David Milton McGowan

Another look at statistics. Or perhaps another look at fiction. People keep going on about how gun control will make the public safer. I would like to know how. In Canada the instance of gun violence with a legally owned firearm are almost non-existent. Even in the US the percentage of crimes committed with legally owned firearms are a very small percentage of total gun violence. This in a country where it is not too difficult, in some states at least, for anyone to purchase a firearm. What I’m saying is that almost all crimes are committed with stolen or smuggled weapons. So how will gun control make it any safer? It doesn’t make any sense at all. “Firearms deaths are the third leading cause of death among young people aged 15-24.” This is a direct quote from some of the sites that talk about the impact of firearms on society. However, a few pertinent facts have been left out. Perhaps one or two of these deaths were the result of a lack of training for our youth. However almost all (i...

Does anyone still believe in unbiased survey results? Was there ever such a thing as unbiased results? Will there ever be? I don’t know how it could be possible to believe that there are no forces bending the results one way or the other. The world runs on commerce and if that commerce is interrupted everyone suffers. Those directly involved with whatever the survey subject happens to be are affected more than anyone else. Regardless of who does the survey, someone has to pay for it. The company actually doing the study may have every intention of being fair and unbiased. However, they are aware, even through supposition that someone is paying for that study. If the survey group wants future work they will be strongly motivated to make sure their customer is happy. If the study concerns the effects of second-hand smoke, for example it’s logical to assume the study has been funded by a cancer group. If you want to do a study in the future for that same customer the results of your stud...

Why is it that people can’t turn on their headlights? Did someone tell them they will burn out faster if they actually use them? Wrong! Do they think that without headlights they can hide and no one will hit them? Wrong! Immediately after starting your vehicle, turn your lights on. Not the parking lights, your headlights. In many jurisdictions it is illegal to drive with only parking lights on, although it isn’t generally enforced. You might say, “Why? I can see fine.” Perhaps you can, but you aren’t the only one on the road. And if that’s your attitude – thinking only about your own problems – you probably shouldn’t be allowed on the road. Perhaps you say, “I have daytime running lights, so I don’t need to turn on my headlights.” Depending on the make and model of vehicle you drive your tail lights may not come on with your running lights. Therefore, if you are travelling in dust, fog or snow or during dawn or dusk you run the risk of being tail-ended. Yes, according to the law the pe...

Why is it that we insist on listening to accountants? Not only do we listen to everything they say we go out of our way to get them to say something. We’ve done this since the late 1950s and it’s obviously cost us a great deal of money. Not only is it costing us financially but it’s creating inefficiency in our public programs. I’m sure some of this is the result of an unfounded fear of engineers. “What’s the connection between engineers and accountants?” I thought you’d never ask. Now that you have I can relate a little history. During World War II the engineering fraternity more than any other single profession stepped forward to perform some absolute miracles. For instance they took several ideas that had been around for years and made them work even when they had been proven unworkable. They formed new ideas from whole cloth and made them work when many said they were impossible. Many of those ideas helped the Allies to win the war and most have been further de...

Whats Cook'n In Junk: Twirling Tissy Tuesday :D

Human beings are omnivorous and should have discretion. Why do I say humans are omnivorous? Because all anthropological, archaeological and medical data supports the statement. Omnivorous: 1. feeding on many kinds of food, especially on both plants and flesh. 2. making use of everything available. Anecdotal data also supports this contention. Those in activities that require extreme effort such as hockey players are a perfect example. A player who relies entirely on plant protein can not work as long a shift as a player with a similar physic who eats both fish and vegetables. Those whose diet includes at least 30% red meat (again with similar physics) can play or work far long than those who eat only marine animals and vegetables. Those sports participants who were omnivorous and became vegetarians can do roughly two thirds of what they could accomplish after changing their diet. Humans need meat! As to the output of CO2 we are spraying into our atmosphere, can we stop using emotions a...