How often have we been told to put on sunblock, cover up when going out in the sun, don't get sunburned or tan? Lots of times. You're going to get cancer and die if you stay outside in the summer sun. Well I'm going to die anyway. But now science is beginning to catch up with that old maxim and once again prove that moderation is the key; in fact you NEED exposure to the sun. It could even help prevent certain cancers. Who knew?!
Professor Rachel Neale has been leading a study regarding exposure to the sun and it's benefits and dangers. What the long term study has found is that those people living in areas with higher levels of exposure to UV rays had a 30 to 40 percent lower rate of pancreatic, ovarian and oesophageal cancers. Who knew?!
Professor Neale's team has found that people who don't get out in the sun suffer from vitamin D deficiency; children can develop rickets and adults suffer from osteomalacia or soft bones. Is that the same thing as being 'soft in the head'? That would explain the actions of pasty skinned Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? It would also mean that John Boehner's tan is fake.
I keep hearing pundits in favor of immigration reform tell us that the illegal immigrants are in the shadows, afraid to come forward for fear of being caught and deported. In the shadows my big fat white buttocks. Head to a convenience store in Deming, NM (I won't name which one) at 5 or 6 in the morning and there they are, waiting for someone to drive up and offer them a job for the day. I was at Home Depot in Las Cruces on Sunday. As I loaded up the flooring I'd purchased 2 different men approached and asked if I needed help putting the floor down. After a brief conversation both said they were here without papers.
Go to any welfare office and yell "immigration"; see how many people run. If they are so afraid of being deported they haven't been paying attention. No one is being deported, Obama even says he won't deport them as it's 'inhumane'. Monday, thousands of illegals were outside the White House demanding to be represented in the debate over immigration reform and what to do about the flood of illegals. Some of them have met with President Obama and our elected representatives. We've seen them demonstrate all across the country demanding their 'rights' be protected. That's not in the shadows.
ICE officials say they won't be attending any future protests or demonstrations as their priority for the last several years has been to focus on deporting mostly serious criminals and those unlucky enough to be caught while crossing the border. Illegals know this and aren't scared to come forward, to live in the open, because they know they won't be deported.
Now they are demanding that parents of the so called 'Dreamers', children brought here through no fault of their own, be granted amnesty and allowed to stay with their kids. In his speeches supporting the idea of letting kids brought here as babies or toddlers stay in America, Obama has said repeatedly that the kids "didn't break the law, their parents did." So why punish the kids? OK, now he is considering allowing the parents, who he admits broke our laws, to stay in America because splitting up the families is counter productive. Wish he felt the same about American families, since liberal policies have done more to break up the family unit than anything else in history.
Of course we're off to Florida for our first story, Volusia County to be specific. A man showed up at an apartment complex and knocked on Kathy Bailey's door. He asked for Ted but no one by the name of Ted lived there. Kathy told the man she didn't know of anyone named Ted living in the building but the man didn't believe her so he went about his business, all while talking to Kathy. The man began pouring gasoline around the building while Kathy told him there were people inside; he didn't care and said she had just a few minutes to get them out. Arthur Avery emptied the gas can, after splashing gasoline everywhere, then knelt down to light the fluid. Apparently not everyone knows you stand back, toss the match and run. The fumes from the gasoline had spread and caught the over splash on Avery's pants on fire as well. Avery was able to get up and limp away but in the process of rolling on the ground had dropped his keys and his wallet. It didn't take long for them to find him at a local hospital. Darwin will wait patiently.
Finish the job or else. A New Zealand man was asleep in his upstairs bedroom when he heard a commotion downstairs. A man had knocked on the door, when the wife opened the door, the stranger ran in, ran upstairs and began attacking the homeowner, using a hammer. The pair struggled mightily but the forest worker got the best of his attacker and had him in a sleeper hold. But before finishing the job and ensuring no further attempts, the homeowner asked the attacker a couple of questions, like why are you here and who sent you; to kill you and the Lord were the answers. Because the man was talking and seemed to have calmed down, the homeowner did not choke him out or tie him up but released his grip and stood up. That's when the attacker grabbed the intended victim by the giblets, as hard as he could. "It hurt like hell but I was amped up with lots of adrenaline flowing". No kidding. The victim was able to grab the hammer and hit the man 4-5 times before he was freed. They then escorted the man out of the home. Really? Didn't you learn the first time? He did not come back and was found a block away...
It's not really funny, OK part of it is. Robert King and his soon to be ex-wife couldn't agree on the child custody portion of the divorce and found themselves assigned to Judge Wade McCree's court. Things seemed to be OK at first but then Robert and his attorney began to notice a change in the judge's demeanor and his rulings. Everything started going against Robert, with the Judge often giving the ex-wife more than she asked for and being rude and condescending to Robert in the process. Come to find out, the Judge is getting an extra benefit from the ex-wife; e.g. he's boinking the ex-wife. Robert sues saying he didn't get a fair hearing, which would seem a bit obvious wouldn't it? Not to our judicial system. The 6th Circuit Court decided personal bias of a judge, when not serving in a judicial capacity, does not create a due process violation. Robert will appeal the decision.
Rick Perry is sending national guard troops to the border with Mexico. He is being criticized for 'militarizing the border'. Let's see, there is a border crisis and Obama and the feds aren't doing anything to protect us. In TX alone, federal crime stats show that 8000 rapes and 3000 homicides have been committed by illegal immigrants over the last 5 years. I'd say Perry is protecting the legal citizens.
It's odd how many liberals want to bring illegals into America. I know a lot of them will end up collecting welfare and become voters for liberals; but don't they realize how illegals keep wages artificially low? The more illegals here to work for lower wages, especially cash. That means market forces are working to keep wages for others artificially low.
Atheists are trying to remove a makeshift cross from the 911 Memorial in NYC. The cross had been put together by rescue workers using a couple of i-beams. Of course the atheists claim that is a violation of separation of church and state. The cross was seen by tens of millions of people and is part of the history of the incident. It is not, in any way, an imposition of a specific religion upon others by a government entity. What really caught my attention about the story was the claim by some of the atheists that just looking a pictures or video of the cross caused them consternation, fear and distress. Some claimed to have suffered panic attacks, gotten headaches and become nauseated. You're manly men aren't you? A picture of a cross?! Please.
Russia's official news agency is claiming that U.S. personnel are tampering with the crash data and evidence from the Malaysian airliner shot down over the Ukraine. I guess remote viewing has now become remote tampering since U.S. personnel have been banned from entering the so called 'autonomous area' created by the Ukrainian rebels. This is getting to be just like the old USSR; say whatever you want because there are those who will believe you. Too bad so many are ignorant of facts.
Former NFL coach Tony Dungy was asked if he would have drafted Michael Sam, the first openly gay player to have been drafted in the NFL. Dungy said he would not have done so because of the media circus that would have followed. That of course has the left wing in an uproar, with many people calling Coach Dungy bigoted and hateful. Someone needs to tell them their hypocrisy is showing again. It is also funny to watch them squirm since Coach Dungy is well known and friends with many of them; the sports pundits want to believe he's not bigoted but they are having a tough time.
Let's break this down shall we: many of the very same people having a tough time with Dungy's statement are the same people that said they would not take Tim Tebow because of the media circus. Personalities like Mike Greenberg, Mike Golic, Dan Patrick and Colin Cowherd all expressed similar opinions; Tebow's religious convictions and fanatic fan base made it a media frenzy wherever he went and that could negatively effect team chemistry. Other players and coaches would be constantly asked questions about Tebow and that is disruptive. In fact I remember Greenberg being very concerned about that when Tebow went to his favorite team, the NY Jets. Then when Tebow went to the Patriots the comments had to do with Coach Bill Belichick being the only one to be able to control the media frenzy. No one complained at that time that about people being anti-Christian if they didn't want Tebow and the media circus.
A coach's first responsibility is to the team and the organization; he is paid to win games. If the player is a distraction that takes away focus on winning, there is a decision that needs to be made. Is the player an impact player, who's on field contribution out weighs the off field distraction? The simple fact about Michael Sam is that he is a 7th round draft pick. He is not a first rounder, he will likely not make the team and if he does he will be at best a special teams player and maybe get into a few games as a situational player. He's not going to make a huge impact on the St. Louis Ram's chances of winning games. No matter what the off field issues, a player's worth to the team is weighed against the negative impact of that behavior and a cost/benefit analysis is done and a decision is made. It has happened thousands of times before. The fact that Sam is gay is irrelevant to what Dungy was saying.
But you see, Dungy is a devout Christian and has been very open about his beliefs. That has the left leaning sports talk show hosts in a tizzy. They know and like Dungy very much. But they believe in their hearts that devout Christians are bigoted and hate gays. So they are experiencing angst; their first reaction is to strongly condemn the Christian but they know Dungy personally and don't think he's bigoted. Once again, they misunderstand the Christian faith which teaches followers to love the sinner and hate the sin. Dungy has helped so many players with their off field issues; from Michael Vick to Plaxico Burress. Dungy doesn't hate Michael Sam; he doesn't think the distractions would be worth the benefit a marginal player brings to the team; so many times I heard Greenberg, Golic and Patrick say they want to hear from Dungy; hear him clarify the statements he made so they could love him once again. Maybe if you stepped back from your own biases you would understand what Dungy said.
Here's the deal; there have been gay players in the NFL locker rooms for a long time. Some have been known to be gay by their teammates, Chris Kluwe for example. And no one cared about it to the point that it became a distraction from the task at hand. I still maintain Merlin Olson and Rosie Greer might have been batting for the other team but again, no one in the locker room cared because it wasn't a big deal. Those guys went about their business and played football, there wasn't a lot of talk about it, there wasn't any advocating for gay rights; they were just football players and that's the way they acted. Same for religious beliefs, political beliefs, etc, etc, etc. Keep the off field opinions, lifestyles, issues off the field and out of the locker room. Do your job and people will be accepting of you. Bring it into the locker room and make me answer questions about it all day long every day and it becomes a problem.
It's fun to watch the left wingers' heads about to explode because they can't think beyond the surface of an issue and understand what is really being said.
Elizabeth Warren has probably signed her death warrant, not quite literally but maybe figuratively. She is being touted as a strong candidate for the Democrat nomination for President. That has to tick off Hillary and you don't want to mess with her. But Hillary has faltered; her book sales are dismal; she has struggled with trying to connect with the regular folk and then there's Benghazi. So Warren, she of Native American descent, she says so it must be true even if it's not, is now doing around preaching to the choir. She came up with 11 commandments of progressivism which she presented to the Netroots Nation convention, a liberal blogger gathering. Let's respond.
1. We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it.
What you are saying is you don't like corporations. The ones that created wealth and jobs and that you've regulated to the point they are moving out of America and taking their jobs, revenues and tax base with them. Except some companies, like failing banks, car companies or green energy companies, again the failing ones; those companies get the tax money you've taken from the ever shrinking working class so they can give it to their favorite politicians; who's policies have generally failed also.
2. We believe in science and that means we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.
So which science do you believe in? The documented science that says the Earth is cooling, that man doesn't create climate change; or the fabricated 'data' that is put out by Al Gore and the CRU? Truly, that could be said about any science liberals claim to cite. At best it's manipulated data. While I haven't been to church for quite a while, please point out to me which denomination is calling for the destruction of our environment.
3. We believe that the internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations and that means real net neutrality.
Any government getting it's regulatory mitts on anything is going to be biased in favor of the group with the best lobbying reps. Especially given this administration's propensity to try and silence their critics by using the IRS, the NSA or bank regulations, can you imagine just how neutral the internet would be if we let government bureaucrats take it over?
