a conservative heretic commenting on hypocrisy and stupidity in a world with too much of both
If you found this post of interest, please share it with your friends.
We no longer accept advertising on this blog. Your donations help us to defray the costs of its operation and are much appreciated.
Stay informed

Follow the Bear - Subscribe today


Rogue Operator

The Goth Sings

When I was a teenager, the British Invasion was underway. Long hair, bell bottoms, rock music with heavy guitar solos and tie-dye and flowered shirts were the rage. Our parents and the rest of the older generation thought we looked like bums at best or hoodlums (their description) at worst.
I still remember the first time my mother saw The Beatles perform. “Well, at least they wore suits,” was the only positive thing she could say and she was virtually speechless the first time she saw The Stones on Ed Sullivan.
You would think that as I got older, I would have remembered how people looked at us for our pseudo-rebellious appearance back then and be a little more tolerant of the different fashion expressions of successive generations but you’d be wrong. As each new generation came along, I found myself raising an eyebrow over some of the things kids were wearing.
Basically, despite my best efforts to the contrary, I was turning into my parents.
I was quite scornful of Mohawk haircuts, piercings, tattoos and gangsta clothing, with the crotch of guy’s jeans somewhere around their knees. I hated the backward baseball hat or even worse, guys who wore a baseball hat brim facing the front but who never took the time to curve the brim. To me, they looked like they were wearing a duck on their heads.
The look I particularly scorned was the Goth look. I thought the over-the-top black make-up, the black leather, the shower curtain ring piercings up and down one ear and the Doc Martin boots were just plain stupid. In fact, I had become so intolerant that I considered these folks lazy, self-indulgent and just plain silly.
Well……….I got slapped for that attitude tonight. I got slapped hard and deservedly so.
A young man dressed in black, with heavy black Goth make-up, an oily hair style and Siberian Husky eye-like contact lenses, walked out on the audition stage of America’s Got Talent and reminded me of just what an ass I had been.
I don’t know what any of us would expect if we saw someone who looked like a cross between Marilyn Manson and Chris Angel walk out onto a stage ready to sing but whatever it is, it definitely wasn’t this.

This Goth freak was polite, soft-spoken and a classic counter tenor. It was an unbelievable performance by a young man who had never sung in front of anyone before, including his parents. 
And here’s the funny thing about what happened. By the time he finished singing, I didn’t see a Goth freak standing on that stage. I saw a very talented, somewhat shy young man. In those 90 seconds, his performance rendered his appearance and my biases irrelevant. 
Andrew de Leon’s performance wasn’t merely an incredible moment of singing; it was a reminder that people should be considered for who they are and not simply by what they wear or how they look.
That, by the way, goes for the beautiful and fashionable people too. 
We tend to forget that sometimes there really isn’t all that much that is very substantial under the designer clothes, fabulous hair and make-up of some of the beautiful people.

Well done Andrew. You accomplished a considerable amount in 90 seconds and it was more than just a great performance of remarkable singing.

The name Susan Boyle comes to mind.

© 2012 Maggie’s Bear
all rights reserved
The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie’s Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

Guest Contributor: Rogue Operator Rips Apart The Global Warming Myth

Why the Greens are Bluffing on Manmade Global Warming
by Rogue Operator

Time to call the enviro-commies’ bluff.  I’m going all in on a monster.
The manmade climate change debate has centered around the question of whether or not man contributes to climate change. To answer this question shortly: Yes, man does.
But the debate really needs to center around three interrelated questions.
How much does man contribute to the greenhouse effect?
If the answer is ‘significantly,’ what if anything can man do to offset any rising temperatures caused by carbon dioxide emissions?
Fundamentally, would it be wise or far-sighted for man to attempt to change the climate (thereby changing the climate once again)?
Let’s lay out the facts first.  Then we’ll carve the watermelon.
1. According to figures taken from the Department of Energy, the following shows man’s contribution to global greenhouse gases.
Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect, and 99.999% of water vapor in the atmosphere is naturally occurring.
  • Carbon dioxide contributes 3.618% to the greenhouse effect.
  • Man contributes about 3.207% to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
  • Man thus contributes .28% to the greenhouse effect. Put in terms of a ratio, man contributes 1/357.14 to the greenhouse effect.

This scientifically verifiable answer should be interpreted to mean that man does not contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect, which is not even the only factor in global warming. Solar fluctuations also play a role.
2. But, if man should shrug off these facts and decide to stop producing carbon dioxide altogether, what effect would it have?
In raw terms, man contributes yearly about 2 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
There is currently about 380ppm total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
According to scientific projections, man could stop producing carbon dioxide altogether, including by going into extinction, and this would drop global temperatures by .1  degree Celsius.
In fifty years.
3. Finally, if man should decide to go ahead anyway and do everything short of complete extinction to prevent climate cataclysm, what effect would it have? This answer is a bit more prosaic.
Civilization rose along with global warming since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. The idea that man can single-handedly reverse the course of “climate change” is not only Sysiphean in its absurdity, it is self-defeating.
Who is to say the moment we take action in the name of affecting the climate, for example, stripping our industrial base and inhibiting development in third world nations, that the world would not be hit by another ice age the likes of the Little Ice Age that began in the sixteenth century? Wouldn’t our actions taken in the name of climate justice have been self-defeating?
A closing question.  Should the sheer fact that man contributes in some miniscule fashion to climate change give the government carte blanche to regulate all aspects of human life? Is such control justified by some vague appeal to a “dirty hands” argument? Only in the mind of a totalitarian politician or a cloistered bureaucrat would this be the case, and neither tend to have any appreciable respect for individual rights or the market. But that’s kind of the point, isn’t it?
So you green grifters thought you were going to be ushered into power on the BIG LIE that man is responsible for catastrophic climate change? Think again.  Hundreds of millions of people are catching on to the environmentalist myths, and the truth-sayers are gaining ground on the professional liars every day.

For more from Rogue Operator

© 2012 rogueoperator
all rights reserved