At least, according to the North Carolina Legislature. Now I'm pretty sure there was a US Supreme Court decision that ruled that money DOES equal free speech, but I can't cite that one. I'll see if any of my lawyer readers know about that one.

In this case, the legislature has decided that in a judicial race, if any one candidate decides to take "public funding"* for their election, then all other candidates, EVEN ONES WHO DO NOT TAKE PUBLIC FUNDING, have to adhere to all the rules of the public funding candidate.

So when one judge decided to take public funding and agreed to all the rules of the public funding game, the other candidate, who did NOT take public funding and did NOT agree to said game rules, was no longer permitted to accept ANY donations to their election in the last 21 days of the election cycle.

That's wrong. The General Assembly passed the law, and they plan to defend it -- as a judge (who won the race, despite the horrible, unconstitutional rules) and a group that tried to donate funds are suing to change the rules. I truly hope they win and I am actually permitted to give money to any candidate I want.

* Public funding is crap. I should not have one single dollar of my forced collections of taxes used to promote the election of someone I disagree with. I don't care about the benefits of it, it's plain wrong to force me to support a candidate -- and public funding does just that.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:56 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I don't recall exactly, unless it is the Teamsters case that permitted union members to hold back that portion of their dues that was slated for the DNC.

Posted by: Oddybobo at August 12, 2005 08:53 AM (6Gm0j)

2 And you call yourself a supreme court nominee...

Posted by: Ogre at August 12, 2005 08:59 AM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

There's a long, very comprehensive, and very detailed list of the Top 10 Reasons why Islam is NOT the religion of peace over at American Thinker. It's a bit long, but very, very worth the read. People in the United States need to understand how and why Islam works or we will all die.

(H/T to Cao's Blog.)

Posted by: Ogre at 04:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

No matter what they might tell you, the ACLU really does hate Christians. You see, the root and primary purpose of the ACLU is communism. And communism cannot comprehend, nor exist alongside, Christianity. So the ACLU continues to attack it every chance it gets.

In this case, the ACLU is suing to try and force the Wiccan religion on people who do not want it. Some people want to pray to their Christian God, but the ACLU doesn't like that and wants to FORCE them to accept a Wiccan prayer. It's not about freedom of religion, it's about the ACLU FORCING you to accept, support, and even celebrate Wiccans.

In addition, the ACLU continues to use their own version of the Constitution, which somehow does not resemble the actual version of the U.S. Constitution. I guess their "living" version has been mutating with bacteria or something. The ACLU claims, "The First Amendment prohibits governments from having an official religion."

Well, that's not entirely true, now is it? The first amendment prohibits CONGRESS from making LAWS establishing a NATIONAL religion. As a matter of fact, if a STATE wanted to make an official religion, under the actual, real United States Constitution, they could!

So far in this case, the Constitution and freedom of religion is winning -- they 4th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that people actually do have the freedom to pray to a Christian God and cannot be forced to change their own religion and worship a Wiccan god(s). The ACLU, using extorted taxpayer money, has said they will appeal to the US Supreme Court.

This has been a part of the weekly Stop the ACLU Blogburst.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:01 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

Chris Muir of Day By Day is asking for our help. His sister Cathy is being kept alive by treatments at the American Cancer Ablation Center in Gulf Shores, Alabama, and he's asking us to raise their visibility for PR purposes. They'll have an ad to be aired on CNN cancer special on August 14th and 20th, but he's asking for our help in doing more.

As often as you can for the next TEN DAYS, click on the banner (or links) and boost their visibility in search engines, and please steal the banner and/or put up a link at your sites as well.

From the Cancer Ablation Center site:

Located in Gulf Shores, Alabama, The American Cancer Ablation Center specializes in the treatment of cancer using thermal ablation.

Thermal Ablation is the destruction of cancer by extreme heat or freezing. The most common technique uses radio waves (microwaves) to generate heat. This technique is called radiofrequency ablation (RFA). The destruction of cancer by freezing is known as cryoablation.

Just a click and a link is all they ask. (From My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.)

Posted by: Ogre at 10:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 2 kb.

Yesterday I responded to a question from the Christian Views Symposium regarding intelligent design and schools. In the comments to that post, and on his own blog, Pixy Misa said:

ID simply isn't a theory in scientific terms. Evolution is. We can perform experiments in evolution, but in the main it is observational, like astronomy. It's still science

Posted by: Ogre at 08:01 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 906 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Great job! I'd love to see a heated debate between you and Rightwingnuthouse. But I have one question, without evolution how do you explain Ogres.

Posted by: Jay at August 11, 2005 09:23 AM (2FcUc)

2 So, um, where is the evidence for ID? Your attack on evolution was decent but you didn't make a single statement to support any other theroy. Couldn't we take your arguement and conclude just about anything? "Evolution doesn't add up so life must always have been here" "there isn't enough evidence for evolution so Vishnu danced us into existance"

Posted by: clark at August 11, 2005 09:55 AM (hJ+03)

3 Jay, Ogres don't have to explain Ogres... And Clark, I haven't gone into evidence for intelligent design in this post (I figured it was already too long for many people to read it). There is evidence for ID, including the idea of irreducible complexity, information theory, and a few others. I'll put all them in another post if you're interested (actually, I'll probably do it even if you're not interested, just because you asked.) Thanks for stopping by!

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 10:01 AM (/k+l4)

4 Clark has a good comment. A deity creating everything ex nihilo can be used to explain anything. If everything's perfect, that's the way the deity created them. If everything's flawed (and men have nipples for no reason), that's the way the deity created them (or is that Satan's doing?) If fossils of homo erectus exist, the deity created the Earth with fossils in it. There's a problem with a theory if two entirely different and contradictory sets of observations lead to the same conclusion. This is essentially the same thing as saying that observation's don't matter.

Posted by: Karlo at August 11, 2005 12:20 PM (HoLw7)

5 I haven't listed the evidence for intelligent design yet, Karlo. I've just shown that evolution is a religion based on deeply-held religious beliefs and is simply not a valid scientific theory that can be supported with any evidence that has been observed. I'll get to the evidence for ID -- I'd like to get it up tomorrow, but it might not make it up until Saturday or Monday.

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 12:37 PM (/k+l4)

6 Back in February I posted on ID, not so much toward the evolution of man; rather on the aspects of celestial objects in the cosmos having been the result of ID. http://tfsternsrantings.blogspot.com/2005/02/intelligent-design-or-coincidence_26.html

Posted by: TF Stern at August 11, 2005 01:49 PM (dz3wA)

7 Good stuff there, TF! Good stuff with excellent links and supporting. I've got some reading to do!

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 02:41 PM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I wonder how many of my good readers make more than $121,391 per year. I wonder how many would be able to live a decent life with that sort of salary. I bet that a good number of my good readers would be happy to take a job that paid that salary, wouldn't you? Well, apparently it's a pittance, according to the State Supreme Court Chief Justice.

Yes, he said that many "good" judges will be leaving the system because they are getting paid so poorly. They've asked for an increase in pay. He actually said, when asking for an increase of the $121,391 annual salary, "I'm just trying to get enough money to get the doors of our courthouses open."

They repeatedly claim that the judges do not make as much as lawyers, and that judges are going to "retire" and take jobs as lawyers. Go ahead, I say. There's no mention about how the so-called "average" salary of lawyers is determined, and if they factor in class-action lottery lawsuit awards into that average, of course.

Well sure, we're giving raises to legislative assistants, billions more to schools and administrators, tons more cash to social programs, tens of millions in personal spending accounts for government employees, so why not give more to every single person that even looks at government? Of course, we can't build roads, we can't hire enough police officers to enforce laws, and we can't find fiscal discipline in Raleigh, but very obviously, that is NOT what the Democrat North Carolina Legislature cares about.

Idiots. STOP SPENDING MY MONEY!

Posted by: Ogre at 05:03 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

The Alliance mentioned that perhaps there were some media scandals that were not being reporting (other than that whole liberal Air America thief thing). We did the usual and sent out Ogre's Investigative Team™.

We found some rather disturbing things that were simply NOT being reported in the formerly mainstream media (FMSM):

1. Wolf Blitzer doesn't wear any pants when he is reporting. Our investigators didn't find out what was going on behind that desk where he wasn't wearing any pants, and they refused to investigate more...

2. The ACLU exists primarily on money from taxpayers, sucking them dry with extortion methods and "settlements" from lawsuits. Oh wait, this was supposed to be made-up stories that aren't being reported on. Sorry that real one slipped in there.

3. Eleanor Roosevelt's ghost has been making appearances in the newsrooms of CBS News, giving news stories and tips to Vicki Mabrey.

4. NARAL and Democrats have started complaining about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' children. They have attempted to link Mr. Roberts with recent terrorist attacks in Iraq. Oh wait -- I forgot again about this list being made-up stories. Real media scandals keep slipping in.

5. Various polls now indicate that the absolute vast majority of Americans now get their news from blogs, and they trust information found in blogs more than they trust the formerly mainstream media (FMSM). Each time the polls appears, they are buried by the network anchors, but the viewing public doesn't seem to notice.

6. Famous blogger Harvey is actually ABC's Elizabeth Vargas, blogging in drag and concealing his her identity. IP address trails from Bad Example have been traced to the offices of ABC news, confirming this rumor.

There were more scandals, but the investigative staff got too drunk to report them all at this time...

Posted by: Ogre at 08:05 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

A couple more carnivals for your reading pleasure:

The sixth Carnival of Liberty is up at Fearless Philosophy For Free Minds. Absolutely top-notch stuff there if you have any interest in freedom. Seriously. Go read those posts now.

Also there is the Carnival of the Clueless, now appearing at Right Wing Nuthouse. If you want to laugh, then cry because these loonies really believe the fantasies coming out of their mouths, head on over and have a read -- and it's a big one this week!

Posted by: Ogre at 06:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

Soldier's Angels has a new project that they'd like your assistance with: Project VALOR IT (Voice Activated Laptops for OUR Injured Troops).

"Project Valour IT, in memory of SFC William V. Ziegenfuss, provides voice-controlled software and laptop computers to wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines recovering from hand and arm injuries or amputations at major military medical centers. Operating laptops by speaking into a microphone, our wounded heroes are able to send and receive messages from friends and loved ones, surf the 'Net, and communicate with buddies still in the field without having to press a key or move a mouse. The experience of CPT Charles "Chuck" Ziegenfuss, a partner in the project who suffered hand wounds while serving in Iraq, illustrates how important this voice-controlled software can be to a wounded servicemember's recovery."

Posted by: Ogre at 03:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

This topic has really started the blogosphere a-talking, from what I've seen. I noticed the end of a conversation at Owlish Musings, and over at Ambient Irony, which came from Vokdapundit, some over at Life in the Atomic Age, which expanded from Junkyard Blog. And, of course, The Evangelical Outpost comments on intelligent design often. Much of this discussion was brought about by President George W. Bush's statements that he thought intelligent design could be taught in government-run schools.

Lennie's also asking about it in this week's Christian Views Symposium. Feel free to provide your own answers on your blog (or in comments if you don't have one):

Should schools teach intelligent design?

