In the past 24 hours I have heard two reports about how the world temperature has fallen drastically in the past 12 months. The four major monitors of temps (of which NASA is one) claim a decrease of 0.65 to 0.75 degrees during the past year. They say the drop is enough to offset all the global warming of the past 100 years. Perhaps this explains why the snow cap on the North American land mass is thicker than at any time during the past 50 years.
The sun's activity or lack of activity seems to be the culprit just as some of us laymen suggested previously. Who know for sure since there are billions and billions of variables.
Perhaps Al Gore can start an insulation business, hmmmmm?
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
"Super" or "Stupor" Tuesday?
Well, it came and went just like everything else. What some people called "Super Tuesday" other people called "Stupor Tuesday." And what do Americans have to look forward to after this past tuesday?
On one side we have John McCain. On the other side Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are sparring for domination of the Democrat Party, the party of the New and Old Left, and the party of numerous Washington special interests.
So it appears voters will be forced to decide between McCain and either Clinton or Obama. McCain is the "Dole Syndrome" candidate. That is, it is McCain's turn to lead the GOP in the national election of 2008 just as it was Dole's turn to lead the party in 1996 because Dole had put in the time and effort in the party trenches. His reward was the candidancy. History repeats itself in 2008.
On the other side there is little policy differences between Clinton and Obama. With Obama comes a smile and cheerfulness. With Clinton voters get the same issues, the same policies and ideas, but with a brooding negativity. Whereas Obama is a new face, voters are familiar with the bobbing head of Clinton. Obama promises to surrender Iraq to al Queda ASAP while Clinton promises to take more time to surrender. (Why doesn't a media type ask Obama and Clinton what will happen in Iraq and the Middle East after we surrender?) Both candidates promise higher taxes, more federal interference in our lives, more socialized medicine, more federal control of education and of other aspects of our lives.
As to McCain who knows what policies and ideas he will espouse. Perhaps it depends on how he feels each day. McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts - cuts that fueled the econonic recovery after 9-11 and the corporate scandals. McCain now says he wants to make the tax cuts he opposed permanent. McCain opposed securing our borders and supported with Teddy Kennedy giving million of illegals amnesty (a rose by any other name is still a rose), and authored a law gagging political speech. And McCain has bought into the Global Warming scam which in itself is enough to oppose him, but only if there is a more logical choice (there isn't).
What is a voter to do?
McCain or Clinton/Obama?
Voters must determine which candidate will do the least amount of harm to the nation - always a critical factor in my voting.
More to come.
On one side we have John McCain. On the other side Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are sparring for domination of the Democrat Party, the party of the New and Old Left, and the party of numerous Washington special interests.
So it appears voters will be forced to decide between McCain and either Clinton or Obama. McCain is the "Dole Syndrome" candidate. That is, it is McCain's turn to lead the GOP in the national election of 2008 just as it was Dole's turn to lead the party in 1996 because Dole had put in the time and effort in the party trenches. His reward was the candidancy. History repeats itself in 2008.
On the other side there is little policy differences between Clinton and Obama. With Obama comes a smile and cheerfulness. With Clinton voters get the same issues, the same policies and ideas, but with a brooding negativity. Whereas Obama is a new face, voters are familiar with the bobbing head of Clinton. Obama promises to surrender Iraq to al Queda ASAP while Clinton promises to take more time to surrender. (Why doesn't a media type ask Obama and Clinton what will happen in Iraq and the Middle East after we surrender?) Both candidates promise higher taxes, more federal interference in our lives, more socialized medicine, more federal control of education and of other aspects of our lives.
As to McCain who knows what policies and ideas he will espouse. Perhaps it depends on how he feels each day. McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts - cuts that fueled the econonic recovery after 9-11 and the corporate scandals. McCain now says he wants to make the tax cuts he opposed permanent. McCain opposed securing our borders and supported with Teddy Kennedy giving million of illegals amnesty (a rose by any other name is still a rose), and authored a law gagging political speech. And McCain has bought into the Global Warming scam which in itself is enough to oppose him, but only if there is a more logical choice (there isn't).
