More on S815 "Gay Bill of Rights"

S815 is so far of the beaten path that it mocks logic. Under the Constitution ("freedom" etc) the gays already have the right to do to do as they please (as are all of us), BUT none of us has dominance over another. And this is the claim of all socialists, so in the vein of the expressed gay desire, there is nothing new needed for them to proceed as they please. So why write and push S815?

On Obama Obamacare and Prohibition:

The title item may seem incongruous.

Prohibition came to being via the WCTU. Alcoholism might be just a disease of society, but it aroused the ire of the gentler folks a century ago.

Like present day obamacare, it was politically aimed at solving a perceived problem, was log-rolled into a national llaw, and allowed to languish even with grave unintended consequences (much crime, many deaths and high law enforcement costs).

It's ah harbinger for obamacare's fate.  

"There are none so blind as those that WILL NOT see."
Matthew Henry (1662-1714)  English Presbyterian minister and writer 

Ange

Dear Folks:

   Once in a while, a newspaper creates a common-sense article.

  It is to be cherished because such are so rare.

This one recently came from the Columbus (OH) Dispatch about federal binge spending and how our Governor( Kasich): has stemmed that tide in Ohio:

 ===quote=========

   The U.S. government has developed a harmful addiction to spending, something Gov. John Kasich wants to address by passing a federal balanced-budget amendment through a convention of the states.
The first step toward conquering a problem is recognizing that one has a problem; that requires a break from business as usual, something at which Kasich is expert.

   While serving in Congress in the 1990s, Kasich chaired the House Budget Committee and, along with Republican congressional leaders at the time, urged President Bill Clinton to endorse a balanced budget. Before that, Kasich was a fiscal hawk during his time in the Ohio Senate.

   Ohio last year became the 23rd state to call for a constitutional convention to initiate a federal balanced-budget amendment. Getting the 34 states necessary to call such a convention likely will be an uphill battle. Republicans, who represent most of the backers of an amendment, have made significant gains in state governments around the country, but still face formidable obstacles. Even if a convention were called, 38 states would be required for ratification.
Ohio and most other states are legally obligated to balance their budgets each year. That doesn’t guarantee good fiscal management — Kasich’s predecessor as governor, Ted Strickland, for example, used one-time federal stimulus money to paper over a gaping budget hole — but it helps. Kasich makes a sound case that Washington also should be compelled to live within its means to avoid unpleasant consequences.

   The federal debt recently soared past $18 trillion. President Barack Obama has been in a league of his own in loading up debt, but George W. Bush before him also set the bar high. And Congress has abdicated its responsibility in this regard, with most politicians preferring to kick the can down the road for future generations.

   Obama recently has been touting a reduction in the deficit, which is the gap between how much the U.S. takes in and how much it spends. While that is true, it is only a small decrease from a postwar high; meanwhile, the debt has continued to soar, and the amount the U.S. owes in interest represents a potential ticking time bomb.

   As explained in the Washington Times early this year by J.T. Young, a former staffer in the Treasury Department and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, record-low interest rates “obscure the looming threat to Washington’s budget and America’s economy” of the enormous cost of servicing the debt. If interest rates were to rise to the 40-year average of 2.2 percent, that would mean federal debt service costs would equal 4.2 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, nearly double the 40-year average.
 
   That translates to $694 billion. In case one has a hard time grasping the enormity of that figure, it falls between the annual cost of Medicare and Social Security, the two largest federal entitlement programs.

   A balanced-budget amendment wouldn’t be a silver bullet, but would provide a necessary incentive for the nation’s leaders to make tough choices rather than politically expedient ones.
Kasich has the track record and the understanding to give the balanced-budget amendment a boost. He is to be commended for taking on the challenge.

============unquote========
 
.                                        TO THAT I SAY "AMEN!"

  It's interesting to note that Obama  has this country in economic "Irons" (an old sailing term meaning there is no wind available to move you boat or that you are unhandy with its sails). The Treasury now dares not raise interest rates because that would make "servicing" (paying off) the national debt impractical to impossible because of the resulting VERY high interest costs that will bankrupt out treasury.

  NOT raising interest rates means instead that new printing of money (Quantitative Easing) is constantly required. (ALL dollars then buy less and less.) Therefore, everybody except the federal politicians looses.

  The only way we can come out of this debt and economic crisis is to cut back on Federal Spending for unnecessary and costly programs.

   OUR Congressmen, all 535 of them are the BANDITS here because they hold the purse strings, THEY they all get to vote on every spending program, but they don't want to cut back (PORK mentality). Give your congressmen HOLY HELL about this, and again, and again. Make YOUR voices heard, just like John Kasich has done!!!!!!!!!

.                       Ange

Homosexual Unions

The matter of homosexuality has been BADLY handled by the Press and the US Government; Shame, Shame, Shame. They ought to know better.

The Truths are:

1- Homosexual individuals have the right to Freedom as expressed in the Constitution; ever-lasting life for any US citizen.

2- Marriage has one VERY important fact in support of the welfare and future of ANY country;  "Go forth and multiply" is the most pro-active advice for the future welfare of that country or state. Conventional Marriage is the preferred method to do so, since it is the most stable and economical method of doing so. It shall be encouraged and fostered by that government.  True Marriage accordingly is executed between one man and one woman. It does NOT exclude any habits either the man or the woman might have outside that marriage, other than the Ten Commandments... but we are all sinners at one time or another, so there are no outright proscriptions. I have known at least one such couple, male was homosexual but raised Catholic, they have a fine, mature daughter as a progeny.

Get real; support 1 man and 1 woman theology. Support your country's FUTURE. Get real.

3- If a homosexual "arrangement" is pursued instead, it should be entitled "Union" or "Partnership". or the like. Limited powers may be installed, like Right of Survival or Descendancy, etc. There are many perfectly suitable legal arrangements possible. I, for one, strongly agree that the preservation of Estates, homosexual or not, should be a matter of individual rights and not a matter of Government Control & Tax, state or Federal. Get real, Congress! And taxes should NEVER be punitive in nature, as the new inheritance taxes have become.

     Obama's last hurrrrraaaaahhhh. It's approaching the final Quarter of Obama's game and he's chiseled out a lot of "work" to get done. How the rest of the country can sit still and let this be done is a mystery. It reminds me of my days in my father's grocery store, then starting college, but pitching in during holiday seasons. That year we obtained quantities of turkeys from a country farmer. That farmer had all the turkeys in an open range and we were invited to catch our own selection.

     Our MO was to use a long wire hook and one-by-one snag their leg at the foot, pull them in and put them in a coop.. Do you think those turkeys ran away? Well about maybe 10 feet away, then they would turn around and they would WATCH US do the deed! In about an hour we had our panel truck fully loaded with full coops.

     What I now clearly see is two buildings in Wash DC full of turkeys from the country that are being hood winked and hornswaggled one by one. These guys are now useless as "t--- on a boar" for governance. Is this what you want to come home to? Are you listening Steve and Rob? Why don't you want to start a Rumble to balance the budget and stabilize the economy so that it can grow to its proper size.

     Hey, turkeys, now that's your lunch they're eating.

ObamaCare Climate Change, and Prohibition

One of the title items seems incongruous, but it may not be. Prohibition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition) was a movement aimed at purifying the social practice of imbibing. When viewed from a Western perspective, it seems like a non-issue except from some protestant view, Christian view. When viewed from a world point of view, we have various cultures, the muslim,



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition

AGW Revealed

Ever since "global warming" was FORCED into our National Lexicon, I've been curious - at times Outraged - by this phoney baloney term, and sought to flush out its validity or true nature. As a professional engineer it was painfully apparent that billions of dollars of architectural and natural resources a lot of political capital was being squandered on this phoney notion (more on this in a moment).

