Archive for October, 2007

Global Warning

Posted in Activism on October 30, 2007 by poyers

California is burning. The raging inferno has reminded some of hell. Remember the platitude ‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions’? News flash: Wood and biomass burn. The more fuel, the bigger the fire. And big fires are more likely to burn out of control. The weather is obviously the primary culprit. However, the West Coast has been working toward this disaster for decades by de facto waging war on the timber industry. The environmental extremist Luddites have done everything in their power to prevent any brush from being cleared or any tree from being harvested. According to an Oct. 25 news report, where even limited (but sensible) woodland management was permitted over the environmentalists objections, not a single home nor life was lost. There really is a time to reap, even for trees. If man does not harvest the timber, Mother Nature will, and she can be quite ruthless. Imagine trying to tell a farmer…Imagine trying to tell a farmer he cannot harvest his corn because some third party thinks it is pretty.  But as for these hundreds of thousands of acres of scorched earth, go find a kangaroo rat or a spotted owl on them now.” Written by Ed Masters of Sikeston, Missouri.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/10/the_dumbest_thing_said_about_g.html

What really happened in Jena

Posted in Activism on October 24, 2007 by poyers

This is an unbelieveable article about what really occured in Jena, LA.  Get ready to weep about the “facts” you have heard in the media and from people about this case.  The author of this article is based in Jena, his wife works at the High School as a teacher, and has actually covered this episode from the beginning.  He debunks 12 facts that I thought were absolute.  It is too bad.  Thanks to Michelle Malkin for purchasing reprints of the article for us to read.

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/24/media-myths-about-the-jena-6/

Ron Paul on the Environment

Posted in Politics on October 16, 2007 by poyers

If you read grist.org, they have been interviewing presidential candidates about their concerns for the environment and what they are going to do to “save” our natural world.  Each is full of pandering and enlarging the government; allowing for opportunists from special interest groups and the like to increase their influence and promote their industry.  That is, until they interviewed Ron Paul.  The way that he laughs at the interviewer who tries to promote global warming as the most serious challenge the future holds is entertaining and he answers her other questions very seriously and right in line with Ron Paul ideology.

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/

Why do we let liberals dominate the environmental dialogue?

Posted in Activism on October 15, 2007 by poyers

I am not going to discuss Al Gore at all nor do I want to really to discuss the movement in general trying rather to be specific to one cuase; but there is a specific aspect of environmentalism that annoys me to all ends.  Why do you see environmentalists attack and attack and attack WalMart (and any other corporation out there) when they put forth environmental initiatives?  From what I have read and understand (a great article in Fast Company http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/118/how-green-is-wal-mart.html) people just hate WalMart no matter what they do and have no respect at all for their projects that are aimed at sustainability.  A good deal of the arguments that I have read claim that WalMart, and others, are just doing it to make a profit and should be scorned for their efforts.  Environmentalists seem to take the approach that no matter what WalMart does, they cannot be trusted and that their motives are evil (I totally recommend you read Grist as it is an awesome environmental website.  But on this topic, read all of the lame comments about this here: http://www.grist.org/topic/Wal-Mart).  Do you believe this? 

I think that environmentalists set a vary dangerous precedent when trying to judge the motives and “morals” of a company for their actions and intentions.  Who cares why a company goes green as long as they do it, right?  The Bible talks a great deal about the motivations of people being the most important thing in determing a man’s life, his worth, and his eternal destination.  Charity, which is real intent, is what is judged (1 Cor. 13:1).  Is environmentalism creeping into a religious belief if one considers the morals of a persons behavior as the most important factor in their cause?

Similarly, when environmentalists attack “wicked” corporations for exploiting the world and destroying it, why are they being so anthropomorphic to these entities?  Afterall, is not a corporation just an entity with one responsibility only; to make a profit?  What else could it be?  Why should an entity be anything beyond that?  What kind of thing, even humans, does not seek to be the best and create the most in its field of interest?  Do not all of those profits go to people; individuals?  Is not it the role of individuals to transform the world and “save” it?  I think that if environmentalists really cared, they would stop focusing on the corporation, which is an investment vehicle and cannot be or do anything else, and instead focus on educating people about how they as individuals can make a difference in their individual behavior and decision making.  Engage the rich in your causes rather than shun them?  Get the powerful on your side and use their power for good; for truth!  If people really knew, even more so than cared, about ways to help and do good things, they would surely do it.  But by attacking and focusing on negative things all the time, nothing gets done as we are simply arguing morality and not focusing on ideas and issues; things that really matter and can change.  Try arguing religion with somebody and see where you get!  Arguing morals and using all of one’s energy to simply get moral authority and dominate others has never worked and never will.  (I love the episode of South Park that mocks the Hybrid cars drivers for their “smug” pollution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T_KGHubIGo). 

Lastly, if environmentalists really cared, they would 100% embrace the efforts of WalMart and work with them to provide ideas, initiative, and support for their effors.  Take for example the efforts of Adam Werbach (this article rocks: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/118/working-with-the-enemy.htmlO).  I hate to break it to people but WalMart is not going anywhere.  They must be doing something good if they are one of the biggest businesses in the United States.  Think about all of the people who shop there on a daily basis and all of the new buildings that are opened each week.  From there, consider all of the growth that they have been experiencing, and will continue to experience, overseas; especially in India and China.  By trying to “take them out,” destroy them, complain about them, boycott them, and get the government to intervene, environmentalists are beating their heads against walls.  Why not engage WalMart and show them how to be more sustainable?  Why not engage WalMart shoppers how they can act in a more environmentally conscious manner?  Why not promote WalMart’s initiatives to empower employees in sustainable practices (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/118/getting-personal.html)? 

I do not know why but it is terrible disappointing to see such non-productive initiatives dominate the sustainability movement against WalMart.  As a conservative, I hate creating rules and regulations to enforce things because it creates slow and expensive bureacracy, it engages non-professionals (i.e. politicians; the scum of the earth) into processes they are not good at managing and have limited if any knowledge about, and every rule takes away a choice and thus limits freedom.  We should be fighting to educate people as to how and what they can do to create more sustainable lifestyles on an individual basis.  If we can get enough people to truly be involved and change their behavior, we can create a movement and do some real good.  Complaining and trying to diminish the power of people by arguing moral authority and taking away choice will never do any good but rather create tension and animosity.

This could be a good discussion!

Harry Reid comes to the mother ship

Posted in Politics with tags , on October 11, 2007 by poyers

I understand that Harry Reid is going to be giving a speech at BYU in a couple of days. I think that this is awesome. It will be great to hear what he has to say in what I assume is going to be a very conservative setting but one that will not be so hostile because of his Mormon roots (Reid joined the church with his wife while in college at Utah State). I hope that he spends some time talking about his conversion experience because I am sure that it is a great story.
Oddly enough, the BYU democrats boycotted and made a loud stink over Dick Cheney coming to talk on campus last year and I am glad to see that we are better than that and welcome people coming to share their non-terrorist or hostile ideas (you have to draw a line somewhere).
I thought that it would be a good idea to post in a forum on the comments board some questions to ask Harry. Maybe one of you who are going to attend the speech can get one of our questions asked and hopefully answered (although I fear that Mr. Reid, just like all politicians, will dance and dance around any direct questions). Post your questions and have your friends do likewise.
For some basic information about Mr. Reid and his back ground, voting record, and other stuff, you can check out these links:
Congresspedia: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Harry_Reid#Background
Mr. Reid’s website: http://reid.senate.gov/
On the Issues: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Harry_Reid.htm
Voting record: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53320&type=category&category=10&go.x=9&go.y=5
Harry being pro-war in 02: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/18/ip.00.html

