Sunday, December 2, 2012

Unions are the friends of the little guy right? Well not really! ^ | DECEMBER 2ND, 2012 | Derrick Hollenbeck, staff writer

As if California and America have not been damaged enough by greedy unions who don’t give a damn about the rest of us, a small union in the Port of Los Angeles has ground the economy of Southern California to a halt.
A strike by a union of about 800 members has effectively closed the port which is the busiest import/export hub in the country.
As a result the Port of Los Angeles is suffering a loss of $ 1 BILLION DOLLARS A DAY! The strike has spread to “600,000 truckers, dockworkers, trading companies and others depend for their livelihoods.”…
“As usual the issue separating the union and management is the union’s insistence upon continuing its extortionist policy of “featherbedding” by which temporary thieves come to the docks, don’t do any work and still get paid for being “on the job.”
Since there has not been a contract between the parties for 21 ½ years, it is very clear that the rank and file members are happy with conditions on the Los Angeles docks, so why the problem? These “featherbedding” jobs are not being filled by them.
They have jobs that they like and want to keep. The push for extortion is being made to recoup some of the money the union laid out to purchase Barack Obama.
As is the case with most “blue collar” unions, the International Long shore and Warehouse Union, gave millions of dollars to Democrats (99% to 1% to Republicans) and they don’t have enough actual workers to extort to get back their outlay anytime soon.
They need to force management to play make believe with them – they want management to make believe “featherbedding” ‘workers’ actually exist so the union can collect union dues from these phantoms….
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Quote of the Year

"The Feesters in the Lake" | 12/2/12 | Leman

“When the Great Depression came [upon the failing town], the event would have passed unnoticed by the people had it not been for the fact that money began to arrive from the government. They were at first too proud to accept it, and then they accepted it and were ashamed, and in due course they were not ashamed but came to think of it as rightfully theirs. The relief checks became the way of life of the town, an assurance of a livelihood for even the most indolent and feckless. When times at last improved, there was a leaching away of the brighter and abler young, who went to seek a future elsewhere; and by the time “relief” became “welfare,” no one there worked at all except for a few torpid merchants, whose customers paid with government checks. The town would not die, but it lived — or half-lived — as a parasite.

“The citizens know no other life…These are people who do not know want, but have never known prosperity. They do not know ambition or thrift; neither do they know toil or hunger. Their possessions are cheap and gaudy and soiled, their diet deficient in nourishment and abundant in sugar, their music a commercial debasement of the folk music of their fathers. They drink fiercely and are given to casual incest and sometimes slice each other with knives. Their only dreams are of winning prizes on television giveaway shows. These are the descendants of the stern mountaineers… Down the years each generation has been more misshapen than its predecessor.”

From “Loob,” by Bob Leman

(Tax-cheat Timmy) Geithner presses GOP, says no deficit deal unless tax rates rise on wealthy!

The Hill ^ | 12/02/12 | Meghashyam Mali

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner sought to raise pressure on Republicans amid “fiscal cliff” talks, insisting Sunday that any deficit deal would need to raise tax rates on the wealthiest.

“There's not going to be an agreement without rates going up,” said Geithner, who appeared on all Sunday morning shows, during an interview with CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“If they are going to force higher rates on virtually all Americans because they're unwilling to let tax rates go up on 2 percent of Americans, then, I mean that's the choice they're going to have to make,” he added.

Lawmakers and the White House are working to reach a deficit-reduction deal to avoid the looming tax-rate rises and automatic spending cuts set to take effect on Jan. 1, which economists warn could bring on a new recession.

Democrats want to extend the Bush-era tax rates for middle class families, while allowing the current lower rates for those with income over $250,000 to expire.

Republicans, though, say they want to extend the rates across the board, claiming any rate rise would hurt the economy. GOP lawmakers want new revenue to come from closing loopholes and deductions in the tax code, instead of from tax-rate rises.

Geithner on Sunday defended the initial White House deficit plan, which Republicans quickly rejected last week.

“It's a very good plan and we think it's a good basis for these conversations,” said the secretary. “What we did is put forward a very comprehensive, very carefully designed mix of savings and tax rates to help us put us back on a path to stabilizing our debt, fixing our debt and living within our means.”

On Thursday, Geithner presented lawmakers with the initial administration offer, which included $1.6 trillion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to entitlement spending.

Speaker Boehner (R-Ohio) rejected the plan as “not a serious proposal” and said the White House had asked for new spending that he said exceeded the upfront cuts proposed.

Boehner on Friday said negotiations were at a “stalemate” and called on Democrats to do more to match the GOP at the bargaining table, after Republicans said they were willing to allow tax revenue increases in any proposed deal.

In an interview with Fox News Sunday, Boehner maintained his criticism of the White House plan, calling it “nonsense.”

The speaker said he was “flabbergasted” when he saw the proposal.

The White House “has responded with virtually nothing, they’ve actually asked for more revenue than they’ve been asking for the whole time,” Boehner said.

“At the end of the year, they wanted to extend unemployment benefits, they wanted a new stimulus program for infrastructure, they wanted to extend some other tax breaks and all of this new stimulus spending would literally be more than the spending cuts that he was willing to put on the table,” Boehner added.

Despite Boehner’s public pessimism, Geithner said he was optimistic that a deal could be reached in time.

“I think we're far apart still, but I think we're moving closer together,” said Geithner. “This is something we can do. And I think we're going to get there, because there's too much at stake not to get there, not just for the American economy, but for the world economy.”

But Geithner also said that the next move would have to come from the GOP.

“I think right now, the best thing to do is for them to come to us and say, look, here's what we think makes sense,” Geithner said. “What we can't do is try to figure out what's going to be good for them. They have to come tell us.”

“They're in a hard place,” he added later. “And they're having a tough time trying to figure out what they can do, what they can get support from their members for. That's understandable… This is very difficult for them, and we might need to give them a little more time to figure out where they go next.”

Socialists Outline Democrats’ Agenda for Next Two Years

Gulag Bound ^ | 11/29/'2012 | Trevor Loudon

Contrary to popular opinion, the US Democratic Party does not set much of its own policy.
Democrat policy is actually dictated by the labor unions and radical think tanks, such as the Center for American Progress, and the Institute for Policy Studies.
The unions are dominated by the US’s largest Marxist organization Democratic Socialists of America – which also works closely with the C.A.P. and I.P.S.
So, by a process of osmosis and deliberate orchestration, D.S.A., and their friends in the Communist Party USA, effectively dictate Democrat policy at state and national levels.
On November 16, the Democratic Socialists of America National Political Committee released After the Election: Keep Fighting, a blueprint for DSA action and priorities for the first segment of Obama’s second term.
It is basically a guide to action for long time DSA ally Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, over the next two years.
Diverting money from the military to social spending will be a huge part of the agenda. After all, a strong US military is the major block to world revolution.
The push will be towards universal socialist healthcare and an economy wrecking Financial Transactions Tax.
Ending poverty through massive re-distribution will be a big focus… capitalizing on the 50th anniversary of DSA founder Michael Harrington‘s famous book “The Other America,” which helped to launch Lyndon Johnson’s catastrophic and completely counter productive “War on Poverty” in the mid-1960s.
Students will be manipulated with promises of loan forgiveness. There will be a huge push for immigration reform. DSA leader Eliseo Medina, a leader of the movement, has openly boasted that this will mean eight million more Democrat Party votes.
The Right, backed by a toxic flow of big money into politics and shameless efforts at voter suppression, tried to turn the 2012 election into a mandate for a regressive political agenda. The Republicans intended to overturn the modest gains of the president’s first term and roll back progressive reforms dating back to the New Deal…
Taken as a whole, the results were a narrow but decisive victory for progressives that more than exceeded expectations, demonstrating just how out of touch the Republicans are. Progressive voters and their organizations can be justly proud of their role in achieving this result.
The challenges are many, and the best way not to lose heart is to address them sequentially. First, we must resist the immediate blackmail of the “Fiscal Cliff,” that illegitimate offspring of the “Deficit Crisis” mania that paralyzed Washington in Obama’s first term. DSA will work together in local coalitions with the many organizations of the Coalition on Human Needs to defend the interests of the working poor and most vulnerable members of society.
DSA will also advance sensible demands that may not be those of all coalition members. Cutting military budgets and recognizing that military projects are ineffective at generating jobs are essential to right the economy. Medicare is best fixed by expanding it to cover all, young and old. A financial transactions tax would go a long way toward reducing the deficit
In 2013, DSA will help mobilize for an August March on Washington for Democracy and Equality, making use of its 50th Anniversary Other America materials in its preparation. We also support the call of Cornel West and Tavis Smiley for a White House Conference on ending poverty.
And, we will organize for the YDS campaign for Affordable and Accessible Higher Education and to support the Student Loan Forgiveness Act.
Since the election results firmly placed immigration reform on the national agenda, DSA reaffirms its support for comprehensive reform that welcomes and eases the path for millions of new citizens and we will actively take parts in campaigns to achieve it.
DSA cannot try to do everything that should be done, but should strive to do a few things well. Part of our internal political education program, using GET UP (Grassroots Economics Training for Understanding and Power) materials, is to bring together our analytic and organizing skills so that we can better set and carry out our local and chapter priorities.
DSA is determined to use the breathing space won in the election campaign to refocus our resolve and strengthen our work for real social justice.
Until conservatives and Republicans realize that they are opposing a Marxist dominated party, they are destined to a series of defeats on the way to political oblivion.
This is no longer the party of Truman or Kennedy, but the party of Marx, Lenin, Alinsky and Gramsci.
The old rules of fair play no longer apply. The modern Dems will lie, cheat, steal elections and viciously demonize their opposition at every opportunity.
Republicans are no longer fighting old line Democrats. They are effectively battling D.S.A, the Communist Party and the labor unions. The Democrats are simply a front for the Marxists.
These people play dirty, and they play for keeps.

New legislative push for open carry gun law in Texas stirs emotions! ^ | 1 December, 2012 | Richard Yeakley

A sophomore Texarkana state representative caused a stir this week when he announced he would once again push for an open carry gun law when the legislative session convenes in January.

Rep. George Lavender hopes to spearhead legislation that would allow residents who have been approved for concealed-weapon carrying to carry holstered pistols in the open.

He was behind similar legislation that was not passed in the 2011 legislative session.
Texas is one of six states that forbids open carry in all forms.
“I definitely support open carry. The concealed handgun law to me is ridiculous... I am still carrying a gun on me, even if you don’t know. I honestly think open carry would be better because potential criminals could see right off ... Just the mere sight of a gun on a guy’s belt is a deterrent,” said Bob Godell, owner of The Gun Doctor in Longview.
Godell said firearms have been an important part of his life — so much that when he retired, he purchased the shop.
He said he has little tolerance for people who were more afraid if a gun was visible than concealed.
“It seems silly to me. Someone who has a weapon concealed is the same person with the same gun as someone who is open carrying. I see no purpose in hiding the fact that you are carrying the gun,” Godell said. “I would say, ‘Get over it.’ ”
Community activist Wray Wade said he was “100 percent against any type of open carry law.”
“An open carry law would only create more confusion in the gun control battle that exists now in this country,” Wade said.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

California's Road to Perdition (The Golden State proves that even gold can rust sometimes)

American Thinker ^ | 12/01/2012 | Elise Cooper

California was once the envy of everyone. But this promised land is now being controlled by a super-majority of leftists, and the liberal, pro-union Democrats have only one answer to California's woes: to raise taxes. With that in mind, American Thinker asked California representatives if, after the 2012 election, Republicans become an archaic party in this state.

There are many reasons why California Republicans took such a shellacking. Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA) emphasizes the key word: "communication. The Democrats had monopoly control over the message. Republicans need to pull up their socks and wipe their noses to get back into the game."

Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA) recently lost his re-election bid to what he calls "the political perfect storm." There was Proposition 30, which will raise income taxes on the wealthiest Californian citizens and temporarily increase the sales tax by a quarter of one percent to supposedly fund schools, colleges, and universities.
The congressman argues, "Governor Jerry Brown and the Democrats worked college campuses, getting students to turn out to vote so their tuition would be kept down.
Students were recruited and registered, unions turned out in numbers, and Obama, an incumbent president, was on the ballot. This was the largest turnout in history for this state."
There was also Proposition 32, which would have banned union contributions to state and local candidates.
Unions made sure they turned out the vote to kill this initiative, since they did not want to lose the ability to withhold money from worker paychecks for political spending. The unions in California engage in vote-harvesting, where they register people who would not normally have voted on their own and get them to vote, many times by absentee ballots.
What should Republicans do to restore the party to viability?
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

College Professors Get What They Asked For in Obamacare, Don't Like It Much

American Thinker ^ | 12/01/2012 | Gary Jason

There is an antique saying -- no less true for its antiquity -- that you need to be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. This came to mind when I read a recent report about what is happening at a Pennsylvania college.
One of President Obama's most loyal -- not to say fawning -- constituencies clearly is academia. His rate of support among collegiate faculty and administrators surely approaches near-unanimity on the typical campus. This is why the news about the Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) is so richly ironic. CCAC has just announced that because of ObamaCare, it will have to slash the hours of 400 of its employees, about half of whom are adjunct instructors. This is because under new law, companies and other organizations employing 50 or more employees are required to provide full health care insurance (at high cost, because of a host of new mandates the law includes) for all employees working 30 or more hours a week. This means that employers have a tremendous incentive -- indeed, virtually a gun at their heads -- to either cut hours for employees to under 30 hours per week or eliminate workers outright (by outsourcing, offshoring, contracting out, and automating), or to keep the employees under 50 by simply not expanding.
This has led numerous private companies start taking precisely those actions -- including Abbot Labs, Applebee's, Boston Scientific, Covidien, Dana Holding, Darden Restaurants, Kinetic Concepts, Kroger, Lockheed-Martin, Medtronic, New Energy, Papa John's Pizza, Smith & Nephew, Stryker, TANCOA Janitorial, and Welch Allyn. For example, major restaurant chains such as Olive Garden and Red Lobster are already moving employees to under 30 hours a week. Boston Scientific has said that it will lay off 1,400 workers and shift production to China.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

President Obama Pretends His Tax Plan is the Only Game In Town ^ | December 1, 2012 | Kevin Glass

This week, when speaking at children's toy K'NEX factory in Pennsylvania, President Obama urged the House of Representatives merely to pass what Harry Reid's Senate has passed and send him the bill.

The Senate has already passed a bill to keep income taxes from going up on middle-class families. That’s already passed the Senate. Your member of Congress like Allyson and Chaka, other Democrats in the House, they're ready to go. They're ready to vote on that same thing. And if we can just get a few House Republicans on board, we can pass the bill in the House. It will land on my desk, and I am ready -- I've got a bunch of pens ready to sign this bill.
This implies that the House is intransigent and uncompromising. What Obama neglected to mention is that the House has already passed a comprehensive tax cut package that prevents taxes from going up on middle-class families - it's just that the President and Harry Reid will refuse to even consider it.

The Republican-controlled House passed legislation on a 256 to 171 vote that would extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends through 2013. Republicans were joined by 20 Democrats in voting for the proposal, which would extend the tax cuts for all income levels.
So to take stock: President Obama wants Republicans to fall in line with legislation that has received only Democrats to vote for it so far. And President Obama wants to flat-out ignore a bill that passed with bipartisan support in the House that accomplishes his stated goal of preventing a tax hike in middle-class families.
And it's the Republicans who are the obstructionists?

At Least Get the Big Lie Straight ^ | December 2, 2012 | John Ransom

Donjindra wrote: We're running huge deficits. Of course our tax bill will go up. It should go up. Do "conservatives" think there's a free-lunch? That money grows on trees? Apparently so. - Merry Christmas: This Tax Increase is for You, America
Dear Comrade Jindra,
OK, so now liberals are worried about the deficit? And you guys are lecturing the rest of us about fiscal responsibility and how money is created?
Typical tough talk from a group that can’t even pass a budget, yet alone balance one.
Here’s a good idea: Have your messiah present a plan to Congress that balances the budget, right now, not after the passage of time and some mythical increase in GDP created by “voodoo” tax increases on everyone.
Because Obama’s newest plan is basically the same, old plan he had last year- and the year before- that even Democrats wouldn’t vote for…not one vote.
“Even after granting all the phony spending cuts and similar gimmicks in Obama’s budget of last February,” writes Heritage’s J.D. Foster, ”federal debt held by the public rises by $8.5 trillion over the next 10 years without the tax hike and by $7.7 trillion with the tax hike. Expressed another way, allowing some of the Bush tax cuts to expire as Obama demands represents less than 10 percent of the projected debt increase.”
Only a true liberal would could come up with a plan to minimize the damage done to the economy by the expiration of $500 billion in tax cuts by raising taxes another $1.6 TRILLION, including $600 billion on ordinary, middle class Americans.
I really hope Obama gets his party to vote “yes” on these tax increases.
DagNabbit wrote: As I read through this column and the comments, I realize, like pretty much EVERY comment on TH, that the mouth breathers that TH attracts (meaning those of us who don't come here to shoot fish in a barrel) still believe that the reason we have a deficit is because of "entitlements". They don't want facts; they want RELIGION. And their religion is a deep belief in the idea that the reason we have debt is because the Government is handing out their hard earned tax dollars to lazy drug addicts on Welfare. Yeah, that $38/week is really going to screw up your retirement plans. LOL. - Merry Christmas: This Tax Increase is for You, America
Dear Comrade Dag,
I combined two of your comments on the same subject because I found them equally idiotic.
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you deny that entitlement spending is contributing to our deficit? Sure, defense spending is a pretty big line item, but: 1) It’s authorized under the Constitution; and 2) Even if you cut it by half, you still have a trillion dollar deficit.
Oh, I know, I know: You think that programs like Social Security are not entitlements because people paid into it. Well that would tend to prove that you don’t know anything about how federal programs operate.
Social Security isn’t an insurance scheme whereby you pay in, the government invests your money, and then at retirement you get your money back plus interest. Instead, you pay into the system now, along with others, to help support 1 (one) retiree. As long as there are enough people paying into the system to support all the eligible retirees, then it works, mathematically at least. But that’s not the case.
“In 1950,” wrote our friend Michael Tanner over at Cato in 2005, “there were 16 workers paying taxes into the system for every retiree who was taking benefits out of it. Today, there are a little more than three. By the time the baby boomers retire, there will be just two workers who will have to pay all the taxes to support every one retiree.”
Social Security is an entitlement because no one actually gets back what they pay into it. In order for it to work in the future, taxes will have to be raised unless we turn it into a savings and investment plan.
Continues Tanner:
The Social Security payroll tax is already 12.4 percent of wages, or one eighth of a worker's total annual wages. It is the biggest tax the average household must pay. Roughly 80 percent of American families pay more in Social Security taxes than they do in federal income taxes.
Despite that already huge tax burden, the payroll tax will have to be increased by nearly half in order to continue paying Social Security benefits. That's a terrible burden to impose on our children and grandchildren.
DagNabbit wrote:
Jeez. Repubes lost SO BIG. And it's killing them. Life is freakin' GREAT, ain't it? - Buffett Boosts Own Morale with Hypocrisy
Dear Comrade Dag,
It’s a Hat Trick! Three in a row!
3 million votes really isn’t that big of a loss.
Actually life hasn’t changed that much since last year or the year before when Obama wasn’t able to accomplish anything.
Enjoy the gridlock. I know I will.
ericynot wrote: Through most of the days of the Romney campaign all you heard about here was how everyone in the Democratic Party was a free-cell-phone-using, no-tax-paying, freeloader. Now all of a sudden, that party is made up of a bunch of sneaky, conniving billionaires who want to destroy the country. Keep in mind, for every Buffett there's a Trump, for every Gates there's a Walton, and for every Rockefeller there's a Koch. And all of them, just like you and I, have the right to promote whatever political philosophy they like. That's the cool thing about America. And, Ransom, suggesting that people with whom you disagree should die is repugnant and profoundly un-American. - Buffett Boosts Own Morale with Hypocrisy
Dear Comrade Eric,
I don’t think you can point to one instance where I said everyone in the Democratic Party was a free-cell-phone-using, no-tax-paying, freeloader. Or that I denied that the Party had a bunch of sneaky, conniving billionaires who want to destroy the country. What I SAID was the vast majority who voted Democrat were free-cell-phone-using, no-tax-paying, freeloaders... CONTROLLED by a bunch of sneaky, conniving billionaires who want to destroy the country.
If you are gonna come by here you should at least get your facts straight.
And by the way, Donald Trump is hardly the same for Republicans as Buffett and Soros are for the Democrats. I personally don’t have any use for Trump.
