The Mind of a Republican (why they are evil)

[Shogun]

Britain and Japan still have crime despite their draconian gun laws.

 

[Larkinn]

Research conudcucted in 1984 by Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland revealed through the study of oxygen isotopes in ice cores that between the known 90,000 year ice ages there is also a clear climate cycle that occurs every 1,500 years plus or minus 500 years. According to the ice cores this cycle has been going on for roughly 250,000 years. Based on the 1500 year cycle we are now about 150 years into a moderate warming trend. This trend will continue for several more centuries. They also noted that while temperature rose on average over that period that it does so erratcially. In many of these cycles the majority of the warming occurred within 20 or sometimes even 10 years. In terms of the current cycle we saw one of those sudden increases between the years 1920 and 1940. Further, if humans are the predominant cause of warming due to CO2 emission than it should be even warmer than it is now.

Ahh...so you think that 20 years ago we knew significantly more about the causes of climate change than we do now?

You incorrectly assume that I am assumming anything at all.

Your rubber and I'm glue, whatever you say bounces back and sticks to you.

What an asinine fucking response. Seriously...either you are assuming that, or your sentence is incoherent. If you don't believe that is the case, explain why. Just saying the opposite of what I said is not a reply I, or anyone, should take seriously.

 

[Larkinn]

Britain and Japan still have crime despite their draconian gun laws.

Japan? Japan supports my point, not yours. Its a stupid move on your part to bring it up, considering it has one of the lowest homicide rates in the developed world. The US rate is 5.5 per 100,000 whereas Japans rate is .5 per 100,000.

By the way...care to cite where anyone has ever said that draconion gun laws will stop ALL crime? Because thats the claim you just refuted.

 

[Shogun]

yet even a lower crime rate is still....


say it with me...



A CRIME RATE. your premise that nixing guns will solve the criminal element in any given society is proven wrong by the very cultures that you think makes your point.


"By the way, as far as gun control goes, there are many many reasons why people think that more guns means more gun crime. You incorrectly assume the other "side" has no merit to their position."

yea.. ill give that "merit" speech to the guy whose family was murdered in a low crime rate society.

Over the past decade, Japan's image as one of the "safest countries in the world" has undergone a disturbing transformation and downgrading. The once-marginal crime rate has jumped an astronomical 150%. Public confidence in the police has plummeted to below 50%, an all-time low. At the same time, a series of high-profile police scandals has rocked public trust and revealed serious flaws in the way the country's law-enforcement system works.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/FH28Dh01.html

 

[Bern80]

Ahh...so you think that 20 years ago we knew significantly more about the causes of climate change than we do now?

So are you saying their research is incorrect? It hasn't been refuted yet from what I've read. You asked me why thought man was not the greatest contributer to climate change. Yet instead of actually attempting to refute any of those points you ASSUME it is inaccurrate simply because it's twenty years later?

Your rubber and I'm glue, whatever you say bounces back and sticks to you.

What an asinine fucking response. Seriously...either you are assuming that, or your sentence is incoherent. If you don't believe that is the case, explain why. Just saying the opposite of what I said is not a reply I, or anyone, should take seriously.

You claimed that I was simply assuming (which means to believe something is true with little evidence to support it) that reasons for stricter control were without merit. Fact is there is plenty of evidence that says stricter gun laws will not, in of itself, make for a safer society. My belief is based on evidence, my personal experience with firearms and just a shred of common sense. I assumed nothing.

 

[Larkinn]

yet even a lower crime rate is still....

say it with me...

A CRIME RATE. your premise that nixing guns will solve the criminal element in any given society is proven wrong by the very cultures that you think makes your point.

*sigh*...my premise is NOT that "nixing guns will solve the criminal element in any given society". This is completely obvious, so try reading before you spew your shit.

yea.. ill give that "merit" speech to the guy whose family was murdered in a low crime rate society.

Is this really the best you can do? "omg someone got murdered, so gun control never works!!!!!". What terrible terrible argumentation. Are you even trying?

