Headline: 17 bodies recovered near jet crash site
Link: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/07/20090607airfrance.html
This was so bad, and so short, that I'm actually posting the entire article.
RECIFE, Brazil - Brazilian military authorities say search boats scouring the Atlantic Ocean have now recovered 17 bodies of passengers on a doomed Air France flight that crashed a week ago.
Air Force Col. Henry Munhoz says four of the bodies were men and four were women. He did not immediately provide information about the gender of the other bodies. The flight was carrying 228 people when it crashed the night of May 31.
Munhoz also told reporters Sunday night that several structural parts of the Airbus 330 were recovered at the location from which Flight 447 sent a burst of messages saying it was having electrical problems and loss of cabin pressure.
Immediately, I have a problem with this article. Can you guess what it is? Why is it so important that we know the gender of those who died? Will this information better our lives? Will it enable us to determine what happened to the Flight 447? Will it lay to rest our fears for flying knowing that we could die at a moments notice? And finally, does it assist the friends and family members who have suffered a great loss at the hands of Air France's failure to provide the necessary maintenance to prevent this problem? Nope. Not at all.
It is superfluous information bordering on rhetorical!
It is sad that we live in the "Information Age" and all we can say is: "four of the bodies were men and four were women. He did not immediately provide information about the gender of the other bodies." We should be able to generate a long list of information from the moment a body is picked up. We have dental records, DNA, and a master list of the 228 people on-board. Surely they can tell us more that this.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Friday, June 5, 2009
Why can't we call it what it is?
Headline: Thai police: Carradine death may be accidental
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/05/20090605Carradine05-ON.html
First of all, let me say that this is a tragedy. I was a big fan of his work and especially enjoyed the "Kung Fu" series. I would also like to extend my condolences to his family and close friends. He will be missed.
Now onto the other part. I'm not sure why the "drive by media" as Rush Limbaugh likes to call them, insists on avoiding the stating of the obvious. Oh, but let an emergency situation flare up and the speculation and conjecture fly out of their mouths like vomit. I think the first paragraph gives us a clear picture.
BANGKOK - The body of American actor David Carradine, best known for the 1970s TV series "Kung Fu," was found in a hotel room closet with a rope tied to his neck and genitals, and his death may have been caused by accidental suffocation, Thai police said Friday.
A few years ago, the media would have just said it, and they said it often. Now it is taboo. So, I'll say it. He died of Autoerotic Asphyxiation. Here is what Wikipedia says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_asphyxiation.
In some fatality cases, the body of the asphyxiophilic individual is discovered naked or with genitalia in hand, with pornographic magazines nearby, with dildos or other sex toys present, or with evidence of having orgasmed prior to death. Bodies found at the scene of an accidental death often show evidence of other paraphilic activities, such as fetishistic cross-dressing and masochism.
Sounds like it to me.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/05/20090605Carradine05-ON.html
First of all, let me say that this is a tragedy. I was a big fan of his work and especially enjoyed the "Kung Fu" series. I would also like to extend my condolences to his family and close friends. He will be missed.
Now onto the other part. I'm not sure why the "drive by media" as Rush Limbaugh likes to call them, insists on avoiding the stating of the obvious. Oh, but let an emergency situation flare up and the speculation and conjecture fly out of their mouths like vomit. I think the first paragraph gives us a clear picture.
BANGKOK - The body of American actor David Carradine, best known for the 1970s TV series "Kung Fu," was found in a hotel room closet with a rope tied to his neck and genitals, and his death may have been caused by accidental suffocation, Thai police said Friday.
A few years ago, the media would have just said it, and they said it often. Now it is taboo. So, I'll say it. He died of Autoerotic Asphyxiation. Here is what Wikipedia says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_asphyxiation.
In some fatality cases, the body of the asphyxiophilic individual is discovered naked or with genitalia in hand, with pornographic magazines nearby, with dildos or other sex toys present, or with evidence of having orgasmed prior to death. Bodies found at the scene of an accidental death often show evidence of other paraphilic activities, such as fetishistic cross-dressing and masochism.
Sounds like it to me.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Healthcare for All, Service for None
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/04/20090604ObamaHealth04-ON.html
The first paragraph is our warning:
President Barack Obama says he's open to requiring all Americans to buy health insurance, as long as the plan provides a "hardship waiver" to exempt poor people from having to pay.
Many years ago, the insurance industry told lawmakers that if they would mandate seat belt usage, it would go a long way in reducing the already skyrocketing insurance rates. They did. It didn't! Now, with mandatory insurance, the insurance companies can charge any rate they want because it's MANDATORY.
Now, the federal government, or should I say, the Federal Socialists, have decided that in the interest of saving everyone, they want to make medical insurance mandatory. Worse yet, they want people to "buy into a government insurance plan.". Really? People don't like regular insurance companies. Do they really expect Americans to buy into a government-run insurance company. Why even Medicare, a government-run organization for health care, is having problems and losing money left and right. Now they want to nationalize it?
As I've said before, and I'll say it again:
Never, in the history of government, has anyone in government offices, under the direction of government officials, with the help of government entities, been able to effectively negotiate anything worthwhile!
Next, we'll have mandatory "volunteering" and mandatory "religion" and who knows what else. Hmmm, that appears to fly in the face of what our founding fathers wrote when they severed their ties with England, and the King, and the Church of England, and...and...and...oh, well, you get the picture (I HOPE!).
The first paragraph is our warning:
President Barack Obama says he's open to requiring all Americans to buy health insurance, as long as the plan provides a "hardship waiver" to exempt poor people from having to pay.
Many years ago, the insurance industry told lawmakers that if they would mandate seat belt usage, it would go a long way in reducing the already skyrocketing insurance rates. They did. It didn't! Now, with mandatory insurance, the insurance companies can charge any rate they want because it's MANDATORY.
Now, the federal government, or should I say, the Federal Socialists, have decided that in the interest of saving everyone, they want to make medical insurance mandatory. Worse yet, they want people to "buy into a government insurance plan.". Really? People don't like regular insurance companies. Do they really expect Americans to buy into a government-run insurance company. Why even Medicare, a government-run organization for health care, is having problems and losing money left and right. Now they want to nationalize it?
As I've said before, and I'll say it again:
Never, in the history of government, has anyone in government offices, under the direction of government officials, with the help of government entities, been able to effectively negotiate anything worthwhile!
Next, we'll have mandatory "volunteering" and mandatory "religion" and who knows what else. Hmmm, that appears to fly in the face of what our founding fathers wrote when they severed their ties with England, and the King, and the Church of England, and...and...and...oh, well, you get the picture (I HOPE!).
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Holy Melted Icebergs Batman
I was kind of watching "ABC News Special: Earth 2100" last night while I working a few Sudoko puzzles and relaxing. Here is the TV Guide synopsis:
"An environmental road map to the 22nd century explores possible effects of climate change, population growth and resource depletion, as well as measures to forestall negative consequences of those effects."
As I half-heartedly watched, they talked about the rising sea levels and how man will not know how to live or something like that. Basically, how devastating it will be to have sea levels rise 20 or more feet. Ok, yes, it will be devastating, even catastrophic is sea levels rise 20 feet! But will they? here is what crossed my mind. Aside from the whole "melting Arctic ice" theories, I would like to offer a new theory. Quite possibly never before expressed. Right now, there are approximately 8 billion people on the Earth. Every single one of them requires water to survive. Isn't it just simple enough to explain that as more people are born, more water is needed to sustain life. Couldn't we just think of the polar ice caps as our water reserve? In fact, lets take this a little further. With more people, we need more food, so more cows...more water needed. Then there is the need for more food for the humans and the cows, so more grass and grains...so more water is needed.
I honestly believe that we are taking water out of the ground at a high rate of speed to sustain ourselves and our way of life. That, in turn, may increase the temperature of the crust because that "insulation" effect is now diminished. So, the direct response is a warmer crust that begins melting the ice caps. With the ice caps melting, that water must go somewhere. The "climatologists" would have us believe that our coastal areas are going to be submerged under 20 feet of water. I don't think so. I believe that water is going right back into the under water caverns through some form of ground filtration.
Lets look at a few "facts" as presented by "climatologists". They tend to use Iceland as their example. I'm sure you've heard the arguments: There is no more more ice on Iceland, or Iceland is on the forefront of global warming. Whatever. Here are a couple of pictures they use to suggest these arguments.
Before: http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/worldguide/html/image_620.html
After: http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/worldguide/html/image_622.html
Clearly, Iceland is not under water. And it was their ice that melted. Hawaii is not underwater. In fact, I haven't actually heard of any island or coastal region suffering more than a few inches of a rise, and I offer that liberally.
Now, check this out. I found this article that really messes with things. It's brief, but well stated.
http://icelandtalks.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/global-warming-not-true-in-iceland/
Now the glacier Dangjökull is getting bigger. The National Energy Authority of Iceland in partnership with the United States Geological Survey they are mapping out the glacier. It turns out that the glacier is getting bigger. Many reasons are believed to for this. The glacier is all under 1000 meters in height, and the weather system is a bit different from other parts of the country. Other glaciers in Iceland and in Europe have in fact shrunk a little. Could this be a change in climate or in the belief systems of the general public? Could this just be a normal phenomenon like the glaciers who shrink and grow all the time?
Can you believe it? First I reported that the "trend" was reversing after spiking in the 90's and now the glaciers are getting bigger. Wow! Didn't see that coming? Not! I especially love the part "could this just be a normal phenomenon like the glaciers who shrink and grow all the time?"
Even after all is said and done, and all the arguments and theories are posed, I still believe one thing: We, as responsible caretakers of this planet, as set forth in the Bible (see Genesis 1:28 KJV), should reduce, even eliminate, pollution. It's in OUR best interest!
"An environmental road map to the 22nd century explores possible effects of climate change, population growth and resource depletion, as well as measures to forestall negative consequences of those effects."
As I half-heartedly watched, they talked about the rising sea levels and how man will not know how to live or something like that. Basically, how devastating it will be to have sea levels rise 20 or more feet. Ok, yes, it will be devastating, even catastrophic is sea levels rise 20 feet! But will they? here is what crossed my mind. Aside from the whole "melting Arctic ice" theories, I would like to offer a new theory. Quite possibly never before expressed. Right now, there are approximately 8 billion people on the Earth. Every single one of them requires water to survive. Isn't it just simple enough to explain that as more people are born, more water is needed to sustain life. Couldn't we just think of the polar ice caps as our water reserve? In fact, lets take this a little further. With more people, we need more food, so more cows...more water needed. Then there is the need for more food for the humans and the cows, so more grass and grains...so more water is needed.
I honestly believe that we are taking water out of the ground at a high rate of speed to sustain ourselves and our way of life. That, in turn, may increase the temperature of the crust because that "insulation" effect is now diminished. So, the direct response is a warmer crust that begins melting the ice caps. With the ice caps melting, that water must go somewhere. The "climatologists" would have us believe that our coastal areas are going to be submerged under 20 feet of water. I don't think so. I believe that water is going right back into the under water caverns through some form of ground filtration.
Lets look at a few "facts" as presented by "climatologists". They tend to use Iceland as their example. I'm sure you've heard the arguments: There is no more more ice on Iceland, or Iceland is on the forefront of global warming. Whatever. Here are a couple of pictures they use to suggest these arguments.
Before: http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/worldguide/html/image_620.html
After: http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/worldguide/html/image_622.html
Clearly, Iceland is not under water. And it was their ice that melted. Hawaii is not underwater. In fact, I haven't actually heard of any island or coastal region suffering more than a few inches of a rise, and I offer that liberally.
