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.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
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?
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Facebook conversation, solving problems
A FB friend posted this story, and a conversation ensued. Typical Leftist, unable to follow train of logic and respond to it.
"Sick and getting sicker, Social Security will run at a deficit this year and keep on running in the red until its trust funds are drained by about 2037, congressional budget experts said Wednesday in bleaker-than-previous estimates." (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/26/133253327/cbo-social-security-will-run-permanent-deficits?ft=1&f=1001)
BC: This is a very scary problem. The longer we wait to raise taxes and cut benefits, the worse it will be.
Me: SS is empty now. The Trust Fund contains government bonds, not cash. The government takes the cash out issues the bonds. The cash is then spent in the general fund.
BC: And it's caused by the mentality of the American voter - government must do things and provide services ... but the immature voter resists paying taxes equal to the costs. So, government makes up the difference by borrowing, including taking all Social Security reserves and replacing them with debt. The American voter will retire and suffocate on his own foolishness.
Me: When has raising taxes ever solved a social problem?
BC: Taxes were raised to pay for World War II. They were raised to pay for the Social Security and Medicare that have already helped millions pass through old age in dignity. They were raised to pay for the finest public university system in the world. They were raised to eradicate polio. The list of problems solved and conditions improved through communitarian revenue and expenditure is long and noble.
Me: What social problem did WWII solve? What problem has been solved by by raising taxes for SS and Medicare? And University funding? And disease is a social problem? I did not ask for situations that were improved, sir.
BC: It's consistent to support low taxes, if you also support low public services. That's how things work in places like Mississippi and Alabama.
BC: Then define "social problem" and define "solution." But I needn't accept your terms. I regard Jews in concentration camps as a social problem. It's social. And it's a problem. I define polio as a social problem. It's social. And it's... a problem. I define every violent criminal a social problem. They harm others. That's social. And it's a problem. Tax dollars paid to bring about an end to the Third Reich's concentration camps ... a virtual end to polio ... and cessation of harm by each violent criminal when arrested and incarcerated. These achievements aren't matchable by private enterprise. You won't ever see Walmart fighting the Third Reich, eradicating polio, or policing the streets. The private sector has its mission ... and so does the public sector. And when the private sector steers itself into a ditch, it's the public sector that sends out the tow truck.
Me: Of course you wouldn't accept my terms. The broadest possible definition of "social problem" as well as the loosest definition of "solve" allows you to argue whilst moving the goalposts to suit your big government advocacy.
Any casual observer would easily discern that government hasn't solved crime, poverty, social unrest, or disease by even a loose definition of "solve." Indeed, one could make a convincing case that government has worsened many of these problems.
BC: So let's not have police. Let's not have schools. Let's not have public health departments. Let's not have the University of Washington. Social problems will be ... well, pretty much like they are anywhere in the world with low public services. Think "Somalia." That might be a poster child of libertarianism. Pretty much no government or public services, while private citizens slug it out. I prefer places like Norway.
Me: Several non sequiturs. No one has argued for no government. Libertarians are not anarchists. Somalia was not established on libertarian ideals, nor was it founded on capitalism or free markets.
BC: Actually, Somalia technically does have government. It just has a very low profile. Somalia's an example of low taxes and limited government. I prefer Norway. Love that high education level, good health, and social stability. But I guess it's your prerogative to prefer places like Somalia or regard states like Mississippi and Alabama as an attractive image of America's future.
Me: I did not claim that Somalia does not have a government. I did not claim that I prefer Mississippi. Perhaps you could argue the points I raise. I asserted that Somalia was not established on libertarian ideals, nor was it founded on capitalism or free markets.
JW: BC - I've got to chime in with Rich here. It's not fair to equate libertarians with anarchists, that's a logical fallacy. Some libertarians are indeed anarchists, but many libertarians believe in state-provided services.
BUT - my experience living in Europe ("socialist" Europe as my dad used to say) has opened my eyes to the tradeoffs of a higher level of state services. Don't get me wrong. Just because the state provides a service doesn't mean its good. Britain's NHS is probably a good example of that. And Europe's universities are mostly awful compared to America's universities; that has more to do with the fact that European students pay little or nothing for their education, whereas American students are expected to pay a significant part of it.
But why - despite draconian sentencing - am I more likely to get mugged in almost any American city than in most European cities? It may have something to do with the large, increasingly permanent underclass existing in America - a social problem.
BC: America's excellent public universities are state services, as are Europe's apparently-worse set of universities. So all that indicates to me is, sometimes state services do well, and sometimes they don't. As for existence of a chronic underclass, that apparently exists in America (where state services are lower) and Europe (where they're higher). Maybe we should experiment? Maybe we should measure improvement or worsening of these underclasses by eliminating all social safety nets? Well, I do regard improvement vs. worsening as the proper yardstick. In my mind, the term "solution" only means comparative improvement over what would otherwise exist.
Me: I don't recall JW saying "public universities."
If the "chronic underclass" is defined as, say, the bottom 12%, then there will always be a "chronic underclass."
However, there is no such thing as a "chronic underclass," as far as a notable permanent level of poverty. The bottom quintile is extremely dynamic, with high percentages of people moving into other quintiles.
There is a small number of people who never rise out of their self-imposed destitution, however. No matter how much "help" they receive, they are content to live under bridges and hold cardboard signs.
I don't regard "improvement" as a significant indicator as to whether or not a social program is a success, first because improvement rarely results from profligate government largesse, but mostly because my first criteria is constitutional authority. The constitution enumerates the specific powers of government. If it ain't in there, government can't do it.
BC: As an attorney and former drafter of laws at the state government level my observation is that many opinions about the U.S. Constitution are uninformed about how it's worded. Precise language with fixed meaning is avoided, in favor of broad, abstract language requiring constant interpretation. For example, the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment." No one ever is literally sentenced to cruel and unusual punishment; instead a judge imposes a particular form of punishment which might not have been contemplated, one way or the other, by the individuals who wrote and voted at the Constitutional Convention. Apply the Constitution, and since it doesn't explicitly mention capital punishment by burning at the stake then it's not banned. But apply the term "cruel and unusual punishment" as it was intended - a term of abstraction to be applied to changing and unforeseen conditions - and many forms of punishment are revealed to be unconstitutional. It's not a Betty Crocker recipe book with clear formulas. Instead it was deliberately written to elicit interpretation and change as the American experience unfolded.
Me: Ok, Sir, I challenge you to a poker game without fixed meaning to the rules.
BC: You won't find due process of law canned and sitting on a shelf at the general store. It doesn't work that way, and the founders knew it. That's why the centerpiece of the Bill of Rights requires interpretation in the face of realities never mentione and never forseseen by the document's drafters. The doctrine's meaning evolved with inventions like internet, telegraph, transcontinental railroad, and jet airplane. The Constitution isn't stereo instructions. It's not a Betty Crocker recipe book. And everyone knew so, from the very beginning. For example, Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in the famous 1801 decision, Marbury v. Madison.
JW: Every society is in a constant process to find the "best" way to live. In the most notable cases extraodinary documents accompany this process - the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States, just to name a few that popped into my head. That does not mean that these documents can or should be taken as all-inclusive blueprints, never to be changed, never to be reinterpreted.
Comparing the organization and functioning of society to a game of poker is not very apt, in my opinion.
BC: The framers deliberately built adaptability into the Constitution. Besides using abstract terms like "due process" and "cruel and unusual" - phrases whose abstractness necessarily required interpretation - they also included so-called elastic clauses. Article I Section 8 says Congress has power to pass any law which is "necessary and proper" to effectuate a power of Congress specifically enumerated. So besides the powers specifically mentioned, there are additional implied powers. Regarding individual rights, the Ninth Amendment says the people hold rights in addition to the ones specifically mentioned in the wording of the constitution. Elastic phrases such as these show that the document as a whole isn't written to be a narrow and precise set of recipes, but instead something more elastic.
Me: James Madison, Federalist Paper 45: “The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”
BC: This was written about a year before the Constitution was enacted, when various drafts were still circulating. Madison expresses the view of slave states, a position in a debate resolved more in favor of the opposite side of the debate, especially when the Bill of Rights was subsequently passed.
Me: So the father of the constitution was wrong? Really? Source?
BC: Nobody's all right. And probably nobody's all wrong. But on the issue of the jurisdictional line between states and federal government, it was Hamilton who prevailed, not Madison or Jefferson. I'm glad. States' rights has often been a stalking horse for America's most low-minded instincts, including racism in public institutions, slavery, and environmental permissiveness. It all loops back to my earlier reference to the mentality of places like Mississippi and Alabama.
Me: I call BS. Source?
JW: Let's keep this civil! I don't have a source at hand, but having recently read the well-known John Adams biography, I tend to agree with the history of what Bob is saying (and I agree philosophically).
Perhaps the time is come in this thread to "agree to disagree"?
Me: I asked Mr. Casey for a source, which he did not provide. I asked again, and now I'm uncivil?
Oh, and is insinuating that someone is racist civil?
BC: I don't regard these kinds of online discussions as obligating anyone to run to the library to satisfy somoene else's request for documentation of views expressed. These aren't doctoral dissertations. Instead they're opinions. I also don't regard you as obligated to run to the library and provide documentation for your own views.
The reason why I think Hamilton ultimately won a small tug of war between himself and Madison is the Bill of Rights ultimately vindicated a viewpoint more similar to Hamilton's than Madison's.
There's a twist. You could call it a role-reversal.When passed, the Bill of Rights was widely regarded as check against federal power. So, it was more pleasing to states' rights advocates like Madison and Jefferson, than centralized power advocates like Hamilton. But after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was also passed. And it has had the effect of extending the Bill or Rights's prohibitions against abuse by the federal government, to prohibitions against abuse by state government as well.
That's how we ended up with rulings like Brown v. Board of Education, which shut down the ability of southern states to enforce segregated schools under the rubric of "states' rights."
By eventually coming to bind both levels of government, the Bill of Rights became nation-wide law something which (in my opinion) would please Hamilton more than Madison.
Me: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your claims are completely contrary to the raison d'etre of America. The fundamental purpose of the constitution, restraining government, came about as a result of the heavy-handed, oppressive, centralized British monarchy.
"Sick and getting sicker, Social Security will run at a deficit this year and keep on running in the red until its trust funds are drained by about 2037, congressional budget experts said Wednesday in bleaker-than-previous estimates." (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/26/133253327/cbo-social-security-will-run-permanent-deficits?ft=1&f=1001)
BC: This is a very scary problem. The longer we wait to raise taxes and cut benefits, the worse it will be.