Hard bawl

Posted in Politics with tags , on October 11, 2007 by poyers

I find myself more and more enjoying John Stewart’s show. Stewart is very funny but to me the best entertainment comes from his audience who cheer vociferously whenever he says anything negative about President Bush or conservatives. What is it about people who enjoy politics that makes them cheer at pure populism and think that they are being brilliant and expressive? I see the same things on both sides. How many times does Mitt Romney get to say, “we need change in Washington” to a host of cheers without saying anything else. Hello!!! Anyway, I like Stewart.
This video is hilarious as he totally mocks Chris Matthews and his new book. It gets painful to watch towards the end as Matthews is totally humiliated. I hate to take pleasure in another person’s pain but this is a must see.
The premise behind Matthew’s new book is that living your life as a politician on the campaign trail is the best way to get ahead and be successful. He even tries to argue that acting like Bill Clinton will help you to get ahead and live a fruitful and positive life. Hard bawl coming out of my face!
” type=”‘application/x-shockwave-flash'” name=”‘comedy_central_player'” width=”‘332′” height=”‘316′” pluginspage=”‘http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'” allownetworking=”‘external'” allowscriptaccess=”‘always'” align=”‘middle'” 20quality=”‘high’%20bgcolor=”>”>www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml’ quality=’high’ bgcolor=’#cccccc’ width=’332′ height=’316′ name=’comedy_central_player’ align=’middle’ allowScriptAccess=’always’ allownetworking=’external’ type=’application/x-shockwave-flash’ pluginspage=’http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer’>

Fight the good fight Rush!

Posted in Politics with tags , , , , on October 11, 2007 by poyers

Oh to have as much free time as a United States senator or member of the house of representatives. First was their taking the time to pass a resolution condemning a newspaper ad by moveon.org and actually discussing and debating the issue on the tax payer’s dime. Now, professors Harry Reid and Tom Harkin are spending a good deal of time trying to discredit Rush Limbaugh and some comments that he made on his show during actual floor time.
From Neil Boortz, “This whole mess starts with a clown by the name of Jesse Macbeth. Macbeth became very popular with the media earlier this year when he started telling stories about all of the hideous crimes he saw our soldiers commit while he was serving in Afghanistan and Iraq as an Army ranger.”
You can hear Rush’s words here along with his defense: http://youtube.com/watch?v=rm84gOXkZaY. He actually replays the original dialogue with a caller talking about former soldiers claiming the evils of war and the wicked actions of US troops despite the fact that these “soldiers” were never where they said they were, never saw what they said they saw, and were in fact “phony” soldiers; they never even served actively in the military.
If you would prefer to read the transcript, check it out here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html
As the senators attack Limbaugh, you can read a Department of Justice memorandum addressing the phony soldier phenomenon and doling out fines and imprisonment for forgeries and deception by the criminals. Not that he needs any attention, but one of the main soldiers in question is Jesse MacBeth: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/waw/press/2007/sep/operationstolenvalor.html. Under a DOJ memo entitled Operation Stolen Valor, specifically 8 individuals are mentioned by name with the details of their crimes outlined. MacBeth, claiming to see heinous attacks on civilians and others , never even left the United States with the army and was discharged one month after he joined. What a phony!
This episode with phony soldiers is not a recent event! It has been addressed a number of times with articles written by Michelle Malkin on August 8th: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/winter_soldier_syndrome.html. There was an article in the Seattle Times addressing this MacBeth character and the phony soldiers written September 21st: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/332642_fakevet22.html. The Associated Press released information about the incident on September 21st. Hot Air! exposed the situation and verdict as well: http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/21/jesse-macbeth-i-admit-it-im-a-filthy-liar/. Because she is such a stud, you can find the actual forged forms by MacBeth posted May 26, 2006: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/05/26/jesse-macbeth-posts-his-discharge-form/.
As you can see, despite attempts to attack and discredit Rush, the facts are what they are and one has to wantonly ignore these facts in order to believe these politicians. Just read the transcript in context to see what really took place.
To further add fire to the flame, a couple of GOP members in the house of representatives have put forth a resolution today “commending Rush Limbaugh and his support of our troops.” Unfortunately, it is sponsored by Jack Kingston of Georgia, the same guy that took our money and time to put forth a resolution congratulating the Florida Gators for winning the National Championship last year. Thanks for your hard work Jack! http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1905024/posts.
As luck would have it, there are actually quotes and records of Hillary Clinton speaking of her support of Media Matters; the group that “watches” conservative news sources and talk radio hosts to hold them accountable for their comments and views. In fact, she not only supports their efforts, but boasts of helping to form this group among others: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9mwM (the relevant material begins around 2:20). “Institutions that I helped to start and support…” she says. Way to put another nail in your coffin Mrs. Clinton. There is no way that a Mrs. Clinton front group would be going after the “vast right-wing conspiracy” would there be?