Why I feel the Abortion Consent Law is a Bad Idea.

    When I heard of the proposal from State Representative Bill Bratton of providing written consent from the father of the child before an abortion could occur. A story covered in Mother Jones. My first thought was that was too much of an overreach. Although, the premise seams sound, the law appears to only act as a trump card. And I see this law being summarily overturned in the courts, without much controversy. 

     Although, the proposed law may be well intentioned, I see many problems regarding the application of this law.

     One reason is because, this law functions as a trump card. Thus giving the perceived future father of the baby the ability to override the mother’s wishes by the force of law. Not just equal say, but required participation. The father is not required to do one thing to stop the abortion, just refuse to sign. This leaves to mother exposed to further manipulation. 

     I agree that the current abortion laws do favor the rights of the female over the rights of the male. And this power can be used vindictively. As in the case of a woman saying. I am going to abort your baby in spite of how you feel. However, can we justify placing an equal law that states. You will carry this baby full term, and create a true balance. As for establishing the rights of the unborn, this is the only battle ground that this issue could be won on. The father/mother issue is just an obfuscation.

If the problem was a plague of Succubus that are stealing the seed of virtuous men, in order to obtain the blood price to partake in the sacrament of the radical feminist. Then this law may be applicable.

The problem I have is that this law is that it can give an individual with Machiavellian intentions the ability to use the state to enforce limited slavery.

     If you are male and do not wish to have an aborted baby. There are time tested ways to reduce the chances of this happening. You spend time with your potential mate. You ask questions, share dreams and determine that your mate is compatible and shares your values, before you engage in the activities that can create life. This is not a guarantee, but it greatly reduces the odds of bad decisions. I admit this is hard because, it requires self-control, and self-denial. An activity also mocked in today’s society.

     If your only contribution was to put in the required three dates in the hopes of sampling the goods. Then wishing to use the power of the state to stop a woman from killing your baby. I have no sympathy for you. You will have earned your regret.

     I am pro-life. However, I do not believe you can legislate abortion away, only drive it back underground. The only way to achieve a pro-life society is to win the hearts and minds of the society. Therefore, making it socially unacceptable. This does not include enabling a law that could be viewed as less evil than the law you are trying to remove. If you fight evil with evil, evil still wins.

     God gave us the gift of life, and consequently, he also gave us an equal if not greater gift called free will.  I am sure that God realized that this gift could be used for great evil. However, it can also lead to greater good. If we only existed without choices, we would all just exist, but would not have the ability to rise to exceptional. And our culture has embraced free will and tried to incorporate it into our constitution. We tend to write laws to punish behavior, not to remove the choice. And laws that are designed to remove choice we tend to impugn.

     Consequently, the supporters of abortion have successfully crafted the issue to be an issue of choice. To make the only visible consequence of abortion laws are the removal of a woman’s right to choose. It allow the average person to rationalize the issue to a matter of choice, and avoid having to take a moral stand. Then they can say, “I would never have or encourage someone to have an abortion. I just don’t want to make that decision for someone else.” Then they can rationalize that they are only pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

     I could create several scenarios in which this proposed law could be abused, but in the interest in brevity, I will leave it alone.

     Another issue involved in this is truth. How do you determine the paternity of the father without a court ordered paternity test? All the woman would have to do convince some man to sign a paper for her. Then pretend he was the father. That could lead to a messy court battle to require a paternity test. And then what, all pregnancies requiring paternity test. Maybe not at the beginning, they will only require it if you want an abortion. It would just be another step for state encroachment.

     In short, I believe that the sin of abortion will be the sin our society will have to pay for in future generations. Much like the past sin of slavery still haunts our existence today. Therefore, the only way to minimize the cost is to remove it the proper way, without legislative short cuts.

     There are many hidden agendas that are hiding under the pro-choice argument. Maybe it is time to allow freewill, and make the argument about the consequence and truth of abortion, instead of a matter of choice.

The CIA Diet Center

#satire

With the release of the detail of the Senate investigation into torturing of prisoners. One thing that stood out the most was the assertion about dietary manipulation.

The first thing that came to my mind was that maybe the CIA can franchise some Weight loss clinics. It sounded pretty effective With Khalid Sheikh Mohammad losing fifty pound. The advertising could post a before and after picture of him return to his fighting weight. With results like that, people would line up to pay for membership. And who needs FDA approval when you have congressional approval.

And what innovative patents they could have filed for. Although High Colonics have been around for years, with American ingenuity they took it to the next level. Anal nutrition.