4. We believe that no one should work full time and still live in poverty, that means raising the minimum wage.
One more time; raising the minimum wage puts more people out of work, oh, but that doesn't matter if you read what she says. If they are working full time... but stats show that the vast majority of people working full time right now are not making minimum wage and are not living at or below the poverty level. Damn facts. Are they struggling to make ends meet? Yes, sometimes but that's a combination of a lot of things causing that. But why not let get rid of some of the regulations, unnecessary ones, that are truly driving the cost of goods and services up; get rid of high taxes; cost of living will come down and people will be able to afford to live a comfortable life style; not to mention they don't need 3 HD big screen T.V.s.
5. We believe that fast food workers deserve a livable wage and that means when they take to the picket line we are proud to fight alongside them.
See above; but why do you take money from the companies?
6. We believe that student are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.
Entitled? Should I be forced to pay for someone else's college education. Government grant money and student loan policies have caused tuition and fees to skyrocket. Paying people $300K to teach one course is not good business (ahem Ms. Warren). No one has to go to college and no one has to borrow money to do so. Work or get academic scholarships. But most of all, quit guaranteeing money to the institutions and force them to get costs in line with the demand of the market.
7. We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare and pensions.
Government rules have all but killed the company funded pensions forcing people into social security, where the government has control over you and what you must put away and what you get paid out. Not to mention that you don't get the kind of return on investment that you could in the private market. By the way, who has raided the SS trust fund to pay for pet projects? Democrats politicians have bankrupted SS and Medicare for that matter. Warren's solution? More taxes on the working class.
8. We believe in equal pay for equal work.
There is no such thing as equal work. All types of factors determine pay such as experience, education, time in job. Not to mention, if you apply the liberals' standard, Obama doesn't pay his female employees as much as he pays male employees for comparable work. Looking into the stats, women are generally paid at the same rate as men but take more time off to start families or choose to work part time; factors that are skewed to create the liberal argument.
9. We believe that equal means equal; that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America.
Equality before law is a good thing and is guaranteed in our Constitution. As an ideal for equality of outcome, it doesn't work; in fact it fails miserably - see communist Russia or China or North Korea. Even then, not all are equal. If you want to be accurate, no one is being stopped from getting married, as long as the follow the laws that are in place. Not to mention that Christians are not equal in today's society; they can't display their cross on a shirt in a school; can't gather in public places; can't express their devotion in public meetings...
10. We believe immigration has made this country strong and vibrant and that means reform.
Sure, then reform the laws that limit the number of people coming here legally. Don't make them wait for 10 years and pay tens of thousands of dollars to get a visa and go through the process. That doesn't mean open our borders willy nilly to let just anyone into America. Let's make sure they are coming here to work, to contribute and not to be a burden on society or to kill us.
11. And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it.
Corporations are treated as people only in the eyes of the law so that they can be taxed, sued, regulated. It's a specious argument designed to create emotional reactions mostly out of ignorance. Hobby Lobby treated companies as they should be recognizing that families, real people, start, own and run corporations. Again ignoring the facts about the ruling, she creates the idea that something terrible was being taken away from the populace when it was not.
It seems to me that if you are going to risk going to jail, you might want to make it worth your while. An Annapolis MD woman returned home Thursday night to find the back door open and her living room and kitchen in disarray. It was clear that someone had broken in ransacked the place but what had they taken? The T.V. and computer were still in place; so was her jewelry. But the refrigerator door was open as was the pantry door. The total sum of the haul the perpetrator took: $17 worth of Pepsi and Top Ramen. There has to be a college nearby doesn't there? Or course no way you're going to find the perp in that crowd, they all have Pepsi and Top Ramen. Or maybe the woman's 'valuable' stuff was really crappy... wouldn't that be embarrassing, you're stuff is not even worth stealing.
Consequences people; think about the potential results of your actions. I guess the need to feed your ego is more important than staying out of jail. That might explain all the morons getting caught because they posted photos or details of their crimes on social media. West Frankfort, IL is a small town, 10,000 souls, so I would imagine everyone knows everyone. 27 year old Danielle Saxton visited Mortie's Boutique, leaving with a new dress, some shirts and some jewelry. Of course the FIRST thing she had to do was post a photo of herself in the new dress on FaceBook. That would have been fine and dandy had she not stolen the items. Kert Williams, co-owner of Mortie's, had already taken to FB and let people know of the theft. It only took minutes for others in West Frankfort to alert Kert and police. I'm sure Danielle was shocked, SHOCKED I say, to see police at her front door. How'd you find me coppers?!
It's good to have goals, I guess. Ania Lisewska, 21, has made her goal public and that's a good thing as far as motivation. If you make your goal known you are more likely to continue working towards achievement. Ania has set her goals high but something tells me she will have lots of help in achieving her life's dream to have sex with 100,000 men. Ania said she has already knocked out 284 men on her road to infamy and she says, she will spend at least 20 minutes with each unique participant. So is she going to ask for ID and keep a database to ensure she doesn't double up? "I love sex, fun and men. In Poland the subject of sex is still taboo and anyone who wants to fulfill their sexual fantasies is considered deviant, a whore or mentally ill." I'm no prude, but honey, something tells me you fit at least 2 of the 3 definitions. And she has a boyfriend. Can you imagine being that guy? Get home from work and have to listen to her talk about her day? Sorry honey, I screwed 45 guys, you're not getting any tonight.
Who knew? Liberals and gun control advocates are apoplectic at the statements made by Detroit Police Chief James Craig. Craig famously or infamously said in March that law abiding citizens with guns were not a problem. If fact those people would help bring crime rates down. Now Craig is back in the news with proof. Detroit has experienced a 37% downturn in the number of robberies as compared to the same period last year. 22% fewer break-ins of businesses and 30% fewer carjackings. Craig attributes the decrease in crime in no small part to criminals getting the message that good Detroiters are armed and willing to use the weapon if they are threatened.
Liberals are always running around screaming like Chicken Little about some problem or another. Generally, they have gotten their way when it comes to a solution; e.g. government rules, laws and regulations. Think about it; poverty, racism, global warming, obesity. Not one problem addressed by liberals through a big government program has been solved. We are told every year that the same old problems still exist and are worse than ever, so we need more laws, more government spending, more benefits, more regulations to solve the problem. At what point do we really wake up and say, "this isn't working"?
We know that some people are idiots; problem is they don't know it and we elect them to office. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick made comparisons between the border crisis and the Holocaust that should make your head spin. "My inclination is to remember what happened when a ship full of Jewish children tried to come to the United States in 1939 and the United States turned them away, and many of them went to their deaths in Nazi concentration camps." While crime in some areas of Central America is bad, I don't recall seeing any concentration camps or mass graves to bury the hundreds of thousands of kids being killed. Maybe it's a right wing conspiracy to cover it up.
Growing up I thought quick sand was going to be a much bigger problem than it really has been. However, it does exist. A 78 year old woman went missing after going for a hike. Grand County UT sheriff's deputies received word that the woman had failed to show up for an event at the local library and had been hiking in the Courthouse Wash area of Arches National Park. She was found 14 hours after starting her hike only about a quarter mile from where she'd parked her car. The woman was knee deep in quicksand and could not extricate herself. 4 people needed 30 minutes to dig her out as the sand kept filling in around her legs. A ranger from the park said it is rare but quicksand does appear occasionally during monsoon season. She recalled an incident when a cow became stuck in quicksand. That's not a nice thing to say about the woman.
Now I'm not necessarily picking on Obama for this one, but the caption says everything I want to say about the way our federal government operates. And this particular program has been in the works for several years, as I recall, pre-dating Obama's reign as Glorious Leader.
The forest service, BLM, whomever administers our forests, national parks, wildernesses have been working on a plan to limit access to our pristine lands. The idea is that we, the actual owners, are ruining the land; leaving our mark in the form of trails, roads, trash, scaring off animals, causing them to become extinct. You know the mantra of the environmentalists. The proposed rules are pretty strict, especially when it comes to motorized traffic. At one point you could not pull off of an established road, unless there was a designated parking area. That meant if you were in a wilderness area and wanted to wander around the woods, you had to park in the middle of the one lane road. Screw anyone else wanting to use that road.
