It’s all about copyrighted material...so they say…

God bless,
Laurel

Can a freight train really move a ton of freight 436 miles on a gallon of fuel?

A:Yes, and some do even better. The figure used in the rail industry’s advertising is a national average.
This question is generated by an advertising campaign by the railroad industry, which is arguing that a good way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to move more freight by rail rather than by truck. An example of the industry’s ads can be seen on the Web site http://www.freightrailworks.org.

We’ll remain neutral in the perpetual competition between the railroad industry and the truckers, about which we’ll say more later in this article. But we can vouch for the 436-mile claim. It’s the average for all major U.S. railroads for 2007.

Truckers Say, “So What?”

Although the 436-mile figure is accurate, it’s meaning is open to interpretation, especially by the rival trucking industry. We contacted Clayton W. Boyce, vice president of Public Affairs and Press Secretary of the American Trucking Association. “While railroads almost certainly have a fuel efficiency advantage over trucks, their claims that they are thus also more environmentally benign are suspect at best, as are statements that enough freight will shift from truck to rail to even make a difference,” Boyce said.

For one thing, freight often has to travel farther by rail than it would by truck, because “railroads go to very few communities,” Boyce said. He also notes that heavy-duty trucks have been required to burn ultra-low-sulphur diesel fuel (15 parts per million) since 2006 and says trains can legally continue burning higher-sulphur diesel (500 parts per million) for another four years.

This topic has been on my mind for a while because of the small number of ladies who actually make use of the Kinism.net forums (or at least the small number who actually join and participate).

I saw the following post in a thread over at Survival Blog (http://www.survivalblog.com/), and thought it apropos to the subject.

I’m really glad a thread started on this issue. It is a major issue for many people!

I’ve been very happily married for 34 years, having lived through three kids, getting through and paying off medical school, many academic job changes before starting a private medical practice, and health issues of various types. My wife has supported me in every thing I’ve ever done, but when it comes to preparing, she basically says, “don’t tell me all the scary stuff, I’ve got two more kids to raise through high school and college. Just let me know what I need to do when the time comes.” Now, that’s basically okay, as she does not begrudge me the ammo, storable food, et cetera. She views it as my eccentric hobby. Fortunately, money is not a major issue at this point in our lives, so she doesn’t really pay attention to what I buy. But, friends who didn’t give up their 20s and 30s for medical school and residency have a different situation; their wives begrudge all extraneous purchases. Also, the nurses at my clinic, without exception, all, actively refuse to discuss any of the Peak Oil or “long emergency” type future scenarios that might require preparation. These are otherwise strong, intelligent, highly organized women who run my medical practice, and run it well. But when it comes to prepping for a scenario of future change (involving less availability of food, fuel shortages, and less availability of other needed things) they do no want to talk about it. When the other doctors and I are discussing prep (whether its in relation to Peak Oil, climate change, the ongoing banking crisis, the food crisis, etc) the nurses will literally leave the room. One recently told me “I can’t work and slave, if I think what you guys are talking about might happen. I want my son to go to college, and I want to have grandchildren, you guys are talking about Road Warrior again. That makes my ulcers act up.” In reality we were discussing the banking crisis and its likely effects on the US dollar and the spin off effects on oil prices and their spin offs to food availability and costs. Literally every female nurse and doctor I know has the same attitude (as is also the case with far too many male doctors and nurses, but not as many).

Recently, I was reading about the [WWII] German invasion of Poland, and the aftermath, and was surprised to learn that in the early stages, many men wanted to move away but didn’t due to their wives’ refusal to discuss the issue. Same thing happened when Castro took over Cuba, and the same with many of the Chinese who failed to relocate to Taiwan when Mao took control.

Theory: putting all notions of political correctness on hold (where they belong), women are genetically programmed to give birth and raise and nurture children and families. Their evolutionary role is to nurture, to give hope, and be positive about the future. Talking about prep requires that one face a potential future radically different from the ongoing linear progression from here to a future that is assumed to exactly like things are now. Violating the assumption that things are going to be very similar to now is apparently not fully compatible with being a mother and maintaining a positive focus. Perhaps if we start talking about helping our grandchildren survive and thrive in a very different world (think of the book “World Made By Hand”, by Howard Kunstler), then female spouses might be more receptive. My two cents worth.

What do y’all think? Do we, as women, just want to raise our children in peace and quiet (even if our cities and towns are not really peaceful and quiet or full of folks like us)? Does that keep us from committing our efforts to building a sustainable future for our families? Is it really something our men should do, and we just go along for the ride?

Inquiring mind wants to know…

God bless,
Laurel

Nonwhites will rarely vote majority GOP, one exception being Cubans.

A Gallup survey put Obama up 59 percent to 29 percent over his rival among registered Hispanic voters across the United States. The community will likely play a pivotal role in general election swing states like Colorado, New Mexico and Florida.

The poll was published as McCain made a three-day trip through Colombia and Mexico, designed to burnish his foreign policy credentials, which was also seen as an attempt to win favor among Hispanic voters in the United States.

The poll appears to indicate that many Hispanic voters have shifted their support to Obama from his vanquished Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, who built a Latino powerbase during the fiercely contested nominating contest.

H/T: Old Atlantic

Ben W. writes:

There have been quite a number of posts in the past few weeks concerning the antagonistic behavior and negative culture of the black race in America, such as this one posted earlier today. To my mind it is inadequate to suggest, as Mr. Auster does, that we can refashion America in the image of what it was concerning race 20 or 30 or 50 years ago.

Perhaps it is time to reconceptualize the American model psychologically, culturally, and theologically by factoring out the black race. Anthropologically speaking there is a model for this in the social structure built in the Old Testament by God through Israel. Israel was not to commingle with other races; it was to derive its own identity through the selfhood forged by being called out of another society (Egypt) and clearing the land before it of any non-Hebraic influences.

In some respects--historically speaking--the Civil War and the ensuing civil rights movement have been a calamity for America. The black race will not improve--in fact it has been one of the primary vehicles for the rise of destructive liberalism on this continent.

Just as some have called for a renewed, re-energized conservative apologetic, it may be time to take the radical and revolutionary step of reconceptualizing an America that both predates slavery and postdates the black race--in effect factoring the black race out of America. The details of this would have to be worked out since this would be only a social re-imagineering of America as a mental, conceptual exercise.

Just as it is impossible to integrate Muslims into Western society, it has been impossible to integrate the black race as well. The psychological, social, legal and economic costs of “containing” the black race have been staggering to America and not worth the effort. In fact it is not an accident that the black race has been becoming itself more Muslim in America!

This 4th of July, it is time to re-imagine and reconceptualize America in terms of its origins minus the historical accident of race.

This is just what Kinists argue, right? I sent Auster a similar, if less eloquent, comment last fall, and he didn’t post it. But now he says:

Nothing this radical on the black issue has ever been posted at VFR. Many will say that Ben’s ideas are racist, evil, and totally out of the question, both morally and practically. But can anyone gainsay his premises? Is it not the case that a very large percentage of black Americans, perhaps a majority, are hostile to America and whites, and, as far as we can tell, will always be so? More importantly, is it not the case that black America, as an organized community, is endemically hostile to America and whites, and, as far as we can tell, will always be so? How then are we supposed to deal with blacks? How are we to get along with them in the same society, who are our declared enemies? The more advantages they receive from the larger society, the more resentful and vengeful they become. And this is because, as I’ve written before, blacks as human beings cannot feel good about getting benefits from their historic oppressors who are both racially Other from themselves and civilizationally far more talented than themselves. Blacks’ own group pride understandably makes it impossible for them to be friendly to a white America that is constantly exerting efforts to raise them up.

But what does Auster prefer doing? Only to “go back to the individualist model”. So whites are supposed to have a right to exist as a collective force, but blacks are not. Presumably Auster expects that blacks would accept the dissolution of institutions that represent blacks collectively, as a condition of getting to live in a wealthy country such as they could not create themselves. The right to have a collective life is fundamental, and every group but whites seems to understand that. (Jews conceive of it as a fundamental right for Jews only. I wonder how Auster himself would react if we proposed the dissolution of all explicitly Jewish institutions. “Anti-Semite!” “Anti-Semite!")

Sadly, even Ben W. backtracks in his later comment, or perhaps reveals that he didn’t mean what I took him to mean in his first comment:

You are right when you say that my idea is not far from yours. The difference I think is that I would prefer a more explicit approach encoded in law rather than just a set of acknowledged attitudes. I don’t have a clear and distinct idea (as Descartes would it) of what “factoring the black race out of America” means.

It might have psychological elements (i.e. no more Hollywood films with black protagonists). It might have economic components (such as no affirmative action or extended welfare programs). It might have legal consequences such as restricting race-based churches from issuing from the pulpit hateful statements against the U.S. It might have political restrictions such as prohibiting an elected official from swearing by the Koran. These are all practical and incremental steps towards factoring out the racial presence of an antagonistic group.

On a broader scale, it would mean the dismantling of ghetto neighborhoods and dispersal. Where that would lead, I do not know. But these small, incremental steps would make it quite uncomfortable for a large social group to maintain itself in juxtaposition and opposition to our society as a racial and cultural block. It is this block of people that has to be psychologically “dismantled” and fragmented within our society so that it is no longer a monolithic presence in our country.

All this would be done actively through political, cultural, economic and legal means. It would be a type of psychological reverse warfare on the black intifada itself. This I surmise would lead to a demoralization within the black community and eventually its fragmentation. It’s psychological disappearance would be the first step. What that would lead to eventually is another thing.

“Dispersal” of blacks? Can anyone say massive miscegenation? What a shame that you got my hopes up, Ben W.!

Well, at least I am glad the truth is coming out. The fact is there was nothing “Conservative” about them in the first place. The fact they are voting for Obama proves this… Remember blood is thicker than water…

Julius Caesar Watts, Black “Conservative”
Category: Blacks, Diversity Is Our Greatest Strength, Ethnopolitics, Hatred Of Whites, Republicans/GOP, The Media

Remember J. C. Watts? (Yes, Julius Caesar is his real name.) I don’t know how many “conservatives” I’ve talked to who praised him to the skies and expressed the hope that he would one day run for president. Not only would he make a great conservative president, but he would bring millions of blacks into the Republican party by showing them that we’re not racist at all, but colorblind, blah blah blah.

J. C. Watts a colorblind conservative? Hardly. He’s just another race hustler who saw that there was a lot more opportunity for advancement on the “conservative” side of the political street. Any idea what he’s up to these days? Well, when he’s not defending Barack Obama for his nearly 20 year long intimate association with Jeremiah Wright, he’s busy trying to start a new TV news network. And guess what? No whites need apply:

J.C. Watts thinks the uproar over statements by Barack Obama’s one-time pastor illustrates the need for a national black TV news channel.

Watts, who hopes to get one running by the summer 2009, tells The Associated Press that the voice of blacks is often missing from political debates, including the one over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

“We hope to be the single destination for reliable, credible, informational resources for the African-American community,” Watts says. “The critical thing is to allow the community to create a platform to be involved in the economic, social and political debates taking place across the country.”

He said the Black Television News Channel will be added to Comcast cable systems in Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, Baltimore and Washington, and would be available nationwide on Dishnet.

He’s trying to raise $20 million to build studios in Washington as well as a “coast-to-coast high definition news gathering infrastructure.”

Watts objects to some of the criticism Obama has received for his long association with Wright, who accused the government of creating AIDS and shouted “God damn America” in a speech posted on YouTube.

“I’ve not seen anything in his writings, in his speeches, in his books, in his public appearances, that would encourage me to believe that he views the world through the Rev. Wright’s prism,” said Watts, the last black Republican to serve in the U.S. House.

http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2008/06/11/julius-caesar-watts-black-conservative/

Faced with first major black candidate, black conservatives consider voting for Barack Obama
Saturday, June 14, 2008 06:18:33 PM

Black conservative talk show host Armstrong Williams has never voted for a Democrat for president. That could change this year with Barack Obama as the Democratic Party’s nominee.

“I don’t necessarily like his policies; I don’t like much that he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it,” Williams said. “I can honestly say I have no idea who I’m going to pull that lever for in November. And to me, that’s incredible.”

...

J.C. Watts, a former Oklahoma congressman who once was part of the GOP House leadership, said he’s thinking of voting for Obama. Watts said he’s still a Republican, but he criticizes his party for neglecting the black community. Black Republicans, he said, have to concede that while they might not agree with Democrats on issues, at least that party reaches out to them.

“And Obama highlights that even more,” Watts said, adding that he expects Obama to take on issues such as poverty and urban policy. “Republicans often seem indifferent to those things.”

Likewise, retired Gen. Colin Powell, who became the country’s first black secretary of state under President George W. Bush, said both candidates are qualified and that he will not necessarily vote for the Republican.

...

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/ap/article.html?mi=D91A55380&apc=9008

Some of them are funny in a way that people on this forum might appreciate…

You Also Said That About the Hotel Concierge and Our Cabbie

Old woman: Take a picture of me with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie and their son.
Young woman: Mom, the black kid isn’t a wax figure.
Old woman: Well, she just keeps adopting them, I thought it was her son!

--Madame Tussaud’s

Overheard by: Julie

Naturally, I feel a certain affinity, or some would say sentimentality, toward all things Germanic and Celtic. But it does not make me a German-Dane or a Scotsman. I mean really, just imagine if I went to one of those little postcard hamlets in Denmark and simply declared myself a Dane. As sweet-natured as the Danes are, the women would likely snicker at my cowboy accent and the men would glare with furrowed brows and chide me with all the stoicism which northmen command. The Danes would appreciate the continuum of my commonality with them to be sure but they would never confess me one of them, a Dane proper.

The question then is, ought I to take offense at such exclusion? Certainly not. It is their right and their duty to preserve themselves with all the unique characteristics which make them who they are. And really, I wouldn’t have it any other way because if they lost definition of who they are, I, as an offshoot of that people, would lose reference to my own ancestors.

And the same is true of me: I could never be fully accepted in any part of Britain: not only is my French blood somewhat alien but my customs and experiences are alien. I’m an American, ah Southern American.

And contiguous with earlier Puritan law, the very first convention of the Congress of the United States of America declared that citizenship was open only to “free Whites” of good character residing in America for two or more years.

The ‘Americanism’ of our founding was based not upon a government structure or economic theory but upon the nation which formed it. That nation existed prior to the United States and as such, their chief concern lay not in the principles of a government but in the preservation of ‘[them]selves and [their] posterity forever.’

And in the new world we members of the White race be one expanded Anglophile nation in our lesser tribes throughout. We are who we are; let us cherish that identity and safeguard it as our fathers who went before us. And let us think ill of no other people for doing likewise.

Michelle Obama Praises Husband’s Commitment to Homosexuals

By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
July 01, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - The wife of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told a crowd of homosexual activists last week that her husband wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and reverse the rule on homosexuals in the military. Michelle Obama also drew parallels with homosexual advocacy groups and the civil rights movement, referring to events “from Selma to Stonewall.”

Speaking to the Democratic National Committee’s Gay and Lesbian Leadership Committee last Thursday in New York City, Michelle Obama said her husband supports “a world where federal laws don’t discriminate against same-sex relationships, including equal treatment for any relationship recognized under state law.”

“That is why he supports robust civil unions,” she said. “That is why he has said the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide for themselves how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples—whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union or a civil marriage.”

The Illinois senator has spoken little about homosexual issues on the campaign trail, but a position paper on his Web site says that Obama wants to “fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure 1,100-plus federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally recognized unions.”

The DOMA has two parts: one defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and the second part says a homosexual marriage in one state does not have to be recognized in another state.

The absence of a federal law could mean that the more than 40 states that have bans—either constitutional or in statute—on same-sex marriage would be required to recognize a homosexual marriage license from another state as a legally binding contract.

Sen. Obama’s position paper was likely referencing the federal definition provision that would extend Social Security and other government benefits to same-sex couples, said Lynn Wardle, a law professor at Brigham Young University. Nonetheless, this could effectively nationalize same-sex marriage, Wardle said.

Mrs. Obama began her New York speech praising the Lawrence v. Texas ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court five years ago that struck down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, and said “same-sex couples would never again be persecuted through the use of criminal law.”

In a previous interview, Barack Obama said he believed that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount justified same-sex unions.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200807/POL20080701a.html

A second Durban church has washed its hands of a group of refugees left homeless after xenophobic attacks in the city last month, saying it has had enough of their “filthy and dishonest ways”.

http://southafricanhell.blogspot.com/2008/07/xenophobia-now-in-churches.html