Me: SS is empty now. The Trust Fund contains government bonds, not cash. The government takes the cash out issues the bonds. The cash is then spent in the general fund.
BC: And it's caused by the mentality of the American voter - government must do things and provide services ... but the immature voter resists paying taxes equal to the costs. So, government makes up the difference by borrowing, including taking all Social Security reserves and replacing them with debt. The American voter will retire and suffocate on his own foolishness.
Me: When has raising taxes ever solved a social problem?
BC: Taxes were raised to pay for World War II. They were raised to pay for the Social Security and Medicare that have already helped millions pass through old age in dignity. They were raised to pay for the finest public university system in the world. They were raised to eradicate polio. The list of problems solved and conditions improved through communitarian revenue and expenditure is long and noble.
Me: What social problem did WWII solve? What problem has been solved by by raising taxes for SS and Medicare? And University funding? And disease is a social problem? I did not ask for situations that were improved, sir.
BC: It's consistent to support low taxes, if you also support low public services. That's how things work in places like Mississippi and Alabama.
BC: Then define "social problem" and define "solution." But I needn't accept your terms. I regard Jews in concentration camps as a social problem. It's social. And it's a problem. I define polio as a social problem. It's social. And it's... a problem. I define every violent criminal a social problem. They harm others. That's social. And it's a problem. Tax dollars paid to bring about an end to the Third Reich's concentration camps ... a virtual end to polio ... and cessation of harm by each violent criminal when arrested and incarcerated. These achievements aren't matchable by private enterprise. You won't ever see Walmart fighting the Third Reich, eradicating polio, or policing the streets. The private sector has its mission ... and so does the public sector. And when the private sector steers itself into a ditch, it's the public sector that sends out the tow truck.
Me: Of course you wouldn't accept my terms. The broadest possible definition of "social problem" as well as the loosest definition of "solve" allows you to argue whilst moving the goalposts to suit your big government advocacy.
Any casual observer would easily discern that government hasn't solved crime, poverty, social unrest, or disease by even a loose definition of "solve." Indeed, one could make a convincing case that government has worsened many of these problems.
BC: So let's not have police. Let's not have schools. Let's not have public health departments. Let's not have the University of Washington. Social problems will be ... well, pretty much like they are anywhere in the world with low public services. Think "Somalia." That might be a poster child of libertarianism. Pretty much no government or public services, while private citizens slug it out. I prefer places like Norway.
Me: Several non sequiturs. No one has argued for no government. Libertarians are not anarchists. Somalia was not established on libertarian ideals, nor was it founded on capitalism or free markets.
BC: Actually, Somalia technically does have government. It just has a very low profile. Somalia's an example of low taxes and limited government. I prefer Norway. Love that high education level, good health, and social stability. But I guess it's your prerogative to prefer places like Somalia or regard states like Mississippi and Alabama as an attractive image of America's future.
Me: I did not claim that Somalia does not have a government. I did not claim that I prefer Mississippi. Perhaps you could argue the points I raise. I asserted that Somalia was not established on libertarian ideals, nor was it founded on capitalism or free markets.
JW: BC - I've got to chime in with Rich here. It's not fair to equate libertarians with anarchists, that's a logical fallacy. Some libertarians are indeed anarchists, but many libertarians believe in state-provided services.
BUT - my experience living in Europe ("socialist" Europe as my dad used to say) has opened my eyes to the tradeoffs of a higher level of state services. Don't get me wrong. Just because the state provides a service doesn't mean its good. Britain's NHS is probably a good example of that. And Europe's universities are mostly awful compared to America's universities; that has more to do with the fact that European students pay little or nothing for their education, whereas American students are expected to pay a significant part of it.
But why - despite draconian sentencing - am I more likely to get mugged in almost any American city than in most European cities? It may have something to do with the large, increasingly permanent underclass existing in America - a social problem.
BC: America's excellent public universities are state services, as are Europe's apparently-worse set of universities. So all that indicates to me is, sometimes state services do well, and sometimes they don't. As for existence of a chronic underclass, that apparently exists in America (where state services are lower) and Europe (where they're higher). Maybe we should experiment? Maybe we should measure improvement or worsening of these underclasses by eliminating all social safety nets? Well, I do regard improvement vs. worsening as the proper yardstick. In my mind, the term "solution" only means comparative improvement over what would otherwise exist.
Me: I don't recall JW saying "public universities."
If the "chronic underclass" is defined as, say, the bottom 12%, then there will always be a "chronic underclass."
However, there is no such thing as a "chronic underclass," as far as a notable permanent level of poverty. The bottom quintile is extremely dynamic, with high percentages of people moving into other quintiles.
There is a small number of people who never rise out of their self-imposed destitution, however. No matter how much "help" they receive, they are content to live under bridges and hold cardboard signs.
I don't regard "improvement" as a significant indicator as to whether or not a social program is a success, first because improvement rarely results from profligate government largesse, but mostly because my first criteria is constitutional authority. The constitution enumerates the specific powers of government. If it ain't in there, government can't do it.
BC: As an attorney and former drafter of laws at the state government level my observation is that many opinions about the U.S. Constitution are uninformed about how it's worded. Precise language with fixed meaning is avoided, in favor of broad, abstract language requiring constant interpretation. For example, the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment." No one ever is literally sentenced to cruel and unusual punishment; instead a judge imposes a particular form of punishment which might not have been contemplated, one way or the other, by the individuals who wrote and voted at the Constitutional Convention. Apply the Constitution, and since it doesn't explicitly mention capital punishment by burning at the stake then it's not banned. But apply the term "cruel and unusual punishment" as it was intended - a term of abstraction to be applied to changing and unforeseen conditions - and many forms of punishment are revealed to be unconstitutional. It's not a Betty Crocker recipe book with clear formulas. Instead it was deliberately written to elicit interpretation and change as the American experience unfolded.
Me: Ok, Sir, I challenge you to a poker game without fixed meaning to the rules.
BC: You won't find due process of law canned and sitting on a shelf at the general store. It doesn't work that way, and the founders knew it. That's why the centerpiece of the Bill of Rights requires interpretation in the face of realities never mentione and never forseseen by the document's drafters. The doctrine's meaning evolved with inventions like internet, telegraph, transcontinental railroad, and jet airplane. The Constitution isn't stereo instructions. It's not a Betty Crocker recipe book. And everyone knew so, from the very beginning. For example, Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in the famous 1801 decision, Marbury v. Madison.
JW: Every society is in a constant process to find the "best" way to live. In the most notable cases extraodinary documents accompany this process - the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States, just to name a few that popped into my head. That does not mean that these documents can or should be taken as all-inclusive blueprints, never to be changed, never to be reinterpreted.
Comparing the organization and functioning of society to a game of poker is not very apt, in my opinion.
BC: The framers deliberately built adaptability into the Constitution. Besides using abstract terms like "due process" and "cruel and unusual" - phrases whose abstractness necessarily required interpretation - they also included so-called elastic clauses. Article I Section 8 says Congress has power to pass any law which is "necessary and proper" to effectuate a power of Congress specifically enumerated. So besides the powers specifically mentioned, there are additional implied powers. Regarding individual rights, the Ninth Amendment says the people hold rights in addition to the ones specifically mentioned in the wording of the constitution. Elastic phrases such as these show that the document as a whole isn't written to be a narrow and precise set of recipes, but instead something more elastic.
Me: James Madison, Federalist Paper 45: “The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”
BC: This was written about a year before the Constitution was enacted, when various drafts were still circulating. Madison expresses the view of slave states, a position in a debate resolved more in favor of the opposite side of the debate, especially when the Bill of Rights was subsequently passed.
Me: So the father of the constitution was wrong? Really? Source?
BC: Nobody's all right. And probably nobody's all wrong. But on the issue of the jurisdictional line between states and federal government, it was Hamilton who prevailed, not Madison or Jefferson. I'm glad. States' rights has often been a stalking horse for America's most low-minded instincts, including racism in public institutions, slavery, and environmental permissiveness. It all loops back to my earlier reference to the mentality of places like Mississippi and Alabama.
Me: I call BS. Source?
JW: Let's keep this civil! I don't have a source at hand, but having recently read the well-known John Adams biography, I tend to agree with the history of what Bob is saying (and I agree philosophically).
Perhaps the time is come in this thread to "agree to disagree"?
Me: I asked Mr. Casey for a source, which he did not provide. I asked again, and now I'm uncivil?
Oh, and is insinuating that someone is racist civil?
BC: I don't regard these kinds of online discussions as obligating anyone to run to the library to satisfy somoene else's request for documentation of views expressed. These aren't doctoral dissertations. Instead they're opinions. I also don't regard you as obligated to run to the library and provide documentation for your own views.
The reason why I think Hamilton ultimately won a small tug of war between himself and Madison is the Bill of Rights ultimately vindicated a viewpoint more similar to Hamilton's than Madison's.
There's a twist. You could call it a role-reversal.When passed, the Bill of Rights was widely regarded as check against federal power. So, it was more pleasing to states' rights advocates like Madison and Jefferson, than centralized power advocates like Hamilton. But after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was also passed. And it has had the effect of extending the Bill or Rights's prohibitions against abuse by the federal government, to prohibitions against abuse by state government as well.
That's how we ended up with rulings like Brown v. Board of Education, which shut down the ability of southern states to enforce segregated schools under the rubric of "states' rights."
By eventually coming to bind both levels of government, the Bill of Rights became nation-wide law something which (in my opinion) would please Hamilton more than Madison.
Me: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your claims are completely contrary to the raison d'etre of America. The fundamental purpose of the constitution, restraining government, came about as a result of the heavy-handed, oppressive, centralized British monarchy.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Editorial, compassion is human
My friend Ron and I have interesting discussions from time to time. He is a self-avowed liberal, and gently prods me whenever he gets the chance. He has obviously thought deeply about things, and he never name-calls like liberals tend to do. He also has done decades of sacrificial work on behalf of the less fortunate. This is a man I really respect.
So that’s why I take notice when he speaks. The other day he was sitting at my desk and said to me, “Rich, I’m a Christian, and I have one question. What do we do about the poor?” I told him that it was a good question. Have you noticed that people will complement the quality of your question when they don’t have a good answer?
Well, I propose to answer his question here. It would seem timely given our annual homeless controversy has once again arrived.
First, let’s analyze the question itself. Who is “we?” Does “we” mean “me and you?” Well, no. When you hear someone say, “What do we do about the poor,” the doctrinaire leftist is really saying “What is government going to do about the poor.” In fact, the farther left you go politically, the more inclined you are to accept the idea that if there isn’t a government social program the problem isn’t being fixed. They wouldn’t think to get out their own checkbooks and do something about it themselves.
Further, if someone opposes or criticizes a government social program, by extension that person is in favor of perpetuating the problem. And that’s why you hear things like, “Republicans hate the poor,” or, “Conservatives want people to die.” These of course are nonsensical criticisms, but some people actually believe them.
Indeed, opposing a government program in any way draws the inevitable criticism that one consequently hates all government, is prone to violence, and is a slack-jawed extremist. This has the effect of dampening debate, shifting the focus from the issue to personalities, and reducing honest dissent into a caricature. This should trouble any thinking person.
So, what do we do about the poor? First, let’s stop doing what hasn’t worked. Government social programs have not eliminated poverty. In fact, one could easily make the case that government social programs have perpetuated and increased the problems they are supposed to be solving. Second, let’s stop calling it compassion. Income redistribution is not compassion. A government check is not showing kindness.
Third, let’s free people to do what they are demonstrably good at: Giving of their time, their wealth, and their talent to assist those who have needs. Despite difficult economic times and burdensome government, Americans still give. Sacrificially. It amazes me that people still choose to help, even after government has taken from them such a large part of their income.
People are compassionate, not government. People sacrifice, not government. People deserve the credit, not some bureaucracy in D.C. Government is the obstacle that keeps people from being more generous. Government steals opportunities from caring people and inserts itself into the equation as the compassion bully.
People make the difference. United Way, Family promise, the soup kitchen, dozens of churches, and thousands of people in the Gallatin Valley step up every day to do the right thing. The fact that people are filling these needs is prima facie evidence that government has failed.
My friend Ron hasn’t told me if he thinks government is the answer to his question. I do know his answer will be well-considered and intelligent. I’m hoping, however, that given the overwhelming failure of government to fix our social problems that he will reach the same conclusion I have.
So that’s why I take notice when he speaks. The other day he was sitting at my desk and said to me, “Rich, I’m a Christian, and I have one question. What do we do about the poor?” I told him that it was a good question. Have you noticed that people will complement the quality of your question when they don’t have a good answer?
Well, I propose to answer his question here. It would seem timely given our annual homeless controversy has once again arrived.
First, let’s analyze the question itself. Who is “we?” Does “we” mean “me and you?” Well, no. When you hear someone say, “What do we do about the poor,” the doctrinaire leftist is really saying “What is government going to do about the poor.” In fact, the farther left you go politically, the more inclined you are to accept the idea that if there isn’t a government social program the problem isn’t being fixed. They wouldn’t think to get out their own checkbooks and do something about it themselves.
Further, if someone opposes or criticizes a government social program, by extension that person is in favor of perpetuating the problem. And that’s why you hear things like, “Republicans hate the poor,” or, “Conservatives want people to die.” These of course are nonsensical criticisms, but some people actually believe them.
Indeed, opposing a government program in any way draws the inevitable criticism that one consequently hates all government, is prone to violence, and is a slack-jawed extremist. This has the effect of dampening debate, shifting the focus from the issue to personalities, and reducing honest dissent into a caricature. This should trouble any thinking person.
So, what do we do about the poor? First, let’s stop doing what hasn’t worked. Government social programs have not eliminated poverty. In fact, one could easily make the case that government social programs have perpetuated and increased the problems they are supposed to be solving. Second, let’s stop calling it compassion. Income redistribution is not compassion. A government check is not showing kindness.
Third, let’s free people to do what they are demonstrably good at: Giving of their time, their wealth, and their talent to assist those who have needs. Despite difficult economic times and burdensome government, Americans still give. Sacrificially. It amazes me that people still choose to help, even after government has taken from them such a large part of their income.
People are compassionate, not government. People sacrifice, not government. People deserve the credit, not some bureaucracy in D.C. Government is the obstacle that keeps people from being more generous. Government steals opportunities from caring people and inserts itself into the equation as the compassion bully.
People make the difference. United Way, Family promise, the soup kitchen, dozens of churches, and thousands of people in the Gallatin Valley step up every day to do the right thing. The fact that people are filling these needs is prima facie evidence that government has failed.
My friend Ron hasn’t told me if he thinks government is the answer to his question. I do know his answer will be well-considered and intelligent. I’m hoping, however, that given the overwhelming failure of government to fix our social problems that he will reach the same conclusion I have.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Editorial, Hope for the season
The Christmas season has traditionally been about hope, peace, and joy, but times have been tough and these things seem to be short supply. A lot of people are suffering, and a lot more are scaling back, doing without, and hunkering down.
We look for help, perhaps from government programs, from family, or from churches or charities. We seek solutions to the intractable problems of society, and ascribe blame to the rich, to government, to talk radio. Many of us put our trust in our skills, our jobs, or our intellect. Some of us put our trust in government to fix our problems, while others preach self-reliance and deify individualism.
But what happens when these things fail us? Sadly, too many of us throw up our hands and walk away, perhaps from families and children, mortgages, or even, life itself.
In these days when the rug has been yanked out from under us we might begin to re-examine our assumptions. The magnificent edifices we have built and trusted in do not seem so solid anymore. Perhaps it is time that we regain some perspective on what this life is all about.
We are insignificant creatures in the grand scheme of things. Tiny specks on this beautiful blue globe. “Each man's life is but a breath. “ We are born, we grow old, and we die. One might wonder if that is all there is. Some say so, but I don’t believe that. There has to be something more, something higher, something beyond.
The Christmas story is about God’s intervention into human affairs. The Son of God coming as savior, giving His life for us. Some of people don’t believe this. But as Morpheus said, “My beliefs do not require them to.” We all believe something, we all stake out positions of faith, whether in God or man or an idea.
I would suggest that faith in anything other than God is misplaced and futile. Our current situation would seem to lend credence to this. All the grand ideas of man have fallen short. Our systems and our safety nets have not done the job.
So when we reach the end of ourselves, when we hit rock bottom, I suggest that we turn to our Creator. As Sheryl Crow sings, “Talk to the one who made you.” God has the answers.
I think you’ll find what you are looking for. These problems will pass: “For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.” There is something better ahead.
That is the true nature of peace. Peace comes when we realize that we have a fallback position that doesn’t depend on human strength. Placing our hope in our Maker, we come to the place of faith which allows us to accept His redemption and receive His peace.
That’s why I am offering this column today. You might think I’m talking to those of you who are not believers, but I’m not. I’m talking to the faithful who may have forgotten their foundation. I’m talking to those who are downcast. I’m talking to those of you who are fed up, tired out, or are looking for real answers.
The TEA party can’t help you. Government is not the answer. Rush Limbaugh can’t solve your problems. And President Obama can’t fix things.
But God can. A baby in the manger represents hope that transcends us. You’ll find your answers there.
We look for help, perhaps from government programs, from family, or from churches or charities. We seek solutions to the intractable problems of society, and ascribe blame to the rich, to government, to talk radio. Many of us put our trust in our skills, our jobs, or our intellect. Some of us put our trust in government to fix our problems, while others preach self-reliance and deify individualism.
But what happens when these things fail us? Sadly, too many of us throw up our hands and walk away, perhaps from families and children, mortgages, or even, life itself.
In these days when the rug has been yanked out from under us we might begin to re-examine our assumptions. The magnificent edifices we have built and trusted in do not seem so solid anymore. Perhaps it is time that we regain some perspective on what this life is all about.
We are insignificant creatures in the grand scheme of things. Tiny specks on this beautiful blue globe. “Each man's life is but a breath. “ We are born, we grow old, and we die. One might wonder if that is all there is. Some say so, but I don’t believe that. There has to be something more, something higher, something beyond.
The Christmas story is about God’s intervention into human affairs. The Son of God coming as savior, giving His life for us. Some of people don’t believe this. But as Morpheus said, “My beliefs do not require them to.” We all believe something, we all stake out positions of faith, whether in God or man or an idea.
I would suggest that faith in anything other than God is misplaced and futile. Our current situation would seem to lend credence to this. All the grand ideas of man have fallen short. Our systems and our safety nets have not done the job.
So when we reach the end of ourselves, when we hit rock bottom, I suggest that we turn to our Creator. As Sheryl Crow sings, “Talk to the one who made you.” God has the answers.
I think you’ll find what you are looking for. These problems will pass: “For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.” There is something better ahead.
That is the true nature of peace. Peace comes when we realize that we have a fallback position that doesn’t depend on human strength. Placing our hope in our Maker, we come to the place of faith which allows us to accept His redemption and receive His peace.
That’s why I am offering this column today. You might think I’m talking to those of you who are not believers, but I’m not. I’m talking to the faithful who may have forgotten their foundation. I’m talking to those who are downcast. I’m talking to those of you who are fed up, tired out, or are looking for real answers.
The TEA party can’t help you. Government is not the answer. Rush Limbaugh can’t solve your problems. And President Obama can’t fix things.
But God can. A baby in the manger represents hope that transcends us. You’ll find your answers there.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Election night predictions
Assuming the Republicans do win tonight, be on the lookout for the following kinds of analysis from the pundits:
1) stupid voters
2) voters were filled with rage
3) no mandate for conservatives
4) Republican winners are extreme or radical
5) Democrats lost because they failed to communicate their successes
6) Democrats lost because they didn't go far enough
7) Democrats got no credit for their successes
8) Racism/greed
9) Republicans must find a way to cooperate with Obama
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
How I'm voting - Chronicle editorial
There are some issues on the November 2nd ballot that are on my radar.
Before making my observations, I need to note that I make my voting decisions based on certain principles, including
1) Is it something better left to the private sector
2) Is it an activity that is consistent with limited government
3) Does it impede personal liberty
So for me, this means that the proper role of government is more important than good intentions. The freedom of the marketplace with its risks and rewards outweighs the presumed need to “rein in” potential risk or financial loss. And, opportunity and freedom (both to succeed and fail) are more important than “fairness.”
Issue #1, the Constitutional Convention (CC-2): Senator Joe Balyeat, whom I respect, is one of the supporters of the Convention. He clearly communicates the basic principle: “Historically, the U.S. Constitution and well-crafted state constitutions delineated rights which barred government intrusion on basic freedoms…” Quite right. The purpose of a constitution is to define and limit government, not to define or limit the people.
Unfortunately, there is a problem. There is there is no guarantee that the majority of the 100 constitutional delegates would share this view. A Constitutional Convention could very easily make the constitution worse.
Further, the delegates are really not accountable to anyone on a practical level until the revised constitution is submitted to a vote of the people. And worse, depending on what the delegates decide, we might have to vote on the revisions as a package. A Constitutional Initiative, by contrast, can only address one issue.
Therefore, I oppose the Constitutional Convention. Any needed changes are more safely handled on an issue-by-issue basis.
Issue #2, CI-105: Here is an example of the afore-mentioned Constitutional Initiative. The intent here is to mitigate the potential abuse that government could foist upon the people. CI-105 would prohibit the legislature from imposing a Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT). Even though this tax doesn’t currently exist, the people are perfectly within their rights to restrain government in this way.
One particularly troubling statement made by those who oppose the initiative: “Our constitution establishes our most fundamental rights - like the right to bear arms and the right to privacy - and articulates the most fundamental principles of our democracy.” This is incorrect. A constitution does not establish rights. Rights are pre-existing, and can only be enumerated. The 9th amendment to the U.S. constitution confirms this: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The opponents’ very next statement, however, swerves into a truth: “Detailed tax policy should be handled through legislation, not the constitution.” This is correct, but detailed tax policy is actually the problem. Montana’s tax system, like the feds, attempts to micromanage peoples’ finances and behaviors.
This is contrary to the principle of liberty. My pipe dream is to repeal the entire tax code in favor of some sort of single flat tax. Of course, the political will to do this does not exist. In fact, I doubt that the legislature would willingly give up its power to meddle in peoples’ financial affairs.
In any case, I favor removing this weapon from the tax man’s arsenal.
Issue #3, Initiative No. 164: There is obviously a market for payday loans, and they tend to be high risk. A commensurate charge is expected.
And, no one is forcing anyone to take out a payday loan. These are private, willing transactions that hurt no one. We just don’t need government to rescue us from every little problem that comes our way. And legislation that protects us from a $15.00 payday loan fee is one of those kinds of problems.
Good luck and good voting November 2nd.
Before making my observations, I need to note that I make my voting decisions based on certain principles, including
1) Is it something better left to the private sector
2) Is it an activity that is consistent with limited government
3) Does it impede personal liberty
So for me, this means that the proper role of government is more important than good intentions. The freedom of the marketplace with its risks and rewards outweighs the presumed need to “rein in” potential risk or financial loss. And, opportunity and freedom (both to succeed and fail) are more important than “fairness.”
Issue #1, the Constitutional Convention (CC-2): Senator Joe Balyeat, whom I respect, is one of the supporters of the Convention. He clearly communicates the basic principle: “Historically, the U.S. Constitution and well-crafted state constitutions delineated rights which barred government intrusion on basic freedoms…” Quite right. The purpose of a constitution is to define and limit government, not to define or limit the people.
Unfortunately, there is a problem. There is there is no guarantee that the majority of the 100 constitutional delegates would share this view. A Constitutional Convention could very easily make the constitution worse.
Further, the delegates are really not accountable to anyone on a practical level until the revised constitution is submitted to a vote of the people. And worse, depending on what the delegates decide, we might have to vote on the revisions as a package. A Constitutional Initiative, by contrast, can only address one issue.
Therefore, I oppose the Constitutional Convention. Any needed changes are more safely handled on an issue-by-issue basis.
Issue #2, CI-105: Here is an example of the afore-mentioned Constitutional Initiative. The intent here is to mitigate the potential abuse that government could foist upon the people. CI-105 would prohibit the legislature from imposing a Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT). Even though this tax doesn’t currently exist, the people are perfectly within their rights to restrain government in this way.
One particularly troubling statement made by those who oppose the initiative: “Our constitution establishes our most fundamental rights - like the right to bear arms and the right to privacy - and articulates the most fundamental principles of our democracy.” This is incorrect. A constitution does not establish rights. Rights are pre-existing, and can only be enumerated. The 9th amendment to the U.S. constitution confirms this: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The opponents’ very next statement, however, swerves into a truth: “Detailed tax policy should be handled through legislation, not the constitution.” This is correct, but detailed tax policy is actually the problem. Montana’s tax system, like the feds, attempts to micromanage peoples’ finances and behaviors.
This is contrary to the principle of liberty. My pipe dream is to repeal the entire tax code in favor of some sort of single flat tax. Of course, the political will to do this does not exist. In fact, I doubt that the legislature would willingly give up its power to meddle in peoples’ financial affairs.
In any case, I favor removing this weapon from the tax man’s arsenal.
Issue #3, Initiative No. 164: There is obviously a market for payday loans, and they tend to be high risk. A commensurate charge is expected.
And, no one is forcing anyone to take out a payday loan. These are private, willing transactions that hurt no one. We just don’t need government to rescue us from every little problem that comes our way. And legislation that protects us from a $15.00 payday loan fee is one of those kinds of problems.
Good luck and good voting November 2nd.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Electronic auto insurance verification: Chronicle editorial for 9/29/10
I’m a pretty good test-taker. I hate tests, but I excel at passing them. This happens to be a good thing, because we insurance agents have to take 24 hours of continuing ed every two years. Some day I might write a column to whine about government involvement in my professional status, but not today.
One continuing education requirement is 1 credit hour of Montana law. There was one thing of particular interest in this course, and this is what I want to discuss. I thought I kept my finger on the pulse of my industry rather well, but there was a change to Montana insurance law I didn’t know about.
The 2009 legislature mandated the installation of an Online Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Verification System, the purpose of which is to be able to electronically verify the insured status of vehicles. I wondered why I had missed this, so I googled “61-6-157,” which is the actual reference for the law. The only hits I received were State of Montana Websites. It didn’t make the news at all.
This law and its related laws require insurance carriers to electronically provide insurance data to the State, commencing July 2011. Law enforcement will have real-time access to the insurance status of drivers. According to 61-6-309, “…a peace officer or authorized employee of a law enforcement agency may, during the course of a traffic stop or accident investigation, access the verification system provided under 61-6-157 to verify whether a motor vehicle is covered by a valid motor vehicle liability policy…”
You know, this sounds just like the Arizona illegal immigration law. So “peace officers” will already know if you have liability coverage when they stop you. Since the online system is funded by fines and penalties collected from violators, there appears to be a real incentive to pull over people to ascertain their insured status. Where is the ACLU when you need them?
I’m in a bit of a quandary, however. On one hand I have a financial interest in writing car insurance. On the other, I have to consider how the mandatory insurance law is interpreted by my libertarian leanings. I don’t like laws that force otherwise law-abiding citizens to purchase something.
Some have tried to draw a parallel with the mandatory purchase of health insurance under Obamacare, but it’s not the same. The purchase of liability insurance is mandated by individual states, not the feds. Liability insurance protects others, not you. And if you don’t drive the law doesn’t apply to you, whereas Obamacare is only escapable via the actions of the death panel.
So the State, in essence, is forcing us to be “responsible” by buying liability insurance, yet there is something like a 40% non compliance rate. Further, the minimum liability requirement is only $25,000 per person, $50,000 per accident bodily injury to others, and $10,000 per accident property damage to others. Or you can purchase an indemnity bond with similar limits. These are clearly token requirements, and they are exceeded in accidents on a regular basis.
I suspect the legislation is intended to increase compliance, or perhaps, to increase revenue. It certainly increases state control over citizens. Admittedly, the financial consequences of an accident are potentially quite substantial, but we need to note that there is no requirement for citizens to purchase liability insurance for carelessly leaving a rake lying around, wrong side up. In fact, aside from automotive liability there is no other liability purchase mandate I can think of.
For better or worse, I tend to err on the side of less government control in peoples’ lives. In my idea of a perfect world, individuals, not society, would be responsible for their choices.
One continuing education requirement is 1 credit hour of Montana law. There was one thing of particular interest in this course, and this is what I want to discuss. I thought I kept my finger on the pulse of my industry rather well, but there was a change to Montana insurance law I didn’t know about.
The 2009 legislature mandated the installation of an Online Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Verification System, the purpose of which is to be able to electronically verify the insured status of vehicles. I wondered why I had missed this, so I googled “61-6-157,” which is the actual reference for the law. The only hits I received were State of Montana Websites. It didn’t make the news at all.
This law and its related laws require insurance carriers to electronically provide insurance data to the State, commencing July 2011. Law enforcement will have real-time access to the insurance status of drivers. According to 61-6-309, “…a peace officer or authorized employee of a law enforcement agency may, during the course of a traffic stop or accident investigation, access the verification system provided under 61-6-157 to verify whether a motor vehicle is covered by a valid motor vehicle liability policy…”
You know, this sounds just like the Arizona illegal immigration law. So “peace officers” will already know if you have liability coverage when they stop you. Since the online system is funded by fines and penalties collected from violators, there appears to be a real incentive to pull over people to ascertain their insured status. Where is the ACLU when you need them?
I’m in a bit of a quandary, however. On one hand I have a financial interest in writing car insurance. On the other, I have to consider how the mandatory insurance law is interpreted by my libertarian leanings. I don’t like laws that force otherwise law-abiding citizens to purchase something.
Some have tried to draw a parallel with the mandatory purchase of health insurance under Obamacare, but it’s not the same. The purchase of liability insurance is mandated by individual states, not the feds. Liability insurance protects others, not you. And if you don’t drive the law doesn’t apply to you, whereas Obamacare is only escapable via the actions of the death panel.
So the State, in essence, is forcing us to be “responsible” by buying liability insurance, yet there is something like a 40% non compliance rate. Further, the minimum liability requirement is only $25,000 per person, $50,000 per accident bodily injury to others, and $10,000 per accident property damage to others. Or you can purchase an indemnity bond with similar limits. These are clearly token requirements, and they are exceeded in accidents on a regular basis.
I suspect the legislation is intended to increase compliance, or perhaps, to increase revenue. It certainly increases state control over citizens. Admittedly, the financial consequences of an accident are potentially quite substantial, but we need to note that there is no requirement for citizens to purchase liability insurance for carelessly leaving a rake lying around, wrong side up. In fact, aside from automotive liability there is no other liability purchase mandate I can think of.
For better or worse, I tend to err on the side of less government control in peoples’ lives. In my idea of a perfect world, individuals, not society, would be responsible for their choices.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Successful marriage requires virtue
This chart shows data regarding the success rate of marriage when the bride has had other sexual partners. You'll note that marrying a virginal woman is an almost iron-clad guarantee that the marriage will not end in divorce. Just one sexual partner lowers the success rate to barely 50/50, and by the time a woman has had 16+ sexual partners, a successful marriage is rather unlikely.
I do not have data on the groom.
I do not have data on the groom.
Monday, September 13, 2010
How is this different than the Arizona law?
Effective October 1, 2009, Section 61-6-157, Montana Code, Annotated:
"Senate bill 508 creates an Online Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Verification System to verify the compliance of a motor vehicle owner or operator with motor vehicle liability policy requirements and to monitor proof of financial responsibility. The new law allows the Department of Justice, Motor Vehicle Division, to contract with a private vendor or vendors to establish and maintain the system. The system will send requests to insurers for verification of motor vehicle liability insurance using electronic services established by the insurers. The system will include provisions to secure its data against unauthorized access and to maintain a record of all requests and responses. The system will be accessible without fee to authorized personnel of the Department, the courts, law enforcement
personnel, county treasurers, and their authorized agents...
"All insurers must cooperate with the department in establishing and maintaining the system and must provide access to motor vehicle liability policy status information to verify liability coverage for a vehicle insured by that company that is registered in this state and, if available, for a vehicle that is insured by that company or that is operated in this state and the subject of an accident investigation, regardless of where the vehicle is registered.
Law Enforcement Use of the System
"A peace officer or authorized employee of a law enforcement agency may, during the course of a traffic stop or accident investigation, access the verification system to verify whether a motor vehicle is covered by a valid motor vehicle liability policy as required by state law. The response received from the system supersedes an insurance card produced by a vehicle owner or operator."
Effective January 1, 2010, Section 61-3-303, Montana Code Annotated:
"Beginning July 1, 2011, the county treasurer will use the Online Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Verification System to verify that vehicle owners have complied with motor vehicle liability requirements. Unless the verification system is temporarily unavailable, the county treasurer cannot issue license plates to a motor vehicle when compliance cannot be verified."
"Senate bill 508 creates an Online Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Verification System to verify the compliance of a motor vehicle owner or operator with motor vehicle liability policy requirements and to monitor proof of financial responsibility. The new law allows the Department of Justice, Motor Vehicle Division, to contract with a private vendor or vendors to establish and maintain the system. The system will send requests to insurers for verification of motor vehicle liability insurance using electronic services established by the insurers. The system will include provisions to secure its data against unauthorized access and to maintain a record of all requests and responses. The system will be accessible without fee to authorized personnel of the Department, the courts, law enforcement
personnel, county treasurers, and their authorized agents...
"All insurers must cooperate with the department in establishing and maintaining the system and must provide access to motor vehicle liability policy status information to verify liability coverage for a vehicle insured by that company that is registered in this state and, if available, for a vehicle that is insured by that company or that is operated in this state and the subject of an accident investigation, regardless of where the vehicle is registered.
Law Enforcement Use of the System
"A peace officer or authorized employee of a law enforcement agency may, during the course of a traffic stop or accident investigation, access the verification system to verify whether a motor vehicle is covered by a valid motor vehicle liability policy as required by state law. The response received from the system supersedes an insurance card produced by a vehicle owner or operator."
Effective January 1, 2010, Section 61-3-303, Montana Code Annotated:
"Beginning July 1, 2011, the county treasurer will use the Online Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Verification System to verify that vehicle owners have complied with motor vehicle liability requirements. Unless the verification system is temporarily unavailable, the county treasurer cannot issue license plates to a motor vehicle when compliance cannot be verified."
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Another response to atheism
This is why I always ask the atheist to provide scientific evidence they exist, because, for all I know I could be having a hallucination! the atheist I am talking to might not be real! documentary, historical and anecdotal evidence don't aren't good enough! not even personal experience!
I also wonder why atheists don't have scientific evidence their mothers exist, or they love them. The atheist might counter with 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! its a lot more extraordinary to say a (insert attributes here) sky fairy that made the universe exists than it is to say a human being that doesn't believe in a sky fairy exist' to which I reply 'wrong, it is equally extraordinary to believe that a random occurrence of molecules has somehow assembled itself into what seems to be (if you're real) your unique form and has had your unique experiences. I find that to be quite extraordinary indeed! and I would like scientific evidence you exist!' It's all in your perception and how you word things!
Most atheists don't grasp the fact that what is extraordinary is entirely dependent upon the person and their experiences. I am sure some tribesman that's lived his entire life in the amazon rain forest might think a building or a rocket ship is 'extraordinary,' while the atheist, who experiences those things everyday, will find both a rocket ship and a building to be not extraordinary.
Then you point out that according to the evidence, the majority of the world believes the supernatural exists (whether they experience it everyday as much as we experience buildings and rocket ships is a different story entirely) and thus in this sense the atheist can be compared to the ignorant tribesman in that he is completely oblivious to what the majority of the world believes is real.
I also wonder why atheists don't have scientific evidence their mothers exist, or they love them. The atheist might counter with 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! its a lot more extraordinary to say a (insert attributes here) sky fairy that made the universe exists than it is to say a human being that doesn't believe in a sky fairy exist' to which I reply 'wrong, it is equally extraordinary to believe that a random occurrence of molecules has somehow assembled itself into what seems to be (if you're real) your unique form and has had your unique experiences. I find that to be quite extraordinary indeed! and I would like scientific evidence you exist!' It's all in your perception and how you word things!
Most atheists don't grasp the fact that what is extraordinary is entirely dependent upon the person and their experiences. I am sure some tribesman that's lived his entire life in the amazon rain forest might think a building or a rocket ship is 'extraordinary,' while the atheist, who experiences those things everyday, will find both a rocket ship and a building to be not extraordinary.
Then you point out that according to the evidence, the majority of the world believes the supernatural exists (whether they experience it everyday as much as we experience buildings and rocket ships is a different story entirely) and thus in this sense the atheist can be compared to the ignorant tribesman in that he is completely oblivious to what the majority of the world believes is real.
Monday, August 30, 2010
9/8/10 editorial - Conservative code speak
I was at the supermarket the other day, having just completed a legal, willing exchange of things of value. For $2.99 I got my box of Chester Fried, acquired without government intervention.
As I made my way to the exit I heard someone call out, “Say, are you that fellow who writes…” His voice trailed off as he looked furtively over each shoulder. Apparently satisfied he had aroused no suspicions, he came closer. Leaning toward me conspiratorially, he began again: “Are you that fellow who writes columns for the Chronicle?” He glanced around again as if we were engaging in a medical marijuana purchase. I told him I was.
“I really like what you write,” he said. “All my friends love your stuff. Keep it up. My name is John.” We exchanged in the Eeevil Extremist Conservative Secret Handshake, clasping right hands and moving them up and down in unison three to five times.
“I’m Rich, glad to meet you,” I said. “Thanks for saying something. It means a lot.” I was a bit more at ease, now that I knew he belonged. Nevertheless, I still kept my radar up. Infiltrators are everywhere.
We began our Eeeevil Extremist Conservative Code-Speak. “There are lots of patriots (Translation: People who agree with us) out there who are fed up with the government spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave (Let’s cut crucial services so the elderly will starve),” John whispered. “I don’t like Obama’s programs (Black people are ruining this country).”
John’s eyes darted to and fro. “It’s dangerous to be talking this way.” He shifted uneasily on his feet.
I tried to be reassuring. “This is America (We hate immigrants). We are still a free country (Slavery, the good old days),” I said. “All we can do is keep telling our side (Keep hysterically shouting, but offer no solutions). People are starting to wake up (Stupid people are joining us).”
John seemed to perk up. “Yeah, a lot of people are finally deciding to take a stand (We are hypocrites who had nothing to say about the past 8 years).” “I really think the TEA party is going to make a difference (with all the funding from shadowy right wingers).”
“Have you been to any TEA party events (Did you have enough Obama = Hitler signs)?” I asked. “Yeah, a couple,” John said. “It was kinda neat to protest government, like they did back in the sixties (As long as we are all white).”
“Why do they think that government can solve economic problems by doing even more of what got us into this mess (We're against the minimum wage in order to keep minorities in poverty)?” I asked. John replied, “I dunno. Do they really think we are that stupid (Glenn Beck is god)?”
I started leaning towards the door. “It was good to meet you,” I said, "and keep on believing (Keep working towards theocracy)".
John’s voice returned to normal. “It was good to meet you, too,” He said. Sotto voce again, he whispered, “What are you going to write about next (How are you going to advance corporate interests at the expense of workers)?”
I thought a moment. “Well, maybe I’ll write about the secret code language conservatives supposedly use.” John replied, “Oh, you mean like, ‘Big city problems coming to Montana?’”
“Yeah, like that,” I said. “Did you know that somehow means blacks are moving in?” He answered, “No, I didn’t. (I’ll have to update my secret decoder ring).”
“Me either.” We exchanged another Eeevil Extremist Conservative Secret Handshake, and John made his way towards the cheap wine section.
Wait a minute, he only shook twice. Infiltrators are everywhere…
As I made my way to the exit I heard someone call out, “Say, are you that fellow who writes…” His voice trailed off as he looked furtively over each shoulder. Apparently satisfied he had aroused no suspicions, he came closer. Leaning toward me conspiratorially, he began again: “Are you that fellow who writes columns for the Chronicle?” He glanced around again as if we were engaging in a medical marijuana purchase. I told him I was.
“I really like what you write,” he said. “All my friends love your stuff. Keep it up. My name is John.” We exchanged in the Eeevil Extremist Conservative Secret Handshake, clasping right hands and moving them up and down in unison three to five times.
“I’m Rich, glad to meet you,” I said. “Thanks for saying something. It means a lot.” I was a bit more at ease, now that I knew he belonged. Nevertheless, I still kept my radar up. Infiltrators are everywhere.
We began our Eeeevil Extremist Conservative Code-Speak. “There are lots of patriots (Translation: People who agree with us) out there who are fed up with the government spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave (Let’s cut crucial services so the elderly will starve),” John whispered. “I don’t like Obama’s programs (Black people are ruining this country).”
John’s eyes darted to and fro. “It’s dangerous to be talking this way.” He shifted uneasily on his feet.
I tried to be reassuring. “This is America (We hate immigrants). We are still a free country (Slavery, the good old days),” I said. “All we can do is keep telling our side (Keep hysterically shouting, but offer no solutions). People are starting to wake up (Stupid people are joining us).”
John seemed to perk up. “Yeah, a lot of people are finally deciding to take a stand (We are hypocrites who had nothing to say about the past 8 years).” “I really think the TEA party is going to make a difference (with all the funding from shadowy right wingers).”
“Have you been to any TEA party events (Did you have enough Obama = Hitler signs)?” I asked. “Yeah, a couple,” John said. “It was kinda neat to protest government, like they did back in the sixties (As long as we are all white).”
“Why do they think that government can solve economic problems by doing even more of what got us into this mess (We're against the minimum wage in order to keep minorities in poverty)?” I asked. John replied, “I dunno. Do they really think we are that stupid (Glenn Beck is god)?”
I started leaning towards the door. “It was good to meet you,” I said, "and keep on believing (Keep working towards theocracy)".
John’s voice returned to normal. “It was good to meet you, too,” He said. Sotto voce again, he whispered, “What are you going to write about next (How are you going to advance corporate interests at the expense of workers)?”
I thought a moment. “Well, maybe I’ll write about the secret code language conservatives supposedly use.” John replied, “Oh, you mean like, ‘Big city problems coming to Montana?’”
“Yeah, like that,” I said. “Did you know that somehow means blacks are moving in?” He answered, “No, I didn’t. (I’ll have to update my secret decoder ring).”
“Me either.” We exchanged another Eeevil Extremist Conservative Secret Handshake, and John made his way towards the cheap wine section.
Wait a minute, he only shook twice. Infiltrators are everywhere…
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Dr. Laura says the "N" word, outrage ensues
Surprise, the controversy is overblown. She didn't call anyone a "N." Here's the transcript:
SCHLESSINGER: I think that's -- well, listen, without giving much thought, a lot of blacks voted for Obama simply 'cause he was half-black. Didn't matter what he was gonna do in office, it was a black thing. You gotta know that. That's not a surprise. Not everything that somebody says -- we had friends over the other day; we got about 35 people here -- the guys who were gonna start playing basketball. I was gonna go out and play basketball. My bodyguard and my dear friend is a black man. And I said, "White men can't jump; I want you on my team." That was racist? That was funny.
CALLER: How about the N-word? So, the N-word's been thrown around --
SCHLESSINGER: Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic, and all you hear is nigger, nigger, nigger.
CALLER: That isn't --
SCHLESSINGER: I don't get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it's a horrible thing; but when black people say it, it's affectionate.
CALLER: So it's OK to say "nigger"?
SCHLESSINGER: -- and not enough sense of humor.
CALLER: It's OK to say that word?
SCHLESSINGER: It depends how it's said.
CALLER: Is it OK to say that word? Is it ever OK to say that word?
SCHLESSINGER: It's -- it depends how it's said. Black guys talking to each other seem to think it's OK.
SCHLESSINGER: I think that's -- well, listen, without giving much thought, a lot of blacks voted for Obama simply 'cause he was half-black. Didn't matter what he was gonna do in office, it was a black thing. You gotta know that. That's not a surprise. Not everything that somebody says -- we had friends over the other day; we got about 35 people here -- the guys who were gonna start playing basketball. I was gonna go out and play basketball. My bodyguard and my dear friend is a black man. And I said, "White men can't jump; I want you on my team." That was racist? That was funny.
CALLER: How about the N-word? So, the N-word's been thrown around --
SCHLESSINGER: Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic, and all you hear is nigger, nigger, nigger.
CALLER: That isn't --
SCHLESSINGER: I don't get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it's a horrible thing; but when black people say it, it's affectionate.
CALLER: So it's OK to say "nigger"?
SCHLESSINGER: -- and not enough sense of humor.
CALLER: It's OK to say that word?
SCHLESSINGER: It depends how it's said.
CALLER: Is it OK to say that word? Is it ever OK to say that word?
SCHLESSINGER: It's -- it depends how it's said. Black guys talking to each other seem to think it's OK.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
New editorial, water main
I admit that I am puzzled by the City’s actions regarding the busted water main. I’m going back and forth on the issue. On one hand we have the property damage and other losses, and on the other we have the city’s $1000 goodwill payment.
Add to the mix the City’s insurance carrier. The City apparently has a liability insurance policy. Generally speaking, liability insurance covers the insured for bodily injury or property damage for which the insured is found legally liable. Although this is the general principle, we don’t know what the policy language says. It may have some exclusion that applies.
The City’s insurer has taken this very position, publicly announcing that there is no coverage. It’s worth noting that this is not the same thing as denying an actual claim; it seems more like a pre-emptive strike to minimize future losses. We don’t know if property owners have actually submitted claims and been denied.
However, just because the insurer says the damage isn’t covered doesn’t mean that is the end of the issue. Property owners could complain to the State Auditor’s office, which oversees insurance in Montana. I assume the city's insurer is subject to the Auditor's oversight. This is a powerful motivator for insurers, because the Auditor is the gateway to doing insurance business in Montana. An insurer would not want their authority to transact business impeded in any way, so they might choose to cover the losses in order to retain their authority to sell insurance in Montana.
But let’s assume that there is an unambiguous exclusion in the policy which lets the insurer off the hook. The absence of coverage does not mean an absence of liability. A property owner might choose to take the City to court. The court’s affirmative decision would certainly establish legal liability for the loss, so the City would then be obligated to pay all damages caused by the broken water main.
But here is where I get confused. The City is apparently acting on the insurer’s denial and offering each owner a $1000 payment (or more in some cases). This strikes me as odd. Why insult people with an inadequate payment? If the City is offering this payment they must have some sort of sense that they ought to help pay for the damage. But why would they do that if they don’t believe it’s their fault? Either they’re liable or they are not. If they are liable, they pay for everything; if they are not, they pay nothing.
And by making the token payment it may mean they are assuming liability, a situation their attorneys should have warned them about. One might wonder if there is a level of incompetence at work here.
This payment scheme was a quick announcement, like there was a midnight meeting or something. They were ready with this $1000 awfully fast. I can imagine sleepy-eyed commissioners having a conversation, like: “OMG, what are we gonna do?” “Hey, how about $1000 each?” “Yeah, then we just say that we wanted to treat everyone equally.” “I like that. We show our compassion in the face of that eeeevil insurance company denying claims.”
This is a scheme that could only be dreamed up by government. No matter what the individual situation, no matter who is at fault or who deserves what, no matter how much damage, the payment is $1000. Funded by taxpayers, of course. Like so many government programs which pay people regardless of need or merit, this payment is nothing more than a feel-good moment for the governmental elites.
And they expected that there would be no criticism of their offer? One might wonder if the city leaders are living in the real world.
Add to the mix the City’s insurance carrier. The City apparently has a liability insurance policy. Generally speaking, liability insurance covers the insured for bodily injury or property damage for which the insured is found legally liable. Although this is the general principle, we don’t know what the policy language says. It may have some exclusion that applies.
The City’s insurer has taken this very position, publicly announcing that there is no coverage. It’s worth noting that this is not the same thing as denying an actual claim; it seems more like a pre-emptive strike to minimize future losses. We don’t know if property owners have actually submitted claims and been denied.
However, just because the insurer says the damage isn’t covered doesn’t mean that is the end of the issue. Property owners could complain to the State Auditor’s office, which oversees insurance in Montana. I assume the city's insurer is subject to the Auditor's oversight. This is a powerful motivator for insurers, because the Auditor is the gateway to doing insurance business in Montana. An insurer would not want their authority to transact business impeded in any way, so they might choose to cover the losses in order to retain their authority to sell insurance in Montana.
But let’s assume that there is an unambiguous exclusion in the policy which lets the insurer off the hook. The absence of coverage does not mean an absence of liability. A property owner might choose to take the City to court. The court’s affirmative decision would certainly establish legal liability for the loss, so the City would then be obligated to pay all damages caused by the broken water main.
But here is where I get confused. The City is apparently acting on the insurer’s denial and offering each owner a $1000 payment (or more in some cases). This strikes me as odd. Why insult people with an inadequate payment? If the City is offering this payment they must have some sort of sense that they ought to help pay for the damage. But why would they do that if they don’t believe it’s their fault? Either they’re liable or they are not. If they are liable, they pay for everything; if they are not, they pay nothing.
And by making the token payment it may mean they are assuming liability, a situation their attorneys should have warned them about. One might wonder if there is a level of incompetence at work here.
This payment scheme was a quick announcement, like there was a midnight meeting or something. They were ready with this $1000 awfully fast. I can imagine sleepy-eyed commissioners having a conversation, like: “OMG, what are we gonna do?” “Hey, how about $1000 each?” “Yeah, then we just say that we wanted to treat everyone equally.” “I like that. We show our compassion in the face of that eeeevil insurance company denying claims.”
This is a scheme that could only be dreamed up by government. No matter what the individual situation, no matter who is at fault or who deserves what, no matter how much damage, the payment is $1000. Funded by taxpayers, of course. Like so many government programs which pay people regardless of need or merit, this payment is nothing more than a feel-good moment for the governmental elites.
And they expected that there would be no criticism of their offer? One might wonder if the city leaders are living in the real world.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Gay marriage editorial
I truly feel for the lady featured in a recent Chronicle article.
Apparently the parents of her deceased partner removed personal items, took retirement funds, and moved the body. It is horrifying how people will sometimes treat fellow human beings, especially in a time of sorrow. This woman suffered the death of a loved one. No one should be treated this way. Gay marriage aside, this is a human issue.
What’s worse, it could have been easily prevented. There are legal ramifications to any relationship that involves things of material value. Contracts are necessary and desirable. People do this all the time to protect their interests and to prevent other parties from acting against their wishes. A lot of heartache could have been avoided.
But may we question what really happened here? Retirement plans and life insurance policies list beneficiaries and owners. No one can intervene without showing cause in court. Wills, auto titles, deeds, loans, and rental agreements all name the parties involved. So are there facts we don’t know about? It doesn’t seem to add up.
Ok, so what about gay marriage? Some of you are probably waiting to pounce with name calling and hysterical invective, but we can discuss and disagree without such histrionics, right? As I mentioned in a prior column, I am a conservative who sometimes leans libertarian. Now, libertarians do not believe that they must keep their mouths shut about moral issues. They believe that government must keep its mouth shut about moral issues.
First, I oppose a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. The purpose of the Constitution is to tell government what it can and cannot do. It defines and limits government. You know, if this basic concept was better understood, a lot of legal controversies would simply disappear.
A constitutional amendment about marriage wouldn’t be about defining the powers of government, it would impact the private relationships of The People. Therefore, those who want to amend the Constitution need to deal with their convictions in some other way.
Second, marriage is a religious institution. Government should leave marriage to the church. If you want to get married, find a church that will solemnize your relationship. For some reason, however, there is this misplaced desire to get gay marriage legalized, as if the legal and moral approval of society must be extracted to affirm love and commitment.
We need to be clear, civil marriage is an expression of law. There is no right to marriage. No one is suppressing anyone’s rights. Indeed, government is the only party that can suppress rights.
Marriage is a privilege granted by government. That’s why there’s a marriage license. You see, there are already lots of people who cannot marry due to age, genetic relationship, or even due to the fact that they are presently married. Their rights are not being violated either.
Indeed, government has made many laws that regulate marriage, to the point that it is barely recognizable as an expression of religion. Government has invaded all kinds of other religious activities as well, all of which violate the Constitution. What part of “Congress shall make no law…” don’t we understand?
Third, government should get out of marriage and religion. Churches should drop their tax-exempt status - - they are exchanging silence on politics for a payoff. And people should stop looking for approval for the way they lead their lives.
You might be a person interested in being legally acknowledged by society. You might suggest that all loving, committed relationships are noble. And certainly there is a certain satisfaction in rubbing the gay marriage issue in the nose of those homophobes who disagree with you.
I grant all of that, but inviting the further presence of government into our private relationships can only lead to oppression. We don’t need more government.
Apparently the parents of her deceased partner removed personal items, took retirement funds, and moved the body. It is horrifying how people will sometimes treat fellow human beings, especially in a time of sorrow. This woman suffered the death of a loved one. No one should be treated this way. Gay marriage aside, this is a human issue.
What’s worse, it could have been easily prevented. There are legal ramifications to any relationship that involves things of material value. Contracts are necessary and desirable. People do this all the time to protect their interests and to prevent other parties from acting against their wishes. A lot of heartache could have been avoided.
But may we question what really happened here? Retirement plans and life insurance policies list beneficiaries and owners. No one can intervene without showing cause in court. Wills, auto titles, deeds, loans, and rental agreements all name the parties involved. So are there facts we don’t know about? It doesn’t seem to add up.
Ok, so what about gay marriage? Some of you are probably waiting to pounce with name calling and hysterical invective, but we can discuss and disagree without such histrionics, right? As I mentioned in a prior column, I am a conservative who sometimes leans libertarian. Now, libertarians do not believe that they must keep their mouths shut about moral issues. They believe that government must keep its mouth shut about moral issues.
First, I oppose a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. The purpose of the Constitution is to tell government what it can and cannot do. It defines and limits government. You know, if this basic concept was better understood, a lot of legal controversies would simply disappear.
A constitutional amendment about marriage wouldn’t be about defining the powers of government, it would impact the private relationships of The People. Therefore, those who want to amend the Constitution need to deal with their convictions in some other way.
Second, marriage is a religious institution. Government should leave marriage to the church. If you want to get married, find a church that will solemnize your relationship. For some reason, however, there is this misplaced desire to get gay marriage legalized, as if the legal and moral approval of society must be extracted to affirm love and commitment.
We need to be clear, civil marriage is an expression of law. There is no right to marriage. No one is suppressing anyone’s rights. Indeed, government is the only party that can suppress rights.
Marriage is a privilege granted by government. That’s why there’s a marriage license. You see, there are already lots of people who cannot marry due to age, genetic relationship, or even due to the fact that they are presently married. Their rights are not being violated either.
Indeed, government has made many laws that regulate marriage, to the point that it is barely recognizable as an expression of religion. Government has invaded all kinds of other religious activities as well, all of which violate the Constitution. What part of “Congress shall make no law…” don’t we understand?
Third, government should get out of marriage and religion. Churches should drop their tax-exempt status - - they are exchanging silence on politics for a payoff. And people should stop looking for approval for the way they lead their lives.
You might be a person interested in being legally acknowledged by society. You might suggest that all loving, committed relationships are noble. And certainly there is a certain satisfaction in rubbing the gay marriage issue in the nose of those homophobes who disagree with you.
I grant all of that, but inviting the further presence of government into our private relationships can only lead to oppression. We don’t need more government.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
God's intent for our brain
A Facebook conversation I found interesting:
PJ - What was the original intent for our brain?
MSF - It was to create things in the physical realm out of the overflow of the spiritual things.
MSF - Our mind worships the Lord and brings glory to Him by becoming renewed via the spirit. Then we bring the things into earth that heaven has revealed through practical, physical creation. We do balance the knowledge of our brain through biblical study and the study of other things, but not knowledge that puffs up, we submit it to the spirit.
Me - The mind is informed by the spirit. The Spirit of God gives life to our spirits and gives us the ability to being our minds into conformance with God.
Rom 8:6-8 - "The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so."
1 Cor 1:14 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
Luke 24:45 - "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures."
I can find no Scripture that speaks of creating reality. Sorry.
MSF - I agree with those verses, they are the support for what I'm getting at. I was trying to get at the fact that our brain controls the motor functions and other systems of our body. Our mind is made up by our soul (mind, will, and emotions). When they are submitted to the Lord through our spirit, to His spirit, then we begin to function in original intent. Does that make sense? I was making the case for our spirit to know and understand God, and that our brain or mind is not what we connect to Him with, as is so often tried. The verse that sparked that was the one you quoted from I Corinthians. I just read from chapter 1 and 2 and mistakenly cited chapter 2 as the source.
Me - I Gotcha. However, you did write that the brain "...was to create things in the physical realm..."
What did you mean by that?
MSF - The brain controls our motor functions, the physical body. God created the physical universe and gave us physical bodies to co-create in a physical world. The creator God created us to also create and glorify Him in that. So I think our brain was designed to make the physical manifestations on earth from the spiritual reality of God.
Me - Scripture reference?
MSF - I love your questions, Rich. They always challenge me to better articulate myself and really cite scripture. It always forces me to be sharpened in that simple way.
Genesis 2:15 "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."
God made Adam physically, in addition to the breathe of the spirit which brought him life, to do physical things with creation. God even delighted in how Adam would use his mind to be creative: "...He brought them (the animals) to the man to see what he would name them..." Gen 2:19
Ephesians 2:10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
In Exodus 31:1-11 we see that some of the first people who were filled with the Spirit were craftsmen and creative people.
Jesus said that he brought glory to the Father by completing every work that the Father set for Him to do.
Now, obviously the only fruit that means anything is eternal things, but we use our body to bring about these things "on earth as it is in Heaven". What's born in the spirit is brought into fruition into physical earth, though it is in the spiritual realm. My deduction is that taking that "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing..." (John 6:63) and yet we are flesh, I believe the flesh has a role to play as a middle man on this side of eternity. If we submit the body and soul to the Spirit, we can produce spiritual things in the earth.
Me - I'm trying to determine if you are talking about how we might use the intellect, sanctified by the Spirit, to build, create, and form things as skillful workmen (i.e., the fruit of our labors); or, if you are referring to what is popularly known as "name it and claim it," where our words have power to create things.
MSF - the first one.
PJ - What was the original intent for our brain?
MSF - It was to create things in the physical realm out of the overflow of the spiritual things.
MSF - Our mind worships the Lord and brings glory to Him by becoming renewed via the spirit. Then we bring the things into earth that heaven has revealed through practical, physical creation. We do balance the knowledge of our brain through biblical study and the study of other things, but not knowledge that puffs up, we submit it to the spirit.
Me - The mind is informed by the spirit. The Spirit of God gives life to our spirits and gives us the ability to being our minds into conformance with God.
Rom 8:6-8 - "The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so."
1 Cor 1:14 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
Luke 24:45 - "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures."
I can find no Scripture that speaks of creating reality. Sorry.
MSF - I agree with those verses, they are the support for what I'm getting at. I was trying to get at the fact that our brain controls the motor functions and other systems of our body. Our mind is made up by our soul (mind, will, and emotions). When they are submitted to the Lord through our spirit, to His spirit, then we begin to function in original intent. Does that make sense? I was making the case for our spirit to know and understand God, and that our brain or mind is not what we connect to Him with, as is so often tried. The verse that sparked that was the one you quoted from I Corinthians. I just read from chapter 1 and 2 and mistakenly cited chapter 2 as the source.
Me - I Gotcha. However, you did write that the brain "...was to create things in the physical realm..."
What did you mean by that?
MSF - The brain controls our motor functions, the physical body. God created the physical universe and gave us physical bodies to co-create in a physical world. The creator God created us to also create and glorify Him in that. So I think our brain was designed to make the physical manifestations on earth from the spiritual reality of God.
Me - Scripture reference?
MSF - I love your questions, Rich. They always challenge me to better articulate myself and really cite scripture. It always forces me to be sharpened in that simple way.
Genesis 2:15 "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."
God made Adam physically, in addition to the breathe of the spirit which brought him life, to do physical things with creation. God even delighted in how Adam would use his mind to be creative: "...He brought them (the animals) to the man to see what he would name them..." Gen 2:19
Ephesians 2:10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
In Exodus 31:1-11 we see that some of the first people who were filled with the Spirit were craftsmen and creative people.
Jesus said that he brought glory to the Father by completing every work that the Father set for Him to do.
Now, obviously the only fruit that means anything is eternal things, but we use our body to bring about these things "on earth as it is in Heaven". What's born in the spirit is brought into fruition into physical earth, though it is in the spiritual realm. My deduction is that taking that "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing..." (John 6:63) and yet we are flesh, I believe the flesh has a role to play as a middle man on this side of eternity. If we submit the body and soul to the Spirit, we can produce spiritual things in the earth.
Me - I'm trying to determine if you are talking about how we might use the intellect, sanctified by the Spirit, to build, create, and form things as skillful workmen (i.e., the fruit of our labors); or, if you are referring to what is popularly known as "name it and claim it," where our words have power to create things.
MSF - the first one.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Editorial - buying my first gun
I just purchased my very first gun, a lovely 12 gauge pump-action shot gun. This may concern some of you. There is nothing worse than a eeeevil right-wing extremist who is armed.
I'm not a gun type person, never even fired one. I held one once as a kid, my uncle had a pistol that my mom hated. That moment was seminal. I never forgot what it felt like, cold and heavy. It was a dull gray color, and smelled of oil and gunpowder. He had a peculiar smirk as he handed it to me, a smile that seemed to say, "Here, take it kid, be a man."
Now I am 51 years old. I have lived in Montana nearly 30 years. Although Montana has a reputation as a fiercely rugged, individualistic place, somehow it took me this long to embrace this rite of passage towards becoming a real Montanan, dare I say, a real man.
On one hand I was reluctant to buy a gun, because a firearm is quintessential lethal force. The power of life and death is not one to assume lightly. On the other hand, standing at that gun counter in the store was as exciting as when I asked my wife out on our very first date.
The salesman knew. Obviously he had trod these paths many times. He had that somehow-familiar smirk on his face, one that reminded me of my uncle. "So you wanna buy a gun, huh?" he said with a wink. Hmm, did he say that, or did he really say, "Here, take it kid, be a man"?
I almost said that I was not some teenager buying condoms, but thought the better of it. After all, buying a gun might be like boarding an airplane. You just don't joke with the TSA.
My son had come along for his expertise. It needs to be a moment that is shared with your first-born. He already owns several firearms, and suggested a shotgun for "personal defense." He coolly informed me that in the heat of the moment, you don't have to be as accurate with your aim with a shotgun in order to stop an intruder.
On the back wall there was a rack with dozens of guns laid out in neat rows, some of which were unexpectedly expensive. This is certainly one reason I haven't owned a gun. I have other bad habits to waste my money on. My 67 Camaro convertible has received my financial devotion up to this point, so buying a gun (or a snowmobile, or a 4 wheeler) had never been in the cards.
So why the change of heart? Well, the world isn't as safe as it once was, and some big city problems seem to have made their way to Montana. Couple this with my belief in and admiration of the Constitution, I almost felt obligated.
I was surprised to discover how good it feels to exercise a constitutional right. You know, if the second amendment was treated the same way as other, more popular rights, not only would we acknowledge it - yes, celebrate it - we would be entitled to government funding.
Like my uncle's pistol, the shotgun I settled on was cold and gray. Fitting, I suppose, for an instrument of destruction. I didn't even know how to hold it, kind of like a new father with his infant child. I didn't want to drop it. The salesman indulgently showed me what to do.
I was surprised to find out that in Montana there is no waiting period. I walked in, filled out a form, they made a phone call, and I walked out. I thought that I would have to give a fingerprint, or a blood sample or maybe show a permission slip from Max Baucus or something.
So now I am proud gun owner, in the finest of Montana traditions. Or alternately, I am now a danger to myself and others.
I'm not a gun type person, never even fired one. I held one once as a kid, my uncle had a pistol that my mom hated. That moment was seminal. I never forgot what it felt like, cold and heavy. It was a dull gray color, and smelled of oil and gunpowder. He had a peculiar smirk as he handed it to me, a smile that seemed to say, "Here, take it kid, be a man."
Now I am 51 years old. I have lived in Montana nearly 30 years. Although Montana has a reputation as a fiercely rugged, individualistic place, somehow it took me this long to embrace this rite of passage towards becoming a real Montanan, dare I say, a real man.
On one hand I was reluctant to buy a gun, because a firearm is quintessential lethal force. The power of life and death is not one to assume lightly. On the other hand, standing at that gun counter in the store was as exciting as when I asked my wife out on our very first date.
The salesman knew. Obviously he had trod these paths many times. He had that somehow-familiar smirk on his face, one that reminded me of my uncle. "So you wanna buy a gun, huh?" he said with a wink. Hmm, did he say that, or did he really say, "Here, take it kid, be a man"?
I almost said that I was not some teenager buying condoms, but thought the better of it. After all, buying a gun might be like boarding an airplane. You just don't joke with the TSA.
My son had come along for his expertise. It needs to be a moment that is shared with your first-born. He already owns several firearms, and suggested a shotgun for "personal defense." He coolly informed me that in the heat of the moment, you don't have to be as accurate with your aim with a shotgun in order to stop an intruder.
On the back wall there was a rack with dozens of guns laid out in neat rows, some of which were unexpectedly expensive. This is certainly one reason I haven't owned a gun. I have other bad habits to waste my money on. My 67 Camaro convertible has received my financial devotion up to this point, so buying a gun (or a snowmobile, or a 4 wheeler) had never been in the cards.
So why the change of heart? Well, the world isn't as safe as it once was, and some big city problems seem to have made their way to Montana. Couple this with my belief in and admiration of the Constitution, I almost felt obligated.
I was surprised to discover how good it feels to exercise a constitutional right. You know, if the second amendment was treated the same way as other, more popular rights, not only would we acknowledge it - yes, celebrate it - we would be entitled to government funding.
Like my uncle's pistol, the shotgun I settled on was cold and gray. Fitting, I suppose, for an instrument of destruction. I didn't even know how to hold it, kind of like a new father with his infant child. I didn't want to drop it. The salesman indulgently showed me what to do.
I was surprised to find out that in Montana there is no waiting period. I walked in, filled out a form, they made a phone call, and I walked out. I thought that I would have to give a fingerprint, or a blood sample or maybe show a permission slip from Max Baucus or something.
So now I am proud gun owner, in the finest of Montana traditions. Or alternately, I am now a danger to myself and others.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Planning in Gallatin County - editorial for 6/16/10
Land use regulations. Growth policies. Long range planning. These all sound like good and desirable things. After all, planning ahead is what prudent people do.
However, government always seems to take things off the deep end. After all, if a little planning is a good thing, then a lot of planning ought to be a lot better. Even the minutiae, like a dog poster in a window, are regulated. Before long there are whole branches of government dedicated to controlling what you do with your property.
And it certainly is about control. Leftists love to tell other people what to do. These same people, who would scream loud and long if government was regulating what happens in their bedrooms, seem to have not problem at all with the idea of telling people what color to paint their houses.
Montana is going down this central planning road. I think it is a dangerous trend. These planners are no more intelligent than you or I, but they have power. Their use of this power, like all government intervention, has unintended consequences, consequences that are almost always negative.
For example, take my home state of Washington. Washington has a marvelously extensive tax base, including Boeing, Microsoft, and Weyerhauser. It has experienced an economic expansion of massive proportions in recent years. Yet last year they had a $2.8 Billion deficit. Rather than cut spending, they raised taxes and set themselves up for a projected $5.8 Billion deficit this year.
How can this happen? There are lots of reasons, many of which come from the faulty government-as-a-problem-solver mentality. Certainly oppressive land use regulation and its attendant bureaucracy is a contributing factor. All day long, planners sit in their cubicles and dream up new regulations. They monitor and dictate what can and can’t be done someone else’s property.
In Washington, zoning led to the 1990 Growth Management Act, which led to Comprehensive Plans, which lead to Uniform Development Codes, which lead to Critical Areas Ordinances, which lead to Shoreline Acts… you get the idea. These noble causes are all for the “greater good,” while simultaneously leading to the erosion of individual property rights. You see, when someone else can tell you what to do with your own property, you have ceded control, and therefore, ownership of it.
It was only a matter of time that creeping bureaucracy would come to Montana. Counties & cities all seem to have planning staffs that never seem to stop planning. They just keep planning and we keep paying.
Gallatin country has growth policy, a trails plan, a recreation plan, and something called the “National Spatial Data Infrastructure Community Demonstration Project.” In addition, there are all sorts of committees, districts, and regulations, which you can see yourself at http://www.gallatin.mt.gov/Public_Documents/gallatincomt_plandept/planning.
Good intentions do not necessarily yield good results. And someone always has to pay. Open spaces, walking trails, and neighborhood beautification all sound wonderful, at least while prosperity is funding it, but when the economy takes a downturn, people start realizing how expensive these things are. Like other government programs, taxpayers always end up being stuck with the check.
You know, I am not opposed to reasonable zoning for things like ensuring public safety. Other things, like property values, appearance, or home density can be dealt with by neighborhood associations and covenants.
Ironically, the influence of planners spreads in exactly the same way as the growth they seek to control. Maybe we need a planning board to control the spread of central-planning government.
However, government always seems to take things off the deep end. After all, if a little planning is a good thing, then a lot of planning ought to be a lot better. Even the minutiae, like a dog poster in a window, are regulated. Before long there are whole branches of government dedicated to controlling what you do with your property.
And it certainly is about control. Leftists love to tell other people what to do. These same people, who would scream loud and long if government was regulating what happens in their bedrooms, seem to have not problem at all with the idea of telling people what color to paint their houses.
Montana is going down this central planning road. I think it is a dangerous trend. These planners are no more intelligent than you or I, but they have power. Their use of this power, like all government intervention, has unintended consequences, consequences that are almost always negative.
For example, take my home state of Washington. Washington has a marvelously extensive tax base, including Boeing, Microsoft, and Weyerhauser. It has experienced an economic expansion of massive proportions in recent years. Yet last year they had a $2.8 Billion deficit. Rather than cut spending, they raised taxes and set themselves up for a projected $5.8 Billion deficit this year.
How can this happen? There are lots of reasons, many of which come from the faulty government-as-a-problem-solver mentality. Certainly oppressive land use regulation and its attendant bureaucracy is a contributing factor. All day long, planners sit in their cubicles and dream up new regulations. They monitor and dictate what can and can’t be done someone else’s property.
In Washington, zoning led to the 1990 Growth Management Act, which led to Comprehensive Plans, which lead to Uniform Development Codes, which lead to Critical Areas Ordinances, which lead to Shoreline Acts… you get the idea. These noble causes are all for the “greater good,” while simultaneously leading to the erosion of individual property rights. You see, when someone else can tell you what to do with your own property, you have ceded control, and therefore, ownership of it.
It was only a matter of time that creeping bureaucracy would come to Montana. Counties & cities all seem to have planning staffs that never seem to stop planning. They just keep planning and we keep paying.
Gallatin country has growth policy, a trails plan, a recreation plan, and something called the “National Spatial Data Infrastructure Community Demonstration Project.” In addition, there are all sorts of committees, districts, and regulations, which you can see yourself at http://www.gallatin.mt.gov/Public_Documents/gallatincomt_plandept/planning.
Good intentions do not necessarily yield good results. And someone always has to pay. Open spaces, walking trails, and neighborhood beautification all sound wonderful, at least while prosperity is funding it, but when the economy takes a downturn, people start realizing how expensive these things are. Like other government programs, taxpayers always end up being stuck with the check.
You know, I am not opposed to reasonable zoning for things like ensuring public safety. Other things, like property values, appearance, or home density can be dealt with by neighborhood associations and covenants.
Ironically, the influence of planners spreads in exactly the same way as the growth they seek to control. Maybe we need a planning board to control the spread of central-planning government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)