Monday, August 23, 2010

Junk Science II: Gore-ball Warning

Has anybody noticed that the Politically Correct crowd have stopped wailing about "global warming" and have re-labeled it "climate change"?

Gee, could that be because, for the past four years (since the sun started into a low-sunspot activity cycle) the world's temperatures have been getting cooler? Down here in Arizona, for instance, this has been the coolest and wettest summer in 11 years. We've had only 5 days of 110-degree-or-better temperatures, and more than 7 days of heavy rain. (Yes, I know this is eye-popping to all you out-of-staters, but that really is cool and wet for Arizona.) Various scientists (underplayed in the mainstream media) have finally been able to make themselves heard on the subject of solar weather-cycles and their effect on Earth's temperatures, and "global warming" is slowly but steadily being recognized as a hoax.

Not that this matters to Al Gore (whose home uses more electricity than the average suburban city block, and who flies around in a private jet that uses more fossil-fuel than any dozen citizens' cars). He and his followers are still pushing that idea that evil-evil American industry is creating an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere which causes Global War-- ooops, "Climate Change". And what do they recommend as a solution? First, "Cap and Trade" -- which is just foreign aid under another name and a fiercer obligation. Second (perhaps their ultimate goal), that the US give up all its evil-evil industry and become the world's farm. These ideas (and the concept of Global Warming itself) was first pushed by Japan, of the Kyoto Accords, back when Japan was trying to become the new industrial leader of the world's economy -- which would necessarily mean making their rivals cut back. Later it was pushed by China, which is likewise trying to become the new industrial leader of Asia, at least. Both these cultures have a long history of practicing economic warfare, and there's no reason to think they've given up the practice.

They also knew which cultural buttons to push in order to sell this idea to the US, not to mention Europe; everybody knows how concerned we White Foreign Devils are about ecology. I'm surprised they didn't push the "racism" button too.

The problem is that so many otherwise-sensible scientists (not to mention the mainstream media) fell for it -- hook, line and sinker. Or did they fall? It's one thing to say that all those "climatologists" were spoon-fed faulty data, or were discouraged from looking very far into the history of Earth's weather. It's another thing that they deliberately censored other scientists who came up with opposing data, which we now know they did. Even the Nobel Prize committee gave Al Gore and his Global Warming movie the prize, without serious peer review. Why?

Gee, could it be that all those scientists were sold on a political agenda? Did they all tacitly (or otherwise) agree that, even if the story wasn't true, it would be a good idea to bleed money out of the US and even shut down its industrial base? Are we talking about a conspiracy here, or just a common bigotry?

A conspiracy, especially when pushed by rich and powerful people who can manipulate politicians and the media, is bad enough -- but a bigotry is worse, because it can continue under its own power without anybody pushing it.

There's an understandable laziness in otherwise hard-working people who, having made up their mind about some issue, don't want to bother with the effort of digging up the facts that might contradict their ideas. This is somewhat forgivable in people with ordinary jobs, who have other things to worry about, but when it comes to scientists and reporters -- whose jobs *are* to dig up the facts -- such lazy thinking can't be forgiven. Neither can their comfortable, and possibly profitable, bigotry.

--Leslie <;)))>< )O(

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Even a Stopped Clock Is Right Twice a Day

Make no mistake, Carl Worden is generally a right-wing nut -- so if even this guy can see the stupidity of the War on Drugs, then anybody can. Therefore I'm shamelessly forwarding his comments. Enjoy!

Worden: The Truth About The War On Drugs

by Carl F. Worden

Ladies & Gentlemen:
Our government has used the War On Drugs, hereinafter referred to as the WOD, as an excuse to infringe upon, and, in some cases, entirely butcher, our Bill of Rights. They have sold these infringements to you and yours, based upon the perpetually wrong philosophy that the ends justify the means. In general, the American public, and perhaps some of you, bought that philosophy hook, line and sinker. I will now dispel the myths perpetrated upon the masses by our benevolent government regarding the WOD.

Put me to the test. Tomorrow, ask every person you meet this question:
If hard illegal drugs were legalized, would you use them? You will find that 98% of all the people asked that question will give an emphatically negative answer. The fact is, the other 2% who answer in the positive are probably already using them! What’s wrong with this picture? Our government says the WOD must continue to protect us from our assumed inability to resist that which can harm us. “My God”, they say, “you can’t do that!” “Why, we’d have an epidemic on our hands!” But wait, didn’t we just establish that these illegal drugs are available right now to anyone who wants to use them? Is there anyone reading this that believes the designation “illegal” inhibits anyone from using these substances, considering their wide availability and low risk of discovery? THINK! You’ve been fed a big fat, government sponsored lie!

Let me tell you something about the drug trade.
Robbing, stealing, murdering, raping; those are all crimes. But drug dealing is not really a crime, it is a business! Sure, the rule makers call it a crime, but it violates none of the Judeo-Christian rules.

Heck, you can buy cyanide -- but would you swallow it? Why isn’t cyanide an illegal substance? Here is my first revelation to you: You can discourage crimes through the criminal justice system, but you can only destroy a business by making that business unprofitable.

There are no self-starters in drug abuse. Contemplate that fact for a moment. Re-read what I just wrote. How many of you have awakened one morning and decided this is the day you will try illegal drugs? Not you! Why would you assume anyone else would? The fact is that illegal drugs are sold, often using free samples given at parties where alcohol dims judgment and where “word of mouth” advertising, the pressure of peers, gives credibility to initial experimentation. You see, it’s not only a business, it is a sales business. And why do these “friends” offer you these free samples? Obviously, it is to gain new, paying “clients”. In support of this seemingly insignificant sales delivery system, there is a vast array of growers, processors, cartels, smugglers, mid-level and street-level dealers who all take a “cut”, making the street cost of these drugs rather significant. The result is a multi-billion dollar industry whose very survival depends on these drugs remaining illegal.

Let’s consider this scenario.
The United States government passes legislation to go into competition with the drug cartels. They arrange for direct business with material suppliers in Colombia, Iran, Mexico -- you name it. Whatever drugs are being currently sold, the U.S. Government will supply them. However, these drugs will be sold only through licensed pharmacies, and with a regulated mark-up only 15% over actual cost. There will be no taxes applied. Further, no advertising of any kind regarding these drugs is allowed. Anyone wishing to purchase these very pure and inexpensive drugs would have to ask for them. At the time of purchase, the buyer would be supplied with a written warning regarding the use of the specific substance purchased. In addition, the buyer would be required to sign a waiver which affirms that if s/he becomes ill, indigent or disabled as a result of the use or abuse of the substance in question, they would be ineligible for any form of social medical treatment or welfare benefits. These forms and sales records would be forwarded by the pharmacy to the newly reorganized DEA, whose sole purpose would be reduced to that of regulation enforcement of the pharmacies and record keeping.

The illegal drug trade would simply implode overnight. There is no way the illegal smuggling operations could compete with pure drugs being sold over the counter at only 15% over cost. Further, there would be no street level dealers trying to sell their drugs to your children, for the simple fact that there would be no profit motive to do so.

Remember: the way to destroy a business is to destroy it’s profitability. Where the “word-of-mouth” advertising is absent, there are no drug sales to new, prospective users. Of course, sales to minors would be strictly prohibited, and anyone convicted of doing so would be subject to a prison term of 25 years to life.

Currently, almost 70% of our imprisoned population is there on drug-related convictions. By attrition, our prisons would be emptied to accommodate the truly violent criminals in our society. In addition to the vast savings to our socialized health care and welfare systems, the need for more prison construction would become unnecessary, and so would the many jobs of prosecutors, judges, police officers, bailiffs, court reporters -- well, you get the picture. There is a vast legal-industrial complex in this country that is also dependent upon sustaining the WOD for it’s very survival, a survival supplied only through your tax dollars.

