Conservative Blog

Al and the Apocalypse: Global Warming & Intelligent Design

Written by Anonymous on 9:04 PM

The climate change movement, bereft of convincing scientific proof, has devolved into a religion. It has its own Orthodoxy Which Shall Not Be Questioned, lists of anathematized heretical scientists, and a green morality it uses to admonish the unwashed as it determines sinful and virtuous behavior.

Arguments over global warming, like those over religion, are exhausting and futile due to a lack of verifiable scientific data. What I've found interesting is the apparent (anecdotal) inverse relationship between belief in a creator and belief in climate change: The stronger one's belief in a creator the more skeptical one is of climate change; The stronger one's belief in climate change, the more skeptical one is about a creator.

Dr. Roy Spencer is a climatologist and former NASA scientist, and he has addressed both issues.

Although imminently qualified to refute Al Gore's climate nonsense (and he has in numerous articles and books) Dr. Spencer's recent blog post lists Gore's propaganda devices and gives examples of each one. Philosophers and students of logic will recognize these devices Mr. Gore employs, as they are the rhetorical rocks that a loser throws when he has expended his magazine of logic.

Here is the list. Dr. Spencer provides examples as well in his blog article:

Appeal to Authority
Bandwagon
Flag-waving
Ad Hominem Attacks
Appeal to Prejudice (using loaded words, appeals to a moral code)
Black and White Fallacy (False dilemma)
Euphoria (Movies and live events that make televangelists green with envy)
Falsifying Information
Stereotyping or Labeling

Even more interesting is Dr Spencer's defense of Intelligent Design. Here are some excerpts from short, interesting defense of Intelligent Design. Note his adherence to scientific methods and lack of Gore-like hot air rhetoric.

I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

True evolution, in the macro-sense, has never been observed, only inferred. A population of moths that changes from light to dark based upon environmental pressures is not evolution — they are still moths.

In the biological realm, natural selection (which is operating in these examples) is supposedly the mechanism by which evolution advances, and intelligent design theory certainly does not deny its existence. While natural selection can indeed preserve the stronger and more resilient members of a gene pool, intelligent design maintains that it cannot explain entirely new kinds of life — and that is what evolution is.

Common ancestry requires transitional forms of life to have existed through the millions of years of supposed biological evolution. Yet the fossil record, our only source of the history of life on Earth, is almost (if not totally) devoid of transitional forms of life that would connect the supposed evolution of amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, etc.

One finally comes to the conclusion that, despite vigorous protests, belief in evolution and intelligent design are matters of faith. Even some evolutionists have admitted as much in their writings. Modern biology does not “fall apart” without evolution, as some will claim.

Intelligent design can be studied and taught without resorting to human creation traditions and beliefs... Just as someone can recognize and study some machine of unknown purpose built by another company, country (or alien intelligence?), one can also examine the natural world and ask the question: did this machine arise by semi-random natural physical processes, or could it have been designed by a higher power? Indeed, I was convinced of the intelligent design arguments based upon the science alone.

Religion and climate change: Two separate issues, but the arguments sure sound the same. When a climate change proponent finally in desperation employs Pascal's Wager (even though we can't prove we're destroying the planet, we've got to do something just in case!), the skeptic has won the argument.

Of course, the God-denier could say the same of the believer. The difference is this:

My belief in God doesn't require everyone to use only one square of toilet paper, drive expensive battery-powered crap-boxes, and economically castrate themselves upon the altar of Gaia.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/al-gores-propaganda/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/roy-spencer-on-intelligent-design/

This Week in Anthropogenic Global Warming - 1/30/09

Written by Paul Zannucci on 9:37 AM

With Al Due Respect, We're Doomed

From The Washington Post, Al Gore goes to Washington to testify before the greatest collection of incompetent twits to ever call themselves a U.S. Congress. He says we're nearly doomed. It has to be "nearly" otherwise there would be no call to action, right? We're always almost done for if we don't change our ways. Good luck with that, Al.

___________________________


The Amazing Story Behind The Global Warming Scam

Written by the founder of The Weather Channel, this offers a nice counterpoint to Al Gore's lunacy.

