News Round Up 1/20/2011
I'll bet the establishment intentionally rigged it that way to blunt any momentum that Santorum would have gleaned from a victory that was announced in a timely fashion.
Article: Helix Nebula Gleams Like a Golden Eye in New Photo
Article: Letting White Voters Choose the Nominee
The order primaries are held in has been set for quite some time now... I seriously doubt that the racial make up of the constituencies is what decided it. But nice attempt at race baiting anyways! Personally I think the order ought to be changed each go-round. I'm tired of carefully seeking out a candidate only to have them removed from the running before I have a say in who should get the nod, let's face it political campaigns are a game of momentum and usually by the time the ability to vote comes around to me it's just a proforma vote.
Article: 3 Numbers That Will Determine the Next President
"President Obama and his Democratic backers insist he's the one to bring fairness back to an economy..." Fairness? Who ever said life was fair? If you think life is fair, or even that it ever could be fair then you are a deluded child. Every kid learns from mommy and daddy that life isn't fair so you need to just get used to it. You can't legislate fairness, because "fair" is very much like "perfect"... unattainable! Some liberals might reply, "Tell that to people who pay 25% tax rate while people that are 1000 times richer than them pay a 15% tax rate." Well, that lower tax rate serves a large number of purposes. The two main ones being 1. It spurs investment into companies that provide employment... employment for those who don't qualify for that rate and who otherwise would have no income. -AND- 2. It provides an incentive for people who don't receive it, to want to receive it and to do what is necessary to arrive at that place where they can receive it. Success is hard work and if there's no incentive to succeed people will simply languish in mediocrity forever.
Article: U.S. and Iran on Collision Course
Where's all the Paulbots and Obamaniacs to tell us that if we just talk nicely to Iran, they'll stop wanting to nuke us and our allies out of existence... That it has nothing to do with the fact that they are fanatical elevener-shia who believe in Armageddon and that they can hasten the coming of the Mahdi by starting Armageddon.
Article: Romney nosediving in South Carolina as Gingrich surges
Wait. I though Mitt was the inevitable winner...
Article: The real reason no one impersonates dead voters: high risk, little benefit
Let's assume for a moment the premise that there is virtually no voter fraud... (not that I do, but let's do so for the purpose of a mental exercise). It is conceivable that there *could be* voter fraud. This conceivability of an offense is enough in many cases to enact laws that liberals support. Let's take gun control laws for example. To be more specific, let's take the "cool down" period that many anti-gun people advocate. The sole reason for this law to exist is based on the premise that a gun buyer may be purchasing a weapon to use in a crime of passion. If you look at the entirety of gun purchasers, what percentage of them might fit that description? The percentiles are certainly absolutely, infinitesimally small and yet this is a gun control law that many liberals favor and is in fact espoused very heavily by the Brady gang (it's one factor from their grading system for state's gun control laws). So certainly the conceivability that an offense could occur is a good enough premise upon which to base a law for liberals. That leads one to question why they are against its employment in the case of voter fraud prevention laws. Since there are, as we speak a number of Democrat politicians freshly convicted of voter fraud in New York state, I can only assume that they are concerned about closing this "gun show loophole" in their ability to steal elections.
Article: Army reports suicides down, but violent crimes up
You'll notice how they intentionally fail to mention how these numbers compare to the population at large! They do this to reinforce the liberal caricature that they are perpetuating against our veterans. Just FYI and since they fail to mention it... Criminality rates among active duty service members and veterans is LOWER than the population at large. Suicide rates are also lower. Stop slandering our heroes!
Article: Pentagon report: Sexual assault in the military up dramatically
Here is yet another article employing the same underhanded tactic where the statistics are not compared to the population at large. If you read the article you'll see: "Mr. Panetta emphasized that 'we assume this is a very underreported crime'". Why would we "assume" that? Further what is the point of this unending bombardment of the character of our troops? Last year according to this article, there were 3,191 "reports" of sexual assault (a very broad category). Not convictions mind you, just accusations. There are 1,466,545 Active duty personnel and 1,458,500 reserve personnel yielding a total of 2,925,045. So that means there are 109 reports (not convictions) per 100,000. Per the government crime statistics the nationwide average per 100,000 for convictions of "forcible rape" (the most serious of sexual assault offenses) in 2009 (the latest available statistics) stand at 158. The rate of this happening is therefore LOWER in the military than in the population at large. I wonder how the number of rapes in the military compares to the rate per 100,000 at Occupy encampments. Stop the assault on the honor of our heroes!
Article: World not quite as hot in 2011; ranks 11th warmest
So wait... "Not quite as hot"... That means it's cooler then right? Look, this global warming scam is not science. If our greenhouse gas contributions contributed to atmospheric warming it would have to exhibit a never ending trend of increases in temperature. That is because our output of those gases has not decreased, nor has the atmospheric concentrations of those gases. You see a key factor in determining whether a theory is scientifically valid is that a hypothesis must be "predictive". (for those who don't know what I'm talking about, look up "the scientific method".) That means if you can make a prediction based upon the premise of your hypothesis that is then found to be true based upon the objective measurement of the results of experimentation, then your hypothesis can be assumed to be scientifically valid. The global warming hypothesis however offers no such predictive quality and therefore, despite being quite a popular hypothesis (because we all know science is based on popularity contests right?), must be found to be flawed. Once you can show me an undeniable predictive quality to your hypotheses, then I'll join the band wagon, but not before.
This article then goes on to attempt to blame the unforeseen decline in temperature on the La Niña/El Niño cycle... If greenhouse gas concentrations were truly the cause it should be a simple matter of certain concentrations equating to a certain number of degrees increase averaged across the globe. The La Niña/El Niño cycle has nothing to do with it since the sun presumably delivers a fixed amount of energy to be trapped by those gasses.