Quick Hitts

We are being warned by an environmentalist that climate change “must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”   A representative of the World Metrological Organization warns that climate change can not be reversed.  One of the darlings of the environmental movement predicts world wide food shortages.  In ten years, he insists, there will be a massive food shortage in the US, causing the starvation deaths of hundreds of millions of people.  In twenty years the US population will be a mere 22.6 million, and England will not exist.

Another organization of experts predicts that the world will run out of gold, mercury and silver in fifteen years and petroleum copper, lead and natural gas in twenty.   Yet another pontificator tells us that we only have fifteen years before 75-85% of “All living animals will be extinct.”

Are you thinking of global warming?  Nope.  These were all global cooling scares from the late sixties and early seventies.  The food shortage expert was Dr. Paul Erlich who has a perfect record: every prediction he’s ever made has been wrong.  He’s never even been close.  Yet he still remains a hero of radical environmentalists.

Want more details?  All these quotes and facts came from a recent column by Walter Williams.  He goes on to point that that the experts were wrong then, wrong before that, and wrong before that.  With their almost perfect record of wrong predictions in the past, what would a reasonable person conclude about our more modern doomsayers?

Pretend, for a moment, that you don’t believe in Thor, God of Thunder. A columnist, who believes in Thor with his whole heart and soul, does an interview with a well known whack job. The whack job, who also doesn’t believe in Thor, recommends killing babies by clubbing them on the head, then eating them raw. The columnist then proclaims: “See! See! This is the way aThorists think!”

This approach was taken Dinesh D’Souza in an article published on Townhall.com, where he equates the rather demented Peter Singer with atheism. The article is titled “Atheism and Child Murder.”

“Not Being Liberal” is evidently TownHall’s only qualification for selecting writers. They present a large, strange conglomeration of the brilliant and the brain dead. Insightful writers like John Stossel, Walter Williams and Jacob Sullum share the pages with mouth breathers like Mike Gallagher and Cal Thomas. Thomas Sowell, who could win any argument with a gallon of novocaine injected into his skull, is presented on the same level as scary transsexual Ann Coulter, who had half her cerebellum removed as part of the operation.

There are so many things wrong with D’Souza’s article I’m sure to miss a few. He starts with a false premise: “So perhaps atheism has found an able advocate.” Sorry, Sparky, I have yet to hear a single atheist anywhere embrace Singer as an advocate. Some consider him an interesting whack job, but pretending (or even implying) he represents atheists is like claming that the Texas polygamy cult represents Christianity. It reeks of desperation, and as an added bonus is blatantly dishonest.

He then goes on to equate Darwinism with Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is a perversion of Darwinism that is soundly rejected by nearly all Darwinists. Dinesh knows this, so this can’t be written off as simple ignorance – it is another example of intentional dishonesty.

Dinish continues: “So while Christianity introduced into Western civilization the concept of dignity of human life. . .” So the concept of the dignity of human life didn’t exist before Christianity came along? Perhaps he should read some history.

He concludes with “Given the connection that Singer draws between atheism and child murder, using the former as his premise to recommend the latter, I wonder if our atheist friends are going to rush to embrace this guy as one of their heroes. Is Singer showing us where the road to complete secularism actually leads?”

Given that Dinish has shown himself to be a dishonest douche bag, I wonder if our Christian Friends are going to embrace him as one of their heroes. Is D’Sousa showing us where the road to Christianity leads, to willful ignorance and intentional dishonesty?

As an atheist, I’d never make that claim. But then, atheists are, on the whole, more honest than the likes of D’Souza.

Quick, which state has the most mouth-breating, slack jawed, drooling morons on their school boards?

If you guessed Kansas, Alabama or Mississippi, you might be right. But Florida is doing everything they can to prove they can be just as encephalitic as any of the goober states. Several counties are considering teaching creationism in public schools. (Under the sobriquet of Intelligent Design, of course. Fundies figured renaming their idiot superstition would fool stupid people. It’s working.) But they’ve just topped themselves in the mouth breathing category: they’ve just fired a substitute teacher for . . . wizardry.

Seriously. Substitute teacher Jim Piculas did a quickie magic trick, making a toothpick vanish and reappear. It’s obviously slight of hand (and a very simple trick, you can find instructions on YouTube), but it was enough to scare the supervisor of substitute teachers, who called it a “huge issue.”

After the fact the supervisor claimed there were other reasons, like not following lesson plans and letting the kids play on an unauthorized computer, but Jim said that’s the first time he heard those complaints. Evidently they tacked them on later to keep themselves from looking stupid.

Too late.

BTW, here’s a very old article I wrote back in ’99 when Kansas demanded fundyism creationism ID be taught in public schools.

Michael Bates writes:

I hope I’m not a misogynist, but I hate Hillary and I think I have good reasons. My number one reason is that if future generations look back at our society, a society in which supposedly everybody has the chance to be president, and they see a succession of presidents that goes like this: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, (Is Jeb Bush next and then will Chelsea be ready?) they will without a doubt conclude that democracy stopped functioning and that bothers me a lot.

