News Snipet 'Blog

Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" wins documentary Oscar | Entertainment | Entertainment News | Reuters.com: "'An Inconvenient Truth,' the big-screen adaptation of former U.S. Vice President Al Gore's slide-show lecture about the perils of global warming, won Academy Awards on Sunday for documentary feature and best song."

Dogmatic faith-based system

Preaches future damnation without salvific repentance

Attempts rigid control over adherents and non-adherents alike

Extorts money and resources based on fear

Did you think religion?

I recently tried to talk to a "man-made global warming" convert. It was like reasoning with a muslim with a bomb strapped to his waist.

Labels: global warming, man-made global warming, religion

DID YOU SUPPORT OUR TROOPS THEN?

View the stats

CRICHTON-"Consensus is politics, not science" ROSE-""I think you're wrong, but I don't know, therefore I can't prove it"

These two comments pretty much sum up the two sides of this debate.

Interesting discussion between a doctor(scientist) and author's perspective on the global warming issue verses a news commentator.

I LIKE THE OLD LIBERALS

Old liberals used to be tolerant and respectful of others' views

New ones are elitist and distainful.

Old liberals used to practice what they preached

New ones have forgotten the message.

Old liberals made a positive difference

New ones spread hatred and discontentment.

Old liberals were about equality and justice

New ones are about special interest and situational ethics.

Old liberals were about consistency of principle

New ones are about the politics of convenience.

Old liberals had hopeful outlooks no matter what the odds

New ones have a negative worldview.

Old liberals used to believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

New ones promote and glorify death, egalitarian bondage and self-gratification.

Old liberals made a difference

New one's are destroying that legacy.

Coming soon: "More Angry White Liberals" Subtitled: "It's All About Me - From Self-Loathing to Self-Loving" Sub-Subtitled: "I'm OK, You are Not"

Labels: angry white liberals, liberals, new liberals, old liberals

Word of the Day: DISSEMBLED ALTRUISM. Hypocritical or feigned concern for others with personal gain in mind.

Usage: Although everyone thought he had their best interest in mind, everything he did was characterized by dissembled altruism.

IT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE THAT WHEN GOVERNMENT INTERFERES WITH BUSINESS, GOING AGAINST FREE MARKET PRACTICES, THEY BREAK THINGS. THE NEWS SNIPET POINTED OUT IN THIS POST THAT RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE DESTROYS JOBS AND AN ECONOMY. AGAIN...ITS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, BUT APPARENTLY ABOVE LIBERAL POLITICIANS' HEADS.

New wage boost puts squeeze on teenage workers across Arizona: "New wage boost puts squeeze on teenage workers across Arizona- Employers are cutting back hours, laying off young staffers"

NEXT THING WE KNOW, GOVERNMENT KNOW-NOTHINGS WILL BE REQUIRING BUSINESS TO HIRE THEM BACK. THEY DON'T CARE HOW MANY LIVES AND LIVELIHOODS THEY DESTROY IN ORDER TO APPEAR BENEVOLENT.

The War on Iraq/Terror	The War on Global Warming
Waged by Republicans	Waged by Democrats
Threat of WMD's	Threat of WMD's
Increased government control	Increased government control
Limited intelligence	Limited intelligence
No time-table	No time-table
Unwinnable	Unwinnable
Threat level - Red	Threat level - Red
Precipitating event: 9/11	RPrecipitating event: Screening of "An Inconvenient Truth"

It wasn't until they began to learn what a budget was and how it worked that they understood the reality of it. By the time we had finished the module, they realized

1. that budget deficits were bad for America because our government was spending more than they were taking from us and

2. a budget surplus WAS BAD, BECAUSE THEY WERE OVER TAXING US, TAKING MUCH MORE THAN THEY REALLY NEEDED. On a personal level, many would consider this theft.

Of course, instead of giving the money back to us, cutting our taxes, or paying down the national debt, the politicians quickly adjusted their new budgets to spend the money and tagged on an extra percentage or two to make sure it didn't happen again.

Most of our perspective on budgets come from what politicians tell us and what media chooses to report.

When analyzing budgets one has to always be aware of bias. Its like most of us do when we do or don't want to buy something and we're justifying the decision to our spouse. If we don't want to buy it, its $10.00! If we DO want to buy it, its $9.99.

President Bush presented his budget which is as ridiculous in its scope as every budget in this nation has been for decades. That being said, the opposing politicians and media decide to report it in such a way to promote their agenda. Here are the tricks to look for.

