Posts Tagged ‘Frank Fujita’

Science and Global Warming: A Joke?

February 17, 2010

Science and Global Warming: A Joke?

My good friend, Frank Fujita,  responded to my posting  Al Gore and Global Warming jokes posted on this blog with the following remark and URL.

“The problem with jokes is that people mistake them for arguments”.,8599,1962294,00.html

I hope you will check-out this article that Frank submitted.

I have withheld my judgment on this important matter of anthropogenic global warming for a long  time.

Of course, it is only appropriate that we try to keep our enviroment as clean as we reasonably can, independent of the global warming debate.

But this area of scientific inquirery has been highly politicized. From the far left comes “Cap and Trade”,  a thinly veiled vehicle for world-wide income redistribution and murder for our own capitalistic enterprises. From the right, comes the specter of a total disregard of our ecological responsibilities. At least, those seem to be the polemics surrounding the global warming debate.

I will agree that a joke is not an argument. But I will also assert that some arguments are jokes.

This increasingly appears to be the case with the science surrounding the current global warming scare.  It was big news this week when leading climatologist,  Phil Jones, confessed to significant problems with the global warming data.

Check it out for your self.

Of course, I am open to more data on this matter. But, as a socioculture,  we must conduct our business as best we can—-in the here and now.  

What do you think about this important issue  of Anthopogenic Global Warming?

For the time being, I have made my decision:

 Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

By Gary Varvel, from

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

By Chip Bok, from

V. Thomas Mawhinney, 2/17/10

How the passing of CIFTA will lead to the repeal of our 2nd amendment rights

January 29, 2010

The following is a comment by Frank Fujita, Ph.D.. 
January 27, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Okay, the treaty, CIFTA — is being supported by the Obama Administration. The text of the treaty is here — — I didn’t know that our Senator Lugar was an opponent of 2nd amendment rights — and I don’t see anything in the text of the treaty that appears to restrict legal gun ownership.

On the NRA website, no reasons are given to describe how the treaty will reduce our rights, except to say that it will be used by 2nd amendment opponents. Well, the US post office will be used by 2nd amendment opponents, but we aren’t talking about closing the post office.

Please describe how the passing of CIFTA will lead to the repeal of our 2nd amendment rights, and how you will work to remove Dick Lugar from office for supporting this treaty.


My answer is as follows:

I cannot personally describe how CIFTA will lead to a repeal of our Second Amendment.  I am just a psychologist, not an attorney of national or international law.  So I turn to those, who I trust and who know much more about his threat than I do.

The following is taken from The First Step In Trampling Our Rights ( pps. 8 & 55, Published by the NRA in America’s 1st Freedom, Feb. 2110).

“Details of the Obama/Clinton-endorsed treaty—-which has not yet  been finalized—will surely include international monitoring and control of every aspect of firearm commerce and ownership in the United States” (p. 8).

“Literally all of the international gun confiscation groups couch their renewed U. N. treaty efforts in terms of what they call ‘human rights.’ But in the newspeak lexicon of the U.N, ‘Human rights’ doesn’t mean the right to self-defence as we know it.”

“But armed self-defense by private citizens—of any nation– is specifically not a ‘human right’ under the U.N. charter” (p. 55).

Barbara Frey, the director of the Human Rights Program in the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Minnesota contributed the following to the U. N. 2007 Human Rights Council:

“Self-defence is sometimes designated as a ‘right’. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation….No international human right of self-defence is expressly set forth in the primary sources of international law: treaties, customary law or general principles….International law does not support an international legal obligation requiring  States to permit access to a gun for self-defence” (p. 55).

“The right of self-defence in international law is not directed toward the preservation of lives of individuals…it is concerned with the preservation of the State (p. 55).


There is more to the NRA article that should raise great concern among those who not only support our 2nd amendment, but understand that “progressive/liberal forces have always moved to undermine this unique American right.

In my view, it would be the height of naivete’ to surrender any part of our sovereignty on this issue, or any others, to the U.N..

I am aware that there are counter-arguments to my opposition to CIFTA. This matter is very complex,  many variables are unspecified and I do not intend to resolve this issue on my blog.

I have observed in many years of living, and as a psychotherapist, that once trust is lost, it is very hard to earn back. With all due respect, I do not trust either the Republicans or the  Democrats at this time— but I trust the liberal progressives least of all.

I recommend a review of the following to review even more specific reasons to not abrogate our sovereignty to the U.N. and the rest of the world. Please Google this issue for a more complete analysis of the imponderables that require our trust.

With regard to Dick Lugar, my wife and I will simply not vote for him if he does not embrace the 2nd. Amendment and the sanctity of our national sovereignty.

V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D., 1/29/10

“Penny Wise or Pound Foolish”?

January 22, 2010

“Penny Wise or Pound Foolish”?

The following is a comment that  was submitted by Frank Fujita, relative to my “Live Free Or Die” post, yesterday.

Frank comments frequently on my posts and you can read his remarks by clicking on his name  under “recent comments” on the middle right side of my blog page.

Independent of your (or my)  political views, I believe that my fully posting his remarks will provide  food for thought, as will Glenn Beck’s program on Fox tonight at 5:00Pm Eastern ( Revolutionary Holocaust; Live Free Or Die).


Author : Frank Fujita

I don’t get cable — but if the show is available on the web, I’ll watch for at least 10 minutes.

In the meantime, the phrase “Live free or Die.” reminds me of a post by Connor Friedersdorf

If I may address the skeptics on the right directly, it is penny wise and pound foolish to worry about creeping tyranny via government-run health care or gun control when we’re another terrorist attack away from popular support for an archipelago of secret prisons where anyone can be whisked away and tortured without any evidence against them. Look to Europe if you doubt whether government-run health care or black sites run by secret police are a more immediate threat to the liberty of innocents.

Do you think that I exaggerate?

Know that one of the Gitmo Three was arrested at age 17, held for some years without being charged, and scheduled for release at the time of his death due to the military’s conclusion that no evidence linked him to al Qaeda or the Taliban. We may never know exactly how he and his fellow detainees died: A conclusive, independent autopsy is impossible because their bodies were returned to their families with their throats missing.

Thanks for your perspective, Frank


%d bloggers like this: