Letter to Editor - Evening Sun - Global Warming Propaganda

Now, let me see if I got this right, according to Sunday's front page article on global warming:
1.  The debate is over. You may recite the “facts,” you may declare your allegiance to the “facts”, but you must not debate the “facts.”
2.  If it weren't for an evil capitalist conspiracy, we'd all be living in a Green Utopia right now with windmills, solar panels, and bio-fuels supplying all of our energy needs.
3.  If we don't do what the United Nations tells us to do, we're all going to die and, more importantly, so are those cute polar bears.
4.  Denialists like me don't care about the environment...and we're angry, mentally defective, racists. Like the carbon dioxide that we exhale, we are a threat to the very survival of this planet, and especially, those cute polar bears. Some of us even believe in God! (full-text version of article)
CO2 is a trace gas. The change in the amount of CO2 that Global Warmers allege is responsible for our impending demise, according to Sunday's article, involves 0.0089%, or less than 1% of 1% of our atmosphere.
All of the gases in our atmosphere have the capacity to absorb infrared radiation to one degree or another. The Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis hinges on the assertion that CO2 has a vastly greater capacity in this regard than do any of the other atmospheric gases.
I have looked at charts on specific heat capacities and discussions of infrared absorption rates till my eyes have glazed over and the only place where I found anything to suggest such magical properties for CO2 was in the United Nations and EPA sponsored charts, charts that use unique and indecipherable units of comparison and which seem to have been derived from impossibly complicated global climate models. Forgive me if I question man's ability to construct an accurate global climate model when we can't even predict the weather accurately from one day to the next!
They are right on one thing though: Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't just a theory. No, it's a dangerous agenda that will undermine U.S. sovereignty, further cripple our economy, suppress free speech and make Al Gore very rich.
Do we really want the U.N making and enforcing laws within our borders? The implications of Anthropogenic Global Warming represent a much more serious threat to our future than global warming itself does.

Local Newspaper's front page article on Global Warming

(Link to Article) The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?  

Global warming advocates do not merely purport that the globe is warming. No, you cannot be considered truly compliant with the party-line unless you also believe that:

1) Rule #1 of Fight Club is...: You are not to debate, much less consider arguments against, the global warming theory.

2) It is mankind's or more specifically, greedy western capitalist oil companies', fault.

3) That an increase in CO2, a trace gas that comprises approximately 0.00369% of the total atmosphere, is the root of the problem.

4) That, if it weren't for a capitalist conspiracy among the oil companies, we'd all be living in a sparkling clean world with windmills, solar panels, and other "Green" technology keeping us warm, getting us to work, fueling our manufacturing, and lighting our way.

5) That if we don't do something drastic right now, we're all going to die and, more importantly, so are those cute polar bears.



6) That we must subjugate the sovereignty of the United States to the all-knowing and all-powerful United Nations and a myriad of one-sided restrictive international treaties. In other words, one world government baby!

7) People who don't believe in "anthropogenic" global warming (denialists) don't care about the environment...and they're mean, stupid, smelly, racists, etc. In fact, like the carbon dioxide that they exhale, they are a threat to the very survival of this planet, and especially, those cute polar bears. A lot of them even believe in God!

I seem to recall a story in the news a year or two back, a story that disappeared quickly but that I found quite interesting, about some emails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England and some scientists at prominent academic institutions in the U.S.. There were multiple emails openly discussing "the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims" and there were multiple emails that discussed how to discredit dissenting scientists, publications, and institutions. These emails are now part of the public record. Since most of the scientists involved in the Global Warming "debate" depend on these same institutions and publications for their careers, reputations, advancement, funding, etc., I do not find it very compelling that there would be an "overwhelming consensus" among that group of individuals. I mean, just try to get a job as a climate scientist while openly challenging any tenet of the anthropologic global warming theory.



Ummm, without CO2, plant life as we know it would die off and atmospheric oxygen levels, not to mention food supplies, would dwindle to levels incompatible with human life! Your "consensus" maintains that CO2 is a deadly pollutant that threatens man's survival. That's seems like a funny way to talk about a gas that is so integral to our survival and produced naturally by our very existence.

The increase in CO2 from pre-industrial times, the more precise alleged culprit, represents 0.00089% of our atmosphere, and that's assuming pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 levels were measured accurately. That CO2 must be some powerful stuff!

