Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs

An excerpt from a “must read” piece.  Proponents of man-made global warming are now apparently guilty of dishonest science, avoidance of peer-review, manipulation/destruction of evidence and fraud.  The scientific method, an intellectual staple in our technologically driven world, was totally bastardized.

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth aka AGW; aka ManBearPig has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit aka CRU and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet.

via Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs.

The piece appears to be credibly crafted although approached from a decidedly partisan basis. Unfortunately, the available discussion on global warming tends to be from partisan advocates.  But if the science has been perverted, who else is going to bring it up?

Want to view the emails? Click here.

 

Networks Ignore Alliances, Thuggery and Lobbying of SEIU

Members of the self-proclaimed fastest-growing union in North America have started fights at town hall meetings, share office space with ACORN and spent over $60 million to elect President Barack Obama.

via Networks Ignore Alliances, Thuggery and Lobbying of SEIU, By Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute, 11/18/2009

That ACORN is still allowed to run amuck with our tax dollars and, according to many sources and reports, commit voting fraud, is NUTTY.  Read the above-mentioned story.  It tells two tales.

The first tale is one of yet another organization that is having a heavy, and (according to some) possibly illegal role in influencing the Whitehouse and federal policy in general.

The other tale is the continued turning-of-the-head by ABC, NBC and CBS to critical allegations that the public has the right to know — matters that are much more newsworthy than digging dirt on Sarah Palin.  Allegations that if true, and if constructively covered up by the so-called main stream media could amount to no less than a conspiracy further damage these United States of America.

The lesson? Find trustworthy alternate news sources, seek out this information, and share with your friends. I just did. Will you?

Movie review: Fireproof

This is a movie everyone should watch if they are in a relationship.  It’s by the same producers of “Facing the Giantsand I promise you won’t be disappointed.

On IMDb “Fireproof” only gets a 5.5/10 rating but on Netflix it gets 5/5 stars. There’s no accounting for taste. Jen and I give it a solid 5/5. Ok, guys, at first you’ll think it’s a chick flick. And it does start off a little slowly but the early wait is worth it.

Watch it with someone you love is all I can say. Especially if you dare to continue loving them. There is a related resource at http://fireproofyourmarriage.com/ which is worth looking at whether your marriage is rock solid or rocky. More below. CAUTION — movie spoiler below.

These are the films done by the church that uses all volunteers other than a handful of experienced professionals at movie-making. They have another one in the works and they’re all worth owning, in my opinion.

At the “fireproof” website noted above is also a link to the Love Dare book shown in the movie. Its use is a most interesting concept that I think would go a long way toward both assisting recovery of a marriage in trouble and boosting the level of even the most solid of marriages. I may buy an extra copy to lend out … and a lot of lawyers, churches and social professionals could do the same.

The link to the book
has more information about it and the process. Here is a snippet from the site:

About The Love Dare

Too many marriages end when someone says “I’ve fallen out of love with you” or “I don’t love you anymore.” In reality, such statements reveal a lack of understanding about the fundamental nature of true love.

The Love Dare, as featured in the new movie Fireproof (starring Kirk Cameron and from the team that brought us the #1 best selling DVD Facing the Giants), is a forty-day guided devotional experience that will lead your heart back to truly loving your spouse while learning more about the design, nature, and source of true love.

Each day’s entry discusses a unique aspect of love, presents a specific “dare” to do for your spouse (some will be very easy, others very challenging), and gives you a journaling area to chart the progress that you will be making.

It’s time to learn the keys to finding true intimacy and developing a dynamic marriage. Take the dare!

Read a Sample Chapter…

Daddies … don’t let your babies grow up to be druggies

Apologies to Willie Nelson for the title, but it fits. What am I talking about? The failure of fatherhood in American society. My thesis is this:  men have abdicated their traditional role in society as the head of the family and the responsibility for the training of children in life. Boys and girls need a strong, ethical male influence in their lives and, in huge numbers, they are missing that today.

In the classic ballad “Where Have All the Flowers Gone” Pete Seeger asks “where have all the young men gone?” Of course in this war-protest song Seeger has them going off to be soldiers, but we have them just going off. They’ve gone off physically in some instances, but off and away emotionally far too often.

