SI
SI
discoversearch

 Strategies & Market Trends | ahhaha's ahs


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: DMaA who wrote (20600)2/22/2012 8:56:29 AM
From: sixty2nds
of 24456
 
online.wsj.com 

Concerned Scientists Reply on Global WarmingThe authors of the Jan. 27 Wall Street Journal op-ed, 'No Need to Panic about Global Warming,' respond to their critics.

Article Video Comments (566)

Editor's Note: The authors of the following letter, listed below, are also the signatories of "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," an op-ed that appeared in the Journal on January 27. This letter responds to criticisms of the op-ed made by Kevin Trenberth and 37 others in a letter published Feb. 1, and by Robert Byer of the American Physical Society in a letter published Feb. 6.



The interest generated by our Wall Street Journal op-ed of Jan. 27, "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," is gratifying but so extensive that we will limit our response to the letter to the editor the Journal published on Feb. 1, 2012 by Kevin Trenberth and 37 other signatories, and to the Feb. 6 letter by Robert Byer, President of the American Physical Society. (We, of course, thank the writers of supportive letters.)

We agree with Mr. Trenberth et al. that expertise is important in medical care, as it is in any matter of importance to humans or our environment. Consider then that by eliminating fossil fuels, the recipient of medical care (all of us) is being asked to submit to what amounts to an economic heart transplant. According to most patient bills of rights, the patient has a strong say in the treatment decision. Natural questions from the patient are whether a heart transplant is really needed, and how successful the diagnostic team has been in the past.

In this respect, an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is "falsified" and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.

These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.










Enlarge Image









From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.

The Trenberth letter tells us that "computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean." The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of "missing heat" hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?

Given this dubious track record of prediction, it is entirely reasonable to ask for a second opinion. We have offered ours. With apologies for any immodesty, we all have enjoyed distinguished careers in climate science or in key science and engineering disciplines (such as physics, aeronautics, geology, biology, forecasting) on which climate science is based.

Trenberth et al. tell us that the managements of major national academies of science have said that "the science is clear, the world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible." Apparently every generation of humanity needs to relearn that Mother Nature tells us what the science is, not authoritarian academy bureaucrats or computer models.

One reason to be on guard, as we explained in our original op-ed, is that motives other than objective science are at work in much of the scientific establishment. All of us are members of major academies and scientific societies, but we urge Journal readers not to depend on pompous academy pronouncements—on what we say—but to follow the motto of the Royal Society of Great Britain, one of the oldest learned societies in the world: nullius in verba—take nobody's word for it. As we said in our op-ed, everyone should look at certain stubborn facts that don't fit the theory espoused in the Trenberth letter, for example—the graph of surface temperature above, and similar data for the temperature of the lower atmosphere and the upper oceans.

What are we to make of the letter's claim: "Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record." We don't see any warming trend after the year 2000 in the graph. It is true that the years 2000-2010 were perhaps 0.2 C warmer than the preceding 10 years. But the record indicates that long before CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere began to increase, the earth began to warm in fits and starts at the end of the Little Ice Age—hundreds of years ago. This long term-trend is quite likely to produce several warm years in a row. The question is how much of the warming comes from CO2 and how much is due to other, both natural and anthropogenic, factors?



Related Video



Heartland Institute President Joe Bast on why global warming activist Peter Gleick stole and forged documents from his organization.

There have been many times in the past when there were warmer decades. It may have been warmer in medieval times, when the Vikings settled Greenland, and when wine was exported from England. Many proxy indicators show that the Medieval Warming was global in extent. And there were even warmer periods a few thousand years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum. The fact is that there are very powerful influences on the earth's climate that have nothing to do with human-generated CO2. The graph strongly suggests that the IPCC has greatly underestimated the natural sources of warming (and cooling) and has greatly exaggerated the warming from CO2.

The Trenberth letter states: "Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused." However, the claim of 97% support is deceptive. The surveys contained trivial polling questions that even we would agree with. Thus, these surveys find that large majorities agree that temperatures have increased since 1800 and that human activities have some impact.

But what is being disputed is the size and nature of the human contribution to global warming. To claim, as the Trenberth letter apparently does, that disputing this constitutes "extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert" is peculiar indeed.

One might infer from the Trenberth letter that scientific facts are determined by majority vote. Some postmodern philosophers have made such claims. But scientific facts come from observations, experiments and careful analysis, not from the near-unanimous vote of some group of people.

The continued efforts of the climate establishment to eliminate "extreme views" can acquire a seriously threatening nature when efforts are directed at silencing scientific opposition. In our op-ed we mentioned the campaign circa 2003 to have Dr. Chris de Freitas removed not only from his position as editor of the journal Climate Research, but from his university job as well. Much of that campaign is documented in Climategate emails, where one of the signatories of the Trenberth et al. letter writes: "I believe that a boycott against publishing, reviewing for, or even citing articles from Climate Research [then edited by Dr. de Freitas] is certainly warranted, but perhaps the minimum action that should be taken."

Or consider the resignation last year of Wolfgang Wagner, editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. In a fulsome resignation editorial eerily reminiscent of past recantations by political and religious heretics, Mr. Wagner confessed to his "sin" of publishing a properly peer-reviewed paper by University of Alabama scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell containing the finding that IPCC models exaggerate the warming caused by increasing CO2.

Enlarge Image










Getty Images/Ikon Images


The Trenberth letter tells us that decarbonization of the world's economy would "drive decades of economic growth." This is not a scientific statement nor is there evidence it is true. A premature global-scale transition from hydrocarbon fuels would require massive government intervention to support the deployment of more expensive energy technology. If there were economic advantages to investing in technology that depends on taxpayer support, companies like Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Solar Millenium, SpectraWatt, Solyndra, Ener1 and the Renewable Energy Development Corporation would be prospering instead of filing for bankruptcy in only the past few months.

The European experience with green technologies has also been discouraging. A study found that every new "green job" in Spain destroyed more than two existing jobs and diverted capital that would have created new jobs elsewhere in the economy. More recently, European governments have been cutting subsidies for expensive CO2-emissionless energy technologies, not what one would expect if such subsidies were stimulating otherwise languid economies. And as we pointed out in our op-ed, it is unlikely that there will be any environmental benefit from the reduced CO2 emissions associated with green technologies, which are based on the demonization of CO2.

Turning to the letter of the president of the American Physical Society (APS), Robert Byer, we read, "The statement [on climate] does not declare, as the signatories of the letter [our op-ed] suggest, that the human contribution to climate change is incontrovertible." This seems to suggest that APS does not in fact consider the science on this key question to be settled.

Yet here is the critical paragraph from the statement that caused the resignation of Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever and many other long-time members of the APS: "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." No reasonable person can read this and avoid the conclusion that APS is declaring the human impact "incontrovertible." Otherwise there would be no logical link from "global warming" to the shrill call for mitigation.

The APS response to the concerns of its membership was better than that of any other scientific society, but it was not democratic. The management of APS took months to review the statement quoted above, and it eventually declared that not a word needed to be changed, though some 750 words were added to try to explain what the original 157 words really meant. APS members were permitted to send in comments but the comments were never made public.

In spite of the obstinacy of some in APS management, APS members of good will are supporting the establishment of a politics-free, climate physics study group within the Society. If successful, it will facilitate much needed discussion, debate, and independent research in the physics of climate.

In summary, science progresses by testing predictions against real world data obtained from direct observations and rigorous experiments. The stakes in the global-warming debate are much too high to ignore this observational evidence and declare the science settled. Though there are many more scientists who are extremely well qualified and have reached the same conclusions we have, we stress again that science is not a democratic exercise and our conclusions must be based on observational evidence.

The computer-model predictions of alarming global warming have seriously exaggerated the warming by CO2 and have underestimated other causes. Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture, and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antoninio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: sixty2nds who wrote (20610)2/23/2012 8:17:25 AM
From: dvdw©
of 24456
 
If you like this kinda stuff, you may enjoy the audio archives that resulted from this conference at Cambridge....they are way complicated, as they bring together disparate subject matter..(better than listening to mouthpieces spinning news)..the purpose of this gathering is to examine the potential for setting course and direction, participants have combinatorial skill sets, one of the many objectives and intuitions, is that room temperature super conductors already exist...that quantum computers, can and will originate out of a biological soup.The Objective of the whole conference is creation of devices that can mimic plant worlds energy efficiencies.Unless your interested in delving into the doing, the MIT guests presentation about Goldilocks is worth a spin.
royalsociety.org 

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: dvdw© who wrote (20613)2/23/2012 4:42:35 PM
From: sixty2nds
of 24456
 
Thank you dvdw. i will try to wade through it. eom

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: sixty2nds who wrote (20612)2/23/2012 7:21:25 PM
From: frankw1900
of 24456
 
Hi there 62nds. This might inflame your sense of comedy. Article you posted had a video about Heartland Institute and Peter Gleick embedded:

online.wsj.com 

"How about that!" I thought. "Who is this guy, anyway?" So I followed up.

I couldn't decide which of the many news stories to link to so help yourself; the contortions some of the "reporters are going through are fascinating in an embarrassing way:

google.com 

But here's the kicker:

real-science.com 
junkscience.com 

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: frankw1900 who wrote (20615)2/23/2012 9:21:16 PM
From: DMaA
of 24456
 
The Powerline guys talked about him the other day:

powerlineblog.com 

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: DMaA who wrote (20616)2/24/2012 12:53:16 AM
From: frankw1900
of 24456
 
I would not have posted about it except for the EPA stepping up the comedic values by deleting their list of grants to Gleick.

Makes me wonder how flaky some of that research might have been.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: frankw1900 who wrote (20615)2/24/2012 12:14:00 PM
From: sixty2nds
of 24456
 
Thanks Frank. I will catch up on them this weekend. I ran across this today on the stock market. I'm not so big on the fundies as a general rule but...
marketwatch.com 


Jim Stack was right, and he’s still bullish
Commentary: Bull market has more room to run in 2012

By Howard Gold
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — The last time I interviewed investment guru Jim Stack, he was a lonely bull in a bearish world.

It was last August, when stocks appeared to be in a death spiral. On Monday, Aug. 8, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell nearly 635 points. After rallying 400 the next day, it lost almost 520 on Aug. 10, closing at 10,719.94.

Click to Play
IRA mistakes you don't want to make
What are the most common IRA mistakes savers make? In this edition of MarketWatch's Retirement Adviser, Andrea Coombes talks with Ed Slott, founder of IRAHelp.com, and Jack Nuckolls, head of private client tax services at BDO.

That was 16% below its March 29 peak and if it wasn’t quite a bear market it seemed well on its way to becoming one. Much of the rest of the world was already there.

Not so fast, said Stack, president of Stack Investment Management and InvesTech Research. He declared that no recession or bear market was on the horizon. Given Stack’s excellent long-term track record and early predictions of a housing bust and the 2009 bull market, it was worth paying attention.

Read Howard Gold’s previous column on MoneyShow.com about Stack’s prediction the bull would continue.

He also said he was remaining bullish as long as the S&P 500 index stayed above 1,100.

On Oct. 3, the S&P closed at 1,099.23. But it took off and closed Tuesday at 1,362.21. That’s almost a 24% gain from its lows, and just about back to its recent peak on April 29.

So, now that he’s been vindicated, what does he think?

I caught up with him recently at the World Money Show in Orlando and, yes, he still believes we’re in a bull market, though he wouldn’t be surprised to see a correction after stocks’ recent run.

“When you set aside the fear and look at the leading economic indicators and the technical environment, that’s a balance weighted in the investor’s favor,” he told me. “We’re just not seeing the usual warning flags.”

As he did last summer, Stack insists “the underlying economy is doing better than people think.” In fact, he said, “the economy is still expanding,” albeit slowly.

For instance, the four-week moving average of initial claims for unemployment is at its lowest point since 2008.

“There’s not a recession that’s begun with unemployment claims with new lows,” he said, adding that initial claims usually turn up four to six months before a recession begins.

Also, consumer confidence as measured by the University of Michigan and the Conference Board has recovered completely from last summer’s debt-ceiling stand-off, he said.

Technically sound

Stack also likes the market’s technical condition.

As of last Friday, we have yet to experience a single trading day in 2012 in which the S&P fell 1%. That’s the first time that’s happened since 1995, Stack said.

Also, the advance-decline line — which compares the number of advancing stocks with the number of declining stocks — has broken out to new highs ahead of the major indexes, he said.

“This shows an underlying strength… and is one reason why almost all major indexes are very close to matching or exceeding their highs hit in April of last year,” he wrote in the latest issue of InvesTech Research.

Page 1Page 2

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: sixty2nds who wrote (20618)2/24/2012 12:24:12 PM
From: sixty2nds
of 24456
 
By Howard Gold

Continued from page 1
Page 1Page 2
And a proprietary indicator he watches shows a real dearth of leadership on the down side. That usually means good stock-market gains in the months ahead, he said.

But you’d be hard pressed to find investors who are licking their chops at that. In fact, says Stack, many retail investors are out of the market or traumatized.

A recent survey by Charles Schwab & Co. found that only a third of the investors polled were confident in their ability to make investment decisions. Blame two bear markets over the past 12 years plus 2010’s “flash crash” and the series of crises investors have lived through for that disillusionment.

But “2011 was no more volatile than 2010 and was actually much less volatile than the past two years,” he told me. “Volatility has been in investors’ emotions. What we’ve seen have been extremes of fear.”

Fear factorsFear of the unknown is most pervasive, especially about Europe, a possible confrontation between Israel and Iran, and the continuing debt crisis in the U.S.

“We don’t know what’s going to happen with Greece, we don’t know what will happen with Italy,” Stack told me. “We’ve been worried about banking crises in Europe for the last two to three years.”

Brandishing his statistics again, he said U.S. markets have continued to advance during eight of the 13 recessions in Europe over the last 50 years.




Reuters

And what about a possible attack by Israel against Iran to keep the Islamic Republic from developing nuclear weapons? That would be a problem, he said, especially if Iran tried to close the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation.

It could drive crude prices to $150 a barrel and be “a considerable headwind, because it is pulling discretionary spending out of the consumer’s pocket,” he said. But, he added, “geopolitical events generally do not have a lasting impact on the U.S. economy.”

He thinks Saudi Arabia and other producing countries “will be opening up their spigots because they know the repercussions — the world going into a global recession.”

But there’s a silver lining: In Stack’s view, all that fear has helped keep valuations attractive. The S&P changes hands at about 14 times trailing-12-month operating earnings and 15 times reported earnings. Since 1960, stocks have traded at over 20 times earnings when long-term rates have been less than 3%, he said.

By that metric, “one can reasonably argue that the market is undervalued by 10%-30%.”

Stack doesn’t use target prices, but says “we could easily see a double-digit gain in 2012.” That’s pretty typical for presidential election years when incumbents are running for re-election — another reason he’s still bullish.

Read Howard’ Golds analysis of why the election could make 2012 a good year for stocks in MoneyShow.com.

How long can it last?How long will the bull last? Stack won’t name a date, either, but said this bull market is “maturing,” not mature. That means we could be at least a year away from its finale. Since 1932, bull markets have lasted roughly 3 ½ years on average, and in two weeks we’ll celebrate this one’s third birthday.

Stack likes sectors such as industrials and materials, which do well midway through a bull market. He particularly likes energy stocks as hedges against a spike in oil prices under a new Persian Gulf crisis.

His favorites: domestic exploration and production companies like Marathon Oil MRO +0.92% , ConocoPhillips COP +1.56% and Occidental Petroleum OXY -0.97% , whose supply won’t be disrupted by events in the Gulf, he says. For ETF investors, he likes the Energy Select Sector SPDR XLE +0.51% .

These all have rallied along with the market and energy prices.

I think this market has made a huge move based largely on anticipation of a deal with Greece. Now, it may sell off a bit, perhaps into the mid-1,200s. The Iran situation is a huge wild card that nobody can predict.

But given Stack’s track record, I wouldn’t bet against him for the long run. So, I might use any correction to buy a little more stock or at least hold on for the rest of a bull market he says ain’t over yet.

Howard R. Gold is a columnist for MarketWatch and editor at large for MoneyShow.com. Follow him on Twitter @howardrgold.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: frankw1900 who wrote (20609)2/24/2012 10:02:45 PM
From: frankw1900
of 24456
 
More from Chonavec. The radio discussion is worthwhile listen.

chovanec.wordpress.com 


February 21, 2012

tags: Chinese banks, inflation, non-performing loans, NPL, PMI, stagflation


Yesterday I was on China Radio International (CRI) talking about the latest figures and trends for the Chinese economy: the drop in real estate, record bank profits, weak trade and PMI data, and persistent inflation. The overarching question was whether the perceived slowdown in China’s economy is real, and how worried we should be about it. You can listen to the discussion by clicking here.

Regarding the record annual profits being reported by Chinese banks, I don’t have too much to add to what I wrote on that subject last year (in my blog post on “Chinese Banks’ Illusory Earnings”), except to say that it would be comic, if it weren’t so tragic. As I said on the air yesterday, banks have two costs of doing business: the cost of funds (which they pay to depositors) and the cost of bad debts that aren’t repaid. Since Chinese banks enjoy a regulated spread between their deposit and lending rates, the more they lend (and they’ve been lending a LOT these past few years) the more money they make. But the more generously they lend, the greater the risk they won’t be paid back — a risk that should be realistically tabulated and deducted from the earnings spread.

