The Real Side With Joe Messina

Steela Awards ?

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:00:00 -700

STELLA AWARDS:....

It's time again for the annual 'Stella Awards'! For those unfamiliar with these awards, they are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued the McDonald's in New Mexico , where she purchased coffee. You remember, she took the lid off the coffee and put it between her knees while she was driving. Who would ever think one could get burned doing that, right? That's right; these are awards for the most outlandish lawsuits and verdicts in the U.S. You know, the kinds of cases that make you scratch your head. So keep your head scratcher handy.

Here are the Stellas for year -- 2011:

*SEVENTH PLACE*
Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The store owners were understandably surprised by the verdict, considering the running toddler was her own son

* SIXTH PLACE *
Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles , California won $74,000 plus medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.

*FIFTH PLACE *
Terrence Dickson, of Bristol , Pennsylvania , who was leaving a house he had just burglarized by way of the garage. Unfortunately for Dickson, the automatic garage door opener malfunctioned and he could not get the garage door to open. Worse, he couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the garage to the house locked when Dickson pulled it shut. Forced to sit for eight, count them, EIGHT days and survive on a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food, he sued the homeowner's insurance company claiming undue mental Anguish. Amazingly, the jury said the insurance company must pay Dickson $500,000 for his anguish. We should all have this kind of anguish.

*FOURTH PLACE*
Jerry Williams, of Little Rock, Arkansas, garnered 4th Place in the Stella's
when he was awarded $14,500 plus medical expenses after being bitten on the butt by his next door neighbor's beagle - even though the beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. Williams did not get as much as he asked for because the jury believed the beagle might have been provoked at the time of the butt bite because Williams had climbed over the fence into the yard and repeatedly shot the dog with a pellet gun.

*THIRD PLACE *

Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania because a jury ordered a Philadelphia restaurant to pay her $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her tailbone. The reason the soft drink was on the floor: Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

*SECOND PLACE*

Kara Walton, of Claymont , Delaware sued the owner of a night club in a nearby city because she fell from the bathroom window to the floor, knocking out her two front teeth. Even though Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the ladies room window to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge, the jury said the night club! had to pay her $12,000....oh, yeah, plus dental expenses.

*FIRST PLACE *

This year's runaway First Place Stella Award winner was: Mrs Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, who purchased new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, from an OU football game, having driven on to the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go to the back of the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not putting in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually leave the driver's seat while the cruise control was set. The Oklahoma jury awarded her, $1,750,000 PLUS a new motor home. Winnebago actually changed their manuals as a result of this suit.

Racism at its finest!

Sun, 29 Jan 2012 00:00:00 -700

This is how crazy it gotten...
Judge Orders Arizona Candidate Struck From Ballot

Lawyers for Alejandrina Cabrera, a candidate for the City Council in the border community of San Luis, Ariz., said Thursday that they might appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court a lower-court ruling that Ms. Cabrera be removed from the ballot because she did not speak English proficiently.

Judge John Nelson of the Yuma County Superior Court ruled late Wednesday night that Ms. Cabrera be struck from the ballot because she did not know enough English to do the job. In removing Ms. Cabrera, Judge Nelson agreed with the recommendation of a linguist who had conducted tests of Ms. Cabrera and found her English skills lacking.

The linguist, William G. Eggington, a professor at Brigham Young University in Utah, testified before the court on Wednesday. He said that based on interviews and tests he conducted with Mrs. Cabrera, she had “basic survival level” English that fell well below that needed to participate in city business.

“Obviously, we’re disappointed, although the judge acknowledged that there’s no precedent for him to follow,” John S. Garcia, one of the lawyers for Ms. Cabrera, said Thursday.

Mr. Garcia said he planned to meet Thursday night with Ms. Cabrera to determine her willingness to continue the legal battle.

story from: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/us/judge-orders-arizona-candidate-struck-from-ballot-over-english-skills.html?_r=2

Heating up? or Cooling Down? Or?

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:00:00 -700

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Read More at: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366-lMyQjAxMTAyMDIwNzEyNDcyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email

Telling the Truth is now Racist!

