No really,
every now and then you can find the most amazing science stuff on the web. The National Academy of Science has an annual symposium (at least I think it's annual) that allows leading scientists to bring forth discussions on their area of specialty. Here is a link to the 2005 symposium. Near the bottom you'll find a series of 3 presentations on Climate Change in the past. http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer/PageServer?pagename=FRONTIERS_usfos_2005program&printer_friendly=0
Why am I linking to these, well for one they are interesting. But to me they illustrate why I'm a climate skeptic. The fact is when you approach these with an opinion of I don't think we know enough to say climate change is settled science - you find that these scientists: Eric Stieg, Gavin Schmidt and Clara Deser essentially agree. Gavin in particular talks about thinks like solar forcing and how much of the climate data is built on assumptions and how small changes to these assumptions have significant impact on the resulting data from the models.
The point of ClimateGate (not my choice of a name) isn't that scientists are evil, but rather that they haven't settled the science, that they know they haven't and that if the rest of us know that we'll wait before overreacting. There's a good book out called 'Not Evil, Just Wrong' which pretty much sums up my opinion of the current state of climate science conclusions. There is alot of good heck amazing work taking place but the results are far from final much less carved in stone. As long as much of the work is based on assumptions it means that the science isn't settled, it means that we have to accept that we still don't know... taken with the discussion of how CO2 in the past isn't a forcing gas but rather a reactive gas (it increases after temperature increases not before) it makes much of the current claims seem like so much garbage.
Are there environmental issue for us - yes some truly huge ones, but CO2 isn't currently one of them, and even if it will be it's 100 or so years from real concern (200 years from an actual crisis).
by the way changing the year in that link from 2005 to say 2006 will take you to the following year...
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Unions
Orson Scott Card has what I think is the ultimate explanation of unions in the US and why they are currently more of a problem than an aid. I think his experience with unions is close to mine. My Father worked both within and outside of a union - and there was definitely more of the 'union time' mentality over time. There were things that unions did early in the 20th century that were critical to the middle class and exceptional American way of life. But even 20 years ago certain cracks had appeared.
Orson's discussion is very balanced in highlighting the good unions can and have done but looking at the issues they now cause:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2009-09-27-1.html
Orson's discussion is very balanced in highlighting the good unions can and have done but looking at the issues they now cause:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2009-09-27-1.html
Should abortion be legal?
So here is one of those hot social issues that has wrapped the country around the opinion axel and really it comes down to how you approach social issues.
For me the issue has a couple sides: 1. Questions about whether abortion is good or right and 2. Questions about whether the state should be involved in preventing or supporting abortions.
The answer to question 1 is that I think on the whole abortion is bad. I'm against abortion, just as I am against any other form of killing. HOWEVER, let's look at killing.
Is owning a gun illegal? No. But guns are used for killing... so if killing is bad aren't guns, and shouldn't we make it illegal to own a gun? Again, No - why because we have a clear history that shows that while sometime guns are misused in the big picure our society benefits by allowing ordinary citizens to have access to guns. (I'm not going to argue this point - our society allows guns, even if only controlled access or limited access for some and in the end the core reason has to do with the benefit to society vs. the cost. You might not agree but it doesn't change what society has decided on that issue.) I like to think of it as the 'self-defense' exception which basically operates on the idea that not everyone and everything in the world is good. Sometimes good people run into bad things and guns allow good people to prevent things that are worse than a single killing.
Unfortunately, abortion falls into this category. Abortion is bad, I do consider it killing. Having said that, there are many other bad things in the world some of which can result in a pregnancy or can occur during child-birth. With this in mind there are times when the person involved in an abortion can justify their actions and as such should have a right to take that action. Let's be honest that's where the complexity lies - understanding all the 'edge' cases where a woman needs an abortion to prevent another bad outcome.
The key is, government shouldn't be involved in this decision. There should be laws on who can provide an abortion to ensure safety, rules about when an abortion is legal in terms of fetus age (yes I'd rather see a birth early to protect the life of the Mother potentially putting the infant at risk, then just killing the unborn infant for the same result). But in the big picture we want as little government control in this area as possible. Regulations to ensure safety, yes but I don't want a board that asks women if they meet the moral criteria for a given abortion.
In the end I see the right to get an abortion in line with the right to own a gun. I am firmly against getting abortions and just like I don't expect the goverment to buy me a gun I don't want the government paying for abortions. However, it's not my job to determine if a woman who needs an abortion really just wants one or if she meets my moral standard for getting that abortion. The governments role should be in ensuring abortions are safe, it is the job of the church and society to explain why abortions are bad.
In my big picture if abortion rights and gun rights are viewed from the same perspective and treated similarly, we are by my moral compass on the right path.
- theres probably a ton of stuff I could better clarify, but if you are open to the idea hopefully I've communicated why I'm against abortion but for the right to an abortion.
For me the issue has a couple sides: 1. Questions about whether abortion is good or right and 2. Questions about whether the state should be involved in preventing or supporting abortions.
The answer to question 1 is that I think on the whole abortion is bad. I'm against abortion, just as I am against any other form of killing. HOWEVER, let's look at killing.
Is owning a gun illegal? No. But guns are used for killing... so if killing is bad aren't guns, and shouldn't we make it illegal to own a gun? Again, No - why because we have a clear history that shows that while sometime guns are misused in the big picure our society benefits by allowing ordinary citizens to have access to guns. (I'm not going to argue this point - our society allows guns, even if only controlled access or limited access for some and in the end the core reason has to do with the benefit to society vs. the cost. You might not agree but it doesn't change what society has decided on that issue.) I like to think of it as the 'self-defense' exception which basically operates on the idea that not everyone and everything in the world is good. Sometimes good people run into bad things and guns allow good people to prevent things that are worse than a single killing.
Unfortunately, abortion falls into this category. Abortion is bad, I do consider it killing. Having said that, there are many other bad things in the world some of which can result in a pregnancy or can occur during child-birth. With this in mind there are times when the person involved in an abortion can justify their actions and as such should have a right to take that action. Let's be honest that's where the complexity lies - understanding all the 'edge' cases where a woman needs an abortion to prevent another bad outcome.
The key is, government shouldn't be involved in this decision. There should be laws on who can provide an abortion to ensure safety, rules about when an abortion is legal in terms of fetus age (yes I'd rather see a birth early to protect the life of the Mother potentially putting the infant at risk, then just killing the unborn infant for the same result). But in the big picture we want as little government control in this area as possible. Regulations to ensure safety, yes but I don't want a board that asks women if they meet the moral criteria for a given abortion.
In the end I see the right to get an abortion in line with the right to own a gun. I am firmly against getting abortions and just like I don't expect the goverment to buy me a gun I don't want the government paying for abortions. However, it's not my job to determine if a woman who needs an abortion really just wants one or if she meets my moral standard for getting that abortion. The governments role should be in ensuring abortions are safe, it is the job of the church and society to explain why abortions are bad.
In my big picture if abortion rights and gun rights are viewed from the same perspective and treated similarly, we are by my moral compass on the right path.
- theres probably a ton of stuff I could better clarify, but if you are open to the idea hopefully I've communicated why I'm against abortion but for the right to an abortion.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Move the UN Headquarters
Once upon a time it was good to place a 'world changing' organization in a large city. You needed the resources that already existed to support that body. That was 50 years ago.
Today, that body doesn't need a presence in a large city, instead it has the potential to help uplift a mid or small scale location. I know that sounds strange but bear with me as I explain.
The UN like or dislike it has become a large influencial organization. Having it within NY is nice for NY but in the big picture totally unneccessary. Instead I would love to see the UN move to someplace like Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, Jamaica, Haiti or some other small country. In such an environment the established influence of the UN in the world would be no less, however, all of the support all of the bureacrats etc. from the organization would suddenly be contributing to the local economy of it's local area.
The impact of the UN on the NY economy is relatively small (or should be) and relocating them to someplace like Haiti would suddenly increase the standard of living across the board in that country. It'll never happen because everyone wants to come to the US as part of their UN boondoogle - but if we could convince the UN to relocate somewhere like Puerto Rico or even somewhere (pretty much anywhere) in Africa)wouldn't the resulting economic impact help make the world a better place?
BTW, I'm not open to Europe, Russia or China which are all old powers - I could be convinced on portions of India. My preference is for a country with a smaller economy that could be 'lifted' by having the UN support become a major "export" (or whatever you want to call it as a source of income - 'political tourisim'?.)
Today, that body doesn't need a presence in a large city, instead it has the potential to help uplift a mid or small scale location. I know that sounds strange but bear with me as I explain.
The UN like or dislike it has become a large influencial organization. Having it within NY is nice for NY but in the big picture totally unneccessary. Instead I would love to see the UN move to someplace like Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, Jamaica, Haiti or some other small country. In such an environment the established influence of the UN in the world would be no less, however, all of the support all of the bureacrats etc. from the organization would suddenly be contributing to the local economy of it's local area.
The impact of the UN on the NY economy is relatively small (or should be) and relocating them to someplace like Haiti would suddenly increase the standard of living across the board in that country. It'll never happen because everyone wants to come to the US as part of their UN boondoogle - but if we could convince the UN to relocate somewhere like Puerto Rico or even somewhere (pretty much anywhere) in Africa)wouldn't the resulting economic impact help make the world a better place?
BTW, I'm not open to Europe, Russia or China which are all old powers - I could be convinced on portions of India. My preference is for a country with a smaller economy that could be 'lifted' by having the UN support become a major "export" (or whatever you want to call it as a source of income - 'political tourisim'?.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
