Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Obama Administration to Shoot Barred Owls to Save Spotted Cousins

Sometimes the U.S. government just makes you want to go: Huh?

In those cases, it’s usually easier to just quote the original news coverage on the subject, since there’s only so many ways you can describe the insanity that goes on in Washington D.C. and elsewhere in the country’s legislative system. So, without further ado, from the Washington Post:

“To save the imperiled spotted owl, the Obama administration is moving forward with a controversial plan to shoot barred owls, a rival bird that has shoved its smaller cousin aside.

“The plan is the latest federal attempt to protect the northern spotted owl, the passive, one-pound bird that sparked an epic battle over logging in the Pacific Northwest two decades ago.

“The government set aside millions of acres of forest to protest the owl, but the bird’s population continues to decline – a 40 percent slide in 25 years.

“A plan announced Tuesday would designate habitat considered critical for the bird’s survival, while allowing logging to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and to create jobs. Habitat loss and competition from barred owls are the biggest threats to the spotted owl.”

Again: Huh?

Completely setting aside the irony that nature is destroying nature despite humans ridiculously restricting humans to save nature, why in the world is the government interfering at all?

When it comes down to it, who cares about the spotted owl? Isn’t this the survival of the fittest taught so fervently in public school classrooms? Isn’t this natural? Won’t things right themselves out in the end like they always do, with life going on despite mankind’s machinations?

The answers should be obvious, but our government is filled with brain-dead bureaucrats and has been for some time. President Obama’s isn’t the only administration to use its power so foolishly. His predecessor tried to implement a similar plan, which was tossed out in court.

In addition, “The plan to kill barred owls would not be the first time the federal government has authorized killing of one species to help another. California sea lions that feast on threatened salmon in the Columbia River have been killed in recent years after efforts to chase them away or scare them failed.

“The U.S. Agriculture Department kills thousands of wild animals each year — mostly predators such as coyotes — to protect livestock. Other animals, including bears, wolves and raccoons also are killed through the program.”

Essentially, at least in the spotted owl case, we’re wasting time, money and resources trying to manipulate life to a degree that will ultimately fail and make us all look like fools as it does.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

This Is the Government We Elected Four Years Ago…

Yesterday, the Washington Free Beacon reported:

“The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.”

This is the government we elected nearly four years ago, one that lavishly rewards friends and punishes everybody else.

Yesterday, Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government reported:

“In January and February of this year, the Internal Revenue Service began sending out letters to various local Tea Parties across the country. Mailed from the same Cincinnati, Ohio IRS office, these letters have reached Tea Parties in Virginia, Hawaii, Ohio, and Texas (we are hearing of more daily). There are several common threads to these letters: all are requesting more information from these independent Tea Parties in regard to their nonprofit 501(c)(4) applications (for this type of nonprofit, donations are not deductible). While some of the requests are reasonable, much of them are strikingly onerous and, dare I say, Orwellian in nature.”

This is the government we elected nearly four years ago, one that purposely and blatantly abuses its power.

Yesterday, the Washington Free Beacon also reported:

“Despite President Obama and Democrats’ insistence that the rich “pay their fair share,” three-quarters of likely voters believe the nation’s richest should pay lower, not higher, taxes, according to a poll conducted by the Hill.”

This is the government we elected nearly four years ago, one that ignores everything that we communicate in favor of telling us what we believe without any consideration of our individuality or intellectual capabilities.

This is the government we need to oust this year. Or this is the government that’s going to push America into obscurity, poverty and misery.

Monday, February 27, 2012

Delegation in Afghanistan Deems Koran Burning “Inhumane” but Falls Far Short of Apologizing for U.S. Military Deaths

“In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate,” begins a joint statement by the delegations assigned to probe the “Bagram Incident” (i.e. issues of the Koran being burned and thrown into the garbage heap at a U.S. military base.).

And it continues with this:

“Following the insulting and shameful act of burning Quran in Bagram airbase that injured the religious sentiments of the Islamic world and particularly of the Afghan Muslim nation, two delegations comprising of representatives from government, the National Council of Ulemma and the National Assembly were assigned and dispatched to investigate the circumstances and causes that have led to the inhumane incident.”

