On Ron Paul

I like a lot of what Ron Paul stands for, but so many of his supporters seem so extremely passionate about him, just like Obama's supporters have been, and it's a bit scary.

Nevertheless, RP's foreign policy seems to be the biggest sticking point for most people. So, somebody please enlighten me: What's the big problem with Ron Paul's foreign policy?

On Global Warming

In short, I believe that anthropogenic global warming is bunk, pure and simple. While we may be experiencing some global warming, it is probably not caused by human activity, and it is not enough to destroy the world, civilization or humankind. Any global warming that we may be experiencing is probably just natural climatic variablity and beyond the control or influence of human beings. I am not a skeptic, I am a denier.

Consider the information found at the following links and decide for yourself, as I have.

Facts about Global Warming:

http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.basics.asp

http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/a-global-warming-primer

Regarding the so-called "consensus":

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

More about "consensus science" from Michael Crichton's talk 'Aliens Cause Global Warming':

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . .

See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html

Recorded debate motioning that global warming is not a crisis:

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/global-warming-is-not-a-crisis/

(Yes, I am a fan of Michael Crichton and his extraordinary intellectual and logical gifts, and storytelling talent.)

The Rules of Computing, Revisited

I made some revisions to my Rules of Computing. You can check them out at: http://seronac.blogspot.com/2009/08/rules-of-computing.html

Enjoy.

Lies, Energy and More Lies

The truth about America's oil supply is that we have plenty, we should be producing much more than we are, we could even be a major exporter, and we can be energy independent, but the progressives and environmentalists want us to be poor and subservient. These lies are getting old. Too many people buy them, and do nothing to expose them. Their propagation is nothing short of evil.

Get the details here, and then write to your Senators and Representatives and tell them about it:

Setting the record straight on America’s oil

Deliberately Making Americans Poorer: Obama’s energy policies hit hardest below the poverty belt

The Big Energy Lie

The Big Energy Lie, Revisited: The truth behind all that 'The U.S. has only 2% of the world's oil reserves' malarkey.

And this:

Gas Prices Are High Because the Liberals Want It that Way

On The Demise of Osama bin Laden

Many in the country are celebrating the killing of Al Qaida leader and 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden, and this concerns me. Not that killing the man was wrong, he certainly was evil and deluded enough that we are completely justified (An excellent article on that subject was written by Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.) and he needed to be removed from this world and sent to God, but that people are celebrating it.

After the 9/11 attacks and the deaths of over 3000 people, we were appalled to see video of Palestinians and other Muslims dancing and cheering in the streets. We thought them sick and evil for rejoicing in such violence, tragedy and carnage. Now many of us are doing the same thing. We have allowed ourselves to be brought down to their level; allowed them to make monsters of us, as well. While I'm sure this does not sit well with those who are looking for an excuse to kill us and our freedoms, their vengeance isn't really the main reason for my concerns.

What really concerns me about these celebrations is the fact that more people have died, and thus have lost their opportunities to repent, and that some other person had to do it to them, and that act must abide in their souls forever. While I'm sure that justice was done (see Doctrine and Covenants 134:8,11), and that the military operatives who carried it out don't feel bad for it, the truth is that the taking of life has a cost, whether we see it now or not, and these acts dwell in our national conscience, as well.

Osama bin Laden was a deluded and evil man, and the cause of much evil, sorrow and trouble in the world. But he was also a son of God. To someone else, he was husband, to another, he was father, and to others, friend. And while these relationships don't justify his heinous acts, our recent acts still create heartache, sorrow and trouble for others of our Heavenly Father's children. And, it's very likely that at least one of those children will rise up to avenge his earthly father--we have not yet seen the end of this drama.

But, aside from all of these things, the Lord has told us:

"Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:

Lest the Lord see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him." (Proverbs 24:17-18)

And:

"Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded;" (Doctrine and Covenants 98:23, see verses 23-48 for details)

I wonder what rewards we are sacrificing in celebration of our vengeance.

-----

Why standest thou afar off, O Lord? why hidest thou thyself in times of trouble? (Psalms 10:1)

Who Are The Demigods?

I was reading a little article on Big Think about how awesome Shakespeare is and thought that it might be interesting to explore this topic. The writer of the article refers to Shakespeare as "God", or "a god", citing the fact that The Bard created much of our language and has had such a tremendous influence that he can have no equal. In a word, Shakespeare is a demigod, which is defined as "a person who is highly honored or revered", but the connotation carries an air of awe and divinity. Such a person executes his or her craft with such talent, creativity and perfection that we feel a bit of the Divine when we experience their work, and we are tempted to worship them.

In the 1960's there appeared graffiti in London that declared Eric Clapton as God. No doubt written by adoring fans, but not too inaccurate, given the man's amazing talent and ability with the guitar. Like Shakespeare, Clapton has been placed on the pedestal of a demigod because of his talent, creativity and perfection. Of course, this designation ignores his (Clapton's AND Shakespeare's) personal weaknesses, faults and moral shortcomings, and focuses exclusively on his extreme ability in his chosen craft or occupation.

So, who else is a demigod? Some people seem to give Obama this status, but I don't think so, and won't get into why. But, I was wondering who else might deserve demigod status. Make your suggestions, but political and religious figures don't count.

Daylight Saving Time is Stupid, and Immoral

I complain and threaten to move to Arizona twice a year when we are expected to change our clocks and habits in response to Daylight Saving Time. Just as an aside, it is Daylight *Saving* Time, not Daylight *Savings* Time. In this context, the word "saving" is an adjective referring to the verb form of saving; the act of saving, in this case, daylight. On the other hand, the word "savings" would refer to the noun form of the word that denotes banking something to get it back later; unfortunately, we can't bank daylight, nor time, and can't get it back once it's gone. So, referring to it as "Daylight Savings Time" just demonstrates ignorance, laziness or apathy.

Anyway, getting back to the subject, there is evidence that Benjamin Franklin was just joking when he proposed Daylight Saving Time (or DST), in a 1784 article. But some dunderhead Brit named William Willit actually took him seriously and proposed it for real in 1907. People, including and especially lawmakers, have asserted that DST helps farmers do their work, makes it safer for school children riding buses, and saves energy, and therefore money. I don't buy it.

You can research the reputed benefits on your own, but one enlightening article that I found on the subject reports that it saves a whopping $12 a year, about enough for a decent, good-sized meal at my favorite fast-food restaurant, with change left over. Other articles also report that DST results in an increased number of automobile crashes, industrial accidents, and heart attacks in the week after the change, particularly because of required changes to sleep patterns, which are fairly messed up already. Besides the money and effort expended to make the required changes to the various timekeeping and recording devices in home and industry nationwide; money and effort that could be applied to improving people's lives in a much more meaningful ways.

Since saving energy and money seem to be dubious reasons for DST, I began wondering about the real reason. So, I have come to the conclusion that, like most things the government does, it's about control. Laws requiring DST are draconian attempts to control the populace, and to test us to see how much control we allow them to have over us. Enough is enough. I think it's time to demand a repeal of DST, or, at least a permanent time change, rather than this twice-a-year-time-change nonsense. Write to your legislators today.

End Daylight Saving Time