"SAN ANGELO, Texas -- The Texas judge overseeing the polygamous FLDS sect's case today refused to make any ruling that would allow breast-feeding mothers to remain with their children in state custody. Judge Barbara Walther did rule on requests that women and children currently being held in San Angelo be able to pray together privately. She told Texas Children Protective Services (CPS) to find a member of the mainstream Mormon church to supervise group prayer sessions with FLDS women and children. Those sessions would occur in the morning and evening. Walther was addressing a request for temporary restraining orders filed by attorneys for four of the nursing mothers, but on behalf of all mothers there. The request asked the court to stop Texas child-welfare workers from separating mothers and children, to allow private prayer, and to give the women and children telephone access to their lawyers." --Salt Lake Tribune
This little bit of news just made my jaw drop to the floor. Presumably she means for Texas CPS to find someone in their organization who is LDS to supervise group prayer sessions with FLDS women and children.
Apparently the judge just doesn't get it. The LDS Church considers the FLDS group to be apostates and heretics. Their culture is very different from the mainstream LDS Church. I can't imagine an active LDS person feeling comfortable about "supervising" an FLDS prayer session, nor can I imagine that the FLDS women would be any more comfortable with an LDS supervisor than with a non-Mormon present. This is just amazing to me. If Judge Walther truly wants to be sensitive to FLDS sensibilities, this approach is simply non-sensical.
I've watched this media circus unfold over the last 18 days and have tried to hold off on making a judgment about the rightness or the wrongness of the raid and the fact that 416 children have been taken into custody. But frankly, I'm alarmed at how low the bar is for justifying the taking of so many kids into custody, based on such apparently flimsy evidence. Yet, no adults have been charged with a crime or taken into custody based on the original complaint. And the continued custody is justified by the fact that children are in danger of abuse because they are subject to indoctrination by their parents.
What exactly is indoctrination? Isn't it simply parents teaching their children their beliefs? Don't parents have the right, in fact, the responsibility to teach their children? Apparently you only have that right in Texas as long as you don't belong to a cult that holds strange beliefs and whose adherents don't wear strange clothes and funny hairstyles. Supposedly, there've been all these horrible crimes committed, but this case hasn't dealt with any of that.
They're in the process of taking DNA samples from parents and children, but then what? If they can prove that a man has fathered children by multiple women, will that prove in a court of law that they are guilty breaking laws regarding polygamy? No, because they can't prove they're married. There's no law against having sex with multiple partners. There are laws against having sexual relations with underage partners by men over a certain age. And if they won't accept notarized birth certificates proving the ages of teen-age brides based on the fact that they could be falsified records, why would marriage records be any more valid? So the only thing they can go on is the age of the bride when she conceived, and if you won't accept birth certificates, how can you establish age? And if none of the victim child-brides will step forward and admit they are victims, how do you establish that there is systemic abuse? Texas CPS can't establish their case, so they're going to hold their children hostage until someone comes forward and admits that they were abused. But if someone steps forward and admits there was abuse, what's going to happen? They're going to lose their children. No one's going to do that.
Let's face it, the powers that be in Texas have decided that this is an evil religious cult that needs to be stamped out, and that's what they're going to do, and they're going to do it by taking the children away and reprogram them into a suitable culture where they'll have a chance to grow up and be "normal". But if they're not successful in prosecuting adult males who have sexual relations with underage partners, this is just going to keep happening, and the FLDS people will only be further entrenched in their belief that they are a persecuted people. This is not going to go away without Texas becoming a total fascist police state. And if that happens, then who's next?
Monday, April 21, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
To Carry A Spare Magazine, Or Not Carry At All?
I belong to an online forum called Bersa Talk, which is a community for Bersa brand handgun enthusiasts. On a recent thread the question was posed: "Is it standard to carry a spare magazine, or just the one fully loaded mag with one round in the chamber?"
I responded that I carry a spare mag if I think to grab one before I leave the house. After the Trolley Square shooting last year, it makes sense to me that one magazine just might not be enough. And after a recent home invasion in West Valley, in which 5 thugs invaded a home and held the occupants at gunpoint while they hauled out their valuables, it might not be a bad idea to carry a spare magazine on your person, at home.
Dozens of others responded one way or another. It turns out that many do carry a spare. As often happens on internet fora, there was eventually a little bit of topic drift as the debate warmed up and strongly held views were expressed and defended. In the latter stages of the thread, it was dominated by two participants who were sparring back and forth, and the topic became whether some people shouldn't carry a gun at all. Here's a segment that I found particularly interesting:
RF: From a statistical standpoint, not carrying AT ALL, AT ANY TIME, is...defensible.
GB: Interesting assertion, and one that evolution, grand design, or whatever has settled upon as racial survival strategies for a large number of species. It manifests itself as relatively unarmed prey species that congregate in large numbers in herds, flocks, schools, or whatever the appropriate term might be. Anyway, the principle is that even with predation which will certainly claim a large number of the herd, flock, school or whatever -- enough will survive to ensure the survival of the species into the next generaton. It is all fine and good if you are one of the survivors. "Baaa" says the sheep(le)! It ain't so good if you are one of the culls who gets predated. A better personal survival strategy is to recognize the existence of the predators, be vigilant and prepared to fight back against them. That way your personal odds of survival become markedly greater than that of the unarmed herd, flock, school or whatever. Oddly enough, the presence of sufficient numbers of members of the herd who are vigilant and prepared to fight back against the predators increases not only their own chances of survival but that of the entire herd. It is the tact that is taken by such animals as elephants, bison and baboons.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to get at is that while the not carrying at all, ever, is defensible ("Baaa"), it is not optimal. It does nothing to combat ever increasing predation. It is largely based on the premise that life is cheap. That individuals in the herd may be sacrificed to the predators as long as there are enough who survive to insure survival of the herd, and that should there not be enough survivors then the herd itself will die as nature dictates. Personally, I don't hold to that "life is cheap" mindset that this necessarily implies. Certainly not my life or my loved ones.