The next thing that bothers me about Hillary is that she has been a power broker in Washington for thirty years and therefore must be owned by many special interests and I am tired of being governed by special interests. I could list a bunch of other reasons, but I recently got hammered for being a misogynist because of my views. Do my views really make me a misogynist?

Yes, Michael, of course you’re a misogynist. And a racist and probably a homophobe too. Because approximately 100% of the time you start wining an argument with a far left liberal they’re going to start name calling, and they don’t have enough imagination to come up with anything but those tired old standards.

The race card is their favorite, of course. Don’t like Islam? They’ll call you a racist. Point out that Islam isn’t a race, and they’ll insist that you must hate Arabs. Like all demagogues, they don’t respond to reason, logic or common sense. You have a better chance of success teaching the concept of square roots to an Irish Setter. (Gasp. Was that a slur on the Irish?)

I have a long list of reasons I despise Hillary, but to a true lefty, none of them matter. When shared my opinion with a far left friend of mine her reply was, “What’s the matter, don’t you like strong women?” Sheesh. If course I like strong women. That’s one of my reasons for hating Hillary – she isn’t one. A strong woman would never spend decades chained to a serial philanderer. She might forgive him for cheating on her the first time. Maybe she should have forgiven him the second time. But when he did it for the third time a strong woman would have told him the honeymoon was over, although in their case, they still had four days left.

But when a lefty calls you a racist, misogynist or homophobe, don’t despair. Instead, you should celebrate. It means they’re desperate because you’ve backed them into a corner and they have no rational response to you. They’ll never admit that, of course, because in their fantasy world they are always right, and therefore always win every debate. But you’ll know better.

It doesn’t happen often. It’s a very rare event. But yes, there is a new article on The Hittman Chronicle. It’s titled “Insulting Islam,” and has the audacity to suggest that when it comes to Islamic demands on Western Society we need less tolerance, not more.

It’s also available as a podcast.

This post is to provide a place for public comments. E-Mails are also welcome, of course.

Dr. Shepard was one of the co-authors of the infamous Helena Study. The study made an astonishing claim: That in the six months Helena MT had a smoking ban in place heart attacks dropped by 60%. In order to fully appreciate this entry, I suggest you first read the details of the study here and here.

Tony Masset, a student at Carroll College in Waukesha, WI, attended a presentation by Dr. Shepard. Before the presentation he asked me to suggest some questions he could ask.

Tony tried to record the conversations, but wasn’t able to because of an equipment malfunction. Instead, he wrote down the questions and answers immediately after leaving the presentation. As a result this is an accurate, but not word for word, report.

The first round of questions took place during the presentation.

Tony: “There were only 44 cases. Why didn’t you ask a single person about their SHS exposure?”

Shepard: “Because we didn’t have the data from before the study to compare the results too. So even if we asked them about their exposure it wouldn’t have done us any good because we can not compare it to anything.”

Tony: “Your own graph shows a similar dip in the heart attacks in 1998. Why did you ignore that?”

Shepard: “That data isn’t similar as shown in my graph.” Then he pointed to a new column graph that showed the number of heart attacks by year instead of by month. The average showed the rates increasing every year up to the year of the ban and then slowly climbing again after the ban was lifted.

So when one graph proves you’re a liar, create another that shows you in a better light.

Tony: You announced a 60% reduction in your press conference, but your published study only claimed a 40% reduction. Why?”

Shepard: “We did a (phonetically spelled) qwuaz-eye study and the BMJ wanted us to do a linear study.” I am not sure what it means, I think his point was that he had the data determined using one method but the BMJ wanted them to determine the data using their approved method. It has to be a round-about way of saying “we manipulated the data and they didn’t want to publish our manipulated findings.”

My guess is Shepard was admitting that the 60% number came from a “quasi-study.” In other words, an imitation study, something that resembled a study, but was not a real study. What does this say about his integrity?

After the presentation:

After the questions I stayed to argue with him for about 15 minutes. He had an older listener and a younger college student on each side of him giving him a bobble head visual “surround sound” effect, two people that literally shook their head yes to every single thing the man said! A few things said in our Q&A were:

Tony: “Why can’t the bar owners make their own decision about how to run their business? If it truly was beneficial to bar owners wouldn’t they implement smoking bans on their own?”

Shepard: “People do not have a right to smoke because it harms others so bar owners can’t permit a practice that someone does not have a right to do. And no, bar owners have an irrational fear that they will lose business if they implement a ban so they will never decide to ban smoking on their own.”

Bar owners fear of losing business is hardly irrational. Smoking bans always destroy a significant number of businesses, especially bars.

He brought up various court cases where smokers always lost and concluded, “See, no one has a legal right to smoke.”

Nice sidestep. This is not, and has never been, about anyone’s right to smoke. It’s about junk science and the property rights of venue owners.

Tony: “People can decide for themselves whether they want to patronize a bar or not, so why do we need a blanket ban that forces owners to decide how to run their establishment?”