With all due respect, “inhumane?” What in the world are they talking about?

How is burning a book – even a holy book – inhumane? It might be sophomoric, ignorant or sacrilegious. But inhumane? That seems like a pretty unbelievable stretch considering that no actual people were harmed in the initial incident.

There were, of course, people harmed afterwards, including two American soldiers who were shot to death and four others who were wounded by an Afghani military man allegedly retaliating for the perceived insult to Islam.

But “the Most Merciful” Allah, at least as portrayed by his Afghani representatives, doesn’t care a bit about that harm. On that issue, the delegation only says:

“In view of the particular security situation in the country, we call on all our Muslim citizens of Afghanistan to exercise self-restraint and extra vigilance in dealing with the issue and avoid resorting to protests and demonstrations that may provide ground for the enemy to take advantage of the situation.”

This is barely a chastisement, much less an apology. If anything, it comes across as a self-righteous indictment of those non-Muslim savages who are quick to construe data as they see fit. And even that inappropriate address is rendered null and void by the last point made:

“The delegations also want from the Afghan government to formally praise those brave Afghan army soldiers and all others who showed feelings against the disrespectful act by preventing more religious books and Quran copies from burning, so that the pure Muslim sentiments of our honored Mujahid nation can remain alive.”

Considering the rest of the letter – or even the point all by itself – it’s easy to read between the lines: Killing and wounding U.S. military personnel over the issue was justified and honorable.

Yet somehow, we’re the inhumane ones.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Richard Dawkins Tries to Deny God Again

Richard Dawkins, the world’s “most famous atheist,” admitted that he is only “6.9 out of seven” sure that God doesn’t exist, adding, “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very, very low.”

This admission makes him slightly more credible than the image he’s projected in past years, but just barely, since he hasn’t apologized for his previous postulations that religion – and especially Christianity, it seems – is a concept constructed by the hopelessly uneducated.

In his mind then, my opinion – not to mention my ultimate existence – is just about entirely irrelevant, since I am 9.999999999999999 out of 10 sure that God does exist. I base my opinion on scientific information I’ve gathered with my senses, factual conclusions I’ve reached through my intellect, and supernatural assurances I’ve received in my spirit.

Call me crazy if you want, as Richard Dawkins has all but blatantly done in his various books, including “The God Delusion.” But his stance is just as ignorant as the counter argument he abhors so much: the belief that God is scientifically verifiable.

The truth is that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved. Yet, even so, there are multiple reasons to think that there is some powerful being who, among other things, aligned the earth just perfectly away from the sun so that it doesn’t burn up or freeze over, thereby making it capable of supporting life, and gave human beings emotional and spiritual tools to enjoy life just as much the mental and physical capabilities to survive in it.

Richard Dawkins would undoubtedly have an answer for both points, probably something along the lines of what he said to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, this week:

“What I can’t understand is why you can’t see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing. That is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?”

But that question can be thrown right back at Dawkins…

With (sincerely) all due respect to his educational background and intellectual abilities, what I can’t understand is why he can’t see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that a loving Creator would fashion the world for human beings in such a way that could edify everything we were made to be.

Because that is such an amazingly powerful, comforting and – yes – beautiful concept that I don’t really understand why anybody would want to deny it.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

British Health Secretary Deems Sex Selection Abortions “Morally Wrong”


According to both sides of the political aisle, the facts are painfully obvious.

Conservatives say the fetus is obviously a baby, a human life deserving full protection as an individual.

The left says that the fetus is obviously part of a woman’s body, organic tissue that can be kept or disposed of according to feminine will.

Except, apparently, if the pregnant party chooses an abortion based on the fetus’ gender. Then, it might be a bad, bad thing and possibly even illegal, as in England.

There, an investigation has been launched into such abortions after several secretly filmed documentaries exposed many British doctor’s willingness to ignore their patients’ motivations.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley says: “I’m extremely concerned to hear about these allegations. Sex selection is illegal and is morally wrong. I’ve asked my officials to investigate this as a matter of urgency.”

