Here is video of Ron Paul on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show:
This is a man that people really need to start listening to...he has the right ideas and shines the philosophy of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Free Speech? Here's an Example of Free Speech from the Anti-Israel Side
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
It seems one of the focal points of the question of free speech revolves around the free speech of Israelis in the US. Now anyone with half a brain knows that Israeli ambassadors or academics should have a right to express their point of view in this great country of ours, right?
Well, not quite. You see the far-left allies of radical Islam and the pro-Palestinian lobby feel that anyone representing the nation of Israel should not have the right of free speech in America. Nowhere does this idea have more currency than in the world of academia. Now we have this outfit that works for the boycott of Israel asking a group to dis-invite an Israeli scholar from participating in a seminar on Iran in Santa Monica, California.
http://usacbi.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/open-letter-to-the-international-society-for-iranian-studies/
For the record, I grew up near Santa Monica. I know it well. It is still part of the United States of America. Tell that to the learned scholars of this rag-tag outfit.
Check out the names who signed this letter. Of course, there is that nut job at MIT, Noam Chomsky. He'll sign anything. In fact, he's signing so many letters and petitions, he probably doesn't have time to teach linguistics anymore-the only subject, I might add, that he knows anything about. Saree Makdisi I remember. He is at UCLA but is on the seminar circuit (including UCI) sitting on "panels" that spend hours telling audiences how bad Israel is. I never heard of the other folks, but I'll bet they all hold PHDs. Note that they all teach at our universities. This is what is teaching (indoctrinating, I should say) our children.
Don't laugh. It's not funny.
Here we have a collection of so-called academics- you know, smart people-who don't have a clue about the First Amendment, our Constitution or anything else. All they know is that what they don't agree with must be suppressed. Of course, they will all stand with the so-called "Irvine 11", when they try to shut down the Israeli ambassador and say that they (the students) were exercising their free speech.
You see, to the academic left, it all comes down to this:
"What I believe is free speech. What you believe must be silenced."
fousesquawk
It seems one of the focal points of the question of free speech revolves around the free speech of Israelis in the US. Now anyone with half a brain knows that Israeli ambassadors or academics should have a right to express their point of view in this great country of ours, right?
Well, not quite. You see the far-left allies of radical Islam and the pro-Palestinian lobby feel that anyone representing the nation of Israel should not have the right of free speech in America. Nowhere does this idea have more currency than in the world of academia. Now we have this outfit that works for the boycott of Israel asking a group to dis-invite an Israeli scholar from participating in a seminar on Iran in Santa Monica, California.
http://usacbi.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/open-letter-to-the-international-society-for-iranian-studies/
For the record, I grew up near Santa Monica. I know it well. It is still part of the United States of America. Tell that to the learned scholars of this rag-tag outfit.
Check out the names who signed this letter. Of course, there is that nut job at MIT, Noam Chomsky. He'll sign anything. In fact, he's signing so many letters and petitions, he probably doesn't have time to teach linguistics anymore-the only subject, I might add, that he knows anything about. Saree Makdisi I remember. He is at UCLA but is on the seminar circuit (including UCI) sitting on "panels" that spend hours telling audiences how bad Israel is. I never heard of the other folks, but I'll bet they all hold PHDs. Note that they all teach at our universities. This is what is teaching (indoctrinating, I should say) our children.
Don't laugh. It's not funny.
Here we have a collection of so-called academics- you know, smart people-who don't have a clue about the First Amendment, our Constitution or anything else. All they know is that what they don't agree with must be suppressed. Of course, they will all stand with the so-called "Irvine 11", when they try to shut down the Israeli ambassador and say that they (the students) were exercising their free speech.
You see, to the academic left, it all comes down to this:
"What I believe is free speech. What you believe must be silenced."
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Global Warming Advocates : Two IQ Points Short of a Pin Head Perhaps
By Roger F. Gay
Bill Nye. OK, here's another one. What do normal people call heating of the Earth's atmosphere? …...... Summer.
MSNBC's Bill Nye “the science guy” has been the regular butt of jokes as a result of his ceaseless and absolute defense of the global warming industry; with arguments that include the fact that the UN's IPCC shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore – and “those are really hard to get.” (Ann Coulter at CPAC)
There's some chat around the Internet water-cooler just now on Nye's performance in a global warming debate against Joe Bastardi (State College, Pennsylvania and AccuWeather meteorologist). For the most part, it was just another boring call from Nye for unquestioning faith in the IPCC's conclusions and all that Al Gore might wish make of them. But first some science questions.
Nye was pointing to Venus as an example of the results of run-away global warming; the alleged fate of Earth if we don't pass laws against it and pay more taxes. No jokes here asking who was driving the SUVs on Venus. When the planet is at stake, we owe it to ourselves to be deadly serious. So I went to the same place the IPCC entrusts with its scientific review – Wikipedia, where the tireless editors of truth support the theory whole-heartedly.
Studies have suggested - probably. I'm reminded of a short documentary in a season five episode of Futurama, “Spanish Fry.”
Wikipedia cites only one study, and it's on how the atmosphere might be effected by the amount of sunlight (energy -> heat) that it receives. It includes for discussion, speculation that “Venus may originally have had oceans if its initial water endowment was close to that of Earth. In other words, it may have had lots of water if it had lots of water, but who knows?
What is the actual evidence that Venus was once like Earth? There is none. Earth's history includes vast oceans and evolution of life that transformed carbon dioxide into oxygen. CO2 rich environment early. Less CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of water and life. There is no evidence that Venus had such a history. No evidence that its atmosphere was once more like the Earth's is now. If it somehow miraculously did, it would quickly have changed because of the greater amount of sunlight hitting Venus' surface, which is about 35 million miles closer to the Sun than the surface of Earth.
If you're still worried about global warming, don't be. By the end of the episode, Fry gets his nose back and Lrr, ruler of the planet Omicron Persei 8, makes up with his wife. Most importantly, Bigfoot survives – so you've still got that going for you.
Bill Nye. OK, here's another one. What do normal people call heating of the Earth's atmosphere? …...... Summer.
MSNBC's Bill Nye “the science guy” has been the regular butt of jokes as a result of his ceaseless and absolute defense of the global warming industry; with arguments that include the fact that the UN's IPCC shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore – and “those are really hard to get.” (Ann Coulter at CPAC)
There's some chat around the Internet water-cooler just now on Nye's performance in a global warming debate against Joe Bastardi (State College, Pennsylvania and AccuWeather meteorologist). For the most part, it was just another boring call from Nye for unquestioning faith in the IPCC's conclusions and all that Al Gore might wish make of them. But first some science questions.
Nye: Ah well, the evidence is overwhelming. Do you agree Joe, that in 1750 the world's carbon dioxide was 280 parts per million?
Bastardi: Bill, you don't want to go here, because you know why? Because I'm going to show CO2 correlation ...
Nye: Do you agree?
Bastardi: Yes, I agree.
Nye: Do you agree that the planet Venus is warm because it has a lot of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere? And I say warm, warm enough to melt lead on its surface. Do you agree?
Bastardi: I don't believe we have the proper measurements of Venus from over ten billion years ago, so I can't tell the relationship with the Earth. But maybe you can.
Nye was pointing to Venus as an example of the results of run-away global warming; the alleged fate of Earth if we don't pass laws against it and pay more taxes. No jokes here asking who was driving the SUVs on Venus. When the planet is at stake, we owe it to ourselves to be deadly serious. So I went to the same place the IPCC entrusts with its scientific review – Wikipedia, where the tireless editors of truth support the theory whole-heartedly.
“Studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus's atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.”
Studies have suggested - probably. I'm reminded of a short documentary in a season five episode of Futurama, “Spanish Fry.”
Documentary: In the dense forests of the Pacific Northwest, dwells the strange and beautiful creature known as Bigfoot, perhaps.
Phillip Fry: That proves it!
Documentary: Sadly, logging and human settlement today threaten what might possibly be his habitat, although if it's not, they don't. ... Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem if he exists. So let's all help keep Bigfoot possibly alive for future generations to enjoy, unless he doesn't exist. (From, “Bigfoot, Endangered Mystery”)
Wikipedia cites only one study, and it's on how the atmosphere might be effected by the amount of sunlight (energy -> heat) that it receives. It includes for discussion, speculation that “Venus may originally have had oceans if its initial water endowment was close to that of Earth. In other words, it may have had lots of water if it had lots of water, but who knows?
Documentary: Several billion years ago Venus' atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now but it was destroyed by a runaway greenhouse effect perhaps, ...
Bill Nye: That proves it!
Documentary: … although if it didn't, it wasn't.
What is the actual evidence that Venus was once like Earth? There is none. Earth's history includes vast oceans and evolution of life that transformed carbon dioxide into oxygen. CO2 rich environment early. Less CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of water and life. There is no evidence that Venus had such a history. No evidence that its atmosphere was once more like the Earth's is now. If it somehow miraculously did, it would quickly have changed because of the greater amount of sunlight hitting Venus' surface, which is about 35 million miles closer to the Sun than the surface of Earth.
If you're still worried about global warming, don't be. By the end of the episode, Fry gets his nose back and Lrr, ruler of the planet Omicron Persei 8, makes up with his wife. Most importantly, Bigfoot survives – so you've still got that going for you.
Senator Asks for Investigation of Gore, et al.
Inhofe intends to ask for a probe of the embattled climate scientists for possible criminal acts. And he thinks Gore should be recalled to explain his prior congressional testimony. (Click here for the just-released Senate Environment and Public Works report behind Inhofe's announcement.)
BREAKING: See Charlie Martin’s “Senator Barbara Boxer and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson Throw IPCC Under the Bus“.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.
“In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.
Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
This report, obtained exclusively by Pajamas Media before today’s hearing, alleges:
[The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.
Full report from Pajamas Media: Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe to Ask for DOJ Investigation
Arctic Water Too Hot for Seals
From the "What if the trend continues?" department, this tid-bit comes from whatsupwiththat.
The AP source was a November, 1922 report from the US Weather service.
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
-- Washington Post (Associated Press), November 2, 1922
The AP source was a November, 1922 report from the US Weather service.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Sen. John McCain: "I was misled on bailout"
Well it seems that former Presidential candidate John McCain was misled about the bailout to the banks in late 2008 during the height of the Presidential campaign.
Under growing pressure from conservatives and "tea party" activists, Sen. John McCain of Arizona is having to defend his record of supporting the government's massive bailout of the financial system.
In response to criticism from opponents seeking to defeat him in the Aug. 24 Republican primary, the four-term senator says he was misled by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. McCain said the pair assured him that the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program would focus on what was seen as the cause of the financial crisis, the housing meltdown.
It is convenient to proclaim his disgust now that he is facing pressure. Where was this disgust in 2008?
It is horrible to think that our politicians would do such a thing like vote for something and then regret it a year later...but we have come to expect it from them, and especially somebody like John McCain who has a past of pulling such crap.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Suit Against EPA May Lead to Criminal Prosecution in Climategate
The world’s largest private sector coal business, the Peabody Energy Company (PEC) has filed a mammoth 240-page “Petition for Reconsideration,” a full-blown legal challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The petition must be answered and covers the entire body of leaked emails from ‘Climategate’ as well as those other ‘gate’ revelations including the frauds allegedly perpetrated under such sub-headings as ‘Himalayan Glaciers,’ ‘African Agricultural Production,’ ‘Amazon Rain Forests,’ ‘Melting Mountain Ice,’ ‘Netherlands Below Sea Level’ as well as those much-publicized abuses of the peer-review literature and so called ‘gray literature.’ These powerful litigants also draw attention to the proven criminal conduct by climate scientists in refusing to honor Freedom of Information law (FOIA) requests.
