WE Blog

SCIENCE BY INTIMIDATION

Truth may enter the world by many doors, but she is never escorted by force. I thought that was a lesson learned long ago, and learned by none more tellingly than scientists. Real scientists, actually, have learned it. A new amalgam has emerged however, the scientist-activist, and for that specimen it’s a lesson passed by.

In the dawn of the Enlightenment, it was scientists who were hauled before tribunals and inquisitions. Galileo is the arch example, the pioneer empiricist who rejected the ancient Earth-centric model of the (then known) universe, and for his pains earned the attention and wrath of the distinctly unscientific Inquisition.

I am drawn to these thoughts, and to the long-decayed example of the Inquisition, by a most curious outburst this week by James Hansen, the principal voice of NASA on the subject of global warming, a man who played – as it were – John the Baptist to Al Gore’s messianic teachings on the subject. Dr. Hansen is largely credited with “sounding the alarm” on man-made global warming, and he has been a persistent, high-profile and very aggressive proponent of the cause for over two decades now. Dr. Hansen doesn’t take kindly to those who dispute his apocalyptic scenarios. I choose the term, apocalyptic, deliberately. According to Dr. Hansen, mankind may have reached the tipping point with global warming. Should that be the case, wide-scale calamity and catastrophe are inevitable. And should we not have reached the point of absolute crisis, should there be a minuscule interval for the human species to act and avert the very worst, according to Dr. Hansen, what yet remains to be faced is still horrible enough indeed.

Not all the world shares Dr. Hansen’s vision of imminent ecological Armageddon. Serious minds, seriously disinterested in the subject, throw up caveats all the time. They question the models of climatological speculation; they question the peculiar mix of man-made and other likely sources of climate dynamics; they question some of the data gathering and some of its interpretation; and they question the very maturity of the highly complex, and experimentally deficient science of global warming itself.

They seriously question, too, the massive policy prescriptions that are being insisted upon as necessary in response to the scientific determinations of man-made global warming. There is lots of room for different, honest opinion on questions so large and complex, questions at the terribly complicated intersection of science, politics and economics.

But, to Dr. Hansen’s agitated mind, those who raise such questions, who inject skepticism into the global warming debate, are “deniers.” The word here is becoming commonplace, but it remains a singular slur. A clutch of the global warming believers like to cast all who would argue with them into the polemical pit, the pit being that dissent from orthodox opinion on global warming as the equivalent of Holocaust denial. It is a shameless and vicious tactic, and hardly accords with the nobility that is suppose to drive the conscience of those out to save the planet. Dr. Hansen is overfond of the specious and chilling analogy: He has written of the “crashing glaciers serv(ing) as a Krystal Nacht” and, although he later repented of the metaphor, compared coal trains to “death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.” This week, Dr. Hansen went a step even more noxiously forward.

He called for a tribunal, or as I prefer to call it, an Inquisition, to put on trial for crimes against nature and humanity, the CEOs of the big oil companies who, according to Dr. Hansen’s frantic view of things, feed the public “misinformation” about the climate crisis. Again the implicit model is to Nuremberg, as the man attempts to put concern for a future – let us call it a probability – on a moral and factual par with the unquestioned, historical, shattering enormity of the Nazi Holocaust.

Is this a scientist speaking? If so, it is more than curious that in the 21st century it is the scientist calling for the secular equivalent of an Inquisition. More to the point, are these the words of a man really certain of his truth, or one who – with the anxiety of the fanatic – is trying to shield it from all rigour of skepticism and inquiry? In either case, I do not question at all the assertion that it is the voice of a man who is neither a friend to reason or science. This is the voice of the scientist-activist consumed with his own virtue and fearful of all dispute.

Science has no need of tribunals or trials, no need of Nuremberg justice, or analogies with the Holocaust. James Hansen’s words this week were an offence, an offence against inquiry, against science, against moral seriousness. They were a piece of insolence against the idea of debate itself.

REX MURPHY

Poor ignorant, confused, and pathetic Hank Price, and multi-nic’d ‘Regular’.

Both Hank and ‘Regular’ are 100% unable to defend their opinions attacking AGW science.

ALL that poor old ignorant, confused, and pathetic Hank Price, and multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ can do is copy/paste from incredibly stupid anti-AGW web sites, and make false ad hominem attacks.

Cool, I hope the former specialist Jeremy Hall wins his law suit.

When I was in, I met Satanists, Wiccans, Sikhs(even wore their turbans in uniform), Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and your run of the mill atheists.

What Hall probably did is mocked other people about their faiths, but he won’t admit it. Most people in the military could give a rat’s behind what faith you are.

Hank Price,

I should explain why I’m not wasting my time debunking the TV meteorologists, engineers, et al in your “Declaration” on yesterday’s ‘Open’.

1) Hank Price seem 100% unable to understand the HUGE difference between scientific methodology — and “opinions”, “petitions” and “declarations”.

2) Hank Price’s AGW deniers will be debunked in the future.

3) Hank Price’s opinions are HIS responsibility. . . AND like you say Hank, “you’re in the book”.

“”Our hands are always on the trigger,” an Iranian general said of its war game response to threats of a U.S. or Israeli strike.”

Let’s go, you people. Start singing Kumbaya a little louder.

Scratch you and you’d pop GMC.

I don’t have to try very hard to discredit and marginalize the deniers of science.

They do quite the good job on their own.

I am ever happy to help them.

BlueJay, I am going to burn a tire in my backyard today, and tell my son how AGW alarmism is distroying this country.

HLP
Posted July 9, 2008 at 6:22 am | Permalink
SCIENCE BY INTIMIDATION

……………..typical anti-science rhetoric.

How old is the Earth old man price?

McCain and his davisors are calling for pre-emptive war in Iran as a means of triggering Armageddon and the Second Coming.

FROM BILLIONAIRE OIL MAN T BOONE PICKENS:
http://www.boonepickens.com/
” I’ve been an oil man all my life, but this is one emergency we can’t drill our way out of.”

Mercy sakes!! I see Godwin’s Law now must include Stalin, and Mao along with Hitler!!

LOL Ya justc ant make this stuff up folks!!

Ben:

If we do a pre-emptive strike on Iran (just in time for the Elections) I shall have to seriously consider a move to Canada, Australia, or New Zealand… If I dont consider that, I am afraid I might be arrested here for protesting!! :roll:

Today a little fun for you lovers of the ACLU.

From the ACLU blog- “Why will the ACLU defend NAMBLA but not teh Second Amendment?
Becasue the ACLU shares tastes with NAMBLA.
Why does this surprise anyone?” (comment #821)

The ACLU blog is getting hammered over this statement-

“The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller.”

Never mind that not ONE of the nine Supreme Court justices argued for a collective right.

For lots of fun reading go here- (856 comments so far)
http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/

Then what does the phrase “well-regulated militia” mean? Did the authors of the constitution put in in for a joke?

Iraq Presses Withdrawal Timetable Demand

The Iraqi government continues to insist on a timetable for the departure of US troops from Iraq. On Tuesday, Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie said his government would not sign any agreement keeping US troops in Iraq without a timetable for their withdrawal.

Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie: “We can’t have a memorandum of understanding with foreign forces unless it has dates and clear horizons determining the departure of foreign forces. We’re unambiguously talking about their departure. We are waiting impatiently for the day when the last foreign soldier leaves Iraq.”

Al-Rubaie’s comments were the strongest to date by an Iraqi official in calling for a timetable for withdrawal. On Monday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki apparently surprised the White House when he also called for a timetable. The White House has dismissed the remarks as attempts to appease Iraqi and regional audiences. On Tuesday, White House spokesperson Tony Fratto said the ongoing talks do not address specific dates for a US departure from Iraq. Fratto added, “We have great confidence that the political leadership in Iraq would not take an action that would destabilize the country.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/9/headlines

McCain Jokes About “Killing” Iranians

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, Senator John McCain is again drawing criticism for comments about Iran. On Tuesday, McCain was asked about a recent survey showing US exports to Iran have increased under the Bush administration, mostly from cigarettes. McCain responded, “Maybe that’s a way of killing them.” McCain quickly said he meant that as a joke. Last year, McCain drew controversy for singing the tune of the song “Barbara Ann” with the words changed to “Bomb Iran.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/9/headlines

Nuff said?

Iran Test-Fires Missiles Capable of Hitting Israeli, U.S. Bases
Wednesday, July 09, 2008

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378324,00.html

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran test-fired nine long- and medium-range missiles Wednesday during war games that officials said aimed to show the country can retaliate against any U.S. or Israeli attack, state television reported.

WHAT WILL OBAMA DO? WHAT WILL HE DO?
Nobody Knows.

FLASH!!!

Neal Boortz said this morning on his “talk”(rant) show, that NO citizen has a Constitutional Right to vote for President of the United States. More stonewalling??

Talk to Iran, Obama, TALK to them. Reason with them. (But DO nothing.)

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/09/obama-says-iranian-missile-tests-prove-need-for-diplomacy/

Barack Obama pointed to a new missile test Wednesday by Iran as a reason to open diplomatic relations with the country, while John McCain said the test indicates a need for a strong missile defense system based in Europe. Both candidates pointed to sanctions as a way to put pressure on the country’s government.

California Glaciers Keep Growing

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378144,00.html

Max.

In that effect, Obama sounds as silly as dubya did after North Korea tested a nuke.

Maybe Obama learned it from Dubya.

Funny, I don’t remember you posting anything about Dubya and North Korea. You must have been sick that day.

I don’t support Dubya on many things LLVET.

But then, Bush isn’t running for President again.

What will Obama do?

Rely on his massive experience? Nope.
Rely on his Naval Academy training? Nope.
Rely on his military experience? Nope.

Based on Obama’s constantly changing views, NOBODY KNOWS what Obama will do.

McCain told reporters in South Park, Pa., that the reported tests prove Iran is a threat to the surrounding region.

“Channels of communication have been open and will remain open, but the time has now come for effective sanctions on Iran,” he said. “Diplomacy plays a key role … but history shows us when nations embark on paths that can jeopardize the security of the region and the world then other action besides diplomacy has to be contemplated and taken, and that’s why meaningful and impactful sanctions are called for at this time.”

In a statement, McCain said: “Iran’s most recent missile tests demonstrate again the dangers it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel. Ballistic missile testing coupled with Iran’s continued refusal to cease its nuclear activities should unite the international community in efforts to counter Iran’s dangerous ambitions.”

McCain also raised the issue of a U.S. missile defense system that is under development in Europe, and which on Tuesday was the subject of a military threat by Russia. Russia said it would have to take military action if an agreement over the system were ratified between the Czech Republic and the United States.

“Iran’s missile tests also demonstrate the need for effective missile defense now and in the future, and this includes missile defense in Europe as is planned with the Czech Republic and Poland,” McCain said.

McCain also took aim at Obama, whom he criticizes for his plans to open direct diplomacy with Iran. “Working with our European and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy,” McCain said.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/09/obama-says-iranian-missile-tests-prove-need-for-diplomacy/

the reported tests prove Iran is a threat to the surrounding region.

What does that make Israel?

the time has now come for effective sanctions on Iran

Why not Israel too? How many billions have we given them this year alone?

DavidB
Posted July 9, 2008 at 12:26 pm | Permalink
Diplomatic contact, negotiations, conflict resolution is “doing nothing”?
LOL!

North Korea was engaged, progress was made.

***Progress? Like the progress Clinton made thru direct negotiations and a big payoff? It still ain’t over Bud.

We engaged the Soviet Union on nuclear weapons resulting in huge reductions of arms. This was “nothing”?

***Can you say “Intermediate Range Missile and Cruise Missile Deployment in Europe”? Can you say “SDI”?

Both were the final straws that brought down the USSR. 50 years of talk did nothing.

Nixon went to China.

***And look what that got us. American jobs are now being performed in China. China has the fastest growing military today and is close to becomming the 2nd Largest Military power on Earth.

Obama has always repeated his willingness to use arms to defend America, don’t lie between the lines… but he also knows that diplomacy is a powerful tool in a nation’s arsenal.

***Obama has “said” a lot of different things taking many sides on many issues. He has nothing in his “Bag of Experience” to give me a confident feeling in Obama’s ability to be Commander in Chief.

LLTVET
Posted July 9, 2008 at 12:34 pm | Permalink
I believe it was a six party talks Sol. The US was involved.

Once again. How was Korea less of a threat than Iran is now?
——————————————————————-

Korea is STILL a threat. The fat lady hasn’t sang yet there.

Oh, and if you didn’t see my post yesterday, Iran sits on the 6-mile wide Sea Lanes where 40% of the World’s oil flows.

$3 Billion in Oil is shipped to the World – EVERYDAY, thru these Straits.

If you don’t see the Strategic Interest in the MidEast, you are totally ignorant as to the impact on the Global Economy if 40% of World Supply is shut down, even if just for a short time period.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_strait_of_hormuz

Max. So you think that Obama is going to just rely on magic words? He won’t take steps? He won’t involve countries like Iraq/Syria/Egypt? Somewhat like the six party talks regarding North Korea.

Why don’t you show me how John McCain says anything other than Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran?

It would be nice if I could find his ideas on something similar to a six party talks. Does he have any plans for regional multi-lateral diplomacy with any of our allies in the region? So far, I haven’t seen much on it.

By Michael D. Shear
Sen. John McCain called Monday for broad sanctions against Iran and a South African-style worldwide divestment strategy aimed at pressuring the country’s regime to abandon efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and encourage its people’s democratic aspirations.

In a speech to the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC in Washington, McCain declared Iran the “foremost” enemy in the Middle East and said it could pose an “existential threat” to Israel if it succeeds in acquiring a nuclear bomb.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/02/mccain_calls_iran_foremost_mid.html?hpid=topnews
———–
Vet just for the record McCain has proposed tough sanctions to control Iran.

How much will the US be sued for over the radioactive fallout a nuclear strike on Iran would cause and to neighboring countries?

How much would a barrel of oil cost after a nuclear attack on Iran?

Who would sell us oil after a nuclear strike.

Bombing Iran may give you some sort of sick hard on, but you have to look at reality at some point.

Old (but true) joke:

Q: How does the ACLU count to ten?

A: One, Three, Four, Five . . . .

Would someone explain that joke to me? Thank you.

Chas,

Boortz is a libertarian.

Chas:

Neal Bortz is out in left field at times. I will give you that. But with regard to voting, I have to stipulate that we are not a democratic republic. We are a Republic with democratic traditions.

Voting is a sacred tradition. We can agree to that. But regarding a Constitutional Right. His terminology is correct. It is a privalege that can be lost. I have to agree that prisoners should only have very limited rights to vote.

Given that, it is not a right. It’s a privlilege. And it can be lost.

Correct Sol.

But our country may never stop looking at Israel as the golden boy.

VET — I think what Boortz was doing, in only the way his convoluted mind can, is using some “scary” buzz words to bellyache about the Electoral College…. And yes, I know, we technically vote for Electors who vote for the POTUS…. :-)

Steven, the “joke” as you put it(LOL) is that the ACLU(according to the jokester) counts to 10 by leaving out “2″(for 2nd Amendment, of course) — Just more fear mongering….

Chas,

When we argue that the Constitution is not a “iving document” we mean that the intent of it doesn’t change over time.

I don’t believe anyone would argue that going about the Constitutionally prescribed way of amending the Consitution is wrong.

Yet every example you use of it being a living document is to cite an amendment.

What myself and others argue against is trying to say that we can “interpret” things like the Bill of rights different from the intent because the Constitution is a “living document”

LLTVET,

The criminals who are bent on shooting people don’t seem to mind bringing guns to schools.

Why should a law abiding citizen think doing so is wrong?

What is so magical about school grounds which makes people like you think that taking a gun there is so wrong compared to any other place?

Film Fan, with all due respect, you need to educate yourself about transgendered folks and their issues.

“I’m all for gay rights and gay dignity and gay personhood and all that – but”

Transgendered folks are not necessarily gay. They are transgendered, which means their gender identity does not match the bodies they were born into. It does NOT mean same sex orientation.

Some transgendered folks are gay. Some are not. Some gay folks are transgendered. Most are not.

Transgendered does NOT equal gay.

Gay does NOT equal transgendered.

Please, before you pop off like that, make sure you know what you are talking about.

I don’t really agree Chas. It says that no person shall be denied to vote because of Gender. That’s the 19th amendment. Susan B. Anthony etc. But it doesn’t say shall never be denied period. One CAN still lose the right to vote if they are put in prison, deported etc.

Chas,

What part of “interpret” did you not understand?

You are trying to argue against a strawman here.

VET says: “One CAN still lose the right to vote if they are put in prison, deported etc.”

I agree… But that same prisoner also loses his/her 4th Amendment right to the security of his/her property, etc. by being convicted of a crime (at least during incarceration) For a citizen to be “deported” I am not at all sure what that would take to have that happen — but it would surely take away citizenship as well… which would mean no voting right, because no longer a citizen… right??

Sigh. I suppose I’ll have to go a little farther here…

Transsexual is a term sometimes used instead of transgender. In my community, transgendered is used as noted in the post above, and transsexual is used to describe folks who have completed transition from one gender to another, either by surgery or hormone treatment. Transvestites are crossdressers, and they may or may not be transgendered or transsexual.

Gender and same sex equality activists generally describe our community as LGBT, standing for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered. I’m going to assume you know the definitions of the first three, and I’ve helped with the definition of the last.

We group together because our political situations and interests are frequently the same, in that we are all treated less than equally under the law because of sexual orientation, sexual identity, or sexual practice.

However, our sexuality and the expressions of such are not even remotely the same.

But given that there can be strength in numbers, and that sexual prejudices and ignorance often cross lines of orientation, identity, and practice, we find it helpful to be “in cahoots” with each other when it comes to politics, social justice, and mutual support for those experiencing such discrimination.

Another helpful link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender

My roommate is transgendered and transsexual. She is NOT gay or lesbian.

I am lesbian, not gay or transgendered.

And bisexual… well, that’s a whole different genre, pardon the pun.

And you know the joke about the best benefit of being bi?

It doubles your chances of having a date on Saturday night….

HEHEHEH.

Thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all week. Tip the veal and try the waitstaff!

That was just another example I was using Chas. Yes, you are right being deported means losing citizenship. Fine.

Nathaniel: So if you have the RIGHT to own a firearm and I have the RIGHT to own a HUSTLER magazine, should either be allowed in the school? For some reason, I think both are inappropriate without a very good cause.

LLTVET,

The criminals who are bent on shooting people don’t seem to mind bringing guns to schools.

Why should a law abiding citizen think doing so is inappropriate?

What is so magical about school grounds which makes people like you think that taking a gun there is so inappropriate compared to any other place?

Nathaniel
Posted July 9, 2008 at 1:30 pm | Permalink
Chas,

What part of “interpret” did you not understand?

You are trying to argue against a strawman here.
=========================================

Nathan, as you should know, EACH Amendment to the Constitution is a new “interpretation” of some Article, that somewhere along the line, our People have said needs to be Changed…. THAT is why there is a carefully stated procedure to be followed to CHANGE the document, as necessary….

You want to use the term INTENT…. and deny the term INTERPRET from your discourse… I dont think that can be done…

heh, and did I mention Calpernia is FUNNY as hell too?

HEE HEE HEE HEEEE…

This video takes a little while to get to the point, but it is worth the time to watch it. It’s Calperia’s list of BAD questions to ask a transwoman.

She’s special, I tell ya whut….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOjeZnjKlp0

Because there is not a reason to have it at school Nathaniel. If a gun becomes necessary to attend a school, the school needs to be shut down.

Obviously criminals bring guns because criminals are not appropriate.

That’s why the Police carry guns at the school. They have a purpose for them.

Do you have a purpose for having the gun at school Nathaniel? if you do, then I will call it appropriate.

“Nathaniel” gets all doe-eyed and asks –

“How is a gun like a Hustler magazine?”

The way you respond to a gun is about the same as the way most 13-year-old boys respond to Hustler magazine.

When you have time, listen to Calpernia’s list of bad questions. It’s ROFLMAO funny.

I knew of a TRANsylvanian.

I think he was metrosexual as he was always dressed in formal attire and wore a cape.

#
Monkeyhawk
Posted July 9, 2008 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

“Nathaniel” gets all doe-eyed and asks –

“How is a gun like a Hustler magazine?”

The way you respond to a gun is about the same as the way most 13-year-old boys respond to Hustler magazine.
———————————-
This is your rifle.
This is your gun.
This one’s for fighting.
This one’s for fun.

– Drill Sergeant “Shorty” Arms

LLTVET,

What is it about Hustler magazine which makes it “inappropriate” to have in school?

Now, how does that compare to calling a gun inappropriate.

Yes you can have both, but how does that make them comparably “inappropriate” in a school?

What is it about Hustler magazine which makes it “inappropriate” to have in school?

You can’t argue (successfully) with a wall. Call it a day LLT.

Wow, that’s some profound wisdom you have there, Nathaniel. So glad that you feel you need to carry a gun into a school to “protect” yourself against CHILDREN!

Hmmm, let’s see, a reason why a gun would be inappropriate in a school – I don’t know, how about Columbine?

LLTVET’s point in comparison about Hustler and a gun is a valid one. Both are items that are inappropriate to have around children in a “secured” environment – like a school. You just don’t want to hear you are wrong about something.

But you know what? Just because your opinion differs from someone else’s DOESN’T automatically mean they are wrong and you are right. Except in that beautiful little alternate universe you seem to be inhabiting these days.

Our resident constitutional scholar “Nathaniel” opines –

“When people are arguing about the Constitution being a living document or not being a living document they are arguing about judges being able to endlessly interpret and update it by simply doing just that.”