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:00:00 -700

Larry Elder went to town on the use of the word Illegal Alien...

Is the term "illegal alien" racist? What is the appropriate term to describe the status of those who broke our laws either by illegally entering or over-staying the time allowed under a student, work or other temporary permit?

Cindy Rodriguez of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists considers the term "illegal" to be a pejorative, used by "reactionary commentators and politicians" and "radio talk shows."

"If you can control the words people use," Rodriguez says, "you can frame the issue... That's how propaganda works. Repeat the words continually until it reshapes the way people think."

Attorney Gloria Allred represented gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman's Mexican-born housekeeper. Allred said the term "alien" should apply only to those "from outer space."

Words matter.

The term "illegal alien" does not only apply, of course, to persons of Mexican or Hispanic heritage. "Illegal alien" is a race- and ethnicity-neutral term. The U.S. Code defines an "alien" as "any person not a citizen or national of the United States."

The word "alien" appears numerous times in the U.S. Code and is applied to those who live here legally (tourists, resident aliens, students on visas), as well as to those who live here illegally.

The term "illegal alien" is used throughout U.S. law in statutes and court cases - all referring to non-U.S. citizens who illegally enter and/or unlawfully stay here. The code painstakingly defines the procedures to grant "immigrant status" to an alien - a privilege reserved for those who follow the law.

Guess what term doesn't appear in U.S. immigration law? "Illegal immigrant."

People like Rodriguez worry - not without reason - that terms like "illegal alien" will harden attitudes and cause voters to oppose policies like the Dream Act, allowing driver's licenses for those here illegally and bilingual education. But changing words to advance one's political agenda does not make it right or fair. Calling people "racist" for using the term "illegal alien" to distinguish between those here legally and illegally is, well, racist.

Words matter. Words like "racist" and "anti-Hispanic" are used to attack people who raise fair questions about the costs and problems associated with "illegal aliens." This shuts down debate. When amnesty opponent Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a Hispanic son of Cuban exiles, is called "anti-Hispanic" by the CEO of Univision, we have a problem.

Debate gets shuts down when "comprehensive immigration reform" proponents call others "racist" for rejecting the politically correct term "illegal immigrant" or "undocumented worker." What is wrong with the legally accurate and more precise term "illegal alien"?

Guess that makes me a racist - and Sen. Rubio a Tio Taco.

article at http://www.dailynews.com/columnists/ci_19831379

A Life Wasted! Martin Luther King, Jr.

Sun, 15 Jan 2012 00:00:00 -700

At 33, he was pressing the case of civil rights with President John Kennedy. At 34, he galvanized the nation with his "I Have a Dream" speech. At 35, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. At 39, he was assassinated, but he left a legacy of hope and inspiration that continues today.

A man to whom honor is due!

Let's take a minute to remember Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

He would have been 83 years old. He tirelessly fought to help those who felt they had nothing to fight with. In the eleven-year period between 1957 and 1968, King traveled over six million miles and spoke over twenty-five hundred times, appearing wherever there was injustice, protest, and action; and meanwhile he wrote five books as well as numerous articles. In these years, he led a massive protest in Birmingham, Alabama, that caught the attention of the entire world, providing what he called a coalition of conscience.

He was arrested upwards of twenty times and assaulted at least four times; he was awarded five honorary degrees; was named Man of the Year by Time magazine in 1963.

On the evening of April 4, 1968, while standing on the balcony of his motel room in Memphis, Tennessee, where he was to lead a protest march in sympathy with striking garbage workers of that city, he was assassinated.

A waste of a great life.

Remember Martin Kuther King today.

nobelprize.org

Protecting our kids from Pro-Lifers!

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:00:00 -700

It is now illegal to disrupt students as they enter or leave school under AB123.

Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia, sought the bill after an appeals court ruled that an anti-abortion group could display large photographs of aborted fetuses during a 2003 demonstration outside a California middle school...

Is this not a perfect example of the Sacramento Legislators doing what they want and not caring about OUR rights?

