First, before I criticize the news, I want to thank the Fire Department from Hubbard (all volunteer) and from Woodburn and Aurora. They tried very hard to contain the fire and put it out.
Every time I have been up close and personal on an event that makes news coverage I notice just how mistaken they are about details, small facts and large facts that they simply state or imply. Do you have any stories about bad reporting? Lets hear them. I am not saying they do it on purpose, they just don't get all the information. It's more like they are lazy. They talk to someone that has no clue about what went on and then head back to the news office. Take for instance this fire yesterday. The TV news people decided to interview the guy that had his camera watching the fire burn, from a long way away, rather than any of the various people that were actually there fighting the fire or had their house burn.
http://www.katu.com/news/8389532.html
Second, if the news doesn't care about accuracy then what do they care about? Probably just the sensationalism aspect of it. All they like to talk about is the explosion, which had nothing to do with the original fire - as far as I could tell from 25 feet away as I was helping the owner try to put the fire out 5+ minutes before the propane tank blew up. Furthermore, nobody was barbequeing and the reported knew that, or should have known that because we all did by then. ( because one house's BBQ's was on the other sides of the house and not burnt, and the other owner wasn't even home). It's sad that all they do is interview one guy - (who instead of helping, just video taped it from about 6 houses away. Thanks for helping buddy), and interview another guy that wasn't even home during the fire and got home from work approximately an hour after the fire. (great investigative reporting). Anyway, in case you can't see the clips, everyone is ok. Other than the terrible tragedy of losing their houses, the owners are safe. It just makes me wonder if this is the type of effort the news puts into every story they do. Makes we wonder about every story I see. Hubbard is a great place to live though, many of my fellow neighbors were right there helping me try to put it out, or helping in other wayss and the support from so many neighbors and friends makes you feel happy to live in a good neighborhood.
http://www.kptv.com/video/index.html
Monday, July 9, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Gas price gouging legislation.
Democrats fake whining about "big oil" and gas price gouging share one thing....they are ridiculous. Particularly troubling is the fact that the government makes more money on gas than the oil companies, but yet the government and democrats wants people to think that "Big Oil" is ripping all of us off. Does anyone beside me ever get upset when the government rips us off and then politicians lie about who is doing it? I think that if people would dig a little and do some investigation they might not support the Democrats.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070523/ap_on_go_co/house_rollcall_gasoline_prices_1;_ylt=AgLcFK5xj8ZkZsnXGDAogfAF1vAI
We should call it brain gouging. Because the government is gouging your brain. They take the good sense that you are born with and fill it with this kind of crap. Most people would be surprised at how far the govt's hands are in everyone's business. You think gas companies are gouging? In Oregon a gas station owner gets 9-12 cents for every gallon. The state gets 43 cents for every gallon. That is almost 300% more than the people that actually do the work. So I ask again who is gouging the public? In Washington the government gets 51 cents for every gallon. Nationally it is 46 cents. According to the logic of the idiots pushing this gas price gouging bill we should thank the gas station owners and sue the government.
Do you want cheaper gas? Then get off you but, go make about $60 and buy yourself a barrel on the commodities market. Get a book on how to refine it, pay uncle Sam some more money so he won't arrest you for illegally refining oil, then pay the environmentalists so they won't picket you, or try to burn you down (see eco-terrorists), then you can transport it from wherever the government tells you that you can refine it, to where you actually need the gas. Sounds easy doesn't it? No wonder gas is not so cheap.
If you really want cheaper gas, de-regulate, and lower your fees, licenses and market regulations. Open ANWAR and start drilling and refining again in the US. If you aren't willing to do those things... Democrats in congress.... then shut the hell up about high gas prices. Congress, you don't have the right to complain when you are the source of most of the problem.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070523/ap_on_go_co/house_rollcall_gasoline_prices_1;_ylt=AgLcFK5xj8ZkZsnXGDAogfAF1vAI
We should call it brain gouging. Because the government is gouging your brain. They take the good sense that you are born with and fill it with this kind of crap. Most people would be surprised at how far the govt's hands are in everyone's business. You think gas companies are gouging? In Oregon a gas station owner gets 9-12 cents for every gallon. The state gets 43 cents for every gallon. That is almost 300% more than the people that actually do the work. So I ask again who is gouging the public? In Washington the government gets 51 cents for every gallon. Nationally it is 46 cents. According to the logic of the idiots pushing this gas price gouging bill we should thank the gas station owners and sue the government.
Do you want cheaper gas? Then get off you but, go make about $60 and buy yourself a barrel on the commodities market. Get a book on how to refine it, pay uncle Sam some more money so he won't arrest you for illegally refining oil, then pay the environmentalists so they won't picket you, or try to burn you down (see eco-terrorists), then you can transport it from wherever the government tells you that you can refine it, to where you actually need the gas. Sounds easy doesn't it? No wonder gas is not so cheap.
If you really want cheaper gas, de-regulate, and lower your fees, licenses and market regulations. Open ANWAR and start drilling and refining again in the US. If you aren't willing to do those things... Democrats in congress.... then shut the hell up about high gas prices. Congress, you don't have the right to complain when you are the source of most of the problem.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Global Warming fury cools
Well, you know I posted an article saying this same thing about a month or more ago. (see list of Global Warming Debunkers). Now there are even more and more former scientists that were part of the consensus, but are now taking that all back...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
I have added these names to the "List of Global Warming Debunkers", as always check back frequently, I am sure there will be more updates.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
I have added these names to the "List of Global Warming Debunkers", as always check back frequently, I am sure there will be more updates.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Newt for Pres!
Yesterday morning Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, leader and author of the Contract with America, focal point of the Republican Revolution and historian told Diane Sawyer that there is a great possibility that he will run for President.
Good, we need it. I have long been touting Newt as my early favorite. At least my early political favorite. Sure he is getting started late, but he already has a huge political network, massive name recognition, and fundraising ability. Newt is the only one of the current big name candidates (Rudy, Mitt, McCain) that can argue a consistent conservative message. Plus Newt is brilliant. We need a candidate that can educate the american voter. That is what Newt is best at, he does it for a living, and as a historian, knows how to explain the past, combined with future policy to make a better America.