Moreover, this homeopathic therapy has the beneficial effect of a non-surgical laparoscopic bands. Not only can they control the caloric intake, effects of weeks of non-oral nutrition would cause the stomach to shrink to a smaller size, thus limiting future caloric intake after therapy. Making for lasting results after treatment achieved in a natural way.

Although, governmental entities are not allowed to create private ventures, the CIA is rumored to have black op businesses in order to fund untraceable clandestine activity and to act as fronts. This would mean that they could not use their brand or past clientele performance to promote this endeavor, a marketing negative, and a lost a lot of national air-time exposure. They will be left to build the brand from the ground level. Maybe they can just license the franchise under a different name.

Does CO₂ Create Global Warming

I started this quest trying to find how CO₂ was measured and what data sets were used to support the greenhouse hypothesis.  I did not find what I expected.

I expected to have an average of CO₂ level that had been compiled from multiple stations scattered about the globe, and from that data I would be able to determine the standard of deviations collect from the samples to create a global mean. What I have found is that they primarily base their modeling on a few stations. Primarily, the Mauna Loa Observatory, in Hawaii. Most of the other stations that data is used from have similar characteristics. Most are in high altitude regions, and enjoy cold and dry climates, with a few exceptions. One being America Samoa, located between New Zealand and Hawaii, and not at a high elevation.

This I have deduced is important from the way that CO₂ is measured, they pass infrared wavelength through the sample, and measure how much of the wavelength was absorbed to determine the number of particles that are contained in the sample. Before they can do this they have to remove the remaining particles of water from the sample. That led me to think that the absorption rate for H₂O was similar to the absorption rate of CO₂. I am still researching this data, and will not cover it here.

This is an important factor, since H₂O makes up a greater percentage of atmospheric gases than CO₂ even at higher altitudes.  We are talking levels approaching 100 times greater than CO₂ at high altitudes. Something like 30,000 ppm (particles per million) to roughly 372 ppm of CO₂.

To me this has led to an Emperor has no cloths scenario. In which we are told that if you cannot see the effects of global warming, you are uneducated or a fool.  And that 98% of all scientist believe in anthropologic global warming. Is this true or are they afraid of being labeled a fool?

To be clear I am not a scientist, and I believe that human activity does have an effect on the overall climate. Whether this is good or bad depends on the criteria you use, or what you measure.

I will not argue that to date human activity has exacerbated natural weather events. It is hard to dismiss the Dust bowl created in the 1930’s as just a drought. The drought may have been a natural occurrence, however, it was made worse by poor land management practices, and the introduction of mechanized farming. And the 1995 flood reached record levels because of changes to the Missouri, Mississippi Rivers, and the surrounding flood plain areas.

We are taught in grade school of the water cycle. Carbon also has a cycle. This can clearly be seen in the data collected from Mauna Loa. In the winter CO₂ levels rise because more CO₂ is produced than used. Then it starts falling in the spring until it reaches its minimum for the year in fall and starts rising again.

The best model to explain this season cycle is a tree. A tree buds in the spring and starts to develop leaves, which are used for photosynthesis. Photosynthesis combines CO₂ from the air with H₂O with the energy of sunlight to create sugars that are used to grow the tree, and they exhale O₂. Now the sugars that are used to grow the tree become sequestered in the new growth on the tree, and this carbon will remain sequestered until the tree dies and deteriorates. Now in the fall, the leaves lose their function and fall off of the tree. These leaves will deteriorate and release their carbon as CO₂. This is the simple explanation for the seasonal variations of CO₂.

Where everything falls apart for me is when you contribute all the ills of global warming to CO₂ and seem to ignore more prevalent gases that make up the atmosphere. For years, we have been taking sequestered H₂O from the ground and using it in high desert environments. Could this not also have the effect they have been placing on carbon? That is why I question the motivation. Who can they get more money from? Big oil, or millions of smaller users of water? Who makes a better villain? An oil company or a farmer? And don’t complain with your mouth full.

I do not argue that CO₂ has been rising over the past century. I just think that there is a possibility that this rise could be a result of climate change, not a driving force. After all, look at the seasonal fluctuations now. Could this not be happening on a larger scale as growth cycle lengthen and create more new growth? Then when the climate becomes less beneficial, could not this new growth add to the total rise in CO₂ as it dies off and deteriorates at a faster pace than new growth? Thus becoming a lagging indicator instead of a predictor.

With the climate models based on educated guesses, instead of factual data, climate change has become settled politics, not settled science. You tell me we must act now to stop global warming. What if you are wrong and looking at the wrong criteria?  Could you not be causing more harm instead of stopping a perceived threat?

So, I will set here among the uneducated fools and say. “The Emperor has no cloths.” Until, you can produce factual, unbiased data.