Wednesday, May 01, 2013
Google Fiber infographic: Will it Take Over the World?
Interesting Google News. They continue to innovate in new areas.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Tech Debate of the Century
At lifehacker: Mac vs. Windows: Your Best Arguments.
I am a Windows guy, but I am open to read what the Apple fans have to say. Like so many others, I learned computing in school on a Mac, but switched to Windows when I graduated and started work in the "real world".
What about you?
I am a Windows guy, but I am open to read what the Apple fans have to say. Like so many others, I learned computing in school on a Mac, but switched to Windows when I graduated and started work in the "real world".
What about you?
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
U.S. CEO Blasts French Work Habits
According to an article by Gabriele Parussini in today's Wall Street Journal: "The chief executive of a U.S. company that had considered buying a tire
factory in northern France delivered a blistering critique of French
work habits, writing to France’s industry minister that he would be
“stupid” to operate in a country where workers get high wages for little
actual work. Maurice Taylor, the CEO of Titan [...]"
I do not doubt that there are plenty of hard-working people in France, but the story is telling. It makes me think of the work habits of those who think they are entitled to a job, a vacation, medical care, etc. Why work hard if one is entitled to all these benefits?
I do not doubt that there are plenty of hard-working people in France, but the story is telling. It makes me think of the work habits of those who think they are entitled to a job, a vacation, medical care, etc. Why work hard if one is entitled to all these benefits?
Monday, February 18, 2013
Chinese Army Unit Is Seen as Tied to Hacking Against U.S.
A very scary story appeared in the NYT today regarding Chinese cyber-espionage against the United States. According to the story,
"On the outskirts of Shanghai, in a run-down neighborhood dominated by a 12-story white office tower, sits a People’s Liberation Army base for China’s growing corps of cyberwarriors.
"The building off Datong Road, surrounded by restaurants, massage parlors and a wine importer, is the headquarters of P.L.A. Unit 61398. A growing body of digital forensic evidence — confirmed by American intelligence officials who say they have tapped into the activity of the army unit for years — leaves little doubt that an overwhelming percentage of the attacks on American corporations, organizations and government agencies originate in and around the white tower."
The story links to a report by Mandiant, an American computer security firm. The report ties Chinese hacking groups to the P.L.A. Unit 61398 headquarters.
This report should cause the US officials to consider if China is a greater threat to US interests than previously thought. Of course, given its ineptitude, this is not likely to occur under the Obama administration.
"On the outskirts of Shanghai, in a run-down neighborhood dominated by a 12-story white office tower, sits a People’s Liberation Army base for China’s growing corps of cyberwarriors.
"The building off Datong Road, surrounded by restaurants, massage parlors and a wine importer, is the headquarters of P.L.A. Unit 61398. A growing body of digital forensic evidence — confirmed by American intelligence officials who say they have tapped into the activity of the army unit for years — leaves little doubt that an overwhelming percentage of the attacks on American corporations, organizations and government agencies originate in and around the white tower."
The story links to a report by Mandiant, an American computer security firm. The report ties Chinese hacking groups to the P.L.A. Unit 61398 headquarters.
This report should cause the US officials to consider if China is a greater threat to US interests than previously thought. Of course, given its ineptitude, this is not likely to occur under the Obama administration.
Friday, May 04, 2012
Improve the Environment, Reject Environmentalism
Protecting
the natural environment has been the cause célèbre of nearly everyone,
especially leftist elites, for the past 40 years. Everywhere we look:
academics, politicians, celebrities, and the news media exhort us to
protect nature from thoughtless human intrusion and greed. And who would
not want to preserve the Earth’s beautiful and awe-inspiring array of
life-forms and inanimate wonders? From sea turtles to dolphins, from
majestic old growth forests to the ocean's magnificent coral reefs
teeming with life; natural wonders bless the Earth with their beauty.
Nevertheless, not all aspects of nature fill us with a benevolent sense of wonder; typhoons, tsunamis, hurricanes, and tornadoes are also part of nature. So are volcanoes, earthquakes, snow storms, heat waves, droughts, floods, etc., etc. Such events destroy and devastate thousands of human lives every year. Likewise, innumerable infectious diseases, such as malaria, typhus, HIV, and hepatitis, all part of nature, have maimed and killed millions of human lives across the centuries.
Now, consider the simple truth these vastly differing phenomena tell us about the natural world: sometimes it is good, and sometimes it is bad. Good or bad for what? For human life. We frequently talk about nature as if it were some unified, benevolent, god-like deity, for example: Mother Earth or “Gaia”. Yet, when considering both the destructive and the beneficial examples noted above, we can conclude that nature does not really care one way or another about human life and well being; it is oblivious to human welfare.
Next, consider how human beings, as opposed to other species, survive and thrive in the context of their natural environment. The first thing to note is that every material value upon which human life depends must be extracted or produced from the resources found in nature. Whether we consider the most fundamental human physical needs, such as food, clothing, and shelter, or the most developed human needs and conveniences, such as modern medicine,electricity, and the internet, we see that humans must rearrange the elements found in nature to create the physical values that allow them to enjoy life and prosper. Even fruit and vegetables must be planted, tended, and harvested. Thus, we can say that to live and prosper, humans must transform the natural environment into a human environment, or put another way, humans must improve the natural environment.
The most dramatic example of this point has been the industrial and scientific revolutions of the past 200 years, which have essentially consisted of applying reason to understand and manipulate the environment for human benefit. To an unprecedented degree, people in modern times have improved their survival and well-being by taking various elements found in nature, e.g., wood, minerals, plants, animals, etc., and then isolating and manipulating them. The unprecedented increase in human population, living standards, and life expectancy over the past 200 years derive specifically from the exponential growth in our understanding and subsequent improvement of our environment.
Given these facts, it would seem that a philosophy of preserving nature untouched, in a pristine state, as advocated by many environmentalists, is a prescription for human destruction. It is certainly a mistake to prevent human development of natural resources in deference to the supposed needs of every other species on earth, as many environmental thinkers desire. I am not referring here only to the sentiments of the "deep ecology" types associated with radical environmentalist groups. Consider for example, the following statements from several "mainstream" environmentalists:
"The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration." -- Michael Fox, vice president of The Humane Society.1
"The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans." -- Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project.2
"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." -- Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund.3
"Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby" -- Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists.4
"Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line--at about a million years ago, maybe half that--we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth."
"It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." -- David M. Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, in a prominently featured Los Angeles Times book review of Bill McKibben's book, The End of Nature.5
These sentiments, if enacted, would certainly result in mass human death. Indeed, some have argued that they already have resulted in the deaths of millions from malaria, which followed the banning of DDT in the early 1970’s. Yet, we often hear such ideas put forward as moral ideals. There seems to be a disconnect between our desire to have a good life based on modern technology and our desire to enjoy nature left untouched by human development. Why? One reason is probably because many people take most of modern life's comforts for granted, not realizing that these comforts had to be created by human minds and hands working to improve the environment.
Many people seem to think that the values science and technology bring us somehow already exist in nature. They either don't realize or won’t admit the degree of human thought and effort needed to produce such values. They don't realize that enjoying a hike in a forest, or a tour of the Grand Canyon, or a scuba diving excursion, is dependent upon bringing the right safety equipment (e.g., boots, canteens, scuba gear) with them so that they do not perish during their adventure. Focusing only on the beauty of the wilderness, people often forget that they would not have the leisure time for nature walks if they did not have a comfortable, climate-controlled home to return to after the journey was over. The outdoors would not seem so pleasing to nature-lovers if, after the day's hike, they could not take a nice warm bath, enjoy a good meal, and read a good book or watch a good movie before going to sleep in their clean, man-made beds. We can imagine that prehistoric man, starving and suffering from diseases, rarely if ever, had time to enjoy nature. More likely, he simply feared much of the world around him because he did not understand it.
Environmentalists, as indicated by the quotations above, take it for granted that manipulating the environment to suit human purposes is immoral. Moreover, they have been largely successful in pushing this idea into the mainstream. They have managed to convince large numbers of citizens and politicians that human beings will likely cook the earth to a crisp through our release of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion. That global warming might be a good (or even neutral) phenomenon rarely enter their minds. They would run in horror from the suggestion that human beings should purposely moderate the climate through technologies such as cloud seeding. Instead, they would rather "let nature take her course" and perhaps kill off a few million people by hurricane, tornado, or tsunami. In fact, they frequently argue that reducing the human burden on the planet is a necessity if we are to prevent imminent environmental collapse.
