It’s been 6 months, 100 Posts, $7.50 in adsense revenue, and $2.50 in revenue from referrals to writings on Associated Content. I thought it would be a good time to look over this site and reflect on what articles I liked the most.
First I tried to see what was most popular on this site. I don’t have any advanced tools for tracking visitors just adsense reports saying I get 14 to 40 visits a day. So I looked over at Alexa to see what they said about my site. Most of the results weren’t surprising I’m ranked 3,191,381th as far as traffic. I have revenue under $10 million a year, I’m right in the middle as far as load time, ect. But the thing that caught my attention was the keywords people use to find my site. Most people who come to this site through search engines do it when searching for “Ganymede Creationism”.
A quick google search of “Ganymede Creationism” on its own doesn’t pull up Project Savior (it probably will after this article) in the first 15 pages so the people who found me through that must be very determined.
Adding Project Savior to the search for “Ganymede Creationism” pulls up 55 entries, I didn’t think I talked about either subject that much but the bots seem to think so. So I will look at my articles that deal with those subjects.
Ganymede or Space in general.
I first talked about Ganymede in my Space Tourism Series saying it would be a great place to go Skiing or Scuba diving.
I started the Space Tourism Series after looking around to see what blogs were popular. Tourism blogs are very popular but the people who write them do seem to leave their house more than I do. (I hate having to remember to get dressed and people outside complain when I forget.) So I could either write about a great getaway to my kitchen or write about places that only a couple of people, if any, have been to.
I didn’t want my kitchen to become a great tourist hot-spot (at least not until I refinish the hardwood floors) so I wrote about how different objects in the solar system would make great tourism spots.
The entire series is here:
Kuiper Belt
Venus
Mars
Titan
Ganymede
The Moon
I’ve been toying with the idea of writing a children’s book about a 10-year-old girl and her cat going to all these places. I think kids would love to imagine themselves on other worlds and at the same time it would teach them about the solar system in a fun way.
As far as other Space Related posts it’s easy to see that I’m a Space Geek. I grew up during the Space Race and was promised that I would have a chance to go to the Moon if I worked hard enough. I my teen years it was obvious that wasn’t true so I stopped trying.
I hope I can do my small part in building enthusiasm to get people to demand we have a real Space Program again.
Here are my Space Articles:
http://projectsaviorreborn.blogspot.com/search/label/Space
As far as the Creationism part that has drawn people to my site, I’ve talked about Creationism a couple of times:
http://projectsaviorreborn.blogspot.com/search/label/Creationism
Now some people might wonder, what’s the harm in a few nutters pushing an easily discredited idea like Creationism. Basically they are pushing a way to lead the nation into tyranny.
Evolution is an applied science. That means people need to use it to get results. If you can brainwash kids into thinking results can’t be predicted by rules that govern what happens after an action is taken, not only science, but laws and truth become meaningless.
In my book “Project Spare-Rib” the bad guy was going to use Bush’s “War on Science” as a way to set up his authoritarian rule of the US, here is an excerpt from his evil speech:
“Throughout the nation Science will start to be viewed as a cult religion, Universities will be viewed as Elitist Clubs, Teachers will be viewed as union pawns who’s only purpose is to spread liberal heresy. Truth will be a matter of perspective as logic and reasoning become viewed as tools of the Evil Elitists.
“Teaching of the scientific method, evolution, and logical fallacies and even math, except for in select technical schools, will all be banned.
“With that tide of public opinion on our backs, knowledge will become the enemy and logic a menace, we will no longer have to worry about ruling a nation under laws as Knowledge, logic and truth become suspect, then so to are the laws. This nation will be ruled as I see fit, as the Constitution and all Laws will be just quaint relics from a different time that only Activist Judges will care about.
“Everything you and your friends believe in, the endless pursuit of knowledge, the joys of unraveling the secrets of the Universe, the very concept of a Universal Truth will all be outlawed under the New World Order. There will be one, and only one, truth and that is Might makes Right.”
So while it is easy to laugh at the Creationists and their kind as just people who are Arrogant in their Ignorance crying about what they see as a liberal bias of reality, you can never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Moving on from creationism into other parts of Politics, I have commented on current political affairs often, I try only to comment on politics when I can either: 1) make a valuable observation that I haven’t seen someone else make. This is tough because two of the blogs I follow are Wisco’s Griper Blade and Down With Tyranny both of these offer excellent political commentary that I can rarely compete with. 2) If something strikes me as extremely funny.
My favorite in the funny politics category was when I had Sean Penn explain the financial meltdown:
In case you missed the reference, Sean Penn gave a speech denouncing Bush’s invasion of Iraq in it he used the term “Soiled and Blood Soaked Underwear” to describe Bush’s policy three times. The phrase became so famous that Stephen Colbert had a Meta-Free-phor-all with him. Watch it,it is fantastic.
I couldn’t resist applying the metaphor to the financial meltdown.
Also in politics I love pointing to the fact that you don’t have to be crazy to be a Republican politician, but if you happen to be nuttier than a fruitcake it isn’t a detriment. That’s why I like writing about Sen. Bunning of the Great State of Kentucky.
Senator Bunning: Kentucky's other crazy Senator
Obama's a homosexual Darwinist From Outer Space
You have to love that someone who believes “Little Green Doctors” are out to get him is allowed to have a seat in the Senate.
On a more personal note I did the “Getting into Hot Water” Series.
This series had a dual purpose, first as I explained in the post my hot water heater exploded and I don’t have the money to replace it so as a DYI project, I built my own Solar Hot Water heater.
Second, most of America spends the Summer Months heating at least 30 gallons of hot water when at least 320 btu’s per square foot of energy is beating down on their roofs and they then have to use air conditioners to remove that heat.
If I can build a cheap solar water heater out of scrap then it isn’t a huge leap to think that during the summer months May-Sept the US could cut the amount of energy used to heat hot water by 90% if we set our minds to it.
This act alone would drop our energy consumption by at least 10% that’s 2.5% of the world’s energy usage or the same as discovering 2 Saudi Arabia’s.
Any energy policy has to take Solar Powered hot water into consideration, it is the easiest way to save energy and I have shown it can be done without harming kittens.
Writing on Writing
I am a semi-professional writer now, magazines actually pay for my stories. So of course, I have to shamelessly promote that fact.
I’ve written about my fiction writing here:
Double Edge Publishing
Long Term Thinking
Cursed Ship
I’ve been advised that as a semi-professional writer, I should start a semi-professional website to promote that. It is in the works and I will link to it when it is online.
A tip of the hat to the now deceased Thisisby.us.
When the writing site Thisisby.us was up and running, I published 50 articles over there. I still miss it, it meant writing to a crowd and getting critiques. I believe it honed my writing skills, which had gotten a little rusty.
When I started this site up I moved some of my best articles from there over to here.
Superhero Chicks I Would Never Date
6 Things Smokers and Non-Smokers can Agree on
How Much Head Should a Girl Give in a Day
That’s what he said. (Translating Guy-Speak for Chicks)
Dear Hollywood Executive
A Letter to K-Mart
I’m sure there are more but those are the ones that generated the most votes over there.
This post has gotten a little long so I’d like to wrap it up by thanking anyone who has taken the time to read my 5 pages of rambling about the last six months.
I’d especially like to thank all the people that have visited my little site over the past 6 months and read some of my 100 posts. I really can’t express how happy it makes me when I pull up adsense in the morning to see 40 people have stopped by to read my writing.
Hopefully, over the next 6 months I’ll post another 100 or so articles and I can do another best of/ New Year/ Anniversary Post.
And for those of you who came here searching for Ganymede Creationism, leave me a line and let me know why you waded through at least 15 pages of google search to get here and why you were looking for “Ganymede Creationism” in the first place. If I knew what it was, I’d probably write a post about it.
Pulling A Palin: My Response to Progressive Alaska Part One
Over the week or so, I will post on this blog a multi part series. Today's installment is the first.
In January, Alaskan Blogger Celtic Diva published a "guest post" by a Labor and Delivery nurse named Lee Tompkins entitled The Birth of a Conspiracy; Delivering the Real Issue. Several days ago, a second Alaskan blog, Progressive Alaska, reprinted this post in toto. The theme of this post was simple: both the original writer and Phil at Progressive Alaska believe that the focus on Palin's birth story should be squarely on what they consider the "real issue," which is the very poor judgment she showed in traveling while allegedly in labor with Trig. They believe that Palin's terrible choices so endangered her child that on that basis alone she should be disqualified from any serious consideration for public office.
Both believe Sarah Palin's birth story, specifically that Trig was born to Sarah on April 18, 2008, after a trip back from Texas that I have chosen to call "The Wild Ride." (For those who don't know, I based that moniker on a quaint Disney theme park ride, Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, still operational at Disneyland (and, according to Wikipedia, one of the few remaining attractions that was present at the 1955 opening) but removed from Disney World in 1998. The concept of the ride was based on Kenneth Grahame's children's book The Wind in the Willows, from which Disney had made a cartoon in 1949.)
While Phil at Progressive Alaska obviously continues to take this position (he reprinted this post barely a week ago) i.e., that Trig is Sarah's and was born April 18, 2009, from private conversation with Celtic Diva (again, original source of the post last January though she did not write it), while she may be unsure of the whole truth regarding Trig's birth, she now personally entertains at least some doubts that it occurred as Palin reported. Would she, today, late June 2009, post Ms. Tompkins' guest blog? I don't know but I intend to ask her.
Most of Palin's supporters will not intelligently debate the evidence at all. Their tactics are few - but very consistent - whenever the pregnancy story is discussed. It takes only a moment for a reasonable-sounding authoritative voice, without citing any specifics, to label a theory like ours "irresponsible, incorrect, poorly researched, sensationalistic," or - simply - "bad." It takes much longer to refute these charges. Points, often boring ones, must be made individually. Specific examples, requiring serious research into dates, times, places, and statements, must be discussed. Obstetric minutiae is of little interest to most people, and actually unpleasant to discuss for many.
These are some of the favorite tactics used:
1. Their favorite red herring is Obama's birth certificate. "There's the real story," we are assured solemnly. There may be a story there. I don't know - I haven't looked into it at all. But what I do know is that regardless of where, when, or to whom Barack Obama was born, it's got nothing to do with Sarah Palin.
2. A tactic of "redirection" is employed whenever specific obstetrical facets are considered. Everyone seems to know someone that "never looked pregnant with a fifth child," or whose water broke and she didn't go into labor. All that tells us is that it is "possible" that some aspects of Sarah Palin's story might be true based on others' similar experiences. It does not prove that they are.
3. They simply refuse to believe the evidence in front of their eyes. Shown documented photographs from unimpeachable sources, these folks simply allege (with no proof whatsoever) that the documentation is wrong or suspect and then, because they cannot "verify" the source of the evidence, they will not discuss anything further.
4. The last bastion: Sarah's story is true because Sarah wouldn't lie.
When one (or all) of the four tactics above are employed, it's impossible to have an honest debate with a legitimate exchange of ideas. With Ms. Tompkins post, I can. I can debate her reasoning with my own. What I intend to do here is to go through Ms. Tompkins' post point by point and do my best to, if not refute each one, then at least put forth why I think the real evidence indicates something different: specifically, that Sarah Palin did NOT give birth to Trig Palin on April 18th, 2008. I intend to quote large sections (indicated by blocks) of the original post, though not all of it, just because of length considerations.
In an ironic sense, I set out to defend her, feeling that she specifically and women in general are not well-served when such an unlikely and implausible childbirth story is disseminated. My initial interest stemmed from my desire to set the record straight. Some dim-witted young male reporter who probably barely understood how babies get in much less how they get out, I assumed, had gotten his facts wrong. No experienced mother, having had four prior births, would fly ten hours at 35 weeks while leaking amniotic fluid. Ludicrous. Crazy. Didn't happen.
This was my original premise and it had nothing to do with Sarah Palin at all. It was only after I understood that this WAS her story and she WAS sticking to it, that my B.S. meter went off the chart.
I do not believe that Sarah Palin, under any circumstances, would have risked giving birth on an airplane. Whether she would have been motivated to avoid this by concern for her child (hopefully) or fear of criticism and embarrassment doesn't really matter in the end. What matters is that the consequences of giving birth under such circumstances probably would have been career-ending.
I do not think she would have taken this risk. More to the point, I do not believe she DID take this risk. She was absolutely positive she would not have a baby on the airplane. And how could she be positive? The same way I am positive every time I fly that I will not have a baby on an airplane. I am not pregnant.
We are "working" this story knowing how it ends. We know that Sarah Palin did NOT have a child on an airplane on April 17th 2008. But at 2 PM that afternoon, when Sarah Palin would have been walking down that jetway, she could NOT have known what the next ten hours would hold. If Sarah Palin was 35 weeks pregnant on April 17th, given her obstetric history, not only was it possible she would give birth within ten hours of her membranes rupturing, it was probable. She would had to have guessed, getting on the airplane, that there was a very fair chance she'd have the baby in the air.
She should have known that the odds were against her, and if she did not, any credible doctor would have made it immediately, explicitly, abundantly clear. Several different versions of how much contact she had with her doctor and when that contact occurred on that day have circulated. But if Sarah Palin had been pregnant and had been leaking amniotic fluid, no doctor in the world would have ever told her it was alright even to consider getting on an airplane. Any physician would have made it clear that, if you're leaking amniotic fluid, you have a very high chance of having the baby before you get back to Alaska, certainly BETTER THAN 50/50. That information would have stopped Palin cold. Let's be reasonable. It would stop anyone.
The primary risk she would never take is to her own public image. She cares about what people think - very much. No professional woman - and certainly not the narcissistic governor of Alaska - would have risked for a second the absolutely appalling level of scrutiny and social embarrassment that would have resulted if she had given birth on the airplane... and that is if things came out well. If her preterm baby had been harmed by the choice, she could have been charged with child endangerment and prosecuted!
I have personally seen a baby born after two hours of membrane rupture and one - yes you're reading right - ONE contraction. Palin had boasted, prior to April 18th, about how easy her birth had been with Piper six years earlier, reminding people that after Piper had been born, she'd gone back to work the next day. Sarah Palin may not know the ins and outs of African politics, but she's a practical-minded woman who had given birth four times. She knows where babies come from and just exactly what is involved in getting them out. Do THAT on an airplane? Never. Not in a million years did she chance it.
I have never looked at a map and checked proximity of the hotel where Palin was staying in Texas to a hospital, but in a large urban area, surely she could not have been more than, say, ten minutes away from a good hospital where she could have gone in a hurry. I can accept - and always have - that someone in Palin's position might try to give the speech. MIGHT, though the image of an amniotic fluid "leak" turning into a full-fledged rupture while on stage certainly would have dissuaded me personally. (If you wonder what I'm talking about, dump approximately one and a half quarts of yellowish pinkish kinda funky smelling liquid between YOUR legs all at once. Now picture this happening WHILE giving a speech to other governors. Hmmm. Sort of wrecks the professional aura, doesn't it?)
But no one will ever convince me - ever! - that the image-conscious governor of Alaska risked having to lie down in public, spread her legs, and grunting and panting in a messy puddle of amniotic fluid, mucous, blood, urine and possibly either the baby's excrement, her own, or both, push her baby out on the carpet in the aisle. Risked her own health and her baby's. Risked the public criticism she would have come under for inconveniencing hundreds of other passengers. And taken this chance not once, but twice, on two separate four hour flights.
Would she ever have been able to overcome the eye rolling and snickers? I don't think so. "Oh yeah, Sarah Palin. She's that Governor that had a baby in first class. YUCK YUCK YUCK. Good thing it wasn't coach. HAR HAR HAR." "Didjya hear the one about the Governor that had the baby..." And on and on and on. Millions of people who had never heard of Sarah Palin would have, all at once, and not in a good way. "Pulling a Palin" (or something comparable) probably would have become - for generations - a synonym for: stupidest choice imaginable.
My "comeback" to Ms. Tompkins is that I believe that the faked pregnancy theory (which of course means she was never actually at risk for having a baby on the plane) is in fact far more plausible than suggesting that she risked the incredible level of scrutiny and criticism, possibly career ending, that she would have come under if she'd given birth somewhere over Canada.
And consider this: If you are going to put this forward - that Sarah Palin recklessly endangered the life of her child - you're going to have to be able to offer some plausible explanation for why she did it. That has never happened. Sarah Palin has NEVER offered any credible or even remotely believable explanation as to WHY. WHAT was her utterly compelling reason for getting on the airplane? WHY did she chance this medically risky and humiliating scenario?
So that her child could be born in Alaska.
This is the only reason she has ever offered. So that her child could be born in Alaska. (Or to quote the succinct Todd, "You can't have a fish picker [commercial fisherman] from Texas.") This makes no sense. It is in fact one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
Having a baby on an airplane would almost certainly have ended Sarah Palin's political career, just due to the embarrassment and the criticism she would have come under for inconveniencing the other passengers. If the baby had come to harm, it would definitely had ended her career and might have opened her up to prosecution. If the events of April 17, 2008 occurred as described, at 2 PM on that day when she got an airplane to return to Alaska, she could not know what would happen during the next eight hours. This is the risk the Sarah Palin would not take. This is the risk she did not take.
PART 2 COMING SOON.
In January, Alaskan Blogger Celtic Diva published a "guest post" by a Labor and Delivery nurse named Lee Tompkins entitled The Birth of a Conspiracy; Delivering the Real Issue. Several days ago, a second Alaskan blog, Progressive Alaska, reprinted this post in toto. The theme of this post was simple: both the original writer and Phil at Progressive Alaska believe that the focus on Palin's birth story should be squarely on what they consider the "real issue," which is the very poor judgment she showed in traveling while allegedly in labor with Trig. They believe that Palin's terrible choices so endangered her child that on that basis alone she should be disqualified from any serious consideration for public office.
Both believe Sarah Palin's birth story, specifically that Trig was born to Sarah on April 18, 2008, after a trip back from Texas that I have chosen to call "The Wild Ride." (For those who don't know, I based that moniker on a quaint Disney theme park ride, Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, still operational at Disneyland (and, according to Wikipedia, one of the few remaining attractions that was present at the 1955 opening) but removed from Disney World in 1998. The concept of the ride was based on Kenneth Grahame's children's book The Wind in the Willows, from which Disney had made a cartoon in 1949.)
While Phil at Progressive Alaska obviously continues to take this position (he reprinted this post barely a week ago) i.e., that Trig is Sarah's and was born April 18, 2009, from private conversation with Celtic Diva (again, original source of the post last January though she did not write it), while she may be unsure of the whole truth regarding Trig's birth, she now personally entertains at least some doubts that it occurred as Palin reported. Would she, today, late June 2009, post Ms. Tompkins' guest blog? I don't know but I intend to ask her.
Most of Palin's supporters will not intelligently debate the evidence at all. Their tactics are few - but very consistent - whenever the pregnancy story is discussed. It takes only a moment for a reasonable-sounding authoritative voice, without citing any specifics, to label a theory like ours "irresponsible, incorrect, poorly researched, sensationalistic," or - simply - "bad." It takes much longer to refute these charges. Points, often boring ones, must be made individually. Specific examples, requiring serious research into dates, times, places, and statements, must be discussed. Obstetric minutiae is of little interest to most people, and actually unpleasant to discuss for many.
These are some of the favorite tactics used:
1. Their favorite red herring is Obama's birth certificate. "There's the real story," we are assured solemnly. There may be a story there. I don't know - I haven't looked into it at all. But what I do know is that regardless of where, when, or to whom Barack Obama was born, it's got nothing to do with Sarah Palin.
2. A tactic of "redirection" is employed whenever specific obstetrical facets are considered. Everyone seems to know someone that "never looked pregnant with a fifth child," or whose water broke and she didn't go into labor. All that tells us is that it is "possible" that some aspects of Sarah Palin's story might be true based on others' similar experiences. It does not prove that they are.
3. They simply refuse to believe the evidence in front of their eyes. Shown documented photographs from unimpeachable sources, these folks simply allege (with no proof whatsoever) that the documentation is wrong or suspect and then, because they cannot "verify" the source of the evidence, they will not discuss anything further.
4. The last bastion: Sarah's story is true because Sarah wouldn't lie.
When one (or all) of the four tactics above are employed, it's impossible to have an honest debate with a legitimate exchange of ideas. With Ms. Tompkins post, I can. I can debate her reasoning with my own. What I intend to do here is to go through Ms. Tompkins' post point by point and do my best to, if not refute each one, then at least put forth why I think the real evidence indicates something different: specifically, that Sarah Palin did NOT give birth to Trig Palin on April 18th, 2008. I intend to quote large sections (indicated by blocks) of the original post, though not all of it, just because of length considerations.
Let me say categorically that I think the widely disseminated rumor that Sarah Palin is not the mother of her child Trig is totally false, although I know many well-informed and well-educated people who believe otherwise, and I certainly understand their theory.I've stated this before, but I will repeat it for the purposes of this post. I have done more than anyone regarding "Babygate," and while I can't speak for others, I can certainly speak for myself. My initial interest in the story had nothing to do with wanting to "believe the worst" about or discrediting Gov. Palin. I'd never heard of her. I was an Obama supporter and doubt that anything could have made me vote for the Republican ticket but I certainly did not dislike Sarah Palin on any sort of visceral level. In fact when I first heard that a mother of five had been chosen, I was rather thrilled and very very happy for her. I was eager to learn more about her.
I'm going to spend some time discussing the reasons why I think the Palin faked pregnancy story is not true, but first I think it is of interest to comment on why this story has really caught hold of the imagination of many.
... the general public disliked Sarah Palin and when the bizarre circumstances of the birth of her child Trig became generally known, the public wanted to believe that she was capable of faking a pregnancy in order to bolster her standing as a "family values" candidate by avoiding the baggage of a daughter who was about to become an unwed teenage mother. Avoiding that didn't quite work out for Palin as it turned out, but that didn't stop a vocal minority of conspiracy theorists to believe Palin capable of such chicanery earlier. The public wanted to believe the worst of Sarah Palin.
In an ironic sense, I set out to defend her, feeling that she specifically and women in general are not well-served when such an unlikely and implausible childbirth story is disseminated. My initial interest stemmed from my desire to set the record straight. Some dim-witted young male reporter who probably barely understood how babies get in much less how they get out, I assumed, had gotten his facts wrong. No experienced mother, having had four prior births, would fly ten hours at 35 weeks while leaking amniotic fluid. Ludicrous. Crazy. Didn't happen.
This was my original premise and it had nothing to do with Sarah Palin at all. It was only after I understood that this WAS her story and she WAS sticking to it, that my B.S. meter went off the chart.
....the evidence very strongly suggests is that Palin was guilty of recklessly endangering the life of her unborn child, which to me is far worse than faking a pregnancy, to protect her political ambition and perhaps the reputation of her daughter. It's just not as sexy of a story, not one the public could latch onto with such fervor. Discussing ruptured membranes ain't exactly something to talk about at the dinner table. And since "life imitates art more than art imitates life" it's highly doubtful the Desperate Housewives' writers will be opening next season with one of the wives flying transcontinentally with preterm premature rupture of membranes.I agree, I think recklessly endangering a child would be worse than faking a pregnancy. Much worse in fact. Where we differ is that I don't think Palin actually did that.
The public couldn't understand why anyone would do anything other than take the greatest of care and every absolute precaution with the health of a special needs child, whose parent should have been their greatest advocate and protector.
The faked pregnancy theory was easier to believe. And so it was born...
I do not believe that Sarah Palin, under any circumstances, would have risked giving birth on an airplane. Whether she would have been motivated to avoid this by concern for her child (hopefully) or fear of criticism and embarrassment doesn't really matter in the end. What matters is that the consequences of giving birth under such circumstances probably would have been career-ending.
I do not think she would have taken this risk. More to the point, I do not believe she DID take this risk. She was absolutely positive she would not have a baby on the airplane. And how could she be positive? The same way I am positive every time I fly that I will not have a baby on an airplane. I am not pregnant.
We are "working" this story knowing how it ends. We know that Sarah Palin did NOT have a child on an airplane on April 17th 2008. But at 2 PM that afternoon, when Sarah Palin would have been walking down that jetway, she could NOT have known what the next ten hours would hold. If Sarah Palin was 35 weeks pregnant on April 17th, given her obstetric history, not only was it possible she would give birth within ten hours of her membranes rupturing, it was probable. She would had to have guessed, getting on the airplane, that there was a very fair chance she'd have the baby in the air.
She should have known that the odds were against her, and if she did not, any credible doctor would have made it immediately, explicitly, abundantly clear. Several different versions of how much contact she had with her doctor and when that contact occurred on that day have circulated. But if Sarah Palin had been pregnant and had been leaking amniotic fluid, no doctor in the world would have ever told her it was alright even to consider getting on an airplane. Any physician would have made it clear that, if you're leaking amniotic fluid, you have a very high chance of having the baby before you get back to Alaska, certainly BETTER THAN 50/50. That information would have stopped Palin cold. Let's be reasonable. It would stop anyone.
The primary risk she would never take is to her own public image. She cares about what people think - very much. No professional woman - and certainly not the narcissistic governor of Alaska - would have risked for a second the absolutely appalling level of scrutiny and social embarrassment that would have resulted if she had given birth on the airplane... and that is if things came out well. If her preterm baby had been harmed by the choice, she could have been charged with child endangerment and prosecuted!
I have personally seen a baby born after two hours of membrane rupture and one - yes you're reading right - ONE contraction. Palin had boasted, prior to April 18th, about how easy her birth had been with Piper six years earlier, reminding people that after Piper had been born, she'd gone back to work the next day. Sarah Palin may not know the ins and outs of African politics, but she's a practical-minded woman who had given birth four times. She knows where babies come from and just exactly what is involved in getting them out. Do THAT on an airplane? Never. Not in a million years did she chance it.
I have never looked at a map and checked proximity of the hotel where Palin was staying in Texas to a hospital, but in a large urban area, surely she could not have been more than, say, ten minutes away from a good hospital where she could have gone in a hurry. I can accept - and always have - that someone in Palin's position might try to give the speech. MIGHT, though the image of an amniotic fluid "leak" turning into a full-fledged rupture while on stage certainly would have dissuaded me personally. (If you wonder what I'm talking about, dump approximately one and a half quarts of yellowish pinkish kinda funky smelling liquid between YOUR legs all at once. Now picture this happening WHILE giving a speech to other governors. Hmmm. Sort of wrecks the professional aura, doesn't it?)
