Morons Who Hate Oil

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

By Alan Caruba

It may seem harsh to call people who actively spread lies about oil “morons”, but that assumes they do so out of ignorance as opposed to those who do so for some crazed “environmental” reason that is so out of touch with reality it invites scorn.

A case in point is a new book by Steve Hallett with John Wright, “Life Without Oil: Why We Must Shift to a New Energy Future” ($25.00, Prometheus Books). Suffice to say that Hallett is an associate professor in the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology at Purdue University while Wright is “a journalist specializing in energy and environmental issues” who is the Latin America news editor for Energy News Today. Wright’s previous book was “The Obama Haters.”

How does Hallet get from botany to a supposed expertise on oil, an energy source more associated with geology? As for Mr. Wright, there is a strong possibility that he is a liberal and an environmentalist, and therefore beyond all hope when it comes to things called FACTS.

The prologue of their book is nauseating in that it regurgitates every environmental lie including “global warming”, a hoax that was revealed in November 2009 to have been the invention of colluding “scientists” working for the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change. Suffice to say their leaked emails demonstrated their panic when the Earth, beginning in 1998, began to cool.

“We seem to have quite a few problems,” wrote the authors. “Global climate change, peak oil, overpopulation, collapsing fisheries, desertification, wealth inequity, species extinctions, freshwater shortages, hapless governments, deforestation, disease epidemics, and agricultural failures top the list.”

Okay, scratch “global climate change” because the climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years on planet Earth, moving between ice ages and warmer periods well known to climatologists and meteorologists. The rest is mostly bogus, but what caught my eye was “wealth inequity” which is not an “environmental” problem, but is the keystone of a document called The Communist Manifesto.

Here’s another gem from their book. “We don’t know exactly when our fossil fuels will run out, but we can predict it to within a few decades. By the end of this century, our oil and natural gas supplies will be virtually nonexistent, and limited coal supplies will be restricted to only a handful of countries.”

Whoa! Does anyone recall how the all those “experts” on global warming kept predicting it was coming in thirty years, fifty years, by the year 3,000? This is the same scam being perpetrated by these two morons. And who is to blame for this coming disaster? “We are to blame.” That’s right, the horrid human race is to blame for this, just as it is for everything else environmentalists want to ban.

There is no denying that we horrible human beings have been using oil now for a while now, primarily since around the 1850s, ever since we discovered its marvelous properties, the energy stored in its molecules, and its extraordinary ability to be part of more than 6,000 products.

A single 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline and the rest is used in the manufacture of motor oil, diesel fuel, floor wax, asphalt, transparent tape, deodorant, dyes, rubber cement, water pipes, aspirin, toothbrushes, heart valves, bandages, and the other 6,000 things we use in some fashion or other. Suffice to say that all plastic begins as oil.

Are we running out of oil? No. Let me repeat. No. There is no such thing as “peak oil” because every time someone has made the prediction that we are using up all the oil, we find some more. This not to say the Obama administration will let oil companies drill for it in America. Not only do we pay less for domestic oil as opposed to importing it, but we have so much domestic oil we wouldn’t have to import it.

There are, for example, 40 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico and estimates of approximately 14 billion barrels off the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts. In the Bakken shale beneath North Dakota, in just the western third of the State it is estimated that there are more than 500 billion barrels that can be extracted.

According to the US Geological Survey and the Minerals Management Service at the Department of Interior that regulates America’s on and off-shore oil reserves, they estimate that America holds more than 21 billion barrels of “proven” conventional oil reserves. Add to this the estimated 100 billion barrels of oil reserves in the postage stamp-sized proposed drilling area of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.

According to the Congressional Research Service, America’s combined energy resources, oil, coal, and natural gas, are the largest on Earth!

It is insane that Americans will be paying $4, $5 or more for a gallon of gasoline and it is insane to believe environmentalists when they tell you the Earth is running out of oil “by the end of this century.”

It is a kindness to call environmentalists “morons.” They are deliberately lying to everyone, using a massive, international propaganda machine, because in the end they want what Karl Marx and Barack Obama want, a redistribution of your money to other people.

© Alan Caruba, 2011
More aboutMorons Who Hate Oil

First line of defence?

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

Labour have apparently not learned the lesson of last weekend and associating themselves with the violence of those who oppose cuts (yes we know most of the marchers were peaceful, but they didn't grab the headlines) Instead Millipede E has launched their local election campaign with the slogan "First line of defence against the cuts" whilst probably hoping no-one will ask why the cuts are necessary and/or blaming the banks for Labours spending spree.

Ed Miliband has launched Labour's campaign for council elections in England, saying the party will be the "first line of defence" against cuts.
The Labour leader argued local authority budget cuts will hit the poorest communities hardest and his party will stand up for those affected.
David Cameron told Conservative MPs on Wednesday they could win the "big argument" over the extent and speed of coalition plans to cut the deficit.
I know they are pushing hard, I've been canvassed twice here in the last couple of weeks, that's more than they managed in the last 10 years I've been here. It's the same message too that somehow or other their plans to help recover the economy are going to be kinder than the oppositions. All again without mentioning why we're in such a mess and not liking it at all when asked and no I don't take "it was the banks fault" as an acceptable answer, I know about PFI, the growth in the public sector, the pensions raid, the gold sell off and whilst the financial sector might have been complicit in starting the recession, they are not to blame for the state of the countries finances, that can be laid right back at the door of Labour and their economic incompetence, particularly that of one G Brown esq.
So no, Labour aren't the first line of defence unless of course you are in the public sector, what they should be is the last resort of the mentally unstable, not so much as scraping the bottom of the barrel, but scraping what's left underneath it. Labour have a great deal of nerve pontificating over the mess they left the country and their attempts to shift the blame for their mess and the cleaning up onto the Tories, not that the Tories are doing such a grand job themselves, but at least they admit the full scale of the problem even if doing nowhere near enough about it.
Problem is, Labour have entrenched too many people on non jobs in the public sector and these have to be peeled back layer by layer despite the strenuous objections of the public sector unions. Unemployment will rise inevitably, but it will get the states finances back under control. It would be nice to see the country run without borrowing for one thing. Job creation has to be a genuine thing, public sector jobs are essentially non contributory to the economy so the private sector needs to be encouraged to grow, best way to do that would be to leave the EU...

And there's the problem, the elephant in the room, we can't sort out the mess till we leave and we definitely can't sort out the mess by voting Labour, they put us there after all, the EU keeps us there and the Tories and Lib Dems won't get us out either.
You can see why I probably wont vote for anyone around here, they wont do what I want.
More aboutFirst line of defence?

The Big BPA Lie - The BPA File, Part Three

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

By Alan Caruba

When I began this series about bisphenol-A, BPA, I instituted a Google Alert for Internet posts that mentioned it. From January through March it generated a report each day filled with notifications of newspaper, magazine, and Internet posts all denouncing BPA as a hazardous chemical that threatened the health of everyone from infants to adults.

More than one thousand posts were reported. Virtually all spread false information.

Such things do not happen by accident. They are the result of a concerted effort to defame BPA and they are indicative of a massive public relations effort. Serendipitously, on March 2nd the National Review published an article by Jon Entire, “Don’t Rush to Ban Chemicals” that revealed how public opinion is manipulated by the use of dubious “scientific studies” and the way most people, unschooled in science, do not realize that “one part per billion” of any substance poses no risk at all.

Entine cited a survey that found that “Canadians on average have about one part per billion of BPA in their urine, while Americans have twice that amount” noting that this “is not just meaningless, let alone news by any definition, but is part of the massive public relations campaign to get BPA banned”

“Labeling a chemical ‘toxic’ or a ‘contaminant’ is meaningless,” said Entine. “Toxicity is a question of degree; exposure is different from effect. Apples, bananas, broccoli, cabbage, citrus fruits, mushrooms, turnips, and many more foods contain occurring chemicals that are toxic—they cause cancer at large lifelong doses in laboratory rodents. Tofu is more estrogenic than BPA.”

