We're Doomed Again
Paul Ehrlich has never been right. Why does anyone still listen to him?
BY RONALD BAILEY
Thursday, May 20, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
Environmentalist Paul Ehrlich has proved himself to be a stupendously bad prophet. In 1968 he declared: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." They didn't. Indeed, a "green revolution" nearly tripled the world's food supply. In 1975, he predicted that, by the mid-1980s, "mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity," in which "accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." Far from it. Between 1975 and 2000 the World Bank's commodity price index for minerals and metals fell by nearly 50%. In other words, we abound in "key minerals." Naturally, Mr. Ehrlich has won a MacArthur Foundation genius award--and a Heinz Award for the environment. (Yes, that Heinz: Teresa Heinz Kerry is chairman of the award's sponsoring philanthropy.)
So why pay him any notice? Because he is a reverse Cassandra. In "The Illiad," the prophetess Cassandra makes true predictions and no one believes her; Mr. Ehrlich makes false predictions and they are widely believed. The gloomier he is and the faultier he proves to be as a prophet, the more honored he becomes, even in his own country
Saturday, April 03, 2004
Hornung, Notre Dame, and Affirmative Action
Hornung Regrets Remarks About Notre Dame
Former Heisman Trophy winner Paul Hornung expressed regret Wednesday for saying his alma mater, Notre Dame, needed to lower its academic standards to "get the black athlete."
"We can't stay as strict as we are as far as the academic structure is concerned because we've got to get the black athlete," Hornung said. "We must get the black athlete if we're going to compete."
Affirmative Action Connection?
Obviously, this sort of comment offends people. Hornung was "flooded with telephone calls from friends and media" after his radio interview in which he said that standards had to be lowered to make sure black athletes would be able to play on the school's football team.
But isn't this pretty much the same thing affirmative action does - lowers the standards for minorities so they "have a chance at getting in"? Although Hornung's motivation was to improve the football team and he didn't promote lowering standards only for minority applicants, he made it clear that minorities, specifically black athletes, were the reason the standards should be lowered. If it is offensive for him to say that black people won't be able to get in to play football unless standards are lowered, isn't it offensive to say that minority applicants can't get in if they are held to the "white" standard?
Hornung Regrets Remarks About Notre Dame
Former Heisman Trophy winner Paul Hornung expressed regret Wednesday for saying his alma mater, Notre Dame, needed to lower its academic standards to "get the black athlete."
"We can't stay as strict as we are as far as the academic structure is concerned because we've got to get the black athlete," Hornung said. "We must get the black athlete if we're going to compete."
Affirmative Action Connection?
Obviously, this sort of comment offends people. Hornung was "flooded with telephone calls from friends and media" after his radio interview in which he said that standards had to be lowered to make sure black athletes would be able to play on the school's football team.
But isn't this pretty much the same thing affirmative action does - lowers the standards for minorities so they "have a chance at getting in"? Although Hornung's motivation was to improve the football team and he didn't promote lowering standards only for minority applicants, he made it clear that minorities, specifically black athletes, were the reason the standards should be lowered. If it is offensive for him to say that black people won't be able to get in to play football unless standards are lowered, isn't it offensive to say that minority applicants can't get in if they are held to the "white" standard?
Friday, March 19, 2004
On his first full day off, though, Mr. Kerry awoke determined to hit the slopes of Mount Baldy.
A mans charactor is more important than his issues.
The image-conscious candidate and his aides prevailed upon reporters and photographers to let him have a first run down the mountain solo, except for two agents and Marvin Nicholson, his omnipresent right-hand man.
His next trip down, a reporter and a camera crew were allowed to follow along on skis — just in time to see Mr. Kerry taken out by one of the Secret Service men, who had inadvertently moved into his path, sending him into the snow.
When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply, "I don't fall down," then used an expletive to describe the agent who "knocked me over."
The incident occurred near the summit. No one was hurt, and Mr. Kerry came careering down the mountain moments later, a look of intensity on his face, his lanky frame bent low to the ground.
A mans charactor is more important than his issues.
The image-conscious candidate and his aides prevailed upon reporters and photographers to let him have a first run down the mountain solo, except for two agents and Marvin Nicholson, his omnipresent right-hand man.
His next trip down, a reporter and a camera crew were allowed to follow along on skis — just in time to see Mr. Kerry taken out by one of the Secret Service men, who had inadvertently moved into his path, sending him into the snow.
When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply, "I don't fall down," then used an expletive to describe the agent who "knocked me over."
The incident occurred near the summit. No one was hurt, and Mr. Kerry came careering down the mountain moments later, a look of intensity on his face, his lanky frame bent low to the ground.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
new chapter in the continuing story of antibiotic resistance is being written in doctors' offices across the country, as a group of common bacteria rapidly becomes resistant to the antibiotics that have been used to treat them for decades.
The bacteria are called Staphylococcus aureus, or staph for short. Staph are the most common cause of skin infections like boils and can also cause lung infections, bloodstream infections and abscesses in the body's internal organs.
In hospitalized patients, infections caused by antibiotic-resistant staph have been common for years. Among healthy people, though, antibiotic resistance in staph has not been a big problem. Since the 1970's, doctors have routinely, and successfully, treated staph infections in healthy patients with penicillin-like drugs.
Not anymore. Office doctors who follow this practice now may find their patients getting sicker instead of better.
Over the last year, Dr. John Gullett, an infectious disease specialist in Abilene, Tex., has grown accustomed to getting calls for help from local doctors who have used the usual antibiotics to no effect.
One doctor treated a high school football player "built like Charles Atlas" with a standard oral antibiotic for a little boil in the groin. Even though the teenager was the picture of health, the antibiotic did not work.
The boil, caused by resistant staph, grew into an large abscess tracking into the leg, and the patient got sicker and sicker. Only when Dr. Gullett treated him with an intravenous antibiotic generally reserved for desperately ill hospitalized patients did he turn the corner.
Had the patient's first doctor been aware that the infection was caused by resistant staph and chosen a different oral antibiotic, the entire episode might have been milder.
Resistant staph, Dr. Gullet said, are "more invasive and more pervasive" than the strains most primary care doctors are used to treating.
Dr. Gonzalo Ballon-Landa, an infectious disease specialist at Mercy Hospital in San Diego, said he was "very concerned about what we are seeing."
Dr. Ballon-Landa has treated clusters of infections from resistant staph in such disparate groups as prisoners, homeless people, student nurses and football players.
"Most doctors are just not aware of this," said Dr. Bonnie Bock, an infectious disease specialist in Newport Beach, Calif., who has treated resistant staph infections in groups of secretaries, surfers and gay men.
Dr. Bock estimated that about two-thirds of the large staph abscesses she saw in her office now were caused by the resistant bacteria.
Over all, staph infections are extremely common and often quite minor. Even staph abscesses, if they are drained properly, may heal without requiring any antibiotics at all. The new resistant staph can be treated with several common antibiotics — just not the ones doctors are accustomed to using.
Still, the experts say that some infections caused by the new resistant staph are unexpectedly aggressive, and delays in starting the right antibiotics may be life-threatening.
"Staph infections are such a common problem that the emergence of infections resistant to common antibiotics has important public health implications," said Dr. Daniel B. Jernigan, an epidemiologist at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
But the infections are so common that they are not reportable to the local or federal public health authorities. Because of this, detective work to explain the appearance of the new resistant staph in this country and track its progress is just beginning.
The resistant staph was first recognized in the United States among children in Chicago in the mid-1990's. In 1999, the disease control centers reported that four children in the Midwest had died of infections with the new staph. Three of them had initially been treated with the wrong antibiotics.
In the last several years, clusters of infections with the resistant staph have been reported in jails and prisons in states around the country, including California, Texas, Pennsylvania and Georgia. Clusters of skin infections have also been reported among athletic team members and military recruits.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
A man with a metal detector has unearthed a Roman bronze coin so rare it bears the face of a mystery emperor who "ruled" Britain for a matter of days.
Brian Malin, from Oxfordshire, found it in a field in the county.
