The Greenberger FilesJosh Greenberger (663)    Nancy Pelosi, Congress and High Gasoline PricesPosted Tuesday, July 08, 2008 (14 hours 45 minutes ago.) Viewed 23 times. Her claim of not opening more offshore drilling because energy companies are not using federal lands already open to energy development is pure nonsense. If energy companies are not using federal lands already open to them, what difference does it make if we open more sites for drilling? You can't hurt the environment by NOT drilling on more land. And if the oil companies do decide to drill, why not open more land and give them greater opportunity? Is Pelosi punishing the oil companies for not drilling before? What an infantile attitude for a grown woman, and especially for one in a position of power. It's like kindergarten time in Washington. Pelosi is actually punishing all Americans with her foolish, immature shenanigans. We must put a stop to this. She works for the American people. It's easy to blame our current predicament of high gasoline prices on insufficient oil production or export by OPEC. It's more difficult to blame ourselves for passivity and lack of resolve. There's no question that OPEC could help alleviate the situation. But we could do the same on our own, and, at the same time, stop the majority of our dependence on foreign oil. If we can get our lawmakers to put aside politics and special interests, we could roll back the price of gas considerably. An example of the kind of nonsense that's keeping us from increasing our own oil production is the haggling over whether or not to allow oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Objections to oil exploration in ANWR have come mostly from environmental groups who worry about endangering the caribou (reindeer). However, only 1.5 million acre, or 8%, on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development, while the remaining 17.5 million acres, 92%, of ANWR will remain closed to development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected -- that's less than one half of one percent. With the hardships Americans are beginning to experience over high gas prices, should exploration in ANWR even be an issue? ANWR should have been opened for exploration as soon as gas hit $2 per gallon. U.S. companies are barred from drilling off the coast of Florida because of environmental concerns. Yet, China signed an agreement with Cuba to drill for oil in Cuban waters. Since Cuba is only 90 miles from Florida, and Jimmy Carter, in his legendary witless "wisdom," gave Cuba half those waters for economic purposes, we could see oil rigs as close as 45 miles off Florida's shores. Which means, we'll likely be the recipient of whatever environmental damage that might come out of drilling for oil near Florida, but China will be the recipient of the oil. To add insult to injury, there are reports that China is planning to slant drill. That is, while in Cuban waters, they can slant drill to tap into our oil reserves. So, we get the pollution, China gets the oil, and, on top of that, China gets our oil. What brilliant environmentalist sees this as a solution to anything? The Florida shores should have been opened for drilling by U.S. companies the moment China signed an agreement with Cuba. We have an oil crisis in the U.S. because of twisted priorities. It's one thing to worry about the environment when there's little or no downside. But when the downside is extreme hardship to the vast majority of Americans, environmental concerns, unless they're an obvious imminent threat to life or health, should be put aside. The notion that there are moronic, dimwitted individuals and groups who are more concerned about the reindeer in Alaska than Americans on Main Street, is just mind-boggling. Almost as bad is the passivity of the average American. TV interview after interview of people on the street who are asked what they think of the high gas prices, respond to the effect of, "Well, we'll just have to change our vacation plans," or "We'll have to cut down on" this or that. There seems to be no outrage over our lawmakers buckling under pressure from a small minority of special interest groups. When a horse is killed accidentally in Central Park, there is immediate outrage by animal activists about changing laws to protect animals. (I'm an animal lover myself. I've had cats, birds, a dog, and other animals.) I certainly do not suggest condoning cruelty to animals. But when animals elicit more consideration and respect than humans, that's not a love of animals -- that's a distorted sense of reality and an irrational contempt for one's fellow human beings. If average Americans gathered in front of their lawmakers' offices in support of "human rights," protesting environmental-related restrictions on oil exploration with the same outrage as some nuts scream for animal rights, we could have cheap gas in the near future. (When gas prices go down considerably and our economy gets back on track, we can start worrying again about the environment.) Average Americans far outnumber the individuals who comprise environmental groups. If we let our voices be heard in support of "human rights," it will undoubtedly drown out the opposition. To do with less when you don't have to, makes no sense. I'm all for conservation of energy, loose leaf paper and whatever, even when they're in abundant supply. But teaching conservation is one thing, imposing deprivation as another. We have plenty of oil, let's use it. Nancy Pelosi needs to resign. She is not serving the people of this country. Most Americans, democrats and republicans alike, want more offshore drilling. Who is Nancy Pelosi to deny the American people that right? We must rally in support of getting Nancy Pelosi removed from office. by Josh Greenberger Josh Greenberger: As a computer consultant for over two decades, has developed software for NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, AT&T, Charles Schwab, Bell Laboratories and Chase Manhattan Bank. Has appeared, in the form of letters and articles, in The New York Post, New York Daily News, New York Times, Village Voice, Jewish Press, Hamodia and others. Articles have ranged from humor to scientific to current events. Wrote a book disproving the theory of evolution (Human Intelligence Gone Ape a.k.a. Who Let The Apes Out, available in stores and online. Has written several screenplays. 
