skip to content
Member Login
Support Independent Media

Vermont Guardian

For The Independent Mind

Breaking News Alerts

Posted January 26, 2007

Debunking global warming

It is amazing that so many people believe global warming is real and is caused by humans (Vermont Guardian, Jan. 9). This myth has been largely promoted by the major media that gives much attention to those who support it and very little to those who debunk it.

For example, in December, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-OK, chaired a “Climate Change and the Media” meeting. He said that global warming is a hoax. The meeting received almost no major media attention.

At this meeting, Dr. David Deming, a geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma, stated, “I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.”

Deming also said that he received an astonishing e-mail from a major researcher in climate change that read, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

From about 800 A.D. to 1300 A.D. we had the Medieval Warm Period where the world was as warm or warmer than it is today. But, it is an obstacle to those maintaining that the current warming is abnormal.

People who want to hear the other side can go to for a scientific debunking of global warming. Also, listed are the names of more than 17,000 scientists, meteorologists, and other technical people who have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing scientific evidence to support global warming.

Robert W. Van de Walle
Granada Hills, CA

Put ourselves in their shoes

As I lie in bed wondering about my complacency in regards to the Iraq War, one particular facet of the situation seems to keep coming around in my thoughts. I refer to an apparent double standard of the valuing of U.S. lives versus Iraqis and foreigners. I just perused the Internet and what I came up with was not easy to instantly evaluate.

First I came up with 148 U.S. military deaths in the 1991 war vs. 10,000 Iraqi deaths.

I next searched for UNICEF statistics on mortality statistics based upon the U.S.-led embargoes placed upon Iraq for the decade between wars. I have personally seen statistics cited from UNICEF stating that 5,000 infants died per year for 10 years as a result of these illegal blockades (illegal, because according to Geneva Convention you cannot levy embargoes that cause death). I found some controversy about the UNICEF findings in my search, but nevertheless, the blockades did exist and they did have an effect on people’s health and well-being.

In the current war we’re looking at approximately 3,020 dead U.S. soldiers versus anywhere from 45,000 to 650,000 dead Iraqis. The UN said that 32,000 Iraqi civilians died in 2006.

The first war and the embargoes boiled down to us versus them. We massacred 10,000 of them at a minimum loss to ourselves. We don’t know exactly the effect of what we did to them with our blockades and now in this war that it is harder to sort who we’ve killed, due to the infighting.

Let’s put ourselves in the Iraqis’ shoes. Factor in the population ratio difference of 1/10. We (United States) get overrun in 1991 by a huge foreign technocratic power that killed 100,000 of our citizens at a minor loss to the invaders. After destroying our infrastructures and converting our rivers to raw sewage for the next 12 years, they kept ships all around our coastlines blocking import and export of crucial supplies. We suffered the loss of all that was familiar and comforting to us, people physically and psychologically suffered. Twelve years later, they came at us again, they didn’t have a clue of what the dynamics in our country were and just got everyone with existing tensions all stirred up against each other and millions died this time. Again, their losses were minor in comparison, but they were outraged because someone set off a bomb in their country that killed a small number of people.

What’s wrong with us that we don’t seem to get what we’re doing in the world; do we think that we’re made out of gold? It’s human greed and governmental hoodwinking that created these smelly oil deals, but look how it’s affecting other people and we seem to think that we are above it.

T. Breeze VerDant

If the chaps don’t fit .... you must acquit

General George Armstrong Sorrell, fresh from a mêlée combating Indian insurgents, readies a cavalry brigade for his second charge into Bareback Mountain country to quench alleged wild cowboy civil naughtiness.

After all the squandering of time and money with a pointless, useless Supreme Court argument, in unrelenting pursuit of “giving it “ it to the Abenaki? To what end? Establishing a price tag, value, and boundaries concerning ethnicity and racism? Putting folks in their place.

Now Sorrell’s issue (and our expenses) is developing written strategy and crafting oral arguments concerning risqué chaps at a party.

Had Sorrell himself shown up that night wearing a risqué pair of chaps he might have indeed gotten lucky in establishing a precedent. Had the fraternity brothers chosen not let him in and told him he was too old, too fat, or too white he would have had a spectacular discrimination issue to argue. He would have been able to call the police and made arrest and have the party shut down. He could even have had a press conference.

Can Vermont really afford posturing with such victimless crime in this fashion? This attorney general’s privilege of immunity should not be license for him to engage in such civil rights violations of minorities and peaceable assembly. Who protects us from the likes of unchecked power? Where’s a “Spitzer” when you need one?

K.B. Richard

To be clear: Out of Iraq now

Just to clarify for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, this patriotic citizen’s vote was to get to hell out of Iraq. The United States of America has no authority to be there. The Congress and the president have no authority to sacrifice U.S. lives of those who are employed as the military sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

The military is only empowered to act according to the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Congress and the president sending the militia to be killed and maimed and to kill and maim for their policy that is not pursuant to the Constitution is criminal assault and murder against their own citizens. To attack Iraq which results in the deaths of Iraqi civilians and defenders of their homeland is also assault and murder for illegitimate purpose by order of Congress executed by the president.

The Republicans and Democrats acting as the Congress of the United States supported and passed what is known as the Iraq Resolution. Pres. George W. Bush executed the law.

The requirements of what is known as the Iraq Resolution, as illegitimate and unconstitutional as it is, have all been satisfied! There is no legal constitutional support for being there and interfering with Iraq’s legitimate government and their sovereign independent nation.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people (9th amendment). We are principled as a defensive nation, not an invasive one with acts of aggression supporting conversion to the dictates of Republican/Democratic policy.

The voters of this country have been stampeded from the Republican side of politics to the Democratic side, the only possible alternative for change.

So, Nancy Pelosi, there must be no half a loaf policy relative to getting the troops out of Iraq. You have silently sat by allowing this act of aggression and suppressions of United States protections to proceed. You and the rest of Congress have violated the public trust.

The Republicans and Democats have proven they are an illegitimate political system. Their complicity and collusion to pass illegitimate law makes the case. The two party system must be destroyed. Do it now to preserve some integrity and honor or wait for the people to further rebel.

William Brueckner
Waterbury Center

Kiss has it wrong

There are many problems with Burlington Mayor Bob Kiss’s pro-gun control stance as reported (Vermont Guardian, Dec. 8). One is his statement that it has nothing to do with guns being either legal or illegal is totally false, as seen from other statements in the article by the ATF in re straw purchasers and Kiss’ own statements that he acts on complaints from out-of-state (does he owe his loyalty to Vermont and Burlington voters or to Massachusetts voters?) that guns from Vermont cause crimes in Massachusetts (where they cannot be “legally” obtained?).

Actually the opposite is true. The accused murderer of the two teachers in Essex stayed in the Vermont social service system despite a serious outstanding Massachusetts warrant on him, for three years, undetected. The accused murderer of the UVM coed was a Howard Human Services psych patient in 2003 and also brought here, housed, and “treated” by social service agencies sponsored by Kiss. Kiss and his allies regularly import out-of-state criminals and ex-convicts to Burlington’s burgeoning non-profit shelter and mental health system, which has generated the perpetrators of all the crimes Kiss cites. He never mentions this.

With his latest proposal, Kiss becomes an ally of perhaps the most reactionary agency in the United States government, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and its infamous ATF Form 4473. He wants you to give to the State of Vermont your entire personal file (including your medical records, your divorce proceeding records, any supposed alcohol or drug abuse) to be shared with ATF, for the crime of owning/buying/selling a firearm, which is already being done in certain other states, such as New Jersey, the murder rate in which is many times that of Vermont. His proposal calls for downloading all this information into ATF computers. There will be no private sales of firearms without “background checks.”

Kiss speaks with a forked tongue. One notices our current U.S. president is an admitted alcoholic, who could never truthfully fill out a BATFE Form 4473 and be allowed to purchase a firearm, and yet he controls the biggest guns on Earth. Politicians never mean for restrictive laws that they want to apply to themselves.

Has anyone mentioned, by the way, that the 1968 Gun Control Act was written by the liberal Democrat Sen. Thomas Dodd of Connecticut and was lifted pretty much whole from the Nazi German Gun Control Law of 1938?

Mayor Kiss exempts from background checks only illegal aliens as per his other proposals, to make Burlington a “sanctuary city.” (Indeed, one of the shootings he cites was committed by an illegal alien Jamaican youth, a young man much like the younger of the Washington sniper pair.) He wants no stops by local police of illegal/unlicensed drivers driving uninsured cars of dubious registration, inspection, and safety, nor of dwelling units housing illegals. He openly wants to flout federal law there, granting, as mayor of Burlington, some sort of odd legal and criminal law immunity to illegal aliens while calling down on U.S. citizens the most reactionary legal control imaginable, U.S. citizens who own their firearms under English Common Law and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which he wants to ignore.

Burlington’s violent crime is mostly imported from out-of-state and flourishes because it can take root in the “homeless shelters” and treatment facilities that Kiss cited and bragged about having such a large role in setting up, as being his qualification for becoming Burlington’s current Mayor, in last year’s mayoral campaign. The true direction of crime is from out-of-state (Massachusetts for one) into Vermont and not from Vermont to Massachusetts or other states.

Ron Ruloff