Posted by: Ogre at 11:37 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 601 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I agree that ID should be presented as an alternate theory. As long as we're teaching the "big bang theory", we should present other reasonable theories AS "theories" in the schools. What's wrong with making the kids think, after all?

Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at August 10, 2005 11:43 AM (Er9BL)

2 Thanks, GTL -- see we can agree now and then! Currently we can't because there are competing theories and the state-sponsored religion of naturalism is the only permitted religion in classrooms today. If you think all of earth's history is not religion, next time you see a self-proclaimed "expert" on the earth, ask them to explain uniformitarianism.

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 11:47 AM (/k+l4)

3 err...that second sentence should be can't teach ID...

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 11:47 AM (/k+l4)

4 As I've noted on my blog - and as others have pointed out - ID simply isn't a theory in scientific terms. Evolution is. We can perform experiments in evolution, but in the main it is observational, like astronomy. It's still science; there's no such thing as "philosophical" science; and ID cannot ever be science because its fundamental assumption is counter to the fundamental assumption of science. (Metaphysical naturalism.) That post you link to is nonsense. Pure and simple. It states "In order to believe the naturalistic theory, the origin of life is either a natural process or pure chance. However, both of those options only lead to structures with extremely low information content." and that just plain isn't true. Intelligent design is real. Science is showing that to be the case. This has nothing to do with religion, only scientific evidence. Sorry, no. There is no evidence supporting Intelligent Design. None. Not one iota. And an absolutely vast amount of evidence supporting Evolution. But let's stick with the claim that ID is science. A scientific theory must be falsifiable; it must explain something; it must make predictions. ID says, in essence, that evolution happens except that some things couldn't have evolved naturally and therefor The Designer must have intervened at this point. Since ID says only that "some things" couldn't have evolved naturally, it can't be falsified. Every specific claim that it has made has been shown to be false, but that doesn't falsify ID itself. So ID is not a scientific theory. ID doesn't explain anything. It doesn't tell us what The Designer is, or how it works, or when it will intervene. So ID is not a scientific theory. ID doesn't predict anything. Evolution does. Evolution makes quite concrete predictions about how species will respond to selection; about the genetic relationships of species with certain evolutionary relationships; and many other things. These predictions have been borne out time and time again by hard evidencce. ID says "sometimes The Designer steps in and changes things", which doesn't allow us to predict anything. So ID is not a scientific theory. ID is religion. You can teach it as religion, if you like. But every time it's presented as science, every scientist in the world will oppose it. Not because it's wrong - we can never know whether it's wrong. Not because it's useless - though it certainly is. But because it's not science. However, those opposed to this, and those who subscribe to naturalism refuse to accept the fact that anything can actually BE done except through natural processes -- they refuse to even entertain the theory that has more evidence for it than any other. Metaphysical naturalism is the underpinning of all of science. If it's false, all of science is false. But there's no evidence - none - that this is the case. It's not a question of refusing to accept evidence; it's a question of there not being any.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 10, 2005 01:14 PM (4N+SC)

5 "Metaphysical naturalism is the underpinning of all of science. If it's false, all of science is false." That's what absolutely scares the living daylights out of current naturalist scientists -- what if they are wrong? They simply cannot accept that idea at all. The recent evidence that the speed of light may not, in fact, be constant has them questioning everything that's been learned about science. They are terrified that their world IS coming down around them. I understand your reasoning that ID is not science -- if that is the case, then applying the same principles to evolution will destroy it as science just as quickly. Evolution claims that things evolve -- sometimes. Sometimes they evolve quickly, sometimes slowly. So you can't prove evolution any more than you can prove ID using that criteria. That's why I say that evolution is philosophical science -- it simply cannot be proven. There is zero actual, concrete evidence of evolution. There is nothing that evolution has predicted that has come true. There's a reason that zero "intermediate" specific have been found. If there truly were fish that walked out of the sea to become mammals, why is there zero fossil evidence? That's the part of evolution that can't be falsified. The biggest problem with naturalism is that it says that everything had a natural cause -- this begat that begat this other thing. And it all came from the big bang. But what CAUSED the big bang? No one has been able to answer that, and scientists, atheists, are starting to realize there may be some things that simply CANNOT be explained by natural processes. That's why ID only makes logical sense. It takes more faith to believe in naturalism than to believe in ID.

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 01:44 PM (/k+l4)

6 I'd like to see students understand the concepts of thermodynamics and gravity and biological classification and micro-evolution before they go talking about big bangs and string theory and the like. Why not study well documented science, and leave the unprovable theory out? As for ID as a scientific theory, my understanding is this: a scientific theory must be falsifiable. There must be a way to prove the theory incorrect. There is no way to prove ID incorrect. Therefore, not a scientific theory. (*)>

Posted by: birdwoman at August 10, 2005 02:10 PM (vR7Sl)

7 Oh, and Ogre, OT, you'd be so pleased. Our pennsylvanian legislators are one by one overturning the pay raise they gave themselves at 2am a few weeks ago. Guess some of them do have shame after all! (*)>

Posted by: birdwoman at August 10, 2005 02:11 PM (vR7Sl)

8 Students want to be taught these topics because everyone wants to know where they came from and why they are here. Naturalists provide them the official state-sponsored religious answer. And using your criteria for what is a scientific theory, evolution (and naturalism) are not a theory either -- how can it be proved incorrect (at least any more than it already has been)? If your legislature is like NC's, they'll revoke the pay raise only to pass it again in a few weeks when they think no one is watching!!!

