Skip to content

Al Gore’s new mansion: yet another reason why I don’t believe in global warming

Still buying that global warming line? Have you heard about Al Gore’s recent purchase of a fabulous 9 million dollar mansion? Can you guess where? California. Beach front. Now let me ask you something: if you believed the earth was going to be destroyed because of global warming and rapid ocean level risings, would you go out and buy a 9 million dollar mansion on the beach?

Al Gore's new mansion

Al Gore's new mansion

Al Gore's new mansion

And of course this is only one of MANY mansions Gore owns. What happened to reducing our carbon footprint so we can save the environment? Oh, that’s right, only peasants and common people should do that.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Right-wingers finally get something they want

Who would have guessed illegal immigrants are opposed to a law that would allow state law enforcement to deport illegal immigrants?

I sure would not have. But now right-wing nut jobs (called “sane people” in some circles) have what they’ve always wanted. Liberals are finally taking a look at the constitution. Yes, thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of illegals in Arizona have suddenly become constitutionalists. They argue that the state is out of its jurisdiction to use its power against illegal immigrants, which are still members of foreign states.

The lame stream media is quick to jump on board with their somewhat belated concern for the U.S. Constitution. And because, naturally, all Americans are heartless, cold-blooded racists, they have deduced that the law will inevitably lead to “racial profiling.” Heaven forbid a Latino be asked to show his green card. The experience might traumatize him for life.

To some members of the media, asking law breakers (as the bill dictates) to show their green card is the equivalent of throwing Jews into Auschwitz. The law will simply shatter our civil rights. It will revert us back to pre-civil rights, Jim Crow America.

Taking a somewhat different approach, the Obama Administration has focused its creative energies on coming up with unique excuses to oppose the law, like Janet Napaletino’s line that the new state law would siphon away federal money and staff needed to hunt down dangerous immigrants. And Eric Holder’s deep concern for the “wedge it could draw between communities that law enforcement is supposed to serve.” Obama and his cabinet will argue anything to protect their constituents, which in this case happens to be illegal immigrants living in Arizona.

What can be done to counter arguments of this nature when any attempt to do so becomes like arguing with your little brother?

You act like a socialist when you use other people’s money to bailout the financial system.

“I know you are, but what am I?”

You act like a racist when you obsess over race and label others as racists when they oppose your ideology.

“I know you are, but what am I?”

You act like an enemy of the state when you seek to open its borders and endanger its people for political reasons.

“I know you are, but what am I?

Does the argument ever end? I’d like to imagine what would happen if one day Obama confessed that he was Santa Claus. Would a portion of Americans still believe him? Would the main stream media be able to find pundits to support such a claim? They somehow found pundits to claim, despite a few things Jesus might have said, that Christianity is about bringing “social justice” to the earth. They found pundits to argue, with a straight face, that tea party activists are violent hate mongers. It is certainly not out of the range of possibilities.

A portion of people living in America are bound to a cause they don’t see or even understand. Some of them have very vague delusions of participating in a sort of extension of the civil rights movement. Some of them don’t have the inclination, nor the time, to remain educated on the issues. Some of them are just downright complicit. We call those people Socialists, Marxists and illegal immigrants. The latter of which are understandably complicit (who wouldn’t want to come to America?) but are nonetheless subservient to a highly corrupt political power which feeds on their energies.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Imagine my disgust

Last week I went on a trip to the Newseum in Washington DC. I had the opportunity to see some of the most incredible Pultizer Prize winning photographs like this one of a poor Sudanese girl, crawling, trying to pick herself up off the ground to get to the nearest feeding center.

The sad story behind this photo (which is almost as sad as the photo itself) is that the man who shot it did not pick the girl up and carry her to the feeding center. He was told the natives carried communicable diseases. Instead, after 20 minutes of trying to get the right shot, he only scared the vulture away.

Kevin Carter took his own life some years later and wrote in his suicide note “…I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings & corpses & anger & pain . . . of starving or wounded children…”

Now to the disgusting part.

At the FCC’s “Digital Inclusion Summit,” a teary eyed mother of two delivered a speech which, I’m guessing, was not intended to be a joke. By the tone of her voice and the expressions she makes on her face, you would think she was talking about the loss of a loved one or the near-death condition of a relative. What was she talking about? You will have to watch the video to find out.

