Results tagged “politics”

As we see fuel prices reaching all time highs and milk, meat, corn, and even rice now reaching new records in price, when will we start seeing the truth about how dangerous ethanol is? Ben Lieberman’s article at the Heritage Foundation titled Time for Second Thoughts on the Ethanol Mandate should be required reading for Congress. Lieberman outlines recent research finding the ethanol mandates implemented by Congress in 2005 to be responsible for high costs of living because of increased food and fuel costs and to be an increased danger to the environment rather than a reduction as original promised. New policy in Washington is needed.

It’s too early to be picking candidates. The primaries this year have been just irritatingly early in starting and irritatingly long to end. However, I can tell you, as I intend to in this post, how I will make the decision of which candidate to choose.

I base my voting decisions upon three primary factors: Qualification, Character, and Policy. These three factors are not exclusive and do not override one another, but I would place them in that order from most important to least important.

Qualification. The first factor I must consider when choosing a candidate for any office is how qualified that person is for office. Does that person have a history that indicates that he or she can handle the rigors of the appointment? Does he or she have a series of positions that lead up to or provide a history that helps to validate the abilities of the candidate? Has the person ever committed so heinous a mistake that his or her qualification is in question? A candidate that has little or no background in running a business or politics has little or no basis for qualification as far as I’m concerned. While I consider this to be the first point to consider, it’s not the only one. The point here is to determine whether or not the person I am voting for can even do the job.

Character. The second fact I must consider is the candidate’s character. Unfortunately, this is not a very popular way to judge a candidate these days, so finding issues that define character require careful examination of the facts that are known. Everyone is trying to spin the candidate they like one way and they despise the other. This is also a fuzzy and subjective measurement. Does a divorce 20 years ago or the fact that a candidate is a dry alcoholic reflect badly on that person today? Or does the fact that he’s remained dry and married since reflect well? A certain amount of discernment here is required. The people with whom the candidate associates with, offers support for, and gathers support from are also indicators in this area. The point is to evaluate how well I can trust the man or woman for which I am voting.

Policy. The final important fact I consider is policy. Does the candidates policy mesh with issues that are important to me? Will he or she keep taxes low? Will he or she avoid classist/racist/sexist/etc. politics? Will he or she keep our borders secure and manage the war on terrorism appropriately? Does he or she see creating laws based upon the inalienable human rights and God’s moral law? I’m being very generic here, but these are the policy issues that come to mind as important when making this kind of decision in the generic case. The main issue I want to know is if this candidate will try to move politics in the direction I think will benefit the United States best.

Finally, I must state one factor I avoid entirely. I do not pay attention to identity politics (at least when I don’t get sucked in to them because I’ve failed to be vigilant). It doesn’t matter what label the person picks for him or herself. I don’t vote for someone because he’s an “evangelical” or not for him because he’s a “mormon.” I will not vote for someone because she’s a woman or he’s a man. I will not vote for someone because his or her skin color is a certain hue. These are irrelevant. To base your voting decisions on such is simply racist, classist, sexist, or any other form of bigotry you are choosing to make your decision by.

Anyway, that’s the key factors for me. I am chiefly interested in a candidate’s qualifications, character, and policy. I may consider other things as well, but not his or her race, sex, or creed.

Cheers.

There is a popular scientific hypothesis right now that has taken on extreme political and religious overtones in the last few years. I am, of course, speaking of the current obsession with climate change and global warming, particularly humanity's hand in these issues. However, I don't put much stock in the evidence to support the hypothesis that climate change over the past few years has been the direct (or even indirect) result of human interference with the atmosphere. I find that, after examining the evidence, I must side with the unconvinced against the so-called "consensus of scientists" that Al Gore has referred to regarding this hypothesis. Furthermore, I believe the current political and religious fervor that have glommed onto this theory demonstrate three forms of hubris that make it difficult for many of these proponents to think objectively on the subject.

Statement of Hubris #1: Humanity can manipulate climate. If we consider the small weather events that happen every day on earth we find that the amount of energy involved in some of the minor events to be well-beyond what humans are able to produce across the entire planet. In face, we use these forces to capture very small amounts of the power via wind turbines and hydroelectric dams. These human machines capture a minuscule portion of the energy produced by the earth's weather to power entire cities.

The claim is that very small changes in the chemical make-up of the atmosphere can yield huge differences in climate because of the massiveness of the system and that humans are making such changes. However, this doesn't really fly in the face of facts. Many natural disasters actual alter the chemical make-up in greater quantities than humanity does and yet the climate does not change very greatly. The sun has been closely linked to changes in climatic conditions here on Earth and on Mars with greater accuracy than many of the simulations run by the computers.

In short, I find that the hypotheses of climate change being lifted up here appeals to our sense of greatness and achievement in a perverse sort of way. We humans are really powerful, like gods. We are so great, we can destroy the earth just by releasing a few chemicals into the oceans and atmosphere. This is a sick kind of pride.

Statement of Hubris #2: Humanity knows how the climate works. This is a flat lie. I've been very careful to refer to humanity's influence in climate change as a hypothesis because that is all it is. We don't yet have a proper scientific framework for even handling the climate to any certain degree. In order for science to work properly you must first be able to create a testable hypothesis and then run repeatable tests that either help to validate that hypothesis or not. For example, one such hypothesis for climate change is that the massive hurricane Katrina was just a precursor for things to come because climate change would cause greater and greater weather disturbances as more energy was held in the system. Yet, the past two summers have not shown this hypothesis to be accurate.

Even so, this is still far to broad a hypothesis to be truly scientific. Science is about eliminating superfluous variables through precise and systematic procedures. Medical science has found double-blind clinical trials to be very useful in providing accurate tests for finding if a particular drug is useful for treating a particular disease. Chemistry uses controlled lab experiments to repeatedly attempt to provide explanations for how chemicals form and release bonds. Every branch of science develops procedures that when followed create reproducible results that either validate or invalidate a particular hypothesis.

Climatology finds much of its basis in computer models based upon other sciences, but the computer models aren't experiments of the real system. They merely predict what will happen if the climatologists hypothesis is correct. It doesn't prove anything scientific regarding reality. In fact, these models leave out huge amounts of important data because there are certain measurements that are difficult to take. For example, one of the most important greenhouse gases is water vapor, but there's no current way to measure water vapor amounts globally. Until there's a way for climatology to really test hypotheses on a scale that is reproducible and useful, climatology has no real support for the hypothesis for human factors in climate change.

When textbook writers summarize scientific research, they tend to say things like "X goes here and Y goes there." Yet, what the scientist actually said was more complicated, "X usually went here even though a statistically insignificant amount didn't in our experiments and same for Y." We don't know if those statistically insignificant things are truly just caused by extra insignificant variables we couldn't control or actually significant factors that we aren't aware of yet. That's why science is never finished, but textbooks give the false indication of the subject being closed. Yet, how often have standing theories been thrown out to be replaced by new and more accurate ones? It happens all the time.

This is an example of humans thinking that because they have answered some questions that we as humans know everything or at least everything important. Pride. In reality, we should realize that every question answered produces three more questions we don't know. Humility. Those questions might have very important answers that could change everything that came before.

Statement of Hubris #3: Humans are worth saving. This is the one that starts to get me laughing. The same people who get upset that humans are harming the earth are either the same folks or those causing a different group to panic and figure out how to save ourselves from this disaster. Part of the rhetoric is that humans need to take action to solve this problem before it destroys our economy, kills millions of people, or completely wipes humanity from the face of the Earth.

My laughing quickly turns cynical because this is the most significant factor in all of this. Politicians and wealthy men across the globe stand to gain a great deal if we listen to this rhetoric. Scientists are corrupted by a desire for influence as well. By controlling what we can buy or by providing new products that we must buy (e.g., taxes to pay for carbon credits), these powerful men can place themselves in a position to be the money handlers.

I've often heard the proponents of climate change theory attacking opponents by claiming that studies countering their view point were funded by corporations trying to save themselves against the truth. That may be. Yet, I can say the same thing about state funded institutions. Anyone who things that
state money is free from the same kind of corruption is completely fooling themselves. Anyone with half a brain knows governments are corrupt, but these people would like to indicate that only corporate funding is corrupt and that government money is pure. Hah. Politicians who desire more power for themselves control the delivery of this money just like corporate tycoons who desire more power for themselves control the delivery of private grants.

We have to go by the facts as they are found and try and discern which are right despite these corrupting influences on all sides.

Back to the point, humanity thinks very highly of itself when we think that we are really worth saving. Spiritually, I believe that humanity is precious because every man and woman is created in the image of God, but physically humanity is completely worthless because every one of us has rejected God despite the goodness of his plan for our lives. We'd rather have our own way than the best way. As such, Christ came to save everyone that would believe in him and his sacrifice for our sin. We each must pay the price of physical death once because of our sin, but that is the only price left to pay for those that believe in Christ. Therefore, as far as humanity is concerned physically, we can all die and the Earth won't be worse without us.

Of course, I don't believe humanity will die because of global climate change that we caused and I don't believe the evidence exists yet to properly support any hypothesis of the sort. Yet, people, in in their redoubtable pride, will continue pushing this hypothesis up as if it were fact to support our pride in power, knowledge, and self-importance until some other event, activity, or hypothesis takes up our fancy to help us do it again in a different form.

This is one of those issues I get annoyed with conservatives over: "Let's make English the official language of the United States." I strongly disagree. My reasoning is very simple: Do we really need another bureaucracy controlling how and what we speak?

I believe that every person coming to the United States should learn English. I believe they should do this for their own benefit. If I moved to Mexico or Spain, I would want to learn Spanish. If I moved to Japan, I would want to learn Japanese. If I moved to Australia or Great Britain, I'd want to learn as much as I could about the differences in dialect. Why? So that I could succeed as much as possible by communicating as clearly as possible with others. Good communication skills are a major key to success in any culture. Those skills start and end with language.

On the other hand, if we make English the official language of the United States, what will happen? Obviously, we'll need a special department to define what English is and how it must be officially used. How may it be taught in schools? When and how may other languages be taught? It will define rules as to when and where English must be used and have a list of possible exceptions (airport signs, traffic signs near the Mexico border, certain literature, etc.). Then, it will have to start defining penalties for violating those rules. Otherwise, what difference does it make if English is "official or not? I don't want to see any such thing happen.

If someone can show me how we can make English a requirement for learning without the bureaucracy to define the rules and enforce them, I'm not interested in seeing English become "official" in the United states. I believe it is in the best interest of each individual and society as a whole to learn English in the United States. yet, legislating such will certainly come at a higher than intended cost.

Don't tell anyone, but I'm heterosexual, white, male, evangelical, listen to Rush Limbaugh whenever I can, drive a rusty and fuel inefficient pickup, and I'm not vigilant about recycling. I've been around these here Interwebs for a bit and come to find out, I'm not a very popular person. Apparently, I'm a mind-numbed robot for listening to Limbaugh, I'm an oppressor for being white and male, I'm stupid for being an evangelical, I'm probably a homophobe for being heterosexual and evangelical, I'm certainly a fundamentalist whacko, and I'm destroying the environment to boot.

If I were known for publishing harsh language, I'd interject a four letter word here. If I were just talking I probably would. Here's the point: All of you "Holier-Than-Thou's" out there on the Internet and anywhere else can stuff it.

I listen to Rush Limbaugh because he's funny and I get a different point of view to set up against everything else I hear out there. I absolutely do not agree with him on several subjects and I'm no robot. If you want to write off my opinions on that basis, then you're the robot. You're the one who lives by a formula where only one point of view is acceptable and any other shouldn't even be considered.

I've never attempted to oppress anyone. I've recommended people of several different races and of both sexes (and possibly various sexual preferences, I don't usually ask about such things) for jobs I've had influence over in the hiring. I've certainly been friends with people of many different races, religions, genders, and sexual orientations. I even took a Women's Studies course while working on my undergraduate degree and thoroughly enjoyed it.

On the other hand, I absolutely do have my own opinions about what is right and wrong, but I've never managed to "force" those ideas on anyone else. I'm not sure how I can force someone to make up their mind. Just trying to persuade someone doesn't count as foisting my beliefs on others. This is free country and everyone has a right to speak their mind. I'm not going to apologize for sharing mine.

I have two degrees, which doesn't necessarily make me smart, but I'd say that it's evidence that I'm not a complete moron. My coworkers tend to tell me I'm smart, but they could be lying just to make me feel better. On the other hand, I don't think my boss would put up with me if I wasn't smart enough to produce. Christianity isn't a crutch for the dumb or the weak anymore than Atheists are automatically smarter and wiser than everyone else. There have been plenty of very smart people of all religions, it's not about intelligence or wisdom. If you assume that just because I'm a fundie, I must be a dummy, you are the one who is acting dumb or at least ignorant. You have lost your ability to see another perspective and your life is shallower.

The environment thing I just threw in for kicks. No one has ever bothered to convince me that the ecosystem needs saving. Besides, environmentalism is seriously the highest form of hubris I can imagine. The earth is really so important in the universe that we should make sure we don't waste resources or pollute? Humans are so excellent a species that we should worry about saving ourselves? Humans are so omnipotent that we can damage a truly massive environment? (I'm always surprised at how small most people think the earth is.) If someone can present an argument that doesn't sound like it's completely based on humans' thinking extra-highly of ourselves, I'll start paying attention. Not that I'm opposed to responsible use of resources or avoiding pollution for purely selfish reasons, but there's got to be a balance. (Keeping third world countries down in the disease infested, malnourished states they are currently in to save the environment should be criminal, Mr. Gore.)

Anyway, I'm just getting irritated that my opinion and the opinions of others who think like me gets written off as stupid or biased or selfish or unfair just because I or they have an opinion that isn't PC. I'm irritated for my own reasons, but realistically, if you can't listen to someone else's point of view and really try to put yourself in the shoes of someone else, you are an ignorant and weak and shallow person.

I don't change my point of view often, but I do try as best as I can to reevaluate on the basis of my experience and any attempts at persuasion I encounter. This has lead to serious doubts in my self, my faith, my abilities, my comrades, etc., but I like to hope that continually forcing myself to face these doubts and conflicting points of view has made me a stronger person in the end.

Cheers.

This is a general indictment of Christians, with myself included. I do not exclude myself from what I'm about to say.

What is the primary consideration of most Christians? Do we want to know God? Do we have a passion for saving souls? No. We do not. Most of us (the vast majority) are primarily interested in global warming, climate change, open source software, politics, work, getting better education for children, opposing abortion, and many others. We spend so much time in the idol worship of our pet issues.