John Calvin Errickson II wrote: Conservatives have told me for years is the rest of us should worship the super rich and their ways. Are you experiencing class envy? And why are you complaining of Mr. Buffett and not creating wealth on a massive scale?
Dear Comrade Mr. John Calvin Erickson,
You don't know that I'm not creating wealth on a massive scale, Mr. John Calvin Erickson, the Second, by the Grace of God and the Royal Dominions.
I don't have class envy. I wish for Mr. Buffett, the First, to keep the whole of his earnings, which by the way, he will do.
I merely pointing out that he was successful under the old system.
You see the problem with his plan is that it taxes NEW wealth. Guys like him, who have already made it, are exempt for the most part.
John Jeremiak Ransom, the Only, forever and ever, amen.
HoovervilleFollies wrote: Of course Ransom is engaging in a classic denier tactic -- cherry-picking to find a study somewhere that includes some data that can be employed to raise doubts about the overwhelming body of evidence that anthropogenic climate change is real, serious, and well underway. -More Settled Science: Wrong about Ice Melt in Greenland, Sea-Rise
Dear Comrade Hoover,
I didn’t cherry pick anything.
Look, here are the facts that liberal don’t want to admit: There is no settled science on climate change. From study to study you all can’t even agree on how fast the ice is melting in Greenland, how much the sea level rise is due to climate change or whether temperatures have continued to rise at all.
The study I pointed to said that the ice is melting at a slower rate- and the ice melt is accelerating at a slower rate- than previously estimated.
The next day a different report reaches a conclusion that the ice sheet is melting faster than previously thought.
What I’m saying is that the first thing you guys need to do to push the Big Lie is at least get the lie straight.
See more about this below.
QuietReason wrote: Ransom has little grasp of science.
First step, read the original paper, not a newspaper's interpretation of it. Start with and see what they really said. There is no suggestion that Greenland is not losing ice and in fact, the loss is accelerating. Second, realize that the Greenland Ice sheet is only one part of the earth's ice and talking about it in isolation is meaningless, what about the West Antarctic Ice sheet, which is also losing ice and accelerating rates. Third, 21ft of sea level increase would be disasterous, but smaller amounts would also be very bad--take a look at maps of New Orleans, Norfolk, Boston under scenarios of 3-6 feet sea level rise. -More Settled Science: Wrong about Ice Melt in Greenland, Sea-Rise
Dear Comrade Hills,
You have little grasp of reading.
I’m going to rebut you almost totally from something written by Morgan Kelly, Office of Communications, Princeton University, because otherwise you’ll claim I’m too stupid to understand science.
An enhanced approach to capturing changes on the Earth's surface via satellite could provide a more accurate account of how ice sheets, river basins and other geographic areas are changing as a result of natural and human factors. In a first application, the technique revealed sharper-than-ever details about Greenland's massive ice sheet, including that the rate at which it is melting might be accelerating more slowly than predicted.
In addition, the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed the researchers to estimate that the annual acceleration in ice loss is much lower than previous research has suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons every year. Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year.
"Scientists are not totally sure what the driving force of the melt on Greenland is on short, yearly timescales," Harig said. "There is no certainty about which outside factor is the most important or if all of them contribute. Being able to compare what is happening regionally to field observations from other researchers of what a glacier is doing helps us figure out what is causing all this melt."
And really Mike, sea-level rise is not uniform, as you should well know, and would know, if of course you understood the science.
Sea-levels in New York have been rising at almost a constant rate for the last 150 years. And in 2011, the Journal of Costal Research found that sea-level rises were decelerating both in the United States and worldwide:
From the abstract:
Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.
Mike, how do you get 3-6 feet of rise when scientists already agree that the next 100 years won’t produce a foot of sea-rise unless sea-rise rates accelerate, which now we know they aren’t doing?
Canetoad wrote: You go for it John, but for the future I'll be looking to emerging technologies in the green sector to invest my money. Pretty soon climate change will become so apparent that even the most ardent denier will be forced to remove his head from his rectum. You hang on to all those old fossilized stocks you are so fond of, but I'm betting the bank on new emerging green technology to sweep us into the new century and revive our economy. Unfortunately due to Republican obstructionism and just plain stubbornness, countries like Denmark, Israel, Sweden and Finland are outperforming us.- I Told You So Redux
Dear Comrade Toad,
You do that, Toad. Please. I mean that sincerely.
Because I really like making money and I need more counterparties in my trades.
And under the GREATEST solar-powered president EVER, an investment of $10,000 in the one of the most popular green ETFs, the Claymore/MAC Global Solar Index, purchased in May 2008, would now be worth about $540.
By contrast, an investment in Exxon/Mobile would have retained about the same value under the most hostile administration to oil companies EVER.
You keep investing in sunshine. There is no shortage of that. It seems they make more of it everyday.
I’ll keep investing in the resource that’s scare.
Oh, and when those economic juggernauts in Scandinavia want to throw down over energy, I think we’ll be up to the task.
DAC wrote: You lost all credibility with your Romney landslide prediction. So SHUT THE F[edited] UP!! . - I Told You So Redux
Dear Comrade Dac,
Actually it doesn't work that way. The still expect me to write. And guess what? I have more readers than ever. AND starting January, I'll have a syndicated radio show.
More details to come
You can thank me later.
That’s it for this week


