Good Muslim states would do better to learn from Israel rather than attack it

I am sick of seeing supposedly informed, aware, non-radical Muslims bitching about "Zionists" and the Western World. They even do so while living right here in the United States. These people seem to be nothing other than shills, or worse. 

One, a cleric named Omar Suleiman (search him), in Dallas, TX, posted comments about radicals and those who supported them. Yet, in other posts this same imam complains about "Zionists" but seems not to really have any opinion about democracy ever popping up in the rest of the Middle East. Yet, he lives in the United States. In TEXAS, no less! Check out his Facebook page (his official one --?!).

It's simple: nothing will change for the better in the contentious Middle East until the wealthy Middle Eastern countries start really fighting their own terror war. 

Muslim countries are overdue for "putting on their big boy pants," as we say in the States. I heard nothing of "hate crimes" provoked by the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, but Imam Suleiman recently suggested that there were plenty. I noticed that there was not a single Muslim theocratic state that doubled down on squashing radicals in their midst after Hebdo. (Perhaps I only forgot, though; maybe the Saudis took some out, or Bahrain bombed some. No, not really.) I do recall hearing of Western kids trying to escape to jihadist enclaves, however.

I'm sure there were some contentious moments for Muslims after Charlie Hebdo, and I truly regret any of that. But when good people let the voices of monsters overcome their own, guess what? Bad things happen to good people. Good people who are cowardly about their principles, as well as those who are willing to stand up for positive principles. 

Rational, clear-headed, non-Islamist people in Muslim countries, as well Muslims in places where they are minorities, need to go after these murdering monsters with every words and with military vigor. This is a war, and you seem to expect others to wage it for you, then complain about it. 

Please, Muslims countries, do not complain about "anti-Muslim" foreign policies of Western countries when it seems you expect the USA to go after these radical groups for you, by default. What I see from your states is effectively trying to ignore these murdering radicals (those who are not quietly cheering them) like the British tried to ignore Hitler in the 1930s. 

The "Muslim World" had 30 years to rid of the monster Saddam Hussein, but did you? No. You needed the US and allies (few Arab soldiers) to kick him out of Kuwait, and look at the thanks we got from most of the Muslim World as a result of that. Appreciation didn't seem to last very long. Find the appreciation upon Hussein's removal in 2003. I am not seeing it. Does anyone else? Only the Kurds seemed to appreciate it. 

The "Muslim World" could have rid of the Taliban, but did you? No. You could have stopped bin Laden, but did you? I find it difficult to believe that Pakistan wasn't hiding him, frankly, seeing as he was living a few miles from the major military training center of the country. Yet Muslims note the mistakes that the Western allies made in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, when they were comparably few, by contrast to the shameful habits of Muslim countries in matters of brutal totalitarian dictatorships over many, many decades. 

Please, Muslims, for your good and the world's, quit your mere whining and go after these beasts yourselves. No more Talibans, no more bin Ladens, no more Husseins, no more ISIS. This is your internal problem, not ours, but you made it ours by your seeming inaction or weakness of will against this evil. 

I'm not simply watching today's news. I have read Middle Eastern history. I respect the realities of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and other imperial maneuvers by Western European countries after the end of the Ottoman Empire. The West -- namely France and Great Britain in the aforementioned case -- only helped mess it up. That was 100 years ago, though. More intervention was done. But Muslim states also colluded with Hitler during WW II. He was a Western leader, yeah, but he's no Western statesmen of good repute. They were not exactly ready to be their own states then. But oil changed that. But that's history. 

What now? Tiny Israel is to blame for all of the Middle East's troubles? Please, Muslim states and Palestinian apologists. Quit being cowards and racists, and rid of the beasts in your midst and enforce civility in the Palestinian non-states. So they can some day become states. 

We've seen recent actions by Gulf states fighting ISIS. It's about time. The Saudis and others should get their hands dirty, very dirty, and dedicate some of their treasure to destroying Muslim extremism. That, or quite whining about Western action in the region. You can't have it both ways. 

As for Arab states involvement against ISIS and all radical Islamists, it's not yet enough. Sure, we have some wacky televangelists and other Christians or just plain unaffiliated types who believe all Muslims are dangerous or at least divisive. They're wrong. But they have not bombed buildings for it in neighborhoods, like terrorists. If they did, they would be arrested or killed in a war with police (their choice, really), if they did. I fight a war of words against their war of words online. Even amongst my friends. 

Ignorance is everywhere. I'm certainly not free of it. But I am not blissful in it, not when it comes to extremism. Too many are blissful in the peace and quiet of their own home or cities or nations while others are dying at the hands of -- quite sane, but cruel -- murderers in the "the name of Islam." Muslims need to learn how to be effective activists, not against Israel, but against Muslim extremists. And yes, that is a very accurate term for it. 

When the "Western World" won't need to try and rid of the monsters in your midst, Muslim World, they will not have a reason to be in your lands. They will only be there to do business, or as tourists. 

Of late ( thanks to something called freedom of speech, which you don't seem to like all that much), we are less and less able to practice in overseas propaganda wars (as we did in South American countries in the 1960s-80s). Speech is more wide open than ever now, which makes it harder to low to smarter people. 

Meanwhile, some continue to quietly, or loosely, refer to us as the great Satan, just as your extremist friends do. It's simple: nothing will change for the better in the contentious Middle East until the wealthy Middle Eastern countries start really fighting their own terror war. You're kidding yourselves if you think you are. 

Those who know liberty are proud to defend the ideas of liberty, even for those who are too ignorant to know what it is. Oppressive leaders of one kind or another don't really give people much hope or insight into human freedom and liberty. But they do cultivate an attraction to leaders such as bin Laden. 

I recognize evil and good. I've had some unfortunate run-ins with them, in paradox. Forget utopia, either New Age or Muslim. It sounds great, but utopia is like heaven: it's not of this Earth. Wake up and face the real world, Muslims. Israel and Western cultures are not your enemy, your own radicals are. 

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

(Revised)

WHAT'S FAIR: Minimum Skills Earning Minimum Wages

Are you worth $30,000 a year?

For those fast food employees, and their nannies in public office, thinking they deserve $15 an hour, or more, let's do some math.

> At $15 an hour, someone slinging burgers would make $31,200 annually.
> An E1 (Private) in the military makes $18,378.
> An E5 (Sergeant) with 8 years of service only makes $35,067 annually.

So you're telling me, Woody Likefrieswithat , that you deserve as much as those kids getting shot at, deploying for months in hostile environments, and putting their collective asses on the line every day protecting the rights of YOUR unskilled butt!?

Here's the deal, Frank Andbeans: you are working in a job designed for a teenager in high school or working his way through trade school or college. It's a job for someone who is learning how to work. Have you thoroughly learned how to work? These jobs are designed for those looking to earn enough for shared rent, beer, and some food and gas, and hanging out with their equally goofy young pals.

If you have CHOSEN this basic means of making a living as your lifelong profession, you have not planned very well. Time to accept the consequences or to firm up, work your way out of the lower rungs, and rely on yourself, not count on foul promises of a few rise from low wages to high with little or no stops to learn skills that deserve a higher wage. It is a tough lesson, but you either learn it, or you stay where you are. The ones misleading you into believing you deserve higher pay for the same minimum role in life might sound like your hero, but they are only your big talking "better." They are fooling you. Wake up!

Here's what is fair to everyone: If you don't want minimum wage, don't settle on your minimum skills,  don't put forward minimum effort, be the example of a great employee that can move past the minimum job. And please don't expect someone else to pave your way, without you advancing your skills, for a smooth ride to $30k and better in earnings. That's how it might work in your dreams, but in real life, a solid person seeks rewards for effort, not for whining.

I revised this considerably. A version of this, no doubt a chain email, was sent to me by a retired person. He understands what working means. No one promised him a cake walk to a better life.

- J Ruse

Resisting the oppressive Gregorian calendar holiday of New Year's Eve

I am demonstrating against the hypocrisy of a free society that seems to insist that I must regard the Gregorian calendar as the only reason for this coming turn of the day, what is commonly referred to as New Year's Day by followers of that calendar.

I do not celebrate New Year's Eve, even though it seems the majority of people in society expect me to adhere to their holiday. They even insist on wishing me a happy new year, so I retort a coy "have a nice day!"

I couldn't prevent the construction of the Times Square crystal ball this year, as I could not in other years. In fact, no one even returned my complaint calls. In other cities, other things drop to the joy of onlookers who are followers of the Gregorian calendar. But it's difficult to target larger cities to prevent such anti-other-calendar practices that infringe on the freedom of others. It seems small cities and towns don't really drop something, unlike all those Nativity scenes that darken the lawns of little city halls all over the place. Those baby Jesus scenes serve as easy targets for sensitive atheists who want to make their personal freedom equal to that of others by berating any community effort to celebrate holidays that the atheists don't want to celebrate. Not so lucky for people who don't want to have to follow the Gregorian calendar nor celebrate New Year's Eve.

But, instead of lamenting the plight of my noble stand against "New Year's Eve" as the closed-minded Gregorian calendar-only holiday that it is, I thought I'd discover what the most important and influential organizations in America were doing to ring in this, empty, offensive, invasive, tyrannical event known as the new year, 2014.

Television channels are, for the most part, not airing anything terribly special. But here is a small sampling of what was shown as available across the dial, the pro-New Year's and the others.

News channels are offering a stimulating variety. Fox News is ringing in the new year with a special, with show hosts Elizabeth Hasselbeck and Bill Hemmer, which should be exciting to someone, but I don't know who. The paragon of journalistic integrity, MSNBC, is not bothering with any new year's sentimentality: they're airing a 2012 episode of the prison documentary series "Lockup: Raw." Not to be outdone by the news channel that ends with the same initials, biz channel CNBC is airing "Porn: Business of Pleasure" featuring interviews with real live porn stars.

Meanwhile, all too meaningful to the occasion, HLN looks back at 2013 with an encore airing of "50 Stories 50 States: What you shared in 2013." If you want a headache even if you don't drink too much without proper hydration, or have sinus problems, or fell from your second story balcony onto your head, on CNN there's "New Year's Eve Live" with CNN nights and morning talk show host Anderson Cooper and... Kathy Griffin. She is reason enough to skip CNN.

On the ole major networks, NBC set the high bar for entertainment for the night, providing as host for the night the sometimes very edgy -- sometimes his hair sticks up, all edgy-like -- Carson Daly. Jane Lynch is co-hosting, making this a true yin and yang event; if yin were an exceptionally dull white man who seems to have never figured out how to not look like a typical, clean-cut and kinda air-headed douche from college, and yang a brash, wacky blonde comedic actress. CBS, it seems, doesn't care about this so-called holiday, offering up their standard fare come midnight: David Letterman. Holiday? What holiday? This is just another Tuesday night to drink heavily and watch Dave!

ABC holds to their tradition of about 150 years (give or take some years) to celebrate this oppressive annual rite, "Dick Clark's New Year's Rockin' Eve with Ryan Seacrest." Okay, the Seacrest bit isn't so old. That's fairly recent. Apparently, even though Clark has passed on, his estate still owns New Year's Eve, as far as ABC is concerned. Kinda like how Christians seem to think they own the Winter Solstice thanks to Jesus' birthday being celebrated on December 25 of the Gregorian calendar.

I guess the top brass at ABC figure everyone must want to watch Seacrest on ABC to the very end, so they can hear him say "Seacrest out" and then swoon at their slumber parties. That could explain why ABC Family didn't dare try to compete, and opted to air several episodes of the 1980s Will Smith comedy "The Fresh Prince of Bel Air" to ring in the new year. Just another night for them -- hoorah!

Owned by Disney, ABC outdoes their parent's eponymous channels for the Gregorian-calendar-centric evening. On my satellite service, Disney Channel East is airing "Austin & Jessie & Ally All Star New Year" which, before you go thinking it is something all that special, is a rerun from 2012. Disney Channel West, though, for East Coast viewers is showing at midnight for East coasters the movie "Up." That's just some movie, no new year meaning to it. But by the time the double-O hour reaches the West Coast, Disney West airs the same thing Disney East aired at midnight on its coast.

MTV and MTV2 are showing, respectively, "New Year's Code" and, suitably for many crowds on New Year's Eve, "Jackass: The Movie." VH1 proves that edginess has pretty much intentionally lost their phone number and email and says mean stuff about them on Facebook, because on this, the most amateur of drinking nights, VH1 is running a marathon of a show called "Happy Endings" and the episodes haven't got a damned thing to do with a "happy ending" of the year.

The lineup on TV is even less respective of the holiday beyond that. So, as you can guess, I'm pretty excited that it seems the majority of television channels agree with my estimation of New Year's Eve -- who cares!

I am awaiting a call back from the ACLU regarding my lawsuit preventing us all having to be subjected to the Gregorian calendar. If you wish to join what I am sure can be a class action suit against the government for pushing this archaic, ancient calendar on us all, please email or tweet me.


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
(this is satire)

While polls find King's 'Dream' is elusive, so are commonsense attitudes about racism

Check out this quote from a recent Pew Research finding on race in America (under the heading King's Dream Remains an Elusive Goal... ). I make a few points in reaction to it, and the circular problem of misusing racism in today's America: 

Incarceration. Black men were more than six times as likely as white men in 2010 to be incarcerated in federal and state prisons, and local jails, the last year complete data are available. That is an increase from 1960, when black men were five times as likely as whites to be incarcerated.

SIX TIMES as likely?! Some want to call that racism. They are FOOLS of the highest order. Or, sad, piteous, willing victims of narrow-minded suspicions.

The disparity of prison time for whites versus blacks is about as much to do with race bias as someone being overweight has to do with food being advertised on TV. Not to mock actual racism, but those blame, the victimhood, and the paranoia that surrounds so much allegations of racism. That is: one's weight is about them, not food ads.