Thus, right now I rank the primary Republicans as follows:
1. Newt
2. F. Thompson
3. Romney
4. Hunter
5. T. Thompson
6. T. Tancredo
Good, we need it. I have long been touting Newt as my early favorite. At least my early political favorite. Sure he is getting started late, but he already has a huge political network, massive name recognition, and fundraising ability. Newt is the only one of the current big name candidates (Rudy, Mitt, McCain) that can argue a consistent conservative message. Plus Newt is brilliant. We need a candidate that can educate the american voter. That is what Newt is best at, he does it for a living, and as a historian, knows how to explain the past, combined with future policy to make a better America.
Thus, right now I rank the primary Republicans as follows:
1. Newt
2. F. Thompson
3. Romney
4. Hunter
5. T. Thompson
6. T. Tancredo
Monday, May 14, 2007
Gas Prices Hit All-Time High After Post Katrina Peak
The U.S. gas prices have hit an all-time high earlier this week at $3.10 per gallon. This tops the previous record set after hurricane Katrina hit in 2005 of $3.07 per gallon. I've read so many comments on this topic that I'm driven to write a blog on this site in response.
The comments that I have read and hear people say refer to the high gas prices as being totally controlled by our government and big U.S. oil companies. I have to believe that people have not taken the time to fully educate themselves about the current situation, but rather take the easy road and blame the government, specifically the president. Where is Congress in all of this? We now have a Democratic controlled Congress, yet no one wants to ask these same tough questions of the Democrats. That would probably because our current Congress is also blaming the president rather than trying to help solve the issue at hand.
While I don't love the $3.33 I just paid at the pump here in Oregon, I do understand part or most of what is driving these high gas prices. I think people either don't know or have completely forgotten that refineries have shut down in the past limiting supply of gas. This especially rings true on the West Coast where California, Oregon and Washington are reporting the highest gas prices in the nation. In addition, we are now approaching the summer demand for gas which goes up significantly versus other times throughout the year. Refineries are just starting to increase their production which should ease things a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean prices are going to go down.
In addition, while SUV and truck sales have been down over the past few years, people are still buying them. For whatever their reason is, I still see new trucks and SUVs on the road, so the gas prices must not be too painful yet. That might partly be because incomes are on the rise. If incomes are on the uptick, then people are likely to spend more. Just a comment....why isn't the president getting kudos for incomes rising? Probably because the liberal media doesn't want the public to know this information. Otherwise, the president's approval rating might go up a little and they don't want that as we move into an election year. They want people to have their focus on 2 things and only 2 things right now...Iraq and gas.
The comments that I have read and hear people say refer to the high gas prices as being totally controlled by our government and big U.S. oil companies. I have to believe that people have not taken the time to fully educate themselves about the current situation, but rather take the easy road and blame the government, specifically the president. Where is Congress in all of this? We now have a Democratic controlled Congress, yet no one wants to ask these same tough questions of the Democrats. That would probably because our current Congress is also blaming the president rather than trying to help solve the issue at hand.
While I don't love the $3.33 I just paid at the pump here in Oregon, I do understand part or most of what is driving these high gas prices. I think people either don't know or have completely forgotten that refineries have shut down in the past limiting supply of gas. This especially rings true on the West Coast where California, Oregon and Washington are reporting the highest gas prices in the nation. In addition, we are now approaching the summer demand for gas which goes up significantly versus other times throughout the year. Refineries are just starting to increase their production which should ease things a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean prices are going to go down.
In addition, while SUV and truck sales have been down over the past few years, people are still buying them. For whatever their reason is, I still see new trucks and SUVs on the road, so the gas prices must not be too painful yet. That might partly be because incomes are on the rise. If incomes are on the uptick, then people are likely to spend more. Just a comment....why isn't the president getting kudos for incomes rising? Probably because the liberal media doesn't want the public to know this information. Otherwise, the president's approval rating might go up a little and they don't want that as we move into an election year. They want people to have their focus on 2 things and only 2 things right now...Iraq and gas.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
God Bless Mac Sumner
May God bless Representative Mac Sumner, and his wife Sandy. Mac was a warrior and a gentle soul. I knew Mac fairly well and know that he will be taken to heaven, missed and remembered here.
He fought for Oregon, for Marion County and for Molalla for many years. God relieved him of his duty to fight Monday night and probably gave him the riches he deserves in heaven. Now, lets pray for and take care of his wonderful wife Sandy.
He fought for Oregon, for Marion County and for Molalla for many years. God relieved him of his duty to fight Monday night and probably gave him the riches he deserves in heaven. Now, lets pray for and take care of his wonderful wife Sandy.
Excommunication
Once again the Pope states the obvious. Or at least what seems obvious. But thank God for the Pope!!
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0956318820070509?feedType=RSS&rpc=22
ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE (Reuters) - Pope Benedict on Wednesday warned Catholic politicians they risked excommunication from the Church and should not receive communion if they support abortion.
It's about time that all politicians that claim to be christian start explaining their non-christian beliefs. If they believe something different than the Catholic Church, different than the Baptist Church, or whichever church that's fine, then go be a part of some other denomination that matches what you do believe in.
Just stop knowingly violating major tenents of the religion you claim to be a part of and pretending that its ok because "Jesus taught us to forgive". Sure he did, but he did not want us to sin whenever we want, or approve of others sinning whenever they want. Sure I know some of you liberals are having a spasm right now reading this, let's hear your bashing of me, but after all, you always say that you support the first amendment. Both Kulongoski and Gregoire claim to be Catholic, and believe in the Catholic Church and its teachings. So lets see them start acting according to their faith in their policy, or else disclaim the faith and pick up Budism, Methodist or some other religion that lets you pick the rules.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0956318820070509?feedType=RSS&rpc=22
ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE (Reuters) - Pope Benedict on Wednesday warned Catholic politicians they risked excommunication from the Church and should not receive communion if they support abortion.