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 02:49 PM (L0IGK)

9 Well sure. They should teach "intelligent design" along with tarot, astrology, and Cherokee creation narratives.

Posted by: Karlo at August 10, 2005 03:31 PM (r65rq)

10 We should teach those ideas, Karlo, as soon as you provide actual evidence for any of them. There is no evidence that opposes intelligent design other than the naturalist religion. Therefore, if you don't support teaching tarot, how can you support teaching the naturlist religion?

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 03:46 PM (L0IGK)

11 Actually, evolution is completely falsifiable. That's why there's so much debate about macro vs micro evolution and great leaps in evolution - these all falsify pieces of the original theory. There's no way to prove there's no creator. I do believe that ID should be taught - creation, in a comparative theology class. There's nothing wrong with teaching creation - most religions in the world believe it to be truth. It just doesn't belong in biology or physics. (*)>

Posted by: birdwoman at August 10, 2005 06:55 PM (Sc2Wh)

12 Ok, but if you can't teach intelligent design in biology or physics, then you shouldn't be able to teach evolution, either.

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 07:02 PM (L0IGK)

13 I agree - ID is not a scientific theory. It is a theory that can explain some of the failings of evolutionary theory, but it is not scientific. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the progression of life on Earth, but does NOT explain the origins of life, the universe and everything (evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang are totally different theories). The best thing we could do for our children (besides getting government out of the education business) is to present them with a good overview of the prevailing theories - scientific and philosophical - including the problems with them. Teach the science in science classes, teach the philosophy in whatever classes would be most appropriate. There's nothing like knowing that there are still mysteries out there to spur intellectual curiosity.

Posted by: Elisa at August 10, 2005 08:03 PM (LP2Sk)

14 If you're speaking of micro-evolution as a valid science to be taught in science classes, while teaching both ID and evolution as philosophical theories, barring getting government the heck out of schools, I can go with that. Thanks for stopping by, and I don't envy you actually intentionally watching Boxer!

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 08:12 PM (L0IGK)

15 Thanks, Ogre. There are days my self-appointed job is really painful. Like today. Just finished fisking another Boxer "speech" that I'll be posting as soon as my hosting site is back up. And yes, that's pretty much what I was speaking of. Micro-evolution is observable, so you'd have to be in another plane of reality not to "believe" it. Macro-evolution is not observable, reproducable, or, I think, disprovable, but could still be taught as a theory with the proper disclaimers.

Posted by: Elisa at August 10, 2005 10:00 PM (LP2Sk)

16 Isn't Boxer up for re-election this year? Oh wait, that's her sister, Frankenstein, this year.

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 05:37 AM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Karlo, of Swerve Left has some complaints about my article from yesterday titled, "Liberal Heretics." Well, let's see what he has to say (note to Karlo: install the trackback feature on your blog -- it's pretty cool and a good way to track who's posting about your posts).

I'm going to place most of the response in the extended entry, because I think this is going to be quite a long post... more...

Posted by: Ogre at 08:00 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 1054 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Great Rebuttal!!

Posted by: oddybobo at August 10, 2005 12:22 PM (6Gm0j)

2 And entertaining, too, I hope!

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 12:44 PM (/k+l4)

3 Great fisking. Well thought out, and well said! Keep it up.

Posted by: jimmyb at August 10, 2005 08:18 PM (3Eck1)

4 Thanks for the kind words, Jimmy!

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 09:04 PM (L0IGK)

5 The initial part of your rebuttal isn't logical. There's no inconsistency involved with saying that there are multiple causes of "A" and that humans are a necessary cause of "A." This isn't an either/or situation. And it isn't just Greenpeace saying that global warming has been caused by humans. The entire scientific community (except for a couple corporate-sponsored crackpots) agrees on this one. As for the lefty environmentalists getting it all wrong in the 70s, this is partially true. In the 1970s, the science of predicting oil reserves was in its infancy. Even so, scientific consensus is that U.S. oil production did in fact peak in the 1970s and that wordwide production is peaking right now. Several areas of the globe may be at peak or close to it (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.) and several haven't reached it yet due to failure to fully exploit resources (e.g., Russia) but I haven't read anything that says that some yet-to-be discovered oil field is going to dramatically change the equation. (The much touted Alaskan fields give us oil for 3 or 4 weeks or something like that.) As for auto-emissions being reduced, the number of deaths and illnesses caused by auto-pollution is staggering. People pine about the 9/11 deaths, but we could save far more people in a single year simply by tightening pollution standards in a single U.S. city such as L.A. (Although tightening regulations is much less manly than bombing people.) As for Leakey being a crackpot, in his book he refers to studies done all over the planet and concludes that: (1) as you mention, we only know of a small fraction of living species, and (2) wherever detailed surveys have been done in the same place at different times, they inevitably show a dramatic loss of species. As for your wonder that the 6th extinction would be caused by different factors than the first 5, I don't see why this is an issue. I don't think man was even around for the first five. In the end, your conclusion is based on a single highly speculative article. Mine is based on the consensus of 99.9999% of the scientific community. Of course, I might be wrong. And the Earth may in fact be flat.