That isn’t happening. The notion that Chinese banks have 1% non-performing loan (NPL) ratios is patently ridiculous, and the claim that provisions for 2.5 times that amount are somehow “generous” (or remotely adequate) are equally absurd. I don’t believe it, and neither do investors in Chinese bank stocks, based on their valuations. Any company can report “profits” if it doesn’t recognize half its costs of doing business. Any company can boost “revenues” by granted easy credit terms to customers who can’t pay it back.

Regarding inflation, the Wall Street Journal published an excellent editorial today that expresses my thoughts as well as I could. You can read it here. They do an excellent job describing the stresses facing China’s banks, and reconciling the apparent contradictions between a slowing economy and inflationary concerns:

It might seem odd to worry about inflation, capital outflows and tight liquidity at the same time, but that’s a consequence of China’s distorted financial system. Because allocation of capital remains politicized, a significant portion of the credit stimulus has gone into wasteful projects; since that money is not creating real growth or productivity gains, it chases too few goods at higher prices.

Meanwhile, those who need cash—including bankers and small and medium-sized businesses—can’t get it. Liquidity injections might help bankers with short-term funding. But absent broader reform, that cash will only follow earlier credit down the inflationary rabbit hole.

Usually economists consider slowing growth and inflation as polar opposites –you can have one or the other, but not both at the same time. Over-rapid growth spurs inflation, but slowing growth reduces price pressure. However, if you print (or in China’s case, import) money and spend it on projects with a zero or negative return, you will get an initial GDP boost (as long as you keep spending), but eventually you will get stagnant growth AND inflation: stagflation. The Journal gets it. Does anyone in China?


China is having rising prices and rising wages and slowing growth. This looks like a pathway to stagflation. When the government years ago decided to move away from the Soviet model, it didn't move far enough away, and thus did not allow Chinese and foreign entrepreneurs to create enough supply to fulfill both export and domestic markets. It only allowed supply to be fulfilled for export markets. Millions of people have moved from country to city and businesses have been impeded from creating efficient markets supplying their needs.The problem has never been demand either at the bottom or the top of society..

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: frankw1900 who wrote (20620)2/25/2012 11:30:36 AM
From: sixty2nds
of 24456
 
Good morning Frank. I am as excited about investing in China as I am on Africa. vbg.
Anything international I own is an American company with international presence...INTC, F, etc.
I don't even like the region specific funds. I like to read about it though. I like to see the "experts" eyes glaze over when I ask them questions like the NPL issue.

Here's a link for you...PA judge sets Islamic Law precedent....now I'm buying lead.

news.yahoo.com 

Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

By Mark Whittington | Yahoo! Contributor Network – 19 hrs ago

COMMENTARY | Jonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reports on a disturbing case in which a state judge in Pennsylvania threw out an assault case involving a Muslim attacking an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, threw the case out in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law.

The incident occurred at the Mechanicsburg, Pa., Halloween parade where Ernie Perce, an atheist activist, marched as a zombie Muhammad. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, attacked Perce, and he was arrested by police.

Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a "doofus." In effect, Perce was the perpetrator of the assault, in Judge Martin's view, and Elbayomy the innocent. The Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment.

Words almost fail.

The Washington Post recently reported on an appeals court decision to maintain an injunction to stop the implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that bans the use of Sharia law in state courts. The excuse the court gave was that there was no documented case of Sharia law being invoked in an American court. Judge Martin would seem to have provided that example, which should provide fodder for the argument as the case goes through the federal courts.

The text of the First Amendment could not be clearer. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-" It does not say "unless somebody, especially a Muslim, is angered." Indeed Judge Martin specifically decided to respect the establishment of a religion, in this case Islam.

That Judge Martin should be removed from the bench and severely sanctioned goes almost without saying. He clearly had no business hearing the case in the first place, since he seems to carry an emotional bias. He also needs to retake a constitutional law course. Otherwise, a real can of worms has been opened up, permitting violence against people exercising free speech.

It should be noted that another atheist, dressed as a Zombie Pope, was marching beside the Zombie Muhammad. No outraged Catholics attacked him.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.