PEC is demanding that the EPA shall convene a full evidentiary hearing as a part of such reconsideration. If this element of the petition were granted it is highly probable that the weight of the new evidence now freely available since Climategate would expose the criminal and fraudulent component within the science of man-made global warming, and would likely succeed in having all the EPA’s findings on carbon dioxide invalidated.
Thereby, from accomplishing their civil task Peabody will lend further weight to the likelihood of criminal charges being brought against those individuals implicated in international fraud on the largest scale ever known.
More details in World’s biggest coal company brings U.S. government to court in climate fraud
The petition must be answered and covers the entire body of leaked emails from ‘Climategate’ as well as those other ‘gate’ revelations including the frauds allegedly perpetrated under such sub-headings as ‘Himalayan Glaciers,’ ‘African Agricultural Production,’ ‘Amazon Rain Forests,’ ‘Melting Mountain Ice,’ ‘Netherlands Below Sea Level’ as well as those much-publicized abuses of the peer-review literature and so called ‘gray literature.’ These powerful litigants also draw attention to the proven criminal conduct by climate scientists in refusing to honor Freedom of Information law (FOIA) requests.
PEC is demanding that the EPA shall convene a full evidentiary hearing as a part of such reconsideration. If this element of the petition were granted it is highly probable that the weight of the new evidence now freely available since Climategate would expose the criminal and fraudulent component within the science of man-made global warming, and would likely succeed in having all the EPA’s findings on carbon dioxide invalidated.
Thereby, from accomplishing their civil task Peabody will lend further weight to the likelihood of criminal charges being brought against those individuals implicated in international fraud on the largest scale ever known.
More details in World’s biggest coal company brings U.S. government to court in climate fraud
Climate : Call for Investigation into half million dollar Hockey-Stick grant
Remember Al Gore's hockey-stick graph that he claimed represented established science? In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, temperatures would soar out of control unless taxes are increased and the cap-n-trade scheme is fully implemented and we begin a new era of global governance, according to Gore and other Democrats. Even if you didn't notice the long procession of scientists testifying in Senate hearings that the hockey-stick was a fake and that CO2 increases followed warming and therefore couldn't cause warming, you probably haven't missed the fact that it just hasn't gotten hot.
Michael Mann of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University created the hockey-stick chart and is currently under investigation by the university on whether he engaged in "actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research." The long overdue investigation was finally prompted by his part in the "Climategate" email exchanges with scientists at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit in the UK. Mann also helped establish one of the world's leading global warming propaganda web sites, RealClimate.org.
Despite a more than shaky reputation in "climate science," the National Science Foundation granted Mann more than a half million dollars last June, budgeted through economic stimulus legislation. This seemed a bit much for Congress members Jim Sensenbrenner and Darrell Issa who have sent a letter to the NSF requesting investigation of Mann's misconduct. The NSF regularly investigates allegations of academic misconduct by NSF-funded researchers.
More in Congressmen Want Dr. Mann’s Stimulus Funding Investigated
Michael Mann of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University created the hockey-stick chart and is currently under investigation by the university on whether he engaged in "actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research." The long overdue investigation was finally prompted by his part in the "Climategate" email exchanges with scientists at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit in the UK. Mann also helped establish one of the world's leading global warming propaganda web sites, RealClimate.org.
Despite a more than shaky reputation in "climate science," the National Science Foundation granted Mann more than a half million dollars last June, budgeted through economic stimulus legislation. This seemed a bit much for Congress members Jim Sensenbrenner and Darrell Issa who have sent a letter to the NSF requesting investigation of Mann's misconduct. The NSF regularly investigates allegations of academic misconduct by NSF-funded researchers.
More in Congressmen Want Dr. Mann’s Stimulus Funding Investigated
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Ron Paul Wins Presidential Straw Poll at CPAC
Ron Paul has ended Mitt Romney's three-year run as conservatives' favorite for president, taking 31 percent of the vote in the Conservative Political Action Conference's annual straw poll.
Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.
Romney, former Massachusetts governor and a 2008 GOP candidate, has won the last three presidential straw polls at the annual conference.
The straw poll is not binding -- and not necessarily a good forecaster, given that in 2008, John McCain went on to take the party's nomination over Romney.
This is good news for the Liberty movement and everyone that has supported Ron Paul and his ideas for the conservative movement.
He represents what true conservatism stands for, and has shed his light across many in the movement to take back our country and return it to the ideas of the Constitution.
Ron Paul at CPAC
Here is video of Ron Paul's great speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference:
R3VOLUTION!
R3VOLUTION!
Friday, February 19, 2010
Global Warming in the Bunker
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
"Don't worry, mein Fuehrer. The reports of Russians being in Berlin have not been peer-reviewed, and most climatologists still say that our 9th Army will relieve us in Berlin within hours. Oh yeah. You've been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."
fousesquawk
"Don't worry, mein Fuehrer. The reports of Russians being in Berlin have not been peer-reviewed, and most climatologists still say that our 9th Army will relieve us in Berlin within hours. Oh yeah. You've been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Climate: TX & VA file against EPA
Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) announced at a press conference Tuesday that he's suing the Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of Texas over its December decision to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant. Perry stated the intent of the lawsuit was to "defend Texas' environmental successes against federal overreach."
Gov. Rick Perry Sues The EPA Over Greenhouse Gas Regulation
Virginia’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, filed a petition Tuesday asking the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its finding that global warming poses a threat to people.
Mr. Cuccinelli, seeking to block the decision, also filed a petition with a federal appeals court for a review of the December E.P.A. finding, in which the agency asserted that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases emitted from automobiles, power plants and factories “threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.”
Virginia Files Challenge to E.P.A. Greenhouse Gas Regulation
Climate: New Warming Expected, An Obviously Unbiased Report
By Roger F. Gay
Inspired for the most part by an article written by Guardian science correspondent Ian Sample, some by an article by Pulitzer Prize op-ed columnist Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times, as well as others I've read over the past couple of years, I decided to try my hand at environmental journalism. Feel free to leave a comment to let me know how I'm doing. Just remember – it's all about science.
The most exalted of the world's eminent scientists – ever – are predicting a new warm period set to begin in the very near future, which could increase the earth's temperature by as much as 60-70 degrees Celsius in some places. That's 120-140 degrees Fahrenheit. It has been confirmed by really advanced super-computer models written by the world's most intelligent people that, should this take place, and there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever in the minds of all reasonable people everywhere – at least the smart and scientific ones – that it will, vast amounts of ice and snow will melt quickly, creating a huge volume of run-off water that will overwhelm rivers and streams creating local flooding before eventually raising the levels of lakes and oceans. Much of the ice currently covering small lakes will also disappear.
The event will be so dramatic that it requires a special scientific term. Called “summer” by top experts, it is expected to transform our daily lives. The impact on the ecosystem will be unmistakable to the naked eye. Biologists who publish scientific papers in the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals of science – the really scientific ones – are predicting enormously rapid increases in populations of everything ranging from bacteria, viruses, and insects – including the really dangerous and annoying ones – to small land creatures that eat garbage and bite people; and some are poisonous.
The most obvious transformation will be to plants, which will come in such variety that at least 100 billion more dollars in research funding is needed for further speculation. This much is thought to be expected: Much of the ground will be covered with small blade-like plants. There will be cancer-like cell growth on trees and bushes that are likely to expand into strange shapes. Although there is little agreement as yet on the colors of these growths, an artist's conception is shown below.
A most respected representative at the unimpeachably honest, neutral, and objective – and dare I say “respected” again, that is by anyone who's not totally wearing a tin-foil hat – United Nations, speaking for all the world's really good scientists, declared that accurate prediction of the coming warm period will prove once and for all that the trillion dollars already invested in the UN climate science program has been worth every penny. If anything, funding should be increased. All humanity owes a great debt to the organization and its supporters – and we have a Nobel Peace Prize to prove it – which should come in the form of tax increases around the world and special license permits that we can sell at enormous prices in exchange for nothing to that persistent plague on humanity – private industry.
Of course, unlike their self-involved and completely political rather than scientific opposition, the great halls of scientific inquiry at the United Nations are filled with the most sincere real scientists to have ever existed. You can be sure that all the money will go directly to important things, without which you will all die horrible, horrible, agonizing deaths after suffering in the worst imaginable way for a long time. And you're lucky too. The established scientific fact that nature is completely screwed up now and it will take centuries of global hardship to fix it is all your fault. They even have a long report that says so; undeniable proof that has also been confirmed by the preeminent scholar of the 20th and 21st centuries, Professor and Nobel Prize co-winner Al Gore. But you have to hurry and start sending money as soon as possible, otherwise you will all die horrible, horrible, agonizing deaths after suffering in the worst imaginable way for a long time.
But all the real scientific proof the great minds of our generation have to offer hasn't stopped attempts by wackos who voted for Bush and pay for products that involve Oil Companies from trying to cause confusion. They're stupid anyway, and don't know anything, and join Churches solely for the purpose of denying the existence of climate, and really it's all a big conspiracy against reason, the air we breath, and world peace.
These superstitious nut-jobs who can't accept what scientists tell them are making some ludicrous claims. Among them is the anti-science false belief that the coming warm period will be very similar to naturally occurring warm periods of the past. They have made up a goofy derogatory term, “winter,” to describe what every established scientific organization knows simply as “normal weather – at least before Bush and the Big Oil takeover.” Some of these fourth grade drop-outs, apparently in some kind of religious fit involving psychopathic “visions,” claim to have actually experienced “summers” (plural) again and again during their own life-times.
Speaking with some of the rank and file of conservative politics, one enters the bizarre landscape of the paranoid, hate-filled, racist fantasy world of FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh. They seem to have their own language to fill in the reality gaps. “They're called leaves,” smirked a dweeby little Tea Bagger from the inbred state of Missouri that voted for Bush instead of Gore in 2000, Bush again in 2004, and against Obama in 2008. Checking to see whether the Glenn Beck anti-science movement was wide-spread, I asked someone else about the predicted ground covering in summer. “Grass,” she responded without hesitation. Yeah, I suppose she'll be the first to try smoking it.
Confronting right-zingers with the new summer science could make a cute little calico kitten cry and will probably cause the extinction of baby seals. No doubt, in the real-world where healthy people live, young girls will drown from the flooding of newly created deserts like we saw in the opening film of the best-intentioned and ultimately essential Copenhagen climate summit; where the true meaning of life and our relationship with the unfolding universe would have been clearly charted had it not been for the well-planned sabotage of secret agents with ties to the Bush administration who want to kill everybody. It was a missed opportunity to align mother earth in such a way as to bring us all to a state of nirvana that only comes once a year – and really, 2009 was the year that mattered; so all the good people are really angry about that.
Inspired for the most part by an article written by Guardian science correspondent Ian Sample, some by an article by Pulitzer Prize op-ed columnist Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times, as well as others I've read over the past couple of years, I decided to try my hand at environmental journalism. Feel free to leave a comment to let me know how I'm doing. Just remember – it's all about science.
The most exalted of the world's eminent scientists – ever – are predicting a new warm period set to begin in the very near future, which could increase the earth's temperature by as much as 60-70 degrees Celsius in some places. That's 120-140 degrees Fahrenheit. It has been confirmed by really advanced super-computer models written by the world's most intelligent people that, should this take place, and there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever in the minds of all reasonable people everywhere – at least the smart and scientific ones – that it will, vast amounts of ice and snow will melt quickly, creating a huge volume of run-off water that will overwhelm rivers and streams creating local flooding before eventually raising the levels of lakes and oceans. Much of the ice currently covering small lakes will also disappear.