With criminal incarceration, it is about people being criminals, not some grand scheme to "keep them down." Racism exists, light and hard, but to run to it every time there's a philosophical or physical scuffle is a cycle of failure. That's not to minimize the matter, when facts prove racism had a hand in some event, but unreasonable aspersions ought not to be batched in with actual racist activities. Paranoia and habitual distrust isn't a reliable source for social change.

Committing crime and going to prison is a problem that cannot be solved through blame, racial or otherwise, but through improving one's plight. That's not easy, or simple, when one is steeped in a culture of victimhood, self-pity, misleading heroes, and a habit of blaming others for your problems. Changing the response of those who cry victim when it's not the case is what will change such a disparity as this prison one, not crazed claims of rampant racism in the courts.

Such lashing out is a cycle of failure, whether it is about racism or any other suspicion of being wronged. There is an understandable lingering sense of betrayal, frustration and anger in impoverished or dysfunctional communities, but that does not prove systemic racism.

How can getting jailed for committing a crime be racist, certainly to such an overwhelming degree, without it being proven as more than a mere suspicion? These claims amount to claims of having seen Bigfoot, though. Sometimes there is racial problems, but often, it's something else. You cannot call someone a racist for jailing a black criminal -- unless they let white criminals go SIX TIMES for every black criminal, for the same crime. Is this happening? Where's the exposés on that today?

Are we to all damn our lying eyes with regard to race and racial biases, or racial hypocrisy? I hope we can recover MLK's dream, but it won't be easy while people insist on pointing the finger, like stabbing their sword at imaginary dragons.

Let freedom ring, indeed. And let REASON reign! 

• See the findings and comments by Pew Research:  King's Dream Remains an Elusive Goal 

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Abortion Horror: Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Major News Story

The Atlantic (where I read pieces of an article, linked below), USA Today (commentary, linked below), National Journal, for examples, and much of the conservative media are addressing the story of the Phillie mad doctor who essentially killed babies if they didn't die during late -term abortions. Not only that, he allegedly killed patients getting abortions, too.

While most conservatives are known as against abortion, certainly against abortion as a form of birth control, this story of Dr. Kermit Gosnell has little to do with the eerie media blackout on this horrid tale: this story goes beyond the abortion issue. Far beyond.

Web-only media are reporting this horrific story, too. But while standard-bearers for the common man's news have no problem skewing news against conservatives and skewering conservative views even on pretty lame evidence sometimes, they ignore this story. Why?

What's wrong with "mainstream media"? They are cliquish, posing, sheep. But some folks deep in the media business are noticing and worrying about it.

Conor Friedersdorf wrote a long piece about it, that I stumbled across, for The Atlantic and National Journal. I cannot stand to read the great detail he goes into. It stirs me into an internal rage while skimming what he's presented. But I found the following, well into the long article, and thought it suited sharing because I think it locks in my feelings about this story and the media's failure with it:

Says Kirsten Powers in her USA Today op-ed, "Let me state the obvious. This should be front page news. When Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke, there was non-stop media hysteria. The venerable NBC Nightly News' Brian Williams intoned, 'A firestorm of outrage from women after a crude tirade from Rush Limbaugh,' as he teased a segment on the brouhaha. Yet, accusations of babies having their heads severed -- a major human rights story if there ever was one -- doesn't make the cut."

Well done, non-sheep media folks.

The rest of the half-blind leftist media can try to bring this horrific manner with which to control population and subvert sexual irresponsibility with an awful act of depravity, but they have already proven -- added another sample into the list -- that they are not reporting relevant news, but trying to lead society to a direction that suits them, the liberal, poorly engaged, weakly objective media elite.

Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Major News Story - Yahoo! News

Also see Powers' piece, subtitled "We've forgotten what belongs on Page One."


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Elite-led media resents a hero they don't understand: Ben Carson and the real world

Dr. Ben Carson dared to suggest that gay couples deserve to be treated equally, but to stop short of giving that the word "marriage." He mentioned NAMBLA and beastiality in the same sentence as gays, upsetting some folks. He apologized and clarified what he meant. More than once. On televison. But that's not good enough for the bigotos of the left, in this drippy, no-detractors echo chamber pep rally that is most of the mainstream media.

From the article, NBC News on Dr. Ben Carson: 'Blinded by the White', on Breitbart.com:

Carson ... said he was in favor of giving same-sex couples the same rights as married couples, short of marriage. 

NBC News obviously wants to destroy the threat of any independent-thinking black man as quickly as possible. So it should come as no surprise that, by the time Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart filled in for MSNBC's Martin Bashir, Carson's apology was treated as far from sufficient. In short, Capehart and his guests, Toure' and Krystal Ball, treated the apology as a lie.

This is all par for the course at NBC News.

Sadly, so is the chryron pictured above -- "Blinded by the White" --  which was used as the clip of Dr. Carson played during the segment.

NBC News is notorious for using this kind of race-baiting to further its left-wing agenda, including fraud

Indeed.

While it's easy to pass it off as a given that media is left-leaning, that's not enough to indict the media. And it doesn't have to be. 

The leaders of our media are part of the most insular, closed-quarter, often the most highfalutin, parts of this country and the world. If they aren't humble enough to recognize that, and if they don't instill such humility in writers (not opinion writers, journalists!) and demand that they work against their own biases, then these media leaders and their writers are part of the problem. As it happens, these leaders are dragging newbies panting and eager to please, every year, into that same highrise with a limited perspective. Arrogance begets arrogance. 
It encourages an ignorance of the great outside: the real world. The world in which Dr. Ben Carson grew up. 

There's NBC, The Washington Post (often, not decisively), TIME, Huffinton Post (madhouse filled with nut-job leftist commenters, to boot), GQ, CBS, CNN, etc., etc., all seeming to be trying to be the big man on the left. It's a tone deafness of those who live in certain quarters believing they have the answers for the whole. 

And they will treat those who aren't on their side not with curiosity or even cynicism, but snide disregard and putrid insults, like MSNBC treats Dr. Carson.  

They need some humility. 

- jR, aka AirFarceOne

Raw info: Percent of Nations' GDP that goes to military expenditures

"... most of the top 20 military spenders are Arab nations and Muslim-dominated nations." 

The CIA World Factbook provides many bits of information about the world we live in, such as the discernible numbers for a variety of subjects, such as population, average income and GDP - gross domestic product. (Just think of GDP as similar to household annual income, from all sources, but for a whole country. Before expenses. That's not exactly right, but you can read up on GDP on your own.)  

An interesting thing gleaned from the information provided on military expenditures is that most of the top 20 military spenders are Arab nations and Muslim-dominated nations. In there among them is Israel. In the top, I caught 15 predominantly Muslim countries in the first 20.

So are those nations insulating themselves from the non-Muslim world, mostly concerned about their safety from enemies who would come at them from the outside, or more worried about internal enemies? 

The world average is 2% of GDP, which the US more than doubles, at 4.06%. The UK is matched with India and Iran, at a mere 2.50%.

The US commitment is massive, of course.  So is its GDP. US production output is about three times that of China, our closest competitor. China's military outlay is 4.60% of GDP. 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/rawdata_2034.text

1    Oman        11.40
2    Qatar        10.00
3    Saudi Arabia        10.00
4    Iraq         8.60
5    Jordan         8.60
6    Israel         7.30
7    Yemen         6.60
8    Armenia         6.50
9    Eritrea         6.30
10    Macedonia         6.00
11    Burundi         5.90
12    Syria         5.90
13    Maldives         5.50
14    Mauritania         5.50
15    Kuwait         5.30
16    Turkey         5.30
17    Morocco         5.00
18    Singapore         4.90
19    Swaziland         4.70
20    Bahrain         4.50
21    Bosnia & Herzegovina         4.50
22    Brunei         4.50
23    China         4.30
24    Greece         4.30
25    United States         4.06
26    Libya         3.90
27    Russia         3.90
28    Tajikistan         3.90
29    Cuba         3.80
30    Zimbabwe         3.80
31    Djibouti         3.80
32    Cyprus         3.80
33    Namibia         3.70
34    Angola         3.60
35    Colombia         3.40
36    Turkmenistan         3.40
37    Egypt         3.40
38    Algeria         3.30
39    Botswana         3.30
40    Guinea-Bissau         3.10
41    Lebanon         3.10
42    United Arab Emirates         3.10
43    Australia         3.00
44    Sudan         3.00
45    Solomon Islands         3.00
46    Pakistan         3.00
47    Indonesia         3.00
48    Cambodia         3.00
49    Rwanda         2.90
50    Comoros         2.80
51    Kenya         2.80
52    Chile         2.70
53    Korea, South         2.70
54    Azerbaijan         2.60
55    Sri Lanka         2.60
56    Lesotho         2.60
57    France         2.60
58    Bulgaria         2.60
59    Congo, Democratic 

        Republic of the         2.50

60    Iran         2.50
61    Vietnam         2.50
62    India         2.50
63    United Kingdom         2.40
64    Croatia         2.39
65    Portugal         2.30
66    Sierra Leone         2.30
67    Uganda         2.20
68    Taiwan         2.20
69    Burma         2.10
70    Malaysia         2.03
71    World         2.00
72    Seychelles         2.00
73    Uzbekistan         2.00
74    Estonia         2.00
75    Finland         2.00
76    Afghanistan         1.90
77    Mali         1.90
78    Norway         1.90
79    Romania         1.90
80    Fiji         1.90
81    Slovakia         1.87
82    Guyana         1.80
83    Zambia         1.80
84    Thailand         1.80
85    Italy         1.80
86    Hungary         1.75
87    Poland         1.71
88    Brazil         1.70
89    Chad         1.70
90    Ghana         1.70
91    Slovenia         1.70
92    South Africa         1.70
93    Nepal         1.60
94    Netherlands         1.60
95    Uruguay         1.60
96    Togo         1.60
97    Cote d'Ivoire         1.50
98    Sweden         1.50
99    Peru         1.50
100    Nigeria         1.50
101    Germany         1.50
102    Albania         1.49
103    Czech Republic         1.46
104    Belarus         1.40
105    Belize         1.40
106    Kyrgyzstan         1.40
107    Papua New Guinea         1.40
108    Tunisia         1.40
109    Ukraine         1.40
110    Senegal         1.40
111    Mongolia         1.40
112    Bangladesh         1.30
113    Cameroon         1.30
114    Denmark         1.30
115    Liberia         1.30
116    Niger         1.30
117    Malawi         1.30
118    Bolivia         1.30
119    Belgium         1.30
120    Burkina Faso         1.20
121    Spain         1.20
122    Venezuela         1.20
123    Ethiopia         1.20
124    Lithuania         1.20
125    Latvia         1.20
126    Canada         1.10
127    Guinea         1.10
128    Benin         1.00
129    Switzerland         1.00
130    Paraguay         1.00
131    Panama         1.00
132    New Zealand         1.00
133    Madagascar         1.00
134    Bhutan         1.00
135    Central African Republic         0.90
136    Congo, Republic of the         0.90
137    Ecuador         0.90
138    Gambia, The         0.90
139    Ireland         0.90
140    Luxembourg         0.90
141    Tonga         0.90
142    Somalia         0.90
143    Philippines         0.90
144    Kazakhstan         0.90
145    Gabon         0.90
146    Argentina         0.80
147    Sao Tome and Principe         0.80
148    Mozambique         0.80
149    Japan         0.80
150    Austria         0.80
151    Barbados         0.80
152    Bahamas, The         0.70
153    Malta         0.70
154    Dominican Republic         0.70
155    Costa Rica         0.60
156    Honduras         0.60
157    Suriname         0.60
158    Nicaragua         0.60
159    Jamaica         0.60
160    El Salvador         0.60
161    Georgia         0.59
162    Antigua & Barbuda         0.50
163    Mexico         0.50
164    Laos         0.50
165    Cape Verde         0.50
166    Guatemala         0.40
167    Haiti         0.40
168    Moldova         0.40
169    Mauritius         0.30
170    Trinidad & Tobago         0.30
171    Tanzania         0.20
172    Bermuda         0.11
173    Equatorial Guinea         0.10
174    Iceland         0.00

-jR (AirFarceOne)

Census reveals that more than half of renters are overstretched (or overreaching)

Median Household Income, 1965-2005; Image via Wikipedia

I think it is time to stop any talk about raising taxes, and start raising RAISES. Don't even talk about it, just get to it.


Housing costs are proving unaffordable for more than half of Americans who rent. And, go figure, many might even have gotten into a rental agreement during the recent drop in prices and are still drained! Sucks to not be the guy taking the rent or taking the taxes these days. Big time. I'm getting a little tired of it.

It makes sense to take what a household earns and say that 30% of it should be the cost of housing. Less would be better, obviously. The census finding reveals that, broadly, a little more than half of Americans are on the wrong side of two general types: those who spend beyond their means, whether their income is great or they are in lower income brackets, and those who are unable to afford living within their means. (But let's face it, this is middle-class and working-class families, overwhelmingly, and, in the past few years, recent college graduates who are anti-roommate or unable to move in with parents).


From USA Today:

More renters found housing unaffordable last year as incomes fell while costs increased, a one-two punch that squeezed lower-income households in particular. Affordability for homeowners, however, was stable.

The share of renters spending 30% or more of their household income on housing costs — the threshold set by the government to determine if housing is unaffordable — rose to 51.5% from about 50% in 2008, according to 2009 Census data released Tuesday.

To use myself as an example, I have been paying at least $1200 too much, annually, for rent (for what I was getting), ever since I moved to Florida in 2003. The market was certainly in a bubble, and in South Florida, it was comical. Or, frightening, depending on how you look at it. In some places, people were paying $700 or better rates to live between some very scruffy walls, and neighbors. That imbalance changed -- for me, at least -- when I relocated in January 2010, in the midst of the sunken housing market.  Some places were still asking far too much. Some folks have, some folks do not have, and some of the former are sloooow in reacting to change. I guess they can afford to be that way.