Look, I’m not the smartest kid on the block; far from it. I am not so foolish, prideful or egotistical to think I’m the only person who ever thought of this. Your government wants to keep the status quo because they are getting something from it. The scenario I’ve just published would also drastically reduce violent and non-violent crime committed by those who need to sell your bloody $10,000.00 Rolex watch for $250.00 in order to finance their next fix. It would substantially reduce the cost of your car, homeowners, disability and medical insurance. It would leave the government without excuse to shred any more of your civil rights, and with steadfast encouragement, to reinstate those rights taken under the guise of the WOD. Most of the gun crimes are committed by those in the drug trade, including the street gangs who depend on illegal drug sales for their survival as well. And we all know that when gun crimes are committed, our government uses that as the excuse to pass more and more gun control legislation, legislation that only effects the law-abiding gun owners like us.

I won’t spend any more time on this. You get the picture now and I know you can think for yourself. There are literally thousands of direct and indirect benefits to be derived from the controlled legalization of currently illegal drugs, and, as I’ve already pointed out, I’m not the only person who ever thought this out. There was a time I was vehemently against even the mere suggestion of what I’ve just proposed, and only because I had a closed mind. Experience has taught me to question every former assumption, and you should too: There is nothing in this world that will cost you more than a closed mind.

Carl F. Worden

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Junk Media

Hello again, team. Sorry I've taken so long to get back to you, but I've been busy writing a for-hire novel, which I've got to get finished by the end of September -- not to mention having my computer in the shop for a week, and getting ready for DragonCon. I'd originally planned to report my adventures in the brave new world of Vaping, e-cigarettes, and hunting for designers thereof, but this came up instead. So, onward.

An old friend who lives in Wisconsin phoned and told me about the state's local hyper-Liberal Arts and Entertainment newspaper (I trust you're all familiar with the breed), which had published an article about Arizona's famous SB 1070 law. Along with the usual patronizing mooing about Little Brown People, the article made this amazing statement: "(the law) is an attempt by the white two-thirds majority to impose its will on the Latino one-third minority". The article then goes on to piously note that this is why we need a good Liberal government: to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, and to curb the majority's excesses. Uhuh.

Now, besides the blatant anti-democratic elitism, note the stunning error of fact: "white two-thirds majority".

According to the last census, the population of Arizona is roughly 30% White (yes, a minority), 30% Indian (primarily Navaho tribes), 30% mixed White-and-Indian (which is exactly what Latinos are), 5% Black and 5% Asian. Census figures are not a state secret; you can find them easily on the Internet. These self-righteous insular Liberals simply didn't bother to look.

This certainly isn't the first incidence of the Mainstream Media displaying their righteous passions without bothering to do their homework. The more respectable magazines and newspapers, when caught in their resulting errors, will usually apologize and make corrections in a corner of the editorial page; the broadcast news programs rarely admit to their errors at all. When both the US Army and the Red Cross investigated the Abu Ghraib "torture" scandal, they discovered that those infamous photos were faked; they'd never been taken in Abu Ghraib prison at all, and photographic analysis showed that the pictures were a hoax. Yet this information hardly reached the media at all; far more attention was paid to the Army firing the commander of the prison. There was virtually no reporting of the correction, and certainly no apology.

Now why is this? Given the abundance of information available simply on the Internet, it isn't that hard to check a story out. Surely in an age of runaway lawsuits you'd think the media would be more careful about possible suits for libel. Perhaps the armies of lawyers they keep on the payroll have made them overconfident. Perhaps they keep enormous slush-funds for settling out of court. Or perhaps they have such contempt for the intelligence of their audiences that they assume the public will believe them blindly, and they'll never get caught -- at least not badly -- in their little mistakes. So is it laziness, overconfidence or just plain arrogance that makes the media so thoughtless with the facts?

In any case, they're mistaken about the gullibility of the public. Despite the media's ferocious decrying of Arizona's anti-illegal-immigration bill, a recent survey by the major polling companies showed that fully 70% of Arizona's population, and 68% of the rest of the country, are in favor of SB 1070 -- and half a dozen states are drafting similar laws of their own. Another poll showed that, of the three groups that Americans trust the least, politicians come in first, lawyers are second, and the media are third. Newspapers and magazines have wailed about dropping readership, and yet more polls show that a rapidly-growing percentage of the population get their news primarily from the Internet.

Does anybody, except the media pundits themselves, wonder why?

--Leslie <;)))><...