November 27, 2011

To get rid of income inequality

To get rid of income inequality, the simplest thing is for the IRS to take in the entire paycheck, every pay period of everyone who is working, average it out over the entire population, calculate and take out the taxes and mail the balance to each and every individual working or not.

As to the Big, Bad Corporations, have the IRS collect all the income corporations make, deduct what is determined by President Obama to be fair income for a corporation and mail the check to the CEO.

November 22, 2011


"Next time a liberal tells you they're upset about "income inequality", 1st, tell them you agree. 2nd, Suggest that they go to their human resources dept. and ask for their salary and the lowest earner in their company's salary to be averaged... for "fairness". If they agree, which they will, bc liberals ALWAYS practice what they preach--then, tell them you don't want to stop at "income inequality"--tell them to start a lobbying group where they tackle social inequities such as: "automobile inequality", "television inequality", "sneaker inequality", "hair weave inequality" ~Vanessa Jean-Louis.

November 17, 2011

Working hard.

I love my job.  It is hard work, early in the AM bike ride.  A five hour physical work out of moving pallets and hand stacking items with a few electronic hook ups and cleaning thrown in for good measure.

Next working with various Costco Members, answering questions on electronics, resolving issues with same.  Occasionally loading up something heavy onto a cart or into a car.  It is a blast.

The managers tend to leave me on my own.  Other then some direction on what new change they want implemented or some new merchandising set up.  For the most part I know what needs to be done or have a list my supervisor has left and I go, go, go.

It turns out that managers really like not having to manage someone...  Further, there is an art to seeing something that needs to be done prior to being told (which makes no sense to my way of thinking).

When you hear someone say, "Don't worry about that, Lee is here"

I love my job.

November 14, 2011

Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction

Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction
Daniel Avila
Posted: 10/28/2011
More than once I have heard from or about Catholics upset with the Church for its insistence that sexual relations be limited to marriage between husband and wife. Does not this moral rule force people with same-sex attraction into lives of loneliness? If they are born that way, then why should they be punished by a restriction that does not account for their pre-existing condition? God wants everyone to be happy, and for persons with same-sex attraction is not their happiness to be found in the fulfillment of that attraction? Some seek to change the Church’s teaching on marriage or have left the Church because of it. They believe either that God through the Church ignores the needs of people or that the Church misunderstands what God desires.
That is, if God causes same-sex attraction, and yet commands that it not be satisfied, then this is divine cruelty. Or, if God causes same-sex attraction, then it must be the divine will that those with the attraction should act on it and it is the Church that is being cruel in its teaching or at the very least tragically mistaken about what God wants. In either case, the belief that the Church is wrong on this issue starts from a faulty premise. God does not cause same-sex attraction.
The best natural evidence of what God causes and wants for us is our genetic code. Science has isolated certain genetic combinations that are typical to human creation and development. The most basic and the first genetic expression is that which occurs at our conception, when at the same time our individual human life begins our sexual identity as male or female begins. That which is genetically encoded, for believers, points to a codifier, and communicates through its design the codifier’s intent. Interpreting from a spiritual perspective the genetic code which supplies our sexual difference, we have to conclude that God wants us to be male or female.
No one has found a “gay gene.” Identical twins are always, of course, the same sex, providing further proof of male and female genes. If there was a gay gene, then when one twin exhibits same-sex attraction, his or her identical sibling should too. But that is not the case. The incidence of finding identical twins with identical same-sex attraction is relatively rare and certainly not anywhere near one hundred percent. Something other than the hardwiring found in the genetic code must explain the variance.
So what causes the inclination to same-sex attraction if it appears early and involuntarily and “who,” if anyone, is responsible? In determining the answer to the “what” question, the most widely accepted scientific hypothesis points to random imbalances in maternal hormone levels and identifies their disruptive prenatal effects on fetal development as the likely and major cause.
The most recent and most comprehensive discussion of this research is found in a book published earlier this year by a scientist who also happens to be a gay-rights advocate. Even though it discounts other environmental factors that other scientists believe also may play a role, Simon LeVay’s publication, “Gay, Straight and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Attraction” is worth the read.
LeVay is not interested in the “who” question and describes same-sex attraction as just a variation among other human inclinations. Catholics do not have the luxury of being materialists. We look for ultimate explanations that transcend the strictly physical world and that stretch beyond our limited ability to mold and reshape reality as we know it. Disruptive imbalances in nature that thwart encoded processes point to supernatural actors who, unlike God, do not have the good of persons at heart.
In other words, the scientific evidence of how same-sex attraction most likely may be created provides a credible basis for a spiritual explanation that indicts the devil. Any time natural disasters occur, we as people of faith look back to Scripture’s account of those angels who rebelled and fell from grace. In their anger against God, these malcontents prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. They continue to do all they can to mar, distort and destroy God’s handiwork.
Therefore, whenever natural causes disturb otherwise typical biological development, leading to the personally unchosen beginnings of same-sex attraction, the ultimate responsibility, on a theological level, is and should be imputed to the evil one, not God. Applying this aspect of Catholic belief to interpret the scientific data makes more sense because it does not place God in the awkward position of blessing two mutually incompatible realities—sexual difference and same-sex attraction.
If in fact this analysis of causation and culpability is correct, then it opens new perspectives on the Church’s teaching in this area. Being born with an inclination which originates in a manner outside of one’s control is not sufficient proof that the condition is caused by God or that its satisfaction meets God’s purpose. Furthermore, a proper understanding of who is really at fault should deepen our compassion towards those who experience same-sex attraction and inform our response to the question of loneliness. Ultimately, an accurate attribution of responsibility for same-sex attraction frees us to consider more fully the urgent question of why sexual difference matters so much to God. These matters will be addressed in my next column.
Daniel Avila formerly served the Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts and now lives and works in the Washington, D.C., area.

Read more:

November 07, 2011

IPCC written by kids...?

link to read.

“We’ve been told that [the IPCC] is a responsible business man in a three-piece suit, but it turns out it’s a sloppily dressed teenager -- a spoiled brat that can’t be trusted,

November 05, 2011

Herman Cain's Gauntlet

By Cal Thomas

When it comes to sex, the media apply different standards to Republicans and Democrats.

Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton allegedly trolled for women, using state troopers as his procurers. As president, Clinton engaged in oral sex with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. He lied about it under oath and was impeached, though later acquitted by the U.S. Senate. Other sexual accusations tainted Clinton, including one that he raped one Juanita Broaddrick. That "everybody lies about sex" and "it was just sex" and didn't affect his public responsibilities, were just two of the exculpatory statements from Clinton's Democratic defenders. James Carville slimed Paula Jones, one of Clinton's accusers, by saying you never know what you'll find "when you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park."

Many other Democrats in modern times have been caught with their pants down -- JFK, John Edwards. Some paid a political price. Most did not because their policies were favored by the liberal media, which gave them cover.

Now it is Herman Cain's turn and the rules have suddenly changed. Cain stands accused of sexually harassing two women more than a decade ago when he headed the National Restaurant Association. Many in the media wolf pack have already judged him guilty because he updated his initial statement denying the allegations. And yet The Washington Post, in association with -- which broke the "story" -- routinely updates its online pages when new information comes to light.

Is Cain, a relative media novice, expected to have instant and total recall of events that may or may not have happened more than 10 years ago?

The way this works is, if you can't give the media immediate and detailed answers to their questions, they "raise new questions" and then when you do provide them additional information they say you should have provided it before and must be covering something up, prompting even more questions.

One cannot say what, if any, political motives the anonymous female accusers might have, or even if they helped bring these charges to Politico. So much of this is subjective. What is known is that a charge of sexual harassment is not proof that sexual harassment occurred.

This story also has a noxious odor of racism about it. Historically, perhaps the worst stereotype directed at African-American men is that they are oversexed and constantly on the prowl for female conquests.

Cain's candidacy has unnerved the Washington political establishment. I have just finished his book "This is Herman Cain!: My Journey to the White House." In it, I learned that Cain is a self-made man who achieved success without government and without self-loathing. He is the enemy of big government, and of Democrats' "can't do" condescending attitude toward minorities. Cain exudes a positive and optimistic spirit.

Were Cain to become president, this "CEO of self" would threaten the political and economic prison liberal Democrats have built to keep disenfranchised minorities down and voting for Democrats for fear their government programs will end. Cain has a better way and he writes about it in his inspiring personal story, which is the embodiment of the American Dream.

This is why Cain is being excoriated by the liberal left. Even some in the Republican establishment wish he would just go away. There will be more on this as reporters and tabloids throw money at Cain's accusers, seeking to get them to talk in violation of their termination agreements.

If you're wondering why more qualified people don't run for office, consider what is being done to Herman Cain. People don't want every mistake or bad decision they've made trumpeted from the rooftops and so they avoid politics to the nation's detriment.

Cain may ultimately triumph over these allegations. On Monday Cain recorded his biggest fundraising day ever, netting $400,000. Still, the best defense is a good offense and what would be best for Cain is for him to get all the facts out, immediately, before his enemies do it for him.