Everybody loves to bash the oil industry as the root of all evil. Well, you know what, I kind of like being able to drive to the store and take trips to far away places and, while I may not actually enjoy driving to work, it sure beats walking to work. Deforestation was a much bigger problem in this country during the early part of this century than it is now. It wasn't until the advent of coal, oil, gas, and electric heat that we were able to begin re-foresting this great country of ours. And, speaking of deforestation, just think how many trees have been saved, not just by heating fuel, but by the myriad of petroleum based products that have replaced tree based products. And, how many lives have been saved, that's right saved, by medical products that would not have been possible without petroleum?"

Look, I'm all for doing everything that we reasonably can to protect the environment. Key word is "reasonably". I do not think it is reasonable to cripple our manufacturing sector or to impose punitive taxes on energy producers. Taxes, by the way, that will be passed along to consumers in the form of skyrocketing energy bills and fuel costs and that will show up in the cost of everything from tires to food.

Here's an idea. If you want to punish somebody with higher taxes, how about imposing import tariffs on countries that don't seem to be doing what they can to keep our planet clean? (China comes to mind) Oh, but that wouldn't go over very well at the United Nations, now would it?

The anthropologic global warming theory is designed to make us panic. It is nothing more than another artificial crisis designed to undermine the United States' position of world dominance, which, like driving to the store and taking trips to far away places, I kind of like.

 

 

My real name, the human brain and life after death

It’s funny how you wake up with answers to questions you had knocking around in your brain.  This time it was an answer to a question that I thought I had already answered.  I was pondering whether to use my real name on this blog.  My initial conclusion was:  Why risk it?  Why risk being harassed on-line or worse, pissing off some jihadist.  Then I thought,  “You chicken-shit, be a man.”  Then I thought:  “OK, if & when I try to start making money at this, I’ll put my name out there.  Why would I risk anything for nothing?” 

When I woke up, the answer and focus was different.  This post is as much about the answer to this question as it is about the awesomeness of the human brain.  Again, I wasn’t even thinking about this anymore.  Question had been asked and answered.  Then, a few minutes after waking, the question popped back into my head with an answer from a completely different perspective.  The reason that I didn’t want to put my name on my blog was that I was afraid of incurring the disapproval of my employer.  After that, I was afraid of my own government, the IRS primarily, because I point out from time to time the fact that the 16th Amendment was never ratified and I promote its repeal.

So, when I first thought about this concern, what popped into my head were bully-bloggers and suicide-bombers.  What I woke up with was the clear awareness of the fear of my employer and my government that was the true deterrent. 

But, you know what?  People have faced much greater risks throughout history for raising their voices...

But, again, the real point of this post is how neat it is that the human brain continues working on questions without our conscious awareness.  How many times have you been unable to recall someone's name or some other bit of information and had that name or bit of info pop into your brain later, long after you had moved on to other things?  This might suggest that the physical brain is separate and distinct from consciousness, and, if this is true, then the opposite must be as well.  And, if consciousness exists separately from the brain, might it also be conceivable that consciousness continues after we die?

Republican Candidates Debate 9-22-2011 (Rev 10-02-2011)

Best line of the night: “Not any type of sexual activity has any place in the military.” Rick Santorum on gays in the military.

Second best line of the night:  "You've got to put your air assets in the ground."  Rick Perry talking about how to secure the border.

Great news! My prediction about Rick Perry becoming our next president was wrong. Whew! That was close.

Rick Perry looked so bad that I felt sorry for him. He screwed up royally.., crashed & burned. He said that people who were against special taxpayer subsidized tuition rates for illegal aliens "don't have a heart."

Rick Perry put in place, as governor of Texas, a program whereby illegal aliens could attend schools in the Texas University System at a taxpayer subsidized discounted tuition rate unavailable to U.S. citizens in 49 of the 50 states. A lot of people compare this to the Dream Act, but it's not really like the Dream Act. The Dream Act is a proposed federal program that expressly prohibits students from receiving federal grants or subsidies. The Rick Perry plan is a state program that automatically provides state taxpayer money to illegal aliens.  I'm actually for the Dream Act....ONCE THE SOUTHERN BORDER IS SECURED!

Now, the last thing a conservative wants to hear from their representative is that they lack compassion. That's the same old tune that the liberals start singing every time that they want to expand government or create a new government spending program. And, it is insulting to both the intelligence and the character of the average conservative. And, we're getting really tired of being called racists and Nazis every time we express concern about out of control government spending and inappropriate government activities.

