Truth Seekers

Return to Ducky's Collection

Letter from the Duck:

This is copy/pasted from a Livejournal site I had several years ago. I've been re-watching older seasons of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! with a friend of mine and I've been re-enthused in my admiration for the amazing Vegas duo. This led me back to my old L.J., which I decided to move here to keep track of better and get a better audience. :)

Hope you enjoy!

9/11 and Abortion


There is a lot of controversy surrounding the events that happened only six years ago on September 11, 2001. I am sure everyone is familiar with this date; and am equally sure that a lot of people can remember exactly what they were doing when they heard about the terrorist attacks on our country. I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing, and even who I was with at the time. I won't go into details, because this isn't about me; this is about the event.

It is also true that there are a lot of conspiracy theories out there about this. Then again…there are conspiracy theories to just about anything if you are willing to look hard enough. Conspiracy nuts love to focus on the assassination of JFK, the moon landing and many others. Even the 2007 internet movie, Zeitgeist, focuses on events surrounding the 9/11 attacks. I know there is a movie by Michael Moore called Fahrenheit 9/11. I haven't personally seen the film (nor do I want to), but I believe it encourages governmental conspiracy. Penn & Teller mentioned the events of 9/11 a few times in their show, Bullshit!. In their conspiracy theories episode, they mentioned that there are always going to be people who aren't satisfied with the truth and what's real; they always want some more outstanding revelation…even, in most cases, when there just aren't any. This also applies to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. And, I admit, the attack on America was fuckin' scary. I was freaked out by it; as was everyone. No one could understand what was going on, what had happened, who had attacked us…and the chaos of that day is still hazy; even six years later. No one has all the answers. No one knows what specifically happened.

And out of such chaos and anger, the theories started coming to life. People started thinking the government had something to do with it. Zeitgeist mentioned that the president's family, at the time of the attacks, was sitting down to breakfast with some of Bin Laden's family. There was also an accusation that one of the suicide bombers who supposedly died in the attacks turned up alive several months later…and so that proved that everything was not what it seemed.

I know my friend's and my thoughts differ on this. She's not completely convinced it was an outside attack; that the government had some involvement. Me, on the other hand…I'm not so sure. And it's hardit's really hard to come to a consensus on this, because no one has all the facts. We have to take what we have and try to understand with what little information is available. That's where the conspiracy nuts come up, though. Conspiracy hacks like to take what information we have…but twist it and fill in the blanks with puzzle pieces from an entirely different puzzle. I understand where they're coming from; a lot of them just want answers. People inherently want to understand and seek to know the truth. I really believe that. People who go after conspiracies are doing the same thing; they are trying to understand what happened with the knowledge they possess.

The only problem is, that "knowledge" isn't usually correct. It's close to impossible to make a full puzzle of something when most of the pieces are missing.

When it comes to the events of 9/11, my friend believes the government had something to do with it. I side with P&T's logic on this: that most of the people in government are incompetent and couldn't orchestrate something this diabolical, sinister and organized. This was a horrible moment in this country's history, and I know I won't ever forget what happened. And who knows what we'll discover in the future? I'm sure there are a lot of answers we'll figure out later on that will make us better understand the events of yesteryear. But until that day comes…there will always be people in debate over who was really behind the deaths of thousands of Americans.

(this one's a little less "sad" and a little leaning on a personal note, but it's always interesting to discuss)

Abortion is one of those "dinner time conversation taboos". They always say there's three(?) things that should never be discussed at the dinner table: religion, politics and abortion.

I, of course, have broken that "rule" and have frequently engaged in discussions of all three.

Abortion is always a touchy subject based on the SOLE REASON that no one can "define" when a person becomes a person and not just a mass of multiplying cells. So abortion is not a scientific debate, but a moral one. Which is why it's always so widely debated, and why it's oh-so fun to challenge people on.

