Tuesday, May 16, 2017


"There is always something to do. There are hungry people to feed, naked people to clothe, sick people to comfort and make well. And while I don't expect you to save the world, I do think it's not asking too much for you to love those with whom you sleep, share the happiness of those whom you call friend, engage those among you who are visionary, and remove from your life those who offer you depression, despair, and disrespect." - Nikki Giovanni

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Turoe Stone




Once a part of the fairy fort called Rath of Feerwore, Turoe stone was moved in the 1850’s to the village of Ballum in the Galloway county in Ireland. The origin of this stone is still being disputed because some scientists believe that France is the country the stone originates from. Its upper part is decorated in La Tène style. La Tène culture flourished on the European soil during the late Iron Age, and it vanished around 1 AD.

The Turoe stone is considered to be one of the finest examples of La Tène stonework decorations in the entire Europe. The reason for the creation of this remarkable stone is not known. Could it be that its purpose is entirely decorative? Did it have a symbolical meaning? The task of answering these questions is on the shoulders of the future generations of researchers. Be it as it may, the people of Ballum are extremely fond of this stone and in 2007 they have refused to move it from its current location in front of Turoe House.

Climate Change Is No More Credible than Magic


by James Delingpole

The evidence for man-made climate change is so flimsy that you might just as well believe in magic.

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Emeritus at Massachussetts Institute of Technology, has long expressed doubts about the “science” behind anthropogenic global warming theory. (h/t Paul Homewood)

Now, in probably his most comprehensive and devastating assault yet on the Climate Industrial Complex, Lindzen shreds every one of the fake-science arguments used by the environmentalists to justify their hugely expensive “global warming” scare story.

The 97% meme

This is a fabrication designed to make idiots feel like experts. As Lindzen puts it:

The ’97 per cent of scientists believe in global warming’] claim is meant to satisfy the non-expert that he or she has no need to understand the science. Mere agreement with the 97% will indicate that one is a supporter of science and superior to anyone denying disaster. This actually satisfies a psychological need for many people.

But, he explains, it’s just a trick created by pretending that all the scientists who agree that humans make a contribution to global warming (ie almost everyone) also agree with the alarmist theory that global warming is catastrophic, unprecedented and within man’s control. Which simply isn’t the case.

The ‘warmest years on record’ meme

Alarmists have been shrieking a lot recently that most of the hottest years on record – 14 out of 15, according to the UN – have happened since 2000.

This is silly for a number of reasons, Lindzen explains.

Click to enlarge.
First, warmth is not necessarily bad or worrying thing:

It begins with the ridiculous presumption that any warming whatsoever (and, for that matter, any increase in CO2) is bad, and proof of worse to come. We know that neither of these presumptions is true. People retire to the Sun Belt rather than to the arctic. CO2 is pumped into greenhouses to enhance plant growth.

Second, it doesn’t – as some idiots believe – mean that global warming hasn’t paused for the last twenty years.

Of course, if 1998 was the hottest year on record, all the subsequent years will also be among the hottest years on record. None of this contradicts the fact that the warming (ie, the increase of temperature) has ceased.

Third, the differences in temperature are so small as to be almost unmeasurable and are open to all manner of fraudulent adjustments by politically motivated climate gatekeepers.

The extreme weather meme

Sharknadoes & extreme weather!
The idea that we are experiencing more “extreme weather” events because of “climate change” is plain dishonest.

Roger Pielke, Jr. actually wrote a book detailing the fact that there is no trend in virtually any extreme event (including tornados, hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc.) with some actually decreasing. Even the UN’s IPCC acknowledges that there is no basis for attributing such events to anthropogenic climate change.

In fact, its pure propaganda designed to scare the ignorant:

The claims of extreme weather transcend the usual use of misleading claims. They often amount to claims for the exact opposite of what is actually occurring. The object of the claims is simply to be as scary as possible, and if that requires claiming the opposite of the true situation, so be it.

Despite what they say, this is probably not going to happen.
Sea level rise

Not a problem:

Globally averaged sea level appears to have been rising at the rate of about 6 inches a century for thousands of years.

Arctic sea ice

After decreasing in the Arctic for a period and increasing in the Antarctic it now appears to be stabilizing. But so what?

All one can say, at this point, is that the behavior of arctic sea ice represents one of the numerous interesting phenomena that the earth presents us with, and for which neither the understanding nor the needed records exist. It probably pays to note that melting sea ice does not contribute to sea level rise. Moreover, man has long dreamt of the opening of this Northwest Passage. It is curious that it is now viewed with alarm.

Polar bear meme

I suspect that Al Gore undertook considerable focus-group research to determine the remarkable effectiveness of the notion that climate change would endanger polar bears. His use of an obviously photoshopped picture of a pathetic polar bear on an ice float suggests this.