There was a new guy in the debate last night, the former Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson. He wants to cut our military budget by 43% and told a somewhat funny joke about his neighbors' dogs generating more shovel-ready jobs than Barack Obama. What was funnier than the joke itself was the fact that, as it turns out, he stole the joke from the Rush Limbaugh show. He's for the Fair Tax, which is great, but I didn't hear him say anything about repealing the 16^th Amendment which opens the door to having a federal consumption tax in addition to the current income tax. And I don't think we need to be cutting our defense budget by 43% across the board right now with the world being the most unstable it's been since the Cuban Missile Crisis.


Mitt Romney looked real good and got the highest approval ratings in the post-debate discussions on TV but today there are some questions in the media about whether or not he may have lied about previously advocating Romney-Care as a potential national plan. Also, there's a book out now called Confidence Men that seems to implicate Romney-care as the inspiration, if not the blueprint, for Obama-care. I predict Romney will take the lead in the polls for a while, but I don't think he's going to be able to shake this Romney-care thing. I don't think that he will win the nomination.

There was a teenage kid who asked a question in the last debate about how much of the money that he earned he should be allowed by the federal government to keep. A couple of the candidates mentioned how they were going to cut and/or reform taxes and basically said that he'd get to keep more if they were elected president. I said at the time that it was a trick question. The question was designed to reveal the true attitude of the candidates about the money that we earn. Do we really have any right to the money that we earn or for that matter, the property that we “own?” Or, does the federal government really own everything and just allows us to keep what it deems a fair amount, essentially making us all slaves of the state?

Michele Bachmann, sensing a missed opportunity, tried to capitalize on this last night by saying that she wanted to tell that kid that “you get to keep every dollar.” The only problem is that, under our current unconstitutional progressive tax system, he doesn't. What she needed to say was that she was for repealing the 16^th amendment (which was the real correct answer). Since she did not mention repealing the 16^th Amendment, I don't really understand her response. Is she planning on reducing the income tax rate to zero? Is she planning on giving this kid some kind of lifetime tax waiver? Obviously she was just making some kind of clumsy attempt to capitalize on an obvious opportunity without any regard to actual facts.  But, I don't want to go too hard on her.  At least she has some instinct for the direction in which the correct answer lies. 


Ron Paul mentioned that he had risen in the polls to third place. That shocked me. I thought for sure that his statement in the last debate about 9-11 being America's fault, chickens coming home to roost and all, would be his death knell. Apparently, there are a lot of people in this country who think that al qaeda was justified in attacking us on 9-11 or who don't think al qaeda ever attacked us at all. I liked a lot of what Ron Paul had to say about the constitution and limited government and even had a quote by him on my facebook profile. But, after I heard those comments, my attitude towards him changed and I removed that quote.

Herman Cain did really well last night. Wants to abolish the current EPA and start all over. Herman Cain is looking better all the time.

Newt Gingrich remained the steadiest and most affable presence on the stage. If I didn't know about him divorcing his wife on her death-bed, he'd be my favorite.

Did I miss anybody...? Rick Santorum still thinks that we can “win” in Afghanistan...dangerous nut.

John Huntsman wants to bring the troops home from Afghanistan, repeal Obama-care, and reform taxes. Sounds great but, oh yeah, he's a global warming - cap & trade - one world government kind of guy.

So I guess, for me, it's down to Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann.  I guess I could I could hold my nose and vote for Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney or John Huntsman if I had to. As for Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, I don't know if I could pull that lever even to get Obama out of office.  As for Gary Johnson, who cares?

My 1st Real Post - Republican Candidates Debates

There is another Republican Presidential Candidates Debate tonight.

How can I talk about this after I just said that I'd try and keep it interesting? Geez, if you're not interested in who our next president is going to be when the real unemployment rate is close to 20% and the under-employment rate probably twice that and the stock market's down 300 points yesterday and another 400 plus points today while the current administration is actively abolishing American jobs in Tennessee (40 manufacturing jobs at Gibson Guitar), South Carolina (3800 manufacturing jobs at Boeing), and the Gulf of Mexico (17,000 oil industry jobs) not to mention how our current administration funded a foreign country's oil company and then allowed that same oil company to drill in the very Gulf where they've imposed a moratorium on our own domestic oil production, supplying Mexican drug gangs with 1700 automatic weapons and giving away billions of taxpayer dollars to “green” energy scam artists all over the place (I wonder who ends up with that money?) and....I could go on but, like I said, geez!

OK, that took way too long to write. Obviously, I'm taking this blog thing way too seriously. I mean, really, who's going to be reading this other than me? So, I'm interested in politics and what's going on in the world outside my little town. Life's funny, I used to ridicule people like me. Back then, all I was interested in....well, just in case somebody does read this, let's say it was “wine, women, and song.” That's not too far off actually. Now, I ridicule people like that. The older I get, the more I appreciate the irony of life. That's one of the things I will try to capture in this blog when I stumble upon it, the irony of life, that is. So two ironic things to start with:

1. Usually, the more emphasis somebody places on having a good time, the unhappier they become.
   
2. In general, studies have shown that we become happier as we get older.
   

OK, back to the debate, following are some of my comments on the last debate that I posted on Facebook:

Best line, by Newt Gingrich: (Paraphrasing) “Obama was talking a lot the other night in his Jobs Bill speech about closing all the tax loopholes that the oil companies get. Doesn't Obama realize that every “green” tax credit is a loophole. Everything GE is doing is a loophole.”
Not to mention all the Obama-care waiver loopholes he's been handing out left & right, 1472 waivers to date & counting. Oh yeah, but let's close those oil company loopholes. What do oil companies contribute to our economy anyway, the leeches. (sarcasm)

Weird moment #1: Michele Bachmann was doing pretty well as she accused Rick Perry of corrupt motives in issuing an executive order as Governor of Texas to add Gardasil^®, a vaccine that prevents cervical cancer, to the list of required vaccinations for Texas school children since he had a former top executive from the company that makes Gardasil^®as his staff manager and had taken a large campaign contribution from the drug manufacturer as well. But, then she went on to try and say that Gardasil^®
was just like RU-486, “the morning-after abortion pill” because insurers were being forced to cover RU-486 under Obama-care.  (???)

Weird moment #2: Ron Paul ended all hopes of any additional political career, much less the presidency, with a politically suicidal tirade about how the 9-11 attacks were all our fault because we had troops overseas.

Weird moment #3: John Huntsman accused Rick Perry of treason for saying that you can't secure the border when all he said was that you couldn't build a physical fence along every single inch of the border. You could hear people in the background saying that they didn't remember Rick Perry saying that even before John Huntsman was finished talking.

But that did raise a question in my mind as to Rick Perry’s official position on this issue, so I looked it up.  Rick Perry stated clearly in the debate that he is against trying to build a physical fence or wall, but according to his official website, "Rick Perry will finally force Washington to fulfill its constitutional duty to secure our international borders.”  His plan for this is to put more “boots on the ground.” But, as far as a physical wall or fence goes, Rick Perry calls that idea “preposterous.”

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 resulted in the legalization of over 3 million formerly illegal immigrants in exchange for the promise to the American people that the federal government would finally do its Constitutional duty and secure the southern border. Now, 25 years later, we are still waiting on that promise to be fulfilled. Instead of seeing any serious effort by the federal government to control the border, we watch in horror as our federal government actively opposes and vilifies individual states like Arizona that try to step up border enforcement. And we react in disbelief to stories of our federal government actually supplyingMexican drug-running gangs with automatic weapons.

If I meet somebody who speaks English and loves the USA and believes in capitalism, the rule of law, personal responsibility, respect for others' rights, and the fight against socialism-communism, etc., …then I want that person to stay in this country and I will support that person's effort to do that.  Extraordinary circumstances may have resulted in that person being here illegally.  Maybe they were brought here by their parents or maybe they fled here to save their lives.  I like to think of myself as a compassionate person, as I think most people do, and I am all for that person getting a legal status.

Now, about that physical wall or fence that Rick Perry says is “preposterous:”  Mexico is unstable and impoverished..  It has a population of over 112 million people.  If you think illegal immigration is a problem now or if you think Katrina was a human tragedy on a monumental scale, just wait until the Mexican government completely collapses, or there is an earthquake, or there is famine in Mexico.  No amount of “boots on the ground” will be able to stem the human tide of refugees.  Without a fence or wall, any security force would be quickly overwhelmed.  What I think is “preposterous” is the idea that border patrol agents and electronic surveillance will be able, by themselves, to stop a flood of millions of refugees.  Would a wall or fence completely solve our illegal immigration problem?  Of course not.  But, without one we have a disaster waiting to happen on our southern border.

And wanting a fence is not uncompassionate.  Without a fence, Mexico's northern border becomes the desperate Mexican’s first response to catastrophe. Not only does that represent a standing threat to our sovereignty and survival here in the U.S., but it changes the dynamic of power and stability in Mexico itself.