Posted by: Karlo at August 10, 2005 11:34 PM (r65rq)

6 You cannot keep using the mystical "entire scientific community," or "99.99%," because that is simply not true. The only way you can legitimately claim that is to have a survey of thousands of scientists that have studied the climate and get all of them to agree with you. That's not the case, as there are large numbers of scientists that do NOT agree about global warming. In fact, as more data that was used to support global warming is revealed (it was hidden for years), more and more scientists are questioning that it even exists. As for the oil reserves, the problem is NO ONE can know how much there is. It's impossible to know. If we cannot know how much there is, we cannot say we're running out of it. The auto-emissions statement is simply not supportable. Do you have a study to back that up? I'd like to see the numbers, along with the raw data, that show the number of non-self-inflicted (suicide) deaths that are directly caused by auto emissions. It's interesting that you mention how Leakey refutes his own theory! He's not the first in the scientific community to do that, and I'm sure he won't be the last. Again, examine your conclusion and the support for it. There are not the facts, nor the agreement in the "scientific community" that you might think. What about the 19,000+ scientists that have signed the petition that argues there is no man-made global warming (http://www.oism.org/pproject/)? Do you really believe that we could melt the arctic icecaps if we even wanted to? If we put all our efforts into melting the North Pole, do you think we could even make a dent in it? I think you attribute WAY too much power to man, and a significantly large number of PhD scientists who have studied the climate and the earth agree with me.

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 05:50 AM (L0IGK)

7 You're confusing "lack of knowledge" with "lack of complete knowledge." Scientists can now estimate with a great deal of accuracy the amount of oil that will be commercially available. (That's what oil geologists get paid for, after all.) There will always be some oil somewhere but peak oil isn't concerned with this. At some point, the energy used in oil extraction exceeds that gain through oil combustion and at that point (actually, long before that point), oil drilling and so on are no longer viable options. The same goes for your comment on deaths due to auto exhaust. We're not talking about obscure scientific studies speculating on string theory or the 13th dimension. Scientists can simply compare population A that lives in a smog-filled city with a similar population B that doesn't and can then track the types of diseases and deaths that occur with greater frequency in populated areas. A zillion such studies have been done. I don't have any dates and names at my fingertips, but if you simply look at any major paper consistently for 3 or 4 weeks, your bound to see yet another study reaching those same common-sense conclusions. As for the discovery of before unknown species "refuting Leakey's theory," this is complete nonsense. We will never know most of the species on the planet as no one has the time to go through every spade of dirt in order to list the microbes found there. But manageable surveys done throughout the planet have all shown a dramatic decrease in species. The most obvious sign of this trend is the reduction in large species during the last 50,000 years throughout the globe. The decimation of species that we know about far exceeds evolutions capacity to create new ones. (Of course, if you don't believe in evolution, then the reduction of a single species over short periods of time should reduce the eco-sphere to nothing but mold, cockroaches, and some dessicated human corpses.) But then again, I might be wrong. In so, on your next hike, take care not to awaken that dormant giant beaver, giant sloth, sabertooth cat, or mammoth. I hear these beast are quite ferocious after a long sleep.

Posted by: Karlo at August 11, 2005 12:41 PM (HoLw7)

8 Ok, so scientists can estimate how much oil there is...until they discover more. How is that useful? You're making logical leaps here that don't make sense. Studying people who die in one area with people who die in another area and then determining that one item caused it is just silly. With that reasoning, I can effectively claim that povery causes crime. There are way too many factors involved with why people die to ever put the blame on one factor. Heck, we can't even get scientists to agree about secondhand smoke, something really directly measurable! Same with the unknown species -- if we watch 10 species "disappear" from a known region, but at the same time 5,000 other species are discovered in another region, we cannot claim anything. The 10 species might have just disappeared from sight or moved, while the other 5,000 may have already existed. Or, if you accept evoluton, perhaps the 10 species who became extinct allowed 5,000 other new species to be created. You simply cannot do a controlled study on the entire planet and claim any results with any degree of accuracy -- if we don't know if there's 10,000 or 100 billion species, how can we possibly claim to be adding or removing species to the planet at ANY rate? It seems to me in all these cases, you're accepting the results without looking at the data. Using the actual data in these cases, the best you can do is imply that there might be a relationship between the two things (like auto exhaust and death) -- but no genuine, supported causal relationship can be drawn. Seriously, if you see any specific data, not just reports of conclusions, but actual data, point it my way, as I love numbers.

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 02:51 PM (L0IGK)

9 Oh, I see. In order to say anything definitive about anything it isn't enough to employ widely accepted statistical methods in rigorous ways, we have to find every possible case and count them up until we reach 100% (There's a drunk positivist lurking somewhere around here...) So in order for us to know that objects fall, we'll have to fly to the furthest star and toss that final rock on the final moon of the final planet--just to make sure. You need to find the nearest Community College and take a course in statistics, my friend. And then another course in the scientific method.

Posted by: Karlo at August 11, 2005 03:02 PM (HoLw7)

10 That's my point -- you're missing the scientific method -- you're applying a statistically insignificant sampling to a gigantic population! How many things could possibly cause a human to die? It's in the billions. To say that one type of element introduced in unmeasurable amounts, subject to wind, with neglibile measureable effects on the human body, and then to claim that that element was responsible for death is just silly. Using that reasoning, I can light up a cigarette in a room and if 4 people die of heart attacks in the room, the cigarette caused them to die. The fact that their drinks were poisoned would never get mentioned. I'm not looking for 100% certainty, I'm looking for valid, duplcatable, studies that show results. That's why I want to see the data of such studies -- I've not seen one. If the data shows that 10 people who died of heart attacks blame those attacks on CO2, that's questionable. That's like when deaths in a storm are attributed to the storm, when it may have been from something that had nothing to do with the storm. All I want is data. Is that too much to ask?