Now, check this out. I found this article that really messes with things. It's brief, but well stated.
http://icelandtalks.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/global-warming-not-true-in-iceland/
Now the glacier Dangjökull is getting bigger. The National Energy Authority of Iceland in partnership with the United States Geological Survey they are mapping out the glacier. It turns out that the glacier is getting bigger. Many reasons are believed to for this. The glacier is all under 1000 meters in height, and the weather system is a bit different from other parts of the country. Other glaciers in Iceland and in Europe have in fact shrunk a little. Could this be a change in climate or in the belief systems of the general public? Could this just be a normal phenomenon like the glaciers who shrink and grow all the time?
Can you believe it? First I reported that the "trend" was reversing after spiking in the 90's and now the glaciers are getting bigger. Wow! Didn't see that coming? Not! I especially love the part "could this just be a normal phenomenon like the glaciers who shrink and grow all the time?"
Even after all is said and done, and all the arguments and theories are posed, I still believe one thing: We, as responsible caretakers of this planet, as set forth in the Bible (see Genesis 1:28 KJV), should reduce, even eliminate, pollution. It's in OUR best interest!
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Global Warming or Pseudo-science?
Energy Secretary's White-Paint Proposal Puzzles Climate-Change Experts
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522411,00.html?test=latestnews
I gotta laugh! These "scientists", and the accents are intentional, are just baffling. I just love the opening:
Energy Secretary Steven Chu stunned the audience at a London scientific conference Tuesday with a radical but simple proposal to combat global warming: Paint all the roofs of all the buildings in the world white.
Granted, the simplest things are usually the best solution, but this goes way, WAY beyond simple. First of all, I believe the well-known heat island effect is very valid...to a point. It does raise temperatures some, but not like it has been proposed. In fact, consider this: the highest temperature recorded in Phoenix was 122 degrees on Jun 26, 1990. In second place was 121 degrees on July 28, 1995. If we are to believe that the ever-expanding heat island has a dramatic effect, then it would be safe to assume as more buildings are constructed, more people gather, and more vehicles traverse the inner city, then there should be a natural and systematic increase in the overall highes each year. Further, if the heat island were to have as significant an impact as the "scientists" say, then the astronomical increase in urban sprawl would actually made the heat island bigger, creating an even hotter environment. However, that does not seem to be the case. If you travel outside of the outskirts of Phoenix, the temperature dips a few degrees within minutes. What does that mean? Simple: the effect of a heat island is transitory and short reaching. Okay, in simple terms...It doesn't last long or go far. I don't see it.
Now lets consider global warming in general. There was an episode of MythBusters that did their study on global warming gases and the effects they have on the environment. They compared several gases and arrived a one conclusion. In the carbon dioxide chamber, the temperature did increase in a set period of time. That increase? Oh, it was one degree. That is where they left it. Now I ask the question, "so does that mean that an increase in global warming gases will only increase the temperature world-wide by one degree or is it exponential?" Of course, no one will address that in a provable method.
Finally, while the world "scientists" are speculating, debating and otherwise wasting everyone's time and money to prove that it exists, it probably doesn't even matter. The actual "spike" actually occurred in the 1990s and is now starting to trend down. You can see the graph here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg.gif. Also notice that we spiked in the 1920s and 1930s and almost the same or higher then the 1990s. As they say in the court room, this is all circumstantial evidence. It doesn't actually prove anything except that it gets hot once in a while.
So all this hooping and hollering is for something else. Can you guess what that might be? Of course you can! Somebody wants more MONEY! Now they can get it by taxing for it, charging for the "repair", and my all time favorite, banning it so that other product prices increase and are taxed. What rocket "scientist" thought this up? A politician.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522411,00.html?test=latestnews
I gotta laugh! These "scientists", and the accents are intentional, are just baffling. I just love the opening:
Energy Secretary Steven Chu stunned the audience at a London scientific conference Tuesday with a radical but simple proposal to combat global warming: Paint all the roofs of all the buildings in the world white.