Ocean acidification

This is again one of those obscure claims that sounds scary but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Ever since the acid rain scare, it has been realized that the public responds with alarm to anything with the word ‘acid’ in it. […]

[…] As usual, there is so much wrong with this claim that it takes a fairly long article to go over it all. I recommend the following source.

Death of coral reefs

Somewhat exaggerated…

The reasoned response to this [alarmist Nature] paper is provided here.

As Steele, the author of the above, points out, bleaching has common causes other than warming and is far from a death sentence for corals whose capacity to recover is substantial. This article is a bit polemical, but essentially correct.

Global warming as the cause of everything

Hardly anyone has the time and energy to deal with the huge number of claims. Fortunately, most are self-evidently absurd. Nation magazine recently came up with what is a bit of a champion is this regard. CO2, it should be noted, is hardly poisonous. On the contrary, it is essential for life on our planet and levels as high as 5000 ppm are considered safe on our submarines and on the space station (current atmospheric levels are around 400 ppm, while, due to our breathing, indoor levels can be much higher). The Nation article is typical in that it makes many bizarre claims in a brief space. It argues that a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus led to temperatures hot enough to melt lead. Of course, no one can claim that the earth is subject to such a runaway, but even on Venus, the hot surface depends primarily on the closeness of Venus to the sun and the existence of a dense sulfuric acid cloud covering the planet. Relatedly, Mars, which also has much more CO2 than the earth, is much further from the sun and very cold. As we have seen many times already, such matters are mere details when one is in the business of scaring the public.

Lindzen’s article is well worth reading in full, not only for the usefulness of its scientific rebuttals but also simply to enjoy the loftiness of the author’s magisterial contempt for the entire field of climate “science.”

It is the exasperated sigh of a hugely intelligent and well-informed scientist absolutely sick to the back teeth of trying to explain the truth about climate change to audiences which have been brainwashed into drooling idiocy.

For over 30 years, I have been giving talks on the science of climate change. When, however, I speak to a non-expert audience, and attempt to explain such matters as climate sensitivity, the relation of global mean temperature anomaly to extreme weather, that warming has decreased profoundly for the past 18 years, etc., it is obvious that the audience’s eyes are glazing over. Although I have presented evidence as to why the issue is not a catastrophe and may likely be beneficial, the response is puzzlement. I am typically asked how this is possible. After all, 97% of scientists agree, several of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past 18 years, all sorts of extremes have become more common, polar bears are disappearing, as is arctic ice, etc. In brief, there is overwhelming evidence of warming, etc. I tend to be surprised that anyone could get away with such sophistry or even downright dishonesty, but it is, unfortunately, the case that this was not evident to many of my listeners.

Lindzen does not even pretend there’s a credible scientific case for the man-made global warming scare theory – because basically there just isn’t one. Believing in this theory, he concludes, is as stupid as believing in magic.

I haven’t spent much time on the details of the science, but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.

Wednesday, May 10, 2017


"Those who are afraid to fight will be eaten by those who are not. Furthermore, I'm hungry."

-- Anonymous Patriot



We Used To Call It Propaganda


The liberal mainstream media continues to peddle its "fake news" narrative practically in desperation. It's dawned on the public that the MSM is the primary purveyor of "fake news"-- mainly in self-referential narratives that support a blatantly slanted agenda with unsupported accusations and suitably anonymous sources. America, you've been scammed.

Many of these Fake News Narratives are laughable, painfully bogus: for example, the press keeps suggesting that President Trump is a Russian tool. (That President Obama was a tool of the neocon Deep State -- no mention of that. According to the MSM, America doesn't even have a Deep State.

But the real danger isn't fake news--it's junk news. Junk News (the title of a 2009 book by an Emmy Award–winning journalist-- Junk News: The Failure of the Media in the 21st Century) --is related to Junk Science and Junk Food.

Junk science is presented as "science" but cherry-picks data to support a specific but unstated agenda--an agenda that requires downplaying or overlooking conflicting data.

Click to enlarge
One common example of junk science is the approval of new medications by the FDA. If you actually dig into Phase III data, you may well find that the "benefits" of the new wonder-drugs are barely above statistical chance, and the potential interactions with commonly prescribed (or imbibed) drugs are ignored.

This is how we end up with medications with deathly side-effects: death from misadventure, addiction, and in combination with other commonly prescribed meds, etc.

For more junk science, check out the UN's declaration on Climate Change. Or, tune into one of Bill Nye's rants where he "schools" reporters on not only climate change but also how there are more than two genders. Bill should stick to proving the boiling point of water.

Junk news is less filling but with more taste!
Junk food is now so ubiquitous we lose sight of its core qualities: it is "food" in the sense of being digestible, but it is harmful above very small, occasional doses. It is not "food" in the context of natural food or healthy food--in those contexts, "junk food" must be placed in parentheses because it doesn't qualify as "food."