___________________________


Six Most Embarrassing Moments in Environmentalism

From Skeptics Global Warming, this had to be a hard one to gather. It's like compiling the six best alphabet reciters.

___________________________


Murdock: Even left now laughing at Global Warming

"It is a tribute to the scientific ignorance of politicians and journalists that they keep regurgitating the nonsense about human-caused global warming," veteran Left-wing commentator and Nation magazine columnist Alexander Cockburn wrote.

___________________________


Al Gore and Venus Envy

From JunkScience.com, Al Gore has a new argument for why carbon dioxide is the global warming boogeyman -- and it’s simply out of this world.

___________________________


So far, coal winning out over nuclear (in Obama administration)

Probably this has something to do with nuclear being really, really scary. I'm almost wetting my liberal pants just thinking about it.

American Sentinel is Back!

Written by Paul Zannucci on 9:36 AM

http://theamericansentinel.com

Al and the Apocalypse: Al Goes to Washington

Written by Paul Zannucci on 11:09 AM

With Al Due Respect, We're Doomed

There wasn't enough genius in Washington, so the Senate Foreign Relations Committee invited Apocalyptic Al!

Seeking advice from the last place on Earth most would think to look, Al "Chicken Little" Gore was called to testify before a collection of asshats so lost in their own anuses that they couldn't find their way out with a trillion dollar torch.

What Gore brought with him was bad news of temperature changes that "would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth -- and this is within this century, if we don't change...We must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization...This is the most serious challenge the world has ever faced...It could completely end human civilization, and it is rushing at us with such speed and force."

And even more scary is that Republicans, ever accommodating, are beginning to buy into this nonsense. According to the story from the Washington Post, none of the Republicans on the panel seriously questioned Gore about anything, but instead heaped lavishing praise upon him (Corker) and agreed that this was an "existential crisis" (Lugar).

Meanwhile, the founder of The Weather Channel writes, The Amazing Story Behind The Global Warming Scam, and states that the world is plunging into colder weather.

It seems to me that the science behind AGW is consistently coming out in opposition to CO2 warming, and yet the politicians and the media will remain committed to hanging on for as long as possible. Too much social engineering is at stake to let it go, after all.

The misguided quest for true conservatism

Written by Paul Zannucci on 10:07 AM

I just read a notice that one of the people I know via blogging is starting some sort of qroup/site that quests to return to a true conservatism. Why is it that Republicans always react to defeat by attempting to become more exclusive? Toss out the neocons! Toss out the evangelicals! But politics is very much unlike a sea-going vessel or a lighter-than-air craft. In fact, it is the opposite, and tossing things overboard causes you to weaken your numbers, causes you to sink.

I once considered doing a blog called "Stuff Republicans Hate," but as I started working out the directions I would go, I realized it wasn't all that funny because you can find Republicans who hate pretty near everything.

We can't stand gay people. We can't stand immigrants. We can't stand our own neocons and evangelicals, et cetera. Seriously, what the hell?

Now none of us would admit to hating gays, immigrants, or anyone, but we seriously don't want to offer any concessions to them and have them busting into our exclusive political party. And then in the next breath we mutter curses that the party is too incompetent to win elections.

Maybe it's just too small.

Rather than searching for the holy grail of conservatism and scrunching us down to only a handful of religious nuts (like me) or individual liberty zealots (like me) or fiscal tightwads (like me), we need to identify the lowest common denominator and expand our reaches to embrace as many as we can. If we don't do this, we will fail.

So what can we all agree upon? Liberty. If there is one thing that all of us crave, it is to be free. We need to latch onto the idea that more government, by its very nature, means less liberty.

Being a nation that values liberty over all else means that we give the religious nuts the forums within which to practice their religion and spread their good word, and, most importantly, give their adherents the free will needed to be truly virtuous.

Through valuing liberty we protect American sovereignty and make the neocons happy.

Through liberty we welcome legal immigrants and improve the immigration system so that all are welcome to come legally to America.

Through liberty we preach fiscal soundness and free markets, the ability to rise and fall on the backs of our own ingenuity and labor.

Through liberty we say that it is okay for gays to marry, for kids to attend any school they wish, for companies to soar without the weight of over burdensome regulations. We abolish the nanny state. We take drugs out of illegal status and clean out our prisons and our courts.

