Deadliest Bomb in
IraqIs Made by Iran, U.S.Says
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
, Feb. 9 WASHINGTON
A NYT Article
The assertion of an Iranian role in supplying the device to Shiite militias reflects broad agreement among American intelligence agencies, although officials acknowledge that the picture is not entirely complete.
In interviews, civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies provided specific details to support what until now has been a more generally worded claim, in a new National Intelligence Estimate, that
Iranis providing “lethal support” to Shiite militants in . Iraq
The focus of American concern is known as an “explosively formed penetrator,” a particularly deadly type of roadside bomb being used by Shiite groups in attacks on American troops in
. Attacks using the device have doubled in the past year, and have prompted increasing concern among military officers. In the last three months of 2006, attacks using the weapons accounted for a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less than a quarter of the total, military officials say…. Iraq
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Friday, February 09, 2007
Religion of Peace? More Like SUBMISSION!
Okay, I am going to post a video interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was interviewed on the Glenn Beck show (the only CNN worth watching might I add) a day or two ago. She has authored a book called Infidel, and if you remember, she actually wrote the script to the movie “Submission,” which got the Dutch film producer stabbed 28-times by a proponent of the “Religion of Peace.” I will post the movie “Submission” below, be warned though… there is slight nudity in it.
Alright, I must here apologize to my readers (if I have any) that do not have cable internet like myself. Loading my site for people who have dial-up or DSL might take a bit longer because of all the videos, I apologize, sorta.
As always, enjoy learning here on my site, its always a pleasure to bring an important snippit here or there about issues that should be important to all of us.
Glenn Beck Interview
Submission (CAUTION: Light Nudity)
Thursday, February 08, 2007
The Design Inference – Positive knowledge
I realize I stay somewhat political here on “Religio-Political Talk,” and I don’t seem to deal much with religion. I believe dealing with worldviews is a religious endeavor however. So when you hear (read) me speaking of one ideology not fitting well with reality, this is dealing with religious outlooks as well. Atheism, Deism, Pantheism, Theism, Panantheism, Polytheism… all these are metaphysical statements about ultimate reality, which make them religious worldviews.
I would also say that looking at science and debating “scientism” and what “real” science should be involved in, one can get into the religious battle of sorts between two worldviews (e.g., presuppositions about reality). I happen to fall on the Theistic side, and science, in my view, is proving this view with reality.
Watch the two short snippets (they add up to about 16-minutes) and reflect on your reality.
Okay, keep an eye on the happening in the next few days,
"We are going to continue our flights and even bolster our aerial activities our
But the French Peace keeping forces the United Nations have placed in there have said they will shoot down Israeli jets if they are buzzin around over Lebanon.
Eleven of the flights overflew an area of operations of a French battalion of the UN mission in southern
The anti-aircraft unit of the French battalion 'took initial preparatory steps to respond to these actions, in accordance with UNIFIL rules of engagement and Security Council Resolution 1701,' he said.
Milos Sturger, spokesman of the UN interim force in southern Lebanon (UNIFIL), confirmed the flights. A Lebanese army source in southern
'The French battalion decided to take necessary steps to respond to such violations,' the army source said.
According to the source, the French prepared anti-aircraft machineguns around their bases as a preventive measure.
The commander of the UNIFIL force,
If the French do shoot down an Israeli jet… um… can I quote Napoleon here? It is recorded that the great French leader, Napoleon, referred to
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Fiscal Policy: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is contemplating new taxes. But even with a booming economy, thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, Americans are still taxed plenty — especially investors and entrepreneurs.
'We're not going to start with repealing the (Bush) tax cuts," Pelosi remarked last month. "But they certainly are not off the table for people making over half a million dollars a year."
Barely two weeks into the new Congress, Pelosi already was backing a bill to raise taxes on domestic oil and gas production (when we should be lessening our reliance on foreign energy), and Democratic leaders have discussed raising Social Security taxes.
Despite the president's tax cuts,
Each year, the Tax Foundation measures all taxation at the federal, state and local level as a percentage of income. By the end of the
Since 2004, however, it's rising again, standing now at 31.6%. Federal taxes are responsible for two-thirds of that tax burden. There are multiple explanations.
For instance, after the president heavily cut taxes on all income groups, the complex alternative minimum tax has kicked in for many more taxpayers. In addition, property taxes in states have risen as a percentage of income in recent years, after a steady decline in the decade of the 1990s.
As a percentage of gross domestic product, corporate income taxes rose from 1.2% in 2003 to 2.3% in 2005, the highest level in 25 years.
Those who earn the most money — and invest the most in the economy — pay almost all federal personal income taxes.
As reported by Congress' Joint Economic Committee, the richer half of the American population pays almost 97% of income taxes. And most of that — 54% — is paid by those in the top 5%. Those ranked in the top 1% — the richest of the rich — pay more than 34% of all personal income taxes collected by Uncle Sam.
What's more, the Congressional Budget Office last month found that the after-tax income of those "superrich" actually declined after the Bush tax cuts — by 8.3% from 2000 to 2004.
Hand in hand with these trends, about 14 million Americans at lower incomes have been removed from the federal income tax rolls since 2000 because of the earned income tax credit and the per-child tax credit.
"John Edwards actually got it right," Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge told IBD. "There are two
With an already rising tax burden — borne disproportionately by those who are successful, and who invest — the Democrats' plans for big tax increases could be more damaging to the
Atlas Shrugs has a story that IDF soldiers were taking fire from Lebanese soldiers across the border. The Jerusalem Post has a front page article all but confirming this. Let us pray the Israelis respond with equal (if not stronger) force. Jihad Watch had this posted:
Act of war. "Lebanese army fire on Israeli bulldozer near border: TV," from Xinhua, with thanks to Mackie:The Lebanese army fired at an Israeli bulldozer when it was trying to cross a border area late Wednesday night, Lebanese Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV station reported.
The report quoted Lebanese military officials as saying that their troops opened fire with machine guns on an Israeli bulldozer after the vehicle crossed a southern border area and entered about 20 yards into Lebanon.
There was no report of casualties, it added.
Earlier on Wednesday, Israel's Army Radio reported that Lebanese troops fired on Israeli forces as they scoured the area for bombs planted by Hezbollah guerillas.
On Monday, Israeli army said it had discovered four explosive devices that had recently been planted by Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas but the Shiite group denied the allegation, saying that the bombs were planted before outbreak of the 34-day conflict with the Jewish state on July 12.
Oh. That makes it all right.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
TED TURNER: Global Warming is “single greatest challenge that humanity has ever faced”
This would be true if…… humanity hadn’t faced it 1500-years ago already -- and another 1500-years or so before that! “Hey Ted, we’re still here dude, it can’t be that bad!”
- … William Happer, the scientist fired as director of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy during the Clinton administration, for disagreeing publicly with Al Gore. (Taken from the article below)
Another current example is that of George Taylor, Oregon State’s Climatologist who is having his title and job canned by Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski. Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor and said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases. You see, much like at the IPCC (United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and other organizations, they are trumpeting out scientists who are skeptical of anthropogenic Warming. What is getting Dr. George Taylor into trouble? Statements like these, “Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations.” This is the worse kind of bias!
Enjoy the Article:
Media Frenzy Over Global Warming
By Roger Aronoff | April 21, 2006
Coverage of global warming demonstrates how unprofessional some journalists have become.
The campaign to convince us all of the coming disasters caused by global warming continues at hurricane force. There have been gloom-and-doom cover stories in Time magazine and Vanity Fair, and one-sided stories on ABC News and CBS's 60 Minutes.
The problem is that the stories start with the premise that global warming is here, primarily caused by human activity, and that this is the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. As a result, rarely do any of the reports give any sort of a fair representation of the views by the thousands of scientists who disagree, as I demonstrated in a recent commentary.
The 60 Minutes piece was the most hypocritical. The premise was that James Hansen, a top NASA scientist, claimed that the Bush administration had been trying to censor his work, and editing his and others scientific reports that indicated just how serious, and how serious a threat, is global warming. "There's no doubt," says Hansen, that "the speed of the natural changes is now dwarfed by the changes that humans are making to the atmosphere and to the surface."
When asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley if the Bush administration was "censoring what he can say to the public," Hansen replied, "Or they're censoring whether or not I can say it. I mean, I say what I believe if I'm allowed to say it."
How's that for censorship? Going on 60 Minutes to complain you're being muzzled. What a joke.
Jay Ambrose, formerly editorial director of Scripps Howard in Washington, wrote a recent column pointing out that Hansen was never kept from saying anything publicly. But he cited examples of others, such as William Happer, the scientist fired as director of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy during the Clinton administration, for disagreeing publicly with Al Gore.
The irony is that in making the case that the Bush administration has, in essence, been altering the information they disseminate to fit with their views, this is exactly what CBS did, by leaving out critical information that might have affected how the viewers would have felt about Hansen's credibility, and the truth or ambiguity of the scientific claims.
For example, according to an article by Marc Morano of CNS News, Hansen "publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president and received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by Kerry's wife." Furthermore, Hansen acknowledged that he contributed money to two Democratic presidential campaigns, and served as a consultant just this past February to former vice president and presidential candidate Al Gore, for his slide show presentations on global warming that he made around the country in recent months. Of course none of this was mentioned by Pelley.
Morano also pointed out that Hansen had written, in the March 2004 issue of Scientific American, that "Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue." This may explain why Hansen was so far off in his 1988 prediction before Congress of "a 0.35 degree Celsius rise in temperatures over the next decade [that] turned out to overshoot the actual gain—0.11 degree—by 219%." With this sort of record behind him, you might think he would be more careful than to say that there's "no doubt."
When Brian Montopoli, formerly of the Columbia Journalism Review and now with the CBS PublicEye blog, asked Pelley "why he did not pause to acknowledge global warming skeptics, instead treating the existence of global warming as an established fact," Pelley replied that "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?" He told Montopoli that "his team tried hard to find a respected scientist who contradicted the prevailing opinion in the scientific community, but there was no one out there who fit that description…This isn't about politics or pseudo-science or conspiracy theory blogs...This is about sound science."
We could suggest he talk to Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, who is skeptical of the Hansen view of global warming. It's an outrage to compare skeptics like Lindzen to holocaust deniers.
Just to remind us how fluid conventional scientific wisdom on this issue can be, the Washington Times recently carried an old column from Newsweek. The author of the piece, which was written in 1975, worried that "There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production." But the author, Peter Gwynne, wasn't worried about global warming. His concern was the declining temperatures. "…the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward Ice Age average."
Instead of starting with the notion that all scientists who don't agree with the catastrophic global warming scenario are somehow corrupted by special interests or politics, and the doomsayers are right on target, let's bring the best and brightest together with varying views and hash it out for all the world to see.
That means that journalists should present both sides-not just the side they favor. Pardon me, but isn't this what journalism is supposed to be about? Coverage of global warming demonstrates how unprofessional some journalists have become.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Over the many years of my life I have communicated with people that are in theological cults, involved in the occult, New Age, and the like. One thing that all these pseudo-Christian cult break offs, New Age members, and neo-Darwinists (and many others) have in common is a knack at pointing out that I have it wrong, that they are being quoted out of context.
Now mind you, I at times say the same thing, so I offer to read the quote in full context. People who are in cults do not usually offer this opportunity up (that is, to be more “fully” quoted), as, they have based their whole premise on a granule of truth and wrapped it in a ball of lies. Not to mention that usually what lies before and after the context they are challenged with is as damning if not more.
There are other signs of cults and brainwashing, such as not being allowed to read literature that opposes the faith or works done by ex-members (for instance, “Lats” [Latter-day Saints], or J-Dubs [Jehovah's Witnesses]). Many times these cults will separate family members in an obvious manner, for instance: not allowing a father who isn’t Mormon to attend his daughters wedding. Horrible.
Following this “cult” theme, I wanted to have the reader watch a 9-minute documentary and interview regarding textbooks used in private Muslim schools in Britain. During the interview (that has been edited to the Q&A with the Muslim woman) listen to the typical responses made by someone who is surrounded her life with a theology of lies. The depth to which this woman reaches to avoid answering direct question is amazing. Talk about being brainwashed by a cult! (Not a world religion, a cult! In fact, the worse kind of cult… one that kills in the name of God.)
Monday, February 05, 2007
Such a great report… I have to thank Little Green Footballs for this link! I make daily stops to their site, you may want to as well. The guys over there actually carry on discussion (unlike others I know), so if you want to join in the talk, you are welcome to start here or join in over there (see my links to the right). Take note that there are some truly moderate muslims interviewed in this report... I want to see more of them!
A pretty large crowd at UC Irvine the other day walked out of a speech given by Daniel Pipes (his site is in my links regarding Muslims). At any rate, someone took the time to really listen to the bad audio and type down what these kids were saying and approvingly listening to. Scary! This is what we should expect more often if we allow multiculturalism to take its death hold like in Britain.
The full video of the incident is below (about 14-minutes), and the isolated audio is in print form below.
I just want to say a few words, because I know a lot of people, before this program today, we had many ideas on how things should be done. And there was a lot of chatter going back and forth, and some people wanted to make bold statements, some people wanted to have a silent protest, [inaudible].
But at the end I just want to make one comment, that what we did by walking out of there, it really helps us be very very very powerful, and I want you guys all to go home and just realize, and that is everything, like Daniel Pipes is saying, everything for them is to boost their morale. This whole program was to boost their morale, make them feel as if Israel is there to stay. And that they’re gonna ... he’s trying to garner support for the state of Israel.
And by having a university campus, a bunch of students all walk out, this is trash, this is garbage ... it really defeats ... it deflates the morale of everyone in that room. So right now they’re all pretty depressed in there.
And they’re gonna go out there and they’re gonna think, they’re gonna try to make people think they’re powerful for a minute. But when they go home, they’re gonna be like, crap. We’re in the middle of America, we’re in Irvine, a public [inaudible] ... and this whole campus hates our guts. [Laughter.]
They have no future. And it’s just a matter of time before the state of Israel will be wiped off the face of the earth.
[Crowd: Takbir! Allahu akbar!]
Justice will be restored then. Those people who are there legitimately ... the people there will, will rule. There will be no injustice any more there.
So just keep on doing what we’re doing. Our weapon, our jihad, our way of struggling in this country is with our tongues. We speak out, and we deflate their morale, and this is the best we can do right now. And our brothers and sisters on the other side of the world, they’re handling business in their own way. May Allah give them strength ... [inaudible]
[Crowd: Takbir! Allahu akbar!]
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Postmodern Business Policies
“Race” as Customer Service
(I no longer work at the business mentioned below)
I do not usually blog about personal instances in my life. My reasoning for this is simple: there are more important things going on in the world and with movements (whether religious or political) than anything happening in my life. But there are times when one says, that’s it, I have to say something.
The experience wasn’t necessarily mine either, but one of our customers in our store which may have involved me (?). As many of you know I work at a store that sells a wide assortment of wine, liquor, beer, and the like. As with any store that doesn’t have someone at the door checking receipts, we have product in lockup that are either high theft items or expensive.
The scenario is similar to when I worked at Ralph’s, if a person wanted something out of the lockup, a manager or a box-boy/girl would personally walk the item up to the front of the store where the person could buy it or have it held until their shopping is done. Pretty much every store in the SCV/California/America/ and the world has this practice.
This being said, the customer in our store asked for a high-theft product that was in lockup. Remember, our policy is to walk anything that is of high theft value or high price personally to the register for the customer to purchase then, or to have held until their shopping is done.
Apparently this person was offended that they couldn’t shop with it in their cart as if our store or the person involved (me?) was calling them a thief personally. Not only a thief, but according to the tone of the letter, they felt they were not allowed to carry the bottle due to their race, which was one of the first things the letter mentions. Why, I do not know other than they felt it played a role in them not being allowed to carry the item with them. Since the customer felt race was pertinent enough to raise as an issue, so to will I. My grandmother is black; I have cousins that I guarantee are darker in their melatonin than the offended customer.
I was truly graced by growing up in one of the poorest neighborhoods
Black kids wanting to fight me at school for merely being white, and having nothing but black friends and some black family members was an experience that made me grow up quickly by making adult distinctions about racism, race, love, hate, ignorance, friendship, and the like. While it truly may be that this couple sincerely misinterpreted why we do not allow persons (whomever they are) to walk around the store with merchandise the store deems high risk, I still have this gnawing in the back of my mind that the grievance calling race into question at the outset is done with a race-holding mentality (Shelby Steele). One of my favorite authors and radio commentators likes to call these race-holding peoples victicrates. (By-the-by, I have five favorite political authors/commentators/professors, and four of them for those who care are black.) According to Larry Elder a "victicrat is one who blames all ills, problems, concerns, and unhappiness on others" (Ten Things You Cant Say In America, p. 22).
Our store has a bunch of young kids who could care less about the race of anyone! These kids are just following precedent. I look like a skin-head, but anyone who knows me and deals with me at the store knows I don’t have a racist bone in my body. In fact, because of my religious views on creation (see my blog on Racism and Evolution for instance [still a good link, but I do not blog there any longer 2-4-07), I believe the first man and woman were brown or red in color with a gene pool to allow for the slight variations in the races (dark and light people in other words). Over 100 cultures have stories of the first man being created as a red man; the Hebrew root word for Adam in the Bible is the word for red clay.
So anyone trying to paint me one way is suffering from the "conspiracy-theory syndrome of a person suffering from the victim mentality and looks for all kinds of bizarre evidence to support their claims" (Star Parker, White Ghetto, p. 66). Numbers chapter 12 in the Old Testament has Moses marrying a Cushitic woman; the Cushite tribes are the founding people of the Ethiopians. Miriam, Moses’ sister, spoke out against this interracial marriage that YHWH had blessed. Miriam was struck with an illness until she repented from her racism.
Another employee we have is the wonderful “Mother Jones”; she is a black woman who has a bunch of wonderful kids and a very cool hubby! She is my surrogate wife, when my wife cannot reign in my spending habits at the store; Mother Jones steps in and extends the long arm of the spousal law. If anyone knows how unbiased I am, it would be a strong black woman working right next to me.
So what has become of this you may ask (other than me airing my concerns and commentary)? What I see happening now is product being handed over to anyone who asks . . . which will very probably increase employee theft as well as customer theft. These two logical conclusions will eventually result in any business, not just ours, having the improper inventory actually in the store, which hurts the customer as well as the profit margin of the company. This would put a bad taste in the mouth of business owners to expand product choice or to hire humorous, good looking guys like myself that have a mind to engage in not only frivolous talk with customers but meet their needs on all levels.
And this is key: a company will never survive long if it looks at every complaint as equally valid and sincere. In our postmodern world where everyone feels entitled to have every opinion weighed with all the reverence of another option or opinion [is craziness], companies (not just mine) should learn to juggle rational policies with customer service. It’s Econ 101.
The real deal?
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
February 02, 2007
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of
Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.
Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.
Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.
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.
All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist." ….
….. Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."