Archives for posts with tag: common sense

C-SPAN reran the #HamOnNey debate on 22 February 2014.

I watched. Caught it all this time. The family watched most of it with me.

Ken Ham and young-earth-creationists (YEC) love to assert that the ark was big enough to hold all the kinds of animals if “kind” is defined as family, two classifications up from species.

Ken Ham et al. claim to be defining kind and other words according to the bible, but can anyone tell me where he gets this definition of “kind”? Please? I understood him to indicate his current definition is based on science rather than the bible—on research his scientists are doing. What’s up with that?

Check it for yourself, the bible uses “kind” and synonyms with some variability, from what we call breeds to a basic generic category such as “bird”. However, specifically, Leviticus 11:22 gives us a very good definition of “kind” as used by the bible itself. New American Standard Bible: “These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds.” This appears to be at least as restrictive as species.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4327.htm  Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

It seems to me, culturally, we most suffer from moral idiocy.

We each understand intelligence innately, the same for knowledge, as well as emotion, and especially for morals. IQ, EQ, and MQ? Works for me. 100 is the nominal IQ mean, median, and mode. Anyone far off from that gets called names. Of course, everyone would like to be called the one name, but nobody likes the other.

EQ, well, I haven’t seen standardization on that. I think it is mostly a learned intelligence anyway. We learn emotional skills by growing in loving families, with good, upright friends, and by going through hardship in life with the honest, caring support of these friends and family.

I’d say the same goes for moral intelligence, but that is much less subjective. We know what is right. Read the rest of this entry »

Here is a seed to a sound idea:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-restore-conscription-restore-america/2013/11/29/8d5f7ef8-5935-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html

Dana Milbank
Dana Milbank, an opinion writer for the Washington Post, suggests that while compulsory service (the draft, for everyone, at 18, male and female) might be unpopular and impractical, it just might help save our nation. I think he is right. However, I cannot support compulsion!

There is never a reason to compel. I see persuasion as an illusion, but it is all we have if we won’t force, and I won’t cotton force in any regard. (Well, I’m assuming peaceable pursuits. There is no civil response to violence other than violence. Yes, on the personal level, the Lord commands us to turn the other cheek, but society cannot afford to do so. Otherwise, the bullies would rule.)

So, if I like the idea, what is my proposition?

I suggest we restrict the vote, ownership of real property, and running for office to those who have served. I like the idea of having no restrictions, nor exemptions for service. Serve two years in Federal service, or forgo being able to ever own real property. Let’s include any federal employment. Serve two years in the military, or don’t bother applying for a job with Uncle Sam.

Serve four years or forgo voting. And let’s put a six-year requirement as fundamental to being able to run for any public office. Further, I’ll suggest eight years minimum for the office of President. States should probably enact similar prerequisites.

There should be no restrictions or exemptions.

The US armed services have always tried to accommodate the wishes of the service members, but the needs of the service come first. Many an Army officer has applied for duty in a preferred location and received an assignment that isn’t on the preference list, which typically includes three. I think it is fitting to simply extend the missions of the services to include supporting civil service. In that way, each service could meet its mission and its needs, and each person could be placed in an appropriate service role. Regardless, all should participate in basic physical training and weapons and defense basics. There will have to be accommodation for capabilities in this regard. I do believe every person should receive this basic training because, ultimately, no one can defend you but you. (You owe it to yourself more than anything.)

At eighteen years of age, all persons residing in the USA would register and declare eligibility. If they chose to declare ineligible, they would simply move on in life, never being able to vote in national elections, never able to own a house or other real property, never able to run for elective office. Sounds like most people today, so it shouldn’t be a hardship. It would, however, eliminate some of the political wrangling that stirs up the masses to vote against the good of the country.

I also support some additional requirements on voting. We would have to monitor that though. It would get touchy, and political. Various immoral discrimination implementations would have to be guarded against. That has its own problems. Still, I think it is fitting to require something of those who can vote.

I mean, doesn’t it seem right and proper that anyone who is allowed to vote must also pay net taxes? Doesn’t it seem right and proper that anyone who is allowed to vote must demonstrate basic knowledge of civics and social competence and current affairs (other than pop culture)?

Anyway, I think making Federal military service (including civil service for the military) a requirement for some of our most cherished privileges. Perhaps it will help us continue to cherish and not take for granted.

 

Anthony Watts rightly makes fun of the Mann-child and the Lewandowskyites here, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/01/mann-and-lewandowsky-go-psychotic-on-skeptics/

Anthony correctly states that the alarmists are losing the argument so they are now trying to suppress dissent. (Not new, actually. It has been part of their tactics from the beginning.)

Anthony correctly points out that this is the tactic the soviets used where they asserted that only crazy people would disagree with them, so those who disagree must be locked away and medicated into oblivion and silence.