But his statements and the law itself raise the humongous question of why...

Why is it a moral issue if the fetus is merely part of a woman’s body? Why does it change anything if she doesn’t want it because it has masculine or feminine DNA, or if it’s just universally inconvenient? Why are there mental restraints on her physical rights?

None of those are easy questions to answer.

Unless, of course, you admit that the fetus is, in fact, a human life. And then suddenly the picture becomes a lot more clear.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Chris Christie Tells Warren Buffett to “Just Write a Check and Shut up”

Sometimes I agree with Chris Christie and sometimes I don’t.

This is one of the times that I most definitely do.

As a guest on CNN’s Piers Morgan, the controversial and outspoken New Jersey governor was asked the same tired questions Republicans are always blasted with concerning the rich paying their “fair share” of taxes. And just as predictably, Warren Buffett’s name came up during that exchange, as it has so many times in the past year or so.

As Morgan colorfully (and yet still tiredly) put it, “Warren Buffett keeps screaming to be taxed more.” And he’s right: The billionaire has been busy yapping on and on and on about the subject, pointing out how his secretary gets taxed more than he does, all the while conveniently forgetting to mention a few things…

Number 1: If he’s so concerned about his secretary’s finances, why doesn’t he give her a big fat raise? He can certainly afford it!

Number 2: Warren Buffett doesn’t make an actual income in the traditional sense of the word. All of his profits are made from his investments, which are funded with money he originally made more conventionally and therefore paid higher taxes on.

And Christie pointed out a third inconsistency with Buffett’s obnoxious yammering…

Number 3: “He should just write a check and shut up. Really. And just contribute. I’m tired of hearing about it. If he wants to give the government more money, he’s got the ability to write a check. Go ahead and write it.”

A very good argument, which begs the question: Why hasn’t Buffett done just that?

Short of Hollywood fiction plots involving dark, secret societies or alien possessions, there are really only three theories to reach.

Either he’s too stupid to have thought of Christie’s proposition all on his own, he’s secretly sliding money to the feds, or he’s a big fat hypocrite.

The first idea is highly doubtful considering Buffett’s business acumen, and the second nearly as unlikely since there’s no obvious political or personal gain from doing so.

That leaves the third possibility that Warren Buffett says one thing and does another, just like Christie implied. And add in the billionaire’s power and Democratic political affiliations, and that conclusion becomes even more crystal clear.

Not that Christie’s dare to put up or shut up – or put up and shut up – will do anything of course. Expect to hear Buffett talking the same tired points as ever going forward.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Delusions and Inaccuracies Coddled in Cases of Adolescent Gender Reconstruction

Patient X was born a girl. But apparently, at 18 months, the toddler said three words that changed everything: “I a boy.”

Now eight years old, the child still thinks of itself as a boy, quite possibly because her parents are idiots and have accepted their daughter’s clearly inaccurate assessment of her physical self. They not only refer to her as male but are also “watching for the first signs of puberty to begin [gender reassignment] treatment,” as MyWay News reports.

Go figure, they live in California. Los Angeles to be precise.

The story goes on to explain: “The child attends a public school where classmates don't know he is biologically a girl. For that reason, his mother requested anonymity.

“She said she explained about having a girl's anatomy but he rejected that, refused to wear dresses, and has insisted on using a boy's name since preschool.

“The mother first thought it was a phase, then that her child might be a lesbian, and sought a therapist's help to confirm her suspicion. That's when she first heard the term "gender identity disorder" and learned it's often not something kids outgrow.

“Accepting his identity has been difficult for both parents, the woman said. Private schools refused to enroll him as a boy, and the family's pediatrician refused to go along with their request to treat him like a boy. They found a physician who would, Dr. Jo Olson, medical director of a transgender clinic at Children's Hospital Los Angeles.

“Olson said that journal reports should help persuade more doctors to offer these kids sex-changing treatment or refer them to specialists who will.