The statistics of divorce are well known (over 50% of all marriages ending in divorce) and we all know from personal experience of instances where divorce caused problems for the children. But that’s not the problem I’m trying to address because there are many divorcing parents who manage the marriage dissolution without totally cratering the kids. It can be done.

The problem is that whether in the intact family, the dissolved marriage, or with a blended family, fathers are not truly present in the lives of their children. Some are “away” working, some golfing and fishing, some drinking and drugging. Even when present they are “away” emotionally when they don’t spend quality time with children teaching by example.

What difference does it make? Plenty. Sharing experiences from juvenile court I can say that easily 80% of the children in trouble are there as a result of parental benign neglect. Not the kind of neglect that results in a CPS removal but indifference to the child’s life. Almost all of those youth exhibit anger. Where does the anger come from? I’m no psychologist (but I have stayed in many Holiday Inn Expresses), but I’m told and know from experience that the anger is a symptom of unhappiness and depression.

The anger is directed many directions but a common target is the parent — why? Because it’s disappointment in the parent or the circumstances the child holds the parent responsible for that causes the reaction. The anger toward the parent ranges from simple disobedience and defiance of the parental authority all the way to physical assault on a parent.

The child is disappointed in, and angry at, the parent not because they don’t have the latest Nintendo or a new cell phone or a car (although that’s often the child’s stated excuse). It’s because the parent is not emotionally present. Maybe the single mother is having to work two jobs because the father is not paying child support, and is just too worn out to give emotionally to the child. Maybe the parents are together but, in particular, the fathers are not taking the kids out to do “stuff.” Just “stuff.” You don’t have to DO a lot, just go do something.

Just this morning at the local coffee shop a group of us were talking about fun, and the lack today of kids being able to have fun as we knew it. A common theme was that a large difference then and today is outdoors versus indoors. We talked, laughed (and lied a little, I suspect) about the things we did outdoors … with our dads. We all talked about our mothers too, and their nurturing, but the talk was largely about what we did with our dads and what our dads taught us about life and responsibility. Fond memories flowed of the ethical male influences in our lives.

How many children do you know who get outdoors on a regular basis today? How many have seen a sunrise from a mountain top? How many have caught a fish or hiked a remote trail? How many know the sound of silence? Far too few, I submit.

What does the term “druggies” in the title have to do with all of this? Because a common result of the trouble children get into has a drug abuse component. Easily 80-90% of the juveniles in court are using, if not abusing, a drug. It may be “only” tobacco or alcohol or a “little pot” but the drugs are there. Most adult crime is based in drug usage and most in the criminal justice system had a beginning in the juvenile justice system … including drug usage. See the trend?

The conclusion to which I come is that when men abdicate their roles … when they don’t father their child beyond a sperm donation … they face a high probability of the child developing severe problems including drug usage and lifelong problems in school, work, and relationships.

Daddies … don’t let your babies grow up to be druggies ….

The PostCivility era

Our present era is often tagged as the “Post Modern” era, i.e. following the era of “Modernism” in the 20th century described in one encyclopeia as

to relate to the culture of capitalism as it has developed since the 1960s. In general, the postmodern view is cool, ironic, and accepting of the fragmentation of contemporary existence. It tends to concentrate on surfaces rather than depths, to blur the distinctions between high and low culture, and as a whole to challenge a wide variety of traditional cultural values.

via postmodern definition of postmodern in the Free Online Encyclopedia..

or

Postmodernism (sometimes abbreviated Pomo) was originally a reaction to modernism (not necessarily “post” in the purely temporal sense of “after”). Largely influenced by the disillusionment induced by the Second World War, postmodernism tends to refer to a cultural, intellectual, or artistic state lacking a clear central hierarchy or organizing principle and embodying extreme complexity, contradiction, ambiguity, diversity, and interconnectedness or interreferentiality.

via postmodern – encyclopedia article about postmodern..

So, whether you consider the postmodern era to be “post” as in “after” temporally or as a reaction to modernism, that begs the question of the proper appellation for our current era.  Neither construct gives this era a tag of its own, so here’s one:  PostCivility.

I’ve written separately on the death of statesmanship, but it has occurred to me that it’s not simply statesmanship that has waned and that event is but symptomatic of a larger social disease, that of an era where much that we do in all of our interactions, social, moral and political, is punctuated with — and indeed driven by — a lack of civility.