It is empty calories, garbage that generates a host of chronic illnesses, but not "food" in the sense of being nutritious, life-supporting or healthy.

Junk news is like junk science -- cherry-picked to support a corporate agenda -- and like junk food in being digestible but toxic. As this brilliant essay explains, the unemployment rate is a premier example of junk news (and junk economics -- a thriving subculture of junk science and junk news. People believe this crap because it gets drilled into them and because it fits a politically-motivated agenda. Mommy, do conspiracies really exist? I'm afraid so, snowflake.

An unemployment rate of 4.7% once meant full employment and rising wages for the laboring class -- but alas, now it is just another ginned-up junk news "statistic" designed to push a bogus narrative: everything is awesome (as the financial security of the bottom 80% swirls the drain).

The key difference between fake news and junk news is plausibility: fake news is innuendo, anonymous sources, and risibly false accusations presented as "fact"; junk news is, like junk science, supported by carefully cherry-picked "data" that has been selected to support the corporate-Deep State narrative being pushed by the corporate mainstream media.

Media junkies on the path to extinction believe the junk news, non-junkies see through the manipulation. If you think it's "progressive" to support war-mongering, neoliberal exploitation and "support our values" social-justice distractions -- sorry, you're a junkie addicted to toxic smack. You're doomed if you can't get the corporate mainstream media monkey off your back.

John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

8:46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Monday, May 8, 2017


"You can make ten times more money in one day of war than you can in a whole year of peace." -- the Rothschilds

Making Money from War -- THE HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD
The World's Banker, 1849-1999
By Niall Ferguson

Sunday, May 7, 2017

She Blinded Me With Science



Life


"Mama, where did I come from?"
"You came from the hospital, dear."

How do we determine what is alive and what isn't? Generally, if it moves, we call "it" alive. If it breathes, if it bleeds, if it eats, if it grows... these are also indications. However, those definitions are not always correct.

Take, for instance, how crystals are formed. A crystal can grow, reach equilibrium, and even move in response to stimuli, but lacks what commonly would be thought of as a biological nervous system. We don't claim that crystals are alive. So how do we determine if something is alive or not?

Doing so is sort of like the ancient Hindu story of identifying an elephant by having each of six blind men touch only the tail, the trunk, or the leg. Each describes something different. A biologist might give a dramatically different answer from that given by a theoretical physicist.

Some agreement is possible. Living things tend to be complex and highly organized. They have the ability to take in energy from the environment and transform it for growth and reproduction. Organisms tend toward homeostasis: an equilibrium of parameters that define their internal environment. Living creatures respond, and their stimulation fosters a reaction-like motion, recoil, and in advanced forms, learning. Life is reproductive, as some kind of copying is needed for the process to repeat itself. To grow and develop, living creatures need to be consumers, since growth includes changing biomass, creating new individuals, and the shedding of waste.

To qualify as a living thing, a creature must meet some variation for all these criteria. For example, a crystal can grow, reach equilibrium, and even move in response to stimuli, but lacks what commonly would be thought of as a biological nervous system.

While a "bright line" definition is needed, the borderline cases give life's definition a distinctly gray and fuzzy quality. In hopes of restricting the working definition (at least here on Earth), all known organisms seem to share a carbon-based chemistry, depend on water, and leave behind fossils with carbon or sulfur isotopes that point to present or past metabolism.

Click to enlarge.
Life is classified among four biological families: archaea, bacteria, eukaryotes, and viruses. Archaea are the recently defined branch that often survives in extreme environments as single cells, and they share traits with both bacteria and eukaryotes. Bacteria, often referred to as prokaryotes, generally lack chlorophyll (except for cyanobacteria) and a cell nucleus, and they ferment and respire to produce energy. The eukaryotes include all organisms whose cells have a nucleus - so humans and all other animals are eukaryotes, as are plants, protists, and fungi. The final grouping includes viruses, which don't have cells at all, but fragments of DNA and RNA that parasitically reproduce when they infect a compatible host cell. These classifications clarify the grand puzzle of existing life, but do little to provide a final definition.

Attempts at definition get even more complicated when extended beyond the Earth's biosphere. The recent addition of extremophiles (archaea) to the tree of life underscores the notion that life is defined by what we know, what we have seen before, and often what we have succeeded in domesticating to a laboratory petri dish.

As revealed by its remarkable biochemical and microbiological similarities, life on Earth has a common origin. Despite this amazing morphological diversity, scientists say terrestrial life represents only a single case.

The medieval alchemists classified many different kinds of substances as water, including nitric acid (which was called "aqua fortis"). They did this because nitric acid exhibited many of the properties of water, and perhaps most importantly, it was a good solvent. It wasn't until the advent of a molecular theory that scientists could understand why nitric acid is not water. And so it goes with definitions for life.

