At least if you judge by media coverage, or lack thereof, of rising gas prices. Funny how nobody mentions that gas prices have doubled since Obama took office. Gas prices rising while a Republican is president equals big news. Gas prices doubling while a Democrat is president equals nothing to report.
Recent events in Japan have highlighted the need for emergency preparedness, whether at home, in the car, or at work / school. Do you live in an area where, given the occurrence of a natural (or man-made) disaster, you might face the possibility of being without food / water / electricity / natural gas / gov’t services / etc, for anywhere from a few days to a few weeks? Having lived in California for almost my entire life, I’ve experienced a fair share of earthquakes, yet it wasn’t until I was in my 30s that I seriously considered having any type of emergency preparedness kit readily available. While some may think such considerations to be examples of paranoia, I tend to agree with the motto: “Prepared. Not scared.”
So, should you have an emergency kit and, if you do, what should it contain? First off, I’m no expert in this field, and I’m simply relating data I’ve gathered through research and experience. That said, my answer to the question of whether one should have an emergency kit is a resounding YES! However, while commonality of survival practices will dictate the main contents of the kits (e.g., food, water, first-aid), context will dictate many of the specific contents. For example, not living in a hurricane prone area, I am not too concerned about the effects of a Category 5 storm blowing through, and since we’re not in tornado alley, I have no tornado bunker or strong-room to maintain. However, I have implemented earthquake related safety measures (e.g., bolted bookcases to the walls, have a gas / water shut-off wrench available, keep footwear near the bed).
There is a plethora of information available on how and what to stock in your emergency supply kits. To assist you, many of the sources I have used are listed at the end of this post.
Good morning.
When they’re about to lose your federal funding, Planned Parenthood will say anything to try to justify their existence. "Hey, we don’t just do abortions. People will lose basic health care services like mammograms."
Yeah, well just try to get one at PP.
Calling 30 clinics in 27 states, every single one said they don’t do them. Thank you, Lila Rose and the folks at Live Action for further exposing the corruption at PP.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning.
The death panels have begun, deciding which newborn babies live or die. Don Surber says, "Under President Obama the purpose of the greatest medical system ever developed has been subverted from saving lives to saving money." To be fair, insurance companies could be accused of that as well. But they could compete on customer service. When the government tells them what they can and can’t do, and co-opts them into a national health system, the government then decides on what and will not be paid for. And there’s no competing with the government.
Eight years ago, the media was deeply concerned over whether Bush would go to war without Congressional approval. Today, when Obama actually does it, a collective yawn (with one small exception).
Running out of things to tax, politicians are now trying to push a toilet paper tax in Washington. No, really.
Hamas terrorists in Gaza broke a cease-fire to toss 50 rockets at Israel last Saturday, while the rest of the world’s gaze was diverted to Libya. Essay question: Did you hear about this in the media, and if not, why not?
And finally, speaking of the media covering for the President (click for a larger version):
Air Traffic Controller sleeps on duty at Reagan National Airport
Isn’t it ironic, considering that President Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers, that an air traffic controller falls asleep on the job at Reagan National Airport?
###
Similar to the boy in the bubble among us? Or simply a nuisance to everyone else?
Where do we draw the lines to our accommodation of those with disabilities? At what point do we say, enough, you (the disabled person) need to limit your actions because of your predicament? Regardless, it’s another reason to homeschool.
###
eBooks, weeding, and the demise of the public library?
No, the title is not an Elmer Fudd pun on the act of reading. An interesting op-ed argument regarding how the advent of ebook technology, along with the limits of ownership rights, may impact how libraries currently function.
###
Imagine a truck, full of printer ink, spilling its load
Imagine no more (click the image for stunning detail)…
Image © Boston.com
###
Video: Pelosi violates the “separation of church and state”
But it’s okay, because it suits her needs.
###
Geek News of the Week: Hi-res photo of Mars Rover Opportunity from orbit
7 years into a 3 month mission, Opportunity was photographed by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Click the image for a hi-res version.
###
Well, it IS “Frie”-day
For all those IN-N-OUT aficionados out there (and for those who long for the experience).
Roger Kimball writing at Pajamas Media contrasts the big differences in the world’s response (and by "the world’s" he means "America’s") response to two earthquake/tsunami combinations; the 2004 Boxing Day one in Indonesia and the 2011 on in Japan. George Bush, who supposedly hated brown people, sprang into action, getting the US military (mostly the Navy, with its carriers that have huge desalination plants and bakeries, among other things) involved in the relief. Barack Obama sprang into action, on the golf course and at ESPN. Kimball notes that, in this and other situations around the world, people everywhere are wondering, "Where are the Americans?"
Is this the kind of new diplomacy Obama said he would bring? Supposedly, we squandered all of the the goodwill we’d ever built up. And yet, now the world is wondering why were so aloof. To be sure, American relief organizations are helping out in full force, and that is one of the beauties of the American culture. We don’t expect the government to bear the full burden of charitable help, because frankly there are things the government just can’t do as efficiently.
But what government can do, and has done in the past, it’s not really doing that as much as it used to. Hope and change.
In my recent New Covenant post Japan, and God, I made the point that within the worldview of atheism, along with a naturalistic mindset, one cannot escape the conclusion that objective morality is but a mere illusion – a category of behavior that must be reducible solely to physical properties. I referred to the resulting landscape of such a philosophy as a vacuous wasteland, and for good reason, namely – that of the resulting moral relativism.
A commenter engaged me in a discussion on the post, yet he completely ignored the point I was making, choosing to take issue with the rationality of belief in God. He also assumed, incorrectly, that I was claiming atheists are incapable of acting morally.
During our “discussion” a few issues seemed to arise regarding knowledge and morality. The commenter appeared to place a great deal of trust in the scientific method as a means of acquiring knowledge, especially with regards to how it can be used to substantiate (or negate) religious belief. Notice that the definition of knowledge, in the methodology of naturalism, can only refer to that which is natural, concrete, or material – that which can be measured and analyzed empirically. Yet, humans are well aware of the existence of the abstract, or the immaterial. Whether it be the thoughts you perceive in your mind (note, in your mind, not in your brain), or the love that you know you have for a “loved” one, you are aware of and confident in the existence of those abstract realities. Now, consider the fact that the scientific method is incapable of providing data on the abstract realities you know exist – for example, measuring the love you have for your children.
Given the mandate of naturalism, that all which exists is comprised within the natural realm, one must conclude that even the notion we describe as morality is simply an outgrowth of evolutionary processes and, as such, must be guided by natural laws. Indeed, that is what the commenter posited, that moral behavior is simply behavior, and that it was derived from evolutionary processes. While this may sound quite proper on paper, the real-world impact of such a propostion is staggering. If, in fact, what many of us consider to be abstract notions, such as morality, are nothing more than the physical interaction of genes, then objective right and wrong moral values cannot be determined.
Do you see where this leads? If a bear attacks a hiker on a trail, although we lament the tragedy of the event, we do not accuse the bear of moral indiscretion. No, we acknowledge that the bear just did what it does – because of the way its genes are sequenced. Regardless of whether or not the bear acts in manners that mimic human expressions of the abstract, naturalism mandates that such notions are the direct consequence of biology and, as a result, the bear has no objective moral code. Well guess what? If we want to be consistent with our application, then we need to do the same with the human genome. If we are nothing more than particles in motion, then the supposed moral notion “I ought” is reduced to a physical reaction and is no different than any other physical reaction, such as “I have indigestion” (HT: CS Lewis).
Thus, morality, in the world of naturalism, is no different than burping.
For further reference, check these articles by Greg Koukl, at Stand to Reason:
How to know immaterial things exist
Good morning.
Good morning.
Beauty Queen drops home invader with her pink .38 special
First lesson of the story, though, is to not answer the door at 3 a.m.
