This caption goes along with this article.
You can only get so much information from reading. Pictures get the job done much quicker.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
LOL!!!!
This caption goes along with this article.
You can only get so much information from reading. Pictures get the job done much quicker.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Food Study!
Between my cohorts and I, we discuss food. There is a difference in cuisine and taste. Some folks prefer comfort foods while others head straight for the five-star staged meals. But what I believe separates us from the rest of the crowd is that not only do we enjoy the meals that are prepared for us, we love the meals we can prepare for others. This ties into the debate about people who enjoy using organics versus the ordinary store bought. I lie smack dab in the middle of it. Ordinary food usually is cheaper and can be found at any time through out the year. Organic, local, and non-chemical usually are healthier and touch your taste buds differently, but for a price.
A new study out provides us with some new information. It confirms some of my feelings that organics are just marginally better than non-organics. The conservative part of me cheers this as a victory to cost. The taste aficionado puts his head down and kicks the dirt a little after this news. I question some of the aspects of this test as it does not address pesticide and genetic engineering that organic foods are free of. I think it does put some of the health benefit arguments to rest, which is what I did think all along.
But all in all, it does address one more key point. Organics have been hurting lately due in part to the world-wide recession. Organic is a luxury or commodity market. You don't necessarily need it, but it is nice to spend a few extra bucks to get something more than you would ordinarily get. This applies to more markets than just organic foods. This is a high-end recession that is hurting the people with money and it applies to all the markets those people would venture to.
Sorry for the lack of creativity and rather boring write-up, but I needed to get this out there ASAP. Food has no time to wait!
A new study out provides us with some new information. It confirms some of my feelings that organics are just marginally better than non-organics. The conservative part of me cheers this as a victory to cost. The taste aficionado puts his head down and kicks the dirt a little after this news. I question some of the aspects of this test as it does not address pesticide and genetic engineering that organic foods are free of. I think it does put some of the health benefit arguments to rest, which is what I did think all along.
But all in all, it does address one more key point. Organics have been hurting lately due in part to the world-wide recession. Organic is a luxury or commodity market. You don't necessarily need it, but it is nice to spend a few extra bucks to get something more than you would ordinarily get. This applies to more markets than just organic foods. This is a high-end recession that is hurting the people with money and it applies to all the markets those people would venture to.
Sorry for the lack of creativity and rather boring write-up, but I needed to get this out there ASAP. Food has no time to wait!
Monday, July 27, 2009
The Honduras Crisis...
Another instance where our Government opened their big fat mouth without collecting reasonable evidence in a situation. Instead the Chicken Littled the ousting and championed anti-constitutional methods. For the liberals that support our Constitution find no need to respect other countries.
The interim President, Roberto Micheletti, presents his side of the case.
As to why Zelaya was "ousted,"
"• The Supreme Court, by a 15-0 vote, found that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally by proceeding with an unconstitutional “referendum,” and it ordered the Armed Forces to arrest him. The military executed the arrest order of the Supreme Court because it was the appropriate agency to do so under Honduran law."
Who decided to do this? Well members from his own party did.
"• Eight of the 15 votes on the Supreme Court were cast by members of Mr. Zelaya’s own Liberal Party. Strange that the pro-Zelaya propagandists who talk about the rule of law forget to mention the unanimous Supreme Court decision with a majority from Mr. Zelaya’s own party. Thus, Mr. Zelaya’s arrest was at the instigation of Honduran’s constitutional and civilian authorities—not the military.
• The Honduran Congress voted overwhelmingly in support of removing Mr. Zelaya. The vote included a majority of members of Mr. Zelaya’s Liberal Party."
Well what power does the Congress and Supreme Court have to even do this?
"• The constitution expressly states in Article 239 that any president who seeks to amend the constitution and extend his term is automatically disqualified and is no longer president. There is no express provision for an impeachment process in the Honduran constitution. But the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision affirmed that Mr. Zelaya was attempting to extend his term with his illegal referendum. Thus, at the time of his arrest he was no longer—as a matter of law, as far as the Supreme Court was concerned—president of Honduras."
You can read the rest of the eloquent article by Micheletti. But what bothers me is the double talk by liberals when it comes to the Constitution. They have such poor interpretation skills then you pair that with how loosely the interpret our own. They have some regard when the Constitution acts against them, but then have no problem interpreting it otherwise when they benefit.
The interim President, Roberto Micheletti, presents his side of the case.
As to why Zelaya was "ousted,"
"• The Supreme Court, by a 15-0 vote, found that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally by proceeding with an unconstitutional “referendum,” and it ordered the Armed Forces to arrest him. The military executed the arrest order of the Supreme Court because it was the appropriate agency to do so under Honduran law."
Who decided to do this? Well members from his own party did.
"• Eight of the 15 votes on the Supreme Court were cast by members of Mr. Zelaya’s own Liberal Party. Strange that the pro-Zelaya propagandists who talk about the rule of law forget to mention the unanimous Supreme Court decision with a majority from Mr. Zelaya’s own party. Thus, Mr. Zelaya’s arrest was at the instigation of Honduran’s constitutional and civilian authorities—not the military.
• The Honduran Congress voted overwhelmingly in support of removing Mr. Zelaya. The vote included a majority of members of Mr. Zelaya’s Liberal Party."
Well what power does the Congress and Supreme Court have to even do this?
"• The constitution expressly states in Article 239 that any president who seeks to amend the constitution and extend his term is automatically disqualified and is no longer president. There is no express provision for an impeachment process in the Honduran constitution. But the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision affirmed that Mr. Zelaya was attempting to extend his term with his illegal referendum. Thus, at the time of his arrest he was no longer—as a matter of law, as far as the Supreme Court was concerned—president of Honduras."
You can read the rest of the eloquent article by Micheletti. But what bothers me is the double talk by liberals when it comes to the Constitution. They have such poor interpretation skills then you pair that with how loosely the interpret our own. They have some regard when the Constitution acts against them, but then have no problem interpreting it otherwise when they benefit.
Obama's Gates Review
I am not going to comment on the facts of the case. They are in dispute with most people playing armchair lawyer. No one seems to get that Gates and Crowley are innocent until proven guilty. No one seems to want to address the police report as right factually, instead they believe he lied (not only lied to Gates, but to the Cambridge PD who backs him). Not only does lying mean he could lose his job, but he could face a substantial civil suit. Regardless, this is why Obama acted stupidly.
Politically:
The comments have taken over the news cycle more than his health care reform. He should have understood that the reaction to his comments, if he supported one party over the other, would drive news media to fester over this. Not only did the media and the blogosphere come to the rescue like Lassie, but this is all they are talking about. Health care took a back seat to the discussion (don't worry I am still all over it) especially when August recess is looming.
Legally:
As chief law enforcement officer, a lawyer, and a constitutional law professor, he should have known much better than to proclaim, "I don't know all the facts, but I am going to say so and so acted in such way." Lady Justice is blind and doesn't appreciate you placing your finger on her scale. He should have taken a step back and allowed the legal system to satisfy and vindicate whoever was wronged before a comment. If you can wait to make a comment in the face of Iranians being beaten, you can definitely wait to make a comment in this circumstance.
Racially:
Barack Obama was trumpeted as being the one who was going to be a "racial healer." Not only did his comments stick a stake between races, he decidedly facilitated it more than it should have been. Many moderate-conservative democrats from the flyover states didn't take kindly to these words even though they supported him in the election.
Needless to say, this may be forgotten when it comes to 2012, but it still shows you the cards he is going to play when similar situations come up. I will also add that there may be a relative small aspect of race, but the overlying issue here was elitism.
Politically:
The comments have taken over the news cycle more than his health care reform. He should have understood that the reaction to his comments, if he supported one party over the other, would drive news media to fester over this. Not only did the media and the blogosphere come to the rescue like Lassie, but this is all they are talking about. Health care took a back seat to the discussion (don't worry I am still all over it) especially when August recess is looming.
Legally:
As chief law enforcement officer, a lawyer, and a constitutional law professor, he should have known much better than to proclaim, "I don't know all the facts, but I am going to say so and so acted in such way." Lady Justice is blind and doesn't appreciate you placing your finger on her scale. He should have taken a step back and allowed the legal system to satisfy and vindicate whoever was wronged before a comment. If you can wait to make a comment in the face of Iranians being beaten, you can definitely wait to make a comment in this circumstance.
Racially:
Barack Obama was trumpeted as being the one who was going to be a "racial healer." Not only did his comments stick a stake between races, he decidedly facilitated it more than it should have been. Many moderate-conservative democrats from the flyover states didn't take kindly to these words even though they supported him in the election.
Needless to say, this may be forgotten when it comes to 2012, but it still shows you the cards he is going to play when similar situations come up. I will also add that there may be a relative small aspect of race, but the overlying issue here was elitism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