It’s probably just a verbal tick for you, “Nathaniel,” but I’ve come aware of how many times you try to explain your viewpoints with the words, “…by simply….”

Tells me you’re pretty simple.

Did the authors of the Constitution know anything about movies and records and songs and television? Nope. They knew about “the Press,” and over the years it’s had to be determined whether it was the mere ownership of a printing press (their understanding) or some sort of protection of journalism.

Did Madison and Monroe and Hamilton and Washington Franklin know squat about wiretaps? No. (Although Franklin probably was trying to invent ‘em.) But the Fourth Amendment is generally accepted as protecting those rights. (Until Shrub/Cheney, of course. But that’s another thread.)

You “originalists” approach the issue as if there hasn’t been 210 years of SOCTUS decisions that have evolved the Constitution through this nation’s entire history.

I read a paper a while back, by an African-American scholar titled something like “In Defense of Plessey v. Ferguson.” In some respects, the guys who created “separate but equal” thought they had made landmark progress! They’d put to death the 3/5ths-of-a-human doctrine and introduced “equal” into the equation!

Now, of course, Plessey v. Ferguson is generally recognized as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in history.

But it spent its time as constitutional.

And, if you call yourself an American, the SCOTUS has dibs as to what the Constitution means today.

It’s not about some district judge ruling against your prejudices, “Nathaniel.”

Sorry the explanation isn’t “simple” enough for you, “Nathaniel.” Try reading it again (even if your lips get tired). Ask a grown-up to help you sound out the big words. (Or an 8th-Grader.)

You are arguing about amendments. I have no problems with the Constituionally prescribed way of making changes.

‘living’ – I think there is a place for that. For example – there is reference to being secure in one’s ‘papers’ – just what does that mean in today’s world of computers etc? Are electrons the same as papers?

Nathaniel,

What I posted about your father was accurate.

Nathaniel’s father refused to answer the questions I asked him here.

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/07/open-thread-78/#comment-380292

Can you answer those questions, Nathaniel?

Can Nathaniel give a scientific explanation supporting Beck’s claim that global CO2 was about 470 ppm in the 1940’s?

Nathaniel
Posted July 9, 2008 at 1:55 pm | Permalink
LLTVET,

The reason for my having a gun has no bearing on location.

I carry a gun for protection of myself, my family, and others from those that would do harm to them.

The location being a school has no bearing on that.

***Nathan, those were your words – explain to me how what I said was different?***

Here, I will give you a reason: 5 year olds do not need to be exposed to guns. There is no bearing on THEIR ability to defend themselves, because at the age of five, most children are not strong enough to lift a gun to a proper firing position, much less be able to hold on to the damn thing while shooting it. So why do you need to have your gun there?

Secondly – you honest to God think that your little handgun would have been able to defend that school against TWO students carrying MULTIPLE firearms, some of which were automatic weapons, WITHOUT resulting in MORE loss of life? Boy you are living in a happy little world, aren’t you? And I am glad you have all the faith in your ability to shoot a gun, however, studies have shown, time and time again, that an average citizens aiming and shooting ability is GREATLY compromised in highly volatile situations – in fact, most LAW ENFORCEMENT members shooting ability is compromised in those types of situations. Now other than the fact that you don’t seem to be able to SLEEP without your gun nearby, what makes you think you will react any better? I sure as hell don’t want you around my child’s school with a gun – it doesn’t give me any greater sense of peace, if anything, it would make me more nervous…

I think Nathan has made a very good point. If someone carries a Hustler magazine into a school it might be inappropriate but would physically hurt anyone.

If someone carries a gun into a Columbine, Virginia Tech, Illinois Univ for example and one of the good people in those school with a legal right to carry had a gun and the expertise to use it how many lifes would have been saved?

Steven,

It is some type of misdemeanor to carry concealed where a sign is posted. I forget which class.

Yes, you would be breaking the law if the proper sign for no concealed carry was posted and you still carried there.

I observe all proper signs.

I have no idea where you go routinely, but I hardly ever see those signs anymore.

I have gotten several places to take them down after informing them of what they actually do.

The entire group of concealed carry permit holders have gotten many more places to take down their signs as well.

Several locations that refused to take them down after I ahve talked to them still ended up doing so later.

Most likely, in a year or two, the legislature will make it to where you can carry where the signs are without breaking the law in doing so, just like in Missouri.

There have been several anti-gun groups who had went around telling lies to business owners about having to have the sign up.

There have also been several occasions where land lords have tried to force those leasing from them to put the signs up as well.

I am sure there are still some business owners out there who still do not know the truth about the signs and have been lied to in putting them up.

Chas writes:

“Hopefully, some day, the Will of the People will tell you to stop changing the Law to read the way YOU want, and read it the way it was Intended… Beyond that, write a new amendment… That is the way it will change!!

Amendments are the way we change the original Intent… Judicial rulings are how we attempt to come to grips with what those changes mean.”
——————–
“GMC, you and your kind want to lump together terms like “living constitution” and “activist judges” in the same package… I’m sorry…

I know how to read the same as
——————–
GMC when you and yours start leaving Chas and he and his alone then we can expect people with Chas’ logic to be in control.

Please don’t stop. He is the best argument I have found for the right wing to take charge and keep it.

And folks wonder why I called OKOB #%$&^

Jiminy. I had to go to a training class. Did I invoke Nathaniel’s Ire? Sorry folks.

Maybe I should just pat Nathaniel on the head, validate his actions as “appropriate” and sign off before I go away to a training meeting at work.

Was that inappropriate of me?

Nathan, if you accepted Jesus into your heart then you wouldn’t live a life of fear because you would know God and Jesus are there protecting you. But you place more faith in a handgun and violent reprisal than the love of Jesus. Put down your gun and put a patch on your clothes that says, “Jesus is my sidearm” because your guns won’t save you from the eternal hellfires which you are destined to spend if you keep up your anti-Christian ways.

Chas,

I simply wonder why a minister would call anyone a Bitch.

There is no need to do so and it doesn’t look very good for a minister to say such vulgar things here.

You never did apologize and by your words here today you only confirm that you never were sorry either.

You still continue to do nothing but try to justify such vulgarity.

How unbecomming of a man who professes to be a minister.

Nathaniel,

Can you answer these questions?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/07/open-thread-78/#comment-380292

Can Nathaniel give a scientific explanation supporting Beck’s claim that global CO2 was about 470 ppm in the 1940’s?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future

You know when the left is losing an argument when they start to denigrate the person and stop logically addressing the question at hand.

Steven would a thief stop if he saw that no firearms allowed sign?

Vet I haven’t seen Nathan do anything but logically present his side of the argument. Why the need to try to talk down and demean him when you can’t answer his argument with logic.

MaxGrobnik posted June 7, 2008 at 12:30 pm
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/06/open-thread-67/#comment-364812

“THE BTICH QUITS!”

Nathaniel (the “Christian”) posted June 7, 2008 at 12:33 pm

“I guess I can’t wear my T-Shirt now…

LIFE IS A %$#%$, WHY VOTE FOR ONE?“

If I go into Dillons without shirt and shoes they can simply ask me to leave and if I refuse it is trespassing.

Dropping a #10 can of pork and beans on your bare toes is painful. :D

I did OKOB. If there is no reason to do something, doing something that could cause duress to children is inappropriate.

