To send a copy of any BLOG to a friend, click on the BLOG Title, Then click on “mail this” button below BLOG.
Enter the information requested and any comments you wish and click send.

Send other comments to:


Democracy versus Mob Rule, your Choice

Oregroanian August 28, 2007 page 1A: An article titled —Crowd pounds Baird’s Iraq stance—. This article states “Hundreds at a raucous and hostile town hall Monday night let U.S. Rep, Brain Baird know that they disapproved of his support for the troop surge in Iraq. Many suggested the Vancouver Democrat is not representing the will of his district.” At least two things wrong with this opening paragraph, first the district must be pretty small if only “hundreds” represent the will of his district. The second thing is that this type of behavior is condoned and encouraged by the oregroanian.

What has happened to democracy in this country? What happened to listening to an opinion even if it different that your own? This is bigotry in the worst form.

Instead, “The audience interrupted Baird as he tried to calmly explain his decision to support a beefed up presence of U.S. Troops in the war-torn country.” Our form of government allows all people to be heard not just those who shout people down. That meeting was a lynch mob in action, ugly and controlled by hysterical emotion. If these are the type of people he truly represents in Washington, I suggest that Oregon install a fence along our northern boarder and keep these rude, selfish and loud bigots out of our State.

By Emmett Geese

Irresponsible Science and Reporting

Oregroanian August 17, 2007 page 1A: An article titled —Peru’s quake makes local experts tremble—. This article states “The main difference: A northwest quake could be stronger and longer.” Sure, my aunt could have been my uncle if she would have been a man. The truth is that anything could happen. The words could, can and would were used 6 times in this article. These types of articles are used to scare people and get more money for research and are an example of irresponsible science and reporting.

These types of random events are controlled by complex systems that cannot be analysis specifically but they can be and are analyzed routinely by the science of statistics. Each of these events have what is called a return period. Responsible science should use both probability and the return period to illustrate the veracity of their claims.

The return period for a magnitude 9 earth quake off the Oregon coast is much longer than age of the state. Thirty years ago, we spent tons of money strengthening Portland’s Structures. That effort has successfully protected Portland from magnitude 9 earthquakes. In fact Portland has not felt an earthquake 1000 time less than a magnitude 9 quake. If we have an infinite supply of wealth and no other problems then we should consider these remote events. One hundred years ago, these events were called act’s of God. Today that same concept is summed up by the phrase, “XXXX happens!

Science and reporting that uses propaganda and other peoples tragedy to make a buck is despicable.

By Emmett Geese

Individual Rights

Oregroanian August 12, 2007 page E6: An article titled —ID microchips might be next assault on individual rights—. This article is about privacy and common good. These two abstract notions have been bantered about over a few centuries. The conflict is directly proportional to the population density. If you live alone on a desert island, you can do what you want when you want. If you add other humans, then individual freedom diminishes. Two hundred years ago, we had 1 billion people on this planet.

There was still room to find a spot to be alone. That’s why people became mountain men. They essentially traded convenience and companionship for individual rights. Today we have 6.6 billion people on the planet, there is no longer room to be an individual. If we want to return to a planet, where people have more individual freedom; we must reduce the number of people on the planet.

We can do that two ways, by continuing business as usual and major violence and mayhem will reduce the population. Or, we can reduce the number of births. The choice is everybody’s.

By C Blume

The Value of the Top Predator

Science, July 27, 2007 page 438: An article titled –Aspens Return to Yellowstone, with Help from some wolves – This article discusses the unquestionable value of the top predator in a ecosystem. “Their (aspen) recovery, the researchers say, is not simply because the wolves are hunting the aspens’ archenemy, the elk; it’s also because the wolves have reintroduced the fear factor, making the elk too nervous to linger in an aspen grove and eat.” There is little doubt that this statement above is true. It is playing out in many of our own back yards by deer and geese. The article also states, that “By examining tree rings, Ripple and Larsen found that the park’s aspens had stopped regenerating soon after the 1920s—almost exactly the same date that the US Government eliminated the gray wolf from Yellowstone.”

However, there is a major flaw in this science. The wolf is not the top predator. There is no doubt that the top predator on the planet is man. The grand environmental scheme since the twenties was to limit mans ability to fill that necessary niche in nature by setting up areas where game like the elk were safe from all predators and man. How good is this research, when such an important fact is ignored. The wolves were eliminated from Yellowstone to protect humans and the other prey in the park.

