A priest, a minister, and a rabbi want to see who’s best at his job. So they each go into the woods, find a bear, and attempt to convert it. Later they get together. The priest begins: “When I found the bear, I read to him from the Catechism and sprinkled him with holy water. Next week is his First Communion.”
“I found a bear by the stream,” says the minister, “and preached God’s holy word. The bear was so mesmerized that he let me baptize him.”
They both look down at the rabbi, who is lying on a gurney in a body cast. “Looking back,” he says, “maybe I shouldn’t have started with the circumcision.”
Citing better-than-expected sales and traffic at dealerships, Ford Motor Co. said Monday it plans to increase third-quarter production by 25,000 units, marking the automaker’s second production hike in recent weeks.
Ford spokesman Mark Truby said that will bring total quarterly production to 485,000 units, a year-over-year increase of 16 percent or 67,000 units. Last month the company said it would raise third-quarter production by 42,000 units.
The boost affects all models of Ford, Lincoln, Mercury vehicles, with more emphasis being placed on Mustangs, pickup trucks and the Ford Focus compact car, Truby said.
“We had pretty well lowered production in recent quarters to meet demand,” Truby said. “Now as we’re seeing market share increases and showroom activity, we’re ramping up production to meet that demand.”
The increase comes as Ford’s top sales analyst, George Pipas, said the company’s June sales were “good” compared with the overall industry. The Dearborn, Mich.-based automaker could see a year-over-year decline of 10 to 20 percent, which could be the lowest among all major automakers, he said.
“This will be our lowest decline of this year,” Pipas added.
Automakers, which are due to report June U.S. sales on Wednesday, have seen sales fall 37 percent over the first five months of the year. Pipas said U.S. auto sales may have halted their month-to-month declines in June and could be down less than 30 percent for the first time since September of last year.
As bad as it sounds, a decline of less than 30 percent could be a welcome relief, as automakers and suppliers have trimmed production and other costs to adjust to lower consumer sales.
“The important takeaway is that we’re not going backward, we’re not slipping back,” said Pipas during a sales preview talk with reporters. “It suggests the worst is behind us, not just the economy, but we may have seen the low point for the year.”
Pipas said individual regions of the country are showing sales improvements compared with June 2008, another sign that the auto market has bottomed out and is recovering. While sales in the Great Lakes states are improving, they’re still slow in California and Florida, two areas hit hard by the decline in the housing market, Pipas said.
Pipas joined other industry analysts in predicting that June sales could surpass a 10 million seasonally-adjusted annual selling rate for the first time this year.
Last week J.D. Power and Associates predicted that automakers would sell 914,400 vehicles in June, 26 percent less than in June of last year and 1 percent lower than the 924,064 sold in May.
Pipas said May typically is a stronger sales month than June, but he was unsure if this June would surpass May figures.
He said federal “cash for clunkers” legislation recently signed into law could boost sales later in the year, and noted that consumer confidence is improving, suggesting that the worst is over with the economy and auto sales.
Shares for Ford rose 3 percent, or 17 cents, to close Monday at $5.78.
This is definitely our must read of the day. We are being spoon fed this Cap & Trade scam by the must corrupt snake oil salesmen that ever held office. They should all be cellmates of Bernie Madoff.
D.H. Lawrence said, ”Never trust the teller. Trust the tale.” But what happens if the tale is wrong? What happens if the teller knows or should know the tale is wrong? The key word is trust. A relationship must have trust. A society can only exist with trust. Political leaders can only succeed with trust. Trust cannot exist when an unnecessary end is reached by false means, which is happening with the US climate and energy policies.
An energy policy built on the lie that human CO2 is causing global warming is likely to fail. It is a bigger lie when CO2 is incorrectly called carbon. The policy is guaranteed to fail when proposed energy alternatives cannot fulfill needs and will cause economic slowdown, decreased competitiveness and further economic decay.
On June 26, the US House of Representatives passed a Bill titled the American Clean Energy and Security Act by a scant 219 to 212 votes. The title is misleading. It appeals to patriotism, which Samuel Johnson said is the last refuge of a scoundrel. “Clean Energy” really means without producing CO2, which incorrectly assumes it is a pollutant. Security means eliminating imported energy, but the nation is less secure with a weakened economy guaranteed under provisions of the Bill. It is more commonly, but equally incorrectly, called the Carbon Cap and Trade Bill. Carbon is not CO2 but this is only one of the deceptions. Hopefully, enough Senators will understand and reject the Bill when they vote in the fall.
