Save the Polar Bears!

     The latest environmental battle is on over the listing of the Polar Bear as an endangered species. As usual, there may be more to the story than meets the established media's collective eye.

      Polar bears are the largest species of bear and they range across the Arctic regions of Alaska and Canada and the Arctic Ocean. There are nearly as many polar bears alive today as there have been since man has had the technology to monitor their numbers. Even today, their numbers are still only estimated. This is (under)stated in many of the stories and news articles being published currently.

      That fact leads me to wonder how they are endangered. The answer espoused by print and television articles and ads is that the bears themselves are not endangered, but their habitat is, as a result, or projected result, of global warming. The argument is that the Arctic ice pack is going to melt, making it impossible for polar bears to hunt ring seals, resulting in cannibalism, starvation, and death.

      Environmentalists are up in arms because the Bush administration has resisted the listing. But taken on face value, do you list an endangered species because it is endangered or because it may become endangered in the future? If we start listing every species that could possibly become endangered we may as well just list all species right now, including homo sapiens.

      A scientist that was quoted in a national magazine said that we have to figure out what we think the truth is and then act on that truth. I think it is much more scientifically sound to make sure that we know the truth before we make policy based on what we think is true. What we think is true is commonly known as theory or an educated guess. When one makes conclusions based on theory, those conclusions are inherently flawed. I call them scientific assumptions.

      The popular bandwagon is exciting but I would encourage people to question and research things for themselves. We no longer have the luxury of believing everything we see or hear in the media. Even some of the basic "facts" that are purported by polar bear alarmists are easily refuted by looking up polar bears in an encyclopedia. Believe it or not, for many years, man has known polar bears to be strong swimmers, able to swim for many miles at a time.

      There may come a time when polar bears become endangered by global warming and then again, they may not. The problem is not the polar bear, it's global warming. According to Al Gore, the debate on global warming is over. Once again, question and do research for yourself, don't just swallow what's put in front of you, hook, line and sinker. Look for solid, scientifically proven fact, not just educated guesses. Educate yourself on what constitutes scientific process and compare that to the studies and reports that are published in the media.

      I truly want to save the polar bears, but I want to save the rest of the species on earth as well. Unfortunately, it might take a new constitutional amendment that declares the separation of science and politics. Highly unlikely.

Bird Flu Pandemic!!!

     Whatever happened to the bird flu? I was sure that half the world's population would be wiped out by now. Could it be that our mainstream mass media could have actually been wrong about something? They wouldn't hype a story to grab ratings would they?

      I guess that bird flu must have put on a false front and fooled all of those intrepid "reporters" and "scientists". It must have taken a page from the playbook of swine flu from the seventies.

      It's amazing to me that the general public seems to forget about these "major" news stories. The media that hype them never seem to be brought to task over them. Instead, they just plow ahead looking for the next big headline grabber that will possibly boost their ratings a point or two.

      I think that it is morally, ethically, and journalistically irresponsible for any media outlet to pump up a story to the point that children and little old ladies can't sleep at night because they are worried about what might happen in the future. These stories have a habit of cropping up every few years. It is one thing to report on a disease that has killed some people. It is entirely different to turn that story into a "pandemic".

      In a better world, media sources that practice the kind of journalism that created the bird flu pandemic would be boycotted into oblivion. I'm hoping for a better world.

Write On!

      Here I am, a technologically impaired backwoods Montana boy, writing stories on a blog site. It's much harder for me to believe than you can imagine. I have spent half a lifetime doing just about everything else. I've been a cop, a firefighter, a carpenter, a logger(gasp! from the environmental crowd), a commercial fisherman, a father, a husband, son, brother, uncle, a sport-climber, a search & rescue volunteer, a hunter (gasp! once again), a hiker, a white-water rafter and all-around adrenaline fan. So, why am I so excited about writing? I don't know.

      I do know that when I get ready to start a story I get the same feeling as when I know that there is a trophy largemouth bass under that log and if I choose the right lure I will draw him right in. As I write, I get satisfaction similar to when I helped save someone's house or life or pet's life. When I flesh out a story it feels a lot like solving a case or building something.

      It will probably take me awhile to have a polished and attractive site, but in the meantime, I'm going to write. I am starting to discover myself in a whole new way. When I had writing assignments in school, I used to spend more time sitting with a blank page and a blank look on my face than I did actually writing. I generally got good grades on my writing assignments but the hard part for me was coming up with topics. Now, the hard part is choosing which topic to write about because I feel like I'm overflowing with ideas.

      Hopefully, my stories and opinions will be of interest, help,encouragement, entertainment, or whatever. In any case, I will at least say to myself, "Write on!"

Objectivity On O'Reilly

       Bill O'Reilly is disliked by both the right and left. He seems to be an equal opportunity irritant. O'Reilly describes himself as an independant, and I tend to agree with him.

       I have often wondered what makes his show so popular. But, then again, I've often wondered what makes Oprah's show so popular. I'm not even going to hazard a guess as far as Oprah is concerned, but I will throw out a few ideas about O'Reilly.

      One of the first things that I think appeals to viewers is the whole concept of "No Spin". In this age of unlimited information and political correctness, I think it is refreshing for people to see someone cut through the clutter of analysis and opinion and dig out the facts of a story. There is nothing more frustrating than watching someone skirt issues and dodge questions. I would rather hear an interviewee say, "No comment" than to listen to them doing verbal acrobatics.

      Another aspect of O'Reilly's show is that it is basically fair. I know that many people might disagree with me on this, but I think that those people may want to do a little retrospection on their level of objectivity. In many cases, O'Reilly takes the role of Devil's Advocate in order to truly debate the issue at hand. In other cases, O'Reilly has guests that represent both sides of the issue.

      O'Reilly and his staff, in my opinion, research their stories better than other news programs. I think viewers appreciate this and they also appreciate the fact that O'Reilly doesn't make snap judgements on volatile issues, but waits for the facts to come out. He makes his own assessments and doesn't just regurgitate the mainstream media.

      I realize I may sound like I'm cheerleading for Bill O'Reilly. To be honest, there are many occasions when I disagree with his opinions and ideologies. I do, however, respect and admire the success of his program. The basic concepts of straight talk, fairness, objectivity, and factuality are things that I want to apply to my writing when addressing political and social issues.

      Interestingly enough, I have met several people who absolutely abhor Bill O'Reilly, who represent both the right and the left. All of them have had one thing in common - they had never watched his show. How's that for objectivity?