RF: If you have a normal lifestyle...the chances you will be involved in a true life-or-death self-defense scenario are very remote indeed.
GB: That chance is remote, yes. But non-zero. And, as society continues to coarsen and the value of life is held in ever less regards by those who engage in lives of crime, that chance become greater over time. The point is that the cost of being caught without carrying when you truly need it is so high that the remote chance argument is negated. Same thing as with catastrophic health insurance. Same thing as having homeowner's insurance, flood insurance or a fire extinguisher. Since the cost of not carrying could very well be your life or the life of a loved one, carrying is justified even if the odds of needing to use it is remote.
RF: Some call CCW [carrying a concealed weapon] 'paranoid' behavior.
GB: No more paranoid than someone who has a fire extinguisher in the pantry, or who takes out flood insurance. It is actually the act of viewing the world as it is, and not of viewing the world through rose colored glasses. It comes from actually contemplating worst case scenarios and being prepared for such in a rational manner.
RF: Others think it necessary to be prepared no matter the risk-small or large... Call it what you will-it's all about choice, and risk/benefit.
GB: It should be a choice, and from the pro-carry folks it is normally treated as exactly that. The vast majority of pro-carry people have no desire to coerce people who do not wish to carry to carry anyway. It is viewed as a personal choice, as it should be. However, the actions of the anti-carry folks is not so -- they seek not only to not carry themselves, but to take away the option of carry from those who wish to do so, by way of legal means or by way of societal pressure, stigmatizing those who desire to carry as being "paranoid" or anti-social.
RF: I choose to carry intermittently, and believe the choice I have made as to carry mode satisfies that risk/benefit analysis.
GB: Yes, that is your prerogative. Personally, I choose to carry whenever possible in the most optimum manner feasable, since it is impossible to predict with absolute certainty when a true sociopath, psychopath, or other variety of violent criminal may choose to attack myself or [family member]. That lack of certainty and the cost/risk analysis that I have undertaken leads me to do just that. The cost of an unprepared for encounter is just too high, and the risk of one is non-zero and ever increasing.
It was a lively conversation. If you're interested in reading the whole thread, here's a link: http://bersatalk.com/forums/1/55676/ShowThread.aspx
And here's a link to Bersa Talk: http://bersatalk.com/
I responded that I carry a spare mag if I think to grab one before I leave the house. After the Trolley Square shooting last year, it makes sense to me that one magazine just might not be enough. And after a recent home invasion in West Valley, in which 5 thugs invaded a home and held the occupants at gunpoint while they hauled out their valuables, it might not be a bad idea to carry a spare magazine on your person, at home.
Dozens of others responded one way or another. It turns out that many do carry a spare. As often happens on internet fora, there was eventually a little bit of topic drift as the debate warmed up and strongly held views were expressed and defended. In the latter stages of the thread, it was dominated by two participants who were sparring back and forth, and the topic became whether some people shouldn't carry a gun at all. Here's a segment that I found particularly interesting:
RF: From a statistical standpoint, not carrying AT ALL, AT ANY TIME, is...defensible.
GB: Interesting assertion, and one that evolution, grand design, or whatever has settled upon as racial survival strategies for a large number of species. It manifests itself as relatively unarmed prey species that congregate in large numbers in herds, flocks, schools, or whatever the appropriate term might be. Anyway, the principle is that even with predation which will certainly claim a large number of the herd, flock, school or whatever -- enough will survive to ensure the survival of the species into the next generaton. It is all fine and good if you are one of the survivors. "Baaa" says the sheep(le)! It ain't so good if you are one of the culls who gets predated. A better personal survival strategy is to recognize the existence of the predators, be vigilant and prepared to fight back against them. That way your personal odds of survival become markedly greater than that of the unarmed herd, flock, school or whatever. Oddly enough, the presence of sufficient numbers of members of the herd who are vigilant and prepared to fight back against the predators increases not only their own chances of survival but that of the entire herd. It is the tact that is taken by such animals as elephants, bison and baboons.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to get at is that while the not carrying at all, ever, is defensible ("Baaa"), it is not optimal. It does nothing to combat ever increasing predation. It is largely based on the premise that life is cheap. That individuals in the herd may be sacrificed to the predators as long as there are enough who survive to insure survival of the herd, and that should there not be enough survivors then the herd itself will die as nature dictates. Personally, I don't hold to that "life is cheap" mindset that this necessarily implies. Certainly not my life or my loved ones.
RF: If you have a normal lifestyle...the chances you will be involved in a true life-or-death self-defense scenario are very remote indeed.
GB: That chance is remote, yes. But non-zero. And, as society continues to coarsen and the value of life is held in ever less regards by those who engage in lives of crime, that chance become greater over time. The point is that the cost of being caught without carrying when you truly need it is so high that the remote chance argument is negated. Same thing as with catastrophic health insurance. Same thing as having homeowner's insurance, flood insurance or a fire extinguisher. Since the cost of not carrying could very well be your life or the life of a loved one, carrying is justified even if the odds of needing to use it is remote.
RF: Some call CCW [carrying a concealed weapon] 'paranoid' behavior.
GB: No more paranoid than someone who has a fire extinguisher in the pantry, or who takes out flood insurance. It is actually the act of viewing the world as it is, and not of viewing the world through rose colored glasses. It comes from actually contemplating worst case scenarios and being prepared for such in a rational manner.
RF: Others think it necessary to be prepared no matter the risk-small or large... Call it what you will-it's all about choice, and risk/benefit.
GB: It should be a choice, and from the pro-carry folks it is normally treated as exactly that. The vast majority of pro-carry people have no desire to coerce people who do not wish to carry to carry anyway. It is viewed as a personal choice, as it should be. However, the actions of the anti-carry folks is not so -- they seek not only to not carry themselves, but to take away the option of carry from those who wish to do so, by way of legal means or by way of societal pressure, stigmatizing those who desire to carry as being "paranoid" or anti-social.
RF: I choose to carry intermittently, and believe the choice I have made as to carry mode satisfies that risk/benefit analysis.
