Cowboy Confessional

Whenever there is an episode of gun violence, the regular suspect groups all send an email that amplifies their position on gun control. Some have a degree of sense. SAF sent one after the NIU shooting making the typical and correct point that the shooter knew he would not meet resistance because his victims were in a “gun free zone.”

(As an aside, I must ask is the term “gun free zone” really applicable? Seems anyone determined enough to commit mass murder on their suicide day will make the phrase instantly nonsensical.)

On schedule, an email arrived from the Brady Campaign, and was filled with all their typical talking points, with particular emphasis on their financial donation call to action. However, it contained a curious piece of intellectual bait-and-switch, saying:

Congress’ passing and the President’s signing of the NICS improvement Amendments Act to strengthen the Brady background checks system was a positive first step. Now, we need to close the gun show loophole.

For those not attuned to the endless debate on gun control, the Brady’s and other bunches maintain that gun shows are leakage points for guns into the criminal underworld. They repeat this assertion despite evidence indicating gun shows are not a significant outlet.

More to the point, the 2008 Valentine Day Massacre was committed using registered guns bought through normal retail outlets. News reports state that at least two of the firearms in possession by the NIU nut-case were legally owned and supposedly acquire through normal retail channels.

Thus the Brady’s are attempting to skew public perception of a non-problem (gun shows) by inappropriately tying it to a murder committed by a maniac with non-gun-show firearms.
What news channels are also reporting (to my shocked amazement) is that the murdering Mr. Kazmierczak was “off is medication.”  Though the details are not yet fully exposed, this likely means he was withdrawing from one or more psychotropics.

So were Harris and  Klebold when they shot-up Columbine High School.

So were most of the recorded mass shooters in North America over the last two decades.

If people believe guns should be banned because someone might kill another human being with them, then that same logic dictates that psychotropics should be banned as well since withdraw rage (documented by the manufacturers of these drugs) demonstratably does the same.

Bookmark to:

“A peace prize is a positive message and support to all those champions of peace in the world.”

Sure. And the Inquisition was a positive affirmation of all those who championed Christian values in the world. Just ask any Jew who became an NBA candidate after a positive adjustment on the rack.

The quote above, as self deluded as it may be, came from Ole Danbolt Mjoes the Nobel Committee chairman discussing their decision to give Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize. I’m sure Mjoes believes what he uttered, as did Miguel de Morillo when he said “Light ‘em up” at a witches pyre.

Perspective is a commodity rarer than oxygen on the moon whenever belief and politics intersect. The generation currently in control of the planet were whelped in time to suffer the excesses of the ecological revolution, and as a group want to “save the planet.” Their belief that humans are mightier than the entire globe, combined ecosystems, and that damned hot nearby sphere we call Sol, demonstrate more conceit than common sense.

It also shows a lack of historical evaluation about Mister Gore and his stock in trade: inciting unfounded panic.

Al has a unique gig. He finds small but credible scientific theories, then projects a worst case scenario in order to instill dread in the hearts of the mindless. This is akin to seeing a flowing garden hose and anointing yourself the new millenia Noah. Al does the same thing, and has been doing so for a long, long time.

Back in 1992, when Al had yet to occupy the seat for has been politicos know as the Vice Presidency, he published “Earth in the Balance”, which predicted imminent catastrophe through over population (populations knee-curved in many high-growth countries), pending famine (we’re now over-producing food) and social meltdown (which has always been the human state). In short, Gore promotes the End of Times and rakes in cold cash from the pockets of those unable to think critically or question their political heroes.

See, you can profit from stupidity without taxation.

This makes one ponder the motivation of the Nobel committee. There is no end of negative critique of Gore’s general environmental predictions (past and present) and even the core theories of anthropogenic global warming. In the absence of confirmed, irrefutable scientific proof, Gore’s doomsday forecasts should be held in suspicion deeper than that reserved for theology. After all, one unfounded belief is no better than the next.

Yet the Nobel committee’s acclimation echoes those who have not reviewed the debate, the claims, methodological errors, counter-claims, and relative proportions of man-made pollutants to the net ecomass. The Nobel committee substituted policy for peace, and in awarding Gore this prize, improved neither.

Yet, I speak to the wind. The fact that a few billion lemmings have run off the Cliffs of Gore. They will lay claim to any positive change in the weather, and amplify their collective fears whenever it rains or snows harder than they can recall (which given the copious amount of dope they may be smoking, this is likely an abbreviation period of time). The political die has been cast, and critical thinking has been nailed to the cross.

Hail Gore, our new Caesar.

Bookmark to:

Global warming is a curious debate.  Much of it devolves into numbers, that when stripped of inappropriate mathematical manipulation, show either a minor problem or a non-problem.  Lord knows I’ve dug into it enough to be on a first name basis with some antarctic penguins.

What the average person lacks is perspective, so I thought I’d add a tiny bit more in hopes that I can ruin part of Al Gore’s day.

Global temperatures have risen about 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 150 years.  Worst-case scenarios have it rising another 5.4 degrees in the next century, assuming man-made greenhouse gases continue to accumulate unabated.  So, over the entire history and equant future of the industrial revolution, Ma Earth will have a menopausal hot flash of about 11 degrees total.

Now let me escort you to the tiny town of Aguila, Arizona.  I choose Agilua for a number of reasons:

* It is in an area of the country where there is sunshine 355+ days a year, which eliminates temperature variations from clouds, rain, and solar eclipses by Michael Moore.

* It has a population of barely more than 1,000 head, making is relatively free from “island of heat” effects cased by man made structures.

According to Weather Channel archives, Aguila has an consistent daily temperature change of 31-33 degrees year round.  This consistency, combined with my clear-skies-and-no-heat-island criteria leaves only the sun having a daily contributory effect on temperatures there.

Ah, Sol!  Ever walk outside on a sunny day and feel the warmth on your face?  Pretty amazing that the sun is so damn hot that it can warm your face from about 93,000,000 miles away, or about 12,000 times as far as the Earth is wide. 

And the sun is inconsistent.  It grows and shrinks, and has magnificent gas attacks that make the average Washington Windbag look inert by comparison.  On a good day the sun has a surface temperature of about 9,940 Fahrenheit … almost as hot as Elizabeth Hurley.

So, what has a more effect on global temperatures: a few billion humans or a ball of fire that raises and lowers surface temperatures 30 degrees every damn day from millions of miles away. A temperature range three times what the average global temp has risen and will rise in the next generation?  If you think it is the human, then you are loaded with conceit my friend.

Bookmark to:

Speaking of Prius’ and their owners, we see that hybrid motivations are not so altruistic.

The New York Times (a source normally not worth trusting), carries a piece noting the half of recent Prius owners bought their mobile tin cans because “it makes a statement about me.”  In other words, less than half of Prius owners are making the purchase in order to lower air pollution or reduce American dependence on foreign oil. 

They are buying Prius’ to inflate their egos, evidently emulating their God Gore. As one insufferable simp said “I really want people to know that I care about the environment … I like that people stop and ask me how I like my car.”

Prius pride goeth before the fall.

Bookmark to:

When Charles Gibson — the latest serial talking head on ABC’s evening news — reported that they had collaborated on a new gun control public opinion poll, I knew there would be ample buncombe.  Having dug into details about gun control surveys over the years — and oddly enough having both education and experience with survey design — I had grown weary of how such polls are misconstructed, misquoted, and misused.

I wasn’t surprised this week either.

When aired, Gibson or whatever corporate puppet master yanks his strings, spoke of the post VA Tech shooting spree survey (for the bored or terminally curious, the ABC gun control survey, results and canard can be had here).  Gibson and proto-yuppie George Stephanopoulos reported that most people wanted government to keep guns away from lunatics (though they did not name Congress specifically), and that “most” favored strong gun control (see the video here).  This caught me as odd since polling from multiple competing services over the last decade had shown a steady decline in support for stricter controls, except those that would disarm Congress Critters.

In a sound bite astonishing for its brevity, Stephanopoulos did state that more people favored enforcing existing laws as opposed to new laws.  You would have missed the blurb had you blinked.

The first problem with this poll was that it was rushed through immediately after the VA Tech shootings, with the goal of hopefully capturing a shift in public sentiment following a tragedy of such magnitude.  That’s like polling women leaving an abortion clinic on their attitudes toward unprotected sex. 

Strike one on sound survey methodology.

The survey itself lacks the fundamental “opposing question” test, where a question phrased from the opposite angle is used to filter out biasing in responses.

Strike two on sound survey methodology.

The survey then serially asks respondents if they would favor banning pistols, mythical “assault weapons”, and concealed carry.  This biases respondents by presenting a slate of draconian controls and predisposing the respondents to reply to subsequent questions with that bias.

Strike three — ABC, you’re out!

What is more important than ABC’s inability to conduct an honest poll even if Charlie Gibson’s life depended upon the outcome, is the Sin of Omission committed by Gibson himself.  This survey had been conducted, in various forms, for many years proceeding.  In fact, the stack of “should we ban this, that and the other thing” questions has been consistent going back to 1999, when Bill “Zipper Problem” Clinton and the Million Mom March were trying to dismantle individual freedom, with ABC assisting. 

What Gibson and his co-conspirators did not mention is that even in the wake of the VA Tech shootings, public preference for more gun control (even in their sloppy survey) was down six points from where it was in 1999.  In other words, despite a zero-percent increase in gun control support since the last time this poll was conducted (the year before), it was reported as if there had been a huge change in sentiment on behalf of Mr. Smith and Ms. Wesson.  Gibson also failed to note that opposition to stricter gun control had risen five points in the same time that support for the control had dropped by six.

One polling item that received mention, but only in passing, was that Americans by a 52-29 margin favor actual enforcement of existing laws instead of enacting new and equally unenforced ones.

Most egregious of their reporting — and Lord, we have much to complain about — was their omission of what people felt caused gun violence.  It wasn’t lax gun laws.  It wasn’t the availability of guns.  It wasn’t fear and self preservation every time Dick “Shotgun” Cheney’s face appeared on TV.  Nope, people felt it was culture (40%) and how other folk raised — or didn’t raise — their children (35%). 

Smith’s First Law of Adulthood is “Never trust a politician.”  The Second Law may become “Never trust a network news anchor.”

Bookmark to: