Monday, January 30, 2012

it's made of people

Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists.
Ultimately their aim is to justify organ donation after cardiac death (DCD). This is a state in which a patient is neurologically damaged and cannot function without a respirator. Within minutes of withdrawing this, the organs are removed. However, the authors state frankly that the patient is not dead at that point because it is possible that the patient’s heart could start beating again.
"[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong."

comparing human life to weeding a garden... classy.

Daniel Callahan has suggested strict age cut-off s for scarce life-saving interventions, whereas Alan Williams has suggested a system that allocates interventions based on individuals' distance from a normal life-span if left unaided.
- The Complete Lives System

like a used car, once you've driven it off the lot, your life is already depreciating... worse yet; you can't trade it in.

THIS is the slippery slope we've been warning about... when it becomes a "judgement" that someone is not deemed "alive", then it is justifiable to kill someone without regard to them as a human being... this is the dirty little secret of many liberal policies, from "death panels" to abortion... when life has only subjective value, and not ABSOLUTE value, this is the world we will be living (and dying) in.

Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists
in BioEdge - by Michael Cook - 27 Jan 2012

The Complete Lives System
Lancet 2009; 373: 423–31
Department of Bioethics, The Clinical Center, NationalInstitutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
by Govind Persad BS, Alan Wertheimer PhD, Ezekiel J Emanuel MD
Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions

Thursday, January 26, 2012

The Planet Killing Prius (in 3D!)

when a Greenie (new-wave hippie) drive his Toyota Prius, generally he does so with the idea that he has just saved the planet... WRONG!... looks like the "green energy" they have hitched their wagon to is dragging them into the sea... a hybrid's battery is greatly composed of nickel... the smelting process is very "dirty"... not to mention the trans-global trip the ore must make to make the first battery... and that's before the first Prius leaves Japan bound for ports unkown.

The feature that makes the Prius such a draw for the environmentally conscious is really its weak spot: the battery. Like all hybrid batteries, it's of the nickel metal hydride variety. The nickel for the Prius is mined in Sudbury, Ontario, and smelted at a plant nearby. Toyota buys 1,000 tons of nickel from the plant each year.

So far, so green? Maybe not. The landscape around the plant at the city's edge alarms environmentalists. Some eco-activists blame the bleak, lifeless countryside near the facility in part on its 1,250-foot smokestack that belches acid-rain-causing sulphur dioxide.

'Sudbury remains a major environmental and health problem,' says David Martin of Greenpeace Canada. 'The environmental cost of producing that car battery is pretty high.'

But there's more. From the Sudbury plant, the smelted nickel is shipped to Europe, where it's refined in Wales. Next, it's sent to China, where it's manufactured in nickel foam. The nickel is then moved to Japan, where Prius batteries are made.

But the long, fossil-fuel-burning journey doesn't end there. After the batteries are placed in the Prius, some of the nickel is round-tripped back to North America while some is shipped to Europe in cars sold outside Japan.

Destroying the planet in my Prius – The Mike Thomas Blog – Orlando Sentinel
Toyota Prius Drivers Fuel Environmental Catastrophe - By MARTIN DELGADO, London Mail - Mail on Sunday

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

i am unable to spell

or is that "UN-IBLE"?... i'll never know... for anyone who is curiousible, here's what i've found out:
Many words end in -ible and -able. Sometimes it is difficult to remember which spelling to use.

The -ible ending is for words of Latin origin. There are about 180 words ending in -ible. No new words are being created with -ible endings. Here are the most common examples:




The -able ending is for:

  • some Latin words, for example: dependable
  • non-Latin words, for example: affordable, renewable, washable
  • new (modern) words, for example: networkable, windsurfable
Rule of thumb
This rule can help you decide the correct spelling. It works most (but not all!) of the time. Remember, if you are not sure about a word, it is probably best to use a dictionary. Here is the rule:

  • If you remove -able from a word, you are left with a complete word.
  • If you remove -ible from a word, you are not left with a complete word (note that accessible, contemptible, digestible, flexible and suggestible above are among the exceptions to this rule).

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Obama's Historic Firsts - UPDATE

i re-blogged some vitriolic anti-Obama name-calling, with a disclaimer that i had not researched many of the claims... fear not, gentle reader... i have done some due-diligence and looked up the validity of many of the more outrageous claims.

  • President Obama was NOT the first to violate the War Powers Act... President Clinton was... 1999 in the bombing of Kosovo.
  • while the "Fast and Furious" affair is simply inexcusable, let us not forget the Iran-Contra affair... what started as arms-for-hostages turned into simple gun-running and terrorist arming.
  • Obama was not the first president to be held in contempt by a federal judge... Clinton is the one to hold that dubious honor... Nixon came very close, having a federal judge declare that he could be held in contempt should he not turn over the Watergate tapes.
  • i don't think anyone can say there haven't been many former Presidents which have "defied a court order"... some were worse than others... but we really shouldn't encourage this behavior... then again, we can't hold one to a different standard than another.
  • there's the claim of being the first President to "hold anyone suspected of being associated with terrorism indefinitely, without any form of due process"... we all do remember G.W. Bush, right?
  • Obama declared DOMA to be unconstitutional... sounds like an overreach of the Constitution, right?... not so fast... seek out Myers v. US... the Supreme Court has decided that the President must use some judgement in enforcement of laws... the court is the final judge (no pun), but the President must enforce the Constitution first and laws, second.
  • Obama suing a state is not a first... Irony Alert!... while Obama sued AZ, WI, OH, IN, etc. over the states enforcement of the federal immigration laws, it was G.W. Bush who first sued Illinois... get this: they were sued because they REFUSED to enforce federal immigration laws!!!... the irony is on SO many levels!

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Historic Firsts

i haven't researched these, but thought i'd re-blog this, if only as food-for-thought... i'll update as i learn more.
Doug Ross provides a handy rundown of just how historic our beloved President has been...

A few examples:

  • First President to Violate the War Powers Act
  • First President to Orchestrate the Sale of Murder Weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels
  • First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
  • First President to Require All Americans to Purchase a Product From a Third Party
  • First President to Golf 90 or More Times in His First Three Years in Office
Read on for nearly 30 more historic firsts...

The Mental Recession: A Complete List of Historic Firsts For Our Preside...

the original list by Doug Ross:
  • First President to Preside Over a Cut to the Credit Rating of the United States Government
  • First President to Violate the War Powers Act
  • First President to Orchestrate the Sale of Murder Weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels
  • First President to issue an unlawful "recess-appointment" while the U.S. Senate remained in session (against the advice of his own Justice Department).
  • First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
  • First President to Defy a Federal Judge's Court Order to Cease Implementing the 'Health Care Reform' Law
  • First President to halt deportations of illegal aliens and grant them work permits, a form of stealth amnesty roughly equivalent to "The DREAM Act", which could not pass Congress
  • First President to Require All Americans to Purchase a Product From a Third Party
  • First President to Spend a Trillion Dollars on 'Shovel-Ready' Jobs -- and Later Admit There Was No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Jobs
  • First President to sue states for requiring valid IDs to vote, even though the same administration requires valid IDs to travel by air
  • First President to Abrogate Bankruptcy Law to Turn Over Control of Companies to His Union Supporters
  • First President to sign into law a bill that permits the government to "hold anyone suspected of being associated with terrorism indefinitely, without any form of due process. No indictment. No judge or jury. No evidence. No trial. Just an indefinite jail sentence."
  • First President to Bypass Congress and Implement the DREAM Act Through Executive Fiat
  • First President to Threaten Insurance Companies After They Publicly Spoke out on How Obamacare Helped Cause their Rate Increases
  • First President to Threaten an Auto Company (Ford) After It Publicly Mocked Bailouts of GM and Chrysler
  • First President to "Order a Secret Amnesty Program that Stopped the Deportations of Illegal Immigrants Across the U.S., Including Those With Criminal Convictions"
  • First President to Demand a Company Hand Over $20 Billion to One of His Political Appointees
  • First President to Terminate America's Ability to Put a Man into Space.
  • First President to Encourage Racial Discrimination and Intimidation at Polling Places
  • First President to Have a Law Signed By an 'Auto-pen' Without Being "Present"
  • First President to Arbitrarily Declare an Existing Law Unconstitutional and Refuse to Enforce It
  • First President to Tell a Major Manufacturing Company In Which State They Are Allowed to Locate a Factory
  • First President to refuse to comply with a House Oversight Committee subpoena.
  • First President to File Lawsuits Against the States He Swore an Oath to Protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN, etc.)
  • First President to Withdraw an Existing Coal Permit That Had Been Properly Issued Years Ago
  • First President to Fire an Inspector General of Americorps for Catching One of His Friends in a Corruption Case
  • First President to Propose an Executive Order Demanding Companies Disclose Their Political Contributions to Bid on Government Contracts
  • First President to allow Mexican police to conduct law enforcement activities on American soil
  • First President to Golf 90 or More Times in His First Three Years in Office

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

no news is good news

U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled on December 15, 2011, that Iran and Hezbollah "materially and directly supported Al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks, and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case."

isn't this news?... try searching this on Google... i found two sources; one was the Canada Free Press, and the other was from Brunei!

a US District judge just found that a sovereign nation is legally responsible for the attacks on 9/11, and there isn't a hint or peep out of ANY major media group... this is astounding.

U.S. District Court Rules Iran Behind 9/11 Attacks Brunei NEWS, Brunei HEADLINES from Brunei fm
MSM Ignores Judge’s Ruling - Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh - Wednesday, January 4, 2012 - Canada Free Press

New York Law Journal - Decisions - Judge Daniels

Monday, January 2, 2012

just wow... what do you say?

Colmes claimed Santorum took the baby home, after living for only two hours, and "played with it for a couple of hours"

oh. my. god.

"To some who don't recognize the dignity of all human life, who see it as a blob of tissue that should be discarded and disposed of, this is somehow weird. Recognizing the humanity of your son is somehow weird, somehow odd, and should be subject to ridicule," Santorum said.

and how does Colmes respond to his critics?

it's not a cheap shot; it's a matter of judgement: @IAmMindyJ: @AlanColmes you are a poor excuse for a human being! cheap shot...

don't like free speech? RT: @SOLTravels: You should be fired for the cheapest shot I have heard from any commentator in a long time!

what I said was factual RT: @lestay99 @AlanColmes I was on your side til you said that.People who spew hate don't have their facts straight

now... notice who the better man is.

just spoke to @ricksantorum. He and Karen graciously accepted my apology for a hurtful comment

yeah... "hurtful comment" about their dead son... you don't get much lower than that.

then again, this is a proud liberal we're talking about... they don't get much higher, either.

TRENDING: Fox commentator apologizes for ‘hurtful’ remark on death of Santorum’s son – CNN Political Ticker - Blogs