So, freedom of speech only applies if I want to hand out, gay, lesbian, transgender brochures or Planned Parenthood brochures?

BUT - GOD forbid, (there is that dangerous word again!) that a group wants to display FACTUAL PICTURES of the aftermath of an abortion to exercise their freedom of speech. And after a court fight with a Leftist-Progressive group that challenged their right to "freedom of speech" and LOST... YUP, they lost, they acted like spoiled little brats. They went back and introduced a bill that became law STOPPING their right to freedom of speech.

California legilsators... yup, they've really got it together!

What are we looking for in a President?

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -700

What are we looking for in a President?

With the simple morning question of “What’s the definition of a good President,” there was a flurry of activity on my Facebook page before Santa even got started delivering presents!

There were several recurring themes in the answers I received with this one by Josh Machiavello summing it all up (though I would insert “leader” where Josh says “man.”

“A God fearing man with traditional values, conservative instincts, executive experience, regard for the constitution, political courage, and a passion for reinvigorating federalism and restoring the balance between federal and state power to its originally intended role. (Plus, an amazing track record of job creation to run on in an election that will be about “jobs, jobs, jobs” would be nice too.)”

Josh nailed my thinking on this, as did so many of the other comments. Almost everyone listed (1) “God fearing;” (2) “honest” or “trustworthy,” (3) “defender of the Constitution even when not popular” or “principles over politics;” and (4) “charisma” or “track record of creating jobs” and a ton of other phrases describing effectiveness and ability.

Not coincidently, these descriptions track perfectly with the standard for all political leaders as described in Exodus 18:21:

“Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness.”

For a country boy like me, the simpler meaning of that is (1) “capable of getting elected and doing the job effectively; (2) believes in God, that He is the source of freedom, and has a Biblical Worldview; (3) Honest; and (4) does not want the job and the perks so much that they put politics above principles.” These four qualities are more thoroughly examined in my book Freedom’s Frame.

There is no perfect candidate, no not one (to paraphrase Paul and the Psalmist). People who are unwilling to vote for the “lessor of two evils” are out of luck since Jesus Christ will not be on the ballot. The very reason our founders created a separation of powers with checks and balances is specifically because they believed in Jeremiah 17:9 and the fact that every heart has evil in it. So we do the best we can with what we’ve got where we are! We look for the candidate that MOST meets the four requirements above.

There are seven candidates for president and all of them fail this four part test in one way or another (some of them fail all four parts!). My own thought process has been to think through each candidate and the four qualities and then decide which candidate meets the most important qualities for this particular time in history. All four qualities are important, but if I get down to two candidates that are pretty close to each other on all four categories, then I’m going to go with the one I believe will do the best in category (1); i.e., “able or capable and effective.” Not only is that the one listed first in scripture, but at a time when our nation is on the brink of destruction, we need someone who can lead effectively, not just pound the bully pulpit.

Before I post my analysis of each candidate, which I’ll be doing throughout this week, I’ll be posting questions about each of the four qualities for each candidate. For instance, Mitt Romney will be the first candidate we consider and the first question we will ask will be “on a scale of 0 to 3, with 3 being very capable, how would you rank Mitt Romney’s ability to get elected AND his ability to govern effectively once elected.

Perhaps together, we can influence each other in a positive way in reaching a conclusion about our support in the republican primary election! As you know from my previous posts, I’m currently sticking with Rick Perry, but I don’t vote here in Texas until April. My posts will share in detail how I reached my conclusion and based on your responses to my posts, I could very well be persuaded to another candidate!

More articles by Rick Green CLICK HERE!

A Crucification on a County Courthouse lawn, UNACCEPTABLE!

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -700

That's right I don't agree! (put down your stones!) It's a Christmas display of SANTA being crucified! YUP.. I guess as art it's acceptable, as religion it's not! So we can rip up and just be nasty towards MOST religious symbols and that's fine to show on public property BUT anything that supports religious decency, well that doesn't cut it!

Check out the full story!

Click Here