But no one will ever convince me - ever! - that the image-conscious governor of Alaska risked having to lie down in public, spread her legs, and grunting and panting in a messy puddle of amniotic fluid, mucous, blood, urine and possibly either the baby's excrement, her own, or both, push her baby out on the carpet in the aisle. Risked her own health and her baby's. Risked the public criticism she would have come under for inconveniencing hundreds of other passengers. And taken this chance not once, but twice, on two separate four hour flights.
Would she ever have been able to overcome the eye rolling and snickers? I don't think so. "Oh yeah, Sarah Palin. She's that Governor that had a baby in first class. YUCK YUCK YUCK. Good thing it wasn't coach. HAR HAR HAR." "Didjya hear the one about the Governor that had the baby..." And on and on and on. Millions of people who had never heard of Sarah Palin would have, all at once, and not in a good way. "Pulling a Palin" (or something comparable) probably would have become - for generations - a synonym for: stupidest choice imaginable.
My "comeback" to Ms. Tompkins is that I believe that the faked pregnancy theory (which of course means she was never actually at risk for having a baby on the plane) is in fact far more plausible than suggesting that she risked the incredible level of scrutiny and criticism, possibly career ending, that she would have come under if she'd given birth somewhere over Canada.
And consider this: If you are going to put this forward - that Sarah Palin recklessly endangered the life of her child - you're going to have to be able to offer some plausible explanation for why she did it. That has never happened. Sarah Palin has NEVER offered any credible or even remotely believable explanation as to WHY. WHAT was her utterly compelling reason for getting on the airplane? WHY did she chance this medically risky and humiliating scenario?
So that her child could be born in Alaska.
This is the only reason she has ever offered. So that her child could be born in Alaska. (Or to quote the succinct Todd, "You can't have a fish picker [commercial fisherman] from Texas.") This makes no sense. It is in fact one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
Having a baby on an airplane would almost certainly have ended Sarah Palin's political career, just due to the embarrassment and the criticism she would have come under for inconveniencing the other passengers. If the baby had come to harm, it would definitely had ended her career and might have opened her up to prosecution. If the events of April 17, 2008 occurred as described, at 2 PM on that day when she got an airplane to return to Alaska, she could not know what would happen during the next eight hours. This is the risk the Sarah Palin would not take. This is the risk she did not take.
PART 2 COMING SOON.
Wonkette
Although many others who blog about issues concerning Sarah Palin have mentioned this already, I sure cannot let it pass.
The political blog, Wonkette, yesterday, while jumping with both feet onto the Desecration of Holy Child Special Needs Trig bandwagon, casually called him Bristol Palin's son.
Yes, that's right. "See that photoshop up there of Governor Palin with Bristol Palin’s child, Trig? "
Not one of the comments (and there are many) have yet called them on it. They've not bothered to "correct" it. Not even, an "Oops, our bad. It was just a typo. LOL."
Nothing.
The political blog, Wonkette, yesterday, while jumping with both feet onto the Desecration of Holy Child Special Needs Trig bandwagon, casually called him Bristol Palin's son.
Yes, that's right. "See that photoshop up there of Governor Palin with Bristol Palin’s child, Trig? "
Not one of the comments (and there are many) have yet called them on it. They've not bothered to "correct" it. Not even, an "Oops, our bad. It was just a typo. LOL."
Nothing.
Some thoughts from People that don’t think, but are against Healthcare Choice.
Karl Rove:
“The first is it's unnecessary. Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans.”
There may be 1,300 companies, but the simple truth is if your employer doesn’t offer health insurance, you can’t get a real plan. I’ve tried as a self-employed person to get Health Insurance and went to several legitimate companies filled out the forms and never heard back from them.
Looking at the other Insurance Companies, I did a simple test I called around to see if doctors, dentists and optometrists took their Insurance. Turned out my only options were Insurance companies that offered policies that no one in the healthcare industry would take.
That is not competition when your choice is only companies that are offering coverage that is worthless.
“Second, a public option will undercut private insurers and pass the tab to taxpayers and health providers just as it does in existing government-run programs.”
We currently pay 6 times per capita what other industrialized countries pay for healthcare and are near the bottom of list as far as effectiveness. So what Karl is saying here is there is no way private industry can compete with the Federal Government especially if the Government has to take all the sick people that the Private Insurance Companies refuse to take. Because obviously there is no room to save money by being more efficient, like only spending 5 times per capita what other nations spend.
Oh, and my heart just goes out to all those private insurance companies that refuse to cover me.
“Third, government-run health insurance would crater the private insurance market, forcing most Americans onto the government plan.”
Yes, The Americans who are self-employed that the private insurance companies won’t cover, the Americans who work at small companies where one employee with an expensive illness makes insurance too expensive for the rest of the workers, The 1.5 million Americans a year who lose their homes because their insurance companies won’t cover their medical bills, the 20,000 people a year that die because their insurance companies deny them life saving treatments.
Yes, those people will be forced onto the government plan because Private Insurance Companies won’t cover them.
“Fourth, the public option is far too expensive”
Compared to what? Compared to the fact that Factories will not open up in America because healthcare costs make it too expensive to operate here in America.
Compared to the loss to the economy that 1.5 million foreclosed homes causes when they drag down the housing market?
Compared to the number of small businesses that are being crushed as healthcare costs overtake profits.
Compared to the loss of spending capital that someone making $30,000 a year loses when they are spending $12,000 on health insurance?
What exactly is it too expensive in comparison to, Karl never does explain.
“Fifth, the public option puts government firmly in the middle of the relationship between patients and their doctors”
Just like how the Government is firmly in the middle of my relationship with my mom, because we send letters through the mail.
Look everyone has had to deal with government red tape, and everyone has had to deal with private industry red tape. The difference is when dealing with the government the person at the bottom will try and help you the best they can then switch you up to the next rung on the ladder. It’s irritating but when dealing with the government you can at least make some headway if you have the patience.
When dealing with a large private institution (like the bank that holds my mortgage), the person on the bottom will tell you what is on their computers screen and if it doesn’t help refuse to let you speak to anyone higher up.
The Government is required to be transparent with their decisions, they aren’t always, but at least they need to go through the motions and if enough people demand that they show the reason for their decision they will eventually.
Private Companies have no such requirement when they get in the middle of your relationship with your doctor.
Karl Rove’s arguments are just stupid, but to really delve into the mouth of idioticy I must turn to someone I can always count on to be a total idiot but at least knows the basic rules of grammar (unlike Ann Coulter), Larry Elder
“What about personal behavior? Obesity leads to serious health problems, including heart disease. One-third of Americans are obese — almost 50 percent more than the British and Australians, over 100 percent more than the Canadians and Germans, about 250 percent more than the French and 1,000 percent more than the Japanese.
“So don't blame the "broken health care system" for lower life expectancies. American health care actually helps us cope with the consequences of unhealthy lifestyles, keeping our ranking from being even lower.”
So are healthcare costs are high because Americans are denied access to preventative care (like nutritionists and real weight-loss doctors) so therefore we shouldn’t blame the system that denies preventative care to Americans for high costs.
You can’t argue with that logic, you can only shake your head and back away slowly, taking care not to make any sudden moves.
The reason that opponents of giving Americans a choice in healthcare sound like idiots is that they are totally in the wrong.
The simple fact is, if an invading Army came in and killed 20,000 Americans, forced 1.5 Million people out of their homes and stole 2.5 Trillion Dollars of America’s wealth, we would demand action. Any Politician who helped them would be found guilty of treason and hanged in a public square. Yet we allow the healthcare industry to do that every year.
“The first is it's unnecessary. Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans.”
There may be 1,300 companies, but the simple truth is if your employer doesn’t offer health insurance, you can’t get a real plan. I’ve tried as a self-employed person to get Health Insurance and went to several legitimate companies filled out the forms and never heard back from them.
Looking at the other Insurance Companies, I did a simple test I called around to see if doctors, dentists and optometrists took their Insurance. Turned out my only options were Insurance companies that offered policies that no one in the healthcare industry would take.
That is not competition when your choice is only companies that are offering coverage that is worthless.
“Second, a public option will undercut private insurers and pass the tab to taxpayers and health providers just as it does in existing government-run programs.”
We currently pay 6 times per capita what other industrialized countries pay for healthcare and are near the bottom of list as far as effectiveness. So what Karl is saying here is there is no way private industry can compete with the Federal Government especially if the Government has to take all the sick people that the Private Insurance Companies refuse to take. Because obviously there is no room to save money by being more efficient, like only spending 5 times per capita what other nations spend.
Oh, and my heart just goes out to all those private insurance companies that refuse to cover me.
“Third, government-run health insurance would crater the private insurance market, forcing most Americans onto the government plan.”
Yes, The Americans who are self-employed that the private insurance companies won’t cover, the Americans who work at small companies where one employee with an expensive illness makes insurance too expensive for the rest of the workers, The 1.5 million Americans a year who lose their homes because their insurance companies won’t cover their medical bills, the 20,000 people a year that die because their insurance companies deny them life saving treatments.
Yes, those people will be forced onto the government plan because Private Insurance Companies won’t cover them.
“Fourth, the public option is far too expensive”
Compared to what? Compared to the fact that Factories will not open up in America because healthcare costs make it too expensive to operate here in America.
Compared to the loss to the economy that 1.5 million foreclosed homes causes when they drag down the housing market?
Compared to the number of small businesses that are being crushed as healthcare costs overtake profits.
Compared to the loss of spending capital that someone making $30,000 a year loses when they are spending $12,000 on health insurance?
What exactly is it too expensive in comparison to, Karl never does explain.
“Fifth, the public option puts government firmly in the middle of the relationship between patients and their doctors”
Just like how the Government is firmly in the middle of my relationship with my mom, because we send letters through the mail.
Look everyone has had to deal with government red tape, and everyone has had to deal with private industry red tape. The difference is when dealing with the government the person at the bottom will try and help you the best they can then switch you up to the next rung on the ladder. It’s irritating but when dealing with the government you can at least make some headway if you have the patience.
When dealing with a large private institution (like the bank that holds my mortgage), the person on the bottom will tell you what is on their computers screen and if it doesn’t help refuse to let you speak to anyone higher up.
The Government is required to be transparent with their decisions, they aren’t always, but at least they need to go through the motions and if enough people demand that they show the reason for their decision they will eventually.
Private Companies have no such requirement when they get in the middle of your relationship with your doctor.
Karl Rove’s arguments are just stupid, but to really delve into the mouth of idioticy I must turn to someone I can always count on to be a total idiot but at least knows the basic rules of grammar (unlike Ann Coulter), Larry Elder
“What about personal behavior? Obesity leads to serious health problems, including heart disease. One-third of Americans are obese — almost 50 percent more than the British and Australians, over 100 percent more than the Canadians and Germans, about 250 percent more than the French and 1,000 percent more than the Japanese.
“So don't blame the "broken health care system" for lower life expectancies. American health care actually helps us cope with the consequences of unhealthy lifestyles, keeping our ranking from being even lower.”
So are healthcare costs are high because Americans are denied access to preventative care (like nutritionists and real weight-loss doctors) so therefore we shouldn’t blame the system that denies preventative care to Americans for high costs.
You can’t argue with that logic, you can only shake your head and back away slowly, taking care not to make any sudden moves.
The reason that opponents of giving Americans a choice in healthcare sound like idiots is that they are totally in the wrong.
The simple fact is, if an invading Army came in and killed 20,000 Americans, forced 1.5 Million people out of their homes and stole 2.5 Trillion Dollars of America’s wealth, we would demand action. Any Politician who helped them would be found guilty of treason and hanged in a public square. Yet we allow the healthcare industry to do that every year.
Rodney Dangerfield and Healthcare.
Listening to the healthcare “debate” reminds me of the one scene in “Back to School” where the professor accused Rodney of cheating and the Dean responded “I don’t think you appreciate exactly how big the check he gave us was.”
You can easily imagine that same argument floating around the halls of the Senate.
“80% of Americans want a public choice in their healthcare.” The Progressive Senator says.
“True, but I don’t think you realize exactly how much money the Medical Industry contributes to my campaign.” The Conservative Responds.
“20,000 People are die each year because the Insurance Companies deny them treatment.” The Progressive Senator continues.
“True, but you need to understand that the health Insurance Companies donate quite a bit to my campaign.” The Conservative tries to strengthen his argument.
“In the United States we spend roughly 6 times the amount per person as other industrialized countries, yet we rank near the bottom as far as overall health.” The Progressive Senator tells him.
“Isn’t that great, It gives them plenty of money to support my campaign.” The Conservative Senator states.
“For employers Health Insurance is the fastest growing cost, it rapidly taking overtaking profits.” The Progressive Senator hammers on.
“Well, the Insurance companies have to get money to give to my campaign from somewhere.” The Conservative Senator says condescendingly.
“One and a Half Million people were forced out of their homes last year due to foreclosure because of unaffordable medical costs, greatly contributing to the housing crisis.” The Progressive Senator tells him.
“That’s OK, we can bail out the banks that lost money because of that, after all they still have plenty of money to fund my campaign.” The Conservative Senator responds.
I could go on but it is obvious that those members of the Senate that are against giving people the choice of a public option in their healthcare have just formed a wall built out of the money given to them by the Insurance Companies and will refuse to listen to the will of the people.
There is one thing that these Conservative Senators should take in mind, during the reign of George W. Bush many Progressives became Pro-Gun for some reason. So while they help their buddies divide up the spoils of their robbery of the American Citizens and call it Democracy, they might want to remember the words of Benjamin Franklin:
Democracy is two Wolves and a Lamb voting on what to have for Dinner; Freedom is an Armed Lamb contesting the Vote.
You can easily imagine that same argument floating around the halls of the Senate.
“80% of Americans want a public choice in their healthcare.” The Progressive Senator says.
“True, but I don’t think you realize exactly how much money the Medical Industry contributes to my campaign.” The Conservative Responds.
“20,000 People are die each year because the Insurance Companies deny them treatment.” The Progressive Senator continues.
“True, but you need to understand that the health Insurance Companies donate quite a bit to my campaign.” The Conservative tries to strengthen his argument.
“In the United States we spend roughly 6 times the amount per person as other industrialized countries, yet we rank near the bottom as far as overall health.” The Progressive Senator tells him.
“Isn’t that great, It gives them plenty of money to support my campaign.” The Conservative Senator states.
“For employers Health Insurance is the fastest growing cost, it rapidly taking overtaking profits.” The Progressive Senator hammers on.
“Well, the Insurance companies have to get money to give to my campaign from somewhere.” The Conservative Senator says condescendingly.
“One and a Half Million people were forced out of their homes last year due to foreclosure because of unaffordable medical costs, greatly contributing to the housing crisis.” The Progressive Senator tells him.
“That’s OK, we can bail out the banks that lost money because of that, after all they still have plenty of money to fund my campaign.” The Conservative Senator responds.
I could go on but it is obvious that those members of the Senate that are against giving people the choice of a public option in their healthcare have just formed a wall built out of the money given to them by the Insurance Companies and will refuse to listen to the will of the people.
There is one thing that these Conservative Senators should take in mind, during the reign of George W. Bush many Progressives became Pro-Gun for some reason. So while they help their buddies divide up the spoils of their robbery of the American Citizens and call it Democracy, they might want to remember the words of Benjamin Franklin:
Democracy is two Wolves and a Lamb voting on what to have for Dinner; Freedom is an Armed Lamb contesting the Vote.
Good Grief
That's all I can say.
Sarah Palin's (big) mouth (a.k.a. Meghan Stapleton) is at it again, releasing a statement today that can only be considered more stupid than her last statement - and that one was pretty dumb. I did not do a blog post here on the statement released several days ago, but several other bloggers did, for example, here, so I recommend you take a gander.
However, today's statement was so ridiculous that I cannot let it pass. I just can't. I'm helpless in the face of the sheer stupidity. (And remember - this person gets paid for saying things like this. She probably sits around and thinks and after, oh, two or three hours of thinking she comes up with something profound. Like this one.)
Several days ago this caricature appeared on the Internet.
The original source for this apparently was a blog called "Crooks and Liars." Now this looks like David Letterman to me, and the tags on the what I *think* is the original posting of the cartoon SAY "David Letterman." However, according to numerous people this is NOT David Letterman cradled tenderly in Gov. Palin's arms, but Eddie Burke, a conservative Alaska radio talk "personality."
It doesn't matter who it is supposed to be. The fact is that it's a political cartoon and it's damn funny.
(Update: I have just figured out the sequence here. The original posting was this cartoon shown above. No objections or comments came from the Palin camp at that time. Then, an Alaskan Blogger, Celtic Diva, as part of a fundraiser, created a spoof of the cartoon, in which she did used a photoshopped photo in which the face of Eddie Burke was used. The original image was David Letterman and it was a cartoon; the image that Miss Meg issued a statement regarding was the photo.)
But not to Meghan the Mouth. She posted the following statement to Sarah Palin's Facebook page:
Recently we learned of a malicious desecration of a photo of the Governor and baby Trig that has become an iconic representation of a mother's love for a special needs child.
The mere idea of someone doctoring the photo of a special needs baby is appalling. To learn that two Alaskans did it is absolutely sickening. Linda Kellen Biegel, the official Democrat Party blogger for Alaska, should be ashamed of herself and the Democratic National Committee should be ashamed for promoting this website and encouraging this atrocious behavior.
Babies and children are off limits. It is past time to restore decency in politics and real tolerance for all Americans. The Obama Administration sets the moral compass for its party. We ask that special needs children be loved, respected and accepted and that this type of degeneracy be condemned.
Now, we digress to a bit of etymology. "Desecration" comes to us from Latin, as so many of our best words do. It comes from "de," which means to do the opposite of, and "secrare," which means to make holy. (Sacred comes from this same Latin word, of course, though that word comes to English via a slightly different path.)
ONLY a religiously recognized holy image or place can be desecrated. Surely she misspoke. Surely in the heat of the moment she said "desecrate" when she really meant "change" or "photoshopped," right? But no, because Ms. Stapleton actually continues this analogy of holiness when, in the same paragraph, she uses the word "iconic." An icon is also a religious picture of a holy person.
So there we have it: an iconic representation of "mother and child" has been desecrated. Don't they burn people at the stake for that? Maybe in Alaska.
If this weren't all so sad, it would be hilarious. Obviously, having failed to keep herself in the public's eye any longer via the Willow/Bristol/David Letterman brouhaha, Sarah Palin is turning to another "offense," this one involving another child, Trig.
Oh, excuse me. The special needs child Trig. And we know that he is special needs child Trig because they tell us he is special needs child Trig three times in three paragraphs.
"The idea of someone doctoring the photo of a special needs baby is appalling." No it's not. This is a political spoof and a funny one. Trig is not in the cartoon or the photo. Trig's clothes might be, but Trig is not. Whether you are talking about the original cartoon or the subsequent photo, someone else's head is on a baby's body being held by a Sarah Palin.
But again we have the pious stand: Babies and children are off limits.
Well, they might be now, but they weren't when Sarah Palin needed to use her seventeen year old daughter to prove that she, Sarah, had to be Trig's mother, instead of, oh, releasing a birth certificate. They weren't the countless times Sarah Palin trit-trotted onto a stage in spike heels, carrying a five month old (oh, excuse me, special needs five month old) like a sack of (special needs) potatoes then passing him off like a (special needs) football.
But that, I guess, was then and this is now. And now, given the opportunity to rile the rabble with yet another imagined slur to yet another Palin child, (this one special needs - Did we mention that?) into the fray they go.
Good Grief.
Sarah Palin's (big) mouth (a.k.a. Meghan Stapleton) is at it again, releasing a statement today that can only be considered more stupid than her last statement - and that one was pretty dumb. I did not do a blog post here on the statement released several days ago, but several other bloggers did, for example, here, so I recommend you take a gander.
However, today's statement was so ridiculous that I cannot let it pass. I just can't. I'm helpless in the face of the sheer stupidity. (And remember - this person gets paid for saying things like this. She probably sits around and thinks and after, oh, two or three hours of thinking she comes up with something profound. Like this one.)
Several days ago this caricature appeared on the Internet.
The original source for this apparently was a blog called "Crooks and Liars." Now this looks like David Letterman to me, and the tags on the what I *think* is the original posting of the cartoon SAY "David Letterman." However, according to numerous people this is NOT David Letterman cradled tenderly in Gov. Palin's arms, but Eddie Burke, a conservative Alaska radio talk "personality."It doesn't matter who it is supposed to be. The fact is that it's a political cartoon and it's damn funny.
(Update: I have just figured out the sequence here. The original posting was this cartoon shown above. No objections or comments came from the Palin camp at that time. Then, an Alaskan Blogger, Celtic Diva, as part of a fundraiser, created a spoof of the cartoon, in which she did used a photoshopped photo in which the face of Eddie Burke was used. The original image was David Letterman and it was a cartoon; the image that Miss Meg issued a statement regarding was the photo.)
But not to Meghan the Mouth. She posted the following statement to Sarah Palin's Facebook page:
Recently we learned of a malicious desecration of a photo of the Governor and baby Trig that has become an iconic representation of a mother's love for a special needs child.
The mere idea of someone doctoring the photo of a special needs baby is appalling. To learn that two Alaskans did it is absolutely sickening. Linda Kellen Biegel, the official Democrat Party blogger for Alaska, should be ashamed of herself and the Democratic National Committee should be ashamed for promoting this website and encouraging this atrocious behavior.
Babies and children are off limits. It is past time to restore decency in politics and real tolerance for all Americans. The Obama Administration sets the moral compass for its party. We ask that special needs children be loved, respected and accepted and that this type of degeneracy be condemned.
Now, we digress to a bit of etymology. "Desecration" comes to us from Latin, as so many of our best words do. It comes from "de," which means to do the opposite of, and "secrare," which means to make holy. (Sacred comes from this same Latin word, of course, though that word comes to English via a slightly different path.)
ONLY a religiously recognized holy image or place can be desecrated. Surely she misspoke. Surely in the heat of the moment she said "desecrate" when she really meant "change" or "photoshopped," right? But no, because Ms. Stapleton actually continues this analogy of holiness when, in the same paragraph, she uses the word "iconic." An icon is also a religious picture of a holy person.
So there we have it: an iconic representation of "mother and child" has been desecrated. Don't they burn people at the stake for that? Maybe in Alaska.
If this weren't all so sad, it would be hilarious. Obviously, having failed to keep herself in the public's eye any longer via the Willow/Bristol/David Letterman brouhaha, Sarah Palin is turning to another "offense," this one involving another child, Trig.
Oh, excuse me. The special needs child Trig. And we know that he is special needs child Trig because they tell us he is special needs child Trig three times in three paragraphs.
"The idea of someone doctoring the photo of a special needs baby is appalling." No it's not. This is a political spoof and a funny one. Trig is not in the cartoon or the photo. Trig's clothes might be, but Trig is not. Whether you are talking about the original cartoon or the subsequent photo, someone else's head is on a baby's body being held by a Sarah Palin.
But again we have the pious stand: Babies and children are off limits.
Well, they might be now, but they weren't when Sarah Palin needed to use her seventeen year old daughter to prove that she, Sarah, had to be Trig's mother, instead of, oh, releasing a birth certificate. They weren't the countless times Sarah Palin trit-trotted onto a stage in spike heels, carrying a five month old (oh, excuse me, special needs five month old) like a sack of (special needs) potatoes then passing him off like a (special needs) football.
But that, I guess, was then and this is now. And now, given the opportunity to rile the rabble with yet another imagined slur to yet another Palin child, (this one special needs - Did we mention that?) into the fray they go.
Good Grief.
The Diminishment of Sarah Palin
There's no questioning that life for Sarah Palin must feel very much like a pressure cooker.
Some could argue that Sarah's marked weight loss could be just a symptom of the vanity she displayed on the campaign trail. Thin is in, after all. But she's always been svelte, and her appearance has gone far beyond that.
Politicians of any stripe feel the heat, but for scandal-plagued Alaskan governor that heat must be intense. Eighteen ethics charges have led to a huge legal debt. The party that once treated her as a rising star seems rather less enamored with her today. Her repeated efforts to keep herself in the news about anything but state business has raised mounting criticism in Alaska. Her public feud with the Johnstons and subsequent revelations have tarnished the holier-than-thou family image she sought to project on the campaign trail. And then, of course, there are the ongoing questions about her claim that she gave birth to Trig.
For Sarah Palin, the heat must be intense. Perched on the cusp of her political future, she looks down to see wolves snapping at her heels. The fact that she's been throwing them red meat since the beginning is of no consequence. The truth is that this seems to be getting to her.
Some of our readers and researchers have observed both on the blog and over at Team Truther that the stress seems to be showing in Sarah's physical appearance. In this June 17 groundbreaking ceremony at Goose Creek Prison, she looks alarmingly thin:
Even more alarming is this screen shot captured by fellow blogger Enneologic, which highlights Sarah's nearly skeletal hands:
Some could argue that Sarah's marked weight loss could be just a symptom of the vanity she displayed on the campaign trail. Thin is in, after all. But she's always been svelte, and her appearance has gone far beyond that.
There have been hints and whispers that something else is looming, something big, something that has her more worried than ever. We've heard nothing verifiable of what this may be. And besides, from the beginning our focus has been squarely on seeking the truth about Sarah's claims to be the birth mother of Trig.
And that is where it will remain, because even if Sarah is physically diminishing, among her base she looms larger than life. And that's reason enough for us to continue with this quest.
An Interesting Slip?
I had wanted to make this blog post before announcing our new discussion board "Team Truther," but I did not get to it. Please read the post below this one as well, if you have not - on the announcing of our new board.
---------------
In the last 2-3 days, there have been two comments made by players in this drama to press that have been noticed as - perhaps - being indicative of what we believe the "real story," may be, specifically that Bristol Palin is the mother of both Trig Palin and Tripp Johnston.
One comment, I believe, is NOT significant, but the other may be. First, let's talk about Levi's comment, as quoted in the Daily Beast, that his "boys" were going to be "so mad" when they saw the new clothing he'd acquired in Los Angeles. While it's easy to jump on this, and say, "Boys! He said 'boys'!", I believe that in this context Levi is referring to "male friends." My daughters frequently say that they are doing somthing with "my girls," to mean that they are socializing that evening with an all-female group. (Not large groups of granddaughters that I am somehow unaware of!) Infants and toddlers are not going to be "mad" about parental clothing choices, and I find the idea that he was talking about babies when he said this implausible.
The second comment, however, is, I think, far more worthy of comment. Buried deep in the transcript of Sarah Palin's interview with Wolf Blitzer is the following sentence, regarding the identity of the daughter that David Letterman's joke referred to: It wasn't my older daughter, who's in college and taking care of her young family.
"Family." That word choice is very very interesting.
Long Long Ago and Far Far Away, I was a student. I studied, not medicine or science (areas of endeavor that would ultimately have helped me in what I ended up doing professionally) but history and linguistics. Linguistics is, as we always tried to explain to other tipsy undergrads in bars, the study of "Language" with a capital "L" NOT languages, with a small "l." Although as an adult, I have never done anything with my linguistics degree professionally, nuances of language and grammar have always fascinated me.
To a native speaker of English, I believe "family" in this context implies more than one child. It's a collective noun that implies a group. Now, if someone says, "John and Sue are starting a family," we all know that this means they are having their first baby, because they are having the FIRST member of what might become a group.
But when someone is staying home, taking care of a "young family," this means children. If she had ONE baby, I believe a native English speaker would say, "at home with her baby." The natural way for Gov. Palin to have expressed this would have been: It wasn't my older daughter, who's in college and taking care of her new baby. Or even: It wasn't my older daughter, who's in college and taking care of Tripp.
Of course - this proves nothing. Those of us who doubt Palin's birth tale need no more proof; those who think she walks on water will find this - at best - an insignificant slip of the tongue, and at worst we'll get the typical comments: "Oh, I say 'family' all the time when I mean one child." Yeah, right. And I'm sure you say this to your friend who is nine months pregnant with her fifth eight pound child and who doesn't look pregnant at all! Amazing.
A nail in the coffin? Probably not. An interesting slip o' the tongue to file away? Definitely.
---------------
In the last 2-3 days, there have been two comments made by players in this drama to press that have been noticed as - perhaps - being indicative of what we believe the "real story," may be, specifically that Bristol Palin is the mother of both Trig Palin and Tripp Johnston.
One comment, I believe, is NOT significant, but the other may be. First, let's talk about Levi's comment, as quoted in the Daily Beast, that his "boys" were going to be "so mad" when they saw the new clothing he'd acquired in Los Angeles. While it's easy to jump on this, and say, "Boys! He said 'boys'!", I believe that in this context Levi is referring to "male friends." My daughters frequently say that they are doing somthing with "my girls," to mean that they are socializing that evening with an all-female group. (Not large groups of granddaughters that I am somehow unaware of!) Infants and toddlers are not going to be "mad" about parental clothing choices, and I find the idea that he was talking about babies when he said this implausible.
The second comment, however, is, I think, far more worthy of comment. Buried deep in the transcript of Sarah Palin's interview with Wolf Blitzer is the following sentence, regarding the identity of the daughter that David Letterman's joke referred to: It wasn't my older daughter, who's in college and taking care of her young family.
"Family." That word choice is very very interesting.
Long Long Ago and Far Far Away, I was a student. I studied, not medicine or science (areas of endeavor that would ultimately have helped me in what I ended up doing professionally) but history and linguistics. Linguistics is, as we always tried to explain to other tipsy undergrads in bars, the study of "Language" with a capital "L" NOT languages, with a small "l." Although as an adult, I have never done anything with my linguistics degree professionally, nuances of language and grammar have always fascinated me.
To a native speaker of English, I believe "family" in this context implies more than one child. It's a collective noun that implies a group. Now, if someone says, "John and Sue are starting a family," we all know that this means they are having their first baby, because they are having the FIRST member of what might become a group.
But when someone is staying home, taking care of a "young family," this means children. If she had ONE baby, I believe a native English speaker would say, "at home with her baby." The natural way for Gov. Palin to have expressed this would have been: It wasn't my older daughter, who's in college and taking care of her new baby. Or even: It wasn't my older daughter, who's in college and taking care of Tripp.
Of course - this proves nothing. Those of us who doubt Palin's birth tale need no more proof; those who think she walks on water will find this - at best - an insignificant slip of the tongue, and at worst we'll get the typical comments: "Oh, I say 'family' all the time when I mean one child." Yeah, right. And I'm sure you say this to your friend who is nine months pregnant with her fifth eight pound child and who doesn't look pregnant at all! Amazing.
A nail in the coffin? Probably not. An interesting slip o' the tongue to file away? Definitely.
Team Truther
Team Truther? What's that?
A new and, we hope, exciting evolution of PalinDeception.com.
The facts are well-known: I am Audrey, a mother of six, childbirth educator and author, lactation consultant married to a physician. I started this website in September 2008 when I found the birth story told by Alaskan Governor and former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin completely unbelievable. I doubted the story from day one and have never wavered from this.
It was obvious from the beginning that I was not alone in finding this story utterly ludicrous. What began as a website raising questions about Palin’s dubious birth story quickly developed such a strong following that a blog was added to keep up with all the developments surrounding the controversy. The blog exploded with readers, with several of my posts receiving more than 500 comments. Over the subsequent months, a group of loyal and dedicated volunteers joined me to form a research team. Although a few people have had to leave the group due to other commitments, etc, the core of the research team (which is now eight people) has remained strikingly constant since November.
Now, more than nine months later, even more is required. Our loyal readers have in many ways become part of the research team. Again and again, they compile information and raise even more questions as the story unfolds. That is why we have decided to add a discussion forum, which we have called "Team Truther."
Team Truther may seem like a curious name since “truther” is generally considered a negative slur. It - along with its childish permutation "Troofer" - is used to disparage those of us who feel the American people are OWED (and I do not use that word lightly) a realistic and accurate explanation for the striking, even bizarre, inconsistencies in Palin's birth story. But if you're not a Truther, what are you? A Liar? (Yeah, that works for me.)
We are devoted to the continued pursuit of exposing Sarah Palin’s claim that the birth of Trig Palin occurred as she has claimed, and on the Palin Deception blog, we’ve limited discussion to topics directly related to this. And while the main focus of Team Truther WILL remain the issue of Trig’s birth, we will allow more latitude for discussion of other Palin-related issues. The rules will be more relaxed, too. We will aim for less moderation on the board than what exists on the blog – which has been the target of anti-truther spammers and Palinites.
The PalinDeception.com website AND blog are not going anywhere. The blog will of course still accept comments, and will remain the best place for longer, fully-researched posts on this issue. But this new discussion board, we hope, will become the go-to source for breaking developments on the case. The discussion board is a supplement for those who want to discuss things more in depth, offer up their own topics for discussion or even blog a little if they choose. Several of my researchers are eager to write their own blog posts, and they will bring new voices and points of view to our shared research.
Team Truther will have guidelines, however, and we expect contributors to honor them if we are to have the kind of open dialogue we would like to see take place.
In addition, I have made the decision to open a Cafe Press store, which will sell humorous merchandise - sweatshirts, mugs, hats, and the ever-popular canine T-shirts (I don't know how my dogs have survived without them) - related to our search. My out-of-pocket expenses related to this endeavor are now significant. Suggestions that I am funded by the DNC, President Obama, or, alternately, other Republicans who want to get rid of Palin, are all false. I am funded by myself. Period. I have resisted taking "donations," but think that a Cafe Press store (where I get a small commission) and the customer gets a T-shirt "feels" a bit different. (I pray that NO ONE will interpret this as criticism in any way of some fellow bloggers who have put up PayPal buttons, because none is intended! This is just what I personally feel more comfortable with.) The decision to open this store was not taken lightly, but my hope is that the sale of merchandise will begin to help me recoup a small percentage of my actual expenses.
To those readers both new and old, thank you for your support. We look forward to your participation in the new forum.
A new and, we hope, exciting evolution of PalinDeception.com.
The facts are well-known: I am Audrey, a mother of six, childbirth educator and author, lactation consultant married to a physician. I started this website in September 2008 when I found the birth story told by Alaskan Governor and former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin completely unbelievable. I doubted the story from day one and have never wavered from this.
It was obvious from the beginning that I was not alone in finding this story utterly ludicrous. What began as a website raising questions about Palin’s dubious birth story quickly developed such a strong following that a blog was added to keep up with all the developments surrounding the controversy. The blog exploded with readers, with several of my posts receiving more than 500 comments. Over the subsequent months, a group of loyal and dedicated volunteers joined me to form a research team. Although a few people have had to leave the group due to other commitments, etc, the core of the research team (which is now eight people) has remained strikingly constant since November.
Now, more than nine months later, even more is required. Our loyal readers have in many ways become part of the research team. Again and again, they compile information and raise even more questions as the story unfolds. That is why we have decided to add a discussion forum, which we have called "Team Truther."
Team Truther may seem like a curious name since “truther” is generally considered a negative slur. It - along with its childish permutation "Troofer" - is used to disparage those of us who feel the American people are OWED (and I do not use that word lightly) a realistic and accurate explanation for the striking, even bizarre, inconsistencies in Palin's birth story. But if you're not a Truther, what are you? A Liar? (Yeah, that works for me.)
We are devoted to the continued pursuit of exposing Sarah Palin’s claim that the birth of Trig Palin occurred as she has claimed, and on the Palin Deception blog, we’ve limited discussion to topics directly related to this. And while the main focus of Team Truther WILL remain the issue of Trig’s birth, we will allow more latitude for discussion of other Palin-related issues. The rules will be more relaxed, too. We will aim for less moderation on the board than what exists on the blog – which has been the target of anti-truther spammers and Palinites.
The PalinDeception.com website AND blog are not going anywhere. The blog will of course still accept comments, and will remain the best place for longer, fully-researched posts on this issue. But this new discussion board, we hope, will become the go-to source for breaking developments on the case. The discussion board is a supplement for those who want to discuss things more in depth, offer up their own topics for discussion or even blog a little if they choose. Several of my researchers are eager to write their own blog posts, and they will bring new voices and points of view to our shared research.
Team Truther will have guidelines, however, and we expect contributors to honor them if we are to have the kind of open dialogue we would like to see take place.
In addition, I have made the decision to open a Cafe Press store, which will sell humorous merchandise - sweatshirts, mugs, hats, and the ever-popular canine T-shirts (I don't know how my dogs have survived without them) - related to our search. My out-of-pocket expenses related to this endeavor are now significant. Suggestions that I am funded by the DNC, President Obama, or, alternately, other Republicans who want to get rid of Palin, are all false. I am funded by myself. Period. I have resisted taking "donations," but think that a Cafe Press store (where I get a small commission) and the customer gets a T-shirt "feels" a bit different. (I pray that NO ONE will interpret this as criticism in any way of some fellow bloggers who have put up PayPal buttons, because none is intended! This is just what I personally feel more comfortable with.) The decision to open this store was not taken lightly, but my hope is that the sale of merchandise will begin to help me recoup a small percentage of my actual expenses.
To those readers both new and old, thank you for your support. We look forward to your participation in the new forum.
Famous Historical Tweets (If Historical Figures Had Twitter) Part II
We’ve razed a bold and beautiful city.
WT_Sherman@army.gov
WT_Sherman@army.gov
How to save 60% on your Auto Insurance.
Everyone is talking about how much single payer healthcare will cost, but very few people, at least in the mainstream media have mentioned how much it would save the average American.
Believe it or not you probably do have a form of health insurance, it just doesn’t cover you, it covers other people.
This insurance is your auto insurance.
The largest part of a typical auto liability policy is covering someone else’s healthcare costs. The reason is if you lose control of your car and hit someone, it isn’t fair that they should have to pay the medical bills for your mistake.
Naturally (if you aren’t a totally cold-hearted person) you would want to see them made whole and that’s why you have insurance in the first place, that and of course because the state forces you to.
You also have medical insurance for yourself and the passengers in your car, it is filed under PIP, Personal Injury Protection, or just Personal Medical.
PIP is necessary under our current Medical System even if you have regular health insurance because if you get into an accident and need to be taken to the emergency room and the police have to call your insurance company and find out which hospital they will pay for and the ER doctors have to find out what procedures are covered and what ones aren’t, your odds of dieing would shoot up significantly.
To cut through this red tape Auto Insurance Companies have PIP so that the Ambulance ride, the Emergency Room visit and all the things to keep you from dieing immediately are covered. The amount of minimum coverage varies by state.
If single payer healthcare became reality in the US, PIP and Personal Medical would become totally unnecessary, as the Ambulance ride and the Emergency Room visit would be free.
In my case, that would save me $77.23 every six months.
The second place it would save is in the BI, or Bodily Injury, part of my insurance. Under a single payer plan this part of my insurance would be significantly reduced but not completely eliminated.
The Bodily Injury portion of auto insurance covers the other person’s medical bills, pain and suffering, and lost wages.
Even under a single payer system you will have to pay the family the lost wages if you kill someone and you’ll be responsible for someone’s pain and suffering but the biggest part of Bodily Injury is the other person’s medical expenses. You can expect those costs to go down about the same amount as the PIP.
The third place on you insurance bill that you will save is on your uninsured/underinsured Motorist coverage. The uninsured motorist coverage covers your medical bills if someone with no insurance (or a hit and run) injures you. Obviously under a single payer system these bills wouldn’t exist.
After getting rid of all these medical costs from your insurance all that is left is coverage for pain and suffering, lost wages and property damage. So you could be looking at a savings of 60% on you auto insurance.
As well as lowering your Auto Insurance, your employer would save on workers comp, the vast majority of that is for medical bills. If you’re a homeowner your homeowners insurance would go down as most of your liability coverage is for medical bills as well as all of your guest medical coverage.
Taken altogether a single payer healthcare plan will save the vast majority of Americans a great deal on the non-healthcare insurance they are already carrying.
Believe it or not you probably do have a form of health insurance, it just doesn’t cover you, it covers other people.
This insurance is your auto insurance.
The largest part of a typical auto liability policy is covering someone else’s healthcare costs. The reason is if you lose control of your car and hit someone, it isn’t fair that they should have to pay the medical bills for your mistake.
Naturally (if you aren’t a totally cold-hearted person) you would want to see them made whole and that’s why you have insurance in the first place, that and of course because the state forces you to.
You also have medical insurance for yourself and the passengers in your car, it is filed under PIP, Personal Injury Protection, or just Personal Medical.
PIP is necessary under our current Medical System even if you have regular health insurance because if you get into an accident and need to be taken to the emergency room and the police have to call your insurance company and find out which hospital they will pay for and the ER doctors have to find out what procedures are covered and what ones aren’t, your odds of dieing would shoot up significantly.
To cut through this red tape Auto Insurance Companies have PIP so that the Ambulance ride, the Emergency Room visit and all the things to keep you from dieing immediately are covered. The amount of minimum coverage varies by state.
If single payer healthcare became reality in the US, PIP and Personal Medical would become totally unnecessary, as the Ambulance ride and the Emergency Room visit would be free.
In my case, that would save me $77.23 every six months.
The second place it would save is in the BI, or Bodily Injury, part of my insurance. Under a single payer plan this part of my insurance would be significantly reduced but not completely eliminated.
The Bodily Injury portion of auto insurance covers the other person’s medical bills, pain and suffering, and lost wages.
Even under a single payer system you will have to pay the family the lost wages if you kill someone and you’ll be responsible for someone’s pain and suffering but the biggest part of Bodily Injury is the other person’s medical expenses. You can expect those costs to go down about the same amount as the PIP.
The third place on you insurance bill that you will save is on your uninsured/underinsured Motorist coverage. The uninsured motorist coverage covers your medical bills if someone with no insurance (or a hit and run) injures you. Obviously under a single payer system these bills wouldn’t exist.
After getting rid of all these medical costs from your insurance all that is left is coverage for pain and suffering, lost wages and property damage. So you could be looking at a savings of 60% on you auto insurance.
As well as lowering your Auto Insurance, your employer would save on workers comp, the vast majority of that is for medical bills. If you’re a homeowner your homeowners insurance would go down as most of your liability coverage is for medical bills as well as all of your guest medical coverage.
Taken altogether a single payer healthcare plan will save the vast majority of Americans a great deal on the non-healthcare insurance they are already carrying.
Sarah's Selective Outrage
Does anyone really believe Sarah Palin’s latest display of motherly indignation in the wake of Letterman’s admittedly unfunny comment directed at her daughter?
If they do, then they either a.) have short memories or b.) really don’t know much about Sarah Palin. Probably both.
It’s hard to top blogger Shannyn Moore’s assessment of Palin’s hypocrisy on what has become the Alaskan governor's latest Tour d'Outrage.
However, it's important to point out that, during the campaign, one SNL skit went so far as to suggest that Todd was "doing" the daughters. This SNL skit was far FAR more offensive than Letterman’s bad joke about Willow. Sarah's response? Boycott SNL advertisers? Media blitz? Whip the base into a foaming frenzy? No, actually, she appeared on the show one month later. Oh yeah, I think we all remember her Weekend Update with Seth Green.
But why is it that I REALLY want to get a vomit bag when Sarah drones on endlessly about protecting the young woman of America from exploitation? It's because this is the woman who, in late August, when confronted with ever-more-insistent demands for some proof, any proof at all that she herself had given birth to Trig four months earlier, "outed" her own minor child's pregnancy. She put 17 year old Bristol on a national stage in an ugly and ill-fitting dress, accompanied by a young man that her father reportedly had wanted his daughter to dump so much that he had offered to buy her a car. Instead of producing a birth certificate or a doctor, Sarah Palin made her daughter a walking punchline. How do you spell "exploit?" B - R - I - S - T - O - L
You gotta love these Palin family values. THEY are the joke. Or maybe not. Because they're not funny. And she's arguably done more damage to her children than any comedian ever could. You have to imagine that behind the scenes, her kids have expressed outrage at how they're privacy and dignity have been sacrificed for their mother's political gain. Unfortunately, when they complain, Sarah doesn't listen.
Which is why no one else should listen to her either.
If they do, then they either a.) have short memories or b.) really don’t know much about Sarah Palin. Probably both.
It’s hard to top blogger Shannyn Moore’s assessment of Palin’s hypocrisy on what has become the Alaskan governor's latest Tour d'Outrage.
However, it's important to point out that, during the campaign, one SNL skit went so far as to suggest that Todd was "doing" the daughters. This SNL skit was far FAR more offensive than Letterman’s bad joke about Willow. Sarah's response? Boycott SNL advertisers? Media blitz? Whip the base into a foaming frenzy? No, actually, she appeared on the show one month later. Oh yeah, I think we all remember her Weekend Update with Seth Green.
But why is it that I REALLY want to get a vomit bag when Sarah drones on endlessly about protecting the young woman of America from exploitation? It's because this is the woman who, in late August, when confronted with ever-more-insistent demands for some proof, any proof at all that she herself had given birth to Trig four months earlier, "outed" her own minor child's pregnancy. She put 17 year old Bristol on a national stage in an ugly and ill-fitting dress, accompanied by a young man that her father reportedly had wanted his daughter to dump so much that he had offered to buy her a car. Instead of producing a birth certificate or a doctor, Sarah Palin made her daughter a walking punchline. How do you spell "exploit?" B - R - I - S - T - O - L
You gotta love these Palin family values. THEY are the joke. Or maybe not. Because they're not funny. And she's arguably done more damage to her children than any comedian ever could. You have to imagine that behind the scenes, her kids have expressed outrage at how they're privacy and dignity have been sacrificed for their mother's political gain. Unfortunately, when they complain, Sarah doesn't listen.
Which is why no one else should listen to her either.
Famous Historical tweets. (If historical figures had twitter) Part I
Would it kill my husband to take me out to the theater once in awhile?
M_todd_lincoln@whitehouse.gov
M_todd_lincoln@whitehouse.gov
New Section of Website Opening
As I mentioned several days ago, I have been working on linked "calendar" pages on the website proper. These pages, one per date for which we have news, events, pictures or video, will be accessible through a straightforward "calendar" interface.
The initial group of pages have been uploaded. More will be added daily.
In general, I will be working to update the website. The initial goal for this endeavor was that the website would be an online repository, easy to use, of all material we could locate on this topic. I have fallen dreadfully short of that goal as this blog has become the core of the endeavor and the website has languished.
But - as I said - we are moving to correct that. New material, whether it's already existing data that is scattered all over this blog and the Internet (just what I hoped to avoid by STARTING the website in the first place) OR new material that we actually prepare de novo for the website, will be added regularly. We will begin moving aggressively towards my goal of making palindeception.com a truly usable archive for this information.
To access the new pages, simply go to the main page of the website, and click on the "Palin Pregnancy Photos" link.
The initial group of pages have been uploaded. More will be added daily.
In general, I will be working to update the website. The initial goal for this endeavor was that the website would be an online repository, easy to use, of all material we could locate on this topic. I have fallen dreadfully short of that goal as this blog has become the core of the endeavor and the website has languished.
But - as I said - we are moving to correct that. New material, whether it's already existing data that is scattered all over this blog and the Internet (just what I hoped to avoid by STARTING the website in the first place) OR new material that we actually prepare de novo for the website, will be added regularly. We will begin moving aggressively towards my goal of making palindeception.com a truly usable archive for this information.
To access the new pages, simply go to the main page of the website, and click on the "Palin Pregnancy Photos" link.
Private Industry vs. Government led research
Obama has promised to return science to its rightful place in America, pledging to restore Government funding in Research back to 3% of GDP up from its current 0.6%. Whenever anyone suggests raising the amount of Government money spent on research, someone will always respond that Research and Development is better handled by private industry.
Private industry has shown that it responds to a huge technological challenge much better than the Government, just look at the two different approaches taken during the 70s energy crisis.
When Hubbert showed that American oil production had peaked and the world’s oil demand would outstrip world oil production between 2005 and 2010 countries took two different approaches.
Japan started a government lead consortium that did major research and development into making fuel-efficient cars. They shared this knowledge with the Japanese car companies who then competed to market cars that used this fuel-efficient technology.
In the US, the home to the largest three auto manufactures in the world, Jimmy Carter proposed a similar plan but the big three argued that private industry could handle a crisis better than the Government could and all three companies handled their own R & D.
As history shows, private industry handled the crisis. That’s why the big three American Car manufactures still dominate the world car market and hardly anyone has ever heard of Japanese cars like Toyota, Nissan, and Mazda.
Oh I got that wrong, Toyota and Nissan are the largest and third largest auto manufactures and two out of the big three American auto manufactures are bankrupt.
Private Industry alone cannot handle large technological challenges for a simple reason private industry has to focus on the short term. Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShip Two is a great example of this. It is a neat relatively low cost solution to send people into space.
It is built out of existing materials used in unique ways to achieve a modest goal. Unfortunately its performance is limited by how well carbon fiber can handle extreme heat. Manufactures of Carbon Fiber Resins will of course improve on their product’s ability to handle extreme heat but it is already near its physical limit.
In order for something like SpaceShip Two to go into orbit, the next big leap, it would need to be built out of something as light or lighter than Carbon Fiber. There is already a material like that: Buckypaper. Composed of nano-tubes (carbon molecules formed to circle around forming a tube that is one molecule and as tough as diamonds) in a polymer. Buckypaper is as strong as steel and you could cover a football field with it and it would weigh less than a gram, additionally its heat conductivity is higher than copper.
Unfortunately, Buckypaper is too expensive at the present time to be used in any applications and because of this, it isn’t mass-produced so its costs won’t go down so it won’t be mass-produced.
Industries that could use this product (just about any industry) know if they started using it they would only need to use it for a few years as loss leader (losing money) to drive the costs down. But no large company is going to step forward and be the first one.
The reason is simple, they don’t want to spend all that money to completely revolutionize an industry only to have their competitors start using the product that they spent the money to get on the market.
That’s where the Government comes in. If the US Government started ordering huge amounts of Buckypaper to use in the space program, military, and start making a limited edition Corvette out of it (The fed owns 60% of GM why not get some use out of it) The costs would go down.
As the costs go down SpaceShip Three could use it to go into orbit, Airplane Manufactures would start using it place of Aluminum and finally we could have cars that weighed 100’s of pounds instead of tons, saving billions of barrels of oil every year.
Once the Government put forth the initial money for research and developing a technology through its bleeding edge (the time when it is losing money) private industry could pick it up and run with it and do what it does best make incremental improvements to existing products and use them in unique ways.
As new products are brought to market based on the technology that was developed through Government funded research the Government would start getting its money back in the form of taxes.
There is no shortage of problems that the Government could use this approach to, The race to the Moon, Peak Oil, Climate Change, and the great thing about it is this method has been proved to boost economic activity.
During World War II a huge portion of GDP was poured into research to win the war. Afterwards that research was plowed into civilian consumer products that made their pre-war counterparts look a century old, not just a decade old.
During the Space Race whole new industries started up based off research done to get us to the Moon.
In a 100% peacetime application the example I used above of Japan Inc. from the 70s and 80s brought a defeated little island nation to be an economic powerhouse for decades.
When it comes to the question of the Government funding vs. Private Industry in research, history shows that hands down the Government funding research and then handing it over to Private Industry is the winning approach.
Private industry has shown that it responds to a huge technological challenge much better than the Government, just look at the two different approaches taken during the 70s energy crisis.
When Hubbert showed that American oil production had peaked and the world’s oil demand would outstrip world oil production between 2005 and 2010 countries took two different approaches.
Japan started a government lead consortium that did major research and development into making fuel-efficient cars. They shared this knowledge with the Japanese car companies who then competed to market cars that used this fuel-efficient technology.
In the US, the home to the largest three auto manufactures in the world, Jimmy Carter proposed a similar plan but the big three argued that private industry could handle a crisis better than the Government could and all three companies handled their own R & D.
As history shows, private industry handled the crisis. That’s why the big three American Car manufactures still dominate the world car market and hardly anyone has ever heard of Japanese cars like Toyota, Nissan, and Mazda.
Oh I got that wrong, Toyota and Nissan are the largest and third largest auto manufactures and two out of the big three American auto manufactures are bankrupt.
Private Industry alone cannot handle large technological challenges for a simple reason private industry has to focus on the short term. Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShip Two is a great example of this. It is a neat relatively low cost solution to send people into space.
It is built out of existing materials used in unique ways to achieve a modest goal. Unfortunately its performance is limited by how well carbon fiber can handle extreme heat. Manufactures of Carbon Fiber Resins will of course improve on their product’s ability to handle extreme heat but it is already near its physical limit.
In order for something like SpaceShip Two to go into orbit, the next big leap, it would need to be built out of something as light or lighter than Carbon Fiber. There is already a material like that: Buckypaper. Composed of nano-tubes (carbon molecules formed to circle around forming a tube that is one molecule and as tough as diamonds) in a polymer. Buckypaper is as strong as steel and you could cover a football field with it and it would weigh less than a gram, additionally its heat conductivity is higher than copper.
Unfortunately, Buckypaper is too expensive at the present time to be used in any applications and because of this, it isn’t mass-produced so its costs won’t go down so it won’t be mass-produced.
Industries that could use this product (just about any industry) know if they started using it they would only need to use it for a few years as loss leader (losing money) to drive the costs down. But no large company is going to step forward and be the first one.
The reason is simple, they don’t want to spend all that money to completely revolutionize an industry only to have their competitors start using the product that they spent the money to get on the market.
That’s where the Government comes in. If the US Government started ordering huge amounts of Buckypaper to use in the space program, military, and start making a limited edition Corvette out of it (The fed owns 60% of GM why not get some use out of it) The costs would go down.
As the costs go down SpaceShip Three could use it to go into orbit, Airplane Manufactures would start using it place of Aluminum and finally we could have cars that weighed 100’s of pounds instead of tons, saving billions of barrels of oil every year.
Once the Government put forth the initial money for research and developing a technology through its bleeding edge (the time when it is losing money) private industry could pick it up and run with it and do what it does best make incremental improvements to existing products and use them in unique ways.
As new products are brought to market based on the technology that was developed through Government funded research the Government would start getting its money back in the form of taxes.
There is no shortage of problems that the Government could use this approach to, The race to the Moon, Peak Oil, Climate Change, and the great thing about it is this method has been proved to boost economic activity.
During World War II a huge portion of GDP was poured into research to win the war. Afterwards that research was plowed into civilian consumer products that made their pre-war counterparts look a century old, not just a decade old.
During the Space Race whole new industries started up based off research done to get us to the Moon.
In a 100% peacetime application the example I used above of Japan Inc. from the 70s and 80s brought a defeated little island nation to be an economic powerhouse for decades.
When it comes to the question of the Government funding vs. Private Industry in research, history shows that hands down the Government funding research and then handing it over to Private Industry is the winning approach.
A Brighter Tomorrow
Some of my earliest memories are of sitting in front of the TV at my Grandparents house watching the Moon Landings. Even as a five year old seeing those 12 astronauts walking on an alien world filled my young brain with hope for the future.
I thought I would get a chance to walk on the Moon as well, because just like when my mom was growing up Jets were a new technology that only a few people could travel in, but by the time I was growing up they were commonplace. Taking it back further when my Grandmother was growing up Lindbergh’s non-stop solo flight to Europe was a technological feat.
Now my wife and I are thinking of having a kid, I call this Project Scion, and even though I look forward to watching Moon Landings with the kid, this was not supposed to be a generational event.
Looking at the world today with the total economic collapse, the fact that last year demand for oil (the life blood of our industrial civilization) outpaced oil production, the fact that the largest climate shift in human history is looming, and thousands of other signs of doom and despair you might wonder why we have chosen this time to raise a child. The answer is simple for the first time since I was a kid growing up I feel optimistic about the future.
Over the course of my life I have watched science, research and development budgets being slashed. I was a kid when Nixon cut the last three Moon Missions, but the Skylab missions still had me hopeful of the future.
I was old enough to know that the Apollo-Soyuz was the last mission for the indefinite future I lowered my expectations. Even with NASA boasting of how the Shuttle would be all things to all people and would cost only pennies a day to operate it was obvious that it wouldn’t be the spacecraft to return us to the Moon and I’d have to wait for space technology to advance.
While that was happening I did have a glimmer of hope, Jimmy Carter announced that freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil would be the moral equivalent of war. I imagined a brave new world, where we could use our brains to advance as a people and put the vast scientific know how that allowed men to walk on the Moon to solve the problems that plagued mankind and in the pursuit of those goals we would make discoveries that would let us once more go into that final frontier.
Then he was laughed out of office.
I watched as Reagan and Bush slashed not only NASA’s budget but all funding towards Science and Technology even as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were putting some of the space technology (microchips) to use in the hands of the public.
If it wasn’t bad enough that they slashed Science budgets, the whole tone of the nation started vilifying science and by extension intelligence. Being intelligent in America became a curse.
When Bill was elected I thought things would change, clearly an intelligent person would recognize the importance of inspiring other intelligent people to succeed instead of having to hide, but instead he put on an “aw shucks” routine and played dumb while slashing scientific research in this country to the bare bones.
By the time Bush came through and declared war on science and the “Intellectual elite” it didn’t mean much as even when discoveries were made they wouldn’t be developed. Bucky Tubes and nano-technology have been around for a couple of decades now. If they had been funded so they could develop into mature technologies we could have cars that weighed hundreds of pounds instead of thousands, as well as planes and of course spacecraft.
Seeing policy makers turn public opinion into down right hostility against anyone who could think for themselves made me decide against having a child that, if genetics is any indication, should be a super-genius.
But now it seems that people are looking around and noticing what 30 years of embracing stupid and rejecting science has led to.
No new innovations in science has led to innovations in money making like Default Credit Swaps, and Mortgage Backed Derivatives.
Not inspiring our children to wonder “What if” has meant all our industrial products come from overseas as Japanese and Korean’s wondered “What if we did this to improve a car?”
In times of great crisis there is great opportunity. To overcome the challenges that are in front of us we will need to once again foster an environment where an interest in science is considered something to be praised not scorned. Where critical thinking is seen as the solution to a problem and not “the problem”.
After watching a country’s Science policy go from science and research being a source of strength for our nation to something that should be despised, I wouldn’t have a genius kid while our leaders considered logic a menace and truth the enemy.
We’ve seen what happens when we embrace the stupid; Peak Oil, Financial Ruin, Death and Destruction on a massive scale.
It’s time to put intelligence back to work, and that is why I am hopeful for the future.
It will be a long time before we can forget what embracing stupid does. 60 years if history is any guide. So that gives my kid plenty of time to grow up in a world that values intelligence, honesty and a strong work ethic.
So America I am putting you on notice, I will watch the Moon Landings with my kid but I will not sit by and let the world make it an event to have me watch the Moon Landing with my Grandchild.
You’ve got 60 to 80 years to make sure that a Moon Landing is no more eventful than a plane crossing the Atlantic.
A Bit of a New Direction
Almost exactly nine months ago, I woke up one morning very pissed off. Something as plain as the hand in front of my eyes was being ignored by the main stream media to a degree I could not fathom.
And - since it occurred to me this morning - that nine months (rather incredibly) is the length of the average pregnancy, I thought it might be interesting to reflect this morning, on just how this "pregnancy" has gone.
Let's return to September 13, 2008, the day I launched the website. (The blog came a few days later.) It had been almost two weeks since John McCain had announced Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, and the initial hysterical joy over the announcement, even among the loyal base, was beginning to erode just a bit. The Charles Gibson interview on the 11th, while not the catastrophe that the Couric interview on September 24th would become, had certainly not not been a smashing success, either. Palin came across as vague, uninformed, and rather ineffective. She was noted most often for saying "Charlie" a lot. A real lot.
In other venues, questions about Palin's ethics, mostly vis a vis "Troopergate" (but including other issues as well) continued to dog the campaign. And of course, what has now been called "Babygate," simply would not die.
As I have said previously, my initial interest in the story had nothing to do with Palin or her politics. As a long time childbirth educator and author, I had always had a "pet peeve:" media misrepresentation of childbirth. Overall, books, movies and TV shows present birth in one of two ways: either impossibly sanitary and easy or staggeringly dangerous. Babies either fall out or die; in birth fiction, there seems often to be no middle ground, and believing either extreme does not help women have happy safe births.
My initial assumption upon hearing Palin's story of Trig's birth was that some male reporter had simply gotten the facts wrong because, of course, no experienced mother of four would get on an airplane, leaking amniotic fluid, eight months pregnant. Just didn't happen. Period.
I've said this before but it bears repeating: birth is not a tidy process. The Governor of Alaska did not risk having to lie down in the middle of an airplane aisle, rip off her panty hose, spread her legs, and push a baby out in a puddle of blood, mucous, amniotic fluid, and, quite possibly, either her own excrement or the baby's. If she were in fact leaking amniotic fluid, she knew before she got on the airplane to fly a total of more than eight hours, that this was a very real possibility. And it is because no one would confront her with this graphic and basic reality back in early September we are here today.
To this day, the only truly concrete statement from either of the Palins as to why Sarah made this choice has come from Todd: "You can't have a fish picker [commercial fisherman] from Texas." Good Lord. Which is more absurd, that anyone ever believed this lame explanation or that people apparently still do?
I knew as soon as I realized that Palin was sticking by this nonsensical version of events that there was a lie somewhere. I have never once wavered from that conviction in nine months. I wasn't sure exactly what, where, or why, but I knew it was a lie. I also could never put together in my mind why so few other people - smart people who, while perhaps not knowing quite as much about childbirth as I do, but who nevertheless have a good basic understanding - did not come out and say, unequivocally and simply, "This birth story does not pass any sort of credible scrutiny. We have a right to ask why. And these questions have nothing to do with Palin's daughter."
Nine months is a long time. Women who became pregnant when I started this website and blog are now having their babies. When I chose to begin collating the information about Palin's pregnancy (and initially, my endeavor was to be nothing more than a repository of documents, photos, and facts that at the time were spread all over the Internet) I did not dream it would be necessary even up until the point of the election, some seven weeks later. The idea that I would still be thinking about Sarah Palin's uterus nine MONTHS later would have nauseated me.
My good friend Gryphen at Immoral Minority said to me recently: Audrey, you don't have to prove anything else. You have proved that Sarah Palin was never pregnant. The problem now is getting people to listen. While I am not 100% sure he is right, I know in my heart that it's close.
So where are we going from here? First, look to this blog for much more frequent and probably shorter posts. When I started the blog, Trig Palin (based on his announced birth date) was approximately four and half months old. Now, he is 15 months old. Although I know there is still information out there for us to find, the plain fact is that it is becoming increasingly difficult. PD posts, while still mostly focusing on the central question of "Babygate," will begin delving into other areas of comment and research direction, often directly related to Palin's overall credibility. After all the blog is called "Palin Deceptions."
Secondly, we are revamping the website, something that has fallen horribly by the wayside as this blog has become the core of the endeavor. Very soon, we are opening a new area of the site, which will, in easy-to-use "calendar" fashion, have clickable links to many many days of Palin's late "pregnancy" with the associated photos. I still find myself astonished when I look at some of the photos, that she has gotten away with absurd lie for so long. When the photos - event after event of photos - are viewed in sequence it becomes laughable.
Look also for posts from others - members of the wonderful research team that have done so much to bring this story to the fore - as well as possibly "guest" posts by long time readers.
And... just as a closing statement... I know many readers have been curious about statements made on other blogs about icebergs and huge revelations and waves crashing onto the shore. (Well, maybe not waves...) Regardless, IS this story going to be over soon?
I think it may be. I think this baby is going to be born soon, and then we can all send a shower gift, and go home.
And - since it occurred to me this morning - that nine months (rather incredibly) is the length of the average pregnancy, I thought it might be interesting to reflect this morning, on just how this "pregnancy" has gone.
Let's return to September 13, 2008, the day I launched the website. (The blog came a few days later.) It had been almost two weeks since John McCain had announced Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, and the initial hysterical joy over the announcement, even among the loyal base, was beginning to erode just a bit. The Charles Gibson interview on the 11th, while not the catastrophe that the Couric interview on September 24th would become, had certainly not not been a smashing success, either. Palin came across as vague, uninformed, and rather ineffective. She was noted most often for saying "Charlie" a lot. A real lot.
In other venues, questions about Palin's ethics, mostly vis a vis "Troopergate" (but including other issues as well) continued to dog the campaign. And of course, what has now been called "Babygate," simply would not die.
As I have said previously, my initial interest in the story had nothing to do with Palin or her politics. As a long time childbirth educator and author, I had always had a "pet peeve:" media misrepresentation of childbirth. Overall, books, movies and TV shows present birth in one of two ways: either impossibly sanitary and easy or staggeringly dangerous. Babies either fall out or die; in birth fiction, there seems often to be no middle ground, and believing either extreme does not help women have happy safe births.
My initial assumption upon hearing Palin's story of Trig's birth was that some male reporter had simply gotten the facts wrong because, of course, no experienced mother of four would get on an airplane, leaking amniotic fluid, eight months pregnant. Just didn't happen. Period.
I've said this before but it bears repeating: birth is not a tidy process. The Governor of Alaska did not risk having to lie down in the middle of an airplane aisle, rip off her panty hose, spread her legs, and push a baby out in a puddle of blood, mucous, amniotic fluid, and, quite possibly, either her own excrement or the baby's. If she were in fact leaking amniotic fluid, she knew before she got on the airplane to fly a total of more than eight hours, that this was a very real possibility. And it is because no one would confront her with this graphic and basic reality back in early September we are here today.
To this day, the only truly concrete statement from either of the Palins as to why Sarah made this choice has come from Todd: "You can't have a fish picker [commercial fisherman] from Texas." Good Lord. Which is more absurd, that anyone ever believed this lame explanation or that people apparently still do?
I knew as soon as I realized that Palin was sticking by this nonsensical version of events that there was a lie somewhere. I have never once wavered from that conviction in nine months. I wasn't sure exactly what, where, or why, but I knew it was a lie. I also could never put together in my mind why so few other people - smart people who, while perhaps not knowing quite as much about childbirth as I do, but who nevertheless have a good basic understanding - did not come out and say, unequivocally and simply, "This birth story does not pass any sort of credible scrutiny. We have a right to ask why. And these questions have nothing to do with Palin's daughter."
Nine months is a long time. Women who became pregnant when I started this website and blog are now having their babies. When I chose to begin collating the information about Palin's pregnancy (and initially, my endeavor was to be nothing more than a repository of documents, photos, and facts that at the time were spread all over the Internet) I did not dream it would be necessary even up until the point of the election, some seven weeks later. The idea that I would still be thinking about Sarah Palin's uterus nine MONTHS later would have nauseated me.
My good friend Gryphen at Immoral Minority said to me recently: Audrey, you don't have to prove anything else. You have proved that Sarah Palin was never pregnant. The problem now is getting people to listen. While I am not 100% sure he is right, I know in my heart that it's close.
So where are we going from here? First, look to this blog for much more frequent and probably shorter posts. When I started the blog, Trig Palin (based on his announced birth date) was approximately four and half months old. Now, he is 15 months old. Although I know there is still information out there for us to find, the plain fact is that it is becoming increasingly difficult. PD posts, while still mostly focusing on the central question of "Babygate," will begin delving into other areas of comment and research direction, often directly related to Palin's overall credibility. After all the blog is called "Palin Deceptions."
Secondly, we are revamping the website, something that has fallen horribly by the wayside as this blog has become the core of the endeavor. Very soon, we are opening a new area of the site, which will, in easy-to-use "calendar" fashion, have clickable links to many many days of Palin's late "pregnancy" with the associated photos. I still find myself astonished when I look at some of the photos, that she has gotten away with absurd lie for so long. When the photos - event after event of photos - are viewed in sequence it becomes laughable.
Look also for posts from others - members of the wonderful research team that have done so much to bring this story to the fore - as well as possibly "guest" posts by long time readers.
And... just as a closing statement... I know many readers have been curious about statements made on other blogs about icebergs and huge revelations and waves crashing onto the shore. (Well, maybe not waves...) Regardless, IS this story going to be over soon?
I think it may be. I think this baby is going to be born soon, and then we can all send a shower gift, and go home.
A response to Michael Moore from a former Oilman
In his recent post “Goodbye GM” Michael Moore compared the current financial meltdown (the Great Recession, The Great Depression 2.0, or whatever you what to call it) to a war, and he pointed his finger at the bad guys.
“The other front in this war is being waged by the oil companies against you and me. They are committed to fleecing us whenever they can, and they have been reckless stewards of the finite amount of oil that is located under the surface of the earth. They know they are sucking it bone dry. And like the lumber tycoons of the early 20th century who didn't give a damn about future generations as they tore down every forest they could get their hands on, these oil barons are not telling the public what they know to be true -- that there are only a few more decades of useable oil on this planet. And as the end days of oil approach us, get ready for some very desperate people willing to kill and be killed just to get their hands on a gallon can of gasoline.”
As the former Vice-President of an oil company, I can say with authority that the characterization he paints of the oil barons deceiving the public about the amount of oil left on the planet is totally false.
As the oil prices started going through the roof, I responded to critics who were saying that it was all a ploy by oil companies with my article “Why are gas prices so high?” Where I outlined the fact that we as a society have known for over 30 years that we were living on borrowed time as far as having an energy policy that was dependent on oil but instead of addressing the problem we just elected leader like Clinton and Bush who would rather squander away the nations wealth on the useless “War on Drugs” than address the looming crisis of peak oil.
Now Michael, you might say that I am the exception to the rule, the lone whistle-blower in the crowd but I am not.
Matt Simmons of Simmons & Company has been saying for decades that not only are we running out of oil but we have much less than is being reported.
T. Boone Pickens has been running countless ads pushing to reduce oil dependence.
Dave O’Reilly CEO of Chevron said in 2005 “It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil. We’ll use the next trillion in 30.“
The heads of oil companies both big and small have been warning the public that demand will outstrip supply but the public has just been putting their fingers in their ears and saying “Na – Na – Na – Na, I can’t hear you.”
So why have oil companies been letting the delusional masses lead them into a policy that we knew was destructive? It was our legal duty.
In order to raise money for an oil project an oilman has to pass the same tests a stockbroker does. You can’t pass those tests without some knowledge of economics, so when you see the investment banks playing games with peoples retirement funds so that long-term growth is sacrificed for short-term gain. It is our fiduciary duty to try to do the best thing we can with our investors money.
If Wall Street is turning its back on long-term growth, we have to offer a course that will maximize short-term gain and that course is to drill like crazy so that we can sell oil when supply out-strips demand like it did last summer our investors can get some quick cash in their pockets to help them survive when Wall Street inevitably crashes.
Michael, it wasn’t that the oil companies were withholding information on peak oil, it was that the message wasn’t getting out to the public. So I ask you: Where were you during this run up to disaster?
Peak oil and the Financial markets sacrificing Long-Term Growth for Short-Term Gain are tough topics for the Mainstream Media to deal with it would need an independent documentary maker with some clout to raise public awareness, but instead of examining the start of the biggest crisis in our lifetimes you were busy examining the role of guns in our society and how roughly 900 people die a year from guns, when I can guarantee you more people will die from having the Investment Banks piss away their life savings than that.
So Michael you can point your finger at me and other oilmen all you want, but remember when you point your finger, your other three fingers are pointing back at you.
Darrell Nelson, former Vice-President of Mountainview Petroleum.
“The other front in this war is being waged by the oil companies against you and me. They are committed to fleecing us whenever they can, and they have been reckless stewards of the finite amount of oil that is located under the surface of the earth. They know they are sucking it bone dry. And like the lumber tycoons of the early 20th century who didn't give a damn about future generations as they tore down every forest they could get their hands on, these oil barons are not telling the public what they know to be true -- that there are only a few more decades of useable oil on this planet. And as the end days of oil approach us, get ready for some very desperate people willing to kill and be killed just to get their hands on a gallon can of gasoline.”
As the former Vice-President of an oil company, I can say with authority that the characterization he paints of the oil barons deceiving the public about the amount of oil left on the planet is totally false.
As the oil prices started going through the roof, I responded to critics who were saying that it was all a ploy by oil companies with my article “Why are gas prices so high?” Where I outlined the fact that we as a society have known for over 30 years that we were living on borrowed time as far as having an energy policy that was dependent on oil but instead of addressing the problem we just elected leader like Clinton and Bush who would rather squander away the nations wealth on the useless “War on Drugs” than address the looming crisis of peak oil.
Now Michael, you might say that I am the exception to the rule, the lone whistle-blower in the crowd but I am not.
Matt Simmons of Simmons & Company has been saying for decades that not only are we running out of oil but we have much less than is being reported.
T. Boone Pickens has been running countless ads pushing to reduce oil dependence.
Dave O’Reilly CEO of Chevron said in 2005 “It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil. We’ll use the next trillion in 30.“
The heads of oil companies both big and small have been warning the public that demand will outstrip supply but the public has just been putting their fingers in their ears and saying “Na – Na – Na – Na, I can’t hear you.”
So why have oil companies been letting the delusional masses lead them into a policy that we knew was destructive? It was our legal duty.
In order to raise money for an oil project an oilman has to pass the same tests a stockbroker does. You can’t pass those tests without some knowledge of economics, so when you see the investment banks playing games with peoples retirement funds so that long-term growth is sacrificed for short-term gain. It is our fiduciary duty to try to do the best thing we can with our investors money.
If Wall Street is turning its back on long-term growth, we have to offer a course that will maximize short-term gain and that course is to drill like crazy so that we can sell oil when supply out-strips demand like it did last summer our investors can get some quick cash in their pockets to help them survive when Wall Street inevitably crashes.
Michael, it wasn’t that the oil companies were withholding information on peak oil, it was that the message wasn’t getting out to the public. So I ask you: Where were you during this run up to disaster?
Peak oil and the Financial markets sacrificing Long-Term Growth for Short-Term Gain are tough topics for the Mainstream Media to deal with it would need an independent documentary maker with some clout to raise public awareness, but instead of examining the start of the biggest crisis in our lifetimes you were busy examining the role of guns in our society and how roughly 900 people die a year from guns, when I can guarantee you more people will die from having the Investment Banks piss away their life savings than that.
So Michael you can point your finger at me and other oilmen all you want, but remember when you point your finger, your other three fingers are pointing back at you.
Darrell Nelson, former Vice-President of Mountainview Petroleum.
Why are Oil Prices So High?
This article was originally posted on my old site "Project Savior" in 2005, then reposted on Thisisby.us in 2007. It is still relevant today 4 years later.
Why are oil prices so high? It all has to do with priorities, Sure we could have spent a few billion to develop alternative fuels, but that would cut into the 100's of billions we spend to track and arrest people who have consensual sex.
It would also take Chemists, and you need to decide which is more important allowing someone to go to college who has used pot to unwind, just because they might make our country stronger, or turning a third of our citizens into criminals for reasons that have never been explained.
And after all isn't more important to devote more time and research to come up with a drug that cures the problem of people's legs shaking and their butts falling asleep after only sitting in front of the TV for 6 straight hours. Without this vital research people would actually have to stand up and stretch their legs once in awhile. How can idea of keeping the US from turning into a third world nation compete with that.
Isn't it more important that we spend 100's millions of dollars each year to arrest people for what they watch in the privacy of their own homes, than say: Do research into nuclear reactors that have passive safeguards so they aren't dangerous?
And how can letting our economy be dependent on imports from people who want to kill us, compete with the need to harass people who are using a legal substance that has never been shown to harm anyone but the user.
And which is a better way to have energy available, spending a few billion on mass transit systems that could save 2 million barrels of oil, or spending trillions to invade a country that has never produced more than 3 million barrels of oil?
How can we afford to research more fuel efficient cars, when we need to spend billions on labeling, take to trial, and spending money to track thousands of “Sexual Predators” who’s crime was to bonk some teenager when they were barely out of their teens themselves, all because nearly 30 children are sexual abused, outside the home, every year?
It’s all a matter of choice, we could have spent the last 30 years designing and building a national infrastructure that reduced our dependency on oil, and given us a cleaner safer world. But wasn’t so much better to use our money to cultivate a culture of fear by criminalizing non-criminal behavior so the government can spend trillions on “keeping us safe” from the bogeymen that they created to keep us locked in our homes, afraid to go outside at night, afraid of each other, so they can take away our civil rights one by one.
You can see with urgent problems like these that the government needs to spend it's money on, keeping our nation secure by researching alternatives to oil has to take a back burner.
Why are oil prices so high? It all has to do with priorities, Sure we could have spent a few billion to develop alternative fuels, but that would cut into the 100's of billions we spend to track and arrest people who have consensual sex.
It would also take Chemists, and you need to decide which is more important allowing someone to go to college who has used pot to unwind, just because they might make our country stronger, or turning a third of our citizens into criminals for reasons that have never been explained.
And after all isn't more important to devote more time and research to come up with a drug that cures the problem of people's legs shaking and their butts falling asleep after only sitting in front of the TV for 6 straight hours. Without this vital research people would actually have to stand up and stretch their legs once in awhile. How can idea of keeping the US from turning into a third world nation compete with that.
Isn't it more important that we spend 100's millions of dollars each year to arrest people for what they watch in the privacy of their own homes, than say: Do research into nuclear reactors that have passive safeguards so they aren't dangerous?
And how can letting our economy be dependent on imports from people who want to kill us, compete with the need to harass people who are using a legal substance that has never been shown to harm anyone but the user.
And which is a better way to have energy available, spending a few billion on mass transit systems that could save 2 million barrels of oil, or spending trillions to invade a country that has never produced more than 3 million barrels of oil?
How can we afford to research more fuel efficient cars, when we need to spend billions on labeling, take to trial, and spending money to track thousands of “Sexual Predators” who’s crime was to bonk some teenager when they were barely out of their teens themselves, all because nearly 30 children are sexual abused, outside the home, every year?
It’s all a matter of choice, we could have spent the last 30 years designing and building a national infrastructure that reduced our dependency on oil, and given us a cleaner safer world. But wasn’t so much better to use our money to cultivate a culture of fear by criminalizing non-criminal behavior so the government can spend trillions on “keeping us safe” from the bogeymen that they created to keep us locked in our homes, afraid to go outside at night, afraid of each other, so they can take away our civil rights one by one.
You can see with urgent problems like these that the government needs to spend it's money on, keeping our nation secure by researching alternatives to oil has to take a back burner.
Beavis and Butt-Head, the Model for Bush’s DHS.
Last night I watched Beavis and Butt-Head do America. Back in 1996 when it was made the Portrayal of the total incompetence of the ATF was laughable. The idea of the ATF and FBI doing an all out manhunt for Beavis and Butt-Head with the result being little more than giving all of Beavis and Butt-Head’s neighbors “full cavity searches” was so unrealistic it was funny.
Now, 13 years later the actions of the AFT in the film seem like a plausible scenario for the Department of Homeland Security.
Having Robert Stack being the lead agent who thought the only way to get information from people: suspects, witnesses, associates, etc. was to use full cavity searches doesn’t seem so out of place now that we have Cheney making the rounds on the news saying how having CIA agents have sex with teenage boys was the only way to keep the country safe.
Labeling two teenage boys as the most dangerous men in America seems a little less absurd after Homeland Security spent millions to round up a home grown terrorist cell, were during an interview the leader of the cell pointed to head and said, “We aren’t just acting Physically…”. Or how the CIA uncovered a plot to fly an airplane into the Sands Resort in Las Vegas only to find out it was a clip from “Con Air”.
When the Department of Homeland Security is restructured, and it needs to be I hope it uses Tommy Lee Jones’s portrayal of the US Marshals in Fugitive, who used all the powers within the law to find their man as a model rather than Robert Stack’s portrayal of the ATF.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