To get a bit class warfare about it, in 2009-2010, I found that those who are in the "have" category don't find a need to change their ways when the stuff hits the fan. (I don't take my little class war farther than that, though: I don't expect anyone to hand over a nice place to me.) It's a bit mystifying to me. There are those, however, both homeowners and apartment management companies, who were working with people during the 2008 till ?? (whenever it stops) downturn. I applaud their common sense and business sense.

The housing downturn started way back in April 2006, and good people have bad things happen to them in times like that. The landowners should respond appropriately, and not make it feel like a class warfare coming from their end. You get what I mean? If nobody gets all self-centered and needy when things are tense, we'll get through it much better. That goes for government types, too.

It's time to stop raising taxes, and start raising RAISES, including the best raise of all, a good, free market job (and getting off of unemployment) for the jobless who really need them. The U.S. Congress has not missed giving themselves a raise in 2008, in 2009, and will probably do so again in 2010 (wait till December, I believe that's when it will happen again, conveniently after the election cycle).

Check out the related articles, linked below (I like Blogger's Zemanta feature).

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Related articles

• Number of the Week: 41.7 Million Spend Too Much on Housing (blogs.wsj.com)
• Feds rethink policies that encourage home ownership (usatoday.com)
• Renters Rights in the Extreme (rentersinsurance.org)
• Should you rent or by your own home? (usatoday.com)
• Number of the Week: Insults and Injury for Renters (blogs.wsj.com)
• Renting Grows 10 Percent in Past Five Years (eon.businesswire.com)

Alan Grayson (Nut-job, FL District 8): Beck fans wore “sheets over their heads”

Alan Grayson: Glenn Beck fans wore "sheets over their heads"

(FROM ORLANDO SENTINEL'S Political Pulse]

Since his election two years ago, Orlando Democrat U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson's fame has multiplied exponentially with every inflammatory remark.

Every time he says something like the Republicans' health care plan is to "die quickly" or that Dick Cheney is a vampire who should "STFU," he becomes a bigger hero to liberals and a bigger target of conservatives. Now there's another addition to the list of Grayson's greatest hits.

During an appearance on the progressive talk-radio "Stephanie Miller Show" on Thursday — part of a regular segment called "Face the Grayson" — the congressman likened those who attended Glenn Beck's rally last week at the Lincoln Memorial to Ku Klux Klan members.

Miller: "The Glenn Beck thing — is that going to have an effect in November? To me, they were, I'm sorry, mostly old, white … mostly McCain-Palin leftovers, weren't they? These aren't new voters, these are people that have always voted Republican."

Grayson: "These are people who were wearing sheets over their heads 25 years ago."

The congressman also repeated one of his recent favorites: "You only have three friends in life: God, your mama, and the Democratic Party."

You can listen to the whole 12-minute, 18-second segment below, if you scroll down on this widget and click on the "Face the Grayson" segment.

UPDATE: The Grayson campaign wanted to respond to, well, Grayson's own comment. So, here's an addition from campaign spokesman Sam Drzymala: "[Grayson opponent] Dan Webster should prove Representative Grayson wrong by rejecting the endorsement of David Barton, a man who has spoken at two neo-Nazi rallies, denies the Holocaust, and has led the effort to rewrite history books with a narrative of hate, fear, and discrimination."

Hello, Orlando? Get this kook out of office. Florida already has enough nuts in office, doesn't need this one. Accepting an endorsement or not is far from being in the same court as that person. But Webster ought to reject that guy's endorsement, if the claims of his practices are true.

 - jR

Obama is JUST a narcissist. Like Hitler was JUST a Nazi.

Barack Obama - Image via Wikipedia

I don't care what your politics: if you think Obama is brilliant, humble, sincere, honest, appreciative of his office, deserving of a Nobel and songs sung to him by schoolchildren, and that he is not a pure political operator bent on turning America in a hard left direction... you JUST DON'T GET IT. 


He is unquestionably a narcissist. He adores himself, and there were people in Chicago politics who loved him for it. They, in their own words, "protected" him from risky issues, on his way to the Senate, and to the White House. Protected. 


His narcissism is immediately evident in his lack of conventional humility in his speeches: "I" "I" and "I" everywhere with this president. It is also evident in his 


While Obama was not raised in a wealthy family, he sure seems to have ... a golden stick in his butt. (Excuse the imagery.) I have not seen such infantile attacks on news media, or opposition -- EVER -- from a top leader, certainly not another president. (You understand that unless, like Sean Penn and plenty of others who've enjoyed USA liberties yet understand few of them, you count Castro and his kind as respectable.) It would be less disturbing if this behavior was not calculated, but these verbal attacks are part of a plan, not mood-driven one-offs. It is a part of radical activism, and he's invited it into the White House. (Almost as much as the former president of the SEIU, Andy Stern.)


With the divisiveness in our politics knocked up to a whole new level with him and Mme. Speaker Pelosi leading the spurning of clarity for ideology, ticked off that everyone won't simply let him (and Pelosi and that ilk) run us like some elected monarchy, I stand back and think that God's grace will be the only thing to spare us from the twaddle and naivete. Just gone from irritating, to mystifying, to amusing. Not a happy amusing, mind you, a shameful one. It would be funny, were it not a real life story, and were it not my president swaggering about so proud of himself, compelled to realize the unproven idea of the America he wants me to live in. 

I applaud him (I do!) for bringing issues, including healthcare and the external reputation of American arrogance, to the forefront. It is how he's handling those and other issues, which is clumsy, that sets me off. His rhetoric is good, his actions aren't. The actions count more. 


So I am counting on people acting to limit the power held by him and his fellow far-leftists, come the elections of November 2010. This country deserves hot debate, but not to be a high-tax, big government, welfare-heavy, centralized nation. It is the United States, after all, not the State, of America. 




- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Krauthammer: I believe Obama may be a tad narcissistic (hotair.com)
• The Year of Magical Political Thinking (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Obama's Strike Three (beliefnet.com)
• Sherrod Gaffe Shows Obama Team Is Inept on Race, Media Criticism (politics.usnews.com)

Spendalot: Economic small 'hope' and spare 'change' for the new inflation to come

There is a new term that I wish to share,   my new name for the Obama Administration. It has little to do with efforts of "saving the economy", bailing out banks or GM. It has to do with the budget, and the holly-jolly engagement with inflation that the liberal White House and Congress seems to be sending our country to, with all this spending and the taxation and further expansion of government to come.

Often people invoke comparisons of the Obamas to images of John Kennedy and wife, for their youth, presumably. We called JFK's administration Camelot, which was a favorite musical of JFK, and somehow it was a fitting definition of his generation-changing entry into the White House, thought it was very corny if you really think about it.

What comes to mind nowadays when I think of Obama is the late Robert Goulet, in his portrayal of Sir Lancelot in the musical Camelot. Except, he's instead an ironic cameo character, in a comic bit. The bit's name? Spendalot!

That is my nickname for Obama's White House: Spendalot.