With liberty we become free to make our own right or wrong decisions, but we must also be reasonable. We cannot simply slash and burn all entitlement/safety net programs and expect to get elected (particularly not during an economic crisis). We must create market-based alternatives and an economy that blossoms and improves the conditions of all Americans.

But most importantly, we must realize the need to reach out to as many groups as possible and to give concessions here and there. Evangelicals must accept gay marriage in exchange for their own freedom and the ability to worship and send their children to the schools of their choice. Gays must accept, for instance, the pro-life stance of the religious. Fiscal conservatives must be willing to open the wallets every now and then when reason demands it and neocons must realize that there must be a balance between taking America to the world and surviving as a financially viable country.

We must realize that there is no "real conservatism" without the many voices that should be welcomed and given a small part of the party to call their own. Otherwise, we are doomed to more and more oppressive government.

PETArded. Veggie Love ad rejected by NBC for Super Bowl

Written by Paul Zannucci on 6:26 PM

Can PETArds and Chicken Littles Conspire to Destroy Your Carnivorous Way of Life? Sure, if you let them.

Fresh from their successful attempt to get fish renamed "sea kittens," the PETArds at PETA have come up with a new marketing ploy, submitting a softcore porn video to NBC for airing during the Super Bowl.

NBC sent the following response via email:

The PETA spot submitted to Advertising Standards depicts a level of sexuality exceeding our standards. Listed below are the edits that need to be made. Before finalizing the spot, we would like to view a Quicktime file as well as a DVD with high resolution.


:12- :13- licking pumpkin
:13- :14- touching her breast with her hand while eating broccoli
:19- pumpkin from behind between legs
:21- rubbing pelvic region with pumpkin
:22- screwing herself with broccoli (fuzzy)
:23- asparagus on her lap appearing as if it is ready to be inserted into vagina
:26- licking eggplant
:26- rubbing asparagus on breast


Victoria Morgan
Vice President, Advertising Standards
NBC Universal

Naturally, you'll want to go see the video here, Veggie Love, but the email from NBC makes it sound better than it really is.

So anyway, as you enjoy your cigarette, you might wonder about the point of all these outlandish marketing stunts by the PETArds. Are we really going to start calling fish "sea kittens?" Are we really going to show women masturbating with vegetables during the Super Bowl? Of course not. But how else will a group that wants everyone to stop eating hamburgers and thinks that Kentucky Fried Chicken is comparable to Auschwitz get attention?

PETA is more dangerous than one thinks, however, as they have nurtured valuable allies in the liberal green movement. The coming battle will be over what you eat and will be more difficult than you think.

Besides PETA starting an environmental movement website (which I refuse to link to), an article from yesterday's Guardian tells of how hospitals in the UK will start offering a meat-free menu in order to cut their carbon emissions. This is hardly the first time this subject has been broached, though right now the lunacy is confined mostly to Europe, but the U.N. and the Obama administration seem to be on board. Remember that the top climate scientist at the U.N. stated that we should eat less meat to curb climate change, and that Obama stated that we couldn't continue to eat as much as we want and just expect the world to say, "Okay."

Think this push isn't coming? Think this sort of thing could never happen? With Pharaobama and the hysterical ninnies in charge of Washington, anything is possible. Once again we see that global warming is the most dangerous tool in the liberal toolbox. Be prepared to fight for your culinary life.

Why Evangelicals and Republicans Need Each Other

Written by Paul Zannucci on 5:56 PM

In politics, there is no such thing as divide and conquer.

As evangelicals look on in righteous horror as the new Obama administration brings American taxpayer supported abortions to many parts of the developing world, one can only laugh at the over-sensitive evangelicals who bolted from McCain, maybe the strongest anti-abortion Senator in all of Congress, just because he talked about adding Tom Ridge to his ticket.

__________________

See, I want to make something clear right here at the beginning. I don't give a rat's ass what the RNC or the Southern Baptist Convention says, and I'm sick of my fellow Republicans and Christians who think they got it all worked out and that everyone else isn't a true Republican or is a fake Christian. If you are one of "those" people and are already foaming at the mouth as your cheeks redden with righteous indignation, then congratulations on being a part of the reason that both conservatism and Christianity are dying fast deaths. Republicans and Christians must stay together, and I'll tell you why.


First of all, let's reemphasize that Republicans and Christians belong on the same team, as do neo-cons, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, etc. You should not, nor should anyone, find that any particular political party suits you perfectly. After all, you do have a mind of your own, right? Political parties are loose coalitions of diverse people who share enough interests to make the common sense decision to work together and strengthen their political power. If Christian conservatives, neo-cons and and individual rights conservatives all split up to make their own parties, how happy would that make the Democrats? Do you think that African-Americans and the LBGT community are hand-in-hand on most issues? Not even close. No, you don't get all that you want in your party. If you do, you'll never win an election because there won't be enough of you.


The heart of Republican philosophy is smaller government, fiscal and personal responsibility, religious rights, individual rights and American sovereignty. It is an attempt to interpret in modern government the original intent of our founding fathers. In fact, it was named in honor of Thomas Jefferson's political party. And while it was founded principally to oppose states' rights to hold slaves, the Republican Party quickly moved to favor decentralized government after the Civil War.


Social conservatives have long been a part of the Republican Party for a variety of reasons. For one thing, Republicans encourage personal responsibility as a means to success, which naturally fits with social conservative ideas like supporting strong families and making moral decisions. Republicans also guard religious freedom and tend to extend individual rights to the point of conception, which has always been a major issue for social conservatives.


While Republicans have much to offer social conservatives, Democrats have much in the way of threats. Lost somewhere in the quest to gather constituencies under a phony banner of diversity is the idea that the Democratic Party seeks, as a part of its very nature, a sort of secular homogeneity. Nowhere in the world where liberal government is practiced do minorities, either by race or by any other definition, tend to fair well.

Forget not that by American standards conservatism is marked by freedom, and liberalism is marked by government and control (be reminded that the definitions of conservative and liberal depend upon where you have been). At the far end of the liberal spectrum, by our standards, are nations that offer almost no freedom or personal liberty. Iran, for instance, has a socialized economy and government, which works to support the citizens of Iran and to control private behaviors. The Soviet Union and communist China both strictly control(ed) both the economy and the private lives of their citizens. In fact, there is no example of a true socialist state that does not, or did not, tightly control the behaviors of its populace. Liberty, or American conservatism, is an anathema to true socialism and its opposite.

It is no surprise, then, that in issues regarding religious practice, Republicans almost always favor the practitioner while Democrats favor the state.

But it all just depends upon what the goal is. If evangelicals want the federal government to play Jesus, to wash our personal failures away, to feed and clothe the masses, and set itself up as the ultimate authority on earth, then they should run angrily away from the Republicans, take their ball and go home to play alone. And if Republicans want to see themselves become an inconsequential, permanent minority that attracts only the smallest of the small government crowd, then they can drift away into history as yet another failed political party like the Whigs and hand a sort of long-term control to the socialist left that will forever change our country and diminish our liberty.

Is that what everyone wants? In politics, there is no such thing as divide and conquer.

End of the Chain Gang: The Fisherman and the Albertan

Written by Paul Zannucci on 3:50 PM

I get loaded up with chain mail: jokes of the day, thoughts of the day, stupid videos, plagiarized garbage, and misinformation. Now I'm going to share the best of this crop, leaving out the crap, from time to time with you.


Near a boat docked in a tiny Maritime village, an Albertan tourist compliments the Maritime fisherman on the quality of his fish, and asks how long it took him to catch them.

'Not very long,' answered the fisherman.

'But then, why didn't you stay out longer and catch more?' asked the Albertan.

The fisherman explained that his small catch was sufficient to meet his needs and those of his family.

The Albertan asked, 'But what do you do with the rest of your time?'

'I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, and take a nap with my wife. In the evenings, I go into the village to see my friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs ... I have a full life.'

The Albertan interrupted, 'I have an MBA from Harvard and I can help you! You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat.'

'And after that?' asked the fisherman.

'With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers. Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can then negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Toronto, Boston , or even New York City ! From there you can direct your huge new enterprise.'

'How long would that take?' asked the fisherman.

'Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years,' replied the Albertan.

'And after that?'

'Afterwards? Well my friend, that's when it gets really interesting,' answered the Albertan, laughing. 'When your business gets really big, you can start selling stocks and make millions!'

'Millions? Really? And after that?' said the fisherman.

'After that you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, take a nap with your wife and spend your evenings drinking and enjoying your friends.'


The email included a "moral" to the story. Hopefully you're not dense enough to need it.

-pz

This Week in Anthropogenic Global Warming - 1/23/09

Written by Paul Zannucci on 10:09 AM

Only Four Years Left to Save Environmentalism

Catch this load of BS from James Hansen via climate-resistance.org:

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama’s first administration, he added.

******************************************

Less Fog Might Explain 20% of Warming in Europe Over Past 30 Years

And based on who you believe, that may now be 20% of nothing.


******************************************


From The Australian we get Facts debunk global warming alarmism

Thanks to Climate Debate Daily for the summary: Using several different mathematical techniques and many different data sets, seven scientists have forecast a cooling climate during the first decades of the 21st century.


******************************************


Scientists, Data Challenge New Antarctic ‘Warming’ Study

News of a warming Antarctica are complete hooey.


******************************************

And this last one isn't from this week, but I just happened to find it now: The Evangelical Climate Initiative.

That's right. From the same people who think that Earth is 8000 years old, we now get to hear what they think about global warming. If you don't believe in geology, biology and physics, why do you believe in global warming science?

(Please note I am an "old Earth" Christian.)

Stimulus Economic

Written by Paul Zannucci on 9:23 PM

Lots of suggestions have floated regarding alternatives to President Obama's stimulus package, but nothing yet has shown any creativity. Why not look at at a solution that costs nothing and goes straight to the heart of the matter?

Many lower primates, Stimulus Economic, are tossing around their favorite targets for the government's cash cannon. They are even showing up on the morning news shows to pitch their plans. They want to create jobs that work on America's infrastructure. They want to send money to the banks. They want tax breaks, tax incentives, handouts and general fiscal merriment. What they don't want is anything creative.

Where's the change?

The problem with job creation plans is that the government doesn't have enough money to create enough jobs. The problem, or one of them, with give-aways and spending is that the government can't possibly spend enough. There simply is no way to jump in, wave your credit card around and solve the problem. In a falling $77 trillion economy, you just can't do it.

But there may be another way.

Essentially, we fully control Fannie/Freddie now. Why not say that interest rates will be 4 percent for the next 6 months and that refinancing requires no qualifications (you have a loan, anyway, and this just makes you more likely to pay)?

This does several things. One, it rescues a lot of banks and mortgage companies who get to charge their fees, not to mention lawyers and appraisers and such. It stimulates new home sales, etc.

But here is the big thing: they are talking about a $500 tax rebate. But look at what happens if you refinance your mortgage, which comes in, on average, at about $150,000. If your original mortgage was at 6%, you now have an additional $200 per month, or thereabouts, to spend. That's $2400 per year. That's significant money that could go into the economy with nothing but a setting of mortgage interest rates. It saves homes; it saves mortgage companies; it frees tons of cash.

Granted, this takes investor money, but mortgage refinance money is good money, and with the continued uncertainty in the stock market, it is a lot better money than most.

Come on, Stimulus Economic. Think harder.

Is Media Bias to Blame for Economic Crisis?

Written by Paul Zannucci on 11:56 AM

Something sneaky is afoot. There is a conspiracy within the media to paint the economy as miserable because they don't like Republicans or George Bush. As soon as Obama is sworn in, the economy will miraculously recover, and the media will give him all the credit. Oh-Yeah!

Many conservatives I know have swallowed in great gasping gulps this pitcher of Kool-Aid. Such is our hatred of the media and our desire to seek out conspiracies against us that we don't even recognize an economic collapse when we see one. We merely blame it on the mainstream media. In our defense, the MSM does make an easy target with all the abuse of journalistic standards that runs amok. Make no mistake: the U.S. economy is in serious trouble. And yet there still may be a bit of tail wagging the dog going on. The media may, in fact, be largely responsible.

First of all, a dose of reality. Today is the second full day of the Obama presidency and here are the business headlines:

Wall Street sinks on Microsoft , bank woes
Microsoft sees profits fall, will slash 5,000 jobs
Jobless claims surge, housing starts tumble
U.S. bank results plummet as credit problems soar
US crude inventories soar, sending oil prices down
Sony forecasts first annual net loss in 14 years
Analysts cut '09 profit estimate
Crisis sinks pound, rattles Britain

The point here being that this crisis, however it got its start, is real. No matter how much the media hated George Bush, it can't give those 5000 Microsoft workers their jobs back. To be certain, not all the economic news this week has been bad. There have been several large companies that reported surprising strength, but the overall trend is pretty horrific as today's stock market plunge demonstrates, the DOW dropping below 8000.

Still, as real as the current economic crisis is, the media has played a significant part in it. How? By systematically eroding consumer confidence.

The main feature of the Great Depression (and of today's crisis) was a self-propagating, disastrous fear: Consumers become fearful, stop spending, companies suffer, consumer fear rises more, consumers pull back more, companies close, etc.

And what generates such fear? According to research published in 9/07 by the National Bureau of Economic Research, pro-Democrat newspapers (and not many papers would fit into the other categories) consistently report bad economic news more heavily under Republican administrations:

We find evidence that newspapers with pro-Democratic endorsement pattern systematically give more coverage to high unemployment when the incumbent president is a Republican than when the president is Democratic, compared to newspapers with pro-Republican endorsement pattern.

When the financial crisis, which could have been remedied rather quickly in my mind had consumer confidence stayed high, hit in September, the media pounced on this news more aggressively than on any economic situation in my lifetime. They reported. They theorized. They predicted disaster. Were they seizing the day to put Obama in the White House? It would be naive to believe that media outlets (which still can't leave the Palins alone) didn't see an economic crisis as an opportunity to advocate for their favorite candidate.

From the beginning of the Bush administration to its end, the media placed America on a razor's edge, a country balanced painfully on the cusp of national and international disaster. Constant assaults against the administration's economic and national security policies following the terrorist attacks of 9/11 played havoc with the minds of both investors and regular consumers. In fact, the market never recovered consistent strength after 2001. While it did generally go up for a couple of short periods, the overall trend has been chaotic and fit for the best Six Flags roller coaster fans.

This is not to say that the Bush administration was sound economically. It spent money like an eight-year-old handed a platinum Visa card at the mall. But one has to wonder how much a role the media played in causing consumers to pull back. It would be a shame if these same media outlets were victims of the economic collapse they helped to cause, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it?

A Very Strange Religious Service

Written by Paul Zannucci on 1:09 PM

Since his election, Barack Obama has found himself the witness to some of the oddest religious services. Between yesterday's Rick Warren invocation and today's National Prayer Service, there hasn't been a single angry pastor screaming to "goddamn Amerikkka!"

At a long abandoned Christian blog that never got off the ground but which I am trying to resurrect, Christian News, I have an article on yesterday's invocation and the implications of the ever advancing secular army that is trying to force Christianity, and all religions, to the fringe of society and out of the public eye.

Under the mantel of "freedom from religion," public ceremonies like yesterday's inaugural are becoming more and more ridiculous. Almost stopped altogether by lawsuits from atheists, Christian Pastor Rick Warren managed to stand before the world and deliver a "diverse" prayer, including nods to Judaism and Islam.

read more: Rick Warren Prayer

American Sentinel Down But Not Out

Written by Paul Zannucci on 12:38 PM

American Sentinel, a blog I started last summer, is down but not out.

Here's the deal: Apparently Blue Host, the worst hosting company in the world, wants very small websites with no traffic. They want 1 million sites with 10 hits. Once you start doing well, they start harassing you to move. If you have great website aspirations, I would avoid Blue Host at all cost.

So anyway, I got tired of messing with it and gave it to Jay Henderson, who is working to relocate the blog to an actual web hosting company. I will no longer be a part of it, however, and will begin to blog here again.

I've learned a great deal about blogging since starting this site about a year ago, so expect some serious improvements now that I have blogging time to burn.

By the way, they will be back and running at the same domain soon, and I'll provide a link when they are up.