Click to enlarge.
All theories of the origin of life face two major hurdles. The biggest is explaining the origin of the complex cooperative schema worked out between proteins and nucleic acids -- the controlled production of self-replicating catalytic systems of biomolecules. Was it God or was it random chance?

All the scenarios that have been proposed for producing RNA under plausible natural conditions lack experimental demonstration, and this includes the RNA world, clay crystals, and vesicle accounts. No one has been able to synthesize RNA without the help of protein catalysts or nucleic acid templates, and on top of that, there is the fragility of the RNA molecule to contend with.

The more serious problem, however, is the next stage of the process: the coordination of proteins and RNA through a genetic code into a self-replicating catalytic system of molecules. The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) is astronomically low. Yet most researchers like to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.

The popular theory among academics postulates an initial protein world that eventually produced an RNA world as a by-product of an increasingly sophisticated metabolism. The RNA world, which starts out as an obligatory parasite of the protein world, eventually produces the cooperative schema, and hence life as we know it today. Researchers like this explanation. It's neat, it's easy, and it provides a "scientific" explanation.

Certainly, life arising from nonliving materials could occur elsewhere than Earth, but it could also have occurred on Earth. It is possible that extraterrestrial life exists and that all life nonetheless has a common ancestor. Scientists believe microbes can survive interplanetary journeys ensconced in meteors produced by asteroid impacts on planetary bodies containing life. In other words, we could all be the descendants of Martians.

It is also possible that life on Earth is the product of a very complex historical process that involves too many contingencies to be readily accessible to definitive experimental investigations. So even if we can't produce life in the lab from nonliving materials, it doesn't really follow that we will never know how life originated on Earth.

When we find other lifeforms away from Earth, it will go a long way in determining how we define what is and what is not alive. Indeed, it is exciting to consider the chances of life under the ice of one of Saturn's famous moons, or perhaps discovering and labeling microbes deep within the Earth itself, or floating freely in space.

These are big questions that will not be answered by scientists sitting in an earthly laboratory mixing chemicals and applying electric shocks to a mass of enzymes and proteins. Plus, when we consider that even science has its limitations, we begin to understand that we are bound to a materialistic consideration of these matters. In other words, if God created life, why would He share the process with us anyway?

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

Megafauna: Where Did They Go?


Click to enlarge.
Once upon a time, there were lots of other large animals like the Elephant roaming the earth -- for instance, the Wooly Mammoth. We refer to these extinct creatures as Megafauna. The Megafauna disappeared only recently, in the range of tens of thousands of years, and scientists do not know why. The two main reasons that have been speculated are over-hunting by man and climate change (I know, let's blame it on climate change -- why not a plague or an apocalyptic asteroid strike?). Those who say it may be climate change have very little evidence (like, none) besides claiming that there isn’t enough evidence for the other explanations. As for the over-hunting theory, most scientists say even if it were true, there may be very little archeological evidence. So, the Mystery remains unsolved. What do you think might have happened?

Monday, May 1, 2017

Catch-22


While sitting at home one morning in 1953, Joseph Heller wrote the lines, "It was love at first sight. The first time he saw the chaplain, [Yossarian] fell madly in love with him." Within days, he envisioned the story that would result, and invented the characters, the plot, and the tone that the story would eventually take. Within a week, he finished the first chapter and sent it to his agent. He did not do any more writing for the next year, as he planned the rest of the story. The initial chapter was published in 1955 as "Catch-18", in Issue 7 of New World Writing.

Heller did not intend the story to be longer than a novelette, but was able to add enough substance to the plot that he felt it could become his first novel. When he was a third done with the work, his agent sent it to publishers. Heller was not particularly attached to the work, and decided he would not finish it if publishers were not interested. The work was soon purchased by Simon and Schuster, who gave him $750 and promised an additional $750 when the full manuscript was delivered. Heller missed his deadline by five years but after eight years, he finally delivered the novel to his publisher.

The finished novel describes the wartime experiences of Army Air Corps Captain John Yossarian. Yossarian creates multiple strategies to avoid combat missions, but the military bureaucracy is always able to find a way to make him stay. As Heller observed, "Everyone in my book accuses everyone else of being crazy. Frankly, I think the whole society is nuts – and the question is: What does a sane man do in an insane society?" Heller has also commented that "peace on earth would mean the end of civilization as we know it."