Contrary to the JFK-Camelot budgetary outlook, and far more moderate political perspective, I say to hell with Spendalot's brand of so-called "progress". If -- big IF! -- it bears the fruit of bona-fide economic invigoration, I'll be among the first to admit I was shortsighted. I don't weant to make excuses for why a success was actaully a failure. That's not what I want. Some successes are on the backs of those who benefit nothing from it, though. That's what I will be responding against. Inflation, weakened state of U.S. to favor other states. I think the only way a nation can reasonably help others is in a position of strength. How else?

There's only so many ways one can play on the theme of economics, short of hitting stop and reinventing the thing, before it all becomes essentially fatal to millions of people who must use money to buy things to live. Spendalot seems terribly burdensome, and terribly anti-business, to me.

We lack economic growth, and that means we are weakened. So we are going to print more money, thus weakening it -- in the short term, or will it create severe inflation? Spendalot is creating a very steep budgetary deficit. So are we going to eventually redefine the country's money -- or the world's as the Chinese have already floated. Money's funny this way: more money you print, the less it is worth. Economics is a human-invented thing, but that does not mean it is not a sort of entity on its own, that reacts to the environment. Inflation is survivable, but when you're something that the whole world hinges its economic activity to, which is what the U.S. surely is, then you need to be a bit careful, lest you spin the planet into a world at war. Tough times inspired WW I and WW II, easily. Nazis took charge in a time fo great strife in Germany, after the loss of WW I.

Spendalot seems to play to both sides, to our detriment: apologizing for American arrogance (since GW, intentionally or not, made us out to be arrogant, or like a bull in a china shop) and inventing words like "mad-made disaster" (a stupid PC phrase for "terrorism") on one end, pushing other nations to share troops and spend their money with us on the other (c'mon, let's all risk severe inflation so it won't feel so uncommon to Americans).

Either other nations can expect us to be merely the lead dog on many fronts, or we simply give up and pretend we are not the lead dog anymore, thus making it so. We are not -- NOT -- yet an insignificant nor a dead economy, not by far. In fact we are still a massive piece of the world's wealth, no matter how people "feel" about it. Reality pleads that we stop acting like it's all over for the U.S., or it will be all over. The less rationally we think it through, the closer we are to being a has-been, and not a preeminent up-and-comer. Perception can be reality, so it's a shame if the overall economic graphs are more rational -- relatively -- than our perception of the economy, isn't it?

A bad economy hits some very personally, with job lesses, income loss, retirement loss -- we have every right to be ticked off, too. But our personal feelings are not the world reality. Don't just imagine that the U.S. is a mere part of the whole world economy. We're a huge chunk of it. That's not arrogance, that's realism. We consume more, we provide more, we are busy busy busy. Meanwhile, millions live in dirt houses in China.

Ask yourself how many a nation came up with 1000% inflation in the past, from many South American nations, to Israel, to ... well, likely there's a long list of African nations, and several European states, too. How did that happen? Do better than asking yourself, look it up.

This massive, overarching Spendalot "budget" --more like a massive government-expanding bill -- and the inflation to come will not be the hope and change wished for by anyone but those who adore power and the status quo over everything else.

I am sure, come 2012, that Spendalot will still be blaming GW Bush for everything. Spendalot will be held up as the answer to everything, simply if the economy turns around at all. He will be aiming for the lowest common denominator for avowed voters, misleading them with bogus words of aimless positiveness as he did in 2008. This was less about hope than race, and white guilt; it was less about change than it was about anger against the GW Bush White House -- even over things that they were only one hand of many, like the economy, the Iraq invasion and governmental upheaval, the mortgage meltdown, etc.

Whether or not Spendalot's tactics work as well next time as they did in 2008, there's plenty of room to wonder but there's little reason to jump to conclusions. But there is no time to wait, no time for the GOP to wonder -- they need to get off their duffs and make progress or they will lose again in 2010, and possibly 2012, too.

Conservatives cannot win by being the ignorant opposite of ignorant liberalism. They cannot win out over mindless openness and utopian wishing unless they DO SOMETHING. Ronald Reagan's plainspoken, clever, and well-informed, reasoned tactics up against the USSR, Newt Gingrich's intelligence and ability to debate -- these are some of what the GOP, and Blue Dog Dems, and small government moderates, need to tap. There's no more USSR, but there are people who resent us everywhere. Even Spendalot's apologies do little to improve the world's view of America. Iran is going nuclear, Korea is launching missiles, and America is being looked at as just another player in the international game. I think we're fools is we simply accept that kind of thinking. Not because I want America to be the biggest kid on the block, having to jump into the fight, but because if not us, then what country? WHO?

If conservatives and moderates simply complain, refuse to compromise, react with invocations of mere punditry, or simply keep tossing out the socialism bomb towards the liberal desires for government-controlled education, health care, and markets, then they will not win anything in the few years that lie ahead. We aren't trying to convince those who believe in small government of its merits, but those who think government is their friend that it is, in fact, the burden to the people, not the solution to our ills.

What will win is realism that is supercharged by evidence of governmental failures and decent plans for how to fix them. It cannot be won through Christian conservative rhetoric (much as I follow Christian ethics, these are a complement to, and no replacement for, down to earth facts in order to make policy, and write bills). They need to start soon. Now would be better than next month.


- jRuse, aka AirFarceOne (on Twitter)

Cong. Alan Grayson visits Ocala local leaders, gets jeers from detractors

Who will stop the $1 million man? The man who almost lost, and spent lots of his own money to win in the leadership lottery. A congressman who is a national embarrassment (I like to think) for anyone who looks at politics as something more than a Jerry Springer Show form of reality entertainment.

Alan Grayson, a lawyer who was known for fighting corruption, is a first term congressman for a gerrymandered district taking in part of Orlando and lots of other areas.

In 2008, Grayson spent around $1 million of his own money to beat an average,  and unpopular, GOP congressman named Ric Keller. Grayson won with only 52% of the vote. There were a lot of noses held shut in November 2008 inside the voting booths of Florida District 8, I suspect.

Lots of people, even outside the district, seem to admire Grayson, for "telling it like it is". Whatever "it" is, it is not clear without a lengthy explanation with plenty of projecting by the explainer. Fans hear what they want to hear from Grayson, and nothing he says matters to his fans, just that he's being against The Other Side. He stated the GOP health reform plan was to have everyone sick "die quickly". Hmm. Can I see that bill? It was meant to be funny. (Alert: he is not a funny man, except perhaps creepy funny.)

He expanded on that, saying we should prevent a national "holocaust" by accepting a massive health reform plan that amounts to a huge, costly entitlement program very much like Medicare. (You know how well that program's doing in controlling spending, don't you? It is not well, not well at all.)

He did a lot of good in his legal career, in the fight against government contract corruption, proving to be a standout in that area. It would be nice to see him return to that arena. One can dream, can't one (or millions)? After all, he thinks he's being clear, and that's stunningly funny (quote from Ocala.com site):

Grayson has upset Republicans - and even a few Democrats - with some of his rhetoric in recent weeks, including his statements on the Republicans' position on health care and a reference to an adviser to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as a "K Street whore."

The remarks have made Grayson a media and Internet sensation.

In an interview, the congressman attributed that reaction to people having become accustomed to a "culture of dishonesty" in Washington, where elected leaders shrink from telling what they really think on issues.

"A few Democrats"? Seriously? Only a few? Gag. If so, that's what's wrong with Democrats these days -- no longer the party of a Truman or a JFK, or even an Olympia Snowe (har har).

You would probably find that view laughable if you watched a series of clips of Grayson's prepared and practiced antics, on the floor of the US House, doing some of this "telling it like it is", and using "holocaust" regarding the -- unholy? -- lack of health coverage in the States. You could also visit his shamelessly pandering site, namesofthedead.com, which celebrates, apparently, everyone who died not from illness, but illness made clearly worse -- one would think from his rhetoric -- by insufficient medical care or health coverage.

Or, you could not go to the site, and just hope he goes back to fighting corruption in 2011.

Read the whole Ocala.com article  at the site.



- j Ruse (aka AirFarceOne, on Twitter)

Breaking: National Utopian Telegenic Socialists party to launch in Hollywood

RUMORED: Sean Penn, Janine Garofalo, Rosy O'Donnell, Whoopie Goldberg, Joy Behar and several other celebrities are reportedly under discussion to launch National Utopian Telegenic Socialists party, or the Hollywood NUTS.

Their political platform is said to be in the midst of a vocal sorting out by the well-known actors and entertainers. Negotiations on the group's official stand on a broad group of issues aren't expected to be completed until sometime in 2010.


- j Ruse, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Are nuclear weapons deserving of a Nobel Prize? Obama vowed to earn his, the Bomb already has

It's refreshing to see that, over at the oft-slobbering news rag TIME, someone can manage to offer thoughts that are based on reality, not wishful thinking, in the always-vital area of nuclear proliferation. (The emphases below are mine.)

From TIME magazine, 'Why the Nobel Peace Prize Should Go to Nuclear Weapons':

As long as a nukeless world remains wishful thinking and pastoral rhetoric, we'll be all right. But if the Nobel committee truly cares about peace, they will think a little harder about actually trying to make it a reality. Open a history book and you'll see what the modern world looks like without nuclear weapons. It is horrible beyond description.

During the 31 years leading up to the first atomic bomb, the world without nuclear weapons engaged in two global wars resulting in the deaths of an estimated 78 million to 95 million people, uniformed and civilian. "

Somewhere above 78 million people died in two world wars, within 31 years. Since 1945, how are we doing? Better, I'd say.

Is it impossible for anyone to see that so long as nukes are CONTROLLED, thus, not in the hands of those who will use them simply to advance their religious or power-hungry zealotry, that the THREAT of them in the world actually makes it a safer place? What exactly is the educational background of the dunces who think the US is a bigger threat with nuclear weapons than another country? Only the powerful, sociopathic zealots who are now kept -- barely -- in check by our having them.

Amazingly, there are calls for more centralized governing, even in what started out as what you could call the individualism center of the planet, the United States. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Bigger government is corrupt -- absolutely. Especially in the still-kicking power center of the world, the United States.

Please, wake up, or take your voice out of the argument, thanks, if you think some hands-holding, rainbows-without-storms, birds-chirping, floating cars fantasy is going to happen in your lifetime. Not going to come out of human effort alone. It's a nice sentiment. Sadly, it always reminds me of the outset of the original Battlestar Galactica, when the human powers-that-be insist, despite advice otherwise, that they can live peacefully with their aggressive enemy. Also, it reminds me of the cliche, but not irrelevant, historic blunder of UK PM Chamberlain who signed (with France) an agreement with Adolf Hitler that gave part of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis. Hitler invaded Poland only months later.

Only a stubborn cynic refuses to hope for a time of peace, but only a perfect fool believes they will be living in one sometime soon.

The world is getting more complex at the same time it is shrinking. We are in the midst of a shaping global economy that differs from the one that existed even 25 years ago. The requirement needs to be that the real troublemakers -- the centralized control dictators/theocracies, the extreme zealots, the terrorism-supporting factions -- prove to the truly democracy-oriented that they are willing to play far nicer. It is not to be the other way around. The US and its less imposing allies don't owe these people anything. But some leaders disagree. In fact, Obama seems to think the US was on a track of empire-building up to and until he became president. That's interesting from a man who uses the word "I" far more than "we".

A nuclear-free world is the fantasy of goofballs and academic arguments, yet, in the States, we now have a platitude-rich president who joins that crowd as a true believer, by his words.

Holocaust-denying, genocidal, mass-dog-killing, political-foe-assassinating, gross-poverty-concealing, terrorist-supporting, and/or Third World-resource-grifting, and other far-flung governments centered on abuses, not embarrassed by its exposure, are not interested in getting along with us. We are spoiled, misinformed, TV comedy show informed go-alongs, to them. Even those of us disgusted by the spoiled, misinformed, TV comedy show informed go-alongs. Their idea of peace is a world without your spoiled asses in it, or indoctrinated into their way of thinking.

They aren't interested in giving their people the freedoms the spoiled brats -- the super rich AND the car-driving, jeans-wearing, mobile texters -- in the First World enjoy. They are fighting for their ideals to win out, and for at-home survival. If America has its nuclear arsenal to lean on, like some bartender leaning on his 12-gauge letting the rough drunks know he means business, we might as well invite all the openness that cultural pluralism offers, invite the combustible mix of legalized recreational pot, a trust system for violent convicts, sharia law, and the wife-killing machismo of Brazil. Why not? If we cannot live by the ideas that exist, why not just live by whatever feels like it'll work, for a year, a month, a week? Why not make it a cage fight of bad social practices? Openness to the point of life-meaninglessness. In the end, the ones with some self-control and the most discipline will win. Is that you?

You best hope that living in a world like The Road Warrior is as fun to live as it is (at least for some) to watch.

Read on at the link: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929553,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

---------------------------------

Portions delivered by Delicious.com
The tastiest bookmarks on the web

-- AirFarceOne (follow on twitter)

Fatherlessness: A hole no government can fill

Obama, according to this article, said that an absentee father "leaves a hole in a child's heart that a government can't fill". Seriously?

WHO, pray tell, would WANT a government, a bureaucratic organization that maintains streets, oversees laws, arrests criminals and such, should take the role of a FATHER, exactly?

He spoke at length about how his father, Barack Obama Sr., left home early. The future president was just 2 at the time and saw his dad only once more, at age 10, a short visit that still left a lasting imprint.

"I had a heroic mom and wonderful grandparents who helped raise me and my sister, and it's because of them that I'm able to stand here today," he told a throng of youngsters and leaders of community organizations. "But despite all their extraordinary love and attention, that doesn't mean that I didn't feel my father's absence. That's something that leaves a hole in a child's heart that a government can't fill."

In candid terms, Obama said he promised himself he would not repeat his own father's mistakes.

"Just because your own father wasn't there for you, that's not an excuse for you to be absent also. It's all the more reason for you to be present," Obama told the young men in his audience.

"You have an obligation to break the cycle and to learn from those mistakes, and to rise up where your own fathers fell short and to do better than they did with your own children," Obama said. "That's what I've tried to do in my life."

An estimated 24 million American children are growing up with absent fathers, and a disproportionate number of them are African-American. Those children are at higher risk of falling into lives of poverty and crime and becoming parents themselves in their teenage years.

Don't worry, I'm with the government, and I am here to father you. *Groan*

Can we please have a real democracy when all this economic strife is over? PLEASE?

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Created in a heat of politically motivated outrage, right here on Blogger.

Ultimate Fighting: solar cooling versus global warming

Nothing's funnier to me than an atheist follower of the Green Movement or Climate Change activism. "I think God is a cruel lie, but unproven theories and reasons to hate industry and people having jobs, and civil expansion, are AWESOME!" That said...

TG Daily - Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change

Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon tells us that Earth has seen a reduced level of sunspot activity for the past 18 months, and is currently at the lowest levels seen in almost a century. Dr. Soon says "The sun is just slightly dimmer and has been for about the last 18 months. And that is because there are very few sunspots." He says when the sun has less sunspots, it gives off less energy, and the Earth tends to cool. He notes 2008 was a cold year for this very reason, and that 2009 may be cold for the same.

As of today, there have been 15 days in a row without any sunspots. In 2008 there were 266 days scattered throughout the year without sunspots, and in 2007 there were 163 days without sunspots. These are the #2 and #9 fewest sunspots years seen since 1911.

Earth warming, sun cooling. What kind of climate change should we be watching out for, and why does Al Gore insist on lying about 200-foot rises in ocean levels just to get us to stop using so much oil? Groan.

Dr. Soon's field of specialty is the sun. He explains that sunspots are planet-sized pockets of magnetism with much greater energy output and matter expulsion, some of which strikes the Earth's atmosphere as extra energy from the sun. He says when sunspots are present, the temperature goes up, when they are not present the temperature goes down. He also told a reporter at WBZ, CBS TV 38 (in Boston, MA) that beginning in 1645 and continuing through 1715, there were no observed sunspots. This is the period known as the Little Ice Age.

He also explains that sunspots go in cycles, which are around 11 years. There are periods of maximum activity (called the Solar Max) and periods of minimal or no activity (called the Solar Min).

Around the year 2000, the current cycle had reached its maximum. As of right now in 2009, it is at a period of zero sunspot activity. Still, he explains that no one knows for sure how long the cycles will last, and there are precedents that sunspots can persist for long periods of time, or there can be few or none for long periods of time (as happened between 1645 and 1715 during the Little Ice Age).

Could it be that the universe is more significant than people, and it is less stout (that is, we must protect it, like it's more pliable than we are)? Somebody ask Al Gore his views of a self-correcting planet and universe. Because apparently he's the poster child for all things "science", right? For the current leadership and the sore winners of the recent U.S. election? Will we simply find reason to start a broad-reaching, formal sun worship religion in the U.S.? Hmmm... legislating nature worship -- making Gore's mission complete....

Dr. Soon is an astrophysicist whose field of expertise is the sun for Harvard and the Smithsonian. He said, "The Sun is the all encompassing energy giver to life on planet Earth." And presently it's getting a lot of attention from scientists. He expects that if 2009 is another cold year which correlates to the decreased sunspot activity, that the global warming theories which attribute temperature fluctuations to increases in the levels of atmospheric CO2 will need to take notice.

He says, "If this deep solar minimum continues and our planet cools while CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change. This will be a very telling time and it's very, very useful in terms of science and society in my opinion".

So we're set to lower our CO2, except China isn't. I think that's great, it helps. But what is coming? Cooling? Warming? One and then the other? Why is cooling going to still create a rise in ocean levels? Are we just being scammed by some scientists like people in the Middle Ages, etc., were being scammed -- and some today, still, of course -- by a shamelessly power-seeking clergy/political leadership? Is this really just to get us all to behave in the ways they want us to, despite any solid evidence of anything?

Today is not the day that question will be answered. Come back tomorrow....

Not really.

Al Gore as much as has said he's exaggerated all along about "global warming" to get people to react. That's called propaganda: lies to achieve a desired goal is plain old political propaganda. Yet, all these sad little minds adore the Gore.

Just wait for Al Gore to give you your orders, children, for further response to nature's activity. You know -- be a mindless dweeb that blames industry for everything and adores the losers of most elections, so long as they are not Republicans. And good luck with that.


- AirFarceOne (twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

NBC in DC posts liberal group mocking Tea Party as if it were event video

In what I consider always disappointing, in a mocking-the-conservatives, laughing at non-liberals fashion, NBC in the nation's capitol posted a quite juvenile article by Jim Iovino along with a video of a group of fake Tea Party protesters, who seem to be a lefty group that did a mocking video of the protests for YouTube.

It's about context, and this one is foul. This station posted the fake video and mocking article more than likely just to be their usual evasive, unclear and misleading selves, leading some to never even question whether it was a real video, leaving a really misinformed impression on liberal fools (after all, that's now NBC's job, with MSNBC and CNN, it appears). Or, it was to leave some to think it was a shallow attempt to offer fake video to further mock the protest, setting off those in favor of the protest. Either way, not sure when doing news became doing distracting, divisive, unclarified comedy. Apparently, its only the dumb who would like to get real news from the media any longer, eh? The smart people all simply want comedy.

Why would they do such a thing? Why, because everyone knows that people who don't like taxes and have conservative, rational, small government mindsets are not protesters, they are the enemy of all. That's NBC's (and MSNBC's), and CNN's, take, among others, at least. Chris Matthews and Keith Oblermann are masters of dodgy news shows, so these guys are simply following the existing, and most recent, company model. Change is always good, of course, despite all else.

If they haven't cowered into their cave with their fake video, click the link and have a look at the article and the video provided to us by these alleged journalists. Video is of course on YouTube, numblingly. Because they are a liberal news outlet, I guess they are burdened with helping the poor and needy and cannot afford to carry camera to actual events, have to find it online. (That's sarcasm. Deal with it.) Where else would they get video but YOU TUBE, the most important news source in history, eh?

1 Million Tea Bags, But No Place to Dump | NBC Washington

Clearly, NBC and MSNBC envy the success of imaginary news man Jon Stewart and "realize" that the future of news is not news, but fake news and comedy bits. Lenin said religion was the opium of society; NBC knows that, today, it is actually comedy bits that make people laugh and somehow agree with you, like feeding a dog a treat and he'll follow you.

I am discouraged that such pseudo-news -- is this TV's further destruction of the already questionable "new journalism" concept? -- continues without full frontal insults from all comers -- liberals, conservatives, other news outlets, and even fake news champions such as Jon Stewart. Comedy doing news is one thing -- and illegitimate source of news. News doing comedy, especially in such subject matters, is really discouraging for the whole industry.

- jR, AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.