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 03:09 PM (L0IGK)

11 Hi Ogre, I don't usually get into this kind of political debate - I'm just not interested in arguing with people whose minds are already made up. But I did want to point out two things: Greenpeace is not the titular head of environmentalism. I know little about them other than their name. I'm sure they do good work, though. You make a lot of broad statements about Democrats and liberals that are simply untrue. I try to keep in mind that a lot of conservatives that don't fit the stereotype, and I wish you would try a little harder not to group all liberals together. But I realize that's the nature of your blog, and environmentalism is the nature of mine. The folks I listen to are the Union of Concerned Scientists. Politics aside, when it comes between trusting scientists who have been paid off by industries who stand to profit from their findings, or scientists whose jobs have been threatened unless they come up with findings that support the current administration's policies, I believe that I'll choose the other guys. It puzzles me that anyone, Democrat or Republican, would choose otherwise, considering the clear evidence about this. And many conservatives agree with mainstream scientific findings on global warming. I'm a liberal arts major--I don't pretend to know enough about statistics and data to argue about scientific theory. But it's common sense not to trust the fox who guards the henhouse. And you should remember that the Theory of Gravity is a scientific theory, but few of us doubt that it's a fact. Thanks for reading an opposing point of view, Laurie

Posted by: Laurie at August 11, 2005 06:28 PM (CggWK)

12 The American Lung Association (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=50324) says that: "Tens of thousands of premature deaths each year are attributed to fine particle air pollution." From http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4419 "A 1994 report on the adverse effects of particulate air pollution, published in the Annual Reviews of Public Health, noted a 1 percent increase in total mortality for each 10 mg/m3 increase in particulate matter. Respiratory mortality increased 3.4 percent and cardiovascular mortality increased 1.4 percent. More recent research suggests that one possible link between acute exposure to particulate matter and sudden death may be related to sudden increases in heart rate or changes in heart rate variability." I'm not going to read 100s of pages of studies to refute your point, but my guess is the pool of people the data are derived from are is actually exponentially larger than needed since the data already exists (in hospital reports and so on) and such data's extensive. At http://www.columbia-stmarys.org/14294.cfm, an American Medical Journal study says that "Air pollution has been linked to a variety of diseases, including lung cancer, other lung diseases, and heart disease." This led to a change in EPA standards (all pretty mainsteam stuff). So tens of thousands of deaths each year and perhaps hundreds of thousands health problems. And this is all EACH YEAR.

Posted by: Karlo at August 11, 2005 06:31 PM (r65rq)

13 Laurie, thanks for stopping by, and for your comments, they are appreciated. As for Greenpeace, they do certainly think they are the ones who are most concerned with the environment, and they believe they are the primary protectors of the environment. I do not like them because they use terrorist tactics -- I have seen them up close. As for the scientists, I'd love to hear from a completely unbiased scientist -- however such a create simply does not exist. As you point out, many are paid by corporations. However, all of them get paid by someone for their research -- no one does the research on their own (I guess when they become independently wealth, they don't do research or something). I looked over the group you linked to -- they claim 52% of their $11 million income comes from "contributions," and 40% comes from "foundations." If a large portion of that comes from someone with an agenda, or with a political goal, then their results are just as in question as any corporation-sponsored scientist. That's why I ask for facts and details, so I can make decisions myself, rather than relying upon scientists who have a goal, often before their research is even done. As for gravity -- it can be tested and duplicated over and over again, unlike global warming and automobile emission deaths.

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 06:59 PM (L0IGK)

14 Thanks for the links, Karlo, I'll go and check them out and see what I can find!

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 07:00 PM (L0IGK)

15 Of course we always need to be concerned about bias. Although I have a hard time seeing who has money to make if pollution causes deaths. All the big money is made by causing pollution. My guess is that the harmful effects are vastly understated.

Posted by: Karlo at August 11, 2005 08:07 PM (r65rq)

16 "entire scientific community" used to believe that the sun and planets revolved around the earth too.

Posted by: tony at August 16, 2005 04:10 PM (eHsXE)

17 Bingo, Tony. Karlo, if you're still around, I am researching those reports and do plan on making another post about them, after I've digested them.

Posted by: Ogre at August 16, 2005 05:41 PM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The North Carolina Legislature, that august body, concerned with high and weighty government issues, passed their ban and restrictions on vending machines in government schools. And no, they haven't even passed a budget for the state of North Carolina yet, and they're now over a month late on the incredibly irresponsible and reckless budget.

Why is the legislature wasting time on such "projects?" Why does the legislature even assume to presume that if they limit 75% of the snacks in a school vending machine to "under 200 calories" that suddenly there will be no fat kids? Oh, right, "if it helps just one child..."

This example again shows how wasteful and irresponsible the (sometimes duly) elected Democrats in Raleigh can be. There is no reason for this act, there's no reason for the legislature to be concerned with such issues, and there's no reason they shouldn't have passed a budget yet.

Get the government out of schooling, period. There is absolutely no reason that government should have a monopoly on education. North Carolina is only required to provide an opportunity for eduction -- they have no need to force it upon people, and they should not be running any government schools -- they're obviously not smart enough to.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:03 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Getting the government out of the schools would fix a lot of things.

Posted by: Jay at August 10, 2005 07:53 AM (2FcUc)

2 It would fix SO many things. It is probably the single largest step that would help this country reclaim her freedom.

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 07:56 AM (/k+l4)

3 I think this is happening in FL too. I'm not sure as I don't keep up with our public schools as I send my kids to a private Christian school.

Posted by: Bou at August 10, 2005 09:46 PM (5JHEt)

4 You horrible, evil, uncaring, Republican!

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 05:35 AM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I know there are many people who believe that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of stories. I know many others who believe that there's some divine inspiration in the Bible. There's even others who believe that most of the Bible is stories inspired by God, but that didn't actually happen.

Then there's all that scientific evidence that keeps popping up to show that maybe, just maybe, the Bible is actually a true, factual account of events.

Drudge Reports (link likely to go out of date quickly) that the actual pool of Siloam has been discovered in Jerusalem. Not a makeshift fabrication, but the actual pool where Jesus healed a blind man.

What if the entire Bible, from beginning to end, is an actual, factual reporting of historical events? Just think about it.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:01 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

This week the Homespun Bloggers have quite a more serious question for Homespun Bloggers.

The Homespun Bloggers are simply a loose-knit group of bloggers of all stripes, from all sorts of blogs, that are united...well, just to find and read one another's blogs. The one common thread is that all the members of the Homespun Bloggers blog simply because they want to. Head on over to the main page and read about them.

This week's question (they have a new question nearly every week that members can choose to answer if they like) is related to the horrible tragedy in New Jersey where three boys died in a trunk of a car. The questions are:

1. Who is ultimately responsible for the loss of these three children?

2. Do you believe that the police were at all responsible for not finding the children in time? (It's hinted that on of the parents has decided to sue the City of Camden New Jersey)

3. Do you believe that auto manufacturers are responsible for providing additional safety features that would prevent this type of tragedy in the future? (They've also been named as potential litigants in this case.)

4. Why do you think that if this parent feels so strongly about going after the "wrongdoers" in this case, why doesn't he try to sue the parents of the other children lost in the incident?

Posted by: Ogre at 01:31 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 965 words, total size 6 kb.

Oh dear. The environmental lunatic lefties are going to be mad at this one. According to "real scientists,"

new research suggests that the coming and going of major ice ages might result partly from our solar system's passage through immense, snakelike clouds of exploding stars in the Milky Way galaxy.

You see, the entire leftist religion (and yes, it IS a religion), is based on man being primarily evil and bent on total destruction of the earth. People like algore actually believe one of the worst creations of man was the internal combustion engine. They spend their lives trying to prove how many insects are killed by exhaust fumes. The spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money trying to prove global warming, and trying to prove global warming is the fault of YOU for being so greedy.

If there is evidence that alleged global warming might be caused by cosmic events, the entire religion of the left is gone. Get ready for this one to be squashed, discredited, ignored, and the scientists that are proposing this had better not have any adopted children...

(Hat tip to Mensa Barbie.)

Posted by: Ogre at 11:00 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Oh surely these scientist must be kooky mad scientists like the one that created Frankenstein Kerry. We can all see that global warming is melting the polar caps, and global overfreezing them at the same time. Its immenent threat. Haven't you seen the movie "The Day After Tomorrow"? Ha, you thought it was science fiction did you? I'm all for protecting the environment, but this whole global warming, climate crap is a joke.

Posted by: Jay at August 09, 2005 12:35 PM (2FcUc)

2 Jay, you don't get it. It's YOUR fault that there is global warming. That's been the mantra from the left for decades! YOU caused global warming, and the only way we can stop it is for YOU to ride on a bus instead of driving a car. That's why theories like this one will be either completely ignored or vehemently attacked -- it seriously conflicts with the left's view of the world.

Posted by: Ogre at August 09, 2005 12:51 PM (/k+l4)

3 ok, I admit it! It is my fault, all my fault. I know it was all that White Rain I put in my hair back in the day. I had to look presentable though for the county fair ya know!

Posted by: oddybobo at August 09, 2005 12:53 PM (6Gm0j)

4 The libazoids will say that it is all a Bush lie. Seriously, I believe, through reading the materials, that man does have an impact on global warming, but is in conjunction with other factors, such as normal earth temperature trends, and what you have blogged. Certainly, things such as ocean pollution and deforestation contribute to higher temps, both locally and world wide. But to what extent? The lefties would have us believe that the cyclical warming and cooling periods never happened before, and that man is the only one responsible. The biggest part of this whole issue is the one that is ignored. Typically, there is a warmer trend before a much cooler trend. Is man's contribution to the warmer trends enough to limit or stop the cooler trend (which usually ends in an ice age?)

Posted by: William Teach at August 09, 2005 12:55 PM (cuTsc)

5 "White Rain" was one of the best for shooting fireballs -- it ignited JUST right... Indeed, Teach -- imagine if man was actually helping to reduce or even eliminate an ice age? I think I'm going to go run my lawn mower for awhile...

Posted by: Ogre at August 09, 2005 12:58 PM (/k+l4)

6 I've put a detailed response to this post over on Swerve Left (http://swerveleft.blogspot.com).

Posted by: Karlo at August 09, 2005 02:07 PM (r65rq)

7 But Final Net was the better choice for potato guns. I guess it is my fault. Sorry Earth. I will reconsider burning my cermonial tire on Al Gores BD next year.

Posted by: Tomslick at August 09, 2005 02:34 PM (xNjHI)

8 Thanks for the detailed response, Karlo, I'll get you a new post asap... And Tomslick -- wasn't it? I sweat Final Net burned better than another other airborne propellant that I could get my hands on...

Posted by: Ogre at August 09, 2005 03:48 PM (L0IGK)

9 Yes Ogre, detailed studies showed white rain merely made potatoes bounce off windshields whereas final net cracked them. Not that I was involved in such behavior. It's just valuable info from a reliable source.

Posted by: Tomslick at August 09, 2005 04:11 PM (xNjHI)

10 Even if Global Warming is real, who's to say it's BAD? (*)>

Posted by: birdwoman at August 09, 2005 04:39 PM (vR7Sl)

11 Good point, Birdwoman -- I bet people in MN and Canada don't mind it so much!

Posted by: Ogre at August 09, 2005 04:45 PM (L0IGK)

12 Oh, and Karlo? I'll get the detailed response to your post up tomorrow am.

Posted by: Ogre at August 09, 2005 04:45 PM (L0IGK)

13 Tomslick -- I think this may call for detailed scientific examination -- if I can get my hands on some cans of that stuff. Maybe at the flea market...

