I love the global warming debate. I love the way the media portrays this as a new phenomenon. When did Al Gore write Earth In the Balance? Back in 1992 when he was running for Vice President. He said that the automobile was going to destroy man. Forget the fact that the industry of the automobile might be the single most important technological in the history of the world. The automobile shrunk the world and made trips that would take days, instead take mere moments. Here's a question for you greenies: You're having a stroke, do you me to drive you to the hospital or get the horse and buggy?
Here are some questions about global warming that bounce around my brain:
How can scientists say that the earth will get warmer in the future when they can't tell me if it is going to rain tomorrow, with any degree of accuracy? These same scientists predicted global cooling in the mid-1970's.
Why are scientists who dispute global warming likened to Holocaust deniers and silenced at all costs?
Why is global warming a political issue instead of a scientific debate?
My problem with global warming is that scientists who dispute it are labeled as stooges for capitalism, instead of being debated intellectually. They are threatened or cajoled, denied research grants and generally abused for holding a position that is politically incorrect. The Earth is pretty old(4,570,000,000 years, give or take), and to think that the it is warming because of humans, that's ridiculous. But the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change(IPCC) says it is so. The media jumps on the bandwagon and away we go. In the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report(by the way, that's four assessment reports in 19 years, the IPCC was formed in 1988, guess these guys get paid by the hour) they say there is a 90% certainty of heavy rainfall and a 66% certainty of increases in droughts over the next century. Well, which is it? My college logic professor(Dr. Nishimura) would not be impressed by their simultaneously taking both sides of the one position.
The reaction to global warming will have a disastrous effect on third world countries, particularly in Africa. Maybe this is the whole point. I have become convinced that certain portion of the American population wants to see a return to primitive living. They want to see it without losing their frappucinos and digital satellite dishes, though. So they decide to inflict their vision on other people. They label Africa a pristine environment that cannot be touched. Most of the countries in Africa are run by tribes who spend more time killing each other than hiking and camping. The progress that is attempting to save this continent will never happen if global warming activists get their way.
Who cares if the polar ice caps melt(although some Russian and American scientists reported in 2005 that the Greenland ice cap was getting thicker)? The artic ice cap is a floating piece of ice. If it melts it will not cause flooding. Imagine a glass of ice water. What happens when the ice melts? Does the water level go up, down or stay the same? It stays the same. Any rational thought sees right through this. The hysteria surrounding global warming is ridiculous.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
PEL (Public Education Limited)
I am a product of America's public education system.
I consider myself above average in intelligence.
These two facts are mutually exclusive.
The father of American public education is Horace Mann. It's interesting to note that the two websites I went to find information about Mann were either rife with spelling and grammatical errors or were completely disorganized and made no sense. Mann's wikipedia article, for instance, has been edited in such a way as to look like the person who did it was, in fact, a product of American public schools. Check it out. Mann believed that public education would, inside of a generation or two, eliminate poverty an 90% of all crime, especially violent crimes. Good call, Horace.
But the fundamental issue about public education has nothing to do with the test scores(they're horrendous) or the amount of money we spend on education($10,000 per pupil). The fundamental issue is whether forcing our children to attend government-run educational institutions is such a good idea. There was a time when Americans held a healthy scepticism for the government. Now we hold utter disdain for it while accepting all of its institutions. Get rid of Social Security? But what of the elderly? Remove the safety net of food stamps? But what of the poor, especially children?
And public education is the holy grail of all government institutions. It is simply untouchable. Complain that teachers are unworthy of raises and you get shouted down and laughed at—although $46,000 a year for a nine month job sounds pretty good for people who are failing our children.
Public education is, at best, an opportunity for the government, and, at its worst, a complete failure of those it is supposed to help. Public education has done more to keep poor people poor than all of the other social programs. Public education does nothing more than provide a platform for social welfare advocates as well as providing ample excuses for their failures. They say that they need more money, even though a parochial school education would cost less than a third as much as a public one, and deliver better results. They say they need more parental involvement, but when parents complain about money and quality, they are reminded of all of the hardships public teachers face. regardless of the fact that the educational system in this country has created those problems. Violence and discipline problems do not occur in private schools, because students know that they won't last if they do. An parents know it, too.
The only solution is a complete abolition of the public school system. But that will not happen any time soon, so we must take baby steps.
School vouchers have been around for many decades but the teachers' union has fought them tooth and nail. Not to protect the quality of education, as they say, but—as Mel Brooks put it—to save their "phony baloney jobs." Vouchers work, and they are a great idea. I do not care what the numbers say. The voucher program does one thing that is a fundamental right for all parents and their children. It gives them the choice of who educates their children. Is anything else important?
I consider myself above average in intelligence.
These two facts are mutually exclusive.
The father of American public education is Horace Mann. It's interesting to note that the two websites I went to find information about Mann were either rife with spelling and grammatical errors or were completely disorganized and made no sense. Mann's wikipedia article, for instance, has been edited in such a way as to look like the person who did it was, in fact, a product of American public schools. Check it out. Mann believed that public education would, inside of a generation or two, eliminate poverty an 90% of all crime, especially violent crimes. Good call, Horace.
But the fundamental issue about public education has nothing to do with the test scores(they're horrendous) or the amount of money we spend on education($10,000 per pupil). The fundamental issue is whether forcing our children to attend government-run educational institutions is such a good idea. There was a time when Americans held a healthy scepticism for the government. Now we hold utter disdain for it while accepting all of its institutions. Get rid of Social Security? But what of the elderly? Remove the safety net of food stamps? But what of the poor, especially children?
And public education is the holy grail of all government institutions. It is simply untouchable. Complain that teachers are unworthy of raises and you get shouted down and laughed at—although $46,000 a year for a nine month job sounds pretty good for people who are failing our children.
Public education is, at best, an opportunity for the government, and, at its worst, a complete failure of those it is supposed to help. Public education has done more to keep poor people poor than all of the other social programs. Public education does nothing more than provide a platform for social welfare advocates as well as providing ample excuses for their failures. They say that they need more money, even though a parochial school education would cost less than a third as much as a public one, and deliver better results. They say they need more parental involvement, but when parents complain about money and quality, they are reminded of all of the hardships public teachers face. regardless of the fact that the educational system in this country has created those problems. Violence and discipline problems do not occur in private schools, because students know that they won't last if they do. An parents know it, too.
The only solution is a complete abolition of the public school system. But that will not happen any time soon, so we must take baby steps.
School vouchers have been around for many decades but the teachers' union has fought them tooth and nail. Not to protect the quality of education, as they say, but—as Mel Brooks put it—to save their "phony baloney jobs." Vouchers work, and they are a great idea. I do not care what the numbers say. The voucher program does one thing that is a fundamental right for all parents and their children. It gives them the choice of who educates their children. Is anything else important?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Thank God I'm an Atheist
A day off from one job affords me the opportunity to watch the morning new shows while chuckling with my children. At six, four and 8 months its hard for them to see the humor in Meredith Vieira interviewing Tom DeLay. Imagine a minor league pitcher having to face Albert Pujols. Vieira could not exactly match up. And I can't stand Tom DeLay. I think he's symptomatic of many things that ail American politics. But that's not the point of today's sermon. I just thought it was funny to watch.
No, the point of today's sermon, as it is my first official blog, is to plant my flag. Like most of you, I read blogs which I find interesting and then go to the blogger's archive, to see if there is any more interesting thought. I am usually quite disappointed. So this blog is not actually here for anyone but myself, to get my thoughts in some official(read "officious") format, so that years from now, I can see just how right I was.
I have a great disdain for many things—public education, taxation, the two-party system—but today I think we need to focus on the positive aspects of this great and wonderful country that is hated but a growing number of people both in and out of our borders.
This is a country, and still the only one, that was founded based on principles and not geography or religion. And yes, there is a huge difference between principles and religion, but we will discuss that in another blog. The basis of this country, that is the impetus for its creation, is the Declaration of Independence. While not a legally binding document in this country, it is what separated us from England and began the war that changed the world in a fundamental way.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
(Man, I did that straight from memory—Schoolhouse Rocks pays off! Though I must give an assist to Wikipedia for aiding me with the proper punctuation.)
How important are these words? Is there a more important document in the history of the world? The faults in the document are many. Life, liberty and private property was first conceived by John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government, and Thomas Jefferson changed it. There is no mention of the aberration of slavery in an effort to maintain the unity of the South, though this brief reconciliation would almost destroy this country 90 years later. The many references to a "Creator" would allow for others to inject Christianity into the framework of this country, even though Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, the primary composers of the Declaration, were not Christians. In fact both challenged the divinity of Christ, something that many Republicans would shudder to think of. Or, for that matter, many Democrats.
But the idea that people like Jefferson and James Madison(the principle architect of the U.S. Constitution) could put together these simple words that have so great an impact on us over 200 years later, is miraculous. These words still mean something, and that is what is great about America. Words made the difference when Abraham Lincoln stood up and gave the Gettysburg Address. Words made the difference when FDR spoke about fear. Words made the difference for Kennedy when he spoke of the moon shot, when Dr. King spoke of dreams, and when Mr. Reagan spoke to Mr. Gorbachev about a wall.
Quickly, we are transforming ourselves into a society where images mean more than words. If you don't believe me, go count the number of hits on that stupid new anti-Hillary/pro-Obama ad on YouTube. I will attempt to post images that have only substance on this blog. As an example of what these look like, go here.
Until we meet again, take these words to heart and go say a few of your own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)