He thinks there is a reason. I don’t. His reason is his own fear of someone hurting him or his family. I consider that paranoia and not a good enough reason to potentially cause any duress among children.

What he considers a threat, I consider an acceptable risk of living in the world today, and one that doesn’t require carrying a gun to certain places.

cosmos, are you a scientist?

Regular. So am I now required to change my mind about what is appropriate now? So Nathaniel doesn’t feel like his rights are threatened.

How about this. I can have the opinon that it is inappropriate. He can disagree. What a country.

Keep on rockin in the free world.

Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted July 8, 2008 at 10:06 pm
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/07/uranium-not-evidence-of-active-wmds-program/#comment-380423

“My certificate for completion of the study was signed by Carter Alexander, PhD, my Division Chief. You can look him up on the Web.”
————–

Is that the same “Carter Alexander”, who used multi-nic’d ‘Regular’s TypePad link,

http://republikan.typepad.com/environmental_thoughts/2007/04/welcome_to_envi.html

when he made this really dumb comment at RC?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/musings-about-models/#comment-50311

I am still looking for my post that wants good guys to be disarmed. If I left you with that impression. I sure am sorry. I

just gave my opinion on places that I consider inappropriate guns. Now, if I get shot at a school, you can tell my corps, “see I told you so..nanny nanny” and even chortle if you wish. I am not going to worry about it too much.

So are you looking for tolerance or validation. The question still stands?

Yep, you are right Nathan, I must be a crazy liberal because I don’t want YOU or ANYONE else carrying a gun around my child or my child’s school.
What a stupid blanket statement about someone you know absolutely nothing about, other than they disagree with you on the appropriateness of bringing a gun to a school.

Why would you need a gun at a school to protect yourself? That is the basic crux of the argument. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO STATED YOU CARRY A GUN TO PROTECT YOURSELF, AND THAT IT BEING A SCHOOL HAD NO BEARING ON THE ARGUMENT. The way I read that, in fact, the way you stated it, inferred that you feel you need protection at a school. NO, I DON’T think a school is an appropriate place for a gun. That is my right as a private citizen.

You call liberals crazy for not wanting to protection. Your overzealousness about concealed carry belies your position. The very fact that you forced businesses to remove their signs when they CHOSE to post them, shows that you have no regard for anyone’s rights. If they had chosen not to post the signs then that is a different thing entirely. The problem is, that you don’t stop to consider all the facts either. And quite frankly, no, I don’t think you would have done any good in the Columbine situation. I mean, seriously, think about it – hundreds of people are running down hallways, stairwells, etc, in front of you, to escape gunmen, and you are going to stand there and shoot? And how many innocent bystanders are you going to snag in the process, as they run in front of you for their lives? And you honestly believe you would be able to get within 10 feet of a madman (or child) holding a semi-automatic weapon with a gun drawn, and he isn’t going to shoot you first? Your arguments are not realistic based on the examples you gave, mainly because school shootings are not controlled environments where there is no movement other than gunmen, and no possibility of obstruction of your shot. Regardless of whether you are well trained or not, you cannot control the reaction of others in those situations, which creates MORE of a hazard. Now MAYBE, just MAYBE, I will grant you in an environment like say a convienence store, where it is possibly you and maybe one or two other people, you could be effective. But in a school environment, where there are hundreds of children who are guaranteed not to act rationally in a situation out of fear, you are hardly likely to be as effective as you have built yourself up to be in your mind.

I have ALSO spoken to stores.

About their lack of signs prohibiting guns.

And I just had a great idea.

I’m gonna dig up some of the posts from the conceal carry people here to use as evidence next time I make my appeal!

#
LLTVET
Posted July 9, 2008 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

Regular. So am I now required to change my mind about what is appropriate now? So Nathaniel doesn’t feel like his rights are threatened.

How about this. I can have the opinon that it is inappropriate. He can disagree. What a country.

Keep on rockin in the free world.
————————————–
If a law states there are no restrictions from carrying a firearm on a school campus and the carrier is licensed by the state to do so and in a concealed manner, then it’s the law.

If a school has policies restricting obscene materials being on school property and there are supporting state laws along with precedent, then said material cannot be brought on to a school campus.

As far as I know there is no requirement that one has to announce they are licensed to conceal and carry, unless asked by a law enforcement officer or a person representing the state who has the capacity to ask the person to surrender or stow their firearm.

No children or students, if they are university age are even going to know about the concealed weapon because it is not necessary knowledge for them to know.

The Hustler magazine on the other hand, is an easily distributable content, which has according to statues, corrupting influences on minds not yet to mature enough to handle the material.

The difference here is distribution and use.

The conceal and carry is not distributed and is use for personal protection and is only meant for users of the proper age who can be licensed.

The Hustler magazine is potentially distributable and can pass hand to hand of students. The Hustler magazine cannot be licensed and therefore has no controls once it is slipped into a system. If the intended audience is minors, then there is a violation of several statutes.

They got the camels nose under the tent with the conceal carry thing.

I’m just waiting for the gun nuts to start demanding classes on guns in the schools.

#
lindainks55
Posted July 9, 2008 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

Does anyone know — is there a way that Obama will NOT be the candidate of the Democratic Party? I’m probably not asking this correctly, I’m miffed (really really miffed!!) but what I’m wanting to know — is it a done deal? And, if not, what has to happen to keep him from being the nominee?
—————————
Yeah, the delegates can change their minds at the convention and vote for someone else to be the Democratic nominee as President.

Although, probably unethical, I don’t think it is illegal for delegates to vote differently from what the voter bloc of their representative area stated.

Linda. Superdelegate can change their mind. Legal and even ethical. Just not very wise politically.

“what has to happen to keep him from being the nominee?”

A VERY serious revelation or scandal or REALLY serious buyers’ remorse.

It isn’t carved in stone linda. And it COULD be un-done. But it would take some really serious thinking on.

Chas –

I’ll simply take your 2:28 as further evidence (as if there needed to be any) that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, no matter how much sheepskin adorns your walls. I don’t think a coherant thought could come out of your head; at least, I’ve seen little evidence of same.

There are legitimate differences of opinion as to what is appropriate Constitutional interpretation, though I think it is difficult to defend the so-called “living” constitution, and the vast majority of the bench has long since abandoned such an approach. The problem with applying the “living” constitution – i.e. interpretation with no constraints – is the old be careful what you wish for problem. Such an philosophy makes a constitution nothing more than the whims of those on the bench, be they liberal or conservative.

Neither am I entirely an origionalist, whether the real thing, or the willfully mischaracterized caricature MH trots out at 2:18. But if the constitution is to mean anything at all, it must mean what it says; that is, what the language said to an informed contemporary of the time of the writing/adopting of the text. Certainly, that language can be applied to the modern world – i.e. the press becomes computers as well as printing presses, etc. But the language is what it is; the Founders adopted what they adopted.

The usual complaint is that with some sort of textual/original understanding approach, the constitution becomes a straightjacket. And in a sense, yes. But that’s not a bad thing. That is what constitutions are supposed to be: restraints on government. Eliminate any barriers to interpretation, and you’ve eliminated the constraints. And the one thing gov’t must always have is restraints placed upon it.

