Sunday, February 25, 2007

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Pwnz Darrell Issa

Don't really need to comment on this ... the video says it all... PWNED!
Why does the ACLU defend NAMBLA?
One Angry Christian

Out of the depths of the heart ... the mouth does speak.

-One Angry Christian

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Ted Nugent is my Hero
One Angry Christian

One of the guys I work with passed this around, and so I decided to google it and see if it's a hoax or not.

Nugent, an avid hunter, was being interviewed by a
French journalist:

The journalist asked, "What do you think the last
thought is in the mind of a deer before you shoot it?
Is it, "Are you my friend?" or is it "Are you the one
who killed my brother?"

Nugent replied, "Deer aren't capable of that kind of
thinking. All they care about is, 'What am I going to eat next,
who am I going to screw next, and can I run fast enough to get away.
They are very much like the French."
Apparently, it wasn't made up.

Therefore, Ted is my hero of the day. All Hail the mighty NUGE!!!

-One Angry Christian

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Ideology over evidence
One Angry Christian

Here's yet more proof that universities are more interested in indoctrination than quality education. One university is looking into giving Gore an Honorary Doctorate for his work regarding global warming.

How sad it is that our nation's educational system has become nothing more than a tool for radicals and ideologues of every leftist shade.

-One Angry Christian
McCain and Humor
One Angry Christian

He's trying to pull a Clinton, and as much as I'd like to make fun of him for it as he's sold us out on the border - this is really darn funny.

-One Angry Christian
For what do light and darkness have to do with each other?
One Angry Christian

For years Christian leaders have said that where Christianity is prevalent, promoted, and accepted evil tends to dwindle, and where evil is prevalent, promoted, and accepted Christianity tends to dwindle. I've been thinking about this a lot lately considering the state of our union, and I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible for a society to embrace Christianity and moral relativity at the same time.

They will hate one or the other.

Consider that where ever Christian symbols, practices, and people have been attacked and removed - almost immediately things that even a lot of Non Christians consider disgusting have been thrust into the public light to fill the void.


Consider this
. I could post a dozen more stories like this.

H/T: Melvin Udall

-One Angry Christian

Monday, February 19, 2007

The Stern Review: A Dual Critique (Part II)
One Angry Christian

So I’m wading through this report. Here’s some of the more meaty stuff in it. I’ve broken it down into categories and the major points supporting those categories.

Climate Science is a new and immature science that has yet to be honed.

  • In its last Assessment Report, the IPCC still rated the “level of scientific understanding” of nine out of twelve identified climate forcings as “low” or “very low”,5 highlighted the limitations and short history of climate models,6 and recognised large uncertainties about how clouds react to climate forcing.7

  • None of the climate models being used take into account several factors such as solar heat increases, cosmic winds, and the effects of aerosols. They also do not account for new assertions that methane forcing maybe underestimated by half.

  • Moreover, given that the estimated temperature change over the late twentieth century amounted to only a few tenths of a degree, there must be significant doubt as to whether model simulations of external forcings are even required as an explanation. Such minor fluctuations may rather be due to natural, internal, unforced variability.

Exaggerating warming trends and more examples of bad science

  • Early in the OXONIA Technical Annex, it was said with unjustified certainty that “The rate and scale of 20th century warming has been unprecedented for at least the past 1,000 years.” While the Review backtracks somewhat,12 the claim raises the issue of context.

    • The only genuinely global records of measured temperature come from weather balloon radiosonde measurements (since 1958) and satellite microwave sounding units (since 1978). These data, for what they are worth over such short time periods, indicate a gentle warming trend of about 0.1–0.2 degrees C/decade.13

    • The trend, such as it is, is at least in part an artifact caused by irregularities such as volcanic eruptions and El Nino events,15 and anyway—prima facie—it is unalarming in both rate and magnitude.

    • Nor is there any sign of acceleration either in surface or tropospheric data, calling into question the Review’s emphasis on outcomes involving decadal trends of 0.3–0.6 degrees C. Despite the accumulation of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere since 1900, and especially since 1950, no global temperature databases exhibit temperature trends of such magnitude.

    • If comparison is made with the ‘global average temperature’ statistic since 1860 that is computed from near-surface thermometer measurements, 17 then the late twentieth-century warming is similar in both amount and rate to an earlier (natural) warming between 1905 and 1940.

    • the oxygen isotope (proxy air temperature) record from the Greenland GRIP drilling project shows that the late twentieth-century warming represents an intermittent high on a sinusoidal, millennial temperature pattern18 of possible solar origin.19 This record shows that recent warming occurred at a similar rate, but was of lesser magnitude, than the earlier, millennial warmings associated with the Mediaeval, Roman and Minoan warm periods.

Thus the Review’s apodictic claim that “An overwhelming body of scientific evidence indicates that the Earth’s climate is rapidly changing, predominantly as a result of increases in greenhouse gases caused by human activities”20 is without foundation.

-One Angry Christian

The Stern Review: A Dual Critique (Part I)
One Angry Christian

I received an email From Dr. Bob Carter awhile back. You'll remember that I put up something about him after Nancy Pelosi who created a global warming committee made it obvious that she's interested in diverse debate on the subject of the environment – that is, if diversity encompasses only various views supporting the global warming alarmism spreading like wild fire among hipster leftists and zombie university students. In short, she tried to stifle open debate on the subject.

A hard lefty stifling discussion? Say it aint so!

He sent me a critique of the Stern Review, which is the first review of the topic by an economist. That economist is one Sir Nicholas Stern. I find this highly ironic because for years the environmentalists have used the idea that no one outside of climatologists – and of course ... the environmentalists – is qualified to comment on this subject to silence those who disagree with them.

Obviously this isn't the case if those outside that small circle of so-called experts agree with their so-called science.

The Stern review is the largest and most widely known and discussed report of its kind, and therefore a great representation of the fundamental principles of what constructs a supporting argument for Global Warming, its consequences, and what Environmentalists think we should do about it.

The Paper he sent me is rather long and involved so I'm going to break it down as best as I can, and give you the major points. This is a real eye opener for anyone who has been berated by leftists touting "unbiased peer reviewed reports" on the topic of environmentalism. There seems to be very little information that's unbiased in this debate.

There are a few points you have to keep in mind when reading this critique:

  1. A team of Scientists, Economists, Staticians, and Engineers put this critique together. Their backgrounds range from Paleontology to Climateology to Political Economics to Water Industry management. Whatever claims the left might make about there not being "experts involved" here are complete crap.
  2. As much as "some studies are funded by oil interests", IPCC studies are funded by the UN whose body funds the studies. The body has a direct interest in slow bleeding the US economy, and obviously the UN isn't the most ... credible of sources.
  3. This group isn't the only group calling into question the "science" of global warming. That's probably because of previous "global cooling" hysteria.

Now that we have that out of the way lets get down to business. The critique of the Stern Report makes a rather damning observation right out of the gate:

Sir Nicholas Stern made a revealing comment in his OXONIA lecture of January 2006: “in August or July of last year, [he] had an idea what the greenhouse effect was but wasn’t really sure”. It seems that, starting from a position of little knowledge of the issues, he has swiftly espoused the official view of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, on whose advice the Review relies heavily.

Emphasis mine obviously. It's absolutely predictable that the guy went from zero knowledge to being hailed as a great environmental mind simply because he agrees with the hard left environmentalist ideology. This gives you a good feel for what kind of "hard vetting" the left does when they're looking for experts and proof of their assertions. Kinda reminds me of the quality of vetting one recently defunct Presidential candidate was doing with his staff.

I'm not going to pretend to be a great scientific mind here, but after reading a few articles about the Stern Review and how the world is going collapse if we don't stop global warming… I found this particular bit absolutely hilarious:

The Review states on page 10 that: “The analysis of climate change requires, by its nature, that we look out over 50, 100, 200 years and more. Any such modeling requires caution and humility, and the results are specific to the model and its assumptions. They should not be endowed with a precision and certainty that is simply impossible to achieve.” Yet in this respect the Review repeatedly fails to heed its own warning.

So basically we have an economist who's new to the environmental discussion who grabs the Global warming alarmist pre-existing mind set and so-called data. He then tells us we should be cautious about making predictions based upon these models, and then goes on... to make those very predictions.

That's kind of like Chicken Little running up and down the street telling people they shouldn't freak out every time they're bumped by some random object, and then of course ... running up and down the street screaming that the sky is falling after having been hit by ... a random object.

The sad thing is that even the IPCC – who isn't known for its accuracy (remember the hockey stick graph?) when it comes to climate science – recognizes the flaw in relying on weather prediction models for long term prediction.

In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

Emphasis mine again. Yet as the critique notes:

The Stern Review itself fails to take proper account of the profound uncertainties and major gaps in knowledge of climate science, and neither does it address the many continuing debates regarding climate change mechanisms and impact assessments. Like its sources, the Review gives unwarranted credence to model projections over firmly established data and findings.

Emphasis mine. There seems to be little difference in methodology where misleading people is concerned. You just throw out some report based upon whatever data you can find that supports your cause. Make sure it gets to a sympathetic media with enough drones to power your movement, and suddenly everything you say is "true" because enough people buy into it.

It's the group think mentality that the new age movement espouses at its worst: the "if you believe in it, it's real" philosophy. It just kind of makes me want to hurl.

It's interesting that the Report seems to attempt to compensate its lack of real time data with repeated runs of climate models using varying setups. They all have one thing in common though, and apparently, not even the IPCC is so alarmist as this report:

The Review attempts to deal with these uncertainties by comparing thousands of model runs under varying assumptions. The model parameterization chosen takes no account of the possibility that carbon dioxide emissions may have minor or benign effects, and is slanted towards emphasis on larger impacts, feedbacks and damages than even the IPCC has implied to date.

That explains why this report is the most widely discussed and well known. It's even more alarmist than even the UN funded fear machine. The only propaganda outlet with more fear mongering power would likely be ... Hollyweird.

-One Angry Christian

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Out for a week
One Angry Christian

I'm out due to my youngest son going into surgery monday for his cleft pallet. I hope everyone is doing well. Please keep us in your prayers.

I'll be back soon with the usual rantish commentary. I've got a few articles up my sleave, so I'll be returning with a bang.

-One Angry Christian

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Man of the Hour
One Angry Christian

Too often this blog is consistently negative. I'm feeling rather weak today as I spent most of last night with food poisoning. I won't gross you out with the details, but needless to say I needed a bit of something more positive today. Here it is.

NEW YORK - A taxi driver returned a black bag carrying 31 diamond rings to a passenger who earlier had given him a 30-cent tip on an $11 ride.

Hours after Osman Chowdhury dropped off the passenger, he tracked her down through a flurry of phone calls and returned the bag, which she had left in the taxi's trunk.

The unidentified woman, who said she was a jeweler, offered a $100 reward. Chowdhury accepted the money to cover the fares he lost while tracking her down.

This guy is my man of the hour on a day when I feel like hammered potatoes left under the wheels of a moving subway rail transit. Hope you guys are feeling better than I am.

-One Angry Christian

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Al Jazeera gets PWN3D!!!
One Angry Christian




if you catch it fast enough the pictures might still be up. You won't be sorry. I promise.


-One Angry Christian

Monday, February 05, 2007

Headlines that have to be seen to be believed
One Angry Christian

You'd think I was living in NYC or ... Cuba the headlines I'm reading today from my local paper, but no. I live in the south. A quick scan over the paper makes it obvious what kind of people run the local rag.

Bush Budget Plan Bows to politics
$2.9 Trillion spending proposal provides boost for Iraq war, restraints on health care

Dream Drives Deceit
Ecuadorean Emigrants run with 'coyotes'

Chavez eyes green cause
Critics say venezuelan leader's conservation drive mostly rhetoric

Justice Department Balks at phone privacy provision

Or maybe I'm in Iran? Check this out:

Harmony Caps Islamic Gathering
Millions of Muslims join prayer in Bangladesh seeking peace

Trough stances on Iran echoes prewar buildup
Bush administration again makes allegations sans proof

Guess who's feeding the stories to my local paper? ... The Associated Press. I'm so surprised. I'm still trying to figure out how anyone in their right mind could see the mainstream media as anything other than completely biased.

-One Angry Christian

The Sexualization of our youth and its consequences
One Angry Christian

For the sake of full disclosure on this subject I'm going to be very open about a few things, and I'm sure this will cost me in some aspects. However, honesty is important.

I am not a practicing Christian, and I am sexually active. I do not claim to be a "righteous man" living according to the teachings of the Bible. In fact, though I understand the Bible quite well I'm very much in opposition to it in many of my habits.

In short: I'm human, and not a very good one at that.

This does not, however, mean that I don't see what the massive over-sexualization of our culture is doing to the nation. I won't go into any detail about my sex life here. It's none of your business, but for the sake of full disclosure I want that known.

I don't want anyone getting the impression that I think I'm better than anyone. This isn't about being better or more righteous than anyone. This is about paying attention to the implications of what we as a society are doing to ourselves and to our children.

Moving right along.

The more the government gets involved with a situation the more they screw it up. The government has been trying to "help" our youth with sexual issues for a long time now. Instead of teaching our kids to avoid situations where one might be impregnated we give them condoms. Instead of teaching them to abstain from sexual situations that spread diseases even when condoms are used we vaccinate them.

I'd say "the left doesn't really want to talk about this", but frankly no one but the conservative religious base really pays attention to the real life consequences of sexual promiscuity. Unlike the far left that proclaims that they teach "the whole truth" about sexual issues the religious right does teach the whole functional truth about the dangers of sexual activity that include every STD known to be transmittable – even when so-called "protection" is used. The leftist educational system often leaves that out.

They're more interested in making kids comfortable with going out and getting those STDs rather than protecting them from behaviors that will land them in the middle of having them. People can disagree with me. I'm fine with that, but I remember sex-ed, and I remember what was put at the forefront of importance in my class. You'll be surprised to know that even as old as I am they were teaching sex-ed in ... Elementary School when I was there.

The government has no business raising our kids for us. This is a travesty. Even worse now I must say are the repercussions of them mandating vaccinations for the mess that they've helped to create by assisting the media in over sexualizing our youth.

We've taught kids that it's good to have sex. It's normal at any age. Then we wonder why they're sleeping around at the age of twelve when we're holding the first sex-ed classes at the age of eleven. We wonder why the youth of today is rampant with STDs when we glamorize sexual promiscuity as "Love", and bow down before the alter of people like Jenna Jameson. We wonder why marriage is on the decline while every television show, movie, and music video out there shows people hopping from one relationship to the next often without being honest with the person in the relationship they're leaving.

From a young age we teach boys that strong men, brave men, men to be idolized don’t believe in monogamous relationships, and then we wonder why men have a hard time being faithful to their wives. From that same age we teach women that sexual fulfillment is more important than family, and we wonder why women are abandoning their children in record numbers.

From the moment kids can understand what the shows they see on TV are about or what the counselors at school are saying we teach our kids that the wants, needs, and desires of the individual are more important than anything: they're more important than our kids, than the need for stability in the home, than the communication of real undying sacrificial Love, than what their parents are trying to teach them, and especially more important than what any "religious fanatic" (from parents to pastors) might have to say to them.

In short we teach our kids that selfishness is more important than generosity in every form, fashion and part of life – and then we wonder why they have no concept of respect, Love, or selfless compassion outside of what they think will benefit them. We've made our children into satanists.

Does that sound harsh and fanatical to you? Consider what Anton Levay said of satanism, "Since Satanism is essentially a religion of the self, it holds that the individual and his personal needs comes first." Many modern day religions (which are really just revised "evolved" versions of old religions) incorporate this ideology and it has absolutely devoured our society. In this ideology there is no Love as Love ... real Love puts others before the self.

This is a sickness in our culture, and we all share it. The problem is this: there are so many people who have this sickness that most people who see it are guilty of it as well, and they're terrified to speak out. It's like a heroin house full of people who are afraid that the moment they cry out "dear God! What are we DOING!?!" they'll be ridiculed, tossed into the street, and possibly beaten for speaking the truth about what they're involved in. In short, I'm as guilty if not more so than the next person, but I'm taking this opportunity to speak my mind about it. If this offends you then see your way out of my blog. If you attack me as a hypocrite then take a look in the mirror because there are no innocent hands in this situation.

I'm sure someone somewhere will ask "you can say what you want, but what are you going to do?"

That's something I've actually come to terms with a long time ago: First off my kids will not grow up as I did in a house where porn and R rated movies with sexual content is viewed by everyone ... even the kids. My kids will not know any woman I date or have a relationship with unless I intend to marry as anything other than a friend if they know them at all. I don't want to inflict that confusion on them. My kids will not be subject to overly sexualized movies, video games, music videos, TV shows, or anything else so long as they live in my home.

I will know what kind of house they're going to hang out in when they visit friends. I will know what kind of parents their friends have. They will be either home schooled or sent to a private school where I know the teachers and staff. I will research that school thoroughly, and absolutely most importantly... I will support their mother so she doesn't have to get a job so that one of us will always be focused on what they're doing.

I'm a firm believer that parents are the anti-everything-bad when they are thoroughly involved with their kids, and make an effort to be a positive influence. To this end I will live my life. May God have mercy on me for the mistakes I have already made, and the mistakes that I will surely make in the future.

I am fully convinced that if every parent took an interest in their child's well being to this extent and bothered to sacrifice for their well being our nation and our world would be in a much better state. I hope those of you who are considering having kids or have kids will take a minute to consider this.

I think I've said enough.

-One Angry Christian

More generalizations about Far Lefties
One Angry Christian

Regrettably one of my token moderate lefties has left my blog. It's well worth mentioning as she contributed a lot to my writing by asking pointed questions that inspired me to research issues a lot more thoroughly, and helping me keep it real by pointing out exaggerations and misstatements.

Her departure was partially due to her own busy schedule (gluck again with school and what not), and partially due to my own generalizations about the left. I have a habit of not specifying "far left", and it tends to annoy moderates.

So in honor of this moment I want to take this opportunity to generalize yet more about the left. Of course, I won't do this myself. I'm no where near talented enough to put together something truly offensive enough to do the moment justice. Instead, I'll just throw out a one liner with a link and let you follow it to the uber goodness that is "witty leftist blogging" that's considered mainstream enough to run a presidential campaign.

Without further delay I give you:

Amanda Marcotte: Drops of wisdom from a leftist Presidential campaign blog manager.

I hope you enjoy her "witty political commentary" as much as I did.

-One Angry Christian

Sunday, February 04, 2007

"Random Corpses"
One Angry Christian

I was over reading Reality Hammer's journal (as I often do because his posts rock), and I found this anti war lefty basically using one using one fallen soldier as a battering ram during the discussion.

It occurrs to me that the left has actually has less respect for our troops dead than they do alive.

Don't be fooled when they start talking about "supporting the troops by bringing them home". They no more care about the troops than they do a random club on the ground that they can use to bludgeon their oponents with. That's a bit of an understatement actually as we're talking about real people. They see them more as "random corpses" that are tools rather than people. A club is at least made to be a tool. Dead people are not.

To understand how across the board this is with the left all you really have to do is read the New York Times ,and watch how they denegrate the soldiers while they're alive and then pick them up and beat down the morale of the American people with them once they're dead. I once read a blogger joking about how the NYT is going to release a desk top ticker that will update you on the body count in Iraq every time someone dies. Sad thing is that most of us who are paying attention are surprised more that they haven't already done just that.

That sound harsh, but that's where we're at in America.

-One Angry Christian

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Rush Limbaugh Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
One Angry Christian

When I first heard this I thought it was a total joke. Apparently not. I don't think he stands a chance of winning, but it's a huge deal that he was even nominated. Here's hoping the big guy wins.

H/T winnowill2

-One Angry Christian
Quote of the Day
One Angry Christian

You've got to read this to believe it:
I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army.
Emphasis mine obviously. I have to say, this guy is the most honest leftists journalist I've ever seen. He actually went public with his honest opinion of our military without fear of reprisal. Either he's really brave, or arrogance has so completely rotted his logic that he really thinks everyone is on his side.

Wow. Just wow.


And the hits just keep on coming
It seems to me that the troops needed a little "re-eduction".

Those soldiers are our servants. We are not their servants.

Whether one agrees with the Iraq war or not you have to look at it realistically look at it at this point and say that the United States Military deserves some of the blame.
It's amazing to me that on the left so long as it's leftist "indoctrination" it's a "viable view", but the moment you teach something out side of their doctrine you're "brain washing" people. I think I'm going to be sick.

-One Angry Christian