Friday, December 5, 2014
A Cursory, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Joel Lord Nonsense
NEWSFLASH: TO THOSE OF YOU WHO BELIEVE THE CDC LIES THAT EBOLA HAS NOT BECOME AIRBORNE, multiple unnamed or unreliable sources are challending this official propaganda ... you know, about the Ebola airborne nonsense. Because Ebola isn't airborne. You know what's airborne? Bullshit on the winding misinterpretation of the Lord's analysis of his sources, such as the Nature.com's link, which does not conclude that Ebola is airborne. Desperate people read what they want to be right ... but right isn't created out of desperation. It's created out of persistent scientific inquiry done in a methodically responsible manner. You're not a responsible person, Lord. You're a fear-monger. Go sell your crazy somewhere else, maybe on Fox News' Facebook page or Breitbart -- those Facebook commenters are beyond hope anyway.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
"Belligerent Populations": Are They in Africa or on the CDC's Facebook Page?
November 11, 2014, Tuesday
2:05 PM Central Time
Michael Giordano, a crusader for CDC-bashing panic commenting on the CDC's Facebook page, states: "[T]he HIV morbidity and mortality rate in Africa represents 60% of all cases world wide. Evidence that it is out of control, therefore, efforts to contain it have failed. Expect the same failure with ebola. I did not place the blame for aids in Africa on the CDC, rather I placed it squarely on a belligerent population. you have a reading comprehension problem and are wrong most of the time. you are politicizing ebola in order to save your dear leader 0bama who is at 39% approval by the way. It is highly unlikely ebola will be contained in hot zones because the population refuses to follow containment protocols. also president Bush and many other leaders gave and still give massive amounts of aid to africa annually. you are ill informed, and very vociferous in displaying your ignorance."
Yes, of course he placed the blame for AIDS in Africa on the World Health Organization and the Center for Disease Control, to wit:
"[T]he CDC, The [sic] WHO and others have been unsuccessful in containing HIV in Africa which has 60% of all cases world wide. to contain an infectious disease you need to change behaviors. Since the population in these hot zones have deeply felt cultural beliefs centuries old, it is practically impossible to change certain behaviors that spread contagious diseases. Most of the population is resentful that developed nations endeavor to change cultural practices. Its a form of ethnocentrism to do so."
While it is undoubtedly true that Africa is plagued by many things, including a poor educational system, poverty, and superstition, it is also undeniable that America, and the entire world -- especially as evidenced by commenters on Facebook -- are not immune from having an inadequate education, poverty, and superstition. Calling people in third-world nations "belligerent" populations because they lack many of the things we in the Western world commonly and ignorantly take for granted is not just insensitive; it's downright racist. Racist, Michael. Quit reading Breitbart. Breitbart is not an accurate source of information concerning "belligerent" populations. It's an accurate source of racism. So is Fox News.
Please stop being racist on Facebook, Michael. I know you'll say you're not and that I'm just playing "the race card," but that's what everyone says when they say something horribly racist and then want people to think anyone who points out that they're totally racist is being politically correct by pointing out their horrible racism. People in Africa are just people, Michael. They need help, and not vilification. They are not "belligerent," Michael. They are suffering. You're not doing anything to help their suffering. You're stigmatizing them and denigrating their culture, which might not be as advanced as a modern culture that tries desperately to create panic on the internet and on the CDC's Facebook page, but at least those less advanced cultures aren't trying to create panic and espousing hatred on the CDC's Facebook page. Try to learn from their advanced example of persistence in a very difficult time in a very difficult landscape while they're dealing with a very difficult disease outbreak. Ebola isn't Africa's fault, Michael -- no more than American diseases are Americans' fault. Quit blaming diseases on institutions that are trying to fight them and quit blaming Africans for suffering from terrible diseases. Be a decent human being. I have faith in you, Michael. You can do it if you try.
Think about it. Let me know if you make any progress. If you don't make any progress, keep practicing with this free invisible blue velvet kite I've given you.
https://imgflip.com/i/e1s13
2:05 PM Central Time
Michael Giordano, a crusader for CDC-bashing panic commenting on the CDC's Facebook page, states: "[T]he HIV morbidity and mortality rate in Africa represents 60% of all cases world wide. Evidence that it is out of control, therefore, efforts to contain it have failed. Expect the same failure with ebola. I did not place the blame for aids in Africa on the CDC, rather I placed it squarely on a belligerent population. you have a reading comprehension problem and are wrong most of the time. you are politicizing ebola in order to save your dear leader 0bama who is at 39% approval by the way. It is highly unlikely ebola will be contained in hot zones because the population refuses to follow containment protocols. also president Bush and many other leaders gave and still give massive amounts of aid to africa annually. you are ill informed, and very vociferous in displaying your ignorance."
Yes, of course he placed the blame for AIDS in Africa on the World Health Organization and the Center for Disease Control, to wit:
"[T]he CDC, The [sic] WHO and others have been unsuccessful in containing HIV in Africa which has 60% of all cases world wide. to contain an infectious disease you need to change behaviors. Since the population in these hot zones have deeply felt cultural beliefs centuries old, it is practically impossible to change certain behaviors that spread contagious diseases. Most of the population is resentful that developed nations endeavor to change cultural practices. Its a form of ethnocentrism to do so."
While it is undoubtedly true that Africa is plagued by many things, including a poor educational system, poverty, and superstition, it is also undeniable that America, and the entire world -- especially as evidenced by commenters on Facebook -- are not immune from having an inadequate education, poverty, and superstition. Calling people in third-world nations "belligerent" populations because they lack many of the things we in the Western world commonly and ignorantly take for granted is not just insensitive; it's downright racist. Racist, Michael. Quit reading Breitbart. Breitbart is not an accurate source of information concerning "belligerent" populations. It's an accurate source of racism. So is Fox News.
Please stop being racist on Facebook, Michael. I know you'll say you're not and that I'm just playing "the race card," but that's what everyone says when they say something horribly racist and then want people to think anyone who points out that they're totally racist is being politically correct by pointing out their horrible racism. People in Africa are just people, Michael. They need help, and not vilification. They are not "belligerent," Michael. They are suffering. You're not doing anything to help their suffering. You're stigmatizing them and denigrating their culture, which might not be as advanced as a modern culture that tries desperately to create panic on the internet and on the CDC's Facebook page, but at least those less advanced cultures aren't trying to create panic and espousing hatred on the CDC's Facebook page. Try to learn from their advanced example of persistence in a very difficult time in a very difficult landscape while they're dealing with a very difficult disease outbreak. Ebola isn't Africa's fault, Michael -- no more than American diseases are Americans' fault. Quit blaming diseases on institutions that are trying to fight them and quit blaming Africans for suffering from terrible diseases. Be a decent human being. I have faith in you, Michael. You can do it if you try.
Think about it. Let me know if you make any progress. If you don't make any progress, keep practicing with this free invisible blue velvet kite I've given you.
https://imgflip.com/i/e1s13
Monday, November 10, 2014
Vaccine, Ebola, FEMA Camps, Conservative Fear-Mongering
November 10, 2014, Monday
8:49 AM Central Time
https://imgflip.com/i/dmfo8
Look, stupid ... we at the Institute for Dissuading You From Making Ridiculously Stupid Conspiracy Assertions on Facebook totally understand that you have an intense need to make insane statements and comments about things which do not exist. We like the fact that you have a mischievous side and want to prank people. Or that you're totally insane or stupid and can't help yourself from believing in every conspiracy theory that exists. We, however, feel it necessary to slap you down or otherwise humiliate you for your anti-social behavior.
Here's a list, numbered for those who have mathematical abilities of some sort, detailing what facts you should be made aware of, even though we know you will totally dismiss them because you're so fuckin' stupid. Ours is a futile gesture, but we at the DYFMRSCAF subscribe to the Don Quixote code of Windmill Battles.
1.) FEMA has no intention of imprisoning you for being as stupid as Glenn Beck. Although we'd like to imprison you and Glenn Beck, neither we nor FEMA has, nor will we ever have, the authority to imprison you just for being incredibly stupid. One day, maybe, but probably not ... just not yet.
2.) Vaccines are fantastic and they don't make you sick. Some people cannot tolerate them (the people who cannot tolerate them due to health reasons are far fewer than the number of morons who claim they can't tolerate them for health reasons). You don't have to legally get vaccinated, but we at the DYFMRSCAF insist, without any legal authority whatsoever, that you do the right thing and punch yourself in the face for not getting vaccinated for medical reasons when you actually have no medical reason to prevent you from receiving life-saving vaccinations. And Jenny McCarthy is probably very well intentioned, but she's an expert on fart jokes, not vaccines.
3.) Ebola is not airborne. Airborne is not the same as contact/droplet transmission. Smallpox, chickenpox, measles, mumps, and other diseases, like influenza, are airborne and quite highly contagious. Ebola is highly contagious and potentially very deadly, but it is not airborne. If it were airborne, it would be much more contagious and that puckered asshole feeling you get every time you hear the word "Ebola" would be warranted.
4.) Travel bans do not work. You will dispute this because of your ignorance, but travel bans only serve to impede treatment and containment of infectious diseases. You think the CDC is lying about this, and you will use whatever you perceive to be any inconsistency, however ridiculously minor, to bolster your insane, xenophobic, racist argument for shutting down Africa. But travel bans are counter-productive. This is established scientific fact. You're too stupid to understand this, but if you accept it, you'll feel less anxious about the alien beings you believe are stalking you through radio waves.
5.) The CDC is a government organization dedicated to helping people -- even incredibly stupid people. That means you.
6.) We at the DYFMRSCAF don't feel we should go any higher in our fact list, because the list is numbered and we doubt you can count much higher than six, anyway, so we'll end this factually accurate blog post by saying, "You're stupid, so learn from others and respect the knowledge of people who are smarter than you could ever hope to be and who are not paranoid schizophrenic fear mongers."
Love,
DYFMRSCAF et al
8:49 AM Central Time
https://imgflip.com/i/dmfo8
Look, stupid ... we at the Institute for Dissuading You From Making Ridiculously Stupid Conspiracy Assertions on Facebook totally understand that you have an intense need to make insane statements and comments about things which do not exist. We like the fact that you have a mischievous side and want to prank people. Or that you're totally insane or stupid and can't help yourself from believing in every conspiracy theory that exists. We, however, feel it necessary to slap you down or otherwise humiliate you for your anti-social behavior.
Here's a list, numbered for those who have mathematical abilities of some sort, detailing what facts you should be made aware of, even though we know you will totally dismiss them because you're so fuckin' stupid. Ours is a futile gesture, but we at the DYFMRSCAF subscribe to the Don Quixote code of Windmill Battles.
1.) FEMA has no intention of imprisoning you for being as stupid as Glenn Beck. Although we'd like to imprison you and Glenn Beck, neither we nor FEMA has, nor will we ever have, the authority to imprison you just for being incredibly stupid. One day, maybe, but probably not ... just not yet.
2.) Vaccines are fantastic and they don't make you sick. Some people cannot tolerate them (the people who cannot tolerate them due to health reasons are far fewer than the number of morons who claim they can't tolerate them for health reasons). You don't have to legally get vaccinated, but we at the DYFMRSCAF insist, without any legal authority whatsoever, that you do the right thing and punch yourself in the face for not getting vaccinated for medical reasons when you actually have no medical reason to prevent you from receiving life-saving vaccinations. And Jenny McCarthy is probably very well intentioned, but she's an expert on fart jokes, not vaccines.
3.) Ebola is not airborne. Airborne is not the same as contact/droplet transmission. Smallpox, chickenpox, measles, mumps, and other diseases, like influenza, are airborne and quite highly contagious. Ebola is highly contagious and potentially very deadly, but it is not airborne. If it were airborne, it would be much more contagious and that puckered asshole feeling you get every time you hear the word "Ebola" would be warranted.
4.) Travel bans do not work. You will dispute this because of your ignorance, but travel bans only serve to impede treatment and containment of infectious diseases. You think the CDC is lying about this, and you will use whatever you perceive to be any inconsistency, however ridiculously minor, to bolster your insane, xenophobic, racist argument for shutting down Africa. But travel bans are counter-productive. This is established scientific fact. You're too stupid to understand this, but if you accept it, you'll feel less anxious about the alien beings you believe are stalking you through radio waves.
5.) The CDC is a government organization dedicated to helping people -- even incredibly stupid people. That means you.
6.) We at the DYFMRSCAF don't feel we should go any higher in our fact list, because the list is numbered and we doubt you can count much higher than six, anyway, so we'll end this factually accurate blog post by saying, "You're stupid, so learn from others and respect the knowledge of people who are smarter than you could ever hope to be and who are not paranoid schizophrenic fear mongers."
Love,
DYFMRSCAF et al
Sunday, May 25, 2014
Ark-La-Tex Media: FAIL!
May 25, 2014
by Richard Reynolds
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014, Shreveport Police Corporal Logan R. McDonald was arrested on a charge of malfeasance and booked into Caddo Correctional Center. He had been charged with malfeasance, but no local media reported any details concerning the nature of the malfeasance. I inquired about this to KSLA, and their response has been noted before in the previous post of "THE DOOMED STUFFING." It reads:
"We have received clarification on this, upon further requests for information on the release of information regarding criminal charges against officers and other public employees in general, and we have been able to glean at least this much more specific to the McDonald case (copied directly from the Initial Report requested from SPD): SHREVEPORT POLICE DEPT WAS NOTIFIED OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO TESTED POSITIVE FOR SCH II CDS, WHILE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES.
It's not much more, but it does at least provide a detail as to the nature of the alleged malfeasance. In spite of having difficulty in the past when information like this has been requested, it was released quite readily this time around, and SPD has clarified that the Officers Bill of Rights is invoked is [sic] only in regard to administrative investigations, not criminal. It's worth noting that, while police readily release far more detail on most other criminal arrests, they never do with officers or firefighters. It might be this fact, coupled with a refusal to release information in an unrelated administrative investigation recently that led to the misunderstanding. This has now been clarified."
--from chat message by KSLA-TV sent to me in response to my repeated requests for any information regarding the nature of Corporal Logan's offense
They did not respond, nor has any other local media yet responded, to my many inquiries into the nature of a lawsuit that was settled by the First Judicial Court of Caddo Parish, via the required approval of the Shreveport City Council, regarding Corporal Logan and the City of Shreveport vs. Robert E. Shaw, in which Mr. Shaw was awarded in excess of $200,000. It is a matter of public record that this settlement occurred, but I can find no mention of it in the media -- only the published minutes of the City Council meeting in which approval was granted. It seems troubling that the city of Shreveport would settle a lawsuit in excess of $200,000 and there would not even be a mention of it in the media while it is public record. I found it within a few minutes of reading the initial story of Corporal Logan's vague charge, but absolutely no media seems to have mentioned it in any past stories that I could find via the internet. Is there a connection of this story to the current troubles of Corporal McDonald? I don't know, the media doesn't seem to want to find out, and KSLA has at this time not even updated the story by stating that Corporal McDonald's arrest was related to testing positive for Schedule II Controlled Dangerous Substance while in the performance of his duty; they have only given me the above-cited comment.
I call this story an epic Ark-La-Tex media fail because I seem to be the only one interested currently in finding out information that should be available to the public. It is the job of the media to report on such stories in the greatest possible detail they can give, to follow leads ... but, to quote KSLA-TV, it seems "This has now been clarified."
I find no clarity in the story whatsoever. I find only the appearance of preferential treatment in not disclosing or updating information. I find it horrendously unfair that minor criminals have their addresses listed in the press before they are even tried and great detail usually given to the allegations against them, yet officials such as police officers and firefighters are afforded much greater protections of their privacy by the media.
I will follow this story until I am satisfied with answers. I will not stop following or discussing or commenting about this story because the media thinks "This has been clarified" when it most certainly has been anything but clarified.
Links: (previous post on the Logan malfeasance arrest and media response): http://thedoomedstuffing.blogspot.com/2014/05/shreveport-officer-arrested-with-no.html
Link: Another blog on Blogger with a post of the official vague story: http://whathappenedtoprotectandserve.blogspot.com/2014/05/officer-logan-mcdonald-arrested-for.html
by Richard Reynolds
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014, Shreveport Police Corporal Logan R. McDonald was arrested on a charge of malfeasance and booked into Caddo Correctional Center. He had been charged with malfeasance, but no local media reported any details concerning the nature of the malfeasance. I inquired about this to KSLA, and their response has been noted before in the previous post of "THE DOOMED STUFFING." It reads:
"We have received clarification on this, upon further requests for information on the release of information regarding criminal charges against officers and other public employees in general, and we have been able to glean at least this much more specific to the McDonald case (copied directly from the Initial Report requested from SPD): SHREVEPORT POLICE DEPT WAS NOTIFIED OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO TESTED POSITIVE FOR SCH II CDS, WHILE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES.
It's not much more, but it does at least provide a detail as to the nature of the alleged malfeasance. In spite of having difficulty in the past when information like this has been requested, it was released quite readily this time around, and SPD has clarified that the Officers Bill of Rights is invoked is [sic] only in regard to administrative investigations, not criminal. It's worth noting that, while police readily release far more detail on most other criminal arrests, they never do with officers or firefighters. It might be this fact, coupled with a refusal to release information in an unrelated administrative investigation recently that led to the misunderstanding. This has now been clarified."
--from chat message by KSLA-TV sent to me in response to my repeated requests for any information regarding the nature of Corporal Logan's offense
They did not respond, nor has any other local media yet responded, to my many inquiries into the nature of a lawsuit that was settled by the First Judicial Court of Caddo Parish, via the required approval of the Shreveport City Council, regarding Corporal Logan and the City of Shreveport vs. Robert E. Shaw, in which Mr. Shaw was awarded in excess of $200,000. It is a matter of public record that this settlement occurred, but I can find no mention of it in the media -- only the published minutes of the City Council meeting in which approval was granted. It seems troubling that the city of Shreveport would settle a lawsuit in excess of $200,000 and there would not even be a mention of it in the media while it is public record. I found it within a few minutes of reading the initial story of Corporal Logan's vague charge, but absolutely no media seems to have mentioned it in any past stories that I could find via the internet. Is there a connection of this story to the current troubles of Corporal McDonald? I don't know, the media doesn't seem to want to find out, and KSLA has at this time not even updated the story by stating that Corporal McDonald's arrest was related to testing positive for Schedule II Controlled Dangerous Substance while in the performance of his duty; they have only given me the above-cited comment.
I call this story an epic Ark-La-Tex media fail because I seem to be the only one interested currently in finding out information that should be available to the public. It is the job of the media to report on such stories in the greatest possible detail they can give, to follow leads ... but, to quote KSLA-TV, it seems "This has now been clarified."
I find no clarity in the story whatsoever. I find only the appearance of preferential treatment in not disclosing or updating information. I find it horrendously unfair that minor criminals have their addresses listed in the press before they are even tried and great detail usually given to the allegations against them, yet officials such as police officers and firefighters are afforded much greater protections of their privacy by the media.
I will follow this story until I am satisfied with answers. I will not stop following or discussing or commenting about this story because the media thinks "This has been clarified" when it most certainly has been anything but clarified.
Links: (previous post on the Logan malfeasance arrest and media response): http://thedoomedstuffing.blogspot.com/2014/05/shreveport-officer-arrested-with-no.html
Link: Another blog on Blogger with a post of the official vague story: http://whathappenedtoprotectandserve.blogspot.com/2014/05/officer-logan-mcdonald-arrested-for.html
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Shreveport Officer Arrested with No Details Allowed
May 22, 2014 Thursday
by Richard Reynolds (aka THE DOOMED STUFFING)
[author's note May 23, 2014: UPDATE: Here is a story from February 2014 that gives details about the nature of the charges of a Louisiana officer charged with malfeasance; I have messaged KSLA for a response to my inquiry about whether this is a new law that forbids a department from providing details or if it is a local law. http://www.knoe.com/story/24631881/lake-providence-police-officer-arrested]
[author's note May 23, 2014: UPDATE Number 2: This is KSLA's response to my inquiry: KSLA News 12
I frankly feel sorry for Officer Logan McDonald if he is being charged with malfeasance for having a drug problem, and I still don't know when this "Officer's Bill of Rights" became effective, because he was indeed charged with malfeasance -- the same charge that the officer who took a bribe in the above cited story from KNOE in Lake Providence was charged, which provided details immediately and it occurred in February of 2014. I don't think Officer McDonald should be pilloried in the media, either, and I hate to use him as an example of the unfairness in publishing explicit details for some officers charged with crimes and every civilian charged with crimes while selectively withholding information that has no cause to be withheld from the public. If a civilian is charged with public intoxication, the media can and do report on the details of the incident, whereas officials charged still have the appearance of getting preferential treatment under this "Police Officer's Bill of Rights." It is, frankly, a matter of unequal treatment, which should not be tolerated by the public or the media. One can see that this may have been a mere "misunderstanding," to use KSLA's term, but from this blogger's perspective, it has the appearance -- the very strong appearance -- of preferential treatment. Whatever the case may be, the media is not bound in the United States by any law that attempts to restrict the press in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The police can and do withhold information in continuing investigations, but that does not mean that the news media should not try to get that information or are barred from any laws against trying to obtain it.--Richard Reynolds]
I frequent KSLA News (Shreveport's local CBS affiliate) facebook page to read and reply to comments by people who often call for the blood of those accused of minor or controversial crimes. This isn't a local fad, I'm sure -- I've seen the same kind of lynch-mob mentality overtake every news media's facebook page, whether local or national. But something truly perturbs me about what I read yesterday.
Let me preface the "story" I'm about to tell by saying that I don't hate police officers. Police officers are selected from the general population and their job generally sucks. Most police officers are just trying to do their jobs and go home safely, like anyone in any other job. Some police officers make mistakes and are pilloried in the public's collective imagination; other police officers are corrupt, some are rude -- intentionally or unintentionally -- and a few are true sadists, intoxicated by the surge of adrenaline that comes from a sweet combination of authority and violence. This blog post isn't about sadistic cops, rude cops, corrupt cops, or cops that make mistakes. It's about fairness.
A story on KSLA's facebook page about a family of Keithville, Louisiana residents accused of being a "haven for underage drinking, drug use, and sex" lists in quite some detail the allegations against the family, one of whom is 17 years old and is considered a man (it's always struck me as strange that for the purpose of criminal accusation a 17-year old may be considered an adult but can't legally vote, buy liquor or cigarettes, or essentially do anything legally until he's 18 or 21), and the story gives the address of the accused -- 8223 Dance Drive in Keithville, Louisiana (I figured I'd publish the address since it's already been published over and over by the media) -- and gives explicit police assertions against this accused family.
In another story KSLA published a Shreveport police officer was arrested for malfeasance, booked, charged, and transported to the Caddo Parish Sheriff's jail. The officer's name is Logan McDonald, age 30, and almost no other detail is given. When I questioned the unfairness of the dearth of information on the officer malfeasance story when compared to the goldmine of salacious information on the "haven for underage drinking, drug use, and sex" story, KSLA's response was:
"SPD [Shreveport Police Department] did not provide details of that officer's charges and as a matter of policy, they will not. In fact, officers (and firefighters) are protected by the Officers Bill of Rights, which does indeed include protections not afforded others, including this:
§2532. Release of personal information
No person, agency, or department shall release to the news media, press or any other public information agency, a law enforcement officer's home address, photograph, or any information that may be deemed otherwise confidential, without the express written consent of the law enforcement officer, with respect to an investigation of the law enforcement officer.