The 2nd amendment is a good example. The Founders, given their experience, made a policy choice to protect the inherent right of individuals to arm themselves for service in a militia should the need arise, for personal defense, and for protection against tyrrany. The prefatory clause speaks, in part, to the reason for the policy choice. 200+ years later, some may think that is a bad policy choice; perhaps so(interestingly, it was not remotely controvertial at the time). But it was the policy choice made, and it is cast in legal stone, absent a formal amendment to change it. If you think you have the votes to do so, go for it (we both know such an amendment has no chance).

Now I’ve written far more than I intended- sorry. Resume your pointless bickering . . .

“Well this sets me to wondering…
Just WHY is Nathan so on about carrying his gun in a school?
What would he even be DOING in a school?”

Maybe he wants to see what learning looks like? Oh perhaps he is getting some refresher courses done so he can get a GED that doesn’t involve sending in boxtops.

Obama would have been insane to vote against the bill.

McCain, I presume, was campaigning, and given the vote knew that his vote wasn’t necessary to assure passage.

Altho the AGW deniers on this blog are unable to defend their invalid opinions, they are great at ironic humour.

Hank Price opens the thread with a Canadian columnist attacking Dr. Hansen, for his saying that CEOs of the big oil companies should be held responsible for spreading misinformation.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html
“UPDATE:
The Union of Concerned Scientists report, Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to “Manufacture Uncertainty” on Climate Change, details how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry’s disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.

According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science. See the report for a list of these organizations. ”
—————-

Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ immediately follows with climate change misinformation from a lawyer, Chris Horner, who is a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:_Competitive_Enterprise_Institute_(CEI)
“Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2,005,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.”

“The problem with applying the “living” constitution – i.e. interpretation with no constraints – is the old be careful what you wish for problem. Such an philosophy makes a constitution nothing more than the whims of those on the bench, be they liberal or conservative.”

FIRST, that isnt what I said at all… And you complain about what I say??

“Amendments are the way we change the original Intent… Judicial rulings are how we attempt to come to grips with what those changes mean…”

SECOND, This IS what I said… Amendments are the way to CHANGE the document… And since it has been changed numerous times since the original ratification, how you can continue to spew out that we dont have a “LIVING CONSTITUTION” is beyond me…

Sort of puts you way out there in Right Field somewhere… watch out for those Elephant droppings!!

Dang, I still see Chas too!

“But I’m a bit surprised about this comment.”

I have no problem with FISA – wiretap calls WITH A WARRANT that effect National Security. I do have a problem with retroactive immunity, but without immunity written into the law, Bush would have vetoed the bill and we would have been back to square one, and the Democrats do not have the votes to override.

A no vote by Obama would have been futile – either the bill was going to pass or Bush would have vetoed a bill without immunity, and, as I said, any lawsuit was probably doomed to failure, since the administration could withhold evidence in the name of National Security.

“Is it too much to ask him to – occasionally – exhibit some political courage?”

If Obama wanted to pander to the far left, he could have voted “no.” He did the right thing.

Max, you raise a totally irrelevant, and bastard question…

But wait, you still believe the Bible is in the Constitution…. sorry… please continue in your ignorance…

BTW, no books have been added to the Bible since the Canon was closed…

“Obama sure is doi”ng some pandering to the far right, aint he WS?

How is voting for the FISA bill “pandering to the far right?”

We are going to have wiretaps under warrant – we have had for several decades – the only issue with the bill was the immunity provision.

Bush could just claim “National Security” and any of the forty lawsuits would have to be dropped.

Obama votes with the Democrats… NOW, when the FISA law is attempted to be used, there is plenty of room for a Law Suit, to challenge the “Constitutionality” of the telecom part of FISA… And I would bet money that such a Law Suit is being made ready…. just in case….

Time for a change >>>>

Below, you’ll find a very important email from MoveOn, regarding election coverage on Fox News. I encourage every one of you to sign their petition and forward this to your friends.

Thanks,
Congressman Robert Wexler

From MoveOn:

Right now, FOX is trying to paint Barack Obama as foreign, un-American, suspicious, and scary. They’re trying to send Americans the message that our country’s first viable black candidate for President is not “one of us.”

We’ve seen this before from FOX. They won’t stop until it becomes too painful to continue—until the public calls them out and advertisers start getting worried.

Now is the time to draw a line in the sand by putting FOX on notice that their behavior won’t be tolerated. Over 100,000 Americans have already expressed their outrage. Can you make that number even bigger by adding your name to this message?

“FOX must stop injecting racism, prejudice, and fear into our political dialogue. We intend to hold FOX, its advertisers, and its personalities accountable for FOX’s attempts to smear the Obamas.”

Clicking here will sign the petition:

http://pol.moveon.org/stopthesmears/?rc=wexler

FOX’s longtime pattern of smearing Obama and the black community is well documented.1 But the outrageous moments have increased in the last month.

First, a paid FOX commentator accidentally confused “Obama” with “Osama” and then joked on the air about killing Obama.2 Next, a FOX anchor said a playful fist bump by Barack and Michelle Obama could be a “terrorist fist jab.”3 And then, FOX called Michelle Obama “Obama’s baby mama”—slang for an unmarried mother of a man’s child, and a clear attempt to associate the Obamas with negative stereotypes about black people.4

If you know others who’d find FOX’s recent actions despicable, please ask them to sign the petition too. The more people who sign, the bigger our impact will be.

Our friends at ColorOfChange.org—an online advocacy group focused on the issues of importance to the black community—are leading this charge. They will deliver thousands of petition signatures as a group to FOX’s headquarters (in front of other media cameras, so FOX feels more heat). Here’s how they describe the situation:

After each of the incidents mentioned [above], FOX issued some form of weak apology. But what does it mean when you slap someone in the face, apologize the next day, then slap them again? It means the apology is meaningless.

Now is the time to call out FOX for these attacks and their fake apologies. The first stop is FOX. Next will be their advertisers and the FCC. If we don’t push back now, we will see more of the same from now until November. Please join us to demand that FOX answer for its behavior:

Add your name to this important cause by clicking here—then tell your friends:

http://pol.moveon.org/stopthesmears/?rc=wexler

Thanks for all you do

Hang in there Linda… I dont think it’s as bad as it feels right now…

“The ACLU has had a case prepared for awhile.”

Thanks M P —- I didnt know for sure if they did, or not…

“Am I hearing you right, wsc??”

The previous and current FISA bills provided for “emergency wiretaps” with a warrant to be issued later, seven days max if memory serves. Any wiretap would require a warrant, either before the fact or within the timeframe of the emergency provision.

The FISA court that issues the warrants is secret and they rarely deny a request for a warrant, which makes the Bush “warrantless” wiretap particularly stupid.

Anyway, the new FISA bill removes ANY option for “warrantless wiretaps,” except for the short duration of the emergency provision.

Just saw Tom Delay (why isn’t he in jail yet?) on Hardball advocate that Israel invade Iran and even better if we did —–

A presidential candidate old man McCain continues to joke this time about kiling Iranians with cigarettes — as if every Iranian (not even most) supports their president ……. too immature for a president or is it advancing senility …..

What happened to the charges in Tx against Tom Delay ? what a sleazy character and Tanker Todd is a good buddy — dumb and dumber …..

Chas
Posted July 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm | Permalink
Max, you raise a totally irrelevant, and bastard question…
——————————————————————-

Chas learned another B word.

GMC, it’s all your fault.

Surely you learned this afternoon that your opinion isn’t just your opinion! It’s not just something you formed as the result of study and honest introspection. If it isn’t in agreement with another opinion then it’s probably wrong! Somebody has to be wrong! ;-)

I’m gonna have a beer and think about F.I.S.A. tomorrow.

Tomorrow, I’ll think about it tomorrow…

A huge new $6.3 million Planned Parenthood abortion mill, built by Weitz Contruction, has opened in Denver with heavy security, to target Colorado’s black community for population reduction.
- – -

Moses Cade, 35, of Cleveland, OH was arrested Thursday, accused of beating his pregnant 16-year-old daughter with a metal broomstick. Police found the girl hiding in the attic with bruises on her upper chest and bloody wounds on her forearms. She told police her father punched her in the face and stomach. Mr. Cade indicated that he intended to coerce the minor into an abortion mill.
- – -

The UK news story goes that frozen human embryos are producing better babies through IVF. The reason is “positive selection,” meaning that freezing and thawing kills the weaker babies.
See news page
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2267497/Frozen-embryos-better-than-fresh%2C-study-shows.html
- – -

A 5-pound full-term newborn boy was found in a plastic grocery bag in Uptown Chicago, IL outside an apartment building early Tuesday morning. Doctors will monitor the boy for permanent health damage, although he is improving in intensive care, since his body temperature had decreased to 86. Besides hypothermia, the baby suffered from a cut lip and swelling on the back of his head.
A fire station with abulance and emergency medical personnel was only 2 blocks away from where the boy was abandoned.
Every state has a form of safe haven law. In Illinois, unharmed newborns up to 10 days old can be legally abandoned at any fire station, police station, or hospital.
- – -

Ten years ago today, former high school sweethearts Amy Grossberg and Brian Peterson were sentenced in Wilmington, DE to prison for killing their newborn son at a motel, by bashing the boy’s head in and tossing the tiny body in a garbage bin. Grossberg received merely 2 1/2 years; Peterson, who’d cooperated with prosecutors, received two years. (Grossberg ended up serving nearly two years; Peterson, 1 1/2 years.)

There’s probably some cosmic reason why “the greatest nation in the world” survives even though our people elect Presidents based on how Dukakis looks in a tank or whether George HW Bush recited the flag salute.

I can’t for the life of me figure out how a candidate’s choice of lapel jewelry makes a difference, other than it’s a surrogate for some deeper, darker seminal prejudice that bigots don’t have the guts to stand up and be honest about.

He’s a black guy.
He’s got a funny name.
He doesn’t always have a flag lapel pin.
He attended a church where the preacher sometimes said (out-of-context) crazy-sounding stuff. (This will stun you, but I’ve actually been in a church where the preacher actually claimed a guy died and rose from the dead! Nothin’ outlandish about that, now is there?)

Funny, didn’t see any outrage and call for boycots from the LEFT after Dan Rather broadcast countless news stories about PHONY Bush documents.

Can you say “Phony Indignation”?

“LLTVET” notes –

“CSPAN and PBS are the best ways to get the facts.”

I dunno.

After 8 years of George WMD Bush at the bully pulpit, PBS tends to be overly eager to “provide balance,” when the Republic Party line is absolute bulls#it. “But in the interest of fairness.”

C-SPAN gives pure and unedited and clear information to anyone who pays attention.

“I can’t for the life of me figure out how a candidate’s choice of lapel jewelry makes a difference,”

Well it doesn’t make any difference to me.

But it DOES make a difference to some. I know somebody like that. A friend of mine who is very troubled that Obama doesn’t wear a flag pin all the time or stand for the National Anthem or other such things as has been alleged or revealed. It is not my place to judge her concerns as invalid or without merit. I know only that they are honest and deeply felt.

Max or GSSheridan as some contend,

Thank you for your ad hominem attacks. You don’t seem to have the ability to argue your point, so you may as well start with the name calling.

In fact, your chances of being a victim of homicide by firearm are considerably lower than your chances of being a suicide victim via firearm.

STUDY INDICATES THAT MOST GUN DEATHS ARE SUICIDES

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jul/01/na-study-most-gun-deaths-are-suicides/

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens’ ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation’s nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There was nothing unique about that year: Gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the past 25 years.

In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.

Studies also have shown that homes where a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court on Thursday struck down a handgun ban enacted in the District of Columbia in 1976 and rejected requirements that firearms have trigger locks or be kept disassembled.

++++++++

Max I guess I am glad you believe your fear mongering stories. I am sure that it makes your life [sic] better.

“I’m gonna have a beer and think about F.I.S.A. tomorrow.”

Well, Linda, now that you have mentioned it, I’ll have a beer for you, too.

“Well, Linda, now that you have mentioned it, I’ll have a beer for you, too.”

Belgium Brewing Co. came out with a season cherry beer. Not too bad.

Chas
Posted July 9, 2008 at 5:07 pm | Permalink
MaxGrobnik
Posted July 9, 2008 at 4:57 pm | Permalink
Funny, didn’t see any outrage and call for boycots from the LEFT after Dan Rather broadcast countless news stories about PHONY Bush documents.

Can you say “Phony Indignation”?
=======================================

Maybe not Max, but Rather still got fired…

BTW, the information in those documents was accurate… the paper they were printed on was phony… Maybe you didnt watch that news broadcast…. Then again, maybe you did, and dont want to admit what you saw….
———————
Chas bless his heart. Even when he is wrong he is right just like Rather. The documents were phony, the information on them was inaccurate, nothing that made them valid was ever presented. Until you can show that evidence Chas you are just whistling in the wind as usual.

“When Michelle referred to Barack as her baby daddy in an introduction of him that she did where is the foul?”

Link please……………………………

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnMrJwUCZDk

Only for you WS.

In 2005 (the most recent year data are available), the rate of homicide deaths via firearms was 4.12 per 100,000. An extremely low rate. Contrast the foregoing with the rate of death in Kansas in 2003 by all cancers was 465.4 per 100,000. So, if MaxG and Nathan were really interested in protecting people, they would donate money to the American Cancer Society or some other Cancer research agency.

Of course they won’t be donating any money that might really help protect people from real threats. Their carrying weapons has nothing to do with protecting people and they know it.

Clearly our blogger friends are so impressed by the Republican nominee-apparent that they can’t stop talking about him. This is why they do not waste time beating down Senator Obama and engaging in all that ugly negativity…

And please, Obama supporters, show some respect for our elders. McCain is only 72.

WS what you say could be right, I don’t know. It seems a little much that your would refer to children as old as her as babies.

OK, you were looking to change my mind on something because you couldn’t just accept that my opinion was different. Call it looking for validation. Call it a tantrum. It’s basically the same in my book. It’s immature.

Next time I express an opinion to a third party. You don’t have to agree with it. Just don’t act like a kid looking for validation. It makes you look immature.

And I promise I won’t call it a tantrum.

BJ you continue to ’say’ this because you nor anyone else can prove it to be true. Many who served with him said he served as he was supposed to. His commander said he did. Where is the beef. They were manufactured documents. You can believe what you want but you don’t get to make your own facts.

I really don’t care. He isn’t running for office and this was all aired before the last election.

I am in the middle of fixing a really good chicken stir fry, or I would go look it up myself…. Just to PROVE to OKOB that I know what I am talking about… and that SHE doesnt…. :-D

Talks cheap Chas. I am patient. You made the statement with moveon.org beside you so you can prove them to be accurate.

Just what the hell does Moveon.org have to do with the Rather story?? Hmmm????