If this sounds like I am impugning environmentalists with wildly exaggerated motives, and that all they really want is for humans to thrive but at the same time to live “in harmony” with nature, consider first that living in harmony with nature is a euphemism for not disturbing nature. Given the basic requirements of human life and the destructive aspects of nature discussed above, this is equivalent to calling for human life to be sacrificed to nature. This is in fact what many environmentalists, such as those quoted above, earnestly desire. Moreover, it is not just something they call for in theory. The same environmentalists who want to end the burning of fossil fuels for energy production also oppose the use “clean” alternatives power sources, such as hydro-electric and nuclear plants. The same environmentalists who want to balance nature and human needs focus exclusively on legally preventing farmers from farming, loggers from logging, fishermen from fishing, builders from building.
After considering all this, you might want to rethink the unquestioning support you have given to environmental causes. You might not, and you should not, think that the environmental ideology is as benevolent as you once did. Rather, the next time you encounter "green"-minded busy-bodies encouraging you and your children to protect the environment, you may want to reply that it is fine if people voluntarily agree to preserve certain specific aspects of nature for their beauty or uniqueness to be enjoyed; however, it is far more important for human life and prosperity that we improve, not protect, the environment.
References
1. Michael W. Fox, Vice President, The Human Society of the United States, The Inhumane Society, New York, 1990.
2. "The Wildlands Project," Wild Earth, Special Issue, 1992, p.3.
3. Quoted in "Are You Ready for Our New Age Future?" Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December 1995).
4. Quoted by environmentalist Theodore Roszak in the Oregonian, June 14, 1992.
5. Los Angeles Times Book Review, October 22nd, 1989.
Nevertheless, not all aspects of nature fill us with a benevolent sense of wonder; typhoons, tsunamis, hurricanes, and tornadoes are also part of nature. So are volcanoes, earthquakes, snow storms, heat waves, droughts, floods, etc., etc. Such events destroy and devastate thousands of human lives every year. Likewise, innumerable infectious diseases, such as malaria, typhus, HIV, and hepatitis, all part of nature, have maimed and killed millions of human lives across the centuries.
Now, consider the simple truth these vastly differing phenomena tell us about the natural world: sometimes it is good, and sometimes it is bad. Good or bad for what? For human life. We frequently talk about nature as if it were some unified, benevolent, god-like deity, for example: Mother Earth or “Gaia”. Yet, when considering both the destructive and the beneficial examples noted above, we can conclude that nature does not really care one way or another about human life and well being; it is oblivious to human welfare.
Next, consider how human beings, as opposed to other species, survive and thrive in the context of their natural environment. The first thing to note is that every material value upon which human life depends must be extracted or produced from the resources found in nature. Whether we consider the most fundamental human physical needs, such as food, clothing, and shelter, or the most developed human needs and conveniences, such as modern medicine,electricity, and the internet, we see that humans must rearrange the elements found in nature to create the physical values that allow them to enjoy life and prosper. Even fruit and vegetables must be planted, tended, and harvested. Thus, we can say that to live and prosper, humans must transform the natural environment into a human environment, or put another way, humans must improve the natural environment.
The most dramatic example of this point has been the industrial and scientific revolutions of the past 200 years, which have essentially consisted of applying reason to understand and manipulate the environment for human benefit. To an unprecedented degree, people in modern times have improved their survival and well-being by taking various elements found in nature, e.g., wood, minerals, plants, animals, etc., and then isolating and manipulating them. The unprecedented increase in human population, living standards, and life expectancy over the past 200 years derive specifically from the exponential growth in our understanding and subsequent improvement of our environment.
Given these facts, it would seem that a philosophy of preserving nature untouched, in a pristine state, as advocated by many environmentalists, is a prescription for human destruction. It is certainly a mistake to prevent human development of natural resources in deference to the supposed needs of every other species on earth, as many environmental thinkers desire. I am not referring here only to the sentiments of the "deep ecology" types associated with radical environmentalist groups. Consider for example, the following statements from several "mainstream" environmentalists:
"The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration." -- Michael Fox, vice president of The Humane Society.1
"The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans." -- Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project.2
"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." -- Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund.3
"Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby" -- Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists.4
"Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line--at about a million years ago, maybe half that--we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth."
"It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." -- David M. Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, in a prominently featured Los Angeles Times book review of Bill McKibben's book, The End of Nature.5
These sentiments, if enacted, would certainly result in mass human death. Indeed, some have argued that they already have resulted in the deaths of millions from malaria, which followed the banning of DDT in the early 1970’s. Yet, we often hear such ideas put forward as moral ideals. There seems to be a disconnect between our desire to have a good life based on modern technology and our desire to enjoy nature left untouched by human development. Why? One reason is probably because many people take most of modern life's comforts for granted, not realizing that these comforts had to be created by human minds and hands working to improve the environment.
Many people seem to think that the values science and technology bring us somehow already exist in nature. They either don't realize or won’t admit the degree of human thought and effort needed to produce such values. They don't realize that enjoying a hike in a forest, or a tour of the Grand Canyon, or a scuba diving excursion, is dependent upon bringing the right safety equipment (e.g., boots, canteens, scuba gear) with them so that they do not perish during their adventure. Focusing only on the beauty of the wilderness, people often forget that they would not have the leisure time for nature walks if they did not have a comfortable, climate-controlled home to return to after the journey was over. The outdoors would not seem so pleasing to nature-lovers if, after the day's hike, they could not take a nice warm bath, enjoy a good meal, and read a good book or watch a good movie before going to sleep in their clean, man-made beds. We can imagine that prehistoric man, starving and suffering from diseases, rarely if ever, had time to enjoy nature. More likely, he simply feared much of the world around him because he did not understand it.
Environmentalists, as indicated by the quotations above, take it for granted that manipulating the environment to suit human purposes is immoral. Moreover, they have been largely successful in pushing this idea into the mainstream. They have managed to convince large numbers of citizens and politicians that human beings will likely cook the earth to a crisp through our release of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion. That global warming might be a good (or even neutral) phenomenon rarely enter their minds. They would run in horror from the suggestion that human beings should purposely moderate the climate through technologies such as cloud seeding. Instead, they would rather "let nature take her course" and perhaps kill off a few million people by hurricane, tornado, or tsunami. In fact, they frequently argue that reducing the human burden on the planet is a necessity if we are to prevent imminent environmental collapse.
If this sounds like I am impugning environmentalists with wildly exaggerated motives, and that all they really want is for humans to thrive but at the same time to live “in harmony” with nature, consider first that living in harmony with nature is a euphemism for not disturbing nature. Given the basic requirements of human life and the destructive aspects of nature discussed above, this is equivalent to calling for human life to be sacrificed to nature. This is in fact what many environmentalists, such as those quoted above, earnestly desire. Moreover, it is not just something they call for in theory. The same environmentalists who want to end the burning of fossil fuels for energy production also oppose the use “clean” alternatives power sources, such as hydro-electric and nuclear plants. The same environmentalists who want to balance nature and human needs focus exclusively on legally preventing farmers from farming, loggers from logging, fishermen from fishing, builders from building.
After considering all this, you might want to rethink the unquestioning support you have given to environmental causes. You might not, and you should not, think that the environmental ideology is as benevolent as you once did. Rather, the next time you encounter "green"-minded busy-bodies encouraging you and your children to protect the environment, you may want to reply that it is fine if people voluntarily agree to preserve certain specific aspects of nature for their beauty or uniqueness to be enjoyed; however, it is far more important for human life and prosperity that we improve, not protect, the environment.
References
1. Michael W. Fox, Vice President, The Human Society of the United States, The Inhumane Society, New York, 1990.
2. "The Wildlands Project," Wild Earth, Special Issue, 1992, p.3.
3. Quoted in "Are You Ready for Our New Age Future?" Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December 1995).
4. Quoted by environmentalist Theodore Roszak in the Oregonian, June 14, 1992.
5. Los Angeles Times Book Review, October 22nd, 1989.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
The Elephant of Jew Hatred
Among her always excellent articles, The Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick's recent article, The Elephant of Jew Hatred is truly great. It is a prime example of The Emperor Has No Clothes story in modern international politics. In sum, Glick points out how modern politicians, who consider themselves absolutely beyond racism, completely tolerate what none want to mention - that the vast majority of the Arab world and its leaders are openly anti-Semitic racists straight out of the Middle Ages.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
What’s Missing From The Budget Debate
The article What’s Missing From The Budget Debate by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins at Forbes.com provides indispensable, intellectual ammunition that advocates of limited government need to win the federal budget debate and to win the future of America.
The arguments this article presents are unanswerable. The question is: will Americans have the guts to use this ammunition to help change America's disastrous course toward economic suicide?
The arguments this article presents are unanswerable. The question is: will Americans have the guts to use this ammunition to help change America's disastrous course toward economic suicide?
