Monday, May 19, 2014

Climate Change

Here we go.

Man-made climate change?  This has not been proven.  Period.

If you embrace the man-made climate change position, consider what you are doing:

  • You are trusting Al Gore and Barack Obama (can I stop now);
  • You are trusting what many scientists propose might happen, even though their predictions over the past thirty years have all been erroneous;
  • There has been no change in average temperature since 1995, and barely an increase in temperature of 1 degree since 1970, yet you are saying that man has caused global warming;
  • You are taking as truth the suggested hypothesis that greenhouse gases cause global warming, even though the scientist that first proposed the theory all but retracted it, cautioning the world that we had taken his ideas past their intended limits and purpose.
  • You are believing the same scientists whose hacked emails exposed their frustration, worry, and ensuing shenanigans upon discovering that their data didn't support their claims.
Consider this:
  • The earth has been through many ice ages.  Does not that fact alone logically debunk the theory of man-made global warming.  The earth heats up just fine without our SUVs.
  • It used to be called global warming, now it's called climate change -- precisely because scientists understood that global warming was a misnomer with the lack of data to prove their argument;
  • The "97% of scientists agree" argument stated by Obama, and clung to by natural climate change deniers, came one Cooke, a scientist in Australia.  When his methodology was questioned as flawed, the university he worked for threatened a lawsuit on the person who challenged him.   It's actually 0.3 percent of scientists in Cooke's study that agree in man-caused global warming.
  • Polar bear scare = completely false
  • ice coverage decreasing = completely false
  • Over 4.5 billion dollars in government grants go to climate change research
  • How does this impact the tax-payer?  One example: Solyndra
And finally:
  • Being that men live on earth (not as intruders, mind you) we obviously contribute in some way to the earth's ecosystem;
  • It simply has not been proven that man's activities contribute to climate change in the way the computer models have tried (and failed miserably) to predict.  Just because a bunch of "smart scientists" think something is going to happen, it does not make it so;
  • I support reasonable efforts to reduce pollution
  • I oppose government subsidies for green energy

The very tangential fine-print post script stuff:
  • I believe in the the revlations of John, as noted in the Bible, and crazy climate changes will abound in the last days.  Hmmm?
  • There are some who assert that civilizations far more advanced than us have lived and died on this planet.  Could they have caused global warming in the past?  

Saturday, May 10, 2014

#Benghazi: My take

Argh!  This entire Benghazi debacle frustrates me.  My opinion:

(Some) Conservatives insist on calling it a scandal because of the four dead Americans.  I see the Benghazi incident as a failure in policy and operation—clearly the State Department had (has) entirely too much influence in matters of defense.  Notwithstanding the poor performance up to and including September 11, 2012, that performance alone is not scandalous (unless they were running guns, as some suspect).  Instead, the lies to the American public, the Libyans, and especially the families of the slain Americans, by the highest levels of government—this is the scandal.   It was common knowledge from before the attack even ended that this was a terrorist attack.  It had nothing to do with a video.  Yet Hillary Clinton went on Libyan national TV and apologized for the video; and she and President Obama both continued this lie in their dealing with the grieving families of the slain Americans. Another appendage to the scandal (not mentioned by most conservatives) is the injustice perpetrated on the producer of 'the video'. 

Liberals push back has taken many forms:
a) We’ve wasted time and money on this already.
Rebuttal:  If more investigating is needed because people have been lying, the blame for the “waste” belongs to the liars.
b) Bush lied, too! 
Rebuttal: Irrelevant
c) The republicans are politicizing an issue of 4 dead Americans for their gain.
Rebuttal:  That the dems look bad because this administration lied, that’s not the Republicans fault.  So Republicans are guilty of politicizing an issue that the democrats politicized?

I watched the entirety of Jon Stewart’s latest commentary on the issue.  He concedes that the white house has lied.  He concedes that four Americans are dead because of poor policy and bad decisions.  Then he proceeds to outline how Bush had done the same.  And his conclusion is that 1) Republicans are hypocrites for being outraged now when they were not outraged by actions in the Bush administration; and 2) democrats aren’t outraged because we’ve seen all this before. 

The major flaw is Stewart's approach is his assumption that anyone outraged over Benghazi must be a Bush-loving, die-hard anti-liberal, Republican-at-all-costs, conservative.  This simply isn't the case. Many people who are concerned with Benghazi are and have been concerned with any scandal or corruption in any level of government.  What Stewart and many others have done to this issue (as with most politics nowadays) is that they've constructed the argument as a taking-sides, prove-the-other-wrong, debate.  Reducing the argument to two sides contributes to a divisive populace.  Why can't we stand as one people, united, against any injustice or dishonesty perpetrated by any elected official?  Idealistic, I know; and I'm not so naive as to think that we've ever really behaved this way.  From even before day one, our citizenry has been divided.  The natural flow towards party politics creates major division that does more harm than good.   

So, am I divisive if I pick apart Stewart's arguments?  Let me try to pick it apart without using a single "defend the republican party" line or argument:

1) He begins by poking fun at the fact that Fox News and others are talking so much about Benghazi.  So he’s a funny guy.  I get that.  But how is that in any way a logical argument?  "You guys are talking about this too much!"  So what.
2) He flashes a picture of Bush on the carrier with the Mission Accomplished photo.  Irrelevant.  What does this prove?  He was trying to prove that Bush took advantage of situations for political gain, particularly around election time.  So.  The Benghazi lies are still in front of us.  And I'm not a Bush-lover.

3) He makes much ado about Rumsfeld's (lame) statement/excuse regarding not having adequate tanks for our troops.  Irrelevant.
4) He nails the Republicans for having planted a false story and using it for political gain, then refusing to admit it was a planted lie.  Irrelevant.  And he's right, they lied.  They are liars! Still irrelevant.
5) His main point is that dems can't be outraged in the face of hypocrisy that they've seen over and over and over.  This amounts to "your guys lied, so don't be mad when my guys lie; just get over it!".  This is where he again frames the entire play as a battle of two parties.  He's just telling people to shut up. That's not an argument. 

We'll never get anywhere as a nation with this type of discussion.  And sadly, I don't see it changing.  It would take some incredibly brave politicians (there are a few, I imagine) to break out of the system and challenge the people on their own "side".  Someone, or some people, will need to stand up and say "this is wrong!" even as they are denouncing people of their same political color.  As a conservative, I see this amongst conservatives.  Some tea party candidates.  Unfortunately, the established Republicans have declared war upon anyone who will not step in line with their agenda.  As I am not a democrat, I am not as aware as to whether or not this is happening on the left.  My impression is that dems are pretty darn good at sticking together.  I do think that there are some rather prominent public figures that espouse the practice and mindset of unity over divisiveness.  Though many wouldn't believe me, this is one of Glenn Beck's central themes, in talk and in practice.  I also understand that Jon Huntsman is pushing for this type of mind-shift in politics.    

Back to Benghazi.  Speaking for myself, am I OUTRAGED (said in my best Jon Stewart condescending tone I can muster)?  Why yes.  But what does this mean?  What do I want to happen? If wishes were fishes, I would like there to be an investigation and that people lost their jobs over dishonesty and corruption. This will not happen.   Mostly,  I just want voters to understand that Hillary Clinton is a liar, and that this scandal alone renders her unqualified and unfit for the highest political office on the planet.   Sadly, millions will vote for her (she's on their side, after all!).  And she might win.  And this just boggles my mind to no end.     

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Nephi's face palm

If you've not read Ender's Game*, you'll not get this reference, but in my latest reading of 1st Nephi, it occurred to me that the angel is to Nephi as Graff is to Ender.  Hear me out:

Remember on the flight to battle school, when Ender was the only one who laughed at the concept of zero gravity, and then Graff put a target on his back (so to speak) by telling all the launchies that they weren't nearly as smart as Ender?
Well, I can imagine the scene with Laman and Lemuel hitting Nephi with a rod.
And the angel appears.
Nephi is probably pretty grateful until he sees where the angel is going with his lecture:
Then, from behind his brothers' back, I can imagine Nephi's futile attempt to shush the angel.
And. . .wait for it. . .the face palm as the angel finished his sentence, telling Laman and Lemuel that Nephi is more righteous than they are and that he will rule them one day.

Thanks angel.

*I guess you wouldn't get it without having read The Book of Mormon either.  I recommend both books.