Dear Sponsors, please click below to view our waiting children with Down syndrome who are most “at risk” of imminent institutionalization due to their age and/or medical complications. Typically, our children are sent to the mental institutions at the age of 4, so we are in a frantic race against time to raise grant donations and find adoptive families for them before their time runs out. Although they can often still be adopted once they are transferred, the emotional damage to them is so painful, and we work really hard to prevent that from ever happening.
Your donations can truly mean the difference between life and death for these little ones. There are many families who want to adopt these children, but the high cost of international adoption prevents many of them from doing so. You can save a life AND make an adoption dream come true with your gifts of sponsorship. Your “gift of a family” makes it possible for adoptive families to rescue these very deserving angels. Thank you for your generosity!
Thomas Friedman had an op-ed in the NYT recently, joining in to pile on to the energy industry:”The only meaningful response to this man-made disaster is a man-made energy bill that would finally put in place an American clean-energy infrastructure that would set our country on a real, long-term path to ending our addiction to oil.”
Ehrlich’s procedure — crying out in desperation to urge what’s already happening — isn’t unique. We have a contemporary example in the call of politicians and activists to end our dependence on fossil fuels, and move to a “carbon neutral” lifestyle. Their call to action is, however, a bit late.
According to Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller Institute, industrialized nations have been decarbonizing their energy sources for 150 years, meaning we are moving away from carbon toward hydrogen. In other words, the ratio of carbon to hydrogen decreases as you go from wood and hay (1:1) to coal to oil to gas (1:4). Here is an illustration from one of his articles:
Ausubel expects the trend to continue through this century as we move toward pure hydrogen — without the assistance of lawyers and activists. Obviously if a trend has been continuously operating since the days of Lincoln and Queen Victoria, it probably does not need the assistance of organizations like the Sierra Club and the NRDC, which are showing up about a hundred years too late.
Ausubel’s ideas are controversial to some, but not to sites like Sustainability Now:
Even now we’re moving - without government coercion - toward using compressed natural gas, biodiesels, and cellulosic ethanol as fuel for cars and buses, vehicles and appliances are becoming more efficient across the board, and people are far more conscious of the energy they use.
Why don’t we cap the well, and think long and hard about the implications of interfering in the market before the government gets involved. What they should be doing is encouraging fleet owners to convert to biodiesel or CNG, since it’s cheaper anyway, as well as being cleaner and renewable. They could also throw their weight behind the cellulosic movement, rather than corn-based ethanol; it’s more efficient, has a smaller carbon footprint, and doesn’t drive up food prices.
There’s plenty to do before increasing regulation.
Now that the law has been amended, removing the word “solely” from the prohibition of racial profiling (clarifying that race can’t be used at all), and finally defining “lawful contact” as “lawful stop, detention or arrest.”
But this won’t satisfy people for whom the charge of racism is the most useful (and only) argument. They can’t argue the actual law, so they say that officers will manufacture a “pretext” for stopping someone, like having a tail light out. It may surprise these people that having a taillight out is illegal, and for good reason. And you won’t usually get pulled over for it unless it’s dark outside…so the officer has no way of knowing your race until you roll down the window. And since a driver’s license is enough to prove legal presence, legal residents (who are licensed to drive) have nothing to worry about. If you’re not legal or don’t have a license, prepare to spend a couple of hours in police custody…
On Saturday’s Good Morning America, reporter Mike Von Fremd downplayed the violence of protesters against Arizona’s new immigration law. He spun, “Riot police were called in to try and control demonstrators protesting outside the capital. Most were peaceful. A handful threw bottles at police and were arrested.” Yet, ABC derided March’s Tea Party rallies as “very ugly,” despite the fact that there were no arrests.
In contrast, on March 20, World News host David Muir scolded, “Protesters against the [health care] plan gathered on the streets of the capital where late today we learned words shouted turned very ugly, reports of racial and homophobic slurs, one protester actually spitting on a Congressman.” Continuing to fret over those opposed the bill, he complained, “Late word from Washington tonight about just how ugly the crowds gathered outside the Longworth office building have become.”
If Tea Party protesters had thrown bottles at members of Congress, it seems unlikely that ABC would have described them as “mostly peaceful.”
Over on NBC’s Today show on Saturday, correspondent Jose Diaz Balart played it straight with regard to immigration rallies: “Tensions were high outside the Capitol. Four protesters were arrested.” On CBS’s Early Show, Chris Wragge made only a quick reference to the protests: “On Friday, there were protests against the bill outside the state capitol in Phoenix.”
For those subscribed to the feed from pos51.org, welcome to the new format. Same writer, same brain, new venue.
I’ll still be posting on life, politics, and philosophical garbage, but I’ll be posting about design and development at MonkeyGrassCreative.com, and about writing, actual philosophy and education at blogs soon to be announced.
I keep seeing comments about the health care bill that say basically, “We all knew it wasn’t great and would need a bunch of work once it was passed. Stop whining about the problems we knew were there!”
But what kind of sense does it make to pass a new bill full of problems that need to be fixed? Why not fix them before passage? It’s like paying full price for a broken boat, then trying to fix it on the water (with a toy hammer and scotch tape).
Every day we pass by hundreds of people on the subway, in hallways, or on the streets, never saying a word. Yet despite the lack of verbal communication, decisions are being made as to the trustworthiness and intentions of those around you. Doubt this? Try wearing a ski mask and trench coat while gesturing wildly with your arms. In the 15 minutes you have before the police show-up, take note that despite not saying a single word your appearance has sent a message.
The KC Star gave Jason Whitlock a column, and it’s, um, bad…
Well, in fact, it’s been quite a bit more lucrative for Glenn “Rev. Right” Beck and Sarah “Gal Sharpton” Palin, the shiny new stars of the elitist, right-wing mainstream media…
Rev. Right is challenging Bill O’Reilly as the face of Fox News and now earns more than $30 million a year from the radio-TV-book empire built on the laughable notion that Beck speaks for the common man. Since quitting elected office, Gal Sharpton has pocketed an estimated $12 million as a community organizer of “real Americans…”
As some of you know (and detest), I avoid our political system. I’ve never voted. I don’t have a political affiliation or ideology. I did, however, have a naive hope that our multi-cultured, traditional-values president would usher in a teeny bit of racial harmony…
All emphasis is mine.
First, no honest and thinking person could entertain the notion that the mainstream media is right-wing, especially when “there is a quantifiable and significant bias” to the left.
Second, is he making fun of the idea of a community organizer? Well I guess it doesn’t mean anything since he didn’t vote for the president and has no political ideology…except for the one he’s so angrily espousing in this column.
And in what world is this a “traditional-values president”?
If you look at the comments, the Star’s decision seems to have backfired.