Regarding the FISA “update,” I actually read the goddamn bill. How many of you can claim as much?

I’m going to withhold further comment. I’m a little too angry right now.

P.S. Kudos to Senator Clinton for (finally) doing the right thing.

For what it’s worth dept:
James Barfield reports that sources in Sunrise say Salerno reportedly told a friend that one of the factors in his changing his mind was “the public criticism reflected in the media,” i.e., letters to the editor, opinion line and weblog.

“Many who served with him said he served as he was supposed to.

Yer talking about the war hero, John Kerry? Sure sounds like it.

Thats a different one, David B… This supposed conversation has to do with the Dan Rather piece on Bush’s military service, and those forged documents…. And how the lady who typed the originals said in an interview that what she typed originally was the same as what was on the forged documents… but she said they werent the same documents… just the information on them was RIGHT….

OKOB, as usual, is disagreeing — mostly because I am calling the story to mind…

I need to read that bill Rage.

What I posted to linda, I say to you as well.

Hang onto your anger. KEEP your eyes open. KEEP raising your voice.

People rushed this thing to be over since Super Tuesday. Well I said all along that was a mistake. IF there has been an even bigger mistake, it aint past fixing.

and your guy wants to work with them WS. Come on now, didn’t I tell you it they need to be undone?

“Come on now, didn’t I tell you it they need to be undone?”

What portion of the bill should be undone?

Specifically.

Points and laughs at the FISA Bill vote.

C H – C H – C H A N G E

(chortles)

Obama: Hey BlueJay, pull my finger, it’s a gas!!!

Hey, McCluer, I STILL haven’t gotten an e-mail with a date and time for the “meeting” with the publisher of the Eagle regarding how “abusive” I have been towards you.

Got a date and time yet?

Still waiting on that e-mail………………….

“No, about your insistence of trying to control other posters by constantly threatening them with putting private data on the line or trying to control the conversation by threatening posters by making an issue of their private data.”

What private data of your have I threatened to put on the blog? I have merely asked you about “discrepancies” in your comments from JM to (whatever you call your self these days.)

“You are abusive and in my opinion should have been booted from the board a long time ago.”

So your comments that I sexually abused my granddaughter and had sexual relations with my daughter were “okay?”

Hypocrite.

Liar.

Loser.

Sigh….

What business is it of yours Clark?

Private and personal data have no business on this board, especially if it is meant to be used as an abuse towards others. And you know, you will use it against others when you are unable to discuss an issue.

You’ve done this time and again on a daily basis.

We’re done Clark. You are not worth discussing anything with.

“Private and personal data have no business on this board, especially if it is meant to be used as an abuse towards others.”

I was just asking you to CLARIFY your previous statements, McCluer.

Why so SENSITIVE?

#
Regular
Posted July 9, 2008 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

We’re done Clark. You are not worth discussing anything with.

“cosmos, are you a scientist?”

Are you (today) McCluer?

What will you be tomorrow, an astronaut? A bee keeper? A male nurse? A hitman for the Mafia? A professional singer? A brain surgeon?

What’s the next compromise you and Barry will ask us to excuse WS?

Senator Clinton AND Senator McCain both voted against this bill.

Just a bit ago, I heard right wing loon Mark Levin bragging that this bill will allow bush to listen in to the phone calls of American liberals.

Now you and yours so in the tank for Obama have already sold out me and folks like kfg.

Who is next as Obama panders to the right?

“Senator Clinton AND Senator McCain both voted against this bill.”

McCain wasn’t there to vote – get yer facts straight.

“Just a bit ago, I heard right wing loon Mark Levin bragging that this bill will allow bush to listen in to the phone calls of American liberals.”

Nonsense – the bill requires a court approved warrant for wiretapping.

“Now you and yours so in the tank for Obama have already sold out me and folks like kfg.”

Phuck yourself, Rimel, you know that isn’t true.

Read the bill then get back to me and tell me how the bill allows Bush to listen in on liberals.

Christ, what an idiot you are, Rimel.

You and your candydate are showing an amazing capacity to pander WS.

The cons have treated us as enemies to be destroyed these last many years.

Yet YOU have posted here that “they are Americans too, and must be considered”.

And now your candidate is acting the same.

Do you WONDER that the base is eroding from under him?

Just for S & G, Rimel, explain to us what the differences are between past FISA bills and the current bill, other than immunity for telecoms.

Since you know EVERYTHING, Rimel, this should be easy for you, right?

How is this FISA bill different from previous authorizations?

You are doing your job here WS.

Just don’t get lost in it.

Steven,

There must be at least a dozen differnt aspects to how carrying concealed can protect people besides such a simple comparison of homicide deaths from guns vs other things.

What about all the other violent and non-violent crimes which carrying concealed can help protect people against?

What about all the circumstances where concealed carry prevented something from becoming a homicide or gun death?

Besides, such simple comparisons don’t prove much of anything, at least not the conclusions you are trying to assert.

Lets replace gun deaths with fire deaths.

There are probably around 3,000 deaths from home fires in this country every year.

How much money do we spend on smoke alarms? How much money is spent on fire prevention?

Why don’t we spend that money on cancer?

I could make the same simplistic comparison to numerous things.

It doesn’t add much of anything to the discussion.

I guess I shouldn’t criticize AGW deniers like Hank Price and multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ too much.

As I pointed out at 4:04 pm upthread, they are good for laughs.

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/07/open-thread-79/#comment-380886
“Altho the AGW deniers on this blog are unable to defend their invalid opinions, they are great at ironic humour.”

More at link.

Nathaniel,

If your AGW denial arguments(sic) were your “gun”, it would be unloaded, without a trigger and firing mechanism, and have a steel rod welded inside the barrel.

ANTI
Posted July 9, 2008 at 11:34 pm | Permalink
SED=KOOK!

Being called a kook by this assh*le really upsets me. NOT!

Go f*ck yourself, whoever you are – I suspect you are Nathan.

Night all…

Oh yeah, here you go Steven:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/fire.htm

“…which claimed the lives of 2,580 people…”

Nathaniel posted July 9, 2008 at 12:19 pm

“Both Hank and ‘Regular’ are 100% unable to defend their opinions attacking AGW science.”

AD HOMINEM
—————

Nathaniel,

What I posted about your father was accurate.

Nathaniel’s father refused to answer the questions I asked him here,

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/07/open-thread-78/#comment-380292

Nathaniel, can you answer those questions?

Nope!

All that Nathaniel can do is falsely attack me.

Nathan has indicated it before here —-

Not only does he think he is above the law — he thinks he is the law —–

If you’re so adamant about carrying a gun and enforcing your own warped sense of justice — join the police force — or volunteer to be in the County Sherriffs reserve volunteer program — you get to carry a so everyone can see it —

really dont want you back in Iraq — you’d be a hazard to our troops

Sure, Nathan, I would be happy to stop posting after 10 p.m. if you agree to stop posting at any time of the day. Your posts, regardless of the hour, are always incredibly STEWPID!

Nathaniel posted July 10, 2008 at 2:24 am

“Cosmos,

How have I falsely attacked you this time?”
—————–

With your post yesterday at 12:19 PM

“AD HOMINEM”

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/07/open-thread-79/#comment-381149

Steven,

Linda has constantly said she doesn’t like the name calling and personal attacks.

Perhaps you would be a better friend to her by not doing those things?