Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]"
Olbermann is trying to make this about race so he can have an explination as to why Obamacare failed. It couldn't be because we are smart enough to elect someone on ideas. No, we are only simple minded country folk who are all racist white people who only care about race. If that isn't sterotyping (aka racism) then I don't know what is.
Even though Olbermann is wrong, it doesn't matter. The past votes of a party don't matter as much as the current ones do. If my principles dictate liberty, then I must be against this healthcare bill, along with many other government "fixes." And If Olbermann thinks that wanting to maintain liberty means that I am a racist then he must be so consumed by race that it is always on his mind. It seems to be that way for many democrats and progressives. So many seemed to question Obama's blackness. Reid and other key figures were caught discussing his qualities of being light skinned and negro dialect-free. Those are the people who keep telling us that we always make it about race, but we don't. Those who favor liberty, true freedom for all mankind, don't think about the messenger, they think about the message.
It is not men but ideas that this country looks to, and if an idea is a bad, regardless of the man who has it, then we will say so. We don't care if it appears racist, because we can defend our position from every angle of attack. The progressives and liberals use race as their trump card, their last line of defense, or their first strike weapon. When they can't win the debate on the issues, then they try to deflect to another issue that has strong emotional ties, and is easily used to smear the other side (even though, as you can read in the link above, the republicans have always been the party for blacks).
Monday, January 18, 2010
"Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.
When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high". The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%.
The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."
However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower."