Thursday, June 26, 2008
Time once again for a trip into canoe country. This year we are going in deep. This will be a challenging trek into the wilderness known as the BWCA in northern Minnesota. I've been told this trip is a day in and a day out. We won't be fishing until day two - I've been promised an awesome fishing experience. I can't disclose the name of the lake in deference to my guides (my brothers and brother-in-law). The location is pristine and they'd like to keep it that way. Plus, they'd beat the snot out of me.
I shall be back in a week and I'll have pictures...
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Last night I had the most vivid dream I have ever had. It is now 11 AM and I still can't get over this dream. What the dream was about is not even relevant to my utter fascination. It was the fact I knew I was dreaming and was directing my mind consciously to look around and take it all in. It was like watching high def TV - it was awesome.
I have always been a lucid dreamer, I sleep light and often know that I am dreaming. But last night's dream was the first time I was actually directing myself within the dream. I also tend to have recurring dreams where the scene or the venue is familiar, like a house that I know from top to bottom but have never seen in real life. In fact I have two houses - one that is mansion-like and gorgeous and one that is a wreck (also a huge, hulking house but is in serious disrepair and with a basement I dare not venture into).
Often my family is there, but just as often I am in the company of complete strangers. Many dreams find me in a "defense of the castle" scenario where I am fending off thieves, robbers or murderers after society has broken down. Obviously I watch too many movies.
The other recurring dream involves me driving large vehicles, trucks, buses etc with really, really bad brakes. I would guess this one is because once I was actually driving a bus (converted into an RV) with my young family when the brakes went out - going downhill. We lived.
I am fascinated with dreams and dreaming and often wondered what sleep-time dreaming was all about. I have read many articles and books on the subject and have a good understanding from a physiological point of view as to why we need to dream. Dreaming helps to embed learning and to form memories. What really intrigues me though is the bizarre nature of dreams. There are so many aspects of my dreams that cannot possibly come from my own experiences - places I've been to, people I meet, things I can do that defy my waking reality. Where does this come from? TV, books, movies? Well, some of my dreams are more far out than any Sci Fi movie I've ever seen. No, these dreams are not offspring of visual or mental stimulation during my waking hours.
What about past lives? What about parallel dimensions? Is it possible that your energy, your soul, exists in a multiverse? Perhaps when in a dream state you can pass between these dimensions and experience just for a brief moment your alter ego's world. What else can explain dreaming experiences and having associations that have no basis in your own reality. I don't have answers, no one really does. Science can explain many things, but like faith, dreams are inexplicable.
Dream on, see where it takes you...
Saturday, June 21, 2008
In the midst of all the doom and gloom - with the midwest floods, $4 gasoline, an endless Presidential election, bad economic trends and everything else that makes the news so hard to take, I offer some relief...
Pretty flowers from my wife's gardens. Enjoy.
There, wasn't that nice?
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Here are the highlights: (read the whole thing here)
Rohrabacher: Only 18 months ago the refrain “Case closed: Global warming is real,” was repeated as if the mantra from some religious zealots. It was pounded into the public consciousness over the airwaves, in print, and even at congressional hearings, “Case closed.” Well, this was obviously a brazen attempt to end open discussion and to silence differing views by dismissing the need for seriously contrary arguments and seriously listening to both sides of an argument. And rather than hearing both sides of the argument, this was an attempt to dismiss arguments even though the person making the arguments might have a very impressive credential or might be a very educated scientist or someone else who should be listened to.
My comment: Al Gore has been saying this for years, fueling the true believers to actually consider criminalizing vocal skepticism, labeling us "deniers" - akin to Holocaust denial. In countries like Canada where free speech is not as protected as it is in the U.S. laws such as this are seriously being considered. This is far more frightening that Global Warming. Read further from Rohrabachers testimony...
Rohrabacher: In fact, Al Gore’s first act as Vice President was to insist that William Harper be fired as the Chief Scientist at the Department of Energy. Now, why was that? Well, that’s because William Harper had uttered words indicating that he was open minded to the issue of global warming. So off with his head. They didn’t want someone who was open minded. They wanted someone who was going to provide grants based on people who would verify this man-made global warming theory.
Rohrabacher: So what is this theory that now is so accepted that no more debate is needed or even tolerated? The man-made global warming theory may be presented as scientific truism, but it is not. It is a disturbing theory that the Earth began a warming cycle 150 years ago that differed greatly from all the other warming and cooling cycles in the Earth’s past. This warming cycle of 150 years ago, we keep being told, is tied directly to mankind’s use of fossil fuels, basically oil and coal, which, of course, oil and coal and these fuels, these so-called fossil fuels, have powered our industries and made modern civilization possible.... ...for skeptics of this hypothesis, the consequence of accepting this theory, the consequences are far more dire than any of the consequences we’re supposed to be suffering out of a predicted rise in temperature.
My comment: My contention exactly - where is it written in stone that a warmer climate is necessarily bad? All evidence, as experienced during the Medieval Warming Period, point to mankind thriving - with hunger, disease and premature death all declining precipitously. It makes you wonder if the environmentalists even want good things for humankind???
Rohrabacher: Why is it that basically we’ve had stable weather, if not a little cooler weather, for the last 8 years?
The first attempt to basically cover their tracks about this noticeable dichotomy in what they predicted and what was happening happened a few years ago, and it went very slowly but very cleverly. The words “climate change” have now replaced the words “global warming.” Get that? Every time you hear it now, half the time they are going to be using the words “climate change” where those very same people were so adamant about “global warming” only 4 or 5 years ago. So no matter what happens now, now that they’ve changed it to “climate change” rather than global warming, whatever happens to the weather pattern, whether it’s hotter or cooler, it can be presented as further verification of human-caused change. If you just had “human-caused warming,” it would have to be at least warming for them to actually have any verification of what they were trying to say. But right now by using “climate change,” they can bolster their right to be taken seriously upon recommending policies, even though no matter what direction the climate goes, it is justified by how they are labeling themselves.I’m sorry, fellows. Do you really think the world is filled with morons? When it comes to bait and switch, used car salesmen are paragons of virtue compared to this global warming crowd. Excuse me. It’s not the “global warming” crowd now; it’s the “climate change” crowd.
My comment: Honestly, most people I know feel that the chicken little approach just doesn't square with what the see with there own eyes. No one, not even evil Republicans, wants air pollution and foul water - hard as it may be to believe. We also don't want our incredible modern, mobile, technological world to go down the drain. These hysterical frauds actually want to quell your personal freedom using the hoax of man caused catastrophic climate disaster. Scare tactics, climate of fear. These are the words they - the left, the Democrats - use on President Bush when he is rallying people to fight against something that IS real, terrorism. Yet this is what they have been doing for nearly 2 decades now, and proof has eluded them to the point of them scrambling to change the terms and the very nature of their pronouncements as evidence mounts against them.
The final words go to Congressman Rohrabacher (and do take the time to read his speech):
Well, let’s put it this way, we hear that, there is a consensus over and over again. There is no consensus. The world is not getting warmer, and I would submit a list of 400 members of the scientific community who do not agree with a man-made global warming theory and, I might add, I quoted numerous very prestigious members of the scientific community already in this speech. So what we have is alarmism at its worst, and the consequences will be very, very severe if we let these people get away with this.
hat tip to AlFin and wattsupwiththat!
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
I am now officially teed-off. Four dollars a gallon - in America! Who exactly am I mad at? I can point fingers all I want without guilt. Oil companies? Maybe. Speculators? Probably. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Russia? You bet. Past and current Presidents? Absolutely! I shall save my most stinging vitriol for the American Congress.
Personally I try as best I can not to drive unnecessarily - but why should I even have to? Sure I drive to work everyday - 16 miles one way - because there is no bus that can get me there in less than two hours. That's 4 hours a day I am not willing to give up. Sure I drive a mid-sized car with a small V6. I want to get there safely, I don't feel safe in tiny cars, no one does. I will not feel guilty because I drive a car that burns gas.
This current energy crisis is not about running out of oil - it's a political problem and I'm here to tell you (as if you don't already know) our politicians have been failing us for years.
So, last week I wrote all my congresspeople a letter. It was a nice letter that got right to the point without politics of blame letting. I told them (not asked) to take the shackles off American production of oil, gas, coal and nuclear power. I assured them that all these things were attainable with an eye toward protecting the environment. Like I said it was a very nice letter.
Within a week Senator Norm Coleman responded with a lengthy (form) letter explaining his positions on ANWR, this Republican was against it. He did vote on a bill that would open up a section of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to development. He never mentioned nuclear. So, needless to say I didn't get many warm fuzzies from Norm.
My House Representative, Ms. Betty McCullum, sent me a nice letter on what she is doing to address the problem of PTSD suffered by our returning soldiers. Not exactly to my point, but at least she responded.
Senator Amy Klobachar has yet to respond.
I'm afraid the needed change in Congress will not be coming from my congressional delegation. Those of you not in Minnesota please try yours, perhaps you'll have better luck.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Halo and all, Obama, or Obamessiah if you will, strikes his patented saintly pose. Get used to it. From now until the election in November 2008 Barack Obama will be shed in the most flattering light the main stream media has ever cast upon a political candidate. This man can do no wrong. If ever he is criticized the cries of racism will follow. Get used to it.
Nevermind the people this freshman senator of little accomplishment has associated himself with in his rise to the top of the Democratic dogpile (the steaming kind if you know what I mean ). Domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, self-loathing American Bernadine Dorne, The right honorable Rev Wright and the permanently indicted Mr. Rezko of Chicago's mean streets are just the ones you've heard of.
He comes to us with a resume that touts his work as a Community Organizer (whatever that is). He is known to associate with ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - an infamous socialist/Marxist organization. To be sure community organizing among the urban poor has been an honorable American tradition since the late-nineteenth-century when Jane Addams’s built the famous Hull House that compassionately uplifted the Chicago slums. ACORN and the Addams tradition could not be more different philosophically. Hull House emphasized self-empowerment: the downtrodden could take control of their lives and communities through education, hard work, and personal responsibility. But ACORN? It promotes a 1960s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology, and government welfare. In reality, not only does it harm the poor it claims to serve; it is also a real threat to the urban future.
It comes as no surprise that Obama was attracted to ACORN as it preaches a leftist–inspired mantra, it grew out of one of the New Left’s most notorious movements, the National Welfare Rights Organization. It's ultimate goal would force a radical restructuring of America’s unjust capitalist economy. Is it becoming clear to you that Obama does not believe in a capitalist America?
Barack Obama has associated himself throughout his life with known American communists. He is, by all accounts, based on his associations and his minimal voting record, a closet Marxist. His aim is to disarm this country and socialize what has not already been socialized. Sure these are strong accusations, but just try to point out the falsity...
On the charge that he will disarm the United States you merely have to read the words that his highness has delivered unto us from his celebrated oratory skills:
"I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat system. ...
"I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons," Obama says in the video. "To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."
This may sound good on the surface to those who disdain American power, but it is still a dangerous world and if you truly contemplate what a disarmed United States would mean then you are throwing under the bus Europe, Israel, Japan, Australia and the rest of North America since none of these countries has a defensive prayer without us. On this score Obama is dangerously naive or a master panderer.
On the domestic front every vote he has ever cast in his short political career has been to advance socialism. He has never "reached across the isle" and worked with conservatives to achieve compromise. Never.
When he stands there and says things like - Americans can't continue to drive their SUV's, turn their thermostats up to 72 and eat anything they want and expect the rest of the world to be all right with that - he send chills down my spine. What the hell do foreigners have to say about what I eat, what I drive, and how warm my house is in the winter? What would Saint Barack propose? A fair practice rules committee staffed by non-Americans? And this guy wants to be President of the United States? Go to Europe Barack, they love you there.
Ok, I guess it's obvious by now... I won't be voting for his holiness this fall.