As a side-note, I don't understand for the life of me why people of Hispanic origin who are here legally would oppose securing our southern border. The constant influx of drugs and criminals of Hispanic origin across our southern border is in no way beneficial to legal immigrants who are already here. On the contrary, it creates a stigma against all Hispanics. It's not even in the best interests of the illegal immigrants who are already here to keep the southern border unsecured because the citizens of this country are not going to accept any additional amnesty or “path to citizenship” until that border is secured.


Rick Perry thinks the idea of a fence or wall along our southern border is preposterous. Rick Perry is also against Arizona's effort to curb illegal immigration. In my book, these are two serious strikes against him. Also, he's a career politician with no experience in the private sector. That's three strikes.

In addition to John Huntsman misstating Rick Perry's position on the border, in the previous debate John Huntsman attacked Governor Perry for not believing in Global Warming or the Theory of Evolution. Here's my Facebook post on that:

Re: The Republican Candidates Debate: What I wish Rick Perry had said

Rick Perry was attacked by former Utah Governor, John Huntsman, during Wednesday night's debate for continuing to question 2 things: the “overwhelming scientific consensus” on global warming and the scientifically “proven” Theory of Evolution.  Rick Perry’s response was that he just didn’t feel like the “science was settled” on the Global Warming.  While I agreed with the position that Rick Perry took, I was disappointed in his response because it did not include any substantive argument.  
So, here’s what I wish Rick Perry had said::

“You say that 98%, of scientists agree with the official position on global warming.  The official position being that it is real and that man is responsible for global warming due to the increased CO2 emissions associated with his use of petroleum energy sources.  Since this “consensus” is the only argument that you cite in support of the CO2 Global Warming Theory, that is the first one to which I will respond:

 I seem to recall a story in the news a year or two back, a story that disappeared quickly but that I found quite interesting, about some emails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England and some scientists at prominent academic institutions in this country, institutions that were primarily responsible for the creation and promulgation of the official Global Warming Theory in the first place.  There were multiple emails openly discussing “the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims”(1) and there were multiple emails that discussed how to suppress the publication of dissenting viewpoints and how to discredit scientists, publications, and institutions that dared to offer dissenting viewpoints.  These emails are now part of the public record. Since most of the scientists involved in the Global Warming “debate” depend on these same institutions and publications for their careers, reputations, advancement, funding, etc., I do not find it very surprising or compelling that there would be an “overwhelming consensus” among that group of individuals.

But, 98%? Are you sure? You didn't get that figure from the United Nations Panel on Climate Change did you? Cause even their own Mike Hulme, that's the same Mike Hulme that founded the University of East Anglia Climate Studies Department, (you know the University where they came up with the whole global warming thing in the first place) well, even he said that the actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts” and that The United Nations' “Panel on Climate Change misled the press and the public” and that the claim that “2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus...on the climate is disingenuous,”(2)

And global warming has not been occurring just on earth, global warming has been documented by NASA to be occurring on most of the other planets in this solar system, as well.  What are we supposed to do about that? Is Al Gore going to start selling Martian carbon credits next?

Now, many climatologists are saying that we are at the beginning of a general cooling trend that should continue for several years.  This is supported by the “theory” that the global climate is, and always has been, in a constant state of fluctuation. “The current level of global temperature in historical perspective is not unique. The average temperature of the Earth is now estimated at about 14.5 degrees Celsius. In our planet’s history there have been few periods when the Earth’s temperature was lower than the current temperature.”(3)

Without CO2, plant life as we know it would die off and atmospheric oxygen levels, not to mention food supplies, would dwindle to levels incompatible with human life!  Your “consensus” maintains that CO2 is a deadly pollutant that threatens man's survival. That's seems like a funny way to talk about a gas that is so integral to our survival and produced naturally by our very existence.

If you divide our atmosphere up into its constituent components of nitrogen, oxygen, H2O and all the trace gases of which CO2 is one, CO2 accounts for less than 400 parts per million parts of air. To put it another way, if air was $1,000 and you lost all your CO2, you'd still have more than $999.60 worth of air. That CO2 must be some powerful stuff! I mean fluctuations in such a small component having such dramatic effects on our climate? You expect us to believe that an odorless colorless transparent gas has such heat trapping power? I don't know, I have a hard time swallowing that one.