What is a voter to do?
McCain or Clinton/Obama?
Voters must determine which candidate will do the least amount of harm to the nation - always a critical factor in my voting.
More to come.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Ideas
Ideas.
Anyone have any new ideas on how the federal government should operate?
A recent clash between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama illustrates the problem with our politicians. During a debate Clinton castigated Obama for referring to Ronald Reagan and the GOP as the people who had new ideas during the past 15 years or so. Of course, Obama was correct. The GOP has been the party of new thinking in recent history. Reagan, Bush 43, and Newt, among others, have set the political agenda for some time.
In comparison Clinton and Obama serve up the same old worn out FDR/LBJ-styled Big Government solutions to everyone's problems. History teaches us that government programs rarely solve the problem and despite good intentions, create additional layers of problems; social, economic, personal, and fiscal.
In 2008 I see no one offering new ideas and new approaches, but only a recycling of Washington knows best mentality.
Isn't it time for all of us to reconsider this question:
Just what do we want Washington to do for us?
Anyone have any new ideas on how the federal government should operate?
A recent clash between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama illustrates the problem with our politicians. During a debate Clinton castigated Obama for referring to Ronald Reagan and the GOP as the people who had new ideas during the past 15 years or so. Of course, Obama was correct. The GOP has been the party of new thinking in recent history. Reagan, Bush 43, and Newt, among others, have set the political agenda for some time.
In comparison Clinton and Obama serve up the same old worn out FDR/LBJ-styled Big Government solutions to everyone's problems. History teaches us that government programs rarely solve the problem and despite good intentions, create additional layers of problems; social, economic, personal, and fiscal.
In 2008 I see no one offering new ideas and new approaches, but only a recycling of Washington knows best mentality.
Isn't it time for all of us to reconsider this question:
Just what do we want Washington to do for us?
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Tarheels Basketball
Tarheels Basketball...
...is a model for college sports. From the 1950s to the 21st Century the Tarheels have been one of (if not the most) preeminent and consistent teams in college basketball. Sure, UCLA had a long run in the late 1960s and early 70s, but UNC has maintained excellence for more than 50 years.
I grew up in North Carolina and attended UNC-Chapel Hill (but a graduate of George Mason University). I remember the triple overtime win against Kansas and Wilt the Stilt in 1957 for the national championship. I remember Dean Smith as the only person in the United States who could hold Michael Jordan to under 17 points a game. I recall the failed attempts to win the championships in 1977 and 1981.
Under Roy Williams, a native son, UNC won the 2005 NCAA title and this year the team is 17-0 at this point. UNC may not win another game, but the odds are they will be a major factor in the rush to the title this year. With Tyler the Terrible playing every play as if his life depended upon the outcome, the Tarheels have a chance to show the NE Patriots that a college team can go undefeated also.
That other team in Carolina who wears the other blue, not the Carolina Blue, but the dark foreign blue, isn't bad. It just "ain't" Tarheels!
...is a model for college sports. From the 1950s to the 21st Century the Tarheels have been one of (if not the most) preeminent and consistent teams in college basketball. Sure, UCLA had a long run in the late 1960s and early 70s, but UNC has maintained excellence for more than 50 years.
I grew up in North Carolina and attended UNC-Chapel Hill (but a graduate of George Mason University). I remember the triple overtime win against Kansas and Wilt the Stilt in 1957 for the national championship. I remember Dean Smith as the only person in the United States who could hold Michael Jordan to under 17 points a game. I recall the failed attempts to win the championships in 1977 and 1981.
Under Roy Williams, a native son, UNC won the 2005 NCAA title and this year the team is 17-0 at this point. UNC may not win another game, but the odds are they will be a major factor in the rush to the title this year. With Tyler the Terrible playing every play as if his life depended upon the outcome, the Tarheels have a chance to show the NE Patriots that a college team can go undefeated also.
