Unfit For The Internet

In reality, only Whalen, the woman who called 911 on July 16 to report a possible break-in at the Cambridge, Mass., home of Gates, acted responsibly from beginning to end in this whole affair.

And she doesn’t even get a free drink out of it.

Instead, she has been reviled. She has been scorned. She was pilloried in the mainstream media and abused in the blogosphere. “Whites like Lucia have bigotry programmed into them,” one Cambridge blogger wrote. “Her description of the two black males is just so, so bigoted. Not only that, it could have led to people getting shot unnecessarily.”

Facts? Truth? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts! And the truth is too slow! In this age of instant communication, we must publish conclusions first — no matter how hurtful or how dangerous — and then let the truth catch up.

It's a good article, go and read it.

1. "Obama criticized pork barrel spending in the form of 'earmarks,' urging changes in the way that Congress adopts the spending proposals. Then he signed a spending bill that contains nearly 9,000 of them, some that members of his own staff shoved in last year when they were still members of Congress. 'Let there be no doubt, this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability,' Obama said." -- McClatchy, 3/11
2. "There is no doubt that we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some adjustments." -- Obama during the campaign.
3. This year's budget deficit: $1.5 trillion.
4. Asks his Cabinet to cut costs in their departments by $100 million -- a whopping .0027%!
5. "The White House says the president is unaware of the tea parties." -- ABC News, 4/15

Some arguments in the law fail because when they are thought through, they become not only absurd but dangerous. So it is with the public airways argument. Today, the vast majority of all communications by all 300 million private citizens in the United States utilize the public airways.

One thing that a good reporter could use to make a name with is comparing the difference between the Obama Candidacy versus the Obama Presidency.  HotAir has a quote that’s a good start:

“Missing in action is the Barack Obama who vowed to unite the country around common values. Lately he has been the very opposite of the man he promised. Instead of hope, many have a growing fear of the arrogant government he leads…

In truth, there is no history for what he is doing. He is the most radical President of our times, far outside the mainstream of our political philosophy…

He is not a reformer who fixes things. He fancies himself ‘transformative,’ a man who reshapes and reorders. It apparently begins with smashing the existing order under the pretext of managing the crisis he inherited.

During the campaign, a fellow journalist confided that ‘I know Obama is a Manchurian candidate, I just can’t figure out what for.’

I laughed then, but no more.”

The whole article is pretty good reading.

The same is true with AIG.... It was the right thing to do to step in. Here’s the problem. It’s almost like they’ve got — they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up. But you’ve got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger.

Here's a great article in the National Review about how the Obama Cabinet is using Fear as a tactic to push it's agenda.  It's a good read and points out the obvious about why Obama really isn't doing anything to fix the current financial situation.

“Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told the New York Times right after the election. “They are opportunities to do big things.” Over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told an audience at the European Parliament, “Never waste a good crisis.” Then President Obama explained in his Saturday radio and Internet address that there is “great opportunity in the midst of” the “great crisis” befalling America.

Numerous commentators, including me, have pointed to this never-waste-a-crisis mantra as evidence that Obama’s budget priorities are a great ideological bait-and-switch. He says he wants to fix the financial crisis, but he’s focusing on selling his longstanding liberal agenda on health care, energy, and education as the way to do it, even though his proposals have absolutely nothing to do with addressing the housing and toxic-debt problems that are the direct causes of our predicament. Indeed, some — particularly on Wall Street — would argue that his policies are making the crisis worse.

But those policies aren’t the real scandal, even though they’re bad enough. The real scandal is that this administration thinks crises are opportunities for governmental power grabs. (It seems writer Randolph Bourne was wrong. It is not war, but crisis, that is the health of the state.)

Michael Kinsley famously said that a gaffe in Washington is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. As they say, it’s funny because it’s true.

Obama’s Fear Mongering by Jonah Goldberg on National Review Online

...2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions...

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

 

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

 

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

 

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

 

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

I've posted earlier about a study that linked a specific type of music to teenage pregnancy.  You'll notice that there's comments saying that it's just a correlation between the two.  Sure, there's more to it, but as you will see, how sex is pushed to the kids also has a huge role.

Researchers in Chicago show that teenage pregnancy is linked to what TV they watch.  The interesting thing is, parents already knew this.  Why is it taking researchers so long to really investigate the impacts of media on kids?

Teen Pregnancy Linked to Watching Sexy TV Shows

CHICAGO —  Groundbreaking research suggests that pregnancy rates are much higher among teens who watch a lot of TV with sexual dialogue and behavior than among those who have tamer viewing tastes.

"Sex and the City," anyone? That was one of the shows used in the research.

The new study is the first to link those viewing habits with teen pregnancy, said lead author Anita Chandra, a Rand Corp. behavioral scientist. Teens who watched the raciest shows were twice as likely to become pregnant over the next three years as those who watched few such programs.

Previous research by some of the same scientists had already found that watching lots of sex on TV can influence teens to have sex at earlier ages.

Shows that highlight only the positive aspects of sexual behavior without the risks can lead teens to have unprotected sex "before they're ready to make responsible and informed decisions," Chandra said.

The study was released Monday in the November issue of Pediatrics. It involved 2,003 12- to 17-year-old girls and boys nationwide questioned by telephone about their TV viewing habits in 2001. Teens were re-interviewed twice, the last time in 2004, and asked about pregnancy. Among girls, 58 became pregnant during the follow-up, and among boys, 33 said they had gotten a girl pregnant.

Participants were asked how often they watched any of more than 20 TV shows popular among teens at the time or which were found to have lots of sexual content. The programs included "Sex and the City," "That '70s Show" and "Friends."

Pregnancies were twice as common among those who said they watched such shows regularly, compared with teens who said they hardly ever saw them. There were more pregnancies among the oldest teens interviewed, but the rate of pregnancy remained consistent across all age groups among those who watched the racy programs.

Chandra said TV-watching was strongly connected with teen pregnancy even when other factors were considered, including grades, family structure and parents' education level.

But the study didn't adequately address other issues, such as self-esteem, family values and income, contends Elizabeth Schroeder, executive director of Answer, a teen sex education program based at Rutgers University.

"The media does have an impact, but we don't know the full extent of it because there are so many other factors," Schroeder said.

But Bill Albert, chief program officer at the nonprofit National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, praised the study and said it "catches up with common sense."

"Media helps shape the social script for teenagers. Most parents know that. This is just good research to confirm that," Albert said.

Still, U.S. teen pregnancies were on a 15-year decline until a 3 percent rise in 2006, the latest data available. Experts think that could be just be a statistical blip.

And Albert noted that the downward trend occurred as TV shows were becoming more sexualized, confirming that "it's not the only influence."

Psychologist David Walsh, president of the National Institute on Media and the Family, cited data suggesting only about 19 percent of American teens say they can talk openly with a trusted adult about sex. With many schools not offering sex education, that leaves the media to serve as a sex educator, he said.

"For a kid who no one's talking to about sex, and then he watches sitcoms on TV where sex is presented as this is what the cool people do," the outcome is obvious, Walsh said.

He said the message to parents is to talk to their kids about sex long before children are teens. Parents also should be watching what their kids watch and helping filter messages sex-filled shows are sending, he said.

So, you think that Obama genuine?  That he's the right choice to lead this country?  Are you sure?  Did you know he's lied to you more times than any other politician.  Okay, nobody can prove that, but one by one, his lies are getting exposed.

Obama claimed that his campaign has no ties to the corrupt ACORN.  Well, he lied. 

The Obama campaign says it has "no ties" to ACORN, a ludicrous assertion given that the campaign has disclosed to the FEC a payment of $800,000 to ACORN's subsidiary, Citizens Services Inc. The depth of the relationship between the Obama campaign and ACORN was revealed today when a former ACORN staffer testified in a lawsuit brought by the Pennsylvania Republican Party...

...the Obama campaign gave ACORN a list of donors who had given the maximum allowable contributions to Obama and urged ACORN to contact those donors to get them to help Obama some more by contributing to ACORN.

Not only does he lie about it, but ACORN turns out to be an extension of his campaign.  I wonder how this will play given the current campaign laws.  Of course, I have serious doubts that Congress will do anything.  He IS congress. 

DONT vote for this charlatan.  We already know there'll be a bunch of ACORN nuts casting illegal votes for him.

Gore is nothing but a two-bit liar and an opportunist money grubber.  How do I know?  Well, take this article in the National Post.  Lorne Garner does a good job at taking recent ideas and evidence that completely refutes the infantile idea that human produced green-house gasses impact the climate more than other factors like the Sun.

"So, given that August was the first month since 1913 in which no sunspot activity was recorded -- none -- and during which solar winds were at a 50-year low, [Brazilian meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart] was not surprised that Brazilians were suffering (for them) a brutal cold snap. 'This is no coincidence,' he said as he scoffed at the notion that manmade carbon emissions had more impact than the sun and oceans on global climate."

Dr Hackbart isn't the only one who's come to this realization.  There's more and more people who are really looking into the emerging science of global climate.  And it seems that the more honest they are with their research, the more we'll see that we are on this roller coaster with no way to impact it.

"Also in September, American Craig Loehle, a scientist who conducts computer modelling on global climate change, confirmed his earlier findings that the so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of about 1,000 years ago did in fact exist and was even warmer than 20th-century temperatures.

Prior to the past decade of climate hysteria and Kyoto hype, the MWP was a given in the scientific community. Several hundred studies of tree rings, lake and ocean floor sediment, ice cores and early written records of weather -- even harvest totals and censuses --confirmed that the period from 800 AD to 1300 AD was unusually warm, particularly in Northern Europe.

But in order to prove the climate scaremongers' claim that 20th-century warming had been dangerous and unprecedented -- a result of human, not natural factors -- the MWP had to be made to disappear. So studies such as Michael Mann's 'hockey stick,' in which there is no MWP and global temperatures rise gradually until they jump up in the industrial age, have been adopted by the UN as proof that recent climate change necessitates a reordering of human economies and societies.

Dr. Loehle's work helps end this deception."

The main point that I want to make is that the study of climate change is new.  It's an emerging science.  Conclusions from many of the recent studies that point to human affect of climate change are based off of this emerging and inaccurate science.  Any decision based on those studies will invariantly be a very costly wrong decision.