Solyndra is just the tip of the iceberg

As the entire Solyndra Energy Scandal is beginning to unravel, it seems that Energy Secretary Steven Chu is admitting that he allowed government money to flow to a financially shaky solar panel firm after it had defaulted on it's loans...

"Energy Secretary Steven Chu acknowledged Thursday making the final decision to allow a struggling solar company to continue receiving taxpayer money after it had technically defaulted on a $535 million federal loan guaranteed by his agency.

Chu spokesman Damien La­Vera said in a statement that the secretary approved the restructuring agreement for Solyndra because it gave the company “the best possible chance to succeed in a very competitive marketplace and put the company in a better position to repay the loan.”

Also Thursday, a law enforcement official confirmed that the criminal probe of Solyndra is focused on whether the company and its officers misrepresented the firm’s finances to the government in seeking the loan or engaged in accounting fraud. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the probe."

I wish I could say that this is where it ends, but apparently it that isn't the case here. The more one examines the current regime, the more corrupt it appears. Now the Daily Caller is showcasing just how corrupt this regime actually is...

"A Daily Caller investigation has found that in addition to the failed company Solyndra, at least four other solar panel manufacturing companies receiving in excess of $500 million in loan guarantees from the Obama administration employ executives or board members who have donated large sums of money to Democratic campaigns.

And as questions swirl around possible connections between political donations and these preferential financing arrangements, the Obama White House suddenly began deflecting The Daily Caller’s questions on Wednesday to the Democratic National Committee.

Asked Wednesday to comment on the connection between large Democratic donors and Obama administration loan guarantees to the companies they represent, the White House responded to TheDC with a single sentence: “We refer your question to the Democratic National Committee.”

These clowns make Watergate look like peanuts in comparison. Where are Woodward and Bernstein when you need them?

""The Energy Department announced Wednesday that is has finalized more than $1 billion in loan guarantees for two separate solar energy projects." That's the news we had about 50 minutes left in the show. "DOE announced a $737 million loan guarantee to help finance construction of the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, a 110-megawatt solar-power-generating facility in Nye County, Nev. The project is sponsored by Tonopah Solar, a subsidiary of California-based SolarReserve. The Energy Department said the project will result in 600 construction jobs and 45 permanent jobs."

That works out to $16.3 million per permanent job. If you roll in the ancillary jobs, like the construction jobs, that's how you get each job costing $200,000. But the actual permanent jobs in the solar industry will cost between 16 and 23 million dollars each. And I'll tell you what's happening out there. Who was the first person that you can recall characterizing the stimulus bill and all of these things as Obama's slush fund? That's right. It was I, your host, El Rushbo. And now, depending on where you go in the blogosphere, in the media, you will see other people now concluding that all this is is a giant Obama slush fund. This is federal taxpayer dollars being sent to Obama campaign bundlers, donors, and contributors. And then the money comes back, a portion of it comes back to Obama as campaign donations again." Rush Limbaugh September 29th, 2011 Link

Why I Find it Difficult to Take Atheists Seriously

Two recent examples that have made the news this week have reaffirmed my belief that many, if not most, atheists are intellectual Lilliputians who have a hard time trying to convince people that they aren't bitter, nihilistic, socially autistic, mental midgets. First, in yesterday's Christian Post we read...

"The "jail or church" program in Bay Minette, Ala., that gives first-time, nonviolent offenders a choice between doing time and paying a fine or attending church once a week for a year has been delayed as the town's lawyers face pressure to ensure that it does not violate any church and state separation laws.

The Restore Our Community (ROC) program caught national media attention for what many believe to be a veiled attempt to coerce criminal offenders into going to church. Despite Bay Minette Police Chief Mike Rowland’s insistence that the program does not "coerce" church attendance because the offender is given the option of participating, groups like the ACLU, Freedom from Religion, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AUSCS) have complained that ROC is a "flagrant" violation of the Constitution."

How are they trying to establish a state religion? The convict can opt not to go to church and thus they aren't being forced to do so. This objection flies in the face of empirical evidence for those who supposedly champion empirical evidence when one considers that those who attend church regularly are less likely to commit crime. Perhaps, just perhaps, being held accountable by a body of believers just might be beneficial for certain ne'er-do-wells and they just might want to reprioritize their selfishness and weigh it against the consequences of their actions.

I doubt that the ACLU would object if they were being schooled on the benefits of the religion of Secular Humanism though.

The second example is from earlier in the week when I read that a group of California atheists paid to have the following billboard put up...