That other team in Carolina who wears the other blue, not the Carolina Blue, but the dark foreign blue, isn't bad. It just "ain't" Tarheels!
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
"Change"
"Change..."
May be all we have left in our pockets if certain politicians are elected this year.
Is anyone as tired as me of "change" as the political theme this election cycle?
When was an election cycle NOT about change?
Notice there is a lack of any detail about what to change. Do the politicians plan to change everything, even themselves? Hmmmmmmm? For some reason I suspect we voters are being taken to the "change" cleaners again. Even McCain caught the "change" virus and McCain has been in Washington for about 50 years. I fear McCain will make changes to restrict more political speech as he did with McCain-Feingold (we need MORE free political speech; not less) , make more changes to raise taxes (remember, he voted against the Bush tax cuts that fueled the economic recovery after 9-11 and the corporate scandals), and make illegal immigrants more welcome to our welfare system including Social Security.
Senator Clinton says she is the major "change" agent running for President. She claims she is responsible for change already. That's right. Senator Clinton in a previous life raised a child in a village which is a big change. Senator Clinton in her prior life visited 100 countries making changes to all sorts of things. She changed the culture of the White House so that having FBI files of 750 political enemies was no longer a crime, but simply a bureaucratic "snafu". For this we must elect her President.
"No," says Senator Obama. "I am the agent of change because two months ago no one knew who I was and now I am a household celebrity. Vote for me for real change because I believe real change matters and Oprah agrees."
Not to be outdone, Mike Huckabee preaches "change". Change is what allowed Huckabee to lose 100 pounds of weight. Perhaps it was the fact that Huckabee had to start paying for his meals that caused him to lose the pounds. Huckabee is a Southern Baptist preacher and everyone in the South knows how preachers like to eat other people's food!
Change.
I wish someone would change politicians to make them honest, open minded, thick skinned, partisan in a fair way, and agreeable to serve only 12 years in Congress.
That is a change I can support.
After New Hampshire the circus rolls on to other states. Michigan, South Carolina, where does it end, this peripatetic parade of change?
May be all we have left in our pockets if certain politicians are elected this year.
Is anyone as tired as me of "change" as the political theme this election cycle?
When was an election cycle NOT about change?
Notice there is a lack of any detail about what to change. Do the politicians plan to change everything, even themselves? Hmmmmmmm? For some reason I suspect we voters are being taken to the "change" cleaners again. Even McCain caught the "change" virus and McCain has been in Washington for about 50 years. I fear McCain will make changes to restrict more political speech as he did with McCain-Feingold (we need MORE free political speech; not less) , make more changes to raise taxes (remember, he voted against the Bush tax cuts that fueled the economic recovery after 9-11 and the corporate scandals), and make illegal immigrants more welcome to our welfare system including Social Security.
Senator Clinton says she is the major "change" agent running for President. She claims she is responsible for change already. That's right. Senator Clinton in a previous life raised a child in a village which is a big change. Senator Clinton in her prior life visited 100 countries making changes to all sorts of things. She changed the culture of the White House so that having FBI files of 750 political enemies was no longer a crime, but simply a bureaucratic "snafu". For this we must elect her President.
"No," says Senator Obama. "I am the agent of change because two months ago no one knew who I was and now I am a household celebrity. Vote for me for real change because I believe real change matters and Oprah agrees."
Not to be outdone, Mike Huckabee preaches "change". Change is what allowed Huckabee to lose 100 pounds of weight. Perhaps it was the fact that Huckabee had to start paying for his meals that caused him to lose the pounds. Huckabee is a Southern Baptist preacher and everyone in the South knows how preachers like to eat other people's food!
Change.
I wish someone would change politicians to make them honest, open minded, thick skinned, partisan in a fair way, and agreeable to serve only 12 years in Congress.
That is a change I can support.
After New Hampshire the circus rolls on to other states. Michigan, South Carolina, where does it end, this peripatetic parade of change?
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
2008 and Politics
The Candidates
It is difficult for me to believe a nation of 300 million people cannot produce better candidates for our top political office.
The Democrats:
John Edwards is the class warfare specialist of 2008. Edwards laments the 'two Americas." He belongs to the rich class of Americans having earned a large fortune sueing doctors and hospitals. Whereas Edwards got rich, his clients are still mostly poor. Why is that? Edwards promises to "help" the poor by taxing the rich. Of course, Edwards can afford the very best tax experts so his fortune will remain safe from the greedy hands of federal bureaucrats. I have not heard Edwards address the real problems facing America: illegal immigration, the decline in education, the threat of international terrorism, the looming danger of the Social Security/ Medicare crisis, or the lack of resolve to develop American based energy sources (which we have in abundance). Fortunately, his negativity will turn off most voters.
Senator Clinton wants badly to be President. Is that enough to propel her into that office? What qualifications does Senator Clinton have for the office? She has served in the US Senate for 7 years (after moving to a blue state to get elected) without distinction, has no real management experience at higher levels, appears to be a control freak, and demonstrated her weakness in foreign affairs recently by commenting that Musharraf of Pakistan may have been involved in the death of Mrs Bhutto because he did not want Bhutto competing against him in the upcoming national election.
Hello!
President Musharraf was ELECTED in October of 2007 and is NOT on the upcoming election ballot.
Why would Senator Clinton say this?
Senator Clinton claims her 8 years in the White House as First Lady as her major qualification for the job. I am not convinced that serving tea and cookies qualifies anyone for the Oval Office.
Some people see Senator Clinton as a neo-Stalinist. I don't know, but her attempt to collectivize
the American health care system lends credence to the suggestion.
Senator Obama is a fresh face! So should the American people elect him to the top job in our system of government for that reason? Hmmmmmmmmmm? Despite Oprah's endorsement I think Obama is too young, too fresh, too inexperienced, too naive, and his cliche campaign slogan "Change" is unworthy of comment.
After listening to Obama for several months I am convinced he is devoid of new ideas, but recycles worn out liberal banalities.
The Republicans:
Senator McCain is an old dog who has been around for ages. He was one of the Keating Five in the 1980s Savings and Loan Scandal. It will haunt him if he is the R nominee. McCain is wrong about illegal immigration, wrong about tax cuts, wrong about how terrorists should be handled, wrong about free political speech (despite SCOTUS), but is right about Iraq.
Sometimes McCain appears more interested in pleasing the mainstream media than in answering the needs of the American people. Obviously, they are not the same thing.
Fred Thompson is tired. I see it in his eyes. Time out for Fred.
Rudy Giuliani is a puzzle. He comes across as sincere, smart, tough at times, a no nonsense man with a strong resume. However, he is weak on illegal immigration and social issues. I have concerns about his health and whether he can face the daily grind and pressure any President endures.
Mitt Romney is a ________. Fill in the blank. I am unsure of Romney's positions on many issues. What are his core values? He has flipped and flopped on some issues just like the last man from his state in 2004. Kerry lost. Romney may be competent and honest, but how he would run the federal government, what kind of judges he would appoint, his tax policy, his foreign affairs, does he think the federal governmen too large and too intrusive, are all mysteries to me.
Mike Huckabee sounds smart, maybe too much of a smarty for me. He reminds me of a slick politician from the same state a few years ago. He does not appeal to me on any level.
Are these candidates the best our nation can produce? I hope not!
More to follow.
It is difficult for me to believe a nation of 300 million people cannot produce better candidates for our top political office.
The Democrats:
John Edwards is the class warfare specialist of 2008. Edwards laments the 'two Americas." He belongs to the rich class of Americans having earned a large fortune sueing doctors and hospitals. Whereas Edwards got rich, his clients are still mostly poor. Why is that? Edwards promises to "help" the poor by taxing the rich. Of course, Edwards can afford the very best tax experts so his fortune will remain safe from the greedy hands of federal bureaucrats. I have not heard Edwards address the real problems facing America: illegal immigration, the decline in education, the threat of international terrorism, the looming danger of the Social Security/ Medicare crisis, or the lack of resolve to develop American based energy sources (which we have in abundance). Fortunately, his negativity will turn off most voters.
Senator Clinton wants badly to be President. Is that enough to propel her into that office? What qualifications does Senator Clinton have for the office? She has served in the US Senate for 7 years (after moving to a blue state to get elected) without distinction, has no real management experience at higher levels, appears to be a control freak, and demonstrated her weakness in foreign affairs recently by commenting that Musharraf of Pakistan may have been involved in the death of Mrs Bhutto because he did not want Bhutto competing against him in the upcoming national election.
Hello!
President Musharraf was ELECTED in October of 2007 and is NOT on the upcoming election ballot.
Why would Senator Clinton say this?
Senator Clinton claims her 8 years in the White House as First Lady as her major qualification for the job. I am not convinced that serving tea and cookies qualifies anyone for the Oval Office.
Some people see Senator Clinton as a neo-Stalinist. I don't know, but her attempt to collectivize
the American health care system lends credence to the suggestion.
Senator Obama is a fresh face! So should the American people elect him to the top job in our system of government for that reason? Hmmmmmmmmmm? Despite Oprah's endorsement I think Obama is too young, too fresh, too inexperienced, too naive, and his cliche campaign slogan "Change" is unworthy of comment.
After listening to Obama for several months I am convinced he is devoid of new ideas, but recycles worn out liberal banalities.
The Republicans:
Senator McCain is an old dog who has been around for ages. He was one of the Keating Five in the 1980s Savings and Loan Scandal. It will haunt him if he is the R nominee. McCain is wrong about illegal immigration, wrong about tax cuts, wrong about how terrorists should be handled, wrong about free political speech (despite SCOTUS), but is right about Iraq.
Sometimes McCain appears more interested in pleasing the mainstream media than in answering the needs of the American people. Obviously, they are not the same thing.
Fred Thompson is tired. I see it in his eyes. Time out for Fred.
Rudy Giuliani is a puzzle. He comes across as sincere, smart, tough at times, a no nonsense man with a strong resume. However, he is weak on illegal immigration and social issues. I have concerns about his health and whether he can face the daily grind and pressure any President endures.
Mitt Romney is a ________. Fill in the blank. I am unsure of Romney's positions on many issues. What are his core values? He has flipped and flopped on some issues just like the last man from his state in 2004. Kerry lost. Romney may be competent and honest, but how he would run the federal government, what kind of judges he would appoint, his tax policy, his foreign affairs, does he think the federal governmen too large and too intrusive, are all mysteries to me.
Mike Huckabee sounds smart, maybe too much of a smarty for me. He reminds me of a slick politician from the same state a few years ago. He does not appeal to me on any level.
Are these candidates the best our nation can produce? I hope not!
More to follow.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
The Reason for the Season
Merry Christmas!
It is time we all remember the real reason for this special time of year. We do not celebrate this season to give or receive or to decorate a tree or as an excuse to spend more money. Nor do we celebrate this holiday for any other secular reason.
We celebrate because more than 2,000 years ago a baby was born. This person brought hope and the bright light of goodness to the world.
Jesus Christ - the light of the world.
It is time we all remember the real reason for this special time of year. We do not celebrate this season to give or receive or to decorate a tree or as an excuse to spend more money. Nor do we celebrate this holiday for any other secular reason.
We celebrate because more than 2,000 years ago a baby was born. This person brought hope and the bright light of goodness to the world.
Jesus Christ - the light of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