Are these bad things to be concerned about? Never! Should we be expending more energy on these things than on knowing God, praying to Him, reaching out to our brothers and sisters, and attempting to persuade some to believe? May it never be! And yet... so many of us are wrapped up in non-issues. My Christian friends so often express more outrage that humans are polluting the earth than that people are dying and even about worshiping our God who has sovereign control over such things. I find myself getting more excited about software and opportunities to enhance my resume and yet neglect to study and pray as I should.

What's important? To love the Lord our God with all of our heart, mind, and spirit and to love others as we love ourselves. But why aren't these things more important to us? I think it's because we live in a world designed to distract us and we have no one holding us accountable to God's standard.

What's my solution? I don't know. However, I felt led to share this and I can spend some time today in prayer.

Cheers.

I was scrolling through my morning feeds and came across this gem on Slashdot, "Should Schools Block Sites Like Wikipedia?
" The story goes on to describe someone's question regarding the fact that the local school board decided to block access to Wikipedia "because students may be exposed to misinformation". This simply describes an opportunity lost and a new form of book banning.

I grew up learning about how books like the Wizard of Oz were banned from schools because some people didn't like the fact that it had a witch. Other books were banned because they praised opposing political ideals. Now, apparently, it's vogue to ban something because it might not be accurate. However, this is still just as bad an idea as all the original book bans.

Where do you stop? The New York Times has in the past few years had at least one reporter fired because he fabricated information published in the Times. Should we block the New York Times because it might expose students to misinformation? Should we also block cable television because certain news anchors published stories in that medium without verifying the facts? Should we start blocking the text books because they sometimes contain errors or misrepresent facts?

Should we stop allowing teachers in the class room because sometimes teachers share incorrect informatino? I once had a teacher tell me that NASA was experimenting with mounting monkeys heads on robots and that the monkeys were controlling the robots successfully, but only for a few hours until the head died. Should we throw all the teachers out because there are some that are crackpots?

No! Of course not. This is an opportunity to explain that all sources are suspect until they are corroborated. If you read something in Wikipedia, you take a note to check any fact you can't verify from your own experience. You then verify that fact in the quoted source (for articles that properly quote sources), you can check your local library and do a database search, check another encyclopedia, look in a journal or magazine, find related books, etc. I find that Wikipedia is a great place to get started, but I certainly don't think of it as authoritative.

On the other hand, you should always do the same thing, insofar as you are able, for any source of information. If a source of information makes a claim, you should check it's sources and possibly verify the claim in other places. It's easy to make an unverified claim. It's hard to make a claim that is cited and backed up with facts and also backed up by other unrelated sources.

The lesson is that some sources are more trustworthy than others, but none are beyond suspicion. The lesson should be that you should always check your sources and verify that what you're reading is factual and reliable. Banning a source only means that you take this object lesson away and you raise students that are actually less able to think for themselves and more ignorant. Great, that's just what we need. Good job Anonymous School Board.

Cheers.

Reading a friend's blog
today, he quoted the Dalai Lama:

As a general rule, I think the religion our parents follow is the most appropriate for us to follow too. In addition, it is not good to follow a religion and then to change to another one.

Ryan and I were roommates once and he was the best man at my wedding. He and I have taken divergent paths since then. He went into the Marines and was stationed in Japan and lost his faith. I switched majors and reinforced mine. It's not hard to imagine that our roles could have been flipped. Don't read me wrong, I'm not attempting to be patronizing. I'm grateful for where I am, but I do not look down upon Ryan. I'm just saying that my faith is not my own and I wouldn't have it but for a sliver of key moments in my life. It could have been very different for me.

Now, I expect Ryan will probably read this (Hi Ryan!), so this is as much to him (you) as anyone else that reads this. There is a thing that I've learned and I wish more people (believers and unbelievers alike) would understand: pursuit of religion is a waste of time.

I've decided that it is religion that is the source of most hypocrisy in the world. Religion is the basis upon which people make statements like, "That guy is an idiot!" Religion is the reason for much of the persecution, wars, abuse, immorality, and murder in the world. Whether it's Jihadists or Crusaders, Hari Krishnas or the Inquisition, they carry their cause not because it's right, but because it's religious. "My religion is better than yours and you're an idiot/you should die if you believe anything else." The same statements are made by atheists and agnostics, except they try to disguise themselves behind science or politics, "Religion is a crutch for the weak minded." "We can show that the universe could exist without any God by scientific exploration." "Modern society has learned to live ethically without gods." Bah. Just more religion. Just another way of building oneself up into the idolistic supreme and kicking the rest over. That's what nearly all religion is.

Religion is, generally, just a waste of time. Therefore, I must, respectfully, disagree with the Dalai Lama. The religion of our parents isn't the most appropriate. It's probably just as damned as the rest. Keep your religion or change it. You'll probably still think of everyone who disagrees with you as dumb or unenlightened or ignorant or not worth the air they breath or unfortunate or all of the above. You'll look down on them for not being quite so smart or good looking as you.

If you're interested in good and appropriate religion, follow the religion of love. Love your friends. Love your enemies. Love everyone you meet. And if you meet God, love Him too. Any other religion is just a religion tainted with hate. This is a hard religion too. Love is complicated and messy. It's frequently painful and not often does it come naturally. Love requires making tough decisions, sometimes decisions that hurt others even while you love them. Love has it's rewards as well, but if you love expecting reward, you really are an idiot.

As a follower of Christ, this is what Jesus taught during a couple short years You shall love your neighbor as yourself." ¿ Matthew 22:37-39
and then magnified infinitely more on the cross. I call myself a "Christian" as those first believers of the Way did back in Antioch. When I'm being true to Christ, I mean only that Christ is a dear friend of mine. When true, I mean that rather than meaning that Christianity is my religion. When I'm being myself, my human side, I'm stating my religion and just as prepared to engage in that hateful hypocrisy as anyone else. If Christians (myself included) and the other religious people out there would worry a bit more about loving people and stop giving in to that human invention, religion, I am certain this world would be a better place.

Love,
Andrew

Privacy is a courtesy, not a right. This has been a conviction of mine for quite sometime because there are so many "bad things" that happen to society when privacy is elevated to righthood. This right has been inferred by the courts from various clauses in the Bill of Rights, but I believe that it has been inferred incorrectly. The correct definition for the right inferred is modesty, not privacy. Let's review some of the problems with privacy and then finish by looking at the benefits of modesty.

Reduced Accountability

Privacy diminishes our society's ability to help each other stay true to the rule of law, to our commitments, and to our own convictions. For example, in Puritan society, it was considered reasonable to break into neighbor's house if you heard strange noises and suspected something bad was happening. If you discovered a man beating his wife you were fully in your rights to stop him, arrest him, and testify against him. In today's society, chances are pretty good that such a case would be thrown out because of the right to privacy.

Divorce rates are high and single-parent families are not unusual. Because of privacy it is very difficult for a person's friends to help him stay true to his oath to "have and to hold, for better or worse, until death do you part." This is a shame. Some have said that marriages fall apart more today because we're a more honest society in that we don't hide what's happened. I see it the other way: we're a bunch of liars no longer held in check by our friends and neighbors ernestly looking for our own best interest.

Finally, it's difficult to even hold each other accountable to our convictions. If we can't really help each other in these big ways, the little ways become all the more difficult. Our society has decided that privacy is one of the things required to maintain rugged individualism. This individualism has come at a cost in that more and more people stand alone against their problems and don't have a support group around them to help. Our society looks down on any such support group as a "crutch" rather than seeing it as a vital necessity to maintaining our own well-being.

Diminished Sovereignty

Privacy diminishes the sovereignty of the United States. The government can no longer enforce all of it's laws in private situations. This implies that a greater amount of anarchy is present where privacy rules. It's not difficult to imagine the ultimate conclusion whereby individuals establish private property and, essentially, operate their own governance of that property independent from the United States. This might sound alright for an individual, but what about corporations? How many people really want a corporation to have the right to establish their own laws on their own land.

The government's laws should be enforced everywhere, regardless of whether it happened in the privacy of one's own home, land, or whatever.

Legalized Crime

Privacy has been used to legalize sodomy. Formerly, sodomy was considered a crime and is now considered (in some states) a legal practice among consenting adults. I could apply the slippery slope argument here to ask what prevents this from legalizing child pornogrphy, child molestation, rape, or murder.

One might say that the "consenting adults" bit protects these from happening. However, I suggest that these things are already happening in a quasi-legal way because of the diminished sovereignty and reduced accountability. For example, in my own state, Kansas, we recently elected Paul Morrison to Attorney General on the basis of his claim that the previous AG, Phil Kline, wanted access to "private medical records." The reality was that Phil Kline was trying to protect children being molested by their parents. He was trying to get those medical records so that child molesters who forced their children to get abortions to protect themselves from criminal action could be prosecuted. The medical records would show which parents had forced their children to do this.

These are atrocities happening in our own society with impunity because of the elevation of privacy to righthood.

Modesty is a right

On the other hand, limited privacy is of benefit to a free society. I refer to this as modesty. Modesty is that which allows people to mutually respect one another because we gloss over differences that might otherwise elevate us above or below our peers. When we dress modestly, we hide how much better or worse we look than others. When we act modestly in explaining our skills, salary, or talents we keep from mocking others by making them feel less capable or prevent them from denegrating ourselves if they are more capable. Modesty is the buffer we place around ourselves in order to promote mutual respect.

This is something that requires a few legal boundaries to enforce. Modesty is something that can be taken away if your salary is published in the newspaper or if cameras are placed in bathrooms. These things should be protected. But modest stops far short of privacy. Breaking and entering is violating your modesty and is an abuse of your right to own land, not a violation of your privacy.

Basically, privacy takes this too far and has many negative side-effects. I would like to see society back off on the desire for privacy for it's own benefit. Unfortunately, I don't predict this happening any time soon.

Cheers.

I hesitate to put this topic on my blog because it causes such a strong reaction by most folks. In fact, the discussion generally provokes a pretty strong reaction from me. This is why I really want to carefully treat the topic from my point of view without trolling
. As such, I just want to state my position from various perspectives and summarize what I believe.

First, let me define what I'm talking about to be clear. Abortion is the action of destroying or purposely rendering a human embryo or fetus inviable. I consider all forms of abortion as homicide. Just to be clear: homicide is not necessarily criminal. Our legal system, for example, incorporates the ancient concept of "justified homicide." Justified homicide is the termination of a human life under mitigating circumstances. For example, the most obvious case happens when someone threatens you with a gun in your home and you kill them. The law is carried out such that this action is not considered criminal.

The debate about abortion falls into several arenas that frequently get confused. There is the criminal, social, and political aspects of the discussion, which is concerned with whether or not government or some part of society is responsible for taking action in a given circumstance. There is the moral and ethical arena whereby you state that an action is objectively right or wrong (morality) or helpful or harmful to society, yourself, or some other class (ethics). There is the scientific and medical arena concerned with the actual nature of the action itself. I'd like to consider each of these aspects in the reverse order they are given here.

Science of Abortion

The medical science related to genetics and life forms one leg of the foundation of my ethical argument against the practice of abortion. The second leg of that foundation is that human life is sacred and should be protected, which is a moral and ethical argument I will consider in detail later. If life is sacred, then an important question is: when does an individual human life form? If life is not sacred, then it doesn't really matter if you are taking a life way anyway, so the point is moot.

I believe the answer to the question as to when life begins is answered medically without doubt. At which point does a person become an individual? When that person becomes genetically distinct: conception. At the point at which an individual sperm joins with the egg and their DNA combine to form a single whole, an individual exists, the potential becomes actual. I'd be willing to debate this point, but I can't think of another possible juncture where you can say a new individual exists. All other changes to an embryo or fetus or merely changes of degree, not changes of nature.

One might also suggest that the individual is formed when the embryo attaches to the wall of the uterus. Yet, that doesn't really fly because the uterus merely acts as a feeding mechanism. Just because the embryo fails to survive because it doesn't start gathering food from the mother doesn't mean it was never a person. One might as well say that an infant was never an individual human because it failed to crawl to and suckle from it's mother's breasts on its own.

One might suggest that the individual is formed when it starts feeling or thinking or becomes a recognizable animal form or some other measure. The difficulty is that it isn't possible to define a moment or point of time at which such things happen. Furthermore, you can take away these things without necessarily losing individuality. Does a person cease to be an individual life form if she becomes paralyzed and without sensation? What if he stops thinking? A person can still act and be an individual in a completely catatonic state. Some humans are badly disfigured, but it doesn't remove the fact that they are human.

One might also suggestion that the individual is formed when it could survive out of the womb. However, this becomes difficult to measure. Records are set on a fairly regular basis for younger and younger premature infant survival. I don't see any reason why medical technology couldn't be developed to allow an embryo to develop completely outside of a mother's womb. In fact, it could even happen in my life time. Who knows?

One might state that an individual is only possible at the moment of birth or at some point after birth. However, what's special about the infant leaving the womb? There's nothing magically different between a fetus and an infant at full term except that one is in the mother's womb and the other is not. One might even say that individuality doesn't come until later as the child's complex psychological personality begins to form. Yet, this reasoning suffers from the same difficulty as the earlier arguments about feeling, thinking, or recognizable form.

I simply cannot think of any other moment where an individual is formed other than conception. That doesn't mean there isn't some other point, but as far as I can understand the medical process, conception is the only point where an individual life can be said to start.

If life is sacred and life begins at conception, then the definition of homicide definitely applies to an embryo that is terminated by a pill or through an abortion performed by a doctor. Again, this doesn't necessitate that such an act is criminal, just that such an act is the taking of a human life: homicide.

This basis is the reason for which I cannot accept the argument that this is about a "woman's body." It is, in fact, about a woman's body and the infant's body. As an illustration, if two men are trying to go opposite ways through a doorway and neither is willing to give up to let the other through, it's about each man's body causing hardship for the other. One would not say that one man would be justified in killing the other just so he could get the other out of his way.

Morality and Ethics of Abortion

My morality is based upon the teaching of the Bible as well as I understand it. My ethics are based upon that moral foundation as much as possible because I don't believe a complete ethic can be derived from nothing. (In fact, the definition of "derivation" requires that one assume some basic principles.) On the other hand, I can still appeal to common sense and what's good for society and individuals to help bolster my ethical and moral positions.

As I mentioned before, I believe human life is sacred. Let me define what I mean. Something that is sacred is something regarded with great respect and reverence. Something that is sacred must not be destroyed or damaged without justification. Without such justification, destructive action against a sacred object is wrong.

Personally, I believe human life is sacred because this is a common theme in the Bible. However, if I cast aside the Biblical basis, I believe there is still a strong argument for the sacredness of human life. The basis for that statement is simply this, is it alright to take another person's life for any (or no) reason at all? Is it okay to kill someone because you feel like it? Is it okay just because you wanted to? Is it okay to kill someone because you can?

I don't think I've met anyone of any creed, belief, or unbelief that thinks it is justifiable to kill for no reason or any reason at all. I certainly hope I've never met anyone like that. Therefore, nearly everyone believes human life to be sacred even if individuals have no religious faith behind such a belief. I use the word "sacred", but I don't mean that in a necessarily religious way.

If human life is sacred and life begins at conception, then any individual between conception and birth (those subject to abortion) are sacred and must not be destroyed (aborted) without justification. Again, this doesn't mean that the unjustified destruction of an embryo or fetus is criminal. Abortion is homicide. Homicide might be justifiable. Whether it is justifiable or not it might not be criminal.

Another possible fuzzy area presents itself, however. How much justification is required to abort an unattached embryo? An embryo attached to the uterus? A fetus? An infant? A toddler? A child? An adolescent? An adult? A senior? It is possible that different amounts or different kinds of justifications might be possible. Each stage of life might have it's own criteria and certainly each stage of life presents a different set of circumstances. For example, if you kill an adult threatening you with a weapon in your own home, that's generally considered justified. However, if you kill a toddler that threatens you with a weapon, you will not be considered justified under any circumstances I can imagine.

This is, in my opinion the very crux of the matter. Abortion is homicide, but what suffices as justification for this form of homicide? This answer is much more difficult to discern. Does risk to a mother's health justify abortion to save the mother's life? Does psychological risk justify abortion? Just because the father of the unborn individual raped the mother to form the individual is abortion justified? Is the mental health or intelligence of the mother factor into such a justification?

It is my opinion that these are the questions we need to focus on as a society rather than fighting this as an epic one-way-or-the-other battle. What suffices as justified homicide when it comes to abortion? Can abortion be justified as is the case with the homicide of an adult? Or is abortion always unjustified as is homicide involving a toddler? Is abortion justified when the parents of the individual are especially underprivileged (or even over-privileged)? Is abortion justified when the individual is found in utero to be susceptible to or affected by disease? Is abortion justified if the mother is taking medication that happens to destroy or render the embryo inviable? These questions should be considered rather than making this the monolithic issue of: Abortion-for-or-against.

My answer: I view abortion as permanently unjustifiable. I can find nothing in the Bible that suggests that taking a child's life to save the mother is justified. In the case of rape of the mother, there are instances of such an act but the infant not aborted (yes, abortions were possible in ancient times and the practice of justified infanticide was also a common practice in many non-semitic cultures). I don't find anything justifying abortion in any of the above questions in the Bible either.

Again, this doesn't mean that all abortion must be criminal. It is possible for me (or even general society) to consider a particular abortion wrong, but for the law to allow such an abortion to proceed without any criminal ramifications. In fact, it's even possible for an action to be ethically justified but considered criminal. To illustrate the point, take the face mask penalty of football. Whether the face mask was intentional (unjustified) or clearly accidental (justifiable) doesn't matter. It's so important to protect players from neck injury that any contact of one player's hands to another player's face mask is an automatic penalty. The same is possible in law.

Politics of Abortion

Therefore, the second half of this question is to decide when abortion homicide is committed, is such an act criminal? Currently, the laws are generally written such that no criminal charges can be brought against either the doctor performing nor the patient receiving an abortion for any reason or at any time during pregnancy up to the point of birth. I will qualify that previous statement by saying that some criminal prosecution is possible under certain circumstances. For example, some states forbid abortions to be given to minors without the consent of their parent or guardian. In such a case, it's not the abortion itself that's considered criminal, but that a medical procedure was carried out without the consent of the individuals in charge of the minor.

The libertarian view on the subject is that the government should not intervene and it is up to the individual to make up their mind on such a decision. Therefore, they believe government should not intervene regardless of the moral or ethical issues involved. It's simply none of the government's business.

This is one of the points at which I disagree strongly with libertarians. In my view, since I consider human life sacred and to undoubtedly start at conception, this is equivalent to saying that a parent is legally free of criminal consideration for killing their own child until that child is no longer under the guardianship of the parent. Such a view diminishes the sacredness of human life and reduces human life to the same level as personal property. If an infant, toddler, or adolescent is to be protected under the law, I do not see a difference as to whether the individual is within or without the womb. I see no reason why a pre-born individual should be considered with any less protection.

Conclusion

I feel pretty strongly about this, but I've worked very hard to present an objective view of the topic. I've purposely avoided any emotional imagery or other tactics in presenting my view and any point presented here is open for comment by any person visiting my site. However, if a troll or poster comes in using emotional imagery or misleading argumentation, you can expect to have your comment deleted. Disagreement is welcome; irrational and emotional argumentation about any aspect from any position is not.

Cheers.

I'm currently reading a book by Kevin J. Anderson called Hidden Empire. It is science fiction and I have a great deal of interest in science fiction because it reveals much about the mindset of what various authors hope for or dread in the future. Of course, one can't put too much stock in what's said and I do read it as much for leisure. A theme I often notice is how authors treat religion. In this specific case, there is a religious body for the humans called the "Church of Unison". This "religion" is described as the "United Nations of religion." This comment led me to some interesting thoughts about both how SciFi authors use/abuse religion and about the United Nations.

I don't think Anderson is a religious person of any deep conviction based upon the existence of this Church of Unison in his book (or wasn't at the time of this writing). I could be wrong, but the idea that the great religions of the world would some how come together and promote a universal one religion leader is preposterous. I find the idea offensive in the extreme as should any person who refers to them self as "Christian," "Jew," or "Muslim." Hinduism and Buddhism and many other religions may allow for a variety of paths to divinity, but Christianity, Judaism, and Islam specifically denounce any other path to God (though, some sects naming themselves under one of these might disagree with that statement).

In the book, the goal of this one world religion is to strongly discourage religious fervor. I again find this pretty unbelievable. I religions have their fanatics. Even a one world religion will gain a priesthood of dedicated individuals that would trade their life for their belief, even if such were officially discouraged. One need only look throughout history and note how every religion has had its strong fanatics, often by sub-sects that fail to follow orthodox doctrine, but also frequently with officially condoned fanaticism.

On the other hand, there is nothing to say that various religions can't build a council to help encourage understanding and cooperation despite official doctrinal differences. That is, I can see such an organization as working to provide a context for arbitrating disputes and promoting a few common themes, but not to provide any kind of doctrinal agreement. Only when a religion is so liberal as to be able to have little doctrine or where the followers are willing to ignore its doctrine would anything more be possible. However, such wouldn't satisfy a large percentage of strongly convicted believes who insist that there is Truth and refuse to allow it to be diluted.

I then turned the analogy on its head and realized that this also helps to explain why I consider the United Nations to be a fairly worthless organization. The title itself, "United Nations," is completely false. There is nothing united about these nations. In fact, most of the representatives don't even represent nations. The U.N. consists of democratic republics, socialist democracies, communists, autocracies, oligarchies, monarchies, fascists, theocracies, and all the shades in between. The vast majority of these are some form of autocracy, whether that be communist, fascist, or the plain, bald-faced dictatorships. Therefore, most of the members don't even represent the people of the country sending an ambassador. They represent the government or even just a small segment of the bureaucracy that makes all the decisions by force. Admittedly, it is possible for an autocrat to represent his people, but that's not the norm. In general, autocrats only represent their people just enough to keep them from thinking hard enough about revolution.

One can argue the same of the elected representatives of our government. However, it's much easier for us to have a "revolution" ousting a representative from office via the ballot box making them pay much closer attention.

The idea that the U.N. can somehow build consensus among so many different interests is completely absurd. Giving the U.N. power is like trying to put a lion, an elephant, a monkey, and an ant-eater in a cage and asking them to come to a consensus on what to eat. The lion will want to eat whichever of the others is closest, the ant-eater could care less what the others eat as long as there's an anthill near the cage, and the elephant and monkey will argue over what kind of vegetables or fruits taste best. You won't get anywhere. If you watch the U.N., they don't get anywhere. To expect grand solutions from this body is a good laugh at best and just plain pathetic at worst.

One of the things we discuss at Boomer quite a bit, particularly during meeting and particularly during the start and end of meetings, is positive focus. Of course, this is consulting jargon, but it just means taking an optimistic approach to what we talk about. In a meeting, this means trying to start a meeting by thinking about the good things that the company or people in the company have been doing. It means ending the meeting by focusing on what good things came out of the discussion. Until working for Boomer Consulting, meetings were the bane of my existence. After working there for six months, I actually look forward to many of our meetings and find that a surprisingly high percentage of those are exceptional. Positive focus is part of the reason for this.

I've decided that the reason I've really come to despise current events and particularly current events reporting is because of the opposite, negative focus. For example, Terri frequently listens to the CBS Radio News on 1350 KMAN in the mornings. This morning there were five consecutive negative stories. If I recall correctly, they were about how the United States is failing in Iraq, Pakistan, Afganistan, accusations that the President is a liar, and a school shooting. First, I don't expect to turn on the radio and hear about flowers and hear the laughter of happy infants, but as far as I could tell, 3 out of 5 of those stories could have been passed over for items focused on something positive. Second, we are entering a period in the United States that is most especially focused on negativity, election season. However, I think American's are very negatively focused right now and have been getting more and more negatively focused for decades.

Perhaps, this is one of the reasons why I like to listen to Rush Limbaugh. His commentary on the news presents several benefits to other sources. First, I agree with about 80% of his opinions—most often I agree with him on policy, but I sometimes have a different set of reasons for agreeing, particularly on immigration. Second, he reports interesting stories that don't get much coverage by other news agencies. Third, he makes connections with history and with past actions of individuals based upon a very detailed knowledge of current events over the last 20 years and history in general. For example, if he mentions something a politician says today or an accusation brought against a politician, he often remembers stories from 2 or 10 years ago that add additional relevance to the news story. Finally, Rush Limbaugh is an optimist and while he often discusses the bad and the ugly, he manages to work in the good too.

I also find it interesting how this ties in with my current study of the book of Daniel (which, btw, continues apace, but is stalled briefly while I read ahead and gather more context before tackling the next section which is rather complicated). Daniel and his friends Hananiah, Misheal, and Azariah (or perhaps more commonly known as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, or Rack, Shack, and Benny to the VeggieTales crowd). Daniel was nearly killed once and actually assigned a death sentence later for obeying God in a country that did not allow for the religious freedoms we have in the United States. Similarly, his three friends were also thrown into a furnace to be burned alive for the same "crime" of failing to worship the state mandated god. Yet, after these men survived each ordeal, they did not denounce their leaders. They did not work to usurp their authority. They, in fact, went back to posts in the government and continued to work under these same kings as they were able.

This kind of behavior is almost unthinkable to the modern mind. They should have demanded their rights. They should have gone to the press and sought support for the forced removal of these leaders from power. Perhaps there wasn't the modern media of today (though, one of the kingdoms involved was Media Persia, hah hah) but these were well-connected and poewrful men in each of these kingdoms (i.e., the three men were actually a tribunal of presidents over the province of Babylon and Daniel was the chief of these three and later the King's chief advisor). It isn't hard to imagine that they could have worked out a plot to overthrow the King, but they didn't try.

Instead, these men had faith in God. This is, in my opinion, the archetype of positive focus. Positive focus is seeking to look for the good in general experience. Whereas faith is seeking for and believing in the source of all good, God. Furthermore, when I refer to faith, I don't refer to some abstraction. Otherwise, I wouldn't mean any more or less than I mean by positive focus. Faith without an object and a doctrine to find the object, is just positive focus.

Therefore, being a Christian requires me to be optimistic because I know that God's plan for the future is an excellent one. For me, positive focus is not so much something to strive for, but a mandate. Finally, let me conclude with a verse, "whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." (Philippians 4:8)

Amen.

The survival of the human race depends on its ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there's an increasing risk that a disaster will destroy the Earth, world-renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Tuesday. — Quoted from AP

I'm not quite sure I understand this remark. Especially since the dangers he quotes are, according to the article, all human in origin, "sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of." If humans are so dangerous to ourselves how is getting to another planet really going to help? We'll just risk the same dangers there, it'll just take a little longer. If we add in the natural dangers of the Universe, though, we're doomed. Period.

The problem is a simple matter of time. As the Oracle says in The Matrix Revolutions, "Everything that has a beginning has an end." There's no way around this problem. Sooner or later time is going to catch up with the human race, it's unavoidable. The death rate for humanity is, was, and will always be 100%. The death rate for the species will be no different.

Does this mean I'm ready to roll over now and welcome the end of humanity? Of course not, I'm not even opposed to human expansion into space and colonization. I'm just not willing to engage in false hope that humanity will find the key to immortality sooner or later. This statement is not only myopic but based on blindness.

The fact that time has a beginning and an end should tell us something about the nature of the universe. No, the blessing of having a Christian worldview is that that worldview grants an eternal perspective. Before the universe began, there existed a timeless eternity past. After the universe ends, a timeless eternity future awaits. A materialistic, scientific world-view, however, denies the existance of such a time because it cannot be observed or tested. Belief that a loving God is also planning things provides additional reassurance.

Am I naive about what the human race is capable of, absolutely not. However, niether am I staying up a night fretting over the destruction of the race. It won't happen until it happens and when it happens, it will happen for a reason.

This is something I've noticed for a very long time and I'm a bit glad that my friends aren't of the tendency to engage too greatly in this stupid side-effect of the blogosphere. Whenever there's a news item that has any single sentence in it that can be used to make hay, the bloggers pounce on it and beat that little sentence to tiny bits. This is magnified when a whole article comes out that places certain issues or individuals in a bad light, particularly everyone's current least favorite President.

I'm not particularly pleased with President Bush myself, but to nit-pick everything he says and does because you don't like him is a little pathetic. A lot of conservatives did the same thing to President Clinton when he was in office (I may have even done it a bit myself), but that's no excuse.

This came up because I was looking through my Newsvine feeds and noticed an article pouncing on another article. The pouncer makes an inane comment trying to say that the economy must suck since the markets bounced because of a change in the Treasury Secretary—a "trivial event." I won't try to debunk that one because it's not my point, but I do think she's dead-wrong.

All one has to do is search for "George Bush" and the majority of the hits are either favorite pouncees or top pouncers. It'd be much nicer if such a search yielded substantive and informational hits rather than Bush-bashing. Bush/Clinton-bashing may be a fun hobby, but it doesn't really make for very interesting reading.

This is also not limited to just the President. News articles on anything scientific or mentions the term "intelligent design" usually gets an evolution pounce. The same goes for the separation of church-and-state, abortion, the war in Iraq, et. al.