I agree with Anthony that the likes of Mann and Lew need professional counseling and help. If they are not yet dangerous to themselves or others, they are likely to be soon. They really seem to need help. The paper sited is truly sad. Emotionalism, not science.  Read the rest of this entry »

I like Norman Rogers writings. He’s written a piece at American Thinker, http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/the_climate-industrial_complex.html (and a slightly older article here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/global_warming_as_faith.html). Good stuff.

In the current article, Mr. Rogers makes the case that our science associations, pretty much without exception, are self-serving money grubbers. Pretty much the only thing this science organizations accomplish any more is grant proposals and propaganda designed to keep fear high and public money flowing.

The argument leads directly to the politicized “science” environment we see with all things related to environmentalism and climate alarmism.

Quoting from the article:

“The climate science establishment does not criticize “clean” energy companies promoting highly impracticable schemes, be it wind farms, solar installations or electric cars. This is not because they don’t know that these schemes are useless, even by the standards of true believers in global warming, but because they have no enemies in the global warming subsidy sphere. They welcome allies in the climate-industrial complex, no matter how deficient in intellectual integrity, in the long march to fleece the taxpayer.” […]

“When scientific organizations endorse global warming catastrophe theory, remember that these organizations are really just fancied-up labor unions and their reports and statements are generally self-serving declarations disguised as objective analysis.  It is obviously foolish to ask scientific organizations to give objective advice concerning programs in which they are deeply self-interested.  The National Academy of Sciences says it mission is to give “… independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology.” The problem is obvious.  The government should seek out persons and organizations without a self-interest stake when asking for advice concerning science policy and science spending.”

Are we Borg yet?

If the data collection and invasion of privacy doesn’t make you hate Common Core, the money involved should. You owe it to yourself and your children to educate yourself and oppose Common Core. Education has ceased to be about educating children, and it has be come the latest homage to the almighty dollar. Half a billion in venture capital? Exxon Mobile and Bill Gates? Somebody smells money, not education.

Carole Hornsby Haynes, Ph.D. Articles: Common Core’s Data Mining Trojan Horse.

“The state tests will glean student-specific data to be stored by the states in their new longitudinal data systems that are designed to track a student from preschool through college and even further.”

“In 2011 the U.S. Department of Education reinterpreted the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act to permit a student’s academic record to be shared with virtually anyone including nongovernmental organizations without prior written parental consent!”

http://www.parentalrights.org/

http://www.hslda.org/commoncore/?src=slide&slide=CommonCore_Topic_Papers_July_2013&pos=1

http://www.hslda.org/commoncore/analysis.aspx

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2013/201307290.asp

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2012/201212170.asp

Windmills killed over half a million birds and nearly a million bats in 2012. Where will it end?
AP has distributed a story carried by many news outlets, including Fox, The Guardian, etc. I like the variety of headlines. Some hardly admit the point while others all but accuse the President of killing eagles and fighting oil production.
A quote: “More than 573,000 birds are killed by the country’s windfarms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife Society Bulletin.”
The link to the journal should work, but it is available after purchase only, and I didn’t register to find out how much it is.  Read the rest of this entry »

Well, if I didn’t know better, I’d suspect our Pointman was reading my mail.

It would be nice if sensible people took the reigns of environmentalism. Keeping some wild is certainly a worthy cause. Beauty in nature is evident to nearly all of us. Keeping some of it is a good thing. I hold with Pointy, though, people first. All people, not just the elite and not just the downtrodden, and not any other group, but each of us, individually. Each person matters, and collective coercion is as bad as individual coercion.

I am reblogging because of the science point. Thanks, Pointman, I needed that. Yes, I see the damage climate alarmism has done to science in general, and I cringe. However, you are right. To us scientists, it is a big deal, and we are all diminished for it, but for most people, the damage is minimal, and confidence will ebb and flow as it always has. We will prove our science and ethics again by just being right and honest more often than not. Of course, it helps if we can admit when we are proven wrong. It also helps when we don’t call names and use other emotional tactics to attack those who challenge us.

Regarding policy going forward, we need to keep the big picture in mind, and we must never settle for the notion that doing something is better than waiting. There is much harm in the world resulting from little more than the argument that doing anything is better than doing nothing. It is rarely true where politics rule. I like to remind my legislative representatives that it is not their job to legislate. It is their job to represent me and the rest of our district. It seems to me that politicians think they are not doing their jobs if they don’t pass laws, regulations, and increase spending, which of course requires increases in revenue, which can generally only be done with new or increased taxes. Viscous, self-destructive cycle. Our leaders must remember to educate themselves diligently and make decisions wisely, always with an eye to liberty and rule of law, not rule of the mob nor rule of fashion and fancy.

Again, thanks Pointman. A very worthwhile read.

Pointman's

Charles Mackay wrote in his book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds – “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” The book may have been written in the mid-nineteenth century, but here we are at the kick off to the twenty-first, and that mass psychology is only too familiar. Maybe Hari Seldon was on to something after all.