"One of the billboards located in the city of Orange states, "Make this a better world. Reject all religious superstitions." Listed underneath the proclamation are 36 different references to Christianity, other religions, and cults. Included in the list are: "Talking Snakes," "Burning Bushes," "Resurrection," "Salvation," and "Sin."

Lumped in with the Christian references are "Voodoo," "Magic Underwear," "Astrology," and "Hand of Fatima."

Such lumping in together of all of these items implies that all religious beliefs are of equal weight when nothing could be further from the truth. They should be judged on their own merits and decisions made according to their veracity accordingly.

Is the Mormon Church a Cult?

While significant differences still remain that seperate Mormonism from being defined as anything close to mainstream orthodox Christianity, Jana Reiss explores the distinct possibility that Mormons might be moving to become more mainstream....

"In their 2010 book American Grace, sociologists Robert Putnam and David Campbell revealed that Mormons rank as the third-most-hated religious group in America, after Muslims (no surprise) and Buddhists (a major surprise). The study's findings also showed, however, that suspicion of minority religions decreases significantly when people have personal interactions or friendships with members of those religions. A conservative evangelical soccer mom may claim to despise Mormonism, but her qualms tend to lessen when she becomes friendly with a Mormon co-worker or neighbor.

Therein lies a problem: unfamiliarity. A 2009 LDS-sponsored study indicated that nearly half of Americans understand next to nothing about Mormons, and many have never known a Mormon personally...

Many of Mormonism's critics fail to appreciate the ways that Mormon theology has changed through the years, often by way of the guidance that the LDS president claims to receive from God through "continuing revelation." (The teachings of a previous era are almost never explicitly repudiated, however.) For example, the doctrine that African Americans bear the "curse of Cain" is certainly not LDS doctrine today, though it was in the days of Brigham Young.

Some theological teachings are more opaque. For example, Mormon theology has traditionally dictated that human beings will become gods and that God himself was once human. An apparent disclaimer of this early Mormon teaching came when LDS prophet Gordon B. Hinckley appeared on Larry King Live in 1998 and, when asked whether Mormons believe that God was once a man, answered, "I wouldn't say that." He had given similarly vague denials the previous year to reporters from Time and the San Francisco Chronicle.

But what one LDS leader says to the media is not as reliable a gauge of the changing winds of LDS theology as the wording used in the LDS Church's twice-annual General Conference, when many worldwide Mormon leaders address the faithful by satellite or streaming Internet. In that forum, it's been rare to hear leaders talk about godhood recently unless they are quoting earlier leaders on the subject—and even that happens less frequently than it used to.

An investigation of the official LDS website confirms this trend. From 2006 to 2011, the word godhood appeared only ten times in official General Conference talks, church magazines and manuals. Of those cases, two quoted former LDS prophet Spencer W. Kimball about human beings becoming gods; one quoted former prophet David O. McKay on the subject; one cited midcentury leader Hugh B. Brown; and two drew from former apostle Marion G. Romney (a cousin of George Romney, Mitt's father). Two others referred to the "godhood" of Jesus Christ. Only one magazine piece—written anonymously—asserted that human beings "have within us the seeds of godhood," while an article about recovering from romantic breakups mentioned godhood twice as a goal for righteous human beings. Interestingly, that article was not written by a high-ranking international leader.

By comparison, church talks and materials from the 1970s and 1980s employed the concept freely in relation to the eternal destiny of men and women. As then-prophet Spencer W. Kimball said in 1976, "Our Heavenly Father has a plan for man's growth from infancy to godhood."

Does that mean that Mormons no longer believe that they can become gods? It is difficult to say. Many Mormons no longer think about the topic at all; it has become an insignificant aspect of contemporary theological expression. The idea may someday fade away, just as the church's encouragement of plural marriage—once a cornerstone not just of Mormon practice but of its belief system—has faded away."


The entire article is a good read and if you have the chance, click on the above link to check out the author's thoughts on how Mormons are helping to shape the political and cultural debates of our time.

I personally applaud such changes within their church and I think that mainline churches would do well if they could achieve what Mormons have insofar as attendance and tithing. But I don't know if Mormonism will ever be accepted as a member of the orthodox community as long as they adhere to the idea that such works as The Book of Mormon and The Pearl of Great Price are viewed as being 'inspired'. It's a bitter pill for a religion to swallow to accept that that their foundational documents aren't God-breathed and I doubt if these obstacles could be overcome anytime soon, if ever.