Like I said: disgusting. Especially when you consider the photograph above taken by Kevin Carter. God will judge us.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Liberty University upsetting the political establishment

The meanings of words. They never fail to change when people use them, especially over long periods of time. Take for example the words separation of church and state.

Some vouch for the idea of separation of church and state as a ‘constitutional principle’ yet are unable to pin-point exactly where it can be found in the constitution. Others, who vouch for the idea of separation of church and state (it does sound like a good thing to vouch for), argue that the first amendment makes their case.

Well, I read the first amendment (below) and all I could get out of it was that government should keep its dirty little hands off religion — not foreboding it and not mandating it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Were I James Madison wanting to include the principle of separation of church and state, I would have most likely written something along the lines of …

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In addition — Congress shall not recognize the fact that religions exist and shall handle all matters with an outwardly pagan, atheistic worldview.

The real meaning of the words separation of church and state can be found in the context of the document in which they were written. Can you guess which document I am talking about? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not the U.S. Constitution.

That’s right, the phrase separation of church and state actually comes from the Danbury letters, a private correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists. If you read the letters, you will find that Jefferson used the term “a wall of separation between church and state,” to signify the need to keep government from corrupting the church and vice versa. This is most likely because of what has happened in the past when the two are mixed together (Hints: Crusades, Holy War, Church of England, Henry VIII, etc.).

In no way did Jefferson or Madison imply that government officials should not be religious, pray at public events, remove religion from schools (in fact there were no public schools back then) or embrace the particular religion of atheism or secularism (they are religions after all). If that were the case, Jefferson and Madison were awful hypocrites because they, along with the rest of Congress, practiced all of those forbidden things (including using the ‘G’ word in their speeches and some of the founding documents of the United States). Heck — half of the Continental Congress were individuals trained in seminaries to go into  the ministry.

And yet we have organizations today like the Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) that trump around the country with mission statements like: “Americans United (AU) is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation as the only way to ensure religious freedom for all Americans.”

Better yet, these organizations (ACLU included) scour and police the nation to find any connections they deem to be in violation of their sacred — yet contrived — “separation of church and state” clause.

One such connection was recently found by AU at Liberty University which, being a not-for-profit organization, does not have government clearance to endorse a particular political candidate or party. The rule, which of course has been unhesitatingly accepted for years (I don’t know the history behind that one), does not make much sense to me. Here is how I understand it: You do not pay money to the government because you do not make a profit, therefore you should not have any say in government or politics whatsoever.

So we went from:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

To:

You do not pay money to the government because you do not make a profit, therefore you should not have any opinion in government or politics whatsoever.

Okay. I can make my peace with that. But here is where I trip up: I just can’t find that connection sometimes.

AU is taking beef with Liberty University for using school resources to “intervene” in the November house of delegates race between Scott Garrett and Shannon Valentine. Below is the AU press release.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate a pattern of partisan politics at Liberty University, asserting that Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. used school resources to intervene in a November House of Delegates election.

In a letter to the IRS, Americans United says Falwell and other Liberty officials used the official school newspaper, Liberty Champion, to repeatedly attack incumbent Shannon Valentine and endorse her opponent, Scott Garrett. Garrett won the election by about 200 votes after returns came in from a precinct heavily populated by Liberty students.

“We have documented a clear pattern of partisan intervention orchestrated by top Liberty officials,” said Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn. “I believe the evidence is clear that Liberty officials have violated the law.”

AU’s letter – the result of more than three months of investigating – makes the following allegations:

– Falwell and other university officials used Liberty Champion, ostensibly a student publication but one that is actually subject to university control, to run a series of articles attacking Valentine and endorsing Garrett.

– University officials twice arranged for a “voter guide” published by the Virginia Family Foundation to appear in the Champion. The guide distorted Valentine’s views and was stacked to endorse Garrett. Copies of the Oct. 27 issue of the newspaper were mailed to all Lynchburg residents.

– On Election Day, Ergun Caner, a top university official, drove around campus with the College Republicans, rounding up voters.

– Falwell and other Liberty officials later boasted that their actions had swayed the election to Garrett. They have vowed to intervene in future elections.

“This is one of the most blatant and dishonest attempts to influence an election by a non-profit religious organization I have ever seen,” Lynn said. “We hope the IRS acts swiftly to stop Liberty’s overt partisan politicking.”

In his letter to the IRS, Lynn noted that Falwell has vowed to repeat these partisan activities.

“Indeed, Falwell has already stated that he hopes the results of the Nov. 3 election will impact the decisions of the Lynchburg City Council elections,” wrote Lynn. “The audacity of this move is, I submit, nothing short of breathtaking.”

DO YOUR HOMEWORK AU. The Champion is not “ostensibly” a student newspaper; The Champion is a student newspaper. That’s why it says Student-run since 1971 in the masthead. The disclaimer on every paper reads: Letters and columns that appear are the opinion of the author solely, not the Champion editorial board or Liberty University.

The only staff member that is not a student, Deborah Huff, acts as its supervisor. Huff doesn’t tell students what to write about nor what they cannot write about (unless it is offensive or inappropriate material). She fills the role of a coordinator who hires editors, manages money and gives advice where needed. In no way do university officials “control” the content of the Champion. I know this because I have been writing for the Champion for almost two years now!

I read the papers — front to back — the weeks preceding the Scott Garrett/Shannon Valentine election. They were painstakingly fair. Editorials were written in favor of both candidates (here and here) and advertisements were run side-by-side for both candidates. You would hardly believe that the Champion was the newspaper of a conservative Christian school if you happened to read our paper last November. I even remember Professor Huff going crazy in the Champion office because the advertisement that Valentine bought did not appear exactly as it should have. Two news articles (devoid of any opinion whatsoever) were printed that listed questions (the same questions for both candidates) and then answers for each candidate.

Of course Shannon Valentine (the liberal Democrat) shot herself in the foot when she placed, in her Champion advertisement, a bullet point stating that she was endorsed by a pro-life organization. Editorials in the following issue clarified that, although the ad stated Valentine was endorsed by a pro-life organization, that did not mean she was pro-life. She also got tore up for pretending to espouse conservative values in other ways. Let’s just say her voting record speaks for itself. I guess that’s what you get when you try to insult the intelligence of an editorial board by trying to run such a blatant lie in their newspaper.

In other news, Liberty students are planning to barrage (not literally) a city council meeting at the Lynchburg City Hall tonight because the council (a majority of which are liberals), fearing Liberty’s increasingly visible voting influence after the Valentine/Garrett election, decided to move our polling location to a place much less accessible. I will blog about that tomorrow. I am wiped.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Why the control-c keyboard shortcut deserves the Nobel Peace Prize

I am of the belief that the greatest discovery of our generation — what we will truly be remembered for — is the discovery of the control-c keyboard shortcut. And new people are discovering it every day.

Not too long ago, I was working on a power point for a group presentation (for a class) with the other members of the group. I needed to copy one set of slides into another, so, naturally, I called upon the mighty power of the ctrl-c keyboard shortcut. The girl in my group sitting next to me was simply amazed. She had apparently gone through her entire life re-typing information that needed to be moved from one document to another. To her, I was a like ‘a computer hacker.’ That put me on my high horse. I felt like C-3P0 in the forest of Endor, surrounded by a tribe of worshiping Ewoks. It was pretty sweet. I marveled at it for a long while.

Then I got to thinking: how many other people in the world have not become acquainted with the control-c keyboard shortcut? How many lives could be saved if everyone knew that there was a combination of buttons that could copy a text from one document to another?

I estimated that the ctrl-c keyboard shortcut probably saved me about 1 hour of my life per week. That’s 48 hours per year, 2 days in a year (I know, my math skills are astonishing).

If you apply that figure of 1 hour per week (or 48 per year) to all of the people that live in the world who have Internet access (429 million according to Nielson/Net Ratings), you get an astronomical 20,592,000,000 hours saved by the likes of the control-c keyboard shortcut every week. That’s 858,000,000 days per year or 2,350,684 total years of time saved every year. The 2,350,684 number translates into 33,581 lives (if the mean life expectancy is 70 years) that are saved every year because of the control-c keyboard shortcut. And that does not factor in the time for people who have computers but don’t have Internet access!

