08.02.2010... If you keep telling Big Lies like these, your followers will believe you..... From Plan for Your Children

Progressive* Democrats in Congress are moving closer to passing the most radical anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-family bill through Congress that has been seen in decades, HR4530. The bill is disguised as a "School Non-Discrimination Act."

Who could possibly be against "non-discrimination," right? Well, here are a few things you will NOT be allowed to discriminate against...

The open promotion of homosexuality as normal behavior. The formation of Gay Student Alliances. The distribution of books describing group sex between first graders. The distribution of books describing S&M and prostitution. Browse the GLESN K-6 Book list below.

In short, you will NOT be able to discriminate against any kind of bizarre, deviant, un-natural "sex education" being pushed on the captive audience of young minds, your children.

If you doubt these are issues, just check the record and history of Obama's "Safe Schools Czar," Kevin Jennings

*progressive: I am elite and smart, you are stupid, therefore I will be your master

What a crock of shit. This kind of lying, catastrophy-promising prediction has no basis in reality and appeals to anyone and everyone who's never seen or met a "real" homosexual of any of the kinds described on that page. If anything, the anti-gay Conservative Agenda has less tolerance, acceptance or understanding than virtually any GLBT organization on the planet. Get a fucking life and stop being worried that anyone could OR WOULD WANT, let alone BE ABLE to "convert you" or any other such shit. It don't work that way, morons. And your lack of tolerance speaks volumes about your lack of thinking or compassion. The early Books of the bible said that "sleeping with young men" was bad in order to discourage folks like the Roman warriors from sodomizing young boys. It was NOT directed against grown men having consensual sex. Get over it and stop lying.

12.28.2007... A rose by any other name is still BullCrap..... From TheStar.com, linked from PajamasMedia.com,

Malaysia, a predominantly Muslim nation with a secular government and a fast-growing, export-driven economy, has emerged as a centre for the industry's development. Here, even non-Muslims are taking advantage of a growing range of Islamic products offering competitive returns.

For instance, David Ong-Yeoh, 41, a public relations executive tired of fretting over the rising interest rate on his adjustable-rate mortgage, refinanced to a 30-year fixed loan from an Islamic financial institution. Now, he pays regular installments that include a predetermined profit margin for the bank.

"The terms are better than on conventional loans," Ong-Yeoh said.

Islamic finance also avoids practices prohibited under Shariah: Islamic bankers cannot receive or provide funds for anything involving alcohol, gambling, pornography, tobacco, weapons or pork.

Proponents of Islamic banking say these are limits any socially conscious investor can support, Muslim or not. They also envision wider appeal for Islamic banking's ban on interest, which stems from the Quran's usury prohibition.

That's a view that has a long religious and historical tradition. Charging high interest rates to lend money is repeatedly condemned in the Bible. The Greek philosopher Aristotle denounced it, the Romans limited it, and the early Christian church prohibited it.

Western theologians eventually distinguished interest from usury, and it was reintroduced to Christians and Muslims around the time of the Renaissance.

But when Britain took advantage of Egypt's mounting foreign debt in 1875 to buy Egypt's stake in the Suez Canal and occupy the country, it generated a backlash against traditional banking in the Muslim world. The belief that all interest charges are unjust now underpins Islamic finance.

Hoarding is frowned on in the Quran, so savings earn no return unless put to productive use. "Money should be used for creating better value in the country or the economy," Rasheed Mohammed al-Maraj, governor of the central bank of Bahrain, said. "Money cannot generate money.''

Indeed, Islamic banks are supposed to function more like private-equity firms than conventional banks. "Private equity is an Islamic concept," said Rafe Haneef, head of Islamic banking in Asia for Citigroup.

But because Islamic financial transactions must have an underlying asset, Islamic bankers tend to have high exposure to real estate and construction projects.

BullCrap! Hypocrisy!!! Liars: Paying a "predetermined profit margin for the bank" is what an interest payment is, you lying hypocrites! You run your whole lives that way, and should be called on the lies every day. BullCrap!

09.30.2007: Oh, yeah, I almost forgot... Al Gore and "Man-Made Global Warming" = BullCrap!

09.11.2007: "The sub-prime mortgage market problems will destroy the US economy." BullCrap!

Excerpting from "The Wall Street Digest," September, 2007, quoting Ben Stein's August 12, 2007 article: [www.nytime.com]

• The total mortgage market in the United States is roughly $10.4 trillion.
• Of that, a little over 13 percent, or about $1.35 trillion, is subprime -- certainly a large sum.
• Of this, nearly 14 per cent is delinquent, meaning "late in payment or in foreclosure."
• Of this amount, about 5 percent is actually in foreclosure, or about $67 billion.
• Of this amount, according to my friends in real estate, at least about half will be recovered in foreclosure.
• So now are down to losses of about $33 billion to $34 billion.
• The rate of loss in subprime mortgages keeps climbing. In time, perhaps it will couble, maybe back to $67 billion.
• This is a large sum by absolute standards, and I would sure like to have it in my bank account.
• But by the metrics of a large economy it is nothing. The total wealth of the United States is about $70 trillion.
• The value of the stocks listed in the United States is very roughly $15 trillion to $20 trillion. The bond market is even larger.
• Much more to the point, the fears and terrors about subprime mortgages have helped knock off 6.7 per cent of the stock market's value in recent weeks.
• This amounts to about $1.1 trillion, or more than 30 times the losses so far in the subprime market.
• In other words, these subprime losses are wildly out of proportion to the likely damage to the economy from the subprime problems.

08.25.2007: "The US' forests are being destroyed... clear-cut to oblivion... yadda, yadda, yadda..."

Ok, kids, you know all those folks who have been ragging on us about deforestation of the United States? You know, how trees are disappearing under urban blight and pretty soon there won't be any left to make the oxygen for us to breathe?

Well, BullCrap !

I recently returned from a driving trip 'cross the USA and back. If anyone tells you the trees are going or gone, tell them to drag their lily-white butts out of their urban condos and high-rises [or editorial offices] and take a drive through virtually any state east of Nebraska. They're lousy with trees. Trees to the left, trees to the right, trees in front of you; horizon to horizon, and not much horizon because the trees obscure it! What I've come to call "small-sky country": states where there are so many trees lining so many roads that the amount of sky you see overhead might be a 20-degree swath of sky. Not the virtually-180-degree view you get in most states from Nebraska on west.

Get a life, BullCrappers !

Remember, it's humid on the East Coast in summer, right? Where the hell do you think that moisture comes from!? It comes from the evaporation of water from all of those doggoned trees to the west of us! My new home town, Raleigh, NC, would be as dry as Silicon Valley in the summer if those trees weren't filling our air with humidity!

So, next time someone tells you that deforestation is wiping out our forests, remind them:

BullCrap!

06.21.2007: Number One Candidate for Liar's Award: Michael Moore, "film-maker."

Comments from Forbes' Film Review
Sicko's Shortcuts
David Whelan 06.21.07, 12:02 PM ET

"Recently an executive at a small health plan in Ohio called me up and asked if I'd seen the new Michael Moore documentary Sicko.

The insurance executive was extremely worried. Last year one of Moore's producers had called up his company to ask about a customer who had been denied a claim. The company looked into the matter and discovered that the patient's doctor had submitted the claim nine times but used the wrong code without correcting it. No wonder the patient was frustrated. But her beef with the health plan didn't quite stand up to scrutiny. The executive was hoping the example ended up on the cutting room floor.

Health care horror stories are a dime a dozen. Where to direct the anger and the blame is a more difficult matter. But not for Michael Moore, who decided that our imperfect system is the fault of insurance companies and more broadly, the free-market aspects of our health care system.

In Pictures: Sicko Premieres Since I cover health care I was eager to take a look. At the screening I was struck by Moore's undeniable talents as a filmmaker and a marketer of political ideas. He finds great footage. He edits it with zing. He's great at stunts. He cracks up the audience with his fat man and a camera shtick. I've watched all of his movies since Roger & Me, and once, as a high school kid with idealistic politics, I even showed up for a rally he held in downtown Pittsburgh when he was in town filming for his old show TV Nation.

With Sicko, Moore starts out telling the stories of a few people without health insurance, who can't afford to reattach cut-off fingers or who stitch up their own wounds. Then he stops suddenly and announces that this film is not about the uninsured. It's about the insured.

At that point Moore leads into a parade of sad stories. A cancer patient dies after being denied a bone transplant. A deaf girl's cochlear implant is considered too experimental. A girl in a head-on collision is taken to the hospital in an ambulance but the insurer refuses to pay for the ambulance ride because it was not pre-approved, even though she was unconscious. A woman in Detroit drives to Canada and shows Moore how to use their free walk-in clinics.

The filmmaker also makes some philosophical arguments about health care, visiting European countries and interviewing doctors and patients about their government-run systems. He argues that it's strange that we "socialize" education and the military, but not health care. Moore's big stunt at the end is to take three volunteer rescue workers, who all claim they worked in the pit at Ground Zero, to Cuba where they receive better medical attention than they've gotten so far in the States.

But besides recognition of Moore's vast talent, the other feeling that kept crossing my mind while watching was intense skepticism. I would have loved to probe each documentary subject to see whether their sad tales add up or whether the sunny reports about health care in Canada and France were really representative.

Take bone marrow transplants. Can you get one in Cuba? Roberta Gianfortoni, a dean at the Harvard School of Public Health, has visited Cuba to tour its medical system and says doctors there know how to do many procedures but that doesn't mean those procedures are actually available. As Moore reports, the government only spends $250 per person on health. Not much room in there for major surgery.

Or consider all the cheap drugs in Canada. Many would not be developed in the first place if the drug companies did not have the incentive to make gobs of money in the U.S. In France and Britain, Moore shows doctors using imaging machines and emphasizes how everything's free. Fine. But would those fabulous inventions have been developed by General Electric (nyse: GE - news - people ), Siemens (nyse: SI - news - people ) or whomever if their only customers were governments? After all, governments would be more inclined to ration care and have little market incentive to invest in the latest machines, whereas in a competitive system, each hospital wants the most advanced devices so people don't go across the street to another that's better equipped.

The Cuba example is the most naïve. It doesn't seem to cross Moore's mind that when you confiscate a nation's private property, that yes, you can provide free dental care for public relations purposes.

For many of the health insurance patients whose agony was captured in the movie, I could sympathize with their anger at the paper pushers who deny claims on technical grounds or in egregious cases, deliberately do so to make extra profits. But you can't blame Cigna (nyse: CI - news - people ) and not also blame the U.S. government for creating and then never fixing the work-based insurance system we all endure. And if you really want to get technical, which Moore does not, where's the blame for the state regulators who handcuff insurers from offering innovative products by forcing plans to all have the same features?

Moore is right that our system is messed up. But that may be due to it being a contorted free market system, with limited competition and little consumerism.

All that is too subtle for Moore, who seems convinced from the start that the only solution is a government takeover. That’s a scary thought. Do you want your doctors to treat you like you get treated at the Department of Motor Vehicles or in airport security lines? Or maybe we should let bad nurses work forever, like a unionized public school teacher. We now enjoy the latest medical device or drug, but will there be much more R&D in the future if a blockbuster pill can't command a blockbuster price?

Moore, unlike even the Democratic presidential candidates, does not consider these practical realities. But I've got to say, he makes a good movie."

09.28.2006: Eco-freaks: Stop lying about oil spills causing "irreparable damage."

Here's some evidence you're lying about.

Excerpt:

We review studies of four taxa -- pink salmon, sea otters, harbor seals, and several species of seabirds -- widely believed to have suffered severe impacts from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. These studies were conducted over a 10-year postspill period and included prespill information where possible. They demonstrated that earlier suggestions of negative impacts may have been unfounded (harbor seals) or that the species either exhibited no obvious detrimental effects of the spill (pink salmon population runs, population density and habitat occupancy of half of the 23 seabird species examined) or indicated impacts followed by clear evidence of subsequent recovery (sea otters, the remaining seabird species). The apparent resilience of these species to perturbations such as oil spills may be related to the high natural variability of these ecosystems. Evaluating spill effects is enhanced by long-term studies that recognize the natural variability of marine environments and use a rigorous study design. The results of such studies must also be interpreted objectively, free of preconceptions about spill effects and divorced from advocacy positions.

9.25.2006: I just heard that the State of California is going to sue auto makers for creating air pollution.

Here's a clue, morons: the more gasoline you burn, the more CO2 is released into the atmosphere. If you want less of that "pollutant" the only way to get there is to burn less of it. And if you're going to not stop making or buying cars, the only other way to cut gasoline consumption is to raise the average gas mileage [lower the fuel consumption average] of the population of cars. There's just one thing wrong with that plan... the buyers of the cars aren't on your side. Never were.

Car and Driver Magazine had an interesting piece on that recently. It turns out that gas mileage hasn't gone up very much over the past several decades. Cars have gotten smaller and lighter and all kinds of engine technologies have been put in place to reduce pollutants. In fact, virtually all modern cars put out almost all of their net pollution during warmup, and once they're warmed up, their tailpipe pollution [unburnt hydrocarbons, NOx, etc,] are virtually not measurable.

However, over the same decades, the horsepower of the cars that have been bought has gone up tremendously. What was acceptable in 1954, maybe 120 horsepower, is a rock-bottom slug of a car today, found only in the lowest ends of auto makers' product lines. They do get the best gas mileage, usually well into the 30s, but what are people buying? 200-, 300-horsepower sports cars and sedans and SUVs with big engines and lots of horsepower and high fuel consumption.

So, morons in California, if you want to sue someone, sue the people of your own state and force them to buy lower-horsepower cars. Then see if you can get re-elected. I don't think there are enough tree-huggers in California that you can count on for the votes, even if they keep lying about air pollution.

And if you want to see some more lies refuted, download this! [approx. 670kB]

08.14.2003: The spin-doctors at the Times continue....

"At issue was California's 1990 zero-emission rule, which decreed that 10 percent of all vehicles sold in the state from 2003 to 2008 be pollution-free. That essentially meant electric cars, but since these have turned out to be a commercial dead end, California wisely extended the deadline and invited the industry to meet part of its quota with hybrids. The industry, which hates quotas, went to court, arguing that the rule was merely a back door way of setting new fuel economy standards, a federal prerogative. California retorted that it was interested only in reducing air pollution and that improved mileage would be a serendipitous byproduct."

• BullCrap! California Air Resources Board [CARB] wanted higher fuel mileage and lower emissions. Please, NY Times, don't try to rewrite history to fit your agenda.
• California didn't "wisely extend[ed] the deadline and invite[d] the industry to meet part of its quota with hybrids.", the truth ended in the first half of the sentence... "electric cars, but since these have turned out to be a commercial dead end". Electric cars would require more power plants to be built, add ozone to the atmosphere wherever they operated, as long as they didn't use brushless motors, and would cost more to buy and own than any mortal in California could afford. There aren't enough movie stars in California to buy the numbers of vehicles that CARB insisted on, by percentage of fleet.
• "California retorted that it was interested only in reducing air pollution and that improved mileage would be a serendipitous byproduct."
  If you believe that, there are a bunch of folks near San Francisco, who'll cut you a neat deal on a pretty, orange-red bridge...

More lies in the New York Times..... August 12, 2003, Automakers Drop Suits Over Clean-Air Regulation

Let's look at some of the lies and how they're told....

• Photo: Electric cars like these at a G.M. installation in the San Fernando Valley have helped meet California air rules.

  Not True! The cars shown are GM's electric cars, not hybrids. Electric cars require massive increases in production of electricity from central power plants, a known stationary source of pollutants which everyone complains about. Electric cars do not lower pollution.

• Now, with the dropping of the legal challenge — unless other hurdles emerge — every major automaker will have to start selling a range of vehicles with low emission levels of smog-forming pollutants, like hybrids and specially modified gas cars, in a plan that will phase in such vehicles in California between 2005 and 2020.

  Hybrids, yes; but they're gearing up to do that already. So you're touting a mandate for something that's in the cards already. Great Predictor, you are.

• Automakers will also have to sell tens of thousands of zero-emission vehicles, either battery-powered cars or, far more likely in the long term, vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells.

  Define "long term" please? Current technology and technological advance rates make it look like mass-produced battery or fuel cell cars are at least a decade or two away. By the way, where is the electricity for the "battery-powered" cars going to come from? Where is the hydrogen going to come from for the fuel cells? Guess what? The cheapest sources are still those that use natural gas or other petrofuels.

• G.M. — which sells some high-emission vehicles like Hummers, Cadillac Escalades and Chevrolet Suburbans — withdrew from the battle as part of an effort to enhance its environmental image that included a previous announcement that it would sell hybrids.

  Liar! The large cars don't make more emissions percentages than any other vehicles. They produce more per mile because of their higher fuel consumption. If they were all replaced by a proportional number of smaller vehicles, the total pollution would be the same. One vehicle getting 10 mpg, going ten miles, replaced by two getting 20 mpg, going ten miles, create the same total pollution.

• But it has also been reassured by recent steps of California regulators. The state amended its requirements in April to emphasize more low-emission and fewer zero-emission cars. In recent weeks, coinciding with negotiations over the suits, the air board expanded its credit system for hybrids to include a wider variety of vehicles.

  Liars! The State amended its requirements because its original requirements included such a high number of hybrid or electric vehicles that either the manufacturers couldn't supply in quantity or due to the extremely high prices, the State would have to subsidize all of the sales by as much as 50% of the sticker price or more, because nobody could afford them, even if they wanted to buy them! Remember, none of the GM Electrics were bought: GM only leased them. Nobody could afford the real purchase price.

• The zero-emissions mandate was introduced in the early 1990's, intended to spur development of battery-powered cars, which the industry now sees as a dead end.

  Oops! Some truth snuck in here.... Reality sucks, eh? But it's Reality.

• The current zero-emissions rule is focused more squarely in the long term on fuel-cell cars, which are electric cars with an on board power system that generates electricity through a chemical reaction involving hydrogen. Fuel-cell cars emit only water vapor, though producing hydrogen leads to varying emissions.

  Saved that little lump of truth for the end of the paragraph, didn't you... Think anybody read that far?

• Such groups remain wary of G.M., however. "By suing California on environmental laws and building Hummers, they seem like they're in a race to the bottom to be seen as the worst environmental auto company," said Roland Hwang, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

  Ah, Roland, could you possibly have said anything else, or is it a genetic impossibility? Pretend GM is selling Hummers to make the profits needed to fund the research into the hybrid cars you want so badly, that you're not buying.

Circa 07.25.2003: What Air Pollution?!

I got to thinking about this in mid-July, 2003, when I took my car in for its smog check. I live in California, and the smog tests [and specs that the cars have to meet] are a bit higher than in other parts of the USA and some other parts of the world.

What struck me were the results of the tests for my slightly old 1997 Ford Taurus. Sure, it only had about 28,600 miles on it at the time of the test, but I don't take wonderful care of the car or baby it at all. It gets gas, oil changes, and washed a few times a year.

Here are the emission test results for my car:

So, here's a car, nearly seven years old, with not the best of care, with years-old automotive technology under the hood, not coming near any of the local pollution limits.

And people are going crazy to tighten these limits?! BullCrap! The limits are fine; go find the gross polluters... the guys with the blue smoke trailing behind them because their valve seals or rings are leaking oil. Then pay for their motor work, because the odds are, they can't afford the cost of the work on their motors to make the anti-pollution folks happy, anyway!

Most of today's cars produce nearly zero pollution while moving down the road. BullCrap, Sierra Club; BullCrap, Greenpeace. The problem is that so many cars on the road are stuck in traffic jams, not moving, not that they're emitting pollutants. Free the cars and you'll cut pollution. Box them in on choked highways because you lie about not needing more highways, and we all suffer from greater pollution and lousier gas mileage.

07.10.2003: SUVs clog up the roads? BullCrap!

Liars!

65 miles per hour equals 343,200 feet per hour = 5,720 feet per minute = about 95.33 feet per second.

If you're going down the highway at 65 miles per hour, a good rule of thumb for safety is to not be closer than three seconds behind the car in front of you, at any speed. At 65 miles per hour, that's 286 feet. Therefore, whether you're driving a 12-foot long buggy or a 20-foot long behemoth, most of the safe space on the highway belongs between you and the car in front of you. If you're both driving SUVs, you're going to need to stay about an extra ten feet apart, at the most, compared to two people driving mini cars. And that amounts to ..... do the math.... .035. ..... Three and a Half Percent of the space on the road, at the most !

So, meatheads, the problem on the roads is not the SUVs, it's the speed they're moving. If they can't do highway speeds of 50 or 60 or more miles per hour, with the accompanying safe 3-second spacing, they're going to go nose-to-butt with all the other cars on the road, in a crawling caterpillar of congested vehicles.

So, the problem isn't the size of the cars or SUVs; the problem of highway congestion is the speed the cars are moving. If you put all your energy into doing things to make cars move faster on the highways, there would be less congestion, pollution, etc., etc. So, most of you are lying to me and everyone else. Cut the BullCrap! Help all the cars move faster and it doesn't matter how big they are.

07.01.2003: From the July, 2003, issue of the Wall Street Digest.....

"The Third Largest Tax Cut In U.S. History."
"The opposition to the Bush tax cut was predictable: "We can't afford a tax cut while we are running a deficit." That is nonsense. Every politician in Washington knows the net result of every Federal tax cut: even more money flows back to the Federal government from increased tax receipts. Why?

Democrats: stop lying about the effects of tax cuts and their history of benefits!!! Cut the BullCrap!

First rev: 09.01.2007