Well, my guy lost. Oh well. I’ve pondered the things I could do to cope with this loss. I think the most effective method is comedy. Then I stumbled upon this gem.
Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are
OBAMATRONS UNITE!!
After watching the third presidential debate between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama I can’t get the simple question posed in the title off of my mind. Does the American middle class really believe in, and desire a Federal Government imposed redistribution of wealth? Of course, the Government has been doing this at varying levels for years through welfare programs, but what Senator Obama is proposing now is much more direct and obvious. He is promising to increase taxes on the wealthy (defined as those making over $250,000 a year) while lowering taxes on the middle class. He is applying wealth envy as an excuse to unfairly tax those who have proven themselves successful in our society, based on the assumption that many Americans, fueled by greed, selfishness and jealousy want to take what is rightfully theirs from those who have more than them.
I read an article a while ago (If I can dig it up I will cite it here) that posed a question basically the opposite of mine. It attempted to answer the following (paraphrasing): “Why do the Republicans and conservative Christians continually elect people into office who go against their best financial interests?” It is a valid question; the majority of the Republican base are hard working middle class people, who would directly benefit from Barack Obama’s proposed tax law changes. If a candidate is basically offering to save us thousands in our taxes every year why aren’t we jumping at the chance to vote for him? The answer is easy; I believe that the Republicans vote more on principle than their financial interests. We fundamentally believe that an imposed redistribution of wealth is wrong, and should be avoided at all costs. We put aside our selfishness and realize that it is immoral to take someone’s hard earned money and give it to someone else, who did nothing to earn it. Of course another principle that most Republicans hold is that a smaller and less imposing Government is optimal, which means that both spending and taxes should be cut.
I often hear the argument that the rich should “pay their fair share,” and that Obama’s plan wouldn’t hurt any of the rich because “they can afford it.” First of all, the rich already pay more than their “fair share.” The United States tax system is progressive, meaning that the tax rate increases with income. Additionally, secondary taxes, such as the death tax are basically only applied to the wealthy, because that incredibly high rate is only applied to wealth beyond the first $2 Million. We have all seen or heard the figures, where the top 5% of income earners pay some much larger percentage of taxes into the system. I will not repeat them, as to not sound like a talking point spewing robot, but it bears mentioning just to show that there is no question that the rich already pay their fair share. But what about that other point? The one regarding their ability to afford increases in taxes? I simply don’t think that is a valid question. If Target began requesting a copy of my W-2, and progressively adjusted prices higher for all of the junk merchandise that I buy there based on my income, the consumer reporter from the local news would have the story on air that night. There would be protests and boycotts. With a concrete example like that it is easy for everyone to see the unfairness of the system, but that is exactly how our tax code is designed, and Barack wants to push it even further in that direction. Based on Democrat lectures I have heard on the subject of taxes they make it seem like a large majority of rich people are chomping at the bit to pay additional taxes. The way Barack spoke of Warren Buffet I assume that he already has next year’s inflated tax checks written, and is gleefully having his assistant drive them to the post office as I type this. If I were a congressman I would put forward a bill at my very first session that would require the IRS to create a donation system. That way all of those rich Democrats would be able to easily pay whatever additional amount they want to the Government each year. I would even make that donation eligible as a deduction on the next year’s taxes!
I am not going to say how much money my wife and I make per year, though we do pretty well. Still, we are nowhere near that magical $250K mark set by Barack Obama. That means that if he is elected, and if he actually pushes for his proposed tax changes, and if congress actually buys off on those changes I would directly financially benefit from his presidency. In fact, almost everyone I know would benefit, yet the majority of them are not voting for Obama. We value virtue over personal gain at the detriment of another; even that other is a member of the “evil rich.” I feel that if John McCain would stand up, and say that he believes that the American people have enough principle to disagree with socialistic, wealth redistribution propositions he would gain traction with some of those still “undecided.” I believe that a majority of the middle class is better than what Barack Obama has assumed, though we won’t know for sure for three weeks.
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]