###
If you’re a shop owner, armed with a gun, remember to train
First lesson of the story: don’t grab at a robber’s gun. Second lesson: don’t try to fire your gun without having chambered a cartridge. Third lesson: don’t fire indiscriminately, over aisle counters, with one of your employees potentially in the line of fire.
###
Where are the “Wild West shootouts” with “blood running in the streets”?
Is “permitless carry” becoming a trend? From Massad Ayood,
Called “Constitutional carry” by some, such a law allows any law-abiding citizen with a clean criminal record to carry loaded and concealed in public. It will entail only a cost-free vote and a stroke of the Governor’s pen. That model has worked for Vermont for as long as any living citizen can remember, and every year Vermont is one of our lowest crime states per capita, some years THE lowest. It has worked for years in Alaska. It is working in Arizona, and will undoubtedly work in Wyoming, which just became the fourth state to pass permitless carry.
###
The Haves (read: politicians), and the Have Nots (read: citizens)
In light of the horrible mass shooting in Tucson, in which Rep. Gabby Giffords was critically wounded, some intrepid lawmakers [sic] in California have come up with a supposed answer – at least – an answer for themselves. From the L.A. Times,
Under current law Californians who want to carry concealed firearms must apply to their county sheriff or police chief and show “good cause” for permission. That can include threats of violence or a dangerous job. Under the new bill, being an elected state official or a member of Congress would constitute good cause. The officials would, like others, be subject to a background check, and a sheriff or police chief could still turn down the application.
Has it not occurred to these lawmakers that their constituents face acts of violence every day? Are they so blind that they see themselves only as potential targets?
It should be noted that California’s process for issue concealed carry permits is based on the law stating that the sheriff “may issue” the permit (vs. “shall issue”) upon the applicant showing good cause and completing the proper training, background checks, etc. That little one word difference, may instead of shall, has resulted in the virtual lack of issuance of permits in the state. “Good cause” suddenly becomes a subjective term and, regardless of whether or not good cause is shown, the sheriff still has the ability to not issue a permit. Of course, the criminals don’t really care whether they have a “permit” to carry, do they?
Once again, the law-abiding citizen is the person being overly restricted.
###
Florida Highway Patrol office accidentally shot during a weapons inspection
Two points to consider here.
1: Always, remember the Four Rules of Gun Safety – 1) treat all guns as if they are loaded, 2) always point a gun in a safe direction, 3) keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot, and 4) know your target and what is beyond.
2: Accidents among law enforcement officers are more common than you may realize.
Count former NPR employee Juan Williams as the latest among intellectually honest liberals (yes, there are a few of those still around) calling on Congress to defund NPR:
Even after they fired me, called me a bigot and publicly advised me to only share my thoughts with a psychiatrist, I did not call for defunding NPR. I am a journalist, and NPR is an important platform for journalism.
But last week my line of defense for NPR ran into harsh political realities. Rep. Steve Israel (D- N.Y.) chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out a fundraising letter with the following argument for maintaining public funding of NPR:
“They [Republicans] know NPR plays a vital role in providing quality news programming — from rural radio stations to in-depth coverage of foreign affairs. If the Republicans had their way, we’d only be left with the likes of Glenn Beck, Limbaugh and Sarah Palin to dominate the airwaves.”
With that statement, Congressman Israel made the case better than any Republican critic that NPR is radio by and for liberal Democrats. He is openly asking liberal Democrats to give money to liberal Democrats in Congress so they can funnel federal dollars into news radio programs designed to counter and defeat conservative Republican voices.
Well said.
Hat tip: Hot Air
Rep. Israel has unintentionally endorsed every conservative complaint about NPR as a liberal mouthpiece. And to me, as a journalist, it is also a statement of why NPR’s troubled management team has turned its fundraising efforts into a weapon to be used against its essential product — top quality, balanced reporting. No journalist should have to work with one finger in the political winds, anxiously waiting to see if Democrats continue to be pleased with what they hear on NPR as a counter to what they don’t like hearing from Rush Limbaugh.