Budget Cuts

Usage: "President Bush made "budget cuts" to Medicare."

The reality is that the Medicare budget was increased, but the percentage increase this year may be 9% as opposed to a 10% increase last year. Notice that they do not use whole dollar amounts for their illustration.

Increased Spending

Usage: "President Bush has increased military spending by 60 billion dollars"

The reality MAY be, that the spending increase was the accustomed 10% increase like every year, but inconsistent with the above, they do not report that there is no increase in the budget or if the % dropped by 1% that it was a "budget cut." Notice that they use whole dollars for their illustration. (Note: military spending did increase as a percentage with the new budget, but the above is just for example).

The only way to know the truth is understand a little about budgets and go to the source and find out for yourself. But maybe that is expecting to much from America's lazy population who would just have the answers (right OR wrong) fed to them.

For further info: http://newssnipet.googlepages.com/budgetsurplusfordummies

Pelosi's push for jet remains up in air - Nation/Politics - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper: "The Bush administration has agreed to provide House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with regular access to an Air Force passenger jet, but the two sides are negotiating whether she will get the big aircraft she wants and who she may take as passengers, according to congressional and administration sources. "

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the only Democrat to support President Bush's Iraq War effort, proposed Tuesday that Congress consider a tax to fund the U.S. war on terrorism and reduce the need to cut domestic programs to pay for security spending.

I believe I missed the news that congress was considering a cut in domestic spending to pay for security spending. If they are indeed doing that, I applaud them. The only thing I have heard along those lines is Democrats grilling the president's budget director and treasury secretary over imaginary cuts in entitlement spending in the budget the president just submitted to congress. They allege that the president has cut over $100 billion in Medicare and Medicaid over the next five years.

Not true, says White House spokesman Tony Snow. "They are not cuts. They are increases on the order of 6.7 percent per year." Budget Director Rob Portman described the "cuts" as "sensible reforms primarily in Medicare that are less than a one percent reduction in the annual rate of growth." Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said slowing the rate of growth in Medicare spending is "absolutely essential" to avoid major tax increases in the future. Once again, we have some confusion about what constitutes a spending cut.

Beyond that, President Bush and Secretary Paulson insist that the new $2.9 trillion budget puts the government on the path to a balanced budget in five years. They also point out that the deficit has shrunk by 58 percent in the last three years, and that even the Congressional Budget Office (not given to rosy scenarios) predicts the deficit will remain near or below one percent of GDP for the next two years. The average over the past 40 years has been 2.4 percent of GDP.

In short, despite a spike in defense spending because of the war, the current tax structure is plenty sufficient to support the war effort. Also, what Democrats describe as "cuts" in entitlement spending are necessary, not to help fund the war, but to avoid a future fiscal crisis that has nothing to do with the war.

Maybe Lieberman thinks he's the only Democrat with the credentials necessary to propose a tax increase without conservatives attacking him for being a typical liberal. It won't work. Lieberman is a typical liberal on economic issues, and conservatives would be silly to reward his support for the war by threatening the prosperity of the people who are paying for the war.

If anything, it's time for another tax cut. Since 1970, the average total tax burden, (federal, state and local) as a percentage of national income, has been 30.5%. It peaked, at 33%, just before President Bush took office. Since then, it dropped to about 29% and has risen back to about 31.5%, about one percent above the average. Let's just call that one percent a "war tax" and get ready to cut taxes at the next available opportunity.

The real deal?: "Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: 'Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. 'In fact, there is much more than meets the eye.'

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth.

Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future."

The rabid crowd at the global warming love-fest in Paris say global warming is caused by man, and that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution. Nevertheless, the scientists urged the United States and other industrial nations to significantly cut their emissions of greenhouse gases in response to the long-awaited report. Why? If we can't stop it, why should we spend ourselves into poverty to slow it down just a little?

How little? Even if we reach all Kyoto requirements; Tom M.L. Wigley, chief scientist at the U.S. Center for Atmospheric Research, calculates that the earth would be only .07 degrees centigrade cooler by 2050.

How much will it cost? Earlier this week, I shared a column with you from Paul Driessen, a senior fellow with the Grassroot Institute. He says cutting access to fossil fuels would terminate millions of jobs, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and send living standards tumbling. He also says deaths from winter cold and summer heat waves would soar, as energy prices rise and heating and air-conditioning become luxury items. -Ralph Bristol. www.ralphbristol.com