It's about time that all politicians that claim to be christian start explaining their non-christian beliefs. If they believe something different than the Catholic Church, different than the Baptist Church, or whichever church that's fine, then go be a part of some other denomination that matches what you do believe in.
Just stop knowingly violating major tenents of the religion you claim to be a part of and pretending that its ok because "Jesus taught us to forgive". Sure he did, but he did not want us to sin whenever we want, or approve of others sinning whenever they want. Sure I know some of you liberals are having a spasm right now reading this, let's hear your bashing of me, but after all, you always say that you support the first amendment. Both Kulongoski and Gregoire claim to be Catholic, and believe in the Catholic Church and its teachings. So lets see them start acting according to their faith in their policy, or else disclaim the faith and pick up Budism, Methodist or some other religion that lets you pick the rules.
Friday, May 4, 2007
The Solution to the Abortion Debate
As science advances you will see that this will be the argument/policy that ultimately ends abortion.
A baby, fetus, node, whatever you want to call it, is alive after conception. All of science in every other field defines life and alive that way. Thus if it is alive, then what is it? Is it a plant, a dog, a an alien? No, it is a human, and can only grow to become a human, nothing else. Eventually as science and medicine can allow the human baby to survive earlier and earlier- probably up to the point of conception- then we will all agree that "life" begins at conception. However until then, congress could define life. So how does that solve the abortion debate?
First, right now of course the legal debate is mostly about whether a mother has a fundamental right to choose to kill the thing growing inside her. That is what Roe vs Wade was about and then PP v. Casey said that based on the allocation of burden on the mother, at some point during the pregnancy (when there is no undue burden on the mother) abortion can be prohibited. Ok, for the sake of this argument, lets say that that always stays the same, Casey and Roe are never overturned. So we assume there is a fundamental right at stake for the mother.
Next, and this is the cornerstone, if we legislatively define life as beginning at conception, then the courts cannot change that. The courts can only interpret the law, they do not make changes to clear law. Thus if there is a life at stake, then the due process clause is implicated. Under the 5th amendment the federal government, nor the states (via incorporation) can deprive a person of life without due process of law. Of course the due process clause only applies to government action, however this would mean that before any government deprivation of the babies life it would be entitled to a due process hearng. Thus any legislation that approves of, funds or provides for abortions would equally have to provide such a pre-deprivation hearing. Furthermore, any laws that seek to protect that life would have the additional weight of protecting the same sort of fundamental right that abortionists seek to protect. This would effectivly rebalance the test used in Roe v. Wade.
For instance, in such a hearing, we would have two competing fundamental rights at stake, the mothers fundamental right to abortion, and the babies fundamental (5th amendment due process) right to life. The process, procedure and rules for that hearing would have to be provided for by law so the government would be hard pressed to pass the strict scrutiny test in providing abortions, yet they would pass the strict scrutiny test for prohibiting them.
How? Under substantive due process and Roe v. Wade jurisprudence, the deprivation of a fundamental right by legislation must pass the strict scrutiny test. This means in essence that the legislation must serve a compelling governmental interest, be narrowly tailored, and have no less burdensome alternatives available to serve that compelling interest. Well, protecting another fundamental right of another human being would be a compelling interest. Abortion rights activists could argue the same about the abortion right. However is the law narrowly tailored? Well if the law is designed to preserve the babies life (in the absence of the mothers life being at risk) - then the law could certainly be narrowly tailored. However is a law providing for the protection of the mothers right to make her "medical decision"? Well that's arguable but we'll say it parallels the reverse argument. And last, are there any less burdensome ways to prevent the mother from paying someone to kill the baby than forbidding it to happen? I don't know of any. However, there certainly less burdonsome ways to protect the mothers interest in her medical decision etc. than to kill the baby. So the last element would kill any legislation that allowed for or provided abortions.
So laws that prohibit abortion at all ages of the baby would be valid under the US Constitution And laws that allow or fund abortions would not be valid under the US Constitution. If and when we simply acknowledge and define life like science does in other fields.
Any comments? Any loopholes you see?
A baby, fetus, node, whatever you want to call it, is alive after conception. All of science in every other field defines life and alive that way. Thus if it is alive, then what is it? Is it a plant, a dog, a an alien? No, it is a human, and can only grow to become a human, nothing else. Eventually as science and medicine can allow the human baby to survive earlier and earlier- probably up to the point of conception- then we will all agree that "life" begins at conception. However until then, congress could define life. So how does that solve the abortion debate?
First, right now of course the legal debate is mostly about whether a mother has a fundamental right to choose to kill the thing growing inside her. That is what Roe vs Wade was about and then PP v. Casey said that based on the allocation of burden on the mother, at some point during the pregnancy (when there is no undue burden on the mother) abortion can be prohibited. Ok, for the sake of this argument, lets say that that always stays the same, Casey and Roe are never overturned. So we assume there is a fundamental right at stake for the mother.
Next, and this is the cornerstone, if we legislatively define life as beginning at conception, then the courts cannot change that. The courts can only interpret the law, they do not make changes to clear law. Thus if there is a life at stake, then the due process clause is implicated. Under the 5th amendment the federal government, nor the states (via incorporation) can deprive a person of life without due process of law. Of course the due process clause only applies to government action, however this would mean that before any government deprivation of the babies life it would be entitled to a due process hearng. Thus any legislation that approves of, funds or provides for abortions would equally have to provide such a pre-deprivation hearing. Furthermore, any laws that seek to protect that life would have the additional weight of protecting the same sort of fundamental right that abortionists seek to protect. This would effectivly rebalance the test used in Roe v. Wade.
For instance, in such a hearing, we would have two competing fundamental rights at stake, the mothers fundamental right to abortion, and the babies fundamental (5th amendment due process) right to life. The process, procedure and rules for that hearing would have to be provided for by law so the government would be hard pressed to pass the strict scrutiny test in providing abortions, yet they would pass the strict scrutiny test for prohibiting them.