GB: Yes, that is your prerogative. Personally, I choose to carry whenever possible in the most optimum manner feasable, since it is impossible to predict with absolute certainty when a true sociopath, psychopath, or other variety of violent criminal may choose to attack myself or [family member]. That lack of certainty and the cost/risk analysis that I have undertaken leads me to do just that. The cost of an unprepared for encounter is just too high, and the risk of one is non-zero and ever increasing.
It was a lively conversation. If you're interested in reading the whole thread, here's a link: http://bersatalk.com/forums/1/55676/ShowThread.aspx
And here's a link to Bersa Talk: http://bersatalk.com/
Friday, March 14, 2008
Draper Resident Longs for Divine Revelation On Immorality of Bearing Children
This forum letter appeared yesterday in the online version of the Salt Lake Tribune:
I usually don't listen to men in robes and funny hats, but today the Vatican decreed that polluting the planet is a sin. High fives for stating the obvious. Since the leading causes of pollution are overpopulation and undereducation, are we likely to see a change in the Catholic Church's policies on birth control? Without following through with a plan of action, this edict rings hollow.
Meanwhile, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints tries to control every aspect of our lives except for the ones that truly matter. Anyone who has tried to breathe in the Salt Lake Valley this winter knows that pollution is choking us to death. I hope the new Mormon prophet might soon have a divine revelation that it is immoral to bring more than two or three kids into a dangerously overpopulated world.
Todd Ouzts
Draper
It was followed by literally dozens of comments, some agreeing, others disagreeing or taking issue with the obvious Catholic and Mormon-bashing. I added my comment, which was addressed to the original letter rather than a response to all the other comments. Here's my response:
Mr. Ouzts seems to have the idea that religious and moral codes are empty and false, and that human life is meaningless. When God becomes a nihilist, then we'll hear about that longed for revelation about the immorality of multiplying and replenishing the earth.
Latter-Day Saints view the planet as the earthly abode for God's spirit children during mortality. Naturally it makes sense to take care of the earth, and it's part of our mortal stewardship to do so, not only for ourselves but for future generations. The phrase "multiplying and replenishing the earth" isn't only about procreation, it's about renewing resources and using them wisely. But let's do it sensibly, not in such a way that we bring back the dark ages, or destroy our economy, or doom millions in developing countries to darkness, poverty and despair. Climate change alarmism is a nihilistic creed, and much more harm will come from it than good.
If you're interested in reading the entire comment thread, go here.
I usually don't listen to men in robes and funny hats, but today the Vatican decreed that polluting the planet is a sin. High fives for stating the obvious. Since the leading causes of pollution are overpopulation and undereducation, are we likely to see a change in the Catholic Church's policies on birth control? Without following through with a plan of action, this edict rings hollow.
Meanwhile, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints tries to control every aspect of our lives except for the ones that truly matter. Anyone who has tried to breathe in the Salt Lake Valley this winter knows that pollution is choking us to death. I hope the new Mormon prophet might soon have a divine revelation that it is immoral to bring more than two or three kids into a dangerously overpopulated world.
Todd Ouzts
Draper
It was followed by literally dozens of comments, some agreeing, others disagreeing or taking issue with the obvious Catholic and Mormon-bashing. I added my comment, which was addressed to the original letter rather than a response to all the other comments. Here's my response:
Mr. Ouzts seems to have the idea that religious and moral codes are empty and false, and that human life is meaningless. When God becomes a nihilist, then we'll hear about that longed for revelation about the immorality of multiplying and replenishing the earth.
Latter-Day Saints view the planet as the earthly abode for God's spirit children during mortality. Naturally it makes sense to take care of the earth, and it's part of our mortal stewardship to do so, not only for ourselves but for future generations. The phrase "multiplying and replenishing the earth" isn't only about procreation, it's about renewing resources and using them wisely. But let's do it sensibly, not in such a way that we bring back the dark ages, or destroy our economy, or doom millions in developing countries to darkness, poverty and despair. Climate change alarmism is a nihilistic creed, and much more harm will come from it than good.
If you're interested in reading the entire comment thread, go here.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Harsh Political Realities
An awful lot of conservatives have expressed dismay over the strange turn of events in the primaries that seem to have catapulted candidates to front-runner status that mere months ago were considered likely also-rans, even dead in the water.
Ann Coulter points out some harsh realities in our political environment that didn't exist back when Ronald Reagan was being courted to run for political office. The article is titled "How to keep Reagan out of office", and it appeared online in the World Jewish Review.
What a bizarre coincidence that a few years after the most draconian campaign-finance laws were imposed via McCain-Feingold, our two front-runners happen to be the media's picks! It's uncanny — almost as if by design! (Can I stop now, or do you people get sarcasm?)
By prohibiting speech by anyone else, the campaign-finance laws have vastly magnified the power of the media — which, by the way, are wholly exempt from speech restrictions under campaign-finance laws. The New York Times doesn't have to buy ad time to promote a politician; it just has to call McCain a "maverick" 1 billion times a year.
It is because of campaign-finance laws like McCain-Feingold that big men don't run for office anymore. Little men do. And John McCain is the head homunculus.
You want Reagan back? Restore the right to free speech, and you will have created the conditions that allowed Reagan to run.
As usual, read the whole thing.
Ann Coulter points out some harsh realities in our political environment that didn't exist back when Ronald Reagan was being courted to run for political office. The article is titled "How to keep Reagan out of office", and it appeared online in the World Jewish Review.
What a bizarre coincidence that a few years after the most draconian campaign-finance laws were imposed via McCain-Feingold, our two front-runners happen to be the media's picks! It's uncanny — almost as if by design! (Can I stop now, or do you people get sarcasm?)
By prohibiting speech by anyone else, the campaign-finance laws have vastly magnified the power of the media — which, by the way, are wholly exempt from speech restrictions under campaign-finance laws. The New York Times doesn't have to buy ad time to promote a politician; it just has to call McCain a "maverick" 1 billion times a year.
It is because of campaign-finance laws like McCain-Feingold that big men don't run for office anymore. Little men do. And John McCain is the head homunculus.
You want Reagan back? Restore the right to free speech, and you will have created the conditions that allowed Reagan to run.
As usual, read the whole thing.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
HB473 to Allow Open Carry By Permittees
Open carry is a bad idea--but it shouldn't be illegal.
That's my take on a bill coming before the Utah State Legislature that will clarify the right of concealed weapon permittees to openly carry firearms in public places in Utah.
In a Salt Lake Tribune article entitled: "Bill would allow concealed-weapons permit holders to carry firearms openly", HB473 would stipulate that it's not illegal for CCW holders to carry in full view.
"The proposal would ensure that concealed-weapons permit holders are not required to conceal their firearms. It would allow permittees to openly carry loaded weapons into schools, colleges, hospitals and other public arenas. Proponents say the measure only "clarifies" existing law to ensure a right permittees already have, while opponents say open-carry would result in "untenable situations" at schools. "
Apparently current gun laws allow permittees to open carry anyplace where it's legal to carry concealed, but it's not totally clear. In other words, the law has been poorly written, and doesn't properly convey the intent of the legislators.
"I'm not saying [open-carry is] a great idea; I'm just saying it's not illegal," said gun-rights lobbyist Clark Aposhian. "This [legislation] is not creating new law. It's a definition of an existing ability permit holders already have."
Attorney General Mark Shurtleff spoke at the hearing, saying existing weapons laws can reasonably be read to both allow and prohibit open-carry on school grounds.
"I'm not taking a side," Shurtleff said in a Tuesday interview. "You just can't have different agencies interpreting the law differently. It should be clarified so everyone reads it the same way."
Additional confusion exists as to whether an inadvertent display of a concealed weapon, such as could occur when an armed man opens his coat to reach for a phone or wallet, constitutes a violation of the law, Shurtleff added.
Well, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV or the internet, but if I understand correctly, Utah state law doesn't currently require law abiding citizens to have a permit in order to openly carry firearms. There are limitations, of course. For example, if you don't have a Concealed Firearm Permit, you can't openly carry a loaded gun inside a motor vehicle.
I'm not sure this is a fight worth fighting, because the rights of concealed carry permit holders is pretty well settled here in Utah. What this does is open up another can of worms regarding the rights of people to carry openly. Gun rights activists are going to have to fight and win battles all over again that they've already fought and won.
I'm not sure what the language of HB473 actually says, but my feeling is that it should state that open carry by permittees is not illegal in any area in the state that concealed carry is permitted. Also inadvertent, unintentional exposure of a concealed weapon isn't an illegal act.
Now, here's why I think open carry is a bad idea.
1. There is a strong counter-culture in society that is strongly opposed to regular citizens owning and carrying guns. Openly carrying firearms needlessly stirs the pot and riles up those people who would take any opportunity to strengthen gun control laws and confiscate all guns not issued by law enforcement or the military. The Second Amendment doesn't exist for these people. The fact that gun control laws only disarm the public and give career criminals a safe work environment is just so much rhetoric, to their way of thinking.
2. Openly carrying firearms marks a person as a target for theft or even worse. It's illegal for criminals to possess firearms, and a favored way of gaining possession of guns is to steal them. There have been many documented instances where people openly carrying guns were robbed and "relieved" of their hardware. Also, open carry marks you as a target for any person with criminal intent to shoot you first. A recent example comes easily to mind: the case of the digruntled citizen who entered a city council meeting, walked up to the armed police officer who was present, gunned him down, and then went to work on the city council unmolested.
I say it shouldn't be illegal to inadvertently or unintentionally expose your legal carry weapon, but let's keep them concealed if we can. The last thing I want is to be the focus of attention when I carry a gun into a room full of people.
That's my take on a bill coming before the Utah State Legislature that will clarify the right of concealed weapon permittees to openly carry firearms in public places in Utah.
In a Salt Lake Tribune article entitled: "Bill would allow concealed-weapons permit holders to carry firearms openly", HB473 would stipulate that it's not illegal for CCW holders to carry in full view.
"The proposal would ensure that concealed-weapons permit holders are not required to conceal their firearms. It would allow permittees to openly carry loaded weapons into schools, colleges, hospitals and other public arenas. Proponents say the measure only "clarifies" existing law to ensure a right permittees already have, while opponents say open-carry would result in "untenable situations" at schools. "
Apparently current gun laws allow permittees to open carry anyplace where it's legal to carry concealed, but it's not totally clear. In other words, the law has been poorly written, and doesn't properly convey the intent of the legislators.
"I'm not saying [open-carry is] a great idea; I'm just saying it's not illegal," said gun-rights lobbyist Clark Aposhian. "This [legislation] is not creating new law. It's a definition of an existing ability permit holders already have."
Attorney General Mark Shurtleff spoke at the hearing, saying existing weapons laws can reasonably be read to both allow and prohibit open-carry on school grounds.
"I'm not taking a side," Shurtleff said in a Tuesday interview. "You just can't have different agencies interpreting the law differently. It should be clarified so everyone reads it the same way."
Additional confusion exists as to whether an inadvertent display of a concealed weapon, such as could occur when an armed man opens his coat to reach for a phone or wallet, constitutes a violation of the law, Shurtleff added.
Well, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV or the internet, but if I understand correctly, Utah state law doesn't currently require law abiding citizens to have a permit in order to openly carry firearms. There are limitations, of course. For example, if you don't have a Concealed Firearm Permit, you can't openly carry a loaded gun inside a motor vehicle.
I'm not sure this is a fight worth fighting, because the rights of concealed carry permit holders is pretty well settled here in Utah. What this does is open up another can of worms regarding the rights of people to carry openly. Gun rights activists are going to have to fight and win battles all over again that they've already fought and won.
I'm not sure what the language of HB473 actually says, but my feeling is that it should state that open carry by permittees is not illegal in any area in the state that concealed carry is permitted. Also inadvertent, unintentional exposure of a concealed weapon isn't an illegal act.
Now, here's why I think open carry is a bad idea.
1. There is a strong counter-culture in society that is strongly opposed to regular citizens owning and carrying guns. Openly carrying firearms needlessly stirs the pot and riles up those people who would take any opportunity to strengthen gun control laws and confiscate all guns not issued by law enforcement or the military. The Second Amendment doesn't exist for these people. The fact that gun control laws only disarm the public and give career criminals a safe work environment is just so much rhetoric, to their way of thinking.
2. Openly carrying firearms marks a person as a target for theft or even worse. It's illegal for criminals to possess firearms, and a favored way of gaining possession of guns is to steal them. There have been many documented instances where people openly carrying guns were robbed and "relieved" of their hardware. Also, open carry marks you as a target for any person with criminal intent to shoot you first. A recent example comes easily to mind: the case of the digruntled citizen who entered a city council meeting, walked up to the armed police officer who was present, gunned him down, and then went to work on the city council unmolested.
I say it shouldn't be illegal to inadvertently or unintentionally expose your legal carry weapon, but let's keep them concealed if we can. The last thing I want is to be the focus of attention when I carry a gun into a room full of people.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Dennis Prager Asks Some Questions About School Shootings
In an article that appeared online at Jewish World Review, Dennis Prager asks some hard questions about recent trends in news coverage of shootings at universities. Mr. Prager has his own take on each of these questions, and I suggest you read the column for yourself.
Question 1: Why are murderers always counted in the victims tally? The day after the mass murder of students at Northern Illinois University (NIU), the headline in the closest major newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, was: "6 Dead in NIU Shooting."
"6 dead" included the murderer. Why wasn't the headline "5 killed at NIU"? It is nothing less than moronic that the media routinely lump murderers and their victims in the same tally.
My take is that the mindset of our media gatekeepers is that the dead perpetrator is not the real "bad guy". Gun Violence is the real bad guy, and the dead perpetrator is just another unfortunate victim.
Question 2: Which of these three options is more likely to prevent further murderous rampages: a) making universities closed campuses and increasing the police presence on campus (as the president of NIU has promised to do); b) making guns much harder to obtain; or c) enabling specially trained students and faculty to carry concealed weapons on campus?
...Of course, there is virtually no chance that the uniformly left-thinking individuals who run our universities will ever consider ... [option c]. To do so would mean abandoning what is essentially a religious-like conviction that guns are immoral rather than the people who use them immorally.
It's part of the narrative, isn't it? Guns are evil, not people (except for evangelical Christians, conservatives and Republicans).
Question 3: Why are "shooter" and "gunman" used instead of "killer" or "murderer"?
If a murderer used a knife to murder five students, no news headlines would read, "Knifeman Kills Five." So why always "shooter" and "gunman"?
Question 4: Why is "murder" never used to describe homicides involved in these university massacres? And why is "murderer" never used to describe these murderers? Why has "kill" become the only word allowed for deliberate homicide?
Perhaps it has something to do with our compunction to not try and convict people in the press before they are actually convicted in a court of law. And it's easier to throw the perps in with the victims if they're not classified as murderers. Remember, guns are evil, not people, and it's easier to sell that narrative if we don't call them "murderers".
Question 5: Would the press note killers' religiosity if they were all Christian?
I don't think think there's any question that they would, and of course, they'd be right to do it. Mr. Prager makes a valid point in his article. Read the whole thing here.
Question 1: Why are murderers always counted in the victims tally? The day after the mass murder of students at Northern Illinois University (NIU), the headline in the closest major newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, was: "6 Dead in NIU Shooting."
"6 dead" included the murderer. Why wasn't the headline "5 killed at NIU"? It is nothing less than moronic that the media routinely lump murderers and their victims in the same tally.
My take is that the mindset of our media gatekeepers is that the dead perpetrator is not the real "bad guy". Gun Violence is the real bad guy, and the dead perpetrator is just another unfortunate victim.
Question 2: Which of these three options is more likely to prevent further murderous rampages: a) making universities closed campuses and increasing the police presence on campus (as the president of NIU has promised to do); b) making guns much harder to obtain; or c) enabling specially trained students and faculty to carry concealed weapons on campus?
...Of course, there is virtually no chance that the uniformly left-thinking individuals who run our universities will ever consider ... [option c]. To do so would mean abandoning what is essentially a religious-like conviction that guns are immoral rather than the people who use them immorally.
It's part of the narrative, isn't it? Guns are evil, not people (except for evangelical Christians, conservatives and Republicans).
Question 3: Why are "shooter" and "gunman" used instead of "killer" or "murderer"?
If a murderer used a knife to murder five students, no news headlines would read, "Knifeman Kills Five." So why always "shooter" and "gunman"?
Obviously, since the narrative is that guns are bad, not people, phrasing it this way focuses attention, and also the blame, on guns and gun violence, instead of placing responsibility for the evil act upon the actor.
Question 4: Why is "murder" never used to describe homicides involved in these university massacres? And why is "murderer" never used to describe these murderers? Why has "kill" become the only word allowed for deliberate homicide?
Perhaps it has something to do with our compunction to not try and convict people in the press before they are actually convicted in a court of law. And it's easier to throw the perps in with the victims if they're not classified as murderers. Remember, guns are evil, not people, and it's easier to sell that narrative if we don't call them "murderers".
Question 5: Would the press note killers' religiosity if they were all Christian?
I don't think think there's any question that they would, and of course, they'd be right to do it. Mr. Prager makes a valid point in his article. Read the whole thing here.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Storm Damage, All Fixed Up
Recently I posted about a storm that came in and blew the siding off the back of our house. Here's a picture of the damage. We notified our builder, Fieldstone Homes, about the damage right away, via an internet warranty request. About 90 minutes later we received a call from the warranty representative, and she was at our house within the hour to inspect the damage. She assured us that the damage would be repaired and the siding replaced within the next day or two. And before she left, she took care of a couple of other warranty items inside the house. She was cheerful, competent and reassuring. I was impressed. Her name was Annette.
And she didn't disappoint. The damage occurred on Monday, and there was a siding crew at our house Wednesday morning, ready to go to work. That was around 9:30 or 10 a.m.
They were done by noon. Yes, I'm happy.
Just a note about the color in the photographs: the first picture (of the damage) was taken at mid-day and shows the color most accurately. It's called sand. The pictures of the repaired siding were taken just before sunset, and the light was a lot "warmer" and makes the house look yellow. The only time the house looks like this is right after sunrise and just before sunset. Photographers call this kind of light "sweet light" because it is bright, warm and dramatic. It's the best time to shoot landscapes. Most calendar pictures of places like the Grand Canyon and Arches National Park, etc. are shot at this time of day because of that.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Major League Baseball Umps in a Snit Over Background Checks
According to this AP story, the umpires are unhappy about the league conducting background checks.
"Umpires are livid that Major League Baseball has sent investigators to their hometowns, asking neighbors a series of questions that include whether the ump belongs to the Ku Klux Klan. "
"Baseball stepped up background checks last August, after it became public that the FBI was investigating NBA referee Tim Donaghy for betting on games. Donaghy pleaded guilty to felony charges of conspiracy to engage in wire fraud and transmitting betting information through interstate commerce, and he awaits sentencing."
Some of the questions that neighbors are being asked:
Does he live within his means?
Does he beat his wife?
Does he throw wild parties?
Have you seen the police at his house?
Does he belong to groups such as the Ku Klux Klan?
Does he grow marijuana plants?
My take on this tempest in a teapot is that no major league umpire should be upset about these questions as long as the answer to all of them is "no".
If the answer is "yes", well then the umpire and the league might have a problem.
Sports officiating is a vocation where the standards of performance are pretty high. Let's face it, the standard is perfection. Coaches, players, spectators and media all expect umpires and referees to get every call right, and if they don't, they're suspected of incompetence.
Major league baseball has a vested interest in protecting the integrity of their product. Umpires have to be not only competent at a high level, but their personal lives have to be above reproach. I think the leagues have every right to know the answer to all of the above questions and many more. Above reproach doesn't mean that having to answer these questions is beneath their dignity.
"Umpires are livid that Major League Baseball has sent investigators to their hometowns, asking neighbors a series of questions that include whether the ump belongs to the Ku Klux Klan. "
"Baseball stepped up background checks last August, after it became public that the FBI was investigating NBA referee Tim Donaghy for betting on games. Donaghy pleaded guilty to felony charges of conspiracy to engage in wire fraud and transmitting betting information through interstate commerce, and he awaits sentencing."
Some of the questions that neighbors are being asked:
Does he live within his means?
Does he beat his wife?
Does he throw wild parties?
Have you seen the police at his house?
Does he belong to groups such as the Ku Klux Klan?
Does he grow marijuana plants?
My take on this tempest in a teapot is that no major league umpire should be upset about these questions as long as the answer to all of them is "no".
If the answer is "yes", well then the umpire and the league might have a problem.
Sports officiating is a vocation where the standards of performance are pretty high. Let's face it, the standard is perfection. Coaches, players, spectators and media all expect umpires and referees to get every call right, and if they don't, they're suspected of incompetence.
Major league baseball has a vested interest in protecting the integrity of their product. Umpires have to be not only competent at a high level, but their personal lives have to be above reproach. I think the leagues have every right to know the answer to all of the above questions and many more. Above reproach doesn't mean that having to answer these questions is beneath their dignity.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Storm Damage, We Got Some
About 8:15 yesterday morning I heard a loud thumping on the side of my house. It sounded like the wind was ripping the siding off. Sure enough, that's exactly what was happening. 
Actually, this is the back of the house. We were expecting a storm any minute, but at this time the skies were only partly cloudy, and we had sunshine. However, the wind was pretty boisterous. I wasn't too concerned about the house until I saw this. We've had strong gusts before and nothing like this has ever happened.
About 8:30 I sent in a warranty request to our homebuilder, Fieldstone Homes. I got a call about 10 a.m. and a warranty rep was on our doorstep an hour later to survey the damage. She assured me that they would have a crew on site in the next two days to repair the damage and replace the siding. That was good to hear. Our one year warranty expires in mid-February.Update: the siding was replaced Wednesday morning before noon, (two days after the damage was done). So everything's back to normal. I'll post pictures later.
Steven Colbert, TV Comic, But Not Exactly A Comedic Genius
I've watched local and national news coverage of President Hinckley's passing with considerable interest. I think it's accurate to say that coverage has been respectful, for the most part, and in some instances, particularly on the local level, even reverent.
I caught the Colbert Report late last night just as he began his "tribute" to the late president of the Mormon Church. He said it was obvious Gordon Hinckley was in perfect health at the time of his passing, so he wondered why no one seemed interested in delving into the mystery of his sudden death, because it seemed apparent to him that Hinckley had been murdered.
And who would benefit from Hinckley's death? Clearly it was Thomas S. Monson, who is likely to be named the new Mormon Church president. Why was that significant? Because Mitt Romney, a Mormon, could possibly be our next U.S. President, and then Romney would take his marching orders from Monson, just as John Kennedy had taken his from the Pope. Clearly Monson was looking forward to the time that Romney would be his personal puppet.
Now, Steven Colbert is a comedian whose schtick is to mock politicians and world leaders and make light of subjects and situations that most people take seriously. I get that. And apparently Colbert's studio audience thought this routine was hilarious. But I found myself squirming uncomfortably. I wasn't laughing. It didn't seem very funny to me.
Undeterred by my discomfort, Colbert plunged ahead. He claimed that if Barack Obama were to win the election and move into the White House, he would be taking orders from his spirtual leader, Oprah. Or more accurately, he said, "the Pope-rah", and here he showed an image of Oprah wearing a papal mitre on her head.
For the first time in this comedic routine, I laughed out loud. Okay, I said, that was funny. But for me, it seemed like it took a long time to get there.
I'm not sure how funny our Catholic friends may have found this part of the routine. I'm a little reluctant to ask anyone. But it seems strange that in these times of sensitivity and political correctness, it's quite okay to mock people of faith such as Catholics and Mormons, while certain other ethnic and religious groups are stictly off limits.
What's up with that?
I caught the Colbert Report late last night just as he began his "tribute" to the late president of the Mormon Church. He said it was obvious Gordon Hinckley was in perfect health at the time of his passing, so he wondered why no one seemed interested in delving into the mystery of his sudden death, because it seemed apparent to him that Hinckley had been murdered.
And who would benefit from Hinckley's death? Clearly it was Thomas S. Monson, who is likely to be named the new Mormon Church president. Why was that significant? Because Mitt Romney, a Mormon, could possibly be our next U.S. President, and then Romney would take his marching orders from Monson, just as John Kennedy had taken his from the Pope. Clearly Monson was looking forward to the time that Romney would be his personal puppet.
Now, Steven Colbert is a comedian whose schtick is to mock politicians and world leaders and make light of subjects and situations that most people take seriously. I get that. And apparently Colbert's studio audience thought this routine was hilarious. But I found myself squirming uncomfortably. I wasn't laughing. It didn't seem very funny to me.
Undeterred by my discomfort, Colbert plunged ahead. He claimed that if Barack Obama were to win the election and move into the White House, he would be taking orders from his spirtual leader, Oprah. Or more accurately, he said, "the Pope-rah", and here he showed an image of Oprah wearing a papal mitre on her head.
For the first time in this comedic routine, I laughed out loud. Okay, I said, that was funny. But for me, it seemed like it took a long time to get there.
I'm not sure how funny our Catholic friends may have found this part of the routine. I'm a little reluctant to ask anyone. But it seems strange that in these times of sensitivity and political correctness, it's quite okay to mock people of faith such as Catholics and Mormons, while certain other ethnic and religious groups are stictly off limits.
What's up with that?
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
On Banning the Death Penalty
Dennis Prager, in a column at the Jewish World Review today had this to say about New Jersey's recent banishment of the death penalty:
New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, in explaining his state's abolition of the death penalty, announced that he knew "from my heart and from my soul" that no murderer should be put to death.
As it happens, I know from my heart and from my soul that not putting any murderer to death is a cosmic injustice; it cheapens the worth of human life and greatly diminishes the revulsion society feels toward murder.
___________________________
Nevertheless, whatever the ultimate source of opposition among some opponents of capital punishment, in the case of Gov. Corzine and many other abolitionists, their hearts are the ultimate source of their opposition to taking the life of any murderer. And in such cases, it remains fair to say that such hearts are indeed different from the hearts of those of us who feel equally strongly that keeping all murderers alive is a cosmic injustice, an insult to the murdered and an ongoing nightmare to those who loved the murdered.
Amen, and amen.
New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, in explaining his state's abolition of the death penalty, announced that he knew "from my heart and from my soul" that no murderer should be put to death.
As it happens, I know from my heart and from my soul that not putting any murderer to death is a cosmic injustice; it cheapens the worth of human life and greatly diminishes the revulsion society feels toward murder.
___________________________
Nevertheless, whatever the ultimate source of opposition among some opponents of capital punishment, in the case of Gov. Corzine and many other abolitionists, their hearts are the ultimate source of their opposition to taking the life of any murderer. And in such cases, it remains fair to say that such hearts are indeed different from the hearts of those of us who feel equally strongly that keeping all murderers alive is a cosmic injustice, an insult to the murdered and an ongoing nightmare to those who loved the murdered.
Amen, and amen.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Help Heal Heather's Heart
Heather and Jestin Dorius is a couple in our neighborhood with four young children. Heather, age 31, has had serious heart problems for 11 years or so. Heather has had two dangerous episodes in a six-month period that were life threatening. If she has another episode she is not likely to survive. There’s a surgical procedure available that has a 90% success rate, but it’s very expensive, and the Dorius family doesn’t have health insurance. We’re trying to raise $40,000 to $60,000 by February so she can have this surgery performed around Valentine’s Day.Heather and Jestin are not poor or indigent. They don’t need clothing, food, shelter or transportation. They are both gainfully self employed; she’s a realtor, he’s an electrical contractor. They’re simply a good solid middle class family who can’t get health insurance because of her pre-existing medical condition. No insurance company wants to take on a client who’s 100% likely to need expensive medical care.
If you can help, please go to Help Heal Heather's Heart and make a donation. If you’re not comfortable with paypal, email me at p_t_max@myway.com and I’ll email you directly with contact information where you can send a check.
For more information and background, please go to the Dorius Family Blog.
If you can spare a donation, God bless you. If you can’t, God bless you, too. Thanks for your time.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Happy Birthday, Bradley
Two young pups
"Anything you guys can do, I can do, too!"
Brad took it upon himself to guard the snacks at his older brothers soccer games. Here he is keeping a close watch on a cookie.
Brad's first birthday present.
I came home from work and took my hat off, and Brad grabbed it and put it on and struck this pose. I grabbed my camera and snapped this shot, one of my favorite.
Brad the Crush guzzler
First birthday cake
Brad on the slide at the city park.
Bradley recharging at Lagoon Day.
Pinewood Space Derby winners!
Brad's Birthday Bike
Bulldog 64
Fall 2000
Petersen Family All Grown Up
Brad is married to Jodi and they have two boys of their own, with another baby on the way.
When Bradley was a youngster it was pretty hard to miss him because he was not quiet and shy. He had so much enthusiasm that it seemed like whenever he went somewhere, it was on the dead run, and every time he said anything, it was at the top of his lungs. If Brad was unhappy, he was usually pretty quiet, but if he was happy, you knew it because he was loud.
Since he's grown up, Brad's personality hasn't changed very much. He's enthusiastic, gregarious and loves life. He's a grill chef at Carabba's Restuarant in Orem, and the people there love him because he works hard and loves his job. If you want a good meal, go there some week night and sit at the pasta bar and watch him work. It's a double treat.