Over the past decade, Japan's image as one of the "safest countries in the world" has undergone a disturbing transformation and downgrading. The once-marginal crime rate has jumped an astronomical 150%. Public confidence in the police has plummeted to below 50%, an all-time low. At the same time, a series of high-profile police scandals has rocked public trust and revealed serious flaws in the way the country's law-enforcement system works.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/FH28Dh01.html

[/quote]

Thats nice. This shows only that gun control is not the only thing that affects crime rates...something that, again, nobody is arguing against. Try arguing against my points, as opposed to generalizing them to their absurd extremes. I know that makes it harder to argue against and that you might actually have to think, but try it for once.

 

[Larkinn]

So are you saying their research is incorrect? It hasn't been refuted yet from what I've read. You asked me why thought man was not the greatest contributer to climate change. Yet instead of actually attempting to refute any of those points you ASSUME it is inaccurrate simply because it's twenty years later?

I ASSUME it is inaccurate because I ASSUME that what current scientists say (that global warming is, in large part, due to humans) is much more reliable than what was said 20 years ago.

You claimed that I was simply assuming (which means to believe something is true with little evidence to support it) that reasons for stricter control were without merit. Fact is there is plenty of evidence that says stricter gun laws will not, in of itself, make for a safer society. My belief is based on evidence, my personal experience with firearms and just a shred of common sense. I assumed nothing.

I, obviously, know what an assumption is. There is also, if you are paying attention, plenty of evidence that says stricter gun laws WILL make for a safer society. Hence while you are free to believe your side, it is asinine to assume the other side is "without merit".

 

[Bern80]

I ASSUME it is inaccurate because I ASSUME that what current scientists say (that global warming is, in large part, due to humans) is much more reliable than what was said 20 years ago.

Okay, did they count the isotopes incorrectly? Did they see a cycle where there wasn't one? WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS WRONG WITH THEIR RESEARCH? You keep telling me I shouldn't assume things. Perhaps you should take your own advice. Their research is not incorrect. Or at least no scientist to this point has said so. You should be careful also in that neither of these two are saying man isn't causing global warming. In fact their study has very little to do with the theory of man made global warming at all. They are observations. Observations which explain the warming trend we are seeing quite well. Further the science of today that you tout in many cases was found to be downright falsified. You may know of the ever popular hockey stick graph that shows the sharp in crease in temperature by the IPCC. This was found to have data completely omitted as well as parts exaggeratted. For one the medevil warming period, which was warmer on avg. than now was completely ommitted from the graph that was presented to the UN.

None of that is really the point though to you is it? I asked you point blank if you could refute any of the evidence provided by the two scientists. The only thing you could come up with was that it was old so it must be incorrect. Does that seem like a real refutation to you?

I, obviously, know what an assumption is. There is also, if you are paying attention, plenty of evidence that says stricter gun laws WILL make for a safer society. Hence while you are free to believe your side, it is asinine to assume the other side is "without merit".

Why are you quoting yourself? I never said they were completely without merit, though you claimed I did.

 

[Larkinn]

Okay, did they count the isotopes incorrectly? Did they see a cycle where there wasn't one? WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS WRONG WITH THEIR RESEARCH? You keep telling me I shouldn't assume things. Perhaps you should take your own advice. Their research is not incorrect. Or at least no scientist to this point has said so. You should be careful also in that neither of these two are saying man isn't causing global warming. In fact their study has very little to do with the theory of man made global warming at all. They are observations. Observations which explain the warming trend we are seeing quite well. Further the science of today that you tout in many cases was found to be downright falsified. You may know of the ever popular hockey stick graph that shows the sharp in crease in temperature by the IPCC. This was found to have data completely omitted as well as parts exaggeratted. For one the medevil warming period, which was warmer on avg. than now was completely ommitted from the graph that was presented to the UN.

Do you consider yourself an expert on climate change, or really to know very much about it at all? If not, than why do you feel justified in over-ruling those who are experts in climate change?

None of that is really the point though to you is it? I asked you point blank if you could refute any of the evidence provided by the two scientists. The only thing you could come up with was that it was old so it must be incorrect. Does that seem like a real refutation to you?

Who said must be incorrect? I said, as it is 20 years old, theories which are actually current are more likely to be correct.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I ASSUME it is inaccurate because I ASSUME that what current scientists say (that global warming is, in large part, due to humans) is much more reliable than what was said 20 years ago.



I, obviously, know what an assumption is. There is also, if you are paying attention, plenty of evidence that says stricter gun laws WILL make for a safer society. Hence while you are free to believe your side, it is asinine to assume the other side is "without merit".

Actually the evidence says that less strict gun control laws that are ENFORCED reduce crime. Less house break ins, less assaults, less attacks over all. And the reason is when the criminal doesn't know if Joe Blow has a 45 in his waist band or a shotgun in his closet, they are less likely to take a risk then when they know that the average citizen is prevented from owning weapons. England is a good example, Gun crime went UP when guns were outlawed, not down.

 

[Bern80]

Do you consider yourself an expert on climate change, or really to know very much about it at all? If not, than why do you feel justified in over-ruling those who are experts in climate change?

No I consider the two scientists I mentioned to be experts in the field. Now how about you answer my questions. I usually do you that courtesy. Time you do the same.

Who said must be incorrect? I said, as it is 20 years old, theories which are actually current are more likely to be correct.

Which is an assumption. Something you feel you need to remind others not to do. It's really simple Larkin. Refute what they say. Otherwise get an open mind and accept it as a possibility. As of this point your single argument against these two is that their information is too old to be accurate. Which while extremely convenient I'm sure because it prevemts from actually haveing to find out the truth, is about the worst refutation I've ever heard. It stands on absolutely nothing for support. Based on that answer however, answer the following questions.

Do you beleive there is no such thing as a climate cycle?

Why can the climate cycle not be responsible for the warming trend we are seeing?

Finally you are a bit confused on what scientists agree on. Yes they all agree its getting warmer. What is not true is that there is some consensus than man is the major contributor.

 

[Larkinn]

Actually the evidence says that less strict gun control laws that are ENFORCED reduce crime. Less house break ins, less assaults, less attacks over all. And the reason is when the criminal doesn't know if Joe Blow has a 45 in his waist band or a shotgun in his closet, they are less likely to take a risk then when they know that the average citizen is prevented from owning weapons. England is a good example, Gun crime went UP when guns were outlawed, not down.

No, actually there is evidence for both sides.

 

[Larkinn]

No I consider the two scientists I mentioned experts in the field. Now how about you answer my questions. I usually do you that courtesy. Time you do the same.

Do you consider the thousands of scientists who say that it is largely a man-made phenomenon to be experts in their field?

Which is an assumption. Something you feel you need to remind others not to do. It's really simple Larkin. Refute what they say. Otherwise get an open mind and accept it as a possibility. As of this point your single argument against these two is that their information is too old to be accurate. Based on that answer the following questions.

It is NOT an assumption to say that theories nowadays are more likely to be correct than theories 20 years ago. Unless you somehow think that our knowledge about climates has decreased in the last 20 years?

Its really simple Bern...I never said that its not a possibility that they are accurate. Nor does my inability to refute them mean that I need to accept it as a possibility. Rather I will rely on the very recent consensus that global warming exists and it is man made.

Do you beleive there is no such thing as a climate cycle?

Climate change is extremely complicated and something neither you nor I know about to make our own judgements. Hence I defer to what scientists are currently saying. You seem to want to defer to what they were saying 20 years ago.

Why can the climate cycle not be responsible for the warming trend we are seeing?

Alright...you've got 2 guys from 20 years ago who think its the climate cycle. I've got the IPCC, the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK) on my side.

Any of those scientists you want to believe in? Or do you only believe in those who fit your strange arbitrary preconceived beliefs?

Finally you are a bit confused on what scientists agree on. Yes they all agree its getting warmer. What is not true is that there is some consensus than man is the major contributor.

The majority of them agree that man is the major contributor.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you consider the thousands of scientists who say that it is largely a man-made phenomenon to be experts in their field?



It is NOT an assumption to say that theories nowadays are more likely to be correct than theories 20 years ago. Unless you somehow think that our knowledge about climates has decreased in the last 20 years?

Its really simple Bern...I never said that its not a possibility that they are accurate. Nor does my inability to refute them mean that I need to accept it as a possibility. Rather I will rely on the very recent consensus that global warming exists and it is man made.



Climate change is extremely complicated and something neither you nor I know about to make our own judgements. Hence I defer to what scientists are currently saying. You seem to want to defer to what they were saying 20 years ago.



Alright...you've got 2 guys from 20 years ago who think its the climate cycle. I've got the IPCC, the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK) on my side.

Any of those scientists you want to believe in? Or do you only believe in those who fit your strange arbitrary preconceived beliefs?



The majority of them agree that man is the major contributor.

Your last sentence is absolute hogwash. There is no MAJORITY except in your mind. All the majority believe is that we have a warming trend and that a third of a degree increase occurred over a relative short time span. In fact there are scientists now saying the warming trend has slowed down again, that there has been no noticeable increase since 1998.

 

[Bern80]

Do you consider the thousands of scientists who say that it is largely a man-made phenomenon to be experts in their field?

I would except that's not what they're saying.

It is NOT an assumption to say that theories nowadays are more likely to be correct than theories 20 years ago. Unless you somehow think that our knowledge about climates has decreased in the last 20 years?

Of course not. It doesn't mean the discoveries made then are invalid. Last I checked garvity still worked and that was discoverd a while ago too.

Its really simple Bern...I never said that its not a possibility that they are accurate. Nor does my inability to refute them mean that I need to accept it as a possibility. Rather I will rely on the very recent consensus that global warming exists and it is man made.

That is where your major flaw is. Read my lips. THERE IS NO 'CONSENSUS'.

Climate change is extremely complicated and something neither you nor I know about to make our own judgements. Hence I defer to what scientists are currently saying. You seem to want to defer to what they were saying 20 years ago.

I am reading in an attempt to understand more. This however has become a repeating cop out for you. "well I'm not expert so I'll trust the people I want to trust." Again their findings of 20 odd years ago have not been refuted. And my assertion does not rest on that of just two scientists. There are also 'thousands' of scientists who believe there are many possible explanations for the recent warming trend. They also beleive there are many phenomenae that the man made theory can't account for. First and foremost being why isn't it a hell of lot hotter if human produced CO2 is the culprit?

Alright...you've got 2 guys from 20 years ago who think its the climate cycle. I've got the IPCC, the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK) on my side.

Perhaps you missed my post where I told much of the IPCC report has been refuted and also shown to be downright falsified. The famous 'hockey stick ' graph being the best example.

The fact that you are close minded is evident in the fact that you won't even entertain reading an alternative theory on the topic.

Any of those scientists you want to believe in? Or do you only believe in those who fit your strange arbitrary preconceived beliefs?

The majority of them agree that man is the major contributor.

Again, no they don't. That is simply another mantra that is screamed over and over with no evidence to support it.

 

[Larkinn]

I would except that's not what they're saying.

Yes, actually they are.

Of course not. It doesn't mean the discoveries made then are invalid. Last I checked garvity still worked and that was discoverd a while ago too.

Last I checked, there weren't any new theories that discounted gravity.

That is where your major flaw is. Read my lips. THERE IS NO 'CONSENSUS'.

Incorrect.

I am reading in an attempt to understand more. This however has become a repeating cop out for you. "well I'm not expert so I'll trust the people I want to trust."

You won't understand it all. Its incredibly complex and dense and often uses extremely complicated computer models. Its not a cop out its something that you need to learn how to do, its called acknowleding that you don't know everything. And when you don't know something, you defer to those who do.

Again their findings of 20 odd years ago have not been refuted. And my assertion does not rest on that of just two scientists.

They may be, in part, correct. However nobody nowadays thinks that is the main cause, except for crazies like you, which is why nobody is researching it nowadays.

There are also 'thousands' of scientists who believe there are many possible explanations for the recent warming trend. They also beleive there are many phenomenae that the man made theory can't account for. First and foremost being why isn't it a hell of lot hotter if human produced CO2 is the culprit?

We obviously don't understand everything about climate change, but there is a general consensus that man is the primary cause of it.

Perhaps you missed my post where I told much of the IPCC report has been refuted and also shown to be downright falsified. The famous 'hockey stick ' graph being the best example.

Hmm, who should I believe. Bern80 who is "trying to learn more about the subject" or the combined views of many renowned scientific groups.

The fact that you are close minded is evident in the fact that you won't even entertain reading an alternative theory on the topic.

I've read alternative theories. They all seem true, which is easy to do with someone who is not extremely knowledgable in the subject. Likely why you get confused about so many things. However because of that I listen to the consensus, which is that it is primarily man made.

Any of those scientists you want to believe in? Or do you only believe in those who fit your strange arbitrary preconceived beliefs?

Again...you have 2 scientists and a study from 20 years ago...I have a study from last year, thousands of scientists, and a number of renowned scientific groups.

Again, no they don't. That is simply another mantra that is screamed over and over with no evidence to support it.

I provided evidence, which you conveniently ignored.

 

[Bern80]

Larkin you're simply out to lunch on this one. There is no consensus that man is the major culprit behind global warming. It is easy to see why some might think that when major celebrities are in the press all the time talking about it, but it simply isn't true. There is no majority view that says the warming trend we are seeing now is primarily man made. The evidence simply doesn't support that.

The evidence that has been provided in many cases was filtered with things ommitted and things exagerrated. Most like to point to the IPCC report. The biggest flaw with hockey stick graph is that it completly ommitted the medevil warming period, when the avg. temp was hotter than it is now. They call it the hockey stick graph because it is relatively flat with a sharp rise at the end. Like a hockey stick on its side. Well if you figure in the medevil warming period that graph doesn't look so much like a hockey stick anymore. It isn't me you have to believe. That the omission is true is a matter of public record. Look it up.

What is asanine about your stance is that you don't beleive climate fluctuates on a cyclical basis. NEWSFLASH: EVERYTHING in the universe runs on a cyclical basis. Yet somehow according to you that can't be true of climate and certainly not now.

You defer to 'consensus' because you're too lazy to figure things out for yourself. That's one option. The other is find out for yourself. Contrary to your opinion people are capable of learning and comprehending information. For example gathering past temperature readings based on isotopes in ice cores. An ice core is drilled which shows a record of snowfall in layers kind of like tree rings. There is oxygen in snow when it falls as part of the water. Isotope refers to the different forms an element can take at the atomic level. An element will always have the same number of protons but can have different number of neutrons. Then by looking at what isotope of oxygen lies in a particular layer of the ice core one can determine the temperature that year. These two scientists found a readily apparent 'cycle' by which these oxygen isotopes fluctuated. Meaning there had to be a temperature change causing the isotopes to change over the years.

Based on that cycle again we should be 150 years into a warming trend. That is one possible explanation as why we are seeing the warming we are seeing. The major problems with the man made theory is that it simply doesn't explain what we're seeing now. Again if the incresed CO2 emissions are being piled on to teh already naturally ocurring warming trend, why is it not hotter?

You see some of us actually do take the time to find out a little about this stuff and learn it. Not all of us are sheep and simply 'defer' to your perceived 'consensus'.

 

[Ninja]

All I know is that Clinton's Assault Weapons ban worked, because it banned machine guns and assault rifles and automatic bolt-action revolvers and Glock AR-15 shotguns.

Any five year old can tell you that $2500 souped-up AR-15s are the real problem w.r.t. urban crime (as well as the lack of midnight basketball leagues), not $99 Mosin Nagants from Big 5 that can rip any police body armor to shreds.

Also, it's well known that bayonet lugs, collapsible buttstocks, and conspicuously-protruding pistol grips allow criminals to spray from the hip without reloading.

Don't even get me started on flash hiders!

Plus, it has been proven repeatedly that putting a thumbhole stock onto an semiautomatic AK replica will make it safer, because the ties between pistol grips and improved bullet ballistics have been irrefutably proven.

If you don't agree with me, you must be an NRA survivalist gun nut.

 

[Larkinn]

Larkin you're simply out to lunch on this one. There is no consensus that man is the major culprit behind global warming. It is easy to see why some might think that when major celebrities are in the press all the time talking about it, but it simply isn't true. There is no majority view that says the warming trend we are seeing now is primarily man made. The evidence simply doesn't support that.

So all the organizations I posted are...what then? Non-existant? Lying? What?

The evidence that has been provided in many cases was filtered with things ommitted and things exagerrated. Most like to point to the IPCC report. The biggest flaw with hockey stick graph is that it completly ommitted the medevil warming period, when the avg. temp was hotter than it is now. They call it the hockey stick graph because it is relatively flat with a sharp rise at the end. Like a hockey stick on its side. Well if you figure in the medevil warming period that graph doesn't look so much like a hockey stick anymore. It isn't me you have to believe. That the omission is true is a matter of public record. Look it up.

Who should I trust regarding whether the claims are accurate...you or various national and international scientific organizations? Tell me Bern...do you honestly think you are more reliable than all of them?

What is asanine about your stance is that you don't beleive climate fluctuates on a cyclical basis. NEWSFLASH: EVERYTHING in the universe runs on a cyclical basis. Yet somehow according to you that can't be true of climate and certainly not now.

I'm sorry when did I say it can't be true? And please explain how time is cyclical. I'd also like to know how your great grandmothers life is cyclical, considering she is dead. She going to come back anytime soon?

You defer to 'consensus' because you're too lazy to figure things out for yourself. That's one option. The other is find out for yourself. Contrary to your opinion people are capable of learning and comprehending information.

Lmao...yes I'm lazy, thats it. If you think reading information from the internet will give you the expertise to back up an opinion on climate change, you are an idiot. You need to learn how little you really know about the world. People spend their entire lifetimes trying to figure this stuff out, and usually they fail. You won't be able to do it with your little side project.

For example gathering past temperature readings based on isotopes in ice cores. An ice core is drilled which shows a record of snowfall in layers kind of like tree rings. There is oxygen in snow when it falls as part of the water. Isotope refers to the different forms an element can take at the atomic level. An element will always have the same number of protons but can have different number of neutrons. Then by looking at what isotope of oxygen lies in a particular layer of the ice core one can determine the temperature that year. These two scientists found a readily apparent 'cycle' by which these oxygen isotopes fluctuated. Meaning there had to be a temperature change causing the isotopes to change over the years.

Evidence needs to be corroborated by many other things. This has not been.

Based on that cycle again we should be 150 years into a warming trend. That is one possible explanation as why we are seeing the warming we are seeing. The major problems with the man made theory is that it simply doesn't explain what we're seeing now. Again if the incresed CO2 emissions are being piled on to teh already naturally ocurring warming trend, why is it not hotter?

Because perhaps they were wrong.

You see some of us actually do take the time to find out a little about this stuff and learn it. Not all of us are sheep and simply 'defer' to your perceived 'consensus'.

Actually all you've done is research to attempt to find alternative theories about global warming.

 

[dilloduck]

These giant methane-filled ice cubes then shoot to the sea surface and melt, releasing to the atmosphere massive quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas many times more potent than carbon dioxide. Such a massive methane hydrate release event may have been triggered by a giant landslide off of Norway 8,000 years ago.

I knew it was those 8,000 year old Norwegians that caused this !!!

https://depts.washington.edu/nwst/issues/index.php?issueID=fall_2006&storyID=792