And that’s why I believe the guy who came up with the control-c keyboard shortcut should get the Nobel Peace Prize. Hey — I’m not going to name names, but people have gotten it for much less.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Joseph Andrew’s suicide note

If you haven’t heard, a man purposely crashed his small plane into an IRS building in Texas after burning his house down. Investigators found the following suicide note allegedly written by the man, Joseph Andrew, posted online (from FOX):

If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?” The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn’t enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I’m not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.

While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.

Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.

And justice? You’ve got to be kidding!

How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.

How did I get here?

My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early ‘80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having ‘tax code’ readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful “exemptions” that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the “big boys” were doing (except that we weren’t steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done.

The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. However, this is where I learned that there are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us… Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country.

That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0. It made me realize for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie. It also made me realize, not only how naive I had been, but also the incredible stupidity of the American public; that they buy, hook, line, and sinker, the crap about their “freedom”… and that they continue to do so with eyes closed in the face of overwhelming evidence and all that keeps happening in front of them.

Before even having to make a shaky recovery from the sting of the first lesson on what justice really means in this country (around 1984 after making my way through engineering school and still another five years of “paying my dues”), I felt I finally had to take a chance of launching my dream of becoming an independent engineer.

On the subjects of engineers and dreams of independence, I should digress somewhat to say that I’m sure that I inherited the fascination for creative problem solving from my father. I realized this at a very young age.

The significance of independence, however, came much later during my early years of college; at the age of 18 or 19 when I was living on my own as student in an apartment in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. My neighbor was an elderly retired woman (80+ seemed ancient to me at that age) who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was social security to live on.

In retrospect, the situation was laughable because here I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time. When I got to know this poor figure and heard her story I felt worse for her plight than for my own (I, after all, I thought I had everything to in front of me). I was genuinely appalled at one point, as we exchanged stories and commiserated with each other over our situations, when she in her grandmotherly fashion tried to convince me that I would be “healthier” eating cat food (like her) rather than trying to get all my substance from peanut butter and bread. I couldn’t quite go there, but the impression was made. I decided that I didn’t trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself.

Return to the early ‘80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a ‘wet-behind-the-ears’ contract software engineer… and two years later, thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706.

For you who are unfamiliar, here is the core text of the IRS Section 1706, defining the treatment of workers (such as contract engineers) for tax purposes. Visit this link for a conference committee report (http://www.synergistech.com/1706.shtml#ConferenceCommitteeReport) regarding the intended interpretation of Section 1706 and the relevant parts of Section 530, as amended. For information on how these laws affect technical services workers and their clients, read our discussion here (http://www.synergistech.com/ic-taxlaw.shtml).

SEC. 1706. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.

(a) IN GENERAL – Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

(d) EXCEPTION. – This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE. – The amendment made by this section shall apply to remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986.

Note:

· “another person” is the client in the traditional job-shop relationship.

· “taxpayer” is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop.

· “individual”, “employee”, or “worker” is you.

Admittedly, you need to read the treatment to understand what it is saying but it’s not very complicated. The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave. Twenty years later, I still can’t believe my eyes.

During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change’, and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their “freedom”. Oh, and don’t forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was loosing income that I couldn’t bill clients.

After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren’t going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.

Again, rewind my retirement plans back to 0 and shift them into idle. If I had any sense, I clearly should have left abandoned engineering and never looked back.

Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn’t need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco. However, because the government caused it, no one gave a shit about all of the young families who lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to the wealthy loan companies who received government funds to “shore up” their windfall. Again, I lost my retirement.

Years later, after weathering a divorce and the constant struggle trying to build some momentum with my business, I find myself once again beginning to finally pick up some speed. Then came the .COM bust and the 911 nightmare. Our leaders decided that all aircraft were grounded for what seemed like an eternity; and long after that, ‘special’ facilities like San Francisco were on security alert for months. This made access to my customers prohibitively expensive. Ironically, after what they had done the Government came to the aid of the airlines with billions of our tax dollars … as usual they left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY! After these events, there went my business but not quite yet all of my retirement and savings.

By this time, I’m thinking that it might be good for a change. Bye to California, I’ll try Austin for a while. So I moved, only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is done. I’ve never experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages… and this happens because the justice department is all on the take and doesn’t give a fuck about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies.

To survive, I was forced to cannibalize my savings and retirement, the last of which was a small IRA. This came in a year with mammoth expenses and not a single dollar of income. I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn’t have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed. But they didn’t notify me in time for me to launch a legal objection so when I attempted to get a protest filed with the court I was told I was no longer entitled to due process because the time to file ran out. Bend over for another $10,000 helping of justice.

So now we come to the present. After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I’d never enter another accountant’s office again. But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.

When we received the forms back I was very optimistic that they were in order. I had taken all of the years information to Bill Ross, and he came back with results very similar to what I was expecting. Except that he had neglected to include the contents of Sheryl’s unreported income; $12,700 worth of it. To make matters worse, Ross knew all along this was missing and I didn’t have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me.

This left me stuck in the middle of this disaster trying to defend transactions that have no relationship to anything tax-related (at least the tax-related transactions were poorly documented). Things I never knew anything about and things my wife had no clue would ever matter to anyone. The end result is… well, just look around.

I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.

As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.

I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.

I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of shit at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.

I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Joe Stack (1956-2010)

After reading the entire note, all I can say is that Andrew would not have felt the same way if he did not equate ‘freedom’ with wealth and money. But even if economic prosperity was the central goal in life, Andrew might have felt differently about his circumstance if he saw how people in Niger or Haiti live — waking up every morning not knowing if they will even eat anything for the day. What a malcontent. The problem in America isn’t greed and “gullibility” but greed and covetousness.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

AP becoming opinionated – They are not a news service anymore

After a few months of abstinence I finally found something blogworthy. It seems that every time I open up an AP article I am bombarded with opinions and unattributed claims. This is a very bad thing because AP is supposedly a news service — meaning it is supposed to be straight up news reporting — all objective — and absolutely no opinion whatsoever.

Yesterday I stumbled upon this article which leads:

WASHINGTON – No, maybe he can’t. President Barack Obama, who insisted he would succeed where other presidents had failed to fix the nation’s health care system, now concedes the effort may die in Congress.

The president’s newly conflicting signals could frustrate Democratic lawmakers who are hungry for guidance from the White House as they try to salvage the effort to extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans and hold down spiraling medical costs.

There are a few assumptions being made in this lead. The first is that the health care system was broken and that previous presidents tried to *fix* it. How did the idea that our health care system is broken and in need of a legislative solution become a fact?

Today I had a major L-O-L when I came upon this AP article featured on Yahoo’s homepage. What got me the most was the picture they used of Sarah Palin at the Nashville Tea Party Meeting.

ROOOOOOOOOOOAR!!!!! (AP Photo/Ed Reinke)

ROOOOOOOOOOOAR!!!!! I AM SARAH PALIN! (AP Photo/Ed Reinke)

Seriously? Associated Press: you are the largest global news network dedicated to “providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed,” yet you couldn’t take a picture of Sarah Palin that doesn’t make her look constipated — or evil? You couldn’t use a better shot?

Aside from that, there are many other things misleading (i.e. the headline reads “Palin tells ‘Tea Party’: It’s revolution time”) and portions of the article are pure unadulterated opinion but this strikes me the most:

Indeed, Republican observers say she’s seemingly done more lately to establish herself as a political celebrity focused on publicity rather than a political candidate focused on policy.

What is the identity of the alleged ‘Republican observers’? Hey — as Glenn Beck always says — I’m just saying … With those standards an AP reporter could easily write absolutely anything and attribute it to anonymous sources.

P.S. I found this great little blog post concerning AP’s increasingly subjective reporting on editorsweblog.org:

“Accountability Journalism”: AP blurs opinion and news
Posted by Sarah Schewe on July 15, 2008 at 11:01 AM

With new ledes like, “John McCain calls himself an underdog. That may be an understatement,” and “I miss Hillary,” the Associated Press style is experiencing unprecedented change.

Washington bureau chief, Ron Fournier, is encouraging news pieces to incorporate first-person writing and use emotive language; Fournier defends the changes as “accountability journalism.”

Accountability journalism is “provocative without being partisan,” said Fournier. “Truth-tellers without being editorial writers.” The bureau chief claims this form of journalism liberates both journalists and the truth.

Not all agree. “The problem,” says James Taranto, the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web columnist, “is that while you can do opinion journalism and incorporate reporting into it, you can’t say you’re doing straight reporting, and then add opinion to that.”

Fournier is receiving some pushback not only outside the organization, but also from his own staff; some feel the changes stray from the AP’s mission of “delivering fast, unbiased news.”

According to Politco, “At times, Fournier has pulled back. He wanted to open a news analysis…in May with, ‘The Democratic presidential race is over’ … After some back and forth, the reporters won out with ‘The Democratic presidential race is all but over.’”

“The AP has always been a just-the-facts type of organization,” an AP staffer explained. “I think there’s mixed feelings — there’s reluctance.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

The Duplicity of Global Warming Theory

Well … I haven’t updated my blog in a while. Below is a personal treatise on global warming theory that I wrote many months ago for a class when that whole East Anglia U. server hacking ordeal exploded on the news. It’s quite long but I hope you can find it enlightening.

The theory of global warming is quite possibly the most frivolous and absurd lard of pseudo-science to have ever attained legitimacy in Western science and news mediums. If our generation will continue to give validity to this great fabrication, we will certainly be remembered as the dumbest generation to have walked the earth.

It is a shame that it took the illicit workings of a computer hacker to expose, in the media, a few of the crooks orchestrating the global warming con game. Now the only question is why? Why did scientists like Michael Mann and Phil Jones risk their entire careers to put fourth sham science? The answer should be fairly obvious. The head scientists behind global warming theory share the same motives with every liar and deceiver; they did what they do for two things – money and power. The architects of the theory of global warming have a clear aimed and calculated purpose – to persuade individuals to voluntarily forfeit their civil liberties for political causes while, in some cases, enriching themselves along the way with green technology investment schemes. They simply want money and power.

To fully comprehend the duplicity of the theory of global warming, and to understand the methods behind the madness, one must first look at its patriarchs. Al Gore, the ex-vice president of the United States, is often given credit for making global warming a real issue. Gore however, had an accomplice who is not very often named in the circuit of global warming debate.

Maurice Strong was the Canadian socialist who launched the world environmental movement, and, along with Gore, was a forerunner of global warming theory. Strong filled many prominent roles at the United Nations, including the Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). In an essay entitled “Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation,” Strong wrote:

The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. What is needed is recognition of the reality that in so many fields, and this is particularly true of environmental issues, it is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.

Aside from being a proponent of a global government for the sake of “environmental security,” and a socialist, Strong is also, ironically, a businessman. Strong was a partner of Molten Metals Technology Inc., a Gore-endorsed green technology company which received $25 million in tax payer dollars through U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) research and development grants. The firm tanked after DOE scientists recognized the company was not producing commercial products. But just before the company announced that federal funding would be cut, Strong sold his $15.3 million in personal shares, ripping off other investors and making an astronomical profit.

Sitting on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) with Strong is Al Gore, who has also made tremendous profits in similar circumstances. A recent New York Times article puts fourth that “Mr. Gore has invested a significant portion of the tens of millions of dollars he has earned since leaving government in 2001 in a broad array of environmentally friendly energy and technology business ventures, like carbon trading markets, solar cells and waterless urinals.”

According to The New York Times (which takes an apologetic approach to its findings), Gore and his partners decided to invest $75 million into Silver Spring Networks, a company which, soon after, benefited from $560 million in a contract from the Energy Department to install “smart meters,” in homes that record energy consumption.

During the same House hearing that Al Gore compared global warming skeptics to fraudster Bernie Madoff, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) voiced a concern from her constituency that Gore would directly benefit from the recently proposed Cap and Trade Bill. Blackburn asked Gore if he was aware that Kleiner Perkins, a company which Gore was a partner of, had invested billions of dollars in 40 companies that would directly benefit from cap and trade legislation. Gore’s obnoxious reply drew attention to the fact that he had given away millions to green charities like the Alliance for Climate Protection, and told Blackburn that “if you believe the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me.”

But perhaps Gore revealed a shred of truth in his answer to Congresswoman Blackburn. Perhaps greed is not the singular motive behind people who promote the global warming scare. Such is the case with Michhail Gorbachev, the second-to-last General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the last head of state of the USSR. Gorbachev was the communist who was referenced in Ronald Reagan’s legendary Berlin Wall speech where Reagan, speaking out of script, famously asserted: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

After running Russia into the ground, Gorbachev, who has never denounced his communist views, became a green movement advocate and founded the Green Cross International environmental organization in 1993.

