Saturday, May 08, 2010

Cowards and Idiots

What if someone in Hollywood made a film about evil Imams ruling over ignorant people, encouraging brutes to take child brides, running schools that only teach hatred and murder, encouraging 'honor' killings of their women - even their own wives and daughters - talking parents into putting suicide belts on their children, encouraging followers to blow up airliners full of innocent civilians, encouraging women to put explosives in their boobs, plotting to force Sharia law on populations of free citizens, preaching hatred and murder in their mosques......?

Ain't gonna happen, is it? Even though it is all totally true.

What's Hollyweird doing then?

Making another Catholic-bashing movie, using total fabrications and distorted truths to attack one of America's major faiths.

That's okay with us though, because we want to do everything we can to take the focus off of Islam and Jihadistan.....right???

If Hollywood hadn’t spent most of the post-9/11 decade portraying Islamic terrorists as nuanced victims driven to violence by the West, their open cowardice when it come to taking on Islamists might make some sense.

"Green" technologies and renewable energy do not significantly reduce our dependence on oil!

The title of this article is deceptive in that none of these technologies could replace oil. In fact, the rapid development of any or all of these technologies would displace only a small percentage of US oil use. Roughly three-quarters of our petroleum usage is in the transportation sector (read: gasoline), while none of these technologies are viable as a fuel replacement. The other quarter of petroleum energy usage is primarily commercial and industrial CHP (combined heat and power) for which trash burning would be the only potential replacement of the four techs discussed here.

In the end, this idea that these clean renewables like wind, solar, and tidal are going to reduce our dependence on oil is an unfortunate misconception. Even if we increase out output from renewables by an order of magnitude, we've displaced some energy use from coal, natural gas, and nuclear, but done very little to put a dent in oil usage.

If you take oil out of the title (4 Energy Technologies That Could Replace Oil) , the claim that these technologies could replace coal or nuclear is still erroneous. Coal and nuclear are used as base load power sources, while wind and solar are not base load viable. In the case of wind, peak output (nighttime) is very much mismatched with peak demand (daytime). Yes, you can absolutely reduce our dependence on both coal and nuclear with these green technologies, but no amount of solar panels on roofs or wind farms is ever going to shut down the coal mines or the nuclear reactors. There's no silver bullet here. Green is good, but its nowhere close to a solution. Numbers came from

Big Bird asks hard questions

Friday, May 07, 2010

Who's Watching out for YA??

For those who told me I needed to reserve judgement on Faisal Raghead Nosehair and government's handling of his failed attempt to blow up New Yorkers:

Hussein Obama's administration took him OFF THE WATCH LIST BEFORE HE PLANTED THE BOMB.

The cowardly little would-be mass murderer Had Contact with Awlaki, the Taliban Chief, and Mumbai Massacre Mastermind.

Any questions???

Anyone??? Anyone???

The SUV was the Clue that the Bomber was a Conservative....OOOPS

That person who tried to blow up Times Square with an SUV bomb? It MUST have been a Teabagger! The DUmmies are SURE of it! Only a white, Christian, heterosexual, SUV-driving, anti-Obama racist could be responsible for such a reprehensible terrorist act--although AmeriKKKa does deserve it, of course. See the DUmmie paranoia and prejudice unfold here in this THREAD, "PREDICTION: They'll arrest somebody for the Times Square Event within 48 hours."

So let us all hop in our gas-guzzling SUVs and head on over to DUmmieland. The DUmmie comments are in--what will turn out to be--Red-faced Red, while the commentary of your humble guest correspondent, Charles Henrickson, a white Christian heterosexual with an alibi, is in the [brackets]:

PREDICTION: They'll arrest somebody for the Times Square Event within 48 hours

[It's Karl Rove, and he's already been arrested. Just give it 48 business hours.]

He had Connecticut plates on the SUV that were registered to another vehicle.

[Hmmm. . . . The Bush Family Evil Empire has roots in Connecticut. . . .]

Once they check the VIN, they'll know whose car it is.

[VIN SCULLY?!? Who knew?]

it's obvious the perpetrator left a trail of bread crumbs that will lead right to him.

[Or a trail of TEA LEAVES!]

There will be a VIN. VINs are located in numerous places. . . .

[Let's see . . . Vin Scully . . . Vin Di Bona . . . My Cousin Vinnie . . . Vin Diesel--VIN DIESEL! That's it! "Diesel"/SUV, blows up things--We've got our man! . . . No, wait, Vin Diesel is part African-American, isn't he? That would rule him out. Not white enough.]

This is definitely the work of a conservative.

[The SUV is a dead giveaway.]

When I purchase a big item I stamp my ss number on it in various places, one that will be seen pretty easily then the others requiring a partial tear down. Just in case I want identify it later. I know a person who had his tools stolen and he found a couple of them but because he couldn't tell the investigators enough to make a positive identification he lost them anyway. I try my best to not let that happen, it had a scratch here or it had a bump there won't get it. Well I took the switch out and filed that little diddly thingy there that was bugging me works every time though or I replaced one of the brake lite bulbs or a switch and or had broken some little piece or what ever works though. If you use a stamp to put a number or letter in a piece of metal no matter if its ground off it can still be seen using the right techniques. Not sure about welding over it but that would raise questions because you can identify that as the place I put my name or a number.

[Do you bore people professionally, or is this just a hobby?]

Here is a partial list of the places you can find them on the Pathfinder
Nissan Axxess, Van
Pickup, Pathfinder
280Z, ZX
All others excl. above Left side of dash (thru windshield)
Front left floor panel
Left side of dash (thru windshield)
Right inner fender
Left side of dash (thru windshield)
Right strut housing
Left side of dash (thru windshield)
Firewall 10th

[Call the FBI. I'm sure your information will help them crack the case.]

They also found fingerprints.

[Well, that narrows it down to people with fingers.]

I'm betting it's a veteran. . . .

[May we question your patriotism now?]

I think it's about 75% likely this was a right wing militia member.

[25% chance it's a right-wing militia groupie.]

87% of statistics are made up on the spot.

[Hee! Hee!]

I predict it will be Mel Gibson.

[I'll go with Mel Tillis, and a sudden stuttering attack made him mess up the explosion.]

Wonder if it will end up being a right-wing terrorism incident?


I would say that your average right-winger fits the profile to a "Tea".

[Profiles in Beverage.]

A false-flag event designed to Arizona'ize NYC?

[Jesse Ventura checks in.]

I think Halliburton has a finger in this pie.

[Hey, you may be on to something! An SUV uses more gas, hence more oil. . . . Anybody know the whereabouts of Dick Cheney on the night in question?]

It knocked the environmental disaster off the headlines and they played a huge part in it. Also, they would WANT to make it look like an amateur.

[Those devious b*st*rds!]

CT plates?

[Lieberman! Of course! A Neo-con Zionist plot!]

amateur = domestic? Shoe bomber? underpants bomber? not seeing the logic in that conclusion.

[Your Kewpie Doll is on the way, DUmmie rucky, for this Brief Moment of Mental Clarity™!]

My Guess:
Right Wing
White Male
Flag Waving Patriot
McVeigh / Ruby Ridge / Waco fanatic
2nd Ammendment Gun Nut
Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian
and most importantly:
Anti-Immigration Zealot.

[Oh, come on, go out on a limb here! Those things are GIVENS!]

All I hope is that they have ties to the teabaggers

[Please, please, PUH-LEEZE, let it be a teabagger! Oh, Gaia, please hear me!]

I highly doubt that.

[Huh? Wha-aa??]

Of course you do because you saw the news that a Pakistani man had been arrested over 5 hours ago, like everyone else who has watched the news over the last few hours.

[Oopsie! Never mind.]

Is this a good idea??
Treasury and Education Departments want to know if volunteerism should be required for students to qualify for some college assistance. Higher education leaders don't like the idea.

The Canadian Province of Ontario will not allow you to receive your high school diploma until you have proven 40 hours of community service. Looks like Obama could ask for the same help in his next election. Maybe the kids will wear brown shirts and learn to goose step as well?

What happened yesterday

In a soft way this is what happened yesterday. AND some people made a LOT of money. This thing was due to misinformation. To mob mentality. Not manipulation. I lived in this environment as a trader years ago. It was a rush. Also more risky than I ever want to be again.

God will not be mocked...look out boys...

More "Art" and "Free Speech" from cowardly Leftist/Humanist loons who dare not offend Jihadistan or Mohamed, but can hardly wait to mock the living Lord Jesus Christ.

Only the brain-dead would put up with one second of this on their TV screens.
Comedy Central might censor every image of the Prophet Muhammed on "South Park," yet the network is developing a whole animated series around Jesus Christ.

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Sojurners "Pledge" and why I oppose it (in red)

1) We commit that our dialogue with each other will reflect the spirit of the Scriptures, where our posture toward each other is to be “quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry” (James 1:19). I'm for that...but that isn't what I hear...I see those of the religious left very angry...yet they want ME to stay calm. AND...what spirit of the scriptures...I imagine that would be pretty subjective.

2) We believe that each of us, and our fellow human beings, are created in the image of God. The respect we owe to God should be reflected in the honor and respect we show to each other in our common humanity, particularly in how we speak to each other. “With the tongue we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God …. this ought not to be so” (James 3:9, 10). I will not curse another person...unless they are destructive to what I know to be true...I would have cursed Hitler. Have cursed others. Blessing and Cursing. Binding and Loosing are a responsibility. Was Hitler made in the image of God? We are to judge those with whom we have fellowship... yoking and all.

3) We pledge that when we disagree, we will do so respectfully, without falsely impugning the other’s motives, attacking the other’s character, or questioning the other’s faith, and recognizing in humility that in our limited, human opinions, “we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror” (1 Corinthians 13:12). We will therefore “be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love” (Ephesians 4:2). This one is one that I disagree with most. The motives of the left are NOT pure. Nor for some on the right. I am OBLIGATED to judge the motives. Wise as serpents...gentle as doves. Jesus would have had a really hard time with this...Whitewash tombs and all. This is Liberal Religious gobbledygook.

4) We will ever be mindful of the language we use in expressing our disagreements, being neither arrogant nor boastful in our beliefs: “Before destruction one’s heart is haughty, but humility goes before honor” (Proverbs 18:12). I'm for that...but it must go both ways. If you come at me with haughty, I will return the favor. Arrogant. Boastful. And our President, the one who the left would love to protect is most arrogant, boastful and haughty. A bad example. I wonder if HE took this pledge.

5) We recognize that we cannot function together as citizens of the same community, whether local or national, unless we are mindful of how we treat each other in pursuit of the common good in the common life we share together. Each of us must therefore “put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body” (Ephesians 4:25). Does common good include euthanasia, homosexuality in the pulpit, abortion. See. these things must be stood up against in TRUTH about them.

6) We commit to pray for our political leaders—those with whom we may agree, as well as those with whom we may disagree. “I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made … for kings and all who are in high positions” (1 Timothy 2:1-2). I do actually pray for BHO. I pray he repents and come to his senses or is removed from office. How else should I pray, that he continues on the path he is on?

7) We believe that it is more difficult to hate others, even our adversaries and our enemies, when we are praying for them. We commit to pray for each other, those with whom we agree and those with whom we may disagree, so that together we may strive to be faithful witnesses to our Lord, who prayed “ that they may be one” (John 17:22). See Number 6. Oh, and I do NOT hate liberals, as people. I hate what they stand for. As I do not Hate Homosexuals or even those who are engaged in Abortion. But I oppose every turn. More religious gobbledygook.

We pledge to God and to each other that we will lead by example in a country where civil discourse seems to have broken down. We will work to model a better way in how we treat each other in our many faith communities, even across religious and political lines. We will strive to create in our congregations safe and sacred spaces for common prayer and community discussion as we come together to seek God’s will for our nation and our world.

I believe in the prayer of agreement...this cannot be that.

I really GET why in the LCMS we do NOT pray with just anyone...or how we pray for those we oppose.

Sunday, May 02, 2010

What is Man from Martin Luther King Jr

"What is man?" is a piece from Measure of a Man which was written by Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1959.

King begins by stating that he will attempt to answer the question “what is man”, which he believes leads to determining the political, social and economic structure of society. He raises issues of totalitarian government and democracy. He also states, ‘Although there is widespread agreement in asking the question, there is fantastic disagreement in answering it’. There are some people, he continues, that believe ‘man is little more than an animal’ and there are those ‘who would lift man almost to the position of a God’. There are then those who would ‘combine the truths of both’ and see ‘man a strange dualism, something of a dichotomy’ and quotes ‘there are depths in man that go down to the lowest hell, and heights that reach the highest heaven’ King sees logic in this view and uses the two following quotes as a basis for his position;

  • ‘Thou hast made him a little lower than angels, and crowned him with glory and honour’. And the revised;
  • 'Thou hast made him a little less divine, a little less than God, and crowned him with glory and honour’.

He notices first that ‘man is a biological being with a physical body’, which is the ‘less than God’, as we think of ‘God as a being of pure spirit, lifted above the categories of time and space’. The psalmist would then say that God made man that way, and because of this ‘there is nothing wrong with it’ and that ‘everything God makes is good; therefore there is nothing wrong with it’. The Greeks, as King informs us, ‘felt the body was evil’ and that the ‘soul could never reach its full maturity until it broke loose from the prison of the body’. However, Christianity raises the view that ‘the body is not the principle of evil; it says the will is the principle of evil’. He then defines that in ‘any doctrine of man, we must be concerned with man's physical well being’. To support this he brings up Jesus` quote that we need the “bread” to survive and also states ‘this isn’t the only part’ and if we stop here we would see ‘man merely as an animal’. He then brings an example of chemists who calculated that the values of man came to ‘about ninety-eight cents’, today with our living standards it comes to ‘a dollar ninety eight for the average man’. King challenges this idea by questioning ‘But can we explain the whole of man in terms of ninety eight cents?’ and brings up examples of human genius; and again asks ‘Can we explain the mystery of the human soul in terms of ninety eight cents?’ To this he answers “no” and states that ‘man is a child of God’ and raises the second basic point of the doctrine ‘that man is a being of spirit’, which is the ‘thou has crowned him with glory and honour’, and because of our ‘rational capacity, man has a mind, man can reason. This distinguishes us from the lower animals’. King then defines man as ‘God’s marvellous creation. Through his mind he can leap oceans, break through walls, and transcend the categories of time and space’. With this he defines what the biblical writers meant when they said ‘man is made in the image of God’, and that he has ‘rational capacity; he has the unique ability to have a fellowship with God. Man is a being of spirit’.

King then defines the third doctrine of man which ‘is the recognition that man is a sinner. Man is a free being made in the image of God’. Man also has the ability to ‘choose between alternatives, so he can choose the good or the evil, the high or the low’. King then admits that ‘man has misused his freedom’ and concludes that ‘man is a sinner in need of God’s divine grace’. King also admits that we find excuses to avoid this reality, ‘we say that man’s misdeeds are due to a conflict between the Id and the superego’. He then states the conflict is ‘between God and man’, and that we want to cry with St. Augustine, “Lord, make me pure, but not yet”. This then leads King to argue that ‘the “isness” of our present nature is out of harmony with the “oughtness” that forever confronts us’ with this ‘we know how to love, and yet we hate. We take the precious lives that God has given us and throw them away in riotous living.' He then compares us to ‘sheep (who) have gone astray.’ With this line of thought he concludes with ‘we are all sinners in need of God’s divine grace’. He then looks at history and sees ‘how we treat each other. Races trample over other races; nations trample over other nations. We go to war and destroy the values and lives that God has given us.’ With this he realises that ‘man isn’t made for that’ and ‘we were made for eternity’. The example of the “prodigal son” is then used to describe our relationship with God, believing that God will forgive us if we ask for it, ‘man is not made for the far country of evil…decided to rise up…I still love you’.

This is then defined as the ‘glory of our religion that when man decides to rise up, from his evil, there is a loving God saying, ‘Come home, I still love you”’. This is then compared to the actions of United States civilisation who started out right writing ‘all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’, but after trampling over ‘sixteen million of your brothers. You have deprived them of the basic good of life. You have treated them as if they were things rather than persons.' He ends the article with a prayer hoping for the ‘high and noble good’ and wishing America back home.