Blog

3000 Bullets, 4 Guns, 1 24 year old kid. When does good legislation outweigh the promise of more?


Every time, wow there’s actually an every time for this. Every time there is a reality freezing tragedy involving firearms and a mass of people, the same debate ensues. The, would gun control have stopped this, debate. However I feel that due to the precarious position of the current democratic incumbent, the left has forgotten its side. As far as I know both candidates for president have spoken on the subject of the recent tragedy in Colorado, however neither of them have called for stricter gun control laws. I’m not expecting this from one side, but for the left to just stand there as more and more innocent civilians lose their lives, due to nothing more than loose regulation, sickens me. There is no explanation for this, other than the fact that The President is worried about being re-elected in the fall. Re-election is the most important thing-- is how a lot of presidents feel in their first term. But for some reason, despite being burned many times, I expect more. I have one question to ask. When is something more important than re-election. What constitutes something that would be worth losing the second term of presidency for? Because in my, somewhat naive, eyes I think that the prevention of countless deaths, not of foreign people, not of the un-born or the old or the sick, but healthy, young, intelligent, citizens of







Why I think some people seem to not understand/trust statistics.

Random thought #1. I was sitting on my couch watching the news one night when I heard a statistic. It was that in the year 2011, 9% of the elderly population is below the poverty rate (go to bed cold & hungry). But that has come down drastically from the number of 30% in the 1960s. Like most of you probably are, I was still somewhat saddened by the statistic. It was then that I thought, wait a sec, how could they possibly have figured something like that out, there’s no way. And for a second, the negative feeling, just sort of went away, for a second. I thought to myself, stupid, it’s a statistic. Just because they couldn’t possibly have talked to every elderly person beneath the poverty line, doesn’t mean that the sample group they took doesn’t accurately represent the majority of the country. That’s when I thought of it. The reason why some people have so much trouble accepting a statistic or study, is because they weren’t paying attention in science or math class when it was explained how they were conducted.

Examples: Global Warming. Statistic: World is getting hotter at a much higher rate within the last 50 years then it had in the last few hundred due to the green house effect that fossil fuels, among other things, are having on our atmosphere. Rebuttal: How could you possibly know that this isn’t just how the world works. One is supported by fact, the other is just contrarian.

Global Warming/Climate Change Information

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

Example: Evolution (Ape to Man). Statistic: 98 of our genetic DNA is exactly the same. Rebuttal: 1. Well you weren’t there how would you know where people came from. 2. "If evolution is real, why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?" (Christine O'Donnell Tea Party Candidate) Once again, one is supported by DNA evidence; the other has no basis in fact what so ever.

Information on Evolution

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution

I’m just sick of people not trusting science. Think of it like this, no matter how boring the subject, there’s someone who always wants to know how it works. These people are called scientists; they just want to know how things work. As long as you’re trusting science that isn’t funded by corporations in order to sque true fact, I think you'll be ok. This is really easy to identify as well, take the recent ads saying that tar sand fossil fuel is easy to clean up and no worse for the environment than crude oil.

A quote from TransCanada's website, the company who wants to build the Pipeline. "Pipelines are safe and environmentally favorable way. The chance of a significant spill is remote, yet TransCanada is ready to respond to limit impacts. Keystone XL Pipeline incorporates proven design features and construction methods, as well as a state-of-the-art integrity management program. The approach helps ensure Keystone XL Pipeline operates safely in environmentally sensitive areas such as the Ogallala Aquifer."

The Ogallala Aquifer is a natural water reservoir that sits under seven states in the Midwest. 27 percent of the irrigated land in the United States overlies this aquifer system, which yields about 30 percent of the nation's ground water used for irrigation. In addition, the aquifer system provides drinking water to 82 percent of the people who live within the aquifer boundary." Sounds fine so far, until you know that the actual studies on a Tar sand pipeline state.

"Currently, tar sands crude oil pipeline companies are using conventional pipeline technology to transport this DilBit (Tar Sand Oil). These pipelines, which require higher operating temperatures and pressures to move the thick material through a pipe, appear to pose new and significant risks of pipeline leaks or ruptures due to corrosion, as well as problems with leak detection and safety problems from the unstable mixture. There are many indications that DilBit (Tar Sand Oil) is significantly more corrosive to pipeline systems than conventional crude. For example, the Alberta pipeline system has had approximately sixteen times as many spills due to internal corrosion as the U.S. system." That was taken from a report conducted by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

With that sort of knowledge, it would be criminal to put something so dangerous above something so precious to the country. Yet there are commercials, which I’m sure you’ve all seen, which state that it’s the best thing that could ever happen for our economy. And guess what, because there are no bad feelings associated with it, people just eat that shit up.