If the truly top predator, man, was reintroduced into Yellowstone, the result for the aspens would be the same, and there would be no threat to the visitors to the park. It is easy for these researchers to see the damage that protecting the elk has now caused, but what kind of damage would occur if the wolves are protected in a similar manner? Stupid is as Stupid does.

A Bialystock

Hooray for Senator Smith

Oregroanian August 11, 2007 page A1: An article titled —Smith backs cheney, farmers in fish-kill debate—. States Sen. Gordon Smith argues there is no evidence a massive fish kill on the Klamath River in 2002 was caused by water diversions to farmers. I am not a farmer or a politician, but I am a research scientist and have been one for 40 years. Seven years ago I finished a 3 year independent unfunded study on the science behind the salmon issue. That study look at hundreds of papers and reports preformed by environmental scientist, the conclusion from that study was that much of the science behind the salmon issue is flawed and biased. The most common mistake was to ignore alternative interpretations of the data and concentrate on only those interpretations that fit their religious views about environmental science. For example, the undeniable increase in salmon predator population is being ignored.

According to this Article, “a study cited low river flows and warmer water as a factor in the die-off. Questions, were there other factors? What were the other factors? Is there a critical river flow, which triggers these die offs? Has the river ever been below that level before? Did die offs occur every time it reached that level? With out these answers and others this study is not science but environmental propaganda.

Propaganda is bad enough, but to label it sciences is unforgivable.

By D Dodds

Les is Less

Oregroanian Aug 5, 2007 page E1: An Editorial titled —See the forests through the owl—. Written by Les AuCoin, acknowledges “…that the aggressive barred owl, an invasive species reported to be spreading throughout Northwest forests, is a contributing source of the spotted owl’s continued decline.” But he can’t quite admit that he and the rest of the environmentalist were wrong. He goes on to say, “But these lines of argument miss the bigger picture. Thanks to the spotted owl, (propaganda), much of its habitat the—last remaining …have been protected for current and future generations. …these ancient stands provide a legacy of special places which Oregonians hike, camp, fish, enjoy family and friends, or savor the simple pleasure of family unmatched solitude.”

Talk about missing the bigger picture. Did you forget that you pushed through legislation that severely reduces the access to those sites of unmatched solitude? Did you ever visit Yellowstone 70 years ago? Have you visited one of the nations special places recently? I am sorry Less but it is impossible to savor unmatched solitude because the savoring of it destroys it. Never occurred to you?

Les then goes on to say “There’s a word for this: greed. Irresponsible, indefensible, perfidious greed. Benefiting the few, mainly the timber industry, at the expense of almost everyone else.” There is a major flaw in this reasoning. No one cuts down trees for the fun of it. There is a basic law of economics called supply and demand. Ever hear of it Les? If there were no demand, nobody would cut down trees. Hello! Why is there a demand? People need places to live, they need houses. Hello again! Your close-minded opinions on what is right did not affect the major timber companies but it did drive to extinction the unique genre called Gypo-Loggers and small locally own mills. Good job Les, you reduced the competition for the large corporate loggers, and now you are trying to justify your stupidity.

Since you did nothing to change the demand for lumber, all your zeal to save the environment, simply pushed the logging industry into third world countries and increased the rate that the tropical and remote forests, i.e. the Amazon, of the world are being cleared, doing untold damage to the world’s ecosystem. Oregon is saved, who cares about the rest of the world. Go thinking Les.

Talk about missing the big picture 70 years ago there was about 2 billion people on the planet. Today there is 6.5 billion. In case you can’t do the math, that is 3.25 times more people on the planet today that there was 70 years ago. Each of those people need a place to live, often made from timber. Each of those people need a car to drive, clothes, food etc that is all produced by industry. Industry requires energy. Am I going to fast? Do you suppose there is a connection between the number of people on the planet and the destruction of the environment? Do you suppose that the problem could be that there is 300 % more people on the planet, that the planet can comfortable sustain?

The problem isn’t the environment it is population.

By D.J. Dodds

Page :  1 
To send a copy of any BLOG to a friend, click on the BLOG Title, Then click on “mail this” button below BLOG.
Enter the information requested and any comments you wish and click send.

Send other comments to