I posted this link: Polar Ice Rapture Misses Its Deadline
blogs.forbes.com
Global warming alarmists have more explaining to do.
Harold Camping isn't the only alarmist making false predictions...
S.B.: so, Rich -- do you deny that the earth's climate is warming? or that mankind bears a significant share of the responsibility? Just curious what your point is here...
Me: My point is that false predictions aren't confined to religous kooks.
S.B.: No, neither is sensationalistic reporting of fringe people and issues. I know very few Christians who took the whole Harold Camping thing serious in the least -- I think it got coverage primarily because it became such a big internet meme, and hence a part of popular culture that far outstripped its actual importance.
The same happens from time to time in science. There's no doubt about that -- having worked in science for 27 years, attended literally hundreds of scientific conferences and listened to and read thousands of scientific papers, I can tell you that most scientists don't know how to get media attention, and most don't really crave it. That makes it easy for those who DO, to get attention that exceeds the import of what they have to say.
Though, make no mistake -- while the extreme predictions are just that -- extreme predictions -- the facts are that polar ice, particularly in the arctic, IS melting, WILL have serious consequences, and will cost us dearly. The extreme weather events of the past few weeks are a good example -- while they cannot be tied directly to global warming, they are consistent with what happens even under relatively mild warming that is occurring. What this means is that we can expect, with statistical certainty, that they will occur MORE often, and with more severity, as the earth continues to warm.
Some talk about the cost of dealing with global warming, but they generally fail to acknowledge that there is a huge cost, too, of inaction.
Me: Perhaps you didn't read the article. Alarmists have predicted specifically and directly that the polar ice cap would totally melt, not that it will someday, or that it is in the process.
My remarks are confined to that and that alone.
S.B.: no, I read the article. But the author does what many climate change skeptics do (and I suppose, religious skeptics do, as well -- I don't know because I don't pay much attention to them -- I am a non-believer myself but have no desire to dissuade others of their Faith) which is to attempt to taint the legitimate science with the hyperbole of the extremists.
When the author says "The list of failed predictions regarding global warming raptures is no less extensive than the list of failed predictions regarding Christian church raptures. There is one important difference, however. The Harold Campings of the world reside outside the Christian mainstream. Among global warming alarmists, the serially wrong rapturists define the mainstream." he is clearly using the fringes of science to do this. By reposting the blog, you are essentially doing the same.
I'm simply pointing out that you can ignore the science all you wish, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter that global warming IS occurring, it IS having severe, real-time, current day impacts on people, economies, ecosystems, and will continue to do so, at an accelerating pace, so long as we chose to ignore it.
Me: you just admitted that the story took on a life of its own. Why do you think that was? Clearly it was to brand all Christians as kooks and extremists.
I guess the issue is, whose ox is being gored.
S.B.: I don't think I agree with your characterization, Rich. I had plenty of Christian friends who were ridiculing the predictions while simultaneously disavowing themselves and their Faith from Camping. I don't know if you've noticed, but people are also making fun of the Incan predictions for the end of the world in 2012 -- part of a world-wide conspiracy to brand all indigenous peoples as kooks and extremists?
Or simply some gallows humor for dark times?
Me: But the rapture is a mainstream belief of a large portion of Christianity. And the polar ice caps melting is a widely held tenet of global warming.
That places them on the same footing, and ridicule of each is fair game.
S.B.: Rich, if you REALLY think that religious/spiritual predictions and scientific ones ought to be held to the same degree of scrutiny, or even discussed as remotely similar -- I think we understand both world views quite differently from one another.
The similarity between the two is quite superficial, and I think you're smart enough to know that. But if you want to claim an equivlance here, then I'll cede the point, because I can't argue with a red herring argument.
Me: You consistently want to take this to a higher level of analysis that is not warranted by the context. The sole basis of your objection seems to be that science is somehow sacrosanct, while religion doesn't rise to the level of intelligent thought.
I don't accept the premise that global warming alarmists can't be mocked because it is science.
S.B.: If you read my earlier post, I said that I have no argument that some extreme predictions are not worth mocking. But the author goes beyond that and in the quoted section suggests that the extremists ARE the mainstream
And that is bullshit, and deserves to be countered.
R.W.: I want to jump in but am enjoying the discussion too much to ruin it.
B.R.: Ditto.
Me: I guess the profanity seals the argument.
S.B.: no, just expresses my frustration at the effort to equate science and religion too closely, Rich. They are entirely different ways of dealing with the world, and attempts to treat them too much alike does neither of them any favors.
Science's JOB is to make predictions about the world -- and it does it very well. We can make accurate predictions about the position of a sattellite, even accounting for relativistic effects, and that allows us to use that sattellite as a channel for communications -- if the predictions made by science (and it's cousin, technology) weren't right nearly all of the time, then we wouldn't be having this discussion right now because we'd have no way to reliably exchange information.
Religion doesn't have such a track record. Perhaps one day we'll find that the predictions it DOES make, turn out to be true -- but it exists largely in a sphere outside/beyond proof.
So while science is not sacrosanct, and certainly scientists do make errors in both fact and judgment -- it has proved remarkably effective at making predictions about the world that are both verifiable, and incredibly precise.
I think if anything, one of the things that brought Camping so much attention and ridicule is his effort to predict, with scientific precision, that which most Christians will tell you the Scriptures say cannot be predicted: the time at which the end arrives.
Me: I have resisted your efforts to "...equate science and religion too closely..." I have made no assertions regarding the issues of veracity. I have made no claim about religion.
It is you who wants to conflate the two on the simple basis that someone is mocking your sacred cow.
Scott, there is no part of science that should not be mocked. Certainly no part of religion has escaped mocking.
I really don't care how good science is at predicting things. It is irrelevant to the conversation. I really don't care if religion hasn't demonstrated scientific rigor. None of it matters.
Science has assumed this mantle of unquestionable veracity and gravitas that is worthy of parody. Indeed, this untouchable status is ultimately bad for science as dissenters are beat down and silenced.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Walter E. Williams - My Hero explaining wealth creation
Understanding the liberal vision
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 18, 2011
By Walter Williams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The liberal vision of government is easily understood and makes perfect sense if one acknowledges their misunderstanding and implied assumptions about the sources of income. Their vision helps explain the language they use and policies they support, such as income redistribution and calls for the rich to give something back.
Suppose the true source of income was a gigantic pile of money meant to be shared equally amongst Americans. The reason some people have more money than others is because they got to the pile first and greedily took an unfair share. That being the case, justice requires that the rich give something back, and if they won't do so voluntarily, Congress should confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners.
A competing liberal implied assumption about the sources of income is that income is distributed, as in distribution of income. There might be a dealer of dollars. The reason why some people have more dollars than others is because the dollar dealer is a racist, a sexist, a multinationalist or a conservative. The only right thing to do, for those to whom the dollar dealer unfairly dealt too many dollars, is to give back their ill-gotten gains. If they refuse to do so, then it's the job of Congress to use their agents at the IRS to confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners. In a word, there must be a re-dealing of the dollars, or what some people call income redistribution.
The sane among us recognize that in a free society, income is neither taken nor distributed; for the most part, it is earned. Income is earned by pleasing one's fellow man. The greater one's ability to please his fellow man, the greater is his claim on what his fellow man produces. Those claims are represented by the number of dollars received from his fellow man.
Say I mow your lawn. For doing so, you pay me $20. I go to my grocer and demand, "Give me two pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer that my fellow man produced." In effect, the grocer asks, "Williams, you're asking your fellow man to serve you. Did you serve him?" I reply, "Yes." The grocer says, "Prove it."
That's when I pull out the $20 I earned from serving my fellow man. We can think of that $20 as "certificates of performance." They stand as proof that I served my fellow man. It would be no different if I were an orthopedic doctor, with a large clientele, earning $500,000 per year by serving my fellow man. By the way, having mowed my fellow man's lawn or set his fractured fibula, what else do I owe him or anyone else? What's the case for being forced to give anything back? If one wishes to be charitable, that's an entirely different matter.
Contrast the morality of having to serve one's fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces with congressional handouts. In effect, Congress says, "You don't have to serve your fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces. We'll take what he produces and give it to you. Just vote for me."
Who should give back? Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart; Bill Gates founded Microsoft; Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer. Which one of these billionaires acquired their wealth by coercing us to purchase their product? Which has taken the property of anyone?
Each of these examples, and thousands more, is a person who served his fellow men by producing products and services that made life easier. What else do they owe? They've already given.
If anyone is obliged to give something back, they are the thieves and recipients of legalized theft, namely people who've used Congress, including America's corporate welfare queens, to live at the expense of others. When a nation vilifies the productive and makes mascots of the unproductive, it doesn't bode well for its future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 18, 2011
By Walter Williams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The liberal vision of government is easily understood and makes perfect sense if one acknowledges their misunderstanding and implied assumptions about the sources of income. Their vision helps explain the language they use and policies they support, such as income redistribution and calls for the rich to give something back.
Suppose the true source of income was a gigantic pile of money meant to be shared equally amongst Americans. The reason some people have more money than others is because they got to the pile first and greedily took an unfair share. That being the case, justice requires that the rich give something back, and if they won't do so voluntarily, Congress should confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners.
A competing liberal implied assumption about the sources of income is that income is distributed, as in distribution of income. There might be a dealer of dollars. The reason why some people have more dollars than others is because the dollar dealer is a racist, a sexist, a multinationalist or a conservative. The only right thing to do, for those to whom the dollar dealer unfairly dealt too many dollars, is to give back their ill-gotten gains. If they refuse to do so, then it's the job of Congress to use their agents at the IRS to confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners. In a word, there must be a re-dealing of the dollars, or what some people call income redistribution.
The sane among us recognize that in a free society, income is neither taken nor distributed; for the most part, it is earned. Income is earned by pleasing one's fellow man. The greater one's ability to please his fellow man, the greater is his claim on what his fellow man produces. Those claims are represented by the number of dollars received from his fellow man.
Say I mow your lawn. For doing so, you pay me $20. I go to my grocer and demand, "Give me two pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer that my fellow man produced." In effect, the grocer asks, "Williams, you're asking your fellow man to serve you. Did you serve him?" I reply, "Yes." The grocer says, "Prove it."
That's when I pull out the $20 I earned from serving my fellow man. We can think of that $20 as "certificates of performance." They stand as proof that I served my fellow man. It would be no different if I were an orthopedic doctor, with a large clientele, earning $500,000 per year by serving my fellow man. By the way, having mowed my fellow man's lawn or set his fractured fibula, what else do I owe him or anyone else? What's the case for being forced to give anything back? If one wishes to be charitable, that's an entirely different matter.
Contrast the morality of having to serve one's fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces with congressional handouts. In effect, Congress says, "You don't have to serve your fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces. We'll take what he produces and give it to you. Just vote for me."
Who should give back? Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart; Bill Gates founded Microsoft; Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer. Which one of these billionaires acquired their wealth by coercing us to purchase their product? Which has taken the property of anyone?
Each of these examples, and thousands more, is a person who served his fellow men by producing products and services that made life easier. What else do they owe? They've already given.
If anyone is obliged to give something back, they are the thieves and recipients of legalized theft, namely people who've used Congress, including America's corporate welfare queens, to live at the expense of others. When a nation vilifies the productive and makes mascots of the unproductive, it doesn't bode well for its future.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Editorial, extreme evironmentalism
The Bozeman City Council recently passed a green initiative, and that got me thinking. No reasonable person is in favor of pollution. Everyone wants a clean environment. So why is there acrimony over this issue? I conclude that it is really about a clash of world views.
Let’s start with the conservative/libertarian worldview. It is based on property rights, the foundational concept of our society. The 5th Amendment makes specific mention of our right to the lawful possession and enjoyment of our property, unencumbered by undue governmental interference.
But unfortunately, some people pollute. Or rather, everyone pollutes, but some exceed an “acceptable” level of pollution. Polluting violates property rights by diminishing and devaluing property. And property is not just our stuff, it is also our bodies, and by extension, our health. Essentially, the polluter is a thief, stealing the use of other peoples’ property.
We have recourse for property rights violations. Prosecuting criminals is one of the proper functions of government. But alas, The City Council’s green initiatives exceed this simple duty, yielding unfortunate side effects. These initiatives will negatively impact commerce and individual liberty, while simultaneously imposing an indirect tax, the cost of which is ultimately borne by the end consumer.
They have aligned themselves with extreme environmentalists. and it is that worldview we need to worry about. Extreme environmentalists do not seem to be particularly concerned with government intrusion or property rights. In fact, they welcome the coercive power of government to further their objectives, and can’t imagine solutions that don’t demand a government program.
This means the average citizen, pursing his private, legal interests, takes a back seat to someone else’s priorities. Property rights are actually an obstacle: “Imagine no possessions; I wonder if you can…” Government takes precedence in it its holy, enlightened goal of preserving the environment - - well, the environment in its present form.
Ah, yes. This is key. The species and ecosystems we have now are regarded as optimum. Human-caused change is arbitrarily deemed unacceptable. Thus, any change in the environmental status quo is prima facie evidence of environmental destruction.
The extreme environmentalist therefore charges humankind with the moral responsibility to save the planet as it is now. Certainly, the moral values of the extreme environmentalist are happily imposed on others.
This moralism is almost religious in nature. According to this religion, humans are regarded as pollutants, a hostile life form, something that impedes the natural order of things. More specifically, it is western society, namely America., which is the real problem.
These moral obligations are quite arduous in their specificity. Conformity to environmental dogma is demanded. Yet the goals themselves seem nebulous and vague, if stated at all. For example, what is the optimum global average temperature? How much do we need to shrink our carbon footprint? What level of carbon emissions is acceptable? Has the City Council even asked such questions?
I suspect that there are no benchmarks to determine success because success is not the goal. The goals are to obtain an artificial naturalness, to remake society, and especially, to minimize humanity. This hostility to humanity is hinted at every time an environmentalist talks about population control, using euphemisms like “family planning,” “carbon footprint,” and “sustainable living.” One might justifiably wonder if they think the ideal number of humans is zero.
The extreme environmentalist even wants to go so far as to give the planet itself rights. Bolivia is considering legislation, called the Law of Mother Earth, which would grant preeminent rights to the planet. Earth is an entity with feelings, emotions, and now, rights.
These are extreme views. Contrasted with the more balanced, thoughtful, conservative viewpoint, the environmentalist recognizes no limit in what is allowable for the sake of the planet. Using the excuse of a worthy cause, he embraces totalitarian means to achieve his end.
Sensible people naturally reject such extremism. Good for them.
Let’s start with the conservative/libertarian worldview. It is based on property rights, the foundational concept of our society. The 5th Amendment makes specific mention of our right to the lawful possession and enjoyment of our property, unencumbered by undue governmental interference.
But unfortunately, some people pollute. Or rather, everyone pollutes, but some exceed an “acceptable” level of pollution. Polluting violates property rights by diminishing and devaluing property. And property is not just our stuff, it is also our bodies, and by extension, our health. Essentially, the polluter is a thief, stealing the use of other peoples’ property.
We have recourse for property rights violations. Prosecuting criminals is one of the proper functions of government. But alas, The City Council’s green initiatives exceed this simple duty, yielding unfortunate side effects. These initiatives will negatively impact commerce and individual liberty, while simultaneously imposing an indirect tax, the cost of which is ultimately borne by the end consumer.
They have aligned themselves with extreme environmentalists. and it is that worldview we need to worry about. Extreme environmentalists do not seem to be particularly concerned with government intrusion or property rights. In fact, they welcome the coercive power of government to further their objectives, and can’t imagine solutions that don’t demand a government program.
This means the average citizen, pursing his private, legal interests, takes a back seat to someone else’s priorities. Property rights are actually an obstacle: “Imagine no possessions; I wonder if you can…” Government takes precedence in it its holy, enlightened goal of preserving the environment - - well, the environment in its present form.
Ah, yes. This is key. The species and ecosystems we have now are regarded as optimum. Human-caused change is arbitrarily deemed unacceptable. Thus, any change in the environmental status quo is prima facie evidence of environmental destruction.
The extreme environmentalist therefore charges humankind with the moral responsibility to save the planet as it is now. Certainly, the moral values of the extreme environmentalist are happily imposed on others.
This moralism is almost religious in nature. According to this religion, humans are regarded as pollutants, a hostile life form, something that impedes the natural order of things. More specifically, it is western society, namely America., which is the real problem.
These moral obligations are quite arduous in their specificity. Conformity to environmental dogma is demanded. Yet the goals themselves seem nebulous and vague, if stated at all. For example, what is the optimum global average temperature? How much do we need to shrink our carbon footprint? What level of carbon emissions is acceptable? Has the City Council even asked such questions?
