Dishonest climate researchers trying to save their reputation.

We’ve all heard the hype. We’ve all seen the data. But, thanks to a group of hackers who raided British University of East Anglia’s ‘Climatic Research Unit’, there is a strong possibility that there are some dishonest people trying to elevate ‘climate change’ to a threat level beyond fact.

In the hacked data, which was subsequently posted online, hundreds of e-mails and documents which painted a picture of climate change deception, scientists throwing around words which commonly refer to manipulating the data to showcase the results they want the public to see. Despite at least some of the scientists admitting the documents are genuine, the research center claims they can’t say if the stolen information is true. Yeah, convenient that they’re in a position to ‘verify’ or disprove evidence of their own misconduct.

Among some of the most blatant evidence, a leaked e-mail from the research center’s director, Phil Jones, where he suggests that ‘tricks’ are used in respect to the scientific data the center collects and analyzes. He suggests that in compiling data, he was using Mike’s ‘nature trick’ of adding real temperatures to each series for the past 20 years. In his defense, Jones claims that his use of the word trick was meant to refer to clever thinking, rather than deception. Really? Scientists are *SUPPOSED* to include the real data during their research. If Phil Jones thinks this is especially clever, he must have a habit of leaving the data out. I wonder why.

In criminal investigations, it is common to look at motive, means, and opportunity. Scientists automatically have the means and opportunity to manipulate scientific data. In fact, it’s a big part of what they do in science. We look to them for answers. What is this? Why is it happening? What does it mean? The motive is also a rather clear one. They have this idea. It might work, or it might not. They want recognition for their efforts. They want the public to acknowledge their research. They want the world to be abuzz. It serves their interest if the data supports their beliefs. What a coincidence. They happen to control the data.

Now, I am not suggesting that ‘climate change’ doesn’t exist. It is a sound concept, and it is very likely. But, if the scientific community has to alter their findings to support an agenda which is anything less than 100% true, they have failed society, and the world. If we cannot trust them to tell us the answers, how can we come to them with questions? Going ‘green’ is good for everyone. Lying to us to make us do it, not so good.

If it can be verified that scientists are indeed lying about climate change, I doubt they’ll be prosecuted. It is international terrorism. But a lot of acts fit that definition. The media lies to us every hour of every day. Reality TV passes itself as ‘genuine’. We have politicians saying one thing, and doing another. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. The lies, well, the lies get bigger and bigger. Is ‘climate change’ the modern version of Chicken Little? Who knows. One thing is certain, though. Phil Jones is lying to us. What about, is anyone’s guess.

Please note, hacking into computers is illegal, and it shouldn’t be condoned. However, it is a safe bet, had these hackers not done this, we may have never gotten evidence that suggests that there is more to ‘climate change’ than the scientific community is willing to share with the public. Good job, guys (and/or gals?). Keep it up.

Obama government stimulus tracking website fraudulent?

Recovery.gov is very innovative. You can go there and track how the economic stimulus dollars are being spent, and how American jobs are being saved and created. Sometimes, out of thin air, it seems. An ABC News report has uncovered in many states there are statistics for non-existent places. Congressional districts that aren’t present in the real world. Not just U.S. states, though. They even use their ‘dodgy’ math in territories which aren’t states.

When confronted, the White House claims it was ‘human error’. Yeah, not like you have an agenda to lie, when promoting your plans, right? Funny thing, though. They’ve already been caught lying, and admitted to it. What’s so different about it, now? When they manipulated data and statistics in the past, they admitted to it, claiming they were just trying to be positive. So, claiming to have created jobs in places that don’t even exist sounds pretty positive to me. One might even say, optimistic. Except, this is our national budget at stake. If you want to lie, do it when the voters aren’t paying for it.

This isn’t the first time the stimulus plan’s math has been put under scrutiny. Not very long ago, there were suggestions that Obama’s claims were flat-out untrue, about how many jobs would be saved or created by the package. Now, I guess it’s easier to manipulate results than actually create the jobs. I know who I probably *WON’T* be voting for next term. When you take my money, and lie about what you did with it, that’s stealing. Of course, it’s easier to say it was human error. I’d hardly expect Barack Obama as President to admit he robbed the treasury and conspired to lie about it.

Stop stalling, Mr. President, and give us the jobs you said you would. No more bogus websites, no more promises. Stop campaigning for re-election, roll up your goddamned sleeves, and fulfill your duty to the voters. Keep lying, and you’ll be losing votes.

What exactly has Chris Brown learned from his crime?

It has been a long time, since Chris Brown assaulted, bit, and threatened to kill his then-girlfriend Rihanna. Time has passed. Both parties have tried to move past it in whatever ways they feel work best for them.

Sitting here now, I’m compelled to wonder. What has Chris Brown learned? Is there any hope, at all, of him not assaulting a woman in the future? Let’s explore this.

First off, when people make a real mistake, they acknowledge it, atone, and make efforts to not do it again. What has Chris Brown done toward this end? Well, he has acknowledged that he did what Rihanna says he did. He keeps apologizing like Ike Turner, over and over. He’s claimed to be in counseling. But, for the most part, we have no verification that he’s taken any steps to avoid doing the exact same thing again. In fact, almost everything he’s done has been court-ordered, or orchestrated to improve his image.

Next, let us look at his outward sincerity. Does he act like someone who is sorry for what he did? The answer, sadly, is no. He smiles a lot. He cries on cue. He records egotistical songs. He whines about people wanting to see him fail, as though he is unaware of what he’s done to deserve such a public opinion.

If I could ask Chris Brown any question, and him be forced to answer, I would ask him this. What would you have done, had the police not intervened?

Chris Brown still has many supporters. Most of them display the typical “who cares?” attitude. Some of them say Rihanna did something to provoke the attack. Some seem to believe that what he did was something we can forget all about. Really? Any of you have friends who beat, bite, and threaten to murder their girlfriends? I’m hoping that’s a big no. In fact, I can almost guarantee it’s a no, because normal people do not do that. It takes a lot to get rational people to escalate toward that level of physical violence. The only people who build up, quickly and consistently, to that zone, with little provocation, have a lot of problems upstairs. Chris Brown admitted that it was indeed true, so there’s no denying it. No matter how you look at it, if you indeed do, Chris Brown is going to need a lot more than court-sponsored therapy to get better. Since he hasn’t indicated that he is seeking the proper help, I can only assume he is not.

So, whoever is next on his girlfriend list, be very careful. He may kill you, and there is no one on this earth who can professionally say otherwise.

Oprah Winfrey publicly punishes a guest for being charged with a crime?

BeBe Wynans, a well-known and respected gospel singer, has been dumped from the Oprah Winfrey show. Not because of anything he’s officially done, though. He’s been charged with pushing his wife. Not convicted. Not found guilty by judge or jury. Simply charged. He hasn’t even had his trial yet. But, forget about formalities, Oprah Winfrey has her ego to protect.

That’s right. She had no problem with him being on the show, and charged with pushing his wife, when he was already on. No, she waited until bloggers started talking about how ridiculous she was for claiming to be against domestic violence, yet having him on her show. So, to prove how flip-floppy of a media whore she is, she dropped him. Can’t have any controversy, can we? No, sir. No alleged sex abuse scandals in our ’school for girls’ franchise. No alleged conspiracy to make that Holocaust book author money for a fraudulent story he made up. Oprah has plenty of skeletons in her closet. Many people know this.

But, for some reason, now she’s trying to desperately control any indication of corruption or fraud. Why now? Wouldn’t it have been better to screen the staff at Oprah’s girls’ school before they allegedly raped students? Wouldn’t it have been better to verify the author’s book was a genuinely true story before marketing it to everyone?

Best of all, what if BeBe Wynans’ wife comes forward, during the trial, and reveals she made the claim up? Or, that it was somehow misinterpreted? What if you have publicly humiliated a famous gospel singer, only to save your own flabby neck, Oprah? Well, I’m guessing that if that happens, you’ll end up trying to capitalize on it with some sort of special show. You’ll get all teary-eyed, and beg BeBe for forgiveness. You’ll claim it was all a big misunderstanding. It will all be 100% bullshit. Because, you’ve already shown the world your face.

You’re in the United States of America, Oprah. We do not condemn people publicly before they’ve had a fair trial. Well, at least the honest and fair people don’t do it. Guess that makes you one of those ‘other’ people, doesn’t it?

Tyra Banks uses race controversy for self-promotion.

“America’s Next Top Model”, featuring Tyra Banks pretending she has talent, is going to have contestants pose as “another race” for a photo shoot. Reality television, fake as it is, has never really been any stranger to controversy. But, leave it to ‘brilliant’ people like Tyra Banks to think that painting white people black for money is a good idea, when it has been frowned upon for decades. It is poor taste. Tyra Banks knew this, and knows it now. She’s not above using it to put her name in the media, though. That’s one thing she and the other reality television regulars are good at. Re-using someone else’s bad ideas.

Tyra Banks used to be influential, attractive, and had success. Now she’s just another reality joke trying to get people to take her seriously. Remember the staged polygraph exam where she pretended to idolize Oprah? Face it, Tyra. You’re a ‘primetime’ copy of what used to happen when celebrities got old and boring. Years ago, they would sell hand cream and designer bath towels at 2AM. Now, they get reality television shows, and beg people to throw them a ratings share. It’d almost count as a regular job, except everyone who has one laughs at you.

Hey, Tyra. Why don’t you get back into modeling? Are you too old? A movie? Write a book? Learn to read? Maybe create a talk show? A magazine? Something?

The Washington Redskins are **SUFFERING** under Daniel Snyder’s ‘leadership’.

The Washington Redskins, as a team, are sucking, and very badly. They’re performing badly. Even some players are questioning the way the team is being run. Fans hate Daniel Snyder. Many vocally, and quite visibly, want him gone. Snyder does not have many friends, if any, among the team’s loyal fans.

What does the team management do, when faced with this overwhelming message? Ban signs at games. That’s right. They apparently think there are still some fans out there that don’t yet know what a complete jackass Daniel Snyder is, and are desperate to keep those fans from seeing any signs on television that might clue them in.

The team has implemented new instructions that signs are not permitted, and security will usher you out if they’re present. The official excuse for the ban is that signs could block other fans’ view, or potentially injure someone. Yeah. Penants have been used in stadiums for decades without deaths. Good time to start saying signs are bad.

In an interview with radio station “The Fan” 106.7 in Washington, Redskins chief officer David Donovan had this to say. “The banners we do have a prohibition against. We don’t care what they say, and we take them down. They get in the way of other people watching the game and people getting poked in the head. That stuff happens.”

The fan banners get in the way of people getting poked in the head? (Sorry, I had to.)

Despite the lies, the signs are being banned to silence team critics. This no-signs rule didn’t exist at all, until fans started getting angry, and being highly vocal and creative with their dislike of Daniel Snyder. So, in addition to every other insult you can throw at him, we can call him a liar, too.

As a further slap in the face to Daniel Snyder, the fucking idiot didn’t even know his stadiums already covered the rule he made up. The Redskins 2009 season guide already has a piece about signs obstructing view or causing injuries, and they’re not allowed to do this.

I think it is quite safe to say at this point ANYONE could do a better job of running the Redskins than Snyder. He’s just another in a long line of rich idiots who think a fat bank account makes you smart or powerful. Sorry, Daniel, but don’t bite the customers. They bite back. Some of us have pretty big teeth.

Why isn’t someone crushing the Somali pirates?

I seem to remember reading, long ago, another organization of pirates attempted to blackmail nations by controlling passage through and around their territory. It led to armed conflict with many deaths.