Posted by: Ogre at August 09, 2005 04:47 PM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Another good volunteer continues to serve this great nation (what's left of it) in the fight against terrorism and evil in the world. Go drop Michael Churchill a note of thanks as he heads out for deployment.

Posted by: Ogre at 07:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

My regular readers may wonder what has become of this election. For those who haven't heard, the election of the Superintendent of Public Instruction in North Carolina has not been settled yet. Yes, that's the election from November, 2004.

A little background: During the election, a large number of people voted illegally. They voted outside their voting districts and without being registered. There were at least 11,000 illegal votes cast, it is likely there were many, many more. The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that these ballots were illegal.

The election results showed the two candidates separated by only 8,500 votes. Therefore, if these 11,000+ votes were thrown out, there's no telling who would have won. Enter Democrats.

AFTER the Supreme Court Declared those votes illegal, the Democrat Legislature passed a law to change the rules for voting -- and then promptly applied those laws retroactively to the 2004 election. Then, to make what they're doing appear legitimate to the uninformed public, they decided to have "committee meetings" and a "vote" to determine the winner of the election.

Today the committee is meeting to help "determine" the winner. The committee is made up of Democrats. There is no reason to have the meeting because the outcome is already predetermined. This election law change allows the Democrats to quite literally, overrule ANY vote by the people and lets them (the legislature) appoint any candidate to any office they like, for any reason they want.

One day, perhaps before the end of this year, North Carolina will have a Superintendent for Public Instruction. It will most certainly be the Democrat candidate, despite the rulings of the Supreme Court, the actual votes cast in the election, or the "proceedings" you may read about.

There is no Democracy in North Carolina.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

Just a couple of carnivals to highlight so far this week.

First is the Tarheel Tavern up at Anonymoses. This one is a featured carnival of bloggers from and in North Carolina. Lots and lots of varied and interesting entries every week there.

Next is the Carnival of Kids. Lots of fun kids pictures and stories every week.

Last today is the New Blog Showcase Carnival, "featured" here...or what there was of it...

Posted by: Ogre at 08:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

Yay! The New Blog Carnival Showcase is here! The New Blog Showcase Carnival is here!

Ok, so let's show all the new blogs that have been submitted this week to the wonderful Showcase carnival that lets you, the good reader, know about all the new blogs that have been popping up this week:

...

(chirp, chirp)

...

Ah. Well.

It seems there were exactly zero blogs to be showcased this week. Well that stinks. Folks, if, in your browsings, you find a blog that is less than 3 months old, please direct them to the new showcase carnival. I guess I need to get some more advertising and such going.

In fact, feel free to use this entry as a free trackback post to help pimp the New Blog Showcase Carnival! Trackback at will! Get the word out! Also, if you're interested in hosting the carnival, drop me a line through the email up at the top right of this page.

Update: Now part of TTLB's Uber-Carnival.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:03 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I wonder what happened to that thing about there being thousands of blogs being created every day?

Posted by: William Teach at August 08, 2005 10:21 PM (Pzlrt)

2 I think they skipped a week or something...

Posted by: Ogre at August 09, 2005 05:30 AM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The speech police have continued their assault. I've previously mentioned how you could very possibly go to jail in the state of New Jersey for actually saying the word "perversion." The absolute idiocy continues in Major League Baseball. Apparently now saying that someone is from the Caribbean is now also verboten.

At issue here is a radio show host that said:

brain-dead Caribbean hitters hacking at slop nightly

The thought police advance continues. This radio host was suspended for a week for offending "millions" by stating the truth. Once again it shows that speaking the truth, somehow, can be offensive. Folks, the truth is the truth. If you don't like it, I don't really care -- even if that offends you.

Indeed, Orwell's predictions are coming more and more true every day. I wonder if, on a night when I play poorly at a softball game if I can say, "Moronic French Immigrants who strike out," and offend myself.

Posted by: Ogre at 12:02 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I am offended by you calling yourself French! That's it Ogre, I am lodging a complaint! I bet Howard Dean will hold you in contempt for using his middle name in vein too (moron). JK!! Great post Ogre, and I hope you get a chance to check out my last post for a while.

Posted by: Michael R. Churchill at August 08, 2005 01:20 PM (eqaaP)

2 And is it now how they refer to themselves? "from the Carribean" *throws hands up in disgust!*

Posted by: Oddybobo at August 08, 2005 01:52 PM (6Gm0j)

3 You said "disgust." I think that word has been banned, too.

Posted by: Ogre at August 08, 2005 02:12 PM (L0IGK)

4 Well, it is rather superfulous to call the SF Ginats brain dead. And Bonds isn't even in the lineup!

Posted by: William Teach at August 08, 2005 06:53 PM (IRsCk)

5 Did you just type "SF Gnats?" Oh, you're in BIG trouble in PC-land...

Posted by: Ogre at August 08, 2005 06:56 PM (L0IGK)

6 SF Gnats R' Us

Posted by: William Teach at August 08, 2005 07:18 PM (IRsCk)

7 That's SO wrong.

Posted by: Ogre at August 08, 2005 07:23 PM (L0IGK)

8 I wonder if Felipe will bare his soul?

Posted by: William Teach at August 08, 2005 08:51 PM (TFSHk)

9 You're in rare form this evening, Teach! ROFL!

Posted by: Ogre at August 08, 2005 09:13 PM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment