Politics and Science – All Manure

Either President Barack Obama is a dumbass or he thinks we are. I’m leaning toward the second, but I’m willing to accept it is a combination of the two.

Obama announced today that he is going to divorce politics form scientific decisions made by the government. And tomorrow I’m going to divorce the green pigment from the paint on my wall. To claim that either anything done by the government or that any policy set forth in science can be removed from political consideration is – you’ll forgive me for this – patent bullshit.

The announcement came on the heals of reversing the Bush administration policy of not using federal money for embryonic stem cell research. Are we to understand that making this decision was not politically motivated by the Barack of Obama? A certain and large segment of the population (including the immediately preceding President) held that destroying embryos holds strong moral implications. By allowing the embryonic research to go forward, Obama is making the (political) decision that destroying an embryo is not tantamount to murder. Agree or disagree, that is not a scientific decision, it is a political one.

Has this man never seen a science fiction movie? Let me summarize the basic plot to 99.6% of all sci-fi movies. 1) Use a new scientific technology that looks cool on camera. 2) Create a situation where the characters have to make a moral decision about using the new technology. 3) blow things up (this is for the people who might vote for Obama; they won’t get #2) All technology is just a tool. Where, when and how to use the tool is a political and moral decision.

So, as we continue down this road where political considerations are removed from scientific decisions, what will our future look like? How will the Obama administration proceed from here?

In the brave new world of national heath care that President Obama has called for we will come to the point where elderly people will be sick, but their life expectancy and contribution to society will not equal this cost. Scientifically it would be easy to conclude that it is not worth spending the money on them. The next logical step is that if we are simply going to let them die, shouldn’t we proactively put them out of their suffering? Please, Mr. President, explain to me how you are going to approach this topic without bringing politics into the mix?

Or what about the other end of life, Mr. President. If we are going to provide the health care for the entire populace would it not be prudent to make sure that the people entering that populace were healthiest they could be? We have it within our scientific power to limit who can reproduce with whom. Only allowing those deemed, scientifically, fit to have children could be allowed. This would ensure that the children born would have the best genetic chance to remain healthy and not burden the health care system. Should we allow science to simply run its course, or should we use politics to decide the morally correct direction to take this tool at our disposal?

Or how about the tact the entire DNC is taking on global warming? While there are plenty of scientific minds that believe in global warming there is also plenty of evidence and plenty of scientists who reject the premise. The party has, however, deemed the debate to be over and is plowing ahead with, ahem, political actions without regard for the scientific debate about this topic.

Oh, wait, how about this one!? In those science fiction tales referenced before, science breakthroughs happen in mere minutes with the result of tests seen within a few scenes. But here in the real world science advances take time and are often found wrong. Recent enough to be considered modern history, the predominant scientific theory held that people with darker skin color, like, oh say… the President’s, were inferior due to being less evolved. The sentiment in the scientific community was that these inferior persons should not be allowed the same rights and privileges as more evolved persons. I’m pretty sure it was political arguments that railed against this line of thinking until it was scientifically proven wrong.

The thought of removing political reasoning from scientific processes, especially involving the government is ridiculous. Hey Barry, next time you want to announce something this outrageous, don’t make a general public announcement; save it for the Democrat National Convention. You’ll get more acreage out of your fertilizer.

Thank _______ !

We will soon celebrate the day of Thanksgiving. It is a good think to be thankful in general for our blessings and our good fortune. But to be simply thankful is, in and of itself, hollow and incomplete.

The word “thank” is a verb, it requires a subject and an object. When we receive a gift, we say “thank you.” This is the shortened form of the entire sentence “I thank you.” The subject is understood; the object is often left hanging, open for interpretation. If you just say “I am thankful for…”, to whom are you thankful?

Imagine receiving your shinny new Red Rider B-B gun from your parents. Then you say, “I am thankful for this B-B gun.” Wouldn’t your parents be a little miffed? Instead we say “Thanks mom and dad!” We declare whom we are thanking.

How often do we go around the table on Thanksgiving Day and say what we are thankful for? It is good to be thankful, but if you are not thankful to someone, something, your thankfulness is unfinished. It is like a transfer truck which is not pulling a trailer. The verb needs its object; your thanks needs a target.

Consider the original Thanksgiving Day proclamation by George Washington:

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; … to be devoted by the people of thefe States to the fervice of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be;¹

The Day of Thanksgiving was originally set up for us to give thanks to God for his blessings on us. Let us all remember this as we declare what we are thankful for.

1 – Full proclamation text here – In many of our founding documents, an “F” is used where you use an “S” now.

Boiling Frogs

The frogs were all in their pot sitting on the stove, minding their own business like they always do.

“Say there, Rrricco.” croaked Crrraig. “Your spot in the pan is under the handle. If I had that spot, I could collect the water condensing on the screws and provide us all with a cool drink.”

It was getting warmer, they all noted.

“But I do not want to give up my spot.” said Rrricco. “I have had this spot since we have been here and I like it.”