It is interesting to note that a committed Marxist and a social justice ideologue like Gorbachev suddenly took an interest in environmental causes after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The correlation is a common feature among green movement figureheads like Obama’s ex-green jobs czar Van Jones (another committed Marxist) and Libya’s prime minister Muammar Al Qadhafi, who wrote a three volume book refuting capitalism and advocating a socialist nation state which would find unity under environmental causes.

But the connection that exists between Gorbachev’s environmental and socialist convictions is not one that needs to be inferred. Gorbachev is a member of The Club of Rome, a global think tank formed in 1968 that has the core objectives of globalization, redistribution of wealth and social transformation. The organization published a book in 1991 entitled The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome. In it, Club of Rome President Alexander King and Secretary Bertrand Schneider, revealed the club’s scheme to control humanity through the green movement:

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

If the extreme conflict of interests made evident in many of the proponents of global warming is not enough to condemn the theory of global warming as a hoax, the science – or lack thereof – certainly will. Thirty years ago, a group of scientists (including Obama’s science advisor Dr. John Holdren) were predicting humanity would be wiped from the face of the earth as a result of global cooling. At the front of this movement, publishing books and articles warning of an imminent ice age, was Professor Stephen Schneider of Stanford University who is now on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Schneider now warns the exact opposite – that global warming will exterminate mankind if imminent social changes are not made.

Adding to Schneider’s voice are the 2,500 scientists in the IPCC (very few of which are actual climate scientists) who have made themselves out to be a ‘consensus’ on global warming. Except the term is no longer called ‘global warming’; the accepted term, for obvious reasons, is now ‘climate change’.

Climate change activists who lead the way in global warming theory are by no means unchallenged by the rest of the scientific community, specifically those who are actual climate scientists. The opposition in the scientific community might not be as media savvy as Al Gore to have their voices heard, but their opinions are out there. One report to the National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change by Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, stated that the press has everything wrong and that climate is always changing because “change is the norm.”

John Coleman, the founder of the weather channel, wrote in a recently published article: “It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.”

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970′s to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn’t accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.

So why is it that so many scientists are drawn into supporting global warming theory? Coleman explains in his article:

Scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

Coleman echoed this claim in an interview on the Glenn Beck show:

The whole thing had been created. What bothered me was that the other scientists had accepted it. Well, why did they possibly do that? And I think the real answer to that question is that they all have an agenda, an environmental and political agenda that says let`s pile on here, we`re all going to make a lot of money, we`re going to get research grants, we`re going to get awards, we`re going to become famous. And I guess that`s what happened.

Considering, among other conflicting scientific data, that the earth has actually been in a cooling stage for the past 11 years, and that many of the leading proponents of global warming theory have apparent ulterior motives, it is more plausible that life threatening global warming is not a reality. Many scientists contribute climate changes (which are not only safe but beneficiary to life on earth) to natural processes such as shifts in oceanic cycles and changes in amounts of energy received from the sun’s rays affected by solar eclipses, among other things.

It is very difficult to give credibility to energy activists like Al Gore, who, with $30,000 in annual utility bills, consumes 20 times more energy than the national average according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. It is equally difficult to make any changes in lifestyle when reading recent headlines like “New Zealand: Coldest October in 64 years,” “NOAA: Third Coldest October on Record,” and “Australian sea levels rising at less than 1/3 of predictions.” Perhaps the media is beginning to face the cold hard facts produced by real science and will soon stop adhering to quackery set forth by ideologues looking to manipulate the public for socio-political and economic reasons.

Sources
Alexander., King,. The First Global Revolution A Report. New York: Pantheon Books, 1991. Print.

Englund, Eric. “Global Warming: Socialism’s Trojan Horse.” LewRockwell.com. 22 Feb. 2002. Web. 4 Dec. 2009. .

McLeod, Judi. “Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it.” Canada Free Press: Online conservative newspaper, News, Politics, Editorials. 13 Mar. 2007. Web. 4 Dec. 2009. .

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Tickle a kitten

Here is something that will brighten your day.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Living photograph

My pal David Sherret shared this over Facebook. It’s worth a minute of your time to absorb this exquisite piece of art. My favorite part is at 0:08 when he raises his eye brows. The breathing is so composed. Incredible.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz