Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Recent Comments
With the new Blogger, I have started using a Blogger feed for recent comments. However, there is a bug in their feed that prevents it from working correctly. Someone figured out that if we start the feed with the second most recent comment it will show all but the most recent comment. So until it gets fixed, the most recent comment left here will have to wait to appear until someone else comments. Sorry.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Kruse on Science
Michael Kruse makes some very interesting observations and some very valid points in his piece on the current relationship between politics, science, and money, in America.
Selected excerpts:
Selected excerpts:
Centuries ago Renee Decartes wrote, “A man is incapable of comprehending any argument that interferes with his revenue.” Thus the lobbyist we will have with us. Almost any public policy change has financial consequences for multiple parties. Some stand to benefit directly, while others will lose. Some will see competitor’s fortunes aided, while some will see competitor’s fortunes reversed. Competing interests are going to pursue courses that maximize their positions.
Within the climate change debate, frequent mention is made of Exxon’s efforts to “muddy the waters” on climate change science as they seek to limit regulation on their industry. Whenever a scientist or policy wonk publicly questions climate change, bloggers and media sources are quick to identify that the contrarian receives grants from firms and institutions that would stand to benefit from a muddied climate change science. These are legitimate issues to investigate insofar as they go but it only answers part of the “follow the money” question. To answer the other part we need to look into the very human enterprise of science.
The problem is that the determination of what is a “problem” becomes less a scientific question than a political one. If you want to get funding you better study what the funders see as “the problem.“ The late 1970s were a time of focused efforts in studying and developing energy alternatives. It was during the 1970s that Energy Secretary James Schlesinger became interested in the possible impacts of fossil fuels on global climate change; or as it was known then, “global cooling.” The global temperature had been declining from the 1940s to the 1970s and it was feared that emissions were blocking the suns heating capabilities, thus putting us into an ice age.
James Hansen of NASA indicated in congressional testimony in 1988, that we could expect the temperature to increase nearly 3 degrees C (well over 5 degrees F) in the next fifty years. It was an exaggeration by about a multiple of four. He later justified his extreme scenario because he needed to get the attention of policy-makers who were largely unaware of the “problem” of global warming.
Scientists advance in their fields by publishing in peer reviewed journals. The reviewers are people who have established a track record of publication and are believed to be experts in their fields. They are also people who have been competing for federal funding dollars with everybody else. They review your article that challenges the conventional wisdom about global warming and reject the article as flawed or in some way “unscientific.” The scientific community is a relatively tight knit community and suddenly you find you can’t get any of your research published. No publication eventually means no job; or at least no advancement.
MIT scientist Richard Lindzen wrote:
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air.
Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.
So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear.
….
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers. (Richard Lindzen, “A Climate of Fear,” Wall Street Journal, April, 2006)
In the meantime, politicians benefit by being able to build themselves as protectors of the people against malevolent forces. The sensationalist media benefits financially by being able to feed a steady diet of news stories and “investigative” studies that create anxiety and increase the number of viewers. The UN, the parent institution of the IPCC that periodically publishes the climate science reports, stands to benefit much in terms of prestige and power by becoming a global manager of economies. Some large corporations would benefit from seeing their competitors saddled with heavy regulations.
The bottom line is that the adage of “follow the money” is an important one but it alone can’t answer the question of legitimacy. Science has become such a big industry that almost all research, not just climate change, is funded by someone and these “someones” all have their own interests. In the end, the attempt to discredit opponents by identifying funding sources ends up being a game of mutually assured destruction.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Experiment Hints Alarmists are Wrong on Climate Change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged.
Selected Excerpts:
When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.
Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.
Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.
Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.
“Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming.
That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity.
Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.
Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.
The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report. Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.
The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.
In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.
Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.
The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.
Selected Excerpts:
When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.
Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.
Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.
Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.
“Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming.
That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity.
Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.
Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.
The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report. Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.
The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.
In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.
Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.
The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
No Longer Biased
In the Los Angeles area, all of the three major broadcast networks air their national News segment from 6:30 until 7:00 PM nightly. Occasionally, I will watch the national News by toggling between the three networks. For years I have marveled (ahem) at how all three networks seem to tell the same stories in about the same order in about the same way.
For years I have also observed national News broadcasts that don’t fairly represent my point of view. As someone who is right of center, I can’t get too upset about any news organization making a profit by appealing to viewers with different opinions than my own. After all, I believe companies should take care of their customers. People with my point of view probably wouldn’t make up much of a customer base anyway for a network News show.
Lately, however, I’ve noticed a subtle change in how the News is reported by the major Networks. Reporting the news from a left leaning perspective does not seem to me to be the modus operandi anymore. The major Networks seem to have gone from having a bias to actively promoting an anti-war, anti-capitalism point of view. The Networks have actually become propagandists for socialism.
Last night, the story about the gender discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart did not get reported as a legal decision by a judge, it got reported as a guilty company trying to mitigate the damages caused by the lawsuit. The story about the deaths from friendly fire in Iraq did not get reported as an accident during a time of war, it got reported as two guilty pilots who were lucky enough to not be charged with killing a fellow soldier.
I guess the irresponsible use of freedom is sometimes an offshoot of freedom. Thankfully, there are other, more reasonable, voices besides NBCABCCBS in America.
For years I have also observed national News broadcasts that don’t fairly represent my point of view. As someone who is right of center, I can’t get too upset about any news organization making a profit by appealing to viewers with different opinions than my own. After all, I believe companies should take care of their customers. People with my point of view probably wouldn’t make up much of a customer base anyway for a network News show.
Lately, however, I’ve noticed a subtle change in how the News is reported by the major Networks. Reporting the news from a left leaning perspective does not seem to me to be the modus operandi anymore. The major Networks seem to have gone from having a bias to actively promoting an anti-war, anti-capitalism point of view. The Networks have actually become propagandists for socialism.
Last night, the story about the gender discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart did not get reported as a legal decision by a judge, it got reported as a guilty company trying to mitigate the damages caused by the lawsuit. The story about the deaths from friendly fire in Iraq did not get reported as an accident during a time of war, it got reported as two guilty pilots who were lucky enough to not be charged with killing a fellow soldier.
I guess the irresponsible use of freedom is sometimes an offshoot of freedom. Thankfully, there are other, more reasonable, voices besides NBCABCCBS in America.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Counter Protest
It really is great to live in a country where the citizens of our country can organize and protest the actions of our government without fear of retribution.
It really is ironic to live in a country where some of our citizens use this freedom to oppose government actions as a tool to oppose acts of freedom.
It really is shameful to live in a country that shed the blood of patriots paying for this freedom to protest where some citizens use their right to protest to denounce acts of patriotism in another country.
It really is sad to see so many protestors claim that America did not learn the lessons of Viet Nam when it is the protestors themselves who did not learn the right lessons of Viet Nam.
It really is comical to see so many protestors patting themselves on the back for bravery when their protest message represents the majority view in our country.
It really is pathetic to have so many mainstream news organizations report on the Iraq anti-war protests this weekend without any hint of appropriate criticism.
Most American soldiers serving in Iraq want to be in Iraq fighting so the Iraqi people can have the same freedom we are blessed with in America. Nobody wants to die a premature death, especially a soldier who is more valuable to the military alive than dead. However, soldiers in the American military have all chosen to risk their lives in order to fight for freedom in Iraq. Protesters are not representing or speaking for soldiers when they claim Iraq is not worth the loss of American lives. Soldiers represent and speak for soldiers. The soldiers believe, and have made it clear, that Iraq is worth the risk to their lives.
Two million people are estimated to have been murdered in Cambodia and Viet Name after the Untied States turned Viet Nam over to the communists. The lesson of Viet Nam is that a commitment of military personnel and resources to another country is a sacred obligation. There really are bad guys in the world who do not hesitate to murder anyone and everyone who is a challenge to their authority. Iraq is not yet ready to withstand the authority of the leaders of Iran.
What is best for Iraq and what is best for America are legitimate concerns, but there is only one question that needs to be answered regarding the continued American presence in Iraq: What is best for the future of freedom in the world? The anti-war protesters are unable to answer this question.
I suspect organized protests nowadays don’t have the same impact as in the past. Political polling is a more accurate, although still flawed, reflection of public sentiment and diversified sources of news and information insures that minority views get represented now.
Here is one minority view: We should learn the right lesson from history and we should listen to the soldiers, not the wet-finger-in-the-air Senators and certainly not the stuck-in-time protestors.
It really is ironic to live in a country where some of our citizens use this freedom to oppose government actions as a tool to oppose acts of freedom.
It really is shameful to live in a country that shed the blood of patriots paying for this freedom to protest where some citizens use their right to protest to denounce acts of patriotism in another country.
It really is sad to see so many protestors claim that America did not learn the lessons of Viet Nam when it is the protestors themselves who did not learn the right lessons of Viet Nam.
It really is comical to see so many protestors patting themselves on the back for bravery when their protest message represents the majority view in our country.
It really is pathetic to have so many mainstream news organizations report on the Iraq anti-war protests this weekend without any hint of appropriate criticism.
Most American soldiers serving in Iraq want to be in Iraq fighting so the Iraqi people can have the same freedom we are blessed with in America. Nobody wants to die a premature death, especially a soldier who is more valuable to the military alive than dead. However, soldiers in the American military have all chosen to risk their lives in order to fight for freedom in Iraq. Protesters are not representing or speaking for soldiers when they claim Iraq is not worth the loss of American lives. Soldiers represent and speak for soldiers. The soldiers believe, and have made it clear, that Iraq is worth the risk to their lives.
Two million people are estimated to have been murdered in Cambodia and Viet Name after the Untied States turned Viet Nam over to the communists. The lesson of Viet Nam is that a commitment of military personnel and resources to another country is a sacred obligation. There really are bad guys in the world who do not hesitate to murder anyone and everyone who is a challenge to their authority. Iraq is not yet ready to withstand the authority of the leaders of Iran.
What is best for Iraq and what is best for America are legitimate concerns, but there is only one question that needs to be answered regarding the continued American presence in Iraq: What is best for the future of freedom in the world? The anti-war protesters are unable to answer this question.
I suspect organized protests nowadays don’t have the same impact as in the past. Political polling is a more accurate, although still flawed, reflection of public sentiment and diversified sources of news and information insures that minority views get represented now.
Here is one minority view: We should learn the right lesson from history and we should listen to the soldiers, not the wet-finger-in-the-air Senators and certainly not the stuck-in-time protestors.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
State of the President
There are very few people in the public eye who I consider worthy of my admiration. My admiration is limited to public figures who can understand and articulate competing moral positions and points of view. I make every effort to be fair when evaluating the character of public figures, but I am usually disappointed because most public figures only represent one side of an issue. Most Politician’s, Pastor’s, and Pundit’s become so obsessed with selling their own point of view, they inevitably discount all other points of view.
As I watched and listened to the State of the Union address by President Bush Tuesday night, I was amazed at how fair he was to competing points of view. He said he wanted to resolve illegal immigration without animosity and without amnesty. This one powerful sentence represented the entire tone and substance of his speech.
President Bush believes government has an important role in helping improve the lives of people throughout the world. I disagree with him. I believe government has a small role, but mostly should be limited so free people making their own decisions can improve their own lives. However, as the speech progressed, I realized I mostly agreed with everything President Bush stated even as I also realized his ideas involve much more government than I would like. I suspect the Democrat’s who are fair in their assessment of President Bush's speech would agree with most of what he said while also wishing for more government involvement.
In his State of the Union speech, President Bush was extremely fair to both sides on most issues. My admiration for the character of George W. Bush continues to grow.
I found this analysis regarding public policy towards the poor by Nathan Smith to be very thoughtful:
Poor Arguments: Bush, Webb and Poverty
Selected excerpts:
Last night, President Bush's State of the Union address and Senator James Webb's Democratic response provided a useful juxtaposition of views. Among other things, it showed how the parties' positions on poverty have changed.
President Bush seeks to inspire altruism by encouraging Americans to compare themselves with those who have less:
Sen. Webb, by contrast, encourages Americans to compare themselves to those who have more, and feel envy. Although Sen. Webb borrows John Edwards' "two nations" theme ("it's almost like we were living in two different countries"), unlike Edwards, Webb makes no mention of helping the poor. Sen. Webb's message is that "the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table."