Individuals lack civility in their personal relationships with spouses, siblings, children, co-workers, and casual acquaintences. Do I have an empirical study to demonstrate this? No, nor do I or you need one — we see it every day. Is this phenomenon worse than in days past, of course it is and we don’t need a $million study to prove it. We see and feel it. We experience it.

Anti-authority outbursts occur from the 3rd grade classroom to the juvenile court and into the criminal justice system. Politicians scream at each other in legislative bodies instead of debating. Assaults on police officers are commonplace.

Blame is sought in every corner for every thing — large or small — that goes wrong in personal lives and in the life of the nation. It seems that at every level of society and government we’ve lost the ability to simply agree to disagree. Instead, we seek to defeat, and even to conquer and vanquish anyone with a differing opinion.

I lay much of this at the feet of the Instant Gratification Generation — unfortunately, it’s a phenomenan that is not limited to one generation but rather afflicts us all. It even explains a lot of the economic woes with which we are now beset. Let me enlarge on that notion.

In all that we do, we want it now. And I mean “right now.” Let’s talk the automobile industry as an example of how this instant gratification has contributed to its downfall. And if not a cause of the downfall, it will certainly have placed roadblocks in its recovery.

Ever drive by a dealership and wonder how they can afford to have so many cars, new cars, just sitting on the lot? Acres of cars. Every model, color, and accessory package you can imagine just waiting for your choosing. The manufacturers and dealers have catered to our need for instant gratification and have spread the table with every possible choice because they know if they don’t have the one you are looking for, a dealer down the road will!

And so the entire system of manufacturing, shipping, stocking at dealers, arranging instant financing and delivering the car is built around our need for instant gratification in making what for many people is the single largest purchase they will ever make. That huge infrastructure (read capital cost and overhead) is geared to serve the large and demanding appetite for instant gratification. I recall when people when to the dealer and ordered the car the way they wanted it, and actually waited with gleeful anticipation for its birthing and delivery.

And now that the economy has tanked, that huge infrastructure cannot be quickly undone and, therefore, we have become victims of this lust for instant gratification.

What does this have to do with civility, and the decline thereof? Whether it’s a car, another purchase, or another thing or act we desire that does not come through — we tend to react with utter incivility to the situation or the person we deem responsible. We want our way, and we want it now, and we can no longer cope with disappointment, even of a minor nature. The future probably portends a lot more of that disappointment and, probably, further decrease in civility.

I’ve use the royal “we” but I include myself on more than a few occasions. Can you own up to the same? Let’s all examine our ability and inclination — yea, even the necessity — to be civil.

The death of journalistic integrity

Journalistic integrity requires, in my opinion, the clear distinction and labeling between news, analysis and opinion. It used to be that way. It used to be discussed as important.

It is no more and that’s a crime. Many others have made this same pronouncement so this expression of that problem is far from new but I feel like saying it and discussing it.

Why is this failure of making this distinction important? Because information sources are where people learn about the world and in particular, our national, state and local politics. And they deserve to know fact from opinion. This has become far more important with the increasing separation of the people from their government, business and leaders, i.e. the people have no knowledge of what is being done to or for them other than through the ever-expanding sources of information.

That information includes raw news, news and analysis, and opinion. The consumer of that news has less time than in days before in order to intake and process that information. There is benefit to the time problem with the advent of the electronic sources — online news and blogs — but the problem remains that the reader must be able to distinguish fact from opinion.

Increasingly, I fear, the consumer of information is unable (or perhaps unwilling) to discern the distinction. It’s far too easy to just read or hear something and assume its veracity unless the inquiring mind is engaged in questioning and analyzing the information as it comes in. How often has something touted information as “fact” and state a source on the internet … and know nothing of the veracity or reputation of the source? Or that they heard it on the TV news?

Almost no person now doubts the liberal bias of the mainstream media. I don’t wish to debate here whether that’s good or bad, but here is the importance of understanding your source:  apparently most people get most of their news from the TV national news — ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX. This has been recently confirmed directly to me during jury selection where easily 90% of potential jurors stated such. There were a few getting it from the internet, either news sources or blogs; and a very few read newspapers. Not one out of about 50 people mentioned a news magazine.

Thus it is easy to understand how massive numbers of people can be, and are, misled by a liberally-biased media that does not clearly label fact from opinion. It is dishonest to allow that to occur.

It is time for the information-consuming public to demand honesty in journalism.