Fiscal Cliff

On the table!

The Real Root of Atheists' Anti-Christmas Rage ^ | December 2, 2012 | Doug Giles

Why do some atheists embarrass themselves year after year trying to eradicate Christmas from American culture? Why do they make themselves societal hemorrhoids during this hallowed season? Is it because they are crusaders for equality, secularism’s saviors and humanism’s heroes? I’m sure that’s what they tell themselves when they’re pouting on their couches all alone on Christmas Eve after every single one of their friends has dumped them for being a rabid jackass.

I believe, however—and I could be wrong—that the reason some rage against the machine is that they hate God and love their sin, and bringing up Jesus in December is not the way they wanted to finish off the year. Indeed, Christ really rains on their parade … and they love their parade.
Christmas, if you really get down to the brass tacks of it, isn’t about reindeer, elves, iPhones or Lindsay Lohan punching a gypsy, but about mankind’s sin problem and what God did to remedy it by sending His Son.
I know the chief facet most people focus on regarding Christ’s birth has been the peace on earth and good will toward men stuff, but if you dig around in the gospels a tad you’ll quickly see that the “peace on earth” thing is an ancillary perk to the main reason the second person of the godhead donned an earth suit and decided to hang out with us dunderheads. The core cause that necessitated Jesus’ incarnation was our jacked up carnality. Yep, Hambone, it was our sin. There, I said it. Sin. Yours, mine and ours.
Transgression was the reason for the season.
This is why El Diablo didn’t pass out cigars at Jesus’ birth. Happy he was not that the Son was not only going to address our sins but He was going to eternally and temporally salvage those who believe from sin’s fetid effects. This is why slewfoot energized Herod to put a hit out on the Nazarene when He was a wee little baby and why Satan’s demon inspired ilk are anti-Christmas to this day. Jesus’ birth equated to Satan’s demise.
This is not good news to some, though. Indeed, many atheists are up front about it and don’t want to leave their wantonness. As Jesus Himself said, they prefer darkness to light and don’t like to be reminded of their personal accountability for their sin—and thus their need for salvation—and therefore we should not expect them to be stoked about Jesus’ birthday party.
This is easy math, folks: A person who has no remorse and thus no desire to repent from their sins is probably not going to be a big advocate for the celebration of the person who reminds them they’re wrong and calls them to repent and believe.
Call me goofy, but I’m forever grateful for Jesus’ birth, His attesting miracles, His sacrificial death, burial and resurrection. While most atheists this Christmas will be drinking to forget, I will, as Martin Luther said, drink to remember the One who was and is and is to come.