Anyone who wants to learn the truth about BPA is advised to visit, the website of Steve Milloy who has gained a solid reputation for debunking so-called “science based” fear campaigns. His data on BPA reveals that “there is no scientific evidence that BPA:

• Has ever harmed anyone despite 50 years of use;

• Acts as an endocrine disruptor; and

• Has any health effects at low doses;

Furthermore, the data debunks some of the most oft-cited and false claims about BPA.

• BPA is not carcinogenic or mutagenic;

• BPA does not adversely affect reproduction or development at any realistic dose;

• BPA is efficiently “metabolized” and rapidly excreted after oral exposure

So where does the worldwide anti-BPA public relations campaign originate?

The answer to that has to be by inference, but many trace it to Fenton Communications whose founder, David Fenton, has left-wing associations and affiliations dating all the way back to the domestic terror group, the Weatherman, for whom he was a photographer.

In a lengthy profile on, one learns that in 1982, he established Fenton Communications, specializing in advancing the agendas of “left-wing groups.” “One of Fenton’s most widely publicized achievements was his 1989 attack against the producers of Alar, a preservative (used on apples) that he erroneously characterized as carcinogenic.” The cost to American apple growers and distributors was catastrophic. It was deceptive.

The anti-BPA scare campaign is patterned on the anti-Alar campaign and a further link is found in the fact that two of Fenton’s longtime clients, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Working Group are leaders in the anti-BPA campaign. Moreover, BornFree, a company that specializes in products that do not contain BPA, is also a Fenton client.

In the book, “The Fear Profiteers”, Fenton Communications was identified as having “played a key role in a growing number of health scare campaigns.” At the time the book was published, Fenton was linked to “scares about Alar and apples, swordfish, leaky breast implants, and a front group (a favorite PR ploy) Health Care Without Harm that put forth lies about the alleged, but unproven danger of phthalates; chemicals used to make plastic flexible products for IV bags, nipples, and children’s toys.

Suffice to say Fenton Communications is opposed to anything that has to do with plastic, no matter how useful and safe the product may be. BPA has been in use for over fifty years to line the insides of metal and plastic food containers, protecting against spoilage. More than 6,000 studies have been made over the years and none have demonstrated any hazard.

“If you have been scared about food or pesticides in the last ten years,” said ‘The Fear Profiteers’, “chances are Fenton Communications played a key role in provoking that fear. The fears just don’t ever stop. But they all have one thing in common—a lack of evidence and abundance of deceit.”

The anti-BPA propaganda that has been put in motion is multiplied by the countless journalists who simply repeat the lies, accounting for some of the most meretricious misinformation on a daily basis. This in turn is multiplied by the seemingly endless blogs and alleged “health” websites that repeat and repeat it, primarily targeting expectant and new mothers. Another favorite target are men who are told BPA affects their sex drive.

The problem for everyone, everywhere in the world, occurs when governments or entities such as the European Union ban the use of BPA despite overwhelming evidence of its safe use. That puts everyone at risk for the food-related illnesses that occur when containers no longer have the protection that BPA provides.

Editor’s note: You can read The BPA File – Part One here and The BPA File – Part Two here.

© Alan Caruba, 2011
More aboutThe Big BPA Lie - The BPA File, Part Three

She's not a political prisoner she's a very naughty girl!

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

I've railed constantly at the mindset of the left on this blog and their beliefs in entitlement and social superiority flying in the face of common sense and decency, but there are times that they manage to make me laugh out loud with their sheer idiocy.

Guardian (CIF)
Cuts protest: I'm a political prisoner now

Why was I jailed with other peaceful UK Uncut supporters arrested at Fortnum & Mason? We'd messed with the rich, apparently.
On the day of the anti-cuts march the comedian Josie Long tweeted: "UK Uncut is about fun and peaceful protest." It's the same fun and peaceful protest that historically earned the group praise from the Daily Mail, celebrity fans from Radiohead to Duncan Bannatyne, and participants aged from three to 83. It is also the reason that I am proud to have attended numerous UK Uncut protests, from those that transformed Boots stores into hospitals to those that opened schools in Lloyds TSB. I've seen my fellow protesters bring along children, grandchildren, parents, friends and colleagues.
The occupation of Fortnum & Mason on 26 March was no different, as footage of the protest demonstrates. Despite this, and despite the police in the store praising the protest as "sensible", we were dragged away, arrested and taken to police stations around London. One of the protesters was 15 years old.
 No Imogen, what you did was trespass, breaking and entering, criminal damage and theft and you're clearly no Nelson Mandela, Emmeline Pankhurst or Martin Luther King, just some stupid girl who ended up in Fortnum and Mason's (75% owned by a charity) stealing wine and generally making a nuisance of yourself. You really want to know what it is to be dealt with firmly by the police, try being a member of the EDL when the Greater Manchester Police use their Tactical Aid Unit (TAU) and set the dogs on you without cause and without reason.
You Imogen were committing an offence, a criminal offence, not a political thought crime and not something likely to get you sent off to the UK equivalent of the Gulag Archipelago. You'll end up with a slap on the wrist, maybe a fine, perhaps some community service. Members of the EDL whose marches have been largely peaceful have ended up with 10 year ASBO's forbidding them to associate, meet, travel or even go on the EDL web pages so you'll forgive me if my sympathy for you is absolutely zero.
My advice is to grow up, cease your pathetic whines and bother us no more with your faux outrage, it's pathetic and fools nobody but a few deluded leftists in the Guardian as the comments rather show.
More aboutShe's not a political prisoner she's a very naughty girl!

A List of Some Big Ohio Auto Insurance Agencies.

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

Many Ohio auto insurance agencies are coming up on the web right now. This can be a combination of the longer serving and the rookies each with alluring bargains. In virtually all countries, automobile insurance is obligatory. Unlike other forms of insurance, auto insurance is mandatory in numerous countries. In case you drive in Ohio, the law demands that you hold a Minimum Liability insurance policy.

Typically, auto insurance targets the driver but some policies also cover third parties. The 3 most bought insurance plans are liability, physical injuries and third party coverage.

Ohio auto insurance covers automobile expenses. Third party compensations are only paid if you took a policy that has this. If the cover excluded anything, the driver will likely be liable for such costs. Auto insurance firms have no obligations over such claims.

Divergent views are held towards Ohio auto insurance. To some, they're a financial load, while to others they are really required. Those who believe they are not essential usually don't insure their cars. They continue driving around with a high risk.

Supplied here are some key Ohio auto insurance firms :

1. Safe Auto Insurance - This is an Ohio auto Insurance firm based out of Columbus. It was founded in 1993 by Jon Diamond and Air Deshe.

2. Automobile Association of America Auto Insurance - A partnership of numerous providers that offer all types of policies.

3. Geico Auto Insurance - One of the biggest insurers within the US was set up in 1936.

4. Allstate Insurance - Despite the fact that it is based in the Northfield Township of Illinois, it has only One business ahead of it in terms of size.

This covers only several key agencies.For a lot more companies, you'll be able to visit the web. Picking amongst Ohio auto insurance companies needs to be guided by service. Exceptional customer support will decrease claim headaches for you.

Select from a list of the most effective Ohio auto insurance agencies. A longer list will likely be harder to select from. Consider how they're rated. The ratings show the ones that have usually served their clients well.

Narrow down the list to a manageable 3 to 5. Look at previous clients comments. With these steps, you're unlikely to make a wrong option of your auto insurance firm.

More aboutA List of Some Big Ohio Auto Insurance Agencies.

How To Lower Your Auto Insurance Expense

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

There are many techniques you can lower your auto insurance fees. The principal point you have to recall is that the costs for an auto insurance policy varies from corporation to corporation. So make sure you evaluate with at least three corporations by acquiring auto insurance quotes from these businesses.

As there is no limit to the number of auto insurance quotes you request, you can get quotes from agents, auto insurance corporations and via the internet. You could also get suggestions from buddies and relatives for the proper auto insurance company to approach for your auto insurance policy. Get in touch with a representative from the organization so that you can compare quotes from other insurers offering the very same coverage, and reach the best package for your self.

Today, it is superior to evaluate insurance expenses before buying a new or applied automobile. This is simply because auto insurance premiums rely on the price of the vehicle, its repair expenses, safety record and its probability of theft. Asking for increased deductibles will get you a more affordable auto insurance policy.

This is since with a higher deductible your policy quantity is lowered, and therefore your premium quantity is diminished considerably. Nonetheless make certain that you have sufficient amount to pay for the deductible if you have to make a claim. If you have older automobiles, you could take into account decreasing your coverage by dropping its collision and comprehensive coverage. There is no point in purchasing an auto insurance policy for a automobile that is worth less than ten occasions the value of the premium quantity.

It proves to be cheaper for you to obtain your homeowners and auto insurance policies from the similar insurer as most insurers give discounts for two or much more kinds of insurance. You can also get a lower auto insurance policy if you have much more than a single vehicle insured with the very same corporation.

As insurers use credit data to fix auto insurance policies, make it a point to preserve a great credit record. This can be carried out by paying your bills on time, not acquiring much more credit than needed and sustaining low credit balances.

When acquiring your auto insurance policy, make use of discounts that the business may possibly provide, such as low mileage discounts, and so forth. This is a discount that is provided to drivers who drive much less than an common quantity of miles in a year. This discount is also readily available to those who basically car pool to operate.

There are other discounts that auto insurance businesses provide like discounts for those who have completed a defensive driving course, discounts for young and excellent students and discounts to students that have taken drivers education course. Auto insurance policies with these discounts prove to be more affordable and greater to you.

There are also auto insurance organizations that give reduction to drivers applying for their auto insurance policies in groups by way of expert, organization and alumni groups and associations.

More aboutHow To Lower Your Auto Insurance Expense

Low-cost Automobile Insurance Coverage For Women - Uncover The Key!

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

In purchase to uncover inexpensive auto insurance for females in this vicious marketplace, you ought to put together to do some digging. The crucial to locating the Most affordable Car Insurance coverage Quote is to evaluate all the pertinent components that go into delivering all round coverage at the lowest value. One particular sure way to come across the most affordable and greatest coverage is to search and evaluate quotes from the key insurance companies the two on the internet and offline. You should be vigilant when you evaluate numerous quotes and select the 1 with the highest coverage at the most reasonably priced price. Generally don't forget that automobile insurance is not simply an expense but fairly a fantastic way to guard your household, oneself and your house, as a result least expensive may possibly not equate to finest. 

Make note of presents from at least three diverse companies then narrowing down to the most appropriate a single is very advised. Prior to acquiring motor car insurance, it is quite vital that the person requiring protection analyze the organizations that supply auto insurance coverage quotes. Various organizations provide diverse quotes for the insuring of a vehicle. The customer ought to discover the greatest quote which suits his or her desires and which is fairly priced. Some companies also give diverse discount incentives to affect a lot more customers.

Vehicle Insurance organizations are all around the net and Television every day tirelessly advertising and marketing for your patronage. 1 key explanation why vehicle proprietors consistently overpay for vehicle insurance coverage is due to their not knowing how to properly assess these insurance businesses. You will recognize large variations in the volume for insurance from a single organization to yet another and that is mainly because each and every company's operation varies. 

Very good analysis will undoubtedly shell out off when looking for to come across inexpensive automobile insurance for ladies but there are other crucial components. You stand a a lot much better likelihood of obtaining fair car insurance if you are far more aware of the protection you wish. You have a number of possibilities when trying to get a car insurance coverage policy keeping in brain that you can get complete protection or just fundamental. Simple protection will naturally not give you the similar amount of added benefits as the complete but neither will it expense as significantly.

More aboutLow-cost Automobile Insurance Coverage For Women - Uncover The Key!

Auto Insurance – Simple Facts

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

Auto insurance helps you meet whatever is coming down the road with a greater peace of mind.

Whether you're buying your first car or your teenager is about to hit the road, your car insurance needs will vary.

You want to protect the people and things that are important to you. Auto insurance can help you:

protect your investment in your automobile, pay for medical expenses in case of an accident, provide financial protection from lawsuits, cover losses caused by uninsured or underinsured drivers, pay for damage due to theft, vandalism or natural disasters.

One way to get the car you want and still save a little money is to check out the overall safety of the car. If the car has plenty of safety features (such as airbags, anti-theft systems, etc.) and a good safety rating in crash tests… There are other factors that will influence your insurance rates, such as your age, gender, driving record, and where you live. However, they don’t always play as large of a role as the car you drive. Sporty, fancy car will cost you more than driving a wagon or a nice four door family car.

Types of auto insurance coverage vary from state to state or differ according to the company that does the insuring. California does have a financial responsibility law, but the amount of coverage that is required is ridiculously low compared to the actual amount of coverage you would need to pay for a total loss or a major accident. As a law, drivers in California must have the following insurance coverage:

$15,000 per person injury coverage

$30,000 per accident for injury coverage

$5,000 property damage coverage per accident

There are a variety of coverage options available to you:

Liability Coverage covers damages to others if you're at fault in an accident,

Collision Coverage will repair or replace your insured car after an accident,

Comprehensive Coverage pays for loss or damages to your car from a danger other than a collision, such as theft, vandalism, or national disaster,

Underinsured/Uninsured Motorists Coverage protects you for covered age caused by drivers who don't have auto,

Rental Reimbursement pays for a rental car when your auto is disabled during a car accident,

Personal Injury Protection covers treatments needed from an accident including medical, rehabilitation, lost earnings, replacement of services, and funeral expenses,

Medical Payments Coverage covers payments for your medical treatment or funeral expenses when bodily injury is caused by an accident.

You should check into available discounts and higher coverage amounts if you are a low-risk driver, because you might be able to get a better policy for less money. Remember, all auto insurance isn't the same. Different types of coverage fit the different needs you might have. To determine what type of coverage applies to you, consider your individual situation. Once you have all the information you're looking for, you are ready to get a quote. Auto insurance is imperative, yes, but it’s best to drive safe!

More aboutAuto Insurance – Simple Facts

Low cost Automobile Insurance coverage Quotes

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

Choosing low priced auto insurance quotes can assist you immensely in lessening the cost of your car protection. There are a number of essential factors which you really should bear in brain when you are in the industry for a new vehicle safety policy. In this report we will go over some approaches that you can use to reduce the price of any estimates which you may possibly get.

We will look at why it is vital to examine quotes from several distinct insurers. We will examine why shopping for on the internet can be a very good way to preserve dollars on your policy. Ultimately we will discuss about why you should take into account raising your deductible and lessening your degree of cover. Following looking at this write-up you ought to have a beneficial thought about the ideal techniques to locate low priced automobile insurance coverage quotes.

You must review quotes from a wide range of distinct product or service providers. In order to acquire low cost car insurance coverage quotes is essential to get a selection of estimates from a big range of insurance coverage item providers. This is for the reason that quotations can vary tremendously from 1 business to one other. There are 3 ways that you can make a comparison. You can see the office of your regional car insurance coverage broker, you can telephone companies that you have located applying the Yellow Pages and you can review quotations online.

Shopping for your automobile insurance coverage on the internet can be a great way to find reductions and conserve on your own some capital. By utilizing a automobile insurance coverage comparison website you can speedily and quickly and conveniently find competitive quotes for you and your car. You should often make guaranteed that you are comparing apples to apples. That is to say, you will need to be cautious to test that the quotations you are given are for pretty comparable policies if you are implementing value as a primary basis for creating a selection. It could be that the stage of cover or the advantages supplied by 1 insurer are not precisely the same exact as people from one more firm.

You should think about escalating your deductible. If quotations which you are ready to come across are still out of your price range it may be a great strategy to give some thought to raising the level of your deductible. If you increase your deductible you should really be capable to decrease the price of your premiums. You should only elevate your deductible to the degree that you are thrilled with. In the celebration of an vehicle accident you will have to pay an total equal to your deductible just before your insurance enterprise will cover the rest of your claim.

You might wish to imagine about lessening the degree of protection on your auto. Specifically if you drive an older auto it may possibly not be worthwhile to have total coverage vehicle insurance. You may want to suppose about lowering your level of cover to liability only. You must verify with your regional state insurance coverage bureau to uncover out what the minimal level of coverage is in your location. If you're an American and you dwell in a no-fault state, it may perhaps be a requirement for you to have no-fault insurance as perfectly as liability only cover.

In conclusion, inexpensive motor vehicle insurance quotes can be observed pretty easily if you're ready shop close to and locate rates from a range of insurers. A handy way to do this is by using automobile insurance coverage comparison web sites. If you desire to additional minimize the price of your policy you might also want to contemplate raising your deductible and lessening your degree of cover.

More aboutLow cost Automobile Insurance coverage Quotes

Liberals I Loathe

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

By Alan Caruba

Politics is not patty cake. While one hopes that civility will prevail, it is often hard to achieve this standard when confronted by people who don’t hesitate to lie, say rude things, and make lots of money while pretending to give a damn about “the workers” and, of course, ”the children.”

The Bible says the poor will always be with us, acknowledging that, from very early times there were always folks who had the bad luck of being born to poor people, paid no attention in school, were always late to work, and had acquired some very bad habits and attitudes.

I, on the other hand, have always felt compelled to earn a living. It is the only way I can afford my cigars, steaks, cakes and cookies, and other indulgences such as the rent and the car.

I tell you this because, among the current crop of liberals in the limelight, are quite a few I just loathe. This is not a proper attitude for someone raised to find something good in everyone and to be charitable enough to forgive as many sins as possible, short of telling lies, stealing, and flat out murder.

So, here is a short list of liberals who make my skin crawl every time they show up on the TV screen.

Bill Maher. We all know someone like this guy. He is the wiseguy with a quick quip for any situation who thinks he is super smart and super cool when he is, in reality, a moron with a bad attitude and a mouth to go with it.

Michael Moore. Were it not for a mass media largely in the hands of liberals, this tub of lard would be making training films for classes in mine safety and raising ferrets. He’s made a lot of money criticizing corporations for making a lot of money. When you look up “hypocrite” in the dictionary, you will find his picture.

Barney Frank. This member of Congress is as unsavory as they come. I remember him best for defending Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the housing market bubble was just about to burst.

John Kerry & John Edwards. Who remembers that these two ran, respectively, for president and vice president? Kerry has married wealth to enjoy a lifestyle most people have to work for. He defamed his fellow soldiers in Vietnam and has not stopped lying about everything else since then. As for John Edwards, even skunks go out of their way to avoid him.

Nancy Pelosi. Her legacy is that she forced Obamacare through a Democrat-controlled House and, with Harry Reid in the Senate, producing a piece of legislation that has more than half the U.S. States in full rebellion against it. Not surprisingly, a judge has found that it is unconstitutional.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Give him kudos for building a major media organization, but pity the poor New Yorkers who must live with a man who thinks he has a right to tell them what to eat, tell them to stop smoking, and who at one time suggested putting windmills on skyscrapers to generate energy. A typical liberal, he knows just exactly how you should live your life and will happily pass a law to ensure that you do.

MSNBC. Keith Olbermann has fled into the arms of Al Gore’s “Current”, but where did they find that bloated bombast, Ed Schultz, the very “butch” Rachel Maddow, and Chris Matthews whose “man crush” on Barack Obama is a public embarrassment? How can MSNBC executives justify their lack of viewers and accept their paychecks? Oh wait, I forgot. They’re liberals!

Helen Thomas. She’s gone now after all those years being hailed as the doyen of the White House press gallery reporters. Just how obvious was it that she hated all Republican presidents and gave the Democrats a pass? How big a secret was it that she hated Jews, too?

The New York Times. I stopped reading this rag years ago, but occasionally visit to reinforce my conviction that one has to be dumber than your average armadillo to write for it. Are you listening Paul Krugman, Tom Friedman, et al?

As noted, this is a very short list of the legion of liberals who strut and fret their hour upon the stage, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. (Hat tip to William Shakespeare, late bard of Avon.)

© Alan Caruba, 2011
More aboutLiberals I Loathe

No Government can bind the actions of its successor

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

Simple quote and not exactly rocket science is it, but it's part of what remains of the UK constitution. That's why I'm taking David Cameron's attack on Alistair Darling about bailing Portugal out with a pinch of salt.

DAVID Cameron last night rounded on Alistair Darling over an EU deal that could leave British taxpayers facing a multi-billion-pound eurozone bailout.
The Prime Minister clashed with the former Labour Chancellor in the Commons over the UK’s involvement in a £50billion rescue fund. It was set up after the financial crisis in Greece last year.
Dreamed up by eurocrats and Labour ministers while negotiations to form the coalition Government were under way last May, the deal could mean Britain paying up to £6billion to support Portugal.
Tory MPs are furious that the deal was agreed by Mr Darling, in virtually his last act in office, after Labour had lost the last General Election. Mr Cameron told MPs: “I have always said that a successful eurozone is in Britain’s national interest. But I have also said that Britain isn’t in the euro and isn’t going to be joining the euro and so it is right we shouldn’t be involved in the euro area’s internal arrangements.
It is also why I believe we should not have any liability for bailing out the eurozone. But with the current emergency arrangements, we do.”

No Dave we don't, the only reason we are as far as I can see is that your lot agreed that we should, no government can bind the actions of its successors, all you need to turn around and say is that that was a decision of the previous government and we are not bound by its actions in bailing out the Euro. Fact is your Chancellor agreed to this with Darling in the interim period whilst the coalition was being set up and I suspect that some Lib Dems as well as the Kenneth Clarkite wing of the Tories might just kick up a fuss if you repudiate giving our cash away to prop up a currency that we aren't even a part of such are the traitors to the UK that you harbour in your party.
You see Dave, we've noticed even before you got into power that you tried to talk the talk but singularly failed to walk the walk on EUskeptisism, after all where's that referendum you promised us as opposed to the referendum on AV we have that you didn't promise us. Since then your government has done its best to block every anti-EU move and call for a return of sovereignty along with an in/out referendum that has been proposed. You even had to give prisoners the vote because the ECHR said you had too, so you clearly aren't in line with the wishes of the majority of people in this country.
Until you do actually decide to get real on the EU, I'm afraid your party will not be getting my votes, same for the Labour Party and the Lib Dems at local or national levels. You simply can't be trusted.
More aboutNo Government can bind the actions of its successor

The Education of Barack Obama

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

By Alan Caruba

Just over two years ago when Barack Obama was sworn into office, he might have needed help to find Libya on the map and Muammar Gadhafi was just another Middle Eastern despot.

Despite a whirlwind tour of the Middle East, I doubt he had any idea that the Maghreb of north African nations, from Tunisia to Egypt, or that Syria, Jordan, Yemen and Bahrain would be in varying states of turmoil, but neither did anyone else. He had little to say during the protests against Iran’s mullahs.

The last thing Obama wanted was to be a “war President.”

Even in his address to the nation regarding the U.S. intervention in Libya, he could not resist chiding his predecessor. “To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq,” he said without naming George W. Bush, his favorite fall-back position for blame. Then he added that the war in Iraq has lasted eight years, cost thousands of lives, and a trillion dollars. The one in Vietnam lasted almost as long and was just as costly.

Unmentioned was his decision to not only remain in Afghanistan where the U.S. has been since 2001, but he increased our troop strength—just as former President Bush did with the “surge” that turned things around in Iraq. The result of Obama’s decision has been to keep al Qaeda on the run and a continuing effort to degrade the Taliban. Unsaid is the fact that guerrilla wars are generally long, drawn-out, and often inconclusive.

The conduct of war is the job the Constitution assigns to the President by also authorizing him to be the Commander-in-Chief. Obama, the community organizer, is uncomfortable with this responsibility, but he put those skills to use to pull together a coalition, get a U.N. resolution, and let loose the dogs of war, if only from the skies.

What he failed to do was consult with the Congress and either ask for or get a resolution of support. He’s supposed to do that, but the former university lecturer on the Constitution either forgot that or decided to ignore it. That, however, is a very bad precedent.

“I refused to wait for images of slaughter and mass graves,” he said and, frankly, I believe him. He drew on the lessons of former President Clinton’s difficulty to get the U.S. involved in stopping the ethnic cleansing in Serbia and Bosnia.

The reluctant war President, however, took pains to tell Americans that “The U.S. will play a supportive role” in Libya’s liberation and only the seriously uninformed could believe that tall tale. There is no military action in Libya without the U.S., now and into the unknown future.

In almost an aside, Obama spoke of Iran, “where change is fiercely oppressed.” He hasn’t had much to say of Iran and this suggests he wanted to send some kind of message to the ayatollahs that he was keeping an eye on them as he should. They are gearing up to make events infinitely worse in the Middle East.

What Obama has discovered—and should have known—is that America has been the world’s policeman since the end of World War II way back in 1945. It’s the reason that former President Truman ordered U.S. troops into the field when North Korea attacked South Korea. It’s the reason Americans happily elected a former five-star general, Ike Eisenhower, to guide the nation when he promised “I will go to Korea” to personally inspect the demilitarized zone.

“We should not be afraid to act,” said Obama regarding the various unpleasant choices we have before us and those that are sure to come and then he emphasized “collective action”, falling back into his favorite role as an organizer, rather than a warrior.

In truth, Obama is not a warrior. Unlike many prior presidents he never wore the uniform of his nation and he clearly finds war distasteful, a distraction from imposing domestic change on Americans who have proven resistant and who are likely to send him home to Chicago in 2012.

“We welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East,” the President said. Somehow I doubt that. For decades this nation has been more than happy with the status quo in the Middle East so long as the oil flowed. Those days are over.

It was a decent enough speech that touched on all the key points. Gadhafi is a despot. He threatened his people. Our interests and values are at stake. All the things one would expect him to say, but none of the fire, the “bring’m on” swagger we have missed since 9/11. Like him or not, George W. Bush made us feel safe. Obama makes us feel tentative.

America has real enemies and, frankly, I want them to be very afraid of us. They were once, but when even a cockroach like Gadhafi thinks we won’t or can’t kill him, I want his head on a pike for all the rest of the world to see.

© Alan Caruba, 2011
More aboutThe Education of Barack Obama

Sounds about right

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly feeling the pinch here or pleading poverty, I have no idea what real poverty is like after all having merely seen it when abroad travelling to do the odd bit of engineering work in the third world. Closest I have come to it would be doing the servicing of some warehouse cranes in Romania where I'd go out with the local crew and watch them nurse a drink all night whilst a round cost me little more than a couple of drinks here. The equivalent of £10 would get me absolutely wasted over there and I didn't mind buying the drinks, it was more or less covered by my company eating expenses which were the same no matter which country we were in.
Still, this article from the BBC does not surprise me.

The average employee takes home £1,088 a year less than two years ago when the sum is adjusted for inflation, research commissioned by BBC Panorama suggests.
The sharp drop, in real terms, highlights the effect of stagnant wages and above-target inflation on incomes.
The average British worker earned £20,149 at the start of 2011 - a real terms fall of 5% from what they were earning in the middle of the recession.
The research was based on actual salaries paid into bank accounts.
It was carried out by the Centre for Economics and Business Studies and based on data on salaries from the payment processor, Vocalink, which looks after more than 90% of deposits into employees' bank accounts.
It was commissioned by Panorama to work out how much worse off employees have become since wages hit their peak.
People are indeed feeling the pinch, low percentage pay rises coupled with a higher rate of inflation coupled to an even higher cost of living means that peoples budgets no longer stretch as far as they once did. The still rising cost of fuel just keeps adding to everyones burdens as well as pushing the price of everything else up. 20% VAT hasn't helped either, though that's just pin money to the government.
What I expect to see is a return to a bit of self reliance, my Dad grew his own fruit and veg to supplement the family finances it helped a lot, other families did pretty much the same thing in the North East, getting an allotment was the equivalent of digging up gold so I'm wondering if there will be a return to such hobbies here. Certainly allotments are still very popular, but most gardens around here are still for relaxation, flowers and trees etc. So it strikes me that we're not quite into penury yet, but I do expect it to get worse before it gets better and I also plan to buy some decent gardening tools this year as well, self reliance is starting to become quite important to me, though I doubt I'll apply for an allotment, I'd be dead before I got one around here such is the waiting list. I'm also looking at a second hand wood burning stove plus a 3kw diesel generator. My good lady thinks I'm mad, but I'd rather be mad my way than the madness of ignoring the sign and partying till the last.
More aboutSounds about right

Buying Auto Insurance Can Be Complicated

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

Buying auto insurance unfortunately can be a complicated process. To start with there are numerous kinds of auto insurance available to the consumer. It takes some time to figure out what all the different kinds are and how they interact and overlap. Then the prospective buyer needs to try and find the best deal. Trying to wade through all the possible insurance companies can be very time consuming and stress inducing.

But there is a better way. Sure, there are several kinds of auto insurance, but the average person can figure out what they mean with a bit of study. Trying to find the best deal can be difficult, but there are ways to find help with that. So although finding the right auto insurance that is suitable for you and your needs can take time, it doesn't need to be a huge burden.

The first thing a person needs to do is take a look at what kinds of insurance are available to them and what are required by law. The laws will change from state to state, as will the definitions and names of the insurance products. However they are not drastically different. Collision coverage will cover damages to your car in case of an accident. Sometimes this covers pothole damage as well, but it depends on the locality.

Bodily injury liability covers any injury made to someone else while driving your car. Property damage liability covers damage that is made to someone's property by your car. This includes all types of vehicles. Personal injury protection covers injuries to someone inside your vehicle.

Comprehensive covers all other kinds of things that can happen to a vehicle, such as theft or other kinds of damage such as vandalism or fire. Most states will also have a form of uninsured motorist coverage to cover your car and any injuries that result from a collision with someone without insurance or with insufficient insurance.

As you can see, there are many kinds of auto insurance available on the market and required by law. Deciding which ones you need and more importantly what level of coverage you can afford is something that each person needs to decide for themselves. What may be sufficient for one person's situation may be either excessive or insufficient for another person in a different situation.

Potential insurance shoppers must also take into account what could happen if they don't get enough coverage. If their insurance doesn't cover the costs of an accident the balance is going to come out of their pocket. Of course if they overbuy and purchase more auto insurance coverage than they really need, excess money that they don't need to spend is going to be flowing out of their pockets on a monthly, annually or semi-annually basis.

One way to prevent overbuying or buying auto insurance from a company that may be less than reputable, or not around very long, is to employ the help of an insurance agency. Some insurance agencies will be contracted with a single insurance company. That's great if that particular company is the one you wish to purchase insurance from. Otherwise, it becomes an issue of how much insurance coverage you want. Other insurance agencies are contracted with many different insurance companies and can provide the buyer with lots of options.

One thing to keep in mind when buying insurance is there are often deals to be had when purchasing more than one form of insurance from the same company. For example, if a person can buy auto insurance, home insurance, small business insurance and boat insurance from the same company, they will most likely get a far better deal than if they buy only auto insurance from one place, home insurance from another, small business insurance from another place, and boat insurance from an entirely different place.

While finding the right level of coverage and the right kinds of auto insurance for you can be difficult, with a little research, a little education and the right insurance agency on your side, the process becomes much easier.(
More aboutBuying Auto Insurance Can Be Complicated

What Is Unique About Commercial Auto Insurance?

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

The need for cheap insurance in our private lives is a well known and largely understood reality. Commercial auto insurance is very different from personal auto insurance in a number of ways that are not as well known. Business owners should not assume that the commercial auto policy is as straightforward. The search for low cost insurance for a business should not result in a coverage gap. Here are a few of the key aspects of commercial auto insurance that makes it unique.

The primary rating factors of the commercial auto policy are the vehicle details (its value and safety factors), the vehicle class (private passenger or truck), and the usage. Special usage classes for commercial trucks are service, delivery, and commercial. In the commercial auto policy, the driving records of the drivers are generally not considered in the premium calculations, only in the overall underwriting for acceptability.

There may be a surcharge on a commercial auto policy if one of the drivers requires a financial responsibility filing such as a SR-22. Any owner who needs an SR-22 filed, should make that known early in the process of applying for the business auto insurance. Many commercial insurers will not prepare financial responsibility filings.

The definition of "the insured" under a commercial auto policy can be somewhat vague. The owners, officers, and directors are insured as well as all employees while using company vehicles for business. Trouble can arise when a business sets up a separate auto leasing subsidiary company for the management of a fleet or when a company has multiple subsidiaries.

If all companies, subsidiaries, dba's and leasing companies are not listed as insured under the policy, a business could face an uninsured loss depending on who is driving at the time and what that driver was doing when the accident occurred. The personal auto policy definition of "who is insured" is far clearer.

In most personal auto policies, anyone who is insured under the policy is usually insured if they rent a car (at least for bodily injury and property damage liability) or borrow a car from a friend. In business auto insurance, that is a separate coverage which must be added by endorsement.

Owners and employees often use their own vehicles to visit clients or travel to a meeting. If an accident were to occur, the employee's personal auto insurance would apply as primary. However, the likelihood that the business will also receive a claim for damages is high. For a business to have any coverage for such a claim, the Hired and Non-owned Auto endorsement must be added to the policy.

Business owners should understand that commercial auto insurance is not the same thing as a personal auto policy. Questions regarding coverage options, limitations and exclusions as well as ways to secure low cost insurance for their business vehicles should be directed to the insurance company or the broker of record.(
More aboutWhat Is Unique About Commercial Auto Insurance?

Protests, Riots, and Insurrections

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

By Alan Caruba

I’ve been thinking a lot about protests, riots and insurrections lately because they seem to be happening all over the Middle East and even in London.

In London, an estimated half million Brits turned out in the streets to protest government cuts in services, paying little heed to (a) how heavily they are taxed for them and (b) how they have all but bankrupted the nation. Though the protest was at times raucous thanks to local anarchists, it should be noted that the local constabulary did not shoot anyone.

Contrast that with the streets of Yemen, Syria and even little Bahrain where protests have generated a number of deaths as the main means of “crowd control.” This is also the way protests in Iran have been dealt with, along with imprisonment, torture, and all the other arts of despotism.

In Libya, an insurrection against four decades of despotic rule by Col, Gadhafi has dragged in the U.S., the U.N., NATO, and, briefly, the Arab League into the dispute. Given that Gadhafi had made it clear he intended to kill as many Libyans as necessary to retain his grip on the nation, there was no way this could be ignored.

By contrast, when a huge crowd gathered in Tahrir Square in Cairo the military did not roll out the tanks. After a few futile efforts to disperse the protesters, President Mubarak was eased out of the office he had held since 1981 and sent packing. All things considered it was a bloodless coup. The Egyptians just held an election to decide some changes to their constitution.

Other contrasts come to mind, most notably, the 1989 massacre that took place at night in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square when protesters, mostly young Chinese, gathered to seek more freedom, more justice, and more democracy. It did not happen. While outwardly prosperous, China remains the classic Communist state.

One of the biggest gatherings in the U.S. capitol involved an estimated million people who came out in March 2010 to protest against the passage of Obamacare. It was an extraordinary turnout and one that the mainstream media tried to depict as unruly and impolite, but it was nothing less than astonishing that so many people could gather in one place without any disruptive behavior. David Axelrod, an advisor to Obama at the time, gave the White House response. “They’re wrong.”

When Obamacare was passed, the Tea Party that had organized the protest just grew like Jack’s beanstalk and, by November 2010, lots of Democrats who had voted for it found themselves cast out of the House, along with some in the Senate. Americans know how to protest, how to organize, and how to vote out liberals.

The differences between American, British, and Middle Eastern protests are quite evident. In the former two, you show up, speeches are given, and everyone goes home. In the latter, you show up and the regime in charge is likely to shoot you.

In America it was the Boston massacre that literally kicked off the Revolution against England in general and the king in particular. British troops, feeling threatened, fired on a relatively small group of protesters and, as they say, the rest is history.

The history of what is occurring in the Middle East is playing out in its cities and, while the region is not famous for democratic reform, the U.S. intervention in Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein may well be seen in retrospect as the trigger for all the insurrections occurring throughout the region. Before the Marines and infantry showed up, you could only vote for Saddam.

The trigger incident in Tunisia occurred when a street merchant, harassed by the local police, set himself on fire, but it really doesn’t matter what the trigger is because it is the far larger resentment of the populations in the nations of the Middle East that has finally been ignited.

The other largely unreported factor is the deep schism between Shias and Sunnis. It expresses itself in different ways in different nations. Sunnis are the majority or control the affairs of most nations except Iran.

The old regimes are being challenged. If you are a monarch the last thing you want to see are other monarchs being dethroned. If you are a despot, you can be replaced.

What will come of it? Is it good or bad for the United States and the West? Will the Muslim Brotherhood and/or al Qaeda take advantage and somehow secure power?

Questions, questions, questions!

And no one knows the answer.

© Alan Caruba, 2011
More aboutProtests, Riots, and Insurrections

Obama Prepares for Speech on Libya

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

Barack tries out the magic ruby slippers that will enable him to escape the "kinetic military action" occurring in Libya while explaining to everyone why it is not a WAR and is really being conducted by a combination of NATO and the United Nations. Go for it, Barack, I cannot wait to hear this one.

h/t to
More aboutObama Prepares for Speech on Libya


Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

They're still tallying up the cost of yesterdays march in London, though I doubt it will be cheap, yet already a new set of protests are being planned.

Union leaders today vowed to continue campaigning against the Government's spending cuts amid mounting anger at the trouble makers who clashed with police and damaged stores and other buildings during a huge TUC demonstration.
A leading Labour politician described those involved in clashes in the West End as a "tiny minority of violent, parasitic unrepresentative hooligans", while London's Deputy Mayor said they were "fascist agitators".
I of course fully support their right to peaceful protest, what I don't condone is the hypocrisy of the left who have tried to get other marches by the EDL banned or stopped on the grounds of cost and created a minor media frenzy over it.

EDL supporters from across the UK and Europe converged on Luton, the Bedfordshire town that spawned the far-right movement.
Over 1,000 police including mounted officers and dog units were deployed to keep the two sides apart at a cost of £800,000.
Note, there was no violence at the EDL demo, nor has there been any violence at the previous 5 demo's Yet there are some local council members who want to stop the EDL from marching and are citing the cost of policing them as a case for doing so.

Birmingham Mail.
Selly Oak Labour MP Steve McCabe said it was time for Theresa May to use her powers to ban the march.
“I’ve not been in favour of a blanket ban on the EDL before but on this occasion I think it should be imposed,” he said.
“You have a group of people with a track record of violence on the same day as a local derby and we know football matches are a prime recruiting ground for the EDL.”
Joining him in his call was MP Khalid Mahmood (Lab, Perry Barr) who said if the Home Secretary did not ban the march, she should provide West Midlands Police with extra officers or cash.
I for one would wonder at the reaction from the TUC, Labour etc. if the government told the TUC you're banned because we can't afford to police you, I can just see that one going down a storm.
Marches might not change things but those who would seek to ban them should give pause and think, because it might be them next, certainly there is now a case for banning a TUC march similar to the one yesterday due to the cost and the violence, but I doubt you'll hear a squeak from the media or the left about doing so, which would of course show them to be major hypocrites if they try to get other marches banned simply on cost.
More aboutCosts

Against All Energy Anywhere

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

By Alan Caruba

One of the great afflictions of the environmentalists—Greens—everywhere is a profound lack of understanding of the role that energy plays in whether a nation prospers or just limps along, barely keeping the lights on.

A classic case is the communist paradise of North Korea that is almost completely dark at night while just across the 38th parallel, South Korea is ablaze with light, energy, and a thriving economy.

Dedicated Greens don’t really like any kind of energy whether it is nuclear, provided by burning coal, from natural gas, oil or from hydropower. They think that wind power is trouble-free and cost effective when it is neither. They feel the same way about solar power. Both are deemed acceptable because they don’t “emit” anything. This viewpoint is not merely naïve, it is profoundly stupid.

Before we go further, let’s examine the basic facts of U.S. power, give or take a percentage point or two, coal provides over 50% of electrical power. Nuclear provides around 20%, natural gas is just over 20%, hydroelectric is close to 7%, and so-called “renewables” like wind and solar are credited with about 3%. Petroleum generated electricity is 1% and “other sources”, whatever they may be, come in at around 0.3%.

These are figures from 2009 and, suffice to say, are subject to change, but not much.

Friends of the Earth, an international Green organization, (FOE) is no friend to humanity. Hardcore Greens think Earth’s problems would be solved if human beings were not part of its ecology.

Following the Japan earthquake, FOE sent an email to its members and fellow travelers saying, “We must learn from this disaster. Tell your members of Congress that nuclear power should not be part of our energy future.” Ironically, FOE is very unhappy with President Obama and his administration which has been very inclined toward nuclear energy.

The Sierra Club, another ultra-Green organization, put out a newsletter reminding its members that it is “unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy” and has been “for more than three decades.” The same newsletter warned that “politicians who owe their primary allegiance to the fossil-fuel industry (coal, natural gas, and oil) are quick to promote domestic drilling and deregulation, as if that would make the gauge on the gas pump start to run backward.” In point of fact, it would. U.S. domestic oil is always cheaper than imported oil.

The Sierra Club just conjured up a petition “to tell the Obama administration to protect the Arctic Refuge” because “We cannot allow these oil companies to destroy the pristine wilderness of the Arctic Refuge.” Every time you hear the words “pristine wilderness” think of a place no human would ever want to live, let alone visit. And no one is really addressing the economic devastation the Obama administration has visited on the Gulf States because of its refusal to allow oil drilling to resume.

FOE recently was fulminating against the use of coal to light up the homes, businesses and streets of South Africa and was equally unhappy about the effort to install a pipeline from Canada to the U.S. to transmit oil derived from its tar sands. A lot of our “imported” oil comes from Canada. That’s because it has been government policy for decades to make it difficult, if not impossible, to drill, extract, and refine oil here in America.

The March 21-27 edition of Bloomberg Business Week has an article by Brendan Greeley that is a good analysis titled “Facing Up to Nuclear Risk.” When nuclear plants have been built as many safety factors as possible have been built into them, but it is impossible to calculate the impact of an earthquake. The U.S. has its own tectonic fault lines, all well known, but the fact remains nuclear plants have been built near or on them.

“David Okrent, who advised the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on reactor safety for 20 years, points out that reactors are designed for only a set of defined events. ‘The early nuclear reactors weren’t designed for tornadoes,’ he says, ‘until one came along in Arkansas, and then we thought, ‘we gotta design for tornadoes.’ It’s not easy to be all-knowing.”

Were it not for Green propaganda, the U.S. would not be wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on idiotic wind and solar farms that are utterly dependent on government subsidies and mandates that require utilities to use the pitifully small amounts of electricity they produce.

The same can be said of the equally idiotic regulatory mandates for ethanol that drive up the cost of every gallon of gas pumped while, at the same time, reducing the mileage and damaging to your car’s engine. Even Al Gore thinks ethanol is a bad idea.

Ironically, more people have died from wind turbines than nuclear plants. In 2008, there were 41 recorded deaths. The carnage on birds and bats is rarely mentioned by the media. Despite all the blather about Three Mile Island not one person has died from radiation since nuclear plants were first introduced.

It is surely worth noting that coal-burning plants in a nation that is the Saudi Arabia of coal do not have meltdowns causing radiation that can make large areas uninhabitable. That “smoke” you see coming from the smokestacks of such plants is steam. Water vapor. Clouds are made of water vapor.

If we were really serious about safety and the provision of more electrical power, the U.S. would be building a hell of a lot more coal-burning plants right now and into the future.

© Alan Caruba, 2011
More aboutAgainst All Energy Anywhere

More Gruel, Please

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

It’s not that we need a bit more in our bowl of gruel like Oliver Twist, but we could use your financial support to help pay the costs of computer maintenance and the related costs in time and labor to undertake the research required to keep you informed on a daily basis.

The world, as you know, is a very complex place with all manner of influences occurring everywhere all the time. Visitors to this blog, as well as our regular “followers”, routinely note how a particular commentary clarified or supported their view of events and personalities.

So, please note the “Donate” button and then decide what “Warning Signs” is worth to you because, in truth, nothing including our daily commentaries is free.

A lot of modest donations can go a long way around here.

Alan Caruba
Warning Signs
More aboutMore Gruel, Please

Not in my name

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

There's an anti cuts demo in London today, the public sector have finally woken up to the fact that there's no money left and have decided to march in protest of the government slowing down its borrowing and many local councils deciding that they'll try to blackmail the government by cutting real services rather than the pretendy makework jobs in the diversity co-ordinator sector.
I've been doing some looking around this week and as a result felt like I needed several showers on those days. Why. Well, by visiting the anarchist and hard left sites. The sites are awash with big talk. Talk of setting London a flame. Of bringing down the banks.
However they still choose to ignore the fact that it was Labour who did that in the first place.
Still you can't keep a good leftist loony down.

Soon after 1330 GMT, a small group splintered off from the main protest and broke through a thin police line to head up Regent's Street to Oxford Circus where scuffles broke out and Top Shop was attacked, reported BBC correspondent Tom Symonds.
Many were wearing black, with their faces covered by masks and they were carrying flags. Some let off flares and fireworks were heard.
The police said light bulbs containing ammonia were thrown at officers.
And they accuse the EDL of being violent mindless thugs. Also, I couldn't help notice when the EDL marched in Luton the media repeatedly mentioned how much policing the event cost but no mention at all here.

Why these people did not protest during the 13 years of Labour just smacks of hypocrisy. Ok, no one wants to lose their job and it is terrible that people have to go through it. However, did the public sector speak out for the private sector when it was decimated in 2007/8?
So the march today is not in my name, if anything the government haven't went anything  like hard enough on public expenditure, they've tried to manicure when they should have been attempting amputation.
More aboutNot in my name

Cartoon Round Up

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

More aboutCartoon Round Up

Obama, The Great Prevaricator

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

By Alan Caruba

“President Obama told congressional leaders there are no plans to use the U.S. military to assassinate Libyan strongman Muammar Gadhafi — despite the administration’s policy of seeking regime change in the North African country — according to sources familiar with a Friday White House Situation Room briefing.”
-- March 25, 2011,

Translation: Obama has already given orders to have Gadhafi assassinated.

It’s taken two years, the first in which he was everywhere all the time on television, but it took Americans who weren’t besotted by his dazzling smile, his haute couture, and “no drama, Obama” style, very little time to figure out that whatever Barack Hussein Obama says, you can count on his meaning the opposite and doing the opposite.

No previous administration has been so devoted to twisting the language like a pretzel to avoid saying what he means or does. It’s not a “war” in Libya; it’s a “kinetic military action.” There are no Islamic terrorists and there aren’t dozens, if not hundreds of illegal aliens crossing the Mexico border every day. And, after announcing that his administration was lifting the ban on offshore drilling, it has issued a grand total of one and that was to restart an existing platform.

After identifying Afghanistan as the “real” war in the Middle East and decrying the Iraq war all through his campaign, Obama took weeks to decide what to do there and finally did what Bush had done in Iraq. He increased the number of troops.

I am not a psychiatrist, a psychologist, or any other professional judge of what makes anyone tick, but I know a liar when I hear and see one day after day, week after week, and year after year.

This is a President who devoted virtually the entire first year of his term to forcing a Democrat controlled Congress to pass The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, a massive assault on the nation’s health industry. It was accomplished even after a million people journeyed to Washington, D.C. to protest it.

When it was passed, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said, “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what was in it.” What was in it was more than two thousand pages of regulations creating countless new government entities, driving up the cost of health insurance, and a hideous piece of legislation that generated a deluge of requests for waivers from its draconian destruction of this essential element of the economy.

Twenty-eight States have refused to recognize Obamacare as law. A judge in Florida has deemed it unconstitutional. And it was a lie from start to finish.

This is a President whose first State of the Union speech draw derisive laughter from the assembled Congress when he referred to climate change, the code words for global warming.

This is a President who is pushing for high-speed rail in a nation whose citizens either fly where they want to go or drive where they want to go. The federally run Amtrak has never had a profitable year in its entire history.

This is a President who is pushing for electric cars when there is a perfectly functioning system for cars that use gasoline and the first ones off the assembly line cost so much and go so few miles as to be an instant joke.

By the end of his first term, “It’s Bush’s fault” became another joke and by the end of his second year, Obama had adopted most of his predecessor’s earlier decisions including Guantanamo and military trials despite his stated goal to shut it down.

The original bailout, TARP, came at the end of Bush’s term in response to the financial crisis that occurred just before the 2008 election. Obama has followed that with still more deficit spending to the point where everyone in America has an $80,000 piece of the debt he created.

There is no need to list the endless lies any more. All except his mainstream media shills and the hardcore liberal fools know he lies and does so all the time.

This should it come as a surprise for a man whose entire life is a construction of lies including the birth certificate he refuses to produce.

All hail Obama! The Great Prevaricator!

© Alan Caruba, 2011
More aboutObama, The Great Prevaricator

I don't get expenses for this, why should they?

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

Seems our troughing MP's just can't resist having the taxpayers stump up for their perks and privileges.

TAXPAYERS will soon have to pay millions more to fund MPs’ expenses.
An anti-sleaze watchdog has agreed concessions with them, including allowing more to claim rent for a home in London.
Other changes include paying housing and travel costs for children over the age of five and raising staff budgets. MPs will also be able to use Parliamentary credit cards more to ease “cashflow’’ problems.
Officials would not say what the changes could cost but one said it would be “a very few million at most”.
The proposals by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority should take effect next month, the deadline MPs had given the body to reform or face an overhaul. MPs complained that the system put in place after the expenses scandal is too bureaucratic and leaves them thousands in the red.
Commons Leader Sir George Young welcomed the steps “towards a regime that better enabled MPs to do their jobs”.
My company wont pay travel costs for over fives and would laugh at me if I even tried, plus if I have cashflow problems, that's my concern, not theirs. It seems like the MP's were hell bent on fleecing us anyway as their threat to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to overhaul it. Nor can I understand how an MP on at least £64,000 a year can be in the red. As for being better enabled MPs doing their jobs, well that's just bull anyway, they don't do their jobs, they rubber stamp EU legislation most of the time and drag us into pointless foreign wars whilst taxing us to the hilt to pay for their expenses, their bureaucracy and their imbecilic ideas on power generation.
I've been of the opinion now that MP's should whilst working in London stay in travelodge style accommodation and not be allowed to buy a second home on expenses, nor indeed furnish it at our expense. If I were to be working away from home by my company, they wouldn't do anything other than that anyway.
Seems as if our corrupt troughers really haven't a clue how the common people really live, or if they do, then don't give a toss about how their dipping into the public purse to fund their lavish lifestyles looks.
I just hope payback will be an utter bitch for them if or when we finally decide we've had enough.
More aboutI don't get expenses for this, why should they?

A Sudden Surfeit of Bullies

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

By Alan Caruba

Have you noticed how the subject of “school bullies” or “bullying” is suddenly in the news? These things don’t happen spontaneously.

For most of my life I have earned my living in public relations and one learns a few things about the way the public is herded toward certain assumptions and actions when enough money and effort is made to influence their judgment.

In early March, in concert with the White House, the National Education Association, a union, not a benevolent “association” of teachers, released “a new survey on bullying” that found, not surprisingly, that teachers “and education support professions” were in desperate need of “additional training on when and how to intervene in bullying situations.”

If the raucous crowds of teachers and other public sector union members who gathered in Wisconsin’s state house and outside of New Jersey’s in Trenton are any indication, the NEA knows a lot about bullying and hardly needs any instruction on how to deal with it.

“Our members,” said NEA President Dennis Van Roekel, “know that bullying is a significant problem” and, naturally, they need “more training” to deal with it. These are people who presumably passed through four years of college education in order to become teachers and, if the NEA is to be believed, they simply did not receive enough training to deal with school bullies.

This is so absurd one hardly knows how to address it. The NEA produced statistics that “82 percent of school employees report they have witnessed bullying two or more times in the last month.” This does not strike me as an epidemic of bullying.

“98 percent believe it is their job to intervene when they see bullying happening in their school.” Well, duh! What are they being paid for?

Unless I am just too old or too terribly out of touch, bullying has been going on since the days of the one-room schoolhouse. The delicate psyches of school children, whether they are the bullies or the bullied, manage to survive. At one time or another, the masses of children condemned to government schools have all had to deal with this.

Why is this bullying issue being ginned up? In an age of the Internet with its FaceBook, MySpace, and YouTube ability to turn any bullying incident into a worldwide event, we are simply more aware of them. We are aware, too, that some few children whose parents were unaware or inattentive commit suicide.

Many children are the typical targets of bullies, male and female, because they are having gender identification problems, are fat, are white, are black, are not on any sports teams, are serious students getting good grades, or are simply available to be bullied. Surely every school has its cliché of bullies.

Blogger Hans Bader recently took note of the fact that the Obama administration sent a letter to school officials “that undermines both free speech and due process.” Bader noted that “a political appointee in the Education Department sent a ‘Dear Colleague’ letter to the nation’s school boards claiming that many forms of homophobia and bullying violate federal laws against sexual harassment and discrimination, but those laws only ban discrimination based on sex or race—not bullying in general.”

“The letter from the Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights, Russlyn Ali, defined ‘harassment’ so broadly,” noted Bader, “as to reach both speech protected by the First Amendment, and conduct the Supreme Court says does not legally qualify as harassment.”

Why is the White House and the Department of Education reaching all the way down into your local school is push for greater acceptance of homosexuality in particular and government intervention in general for an element of school life as old as education in America?

Is there any parent or citizen that is not aware of how poor the quality of education is in America these days? Is there anyone who has passed through grades K-thru-12 who doesn’t understand that bullying has always been a problem; that teachers and school administrators routinely intervene to deal with individual cases? That no “additional training” is required for this?

In a new book coming in May, “Lockdown High: When the Schoolhouse Becomes a Jailhouse”, author Annette Fuentes makes a case for the way too many schools treat students as potential jailbirds, requiring them to pass through metal detectors, and be subject to intrusive searchers, or suspended for alleged infractions of idiotic “zero tolerance” policies.

Following the Columbine High School tragedy, Fuentes noted that the “public’s perception of school violence and youth behavior was seriously out of whack with reality,” adding that “Failing schools breed failing students and place them at risk of falling into the juvenile justice system, especially as policing and the practices of that system increasingly make their way into the schoolhouse.”

How crazy is it when a five-year-old is arrested for bringing a butter knife to school or a teenage girl is suspended for bringing Midol for her menstrual cramps? Why are six-year-old strip-searched in a classroom when a few dollars goes missing from the teacher’s desk? These incidents are too often a part of school life for today’s students trying to learn anything in a hostile environment.

“Hysteria, not clear-eyed analysis, has colored the public’s understanding and, regrettably, tainted media coverage of school violence,” writes Fuentes. “The climate of fear has created ripe conditions for imposing unprecedented restrictions on young people’s rights, dignity, and educational freedoms.”

So, it follows naturally that the NEA and the White House are busy of late creating a campaign that will underwrite the wasting of millions on “additional training” to deal with an overheated and deliberate campaign to make Americans think that schools are rife with bullying when it is nothing more than one of the most common problems when masses of young people are “educated” in schools that more closely resemble minimum security prisons than places of learning.

© Alan Caruba
More aboutA Sudden Surfeit of Bullies