As you can all probably tell, I have been following this campaign season very closely. Ever since Romney joined the race, and I learned that he was in fact a practicing Mormon, I have been firmly in his camp of support (to the point where I actually contributed to his campaign- a first for me or Laura). At first, it was largely due to identity politics, which has played a major role in this election season- but after I studied out his politics more, I liked what I saw. Now that he is the front-runner for the Vice Presidential pick from McCain, I would like to comment on what I think of him, his policies, and what he as VP would do for McCain and the country.
I don't think anyone can doubt that Romney is a good man. 5 sons, all served missions, all are married in the temple, and a lovely, accomplished wife. He was extremely successful in the private sector, bringing hundreds of thousands of jobs on the whole to the economy, and saving very key business from the brink of collapse (most notably Dominos Pizza and Staples). He governed successfully in Massachusetts, and was elected as a Republican in arguably the most liberal state in the Union.
Now, for those of you that are now rolling their eyes at that last statement - I am aware of his conversion on life issues, namely abortion. In everything that I can find, in Mass and while campaigning for the governorship, he was essentially pro-choice in the sense that even though he was personally against abortion, as one would expect from a practicing Mormon, he promised to not overturn the law of the land as it stood (and still stands). Without this caveat, he would never have been elected anywhere with a liberal-leaning crowd. Does this make him a bad person in my estimation? No. And I believe that his "conversion" to be staunchly in the pro-life camp to be real and complete. Any politician who can say, point blank to a camera in a televised debate, that "he was wrong" and admit his mistake on a key issue has my respect, because the tendency for anyone else in politics is to either justify or dodge (as in Obama saying that his statement about gun-toting God nuts in the backwoods of Booneyville was "inartful").
In every other issue, I believe Romney supports my current worldview on life. I am strongly opposed to gay marriage, but like Romney I do not want gay couples and gay people to be subject to abusive or otherwise unfair treatment. I am for pro-growth, pro-industry tax cuts, and generally in favor of the free market and its marvelous ability to provide for peoples needs. I support an honorable solution to the war in Iraq. I believe that although it was mishandled from the outset, it was the right thing to do to go in, and the right thing to stay there now. In these and many other ways, Romney closely aligns with my worldview.
Now, as to him being the Vice Presidential pick. I would absolutely love it, and would not hesitate to vote for McCain if that were the case. But I do have one reservation, and it's unfortunate that I have to say it- Romney is a Mormon. Right, you say, so are you- why wouldn't you want a Mormon in the #2 spot in the country? It's because I still think, and quite frankly know, that religious bigotry against Mormons is still strong and accepted in many parts of the country, specifically the Bible Belt. I don't think McCain can carry the South with Romney on the ticket, as much as it pains me to say so. Just reading comment boards on pro-Romney articles is almost astounding- while many are supportive (and I have read articles saying that Romney on the ticket puts Nevada and Michigan into play, which are usually strongly Democrat), there are enough that are so virulently anti-Mormon and anti Romney as to accuse this of being a ploy by the "evil Mormon church" to take over the country. Is it absurd? Of course. Bigoted? Absolutely. But it's a reality.
Like my Dad, I have a serious issue with supporting a party that harbors and caters to such moronic, bigoted, nasty individuals. But I cannot in good faith support the other party, which though they have a more open world view to people that do not believe or look or act like they do, goes against almost every core belief I have. One day, I hope that the highest office in the country will be available to someone that believes the way I do. But until then, I will support who I can that not only shares most if not all of my values and worldviews, but also my dream to see a Mormon accomplish the greatest feat in politics.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
On Obama
For those that know me, you know that I am not the biggest fan of the Democratic nominee for president. I would like to list my main reasons here, with the caveat that I do so not because I hate the man or because I think he would destroy the country- I think he is a nice, generally good natured person, who just has some really dumb ideas about how the country works and what to do to "fix" things. I am not a racist, I don't think that he is secretly a Muslim terrorist, and I believe that even if he is elected, our country will continue on down its merry capitalist path relatively unencumbered.
First and foremost- Obama is pro-choice. And radically so. In Illinois, he voted against a measure that would protect the life of a baby of a botched abortion. Did you catch that? He voted against a bill that would protect a baby- a living, breathing baby just like any other you might see in the nusery ward of a hospital- if they had tried to be aborted but came out of it alive. How sick is that? Obviously, I believe abortions to be wrong in and of themselves- but partial-birth abortions, such as those that Obama supports, seem ludicrous to me. Voting against a bill that would protect an innocent life such as this is unconscionable.
Second, he is a tax-and-spend liberal. He proposes a trillion dollars in new spending over the next ten years. All taxes would go up for anyone making $30,000 or more (though, granted, the bulk of it would be levied against the rich). And he would increase the capital gains taxes, again aimed at the rich, but affecting millions of people like me who have investments in 401(k) plans and soon-to-be stocks and bonds of my own. Now, the main democrat talking point is that those that make more should pay more- the rich should pay more taxes in order to distribute the wealth more evenly. That's socialism at its heart. But there is a major flaw in their rationale- that policy, far from making everyone "rich" like they want to think it does, make everyone poor. It's a well documented fact that whatever you tax, you get less of. If you tax the people that are producing jobs and paying wages, you get less jobs and less wages. A poor man never gave anyone a job. Taxing the people that produce the most in our economy only encourages them to look for other places to hire, look for other ways of cutting costs (by cutting jobs, or decreasing benefits), or packing up shop altogether. Well, then we just make laws that make it so they can't fire people or take away benefits! Then you end up with a stagnant economy like the French (who are repealing laws that do just that in order to make themselves better able to compete in the global marketplace). Obama's plan would only further exacerbate the economy's problem. A pro-growth, lower taxes proposal such that McCain has is the only way to go.
As a caveat- I am extremely disappointed with the Republican leadership, especially Bush, in this area. Though I applaud Bush for keeping us safe from any terrorist attacks at home for the last 7 years, which I believe is largely due to his extra measures for security, I am seriously pissed at the way he and his Republican controlled congress acted for the 6+ years they held all power in the government. Our party is a party of limited spending, limited government involvement, and limited intervention in the market. The Republicans did the exact opposite when given the reigns. Shame on them, and shame on Bush for letting it happen. If Obama wins the presidency (and though obviously he has the upper hand, I don't believe for one minute that it's a done deal), it will be largely because the Republicans lost their base, not because Obama garnered so much support.
Anyway, and this unfortunately applies to both candidates- I hate how beholden they are to the environmental lobby. There was a time when it was necessary- to curb pollution practices by large corporations, to make the country as a whole more aware of what we need to do to take care of our little corner of the planet. That's all great, and important for us all. But now, they are advocates for destroying our economy and socializing our industries (oil and gas, to start), they are for population controls and anti-pro-choice measures, and they base it all on pseudo-science designed to scare the public into either accepting their beliefs or not ever questioning them. Obama and McCain would both implement an economy-wrecking cap and trade system (which, incidentally, has been tried in Europe with disastrous consequences for the economy and absolutely no effect on CO2 emmisions).
And yes, his voting record in the senate does hold some distaste for me (especially how many time he voted "present" on important issues... like he doesn't want his stances on them to be vetted). And his associations (Wright, Ayers, Resko, etc) do give me some pause, though not as much as his stances on key issues for me. And as for Wright- I thought it was actually really funny how Obama tried to downplay his virulently racist and anti-American speechs as mere snippets from speeches taken out of context, only to have Wright give a public appearance and reiterate everything the loony pastor has been saying for the past 20 years (including that AIDS was invented and spread by the government to kill blacks). Awesome stuff. Also, his flops on public financing are telling I believe- touting it was the end-all-be-all end to corruption, he threw it under the bus as soon as it became a political millstone. Which, in the end, is what I believe Obama is- he is a politician, through and through. He has mastered the art of painting himself to be above politics, to be the savior and champion that will defeat partisanship and bring about the millenial reign of peace and happniess. Guess what? He never, not ONCE, worked with Republicans on a bill in the Senate. And he voted 97% down the partisan line. And he is going to be non-partisan? I don't think so. At least call him what he is, folks- a liberal. And a far-left-liberal at that. If that is what you believe in and want, by all means go ahead and vote for him- but don't think he will be anything different then Jimmy Carter.
First and foremost- Obama is pro-choice. And radically so. In Illinois, he voted against a measure that would protect the life of a baby of a botched abortion. Did you catch that? He voted against a bill that would protect a baby- a living, breathing baby just like any other you might see in the nusery ward of a hospital- if they had tried to be aborted but came out of it alive. How sick is that? Obviously, I believe abortions to be wrong in and of themselves- but partial-birth abortions, such as those that Obama supports, seem ludicrous to me. Voting against a bill that would protect an innocent life such as this is unconscionable.
Second, he is a tax-and-spend liberal. He proposes a trillion dollars in new spending over the next ten years. All taxes would go up for anyone making $30,000 or more (though, granted, the bulk of it would be levied against the rich). And he would increase the capital gains taxes, again aimed at the rich, but affecting millions of people like me who have investments in 401(k) plans and soon-to-be stocks and bonds of my own. Now, the main democrat talking point is that those that make more should pay more- the rich should pay more taxes in order to distribute the wealth more evenly. That's socialism at its heart. But there is a major flaw in their rationale- that policy, far from making everyone "rich" like they want to think it does, make everyone poor. It's a well documented fact that whatever you tax, you get less of. If you tax the people that are producing jobs and paying wages, you get less jobs and less wages. A poor man never gave anyone a job. Taxing the people that produce the most in our economy only encourages them to look for other places to hire, look for other ways of cutting costs (by cutting jobs, or decreasing benefits), or packing up shop altogether. Well, then we just make laws that make it so they can't fire people or take away benefits! Then you end up with a stagnant economy like the French (who are repealing laws that do just that in order to make themselves better able to compete in the global marketplace). Obama's plan would only further exacerbate the economy's problem. A pro-growth, lower taxes proposal such that McCain has is the only way to go.
As a caveat- I am extremely disappointed with the Republican leadership, especially Bush, in this area. Though I applaud Bush for keeping us safe from any terrorist attacks at home for the last 7 years, which I believe is largely due to his extra measures for security, I am seriously pissed at the way he and his Republican controlled congress acted for the 6+ years they held all power in the government. Our party is a party of limited spending, limited government involvement, and limited intervention in the market. The Republicans did the exact opposite when given the reigns. Shame on them, and shame on Bush for letting it happen. If Obama wins the presidency (and though obviously he has the upper hand, I don't believe for one minute that it's a done deal), it will be largely because the Republicans lost their base, not because Obama garnered so much support.
Anyway, and this unfortunately applies to both candidates- I hate how beholden they are to the environmental lobby. There was a time when it was necessary- to curb pollution practices by large corporations, to make the country as a whole more aware of what we need to do to take care of our little corner of the planet. That's all great, and important for us all. But now, they are advocates for destroying our economy and socializing our industries (oil and gas, to start), they are for population controls and anti-pro-choice measures, and they base it all on pseudo-science designed to scare the public into either accepting their beliefs or not ever questioning them. Obama and McCain would both implement an economy-wrecking cap and trade system (which, incidentally, has been tried in Europe with disastrous consequences for the economy and absolutely no effect on CO2 emmisions).
And yes, his voting record in the senate does hold some distaste for me (especially how many time he voted "present" on important issues... like he doesn't want his stances on them to be vetted). And his associations (Wright, Ayers, Resko, etc) do give me some pause, though not as much as his stances on key issues for me. And as for Wright- I thought it was actually really funny how Obama tried to downplay his virulently racist and anti-American speechs as mere snippets from speeches taken out of context, only to have Wright give a public appearance and reiterate everything the loony pastor has been saying for the past 20 years (including that AIDS was invented and spread by the government to kill blacks). Awesome stuff. Also, his flops on public financing are telling I believe- touting it was the end-all-be-all end to corruption, he threw it under the bus as soon as it became a political millstone. Which, in the end, is what I believe Obama is- he is a politician, through and through. He has mastered the art of painting himself to be above politics, to be the savior and champion that will defeat partisanship and bring about the millenial reign of peace and happniess. Guess what? He never, not ONCE, worked with Republicans on a bill in the Senate. And he voted 97% down the partisan line. And he is going to be non-partisan? I don't think so. At least call him what he is, folks- a liberal. And a far-left-liberal at that. If that is what you believe in and want, by all means go ahead and vote for him- but don't think he will be anything different then Jimmy Carter.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
One more note about AGW
Lord Monckton from Britain is an outspoken critic of the AGW theory. I recently read his APS paper regarding the IPCC estimates, and loved his conclusion paragraph. I reproduce it in its entirety here
"Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibilethe models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.
In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing."
For a link to the whole paper, go here http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
Funny stuff!
On Communism and Consecration
This is another of my favorite topics to expound upon to my poor unsuspecting wife. This, to me, is one of the best "proofs" that Joseph Smith was inspired by God, because the law of Consecration is the closest thing to a Utopian ideal, if implemented correctly and followed faithfully, that has ever been postulated by modern man.