Sunday, May 22, 2011
The American Way of Life
You do not owe to your neighbors their Social Security, their medical security, nor their employment security. You owe them only the security of knowing that you will respect their lives and freedom.
Beyond this, you may choose to help your neighbors out of good will, but that is your choice, not society's, nor the government's.
Beyond this, you may choose to help your neighbors out of good will, but that is your choice, not society's, nor the government's.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Favorite Quotes
"Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it." - Lou Holtz
Obama's altruistic foreign policy
Very astute of Caroline Glick to identify altruism as the essence of President Obama’s foreign policy. In fact, altruism is at the heart of nearly all of the Obama administration’s actions.
Given the evil means and ends (moral relativism, hypocrisy, socialism), which decent people recognize in Obama's policies, what does this say about altruism as a moral ideal?
I’ll give you a hint: Who is John Galt?
Given the evil means and ends (moral relativism, hypocrisy, socialism), which decent people recognize in Obama's policies, what does this say about altruism as a moral ideal?
I’ll give you a hint: Who is John Galt?
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Syria is a dictatorship
Just in case you did not know, Syria is a typical Arab dictatorship.
It is a one party state, with little freedom of expression, assembly
or press. It harbors Islamic terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah,
and enforces its dictates via secret police.
The New York Times concretizes this point in light of recent
popular protests that have rocked Middle East autocracies and
theocracies.
While President Obama has authorized U.S. military action against
a Libyan government that poses little threat to the U.S., he ignores
regimes, such as those in Syria and Iran, which are far more
dangerous to America's national interest.
It is a one party state, with little freedom of expression, assembly
or press. It harbors Islamic terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah,
and enforces its dictates via secret police.
The New York Times concretizes this point in light of recent
popular protests that have rocked Middle East autocracies and
theocracies.
While President Obama has authorized U.S. military action against
a Libyan government that poses little threat to the U.S., he ignores
regimes, such as those in Syria and Iran, which are far more
dangerous to America's national interest.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
8 Gadgets to Watch in 2011
Whether or not these hot gadgets shown at CES 2011 actually become widely used in 2011, I think most of them are way cool, especially the Motorola Xoom tablet computer, Qi Wireless Power and NFC-Enabled Phones. You gotta love new technology!
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Sunday, January 02, 2011
Egalitarianism, a True Soul Killer
In his January 1st Op-Ed column, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof promotes a new book, The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger by “distinguished British epidemiologists” Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.
According to Kristof, “The heart of their argument is that humans are social animals and that in highly unequal societies those at the bottom suffer from a range of pathologies.”
If this argument were true, then all the social ills discussed in Mr. Kristof’s article would be easily solved: just make everyone equally poor by government redistribution of wealth. Since misery loves company, then we would all be happy souls in the equality of our poverty.
Of course, this is absurd. Crime, obesity, drug abuse, high teenage birthrates, and the other pathologies Mr. Kristoff mentions may certainly be due to ignorance, poverty, and most of all, poor moral character; but if there is anyone who attributes such problems to socio-economic inequality, they are simply making excuses - either for their own bad behavior or, as I suspect in Mr. Kristoff’s case, for their fear and hatred of the responsibilities entailed in America’s economic and political freedom.
One need not read any "scientific" study or book by “distinguished British epidemiologists” to know BS when it stinks as bad as the tired, old, debunked arguments for egalitarianism regurgitated by leftists under the guise of science.
According to Kristof, “The heart of their argument is that humans are social animals and that in highly unequal societies those at the bottom suffer from a range of pathologies.”
If this argument were true, then all the social ills discussed in Mr. Kristof’s article would be easily solved: just make everyone equally poor by government redistribution of wealth. Since misery loves company, then we would all be happy souls in the equality of our poverty.
Of course, this is absurd. Crime, obesity, drug abuse, high teenage birthrates, and the other pathologies Mr. Kristoff mentions may certainly be due to ignorance, poverty, and most of all, poor moral character; but if there is anyone who attributes such problems to socio-economic inequality, they are simply making excuses - either for their own bad behavior or, as I suspect in Mr. Kristoff’s case, for their fear and hatred of the responsibilities entailed in America’s economic and political freedom.