The event will be so dramatic that it requires a special scientific term. Called “summer” by top experts, it is expected to transform our daily lives. The impact on the ecosystem will be unmistakable to the naked eye. Biologists who publish scientific papers in the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals of science – the really scientific ones – are predicting enormously rapid increases in populations of everything ranging from bacteria, viruses, and insects – including the really dangerous and annoying ones – to small land creatures that eat garbage and bite people; and some are poisonous.
The most obvious transformation will be to plants, which will come in such variety that at least 100 billion more dollars in research funding is needed for further speculation. This much is thought to be expected: Much of the ground will be covered with small blade-like plants. There will be cancer-like cell growth on trees and bushes that are likely to expand into strange shapes. Although there is little agreement as yet on the colors of these growths, an artist's conception is shown below.
A most respected representative at the unimpeachably honest, neutral, and objective – and dare I say “respected” again, that is by anyone who's not totally wearing a tin-foil hat – United Nations, speaking for all the world's really good scientists, declared that accurate prediction of the coming warm period will prove once and for all that the trillion dollars already invested in the UN climate science program has been worth every penny. If anything, funding should be increased. All humanity owes a great debt to the organization and its supporters – and we have a Nobel Peace Prize to prove it – which should come in the form of tax increases around the world and special license permits that we can sell at enormous prices in exchange for nothing to that persistent plague on humanity – private industry.
Of course, unlike their self-involved and completely political rather than scientific opposition, the great halls of scientific inquiry at the United Nations are filled with the most sincere real scientists to have ever existed. You can be sure that all the money will go directly to important things, without which you will all die horrible, horrible, agonizing deaths after suffering in the worst imaginable way for a long time. And you're lucky too. The established scientific fact that nature is completely screwed up now and it will take centuries of global hardship to fix it is all your fault. They even have a long report that says so; undeniable proof that has also been confirmed by the preeminent scholar of the 20th and 21st centuries, Professor and Nobel Prize co-winner Al Gore. But you have to hurry and start sending money as soon as possible, otherwise you will all die horrible, horrible, agonizing deaths after suffering in the worst imaginable way for a long time.
But all the real scientific proof the great minds of our generation have to offer hasn't stopped attempts by wackos who voted for Bush and pay for products that involve Oil Companies from trying to cause confusion. They're stupid anyway, and don't know anything, and join Churches solely for the purpose of denying the existence of climate, and really it's all a big conspiracy against reason, the air we breath, and world peace.
These superstitious nut-jobs who can't accept what scientists tell them are making some ludicrous claims. Among them is the anti-science false belief that the coming warm period will be very similar to naturally occurring warm periods of the past. They have made up a goofy derogatory term, “winter,” to describe what every established scientific organization knows simply as “normal weather – at least before Bush and the Big Oil takeover.” Some of these fourth grade drop-outs, apparently in some kind of religious fit involving psychopathic “visions,” claim to have actually experienced “summers” (plural) again and again during their own life-times.
Speaking with some of the rank and file of conservative politics, one enters the bizarre landscape of the paranoid, hate-filled, racist fantasy world of FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh. They seem to have their own language to fill in the reality gaps. “They're called leaves,” smirked a dweeby little Tea Bagger from the inbred state of Missouri that voted for Bush instead of Gore in 2000, Bush again in 2004, and against Obama in 2008. Checking to see whether the Glenn Beck anti-science movement was wide-spread, I asked someone else about the predicted ground covering in summer. “Grass,” she responded without hesitation. Yeah, I suppose she'll be the first to try smoking it.
Confronting right-zingers with the new summer science could make a cute little calico kitten cry and will probably cause the extinction of baby seals. No doubt, in the real-world where healthy people live, young girls will drown from the flooding of newly created deserts like we saw in the opening film of the best-intentioned and ultimately essential Copenhagen climate summit; where the true meaning of life and our relationship with the unfolding universe would have been clearly charted had it not been for the well-planned sabotage of secret agents with ties to the Bush administration who want to kill everybody. It was a missed opportunity to align mother earth in such a way as to bring us all to a state of nirvana that only comes once a year – and really, 2009 was the year that mattered; so all the good people are really angry about that.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Garofalo and O'Donnell
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
It would be so easy to dismiss Rosie O'Donnell and Janeane Garofalo as a couple of dopes, jerks, or what have you after their rant against conservative figures on O'Donnell's radio show this week. To do so, however, would be to make myself as guilty as they are. I think more serious words are in order.
First of all, I do indeed consider them both to be jerks or dopes or whatever you want to call them. This is not the first time I have written disparagingly of them. Listening to the radio broadcast, it sounded to me like two drunken women seated at a bar and ready to fall off their respective bar-stools as they pronounced everybody they didn't like to be "A-holes" (Actually, something we men do more often). This is what passes for reasoned discourse these days. How did MSNBC miss out on this broadcast?
They pretty much covered the whole range of their ideological enemies-from Limbaugh to Hannity to Beck and even perhaps more egregiously, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, O'Donnell's former colleague on "The View", who had the temerity to disagree with O'Donnell and finally to put her in her place quite effectively I might add.
Worse yet, they followed the left-wing line in insulting a large segment of the American populace- the so-called "tea-baggers" as they like to call them, those average, everyday folks who are not Obama followers and who call into question the government take-over of virtually every facet of our lives. Back where I come from, we used to call it elitist arrogance. At one point, the term, "douche-bags" was even used to refer to their enemies. Quite a debating point there.
The fact of the matter is that these two are a couple of petty, left-wing ideologues who have no respect for anyone with a different point of view. There they sit in their Manhattan studios-in between flights to Hollywood- and disparage the common folks who live in that vast fly-over country in places like Missouri or Nebraska-not to mention those unspeakable hill-billies in the Southeast quadrant-you know, those white, racist, homophobic......tea-baggers, for lack of a better word.
And don't forget Fox News!!!
Yet, it is very possible, after the excesses of the Obama White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress, that enough people in this land of ours are waking up. Perhaps, that is why the Garofalos and the O'Donnells are becoming ever more strident in their language. They realize that their whole philosophy is losing all credibility.
They can talk all they want about the so-called "fear" that average Americans are feeling. Maybe-just maybe-it is they who are feeling the fear.
Did I say "maybe"? What I meant to say was "definitely".
fousesquawk
It would be so easy to dismiss Rosie O'Donnell and Janeane Garofalo as a couple of dopes, jerks, or what have you after their rant against conservative figures on O'Donnell's radio show this week. To do so, however, would be to make myself as guilty as they are. I think more serious words are in order.
First of all, I do indeed consider them both to be jerks or dopes or whatever you want to call them. This is not the first time I have written disparagingly of them. Listening to the radio broadcast, it sounded to me like two drunken women seated at a bar and ready to fall off their respective bar-stools as they pronounced everybody they didn't like to be "A-holes" (Actually, something we men do more often). This is what passes for reasoned discourse these days. How did MSNBC miss out on this broadcast?
They pretty much covered the whole range of their ideological enemies-from Limbaugh to Hannity to Beck and even perhaps more egregiously, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, O'Donnell's former colleague on "The View", who had the temerity to disagree with O'Donnell and finally to put her in her place quite effectively I might add.
Worse yet, they followed the left-wing line in insulting a large segment of the American populace- the so-called "tea-baggers" as they like to call them, those average, everyday folks who are not Obama followers and who call into question the government take-over of virtually every facet of our lives. Back where I come from, we used to call it elitist arrogance. At one point, the term, "douche-bags" was even used to refer to their enemies. Quite a debating point there.
The fact of the matter is that these two are a couple of petty, left-wing ideologues who have no respect for anyone with a different point of view. There they sit in their Manhattan studios-in between flights to Hollywood- and disparage the common folks who live in that vast fly-over country in places like Missouri or Nebraska-not to mention those unspeakable hill-billies in the Southeast quadrant-you know, those white, racist, homophobic......tea-baggers, for lack of a better word.
And don't forget Fox News!!!
Yet, it is very possible, after the excesses of the Obama White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress, that enough people in this land of ours are waking up. Perhaps, that is why the Garofalos and the O'Donnells are becoming ever more strident in their language. They realize that their whole philosophy is losing all credibility.
They can talk all they want about the so-called "fear" that average Americans are feeling. Maybe-just maybe-it is they who are feeling the fear.
Did I say "maybe"? What I meant to say was "definitely".
Ron Paul on the Tea Party Movement
The tea party movement has gained steam since it poked its head a few months ago. It is being used as a measuring stick against the back drop of big government democrats and big government republicans.
Here is video of Ron Paul on the Southern Avenger's show talking about this movement and where it might be headed:
Here is video of Ron Paul on the Southern Avenger's show talking about this movement and where it might be headed:
Monday, February 15, 2010
The Current Global Warming Propaganda Cycle
By Roger F. Gay
Scientists involved in the global warming scandal have been changing their stories. Suddenly, the debate is not over. There is room for doubt. Maybe it's not that hot after all. Maybe there is no imminent threat. The work of the UN's political panel on climate (the IPCC) has not been up to scientific standards and the whole organization needs reform.
It's the least they can do unless they intend to go down with a sinking ship. The facts are out. They sold false beliefs to the public in exchange for money. The “scientific” data used as a basis for their claims was faked, cherry-picked, biased, manipulated, and intentionally misinterpreted. Real data was hidden and destroyed to hide the truth.
But that hasn't stopped a flood of articles from being created claiming that the IPCC reports provide scientifically sound conclusions. “Skeptics” and “deniers” are making too much of the one or two (or four) little mistakes – typos really – that can be found in their monumental and near-perfect products.
Those who've followed the global warming issue likely already know in which camp the “climate science” blog at RealClimate.org belongs. RealClimate is the mother-of-all warming propaganda sites, established and operated by some of the original hoaxers.
Wonder how – short of a vastly complex and expensive network of interconnected cells - so many “environmental journalists” around the world present exactly the same arguments (often word-for-word) in article after article, relying on exactly the same alleged facts? It's simple really. What’s posted at RealClimate is what the Mimeograph machines of modern eco-journalism report.
Read Thomas Fuller’s comments in Global warming: Real Climate's defence of the IPCC report--the truth doesn't matter.
Scientists involved in the global warming scandal have been changing their stories. Suddenly, the debate is not over. There is room for doubt. Maybe it's not that hot after all. Maybe there is no imminent threat. The work of the UN's political panel on climate (the IPCC) has not been up to scientific standards and the whole organization needs reform.
It's the least they can do unless they intend to go down with a sinking ship. The facts are out. They sold false beliefs to the public in exchange for money. The “scientific” data used as a basis for their claims was faked, cherry-picked, biased, manipulated, and intentionally misinterpreted. Real data was hidden and destroyed to hide the truth.
But that hasn't stopped a flood of articles from being created claiming that the IPCC reports provide scientifically sound conclusions. “Skeptics” and “deniers” are making too much of the one or two (or four) little mistakes – typos really – that can be found in their monumental and near-perfect products.
Those who've followed the global warming issue likely already know in which camp the “climate science” blog at RealClimate.org belongs. RealClimate is the mother-of-all warming propaganda sites, established and operated by some of the original hoaxers.
Wonder how – short of a vastly complex and expensive network of interconnected cells - so many “environmental journalists” around the world present exactly the same arguments (often word-for-word) in article after article, relying on exactly the same alleged facts? It's simple really. What’s posted at RealClimate is what the Mimeograph machines of modern eco-journalism report.
Read Thomas Fuller’s comments in Global warming: Real Climate's defence of the IPCC report--the truth doesn't matter.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
The UC-Irvine Debacle-an Update
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
In the wake of the disruption of the Israeli Ambassador's Speech at UC-Irvine Monday night, it appears that the total number of arrestees stands at eleven, 8 from UCI and 3 from UC-Riverside. The case has been referred to the Orange County DA for possible prosecution. Already, their supporters have dubbed them the "Irvine 11" and are calling for donations to help in their legal defense as well as urging people to write to the university chancellor on their behalf.
After all, it was only an exercise in "free speech".
"American as apple pie", proclaims Mahdi Bray, spokesman for the Muslim American Society of Alexandria, Virgina, who have now emerged and announced they are supporting "The Irvine 11". Here's the full quote:
WASHINGTON, DC (MASNET) Feb. 11, 2010 - MAS Freedom Executive Director Mahdi Bray has been contacted by a family member of the Irvine Eleven (see article below) and is offering its services to the UC Irvine Muslim students. Mahdi Bray of MASF said of the arrests: "Non-violent direct action is part and parcel of the American protest culture, think where this nation would be if students didn't disrupt the segregated lunch counters in the south, or if Dr. King didn't disrupt the status quo of Jim Crow and discrimination in our nation. The Irvine Eleven are not criminals but students of conscience who have taken a principled stand on human rights and the sanctity of all life, non violent protest is as American as apple pie."
Of course, Bray reportedly has a history of defending Muslims charged with far more serious offenses than the "Irvine 11". He has been quoted as calling the war on terror a war on Islam. If you look at some of his past quoted statements, you might conclude he has a strange idea of what apple pie is.
In the meantime, Chancellor Michael Drake is also hearing from folks with a different point of view-those who are calling for his resignation. No doubt, some are writing to University President Mark Yudoff to demand Drake be forced out. Good luck with that too. Personally, I have no dog in that hunt because changing chancellors doesn't solve the problem, which is institutional. It is the very culture of American universities that has to change.
It was during the tenure of the previous chancellor, Ralph Cicerone, that UCI witnessed a similar incident when former Bush Justice Department attorney John Yoo came to speak-at the chancellor's invitation a few years back. Of course, Yoo was one of the DOJ lawyers who wrote memos outlining permissible interrogation techniques on captured terrorists in the wake of 9-11 (Good man, Mr Yoo). When he showed up to speak at UCI, loutish students and loutish professors turned out to turn the event in something resembling an English soccer match while Cicerone reportedly sat silently in the back of the room like a potted plant.
But a bigger problem as I see it is the weakness of some of the local Orange County Jewish organizations. While some of us have been trying for years to bring public awareness to what is happening on the UCI campus, our efforts have been thwarted by certain Jewish groups who have either denied the problem or have tried to work within the university structure-without success, in my view. Now they have egg on their faces. Now they are going around to the news media making statements decrying what happened Monday night.
Where have they been the past several years?
Where have you been Orange County Jewish Federation?
Where have you been UCI-Hillel?
Where have you been Orange County American Jewish Committee?
Missing in action, that's where.
"Problem? What problem?"
fousesquawk
In the wake of the disruption of the Israeli Ambassador's Speech at UC-Irvine Monday night, it appears that the total number of arrestees stands at eleven, 8 from UCI and 3 from UC-Riverside. The case has been referred to the Orange County DA for possible prosecution. Already, their supporters have dubbed them the "Irvine 11" and are calling for donations to help in their legal defense as well as urging people to write to the university chancellor on their behalf.
After all, it was only an exercise in "free speech".
"American as apple pie", proclaims Mahdi Bray, spokesman for the Muslim American Society of Alexandria, Virgina, who have now emerged and announced they are supporting "The Irvine 11". Here's the full quote:
WASHINGTON, DC (MASNET) Feb. 11, 2010 - MAS Freedom Executive Director Mahdi Bray has been contacted by a family member of the Irvine Eleven (see article below) and is offering its services to the UC Irvine Muslim students. Mahdi Bray of MASF said of the arrests: "Non-violent direct action is part and parcel of the American protest culture, think where this nation would be if students didn't disrupt the segregated lunch counters in the south, or if Dr. King didn't disrupt the status quo of Jim Crow and discrimination in our nation. The Irvine Eleven are not criminals but students of conscience who have taken a principled stand on human rights and the sanctity of all life, non violent protest is as American as apple pie."
Of course, Bray reportedly has a history of defending Muslims charged with far more serious offenses than the "Irvine 11". He has been quoted as calling the war on terror a war on Islam. If you look at some of his past quoted statements, you might conclude he has a strange idea of what apple pie is.
In the meantime, Chancellor Michael Drake is also hearing from folks with a different point of view-those who are calling for his resignation. No doubt, some are writing to University President Mark Yudoff to demand Drake be forced out. Good luck with that too. Personally, I have no dog in that hunt because changing chancellors doesn't solve the problem, which is institutional. It is the very culture of American universities that has to change.
It was during the tenure of the previous chancellor, Ralph Cicerone, that UCI witnessed a similar incident when former Bush Justice Department attorney John Yoo came to speak-at the chancellor's invitation a few years back. Of course, Yoo was one of the DOJ lawyers who wrote memos outlining permissible interrogation techniques on captured terrorists in the wake of 9-11 (Good man, Mr Yoo). When he showed up to speak at UCI, loutish students and loutish professors turned out to turn the event in something resembling an English soccer match while Cicerone reportedly sat silently in the back of the room like a potted plant.
But a bigger problem as I see it is the weakness of some of the local Orange County Jewish organizations. While some of us have been trying for years to bring public awareness to what is happening on the UCI campus, our efforts have been thwarted by certain Jewish groups who have either denied the problem or have tried to work within the university structure-without success, in my view. Now they have egg on their faces. Now they are going around to the news media making statements decrying what happened Monday night.
Where have they been the past several years?
Where have you been Orange County Jewish Federation?
Where have you been UCI-Hillel?
Where have you been Orange County American Jewish Committee?
Missing in action, that's where.
"Problem? What problem?"
Obama Declares He Will Rule by Authoritarian Decree
With his agenda stalled in Congress, it looks like President Obama and his administration will use rule by authoritarian decree to get the job done.
Here is a quote from his Chief of Staff:
How is this type of governing acceptable in the United States of America? Where have we gone as a country to bring us to the point that we now have a dictator ruling the people?
Here is Michael Savage talking about just this topic:
It is time to start paying attention to what is going on and stand up for our rights as free people.
Here is a quote from his Chief of Staff:
“With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities,” reports The New York Times. “We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” said Rahm Emanuel
How is this type of governing acceptable in the United States of America? Where have we gone as a country to bring us to the point that we now have a dictator ruling the people?
Here is Michael Savage talking about just this topic:
It is time to start paying attention to what is going on and stand up for our rights as free people.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Utah Formally Opposes Global Warming Scam
By Roger F. Gay
The Utah State Legislature passed a joint resolution urging the United States Environmental Protection Agency 'to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs and withdraw its "Endangerment Finding" and related regulations until a full and independent investigation of climate data and global warming science can be substantiated.' They are sending a copy of the resolution to the EPA.
It is clear that Utah legislators are fed up and recognize that the weight of evidence points to deliberate fraud by climate researchers, UN climate panel members, and politicians pushing the trillion dollar government programs and industry shake-downs. Last minute changes struck out “conspiracy,” “the climate change gravy train,” “flawed” [climate data], and “tricks, related to” [global temperature data], leaving a more diplomatically written document. But what remains is still clear.
The resolution includes the following findings of fact.
Utah State Legislature: CLIMATE CHANGE JOINT RESOLUTION
The Utah State Legislature passed a joint resolution urging the United States Environmental Protection Agency 'to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs and withdraw its "Endangerment Finding" and related regulations until a full and independent investigation of climate data and global warming science can be substantiated.' They are sending a copy of the resolution to the EPA.
It is clear that Utah legislators are fed up and recognize that the weight of evidence points to deliberate fraud by climate researchers, UN climate panel members, and politicians pushing the trillion dollar government programs and industry shake-downs. Last minute changes struck out “conspiracy,” “the climate change gravy train,” “flawed” [climate data], and “tricks, related to” [global temperature data], leaving a more diplomatically written document. But what remains is still clear.
The resolution includes the following findings of fact.
- Proposed cap and trade legislation before the United States Congress, together with potential state actions to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2), would result in significantly higher energy costs to American consumers, business, and industry.
- The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "Endangerment Finding" and proposed action to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act is based on questionable climate data and would place significant regulatory and financial burdens on all sectors of the nation's economy at a time when the nation's unemployment rate exceeds 10%.
- Global temperatures have been level and declining in some areas over the past 12 years.
- The "hockey stick" global warming assertion has been discredited and climate alarmists' carbon dioxide-related global warming hypothesis is unable to account for the current downturn in global temperatures.
- There is a statistically more direct correlation between twentieth century temperature rise and Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere than CO2.
- Outlawed and largely phased out by 1978, in the year 2000 CFC's began to decline at approximately the same time as global temperatures began to decline.
- Emails and other communications between climate researchers around the globe, referred to as "Climategate," indicate a well organized and ongoing effort to manipulate global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome.
- There has been a concerted effort by climate change alarmists to marginalize those in the scientific community who are skeptical of global warming by manipulating or pressuring peer-reviewed publications to keep contrary or competing scientific viewpoints and findings on global warming from being reviewed and published.
- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a blend of government officials and scientists, does no independent climate research but relies on global climate researchers.
- Earth's climate is constantly changing with recent warming potentially an indication of a return to more normal temperatures following a prolonged cooling period from1250 to 1860 called the "Little Ice Age."
- More than $7 billion annually in federal government grants, may have influenced the climate research focus and findings that have produced a "scientific consensus" at research institutions and universities.
- The recently completed Copenhagen climate change summit resulted in little agreement, especially among growing CO2-emitting nations like China and India, and calls on the United States to pay billions of dollars to developing countries to reduce CO2 emissions at a time when the United States' national debt will exceed $12 trillion.
- The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that current legislation providing agriculture offsets and carbon credits to reduce CO2 emissions would result in tree planting on 59 million acres of crop and pasture land, damaging America's food security and rural communities.
- According to the World Health Organization, 1.6 billion people do not have adequate food and clean water.
- Global governance related to global warming and reduction of CO2 would ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty.
Utah State Legislature: CLIMATE CHANGE JOINT RESOLUTION
Monday, February 8, 2010
Israeli Ambassador Disrupted at UC-Irvine
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
(Orange County Register)
This evening, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, spoke at the University of California at Irvine. I attended the event. I wish I could say it was a good evening. Unfortunately, I cannot. While Ambassador Oren comported himself with great class and dignity, the same cannot be said for the campus Muslim Student Union. What happened this evening was a black eye and embarrassment for the university where I have taught for over 11 years (part-time) and cemented the reputation of UCI as one of the worst campuses in the nation for radical MSU activity and anti-Semitism.
There were several hundred people in the audience, most of whom were from the local Jewish community. They were mostly older folks. The speech was sponsored by the local Jewish Federation, Hillel and several other organizations. As expected the Muslim Student Union also showed up. It was obvious even before the start of the speech that they were going to stage some sort of protest. Half of them sat on the left and half on the right.
A few moments into Ambassador Oren's speech, an MSU protester stood up and began shouting insults at the ambassador. He was removed by campus police. And so it continued. After the first interruption, the moderator, a UCI political science professor, took the microphone to admonish the disruptors. Yet, it did not stop. After about the 5th such disruption and removal, the ambassador left the room and Chancellor Michael Drake addressed the audience pleading for civility.
When the ambassador returned, the disruptions continued. Each time, a protester was removed, the audience become increasingly angry and voiced their displeasure at the disruptors. They also voiced their displeasure at Chancellor Drake and demanded to know what was going to be done to the disrupting students. (Of course, at this point, there is a question as to whether the disruptors were actually students who could be disciplined.) The audience was clearly not pleased with Chancellor Drake's pleas for civility. Cries of "what are you going to do about it?" were heard in the audience.