Fast forward to now, I now realize that "the cart has been placed before the horse". This dialog is in reality a federal propaganda monologue. This inversion is that, instead of being a scientific discovery, AGW (anthropological global warming, or the like) is in reality a POLITICAL AGENDA to increase the federal tax to fund Socialism take by means of a contrived issue, AGW. The true agenda is to Tax human activity more completely, especially on energy usage - the next "necessity" after food.The mechanism is to tax a very broad range of consumed materials, basically carbon fuels (into which even the food we eat, also carbon-based, can be place at will). Thus the term "Carbon Tax" has entered the national Lexicon.

The stage was set. A rationale segue linking "emergency" to "cause" was needed.The moon-watching community came up with it... "OMG, the earth is heating up because we are burning too much coal and too much gasoline in our daily lives". This sure beats the "moon is made of green cheese" notion..... and might even be believable (credible enough for politics). Now, Bureaucrats as well as Leftists can want this because it fattens their trade, even some independent congressman and today the POTUS!

It remains to establishing a wider credibility. Federal grants to study the issue abounded toward the end of the last century. But the scientists that would win grant contracts were led to understand that the main question to be answered by their travail was whether it can credibly stated that man's activity is causing an increase in earth's temperature. Qualitatively, anyone can say that when one strikes and burns a match, the earth has become warmer. The stickiness comes when the next question is raised "How much warmer?" I note that the answer is hardly ever pursued on a theoretical basis. Rather, the contractors (university professors and the like) are charged with (and paid for) the task of creating a "Computer Model" (all hail! the Holy Grain of 21st century federal technology) of what may be happening. Having made countless such in my routine work in the last several decades, I have concluded that I can make my models do or say result in anything I like... sort of like a trained dog. In this way, the "Hockey Stick" was born. This has been debunked recently. The trial by fire of all computer models is "Validation". Here, one puts a trial problem into the model whose answer or result is already known via real observations. That's where the Hockey Stick result was debunked. When new investigators plugged in all Real, and newly vetted temperature observations worldwide, the depression before modern times and uptick of recent years no longer appeared. In is place was only the small random variation that occurs in all widespread natural processes. It was clear that manipulation for a cause was recently practiced, and tell-tale university research staff E-mails to that effect were discovered; the data presented readjusted for reality.

By 2008, my curiosity peaked. As an independent Ph.D. physicist I applied my knowledge of atmospheric physics and infrared technology - gained on a variety of endeavors over decades - made my prediction calculation based on black bodies, Stephan-Boltmann etc. My result is for all the fuels and matter we burned to date above and beyond old society sustenance ( well, 2008, but you can update any time). I found that the the earth's temperature should have risen 0.011 decrees C (0.02F). I can send this calculation to you as an Excel spreadsheet on your request. I have sent it to many firends and colleagues. None have replied with any comments. I can only conclude that they either have not read it, or cannot read normal scientific calculations, or don't want to hear this result.

You ask "What will you do about that temperature increase?". My answer is "Nothing".

On further thoughtful analysis, I also conclude that the heat energy from this excess burning - and all the sunlight energy as well - leave our planet by only ONE mechanism; INFRARED RADIATION! I also calculated the infrared emissivity (something like albedo, but for infrared wavelengths) to be approximately 0.88.

My qualitative analysis result regarding the greenhouse gas conundrum is that added CO2 in the air has a zero sum effect, gains are balanced by losses; that extra CO2 concentration neither raises nor lowers earth temperatures. A slight temperature lowering is possible as the air gains emissivity with more CO2 in it, thereby casting off heat energy all night especially from the higher atmosphere levels - 50,000' and higher.

I say further on the Carbon Tax issue. It should be buried NOW!. If Congress wants a new tax on energy, they should write a new Bill under that title and vote on it NOW. 

Comments welcome, Ange.