loPEZ Dispenser

It’s great to live in Philadelphia! Being the birthplace of our great nation, Philly prides itself as a place founded on the ideals captured in our beloved Constitution. Being the day before Independence Day I thought I’d tell you a story about something going on up here.

There are times in our history when mistakes are made. Laws are passed that maybe don’t fully take into account the freedoms granted to us by our Constitution. In times like these action must be taken. It is our duty as citizens to uphold and protect the ideals that so many have fought and died for in our 232 year existence as a nation. We have a mechanism in place via our judicial branch that allows us to challenge contradictions and injustices in our own laws. There are even many organizations out there which provide assistance to those who need a louder voice.

Today, the city of Philadelphia is under assault by one of these laws. In April, the city passed a law that by it’s very nature is so heinous, discriminatory, and utterly unfair that citizens are in an uproar! Some say that at it’s core this law violates the First Amendment’s guaranty of free speech. Three citizens of our great city Mike Tait, Josh Silver and Ann Bourlais along with the Institute of Justice have had enough of this injustice and have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this law.

So what is this law the the city so carelessly passed? According to the new law, beginning in the fall, all Philadelphia tour guides must take (and pass) a history exam and pay a fee to become a city licensed tour guide. Violators of the law would face a fine of $300. This law applies to all city tour guides including NPS guides, Duck Boat and Bus tours, carriage rides, and even foot guides. CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS INJUSTICE!

The city claims that this action was taken to ensure that all tour guides are providing proper and historically accurate information to the tourists that visit from all over the world. According to a local news article:

“The city of Philadelphia is trying to claim that is has the power who may speak and who may not and under our Constitution, that’s simply unacceptable,” said Robert McNamara of the Institute of Justice.

The group believe the new regulations would have a negative impact on small and independent businesses.

“What’s next? Are you going to start licensing comedians to guarantee the delivery they have is funny,” Boulais said. “Where does it stop?”

So let me clarify this. These people are claiming that their free speech is being violated because the city wants them all to be licensed. Let me tell you people something. Even the food cart operators have top be licensed. The city is not stopping these people from speaking. They can say whatever they want whenever they want. However, if they are being payed to provide a service (a business) then information they provide needs to factually accurate. This has nothing to do with free speech. It has everything to do with being qualified for the job.

Lets re-frame this. Will the city or state give me a plumbing license without passing the plumbing exam? NO! Will I be able to practice law without passing the Bar exam? NO! Can I practice medicine without passing a medical exam? NO!

NO! NO! NO! Freaking IDOITS! What a waste of time and my tax dollars. I love the quote above about comedians. What a poor analogy. You aren’t paying a comedian to give you accurate information.

So could my company be sued for not hiring a person who doesn’t have the job qualifications for the job they are gunning for? Of course not!

Are these people so lazy and stupid that can’t study for a history exam that they should already know the answers to? If they spent half the energy studying as they have put into this stupid lawsuit it would be no problem. I’d actually love to take the test and see how I stack up based on what I know right now. Can anybody arrange that?

I am sick and tired of our judicial system being so tied down by stupid lawsuits like this. These people should be responsible for ALL court costs associated with these ridiculous suits if they lose them…and this one will be lost. Maybe that would make them think twice.

So Happy Independence DAY!

*NOTE: All links below are clickable and lead to my sources.

My final grad school class is about Systems Thinking. I wouldn’t normally take a class like this but for some reason I was drawn to the topic. Systems Thinking is about unlearning linear thought (such as A causes B) and seeing the world and situations as one entire interconnected structure. At it’s core is the adage that “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts” which somewhat introduces the idea of emergent properties. It may sound hokey or like one of those things you learn in college with no real world application. I beg to differ.

I was first introduced to Systems Thinking (though not by name) when I read the book Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. I highly recommend this read (I’ll even loan it to you). In Freakonomics the authors go on to explore counterintuitive relationships between seemingly unrelated variables. I won’t go into the details here but go read this book.

Now on to my point. All of you should know by now that I think Global Warming is a crock of &#^$! Now answer me this. What is the link between global warming and global food shortages? I’ll tell you…ETHANOL! Unless you’ve been in a cave for the last year or have other people buying your groceries you’ve no doubt noticed the significant increase in food prices. Dairy, eggs, any wheat product, rice and many other core food groups have nearly doubled in price. Why? Ethanol!

Ok, so lets frame the system. We’ll look at two sets on unintended consequences of this biofuels craze driven by global warming alarmism. The first set we’ll look at how this is driving up food costs and increasing world starvation. I call this “Kill Me Now”. Then we’ll look at how the process of creating Ethanol! actually creates more carbon dioxide than it saves. I call this “Kill Me Later”. Get the title now?

Kill Me Now
We are faced with “global warming”. Global warming is caused by carbon dioxide accumulation (so they say). Some brilliant scientist says, ok, well lets add ethanol to our gasoline to make it pollute less. BAM! Instant carbon reduction. Politicians get on board and all of a sudden we have committed to us using 45% ethanol by 2015! This year alone it took nearly 20% of our grain to help meet that target (according to this article). This is a number that will only grow. Since much of the ethanol produced is made from corn, farmers are opting to convert their wheat and other crops to corn fields which drives up the cost of wheat. Additionally, this diversion of corn to biofuels has driven up the cost of meat and dairy products since much of livestock is corn fed. This new drive for Ethanol! has heavily contributed to a global spike in food costs. Americans are feeling the pinch and for most of us this is just an inconvenience, however, those less fortunate than us have it much worse. Many are facing starvation (especially in countries who are net importers of food) and have to spend nearly 75% of their wages on food. The UN is crying foul and some have predicted that this setback has cost us 7 years of progress in the global hunger fight.

President Bush recently released $200 million dollars in food aid to help but things are getting messy. When people are hungry rational though goes out the window. There is unrest in many of the poorer countries. It is not intuitive that in our fight to curb so called global warming we caused world hunger and unrest.

Kill Me Later
Now lets start again with global warming as our main variable. Again, global warming drives an increased use in ethanol. Well ethanol doesn’t grow on trees. The organic matter has to be processed. Not only does the machinery used to process the ethanol emit CO2 into the atmosphere, the process itself emits CO2. The US Departments of Agriculture and Energy sponsored a report on this and this is what they said (on page 19):

The fermentation of corn starch into ethanol generates CO2, which has a low economic
value and is expensive to move. Most ethanol producers vent CO2 to the atmosphere,
although a few ethanol producers are able to sell it.

So to get ethanol to lower CO2 we have to create CO2. Does that make sense to you? This would further drive up the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere thereby worsening global warming. In Systems thinking this is called a “Fix that Fails” archetype.

It gets worse though. Ethanol has become a profitable industry. As stated above, many farmers are converting their land to grow corn instead of wheat. Additionally, TIME Magazine reported a disturbing trend in South America and other places where the rainforests are being razed to create new farmland. This is a double whammy for carbon levels. Not only are you removing trees that absorb CO2 naturally, you are then turning around and burning them which releases even more CO2!

Causality

One tenet of Systems Thinking is the generation of Causal Loop Diagrams. These are pictures that represent the relationship between variables in a system. It can help one see the counterintuitive loops that drive system behavior. Below is a CLD I created for Ethanol! production.

Click to Enlarge

I won’t go into the details but here is a rundown. The arrow causally link the two variables. If there is a “+” sign at the end on an arrow is means that an increase in one drives an increase in the other (same direction). A “-” indicates that an increase in one drives a decrease in the other (opposite direction). Talking through my diagram starting with “Carbon Dioxide Levels” would go like this:

An increase in CO2 drives an increase in global warming which drives an increase in the use of biofuels which loops back and reduces the CO2 levels. The increase in biofuels also drives an increase in the conversion of organic matter which, as discussed above, further increases CO2. Likewise, an increase in biofuels leads to more demand for farming land which leads to more razing of forests which further increases CO2. Finally, an increase in biofuels decreases the crops for food which increases the cost which drives hunger and unrest.

Digestion
I know this is a lot of information to take in and this certainly doesn’t nearly capture the entire picture of what drives the system. This is just one glaring example of how global warming alarmism has made my pretzels cost more and others to starve to death. This is no stretch. Watch the news. Connect the dots. Maybe you will see that my cynicism and skepticism on global warming and what is being done about this supposed problem is well founded. I’d encourage you, my five loyal readers, to try and think systemically. I digress.

So which would you prefer, Kill Me Now by starving me to death or Kill Me Later as we are slowly cooked to death by rising global temperatures? All of a sudden I am hungry. Do you smell chicken? Oh, its Bob next door…

Big Shocker, right?!?! I am so tired of all the coverage. I am tired of the LIES. I am tired of the HYPE. I am tired of the PROJECTED FEAR that my kids will cook alive on the surface of our planet if we don’t “do something now”.

I’ve written about global warming quite a bit. You can see past articles of mine here,
here, and
here. I am a skeptic. Anyone who dares bring up this issue in my presence is asking for an earful of Dan’s opinion. Well thats the problem, isn’t it. It’s my opinion, right? Wrong.

I studied science in elementary, middle, and high school. I studied science and engineering for my undergraduate degree and I am now studying them for my masters degree. One thing that has been drilled into my head over and over during those years of study is the scientific method. For those of you that don’t remember, the scientific method was a set of steps a scientist should perform to create/validate ideas. It was created to help make sure that thoroughness has been attained. From wikipedia:

The scientific method involves the following basic facets:

* Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.

* Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).

* Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported “one shot” phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.

* Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.

* Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.

* Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions. Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:

* Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.
* Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects.
* Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.

Ok. That is pretty complicated so I’ll dumb it down for you. Here is the interpretation for laypeople:

# 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
# 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
# 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
# 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
# 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

I have spent a lot of time researching available data and reading articles. I have watched Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. I have watched all the specials on TV that warn of our impending doom. All these programs have done is further convince me that the arguments presented in favor of man-made global warming vigorously violate the principles of the scientific method.

I wanted to create a place where I can compile all my “skeptics” information. Materials I can use to point people to the fact that this is all a big lie. I also wanted a place where I can summarize my beliefs.

With that said, I have created a new section of the loPEZ Dispenser called Dan’s Skeptic Guide To Global Warming. You can access by on the page with the same title under the Navigation header in the right panel of this site.

Feel free to comment and discuss. And now for our second poll:

[poll=3]

…ridiculed, seen as crazy, unreasonable, and hypocritical. This is another symptom of how out of touch many Christians are with the world. We are told to be “in the world but not of the world” but we are still definitely IN THE WORLD.

How often do we see Christians trying to “protect” themselves via segregation? This is evidenced in the fact the we have separate schools and colleges, Christian workout facilities where men and women are separated in the name of modesty, and Christian bookstores where you can get the latest praise album.

Yes, God does tell us not to partake of the sins of the world but we are also told to “go into all the world and preach the gospel”. How can we accomplish this if we are never in the world?

You must be wondering by now what this is all about. Well, today I read about a new conservative Christian website that was introduced to counter wikipedia. Conservapedia is “A conservative encyclopedia you can trust.” Um, I trust wikipedia just fine, thanks. This is what they have to say about themselves:

Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian “C.E.” instead of “A.D.”, which Conservapedia uses. Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance.

Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. Conservapedia has easy-to-use indexes to facilitate review of topics. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of “political correctness”.

It was started by a guy named Andy Schlafly and a band of “58 high-school-level, home-schooled students from the New Jersey area”, according to this article (which is where I discovered this waste of web space). The fact that a group of sheltered homeschoolers (of which I used to be one) started this site pretty much throws all credibility out the window.

Schlafly claims that Conservapedia is “one of the largest user-controlled free encyclopedias on the internet.” Is this some kind of joke? Does it really matter whether dates use CE or AD? I mean, does it really, really matter? Are people going to turn away from God because of it? If they do, they had other issues to begin with.

This site has become a laughing stock of the blog community (rightly so) and it embarrasses me that I, as a Christian, am lumped into the same category as those who proliferate this nonsense.

My wife and I have been discussing the issue of education recently. Our daughter just turned 1 last week so we have some time before any critical decisions are made, but we both seem to agree on one thing. No amount of parental sheltering can protect a child from everything. Instead of teaching a child to avoid and shun everything we should be teaching them how to deal with things and make proper decisions for themselves. Case in point, I went to a Christian school (and was partially homschooled) and I turned out good. I never smoke, drank or did drugs and I didn’t have premarital sex. My wife went to only public schools and she never smoke, drank or did drugs and didn’t have premarital sex either. So what does that say?

I will continue to use wikipedia. In addition to wikipedia, I will confirm that information with additional sources, which you are supposed to do ANYWAYS!! Plus, I imagine that (at least) scientific information on wikipedia is more accurate than on Conservapedia. Just a hunch though.

With all that said, I will now officially launch a boycott against all things Conservapedia!! After all, boycotts is what we Christians do best, no? If you wish to join my boycott, leave a comment below…

UPDATE: 6/26/07

Alright, since Friday is the hotly anticipated debut of the iPhone, I thought it would be poetic to resurrect this post from six months ago.

As the Mac elitists salivate over what could be their next very expensive gadget I will watch and wait. I’m thinking the touch controls might not be as intuitive as described. I’m thinking people will get irritated by all the fingerprints, smudges, and makeup residue (for the ladies of course) all over their pretty machine. I’m thinking people will soon realize that surfing the web from a phone is not “fun” but it is tiresome and really only useful in a pinch. I’m thinking that smart phone users won’t really find the usefulness of the device to be any greater than what they are used to.

Then again, anyone crazy enough to drop five or six hundred dollars on a phone without a thought would be in denial about it. Not only that, but it is the first generation and everyone knows that its best not to buy a first generation electronic device (especially with Apple since they tend to make their own products obsolete very quickly). Nevertheless, Mac fanatics will stand behind their product whether they truly love it or not.

Huh, here is a first review…

——————————————————————–
Original Post:

Alright. I want to make this rant really quick. Yesterday was the MACWORLD conference where Steve Jobs introduces all the new products that Mac will be introducing this year. The media is going nuts over the new iPhone and iTV (there was even a website giving minute by minute updates on the conference). The hype is so hot that Mac shares went up like 8% in one day. I say so what.

In 2001, when Mac introduced the 1st Gen iPod to the world I had the same reaction. I already had an mp3 player. It was made by a company called iRiver. Comparing apples to apples my iRiver beat out the iPod in every category except one…looks. A couple years later I upgraded to a new hard drive based iRiver, the H300. My H300 is awesome. It plays many formats of music, shows pictures and videos, has a built in mic and line inputs for recording, has FM radio, text reader and more. Again, my H300 easily beat out the iPod for features (but not looks). Then Mac released the photo iPod and then the video iPod and the features still don’t match what my now discontinued H300 can do. So what’s my point?

Mac is not as revolutionary as they claim to be. What makes them dominate is that their products look nice, have good interfaces, and they use incredibly clever marketing tactics. Mac people will counter and say, but the iPod is so popular because of iTunes. Well, I read some stats about iTunes. It was something about if you take the total number of songs and divide it by the number of iPods it averages out to like five songs sold per iPod. So that couldn’t possibly be the selling point. Additionally, the fact that Mac uses proprietary DRM technology (via AAC files) will come to haunt them later on (that is a discussion for another day).

Well this post isn’t about the iPod. It’s about the two new “revolutionary” products Mac has now developed. Let’s start with the iTV. This is a set-top box that allows you to view photos, movies and music that are hosted on your computer on your TV. You also have the ability to pull down content directly off of the Mac websites. The iTV has a built in 40 GB hard drive and integrated 802.11 wireless capabilities. I say SO WHAT!!

I have had my Series 2 TiVo now for 2.5 years. TiVo in general has been around much longer. My TiVo can do all this and more!! I can view my pictures and music, look at weather, buy movie tickets, download podcasts, play games, check email, get exclusive content, transfer video to/from my PC, all that the iTV has to offer. PLUS ITS A TIVO TOO!! I can record TV. Can you do that iTV? If I need to see video that my TiVo can’t handle, I simply hook my laptop up to the TV and Viola!! Additionally, if you happen to have a modded Xbox all these features are also at your finger tips. My point is that the concept of iTV is nothing new to the informed.

Now on to the iPhone. I gotta admit, at first this thing sounded awesome. Actually, the look and user interface (UI) do sound really cool. I am intrigued by the newly developed “multi-touch” technology that the touch screen uses. Anyways, this thing does it all. It’s like an iPod, PDA, web browser, and phone all in one. It can do the music, photos and video. It can control your email and calendar. It’s a cell phone. It has a built in web browser that can surf all pages, not just mobile web pages. It can piggy-back onto Wifi networks. There will be two models released. One with 4 GB of flash memory ($500) and one with 8 GB of flash memory ($600). Again, SO WHAT!!

My Moto Razr plays songs, takes pictures, downloads video, has a calendar, can surf the web, has built in GPS and navigation, can check email, etc. Take a step up to a Treo, Moto Q, or other equivalent smart phone. These all have the same features as the iPhone. So why is the iPhone so “revolutionary”? Jobs claimed that this will replace the need for multiple devices being carried around at the same time. Really Steve? Do you honestly think that somebody who is used to carrying around your 80 GB video iPod will be satisfied with a device that only holds 8 GB? I hardly think so. I don’t always need my mp3 player. I don’t always need my email. Sometimes I just want my phone. Sometimes I just want my iRiver. I like my devices separate.

On top of that, Mac made a critical mistake by signing an exclusive partnership with Cingular Wireless to be the provider. I believe that according to consumer reports Cingular is generally regarded as the countries worst wireless provider. Additionally, Cingular’s broadband network, EDGE, maxes out download speeds at 80k which pales in comparison to Verizon’s EVDO service (EDGE does have the best nationwide coverage at this point). So if you are planning on visiting graphics rich web pages, you better hope that you are in range of a Wifi network.

I don’t mean to poop on Mac (yes I do) but I just don’t see what the big deal is. Discuss away…

PS. I guess this wasn’t a quick rant…