I suspect that there are no benchmarks to determine success because success is not the goal. The goals are to obtain an artificial naturalness, to remake society, and especially, to minimize humanity. This hostility to humanity is hinted at every time an environmentalist talks about population control, using euphemisms like “family planning,” “carbon footprint,” and “sustainable living.” One might justifiably wonder if they think the ideal number of humans is zero.
The extreme environmentalist even wants to go so far as to give the planet itself rights. Bolivia is considering legislation, called the Law of Mother Earth, which would grant preeminent rights to the planet. Earth is an entity with feelings, emotions, and now, rights.
These are extreme views. Contrasted with the more balanced, thoughtful, conservative viewpoint, the environmentalist recognizes no limit in what is allowable for the sake of the planet. Using the excuse of a worthy cause, he embraces totalitarian means to achieve his end.
Sensible people naturally reject such extremism. Good for them.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Things not to do for retirement saving - MSN Money
It's so rare that I find something of value on my MSN home page, but here is some good stuff:
Many of us should be ramping up our efforts to save for retirement. But not all methods of saving money are worth the cost. Here are five retirement saving strategies that could actually leave you worse off in retirement.
Neglecting your health. Never neglect your health in exchange for saving more money. If you aren't healthy, there's really no point in having a bunch of money. When you feel dizzy and tired all the time, watching a bank balance with a bunch of digits is not going to help at all. A big part of a comfortable retirement involves having a healthy body. So consider what you are really sacrificing when you skip preventive care or eat unhealthy food to save a few dollars now.
Saving instead of paying off credit card debt. Whether you should save for retirement or pay off debt is an age-old question. But high-interest credit card debt should always be eliminated first. It doesn't make sense to try earning a modest return while paying 20 percent a year or more for interest.
Saving in ways you can't openly talk about. If you can't comfortably talk about how you are saving money for your retirement, then it might not be worth the cost. It would be difficult to live a comfortable retirement knowing you had to cheat others to obtain it. If you have to steal or scam your way into your millions, you will eventually regret it. You will enjoy your retirement more knowing that you obtained it through honest and legitimate hard work.
Making today miserable. Saving for tomorrow involves accepting the idea of delayed gratification. But while the future is important, you need to have some fun today, too. Don't forget about retirement, but also remember that you have to live a little. Money isn't for hoarding.
Never giving. Practically everyone in our society can afford to give. If money is tight, we can probably afford to donate our time through volunteer work. We are truly lucky to have a hot meal on our table every day and have many luxuries in our lives that we often take for granted. Giving will bring you a lifetime of incredible memories, which is much more meaningful than a few numbers in a bank statement. Retirement planning is an important aspect of our lives. But contributing to a 401k account should never be your No. 1 priority, unless you want to miss out on a lot in life.
http://money.msn.com/retirement-plan/5-worst-ways-to-save-for-retirement-usnews.aspx
Many of us should be ramping up our efforts to save for retirement. But not all methods of saving money are worth the cost. Here are five retirement saving strategies that could actually leave you worse off in retirement.
Neglecting your health. Never neglect your health in exchange for saving more money. If you aren't healthy, there's really no point in having a bunch of money. When you feel dizzy and tired all the time, watching a bank balance with a bunch of digits is not going to help at all. A big part of a comfortable retirement involves having a healthy body. So consider what you are really sacrificing when you skip preventive care or eat unhealthy food to save a few dollars now.
Saving instead of paying off credit card debt. Whether you should save for retirement or pay off debt is an age-old question. But high-interest credit card debt should always be eliminated first. It doesn't make sense to try earning a modest return while paying 20 percent a year or more for interest.
Saving in ways you can't openly talk about. If you can't comfortably talk about how you are saving money for your retirement, then it might not be worth the cost. It would be difficult to live a comfortable retirement knowing you had to cheat others to obtain it. If you have to steal or scam your way into your millions, you will eventually regret it. You will enjoy your retirement more knowing that you obtained it through honest and legitimate hard work.
Making today miserable. Saving for tomorrow involves accepting the idea of delayed gratification. But while the future is important, you need to have some fun today, too. Don't forget about retirement, but also remember that you have to live a little. Money isn't for hoarding.
Never giving. Practically everyone in our society can afford to give. If money is tight, we can probably afford to donate our time through volunteer work. We are truly lucky to have a hot meal on our table every day and have many luxuries in our lives that we often take for granted. Giving will bring you a lifetime of incredible memories, which is much more meaningful than a few numbers in a bank statement. Retirement planning is an important aspect of our lives. But contributing to a 401k account should never be your No. 1 priority, unless you want to miss out on a lot in life.
http://money.msn.com/retirement-plan/5-worst-ways-to-save-for-retirement-usnews.aspx
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Chronicle editorial, My liberal public school education
It was the mid-seventies, a time when the tried-and-true traditional approaches to education, society, and morals were being revised (some might say dismantled) by the political left. I attended a “progressive” high school. No tests or grades, only a “go/no go” rating. I graduated 4th out of 325 having never taken a course in American history, literature, civics, or foreign language. You could say I experienced educational malpractice.
Imagine my shock when I arrived at college. So I played catch-up, hit the books, and eventually majored in music. Musicians seem to be predominately liberal, so it shouldn’t be surprising that the music department was a bastion of liberal philosophy. Being nominally liberal myself, I fit right in with the required intellectual conformity.
I graduated with a teaching certificate and taught K-12 band and choir for five years. And voilà, there was liberal conformity in the teachers lounge as well. We all agreed about politics, lack of funding, too large class sizes, and nosey parents who actually wanted to know what their children were being taught.
Fast forward to today. Things haven’t changed much. Same complaints, same structures, same philosophies. What has changed is that I saw the light and became a conservative. Now, we conservatives value education, we are simply skeptical of government experts, bureaucrats isolated in their cubicles thousands of miles away, deciding the fate of our children. That is not unreasonable skepticism.
There are some who assert that parents ought to bow out and let these experts handle things. Nope, not when we are the ones writing the check. Schools are funded by our tax dollars, so we have all the justification we need to get involved. This is not anti-education, it is prudence. Government serves the people, not the other way around.
Most would agree that public schools have a growing image problem, sometimes deserved, sometimes not. But there are times when they shoot themselves in the foot. The big news always is when poor schools fail spectacularly, but rather than taking steps to fix the problem, schools too often circle the wagons.
I do hear good things Bozeman schools, but some of what I read makes me wonder. For example, a student was recently featured on the Chronicle’s front page, not for his accomplishments, but because of who he sleeps with. And one of the elementary schools is regularly featured engaging in their latest multicultural love-fest. Hawk Tawk, the school newspaper, contains a lot of rote regurgitation of political talking points, both left and right.
Actually, I have no real problem with any of this if that’s what the parents want from their schools. However, I have personally experienced what happens when schools lose sight of their primary function, and as a result I’m sensitive to the follies of public school education.
Given that Bozeman schools are reporting their perennial budget shortfall (which actually means funding was increased, but the budget was increased more) one might think that certain priorities would begin to take precedence. But a lot of stuff that schools do is because of entrenched attitudes, imposed requirements, and systemic inefficiencies. That is hard to change.
Getting the feds out would certainly help. The feds bring nothing good, unless you like cash with strings attached, like No Child Left Behind. Couple those mandates with court decisions and progressive activists foisting their novel educational theories upon our little citizens of the world and it’s a wonder any educating gets done at all.
But mostly, the system needs to change. Perhaps ironically, it is public education that is probably doing the best job with taxpayer money, while most other government programs are failing before our eyes. It is probably because the schools are the closest thing to us, where we as citizens have the most influence. That localism is a strength that needs to be enhanced.
A change in the status quo could benefit everyone. That makes me a supporter of education, but a critic of the system.
Imagine my shock when I arrived at college. So I played catch-up, hit the books, and eventually majored in music. Musicians seem to be predominately liberal, so it shouldn’t be surprising that the music department was a bastion of liberal philosophy. Being nominally liberal myself, I fit right in with the required intellectual conformity.
I graduated with a teaching certificate and taught K-12 band and choir for five years. And voilà, there was liberal conformity in the teachers lounge as well. We all agreed about politics, lack of funding, too large class sizes, and nosey parents who actually wanted to know what their children were being taught.
Fast forward to today. Things haven’t changed much. Same complaints, same structures, same philosophies. What has changed is that I saw the light and became a conservative. Now, we conservatives value education, we are simply skeptical of government experts, bureaucrats isolated in their cubicles thousands of miles away, deciding the fate of our children. That is not unreasonable skepticism.
There are some who assert that parents ought to bow out and let these experts handle things. Nope, not when we are the ones writing the check. Schools are funded by our tax dollars, so we have all the justification we need to get involved. This is not anti-education, it is prudence. Government serves the people, not the other way around.
Most would agree that public schools have a growing image problem, sometimes deserved, sometimes not. But there are times when they shoot themselves in the foot. The big news always is when poor schools fail spectacularly, but rather than taking steps to fix the problem, schools too often circle the wagons.
I do hear good things Bozeman schools, but some of what I read makes me wonder. For example, a student was recently featured on the Chronicle’s front page, not for his accomplishments, but because of who he sleeps with. And one of the elementary schools is regularly featured engaging in their latest multicultural love-fest. Hawk Tawk, the school newspaper, contains a lot of rote regurgitation of political talking points, both left and right.
Actually, I have no real problem with any of this if that’s what the parents want from their schools. However, I have personally experienced what happens when schools lose sight of their primary function, and as a result I’m sensitive to the follies of public school education.
Given that Bozeman schools are reporting their perennial budget shortfall (which actually means funding was increased, but the budget was increased more) one might think that certain priorities would begin to take precedence. But a lot of stuff that schools do is because of entrenched attitudes, imposed requirements, and systemic inefficiencies. That is hard to change.
Getting the feds out would certainly help. The feds bring nothing good, unless you like cash with strings attached, like No Child Left Behind. Couple those mandates with court decisions and progressive activists foisting their novel educational theories upon our little citizens of the world and it’s a wonder any educating gets done at all.
But mostly, the system needs to change. Perhaps ironically, it is public education that is probably doing the best job with taxpayer money, while most other government programs are failing before our eyes. It is probably because the schools are the closest thing to us, where we as citizens have the most influence. That localism is a strength that needs to be enhanced.
A change in the status quo could benefit everyone. That makes me a supporter of education, but a critic of the system.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Juvenile name calling - FB conversation
Please note that the person being responded to has deleted all of her posts.
I posted this: "Our enemies are not big spending Democrats, they're big spending Republicans."
J.W.: How about big spending politicians in general? Republicans and Democrats just differ (somewhat) on what they want to spend everyone else's money on.
R.K.: That's why WE are free! Freedom is not Free.
Me: Exactly, J.W. Too many have bought into the repub vs. demo debate. They all spend our money without restraint or common sense.
Me: Kelly, defense is a constitutionally mandated duty of government. Of course, spreading democracy and nation building are not. We need to get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and now, Libya.
However, military spending is a red herring. What is bankrupting us is Medicare, Medicade, and Social security. Those programs, plus the cost of interest on the debt, account for nearly all of the 2 trillion the govt receives in revenue. All the rest is borrowed.
And now S & P downgraded our bond rating. Slide continues...
R.K.: I don't Glenn Beck, Sara Palin or Banners. (country music occasionally, I prefer Rock & Roll or Classical) So what are all of these free countries that don't have military budgets?
Me: Kelly, feel free to ignore my comment and restate your position as often as you like.
Me: Kelly, I don't know you at all, you must be a friend of a friend. However, in the circles I travel in people converse and debate by stating a position and pointing out specifically where they disagree with each other.
Nor do they engage in juvenile name-calling.
My post from 17 hours ago contains several factual statements. If you think they're wrong, cite your sources. Simply repeating your unsupported assertion is insufficient. If you want to engage in a civil conversation, you will have to do better.
Me: Kelly writes, then deletes: "If anyone is really curious enough they could simply google your "facts" to verify if they're true. I've done so, have not found anything to substantiate anything you say, so have opted to delete my posts. I don't really want to argue with you. Would appreciate it if you would bow out as well."
Me: This is my thread, why should I bow out?
Expenditures, 2010: $3.456 trillion
Social Security is 20.6% of that
Medicare, 13.2%
Medicaid, 7.2%
Welfare, 9%
Interest on debt, 6.5%
Total: 56.5% = $1.953 trillion
Revenues, 2010: $2.163 trillion
I quote myself: "Those programs, plus the cost of interest on the debt, account for nearly all of the 2 trillion the govt receives in revenue. All the rest is borrowed." Therefore, a true statement.
I posted this: "Our enemies are not big spending Democrats, they're big spending Republicans."
J.W.: How about big spending politicians in general? Republicans and Democrats just differ (somewhat) on what they want to spend everyone else's money on.
R.K.: That's why WE are free! Freedom is not Free.
Me: Exactly, J.W. Too many have bought into the repub vs. demo debate. They all spend our money without restraint or common sense.
Me: Kelly, defense is a constitutionally mandated duty of government. Of course, spreading democracy and nation building are not. We need to get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and now, Libya.
However, military spending is a red herring. What is bankrupting us is Medicare, Medicade, and Social security. Those programs, plus the cost of interest on the debt, account for nearly all of the 2 trillion the govt receives in revenue. All the rest is borrowed.
And now S & P downgraded our bond rating. Slide continues...
R.K.: I don't Glenn Beck, Sara Palin or Banners. (country music occasionally, I prefer Rock & Roll or Classical) So what are all of these free countries that don't have military budgets?
Me: Kelly, feel free to ignore my comment and restate your position as often as you like.
Me: Kelly, I don't know you at all, you must be a friend of a friend. However, in the circles I travel in people converse and debate by stating a position and pointing out specifically where they disagree with each other.
Nor do they engage in juvenile name-calling.
My post from 17 hours ago contains several factual statements. If you think they're wrong, cite your sources. Simply repeating your unsupported assertion is insufficient. If you want to engage in a civil conversation, you will have to do better.
Me: Kelly writes, then deletes: "If anyone is really curious enough they could simply google your "facts" to verify if they're true. I've done so, have not found anything to substantiate anything you say, so have opted to delete my posts. I don't really want to argue with you. Would appreciate it if you would bow out as well."
Me: This is my thread, why should I bow out?
Expenditures, 2010: $3.456 trillion
Social Security is 20.6% of that
Medicare, 13.2%
Medicaid, 7.2%
Welfare, 9%
Interest on debt, 6.5%
Total: 56.5% = $1.953 trillion
Revenues, 2010: $2.163 trillion
I quote myself: "Those programs, plus the cost of interest on the debt, account for nearly all of the 2 trillion the govt receives in revenue. All the rest is borrowed." Therefore, a true statement.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Another whiny column about men: The 17 Most Annoying Male Habits, Explained Every day,
Found here.
There are SEVENTEEN of these. I couldn't even bear posting all 17. Is it any wonder the world is in such trouble when whiny, self-involved, nit-picky women are given legitimacy and attention in places like MSN? At least they let a man answer the questions rather than have some female PHD psychologist explain to us how men are pigs.
-------------------
REDBOOK readers email columnist Aaron Traister to ask questions about the men in their lives: Why is it so hard for him to spit out the words "I'm sorry"? Is my husband the only man in the world who doesn't want to have sex? And what's up with that wiry hair protruding from his left nostril?! Aaron answers online, kind of like individual counseling, but we decided it was time for group therapy. It helps just to know you're not alone!
Selective Hearing Q: Why does my husband remember so many things about sports but nothing I told him yesterday?
Our relationship with sports predates our relationship with you by many, many years. I remember exactly where I was when the Phillies lost the 1993 World Series; I know who I was with and what I did when the Eagles converted fourth and 26 against the Green Bay Packers (I jumped on my friend's back and rode him around my living room). We've been fluent in sports forever, whereas we've only been speaking feelings and to-do lists for a few years.
Q: Should I be worried if my husband has an "office wife"?
I would be if I discovered that Karel had another spouse, office or otherwise. I think a guy's asking for trouble at home and at work if he has a relationship with a colleague that is intimate enough to involve the word wife. Men aren't always good at answering tough relationship questions, like: Is it okay for me to go out to lunch alone with my "office wife"? What about drinks after work, even with a group? Is it awkward if we have to travel together? Will coworkers get the wrong idea? Heck, I'm not sure even a woman could answer these, which is why I prefer to leave all forms of polygamy to Big Love.
Q: Why does my husband swing our kids around and shake them upside down when he knows they just ate or need to go to sleep?
Reason 1: Children are easier to chase and catch when they're trying to digest or are just about ready for bed. That post-dinner sleepiness also means that when your husband throws them around, he's less likely to get a flailing knee to the head or hyper-toddler-energy-fueled elbow to the crotch. Those are things I take into account before I jostle my kids around.
Reason 2: When your husband sees the finish line for the kids' day, he gets excited. For me, it's like I'm running a 5K and I get a burst of energy when I know I've reached the last mile. I love my kids, but I want them to go to sleep so that I can have some time with my wife, alone. When I know that moment is near, I feel like jumping for joy, or ... grabbing my kids, tossing them in the air, attacking them with a pillow, wrestling them to the ground, flipping them over, and generally shaking them up like a bottle of seltzer left in a Volkswagen on the hottest day of the year.
Q: Why won't men say they're sorry? "I'm sorry you're upset" doesn't count!
We're stubborn. Saying sorry is admitting we're wrong and that we take responsibility for whatever is blowing up in our relationship or our life. In fact, the more wrong I know I am, the less likely I am to say, "I'm sorry." Chalk it up to the "man of the house" hangover, but many of us still struggle with the idea that our word is no longer the final word. We are a generation of guys who saw that our grandfathers, and in some cases our fathers, never had to apologize to their wives for anything, even when it was obvious to everyone they were wrong. Progress is hard. Um, sorry.
Q: Do guys really think women look better without makeup?
I really do think women look better without makeup. However, when Karel read this, she told me I had no idea what I was talking about, and that what I think is "no makeup" is actually "natural makeup." I'm not sure what natural makeup involves, but Karel is probably right on this one.
Q: Do men not notice when they have a single, extra-long eyebrow (or nose, or ear) hair? Or do they know it's there but just don't care?
Yes, I notice all my weird hairs, rashes and boils. I'm comfortable with my body and its imperfections. Most guys are much less disturbed by the things women find so gross on their own bodies, and unless we're single and trying to attract an easily repulsed member of the opposite sex, a lot of us let things slide. There just isn't as much pressure for coupled-up guys to look a certain way. Plus, now that we're married, Karel tweezes, plucks, pokes and trims all my freakish growths long before they start to bother me.
Q: Why can't men tolerate hearing anything negative about their moms?
Moms are sacred to us because they were the first women in our lives, and they spent most of their youth keeping us fed, healthy and happy - and many of them sacrificed a lot to do so. Also, most of us put our mothers through hell with worry in our teens and have been trying to make up for it ever since, and your negativity isn't helping. But mostly, no guy wants to hear the woman he loves ripping on the other woman he loves. So leave his mom alone, unless she's egregiously overstepping boundaries and intruding on your life as a couple, and then broach it veeery slowly, and be veeery careful in your choice of words.
Q: Why does he put the moves on me when he can see I'm in a terrible mood?
Because sex is like a combination of penicillin and Zoloft for men: It's a cure-all and antidepressant rolled into one. We just assume the same is true for you. Your mom's in the hospital for hip-replacement surgery? Sex will cheer you up. Worried about getting laid off? Getting laid will take your mind off it. Here comes the comet? Let's have sex - at least we'll go out with a bang. Your guy isn't being selfish; he really wants to help, and he's suggesting something he thinks will be mutually beneficial. If you are positive a quickie won't boost your mood, let him down easy, or you may wind up with two foul-tempered people.
Q: Why do men sit with their legs splayed at a 100-degree angle?
It's very hard to explain how uncomfortable it is to keep your legs closed to a group of people who don't have penises.
Q: What does he have against my friends?
He may not have anything against them - he just can't keep them straight. I have two friends, and my wife loves them. Karel has a million friends: college besties, high school besties, work friends, mom friends. You guys have deep relationships and superficial ones that look almost identical. I think our attitude is interpreted as cold when, in fact, it is confused. We don't understand your level of investment in some of your friendships, so we're not sure what our level of investment should be.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Economic myths, Chronicle editorial
I’m surprised by the myths some people believe about economics, taxation, and government. People aren’t stupid, but they do seem to be naïve. They repeat something they read on a website or heard from a talking head as if it were gospel truth.
Ironically, they then accuse people like me of ignorance. Sure, I’m no expert, but I have a little common sense. And I try to be frank. I do not hide my political proclivities or pretend to be something I’m not, like the political Left often does. No, I disclose up front that I am a libertarian-leaning conservative. And I have some truth for you. The truth about five economic myths.
Myth #1) Bush is responsible for the deficit. Except Bush cannot spend tax money. Not back then, and certainly not now. Certainly Bush was no conservative. Far from it. His “compassionate” conservatism was virtually indistinguishable from the big spenders in Congress.
What we need to understand it is Congress that spends money. Article 1, Section 8 of the living-when-I-need-it-to-be Constitution says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes…” Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution-that-only-matters-when-it-agrees-with-my-politics says, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…” That means every government expenditure must be authorized by the House. Period.
This leads me to myth #2. Obama did not “inherit” anything. Democrats have controlled Congress since 2007, which included then-senator Obama. He and a whole host of other Democrats, along with their Republican co-conspirators voted in favor of every single budget, every single wasted bailout, and every single Wall Street fatcat. They had every opportunity to do something about the debt. But alas, they never met a spending bill they didn’t like.
Myth #3: Unbridled capitalism is to blame. Um, no. There is no such thing. For the past few decades our economic fortunes have been governed by Keynesianism. And Keynesianism almost always manifests as increased taxes and increased regulation of the economy.
This big government Keynesianism is supposed to prevent economic disaster by “reining in” capitalism but nevertheless has led us to our present situation. Indeed, all the laws and regulations passed since the Great Depression did nothing to prevent the Carter malaise, the 2001 recession, or the 2008 Great Recession. Ergo, the “solution” is the problem.
Oh, and by the way. Don’t be fooled by the cheerleaders in the media. Things are much worse than anyone is letting on. I know you know this in your bones, but you want to believe in your saviors. I’m just here to offer you the red pill, Neo.
Myth #4: Tax increases will lower the national debt. Except this has never happened. But what about President Clinton, you ask? Nope. Not even then. Check it here: http://130.94.230.21/debt_history.htm. Yet for some reason tax increases are the only “solution” the Left ever advocates. They seem to believe that it is better to give your money to the government than it is to keep it for yourself. Their highest priority is how much money government has available to it.
This leads me to myth #5: Only Democrats care for the poor, the average Joe, and the environment. Nope, sorry. The sole purpose of politics is the acquisition, accumulation, and perpetuation of power. That’s what politicians care about. The issues you care about are only buzzwords used to increase the power of politicians who love to spend your money.
But you believe myth #6: Government is benevolent. It isn’t. Even when government policies are going the way you like, power is being exercised. All it takes is a change in leadership and suddenly you find that the power you loved is now the power you hate. The problem is power.
So there you have the truth, my friends. From my favorite movie, the Matrix: “I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it.”
Ironically, they then accuse people like me of ignorance. Sure, I’m no expert, but I have a little common sense. And I try to be frank. I do not hide my political proclivities or pretend to be something I’m not, like the political Left often does. No, I disclose up front that I am a libertarian-leaning conservative. And I have some truth for you. The truth about five economic myths.
Myth #1) Bush is responsible for the deficit. Except Bush cannot spend tax money. Not back then, and certainly not now. Certainly Bush was no conservative. Far from it. His “compassionate” conservatism was virtually indistinguishable from the big spenders in Congress.
What we need to understand it is Congress that spends money. Article 1, Section 8 of the living-when-I-need-it-to-be Constitution says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes…” Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution-that-only-matters-when-it-agrees-with-my-politics says, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…” That means every government expenditure must be authorized by the House. Period.
This leads me to myth #2. Obama did not “inherit” anything. Democrats have controlled Congress since 2007, which included then-senator Obama. He and a whole host of other Democrats, along with their Republican co-conspirators voted in favor of every single budget, every single wasted bailout, and every single Wall Street fatcat. They had every opportunity to do something about the debt. But alas, they never met a spending bill they didn’t like.
Myth #3: Unbridled capitalism is to blame. Um, no. There is no such thing. For the past few decades our economic fortunes have been governed by Keynesianism. And Keynesianism almost always manifests as increased taxes and increased regulation of the economy.
This big government Keynesianism is supposed to prevent economic disaster by “reining in” capitalism but nevertheless has led us to our present situation. Indeed, all the laws and regulations passed since the Great Depression did nothing to prevent the Carter malaise, the 2001 recession, or the 2008 Great Recession. Ergo, the “solution” is the problem.
Oh, and by the way. Don’t be fooled by the cheerleaders in the media. Things are much worse than anyone is letting on. I know you know this in your bones, but you want to believe in your saviors. I’m just here to offer you the red pill, Neo.
Myth #4: Tax increases will lower the national debt. Except this has never happened. But what about President Clinton, you ask? Nope. Not even then. Check it here: http://130.94.230.21/debt_history.htm. Yet for some reason tax increases are the only “solution” the Left ever advocates. They seem to believe that it is better to give your money to the government than it is to keep it for yourself. Their highest priority is how much money government has available to it.
This leads me to myth #5: Only Democrats care for the poor, the average Joe, and the environment. Nope, sorry. The sole purpose of politics is the acquisition, accumulation, and perpetuation of power. That’s what politicians care about. The issues you care about are only buzzwords used to increase the power of politicians who love to spend your money.
But you believe myth #6: Government is benevolent. It isn’t. Even when government policies are going the way you like, power is being exercised. All it takes is a change in leadership and suddenly you find that the power you loved is now the power you hate. The problem is power.
So there you have the truth, my friends. From my favorite movie, the Matrix: “I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it.”
Friday, April 1, 2011
Carbon footprint facebook conversation
I posted a video link on facebook:
The Green Regulation Machine: Saving the Planet or Killing Jobs? www.youtube.com
"When Dwayne Whitney started his trucking business decades ago he had only one truck. Today he has eighteen and 20 employees. But that's about to change. "The State of California says my trucks are killing people," says Whitney. "What do you say to that?" In a few years, new air quality regulations..."
B.R.: What compromise do you propose that will curb our carbon footprint while retaining or expanding jobs?
Me: Meaning no disrespect, but the extreme environmental movement has marched lockstep against capitalism with no compromise at all. The only party that needs to compromise is the ones who have yet to compromise.
B.R.: Seeing as their goals have been largely reduced or rejected, I'd say they've compromised quite a lot.
Me: To lose a battle is not the same thing as compromising.
R.W.: Truth, Ben. Environmentalists talk in PARTS per BILLION and try to scare us into throwing money at a fictitious problem. And these people get these sweet gigs for themselves where they are their own regulators. This guy Enstrum is losing his job because he blew the whistle on the faulty science, the FAKE Scientist that wrote the report, and the two people who oversee the process, who also work for the University .. They control their own funding! They work for the government agency that hands out grants to the universities. It's all very incestuous. I don't want to breath dirty air, and I don't want my children to breath dirty air. But really, how DIRTY is it. Sounds pretty clean to me be all these reports except from the people who want to write more laws. This is not about "Carbon footprint" as it pertains to how MUCH energy are we using. These trucks will burn the same amount of diesel. It has to do with how much is exhausted. And according to many legitimate scientists, it is so much better than it used to be and it is now within tolerable limitations. AS a former truck driver, I can tell you that the WAY they implement these new regulations is also a problem. They don't wait for the end of a trucks useful life, they make the trucker modify or replace his current fleet and that puts him out of business. California is in debt more than any other state, and it is because businesses are LEAVING the state, because of idiots like these people who make the rules, and that leaves the state without all that tax revenue.
B.R.: I agree with you that the changes should be step-by-step so that people don't lose their entire livelihoods. I'm all for a moderate shift year by year that keeps us going in the cleaner direction, rather than a crazy shift that uproots guys like this. But if we're going to start throwing the book at people who "get these sweet gigs for themselves where they are their own regulators", shouldn't we also include the oil and auto executives who sit on regulatory boards and block anything that goes against their interests? Talk about "controlling your own funding". Furthermore, can you show me factual data of the BILLIONS of dollars per year that the environmental leaders are reaping in profits? If you're going to accuse one side of having special interests, shouldn't you take into consideration that there are exponentially larger corporations in America that do everything they can to halt all changes that will put a dent in their earnings?
R.W.: The thing about conservatives is that we don't like corporation where EVER it is. But a trick of the left seems to be when they are caught abusing the system they say oh, ya?! What about evil corporations. Let's not change the subject. If you want to talk about something else we can save that for another post. This thread is about this situation and the explanation that "EVERYBODY does it" will not suffice. Corporations may fight against the rules that are not in their favor, but they do not MAKE the rules. Politicians do. "CARB" does. And CARB is corrupt and those rules effect millions of people and cost BILLIONS of dollars. And when it comes to pollution, most people who work for corporations LIVE in the area that corporation is located in. So they are not keen on polluting themselves.
B.R.: Then let's drop that and see if you can answer my original question: What compromise do you propose that will curb our carbon footprint while retaining or expanding jobs?
R.W.: I go back to truth. Truth from the scientists and truth from the politicians and truth from the evil corporations. Getting that is key because only THEN can we argue over what the best corse of actions is. IS it worth a Trillion dollars to reduce the arsenic in pressure treated lumber from 4 parts per billion to 3? Well, what are the TURE dangers of leaving it at 4? is there any evidence to say it is harmful at all? We know arsenic is bad in and of itself but if it's locked inside the wood... The world is full of dangeous things. We need to treat those things with respect and when an accident happens as it always does, have we taken as many precautions as possible and are we prepared when those accidents happen. There was an oil spill in the gulf. Our reaction was to stop drilling but then we just gave Brazil rights to drill in the gulf but America can't. There is a Nuclear problem in Japan. Do we shut down all plants, or do we learn and move forward? Even the cave men polluted. Archeologist find their trash 1000's of years later. You pollute. You use electricity that was generated from a damn most likely which destroyed the habitate of countless animals. I agree that we have to try and limit our impact but we have to accept that we ARE going to make an impact. Every living thing does. A bird just crapped on my car...
B.R.: That sounds like a good plan. I tell you what, if you and I can find ways to make a difference toward that plan of accurate data from both sides of the conflict, then I think we should actually work together on it. Is there anything you think can be done from the ground up, since neither you or I are scientists, politicians, or oil/auto corporate leaders?
Me: Once again, when extreme environmentalists are willing to compromise, then compromise will happen.
I reject the premise that reducing our carbon footprint is something desirable, something government ought to do, or something that has anything at all to do with pollution.
There is no evidence that turning this task over to government will yield any kind of positive result.
B.R.: do you agree that carbon emissions are too high? Do you agree that the US needs to gradually be on a road toward difference forms of fuel than oil?
Me: I do not agree that carbon emissions are too high, because no one has shown us what level of carbon emissions are "just right."
Oil is a commodity. Its use is the source of our prosperity and lifestyle. At some point in the future we may run out, or other forms of energy will supplant it. The free market will bring about those changes perfectly, as it always does.
B.R.: Okay, so that's as far in the compromise as you're willing to come, is to say that there's no clean air problem, there's no pollution problem, there's no risk involved in letting our oil resources run out, there's no additional action needed to create additional energy solutions. Am I right?
Me: We are discussing carbon emissions. I did not say anything about clean air or pollution.
Nor did I say there was no risk in letting the market determine the economic viability of various forms of energy. However, we already know there is risk when government dictates the process. That's what the video is about.
You assume that the action that needs to be taken is government action. Why?
Me: And for some reason you assume I'm unwilling to compromise. Let me put it another way. The American people have accomodated every dictate of the government regarding the environment, because government carries the force of law. I am saying that all of the compromise has come from one side of the issue, and we who have compromised have had to live with the economic burden those compromises have brought us.
B.R.: Precedent. Recycling is commonplace because the government made an enormous push for it in the 20th century. Composting is increasing in Seattle in large part because it's required in many districsts, and the government provides us with the bins and pickups to make it possible. Why in the world would oil companies and the auto industry make significant changes without being required to? And why would this trucker and other similar small businesses make significant changes without the security of knowing that their government is behind them?
B.R.: I don't assume you're unwilling to compromise; in fact, I'm trying to find common ground. I'm not aligned with a political party and I don't work for the government; I've simply lost patience and sympathy with anyone from any side of any significant issue who tears down any kind of progress without proposing an alternative solution.
Me: So if I may paraphrase you, anything government does is ok with you, because it's for our own good. Government should be able to place any burden it wants on the people since, government provides good things like security. Have I got this right?
What do you mean by progress? The truck driver in the video is obviously not progressing. What version of progress do you want the government to enforce?
I did propose an alternative: the free market. It solves every problem without the need of a nanny government deciding what is good for us.
B.R.: No, your paraphrasing is convenient and inaccurate. I'm saying that when it's clear enough that a national problem has a solution (improving the economy through saving money by reusing and recycling, improving the carbon emissions of automobiles by gradually changing the required levels), then it's the duty of our government to lead the charge of that solution. That solution is what I mean by progress. The truck driver could progress if he evolved his business in his own time in his own way, but if he changes nothing, then he's willfully ignorant. One question about the free market: what do you think it will take for the free market to change the way automobile emissions are decided? How will that happen without the government's affect? This is not a rhetorical question, I actually respect your opinion and want to hear what you think it will take.
Me: Thank you for your kind words.
You mention that this national problem has a solution. But I asked you before what level of carbon emission decrease we need. At what point is it deemed a success?
Indeed, in any social engineering enterprise the government has engaged in, has there ever been success, i.e. mission accomplished, for solving hunger, or poverty, or racism? Is Iraq a success by any measure? What about healthcare? Has anything the government has done regarding social problems yielded a solution?
I'm focusing on your idea of a "national problem." Why is it government's duty to solve national problems? Obesity is a national problem. Do you support government monitoring of everyone's diet? How about a mandatory exercise regimen? Making candy bars illegal?
What I'm after is, where do you draw the line? What is your benchmark?
The Green Regulation Machine: Saving the Planet or Killing Jobs? www.youtube.com
"When Dwayne Whitney started his trucking business decades ago he had only one truck. Today he has eighteen and 20 employees. But that's about to change. "The State of California says my trucks are killing people," says Whitney. "What do you say to that?" In a few years, new air quality regulations..."
B.R.: What compromise do you propose that will curb our carbon footprint while retaining or expanding jobs?
Me: Meaning no disrespect, but the extreme environmental movement has marched lockstep against capitalism with no compromise at all. The only party that needs to compromise is the ones who have yet to compromise.
B.R.: Seeing as their goals have been largely reduced or rejected, I'd say they've compromised quite a lot.
Me: To lose a battle is not the same thing as compromising.
R.W.: Truth, Ben. Environmentalists talk in PARTS per BILLION and try to scare us into throwing money at a fictitious problem. And these people get these sweet gigs for themselves where they are their own regulators. This guy Enstrum is losing his job because he blew the whistle on the faulty science, the FAKE Scientist that wrote the report, and the two people who oversee the process, who also work for the University .. They control their own funding! They work for the government agency that hands out grants to the universities. It's all very incestuous. I don't want to breath dirty air, and I don't want my children to breath dirty air. But really, how DIRTY is it. Sounds pretty clean to me be all these reports except from the people who want to write more laws. This is not about "Carbon footprint" as it pertains to how MUCH energy are we using. These trucks will burn the same amount of diesel. It has to do with how much is exhausted. And according to many legitimate scientists, it is so much better than it used to be and it is now within tolerable limitations. AS a former truck driver, I can tell you that the WAY they implement these new regulations is also a problem. They don't wait for the end of a trucks useful life, they make the trucker modify or replace his current fleet and that puts him out of business. California is in debt more than any other state, and it is because businesses are LEAVING the state, because of idiots like these people who make the rules, and that leaves the state without all that tax revenue.
B.R.: I agree with you that the changes should be step-by-step so that people don't lose their entire livelihoods. I'm all for a moderate shift year by year that keeps us going in the cleaner direction, rather than a crazy shift that uproots guys like this. But if we're going to start throwing the book at people who "get these sweet gigs for themselves where they are their own regulators", shouldn't we also include the oil and auto executives who sit on regulatory boards and block anything that goes against their interests? Talk about "controlling your own funding". Furthermore, can you show me factual data of the BILLIONS of dollars per year that the environmental leaders are reaping in profits? If you're going to accuse one side of having special interests, shouldn't you take into consideration that there are exponentially larger corporations in America that do everything they can to halt all changes that will put a dent in their earnings?
R.W.: The thing about conservatives is that we don't like corporation where EVER it is. But a trick of the left seems to be when they are caught abusing the system they say oh, ya?! What about evil corporations. Let's not change the subject. If you want to talk about something else we can save that for another post. This thread is about this situation and the explanation that "EVERYBODY does it" will not suffice. Corporations may fight against the rules that are not in their favor, but they do not MAKE the rules. Politicians do. "CARB" does. And CARB is corrupt and those rules effect millions of people and cost BILLIONS of dollars. And when it comes to pollution, most people who work for corporations LIVE in the area that corporation is located in. So they are not keen on polluting themselves.
B.R.: Then let's drop that and see if you can answer my original question: What compromise do you propose that will curb our carbon footprint while retaining or expanding jobs?
R.W.: I go back to truth. Truth from the scientists and truth from the politicians and truth from the evil corporations. Getting that is key because only THEN can we argue over what the best corse of actions is. IS it worth a Trillion dollars to reduce the arsenic in pressure treated lumber from 4 parts per billion to 3? Well, what are the TURE dangers of leaving it at 4? is there any evidence to say it is harmful at all? We know arsenic is bad in and of itself but if it's locked inside the wood... The world is full of dangeous things. We need to treat those things with respect and when an accident happens as it always does, have we taken as many precautions as possible and are we prepared when those accidents happen. There was an oil spill in the gulf. Our reaction was to stop drilling but then we just gave Brazil rights to drill in the gulf but America can't. There is a Nuclear problem in Japan. Do we shut down all plants, or do we learn and move forward? Even the cave men polluted. Archeologist find their trash 1000's of years later. You pollute. You use electricity that was generated from a damn most likely which destroyed the habitate of countless animals. I agree that we have to try and limit our impact but we have to accept that we ARE going to make an impact. Every living thing does. A bird just crapped on my car...
B.R.: That sounds like a good plan. I tell you what, if you and I can find ways to make a difference toward that plan of accurate data from both sides of the conflict, then I think we should actually work together on it. Is there anything you think can be done from the ground up, since neither you or I are scientists, politicians, or oil/auto corporate leaders?
Me: Once again, when extreme environmentalists are willing to compromise, then compromise will happen.
I reject the premise that reducing our carbon footprint is something desirable, something government ought to do, or something that has anything at all to do with pollution.
There is no evidence that turning this task over to government will yield any kind of positive result.
B.R.: do you agree that carbon emissions are too high? Do you agree that the US needs to gradually be on a road toward difference forms of fuel than oil?
Me: I do not agree that carbon emissions are too high, because no one has shown us what level of carbon emissions are "just right."
Oil is a commodity. Its use is the source of our prosperity and lifestyle. At some point in the future we may run out, or other forms of energy will supplant it. The free market will bring about those changes perfectly, as it always does.
B.R.: Okay, so that's as far in the compromise as you're willing to come, is to say that there's no clean air problem, there's no pollution problem, there's no risk involved in letting our oil resources run out, there's no additional action needed to create additional energy solutions. Am I right?
Me: We are discussing carbon emissions. I did not say anything about clean air or pollution.
Nor did I say there was no risk in letting the market determine the economic viability of various forms of energy. However, we already know there is risk when government dictates the process. That's what the video is about.
You assume that the action that needs to be taken is government action. Why?
Me: And for some reason you assume I'm unwilling to compromise. Let me put it another way. The American people have accomodated every dictate of the government regarding the environment, because government carries the force of law. I am saying that all of the compromise has come from one side of the issue, and we who have compromised have had to live with the economic burden those compromises have brought us.
B.R.: Precedent. Recycling is commonplace because the government made an enormous push for it in the 20th century. Composting is increasing in Seattle in large part because it's required in many districsts, and the government provides us with the bins and pickups to make it possible. Why in the world would oil companies and the auto industry make significant changes without being required to? And why would this trucker and other similar small businesses make significant changes without the security of knowing that their government is behind them?
B.R.: I don't assume you're unwilling to compromise; in fact, I'm trying to find common ground. I'm not aligned with a political party and I don't work for the government; I've simply lost patience and sympathy with anyone from any side of any significant issue who tears down any kind of progress without proposing an alternative solution.
Me: So if I may paraphrase you, anything government does is ok with you, because it's for our own good. Government should be able to place any burden it wants on the people since, government provides good things like security. Have I got this right?
What do you mean by progress? The truck driver in the video is obviously not progressing. What version of progress do you want the government to enforce?
I did propose an alternative: the free market. It solves every problem without the need of a nanny government deciding what is good for us.
B.R.: No, your paraphrasing is convenient and inaccurate. I'm saying that when it's clear enough that a national problem has a solution (improving the economy through saving money by reusing and recycling, improving the carbon emissions of automobiles by gradually changing the required levels), then it's the duty of our government to lead the charge of that solution. That solution is what I mean by progress. The truck driver could progress if he evolved his business in his own time in his own way, but if he changes nothing, then he's willfully ignorant. One question about the free market: what do you think it will take for the free market to change the way automobile emissions are decided? How will that happen without the government's affect? This is not a rhetorical question, I actually respect your opinion and want to hear what you think it will take.
Me: Thank you for your kind words.
You mention that this national problem has a solution. But I asked you before what level of carbon emission decrease we need. At what point is it deemed a success?
Indeed, in any social engineering enterprise the government has engaged in, has there ever been success, i.e. mission accomplished, for solving hunger, or poverty, or racism? Is Iraq a success by any measure? What about healthcare? Has anything the government has done regarding social problems yielded a solution?
I'm focusing on your idea of a "national problem." Why is it government's duty to solve national problems? Obesity is a national problem. Do you support government monitoring of everyone's diet? How about a mandatory exercise regimen? Making candy bars illegal?
What I'm after is, where do you draw the line? What is your benchmark?
Friday, March 25, 2011
facebook installment 3
W.R.: Treaties are the highest law of the land and that is a fact.
L.B.: On you're second paragraph Rich, it seems to me pre Clinton/ Bush , government regulations of Wall Street were pretty effective in limiting the influence. Instead of going a little further and keeping the lobbyist out of D.C., Clinton and B...ush start lifting regulations. Now the Watch Dogs are former board members of the super elite companies that lobby for less restrictions. The head of the FDA is a former board member of the second biggest poultry company in the country (don't get me started on that), and the list just went on and on. This is what needs to change and I hope President Obama is making steps to change this. I know in Indian country, under his administration, he's put key people in the right place and there has been movement and noticeable change for the better. This was never the case under any administration that I can remember for Indian country anyway. The key is getting rid of the lap dogs for the RICH and bringing back the Doberman to make sure they can't just play with people's hard earned retirements.See More
W.R.: Ok I guess what I am missing is what EXACTLY is it that you would like government to step out of? Would you like government to stop controlling crime? Would you like government to stop helping the less fortunate? Would you like government to stop protecting animals and the environment? Government needs to be more powerful to stop greed. If we had a society that had strong informal social control we wouldn't need our government to be so strong; but unfortunately we don't so we need strong government. We would like to believe that without government stepping in on things like affirmative action, everything would be hunky dory and minorities and poor people would still get into college. But the truth is that it did not happen until laws were passed to enforce it. Many churches and families fail to instill the type of social control their members children require to cause them to automatically want to do what is fair, right, and good. Instead, they perpetuate the individual "I" type thinking that allows them to feel justified when they step all over the poor and minority to take every job and then mock them for not being "hard-working" Americans.See More
W.R.: And I totally agree that money, lobbyists, and corporations have way too much power in government. So why are you so against Obama, who has tried to put the reins on some of that unbridled control by passing stricter laws on lobbying, elections, and has tried to put some controls on the take over of our government by Wall Street? I'm not saying he has succeeded but he has at least been trying to change these things. I don't really think you have adequately explained what it is about Obama and his policies or as you call it "Big Government"- as if we haven't had that all along with all the corporate welfare going on in the past administrations- why is it all of a sudden such a bad thing for the government to be involved? And for that matter, unless you are rich, why would you not be for the government putting more restrictions on the very corporations you rightly state have taken over government? I'm just kind of confused about your argument? I can't understand where you are coming from or going with your thinking any more than I can understand your Fox News cronies.
Me: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." Article 4.
"He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." Article 2, Section 2
Therefore, the Constitution CREATES the validity of treaties and elevates them to the highest law of the land.
Me: what lifted regulations are you referring to? Corporations, unions, and other monied interests have always held sway. The only thing limiting them has been the relative inability of government to pay them off with sweetheart deals.
Lobbyists are a symptom, not the problem. Lobbyists would have nothing to do if they could not pry dollars out of congress.
Me: The first time Obama's name came up was 6 minutes ago. I haven't commented on him.
Obama, like Bush and Clinton before him, is part of the problem, part of the system. D.C. is only interested in its own perpetuation, creating new ways to scam money from the people.
Any faith in any of these people is unwarranted.
Me: Government does not need to be more powerful to stop greed. Greed is not a matter of law, it is a matter of the human heart. Or are you telling me you are in favor of legislating morality?
Me: Government cannot remedy a failing societal structure, especially with more control and more laws. Laws only restrain moral people, the immoral will break laws.
Your arguments lead us to the conclusion that government should be our daddy, our god, and our church. Taxes are the tithe, and all the good we as individuals should be doing is transferred to government as its obligation.
I don't buy it. That is not the world I want to live in.
Me: I don't watch Fox News.
L.B.: On you're second paragraph Rich, it seems to me pre Clinton/ Bush , government regulations of Wall Street were pretty effective in limiting the influence. Instead of going a little further and keeping the lobbyist out of D.C., Clinton and B...ush start lifting regulations. Now the Watch Dogs are former board members of the super elite companies that lobby for less restrictions. The head of the FDA is a former board member of the second biggest poultry company in the country (don't get me started on that), and the list just went on and on. This is what needs to change and I hope President Obama is making steps to change this. I know in Indian country, under his administration, he's put key people in the right place and there has been movement and noticeable change for the better. This was never the case under any administration that I can remember for Indian country anyway. The key is getting rid of the lap dogs for the RICH and bringing back the Doberman to make sure they can't just play with people's hard earned retirements.See More
W.R.: Ok I guess what I am missing is what EXACTLY is it that you would like government to step out of? Would you like government to stop controlling crime? Would you like government to stop helping the less fortunate? Would you like government to stop protecting animals and the environment? Government needs to be more powerful to stop greed. If we had a society that had strong informal social control we wouldn't need our government to be so strong; but unfortunately we don't so we need strong government. We would like to believe that without government stepping in on things like affirmative action, everything would be hunky dory and minorities and poor people would still get into college. But the truth is that it did not happen until laws were passed to enforce it. Many churches and families fail to instill the type of social control their members children require to cause them to automatically want to do what is fair, right, and good. Instead, they perpetuate the individual "I" type thinking that allows them to feel justified when they step all over the poor and minority to take every job and then mock them for not being "hard-working" Americans.See More
W.R.: And I totally agree that money, lobbyists, and corporations have way too much power in government. So why are you so against Obama, who has tried to put the reins on some of that unbridled control by passing stricter laws on lobbying, elections, and has tried to put some controls on the take over of our government by Wall Street? I'm not saying he has succeeded but he has at least been trying to change these things. I don't really think you have adequately explained what it is about Obama and his policies or as you call it "Big Government"- as if we haven't had that all along with all the corporate welfare going on in the past administrations- why is it all of a sudden such a bad thing for the government to be involved? And for that matter, unless you are rich, why would you not be for the government putting more restrictions on the very corporations you rightly state have taken over government? I'm just kind of confused about your argument? I can't understand where you are coming from or going with your thinking any more than I can understand your Fox News cronies.
Me: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." Article 4.
"He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." Article 2, Section 2
Therefore, the Constitution CREATES the validity of treaties and elevates them to the highest law of the land.
Me: what lifted regulations are you referring to? Corporations, unions, and other monied interests have always held sway. The only thing limiting them has been the relative inability of government to pay them off with sweetheart deals.
Lobbyists are a symptom, not the problem. Lobbyists would have nothing to do if they could not pry dollars out of congress.
Me: The first time Obama's name came up was 6 minutes ago. I haven't commented on him.
Obama, like Bush and Clinton before him, is part of the problem, part of the system. D.C. is only interested in its own perpetuation, creating new ways to scam money from the people.
Any faith in any of these people is unwarranted.
Me: Government does not need to be more powerful to stop greed. Greed is not a matter of law, it is a matter of the human heart. Or are you telling me you are in favor of legislating morality?
Me: Government cannot remedy a failing societal structure, especially with more control and more laws. Laws only restrain moral people, the immoral will break laws.
Your arguments lead us to the conclusion that government should be our daddy, our god, and our church. Taxes are the tithe, and all the good we as individuals should be doing is transferred to government as its obligation.
I don't buy it. That is not the world I want to live in.
Me: I don't watch Fox News.
Facebook conversation, continued
Note the seeming inability of L.B. to follow a train of thought and present cogent arguments that are on-topic. My frustration shows through.
However, there is a ray of hope. W.R. comes through with some pointed, intelligent comments. Finally, someone who is thinking it through and making a case for their perspective using logic and reason!
L.B.: Constitution, that's a big joke. If the Constitution would have been followed back in 1776, Indians, Negros and woman would have been able to vote and would have had the same opportunities as every good white male.
Me: The Constitution was written in 1787, and it was ratified in 1789.
L.B.: Thanks for the correction.
Me: The Constitution did not prevent Indians, Negros and woman from voting.
L.B.: Constitution, that's a big joke. If the Constitution would have been followed back in 1789, Indians, Negros and woman would have been able to vote and would have had the same opportunities as every good white male.
Me: The constitution does not mention slavery, until the 13th amendment abolished it.
L.B.: See!!! That's what I'm saying, get off your damn High Horse now! You Christians these days are worse than the Pharisees that spit on Jesus. Don't even pretend like you know what I'm talking about. Hypocrites that try to pretend like America's past is squeaky clean and was formed by good religious people who were oppressed in Europe. And then you made this perfect country that had white picket fences and squeaky clean white churches.
Me: What??
L.B.: Yes you want to give me a history lesson yet you choose to ignore America's real past. The past you are longing to go back to. Pin point the exact time you want to go back to. Is it 2002, 1985, 1963, 1945, 1812, 1776 or maybe 1492? Work with me here.
Me: I'm not ignoring anything. There are some shameful things in America's past. If there is someone who has said different, I challenge you to provide the quote.
We are talking about the Constitution, not America's past.
You went off on some bizarre thing about Christians and Europe. Who knows what you're talking about?
L.B.: http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/
L.B.: W.R., check out the link above to find out who we're arguing with. He actually defended Dr. Laura...lol. He's also posting his debates with us. He's going to make us famous!!!!
Me: You are kept anonymous on my blog. I note for the record that you have yet to address my remarks.
L.B.: OK, I'll address one of your points. You stated above..... " When the U.S. was discovered is a matter of history and evidence." So what is the evidence and history? Tell us.
Me: This is extremely frustrating. Do you even know what we have been discussing for the past 4 or 5 hours? Why are you jumping back to something from way back on Monday, something written in a completely different context and a on different topic?
Let me help you out. "The Constitution did not prevent Indians, Negros and woman from voting." Or how about, "We are talking about the Constitution, not America's past."
Do you have some comments about these kinds of things, or not?
L.C.B.: The Constitution gave the right to vote to all of its legal citizens. Negros were not given citizenship until the 1860s, Women sufferage came at the turn of the 20th Century, Native Americans were not allowed citizenship until 1921. The dates I gave are not precise but you get my point. Please give me the article where the Constitution did not prevent Indians, Negros and women from voting?
Me: Hi. L.C.B. Show me in the Constitution, prior to the amendments, where anyone is given the right to vote: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Me: Please note that I am referring to the Constitution itself, and not the body of law that may have existed at the time.
L.C.B.: Jo your accusation of Christianity not facing up to our history is wrong. You are making this charge on an assumption, and it shows how little you know about your Dad had his minstry, and the people I associate with. Rich has been nothing but supportive and encouraging to me and was active in generational repentance, and reconciliation back when I was in Bozeman.
L.B.: Woodrow Wilson, our President during World War I, once said: "A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do."- Amen Brother, Amen! Got this one from your blog Rich
Me: L.C.B., I love you and your wife. You have been such a blessing in my life, and I am proud to call you "brother." May the God of our salvation pour out blessing upon you.
L.C.B.: The 14th Amendment, article two grants the right to vote, before that States had the power to regulate, voting seemed to be an implied right since they had to choose electors.
L.B.: Dad, I'm not trying to ruin your friendships and relationships. I'm simply engaged in a debate with Rich. He is trying to win the debate using exact literal definitions. He's defending the constitution as if it were written by God himself. I am attempting to point out to him that Beaver Cleaver is fiction as is the story of the Pilgrims. The history is what it is, no more, no less. He's blinded by right wing propaganda though.
Me: Exactly. The Constitution doesn't grant the right to vote at all, it is assumed. The 14th amendment had to codify the right to vote since states had discriminatory laws founded in racism.
Me: I'm pointing out what the Constitution says, L.B. You don't appear to know what it says. You also infer a whole lot of stuff I have never said.
I have challenged you repeatedly to address what I have said, but you persist in selecting random thoughts.
It is ironic that you would accuse me of being blinded by ideology when all you seem able to spout is left wing ideology. I'm guessing that the real problem we have here is that you don't like people disagreeing with you.
L.B.: 19th Amendment
Though the Constitution originally made no mention of a woman's right to vote, it was implied by society — women simply did not have the right. The 14th Amendment actually made things worse, by codifying the suffrage right to men only, when its Second Clause punished the denial of suffrage to men (though this still did not officially deny women the right). As early as 1848, groups met to discuss how to further women's rights, and the franchise, it was decided, was the best place to start. But America was not ready, and the suffragists, as they were called, were branded as immoral.
Famous women's rights leaders Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton tried to make a stand after the Civil War, to have the language of the 14th Amendment include women, though the issue was thought too volatile by most, and passage of the amendment was thought to be in grave jeopardy if such a provision were included. Anthony later used the 15th Amendment as rationale for voting in a New York election, and though she was tried and fined for voting, the ordeal proved an impetus for the eventual guarantee of voting rights for women. By 1918, about half the states had granted women full or partial voting rights; the stature gained by women involved in the temperance movement also helped push the suffragist movement along. The support of women to the war effort convinced many more, even President Woodrow Wilson, who had been staunchly opposed to a federal suffrage amendment. On June 4, 1919, the 19th Amendment was passed by Congress, and it was ratified on August 18, 1920 (441 days).
L.B.: Amendment 24 - Poll Tax Barred
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress..., shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
This is essentially what gave Native Americans the right to vote. This is why the Town of Browning had white Mayors and a 90% Native population from 1919- 1964. Most Natives own another type of property that is held in trust by the U.S. Government and is not taxable to the State, County or any other municipality. If they lived on this type of property, they could not vote in State elections. This Amendment changed all that. Take that State of Montana!
S.G.: All human beings (men, women, any & all races) are born sinful & all cultures have some corruption so all governments of man are subject to this wicked nature until all of the people from the top on down are subject to Jesus. Yes even though many (not necessarily all) of the founders of the government did have christian roots. It's not much different than today in that just because someone says they are a christian doesn't make it so. Especially in politics where the candidate will often say whatever is popular to get the votes. When the whites did all of the wicked & terrible things that were done it was largely motivated by greed then too. There is nothing inherently wrong with the constitution just the people who ignore the parts they don't like & use it as they want to. The Bible is the perfect word of God, but many evils have been committed hiding behind religion (again sinful man using whatever is convenient to their sinful motives) But that is an whole other can of worms. : D
L.C.B.: Interesting, so we all learn something and read the Constitution to boot
W.R.: Rich...on the one hand u claim going back to the almighty original constitution is the answer...and we all know what and whom the Framers had in mind when they wrote the document. On the other hand u point out that in the face of people and their actions the Constitution is meaningless ...law and govt are social constructions defined by the people. The people starving during the Great Depression defined it and they got unions, workers rights, social security and welfare. The people of the civil rights era defined it and helped bring equality and protections for all of us. The protections these people fought for are exactly what most people who say they are against Big Govt are for while they so piously sit in church and pretend that they are for the poor and downtrodden from whose very children they wish to take food, healthcare, and education!
W.R.: At one point we had laissez fairre type government and where did it get us? Bush and clinton nearly brought down the economy with "less govt/more deregulation" thinking. Now that is a matter of history and fact...very recent history and... fact!
And if u really believe govt shouldn't regulate morality...let's start with abolishing laws against same sex marriage, abortion, drugs, and in fact any other crime ... Why is it ok to regulate those "sins" but not unbridled thievery and greed on Wall Street? Laws are passed to control those who can't live within the accepted rules of society.
What exactly IS your point...your goal in this debate Rich because YOU seem to get upset when the holes in your argument are pointed out.
W.R.: To correct my statement below... I meant to say that saying u r against Big Govt is code for "I don't want to help the poor and I don't think inequality should be addressed because me and mine are just fine." WWJD???
Me: W.R., Thank you for the insightful and provocative comments. Wow, I have been waiting for such a response. I'll try to address all of your points as I get time.
First, I did not claim that going back the ORIGINAL Constitution was the answer. I claimed that returning government to its constitutional limits was the answer. The problem: Government is too powerful and corruptible. Corporations and special interests want to influence that power. Solution: Remove the government's ability to give payoffs to its corporate cronies and powerful interests by removing its ability to exceed its constitutional authority.
Second, the Constitution is only as meaningful as any other law, to the extent it is obeyed. The Constutition is the highest law of the land. It creates, defines, and limits government. It must be obeyed, or if it is found wanting, it must be amended. It cannot be ignored.
Me: Again, the Constitution is about government. It only mentions the rights of the people in passing as it describes the limits of government, i.e., "Congress shall make no law..." This amendment does not grant us free speech or freedom of assembly, it tells government what it cannot do!
Our rights pre-exist government. The Declaration says they are unalienable (cannot be separated), endowed by our creator. Government's job is to "secure" our rights (make them safe).
So, the injustices perpetrated over the course of the history of this country are in direct violation of its founding principles and founding documents.
However, there is a ray of hope. W.R. comes through with some pointed, intelligent comments. Finally, someone who is thinking it through and making a case for their perspective using logic and reason!
L.B.: Constitution, that's a big joke. If the Constitution would have been followed back in 1776, Indians, Negros and woman would have been able to vote and would have had the same opportunities as every good white male.
Me: The Constitution was written in 1787, and it was ratified in 1789.
L.B.: Thanks for the correction.
Me: The Constitution did not prevent Indians, Negros and woman from voting.
L.B.: Constitution, that's a big joke. If the Constitution would have been followed back in 1789, Indians, Negros and woman would have been able to vote and would have had the same opportunities as every good white male.
Me: The constitution does not mention slavery, until the 13th amendment abolished it.
L.B.: See!!! That's what I'm saying, get off your damn High Horse now! You Christians these days are worse than the Pharisees that spit on Jesus. Don't even pretend like you know what I'm talking about. Hypocrites that try to pretend like America's past is squeaky clean and was formed by good religious people who were oppressed in Europe. And then you made this perfect country that had white picket fences and squeaky clean white churches.
Me: What??
L.B.: Yes you want to give me a history lesson yet you choose to ignore America's real past. The past you are longing to go back to. Pin point the exact time you want to go back to. Is it 2002, 1985, 1963, 1945, 1812, 1776 or maybe 1492? Work with me here.
Me: I'm not ignoring anything. There are some shameful things in America's past. If there is someone who has said different, I challenge you to provide the quote.
We are talking about the Constitution, not America's past.
You went off on some bizarre thing about Christians and Europe. Who knows what you're talking about?
L.B.: http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/
L.B.: W.R., check out the link above to find out who we're arguing with. He actually defended Dr. Laura...lol. He's also posting his debates with us. He's going to make us famous!!!!
Me: You are kept anonymous on my blog. I note for the record that you have yet to address my remarks.
L.B.: OK, I'll address one of your points. You stated above..... " When the U.S. was discovered is a matter of history and evidence." So what is the evidence and history? Tell us.
Me: This is extremely frustrating. Do you even know what we have been discussing for the past 4 or 5 hours? Why are you jumping back to something from way back on Monday, something written in a completely different context and a on different topic?
Let me help you out. "The Constitution did not prevent Indians, Negros and woman from voting." Or how about, "We are talking about the Constitution, not America's past."
Do you have some comments about these kinds of things, or not?
L.C.B.: The Constitution gave the right to vote to all of its legal citizens. Negros were not given citizenship until the 1860s, Women sufferage came at the turn of the 20th Century, Native Americans were not allowed citizenship until 1921. The dates I gave are not precise but you get my point. Please give me the article where the Constitution did not prevent Indians, Negros and women from voting?
Me: Hi. L.C.B. Show me in the Constitution, prior to the amendments, where anyone is given the right to vote: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Me: Please note that I am referring to the Constitution itself, and not the body of law that may have existed at the time.
L.C.B.: Jo your accusation of Christianity not facing up to our history is wrong. You are making this charge on an assumption, and it shows how little you know about your Dad had his minstry, and the people I associate with. Rich has been nothing but supportive and encouraging to me and was active in generational repentance, and reconciliation back when I was in Bozeman.
L.B.: Woodrow Wilson, our President during World War I, once said: "A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do."- Amen Brother, Amen! Got this one from your blog Rich
Me: L.C.B., I love you and your wife. You have been such a blessing in my life, and I am proud to call you "brother." May the God of our salvation pour out blessing upon you.
L.C.B.: The 14th Amendment, article two grants the right to vote, before that States had the power to regulate, voting seemed to be an implied right since they had to choose electors.
L.B.: Dad, I'm not trying to ruin your friendships and relationships. I'm simply engaged in a debate with Rich. He is trying to win the debate using exact literal definitions. He's defending the constitution as if it were written by God himself. I am attempting to point out to him that Beaver Cleaver is fiction as is the story of the Pilgrims. The history is what it is, no more, no less. He's blinded by right wing propaganda though.
Me: Exactly. The Constitution doesn't grant the right to vote at all, it is assumed. The 14th amendment had to codify the right to vote since states had discriminatory laws founded in racism.
Me: I'm pointing out what the Constitution says, L.B. You don't appear to know what it says. You also infer a whole lot of stuff I have never said.
I have challenged you repeatedly to address what I have said, but you persist in selecting random thoughts.
It is ironic that you would accuse me of being blinded by ideology when all you seem able to spout is left wing ideology. I'm guessing that the real problem we have here is that you don't like people disagreeing with you.
L.B.: 19th Amendment
Though the Constitution originally made no mention of a woman's right to vote, it was implied by society — women simply did not have the right. The 14th Amendment actually made things worse, by codifying the suffrage right to men only, when its Second Clause punished the denial of suffrage to men (though this still did not officially deny women the right). As early as 1848, groups met to discuss how to further women's rights, and the franchise, it was decided, was the best place to start. But America was not ready, and the suffragists, as they were called, were branded as immoral.
Famous women's rights leaders Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton tried to make a stand after the Civil War, to have the language of the 14th Amendment include women, though the issue was thought too volatile by most, and passage of the amendment was thought to be in grave jeopardy if such a provision were included. Anthony later used the 15th Amendment as rationale for voting in a New York election, and though she was tried and fined for voting, the ordeal proved an impetus for the eventual guarantee of voting rights for women. By 1918, about half the states had granted women full or partial voting rights; the stature gained by women involved in the temperance movement also helped push the suffragist movement along. The support of women to the war effort convinced many more, even President Woodrow Wilson, who had been staunchly opposed to a federal suffrage amendment. On June 4, 1919, the 19th Amendment was passed by Congress, and it was ratified on August 18, 1920 (441 days).
L.B.: Amendment 24 - Poll Tax Barred
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress..., shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
This is essentially what gave Native Americans the right to vote. This is why the Town of Browning had white Mayors and a 90% Native population from 1919- 1964. Most Natives own another type of property that is held in trust by the U.S. Government and is not taxable to the State, County or any other municipality. If they lived on this type of property, they could not vote in State elections. This Amendment changed all that. Take that State of Montana!
S.G.: All human beings (men, women, any & all races) are born sinful & all cultures have some corruption so all governments of man are subject to this wicked nature until all of the people from the top on down are subject to Jesus. Yes even though many (not necessarily all) of the founders of the government did have christian roots. It's not much different than today in that just because someone says they are a christian doesn't make it so. Especially in politics where the candidate will often say whatever is popular to get the votes. When the whites did all of the wicked & terrible things that were done it was largely motivated by greed then too. There is nothing inherently wrong with the constitution just the people who ignore the parts they don't like & use it as they want to. The Bible is the perfect word of God, but many evils have been committed hiding behind religion (again sinful man using whatever is convenient to their sinful motives) But that is an whole other can of worms. : D
L.C.B.: Interesting, so we all learn something and read the Constitution to boot
W.R.: Rich...on the one hand u claim going back to the almighty original constitution is the answer...and we all know what and whom the Framers had in mind when they wrote the document. On the other hand u point out that in the face of people and their actions the Constitution is meaningless ...law and govt are social constructions defined by the people. The people starving during the Great Depression defined it and they got unions, workers rights, social security and welfare. The people of the civil rights era defined it and helped bring equality and protections for all of us. The protections these people fought for are exactly what most people who say they are against Big Govt are for while they so piously sit in church and pretend that they are for the poor and downtrodden from whose very children they wish to take food, healthcare, and education!
W.R.: At one point we had laissez fairre type government and where did it get us? Bush and clinton nearly brought down the economy with "less govt/more deregulation" thinking. Now that is a matter of history and fact...very recent history and... fact!
And if u really believe govt shouldn't regulate morality...let's start with abolishing laws against same sex marriage, abortion, drugs, and in fact any other crime ... Why is it ok to regulate those "sins" but not unbridled thievery and greed on Wall Street? Laws are passed to control those who can't live within the accepted rules of society.
What exactly IS your point...your goal in this debate Rich because YOU seem to get upset when the holes in your argument are pointed out.
W.R.: To correct my statement below... I meant to say that saying u r against Big Govt is code for "I don't want to help the poor and I don't think inequality should be addressed because me and mine are just fine." WWJD???
Me: W.R., Thank you for the insightful and provocative comments. Wow, I have been waiting for such a response. I'll try to address all of your points as I get time.
First, I did not claim that going back the ORIGINAL Constitution was the answer. I claimed that returning government to its constitutional limits was the answer. The problem: Government is too powerful and corruptible. Corporations and special interests want to influence that power. Solution: Remove the government's ability to give payoffs to its corporate cronies and powerful interests by removing its ability to exceed its constitutional authority.
Second, the Constitution is only as meaningful as any other law, to the extent it is obeyed. The Constutition is the highest law of the land. It creates, defines, and limits government. It must be obeyed, or if it is found wanting, it must be amended. It cannot be ignored.
Me: Again, the Constitution is about government. It only mentions the rights of the people in passing as it describes the limits of government, i.e., "Congress shall make no law..." This amendment does not grant us free speech or freedom of assembly, it tells government what it cannot do!
Our rights pre-exist government. The Declaration says they are unalienable (cannot be separated), endowed by our creator. Government's job is to "secure" our rights (make them safe).
So, the injustices perpetrated over the course of the history of this country are in direct violation of its founding principles and founding documents.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
The "Broken Window Fallacy" Via Walter E. Williams
French economist Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) explained, "There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen."
Bastiat elaborated further in his "Broken Window Fallacy" parable where a vandal smashes a shopkeeper's window. A crowd forms, sympathizing with the shopkeeper. Soon, someone in the crowd suggests that instead of a tragedy, there might be a silver lining. Instead of the boy being a vandal, he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town. Fixing the broken window creates employment for the glazier, who will then buy bread and benefit the baker, who will then buy shoes and benefit the cobbler and so forth.
Bastiat says that's what's seen. What is not seen is what the shopkeeper would have done with the money had his window not been smashed. He might have purchased a suit from the tailor. Therefore, an act that created a job for the glazier destroyed a job for the tailor. On top of that, had the property destruction not occurred, the shopkeeper would have had a suit and a window. Now he has just a window and as a result, he is poorer.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=278217#ixzz1HR8j3JN2
Bastiat elaborated further in his "Broken Window Fallacy" parable where a vandal smashes a shopkeeper's window. A crowd forms, sympathizing with the shopkeeper. Soon, someone in the crowd suggests that instead of a tragedy, there might be a silver lining. Instead of the boy being a vandal, he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town. Fixing the broken window creates employment for the glazier, who will then buy bread and benefit the baker, who will then buy shoes and benefit the cobbler and so forth.
Bastiat says that's what's seen. What is not seen is what the shopkeeper would have done with the money had his window not been smashed. He might have purchased a suit from the tailor. Therefore, an act that created a job for the glazier destroyed a job for the tailor. On top of that, had the property destruction not occurred, the shopkeeper would have had a suit and a window. Now he has just a window and as a result, he is poorer.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=278217#ixzz1HR8j3JN2
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Charlie Sykes - Piggybank
This guy says it better than I could:
My 401K is down 40%, my employer just cut the match; and it looks like I may have work until I’m 70 years old. I also pay for pensions to public employees who retired in their 50s.
I don’t have enough money to go on vacation this year, but I paid my share of the federal government’s $2.6 million grant to teach Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly. I pay for bridges to nowhere.
I drive a 1997 Honda Accord, but I had to pay for my neighbor’s $41,000 electric car. I also bailed out the United Auto Workers.
I contribute to my children’s 529 college savings plan, but since I don’t qualify for financial aid I pay for other people’s kids to go to school as well. I also pay for the sociology classes where I am sneered at for my lack of social conscience and denounced as the very essence of greed, racism and environmental insensitivity.
I exercise regularly, watch my cholesterol, and pay for my own health insurance as well as copays and deductibles. I also pay for Other People’s tonsillectomies, appendectomies and occasional rhinoplasties. I pay taxes for Medicare, Medicaid and for various medical programs for poor children and now I will get to subsidize the health care of several million more non-elderly, non-impoverished Americans.
My small business just lost its line of credit, but I paid to bail out Citigroup, AIG, and Goldman Sachs, whose executives get bonuses bigger than my entire net worth.
I pay my mortgage, but I also pay to bail out banks who made risky loans and yuppies, who have trouble paying $700,000 mortgages on their McMansions they bought with no-down payment, adjustable rate deals.
I pay for groceries for my family, but also pay millionaire farmers not grow stuff like rice. I buy dinner for more than 41 million food stamp recipients (although, they now call it Food Shares.). I also pay for school lunches. And breakfasts, since others parents apparently can’t be expected to feed their kids. I get to have red meat once a week, but I get to pay for urban hipsters to buy organic salmon at Whole Foods.
I pay my electricity and gas bills, but I also pay for other people’s air conditioning, cell phones, digital televisions, new windows, subsidized rent, and remodeling,
I pay for my daughter’s ballet lessons, but also pay for universities to develop computerized choreography programs that will help develop “interactive dance performances with real-time audience interactions.” I probably won’t be able to make the show, since I’ll be working.
I’m trying to save enough money in case I lose my job, but I pay for more than 70 different means-tested poverty programs
Because I work hard and am successful, I am in the 10% of Americans, who now pay more than 71 percent of the total federal income tax burden. The top 50 percent of earners pay 97.11 percent. In others words, the bottom half of American earners– theoretically 50 percent of the electorate – pay less than 3 percent of federal income taxes. I pay for them.
I pay property taxes, sales, excise taxes, taxes on my phone, my cable, my water; state income taxes, Social security and Medicare taxes. I also help pay the bills for the nearly half of households who no longer pay any federal income tax. I also pay the bills for the 60 to 70 percent of households who receive more from the government than they pay in.
I expect no gratitude for any of this; it has been years since the term “provider” was a matter of societal respect and personal pride. I understand that the transfer of wealth from makers to takers is seen as morally purer than the efforts of those who created wealth in the first place.
I know my role.
I am the piggybank.
Copyright 2011 Charles J. Sykes, from my upcoming book, A Nation of Moochers, from St. Martin’s Press.
My 401K is down 40%, my employer just cut the match; and it looks like I may have work until I’m 70 years old. I also pay for pensions to public employees who retired in their 50s.
I don’t have enough money to go on vacation this year, but I paid my share of the federal government’s $2.6 million grant to teach Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly. I pay for bridges to nowhere.
I drive a 1997 Honda Accord, but I had to pay for my neighbor’s $41,000 electric car. I also bailed out the United Auto Workers.
I contribute to my children’s 529 college savings plan, but since I don’t qualify for financial aid I pay for other people’s kids to go to school as well. I also pay for the sociology classes where I am sneered at for my lack of social conscience and denounced as the very essence of greed, racism and environmental insensitivity.
I exercise regularly, watch my cholesterol, and pay for my own health insurance as well as copays and deductibles. I also pay for Other People’s tonsillectomies, appendectomies and occasional rhinoplasties. I pay taxes for Medicare, Medicaid and for various medical programs for poor children and now I will get to subsidize the health care of several million more non-elderly, non-impoverished Americans.
My small business just lost its line of credit, but I paid to bail out Citigroup, AIG, and Goldman Sachs, whose executives get bonuses bigger than my entire net worth.
I pay my mortgage, but I also pay to bail out banks who made risky loans and yuppies, who have trouble paying $700,000 mortgages on their McMansions they bought with no-down payment, adjustable rate deals.
I pay for groceries for my family, but also pay millionaire farmers not grow stuff like rice. I buy dinner for more than 41 million food stamp recipients (although, they now call it Food Shares.). I also pay for school lunches. And breakfasts, since others parents apparently can’t be expected to feed their kids. I get to have red meat once a week, but I get to pay for urban hipsters to buy organic salmon at Whole Foods.
I pay my electricity and gas bills, but I also pay for other people’s air conditioning, cell phones, digital televisions, new windows, subsidized rent, and remodeling,
I pay for my daughter’s ballet lessons, but also pay for universities to develop computerized choreography programs that will help develop “interactive dance performances with real-time audience interactions.” I probably won’t be able to make the show, since I’ll be working.
I’m trying to save enough money in case I lose my job, but I pay for more than 70 different means-tested poverty programs
Because I work hard and am successful, I am in the 10% of Americans, who now pay more than 71 percent of the total federal income tax burden. The top 50 percent of earners pay 97.11 percent. In others words, the bottom half of American earners– theoretically 50 percent of the electorate – pay less than 3 percent of federal income taxes. I pay for them.
I pay property taxes, sales, excise taxes, taxes on my phone, my cable, my water; state income taxes, Social security and Medicare taxes. I also help pay the bills for the nearly half of households who no longer pay any federal income tax. I also pay the bills for the 60 to 70 percent of households who receive more from the government than they pay in.
I expect no gratitude for any of this; it has been years since the term “provider” was a matter of societal respect and personal pride. I understand that the transfer of wealth from makers to takers is seen as morally purer than the efforts of those who created wealth in the first place.
I know my role.
I am the piggybank.
Copyright 2011 Charles J. Sykes, from my upcoming book, A Nation of Moochers, from St. Martin’s Press.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Editorial, problems in the church
I have been very critical of government in my columns. Government is a target-rich environment and deserves scrutiny. It is a juggernaut, and we tend to think we can’t do anything about it. So, my columns give voice to those who are reluctant to speak up and risk the vociferous attacks from the political left.
In my last column I discussed the problem of the government church. Today I want to share some random thoughts regarding problems in the Christian Church. However, I won’t pile onto the hostile caricatures created by the irreligious. We know how kooky and bizarre some of the criticisms tend to be. No, I’m going to write about the Church as a believer.
Don’t be surprised. I have already criticized the Church for being tax-exempt. A few months ago I wrote, “Churches should drop their tax-exempt status -- they are exchanging silence on politics for a payoff.” Churches should throw off the government yoke and speak freely about sin and redemption.
In the past I have complained that government has stolen our individual obligation for charity by inserting itself into the compassion equation. I hereby retract this. Actually, the Church ceded its obligations and allowed government to take them over. The Church said nothing when the government became a competitor. And now their silence is enforced via tax law. Talk about a deal with the devil!
Recently I learned that a local pastor makes good money in a relatively small church. I wonder how this congregation justifies a salary that is double the average income of its parishioners. I also wonder if there is much money left for looking after “…orphans and widows in their distress…” This is one of the primary missions of the Church, but so many pastors take the lion’s share of their church’s money.
I’ve noticed that some local churches have built beautiful new facilities. I’m sure that these were undertaken in good faith by well-meaning congregations. But would it be impolite to ask what percentage of their budgets are devoted to the poor? I’m hoping it is a substantial number, but I’ve been on more than one church board in my life and know that this is not always the case.
A local church just sold its building. Good people there. But what if they decided to take their building fund and minister to the disadvantaged instead? “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
Another local church had its pastor retire. Again, all top notch people. But are they absolutely sure that they need to hire a replacement, or is it in the realm of possibility that they don't need a professional, that the talent and gifts already in the congregation are sufficient to meet every need?
One last thing bothers me: Democracy in the Church. We all know that the Founders of our country regarded democracy as an undesirable form of government akin to tyranny, so why would the Church want to be democratic? The early church made its decisions with prayer and fasting in the counsel of the elders. There is no biblical mention of the Church voting on anything.
None of this is intended as condemnation. I have been to many, many churches in the valley, and the caliber of people is remarkable in each and every one. All I'm suggesting is perhaps there are alternatives to doing church business as usual.
If the Church truly wants to be a moving force in society, it needs to embrace its call to be salt and light. If it wants to make a difference, let it be a voice of righteousness and purity. The Church has hid inside its buildings for too long. It is fact that when the church is active in the world, the world is a better place.
In my last column I discussed the problem of the government church. Today I want to share some random thoughts regarding problems in the Christian Church. However, I won’t pile onto the hostile caricatures created by the irreligious. We know how kooky and bizarre some of the criticisms tend to be. No, I’m going to write about the Church as a believer.
Don’t be surprised. I have already criticized the Church for being tax-exempt. A few months ago I wrote, “Churches should drop their tax-exempt status -- they are exchanging silence on politics for a payoff.” Churches should throw off the government yoke and speak freely about sin and redemption.
In the past I have complained that government has stolen our individual obligation for charity by inserting itself into the compassion equation. I hereby retract this. Actually, the Church ceded its obligations and allowed government to take them over. The Church said nothing when the government became a competitor. And now their silence is enforced via tax law. Talk about a deal with the devil!
Recently I learned that a local pastor makes good money in a relatively small church. I wonder how this congregation justifies a salary that is double the average income of its parishioners. I also wonder if there is much money left for looking after “…orphans and widows in their distress…” This is one of the primary missions of the Church, but so many pastors take the lion’s share of their church’s money.
I’ve noticed that some local churches have built beautiful new facilities. I’m sure that these were undertaken in good faith by well-meaning congregations. But would it be impolite to ask what percentage of their budgets are devoted to the poor? I’m hoping it is a substantial number, but I’ve been on more than one church board in my life and know that this is not always the case.
A local church just sold its building. Good people there. But what if they decided to take their building fund and minister to the disadvantaged instead? “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
Another local church had its pastor retire. Again, all top notch people. But are they absolutely sure that they need to hire a replacement, or is it in the realm of possibility that they don't need a professional, that the talent and gifts already in the congregation are sufficient to meet every need?
One last thing bothers me: Democracy in the Church. We all know that the Founders of our country regarded democracy as an undesirable form of government akin to tyranny, so why would the Church want to be democratic? The early church made its decisions with prayer and fasting in the counsel of the elders. There is no biblical mention of the Church voting on anything.
None of this is intended as condemnation. I have been to many, many churches in the valley, and the caliber of people is remarkable in each and every one. All I'm suggesting is perhaps there are alternatives to doing church business as usual.
If the Church truly wants to be a moving force in society, it needs to embrace its call to be salt and light. If it wants to make a difference, let it be a voice of righteousness and purity. The Church has hid inside its buildings for too long. It is fact that when the church is active in the world, the world is a better place.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Bad worship songs - For Your Glory
From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.
With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.
What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?
We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:
With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.
What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?
We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:
- A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
- A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
- A focus on God, not us
- Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
- A certain amount of profundity
- A singable, interesting melody
- Allusions to Scripture
- Doctrinal soundness
- Not excessively metaphorical
- Not excessively repetitive
- Jesus is not your boyfriend
It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit.
Here are the words to a song we did recently in church. I sent the following analysis to the leadership, since I wasn't quite sure about the song's message.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Editorial, the government church
I sometimes get exasperated at the tactics of churches. They want my money and to control what I do. They always need more in the offering plate, and they have this endless list of rules, telling me how to live my life.
Wait, did I say churches? Excuse me, I meant government. Is there any doubt that our government resembles the worst kind of caricature of a money-grubbing, overbearing church? Indeed, government has become preoccupied with extracting our money and changing our behavior.
Here’s what I mean. On the radio this morning was a torrent of advertising by various government agencies. There was FBI this week (fbi.gov), warning us about health insurance fraud. And boosterseat.gov, brought to us by the DOT, wants us to know how important it is to secure our children in the car.
HHS has a list of medical tests that will help keep you from dying prematurely. They are also running humorous spots about how eating healthy and exercising will get rid of thunder thighs and double chins.
There is also a barrage of ads about “buzzed driving is drunk driving,” paid for by ahrq.gov, an agency of the DOT. These ads are on day after day, all paid for by your tax dollars, brought to you by a government awash in red ink.
So here’s the tactics of behavioral change. First government gives us helpful information and reminders. Then they cajole. After that comes the guilt. Finally, laws get passed. It’s creeping tyranny, and it’s all because they know better than you how you should lead your life.
This is the nanny state. Government bureaucrats are so sure you don’t know how to make good choices that they are happy to tell you over and over again what they think you should do. And as a bonus they make you pay for it all.
Taxation also intends to make us do things. Certainly taxes are necessary, but taxation is becoming a bludgeon to achieve societal outcomes. Carbon taxes, gas taxes, booze taxes, tobacco taxes. All these are designed to change behavior. Same with tax credits. The Homebuyers Tax Credit is to encourage homebuying. The Cash for Clunkers program? Increase car sales. And the tax credit for buying a hybrid? To save the planet, right?
None of this has anything to do with funding government operations. It has everything to do with making you behave in certain ways.
It’s death by a thousand cuts. It is manipulation, the goal of which is to influence the behavior of people to achieve certain outcomes for the “good” of society. Their version of “good.”
Government has gone from securing our rights to being actively involved in shaping society. We have a new Savior. Sorry Jesus, you’re not needed anymore. Government is going to save the economy, it’s going to save the planet, it’s going to save us from eeeevil CEOs. And yes, it’s going to save you from your pathetic self.
Despite all this, so many are willing to go along with it all. It makes me wonder, what ever happened to the protestors from the 60s? You know, the ones who bucked the establishment, who stood up against the entrenched power structure, who fought the Man. Where did they all go?
There are people who wouldn’t darken the door of a church, but are perfectly willing to bow before government. They bristle at a Christian telling them what they are doing might be wrong, but more than happy to have the government dictate to them what they can and cannot do.
So welcome to the great church of government, where taxes are the tithe, voting is the confessional, and congress is the priesthood. You get the church you pay for.
Wait, did I say churches? Excuse me, I meant government. Is there any doubt that our government resembles the worst kind of caricature of a money-grubbing, overbearing church? Indeed, government has become preoccupied with extracting our money and changing our behavior.
Here’s what I mean. On the radio this morning was a torrent of advertising by various government agencies. There was FBI this week (fbi.gov), warning us about health insurance fraud. And boosterseat.gov, brought to us by the DOT, wants us to know how important it is to secure our children in the car.
HHS has a list of medical tests that will help keep you from dying prematurely. They are also running humorous spots about how eating healthy and exercising will get rid of thunder thighs and double chins.
There is also a barrage of ads about “buzzed driving is drunk driving,” paid for by ahrq.gov, an agency of the DOT. These ads are on day after day, all paid for by your tax dollars, brought to you by a government awash in red ink.
So here’s the tactics of behavioral change. First government gives us helpful information and reminders. Then they cajole. After that comes the guilt. Finally, laws get passed. It’s creeping tyranny, and it’s all because they know better than you how you should lead your life.
This is the nanny state. Government bureaucrats are so sure you don’t know how to make good choices that they are happy to tell you over and over again what they think you should do. And as a bonus they make you pay for it all.
Taxation also intends to make us do things. Certainly taxes are necessary, but taxation is becoming a bludgeon to achieve societal outcomes. Carbon taxes, gas taxes, booze taxes, tobacco taxes. All these are designed to change behavior. Same with tax credits. The Homebuyers Tax Credit is to encourage homebuying. The Cash for Clunkers program? Increase car sales. And the tax credit for buying a hybrid? To save the planet, right?
None of this has anything to do with funding government operations. It has everything to do with making you behave in certain ways.
It’s death by a thousand cuts. It is manipulation, the goal of which is to influence the behavior of people to achieve certain outcomes for the “good” of society. Their version of “good.”
Government has gone from securing our rights to being actively involved in shaping society. We have a new Savior. Sorry Jesus, you’re not needed anymore. Government is going to save the economy, it’s going to save the planet, it’s going to save us from eeeevil CEOs. And yes, it’s going to save you from your pathetic self.
Despite all this, so many are willing to go along with it all. It makes me wonder, what ever happened to the protestors from the 60s? You know, the ones who bucked the establishment, who stood up against the entrenched power structure, who fought the Man. Where did they all go?
There are people who wouldn’t darken the door of a church, but are perfectly willing to bow before government. They bristle at a Christian telling them what they are doing might be wrong, but more than happy to have the government dictate to them what they can and cannot do.
So welcome to the great church of government, where taxes are the tithe, voting is the confessional, and congress is the priesthood. You get the church you pay for.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Global warming facebook discussion
From minnesotaindependent.com:
"Rep. Mike Beard (R-Shakopee) is pushing for more new coal-fired power plants in Minnesota, but the Shakopee Republican is undeterred by reports about the effects of carbon-emitting energy production on global warming. His reason: He believes God will prevent the planet from running out of fossil fuel..."
JB: Oy Vey!
AE: Half the continent was buried in snow a few weeks ago. Yep, the world is warming up! Hurry up, people! Reduce your carbon emissions exponentially by holding your breath until you expire.
SB: AE, don't be so disingenuous. Despite all that snow, 2010 was the second warmest year on record. And you probably KNEW that.
AE: On record since when? Was someone keeping track 100,000 years ago? Or a million? Or a billion? Just curious where the benchmark comes from.
SB: Andrew, don't be deliberately ignorant. I refuse to argue with fools.
NS: You the man. Deliberate Ignorance is the last stronghold of the defeated.
SB: I've wasted WAAAAAY too many hours "arguing" this topic with people on other forums, to bother here. Anyone who knows enough to ask these questions, knows enough to know that they are red herrings. And I'm just tired of playing. ...
If you want to be taken seriously, be serious.
NS: Incidently how does a guy that spends his day thinking (which I understand is the most basic form of your job (TOTALLY AWESOME)) manage to give a crap about politics? I can't seem to spend more than 8 seconds talking/thinking about it without losing all my faith in humanity, gaining a desire to drink myself to death, and trying to forget that I have an opinion anyways. I mean HOW DO YOU LIVE? I need some help on that one man I really do I respect you for it but I can't understand it.
SB: the truth is, Neil, I've become far less political than I was back when I actually was an elected official (in my late teens/early 20's, I was elected a couple of times to local school boards, just like Michael Moore -- in fact, Michael was... in a young school board member's caucus that I helped to start, back before he started making movies).
I think that time in office gave me some perspective -- for one, I was quite a bit more liberal then than now, and had to represent people who DIDN'T vote for me, as well as those who did. So I learned a certain detachment from my own views, at least for purposes of argument sake.
In the end, though, the main factor is that I grew up with a father who was to the right of Ronald Reagan on many issues, while I was a socialist (and the criteria for being a socialist then were a lot tougher than merely voting Democratic). We argued politics incessantly, but we always ended our arguments as friends. He taught me to value character over beliefs, which is why I tend to get more upset over HOW someone presents their beliefs than what they actually think. If they can argue honestly, with an understanding of their own biases, and without name calling or TOO much hyperbole..I'll be happy to talk with them.
Mind you, I don't always live up to my own standards, but that's what I aspire to.
JC: 'Global Warming' is nothing more than poor marketing...had they called it 'Global Climate Change' from the start there would be far fewer arguments.
SB: maybe. But I doubt it.
JC: Yeah...who am I kidding...there will always be someone that thinks that the sight of snow or frost on a window throws the whole 'warming' argument out of the window.
AE: What is ignorant about wanting to know where the benchmark comes from? Seriously. Honest question. How far can we go back with temperature records?
Me: the 1880s.
AE: Thanks Rich. So let's see, if I use a scientifically conservative guesstimate that the Earth is about 200 million years old, that means we've been keeping an accurate record of temperatures for about .00000065 % of the Earth's life.
JC: But Andrew...the bible says that the Earth is only thousands of years old
Me: Very few people believe the earth is young. It is dishonest to suggest that there are only two choices.
SB: Rich is right, instrument-based temperature records go back about 130 years. Proxy records (measured indirectly through a variety of methods, of highly varying degrees of reliability) can be developed to take us back as far as you'd like to trust the science. Let's say, for sake of argument, a couple hundred thousand years (though we have insights into earlier climates as well).
So when I say "warmest on record," I mean during the 130 years in which temperature data has been collected by instruments.
It is not any one set of temperature data, however, that give reason for concern. It's the convergence of theory and observation that point to man made climate change. In fact, any valid argument that the earth ISN'T warming due to man made causes, needs to explain why not -- because there are provable reasons why it should, established by Arrehnius (a chemist) nearly 120 years ago and based entirely on physical properties of CO2 and other gases that are known to several significant digits.
To date, nobody's come up with a sound explanation that takes into account both the current warming trend, AND factors in what we know to be true about CO2's impact in the atmosphere, other than the anthropogenic global warming model.
until they do, the way that science works is that you have that first burden of proof to meet, before you can be taken very seriously. If your theory doesn't do at LEAST as good a job of explaining what we observe and know as the current theory, it's not a very good one.
JC: No shit Sherlock
SB: 200 million years is not scientifically conservative. It's non-scientific. The current estimate is in the 4.5 billion year range. Shaving off 4 billion years from that isn't being "scientifically conservative" but rather just ignoring science.
But that said, it's irrelevant to the argument over man made climate change. Because nobody disputes that the climate is always in flux. Just what role we are playing in the current changes. And the evidence nearly all points to us having a significant --even driving -- impact.
That is, until someone can explain what I posted above -- i.e., what OTHER causes are responsible, and why isn't man-made CO2 responsible even though every physical chemistry measurement says it should be?
In science, precedent is not explanation. Just because the earth has warmed before, is not sufficient explanation for why it is warming now.See More
Me: Scott is right. The debate is not about climate change.
In fact, it isn't even really about the anthropogenic piece. The debate is really a political one.
SB: The science is largely settled. Rich is right the issue is what, if anything, to do about it. Science can't answer that one.
Me: Precisely, Scott. The government solution should not be the default choice.
AE: Scott, I will readily concede that I have neither the knowledge base nor the experience to argue the subject with any credibility. I've seen all kinds of theories, none of which have really stuck in my mind aside from the one that has everyone's attention. I'll admit it - I'm more than a little bit apathetic toward the subject – in terms of science, anyway. What I do know is that my wardrobe has varied throughout the years in response to cycles in nature, some of which, it appears perfectly plausible, last longer than a few lifetimes. Do humans impact the environment? Absolutely. Must we be good stewards? Absolutely. Do I have any faith in the projections of Earth’s demise by carbon emissions? I don’t. Whether that makes me a fool, a damn fool, or merely a skeptic – well, only time will tell. In the meantime, human history is rife with abuse and manipulation of the masses, and that is a constant that no amount of facts and figures will ever lay a finger on so long as human nature exists. The “what to do about it” is, in my line of thinking, what concerns me most.
SB: So let me understand this -- and I really don't want to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong: you're willing to acknowledge science so long as it doesn't disagree with your beliefs, or inconvenience you in any way. Is that about right?
BTW, no one argues that climate change will lead to the "earth's demise." Merely large scale extinctions of species, massive dislocations and suffering of people (half a billion people live in floodplains that are likely to be innundated and made inhospitable -- and unfarmable -- within the next 50 years or so because of climate change) and significant losses to property. The earth will survive all of that quite nicely, thank you. So will mankind.
But it's the quality of life, and the extent of suffering that we're willing to impose on one another, that concerns those of us who take this seriously. People talk about the cost of stopping or mitigating climate change, but there are also large costs of inaction, so the real issue is who ends up footing the bill? That's where I'll plead ignorance -- I have my own opinions over whether profits, or people, are more important, but I do not have a liberal arts education, and can't put those opinions into any sort of rational moral or philosophical framework.
RS:No need to apologize. Skepticism used to be highly valued in science.
AE: Science is invaluable. Information is power. And power is abused. I don't just acknowledge science, I recognize that it is perfectly impartial to my beliefs, convenient or not. And in this age in human history, the scientific establishment (meaning people, not science itself) are a pretty necessary component of the new oligarchy.
SB: it still is, Rich. But it's always been about INFORMED skepticism. Asking questions is essential, and as I've stated many times in this debate, or any other scientific discussion, scientific truth is always contingent -- theories change and evolve constantly, so there's no point in getting too attached.
that said, there's a difference between skepticism, and simply refusing to accept the parts of the data or theory which are at odds with your personal beliefs. Einstein was skeptical about many of the implications of quantum theory -- a theory which, ironically, he helped to create. He famously said, "I refuse to believe that God plays dice with the universe" (paraphrasing slightly). Yet, he understood that those ideas in quantum theory which caused him the greatest discomfort, were a critical part of its success (and it is a very successful theory, from the point of view of how well, and how precisely, it allows us to predict results).
IMO, discarding parts of a theory which you don't even understand, is not skepticism. It's cynicism, and I don't think they're the same thing.
AE: Tell you what, if the definition of a cynic permits them to be jolly, you may call me a cynic.
You and your sons have fantastic and admirable minds. I wish the one of them would stop unfriending me.
SB: with regard to said son, sometimes, it's necessary to "unfriend" people on Facebook, in order to remain friends in real life. I hope you agree that the latter is a higher priority. ;-)
Me: "Informed skepticism" is a value judgment. Belittling skeptics and quashing dissent is a political bludgeon frequently used to silence dissent, even by scientists against other scientists.
AE: SB, agreed. Please tell him I say hello. Rich, excellent observation. One Peter Duesberg comes to mind.
SB: sorry, rich, but unlike some areas of public discourse, and in brainstorming, in science there IS such a thing as a dumb question.
Me: With all due respect, that is an a priori appraisal which assumes your side is unassailably correct while those on the other side are dumb or ignorant. That is not science.
The next step is to catagorize opposition scientists as tools of Big Oil, or lacking expertise, or outside the mainstream. That is also not science.
SG: I so agree with you on this subject, Scott. We, as human beings, should be responsible for our actions and the impact they impose on our earth. Being ignorant and having your head buried in the sand is not a solution. If temps have only been measured since the 1800's, we should be smart enough to look at the data and live accordingly. It's sad that this subject has become political! I think that in the next 50 years, fresh drinking water may be a hot commodity on a global scale.
BTW: my wife decided she really likes this Scott guy!
SB: Rich -- On this topic (the nature of science) I will push back a little -- aside from spending 27 years of my life working as a research scientist, I have also spent an even longer time reading and thinking about the history and philosophy of science. And I think that you might have missed my point.
To wit: I claimed that, "...in science, there IS such a thing as a dumb question". And I will stand by that 100%. The reason there are dumb questions is because science, unlike most other world views, is a cumulative way of creating knowledge. Once I've established, for instance, that CO2 has the physical property of absorbing light energy in one portion of the spectrum, and re-emitting it in another part, I do not have to go back and prove that over and over again. Furthermore, it is only open for re-examination if a body of data emerges which is inconsistent with that observed "fact" or unless a theory which is otherwise very compelling, suggests that some other outcome ought to be expected.
It's this aggregation of knowledge ("standing on the shoulders of giants" in the words of Newton) that has allowed modern science to be such an effective tool for explaining the physical world.
In the climate debate, there are plenty of dumb questions that are passed off as skepticism. "What about solar variability?" is a good example. Yes, solar radiation does vary, but the pattern of that variation does NOT correlate to current temperature trends -- and this has been reasonably well established. So to continually ask the question as if it is a new thought, or a matter of great scientific uncertainty, is arguably a dumb question. Now, it doesn't mean the person asking is dumb -- they may be unaware that this question has been resolved, or they may be introducing it for any number of reasons.
But it doesn't warrant, IMO, the sort of serious reconsideration each and every time it's asked, unless new data or new theory somehow bring the accepted answer into doubt.
There are any number of other examples I could provide, but my point is merely this: science encourages skepticism and curiosity, but that does not mean that it must, or even SHOULD, treat every idea as being equally plausible, or of equal worth. In a scientific framework, there are LOTS of bad ideas, and dumb questions that do nothing to actually move our understanding of the world forward.
As far as disparaging research findings due to the source of funding: yeah there are people who will do that. I'm not one of them.
Me: I fear you also have missed my point. Nowhere have I discussed science, the properties of matter, or the reliability of outcomes of chemical reactions. I have restricted my comments to the behavior of people in the name of science.
It isn't about science. It's about the manipulation, interpretation, and political use of science according to a specific point of view.
It's the political equivalent of unfalsifiability.
"Rep. Mike Beard (R-Shakopee) is pushing for more new coal-fired power plants in Minnesota, but the Shakopee Republican is undeterred by reports about the effects of carbon-emitting energy production on global warming. His reason: He believes God will prevent the planet from running out of fossil fuel..."
JB: Oy Vey!
AE: Half the continent was buried in snow a few weeks ago. Yep, the world is warming up! Hurry up, people! Reduce your carbon emissions exponentially by holding your breath until you expire.
SB: AE, don't be so disingenuous. Despite all that snow, 2010 was the second warmest year on record. And you probably KNEW that.
AE: On record since when? Was someone keeping track 100,000 years ago? Or a million? Or a billion? Just curious where the benchmark comes from.
SB: Andrew, don't be deliberately ignorant. I refuse to argue with fools.
NS: You the man. Deliberate Ignorance is the last stronghold of the defeated.
SB: I've wasted WAAAAAY too many hours "arguing" this topic with people on other forums, to bother here. Anyone who knows enough to ask these questions, knows enough to know that they are red herrings. And I'm just tired of playing. ...
If you want to be taken seriously, be serious.
NS: Incidently how does a guy that spends his day thinking (which I understand is the most basic form of your job (TOTALLY AWESOME)) manage to give a crap about politics? I can't seem to spend more than 8 seconds talking/thinking about it without losing all my faith in humanity, gaining a desire to drink myself to death, and trying to forget that I have an opinion anyways. I mean HOW DO YOU LIVE? I need some help on that one man I really do I respect you for it but I can't understand it.
SB: the truth is, Neil, I've become far less political than I was back when I actually was an elected official (in my late teens/early 20's, I was elected a couple of times to local school boards, just like Michael Moore -- in fact, Michael was... in a young school board member's caucus that I helped to start, back before he started making movies).
I think that time in office gave me some perspective -- for one, I was quite a bit more liberal then than now, and had to represent people who DIDN'T vote for me, as well as those who did. So I learned a certain detachment from my own views, at least for purposes of argument sake.
In the end, though, the main factor is that I grew up with a father who was to the right of Ronald Reagan on many issues, while I was a socialist (and the criteria for being a socialist then were a lot tougher than merely voting Democratic). We argued politics incessantly, but we always ended our arguments as friends. He taught me to value character over beliefs, which is why I tend to get more upset over HOW someone presents their beliefs than what they actually think. If they can argue honestly, with an understanding of their own biases, and without name calling or TOO much hyperbole..I'll be happy to talk with them.
Mind you, I don't always live up to my own standards, but that's what I aspire to.
JC: 'Global Warming' is nothing more than poor marketing...had they called it 'Global Climate Change' from the start there would be far fewer arguments.
SB: maybe. But I doubt it.
JC: Yeah...who am I kidding...there will always be someone that thinks that the sight of snow or frost on a window throws the whole 'warming' argument out of the window.
AE: What is ignorant about wanting to know where the benchmark comes from? Seriously. Honest question. How far can we go back with temperature records?
Me: the 1880s.
AE: Thanks Rich. So let's see, if I use a scientifically conservative guesstimate that the Earth is about 200 million years old, that means we've been keeping an accurate record of temperatures for about .00000065 % of the Earth's life.
JC: But Andrew...the bible says that the Earth is only thousands of years old
Me: Very few people believe the earth is young. It is dishonest to suggest that there are only two choices.
SB: Rich is right, instrument-based temperature records go back about 130 years. Proxy records (measured indirectly through a variety of methods, of highly varying degrees of reliability) can be developed to take us back as far as you'd like to trust the science. Let's say, for sake of argument, a couple hundred thousand years (though we have insights into earlier climates as well).
So when I say "warmest on record," I mean during the 130 years in which temperature data has been collected by instruments.
It is not any one set of temperature data, however, that give reason for concern. It's the convergence of theory and observation that point to man made climate change. In fact, any valid argument that the earth ISN'T warming due to man made causes, needs to explain why not -- because there are provable reasons why it should, established by Arrehnius (a chemist) nearly 120 years ago and based entirely on physical properties of CO2 and other gases that are known to several significant digits.
To date, nobody's come up with a sound explanation that takes into account both the current warming trend, AND factors in what we know to be true about CO2's impact in the atmosphere, other than the anthropogenic global warming model.
until they do, the way that science works is that you have that first burden of proof to meet, before you can be taken very seriously. If your theory doesn't do at LEAST as good a job of explaining what we observe and know as the current theory, it's not a very good one.
JC: No shit Sherlock
SB: 200 million years is not scientifically conservative. It's non-scientific. The current estimate is in the 4.5 billion year range. Shaving off 4 billion years from that isn't being "scientifically conservative" but rather just ignoring science.
But that said, it's irrelevant to the argument over man made climate change. Because nobody disputes that the climate is always in flux. Just what role we are playing in the current changes. And the evidence nearly all points to us having a significant --even driving -- impact.
That is, until someone can explain what I posted above -- i.e., what OTHER causes are responsible, and why isn't man-made CO2 responsible even though every physical chemistry measurement says it should be?
In science, precedent is not explanation. Just because the earth has warmed before, is not sufficient explanation for why it is warming now.See More
Me: Scott is right. The debate is not about climate change.
In fact, it isn't even really about the anthropogenic piece. The debate is really a political one.
SB: The science is largely settled. Rich is right the issue is what, if anything, to do about it. Science can't answer that one.
Me: Precisely, Scott. The government solution should not be the default choice.
AE: Scott, I will readily concede that I have neither the knowledge base nor the experience to argue the subject with any credibility. I've seen all kinds of theories, none of which have really stuck in my mind aside from the one that has everyone's attention. I'll admit it - I'm more than a little bit apathetic toward the subject – in terms of science, anyway. What I do know is that my wardrobe has varied throughout the years in response to cycles in nature, some of which, it appears perfectly plausible, last longer than a few lifetimes. Do humans impact the environment? Absolutely. Must we be good stewards? Absolutely. Do I have any faith in the projections of Earth’s demise by carbon emissions? I don’t. Whether that makes me a fool, a damn fool, or merely a skeptic – well, only time will tell. In the meantime, human history is rife with abuse and manipulation of the masses, and that is a constant that no amount of facts and figures will ever lay a finger on so long as human nature exists. The “what to do about it” is, in my line of thinking, what concerns me most.
SB: So let me understand this -- and I really don't want to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong: you're willing to acknowledge science so long as it doesn't disagree with your beliefs, or inconvenience you in any way. Is that about right?
BTW, no one argues that climate change will lead to the "earth's demise." Merely large scale extinctions of species, massive dislocations and suffering of people (half a billion people live in floodplains that are likely to be innundated and made inhospitable -- and unfarmable -- within the next 50 years or so because of climate change) and significant losses to property. The earth will survive all of that quite nicely, thank you. So will mankind.
But it's the quality of life, and the extent of suffering that we're willing to impose on one another, that concerns those of us who take this seriously. People talk about the cost of stopping or mitigating climate change, but there are also large costs of inaction, so the real issue is who ends up footing the bill? That's where I'll plead ignorance -- I have my own opinions over whether profits, or people, are more important, but I do not have a liberal arts education, and can't put those opinions into any sort of rational moral or philosophical framework.
RS:No need to apologize. Skepticism used to be highly valued in science.
AE: Science is invaluable. Information is power. And power is abused. I don't just acknowledge science, I recognize that it is perfectly impartial to my beliefs, convenient or not. And in this age in human history, the scientific establishment (meaning people, not science itself) are a pretty necessary component of the new oligarchy.
SB: it still is, Rich. But it's always been about INFORMED skepticism. Asking questions is essential, and as I've stated many times in this debate, or any other scientific discussion, scientific truth is always contingent -- theories change and evolve constantly, so there's no point in getting too attached.
that said, there's a difference between skepticism, and simply refusing to accept the parts of the data or theory which are at odds with your personal beliefs. Einstein was skeptical about many of the implications of quantum theory -- a theory which, ironically, he helped to create. He famously said, "I refuse to believe that God plays dice with the universe" (paraphrasing slightly). Yet, he understood that those ideas in quantum theory which caused him the greatest discomfort, were a critical part of its success (and it is a very successful theory, from the point of view of how well, and how precisely, it allows us to predict results).
IMO, discarding parts of a theory which you don't even understand, is not skepticism. It's cynicism, and I don't think they're the same thing.
AE: Tell you what, if the definition of a cynic permits them to be jolly, you may call me a cynic.
You and your sons have fantastic and admirable minds. I wish the one of them would stop unfriending me.
SB: with regard to said son, sometimes, it's necessary to "unfriend" people on Facebook, in order to remain friends in real life. I hope you agree that the latter is a higher priority. ;-)
Me: "Informed skepticism" is a value judgment. Belittling skeptics and quashing dissent is a political bludgeon frequently used to silence dissent, even by scientists against other scientists.
AE: SB, agreed. Please tell him I say hello. Rich, excellent observation. One Peter Duesberg comes to mind.
SB: sorry, rich, but unlike some areas of public discourse, and in brainstorming, in science there IS such a thing as a dumb question.
Me: With all due respect, that is an a priori appraisal which assumes your side is unassailably correct while those on the other side are dumb or ignorant. That is not science.
The next step is to catagorize opposition scientists as tools of Big Oil, or lacking expertise, or outside the mainstream. That is also not science.
SG: I so agree with you on this subject, Scott. We, as human beings, should be responsible for our actions and the impact they impose on our earth. Being ignorant and having your head buried in the sand is not a solution. If temps have only been measured since the 1800's, we should be smart enough to look at the data and live accordingly. It's sad that this subject has become political! I think that in the next 50 years, fresh drinking water may be a hot commodity on a global scale.
BTW: my wife decided she really likes this Scott guy!
SB: Rich -- On this topic (the nature of science) I will push back a little -- aside from spending 27 years of my life working as a research scientist, I have also spent an even longer time reading and thinking about the history and philosophy of science. And I think that you might have missed my point.
To wit: I claimed that, "...in science, there IS such a thing as a dumb question". And I will stand by that 100%. The reason there are dumb questions is because science, unlike most other world views, is a cumulative way of creating knowledge. Once I've established, for instance, that CO2 has the physical property of absorbing light energy in one portion of the spectrum, and re-emitting it in another part, I do not have to go back and prove that over and over again. Furthermore, it is only open for re-examination if a body of data emerges which is inconsistent with that observed "fact" or unless a theory which is otherwise very compelling, suggests that some other outcome ought to be expected.
It's this aggregation of knowledge ("standing on the shoulders of giants" in the words of Newton) that has allowed modern science to be such an effective tool for explaining the physical world.
In the climate debate, there are plenty of dumb questions that are passed off as skepticism. "What about solar variability?" is a good example. Yes, solar radiation does vary, but the pattern of that variation does NOT correlate to current temperature trends -- and this has been reasonably well established. So to continually ask the question as if it is a new thought, or a matter of great scientific uncertainty, is arguably a dumb question. Now, it doesn't mean the person asking is dumb -- they may be unaware that this question has been resolved, or they may be introducing it for any number of reasons.
But it doesn't warrant, IMO, the sort of serious reconsideration each and every time it's asked, unless new data or new theory somehow bring the accepted answer into doubt.
There are any number of other examples I could provide, but my point is merely this: science encourages skepticism and curiosity, but that does not mean that it must, or even SHOULD, treat every idea as being equally plausible, or of equal worth. In a scientific framework, there are LOTS of bad ideas, and dumb questions that do nothing to actually move our understanding of the world forward.
As far as disparaging research findings due to the source of funding: yeah there are people who will do that. I'm not one of them.
Me: I fear you also have missed my point. Nowhere have I discussed science, the properties of matter, or the reliability of outcomes of chemical reactions. I have restricted my comments to the behavior of people in the name of science.
It isn't about science. It's about the manipulation, interpretation, and political use of science according to a specific point of view.
It's the political equivalent of unfalsifiability.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Editoral, what's the story on the Story?
A couple of weeks ago the Chronicle ran an extensive front page story about the Story Mansion.
The article informs us that the “Becker Amendment,” named after Commissioner Sean Becker, stipulated that the City would allocate $392,000 from property tax revenues to the mansion so that the City could qualify for a $500,000 federal grant. Somehow connected to this is a group called the Friends of Story Mansion. They committed to raise money and repay this amount within two years. If they failed, the mansion was to be sold.
The transaction seems strange. It has the appearance of a loan, but the Friends never received any money. So I have some questions. Why would the City make the success of the fundraising effort a contingency for its decision to sell the mansion? The Friends are a non-government group which has no connection to the financial picture other than the fund raising commitment. Indeed, there is no obligation to pay the money back. So what exactly was the purpose of this agreement, other than to be an unofficial tax collection department?
Oh, the money. The feds gave $1.3 million to the project, plus another $2.3 million came from the City itself (including the $392,000?). To this amount we must add the loss of property tax revenue that would have been paid if a private party owned it (let’s assume $40,000 per year for past 5 years). Of course, we also need to consider what other projects might have been funded had all this tax money not been spent on the mansion.
On top of that the article tells us that income generated from the use of the mansion totaled $38,000 in the last year and a half, while expenses amounted to $31,000. And, apparently a substantial number of the 262 users paid nothing. Can anyone say boondoggle?
So let’s break it down. The cumulative cost to the taxpayer is around $4,000,000 (!) to purchase and preserve a mansion that was built by Story’s son (the father’s more opulent and historically significant mansion on Main Street was demolished by the City in the 1970s). It remains a continual drain on the City’s resources. The city has no reasonable expectation that it will recover the money from the Friends. Happily, the City does gain a party other than itself to affix blame.
But let’s go deeper. Where does the City Charter authorize the commissioners to purchase a building for historic preservation? Where does the Charter authorize the commissioners to connect city business to a private fund raising effort by a group that has shown little more than good intentions? Is there any limit at all on the City’s authority to throw money around on whatever pet project that happens by?
And how about this: The law stipulates that the mansion must be sold for at least 90% of its appraised value. The mansion is zoned R-1, which limits its use. And, any purchaser would have to honor the historic preservation easement. Does this all sound like everything possible has done to make the mansion unattractive to potential buyers?
This has the feel of someone dealing from the bottom of the deck, a grand scheme to do whatever it takes to satisfy a leftist itch to keep the mansion out of private hands, no matter the cost. How wonderful it must be to have unlimited access to other peoples’ money, especially in these difficult economic times.
The article ironically quotes Commissioner Becker: “It’s important that (city officials) are responsible stewards of all city assets.” Um, yeah, when exactly does that start happening?
The article informs us that the “Becker Amendment,” named after Commissioner Sean Becker, stipulated that the City would allocate $392,000 from property tax revenues to the mansion so that the City could qualify for a $500,000 federal grant. Somehow connected to this is a group called the Friends of Story Mansion. They committed to raise money and repay this amount within two years. If they failed, the mansion was to be sold.
The transaction seems strange. It has the appearance of a loan, but the Friends never received any money. So I have some questions. Why would the City make the success of the fundraising effort a contingency for its decision to sell the mansion? The Friends are a non-government group which has no connection to the financial picture other than the fund raising commitment. Indeed, there is no obligation to pay the money back. So what exactly was the purpose of this agreement, other than to be an unofficial tax collection department?
Oh, the money. The feds gave $1.3 million to the project, plus another $2.3 million came from the City itself (including the $392,000?). To this amount we must add the loss of property tax revenue that would have been paid if a private party owned it (let’s assume $40,000 per year for past 5 years). Of course, we also need to consider what other projects might have been funded had all this tax money not been spent on the mansion.
On top of that the article tells us that income generated from the use of the mansion totaled $38,000 in the last year and a half, while expenses amounted to $31,000. And, apparently a substantial number of the 262 users paid nothing. Can anyone say boondoggle?
So let’s break it down. The cumulative cost to the taxpayer is around $4,000,000 (!) to purchase and preserve a mansion that was built by Story’s son (the father’s more opulent and historically significant mansion on Main Street was demolished by the City in the 1970s). It remains a continual drain on the City’s resources. The city has no reasonable expectation that it will recover the money from the Friends. Happily, the City does gain a party other than itself to affix blame.
But let’s go deeper. Where does the City Charter authorize the commissioners to purchase a building for historic preservation? Where does the Charter authorize the commissioners to connect city business to a private fund raising effort by a group that has shown little more than good intentions? Is there any limit at all on the City’s authority to throw money around on whatever pet project that happens by?
And how about this: The law stipulates that the mansion must be sold for at least 90% of its appraised value. The mansion is zoned R-1, which limits its use. And, any purchaser would have to honor the historic preservation easement. Does this all sound like everything possible has done to make the mansion unattractive to potential buyers?
This has the feel of someone dealing from the bottom of the deck, a grand scheme to do whatever it takes to satisfy a leftist itch to keep the mansion out of private hands, no matter the cost. How wonderful it must be to have unlimited access to other peoples’ money, especially in these difficult economic times.
The article ironically quotes Commissioner Becker: “It’s important that (city officials) are responsible stewards of all city assets.” Um, yeah, when exactly does that start happening?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)