Permalink Comments (0) Will The Phoenix Lander Make A Mockery Of Evolution?Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 (14 days 10 hours ago.) Viewed 50 times. June 24, 2008 - The Phoenix lander's May 31st, 2008, transmission of photos of ice on Mars is being hailed as a possible breakthrough in our search for life on other planets. The hope is to test the ice for evidence of organic compounds that are the chemical building blocks of life. This kind of optimism, however, makes one wonder if scientists have lost all reasoning abilities. If we find the building blocks of life on Mars it'll prove the precise opposite of what scientists hope to prove -- it'll prove that the scientific understanding of the evolution of life simply does not work. If the building blocks of life exist on Mars, where's life? (And if the building blocks don't exist, there's something wrong with our understanding of planetary evolution. Earth and Mars evolved in roughly the same period from the same gases, according to scientists. How can earth be teeming with life and Mars not even have the building blocks of life?) Well, maybe there is life in Mars, but we just have to dig for it. We have to dig for it? Is this a joke? Here on earth we've had creatures the size of dinosaurs an alleged 200 million years ago. Yet in a staggering four and a half billion years, not even a small fly has evolved on Mars? Earth has had an astronomical total of literally millions upon millions of plant and animal species. In the same period of time, Mars hasn't evolved enough life forms to even have a few rodents running around? And if some natural catastrophe killed off life on Mars, we should at least see bones and carcasses here and there. But we're finding nothing. Zilch. We have to dig to find a trace of life? How many times would a spaceship have to orbit earth before it found life? Would it even have to land? It certainly wouldn't have to dig for it. Is the Martian environment really too harsh to support life? I don't think so. In 1977 we found the first hydrothermal vent, an opening where water heated by earth's molten interior is released into the ocean. Closest to the vent, in the midst of water which sometimes exceeds 450 degrees Fahrenheit, were eight-foot long tube worms. Most animals need sunlight to survive; the area where these tube worms thrive receive no sunlight whatsoever. Then, as if to laugh in the face of what's considered "normal" for biological life forms, these tube worms had no eyes, mouth, or intestinal tract. They get their nourishment from surrounding bacteria. To add to this ecological mystery, these bacteria thrived on hydrogen sulphide, which is found in the water coming from the hot vent. To most higher animals, hydrogen sulphide is as poisonous as cyanide! Since 1977 many more vents have been discovered on the ocean floors. Besides tube worms, other exotic animals have been found thriving in the immediate vicinity of the vents -- pink fish, snails, shrimp, sulphur-yellow mussels, and foot-long clams, to name a few. Similar animal populations have since been discovered in waters only a few degrees cooler than freezing. Talk about adapting to extreme and adverse conditions. Cacti are known to survive the most difficult and unusual climates. Their ability to sustain themselves in areas of little rainfall, hot dry winds, low humidity, strong sunlight, and extreme fluctuations in temperature is nothing short of phenomenal. Some cacti can survive internal temperatures of near 145 degrees Fahrenheit. Most plants haven't got a chance where some cacti prosper. Lichens, a combination of fungus and algae, have been found thriving in an area of Antarctica where temperatures sometimes get colder than 70 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. As far as hostile environments go, this seems to be the extreme opposite of deep, dark, hot waters. Bacteria have been found growing an amazing 25 feet underground. In the course of earth's history, there have probably been over a half billion animal species in existence, from such monstrosities as whales and dinosaurs right down to microscopic life forms such as amoebas and viruses. That's a half billion before you even bring plant life into the picture. The planets in our solar system, according to scientists, formed about four and a half billion years ago. The most primitive forms of life allegedly appeared on earth as far back as three billion years ago. Huge creatures such as dinosaurs roamed our planet an alleged 200 million years ago, and ruled for an enormously long period of over 100 million years. Finally, scientists believe, humans appeared about two to three million years ago. That is, something as complex as the human brain has allegedly been around for at least a staggering two million years. An optical instrument as sophisticated as the eye has been around even longer. Yet, when we look at a planet, formed at the same time and from the same stuff as earth, right next to us in space, what do we find? We find a barren world with absolutely no trace of life. We have to dig to try to find even the simplest organism. Is there something wrong with this picture? Sure the Martian environment is hostile. But two miles down at the bottom of our oceans near vents which spew hot water mixed with hydrogen sulphide in total darkness is not exactly a summer vacation spot -- it's about as hostile as an environment can get! But life thrives there in complete defiance of what are normally considered ecological adversities. So is 25 feet deep in the ice of Antarctica a hostile environment. So is the desert. Furthermore, in that alleged period of three and a half billion years ago, the entire earth, according to scientists, was hostile. Life on earth allegedly began in an environment which would be hostile to many of today's life forms. And many of today's life forms live in conditions which would have been intolerable to the organisms which allegedly brought life into existence billions of years ago. But life on earth thrives in spite of it all. It's hard to imagine life on earth being wiped out by a natural or manmade disaster. But somehow, life on Mars has either been completely wiped out (and the telltale traces mysteriously hidden) or something prevented life from coming into existence. It is totally inconceivable that something as tenacious and as diversified as life has not left its mark on Mars. So why is there no life on Mars? (If we haven't found so much as a rat above ground, I'm quite confident we'll never find even microorganisms underground). The answer is that life is not a physical phenomenon. It may manifest itself through a physical medium. But life itself is beyond scientific explanation or comprehension. The notion that we know, scientifically, how life springs into existence is absolutely ludicrous. With all present day scientific knowledge and sophistication, no scientists has ever produced even one living ant out of the chemical building blocks of life. With everything scientists pretend to know about life, we should've been producing apes. But not even an ant? Whether evolutionists know they're full of it or they just think the rest of the population is stupid, is irrelevant. The point is that space exploration shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that life does not have the ability to just sprout at any given time or place where physical conditions are "right." The life that was Created here on earth, whether by sudden spurts or in an evolution-like manner, was obviously directed with Intelligence, Design and purpose. And in this age of scientific sophistication you don't even need the Bible to tell you this. All you need is a Phoenix Lander.
Permalink Comments (2) |
Archives:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||