Happy Birthday, Brad, and many more.
New Feature: Labels
I've added a new feature to blog648: "labels". Or at least I've activated the function, since the labels feature has been available for quite a while, now. Over on the sidebar is a section titled "My Issues", and there I've listed all the categories that my posts fall into. Most of the categories actually are issues, but others are subjects that I feel are important, but not actually "issues". I've listed them by frequency rather than alphabetically. So if you're interested in posts about my family, click on "Family", and it will bring up all the posts in the blog with that label attached, all on one page. It's a work in progress, and I'm not done with it yet. Bear with me.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Sean Taylor Died Because He Took A Knife To A Gunfight.
Sean Taylor, the Washington Redskins football player who was gunned down in his home last year, died because he took a knife to a gunfight. The NFL contributed to the circumstances of his death by insisting on a "no guns" policy for NFL players, putting all their people at risk of being unarmed victims.
Sean Taylor, awakened in the middle of the night by the noise of someone breaking into his home, armed himself with a machete to protect himself and his family. His attacker was armed with a firearm, and shot and killed him.
What if Sean Taylor had had a gun? Chances are better than even that he'd still be alive today. But all he had was a large knife, and now he's dead. He never had a chance.
The four young thugs who were bent on robbing Taylor are primarily responsible for his death. But the league is complicit because they foster an attitude of disarmament and submission among their personnel. NFL players have a high profile, are often famous, wealthy, and thanks to the NFL, unarmed and unprotected.
This is only the beginning, folks. There will be much more of this as long as the NFL clings to this insane policy. In an article at Reasononline this league policy and the weak rationale behind it are discussed at length. Read the whole thing.
Sean Taylor, awakened in the middle of the night by the noise of someone breaking into his home, armed himself with a machete to protect himself and his family. His attacker was armed with a firearm, and shot and killed him.
What if Sean Taylor had had a gun? Chances are better than even that he'd still be alive today. But all he had was a large knife, and now he's dead. He never had a chance.
The four young thugs who were bent on robbing Taylor are primarily responsible for his death. But the league is complicit because they foster an attitude of disarmament and submission among their personnel. NFL players have a high profile, are often famous, wealthy, and thanks to the NFL, unarmed and unprotected.
This is only the beginning, folks. There will be much more of this as long as the NFL clings to this insane policy. In an article at Reasononline this league policy and the weak rationale behind it are discussed at length. Read the whole thing.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Merry Christmas
We want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas.
And a safe holiday. If you're traveling, be careful. Drive carefully.
And a safe holiday. If you're traveling, be careful. Drive carefully.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Should Proprietors of "Gun-Free Zones" Where Shootings Occur Be Shielded From Liability?
This columnist laments the fact that the vast majority of media reports of incidents like these rarely ask why these shootings most often occur in "gun free zones", but he also advocates that those who block peoples rights to self-defense, and therefore their right to life deserve to pay a financial penalty.
From an op-ed column in the Las Vegas Review by Vin Suprynowicz:
Nebraska issues permits "allowing" qualified individuals to carry concealed handguns. (The Second and 14th amendments reaffirm that carrying a weapon is a right, not a privilege -- states have no more legitimate power to require a "permit" for weapons carrying than they have to require a "permit" to attend church or publish a newspaper.)
Leaving aside this "permitting" scheme, Nebraska law allows property owners, such as the Westroads Mall, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property.
...
The question is not whether private property owners have a right to bar firearms on their property -- they do.
...
Rather, the first question here is whether our government agencies are making it fully clear to the managers of buildings otherwise open to the public -- such as Clark County's courthouses and public libraries -- that they will not be shielded from the financial repercussions should employees or customers die under circumstances where they could otherwise have defended themselves and others with their own firearms.
...
If you frequent public buildings or work for an employer who bars you from carrying your otherwise legal self-defense weapon, consider advising your loved ones in writing that -- in the event you should die under circumstances where you could have saved yourself and others with your handgun -- you want the proprietor sued personally.
Guns save lives. Since banning guns costs lives, shouldn't the individuals who ban self-defense -- not the victimized taxpayers -- pay the price?
It's an interesting column. Read the whole thing.
From an op-ed column in the Las Vegas Review by Vin Suprynowicz:
Nebraska issues permits "allowing" qualified individuals to carry concealed handguns. (The Second and 14th amendments reaffirm that carrying a weapon is a right, not a privilege -- states have no more legitimate power to require a "permit" for weapons carrying than they have to require a "permit" to attend church or publish a newspaper.)
Leaving aside this "permitting" scheme, Nebraska law allows property owners, such as the Westroads Mall, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property.
...
The question is not whether private property owners have a right to bar firearms on their property -- they do.
...
Rather, the first question here is whether our government agencies are making it fully clear to the managers of buildings otherwise open to the public -- such as Clark County's courthouses and public libraries -- that they will not be shielded from the financial repercussions should employees or customers die under circumstances where they could otherwise have defended themselves and others with their own firearms.
...
If you frequent public buildings or work for an employer who bars you from carrying your otherwise legal self-defense weapon, consider advising your loved ones in writing that -- in the event you should die under circumstances where you could have saved yourself and others with your handgun -- you want the proprietor sued personally.
Guns save lives. Since banning guns costs lives, shouldn't the individuals who ban self-defense -- not the victimized taxpayers -- pay the price?
It's an interesting column. Read the whole thing.
By the way, I've put up a poll over on the sidebar. If you have an opinion regarding proprietor liability, be sure to vote.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
We Can Barely Predict the Weather--Yet We Want to Control the Climate?
From a report published in the Canada Free Press:
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.
These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
________________________________
The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).
_________________________________
Co-author S. Fred Singer said: "The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate." Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.
So--we can barely predict the weather 5 days out, and we want to control the climate. We'll bring back the Dark Ages before that happens.
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.
These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
________________________________
The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).
_________________________________
Co-author S. Fred Singer said: "The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate." Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.
So--we can barely predict the weather 5 days out, and we want to control the climate. We'll bring back the Dark Ages before that happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