While I'm not offering any real solutions to the issue, I will make a plug for sane discussion. The key is not to be passionless, but to back up everything with fact and to avoid any specious or emotional argument. If you want to say that the economy sucks and is evidenced by the dip in the markets during a change in the office of the Secretary of the Treasury, by all means say it, but back up the statement with fact and sources. Otherwise, you just add to the noise.

Cheers.

Some of my friends may know of how I have over the last year or so become somewhat attached to producing content for Wikipedia. However, my friend and coworker, Eric, (unfortunately his web site is EMPTY, so I can't really link to him) recently introduced me to Newsvine.

It basically just provides AP articles with the additionally ability to vote on these, add comments, create columns, and provide "seed" links to other news found on the net. I've popped over there a couple times and I've been very pleased with the experience so far. The community isn't superhuge yet and the site is still relatively immature (only a year old), but I see a lot of potential in how I've already been able to skip around the site to read articles, find related information, and discuss.

Anyway, I could see this being another place I hit whenever I need a break from the mundane at work. I could also see some of my political opinions being expressed there rather than on this blog. I have also added this to my list of sites to watch for new innovations in community development and we might consider using a few of the more interesting ideas in some of the community aspects of the new Boomer web site.

Cheers.

Possibly white guilt's worst effect is that it does not permit whites--and nonwhites--to appreciate something extraordinary: the fact that whites in America, and even elsewhere in the West, have achieved a truly remarkable moral transformation. One is forbidden to speak thus, but it is simply true. There are no serious advocates of white supremacy in America today, because whites see this idea as morally repugnant. If there is still the odd white bigot out there surviving past his time, there are millions of whites who only feel goodwill toward minorities. — Shelby Steele, White Guilt and the Western Past, OpinionJournal

That's the next to last paragraph of an excellent article. Steele has explained, in straightforward terminology, the American and international political dilemma faced by western civilization today. Since World War II, the West has been wringing it's hands and wishing that the past few hundred years of bigotry had not happened. With the American Civil War and World War II, the West has come to realize, in utter horror, the depth of it's past mistakes in imperialism and western/racial supremecy.

However, there are many who aren't done feeling guilty yet for these sins. Expanding on Steele's point, I see this as a clearly spiritual issue. The western secularists have linked this white supremecy to Christianity. Most Americans say the words, "I'm a Christian," to mean "I'm a good person and try to do good things." That is, they are liars. "Christian" is not the same as "good," "Christian" is the same as, "I am a sinner, but God sought to pay for my sin anyway."

Most Americans are secular. Most would deny that what the Bible says is more important than all other things on any given subject. Well, they might agree to that statement, but if I were to link the Bible's statements on particular issues, most Americans would certainly take a stance apart from the Bible. For example, is genocide ever justified? The Bible says so. Was the earth created 10,000 years ago in just seven days? The Bible says so. Did Jesus rise from the dead? The Bible says so.

Thus, the west has placed itself in a position where forgiveness of this great sin is not even possible. What higher power is supposed to say to the West, "It's okay. You are forgiven?" The various cultures we sinned against? Certainly not. They stand everything to gain from a hand-wringing minimalistically powerful West. Some of them might, but how would we ask? Who is to represent them even if they were to forgive? The political leaders? Each individual? There will always be groups who hold this sin against us in the west. Even modern cultures today scorn and hold past cultures responsible for their great sins. As long as history remembers us, someone will hate us for our mistakes.

The answer is, of course, that the only way to forgiveness for this sin (or any other) is to seek such forgiveness from God. I recommend that the link between Christianity and white supremecy and imperialism be dissociated in our minds. Any link they could have is a false one because Christ certainly never advocated the primacy of race or the conquering of civilzations. He came to divide between God's people and the rest, which binds all nations together and declares that nationality is, at best, only a secondary division in the Kingdom of God.

Anyway, Steele's piece is excellent and I highly recommend reading it.

Cheers.

I was reading through the back logs on one of my IRC channels this morning and found an interesting comment: "[I'm] just waiting to hear someone suggest that the Law of Conservation of Mass isn't true, and a theory of scientific wine into blood thing happen [sic]." This was stated in a discussion of Christian communion and specifically with respect to the Catholic belief that the wine of communion is transmuted to become the very blood of Jesus. I don't happen to agree with this mysticism, but I do believe in transmutation.

Jesus said to them, "Fill the waterpots with water." So they filled them up to the brim.

And He said, "Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter."

So they took it to him. When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew) the headwaiter called the bridegroom and said, "Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine, but you have kept the good wine until now."

– John 2:7-10 (emphasis added)

The Bible says this happened. Therefore, I believe it. This is unscientific.

The problem with the statement above, "I'm just waiting to hear someone suggest that the Law of Conservation of Mass isn't true" is that he's stated it. It isn't true, it's a theory for explaning observations. From Wikipedia: "The law of conservation of mass/matter states that the mass of a system of substances is constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system." To state that this Law is true is to assert faith in the fact that it will hold for all observations that could ever be made for now and for the rest of the observable future. This is a religious assertion. Stating that a physical law is true is an expression of belief that an explanation of observations always holds. This is definitely unscientific as well.

Science is the business of observing facts and then assembling the patterns into theories. The theories should be able to effectively describe the data and predict future observations. However, a theory ceases to be useful when a new observation invalidates it. The theory must be adapted or thrown away and replaced with a new one. Stating that a theory is true asserts that every possible application of the theory has been observed and that it held for every application for all time for all parts of the universe. Obviously, this is impossible unless one is omniscient. Any theory must be testable and an assertion of truth cannot be.

Therefore, it is not irrational to state that transmutation has occured, merely unscientific. In the specific case of wine turning to blood, that's quite testable. We could easily have a person take communion in a controlled setting and then test their stomach contents for blood containing foreign DNA. The obvious religious response would be that we aren't to put God to the test and that we'd probably just find wine because we'd be taking communion in an unacceptable way—whatever. Again, that isn't necessarily irrational, but it's certainly unscientific.

My main point is that too many people use science as a crutch for explaining truth when science isn't the search for truth, it's the search for explanations of the small database of known facts humans have collected. To state that a theory will always hold is just placing faith in science. Is that wrong? You can be the judge of that.

Cheers.

I've been thinking more about the evolution versus intelligent design debate. I think the folks on the side of intelligent design have been fighting for the wrong thing. They need to focus on the real problem: science versus philosophy.

Philosophy has lapsed into an unpopular subject in modern America. Philosophy is the rational (or sometimes the irrational) pursuit of truth. Philosophers want to answer questions lots of questions that are really only answerable as thought exercises. What is true? How does one test that something is true? What are good ways to search for truth? How should truth be structured? The biggest question tends to be, what is? Is life just an imagination of our minds? Is what is even knowable? Is existance guided by absolute standards? These are all philosophical questions. Perhaps science can help give us data that will help us answer them, but their answers are often found independent of the physical world.

Science is the study to find how things work. Science must assume a certain philosophical basis. First, it must assume that what we observe is real and not imagined (or why bother measuring and observing?). Second, it must assume that what we are observing is objective and repeatable. Finally, science asserts that all the knowledge it gathers is testable. If I assert that something is true, then I must be able to observe something that can tell me whether or not it is true. The really interesting (and not well-known) fact about science is that nothing can ever be considered really true—just not falsified.

For example, Newton's assertions about physics explained how planets and stars can orbit each other. His ideas were considered to be the truth until observations began to deviate from his suggestion. Einstein came along and added a new hypothesis to the system that appears to be more useful in explaining the motion of large bodies because it accounts for the fact that planets orbiting the sun appear to get heavier as they move faster. Einsteins theory of relativity tells us this. Relativity, however, asserts that light travels near or below a maximum velocity, but recent experiments have suggested that light can move faster than that under certain conditions. Another theorist will have to make sense of these problems.

The difficulty with theories like biology's evolution and geology's uniformitarianism is that they assert non-testable hypotheses. For example, uniformitarianism is the belief that the geological processes we see today explain everything we see in nature. Yet, how can we test this? Well, without being able to go back in time, we can't. Evolution states that living things evolve from one species to another through a process of mutation and natural selection. This is also not a testable hypothesis. Even if we find two fossils of what look like a human, only a little different, that doesn't mean they mutated from one form to the next or that it's not just some isolated genetic mutation. There is no way to falsify evolution.

Intelligent design, uniformitarianism, and evolution are all forms of philosophical belief. They are not testable and are, therefore, not science. Presenting these things in science classes is appropriate because they present frameworks for classifying observations. However, these are not science in and of themselves.

As such, I will restate my belief that students should be learning philosophy. How does one determine truth? Is truth rational? What are the rules of logic? Then, from there students are equipped to determine their own belief system as the basis for their science.

It's really sad how many people go to college for the wrong reasons. I started college for the wrong reasons, but I understand them now. Ask any high schooler who's wanting to go to college, why? "Because I want to get a good job that pays well." "My parents say I have to get an education." "Because if I don't I'll have to be a janitor for the rest of my life." WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

There's more to life than vocation and money. In fact, unless you're a workaholic, you'll spend more time in other pursuits than your vocation. The purpose of a university education is to learn and better yourself by learning. The pursuit of knowledge is an honorable goal in and of itself. Trying to learn just enough to get your degree certificate cheapens your education. Okay, now before anyone thinks I'm harping on students, I'm going to spend the rest of this blog on the philosophy involved and on how faculty perpetrate this abomination we call academia.

The faculty members of higher education are the primary perpetrators of this false pursuit of degree for improved life and money. In my opinion, it started because the educators wanted more money and these goes appeal to a wider audience than the pure pursuit of knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge is a lofty goal that doesn't have obvious or immediate utility. But almost our entire academic system is geared towards building someone up to live life rather than build someone up just for the sake of learning. Learning is both a means and an ends in itself.

I don't think the university should be preparing students for a vocation. Generally speaking, only a vocation does that anyway. How many jobs have you had? How long did it take you to really get everything that you needed to know down? Six months? A year? Two years? I'd say my experience says it takes six months to meet everyone and get the basic requirements down. It takes a year to really know everything you have to do. And it takes two years and maybe three to actually become competent. And that's proven true for every job I've had for that long with and without my degrees.

Furthermore, it's been my experience that what is done in class is only capable of giving you a bare background to work with. The only students that really know what they're doing when it comes to software development, are the ones that play with stuff outside of class. Actually being able to do something in a vocation requires much more detailed training and experience than any lecture series can give you. I've specifically seen this in the students I've hired. Two of them started with essentially no professional experience in systems administration. I'd have been able to recommend both of them as well-paid consultants after a year of on-the-job training working in our department. Any one of my students already has more experience in systems administration than any one of our graduates who hasn't had a job like this. I'd hire them without a degree if I were running a systems consulting firm and I feel confident that many such firms would (so long as they haven't subscribed to the lie that a Bachelors degree in Computer Science means anything in particular about your computer knowledge).

This country has bought into a myth about education. Having a Bachelors degree now means less than it once did because it's now taken as just a credential that can get you into the door for an interview. Rather, it should be a credential that means you're well studied in a variety of subjects, but with some specialized knowledge—that you are a seeker of knowledge. Bah. The degree should just be a milestone on the path of life, not some peak to climb.

I would like to indict computer science faculty in particular for the crime of making our degree programs into mid-level vocational training. Instead of teaching students how to develop new ways of thinking about computing, we teach them how to program. Instead of teaching students to look beyond the mundane and create, we teach them how to design GUIs the way we like to see them. Instead of helping them understand the patterns and intuition that leads to good user interface, we teach them to think more like machines. Instead of helping develop skills for developing new algorithms built on well-known ones, we merely show them how to use standard libraries. When we have a social problem like trouble communicating with students, we look to technology as the Holy Grail that will save us from having to interact with them. Instead of creating a pleasant environment that encourages students to learn for the sake of learning, we create a professional environment that dehumanizes them and teaches them that their only value to society is the ethical pursuit of money.

The real goal of any university department should be to impact lives so that our graduates are better learners. We should be personal rather than professional. We should serve the students rather than self-aggrandize and proclaim our own puffed-up knowledge. We should listen and learn ourselves rather than lecture from our lofty researches. I tire of the academic elitism of the Ph.D. This is why I will not pursue one myself. That's not a club I have any interest in joining.

Finally, I know that the CIS department at KSU once had a sense of humor. I don't know if it fostered the learning environment too, but I have a feeling it did. Let's go back to way things were when the department was young, when simply learning was important and grants and awards and published papers were more milestones rather than the goals themselves. Let's go back to a time when our intellectual investment in our own ideas hadn't developed into a fragile pride. Let's go back to the days when a professor had time for his students because they're more important than the official work of the day. Cheers.

On my way to work yesterday, I heard a news report talking about a group trying to put warning labels on pop cans. They want them to say something like, "Sugar-based beverages have been found to cause obesity." The spokesperson for the group cited teenage obesity as the reason for such a label.

Okay, I take issue with this on two counts. First, this is stupid. What moron can't read the back of a can of pop and see "Calories: 150" clearly labeled? Not only this, but everyone of our dear teenage children go through or have been through The Presidential Fitness program or whatever they call it. Part of this PE curriculum is to explain that, in general, the average person needs about 1200 to 2500 calories per day, depending on size and how active the person is. It really doesn't take a math genius to realize that drinking 10 cans a pop a day will make you obese. The spokesperson on the radio finished by stating, "It's liquid candy!" Um. Duh.

Second, it's disingenuous. Do these people really think this is going to change anyone's mind or affect anyone? We've had labels on cigarettes for decades and I still see people my age smoking. In fact, among college students, smoking is still very popular. The problem is that folks my age and younger have an invincibility complex that is kind of part of being this age. Long-term consequences aren't on the radar screen of most young people, it's just a fact. Telling someone that drinking pop causes obesity is likely to be met with blank stares.

No, either these people are turning a blind and deaf ear to 30 years of cigarette labels that had little effect or they have another agenda. Given that humans will do what is in their own best self-interest far more often than not, I find it easier to believe in an agenda. What's the agenda? What can they stand to gain? Well, 10-to-1, this organization is filled with and backed by lawyers. If you can get the government to establish that something is a health-risk and that "Big-Soda" was trying to cover that up by not placing such a label out on its own, they have a basis by which to sue "Big-Soda" and earn buku-gobs of money in settlements and fees. This is the exact tactic that was used to get Big-Tobacco and the lawyers are moving on because that cash-cow is starting to look a little lean.

Thus, I see this tactic as just being a way to make people think these people are good people while giving these same people a lever to make profit off of an otherwise legal business. People with this idea aren't high-minded, they're tax collectors, they've just found a way for the private citizen to collect the tax (and without any voter representation being present). Disgusting. Period.