Before I begin, I should take my own stance on abortion: I believe in abortion. I believe the *technical/PC* term for it is "pro-choice". My sister, on the other hand, does not. She even confessed to me that she would never vote democrat, simply because that party "traditionally" favors pro-choice (no doubt I had to assure her that that's a stupid choice not to vote for a candidate that could potentially do some good. She'll be voting this coming year…so we'll see if she's been swayed by my argument. haha). I understand the reasons on both sides for the argument, but I still side with pro-choice. I believe completely that every one has a right to do what they want to their bodies. The typical argument is that "abortion is being used as a method of birth control". I have heard this side many times, especially from health teachers who have to teach abstinence (something I'll write about here on a later date, no doubt) in schools. And even though I have often taken the ground that abortion shouldn't be used as birth control… I am beginning to change my mind about that. There are a few reasons why:

(i). The argument for abortion as birth control is usually blamed on teenagers who forgot to visit Planned Parenthood or didn't bother using a condom. The truth is that the majority of women getting abortions are older women (between 20 and 35, I think….something along those lines). They are older, more experienced, have more obligations. Not to mention…
(ii). The money. Abortions cost a lot of money. I heard somewhere like $5,000 (although I could very well be mistaken). Abortions aren't covered by insurance, either; so it's not like you could walk into an abortion clinic, pay a $20 co-payment and have your baby gone within an hour.
(iii). I think it is more harmful to bring a child into the world when either the parent is not ready to support the baby, they are not emotionally ready to handle a child or they have more obligations on their hands to handle a baby. Kids are expensive. I know a girl who was forced, by her mother, to get married to a guy she was not in love with, simply because she was pregnant. She wasn't able to have an abortion. Their family is Catholic, and I understand the "rules" of the Catholic faith when it comes to this. But having a baby based on nothing but stupid religious tradition is not fair to the child. If you can't emotionally or financially handle a baby, you shouldn't be having one.

The last point is the one that has brought abortion to mind recently. It is one of those topics that I frequently think about; because it is one that's important and one that gets constantly criticized. On the subject of abortion, my stance started out as: "I don't believe in it at all; but it should be available in horrible cases; where the parent knows beforehand that the child will be disabled, for example. Or if that woman was raped. In those cases, the woman should be able to make an informed decision about whether she should keep the child".

But as I got older, my ideals started to change. "I don't believe in abortion FOR ME, but I believe every woman has the right to choose whether she wants to have a baby or not. Forcing any one to do anything — especially to their own bodies— that they don't want to do is just wrong. The only case I don't believe in it is to use it as a birth control method".

And even now I am beginning to rethink my entire stance on abortion. There was something that happened recently that got me thinking about it SERIOUSLY when it came to myself. I won't go into details because details are irrelevant, but it came to mind recently that there could be a chance that I could end up pregnant. Granted, it hasn't happened now. And I am sure it won't happen anytime in the future. But when I was recently discussing birth control with a friend of mine, I started to think… what would happen if I got pregnant right now? Tonight? How would I react to that?

For those who wouldn't know, I am, at the moment, a college student. I'm in my third year at college and first semester at a university. I have a pretty good job with decent enough pay back in my home town. As of now, I am living in the dorms on campus where I go to school. I thousands of dollars racked up in debt (as any college student would). I do not have my own home; even at my mom's house, I barely have my own room anymore (my youngest sister is using it while I go to school). I don't have a car. In the eventuality of getting my own place, I could scrimp and save and still barely afford to take care of myself.

With that in mind…what would I do with a kid? I may someday have a child (the jury's still out on that one); but I know I'm not ready right now. My older sister is right now pregnant with a little boy. I am going to CO to see her next month. I am very excited for her, but I am also really worried. I know she doesn't make enough money to comfortably support a child. I know there are a lot of people out there who fit that category; but I don't want to be one of them. If I have a child, I want to be able to support them both financially and emotionally. I want a stable household and be able to love them as much as I possibly can and be able to provide for them. At the moment…I can't afford it.

When I had this discussion with my friend, we both agreed that we weren't ready right now for kids. We're both the same age, separated by a mere few months. She's engaged and would have someone to support her if it happened she did get pregnant. But I can understand that she doesn't feel ready and wouldn't want to bring a child into this world that she couldn't provide for.

I feel the same way. And when it came to light the would-be reality of my own situation…I finally understand how I feel about abortion. If I were to find out tomorrow…in a week…a month… that I was pregnant, I would arrange for the first possible moment to get an abortion.

I believe in pro-choice; and I will always believe that, when you know you couldn't take care of a child…you shouldn't have one.

Banned Books/Freedom of Speech

As the daughter of a librarian (and, as a child, taught herself to read), I love the written word. I love literature, poetry, novels, plays…one reason that I took up the English major I am currently in. And the fact my major will not remain with me until graduation does not lessen my love for books.

Like any other emotional animal, there are many things in the world that make me upset and/or anger me. One thing that hits both nails on the head is the banning of books. I believe firmly in the freedom of speech and individual freedom to do anything you want and experience anything you want as long as you do not bring harm to another human being. Books are not something that fall into the latter category.

I understand that there are other countries in the world who have other forms of government and other influences. They have other forms of expressiveness, openness and even censorship. And even though the banning of literary materials upsets me on a worldly scale, I am only going to focus this entry on the United States of America. In the U.S.of A., we have a wonderful document that's called the Constitution of the United States of America; and within that cherished document is the Bill of Rights. The first amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It's perfectly clear. "Congress shall make no law..prohibiting the..freedom of speech". And in that freedom of speech that so many Americans daily take for granted, there is the assumption that such freedoms deal with the use of literary substances (ie books, printed works, texts, newspapers, magazines). The government (either local or national) has no right to bare any freedom of speech from the public.

Notice the word used in the latter statement was "public". If you are a private assembly or establishment, you have every right to exclude anything you want. If you set up a private affair, you have the right to ban chickens in your clubhouse on Thursdays. But if you are a public institution (in this case, we'll say a library), you don't have any right to ban material for public use.

The most disturbing thing about my research into banned books over time is that there have been many cases where books have been suspended from library shelves or even removed altogether. This is done through the encouragement and even (in some cases) harassment against the material in a book. This part goes into another part of freedom that is sometimes hard to distinguish. There is an area in freedom that is always hazed and "put in the gray" by many people; and that's something called individual freedom. My stance on this was mentioned above: do what you want, when you want, whatever you want, as long as you don't harm another person. This is a belief that many people in America believe in; it's something this country was founded on. Yet some people believe that THEIR freedoms are superior to other freedoms. This is applied in the issue of banned books (to mention one).

Here are a few examples of banned books and why they were banned/suspended from libraries.

  • Heather Has Two Mommies (Leslea Newman) — I remember this book being highly controversial several years ago. The title explains why it was attacked; it's about a young child who has lesbian parents. A lot of people are offended by this (especially because it's a children's book) and do not believe that they can tell their own children not to read it and ignore the book; but they feel they have to go on a crusade in order to "save the lives" of those who may read those pages; as if "unity" and "acceptance" are merely utopian ideals.
  • I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings (Maya Angelou) — This book created issues among people because it is an autobiographical account of a woman who has been through periods of abuse and even rape in her life.
  • What's Happening to My Body? [books for boys & girls]. (Lynda Madaras) — I don't know the particulars of why these books were banned, but I can assume. There is a pattern when it comes to books about sex. Personally, I think these books being banned or challenged is a great disappointment. For one thing, they are books about truth; and they can give great advice, assurance and knowledge about what your body is going through. Growing older and seeing your body change as you go through puberty…it's a very scary transition when you don't understand what's going on.

My discussing this topic is always hard to do it in an unbiased and detached manner. There are so many different areas to this discussion that affect me when people struggle to ban books; but it boils down to this: no one has a right to choose what people can or can not read. No one off the street has the right to come into any public library in the United States and tell me I can't read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or Harry Potter. I have the right to enjoy any book I want, any time I want. I understand that there are books out there that contain material that rub people the wrong way. For example, I am not a fan of Nicholas Sparks. But I don't have the right to tell people that they can't read The Notebook if they so choose. I can express my opinion that I don't like the book or the style of the author, but I don't have a right to tell people they can't read something.