Just before publication, the novel's title was changed to Catch-22 to avoid confusion with Leon Uris' new novel, Mila 18. The novel was published in hardback in 1961 to mixed reviews, with the Chicago Sun-Times calling it "the best American novel in years", while other critics derided it as "disorganized, unreadable, and crass". It sold only 30,000 copies in the United States hardback in its first year of publication. Reaction was different in the UK, where, within one week of its publication, the novel was number one on the bestseller lists. Once it was released in paperback in October 1962, however, Catch-22 caught the imaginations of baby boomers, who identified with the novel's anti-war sentiments. The book went on to sell 10 million copies in the United States. The novel's title became a buzzword for a dilemma with no easy way out. Now considered a classic, Catch-22 was listed at number 7 on Modern Library's list of the top 100 novels of the century. The United States Air Force Academy uses the novel to "help prospective officers recognize the dehumanizing aspects of bureaucracy."

The movie rights to the novel were purchased in 1962, and, combined with his royalties, made Heller a millionaire. The film, which was directed by Mike Nichols and starred Alan Arkin, Jon Voight and Orson Welles, was not released until 1970. In my humble opinion, the movie was not very good.

Are You Sick Of It Yet?


I see where Democrats are still hand-wringing over Hillary Clinton's presidential loss. They say the reason she lost was that her "base" did not turn out to vote and Trump's base did.

With that smug, sterile explanation, they manage to avoid the real answer, which is that Americans turned out at the ballot box because they are sick of big government interference in their lives. The Democratic party is not the sole reason for government largesse but for them to continue to ignore the severe ideological differences between us and them is to ignore reality.

Clinton lost because America is concerned about socialism, tyranny, and leftist fascism. The voting public does not want America to dissolve her borders. America wants the real perpetrators of 9/11 to be revealed and punished. America is sick of war. America is sick of false news spread as propaganda and intended to change their minds.

America is equally sick of political correctness and bullying by leftist rioters, foreign investors, and godless legislators.

Go on, go ahead. Take a survey of middle America and ask what is the most important thing in their lives. They will tell you it is God, family, and country. Not a paycheck.

I mean, haven't you seen enough to convince you yet? Democrats, leftists, progressives, whatever you want to call them, want to get rid of Christianity, or at the very least, turn it into something neither you nor Christ would recognize.

The left continues to riot, burn, and silence their critics. Their actions do not embrace any form of democracy. They are paid grunts working to inflame and blame. Why would anyone in their right mind vote for any of these thugs?

And the Democrat Party leadership continues to beat the socialist, culture -changing drum. The latest revelation from the DNC chair is abortion on demand and the insistence that all Democratic candidates support abortion on demand. Otherwise, they will not be Democrat candidates.

It's a see-through tactic. They're going for the female vote and the right to legally murder and dismember our children. Will they win with their updated, politically correct, communist-driven, tyrannical platform of ideas? No, not unless they rig the election.

These are sick people, man. America must remain vigilant to foreign forces bankrolling these mutants. Those currently in office must be ferreted out and removed from making decisions for other people. The Democratic Party itself needs to be re-tooled to better accommodate the desires of the American voter -- not slanted toward one race or creed -- but rather an ideology that embraces freedom and the principals upon which the country was founded. Democrats currently are more interested in the values of Cuba and other countries where communist despots rule.

Hillary's goal was to be a communist despot. She almost made it, too. Thank God she didn't.

Sunday, April 30, 2017



Fear Me, America!


For those out there alarmed at the prospects of war with North Korea, I can only say that once again you have been duped. What is it exactly that makes you think North Korea is a threat anyway? It's a lot of hand-waving to distract you from other matters.

The greatest threat to you, my friends, is the loss of your freedom. The global elite think they know what's best for the sheep and the cattle. You see, there are far too many of us. We've been allowed to breed way past what nature can provide, or so they tell us. The truth is, there are so many of us now, if we discovered what was behind all the lies and greed and wars and corrupt governments and banks and were moved to action, we could easily overpower our leaders and their paid stormtroopers.

To make matters worse, we're all going to die because of the blinking climate change. They say the discussion is over. No more debate. We're all gonna die.

Before that happens, however, the government and the media says we must drop our old-fashioned morality and accept new ways of having sex. I don't know if I'm up for that. Additionally, those of us in America must stop believing in borders and national sovereignty because, you know, it's not good for a global perspective. Yep, we're going to change our laws to be more inclusive. We're adding sharia law to municipalities so Muslims will feel more at home. Heck, Christian churches are being pushed out anyway for being patriarchic. Well, that's okay, you can still be a Methodist.

Plus, there is no room for bigots anymore. Yes, I mean you, white America. You've been pampered long enough. Your free pass is over. No more free speech for you.

The globalists and the forces of the progressive left now control your television set and whatever your little mind thinks about. Make no mistake, it is they who anoint our leaders. They want you to be afraid and they do not want you to have faith in anything beyond their control. You live by their rules.

Still concerned about North Korea? Don't be. In a show of force this week, NK splashed two rockets that were intended to send fear into the hearts of all Americans. North Korea has between 10 and 24 nukes, or so they say. The US has thousands. Task Groups from the US Seventh Fleet are presently cruising the waters off the Inchon Peninsula and armed with enough ordnance, nuclear and otherwise, to make North Korea little more than a memory.