After the 10th such interruption, the MSU got up as a group and left the hall, screaming insults at the ambassador, who nevertheless managed to complete his speech as the MSU gathered out on the street outside and continued their protest, their chants barely audible inside the hall. The disruptions and delays precluded any hope of having a Q&A, which was the original plan.
Here is my reaction to the speech. First of all, the performance of the Muslim Student Union was despicable. To disrupt a speech by an ambassador of any nation is a diplomatic incident in and of itself. That this happened on the UCI campus is a major embarrassment for the university. One can only hope that criminal charges will be filed, which I understand will be the case. If any of the individual protesters are UCI students, I can only hope they will be expelled. (Don't hold your breath.)
Secondly, the Muslim Student Union not only did a disservice to their (pro-Palestinian) cause, but they did a disservice to themselves as Muslims. What they projected to the audience was not only that they did not respect free speech, but they projected a negative image of themselves as Muslims. In that respect, they did a disservice to those Muslims who are trying to live peacefully and assimilate into American society. This bunch, however, sent a message that they are apart from American society.
In addition, they refused to accord the right of free speech and the right of the audience to hear a message because they don't like it. I have been attending MSU-sponsored events for several years now at UCI and listened to a lot of hate speech-words that Ambassador Oren never engaged in. I have never interrupted or disrupted a speech no matter how offensive it was, nor have I witnessed anyone else do so. If the MSU had differences with the Israeli ambassador, they could have asked him their questions during the Q&A, as I always do. Instead, they acted like barbarians and cemented an unfortunate stereotype that hurts all Muslims.
Perhaps, the biggest mistake the MSU committed was showing a local audience that there really IS a problem at UCI, in spite of all the denials by the administration and unfortunately, even some Jewish groups like the local Orange County Jewish Federation, who sponsored the event. The audience members will take this experience home and tell others what is really going on at UCI. Tonight, the truth came out.
Above is the Orange County Register video of the disruptions. When more pictures/videos of the event are available, I will post them.
fousesquawk
(Orange County Register)
This evening, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, spoke at the University of California at Irvine. I attended the event. I wish I could say it was a good evening. Unfortunately, I cannot. While Ambassador Oren comported himself with great class and dignity, the same cannot be said for the campus Muslim Student Union. What happened this evening was a black eye and embarrassment for the university where I have taught for over 11 years (part-time) and cemented the reputation of UCI as one of the worst campuses in the nation for radical MSU activity and anti-Semitism.
There were several hundred people in the audience, most of whom were from the local Jewish community. They were mostly older folks. The speech was sponsored by the local Jewish Federation, Hillel and several other organizations. As expected the Muslim Student Union also showed up. It was obvious even before the start of the speech that they were going to stage some sort of protest. Half of them sat on the left and half on the right.
A few moments into Ambassador Oren's speech, an MSU protester stood up and began shouting insults at the ambassador. He was removed by campus police. And so it continued. After the first interruption, the moderator, a UCI political science professor, took the microphone to admonish the disruptors. Yet, it did not stop. After about the 5th such disruption and removal, the ambassador left the room and Chancellor Michael Drake addressed the audience pleading for civility.
When the ambassador returned, the disruptions continued. Each time, a protester was removed, the audience become increasingly angry and voiced their displeasure at the disruptors. They also voiced their displeasure at Chancellor Drake and demanded to know what was going to be done to the disrupting students. (Of course, at this point, there is a question as to whether the disruptors were actually students who could be disciplined.) The audience was clearly not pleased with Chancellor Drake's pleas for civility. Cries of "what are you going to do about it?" were heard in the audience.
After the 10th such interruption, the MSU got up as a group and left the hall, screaming insults at the ambassador, who nevertheless managed to complete his speech as the MSU gathered out on the street outside and continued their protest, their chants barely audible inside the hall. The disruptions and delays precluded any hope of having a Q&A, which was the original plan.
Here is my reaction to the speech. First of all, the performance of the Muslim Student Union was despicable. To disrupt a speech by an ambassador of any nation is a diplomatic incident in and of itself. That this happened on the UCI campus is a major embarrassment for the university. One can only hope that criminal charges will be filed, which I understand will be the case. If any of the individual protesters are UCI students, I can only hope they will be expelled. (Don't hold your breath.)
Secondly, the Muslim Student Union not only did a disservice to their (pro-Palestinian) cause, but they did a disservice to themselves as Muslims. What they projected to the audience was not only that they did not respect free speech, but they projected a negative image of themselves as Muslims. In that respect, they did a disservice to those Muslims who are trying to live peacefully and assimilate into American society. This bunch, however, sent a message that they are apart from American society.
In addition, they refused to accord the right of free speech and the right of the audience to hear a message because they don't like it. I have been attending MSU-sponsored events for several years now at UCI and listened to a lot of hate speech-words that Ambassador Oren never engaged in. I have never interrupted or disrupted a speech no matter how offensive it was, nor have I witnessed anyone else do so. If the MSU had differences with the Israeli ambassador, they could have asked him their questions during the Q&A, as I always do. Instead, they acted like barbarians and cemented an unfortunate stereotype that hurts all Muslims.
Perhaps, the biggest mistake the MSU committed was showing a local audience that there really IS a problem at UCI, in spite of all the denials by the administration and unfortunately, even some Jewish groups like the local Orange County Jewish Federation, who sponsored the event. The audience members will take this experience home and tell others what is really going on at UCI. Tonight, the truth came out.
Above is the Orange County Register video of the disruptions. When more pictures/videos of the event are available, I will post them.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
White House-Republicans Spar Over Abdulmutallab
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
On Tuesday of this week, White House press officials called in reporters to breathlessly announce that the Christmas bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was again talking to investigators after 5 weeks of silence. As we know, the suspect initially answered questions for 50 minutes before orders came down from Washington to give him his Miranda warning. That unleashed a storm of protest against the Justice Department and the Obama White House.
Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri, who sits on the Select Committee on Intelligence, has now stated that he was briefed the day before by FBI Director Robert Mueller with the warning that the information (that the suspect had resumed his cooperation) had to be kept secret. The next day, the White House told the world. Now the finger-pointing is going back and forth.
Of course, the Democrats are accusing the Republicans of politicizing a national security issue. Perhaps, but the fact remains that it was the White House that released information that should have been kept confidential.
White House press spokesman and professional comedian Roberts Gibbs (pictured below)
had previously stated that investigators had gathered all the information they needed in the 50 minutes they had to interview Abdulmutallab after his arrest. Well, if so, then what is the big deal about him cooperating now? We all know what the big deal is; the White House is desperately to stop the public criticism over the government's handling of this suspect. Every opinion poll shows that the majority of the public disagrees with Mirandizing Abdulmutallab and trying him in federal court-as opposed to turning him over to the military.
There are two lessons to be learned here; first, this suspect could have had information relative to a coordinated enemy attack on other planes or a future attack. Whatever he knew, 50 minutes would never be sufficient to fully debrief him and milk every last drop of information he had. We will never know what we could have achieved had he been turned over to military custody. Whatever he is saying now could already be dated information or relative to plans that have been altered.
Second; there is no sense in flooding our courts with this type of enemy. The model to be used is when a group of German saboteurs landed on our shores during the Second World War in order to bomb certain strategic targets. They were quickly captured, turned over to military custody, tried and most were hanged. In a sense, I would have more sympathy for the German operatives in the sense they were soldiers or spies acting on behalf of their country during a declared war. Yet, their military trial and execution violated no Geneva Convention rules since they were acting as spies in civilian dress. Terrorists don't fit into that category. In fact, they have created their own unique category.
There is no way that the White House can justify making public the fact that Abdulmutallab has been talking-either the day of his arrest or now. In law enforcement jargon, it's called, "burning your snitches".
fousesquawk
On Tuesday of this week, White House press officials called in reporters to breathlessly announce that the Christmas bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was again talking to investigators after 5 weeks of silence. As we know, the suspect initially answered questions for 50 minutes before orders came down from Washington to give him his Miranda warning. That unleashed a storm of protest against the Justice Department and the Obama White House.
Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri, who sits on the Select Committee on Intelligence, has now stated that he was briefed the day before by FBI Director Robert Mueller with the warning that the information (that the suspect had resumed his cooperation) had to be kept secret. The next day, the White House told the world. Now the finger-pointing is going back and forth.
Of course, the Democrats are accusing the Republicans of politicizing a national security issue. Perhaps, but the fact remains that it was the White House that released information that should have been kept confidential.
White House press spokesman and professional comedian Roberts Gibbs (pictured below)
had previously stated that investigators had gathered all the information they needed in the 50 minutes they had to interview Abdulmutallab after his arrest. Well, if so, then what is the big deal about him cooperating now? We all know what the big deal is; the White House is desperately to stop the public criticism over the government's handling of this suspect. Every opinion poll shows that the majority of the public disagrees with Mirandizing Abdulmutallab and trying him in federal court-as opposed to turning him over to the military.
There are two lessons to be learned here; first, this suspect could have had information relative to a coordinated enemy attack on other planes or a future attack. Whatever he knew, 50 minutes would never be sufficient to fully debrief him and milk every last drop of information he had. We will never know what we could have achieved had he been turned over to military custody. Whatever he is saying now could already be dated information or relative to plans that have been altered.
Second; there is no sense in flooding our courts with this type of enemy. The model to be used is when a group of German saboteurs landed on our shores during the Second World War in order to bomb certain strategic targets. They were quickly captured, turned over to military custody, tried and most were hanged. In a sense, I would have more sympathy for the German operatives in the sense they were soldiers or spies acting on behalf of their country during a declared war. Yet, their military trial and execution violated no Geneva Convention rules since they were acting as spies in civilian dress. Terrorists don't fit into that category. In fact, they have created their own unique category.
There is no way that the White House can justify making public the fact that Abdulmutallab has been talking-either the day of his arrest or now. In law enforcement jargon, it's called, "burning your snitches".
Insight into History of the Women's Movement
Erin Pizzey is a British family care activist and a best-selling novelist. She became internationally famous for having started one of the first Women's Refuges (called women's shelters in the U.S.) in the modern world in 1971. She was also the founder of the UK domestic violence charity Refuge. However, Pizzey reports that she and her work have been the subject of threats and boycotts due to her conclusion that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are just as capable of violence as men.
In the videos below, she provides insight into the true character of the women's movement; a movement that dramatically altered society and had a deep impact on public policy throughout the free world.
In the videos below, she provides insight into the true character of the women's movement; a movement that dramatically altered society and had a deep impact on public policy throughout the free world.
NASA Climate Data Verses the Conspiracy to Commit Good Science
By Roger F. Gay
With so many revelations of fraud in support of the man-made global warming, it has gotten much more difficult for propagandists to contend that science is on their side. NASA has a well-earned reputation in science and technological advancement. Surely one might think that if NASA is worried about global warming then we should be too. This is more-or-less the last remaining argument in the warmers' arsenal. With 95% of their claims disproven, NASA climate data still seems to provide support for at least some of the Al Gore style scary scenarios about a warming planet and the role of human activity.
But wait – this “NASA climate data” they speak of doesn't really come from NASA; not at least from the core NASA organization with the great reputation for science and technological advancement.
Support for catastrophic man-made global warming “theory” comes from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Sounds impressive, but you should ask; what's that? It's a group at Columbia University that is associated with The Earth Institute at Columbia University. GISS's current director is none other than the “grandfather” of the global warming hoax himself, Dr. James Hansen. Go to their website and you will find it just as centrally dedicated to global warming propaganda as RealClimate.org.
A key adviser to Al Gore, Hansen is so fanatically extreme in his political views that he leaves the vast majority of believers in the dust. He's been out on the international speaking trail for example, calling for Nuremberg style trials for oil company executives and basically anyone who's ever disagreed with his hysterical claims – an inquisition movement for the global warming religion.
Hansen became director of GISS in the early 1980s. Two decades later, the George W. Bush administration wanted to know what his activities have to do with “space studies.” Hansen and a Washington based law-firm responded with press releases and a threatened “whistle blower” lawsuit claiming Bush was trying to suppress him and cover up the truth about global warming. This claim has helped build his hero status among global warming activists.
An example of an alleged conspiracy to silence Hansen involves his claim that 2005 was the warmest year on record. Bush officials wanted to leave this claim out of official administration reports because it is not backed by real science. Other scientists have explained the ruse; cherry-picking data so that only warm days count. Laughed at by experts, the 2005 claim is still used by some activists to counter discussion on the well-known cooling trend of the past decade.
Without support from NASA administrators (climate change doctrine is not part of NASA's core mission), but with the Bush administration distracted by global terrorism, Hansen and his lawyers successfully hard-balled an entitlement for continued federal funding and use of the NASA brand name. Not surprisingly, this situation has not been challenged by the Obama administration, which still claims “climate science” provides incontrovertible proof of future catastrophic climate change because they aren't yet extracting enough money through taxation and cap-n-trade schemes and because “global governance” is not yet fully implemented.
GISS was established in 1961, and played an important role in space studies until Hansen became director. It's founding director, NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement recipient Robert Jastrow, was so appalled by Hansen's use of the formerly reputable institute, that he – along with Scripps Institute director, Distinguished Medal of Honor recipient, and former member of the NASA's Advisory Council William Nierenberg and former president of the National Academy of Sciences and National Medal of Science recipient Frederick Seitz – decided to speak out against it. In 1984, they founded The George C. Marshall Institute to "encourage the use of sound science in making public policy about important issues for which science and technology are major considerations," with focus on issues of national security and the environment.
According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest: "The Marshall Institute investigates facts concerning global climate change. The Institute also studies the implications of the Kyoto Protocol upon national security.”
Investigating facts, and likely the close awareness Hansen had to their “skepticism” made them important targets. The battle may have given rise to a claim propagandists have oft repeated in an effort to counter the powerful effect of opposition arguments; “they're all paid by Big Oil.”
According to SourceWatch.org and Wikipedia, the Marshall Institute is partially supported by the Exxon Education Foundation and American Standard Companies. SourceWatch does not provide a source for the Exxon claim, while Wikipedia cites an advocacy article that in turn says Exxon gave a gift to the institute in 1998 according to that year's annual report.
American Standard Companies is a leading supplier of air-conditioning systems and other household technology products including a well known toilet. Possibly confused with Standard Oil, this connection was also seen by warming propagandists as proof of a Big Oil driven conspiracy of skepticism. Whether it matters or not, the claim that American Standard funds the institute or that any of the founders had been associated with the company was not supported by the citation (a web link) given in support of the claim.
With so many revelations of fraud in support of the man-made global warming, it has gotten much more difficult for propagandists to contend that science is on their side. NASA has a well-earned reputation in science and technological advancement. Surely one might think that if NASA is worried about global warming then we should be too. This is more-or-less the last remaining argument in the warmers' arsenal. With 95% of their claims disproven, NASA climate data still seems to provide support for at least some of the Al Gore style scary scenarios about a warming planet and the role of human activity.
But wait – this “NASA climate data” they speak of doesn't really come from NASA; not at least from the core NASA organization with the great reputation for science and technological advancement.
Support for catastrophic man-made global warming “theory” comes from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Sounds impressive, but you should ask; what's that? It's a group at Columbia University that is associated with The Earth Institute at Columbia University. GISS's current director is none other than the “grandfather” of the global warming hoax himself, Dr. James Hansen. Go to their website and you will find it just as centrally dedicated to global warming propaganda as RealClimate.org.
A key adviser to Al Gore, Hansen is so fanatically extreme in his political views that he leaves the vast majority of believers in the dust. He's been out on the international speaking trail for example, calling for Nuremberg style trials for oil company executives and basically anyone who's ever disagreed with his hysterical claims – an inquisition movement for the global warming religion.
Hansen became director of GISS in the early 1980s. Two decades later, the George W. Bush administration wanted to know what his activities have to do with “space studies.” Hansen and a Washington based law-firm responded with press releases and a threatened “whistle blower” lawsuit claiming Bush was trying to suppress him and cover up the truth about global warming. This claim has helped build his hero status among global warming activists.
An example of an alleged conspiracy to silence Hansen involves his claim that 2005 was the warmest year on record. Bush officials wanted to leave this claim out of official administration reports because it is not backed by real science. Other scientists have explained the ruse; cherry-picking data so that only warm days count. Laughed at by experts, the 2005 claim is still used by some activists to counter discussion on the well-known cooling trend of the past decade.
Without support from NASA administrators (climate change doctrine is not part of NASA's core mission), but with the Bush administration distracted by global terrorism, Hansen and his lawyers successfully hard-balled an entitlement for continued federal funding and use of the NASA brand name. Not surprisingly, this situation has not been challenged by the Obama administration, which still claims “climate science” provides incontrovertible proof of future catastrophic climate change because they aren't yet extracting enough money through taxation and cap-n-trade schemes and because “global governance” is not yet fully implemented.
GISS was established in 1961, and played an important role in space studies until Hansen became director. It's founding director, NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement recipient Robert Jastrow, was so appalled by Hansen's use of the formerly reputable institute, that he – along with Scripps Institute director, Distinguished Medal of Honor recipient, and former member of the NASA's Advisory Council William Nierenberg and former president of the National Academy of Sciences and National Medal of Science recipient Frederick Seitz – decided to speak out against it. In 1984, they founded The George C. Marshall Institute to "encourage the use of sound science in making public policy about important issues for which science and technology are major considerations," with focus on issues of national security and the environment.
According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest: "The Marshall Institute investigates facts concerning global climate change. The Institute also studies the implications of the Kyoto Protocol upon national security.”
Investigating facts, and likely the close awareness Hansen had to their “skepticism” made them important targets. The battle may have given rise to a claim propagandists have oft repeated in an effort to counter the powerful effect of opposition arguments; “they're all paid by Big Oil.”
According to SourceWatch.org and Wikipedia, the Marshall Institute is partially supported by the Exxon Education Foundation and American Standard Companies. SourceWatch does not provide a source for the Exxon claim, while Wikipedia cites an advocacy article that in turn says Exxon gave a gift to the institute in 1998 according to that year's annual report.
American Standard Companies is a leading supplier of air-conditioning systems and other household technology products including a well known toilet. Possibly confused with Standard Oil, this connection was also seen by warming propagandists as proof of a Big Oil driven conspiracy of skepticism. Whether it matters or not, the claim that American Standard funds the institute or that any of the founders had been associated with the company was not supported by the citation (a web link) given in support of the claim.
America and Revolutionary Thinking...
America is ready and ripe for revolution cries the fire breathing anger that is evident all over this country. I am eager to see it, but I was ready and angry when it was oppressive over the past 2 terms of the prior administration. I was fed up and pissed off watching the gross violations of individual rights under the last 8 years of the Bush Administration. Not many people were with me on this one, not many of us dared to stick our heads out when it was purely unpopular to do so. I had done so when I was younger and in high school and it had drew me a lot of criticism considering I grew up in a small town that is a reliable Republican stronghold.
I remember demanding fiscal sanity when Republicans spent like they never could before considering they've never seen this much power. The Presidency and the Congress and a clueless court not willing to slap down bad Federal law. And by the time 2008 came along, I was so disenchanted, so fed up, I almost just tuned out until I heard someone bear out logic and reason and more. His answers spoke to people softly and logic riddled. He seemed like a basic tenet of what I had believed in.
Revisiting Sarah Palin and her speech just yesterday reminded of Barry Goldwater in 1964. Great ideas but never enough to get the populace behind them and yet Barry Goldwater seemed to articulate his ideas. I believe Sarah Palin is very similar to our President because I believe they both are in need of a script to give a good speech. I don't find her personally offending more like politically considering I don't believe she has anything real behind her besides the latest talking point that has passed muster and the last focus group to say they liked it.
And I may have burned bridges here, but I assure you when you see the ashes and the pieces that fall into place you'll be sorry you missed this fond opportunity to realize that why I was a supporter of Year of Youth: Project 2012.
I remember demanding fiscal sanity when Republicans spent like they never could before considering they've never seen this much power. The Presidency and the Congress and a clueless court not willing to slap down bad Federal law. And by the time 2008 came along, I was so disenchanted, so fed up, I almost just tuned out until I heard someone bear out logic and reason and more. His answers spoke to people softly and logic riddled. He seemed like a basic tenet of what I had believed in.
Revisiting Sarah Palin and her speech just yesterday reminded of Barry Goldwater in 1964. Great ideas but never enough to get the populace behind them and yet Barry Goldwater seemed to articulate his ideas. I believe Sarah Palin is very similar to our President because I believe they both are in need of a script to give a good speech. I don't find her personally offending more like politically considering I don't believe she has anything real behind her besides the latest talking point that has passed muster and the last focus group to say they liked it.
And I may have burned bridges here, but I assure you when you see the ashes and the pieces that fall into place you'll be sorry you missed this fond opportunity to realize that why I was a supporter of Year of Youth: Project 2012.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Child Support Decision Theory Developed
By Roger F. Gay
Child support decision theory has taken a leap in development; finally providing a sound theoretical formula that can be used to consistently produce “just and appropriate” awards. The following comments provide an quick summary of guideline history and briefly state the character and significance of the breakthrough. A link to further information is included at the end.
When Congress decided to force states to develop and use child support guidelines in the 1980s, state of the art consisted of formula built to correspond to existing state laws. The use and selection of such formulae had previously been left to judicial discretion and a variety of guidelines had been developed by state bar associations, judges, and individuals. Several efforts were quite worthy of note in the unfolding national history of the science of guideline development.
A 1981 formula created by Maurice Franks and a later effort by Judge Melson in Delaware both received widespread attention. Franks' creation was extremely well documented in an article providing case citations and commentary as its basis. (How to Calculate Child Support, Case & Comment, January-February, 1981) This led to greater uniformity, not only within states, but across state lines, as laws on determining child support awards of many states were quite similar; based on “the needs of children and relative ability of parents to pay.” Therefore, it was therefore possible to apply the same formula in many states. This provided a sense that requiring the application of such a formula could consistently produce just and appropriate awards; and would reduce the variations in outcome in similar cases. It was after all, a mathematical model that was easy to apply. Because it was constructed to specifications of existing law, it also shared the accumulated wisdom of the entire legal history of child support decision theory both in the United States and earlier in Great Britain.
Criticism of Franks' and similar formulae focused on custodial households at and below poverty level. The “cost sharing” approach taken by Franks' and others was based primarily on sharing costs in the context of the standard of living in the custodial household. This resulted in poor custodial households maintaining a poor standard of living while much wealthier non-custodial parents were not ordered to improve the situation. In some cases, this could shift the burden of support to the state.
When Congress authorized spending to create technical guidance for states in creating new guidelines (Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984), the HHS Office of Child Support Enforcement turned to economist Robert Williams, founder of Policy Studies, Inc. Williams' recommendations for amounts averaging 250% higher than awarded under existing state laws created the controversy that continues to surround guideline results today. (Development of Guidelines for Child Support Orders, OCSE 1987) Nonetheless, a majority of states adopted Williams' “Income Shares” guideline model.
Although turning to economists for child support calculations seemed a reasonable course, it was, at least in hindsight, a baseless choice. A mathematical theory of child support decisions had never been developed within the field of economics. Rather than focusing on existing legal theory, Williams work more closely followed the work of another economist, Thomas Espanshade. Espanshade had written a book presenting his estimates of the cost of raising children. (Investing in Children: New Estimates of Parental Expenditures, Urban Institute Press, 1984)
Espenshade's particular purpose was more focused on pressing for increased government support for poor families. The statistical estimates themselves were scientifically unsound; based primarily on the arbitrarily selected parameter values and manipulations of his estimating formula rather than on family spending data. The USDA had undertaken similar studies and determined that statistical calculation of the total cost of raising children was impossible using data on family spending. As once stated by a Chicago judge, “Both mother and child live from the same sugar bowl.”
Those particularly interested in keeping up with events in this area may recall a national controversy that stemmed from the USDA's work. Keen to do the best they could to characterize the nutritional needs of families, they constructed low, medium, and higher cost “meal plans” in place of a statistically based formula estimating family spending patterns on food. This led to a negative public reaction based on the suggestion that the government was attempting to micro-manage family life. The USDA eventually yielded to political pressure and began producing Espenshade style cost estimates of its own.
The fact that “just and appropriate” child support award levels cannot be statistically determined from family spending data did not deter dependence on them for development of state guidelines. In fact, it seemed that a cottage industry developed in which a few economists spent a significant amount of time re-processing the estimates and writing reports for state guideline committees. Rather than leading to greater uniformity, these efforts produced widely varying results in different states and at different times, as conclusions from the “experts” seemed nearly always to agree with whatever local committee leaders and politicians had in mind. This confirmed in practice what was already understood in theory: The approach that has been taken for development and maintenance of mandatory guidelines is not scientifically sound.
The conflict between those who prefer the “cost sharing” approach and those who prefer “income sharing” is a long-standing one. The differences appear in proposed formulae, and have certainly been central to debate over numerical components in guidelines. Although “cost sharing” comes closest to implementing the historical wisdom of common law, neither had been developed into a sufficiently complete mathematical theory prior to mandatory use of guidelines in the states.
The two can be characterized as follows:
The two views are born of entirely different definitions of “child support.” Any compromise between the two would certainly be arbitrary; scientifically unsound. The current problem, that guidelines are constantly subject to arbitrary political manipulation (and more than once the subject of corruption – i.e. a few legislators have actually gone to jail for their involvements) would not be solved.
The new theory does however, at least in some sense, provide a sound compromise; although this was not the intent, nor the approach taken in its development. There was in fact, no forethought about where on the numeric map the result should be; only a direct sustained effort to find a basic and sound mathematical theory of child support decisions. Rather than “compromise” (a political process), it is most accurate to report that a solution has been found through deeper mathematical analysis.
Development of the new theory began with a classic effort to model (mathematically) traditional child support law. Analytical steps toward refining the model were described in Rational Basis is the Key Focus in Emerging 'Third Generation' Child Support Technology. (in Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the Children's Rights Council, April 28 - May 2, 1993). The plan called for repeated refinements of both the mathematics and the underlying principles upon which the model is built; a boot-strap approach in which improvements in the statement of principles would be discovered from exercising mathematical models. Clearer application of principles would in turn, serve as the basis for further mathematical development (on a sound footing).
It was determined, by direct mathematical evidence (through model validation procedures), that three basic principles are required to develop a complete and sound mathematical theory of child support:
Those familiar with traditional child support law will easily recognize the close correspondence between these principles and those established by state courts. The process of developing general principles from case trials is as familiar to scientists as it is to lawyers and judges. What the mathematical studies have added is verification that there is no where else to go for determining “just and appropriate” award levels. In addition, the studies provided a more complete; and finally a sound mathematical model.
As mentioned above, the new theory was developed through successive modeling refinements. “Refinements” are improvements in the development of sound theory to the extent they bring the model closer to reality. Reliance on unavoidable facts as modeling “assumptions” rather than arbitrarily expressions of philosophical preferences, leads to improvements. Models can be constructed on philosophical preferences; but a sound and useful theory must be based on and related to facts.
In most cases, the presumption that receipt of child support increases custodial parent income is unavoidably correct. Regardless of intent (purpose principle), child support payments are “liquid” cash dumped into the income-stream of custodial parents. They, therefore, increase the standard of living of custodial households, not just that of children, and children share in that increase. Although the philosophy underlying development of “cost sharing” models is sound, this unavoidable fact more closely corresponds to (the improperly constructed) income sharing philosophy.
By preserving the principle, that child support is for the care and maintenance of children, while treating child support income as an addition to custodial parent income in mathematical models; a new basic formula was derived. The payment of child support increases custodial parent income, thus; increases the standard of living in custodial households and the benefits children receive. Explained in relation to “cost sharing,” receipt of child support payments effectively increase the amount available for spending on children, which in turn increases the "just and appropriate" size of awards. The solution converges (the increase is not arbitrarily high), and results pass all validation tests.
There is more complete and technically detailed information about Child Support Decision Theory available on the Web; at http://isr.nu/cs/ Materials were developed over a period of years and go much farther in dealing with the practical aspects of child support determinations; for example, on deviating from the basic formula and on dealing with visitation credits and joint custody calculations. A lengthy paper is also available at the site that provides a thorough analysis of the three fundamental decision principles.
Child support decision theory has taken a leap in development; finally providing a sound theoretical formula that can be used to consistently produce “just and appropriate” awards. The following comments provide an quick summary of guideline history and briefly state the character and significance of the breakthrough. A link to further information is included at the end.
When Congress decided to force states to develop and use child support guidelines in the 1980s, state of the art consisted of formula built to correspond to existing state laws. The use and selection of such formulae had previously been left to judicial discretion and a variety of guidelines had been developed by state bar associations, judges, and individuals. Several efforts were quite worthy of note in the unfolding national history of the science of guideline development.
A 1981 formula created by Maurice Franks and a later effort by Judge Melson in Delaware both received widespread attention. Franks' creation was extremely well documented in an article providing case citations and commentary as its basis. (How to Calculate Child Support, Case & Comment, January-February, 1981) This led to greater uniformity, not only within states, but across state lines, as laws on determining child support awards of many states were quite similar; based on “the needs of children and relative ability of parents to pay.” Therefore, it was therefore possible to apply the same formula in many states. This provided a sense that requiring the application of such a formula could consistently produce just and appropriate awards; and would reduce the variations in outcome in similar cases. It was after all, a mathematical model that was easy to apply. Because it was constructed to specifications of existing law, it also shared the accumulated wisdom of the entire legal history of child support decision theory both in the United States and earlier in Great Britain.
Criticism of Franks' and similar formulae focused on custodial households at and below poverty level. The “cost sharing” approach taken by Franks' and others was based primarily on sharing costs in the context of the standard of living in the custodial household. This resulted in poor custodial households maintaining a poor standard of living while much wealthier non-custodial parents were not ordered to improve the situation. In some cases, this could shift the burden of support to the state.
When Congress authorized spending to create technical guidance for states in creating new guidelines (Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984), the HHS Office of Child Support Enforcement turned to economist Robert Williams, founder of Policy Studies, Inc. Williams' recommendations for amounts averaging 250% higher than awarded under existing state laws created the controversy that continues to surround guideline results today. (Development of Guidelines for Child Support Orders, OCSE 1987) Nonetheless, a majority of states adopted Williams' “Income Shares” guideline model.
Although turning to economists for child support calculations seemed a reasonable course, it was, at least in hindsight, a baseless choice. A mathematical theory of child support decisions had never been developed within the field of economics. Rather than focusing on existing legal theory, Williams work more closely followed the work of another economist, Thomas Espanshade. Espanshade had written a book presenting his estimates of the cost of raising children. (Investing in Children: New Estimates of Parental Expenditures, Urban Institute Press, 1984)
Espenshade's particular purpose was more focused on pressing for increased government support for poor families. The statistical estimates themselves were scientifically unsound; based primarily on the arbitrarily selected parameter values and manipulations of his estimating formula rather than on family spending data. The USDA had undertaken similar studies and determined that statistical calculation of the total cost of raising children was impossible using data on family spending. As once stated by a Chicago judge, “Both mother and child live from the same sugar bowl.”
Those particularly interested in keeping up with events in this area may recall a national controversy that stemmed from the USDA's work. Keen to do the best they could to characterize the nutritional needs of families, they constructed low, medium, and higher cost “meal plans” in place of a statistically based formula estimating family spending patterns on food. This led to a negative public reaction based on the suggestion that the government was attempting to micro-manage family life. The USDA eventually yielded to political pressure and began producing Espenshade style cost estimates of its own.
The fact that “just and appropriate” child support award levels cannot be statistically determined from family spending data did not deter dependence on them for development of state guidelines. In fact, it seemed that a cottage industry developed in which a few economists spent a significant amount of time re-processing the estimates and writing reports for state guideline committees. Rather than leading to greater uniformity, these efforts produced widely varying results in different states and at different times, as conclusions from the “experts” seemed nearly always to agree with whatever local committee leaders and politicians had in mind. This confirmed in practice what was already understood in theory: The approach that has been taken for development and maintenance of mandatory guidelines is not scientifically sound.
The conflict between those who prefer the “cost sharing” approach and those who prefer “income sharing” is a long-standing one. The differences appear in proposed formulae, and have certainly been central to debate over numerical components in guidelines. Although “cost sharing” comes closest to implementing the historical wisdom of common law, neither had been developed into a sufficiently complete mathematical theory prior to mandatory use of guidelines in the states.
The two can be characterized as follows:
- Cost sharing: dividing expenditure in the context of the standards of living of custodial parents, for the purpose of providing support specifically for children.
- Income sharing: increasing the standard of living of custodial households by transferring wealth from one parent to the other, based on an arbitrary target standard of living presented in view of the parents' combined income.
The two views are born of entirely different definitions of “child support.” Any compromise between the two would certainly be arbitrary; scientifically unsound. The current problem, that guidelines are constantly subject to arbitrary political manipulation (and more than once the subject of corruption – i.e. a few legislators have actually gone to jail for their involvements) would not be solved.
The new theory does however, at least in some sense, provide a sound compromise; although this was not the intent, nor the approach taken in its development. There was in fact, no forethought about where on the numeric map the result should be; only a direct sustained effort to find a basic and sound mathematical theory of child support decisions. Rather than “compromise” (a political process), it is most accurate to report that a solution has been found through deeper mathematical analysis.
Development of the new theory began with a classic effort to model (mathematically) traditional child support law. Analytical steps toward refining the model were described in Rational Basis is the Key Focus in Emerging 'Third Generation' Child Support Technology. (in Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the Children's Rights Council, April 28 - May 2, 1993). The plan called for repeated refinements of both the mathematics and the underlying principles upon which the model is built; a boot-strap approach in which improvements in the statement of principles would be discovered from exercising mathematical models. Clearer application of principles would in turn, serve as the basis for further mathematical development (on a sound footing).
It was determined, by direct mathematical evidence (through model validation procedures), that three basic principles are required to develop a complete and sound mathematical theory of child support:
- Purpose Principle: Child support is for the care and maintenance of children.
- Relationship (equal duty) Principle: Both parents have an equal duty to support their children.
- Context Principle: All relevant circumstantial information may effect the amount of the award.
Those familiar with traditional child support law will easily recognize the close correspondence between these principles and those established by state courts. The process of developing general principles from case trials is as familiar to scientists as it is to lawyers and judges. What the mathematical studies have added is verification that there is no where else to go for determining “just and appropriate” award levels. In addition, the studies provided a more complete; and finally a sound mathematical model.
As mentioned above, the new theory was developed through successive modeling refinements. “Refinements” are improvements in the development of sound theory to the extent they bring the model closer to reality. Reliance on unavoidable facts as modeling “assumptions” rather than arbitrarily expressions of philosophical preferences, leads to improvements. Models can be constructed on philosophical preferences; but a sound and useful theory must be based on and related to facts.
In most cases, the presumption that receipt of child support increases custodial parent income is unavoidably correct. Regardless of intent (purpose principle), child support payments are “liquid” cash dumped into the income-stream of custodial parents. They, therefore, increase the standard of living of custodial households, not just that of children, and children share in that increase. Although the philosophy underlying development of “cost sharing” models is sound, this unavoidable fact more closely corresponds to (the improperly constructed) income sharing philosophy.
By preserving the principle, that child support is for the care and maintenance of children, while treating child support income as an addition to custodial parent income in mathematical models; a new basic formula was derived. The payment of child support increases custodial parent income, thus; increases the standard of living in custodial households and the benefits children receive. Explained in relation to “cost sharing,” receipt of child support payments effectively increase the amount available for spending on children, which in turn increases the "just and appropriate" size of awards. The solution converges (the increase is not arbitrarily high), and results pass all validation tests.
There is more complete and technically detailed information about Child Support Decision Theory available on the Web; at http://isr.nu/cs/ Materials were developed over a period of years and go much farther in dealing with the practical aspects of child support determinations; for example, on deviating from the basic formula and on dealing with visitation credits and joint custody calculations. A lengthy paper is also available at the site that provides a thorough analysis of the three fundamental decision principles.
Former NM Gov. Gary Johnson's Vision For a Truly Free America
Here is an interview with a potential Republican candidate for President in 2012. Gary Johnson is the former Governor of New Mexico and is in line with the Ron Paul philosophy of government.
Check out the video and see for yourself what a great man this is:
Check out the video and see for yourself what a great man this is:
Friday, February 5, 2010
The Utter Hypocrisy of American Feminists
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
The recent speaking appearance of Ayaan Hirsi Ali at the University of Wisconsin has highlighted the hypocrisy of American feminists. Ali is a courageous woman who all feminists should unite behind. Instead, what Ali gets in America is largely silence.
Here is a statement issued by email from the UW Gender and Woman's Studies Department on the eve of Ali's appearance this week in Madison:
“Her approach is so virulently hostile to Islam as a religion (she calls Islam “the new fascism”) that anything she says about women gets lost in this sweeping assault.”
In addition, I am currently involved in a blog discussion on another site which began as a discussion on gay marriage. Somehow, it morphed into the treatment of gays and women in Islam. The only reaction I have received is that what goes on in Islamic countries is not relevant to the US.
Au contraire. While we cannot change things in the Middle East, we should not have to tolerate "honor killings" in the US, which we have witnessed in the US in such places as Arizona, St Louis, Buffalo and other places. We have the case of Rifqa Bari, the teenage convert to Islam who ran away from home fearing for her life. And where are the feminists? Where is that liberal activist group, the National Organization of Women (NOW)? They are out complaining about a pro-life Superbowl commercial featuring Tim Tebow. They are fighting the war to protect abortion. They are calling people like Rush Limbaugh "sexist". And they are fighting for other leftists causes because that is their true agenda. They don't care a whit about the Rifqa Baris and Ayaan Hirsi Alis, people who are right here in America. Here are the results of a search I did on NOW's website:
http://www.now.org/search.html?cx=015960483074374081895%3Aerh82vrjnk0&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=+ayaan+hirsi+ali&siteurl=www.now.org%2F#251
So how is it that someone from the Gender and Women's Studies Dept. issued a statement dismissing Ali, a woman who has been subjected to female genital circumcision, a forced marriage and countless death threats to the point she has to live under constant security-even in America. I'll answer that question. It is because to criticize Islam would go against the politically-correct agenda of the feminists.
Ali tells us about young Somali girls in the West who are sent back home to be married to men they don't even know. She has already told the Dutch about young girls being forcibly circumcised on kitchen tables in Holland. The Dutch witnessed the horrific slaughter of Theo van Gogh on an Amsterdam street for making a movie about Islam's treatment of women. Do the Dutch listen? No. They drive her out of the Dutch parliament and out of Holland as they prosecute Geert Wilders for "Defamation" and slide steadily into a new Dark Age.
And like the Dutch, American feminists ignore Ali. She is divisive, they say. They are blind to the fact that right here in America, a woman who has experienced almost every horror that can befall a female has to speak in front of an audience that passes through metal detectors for fear that she may be assassinated.
Right here in America.
Where is the UW Gender and Woman's Studies Department? Where are all the other feminists who run women's studies departments in universities all over the country?Where is NOW?
They are hiding under their desks, that's where.
How uncomfortable Ayaan Hirsi Ali must make them feel. That is because she shows us how cowardly and hypocritical the professional feminists are. They complain about abortion rights, sexist comments, and most of all, liberal politics. Honor killings, female genital circumcision, and forced marriages?
Can't be bothered.
fousesquawk
The recent speaking appearance of Ayaan Hirsi Ali at the University of Wisconsin has highlighted the hypocrisy of American feminists. Ali is a courageous woman who all feminists should unite behind. Instead, what Ali gets in America is largely silence.
Here is a statement issued by email from the UW Gender and Woman's Studies Department on the eve of Ali's appearance this week in Madison:
“Her approach is so virulently hostile to Islam as a religion (she calls Islam “the new fascism”) that anything she says about women gets lost in this sweeping assault.”
In addition, I am currently involved in a blog discussion on another site which began as a discussion on gay marriage. Somehow, it morphed into the treatment of gays and women in Islam. The only reaction I have received is that what goes on in Islamic countries is not relevant to the US.
Au contraire. While we cannot change things in the Middle East, we should not have to tolerate "honor killings" in the US, which we have witnessed in the US in such places as Arizona, St Louis, Buffalo and other places. We have the case of Rifqa Bari, the teenage convert to Islam who ran away from home fearing for her life. And where are the feminists? Where is that liberal activist group, the National Organization of Women (NOW)? They are out complaining about a pro-life Superbowl commercial featuring Tim Tebow. They are fighting the war to protect abortion. They are calling people like Rush Limbaugh "sexist". And they are fighting for other leftists causes because that is their true agenda. They don't care a whit about the Rifqa Baris and Ayaan Hirsi Alis, people who are right here in America. Here are the results of a search I did on NOW's website:
http://www.now.org/search.html?cx=015960483074374081895%3Aerh82vrjnk0&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=+ayaan+hirsi+ali&siteurl=www.now.org%2F#251
So how is it that someone from the Gender and Women's Studies Dept. issued a statement dismissing Ali, a woman who has been subjected to female genital circumcision, a forced marriage and countless death threats to the point she has to live under constant security-even in America. I'll answer that question. It is because to criticize Islam would go against the politically-correct agenda of the feminists.
Ali tells us about young Somali girls in the West who are sent back home to be married to men they don't even know. She has already told the Dutch about young girls being forcibly circumcised on kitchen tables in Holland. The Dutch witnessed the horrific slaughter of Theo van Gogh on an Amsterdam street for making a movie about Islam's treatment of women. Do the Dutch listen? No. They drive her out of the Dutch parliament and out of Holland as they prosecute Geert Wilders for "Defamation" and slide steadily into a new Dark Age.
And like the Dutch, American feminists ignore Ali. She is divisive, they say. They are blind to the fact that right here in America, a woman who has experienced almost every horror that can befall a female has to speak in front of an audience that passes through metal detectors for fear that she may be assassinated.
Right here in America.
Where is the UW Gender and Woman's Studies Department? Where are all the other feminists who run women's studies departments in universities all over the country?Where is NOW?
They are hiding under their desks, that's where.
How uncomfortable Ayaan Hirsi Ali must make them feel. That is because she shows us how cowardly and hypocritical the professional feminists are. They complain about abortion rights, sexist comments, and most of all, liberal politics. Honor killings, female genital circumcision, and forced marriages?
Can't be bothered.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Ron Paul and the Judge
Here is video of Ron Paul appearing on Judge Andrew Napolitano's "Freedom Watch" to discuss the AIG bailout and the economic crisis:
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Iran Hangs Two More Protesters-Where is Yvonne Ridley?
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
Yvonne Ridley
The below New York Times article reports the hanging of two more protesters by the Iranian regime:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/world/middleeast/02iran.html
It is not just the despicable mullahs who run Iran that should hang their heads in shame. It is their apologists in the West. I am thinking about apologists like Yvonne Ridley, the British journalist who works for Iran's English-language Press TV. She's the one who is always attacking Israel and hanging out with radical Muslims in the UK who want to bring in shariah law. Of course, I have already asked Ms Ridley on this blog what she has to say about the repressive Iranian regime, but she won't respond. (I know she has read this site because she once commented on it.) Where is she now-in hiding? So tell me, Ms Ridley-while Israel is digging survivors out of the rubble in Haiti, your pals in Iran are hanging 19-year-old youths who dared to protest fraudulent elections. Are you not embarrassed?
I am also thinking of that ignorant fraud who calls himself an imam-Clarence Reams aka Abdul Alim Musa. Like Ridley, he has also spoken on our campus at UC-Irvine-guest of the Muslim Student Union. Like Ridley, he is an open supporter of the Iranian regime.
Clarence Reams-aka Abdul Alim Musa
Where is he? Oh, he is talking about how American police and FBI are "murdering" Muslims in America.
While I am at it, I might ask where the gay activists are since Iran is now virtually gay-free-according to Ahmadinejad. And no wonder! In Iran, being gay is a capital crime-punishable by death- as a Muslim chaplain at Vanderbilt University has just confirmed. So where are the voices of the gay activists?
Well, you see, they have to moot their criticism here because they don't want to offend Islam. That's why people like me (who oppose gay marriage) get called "homophobe" while those who preach death to homosexuals get a free pass. If you are a real homophobe who goes out and beats a gay to death such as Matthew Shepherd, it's news. But if you do it in the name of Islam, well, that's a different story, you see.
So where are you people? Where are you, Ridley? Where are you, Reams/Musa? Where is the gay lobby?
fousesquawk
Yvonne Ridley
The below New York Times article reports the hanging of two more protesters by the Iranian regime:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/world/middleeast/02iran.html
It is not just the despicable mullahs who run Iran that should hang their heads in shame. It is their apologists in the West. I am thinking about apologists like Yvonne Ridley, the British journalist who works for Iran's English-language Press TV. She's the one who is always attacking Israel and hanging out with radical Muslims in the UK who want to bring in shariah law. Of course, I have already asked Ms Ridley on this blog what she has to say about the repressive Iranian regime, but she won't respond. (I know she has read this site because she once commented on it.) Where is she now-in hiding? So tell me, Ms Ridley-while Israel is digging survivors out of the rubble in Haiti, your pals in Iran are hanging 19-year-old youths who dared to protest fraudulent elections. Are you not embarrassed?
I am also thinking of that ignorant fraud who calls himself an imam-Clarence Reams aka Abdul Alim Musa. Like Ridley, he has also spoken on our campus at UC-Irvine-guest of the Muslim Student Union. Like Ridley, he is an open supporter of the Iranian regime.
Clarence Reams-aka Abdul Alim Musa
Where is he? Oh, he is talking about how American police and FBI are "murdering" Muslims in America.
While I am at it, I might ask where the gay activists are since Iran is now virtually gay-free-according to Ahmadinejad. And no wonder! In Iran, being gay is a capital crime-punishable by death- as a Muslim chaplain at Vanderbilt University has just confirmed. So where are the voices of the gay activists?
Well, you see, they have to moot their criticism here because they don't want to offend Islam. That's why people like me (who oppose gay marriage) get called "homophobe" while those who preach death to homosexuals get a free pass. If you are a real homophobe who goes out and beats a gay to death such as Matthew Shepherd, it's news. But if you do it in the name of Islam, well, that's a different story, you see.
So where are you people? Where are you, Ridley? Where are you, Reams/Musa? Where is the gay lobby?
Obama's Doublethink Doubletalk (State of the Union Remix)
Here is the king of double talk at his finest
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)