I. Global Warming. This issue is one that truly baffles me. Let me explain. We are taught from childhood that science is infallible, and should trump other sources of knowledge...i.e. written history, oral tradition, faith, etc. We are also taught from childhood, as scientific fact, that this planet has been through numerous drastic changes in climate. For example, the ice age....they make friggin cartoons about this period. My point is, simply, how can we ascribe a total climate change to man and his activity, when 1. We know the earth's climate is volatile and 2. Our science and records used only go back 30 years? This, combined with the fact that proponents of the global warming theory are also the usual suspects who are constantly trying to curtail individuality in favor of a stronger state, makes me extremely skeptical.
II. That Astronaut. There is nothing really to say, but are you kidding me? The diaper was the craziest thing to me, until realizing that astronauts appreciate the utility of those things. And what was with the b.b. gun?
III. Evolution and Homosexuality. This will probably be a lengthy post later, but here is the issue for me...how can one believe the viability of both? Meaning, the basic tenet of Darwinian evolution theories is the idea of natural selection...that we evolve to assure our survival. To my understanding, no creature has evolved itself out of existence, no? If homosexuality, as a practice, becomes the norm, we would cease to procreate at necessary levels, right? So, aren't these two ideas contradicting?
IV. Marion Barry and Guns. He is wanting to loosen the anti-gun laws in D.C. It's about time. There is an established record here....when guns are banned the only people to lose the ability to use guns are the law abiding citizens. Guns are banned....crime goes up...violent crime.
V. Those Edwards bloggers. Long story short...Edwards hired a couple of bloggers for his campaign to reach out to the 'left'....they did this by using some really really anti-catholic vitriol. Some might ask....how is this news? Though, it has to be said, were this to happen to a Republican candidate....
VI. Ted Haggard. So...in three weeks he is straight? O.K. Well, what about the meth use? I mean I'm all for redemption, as I need it as much anyone, but this seems ridiculous.
VII. Banning I-Pods. I hate politicians.
VIII. Londonistan. These people a nuts, and Europe continues to coddle them. You see, we don't need to war with them, we just need to understand them better.
*The above link is now fixed. Take the time to read it.
IX. Valuables. Not to make light of the situation, but take a look at the picture below....that dude really loves whatever is in that trash bag, and I really want to know what's in there.
6 comments:
Re; the Ipods.
Don't you know that the government knows best? Hasn't that been beaten in to you yet?
I just read the gay rights thing requiring couples who are married to produce a child within three years...that's hilarious!
I think the government should propose a bill to criminalize the unzipping of pants in public restrooms as it may traumatize button-flyers.
Global Warming – It almost seems as if those pushing this “science”, at some point, collectively decided to bet that enough of this country is dumb enough to not even be suspicious of this…and sadly…IT’S WORKING!!!!
Darwinism and Homosexuality – This is something that has always, and continues, to bother me. Not just the contradictions between Darwinism and homosexuality, but more so the fundamental disconnect between the left’s doctrine and their voting base. For example, a while back, I read an article about a letter that Darwin wrote to his son addressing his apparent involvement with a “woman of color” (if memory serves she was Moroccan). In this letter Darwin, of course, went to great lengths to admonish his son in light of the woman’s inferiority to himself. The point, so obviously, is that if people were to actually connect the dots of liberal doctrine, where this is actually possible, the resulting political shift would register on the Richter scale…This, of course, will never happen though.
Marion Berry and Guns – After reading this part of the post, I am in complete and utter shock. I saw the heading “Marion Berry and Guns” and then proceeded to read a paragraph that did not contain words like crack, arrested, bail, or re-election. As in, “After being arrested last night and charged with possession of crack, Marion Berry was able to post his bail just in time to be told of his re-election and make his victory speech while brandishing a loaded 357 magnum”.
I-pods – I know…Next you think you know they’ll be telling people they can’t smoke in public anymore…Oh wait…
Marion Barry.
Marion Berry.
Dr. Zeius,
I'm almost ashamed to admit that I actually have begun to put some stock in the theory of "global warming," or at least in the theory behind the danger of so-called greenhouse gases. This gradual openness to the idea is not through any alarm at recent weather phenomena, but rather via the corollary theory of "global dimming." This theory holds that any warming effects of gases and particles released since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution were at least partially offset by the same particles in our atmosphere reflecting the sun's light, and thus its heat. The movement over the last couple decades to cut down on and "clean up" air pollution has severely decreased these "dimming particles"---immensely beneficial to our respiratory health---but has done little to decrease the amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, and other such gases that, theoretically, trap heat energy in our atmosphere. This would seem to explain why such "warming" effects were all but hidden for well over a century, and are now accelerating. Of course, geologically speaking, I don't believe there is any way for us to PROVE a direct link between a warming trend and the emission of these gases. If, however, there is a chance that the mathematic formulas behind all of this are correct, I would advocate attempting some mechanism to counteract the danger. I don't hold with any economic or ecological agenda that would have us attempt a complete moratorium on such emissions, especially in light of the reasonable assumption that industrial powers like China and India will surpass us in this with flagrant disregard for the environment. In fact, if the math is right, the only hope I can see is developing some far-reaching technology that can either bond these free radicals into less harmful compounds, or chemically convert them in some other way. The emissions aren't going to stop. Could more plantlife, convert CO2 in our upper atmosphere into O2? I have no idea (although planting more trees is probably something we should be doing anyways). Again, no cause for alarmist reaction. If the "science" is right on this issue, we are already too far gone. Revolutionary technology would be the only option (all this from a technophobe).
On homosexuality vs. Darwinism, I tend to agree with herodotus. From what little I understand of evolutionary theory, it seems unlikely that homosexual genes would have remained buried in our collective gene pool over millennia, or however long we've been on this planet. One possible loophole to this argument is the way in which some species are known to be hermaphroditic or able to completely change their sex. I wouldn't hold with that theory, in that we are unable to change our sex organs naturally, and I doubt recent genetic mutations would be enough to account for the growth of homosexuality in the West. (There are, I'm quite sure, further loopholes to find, but I really don't care to explore all of them here.) Suffice it to say, a simple understanding of genetic evolution seems to oppose the idea of a homosexual gene.
I am really more interested in the philosophical and sociological underpinnings of the homosexual subculture, specifically their recent "evolution." The Gay Pride and gay rights movement seem to me to have begun in (or at least exploded during) the 1960s and '70s as another branch of the countercultural movement, especially the Sexual Revolution. The philosophy behind all of this was radical individualism, a refusal to accept mainstream norms and mores. I believe, on a philosophical level, I can appreciate this sort of honesty. Where I strongly break from any such "appreciation" is where the movement attempted a self-definition of legitimacy. It altered its trajectory from rejecting mainstream society altogether ("alternative lifestyle") to embarking upon a program of legitimization under the structure of modern society, to the point that it even looks to "science" to support its aims. Concisely, the argument: I CHOOSE to be who I am vs. who I am is chosen FOR me. I can respect, even if I don't support or agree with, a radical individualism that rejects society utterly. That is, at least, intellectually honest. But when a movement transforms itself into something that demands acceptance from mainstream society, even to the point of claiming a form of DETERMINISM, I draw the line. That is dishonest.
Post a Comment