Thursday, November 30, 2006

Monday, November 27, 2006

Stop Her Now!

A web site has been created to help rescue America from the radical ideas of Hillary Clinton.



http://www.stophernow.com/site/PageServer



Give it a look and spread the word.

Friday, November 24, 2006

Three Words for PETA

CHICKEN



FRIED



STEAK

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Do You Start Your Christmas* Shopping Tomorrow?

Here are some interesting things about "Black Friday". The source is Wikipedia so you can take it with a grain of salt.



Black Friday



Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving in the United States, is historically one of the busiest retail shopping days of the year. Many consider it the "official" beginning to the Christmas season.



The first use of this term to describe the day after Thanksgiving is not exactly known. There are two popular theories as to its origin.



One theory is that retailers traditionally operated at a financial loss for most of the year (January through November) and made their profit during the Christmas season. When this would be recorded in the financial records, common accounting practices use red ink to show negative amounts and black ink would show positive amounts. Black Friday is the beginning of the period where they would no longer have losses (the red) and instead take in the year's profits (the black).



Another theory comes from the fact that shopping experience on this day can be extremely stressful. Employees of retail stores have for years referred to Black Friday in a satirical way, to note the extremely stressful and hectic nature of the day. Heavy traffic and customer demands added to the long hours make it a difficult day.



Notice that Christmas is used instead of the offensive P.C. holiday season.

Happy Thanksgiving Eve?

I'm baking pies. I've been baking bourbon pecan and mince meat with bourbon for the past few years. I believe I've found the missing ingredient my aunts used to use but never told anyone.



At any rate, I didn't have a crust for the mince meat. Crust is something to be mastered next year. So off to the store. It was packed! One thing crossed my mind like it does every Thanksgiving and Christmas Eve:




DOESN'T ANYBODY DO THEIR THANKSGIVING SHOPPING BEFORE THANKSGIVING EVE?




There we were. 200 men, obviously husbands, standing in line and each with a can of green beans, a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk and a can of cranberry sauce. In other words the things you'd think were impossible to forget since they've all been staples all of our lives.




Since men don't use shopping carts you heard the clank of green beans and cranberry sauce hitting the floor. Naturally they'd stoop to help each other and then you'd hear more cans clanking on the floor. Not me. No sir. I was dropping pie crusts while helping these guys with their cans. I went back 3 times to insure the crusts weren't broken.




THEN




After checking out all of the above for the past hour the clerk has the nerve to get on the intercom and say "need a price check on milk". You hear 200 men in unison cry out:




$2.99 for whole, $3.19 for 2%, $1.49 for bread, green beans are 2 for $0.99 and cranberry sauce is $0.89.




They've been checking this stuff out and they need a price check? What have they been doing all day? Doesn't anything sink in?




Oh good grief... I need a can of green beans... here we go again...

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Republicans Don't Need a Big Tent!

There's been some talk on other blogs about the Republicans need a Big Tent. I've only seen the Big Tent as a problem. Different versions of a similar theme is one thing but so far the Big Tent means allowing members to have opposing views. Having different ways to accomplish the same goal is good but not agreeing on the same goal isn't.



Conservatives need unity.
A party can't have it both ways.



To make another point, we voted for our representatives and senators based on what they said they would do. They broke their promises and did the liberal thing. We can't have it. The Conservatives need to get back to the basics.



Vote against big government.
Vote for permanent tax cuts for everybody, including the so-called rich.



Don

Democratic is a process.
Democrat is what they are.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Conservatives are More Charitable than Liberals?

I just received this from my friend Kevin.



Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right wing in America —- and it's making him nervous.



The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.



In the book, to be released this month, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives —- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services —- make conservatives more generous than liberals.



The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.



When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."



For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."



Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He has lectured in Spain and Russia and makes about 50 appearances a year at professional conferences around the world.



Brooks is a behavioral economist by training who researches the relationship between what people do —- aside from their paid work —- why they do it, and its economic impact.



He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.



His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages.



The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.



Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.



Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth. All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.



"These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."



Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.



In an interview, Brooks says he recognizes the need for government entitlement programs, such as welfare. But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including entitlements.



Repeatedly he cites and disputes a line from a Ralph Nader speech to the NAACP in 2000: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity."



Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.



"His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist." Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did.



To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information.



"I know I'm going to get yelled at a lot with this book," he said. "But when you say something big and new, you're going to get yelled at."

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Fall

I love the beauty God gave fall.



The color is magnificent. The temperature is perfect. The air is dense.



Sitting on the patio with Midge in the cool mornings while drinking coffee and eating the pecans that have dropped off the tree is a real treat. Soon there be a hard frost and the persimmons will be ready to eat.



The bird feeder is full of seed and we'll watch the birds. Soon the woodpeckers will be back. A barn owl has been visiting.



There's no more yard work.



What a wonderful time of the year.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Will Republicans Get It?

The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, said he was disappointed on a number of counts, following the democrat (they aren't democratic) victories in key House and Senate races. I was discouraged by his comments.

Mehlman said in a FoxNews interview:


"I think the American people clearly sent a message, and it's a message we need to understand and we need to listen to, and we as Republicans need to follow." Sounds good doesn't it. Well, Ken Mehlman said there are three thing Republicans must do:

1. First and foremost, rededicating themselves to their "conservative, reform principles."

I totally agree with this BUT why did they leave them in the first place? We elected them because they ran on conservative issues. Issues we believe were important enough to entrust with our votes.

2. He said Republicans must "try to work where we can on a bipartisan basis with Democrats," while maintaining conservative principles.

This is something I don't get. We didn't elect conservatives to work with democrats, Independents, Libertarians or any other party. They were elected to do the job they said they would do. It's totally up to the other parties to work with us or not. I believe many are willing to do the right thing.

3. He said Republicans must lose the taint of corruption: "We need to remember, people who serve...at any level are people that ought to be about public policy and public service."

Republicans and Conservatives are always going to be held with our feet to the fire. democrats and liberals can get away with corruption because it's expected of them. They're the party of corruption, immorality and deception. Republicans and Conservatives are held to a higher standard.

"there's no reason why Republicans and Democrats can't work together on national security (the threat posed by "that religion of peace") immigration reform and health care reform."

democrats have never been in favor of reform unless reform meant doing what they want. democrats will not work with Conservatives. Their leaders demand every member to march in lock step with their tenets. It's their way or the highway. It's always been that way and it always will be. We could learn from the democrats.

Remember: Democratic is a process. democrats are what they are.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Coffee

Yes, coffee.

Let's all say it together.

Coffee.

Don't you feel good? Ahhh, the lovely bean meant for careful roasting and hot water steeping. It's name brings calming to the nerves.

Coffee smells great.
Coffee tastes great.
Coffee settles the nerves.
Coffee is the best reason for waking up in the morning.
georgia
There are some who drink coffee and those who enjoy coffee. Is there a difference? Of course there is.

By the way, I'm not a coffee drinker!

Those who drink coffee settle for less. They'll drink that bitter watery liquid they serve at diners, convenience stores and truck stops. You know what I mean. The brew that needs 5 creams and 5 sugars per cup just to get it down. Drinking doesn't allow for the time of savoring the roast or the nuances of the flavor. Enjoying creates a trance of elation.

Coffee must be carefully roasted by experts. The beans must be carefully packaged by monks that have taken a vow of silence. They must be delivered in the dead of night in plain brown paper sacks by the light of a full moon. The beans should have exotic names such as Columbian, Kona, Sumatran, Guatemalan and Kilimanjaro.

Coffee.

Juan Valdez doesn't have a clue.


Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Man-Made Global Warming Hoax

Here is a great column written by Tom Gremillion. I've not added any editorializing. You can check out the link.

Global warming is a hoax, invented in 1988, that combines old myths including limits to growth, sustainability, the population growth time bomb, the depletion of resources, pollution, anti-Americanism and anti-corporate sentiment and, of all things, fear of an ice age. Those that espoused and supported the old myths have joined forced into a new group called “Environmentalists.”

Most environmentalists have no technical or scientific credentials whatsoever. What they have are major news outlets ready and willing to publicize their every utterance regardless of whether or not they are backed up by scientific proof. Atmospheric science requires highly technical knowledge and skills, not possessed by the vast majority of the so-called environmentalists, who yet feel qualified to demand that human activity subjugate itself to the whims of their new deity, Mother Nature.

Environmentalists claim that the Earth’s atmosphere is getting hotter. They claim that the polar icecaps and glaciers will melt and sea levels will rise over two hundred feet, flooding most coastal cities. They claim that many areas of the Earth will turn into deserts. They make all these claims but cannot substantiate them with real scientific evidence. Parts of the polar icecap and glaciers are melting but other areas of the polar icecaps and glaciers are thickening. The environmentalists base their “proof” of the existence of global warming on the melting areas but are strangely silent, even militant to the point of violence, if anyone mentions the areas that are thickening, and those thickening areas are many.

In the past, there have been many times when the global mean temperatures were warmer, sometimes much warmer and colder, much colder than they are now. Global mean temperatures are cyclical with the seasons but also with other normal cycles, as they have been for the entire history of the Earth. Scientific data from ice cores, tree rings and other indicators of global mean temperatures prove this. Human activity has never been the cause of these global temperature swings as the “global warming” advocates claim. If human activity was the cause, where were the SUVs, the power plants and industries in our historical past? They did not exist. If human activity was not the cause of these global temperature swings, what was?

The energy output of the Sun is far greater in one second than human activity could produce in a million years. The Earth rotates around the Sun. Its orbit is slightly elliptical. The energy reaching the Earth from the Sun varies slightly as the distance from the Sun to the Earth varies due to its elliptical orbit. The Sun activity increases and decreases with fluctuations in the solar flares emitted by the Sun. Differences in these fluctuation rates cause increases and decreases of solar energy hitting the Earth. This causes fluctuations in the global mean temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere.

In 2004, the energy from massive solar flares bombarded the Earth with solar energy. This solar energy caused heating of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. Most of the energy of the solar flare eruptions dissipated into space. The amounts of energy ejected were massive, much greater than normal. Had the Earth received a full blast of the solar energy from one of the numerous flare eruptions in 2004, the consequences to life on Earth could have been disastrous. The higher than usual amounts of energy that struck the Earth’s atmosphere did have their effects, however, including some heating of the atmosphere.

Then there is the eruption of volcanoes, such as Mt. St. Helens, ejecting dust and ash into the Earth’s atmosphere. The amount of dust and ash in the atmosphere varies the amount of energy that can cause heating or cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere. Volcanoes also eject the kind of compounds that environmentalists call greenhouse gases. A single eruption the size of the Mt. St. Helens eruption released more of these gases, dust and ash into the atmosphere than all such emissions by human activity since the beginning of recorded human history. And there are numerous volcanic eruptions yearly.

The oceans are also a major source of greenhouse gases, as are trees. Trees and other vegetation take in carbon dioxide and give off other gases such as methane, a major greenhouse gas, and a host of other compounds, many of which are also greenhouse gases. Decaying vegetation also gives off methane gas. Studies of smog in the Los Angeles basin indicate that over 90% of the smog is generated by the vegetation in the area. To aid in perpetuating the hoax, however, environmentalists, aided by major news media outlets, censored and suppressed this study.

Studies have shown that greenhouse gases produced by human activity accounts for around 1 percent of the gases in the atmosphere. The total elimination of human generated greenhouse gases would have a negligible effect on Earth’s global mean atmospheric temperatures. The elimination of all U.S. gasoline powered vehicles would reduce worldwide “greenhouse” emissions by less than 0.2%.” What would be the effect on global mean temperatures? None. Doubling of manmade greenhouse emissions above current levels would increase the global mean temperature by one degree Centigrade, which is within the normal range of temperature swings.

It is the fluctuations of the Earth’s orbit around the sun, volcanic eruptions, the emission of gases by oceans and trees, all natural occurrences, that cause rises and declines in global mean temperatures, i.e., “global warming” and “global cooling,” not human activity.

Satellite data taken over the past 25 years indicate no surface or atmospheric warming. If anything there has been a very slight cooling, on the order of 0.01 degree Centigrade.

Recently, astronomers have noticed a thinning of the polar icecaps on Mars.

Is this “global warming, Mars style” and do Martian SUVs, power plants, and industries cause it? Hardly, but the “environmentalists” think so. Some even blame it on us here on Earth.

Global warming IS a hoax. Those claiming that “global warming” is real have an agenda other than saving the planet from human activity.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Let's thank Tom for this excellent article!

The Cursing Parrot

Jimmy received a parrot for his birthday. The parrot was fully grown, with a very bad attitude and a worse vocabulary. Every other word was a swear word; those that weren't cursing were very rude.

Jimmy tried to change the bird's attitude by constantly saying polite words, playing soft music-anything he could think of. Nothing worked.


He then tried yelling at the bird, but the bird got worse. He shook the bird, and the bird got madder and ruder.


Finally, in a moment of desperation, Jimmy put the parrot in the freezer. For a few moments he heard the bird swearing, squawking, kicking and screaming and then, suddenly, there was absolute quiet.


Jimmy was frightened that he might have actually hurt the bird, and quickly opened the freezer door. The parrot calmly stepped out onto Jimmy's extended arm and said, "I'm sorry that I offended you with my language and my actions, and I ask your forgiveness. I will endeavor to correct my behavior".


Jimmy was astounded at the changes in the bird's attitude and was about to ask what had changed him, when the parrot continued, "May I ask what the Chicken did?"