Comments by Setec
Page 1 of 1
Posted on June 23 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you believe a word of the pseudoscientific, fraudulent garbage on the Answers in Genesis website, your mind is TOO open -- to the point that a person could look in one ear and see out the other.
Posted on April 29 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, the reactions are really something. I'm not going to go, because I'm not a fan (he's OK, but not $115 worth of OK), but I'm surprised how many people completely flip out at the idea of being within 100 miles of the guy.
To those conservatives: 1. Your values aren't better than everyone else's. 2. You don't love America more than everyone else.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Posted on March 28 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I can't believe how many people are offended about the politics of this one way or another. As a liberal Democrat new to Alaska, I have the following to say:
1. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the villagers killing this bear. When any bear learns to associate a human dwelling with food, it becomes more dangerous and it's not likely to stay away. And polar bears are naturally very aggressive. While their kill might have not been necessary -- nobody can know -- they're justified in not giving the bear the benefit of the doubt.
2. Anyone offended by the pictures of the bear needs to grow a pair.
3. Global warming is real, it's dangerous, and it's largely caused by human activity. But it is not to blame for every single thing that happens to a polar bear. Blaming this encounter on global warming makes no logical sense on any level.
4. The wackos who want every bear and wolf in Alaska killed are just as loony as the PETA freaks. The value of Alaska as a relatively untouched wilderness is important, and these predators -- and the danger that comes with their presence -- are an important part of that. It's worth tolerating a little bit of danger and hunting competition to preserve that wild quality.
Posted on March 25 at 2:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually, this shouldn't be a decision voted on by any group of people. Decisions about messing with wildlife populations should be left to wildlife ecologists at ADF&G. They should listen to what end result Alaskans want, then decide what management strategies are appropriate to strike the right balance.
If you were being operated on, would you want to let the whole borough vote on where to make the first cut? Or would you want an expert to do it? Operating on an ecosystem works the same way.
Posted on March 20 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nobody's arguing that our soldiers haven't done a great job -- they have. But it's insulting to them if we don't make sure politicians are using their service responsibly, sending them only into wars that are necessary to make America safer. The Iraq war was destined to make us less safe no matter how well our troops do their jobs. The problem was never with the troops, but with the civilian chickenhawks sitting in Washington think tanks and indulging in ideological delusions at the expense of ordinary American citizens and soldiers.
Posted on March 20 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Iraq was not a hub or a staging area for al Qaeda or their "cohorts." If any country in that region could claim that title, it's Saudi Arabia, although al Qaeda was present there against the wishes of their government -- just as they were present here as they prepared for their attack. Saddam and al Qaeda had no working relationship. Saddam was a secular dictator who believed that radical religious jihadists like al Qaeda threatened to undermine his power. They're all bad guys from our perspective, but that doesn't make them friends, any more than it makes those notorious street gangs, the Crips and the Bloods, best buddies.
These are simple factual matters that it's every American's responsibility to understand. This is the largest, and saddest, gap between moderates and conservatives right now. Pro-war conservatives are clinging to a large set of assertions that just flat out aren't true.
I don't think "Uncle Ted" is brainless enough to believe the nonsense about Iraq being tied to al Qaeda. But he is plenty comfortable with the standard Washington dishonesty of sticking to party talking points because they're politically useful, even if they're false.
Posted on March 20 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, we took the battle to the people who caused our problems on 9/11... in Afghanistan. Then we got distracted in Iraq and lost a trillion dollars and more American lives than we lost on 9/11, and for what? Bin Laden got away, there are more terrorists now than there were before we started, and our economy's tanking. How can Ted Stevens continue to think this was a good idea?
Be a man, Ted. Admit to a mistake for once.
Posted on March 18 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think there's a lot of undue paranoia out there about the Democrats who favor reasonable gun control. The only Dems who want to take away your guns are a handful of fringe kooks like Dennis Kucinich who get laughed off the stage by their own party. The mainstream of the party, the Obama Democrats, are firmly in favor of sportsmens' rights to hunt and a man's right to defend his home.
At the same time, people have to realize that the inner city is nothing like Alaska where there's some measure of sanity in how people use guns. Make it easy for just anyone to get just any gun, and gang bangers will be turning neighborhoods into even worse war zones. Yeah, the worst of them still get guns anyway, but there are a lot of other dumb kids and petty criminals in the inner city who the law keeps away from guns, but who're likely to buy one and do something stupid if it's really easy. Sometimes it makes sense to have a different set of rules for that, than for a place like Alaska where people grow up learning how to use guns responsibly.
I hunt. I own 4 guns. None of them has ever been endangered by a gun control law. I don't buy this "slippery slope" argument that if you ban a felon from buying an AK-47 pretty soon you can't walk through the woods with a .22. This country is perfectly capable of enacting a modest level of regulation and not going overboard with it.
I don't know how to feel about the court decision, frankly. I'm glad the court is interpreting the 2nd amendment properly as an individual right rather than something about militias. But on the D.C. law it's trickier. There's a case to be made for striking it down for sure, but it's also reasonable to say this is a states' rights issue and D.C. is within its rights to make this law. Whatever they decide, I hope they lay down a really strong and clear decision to put some of the perceived ambiguity about the 2nd amendment to rest.
On Supreme Court justices seem favorable to Second Amendment gun right
Page 1 of 1
Posted on July 4 at 3:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmm... time to tie a few foam flies.
On Long-horned beetles swarm Fairbanks, bringing painful bites