush.”
Yeah, that hunk of Antarctic glacier the size of Northern Ireland breaking off during winter is because the planet is cooling down. I wonder if you science denialists actually believe what you say.
outlander posted,
“… and cooled more than 1°F this year (Fig 3).
outlander,
1) What is the last month of 2008 on Easterbrook’s graph?
2) How many months are there in a year?
For those of you in the Wichita area, the carrier that handles Michael Savage is as follows:
KNSS
2120 N. Woodlawn
Suite 352
Wichita, KS 67208
(316)436 1330
General Manager: Jackie Wise
I will be contacting them re: Savage in the morning.