Much of the noise in Washington today is budget-oriented, the fiscal-cliff stuff and the inability of the parties to dissolve the gridlock associated with the bankruptcy into which the nation is devolving. This is the most important item for the attention of the president and Congress, and President Obama is back on the campaign trail ostensibly to stir up the citizenry to the point that it will bring pressure on not him but the Congress – okay, the nasty republicans – to just DO something, actually whatever he says.
Much of the noise in Washington today has to do with the “Benghazi Massacre” and especially the sex-scandals associated with it – titillating stuff that will eventuate in a bunch of hearings, though currently it should take a back-seat to the fiscal problems. UN Ambassador Rice has already made the deadly mistake of meeting with republican senators in an effort to smooth the way to a successful nomination as State Secretary. These meetings usually take place AFTER a nomination, not before. She just dug herself a deeper hole, especially since other matters of disqualification will probably soon be front-and-center.
The greater worry, however, lies in the demographics that are driving the nation into a culture wholly foreign to that which has made it the inordinate success of more than two centuries. The brief success-description is tied up in the term Western Civilization, involving economics, art, education and a distinct emphasis on personal accomplishment and accountability as impacted by the freedom to take risk and achieve.
The History Channel has just done a series on the men (not officially in politics) who made the country what it is – Rockefeller, Carnegie, Tesla, Edison, Morgan, Ford, for instance. These people, most of whom amassed great wealth, were ruthless competitors in many ways and had to be finally regulated to greater and lesser degrees by government, but they got things done. Now, people like them are practically regulated out of existence.
The most popular cultural pastime currently is the total denigration of the white male, the collective person driving Western Civilization. He is vilified as insensitive, i.e., unable to “care,” at least in the way and degree possessed by women and minority groups. He is the most tragic figure caught up in the incredibly stupid emphasis on diversity and a multiculturalism designed to bring him and everyone else down to the level of the lowest common denominator.
Political correctness militates against saying it, but the fact is that the white male (white people generally) is becoming not an endangered species in this country but a species destined for falling off the cultural cliff and leaving the nation in the hands of people without the tradition of Western Civilization, ergo, the drive and background to move forward.
The major culprit lies in the demographics. The U.S. birthrate has fallen to 63.2 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age. By contrast, that figure in 1957 was 122.7 (Pew Research Center). This has to do with mostly white women since whites make up about 75% of the population. Indeed, the current rate barely sustains the whole population, much less just the whites.
In 2007 (last available figures), there were 480 abortions among black women for each 1,000 live births (32%). Among white women, it was 144 abortions for each 1,000 live births (13%). This amounts to 312 abortions for each live birth in the two groups, 23%. Whites are headed into minority status, while blacks, already a minority, will join whites in becoming less a part of most power structures. In 2010, immigrants represented about 13% of the population while foreign-born mothers accounted for 23% of all births. The conclusion is obvious.
Most European birth-rates are already below the level of sustainability for what might be called the Caucasian factor. This will happen soon in this country as the white male (Western Civilization) becomes more marginalized. In a sense, this was demonstrated last year when the president completely bypassed Congress (predominantly white males) and sent three women (now a protected species though in the majority) to the United Nations to gain permission to attack Libya. The result of that incredibly un-Constitutional and now obviously insane escapade is obvious.
The election just completed involved the tipping-point for the near and probably distant future of the nation as it slides away from its Western Civilization roots and into a European style of governance – unemployment rate standing at 11.7% now, much worse in countries like Spain and Greece. These were once proud nations that couldn’t stand prosperity or rid themselves of corruption and thus slid from Western Civilization into socialism. This will be the U.S. ere long.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Friday, November 30, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
Sports-Corruption Redux
It seems that the athletic departments of the Universities of Kentucky and Tennessee are competing to see which can provide the best soap opera in town. Their football coaches have already been fired, attendance at games has dropped dramatically, especially at Kentucky, and there seems to be a general malaise connected to each. Okay…the attendance at Tennessee averaged only 94,642 per game (102,000 capacity) last year but is somewhat worse than that this year.
It’s all about money. Translated, this often means it’s all about incompetence and overstaffing, to say nothing of salaries bloated all out of proportion. The guy in the hot seat is the athletic director, though the presidents are complicit in whatever he messes up. Not many years ago, the president of Vanderbilt did away with the athletic director’s office and put accountability in his own office.
Tennessee’s athletic department is enjoying a current deficit for 2011-12 of $3.98 million. The reason: It’s in the process of paying buyouts to the former coaches of football, basketball and baseball, as well as the former athletic director, all of whom were fired and paid handsomely for the privilege of getting the axe. The football coach, Philip Fulmer, had a 152-52 record over 17 years but that wasn’t enough to save him, fired in the middle of the 2008 season and paid $6 million in the bargain.
Making matters worse in the current firing of Tennessee’s Derek Dooley, the university must pay him a cool $5 million, thereby increasing overnight its deficit to some $9 million. Added to the millions he’s been paid during his three-year tenure, this little nest-egg means he will never have to work again unless he just wants to.
There’s practically a cottage industry conducted by athletic directors and coaches in the matter of hijacking the taxpayers’ money, using the pink-slip method. Kentucky football coach Joker Phillips (three seasons) is being paid $2.55 million for being fired but athletic director Mitch Barnhart will probably earn a bonus for being smart enough to fire Phillips for just that paltry amount.
Barnhart was smart enough to fire former basketball coach Billy Gillispie (two-year tenure – “he didn’t fit”) three years ago and the university had to pay Gillispie (and lawyers) only $3 million for that privilege, even though, unbelievably, there had never been a signed contract. Getting rid of two coaches in a four-year period for only $5.55 million marks Barnhart as surely one of the wisest athletic directors in the nation. It’s a shame he isn’t teaching in the economics department instead of wasting his administrative genius on sports.
Contracts mean nothing in college sports. In order to come to UK, Barnhart was required to pay $100,000 to Oregon State for jumping his contract. Not to worry, UK paid that $100,000 for Barnhart, so he’s cost the institution $5.65 million…BUT UK has not been in trouble with the NCAA during his tenure, meaning he’s been smart enough to have someone see that violations don’t occur…or at least can’t be discovered...so far.
UK football coach Hal Mumme was fired in 2001 (before Barnhart’s tenure) and paid $1 million for that privilege. His immediate predecessor, Bill Curry, was fired but only for a measly $600,000. So…in the last 16 or so years, UK has paid a total of $7.25 million in buyouts to coaches it hired to extended contracts and then cancelled according to specifications noted in those contracts. Coaches and AD’s are smart enough to cover their backs financially.
UK paid Memphis State $200,000 to buy out current basketball coach John Calipari’s contract when Calipari came to UK in 2010, jumping his contract. So…the actual amount paid as an absolute loss financially stands at about seven-and-a-half million big ones. This is only what’s known about, considering the assistants who will be losing their jobs, but it’s only money. What could that squandered $7.5 million have meant academically, nearly all of it in just the last four years?
Just before he retired in 2011, UK Prexy Lee Todd, who had become Barnhart’s close friend (and benefactor), raised Barnhart’s salary by 26% to $600,000 (plus a myriad of “incentive” bonuses already in place) and locked him into his position until 2019, so firing him would be extremely costly.
On the basis of Wall Street establishments regarding huge bonuses for incompetence, Barnhart would probably own part of the UK campus by now. Currently, he’s among the highest paid AD’s in the SEC (second-highest last year).
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
It’s all about money. Translated, this often means it’s all about incompetence and overstaffing, to say nothing of salaries bloated all out of proportion. The guy in the hot seat is the athletic director, though the presidents are complicit in whatever he messes up. Not many years ago, the president of Vanderbilt did away with the athletic director’s office and put accountability in his own office.
Tennessee’s athletic department is enjoying a current deficit for 2011-12 of $3.98 million. The reason: It’s in the process of paying buyouts to the former coaches of football, basketball and baseball, as well as the former athletic director, all of whom were fired and paid handsomely for the privilege of getting the axe. The football coach, Philip Fulmer, had a 152-52 record over 17 years but that wasn’t enough to save him, fired in the middle of the 2008 season and paid $6 million in the bargain.
Making matters worse in the current firing of Tennessee’s Derek Dooley, the university must pay him a cool $5 million, thereby increasing overnight its deficit to some $9 million. Added to the millions he’s been paid during his three-year tenure, this little nest-egg means he will never have to work again unless he just wants to.
There’s practically a cottage industry conducted by athletic directors and coaches in the matter of hijacking the taxpayers’ money, using the pink-slip method. Kentucky football coach Joker Phillips (three seasons) is being paid $2.55 million for being fired but athletic director Mitch Barnhart will probably earn a bonus for being smart enough to fire Phillips for just that paltry amount.
Barnhart was smart enough to fire former basketball coach Billy Gillispie (two-year tenure – “he didn’t fit”) three years ago and the university had to pay Gillispie (and lawyers) only $3 million for that privilege, even though, unbelievably, there had never been a signed contract. Getting rid of two coaches in a four-year period for only $5.55 million marks Barnhart as surely one of the wisest athletic directors in the nation. It’s a shame he isn’t teaching in the economics department instead of wasting his administrative genius on sports.
Contracts mean nothing in college sports. In order to come to UK, Barnhart was required to pay $100,000 to Oregon State for jumping his contract. Not to worry, UK paid that $100,000 for Barnhart, so he’s cost the institution $5.65 million…BUT UK has not been in trouble with the NCAA during his tenure, meaning he’s been smart enough to have someone see that violations don’t occur…or at least can’t be discovered...so far.
UK football coach Hal Mumme was fired in 2001 (before Barnhart’s tenure) and paid $1 million for that privilege. His immediate predecessor, Bill Curry, was fired but only for a measly $600,000. So…in the last 16 or so years, UK has paid a total of $7.25 million in buyouts to coaches it hired to extended contracts and then cancelled according to specifications noted in those contracts. Coaches and AD’s are smart enough to cover their backs financially.
UK paid Memphis State $200,000 to buy out current basketball coach John Calipari’s contract when Calipari came to UK in 2010, jumping his contract. So…the actual amount paid as an absolute loss financially stands at about seven-and-a-half million big ones. This is only what’s known about, considering the assistants who will be losing their jobs, but it’s only money. What could that squandered $7.5 million have meant academically, nearly all of it in just the last four years?
Just before he retired in 2011, UK Prexy Lee Todd, who had become Barnhart’s close friend (and benefactor), raised Barnhart’s salary by 26% to $600,000 (plus a myriad of “incentive” bonuses already in place) and locked him into his position until 2019, so firing him would be extremely costly.
On the basis of Wall Street establishments regarding huge bonuses for incompetence, Barnhart would probably own part of the UK campus by now. Currently, he’s among the highest paid AD’s in the SEC (second-highest last year).
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Benghazi
Benghazi was a massacre –
Some claimed it did not have to be,
Forewarned that it could well occur,
Officials met…did not agree;
For days and weeks the plea was raised
By those upon the Libyan sand
For greater force as buildings blazed,
Explosions heard throughout the land.
But president stood firm, declared
That brutal thugs were neutralized,
So, four who died were ill-prepared,
Their danger hardly realized
By those in power who would not heed
The warnings by those on the ground…
By bureaucrats who felt no need,
Who felt the warnings were not sound.
Predictably, the hammer fell,
Surprising no one on the ground,
As torture, murder then befell
Americans to terror bound;
But president could not admit
Assassination had not meant
That terrorism was forfeit
To one act of his intellect.
And so deception slyly drawn
Was foisted on the citizens,
The word was passed by just next dawn
Protesters there were denizens
Inflamed by film on Internet
Insulting their iconic god.
And then their forces, grimly met,
Grew violent to praise their god.
And praising Allah meant bloodshed
By Muslims throughout all the world,
But in Benghazi those four dead
Were not the targets of rocks hurled;
No…they were victims of attack
By terrorists well-trained to kill
And burn the buildings fiery black
With rockets, bullets and great skill.
The president knew within hours
Of all that happened in the night,
Indeed, officials watched for hours
The scene unfold, sometimes by sight
Through circling drone surveilling there,
The flames engulfing Consulate,
And dialogue with others there
Attacked elsewhere, who feared their fate.
Elections were two months away,
The president had campaigned hard
And tried with fervor to allay
The fear that jihad was not barred
By him or any other powers,
That terrorists still held full sway.
Benghazi, though, in those sad hours
Proved he was wrong, with hell to pay.
So…on next morn he made a speech,
Along with State Department head,
To the effect a U.S. leech
Had made a film that caused four dead;
It was a lie, as he knew well
But took that line for weeks to come,
It was a lie straight out of hell,
Should earn impeachment…thought by some.
United Nations was the scene,
The place to set the record straight
Two weeks beyond the deaths obscene,
Where life jihad would desecrate;
The president there made his speech
And blamed the film for frightful acts
And there the truth he did impeach –
His speech devoid of just the facts.
Perhaps he thought the people dumb
Or not concerned with truth and such
Or simply in recession – numb,
About most things not caring much;
He could be right, with nothing changed,
He could be wrong, still nothing changed,
But his response, so ill-arranged,
Will make a legacy deranged.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Some claimed it did not have to be,
Forewarned that it could well occur,
Officials met…did not agree;
For days and weeks the plea was raised
By those upon the Libyan sand
For greater force as buildings blazed,
Explosions heard throughout the land.
But president stood firm, declared
That brutal thugs were neutralized,
So, four who died were ill-prepared,
Their danger hardly realized
By those in power who would not heed
The warnings by those on the ground…
By bureaucrats who felt no need,
Who felt the warnings were not sound.
Predictably, the hammer fell,
Surprising no one on the ground,
As torture, murder then befell
Americans to terror bound;
But president could not admit
Assassination had not meant
That terrorism was forfeit
To one act of his intellect.
And so deception slyly drawn
Was foisted on the citizens,
The word was passed by just next dawn
Protesters there were denizens
Inflamed by film on Internet
Insulting their iconic god.
And then their forces, grimly met,
Grew violent to praise their god.
And praising Allah meant bloodshed
By Muslims throughout all the world,
But in Benghazi those four dead
Were not the targets of rocks hurled;
No…they were victims of attack
By terrorists well-trained to kill
And burn the buildings fiery black
With rockets, bullets and great skill.
The president knew within hours
Of all that happened in the night,
Indeed, officials watched for hours
The scene unfold, sometimes by sight
Through circling drone surveilling there,
The flames engulfing Consulate,
And dialogue with others there
Attacked elsewhere, who feared their fate.
Elections were two months away,
The president had campaigned hard
And tried with fervor to allay
The fear that jihad was not barred
By him or any other powers,
That terrorists still held full sway.
Benghazi, though, in those sad hours
Proved he was wrong, with hell to pay.
So…on next morn he made a speech,
Along with State Department head,
To the effect a U.S. leech
Had made a film that caused four dead;
It was a lie, as he knew well
But took that line for weeks to come,
It was a lie straight out of hell,
Should earn impeachment…thought by some.
United Nations was the scene,
The place to set the record straight
Two weeks beyond the deaths obscene,
Where life jihad would desecrate;
The president there made his speech
And blamed the film for frightful acts
And there the truth he did impeach –
His speech devoid of just the facts.
Perhaps he thought the people dumb
Or not concerned with truth and such
Or simply in recession – numb,
About most things not caring much;
He could be right, with nothing changed,
He could be wrong, still nothing changed,
But his response, so ill-arranged,
Will make a legacy deranged.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Sin-Tax Rides Again
Hunting for new revenue, the state administration (Kentucky) is angling for all the new taxes it can get away with. A possibility that has been floated is the increasing of taxes on a pack of cigarettes from 60 cents to $1.00. There’s no argument with this except that it just represents another example of the class warfare that marks the federal government these days, too. Let the smokers pay the freight!
The lead editorial in the Lexington Herald-Leader of 20 November was highly in favor of increasing the cigarette “sin tax” by the 50% mentioned above. Here is a claim in the editorial: “Type 2 diabetes is part of a grisly smorgasbord of disabling ailments that studies have linked to smoking.” Yeah…smoking contributes to heart disease, lung disease, throat disease and just about all other diseases anyone can imagine…probably a bad appendix, too.
However, the paper has been diligent in broadcasting the fact that OBESITY is a prime cause of diabetes, especially in Kentucky. Actually, obesity is a prime factor causing diabetes throughout the nation, whether people smoke or not. A prime factor in causing obesity/diabetes is the fact that the people – all people – have the nagging habit of eating, maybe half or more of them eating too much for their own good…so what else is new?
Would the obesity/diabetes problem be solved by installing a tax on food? Why not? Make the tax steep enough and folks will eat less, thus lowering their disposition toward diabetes. Of course, raising or leveling taxes on anything is designed to enhance revenue, meaning that if the tax discourages consumption the tax is useless or at least much smaller than anticipated.
Since such a tax would be much more discriminatory on retired folks or disabled folks or lazy folks, the old class warfare comes into play again. Or…why not base both the cigarette and food tax (and probably every tax) on the body-mass-index of people, thus making it attractive to be slim? Scanners in food-stores could instantly determine the BMI and charges adjusted accordingly. Again, loss of consumption means loss of taxes, so what’s a state to do?
A buyer can buy a horse in Kentucky for a cool million and pay no sales tax ($60,000) if he just ships it out of state. That’s a bone to the horse industry that’s indicative of how everything is done in Kentucky – based on the special interests of the people with enough money to buy from government anything they want. The horse can probably be shipped back later, but with its official residence somewhere else.
If there has to be an increase in the “sin tax” now, why not make it fair, the most destructive “sin” element in Kentucky being beverage alcohol? Imagine the amount of revenue to be collected if the current tax on alcohol were raised by 50%. Alcohol is known to cause everything from cirrhosis of the liver to brain damage to car/truck-wrecks that take thousands of lives every year. Beer-drinkers are known to stretch the bounds of (gasp) obesity/diabetes, just like cigarettes. Fair’s fair.
Okay…that introduces more class warfare, this time against the topers, unless, of course, booze is reclassified as a food, made of grain and all the rest. I don’t smoke and have never tasted beer or whiskey so I don’t have a dog in this fight tax-wise. What bothers me is the constant, unrelenting ability of the special interests to run the state. This includes all groups, from the teachers’ union to coal interests to tobacco growers to the horsy crowd to any outfit with the long-green.
According to a report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in September 2010, 20% of adults in the U.S. smoke. According to a report by Gallup in July 2010, 67% of U.S. adults drink alcohol. So…if revenue enhancement is a problem for the state and class warfare, as well as special interests, is to be the final arbiter of who pays the freight, a large part of the solution seems to be that the topers, who cause a great deal more misery, owe big-time, not the handful of smokers.
Alas, the smokers will probably get the hit, and if they don’t get out of the way fast enough, another kind of hit from a drunk driver.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
The lead editorial in the Lexington Herald-Leader of 20 November was highly in favor of increasing the cigarette “sin tax” by the 50% mentioned above. Here is a claim in the editorial: “Type 2 diabetes is part of a grisly smorgasbord of disabling ailments that studies have linked to smoking.” Yeah…smoking contributes to heart disease, lung disease, throat disease and just about all other diseases anyone can imagine…probably a bad appendix, too.
However, the paper has been diligent in broadcasting the fact that OBESITY is a prime cause of diabetes, especially in Kentucky. Actually, obesity is a prime factor causing diabetes throughout the nation, whether people smoke or not. A prime factor in causing obesity/diabetes is the fact that the people – all people – have the nagging habit of eating, maybe half or more of them eating too much for their own good…so what else is new?
Would the obesity/diabetes problem be solved by installing a tax on food? Why not? Make the tax steep enough and folks will eat less, thus lowering their disposition toward diabetes. Of course, raising or leveling taxes on anything is designed to enhance revenue, meaning that if the tax discourages consumption the tax is useless or at least much smaller than anticipated.
Since such a tax would be much more discriminatory on retired folks or disabled folks or lazy folks, the old class warfare comes into play again. Or…why not base both the cigarette and food tax (and probably every tax) on the body-mass-index of people, thus making it attractive to be slim? Scanners in food-stores could instantly determine the BMI and charges adjusted accordingly. Again, loss of consumption means loss of taxes, so what’s a state to do?
A buyer can buy a horse in Kentucky for a cool million and pay no sales tax ($60,000) if he just ships it out of state. That’s a bone to the horse industry that’s indicative of how everything is done in Kentucky – based on the special interests of the people with enough money to buy from government anything they want. The horse can probably be shipped back later, but with its official residence somewhere else.
If there has to be an increase in the “sin tax” now, why not make it fair, the most destructive “sin” element in Kentucky being beverage alcohol? Imagine the amount of revenue to be collected if the current tax on alcohol were raised by 50%. Alcohol is known to cause everything from cirrhosis of the liver to brain damage to car/truck-wrecks that take thousands of lives every year. Beer-drinkers are known to stretch the bounds of (gasp) obesity/diabetes, just like cigarettes. Fair’s fair.
Okay…that introduces more class warfare, this time against the topers, unless, of course, booze is reclassified as a food, made of grain and all the rest. I don’t smoke and have never tasted beer or whiskey so I don’t have a dog in this fight tax-wise. What bothers me is the constant, unrelenting ability of the special interests to run the state. This includes all groups, from the teachers’ union to coal interests to tobacco growers to the horsy crowd to any outfit with the long-green.
According to a report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in September 2010, 20% of adults in the U.S. smoke. According to a report by Gallup in July 2010, 67% of U.S. adults drink alcohol. So…if revenue enhancement is a problem for the state and class warfare, as well as special interests, is to be the final arbiter of who pays the freight, a large part of the solution seems to be that the topers, who cause a great deal more misery, owe big-time, not the handful of smokers.
Alas, the smokers will probably get the hit, and if they don’t get out of the way fast enough, another kind of hit from a drunk driver.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Friday, November 16, 2012
Re-Shuffling Time
One looks at the current scene in the capital and wonders whether to laugh, cry, take a sedative or kick the cat. It’s new-appointment time so speculation has to do with who will succeed State Secretary Clinton, who has stayed out of the country since the Benghazi Massacre and is (or was – who knows?) now in Australia in her important role as official U.S. wine-taster. Defense Secretary Panetta has also been absent quite a lot and in Australia, perhaps to check out Aussie beer.
UN Ambassador Rice has been all but deified to take Clinton’s place, and she has the main credential, namely, an inordinate ability to lie. Clinton graphically described her 1996 narrow escape from terrorist-snipers in Bosnia during the 2008 campaign (ran for her life, with Chelsea hanging on). It didn’t happen, of course, as the film she should have known about proved. It was a monstrous lie. Her latest monstrous LIE about Benghazi and the infamous film has cemented her fitness for office (actually grounds for an immediate firing).
Rice lied to five major networks on the same day about what happened at Benghazi but the president took her off the hook in his 14 November press conference (the first in 8 months), simply stating that she reported what she’d been told, but didn’t say who lied to her. He also said he would, if he desired, nominate her, despite statements by Senators McCain and Graham (“outrageous,” the cads) that they would work to defeat the nomination, as if they could in Harry Reid’s dysfunctional Senate.
Defense Secretary Panetta is said to be on the way out, too, so a replacement must be found. Senator John Kerry has expressed an interest in the State job and perhaps in the Defense slot as well. He carries some baggage, of course, in both areas. When he cashed in his Purple Hearts in the Vietnam conflict (lost about a half-day’s work account serious wounds, one self-inflicted), he returned to Naval Reserve status and went to Paris to meet with North Vietnamese folks and undercut U.S. efforts to end that conflict, not that a lowly navy lieutenant actually mattered, no matter the size of his ego then, and still huge. That was state-department business.
He also threw his medals “over the fence somewhere” in a sort of hippy-dippy “Jane Fonda protest,” an extreme act of “loyalty” to the Navy (denied later). As a result, he was “swift-boated” by the Naval officers who knew him back in the day and who helped him lose his bid for the presidency in 2004.
Kerry voted for before he voted against the Iraq action, perhaps checking some poll or other to have his mind made up for him. He is definitely not secretary material for either job and a Senate hearing concerning either would be the best show in town. Especially since Kerry has continued his deceptions in campaigns as recent as 2004, every senator should read or reread the extremely well-documented (19 pages of notes) Unfit for Command before even considering him for any position. A greater fraud than Obama, he’s a pathetic liar and a disgrace, but that might qualify him in this administration.
Geithner will be leaving as Treasury Secretary. He’d cheated Uncle Sam out of four years worth of taxes when nominated in 2009 but paid up for only two (seems like about $38,000) since the other two dissolved account statute of limitations and he was too, too patriotic to pay an honest debt anyway. Obama nominated or was about to nominate some other tax-cheaters to jobs but they bowed out, as was not the case with former Senator Daschle, who paid up well over $100,000 but was too smeared anyway to get a job.
This tendency to cheat on taxes, of course, makes Daschle the front-runner for the Treasury job but he may have skipped some other tax-payments in the interim and may prefer not to pay up only to lose another costly chance at being a bureaucratic nabob anyway. Majority Leader Reid might be right for Treasury based on his information during the campaign that Romney had paid no taxes for ten years. A LIE of that magnitude qualifies him for any position in the cabinet.
Jack Abramoff, lobbyist extraordinaire, has been out of jail for a couple or so years and has even written a book about Washington corruption, so he might be a good choice for Treasury…he knows how to handle and mishandle money. Maybe Bernie Madoff could be sprung from his 150-year sentence to handle Treasury. Maybe he could cheat Europe and India out of a few trillion.
Of course, musical chairs could be in order for the cabinet. Homeland Security diva Napolitano might fit in at State. She had the wisdom to replace the term “terrorism” with “man-caused-disaster,” and warned early-on about keeping an eye on those potentially dangerous GIs retuning from the Middle East. She could be replaced by Attorney General Holder, who sues whole states when they have the audacity (of Hope) to enforce federal laws, keeping in line the administration’s anti-state posture.
The vice president has very little to do so maybe he could take over Holder’s bailiwick and sue the Catholic Church for daring to question the judicious use of abortions as population-control.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
UN Ambassador Rice has been all but deified to take Clinton’s place, and she has the main credential, namely, an inordinate ability to lie. Clinton graphically described her 1996 narrow escape from terrorist-snipers in Bosnia during the 2008 campaign (ran for her life, with Chelsea hanging on). It didn’t happen, of course, as the film she should have known about proved. It was a monstrous lie. Her latest monstrous LIE about Benghazi and the infamous film has cemented her fitness for office (actually grounds for an immediate firing).
Rice lied to five major networks on the same day about what happened at Benghazi but the president took her off the hook in his 14 November press conference (the first in 8 months), simply stating that she reported what she’d been told, but didn’t say who lied to her. He also said he would, if he desired, nominate her, despite statements by Senators McCain and Graham (“outrageous,” the cads) that they would work to defeat the nomination, as if they could in Harry Reid’s dysfunctional Senate.
Defense Secretary Panetta is said to be on the way out, too, so a replacement must be found. Senator John Kerry has expressed an interest in the State job and perhaps in the Defense slot as well. He carries some baggage, of course, in both areas. When he cashed in his Purple Hearts in the Vietnam conflict (lost about a half-day’s work account serious wounds, one self-inflicted), he returned to Naval Reserve status and went to Paris to meet with North Vietnamese folks and undercut U.S. efforts to end that conflict, not that a lowly navy lieutenant actually mattered, no matter the size of his ego then, and still huge. That was state-department business.
He also threw his medals “over the fence somewhere” in a sort of hippy-dippy “Jane Fonda protest,” an extreme act of “loyalty” to the Navy (denied later). As a result, he was “swift-boated” by the Naval officers who knew him back in the day and who helped him lose his bid for the presidency in 2004.
Kerry voted for before he voted against the Iraq action, perhaps checking some poll or other to have his mind made up for him. He is definitely not secretary material for either job and a Senate hearing concerning either would be the best show in town. Especially since Kerry has continued his deceptions in campaigns as recent as 2004, every senator should read or reread the extremely well-documented (19 pages of notes) Unfit for Command before even considering him for any position. A greater fraud than Obama, he’s a pathetic liar and a disgrace, but that might qualify him in this administration.
Geithner will be leaving as Treasury Secretary. He’d cheated Uncle Sam out of four years worth of taxes when nominated in 2009 but paid up for only two (seems like about $38,000) since the other two dissolved account statute of limitations and he was too, too patriotic to pay an honest debt anyway. Obama nominated or was about to nominate some other tax-cheaters to jobs but they bowed out, as was not the case with former Senator Daschle, who paid up well over $100,000 but was too smeared anyway to get a job.
This tendency to cheat on taxes, of course, makes Daschle the front-runner for the Treasury job but he may have skipped some other tax-payments in the interim and may prefer not to pay up only to lose another costly chance at being a bureaucratic nabob anyway. Majority Leader Reid might be right for Treasury based on his information during the campaign that Romney had paid no taxes for ten years. A LIE of that magnitude qualifies him for any position in the cabinet.
Jack Abramoff, lobbyist extraordinaire, has been out of jail for a couple or so years and has even written a book about Washington corruption, so he might be a good choice for Treasury…he knows how to handle and mishandle money. Maybe Bernie Madoff could be sprung from his 150-year sentence to handle Treasury. Maybe he could cheat Europe and India out of a few trillion.
Of course, musical chairs could be in order for the cabinet. Homeland Security diva Napolitano might fit in at State. She had the wisdom to replace the term “terrorism” with “man-caused-disaster,” and warned early-on about keeping an eye on those potentially dangerous GIs retuning from the Middle East. She could be replaced by Attorney General Holder, who sues whole states when they have the audacity (of Hope) to enforce federal laws, keeping in line the administration’s anti-state posture.
The vice president has very little to do so maybe he could take over Holder’s bailiwick and sue the Catholic Church for daring to question the judicious use of abortions as population-control.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Monday, November 12, 2012
Women - Protected Species?
After each election, the editorial board at the Lexington Herald-Leader, Lexington, Ky., can be expected to deliver a commentary bashing white men, the implication being that they have ruined the country and kept women and minorities from assuming their rightful places in government, in the bargain. Ditto for this year. The thrust of the editorial of 09 November was that there isn’t enough DIVERSITY in Kentucky government, with the usual statistics to show that evil white men are threatening again, up to their old tricks.
Ironically, the second paragraph of the editorial included the news that the presidential election was not primarily decided by white men but by women (the largest segment of the population, more than half) and people of color. A little farther on came the claim that “we will be left behind” if the white-male MINORITY continues to run things. The editorialist probably did not see a strange conflict there, but the paper’s bias is what it is. One thinks logically that the victims (women, a majority, plus minorities) could vote the white-male bums out of office and replace them with saints from the regions of gender and color but, alas, such seems hard to do.
It makes sense to the H-L that women and minorities should take their places according to their percentage of the population – seems perfectly reasonable. How would it be if half of all the infantrymen (make that infantrypersons) in the army were women when wartime came around? Or policemen? Or firemen? Or power-forwards in the NBA or linebackers in the NFL? Silly? Of course!
The actual statistics relating to the above were carved out by the people with the credentials to do those jobs. Women make up 13.5% of the army but they are officially precluded from combat for reasons that are perfectly obvious, as found out quickly when integrated boot camps were tried. A similar circumstance obtains for the other professions mentioned. Parity is good for some things but not others, presumably. Even the editorialist might agree…nah…probably not.
Okay…those are physical things. Officeholders don’t need strong backs…they need strong minds and ambition. In Kentucky, there may be far more of the latter than the former but there’s nothing stopping women and minorities from attempting the heavy non-physical lifting that leads to the electorate and the bureaucracy. Indeed, women outnumber men handily now on college campuses and make up more than 45% of law school students so surely they have the strong minds. Constantly caterwauling about their mistreatment got old long ago but the editorialist seems not to have noticed.
As usual, the editorial cited the fact that women make about $10,000 per year less than men in Kentucky, with the supposed implication being that the legislature should do something about that, never mind that market-economics dictate who gets what and how much, not the government, something learned in economics 101. Wage and price controls have been tried and failed, of course, although the current administration in Washington seems hell-bent upon bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator level.
This brings one to the admittedly chauvinistic question, to wit, is there some inherent superiority in women that qualifies them to be treated deferentially? Are their intelligence and drive so off-the-charts that in their over-qualification they must be a protected species, thus exempting them from contending in the hard games of politics and everything else? Physical strength is not noted. One has only to guess what might happen to a woman playing right tackle for the Giants even if she measured 275-lb., stood 6-4, and was hopped-up on steroids and did breast-feeding on the bench.
Predictably, the usual red herring is dwelt upon in the editorial, namely, that over half the single-parent families headed by women with young children in Kentucky live in poverty. No mention was made of the single-parent families headed by men. Maybe there aren’t any of those. The editorialist stated that many if not all the economic issues debated on the state and national levels are “women’s issues.” That doesn’t leave very many if any as men’s issues, but men are the devils (especially those evil minority-WHITE men) who got everything out-of-whack in the first place…right?
As for the single-mom poverty…72.1% and 35.9%, respectively, of black and white babies are born with no fathers of record, according to the Centers for Disease Control. In other words, women lack the power and supposedly the wit NOT to get in the poverty position? Men can be fornicators and adulterers but only women can be recognized as prostitutes or dumb or unlucky enough to get hooked up with the wrong guy, whether legally or otherwise. Constantly whining about what is mostly just being sex-happy won’t change a thing, and a lot of those poor gals probably are not all that unhappy with Uncle Sugar feeding their kids, doling out food stamps and checks, and paying 80% of their rent while they pig-out on cheeseburgers and fries, anyway.
Or…they can always go to San Francisco, where it was noted in the same issue of the paper that the government will finance all sex-change processes for those who can’t afford them. Then they can become single-dads and step up a notch.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Ironically, the second paragraph of the editorial included the news that the presidential election was not primarily decided by white men but by women (the largest segment of the population, more than half) and people of color. A little farther on came the claim that “we will be left behind” if the white-male MINORITY continues to run things. The editorialist probably did not see a strange conflict there, but the paper’s bias is what it is. One thinks logically that the victims (women, a majority, plus minorities) could vote the white-male bums out of office and replace them with saints from the regions of gender and color but, alas, such seems hard to do.
It makes sense to the H-L that women and minorities should take their places according to their percentage of the population – seems perfectly reasonable. How would it be if half of all the infantrymen (make that infantrypersons) in the army were women when wartime came around? Or policemen? Or firemen? Or power-forwards in the NBA or linebackers in the NFL? Silly? Of course!
The actual statistics relating to the above were carved out by the people with the credentials to do those jobs. Women make up 13.5% of the army but they are officially precluded from combat for reasons that are perfectly obvious, as found out quickly when integrated boot camps were tried. A similar circumstance obtains for the other professions mentioned. Parity is good for some things but not others, presumably. Even the editorialist might agree…nah…probably not.
Okay…those are physical things. Officeholders don’t need strong backs…they need strong minds and ambition. In Kentucky, there may be far more of the latter than the former but there’s nothing stopping women and minorities from attempting the heavy non-physical lifting that leads to the electorate and the bureaucracy. Indeed, women outnumber men handily now on college campuses and make up more than 45% of law school students so surely they have the strong minds. Constantly caterwauling about their mistreatment got old long ago but the editorialist seems not to have noticed.
As usual, the editorial cited the fact that women make about $10,000 per year less than men in Kentucky, with the supposed implication being that the legislature should do something about that, never mind that market-economics dictate who gets what and how much, not the government, something learned in economics 101. Wage and price controls have been tried and failed, of course, although the current administration in Washington seems hell-bent upon bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator level.
This brings one to the admittedly chauvinistic question, to wit, is there some inherent superiority in women that qualifies them to be treated deferentially? Are their intelligence and drive so off-the-charts that in their over-qualification they must be a protected species, thus exempting them from contending in the hard games of politics and everything else? Physical strength is not noted. One has only to guess what might happen to a woman playing right tackle for the Giants even if she measured 275-lb., stood 6-4, and was hopped-up on steroids and did breast-feeding on the bench.
Predictably, the usual red herring is dwelt upon in the editorial, namely, that over half the single-parent families headed by women with young children in Kentucky live in poverty. No mention was made of the single-parent families headed by men. Maybe there aren’t any of those. The editorialist stated that many if not all the economic issues debated on the state and national levels are “women’s issues.” That doesn’t leave very many if any as men’s issues, but men are the devils (especially those evil minority-WHITE men) who got everything out-of-whack in the first place…right?
As for the single-mom poverty…72.1% and 35.9%, respectively, of black and white babies are born with no fathers of record, according to the Centers for Disease Control. In other words, women lack the power and supposedly the wit NOT to get in the poverty position? Men can be fornicators and adulterers but only women can be recognized as prostitutes or dumb or unlucky enough to get hooked up with the wrong guy, whether legally or otherwise. Constantly whining about what is mostly just being sex-happy won’t change a thing, and a lot of those poor gals probably are not all that unhappy with Uncle Sugar feeding their kids, doling out food stamps and checks, and paying 80% of their rent while they pig-out on cheeseburgers and fries, anyway.
Or…they can always go to San Francisco, where it was noted in the same issue of the paper that the government will finance all sex-change processes for those who can’t afford them. Then they can become single-dads and step up a notch.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Thursday, November 08, 2012
The Meaning of 47%
Though Romney mentioned the figure “47%” in what was more a planning meeting than a rally or speech, it is now clear what he meant and what many have said for a while. When 47% of the adult population pays no taxes, it can be expected that most of that group will vote for the candidate whose main contention is that the nation can be run on the backs of the people who DO pay taxes. That’s nearly half the vote, and that candidate has just been reinstalled for another four years.
The consensus is that some 23 million people who allegedly would work if they could find a fulltime job are not working, so part of a conclusion is that many of them won’t bother to look hard for work because somehow the government will take care of them. This means they also will not buy products, the production of which makes jobs, because they won’t have the money to make purchases. They also will not become part of the tax-base, and so the vicious circle expands.
The thought in this corner is that the just completed election was pivotal, i.e., the nation, instead of returning to the capitalistic system of government that has made it the envy of the world, will continue on the current road to becoming a welfare (socialistic) nation. The healthcare law was the last bit of pavement applied to that road, and it’s hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel.
The chief whiners for special consideration – women, Latinos, blacks – furnished the immense pluralities with regard to wedge issues, but the net effect was economic. This is strange in that the law of the land allows for abortion on demand, the women’s main issue, so they could have voted their pocketbooks instead of their emotions. The president likely wants free condoms for women but in fits of passion they might not…
Latinos are scared out of their skulls over immigration, so they went for the guy who will attempt now a universal program of amnesty, never mind what his pre-election rhetoric has been. The democrat party stands to gain from a huge influx of Mexicans, especially, since this group is rapidly becoming the largest ethnic group in the nation already. Latinos voted their emotions but they killed the economy in the process. In many places, they also form a large welfare group being sustained by those who work. Think bankrupt California.
The blacks did what the blacks always do – voted a welfare-state setup (Democrat Party), meaning a tremendous drain on the treasury to sustain all the entitlements of the sixties plus all of the entitlements of one kind or another since then. The black family has virtually ceased to exist as one result of all the welfare. This is a generational matter now firmly entrenched. It will not improve, as 72.1% of all black births involve no father of record (2010), meaning single-mother, poor families that will be sustained by the government at great cost…a permanent underclass.
It sounds racist to bring up any of this but the demographics are what’s killing the system. It could be worse. In 2007, for instance (last available figures), there were 480 abortions among black women for each 1,000 live births, nearly half, so the insensitive way to look at that is that the welfare problem could be much worse absent that circumstance. Among white women, it was bad (or good), also, with 144 abortions for each 1,000 live births.
This situation has obtained for decades; otherwise, the population of the nation since Roe/Wade would probably include some 70 million or more people, result of both abortions (about 52 million) and the possible progeny of the earliest abortions, beginning 40 years ago. Making abortions as part of “healthcare” is quite cost-efficient, in other words, getting rid of the little fetuses, saving billions down the road.
Sixty-two percent of white men and 56% of white women voted for Romney, but 98% of black men and 99% of black women and 71% of all Latinos voted for Obama, according to exit polls. The conclusion to be drawn is obvious. Just as in 2008, the whites (72% of all voters) who voted for Obama, actually elected him, so racism is not operative.
The most damning figures relative to the economy are that 60% and 52%, respectively, of those in the age groups 19-29 and 30-44 voted for Obama, meaning that they have bought into welfare-as-normal. While it sounds politically incorrect to say it, this amounts to an amazing ignorance of how the nation has functioned until the last decade. This includes college students, who even now can’t find work upon graduation and could hardly expect anything to get better, at least soon, in a new Obama administration, which believes in taxing the workers – and not just the wealthiest, who already pay by far the most taxes – to support the non-producers.
As George Will wrote recently, in the 64 years (816 months) from Truman to Bush 43, there were 39 months of unemployment at 8% or above. In Obama’s tenure of just 46 months, that circumstance obtained in 43 months, 10% worse in just 5% of the time. Unbelievably, he was reelected. Unfortunately, unless he learns economics 101, this will continue. The unemployment rate – all things considered – is much worse than 8% now.
That tipping-point has arrived.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
The consensus is that some 23 million people who allegedly would work if they could find a fulltime job are not working, so part of a conclusion is that many of them won’t bother to look hard for work because somehow the government will take care of them. This means they also will not buy products, the production of which makes jobs, because they won’t have the money to make purchases. They also will not become part of the tax-base, and so the vicious circle expands.
The thought in this corner is that the just completed election was pivotal, i.e., the nation, instead of returning to the capitalistic system of government that has made it the envy of the world, will continue on the current road to becoming a welfare (socialistic) nation. The healthcare law was the last bit of pavement applied to that road, and it’s hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel.
The chief whiners for special consideration – women, Latinos, blacks – furnished the immense pluralities with regard to wedge issues, but the net effect was economic. This is strange in that the law of the land allows for abortion on demand, the women’s main issue, so they could have voted their pocketbooks instead of their emotions. The president likely wants free condoms for women but in fits of passion they might not…
Latinos are scared out of their skulls over immigration, so they went for the guy who will attempt now a universal program of amnesty, never mind what his pre-election rhetoric has been. The democrat party stands to gain from a huge influx of Mexicans, especially, since this group is rapidly becoming the largest ethnic group in the nation already. Latinos voted their emotions but they killed the economy in the process. In many places, they also form a large welfare group being sustained by those who work. Think bankrupt California.
The blacks did what the blacks always do – voted a welfare-state setup (Democrat Party), meaning a tremendous drain on the treasury to sustain all the entitlements of the sixties plus all of the entitlements of one kind or another since then. The black family has virtually ceased to exist as one result of all the welfare. This is a generational matter now firmly entrenched. It will not improve, as 72.1% of all black births involve no father of record (2010), meaning single-mother, poor families that will be sustained by the government at great cost…a permanent underclass.
It sounds racist to bring up any of this but the demographics are what’s killing the system. It could be worse. In 2007, for instance (last available figures), there were 480 abortions among black women for each 1,000 live births, nearly half, so the insensitive way to look at that is that the welfare problem could be much worse absent that circumstance. Among white women, it was bad (or good), also, with 144 abortions for each 1,000 live births.
This situation has obtained for decades; otherwise, the population of the nation since Roe/Wade would probably include some 70 million or more people, result of both abortions (about 52 million) and the possible progeny of the earliest abortions, beginning 40 years ago. Making abortions as part of “healthcare” is quite cost-efficient, in other words, getting rid of the little fetuses, saving billions down the road.
Sixty-two percent of white men and 56% of white women voted for Romney, but 98% of black men and 99% of black women and 71% of all Latinos voted for Obama, according to exit polls. The conclusion to be drawn is obvious. Just as in 2008, the whites (72% of all voters) who voted for Obama, actually elected him, so racism is not operative.
The most damning figures relative to the economy are that 60% and 52%, respectively, of those in the age groups 19-29 and 30-44 voted for Obama, meaning that they have bought into welfare-as-normal. While it sounds politically incorrect to say it, this amounts to an amazing ignorance of how the nation has functioned until the last decade. This includes college students, who even now can’t find work upon graduation and could hardly expect anything to get better, at least soon, in a new Obama administration, which believes in taxing the workers – and not just the wealthiest, who already pay by far the most taxes – to support the non-producers.
As George Will wrote recently, in the 64 years (816 months) from Truman to Bush 43, there were 39 months of unemployment at 8% or above. In Obama’s tenure of just 46 months, that circumstance obtained in 43 months, 10% worse in just 5% of the time. Unbelievably, he was reelected. Unfortunately, unless he learns economics 101, this will continue. The unemployment rate – all things considered – is much worse than 8% now.
That tipping-point has arrived.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Sunday, November 04, 2012
Columnist – Fully Evolved or…?
In an Op-Ed piece in the Lexington Herald-Leader of 03 November, Roger Guffey, a retired math teacher, took to task Georgia Congressman Paul Proun, a physician, account Proun’s dissing of human evolution. One supposes Proun has studied the human body about as well as Guffey but is the object of the predictable sarcasm accorded by the elitist evolutionists to those daring to disagree. In this case, Guffey is glad Proun is not from Kentucky, where, presumably, Guffey thinks idiots are expected to live…maybe not having evolved as fast as others from the…say, Neanderthal stage.
Guffey asks a series of questions which he seems to believe science incontrovertibly endorses as answers, therefore facts. Guffey asks why animals are tortured (his take on experiments) in order to find cures for human ailments, if evolution does not rule. The best answer might be another question, to wit, why haven’t animals tortured humans to find cures for their ills. The reason is obvious but anathema to the evolutionist or the politically correct, to whom the god of diversity mandates animals and humans to be on the same level.
Guffey asks why hemoglobins of humans and chimpanzees are “almost identical” but “very different” from those of dogs. He didn’t answer that but seems to mean that humans and chimps have evolved (didn’t say in which direction) while dogs haven’t, but doesn’t the true evolutionist believe that EVERYTHING evolved from a one-cell something? Humans and chickens have two lower limbs (almost identical?) but both are “very different” from snails. So what!
Guffey implies that snake venom is processed for injections to save humans bitten by snakes. Conclusion: Snakes and humans are in the same evolutionary chain? That might be news to most “evolution” anthropologists. His reasoning seems to be that all things share “some underlying physiological principles.” Well, of course! Physiological is defined as: “characteristic of or appropriate to an organism's healthy or normal functioning.” One hopes for healthy snakes and healthy humans no matter their origins. Who wants venom from an unhealthy snake?
Guffey mentions that pig heart-valves are successfully implanted in humans, thus establishing pigs somewhere in the chain. He didn’t say where. Plastic valves are also implanted in human hearts and they work fine. Is that because of the physiological attributes of the plastic, which is not a living organism at all? Among other components, plastic is made up of resins that come naturally from trees. Does that establish an evolutionary connection between human tissue and pine bark?
Guffey mentions that some babies are “occasionally” born with tails as extensions of the tailbone (human, presumably), implying the evolutionary connection between humans and apes. Some babies are born with Downs Syndrome or without limbs or an extra kidney or blind or as homosexuals, at least according to some regarding the latter. Exactly how do those “accidents of birth” fit into the evolutionary process?
Guffey’s shtick, of course, is that the actual explanation of the universe and everything in it is or will be found in science. He also mentions the Big Bang theory of beginnings, for instance, as characterized by Proun as a “lie.” There’s no argument here with science, by using which great discoveries are made every day that eventuate in a constantly improving standard of living.
Guffey’s actual, predictable hang-up with Proun, however, derives from religion, in which millions of people find their own answers as to the beginnings of and the consequent course of nature, including people, something those who actually have no explanation for the beginnings (scientists like Guffey) resent anyone else having. God can’t be seen, weighed, has no atomic number and therefore can’t exist, or at least can’t create anything.
On this “religious” note, Guffey ends his article, stating dogmatically that Proun “clearly feels comfortable citing Biblical verses that support his view of the world.” Problem: Guffey didn’t cite a single verse he accused Proun of citing, unusual for a scientist, whose mantra is “facts developed through research.”
Guffey’s final shot at Proun notes that Proun has been married four times and wonders if Proun “is as comfortable citing the verses on divorce” or just cherry-picks passages attracting voters. Is as comfortable as what? Well…as comfortable as citing the verses Guffey cited that Proun cited, which, of course, was none. And this is a treatise by a scientist?
Religionists claim that man was created by God essentially as is, has evolved from nothing, has been changed only slightly by his environment, and possesses a soul, another thing that can’t even be found, like a liver or a spleen, so for the math teacher it can’t exist; otherwise, it would surely have appeared in the evolutionary timeline by now.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Guffey asks a series of questions which he seems to believe science incontrovertibly endorses as answers, therefore facts. Guffey asks why animals are tortured (his take on experiments) in order to find cures for human ailments, if evolution does not rule. The best answer might be another question, to wit, why haven’t animals tortured humans to find cures for their ills. The reason is obvious but anathema to the evolutionist or the politically correct, to whom the god of diversity mandates animals and humans to be on the same level.
Guffey asks why hemoglobins of humans and chimpanzees are “almost identical” but “very different” from those of dogs. He didn’t answer that but seems to mean that humans and chimps have evolved (didn’t say in which direction) while dogs haven’t, but doesn’t the true evolutionist believe that EVERYTHING evolved from a one-cell something? Humans and chickens have two lower limbs (almost identical?) but both are “very different” from snails. So what!
Guffey implies that snake venom is processed for injections to save humans bitten by snakes. Conclusion: Snakes and humans are in the same evolutionary chain? That might be news to most “evolution” anthropologists. His reasoning seems to be that all things share “some underlying physiological principles.” Well, of course! Physiological is defined as: “characteristic of or appropriate to an organism's healthy or normal functioning.” One hopes for healthy snakes and healthy humans no matter their origins. Who wants venom from an unhealthy snake?
Guffey mentions that pig heart-valves are successfully implanted in humans, thus establishing pigs somewhere in the chain. He didn’t say where. Plastic valves are also implanted in human hearts and they work fine. Is that because of the physiological attributes of the plastic, which is not a living organism at all? Among other components, plastic is made up of resins that come naturally from trees. Does that establish an evolutionary connection between human tissue and pine bark?
Guffey mentions that some babies are “occasionally” born with tails as extensions of the tailbone (human, presumably), implying the evolutionary connection between humans and apes. Some babies are born with Downs Syndrome or without limbs or an extra kidney or blind or as homosexuals, at least according to some regarding the latter. Exactly how do those “accidents of birth” fit into the evolutionary process?
Guffey’s shtick, of course, is that the actual explanation of the universe and everything in it is or will be found in science. He also mentions the Big Bang theory of beginnings, for instance, as characterized by Proun as a “lie.” There’s no argument here with science, by using which great discoveries are made every day that eventuate in a constantly improving standard of living.
Guffey’s actual, predictable hang-up with Proun, however, derives from religion, in which millions of people find their own answers as to the beginnings of and the consequent course of nature, including people, something those who actually have no explanation for the beginnings (scientists like Guffey) resent anyone else having. God can’t be seen, weighed, has no atomic number and therefore can’t exist, or at least can’t create anything.
On this “religious” note, Guffey ends his article, stating dogmatically that Proun “clearly feels comfortable citing Biblical verses that support his view of the world.” Problem: Guffey didn’t cite a single verse he accused Proun of citing, unusual for a scientist, whose mantra is “facts developed through research.”
Guffey’s final shot at Proun notes that Proun has been married four times and wonders if Proun “is as comfortable citing the verses on divorce” or just cherry-picks passages attracting voters. Is as comfortable as what? Well…as comfortable as citing the verses Guffey cited that Proun cited, which, of course, was none. And this is a treatise by a scientist?
Religionists claim that man was created by God essentially as is, has evolved from nothing, has been changed only slightly by his environment, and possesses a soul, another thing that can’t even be found, like a liver or a spleen, so for the math teacher it can’t exist; otherwise, it would surely have appeared in the evolutionary timeline by now.
By the way, one wonders what sort of creature Guffey, as part of the “chain,” is evolving into right now.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Thursday, November 01, 2012
Anyone Seen Hillary?
Has anyone seen State Secretary Clinton lately? She was very prominent in the Rose Garden with President Obama on 12 September, when the impression was given that the “Benghazi Massacre” eventuated from the temper tantrum thrown by Libyans occasioned by a film showing Mohammad as a number of bad things, all of which are true. She later very publicly declared that the filmmaker would be arrested and prosecuted.
Whoa! Prosecuted for what? Never mind her exalted status as a graduate of the Yale Law School, she either didn’t know that prosecution for exercising freedom of speech (the film) is not possible or she knew by then that the guy could be canned for a parole violation of some sort or both or none. She wouldn’t have said that absent permission from Obama, a Harvard Law guy, although any prosecution for anything would be announced by the appropriate federal prosecutor, not the president or the state secretary.
To say that Clinton has taken a low profile since the egregious gaffes (actually outright lies) took place is to understate the situation. The film had nothing to do with the bombings and deaths of four Americans, even though the administration insisted that to be the case for days but finally realized too late for the learning that reporters had apparently ferreted out gazillions more information than anyone in the government. As a result, Obama and Clinton – as well as their apparatchiks – have been exposed as perpetrators of a cover-up far more serious than any attempted by Richard Nixon, who resigned under pressure.
Clinton should have been fired on the spot no later than 14 September, but the president couldn’t do that because he was not only a co-conspirator but the official actually responsible for the attempt at cover-up. Instead, as late as 16 September, UN Ambassador Rice was spouting this known LIE on five major networks. The administration-think (by wacky wonks) apparently was that the great unwashed would never catch-on or if they did would not care one way or another.
Now, it’s known that the proper investigative group that should have gone to Benghazi was not even activated; rather, the president sent (or tried to) the FBI, making the terrorist attack a simple crime. Weird but explainable…to have done the right thing would have been to admit that terrorism is alive and well in Libya, the terrorism brought on by Obama’s stellar leading from behind last year.
Well…Clinton got out of Dodge, and none too soon because the brickbats are flying. It would be even worse if the hurricane hadn’t hit the east coast and captivated attention for a few days, but the subject won’t go away, despite the fact that the “mainstream media” won’t touch the Benghazi affair with a ten-foot hard-drive.
The fact is that the president should be quickly impeached; indeed, he should have been impeached last year when he attacked defenseless and un-provocative Libya, in the first place. If he’s reelected, the first thing the House should do is handle articles of impeachment. Conviction and expulsion from office would not happen in the Senate but the point ought to be made that declaring a war without Congressional fiat and then covering up an egregious dereliction of duty should not go unpunished in some way. People on the ground in Libya had been imploring the administration over and over to send more security. Clinton’s outfit refused but the buck lay on Obama’s desk, as he finally admitted under pressure.
So…where is dear Hillary these days? As noted way over on page 10 of the Lexington Herald-Leader, Lexington, Ky., she has been gracing Croatia with her presence and straightening out the situation in Syria. Croatia, one remembers, is next-door to Bosnia, where Hillary claimed during her 2008 campaign to beat out Obama that she had to run and flee sniper fire in 1996, never mind the monstrous measure of that LIE. She was met on he tarmac by a welcoming party complete with the traditional child for a big hug. Of course, that’s Hillary just being…well, Hillary.
For a long time, Hillary has been dealing with something called the Syrian National Council, apparently some sort of group of Syrians in exile but has finally decided that she’s getting nowhere and stated in Croatia (one wonders why she was in Croatia) that some sort of consortium had to be formed with people doing the fighting (insurrectionists) being represented. She has pushed for a clambake in Doha, Qatar, next week, at which hundreds seem to be expected – the more the merrier – to figure out how to get Assad out of office.
The actual effort has to do with deciding just who among the rebels should be given guns, about the same as with Libya last year. The results of that are seen in the current movement of ammo and al Qaeda types to Syria to cause as much bloodshed as possible there. There are already enough guns in the Middle East to take care of wars for much of the rest of the millennium, but the U.S. has to keep playing the Ugly American and adding fuel to the fire…and, oh yes…helping Obama look PRESIDENTIAL!
Disgusting!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Whoa! Prosecuted for what? Never mind her exalted status as a graduate of the Yale Law School, she either didn’t know that prosecution for exercising freedom of speech (the film) is not possible or she knew by then that the guy could be canned for a parole violation of some sort or both or none. She wouldn’t have said that absent permission from Obama, a Harvard Law guy, although any prosecution for anything would be announced by the appropriate federal prosecutor, not the president or the state secretary.
To say that Clinton has taken a low profile since the egregious gaffes (actually outright lies) took place is to understate the situation. The film had nothing to do with the bombings and deaths of four Americans, even though the administration insisted that to be the case for days but finally realized too late for the learning that reporters had apparently ferreted out gazillions more information than anyone in the government. As a result, Obama and Clinton – as well as their apparatchiks – have been exposed as perpetrators of a cover-up far more serious than any attempted by Richard Nixon, who resigned under pressure.
Clinton should have been fired on the spot no later than 14 September, but the president couldn’t do that because he was not only a co-conspirator but the official actually responsible for the attempt at cover-up. Instead, as late as 16 September, UN Ambassador Rice was spouting this known LIE on five major networks. The administration-think (by wacky wonks) apparently was that the great unwashed would never catch-on or if they did would not care one way or another.
Now, it’s known that the proper investigative group that should have gone to Benghazi was not even activated; rather, the president sent (or tried to) the FBI, making the terrorist attack a simple crime. Weird but explainable…to have done the right thing would have been to admit that terrorism is alive and well in Libya, the terrorism brought on by Obama’s stellar leading from behind last year.
Well…Clinton got out of Dodge, and none too soon because the brickbats are flying. It would be even worse if the hurricane hadn’t hit the east coast and captivated attention for a few days, but the subject won’t go away, despite the fact that the “mainstream media” won’t touch the Benghazi affair with a ten-foot hard-drive.
The fact is that the president should be quickly impeached; indeed, he should have been impeached last year when he attacked defenseless and un-provocative Libya, in the first place. If he’s reelected, the first thing the House should do is handle articles of impeachment. Conviction and expulsion from office would not happen in the Senate but the point ought to be made that declaring a war without Congressional fiat and then covering up an egregious dereliction of duty should not go unpunished in some way. People on the ground in Libya had been imploring the administration over and over to send more security. Clinton’s outfit refused but the buck lay on Obama’s desk, as he finally admitted under pressure.
So…where is dear Hillary these days? As noted way over on page 10 of the Lexington Herald-Leader, Lexington, Ky., she has been gracing Croatia with her presence and straightening out the situation in Syria. Croatia, one remembers, is next-door to Bosnia, where Hillary claimed during her 2008 campaign to beat out Obama that she had to run and flee sniper fire in 1996, never mind the monstrous measure of that LIE. She was met on he tarmac by a welcoming party complete with the traditional child for a big hug. Of course, that’s Hillary just being…well, Hillary.
For a long time, Hillary has been dealing with something called the Syrian National Council, apparently some sort of group of Syrians in exile but has finally decided that she’s getting nowhere and stated in Croatia (one wonders why she was in Croatia) that some sort of consortium had to be formed with people doing the fighting (insurrectionists) being represented. She has pushed for a clambake in Doha, Qatar, next week, at which hundreds seem to be expected – the more the merrier – to figure out how to get Assad out of office.
The actual effort has to do with deciding just who among the rebels should be given guns, about the same as with Libya last year. The results of that are seen in the current movement of ammo and al Qaeda types to Syria to cause as much bloodshed as possible there. There are already enough guns in the Middle East to take care of wars for much of the rest of the millennium, but the U.S. has to keep playing the Ugly American and adding fuel to the fire…and, oh yes…helping Obama look PRESIDENTIAL!
Disgusting!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)