Diametric Differences of Domestic Doctrine…

The vast gulf fixed between the intellect of Thomas Sowell and Barack (aka "Barry Sotero") Obama has never been so apparent as when examining the "facts" behind the current "govt shutdown" as presented by both men.

Obama (and cronies) forced a "government shutdown" and continue to lay the blame at the feet of "unreasonable" Republicans in the House that have failed to step up and do their jobs.

Sowell succinctly lays out his own proof that blaming the shutdown on the House would be inaccurate (as found in the Congressional Record), then continues by citing the Constitutional mandate of the House to fund (or "not fund") those things that they believe are in the best (and worst)  interests of the nation, and to support those things that best represent the beliefs of their constituents.

Personally, I wish we had gotten Sowell... the classy, articulate, intellectual, war veteran (Marine) that worked hard to put himself thru college after dropping out of high school. Unfortunately, he never had a big enough ego to run for President.

Therefore, the one currently occupying the White House is instead the brassy, teleprompter-dependent, activist, community organizer (& self-confessed marijuana smoker) that put himself thru college by successfully applying for numerous "foreign student" scholarships.

(FWIW— These well-known black Americans have had interesting parallels in their lives: both were born poor, both espoused Marxist ideology in their 20s, both graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, both went on to teach at the college level, and both worked in some capacity in our government.)

Comparison of 128 Years Of CO2 Emissions & Resulting Climate Change

This entry gets a little more detailed than I normally do, but in the last week I've been having extensive discussions with some individuals that are concerned with CO2 emissions causing the eminent demise of our planet. Seemed to me that replicating the work to my blog would make a good article... for those that aren't interested in "spin" -- but in the truth.

After you look at this small amount of evidence, and before you go explaining it to "lousy Larry" on the street, just remember what Terence said:
"Hoc tempore obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit":
(In these days friends are won through flattery, the truth gives birth to hate.)

I've done extensive work... learning formulas... comparing graphs... studying charts... crunching numbers... plugging along... and the sum total all of my research can be boiled down and expressed by a comparison of 2 simple graphs. (Both are pulled from 2008 data compiled by US govt organizations.)

The first is the CDIAC's estimate of CO2 emissions and the second is NASA's recorded climatological records.

I got this CDIAC graph from EarthPolicy.org. It shows the increase in total CO2 emissions from 1751 to the present (prior to 1825 the amounts were too small to graph):

This NASA graph shows the difference of the yearly US temperature averages (0 degrees C being the mean of the last 128 years) -- from when they were first recorded (in 1880) to the present:

Looking at the two graphs, I see several things:

1) Since the early 1880s, CO2 emissions have increased astronomically.

2) The largest difference in minimum and maximum yearly temperature means for any 5 year period falls between 1917 (low of -1.071) & 1921 (high of +1.119). (A total difference of 2.226 degrees C.)

3) The highest single yearly average mean is actually a tie between 2 years: 1934 & 1998 (+1.238).

4) 1934 had ~1.125 billion tons of CO2 emissions; 1998 had ~6.875 billion. (A difference of ~5.75 billion tons.)

5) The difference in the absolute lowest recorded yearly mean temperature (1917: -1.071 degrees C) and the highest recorded yearly mean (the 2 years listed in #3 & #4) is about 2 degrees C (2.309524).

6) The total change from the first 5 year mean ~(-0.24) to the most recent ~(+0.64) is a difference of almost 1 degree C ~(0.880952).

7) The very first recorded five year mean temperature (1882) is identical to the five year mean temperature recorded in 1977.

8) The last year on the temperature graph -- 2008 -- has an annual mean temperature identical to that recorded in 1890.

9) The estimated yearly output of CO2 emissions in 1890 was ~0.375 billion tons, in 2008 was ~8.375 billion tons. (A difference of ~8 billion tons.)

10) There is only one yearly mean that falls more than 1 degree lower than the 128 year average: 1917, but there are 5 yearly means that fall more than 1 degree above the 128 year average: 1921, 1931, 1934, 1998, & 2006.
(Incidentally, 3 of those 5 occur well before the beginning of the explosion of CO2 emissions that started in the 1950s and have continued since).

There is no observable correlation in the data between the graph of CO2 emissions and the graph of yearly temperature means.

This is only ONE comparative example of MUCH data that I've sifted through. After extensive digging, I have yet to find even one piece of recorded scientific evidence that reflects a direct tie-in to CO2 emissions and climate.

Therefore, it's apparent to me (based on the last 128 years of recorded global temperature change) that the urgency of reducing CO2 emissions to "save the planet" from catastrophic climate change is an unmitigated hoax.

More Fautography?

My friends know I'm constantly looking for reliable "newsy" sites. Well, today after a hearty early morning breakfast (at Cracker Barrel) I found another great one: www.bizzyblog.com. I'll be adding it into my blogroll shortly.

Anyway, here is the article that caught my attention, CNN Doubles Down; Reposts Withdrawn Video of Apparently Faked CPR Attempt on ‘Dead’ Palestinian Child. I watched the video at CNN (and grabbed it, just in case it's taken down -- again), I read his article, and I must say I agree with him. Here is my take:

Simply put, it appears to me that there is more fauxtography in the works. Perhaps I'm wrong, but my initial impression of this video by CNN appears to me to be another fake. (You can click the link to see it on CNN, or watch my version embedded below. If you read my comments first, the discrepancies are glaring.)

There are two parts of this video that make me think this video is not what it's been reported to be: the roof scenes, and the hospital scenes (which is actually most of the video).

Starting with the roof:

1. The extent of visible damage shown in the entire clip was no more than fragments of one cinder block? Unbelievable. I know the destruction caused by an American missile (even one fired from an unmanned drone) would have been much greater than one partially-shattered cinder-block on the roof of a house. Any of our missiles would've at least blown a large gaping hole in the roof, but (more likely) leveled the home. Since the Israelis get many of their weapons from the US, I know their missiles would cause the same extensive damage as ours.

2. The pattern of destruction matches those received in Israel to a "T" -- Hamas fires missiles with yields this low (and accuracy this poor) all the time. In my opinion, this was Hamas' missile and they're trying to shove the blame off on the IDF.

3. The video says that guy doing the filming, "got a call. The family home had been hit by a rocket." Maybe I'm hung on semantics, but rockets are fired from the ground -- by Hamas.

4. The light gauge metal sheeting around the perimeter has blood spatter on it, but no holes thru it? I have a pellet gun that will shoot thru that stuff. How small was this blast? Surely a piece of cinder block propelled by an exploding missile or rocket would have enough force to puncture light-gauge galvanized sheeting.

5. The furniture on the roof (what looks like a bookcase and a plastic chair) has no holes in it either, but is covered in blood spatter. All this is supposedly from the blast of a military-grade IDF missile?? If the chair was close enough to the blast zone to be bloody, but wasn't even knocked over, I'd say it's highly unlikely a military missile was the cause. The concussion of even a hand grenade would knock the chair over. (My three and a half year old son takes great pleasure in throwing similar chairs around the yard.)

Moving on to the hospital. The "doctors" in the hospital are either bad actors, or completely staging this. (My first-born son has had extensive medical problems, I've lived in the hospitals for months on end.) Here are some of the questions this video raises in my mind:

1. Why is the "lead doctor" looking at the monitor? I've watched emergency surgery performed on my son several times. I've never seen a lead doctor watch a monitor! During surgery, he (or she) work on the patient -- while looking at the patient. If the lead surgeon needs supplies or equipment, they ask; if they want a status report, they ask for it. Yet, all I see of this doctor is him pointing at a screen, moving supplies around, and wiping the boy off with an alcohol pad!?!?!? If he's not staging this, he should be fired for incompetence; he wasn't even moving quickly.

2. According to CNN's video, the boy was "hit by a rocket" that left the rooftop "... now pockmarked by shrapnel and spattered with blood." If so, then why is there NO blood on the lead doctor's gloves?!? Didn't he do anything beside point at the monitor, move stuff around, and gesture for the camera?

3. Why does the person that was doing CPR have only a small amount of blood on his gloves?? I've seen more blood on a doctor's hands from inserting a simple chest tube. The amount of damage caused by an explosion should have shredded skin and blood vessels, making anyone who touched the child a bloody mess.

4. Continuing on with the same reasoning: Why aren't the lab coats bloody? at all? (I wonder if perhaps they forgot to change into dirty ones for the video?)

5. How did the sheet that was under the victim (the one they wrapped him in after their "failed attempt" to save him) have so little blood on it? (Especially since the bed below the sheet was severely blood-stained?)

6. I'd have failed my CPR certification if I'd done it like this -- even on an infant. It's laughable how little effort was taken to make sure the man was doing it properly.

7. A genuine effort to save the child would include getting oxygen inside his lungs. If the blood were really being pumped thru his heart (by the fake CPR), then forcing air into his lungs at the same time (with a ventilator, if they have it) would keep him alive (when you don't have a vent and you do it by hand -- it's called "bagging"). They don't have a ventilator here -- why is no one bagging?

The lack of blood is telling. When you quit bleeding it's because [A.] you're out of blood -- you're dead -- or [B.] the flow has been stopped, and you're alive. This unfortunate child had quit bleeding by the time the video was taken, maybe even before he reached the hospital.

The lack of effort and genuine medical practices is telling. In this video, these doctors did not do anything -- except pose -- and that poorly.

Finally, the lack of serious structural damage is telling. Even the smallest hand grenade carried by any IDF soldiers would have caused more destruction than was on that rooftop. The rocket was probably homemade (by Hamas) and their accuracy was nonexistent. I do think this boy was killed, but I highly doubt that anyone but Hamas could have fired the rocket that killed him.

While I do feel badly for the family, I'm appalled that they would allow their dead child to be prostituted in this manner:

Fauxtography

I've seen very little fauxtography during this conflict. Obviously, the Palestinians have noticed their typical propaganda tactics backfired. The one (sickening) instance I've seen involves what appears to be a badly burned child. I've saved each picture from the original sources (in case they're moved or taken down), but if you want to see them in their original locations, click either photo caption and they will open a new window with the corresponding photo.



The first photo is an AP photo bearing the caption:

A Palestinian carries a child into the Shifa hospital in Gaza City, wounded during the Israeli army operation in Gaza, Sunday Jan. 4, 2009. Israeli ground troops and tanks cut swaths through the Gaza Strip Sunday, bisecting the coastal territory and surrounding its biggest city as the new phase of a devastating offensive against the Hamas group gained momentum.

I cropped the second (Getty) photo to the same size as the other (before combining them in one image). The second caption is:

A Palestinian father carries his wounded baby daughter into a hospital in Gaza City on January 4, 2009 as Israeli troops continue its ground assault in Gaza. The half dozen hospitals in Gaza cannot cope with more patients and casualties are overflowing out of regular wards into corridors as Israeli troops push deep into Gaza. At least 40 people have been killed since Israel launched the night-time offensive yesterday after eight days of air strikes in which at least 485 Palestinians died and more than 2,400 were wounded, Gaza medics said.

Obviously, it is the same baby; the burn mark on the forehead is the same. Even if the face wasn't visible, the orange and green clothing would be suspect. Perhaps the second photo wasn't staged, but I'm not sure why a different man would be carrying the same (undressed) baby into another hospital. It sickens me that such a badly injured child is no more than propaganda to these people.

A Matter of Trust

As I've stated in the past I'm not overly impressed with all aspects of either candidate, I WILL, however, be voting for the candidate that is (and has been) the most transparent in all aspects of their political career, their education, their long-term associations, and future aspirations.

I cannot conceive of anyone entrusting the office of President to any person that is unwilling to unveil their entire life to public scrutiny. Whomever assumes the office of President of the USA will be "in charge" of the world's only remaining superpower. That is a HUGE amount of responsibility and MUST NOT be taken lightly. One of these 2 men (McCain or Obama) is going to be left holding ALL the keys to ALL the "locks" that hold back the most advanced military in the history of the world. I would NOT give a set of car keys to ANY person that I could not trust explicitly, nor should anyone with any semblance of common sense vote to elect a commander-in-chief that has yet to demonstrate any degree of integrity. Additionally, I refuse to vote "present" by voting for some impossible-to-elect 3rd-party individual merely to show my disapproval for both major parties and "teach them a lesson" (whomever "them" happens to be at the moment). That type of "teaching" is never teaching, it is the selfish, irresponsible, and highly arrogant antics that stem from prideful immaturity.

With so much at stake this election, anyone not voting for the candidate that will most closely follow the principles that brought our country TO greatness, is not only voting to take our country FROM greatness, but is also voting FOR the destruction of all we have, all we hold dear, and all that is unique to us as Americans. I realize that this "destruction" may, or may not happen in the next four years, but each individual that fills a term as President leaves a mark (for better or for worse) on our nation.

As a Believer I'm required by God to be a good steward of everything with which HE has entrusted me; my citizenship in this nation is one of those blessings. As a citizen, I am responsible to exercise my right to vote, and as a voter, I am responsible to do what is best (long-term) for my country.

In conclusion, I think the words of Sir Francis Bacon sum it up the best, "Hope is a good breakfast, but it is a bad supper."