I got interested in this topic back in my freshman year of high school, ironically enough. One afternoon while playing Starcraft over the internet, a person I was playing with asked me if I was a Mormon (my screen name was LDS_MAN). When I responded in the affirmative, he proceeded to fill me in on everything I "believed," claiming that he knew the real truth behind Mormonism, etc. etc. Needless to say, I was unable to counter any of his arguments, and that bothered me quite a bit. Though that incident didn't cause me to reject any aspect of my religion, it did spur me into searching for the answers to the questions and concerns he raised- one of which was the claim that Mormons are in fact communists.
A brief delve into the basic tennets of communism, from my own non-professional understanding, should probably follow. For Marx, the natural order of the world was eventual overthrow of the capitalist system by the proletariat, or working class. After years of oppresion to the schemes and whims of the evil bourgeoisie, the downtodden proletariat would eventually overthrow their capitalist masters, establishing "communes," or abolshing private property in favor of common ownership of all goods. Lenin elaborated on the theory, explaining that in order to bring about this desired change faster, the proletariat would establish an authoritarian government to seize all capital in a given country, and after they had restructured the economy and replaced all social conventions with loyalty to the State (including the abolishment of religion, which Marx referred to famously as the "opiate of the masses"), they would relinquish power and everyone would live in harmony as goods and services were shared without price and without restrictions. I am fully aware of the extremely simplistic nature of this overview, but I believe I have hit the main points for the purposes of this discussion. Anyone with more knowledge then me is free to post a comment to address a possible problem.
Anyone with a basic understanding of economics and history knows how this scenario played out. Now, allow me to compare this to the law of consecration as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants and elaborated upon by the Prophet. It is worth mentioning that several times in the New Testament, the apostles reference that the early church had "all things in common," referring to their material goods. So, this was by no means a "new" thing that Joseph introduced, just another example of something lost to the ages after the early church fell apart.
The general idea behind the law of consecration is a seemless blend of the best things from communism and capitalism. Under communism, everyone became poor-- productivity fell to 10% in the Soviet Union, as no one had any real incentive to work harder or to better their situation. There was no chance for advancement, no higher salary, no reason to fear losing your job if you were not efficient- and no over-arching goal, no possible purpose to strive for, with the removal of God and religion from their lives. In consecration, the opposite effect happens. Though property is pooled together through the bishop, it is deeded out again as a "stewardship," with that person having direct accountability for that which they are deeded out. They legally own whatever the bishop gives back. Then, they are required to work, taking care of their stewardship with an eye single to God, desiring to bring about his kingdom. After a set time, after expenses and revenue have been calculated for each person, the surplus is gathered into the Bishop (surplus money, grain, products, etc) and it is then divided out to each persno according to need, and then according to wants. Productivity, theoretically, would actually stay the same, or perhaps increase- money still operates as a means of exchange, goods and services are still bought and sold according to a market. It is the most effcient means of allocating resources, though it does not always do so "morally," which is why the bishop allocating the surplus makes the difference. In this system, the exact opposite result of communism occurs- everyone becomes rich. After a time, everyone has everything, and there is an abundance of wealth. And everyone contributes to get what they are metted out- there are no "free-riders" in the law of consecration.
Lastly, and in my opinion most importantly, the law of consecration is purely voluntary. No one, not one person, is forced into joining and living according to a higher law. This allows for only the most committed to the system to join, and diminishes the problems associated with free-loaders mooching off the system. And if at any time a person wishes to opt out, they own the property that they are deeded back from the Bishop in the inital accounting, and are free to leave at any time (they would not be able to take back what they had given in the first place, as that would have been legally deeded over to the church in the beginning). No utopian system can be unilaterally imposed on a population that actually wants to work. Only through persuasion and devotion to a higher ideal can someone be truly committed to a cause as lofty as eliminating poverty- guns and tanks can only get you fear, not a person's heart. Without that, they will try and undermine you in any way they can, and the overall effect will be negative.
I am indeed grateful for the knowledge that I have of this wonderful system of government. I keep it in mind as often as I can to remind myself that riches mean very little in this world, inasmuch as I can provide for my family and life relatively comfortably. I plan to always be ready and committed to live the higher law at a moments notice, and gladly to do so- after all, I won't be able to take my condo with me when I die, right?
I got interested in this topic back in my freshman year of high school, ironically enough. One afternoon while playing Starcraft over the internet, a person I was playing with asked me if I was a Mormon (my screen name was LDS_MAN). When I responded in the affirmative, he proceeded to fill me in on everything I "believed," claiming that he knew the real truth behind Mormonism, etc. etc. Needless to say, I was unable to counter any of his arguments, and that bothered me quite a bit. Though that incident didn't cause me to reject any aspect of my religion, it did spur me into searching for the answers to the questions and concerns he raised- one of which was the claim that Mormons are in fact communists.
A brief delve into the basic tennets of communism, from my own non-professional understanding, should probably follow. For Marx, the natural order of the world was eventual overthrow of the capitalist system by the proletariat, or working class. After years of oppresion to the schemes and whims of the evil bourgeoisie, the downtodden proletariat would eventually overthrow their capitalist masters, establishing "communes," or abolshing private property in favor of common ownership of all goods. Lenin elaborated on the theory, explaining that in order to bring about this desired change faster, the proletariat would establish an authoritarian government to seize all capital in a given country, and after they had restructured the economy and replaced all social conventions with loyalty to the State (including the abolishment of religion, which Marx referred to famously as the "opiate of the masses"), they would relinquish power and everyone would live in harmony as goods and services were shared without price and without restrictions. I am fully aware of the extremely simplistic nature of this overview, but I believe I have hit the main points for the purposes of this discussion. Anyone with more knowledge then me is free to post a comment to address a possible problem.
Anyone with a basic understanding of economics and history knows how this scenario played out. Now, allow me to compare this to the law of consecration as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants and elaborated upon by the Prophet. It is worth mentioning that several times in the New Testament, the apostles reference that the early church had "all things in common," referring to their material goods. So, this was by no means a "new" thing that Joseph introduced, just another example of something lost to the ages after the early church fell apart.
The general idea behind the law of consecration is a seemless blend of the best things from communism and capitalism. Under communism, everyone became poor-- productivity fell to 10% in the Soviet Union, as no one had any real incentive to work harder or to better their situation. There was no chance for advancement, no higher salary, no reason to fear losing your job if you were not efficient- and no over-arching goal, no possible purpose to strive for, with the removal of God and religion from their lives. In consecration, the opposite effect happens. Though property is pooled together through the bishop, it is deeded out again as a "stewardship," with that person having direct accountability for that which they are deeded out. They legally own whatever the bishop gives back. Then, they are required to work, taking care of their stewardship with an eye single to God, desiring to bring about his kingdom. After a set time, after expenses and revenue have been calculated for each person, the surplus is gathered into the Bishop (surplus money, grain, products, etc) and it is then divided out to each persno according to need, and then according to wants. Productivity, theoretically, would actually stay the same, or perhaps increase- money still operates as a means of exchange, goods and services are still bought and sold according to a market. It is the most effcient means of allocating resources, though it does not always do so "morally," which is why the bishop allocating the surplus makes the difference. In this system, the exact opposite result of communism occurs- everyone becomes rich. After a time, everyone has everything, and there is an abundance of wealth. And everyone contributes to get what they are metted out- there are no "free-riders" in the law of consecration.
Lastly, and in my opinion most importantly, the law of consecration is purely voluntary. No one, not one person, is forced into joining and living according to a higher law. This allows for only the most committed to the system to join, and diminishes the problems associated with free-loaders mooching off the system. And if at any time a person wishes to opt out, they own the property that they are deeded back from the Bishop in the inital accounting, and are free to leave at any time (they would not be able to take back what they had given in the first place, as that would have been legally deeded over to the church in the beginning). No utopian system can be unilaterally imposed on a population that actually wants to work. Only through persuasion and devotion to a higher ideal can someone be truly committed to a cause as lofty as eliminating poverty- guns and tanks can only get you fear, not a person's heart. Without that, they will try and undermine you in any way they can, and the overall effect will be negative.
I am indeed grateful for the knowledge that I have of this wonderful system of government. I keep it in mind as often as I can to remind myself that riches mean very little in this world, inasmuch as I can provide for my family and life relatively comfortably. I plan to always be ready and committed to live the higher law at a moments notice, and gladly to do so- after all, I won't be able to take my condo with me when I die, right?
Friday, July 18, 2008
Anthropic Global Warming
Ok, I will post on this at the request of my wife (she said I should in the comment section of my last post). This will get sort of redundant, as I think she is the only one that is going to read this, but hey- I do what I am told lol.
