Just when you thought it was safe…

This article, Enviros Commence Election-Year Attack really jumped off the screen at me. These eco-nuts are at it again.

Until I see these nuts walk every where they go (so as not to consume any petroleum products), wear only natural fibred clothing and so on, I have no respect for them. If they don’t want any of us to consume petroleum, then they shouldn’t either, no matter what the consequences.

But there’s the dangerous part:

[Union of Concerned Scientists]…advised its members to give media interviews about global warming in a 1997 memo:

“1. Stay on message. The message is simple – global warming is a serious problem – we must take action now to fight global warming.

“2. Don’t confuse them with doubt. In other words, don’t talk like a scientist, with caveats and error bars. Emphasize the word consensus.

“3. Don’t talk too much. So practice your soundbites and don’t get trapped into giving the reporter what he is looking for. Set your time limit in advance – so that you can terminate the interview before you are in over your head without appearing to be evasive – Your main purpose is to advocate, not to educate.”

I thought scientists were supposed to be objective about how the data turned out? I guess I’m wrong.

I have written about how anti-gunners must lie about the statistics in order to generate support. This article, Do Gun Control Activists Pad Gun Death Statistics? shows just how they do it.

To begin with, Blek is probably referring to the 2000 MMM event. (In 2001, only about 100 people participated and the event is now virtually ignored.) This means she is stating that almost 14,000 children died from gun violence between 2000 and 2004. The figure is almost certainly an extrapolation from prior data.

The definitive source for data on injury-death in America, including gun deaths, is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Taking relevant data for 2001, the latest year available, and multiplying the results by four should provide a figure close to 14,000.

During 2001, the CDC reported a total of 157,078 injury-deaths. On their interactive Web site, if you click “Firearm” under “Cause of Injury,” the figure becomes 29,573. For deaths in children, click on <1 as the lowest in the age range and 17 as the highest. Also select the "No Age-Adjusting Requested" option. The figure becomes 1,433. Multiplied by four, this is 5,732, or roughly 40 percent of what MMM asserts.

[...]

Maria Heil of the pro-gun Second Amendment Sisters comments on one of the misleading categories: “They [MMM] are not upfront that over half of those deaths are suicides. Suicide is not committed because there is a gun. Studies show that our suicide rate is on par with other industrialized nations, including ones with very strictly regulated guns.”

[...]

Changing the age parameters on the CDC site to register the gun deaths of children between <1 and 12 years old renders the number, 223 for 2001. Multiplied by four, this becomes 892 or about 6 percent of MMM's asserted figure. Anti-gun advocates should be stating that, between 2000 and 2004, the gun deaths of 892 children could have been avoided through gun control or prohibition. With valid statistics that are properly used, real debate could then begin.

According to the article, you would have to include deaths of people up to 21 years of age in order to get near that 14,000 figure. I don’t think ADULTS 18-21 are children, do you?

MMM hopes to create a groundswell of public outrage against guns. But, MMM should reconsider the inflation and skewing of statistics on dead children. As a strategy, it looks cruel and heartless and could easily backfire.

It already has. Why do you think nobody shows up for the event anymore?

In another gun-related story, I think the headline says it all: Gunmaker Liability Bill Goes Down in Defeat.

The anti-gunners managed to convince enough Republicans to vote to extend the Assault Weapons ban and attach it to the main bill. This killed the important part.

This is known as standing on your principals. It is also known as “You can be in the right and just as dead.”

I hope they reintroduce after the AW ban is over. They’ll have to wait that long at least. Probably until the next Congress in January of ’05. Hopefully Dubya will be there to sign it and not President Kerry.

Well, McDonald’s is taking a big step in the healthy direction. They will be getting rid of the Supersize option next year. Big deal. It will mean a one ounce less in maximum fries size, but should be several ounces less in drink size.

Back in the 50′s, a meal meant one Cheeseburger and what is now known as a small fry. The meal size (and calorie count) has at least tripled since then. The Cheeseburger patties are known as a “10 to 1″ because they are 1/10th a pound each.

Let’s see Mickey get rid of the Big Mac with it’s dose of Thousand Island dressing. And the biggest size of drink and fries after they get rid of the supersize category. Then we’ll see a change.

Oh, wait, I can’t advocate that. That takes away your choices. How about YOU eat just a Cheeseburger and a small fry twice a week instead of a Quarter Pounder a day? That makes it your personal responsibility to choose if not the healthy things, at least the fattening ones in moderation.

Me? I average less than one Big and Tasty and a Dollar fry a week. No drink, I drink Pepsi. Sometimes a small shake. Believe me, I am tempted. But I stay the course and use only in MODERATION.

Good Luck to you.