How? Under substantive due process and Roe v. Wade jurisprudence, the deprivation of a fundamental right by legislation must pass the strict scrutiny test. This means in essence that the legislation must serve a compelling governmental interest, be narrowly tailored, and have no less burdensome alternatives available to serve that compelling interest. Well, protecting another fundamental right of another human being would be a compelling interest. Abortion rights activists could argue the same about the abortion right. However is the law narrowly tailored? Well if the law is designed to preserve the babies life (in the absence of the mothers life being at risk) - then the law could certainly be narrowly tailored. However is a law providing for the protection of the mothers right to make her "medical decision"? Well that's arguable but we'll say it parallels the reverse argument. And last, are there any less burdensome ways to prevent the mother from paying someone to kill the baby than forbidding it to happen? I don't know of any. However, there certainly less burdonsome ways to protect the mothers interest in her medical decision etc. than to kill the baby. So the last element would kill any legislation that allowed for or provided abortions.
So laws that prohibit abortion at all ages of the baby would be valid under the US Constitution And laws that allow or fund abortions would not be valid under the US Constitution. If and when we simply acknowledge and define life like science does in other fields.
Any comments? Any loopholes you see?
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Tax time, and why we need tax cuts
Since it is April I figure some discussion on taxes might be in order. Democrats in Oregon, particularly Governor Kulongoski could learn a bit from this. If you care about the unemployed you should want them to be able to find a job. If you care about low wage earners, you should want them to be able to change jobs to a job that pays more. A person can only get a job in the first place, or change to a better job when the economy is strong and growing so there are enough jobs. Tax cuts will stimulate the economy and make more jobs available. When there are more jobs available, those without a job can get one, and those with a low paying job can switch. This forces low wage payers to increase their minumum wage voluntarily. THAT is good minimum wage policy.
How do tax cuts stimulate the economy?
Let's use a local restaurant as an example. If the Legislature passed a state income tax cut or reduces a sales tax, residents have more disposable income. More disposable income results in more money being either spent in the economy on consumption, or invested which pays for a provider of a good or service to try to make a profit, both mean more money in the economy AND more tax revenue. Using the example of a local restaurant, that would result in more customers for the business owner, which would lead to more taxes being paid to the state, and potentially more employees who would also being added to the tax rolls. This state and its municipalities have used tax credits and tax exemptions to lure business in an effort to create jobs and increase tax revenue.
If tax reductions don't work, why does the legislature pass special exemptions in an effort to encourage some businesses but not realize that everyone can benefit from reduced taxes?
Tax increases, on the other hand, have exactly the opposite effect on the economy. If a small business owner's taxes are increased, the small business owner must raise their prices to maintain a similar profit. That results in higher prices for consumers, thus each consumer has less money to spend on other things and will lead to less sales and fewer jobs. That's certainly no way to help an economy grow.
How do tax cuts stimulate the economy?
Let's use a local restaurant as an example. If the Legislature passed a state income tax cut or reduces a sales tax, residents have more disposable income. More disposable income results in more money being either spent in the economy on consumption, or invested which pays for a provider of a good or service to try to make a profit, both mean more money in the economy AND more tax revenue. Using the example of a local restaurant, that would result in more customers for the business owner, which would lead to more taxes being paid to the state, and potentially more employees who would also being added to the tax rolls. This state and its municipalities have used tax credits and tax exemptions to lure business in an effort to create jobs and increase tax revenue.
If tax reductions don't work, why does the legislature pass special exemptions in an effort to encourage some businesses but not realize that everyone can benefit from reduced taxes?
Tax increases, on the other hand, have exactly the opposite effect on the economy. If a small business owner's taxes are increased, the small business owner must raise their prices to maintain a similar profit. That results in higher prices for consumers, thus each consumer has less money to spend on other things and will lead to less sales and fewer jobs. That's certainly no way to help an economy grow.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Preaching Tolerance
The only thing that liberals tolerate is bad behavior.
Sorry most of my posts have been about homosexuality and morality lately... it's just flooding the news and articles are everywhere. I'll try to get around to more economics and law soon! But who can complain when the markets are UP UP UP!
As requested, here are a few quick recent instances of major discrimination against religion. You can also query up more.
Geneva College is a four-year private Christian college located in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania. The college wanted to post job openings with a state job placement service, funded by the federal government; they were told that a so-called governmental "non-discrimination" policy prohibited the listing of religious staffing requirements.
Locally, kindergartners at a public school in Oregon were invited to bring cards to a Christmas party, but a teacher barred one student from distributing his holiday greeting because it mentioned Jesus Christ, prompting a lawsuit filed yesterday. (2004 case)
Bel Air, Maryland: Beth Otradovec was told by officials at her high school that she and the Bible Club could not post signs or announcements or distribute fliers promoting the "Day of Truth," even though the school facilitated such activities by students participating in the "Day of Silence," which promotes homosexual behavior. (2006)
Chicago banned advertisements for the movie "The Nativity Story".
Allendale, New Jersey: For the second year in a row, North Highlands Regional High School blocked students' efforts to promote the "Day of Truth." In 2006, school officials had backed down on their censorship of the effort after ADF attorneys sent a letter to the school of behalf of Jason Aufiero, a student who sought to promote the event at the school. Despite having the information in hand on why the school could not suppress the "Day of Truth," they tried to do so again - telling Jason and the members of the school's Christian club that they could not engage in any expressive activities regarding the "Day of Truth." School officials openly supported the "Day of Silence."
Sorry most of my posts have been about homosexuality and morality lately... it's just flooding the news and articles are everywhere. I'll try to get around to more economics and law soon! But who can complain when the markets are UP UP UP!
As requested, here are a few quick recent instances of major discrimination against religion. You can also query up more.
Geneva College is a four-year private Christian college located in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania. The college wanted to post job openings with a state job placement service, funded by the federal government; they were told that a so-called governmental "non-discrimination" policy prohibited the listing of religious staffing requirements.
Locally, kindergartners at a public school in Oregon were invited to bring cards to a Christmas party, but a teacher barred one student from distributing his holiday greeting because it mentioned Jesus Christ, prompting a lawsuit filed yesterday. (2004 case)
Bel Air, Maryland: Beth Otradovec was told by officials at her high school that she and the Bible Club could not post signs or announcements or distribute fliers promoting the "Day of Truth," even though the school facilitated such activities by students participating in the "Day of Silence," which promotes homosexual behavior. (2006)
Chicago banned advertisements for the movie "The Nativity Story".