As Laura well knows, I have a very STRONG opinion that the theory of AGW is complete bunk. I believe that it is another attempt by the left-wing environmentalists to impose socialism, this time not to save "the workers," but "the world." The "science" is all founded on mathematical models that assume an exponentially growing amount of CO2 in the air, when that assumption cannot be made, and then assumes that any warming is going to have catastrophic effects.
A few points against this- first, there has been NO WARMING SINCE THE LATE 1990s. That's right. None. It's actually gotten .25 degrees farenheit cooler, and this is as CO2 has continued to increase in concentration. AGW theorists say that their models expecting a 1 degree increase by now failed to take the oceans into account as a giant "carbon-sink," even though the exact opposite is true- the oceans actually produce a lot of CO2 from the volcanoes and other pheonomena they contain under their waters. Second- it was actually much warmer than it is now back in the middle-ages. This enabled the Viking sailors to actually settle and grow crops in Greenland, which is now a huge ice sheet. Which begs the question- warmer temperatures world wide actually increases the amount of food, which in turn increases the amount of animal life, and generally makes many basic needs more abundant. Why would that be a bad thing?
Another thing- now, the technical term for "global warming" is "climate change;" in true Orwellian fashion, this "newspeak" term now includes everything that doesn't conform to "normal" parameters, such as that China had the coldest winter on record last year. Oh, THAT is also due to climate change, sorry, it's not just warming. Fact of the matter is, as any paleontologist will tell you, is that the climate has always changed. It doesn't STOP changing. The fact that we drive an SUV cannot change climate one way or the other. There is growing evidence to support the fact that- and this is a novel idea- that huge, heat-producing thing we call the "sun" might have a lot to do with how the climate is here. Gee-whiz, that's amazing! Why didn't we think of that before?
For those interested, I can point you to a number of articles and books that deal with these and other issues much better then I can, or have. If you are a strong adherent to this theory, you will decry them as "biased" and "sponsored by the big-bad oil companies," though they aren't- at least any more "biased" that the largely political IPCC report is (and Al Gore, by the way, has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in companies that "fight" global warming. No wonder he wants to scare-monger some more- he laughs all the way to the bank).
Sorry, this has taken somewhat of a polemic form, but honestly this is something I feel strongly about. I do not want to wreck the progess that the modern industrial age has made, which has moved more people out of poverty than any other institution, to tilt at windmills. I do favor protecting the environment, don't get me wrong- and I know that you are going to laugh at that "throw-away" line at the end of this post- I don't want to squander natural resources and pollute to no end in the name of "progress." I just want that defense of the environment to be based on actual science, not the delusions that CO2 is going to kill us all.
As Laura well knows, I have a very STRONG opinion that the theory of AGW is complete bunk. I believe that it is another attempt by the left-wing environmentalists to impose socialism, this time not to save "the workers," but "the world." The "science" is all founded on mathematical models that assume an exponentially growing amount of CO2 in the air, when that assumption cannot be made, and then assumes that any warming is going to have catastrophic effects.
A few points against this- first, there has been NO WARMING SINCE THE LATE 1990s. That's right. None. It's actually gotten .25 degrees farenheit cooler, and this is as CO2 has continued to increase in concentration. AGW theorists say that their models expecting a 1 degree increase by now failed to take the oceans into account as a giant "carbon-sink," even though the exact opposite is true- the oceans actually produce a lot of CO2 from the volcanoes and other pheonomena they contain under their waters. Second- it was actually much warmer than it is now back in the middle-ages. This enabled the Viking sailors to actually settle and grow crops in Greenland, which is now a huge ice sheet. Which begs the question- warmer temperatures world wide actually increases the amount of food, which in turn increases the amount of animal life, and generally makes many basic needs more abundant. Why would that be a bad thing?
Another thing- now, the technical term for "global warming" is "climate change;" in true Orwellian fashion, this "newspeak" term now includes everything that doesn't conform to "normal" parameters, such as that China had the coldest winter on record last year. Oh, THAT is also due to climate change, sorry, it's not just warming. Fact of the matter is, as any paleontologist will tell you, is that the climate has always changed. It doesn't STOP changing. The fact that we drive an SUV cannot change climate one way or the other. There is growing evidence to support the fact that- and this is a novel idea- that huge, heat-producing thing we call the "sun" might have a lot to do with how the climate is here. Gee-whiz, that's amazing! Why didn't we think of that before?
For those interested, I can point you to a number of articles and books that deal with these and other issues much better then I can, or have. If you are a strong adherent to this theory, you will decry them as "biased" and "sponsored by the big-bad oil companies," though they aren't- at least any more "biased" that the largely political IPCC report is (and Al Gore, by the way, has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in companies that "fight" global warming. No wonder he wants to scare-monger some more- he laughs all the way to the bank).
Sorry, this has taken somewhat of a polemic form, but honestly this is something I feel strongly about. I do not want to wreck the progess that the modern industrial age has made, which has moved more people out of poverty than any other institution, to tilt at windmills. I do favor protecting the environment, don't get me wrong- and I know that you are going to laugh at that "throw-away" line at the end of this post- I don't want to squander natural resources and pollute to no end in the name of "progress." I just want that defense of the environment to be based on actual science, not the delusions that CO2 is going to kill us all.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
On Purpose and Meaning
My first rambling comes from a conversation I recently had with my mom and sister Kristin. We talked a lot about the nature of God, sin, justice, salvation, etc.- not at all an unusual topic in our family, but still one that peaked my interest and got me thinking quite a bit (a sign of a good conversation, in my opinion). I have had for some time now my theory explaining the purpose of life, the nature of good and evil, and our ultimate purpose, and I wanted to put it in writing as best as I could so as to organize my own thoughts about the subject, as well as provide some insight into what I believe, and more importantly, why I believe it.
To me, the plan of salvation, as it is often referred to by Mormons, is the single greatest teaching revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is so transcendent in explaining and revealing the nature of life, of God, and of our purpose here, that I take it as one of the definite proofs that Joseph was indeed a prophet. The assumption among Christians in his day (in varying degrees of absolutism) was that God, 6,000 years ago, made the world and everything in it, including Adam and Eve. Before that, there was only empty space, and God, who is both everything and nothing (mimicking the Platonic philosophy that seeped in around 400 AD). Joseph’s account was radically different- before the world, there was an existence much like the paradisiacal Garden. In it, we progressed in knowledge and in our ability to act as a moral agent. Our intelligence, though somewhat a vague concept, even pre-dates our “spirit birth,” having always existed. Therefore, we have always, in some capacity, existed, though the quality of our existence has changed and will forever change. This exonerates God from the “problem of evil” that is widely used as a proof that God does not exist. God, following eternal laws, cannot violate one eternal principle- that of moral agency. We, having always existed, have always had the right to choose our own path. It was in this context that we decided to choose to come to this mortal existence. Now, as to whether we knew exactly what status or position we would enter into in this life I do not know, suffice to say that I believe God met all “informed consent” standard that we would apply. Thus any problem or difficulty, pain or sorrow, happiness or misery that we experience in this life is a result not of a fiat act of God, but of our conscious choice to improve upon our situation from the pre-mortal life. This notion flew in the face of traditional Christianity and was ridiculed at the time, but I can find no other rational way to make sense of the disparity of life and ever present evil that surrounds the world- to say that God created it along with everything else is ludicrous to the extreme.
Now, the argument against what I said is fairly simple- it wasn’t God, some would argue, who created evil in the world, but Adam and Eve who brought it here by taking the forbidden fruit. But the counter argument is equally as simple- why in the world did God allow for the fruit to be in the garden in the first place? If he was creating everything from scratch, why not just make a perfect Heaven environment for all to enjoy? What, in essence, is the purpose of life? Why did God create the world in the first place? All of these questions remain the “mystery” behind God, something that he chose not to reveal. But I cannot imagine a loving Father that would just let us float here in space for no reason, and then if there was a reason, not tell us. Enter the Prophet Joseph. Though blasphemous to any other religion, the belief that man can become a god (always under our God, the Father), and eventually become perfect just as he is perfect, and do and create and he does, is transcendent and powerful. Through, and only though, the Atonement of Christ, we can become perfect. Now, as pertaining to the discussion that I had with Mom and Kristin, I have no idea exactly how that takes place, save that it does require our hearts. Our actions are tokens of what we truly desire, be it Christ and forgiveness or Satan and misery. Regardless, the knowledge that there is an eternal reward greater then that of the life that we lived before offers the most comfort that I can take away from Mormon doctrine, for in it lies the sum and whole of God’s work and our purpose- to continue to bring about the immortality and eternal lives of Man, to continue to do the work of a god, to continue to bring life and order to a universe otherwise in chaos. This is the only thing that can make sense. Without progression, there can be no purpose; without purpose, there can be no meaning; and without meaning, there can be no God, for it would not be possible to have faith in a God who arbitrarily makes rules and life without any semblance consistency.
