As someone who has studied politics and has followed politics for over 20 years, I can tell you that every time the presidential election comes along, an influx of people always barge their way into the conversation and then become upset whenever they are actually challenged. It's like being at a party and you're talking to a small group of people for a few hours and someone comes along, they hear a few lines, and then they proceed to lecture the group on all of what they think they know. Everyone tries to be polite, some may even try to correct this newcomer but, in the end, it never seems to smooth out. When it comes to politics, it's even worse because too many are led by emotions and not facts.
In modern times, the internet has made it extremely easier for these "newbies" to get involved and in some cases, these people find their own soap box to stand on. Their audiences are equally unaware of what is going on and it just seems to be a case of the blind leading the blind.
One problem I always run across is the anger that people have when you paint with broad brush strokes or label using stereotypes. To the newcomer, these very common ways of having a discussion are considered rude or "wrong" and should be somehow avoided, not realizing they themselves often engage in the very same tactic. The point is, when discussing politics, in confined amounts of time, we cannot use Pointillism. We must grab that very broad brush and get to painting. The broad brush is akin to using an average or mean in mathematics. Those of us who regularly engage in political discussion understand that we are not talking about "all" people in a certain category. Of course, we mean "not all" and quite frankly, I'm a bit tired of having to explain this constantly but, if it's not done, you end up with lunatics resorting to calling you a racist or some other bizarre ad hom.
Most all people who involve themselves in American politics fall somewhere in the middle - maybe a little left or right but, generally certain views on issues will fall to the right or left side. This is just how politics works. There's no reason to take offense to this. Of course, you can be on the left and be a person who is against abortion. We all understand this but, generally speaking, when discussing pro-life, we are talking about an issue supported by the right. Generalizations are what moves the conversation forward. When someone has to continually disrupt and demand everyone talk about the anomalies, the conversation is stalled and tension begins to fill the air. One side is trying to discuss something in a way that has always been previously accepted, while another side is demanding the rules be changed because they are "offended" and do not truly understand the general rules.
It's not a matter of a logical fallacy when the general understanding has already been established. So when you turn on the news and you see a political pundit talking in very broad definitions, understand that there is a REASON they do this. They are merely trying to get out as much information as they can and discuss things in a way that allows the listener or viewer to develop a full picture quickly without being bogged down by too much detail. This isn't to say details should be ignored, it's to say that when it comes to general political discussions, we must be focused on the averages and not the deviations.
While I enjoy watching new people become more interested in politics, since this is a very important area that affects everyone who lives in this world, I also would like to encourage people to learn a little bit more about how discussions take place and how to navigate through them without so much emotion and without becoming so offended.
If there is an issue you are interested in learning more about, take the time to really research that topic from all of the different angles you can find. Learn about the history of that issue as well as why it's important to either side. Keep in mind that everyone is very different and we all should know that not every person on the right is the same, just like not every person on the left is the same. These are concepts that are already implied and should not need to be explained.
Political discussion should be fun and passionate but, things really turn sour when some people just don't quite understand the rules. This election has really brought out some disturbing behavior that I have never witnessed in prior elections. I really do believe part of the problem stems from people, 1) not knowing the very basics of political discourse, and 2) not having an understanding of historical reference concerning the issues.
To summarize everything:
1) The general views of issues tend to fall on the right or left.
2) We should all understand that most individuals believe in a combination of views. Some are on the left, some on the right.
3) Stereotypes or generalities are used in politics, just like means or averages are used in math and science for the purposes of moving along a conversation and not used in a way to demean others.
4) Politics is a science and while emotion and passion can come into play, they should be generally avoided when you analyze an issue.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
2013-11-08
Jon Stewart and Charles Krauthammer
I was browsing YouTube and came across this video. I'm glad I did. As always, Krauthammer is brilliant. In this debate/discussion/interview with Jon Stewart he does a brilliant job at explaining the Obama heath care law and why so many conservatives oppose it.
Jon is also brilliant and I appreciate how he expresses himself and his ideas as well. I don't often agree with Stewart but I do think he's hilarious and he really does seem to think about what he believes, rather than just spouting off the typical liberal rhetoric that we are so used to hearing. Both of them really make an effort to be respectful of one another and demonstrate how most of us would like our politicians to discuss issues.
Enjoy!
Jon is also brilliant and I appreciate how he expresses himself and his ideas as well. I don't often agree with Stewart but I do think he's hilarious and he really does seem to think about what he believes, rather than just spouting off the typical liberal rhetoric that we are so used to hearing. Both of them really make an effort to be respectful of one another and demonstrate how most of us would like our politicians to discuss issues.
Enjoy!
2013-10-12
American Wisdom
America is currently witnessing great polarity within our culture. There are those that would like to change many basic American principles and replace them with old ideas that reflect those of the European world -- the world our founding fathers left in hopes for a new life. Then there are those of us who desire to move towards preserving the value of individual freedom and responsibility. Of course we also have people who all over the spectrum. There are those who do not subscribe to any ideology, traditional or otherwise, so their opinions often seem to contradict one another. There seem to be quite a number of citizens who do not involve themselves at all in politics viewing it as worthless because they have been encouraged to be jaded or felt to believe their voice does not matter. Still, the idea of evolving into something else remains strong in today's current political climate.
My personal view is one that believes in American wisdom. The belief that all who desire more can receive more and this can best be gained through teaching personal responsibility and valuing individual, G-d given rights.
My criticism of the current American left comes into play when I see and hear the words of those who have expressed American tradition as being evil, racist, and blasting capitalism as a purely corrupt system. These are people who subscribe to the zero-sum principle which is to hold the idea that if one person gains, another person must be losing. They have somehow convinced themselves that there are only so many resources, that everything is limited or constricted in some way and this includes individual's abilities and talents. The far left loves to remind us of our country's poverty, racism, crimes that involve guns, intolerance to homosexuality and other sexual taboo behavior, "imperialism," evil capitalism, war, corrupt police, and of course our lack of "free" healthcare.
To be fair, these issues do exist but does it never occur to the modern day far left that these things have always existed in some way, shape, or form? Does it not occur to them that countries around the world that hold a variety of different types of government/beliefs/ideologies also experience these same woes, most being even worse when compared to ours?
The fact is, we must deal in reality when it comes to understanding the nature of why these problems occur in the first place. By spending our time constantly focusing on what is wrong, we lose sight of what is right in our world; we divide ourselves. If you listen to the left long enough, you will come away thinking in false dichotomies. To them we have the haves and have nots; minorities vs. whites, heterosexual vs. LGBT's, intelligent vs. stupid, capitalism vs. socialism, and the list goes on and on. They draw attention to differences and problems and wonder why polarity increases along with the problems. The far-right does this as well but the difference is that the far-right has very few outlets to express their views, so much of their message is widely ignored.
Individuals are powerful. The importance of protecting individuals is vital for a culture that wants to grow as a whole. The left is focused on the "common good" so much so that they ignore or underestimate the power of the individual. They mock conservatives who believe that the poor can overcome their circumstances because they believe that the examples of those who have raised themselves to higher statuses are anecdotal and are based on luck. They do not posses the insight and wisdom that dictates hard work and gratitude can help people increase their life and the lives of those around them. They have such a disbelief in this principle that they actually tell the poor they will remain poor no matter what they do. The more moderate will state that the poor can only do well if only the liberal policies can be implemented. Those who are ill can only get the help they need if their precious health care bill gets passed. Yes, if only the evil Republicans would go away your grandmother could live forever and collect Social Security in order to bake you cookies.
Listen to Michael Moore as he tells Wolf Blitzer that there is only room for so many people at the top. This is a far-left wing ideologue who is just like so many in this country who has plenty of his own money from working hard but he's here to tell the rest of America that there is only so much wealth to go around. Notice how he is promoting the idea of limitation, this is exactly what the zero-sum argument is. There is only one pie and it can only be cut up into a certain amount of pieces. Also notice how he likes to separate the top "one percent" from the rest of us. This is very typical hyperbole from the far left because they refuse to understand our connection with each other. He speaks of the one percent as being separate from us rather than being one of us.
The fact is liberals either do not know or do not want you to know, it does not matter what system a person is living in, those who want to become successful and develop themselves into characters who desire more for themselves can and will achieve. You can be who you want in any system; the world will open up opportunities for you. If you are poor in a capitalist system, you will remain poor in a socialist system as well only you will also be much more likely to lose many individual rights; this indeed holds true under communist regimes where poor individuals have almost no rights.
When you have a culture and government that promotes the importance of general moral principles and rewards morality, you can then increase the amount of moral individuals. Moral individuals who do well and succeed will operate their businesses in moral ways offering valuable jobs, goods, and services. Using this principle there is ultimately no reason for businesses to actually "compete" with one another because when individuals are working for the good and using moral principles, they will be responding to the needs of the whole.
Liberals actively engage in destroying taboos and promoting immorality. They support the efforts of Hollywood that increase exposure to sexuality of all kind, demonetization of religion or tradition, the promotion of breaking down the normal family unit by belittling the importance of fathers, and even slander the free market by labeling it "legalized greed," just as Michael Moore stated in the video clip above. After they twist and turn definitions and bring messages of moral relativity to the population, they then become shocked when things go bad, like businesses not paying taxes or offering better pay and benefits.
Honestly, how can you expect businesses to be honorable and make good decisions if you are promoting individuals to be immoral or have no real concept of right and wrong? How can anyone possibly expect government officials to behave in a certain way if our culture is currently determined to promote values that are in exact opposition of how you expect them to behave?
Humans are complex but they are not complicated. Regardless of race, sex, or lifestyle we all desire to grow and become more but if we live among many individuals who act immorally and who promote pessimistic ideas it does indeed become more difficult to overcome bad circumstances. Even if a person is able to do so they will treat others poorly because they have never been shown a more superior way to behave. True success cannot be found among those that compete and use others for the sole purpose of clawing their way to the top. These people abuse their power by abusing others, spreading even more content and anxiety.
If however, more individuals do act morally we will have more examples for people to follow and emulate. Having these examples coupled with faith and gratitude can actually help people overcome their personal challenges, rise above, and become great examples themselves.
We have to stop pitying people and look at them more as those who have yet to advance themselves. We must believe in our fellow man the way we believe in our source, our G-d, our own spirit. The best way to connect with our source and receive those blessings come from having self-interest and promoting self-interest. Only by gaining more in life can we possibly help ourselves, our families, and others. There is absolutely nothing wrong or greedy about wanting to obtain wealth and success unless you are someone who enjoys promoting the failure of others and yourself. The only person we can control is ourselves, not others. If we cannot help ourselves, we are of no value to anyone. We cannot merely preach to others about what they should do; we must be an example for them.
What example do modern day liberals give us? Their promotion of immorality and/or moral relativism has brought an increase in many problems we face. They use scare tactics to convince people they have a "solution" for these problems yet they have to know that there will never be a cure. It is ultimately up to individuals to make the first move. Their only solutions come with government and the payment for these solutions is individual liberty -- personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is how people learn and move to overcome their personal obstacles.
Of course the government is influential in people's lives and of course the government can help in many areas of life, but using the government's influence as a way of promising people things that can really only be solved by the individuals themselves is abusive. This means that while government is necessary, it does not mean that government should be intrusive to an extent that takes away a person's identity and/or choices. Doing so removes personal responsibility and gives people an excuse to refrain from advancing as individuals; people can blame their government, their circumstances, others, or we take away their entire motivation.
Again, I say that those who are at the top now will still be at the top in a socialized system but under socialism or communism we know its very construct promotes a disbelief in individuals being able to succeed which only breeds more complacency. Focusing on issues that concern the modern left only increases the existence of those issues.
When individuals work to become moral, they learn to develop an understanding of being their brother's keeper. This means being honest with others and shaming those who do wrong rather than being politically correct and avoid the criticism of bad behaviors. We have slowly become people who are afraid to criticize anything immoral or unnatural for fear of being labeled and shunned. When we draw attention to racism against minorities, we encourage minorities to play the role of victim. When we call attention to the poor, we discourage people to become wealthy. When we say money is limited only to those few privileged in the world, we indeed create limitations on others. We indeed create our reality but not just for ourselves but for those around us who are weaker. This is why it is so important to understand the importance of being accountable to our brothers and sisters -- we are all brothers and sisters and if we love each other, we are honest with one another and we are good examples for them. Pitying them is telling them we do not believe in them. We are telling them they cannot succeed; they cannot overcome.
Remember that mathematics teaches us the term infinity, which defines numbers increasing or decreasing in value with no end. There are no limitations, in any direction. Anyone who tells you that there is only so much of anything in this world is a liar and an insecure person who is desperate and afraid of you and even their own shadow.
I'm not advocating our country get rid of all safety nets for those in need or that we need to do away with food stamps or help with daycare or any of that nonsense that many on the left claim the right wants. It's absurd and quite frankly a nasty attack. What I do ask is that we promote morality and that we offer pragmatic solutions coupled with help that involves teaching others how to see this world as expanding, advancing, and that we all have a place in this world, connected with one another as human beings, not divided.
As individuals we are powerful and having self-interest and a burning desire to succeed is not just important to the individual but it's important to the whole. The more we can encourage people to advance themselves, the more we advance as a whole. This is American wisdom and this is what we should work to preserve, not dismantle.
My personal view is one that believes in American wisdom. The belief that all who desire more can receive more and this can best be gained through teaching personal responsibility and valuing individual, G-d given rights.
My criticism of the current American left comes into play when I see and hear the words of those who have expressed American tradition as being evil, racist, and blasting capitalism as a purely corrupt system. These are people who subscribe to the zero-sum principle which is to hold the idea that if one person gains, another person must be losing. They have somehow convinced themselves that there are only so many resources, that everything is limited or constricted in some way and this includes individual's abilities and talents. The far left loves to remind us of our country's poverty, racism, crimes that involve guns, intolerance to homosexuality and other sexual taboo behavior, "imperialism," evil capitalism, war, corrupt police, and of course our lack of "free" healthcare.
To be fair, these issues do exist but does it never occur to the modern day far left that these things have always existed in some way, shape, or form? Does it not occur to them that countries around the world that hold a variety of different types of government/beliefs/ideologies also experience these same woes, most being even worse when compared to ours?
The fact is, we must deal in reality when it comes to understanding the nature of why these problems occur in the first place. By spending our time constantly focusing on what is wrong, we lose sight of what is right in our world; we divide ourselves. If you listen to the left long enough, you will come away thinking in false dichotomies. To them we have the haves and have nots; minorities vs. whites, heterosexual vs. LGBT's, intelligent vs. stupid, capitalism vs. socialism, and the list goes on and on. They draw attention to differences and problems and wonder why polarity increases along with the problems. The far-right does this as well but the difference is that the far-right has very few outlets to express their views, so much of their message is widely ignored.
Individuals are powerful. The importance of protecting individuals is vital for a culture that wants to grow as a whole. The left is focused on the "common good" so much so that they ignore or underestimate the power of the individual. They mock conservatives who believe that the poor can overcome their circumstances because they believe that the examples of those who have raised themselves to higher statuses are anecdotal and are based on luck. They do not posses the insight and wisdom that dictates hard work and gratitude can help people increase their life and the lives of those around them. They have such a disbelief in this principle that they actually tell the poor they will remain poor no matter what they do. The more moderate will state that the poor can only do well if only the liberal policies can be implemented. Those who are ill can only get the help they need if their precious health care bill gets passed. Yes, if only the evil Republicans would go away your grandmother could live forever and collect Social Security in order to bake you cookies.
Listen to Michael Moore as he tells Wolf Blitzer that there is only room for so many people at the top. This is a far-left wing ideologue who is just like so many in this country who has plenty of his own money from working hard but he's here to tell the rest of America that there is only so much wealth to go around. Notice how he is promoting the idea of limitation, this is exactly what the zero-sum argument is. There is only one pie and it can only be cut up into a certain amount of pieces. Also notice how he likes to separate the top "one percent" from the rest of us. This is very typical hyperbole from the far left because they refuse to understand our connection with each other. He speaks of the one percent as being separate from us rather than being one of us.
The fact is liberals either do not know or do not want you to know, it does not matter what system a person is living in, those who want to become successful and develop themselves into characters who desire more for themselves can and will achieve. You can be who you want in any system; the world will open up opportunities for you. If you are poor in a capitalist system, you will remain poor in a socialist system as well only you will also be much more likely to lose many individual rights; this indeed holds true under communist regimes where poor individuals have almost no rights.
When you have a culture and government that promotes the importance of general moral principles and rewards morality, you can then increase the amount of moral individuals. Moral individuals who do well and succeed will operate their businesses in moral ways offering valuable jobs, goods, and services. Using this principle there is ultimately no reason for businesses to actually "compete" with one another because when individuals are working for the good and using moral principles, they will be responding to the needs of the whole.
Liberals actively engage in destroying taboos and promoting immorality. They support the efforts of Hollywood that increase exposure to sexuality of all kind, demonetization of religion or tradition, the promotion of breaking down the normal family unit by belittling the importance of fathers, and even slander the free market by labeling it "legalized greed," just as Michael Moore stated in the video clip above. After they twist and turn definitions and bring messages of moral relativity to the population, they then become shocked when things go bad, like businesses not paying taxes or offering better pay and benefits.
Honestly, how can you expect businesses to be honorable and make good decisions if you are promoting individuals to be immoral or have no real concept of right and wrong? How can anyone possibly expect government officials to behave in a certain way if our culture is currently determined to promote values that are in exact opposition of how you expect them to behave?
Humans are complex but they are not complicated. Regardless of race, sex, or lifestyle we all desire to grow and become more but if we live among many individuals who act immorally and who promote pessimistic ideas it does indeed become more difficult to overcome bad circumstances. Even if a person is able to do so they will treat others poorly because they have never been shown a more superior way to behave. True success cannot be found among those that compete and use others for the sole purpose of clawing their way to the top. These people abuse their power by abusing others, spreading even more content and anxiety.
If however, more individuals do act morally we will have more examples for people to follow and emulate. Having these examples coupled with faith and gratitude can actually help people overcome their personal challenges, rise above, and become great examples themselves.
We have to stop pitying people and look at them more as those who have yet to advance themselves. We must believe in our fellow man the way we believe in our source, our G-d, our own spirit. The best way to connect with our source and receive those blessings come from having self-interest and promoting self-interest. Only by gaining more in life can we possibly help ourselves, our families, and others. There is absolutely nothing wrong or greedy about wanting to obtain wealth and success unless you are someone who enjoys promoting the failure of others and yourself. The only person we can control is ourselves, not others. If we cannot help ourselves, we are of no value to anyone. We cannot merely preach to others about what they should do; we must be an example for them.
What example do modern day liberals give us? Their promotion of immorality and/or moral relativism has brought an increase in many problems we face. They use scare tactics to convince people they have a "solution" for these problems yet they have to know that there will never be a cure. It is ultimately up to individuals to make the first move. Their only solutions come with government and the payment for these solutions is individual liberty -- personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is how people learn and move to overcome their personal obstacles.
Of course the government is influential in people's lives and of course the government can help in many areas of life, but using the government's influence as a way of promising people things that can really only be solved by the individuals themselves is abusive. This means that while government is necessary, it does not mean that government should be intrusive to an extent that takes away a person's identity and/or choices. Doing so removes personal responsibility and gives people an excuse to refrain from advancing as individuals; people can blame their government, their circumstances, others, or we take away their entire motivation.
Again, I say that those who are at the top now will still be at the top in a socialized system but under socialism or communism we know its very construct promotes a disbelief in individuals being able to succeed which only breeds more complacency. Focusing on issues that concern the modern left only increases the existence of those issues.
When individuals work to become moral, they learn to develop an understanding of being their brother's keeper. This means being honest with others and shaming those who do wrong rather than being politically correct and avoid the criticism of bad behaviors. We have slowly become people who are afraid to criticize anything immoral or unnatural for fear of being labeled and shunned. When we draw attention to racism against minorities, we encourage minorities to play the role of victim. When we call attention to the poor, we discourage people to become wealthy. When we say money is limited only to those few privileged in the world, we indeed create limitations on others. We indeed create our reality but not just for ourselves but for those around us who are weaker. This is why it is so important to understand the importance of being accountable to our brothers and sisters -- we are all brothers and sisters and if we love each other, we are honest with one another and we are good examples for them. Pitying them is telling them we do not believe in them. We are telling them they cannot succeed; they cannot overcome.
Remember that mathematics teaches us the term infinity, which defines numbers increasing or decreasing in value with no end. There are no limitations, in any direction. Anyone who tells you that there is only so much of anything in this world is a liar and an insecure person who is desperate and afraid of you and even their own shadow.
I'm not advocating our country get rid of all safety nets for those in need or that we need to do away with food stamps or help with daycare or any of that nonsense that many on the left claim the right wants. It's absurd and quite frankly a nasty attack. What I do ask is that we promote morality and that we offer pragmatic solutions coupled with help that involves teaching others how to see this world as expanding, advancing, and that we all have a place in this world, connected with one another as human beings, not divided.
As individuals we are powerful and having self-interest and a burning desire to succeed is not just important to the individual but it's important to the whole. The more we can encourage people to advance themselves, the more we advance as a whole. This is American wisdom and this is what we should work to preserve, not dismantle.
2013-02-08
Dr. Benjamin Carson Speech
I ran across this speech on Facebook. This occurred at the National Prayer Breakfast, Feb 7th, 2013.
Dr. Carson makes some amazing points about the current state of our country and offers some insight into what deep problems our country currently faces. Using his role model's (Jesus') words and wisdom he further sheds light onto the simplicity of the Lord's teachings and how they can help us find better solutions.
Education and spiritual growth are the reason for our country's past successes and we should continue to embrace what has lifted us before. He rightly points out how sensitive so many of us have become and how difficult it is for anyone to speak without offending others. True tolerance is about respecting other people's views that might not necessarily agree with our own.
What is most striking about Dr. Carson's speech is his continuing mention of working together, and not allowing issues to divide us. He acknowledges the importance of both American political parties but emphasizes their equality.
Dr. Carson's speech was refreshing and logical, as well as spiritually moving. Obama sat fairly still during the speech and at some points he actually seemed to look offended or maybe that's just what I saw.
I think most people are expecting this to go viral, as it should. It really is a must see and worth the time to listen and watch.
Benjamin Solomon "Ben" Carson, Sr. is an American neurosurgeon and the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States, by President George W.
Dr. Carson makes some amazing points about the current state of our country and offers some insight into what deep problems our country currently faces. Using his role model's (Jesus') words and wisdom he further sheds light onto the simplicity of the Lord's teachings and how they can help us find better solutions.
Education and spiritual growth are the reason for our country's past successes and we should continue to embrace what has lifted us before. He rightly points out how sensitive so many of us have become and how difficult it is for anyone to speak without offending others. True tolerance is about respecting other people's views that might not necessarily agree with our own.
What is most striking about Dr. Carson's speech is his continuing mention of working together, and not allowing issues to divide us. He acknowledges the importance of both American political parties but emphasizes their equality.
Dr. Carson's speech was refreshing and logical, as well as spiritually moving. Obama sat fairly still during the speech and at some points he actually seemed to look offended or maybe that's just what I saw.
I think most people are expecting this to go viral, as it should. It really is a must see and worth the time to listen and watch.
Benjamin Solomon "Ben" Carson, Sr. is an American neurosurgeon and the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States, by President George W.
2012-11-26
The American Left -- Analyzing Tolerance
The American left has been very active over the past 20 years (at least in my lifetime of following politics), in demonstrating their beliefs of tolerance and forgiveness. It is without question that liberals are extremely forgiving people, especially toward those who consider themselves democrats and liberals.
Reading and watching the news has allowed me to make some general observations of the left and their rules for tolerance. In order to make sense of the liberal mindset, it's important to read the words they chose to convey their beliefs.
Some examples I have found repeatedly over the internet include:
"You don't support gay marriage because you're a homophobe! You obviously just hate gays."
"You judge people so you are no Christian."
"You don't want more taxes because you hate the poor and you're greedy."
"If you don't support abortion, you are simply showing everyone that you hate women."
"If you weren't evil, you'd be liberal."
Of course, most of you know that this is a very small sampling of statements that are commonly uttered on liberal blogs and social networking sites. In some cases the statements are much worse but I will assume that those are made by people representing more of a fringe rather than the norm. Now, let's ask ourselves, what is the first thing we see when we look at these types of statements?
1) False dichotomies. A false dichotomy is described as a statement that is meant to lead a person into believing there are only two options of choice and reasoning. Let's use the first example, "You don't support gay marriage because you're a homophobe! You obviously just hate gays." If you don't support A, you are B. In their minds, it is simply not possible for someone to be C, D, E, etc., because they are telling us they simply haven't thought passed the one conclusion.
2) No sense of reasoning. Since they have not allowed themselves to be exposed to other explanations in a positive way, they simply cannot make sense when someone makes an attempt to define another reason for their beliefs. To many it is unacceptable to say that you believe homosexuality to be immoral or that you object to the government supporting a lifestyle that is destructive on both a physical and spiritual level. In fact, any other reason that you try to present to them is dismissed because they now view you as a bigot. They are unable to find reasoning in your views because they lack the curiosity to engage in understanding.
3) Judging is reserved for the left. "You judge people so you are no Christian." Now of course the obvious problem with this statement is that anyone who has read the Bible knows full well that we are called on to judge behavior as being moral or immoral. Furthermore when a person refuses to gain insight into positive and negative judgments they are subject to continue making poor judgments that can hurt themselves and others around them. While condemning people for judging, they then turn around and make a judgement concerning a person's relationship with their G-d in the very same statement. So the issue here is not judging because the modern left has no problem doing this; it is merely that they have a disdain for conservatives who make judgments.
4) Irrational and ignorant of cause and correlation. "If you don't support abortion, you are simply showing everyone that you hate women." The very sentiment is irrational and not supported by any logic but it also tells us that those on the left have difficulty in understanding the cause and correlation. They are suggesting that there is a direct link to hating women and being against abortion. This is not fact based and one could easily say the exact opposite -- people who care about women are against abortion.
5) Consistently inconsistent. "If you weren't evil, you'd be liberal." Here we can see that many on the left not only disagree with conservatives but that they actually believe that our views are founded by evil people. Interestingly the left has repeatedly engaged in slandering people on the right while encouraging and enabling the same behavior, if not worse, demonstrated from their own leaders.
6) Huge egos. The modern left is a collective ego that is fueled with the many individual egos that make up the whole. We know this to be true because of the inconsistency issue I listed above. When a person is conflicted in such a way that they are unable to ascertain their selective outrage. Ultimately it is their egos that stand in the way of allowing themselves to be confronted and questioned. It's much easier for someone with a false ego to dismiss information by calling names, attacking sources, appealing to authority, and acting superior.
After all, they still decided to elect a former klan wizard into the Senate for years; they still supported Ted Kennedy who allowed a woman to drown and made active attempts at covering up the accident; they didn't blink an eye when their party tore a black man apart for being nominated to the Supreme Court; they still believe that Clinton did nothing wrong and was only impeached over a sex act; they don't even bat an eye when their former president Carter makes hateful statements about Israel, and I will discuss more later on but, the point is simple - they do not have any problems with immoral behavior; they just have problems with any behavior demonstrated from the right.
Understanding these observations might be insightful but is there a way we can use this information to better communicate with people on the left? Is there a way to get passed the childish statements and offer them a new or different perspective?
Sometimes I look at those on the left and I get frustrated that they still don't "get it." What more information do they need in order to help them understand the dangers in their beliefs? We have years of history to help us understand that when a government becomes too cozy offering its citizens cradle-to-the-grave "protection" they become corrupted and ultimately end up slaughtering millions of people. For whatever reason these facts do not deter people on the left because they have convinced themselves that "true socialism" never existed and we just "haven't done it right" before.
For a sample demonstration of how liberals try to rationalize information, click here. The article is clearly conveying how the current administration has been able to rely on the media to either suppress information or distort it in someway that protected the administration from being rightly scrutinized. If we go down to the comment section however, we can see a poster going by the name of "jharp" who actually suggests that Clinton was impeached over a sex act. Of course we can see other posters trying to explain that the Clinton scandal had nothing to do with that but rather lying under oath. He also tampered with witnesses and attempted to hide physical evidence. The liberal poster, "jharp" immediately rejects the information and moves on to suggest that Benghazi was not a cover-up, that the Obama administration had nothing to lie about, and the administration did not lie about it. If we continue reading we see people trying to explain what went wrong with Benghazi, giving facts and information about the event but, alas they are met with the same hateful rhetoric and a person determined to ignore anything that doesn't support his beliefs. Did this guy even bother to watch the hearings where testimony proves the consulate had repeatedly asked for more security weeks before the attack? Does it occur to him that 9/11 is also the anniversary of one of the most horrific days in America, yet Obama claimed to be unaware of potential problems? It couldn't be more obvious that Obama lied but, this is ignored completely.
Communicating to people who have such little understanding and depth of issues is reminiscent of trying to explain a calculus problem to someone who has never taken algebra, geometry, or trigonometry (all of which are needed). It is up to us to simplify our positions in order to ignite curiosity. This in turn may provide us the opportunity we need to further explain our position on issues without being met with the initial unwarranted hostility.
We must remember that we are not speaking with these people directly but rather trying to converse with an ego that is unreasonable. The ego is a manifestation of information absorbed by the person during the course of their lives. Ultimately the far left and others who are radical in their beliefs have consumed a great amount of negative feedback in their lives. This feedback has turned many of them into very bitter and angry people who separate themselves from others simply by feeling a certain way and those feelings turn into thoughts that are harmful to themselves as well as others.
It is possible that many liberals have found anecdotal evidence to support their ideology, such as a rich CEO acting abusively towards those he has employed. This in turn pushes them to believe that all CEO's or people who are engaged in business on an executive level are evil or harmful people. This thought alone gives them the idea that they should support the "little guy" only but, they fail to see that the CEO and the "little guy" are part of the same whole. They might see an injustice brought about through racism so they pledge support for the minority and ignore the fact that the minority is a part of the whole and not separate from the majority. This is the genesis of us/them, either/or rhetoric. It comes from a divided mind that lacks clarity in understanding how the world is connected. They seem to think that actions occur in a vacuum, that changing or fixing up one area will not harm or change other areas or policies. For instance they might support special rights for minorities but lack the ability to understand that those special privileges can and have worked against the very people they were initially trying to help.
Egos are a part of everyone's life but if we ever expect to grow and learn, we must first recognize their damage and only then can we begin to start making connections between both the individual and systems that the individual is a part of.
If we truly expect to help the "little guy" we must first recognize that the "big guys" are the ones that have the power to help the "little guy." We must understand that the success of an individual is a success for all of us. This is why it is so important for government and the private sector to have balanced approaches in our problem solving decisions.
When someone believes things like, "the rich need to pay their fair share," and, "there's no reason for this person to make so much money" they are telling us that they see the rich as people who are separate from them and not a part of them. The fallacy in this thinking should be obvious but, for those on the left it's as if they never had time to think about the absurdity of their claim. Without encouraging success from all people, we limit ourselves as well as others. In countries where "fairness" policies have been implemented we can clearly see that there always remained a wealthy class but much fewer in number. This in turn meant that less people are able to invest in businesses, ultimately a smaller number of people determining which services and products that can be purchased. Since there are less services and products to chose from, prices can continue to rise, less money is placed into the hands of individuals creating greater strain on those who are on the bottom, which will in turn call for more government money and help from politicians, greater restrictions are placed upon businesses making it almost impossible to hire or fire people, which drives down the quantity and quality of production. Greater resentment is created between the now two classes (uber-rich and extremely poor), that are created through this philosophy.
It is no wonder that the ego creates a wall between a person's true self and the reality they have chosen to live in -- a prison inside their mind. Masters and victims are what they chose to focus on so creating more victims only further helps to fuel this destructive mentality.
All of this leads us back to finding a better way to communicate with people who are in arrested states of development, both mentally and spiritually. It is not only important for us to analyze the left and their so-called tolerance, we must help them analyze their own tolerance. If we can try to break through the ego and get them to question themselves, it might prove to be successful. One thing we must accept is that our words and reasoning will almost never make any instant changes. The reality is the process of understanding truth must come from within and that change could take years and years to occur so, the best we can hope for is planting some seeds where we can.
I believe we must focus on the root of why conservatives believe what we believe and that is love. Love is the force that drives us because it is love that helps us recognize the importance of the individual and supporting a moral culture. Love is what allows us to understand truth and drives us to understand that not all tolerance is love. Some tolerance is actually harmful and we know this as fact. This is why we need not worry about defending anything. The truth can, will, and must stand on its own. If we can approach our conversations with love in our hearts, we can see through the ego, ignore the insults, and stay firm while remaining honest.
I've given up trying to beat a dead horse with someone since it is just a fact that my words will take a long time to penetrate through the inflated and false egos but, maybe somewhere down the line, maybe by some miracle my words will be remembered for a later time in life.
How about you? Have you had any success breaking through with someone? What did you do or not do that was different from before? How do you see the left's selective tolerance? Tell me your stories; I'd love to hear from you.
Reading and watching the news has allowed me to make some general observations of the left and their rules for tolerance. In order to make sense of the liberal mindset, it's important to read the words they chose to convey their beliefs.
Some examples I have found repeatedly over the internet include:
"You don't support gay marriage because you're a homophobe! You obviously just hate gays."
"You judge people so you are no Christian."
"You don't want more taxes because you hate the poor and you're greedy."
"If you don't support abortion, you are simply showing everyone that you hate women."
"If you weren't evil, you'd be liberal."
Of course, most of you know that this is a very small sampling of statements that are commonly uttered on liberal blogs and social networking sites. In some cases the statements are much worse but I will assume that those are made by people representing more of a fringe rather than the norm. Now, let's ask ourselves, what is the first thing we see when we look at these types of statements?
1) False dichotomies. A false dichotomy is described as a statement that is meant to lead a person into believing there are only two options of choice and reasoning. Let's use the first example, "You don't support gay marriage because you're a homophobe! You obviously just hate gays." If you don't support A, you are B. In their minds, it is simply not possible for someone to be C, D, E, etc., because they are telling us they simply haven't thought passed the one conclusion.
2) No sense of reasoning. Since they have not allowed themselves to be exposed to other explanations in a positive way, they simply cannot make sense when someone makes an attempt to define another reason for their beliefs. To many it is unacceptable to say that you believe homosexuality to be immoral or that you object to the government supporting a lifestyle that is destructive on both a physical and spiritual level. In fact, any other reason that you try to present to them is dismissed because they now view you as a bigot. They are unable to find reasoning in your views because they lack the curiosity to engage in understanding.
3) Judging is reserved for the left. "You judge people so you are no Christian." Now of course the obvious problem with this statement is that anyone who has read the Bible knows full well that we are called on to judge behavior as being moral or immoral. Furthermore when a person refuses to gain insight into positive and negative judgments they are subject to continue making poor judgments that can hurt themselves and others around them. While condemning people for judging, they then turn around and make a judgement concerning a person's relationship with their G-d in the very same statement. So the issue here is not judging because the modern left has no problem doing this; it is merely that they have a disdain for conservatives who make judgments.
4) Irrational and ignorant of cause and correlation. "If you don't support abortion, you are simply showing everyone that you hate women." The very sentiment is irrational and not supported by any logic but it also tells us that those on the left have difficulty in understanding the cause and correlation. They are suggesting that there is a direct link to hating women and being against abortion. This is not fact based and one could easily say the exact opposite -- people who care about women are against abortion.
5) Consistently inconsistent. "If you weren't evil, you'd be liberal." Here we can see that many on the left not only disagree with conservatives but that they actually believe that our views are founded by evil people. Interestingly the left has repeatedly engaged in slandering people on the right while encouraging and enabling the same behavior, if not worse, demonstrated from their own leaders.
6) Huge egos. The modern left is a collective ego that is fueled with the many individual egos that make up the whole. We know this to be true because of the inconsistency issue I listed above. When a person is conflicted in such a way that they are unable to ascertain their selective outrage. Ultimately it is their egos that stand in the way of allowing themselves to be confronted and questioned. It's much easier for someone with a false ego to dismiss information by calling names, attacking sources, appealing to authority, and acting superior.
After all, they still decided to elect a former klan wizard into the Senate for years; they still supported Ted Kennedy who allowed a woman to drown and made active attempts at covering up the accident; they didn't blink an eye when their party tore a black man apart for being nominated to the Supreme Court; they still believe that Clinton did nothing wrong and was only impeached over a sex act; they don't even bat an eye when their former president Carter makes hateful statements about Israel, and I will discuss more later on but, the point is simple - they do not have any problems with immoral behavior; they just have problems with any behavior demonstrated from the right.
Understanding these observations might be insightful but is there a way we can use this information to better communicate with people on the left? Is there a way to get passed the childish statements and offer them a new or different perspective?
Sometimes I look at those on the left and I get frustrated that they still don't "get it." What more information do they need in order to help them understand the dangers in their beliefs? We have years of history to help us understand that when a government becomes too cozy offering its citizens cradle-to-the-grave "protection" they become corrupted and ultimately end up slaughtering millions of people. For whatever reason these facts do not deter people on the left because they have convinced themselves that "true socialism" never existed and we just "haven't done it right" before.
For a sample demonstration of how liberals try to rationalize information, click here. The article is clearly conveying how the current administration has been able to rely on the media to either suppress information or distort it in someway that protected the administration from being rightly scrutinized. If we go down to the comment section however, we can see a poster going by the name of "jharp" who actually suggests that Clinton was impeached over a sex act. Of course we can see other posters trying to explain that the Clinton scandal had nothing to do with that but rather lying under oath. He also tampered with witnesses and attempted to hide physical evidence. The liberal poster, "jharp" immediately rejects the information and moves on to suggest that Benghazi was not a cover-up, that the Obama administration had nothing to lie about, and the administration did not lie about it. If we continue reading we see people trying to explain what went wrong with Benghazi, giving facts and information about the event but, alas they are met with the same hateful rhetoric and a person determined to ignore anything that doesn't support his beliefs. Did this guy even bother to watch the hearings where testimony proves the consulate had repeatedly asked for more security weeks before the attack? Does it occur to him that 9/11 is also the anniversary of one of the most horrific days in America, yet Obama claimed to be unaware of potential problems? It couldn't be more obvious that Obama lied but, this is ignored completely.
Communicating to people who have such little understanding and depth of issues is reminiscent of trying to explain a calculus problem to someone who has never taken algebra, geometry, or trigonometry (all of which are needed). It is up to us to simplify our positions in order to ignite curiosity. This in turn may provide us the opportunity we need to further explain our position on issues without being met with the initial unwarranted hostility.
We must remember that we are not speaking with these people directly but rather trying to converse with an ego that is unreasonable. The ego is a manifestation of information absorbed by the person during the course of their lives. Ultimately the far left and others who are radical in their beliefs have consumed a great amount of negative feedback in their lives. This feedback has turned many of them into very bitter and angry people who separate themselves from others simply by feeling a certain way and those feelings turn into thoughts that are harmful to themselves as well as others.
It is possible that many liberals have found anecdotal evidence to support their ideology, such as a rich CEO acting abusively towards those he has employed. This in turn pushes them to believe that all CEO's or people who are engaged in business on an executive level are evil or harmful people. This thought alone gives them the idea that they should support the "little guy" only but, they fail to see that the CEO and the "little guy" are part of the same whole. They might see an injustice brought about through racism so they pledge support for the minority and ignore the fact that the minority is a part of the whole and not separate from the majority. This is the genesis of us/them, either/or rhetoric. It comes from a divided mind that lacks clarity in understanding how the world is connected. They seem to think that actions occur in a vacuum, that changing or fixing up one area will not harm or change other areas or policies. For instance they might support special rights for minorities but lack the ability to understand that those special privileges can and have worked against the very people they were initially trying to help.
Egos are a part of everyone's life but if we ever expect to grow and learn, we must first recognize their damage and only then can we begin to start making connections between both the individual and systems that the individual is a part of.
If we truly expect to help the "little guy" we must first recognize that the "big guys" are the ones that have the power to help the "little guy." We must understand that the success of an individual is a success for all of us. This is why it is so important for government and the private sector to have balanced approaches in our problem solving decisions.
When someone believes things like, "the rich need to pay their fair share," and, "there's no reason for this person to make so much money" they are telling us that they see the rich as people who are separate from them and not a part of them. The fallacy in this thinking should be obvious but, for those on the left it's as if they never had time to think about the absurdity of their claim. Without encouraging success from all people, we limit ourselves as well as others. In countries where "fairness" policies have been implemented we can clearly see that there always remained a wealthy class but much fewer in number. This in turn meant that less people are able to invest in businesses, ultimately a smaller number of people determining which services and products that can be purchased. Since there are less services and products to chose from, prices can continue to rise, less money is placed into the hands of individuals creating greater strain on those who are on the bottom, which will in turn call for more government money and help from politicians, greater restrictions are placed upon businesses making it almost impossible to hire or fire people, which drives down the quantity and quality of production. Greater resentment is created between the now two classes (uber-rich and extremely poor), that are created through this philosophy.
It is no wonder that the ego creates a wall between a person's true self and the reality they have chosen to live in -- a prison inside their mind. Masters and victims are what they chose to focus on so creating more victims only further helps to fuel this destructive mentality.
All of this leads us back to finding a better way to communicate with people who are in arrested states of development, both mentally and spiritually. It is not only important for us to analyze the left and their so-called tolerance, we must help them analyze their own tolerance. If we can try to break through the ego and get them to question themselves, it might prove to be successful. One thing we must accept is that our words and reasoning will almost never make any instant changes. The reality is the process of understanding truth must come from within and that change could take years and years to occur so, the best we can hope for is planting some seeds where we can.
I believe we must focus on the root of why conservatives believe what we believe and that is love. Love is the force that drives us because it is love that helps us recognize the importance of the individual and supporting a moral culture. Love is what allows us to understand truth and drives us to understand that not all tolerance is love. Some tolerance is actually harmful and we know this as fact. This is why we need not worry about defending anything. The truth can, will, and must stand on its own. If we can approach our conversations with love in our hearts, we can see through the ego, ignore the insults, and stay firm while remaining honest.
I've given up trying to beat a dead horse with someone since it is just a fact that my words will take a long time to penetrate through the inflated and false egos but, maybe somewhere down the line, maybe by some miracle my words will be remembered for a later time in life.
How about you? Have you had any success breaking through with someone? What did you do or not do that was different from before? How do you see the left's selective tolerance? Tell me your stories; I'd love to hear from you.
2011-06-13
Sarah Palin -- Great Video
This video has been making its way around the internet. I like it so, I figured I'd post it. Enjoy.
2011-05-10
Arizona Split
A man walks past graffiti on a building reading "Smash The Border" in Phoenix
How sad that my home state has become filled with silly liberals who have no idea they are being taken over by illegal immigration.
2010-10-21
Did You Know?
I have decided to try and add a new feature to this blog called, "Did You Know?" I hope that you like it. It will be me simply picking out some fun facts about politics and law. In this section of "Did You Know?" the topic will be Ableman vs. Booth.
Please feel free to add any other information.
Ableman vs. Booth
This case came about in the year 1859. The Supreme Court had established that if there is a prisoner that was held in federal custody, a writ of habeas corpus issued by a state court would not allow the release of that prisoner. This case solidified independence of federal and state courts. No judicial process has authority that is outside of its own jurisdiction.
For more details about this case, click here, or title of post. Very interesting stuff.
Please feel free to add any other information.
Ableman vs. Booth
This case came about in the year 1859. The Supreme Court had established that if there is a prisoner that was held in federal custody, a writ of habeas corpus issued by a state court would not allow the release of that prisoner. This case solidified independence of federal and state courts. No judicial process has authority that is outside of its own jurisdiction.
For more details about this case, click here, or title of post. Very interesting stuff.
2010-06-24
Global Warming, Climate Change, and Basic Principles of Ethical Science
The following article was written by Jason Sents. Please visit his blog for more information. I have asked that he write as a guest on my blog. If you would like to be a guest on my blog, please contact me via Facebook. My account can be accessed by clicking on the badge, located on the bottom and to the right. Thank you.
Thursday June 24, 2010
Is catastrophic Global Warming happening? Is everything normal? Is it man-made? Is it naturally occurring? These are the common questions you hear moments before the "paid for" Democrat and the "shill for Big Oil" Republican start bickering worse than Bob Beckel after someone steals his jelly doughnut.
There is one very simple, fundamental scientific oversight being made in the whole discussion. That is actually a difficult sentence to find myself writing. The study of ancient climates and long-term global climate change [Paleoclimatology] is literally in it's infancy. How could such a young field of study have completely lost the basic principles of science so soon? Regardless, let's keep it super-simple and examine an important detail that consistently falls by the wayside during almost every discussion on the matter of climate change. That detail is called “measurement precision”.
Consider the mercury thermometer. Yes, the kind that has some of you old timers squealing like a young Ned Beatty in Deliverance. See those little tick marks up the side of the glass along the column of silver or red liquid? Those are called graduations. They denote the referenced and calibrated temperature to the level of the red fluid rising up the column from the bulb. Basic principles here. A heated liquid expands, and in this case rises up into the column. You read the closest graduation to the top of the liquid and note the temperature.
Modern thermometers have little electronic circuits in them that can read to calibrated measurement precision 1/10th a degree [or better]. These are called "digital thermometers". Oooooo.... Sounds fancy and complex like "computer models". If it sounds as fancy like a computer model it must be true! In fact, I've used digital thermometers to measure the temperature of groundwater 400 feet below the ground surface and they report in 1/100th of a degree C. The issue here is not one of analog versus digital thermometers. Suffice it to say that others have tested that, and continue to test it. Then they test again, and again, and again... Then they give all their gear to someone else and they test, test, test, and come up with reproducible results. That repetitive process is known as the scientific method.
Regardless of what the true answer is, it is clearly evident that a discrepancy exists. That in and of itself should raise the red flag of skepticism and critical thought. Being skeptical and thinking critically is a hallmark of great science. The real issue is at some point in the not so distant past, thermometers only had a measurement precision of 1 whole degree. Said another way, it was either 70, 71, or 72°C. There were no 71.46°Cs like some digital thermometric technologies used today.
So the next time you are having any kind of debate with an agenda-driven, ignorant political hack and they blurt out, “Well the temperature of the planet has warmed a half a degree Celsius in the last 100 years!” The first thing out of your mouth should be, “What kind of thermometers were used 100 years ago, and what kind are used today? Because unless they had the exact same measurement precision, that would be comparing apples and oranges.” You'll probably observe them begin shaking like a deranged Borg drone disconnected from the Collective Hive Mind.
The reason it is vital to never forget basic principles like these is that citizens and governmental bodies base public policy decisions on the final results. If a simple error is introduced at the beginning of the scientific process, that error will likely be carried through to the public policy stage. If the governmental bodies have an agenda, however, they will likely use the scientific method as a shield behind which they simply inject manufactured errors to change the final results which, in turn, support their public policy agenda. When all else fails, fall back to the position of basic principles. They act as an antiseptic to dangerous political agendas and error-filled science. Finally, it is for these reasons we as scientists must think critically, remain emotionally neutral, and always maintain the highest standards for scientific ethics. As Galileo Galilei wrote, 'In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.'
Jason Sents is an Environmental Geologist, Mathematical Computer Modeler, and Quaternary Paleoclimatology Researcher. He is a Member of the Association of Engineering & Environmental Geologists – Carolinas Chapter, and he is a Founding Member of Oath Keepers. Visit his new blog where he writes about geology topics and hosts a gallery of his photography at http://geolojay.com/
Thursday June 24, 2010
Is catastrophic Global Warming happening? Is everything normal? Is it man-made? Is it naturally occurring? These are the common questions you hear moments before the "paid for" Democrat and the "shill for Big Oil" Republican start bickering worse than Bob Beckel after someone steals his jelly doughnut.
There is one very simple, fundamental scientific oversight being made in the whole discussion. That is actually a difficult sentence to find myself writing. The study of ancient climates and long-term global climate change [Paleoclimatology] is literally in it's infancy. How could such a young field of study have completely lost the basic principles of science so soon? Regardless, let's keep it super-simple and examine an important detail that consistently falls by the wayside during almost every discussion on the matter of climate change. That detail is called “measurement precision”.
Consider the mercury thermometer. Yes, the kind that has some of you old timers squealing like a young Ned Beatty in Deliverance. See those little tick marks up the side of the glass along the column of silver or red liquid? Those are called graduations. They denote the referenced and calibrated temperature to the level of the red fluid rising up the column from the bulb. Basic principles here. A heated liquid expands, and in this case rises up into the column. You read the closest graduation to the top of the liquid and note the temperature.
Modern thermometers have little electronic circuits in them that can read to calibrated measurement precision 1/10th a degree [or better]. These are called "digital thermometers". Oooooo.... Sounds fancy and complex like "computer models". If it sounds as fancy like a computer model it must be true! In fact, I've used digital thermometers to measure the temperature of groundwater 400 feet below the ground surface and they report in 1/100th of a degree C. The issue here is not one of analog versus digital thermometers. Suffice it to say that others have tested that, and continue to test it. Then they test again, and again, and again... Then they give all their gear to someone else and they test, test, test, and come up with reproducible results. That repetitive process is known as the scientific method.
Regardless of what the true answer is, it is clearly evident that a discrepancy exists. That in and of itself should raise the red flag of skepticism and critical thought. Being skeptical and thinking critically is a hallmark of great science. The real issue is at some point in the not so distant past, thermometers only had a measurement precision of 1 whole degree. Said another way, it was either 70, 71, or 72°C. There were no 71.46°Cs like some digital thermometric technologies used today.
So the next time you are having any kind of debate with an agenda-driven, ignorant political hack and they blurt out, “Well the temperature of the planet has warmed a half a degree Celsius in the last 100 years!” The first thing out of your mouth should be, “What kind of thermometers were used 100 years ago, and what kind are used today? Because unless they had the exact same measurement precision, that would be comparing apples and oranges.” You'll probably observe them begin shaking like a deranged Borg drone disconnected from the Collective Hive Mind.
The reason it is vital to never forget basic principles like these is that citizens and governmental bodies base public policy decisions on the final results. If a simple error is introduced at the beginning of the scientific process, that error will likely be carried through to the public policy stage. If the governmental bodies have an agenda, however, they will likely use the scientific method as a shield behind which they simply inject manufactured errors to change the final results which, in turn, support their public policy agenda. When all else fails, fall back to the position of basic principles. They act as an antiseptic to dangerous political agendas and error-filled science. Finally, it is for these reasons we as scientists must think critically, remain emotionally neutral, and always maintain the highest standards for scientific ethics. As Galileo Galilei wrote, 'In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.'
Jason Sents is an Environmental Geologist, Mathematical Computer Modeler, and Quaternary Paleoclimatology Researcher. He is a Member of the Association of Engineering & Environmental Geologists – Carolinas Chapter, and he is a Founding Member of Oath Keepers. Visit his new blog where he writes about geology topics and hosts a gallery of his photography at http://geolojay.com/
2010-01-16
I Realized Something Today
I realized something today. I heard rumors and stereotypes, but I’m finding that experience is actually proving them right.
College (specifically the Honors College at USF) isn’t a learning experience. It’s a perpetual left-wing elitist convention. It’s a place where liberal extremists convene to talk about how much Bush resembles Hitler, how Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are heroes to the black culture, how gays and women are being stripped of their rights; where conservatives show up for business degrees.
The spectrum of political views I’ve encountered in my classes goes something like this, from left to right:
1. FAR LEFT: (aging hippie liberal douche/ belligerent idealist college student)
MOST of the professors at USF, and a major percentage of the student body. These people can be found anywhere there are trees, or picket signs (which were once trees); or where there are very proud gay people. Worship rainbows, Lady Gaga, and CNN. Largely concerned with global warming and political correctness. Also, marijuana. 15% of the student body, 55% of college professors.
2. FLAMING LIBERAL:
Somewhat less extreme than the aging hippie liberal douche, but probably more annoying. Definitely louder. White-collars, often have multiple degrees yet NO common sense. The adamant liberal makes his or her views known in every classroom on every topic. For example, the adamant liberal chemistry professor may make comments such as: “The Bush administration’s ignorance of basic chemical concepts contributes to global warming, and the eventual doom of all humanity.” The adamant liberal college student can be found handing out flyers, or offering chocolate-free chocolate to those who agree to sign a petition to save the baby seals/oceans/Big Bertha the oak tree/bunnies/cockroaches…Blames all the world’s problems on CFC’s and capitalism. About 45% of the student body, 35% of college professors
3. MODERATE LIBERAL:
The liberals who think for themselves. 15% of the student body. 10% of the professors. Tend to be pro-choice (usually with limitations), for gay marriage, genuinely concerned about global warming and pollution, generally have solid, well thought out opinions and values. Often adopt a conservative stance on some issues upon persuasion.
4. THE IN-BETWEENS:
People who consider themselves under this label either have no philosophy of life whatsoever, know nothing about politics, or are lying because neutrality (although theoretically ideal) is absolute indifference in politics. (5% of the student body)
5. MODERATE CONSERVATIVES:
Like moderate liberals, only conservative. 10% of the student body. 0.01% of the professors. Tend to be pro-life, Christian, have well thought out opinions and values. Often adopt a liberal stance on some issues, upon persuasion from moderately liberal professors.
6. CLOSE-MINDED CONSERVATIVE:
Not the pissed-off white-trash redneck conservative, but often a member of the NRA and a strong opponent of gun-control. Will protect second amendment with rifle. God-fearing, money-loving, truck-driving blue-collars. Older generation didn’t have the money to go to college, fought in a war, trusts their priests more than they trust the police. Younger generation can be found walking briskly with a purpose to the engineering building, accounting class, or the ROTC. Probably have a stapler, scissors, and an expensive calculator on them at all times (or a pocket knife). In a business suit or camouflage. Also loudly expresses their views in class. Considers terms like “African-American”, “little people”, and “mentally challenged” to be useless rhetoric. Loves Rush Limbaugh, worships Fox News and God on a regular basis. Secretly aspires to be a Nascar driver. 10% of the student body. Never met a close-minded conservative professor. Ever.
7. FAR-RIGHT (Pissed off white-trash redneck conservative)
Believe that Al Gore and the media invented global warming. Often racist or bigots, using derogatory terms to describe minorities. Willing to spend billions of dollars on an electric fence for the Mexican border. Generally stay away from college or education, for fear of liberal tainting (no gay pun intended), and from other people because city folk are hoodlums. Small-town farming alcoholics, often name their kids Bobbijo, Bobby, or simply Bob. Obsessed with traditional gender roles, homophobic. Often believes the confederacy won the war in the south. Everyone but their family is going to Hell. Actually, everyone is going to Hell.
As I have demonstrated with this arbitrary and subjective data, the distribution of political views is skewed to the right, meaning most of the student and faculty tend to be on the left of the political spectrum. The bulk of students and professors are extremely liberal. It gets more than annoying; it’s expensive to sit and listen to a professor’s personal political agenda, and that’s definitely not what I’m paying for. I’m also not paying to listen to a student interrupt a lesson with a political tangent.
To the professors: shut up and teach.
To the students: shut up and learn.
**Disclaimer: The percentages are rough...and if they don't add up to 100%, it's because I can't add. Never said I could. Also, the terms “aging hippie liberal douche” and “pissed off white-trash redneck conservative” are absolutely accredited to the team of creators of South Park.**
This post was written by, Jessica Boh
If you have an article or post you would like featured on my blog, send me a message via Facebook.
College (specifically the Honors College at USF) isn’t a learning experience. It’s a perpetual left-wing elitist convention. It’s a place where liberal extremists convene to talk about how much Bush resembles Hitler, how Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are heroes to the black culture, how gays and women are being stripped of their rights; where conservatives show up for business degrees.
The spectrum of political views I’ve encountered in my classes goes something like this, from left to right:
1. FAR LEFT: (aging hippie liberal douche/ belligerent idealist college student)
MOST of the professors at USF, and a major percentage of the student body. These people can be found anywhere there are trees, or picket signs (which were once trees); or where there are very proud gay people. Worship rainbows, Lady Gaga, and CNN. Largely concerned with global warming and political correctness. Also, marijuana. 15% of the student body, 55% of college professors.
2. FLAMING LIBERAL:
Somewhat less extreme than the aging hippie liberal douche, but probably more annoying. Definitely louder. White-collars, often have multiple degrees yet NO common sense. The adamant liberal makes his or her views known in every classroom on every topic. For example, the adamant liberal chemistry professor may make comments such as: “The Bush administration’s ignorance of basic chemical concepts contributes to global warming, and the eventual doom of all humanity.” The adamant liberal college student can be found handing out flyers, or offering chocolate-free chocolate to those who agree to sign a petition to save the baby seals/oceans/Big Bertha the oak tree/bunnies/cockroaches…Blames all the world’s problems on CFC’s and capitalism. About 45% of the student body, 35% of college professors
3. MODERATE LIBERAL:
The liberals who think for themselves. 15% of the student body. 10% of the professors. Tend to be pro-choice (usually with limitations), for gay marriage, genuinely concerned about global warming and pollution, generally have solid, well thought out opinions and values. Often adopt a conservative stance on some issues upon persuasion.
4. THE IN-BETWEENS:
People who consider themselves under this label either have no philosophy of life whatsoever, know nothing about politics, or are lying because neutrality (although theoretically ideal) is absolute indifference in politics. (5% of the student body)
5. MODERATE CONSERVATIVES:
Like moderate liberals, only conservative. 10% of the student body. 0.01% of the professors. Tend to be pro-life, Christian, have well thought out opinions and values. Often adopt a liberal stance on some issues, upon persuasion from moderately liberal professors.
6. CLOSE-MINDED CONSERVATIVE:
Not the pissed-off white-trash redneck conservative, but often a member of the NRA and a strong opponent of gun-control. Will protect second amendment with rifle. God-fearing, money-loving, truck-driving blue-collars. Older generation didn’t have the money to go to college, fought in a war, trusts their priests more than they trust the police. Younger generation can be found walking briskly with a purpose to the engineering building, accounting class, or the ROTC. Probably have a stapler, scissors, and an expensive calculator on them at all times (or a pocket knife). In a business suit or camouflage. Also loudly expresses their views in class. Considers terms like “African-American”, “little people”, and “mentally challenged” to be useless rhetoric. Loves Rush Limbaugh, worships Fox News and God on a regular basis. Secretly aspires to be a Nascar driver. 10% of the student body. Never met a close-minded conservative professor. Ever.
7. FAR-RIGHT (Pissed off white-trash redneck conservative)
Believe that Al Gore and the media invented global warming. Often racist or bigots, using derogatory terms to describe minorities. Willing to spend billions of dollars on an electric fence for the Mexican border. Generally stay away from college or education, for fear of liberal tainting (no gay pun intended), and from other people because city folk are hoodlums. Small-town farming alcoholics, often name their kids Bobbijo, Bobby, or simply Bob. Obsessed with traditional gender roles, homophobic. Often believes the confederacy won the war in the south. Everyone but their family is going to Hell. Actually, everyone is going to Hell.
As I have demonstrated with this arbitrary and subjective data, the distribution of political views is skewed to the right, meaning most of the student and faculty tend to be on the left of the political spectrum. The bulk of students and professors are extremely liberal. It gets more than annoying; it’s expensive to sit and listen to a professor’s personal political agenda, and that’s definitely not what I’m paying for. I’m also not paying to listen to a student interrupt a lesson with a political tangent.
To the professors: shut up and teach.
To the students: shut up and learn.
**Disclaimer: The percentages are rough...and if they don't add up to 100%, it's because I can't add. Never said I could. Also, the terms “aging hippie liberal douche” and “pissed off white-trash redneck conservative” are absolutely accredited to the team of creators of South Park.**
This post was written by, Jessica Boh
If you have an article or post you would like featured on my blog, send me a message via Facebook.
2009-12-20
Senator Ben Nelson
Since, I do live in Nebraska, I figured I should write a little bit about Ben Nelson.
I've never been a huge fan of Ben Nelson but, I respect him. He's been in Nebraska politics for as long as I can remember. I am completely disappointed in him agreeing to go with this health care bill. He just sold out. He was fighting for certain language concerning the issue of abortion and, in the end, he folded like a cheap suit.
So, now the rest of the country will be paying for our Medicade. In the end, it's just moving things around. We'll all be paying dearly for the consequences of a health care bill getting passed. Most of the changes won't take place till 2014, securing Obama's re-election, and this is drawing a lot of criticism.
There was nothing partisan about this bill. The democrats are ramming this down our throats! It is an absolute shame that Senator Nelson stabbed this state in the back! (Click title for article.)
I've never been a huge fan of Ben Nelson but, I respect him. He's been in Nebraska politics for as long as I can remember. I am completely disappointed in him agreeing to go with this health care bill. He just sold out. He was fighting for certain language concerning the issue of abortion and, in the end, he folded like a cheap suit.
So, now the rest of the country will be paying for our Medicade. In the end, it's just moving things around. We'll all be paying dearly for the consequences of a health care bill getting passed. Most of the changes won't take place till 2014, securing Obama's re-election, and this is drawing a lot of criticism.
There was nothing partisan about this bill. The democrats are ramming this down our throats! It is an absolute shame that Senator Nelson stabbed this state in the back! (Click title for article.)
2009-10-20
Your Race = What Your Politics Are
Well, I found out about an interesting conversation that occurred between a friend of mine, who happens to be black, and another person, who also happens to be black.
I am going to let this dialogue speak for itself. I have chosen to not show the names of the people in this conversation. Person 1, is my friend (the person that shared this conversation with me); Person 2, will be the other person, the very obvious Obama supporter.
It starts out...
Person 2: This is The President of The United States and if you don't support him then you might as well not be black. His policies are giong to work because there are people praying and hoping this First African-American President Fail. Who are you to even post this about the President. This man is doing everything he can to make sure our rights and lives move forward and not backwards. When bush was the President did you see people throwing stuff at him.. NO because they would probably be dead. Now because we have President Obama in it is o k to throw stuff at him..... No it is not right and you make All Black People Look real stupid. Just keep your negative comments to yourself. You obviously need to talk to your grandmother or anyone that was alive when we had no rights, did not count for a vote. You are the main reason we as a people are failing.
Person 1: Bitch.. Let me tell you something.. I am black and proud of my race. Who are you to tell me that I am not black.. Do you feel the same about Condeleeza Rice, Colin Powell and Clearance Thomas.. Where is it written, that just because I am black I am suppose to be drinking the Obama Kool-Aid. I dont know you and you dont know me.. That's just a fact.. But the reason I am not a supporter of Obama, is because of his policies of more spending, more government control by bailing banks, auto industry and trying to take over our nation health care system.
By the way, lets talk about Bush now.. Where were you when they were making movies on how to assassinate Bush? Where were you when the said *Keep Out the Bushes* Where were you when they said that Bush was an idiot? I did not hear from you.. Maybe if you had take your time and asked me why I did not like him, I would have been more polite with you on how I feel..
Now why dont you sit back and have the last word.. As Clint Eastwood said.. *Go Ahead, Make my day.
Person 2: First of all lil BOY. You r a bitch ass nigga yeah I said it NIGGA. You r the reason black men have three strikes against them soon as the reach puberty. I bet yo momma is ashamed she is yo mother. You embarass all black men. You must b 1 of those niggas who got a white woman, but u got dreadlocks. You r a nigga and a sorry excuse 4 a MAN. You should b tooken out and shot execution style. This country has come a long way but reading yo comment lets me know we have alonger way to go still. You should just kill yo self. Making a stupid ass statement like dat. Was yo daddy n yo life. Obviously not. You are a nigga in the worst way. You should kill yo self today. I feel sorry for yo mother and your offspring. GOD B WITH U. U r the reason that there is blacks killing blacks. You are A BITCH ASS NIGGA. You r going to rot in hell. If I am a BITCH den yo momma, yo girlfriend and every other woman in yo life is a BITCH. You r ignorant. You are a hater and you will reap what u sew... And that is the way it is BASTARD.
Person 1: Oh, I am loving your attitude right about now. Is there a problem with me loving a white woman.. I guess because there are too much out there like you with that attitude that chase me away.. I bet you must be some nappy head whore, and yes I got locs and damn proud of them. (Oh by the way, if you had known your black history, you would know not to call them dread.. Go look up and tell me what dreads mean)... From your conversation, it seems like you just had a 9th grade education.. Did a black man get you pregnant at 17 like most out there? I guess you maybe like 70% of minorities who have different baby daddy.. Yes I said baby daddy..
And like I said in my past comment.. Go ahead and make my day, and you just did, as I am sitting laughing at you,, while you scream the hell out to me...
BTW.. I pity you right now..
I think the most telling of this conversation, is this woman is presented with information and, she has absolutely NO idea how to respond, other than insulting, calling names, and just being vile. How sad of her to believe that you can't "be black" unless you think a certain way.
I am going to let this dialogue speak for itself. I have chosen to not show the names of the people in this conversation. Person 1, is my friend (the person that shared this conversation with me); Person 2, will be the other person, the very obvious Obama supporter.
It starts out...
Person 2: This is The President of The United States and if you don't support him then you might as well not be black. His policies are giong to work because there are people praying and hoping this First African-American President Fail. Who are you to even post this about the President. This man is doing everything he can to make sure our rights and lives move forward and not backwards. When bush was the President did you see people throwing stuff at him.. NO because they would probably be dead. Now because we have President Obama in it is o k to throw stuff at him..... No it is not right and you make All Black People Look real stupid. Just keep your negative comments to yourself. You obviously need to talk to your grandmother or anyone that was alive when we had no rights, did not count for a vote. You are the main reason we as a people are failing.
Person 1: Bitch.. Let me tell you something.. I am black and proud of my race. Who are you to tell me that I am not black.. Do you feel the same about Condeleeza Rice, Colin Powell and Clearance Thomas.. Where is it written, that just because I am black I am suppose to be drinking the Obama Kool-Aid. I dont know you and you dont know me.. That's just a fact.. But the reason I am not a supporter of Obama, is because of his policies of more spending, more government control by bailing banks, auto industry and trying to take over our nation health care system.
By the way, lets talk about Bush now.. Where were you when they were making movies on how to assassinate Bush? Where were you when the said *Keep Out the Bushes* Where were you when they said that Bush was an idiot? I did not hear from you.. Maybe if you had take your time and asked me why I did not like him, I would have been more polite with you on how I feel..
Now why dont you sit back and have the last word.. As Clint Eastwood said.. *Go Ahead, Make my day.
Person 2: First of all lil BOY. You r a bitch ass nigga yeah I said it NIGGA. You r the reason black men have three strikes against them soon as the reach puberty. I bet yo momma is ashamed she is yo mother. You embarass all black men. You must b 1 of those niggas who got a white woman, but u got dreadlocks. You r a nigga and a sorry excuse 4 a MAN. You should b tooken out and shot execution style. This country has come a long way but reading yo comment lets me know we have alonger way to go still. You should just kill yo self. Making a stupid ass statement like dat. Was yo daddy n yo life. Obviously not. You are a nigga in the worst way. You should kill yo self today. I feel sorry for yo mother and your offspring. GOD B WITH U. U r the reason that there is blacks killing blacks. You are A BITCH ASS NIGGA. You r going to rot in hell. If I am a BITCH den yo momma, yo girlfriend and every other woman in yo life is a BITCH. You r ignorant. You are a hater and you will reap what u sew... And that is the way it is BASTARD.
Person 1: Oh, I am loving your attitude right about now. Is there a problem with me loving a white woman.. I guess because there are too much out there like you with that attitude that chase me away.. I bet you must be some nappy head whore, and yes I got locs and damn proud of them. (Oh by the way, if you had known your black history, you would know not to call them dread.. Go look up and tell me what dreads mean)... From your conversation, it seems like you just had a 9th grade education.. Did a black man get you pregnant at 17 like most out there? I guess you maybe like 70% of minorities who have different baby daddy.. Yes I said baby daddy..
And like I said in my past comment.. Go ahead and make my day, and you just did, as I am sitting laughing at you,, while you scream the hell out to me...
BTW.. I pity you right now..
I think the most telling of this conversation, is this woman is presented with information and, she has absolutely NO idea how to respond, other than insulting, calling names, and just being vile. How sad of her to believe that you can't "be black" unless you think a certain way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)