Displaying posts published in

August 2019

NPR Discovers the ‘Nature Rights’ Movement By Wesley J. Smith (???!!!)

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/nature-rights-movement-increasing-visibility-acceptance/

While most people roll their eyes and laugh that “it can never happen here,” the “nature rights” movement is increasing in visibility and liberal establishment acceptance. The journal Science has favored the concept. So too has liberal activist Jim Hightower.

Now, that bastion of liberal respectability — NPR — has now done a big, friendly story on the movement, reporting that Bangladesh just proclaimed all rivers to be living entities with human-type rights. Yippee!

The problem, according to NPR’s story, isn’t that nature rights laws would thwart human thriving substantially by requiring that all of nature be given equal consideration with the needs, wants, and intentions of people. (Remember, “nature rights” isn’t about pollution.) Nor do the bounteous reasons for retaining “rights” exclusively in the human realm rate a single mention. In fact, no critics of the concept are quoted.

Rather, the only real downsides mentioned are difficulties in enforcement. From the story:

The idea of what these laws hope to accomplish is where the similarities stop, as their legal bases and the range of socio-environmental and economic problems they’re meant to solve vary from country to country. Many of the laws have also been met with resistance from industry, farmers and river communities, who argue that giving nature personhood infringes on their rights and livelihoods.

Imagine that! People want to thrive off the land and the development of resources.

STUPID NEWS BY JOHN STOSSEL

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stupid-news/

EXCERPTS

“Fake news!” shouts the president. His supporters cheer.

That drives my colleagues into a frenzy of self-absorbed handwringing: “Threats to press freedom … press persecution!”

It’s silly. American reporters are hardly less safe because of President Donald Trump’s hyperbole…..

But I smiled when I first heard him use the phrase, not because news stories are “fake”– they typically aren’t (reporters who make things up are usually caught and fired) — but because so much of what people call “news” is press releases and breathless exaggerations of isolated problems.

It’s stupid news.

“…… why do media mostly ignore more important events like the creation of cellphones and Google or how millions have lifted themselves out of poverty?One reason is because they happen gradually. When Facebook was being invented, few reporters noticed.

Another is because the big stories happen in more than one place. We reporters are good at covering plane crashes and murder. We can easily interview the official in charge.

But the biggest news, like changing attitudes about gender, happens all over the place.

When I graduated, 60% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. Now, fewer than 9% do. Globally, that’s probably the most life-changing event over the past 50 years — a great victory, made possible by freer markets.

But most reporters don’t like free markets, and politicians rarely talk about change they don’t control.

Flagging Future Killers Some useful steps to identify and deter dangerous individuals.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/flagging-future-killers-11565132691

The Dayton and El Paso shootings have spurred familiar calls for more gun control, and by all means let’s have a debate. But the focus should be on denying weapons to the potential killers rather than on gun laws that may be politically satisfying but won’t make much difference.

Start with the calls for more “background checks,” which implies none now exist. Yet nearly all gun purchasers today have their backgrounds checked on the spot via the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Most mass shooters obtained their guns through licensed dealers after checks, or from family members. The Dayton and El Paso killers, and the Gilroy, Calif., shooter of late July obtained their firearms legally.

Democrats want to expand background checks to person-to-person sales, though policing that would be a challenge as most such sales could be done off the books. They also want to extend to 10 days from three the amount of time dealers must wait to get a response from the background check system before proceeding with a sale. Senators Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) and Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) want background checks to cover unlicensed sales at gun shows and online, but exempt sales between friends and family.

Congress should have that debate, but no one should think they would reduce the number of mass shootings. Most mass shooters don’t have a criminal history that would pop up in the background system. There is also no evidence that longer waiting periods reduce suicides, homicides or mass shootings. Determined killers can always get a weapon.