Tribute to the Soldiers
HotAir Making Us Cry Again

Gas Price Hype – From 2006

(A response to a friend a while back)

It Include Two Articles & a Video Debate

This is a bit dated, but add Crazy Iran into the mix!

Many believe that the gas companies are gauging us… this is just not the case. For EVERY gallon of gasoline sold to Americans from Exxon, Exxon makes $.09 profit (yes, you read that right, nine-cents!)! I recently had a discussion with a democratic co-worker whom had the same idea about Exxon gauging us. For every gallon of gas we buy the government puts a total of $.50 of tax on it. We argued some about the total amount of tax, but I decided that I wouldn’t push the point… so I agreed that we will use the tax rate as posted on California pumps.

Which is $.18. So I said that if Exxon is making nine-cents ($.09) profit on a gallon of gas and there is a eighteen-cents ($.18). Let’s assume that the 8.4 billion dollar profit for Exxon last quarter was only from Americans, then the government “profit” is 16.8 billion. I asked my Democrat co-worker if we were to compare “SOCIAL CAUSES” between Democrat policies and Republican policies… which party has more “social programs” (welfare, universal health care, Medicare, school lunches, and the like), he agreed with me that the Democrats would support more of these types of programs.

I then asked how these programs are paid for. He realized his mistake now, but answered anyways… taxes. So I said he should be happy that the government has made “windfall profits,” maybe California can be in the black for once. I then made another point. I asked him what is the best way to make something increase in value? He answered that one would make it scarce – like diamonds, or the Federal reserve controlling inflation by letting more or less dollars into the market. He asked what that had to do with gas. I then answered by asking a question:Who is more beholden to environmental groups and causes, the Democrats or Republicans?

My co-worker said the Democrats. I then said that in the past almost FORTY YEARS we haven’t built a refinery to make crude oil into gas… I then asked him if he knew why? He didn’t. Mostly because environmental groups like the Sierra Club and others have successfully stopped us from building them. I asked if he could answer that with the growth of China’s infrastructure and shift towards industry, as well as India’s shift towards the same, if just those two countries alone (comprising half the worlds population) have increased exponentially their demand for “fossil” fuels and the companies that supply that need cannot increase production – that “that” will naturally – at some point – bring up the price of not only fuel, but any good to be sold, who’s fault is that????? (I put fossil fuel in " " because I do not believe that oil is a fossil fuel, research is showing that it is "a-biotic," and that the earth is producing it always as part of the natural inner-working of the planet. The real red-hearing is making us believe that it will run out, which is another belief that has kept the prices high. So environmental “Doomsday” predictions about a limited supply of “fossil” fuel are "fueling" the hype and price as well... no pun intended.)

Exxon’s fault? Or the same people – liberal democrats – who stopped us from drilling in ANWAR a decade ago which could have produced enough barrels each day to match what we get from Venezuela? It seems funny to me that the people bitching about the problem now are the same ones that caused it to begin with. I then zinged my co-worker about his belief (which mirrors Al Gores) that fossil fuels are hurting our Earth via “Global Warming.” I asked him what the best way to get people to conserve or look for alternative fuels would be. By now he was catching up to me, he said somewhat sheepishly “to make the prices higher so people are forced to look elsewhere.”

So Stop Bitching!!! I would be more pissed at our inept politicians about drilling and building refineries in “The 48” rather than demand Exxon stop making a profit and socialize them like many other now defunct nations (U.S.S.R. and NAZI Germany) have tried, and like they are once again trying in South America.

Who's to blame for high gasoline prices?

San Francisco Chronicle

Brian P. Simpson

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Gasoline prices are at record highs again. Many think oil companies are to blame. A Field Poll from May 2004 showed that 77 percent of Californians believed this to be true. But this just shows that people are misinformed about who's causing high gas prices. Investigating a few clues can help find out who's responsible.

One thing is certain: Oil companies are not the culprits. In California, where gas prices are among the nation's highest, the oil industry has been repeatedly investigated yet no evidence of "price manipulation" has ever been found.

Though other factors cause high gas prices, such as high taxes and increasing world demand, environmental regulation is among the primary reasons. For example, environmental regulation has significantly restricted drilling for oil in Alaska and on the continental shelf. More drilling will increase the supply and thus lower prices.

Furthermore, 18 different gasoline formulations are in use across the United States, making it much more costly to produce and distribute gasoline. These blends aren't needed due to requirements of automobile engines, nor are they required by oil companies. The blends, including different ones used at different times of the year and in different geographic areas, are imposed by environmental regulations. Among other things, the regulations force refiners to incur greater costs in switching from the production of one blend to another. They also force refiners to produce a more costly "summer blend," which is partially responsible for the rise in price.

The situation is worse in California, where environmental regulations are strictest. For example, California was one of three states to require the removal of the octane booster MTBE in January 2004. This reduced the gasoline supply by almost 10 percent, because MTBE accounted for about 10 percent of the volume in the old gasoline formula. Using corn-based ethanol as a replacement doesn't help much, because California's strict emissions regulations require the removal of almost the equivalent in other gasoline components to accommodate ethanol. Ethanol must also be shipped from the Midwest in trucks, because it cannot be produced in refineries and doesn't travel well through pipelines.

As a result, gas prices were predicted to increase by 35 to 40 cents per gallon. Given that the average price in 2004 was almost 30 cents higher than in 2003, these predictions weren't too far off.

Additionally, California required gasoline stations to install double- walled underground tanks, which forced many stations to rip perfectly good single-walled tanks out of the ground. California also imposes the harshest emissions requirements in the country, necessitating the use of a more costly, special blend of gasoline not produced anywhere else. It's no accident that gas in California is generally 30 to 40 cents above the national average.

From drilling to refining to distribution, environmentalists have done everything they can to raise gas prices.

The above raises a question: Why do environmental regulations exist?

One might think they exist to protect consumers, but the evidence doesn't show this. For instance, MTBE was banned based on claims that it causes cancer. However, it has never been shown to be a danger to humans in the amounts to which they are typically exposed, according to a study by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Claims that it "causes cancer" are based on experiments in which mice were fed doses almost 70,000 times larger than to what humans are typically exposed. No scientist worthy of the title would make claims based on that extrapolation.

Environmentalists are not actually concerned with the well-being of man. Their real motive is to sacrifice man to nature by stopping industrial activity. For instance, Adam Kolton of the Alaska Wilderness League states, "Drilling the wildest place in America is objectionable no matter how it's packaged." David M. Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, states, "We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have ... more value -- to me -- than another human body, or a billion of them."

Oil companies deserve praise for producing an abundance of gasoline despite the massive burden of environmental regulations foisted upon them. To increase the gasoline supply, we need to start by eliminating needless environmental regulations, including drilling bans and prohibiting certain octane boosters. If the government makes the choice to protect people's freedom, gasoline prices below a dollar-per-gallon won't be just a relic of the past.

Brian P. Simpson is an assistant professor of economics at National University in San Diego and author of the upcoming "Markets Don't Fail!" (Lexington Books).

Gas-price controls backfire in Hawaii Cost of fuel rises faster under new law, while drivers pay less in other 49 states

February 19, 2006 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Hawaii's gas price controls, imposed last fall when the cost of fuel was hovering around $3 a gallon in many parts of the U.S., have actually triggered much higher costs for consumers.

As of Friday, Hawaii drivers were paying the highest per-gallon costs in the nation, with record-setting prices of as much as $3.39. A year ago, consumers in Hawaii were paying nearly $1 a gallon less. The national average today is $2.24 a gallon.

The price controls were set by the state Public Utilities Commission Sept. 1. The idea was that the limits would bring Hawaii's gas prices in line with the mainland, which has traditionally had lower prices on many goods because of the transportation costs involved in delivering product to the islands.

Now there are moves afoot in the Hawaii legislature to scrap the price controls.

Hawaii's current controls base limits on per-gallon charges by averaging wholesale gas prices in New York, Los Angeles and the Gulf Coast. The PUC then adds a 4-cent "location adjustment" fee and another 18 cents as a market margin factor. Then a few cents more are added for transportation costs to various islands. Wholesale prices are set by the bureaucrats every Wednesday and go into effect the following Sunday.

In a recent check Hawaii's average cost per gallon was $2.84, followed by New York at $2.57, California at $2.53 and Connecticut at $2.47. The least expensive gas in the country is in Utah at $2.13.

Before the gas cap law, Hawaii paid an average of 44 cents more per gallon than the rest of the mainland. Since the law went into effect in September, however, the differential has increased to more than 50 cents per gallon.

Still, the proponents of the gas cap insist that prices would be even higher without the limits. Rep. Marcus Oshiro, an advocate of the gas cap, claims the new law has actually saved islanders $33 million. But even he is having second thoughts.

He said this week Hawaii has "achieved price parity with the mainland and in that sense, the law has been working." But he also notes that "oil companies have posted record profits during this period and without greater transparency, we are unable to determine whether the cap has allowed unreasonable profits."

"Basically the implementation of the gas cap was not as we expected," said Oshiro, the House majority leader. "The enforcement was not as vigorous as we thought it could be."

Three House committees in Hawaii this week approved a proposal to suspend the gas cap as of July 1, while mandating the PUC to closely monitor data on the petroleum business in Hawaii, including new standards for the kinds of confidential business information the industry needs to provide to the PUC.

One of the gas cap's key supporters is Senate Consumer Protection Chairman Ron Menor, who said he will do everything he can to make sure the cap stays in place.

"I cannot support a repeal because I think that would really be caving in to the oil industry that doesn't want to be regulated," Menor said.

Menor is proposing changes to the cap which he says could save drivers an extra 16-cents per gallon.

"Instead of talking about a repeal or suspension, legislators ought to be seriously considering strengthening and improving the law so we can provide even greater savings to consumers," Menor said.

Meanwhile, free-market advocates say retailers charged the maximum allowable under the limits to compensate for the threat of not being able to profit in the future.

Not Just an “Imus Thing”

The recent Don Imus flap I think is going to be the rallying point to try and oust many talk-show hosts for the Liberal Left. I think back to books I have read on the politically-correct nature of the Left and boos that have influenced my thinking on this matter:

• Tammy Bruce, who is a pro-choice lesbian, wrote and interesting book entitled The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Mind; and her The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values.

• Another book entitled Muzzled: From T-Ball to Terrorism--True Stories That Should Be Fiction, by Michael Smerconish.

• Diane Ravitch wrote the book The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn.

• Another good read, and of course what was one of the first books to look at the “thought police” was that of Dinesh D’Souza, Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus.

• There are other honorable mentions, like one of my first reads by Dale Berryhill, his two books made my mouth hit the floor: The Assault: Liberalism's Attack on Religion, Freedom, and Democracy; and The Liberal Contradiction: How Contemporary Liberalism Violates Its Own Principles and Endangers Its Own Goals.

• Beyond Political Correctness: Are There Limits to This Lunacy?; and Political Correctness: The Cloning of the American Mind, by David Thibodaux

• Cloning of the American Mind: Eradicating Morality through Education, by B. K. Eakman

• The Ten Things You Can't Say In America, by Larry Elder

• Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes, by David Horowitz

• America's Thirty Years War, by Balint Vazsonyi. He was a concert pianist and conservative commentator. He was born in Budapest, Hungary, and fled to the United States during the 1956 Hungarian revolution. After becoming an American citizen, he ran for mayor of Bloomington Indiana, and headed the Center for the American Founding… He was a professor of Music at Indiana University (Wikipedia).

• America's Real War, by Rabbi Daniel Lapin

All these books make me wonder about the political nature of all these Left leaning “leaders of the black community,” that are really purveyors of Liberation Theology. According to a World Net Daily Article that quotes a Media Matters article by David Brock, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, John Gibson, and Michael Smerconish are all mentioned as the next to be targeted.

Here other books come to mind, one by Richard J. Ellis called The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America, Ellis was “a lifelong Democrat, a ‘card-carrying member’ of the ACLU, an environmentalist, a supporter of women's rights and a federalist. If it seems rather defensive, that is, in some way, the point of his book…. Ellis offers a provocative critique of left-wing movements from 19th-century utopians to abolitionists to the old left of the inter-war era, to the New Left of the Vietnam era and, finally, to contemporary radical feminists like Catharine MacKinnon and certain environmental activists. Through an examination of speeches, books and articles, Ellis tries to document how varied ideologues abandoned their egalitarian principles in favor of rigid political correctness, sometimes slipping into violence and elitism.” He would make the point that just as Brock envisions, the Left of today does not want dissent.

Another book that sparks my interest in believing Rush and Laura Ingraham and others are next on the PC totem poll, is a book I read a few years back entitled The Betrayal of Liberalism: How the Disciples of Freedom and Equality Helped Foster the Illiberal Politics of Coercion and Control, by Hilton Kramer.

Mark my words, just as in Canada where pastors are being fined and threatened with jail for preaching from Romans and other verses in the Bible against homosexuality… so to is our PC culture dawning on us.

Mark my words.

PapaG

Terorrist Humor via Hot Air

Very Funny

See new video posted here… yes… click this sentence and you will be brought automatically there by the magic of the Internet and HTML code.

BANNED!!!

Native-Americans vs. Settlers

Indians vs. Settlers – Letter from a Concerned Parent

An in-class supplement from the desk of SeanG

First and foremost, the reason behind this paper is not, let me repeat, is not to incite parents to call the school and complain about what our kid’s are being taught. We must keep in mind that the teachers only teach what they are told to teach. The purpose of this paper is meant as a supplement for those who wish to deepen their conversation of history with their son or daughter that reveals both sides of the historical coin.[1] I do not wish this paper to be viewed as an apologetic[2] for the atrocities that some in the name of religion or greed inflicted on the New World. We hear of these all the time, however, this truth can be twisted and misrepresented in a way that is a tool for special interest groups as well as being a means towards a political goal, which, in California, is par for the course.

I was somewhat troubled when I was going over my child’s in class social studies notes and homework. His notes were gleaned from an in class video[3] and discussion (the social studies book[4] does a decent job at staying neutral on the subject, so this critique deals primarily with the in class discussion and video). Below (fig. 1) is an exact reproduction of my son’s notes (cannot reproduce for this posting).

Native American and Explorers Beliefs (Fig. 1)
	Native Americans	Explorers
	(1) The land was considered sacred They call it Mother Earth It was a gift from their Creator	A person could own land
	(2) No one could own land	A person could own another person - slavery
	(3) People should be free	Christianity is the only way Any land without Christians was free to take
	(4) They practiced religion	They were the dominant race to take over the world
	(5) They were stewards of the land	(Nothing was put in this column, however, the obvious next step (comparing the other columns) would have been that the “European settler”# The video refers to this settler in a derogatory tone simply as the “white-man.” One has to wonder if a Caucasian would use such terms in a demeaning manner about minorities in a video, if said video would be used in the classroom at all.# would abuse the land)

At first glance, to some, this may sound standard, and some may even believe that the European man was this horrible, and that the Native-American is angelic and at “one with nature.” This assumption that one is indoctrinated with needs a critical look however. And afterwards, you, the parent, can decide what is relevant to discuss with your kids, as I have done.

The first two columns (3’s 1 &2) on the Native-American and Explorers side will take some time to deal with. The Native-American certainly did believe that the land was a gift from their Creator;[5] however, the litany of tribal elders in the video speaking of the land as not being “owned” is merely semantics. Most tribes did – I repeat – did fight for territorial rights and hunting grounds. Some tribes, after depleting an area of its natural resources[6] (dealt with more in-depth later) would pack up and move, only to battle for more resources elsewhere. They may not have set up picket fences, but they sure did act as if this land was theirs. The video also portrayed contradictory statements by the elders of the various tribes, in one quote it was said that the Native-American did not own the land, and in another, we are told that the Comanche owned 600 million acres.

This comparison of the Native-Americans respecting nature so much that they thought it immoral to “own land,” (column #2) compared with the column to its right mentioning that the explorers “own[ed] humans,” is another play on words. Not only a play on words, but devoid of important information that could balance the times in which these two peoples tried to co-exist. The video makes it seem like slavery was the invention of the European settler, and only he was vile enough to practice such. The video showcased Native-Americans expressing their distaste for the white-man[7] in a virulent manner. For example (and bear in mind this quote – directly from the video – can be applied to this entire thesis):

• “The white-man has always had the philosophy that they are thee dominant race. That it is their manifest destiny to take over the world, so to speak. Indians did not accept this idea. They were here as stewards of the land. They were here to take care of it while they were here, but they never owned it.”[8] (Emphasis added)

The video is conveniently silent on the matter of Native-Americans owning slaves, and not only that, but treating them horribly (e.g., separating other Native-American couples and forcefully taking the women as wives [rape], murder, etc). Choctaws, Chicasaws, Cherokee, Creeks and Seminoles[9] are just a few examples of tribes that owned slaves. To be fair, the social studies book did mention that the Aztecs, at least, owned slaves (p. 67).

There were, to be sure, peaceful tribes in the pre-Columbian America, like the Hopis of the Southwest and the Slaves (not to be confused with slaves) of sub-artic Canada. Most Native-American tribes, however, were familiar, long before Columbus, with the kinds of wickedness that had beclouded European (and the Asian and African continants) history for centuries: aggression, warfare, torture, persecution, bigotry, slavery, and tyranny,[10] just to name a few. This isn’t pointing fingers; it is merely a comment on the nature of man. Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., comments,

• “Cruelty and destruction are not the monopoly of any single continent or race or culture.”[11]

Not only did they own slaves prior to the European settlers coming to the New World, when West Africans were introduced to the Americas, the Native-Americans even took (acquired in raids, trading, or simply bought) them as slaves. Yes, you heard me; Native-Americans owned other Indians and Blacks as slaves, even some Whites after raids. The Seminoles were somewhat tolerant, and in the nineteenth century an Afro-Indian community, via intermarriage, in the state of Florida was generated (a gorgeous mix by the way, Seminole/African-American).

Key: So we see that the Native-Americans, contrary to my child’s in-class video, did believe in “owning” people.

The column under that (#3a, and b) deals specifically with the Christian faith. Now, mind you, the video did mention that the explorers committed horrible acts against the Aztecs only after witnessing their ghastly sacrifices of other people (it didn’t mention that this included babies). After this the European explorers went about destroying those who wouldn’t become Christians – that is, rejecting their horrible religion that included human/baby sacrifice.

Although the video mentioned this in passing, it made the explorers seem worse than they were.[12] I am all for discussing the blight of Western-man and his religion, but in all fairness, this should slice both ways. From what I can tell from my child’s notes, and after viewing the video for myself, the in-class work chose “to focus on the Native Americans as the ‘victims’ because they lost their lives and culture as a result of European progress. In doing so… [it]… completely ignores a large portion of history in which both Native Americans and Europeans ‘matched atrocity for atrocity’.”[13] This is an important distinction that was made in my sons fifth-grade class, that is: a moral position was chosen and advanced, rather than history being taught as just that, history.

The last blurb in the “Explorers” side of the column (#4b) reflects as well the videos hatred for the European settler, and again, the video is very sure in its quoting Native-Americans who are vehemently “anti-white-man.” We want to take over the world still, or so the video seems to say. What can you do? The last column (#5a) on the “Native-American” side mentions, “They were stewards of the land.” This is another long one, and mind you, I will list some web sites to visit for some short commentary as well.

We, of course, have all heard of the Native-Americans using every part of the buffalo, not wasting, caring for Mother Nature and the like. However, the whole story is conveniently left out.[14] The entire buffalo was only used in times of want. In times of plenty, some tribes would run entire herds of buffalo off of cliffs, killing hundreds to thousands at a time just for their tongues. Some tribes would burn entire forests killing many species and sometimes, entire herds of buffalo. A commentary[15] does well to expand on this theme:

From James Fenimore Cooper to Dances with Wolves and Disney’s Pocahontas, American Indians have been mythologized as noble beings with a “spiritual, sacred attitude towards land and animals, not a practical utilitarian one.”[16] Small children are taught that the Plains Indians never wasted any part of the buffalo. They grow up certain that the Indians lived as one with nature, and that white European settlers were the rapists who destroyed it.

In The Ecological Indian: Myth and History, Shepard Krech III, an anthropologist at Brown University, strips away the myth to show that American Indians behaved pretty much like everyone else. When times were bad they used the whole buffalo. When times were good, “whole herds” of buffalo might be killed only for their tongues or their fetuses.[17] Although American Indians adapted to their environment and were intimately familiar with it, they had no qualms about shaping it to their needs.

Indians set fires to promote the growth of grasses and make land more productive for the game and plants that they preferred. Sometimes fire was used carefully. Sometimes it was not. Along with the evidence that Indians used fire to improve habitat are abundant descriptions of carelessly started fires that destroyed all plant life and entire buffalo herds.[18]

Nor were American Indians particularly interested in conserving resources for the future. In the East, they practiced slash and burn agriculture. When soils became infertile, wood for fuel was exhausted, and game depleted, whole villages moved.[19] The Cherokee, along with the other Indians who participated in the Southern deerskin trade, helped decimate white-tailed deer populations.[20] Cherokee mythology believed that deer that were killed in a hunt were reanimated.

In all, contemporary accounts suggest that many Indians treated game as an inexhaustible resource. Despite vague hints in the historical records that some Crees may have tried to conserve beaver populations by allocating hunting territories and sparing young animals, Krech concludes that it was “market forces in combination with the Hudchild’s Bay Company policies [which actively promoted conservation]” that “led to the eventual recovery of beaver populations.”[21]

Those who blame European settlers for genocide because they introduced microbes that ravaged native populations might as well call the Mongols genocidal for creating the plague reservoirs that led to the Black Death in Europe.[22] Microbes travel with their hosts. Trade, desired by Indians as well as whites, created the pathways for disease. (Emphasis added)

Another interesting item that came up in the video was that of the “white man” bringing his diseases, as mentioned above and in the video. However, little is ever said about the normal lifespan of the Native-American, which was around 35 at the time due to the already present poor health, disease, dysentery and hygiene, or, lack thereof. The photo’s we have all seen of the Native-Americans during Civil War times are older mainly due to the introduction of medicine and hygiene by the European settler. New information in a paper written by Richard Steckel, a professor of economics and anthropology at Ohio State University, and published in the journal Science, has shown that the health of the Native-American was in drastic decline prior to the settler coming to the New World.[23]

End-Notes

[1] There is some adult material herein (e.g., descriptions of violence and the like), so edit accordingly.
[2] apologetic: “defending by speech or writing.” (Definition #2) Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, CD-ROM (1999).

[3] Schlessinger Video Productions, Indians of North America, Video Collection II; Bala Cynwyd: PA (1995); in the school library.

[4] A New Nation: Adventures in Time and Place, National Geographic Society/McGraw Hill Pub; New York: NY (2000)

[5] The video was very religiously entwined; I only wish that such positive representations of other faiths were allowed such time in the classroom.

[6] e.g., game (animals), wood, healthy top-soil, ran species into extinction (like certain sea turtles and the like), etc.

[7] The distasteful manner in which the video represents and uses the term “white-man” (a quote) is quite inappropriate.

[8] Veronica Valarde Tiller – a Jicarilla Apapche. Quote from the in-class video.

[9] Dinesh D’ Souza, The End of Racism, The Free Press; New York: N.Y. (1995), p. 75.

[10] Paul F. Boller, Jr., Not So! Popular Myths About America from Columbus to Clinton, Oxford Univ. Press; New York: NY (1995), p. 7. (This book is a fun, interestingly invigorating read! I highly recommend it)

[11] Ibid., p. 12. Quoted from: Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., “Was America a Mistake?,”Atlantic Monthly (September 1992), p. 22.

[12] This is a side note for those who are of the Christian faith:

• The Bible does not teach the horrible practices that some have committed in its name. It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the details it produces evil because the individual people [“Christians”] are actually living in rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it [religion] can produce evil, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism (non-religious practices) actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God. For example: the Inquisitions, Crusades, Salem Witch Trials killed about 40,000 persons combined (World Book Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Americana). A blight on Christianity? Certainty. Something wrong? Dismally wrong. A tragedy? Of course. Millions and millions of people killed? No. The numbers are tragic, but pale in comparison to the statistics of what non-religious criminals have committed); the Chinese regime of Mao Tse Tung, 60 million [+] dead (1945-1965), Stalin and Khrushchev, 66 million dead (USSR 1917-1959), Khmer Rouge (Cambodia 1975-1979) and Pol Pot, one-third of the populations dead, etc, etc. The difference here is that these non-God movements are merely living out their worldview, the struggle for power, survival of the fittest and all that, no natural law is being violated in other words (as atheists reduce everything to natural law – materialism). However, when people have misused the Christian religion for personal gain, they are in direct violation to what Christ taught, as well as Natural Law.

[13] “Shades of Truth,” by Jeff Bricker, found at:

http://parallel.park.uga.edu/~tengles/102m/bricker.html (I highly recommend this paper as it will add to the reasons and logic behind the different historical “takes” on this issue. UPDATE: I was contacted by the author who has become more left-leaning in his later days and he asked me to remove this portion as he has excised all his previous works. I refused on the grounds that he must prove to me that what he said is untrue, after which I would remove his older work.) “A True Story,” by Katie Patel, found at:

http://parallel.park.uga.edu/~tengles/102m/pa##l.html (another high recommend.) These are a comparison between historians James Loewen and Howard Zinn, showing that this debate is alive and well at the university level.

[14] “The Ecological Indian: Myth and History,” by Terry L. Anderson, from the Detroit News, reviewing a book of the same name by Shepard Krech III, October 4, 1999. Can be found at:

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/ecological_indian.htm

[15] By Linda Gorman, can be found at:

http://i2i.org/Publications/Op-Eds/Environment/00May02.ecological_indian.htm

[16] Shepard Krech III, The Ecological Indian: Myth and History, W.W. Norton & Company; New York: NY (1999), p. 22.

[17] Ibid., p. 135.

[18] Ibid., p. 119.

[19] Ibid., p. 76.

[20] Ibid., p. 171.

[21] Ibid., p. 188.

[22] For a discussion of the effect of the Mongol invasions and their effect on European epidemiology see, William H. McNeill Plagues and Peoples, Doubleday; New York: NY (1977).

[23] “Health of the American Indians on Decline Before Columbus Arrived In the New World,” This study involved 12,500 Indian skeletal remains from 65 different sites. Can be found at: http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/researchnews/archive/humhelth.htm

Jay Leno Joke

Democrats Scared of FOX-News

How true. And to say CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, and the like are not biased is to also be very untruthful. While Fox-News is center-right, all the above are center-left. And only on FOX-News (or because of it), do you see the left-right debates that allow for all sides to be shown. From the left-leaning Greta, to the moderate O’Reilly as well as the left/right discussions found on Hannity & Colmes, FOX-News is for this reason the most watched cable news network.

An Important BBC Series – A Must Read

BBC Article Link

LGF Props

'Death to US': Anti-Americanism examined

The US is perceived by many as an international bully, a modern day imperial power. At this critical moment in history, Washington correspondent Justin Webb challenges that idea.

He argues anti-Americanism is often a cover for hatreds with little justification in fact. His three part series takes him to Cairo, Caracas and Washington but it begins where anti-Americanism began - in Paris.

In the Abbey Churchyard in the lovely English city of Bath, groups of demonstrators, many - though not all - of them Quakers, regularly gather to protest against the iniquities of the world.

My dear mother Gloria Webb, who died last year, was one of the protesters. In her day, she was an energetic duffle-coated figure who wanted to ban the bomb, stop wars of all kinds and suffering anywhere.

She was a wonderful person, my mum, and so were her friends. Yet it always struck me, when she told me about these protests (and when, I freely confess, I attended them with enthusiasm as a youngster) that there was an odd one-sidedness to the game.

The protests against nuclear weapons, for instance, concentrated on American weapons. The anti-war rallies were against American-led wars. The anti death penalty campaign focused on Texas.

A pattern was emerging and has never seriously been altered. A pattern of willingness to condemn America for the tiniest indiscretion - or to magnify those indiscretions - while leaving the murderers, dictators, and thieves who run other nations oddly untouched.

In the beginning

And if anti-Americanism is alive and well among surprisingly mild-mannered people in Britain - how much more virulent must it be in tougher parts of the world?

To find out, I have visited Venezuela, where the nation's leader Hugo Chavez compares George W Bush to Hitler, and Egypt, where the regime warns of a tide of stars and stripes burning if its hold on power is weakened.

And Paris. Paris? Yes Paris - where it all began.

Anti-Americanism was born in France. And here's a fascinating fact: it was born well before the United States existed. It was not caused by Coca-Cola, or McDonald's, or Hollywood or George W Bush.

The prevailing view among French academics throughout the 18th Century was that the New World was ghastly. It stank, it was too humid for life to prosper. And, as one European biologist put it: "Everything found there is degenerate or monstrous."

In their heart of hearts, many French people still believe that to be true.

A French intellectual once compared the United States with Belgium. Wounding. But you see what he meant: the French capital has a grandeur about it that demands attention on the world stage. Belgium does not, nor does most of America.

Washington is grand but Washington was designed by a Frenchman and his vision didn't fit the rest of the nation. America is ordinary. Go on say it out loud on the streets of Paris: "America is ordinary". It celebrates the pursuit of small-scale happiness - in families and communities - and that is what the anti-Americans can't stand.

Dislike

In the heart of Paris, there is the Avenue Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt, the man who helped defeat Nazi Germany and liberate Parisian streets, is celebrated here. And the point many French people make is that they would celebrate George W Bush, too, if they agreed with him. The source of anti-Americanism is plain they say. As one interviewee told us: "It's the policies, Stupid."

Well up to a point: in Paris there is plenty of evidence to be found that anti-Americanism is way more than that, that it's not simply reasonable opposition to the things America does.

The kind of anti-Americanism fostered by French intellectuals down the centuries revolves around intense dislike of what America is - not what it does .

Sitting in the Cafe de Flore, in the very seat where Jean-Paul Sartre once held sway, the self-described writer and philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy puts it like this: America became the nightmare that French right-wing intellectuals long feared, a nation built not on respectable ties of blood and tradition but on the self-conscious desire to create something new.

Antagonism

Levy is sympathetic to the US, and a book he wrote on his travels there, American Vertigo, is a balanced and thoughtful piece of work.

But such balance is, according to Levy, missing in the French political debate on American power and American life. He describes a process whereby this antagonism to the fundamentals of the USA - to the kind of democracy that celebrates and encourages ordinariness - migrates hither and thither in the French body politic.

It began on the right but now in the shape of Jose Bove (the anti-McDonald's campaigner, and presidential candidate) and other luminaries of the left, it lives on.

And this is not a recent migration brought on by Mr Bush. In May 1944 (just weeks before American GIs landed on the beaches of Normandy), Hubert Beuve-Mery, the founder of Le Monde newspaper - certainly no mouthpiece of the right - wrote this: "The Americans represent a real danger for France, different from the one posed by Germany or the one with which the Russians may - in time - threaten us. The Americans may have preserved a cult of Liberty but they do not feel the need to liberate themselves from the servitude which their capitalism has created. "

It is time that we understood that this attitude, this contempt for what democracy can do, is at the heart of at least some of the anti-Americanism we see in the world today.

Italian TV Shows (edited of course) The Beheading of the Italian Reporters Interpreter

The reason I am showing this is that I want the watcher to take note that a reading of the Koran takes place right before the beheading. Mohammad himself was personally involved in (as well as ordered) the beheading of 900 people. Where are the Jewish Suicide bombers? And if there ever is one, I am sure the outcry against such actions from the Jewish community will be staggering. Where are the Christian’s – with the support of orthodox Christianity – beheading people? Jesus, in fact, when Peter struck off the ear of a soldier, healed said soldiers ear. This is in direct contradistinction to the founder of Islam who was a murderous thug!

I hope the Italian people picked up on the religious war that has entered their lives.

Don Imus Flop

Racism – Conspiracies – Free Speech

More to Come!

First off, Imus’s comment about these young college girls who have worked very hard to achieve their position in education and sports was just plain wrong! I truly believe that the market (sponsors and listeners) will determine Don Imus’s fate. The free-market is much more effective than government censorship in my mind’s eye.

THAT BEING SAID! When will Sharpton and Jesse Jackson apologize for what they said about the Duke Lacross players? Don Imus’ fopaux I think can be used in a positive way to show the hypocrisy of the “victicrats” and race charlatans that “claim” to “represent” the “black community.”

What does Snoop Dog have to say on the issue?

“It’s a completely different scenario,” said Snoop, barking over the phone from a hotel room in L.A. “[Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We’re talking about ho’s that’s in the ‘hood that ain’t doing sh–, that’s trying to get a n—a for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain’t no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC [which announced Wednesday it would drop its simulcast of Imus’ radio show] going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mutha—-as say we in the same league as him.”

HotAir

Drudge Report has this rough-draft of Imus’s latest comments… which I do support. Imus has seen now, the insane hypocrisy in the Democratic Party and the race cards that can be pulled.

DON IMUS: When will Al Sharpton be apologizing to them?

(LAUGHTER)

CARLIN: I'm unaware of such a press conference.

IMUS: I'll be darned...

UPDATE 6:28 AM: After a station break, Imus came back to discuss MSNBC's decision. He said he was recently chatted with "another big time broadcasting executive" who was "complaining that [MSNBC] had cancelled the simulcast twelve hours before we were getting ready to conduct this radio-thon for these three charities."

Imus: "My position on all of this is not whining about the hideously hypocritical coverage from the newspapers -- from everybody -- or the lack of support, say, from people like Harold Ford, Jr. who I had my life threatened over supporting and all these kind of things. It all began, and it doesn't make any difference -- like [James] Carville said -- stop talking about the context, it doesn't make any difference. If I hadn't have said it I wouldn't be here. So let's stop whining about it...You gotta stop complaining. I said a stupid, idiotic thing that desperately hurt these kids. I'm going to apologize but we gotta move on."

UPDATE 7:37 am. IMUS: "The hypocrisy is absurd...Everybody knows what the deal is. And this is not over. This story does not end here."

Imus also gave a shout-out to Opie & Anthony, who support Imus on this issue.

UPDATE 7:57:

Imus says he spoke with MSNBC Senior VP Phil Griffin and said "some of the stuff that MSNBC has done this morning is frankly unethical and I've asked them to stop doing it."

But also said, "I'm not whining about the coverage. I'm not whining about any aspect of this."

"I've said 100 times: I said it and if I hadn't said it, we wouodn't be sitting here talking about it. And that's the bottom line."

Imus also said that losing television (via MSNBC) isn't as big as losing radio. "The big part of the program is radio. There's millions of people listening to the radio. At best a few hundred thousand are watching television."

On MSNBC's decision: "I understand the pressure they were under. I'm not stupid."

UPDATE 8:15am: Speaking with an African-American woman, whose son had spent time at the Imus Ranch, Imus said, "And I want to say to you as an African-American woman, I'm sorry for what I said...I want to apologize to all African-American women." The woman said, "Okay, I accept that."

UPDATE 8:19AM: Imus said that one of the "sad ironies of my stupidity" is that, at his ranch, "we sent six kids home because they couldn't stop calling girls bitches and hos."

UPDATE 8:21AM: "I want to thank Opie & Anthony...I love them and I love what they do. I know they offend people perhaps more than I do. They're good loyal guys...Even Howard [Stern] hasn't been horrible." (Although if you read this Stern show summary, seems like Stern still has his claws out against his longtime nemesis.) UPDATE 8:28AM: Imus says that he's had "a lot of big people in the media" calling him "whining about the hypocrsity in the coverage. We understand that. You just turn on the cable channels or read the newspaper, trying to portray me as some vicious racist or whatever and there's not one person talking about the other things I've done...There's a difference between premeditated murder and a gun going off...But you've got to take your medicine. I'm not whining about it."

"Don't tell me that context isn't important. Context is importnat in everything we do in our lives. But it's not an excuse."

UPDATE 8:38AM: Despite the controversy, Imus says contributions for The Tomorrows Children Fund and the Imus Ranch are "way, way up" compared to this time in the show last year, which is significant because "the money's more important this year than ever."

He added: "These bastards went after me. They got me. But they didn't catch me asleep."

UPDATE 8:44AM: MSNBC's Imus webpage is still up, with a statement and link to Imus' charities.

UPDATE 8:45am: "One day you've got a radio and tv show and one day you don't...Ordinarily we need to raise $3 million, this year we need to raise $100 million -- just in case (Laughter)."

UPDATE 8:57AM: Tells his friends, "Don't call me telling me that the coverage is unfair...If I hadn't said it, there'd be no coverage...Shut up about it...I've been dishing it out for a long time, and now it's my turn...I'm not going to whine about it."

Imus also lets readers know that he's doing today's show in the MSNBC studio.

UPDATE 9:01AM: Charlie McCord says that they've raised over $400,000.

UPDATE 9:10AM: On MSNBC:I understand their decision." "I appreciate them letting us use their studio this morning."

To "all of my friends in the media, out of the media: You can't whine about this...We wouldn't have been there if I hadn't said it."

He again called media coverage "outrageously hypocritical."

"Harold Ford, Jr. has been disgraceful in his lack of support. I endured death threats to endorse him...It's unfortunate that he has no courage."

"I'm not surprised by any of this. I'm not surprised at the hypocrisy of Al Sharpton, of Jesse Jackson or any of these people. But you can't whine about it."

"We can talk about all the good work that I've done forever, but I still said that. I'm not making any excuses. Everybody's got to stop whining and quit talking about it."

UPDATE 9:25AM: "I've dished it out for a long time and now it's my time to take it. That's fine. Bring it on."

UPDATE 9:28AM: After one guest said "kick ass," then followed that with "can I say that?" Imus said, "I think today you can say anything."

UPDATE 9:37: "We've never done this well before" (regarding the radiothon)

UPDATE 9:38: On meeting with the Rutgers basketball players: "I can't go through the rest of my life -- nor can they -- without us having this conversation and me telling them how I feel and, more importantly, them telling me how they feel."