It bears the face of Emperor Domitianus and is only the second coin ever found which bears the image of the self-proclaimed ruler of Britain and France in 271AD.
A similar coin was found in France 100 years ago but until now its uniqueness had meant both Emperor Domitianus and the coin were dismissed as a hoax.
Historians say the British discovery confirms the French find is genuine and Domitianus existed.
They believe he was an upstart from the Roman legion who was ousted for treason for daring to declare himself emperor and have the coins made.
Mr Malin found the coin in a field 10 miles south-east of Oxford.
The coin was among a pot of 5,000 all bearing the heads of emperors and stuck together, providing the perfect "timeline" for archaeologists.
He handed his find to the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford which passed it to experts at the British Museum who began separating the coins.
The coins dating from 250AD to the mid 270sAD spanned five emperors during a time of great upheaval for the Roman empire.
The Domitianus coin is going on display at the British Museum.
Brian Malin, from Oxfordshire, found it in a field in the county.
It bears the face of Emperor Domitianus and is only the second coin ever found which bears the image of the self-proclaimed ruler of Britain and France in 271AD.
A similar coin was found in France 100 years ago but until now its uniqueness had meant both Emperor Domitianus and the coin were dismissed as a hoax.
Historians say the British discovery confirms the French find is genuine and Domitianus existed.
They believe he was an upstart from the Roman legion who was ousted for treason for daring to declare himself emperor and have the coins made.
Mr Malin found the coin in a field 10 miles south-east of Oxford.
The coin was among a pot of 5,000 all bearing the heads of emperors and stuck together, providing the perfect "timeline" for archaeologists.
He handed his find to the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford which passed it to experts at the British Museum who began separating the coins.
The coins dating from 250AD to the mid 270sAD spanned five emperors during a time of great upheaval for the Roman empire.
The Domitianus coin is going on display at the British Museum.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
British Speeders Getting Frowns Before Fines:
LONDON (Reuters) - Speeding motorists in some parts of Britain are being flashed by electronic frowns, helping them avoid police cameras and hefty fines.
Electronic signboards use radar to read the speed of an oncoming vehicle and flash it up on a screen. If the motorist is driving within the speed limit the indicator changes to a smiley face. Should the driver be speeding, the face becomes a frown.
"The Speed Indicator Devices (SIDs) have a role to play in changing driver behavior. They are particularly effective before hazards like a bend," Susan Beck, at the National Safety Camera Partnership, said Tuesday.
The Partnership is backed by the government and aims to reduce road casualties. Regional units work with local councils over setting up cameras and other safety measures.
Beck said the devices are sometimes placed ahead of cameras giving drivers advance warning about their speeds.
She said the new indicators were not replacements for cameras, which are widely disliked by some motorists who regard them as simple revenue-generators.
Physical attacks on so-called Gatso cameras -- whose tell-tale flash can result in fines of up to 60 pounds and penalty points on driving licenses -- have been rising.
In recent months a number have been blown up with dynamite, some have been torched, while others have been cut down by aggrieved motorists.
LONDON (Reuters) - Speeding motorists in some parts of Britain are being flashed by electronic frowns, helping them avoid police cameras and hefty fines.
Electronic signboards use radar to read the speed of an oncoming vehicle and flash it up on a screen. If the motorist is driving within the speed limit the indicator changes to a smiley face. Should the driver be speeding, the face becomes a frown.
"The Speed Indicator Devices (SIDs) have a role to play in changing driver behavior. They are particularly effective before hazards like a bend," Susan Beck, at the National Safety Camera Partnership, said Tuesday.
The Partnership is backed by the government and aims to reduce road casualties. Regional units work with local councils over setting up cameras and other safety measures.
Beck said the devices are sometimes placed ahead of cameras giving drivers advance warning about their speeds.
She said the new indicators were not replacements for cameras, which are widely disliked by some motorists who regard them as simple revenue-generators.
Physical attacks on so-called Gatso cameras -- whose tell-tale flash can result in fines of up to 60 pounds and penalty points on driving licenses -- have been rising.
In recent months a number have been blown up with dynamite, some have been torched, while others have been cut down by aggrieved motorists.
Bush to Back Gay Marriage Ban Amendment:
By DEB RIECHMANN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush backed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Tuesday, saying he wants to stop activist judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."
Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural and moral roots, Bush said, urging Congress to approve such an amendment.
"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," the president said. "Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."
Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said in advance of Bush's announcement that the president wanted to end "growing confusion" that has arisen from court decisions in Massachusetts, and San Francisco's permitting more than 3,000 same sex unions.
"The president believes it is important to have clarity," he said. "There is widespread support in this country for protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage."
McClellan said Bush believes that legislation for such an amendment, submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., "meets his principles" in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women.
But Bush did not specifically embrace any particular piece of legislation in his announcement. White House officials have said that support for Musgrave's proposed amendment has been unraveling in the Senate.
Bush decided to take action partly because the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. That decision could result in gay weddings there as early as May, McClellan said. "We're two months away," he said.
McClellan said 38 states have passed laws protecting the "sanctity of marriage and the president will call on Congress to move quickly to pass legislation that can then be sent to the states for ratification.
"We need to act now," he said. "The constitutional process will take time."
With the announcement, Bush is wading into a volatile social issue. The conservative wing of his party has been anxious for Bush to follow up his rhetoric on the issue with action. In recent weeks, Bush has repeatedly said he was "troubled" by the Massachusetts court decision and the gay marriages in San Francisco, but stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Gay and lesbian couples from Europe and couples from more than 20 states have flocked to San Francisco City Hall since city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples a few days ago. At the current pace, more than 3,200 people will have taken vows by Friday promising to be "spouses for life."
At least 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage; last week, the Utah House gave final legislative approval to a measure outlawing same-sex marriages and sent it to the governor, who has not taken a position on the bill.
Musgrave's proposed amendment would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Conservatives have been saying for a month that the White House had quietly assured them that Bush would take the step he was announcing on Tuesday.
Last week, he met with 13 Roman Catholic conservatives. They included Deal Hudson, the publisher of Crisis magazine and a friend of Bush political adviser Karl Rove; William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights; Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter for President Reagan; and Kathryn Jean Lopez, associate editor of National Review magazine.
Bush has indicated his support for a constitutional amendment in the past, including in a closed-door meeting with Republican lawmakers last month. At that session, according to one official in attendance, the president singled out Musgrave's proposal as one he could support, but did not endorse it.
The amendment that Musgrave and other lawmakers are backing in the House says: "Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
Bush's comment that the states should be left free to "define other arrangements" indicates the president does not favor using a constitutional amendment to enact a federal ban on civil union or domestic partnership laws.
The proposed amendment backed by Musgrave and others in Congress is consistent with that, but some conservatives favor going further.
A recent nationwide CNN poll found that by a margin of 64-32, those surveyed said gay marriages should not be recognized in law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages.
On a separate question, 48 percent of those surveyed said it should be up to the federal government to pass laws regarding gay marriages, while another 46 percent said the states should take that role.
By DEB RIECHMANN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush backed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Tuesday, saying he wants to stop activist judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."
Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural and moral roots, Bush said, urging Congress to approve such an amendment.
"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," the president said. "Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."
Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said in advance of Bush's announcement that the president wanted to end "growing confusion" that has arisen from court decisions in Massachusetts, and San Francisco's permitting more than 3,000 same sex unions.
"The president believes it is important to have clarity," he said. "There is widespread support in this country for protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage."
McClellan said Bush believes that legislation for such an amendment, submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., "meets his principles" in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women.
But Bush did not specifically embrace any particular piece of legislation in his announcement. White House officials have said that support for Musgrave's proposed amendment has been unraveling in the Senate.
Bush decided to take action partly because the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. That decision could result in gay weddings there as early as May, McClellan said. "We're two months away," he said.
McClellan said 38 states have passed laws protecting the "sanctity of marriage and the president will call on Congress to move quickly to pass legislation that can then be sent to the states for ratification.
"We need to act now," he said. "The constitutional process will take time."