“Apparently, you want us to drive around in golf carts, read the paper by 25-watt bulbs, bathe once a month and go to the bathroom in an outhouse while Al Gore flies around the world in his jet selling his "carbon credit" scam to great and small alike.”(4)  Global Warming is just another manufactured crisis to push us towards that new world order of which Al Gore and George Soros dream.

And one last point, in defense of petroleum.  Everybody loves to bash the oil industry as the root of all evil and all that is wrong with the world.  Well, you know what, I kind of like being able to drive to the store and take trips to far away places and, while I may not actually enjoy driving to work, it sure beats walking to work.  Did you know that deforestation was a much bigger problem in this country during the early part of this century than it is now?  It wasn't until the advent of coal, oil, gas, and electric heat that we were able to begin re-foresting this great country of ours.  And, speaking of deforestation, just think how many trees have been saved, not just by heating fuel, but by the myriad of petroleum based products that have replaced tree based products.  And, don't even get me started on all of the marvelous life-saving medical innovations that would have been impossible without petroleum."

Anyway, that’s what I wish he’d said.

 As far as the evolutions thing…well, check this link out: Ann Coulter’s article dated Aug. 31, 2011, she says it much better than I can...(for now).  http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-31.html

1. Why You Should Be Hot and Bothered About 'Climate-gate' By John Lott Published November 24, 2009 FOXNews.com
   
2. Progress in Physical Geography, Mark Hulme & Martin Mahoney
   
3. The Cato Institute, A Few Notes On Climate Change: Andrei Illarionov 12-11-2009
   
4. Climate change consensus By Jack Scott | Athens Banner-Herald | Story updated at 6:21 pm on 8/8/200
   

So, John Huntsman is a liberal nut a couple of times over. I don't even know what he's doing in the Republican primary. Who let him in?

And, remember, Ron Paul, who quite often says some great stuff, revealed his darker side in the last debate and is now just waiting for his poisonous words to take full effect.

Now, back to Michele Bachmann. This is a great example of what I talk about all the time. I see stuff on TV and in the news that just blows me away and nobody else seems to even notice. I haven't heard one comment, not one comment on Michele Bachmann trying to say that Gardasil^® was just like RU-486, “the morning-after abortion pill”.  (see “Weird Moment #1” above )  At first, I didn't know quite what to make of that comment. But, then it was one of those things that I woke up thinking about. Something about it bothered me.

If you're not familiar with Gardasil^®, it prevents cervical cancer by preventing HPV.   HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. “HPV is so common that at least 50% of sexually active men and women get it at some point in their lives. Each year, about 12,700 women get cervical cancer in the U.S. Almost all of these cancers are HPV-associated” (CDC).  Chances of a woman getting cervical cancer during her lifetime: 1 in 147.  Chances of dieing from cervical cancer if you get it...better than 1 in 3 (National Cancer Institute).

“As of June 22, 2011, approximately 35 million doses of Gardasil® were distributed in the U.S. There have been a total 68 reports of death, 1.95 deaths per million, among those who have received Gardasil^®. There was not a common pattern to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine. In cases where autopsy, death certificate and medical records were available, the cause of death was explained by factors other than the vaccine. ” (CDC)

So, while Michelle Bachman, claims that she is concerned about side-effects, including reports of deaths, associated with Gardasil^®, I think that what she is really concerned about is sinners not getting punished. I'm having trouble understanding the moral difference between her position on Gardasil^® and a Sharia-compliant Muslim's willingness to commit an honor killing on a family member.  If anything, Michele Bachman's position is worse, about 4,290 times worse (that's how many women will die this year from cervical cancer according to The National Cancer Institute).

So, I'm not for Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, John Huntsman, or Ron Paul. That leaves Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and new-comer Gary Johnson, though Rick Santorum is on thin ice for his weird Ronald Reagan – Wicked Witch of the West comparison in a prior debate. Herman Cain is the only one who is not a career politician which earns him extra points with me, though I don't think he has any real chance.

Coming soon...

So, here goes my first post on my first blog. Been trying to find the time to post something. Every time I sit down to write something, bill paying & my to-do list take over. How do people do it? Don't know much about blogs. I have a lot of questions. Is this like Facebook where I can “post” other people's articles that I like, or is that plagiarism? One of my co-workers (Kay) had to show me how to set this thing up. So, now I've got a blog. So, here goes....

Yeah, out of time.

When I do get started, I promise to try and keep it interesting, at least to me. 

For now, here's a link to one of my favorite authors' latest articles:  Ann Coulter