Well, guns really dont kill people, they help people kill people. And the cold hard truth is, some people need to be killed. I know this is hard to hear for some, all life is precious/sacred/special/whatever, but no its not, not all life. There are people out there, real people, who have no empathy, who are conscienceless and so selfish they just dont care who they hurt to get what they want. Once a human being decides his needs outweigh the needs of others, to the point of assault or worse, his life is forfeit.
I dont know where the complexity comes in, if it is your intent to harm others who mean you no harm & have done nothing to you, you are evil. I dont care why you feel this need, I dont care what they said, what they believe, who they pray to, what color they are, or whatever it is about them that pisses you off. You just dont get to hurt people, and if you try, whoever kills you in the attempt, is a hero.
To take a life is a terrible thing(if you are not a psychopath), it will eat at you & be with you for ever. Some people put themselves in a position that may lead them to do this awful thing, in protection of others, they are to be awed & admired as the best among us. And yet some dont get the distinction, the vast chasm between those who would do harm to innocents, and those who would stop them.
These same people can see a grey area in everything, relativism reigns, but somehow the subtle distinction between cold blooded killer & brave soldier is lost on them. Thats ok, the soldiers will still keep the hordes at bay and police will continue to protect & serve, brave selfless people will continue to risk everything to protect... even these fools.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Global warming bs
Some thoughts on global warming-
First I would like people on the other side to understand the reason behind my being so unwilling to accept man made global warming as stated by it's proponents. A quick logic check would seem to tell you- Why fight it? fake or real, it will help clean up the earth, win/win scenario! False, and this is the BIG lie, that even if we are not sure, we should act as though we are. Whats the big deal? Cut carbon emisions, tax carbon "polluters", etc.
The kind of cuts in carbon emmisions The UN and others talk about could literally cripple economies, economies that hang by threads in many places. If these changes are forced on people in some areas, governments will fall. There have been many revolutions over less government intrusion than this.
Sure we here in the US can probably handle most of it, big deal we end up on trains & reading by LED light. But there are so many places in this world that cant afford the luxury of "better safe than sorry". If this was not the case, if many many lives were not on the line, I would just roll my eyes at the nonsense & fule up with fry grease with a slowly shaking head. But its not just exaggerated facts & jumpt to conclusions, its dangerous propiganda... fed by people who dont give two shits about those it could hurt.
So why would so many scientists either ignore obvious evidence that contradicts mmgw? I would guess there are many reasons, probably chief among them, "better safe than sorry". They belive in the science of co2 warming, even if the evidence is paper thin (mostly made up on paper). An overwhelming majority have never tested the science. Most, Im sure, take the word of other scientists along with the anecdotal & circumstantial evidence.
As to the long term warming cooling trends, that seem to show any warming is right inline with what it should be? Maybe they figure its a coincidence that the global temp has been warming for thousands of years (naturally). And that you could pick almost any point in the recent past (5,000 years), and judge it "the hottest on record" looking back from there 100 years. Maybe that, man's co2 has heated the planet while the nateral cycle was in a lul, so around the corner is a HUGE temp rise when nature catches up.
How do they explain the adding of ice to the southern ice pack? I dont know, maybe ocean current changes, using up the last of our precious cold no doubt.
What about the past 8 years of no warming, to slight cooling according to NASA sat/temp readings globally? Again, short term coolig trend, to be reversed soon, with devastating consequences to be sure.
The beleif by many in the field that solar activity & cyclical earth axis shifts are probably to blame for most longer term climate change? Even though that would explain a lot, Im sure these rocket scientists are not as smart as the other rocket scientists.
Sea levels not rising to what they expect? Must be that the extreme heat has vaporized much of the melted polar cap water & it has escaped into space... I guess??? (thats a tough one)
What about the exponential rises in atmospheric co2, not matching in any way with temp rises? Im sure there is some convoluted "ocean heat capture" theory that couldnt be proven in a million frickin years... Im getting pissy arent In *takes deep breath*.
But it seems like too much to ingnore, way more than a shadow of a doubt, and scientists are supposed to love doubt, love to prove a theory wrong... right? Then why? Maybe its as plain as scientists are human. Whatever the "ideal" of science, people have vanity & greed, they are clickish & seek fame. And maybe any can see that evidence is mounting against the theory, as each cooler year passes, but hubris prevents retreat, from the so clung to position.
Lastly, I would like to answer sporks simplistic attempt at a catch 22 question.
"spork-It's up to you to tell me what other way you can possibly come to the conclusion you can. It's not enough to simply say "you don't understand both sides"
- Assume you have access to data that all these organizations don't
- Assume they are all misreading the mountains of data, and you're not.
- Assume they're all in a grand conspiracy to lie to the world.
There's simply no other way to deny the reality."
I guess my reality is different, because I dont see the great hord of selfless scientists throwing out tons of irrefutable evidence. I see organizations & people who get paid based on a problem existing, not paid to say it aint there.
Number one, I assume they see more data than me by far, but they have to filter what data is useful (to them & their cause), as we all do, just being human (and self serving by nature).
Number two, do I assume they are misreading the data... Why not? these are just people, just like us, smarter in many cases to be sure, but mistakes happen. Especially with data that is not like counting tree rings... vast extrapolation is needed in climate analysis, but this is way beyond that, truly mountains of arbitrary numbers & countless contradicting facts.
Grand conspiracy? I doubt it, just a scared bunch of regular people who are on a bandwagon going 100 mph, who wants to jump off... would you?
And still, 31,072 PhD's MD's and... lots of other leters (just in the US, and in just the first petition I found), sign on to say "slow down there jr." and they are ignored (or worse) by the rest... Who are supposed to value contradictory points of view, as a rule... the scientific method is spinning in its grave.
And to top it all off, I have my doubts that those who strongly believe in mmgw really outnumber those who dont. All I see are dipshit plastic news prompter readers trying to keep their jobs by spouting theories they bearly understand. And vacuous sycophantic hollywood morons, who all need something to give their life meaning, pretending to "get" large scale thermodynamics. Im sure there are loads of credentialed believers, but seriously... how many? And how many work at NOAA or somewhere that its better to toe the line & not speak out if you dont agree.
Really, what advantage is there, for the average scientist to try to contradict the "accepted" science of mmgw. Why be on that list, the one where the in crowd rolls eyes when you walk in... I mean people gotta make a living. On the other hand, to agree with the theory... is there a down side today? More to the point, how to find an unused angle to get paid somehow. Hell, its hard to get a clear number on how many billions go to "green anitiatives" from the bailout bill & suplimental bills.
Anyway, those who dont drink the mmgw coolaid, keep up the good fight. And sorry if I spelled every other word wrong, me not got a PhD.
Oh yeah, and sorry for the 80 trillion words :(
First I would like people on the other side to understand the reason behind my being so unwilling to accept man made global warming as stated by it's proponents. A quick logic check would seem to tell you- Why fight it? fake or real, it will help clean up the earth, win/win scenario! False, and this is the BIG lie, that even if we are not sure, we should act as though we are. Whats the big deal? Cut carbon emisions, tax carbon "polluters", etc.
The kind of cuts in carbon emmisions The UN and others talk about could literally cripple economies, economies that hang by threads in many places. If these changes are forced on people in some areas, governments will fall. There have been many revolutions over less government intrusion than this.
Sure we here in the US can probably handle most of it, big deal we end up on trains & reading by LED light. But there are so many places in this world that cant afford the luxury of "better safe than sorry". If this was not the case, if many many lives were not on the line, I would just roll my eyes at the nonsense & fule up with fry grease with a slowly shaking head. But its not just exaggerated facts & jumpt to conclusions, its dangerous propiganda... fed by people who dont give two shits about those it could hurt.
So why would so many scientists either ignore obvious evidence that contradicts mmgw? I would guess there are many reasons, probably chief among them, "better safe than sorry". They belive in the science of co2 warming, even if the evidence is paper thin (mostly made up on paper). An overwhelming majority have never tested the science. Most, Im sure, take the word of other scientists along with the anecdotal & circumstantial evidence.
As to the long term warming cooling trends, that seem to show any warming is right inline with what it should be? Maybe they figure its a coincidence that the global temp has been warming for thousands of years (naturally). And that you could pick almost any point in the recent past (5,000 years), and judge it "the hottest on record" looking back from there 100 years. Maybe that, man's co2 has heated the planet while the nateral cycle was in a lul, so around the corner is a HUGE temp rise when nature catches up.
How do they explain the adding of ice to the southern ice pack? I dont know, maybe ocean current changes, using up the last of our precious cold no doubt.
What about the past 8 years of no warming, to slight cooling according to NASA sat/temp readings globally? Again, short term coolig trend, to be reversed soon, with devastating consequences to be sure.
The beleif by many in the field that solar activity & cyclical earth axis shifts are probably to blame for most longer term climate change? Even though that would explain a lot, Im sure these rocket scientists are not as smart as the other rocket scientists.
Sea levels not rising to what they expect? Must be that the extreme heat has vaporized much of the melted polar cap water & it has escaped into space... I guess??? (thats a tough one)
What about the exponential rises in atmospheric co2, not matching in any way with temp rises? Im sure there is some convoluted "ocean heat capture" theory that couldnt be proven in a million frickin years... Im getting pissy arent In *takes deep breath*.
But it seems like too much to ingnore, way more than a shadow of a doubt, and scientists are supposed to love doubt, love to prove a theory wrong... right? Then why? Maybe its as plain as scientists are human. Whatever the "ideal" of science, people have vanity & greed, they are clickish & seek fame. And maybe any can see that evidence is mounting against the theory, as each cooler year passes, but hubris prevents retreat, from the so clung to position.
Lastly, I would like to answer sporks simplistic attempt at a catch 22 question.
"spork-It's up to you to tell me what other way you can possibly come to the conclusion you can. It's not enough to simply say "you don't understand both sides"
- Assume you have access to data that all these organizations don't
- Assume they are all misreading the mountains of data, and you're not.
- Assume they're all in a grand conspiracy to lie to the world.
There's simply no other way to deny the reality."
I guess my reality is different, because I dont see the great hord of selfless scientists throwing out tons of irrefutable evidence. I see organizations & people who get paid based on a problem existing, not paid to say it aint there.
Number one, I assume they see more data than me by far, but they have to filter what data is useful (to them & their cause), as we all do, just being human (and self serving by nature).
Number two, do I assume they are misreading the data... Why not? these are just people, just like us, smarter in many cases to be sure, but mistakes happen. Especially with data that is not like counting tree rings... vast extrapolation is needed in climate analysis, but this is way beyond that, truly mountains of arbitrary numbers & countless contradicting facts.
Grand conspiracy? I doubt it, just a scared bunch of regular people who are on a bandwagon going 100 mph, who wants to jump off... would you?
And still, 31,072 PhD's MD's and... lots of other leters (just in the US, and in just the first petition I found), sign on to say "slow down there jr." and they are ignored (or worse) by the rest... Who are supposed to value contradictory points of view, as a rule... the scientific method is spinning in its grave.
And to top it all off, I have my doubts that those who strongly believe in mmgw really outnumber those who dont. All I see are dipshit plastic news prompter readers trying to keep their jobs by spouting theories they bearly understand. And vacuous sycophantic hollywood morons, who all need something to give their life meaning, pretending to "get" large scale thermodynamics. Im sure there are loads of credentialed believers, but seriously... how many? And how many work at NOAA or somewhere that its better to toe the line & not speak out if you dont agree.
Really, what advantage is there, for the average scientist to try to contradict the "accepted" science of mmgw. Why be on that list, the one where the in crowd rolls eyes when you walk in... I mean people gotta make a living. On the other hand, to agree with the theory... is there a down side today? More to the point, how to find an unused angle to get paid somehow. Hell, its hard to get a clear number on how many billions go to "green anitiatives" from the bailout bill & suplimental bills.
Anyway, those who dont drink the mmgw coolaid, keep up the good fight. And sorry if I spelled every other word wrong, me not got a PhD.
Oh yeah, and sorry for the 80 trillion words :(
Friday, February 27, 2009
Right & wrong cont.
To convince another that he is wrong... the holy grail of debate, who doesn't want to be agreed with? Its all well and good to "meet in the middle" and compromise with someone, but you always know they really still think they are right, they only half agree out of convenience. Once two people agree on what is right, BAM, its settled (unless there are more than two people around), but the point is that's when personal truth becomes recognized public belief.
The most important matters a society faces generally deal with getting a consensus on what is right. Many subjects are convoluted & near impossible to reach accord, luckily most of these (even if vigorously disputed) will not break us, regardless of which side wins (or if stalemate is perpetual). Some topics are easy, it's wrong to kill another person if they are no threat to you or others "It's a hell of a thing, killin' a man, you take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have" -Clint Eastwood. Almost everyone agrees with that, and those that don't... well, we will kill them ;)
We will never agree on what is right & wrong in all subjects, that's just not how we work. But I think we all can concede that when no consensus can be reached, we should indeed let Clint Eastwood decide.
The most important matters a society faces generally deal with getting a consensus on what is right. Many subjects are convoluted & near impossible to reach accord, luckily most of these (even if vigorously disputed) will not break us, regardless of which side wins (or if stalemate is perpetual). Some topics are easy, it's wrong to kill another person if they are no threat to you or others "It's a hell of a thing, killin' a man, you take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have" -Clint Eastwood. Almost everyone agrees with that, and those that don't... well, we will kill them ;)
We will never agree on what is right & wrong in all subjects, that's just not how we work. But I think we all can concede that when no consensus can be reached, we should indeed let Clint Eastwood decide.
Right & wrong
Views of right and wrong are so subjective, your right may be my wrong. So to it only makes sense to draw a line between a broad personal view of right/wrong, & matters so important we mean to insist on "right" behavior of others (laws).
The balance between effect on us by actions of others, and the effect on others by our insistence on a prescribed behavior, is the place laws should start. When a society decides on a law, it decides what is right & wrong, a large group of people insist on a given (right) behavior (feed your kids, pay your debts, etc.), or a need to NOT engage in a behavior (take things you don't own, kill people, etc.). Laws should protect individuals from negative effects caused by the actions of others, not force them to behave in a given manner, for only the purpose of the "comfort" of society. Conversely, laws should not protect the individuals right to cause harm to others in the name of "freedom". This balance between tyranny and anarchy is where all consideration of right & wrong, in regards to law, should be focused.
Laws of course are not the only outlet for a society's (or individuals) expression of their views on right and wrong, all forms of media & personal interaction are ripe for articulation of opinions on right/wrong. Letting others know what you think is right/wrong is a foundation of healthy personal interaction between people. Judgements on right/wrong are made every second of every day, from weather its right for you to eat some more ice cream, to if the latest massive spending bill by congress is wrong. Should you change your view of right & wrong on a subject because others feel differently? Maybe, if their reasoning persuades you to change your mind, or if the triviality of the subject makes a change worth it (ie. what movie is "right" to see tonight).
More later.
The balance between effect on us by actions of others, and the effect on others by our insistence on a prescribed behavior, is the place laws should start. When a society decides on a law, it decides what is right & wrong, a large group of people insist on a given (right) behavior (feed your kids, pay your debts, etc.), or a need to NOT engage in a behavior (take things you don't own, kill people, etc.). Laws should protect individuals from negative effects caused by the actions of others, not force them to behave in a given manner, for only the purpose of the "comfort" of society. Conversely, laws should not protect the individuals right to cause harm to others in the name of "freedom". This balance between tyranny and anarchy is where all consideration of right & wrong, in regards to law, should be focused.
Laws of course are not the only outlet for a society's (or individuals) expression of their views on right and wrong, all forms of media & personal interaction are ripe for articulation of opinions on right/wrong. Letting others know what you think is right/wrong is a foundation of healthy personal interaction between people. Judgements on right/wrong are made every second of every day, from weather its right for you to eat some more ice cream, to if the latest massive spending bill by congress is wrong. Should you change your view of right & wrong on a subject because others feel differently? Maybe, if their reasoning persuades you to change your mind, or if the triviality of the subject makes a change worth it (ie. what movie is "right" to see tonight).
More later.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Where to start
I hope to put down some thoughts on what is going on in the world, the reality of it, not the standard party line or soundbite crap.
Weather its analysis of the latest urban myth, how big the universe is or what lie a given politician is telling today.
Comment at will, language is up to you, suggest topics, whatever. I dont hope to come up with answers to all of life's questions, but maybe at least I can make fun of people who think they have.
Weather its analysis of the latest urban myth, how big the universe is or what lie a given politician is telling today.
Comment at will, language is up to you, suggest topics, whatever. I dont hope to come up with answers to all of life's questions, but maybe at least I can make fun of people who think they have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)