Of course, the proponents of man-caused (anthropogenic) “global warming” or anthropogenic “climate change” (AGW or ACC for short) keep churning out their opinions, no matter what the weather may be. It was less than two years ago some ACC-ers were warning about “the end of snow.” Whenever anyone who is not a believer in ACC argues that the current conditions do not support the climate change theory, the believers in ACC sneer that “climate and weather are not the same thing.” We couldn’t agree more – but it does seem that every time there is an “extreme” weather event (not necessarily the same thing as a “climate” event), the believers in ACC tout it as proof of the theory. It is “settled science” (another phrase they employ frequently) we are told – as they cut off discussion and demean those who disagree with ACC.
By John Shaffer The local area received no snow in the “Jonas Storm,” as the Weather Service dubbed last week’s event, but plenty of other places received plenty of snow. Two feet of the white stuff fell in many places, and there were locations in western Pennsylvania with over three feet of snow, and some in West Virginia with 42 inches (that’s three and a half feet!) New York City and Washington DC had snowfall totals that ranked in the top three or four highest totals recorded in those places.
Of course, the proponents of man-caused (anthropogenic) “global warming” or anthropogenic “climate change” (AGW or ACC for short) keep churning out their opinions, no matter what the weather may be. It was less than two years ago some ACC-ers were warning about “the end of snow.” Whenever anyone who is not a believer in ACC argues that the current conditions do not support the climate change theory, the believers in ACC sneer that “climate and weather are not the same thing.” We couldn’t agree more – but it does seem that every time there is an “extreme” weather event (not necessarily the same thing as a “climate” event), the believers in ACC tout it as proof of the theory. It is “settled science” (another phrase they employ frequently) we are told – as they cut off discussion and demean those who disagree with ACC. By John Shaffer One of the first principles of commerce is that “something is worth what someone is willing to pay for it.” Esau was hungry that day he swapped his birthright for some pottage, and, perhaps from his viewpoint if he had not obtained any food he wouldn’t have been around to enjoy that birthright, anyway. People overpay for things everyday – buying something at retail one can get elsewhere at a discount, or, more to the point, giving too much to gain something very valuable.
The astute reader probably can see where this is headed. A while back, the Obama Administration gained the release of US Army Sgt. Bo Bergdahl. It is a wonderful thing that this American soldier was released from Taliban captivity; but there are a great many who think that the price paid, which was in case you have forgotten, five Taliban “generals” released from US detention at Guantanamo, was too high. A similar “bargain” was struck this week, when the Obama Administration secured the release of some Americans who were being held by Iran. We haven’t heard anyone say that their release was wrong, but there are plenty of people who think that the price paid was excessive. Well, that depends on how the deal is reported. The Administration prefers we view it as a straight swap for four Americans (later five) for seven Iranians. They don’t emphasize the fact that the Americans were not “prisoners” except in the broadest possible interpretation. “Hostages” is a more accurate term. They were arrested on concocted charges and were imprisoned in very harsh conditions, The seven Iranians were arrested for actual crimes, were given due process and were tried in independent courts of law, and once convicted, they were incarcerated not in dungeons or filthy jails with substandard conditions but in modern institutions. So on the basic level we traded seven convicted felons (guilty of violating sanctions that prevented Iran from trading with western nations) for five people who committed no actual crime and should never have been imprisoned in the first place. By John Shaffer President Obama recently announced some executive actions on "guns," and then took part in a CNN town hall meeting on the same subject. Many of the premises that the President considers to be "facts” aren't true, so how could his solutions be effective?
For instance, the President believes there are "internet loopholes" and "gun show loopholes." He claims that "violent felons can buy… a weapon over the internet with no background check.” His contention is wrong, and what he describes already is illegal. Sales over the internet through licensed dealers must be shipped to a licensed dealer, and the buyer must pass a background check. The background checks apply to gun shows as well. The President claims to be in favor of "the right to keep and bear arms." Maybe he is, but he supported local laws prohibiting handguns in the possession of private citizens, and came out in favor of a ban on the "manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." The President uses the term "gun violence" without pointing out that suicides account for roughly two-thirds of the number and that justified self-defense, accidents and "line-of-duty" shootings by police account make up a good part of the remainder. He also didn't note that The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council estimates that there are somewhere between 500,000 to more than 3 million defensive gun uses per year. We suspect that is an underestimate, and that the presence of guns indirectly prevents many more crimes than that. Guns, obviously, are used to thwart, prevent or deter criminals in staggering numbers each year, leading us to infer that if private citizens were not able to protect themselves with guns, a great many more of us would be victims of crime. |
Local ColumnistsFind articles by date or topic through quick links below. Categories
All
Archives
March 2020
|