About Me

Name: Catmman
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

About that 3rd Quarter 'Growth'...

Posted by Catmman on Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:18:09 PM
I like this analysis:

In other words, what we had in the third quarter was not long-term growth based on solid investment in business.  We had a flurry of federal spending and consumer behavior predicated on highly temporary government interventions, like Cash for Clunkers and the homebuyer tax credit.  That may be enough to make the administration look good for the next three months, but only for that long if they don’t stimulate real investment instead of using these gimmicky programs.  If we have a double dip recession after these gimmicks end, Barack Obama won’t have George Bush to kick around any longer on the economy.  He’ll own it after this.

More here.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How 'bout some Shackleton Scotch?

Posted by Catmman on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:27:03 PM
Recently discovered.  Two cases of McKinlay's scotch whiskey which Sir Shackleton took with him on a Southern Polar expedition in 1907.  Recently discovered, still under the floorboards, of a shack used by the Shackleton expedition. 

I am preferential to Irish whisky as opposed to scotch.  I only recently have done some experimenting with finding a good (to me) scotch.  I don't like the 'peatiness' of scotch much, though a light smokiness is pretty good.  Johnny Walker Black is pretty good.  I've also tried The Glenlivet, which was OK, but I preferred the JWB.  I haven't had any other scotch yet, but am still looking, drinking and experimenting.

This story is just neat.  That something like this could be found intact in such an environment after over 100 years is pretty cool.  I would love to have a nip of it, just for the sentimentalism.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Coat-Hanger Ecology

Posted by Catmman on Monday, October 26, 2009 4:49:55 PM
"The planet has a fever."
                                   - Al Gore

Did you know if you live in a Western Nation and have a child, that child is thirty percent more ecologically-evil than a child born in some Third World crap hole?

Did you know if you are a white, male,  middle-class earner with kids you are the greatest ecological scourge ever witnessed by Gaia, second only to your white children and the asteroid which wiped out the dinosaurs?

Did you know more than two-thirds of the Earths surface is covered with water yet there are, somehow, water shortages?

Did you know progressives care about the poor so much they wish to keep them in poverty so they'll be more 'Green'?

Did you know apparently the a-hat who wrote this article hasn't got the memo that Paul Ehrlich's so-called "Population Bomb" (and all of its predictions) - was a dud?

According to the article's author, that 'fever' is white, Western children.  This is the level of Leftist logic on this issue:  We must save the planet for the children, by not having any.  Population control is a must, particularly of white kids, or something.

This kind of ham-handed clap-trap has been around for at least 41 years.  Yet lefty morons continue to spew this line from the rooftops.  The same can be said for the lefty logic on Poverty.  What is the mantra?  Poverty is bad, right?  This line of thought is the justification for every Liberal/Progressive "social-justice" project ever implemented.  How many trillions of dollars worldwide have been spent to fight the "War on Poverty"?  Everything about Poverty is bad - until you start using Poverty Newspeak on 'climate change'.

In the context of 'climate change' - poverty is good.  People who live in impoverished countries have a smaller carbon footprint.  People in poverty are more ecologically 'in-tune' with Gaia.  We shouldn't strive to lift the impoverished into a better quality of life.  No.  We should strive to make ourselves like the impoverished.  We should shun all the contrivances which make our Western way of living so 'consumptive'. 

See how far you'll get when your first step is too stop all the funding for any type of anti-poverty project.  See how fast the hands will wring when you say your going to stop foreign aid to Africa.  When the Progressives start their caterwauling, tell them to jump on the first donkey train to Africa and tell the impoverished they are on their own.  It's all for the sake of Gaia you see.  If they continue their hand-wringing, just tell them your doing your part to make them more impoverished.  After all, wouldn't them being more poor also make them more ecologically friendly?   Wouldn't their carbon footprints be even smaller without the evil carbon producing subsidies from oppressive Westerners?  To borrow from Ayn Rand - blank out!

Justifying 'climate change' measures in this way isn't the only flaw in the Leftard logic.  How exactly does saving the planet "for the children" work if we aren't having any?  If we aren't going to have children, then who the hell cares about what the condition of the planet is in a hundred years?  There won't be any kids around to burn up, so what's the point in bankrupting ourselves now?  Again, blank out!

Of course I'm laying on the sarcasm pretty thick.  The author's real point is that: Rich = Bad.  Middle Class = Bad.  White = Bad.  High Quality of Life = Bad.  Western = Bad.  It's all over his article, right down to advocating that even one less British child makes room for thirty sub-Saharan kids and the planet will still be a 'cleaner' place.  The guy makes no bones.  He couldn't be more loathing of his own countrymen.  Not all British kids are rich (the 'Rich' being the primary climate demon to this guy) but still he advocates for fewer British children.  To this idiot, the poorest British child's life isn't worth it.

I'm going to be crass with my next comment.  There is a picture of Mr. Renton with a small, white child on his website.  I mention the race of the child simply because Mr. Renton seems to have such qualms about white kids.  I don't know who the child is in relation to Mr. Renton, other than he must have some fondness for the child to be pictured in such a way and have said picture posted to his website.  You probably already know where I'm going with this, so there is no need for me to elaborate.  I'll simply ask:

You first, Mr. Renton?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Einstein - Original Denier

Posted by Catmman on Saturday, October 24, 2009 11:09:59 AM
or "How E=mc2/E=mv2 Crushes Warmists Vision of Renewable Energy".

Renewable energy simply doesn't deliver enough bang for the buck.  This statement isn't biased or partisan, it's mathematical:

How is this manifested in everyday life? Most of what we are calling “renewable energy” is actually the kinetic flows of matter in nature. Wind and water are matter in motion that we harness to produce energy. Therefore they are measured by the formula for kinetic energy.

Let’s start with hydroelectricity. Water falling off a high dam reaches a speed of about 60 miles per hour or 80 feet per second. Raising the height of the dam by 80 or more feet cannot increase the velocity by more than 20 miles per hour. The only way to increase the energy output is to increase the mass, meaning we must use more water.

Wind is less dense than water so the land requirements are even greater. Contemporary 50-story windmills generate 1-½ MW apiece, so it takes 660 windmills to get 1000 MW. They must be spaced about half a mile apart so a 1000-MW wind farm occupies 125 square miles. Unfortunately the best windmills generate electricity only 30 percent of the time, so 1000 MW really means covering 375 square miles at widely dispersed locations.

Tidal power, often suggested as another renewable resource, suffers the same problems. Water is denser than wind but the tides only move at about 5 mph. At the best locations in the world you would need 20 miles of coastline to generate 1000 MW.

What about solar energy? Solar radiation is the result of an E = mc2 transformation as the sun transforms hydrogen to helium. Unfortunately, the reaction takes place 90 million miles away. Radiation dissipates with the square of the distance, so by the time solar energy reaches the earth it is diluted by almost the same factor, 10-15. Thus, the amount of solar radiation falling on a one square meter is 400 watts, enough to power four 100-watt light bulbs. “Thermal solar” – large arrays of mirrors heating a fluid – can convert 30 percent of this to electricity. Photovoltaic cells are slightly less efficient, converting only about 25 percent. As a result, the amount of electricity we can draw from the sun is enough to power one 100-watt light bulb per card table.

This is not an insignificant amount of electricity. If we covered every rooftop in the county with solar collectors, we could probably power our indoor lighting plus some basic household appliances – during the daytime. Solar’s great advantage is that it peaks exactly when it is needed, during hot summer afternoons when air conditioning pushes electrical consumption to its annual peaks. Meeting these peaks is a perennial problem for utilities and solar electricity can play a significant role in meeting the demand. The problem arises when solar enthusiasts try to claim solar power can provide base load power for an industrial society. There is no technology for storing commercial quantities of electricity. Until something is developed – which seems unlikely – wind and solar can serve only as intermittent, unpredictable resources.

There is only so much energy we can draw from renewable sources. They are limited, either by the velocities attained, or by the distance that solar energy must travel to reach the earth. So is there anyplace in nature where we can take advantage of that “c2” co-efficient and tap transformations of matter into energy? There is one that we have used through history. It is called “chemistry.”

The power drawn from 'renewable' sources will only provide so much and what it does provide, it provides only during sporadic time frames.  The technology does not exist to store enough of the energy collected from renewable sources, and the cost in resources, specifically land, is so great it is simply disingenuous to state otherwise.  Mathematics proves it. 

Read the whole thing.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Weather Channel jumping the shark?

Posted by Catmman on Friday, October 23, 2009 1:50:35 PM
The Weather Channel has had issues for years.  They went 'Green' (read eco-wacko) some years ago.  Their 'greeness' blew up in their faces a few years ago with the activism of one of their meteorologists, Heidi Cullen.  She had an openly leftist-activist show on TWC, The Climate Code, and received harsh criticism after stating any meteorologist not carping for global warming should lose their meteorological certification.  Her show didn't last after widespread outrage forced TWC to have Cullen assume a less public role.

TWC has also turned to alarmist programming with such shows as "It Could Happen Tomorrow" about how mega-disasters could affect large metropolitan areas.  Fires, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.  With this type of programming, TWC has tapped into the relatively short memories of it's viewership.  All of these so-called "ICHT" scenarios in fact happen all the time.  California and other areas of the country are ravaged by fire every year.  Hurricanes hit almost every year.  Tornadoes hit cities every year.  Floods, likewise.  So what's the point of these shows?  Not only do they attempt to suck in ratings, these shows take the opportunity to throw in a little bit of eco-activism here and there.  You see, these programs show what could happen - if we don't do something about global warming, etc.

I have also written about how TWC has turned to more 'reality' based programming as opposed to doing, well, the weather.  I suppose I can forgive TWC to a point for trying to get ratings with such programs, but I could care less about watching 'storm chasers'.  More than once over the past six months I have turned to TWC to get info on sever weather happening around where I live - I appreciate the radar shots during local weather.  Quite a few times I have tuned in just to get these radar images and have been treated to the latest iteration of "Full Force Weather" (or other such show.)  I know people's stories about surviving weather related disasters can be compelling, but at 2:30 in the morning when a sever thunderstorm is raging outside, I don't care about how Billy Joe Jim Bob got all his goats into the cellar during a tornado outbreak thirty years ago.  Seriously, cut the programs to accommodate the "Local on the 8's" or pre-empt the programming during sever weather outbreaks.

Anyway, now it seems TWC is going to go a bit further in marginalizing their original mission.  They are going to start showing movies in prime time:

The guys over at /Film are reporting that The Weather Channel (yes, THE Weather Channel) will start showing movies starting the day before Halloween, October 30th, and every Friday thereafter. So what sort of movies will the channel be showing? Well, weather-related movies, of course! What else? Starting off the series - which runs from the end of October to the end of November - is the George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg disaster movie, The Perfect Storm, coinciding with the anniversary of the actual 1991 storm that the movie is based on.

Is there anyone who is going to turn into TWC to watch movies?  I have about thirty channels which play nothing but movies.  Why would I tune into TWC, a channel ostensibly to report, er, the WEATHER to watch a movie?  And does anyone think that TWC host for these films won't take the opportunity to throw in a bit of eco-activism ?

TWC has already turned me off by having two hours of Al Roker and MSNBC on in the mornings.  I and millions of others don't tune into TWC for the purpose of entertainment or even info-tainment.  I tune in for one simple reason - to get the weather forecast.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Diverticulitis Diet

Posted by Catmman on Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:34:23 AM
Today is the first day I've been able to post for a week.

I've been laid up with diverticulitis, again.  Fever, massive pain, you name it.  Yesterday was the first day I had solid, substantial food.  The meds make everything taste like crap.  I've been laid up since last Thursday.  I haven't watched the news, read any blogs, I haven't even had the energy to listen to any talk radio - just been watching crappy movies on the TV, taking my meds and being doped up the better part of the last week.  Still pretty groggy.

Anyway, I should come back more and more as the days progress.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama played by the Russians

Posted by Catmman on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:45:16 PM

On the contentious issue of missile defence, which has divided Russia and the United States in the past, Putin said he hoped the United States would not renege on its promise to scrap plans for an anti-missile system in central Europe.

"We are being guided by what the head of the American state is saying," Putin said. "He said there would be no anti-missile shield in Europe. We are satisfied by this statement, and to make assumptions what happens next is not quite right."

Is there anyone who reads that statement and doesn't feel that Putin and the Russians are daring President Obama to 'renege' ?  All of Obama's promises come with expiration dates as we've seen, but something tells me the Russians have nothing to worry about from Obama.  All of this just in time for Russia to announce it's 'First-Use' policy for nukes, too.  Well played, Obama.  Well played.

Obama decided to abandon Eastern Europe for the hope (heh) of getting Russia on board for sanctions against Iran.  Obama was played by the Russians on this as well:

BEIJING (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned major powers on Wednesday against intimidating Iran and said talk of sanctions against the Islamic Republic over its nuclear programme was "premature".

"There is no need to frighten the Iranians," Putin told reporters in Beijing after a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

Isn't it nice of Putin to be so accommodating of the Iranians feelings?  Is there anyone else who might read this who honestly feels the Iranians are "frightened" of anyone, especially Obama?  The Russians didn't even have to slip a roofie into Obama's drink to bend him over like they have. 

Pathetic.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

20% of US covered with snow, already.

Posted by Catmman on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 6:05:29 PM
While early autumn snowstorms aren’t uncommon in US weather history, they tend to be quick affairs that melt off quickly in a day or two. This however is a bit different in that we have a significant portion of the northern Midwest plains and northern Rockies are snow covered and it is not quickly dissipating, in fact it is increasing.

Some data:

October 13, 2009

Area Covered By Snow:Area Covered Last Month:
19.9%
0.0%
Snow Depth
Average: 0.7 in
Minimum: 0.0 in
Maximum: 728.8 in
Std. Dev.: 2.1 in
Snow Water Equivalent
Average: 0.1 in
Minimum: 0.0 in
Maximum: 403.4 in
Std. Dev.: 0.4 in


By way of comparison, here is the October 13th USA snow cover for the last few years:

2003- .7
2004- .3
2005- 1.7
2006- 3.7
2007- .3
2008-12.7
2009-19.9

More here with animation and graphics.

Looks like the 'fever' broke some time ago, Mr. Gore.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ron Paul Wrong Again

Posted by Catmman on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 5:56:31 PM
It's a bit macabre to point this out, but the truth is the truth.  I'm not the one trying to make a cheap political point with innocent blood:

The Iraqi government reported today that 85,000 Iraqis were killed between 2004 and 2008. This was the government's first official tally released since the war began in 2003.  The AP reported:

At least 85,000 Iraqis lost their lives from 2004-2008 in violence, the government said in its first comprehensive tally released since the war began.

The report by the Human Rights Ministry said 85,694 people were killed in the four-year period and 147,195 were wounded. It counted Iraqi civilians, military and police but did not cover U.S. military deaths, insurgents, or foreigners, including contractors or U.S. forces. And it did not include the first months of the war after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Those deaths are truly unfortunate but hardly in keeping with Ron Paul's rhetoric on the subject.  Most of those deaths were caused by the fighters of the Imperial US occupation terrorists themselves.  And this is from the AP, hardly a tool of the evil HaliChaney.  But since the AP is reporting something contrary to Herr Doktor, they must be part of the "neo-con" cabal.  I blame the Jews.  Wait, I'm an evil Zionist, Neo-Con co-conspirator.  Paulbots are the ones who blame the Jews. 

More here.

UPDATE:  I just realized I never put in what Ron Paul said that was wrong.  He said over 1,000,000 Iraqis have been kiiled in Iraq due to our starting the war.  Follow the link for the video of Paul at CPAC making his 'claim'.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

100% CO2 Emissions Cut in US - by 2020

Posted by Catmman on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 1:02:25 PM
According to this climatologist, the US must cut ALL CO2 emissions, ALL OF THEM - 100%, by 2020.  In other words, this is the "Destroy America" plan for saving the planet.  At least someone form the Warmist crowd finally has the guts to come out and say it... 

Everything that produces CO2 in the US, every industry, every area of life which results in the emission of CO2, MUST BE CUT 100% in the next ten years.  Other countries of course get a longer timeline.  There is no mention if this also pertains to respiration by the 300 million American citizens, but I'm sure it's implied:

Schellnhuber and his WBGU colleagues go a giant step beyond the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN body whose scientific reports are constrained because the world's governments must approve their contents. The IPCC says that rich industrial countries must cut emissions 25 to 40 percent by 2020 (from 1990 levels) if the world is to have a fair chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change. By contrast, the WBGU study says the United States must cut emissions 100 percent by 2020--i.e., quit carbon entirely within ten years. Germany, Italy and other industrial nations must do the same by 2025 to 2030. China only has until 2035, and the world as a whole must be carbon-free by 2050. The study adds that big polluters can delay their day of reckoning by "buying" emissions rights from developing countries, a step the study estimates would extend some countries' deadlines by a decade or so.

The only way to get an extension of our "day of reckoning"?  Pay for protection money 'carbon credits' from "developing countries".

I would suggest getting President Obama to stop flying all over the world giving speeches once a day and accepting awards could cut our countries CO2 emissions by at least 75% within a day or two, but what do I know.  I'm not a climatologist.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Litmus test for NFL ownership?

Posted by Catmman on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 10:48:04 AM
Rush Limbaugh is being demonized as a racist and the NFL is toying with rejecting his bid to be an NFL co-owner of the St. Louis Rams.  Of course the racism schtick is trumped up.  What's at issue is Limbaughs political beliefs.  He's a conservative, usually supportive of Republicans, so his views on all things are wrong according to the Left Wing smear merchants.

Of course it's political.  The NFL has no issue with other team co-owners (and presumptive co-owners).  Entertainers such as Gloria Estefan, co-owner of the Miami Dolphins, though she is a staunch "Free Cuba" supporter, is a lefty who supported Hillary Clinton.  Fergie, the female singer of the Black Eyed Peas, is bidding to become part of the ownership of the Dolphins as well.  Fergie objectifies sex and promiscuity to young kids, but she's just fine and dandy as an NFL owner.  Why?  Because she supports Barack Obama.

The NFL is having a problem with advocacy and the politicization of their sport as I wrote last night.  So far, the NFL has dealt with more or less 'neutral' causes - breast cancer, 'Heritage' months - but the rhetoric coming from the NFL leadership on Rush, being fueled by radicals like Al Sharpton is based on nothing more than partisan politics.  The NFL is willing to throw away millions of dollars for the sake of political correctness.

As I wrote last night, people watch football to get away from the everyday nonsense of life.  If for only a few hours, they get into their teams, the game, the experience.  Why?  Because it's carries no consequences.  Oh, there are the rabid fans who invest a lot of time and energy and emotion into their respective teams, but when the game is over, it's over for the fan.  One of the attractions to football (and sports in general) is that the average person can invest so much without having to worry about consequences, without having to worry about ideology or politics or partisanship.  People don't watch football to get lectured about breast cancer. 

Just look at Hollywood.  People don't spend money to go to a movie to get lectured to for two hours about the latest cause celeb.  How much money did all those anti-Iraq war movies make?  Michael Moore's latest screed bombed at the box office.  The NFL better take note - sooner or later. letting advocacy and politics intrude on football is going to have negative consequences.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Advocacy infects the NFL

Posted by Catmman on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 12:21:00 AM
And no, this isn't about Rush Limbaugh buying the Rams.

Did you watch the Monday Night Game last night?  The Miami Dolphins versus the New York Jets.  Pretty good game.  Normally, I wouldn't watch either team, but the vice-commander is a Dolphins(?) fans, so I gave it a go.  What made last night really special was the NFL decided to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month.

I have no real issue with any types of 'Heritage' month per se, in as much as they're all inherently racist.  Asian-Pacific-Islander, African -American, Native-American, Hispanic, all for non-white ethnicities, all celebrating ethnocentric 'heritage'.  From Dictionary.com:  cultural belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.  'Heritage' months may not be exactly racist per the definition, but they are kissing cousins and it adheres to the first part of the definition to a tee.  And the NFL wants to celebrate that?

The NFL had Gloria Estefan (who is Cuban), and Marc Anthony (who was born in New York to Puerto Rican parents) sing.  Estefan joined Hank Williams in singing the opening song for Monday Night Football.  Anthony sang the National Anthem (quite wonderfully btw).  I had never seen anyone else do the opening with Hank Williams before and said so.  My wife said it was because she is a co-owner of the Dolphins.  Anthony also has ownership interests in the team.  He has Hispanic (well, Puerto Rican) heritage, but he was born in America.  Estefan was born in Cuba.  I guess since they both speak Spanish they both fit into the cultural stereotype?

Also, the NFL broadcast the first penalty on the field in Spanish.  The first penalty of the game was broadcast in Spanish, by the referee, on the field, during the game.  Some of the commercials were broadcast in Spanish too, with English subtitles.  I couldn't believe it.

All of the contributions from Spain, Portugal, Mexico, other Latin American countries throughout history and the NFL and those supporting them in this endeavor, boiled down the essence of Hispanic heritage to some Spanish language commercials, a couple of 'Latino' entertainers who haven't done anything  in years, and a penalty called in Spanish during the game.  Wow.  That is some celebration.

The NFL has done the same crap with breast cancer awareness.  Everything pink from the referees wristbands to coaches hats is pink.  A fan might ask as I did last week, "What's all the pink for?"  "It's for breast cancer awareness."  "Oh.  Pass the chips."

The NFL, spurred on by advocacy groups has belittled the seriousness of the nature of breast cancer as they have done with celebrating an ethnic heritage.  When you boil down the nature of serious issues such as disease and "highlight" a culture without really highlighting anything, you minimize those issues.

And doing it during a football game when the last thing on anyone's mind is breast cancer or an ethnic heritage.  People go to a football game to have a few hours of fun.  To escape from the world for a bit.  To get away from being preached to about the social cause of the day.  The NFL is being high-jacked, is allowing itself to be high-jacked by advocacy efforts when their main effort should be letting us all watch football.  Just fun football.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hijacking The Rainbow

Posted by Catmman on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 11:36:23 AM
Homosexuals just don't get it.  They do however know how to be offensive.

I'm not a religious person by any stretch of the imagination.  I find homosexuality offensive simply because it is unnatural.  This doesn't make me a homophobe or a bigot.  There are plenty of behaviors out there I find offensive without me being a hatemonger.  But the point of this post isn't to debate the offensive nature of homosexuality itself, but the offensive hijacking of a symbol by homosexual advocates - the rainbow.

What is a rainbow?  Simply a refraction of light by some sort of prism, or bending of the light through some other medium, like rain.  To the religious it is a symbol of a covenant between God and humanity that he will never again destroy mankind through a flood, scripturally Genesis 9, 12-17.  It is sometimes referred to as the '"First" covenant between God and man.  The homosexual lobby knows this and it offends me on principal that such a symbol is being used to advocate for their cause.  It has been hijacked from Christians solely for the purpose of twisting and defiling the message of God.

None of this needs have anything to do with religion, at least from my perspective.  But isn't it ironic that a group who is attempting to rally support for it's 'cause' would purposefully offend such a large segment of society?  Isn't it more than a  coincidence that a organization of advocates would use a 'religious' symbol to help them rail against what they perceive to be some sort of religious 'persecution'?    I'm not advocating for the religious or Christian beliefs about homosexuality.  What I am pointing out is that I find it ironic that an advocacy group touting to be about equality and 'fairness' would be purposefully offensive and mis-representative of such a symbol as the rainbow.  Don't try to tell me it wasn't on purpose.  I don't buy that.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Asketh Ye a Tough Question of the Goracle

Posted by Catmman on Monday, October 12, 2009 1:20:24 PM
Prepare to have your microphone turned off - Video.  Al Gore gets asked a tough question, and true to form, doesn't answer it:

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Nope, no 'Death Panels' here...not gonna happen...

Posted by Catmman on Sunday, October 11, 2009 11:51:51 AM

An 80-year-old grandmother who doctors identified as terminally ill and left to starve to death has recovered after her outraged daughter intervened.

Hazel Fenton, from East Sussex, is alive nine months after medics ruled she had only days to live, withdrew her antibiotics and denied her artificial feeding. The former school matron had been placed on a controversial care plan intended to ease the last days of dying patients.

Doctors say Fenton is an example of patients who have been condemned to death on the Liverpool care pathway plan. They argue that while it is suitable for patients who do have only days to live, it is being used more widely in the NHS, denying treatment to elderly patients who are not dying.

Ball, 42, from Robertsbridge, East Sussex, said: “My mother was going to be left to starve and dehydrate to death. It really is a subterfuge for legalised euthanasia of the elderly on the NHS. ”

Perhaps this is simply an isolated incident?

In a separate case, the family of an 87-year-old woman say the plan is being used as a way of giving minimum care to dying patients.

Susan Budden, whose mother, Iris Griffin, from Norwich, died in a nursing home in July 2008 from a brain tumour, said: “When she was started on the [plan] her medication was withdrawn. As a result she became agitated and distressed.

“It would appear that the [plan] is . . . used purely as a protocol which can be ticked off to justify the management of a patient.”

Read the whole story. 

But this would never happen here in the US if we nationalize medicine.

Nope.

It would never happen...

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »