As the days go by, my anger has increased over the Fort Hood killings by Major Hasan. The attack was bad enough, but many of the responses have been nothing short of insane. People are trying to tiptoe around the issue of religious fanaticism. Here are a few items that I've encountered followed by my reactions.
1. Dr. Phil, noted TV psychologist, was upset on a show the other day when someone brought up the killer's Islamic identity. He trotted out the old routine--the killer was a victim. Of what? Things like deployment, the Army, the stresses of a new kind of terrible war unlike any other we have known.
Are we going to shift blame from the individual to society? Can we afford to wave away all individual responsibility? How is this fighting worse than that endured by others in Vietnam, Korea, World War 2? Is Dr. Phil unable to see evil and hatred when it rears its ugly head?
2. Another excuse, fear of deployment, surfaced in the headline for the New York Times's front-page story: "Told of War Horror, Gunman Feared Deployment." Who was the source for this idea? The perpetrator's cousin.
Are you surprised this paper, which prides itself on liberal leanings, couldn't see Islamic undertones to the killings? Evil is so "old-fashioned" these days, don't you know. Better to shut your eyes and whistle happy tunes. The Christian idea that we are all broken people who lean toward evil just doesn't resonate with this crowd.
3. Maybe the worst reaction of all came from the Army's chief of staff, General George Casey when he was interviewed for a Sunday talk show on television. He was asked about reports that the killer had made
anti-American tirades and had shown other danger signs but hadn't been reported for fear of offense to a Muslim member of the military.
These were speculations, Gen. Casey repeatedly said. We need to be very careful, he explained, "We are a very diverse army." He went on to declare,"This terrible event would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty."
I am so upset that a high-ranking member of our military has bought into political correctness. Is our Army to be a case study of "diversity," or is it to be a fighting machine?
In case you haven't heard some of the comments made by Hasan, here are a few reported by the media. Read these and decide people are "speculating" or "jumping to conclusions" if they suspect Islamic fanaticism is behind the attack:
1. A British paper reports that Hasan "once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats"
2. He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.
3. Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a "Muslim first and American second."
What do I take away from all this? Several things:
1. Our military failed us. The CIA failed us. The FBI failed us. Our entire government failed us.
2. These are the same people who want us to turn over more of our lives to them so they can "protect" us?? I'm thinking health care right now.
3. Political correctness can get you killed.
4. Discrimination can be defended, depending on the situation. For example, I'm all in favor of racial profiling to keep us safe.
5. There is a huge difference in religions. Does anyone worry about an enraged Methodist attacking city hall? An out-of-control Presbyterian? A crazed Baptist, clutching the New Testament?
6. The Bible says there is such a thing as evil, and I see no reason why we should abandon this concept.
7. The liberal idea that all problems can be solved by changing the outside of people has hit a dead end here. Hasan was given a good education, money, a job, and other perks, but his heart was not changed.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Pelosi's plan for you
Well, the big vote took place last night. Get ready for huge changes in your health care. I came across an article that examines closely some of these changes. It's not a pretty sight. Tighten your seat belt and read the following.
The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.
What the government will require you to do:
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
Eviscerating Medicare:
In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.
• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.
• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.
Questionable Priorities:
While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.
• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."
These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.
• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.
• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."
The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.
What the government will require you to do:
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
Eviscerating Medicare:
In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.
• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.
• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.
Questionable Priorities:
While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.
• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."
These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.
• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.
• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Responding to the issue of respect and Christians
In the previous post, I listed a number of responses from people who were asked what they respected (or didn't respect) about Christians. Their responses gave me a peek into how today's society views Christians. As the old joke starts out, there was some good news and some bad.
The good news was that people respond when Christians live the life that Jesus commanded. Those who wrote about Christians were impressed when they saw love, respect for others, a willingness to hear the other person, and an attempt to maintain freindships despite religious differences. I was pleasantly surprised to hear how impressed the writers were when Christians approached them using logic. For too long we have circled the wagons in our Christians bastions and failed to vigorously contend for the faith, using apologetics (a rational defense of the faith). We have so much rationality on our side--logic, history, archeology, textual criticism, manuscript evidence, and scientific discoveries stretching from the outer reaches of the cosmos down to the incredible cell. I'm glad some are employing these tools as they interact with the world.
On the other hand, there was some bad news. Writers complained about a lack of respect among Christians, a lack of humility, a closed-mindedness, and hypocrisy. Some of this may simply be because Christians say they know the truth, which is unpopular today. But there are ways we can present our position without coming across so negatively. Greg Koukl, a popular Christian radio show host, writer, and speaker, puts it in a good way--we are to act as ambassadors for Christ, demonstrating knowledge, wisdom, and character. Today's postmodernist world wants to see how Christians live and how they treat others before they will respond to our message. That seems fair to me.
The good news was that people respond when Christians live the life that Jesus commanded. Those who wrote about Christians were impressed when they saw love, respect for others, a willingness to hear the other person, and an attempt to maintain freindships despite religious differences. I was pleasantly surprised to hear how impressed the writers were when Christians approached them using logic. For too long we have circled the wagons in our Christians bastions and failed to vigorously contend for the faith, using apologetics (a rational defense of the faith). We have so much rationality on our side--logic, history, archeology, textual criticism, manuscript evidence, and scientific discoveries stretching from the outer reaches of the cosmos down to the incredible cell. I'm glad some are employing these tools as they interact with the world.
On the other hand, there was some bad news. Writers complained about a lack of respect among Christians, a lack of humility, a closed-mindedness, and hypocrisy. Some of this may simply be because Christians say they know the truth, which is unpopular today. But there are ways we can present our position without coming across so negatively. Greg Koukl, a popular Christian radio show host, writer, and speaker, puts it in a good way--we are to act as ambassadors for Christ, demonstrating knowledge, wisdom, and character. Today's postmodernist world wants to see how Christians live and how they treat others before they will respond to our message. That seems fair to me.
Monday, November 2, 2009
A fascinating question and interesting answers
I came across a powerful insight the other day:
The best argument for Christianity is Christians: their joy, their certainty, their completeness. But the strongest argument against Christianity is also Christians -- when they are somber and joyless, when they are self-righteous and smug and complacent, when they are narrow and repressive, then Christianity dies a thousand deaths.
I then googled "Has anyone met a Christian he/she actually respected?" The answers were fascinating. I've gathered several for you to read and think about. Maybe in the next blog I will comment on these answers.
Here goes:
1. I respect all Christians. It's their religion that I do not care for.
99% of the people I know are Christian. Since I have become an atheist, there is one characteristic in them that I have found to be sorely lacking: respect for me in return, even though we disagree. Christians have responded with statements/questions such as, "You're going to feel really bad if something happens to Vin [my son]", "What if you're wrong? You know you'll go to hell, right?" "Really? I actually thought you were a pretty decent person [yeah, I got mad over that one].", and, my least favorite, "Don't tell anybody....they'll think you're crazy!"
2. I think what I dislike about the stereotypical American Christian is the lack of humility, the lack of tolerance (despite what Jesus commands in the bible), the arrogance, and the lack of intellectual pursuit of truth.
3. One of my roommates was studying to be a pastor and he has a degree in Theology. I respect him greatly. He is a great source of information. He is accepting of others, supporting gay marriage and respecting the separation of church and state. He doesn't spend his time judging or preaching.
My best friend is also a Christian and she is also very accepting of others. She supports gay marriage. She knows and respects that I'm an atheist. She doesn't spend her time judging or preaching either.
Being a Christian doesn't mean that someone isn't worthy of respect.
4. One of my best friends is Christian, and he's pretty cool. We don't always agree, but he's always willing to have a friendly debate with me. Trick is, when we're done debating, we're DONE, and move on to another topic of conversation. He does drop the 'my God is totally awesome' hints every once in a while, but I understand that it's part of his religion to proselytize and that it kinda comes with the territory. I respect him a great deal for not only what he's been through in his life and how he's handled it, but how good of friend he's been to me and our other friends. Here are some traits that would cause me not to respect a Christian: I've met Christians who are overbearing, don't want to listen, or decide I'm stupid or silly right off the bat because I don't believe their 'truth'. Then there's the ever so popular condescending approach. And the fire-and-brimstone, 'burn in hell you rat bastard atheist scum' version.
5. How they treat others, their sense of personal responsibility and their values are things that I respect. I have met many Christians, many atheists and many fellow agnostics who possess these qualities. You don't need to be religious or non religious to be respectable. You just need to be a decent human being... maybe with a sense of humor! :)
6. One is a friend from high school. We graduated a year apart several years ago and were roommates a couple times. We can have discussions on everything from the origins of life to regular this and thats. We can always respectfully disagree without getting preachy or pissed off. And the other is a friend of mine from college that is probably the most compassionate Christian I've ever met. Tolerant and open minded every step of the way. As a matter of fact if she wasn't so religious I think we'd be a couple by now. I love that girl but her Jesus love is too much for me in that respect. So yes it's possible but most are close minded, backward thinking bigots as far as I'm concerned.
7. Not in person, but in this forum, I've encountered one or two. The one I remember was extremely knowledgeable regarding his religion, used logic (!) to make his points, rather than emotion or irrelevant bible quotes, and just generally impressed me as a person who had arrived at his faith rationally, rather than by indoctrination.
8. A persons religion doesn't matter that much to me. If they have a good attitude and good character (honest, sincere, positive) then they are a good person no matter what.
9. The first thing I hate about most Christians is their lack of broad mindedness, They have confined themselves to the belief that the christian way is the only way. Yes I have met Christians that are my good friends and family, and it's their humble nature and open mindedness and ability to understand deeper things that I respect and cherish them for. :)
10. This is basically a circumstance about being open minded to other people's beliefs...no matter how outlandish they may seem. For me though, the ones I respect the most are the christians that respect their own values, while at the same time not pushing them on others...If you wanna be a "holy roller", thats fine, but don't push your religion on me.
11. I usually make friends with the rocker christain type, and they are not one of those christains who freak out about everything.. example.. they are not aloud to watch harry potter or read it cuz of the so called "witch craft" .. honestly, thats just tooo far
12. I have met Christians I respect, I have met Jews I respect, I have met Muslims I respect. etc. I am not ignorant to the point of judging someone for their beliefs, its the attitude they exhibit that is the final criteria I use.
13. The ones I've known, care for the poor, care about the youth, care to reach out to those whom the world looks down upon, long suffering, kind, patient, self controlled, the list goes on. True christians are very loving people.
14. I just don't like christians that feel the need to proselytize, or the ones that act "holier than thou" , or the phonies that say what great christians they are and then fool around on their spouse, etc. (hypocrites) Otherwise, most christians are okay people.
15. yes. D. W. He is such a respectful person, and he listens and responds to any doubts that I have about the existence of God, rather than just spouting out bible verses and judging me. He is the ONLY christian that I talk to about religion.
The best argument for Christianity is Christians: their joy, their certainty, their completeness. But the strongest argument against Christianity is also Christians -- when they are somber and joyless, when they are self-righteous and smug and complacent, when they are narrow and repressive, then Christianity dies a thousand deaths.
I then googled "Has anyone met a Christian he/she actually respected?" The answers were fascinating. I've gathered several for you to read and think about. Maybe in the next blog I will comment on these answers.
Here goes:
1. I respect all Christians. It's their religion that I do not care for.
99% of the people I know are Christian. Since I have become an atheist, there is one characteristic in them that I have found to be sorely lacking: respect for me in return, even though we disagree. Christians have responded with statements/questions such as, "You're going to feel really bad if something happens to Vin [my son]", "What if you're wrong? You know you'll go to hell, right?" "Really? I actually thought you were a pretty decent person [yeah, I got mad over that one].", and, my least favorite, "Don't tell anybody....they'll think you're crazy!"
2. I think what I dislike about the stereotypical American Christian is the lack of humility, the lack of tolerance (despite what Jesus commands in the bible), the arrogance, and the lack of intellectual pursuit of truth.
3. One of my roommates was studying to be a pastor and he has a degree in Theology. I respect him greatly. He is a great source of information. He is accepting of others, supporting gay marriage and respecting the separation of church and state. He doesn't spend his time judging or preaching.
My best friend is also a Christian and she is also very accepting of others. She supports gay marriage. She knows and respects that I'm an atheist. She doesn't spend her time judging or preaching either.
Being a Christian doesn't mean that someone isn't worthy of respect.
4. One of my best friends is Christian, and he's pretty cool. We don't always agree, but he's always willing to have a friendly debate with me. Trick is, when we're done debating, we're DONE, and move on to another topic of conversation. He does drop the 'my God is totally awesome' hints every once in a while, but I understand that it's part of his religion to proselytize and that it kinda comes with the territory. I respect him a great deal for not only what he's been through in his life and how he's handled it, but how good of friend he's been to me and our other friends. Here are some traits that would cause me not to respect a Christian: I've met Christians who are overbearing, don't want to listen, or decide I'm stupid or silly right off the bat because I don't believe their 'truth'. Then there's the ever so popular condescending approach. And the fire-and-brimstone, 'burn in hell you rat bastard atheist scum' version.
5. How they treat others, their sense of personal responsibility and their values are things that I respect. I have met many Christians, many atheists and many fellow agnostics who possess these qualities. You don't need to be religious or non religious to be respectable. You just need to be a decent human being... maybe with a sense of humor! :)
6. One is a friend from high school. We graduated a year apart several years ago and were roommates a couple times. We can have discussions on everything from the origins of life to regular this and thats. We can always respectfully disagree without getting preachy or pissed off. And the other is a friend of mine from college that is probably the most compassionate Christian I've ever met. Tolerant and open minded every step of the way. As a matter of fact if she wasn't so religious I think we'd be a couple by now. I love that girl but her Jesus love is too much for me in that respect. So yes it's possible but most are close minded, backward thinking bigots as far as I'm concerned.
7. Not in person, but in this forum, I've encountered one or two. The one I remember was extremely knowledgeable regarding his religion, used logic (!) to make his points, rather than emotion or irrelevant bible quotes, and just generally impressed me as a person who had arrived at his faith rationally, rather than by indoctrination.
8. A persons religion doesn't matter that much to me. If they have a good attitude and good character (honest, sincere, positive) then they are a good person no matter what.
9. The first thing I hate about most Christians is their lack of broad mindedness, They have confined themselves to the belief that the christian way is the only way. Yes I have met Christians that are my good friends and family, and it's their humble nature and open mindedness and ability to understand deeper things that I respect and cherish them for. :)
10. This is basically a circumstance about being open minded to other people's beliefs...no matter how outlandish they may seem. For me though, the ones I respect the most are the christians that respect their own values, while at the same time not pushing them on others...If you wanna be a "holy roller", thats fine, but don't push your religion on me.
11. I usually make friends with the rocker christain type, and they are not one of those christains who freak out about everything.. example.. they are not aloud to watch harry potter or read it cuz of the so called "witch craft" .. honestly, thats just tooo far
12. I have met Christians I respect, I have met Jews I respect, I have met Muslims I respect. etc. I am not ignorant to the point of judging someone for their beliefs, its the attitude they exhibit that is the final criteria I use.
13. The ones I've known, care for the poor, care about the youth, care to reach out to those whom the world looks down upon, long suffering, kind, patient, self controlled, the list goes on. True christians are very loving people.
14. I just don't like christians that feel the need to proselytize, or the ones that act "holier than thou" , or the phonies that say what great christians they are and then fool around on their spouse, etc. (hypocrites) Otherwise, most christians are okay people.
15. yes. D. W. He is such a respectful person, and he listens and responds to any doubts that I have about the existence of God, rather than just spouting out bible verses and judging me. He is the ONLY christian that I talk to about religion.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Global warming takes another hit
I read an article in the Wall Street Journal that cautions us to think clearly about global warming issues. The author of the article, Bret Stephens, looks at a popular book called Freakonomics, which came out in 2005. Its authors, University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and writer Stephen Dubner, had a lengthy chapter on global warming where they discussed former Microsoft Chief Technology Officer Nathan Myhrvold and some of his ideas. Global warming fanatics were not happy with this book, says Stephens, because its authors did not appear to be sold on the hysteria surrounding global warming.
Now these two men are out with a second book, SuperFreakonomics, and the results are the same. Al Gore, a former Clinton official name Joe Romm, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman lash out at this book for its supposedly bad reporting as well as its lack of enthusiasm for global warming. Actually, Levitt and Dubner are considered careful researchers. In addition, Stephens says they do acknowledge temperatures have risen a little over one degree Fahrenheit over the past century. But here's where they part company with the global warming hysteria. They note that sea levels will probably not rise more than 18 inches over the next 90 years, which is less than the normal variation of tides along most coastlines. They say "changes in carbon-dioxide levels don't necessarily mirror human activity." My favorite quotation is from Mr. Myhrvold when he says Al Gore's scary scenarios "don't have any basis in physical reality in any reasonable time frame."
Stephens indicates SuperFreakonomics also challenges the current climate-change craziness in other ways. For example, the authors say climatologists show a herd mentality by matching one another's forecasts. In addition, like everyone else, they respond to the economic reality of research funding. Money is available for those who can claim the greatest problems lie ahead of us. The two authors also point out that huge problems often have cheap and simple solutions. Think of world hunger -- it was solved not by population control but by developing better strains of rice and wheat. So maybe, they suggest, we can tackle global warming with a variety of cheap fixes rather than destroying the economies of the United States and other industrialized nations. They even say we may want to do nothing until the state of technology gets better and can tackle the problem with better solutions.
As you might expect, global warming fanatics hate these ideas. They are interested in controlling huge economies, gaining vast new powers in the process. Stephens quotes Newsweek's Stefan Theil as support: "climate change is the greatest new public-spending project in decades." Remember how people said it's important to follow the money? Well, here's another good example.
Books like Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics are important. They cause us to slow down and truly think rather than being carried along with our emotions. Before we destroy our economy, let’s consider the evidence carefully.
Now these two men are out with a second book, SuperFreakonomics, and the results are the same. Al Gore, a former Clinton official name Joe Romm, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman lash out at this book for its supposedly bad reporting as well as its lack of enthusiasm for global warming. Actually, Levitt and Dubner are considered careful researchers. In addition, Stephens says they do acknowledge temperatures have risen a little over one degree Fahrenheit over the past century. But here's where they part company with the global warming hysteria. They note that sea levels will probably not rise more than 18 inches over the next 90 years, which is less than the normal variation of tides along most coastlines. They say "changes in carbon-dioxide levels don't necessarily mirror human activity." My favorite quotation is from Mr. Myhrvold when he says Al Gore's scary scenarios "don't have any basis in physical reality in any reasonable time frame."
Stephens indicates SuperFreakonomics also challenges the current climate-change craziness in other ways. For example, the authors say climatologists show a herd mentality by matching one another's forecasts. In addition, like everyone else, they respond to the economic reality of research funding. Money is available for those who can claim the greatest problems lie ahead of us. The two authors also point out that huge problems often have cheap and simple solutions. Think of world hunger -- it was solved not by population control but by developing better strains of rice and wheat. So maybe, they suggest, we can tackle global warming with a variety of cheap fixes rather than destroying the economies of the United States and other industrialized nations. They even say we may want to do nothing until the state of technology gets better and can tackle the problem with better solutions.
As you might expect, global warming fanatics hate these ideas. They are interested in controlling huge economies, gaining vast new powers in the process. Stephens quotes Newsweek's Stefan Theil as support: "climate change is the greatest new public-spending project in decades." Remember how people said it's important to follow the money? Well, here's another good example.
Books like Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics are important. They cause us to slow down and truly think rather than being carried along with our emotions. Before we destroy our economy, let’s consider the evidence carefully.
Monday, October 26, 2009
"Awesome God" and the school
This is a story from the Alliance Defense Fund, a group which seeks to preserve religious liberties in this country.
Four years ago in New Jersey an eight-year-old girl named Olivia wanted to sing her favorite song, “Awesome God,” in a school talent show. However, the teacher told her the lyrics were too religious and that, therefore, the school would not allow it. The mother spoke to the school board to support her daughter’s choice, but again the song was turned down. The Alliance Defense Fund sent a letter stating that nothing in the United States Constitution prohibits a person from expressing his/her religious faith on government property. The school rejected this letter.
The mother said to the author, "If you are a Christian -- if you're a person of faith -- you do not leave your faith at the school door. You are who you are. And you take it through every aspect of your life. And for somebody to shut you down, or tell you that you can't be the person that you are -- that's not what God created us to be." As a result, the family turned to their only remaining option, a lawsuit.
The case came before a judge on the very day of the talent show. The judge asked why Olivia could not sing the song. The attorney for the school district said that the girl was attempting to proselytize through the words of the song. The judge then asked if it was OK if the girl sang “Amazing Grace”, to which the attorney replied that it would be fine.
Things got interesting at this point. The judge began to recite the first verse of “Amazing Grace” and asked how this song was not proselytizing but the other song was. There was no response from the school’s attorney. The judge went on to recite a verse of another Christian song called “Put Your Hand in the Hand.” He asked the attorney if this song also proselytized. The attorney at this point was completely flustered. The judge concluded that, despite his personal conviction that the school’s case was unsubstantiated, he could not grant a preliminary injunction since it raised constitutional issues too complex for quick resolution. So, unfortunately, Olivia was not able to sing the song at the talent show that evening.
A year and a half later, a federal judge ruled in favor of Olivia. Just as any other child in any other American public school, she would be free to present Christian themes in a talent show. That ruling has since enabled The Alliance Defense Fund to win several other similar free-speech cases for other students around the country.
How did the New Jersey school handle the result of this decision? School officials have not allowed a talent show since the decision came down. What a shame and what stupidity.
The Alliance Defense Fund is there for all of us. Please consider reading their material or supporting them-- you can reach them at telladf.org.
Four years ago in New Jersey an eight-year-old girl named Olivia wanted to sing her favorite song, “Awesome God,” in a school talent show. However, the teacher told her the lyrics were too religious and that, therefore, the school would not allow it. The mother spoke to the school board to support her daughter’s choice, but again the song was turned down. The Alliance Defense Fund sent a letter stating that nothing in the United States Constitution prohibits a person from expressing his/her religious faith on government property. The school rejected this letter.
The mother said to the author, "If you are a Christian -- if you're a person of faith -- you do not leave your faith at the school door. You are who you are. And you take it through every aspect of your life. And for somebody to shut you down, or tell you that you can't be the person that you are -- that's not what God created us to be." As a result, the family turned to their only remaining option, a lawsuit.
The case came before a judge on the very day of the talent show. The judge asked why Olivia could not sing the song. The attorney for the school district said that the girl was attempting to proselytize through the words of the song. The judge then asked if it was OK if the girl sang “Amazing Grace”, to which the attorney replied that it would be fine.
Things got interesting at this point. The judge began to recite the first verse of “Amazing Grace” and asked how this song was not proselytizing but the other song was. There was no response from the school’s attorney. The judge went on to recite a verse of another Christian song called “Put Your Hand in the Hand.” He asked the attorney if this song also proselytized. The attorney at this point was completely flustered. The judge concluded that, despite his personal conviction that the school’s case was unsubstantiated, he could not grant a preliminary injunction since it raised constitutional issues too complex for quick resolution. So, unfortunately, Olivia was not able to sing the song at the talent show that evening.
A year and a half later, a federal judge ruled in favor of Olivia. Just as any other child in any other American public school, she would be free to present Christian themes in a talent show. That ruling has since enabled The Alliance Defense Fund to win several other similar free-speech cases for other students around the country.
How did the New Jersey school handle the result of this decision? School officials have not allowed a talent show since the decision came down. What a shame and what stupidity.
The Alliance Defense Fund is there for all of us. Please consider reading their material or supporting them-- you can reach them at telladf.org.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Interesting poll results
A new poll from Parade magazine has some interesting findings regarding the spirituality of America.
In some ways the news is good. About 70 percent of Americans believe in God, nearly 80 percent pray, and 3/4 believe parents need to give their children a religious upbringing. In addition, only five percent don't believe in God.
But as far as I'm concerned, much of it is bad news. About half say they rarely or never attend worship services, and over one-fourth say they don't practice any kind of religion at all. Many put themselves in a new category -- "spiritual but not religious." This is pretty fuzzy thinking, which is echoed in other findings of the poll. For example, only 12 percent say their own religion is the only true faith while 59 percent said all religions are valid. How is that possible? For example, one says Jesus is the Messiah while another says he is not. Both of them cannot be correct. Only 40 percent said the reason they picked their faith is because it is the source of truth. Why are the rest selecting thier faith--it "feels" right? it's convenient? it requires very little commitment? Nearly 60 percent said religion and politics should not mix at all.
What does all this suggest? People have bought into relativism big time. Truth is not as important as it was at one time. Instead, people are selecting their religious beliefs for fuzzy, emotional reasons. It bothers me that a majority believe religion and politics should not be mixed. Tell that to the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the thousands of other political leaders who have invoked the name of God while working in the political arena. A worldview will follow an individual into politics; there's no way to separate the two. Either a religious outlook on life or a secular outlook on life will inform the political leader, and from what I've seen of secular leaders (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Lenin, to name a few), I'll take my chances with an individual whose religion plays an important role in his/her life.
In some ways the news is good. About 70 percent of Americans believe in God, nearly 80 percent pray, and 3/4 believe parents need to give their children a religious upbringing. In addition, only five percent don't believe in God.
But as far as I'm concerned, much of it is bad news. About half say they rarely or never attend worship services, and over one-fourth say they don't practice any kind of religion at all. Many put themselves in a new category -- "spiritual but not religious." This is pretty fuzzy thinking, which is echoed in other findings of the poll. For example, only 12 percent say their own religion is the only true faith while 59 percent said all religions are valid. How is that possible? For example, one says Jesus is the Messiah while another says he is not. Both of them cannot be correct. Only 40 percent said the reason they picked their faith is because it is the source of truth. Why are the rest selecting thier faith--it "feels" right? it's convenient? it requires very little commitment? Nearly 60 percent said religion and politics should not mix at all.
What does all this suggest? People have bought into relativism big time. Truth is not as important as it was at one time. Instead, people are selecting their religious beliefs for fuzzy, emotional reasons. It bothers me that a majority believe religion and politics should not be mixed. Tell that to the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the thousands of other political leaders who have invoked the name of God while working in the political arena. A worldview will follow an individual into politics; there's no way to separate the two. Either a religious outlook on life or a secular outlook on life will inform the political leader, and from what I've seen of secular leaders (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Lenin, to name a few), I'll take my chances with an individual whose religion plays an important role in his/her life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)