The global warming craze is dying down. People, as Mackay noted, are coming out of it one by one and that process is accelerating with every passing day. Governments are cutting subsidies for green technologies not only because they don’t work, but because government coffers are empty. They’re broke. The politicians no longer mention it because it no longer gets votes and indeed just attracts a baleful hostility from a…

View original post 2,388 more words

Just happened upon a Marketwatch article proving to me that Warren Buffet is a hypocrite. It is about the same as what I realized, reluctantly, about T. Boone Pickens and his windmill scheme. It is why truly rich folk like Buffet think it is okay to raise taxes. He knows how good he is at gaming the system [keeping his taxes at a minimum and taking advantage of tax incentives], so he figures it is only fair for the government to raise tax rates to get more money from him. He figures everyone else is the same. Well, most of us are NOT. Most of us try to be as honest as we can be, and we figure if we can do something good, we do it. We don’t figure we should get punished somewhere else when we know we can get away with doing something bad. We don’t have the resources to play the tax game well. We just pay, and fear, and hope!

When Buffet buys solar power facilities, he isn’t buying to lose money, which is exactly what the solar power facilities will do. Therefore, he is buying them to take advantage of favorable contracts with government entities (such as California, and USAF entities), and he is doing it to take advantage of tax incentives from the US Government and California Government. Buffet will make money off the tax dollars stolen from hard working regular sods like me and you. Buffet thinks it is fair for the government to gouge him to get some of it back, but wouldn’t it be fairer overall to simply let the solar companies make it on their own, in a way that might actually make money (but too little for the likes of Buffet to consider investing in), and NOT take money away from honest, hardworking people in the first place?

From Marketwatch.com

By Steve Gelsi
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., a subsidiary of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said Wednesday it’ll pay an undisclosed sum to buy the 579-megawatt Antelope Valley Solar Projects, two colocated solar power plants in Kern and Los Angeles Counties in California, from.

“Together, the two combined projects will form the largest permitted solar photovoltaic power development in the world and will create an estimated 650 jobs during construction,” according to a statement from MidAmerican Solar, a unit of MidAmerican Renewables. The Antelope Valley projects will provide electricity to Southern California Edison under two long-term power purchase agreements.

If you are committed to truth, I’m sure you will find this information informative and good. If your mind is already made up, consider this fair warning. You have no right to get mad at me if the facts confuse you.

“Among the many images made by prehistoric people on the walls of Kachina Bridge is what appears to be an unambiguous depiction of a sauropod dinosaur, herein called Dinosaur 1. Because mainstream science has produced no alternate explanation for Dinosaur 1, it has become an important weapon in the arsenal of the anti-evolution movement.”

via. http://palaeo-electronica.org/2011_1/236/index.html

http://palaeo-electronica.org/2011_1/236/236.pdf

Let me start by saying that being “anti-” anything is a bad idea, generally counterproductive to all that is good. Stand for what you believe. The things you don’t like will fall away. (From an old White Heart song, “Are they working harder at what we think is wrong, than we are at what we know is right!?! — Sold out! They might be sold out to sin. — Sold out! Won’t ya take a look inside, and you might see, that you and me, should be all sold out to Him.) It astonishes me how flimsy can be evidence that people will grasp hold of tight, refusing even the most common-sense objections to their position. I think people often actually abandon such, but won’t admit it.

To ensure no one misunderstands me, I came across a Ken Ham claim that the subject rock images were evidence that the American Indians knew dinosaurs. Nope. Please, don’t be silly. Even Ken Ham’s rendering of the image could be other things. It resembles a dino from a children’s cartoon, I suppose, but given how inventive the ancient artists tended to be, it hardly seems a child could have been the intended audience. I think Ken Ham causes far more harm than good. I simply do not trust anyone who claims to have thoroughly investigated, yet still claims the earth is a mere 6,000 years old. That just ain’t honest, and I recall a scripture passage that mentions a fiery destination for those who twist the truth. I also recall a scripture telling me God cannot lie. I think I will do my best to stick to the truth!

Perhaps an aside, but related, anybody ever seen Blade Runner? I won’t think of myself as a synthetic with a made-up and implanted history.

This post at WUWT is worth reading, and the comments, even more so. Brown is a rather sharp fellow.

“Robert Brown says:

March 1, 2012 at 8:29 pm

For the general public that does not have an objective scientific bend, how do you tell virtual reality from the real thing?

That’s a serious problem, actually. Hell, I have an objective scientific bend and I have plenty of trouble with it.

Ultimately, the stock answer is: We should believe the most what we can doubt the least, when we try to doubt very hard, using a mix of experience and consistent reason based on a network of experience-supported best (so far) beliefs.

That’s not very hopeful, but it is accurate. We believe Classical Non-Relativistic Mechanics after Newton invents it, not because it is true but because it works fairly consistently to describe Kepler’s purely observational laws, and…”

via Climate Science and Special Relativity | Watts Up With That?.

%d bloggers like this: