global warming err...well whatever

A story in the Opinion Journal linked HERE is very interesting.

A part of it states :

"So what is the reality about global warming and its impact on the world? A new study released this week by the National Center for Policy Analysis, "Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts" (www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285) looks at a wide variety of climate matters, from global warming and hurricanes to rain and drought, sea levels, arctic temperatures and solar radiation. It concludes that "the science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21rst century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change."

There are substantial differences in climate models--some 30 of them looked at by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--but the Climate Science study concludes that "computer models consistently project a rise in temperatures over the past century that is more than twice as high as the measured increase." The National Center for Atmospheric Research's prediction of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit warming is more accurate. In short, the world is not warming as much as environmentalists think it is."

The rest you can read for yourself.

Women apparently like girly men...well as far as facial features go

http://www.the7am.com/news/articles/?id=25812

just read it...

/sigh

Ok a serious post, this time On President Apocalypse of Iran

HERE is the full text of the letter sent to President George W. Bush.

I'm going to skip a few lines down so you have an urge to RTFA also...I need to read it before I continue to write this particular post...*whistles innocently*

Well I think it can easily be distilled in to two important statements that are made in the letter, the rest being a preamble or framing to the actual point that he (Ahmadi-Najad) wishes to make.

"The holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on all followers of divine religions and says: (3.64) "O followers o(3f the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught. With Him and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran)."

and

"Mr President,

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things."

The first statement must be read carefully, and it is not a friendly or neutral statement..so I shall break it down and translate for those of you not familiar with the Muslim pattern of thought and social paradigms.

(3.64) "O followers o(3f the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught.

Ok basically this sentence is what sets us up with the concept of the dhimmi, which is a "person of the book" such as a Jew or Christian who is allowed to worship in his own fashion, but pays a tax to do so, and is essentially a second or third class citizen when compared to a Muslim. So in essence Ahmadi-Najad is saying that he wants to bring everyone in under the umbrella of Islam...

"Mr President,

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things."

Here Ahmadi-Najad is saying that the triumph if Islam is inevitable you should repent now and join us before we cut off your heads. No I am not exaggerating as this letter follows the format and tone of letters written to heads of state in the 7th century A.D. prior to an invasion of their nations by Muslim armies.

Do not mistake this letter for some calm discussion, or willingness to be open and entertain new ideas. It is clearly anything but. In fact it is more of a threat than anything else. For those that don't believe lil ole me, do a little history research and open your eyes. This is not a letter written in a 20th/21st century mode of thought, rather is it 13 centuries back and a big reason of why it is being misread and misinterpreted by the press and populace at large.

--JC

Mel Brooks was well ahead of his time...

A story about canned oxygen in Japan 7-Eleven's linked HERE made me think of the movie SPACE BALLS and how President Scroob opened a can of perri-air when the city was running low on oxygen >:]

this is just fun stuff

-JC

quick history of warrantless searches

this was pulled from a wiki-pedia entry linked HERE.

History of warrantless searches

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales briefed Congress on February 6th, 2006 on the history of warrantless foreign intelligence searches:

"This fact is amply borne out by history. This Nation has a long tradition of wartime enemy surveillance — a tradition that can be traced to George Washington, who made frequent and effective use of secret intelligence. One source of Washington’s intelligence was intercepted British mail. See Central Intelligence Agency, Intelligence in the War of Independence 31, 32 (1997). In fact, Washington himself proposed that one of his Generals “contrive a means of opening [British letters] without breaking the seals, take copies of the contents, and then let them go on.” Id. at 32 (“From that point on, Washington was privy to British intelligence pouches between New York and Canada.”). And for as long as electronic communications have existed, the United States has intercepted those communications during wartime, and done so, not surprisingly, without judicial warrants. In the Civil War, for example, telegraph wiretapping was common and provided important intelligence for both sides. In World War I, President Wilson authorized the military to intercept all telegraph, telephone, and cable communications into and out of the United States; he inferred the authority to do so from the Constitution and from a general congressional authorization to use military force that did not mention anything about such surveillance. See Exec. Order No. 2604 (28 April 1917). So too in World War II; the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt authorized the interception of all communications traffic into and out of the United States. The terrorist surveillance program, of course, is far more focused, since it involves the interception only of international communications that are linked to al Qaeda."^[156]

In 1975, the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (the Church Committee), a U.S. Senate committee chaired by Senator Frank Church (D-ID), investigated intelligence gathering by the federal government, including warrantless surveillance.^[157] The Committee report found the "Americans who violated no criminal law and represented no genuine threat to the 'national security' have been targeted, regardless of the stated predicate. In many cases, the implementation of wiretaps and bugs has also been fraught with procedural violations, even when the required procedures were meager, thus compounding the abuse. The inherently intrusive nature of electronic surveillance, moreover, has enabled the Government to generate vast amounts of information - unrelated to any legitimate governmental interest - about the personal and political lives of American citizens."^[158]

The "potential criminal liability of the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency for operations such as SHAMROCK (interception of all international cable traffic from 1945 to 1975) and MINARET (use of watchlists of U.S. dissidents and potential civil disturbers to provide intercept information to law enforcement agencies from 1969 to 1973)" helped persuade president Gerald Ford in 1976 to seek surveillance legislation, which was ultimately enacted as FISA in 1978.^[159]

In a foreward looking 1985 report, "Electronic Surveillance and Civil Liberties," the nonpartisan Congressional Office of Technology Assessment suggested legislation be considered for a surveillance oversight board.^[160] Congress disbanded this agency in 1995.^[161]

On July 14, 1994 President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General and 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes…and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.” This “inherent authority” was used to search the home of CIA traitor Aldrich Ames without a warrant. "It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."^[162]

The REAL story behind the NSA "spying"

The Reuters story linked HERE is very interesting. It is entirely specualtion and accusation. The article lacks anything resembling facts or evidence aside from an unknown source providing allegorical and unsworn testimony.

The real story is that there is not "spying" per se. In fact all that is done is a collection of numbers making calls to other numbers irrespective of who it is. The numbers are then fed in to a data mining system which cross references that with known numbers used by terrorists so that the authorities can find out who the terrorists are speaking with and colluding with. It does not and cannot work in the reverse. This project was already sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court during the Clinton administration and is nothing new except as an attack on the current administration (why thats necessary is beyond me since Bush cannnot serve another term).

There are no conversations archived, the NSA doesn't care what you talk to your grandmother about, nor does it care about your business transactions that you carry out over the phone. Grow up and don't believe everything you read in the national and international papers.

k thx bye

White Guilt

White Guilt at opinionjournal.com

linked HERE

My My This Here Evan Bayh

Alrighty then, now this post is going to sound snippy and trite and perhaps even a bit arrogant so be warned. I don't mean to offend, but if I do I apologize well in advance. if you are thin skinned or cling to conventional wisdom like a man/woman overboard to a life raft or floating piece of debris, then you should run away right now. However, if you are willing to accept that reality may be different than you have been told, instructed/inculcated then what comes next is for you. I promise this to be a truly educational post.



After the jump.....


ok first some definitions because words have meanings and I want everyone to be on the same page.

taken from Dictionary.com:

Democracy:

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Republic:

1. 1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
   2. A nation that has such a political order.
2. 1. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
   2. A nation that has such a political order.
3. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.

However I am going to revise the democracy definitions by getting rid of the "republic parts" of it

REVISED:

1. Government by the people, exercised directly
   
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.

Thats better and far more accurate especially when you study the root greek and latin words from which the two concepts are divided

Republic: "res publica" = The people's things
Democracy: "demos kratein" = The people rule
Thanks to David N. Mayer for the translations

Now that we have a specific set of definitions that do not cross over eachother, and we have the root words defined for us we can actually begin a rational argument based on evidence.








Ok here we go... the website "News & Observer.com" (linked HERE) has an interview with Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana). Most of the interview is rather innocuous and what one would expect from a media organization craving access to politicians on friendly terms. However, the third question asked of the Senator was very interesting.

"Q: Why do you think we should abolish the Electoral College?"

Now I had no idea that there was even a movement for this kind of action, much less members of our government suporting this kind of radical change. On the other hand, given who it is being asked of, it does make some sense.

His answer to the question (for those that didn't RTFA) was:

'A: "I think our president should be chosen by the majority of the American people. That is ordinarily the case. But in 2000, as we all recall, we elected this president with fewer votes than the other candidate got. I just don't think in the modern era that is appropriate."'

Hardly a comprehensive argument for throwing out the baby with the bath water. Mr. Evan Bayh needs a slight education on the % of votes that past U.S. Presidents have won the elctoral college with. Bill Clinton won re-election with only 43% of the popular vote, but a majority of the Electoral College, and a total of fifteen other U.S. Presidents have won office in plurality situations.

Close elections are nothing new in United States history, so saying that becuase we had a close elction we need to abandon a stable and proven system is either ignorant, or clever and I'm not sure which.

One thing that must be examined is how we got to the point where this is actually considered seriously rather than mocked by people who know about the system we use and why it was chosen. The journalist in this article doesn't ask a follow up and pretty much gives the Senator a pass. So..clever or arrogant? I can't say yet.

However I have found others have touched on this subject far more concisely and completely and yes eloquently than I could without massive digressions...

SO I will provide this excellent link to another Blog for any readers to peruse HERE. This article by David N. Mayer is a great place to start.


Now I will just add to what he has said and researched.


Senator Bayh had better do his homework rather than pandering to his constituents. I for one do not want to live in a democracy becuase sooner or later my rights as an individual will be suborned to that of the collective majority. Democracy is but a stone's throw from a tyranny, and if readers don't believe me all they have to do is look at the greek attempt at it, resulting in the tyranical system of government, and also in Germany's election of Hitler and his ascendency to power as the fascist dictator of the Third Reich.

Human nature does not permit the use of Democracy as a form of government that is stable and less evil; for a democractic governemnt must continually get more and more involved in a person's life to remain relevent.

I do worry for our nation should bpeople not begin to wake up and see what has become and what is becoming of their government every day.

Long live the republic