A discussion of how and why I believe what I believe will be forthcoming, but suffice it to say this knowledge is of great comfort to me, despite the goal being a very, very long way off. Thank you for reading, and your comments are welcome.
To me, the plan of salvation, as it is often referred to by Mormons, is the single greatest teaching revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is so transcendent in explaining and revealing the nature of life, of God, and of our purpose here, that I take it as one of the definite proofs that Joseph was indeed a prophet. The assumption among Christians in his day (in varying degrees of absolutism) was that God, 6,000 years ago, made the world and everything in it, including Adam and Eve. Before that, there was only empty space, and God, who is both everything and nothing (mimicking the Platonic philosophy that seeped in around 400 AD). Joseph’s account was radically different- before the world, there was an existence much like the paradisiacal Garden. In it, we progressed in knowledge and in our ability to act as a moral agent. Our intelligence, though somewhat a vague concept, even pre-dates our “spirit birth,” having always existed. Therefore, we have always, in some capacity, existed, though the quality of our existence has changed and will forever change. This exonerates God from the “problem of evil” that is widely used as a proof that God does not exist. God, following eternal laws, cannot violate one eternal principle- that of moral agency. We, having always existed, have always had the right to choose our own path. It was in this context that we decided to choose to come to this mortal existence. Now, as to whether we knew exactly what status or position we would enter into in this life I do not know, suffice to say that I believe God met all “informed consent” standard that we would apply. Thus any problem or difficulty, pain or sorrow, happiness or misery that we experience in this life is a result not of a fiat act of God, but of our conscious choice to improve upon our situation from the pre-mortal life. This notion flew in the face of traditional Christianity and was ridiculed at the time, but I can find no other rational way to make sense of the disparity of life and ever present evil that surrounds the world- to say that God created it along with everything else is ludicrous to the extreme.
Now, the argument against what I said is fairly simple- it wasn’t God, some would argue, who created evil in the world, but Adam and Eve who brought it here by taking the forbidden fruit. But the counter argument is equally as simple- why in the world did God allow for the fruit to be in the garden in the first place? If he was creating everything from scratch, why not just make a perfect Heaven environment for all to enjoy? What, in essence, is the purpose of life? Why did God create the world in the first place? All of these questions remain the “mystery” behind God, something that he chose not to reveal. But I cannot imagine a loving Father that would just let us float here in space for no reason, and then if there was a reason, not tell us. Enter the Prophet Joseph. Though blasphemous to any other religion, the belief that man can become a god (always under our God, the Father), and eventually become perfect just as he is perfect, and do and create and he does, is transcendent and powerful. Through, and only though, the Atonement of Christ, we can become perfect. Now, as pertaining to the discussion that I had with Mom and Kristin, I have no idea exactly how that takes place, save that it does require our hearts. Our actions are tokens of what we truly desire, be it Christ and forgiveness or Satan and misery. Regardless, the knowledge that there is an eternal reward greater then that of the life that we lived before offers the most comfort that I can take away from Mormon doctrine, for in it lies the sum and whole of God’s work and our purpose- to continue to bring about the immortality and eternal lives of Man, to continue to do the work of a god, to continue to bring life and order to a universe otherwise in chaos. This is the only thing that can make sense. Without progression, there can be no purpose; without purpose, there can be no meaning; and without meaning, there can be no God, for it would not be possible to have faith in a God who arbitrarily makes rules and life without any semblance consistency.
A discussion of how and why I believe what I believe will be forthcoming, but suffice it to say this knowledge is of great comfort to me, despite the goal being a very, very long way off. Thank you for reading, and your comments are welcome.
Monday, July 7, 2008
By way of introduction
My name is Steve Clark. I am planning on using this blog as an outlet for my commentary on life as I see it, take it for what it's worth- I will be musing on the presidential campaign, various movie reviews, and my take on the economic and social scene. All of this will probably be used against me when I run for office when I am 60, but hey- that's the risk we run in our society when anything we say or do can be recorded. Anyway, look soon for my review of Wall-E, the latest Pixar movie, and my take on the Drill, Drill, Drill campaign posited by Senator Gingrich. Comments are welcome and appreciated, and I will try to answer any and all questions regarding my views and thoughts on any given subjects- please, keep comments respectful and profanity-free. Welcome to RandomRavingRamblings!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)