With the announcement, Bush is wading into a volatile social issue. The conservative wing of his party has been anxious for Bush to follow up his rhetoric on the issue with action. In recent weeks, Bush has repeatedly said he was "troubled" by the Massachusetts court decision and the gay marriages in San Francisco, but stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Gay and lesbian couples from Europe and couples from more than 20 states have flocked to San Francisco City Hall since city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples a few days ago. At the current pace, more than 3,200 people will have taken vows by Friday promising to be "spouses for life."
At least 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage; last week, the Utah House gave final legislative approval to a measure outlawing same-sex marriages and sent it to the governor, who has not taken a position on the bill.
Musgrave's proposed amendment would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Conservatives have been saying for a month that the White House had quietly assured them that Bush would take the step he was announcing on Tuesday.
Last week, he met with 13 Roman Catholic conservatives. They included Deal Hudson, the publisher of Crisis magazine and a friend of Bush political adviser Karl Rove; William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights; Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter for President Reagan; and Kathryn Jean Lopez, associate editor of National Review magazine.
Bush has indicated his support for a constitutional amendment in the past, including in a closed-door meeting with Republican lawmakers last month. At that session, according to one official in attendance, the president singled out Musgrave's proposal as one he could support, but did not endorse it.
The amendment that Musgrave and other lawmakers are backing in the House says: "Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
Bush's comment that the states should be left free to "define other arrangements" indicates the president does not favor using a constitutional amendment to enact a federal ban on civil union or domestic partnership laws.
The proposed amendment backed by Musgrave and others in Congress is consistent with that, but some conservatives favor going further.
A recent nationwide CNN poll found that by a margin of 64-32, those surveyed said gay marriages should not be recognized in law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages.
On a separate question, 48 percent of those surveyed said it should be up to the federal government to pass laws regarding gay marriages, while another 46 percent said the states should take that role.
Thursday, October 30, 2003
THIS IS HUGE!!!!:
"Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984"
By JEANNINE AVERSA
(AP) The economy grew at a blistering 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace...
(the dwarves are crying in their beers.)
WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy grew at a blistering 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence.
The increase in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy's performance, in the July-September quarter was more than double the 3.3 percent rate registered in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported Thursday.
The 7.2 percent pace marked the best showing since the first quarter of 1984. It exceeded analysts' forecasts for a 6 percent growth rate for third-quarter GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States"
"Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984"
By JEANNINE AVERSA
(AP) The economy grew at a blistering 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace...
(the dwarves are crying in their beers.)
WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy grew at a blistering 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence.
The increase in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy's performance, in the July-September quarter was more than double the 3.3 percent rate registered in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported Thursday.
The 7.2 percent pace marked the best showing since the first quarter of 1984. It exceeded analysts' forecasts for a 6 percent growth rate for third-quarter GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States"
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Rabbis back Israeli 'guard pigs': "An organisation in Israel has gained rabbinical approval to train pigs to guard Jewish settlements in the West Bank. "
My Way News: "Flames raged along a vast front in devastated San Diego County on Tuesday as one chief warned that firefighters were being forced off the lines by exhaustion even if it meant that more homes would be destroyed.
At least 17 deaths were blamed on the fires, 15 in Southern California and two in Mexico, as separate blazes were scattered along an arc from the suburbs northwest of Los Angeles to Ensenada, Mexico, about 60 miles south of the border. At least 1,552 homes had been destroyed in California."
At least 17 deaths were blamed on the fires, 15 in Southern California and two in Mexico, as separate blazes were scattered along an arc from the suburbs northwest of Los Angeles to Ensenada, Mexico, about 60 miles south of the border. At least 1,552 homes had been destroyed in California."
Sunday, October 26, 2003
My Way News: "SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. (AP) - Entire towns were evacuated Sunday as wind-driven firestorms destroyed scores of homes, devastating neighborhoods scattered from San Diego County to the mountains east of Los Angeles.
