Cap and Trade...

On the House Cap and Trade bill that passed in the dead of night.

Yahoo's news link title with subtle unfounded accusations of racism

Yahoo today (June 1, 2009) has a link to an article about Obama Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor. The title of the Associated Press Article is "GOP senators sidestep harsh criticism of Sotomayor". But the link title from the front page of Yahoo, the link title everyone will see who visits Yahoo, is "GOP senators tone down racially charged criticism of Sotomayor." Notice that the link title implies that the GOP senators are being racially prejudiced towards Sotomayor who is Hispanic. Yahoo has deliberately created the association -- GOP senators = bad racists; Sotomayor = victim of racism. But the reality is just the opposite. Criticism of Sotomayor emerged because of her seemingly racist comments. If yahoo had left the AP title in their link, or simply rewritten their own title to be "GOP senators tone down criticism of Sotomayor's perceived racial prejudice," it would have been more accurate. But the editors at Yahoo News show their bias and score a major propaganda victory against the GOP in the minds of unwary readers.

International Distortions in News Reports about Taiwan

Here is an excellent analysis by Michael Turton, a blogger in Taiwan, on how the international Western media distorted their reports on the large May 17th protest in Taiwan.

Obama -- not "science first" as he claimed

Obama's campaign promise was "science first" in a thinly veiled dig at his predecessor's consideration of religious communities. But now that he is in power, we begin to see evidence that his policies are politics over science. Progressives routinely characterize themselves as environmentalists as compared with conservatives supposed pro-oil, pro-war, anti-environment positions. But it seems clear that the Democrats in power are now pro-political power at the expense of anything else -- whether the environment or the economy.

Note what the Obama administration has done against plans for sustainable fish populations in the North Atlantic.

A so-called "Equitable" and "Balanced" Obama tax code

[Obama's] Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner argued that the Obama proposal would reduce taxes for most Americans. Any increases, he said, wouldn't occur until 2011, when the economy is "safely into recovery."

Geithner said Obama's plan would cut income taxes for 95 percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses. Raising taxes on couples that make more than $250,000 would make the tax system more equitable, restoring the balance that existed before a series of tax cuts were enacted under former President George W. Bush, he said. -- AP 2009-3-4

"Restoring the balance" is completely deceitful rhetoric. He actually means restoring an unfair inequitable system. Even if there were a flat tax of 10 percent, that would mean rich people pay more taxes since 10 percent of $250,000 is $25,000 whereas 10 percent of $30,000 is $3000. Who is paying more taxes with a flat 10 percent tax rate? One pays $25,000; another pays $3000.

The Bush tax cuts do not even go to a flat tax. Our tax system is unfair in that the more income you earn, the greater percentage of that income in taxes you have to pay. For instance if you were a person who made $100,000 per year, and then were offered a job with higher stress, but higher compensation of $250,000 per year, you might not take it. If taxes are raised on the rich, and they have to pay 40 or 50 percent of their income, then that person making $250,000 per year will only be allowed to keep $125,000 or $150,000 of his $250,000 earnings and the government would be confiscating the rest. That kind of thing is considered "fair," "balanced," and "equitable" in the Obama administration.

In a communist system, no matter how hard you work, or what intellectual property you have put into things, your money will be taken away and given to someone else so everyone makes the same amount. Perhaps this is more of what Geithner really means by "equitable."

The reason communist systems fail is that they are truly not fair. People will not work hard anymore -- what is the point? There is no reward for innovation or hard work.

When taxes are raised unfairly on the rich (the ones with capital), they invariable have a disincentive to work. Why invest in starting a new company that would provide a lot of jobs when any extra money you make will be confiscated by the government? The rich then simply begin sitting back and collecting art, etc. No new companies are started. No new jobs are created. The skills and abilities that helped make that high-income earner able to earn money stagnate and that person does not any longer contribute to the GDP of the nation.

What is more, as the economy is harmed by a tax penalty on success and hard work, actual government revenue falls. There are fewer people working at their maximum potential; there is less money earned; there is less productivity; there is less capital being invested in new technology and fewer pushes into new and uncharted industries which carry a higher risk and potential of failure; there are fewer jobs.

Levels of genetic defects: support Intelligent Design or Evolutionary Theories?

A leading American scholar of biology, Prof Francisco Ayala, plans to tell the conference that the so-called theory of intelligent design, proposed by Creationists, is flawed.
"The design of organisms is not what would be expected from an intelligent engineer, but imperfect and worse," he said.
"Defects, dysfunctions, oddities, waste and cruelty pervade the living world". -- BBC 3/3/2009

Here is another example of begging the question. If you asked Intelligent Design theorists, they would have a perfectly reasonable answer as to how their theory fits the current level of "defects, dysfunctions [sic], oddities, waste and cruelty". An original design that has degraded over time is compatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or put another way about 1800 years before the Second Law of Thermodynamics was formulated by Rudolf Clausius in 1850: in Romans 8:20-21 Paul writes "the creation was subject to bondage to decay"; or as was written down by Moses over 3000 years before Clausius, "dying you shall die... cursed is the ground because of you."

So to the contrary of what Francisco Ayala asserts, Intelligent Design theory accounts for that evidence that Darwinian and modern evolutionary theory cannot account for: information rich systems. Add to that the Biblical account of both Creation and the Fall where the universe is under a curse because of sin, the ensuing genetic defects and entropy, and the defects are perfectly accounted for.

For evolutionary theory, random mutation plus natural selection must be able to account for a gain of useful genetic information, but it statistically cannot. Mutations are almost always detrimental; these do not create new genetic information, but instead degraded information, that is, information loss. The robustness of the original design means that the creature can still function even with the degraded level of their genetic information.

The evidence in the world shows original designs that have degenerated, not a gradual development of new species. For example, even on a micro-evolutionary scale, different types of dogs are due to a loss of genetic information among distinct population groups rather than a gain by those isolated groups. The same can be said for Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands.

Yet again -- bald assertion on "climate change" proves unsubstantiated

Yahoo Headline: "Climate Change Even worse than predicted" in the article: regarding increased CO₂. Not one bit of evidence present specifically related to actual climate change -- just an increase in CO₂. This is a logic fallacy called begging the question. The underlying assumption is that CO₂ causes climate change. But then to point to an increase in CO₂ and say climate change is worse begs the question -- what about actual evidence of climate change. Also, it is circular reasoning -- to say CO₂ causes climate change, and then say Climate change is getting worse based solely on the evidence that CO₂ emission has increased has not really proved any point. Does CO₂ actually have any measurable impact on climate? What about the sun in comparison? Actually it should make them doubt CO₂ as a cause of climate change because the increased CO₂ is not having any noticeable effect. There is evidence for either cooling or a stabilizing of temperature. But people will read the headline, and simply believe with not one piece of solid climate evidence presented in the article.

In contrast, note the prevalence of information about actual climate in the following article in Newsmax.