President Obama frantically pushed his energy policy as resistance developed. He wrapped it in promises of green jobs; profits from industry creating renewable clean energy; a stop to “bubble or bust” economic cycles; and all at no cost to the taxpayers because “polluters” pay the bill.
His June 23 press conference had the following statement. ”This legislation will spark a clean energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet.”
The first two goals are possibly commendable but only necessary because of the last goal. How do you confront “carbon pollution”? What is it? At best it’s confusion about the science and at worst deliberately wrong. They’re the President’s words and his responsibility. He is aware of the impact of his words choosing them carefully when responding to questions. “Carbon pollution” is a result of politicizing climate. CO2 became carbon when “carbon credits” emerged from the Kyoto Accord. Its use expanded when evidence showed CO2 was not causing, nor ever caused, warming or climate change. It is incorrect.
A scientific definition of carbon is: the chemical element of atomic number 6, a nonmetal that has two main forms (diamond and graphite) and that also occurs in impure form in charcoal, soot, and coal.
The objective is to link CO2 with coal because it is seen as the devil itself. Witness Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) advocate James Hansen’s involvement with Greenpeace protesters on trial in the UK for damaging a coal burning plant.
Recently he was arrested protesting a coal processing plant in Southern West Virginia.
A scientific definition of carbon dioxide (CO2) is; a colorless, odorless gas produced by burning carbon and organic compounds and by respiration. So basically carbon is a solid and CO2 is a gas. They claim CO2 can slow heat escape from the atmosphere and an increase from human activity causes warming. It has not happened at any time and is not happening now. Carbon occurs as particles of soot in the atmosphere causing cooling by blocking sunlight. I expect them to blame soot for failure of their warming predictions.
On June 23 Obama said, ”This energy bill will create a set of incentives that will spur the development of new sources of energy, including wind, solar, and geothermal power”. These currently produce only 3.9 percent of US energy.
Wind and solar have severe limitations because they require 100 percent back up from conventional sources. They cannot replace a sufficient portion of current energy needs to supply even a dramatically reduced demand.
Obama’s said, “At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe.” This is false. He incorrectly substitutes carbon for CO2 and it is not a pollutant for air or water; it occurs naturally in both. It’s true industries producing CO2 will initially pay through Cap and Trade but they will pass the costs to the consumer. A critical question is who pays when all the “polluters” are out of business?
Coal currently produces 46.8 percent of US energy. Obama identified it as his main target during the campaign. “What I’ve said is that we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is more—that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anybody else’s out there, so if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” If they go out of business as Obama expects, the economy will collapse as industries dependent on the energy disappear. Ironically alternative energies will also suffer because the 100 percent backup they require will not be available.
Obama said, ”The nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century’s global economy. That’s what this legislation seeks to achieve. It’s a bill that will open the door to a better future for this nation and that’s why I urge members of Congress to come together and pass it.” A recent study of this “green jobs strategy” shows it doesn’t work. Paul Bachman, Director of Research at the Beacon Hill Institute, one of the report’s authors wrote, “Contrary to the claims made in these studies, we found that the green job initiatives reviewed in each actually causes greater harm than good to the American economy and will cause growth to slow.”
Others have tried clean energy and green jobs without success, especially in Europe. Philippe Herzog, a French economist and founder of Confrontations Europe said, “We have not found a balance yet between the definition of European objectives [on climate change] and the implications for jobs.” The UK have already found out it doesn’t work. A study by Capgemini, a global energy consultancy firm claims that, “electricity generation has fallen to its lowest level in ten years. The shortage has been caused by the increase in the level of demand for energy combined with a growing tendency to build wind turbines, at the expense of other, more reliable, electricity sources”.
Spain was touted as the model because it led all countries in money and commitment to electricity from renewable energy. Spanish economics professor Gabriel Calzada calculates that, ”each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation –sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency –of capital.”
A report from Britain about attempts to replace traditional energy with renewables notes, “Britain is already struggling to meet its ambitious target of supplying 10% of electricity needs from renewables by 2010 and 15% by 2015. Today’s figure is about 2%.” Once you realize the renewable strategy is not working how quickly can you recover?
The big question is whether the UK can act fast enough to tackle the looming crisis. Even if the government’s nuclear plans remain intact, it could be at least 10 years before the first new nuclear station is ready. A typical coal or gas-fired project could take between three and five years to construct.
Recovery potential is worse in the US because regulations extend construction time for nuclear plants and environmentalists will do everything to block coal plants. Meanwhile economies of these countries suffer even though they didn’t do anything as drastic as Obama proposes. Recovery can’t possibly occur within Obama’s first term, which may make it his last.
Will the Obama policy work any better? NO, because it is based on the same lie other countries used that CO2 is a problem and made worse by using deception of inaccurate scientific terminology. He then guarantees failure with policies that have already failed. So D. H. Lawrence was wrong in Obama’s case. You can’t trust the teller or the tale. There is no question Obama is clever but as Goethe said, “A clever man commits no minor blunders.” His climate and energy policies are blunders of devastating proportions.
Judging by the autopsy results, it is not Jackson’s death that was so tragic, but his life. This just goes to show that sleeping in a pure oxygen chamber and going out with a surgical mask on has absolutely no potential for elongating ones days on earth.
An autopsy on Michael Jackson revealed that the King of Pop’s emaciated body was riddled with needle marks and scars, and his head was virtually bald, it was reported today.
Jackson’s body had wasted away to a mere 112 pounds, and his stomach was completely empty except for partially dissolved pills, according to the London Sun.
His hips, thighs and shoulders were covered with needle wounds, believed to have come from shots of painkillers, and he was wearing a wig when he was found because his hair had been reduced to a “peach fuzz” on his scalp, the report said.
“He was skin and bone, his hair had fallen out, and he had been eating nothing but pills when he died,” a source close to the singer’s entourage told the paper.
“Injection marks all over his body and the disfigurement caused by years of plastic surgery show he’d been in terminal decline for some years.”
There were four fresh injections around his heart, presumably from attempts to pump adrenaline into it to jumpstart it, the paper said.
Three of them had penetrated and damaged his heart wall, while a fourth struck his ribs, the paper reported.
He also sustained several broken ribs while authorities administered CPR during his final moments Thursday.
Jackson had one spot above his left ear that was scarred and completely bald – the apparent result of burns sustained when his hair caught fire while he was filming a Pepsi commercial in 1984.
He also had numerous other scars, apparently from plastic surgery.
In addition, he had mysterious bruises on his knees and shins and cuts on his back, possibly indicating a recent fall, the paper said.
Jackson has had two autopsies performed on him: one by the Los Angeles coroner and a private one requested by the family.
The details leaked came from the official autopsy. The Sun didn’t say how it got the information.
Meanwhile, the cardiologist who was Jacko’s private doctor and performed CPR on him did it the wrong way, a Jackson family confidant claimed yesterday.
Dr. Conrad Murray found Jacko on the floor in his rented Los Angeles mansion and put him in a bed, the source said.
Medical experts say that compressions for cardiopulmonary resuscitation must be performed on a hard surface.
“Michael was on the floor first, and they put him on the bed, and then started compressions on the bed,” said the source, who had spoken to a Jackson relative. “What kind of doctor is that?”
In a transcript of the 911 call, the person seeking help says Jackson is “on the bed.” The dispatcher says, “OK, let’s get him down to the floor.”
Edward Chernoff, a lawyer for Murray, yesterday said the doctor found Jackson in his bed with a faint pulse.
Chernoff told The Associated Press that Murray was at the pop icon’s mansion Thursday afternoon when he discovered Jackson and immediately began administering CPR.
“He just happened to find him in his bed, and he wasn’t breathing,” the lawyer said. “Mr. Jackson was still warm and had a pulse.”
Murray, who spoke to cops for three hours on Saturday, is a licensed MD and specializes in cardiology, although he is not board-certified.
Jackson hired Murray last month as he prepared for a grueling 50-date concert series in London that had been set to start in July.
Chernoff also said Murray never prescribed or gave Jackson the powerful painkillers Demerol or OxyContin. He denied reports suggesting Murray gave Jackson an injection of Demerol shortly before his death.
“Dr. Murray has never prescribed nor administered Demerol to Michael Jackson,” Chernoff said. “Not ever. Not that day. Not OxyContin for that matter.”
A priest, a minister, and a rabbi want to see who’s best at his job. So they each go into the woods, find a bear, and attempt to convert it. Later they get together. The priest begins: “When I found the bear, I read to him from the Catechism and sprinkled him with holy water. Next week is his First Communion.”