There's plenty to be wary about, but North Korea isn't one of them; unless, that is, you're vacationing in Pyongyang.

Friday, April 28, 2017



The Science Delusion



Rupert Sheldrake on science and belief. 18 mins 19 secs.

Taxi



"It was raining hard in 'Frisco, I needed one more fare to make my night. A lady up ahead waved to flag me down, She got in at the light.

Oh, where you going to, my lady blue, It's a shame you ruined your gown in the rain. She just looked out the window, and said "Sixteen Parkside Lane".

Something about her was familiar I could swear I'd seen her face before, But she said, "I'm sure you're mistaken" And she didn't say anything more.

It took a while, but she looked in the mirror, And she glanced at the license for my name. A smile seemed to come to her slowly, It was a sad smile, just the same. And she said, "How are you Harry?" I said, "How are you Sue? Through the too many miles and the too little smiles I still remember you."

It was somewhere in a fairy tale, I used to take her home in my car. We learned about love in the back of the Dodge, The lesson hadn't gone too far. You see, she was gonna be an actress, And I was gonna learn to fly. She took off to find the footlights, And I took off to find the sky.

Oh, I've got something inside me, To drive a princess blind. There's a wild man, wizard, He's hiding in me, illuminating my mind. Oh, I've got something inside me, Not what my life's about, Cause I've been letting my outside tide me, Over 'till my time, runs out.

Baby's so high that she's skying, Yes she's flying, afraid to fall. I'll tell you why baby's crying, Cause she's dying, aren't we all?

There was not much more for us to talk about, Whatever we had once was gone. So I turned my cab into the driveway, Past the gate and the fine trimmed lawns. And she said we must get together, But I knew it'd never be arranged. And she handed me twenty dollars, For a two fifty fare, she said "Harry, keep the change." Well another man might have been angry, And another man might have been hurt, But another man never would have let her go... I stashed the bill in my shirt.

And she walked away in silence, It's strange, how you never know, But we'd both gotten what we'd asked for, Such a long, long time ago.

You see, she was gonna be an actress And I was gonna learn to fly. She took off to find the footlights, And I took off for the sky. And here, she's acting happy, Inside her handsome home. And me, I'm flying in my taxi, Taking tips, and getting stoned, I go flying so high, when I'm stoned."

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Confederate Heroes Day


Confederate Memorial Day is also called Confederate Heroes Day in Texas. It is a public holiday observed by the US states of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, South Carolina, Louisiana and Texas since the end of the American Civil War to remember the estimated 258,000 members of the Confederate States Army, Navy, Marines, and militia who died in combat while fighting the damn yankees. The day is also marked by observances in other states (God bless them.). It is observed in late April in most Southern states to recall the surrender of their last major field army at Bennett Place on that date in 1865. The war officially ended with the signing of Presidential Proclamation 157 on August 20, 1866.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Inverted Symbolism


An upside-down cross, or the inverted cross, is a symbol with a long history and, in modern times, divergent meanings. As its name implies, an upside-down cross is simply a Latin cross turned so that the crosspiece is closer to the bottom than the top. A person hanging on such a cross would be positioned head-downwards.

For centuries, the inverted cross was considered a Christian symbol, based on an ancient tradition that the apostle Peter was crucified upside down. One version of the story says that Peter, facing martyrdom by crucifixion, requested that his cross be inverted because he felt unworthy to die in the same manner as Christ. The upside-down cross, sometimes called the Cross of St. Peter or the Petrine cross, thus became a symbol of humility. The inverted cross is sometimes associated with the pope, who Catholics believe can trace his authority back to Peter. Artwork featuring the Petrine cross may contain an overlay of the “keys of heaven,” based on Matthew 16:19.

Recently, however, it is common for the upside-down cross to be used as a symbol of atheism, humanism, and the occult. Several black metal bands use an inverted cross to call attention to their supposed devotion to Satan. Upside-down crosses appear in horror movies such as The Omen and The Conjuring as a signal of demonic activity. The symbol crops up in tattoos, on pendants, and as a logo on t-shirts. Sometimes, it is accompanied by statements such as “Believe in Yourself,” “There Is No God,” “Black Mass,” or “Not Transformed.” In these contexts, the obvious intent of the inverted cross is to declare an opposition to Christianity. Turning the cross upside down becomes a means of denying the truth of Christ and mocking His sacrifice.

So, what is the meaning of an upside-down cross? It depends on the context. When the symbol is used in a church setting, it is most likely a reference to Peter and the manner of his death. In other contexts the inverted cross is often an anti-Christian symbol. In our fallen world, holiness is often mocked and what is good and pure is twisted by the “god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4). The cross, a symbol of Christ, is turned upside down to become a symbol of the devil.

Monday, April 24, 2017

It's Just Beer





Hey! Are you out of control with your alcohol consumption? Find out here.

Climate Change -- Another Government Program


Environmentalists are being used by globalists to push the false propaganda of a threat to humanity and the Earth due to carbon emissions. Why haven't you figured out yet that the whole thing is a scam designed to replace western culture with beehive socialism? As a result, environmentalists are called “watermelons” – green on the outside, red on the inside. Red – as in Communist.

Well, environmentalism is now all about ending capitalism. Exaggeration?

The 1970’s Global Cooling Compilation – Looks Much Like Today: “A compilation of news articles on the global cooling scare of the 1970’s.”

Flash back forward – and it is suddenly, magically, Global Warming. Which – when the planet stopped warming nearly two decades ago – suddenly, magically became Climate Change. All (totally irreconcilable) variations on a theme. It’s the greatest scam on Earth.

The ultimate goal remains the same – to end capitalism. And the fuel of capitalism – is oil. Gut the oil industry – and you undermine the entire capitalist system. And they are always looking for new and inventive ways to do it. To wit:

The Dangerous Ideological Roots of Climate Disclosure: “Having failed in their attempt to paint energy companies with the same brush as tobacco companies, environmental activists have switched tactics and are now accusing publicly traded oil and gas corporations of hiding the true costs of climate change to their businesses. The effort threatens to change the current focus of financial reporting—which is to provide salient information to investors—and instead serve the policy agenda of liberal activists.”

The anti-capitalists are nothing if not resilient:

“It’s no surprise that global-warming activists are turning to financial disclosure as a political tool. Labor unions and environmentalists have become adept at using shareholder leverage to embarrass corporate managements, forcing them to spend time and money on compliance and defense, and steering them toward the activists’ social and political goals. However, attempting to subvert reporting requirements goes well beyond what these entities have attempted.”

And a consistent government assistant in the anti-capitalism movement – hails from very Lefty New York State:

Crazy enough to believe in climate change?
“They have enlisted New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman to lead the cause. Earlier this year, he announced that he is looking at whether Exxon Mobil ignores the true risk of global warming in evaluating its energy reserves. If global warming accelerates, Schneiderman’s logic goes, then Exxon would be stuck with fossil fuel reserves rendered worthless by future regulations or a concomitant reduced demand for oil.”

Get that? Schneiderman is attempting to punish ExxonMobil – for failing to properly guess and then calculate how much government will punish ExxonMobil in the future. Of course, he’s by no means the only government flunky in on this – the lackies at the federal Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are too:

“In 2010 the SEC issued an interpretive guidance document to remind companies to disclose business risks created by climate change.(T)he SEC wanted companies also to disclose the potential impact of legislation, regulations, and international accords related to climate change on their businesses, as well as any negative effects on the production process or consumer preferences.”

The multitudinous layers of government demand companies accurately project the cost of prospective, as-yet-non-existent taxes, laws and regulations – that the multitudinous layers of government might at some point in the future impose.

Obnoxious? Absolutely. Hypocritical? More than a little. We can’t get government to accurately assess the damage done by the taxes, laws and regulations they have already foisted upon us, even though there is existing law requiring that they do so.

These are petroleum businessmen – not regulatory soothsayers. There’s only one way for them to know how much governments will damage them in the future. That is for governments to pledge to not damage them in the future.

But they are thoroughly ensconced in their propaganda – so I’m sure they aren’t holding their breath waiting for that -- but they should because, you know, the air is poisonous and such.


Saturday, April 22, 2017

A Moment Of Clarity


As a social integrating concept, diversity does not work. Diversity does not make us stronger. As a matter of fact, diversity helps to fragment communities and foment discord. Diversity does not work as an answer to social integration. I mean, think about it. You want to throw Jews and Muslims together in a Chicago high-rise? No! Of course not. So why would we insist on throwing together other "diverse" groups whose members, or at least a portion thereof, hate one another for racial or religious reasons? Heck, I generally can't stand government workers. I sure don't want to live beside one. Diversity. Ha! What a load of steaming animal byproducts.

The wise and judicious Democrat US Senator Al Franken of SNL fame.

Maxine Waters is still calling for the President's impeachment on NO GROUNDS at all other than disagreement with his politics and his skin color. I'm sure Maxine will soon pick up on the next news piece:

Twenty-five researchers made a drastic break away from ethical standards by meeting at Yale University on Thursday to discuss evidence questioning the commander-in-chief’s mental health. The "experts" were unanimous in their conclusions that the president suffers a combination of personality disorders and they defended their conclusions by saying it was their ‘ethical responsibility’ to warn the American public about the ‘dangers’ Trump poses to the country. They insisted the president displays anti-social, narcissistic and chauvinistic tendencies that, they believe, are grounds for impeachment.