As I watched and listened to the State of the Union address by President Bush Tuesday night, I was amazed at how fair he was to competing points of view. He said he wanted to resolve illegal immigration without animosity and without amnesty. This one powerful sentence represented the entire tone and substance of his speech.
President Bush believes government has an important role in helping improve the lives of people throughout the world. I disagree with him. I believe government has a small role, but mostly should be limited so free people making their own decisions can improve their own lives. However, as the speech progressed, I realized I mostly agreed with everything President Bush stated even as I also realized his ideas involve much more government than I would like. I suspect the Democrat’s who are fair in their assessment of President Bush's speech would agree with most of what he said while also wishing for more government involvement.
In his State of the Union speech, President Bush was extremely fair to both sides on most issues. My admiration for the character of George W. Bush continues to grow.
I found this analysis regarding public policy towards the poor by Nathan Smith to be very thoughtful:
Poor Arguments: Bush, Webb and Poverty
Selected excerpts:
Last night, President Bush's State of the Union address and Senator James Webb's Democratic response provided a useful juxtaposition of views. Among other things, it showed how the parties' positions on poverty have changed.
President Bush seeks to inspire altruism by encouraging Americans to compare themselves with those who have less:
"American foreign policy is more than a matter of war and diplomacy. Our work in the world is also based on a timeless truth: To whom much is given, much is required. We hear the call to take on the challenges of hunger and poverty and disease."
Sen. Webb, by contrast, encourages Americans to compare themselves to those who have more, and feel envy. Although Sen. Webb borrows John Edwards' "two nations" theme ("it's almost like we were living in two different countries"), unlike Edwards, Webb makes no mention of helping the poor. Sen. Webb's message is that "the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table."
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Line in the Sand
Throughout our lives, we are establishing, maintaining, and enforcing boundaries. Some boundaries are permanent walls and some boundaries are lines in the sand. Walls for some people are lines in the sand for others and vice versa. My marriage is a wall that limits my intimate affection to one person only, my wife. My property line is a wall that limits the benefits and responsibility for my property to me, my family, and our guests. My lunch menu decision is a line in the sand with very little long term consequences.
Throughout our lives, we also reevaluate our boundaries. Some walls become fences with gates, some fences become lines in the sand, some lines in the sand become fences and some fences become walls. Some alliances and friendships grow while other alliances and friendships weaken. My marriage is a permanent wall that will never change, but my property line will almost surely change when it no longer meets the needs of my family.
When President Bush, and the American people through our elected officials, made a decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power as the ruler of Iraq, we established a boundary. Mission accomplished; the primary objective was accomplished when Saddam Hussein took his last breath.
In the process of getting Hussein, Americans established other boundaries. Americans took responsibility for rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure and Americans took responsibility for establishing and maintaining security for the Iraq people until the Iraqi people are able to maintain their own security.
Some Iraqis have their own boundaries, as do the Syrians and the Iranians. Many Iraqis have built walls to prevent forgiveness of the harms caused by other Iraqis, and many of the Iraqis, Syrians and Iranians have built walls to prevent freedom.
If the American boundary in Iraq is a line in the sand, the American boundary in Iraq will be decimated by all of the historic walls in the Middle East that have been built and maintained for centuries. However, if the American boundary in Iraq is a wall that is stronger than the existing walls in Iraq, then freedom and peace do have a chance.
20,000 more troops and a short term commitment in Iraq isn’t even a decent line in the sand. It’s better than withdrawing troops, and it’s better than no commitment, but it doesn’t give much hope to all of the soldiers and Iraqis who have already made tremendous sacrifices to bring freedom to Iraq. Shouldn’t the American commitment to Iraq be a permanent wall and not an insignificant line in the sand?
Throughout our lives, we also reevaluate our boundaries. Some walls become fences with gates, some fences become lines in the sand, some lines in the sand become fences and some fences become walls. Some alliances and friendships grow while other alliances and friendships weaken. My marriage is a permanent wall that will never change, but my property line will almost surely change when it no longer meets the needs of my family.
When President Bush, and the American people through our elected officials, made a decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power as the ruler of Iraq, we established a boundary. Mission accomplished; the primary objective was accomplished when Saddam Hussein took his last breath.
In the process of getting Hussein, Americans established other boundaries. Americans took responsibility for rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure and Americans took responsibility for establishing and maintaining security for the Iraq people until the Iraqi people are able to maintain their own security.
Some Iraqis have their own boundaries, as do the Syrians and the Iranians. Many Iraqis have built walls to prevent forgiveness of the harms caused by other Iraqis, and many of the Iraqis, Syrians and Iranians have built walls to prevent freedom.
If the American boundary in Iraq is a line in the sand, the American boundary in Iraq will be decimated by all of the historic walls in the Middle East that have been built and maintained for centuries. However, if the American boundary in Iraq is a wall that is stronger than the existing walls in Iraq, then freedom and peace do have a chance.
20,000 more troops and a short term commitment in Iraq isn’t even a decent line in the sand. It’s better than withdrawing troops, and it’s better than no commitment, but it doesn’t give much hope to all of the soldiers and Iraqis who have already made tremendous sacrifices to bring freedom to Iraq. Shouldn’t the American commitment to Iraq be a permanent wall and not an insignificant line in the sand?
Friday, January 05, 2007
Two Blogs
Buz and I have been participating in on-line discussion for a long time. I am glad to see he has FINALLY started his own blog at One Man's Point of View. I think he is off to a fantastic start.
Michael Kruse at Kruse Kronicle is one of the hardest working bloggers I’ve wandered into. He makes a lot of sense too.
Michael Kruse at Kruse Kronicle is one of the hardest working bloggers I’ve wandered into. He makes a lot of sense too.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Tribes
Tribal behavior puzzles me.
As I watch the college football bowl games, I see fans who spend hundreds of dollars on team merchandize, fans who cover themselves in paint, fans who travel across country to see a football game, and fans who behave in ways that would never be tolerated anywhere except at a sporting event.