Thanks for the memories

I recall in an interview about 1992 or so that Michael Stipe said that he could see the whole thing going another album or two and then everyone amicably parting ways. 20 years later, it has come to pass.

"They have been performing together for more than three decades but today R.E.M announced they have slit up.

The group, made up of Mike Mills, Peter Buck and Michael Stipe, posted a statement on their website earlier today.

It read: ‘To our Fans and Friends: As R.E.M., and as lifelong friends and co-conspirators, we have decided to call it a day as a band. We walk away with a great sense of gratitude, of finality, and of astonishment at all we have accomplished."

I cannot exaggerate how much I liked this band and how their music affected me over the last 3 decades.

My first encounter with REM was when the album Fables of the Reconstruction was released in 1985. I recall hearing their hit songs Can't get there from here and Radio Free Europe as a teenager as part of my first exposure to a still relatively young, cable channel called MTV.

When I was graduating high scholl, their next album, Life's Rich Pageant was released. Who from that era could ever forget the songs Fall on Me, and Superman that were released at that time? About 18 years later, I became a big fan of another song on that particular album, the touching rendition concerning Native Americans titled Cuyahoga.

While I was in college, R.E.M. released two albums. The first was Document on which one of their biggest hits was released, The One I Love. No frat party at that time was a REAL party without the obligatory playing of It's the End of the World as We Know It complete with goofy underclassman engaging in one upmanship as to who could best belt out the rapid-fire, sometimes hard to understand lyrics. About a year later Green was released with the party anthem Pop Song 89 and the song Orange crush which was about Agent Orange.

Upon my leaving college and entering the so-called Real World, the opus Out of Time was released with it's eclectic mix of super-hits like the memorable Losing My Religion, the hauntingly beautiful Texarkana (which features bassist Mike Mills on lead vocals instead of Stipe) and the cross-over hit Radio Song featuring rapper KRS-One. I won't link up Shiny Happy People featuring the B-52's Kate Pierson, (a song written so that two people singing it and facing one another would just HAVE to smile while singing it just because of the way the mouth forms the words when belting out the lyrics) because FM Top 40 Format radio stations did such a great job of running that song into the ground.

I recall their 1995 hit Bittersweet Me which always reminds me of that particular time of my life.

Heck, just last weekend I just HAD to go online to search for the lyrics for their later hit, The Sidewinder Sleeps Tonight because I couldn't figure out for the life of me what they are saying in the chorus. (NOTE: It's "call me when you wake her up", not "calling Jamaica" as one survey revealed that 4 in 10 listeners thought were the correct lyrics).

I wish all the band members good health and blessings in their future endeavors. Feel free to leave any of your R.E.M. memories (a band name that Michael Stipe apparently chose at random from a dictionary) in the comment box below.

Science: Athiests demonstrably more autistic

I distinctly recalled how the screechy monkeys did howl when author Vox Day wrote about this five years ago, quote.....

"It's not just a figment of my imagination, it seems atheists truly are socially autistic by their own report. Asperger's Syndrome is a disorder described as "autistic psychopathy" by its discoverer, Dr. Hans Asperger. Those with the disorder tend to be intelligent, socially awkward and difficult to converse with. They are also likely to be male.

Based on Wired Magazine's observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men, to say nothing of the unpleasant personalities of leading public atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Michel Onfray, one could reasonably hypothesize that there is likely to be a strong correlation between Asperger's and atheism. It's by no means a scientific test, but it is interesting to note the coincidence that 59 of the virulent atheists over at Dr. PZ Myers place report an average score on the Asperger's Quotient test of 27.8. And this does not include the two individuals who actually have Asperger's but did not report any test results.

The test notes that "Scores over 32 are generally taken to indicate Asperger's Syndrome or high-functioning autism". The average male score is 18, the average female score is 15. By way of comparison, I scored 14."

Now, in the Daily Mail, we read that there might be confirmation for this after all...

"People with 'mild' forms of autism are more likely to be atheists, according to a controversial new study - and more likely to shun organised religion in general.

The study, which looked at posts on autism forums, focused on people with high-functioning autism such as Asperger's.

The study, from University of Boston, speculates that common autistic spectrum behaviours such as 'a preference for logical beliefs' and a distrust of metaphor and figures of speech, could be responsible.

The study authors, Catherine Caldwell-Harris and Patrick MacNamara studied discussions by 192 different posters on an autism website. They also looked at a survey of 61 people with high-functioning autism, and graphed against results from the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) test.
The results appeared to show that those with high AQ scores were 'more likely' to be atheists.

In the group of high-functionining autistic individuals, 26 per cent were atheists, compared to 16 per cent of 'neurotypical' individuals."

Will the science fetishists now rush out and embrace this new study? Of course, this dosn't translate to all atheists as being autistic, but it gives one paue to consider why a lot of them are. In the test utilized by Day, one of the statements they were asked to evaluate was "Other people frequently tell me that what I've said is impolite, even though I think it is polite." If you are an evagelical atheist and you simply cannot understand why people are so put off by the suggestion (or insistence) that their profoundly held religious beliefs are little more than a 'fairytale', this might be a good time to see if you qualify for the Asperger's test.

More Palestinian Myths

Having blogged before concerning The Myth of the Palestinian People, Dennis Prager flays some other misconseptions concerning Palestinians in light of the recent push for full membership at the U.N. One of the more mind-blowingly stupid tactics proposed by the enemies of Israel is to compare Israel to South Africa during the latter's time of apartheid...

"First, what is an apartheid state? And does Israel fit that definition?

From 1948 to 1994, South Africa, the country that came up with this term, had an official policy that declared blacks second-class citizens in every aspect of that nation's life. Among many other prohibitions on the country's blacks, they could not vote; could not hold political office; were forced to reside in certain locations; could not marry whites; and couldn't even use the same public restrooms as whites.

Not one of those restrictions applies to Arabs living in Israel.

One and a half million Arabs live in Israel, constituting about 20 percent of that country's population. They have the same rights as all other Israeli citizens. They can vote, and they do. They can serve in the Israeli parliament, and they do. They can own property and businesses and work in professions alongside other Israelis, and they do. They can be judges, and they are. Here's one telling example: it was an Arab judge on Israel's Supreme Court who sentenced the former president of Israel – a Jew – to jail on a rape charge.

Some other examples of Arabs in Israeli life: Reda Mansour was the youngest ambassador in Israel's history, and is now consul general at Israel's Atlanta consulate; Walid Badir is an international soccer star on Israel's national team and captain of one of Tel Aviv's major teams; Rana Raslan is a former Miss Israel; Ishmael Khaldi was until recently the deputy consul of Israel in San Francisco; Khaled Abu Toameh is a major journalist with the Jerusalem Post; Ghaleb Majadele was until recently a minister in the Israeli Government. They are all Israeli Arabs. Not one is a Jew.

Arabs in Israel live freer lives than Arabs living anywhere in the Arab world. No Arab in any Arab country has the civil rights and personal liberty that Arabs in Israel enjoy."

Gee, I wonder why we never hear this espoused by the liberal lions of the mainstream media. Must not fit the template of the month. Such organizations that buy into the Israel/apartheid canard truly give credence to what Joseph Goebbels said about repeating a Big Lie often enough.

Special thanks to Israel News for providing such a great picture of Palestinian soldiers showing their true colors.

Colebatch: Evolution Needs to Evolve

Hal G.P. Colebatch makes it known that he doesn't necessarily believe in a young earth or even that we came from Adam and Eve. But he raises matters that even the most evangelical of materialists would have difficulty and struggle to provide an explanation...

"If a monkey was born capable not only of gathering nuts and bananas but also of building cathedrals, writing Hamlet or flying to the moon, we would see it as a major objection to the pure theory of evolution. We might even be tempted to believe that a God had intervened somewhere along the line.

But Man is born capable of doing these things and has done them. The fact speaks for itself. Further, as far as paleontology can tell us, Cro-Magnon Man, the earliest form of Homo sapiens, had brains as good as modern men -- Cro-Magnon Man simply knew less. We know from cave paintings that 16,000 years ago at least Man had highly developed art.

Why? Art is useless for survival. There is no reason why evolution should have produced it. It is possible to be reminded of Gandalf's cryptic comment in The Lord of the Rings: "Something else is at work." (About Neanderthal Man we can only make guesses from a few ambiguous hints -- in at least one Neanderthal burial, for example, a dead body was found to have been buried bedecked with flowers. Why did the dead Neanderthal's fellow-tribesmen take time off from hunting and gathering food to do that? Further, there were different types of Neanderthal Man and the more we discover about them the more complex the picture becomes.)

The unique quality of the human brain is one of the things which evolution, and Professor Dawkins, fails to explain. Humanity is special, and evolution can give no reason for it. Shall we perhaps be so unkind as to paraphrase Professor Dawkins, and call anyone who believes these things to be fully explained -- with that explanation being perhaps that they are the result of blind chance -- "ignorant, stupid or insane"?"