Between 40,000 and 50,000 people were ordered to leave their homes over a mountainous 30-mile stretch from Crestline to Big Bear, just northeast of San Bernardino. They were being evacuated north into the desert because flames were leaping over roads leading to the valley below.
Another wildfire forced the evacuation of a Federal Aviation Administration control center, disrupting air travel across the nation."
New filibuster record?: "
Freshman Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is intent on breaking the record held by his predecessor, Strom Thurmond, for the longest speech ever delivered in the U.S. Senate.
In 1957, Thurmond -- then a segregationist Democrat -- spoke for 24 hours, 18 minutes to protest the imminent passage of the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction nearly a century earlier. Graham has notified the Senate Republican leadership that he wants to exceed Thurmond with a protest against Democratic blocking of President Bush's judicial nominations.
Neither Thurmond's speech nor Graham's effort to break his record fits the filibuster's normal purpose of stopping specific legislation from passing. In 1957, passage of the civil rights bill was assured when Thurmond spoke. In 2003, Graham's intended speech would be a demonstration against Democrats who are successfully filibustering confirmation of Bush judges."
Freshman Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is intent on breaking the record held by his predecessor, Strom Thurmond, for the longest speech ever delivered in the U.S. Senate.
In 1957, Thurmond -- then a segregationist Democrat -- spoke for 24 hours, 18 minutes to protest the imminent passage of the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction nearly a century earlier. Graham has notified the Senate Republican leadership that he wants to exceed Thurmond with a protest against Democratic blocking of President Bush's judicial nominations.
Neither Thurmond's speech nor Graham's effort to break his record fits the filibuster's normal purpose of stopping specific legislation from passing. In 1957, passage of the civil rights bill was assured when Thurmond spoke. In 2003, Graham's intended speech would be a demonstration against Democrats who are successfully filibustering confirmation of Bush judges."
Friday, October 24, 2003
BUSH OFFICIAL CAUGHT IN CHURCH DRAGNET!!!!!!!
: "IN AN EMERGING scandal, NBC News has produced tapes proving beyond deniability that the new deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence is ... a Christian. Lt. Gen. William G. 'Jerry' Boykin has been captured on a series of grainy tapes, attesting to his faith at churches and prayer breakfasts. Having driven the Judeo-Christian value system out of the public square, the classrooms and the Alabama Supreme Court, liberals now want to drive it out of church.
In one 'inflammatory' remark, Boykin said that the enemy was not Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, but 'is a spiritual enemy. He's called the principality of darkness. The enemy is a guy called Satan.'
Islamic leaders in the United States instantly denounced Boykin's unflattering characterization of bin Laden and Hussein as an attack on Islam. They haven't been this huffy since describing bin Laden as 'not a true Muslim' and Hussein as a 'secularist.' If our enemies aren't 'true Muslims,' why are the 'true Muslims' always so offended on their behalf? "
: "IN AN EMERGING scandal, NBC News has produced tapes proving beyond deniability that the new deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence is ... a Christian. Lt. Gen. William G. 'Jerry' Boykin has been captured on a series of grainy tapes, attesting to his faith at churches and prayer breakfasts. Having driven the Judeo-Christian value system out of the public square, the classrooms and the Alabama Supreme Court, liberals now want to drive it out of church.
In one 'inflammatory' remark, Boykin said that the enemy was not Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, but 'is a spiritual enemy. He's called the principality of darkness. The enemy is a guy called Satan.'
Islamic leaders in the United States instantly denounced Boykin's unflattering characterization of bin Laden and Hussein as an attack on Islam. They haven't been this huffy since describing bin Laden as 'not a true Muslim' and Hussein as a 'secularist.' If our enemies aren't 'true Muslims,' why are the 'true Muslims' always so offended on their behalf? "
'Humans could live for hundreds of years': "
'Humans could live for hundreds of years'
Scientists say people could live active lives for hundreds of years if humans follow the same biological rules as laboratory worms.
By carefully tweaking genes and hormones, scientists extended the lifespan of the tiny roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans six times. In human terms, the worms stayed healthy and active for 500 years"
'Humans could live for hundreds of years'
Scientists say people could live active lives for hundreds of years if humans follow the same biological rules as laboratory worms.