“Well, I will trade you my spot.” Crrraig offered. “It is a nice spot, you will find. Quite a fair trade I think.”

“It is a nice spot, but it is not my spot. I like this spot and will keep it.” Rrricco said with finality.

“Well, what say the rest of you?” Crrraig asked. “If I were to have Rrricco’s spot in the pan, I could get cool water for the rest of us. Everyone would benefit.”

It was getting warmer, they all agreed.

The frogs all conferred. It would be good for everyone if Crrraig were given Rrricco’s spot in the pan. But it was Rrricco’s spot, could they take it away?

Just then the Judge walked by. They had decided he had to be a judge, he wore a tall white hat.

“Sir! Oh sir!” called Rrrichard. “Could you help us with a matter?”

The frogs all agreed the judge was wise and was the man to turn to when they could not settle a dispute themselves.

“What seems to be the matter,” said the judge.

“Well, see.” Rrrichard explained, “Rrricco has the spot over there under the handle bolts. If Crrriag had that spot he could collect the cool water and we could all have a drink. But it is Rrricco’s spot and we do not know if we should make Rrricco give it up.”

“Hmm.” said the Judge. “That is a tough one. Rrricco has a right to that spot, because he found it first.” The Judge rubbed his hand on his chin. “It would be my thought that the greater good should prevail, that the end that helps the most people should be followed.”

The frogs all seemed to like that. They wanted some of that cool water. It was getting warm, after all. All the frogs like it, but one.

“But this is my spot and I want to keep it.” said Rrricco

“Oh, Sir! Can you help us?” croaked Rrrichard.

“I can only help if you give me the authority to do so. This is your pot.” Stated the judge.

The frogs conferred and decided to give the judge the authority. All the frogs voted, all but one, to let the Judge set right the problem. The Judge took his big wooden spoon and scooped up Rrricco and plopped him down in Crrraig’s spot. Crrraig moved to Rrricco’s old spot and began collecting the cool water.

“That should do it.” said the Judge. With that he reached down under the pot and turned a knob up one notch, then walked away.

Rrricco was quite put out with having his spot taken away from him. After a while, he rolled up some lily pad leaves he had brought with him and began to smoke them. The other frogs at first tried to ignore the smoke. Then they tried to move away from the smoke. After a while it was just too much. It was Tadd who finally spoke up.

“Mr. Rrricco sir, could you please put out your cigarette?” Tadd asked.

“No I don’t think I will.” said Rrricco. “I want to smoke my cigarette and I am free to do as I please in this new spot you have put me in.”

“But Mr. Rrricco, your smoke is blowing over here and I do not want to breath it.” Tadd complained.

“Very well.” Rrricco said. “When the Judge comes back by, I will ask him to turn the fan on, to pull the smoke away.”

This agreement kept everyone content for a little while. Then Mrs. Rrrachael pointed out that Rrricco really should not be smoking the cigarette for his own good. Then Mrs. Carrrol said she did not think that the fan would pull enough of the smoke away when it was turned on and they would still smell it.

When the Judge came back by, the frogs all tried to speak at once. Rrricco was saying that he thought he should be able to do as he pleased on his own spot in the pan and that he would be willing to have the fan pull his smoke away. Tadd was almost in tears saying he did not want to smell the smoke. Mrs. Carrrol was stating that she did not think the fan would pull all the smoke away and Mrs. Rrrachael told the Judge that she thought Rrricco should not be smoking for his own health.

The Judge listened intently for a few minutes then waved the frogs to silence. “I think that this cigarette has caused entirely too much of a fuss. It would just be easier if we did not have cigarettes. I want all the frogs to hand over any lilly pad products they have.”

Rrricco looked around at a few of the other frogs that he knew used lilly pads. They all looked upset, but they were far out numbered. Mrs. Carrrol had a smug look on her face. Slowly Rrricco and several other frogs handed over their lilly pads.

“Thank you very much.” the Judge said. And before he left, he turned the knob below the pan.

“Well, I’m glad we got that done with,” Rrrachael said, “as hot as it is getting the last thing we needed was artificial smoke”

They all agreed; it was getting hot.

Then Crrraig spotted a June bug. He loved June bugs; they were his favorite. Quickly, Crrraig snatched the June bug out of the air.

“What is that?” cried the Judge. He had walked up to the pan. “What are you eating?”

Crrraig moved the June bug to his cheek. “Ith a Jun gug.”

“A June bug!” the Judge cried. “Spit it out. Spit it out now.” He held his spoon out to Crrraig for him to spit the bug into.

“Buth Jun gugs are mff favorite.” Crrraig said nearly choking on the June bug.

“Spit it out now.” the Judge demanded. His tall white hat was shaking as he spoke.

Crrraig spit the June bug out.

“June bugs are not good for you.” the Judge said. “You may eat all the house flies you want, but you may not eat June bugs.”

“Wait,” said Crrraig. “Who are you to tell us what we can eat?”

“You are the ones who gave me the authority.” said the Judge. “You let me decide if you could smoke because it was not good for you. Now I am deciding that June bugs are not good for you.”

And as he left, the Judge turned the knob below the pan.

The frogs started to notice there were bubbles forming in the pan.

And it was getting hot, they all agreed.

Some time later the Judge came back by. “So,” asked the Judge, “why do some of you have brightly colored backs?”

“Oh,” Those are to protect us.” explained Rrrick. “Its poison.”

“Poison!” cried the Judge. “That sounds dangerous.”

“Only if you are on the receiving end.” Rrrick said with a wink.

“Hmm” said the Judge. He walked away and came back after a few minutes carrying a syringe and a needle.

“OK” announced the Judge. “This shot will neutralize the poison in your backs.”

“But!” croaked Rrrick, “how will we protect ourselves?”

The Judge smiled, “You don’t need to protect yourselves. I am here to protect you.”

The Judge gave each of those with colored backs a shot. Then he turned the knob below the pan as he left.

Everyone noticed it was getting hot in the pan.

“I’m not feeling so well.” said Tadd.

There was some mutterings amongst the frogs. There were several of them who were not feeling well. The doctor started making his rounds checking on the sick. This did not go so well though. Many of the frogs did not feel as if the doctor was making them feel any better. Then some others could not afford to pay him.

Crrraig could pay the doctor, because he had the cool water from the handle bolts. Many of the others could not pay though. A few were even bold enough to say that the doctor should take care of people without getting paid. Some of the frogs began saying that when the Judge came back around, they would have him take care of them instead of the doctor.

Soon the Judge did come back by. “Mr. Judge, sir.” said Tadd. “Many of us are not feeling so well. Can you take care of us?”

The Judge smiled. Many of the frogs beamed at his smile, but Rrricco thought his smiled looked a little evil.

“Of course I will take care of you.” said the Judge.

Then the Judge turned the knob under the pan again.

Gays in Court

The decision by the California Supreme court to “legalize” homosexual marriage is an affront to our society. This is not merely because of their decision going against the wishes of the people of the state of California, tradition, scientific evidence or just plain common sense. It’s most egregious affront is due to the liberal mindset embodied in this decision.
Ask yourself this: why did the State not have the right to define marriage as being allowed between two individuals of the same sex? It is because the State never had the right to define marriage of any kind in the first place. God has already done that. If you do not believe in God at least accept nature’s argument in that a union between a man and a woman (and only a man and a woman) produces the offspring necessary to continue our survival. Also consider that it has been proven time and again that a stable home with a man and a woman is the best place to raise these kids. Marriage was ordained before the State, any State of any kind, ever came into being. The State does not invent, endow, empower, or any other affirmative verb you can think of, the institution of marriage; it simply recognizes a function of the church as being important for the wellbeing of the State.
The court, and in the larger sense the state of California as a whole, injecting themselves into this debate displays the belief that man can counteract the decelerations of “Nature and of Nature’s God.” The root of this belief is that man, and his decisions, are the ultimate law. Holders of this philosophy seek constantly to establish the perfect law, the perfect society, in which the rule of the State has answered all of the questions of life.
They hold to a firm standard that all must be treated absolutely equal. This is not the same as being treated equally before the law; it is an equality established no matter what position one holds. When an innocent person or a multiple murderer comes before a court, they are each treated equal. The law looks at them the same, until the trial is concluded. This is not the same as being equal in truth. In reality, the murderer is in no way equal to the innocent man. He has given up his rights and his position by doing damage to our society. While violating nature’s law (homosexuality) may not require a punishment declared and delivered by the State, it does not merit an equivalence with the natural order of marriage.
This mindset that all points of view and all actions must be considered equal is the same mindset that will not make a distinction between the United States military and savages that blow up women on subways. This is the same belief system that will demand a moral equivalence between the USA and Fidel Castro’s Cuba. These are the same people who decry capital punishment because we cannot establish a strong enough argument in their eyes to warrant punishing the criminal’s actions. But then these same modern philosophers will allow abortions claiming that if that is the wishes of the woman, who are we to interfere?
Followed to its logical conclusion (the death knell for most liberal ideas) this ideology of absolute equivalence leads to trying to negotiate with evil instead of crushing it. This is the root of the idea of sitting down with terrorists and trying to understand them. It is the thinking behind policies of training and reconditioning criminals instead of punishing them. The decision by the California supreme court is a dangerous decision; but it is not nearly as dangerous as the belief system from which it sprang.

Music : An Interactive Event

Across cultures, across continents, music is a powerful force. Music has been known to stir the hardest of hearts and to “sooth the savage beast.” But music, compared to other mediums, is a very interactive event requiring active participation on the part of the listener.

Manhood

One of the primary jobs of a Man is to defend his family. He is also responsible for his children’s education, providing for his family and a dozen other tasks. None of those make any difference if the wolves get at his family first. You cannot educate a child that is living in Montana with a kidnapper.