As I read about the conflict in Iraq, I read about Iraqi’s who all belong to one of three historic ethnic groups, Iraqi’s who kill for honor, and Iraqi’s who consider ethnic conflict an inheritance from a previous generation that should be passed on to the next generation.
As I watch my daughters grow, I see girls who want to be part of a group and I see girls who want to limit membership in a group. Most of their mothers behave the same way.
As I read blogs, I notice a clustering of like minds. Agreement with a blogger usually results in a warm reception while disagreement usually results in an insult and condemnation as the regulars pile on; not always, but most of the time.
Church behavior also puzzles me.
Almost every Church leans over backwards to make visitors feel welcome. As a Church member, I’ve been a part of this effort. But I’ve noticed through the years that visitors, who don’t identify with the Church culture, don’t often return. I’ve also noticed an informal enforcement of Church culture in most Churches. Church regulars want new members to think and act the same as the other regulars.
In many ways, Churches are tribal, just like football fans, ethnic Iraqi’s, young girls, mothers of young girls, and bloggers, are all tribal.
I’m a little different.
I don’t remember a time in my life when I wanted to be known as a member of a group. I never considered my identity to be linked with the schools I attended, the teams I was on, or the activities I enjoyed, so I didn’t want others to consider my groups part of my identity either
In High School, I loved sports, but I didn’t want to be a jock; I made good grades, but I didn’t want to be known as a scholar; I would occasionally spend a major portion of the night partying, but I surely didn’t want to be known as a partier. Most of my friends, though, did consider themselves to be a member of one of these three main groups in High School. In some ways, not being a member of a group, limited my friendships.
I’m very proud now that I served four years of active duty in the Marine Corps, but when I was on active duty, I counted the days until I would no longer be known as a Marine. The term “Marine” didn’t come close to fitting who I am or describing who I was.
If I am ever going to be able to be an active member of a Church again, which I truly believe is the will of God, somehow I have to get comfortable with the idea of being a member of a group, and somehow I have to be able to convince other Christians of the need for Churches to be less tribal.
As I watch the college football bowl games, I see fans who spend hundreds of dollars on team merchandize, fans who cover themselves in paint, fans who travel across country to see a football game, and fans who behave in ways that would never be tolerated anywhere except at a sporting event.
As I read about the conflict in Iraq, I read about Iraqi’s who all belong to one of three historic ethnic groups, Iraqi’s who kill for honor, and Iraqi’s who consider ethnic conflict an inheritance from a previous generation that should be passed on to the next generation.
As I watch my daughters grow, I see girls who want to be part of a group and I see girls who want to limit membership in a group. Most of their mothers behave the same way.
As I read blogs, I notice a clustering of like minds. Agreement with a blogger usually results in a warm reception while disagreement usually results in an insult and condemnation as the regulars pile on; not always, but most of the time.
Church behavior also puzzles me.
Almost every Church leans over backwards to make visitors feel welcome. As a Church member, I’ve been a part of this effort. But I’ve noticed through the years that visitors, who don’t identify with the Church culture, don’t often return. I’ve also noticed an informal enforcement of Church culture in most Churches. Church regulars want new members to think and act the same as the other regulars.
In many ways, Churches are tribal, just like football fans, ethnic Iraqi’s, young girls, mothers of young girls, and bloggers, are all tribal.
I’m a little different.
I don’t remember a time in my life when I wanted to be known as a member of a group. I never considered my identity to be linked with the schools I attended, the teams I was on, or the activities I enjoyed, so I didn’t want others to consider my groups part of my identity either
In High School, I loved sports, but I didn’t want to be a jock; I made good grades, but I didn’t want to be known as a scholar; I would occasionally spend a major portion of the night partying, but I surely didn’t want to be known as a partier. Most of my friends, though, did consider themselves to be a member of one of these three main groups in High School. In some ways, not being a member of a group, limited my friendships.
I’m very proud now that I served four years of active duty in the Marine Corps, but when I was on active duty, I counted the days until I would no longer be known as a Marine. The term “Marine” didn’t come close to fitting who I am or describing who I was.
If I am ever going to be able to be an active member of a Church again, which I truly believe is the will of God, somehow I have to get comfortable with the idea of being a member of a group, and somehow I have to be able to convince other Christians of the need for Churches to be less tribal.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Go Forth and Reduce Greenhouse Gases
God said to go forth and multiply. We have a responsibility as believers to fill heaven with souls who will worship God for eternity. Jesus said whatever we do to and for the poor, we do to and for him. This is one of his seminal teachings.
DDT is not environmentally neutral. It leaves a footprint and has a ripple effect. However, thousands and thousands of people have suffered and died from malaria because of the international ban on DDT. Christians who sided with the environmentalists after the benefits and risks of DDT were known, should carry a burden of shame. They should also pause before jumping back on the environmental bandwagon.
The poor throughout the world have benefited from inexpensive sources of fuel and food. We will derive a greater spiritual bang for our buck by continuing to reduce the cost of food and fuel throughout the world than by restricting the use of fossil fuel or restricting the ways food can be produced in order to curb greenhouse gases.
Environmentalism has a pattern of opposing the clear word of God. For decades we have heard from environmentalists about how the earth can not support an ever increasing population. They attempted to frighten us with the horrors of a population explosion. Environmentalists have now lost interest in the population explosion because they have a new boogie man called global warming. In thirty years it will be something else.
Some science is complex. So are many spiritual matters. The science of global warming is less complex than deciding whether or not to give money to a beggar. Global warming can be understood; understanding why we are supposed to give to anyone who asks when some of those who ask will use what we give them to purchase alcohol and illegal drugs is much less understandable.
I’m glad some Christians are concerned about the earth’s environment including the climate. I accept that some believers will be more passionate about environmentalism than others just as some believers are more passionate about worship music than others. However, I think care for the environment has to be sensible and has to be kept in its proper perspective regarding our obligations as believers.
As believers, we need to major in what God considers important and minor in what we consider important. Using God's creation to go forth and multiply and help the poor should be our major concern. Limiting greenhouse gasses should be pretty low on the list.
DDT is not environmentally neutral. It leaves a footprint and has a ripple effect. However, thousands and thousands of people have suffered and died from malaria because of the international ban on DDT. Christians who sided with the environmentalists after the benefits and risks of DDT were known, should carry a burden of shame. They should also pause before jumping back on the environmental bandwagon.
The poor throughout the world have benefited from inexpensive sources of fuel and food. We will derive a greater spiritual bang for our buck by continuing to reduce the cost of food and fuel throughout the world than by restricting the use of fossil fuel or restricting the ways food can be produced in order to curb greenhouse gases.
Environmentalism has a pattern of opposing the clear word of God. For decades we have heard from environmentalists about how the earth can not support an ever increasing population. They attempted to frighten us with the horrors of a population explosion. Environmentalists have now lost interest in the population explosion because they have a new boogie man called global warming. In thirty years it will be something else.
Some science is complex. So are many spiritual matters. The science of global warming is less complex than deciding whether or not to give money to a beggar. Global warming can be understood; understanding why we are supposed to give to anyone who asks when some of those who ask will use what we give them to purchase alcohol and illegal drugs is much less understandable.
I’m glad some Christians are concerned about the earth’s environment including the climate. I accept that some believers will be more passionate about environmentalism than others just as some believers are more passionate about worship music than others. However, I think care for the environment has to be sensible and has to be kept in its proper perspective regarding our obligations as believers.
As believers, we need to major in what God considers important and minor in what we consider important. Using God's creation to go forth and multiply and help the poor should be our major concern. Limiting greenhouse gasses should be pretty low on the list.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
The Meaning of Important Words
The meaning of a word can change over time from the original meaning. Some words can even end up meaning the opposite of the original meaning of the word. “Bad” means “Good”, “Hot” means “Cool”, or does “Cool” mean “Hot”, I’m not sure, but I do know communication is confusing when people use words differently than the dictionary meaning of the word.
The words “Leader” and “Leadership” are no longer used correctly in communication. Leaders in corporate America are the executives and managers who are able to run an organization according to standards, accepted methodologies, and best practices. Leaders in government are the politicians who are able to appeal to the most voters. When my wife says she wants me to be more of a spiritual leader in our household, what she is really saying is she wants me to be more like other men who are like other men. She would really like for me to be more of a follower.
The scarcity of true leaders is not new to modern America or the rest of the world. True leadership is rare because true leadership comes at a cost and rarely results in a reward. Following the crowd and fitting in with a group is more socially and financially rewarding than stepping out from the crowd and risking rejection and criticism. Most of the people, most of the time, will not follow a leader because most of the people, most of the time, are following the crowd.
Throughout history, Christianity has had some remarkable leaders; men and women who stepped away from the crowd taking unpopular positions and performing socially unacceptable actions. Believers in Christ honor these leaders with our words, but most of us would no sooner step out from the crowd than swim the English Channel.
Many Churches in modern America have become a place for crowds, not leaders, and certainly not spiritual leaders. These Churches have Pastors who perform for the crowd, who delight in the crowd, and who want to increase their crowd. They use Church growth methods that have proven to increase the crowd in other Churches. They are changing the meaning of the word “Christian”.
The words “Leader” and “Leadership” are no longer used correctly in communication. Leaders in corporate America are the executives and managers who are able to run an organization according to standards, accepted methodologies, and best practices. Leaders in government are the politicians who are able to appeal to the most voters. When my wife says she wants me to be more of a spiritual leader in our household, what she is really saying is she wants me to be more like other men who are like other men. She would really like for me to be more of a follower.
The scarcity of true leaders is not new to modern America or the rest of the world. True leadership is rare because true leadership comes at a cost and rarely results in a reward. Following the crowd and fitting in with a group is more socially and financially rewarding than stepping out from the crowd and risking rejection and criticism. Most of the people, most of the time, will not follow a leader because most of the people, most of the time, are following the crowd.
Throughout history, Christianity has had some remarkable leaders; men and women who stepped away from the crowd taking unpopular positions and performing socially unacceptable actions. Believers in Christ honor these leaders with our words, but most of us would no sooner step out from the crowd than swim the English Channel.
Many Churches in modern America have become a place for crowds, not leaders, and certainly not spiritual leaders. These Churches have Pastors who perform for the crowd, who delight in the crowd, and who want to increase their crowd. They use Church growth methods that have proven to increase the crowd in other Churches. They are changing the meaning of the word “Christian”.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Childish
I wonder how many good sermons on the mission in Iraq have been preached from the pulpit of American churches since 2003. I wonder how many sermons, good, bad or in between, have been preached on Iraq, terrorism, the Middle East, or the Iraq study group proposal. I wonder how many Pastors have searched the Scriptures in order to present an appropriate Christian response to terrorism in our time to their members. I wonder how many prayers have been offered during Sunday services for our President, our other government leaders, our soldiers, and the people in the Middle East suffering from the clash between Islam and the West.
I sat in Church Sunday morning while a Senior Pastor passed around bubble gum like communion while preaching a sermon about how we need to rediscover the awe of childhood during the Christmas season. Perhaps there has been periods during the last 2000 years when this sermon would have been appropriate, but this sermon was wholly inappropriate during a period in history when so many Americans refuse to grow up while the threat from Islamic terrorism continues to increase.
I wonder how many Pastors will please God when he asks them about their Pastoral emphasis during this period of Islamic terrorism.
I sat in Church Sunday morning while a Senior Pastor passed around bubble gum like communion while preaching a sermon about how we need to rediscover the awe of childhood during the Christmas season. Perhaps there has been periods during the last 2000 years when this sermon would have been appropriate, but this sermon was wholly inappropriate during a period in history when so many Americans refuse to grow up while the threat from Islamic terrorism continues to increase.
I wonder how many Pastors will please God when he asks them about their Pastoral emphasis during this period of Islamic terrorism.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Sam and Dennis
Dennis Prager takes Sam Harris to the woodshed.
Sam: “An “atheist” is simply someone who thinks that the God of Abraham should be buried with the rest of these imaginary friends. I am quite sure that we need only use words like “reason,” “common sense,” “evidence,” and “intellectual honesty” to do the job.”
Dennis: “On the other side, we believers look at the evidence and believe that there is a God. In that sense, the atheist has considerably less intellectual honesty than the sophisticated believer. The atheist says he knows, despite the fact that what he “knows” is unprovable. The believer believes because he knows that what he believes is ultimately unprovable. “
… and much more.
Sam: “An “atheist” is simply someone who thinks that the God of Abraham should be buried with the rest of these imaginary friends. I am quite sure that we need only use words like “reason,” “common sense,” “evidence,” and “intellectual honesty” to do the job.”
Dennis: “On the other side, we believers look at the evidence and believe that there is a God. In that sense, the atheist has considerably less intellectual honesty than the sophisticated believer. The atheist says he knows, despite the fact that what he “knows” is unprovable. The believer believes because he knows that what he believes is ultimately unprovable. “
… and much more.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
From a Roman Prison
I’m sitting at my desk this morning trying to imagine Paul as he sits in prison getting ready to pen a letter to Timothy. Paul probably hadn’t bathed, eaten decent food, or seen sunlight for quite some time. He also probably had wounds that hadn’t healed, as well as psychological discouragement and loneliness regarding his situation.
As a citizen of Rome, Paul could have easily rectified his situation by just promising the Roman authorities he would quit preaching the coming kingdom of heaven. Instead of worrying about himself and trying to make his situation better, Paul decided it was more important for him to write Timothy a letter of encouragement and instructions.
Paul didn’t need an environment of honesty or comfort in order to live with Christian integrity. Paul freely acknowledged his own wretchedness, even as he set the standard for honesty and integrity, even as he suffered for Christ.
If Paul were alive today and still sitting in a Roman prison, it is inconceivable to me that he would pen a letter to New Life Church or the National Association of Evangelicals with anything other than severe reprimands and condemnation. There is no excuse for a Christian Church of 14,000 or a Christian Association of Churches to allow a man like Haggard to be their leader; none! Yet, throughout the Christian opinion sphere, not all, but most of the commentary is making excuses and calling for grace and understanding.
Integrity was not an option in the life of Paul and it can’t be an option in the life of any Christian leader. Former President Reagan once stated that he didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. I feel the same way about the Christian Church; I didn’t leave the Christian Church, the Christian Church has left me.
As a citizen of Rome, Paul could have easily rectified his situation by just promising the Roman authorities he would quit preaching the coming kingdom of heaven. Instead of worrying about himself and trying to make his situation better, Paul decided it was more important for him to write Timothy a letter of encouragement and instructions.
Paul didn’t need an environment of honesty or comfort in order to live with Christian integrity. Paul freely acknowledged his own wretchedness, even as he set the standard for honesty and integrity, even as he suffered for Christ.
If Paul were alive today and still sitting in a Roman prison, it is inconceivable to me that he would pen a letter to New Life Church or the National Association of Evangelicals with anything other than severe reprimands and condemnation. There is no excuse for a Christian Church of 14,000 or a Christian Association of Churches to allow a man like Haggard to be their leader; none! Yet, throughout the Christian opinion sphere, not all, but most of the commentary is making excuses and calling for grace and understanding.
Integrity was not an option in the life of Paul and it can’t be an option in the life of any Christian leader. Former President Reagan once stated that he didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. I feel the same way about the Christian Church; I didn’t leave the Christian Church, the Christian Church has left me.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
The Whole Tragedy
In Regards to the Ted Haggard revelations, David Frum at NRO makes some very good arguments for why a person who fails to live up to his or her own high standards is still more moral and less hypocritical than a person without standards. Like Mr. Frum, I have more respect for those who battle and then lose to personal demons than those who refuses to acknowledge or battle their demons.
However, I’m not sure this argument applies to Ted Haggard or to any of the institutions he is associated with. Rev. Haggard, the Haggard family, New Life Church in Colorado Springs, and the National Association of Evangelicals all seem more attached to the demons of fame, power, and fortune, than the battle to overcome demons; or at least they were until this story broke.
In the movies, certain super heroes can step into a phone booth or private room and transform into someone who is not recognized by family and friends, but in real life, hiding even the smallest of character traits from those around us is almost impossible. Hiding major character flaws IS impossible. The Haggard family, New Life Church, and the National Association of Evangelicals may have allowed themselves to be deceived, but in all likelihood, they probably knew most of the truth about Rev. Haggard and chose to do nothing, even if they didn’t know all of the details.
I keep reading commentary about how this is a story of a man who tragically could not control his sexual nature. Excuse me while I gag! This story is only about sex in the fine print. This is a story of failure top to bottom; a failed man, a failed family, a failed Church, and a failed association of Churches. Rev. Haggard is not the only one who needs to be on his knees begging for forgiveness and asking for reformation and reconciliation.
However, I’m not sure this argument applies to Ted Haggard or to any of the institutions he is associated with. Rev. Haggard, the Haggard family, New Life Church in Colorado Springs, and the National Association of Evangelicals all seem more attached to the demons of fame, power, and fortune, than the battle to overcome demons; or at least they were until this story broke.
In the movies, certain super heroes can step into a phone booth or private room and transform into someone who is not recognized by family and friends, but in real life, hiding even the smallest of character traits from those around us is almost impossible. Hiding major character flaws IS impossible. The Haggard family, New Life Church, and the National Association of Evangelicals may have allowed themselves to be deceived, but in all likelihood, they probably knew most of the truth about Rev. Haggard and chose to do nothing, even if they didn’t know all of the details.
I keep reading commentary about how this is a story of a man who tragically could not control his sexual nature. Excuse me while I gag! This story is only about sex in the fine print. This is a story of failure top to bottom; a failed man, a failed family, a failed Church, and a failed association of Churches. Rev. Haggard is not the only one who needs to be on his knees begging for forgiveness and asking for reformation and reconciliation.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Perrier Swishing Senator Kerry
Senator Kerry or anyone else on the campaign trail could easily garble a few lines of prepared text. Misspeaking is quite easy for most people, even when not on the campaign trail. Apologizing once a misspoken error becomes public is just as easy.
However, when Senator Kerry makes a statement regarding the military during a political campaign, his statement is immediately newsworthy because he was the most recent Presidential nominee of his party and because he has a track record of accusing the military of atrocities. This doesn’t mean everything he says is wrong, but for veterans and active duty military, the statements of Senator Kerry are often insulting.
What Senator Kerry actually said is possibly more indicative of his true beliefs than what he meant to say. The reaction of other candidates is also newsworthy because some candidates in both parties have contempt for anyone common enough to join the military.
Many are now claiming that insulting our Commander-In-Chief passes as a valid excuse for Senator Kerry’s insults. Senator Kerry’s unwillingness to apologize without continuing to insult the United States military and the Commander-In-Chief is worse than his original gaff. Perhaps military veterans have a better understanding of what it takes to establish and maintain this country than all of the Perrier swishers in media and government.
However, when Senator Kerry makes a statement regarding the military during a political campaign, his statement is immediately newsworthy because he was the most recent Presidential nominee of his party and because he has a track record of accusing the military of atrocities. This doesn’t mean everything he says is wrong, but for veterans and active duty military, the statements of Senator Kerry are often insulting.
What Senator Kerry actually said is possibly more indicative of his true beliefs than what he meant to say. The reaction of other candidates is also newsworthy because some candidates in both parties have contempt for anyone common enough to join the military.
Many are now claiming that insulting our Commander-In-Chief passes as a valid excuse for Senator Kerry’s insults. Senator Kerry’s unwillingness to apologize without continuing to insult the United States military and the Commander-In-Chief is worse than his original gaff. Perhaps military veterans have a better understanding of what it takes to establish and maintain this country than all of the Perrier swishers in media and government.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Darfur Proposal
Twenty-five years ago I was coming to the end of my Marine Corps enlistment. I could run a mile in six minutes, a 5K in less than twenty minutes, a 10K in forty-two minutes, a half marathon in an hour and forty minutes, and I was an expert rifleman. I could hit a body-size target from five hundred meters with an M16 rifle 9 out of 10 times. I was also trained and capable of setting up a mobile weather station, tracking rawinsonde balloons, and determining fallout from NBC (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical) warfare. In short, I was a very average Marine.
The government of the United States of America spent four years paying for my training. I spent four years earning my pay by preparing for a time when my service as a Marine or as a weather specialist would be needed in warfare. Training for warfare was as close as I ever got to being needed.
I can still jog several miles at a time, but my days of running against a stopwatch have long since passed. I haven’t shot a rifle since leaving the Corps, and I wonder if rawinsonde balloons are still used or needed to determine upper air weather measurements.
However, since I believe there is nothing more important than opposing tyranny, I sometimes regret my time in the military came and went without involvement in any meaningful military operations. I still want to do something important in my lifetime to advance freedom. I think I could still contribute to a limited military operation and I believe there are others like me who would like the opportunity to do what we were trained to do, but never got the opportunity to do.
Darfur could be our opportunity. A military action to stop the bloodshed of innocent lives in Darfur wouldn’t require the best Marines or even the latest and greatest military equipment. All Darfur needs is an opposing military to stop the murdering. I don’t have the resources to move to Sudan and stop the genocide on my own. However, I am willing to go to Sudan and carry a rifle for a short period of time and do what is necessary to stop the genocide if the United States government would organize and finance a military operation and allow a few almost over-the-hill Marines to participate. Does anyone care to join me? How do we get started?
The government of the United States of America spent four years paying for my training. I spent four years earning my pay by preparing for a time when my service as a Marine or as a weather specialist would be needed in warfare. Training for warfare was as close as I ever got to being needed.
I can still jog several miles at a time, but my days of running against a stopwatch have long since passed. I haven’t shot a rifle since leaving the Corps, and I wonder if rawinsonde balloons are still used or needed to determine upper air weather measurements.
However, since I believe there is nothing more important than opposing tyranny, I sometimes regret my time in the military came and went without involvement in any meaningful military operations. I still want to do something important in my lifetime to advance freedom. I think I could still contribute to a limited military operation and I believe there are others like me who would like the opportunity to do what we were trained to do, but never got the opportunity to do.
Darfur could be our opportunity. A military action to stop the bloodshed of innocent lives in Darfur wouldn’t require the best Marines or even the latest and greatest military equipment. All Darfur needs is an opposing military to stop the murdering. I don’t have the resources to move to Sudan and stop the genocide on my own. However, I am willing to go to Sudan and carry a rifle for a short period of time and do what is necessary to stop the genocide if the United States government would organize and finance a military operation and allow a few almost over-the-hill Marines to participate. Does anyone care to join me? How do we get started?
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Moral Discretion
In a perfect world, Dairy Queen would be open for breakfast, Chivas Regal would be sold by the gallon at Wal-Mart, and the only dilemmas anyone would ever face would be the consequences resulting from their own decisions and actions. Unfortunately, the world is not perfect, nor will it ever be. People are constantly having to deal with the consequences of the decisions of others.
There are many individuals, groups, businesses, and governments who will abuse freedom to a point where other people are exploited, injured, or even murdered. When the decision and action of some removes the ability of others to freely decide for themselves, then good people need to step in and take action to restore the equilibrium where both side are equally free to decide. The action taken to restore equilibrium needs to be appropriate for the situation and can include both preventive and punitive measures.
The United States made a moral leap forward after Viet Nam when it discontinued the draft and instituted an all volunteer military. Allowing young men and women to choose membership in the armed forces has resulted in higher moral amongst the troops and a much more professional and successful military.
The United States could make additional moral leaps forward if the concept of free choice was extended to include the way military operations are financed and implemented. When available tax dollars are thrown into a big pot, just like tithe dollars in a Church, too much effort is spent fighting over how the dollars in the pot will be spent and too little effort is spent accomplishing worthwhile humanitarian goals.
An alternative to this big pot financing approach would be to allow tax payers more discretion over how their tax dollars are spent. Tax payers who earnestly believe the military action in Iraq was morally necessary could direct their tax dollars towards financing the military in Iraq while tax payers who believe a peace keeping force in Darfur is a moral obligation could direct their tax dollars to helping Darfur.
Since most people do tend to vote with their dollars and their efforts, government leaders would know with certainty how much support they have for a policy and how large or small a budget they have to work with. This type of financing would not eliminate all of the political hostility between parties and citizens completely, but it would reduce much of the rancor because no one would be forced to support government policies they oppose and everyone would be allowed to freely choose how to best use their resources and efforts for big and important humanitarian measures.
There are many individuals, groups, businesses, and governments who will abuse freedom to a point where other people are exploited, injured, or even murdered. When the decision and action of some removes the ability of others to freely decide for themselves, then good people need to step in and take action to restore the equilibrium where both side are equally free to decide. The action taken to restore equilibrium needs to be appropriate for the situation and can include both preventive and punitive measures.
The United States made a moral leap forward after Viet Nam when it discontinued the draft and instituted an all volunteer military. Allowing young men and women to choose membership in the armed forces has resulted in higher moral amongst the troops and a much more professional and successful military.
The United States could make additional moral leaps forward if the concept of free choice was extended to include the way military operations are financed and implemented. When available tax dollars are thrown into a big pot, just like tithe dollars in a Church, too much effort is spent fighting over how the dollars in the pot will be spent and too little effort is spent accomplishing worthwhile humanitarian goals.
An alternative to this big pot financing approach would be to allow tax payers more discretion over how their tax dollars are spent. Tax payers who earnestly believe the military action in Iraq was morally necessary could direct their tax dollars towards financing the military in Iraq while tax payers who believe a peace keeping force in Darfur is a moral obligation could direct their tax dollars to helping Darfur.
Since most people do tend to vote with their dollars and their efforts, government leaders would know with certainty how much support they have for a policy and how large or small a budget they have to work with. This type of financing would not eliminate all of the political hostility between parties and citizens completely, but it would reduce much of the rancor because no one would be forced to support government policies they oppose and everyone would be allowed to freely choose how to best use their resources and efforts for big and important humanitarian measures.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Forcing Freedom?
Many Americans have decided that it is better for them personally to play the government game than it is for them to oppose the government game. These individuals and companies figure that it is more advantageous for them to compete for a piece of the government pie than it is for them to oppose the way the pie if financed. By following their basic nature and acting in their own self interest, they inadvertently contribute to a society where freedom is increasingly restricted.
Forcing tax payers to finance and participate in forcing public policy on others isn’t a very good application of the principle of human freedom regardless of how well meaning the intentions of the policies are. Freedom is not advanced when a government taxes its citizens in order to aid the poor anymore than freedom is advanced when citizens are taxed to fund a military action they don’t support.
Most of what is done by government would still be done freely by some citizens even if it was not financed by tax revenue. Companies seeking to profit like Federal Express and UPS have replaced the United States Postal Service by delivering packages faster and at a lower cost. Charitable organizations like The Red Cross, The United Way, and The Salvation Army, have excelled in providing services to the less fortunate. If there is truly a need, the private sector in a free society will fill the need either for profit or for charity.
The most important step in advancing Red Christianity is for all of us to quit trying to control each other for our own benefit, and in many cases, quit trying to help some people by controlling other people. Government does have a responsibility to provide basic security, but freedom can’t be bought with tax revenue and freedom can’t be advanced through more regulations.
Forcing tax payers to finance and participate in forcing public policy on others isn’t a very good application of the principle of human freedom regardless of how well meaning the intentions of the policies are. Freedom is not advanced when a government taxes its citizens in order to aid the poor anymore than freedom is advanced when citizens are taxed to fund a military action they don’t support.
Most of what is done by government would still be done freely by some citizens even if it was not financed by tax revenue. Companies seeking to profit like Federal Express and UPS have replaced the United States Postal Service by delivering packages faster and at a lower cost. Charitable organizations like The Red Cross, The United Way, and The Salvation Army, have excelled in providing services to the less fortunate. If there is truly a need, the private sector in a free society will fill the need either for profit or for charity.
The most important step in advancing Red Christianity is for all of us to quit trying to control each other for our own benefit, and in many cases, quit trying to help some people by controlling other people. Government does have a responsibility to provide basic security, but freedom can’t be bought with tax revenue and freedom can’t be advanced through more regulations.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Hot Air
Right is better than wrong.
Humility is much better and always preferable to arrogance.
However, there is no virtue in being humbly wrong or wrong humbly.
The science and the facts of Global Warming are available to anyone who cares to spend a little time on research and a little time in thought. The factors that play a part in the periodic warming and cooling of our planet are plentiful. Some of the factors that play a part are understood by science and some are not. However, our planet seems to have a self correcting mechanism that always keeps temperatures within certain ranges.
Currently, we are at the warm end of the range, but well within historic ranges based on available temperature recordings and best guesses. However, our knowledge of historical ranges cannot be calculated with the precision necessary for complete accuracy. Also, this warm end of the range has been very beneficial to agriculture and farming in many parts of the world.
In the future, science may better understand the affects of increasing or decreasing green house gases on our planet, like it is understood in a laboratory. However, at this point in time, anyone who advocates the use of the coercive power of government to reduce green house gases, including scientists, politicians, or religious leaders, is just plain wrong. Advocating government intervention with humility doesn’t make the advocate any less wrong or more virtuous.
Humility is much better and always preferable to arrogance.
However, there is no virtue in being humbly wrong or wrong humbly.
The science and the facts of Global Warming are available to anyone who cares to spend a little time on research and a little time in thought. The factors that play a part in the periodic warming and cooling of our planet are plentiful. Some of the factors that play a part are understood by science and some are not. However, our planet seems to have a self correcting mechanism that always keeps temperatures within certain ranges.
Currently, we are at the warm end of the range, but well within historic ranges based on available temperature recordings and best guesses. However, our knowledge of historical ranges cannot be calculated with the precision necessary for complete accuracy. Also, this warm end of the range has been very beneficial to agriculture and farming in many parts of the world.
In the future, science may better understand the affects of increasing or decreasing green house gases on our planet, like it is understood in a laboratory. However, at this point in time, anyone who advocates the use of the coercive power of government to reduce green house gases, including scientists, politicians, or religious leaders, is just plain wrong. Advocating government intervention with humility doesn’t make the advocate any less wrong or more virtuous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
