Advertisement

Entries from blogs tagged with “The Sciences”

Sen. Bill Nelson in Effect Calls President Obama’s Actions Treason

I interrupt my discussion of sexual harassment in the military for major breaking news.

Sen. Bill Nelson, Democrat - Florida, in effect said that President Barack Obama committed treason by claiming that Edward Snowden's revelation of NSA monitoring of American phone calls was an "act of treason". Nelson served on the Senate Intelligence Committee for six years.

Burgess Everett reports in Politico that Nelson said, “On the issue of if this a whistleblower or is this an act of treason, I think it directly is [treason]. And I think most of the people who served on intel will tell you that,”

“I think he ought to be prosecuted under the law,” Nelson told reporters. “Extradited and prosecuted. We cannot have national security if our secrets can’t be kept on our methods of gathering information."

If Snowden committed treason by revealing NSA's program to spy on American phone calls, then President Barack Obama committed treason when he released similar information about how the CIA found Osama bin Laden. After the execution of bin Laden Obama revealed that the CIA had been monitoring al Qaeda phone calls in its efforts to find bin Laden and had used satellite cameras to track bin Laden's suspected courier.

If Snowden should be "extradited and prosecuted" as Nelson suggests, then Obama should be impeached and removed from office. Obama's offense was far more serious than Snowden's. Snowden only revealed NSA is using computers to monitor phone calls. Obama told al Qaeda the United States was able to identify and monitor its calls. Obama went further and told al Qaeda that the United States knew which phone numbers they were using.

I don't know what Edward Snowden's motive was in revealing NSA montoring of domestic phone calls. I do know that if his actions qualify as treason then so do Obama's.

Reply

Society Caused Military Sex Harassment Scandal

The current sexual harassment scandal comes as no surprise to those of us who understand the danger of not teaching young males to control their sex drives.

The first thing parents teach their children is to control their eating and sleeping cycles so they don't expect to eat in the middle of the night. The next thing parents teach their children is to control when and where they expel waste products so the children don't have to wear diapers. When I was young, the third thing parents taught their children was to control their sex drives.

Unfortunately, a few decades ago some very ignorant people decided there was no need to teach children to control their sexual inclinations. These people ignored the fact that all human males are natural sexual predators and encouraged them to fulfill their sexual fantasies. These people in effect told young girls that they were supposed to give into the requests of boys and learn to be sex objects.

When I was an adolescent, we boys were taught to respect girls' sexual privacy. We expected girls to tell us no if we asked to have sex with them. Girls who gave in to boys were looked down upon and considered to have a "bad reputation". Today girls who protect their sexual privacy are looked down upon.

Human males are natural sexual predators with some of us being more predatory than others. Many of us are satisfied with the situation mentioned in the old popular song -- "a boy chases a girl until she catches him." Many of us prefer a situation in which we don't have to worry about our performance being compared to other males. Many of us think there are more important activities than sex.

Other males, such as former President Bill Clinton, believe women exist to provide them with sexual pleasure and may consider themselves God's gift to women. In societies that discourage sex outside marriage these men may limit their actions to women with "bad reputations". In societies that encourage casual sex, these men may expect most women to have sex with them. They may convince themselves that women who resist their advances are "playing hard to get" while hoping to be overpowered.

A third group "goes with the flow". They will limit sexual activities if society discourages casual sex. In societies like ours they may feel that if they don't attempt to have sexual relations with women, people will think there is something wrong with them. Some of them may feel relieved if they are turned down, but still think they should make the attempt.

"Make love, not war" was a popular slogan used by anti-Vietnam War protesters. Generations of soldiers have used "making love" to forget about the realities of war. Survival in war requires soldiers to live by the law of the jungle and be prepared to kill or be killed. Wild male animals not only kill, but in many species expect to have sex. The prostitutes who served the men of Civil War Union MG Joseph Hooker are believed to be responsible for the use of the word "hooker" to describe themselves.

Soldiers fighting in foreign countries typically have used local women for sexual relief. American commanders may feel it is better for American men serving in Muslim countries to be having sex with their fellow female soldiers than having sex with local Muslim women. Officers who know they might have to send those under their command to certain death, may not understand the psychological impact of allowing their male soldiers to force their attention onto female officers.

Some male officers may have an .attitude that female personnel should consider it an honor to provide sexual services to male personnel who face potential death in battle. The more sexually aggressive men, and some women, have a less personal attitude to sex than many women do. To them, sex is just another physical activity like playing football. These men may not understand those women who only want sex as part of an intimate personal relationship.

I'm not sure of current military practices, but I have read stories in the past indicating that the military has required women to share living quarters and shower facilities with men. In addition, women have been required to exercise with men. Such practices can sexually arouse men and reduce their respect for women's sexual privacy.

In my next post, I'll discuss actions the military might take to reduce sexual assaults and harassment.

Reply 1 comment from Frankie8

Homosexuals in Boy Scouts a Bad Idea

Do those who want the Boy Scouts to allow openly homosexual boys to participate understand why it's the Boy Scouts rather than the Boy and Girl Scouts? Do they think boys and girls should share tents on camp outs?

Male homosexuals claim they look at other males the way males look at females. If that is true than they sometimes look at other males as potential sexual conquests. They sometimes invade the sexual privacy of other males by imaging sexual contact with them.

I don't know if the claim is true or not. I only know that scientific research indicates homosexuals are born with the body of one sex and the brain of the other. This Gender Identification Disorder seems to create confusion about whether their behavior should be consistent with their brains or their bodies.

Heterosexual behavior is based in part on a predator / prey model. For most that is a friendly relationship like in the old song "a boy chases a girl until she catches him." The recent military scandal in which men assigned to protect women from sexual assaults assaulted them instead demonstrates that some men are unfriendly predators.

The natural sexual attraction process involves males imagining relationships with females. Sometimes these fantasies involve sexual intercourse. Human imagination sometimes becomes detached from reality with males and females imagining relationships that don't exist. A boy sharing a tent with a girl might fantasize about having some level of physical contact with her.

Would a homosexual boy sharing a tent with another boy have a similar fantasy? The important thing is that the other boy might become concerned that the homosexual boy was fantasizing about him and react violently,

Males sometimes have trouble interpreting smiles. A male can mistake a female's smile as inviting a relationship when the female is just being friendly. A similar mistake involving a male homosexual. could produce violence.

Women respond to unwanted attention as "prey" by "running away" or calling for help. Males may respond to imagined unwanted sexual attention as a predator would by launching a preemptive attack.

As boys pass through puberty they move from an attitude of "girls, yuk" to "girls, wow". Boys don't all make the transition at the same time. Boys who want to stay on good terms with friends who haven't made the transition may have to deny an interest in girls. A recent "For Better or Worse" comic strip the son is interested in a girl, but denies it when his friends accuse him of liking her. She of course over hears his statement.

An accusation of a relationship by a heterosexual boy [I'll call Billy] with a homosexual boy [I'll call Jimmy] could produce violence. If some boys say, "Billy, we hear Jimmy's sweet on you", Billy may feel he has to beat up Jimmy to prove there is no relationship.

Puberty is a difficult time for children. Separating boys and girls reduces the potential for sexual tension between them. The current Boy Scout policy of not allowing homosexual members keeps sexual tension out of scouting activities. Allowing openly homosexual boys to join would risk introducing sexual tensions that could result in violence because boys in a situation they don't know how to handle may respond violently.

The Boy Scouts should not allow adult homosexuals to supervise scouts for the same reason the Girl Scouts shouldn't allow heterosexual males to supervise girl scouts. Not only is there a potential for child molesting to occur, there is the possibility of a child making up a story about being molested. The Boy Scouts would have difficulty defending themselves from a lawsuit, even one based on false charges, if the organization knew the alleged offender was homosexual.

Reply 44 comments from Cait McKnelly Thomas Bryce George_braziller Verity Jafs Gatekeeper Hooligan_016 Sean Livingstone Topple Costello and 12 others

Was Benghazi Murder?

One of the most disturbing aspects of the fall of the American consulate in Benghazi is the similarity of the situation to one of the most famous murders in history,

Most people have probably heard of the romance story of Israel's King David and Bathsheba. Fewer are aware of how David got rid of Bathsheba's husband, Uriah the Hittite.

To summarize the story: David saw Bathsheba bathing and decided to have a brief affair with her and got her pregnant. He tried to cover up his role in the pregnancy by having her soldier husband Uriah the Hittite recalled with the hope Uriah would spend some time with his wife so he would appear responsible for her pregnancy. Uriah's code of ethics prevented him from having sex with his wife while his comrades were still in combat.

David then issued orders for Uriah to be placed in the middle of a battle and have other soldiers withdraw so he would be killed.

It has been alleged by those in Benghazi at the time of Benghazi attack on the consulate that they were ordered not to try to rescue U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and the others in the consulate. Such orders would normally seem unlikely considering the fact that Viet Cong attack on the American embassy in Saigon in 1968 was part of the reason President Lyndon Johnson decided not to run for reelection. The capture of the American embassy in Tehran was one of the reasons President Jimmy Carter lost his reelection bid.

Any order not to mount a rescue effort to prevent an al Qaeda victory could be construed as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" -- the Constitutional definition of treason. American forces quickly retook the American embassy in Saigon in 1968. President Carter launched an ill fated rescue effort to rescue personnel at the American embassy in Iran. Obama and Clinton had personnel available to attempt a rescue effort. Why weren't those forces used?

Normally American presidents would be expected to do whatever was necessary to protect the lives of American ambassadors. Why did President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fail to protect Ambassador Stevens? Were they too dumb to recognize the possibility al Qaeda would take the consulate? Did one of them or someone else high in the administration want Ambassador Stevens, or someone else at the consulate, to die for some reason?

Ambassador Stevens wasn't married, so the motive couldn't have been the same as the motive for killing Uriah. Perhaps Stevens was connected to a scandal that hasn't been uncovered yet. I'm aware that there are rumors that both Stevens and Obama are homosexual, but don't know if the rumors are true.

I don't have any answers, only questions. Congress needs to consider the possibility that the Benghazi incident was used by someone high in the Obama administration to kill Ambassador Stevens or someone else at the consulate. It would also be possible the intended victim wasn't at the consulate even though someone in Washington thought he, or she, would be.

Reply

WWWCD? What Would Walter Cronkite Do?

Reporters covering the investigation of the major al Qaeda victory at Benghazi should ask themselves: "what would Walter Cronkite do" if he were covering the story.

Let's consider the facts. Most people familiar with the War on Terror knew in September, 2012, that there was a heightened risk of an al Qaeda attack in the U.S. or at American installations outside the U.S. on or about the anniversary of the original 9/11 attack.

The danger was particularly high at American facilities in Libya because of the very unstable situation there and the presence of al Qaeda personnel who were trying to take over the country. Military and CIA personnel in Libya should have been on a high state of alert and prepared to back up personnel at any facility that might be attacked. Their orders should have been to respond immediately to any attack without requesting authorization from Washington. Security should have been particularly tight in Benghazi with the Ambassador in the building.

With modern cell phone technology, personnel should have been calling the State Department as they took cover, grabbed weapons, etc. Both the Secretary of State and President should have been notified immediately. State Department protocol should have required the Secretary, or least the top undersecretary for the region, to monitor the situation using both audio and video from the site, possibly using devices such as smart phones . If a satellite was in position to monitor the situation someone in Washington should have monitored its video. Keep in mind the government has better quality cameras than Google on its satellites.

The Obama administration's initial claim that the facility fell to a rag tag mob of demonstrators implies the facility essentially had no security. Any decent security protocol should have been prepared for the type of attack that Iranian students had used to take over the American embassy in Tehran during the Carter administration. An attack by trained military personnel would have been more easily explained, although security personnel should have been prepared to handle such an attack.

Determining the significance of the successful al Qaeda attack is difficult because of the nature of the War on Terror. Significant battles haven't involved large groups. Although the American casualty toll in the 9/11 attack was high, barely a dozen men conducted the attack. A similar sized American force killed Osama bin Laden. Much of the killing by both sides is done by remote control. Americans use aerial drones. Al Qaeda uses road side bombs.

The attack is at least as significant as the temporary Viet Cong capture of the American embassy in Saigon during the 1968 Tet Offensive. The attack indicates that al Qaeda has successfully broadened the war and is now able to defeat the Americans in Libya and possibly elsewhere. The size of the victory isn't as important as the fact that the attack was an al Qaeda victory. Al Qaeda may not be "winning" the war yet, but as a football sportscaster might say, al Qaeda "has taken the momentum", as demonstrated by the recent successful bombing of the Boston Marathon. Al Qaeda can use its success as a recruitment argument.

The failure of the Americans to come to the rescue during the attack could be interpreted by al Qaeda as proving bin Laden was right when he said the Americans would eventually tire of the fighting.

Walter Cronkite began questioning the American handling of the Vietnam after the attack on the American Embassy in Saigon during the 1968 Tet Offensive. I'm sure he would have asked questions about the War on Terror after the fall of the American consulate in Benghazi, particularly considering the allegations that someone in Washington prevented sending a rescue force. Cronkite knew that Presidents are sometimes mislead by their subordinates and it is the duty of journalists to learn the truth.

Reply

Why Do Some People Hate Those With My Brother’s Condition?

My youngest brother recently died. He was only 55, but because of a genetic defect he began aging more rapidly a few years ago. He went from being the chronologically youngest to the biologically oldest within a few years. He had suffered from bouts with pneumonia the last two winters.

Reflecting on my brother's life I cannot understand why some people would hate individuals like my brother so much that they don't think those with Down Syndrome should be allowed to be born. These people are the equivalent of racists because those with Down Syndrome are genetically different from them. They seem to be living in the "dark ages" when those with Down Syndrome weren't expected to reach their 20th birthdays.

Fortunately for my brother, people ranging from the wealthy politically powerful Kennedy family to ordinary individuals like my mom recognized that those called "retarded" might be able to lead productive lives if given the opportunity. My mom helped establish a scouting program for boys in special education.

We were fortunate to move to a city where local leaders set up a special education program to give my brother and others the opportunity to reach their potential. The program would eventually include a workshop that would have contractual arrangements to provide services for various local businesses.

Medical research has produced beneficial medications for those with Down Syndrome.

Persons with Down Syndrome such as my brother are usually very loving people. They're not two faced like many "normal" people.

There are some things individuals with Down Syndrome don't do. They don't injure people while driving while intoxicated or texting like normal people sometimes do. They don't defraud people of their life savings like Bernie Madoff and other normal people have done.

Individuals with Down Syndrome may not have the athletic ability of "normal people" but they give 110% when they participate in Special Olympics. One Oregon teen recently accomplished a physical feat most of us would never even attempt. Eli Reimer led a group of climbers to the 17,600 foot base camp of Mt. Everest.

Individuals with Down Syndrome do many things most of us wouldn't attempt. Chris Burke was a star on the successful tv series "Life Goes On". Sarah Itoh was playing the clarinet by the time she was11 years old and is an accomplished public speaker who travels around talking about Special Olympics.

Four years ago the scouting program my mom helped start produced an Eagle Scout when Lucas Wondra met the necessary requirements. He's not the only scout with Down Syndrome to reach that goal. Daniel Camacho of Overland Park, Kansas, achieved that goal and has plans to attend college.

I have a lot of good memories of my brother, particularly the day I picked him up at school after he had finished making a magazine rack. He was just beaming. Then there was the day we noticed he was missing. About that time we got a call from the supermarket three blocks away where we normally shopped. He was down there buying groceries and even though he was elementary school age he was buying things we normally got including the right brands. Our mom had mentioned she didn't think she would have time to go to the store, so he apparently decided to help out..

I admit I wish that Down Syndrome hadn't hampered my brother Steve's ability to do some things such as run like his hero Steve Austin, "The Six Million Dollar Man". However, I would never wish that he hadn't been born. My brother taught me a very valuable lesson -- how to accept and relate to those who are different and may march to the beat of a different drummer. I feel sorry for those who cannot accept people with disabilities.

Reply 1 comment from Frankie8

The Children in the White House and Congress

President Barack Obama's approach to the spending cut issue is like a child who suggests that if his family needs to reduce expenses it should stop buying fruits and vegetables while continuing to purchase cookies and potato chips. Obama and his playmates in Congress have responded to the issue of cutting spending by proposing elimination of essential spending such as meat inspectors instead of nonessential spending such as grants to local governments for purely local matters.

Instead of trying to work with Congress to arrange some type of compromise, Obama is running around like a chicken with its head cut off squawking for somebody to do something. Obama needs to be taking care of business in Washington instead of outside of Washington giving speeches.

Both Obama and Congressional Republicans are ignoring the nature of the budget problem. They remind me of a beer commercial except instead of crying "great taste" or "less filling" they are crying "more spending" and "less taxes".

The solution to the budget deficit will require a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. At the very least congress should suspend all tax credit programs and all non-education or highway construction grants to state and local governments. Tax credit programs are of dubious constitutionality because they allow individuals to spend what is essential federal tax revenue without congressional approval of specific spending decisions.

Most grants to state and local programs are of limited economic value. Intercity highway construction provides significant economic benefits as does education spending.

Layoffs in agencies such as meat inspectors and air security would hurt the economy and reduce federal tax revenue which would make the deficit worse. However, layoffs in regulatory agencies such as the EPA wouldn't hurt the economy. Layoffs at EPA might benefit the economy considering the EPA's continuing efforts to eliminate jobs in the coal industry.

Congress should eliminate funding for climate research. The people claim that carbon dioxide causes global warming insist that climate science is settled. If that is so then there is no need to spend money on further research. Congress should only fund research to learn new things. The only justifiable reason to fund climate research is to find

Congress cannot cut enough money from the budget to eliminate the deficit without adversely affecting the economy. Tax increases will also be needed. The easiest way to increase taxes would be to have the payroll tax apply to all income received from an employer up to and including the million plus salaries of corporate CEO's and professional athletes and entertainers.
Republicans claim that the rich would use excess income to create jobs. However, only business owners would use their money in that way. Increasing taxes on corporate employees won't affect job creation because employees don't use their incomes to create jobs.

Our system of government depends upon the President to provide leadership. Unfortunately, President Dunseld seems incapable of providing the leadership necessary to deal with the budget crisis. To use and expression from the sixties: "Obama is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. [NOTE: "Dunseld" is a term used at Starfleet Academy to describe a part with no useful function.]

Reply

Enron’s Global Warming Scam Survived It’s Bankruptcy

Remember Enron, the corrupt firm whose failure should have disproved the myth "too big to fail", but didn't? At the time it was the seventh largest corporation. It's bankruptcy was the largest in history until Lehman Brothers failed. Incidentally, Lehman Brothers was also involved in carbon trading.

Enron owed part of its early success to emissions trading. Basically emissions trading was established as a way for some companies to profit from pollution while allowing some companies to continue to produce the chemicals that can cause acid rain.

Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute, is reporting that Enron played a major role in pushing the global warming scam, including establishing the Kyoto Protocals. [Solomon's article in the National Post is apparently no longer posted on the web.]

Enron had already profited from trading sulfur dioxide credits and saw the potential for even greater profits from trading what would become known as "carbon credits".

The article is the first in a series of articles about those who seek to profit from what Weather Channel founder John Coleman calls "the greatest scam in history."

Solomon states, " The climate-change industry — the scientists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and, most importantly, the multinationals that work behind the scenes to cash in on the riches at stake — has emerged as the world’s largest industry. Virtually every resident in the developed world feels the bite of this industry..." which increases the costs of various goods and services.

Enron was an early player beginning early in the administration of Bill Clinton to push for a carbon dioxide trading system. Enron also sought support from environmental groups. "Between 1994 and 1996, the Enron Foundation donated $1-million to the Nature Conservancy and its Climate Change Project, a leading force for global warming reform, while [Chairman Kenneth] Lay and other individuals associated with Enron donated $1.5-million to environmental groups seeking international controls on carbon dioxide."

According to Solomon, "Political contributions and Enron-funded analyses flowed freely, all geared to demonstrating a looming global catastrophe if carbon dioxide emissions weren’t curbed. An Enron-funded study that dismissed the notion that calamity could come of global warming, meanwhile, was quietly buried."

Enron advised the Clinton administration what to do at the Kyoto Japan Conference in 1997.

To improve its chances for success Enron hired former Environmental Protection Agency regulator John Palmisano to become the company's lead lobbyist as senior director for Environmental Policy and Compliance. Palismano wrote a memo describing the historic corporate achievement that was Kyoto.

“If implemented this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural-gas industries in Europe and the United States,” Polisano began. “The potential to add incremental gas sales, and additional demand for renewable technology is enormous.”

The memo, entitled “Implications of the Climate Change Agreement in Kyoto & What Transpired,” summarized the achievements that Enron had accomplished. “I do not think it is possible to overestimate the importance of this year in shaping every aspect of this agreement,” he wrote. He cited three issues of specific importance to Enron in the climate-change debate: the rules governing emissions trading, the rules governing transfers of emission reduction rights between countries, and the rules governing a gargantuan clean energy fund.

Polisano’s memo expressed satisfaction bordering on amazement at Enron’s successes. The rules governing transfers of emission rights “is exactly what I have been lobbying for and it seems like we won. The clean development fund will be a mechanism for funding renewable projects. Again we won .... The endorsement of emissions trading was another victory for us.”

“Enron now has excellent credentials with many ‘green’ interests including Greenpeace, WWF [World Wildlife Fund], NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council], German Watch, the U.S. Climate Action Network, the European Climate Action Network, Ozone Action, WRI [World Resources Institute] and Worldwatch. This position should be increasingly cultivated and capitalized on (monetized),” Polisano explained.

Those who believe in Global Warming like to claim that they are opposed by corporate interests in the form of the energy companies. They neglect to mention that the battle isn't against corporations, it is between different groups of corporations. The energy companies are attempting to continue providing energy to consumers. Companies on the other side are merely attempting to create a financial opportunity for themselves as financial parasites who provide nothing to anyone and get rich in return.

Democrats often criticize Republicans for being too close to business. Democrats are just as close to business. They simply favor different businesses.

As William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, puts it: "The American people have had enough of convoluted, indecipherable financial schemes and the opportunists who exploit them. The public is understandably angry about Wall Street's exploitation of Main Street, and yet our political leaders are setting the stage for another complex trading market, ripe for corruption. The future Enrons and Bernie Madoffs of the world would like nothing better than to see the U.S. impose a new market for carbon emission trading."

Reply

It’s Not the Heat. It’s the Humidity

Climatologists pay too little attention to the role water plays in earth's energy system, including the way water vapor affects air temperature. Water's potential to affect air temperature is well established in science. As I have noted in previous posts the ability of CO2 to affect temperature is highly questionable. Those who spend much time in greenhouses know that they are often very humid places because water evaporates from plants and from surfaces that get wet when the plants are watered. Meteorologists typically refer to the water vapor content of the air as relative humidity which is how close the air is to holding as much water vapor as it can hold at its current temperature.

Unfortunately many climatologists waste so much time on the nonexistent impact of radiation on air temperature that they don't provide sufficient emphasis to the significant impact of water vapor on air temperature. Those who want to blame climate changes on humans ignore the fact that the combustion of hydrogen containing fossil fuels increases the amount of water vapor in the air. Other human actitivies such as watering yards, washing cars and operating public fountains also add water to the atmosphere.

Water has some special thermal characteristics that can significantly affect atmospheric temperatures. Water heats and cools signicantly slower than other components of the atmosphere. Water vapor needs to absorb over four times more heat energy than the same mass of other air molecules to raise its temperature the same amount.

Thus as the water vapor content of the air increases the atmosphere will heat and cool slower than when the air is drier. This process tends to keep the temperature from rising as high during the day or cooling as much at night, although the increase in the overnight low may lead to an increase in the daytime temperature because the air doesn't have to heat as much to reach a higher temperature. In equatorial areas deserts have higher maximum temperatures and lower minimum temperatures than jungle areas where the humidity is higher.

Water vapor possesses what physicists have traditionally called "latent" heat. Latent heat refers to the heat energy water molecules must absorb to go from a solid to a liquid (heat of fusion 80 calories/gram) or a liquid to a gas(heat of vaporization 540 calories/gram). This energy isn't reflected in the temperature of the water vapor. However, when water vapor condenses back to a liquid, or freezes, the release of this latent heat can raise the temperature of the air. A gram of water vapor releases enough heat energy when it condenses to raise the temperature of 2 kg of air by 1 C.

At approximately 65 F water vapor in the atmosphere holds as much heat energy as the rest of the atmosphere. This condition explains why dew points above 65 F are associated with the strongest thunderstorms.

Physicists define a "calorie" as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a gram of water 1 C. 27 C (82 F) is the same temperature as 300 Kelvin [the absolute temperature scale]. At 300 K water vapor has 300 calories of heat from its temperature and 620 calories of latent heat.

The dew point is the temperature at which water vapor will condense on objects or aerosals. The dew point normally is the lowest temperature the air will fall to. As the water vapor content of the air increases the dew point rises and the air doesn't get as cool at night.

The situation is more complex than I am presenting it in this post. I . The important facts to consider are that increases in humidity can raise the low, or minimum temperature, and limit the high, or maximum temperature, each day. In areas where significant snowfall occurs, the increase in low temperature can increase the melting of snow and ice by keeping the temperature above freezing for longer periods of time.

I recently came across a 10 year old study done by David R. Easterling of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., indicating that humidy had increased and, as should have been expected, the minimum temperature had been increasing and the difference between the minimum and maximum daily temperatures, diurnal temperature range (DTR), had been declining.

The potential impact of changes in atmospheric water vapor are real science. Water vapor holds a substantial amount of heat energy. The only potential impact climatologists can find for carbon dioxide is the highly questionable claim about absorbing and re-radiating low energy IR. But then, if would be difficult for the politicians behind the global warming scare to make a case for getting rid of water.

Reply

And the Snow Flies …..in Jerusalem?

Would you believe an 8 inch snowfall in Jerusalem? How about Israeli President Shimon Peres making a snowman?

The childern of Jerusalem are enjoying throwing snowballs while drivers slip and slide on the treacherous roads. On Mount Herzl the heavy snow caused numerous historic trees to fall including some that were over 50 years old. Over 100 trees have fallen in the city as a whole . Some power lines are also down. Highways leading to and from Jerusalem were closed due to the snow.

The storm system has also brought freezing temperatures to Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Reply

Global Average Temperature an Impossibility

The following is a news release from the University of Copenhagen in March, 2007. I've decided not to put it in my own words because I agree with Professor Andresen, and want the article to reflect his views rather than mine. He is the professor not me.

Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.

It is generally assumed that the atmosphere and the oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years. The reason for this point of view is an upward trend in the curve of measurements of the so-called 'global temperature'. This is the temperature obtained by collecting measurements of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the Globe, weighing them according to the area they represent, and then calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of adding all values and dividing by the number of points.

Average without meaning

"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".

He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'.

If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.

Many averages

A further problem with the extensive use of 'the global temperature' is that there are many ways of calculating average temperatures.

Example 1: Take two equally large glasses of water. The water in one glass is 0 degrees, in the other it is 100 degrees. Adding these two numbers and dividing by two yields an average temperature of 50 degrees. That is called the arithmetic average.

Example 2: Take the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively. Now multiply those two numbers and take the square root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This is called the geometric average. (The calculation is done in degrees Kelvin which are then converted back to degrees Celsius.)

The difference of 4 degrees is the energy which drives all the thermodynamic processes which create storms, thunder, sea currents, etc.

Claims of disaster?

These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are all equally correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one above another. Depending on the averaging method used, the same set of measured data can simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward trend in average temperature. Thus claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers point out.

What Bjarne Andresen and his coworkers emphasize is that physical arguments are needed to decide whether one averaging method or another is needed to calculate an average which is relevant to describe the state of Earth.

Reply

Global Warming Greenhouse Theory Disproved a Century Ago

The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase air temperatures by "trapping" infrared radiation (IR) ignores the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR. Unfortunately, many people who claim to be scientists are unaware of Wood's experiment which was originally published in the Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320.

Philosophical Magazine might not sound like the name of a science publication, but a century ago leading scientists published their discoveries in it.

During the early 19th Century many physicists supported the theory postulated by Benjamin Franklin that heat involved some type of fluid. The theory became known as "caloric theory". Joseph Jean Baptiste Fourier's theory that the atmosphere was heated from infrared radiation from the ground was a variation of caloric theory with IR functioning as the "fluid". Fourier believed greenhouses were heated by trapping this radiation.

Physicists in the early 19th Century were attempting to develop theories to explain the nature of atoms and their properties such as heat. Physicists theorized that atoms were the smallest particles of matter.

By the end of the century a new theory of heat, called "kinetic theory", was being developed that suggested heat was the motion, or kinetic energy, of atoms. However, Fourier's theory that IR heated the atmosphere particularly by interacting with carbon dioxide and water vapor continued to have support.

In 1897 J.J. Thompson overturned the popular theory of the atoms being the smallest particles of matter by reporting his discovery of the electron and predicting two other types of charged particles he called protons and neutrons.

Wood was an expert on IR. His accomplishments included inventing both IR and UV (ultraviolet) photography. In 1909 he decided to test Fourier's theory about how greenhouses retained heat.

Wood constructed two identical small greenhouses. The description implies the type of structure a gardener would refer to as a "cold frame" rather than a building a person could walk into.

He lined the interior with black cardboard which would absorb radiation and convert it to heat which would heat the air through conduction. The cardboard would also produce radiation. He covered one greenhouse with a sheet of transparent rock salt and the other with a sheet of glass. The glass would block IR and the rock salt would allow it to pass.

During the first run of the experiment the rock salt greenhouse heated faster due to IR from the sun entering it but not the glass greenhouse. He then set up another pane of glass to filter the IR from the sun before the light reached the greenhouses.

The result from this run was that the greenhouses both heated to about 50 C with less than a degree difference between the two. Wood didn't indicate which was warmer or whether there was any difference in the thermal conductivity between the glass sheet and the rock salt. A slight difference in the amount of heat transfered through the sheets by conduction could explain such a minor difference in temperature. The two sheets probably didn't conduct heat at the same rate.

The experiment conclusively demonstrates that greenhouses heat up and stay warm by confining heated air rather than by trapping IR. If trapping IR in an enclosed space doesn't cause higher air temperature than CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause higher air temperatures.

The heated air in the greenhouses couldn't rise higher than the sheets that covered the tops of the greenhouses. Heated air outside is free to rise allowing colder air to fall to the ground.

Atmospheric CO2 is even less likely to function as a barrier to IR or reflect it back to reheat the ground or water than the sheet of glass in Wood's greenhouse.

The blackened cardboard in Wood's greenhouses was a very good radiator of IR as is typical of black substances. The water that covers 70% of earth's surface is a very poor radiator and produces only limited amounts of IR as is typical of transparent substances. Water releases heat through evaporation rather than radiation.

The glass sheet provided a solid barrier to IR. Atmospheric CO2 is widely dispersed comprising less than 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. Trapping IR with CO2 would be like trying to confine mice with a chain link fence.

Glass reflects a wider spectrum of IR than interacts with CO2. The glass sheets reflected IR back toward the floor of the greenhouse. CO2 doesn't reflect IR.

At the time of Wood's experiment, it was believed that CO2 and other gas molecules became hotter after absorbing IR.

Four years later Niels Bohr reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light didn't cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Instead, the absorption of specific wavelengths of light caused the electrons in an atom/molecule to move to a higher energy state. After absorption of light of a specific wavelength an atom couldn't absorb additional radiation of that wavelength without first emitting light of that wavelength. He called the amount of energy absorbed and emitted as a "quantum". (Philosophical Magazine Series 6, Volume 26 July 1913, p. 1-25)

Unlike the glass which reflects IR back where it comes from, CO2 molecules emit IR up and sideways as well as down. In the time interval between absorbing and reemitting radiation, CO2 molecules allow IR to pass them by. Glass continuously reflects IR.

Those who claim that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can cause heating by trapping IR have yet to provide any empirical scientific evidence to prove such a physical process exists. The experiment by R.W. Wood demonstrates that even a highly reflective covering that reflects a broad spectrum of IR cannot cause heating by trapping IR in a confined space. There is no way CO2, which at best only affects a small portion of the IR produced by earth's surface, can heat the atmosphere by trapping IR.

Contrary to the lie repeated in news stories about climate, science doesn't say that CO2 is causing higher temperatures by trapping IR. Empirical science indicates that no such process exists in this physical universe.

Reply 2 comments from Hopsgegangen Bondmen

The Greatest Scam in History

The residents of California are about to become victims of what Weather Channel founder John Coleman has accurately called "the greatest scam in history". They will be paying higher energy bills to help carbon traders get richer.

In the 1990's the corrupt Enron company began paying scientists and purported environmental groups to support the outright lie that slight increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide could increase atmospheric temperatures. Enron also supported politicians who were willing to go along with this scheme. Enron's goal was to get governments to establish a system for trading what the company called "carbon credits".

Companies producing carbon dioxide have to pay for "carbon credits" to do so . These carbon credits can then be traded by speculators just like stocks and bonds. More on Enron and carbon trading later.

I've posted numerous articles on the global warming fraud over the last several years. I'm going to repost some of them to make it easier for readers to find them. Because of their age, some of the articles they link to may no longer be available on the web. I'm going to post them as is for now, but may rewrite some of them with new links later.

One fact many people don't understand about science is that science has long had an attraction for con artists. A few centuries ago "scientists" called "alchemists" would get wealthy nobles to finance their research by claiming to be working on a way to turn metals like lead into gold .

As a college undergraduate, I initially started studying math and physics before making the mistake of thinking I could help politicians find solutions to social problems by studying the social sciences. I didn't realize politicians weren't particularly interested in actually solving social problems. My physics course work included the study of light. Physics is the science that deals with energy such as heat and electromagnetic radiation or light.

The physics of climate is relatively simple. It isn't necessary to understand quantum physics to understand climate unless you want to study the peculiar characteristics of water molecules such as why ice(solid water) floats on liquid water. It's the complex interaction of various factors, including cycles like el Nino / la Nina, that makes climate complicated. The study of climate inspired development of the math/science field of chaos theory which applies to a variety of subjects including human behavior. Those of you who invest in the stock market might want to investigate applications of chaos theory.

My interest in human behavior includes human interaction with the physical environment. There are actions humans take that can impact climate, but production of carbon dioxide isn't one of those actions. For example, humans can cause desertification by eliminating trees. The draining of wetlands in Florida has increased the potential for freezing weather in the state. The increased danger of freezing weather potentially threatens the orange crop that plays a major role in Florida's economy.

The claim by global warming alarmists that slight changes in the amount of the very minor, but essential, atmospheric gas, carbon dioxide can significantly change temperature is absurd. CO2 comprises less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. The only change in CO2 that could impact temperature would be if CO2 levels dropped below the amount necessary to support plant life. Plants store solar energy in the form of the electron bonds holding complex carbon molecules together. This process reduces the amount of solar radiation converted to heat.

Those who claim CO2 causes warming by trapping infrared radiation (IR) ignore the fact that physicist R. W. Woods disproved the theory that "trapping" radiation causes heating in greenhouses or the atmosphere over a century ago.

My knowledge of human behavior helps me understand how otherwise intelligent individuals can support the nonsense that a minor gas like CO2 can control climate. Many people support the claim that CO2 causes warming because they are profiting from trading carbon credits or are being paid by carbon traders. Natural gas companies like the late Enron company can gain a competitive advantage over coal because coal has a higher carbon content than natural gas

Others have reverted to primitive religious beliefs. They want to believe that humans can "control" climate because they are scared by the idea that climate is beyond control. In effect, many of them believe that if unfavorable weather events it means they have offended the "weather gods". Global warming believers use the equivalent of the word "heretic" to describe those who disagree with them. Terms like "denier" and "contrarian" labels those who use the terms as childish. The terms brand those who use them as religious fanatics rather than scientists.

Reply

Is Hillary’s Malady a Concussion or a Stroke?

I initially thought Hillary's "concussion" sounded a little too conveniently timed, you know like those ailments we got before school on days when we hadn't completed the day's assignment. However, now I'm wondering if all the precautions they are taking indicate her condition is more serious than we are being told.

Women Hillary's age are susceptible to strokes , including so called "mini strokes", that can cause falls. Hillary's father died of a stroke which means she has a family history of stroke susceptibility.

The Obama administration attempts to minimize the appearance of problems such as the one Hillary was scheduled to testify about. Hillary herself would want to suppress any announcement that she had had a stroke, even a minor one with no significant damage, because voters might not vote for someone who had had a stroke for president.

The stress associated with testifying before Congress could cause an increase in blood pressure for those who testify and high blood pressure is a risk factor for strokes.

Women experiencing a stroke can have symptoms such as nausea and tiredness that are similar to other ailments.

With prompt treatment, which Hillary is likely to have received, significant damage can be avoided.

We probably will never know if Hillary had some type of stroke unless she has the courage to tell us. If she did have a stroke, I hope she has enough sense to realize she needs to find a less stressful career. I suspect she could name her salary if she decided to apply for a job at one of the cable news channels.

Reply

Congress Can Avoid Fiscal Cliff

A year and a half ago President Barack Obama and members of Congress signed a suicide pact that they would lead the nation over a "fiscal cliff" if they couldn't agree on deficit reducing measures by the end of the Mayan calendar. The crackpots agreed to a measure that could impose taxing and spending changes that would be so drastic they could cause economic problems that would INCREASE the deficit by another trillion dollars. [Note: because of Congressional procedures and a desire for a Christmas break, members would need to reach an agreement by the date the Mayan calendar ends in order to get the legislation to President Obama by the end of the year.]

We don't need to go over the fiscal cliff. Congress cannot pass legislation that Congress cannot change. If there are any sane members of Congress left, they should introduce legislation to repeal the measure requiring a deficit agreement by the end of this year or at least extend the deadline for another year. If past Congresses could violate agreements they reached with the Cherokee and the Sioux, the current Congress can rescind an agreement reached among its members during a period of collective insanity.

The main obstacle to an agreement is that Obama wants to increase taxes and spending and Republicans want to reduce both. Our system is based on compromise. Each side needs to give in on one issue. Obama should agree to let Republicans reduce spending in exchange for Republicans giving Obama a tax increase on those who can afford to pay higher taxes.

Reply

The World Bank and Global Warming

The World Bank isn't known historically as an environmentally friendly institution in terms of the sorts of development projects it has funded. So when the World Bank gets concerned about the possible affects of global warming perhaps even the skeptics ought to pay attention.

Check out the World Bank's climate change site here: http://climatechange.worldbank.org/content/climate-change-report-warns-dramatically-warmer-world-century

Reply

Lisa Miller - Virtual Slave

One of the worst abuses of American slavery was the fact that slave owners could take a mother's children away from her and sell them to someone else.

The corrupt Vermont court system is treating Lisa Miller and her daughter Isabella like they are slaves. A compassionless judge named William Cohen has forced Miller to leave the country to avoid having to turn her daughter Isabella over to a woman who is unrelated to Isabella.

While Lisa Miller was being treated at a state hospital for a suicide attempt, hospital personnel, of unknown sexual orientation, suggested to Lisa that she might be homosexual. Instead of going to an objective psychiatrist for evaluation she went to the homosexual run Whitman-Walker health clinic in the Washington, D.C., area where, not surprisingly, she was told she was homosexual. She subsequently developed a relationship with Janet Jenkins and decided to be artificially inseminated to have a child in 2002. The couple split up a year later.

Miller moved to Virginia and decided she didn't like the homosexual lifestyle, probably because she wasn't a homosexual to begin with. Initially there was a visitation arrangement for Isabella with Jenkins. Miller says she cut off the visitations because Isabella was uncomfortable with the visitations and according to Miller had talked of suicide.

Isabella's talk of suicide could indicate Jenkins was sexually abusing her. The National Institute of Health has reported an increased risk of suicide among abused children. Sexual abuse of children can be difficult to deal with. Some children may be reluctant to talk about incidents. Other children may invent incidents.. Some abusers don't consider what they are doing to be wrong even though society might disagree. One of the best examples is singer Michael Jackson not thinking he was doing anything wrong by sleeping in the same bed with young boys.

If there was physical contact, Jenkins might thought of it as as mother daughter thing, but Isabella might have thought of the contact with Jenkins in terms of Jenkins' past physical relationship with Isabella's biological mother.

Judge Cohen didn't bother to examine the situation, but instead decided to punish Miller for not accepting his arbitrary orders by giving Jenkins custody of the child she is not biologically related to. In a traditional marriage relationship the male partner has a right to share custody of a child if he is the biological father. There is no legitimate reason to grant an equal right to custody of a mother's child to a male or female partner who is not biologically related to the child. Only the mother should be allowed to decide if custody should be shared.

Granting custody rights to a non-related partner in effect makes the mother a slave. She becomes like the slave mothers whose children could be arbitrarily taken away from them and given to other unrelated individuals.

Vermont, or at least Judge Cohen, apparently supports some version of the archaic notion that a mother is the property of her partner and cannot act independently. Cohen apparently doesn't believe that a mother has a right to protect her child from questionable behavior by someone the child is not biologically related to.

Homosexuality isn't the only type of behavior a mother might conceivably object to in a former partner. Let's consider the hypothetical situation of a mother who has adopted a vegan lifestyle and doesn't want her child to have to spend time with a former partner who might feed the child meat that the mother believes is unhealthy and morally wrong. The difference between the mother and former partner wouldn't need to be that great. The mother might be concerned that the former partner had unhealthy eating habits and would feed the child a lot of potato chips, candy, fatty foods, sugary drinks, etc..

Janet Jenkins is a woman. Unless she has some medical problem that prevents pregnancy, she can have her own baby. Lisa Miller worked 24 hours a day for nine months to make Isabella. Lisa's body made Isabells without any help from the government or Janet Jenkins. If Janet Jenkins wants a child she should have one of her own and stop trying to use a corrupt court system to steal Lisa Miller's child. Lisa Miller is supposed to be a free woman not a slave. The government shouldn't be able to treat her like a slave whose child can arbitrarily be taken away and given to someone else.

Reply

Trade Tax Increase for Vote Rigging Prosecutor

Congressional Republicans shouldn't give President Barack Obama the tax increases he wants without getting something in return.

Many of the Republicans strongly opposed to tax increases believe Obama won the election because of voting irregularities in some states. They might find a tax increase more acceptable if the legislation were accompanied by appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of voting irregularities.

I don't know how valid the allegations are or if the actions could actually have changed the outcome of the election. However, ignoring these allegations won't make them disappear. Those who believe the allegations are valid will treat the failure to investigate as a cover up and wait for an opportunity to bring the subject up at a later time.

Any tax increases should include extending the Social Security tax to apply to all income received from an employer rather than just the first $110,000. The tax would apply to the incomes of employees like athletes and tv actors as well as employees like business executives. If lower income employees can afford to pay the Social Security tax on their incomes, then higher income employees can afford to pay taxes on the income above that normally subject to the Social Security tax. This tax would not be applied to business owners whose personal income and business income are the same. The tax would only apply to paid employees.

An option would be to add a temporary surtax that would be in effect until the deficit fell below some stated amount. Other tax increases could also be temporary with the duration and rate depending on the size of the deficit.

Congress should consider a temporary suspension of all tax credits with the duration of the suspension depending upon the size of the deficit. Many federal grant programs to state and local governments should be suspended as long as the deficit is too high.

Congress should stop talking about Medicare and Medicaid fraud and do something about it including hiring more investigators to the job and making executives in companies that engage in fraud subject to criminal prosecution.

Someone needs to tell those who don't want an investigation of election allegations that ignoring questions of scandal can make the scandal seem worse than it is. The Watergate burglary during the Nixon administration wasn't that big a deal, but the cover up made it a major scandal. Public opinion polls conducted in early 1973 [before Senate hearings] and early 1974 {after Senate hearings] indicated no change in what people believed happened but there was a change in how people viewed the significance of the scandal. Politicians never seem to learn that attempting to cover up "scandals" only makes the situation seem worse.

The recent election attracted a lot of support from various financial interests. A major scandal involving the financial interests who supported Obama would demonstrate a motive for "stealing" the election and increase the perception that the election was stolen and Obama is a crook.

I'm concerned about the potential for protests about the election turning violent. This has happened in other countries when governments have ignored complaints about election fraud.

I remember the sixties and would rather not go through something like that again.

Reply

Ask for New Election And Vote Fraud Investigation - Not Secession

Those who are talking about secession should shift their focus to calling for a new fair presidential election that does not allow use of the type of touch screen computers involved in election irregularities in various locations. Americans should copy the citizens of other countries who call for new elections when their leaders engage in election fraud.

Alternatively, Congress could trade establishment of a special prosecutor for election fraud for a tax increase. The allegations of vote rigging are far more significant than the Watergate burglary that was investigated by a Special Prosecutor. President Barack Obama probably was not involved in the vote rigging activities, but a failure to investigate and prosecute those involved could be considered an impeachable offense. A vote rigging Prosecutor might have to investigate some of Obama's financial supporters, but probably wouldn't investigate Obama. Republican voters might be more likely to accept a tax increase tied to an investigation of state and local Democratic officials.

I don't know if Barack Obama would have won a fair election or not, but there are enough irregularities reported about the recent election to indicate he might have lost a fair election.

Irregularities include more than 100% turnout in some areas, allegations of illegal aliens being brought in to vote and voting machines that wouldn't allow votes for Mitt Romney. Ohio had a policy of allowing people to register and than vote without allowing officials to make sure they were not also register elsewhere.

The first rule of election rigging should be "don't be too obvious". In parts of Cleveland and other locations Obama received 99% of the vote which looks suspicious.

Election rigging has a long history in the United States, particularly in major cities where corrupt political machines didn't want to risk losing the offices that gave them power and money. For example, Chicago has a reputation for being a place in which the dead are allowed to briefly return to life to vote on election day.

It shouldn't be surprising if vote rigging occurred in an election in which huge sums of money were donated to the presidential campaigns by wealthy individuals on both sides. Some rich folks don't like to lose and will ignore laws if they think they can get away with it. Many believe that billionaire Nazi collaborator George Soros is behind the vote rigging.

Other wealthy interest groups are also potential suspects. For example, some carbon traders have violated European tax laws and even sold phony carbon credits. They might find spending a few million on vote rigging to be a good way to insure election of a president who supports the global warming scam.

Allegations of vote rigging might recede into the background for a time, but they could be resurrected if people believed Obama was abusing his office to benefit the wealthy interest groups that helped finance Obama's reelection. Efforts to restrict gun ownership could also trigger allegations that he stole the election for that reason.

Reply

Reporters as Prostitutes II

The only differences between many American political reporters and prostitutes is that prostitutes understand what type of business they are in and prostitutes provide something of value to the people who pay them.

One of reasons Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney is because most political reporters at the Main Stream Media (MSM) are essentially prostitutes. They are partisan Obamista Democrats whose motto is "ours is not to question why. Ours is but to lie and lie." They apparently believe their duty is to make their fellow Democrats look good and the Republicans look bad. If wealthy Republicans want to improve their chances of winning, they will need to invest in media companies and replace the partisan Democrats with either Republicans or with real journalists who believe they have a duty to pressure politicians regardless of party into being truthful.

American reporters should know better than to automatically believe any politicians, particularly those running for president. It wasn't that long ago that President Bill Clinton was caught lying about his affair with an intern and President George W. Bush was claiming that Iraq President Saddam Hussein was about to give Weapons of Mass Destruction to al Qaeda. They certainly weren't the first two presidents to lie. For example, President Franklin Roosevelt lied about the assistance he provided to the British prior to American entry into World War II while he was plotting with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to get the United States into the war.

American reporters continue to publish stories supporting the late Enron Corporation's global warming scam even though the documents indicating Enron's role in setting up the scam have been available for years. Reporters potentially have access to studies by scientists who question the claims about global warming, but refuse to consult the critics of global warming. Reporters ignore the fact that those who want to profit from trading carbon credits are likely to spend large sums to elect candidates like Barack Obama who support their agenda.

Real journalists recognize that when politicians and government officials try to keep documents secret, it is often to cover up damaging information. For example, in the1960 presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kennedy refused to release his medical records while falsely claiming he didn't have any health problems. We didn't learn until many years later that Kennedy was afflicted with Addison's disease, a disorder that can cause a fatal drop in blood pressure.

When we elect a president we are really hiring a president. We should have access to the same information an employer might request from a potential employee. The news media should seek that information on our behalf.

Unfortunately, most American journalists don't care about whether or not candidates are truthful about their background. For example, there have been cases in the past of journalists who have lied about the education. Thus, it would be reasonable to require presidential "job applicants" to make copies of their college records available to those who decide who to hire for the job.

Barack Obama claims to be healthy like Kennedy did, but refused to make his medical records public to confirm his claim. Obama's body is consistent with the type of body that individuals with potentially fatal Marfan's syndrome often have. Those with Marfan's syndrome can suffer from sudden heart attacks. How can we be sure he doesn't have Marfan's syndrome if he won't make his medical records public.

The presidency has citizenship and a minimum age requirement. Thus it is reasonable to require those applying for the job of President of the United States to submit a birth certificate to confirm he meets the citizenship requirement and is old enough to qualify for the job. However, MSM journalists act like the issue isn't important. They continued to ignore the issue even after Obama posted an obviously forged birth certificate on line.

The forgery lists his "race" as "African" even though the term "African" cannot be used to indicate a specific race. Africa contains two visibly different groups of people. Those who live north of the Sahara Desert have light colored complexions. Those who live south of the Sahara have dark complexions.

The use of the word "African" instead of the term used at the time "Negro[the Spanish word for black]" could indicate Obama has been keeping the document secret for a reason other than where he was born. When Obama was born southern police were still beating civil rights demonstrators. If Obama's complexion was light enough to pass for Hawaiian, his mother might have taken advantage of giving birth in Hawaii to list her son as whatever term was used for native Hawaiians. Obama might have decided to keep the document secret because he wanted to use his complexion to appeal to black voters and didn't want them to think he was really an Hawaiian.

Obama's decision to keep his birth certificate secret might involve an old dictator's trick. A dictator wanting to determine how loyal his supporters are may say or do something questionable to determine who will support him regardless of what he has said or done.

The tendency of the MSM to bias news in favor of their Democratic Party has increased the degree of division between Democratic activists and Republican activists. Those who realize they cannot trust the MSM turn to Republican organizations that also present biased information.

The current situation with the media isn't new. In the 19th Century Noah Webster observed: “The freedom of the press is a valuable privilege; but the abuse of it, in this country, … is a frightful evil. The licentiousness of the press is a deep stain upon the character of the country; & in addition to the evil of calumniating good men, & giving a wrong direction to public measures, it corrupts the people by rendering them insensible to the value of truth & of reputation."

Mark Twain also had a low opinion of journalists. " That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoe making and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poor house."

Reply 16 comments from Agnostick Jonas_opines Alyosha Patricia Davis Donttreadonme Somedude20 Roedapple Deec Media_hookers_for_obama Beatrice and 1 others

1 2 3 ...48