Scientists or Political Activists

Front page headline in the local newspaper; "Feds pull oil over our eyes." The gist of the article has a college professor of oceanography calling into question a recently released federal report on what has happened to the oil. The professor says "the way it was presented was more of a public relations campaign than trying to estimate the real impact." Another university oceanography professor says; "This is a shaky report. The more I read it, the less satisfied I am with the thoroughness of the presentation...there are sweeping assumptions here."

Here's my question; did these same scientists have the same skepticism toward global warming?

In this article, a University of West Florida biologist says of the report; "Scientifically, it's a very disappointing piece of work. They are putting a good face on this, and it's not BP. It's the federal government." Really Mr. Scientist? You really believe the federal government might be involved in political spin?

I just find it fascinating that these learned individuals would believe that the federal government would not put spin on information released to the public. Furthermore I find it interesting that we've not seen this type of skepticism (by scientists) in mainstream media about global warming, even though there have been many questions raised about the validity of reports and information regarding the same.

Or, could it be that these scientists aren't satisfied with a report, stating that the threats from the spilled oil are not as great as first believed, because it doesn't meet their political agenda? I mean, never mind that the oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico was light crude, much different than that spilled from the Exxon Valdez in Alaska. Just one of the many things that could've played a role in minimizing what we all thought would be a much bigger disaster.

Just some thoughts. Yours?

Marriage is now a Political Football?

Did you ever think you'd see the day?

Let's get right to it. My Webster's Dictionary defines marriage as the social condition under which a man and woman live as husband and wife through legal or religious commitments. That's not a bunch of right-wing wackos defining it. Marriage has been recognized this way throughout the world for millennia.

It is my understanding that the states that have had a marriage amendment on the ballot in the past few years sought to uphold the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Now we have judges (the latest one in California) saying that this definition is unconstitutional.

If marriage cannot be defined as it has for thousands of years, who is to determine the definition? If marriage cannot be defined, how can we find the bigamist guilty if those involved agree to multiple marriage partners? How far does this go? What about underage runaways who say they should be allowed to enter into a marriage to an older person? You say there are laws to protect the underaged, the victims of bigamy and other crimes, but I say who's to decide?

If you've read this far, thank you. Please know that I have no desire to dictate or legislate what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home or bedroom. I truly understand there are sometimes privileges afforded family members that some would like extended to their "life partners." I get that and see no reason why that can't be done. In fact, in many places these privileges have already been afforded to those people designated by the insured or cared for.

What we are now seeing is the (previously called) "politically correct" becoming the impetus for a literal battle. I know that's a bitter pill for many to swallow, but whether it is now or 100 years from now, there will come a point where the people of the United States of America will no longer stand for the governing class dictating as if government people are the all-knowing that they think they are.

We were formed as a nation of, by and for The People. The People were to decide for themselves and The People limited the powers of government so as to foster a society that would prosper or fail on the decisions made by The People. Slowly, we have elected people who've eroded our freedoms and liberties to the point that I fear the founding fathers would hardly recognize the form of government now practiced in America.

It is time to take America back. I encourage you to read books that expose what our government is doing to us. Please recommend these books to others. I encourage you to read fictional books that have surmised the things now happening, keeping in mind that many people (at the time of those writings) didn't think the fictional stories were even remotely possible. I say to you; here we are. What say you?

Have We Made Ourselves Unaffordable?

Just as products can be made too expensive for there to be a market for them, is it possible for people to do the same with their labor skills?

Over the past 20 years I've listened to people complain that companies are taking jobs overseas to avoid paying "reasonable" or "living" wages. Recently I've read an article saying that Harley-Davidson motorcycles (now built in Milwaukee) is considering a move to cut labor costs.

Here in America we enjoy so many luxuries and it is almost as if we think we're entitled to low prices and top quality on everything we buy. We give little thought to what someone should be paid when we purchase a good or service, we just want the lowest price. But let the manufacturer or service provider say they're moving away because they're losing money and suddenly they are a greedy corporation motivated only by profit.

Where we go from here is going to be a real challenge because the United States of America is fast losing its claim as driving the world's economies. Countries like China and India are becoming bigger consumers and at a rapid pace. Therefore, manufacturers will need to produce the goods and services those consumers will buy at a price they can afford. Since those consumers are already lower-paid than American workers, product prices will have to be low.