Granted, the simplest things are usually the best solution, but this goes way, WAY beyond simple. First of all, I believe the well-known heat island effect is very valid...to a point. It does raise temperatures some, but not like it has been proposed. In fact, consider this: the highest temperature recorded in Phoenix was 122 degrees on Jun 26, 1990. In second place was 121 degrees on July 28, 1995. If we are to believe that the ever-expanding heat island has a dramatic effect, then it would be safe to assume as more buildings are constructed, more people gather, and more vehicles traverse the inner city, then there should be a natural and systematic increase in the overall highes each year. Further, if the heat island were to have as significant an impact as the "scientists" say, then the astronomical increase in urban sprawl would actually made the heat island bigger, creating an even hotter environment. However, that does not seem to be the case. If you travel outside of the outskirts of Phoenix, the temperature dips a few degrees within minutes. What does that mean? Simple: the effect of a heat island is transitory and short reaching. Okay, in simple terms...It doesn't last long or go far. I don't see it.
Now lets consider global warming in general. There was an episode of MythBusters that did their study on global warming gases and the effects they have on the environment. They compared several gases and arrived a one conclusion. In the carbon dioxide chamber, the temperature did increase in a set period of time. That increase? Oh, it was one degree. That is where they left it. Now I ask the question, "so does that mean that an increase in global warming gases will only increase the temperature world-wide by one degree or is it exponential?" Of course, no one will address that in a provable method.
Finally, while the world "scientists" are speculating, debating and otherwise wasting everyone's time and money to prove that it exists, it probably doesn't even matter. The actual "spike" actually occurred in the 1990s and is now starting to trend down. You can see the graph here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg.gif. Also notice that we spiked in the 1920s and 1930s and almost the same or higher then the 1990s. As they say in the court room, this is all circumstantial evidence. It doesn't actually prove anything except that it gets hot once in a while.
So all this hooping and hollering is for something else. Can you guess what that might be? Of course you can! Somebody wants more MONEY! Now they can get it by taxing for it, charging for the "repair", and my all time favorite, banning it so that other product prices increase and are taxed. What rocket "scientist" thought this up? A politician.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Now that's thinking
Phoenix ice arena evacuated due to carbon monoxide
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/05/24/20090524evacuate0524-ON.html
You're going to be hard-pressed to figure out why I'm writing on this one. I'm sure you've read the story by now, so here it is. Notice in the article:
When firefighters got to the arena, they found eight people outside vomiting and 25 patrons complaining they felt sick, the fire captain said. When a hazardous materials team arrived, they evacuated the ice arena where a hockey tournament was being held Sunday.
So what's my problem? Simple. They waited until AFTER the HAZMAT team arrived and THEN evacuated the building. What? The eight people vomiting outside wasn't an indication? The 25 people complaining of feeling sick didn't give a clue?
So here's what I think. Somewhere there is a stupid person involved with this story. I'm just not sure who it is. Is it the reporter who simply put things in the wrong order? Or, is it the fireman who chose to leave men, women, and children in a contaminated environment until someone could establish there was a chemical contaminant enveloping the building?
Either way, it takes my breath away!
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/05/24/20090524evacuate0524-ON.html
You're going to be hard-pressed to figure out why I'm writing on this one. I'm sure you've read the story by now, so here it is. Notice in the article:
When firefighters got to the arena, they found eight people outside vomiting and 25 patrons complaining they felt sick, the fire captain said. When a hazardous materials team arrived, they evacuated the ice arena where a hockey tournament was being held Sunday.
So what's my problem? Simple. They waited until AFTER the HAZMAT team arrived and THEN evacuated the building. What? The eight people vomiting outside wasn't an indication? The 25 people complaining of feeling sick didn't give a clue?
So here's what I think. Somewhere there is a stupid person involved with this story. I'm just not sure who it is. Is it the reporter who simply put things in the wrong order? Or, is it the fireman who chose to leave men, women, and children in a contaminated environment until someone could establish there was a chemical contaminant enveloping the building?
Either way, it takes my breath away!
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Why do we give our money away?
Glendale Ballpark Deals in Limbo
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/05/24/20090524ballsalestax0524.html
I just don't get it! Never, in the history of government, has anyone in government offices, under the direction of government officials, with the help of government entities, been able to effectively negotiate anything worthwhile! When Glendale bought, and paid for, the now-named Jobing.com Arena, they used taxpayer money, "in their best interest", hoping it would generate a tax revenue windfall. It didn't! In fact, their complicated and sophisticated negotiations gave them concessions and deal, and then, to top it off, refused to put ANY teeth into the contract for failing to honor their agreement. I am, of course, referring to the 8 months of back rent owed by the Coyotes that their only recourse was to send a stern letter asking for the money. Now the Coyotes are in bankruptcy and threatening to move to Canada. I wonder how much money the citizens of Glendale made on this deal, after the building and other fees that went into its construction, not to mention all the lost concessions and tax revenues. I'm thinking we made a deficit profit (for the academically challenged, that would a debt, which must still be paid...BY THE TAX PAYERS OF GLENDALE!).
Now, Glendale has been in negotiations for 2½ years to receive monies from tax payer funded projects. Oh wonderful, here we go again. They made agreements, verbal or otherwise, then committed money to construct facilities, and then...wait for it....
WAIT FOR IT!
Never completed the paperwork! What rocket scientist thought that would work better then actually writing the deal down on paper and forcing a legally binding commitment? Now the City of Glendale basically has no "legal" right to claim the money as there was no agreement officiated and consummated (a signed paper for those still challenged).
When are we, the people of this city, county, state, country, whatever, realize that giving the government any kind of control with our money is just plain stupid? I'll leave you with this parting thought: President Obama ran his campaign on the platform of CHANGE, in which he kept his word. He changed our hard-earned tax dollars into C - H - A - N - G - E! He even managed to C - H - A - N - G - E our money from our hands to someone elses, like Bank of America, Chase, GM (bankrupting), and Chrysler (bankrupting), and even foreign entities.
Do you suppose this falls under the category of "good negotiations"?
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/05/24/20090524ballsalestax0524.html
I just don't get it! Never, in the history of government, has anyone in government offices, under the direction of government officials, with the help of government entities, been able to effectively negotiate anything worthwhile! When Glendale bought, and paid for, the now-named Jobing.com Arena, they used taxpayer money, "in their best interest", hoping it would generate a tax revenue windfall. It didn't! In fact, their complicated and sophisticated negotiations gave them concessions and deal, and then, to top it off, refused to put ANY teeth into the contract for failing to honor their agreement. I am, of course, referring to the 8 months of back rent owed by the Coyotes that their only recourse was to send a stern letter asking for the money. Now the Coyotes are in bankruptcy and threatening to move to Canada. I wonder how much money the citizens of Glendale made on this deal, after the building and other fees that went into its construction, not to mention all the lost concessions and tax revenues. I'm thinking we made a deficit profit (for the academically challenged, that would a debt, which must still be paid...BY THE TAX PAYERS OF GLENDALE!).
Now, Glendale has been in negotiations for 2½ years to receive monies from tax payer funded projects. Oh wonderful, here we go again. They made agreements, verbal or otherwise, then committed money to construct facilities, and then...wait for it....
WAIT FOR IT!
Never completed the paperwork! What rocket scientist thought that would work better then actually writing the deal down on paper and forcing a legally binding commitment? Now the City of Glendale basically has no "legal" right to claim the money as there was no agreement officiated and consummated (a signed paper for those still challenged).
When are we, the people of this city, county, state, country, whatever, realize that giving the government any kind of control with our money is just plain stupid? I'll leave you with this parting thought: President Obama ran his campaign on the platform of CHANGE, in which he kept his word. He changed our hard-earned tax dollars into C - H - A - N - G - E! He even managed to C - H - A - N - G - E our money from our hands to someone elses, like Bank of America, Chase, GM (bankrupting), and Chrysler (bankrupting), and even foreign entities.
Do you suppose this falls under the category of "good negotiations"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)