In an ending note, I know my mom and I agree deeply on all these things concerning banned or challenged books. I am always so happy that she's a deep supporter of reading banned books (she even has a pin that she loves that reads Everything I know about life I learned from reading banned books). The one thing that always makes me most happy is when she finds out a book has been banned somewhere, and she immediately copies down the ISBN number to order it for the library she works for. She is an avid reader like me, and has read several books she doesn't particularly like. But she knows, even if she doesn't like the material or content, she's not going to push for it to be removed from the public.

It's hard not to take for granted the freedoms we have as Americans. But even though, as individuals, we have so many freedoms bestowed on us, we have to remember that we do not have the right to take those same freedoms away from other people around us. That is the universal truth.

True Love

I am sure everyone is familiar with this concept. Boy meets girl (or boy meets boy; girl meets girl…I am not being homophobic, but let's stick with the "traditional" just to be less confusing). Boy falls in love with girl. Boy marries girl. Boy and girl live happily ever after. Ah, the thing of fairy tales and romance novels. And, actually, that's all true love really is: a fantasy. But let me get into that in a bit.

Everyone can relate to a certain type of true love, right? Everyone can name a certain fairy tale, Disney movie, romance novel or "romantic comedy/chick flick" that inhabits the ideals of "true love". Hundreds upon thousands of people in the United States sign up for sites like or eHarmony to find a partner and to find love. True love. That is all they are selling. You see that overweight, old man on the eHarmony commercials that tells you "everyone has the right to be with their one, true love". The "one" part I will also get to in a minute. Just bare with me.

So what is true love? What are the ideals behind it? What makes any ordinary love become extraordinary? Businesses like eHarmony like to tell you that true love is finding the one person you're destined to be with. And with their subscription fee…hey. They will find you that one person. But just take a step back and think about this for a minute. If you believe, I mean truly believe, that there is ONE PERSON out there in the world for you……how likely is it you're going to find them? I mean, honestly? There are over six billion people on this planet. Even in this country, there are hundreds of millions of people. If you never even left the state of Maine, you would still be overwhelmed with the task of finding "the one" in just over a million people. Just think about the scale and magnitude of this problem. You would never have a job, you would never go to school, you would never have a life…it is a sheer, complete improbability that you would even accomplish finding "the one" in your lifetime. And, let's face it….who would have that kind of time, anyway? Sure, believing that there is "one person" you are destined to be with is a nice thought…it's romantic and all. But it's far from reality.

So back on topic. True love is defined by, not only finding your "soul mate", but also spending the rest of your life with them and living happily ever after. Like Cinderella. Or Snow White. Or Sleeping Beauty. Or Ariel and Eric. Are you seeing a pattern here? Fairy tales…Disney movies…they're all the same. They feed this idea that there is a "prince charming for us all" out there; that only if we dream enough…we hope enough…we sing enough…we live long enough in a desolate woods with seven little dwarves…then and only then will we be happy.

Here's what I would really like to know: what makes this idea of "true love" any better/different than "regular" love? If someone is in a relationship with someone else and they know they love them…is it possible for them to believe that they are only in love with that person so long as something better, something more "true" comes along to sweep them off their feet? Are there really people out there who would sacrifice "ordinary love" in the pursuit of something possibly as non-existent as "true love"?

Before I get rocks thrown at me by passersby, I should take a step back a minute. I will confess that I once believed in true love. I wanted to believe in it. In fact, I wanted to believe in it so badly that I was ready to delude myself into thinking I was in a relationship with someone because I was destined to be with them. I see now that I was completely wrong and, from what I have learned since we split up, our relationship never would have lasted. Not that that's a bad thing— we're still good friends and we've both moved on with our lives. But we've both changed a lot as people and are just not compatible the way we used to be. In that sense, it would have never worked out. But there was a time (and not very long ago, either) that I was determined to spend the rest of my life with that person. I did truly, deeply love them. I even remember telling one of my friends that, if it so happened we ever broke up, I would never date again.

I don't believe that anymore. I know I loved my ex while we were together. I know my feelings of believing they were the "only one for me" were naive. Again, it was a really nice thought. I liked believing that I had found my one special mate and we would be together always. It was nice. Comforting.

But it didn't last. And it never would have. And that's not a bad thing; that's just how it worked out. People fall in and out of love all the time. It's a fact of life. They may love each other today and realize a week from now that there are too many things about their partner that they can no longer overlook. Two people may hate each other their whole lives and suddenly realize the one person on their "greatest enemy" list is now the same person they want to run off to Paris with for the weekend.People's emotions change drastically and sporadically constantly and there is no way to ever explain how you feel a certain way, or for what reason.

In an attempt to gain back some intelligence for this entry, let me explain it this way. I don't remember if he was quoting from something else, but Penn Jillette said that "love is a roller coaster". You have your ups and downs. Occasionally you turn upside down; and, in the end, your ride stops. Some people stumble off the roller coaster, sick and determined never to ride it again; others race around the ride in order to jump right back in line. That is a beautiful way to describe human relationships. It might seem a little cliche…but it is so perfectly true. You either ride it, or you don't.

I know a lot of people don't know this, and it's rather sad that we don't. We are fed all these illusions of fantasy love and true love and soul mates…and we are rarely, if ever, fed the truth about it. Why? In reality, the truth is so much less glamorous. It's not romantic to know that all relationships go through stages and change over time. It's the nature of the relationship. Although it's ironic that more relationships fall apart because they don't know that there's probably nothing wrong with their relationship…it's just evolving.

This is directly from a .PDF file I found on Google. Just like there are five stages of dying/grief, there are stages for relationships (I won't list out everything written there, but I will cover the basics):

  • First Stage— Honeymoon Stage. This one is pretty self-explanatory. Lovey-dovey. All over each other. Puppy love. Everything is new, vibrant, beautiful,….. you love everything about them; even the annoying things you find endearing. Life couldn't get better. This is also the stage that (surprised?) most people associate with the "true love" phase.
  • Second Stage— Power Struggle Stage. From what I can gather from this (and what I remember from my "Marriage and Family" class) is that this is the stage where the love-sick feelings start to wear off, and the couple struggles with how to deal as an actual working partnership. It's similar to "testing the boundaries" with each other, trying to discover what's good/bad, what the other person can deal with…that kinda thing.
  • Third Stage— Dead Zone Stage. This is really where the roles of the two individuals start emerging. If you wanna think about it really simplistically/cliche, it's like the '50s American stereotype of gender roles in society: men went out to work and bring home the money, provide for his family; women were to keep house, cook, be good mothers, etc. Obviously a lot of modern-day couples do not tag along to these ideals of yester-year, but it's similar. The roles of the individual (as a father, mother, wife, husband, etc) are divided up and agreed upon. These are more than simply who takes out the trash on Thursday nights… but I think you understand.
  • Fourth Stage— Partnership Stage. This, like the first one, is self-explanatory. In this stage and the last one, I think, is where a lot of marriages/relationships fall apart. This stage takes years to develop. There is no more feeling of "lovey dovey" or romanticism present. A lot of people might feel that there simply isn't any love emotions in their relationships at all. This isn't a bad thing. This is just the nature of relationships.

I'm sorry to break it to all those who believe true love really exists, and Fate will guide us to it…. true love is a thing of fairy tales and is as unreal to this world as magic and fairy godmothers and carriages made from pumpkins. It's a nice romantic thought, and it can make one hell of a great movie. But like all things in Hollywood: it's never based on reality.


This subject was brought up recently when a local newspaper did their own exposé on a woman who recently got caught prostituting herself on Craig's List. There was a lot of talk about it at work. A lot of people thought it was either dumb or stupid. One of my friends laughed and commented that you "really could find everything on Craig's List". There was one man who works there who comes from a pretty religious family. He was disgusted by the event. He said it was disgraceful.

Now I, as with everyone I assume, have heard all the stories behind prostitution. The "societal consensus" is that anyone who gets in the line of work such as prostitution was forced into it; between either joining a gang, or a horrible home life, or just growing up on the streets. In effect, "they were driven to that life" or "didn't have a choice". The other consensus is that selling one's body for sexual favors is tantamount to slavery.

Here is now my statement/belief in it: you have your own body. You have your own life. You decide how you want to live it.

And that's my final word on the subject. As far as everything I believe, it can be summed down to those few sentences. You can do whatever you want with your body. It's yours. As long as you're not harming anyone else in the process, do whatever you want. That not only includes the topic of this post, but as to everything: do what you want. Just don't harm another person while doing so. Drink, get high, get stoned, smoke, shoot up, have sex…none of that is my concern (as long as you're not hurting anyone) because it's you. I have no more right to tell you what to do with your body than you have a right to tell me what to do with mine.

This is the one thing I have never understood, though: how did prostitution get confused with slavery? Wouldn't that be an insult to all the hundreds of ethnic groups throughout history that have been forcibly enslaved? I can sort of see the parallel if the woman was kidnapped and taken into a gang or under the ruthless "protection" of a pimp, and were forced to have sex against their will for money. And even if that were to be the case, it would not only be slavery, but it would be considered rape. As far as I understand it, slavery includes a third party, and the "slave" never consents completely to being put into slavery. That's the point of slavery.

Now, let's say for the sake of an example…if you were to change your career to be a prostitute. You didn't enter a gang or have a pimp— forget all those "accessories". If you as an individual decided you wanted to sell your sexual services for monetary gain because you're just. That. Good. You got a client, invited him/her over and had sex with him/her and got paid after…where is the crime in that? Was there a crime? You entered willingly; the client entered willingly. Money was exchanged for a simple service. If that makes someone a prostitute, couldn't I also be called a prostitute? Couldn't anyone? I work at a grocery store. I go into work willingly (…okay. So sometimes I'm only half-willing. But I still do it). I offer my services as a cashier for payment. I probably have less of a physical workout than a prostitute, and I know I don't enjoy my job as much as a prostitute might…but I get paid for offering my services. And I have less fun. If you ask me, I think I'm getting jipped.

But sarcasm aside, do you see my point? How is this all slavery? I saw an episode of Wings a while ago that also touched on this subject. They also made a comment about prostitution equaling slavery. And no one explains it. No one bothers to. They just expect everyone to see their point. And I suppose that's a different post altogether, but there seems to be no connection. Not as far as I can see. I do agree that there are cases of people who have been forced into a life of prostitution because of bad circumstances and they felt like they didn't have any other option. I don't doubt this happens at all. But do you (or does anyone) understand why this happens? All of this "forced lifestyle" is simply because prostitution is illegal in this country. There are reserved political heads who want everyone to believe that, if something like prostitution were to be legalized, there would be 'hos on every street corner. I don't believe that would happen. Granted, if the government all of a sudden just decreed prostitution legal and didn't set up any set of guidelines, that kind of future would be possible. But it's also more possible that pimps could be gotten rid of; cops would pay more attention to the prostitutes that got raped or hurt. There would be guidelines to not only protect the prostitutes, but the public themselves. If it were legalized, it wouldn't be such a dangerous business.

The real problem is not even prostitution. America has a very closeted mind when it comes to sex in general. Everything that is sexualized needs to be hidden. It's okay if it's subtle; as in advertising, and things. But anything overtly sexual in nature is frowned upon and shunned by the public. And why? What's the point? Sex is a basic human need. Bottom line. But America has shoved it in the closet and hidden it so as to pretend that it doesn't exist; all for the sake of "saving us from perversion". That's the only guess I can think of. That, and this country started out as a very religious colony. What was one of the main reasons for the first colonizers to come to the "New World"? Freedom of religious prosecution. Because of this, America still has that "hidden in the back of your mind" paranoia about all things sexual. And that's bad. Very bad. It means completely alienating yourself from something that is completely natural. And for the sake of an invisible being in the sky? Please.

I am not saying everyone who reads this should go out and become a prostitute. But I'm not saying you shouldn't, either. This is supposed to be a free country. I'm simply saying that I believe there's nothing wrong with offering your services for monetary gain; whether it be sexual favors, cosmetology, physician or a cashier. We all have unique skills, and we should all be given the opportunity to explore them. And money never hurt anyone.

Global Warming

This is a topic that I am very skeptic about. Always have been. And there are many reasons why, but I will mention why it's been a recent topic on my mind (I will do so in a little bit). The reason I have such an issue with this topic is because….I don't think it's an issue. Well….OK. I am really skeptical of the fact it's an issue. I have no problem with people wanting to save the planet and protect our home for hundreds of years so our ancestors have a place to inhabit as much as we did. However, there is so much hype and confusion wrapped up in the issue of global warming that, I admit, I have a biased against it from the get-go. I am not a fan of extreme environmentalists. In fact, I could even go so far as to brag I'm an antifan. I do not approve of hysteria— especially as a means to manipulate people. Hysteria is one of those things where the end does NOT always justify the means.

But my main issue with global warming does not rely solely on the extreme environmentalists that are pushing for it (although I would be a liar to say that wasn't an issue). There simply isn't enough evidence to state one way or another on this topic. The way I started thinking about it was pretty simple: we can't even predict with 50% accuracy what the weather will be like for an entire week; how can we state that the whole Earth is now suffering from spikes in temperature?

So then advocates for global warming can bring up that the ice caps are melting and weather temperatures have spiked in the pervious years. Well, OK. Yes. I believe that. I mean, various icebergs are starting to melt and higher temperatures are having an effect on the environment. But how can you say that evidence proves global warming? To me, this argument is about as strong as stating that, because life exists, some form of higher being (AKA "God") must exist. That might seem like an extreme statement….I'll admit to that. Mayhaps I am being a little unfair to those who believe in global warming. But what is really your proof? You can't show me melting ice as pure evidence for global warming.

And the other thing that bothers me is the essential issue: what caused global warming? I don't know if I have heard a decent enough answer to this question yet. The more popular one I have heard is that this crisis has come from gas emissions from cars and factories. And this I can kind of understand. There are a lot of bad chemicals that get burned and released into the atmosphere when cars are driven or factories are in use. But we have not had these technologies for that long. I would be willing to say…what? The last 200 years (give or take?) In that short span of time, compared to the billions of years this planet has existed…we have caused THAT much damage? I am skeptical on this. It's not to say that I completely disown this theory…….but it still doesn't seem to add up.

My English professor last year at USM once told the class that there are NO scientifically peer-reviewed articles arguing against global warming. His viewpoint? "because no one in the scientific community believes this isn't an issue". Now, I'm not here to vent about this statement, or his ignorant viewpoint on the scientific world (for this was not a single event), but this simply isn't true. And although I respected the man..he was an idiot. There are LOTS of articles out there arguing against the hysteria of global warming. Those who choose not to look for them can not, therefore, boast that they don't exist.

And, before I end this rant, I wanted to bring back the reason why I decided to vent about this now. I am in on/off communication with a dear friend who lives in California. She was telling me how cool and rainy it has been where she lives (where, otherwise, it would be warm and sunny). She says her rainy weather is evidence of global warming.

Uhm…what? No. No, no, no. Global warming does NOT cover variations in weather conditions. It's called GLOBAL WARMING for a reason. The global cooling period was in the 1970s, and see how well that one worked out for people. Are we in another ice age? No. We're in a heating stage. This is a Robert Frost poem.

The MAIN issue I have with this topic is just this: you can't have it both ways. I am not attacking her viewpoint or her at all (I want that understood). It's the ideas behind what she said that really and truly bothers me. If you want to shout about global WARMing, you can't also include global COOLing. Do you know why? Because then you're stating natural weather patterns.

Global warming is an almost laughable issue when you study the past. If you study geology, anthropology or any other ancient life/earth sciences, you will learn something very reasonable: weather changes. Imagine that. The Earth has undergone SEVERAL massive environmental changes. A couple ice ages, a couple heating stages…none of these blamed on gas emmissions or the ignorance of the human race. It's natural. There's nothing odd about what's happening. And I can understand why people would freak out because of the change in climate and the extinction of animals…but it's nothing new. This happens all the time in nature. It's not definite whether we had an impact on the environment and maybe "speeded along" the climate change. We could have. We simply don't know. We don't have enough data yet, we don't have enough studies yet…we don't have any way of telling. But saying we directly caused this to happen is, pardon the pun, hysterical.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 License.