Shepard: “The employees can’t decide for themselves. They often have no skills, no education, and they need to put food on the table and so they have to bus tables, their choice is taken away. Does the owner have the right to subject employees to that?”

Tony: “The employees chose to work there, they knew people smoked and yet they took the job anyway. If someone doesn’t like where they work they can find another job.”

College student bobble head: “What experience do you have in the work force?”

Shepard: “(smirking) You are falsely believing that people can go out and find a job anywhere at anytime, that there are limitless jobs available, and that people have the ability to change jobs. Most people don’t and those individuals that don’t have a choice of where to work can not be subjected to SHS because of how deadly it is.”

Could Shepard have been any more condescending? He claims his mission is to protect bar employees, but it’s because they’re talentless losers who can’t find work anywhere else.

Tony: “I believe one of the great aspects about living in America is that you can choose to leave a job at anytime for any reason and find one where you want to work. Positions for unskilled laborers are probably the most abundant in this economy and you are going to tell me that it is impossible for them to find another job at a different restaurant?”

Shepard: (smiling as the two bobble heads bobbed up and down)”I think you do not understand the point. Bar owners can not be allowed to subject employees to SHS because of its harmful effects, plain and simple. I also think you are not being sympathetic to the situations most people live in and you have never experienced the choices that they have had to deal with.”

Tony: “I want to go back to the question about the first three months of the ban. During that time, with little compliance, heart attacks decreased. In the second three months, with enforcement, heart attacks returned to normal levels.”

Shepard: “Most businesses were in compliance with the ordinance, only a handful weren’t. Part of the reason the ban was lifted was because of the difficulty with enforcing it. They got fed up with trying and overturned the ban. I think it is unfair to bring up those specific statistics because you are focusing too much on the data.”

This is a flat out lie. A substantial number of businesses weren’t complying and he knows it.

Tony: “We have many taxes on cigarettes, if we ban smoking besides the loss of jobs for those individuals wouldn’t the government just push the tax onto some other product or service because they will not want to lose funding?”

Shepard: “We would double the tax each time the percentage of people that smoke is cut in half. It would maintain our tax income and discourage others from smoking. I would hate to be the guy that pays $1,000,000 for the last pack of cigarettes. Also like you said, those people could easily go find other jobs because it is America.” (Head bobbing and laughs)

Tony: “You really pushed the idea that nicotine is the most addictive drug in the world so why would increases in the tax rate suddenly cause people to break the habit? Why wouldn’t they just go bankrupt making them dependent on societal programs such as welfare, increasing costs for nonsmokers?” (A big point of his was that nonsmokers pay for smoker’s health insurance.)

Shepard: “If you were listening that is not what I said. Poor people that can’t afford cigarettes stop smoking; it is the rich that end up being the primary smokers with higher tax rates because they can afford to smoke.”

It is a joke. On the one hand he says “Because the nicotine is so addictive even if smokers want to quit they can’t.” Yet later he says poor people will stop smoking when they can’t afford cigarettes. Like they can suddenly stop buying them because cost becomes the over whelming factor in the decision to smoke. What will really happen is a poor person will steal cigarettes if they can’t afford them, plain and simple. I wish I would have said that.

A few will steal, but the majority will buy “illegal” smokes, cigarettes that have been purchased without paying the tax. There is a huge black market for cigarettes that aren’t burdened with confiscatory taxes, and it grows every time tobacco taxes are raised.

Well I hope I gave you some insight into how the presentation was conducted. He had an answer to everything I said. I learned a lot. I’d like to take their responses, research them, and blow them out of the water next time I argue. I’d like to find weaknesses in their logic and pick their ideas apart. Hopefully I can strengthen my argument after this.

I think I shocked the people when I told them I did not smoke or drink but I would be the first to fight for everyone’s right to do so. I wish I could remember more of what we argued about at the end or even the points he argued in his presentation.

I want to thank you again for the questions and for reading my e-mail. I love your website and I hope you can maintain it with more relevant information!

Tony Masset
West Allis

Great Job, Tony. Yes, nannies, like all fundamentalists, have stock answers for the tough questions. But, as you learned, there is little substance to those answers. If you keep pressing them they usually end up contradicting themselves, revealing their dishonesty.

Three women from the isle of Lesbos are shocked, shocked I tell you, to learn that gay women call themselves Lesbians. Or if not shocked, at least bitchy about it. They’re suing the “Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece” over their name.

“My sister can’t say she is a Lesbian,” said Dimitris Lambrou. “Our geographical designation has been usurped by certain ladies who have no connection whatsoever with Lesbos,” he said.. . .

Lambrou said the word lesbian has only been linked with gay women in the past few decades. “But we have been Lesbians for thousands of years,” said Lambrou, who publishes a small magazine on ancient Greek religion and technology that frequently criticizes the Christian Church.

Waaaaaa. What’s next, suing publishers in Holland for the story of the little Dutch boy who stuck his finger in the. . . naw, too easy.