What I most wonder, now, with all this technology, all these advances, all this ‘growth’, why are criminal thugs still such a threat in the world? Barack Obama wants to send troops to Afghanistan. We’re still in Iraq. How about sending some to Somalia? They’ve just kidnapped a couple of old people, and threatening to shoot them if anyone tries a rescue. That’s certainly not a very smart or well-planned threat. It’s also not very original. We’ve got the U.N., many industrialized nations, and probably more than enough force to cut these bastards down.

But, still we read about ships and hostages seized, ransoms demanded, and the cycle goes on and on. Does anyone in the entire world think that the idiots are going to stop doing this? Not until someone hits them hard. Break their backs. We can’t do it with kind words. We certainly can’t afford to pay them ‘tribute’, if anyone’s got that on their minds. Much like the old days, when you cave in to these people, they keep coming back with more demands. They’re not a government. How about calling them terrorists, and using that as a precursor to moving in? We’re already using it everywhere else. Sure, there’s probably no money to be made taking out Somali thugs in the name of ‘freedom’, but at least it’d be a good deed, and would stop them from harassing every ship that passes through. How about a global War on Piracy? We could hunt down every seafaring thug in the open water.

It would be good for U.S. business, too. Other nations might look to us as a nation that protects innocent victims. Well, if Barack Obama is interested in our image, anyway.

Home Depot fires employee for wearing religious patriotic pin.

Home Depot has fired Florida employee Trevor Keezor for ‘violating the dress code’. Specifically, he wore a pin on his uniform that had “One nation under God, indivisible.” on it.

Keezor claims he was wearing the pin for over a year without incident. Home Depot chose to fire Keezor, suspiciously, after he began bringing his Bible to read on breaks. To be fair, they didn’t immediately fire him. First, they told him to exchange pins with one that didn’t have a quote from the Pledge of Allegiance (“United We Stand”). He was fired when he opted out of that. Funny, they’d allow him to wear a pin that supported the government, but wasn’t Home Depot stock, and wouldn’t allow him to wear a similar pin that did the same thing? And, all because of the “God” quote? Sounds like a really shady business practice, to me. And, no, you’ll never catch me wearing a “God” pin. My assessment in this case is 100% unbiased. I even shop in Home Depot.

Keezor then hired a lawyer and they plan to sue. The funny part is, they didn’t tell him to change pins when he started wearing the pin. Instead, they chose to tell him to change pins when he brought the Bible, which is personal property and probably not covered in Home Depot’s ‘dress code’. Something tells me this is indeed a case of religious discrimination. Seems to me they waited a long time if it was over the pin. Plus, his lawyer has a point. There are references to “God” all over the place that Home Depot can’t forcibly remove. I wonder which religious stance Keezor’s supervisors hold.

Personally, I think Home Depot would have a better chance in court if they’d banned Keezor’s Bible. As media pressure mounts, it’ll end up looking less like a case of religious persecution and more like a case of punishing employees for visible support of the government. Either way, I’d expect this kind of shit from Walmart, not Home Depot. Are they secretly affiliated?

FDA tells taxpayers what kind of oysters they’re allowed to eat.

The F.D.A. (Food & Drug Administration) is set to ‘ban’ the sale of raw oysters from the Gulf Coast as food items, unless they’re treated in a manner which many experts conclude alters or destroys their unique taste.

What I want to know is, why? The ‘potentially deadly bacteria’ that the F.D.A. says is the problem didn’t just suddenly spring into existence. The offending bacteria, Vibrio vulnificus, kills up to 15 people each year who eat raw oysters. Most of the victims have compromised or weak immune systems. Funny, H1N1 does that, and the F.D.A. isn’t banning the inhalation of air.

The ban would quite possibly destroy a cultural activity enjoyed for generations. Not to mention ruin the “raw bar” industry down here. Plus, all those oyster harvesters would need to seek new jobs. That would mean even more unemployed in the country for Obama to make good on his promise to find work for. And, worse still, it would establish another precedent of ‘big government’ meddling in local culture and community.

The F.D.A. supports a ban largely because consumers aren’t listening to their warnings, and “millions of other people” may not know they’re vulnerable. Really? The F.D.A. knows when consumers aren’t heeding a warning, and know the statistics of the bacteria-related deaths, but they don’t know if people know whether or not they’re vulnerable? Sounds like an excuse.

This comes just after Obama visited New Orleans, claiming that he has ‘cleared’ obstacles, and is working toward the iconic community returning to their glory. Oyster farming and eating has been a business and cultural event for centuries. For some harvesters, the ban has struck people when they are already down, because some have been forced to spend thousands of dollars on ‘upgrades’ to their boats to meet new refrigerating rules.

The F.D.A., who likely don’t eat raw oysters, claim there is no change in taste after the oyster treatment process, which involves heat, freezing temperatures, and exposure to gamma radiation. I don’t think anyone would want to eat an oyster after reading that had been done to it, would you? The F.D.A. cites a California raw oyster ban in 2003 as an example of how the treatment saves lives. Of course, that’s a California matter, not federal.

The ban would only affect oysters farmed in the Gulf Coast area, even though the bacteria is found in other areas. The ‘logic’ is that the bacteria, though present in other areas, lacks the concentrations found in the Gulf Coast. Does that mean the F.D.A. only cares about destroying industries in financially stricken regions of the country? In addition to clearly altering the taste of the treated oysters, the treatment itself is very expensive. So expensive, many believe that compliance with the ban would run successful businesses into the ground.

Is this what Barack Obama and Washington D.C. mean by ‘helping’ the Gulf Coast?

Also, pardon my French, but, WHAT THE FUCK?! The F.D.A. has been furthering a ‘bacteria scare’ for months. Tomatoes, pistachios, spinach.. Now it’s raw oysters. Pick an industry. Seriously, it almost seems carefully planned. As though some business is losing money, then get the F.D.A. to ban things that their rivals sell. But, I’m no conspiracy theorist. Either way, though, it’s a really offensive way to oversee an industry. Maybe it is time the F.D.A. gets one of Obama’s famous ‘reform’ bills. How about some new people in charge? Ones less inclined to take bribes, falsify records, and lie to the public.

The still-business-friendly truth behind Obama’s climate bill.

Barack Obama wants people to believe he’s not a yes-man to big business. He’ll tout his words. He has to tout his words, because, in the big picture, he hasn’t *DONE* much. He’s claimed much, but the legwork, planning, and execution almost entirely falls on other people.

But, he can’t even talk his way out of the climate bill. The main problem with the bill is that it allows big business to continue polluting. All it takes is buying extra ‘credits’. We’ve heard it before, but to sum it up, we’re supposed to be in a global crisis. Pollution is destroying our atmosphere, warming our eco-system, and pushing civilization slowly towards problems it may not be able to recover from. The whole point of the argument was to fire us up, and get us working to actually stop ourselves from sliding down that path. Obama has made public statements that, if he were honest, suggest he understands pollution is bad, and it needs to be reigned in. It can’t be reigned in, if you allow people to circumvent the standardized cap on pollution, not if they justify a need to pollute more, but simply pay more. At the risk of asking an unpopular question, Mr. Obama, who is paying you to facilitate this? Because, it sure as hell isn’t me.

And, what is it with business being allowed to negotiate ceilings for how much they can pollute? Do they think those billions of dollars they make will suddenly clean the air, when it becomes so thick with toxins everyone needs inhalers or filter masks to take a walk? Seriously. We all know pollution is a growing problem. Yet, they’re allowed to continue doing it. They could be forced to make the switch to methods that will lessen or even halt toxin emissions. Why not? I can’t fire a gun randomly in the air, even if none of the bullets hit anyone. Why do they have a go-head to pollute my air? The ban on smoking at least has proven it is possible to stop polluters from polluting.

I wonder how many of Obama’s other public pushes for ‘change’ have hidden things no one wants. The health reform plan apparently raises coverage costs. The climate reform plan allows companies to still pollute, if they pay kickbacks. What else aren’t we being told?