Having your environmental emergency and eating it, too

Earlier this week, I was on the bus traveling home from a basketball game, and I was freezing. It was a (relatively) short drive from Bullhead City to Lake Havasu City. Both cities have pretty much the same climate. It's the desert here. It can cool down a little, but not too bad. Anyway, I am sitting there thinking to myself that it just feels colder than normal. I mentioned that to somebody and they said something about global warming. Okay, so I have heard this before: global warming accounts for hotter summers and colder winters.

Now, I understand that we can point at some scientific theory to justify this claim (I have Google, too), but I'm starting to think that the global warming alarm is the greatest conspiracy known to man. Here's why:

Scenario 1.
Person A: "Man, its sure feels hotter than normal today."
Al Gore: "uh-huh... global warming"

Scenario 2.
Person A: "Boy it's colder than I ever remember it being."
Al Gore: "well... it's global warming."

So just so I understand... if it gets too hot: it's global warming. Too cold: yep, global warming. Is it just me? Does that not seem convenient - I mean - odd?

Just to make sure I wasn't the crazy one here, I ran this by my 5-year-old. His response: "ha-ha-ha, Dad. You're silly." The kid gets it.

If you read my last post, you will catch the common point about scientists, journalists, and politicians consistently manipulating statistics and theory to represent something as irrefutable fact. Now I don't know enough about climatology and global warming to really state a good argument either way. But I am a logical thinker, and I am pretty good at detecting BS in the form of theory and statistics... and when it comes to the global warming alarm, my BS detector is going off.

By the way, Lake Havasu's low temps in the first half of December have been 6 degrees colder than average.

The irony

Everybody remember the constant messages we were being fed by the media and the Hollywood crowd a few years ago, like say, early 2007?
1. Bush is brazzen, evil, and dumb.
2. The sky is falling! -- er, I mean, "Global Warming!!"

So... now what?

1. Now that the Global Warming alarm is being shown to be misrepresented at best, and at worst, fradulent...
(and)
2. We haven't exactly upgraded within the office of the presidency...

Can we call those (the media and Hollywood crowd) who were so willingly duped into this man-as-agent-of-doom theory,

Brazzen, evil, and dumb?

Journalism "Spin of the Week"

As a journalism teacher, I like to try and catch when reporters are spinning things to dupe us into thinking what they want us to think. With msnbc, it's like stealing candy from a baby... but I couldn't resist on this one.

Even though this article is mostly about the concern over the black community potentially having a harder time overcoming this down job market, there is some strong implication that racism is the cause for this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34068710/ns/business-economy_at_a_crossroads//

Now, there is no doubt that every race is being affected by the recession. Of course, some are more affected than others. In a complex system, such as the job market, it is impossible to achieve equal distribution of goods (jobs, in this case).

Realistically speaking, of course racism is the culprit in some cases, and that is sad that some people would use race as a factor in hiring an individual. However, this article is telling us that black people, due to racism (and not other potential factors), are suffering worse in this economy.

So I did a little number crunching. Here is what I came up with using the exact same statistics. In fact, I just pulled the numbers they used and looked at it from another angle:

Since this recession started, if you are black, you are 43% more likely to be unemployed than before.

However, if you are white, there is a 52% greater chance you are unemployed.

Or, if I want to stretch it even farther, the white community has been more adversely affected by the recession than the black community by almost 10%.

But you won't get any of that from msnbc...

"Charisma. Circumstances, promises... Not enough of us spoke out to question him until it was too late. It happens on your planet, doesn't it?"

Well I am back from the land of the sick. I’ve been out for a little while. I was hit with some illness that never was diagnosed. I never have been sick like that. Finally, after about 5 days, I went in to Urgent Care. They tested me for H1N1 – I had no idea something could go that far up my nose (anyone who has been tested for this knows what I am talking about), then they tested me for strep throat, then for mono (“great, how am I going to explain this to my wife”), and then – for good measure – H1N1 again.

Unfortunately the world doesn’t stop when we are sick, so it has taken me the last couple weeks to catch myself up at work, but I’m back in the saddle again, as they say.

The other day, my wife and I were watching an old TV mini-series from the early 1980’s. Some of you may have seen it; it is a show called “V” and it is a sci-fi thriller about “V”isitors coming to Earth from outer space because their planet is tapped of its life-sustaining resources. (It was replayed on ScyFy channel because ABC recently launched a re-hash TV series which I haven’t had a chance to view yet.) The visitors come to Earth hoping that we will help them with their needs of resupplying their planet with these resources. At first they come as “friends” with a plan to put in action (working together, we help create the materials they need to replenish their resources), then they start to impose an agenda on humans (controlling us through fear and public persuasion to the point that humans won’t act of their own will), then they begin to take over the whole system. Soon any humans who are not part of their movement are outcast and ultimately forced into hiding, and ultimately the visitors enforce their real plans (enslaving and harvesting humans).

The thing that really got me with this show is how it reminded me of what is happening in our country right now... except for the human harvesting (as far as I know). In the course of this mini-series, my wife and I must have looked at each other half a dozen times with that look – the look of… “ohh, that sounds all-too familiar”. The irony of this is that the show is really a political allegory to Nazi Germany during its rise to power. I swear that if an American with no context of the history of Nazi Germany were to watch this mini-series, they would think it is a political play off of our current administration. At first, the humans saw opportunity. They were so charmed by these visitors, they didn’t stop to consider any of the right questions. Then, before they knew it, the opportunity to do anything was no longer there and their lives were no longer under their control.

Main Protagonist, Mike Donovan: (Asking a question similar to one I ask myself often) How'd someone like that get to be your leader anyway?
Friendly Alien, Martin: Charisma. Circumstances, promises... Not enough of us spoke out to question him until it was too late. It happens on your planet, doesn't it?

By the end, I wished I had taken notes to point out all the similarities between what the aliens imposed (with the help of blinded Earthlings) and what is going on in our government today (with the help of blinded Americans). I guess you’re just going to have to watch it. Now I am waiting on Netflix to send me the follow-up, "V: The Final Battle" and I should have a solution to our countries problems.

Fox News not real journalism??

This is the new play from the White House - and I've got to wonder if it is in response to all the investigative journalism Fox News has been using to expose Obama Administration-friendly organizations (ACORN). Take the chance to read this article about the White House's effort to marginalize Fox's objectivity:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/white-house-escalates-war-fox-news-1925819282/

One of these days, I would love to hear a specific complaint that holds water. Something that I can read and say, 'yeah, Fox got that wrong.' You know, of course they have gotten some things wrong - every news organization does. But if the White House has a legitimate complaint, they should show us what Fox has been reporting, and then show us how they are wrong?

Why don't they do this? Is it because repeating what Fox News reports is detrimental to the administration's public perception and they want to avoid re-running negative press?

Or is it simply because it is part of the liberal game-plan that any time someone blows a whistle on their agenda, they immediate dump mud on the person/organization and try to portray them as "biased, right-wing zealots (and therefore aren't truly relevant and we shouldn't listen to them)."

Even if the White House is spot-on with this... even if Fox News is really, really biased and non-objective - why are they the only news organization in the cross hairs? CNN and MSNBC (to name only 2 of the many) are highly biased and that has been shown (in specific cases) over and over again.

All in all, this makes me smile. As I read the article, I kept thinking to myself: "Fox ratings will only go up with this kind of press." And it has according to the article; apparently Fox News' ratings have gone up 20% this year. That's huge. The funny thing is, I'm not a huge Fox News person. I just find their stories more interesting, more relevant, and more representative of how I view the world.

The Obama Administration is walking a dangerous line by calling to the carpet a news organization with such a huge platform and influence on the public... not to mention ballsy reporters who will dig deep and expose corruption.

Never thought I'd say this, but...

I'm siding with the Muslims on this one.

A club football team in Paris known as PFG - or Pro Foot Gay, because they are a team comprised of gay football players - is threatening litigation on a Muslim team after the Muslim team decided they would not compete with the PFG team because they "don't agree with their philosophy."

So the press is throwing around terms like "homophobic" and "intolerant". Well, yeah. My question is: when exactly did it become wrong to be intolerant of people's choices? If someone commits murder, are we not intolerant of their behavior?

Wait, I know the argument you want to give me. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone. Well, there are very relevant arguments against that overly-stated mantra; none that an immoral, god-less society will really consider, though. So for the sake of argument, let's say nobody gets hurt any more or less in a gay relationship than in a straight one. Philosophically speaking, I am against homosexuality. And I am not in the monority. Obviously, I have my reasons. Our society has gotten to the point that I am expected to keep my philosophy entirely to myself in order to avoid being "homophobic" or "intolerant". Why should we care? Really? Why should we be so concerned about being labelled "intolerant".

A couple weeks ago, we went to McDonalds. As I was getting the kids out of the car, there was a man in the parking lot yelling across to his friend in very colorful and persistent offensive language... and he knew we were there with our three little ones. As I stepped away from the car to kindly ask him to stop, my wonderful wife beat me to the punch and not-so-kindly told him to stop. Obviously, we don't want our kids to hear such coarse and offensive language. My wife showed intolerance towards his language. Those words can not hurt my children in any measurable way. The words can not break their arms or scratch their knees. In fact, it is likely that our kids would forget the language after getting their chicken nuggets. However, as members of this obsessively non-judgemental society, are we to close our eyes and ears and ignore all forms of deviant behavior, or do we have the right to draw the line and stand up when the line is crossed?

When my wife tells the guy that he should choose different words when he is in public, is she showing judgement towards that man? Or is she showing judgement towards his behavior? I know my wife, and I know that she could say what she said to him, and 5 minutes later have a pleasant conversation with him and invite him over for dinner that night.

So I learned something from my wife that day. And I learned something from the Muslims this week, as well. We all have a line in the sand were we become "intolerant" of certain bahavior, regardless of others' opinions and responses. Where exactly your line is drawn depends on many factors. Ironically, an ever-increasing number of people have moved their "intolerance line" so far that the only thing they are intolerant of is when they perceive other people being intolerant.

But as for me, I'm siding with the Muslims on this one.

ACORN

Hopefully you've heard this story already. Though if you haven't, I wouldn't be surprised. Last Friday, reports emerged on the internet about an organization called ACORN (them of the alleged practices of voter fraud, cheating, etc) being exposed as an unscrupulous organization willing to lie, cheat, and promote fraud to achieve their purposes.

In short, a man and a woman - dressed as a pimp and a prostitute - walk into an ACORN office and inquire about getting a loan for a house in which the woman plans on running her prostitution business. Her business is, of course, illegal. A government agency helping her in her efforts to run this illegal business is corruption. However, here is the catch: the man and woman set it up to record the conversation. After the incriminating interviews took place, the videos were sent to Fox News.

There are just so many things wrong with this organization:

1. If you get a chance to watch these videos, you will notice that the man sets up these workers brilliantly. The workers attempt to be somewhat vague in their statements, saying things like, "You don't have to tell the government what you do. Just make up a business name and say you perform 'services'". Then the man says, "But what we are doing is illegal! We will get in trouble for breaking the law." The workers follow up his statement by repeating that even though it is illegal, they don't have to report the nature of the business to the government and can therefore skirt the legality of it.


2. The man told the workers that he is bringing in underage El Salvadoreans to work as hookers, and the workers didn't even bat an eye.

3. These workers are women! Women having no problem with this man pimping the girl. No problems with the girl offering her services in their neighborhood. And NO PROBLEM with them bringing in young girls (probably against their will) to work in the brothel.

4. This man (as of Monday morning) has submitted 3 different videos in 3 different ACORN offices, each with the same result... corruption, greed, and fraud!


On top of all this, Foxnews.com and CNN.com both broke this story on Friday. Foxnews pulled no punches and gave us the obvious and sad story. On the other hand, CNN pretended to play the high road and avoided accusing ACORN of doing anything wrong. CNN's dancing around the issue was comical with statements such as "the video appears to be edited in places" and "both women appear enthusiastic to help". Here is the CNN story as it appeared on Friday.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/acorn.prostitution/index.html?iref=newssearch

As the story progressed and ACORN fired the workers involved (implying/confirming that the allegations are true), Fox News continued to give us the news. CNN.com however, pulled the story altogether. I guess corruption in nation-wide government agencies isn't new-worthy at CNN, though Kanye West is worth 2 stories (see CNN.com front page).

The bias in our media infuriates me. I'm not saying Fox News isn't biased, but I AM saying the CNN and most of the liberal media is biased and shameless!