(From the Louisiana statutes concerining :Rights of Law Enforcement Officers While Under Investigation:" http://www.ose.louisiana.gov/laws/pobor.htm
We have been denied access to details of allegations against officers in the past under these protections."
The way I read this, it doesn't prevent or punish journalists from investigating and publishing information against police officers. It was interesting to me that, had KSLA or any local media news agency taken a few minutes, they could have come up with some information about Officer McDonald's background. I did, and I have no idea whether it has anything to do with his malfeasance arrest, but in 2013 Officer McDonald was listed as a litigant in a case that was settled by the First Judicial Court Caddo Parish in excess of over $200, 000 -- which said settlement required approval by the Shreveport City Council, as detailed in their published minutes. I responded to KSLA's explanation of why they don't publish details about police officials and firefighters with this comment:
Richard Reynolds I was just curious ... does the malfeasance [charge] have anything to do with this settlement matter--I mean, I have no idea ... I'm not saying it does, but over $200,000 for a city settlement in 2013 seems like it's news: "WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport and its employee Logan R. McDonald have been named as defendants in the matter entitled “Robert E. Shaw v. City of Shreveport and Logan R. McDonald”, Docket No. 537,052-A, First Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to settle all claims asserted against all defendants for an amount in excess of $200,000; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-175(b) of the Code of Ordinances requires that any claim in a lawsuit that is $200,000 or more may be settled only after it has been approved by the City Council by resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened that the Office of the City Attorney is hereby authorized to settle all claims asserted against the City of Shreveport and its employee Logan R. McDonald in the above entitled and numbered matter for an amount in excess of $200,000." (source: http://www.shreveportla.gov/.../View.../Minutes/05282013-171)
I don't have any idea whether the settlement has anything or nothing to do with the story ... but it seems to me that police are not above the law and should not be treated as more than equal to private citizens. The law "protecting" police and firefighters does not preclude the press from exercising its duty as a free press to investigate and publish and inquire; other states do not have such a protection, probably because they recognize that the public would generally view it is as unfair. I cited a California case of an officer accused of molesting underage girls and his address block was printed and great detail was given to the allegations against him.
I am perplexed by the willingness of the local media to accept this unequal "protection" for officials accused of crimes without publicly criticizing it in such a way that would force lawmakers to revoke the protection ... not necessarily that it has to be revoked for the press to do its job.
Links: https://www.facebook.com/KSLANews12/photos/a.404897246499.187942.99664861499/10152114494396500/?type=1
http://www.ksla.com/story/25578465/keithville-family-accused-of-offering-sex-drugs-alcohol-to-teens?utm_content=bufferb5405&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
http://www.shreveportla.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/05282013-171
https://www.facebook.com/KSLANews12/photos/a.404897246499.187942.99664861499/10152115261586500/?type=1
by Richard Reynolds (aka THE DOOMED STUFFING)
.png) |
| One Set of Rules for You, One Set of Rules for Me |
Richard Reynolds Richard Reynolds From update #2 to THE DOOMED STUFFING post about the arrest of Officer Logan McDonald: [author's note May 23, 2014: UPDATE Number 2: This is KSLA's response to my inquiry: KSLA News 12
"We have received clarification on this, upon further requests for information on the release of information regarding criminal charges against officers and other public employees in general, and we have been able to glean at least this much more specific to the McDonald case (copied directly from the Initial Report requested from SPD): SHREVEPORT POLICE DEPT WAS NOTIFIED OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO TESTED POSITIVE FOR SCH II CDS, WHILE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES.
It's not much more, but it does at least provide a detail as to the nature of the alleged malfeasance. In spite of having difficulty in the past when information like this has been requested, it was released quite readily this time around, and SPD has clarified that the Officers Bill of Rights is invoked is [sic] only in regard to administrative investigations, not criminal. It's worth noting that, while police readily release far more detail on most other criminal arrests, they never do with officers or firefighters. It might be this fact, coupled with a refusal to release information in an unrelated administrative investigation recently that led to the misunderstanding. This has now been clarified."
I frankly feel sorry for Officer Logan McDonald if he is being charged with malfeasance for having a drug problem, and I still don't know when this "Officer's Bill of Rights" became effective, because he was indeed charged with malfeasance -- the same charge that the officer who took a bribe in the above cited story from KNOE in Lake Providence was charged, which provided details immediately and it occurred in February of 2014. I don't think Officer McDonald should be pilloried in the media, either, and I hate to use him as an example of the unfairness in publishing explicit details for some officers charged with crimes and every civilian charged with crimes while selectively withholding information that has no cause to be withheld from the public. If a civilian is charged with public intoxication, the media can and do report on the details of the incident, whereas officials charged still have the appearance of getting preferential treatment under this "Police Officer's Bill of Rights." It is, frankly, a matter of unequal treatment, which should not be tolerated by the public or the media. One can see that this may have been a mere "misunderstanding," to use KSLA's term, but from this blogger's perspective, it has the appearance -- the very strong appearance -- of preferential treatment. Whatever the case may be, the media is not bound in the United States by any law that attempts to restrict the press in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The police can and do withhold information in continuing investigations, but that does not mean that the news media should not try to get that information or are barred from any laws against trying to obtain it.--Richard Reynolds]
"We have received clarification on this, upon further requests for information on the release of information regarding criminal charges against officers and other public employees in general, and we have been able to glean at least this much more specific to the McDonald case (copied directly from the Initial Report requested from SPD): SHREVEPORT POLICE DEPT WAS NOTIFIED OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO TESTED POSITIVE FOR SCH II CDS, WHILE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES.
It's not much more, but it does at least provide a detail as to the nature of the alleged malfeasance. In spite of having difficulty in the past when information like this has been requested, it was released quite readily this time around, and SPD has clarified that the Officers Bill of Rights is invoked is [sic] only in regard to administrative investigations, not criminal. It's worth noting that, while police readily release far more detail on most other criminal arrests, they never do with officers or firefighters. It might be this fact, coupled with a refusal to release information in an unrelated administrative investigation recently that led to the misunderstanding. This has now been clarified."
I frankly feel sorry for Officer Logan McDonald if he is being charged with malfeasance for having a drug problem, and I still don't know when this "Officer's Bill of Rights" became effective, because he was indeed charged with malfeasance -- the same charge that the officer who took a bribe in the above cited story from KNOE in Lake Providence was charged, which provided details immediately and it occurred in February of 2014. I don't think Officer McDonald should be pilloried in the media, either, and I hate to use him as an example of the unfairness in publishing explicit details for some officers charged with crimes and every civilian charged with crimes while selectively withholding information that has no cause to be withheld from the public. If a civilian is charged with public intoxication, the media can and do report on the details of the incident, whereas officials charged still have the appearance of getting preferential treatment under this "Police Officer's Bill of Rights." It is, frankly, a matter of unequal treatment, which should not be tolerated by the public or the media. One can see that this may have been a mere "misunderstanding," to use KSLA's term, but from this blogger's perspective, it has the appearance -- the very strong appearance -- of preferential treatment. Whatever the case may be, the media is not bound in the United States by any law that attempts to restrict the press in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The police can and do withhold information in continuing investigations, but that does not mean that the news media should not try to get that information or are barred from any laws against trying to obtain it.--Richard Reynolds]
[author's note May 23, 2014: UPDATE: Here is a story from February 2014 that gives details about the nature of the charges of a Louisiana officer charged with malfeasance; I have messaged KSLA for a response to my inquiry about whether this is a new law that forbids a department from providing details or if it is a local law. http://www.knoe.com/story/24631881/lake-providence-police-officer-arrested]
[author's note May 23, 2014: UPDATE Number 2: This is KSLA's response to my inquiry: KSLA News 12
"We have received clarification on this, upon further requests for information on the release of information regarding criminal charges against officers and other public employees in general, and we have been able to glean at least this much more specific to the McDonald case (copied directly from the Initial Report requested from SPD): SHREVEPORT POLICE DEPT WAS NOTIFIED OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO TESTED POSITIVE FOR SCH II CDS, WHILE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES.
It's not much more, but it does at least provide a detail as to the nature of the alleged malfeasance. In spite of having difficulty in the past when information like this has been requested, it was released quite readily this time around, and SPD has clarified that the Officers Bill of Rights is invoked is [sic] only in regard to administrative investigations, not criminal. It's worth noting that, while police readily release far more detail on most other criminal arrests, they never do with officers or firefighters. It might be this fact, coupled with a refusal to release information in an unrelated administrative investigation recently that led to the misunderstanding. This has now been clarified."
It's not much more, but it does at least provide a detail as to the nature of the alleged malfeasance. In spite of having difficulty in the past when information like this has been requested, it was released quite readily this time around, and SPD has clarified that the Officers Bill of Rights is invoked is [sic] only in regard to administrative investigations, not criminal. It's worth noting that, while police readily release far more detail on most other criminal arrests, they never do with officers or firefighters. It might be this fact, coupled with a refusal to release information in an unrelated administrative investigation recently that led to the misunderstanding. This has now been clarified."
I frankly feel sorry for Officer Logan McDonald if he is being charged with malfeasance for having a drug problem, and I still don't know when this "Officer's Bill of Rights" became effective, because he was indeed charged with malfeasance -- the same charge that the officer who took a bribe in the above cited story from KNOE in Lake Providence was charged, which provided details immediately and it occurred in February of 2014. I don't think Officer McDonald should be pilloried in the media, either, and I hate to use him as an example of the unfairness in publishing explicit details for some officers charged with crimes and every civilian charged with crimes while selectively withholding information that has no cause to be withheld from the public. If a civilian is charged with public intoxication, the media can and do report on the details of the incident, whereas officials charged still have the appearance of getting preferential treatment under this "Police Officer's Bill of Rights." It is, frankly, a matter of unequal treatment, which should not be tolerated by the public or the media. One can see that this may have been a mere "misunderstanding," to use KSLA's term, but from this blogger's perspective, it has the appearance -- the very strong appearance -- of preferential treatment. Whatever the case may be, the media is not bound in the United States by any law that attempts to restrict the press in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The police can and do withhold information in continuing investigations, but that does not mean that the news media should not try to get that information or are barred from any laws against trying to obtain it.--Richard Reynolds]
I frequent KSLA News (Shreveport's local CBS affiliate) facebook page to read and reply to comments by people who often call for the blood of those accused of minor or controversial crimes. This isn't a local fad, I'm sure -- I've seen the same kind of lynch-mob mentality overtake every news media's facebook page, whether local or national. But something truly perturbs me about what I read yesterday.
Let me preface the "story" I'm about to tell by saying that I don't hate police officers. Police officers are selected from the general population and their job generally sucks. Most police officers are just trying to do their jobs and go home safely, like anyone in any other job. Some police officers make mistakes and are pilloried in the public's collective imagination; other police officers are corrupt, some are rude -- intentionally or unintentionally -- and a few are true sadists, intoxicated by the surge of adrenaline that comes from a sweet combination of authority and violence. This blog post isn't about sadistic cops, rude cops, corrupt cops, or cops that make mistakes. It's about fairness.
A story on KSLA's facebook page about a family of Keithville, Louisiana residents accused of being a "haven for underage drinking, drug use, and sex" lists in quite some detail the allegations against the family, one of whom is 17 years old and is considered a man (it's always struck me as strange that for the purpose of criminal accusation a 17-year old may be considered an adult but can't legally vote, buy liquor or cigarettes, or essentially do anything legally until he's 18 or 21), and the story gives the address of the accused -- 8223 Dance Drive in Keithville, Louisiana (I figured I'd publish the address since it's already been published over and over by the media) -- and gives explicit police assertions against this accused family.
In another story KSLA published a Shreveport police officer was arrested for malfeasance, booked, charged, and transported to the Caddo Parish Sheriff's jail. The officer's name is Logan McDonald, age 30, and almost no other detail is given. When I questioned the unfairness of the dearth of information on the officer malfeasance story when compared to the goldmine of salacious information on the "haven for underage drinking, drug use, and sex" story, KSLA's response was:
"SPD [Shreveport Police Department] did not provide details of that officer's charges and as a matter of policy, they will not. In fact, officers (and firefighters) are protected by the Officers Bill of Rights, which does indeed include protections not afforded others, including this:
§2532. Release of personal information
No person, agency, or department shall release to the news media, press or any other public information agency, a law enforcement officer's home address, photograph, or any information that may be deemed otherwise confidential, without the express written consent of the law enforcement officer, with respect to an investigation of the law enforcement officer.
(From the Louisiana statutes concerining :Rights of Law Enforcement Officers While Under Investigation:" http://www.ose.louisiana.gov/laws/pobor.htm
We have been denied access to details of allegations against officers in the past under these protections."
The way I read this, it doesn't prevent or punish journalists from investigating and publishing information against police officers. It was interesting to me that, had KSLA or any local media news agency taken a few minutes, they could have come up with some information about Officer McDonald's background. I did, and I have no idea whether it has anything to do with his malfeasance arrest, but in 2013 Officer McDonald was listed as a litigant in a case that was settled by the First Judicial Court Caddo Parish in excess of over $200, 000 -- which said settlement required approval by the Shreveport City Council, as detailed in their published minutes. I responded to KSLA's explanation of why they don't publish details about police officials and firefighters with this comment:
Richard Reynolds I was just curious ... does the malfeasance [charge] have anything to do with this settlement matter--I mean, I have no idea ... I'm not saying it does, but over $200,000 for a city settlement in 2013 seems like it's news: "WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport and its employee Logan R. McDonald have been named as defendants in the matter entitled “Robert E. Shaw v. City of Shreveport and Logan R. McDonald”, Docket No. 537,052-A, First Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to settle all claims asserted against all defendants for an amount in excess of $200,000; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-175(b) of the Code of Ordinances requires that any claim in a lawsuit that is $200,000 or more may be settled only after it has been approved by the City Council by resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened that the Office of the City Attorney is hereby authorized to settle all claims asserted against the City of Shreveport and its employee Logan R. McDonald in the above entitled and numbered matter for an amount in excess of $200,000." (source: http://www.shreveportla.gov/.../View.../Minutes/05282013-171)
I don't have any idea whether the settlement has anything or nothing to do with the story ... but it seems to me that police are not above the law and should not be treated as more than equal to private citizens. The law "protecting" police and firefighters does not preclude the press from exercising its duty as a free press to investigate and publish and inquire; other states do not have such a protection, probably because they recognize that the public would generally view it is as unfair. I cited a California case of an officer accused of molesting underage girls and his address block was printed and great detail was given to the allegations against him.
I am perplexed by the willingness of the local media to accept this unequal "protection" for officials accused of crimes without publicly criticizing it in such a way that would force lawmakers to revoke the protection ... not necessarily that it has to be revoked for the press to do its job.
Links: https://www.facebook.com/KSLANews12/photos/a.404897246499.187942.99664861499/10152114494396500/?type=1
http://www.ksla.com/story/25578465/keithville-family-accused-of-offering-sex-drugs-alcohol-to-teens?utm_content=bufferb5405&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
http://www.shreveportla.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/05282013-171
https://www.facebook.com/KSLANews12/photos/a.404897246499.187942.99664861499/10152115261586500/?type=1
Friday, May 9, 2014
LSU-Shreveport's Climate-Denying Ph.D.'s
by Richard Reynolds (with assistance from two global warming/climate-change-denying Ph.D.'s from Louisiana State University in Shreveport ... and two comments by a student who can't believe his whole education is invalid because he's learning from professors who don't have Ph.D.'s in every subject they teach)
[Just saw where Prof. Gary R. Boucher is or was an advisor to LSU Petroleum Engineering Program. http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgary-boucher.com%2F&h=dAQFWiAnR ... but I'm not saying it's a conspiracy ... because it might just be a coincidence that he's an anti-climate change/global warming theory advocate --Richard Reynolds, 5/12/2014]
Check out my showdown with two Ph.D.'s from LSU-S. Weird, funny, sad ... Ph.D.'s at LSU-S are apparently science-denying flakes. Gary Bouchar and Liz Zippi, two non-climate-science specialists with Ph.D.'s who teach at LSU, don't want anyone talking about global warming if they're not climatologists -- and Gary Bouchard and Liz Zippi aren't climatologists ... they're just hypocritical snobs. I don't understand why they would do something so stupid like engage me in a debate on facebook ... maybe they had been drinking when they had their lunch together.
Here is our almost 30 comments, beginning with Liz Zippi, LSU-S professor/Ph.D.'s cheap swipe at Bill Nye the Science Guy:
When you click the above link, go to the comment section, click your "find" on your browser, enter "Liz Zippi" in the searchbox, and you'll come to the lengthy dialogue.
[Author's note: 5/12/2014 Monday, it looks like Prof. Gary R. Boucher of LSU in Shreveport just couldn't help himself and responded yet again. I made a scientific prediction and my results were on par with the spectacularly accurate predictions of quantum theory. What can I say -- I don't have a Ph.D., so I'm bound to be more accurate than Gary R. Boucher or Liz Zippi of LSU-S]:
[Just saw where Prof. Gary R. Boucher is or was an advisor to LSU Petroleum Engineering Program. http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgary-boucher.com%2F&h=dAQFWiAnR ... but I'm not saying it's a conspiracy ... because it might just be a coincidence that he's an anti-climate change/global warming theory advocate --Richard Reynolds, 5/12/2014]
Check out my showdown with two Ph.D.'s from LSU-S. Weird, funny, sad ... Ph.D.'s at LSU-S are apparently science-denying flakes. Gary Bouchar and Liz Zippi, two non-climate-science specialists with Ph.D.'s who teach at LSU, don't want anyone talking about global warming if they're not climatologists -- and Gary Bouchard and Liz Zippi aren't climatologists ... they're just hypocritical snobs. I don't understand why they would do something so stupid like engage me in a debate on facebook ... maybe they had been drinking when they had their lunch together.
Here is our almost 30 comments, beginning with Liz Zippi, LSU-S professor/Ph.D.'s cheap swipe at Bill Nye the Science Guy:
Liz Zippi Do not challenge him? Why? Because he has a 4-year undergraduate degree in Mechanical Engineering? In what area does he hold a Ph.D.? (Not an honorary bullcrap degree, but a real doctorate. Doesn't have one, does he?)
Richard Reynolds He graduated from Cornell with a Bachelor of Science in 1977. He studied mechanical engineering and one of his professors was Carl Sagan. He worked for Boeing, later as a consultant for aeronautics, and occasionally returns to Cornell to lecture on introductory astronomy and ecology. He has a pretty solid academic reputation and probably consumes scientific literature with the voraciousness of a velociraptor. Many scientists and inventors throughout history were autodidacts, including Leonardo da Vinci and Giordano Bruno. Einstein was practically self-taught and one of his math teachers thought he was retarded. Bill Nye has a formal education and his record would be nothing for anyone to be ashamed of.
Liz Zippi Billions and billions of students can claim that they've had Carl Sagan for a professor. Melvin Calvin was one of my research advisors. That doesn't make me an expert in biology.
Richard Reynolds No, billions and billions of students can claim it, but many, many of those billions and billions are lying. I understand you're exaggerating, and no one's saying that a scientist can't be challenged ... just that for that challenge to be valid, it should be peer-reviewed ... and global warming and climate change theory have been more than sufficiently peer-reviewed and quite well confirmed. If you have a Ph.D. in climatology and you doubt the veracity of the science, you should publish your findings to dispute the science. The rest of the world's scientists will review your dispute and either validate it or deem it implausible or fallacious, depending on your scientific evidence. If you have a Ph.D. in climatology or any one of the scientific disciplines, you already know this.
Like · 1 · Yesterday at 2:11pm · Edited
Liz Zippi I don't have a Ph.D. in Climatology; I have one in Organic Chemistry from the University of Tennessee, and I've completed 2 post-doctoral fellowships at the University of California's Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. I don't profess to be an expert in an area I haven't exhaustively studied, and quite frankly, it ticks me off when others do.
Richard Reynolds I know how you feel. Quite frankly, it ticks me off when people dismiss scientifically validated evidence for global warming and climate change when one or more of its many advocates don't hold what they perceive to be the necessary credentials. It's the same thing as if I were to dismiss your opinion on Bill Nye's advocacy of the proven validity of global warming and climate change theory simply because you weren't a climatologist with a Ph.D. I don't dismiss your dismissal of the evidence because you don't have a Ph.D. in climatology. I dismiss it because you present no evidence to dispute the validity of the science behind it, then have the audacity to say others without Ph.D.'s in climatology don't have any reason to support the overwhelming scientific consensus behind it. If you say the Earth is flat or the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun, you wouldn't expect a logical-thinking person to believe you without presenting facts to back it up. Global warming deniers present no scientific facts in peer-reviewed journals that are commonly accepted by scientists because their arguments against it are fallacious or misinformed.
Like · 1 · Yesterday at 3:50pm · Edited
Richard Reynolds Here is a link of some of the many highly reputable scientific associations (with many, many Ph.D.'s in every one of them) and their opinion about global warming and climate change, which completely backs up Bill Nye's supposedly pitiful credentials: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Including this statement:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11
Including this statement:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11
Liz Zippi I don't recall that I ever stated my opinion on the subject of global warming/climate change.
Richard Reynolds Then you just have an ax to grind about people without Ph.D's expressing their opinions. I can't believe that you're a Ph.D. at LSU -- I looked you up and you're listed right there -- and you would question the credentials of someone who has been a great advocate for scientific education in the United States for decades, one who holds perfectly respectable academic and innovative careers in the aeronautics industry without knowing anything about him other than you knew he didn't have a Ph.D. He has an undergraduate degree in science, and he's advocating for the scientific position, as anyone would who has any understanding of the scientific method. If you're not questioning the validity of his position, you seem to be just jealous that someone with a long-time esteemed career as a science education advocate is on television promoting science above superstition and conspiracy theories. I don't know what to tell you to do. Maybe ask them to give you his job and he could be an instructor in organic chemistry at LSU.
Like · 1 · Yesterday at 5:14pm · Edited
Liz Zippi That sounds good, except the role of a full professor is much more vast and their educational background generally goes far beyond that of an instructor. But, since Nye's mechanical engineering degree qualifies him as a climatologist, sure, I'd love to sit in and observe his organic chemistry lectures. Jealous of a TV personality? How funny.
Richard Reynolds This is like arguing with a teenager. That DOES sound good, except for the fact that many, many people go on to work in science without taking the time to get your somehow magical Ph.D. Because they continue their education through on-the-job training, they read and constantly update their knowledge on a wide range of scientific subjects in peer-reviewed journals by scientists who ARE qualified in their field, and many people -- even amateurs in their field or out of their field -- have widely influenced scientific knowledge. Clyde Tombaugh discovered Pluto and many asteroids, many others have become famous without formal, official degrees. But it cracks me up that you criticize him for talking about something in which you don't consider him an expert, a field where you readily admit you are no expert -- climatology -- and you supposedly have no position on global warming and climate change because you're not an expert in it (you don't have a Ph.D. in climatology.) Jealous of a TV personality? Absolutely, you are. But I don't have to keep defending Bill Nye to an academic snob with no willingness to concede the possibility exists that she has no idea what someone's knowledge is in an area that isn't covered by his/her dissertation. I will though if you do.
Ian Bertsch-Huber /follow. Richard, you're just roasting her. I have nothing to add to you're side. I just wanted to follow this.
Liz Zippi And many listen to a documentary and read a couple magazines articles and become self-professed gurus. Look, I gave my last exam today, just entered all my grades, and I am taking off the entire summer. You want the last word, or in your case, dissertation, go ahead. My break starts now. Anyway, it's been fun goading you into your litanies.
Richard Reynolds Apparently, only Ph.D.'s are qualified and anyone with an undergrad degree -- no matter what they're accomplishments -- are not fit to form opinions. Everyone without a Ph.D., according to Liz Zippi, Ph.D. in organic chemistry (who has no opinion or won't state her opinion on global warming or climate change theory because her lack of a Ph.D. in climatology disqualifies her from speaking on issues not directly concerning her Ph.D.) thinks no one should speak except in regards to their academic-approved areas of study and that silence is now required without a Ph.D. Hysterically funny ... but not funny in a way that would make you laugh with amusement. Just hysterically funny because it is entirely dismissive, by extrapolation of the basic logic of her quite illogical criticism, of all scientific accomplishments made by scientists throughout history who have not had Ph.D.'s.
Ian Bertsch-Huber Bravo. I entirely agree.
Liz, I am a student right now, I have zero certificates aside my highschool diploma, and am enrolled in only Biology and Mathematics (College Algebra). Because I am learning from an Ecology Ph.D., everything I've learned in my Biology course is false, because he only has an Undergrad in that subject. Also, by your philosophy, because I do not have a Ph.D., anything I may discover while obtaining my Masters ,or even Ph.D., in Biochemistry won't count, or will be dismissed.
Liz, I am a student right now, I have zero certificates aside my highschool diploma, and am enrolled in only Biology and Mathematics (College Algebra). Because I am learning from an Ecology Ph.D., everything I've learned in my Biology course is false, because he only has an Undergrad in that subject. Also, by your philosophy, because I do not have a Ph.D., anything I may discover while obtaining my Masters ,or even Ph.D., in Biochemistry won't count, or will be dismissed.
Richard Reynolds Oh, snap ... she's going to act like SHE was trolling ME by "goading me into my litanies." ROTFLMAO. What a pretentious Ph.D. She's finished grading her papers and has entered all her grades. Another generation of potential Ph.D.'s goes forth to be completely silent on subjects which they have not fully investigated by obtaining a Ph.D. in them. What an overbearing snob.
Richard Reynolds I think Ph.D.'s should have to get a Ph.D. in facebook trolling before they think THEY were the one doing the trolling. Liz Zippi, Ph.D., but pitiful little b.s. in internet trolling. Not qualified, Liz ... not qualified at all. ********
Richard Reynolds She'll be back. They always come back.
[Note: She hasn't come back yet, but her Ph.D. lunchmate does]
[Note: She hasn't come back yet, but her Ph.D. lunchmate does]
Gary R. Boucher I can't help but mention a few facts regarding these earlier posts. To start with I ate lunch with Liz Zippi today and she told me of this exchange, so I checked it out. Liz is a full professor of organic chemistry at LSU Shreveport. I have a doctorate in engineering and am also a full professor at the same university. I have noticed that a lot of people who are not specialists in climate science are taking a very verbal stand declaring that the issue of global warming is finished science. It is not. Many people have a limited education on this subject, yet make huge assumptions and predictions off the top of their head and bill themselves as experts. They are not--Al Gore is a perfect example. I would not want a mechanical engineer to prescribe a drug for me because they had read a medical book. Neither would I want to take advice from anyone who is not a professional in the field of climate science. With this said, I will say that I am not a denier or a believer, and I don't think from what I know Liz is either. I will say that for this to be settled science the models must work better. They seem to hardly work at all. Any weather extreme is now "evidence" for the "warmers." I am highly suspicious about anything that is so politically polarizing. If one does not understand bias even with scientists, they are naïve. There is plenty of bias to go around it seems.
Richard Reynolds No, but they believe the experts when all the experts generally agree. Okay ... now what I'm reading is that you're not an expert, we're not an expert, but because you say "any weather extreme is now evidence for the warmers" -- I don't have anything to do with outlandish claims some might make about global warming or climate change ... and I am so glad to know this about LSU-Shreveport's professors. I will advise everyone I know that if you want a science degree, LSU-S professors seem to be the ones you don't want to get it from. Oh, my frickin' jumping Jesus, DO YOU PEOPLE KNOW WHAT SCIENCE IS? You're saying people aren't qualified to comment on global warming or climate change science unless they are as highly suspicious as a couple of flake professors at LSU-S who think global warming-denying or climate change-denying is some kind of academically admirable trait. You're flat-earthers. The science is overwhelmingly supportive of global climate change and global warming theory being caused by human activity, and you are saying that there is something "suspicious" about the rest of the world's climatologists -- the VAST majority of them -- agreeing on a scientific theory, implying that the majority of climatologists of the world our involved in some kind of conspiracy. That's totally nonsensical and I'm so glad to know this about what kind of university LSU-S is. Holy bat droppings! Science is, indeed, VERY suspicious! ROTFLMFAO!
Richard Reynolds Man, if I were two Ph.D.'s representing LSU-S engaging in this ridiculous argument with me and advocating against well-established science, I would just delete my comments. It's starting to become sad to me now. Just delete your comments. It's not about silencing skepticism ... science is about supporting skepticism that is supported by facts. You're skeptical of facts, disprove them. If you think there's a worldwide conspiracy by climatologists to promote climate change, prove it. If you think the world is flat, doesn't revolve around the Sun, the Holocaust was a conspiracy to give Nazis a bad name -- whatever ... PROVE it. (For the sake of whatever reputations you might possibly have, just stop. It's really just sad now.)
Gary R. Boucher Richard, it has become apparent to me, and probably Liz also, that what we are dealing with here is a real professional. Using statements such as "ROTFLMAO" and "Holy Bat Droppings" has convinced me that you are a professional in climate science. Was it a certain book, a pamphlet handed to you, or just watching TV that settled the science for you? Richard, you need a little help here. I have indeed not vetted you, as you apparently have us, and I have not taken the time to see if you even have an education--apparently not a factor here. But, regardless of your background, you missed what Liz and I are saying. What alarmists are presenting is a majority vote, as though science becomes settled by the group that has the largest number of ballots cast (no hanging chads of course). When you factor in the overwhelming political correctness factor associated with global warming, the non-scientific bias runs high. There is definitely a "Get on the bandwagon, or you are an ignorant fool" factor propagated by your group. When I look at people like Al Gore, I wonder how in the world anyone could be a bigger idiot. But then, I had never met you at that time. Here's where I have problems; I have little or no doubt that the earth has gotten warmer, but the warming has not closely correlated with the rate of increase in CO2. Increases in CO2 causing the bulk of the heating is still an assumption, and not a proven fact. Richard, it is not Liz, and it is not me that possess a closed mind. It is those who will simply not consider that with the past history of predictions, and failures in correlation still dogmatically push this as a closed issue in science. I invite you to come here to LSUS and further your education, after you obtain the necessary prerequisites.
Richard Reynolds See, this isn't a peer-reviewed publication, I wasn't offering you my credentials, and if it hasn't become obvious to you two global-warming conspiracy theorists, I couldn't give less than a tinker's damn about your misinformed opinions. For educated people you sure do know very little about science. OF COURSE science is based on consensus and peer-review. Are you delusional? You don't have to say the world is round even today, but you can't expect to be taken seriously. By scientist or layman/woman. You are, to put it at the most fundamental level -- despite your previous attempts to be wishy-washy about whether you two were taking a position on global warming and climate change and the widely scientifically accepted science behind it -- simply promoting global-warming and climate-change-denying conspiracy theories without providing any evidence of them. Calling Al Gore an idiot (and I haven't been a fan of Al Gore's ever, especially when he and Tipper got involved in the PMRC witch-trials) is not enough. I wouldn't suggest anyone -- EVER -- go to LSU-S if this is the kind of scientific dialogue two Ph.D. professors there promote. Thanks for the invitation, though. (And I really did catch your condescending insult about my lack of education -- anyone who doesn't have a Ph.D. and posts global warming subterfuge on facebook is obviously unqualified to engage in civilized discourse about a subject only qualified Ph.D.'s who call a former vice-president of the United States "a fool" because he believes in the repeatedly proven concept of global warming and climate change theory being caused by human activity ... along with most of the climatologists, astronomists, meteorologists, NASA, highly esteemed professional scientific organizations, such as the US National Academy of Sciences, and many international scientific organizations. Just because you're in the minority doesn't mean you're right. Go debate with your fellow Ph.D.'s at LSU-S about this. If your intellectual skills and Liz Zippi's are any indication of their capabilities, I'm sure you'll have an easier time.)
Like · 13 hours ago · Edited
Richard Reynolds Jumping Jehohsaphat on a leaping lizard, is there ANYONE AT LSU-S in the science department who can explain to these two intellectually superior Ph.D.'s what the scientific method is? WTF? (Yeah, this isn't a peer-reviewed journal, Ph.D.'s, so I get to use annoying facebook abbreviations. Like LMFAO).
Richard Reynolds Ph.D.'s at LSU-S ... there must be something in the water. He thinks I'm in a global-warming "group." I'm a part of the conspiracy. Boooooo!
When you click the above link, go to the comment section, click your "find" on your browser, enter "Liz Zippi" in the searchbox, and you'll come to the lengthy dialogue.
[Author's note: 5/12/2014 Monday, it looks like Prof. Gary R. Boucher of LSU in Shreveport just couldn't help himself and responded yet again. I made a scientific prediction and my results were on par with the spectacularly accurate predictions of quantum theory. What can I say -- I don't have a Ph.D., so I'm bound to be more accurate than Gary R. Boucher or Liz Zippi of LSU-S]:
Gary R. Boucher Richard, cute little hook you use, but you overuse it. "They'll come back... they always do" You used that before--probably many times. The reason I did not "come back" over the weekend was simple; I was busy and didn't consider you significant, nor do I consider your childish rhetoric and insults damaging or worthy of a lot of my time. It someone wants to get me worked up, it will take insults from a better thinker, coupled with a better education. How do I know you are relatively uneducated? You default to using crude child-like language when you don't have the actual skills to damage a person's credibility through your rhetoric. I am not a psychologist, but my best guess is that you get on here due to a fundamental insecurity. Do you need to prove yourself to yourself,and try to obtain some self worth by attacking others? Your problems are not really mine to be pondering Richie. You will have to work that out on your own. I was just watching a debate on CNN between your friend Mr. Nye where he stated that both hurricanes and tornado activity was caused by Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption or whatever it is you call it now. His proof was pretty well shot down by a panelist's statement that the IPCC stated that they see no overall increased activity in these areas. In other words Mr. Nye, the self proclaimed expert, just quoted "Facts" that were not at all facts. This is so typical. This reminds me of the WMD everyone just knew were in Iraq. It was a given. All the experts agreed. Even the President knew they were there. But time told the story, in that one fact after another was built on a house of cards. You invent terms such as "Denier" and "Skeptic" to marginalize anyone who questions the supreme wisdom of the herd. Well Dick Reynolds, I think for myself, and I have a right and an obligation to myself to question, even when the vote is in, and it looks like your side has the most votes cast. But, that is not really the way science is done though is it? I am now going to disprove another of your theories. I am not going to come back as this is a total waste of my time talking to Richie.
Richard Reynolds Garykins, you two sub-moronic Ph.D.'s started this anti-science troll and I merely responded to it. Liz started it by insulting Bill Nye's education ... I responded, she responded. We're all adults. You called me an "idiot" -- a bigger idiot, you commented, "than Al Gore." It's going to be interesting continuing this discussion with you for the rest of our lives on facebook. (And I was right ... THEY ALWAYS COME BACK). I didn't marginalize you two, your illogical rhetoric does that. You'll be back, Gareth, I know you will. I'll have you using facebook emoticon codes before you can start questioning the conspiracies of the theories of evolution and quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics. I have faith in you, Garren.
Richard Reynolds P.S. (Although, I am almost certain to a 99.998999% plus or minus 0.1% degree, that the P.S. is totally unnecessary) I never said that any one particular claim or piece of data or even an entire theory cannot be disputed scientifically ... you guys just have not done that. You're just trying to sow seeds of doubt about climate change/global warming theory with no plausible data to back up your specious claims. Write a paper, get it published in a reputable scientific journal, preferably one that only allows academics with Ph.D.'s in climatology to publish, that disputes the theory behind climate change and global warming being caused primarily by human activity through the use of fossil fuels, and after you convince the vast majority of qualified scientists that they have been misled or involved in some kind of conspiracy, then I'll give credence to your currently nonsensical arguments and excoriations against well-established science. And I apologize if my discourse hasn't been as elevated as yours has been ... but, as you've probably guessed because you have a Ph.D. and are a professor at LSU-S, my apology is absolutely insincere, Garyhairyquitecontrary.
Richard Reynolds Gary? Liz? I'm starting to worry about you guys. You weren't abducted by Bigfoot, were you?
Richard Reynolds Gary ... I was just wondering about your book, "The Goliath Paradigm" -- could you send me a copy of your manuscript? Are you still an advisor to the Petroleum Engineering Program at LSU? http://gary-boucher.com/
[Blogger's note, yet again: I know it may seem like I should not be so troll-like when engaging in a debate with two Ph.D.'s who obviously have lofty opinions of themselves and their curriculum vitae, but when you post comments on Free Speech TV's facebook page, expect no deferential treatment when espousing your Ph.D.-approved derogatory opinions, like Bill Nye's honorary degrees are "bullcrap" and former Vice President Al Gore is an "idiot" and the person you're debating is a bigger "idiot" than Al Gore. Expect the comments to devolve into the worst of all possible facebook worlds. And don't say you don't have an opinion on global warming theory one way or the other and then spend all your time expressing your disdain for the theory. I was absolutely shocked at the insipidity of their argument, the utter lack of evidence these two Ph.D.'s showed, their contempt for a fellow academic who, for them, didn't quite live up to their academic standards, to say the least. They absolutely have the right to voice their opinion about global warming/climate change theory and question aspects of its validity or to even repute the validity of the entire theory. But to deny it because, as Gary R. Boucher puts it, the models "just don't add up" is absolutely a preposterous argument. Global warming/climate change theory is, for those who don't know, widely accepted by most of the world's foremost scientists, many of whom were skeptical of it for many years before the overwhelming evidence convinced them. These two hacks, Liz Zippi and Gary R. Boucher, are probably very intelligent people who are simply politically motivated, or financially motivated, to deny global climate change and warming theory. I don't know which for sure, but I do know that if you're going to do this sort of thing, you bring dishonor and contempt upon the institution you represent, upon the academic world, because it is entirely disingenuous and contemptible. After Gary and Liz had their lunch together the day they started their Free Speech TV facebook anti-science trolling, they should have just gone home and read some scientific literature and data about the vast evidence supporting global warming. Like Al Gore or dislike him (and I don't really like him), he was right: the debate is over. The skeptics are now, indeed, simply the equivalent of the Catholic Church's Inquisition confronting thousands of Galileos, not vice versa. --Richard Reynolds
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)