“‘It would be so nice to move this out of the world of mental health, and into the medical world,’ Olson said.”

Of course, Olson neglected to say how much money she’d be swimming in if that happened.
She also didn’t mention how complicated the rest of the world becomes if we start accepting non-reality as reality…

If we start blurring the very obvious physical differentiations between man and woman, then how about the far less concrete lines between adolescent and adult? Or how about willing and unwilling?

I might have just taken the slippery slope too far, but perhaps not. After all, it wasn’t that long ago that gender reconstruction surgery at any age, much less for children, was completely unheard of.

And if we’re really going to stress that facts don’t matter, there’s no telling how far we’ll fall.

Friday, February 17, 2012

College Courses Are a Joke… Sometimes Literally

It’s well-recognized these days that education from K to 12 and beyond is a joke in the U.S.

Children learn much more about how to behave like miscreants than anything else. They’re coddled and/or stifled, schooled to think hard work matters far less than their fleeting feelings.

And it doesn’t really get better after high school, considering that a college degree complete with internship still landed me at the bottom of the corporate rung in customer services. It was only hard work and initiative that got me into a job befitting the skills I paid the big bucks to hone.

Judging by typical employment opportunity demands, businesses recognize all too well that a B.A. or B.S. don’t mean anything anymore, which is why they often demand years of experience before they’ll consider anybody for a titled position.

That’s unbelievably frustrating for college grads, hence the New York Law School grads who are suing their alma mater for $200 million. The lawsuit charges the college “consigns the overwhelming majority of [students] to years of indentured servitude, saddling them with tens of thousands of dollars in crushing, non-dischargeable debt” that takes decades to discharge.

They also allege the 90-95% employment rate NYLS alums within nine months of graduating – which recruiters like to tout – actually includes jobs that don’t require a law or even a college degree.

While the former students can easily be accused of being ridiculous, entitled and naïve, they still have a point (though probably not a legitimate legal one).

College degrees are held up as the end all and be all of just about everything, and children are trained early on to believe that going to college is what smart, successful types do. And maybe – maybe – that was at least partially true in the past.

But the present is a much different story. Considering the degrees institutions of higher learning are offering, it’s no wonder that nothing coming out of them is taken seriously in the real world!

Vincennes University offers a degree in Bowling Industry Management and the University of Connecticut a master’s degree in puppetry. Harrisburg Area Community College offers full courses in auctioning, while students at Florida Southern College can learn all about citrus studies. Michigan State University actually has a doctoral program in packaging, and Kansas State University offers degrees in bakery science.

(Incidentally, Southampton Solent University in the UK allows students to graduate from the school of comedy studies, so there’s still apparently room for the U.S. to sink further.)

These are all skills much better learned in apprenticeships, which are far more practical, not to mention a heck of a lot cheaper. And maybe, if schools stopped offering such unnecessary courses, their students could actually hold a paycheck from somewhere other than McDonald’s.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

How Dumb They Are: Pop Star Shakira Nearly Gets Herself Killed by a “Cute” Sea Lion

Hollywood celebrities are notoriously sheltered and stupid.

They live in million dollar mansions, vacation at five-star resorts around the world, wear little but designer clothing and waste tons of money on gyms, personal trainers and plastic surgery all in an attempt to try fitting into a completely unrealistic idea of what perfection looks like.

And they finance those lavish lifestyles by playing make believe until they have completely convinced themselves that down is up, left is right and shallow is deep.

Take hottie tottie pop star Shakira, who nearly got herself killed in South Africa this month. She described the incident this way:

“This afternoon I happened to see some sea lions and seals. I thought to myself how cute they were so I decided to get a bit closer than all of the other tourists and went down to a rock trying to pet them doing a baby talk while taking pictures.

“Suddenly, one of them jumped out of the water so fast and impetuously that it got about one foot away from me, looked me in the eye, roared in fury and tried to bite me. Everyone there screamed, including me. I was paralyzed by fear and couldn’t move, I just kept eye contact with it while my brother ‘Super Tony’ jumped over me and literally saved my life, taking me away from the beast.

“We both got our hands and legs scratched by the rocks while trying to protect ourselves. I believe what happened is that it confused the shiny reflection of the BlackBerry I was taking these pics with, with some sort of fish.

“It probably thought I was teasing it with food and then taking it away from it. Wow! It’s funny that only half an hour before I was complaining to my guide Andrew that I never get to see wild animals up close on adventure trips.

“Oh well, I can’t say that anymore!! Now I’m off to see some penguins! I hope they are a bit more friendly!”

Much as movies like “Free Willy,” “Andre,” and “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home” (Yes, I went there) depict otherwise, wild animals are exactly that– wild animals – and should be trusted to act like nothing else. They’re territorial and temperamental and programmed to a way of life that human beings aren’t supposed to follow: kill or be killed.

The 35-year-old Shakira saying that she wanted to pet them because they looked “cute” is about as dangerous as a 5-year-old agreeing to accept candy from a stranger. The only difference is that a 35-year-old should know a heck of a lot better.

And the fact that she didn’t is just one more indication that Hollywood celebrities really are that stupid.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Stupid Parents Bribe Little Brat to Do Her Homework and Apologize to Teacher

5-year-old Emma Burton of Olathe, Kansas is apparently a brat.

When her kindergarten teacher told the class to color in a picture of a Jayhawk, the University of Kansas’ school mascot, she pitched a fit. The daughter of two die-hard Kansas State fans, she not only refused to have anything to do with the project but even went so far as to throw it in the trash.

Not surprisingly, the teacher wasn’t very happy with that kind of behavior, especially when not even a reprimand could change it. So the woman took the next step in contacting Emma’s mother, Julie Burton, who had the following conversation with her daughter:

Julie: Emma, you need to color this thing. The teacher might have to send you to the principal’s office.

Emma: I don’t care. I’m not coloring it.

Julie: Hmmm… Ok. What if I make you a deal? What if I print out a Powercat and you color it purple, grey and white. Then write an apology to your teacher because you were rude. Will you agree to that?

Emma: [pouting] Fine.

Julie: Ok, but you need to color that Jayhawk for your teacher.

Emma: [silent, exhales] Fine.

Julie: You will?

Emma: Yes. But I don’t like it. And I’m wearing a K-State shirt tomorrow.

Julie: Fine. You don’t have to like it. Just do it and I want you to tell your teacher you’re sorry as well.

Yahoo! goes on to comment: “It is impossible to know what the future holds for Emma Burton. She may very well attend Kansas State like her parents did. She may attend Harvard, or Oberlin, or any number of different terrific schools from across the country. She may go on to work in science, as a writer, or even as a general in the military (given her current personality, this might be an excellent choice).”

Except for one little problem with all of those possibilities… Achieving any of them (with the possible exception of Harvard, which merely demands some special form of non-academic quality like Daddy’s money or Daddy’s connections), requires discipline. It requires the ability to take orders and listen and learn.

Achieving any kind of worthwhile success in life demands strength of character, not brattiness.

Even so, the real problem with Emma Burton’s tale isn’t that she’s a brat. Because, let’s face it, most little children are. That’s why they need solid rules and boundaries established in their little lives: so that they grow out of that kind of egocentric worldview and into maturity.

And that’s where the real problem lies: the fact that her mother – and quite possibly both parents, though the story doesn’t really mention Mr. Burton – let her get away with her bad behavior instead of punishing her appropriately. With the level of disrespect and disruption she caused, Emma definitely deserved a spanking, a time out, a lost snack or some other obvious sign that her behavior was unacceptable.

Heck! A stern talking to could have worked. Yet she didn’t even get that!

What Julie Burton gave her instead was bribery. Emma was asked what she would prefer to do in the situation instead of told what she should do, given options instead of given ultimatums, and essentially treated like a reasonable adult with a legitimate complaint instead of a small child acting like an inexcusable brat.

That’s no way to train a child. Though it is precisely why society is situated so catastrophically today.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Nikki Minaj’s “Roman Holiday” Grammy Performance Smacks of Satan

Thanks to Nikki Minaj’s performance of her new single, “Roman Holiday,” at the Grammy’s on Sunday, Valentine’s Day came two days early… for Satan worshippers, anyway.

Minaj didn’t sacrifice baby piglets to Beelzebub or chant any ancient spells, but she deliberately went out of her way to make an ungodly impression all the same.

Capitalizing on the recent battle that the Catholic Church – and Christians in general – lost to President Obama over insurance-covered contraception, the twenty-something year-old hit the stage with an obvious theme: exorcism.

And what exorcism would be complete without dirty dancing priests, levitation and lots of cleavage?

Certainly not a Nikki Minaj one!

While singing her largely nonsensical lyrics that don’t really seem to have anything to do with anything, Minaj added some Look-at-Me-Look-at-Me-I’m-Possessed twitching while chained up inside an iron casket, strutted around the stage with her signature wide-eyed I’m-either-on-Drugs-or-Honestly-Think-This-Makes-Me-Come-across-as-Sexy look, and even knelt down to imitate praying at one point.

What happened after that, I have no clue. I actually felt uncomfortable enough to turn it off, something that doesn’t happen very often.

Admittedly, Nikki Minaj hasn’t built her career on behaving like a good little Christian girl by any stretch of the imagination. And it isn’t as if she has any earthly obligation to like or even respect Christianity in general or the Catholic Church specifically.

At the same time, it doesn’t say anything good about her – or a society that tolerates and even admires her – when she purposefully goes out of her way to top even fellow shock artist Lady Gaga at being needlessly sacrilegious.

Was Minaj actually possessed by Satan during her performance? It’s highly doubtful. (Though it does make quite the catchy headline, don’t you think?) But it probably would have been a lot more tolerable if she had been.

At least then she would have had an excuse for her deliberately disrespectful, immature and downright disgusting behavior.

Monday, February 13, 2012

A Worthless Greece Riots Again

So Greece went bonkers again over the weekend, rioting for the debt-funded luxuries they’ve been entitled to for so long.

Sad as the chaos and destruction is and was, it’s not at all surprising.

Greece rioted repeatedly last year, perhaps more than any of the other socialist or socialist-leaning European nations.

To be sure, Italy, Spain, France and the UK all made the news in 2011 for their immature response to proposed government spending cuts. Their locals attacked police, destroyed property and basically acted like a bunch of… well… spoiled brat socialists too used to having the nanny state government take care of them to act like mature, rational adults.

But the Greek citizenry went a step further and acted like rioting was their calling.

That’s not to say that the Greeks are by nature so much more pathetic than the rest of Europe or the rest of the world. They only won their gold medal in hoodlumry because their government had to take more drastic action than other nations so far.

Rachel Marsden, writing for Human Events, explains:

“Greece was spending beyond its means by injecting cash into a public-sector system that wasn’t in turn producing anything of real value on which it could then turn a substantial profit. When this system slid into the negative, they borrowed on credit until their credit rating tanked and they couldn’t get loans. So they turned to Europe and the IMF, which are made up of countries borrowing money themselves on credit to manage their own debts. Where in all of this is anyone actually producing anything that’s turning a significant profit? While in China, they have enough cash floating around to buy up the treasury bills of every other cash-strapped country, thereby stringing them up by the short and curlies and ensuring the red carpet treatment anywhere and everywhere they might wish to go on a round-the-world tour.”

That’s frightening in and of itself, but perhaps not more so than the basic immaturity so prominently on display in Greece right now, where over 80,000 rioters burnt down over 40 buildings in central Athens alone, outnumbering the already taxed police force five-to-one.

Could that happen in the U.S.? Unfortunately, the answer is a definite yes.

We already saw a miniature version in Wisconsin last year when Governor Scott Walker cut back on government spending, particularly when it came to union benefits. In turn, the unions went nuts, occupying the state capitol building and trashing it repeatedly.

In other words, Greece isn’t something for the U.S. to roll its eyes at or poke fun of. It’s a harbinger of what we will become if we don’t start acting like adults and taking care of ourselves.

Thursday, February 9, 2012

The Himalayas Aren’t Melting After All. Except That They Are Still. So Keep Forking Over Your Money and Freedoms.

In 2009, we were all told that the Himalayas were melting at an exponentially dangerous rate and would disappear altogether by 2035.

General panic ensued until scientists realized they had made a mistake and republished the findings. The snow-capped mountain range wasn’t going to be gone by 2035, they clarified, but 2350.


Everybody makes mistakes though, so most people were willing to go right back to drinking the Kool-Aid in their end-is-nigh tie-dye shirts after that little mix-up. If anything, global warming alarmists got even more fired up about doing Mother Nature’s work: scaring people out of their hard-earned earnings and God-given liberties under a message of repentance and reprisal.

Only it’s just come out that another mistake has been made… on top of the one announced last week, which involved a blatant admission that the world hasn’t actually warmed in the last 10 years and that we might even be facing a mini ice age…

Now on top of that we learn that, according to a brand new study based off of satellite technology, the Himalayans haven’t melted in the last 10 years.

Double (or triple) oops! How embarrassing!

Yet global warming “scientists” aren’t embarrassed at all. They’re not deterred and they’re not giving even the slightest hint of an apology to all of the people they terrified, swindled and bullied. Instead, they insist that this changes nothing.

“Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year,” Professor John Wahr of the University of Colorado assures. “People should be just as worried about the melting of the world’s ice as they were before.”

And according to the UK’s Guardian, “The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges… are definitely melting… But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.”

So in other words, the earth is going through cycles. Like it normally does. Which is why it oftentimes snows in the winter and gets hot in the summer… and why there are freak occurrences from time to time where the climate doesn’t behave how we expect it to.

But if the global warming alarmists admitted aby of those particuarly obvious facts, they wouldn’t be able to own anybody’s minds and pocketbooks. And where’d be the fun in that?

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

If Spanking Causes So Many Unfortunate Traits in Children, What’s Everybody Else’s Excuse?

Amidst all of the news about Santorum’s sweep in last night’s primaries – And good for him! – this is the headline that really caught my attention this morning: “Spanking kids can cause long-term harm: Canada study.”

So that’s the one that I’m writing about today.

According to Joan Durant, a professor at the University of Manitoba, and her co-author, Ron Ensom of the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa, spanking children can cause everything from dangerously aggressive behavior to a lower IQ.

In fact, “We’re really past the point of calling this a controversy,” Durant says. “That’s a word that’s used and I don’t know why, because in the research there really is no controversy.”

In other words, spanking is automatically psyche-altering abuse. End of story. Rather like global warming.

However, the study admits that spanking isn’t nearly as common as it used to be. What it doesn’t mention is how bad adolescent behavior has gotten over the past few decades.

These days, it’s not uncommon for middle school students (i.e. 11-14 year olds) to be having sex. And that trend is still trickling downward even to the elementary school level.

The same goes for hardcore drugs, alcohol and gang activity.

In light of Durant and Ensom’s “research,” this evaluation of reality begs the question of how many of those children have actually been spanked. And how many of those parents have taken the exact opposite routes of looking the other way or flat-out encouraging that behavior?

As a former education student who still has a number of friends in the business, I hear horror stories all the time about school children’s behavior, from K all the way up to 12. And I also hear about the parents who either flat-out condone their sons and daughters’ exceptionally immature and egocentric conduct, or just ignore it.

To them, spanking never enters into the equation, even though that could be just the thing their children need in order to leave high school without a drug addiction or an STD.

Spanking, when administered correctly, teaches children about boundaries and consequences. Boys and girls who are properly disciplined tend to not grow up into dysfunctional men and women who expect a world that caters to their needs just like their parents did… a dangerously unrealistic belief that usually leads to unfulfilled lives.

Children need serious discipline in some form or another. Because discipline is what’s needed to succeed in life.

Monday, February 6, 2012

An Out of Touch President Obama Strikes Again

This is how out of touch, arrogant and narcissistic President Obama really is…

In an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer on Sunday, the PotUS said he “deserve[s] a second term… We’ve made progress. The key now is to make sure we don’t start turning in the wrong direction.”

He also said: “What’s frustrated people is that I’ve not been able to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes. But what we have been able to do is move in the right direction. And you know what? One of the things about being president is you get better as time goes on.”

That is how out of touch, arrogant and narcissistic President Obama really is.

Disgusting, isn’t it?

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Study Declares Sugar “Should Be Regulated as Strictly as Alcohol” for Our Own Good

Michelle Obama needs to stop trying to control my individuality with her healthy food kick.

It all seemed harmless enough in the beginning. But that changed quickly, as evidenced by how she bullied privately-owned restaurants like Olive Garden into cutting their calorie count. And now she’s apparently trying to set the stage to socialize sugar altogether.

Live Science released a story yesterday claiming that: “Sugar and other sweeteners are, in fact, so toxic to the human body that they should be regulated as strictly as alcohol by governments worldwide, according to a commentary in the current issue of the journal Nature by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).”

Think that Michelle Obama isn’t involved with that? Even when universities get government grants all the time for studies exactly like that one? Under corrupt administrations like the one her hubby runs, fund-recipients are essentially paid to agree with the government. Or else.

Besides, the researchers’ answer to the supposed problem fits far too nicely into President Obama’s grand scheme of bribing and taxing the American people into miserable servitude. The UCSF study concludes that the best way to combat the ravages of sugar consumption is to tax sugary foods and drinks, ban sales of such edible materials in or near schools, and set age limits on any such purchases regardless.

Because it’s that unhealthy, they say, especially when over two-thirds of the nation is overweight or obese.

First of all, the definition of “overweight” is exceedingly misleading, considering that, at 5’2 ½ and 127 lbs, I’m considered just barely within the “healthy” range. That’s quite possibly because of the extra – genetically decided – junk in my trunk, but how many other women are considered overweight because of the same “issue?” America does, after all, have significant black and Hispanic populations, not to mention that not every white woman has a naturally flat backside.

But even if the clinical/political definition wasn’t seriously skewed, it is not now nor should it ever be the government’s responsibility to decide what I can and cannot eat. Saying otherwise is both dangerously intrusive and overwhelmingly insulting.

It says that I am not an individual with individual needs and wants, and an individual ability to make my own choices and live with the consequences. It also says that government has the right to decide what I do. And what next will it say that about? What I’m allowed to think? Who I’m allowed to worship?

Sadly, it’s been trying to do both for a while now.

But just because Michelle Obama, her horrible husband, and the rest of the Nanny State government and its cronies want my individuality, they have no right to it and they can’t have it… no matter how they couch it in concern for the general welfare.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Mitt Romney Wins Florida – for Better or for Worse – Thanks to Women Voters

So Mitt Romney won the most recent round of GOP presidential nominations. And he did it in part because female Floridians flocked to him, quite possibly because they didn’t take kindly to Newt Gingrich’s womanizing past.

Or possibly because he’s better looking. Who knows these days.

As a female myself, I can’t say that I blame them if they really did go the Romney route because of the other front-runner’s sordid self. I don’t know what Gingrich is like now, but his history shows that he at least used to be quite the oinker. And it’s really hard to vote for somebody who respected women so little, especially considering the conservative uproar Republicans put up over previous pig president Bill Clinton not that long ago.

I’m not going to say that I’m thrilled with Romney winning another state on top of New Hampshire but, at this point, I’m not fully convinced that he’s any worse a conservative candidate than Gingrich.

Both have in some form or another supported a predecessor to Obamacare, both have “crossed the aisle” to make deals with liberals one too many times for comfort, and both come across as unbelievably arrogant more often than not.

(Not that the last point has anything to do with conservatism. I just find it annoying.)

Regardless, my vote is still with Rick Santorum regardless of whether he has a real chance or not. If I have the choice, I’ll go with the most conservative man or woman standing any day.