On a side note, I feel that the government should pay off my mortgage and buy me a new pickup because I have put up with bitter and self-centered relatives and bosses my entire life. I deserve a break and a position of great importance.

I keep wondering about the Bible verse written on Aaron Hernandez' forehead. Was it written backward? Did he use a mirror or maybe he had one of his pals in jail ink it for him. John 3:16 was the verse. Ya think somebody snuck in there and killed old Aaron and made it look like a suicide? There's a pretty good chance that's the way it went down. Edit: now the MSM is saying Hernandez may have offed himself because he wanted to hide the fact he was secretly gay. Speaking of which, in a recent interview, Kaitlyn Jenner (aka Bruce Jenner, Kat to her closest friends) says if you go after the transgender community, then she'll go after you. To my knowledge, I have no transgender friends, neighbors, or relatives. It has never crossed my mind to "go after" one of those people.

If you're a member of the Democratic Party, for all intents and purposes, you are a communist. If you voted Democrat in the last election, your ideology identifies you as a communist. My guess is, you have no problem being labeled a communist because you have no sense of history and little to no regard for freedom. Also, you probably think Hillary is the smartest woman in the world which permanently marks you as a total idiot. You should subscribe to Maxine Waters' Youtube channel.

I don't think Bill O'Reilly is much of a loss to the conservative side. He will be replaced by half a dozen others with better temperament and brains.

Nationalism is on the upswing, in case you haven't noticed. Lots of liberal hand-wringing over the new perception. Yet, with all that said, it's best to remember, Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Thank you, Mr. William Muny, for helping to clear the bar after closing.

Friday, April 21, 2017

Texas Rat Snake


Texas Rat Snake (Pantherophis obsoleta lindheimeri)

I ran across one of these critters today while looking for a, oh well, never mind. These types of snakes are good to have around so I wished him well and we parted company. Here's the lowdown on the Texas rat snake.

The Texas rat snake is one of the most commonly encountered species of non-venomous snake in North Texas and this is especially true for the Dallas-Fort Worth area. These are large snakes capable of growing more than 77 inches (2 m) in total body length. The largest individual recorded measured 86 inches (2.18 m). Despite their size, Texas rat snakes are non-venomous and pose no threat to humans. This species is highly adaptable to a wide range of environments including forest, grasslands, suburban areas, and even locations within an urban setting.

The presence of this snake in any setting near human habitation is a strong indicator that rodents such as rats and mice are also in the vicinity. These snakes are effective and efficient predators of disease spreading rodents. Diseases such as the plague and Hantavirus can be fatal to humans and have been identified from rodent nest in the Tarrant County. Fortunately, snakes are immune to these and do not transmit the illnesses to people. Asides from disease, rats and mice are responsible for damage to buildings, crops, and homes. Because of the benefit this snake serves, it should not be killed or molested.

Texas rat snakes are excellent climbers and there have been occasional reports of Texas rat snakes climbing the sides of brick walls on buildings. This can be the result of the snake-detecting the presence of rodents, which often seek shelter in attics. This species will also climb trees in pursuit of eggs, birds, and squirrels. In many rural areas where poultry are maintained this snake has earned the common name ‘chicken snake’. This is due to the snake’s enthusiasm for freshly laid chicken eggs and chicks.

Texas rat snakes use constriction to kill their prey. Upon encountering a prey item, the snake strikes out, secures a grip with its teeth and immediately wraps its body around the animal. Once the coils are around the animal, the snake flexes its muscles as the prey exhales. This prevents the prey from inhaling another breath and it eventually dies of suffocation. Once the prey is dead and unable to resist, fight back or present a health risk to the snake, the rat snake begins to feed.

Texas rat snakes are bold and ready to defend themselves from perceived threats. When approached they may vibrate their tail; raise the front portion of their body off the ground in an ‘S’ shaped configuration, hiss and sometimes strike. Striking and biting are often a last resort after being harassed. If the snake is grabbed it will usually bite and smear fecal matter onto its captor. The wound caused from the small needle-like teeth of this species to the hand is superficial at most. Often the bite mark is gone within a day or two.

As seen in the photographs, adult specimens can be variable in coloration from one location to the next. Specimens found in the eastern portion of the state often bear a dark gray base coloration while those encountered in the oak woodlands of central Texas display a more yellowish tint. Despite the regional variations in color, the flesh between the scales of this snake is reddish orange.

Unfortunately, this beneficial and harmless species is often confused with venomous snakes such as copperheads, cottonmouths and western diamondback rattlesnakes. Because of its size, this species has also been the source of many ‘boa and python’ sightings. This is not because Texas rat snakes are difficult snakes to identify, but instead because the individual making the claim is not familiar with snakes native to Texas.