Ramblings

Moving to Wordpress

2009-01-06T15:19:00.000-08:00

I'm discontinuing updates to this blog. I will continue to blog at Wordpress.

Salvation Mechanics

2008-12-30T12:14:00.000-08:00

Jason recently commented on a conversation Cameron and I had a while back on the gift of salvation.

Salvation Merit

Cameron essentially asked how salvation is not a reward for faith in Christ. I answered that faith does not merit salvation. The debt of sin we owe is a large debt. Only the work of Christ can cancel it. Faith merely accepts the gift which cancels sin. Faith by its own merit can not save us from sin. All we can do is choose to believe in Christ's work. This is a fundamental difference between Christianity and most other religions. Most religions seek to enumerate good works by which we can please God and His favor. In other words, most religions seek salvation through faith in one's own works. Conversely, Christianity teaches that faith in Christ's work is all that is necessary.

Gift of Faith

Jason's remarks focus on a mechanical detail of salvation within the context of the above discussion:

Yahweh changes the heart, mind and soul to accept Him through sanctification which is part of the lifelong process of regeneration. Without His actions, acceptance of the faith is impossible. Is this free will? Yes. Free will has always been limited by Divine Governance. Those who truly wish to find Him in life are conformed to do so by God.

The noetic effects of sin prevent people from seeing the full extent of their depravity. My mind was made to search for God by Him. First election then, sanctification as an overall part of regeneration. I couldn't find him before then, let alone accept him. The elect cannot elect themselves or accept that path by their will alone.

Is faith rewarded? Yes. Sometimes the faithful are in crisis, some faulter and lose hope; others are steadfast in their faith. No human is perfect. All who have any faith, are made to have faith. Faith alone, through Christ alone, grants justification but, this faith must be received first. God gives faith as part of election. Simply put, salvation isn't open for everyone - Jason

As I understand it, the argument Jason is putting forward is simply this:

Faith is:

A gift from God

Necessary to be saved

Is not given to all

My View

I reject the idea that faith is a gift of God prerequisite to salvation. Rather, faith is simply trust in the work of Christ rather than our own merit for acceptance of us into heaven by God. Anyone can choose to believe this.

At issue are four primary principles regarding salvation:

Freewill

Depravity

Election

Scope

Freewill

I'm not sure exactly what Jason is claiming regarding freewill. If he is claiming that we still have freewill to accept the gifts of salvation/faith, it is unclear why one could freely accept the gift of faith but not freely accept the gift of salvation. Alternatively, the reference to depravity seems to appeal to the Reformed concept that man's depravity prevents him even from accepting God's gift of salvation. As a result, God elected some to be saved, not by choice, but by intervention. This would violate man's freewill. Jason appears to argue that this is fine because God has overruled the will of man in other cases.

A supposed classic example of God causing someone to do something is the Pharaoh of Egypt. However, it is important to note that Pharaoh refused to let them go before God hardened his heart. In other words, God kept Pharaoh in a previously chosen state of mind. This is hardly equivalent to overruling the will of multitudes and forcing them to be saved.

Depravity

Perhaps the clearest text regarding depravity and salvation is Romans 3:10-11:

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Some interpret this passage as meaning that man is so depraved that he can not choose to believe in God. However, that is not what this verse says. It says no man seeks God on his own. As a result, God must make the first step to reach out to man. He does this in many ways. First, He has provided general revelation through creation (Rom. 1:18-20), conscience (Rom. 2:14-15), and the inner light (John 1:9). Furthermore, God Himself came in the person of Christ to reach out to us directly. In his absence, God seeks the unsaved through believers (Matt. 28:19) and the ministry of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-11).

In conclusion, although in our depraved state we will not seek God, God actively seeks and confronts us with the message of salvation.

Election

Another issue raised against a person choosing to accept the gift of salvation is a particular brand of the doctrine of election. This view is derived from references to God choosing, electing, or predestining people to salvation. A good example text is Ephesians 1:3-6:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Some interpret passages such as this as meaning the primary cause of an individuals salvation is not the individuals choice to accept the gift of salvation, but that choice is ultimately caused by God's overruling choice to predestine some "according to the good pleasure of His will".

But what is the good pleasure of His will? Why does He choose some and not others? Romans 8:29-30 provides the most complete explanation of this process that I am aware of:

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Of particular importance is the ordering. God's foreknowledge is enumerated to proceed His predestination or election in the causal chain. Therefore, according to something God foreknew about us, He elected us to salvation.

This passage does not enumerate what God foreknew about us that caused Him to choose us, but there is only one criteria that fits. God elects an individual to salvation from before the foundation of the world based on His foreknowledge of that individuals free acceptance of the gift of salvation. The criteria is repeated again and again by Christ and the apostles. Three such examples come from Jesus, John, and Paul:

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Acts 16:31 And [Paul and Silas] said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved...

Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Any other criteria would amount to favoritism or random selection. Favoritism would violate God's fairness, for He is not a respecter of persons, as Peter declared in Acts 10:34-35:

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Random selection on the other hand, would destory any sense of responsibility for our final destiny. Men would be saved for no reason and damned for no reason. It would be pointless for God to give man freewill, and then make his ultimate destiny a matter of inexorable fate.

Scope

Simply put, salvation isn't open for everyone - Jason

The idea of limited election based on God's choice rather than our's logically implies that salvation is not open for everyone. If God selected some to be saved and others to be damned and those who have not been selected can not be saved in anyway, why would Christ pay for their sins?

Unfortunately, for this view, scripture repeatedly contradicts the idea that God desires to save only a few and as a result offers salvation to only a few. As already noted, Peter observes that God is not a respecter of persons. In 2 Peter 3:9, Peter also declares that God is "not willing that any should perish". Ezekiel declares that God has "no pleasure in the death of the wicked" but desires him to "turn from his way and live". Mostly famously, the Apostle John declares in the John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God loves the world and sent His Son to make salvation available to anyone that believes.

Closing Remarks

In closing, I want to be clear that the issues raised in this article or largely technical doctrines. I believe a proper understanding of them is important to understanding God and His work. However, salvation is not dependent on a proper understanding of these matters and I continue to count those holding the opposing view as brothers. I appreciate Jason's efforts and views and I look forward to continued discussion on this topic and other discussions in the future. :)

Privacy Rights and Security

2008-12-18T11:02:00.000-08:00

I recently shared The Meaning of Mumbai on FriendFeed sparking a discussion with Cameron concerning various security measures after 9-11. Cameron's initial remarks focused on security and fear extremes (live in a box and do nothing) and slippery slopes. While it is important to be aware of possible dangers, such general extremes do not inherently delegitimize specific, less extreme measures.

However, Cameron's latest response appeals to basic rights:

I don't see how any of that makes it reasonable to get rid of any hope for a fair trial, suspending basic human rights for others just because we think they may be bad, and ignore torturing laws by using loop holes in location. I know most don't mind "I would rather some subset of innocent people to make sure all the bad people are dead," but I guess I don't believe in the good ol' fashioned "Kill them all, and let god sort them out." So, the point I'm trying to make, is that why should you take away other people's right, morally / legally / etc, just because you don't use them / if you were in that position your going to heaven anyways / etc. Why do you get to decide that they don't need that right, or that they don't get a second chance?

This demands a more detailed answer.

In particular, I think the kinds of security measures we've seen post 9-11 raise 4 particular questions:

Privacy

Citizenship

Secrecy

Torture

I plan to blog about each one separately. I don't expect to cover each exhaustively or arrive at any definite conclusion about any of them. My goal is to lay the ground work for a discussion about these issues and more than ever I want to encourage the reader to join this discussion in the comments or on their on blog/notes.

What is a Right

The concept of a right within this context is that of a moral right. As Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence:

all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In other words, a right is a moral obligation granted by the Creator and existing between any two people by virtue of their humanity. I am inclined to recognize four basic human rights:

Life

Liberty

Property

Legal Equality

Legal equality is not generally included, but equal treatment under the law (all men are created equal) is generally recognized as just and it seems reasonable and simplest to include it in the list.

Privilege

The concept of rights must be distinguished from legal privilege. Legal privileges may have similar status under the law in certain countries, but unlike rights, they are neither unalienable nor endowed with inherent moral power by the Creator. Privileges are endowed by organizations (such as government) to people. Because they are granted by government, they can just as easily be taken away by government.

As a side note, a necessary consequence of the argument I recently made concerning the lack of moral obligation within the philosophical framework of atheism is that those who reject the existence of a higher power also deny any foundation for a universal moral standard, thereby denying any foundation for inherent human rights. Such philosophical frameworks can support only concepts of utilitarian privilege.

Privacy

For an appeal to privacy to be relevant to government security measures, it must be a right, as privileges lack moral power and are subject to the whims of government. It seems reasonable to me to derive a limited right to privacy from the rights of liberty and property. By virtue of being free to direct one's life, define personal happiness goals, etc. one seems free to decide not to reveal what they think. Similarly, by virtue of property rights, one is secure in property. One has a right to keep other people off one's land, a right against unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

What isn't so clear is how this extends beyond one's property. For example, consider FBI requests for telephone records. IF privacy rights extend to phone records then one must have an inherent property right over information shared through someone else's property (phone lines, switching stations, etc.) and the record of that call (time, source, destination). Because another's property is in use, and that person has the right to do as they wish with their property, it seems to me that they have the right to offer their property in service to others as they wish. They may elect to promise certain contractual privileges to users of their service, but I don't see any justification for that the idea that when I use someone else's property to communicate, I receive any inherent rights in that property.

More on General Revelation

2008-11-12T14:43:00.000-08:00

On Blogger, James and I have been discussing the argument I made regarding general revelation and gospel ubiquity. As a result of that discussion, some clarification seems to be necessary:

General Revelation

Creation

Paul does not claim that Creation leads cultures to general monotheism. Indeed, Paul describes many as "changing the truth of God into a lie, and [worshipping] and [serving] the creature more than the Creator" [Rom. 1:25]. The claim is not that cultures are driven to monotheism or there exists a significant cultural awareness. Rather, the argument is that the information is available to individuals, but is generally rejected.

Conscience

Nor is Paul claiming that cultures gravitate towards a Christian ethical understanding. Rather, he is saying that a general sense of morality is given to all men which they and their cultures sometimes follow. For example, when a person or a culture recognizes murder as wrong, they do by nature the things in the Law as a result of conscience. I would expect a study of cultural morals to reveal similarities in some morals to those presented in the Law, just as we have already observed religious similarities across many religions. Paul attributes these similarities to a universal conscience given to all people, providing a general moral understanding and conviction of our own moral imperfections.

Burden of Proof for General Revelation

As a result, your burden of proof is excessive. First, it exaggerates my claims from personal understanding to cultural ideas. Second, our knowledge of ancient and isolated cultures is limited at best. This makes it hard enough to know what they actually believed, let alone, what ideas they may have been aware of, but rejected.

Revelation of Christ

Regarding the propagation of the final principle of salvation I am aware of two views. First, anyone who accepts the 2 principles of general revelation will be sent a human messenger to address that question (perhaps indirectly, by making literature available or directly by word of mouth). Examples include the sending of Philip the Evangelist to the Ethiopian Eunuch [Acts 8] and the sending of Peter to Cornelius [Acts 10]. If this is true, the fact that the gospel was not sent to a Native American in AD 600 is considered proof that no Native American accepted general revelation. This is reasonable and hard to contradict. The second view observes that there is no passage in scripture in which God explicitly states He will not provide special revelation to those unreachable by the common method outlined above. After all, Jesus Himself intervened in the salvation of Paul (Acts 9) and John mentions the inner light given to every person.

Your argument seems to be that it is likely some Native American accepted general revelation and was denied the final principle for spatial reasons. As a result, you conclude that Christianity violates the salvation ubiquity criteria and must be rejected as a valid world view. At best, the existence of this Native American is highly hypothetical and rejects without substantiation the possibility of special revelation for that individual.

Conclusion

All of the above remarks substantiate my claims. Creation and Conscience are available to all men and God is more than capable of providing the specific revelation of Christ to anyone accepting the first two. A detailed study of isolated cultures is unnecessary and would be inconclusive at best given our spotty knowledge of such cultures. Christianity clearly provides mechanisms for meeting the salvation ubiquity principle. That does not make it true, but it does make it a reasonable possibility given our discussion so far. Furthermore, the salvation ubiquity principle provides a clear example of a criteria that can rationally evaluate religions, accepting some and rejecting others, providing hope that the morass of religions is not as un-navigable as Atheist Under Ur Bed suggested in the article I originally responded to or James suggested in his initial comment on my initial post.

Old Testament Messiah

2008-11-05T12:14:00.001-08:00

James responds to my previous claim in "More On Faith" in "An Atoning Messiah". Both my claims and his responses deal with two specific passages:

Messiah Cut Off - Daniel 9

In Daniel 9, Daniel is given the following prophesy:

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself [Dan. 9:24-26]

James essentially presents two arguments contesting the credibility of the book of Daniel and the interpretation of the passage as referring to the Messiah:

Timing and Authorship

James cites Harper's Bible Commentary in order to question the credibility of Daniel and explain away many of the amazingly detailed and accurate prophecies in this book. By assuming that the book can not be prophetic and that the manner of Antiochus Epiphanes death contradicts the death of the king in Daniel 11, with whom he is associated, Harper's conludes that the book was finalized during Antiochus's life time.

However, Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 24:15, that Antiochus was a type (one who exemplifies or parallelizes the life of another in some way) of the Antichrist. As a result, the passage is about Antiochus and Antichrist and has not been fully fulfilled. The commentaries I consulted presented some reasonable arguments for where the break occurs. Speaking specifically to it would require more study, but the bottom line in relation to our discussion is that there is a reasonable approach to this passage which does not place it in contradiction with history. As such, the late date given by Harper is not the foregone conclusion they have presented, based, primarily, on the assumption that the book is not true in the first place and an easy readiness to accept supposed contradictions.

If we accept dates given in the book of Daniel, it would have been completed in the late 6th century BC, much earlier than the 2nd century BC date given by Harper's.

Messiah or others?

In responding directly to the passage of Daniel I cited, James makes the unsupported claim that the Messiah here is simply "an annointed one" or leader and tries to identify Messiah as two men in this passage, citing the New Oxford Annotated Bible. He then provides a general response that it's all history recorded after the fact and false prophecies based on the alleged contradiction in the manner of Antiochus's death. I discussed this latter claim above.

As for the identification of the "Anointed One" in the passage, a proper understanding of the prophecy seems to make this pretty clear. In the context of the passage, Daniel understood by the reading of the word of God through Jeremiah the prophet, that the Babylonian capitivity of Israel would last 70 years. Daniel prays to God concerning this knowledge and the future of Israel. While he is praying, God sent Gabriel to reveal to him the passage I cited above (and a few other verses). In the original Hebrew, the word "week" in 70 weeks is really the word seven (seventy sevens). Because the context is Daniel's prayer concerning the 70 years of captivity, this is clearly a reference to 490 years.

Gabriel gives the starting point of this 490 year period as the "going forth of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem". This is generally taken to be the decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in Nisan 1, 444 BC. James claims the proper edict is that of Cyrus the Great in 538 BC, but that edict was not to rebuild Jerusalem. Cyrus's proclaimation was to rebuild the temple [Ezra 1:2], whereas the edict of Artexerxes was to rebuild the city [Nehemiah 2:5].

Gabriel further declares that from the commandment to "Messiah the Prince" shall be 69 "weeks" or 483 years. Adjusting for the Jewish prophetic calendar of 360 days versus our solar calendar of about 365 days places the end of the 483 years on Nisan 10, AD 33, considered to be the day Jesus, the Messiah rode into Jerusalem on a colt. This is much later than the lives of Joshua the high priest and Onias III.[1][2] It also presents an amazingly accurate prophecy, even if we accept the very late date of 2nd century BC, still about 200 years before this event took place.

Jesus, the Suffering Servant

While the term servant is clearly applied to Israel, it is also contrasted with Israel.

In Is. 42:7, the servant is sent to open the eyes of the blind. In verse 19, the Lord is condemning those who worship idols and refers to the servent as blind. Later, in verse 24, Jacob and Israel are identified as being judged for their sins against the Lord. Clearly, the latter servant is in need of the ministry of the first servant.

In the following chapters, God refers to Himself as the Savior of Israel [Is. 43:3] and the redeemer of Israel [Is. 43:14]. In the passage in question, similar language is applied to the servant. He bears our griefs, carries our sorrows [Is. 53:4], wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, chastised for our peace, striped for our healing [Is. 53:5] and so on.

In verse 6, the iniquity of us all (the world) is placed on Him. In verse 8, He is stricken for the transgression of the Lord's people (that is, the Jews). The redemptive nature portrayed for this servant is unmistakeable. It strongly contrasts with the blind and sinful state of the servant Israel, who is in need of God's redemption. In chapter 53, the ultimate redemption for sin for all and for the servant Israel is enumerated at the cost of the suffering of the one servant. This is clearly not Israel. Further, this servant is clearly identified with the redemptive role of God. The profile fits no other than "Messiah who would be cut off, not for Himself" as in Daniel and Jesus Christ, the Word [John 1:1], who suffered for sin.

[1] Josh McDowell. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. 1999. Here's Life Publishers, Inc. pg. 197-201.
[2] Dr. J. Vernon McGee. Thru the Bible Vol. III. 1982. Thomas Nelson Publishers. pg. 586-589.

The History and Audience of the Bible

2008-11-04T12:20:00.000-08:00

Over at AnAtheist, James has posted a response entitled God: The Great Communicator? to my article More On Faith focusing on critiquing God's decision to use inspired writings to communicate His truth.

Jewish Texts

James is of course correct regarding the division of the Bible, primary source languages, etc. However, he makes several errors in later descriptions.

Authorship

James claims the Jewish scriptures are written by anonymous authors. While some books may have unclear or anonymous authorship, many of the books in scripture make claims concerning authorship or have traditionally accepted authors. As the primary reason for rejecting those traditions is largely rejection of the truth of the text and not solid archaeological discoveries that contradict said authorship, the credibility of authorship critiques is largely questionable and often hangs on accepting the Word or rejecting it (and as such, is generally a circular argument when applied as an attack on the integrity of the Word). A good example is the argument James cites in the next post which regards the authorship of Daniel. Because the book is prophetic and it is assumed to be true, the author is assumed to be anonymously written after the events rather than by Daniel be for the events, primarily because the idea that God revealed the events to Daniel before they happened is rejected.

Salvation in the Old Testament

While it is true that the Old Testament focuses primarily on Jewish people, it does not teach that salvation was limited to them. Numerous non-Jews are listed as being saved in it. The best examples are probably Job and the Ninevites (to whom God sent the unwilling prophet Jonah). Throughout both testaments, salvation is offered to all.

Eternal Fate Dependency

Both testaments of the Bible are about a lot more than salvation. Salvation itself is a fairly simple proposition: Faith, not in our works, but the works of Jesus or the Messiah, as the basis for escaping the condemnation of sin (hell) and the reward of a heavenly future. A lot of the book is post-salvation details and guidance directed primarily towards believers. Your eternal fate does not depend upon a detailed study of the totality of scripture and the correct understanding of numerous intricate and complex propositions.

Arguments

Moving on from his background discussion, James proceeds to make 3 distinct arguments:

Transcription Errors

This is a common claim made about the Bible, that it inevitably is inaccurate. Not only would God obviously have an interest in preserving the text, but men dedicated to the preservation of the scripture were placed in charge of maintaining an accurate transmission.

In The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell cites Dr. Gleason Archer as saying:

in this respect [to transmission] the Old Testament differs from all other pre-Christian works of literature of which we have any knowledge...we do not possess so many different manuscript of pagan productions, coming from such widely separated eras, as we do in the case of the Old Testament. But where we do, for example, in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the variations are of a farmore extensive and serious nature. Quite startling differences appear...Whole clauses are inserted or left out, and the sense in corresponding columns of text is in some cases altogether different...[In contrast] even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered [among the Dead Sea scrolls] were a thousadn years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (AD 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The...variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling. They do not affect the message of revelation in the slightest. [1]

McDowell also cites Dr. Robert Wilson:

The proof that the copies of the original documents have been handed down with substantial correctness for more than 2,000 years cannot be denied. That the copies in exstence 2,000 years ago had been in like manner handed down from the originals is not merely possible, but...is rendered probable by the analogies of Babylonian documents now existing of which we have both originals and copies, thousdands of years apart and of scores of papyri which show when compared with our modern editions of the classics that only minor changes of the text have taken place in more than 2,000 years and especially by the scientific and demonstrable accuracy with which the proper spelling of kings and of the numerous foreign terms embedded in the Hebrew text has been transmitted to us. [2]

McDowell includes similar citations regarding the New Testament, such as John Montgomery:

to be skeptical of the resultant test of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament [3]

and Sir Frederic Kenyon:

besides number, the manuscripts of the New Testament differ from those of the classical authors...In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament. The books of the New Testament were written in the latter part of the first century; the earliest extant manuscripts (trifling scraps excepted) are of the fourth century -- say from 250 to 300 years later. This may sound a considerable interval, but it is nothing to that which parts most of the great classical authors from their earliest manuscripts. We believe that we have in all essentials an accurate text of the seven extant plays of Sophocles; yet the earliest substantial manuscripts upon which it is based was written more than 1400 years after the poets death. [3]

As a result, the claim that the Bible is an old text and therefore comes to us only in a highly distorted form is unsupported by the facts. While there may be some minor changes that scholars discuss, they do not appear to effect the message in any substantial way. If anyone has any specific examples they believe contradict this conclusion, please present them.

Ubiquity

James also repeats the lack of ubiquity argument. I addressed this in On the Implications of Consensus and Gospel Ubiquity.

Not all Scripture is Directed to All People

James also refers to a remark a made regarding Jesus's clear intent to obfuscate teaching through parables. The point of this argument was to point out that not all the truth God has given us is directed towards all people. Some of the message clearly is, that being the message of the gospel. Other communications from God clearly were not, such as the parables of Christ.

The foundational premise to arguments regarding the inefficiency of God communicating to us via the Bible is that God intended to write an open letter to all people for the express purpose of making sure everyone in the world had access to this book in its entirety. That is clearly not the case. Based on Jesus's remarks, this is clearly not God's sole purpose in all His communications.

[1] Josh McDowell. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. 1999. Here's Life Publishers, Inc. pg. 70.
[2] Josh McDowell. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. 1999. Here's Life Publishers, Inc. pg. 71.
[3] Josh McDowell. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. 1999. Here's Life Publishers, Inc. pg. 35.

Christianity, Historical Records and Occam's Razor

2008-11-03T10:35:00.000-08:00

James posted two arguments as comments on More on Faith that deserve a response:

Historical Interpretation

One can list a bunch of written records pre-dating at least most of the Old Testament books, but the real argument is this: written records with similar ideas pre-date the Old Testament, therefore, the OT borrows. Frankly, this is bogus.

1 - As far back as the writings in question are, the ideas written down were not original, that is, they pre-date the writings.
2 - The Judeo/Christian narrative clearly makes claims of reaching much further back than the writings you cite. Suggesting that these writings disprove that narrative requires that the narrative have been previously rejected in order to accept the idea that these pre-dated records represent an earlier origin of the ideas rather than the actual distortions. This is circular reasoning. If you have other reasons for your initial rejection of the Judeo/Christian narrative, please present them.

Moses and Sargon

As for the story of Moses, that's a historical event, not a philosophical, spiritual, or religious concept. If it is true that Moses's mother borrowed an idea to save Moses from a historical legend, that does not in any way imply that religious tenants were appropriated. Furthermore, while Sargon's suspected life time may predate the life of Moses, the apparent source of the legend that we have is not so old. According to Wikipedia, the source of Sargon's legendary basket ride is a tablet dating to the 7th century [1], which does not predate the events of the Exodus account. If mere historical appropriation occured, it could have occurred in either direction.

Occam's Razor

My understanding of Occam's Razor or the Principle of Parsimony is that it essentially states that "one should posit no more entities than are absolutely necessary". As a result, I've never found it's application as an argument against the existence of a divine being at all compelling. Anyone who accepts the razor as an argument clearly believes God is not necessary. Those who believe He is, include Him.

Natural Laws are adequate for explaining a great deal of the world in which we live, but there is much that such Laws do not seem capable of explaining or giving significant meaning to, such as why there is something rather than nothing and absolute morality.

In other words: application of Occam's Razor requires a reason to believe the denied entity is not necessary. Make that argument instead.

[1] "Sargon of Akkad". Wikipedia.

On the Implications of Consensus and Gospel Ubiquity

2008-10-30T21:53:00.000-07:00

James has posted several responses to my article More on Faith over at Wordpress. I've broken my response into several parts. The first addresses, Is Your Religion True an older article by James.

General Arguments Against Faith

In "Is Your Religion True" James essentially makes two arguments against belief in God: (1) lack of consensus and (2) lack of ubiquity.

Lack of Consensus

Frankly, this is a poor argument in general.

Especially during an election season, it is clear that people are not always guided purely by reason and in many cases may not even devote sufficient time and consideration to even some of the most important issues to make a well informed decision.

If consensus is so important and inevitable, James should be wondering why only 2.32% of people in the world are atheists instead of why only 33.32% of people are Christians. [1]

That said, James advances two more specific arguments in this vein:

Religious Denominations vs. Scientific Consensus

James argues that major religions, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam have splinter groups numbering in the hundreds and perhaps thousands whereas the scientific community has relative consensus. This more specific argument is in error because of the reason above, but is flawed in two other ways as well.

First, by focusing on the broad range of disagreements, ranging from major doctrines such as the Trinity to relatively minor disagreements over church government, and ignoring large areas of consensus, such as the existence of God, the existence of good and evil, etc., the argument presents a deeply divisive view of religious people. Conversely, by attempting to focus on the relatively narrow range of natural laws and focusing on large areas of consensus, such as General Relativity and Biological Evolution, and ignoring areas of disagreement ranging from possible unification theories and forces behind evolution (leaps, gradual, divinely directed), the argument presents a highly skewed comparison.

Second, to skew this comparison even more, it divides religious people according the general public, but focuses only on a highly focused group of people when considering views on science. Notice the words used. When speaking about religious people, the claim is that "the world should be moving towards some kind of consensus with regards to the true and proper religion" whereas the relevant people related to scient are "the scientific community".

Attempts to support this comparison by remarking that trained religious leaders share no such consensus are also misleading. Not only is the claimed consensus of scientists exaggerated, but unlike scientists who receive a more unified education, religious leaders are generally trained according to their particular sect.

Divine Persausion

The second argument James attempts to make to support the idea that any true religion would inexorably achieve universal consensus is that God is a much better communicator than we are and essentially should be able to convince us all that He is right. Basically, the claim is that God's problem is a presentation problem, that if He really existed and wanted us to believe, He could perform a sign or present the right reasons for us to believe. However, this assumes that everyone would approach God's presentation rationally and fairly. Not only do people frequently act irrationally, it seems clear that many people do not want to believe everything God might have to say. Acceptance of our own failings, moral pronouncements, thou shalts and shalt nots, the acknowledgement of a higher power who cares what we do, etc. As a result, it is unsurprising that many people disagree on the truth and would continue to do so even if God tried to convince them.

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man and Lazarus, a poor beggar outside his door both died. The rich man went to hell and Lazarus went to Paradise. Seeing Lazarus in Paradise with Abraham, the rich man begged Abraham to send Lazarus back to bring the truth to his brothers. Abraham gave the following reply:

Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. - Luk 16:29-31

Ubiquity

The second argument James presents is much more powerful. The argument is essentially that if there is a God who is not a respecter of persons and desires to reach out to mankind in general, He would not leave gaps in the availability of the truth. Two prominent examples of religions that readily claim such gaps are Mormonism and Islam, which basically claim that God's original revelations in the Bible were corrupted and that after hundreds of years, He finally decided to set the record straight.

This is a huge problem for these religions because it clearly implies that God simply abandoned the world to spiritual darkness, ignorance, and ultimately judgement for many generations at a time. This argument demonstrates a solid reason to reject any religion that does not at least claim historical ubiquity.

Clearly, James believes this critique extends to Christianity as well. However, it does not for two reasons:

Historical Ubiquity of Special Revelation

James claims that if Christianity is true, it implies that God's message was delivered "at an arbitrary time in human history and at an arbitrary location to a handful of people in just one language". Christianity does not teach that God finally revealed His plan of salvation through Jesus Christ in roughly AD 30. To the contrary, God revealed His plan as soon as it was necessary. That even though we had violated God's righteous standard, separating us from Him, He still loved us. To atone for our sins, Jesus Christ, the divine man, payed the penalty for our sin, allowing us to be reconciled with God for eternity future and that all who looked forward to it were saved, just as we look back and are saved.

Even before pronouncing judgement on Adam and Eve for eating the forbidden fruit, God tells them that a future descendent would defeat the serpent [Gen. 3:15]. It also seems clear that God communicated more than that to them. In Gen. 3:21, we see God making coats of skins for them and in Gen. 4 we see Cain and Abel apparently had at least a basic understanding of the sacrificial system and dealt directly with them. We also see God advising Cain and Cain disregarding God's advice.

By making the first revelation to the parents of the rest of the human race, God not only provided the necessary truth to them, but ensured that at least all mankind had revelation from the beginning of time that could be passed on. This doctrine of ubiquitous revelation over history sets mainstream Christianity apart from some other religions, such as Mormonism and Islam.

Global, Ubiquitous General Revelation

However, as James points out, just having revelation available to some people at all points in time is not enough. It is necessary that some revelation be available to all people at all times. The Bible teaches there are 3 aspects of General Revelation to all men.

First, in Romans 1, Paul declears that the Creation is part of God's general revelation to all men, so that they are without excuse:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Rom. 1:18-20

Second, conscience is given to all men, that they may know there is a moral standard and they have fallen short:

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another - Rom 2:14-15

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one...Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God - Rom.3:9-10,19-23

Third, the inner light. The exact function of this revelation is not entirely clear, but it is a clear reference to Christ as the light, which would imply a divine ministry to all people:

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. John 1:9

Judging the Ignorant

James anticipates the argument that only those who hear of Christ must accept Him. The rest are judged on relative merit. This is, as he concludes contemptible, for it would transform the good news of the gospel into a message of condemnation for those who hear the gospel and reject it, while giving those who don't hear it a relatively free pass.

Scripture clearly does not teach this position. Jesus is unequivocal on the ways to God:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - John 14:6

Clearly, there is only one way. But the gospel is very simple:

(1) - There is a God
(2) - We have all sinned, justice demands punishment
(3) - Someone else must take our punishment, that someone, is Jesus Christ

It seems reasonable that most of that message is available to all through general revelation (Creation -> God, Conscience -> sin & judgement). Most people get the third leg from God's Special Revelation in the Bible, whether directly by reading or indirectly through others. However, as James points out there is a lot of time between the coming of Christ (and before that) during which the Americas in particular seem cut off from that source of revelation.

Fortunately, enough revelation was given to Adam and Eve to save them, enough of that may be passed on in cut off cultures to allow enough truth to be clear to those who seek it. Also, not all general revelation is thoroughly understood, particularly the ministry of Jesus Christ as the inner light to all people. The essential point is that if Christianity is true, God has provided sufficient revelation to any person that has ever lived that they can reject or accept and if they accept God can make sure they receive the truth they need in order to come to the Father through Christ.

[1] CIA World Factbook

More on Faith

2008-10-09T23:18:00.001-07:00

James posted a comment on my Wordpress blog and Sharon responded on FriendFeeds regarding my recent article "Jesus et. al". My answers to them are below. Because James posted first, I responded to him first and then Sharon:

James

He claims that my alternative interpretation of similarities in regligion "doesn't accord well with the facts". However, he fails to back this up in any substantive way. Instead, he chooses to attack my conception of God and pontificate on my misunderstandings of Christian and Jewish tradition.

Inefficient communication

It also doesn’t speak well to your conception of God, as a being that uses an inefficient means to pass on and preserve this initial narrative. - James

I'm not sure what he is trying to say here. Is he saying that written communication is inefficient for God a clear communication recording once, but perverted in numerous other traditions is inefficient?

Effectiveness of the Written Word

There are, of course, other methods God could have used to spread His message. He could have pre-programmed us with the knowledge of His message, spoken to each of us from heaven in a booming voice individually, sent angels to tell and reminds us, etc. However, God chose to use (1) direct communication to certain individuals who (2) wrote down that revelation (3) which others can learn from and share. Knowing whether this was the best method would require knowing all of God's goals in such communication. If simply making a set of principles known to all human beings was the goal, the method does seem inefficient compared to other possible methods. However, if God's goals in communicating also including other purposes, such as, challenging us to be a part of the process of communicating truth to others, it would not be so inefficient.

For example, consider Jesus's ministry. He frequently spoke to the people in parables, which purposely obfuscated the message. When the disciples asked Jesus why He taught in parables, He replied that it was given to them to know, but not to others [Matt. 13:11]. Therefore, it is clear that simply having every person understand a set of principles is not God's only goal in giving His word and it is erroneous to claim His method is inefficient on that basis.

Perversions Throughout History

Given that many rejected the truth, it is unsurprising that many deviations and erroneous versions would crop up, especially if we consider the goals of Satan to deceive men into any world view other than God's truth. By distorting or removing essential parts that people don't like, he can ensnare them with half-truths, keeping them from the truth of salvation from sin through Jesus Christ. As an added bonus, he can tell others that there are so many "truths" out there that determining the right one is too difficult, so why bother. That God allows this to occur is similar to His tolerance of evil in the world in order to respect our freewills.

Atoning Messiah

The Old Testament does include passages that suggest the Messiah would atone for sins. I have already mentioned two of them. In Daniel 9:26, speaking specifically of Messiah, Daniel declares that Messiah would be "cut off, but not for himself". In Isaiah 53, the righteous servant is clearly presented as suffering and dying for "the iniquity of us all". Even if one rejects that this is a reference to the Messiah, as modern Judaism does along with it's rejection of Christ, the Old Testament or Jewish scriptures clearly present the idea of one man atoning for the sins of "us all", making such connection much more than "retroactive" interpretations.

Serpent of Genesis

The timing of the revelation of the connection between Satan and the serpent is peripheral to the point I was making. Furthermore, the description of hatred between the "seed of the woman" and the seed of the serpent, with the eventual crushing of the serpents head does not make sense in the context of a normal serpent. It is clear that God is referring to something or someone beyond the serpent.

Corrupted Narrative vs. Pure Invention

Yes. I believe the evidence strongly indicates a divine Creator. As such, it seems more likely that He would try to communicate with us. Given some divine communication, I would not be surprised if many misunderstood/distorted it over time, leading to many world views that shared some similarities, one of which is true and the rest being false by varying degrees.

As for determining the true narrative, I would look for the one that makes the most sense (reason). That is, the one that best explains all of reality as we know it. Obviously, that's a simple answer to a very complex problem. I would be interested in exploring it by degrees if any one else is interested.

Monotheism

The Judaic concept of God being one in essence and person, may be more monotheistic than the concept of a triune Godhead, three persons who are one in essence, but this designation does set Christianity apart from the other mythologies brought up in the original article, which is the point I was trying to make. Despite some similarities, all these views are not the indistinguishable. They all have unique views that set them apart from the others and can be used to differentiate between them and evaluate them for varying levels of veracity.

One over the other

You cannot offer any actual evidence to prefer one mythology of another. - James

I offered one argument which you completely ignored. I argued that a coherent moral system demands consistency, which would seem to favor monotheism over pantheism. Furthermore, most world views make clear claims about reality which can be examined. For example, the Greek gods were believed to live atop Mt. Olympus. This myth is demonstrably false.

Furthermore, it should be noted that we can't ignore or origins or our past. Even if one were incapable of differentiating between the true and the untrue, there is no view which would be true by default, such as the view that the natural world is all that exists.

Sharon

Consistency

So it's okay to choose a religious system because we *want* it to be consistent? That seems rather dangerous to me. Shouldn't we be choosing what we have evidence for? - Sharon

I'm not exactly sure what Sharon is contending. It seems to me that something which is internally consistent (that is, does not contradict itself) is much more likely to be true than something which contradicts itself (which, according to the law of non-contradiction, would be, by definition, false). In evaluating a world view, I would look for two major things in general: internal consistency (consistency with itself) and external consistency (consistent with our observations of reality).

I suspect this is the distinction Sharon is making when she appeals to "what we have evidence for". If so, we agree on this point. "42" might be internally consistent, but it really has no connection with the reality we experience, nor does it seem to offer any explanation for how the world works or where it came from.

Meaning

That said, I do think it is reasonable to draw some conclusions or rule out some alternatives based on the end result. For example, take two views:

1 - A deep space asteroid will come flying through space and destroy the earth a week from now, killing us all.
2 - The world will last for many more years and so will we.

Both views dictate what actions we might take over the next week. One believing the asteroid was going to destroy the earth might conclude that saving money or working towards a better future is pointless. It's certainly possible. It might be true. However, I would argue that if it is true, everything, including truth, is pretty meaningless anyway. Therefore, it would be best to act as if 2 is true, even if the truth of it's claim is impossible to determine. The reason for this is that 2 is the only option that leaves any room for hope of meaning.

If you've ever seen House, a better example of what I'm talking about might be when his team can't determine if the patient has condition A or B, but House says to treat for B because if they have A, the patient is dead no matter what.

Morality is such an issue. Without it, nothing is wrong and nothing is right. Yet, we all have some sense of morality. Some belief in "good" and "fair" as opposed to that which is "wrong" or "evil". Furthermore, we believe that based on this sense, we can expect others not to "wrong" us. We expect that we can say to some one else "you ought not to murder children for fun, it is wrong". Such condemnation demands an absolute, consistent morality, which is inconsistent with world views lacking higher authorities than ourselves (atheism, naturalism, humanism, etc.) or divided/ineffective highest powers (pantheism). This isn't just an observation of desirability, it's an observation of our own innate sense of the world.

Good and Evil

The evidence in the world supports more strongly an inconsistent god(s) than a consistent one. (Not that I think it supports evidence for a god at all, but if I had to pick, quarreling gods who constantly overrule themselves would make way more sense.) Sure, it's nice to believe that "God" is always there and on our side, but it's not really consistent with the world we live in. Wars, genocide, suicide, divorce, murder, rape, etc. - Sharon

I disagree. I don't see how the things you list indicate an inconsistent God or set of gods as more likely than a single consistent God. It is clear that any belief in the divine must deal with the problem of evil. Conversely, any belief that the divine does not exist (or is mixed) must deal with the problem of good.

Religious Equality

And this among Christians as frequently as any other religion. - Sharon

What is your basis for this claim of equal evil?

On Desireable Outcomes

We can want there to be a consistent moral understanding based on a monotheistic system all we want. It'd be great. But it's important to recognize that merely wanting something does not usually grant it - Sharon

Agreed. The question is definitely much more difficult and complex than "what do we want". However, that doesn't mean we are doomed to meaningless disappointment and after that oblivion.

Jesus et. al

2008-10-02T23:22:00.000-07:00

Cameron shared this article on Google Reader and I felt compelled to comment on it.

Philosophical Approaches

The view presented in this article is essentially "higher criticism". The foundation of this view is that religions, including the Bible are a human narrative of evolving ideas about religion. As a result, similarities are considered to be proof of external ideas being appropriated into the doctrines of a specific religion, changing them as people's ideas evolve.

Another way of understanding similarities is that initially, there was one divine narrative which over time was perverted into a multitude of different religions, whose common origin yielded some similar ideas.

1 - The Scapegoat

The author clearly doesn't understand what the Scape Goat is. The scape goat was part of an OT religious ritual performed on the day of atonement involving two goats. A lot was cast on the goats. The one upon whom the lot fell was offered as a sin offering and the other was led out of the camp symbolically carrying the sins of the people [Leviticus 16]. It was not a ritual in which sins were symbolically placed on a goat which was then killed to placate a demon. The purpose, as with the much of the rest of the OT rituals was to picture the future sacrifice of the Messiah for the purpose of atoning for the sins of humanity.

The author attempts to relate this to Greek practices of using human "scapegoats" to appease the gods during times of calamity and Roman legal practices of allowing innocent people to take upon them the penalty of the guilty. Both practices probably postdate the Jewish practice by centuries. Therefore, it can not be said that they influenced the Jewish tradition. Rather, it is more likely that Jewish tradition influenced them. Furthermore, it should not be surprising that Christianity builds on Jewish tradtion. Christianity sees itself as the fullfilment and extension of pre-Christ revelation to the Jews. Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment [Matthew 5:17].

2 - The Essenes

It is also not surprising that a Jewish splinter groupd held views similar to those contained in the Old Testament and shared by the New Testament.

For example:
A - Love thy neighbor: When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, He declared:

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. [Matthew 22:37-40]

This was not Jesus drawing on relatively recent tradition, but rather citing two passages in the Law as it was given by God through Moses:

And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. [Deuteronomy 6:5]
...thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. [Leviticus 19:18]

B - Criticism of Conventional Jewish Society

The Jewish religious leaders had fallen into a deeply legalistic system which perverted mans laws over God's laws. As such, criticism was deserved, not simply a tradition borrowed from a relatively contemporary group.

C - Coming of a Messiah

As Christianity looks back to the central figure of Christ, Judaism looks forward to the future coming of the Messiah and has done so from the beginning. Immediately after the fall, God promised to send that a descendent of Eve would defeat the serpant (Satan) [Genesis 3:15]. More recently, Daniel the prophet foretold of a coming Messiah, who would be "cut off, but not for himself" [Daniel 9:25]. Isaiah the prophet foretold a suffering savior, bearing the penalty of the sins of others [Isaiah 53].

3 - Similar figures

Most of the rest of the article is devoted to a listing of figures, mostly mythical whose stories share some similarities with the narrative of Jesus. Many supposedly died and rose again, offered rewards to their followers, etc. Again, this is suggested to be indicative of a lack of divine revelation as merely human ideas evolved and cross-polinated ways of thinking. However, one would expect similar results if God had revealed a coherant narrative which was corrupted over time in various false religions.

4 - Why Jesus?

It seems to me that the most substantive point raised by the author is the question of why Christ and not one of these mythical figures.

First, the author claims that via the criteria of precedence, the Bible must be rejected many times over. However, within the list included in the article, the only tradition that might clearly be said to pre-date Judaism even from a critical perspective is Egyptian mythology.

Second, the primary distinction between Christ and the other mentioned figures is that only Jesus represents a monotheistic divinity. All the rest connected to pantheistic religions, often involving quarreling gods and goddesses. While a lot of discussion could be devoted to each of these separate pantheons, it seems to me that the problem of a consistent moral understanding is a good reason to reject them. As Socrates observed in one of the Platonic dialogues, it is virtually impossible to determine right from wrong in the presence of so many conflicting deities. Without a coherent moral system, good often boils down to picking a god and hoping some other god doesn't destroy you for it.

In closing, the author tries to argue that us relgious folk foolishly ignore the similarities between these figures and try to pretend they are very different. I would suggest that he tries to ignore the differences to take the lazy way out of answering his own question: which one, if any, is true?

Free Markets

2008-01-22T11:47:00.001-08:00

Cameron recently sent me an article entitled The Free Market Fairy by Joe Gregorio at BitWorking. Gregorio casts the Free Market as a mythical beast summoned by conservatives and classical liberals to solve any problem.

About the only thing that seems reasonable in this article is Gregorio's statement that I, Pencil by Leonard Read is a great introduction to the concepts and power of free markets.

Gregorio goes on in the next paragraph to claim: "the Free Market Fairy was the justification for taking a chainsaw to lending regulations in 2003 which precipitated the housing bubble, subsequent collapse, resultant credit crunch, and impending recession." Unfortunately, the Paul Krugman article he links to, while it mentions a chainsaw wielding event, neither names specific regulations, nor outlines how their elimination precipited the subprime market bomb. What Krugman does reveal that the event took place "on June 3, 2003 — just about the time subprime lending was starting to go wild". In other words, according to Gregorio's own source which he claims demonstrates that deregulation caused the subprime fiasco, Krugman reveals that subprime lending was already out of control. In fact there is reason to believe that some legislation, such as the "Community Reinvestment Act" and a long history of bailouts exacerbated subprime lending by requiring that banks lend to riskier people and providing a sense that if things went really wrong, the banks would be bailed out from their bad investments. Thus, by encouraging bad loans and minimizing the consequences of bad loans, the incentive to give bad loans increased.

As an aside, Krugman berates Greenspan:

"Mr. Greenspan dismissed as a “collectivist” myth the idea that businessmen, left to their own devices, “would attempt to sell unsafe food and drugs, fraudulent securities, and shoddy buildings.” On the contrary, he declared, “it is in the self-interest of every businessman to have a reputation for honest dealings and a quality product.”"

But of course, what Greenspan is saying is true in the long term. Business do sometimes rip-off their customers, which is why buyers need to be alert and not just accept everything businesses tell them. However, if a business routinely deceives its customers into buying bad products, the word will get out and that company will die. Which is precisely why the government should not bail out banks that made bad loans. Bailing out bad businesses only encourages those bad practices and keeps bad businesses alive. In other words, while it is not true that all businesses operating in a free market are angelic, it is true that market forces push them to make make good products and deal honestly with consumers.

Gregorio then goes on to say that the free market has been claimed as a solution to 4 problems: healthcare, education, global warming, and the free market. Because healthcare is the only situtation Gregorio even attempts to comment on at greater depth, I'll discuss it later. As for the other 3:

Free Market for Education

I see no reason why the free market is not an appropriate solution to education problems. As even Gregorio admits, the forces of a free market maximize cost effectiveness, that is quality per dollar. Part of the problem with the current system it has only limited incentives to be cost effective and provide quality. Because public schools are so much cheaper than private schools and almost everyone has to pay for them anyway (via taxes), they will always have a majority of our children. As such, public schools are not very accountable for their quality, as most parents are unwilling or can't afford to spend hundreds or thousands of extra dollars just to find higher quality. A free market education system would provide a more even playing field for all schools and allow parents to vote with their dollars much more effectively. Furthermore, if one wishes to add some government guarantee that all children get an education, subsidy vouchers can easily be introduced to the system.

Free Market for Global Warming

Although global warming is a bogus problem, as I have argued in previous articles ([1] [2] [3] [4]), it is interesting to note that later in his article, Gregorio extolls the free market as a worthy toll in the governments toolbox that works well in conjunction with some regulations. As far as I am aware, all supposed "solutions" to global warming that appeal to the free market are of this mold. For example, the Kyoto Protocol and John McCains "carbon credit" systems are essentially the establishment of an artificial, government made, carbon emissions market where a limited right to pollute can be bought and sold. A more libertarian solution also requires government regulation to work in tandem with a market system. This other solution recognizes that pollution is the off-loading of pollutants into a carrier (stream or atmosphere) which then carries the pollution into or through property owned by other citizens, who then have a right to sue for compensation, thus attaching a real cost to such dumping, providing incentives to minimize it. However, neither is seen as simply solved without government by some mystical free market force.

Free Market for Slavery?

Here, Gregorio claims that Ron Paul suggested that Free Markets would have fixed slavery. As evidence that Paul made such a suggestions, Gregorio links to this article. This claim is not found in the article. What the article explains Ron Paul as claiming is that the solution to slavery would have been "simply shell out some cash, buy the slaves, and set them free." It isn't even clear from the article if Ron Paul was suggesting this as a government funded solution or a private funded solution.

In other words, this is a horrible example because almost no (or maybe even none at all) actually make this claim. Even arguing that Ron Paul claims free markets can solve slavery seems to be a bit of a stretch.

A Magic Fairy

Gregorio continues, arguing that free markets are magical because they fit the 3 hallmarks of magical devices. I'm pretty sure this criteria for a magic device is either obscure or entirely made up by Gregorio, as I have never heard of it before, he provides no citation, and a Google search comes up with his article first and then a bunch of irrelevant links.

Outside Physics

Gregorio tries to argue that the free market opporates outside of phsyics and is therefore magical. It seems to me that this is rather absurd because a free market is not physical phenomenon. Free Market theory is essentially the study of social interactions involving transfers of ownership and production of value.

Outside Science

What Gregorio really means here is that he believes free markets have repeatedly failed. However, this is not as clear as Gregorio would like to think. Even in the US, while most of our commodities are traded more freely than in most other nations, nearly all our markets are regulated to some extent. Therefore, the classic attempt by many modern liberals and socialists to observe that "market x in the US isn't doing so hot" ergo "free markets don't work" doesn't follow for 2 reasons. First, markets have boom/bust cycles. Second, most markets in the world aren't really free.

Additionally, Gregorio probably picked one of the least free markets in the US as an example: health care. Almost everyone agrees that market forces have been vastly distorted both by a disconnect between consumers and cost, and massive government regulation. Anyone ever heard of the FDA? Medicare? Medicaid? SCHIP?

Intent

Gregorio attempts to finish his proof that a free market as understood by many is a magical device by arguing that it is often believed to be morally right. This really is a bunch of nonsense. People described various policies and social systems as good and bad from all different kinds of political viewpoints every day. People do this because they see an idea as making the world better or worse and assign a value of good or bad accordingly. Gregorio's rhetoric simple tries to cast this in legitimate activity in a negative light for a subsection of people.

Stop the Magic

Of course, as Gregorio claims, the Free Market is an amoral force. However, two aspects of free market are things we would generally consider to be good. First, the prerequisite for a free market is that people are free to exchange their property as they wish. Second, the forces of a free market encourage better growth than any other economic system by maximizing the freedom to act as one wishes and the freedom to collect benefits for work that others value.

Gregorio than compares free markets as amoral forces to physical forces, such as gravity. I don't know about you, but I like gravity. I think I might even describe it as "a good force", because I like not flying or floating off into space. Oops, I guess I believe in the "magic" of gravity. :o

The Tool User

Here Gregorio argues that a free market is a government tool and that the government can and should add regulations to free markets to instill morality into them. Of course, he ignores such important questions as, whose morality we should instill in markets, and that the more a market is regulated, the less free it is.

Another thing Gregorio seems to assume is that the government is the moral and forming expression of a culture, and therefore if it is moral to say, care for sick people, that the government must do it. This is another key disagreement between conservatives and modern liberals. Modern liberals, who really are generally socialists, tend to believe that the government makes a society and that what a society should do should be done by government. Conservatives believe that government is an institution of society that provides a distinct set of services (essentially, the protection of individuals right from violations by other citizens (internal violations) and other nations (external violations)). Society to a conservative is a larger and much looser group of people living freely together, organizing for common causes, etc.

The Looming Tower

2008-01-15T14:08:00.000-08:00

I recently finished reading The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright. It is an excellent history of al Qaeda, focusing on the events leading up to 9/11. It also includes a parallel discussion of the FBI, CIA, and NSA investigation of al Qaeda before 9/11.

In particular, I found 4 things Wright reveals about al Qaeda particularly interesting. First, the book begins not with bin Laden, but with an Islamic author, Qtub, who became an ideological leader of Egyptian Islamists who wanted to reclaim and purify their country for their brand of Islam. Second, the Afghan war with the Soviets attracted both bin Laden and the Egyptian Islamists to fight a more global war to protect what they viewed as Islamic territory. Third, it was bin Laden's vision of an extra-national militia which could be easily mobilized to defend Islam globally that would later morph into al Qaeda, a loose coalition of terror groups and cells with the primary goal of expanding Islam globally against the encroaching West, of which the US was seen as the leader. Finally, I was intrigued to learn of repeated offers of help to al Qaeda by Iraq, which saw a common cause against the West.

The history of FBI, CIA, and NSA monitoring of al Qaeda was also interesting. Particularly, their lack of cooperation because of the "Wall" and different information priorities. For example, Wright explains that the CIA was often reticent to share intel with the FBI because the CIA views secrets as currency, whereas widely known info is relatively useless, and the FBI's purpose is primarily to prosecute criminals based on info, which makes it public.

In closing, I highly recommend this book for those who want to know more about al Qaeda and why they seek to destroy us.

Response to Senator Schumer's Radio Address

2008-01-12T12:03:00.001-08:00

I try to listen to the President's and the Democrat's weekly radio address and I was particularly disappointed with Senator Schumer's address this week. In the address, he describes the currentstate of the economy "the worst shape...since the days immediately following 9/11". He also repeats much of the tired, middle class rhetoric coming from people such as Obama, Edwards, and Huckabee.

He warns of a recession and labels Bush's policies "Do-nothing". In particular, he is concerned about 4 things:

1 - "From 2000 to 2006, most Americans saw their real income actually go down."

I don't know what he bases this on, but I suspect this is in large part caused by the recession in the early part of those years. The picture he seems to be trying to paint, one of continually increasing hardship for the middle class, isn't necessarily supported by such a statistic.

2 - "The average tax relief for a millionaire under this Administration is 100 times larger than the elief for a typical middle class household."

Oh really? I'm guessing this is because the poor Senator doesn't understand math and the difference between a typical middle class household income and a millionaire income. Take for example, someone, A, who makes $100,000 a year (quite a bit more than most middle class families) at a 30% tax rate. That person would pay about $30,000 in taxes a year, and a 1% tax break would constitute $1000 in relief. Consider another person, B, who makes about $10 million a year. At $10 million a year (100 times A's income) at the same tax rate, B pays $3 million dollars (100 times A's taxes) and the SAME tax break for B would save him $100,000 a year (again 100 times A's income).

The point is, the reason the millionaire receives more relief from tax cuts is because he pays more, not because Bush likes him more. I am repeatedly annoyed that people in charge of running this country either don't understand these simple facts, or hope we are so stupid we won't see through the rhetoric.

3 - "The price of college tuition, health care and energy...have skyrocketed."

Tuition

As a current college student, tuition and tuition increases are certainly a concern, but they are not over-burdening and it seems to be fairly easy to get bank loans to cover expenses if one needs to and it shouldn't be too hard to pay off after graduating, as long as one lives frugally, didn't stay in school absurdly long, and actually got a degree that is worth something (unlike an English degree, which I hear is generally good for a job under $30k). Speaking of such degree's, it seems to me that part of the cause of high tuition costs is probably high demanded driven primarily by artificially low prices (via government aid) and the conventional wisdom that a college degree is necessary to get a good job without much emphasis on the kind of degree. This leads to more people going to college (free money increases demand) and a lack of focus on degrees that are valuable in the work force (because they are "hard").

Health Care

As for health care, I agree that this is a problem. However, I think most people are ignoring two primary factors effecting the quality and cost of health care.

First, insurance, especially insurance paid for by a third-party such as an employer or government, hides the real cost of using health care from consumers. Consumers therefore feel that it is cheaper than it is, because they don't foot the bill, and decreased prices, perceived or real, increase demand, driving prices up for access to medical resources (which I understand is not a booming business in terms of growth and expansion). In other words, the lack of cost transparency leads not just more consumers to demand health care, but for individual consumers to demand more of it, which they may not really need. Because the health care industry is not growing parallel to the increase in demand, cost increases as health care becomes a more relatively scarce resource.

Second, particularly regarding pharmaceudicals, it is my understanding that the US is one of the few countries that respects drug patents. Most other countries, such as Canada with their famously cheap medicine, achieve this cheapness either via price controls or lack of patent protection, which allows a company to pay $0 on R&D to develop a drug, meaning it only has to make back the cost of production rather than the additional cost of years of R&D and additional costs of FDA approval. One might think that lives and health are worth saving at such an expense to pharmaceudicals, but if all countries did this, the investment required to find cures would become unprofitable, causing relative stagnation is pharmaceudical research. We could achieve much lower costs for a health care status quo, but health care progress would become absurdly unprofitable and therefore under-funded.

Increased nationalization of health care would solve neither of these problems. On the contrary, it would only serve to exacerbate them.

Energy

Increased energy costs are also a real problem with a more complex cause. Although much of the rising energy costs are probably due in part to increasing demand in developing countries, the control of large oil supplies by socialist (for example, Hugo Chavez) and unstable countries have also worked to cut off oil supplies. However, it is important to note that Congress, in which Schumer, and other government bodies in the US have repeatedly blocked development of our own oil reserves (ANWAR, Gulf rigs, new refineries), which could simultaneously decrease our dependence on foreign oil and increase the availability of oil in the US. What is generally being done by Congress is funding research on numerous "Green" technologies for alternative energy sources which are more expensive than oil. Additionally, at least one of these more expensive fuels (ethanol) is often required as an additive to gasoline in the name of making it more environmentally friendly, also increasing the cost. Therefore, Congress and policies Schumer probably supports have been contributors to the cost of energy in this country.

One thing a lot of people don't know is that we already have a new energy source with almost zero emmissions that could simultaneously replace most of the dirty coal and gas power plants that form the majority of our power infrastructure and dramatically reduce car emissions. This energy source is nuclear power. Unfortuantely, a lot of fear mongering and misinformation has turned many Americans against this source of energy, but rather than trying to overcome that problem, as France apparently has, the US has taken it pretty much off the table. The advocation of nuclear power by most of the Republican candidates in the New Hampshire debates was probably the high point of debate for me and I hope they continue to do so.

4 - Housing crisis

One thing Schumer forgets to mention is that part of the cause of the housing bubble and subsequent fallout was caused by the government encouraging banks to give out loans to risky people and people failure to prepare for what most people said was coming. Bailing out banks and people who took loans they couldn't afford will only reinforce the message of irresponsibility in planning for the future. Furthermore, it will hurt those who DID plan ahead and set aside money to invest in property during the perceived market downturn. Doing nothing IS the right thing to do in this case, but I seem to recollect from past weekly radio addresses that President Bush actually is planning to do something about this. What Schumer is probably complaining about here is that Bush isn't doing enough to bail people out.

Schumer's solution

The only real solution Schumer presents is increased government spending, apparently on anything:

"prominent economists believe that the best way to jumpstart is not only with tax cuts, but with stimulus spending. The President seems to focus only on tax cuts, which are important, but we need spending as well, whether it be for short-term items such as extending unemployment insurance or longer-term investments such as in clean energy and infrastructure." - Schumer

But we should not let these economists (probably Keynesian economists, who have been deluded into thinking that the government can and should flatten the market boom/bust cycle) fool us. All government funds come from one of two places, taxes (from the people) or borrowing. The thing Schumer either doesn't realize or hopes we don't realize is that private citizens and organizations can spend based on thses sources just as well as the government. Particularly in terms of the funds raised by taxation, that is money people would probably prefer to have spent themselves anyway.

Consider the economy as a set of industries. For each industry, profit (the result of spending public or private funds on that industries output [products]) signals that industry to grow (the profits are largely investing in increasing the industry to meet increased demand, increasing profit). Losses, signal an industry to shrink because it's output is higher than societies demand. Next, consider a person (A) who makes $100,000 a year. Instead of conventionally thinking about this $100,000 as what we generally consider it to be, a resource which A can use to buy things for himself, think it as 100,000 votes for product production. When A buys say, a new computer, he spends $1000 to buy himself a new computer. But he also signals 1000 votes worth of demand for the computer. The computer industry (0) receives these votes their goods, reacting to this signal that their product is in demand, expands. A continues the year like this, expending his money (votes), on other industries (0-100) according to the things he wants to consume. Other industries do not receive any funding from A and sadly decrease their output proportionally. As a model citizen, he also pays $30,000 in taxes, as he did the year before when he was helping us see through Schumer's faulty logic on tax relief. This $30,000 in taxes represents a 30% decrease in A's votes which represet his control over the economy. It also represents an increase of 30,000 votes in the governments control of the industry.

This illustration clarifies that government is not a magic entity and the fact that money controls the economy. When the government takes our money, it doesn't magically become more valuable or powerful than when we had it. All that happens is that our influence in the economy is decreased and the influence of governments (that is, beaurocrats and government officials, such as Senator Schumer) increases.

It is also important to note that saving money does not mean that it sits around and does nothing. Unless one's method of saving is hiding legal tender in the basement, saving is investing, in banks, businesses, bonds, etc. That money is then spent by someone else.

Therefore, A's $100,000 will be invested in the economy at some point during the year, and government intervention does not change this. All government intervention can do is change where that money is invested.

Notice also that Schumer juxtaposes tax cuts and government spending as two promoters of economic growth. The truth is that spending promotes economic growth in an industrial region. The difference between tax cuts and stimulus spending is who spends the money, us, or them. It is also important to note that economic growth is also dependent on industries producing what people really want. It seems to me that the best way to signal to the economy to produce according to the people's demands is to allow them the maximum control over their own money as possible.

Code Bloat and Design Patterns

2007-12-24T11:43:00.000-08:00

Steve Yegge recently wrote an article about the horrors of code bloat in Java and Jeff Atwood at Coding Horror provides a summary with remarks. Although I am not much of a Java coder, Steve's assessment that both the language itself and the mindset of the developers using it tends to lead to bloated code is something that my brief exposures to Java have confirmed for me. However, Steve moves beyond Java to more general programming architectures, such as design patterns and static typing that I'm not sure is completely fair. His primary complaint seems to be that in Java, implementation of design patterns tends to lead to cut and paste boilerplate in Java because it has no generics/templates, but he also seems to reject design patterns in general as "boxes" for arranging code that inherently make the same functional code implementation take up more space, helping to contribute to his 500K lines of bloated code.

While I agree that with code, less is often more, I think that Steve is also suffering from a lack of perspective here. First, he notes that his Java game is composed of 500K lines of his own code. I believe his first mistake is to forget that his code, in using Java libraries, is probably really built of a significantly larger code base of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of additional lines of code in the languages libraries that he no doubt uses. The same is try of almost any modern language. Even short C programs often rely on hundreds, if not thousands of lines of code composing core libraries, such as stdlib, stdio, string, etc. and also various operating system, filesystem, device drivers, etc. In other words, almost any modern program relies of a vast base of code that we view in abstract terms, but would never try to comprehend thoroughly because it is both impossible and unnecessary. However, we often conveniently ignore this fact and talk about only our own code.

Given this perspective, I disagree with some of Steve's critique which seems to reject static typing (primarily, it would seem, because of Java's lack of good features for avoiding duplicating code) and design patterns as inherently bloating. In fact, my understanding of design patterns is that by design, they provide more consist and abstract ways of interfacing with blocks of code to provide an abstract usage of the code that does not require so much specific knowledge of the internals, much like the above mentioned core libraries, os implementations, drivers, etc. While supporting that lower coupling often requires a bit more code to make the behavior less specific and more self-contained, at least theoretically, this should decrease the amount entagled code at a higher level.

Thus, while Steve makes some good points about Java in particular, I wouldn't be so quick to reject static languages and design patterns.

Bibliography
1. Steve Yegge. "Code's Worst Enemy". Stevey's Blog Rants. December 19, 2007.
2. Jeff Atwood. "Size is the Enemy". Coding Horror. December 23, 2007.

America is not on the Brink of Fascism

2007-11-04T13:09:00.000-08:00

About a month ago, Cameron sent me an article by Naomi Wolf entitled "Fascist America in 10 easy steps" worrying that President Bush is quickly leading us down the path to Fascism. Here is my response to that article:

1. Invocation of a ubiquitous enemy

While it is reasonable to suggest that a nation is more likely to sacrifice certain freedoms when under threat by an enemy (and indeed, the sacrifice itself may often be reasonable) and that many dictatorial regimes have used real and imagined threats to gain power, it is absurd to suggest that stating the truth concerning real threats to this country, such as global, Islamofascist terror, is a step towards Fascism.

It is also important to note that the supposed parallel between the Richstag fire [1] and the subsequent Enabling Act [2] and September 11 and the PATRIOT act is quite a stretch. Despite its controversial measures, the PATRIOT act is a far cry from essentially transferring all legislative power from the legislative branch to the president (or from the Reichstag to the Hitler [2]) by arresting a large part of the opposition in Congress.

While it is certain that the PATRIOT act expanded the surveillance powers of the federal government and that September 11th was a powerful motivator for the original passage of the PATRIOT act, it is important to note that the invocation of Fascism can be seen as a similar fear tactic. What one ought to do is rationally evaluate threats, such as terrorism and fascism, recognize that real threats DO demand real action, and determine the best course of action. Oh-my-gosh-fear-mongering->fascism (or oh-my-gosh-fear-mongering-fear-mongering) is not an appropriate response to every potential danger or security legislation.

[1] "Reichstag Fire". Wikipedia. October 1, 2007.
[2] "Enabling Act". Wikipedia. September 27, 2007.

2. Gulag creation

According to Wikipedia, the Russian Gulag was a Communist department in charge of prison camps for prisoners of all kinds, but includes an emphasis on the usage of such prisons for political prisoners [3]. This hardly seems equivalent to prisons in Guantanamo and secret prisons elsewhere where the vast majority of the inmates were apprehended abroad on battlefields such as Afghanistan and certainly do not include mere political dissenters or opponents, such as the Communist party members arrested by the Nazi's following the Reichstag Fire that such prisons are supposedly equivalent to.

[3] "Gulag". Wikipedia. September 25, 2007.

3. Thug Caste

Under this argument Naomi Wolf posits that a facist shift is facilitated by "paramilitary groups of scary young men who terrorise citizens". Based on this premise, she attempts to compare Mussolini's Blackshirts and Hitler's Brownshirts to security contractors involved a Iraq and Katrina and "angry young republican men, dressed [identically], menacing poll workers...in Florida".

First, security contractors in Iraq are not "terrorizing" US citizens. They are in Iraq. Wolf attempts to claim that they at least set a precedent by being immune from state law. Unfortunately, the state law they are immune from is not that of the US, but Iraq. I suspect that our troops are likewise immune from Iraqi prosectuion. However, they are not immune from our own laws. As a result, one such contractor group, Blackwater is currently under investigation. [4] It should also be noted that as with our own soldiers, the firing of guns is to be expected in dangerous areas and particularly with an enemy that uses civilians for shields, the death of civilians is, regrettably, to be expected as well.

Second, Wolf provides the better observation of security contractors working in the US, in helping deal with the Katrina disaster. According to Wolf, one guard admitted firing on unarmed civilians to another reporter. Unfortunately, there is no citation and brief searchers were unable to find anything specific. However, even if the claim is true, one instance is far from "groups of scary young men [terrorising] citizens", "roaming the...countryside", or "staging violent rallies [throughout the country]".

Finally, Wolf begins to grasp for straws, citing "Groups of angry young Republican men...menacing poll workers in Florida". Again, no citation. I couldn't find much on this either, but I'm pretty sure that the "angry young Republican's" probably didn't do much anything worse than many of the fairly aggressive protests we hear about occasionally. I'd hardly characterize such groups as "paramilitary", "above the law", "beating...communists", etc.

[4] Sinan Salaheddin. "Iraqi PM Disputes Blackwater Version". Associated Press via newsvine.com. September 18th, 2007.

4. Internal Surveillance

Wolf's next claim is to compare the Nazi SS spying on civilians in order to subjugate them and Federal surveillance including wiretapping of phones and e-mails to catch terrorists. I've discussed the wiretapping program before [5][6] and the basic conclusion is two-fold. First, there is no justification for the definitive conclusion that the government is actively surveiling the general populace. Second, they are hardly employing the kind of surveillance follow up that the Nazi's used, even if they do engage it such illegal surveillance.

[5] Brenden Hartford. "On Politics of Paranoia and Intimidation". Facebook Notes. April 2nd, 2007.
[6] Brenden Hartford. "More on the NSA". Facebook Notes. April 9th, 2007.

5. Harass Citizen's Groups

Extending the last point, Wolf claims that infiltration and harassment of citizen groups is the next step. For this step, Wolf fails to offer any facist parallel and cites "a church in Pasadena" being investigated by the IRS for "[preaching] that Jesus was in favour of peace" while churches that "got Republicans out to vote" were exempt". Although Wolf does not name the church, a search for Pasadena churches being investigated by the IRS brings up articles on All Saints Episcopal Church, which is being investigated by the IRS for "alleged politicking" [7]. This article originally published in the LA Times reveals that "[preaching] that Jesus was in favour of peace" is a reference to a sermon which sought to enact a debate with Jesus, John Kerry, and George Bush during the 2004 presidential election season. Although this may not be grounds for revocation of the church's tax exemption, it is far from a simple sermon of peace. Wolf provides no citations for churches actively getting out the Republican vote and provides no specifics to narrow the search, so I can't comment on that.

Wolf moves on to claim that a "secret Pentagon database" lists some peaceful anti-war events as "suspicious incidents", which is supposed to support the ACLU's claim that anti-war and environmental groups have been "infiltrated by agents". The only evidence of infiltration I see here is that Wolf somehow knows the contents of a "secret" database.

Next, Wolf claims that CIFA, a counterintelligence agency is monitoring ordinary activists as "potential terrorist threats". Because Wolf fails to name any specific cases or groups, I really have no idea what she is talking about, but I do know that some "charities" are suspected of funding Islamic terror groups which may explain some of the alleged scrutiny. [8]

Finally, Wolf cites a "little-noticed" law that defines animal rights protests as "terrorism". Alas, "little-noticed" is hardly a search-able key word and as usual, Wolf provides no specific citations.

[7] Scott Glover, Louis Sahagun. "Pasadena Church May Fight IRS Summons". LA Times via CommonDreams.org. September 18, 2006.
[8] Josh Gerstein. "Islamic Groups Named in Hamas Funding Case". The New York Sun. June 4, 2007.

6. Arbitrary Detention

Wolf then tries to claim that probable errors in the Terrorist Watch list resulting in travel delays are akin to Communist China's political suppression techniques of repeatedly imprisoning and releasing people (and probably treating them pretty poorly during imprisonment). Wolf also tries to cite an airline employee as an authority on the inner workings of the Terrorist Watch list. According to the FBI Terrorist screening center, [9] all delays do not indicate that an individual is in the list. Furthermore, the list matching is apparently not exact to catch name variations, which can result in false positives that have to be worked out.

[9] FBI Terrorist Screen Center. "FAQ". FBI website. Accessed October 22 2007.

7. Target key individuals

Wolf notes that many fascists and communists went after academics who disagreed with them and tries to claim that the Bush administration is doing the same thing. Again, Wolf lists no specific cases or identifies any individual targets. While there have probably been a few cases of conservatives calling for academics to be fired (Ward Churchill comes to mind), I doubt there is a legitimate case that the Bush administration somehow orchestrated it. People have a tendency to denounce those that disagree with them, such as Churchill. But this is not limited to liberal academics. Larry Summers, former president of Harvard, resigned after aggressive attacks by feminists after remarking that it was possible that men and women statistically tend to have greater apptitudes for different abilities, which might account for certain field disproportions apart from blatant discrimination. [10] The same Larry Summers was later canceled as a speaker in a California university because feminists at the university were concerned about supporting that message at about the same time that the president of Iran was invited to give a speech at an east coast university. [11] Neither case seems to parallel Facist and Communist oppression of academia.

Wolf then mentions one CIA contract worker whose security clearance was revoked for posting on an intranet blog that "waterboarding is torture". If this is a reference to Christine Axsmith, she was also fired. [12] Of course, I suspect that no matter where I worked, if I remarked internally that my boss or bosses were a bunch of evil torturers, I'd probably receive some negative consequences too. I also fail to see how a computer security contractor qualifies as "a key individual".

Finally, Wolf mentions the firing of 8 US attorneys. Although I am not that familiar with that case, I do understand that US attorneys are hired by presidents and most of the attorneys are changed when a new president comes in. In other words, the attorneys work for the president. It isn't some kind of neutral office, like, say, a judge.

[10] Wikipedia. "Lawrence Summers". Wikipedia. October 16, 2007.
[11] John Wildermuth. "UC Regents find new speaker for event". San Francisco Chronicle. September 16, 2007.
[12] Mark Mazzetti. "CIA Worker says Message on Torture got Her Fired". New York Times. July 22, 2006.

8. Control the press

Next, Wolf tries to conflate hardship for journalists with micromanaged or essentially exclusively publicly run medias in communist and facist countries.

Wolf begins with Joshua Wolf. According to Wikipedia, [13] it sounds to me like Joshua Wolf went to an anarchist protest that became pretty violent. Because the protestors themselves wore masks to hide their identities, Joshua Wolf was one of the few identifiable people associated with the protest and was known to have the most extensive video footage. As part of a police investigation, his footage was subpeonaed, and he refused. As a result, he was jailed until he agreed to release the footage. I don't see any evidence here of conspiracy by the Bush administration to control the media.

Next, Wolf cites Greg Palast, who according to his own claims was attacked by Exxon, not the Bush administration, for filming their refinery, leading them to report him to Homeland security for filming "critical infrastructure". [14]

Next up is Joe Wilson, who Wolf notes:

"accused Bush...of leading the country to war on the basis of a false charge that Saddam Hussein had acquired yellowcake uranium in Niger."

As a result, the popular myth goes, his wife was viciously outed as an undercover CIA spy, ending her career. Of course, the truth is not that simple. His wife's relation in the story was not spite, but a matter of history, because it was by her suggestion that Wilson be given the job of looking into the alleged attempt by Iraq to get yellowcake uranium, which formed the foundation for his claim that the yellowcake claim was bogus.

Next, Wolf claims that our troops are threatening to shoot embedded reporters they don't like. First on the list is Kate Adie. [15] According to Wikipedia, she was shot by an irate Libyan. Last I checked, "irate Libyan" is not the same as "US soldier in Iraq". Second is Terry Lloyd, who died in a fire fight between US forces and the Iraqi Republican guard. Lloyd was not embedded and Wikipedia makes no mention of any threats. It sounds quite possible that he was probably in the wrong place at the wrong time and got caught in the crossfire. [16] Wolf then closes this accusation by claiming that CBS and AP staff were arrested and taken to violent prisons. A quick search did not turn up anything.

Wolf closes this argument by claiming that a steady stream of lies from the administration is polluting the news. Wolf does not list any specifics, but her own article seems to be permeated with speculation, half-truths, and vague references itself.

[13] Wikipedia. "Josh Wolf". Wikipedia. October 8, 2007.
[14] Greg Palast. "Palast Charged with Journalism in the 1st Degree". gregpalast.com. September 11, 2006.
[15] Wikipedia. "Kate Adie". Wikipedia. October 21, 2007.
[16] Wikipedia. "Terry Lloyd". Wikipedia. October 8, 2007.

9. Dissent Equals Treason

Next, Wolf argues that under the oppressive Bush regime, disagreeing with the administration is considered treason.

Her first example is the "Lichtblau/Risen" stories. This was the case of the New York Times publishing a story [17] revealing the classified surveillance of money transfers out of and into the US through a Belgian bank (Swift) in order to connect, tract, and capture terrorists. Wolf worries that Bush called this "dissent" disgraceful and some Republicans and conservative commentators called for treason chargess. Of couse, the issue here was not that the editor and reporters disagreed with the Bush administration, but that officials in the government had leaked classified information to reporters and the reporters had in turn leaked that information to the public, including terrorists, essentially destroying the effectiveness of the program. This was not an issue of disagreement, but of revealing US secrets.

Second, Wolf mentions the Palmer Raids against those whom Wolf classifies simply as left-wing activists. According to Wikipedia [18], the Palmer Raids were precipitated by several waves of bombings by socialist and communist revolutionaries in the US. Again, this is much more than simply "dissent" as Wolf is trying to claim.

Third, Wolf compares Stalinist descriptions of opponents as "enemies of the people" and the defining of Weimar supporters "November Traitors" to the usage of the term "enemy combatant" as described in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. However, as before, Wolf here seems to confuse "dissent" with violence. A combatant is hardly one who simple disagrees with the administration.

[17] Eric Lichtblau, James Risen. "Bank Data is Sifted by US in Secret to Block Terror". New York Times. June 23, 2006.
[18] Wikipedia. "Palmer Raids". October 30, 2007.

10. Suspend the Law

Finally, Wolf claims that the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gives the president the power to arbitrarily declare a state of emergency in one state and appropriate without governor approval, the "militia" of another state to enact it. The text of the bill [19] appears to only include the word "militia(s)" once, regarding "the demobilization and reintegration of [Iraqi] armed militias".

Probably, her reference is to the power mentioned in Wikipedia [20] to declare martial law and mobilize National Guard troops without authorization of the state governor when public order has been lost and the state and its constituted authorities cannot enforce the law. In other words its not as opened ended as Wolf makes it out to be.

[19] HR 5122. "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007".
[20] Wikipedia. HR 5122. October 30, 2007.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we should carefully guard our rights from external attacks and internal encroachments, but Noami Wolf's view of the present state of the US is paranoid and often incorrect.

Noemie Emery of the Weekly Standard provides an insightful response to Wolf's article:

Noemie Emery. "The Horror! The Horror!". The Weekly Standard. September 3, 2007.

SCHIP

2007-10-06T13:26:00.001-07:00

I've been watching the SCHIP controversy over the last few weeks with some interest. One of the primary things I've been watching is the President's weekly radio addresses and the Democratic response. Last week was completely uninteresting. It featured President Bush effectively attacking the SCHIP bill, while the Democrats provided a really short sob story and an emotional appeal from 1 kid that benefited from SCHIP, without even recognizing any of President Bush's critiques.

This week was a bit better.

President Bush's Address

Congressman Steny Hoyer's Response for the Democratic Radio Address

Factual Discrepancies

The first thing I noted, was that both parties had different figures for who is eligible. Bush claimed that:

"more than 500,000 poor children who are eligible for SCHIP coverage are not enrolled in the program."

Hoyer, however, had this to say:

"millions of other children who are currently eligible...are not enrolled due to the program's limited resources."

As neither Bush nor Hoyer cites any source, I do not know where the numbers are coming from. I suspect each has a separate source. What would interest me the most is the criteria used by each source to come up with their figures. If I have time, I may do more research on this later. If anyone knows anything about it, please let me know.

Contentions

Hoyer makes several claims.

Fiscally Irresponsible

First, he claims the bill is not fiscally irresponsible:

"The President claims...this bill is fiscally irresponsible. The truth is, this legislation is fully paid for."

In two recent entries, Congressman John Campbell explains what Hoyer means by "fully paid for". In the first, "The Revenue Raiser, aka Tax Hike" John Campbell discusses the "sin tax" on tobacco products. The idea of "sin taxes" is the dangerous idea that something that is deemed bad by certain people should be discouraged (and made profitable to government). Especially with the increased push towards national health care, we will probably see more and more taxes aimed at "encouraging health" to keep the cost of health care lower. For example, a "fat tax" on fast food, or a maybe a tax for any food outside a government approved diet. In his other entry, "The President just Vetoed the SCHIP Bill", he points out that "cigarette taxes are one of the most regressive taxes, that is, a tax that falls more heavily on lower income individuals as a percentage of income." In other words, part of funding poor children's health care is taxing other poor people (possible the parents) heavily for smoking.

However, the next method of "funding" SCHIP that Campbell cites is even more irresponsible:

"In order to disguise the $40 billion in spending the Senate proposes to cut SCHIP by 80% in 2013, of course the supporters of this bill do not really intend to cut SCHIP, which would force millions of kids off the program, so the overall cost of the bill is closer to $110 billion, which more than doubles the cost of the current program."

Eligibility?

Hoyer further claims:

"under the President's proposal more than 800,000 children who now receive coverage under CHIP would lose that coverage."

Unfortunately, he provides no explanation of how this occurs. According to the President:

"My Administration has added more than 2 million children to SCHIP since 2001. And our 2008 budget increases SCHIP funding by 20 percent over five years."

However, elsewhere, Hoyer claims that the legislation passed by Congress does not change eligibility. With Bush citing problems with SCHIP covering children of well-off families (with incomes of up to $83,000) and even covering adults, a glaring problem Hoyer complete ignores. The President claims:

"States are spending SCHIP funds on adults...based on their own projections for this fiscal year, Minnesota, Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, Rhode Island, and New Mexico will spend more SCHIP money on adults than they do on children."

Perhaps Bush's proposal restricts eligibility (which, given his claims, seems perfectly reasonable).

Creeping National Health Care

Hoyer continues:

"The President claims that this legislation would lead to a government takeover of health insurance. He is wrong."

Or is he? As the President pointed out, a plan that was originally designed to cover poor children who's families can't afford health care has been expanded to include adults and families with incomes of up to 4 times the poverty line ($83,000).

In fact, Jonathan Cohn of the New Republic essential argues that the expansion of SCHIP is a good thing because it is closer to national health care:

Conservatives combat S-CHIP with fuzzy math: Chip Off
by Jonathan Cohn
"if you think providing insurance to these people--and, eventually, to all Americans--is good thing, then maybe we should expand S-CHIP after all, eventually using it as the foundation for a universal health care system. Don't let the conservatives fool you. When it comes to health care, government isn't the problem. It's the solution."

President's Promise

Hoyer also accuses President Bush of violating his campaign promise. According to Hoyer, Bush promised:

"In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for government health insurance programs. We will not allow, he said, 'a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need."

Hoyer claims that by vetoing the SCHIP bill, Bush violated this promise. However, the question here is not cutting or expanding SCHIP, but how much to expand the program. Bush proposes to increase the program by 20% over the next 5 years. The bill in question more than doubles SCHIP over the next 5 years, then cuts it by 80% in 2013. The fact that Bush does not agree with everything Hoyer wants to do does not mean he has broken his promise to provide health care for poor children.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it seems to me that Bush's veto was completely justified. Although in contrast to Jonathan Cohn, I would like to see a move towards more privatization of health care, I think we can agree that barring any major changes towards that end, there is no reason to suddenly pull funding for children's health care. However, Bush's proposal does not appear to do so and a grossly irresponsible bill is not the solution.

Correction

2007-09-20T21:46:00.000-07:00

As Matteo points out in the comments on my WordPress blog, malaria is not a bacterium. The original remarks may have given that impression, although I only used bacterium as an example of a quickly reproducing organism. I apologize for any confusion this may have led to and hope the corrections made above make are more clearly true than they were before.

Edge of Evolution

2007-09-20T11:54:00.001-07:00

I recently finished reading Michael Behe's new book, Edge of Evolution. Although I liked his previous book, Darwin's Black Box and its introduction of the concept of Irreducible Complexity, I think this new book is better written and contains a powerful argument.

Overview

The primary focus of the book is what evolution (chance mutation + natural selection) is capable of. Instead of turning to theoretical models or logical arguments to analyze the idea, Behe does something much better and more scientific: observation of the changes wrought by evolution in malaria (and in humans related to malaria).

Trench Warfare

The study begins by observing that most observed changes attributed to evolution are really degenerative changes that provide a competitive edge against something dangerous, like malaria. A key example of this is Sickle Cell anemia, a debilitating blood disease that also decreases susceptibility to malaria (and is likely widespread, especially in malarial zones, for this very reason). Behe compares this to "trench warfare" in which bridges are burned to slow down enemy troops rather than built to advance friendly troops.

Bacterial Window into Epochs

Moving on from this observation, Behe shifts focus from human evolution to malarial evolution to focus on changes in malaria over the course of its battle with humans, especially their advanced medical drugs over the last century. At this point, Behe makes what I believe to be the most important observation of the whole book: that organisms such as bacteria reproduce many times faster than larger creatures, like humans, and therefore should exhibit a level of change akin to millions of years in larger creatures in much shorter periods of time. In a sense, providing a more observable window into the generational effects of evolution. As a result, if evolution were responsible for dramatic changes in organisms, such as bacteria to humans, then we should be able to see some of that power in a relatively short time in bacteria. Unfortunately for philosophical naturalists, as Behe catalogues the actual evolution of malaria in recent times, the changes are neither powerful, nor dramatic.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I found Edge of Evolution to be a highly informative book and highly recommend that others read it.

Controversy

Of course, there are many who take issue with Behe's book. Perhaps the best critique of Behe's book is from Abbie Smith at the Panda's Thumb, in her guest article ERV & HIV versus Behe. Behe loses.. Unfortunately, as Casey Luskin points out at Evoluiton News & Views at the Discovery Insitute in his article "Pandas Thumb Fails to Refute Michael Behe on HIV Evolution", her key observation that supposedly contradicts a remark Behe made about the evolution of HIV, does not quite fit her critique.

Another interesting critique comes from Nick Matzke at the Panda's Thumb in his article "Of Cilia and Silliness (More on Behe), in which Matzke critiques some of Behe's remarks on cilia construction in a cell, claiming that not all cells that construct cilia do so in the same way as Behe's example.

I found no response to Matzke on Behe's Amazon blog, which deals with quite a few critical reviews of Edge of Evolution.

However, what I find most telling is that almost all the critiques tend to ignore the Bacterial Window argument of Behe that I explained above, chosing as Smith and Matzke did to bicker over some minor details and interpretations of the book rather than dealing with the big picture of Behe's argument, which notes that it is not what we see, but what we don't see in real world observations that matters most.

Sick the Book

2007-08-27T17:27:00.000-07:00

Jonathan Cohn replied via e-mail to me recent remarks on health care regarding his comments at the Plank. He directed me to check out his book Sick. I've decided to check it out and ordered it from Amazon, but it will take a week or so to get here.

In the mean time, I looked around for some reviews, and this was the most detailed one I could find quickly.

According to Nicholas Beaudrot's review, the book is essentially a series of sob stories coupled with some observations about the status quo which Beaudrot identifies with an inability to spread risk in the current system. I suspect Cohn's argument is a bit more complicated than that, but I'm not sure how universal health care will "spread risk". Perhaps I'll find out...

Government Money for Symptoms or Real Solutions?

2007-08-22T17:58:00.000-07:00

Recently, the bloggers at The Plank have been posting quite a few articles supporting government health care, and SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) in particular. What struck me about these two posts:

The SCHIP on Bush's Shoulder - Ben Crair
The Kids are Alright - Jonathan Cohn

was the lack of any willingness to consider what a real health care solution might look like and clear demonstration that such programs are incremental national health care programs.

Real Success

Cohn claims the program has been "remarkedly successful at reducing the number of low-income children without insurance". While it is true that SCHIP provides health care for some children, what should the real measure of success be for such a program? It is great to help children, but Ben Crair notes in his article that "since 1996...the average cost of a premium for a family plan has grown five times as fast as the federal poverty level" (emphasis mine). In other words, while the government throws money at a problem symptom (uninsured children), the underlying problem (health care costs) is becoming horribly worse and tax payers are eating it (in taxes and in funding their own health care).

Rather than stopping to wonder what government could do (or stop doing?) to address the root problem of high cost health care in the US, Crair and Cohn argue that the program needs to be expanded. Indeed, Cohn declares that he has no problem with expanding the program to cover the middle class and even upper class households.

Incremental Nationalization of Health Care

Crair reveals that "When SCHIP was first created...eligibility [was generally restricted] to families making less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Since then...several states have increased that cap to 300 [or 350 in NJ] percent. Cohn addresses concerns that a program established to provide health care for poor children is becoming a program to provide health care for middle class children in two ways. First, he observes more than 90% of the children in SCHIP are under 200% of the poverty line. Second, and more importantly, he admits that he "personally would have no problem with government insuring middle-class Americans -- and upper-class, too."

It seems to me that rather than ignoring the rising costs of health care and just hoping for a magical government solution, one should try to understand why health care costs so much and what can be done to solve the real problem.

The Global Warming Challenge, Take 1

2007-08-18T12:06:00.001-07:00

Yesterday, I challenged [2] those who fear global warming and think we should take drastic and often coercive regulatory measures to save ourselves from the dreaded roasting of the earth to providing substantiated arguments for three primary ideas:

Human cause
Consequences
Human solutions

This morning, Sharon took a crack at these on Facebook.

Human Cause

Whether or not humans caused the problem is a great argument. But I think it's irrelevant to the situation at hand, or at best, not the only thing to consider. - Sharon

It is reasonable to argue that global warming is a natural occurrence, that it will cause horrible things to happen, and that we should do something about it, but it seems like the action we should take is much less clear in this case.

Point 1 has been argued back and forth hundreds of times. It's impossible to say at this point who's feeding whose pocket, and where the truth really lies. Without being a climatologist myself, the best I can say is that there's good evidence on both sides of the argument, enough to convince any reasonable person of either side, with a sufficiently open mind to good logic and facts. All that really goes to show is that *we don't know*. - Sharon

I obviously disagree. It seems to me that the doom prophets are long on supposed disasters and calls to action, and short on solid evidence and arguments. Indeed, I would argue that this also characterizes much of the discussion we have been having here. I have spent quite a bit of text examining reasons to doubt that global warming is caused by humans and in reply I have received limited claims and opinions to the contrary and a lot of arguments that we should do something.

Consequences

Sharon begins with several seemingly well justified premises:

Temperatures are rising
Polar caps are melting
Ocean levels are rising

Before moving to any negative impacts, she attempts to bolster to expected magnitude of these three effects by arguing that global warming begets more global warming.

Positive or Negative Feedback

Sharon argues that given these premises, global warming will make itself worse through positive feedback. In support of this idea, she cites a Science Daily article. The article offers the following argument:

an increase in arctic temperatures...could result in...higher levels of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere...[fueling] global warming even more.

The study found...elevating summer temperatures by about 2 degrees Celsius...on plots of arctic tundra increased the CO2 emissions by 26 to 38 percent under normal snowfall. When snowfall on some plots was increased...[a reasonable possibility]...CO2 emissions increased 112 to 326 percent. [1]

Although this is interesting, the article presents no significant impact or magnitude of this discovery. It makes no attempt to compare expected CO2 emission increases caused by this effect given expected warming with any figure (CO2 emissions from cars) that means anything at all to me. Furthermore, as the mechanism for the release is plants drawing CO2 out of the soil and releasing more of this absorbed CO2 into the air than it draws from the air and uses, I suspect the equilibrium here is relatively low. Therefore, this article provides very little reason to suspect a significant increase in global CO2 emissions and thereby global increases in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Rather than accepting that Global Warming will worsen as a result of natural positive feedback, it seems to me that the global system is much more self-correcting. Assuming the CO2 even is a major cause of the global warming we are experiencing, it also stimulates the growth of plants, which work to extract it out of the atmosphere, as demonstrated by sources I cited in my last article. [2.5, 2.6]

Therefore, it seems to me more likely that rather than a delicately tuned system that could spiral out of control on account of minor changes, the climate seems much more like a self-correcting system. Furthermore, as the articles also demonstrate, this effect will be a boon to farmers, helping them grow more food to feed people around the world. So far, on the whole, global warming sounds like a positive thing for the world, not a negative thing.

Swift Destruction

As further evidence, Sharon points to the recent discovery of well-preserved frozen mammoths, which were probably frozen pretty quickly. I don't remember a whole lot about this case, so I can't say much about it without further research. However, as Sharon remarks, I would consider the flood as a prime suspect, but I do not think the event, whether by global or local flood, lends itself to the granted causes (melting polar caps and thermal expansion of the ocean). It seems to me that both of these lend themselves to a slow creep of rising water (mm over years) [3] rather than a sudden deluge.

It should also be noted that the mammoths froze before SUVs.

Death and Destruction

Based on these 2 arguments, Sharon makes the following argument:

The polar ice caps melting drastically in unpredictable manners causing vast havoc over the world will definitely cause a lot of death. I'm not going to argue that's a bad thing, other than that I'd kind of like humanity to be around for a while. I'm fond of them. And while aquatic life is great and all, a tree falling in the forest is just that.

This is certainly a real impact. Allow me to summarize:

Vast Havoc on Land
Destruction of Humanity (and probably many animal and plant species as well)

However, I do not see how these really follow from the given premises and the 2 arguments Sharon presented, given for the moment. Am I misunderstanding an extent here?

Human Solutions

But the important part of what I believe falls around point 2. Assuming A.) we'd like humans to be alive and B.) we'd like humans to be alive on THIS planet forces us to say a few things. - Sharon

Sharon follows this with the two examples:

NASA's search for asteroids on route to strike earth
The fate of the Spotted Owl

Essentially, the argument offered here is summed up by this excerpt:

The world is complicated. Bloody complicated, even...My point here is that we don't always know what we're doing in terms of ecological harm or help. In fact, we barely know at all. But if we do nothing, we're guaranteed to lose all of what [evolution|God] has created so far. And so it seems that even though our hand may be heavy and stupidly placed sometimes, we should try to save some of it. Because once it's gone, like the spotted owl, we're not going to get it back. And who knows but what might some species or other be essential in the long run to our survival. - Sharon

In other words, we do not know if global warming is a problem or not, but we should try to fix it anyway. Unfortunately, it is one thing to plan for contingencies and significantly restrict the production of certain goods based on the idea that something might be a problem. If we tried to fix every possible problem, not only would find ourselves attempting obviously impossible things, but we would find ourselves attempting contradictory solutions. For example, consider trying to stop global warming because it might be happening, and at the same time trying to stop global cooling, because that might be happening as well! It was not so long ago that the next Ice Age, rather than the next Scorching Age was what people were concerned about. Even today, some people are concerned that global warming will cause the next ice age. [4]

In short, we should require solid evidence that global warming is going to cause serious problems (1) and that there is something we can do about it (2). And remember, this isn't just a question of us "doing something". Many of the proposed plans to solve global warming would cause major hardship and possibly even death for many people around the world. For example, as I pointed out in my previous article [2], the diversion of corn production from food to ethanol is causing food shortages in Mexico and CAFE standards designed to decrease emissions from cars kill about 2000 people in the US every year. As someone once said, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Trusting God

It is true that the Bible does outline some future events that require humanity to still be around when the events occur. As a result, we can know that Global Warming won't kill us all. However, that does not mean God won't allow humanity to hurt itself pretty badly. The Biblical account is full of people who did stupid things that God let come back to bite them.

But if I were in my home with the rising water and praying to the God of the Bible to save me, at least one scenario has him up there saying "Well you dummy, I showed you how you were supposed to be careful and responsible. It was your own choice not to be careful with your [nuclear plants|emissions|resource usage|]." - Sharon

I suspect God would also be wondering why the person was sat in the house and watched the water coming, then stayed in the house will the water came in the house. This analogy reminds me of the story of a woman who climbed onto her roof during a flood. Once there, she proceeded to pray to God for deliverance. A boat and a helicopter both came by and offered to save her, but she replied that God would save her. After drowning, she got to heaven and asked God why He did not rescue her. God replied that He tried twice, once with a boat and once with a helicopter and she turned them down.

Human Arrogance

I have heard the argument several times that the very idea that humans could affect any global system is patently arrogant and absurd. I do not subscribe to this notion. It should be noted that it was because of man's wickedness that God destroyed the earth with a flood (not by our power, of course, but on account of us).

Fate

I am not sure what fate vs. freewill really has to do with this discussion.

Rhetoric

[Forgive me for the rhetoric, I'm a 2AR junkie. It's habit.] - Sharon

Don't worry, rhetoric happens. ;)

Conclusion

In summary, I asked for three arguments regarding Global Warming:

Human cause
Consequences
Human solutions

and I'd say she spent most of her time arguing for 2.

Human Cause

She presented a reasonable dodge on 1, arguing that the whether man caused it or not, any potential problems will hurt us just as much. This approach makes it possible to argue that bad things will happen and we should do something, but it also makes it unreasonable to blame people for destroying the planet. It also makes it harder to argue that there is much we can do about (or else we'll probably have to work harder, if we've influenced the global climate once, it shouldn't be as hard to influence it again. However, if we accept that human activity has not yet significantly influenced global climates, we have a lot further to go).

Consequences

Unfortunately, I did not see any specific or substantiated consequences to global warming. What I saw was two fairly weak and vague arguments attempting to support the idea that global warming will speed up and that climate change can happen fast. This was followed by several long arguments illustrating that we don't know what is happening, but we should do something. All of this was interspersed with repeated leaps of logic to the destruction of humanity and the earth as we know it.

Human Solutions

No concrete recommendations with accompanying expected results were presented, although many calls to do something were included. Again, what I am looking for here is specific actions that we can take and what results we should expect from these actions. Even if I bought the Consequences of Global Warming arguments, I'd be left with nothing specific to do or any expectation of actually helping at all. In fact, I might do the wrong thing and just make us burn or freeze faster!

In conclusion, I find Sharon's argument in defense of global warming devastations and the call to act now decidedly unsupported by facts, evidence, or reason.

[1] "Increased Arctic Temperatures Could Speed Up Global Warming". ScienceDaily. 3/2/1999.
[2] Me. "Global Warming Revisited". Ramblings. 8/14/2007.
[3] Sea level rise. Wikipedia.
[4] Thom Hartmann. How Global Warming May Cause the Next Ice Age.... CommonDreams.org. 1/30/2004

Some Environmental Issues

2007-08-18T12:02:00.000-07:00

CAFE standards

In the Facebook comments on Global Stewardship, Sharon argues that the vehicle emissions problem is exacerbated by people too poor to buy efficient vehicles, rich people too unforgivably stupid to buy efficient vehicles, and corrupt regulators who fail to enforce government standards.

First, for the purpose of clarification, I would like to know what the it in "that's the way it is" is refering to. Sharon, were you referring to the CAFE standards (government coercion) or people to poor or stupid to buy the high mileage vehicles?

Second, as I pointed out before, CAFE kills. Of course, people die driving anyway, and a few more deaths really is a small price to pay to save humanity. However, if global warming is not a real problem, then the sacrifice purchases nothing. Given the evidence I have presented that global warming is not a real problem, I am inclined to conclude that CAFE is an unjustified and unproductive regulation with horrible consequences.

Human's can impact local environments

Humans have the ability to impact our planet in ways that no other species do. And disregarding history following the industrial revolution, most of the impacts were felt relatively quickly by the communities that caused them. You fish an area out, you don't get fish, and you bugger up the food chain. Etc. - Sharon

I definitely agree that there are many excellent examples of humans drastically changing and even harming local environments and ecosystems. It also does not seem that far-fetched to posit that at least at some point, humans may be able to significantly impact such systems globally was well. However, it seems to me that in the case of global warming the facts are at best inconclusive regarding a significant human influence, and even less convincing regarding the supposed consequences of global warming.

Year of Rest

Remember how the Jews were commanded to plant crops in an area for six years, and leave it fallow on the seventh? A perfect example of intelligent planning, on a local level. Now it'd probably take 50 years of farming to totally destroy that land of nutrients...but that is stupid. Plan now, don't get buggered later. I'd have to say that knowledge like that in the old testament is one of the strongest testaments to veracity of the bible, even though I do not believe in any sort of deity.

Agreed (except on the lack of God's existence). I think it is also important to remember that the rest was not only for the land, but for the people too. I often think that our society gets caught up in acquiring things and making money and often forgets to take a break and enjoy life.

Tragedy of the Commons

...we have to come up with that type of guidelines for...new technologies...Common sense says so, religious sense (stewardship) says so, and the planet is even starting to tell us so... - Sharon

It seems to me that a lot of the real problems that we face here are really a problem of ownership. For example, consider over-fishing. There is not much incentive for fishermen to limit there catches because they know that most other fishermen won't. This leads to a lack of restraint in fishing because the fish are held in common, and the benefits go to the first one to catch them. Such a system also lacks incentive for anyone to restock supplies, because they would be unlikely to receive a significant return on their investment as other fishermen catch their fish.

For this reason, I support fish farming, which introduces ownership into the picture. It provides a more sustainable food supply based in fish.

Similarly with logging, when the logging lands are held in common, there is a great incentive to cut trees down before anyone else gets to them, and almost no incentive to replace them for someone else to cut down later. It seems to me that a better system for the production of lumber is tree farming.

Nuclear Power and Grey Magic

Cameron offered the following argument support of the point I made on using non-sustainable resources. He remarks:

there is no reason [not?] to use something just because it is "limited."...When it comes to limited items, say nuclear fuel, what other uses do they have? And why shouldn't we use them while they are a *better* option then what we have now, until we can actually do the right thing? Making incremental improvements? Easy. Change from gasoline and refineries to electric and nuclear and THEN to electric and . Everytime I see an argument, it seems completely along the lines "USE WHITE MAGIC", and ignoring the gray magic in between. - Cameron

Sharon and Remington seem to agree, for the most part. Especially on the issue of using nuclear power. Unfortunately, as Sharon points out:

People are afraid of nuclear power. That's about it. It's not rational, it just is. Nuclear power, imnsho,is one of the better options we have right now. - Sharon

I wish it weren't true, but I think Sharon is right about why the rate of replacing coal and oil powerplants in this country with cleaner nuclear power is so slow.

Hopefully that will change in the near future.

Global Warming Revisited

2007-08-14T22:49:00.000-07:00

Apparently, my remarks on Global Warming touched a nerve with Remington on Facebook, who made 3 comments on them today. He starts off by challenging my laziness. He asks:

Sacrifice

What is it that You don't want to give up or change, to help change for a "subjectively" better world? Your car? Food and other resources that are transported...obscene distances to save a few cents? - Remington

First, the primary thrust of my first post was that I remain unconvinced that Global Warming is a significant problem. To summarize, Global Warming Worries rely on 3 primary tenets:

Global temperatures are rising
Rising temperatures are substantially caused by human activity
Rising temperatures will cause many bad things to happen

While I agree that the case for tenet one is fairly strong, I believe that the case for the latter two is much weaker.

Cause of Warming

First, regarding the human cause of global warming, I pointed out that history and climate archaeology indicates that earth has experience periods of warming before, well before the advent of the gas guzzling SUV. This is further driven home by the recent discover of an error in NASA's data for US temperatures. The correction of this data knocked several of the recently touted "streak of hot years" down quite a bit in the rankings (at least in the US), giving us 4 of the top 10 hottest years in the 1930s [1] and the discovery of a global warming scare...in the 20s. [2] Admittedly, the NASA adjustment is not huge and is still relatively warm (if a degree or so can count as significantly warmer). [3]

In fact, scientists have long argued that earth's climate goes through cycles. Some short term cycles are El Nino and El Nina which go back and forth over periods of years, while some long term cycles take place over periods of thousands to millions of years (supposedly ;)), such as Ice Ages (which must obviously be interspersed with Warmer Ages). Included in this list is the previously mentioned polar melting on Mars [4], and it is quite reasonable to conclude that there are natural causes of global warming. Thus, the fact that we are observing warming trends does not mean that this is significantly influenced by human activity.

Results of Warming

Second, I pointed out that there are possible benefits to not only a warmer climate, but having more CO2 in the atmosphere. [5][6]

Error on the side of Safety?

Would it not make sense to place your bet and error on the side of safety, rather than splurge now and worry later? How much would your life really change if you took mass transportation? - Remington

As a minor point, I also observed that most of the plans to reduce emissions do not sound like they provide any significant benefit, even according to the doom prophets promoting them and these plans are not without their own harms.

Furthermore, such plans often have unintended consequences. Consider the rising cost of food in Mexico, not a rich nation, [7][8] as a result of the emphasis on using ethanol and the potential risk of corn shortfalls further exacerbating food and fuel supplies (and thereby prices). [9] And lets not forget that while biodiesel releases less CO2, it releases 2% to 10% more NOx than standard diesel, and NOx aggravates respiratory problems, such as asthma. [10]

To err on the side of safety is not a bad idea, but one can not live without some risks. Consider the man who stays in bed all day to "err on the side of safety", fearing that he may fall, be run over by a car, etc. if he gets out of bed, only to become sickly and weak as his muscles atrophy. The issue is not as simple as just doing something.

My Carbon Footprint

You will probably, as a computer programmer, have the same office that you go to, 9 to 5 (or worse) everyday, theoretically making a commute with mass transportation possible. Imagine the horrors if you gave up driving everyday from a suburb, lived near work, and rode a bicycle. - Remington

Actually, especially during the school year, I do not drive my car that much. I live close enough to the university to walk and I usually do. Furthermore, Cameron and I consistently use much less energy than the average household of our size, according to PSE.

When I work in the summer, I have car pooled at least most of the way with my dad for the last two summers. Finally, the thought of living close enough to work to ride a bike is actually inviting to me, but not something I can afford to do at this time.

Admittedly, I dislike riding buses, primarily due to their slower pace, indirect routing, and time sensitive nature. I also suspect that rumors of their energy efficiency are highly over-rated, given that much of the time, they seem to be less than full.

We Live Here Too

Your dissmissal of Shanon's first argument basically amounts to "everything we do makes us a fuck up, so why worry about fucking it up more?" - Remington

I am afraid that you misunderstood my point there. First, I agreed with the general idea of what Sharon had to say. We are stewards of this earth and thus need to take care of it. However, my second point was to point out that clarification is needed in understanding what is good stewardship and what is truly abusing the environment.

The core of my argument here was that the common method of defining human abuse seems to be to imagine an environment without humans, compare this to an environment with humans, and then instantly classify any difference as a negative effect of human beings. This is an incorrect, inconsistent, and unjustified assumption. In circular fashion, it begins by assuming any change by humans is bad, and then reaches the same conclusion. Furthermore, the converse assumption seems to be made about everything else in nature. Thus, when considering animal x, the changes it imposes on the environment are considered part of the natural system or balance, in stark constrast to humans, who are always seem to be viewed as external to the system and therefore a problem rather than a part of the system. Finally, there seems to be no justification for this double standard. My argument there was not that humans are inherent screw ups.

It cuts both ways

If even the middle class (like Brandon) can't be bothered to change their oh-so-wonderful lifestyles, why would the rich and powerful? - Remington

One of the things that strikes me about your remarks is the glaring lack of any attempt to directly engage the arguments I have presented regarding the true nature of global warming. I would submit to Remington that if he can't be bothered to actually demonstrate that a problem exists, he has no basis on which to castigate other people for (1) disagreeing with him and (2) not acting as he sees fit.

Capitalist vs. Socialist Strategy

I would love to see capitalism to support renewable energy and see it as a possible source of profits, but until it becomes, as always, more cost effective, it won't happen quickly. - Remington

The introduction of Capitalism into this discussion, it seems to me, helps to clarify exactly what is going on here in relation to government. Capitalism is, first and foremost, not an economic system. It seems to me that Capitalism is better understood as , a system of personal freedom and property, that has economic consequences. Thus, a Capitalistic society allows individuals the freedom to choose to act, or not to act, on issues such as global warming as they are convinced in the free market place of ideas to do so.

Convsersely, modern liberalism, tends towards a more socialistic approach of elite politicians controlling what we do based on their conclusions. Whether we trust individual citizens to do the right thing or not, I think we should be able to agree that we can't trust politicians any more (and probably less). It should also be noted that politicians and governments have an incentive to grasp onto doomsday scenarios such as Global Warming in order to justify expanding their power.

The Bible's Relevance

...and quotes of the bible (which, as an atheist, I dismiss immediately), are hardly enough for me to change my stance. - Remington

This does not surprise me. I also suspect that Sharon, as an Atheist, did not find them particularly persuasive either. However, as I believe the Bible to be true, I also believe it to be relevant on this issue. This is particularly relevant to others who are not Christians because Genesis is often used against Christians by environmentalists. You cite it yourself in your third comment when you remark that "they demonstrate 'dominion over the earth'". My primary intent in citing Genesis was to show that not only does the Bible teach the stewardship Sharon believes in, but it does so in balance with the human dominion that is so often cited outside of that context.

Iraq's WMDs

I won't say that any argument of mine is terribly strong, but as he believes with Iraq's WMD, I'd rather take the safe course and act now. - Remington

I am not sure how my supposed past misjudgements alter reality against my current arguments or how my own past history at all is related to the reasonability of my current arguments. I am not asking anyone to take my word on this. I am merely asking that they consider my reasons for my views. I would also like to argue that WMDs were a substantiated danger of Saddam's Iraq, but this issue is already large enough. If anyone wants to know what I have to say about that, let me know.

Fuel Efficiency

When people advocate and ask for more fuel efficient vehicles, they are not asking drivers to change their lifestyles, just drive sane vehicles that aren't gas-guzzling peices of materialist bullshit. A stretch Hummer gets 8 miles to the gallon, so that fools and their money can be parted as they demonstrate "dominion over the earth", without consideration of the harm they do. - Remington

Like Remington, I find stretch Hummer's to be absurd and wasteful. However, I do not support forcing others to not make or buy them. Stretch Hummers are also an extreme not driven by most people. Unfortunately, CAFE standards result in lighter, more dangerous cars. As a result, it is estimated that CAFE causes several thousand additional traffic deaths each year. [11]

Conclusion

As I pointed out earlier, Remington presents no reason to believe that Global Warming is caused by humans, that it can be stopped by humans, or that it will actually cause anything horrible to happen. He merely assumes that it does. Therefore, I challenge Remington and anyone who believes that Global Warming is man-made, reversible, and/or will cause horrible things to happen to present arguments and evidence that this is so. Specifically:

Present evidence that human activity does cause significant global warming. Please include a reasonable impact here, such as 25% of Global Warming is due to human emissions.
Present actions that we can take to decrease global warming significantly. This should likewise include some ballpark figure as to what we can expect to receive for our sacrifice. Ideally, this will also be tied to presented harms of Global Warming.
The Harms of Global Warming. Please present real impacts. Things like death (any creature) are particularly good here. The cost of air conditioning does not count.

If anyone thinks that I am being unreasonable in these requests, please let me know how.

References

[1] Mark Steyn. "Warm-mongers and cheeseburger imperialists". ocregister. 8/12/2007
[2] John McCaslin. "Inside the Beltway", The Washington Times. 8/14/2007
[3] Bradford Plumer. "Global Warming Debunked! (or not....)". The Plank. 8/13/2007
[4] Kate Ravilious. "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says". National Geographic News. 2/28/2007
[5] Sylvan H. Wittwer. "Rising Carbon Dioxide is Great for Plants". Policy Review. Fall 1992
[6] Mark Shwartz. "High CO2 levels can retard plant growth, study reveals". Stanford Report. 12/5/2002
[7] Brittany Sauser. "Ethanol Demand Threatens Food Prices. Technology in Review. 2/13/2007
[8] Manuel Roig-Franzia. "A Culinary and Cultural Staple in Crisis". Washington Post Foreign Service. 1/27/2007
[9] Ethanol and food price volatility. Econbrowser. 7/22/2007
[10] "Comparison of Biodiesel, ULSD and CNG for Use in On-Road Heavy-duty Applications". Steve Richardson & Company, LLC. 2004?
[11] "Corporate Average Fuel Economy". Wikipedia.

Warren Buffet's Low Tax Rate

2007-08-02T17:44:00.000-07:00

Several weeks ago, Cameron was wondering on Facebook why Warren Buffet pays less taxes than he does. Curious, I asked for a reference and Cameron sent me this link a few days ago:

Warren Buffet Pays 17.7% Tax Rate; His Employees Pay 32.9%

The article cites Warren Buffet himself as complaining that he unfairly pays less taxes (about 17.7%) than his secretary (about 32.9%). The author then links to 4 other article commenting on the same issue. I found Greg Mankiw's remarks to be the most insightful.

Essentially, Buffet's observations are misleading for two primary reasons:

Social Security Taxes
Pre-Capital Gains Taxes

As Mankiw points out, the vast majority of Buffet's immediate income is taxed as capital gains, whereas his secretaries immediate income will be taxed as regular income. It appears that Buffet's figures are really based primarily on this fact (15% capital gains tax vs. a 33% rate, including 12% Social Security taxes, for his secretary).

If my memory serves me correctly, social security taxes max out at around $100k. Thus, the money Buffet makes over $100k, which is most of his income, will essentially diminish the effect of that 12% on his income to a negligible amount. Accounting for this fact, his secretaries comparable taxes were really only around 21%, just 4% more, not 16% more, as Buffet claims.

Furthermore, as Mankiw points out, Buffet's capital gains do not come from nothing. They come from assets he owns, such as businesses, which are taxed at a corporate rate of about 35%. Thus, the capital gains tax is not really a 15% tax on income, but a 35% + 15% of the remainder, effectively a double tax. This is most easily seen in the case of dividends. When a stock holder receives dividends, he receives them proportionally to his ownership in a business, which is taxed before he gets paid. Thus, his assets are taxed at about 35% in the corporate pool, and then he gets taxed another 15% (maximum) on the 65% remaining when it comes out of the pool and into his directly controlled assets. Hardly a mere 15% tax and probably enough even with multiple caveats to actually place Buffet's real tax rate significantly higher than his secretaries.

Link(s) of the Week

2007-07-21T10:15:00.000-07:00

Lying politicos and media malfeasance - Michael Medved

In this article, Michael Medved discusses the actual text of the HR2956, the [Ir]responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act, which was generally explained as being a withdrawel from Iraq bill. Medved points out that the text, contrary to most statements by politician and media reports, although a horrible idea written in vague terms, is actually a troop reduction plan, not a complete withdrawal plan. I recommend reading this article as well as the Act itself to see more specifically what he is talking about.

FBI Spyware

2007-07-18T18:23:00.000-07:00

I stumbled on this Wired article today. It discusses an FBI spyware program that apparently sneaks onto a users machine and reports various statistics to the FBI, and it was used to identify an "anonymous" MySpace user. What struck me about the article was the following remark:

such surveillance...can be conducted without a wiretap warrant, because internet users have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the data when using the internet.

It seems to me that the real issue in this case is not so much what data they gather, but where they gather it from. According to a reference to an older article that discusses the recent ruling that came to the above conclusion, the decision seems to be based upon a previous ruling that it was ok to gather call lists through phone companies because the information is essentially public to the phone companies. Thus, the ruling argued that ip addresses are essentially equivalent to phone numbers, and thus it is an equivalent case to a previous ruling. However, it seems to me that the key difference is not what is being gathered, but where it is gather from. In the supposedly equivalent case, the data was gathered external from the person being watched, whereas in the spyware case, the person's property is actually used against him.

Although I general think that law enforcement is held back in this country, this seems like one case in which the courts are actually allowing them to over step their bounds and violate the 4th amendment.

Global Stewardship

2007-07-15T16:27:00.000-07:00

I've received several responses on my recent global warming post.

Kenpo

Eat, Drink, and be Scary?

The first is from Kenpo on Blogger, who remarked:

Good points, though the "eat, drink and be scary" at the end is probably sending the wrong message. - Kenpo

I apologized if I left the impression that I was arguing for "an eat, drink, and be merry" willful ignorance of problems. That was not my intention. My point was merely that some people are too willing to embrace a doomsday scenario, and based on that scenario, accept any proposed solution, regardless of its effectiveness or relevance.

Sharon

On Facebook, Sharon made several points. I want to focus on three of them.

The first was the following:

Stewardship

For me it's never been a question of right or wrong, or proof. It's been a question of stewardship. We have a responsibility to take care of the things we have. If there are choices and technologies we can choose that are better for the planet in the long run, we should plan on it. - Sharon

I agree that we are to be good stewards of this planet. Genesis records that Adam was placed on earth (in Eden) to dress and keep it:

Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Thus, we are here to take care of and protect the earth. For this reason, I find it reasonable to not waste, not litter, recycle what we can, etc. However, many people believe that we should do much more, from decreasing emission, to rejecting the modern world, to rejecting humanity itself.

It seems to me that the primary issue here is how do we define a normal or better planetary state? If one begins by defining the ideal state of the planet without humans, it is not surprising for one to conclude that the planet would be better off, or more ideal, without humans. If one defines every change made by humans as negative and destructive, it is unsurprising for one to conclude that the world would be better without humans.

Elsewhere in Genesis, God also gave the following command:

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Thus, we are here to care for the earth, but also to rule and to use it. Clearly, there is a balance in this beyond the scope of this post, but the point is that a vision of a good planet can and should include us.

Non-sustainable Technologies

Sharon's second remark was the following:

Any technologies that are not sustainable in the long run are unwise no matter how you look at it. - Sharon

I'm not sure I necessarily agree. It seems to me that throughout the past several hundred years, we have seen unsustainable technologies come and go, providing benefits while they were in use. I think a prime example of this is actually oil and gasoline. Even if we reject any possibility that such resources can be renewable, it is clear that there are other technologies currently in development which may be able to take its place, such as nuclear power, solar power, etc., or a collection of them.

Furthermore, it seems to me that arguing that something valuable should not be used because it is limited is somewhat akin to observing that if a very fine cake is eaten, it will not be around to be enjoyed later. A perpetuation of this idea leads to no good ever coming of the cake (unless it is really pretty and ends up in an art museum, but that's beside the point).

Responsibilty of the Powerful

Finaly, Sharon made this remark:

And if those in power can do their best to make it easier for the rest of us to be responsible for our eco-footprint, everyone will be served in the long run. - Sharon

To an extent, I agree. Those who have the ability to produce roughly equivalent products with one being better for the environment ought to do so. However, I do not believe that those in power have the right to insist, based on their possibly subjective vision of a better planet, to coerce others to comply with their plans, especially when those plans are ill-founded.

Impact of Subsidies vs. Taxes on Gas Prices

2007-07-14T16:41:00.000-07:00

Recently, Kenpo commented on my article from 2005 regarding oil company profits vs. Federal revenues. He observes:
on the "government making gas so expensive" front, isn't gasoline subsidized by the Federal government? In European countries where it isn't, gas is the equivalent of $5+ per gallon. Or so I've heard it said... - Kenpo
In reply to this, I have 4 points:

Primary Focus is Profit, not Price

First, the primary focus of my article was on profit, not price. Essentially, I was just pointing out how hypocritically it was for politicians to complain about corporate profits when the government itself profits more from the same industry.

Gas Price is Still Raised by Gas Taxes

Furthermore, regardless of government subsidies, the effect of government tax policies is still to raise prices. Furthermore, it should be noted that while these officials berated the oil companies for profiting off rising gas/oil prices, their response was not to attempt to lower their own contribution to the high price, or even to enact price controls (which would have been a bad idea, but would at least been an idea that attacked the alleged problem). No, their response was to recommend that government should increase taxes, which could only influence the price of gas by increasing it even more!

Government Taxes Exceed Subsidies

However, a limited amount of research turns up the following figures:

	Amount	Source
Subsidies	$35 billion	Greenpeace
Revenues	$60 billion	Tax Foundation
Net	$25 billion

Although the Greenpeace data is from 1995, the TaxFoundation article shows that government gas revenues remained at a fairly constant rate until 2004 (in fact, I think gas taxes have increased since then), and I suspect that subsidies did not change much either. Add to this government requirements on fuel blends, inclusion of expensive alternative fuels like ethanol, etc. and despite the subsidies, it seems quite reasonable to conclude that the government's influence on gas prices is to raise them, not to lower them.

European Gas Prices: Case Study

Finally, I do not know a whole lot about European gas policies, but I suspect the reason European gasoline is so expensive has to do with similar government controls and taxes that are more restrictive and higher than our own. For example, according to Wikipedia, average US gas taxes (state & federal) are around 42 cents per gallon. In contrast, German taxes on conventional gasoline amount to about 65 cents per liter, or about $2.46 per gallon, over 5 times US tax rates.

Why I am not worried about Global Warming

2007-07-11T20:52:00.000-07:00

With all the recent noise about Global Warming generated by the ill attended Live Earth event, I am again appalled that so many ignore some obvious questions or simply reject them out of hand. It seems to me, that 3 issues in particular illustrate the essentials that are missing from much of the dialog.

Human Responsibility Questionable

While it seems obvious that by generating and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, humans have some impact on CO2 levels. However, the connection between human CO2 output and climate is not nearly so simple. Following are two demonstrations of this.

The Climate Changed Before Industrialization

According to Wikipedia, a period of time known as the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300 AD) was characterized by relatively high temperatures across at least Europe. During this time, Greenland was green enough to be settled by the Vikings.
This period was followed by the Little Ice Age (~1300-1850 AD) during which glaciers advanced in Greenland and the Thames froze over during the winter in England.

These and other records indicate that Earth's climate naturally changes. This might seem obvious, but much of what I hear in the general news seems to imply that Earth's climate is in a state of delicate balance and any deviation can cast Earth in catastrophe. This is decidedly untrue.

Changes in Extraterrestrial Climates Indicate at Least an Extraterrestrial Factor

As TH Barb notes here, data indicates that Mars is enduring climate warming as well. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that at least part of the warming currently occuring on earth is not related to human emission of CO2.

Possible Benefits

Furthermore, almost all discussions of Global Warming seem to dwell on horrible catastrophes that seem like they came out of some Hollywood Catastrophe film. Almost none of the discussion observes that the previously mentioned Medieval Warm Period is associated with a relatively prosperous period of European history, not numerous climatological and geological catastrophes.

Additionally, it is well known that plants rely on CO2 in a manner similar to our reliance on oxygen. Thus, increased CO2 levels tend to lead to increased plant growth, certainly a boon to farmers needing to stave off the horrible famine supposedly looming in our future as a result of global population growth. This article provides some details on the effects of CO2 on plant growth. A more recent study, despite the misleading headline, comes to a similar conclusion. Although the headline is "High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth" a careful reading of the article itself reveals that a depletion of other resources, not high levels of CO2, resulted in decreased plant growth in the 3rd year. In other words, the first 2 years demonstrated high growth, but depleted other resources required for plant growth that were not resupplied, resulting in a poor 3rd year. Armed with fertilizers and other tools, I seriously doubt this will be a major problem for farmers.

Drastic Plans Yield Minor Results

Even if we assume that human CO2 emissions are a major factor in global warming AND global warming will drastically and negatively influence the world, there seems to be little reason to change our emissions unless there is good reason to believe that such changes will have a significant impact on reversing global warming. In the few cases where I have heard the impacts discussed, it seemed to me that the benefits were ridiculously small in comparison to the probably massive economic impact of such changes. If the world as we know it really IS doomed to end within the next 50 years, I see little reason to intentionally make the remaining time we have worse before it gets worse anyway.

Oil Company Profits vs. Government Gas Taxes

2005-11-10T14:40:00.000-08:00

Today, I was reading a newspaper article concerning the recent Congressional Witch Hunt in the Oil Industry for "absurd profits", which apparently total around $33 billion. As I read, I began to wonder how this compared to government profit on the oil industry via taxation. A brief internet search quickly confirmed my suspicion that US governments actually collect more in taxation than oil companies receive in profits, at least until they have since I was born until perhaps this year:

Tax Foundation

Apparently, while the oil industry is reporting profits of around $33 billion, Federal and State governments are collecting more than that. Last year, oil profits totaled $42.6 billion while government taxes collected $58.4 billion from gas taxes alone. Assuming that the oil companies actually sell more than gasoline (which is quite reasonable since oil is used in the production of tons of products, from kerosene, to motor oil, to plastics), that means that oil company profits from all gasoline and all those other products are less than the governments revenue from taxation on a single product (admittedly, probably the largest by far) of the oil industry. Of course, the number reported as corporate profit is probably far below corporate gross revenue, which most likely far exceeds government income from gas taxes. However, the difference between the gross revenue and profits will be used to pay wages and invest in capital stock.

I couldn't find oil revenue quickly, but I found an article on Exxon that gives a brief example of revenue vs. profit:

Washington Post

Interestingly enough, I have heard it suggested that one possible contributor to the "high" profits of oil companies is the lack of incentive for them to invest. As we learned after Katrina hit, there are not many oil processing plants in the US, largely due to excessive government regulation. The inability to adjust for the shock of the damage of Katrina contributed to a relative shortage of gasoline which increased it's price, following the principles of supply and demand.

However, if oil company profits are increasing by about 75%, it is possible that we oil company profit might exceed government revenue from gas taxes this year. Assuming the 75% increase is recent and generously estimating an actual 50% increase over the year, one could predict that oil profits will be about $63.9 billion this year. In other words, unless government revenue increases by about $6 billion this year (around a 10% increase) oil companies may actually profit more from their endeavors than the government does from taxation of one of their products for the first time in my life. Perhaps thats what really has Sen. Barbara Boxer outraged, a US company profiting more from their own enterprise than the government! What a horrible outrage!

Perhaps instead of excoriating executives and proposing that government tax oil companies more, she should really ask why government needs to make gasoline prices so high...

Considering the Future

2005-11-08T09:25:00.000-08:00

A reply to Josh's response.

I will agree that simple emphasis is part of our disagreement, but I do not think it can account for it all. We still seem to have a fundamental difference on the proper outlook on a Christian in viewing the present and the future. You assert that:

I am of the opinion that the future stuff is nice, but the things of tomorrow are not things that we are to be worrying about; those things will take care of themselves.

and

I feel like we turn away from God's grace if we ignore it and its sufficiency in the present. There will be time to appreciate and live in the future things when they come. - JDK

While I agree that God has provided the strength and grace we need in the present, I can not accept the proposition, which you present, that we should not pay much attention to the blessings of eternity future. I understand, as you point out, that an otherworldly attitude can be overdone to great loss. As it has been said, some become "so heavenly minded they are of no earthly good". However, we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. When we have both Paul and Christ repeatedly pointed to the future and emphasising a heavenly outlook by calling us to:

1 - Lay up your treasure in heaven - Christ

2 - Run so that ye may receive the prize (at the end of the race, that is, when our life is done) - Paul

3 - 1Th 4:17 - 18 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Here we are specifically commanded to comfort each other with a look to the future by Paul!

4 - Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Christ won our salvation spurred by a future minded outlook. Looking towards the joy of our salvation which was to come, He endured the torment of the crucifiction. Certainly, we would not be wrong to follow His perfect example.

Therefore, I would argue that the future is something we are not just to look forward to, but commanded to keep in mind. Furthermore, it might be considered part of God's present grace to reveal future blessing to us.

Finally, you argue that "the things of tomorrow are not things that we are to be worrying about; those things will take care of themselves", a clear reference to Matt. 6:34:

Mat 6:34 So never worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." - ISV

I do not think this verse applies to the present topic for two reasons:

1 - Christ commands us not to worry about tomorrow. He says nothing about anticipating the glorious promises of future blessing. In fact, as I pointed out above, His example is the opposite as He anticipated future joy in enduring the pain of the cross.

2 - I do not think that Christ's use of tomorrow applies to eternity future. Christ is specifically speaking about individual days, and it seems to me, that these days would be restricted to life on earth. Once we reach heaven, I doubt each day will involve much trouble. ;)

Furthermore, it is important, as I am sure you know, not to confuse worry with thinking or planning ahead. While we are commanded to be "wise as serpants", we are also commanded to trust God. Thus, thinking ahead and anxiously agonizing over possible problems are two different things. It is wise to consider the future, but foolish and sinful, exhibiting a lack of faith in God, to anxiously obsess over future problems.

Continuing Eternity is not the Present

2005-11-03T19:27:00.000-08:00

JDK

In response to Josh's response to my last post, he made three comments or questions. My response is as follows:

1 - In your terms, yes. My view of time breaks into three distinct segments:

A - Eternity Past - Before God created the heavens and the Earth and only he existed.
B - History - Creation to the last judgement.
C - Eternity Future - The time after the last judgement in which believers live forever with God.

Thus, the eternity in question here (Eternity Future) begins at a point of time in the future (end of the last judgement) and run forever after.

This follows from the nature of God (eternal, always existing), the temporal nature of creation (began at a point in time, when God began creating), and the nature of our future (neverending), and the ever relatively changing nature of present History and the relative consistency of eternity past and eternity future.

2 - Unfortunately, while I suspect it was not your intention, the overzealous language which you used to describe the present give the impression that the question of good things in the future is irrelevant or in fact, that the future holds nothing. Primarily, this impression stems from your statement here:

The kingdom of God is within me; eternity is here and now. If I miss that--if I miss the present--then I've missed everything. - JDK

The present is important, but it is not eternity and it is not everything. Logically, as the present progresses, one may argue that your statement implies that the future also has good in it, but I think that fails to maintain the distinction between the good of the present and the good of the future and eternity. The good of eternity future is different than the good of the present.

3 - Of course God's grace is sufficient. He told Paul so concerning his thorn in the flesh and promises that we will not be tempted beyond that which we are able to bear.

2Co 12:8-9a For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee...

1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

But grace is not all we are promised. Having his grace and love in the present is not having everything we are promised in eternity, therefore eternity is not the present and should not be confused with it.

Twinkie Geek

In response to Twinkie Geek's reply at Live Journal

I believe that if we are made of God, and that if we are surrounded by His creations (and subsequently surrounded by Him, being that the creations would be imbued with His spirit/a part of Him), then we are able to find love within these creations on this Earth and find evidence of God in them (Note: I am judging His creations based on an Emersonian viewpoint; man's spirit is good, but the addition of "reason" obliges him with the ability of corruption and man-made things that are created with the impurities of competition [and most of their] ambitions(which is why I believe this whole "race" idea is bad)).

Are you suggested that God is in everything? I am not familiar with Emerson, but it seems to me that if we accept the proposition that God is in everything, then He is not perfectly good. Rather, he is either evil or neutral, in which case, morality is either arbitrary or irrelevant.

Why do you say that "reason" makes man corruptible? What is it about rationality that causes corruption? Why does irrationality not cause corruption? It seems to me that what really gives man the power to do evil is not reason, but simple freewill. We can choose to do evil and good, and often, it is selfishness or pride that leads to sin, not necessarily reason.

I am also confused by your reference to the "race" idea. To what are you referring? The idea of racial distinction between people of different skin colors or geographical origin? If so, how does that relate to the Emersonian view that man is basically good?

Scripturally, my view is the converse of yours in two ways:

1 - Man and God's creation is distinct from God. He is neither contained by His Creation, existing within the essence of His creation, or the essential existence of His creation. However, I do agree that having created the universe, the universe contains evidence of God's existence. This follows from passages such as the following:

1Jo 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Gen 3:17-19 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

A - If God has no darkness in Him, He does not seem that He could be part of this dark world.
B - When God punished Adam, He cursed the "ground" which later passage reveal includes the whole creation. It makes little sense for God to curse Himself.

2 - Man is not essentially good. Rather, man is essentially sinful:

Rom 3:10-12 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

In otherwords, man is inherently corrupt. No man has lived a perfect life and our nature is not to seek good, that is, God, but rather evil.

Therefore, since one has the ability to become connected with one's surroundings (God), one should be able to expect such a connection and feeling when "their time comes."

What do you mean to "[connect] with one's surroundings" and "their time"?

Rom 8:17-18 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

I think it is key to acknowledge the careful word usage and sentence structure here. The value (the amount of goodness, I believe, in this case) of the sufferings is outweighed by the glory (read: essentially God's presence, by Latin terms) that will be revealed WITHIN OURSELVES to us by God. IOW, the goodness (presence of God) that we see in sufferings is less than the presence of God that is actually there, *because* it is within each of us (the sufferers as well as the watchers).

I do not follow your inference that glory is God's presence. According to Strong's, the word here is:

G1391 δόξα
doxa (dox'-ah)
From the base of G1380; glory (as very apparent), in a wide application (literally or figuratively, objectively or subjectively): - dignity, glory (-ious), honour, praise, worship.

Furthermore, the New Testament is written primarily in Greek, not Latin (although early on it was translated into the Latin Vulgate).

You seem to be suggesting that the proper interpretation is as follows:

The suffering (perception of a lack of goodness) of the present is not actual, but perceptual. We perceive certain events as suffering because we fail to see God in them. Later, the God that He was in those involved in the event.

There are several problems with this interpretation.

1 - Paul does not seek to explain how God is can be seen in suffering to avoid the perceptual disjunct with reality.
2 - He delineates the suffering and the glory with clearly temporal terms. The suffering is "present" and the glory is future ("shall be revealed").
3 - Context presents major problems for this interpretation as well. In the next few verses, Paul further explains his meaning:

Rom 8:19 & 22-23 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God...For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Here, Paul explains that the glory is:

A - The manifestation of the sons of God.
B - The redemption of our bodies.

Furthermore, this glory is not something that presently exists, but will come in the future. It is something we wait for and indeed groan for.

As a side not, this passage further explains the difference in the blessings and joys of the present and the future. They are not the same, as Josh's original post seemed to imply.

Please comment here.

Eternity is not the Present

2005-10-31T21:18:00.000-08:00

Josh Kerr argues in a recent post that "...eternity is here and now. If I miss that--if I miss the present--then I've missed everything."

In a dissenting comment, Adria remarks that:

I think the idea of acting for now is important. I think forces every action to be important, instead of distant consequences.

Simultaneously, though, I've always believed that I'm running with endurance the race marked out for me, and that I'm running in such a way as to get the prize.

I have to agree with Adria. It seems to me that Josh is confusing the possibility of the joy and blessings in the Christian Walk on earth in the present with future rewards and joys in the next world. Both are available to the believer, but they are not the same thing.

Regarding future rewards and joy, as Adria already pointed out, Paul does not simply present us with a view to the present. He provides analogies and examples of enduring present suffering with future blessing in mind.

First, there is the example of the race:

1Co 9:24-27 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Paul speaks not of running the race for the races sake or because the race itself is enjoyable. Rather he speaks of running the race explicitily for future gain. To reinforce the analogy, he clearly compares it to a races familiar to the people of the time in which the winner received a "corruptible crown" of leaves that shortly withered and died. Those who ran did not win the crown by virtue simply of running. Indeed, only 1 of many received the crown. Furthermore, even the winner did not receive the crown while running. Certainly, the very act of running can be enjoyable at times, but that does not mean that the joy and blessing of running is the same as the joy and blessing of winning a race or the rewards of victory. Thus, it also seems falacious to me to assume that the rewards Paul speaks of are necessarily the same rewards as we currently enjoy.

Second, Paul points to the example of previous faithful men (Heb. 11) and Christ's own example:

Heb 12:1-2 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Frankly, I do not care how you look at it, but I would not consider the shame and torment of the crucifiction, the agony of Him who knew no sin becoming sin for us, or this list of tortures:

Heb 11:36-38 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

to be the kind of rewards we are promised or that Paul is referring to. Josh attempts to address this problem here:

Even when we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, we need not fear. Why? Because of the presence of God. Because of God's present comfort. Because God prepares for us a table in the very presence of our enemies. The shadow is of what is to come; the fear is of the possible future. But the prize is here, and now. Christ doesn't not promise us Christ's eventual presence: "Lo, I will be with you eventually, if you tough it out." Rather, Christ promises us love, which is always present. Love takes no record of the past, nor suspect of the future. Love is always a relatedness oriented toward the present. Greater love is that which lays down its life: completely present, giving up all claim to the future. The greatest form of love is not that which promises something later, if things go well. "If you can just suffer through this painful time, I'll love you again." Such are not the assurances of Christ.

However, while we need not fear and we have His love, we are promised much more than that! One must also be careful not to confuse one blessing with all blessings and NOTHING can separate us from the Love of God, that is not what this discussion is about at all. This is about enduring the refining fire of the difficult times of the present with the perspective of eternity rather than exclusively the present.

Paul presents some of the future blessings we will receive here:

Rom 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

1Co 3:12-15 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Rom 8:17-18 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

First, we are promised the redeption of our bodies at His coming. Second, the rewards of works. Certainly, obedience to God and good works have their own inherent reward in the present, but more than that is promised. Third, we are promised joint-heirship with Christ if so be that we suffer with him. That is, heirship and blessing is promised to all, but only those who endure the race receive the greatest rewards. Not all that we receive in this life is the prize. We have also to endure the suffering of life in a cursed world.

The present is not everything and can often be less than desirable, even if there is comfort available even for the darkest of times. However, the suffering of the present is not all that is not everything. Eternity is NOT here and the present is NOT everything. Eternity will not be more of the same, but something quite different, even if it includes some familiar features (such as God's love).

Comments on Miers

2005-10-17T11:22:00.000-07:00

Heston posted an excellent piece on Abortion here.

While I completely agree with most of the post, he tags a brief section on Harriet Miers on the end, an issue which I have previously avoided commenting on, primarily because I am undecided. On one side, I am, like Heston, disappointed by the lack of clarity on Miers regarding her position due to her lack of a paper trail. I also am concerned about her lack of experience as a judge (nil).

On the other side, I recognize that President Bush knows a lot more about her than would be in her paper trail due to his extensive experience with her. Furthermore, I have gathered that she was either in charge of or one of the major people in charge of helping President Bush select judges, which would seem to indicate that she has a lot of experience with the right kind of judicial philosophy, as reflected in other nominees. Therefore, I think it is likely that she knows what the "right kind" of judge from our perspective is and most likely holds similar views. I have also heard positive things concerning her position on abortion and gun ownership, but again, almost everything we "know" about her is second hand, anecdotal, or circumstancial. And as for the lack of judging experience, it seems to me that judges are just the other side of lawyers. Lawyers act as advocates for positions, just as debaters do, and properly advocating that position to the important audience (judges) requires a proper understanding of judicial philosophy.

In conclusion, my position is this:

1 - I am disappointed in the lack of certainty concerning Miers. I would have preferred a candidate with a more concrete position.

2 - While I am inclined to dismiss her lack of judicial experience, this is the highest court in the land, which makes me leery of putting people with no real judicial experience on it.

3 - As others have argued, the choice of Miers seems to reflect a deeper conviction in that either open presentation of a strict interpretation judicial philosophy as opposed to an activist judicial philosophy can not win or be approved or would be more work/damaging than it is worth. Such an approach may have been neccessary under the Democratic dominated Congress of Ronald Reagan, but Bush doesn't have that problem.

4 - The supreme court position is a very serious lifetime position to the highest court in the land. This means that no longer can she not be removed later (the decision is permanent), the decisions she will be making at the Supreme Court can not be over-ruled by a higher court. This also concerns me a lot.

5 - Thus, while I am very concerned and apprehensive concerning the choice of Miers, I am not convinced that President Bush made a horrible mistake in appointing her, although I am inclined to agree that he made a mistake. This is primarily because most of my concerns are regarding our ignorance of her, an ignorance which President Bush most likely does NOT have. Thus, in evaluating her, he is not concerned about a lack of information on her, he has 1st hand information. We do not. What concerns me more is the ability of the Senate to adequately exercise its obligation of advice and particularly consent concerning someone about whom so little is known.

Dark Matter and the Unobservable in Science

2005-10-15T10:43:00.000-07:00

I highly recommend this post on ID the Future. It provides a great discussion of the relationship between science and the unobservable, an oft cited argument against ID, which demonstrates that Evolutionary theory actually makes appeals to unobservable events and beings as well. The post lists 3 other parts of the series, which are also fairly good, especially 3 and 2 in that order.

The discussion of the unobservable reminded me of the recent refutation of Dark Matter. From what I understand, it sounds like astronomers applied a certain mathematical model to the universe which indicated that more matter existed than they had previously observed. This matter today remains unobserved, but numerous Dark Matter theories have sprung up to explain the descrepancy between the observed mass and the theoretical mass indicated by the model.

The funny part, which is the primary focus of the paper by Cooperstock and Tieu, is that the model was based on the assumption that Newtonian physics, particularly relating to gravity was a good enough approximation and an the fact that it was also an easier conceptual model to deal with. Cooperstock and Tieu adjusted the model to use General Relativities gravity model and poof, the dark matter (that is, the descrepancy between observed matter and theoretical matter) vanished.

Response to Earthenvesselmz on Minimum Wage Laws

2005-10-15T09:58:00.000-07:00

In response to Earthenvesselmz reply to my recent discussion of minimum wage laws:

Minimum Wage

1 - Definately not! Which freedom would be limited? Bob and Jack FREELY agree to a contract. Neither is required to do so. Having once made the agreement, both parties are legally required to follow through, but Bob and Jack have already surrended the right not to do what the contract specifies by signing it.

2 - The incentive may not make ALL people care, but it will likely make some people care, depending on the expected outcome. Essentially, all investment is the postponement of present good for expected future greater good, even if that greater good is unsure. If companies (and by application, people) would always choose to take the short term benefits over vague long term benefits, there would be no saving, no entrepaneurs investing in new ideas, no research and development firms, etc. Take the medical industry for example. Within the medical industries are lots of businesses willing to invest in research projects that won't generate profits for years as new drugs and medical tools are developed, which then have to go through a lengthy FDA approval process before they can even be sold and the possibility exists that the FDA could reject the drug making it impossible to profit from the project. I see no justification for your unsupported ascertion that people ignore long term unquantifiable benefits for short term quantifiable benefits.

Furthermore, I see no justification for the idea that given the assumption that people (for that is what businesses and governments are composed of and the ones who make the decisions we are discussing) will suddenly become more concerned with the long term benefits if we relabel their institution as a "social" institution. People still have self-interest and the governments job would still be the same.

3 - Which problem are you refering to? The fact that legislating higher wages can not increase the capital to pay for wages by the same proportion? That actually isn't a capitalist problem, it's a monetary problem (in part). Simply by legislating that 10 employees formerly paid out of $100 now be paid 50% more, the $100 does not become $150. Theoretically, the government could either print more money, raise taxes, or borrow to compensate the $100 with the additionally $50, but that money has to come from some where. In the case of printing money, the currency is devalued, which is essentially a flat tax on everyone. If the government raises taxes, it is effectively decreasing the wages of other workers to increase the wages of other works. Another 10 workers who are paid out of $200 are taxed $50 to pay for the other 10 workers and they now effectively make less. Finally, if the government borrows money, it has to pay it back later with one of the other options, so that is only a short term solution. Therefore, I reject your unsubstantiated assertion that "captialsim" causes "this" problem. Furthermore, if capitalism is the problem, what would your solution be? Clearly, if capitalism is a problem, minimum wage laws are just a symptom solution. Capitalism remains to continue causing problems.

As for the lack of freedom in worker-employer contracts, this is absolutely not the case. My sister and I worked minimum wage jobs at Target one summer (or rather, she did and I opted to work at night for an additional $ an hour) and our alternative certainly was not starvation. We freely chose the jobs valuing the contribution to our college educations and augment our life-styles (I was able to afford the laptop I am typing this on). The pitfall of the "living wage" argument which you seem to be ascribing to here is that it seems to me that most of the people seeking minimum/low income jobs are younger people like me, who are supported to an extent by others but want to get a job to augment our lives or save for the future. We aren't in danger of starving.

As for work vs. starving, there is no right to food. God had the following to say about getting food:

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

The apostle Paul had this to say about the relationship between working and eating:

2 Thes. 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Therefore, I find the starve or work a minimum wage job to be hardly terrifying or some kind of inherent problem that condemns capitalism and necessitates legislation of any kind. In fact, I find the ascertion that the alternative of starvation entitles the poor man to something to be unbiblical.

Furthermore, how does the fact that I wish to employ low cost labor and someone else agrees to work for that price suddenly make me responsible for guaranteeing an arbitrary minimum quality of living or justify forcing me to act as some kind of charity? If I am not mistaken, that is why we have charities and welfare (which is another topic).

Ownership Derived from Investment

I suspect you are referring to Locke's argument that property rights dervice from the infusion of something (say land) with one's own labor (building a house and a fence). However, you omitted a key component of Locke's argument which is that that that which is made personal property by an infusion of labor is necessarily previously unowned. Thus, his argument, while it suggests a reasonable justification for the emergance of private property, does not provide the definitive means of gaining property. We are not in a system of nature or lack of ownership within which Locke applied his argument. Today, nearly all goods and land is owned. Thus, I can not go and build a house in your backyard and claim I therefore own your backyard because that violates your property rights. Today, ownership is achieved through free legal transfers of previously owned property, not the creation of new property through the infusion of labor. Therefore, the short answer to your question is no.

Likewise, the answer to your second question is no. The company is pre-owned. If I go into a factory and work, I do not become an owner of the company. There are two ways to look at this. First, if I am not hired by the company, I am violating their property rights in the first place by breaking into their factory and trying to work for them. Second, if I am legally hired by the company, I have already agreed on a form of compensation, my salary. I do not receive ownership in the company, but I receive ownership in currency. Another way to look at the 2nd case is to observe that my labor for the company is not owned by me, and therefore the infusion of that labor with the companies goods makes the goods the company's and not mine, for I have sold the ownership or property of my labor to the company in exchange for ownership of some other property.

Solving Chemical Reactions Without Guessing

2005-10-12T22:14:00.000-07:00

For those who have every been tormented by the evils of playing guessing games with balancing chemical equations, I have news for you. There is a way to solve them that involves real math, not adding magic/houdini numbers until both sides are balanced. The first and simplist way involves only simple algebra. For this reason I am surprised and somewhat shocked that even in College Chemistry, they teach the guessing method, which leads me to wonder if this is something that only math nerds know, if Chemists have some aversion to math, and how late, if ever, it is taught to Chemistry majors. Hopefully they do, but I wouldn't be surprised... :-/

Anyway, the first method works like this. Say you have an unbalanced reaction as follows:

H2 + O2 -> H2O

Begin by adding coefficients (variables representing the number of molecules of each part in the equation), which is what you are going to solve for:

A*H2 + B*O2 -> C*H2O

Now we can write a balanced equation representing each chemical contribution in the equation as follows:

H: 2A = 2C
O: 2B = C

Before proceeding, allow me to further explain how I arrived at the above equations. The equations are arrived at by isolating each element in the equation and the coefficients related to it. For Hydrogen, this is A and C on either side (A = C). To properly balance the equation, we have to multiply coefficients by the subscripts for the number of atoms in each molecule, to get the number of atoms on each side (which have to add up to the same thing for the equation to balance).

The next step is very simply, but conceptially probably the most advanced, having a connection to linear algebra. Essentially, the equation has an infinite number of answers (which makes sense, because once you balance the equation, you can multiply across the equation by any number, and still have a balanced equation). Furthermore, since we have 3 variables and 2 equations, we can not solve for any variable. To fix this problem, we simply assign an arbitrary value to one of the variables, and because there are an infinite amount of multiples which balance the equation, this "free" variable will lead us to a ratio of coefficients for which any multiple balances the equation. To keep things simple, it is usually easiest to simply assign A the value of 1 (A = 1). Which leads to the following conclusions:

2A = 2C : 2C = 2(1) : 2C = 2 : C = 2/2 = 1
2B = C : B = C/2 : B = (1)/2 = 1/2

Therefore:

A = 1
B = 1/2
C = 1

Which gives us the balanced equation:

A*H2 + B*O2 -> C*H2O
1 * H2 + 1/2*O2 -> 1*H2O

At this point, some of you are probably wondering what insanity leads me to think that a system that yields fractionally balanced equations (half a molecule you say?) is a great thing, because such answers are unacceptable. However, remember that this is simply a multiple of ratios for which their are an infinite number of alternative multiples, and that we can simply multiply across the reaction to scale to whatever we want. In this case, we want the smallest balanced equation with whole number coefficients. Therefore, the final step is to multiply the reaction by the smallest value which will yield all whole number coefficients. In this case, that number is 2:

2 * (1 + 1/2 -> 1)
2 + 1 -> 2
2 * H2 + 1 * O2 -> 2*H2O
2*H2 + O2 -> 2*H2O

Which is the final, balanced quation, having 4 atoms of H on the left and 4 on the right (2*2 = 2*2) and 2 atoms of O on each side (2 = 2). While this method might be a bit longer than just guessing for a reaction this simple, the guessing method can quickly become painful with reactions slightly more complex. That and methodical people like me cringe whenever we hear "just guess". :o

The second method is essentially the same thing in a different format, using matrices and linear algebra to speed the process up a bit. However, the theory is a little more detailed and draing matrices is a bit difficult with text. Somehow I strugged through Highschool Chem without this, but taking it over again at the University reminded me how evil it was. Also, from what I was learning in linear algebra, I was pretty sure their had to be a systematic way to solve these problems. I got pretty close to figuring it out by myself, but had to check the web (where I found the above way of doing it) and my linear algebra book (which had the matrix method). Of course, our instructor simply recommended a 3 step guessing plan (1 - Guess 2 - Add up 3 - Repeat).

Minimum Wage Laws

2005-10-11T11:18:00.000-07:00

Last week in Macroeconomics, we were covering minimum wage laws and are instructor claimed that it wasn't certain whether they hurt the economy/poor people or not. He said that on one side, there is the argument that the articifial increase in cost decreases incentive to hire people. On the other side, he said others argue that the increase wages stimulate economic growth to maintain a similar level of jobs or that due to decreased turnover, it is actually better for businesses in the long run. I reject those arguments for 3 reasons:

1 - As I pointed out earlier, government's proper role is not simply doing what economists or economics seems to indicate would be best for the economy. The governments role is to protect the rights of it's citizens, maintaining their freedom and protecting them from the assaults of others upon that freedom. Thus, the fact that "society" might be slightly better off if Bob gave Jack a raise, that is not sufficient warrent to force Bob to give Jack a raise. Bob and Jack have entered into a free agreement whereby Jack works for Bob for an agreed upon price.

2 - As our instructor pointed out, part of the assumption behind the pro-min. wage argument is that businesses only consider the short term and not the long term, while government considers the long term. How, by virtue of being a beaurocrat, one mysteriously loses self-interest and short-term tunnel vision and becomes a selfless civil servant dedicated to the best long term interest of society, nay, the WORLD as a whole, I doubt I shall ever know. Indeed, the facts seem to contradict this. Consider the recent Oil for Food Scandal, the New Orleans Debacle, and Social Security. In all cases, beaurocrats either acted on self-interest or lacked long term vision. People are people whether they work in the private sector or the public sector, and as such business will have at least as much interest in their long term success as some random beaurocrat who has no self-interest in the company whatsoever. In fact, they have every incentive to care MORE. ;-)

3 - Regarding the final reason presented, that the additional wages somehow stimulate the demand for minimum wage jobs, I see no reason to suspect this is the case, primarily because legislating a higher wage does not increase the capital available for labor investments. The capital remains the same, but is simply more concentrated into the hands of fewer laborers, which would seem to indicate that the same money that was going into the hands of these laborers is going to them and they have the same amount to spend. The only difference is that there are now fewer laborers receiving a higher wage. Those few may be better off, but those who have a harder time finding jobs are worse off.

The Horrors of Dover

2005-10-02T10:13:00.000-07:00

The Distant Collegian has posted a hilarious and telling examination of a news article dealing with the Intelligent Design policy of the Dover School here.

I particularly "like" the article section here:

"A defense attorney argued that it could have been the result of a fundamentalist Bible club her daughter had joined at school. But Smith told a court full of people yesterday that her daughter's comment was one way the mention of intelligent design in her daughter's high school has affected her."

So let me get this straight, the kid attends a public school and a Bible club. She comes home one day and confronts her mother about inconsistencies in her own faith. Having no answer for her daughter, she decides that instead of educating herself and finding the answer, she sues the school, somehow concluding that the school (which admittedly did expose kids to ID), not the Bible club was the cause of this unsettling discussion revealing her own ignorance/inconsistencies.

Obviously, may be reasons why the school is suspected. Perhaps the daughter herself said it was the ID at school and not anything at Bible club. Does the article every address this? No. It dismisses is solely based on the mother's unfounded claim, leaving us to with the unsupported impression that a school has been the sole prompting for a confrontational discussion concerning religion about her mother, and this is so horrible, it requires court intervention because children are starting to think about what they are learning. Horrors! If only the young woman had come home and asked her mother about drugs the world would be fine!

Externality Debate Continues

2005-09-29T10:27:00.000-07:00

Earthevenvesslemz replied to my response here
The Distant Collegian posted an excellent addition to my orignal argument there as well.

Even if Nash's cooperative game theory does provide a precise solution, Earthenvesslemz did not mention, refer to, or argue for it. Therefore, I fail to see how he can claim that a vague reference to game theory equates to a clear presentation of an exact solution. I could equally say that by saying God discussed the problem of salvation in His awesome book the Bible, that I had clearly presented a solution to sin, obviously being Christ's death on the cross. A quick glance over his recent reply once more reveals that he still has not presented any solution, leaving us, within the context of this discussion, as advocating a vague middle ground between socialism and laissez-faire.

Earthenvesselmz argues that the "cooperative system is irreguar". What do he mean by this? If by this he means that cooperation is irregular because not all people seek the same social ideal or personal ideal, then I would say that you are correct and that is the beauty of the laissez-faire system. Under the system, each man is free to determine for himself what he wants society and his life to look like and freely pursue those goals while not being able to violate the freedom of others to do the same by using coersive methods. The problem with ANY middle ground, then, is that it carries with it the implied justification of that coersion based upon a single set of social or even personal ideals which are then forced upon the rest of the nation whether in part or in whole.

As for maximization of the economy, although this is a worthy goal, it is important to remember 4 things:

1 - The meaning of human life is not maximized economies. They are good, but not our purpose for living. Thus, the fact that a specific system may fall short of the maximum possible material production is NOT an issue that demands government intervention.

2 - Because maximization is dependant upon value and value is subjective, maximization is not a concrete state. Various people view maximization differently based on their valuations of various products.

3 - No man or group has the right to define the ideal and force everyone else to follow their ideal. That's why we recognize the divinely granted rights to life, liberty and property/pursuit of happiness in our government. Government is not about maximizing social "good" which requires the previous defining of a social good and forcing everyone else to seek it. Government is about allowing individuals to freely define their own ideal and seek it to the best of their ability while not violating the freedom of others.

4 - The world is imperfect, man is fallible, and the world is indeed fallen. We will not succeed in establishing Utopia under our rule.

Response to Earthenvesselmz

2005-09-25T10:09:00.000-07:00

Earthenvesselmz commented on my last post here.

Although his comment is interesting and appears to attempt to contradict the conclusion I reached, it does not deal with the arguments I provided in support of my conclusion, and I believe it also demonstrates a misunderstanding of my conclusion itself.

In summary, my basic argument was that externality benefits do not justify government intervention for two primary reasons.

First, government's role is to protect property rights and individual liberty through the maintanance of a legal system. Both are violated by any coercive effort by government to correct for externality benefits, because an correction involves government arbitrarily determining a "social benefit" (violation of liberty/pursuit of happiness) and forcing individuals to pay in some way for that benefit which they otherwise would not have payed for (violation of property rights). To this end, I provided two lawn mowing examples demonstrating the absurdity of the arguments applied. Furthermore, I argued that an externality argument can conceivably be applied to ANY commodity, which means that if the criteria for government intervention is simply an externality occuring, logically, the government must intervene in ALL situations, which is pure socialism.

Second, economic history and theory demonstrate that the alternative, laissez-faire, works much better than socialism. Thus, while in theory, some corrections might be necessary to attain an ideal economy, due to the subjective nature of value (being essentially the average of all arbitrary values attributed to product X by all market players in the case of individual value, and the arbitrary social value attributed to product X by all market players), exact corrections as demonstrated in economic theory are virtually impossible. Furthermore, any estimate of social value depends upon a social philosophy of what society should look like, and thereby any government intervention based upon social value is based upon a social philosophy with the end goal being the forming of society in the image of that philosophy, whether the citizens want it or not. Additionally, it introduces further problems of the majority forcing the minority to conform to their wishes.

For these reasons, I reject the argument that externality benefits demand government correction. Furthermore, I reject Earthenvesselmz argument, which appears to me to be this:

Laissez-faire, under which individuals make decision based purely on their own benefit disregarding the views of others completely, and socialism, under which the government defines a social ideal and forces those under it's control to conform to this image, are both extremes and neither presents an ideal economic situation. The ideal economic system is found somewhere in between, where individual freedom is respected, but social value is taken into account, presummably by government coercion.

Before dealing with the errors specific to the above argument, I must first point out the lack of any specific vision as contrasted with the visions I presented earlier (laissez-faire and socialism). Even if neither is ideal, it is clear what is meant by them. With the presentation of two extremes and the vague argument the somewhere in the middle lies the solution, we are presented with no clear picture of how this middle ideal is to be determine or worked out. Furthermore, no attempt is made to refute the argument I presented dealing with externality benefits which led me to conclude that laissez-faire was the lesser of two evils (socialism and laissez-faire). Namely, a criteria by which externality benefits justify government intervention logically justifies government intervention in ALL cases. Thus, within a simple observation of externality benefits, we are left with only two choices, government intervention in all cases or no cases based upon externalities. Thus, in context, no middle ground was logically offered, and no logical argument to support that ground has been provided by any but utilitarian means, and the utilitarian argument remains clearly refuted by the argument I present that any intervention necessarily justifies all intervention, an evil which even Earthenvesselmz opposed.

Finally, in pointing out the error in Earthenvesselmz argument, I believe it lies in a misunderstanding of laissez-faire. As an economy, it does deal with individuals and their personal valuations. However, no man is an island unto himself. Each of us has contact with other humans, and we value their input and well being. Thus, our true value takes into account both the value to us and possible values within our social network (if it were not so, no games requiring more than one person, such as chess, would ever be sold). Furthermore, a close examination of my proposed correction for externality benefits within the private sector (reasoning and private non-coercive intervention) also contradict Earthenvesselmz mis-characterization of laissez-faire within a larger social structure. The advantages of such a system are four fold. First, it allows for the freedom of individuals in a laissez-faire system. Second, it avoids any coercion. Third, it provides a mechanism for correcting externality benefits. Fourth, the correction is based upon the perceived benefits to third parties, not an arbitrarily determined social value by social engineers. Thus, one would expect the benefitted third parties to apply their reason and resources in direct relation to their expected benefit, arriving more accurately at the true aggrate social value than any arbitrary method is likely too. In this case, I believe Earthenvesselmz has made the common mistake of forgetting that any economic system must reside in a larger social system, and that the social system must not be forgotten if we are to see the complete picture.

2005-09-22T11:26:00.000-07:00

Dr. Shawn Knabb, my Macroeconomics instructor, remarked yesterday that most economists agree on the basic principles and models of economics, and therefore almost any macroeconomics class (and I suspect microeconomics class) will cover virtually the same material regardless of who teaches them. What economists disagree on is how well markets (and by that, I suspect he means the market model) work and thus what the appropriate policy conclusions are, and that the reasons for this are related to assumptions and views beyond economics. In other words, economists generally agree on the market model. What they disagree on, for reasons external to economics, is the accuracy of the model.

This is doubtless an over-simplification, but in some ways it is likely true. For example, in reading the textbook (which was a grossly over-priced $98) they covered externalities (something we covered in micro as well). The basic ideas of externalities is that a product may have costs or benefits not accounted for in the price. For example, a steel plant which takes in clean air for free and releases dirty air for free costs the surrounding area by increasing respiratory irritants, dirt settling on property, etc. Another example, such as a vaccine, can be seen to have an externality benefit. Those who do not receive the vaccine pay nothing, but receive a decreased risk of getting sick because possible carriers of the disease to them are reduced. In other words, they become freeriders, receiving a benefit from a product without paying for it.

Both examples make some sense and seem like something most people would agree on. The disagreement, however, is in how to deal with the externalities. The first, externality cost, seem easier to deal with. As the actions of the steel mill damages the property of others, it owes them some kind of compensation through the legal system (although, determining the appropriate method of compensation is much more difficult to determine). However, the issue of externality benefits is much stickier. While it would seem on first glance that something should be done, the government has only several options available to correct this "problem". For example, subsidies, public distribution, etc. Unfortunately, all government options essentially involve forcing "free-riders" (those who receive a benefit they did not pay for) to pay for that benefit whether they want to or not. Such forced payment rests upon the idea that a provided service inherently demands a fee.

In other words, if I provide a service for you, you owe me regardless of any agreement between us. The classic argument demonstrating the absurdity of this idea involves the mowing of lawns. Assume that I come to your house and mow your lawn, without your permission or a previous agreement between us. Then, I come to your door and demand $20 in payment. Should you be required to pay? Do you really owe me anything? Certainly, I have provided a service for you. You have benefited without payment. You have received an externality benefit from my efforts and therefore owe me money. The clear answer is no. There is no agreement between us, and therefore you have no right to demand compensation for services rendered.

Some may object that the above example is not a good example of an externality benefit because it is a direct benefit to you, not an indirect benefit of a legitimate transaction between two people. However, consider this variation on the theme.

Your neighbor hires me to clean up his lawn, which is a complete mess. It is so ugly that it has a negative affect on its own property value and on your property value. I clean up the property and receive the agreed compensation from him. However, you have received an externality benefit of increased property value because I have corrected the negative influence of the neighbors mess. Thus, the real "value" of my labor is greater than the compensation received from the neighbor, whose payment represents only the value of the benefit received by him. Acting upon this reasoning, I continue on to your house and demand $40 for my services.

In the above, I put value in quotation marks because I believe that is where the core of the issue lies. The principle of externalities, when applied to public policy involves the pre-empting of personal freedom regarding determination of value. An individual (A) who agrees to pay a vaccination fee of $20 values his personal benefit at $20 or more and therefore freely agrees to pay $20. However, the government decides that the real value of the vaccine is $30 because the chances that another individual (B) will become sick is decreased. Thus, the value of the vaccine is $30 and to correct the production generated by supply and demand by the lower price does is less than the real value to society. To correct this, B is fined $10, which is then given to the provider of the vaccine, signaling increased demand and therefore increased production, allegedly correcting the "underproduction".

When viewed from a "societal" perspective, this appears to make sense. However, when viewed from the perspective of individuals, it makes little to no sense and adheres to the lawn mower counterexamples. The issue then, is one of determination of value. Does society (which inevitably translates into government) determine value or does the individual? This is not limited to a single product. This is really a question regarding the value of any product.

The book attempts to argue that their are products that have no externalities, such as burgers, due to exclusivity of consumption. My consumption of a burger does not in any way harm or benefit you, right? However, while most people would probably agree that this is generally true, it is not necessarily true. Consider this. A burger is generally considered to be a relatively unhealthy food. Thus, consumption could be argue to decrease your value to society, decreasing your output, making you sick, shortening your life, etc. The externality cost then, is decreased benefit to society. Thus, government should step in and "correct" this externality cost with a "fat tax". You may laugh, but the above argument in various forms and arguments of a similar nature have already been advanced for the "fat taxes".

Thus, the real question is not regarding a few commodities, but ALL of them. Logically, if we accept the argument of externality benefits demanding government intervention, a criteria of societal value is implicitly accepted. Thus, the individual loses the freedom to determine his own actions. What he would choose to do is limited by governmental skewing of prices and coerced distribution of resources (your own resources).

Therefore, in this case, it seems to me that my professor was correct. Most people agree on the model. The question is how well the market model works without government intervention, and model evaluation depends upon one's perspective or adopted criteria (in this case, the perspective and criteria of determining value). Thus, the real question here is one of socialism or laissez-faire, public control or private (individual control), communism or property rights. Essentially, to accept government interventions on an argumentation of externality effects is to accept a criteria of social rather than individual valuing of products based on majority decisions and enforcing that choice on all of society.

Clearly, I fall on the side of laissez-faire, private control, and property rights. My reasons for this are 2 fold. First, I believe freedom and property rights are important rights of individuals granted by our Creator, as stated essentially stated by the Declaration of Independence. Second, I believe that both market history and the clarity of the market model do (in contradiction of my professors initial premise) demonstrate that a free market based on property rights and individuals acting in their own interest leads to a much productive and richer economy than a socialist or communist system of "social" (ie. government ownership and control of everything) control.

In closing, one might be wondering what I would recommend we do with externality. The first, external costs, are clear. External costs represent a real cost to individuals, damaging their property and thereby violating their property rights. A free, rights based legal system has built in handling of externality costs, which are more than just externality issues, but issues of property rights as well. However, externality benefits are not property rights issues and therefore not really governments business. If a group of citizens believe the societal value of a product is greater than the current price indicates, they have two options. First, they can convince more people to freely purchase the product based on the social benefits. Second, they can personal contribute private subsidies or extra incentives for the production or consumption of the product.

Various Thingamabobbers...

2005-09-19T20:51:00.000-07:00

On the 3rd, Cameron and I moved to Bellingham and have been living up here since. It took until a couple days ago to finally get the internet set up, so I have been mostly reading and playing games. Since we moved, I have read:

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (all 5 books)
Harry Potter (1-4)
Eragon
Eldest

All were pretty good.

On the 12th, we went to Transitions and started registering for classes. So far, it looks like I will be taking the following:

Ada for C++ and Java programmers (1 credit)
Macroeconomics (4 credits)
Chemistry (5 credits)
Linear Algebra (4 credits)

Unfortunately, as most of the programming classes at Western are taught in the obscure language Ada, I can not take to many of the other classes until I learn it. Fortunately, it looks like it should be pretty easy to pick up, but the syntax looks evil, particularly because it is needlessly verbose. One of the things I really like about C/C++ is it's respect of the fact that those using it will be repeatedly typing the same syntax over and over again, and therefore the syntax is a brief as possible. A great example of this is the naming of types, such as int (integer), bool (boolean - true/false), and char (character). Of course, in Ada, the type names are the full word (integer, boolean, etc.). To make matters worse, instead of simply following a specific syntax to declare a function, you have to begin with the word function like so:

function X
begin
random code
end X

Instead of the beautiful simplicity of C/C++:

void X()
{
random code
}

Another example of the unnecessary verbosity of Ada is in the if operator:

if condition then
stuff
end if;

as compared to:

if (condition)
{
stuff
}

At least it looks like it has some redeeming features, or I would seriously wonder what illness plagued the Computer Science department at WWU, and if they caught it from UW, where they teach in Java (a thoroughly horrid language which doesn't even have the excuse of being ancient. At least it is widely used though...).

Linear Algebra should be fun though. It will help me understand a lot of the math behind 3D graphics programming, such as that in DirectX and OpenGL, especially the uses of matrices.

As a start at a new college, one of the things that strikes me is how many people I will know on campus as a I start. Not only do I already know my room mate, but serveral people from Edmonds that I know at least a little bit will be here, Joel (Pax) from debate, and a few other people. I even ran into John from Science Olympiad on campus today.

The other interesting thing that happened today was the working on campus workshop that Cameron and I went to. We were the only people there, so we got to chat with the speaker for a bit. Turns out he started at Edmonds Community College like we did and even pursued a Computer Science degree for a while, before deciding that he didn't want to spend his life tracking down misplaced or missing semicolons and decided to major in math/economics. He even said that he and some of his buddies are into computer gaming and have lan parties about once a quarter. We'll have to keep him in mind when we try to start a club on campus.

Main Blog

2005-08-25T18:59:00.000-07:00

Although I like some some of the features Blogger has to offer, I prefer Xanga because of the digest feature. My Xanga blog can be accessed here:

http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Arthenor