One need not read any "scientific" study or book by “distinguished British epidemiologists” to know BS when it stinks as bad as the tired, old, debunked arguments for egalitarianism regurgitated by leftists under the guise of science.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Mark Williams Racist Blog Story Stinks to High Heaven
First of all, what did Williams really write? Some excerpts from Williams’ blog post are quoted at CNN and the NY Daily News websites; however, these websites report that Williams removed the particular post after growing criticism. Also, CNN reports Williams saying the post was intended as a satire. In any case, it seems that the blog post is nowhere to found on the web so that people can judge for themselves if it comes across as a satire on racism or if it actually appears to condone racist views.
Secondly, the The National Tea Party Federation, which CNN reports, “represents the Tea Party political movement around the country”, which claims to represent 85 Tea Party groups and more than a million activists, and which “expelled” Williams’ Tea Party Express group, seems to be not so prominent after all. If you Google on “Tea Party”, its website does not appear at least the first four pages (first 40 hits) excluding the news stories within the past week. It was formed only 4 months ago: April 2010. It has no meeting or conference information on its website. It’s guestbook page has a grand total of 19 posts. In other words, it is hardly some grand national Tea Party association with the authority to kick people or organizations out of the Tea Party movement.
Third, Williams has stated his views on racists in the Tea Party movement several times, indicating that neither he nor his group, Tea Party Express, support racism. He has further pointed out that Tea Party participants and speakers have repeatedly denounced racist kooks who show up at Tea Party events looking for publicity. Also, Williams has pointed out that it is not necessary to continuously defend himself or his group against accusations that are obviously false. To do so would be to raise an issue that where none exists.
Secondly, the The National Tea Party Federation, which CNN reports, “represents the Tea Party political movement around the country”, which claims to represent 85 Tea Party groups and more than a million activists, and which “expelled” Williams’ Tea Party Express group, seems to be not so prominent after all. If you Google on “Tea Party”, its website does not appear at least the first four pages (first 40 hits) excluding the news stories within the past week. It was formed only 4 months ago: April 2010. It has no meeting or conference information on its website. It’s guestbook page has a grand total of 19 posts. In other words, it is hardly some grand national Tea Party association with the authority to kick people or organizations out of the Tea Party movement.
Third, Williams has stated his views on racists in the Tea Party movement several times, indicating that neither he nor his group, Tea Party Express, support racism. He has further pointed out that Tea Party participants and speakers have repeatedly denounced racist kooks who show up at Tea Party events looking for publicity. Also, Williams has pointed out that it is not necessary to continuously defend himself or his group against accusations that are obviously false. To do so would be to raise an issue that where none exists.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
A Surprising Look Gaza
Except for Hamas and anti-Semitism-spewing children, Gaza does not look like such a bad place. I thought from all the media propaganda that Gaza was a desolate, poverty-ridden slum. Yet this video from Pierre Rehov speaks otherwise.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
We Con The World
In support of Truth, Justice, Israel, Caroline Glick and the American Way:
And shame on YouTube for blocking this video.
As Caroline wrote, "YouTube's decision to pull Latma's hit song We Con the World after 3 million viewers shows that Israel's enemies are afraid of us. Since they cannot refute our points, they are trying to silence us."
And shame on YouTube for blocking this video.
As Caroline wrote, "YouTube's decision to pull Latma's hit song We Con the World after 3 million viewers shows that Israel's enemies are afraid of us. Since they cannot refute our points, they are trying to silence us."
COMPLETE CLEAN UP OF THE GULF SPILL
The idea for cleaning up the Gulf oil spill shown in this video looks feasible to a non-expert like me. In fact, I had thought of something like this system myself (without the PetroLuxus).
If this system is truly feasible, I sincerely hope that someone in power has the courage and intelligence to get it implemented. Perhaps widespread distribution on the internet will help.
If this system is truly feasible, I sincerely hope that someone in power has the courage and intelligence to get it implemented. Perhaps widespread distribution on the internet will help.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Obama's Anti-Israel Stategy & Israel's Lack of Strategy
Caroline Glick perceptively analyzes Barack Obama's anti-Israel strategy since coming into office, and shows Benjamin Netanyahu's lack of strategy in handling Israel's foreign policy.
If only Glick were Israel's prime minister.
If only Glick were Israel's prime minister.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Helen Thomas Does Not Recognize Israel's Right to Exist
The Grande Dame of the White House Press Corps, Helen Thomas of Hearst Newspapers, a supposedly mainstream journalist, thinks the Israelis should "go home" to Germany and Poland, where they were butchered by the Nazis. Anti-semitic bitch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)