Allendale, New Jersey: For the second year in a row, North Highlands Regional High School blocked students' efforts to promote the "Day of Truth." In 2006, school officials had backed down on their censorship of the effort after ADF attorneys sent a letter to the school of behalf of Jason Aufiero, a student who sought to promote the event at the school. Despite having the information in hand on why the school could not suppress the "Day of Truth," they tried to do so again - telling Jason and the members of the school's Christian club that they could not engage in any expressive activities regarding the "Day of Truth." School officials openly supported the "Day of Silence."
Where are you taking us today master?
Democrats, Democrats, Demoncrats.
Where are you taking us today. I read the following article this morning and said, hmm it's nice to hear someone in the public with a major microphone pointing out the obvious. I wondered to myself, why does it take the Vatican to bring these points into the air? Is our drive-by media just ignoring it? Or are they encouraging it? Probably. And our conservative media is either to scared to speak out, or has lost their guts. Here is the article I am talking about... It made me think about where the Democrats and their policies are taking us.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070423/wl_nm/pope_gays_dc
Democrats have led the way to:
Abortion-
the killing of defenseless babies at a marketplace- aka "voluntary interruption of pregnancy" takes place at a "center for reproductive health". The terrorists in Iraq saw off the heads of innocent adult reporters captured, our doctors here do the same thing to babies that are captured on their way out of the womb (notice Republicans banned partial birth abortion, Democrats got all upset).
Poverty- (particularly for minorities)
we now trap people into welfare and poverty by teaching them generation after generation that the government will always be there for them, no matter how bad they screw up. Don't worry about responsibility or educating yourself... the Democrats will take other responsible peoples money and give it to you. (need examples? oh boy don't get me started here; see Democrats oppostion to privatizing social security and opposing welfare to work; and their support of unions, etc.) Affirmative action supporters (Democrats) claim it helps, but what it really says is "you aren't good enough to do it by yourself". Republicans say "yes you can do it, we believe in you".
Homosexuality-
what was once nearly universally known as improper sexual behavior is now everywhere! TV, our public education system, sex-ed classes.
Genocide-
At one time it was wrong to kill people. Now you just have to say it is mercy. And thanks to the Democrats in Oregon we even have a pretty name for it "Death with Dignity". Remember how the proponents argued that the number of Euthanizations would not rise in Oregon, well it has increased every year that it has been allowed. I think it's strange how Democrats seem to care about the genocide in Darfur, but would be ok with allowing genocide and civil war in Iraq.
WE HAVE IT ALL IN OREGON- That's right you can get it all right here! And what's more, we have the state subsidize most of it. Including:
Drunkenness-
The state government owns all the liquor stores, that's right, the person you think owns it, actually has a lease. The state is selling the boose to you and me ;-).
Gambling-
A long time ago, Oregon said "we don't want gambling that is a vice, and we should prohibit it completely". Now the state sponsors it because it is a huge source of tax revenue, but can private individuals benefit from it? Nope, only the government can profit from such a profitable business in Oregon. But don't the Democrats care about the poor? Apparently not, they don't want people to be able to make any money, and they want people to gamble and loose what they have. (ALL studies show that the poor gamble -particularly on lotteries- at a much higher rate than the wealthy the Volberg study suggests that 5% of Oregon's population has some degree of gambling problem; that the poor spend about 14% more of their income on gambling than higher income groups; and that poor have a 6% more likelihood of being a problem gambler). Governor Kulongoski stated in 1996 when he headed a gambling study group that we needed to halt the expansion of gambling until we got the results of this study. Apparently those results on the poor didn't affect Ted, because gambling in Oregon, both lottery and casino is moving full speed ahead. Maybe the tribal funds that went to his campaign fund had something to do with that. Maybe if us private citizens and businessmen gave him that much money we could run casinos too. (wait no, I forgot Democrats don't actually care about free enterprise, they like government enterprise).
Democrats seem to want us: (if they don't abort us) poor, drunken, and under their control. Shoot that sounds like a good election strategy to me too! No wonder the Vatican is the only one talking about this, they don't get elected.
Where are you taking us today. I read the following article this morning and said, hmm it's nice to hear someone in the public with a major microphone pointing out the obvious. I wondered to myself, why does it take the Vatican to bring these points into the air? Is our drive-by media just ignoring it? Or are they encouraging it? Probably. And our conservative media is either to scared to speak out, or has lost their guts. Here is the article I am talking about... It made me think about where the Democrats and their policies are taking us.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070423/wl_nm/pope_gays_dc
Democrats have led the way to:
Abortion-
the killing of defenseless babies at a marketplace- aka "voluntary interruption of pregnancy" takes place at a "center for reproductive health". The terrorists in Iraq saw off the heads of innocent adult reporters captured, our doctors here do the same thing to babies that are captured on their way out of the womb (notice Republicans banned partial birth abortion, Democrats got all upset).
Poverty- (particularly for minorities)
we now trap people into welfare and poverty by teaching them generation after generation that the government will always be there for them, no matter how bad they screw up. Don't worry about responsibility or educating yourself... the Democrats will take other responsible peoples money and give it to you. (need examples? oh boy don't get me started here; see Democrats oppostion to privatizing social security and opposing welfare to work; and their support of unions, etc.) Affirmative action supporters (Democrats) claim it helps, but what it really says is "you aren't good enough to do it by yourself". Republicans say "yes you can do it, we believe in you".
Homosexuality-
what was once nearly universally known as improper sexual behavior is now everywhere! TV, our public education system, sex-ed classes.
Genocide-
At one time it was wrong to kill people. Now you just have to say it is mercy. And thanks to the Democrats in Oregon we even have a pretty name for it "Death with Dignity". Remember how the proponents argued that the number of Euthanizations would not rise in Oregon, well it has increased every year that it has been allowed. I think it's strange how Democrats seem to care about the genocide in Darfur, but would be ok with allowing genocide and civil war in Iraq.
WE HAVE IT ALL IN OREGON- That's right you can get it all right here! And what's more, we have the state subsidize most of it. Including:
Drunkenness-
The state government owns all the liquor stores, that's right, the person you think owns it, actually has a lease. The state is selling the boose to you and me ;-).
Gambling-
A long time ago, Oregon said "we don't want gambling that is a vice, and we should prohibit it completely". Now the state sponsors it because it is a huge source of tax revenue, but can private individuals benefit from it? Nope, only the government can profit from such a profitable business in Oregon. But don't the Democrats care about the poor? Apparently not, they don't want people to be able to make any money, and they want people to gamble and loose what they have. (ALL studies show that the poor gamble -particularly on lotteries- at a much higher rate than the wealthy the Volberg study suggests that 5% of Oregon's population has some degree of gambling problem; that the poor spend about 14% more of their income on gambling than higher income groups; and that poor have a 6% more likelihood of being a problem gambler). Governor Kulongoski stated in 1996 when he headed a gambling study group that we needed to halt the expansion of gambling until we got the results of this study. Apparently those results on the poor didn't affect Ted, because gambling in Oregon, both lottery and casino is moving full speed ahead. Maybe the tribal funds that went to his campaign fund had something to do with that. Maybe if us private citizens and businessmen gave him that much money we could run casinos too. (wait no, I forgot Democrats don't actually care about free enterprise, they like government enterprise).
Democrats seem to want us: (if they don't abort us) poor, drunken, and under their control. Shoot that sounds like a good election strategy to me too! No wonder the Vatican is the only one talking about this, they don't get elected.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
List of Global Warming debunkers
Due to the changing nature of this debate about supposed climate change. I thought that we should keep track of the debunker articles that are coming out. Since everyone other type of persons are coming out, why not scientists that don't believe the world is ending... We all know there is a "consensus" that this is all taking place. Does that mean 51%? More? Check out below what the President of Czechoslovakia said about the kind of people that get appointed to the U.N. IPCC.
(Check back often, this list will be updated periodically.)
Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson
Global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet. Patterson says much of the up-to-date research indicates that "changes in the brightness of the sun" are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate.
http://www.standard-freeholder.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=502332&catname=Local%20News&classif=
Former Nasa Scientist, and University Researcher Roy Spencer
story 4/19/07 - http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1176974192195090.xml&coll=1
Czech President Vaclav Klaus: Environmentalism is a religion
WASHINGTON, March 9 (UPI) -- Environmentalism is a religion that is based more on political ambitions than science. Vaclav Klaus said that environmentalists who clamor for policy change to combat global warming "only pretend" to be promoting environmental protection, and are actually being driven by a political agenda. "Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences," much like the idea of communism or other "-isms" such as feminism, Klaus said, adding that "environmentalism is a religion" that seeks to reorganize the world order as well as social behavior and value systems worldwide. "These are politicized scientists who arrive there with one-sided opinion and assignment," he told interviewers.
http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Czech_president_derogates_UN_global_02092007.html
George Taylor- "unofficial" Oregon state climatologist - shunned.
http://www.adjunct.diodon349.com/Attack_on_USA/global_warming_skeptics_shunned.htm
(71 more shunned skeptics can be seen on the above website).
Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version )
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”
Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.” Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion” and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said.
Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.
Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. “Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded. (Evans bio link )
Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”
Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.” Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”
Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.
Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’”
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."
Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time,” Jaworowski wrote. “The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present,” he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth’s climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part: "It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases."
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.
Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‘positive water vapor feedback’,) Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language ‘prescribed CO2’). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he wrote.
(Check back often, this list will be updated periodically.)
Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson
Global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet. Patterson says much of the up-to-date research indicates that "changes in the brightness of the sun" are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate.
http://www.standard-freeholder.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=502332&catname=Local%20News&classif=
Former Nasa Scientist, and University Researcher Roy Spencer
story 4/19/07 - http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1176974192195090.xml&coll=1
Czech President Vaclav Klaus: Environmentalism is a religion
WASHINGTON, March 9 (UPI) -- Environmentalism is a religion that is based more on political ambitions than science. Vaclav Klaus said that environmentalists who clamor for policy change to combat global warming "only pretend" to be promoting environmental protection, and are actually being driven by a political agenda. "Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences," much like the idea of communism or other "-isms" such as feminism, Klaus said, adding that "environmentalism is a religion" that seeks to reorganize the world order as well as social behavior and value systems worldwide. "These are politicized scientists who arrive there with one-sided opinion and assignment," he told interviewers.
http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Czech_president_derogates_UN_global_02092007.html
George Taylor- "unofficial" Oregon state climatologist - shunned.
http://www.adjunct.diodon349.com/Attack_on_USA/global_warming_skeptics_shunned.htm
(71 more shunned skeptics can be seen on the above website).
Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version )
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”
Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.” Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion” and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said.
Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.
Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. “Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded. (Evans bio link )
Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”
Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.” Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”
Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.
Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’”
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."
Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time,” Jaworowski wrote. “The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present,” he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth’s climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part: "It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases."
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.
Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‘positive water vapor feedback’,) Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language ‘prescribed CO2’). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he wrote.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Confused about gender identity and more...
--- Got this from an Oregon legislator ----
Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts about civil unions andanti-discrimination legislation. While I respect the position of Oregon voters on Measure 36, which banned same-sex marriage, I also know that many voters who supported measure 36 believe discrimination in things like jobs and housing is wrong.
------end B.S. ----
Oh really? So does that mean the legislature is going to seek to prevent discrimination of all persons based on their behavior?
Can I not discriminate my vote, based on your voting behavior?
Can we no longer refuse to hire people that curse every other word? How would you like it if you could not refuse to hire an L.A. that swore every other word?
Can we no longer refuse to rent to smokers?
Can we no longer refuse to hire fat people for skinny people jobs?
Are we going to disallow men/women from discriminating against a verbally abusing spouse?
Are we going to disallow employers from firing sloppy workers?
Is it against the law to fire someone that is habitually late to work?
No, these are not the law, but are the legal equivalents of what the Oregon legislature did yesterday. They are all discriminations that are allowed in our society based on a persons behavior. The same as discrimination based on sexual behavior. Can you tell me how I find out if a person applying for a job is gay/lesbian? I didn't think so, I will only find out if they tell me, or I witness some behavior. That means it is a conscious action on their part -- different than race, religion, national origin, sex.
Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts about civil unions andanti-discrimination legislation. While I respect the position of Oregon voters on Measure 36, which banned same-sex marriage, I also know that many voters who supported measure 36 believe discrimination in things like jobs and housing is wrong.
------end B.S. ----
Oh really? So does that mean the legislature is going to seek to prevent discrimination of all persons based on their behavior?
Can I not discriminate my vote, based on your voting behavior?
Can we no longer refuse to hire people that curse every other word? How would you like it if you could not refuse to hire an L.A. that swore every other word?
Can we no longer refuse to rent to smokers?
Can we no longer refuse to hire fat people for skinny people jobs?
Are we going to disallow men/women from discriminating against a verbally abusing spouse?
Are we going to disallow employers from firing sloppy workers?
Is it against the law to fire someone that is habitually late to work?
No, these are not the law, but are the legal equivalents of what the Oregon legislature did yesterday. They are all discriminations that are allowed in our society based on a persons behavior. The same as discrimination based on sexual behavior. Can you tell me how I find out if a person applying for a job is gay/lesbian? I didn't think so, I will only find out if they tell me, or I witness some behavior. That means it is a conscious action on their part -- different than race, religion, national origin, sex.
Monday, April 16, 2007
You don't have to leave your morality at the capitol steps
[posted with permission from the author] Legislative information letter distributed 4/16/07 before the HB 2007 and SB 2 votes in the house.
Legislators, voters:
I hope it is not too late! Do not be deceived. Many of you know who I am talking about when I say that there is a great deceiver, well that deceiver is working today in an argument being made at our legislature. Many extreme social liberals in our society and our state are trying to remove morality from the public square. But they are using a deceptive and untrue argument. This cannot continue! Why?
Follow me on this, this is not a simple concept. It is physically impossible to completely separate the moral reasons you support a policy from the social or other reasons you support that public policy. Thus, the government cannot force you to abandon your personal morality in your decision-making. Your personal morality will always have some impact on every evaluation that is a part of your decision-making.
Furthermore it is not legal for the government to force you to abandon morality in your consideration of policy. The first amendment to the United State Constitution guarantees that your right to free exercise of your religion will not be prohibited. This includes exercising your religion by evaluating the morality of personal choices on a daily basis. (this is aside from your free speech right to say what you believe). So if you are a legislator, it is both not possible, nor legal for you to be forced to abandon your moral precepts that guide your decision-making. In fact you have sworn an oath to act in the way that you believe is best. If the best solution includes considering moral, social, economic factors then so be it. That is your obligation as a legislator.
Some liberals, including the liberals formerly on the US Supreme Court have tried to argue that morality reasons are not a rational basis for making a law. (Arguably the holding in Lawrence vs. Texas from 2003) The fallacy of the logic in that part of the holding was pointed out in the 3 dissenters opinion. For over 200 years now the U.S. has based many, if not most, of our laws in part on the moral reprehensibility of some acts. (Murder, stealing, public nudity, gambling, etc.) The U.S. Supreme Court's logic in Lawrence has been rejected by major Federal Courts reviewing morality based law since, and at least 58 major cases have declined to use that weak logic. (read the opinions and focus on this one argument if you don't believe me). The fact of the matter is that moral considerations comprise at least a part of almost every decision that a legislator or person makes.
Thus it is both impossible, and illegal for our government to try to force YOU as a legislator to remove your morality from your vote. This is being sent to you as one of the a legislators in Oregon so that you will know that you do not have this ‘excuse’ for not following whatever morality you say you have in the upcoming votes on SB 2 and HB 2007. And the voters like myself, will watch, and see if the morality you claimed to follow during your campaign corresponds to the way you vote on this issue.
Legislators, voters:
I hope it is not too late! Do not be deceived. Many of you know who I am talking about when I say that there is a great deceiver, well that deceiver is working today in an argument being made at our legislature. Many extreme social liberals in our society and our state are trying to remove morality from the public square. But they are using a deceptive and untrue argument. This cannot continue! Why?
Follow me on this, this is not a simple concept. It is physically impossible to completely separate the moral reasons you support a policy from the social or other reasons you support that public policy. Thus, the government cannot force you to abandon your personal morality in your decision-making. Your personal morality will always have some impact on every evaluation that is a part of your decision-making.
Furthermore it is not legal for the government to force you to abandon morality in your consideration of policy. The first amendment to the United State Constitution guarantees that your right to free exercise of your religion will not be prohibited. This includes exercising your religion by evaluating the morality of personal choices on a daily basis. (this is aside from your free speech right to say what you believe). So if you are a legislator, it is both not possible, nor legal for you to be forced to abandon your moral precepts that guide your decision-making. In fact you have sworn an oath to act in the way that you believe is best. If the best solution includes considering moral, social, economic factors then so be it. That is your obligation as a legislator.
Some liberals, including the liberals formerly on the US Supreme Court have tried to argue that morality reasons are not a rational basis for making a law. (Arguably the holding in Lawrence vs. Texas from 2003) The fallacy of the logic in that part of the holding was pointed out in the 3 dissenters opinion. For over 200 years now the U.S. has based many, if not most, of our laws in part on the moral reprehensibility of some acts. (Murder, stealing, public nudity, gambling, etc.) The U.S. Supreme Court's logic in Lawrence has been rejected by major Federal Courts reviewing morality based law since, and at least 58 major cases have declined to use that weak logic. (read the opinions and focus on this one argument if you don't believe me). The fact of the matter is that moral considerations comprise at least a part of almost every decision that a legislator or person makes.
Thus it is both impossible, and illegal for our government to try to force YOU as a legislator to remove your morality from your vote. This is being sent to you as one of the a legislators in Oregon so that you will know that you do not have this ‘excuse’ for not following whatever morality you say you have in the upcoming votes on SB 2 and HB 2007. And the voters like myself, will watch, and see if the morality you claimed to follow during your campaign corresponds to the way you vote on this issue.
Are we there yet?
This seems accurate to me, no matter who first wrote it.
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. (John Adams thought that democracy will work only for moral men, and that morality comes from religion). A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
From Bondage to spiritual faith
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage
So where are we right now? Here are some recent statistics from 2007.
53% of Americans now recieve 'significant' income from the government. 1 in 5 Americans hold a government job or a job reliant on federal spending. A similar number receive Social Security or a government pension. About 19 million others get food stamps, 2 million get subsidized housing, and 5 million get education grants. For all these categories, Mr. Shilling counted dependents as well as the direct recipients of government income.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0416/p01s04-usec.html?page=1
"All this reflects an ambivalent America. The nation prides itself on the benefits of economic freedom. "The era of big government is over," President Clinton declared as he prepared to put new limits on welfare spending in 1996.
Yet as a rich nation, America also sees the opportunity to offset financial risks faced by its citizens.
"New Deal programs persist," despite the Reagan revolution and its aftermath, says James Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas in Austin. "They persist because they are largely successful and highly popular."
They are popular, but so is limited taxation among the people who spawned the Boston Tea Party.
"You do have the yearning for cradle-to-grave paternalism, but as Americans you also have the carry-over of the frontier spirit" of individual opportunity, says Shilling. That's the trade-off that will define the scope of government, he says."
* The above was edited and compiled by OregonActivist *
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. (John Adams thought that democracy will work only for moral men, and that morality comes from religion). A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
From Bondage to spiritual faith
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage
So where are we right now? Here are some recent statistics from 2007.
53% of Americans now recieve 'significant' income from the government. 1 in 5 Americans hold a government job or a job reliant on federal spending. A similar number receive Social Security or a government pension. About 19 million others get food stamps, 2 million get subsidized housing, and 5 million get education grants. For all these categories, Mr. Shilling counted dependents as well as the direct recipients of government income.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0416/p01s04-usec.html?page=1
"All this reflects an ambivalent America. The nation prides itself on the benefits of economic freedom. "The era of big government is over," President Clinton declared as he prepared to put new limits on welfare spending in 1996.
Yet as a rich nation, America also sees the opportunity to offset financial risks faced by its citizens.
"New Deal programs persist," despite the Reagan revolution and its aftermath, says James Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas in Austin. "They persist because they are largely successful and highly popular."
They are popular, but so is limited taxation among the people who spawned the Boston Tea Party.
"You do have the yearning for cradle-to-grave paternalism, but as Americans you also have the carry-over of the frontier spirit" of individual opportunity, says Shilling. That's the trade-off that will define the scope of government, he says."
* The above was edited and compiled by OregonActivist *
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Response to the wicked
Response to: http://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2007/04/surprise_restore_america_advoc.php
Scott, it is funny that you bash someone (Restore America) who fights for morals and decency in our society. While you are residing on a website that as I write promotes: the love lab; X-entertainment; savage love; permanant links for "Drunk" and "homo"; a bar called Devil's point; and a band called sick puppies. And you wonder why we think that people like you and this website are deteriorating the moral fabric of our society. Read the Federalist Papers, our founders specifically stated that democracy cannot exist without morality. Morality comes from religion.
Scott, it is funny that you bash someone (Restore America) who fights for morals and decency in our society. While you are residing on a website that as I write promotes: the love lab; X-entertainment; savage love; permanant links for "Drunk" and "homo"; a bar called Devil's point; and a band called sick puppies. And you wonder why we think that people like you and this website are deteriorating the moral fabric of our society. Read the Federalist Papers, our founders specifically stated that democracy cannot exist without morality. Morality comes from religion.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
High Society
When will America wake up? We are living in a world that compensates the freaks and geeks of yesteryear with millions upon millions of dollars in publicity, endorsement and fame money. Many of these people would have been the sideshow in a carnival 40 years ago. Why do so many people look up to these hollywood stars that have such aweful lives? I mean people practically worshiped Brittany until she cracked up. People still practically worship Paris and she has no real skill to speak of except posing for photographs. How come I didn't need to use their last names and you knew who I was talking about? Many of these people are drugged out, cheating on their spouse of the year, and addicted to some legal drug (riddlin or prosac) so they can cope with their lives. This is all crazy!!! I don't know how to stop it do you? Boycotts do not seem to be working. (at least not yet, I know some underground and alternative media outlets are starting to make a dent, but only a dent). What will work? Alternative forms? New outlets? A complete moral breakdown? Is there such a thing as a moral breakdown? I think so, but the American public doesn't seem to care. I care, do you? What can we do...
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Shocked
Shocking item of the day #1: General Pace announces that homosexuality is immoral. The press is all over this as if it is news. Didn't we all know this already? Sure there are those in our society that are trying to loosen our moral standards and slip every deviant behavior into everyday acceptance but come on... The great majority of Americans know that homosexual behavior is deviant sex and prohibited by any moral code or religion exept pure hedonism. But should we be surpised that someone in the public states what most of us believe? No, we shouldn't be surprised. This is just another example of the liberal, big city (where everything goes) media warping what is not news, into something General Pace has to back track on. Tim Hardaway was last month, who will be the victim of stating what he believes next month and getting the wrath of the free speech loving liberals?
Shocking item of the day #2: George Bush's administration fires 8 US Attorneys and gets hell, when Bill Clinton fired 93 US Attorneys when he came to office and nobody batted an eye. Yet Chuck Shumer is jumping up and down as if this is something new. Did Chuck keep all the staff of the person that sat in his office before he was elected? No, I doubt it. But OregonActivist is once again shocked to find out that there is hipocracy coming from the left.
Shocking item of the day #2: George Bush's administration fires 8 US Attorneys and gets hell, when Bill Clinton fired 93 US Attorneys when he came to office and nobody batted an eye. Yet Chuck Shumer is jumping up and down as if this is something new. Did Chuck keep all the staff of the person that sat in his office before he was elected? No, I doubt it. But OregonActivist is once again shocked to find out that there is hipocracy coming from the left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)