There were also several instances that saw conservation groups or others who went out to clear established hiking trails of fallen trees or repair washed out parts of the trail, found themselves in trouble with the authorities. That's nature and we can't do that, even if it is volunteer work and would make the use of the forest easier for us, the owners. Nope, we have to let nature take it's course. The rangers will decide which trails will be maintained and that number will be very few. And the government has done such a bang up job of managing our forest lands in the past; look at the devastating and increasingly large fires that happen every year because of the lack of thinning and grazing.
I happened to have a bit of free time earlier this week as I traveled around S.W. New Mexico and stopped at a lookout point, Leopold Vista, overlooking part of the Aldo Leopold Wilderness which is part of the Gila National Forest. The Gila is the first national forest established in the U.S. and the Aldo Leopold Wilderness is the first national wilderness area. The Gila is about 3.5 million acres and Aldo is about 775,000 acres inside that area.
Aldo was a ranger working the area for decades. He was a writer, explorer, hunter and conservationist. What he dreamed of was keeping an area pristine; where you could ride for 2 weeks without seeing a road or other evidence of human intervention. Where you could lose yourself in the natural beauty of the area and enjoy what God had created. His efforts lead the creation of the wilderness area.
This overlook is dedicated to the memory of Aldo and talks about his vision for the wilderness. Not to keep us out but to let us enjoy it. In fact, one of the signs describing the area tells us to "bring your binoculars, your camera or your sketch pad. Maybe you'd prefer to bring your fishing rod or if it's the right time of year your hunting gear. The Gila is yours to enjoy."
Really? So why are we being told to keep out? Leopold was also a hunter and understood that those who fish, hunt or utilize the resources are the ones who will also take care of the land; who won't want to change it significantly, but will try and preserve its beauty and natural state. The point being made, it is ours and the government is now trying to keep us out. Ironically they are also making it more difficult for those with handicaps to access and enjoy the land. Isn't that some kind of violation of the ADA? Probably but the feds are exempt from the laws these days.
Every year ESPN conducts their fundraiser for the Jimmy V Cancer Foundation. They raise lots of money to donate to cancer research. This year Colin Cowherd conducted his show from UC San Diego's cancer research center. During the course of the show, Colin interviewed a few doctors working at the center. One oncologist in particular talked about his team's research into the treatment of cancer and it really brought to light how many more people are going to die because of Obamacare.
This doctor said they had discovered cancer differs at a genetic level so treatment modalities must be adapted to deal with these changes. That may sound logical but what he said next was the interesting and thus disturbing information. He said 10 people could suffer from the same type of cancer, colon/prostate/lung, but the cancer would be different at the genetic level because each person is different at a genetic level. Thus treatment for each person would need to be different. What is one of the hallmarks of Obamacare or any government program for that matter? Fairness and equality. We'll all be treated the same.
I can just see it now; if you have lung cancer or prostate cancer, the bureaucracy is going to recognize one modality and that's what you'll get, whether it works for you or not. We all have to be treated the same. Maybe you'll be lucky and that particular approved treatment modality will work for you. Or maybe your genetic makeup will be off by just a chromosome and, well, it'll suck to be you.
This is on top of the cost efficiency analysis that has to be done. Remember, if you're too old or your life expectancy after treatment doesn't meet the established guidelines, then you won't get the treatment even if it would be the right type of treatment for you. Which makes what another doctor said to Colin; treatment of cancer is basically trying to keep you alive for a couple of years hoping we find either a cure or better treatment in that couple of years. If we find a cure, great. If we find a better more effective stop gap treatment, we keep you alive for another couple of years again with the hope that we find a cure in that time frame. It's the way we've operated for a long time. So, would that type of approach meet the criteria to allow the cost/efficiency experts to approve your treatment? I don't want to take that chance, do you?