By carefully tweaking genes and hormones, scientists extended the lifespan of the tiny roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans six times. In human terms, the worms stayed healthy and active for 500 years"
next stop, The pearly gates.....or hell?: "LOS ANGELES -- An overwhelming majority of Americans continue to believe that there is life after death and that heaven and hell exist, according to a new study. What's more, nearly two-thirds think they are heaven-bound.
On the other hand, only one-half of 1% said they were hell-bound, according to a national poll by the Oxnard-based Barna Research Group, an independent marketing research firm that has tracked trends related to beliefs, values and behaviors since 1984."
On the other hand, only one-half of 1% said they were hell-bound, according to a national poll by the Oxnard-based Barna Research Group, an independent marketing research firm that has tracked trends related to beliefs, values and behaviors since 1984."
Thursday, October 23, 2003
Is Earth warming? The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth’s natural climate history for millions of years. So what is the global warming debate about? It’s about the proposition that human use of fossil fuels has contributed significantly to the past century’s warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But media coverage of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don’t realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on politics than on science.
by Jack M. Hollander
Read the whole article
........North Korea is a much trickier problem. Some facilities are buried deep inside mountains and cannot be readily attacked and destroyed from the air. Others we may not know about at all. The regime itself is highly secretive, and unless the U.S. had reliable and timely intelligence about the whereabouts of Kim Jong Il and his top lieutenants, exceptional luck would be required to decapitate it by means of a conventional blow. Even if we did get lucky, there would still be the possibility of a North Korean response.
Not only does the North appear to have deliverable nuclear weapons, it also has one of the world's largest armies, comprising 1.2 million soldiers, some 70% of whom are positioned in and around the 12,000 underground bunkers near the demilitarized zone that separates the two Koreas. These forces are armed with approximately 10,000 artillery pieces and over 800 missiles capable of reaching South Korea and some of its neighbors. In addition, they are equipped with 2,500 multiple-rocket launchers capable of firing (by a conservative estimate) 500,000 shells an hour to a range of 33 miles. The city of Seoul, situated 24 miles from the DMZ and with a population of more than 10 million, could be devastated within hours.
That is the bad news. The better news is that North Korea is not 10 or even six feet tall. Its military equipment consists of aging Soviet and Chinese stocks that qualitatively are vastly inferior to both the U.S. and South Korean militaries. Its army is large to the point of bloat; significant numbers of conscripts are engaged in forced-labor projects that have little or no military significance. The populace from which these troops are drawn is hungry and downtrodden, and many soldiers are undoubtedly hungry as well. It is an open question whether, if push came to war, North Korea's military would disintegrate on its own, and with it the communist regime.
In the final analysis, we cannot know with any certainty how such pre-emptive actions would play out. We can be certain only of this: As the danger looms closer, the divas of peace at any price will begin their predictable serenades. It is "vital," says Jimmy Carter, "that some accommodation" be reached with Pyongyang, a regime that "feels increasingly threatened by being branded an 'axis of evil' member." The New York Times, for its part, editorializes that "diplomacy is the only acceptable alternative," just as it editorialized back in 1995 when, lauding the "accommodation" with North Korea achieved by the same Jimmy Carter, it urged the Clinton administration to strike a similar "bargain" with the ayatollahs in Tehran.
BY GABRIEL SCHOENFELD
Read the whole article and learn someting
U.S. President George W. Bush holds out his arms and says 'I love free speech' as he reacts to a lawmaker heckling him during his speech to the Parliament in Canberra, Australia, Thursday, Oct. 23, 2003. Bush is making the final stop of his six-nation Asia-Australia tour where he has sought support for the reconstruction of Iraq and the ongoing war against terror.
Columbine High School gunman Eric Harris, shown in this videotape frame grab released October 22, 2003, fires a weapon used in his suicidal rampage that occurred at the Colorado high school on April 20, 1999. Only six weeks before carrying out the Columbine High School massacre, two teenage gunmen went target practicing and wondered what it would be like to shoot someone in the head, a videotape released showed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)