I recall thinking Black History Month was silly when I was in school. Of course saying so is "racist". So I am glad Morgan Freeman says we can help by stop talking about it
link to article and video
4 years ago
Friday, December 23, 2005
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Bogle
I heard a review of “The Soul of Capitalism” by John Bogle on a podcast (Constitution hour I think). He was complaining about morality justice of CEO salaries. As though he owned the company. You have no say. Who cares what money they make? Don't buy their products. He claimed it was obscene compensation and that the people were looting. Fine, then fire them. Oh you can't. Don't work for the company. Don't buy their products if you want to protest. Keep your socialist government out of business.
Government Schools
I think government schools are a bad idea. I can think of much better ways to educate children. They seem to be obvious but many are opposed to them and state control of school has nearly unanimous support.
I like home schooling. No one is better suited to teach a child than its mother. Mothers do not cease to teach and educate their children from birth to a period extending beyond teenage years. The reasons given to turn this education over to others are pretty shallow. There is one good reason. Moms give their kids to specialists who will teach their children things that they do not know. That is a great sign of progression in the family. A daughter learning to play piano from an instructor because a parent cannot teach it is acceptable, for example. Advanced education will be difficult for a parent to provide (examples: calculus, quantum physics). So let’s limit this discussion to elementary school.
What is the purpose of school for children? Why does a mother turn her young child over to others for many hours to educate them? What are they supposed to learn? Why is home schooling a bad idea?
The main accusation against home schooling refers in some way to a lack of socialization. The first complaint is that the bulk of socialization received is very poor. I don't want my kids to act like those kids.
Pooling of resources
Worthless. A joke. See my posts on socialism. Don't force me to give my money for education at gunpoint (taxes!)
This was a comment I received after writing about the bad quality of government schools.
"And yet, despite (I'm assuming) your government education your entire life, you turned out okay."
Yes, children and society are resilient. Family and church help a great deal. I survived in spite of public schools not because of them. Homeschoolers consistently outperform public school education. It is not a drain on the system and doesn't crowd school buildings but instead of encouraging it, government fights against it because they control. The goal is controlled submissive kids, not smarter kids
I like home schooling. No one is better suited to teach a child than its mother. Mothers do not cease to teach and educate their children from birth to a period extending beyond teenage years. The reasons given to turn this education over to others are pretty shallow. There is one good reason. Moms give their kids to specialists who will teach their children things that they do not know. That is a great sign of progression in the family. A daughter learning to play piano from an instructor because a parent cannot teach it is acceptable, for example. Advanced education will be difficult for a parent to provide (examples: calculus, quantum physics). So let’s limit this discussion to elementary school.
What is the purpose of school for children? Why does a mother turn her young child over to others for many hours to educate them? What are they supposed to learn? Why is home schooling a bad idea?
The main accusation against home schooling refers in some way to a lack of socialization. The first complaint is that the bulk of socialization received is very poor. I don't want my kids to act like those kids.
Pooling of resources
Worthless. A joke. See my posts on socialism. Don't force me to give my money for education at gunpoint (taxes!)
This was a comment I received after writing about the bad quality of government schools.
"And yet, despite (I'm assuming) your government education your entire life, you turned out okay."
Yes, children and society are resilient. Family and church help a great deal. I survived in spite of public schools not because of them. Homeschoolers consistently outperform public school education. It is not a drain on the system and doesn't crowd school buildings but instead of encouraging it, government fights against it because they control. The goal is controlled submissive kids, not smarter kids
Random Topics
My friend, Kevin, called and wanted to give me some blog topics. No time to write now but here is the summary:
Patriot Act – I have mixed feelings on this. It could be re-written I suppose to be safe but as it is gives government too many powers. It needs to define exactly what police and intelligence agencies may do and restrict all else.
Christmas – Say Merry Christmas, not Happy Holidays
Drilling in ANWR – Do it! The arctic desert isn’t going to care. I want the cheap oil that isn’t coming from islamists.
Patriot Act – I have mixed feelings on this. It could be re-written I suppose to be safe but as it is gives government too many powers. It needs to define exactly what police and intelligence agencies may do and restrict all else.
Christmas – Say Merry Christmas, not Happy Holidays
Drilling in ANWR – Do it! The arctic desert isn’t going to care. I want the cheap oil that isn’t coming from islamists.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Specialization is for insects
quote from Robert Heinlein
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
supposedly from "Excerpts from the Notebooks of Lazarus Long" I didn't verify
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
supposedly from "Excerpts from the Notebooks of Lazarus Long" I didn't verify
Atmospheric changes
Atmospheric changes
I watched various discover channel shows recently. Someone commented on the size of plants and animals. It was unknown why everything was so big in the fossil record. The largest dragon flies now are about 20 centimeters. The largest in fossil record are 75 centimeters. That is more than 3 times increase in size. I don’t know anything about the behavior of the old dragonflies but assuming they are similar to dragonflies we see now they flew and hunted prey. That requires some speed and agility. Their bodies appear similar. If their flight patterns were the same and body construction was the same then it should require a different environment to allow the larger size. I wouldn’t expect a 75 centimeter dragonfly to be able to turn or sprint like a smaller dragonfly. Mass to lift ratios don’t match. Nature’s design appears to limit size. Although bird construction is very light there is a limit to the size of birds. Condors and vultures are the largest. I remember the old nature shows which would show these birds struggling to take flight after eating because they had reached their weight limit. Yet these are dwarfed by flying dinosaurs called pteranodons or pterasaurs. Some of these had wingspans of more than 35 feet. Again more than 3 times what we have today. Scientists agree that the designs could glide but debate about how they would have become airborne.
My guess is that the atmosphere was 3 times as dense as it is today. There must have been changes in the atmosphere. The size of dragonflies should be optimized for prey and environment. They would not have grown so large if flight was hindered. Fossils don’t seem to show structural differences to decrease weight or improve flight. The air must have been thicker to allow lift/buoyancy required.
I thought about it and did a search and found that some people have put a lot more effort into this.
http://www.levenspiel.com/octave/dinosaur1.htm
I watched various discover channel shows recently. Someone commented on the size of plants and animals. It was unknown why everything was so big in the fossil record. The largest dragon flies now are about 20 centimeters. The largest in fossil record are 75 centimeters. That is more than 3 times increase in size. I don’t know anything about the behavior of the old dragonflies but assuming they are similar to dragonflies we see now they flew and hunted prey. That requires some speed and agility. Their bodies appear similar. If their flight patterns were the same and body construction was the same then it should require a different environment to allow the larger size. I wouldn’t expect a 75 centimeter dragonfly to be able to turn or sprint like a smaller dragonfly. Mass to lift ratios don’t match. Nature’s design appears to limit size. Although bird construction is very light there is a limit to the size of birds. Condors and vultures are the largest. I remember the old nature shows which would show these birds struggling to take flight after eating because they had reached their weight limit. Yet these are dwarfed by flying dinosaurs called pteranodons or pterasaurs. Some of these had wingspans of more than 35 feet. Again more than 3 times what we have today. Scientists agree that the designs could glide but debate about how they would have become airborne.
My guess is that the atmosphere was 3 times as dense as it is today. There must have been changes in the atmosphere. The size of dragonflies should be optimized for prey and environment. They would not have grown so large if flight was hindered. Fossils don’t seem to show structural differences to decrease weight or improve flight. The air must have been thicker to allow lift/buoyancy required.
I thought about it and did a search and found that some people have put a lot more effort into this.
http://www.levenspiel.com/octave/dinosaur1.htm
Monday, December 19, 2005
Death Penalty stuff
I pulled comments from Federalist Patriot who quoted Jeff Jacoby on the death penalty. I imagine it was inspired by Williams the gangster's excecution. This is for the benefit of the silly protestors who don't understand justice and the value of life. "When murderers keep their lives, human blood is cheapened. That is why reverence for life and capital punishment belong to the same ethical tradition."
"No passage in the Bible—Old or New Testament—disapproves of the death penalty... The penalty for those who violate 'You shall not murder' (Exodus 20:13) is made explicit just a few lines later: 'Whoever strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death' (Exodus 21:12). The text goes on to specify that this applies only to deliberate murder, not unintentional killing. Accidents are not capital crimes. But for a willful killer, there can be no sanctuary: 'Take him even from My altar and put him death' (Exodus 21:14). Similar declarations appear in all five books of Moses, nowhere more dramatically or universally than in Genesis. Speaking to Noah after the Flood, God enjoins him—and through him, all of human society—to affirm the sanctity of human life by making murderers pay the ultimate price for their crime. 'Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has man been made' (Genesis 9:6)... Scripture could hardly be more explicit... When murderers keep their lives, human blood is cheapened. That is why reverence for life and capital punishment belong to the same ethical tradition. Civilized communities have not only the right but the responsibility to execute murderers. It may be a difficult responsibility to carry out. It may involve an assertion of moral authority that modern thinkers condemn. But easy or not, popular or not, the duty is ours to perform. The protection of human life is a grave obligation—never more so than when it involves taking a life away." —Jeff Jacoby
"No passage in the Bible—Old or New Testament—disapproves of the death penalty... The penalty for those who violate 'You shall not murder' (Exodus 20:13) is made explicit just a few lines later: 'Whoever strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death' (Exodus 21:12). The text goes on to specify that this applies only to deliberate murder, not unintentional killing. Accidents are not capital crimes. But for a willful killer, there can be no sanctuary: 'Take him even from My altar and put him death' (Exodus 21:14). Similar declarations appear in all five books of Moses, nowhere more dramatically or universally than in Genesis. Speaking to Noah after the Flood, God enjoins him—and through him, all of human society—to affirm the sanctity of human life by making murderers pay the ultimate price for their crime. 'Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has man been made' (Genesis 9:6)... Scripture could hardly be more explicit... When murderers keep their lives, human blood is cheapened. That is why reverence for life and capital punishment belong to the same ethical tradition. Civilized communities have not only the right but the responsibility to execute murderers. It may be a difficult responsibility to carry out. It may involve an assertion of moral authority that modern thinkers condemn. But easy or not, popular or not, the duty is ours to perform. The protection of human life is a grave obligation—never more so than when it involves taking a life away." —Jeff Jacoby
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Rachel Carson is a fraud
Before I begin -
I only write things when I get excited or mad so this blog represents the loudest of my opinions. I realize that sometimes it may sound crazy. There are lots of things that are correct but don't sound right without proper introduction. But I usually only login and type when there is something more interesting than a million other distractions.
-
As for Rachel Carson, I don't know a lot about her. I don't really care. I would never read her book because I think it is stupid. I described her and other environmentalist as human-hating creeps. I think they are. Or they just use it to make money and get power. The results are terrible and I think the motives are worse.
I thought the article that Mel shared was interesting, informative. But far too diplomatic for the damage that is done in countries plagued with malaria and other diseases. Steve Milloy has assembled a report here. Milloy's death clock estimates that 90 million people have died since malaria was banned.
Some statements from the Reason article are good
-"effects of DDT on wildlife, especially birds, still vexes researchers." Eggshell thinning is shown to be a fraud.
-"Carson improperly cited cases of acute exposures"
- "Carson’s statistic is essentially meaningless unless it’s given some context, which she failed to supply. It turns out that the percentage of children dying of cancer was rising because other causes of death, such as infectious diseases, were drastically declining."
-In fact, cancer rates in children have not increased
-Meanwhile, Carson’s disciples have managed to persuade many poor countries to stop using DDT against mosquitoes. The result has been an enormous increase in the number of people dying of malaria each year. Today malaria infects between 300 million and 500 million people annually, killing as many 2.7 million of them
-the legacy of Rachel Carson is more troubling than her admirers will acknowledge.
Article from Front Page illustrates some of the damage done by banning the chemical. Poor people die from diseases that are easy to eradicate. For example
"Malaria keeps Africa down, and down is where the rest of the world wants us to be. If this was a disease of the West, it would be gone," Mamadou Kasse, medical editor of Senegal's largest newspaper, Le Soleil, told Atlantic Monthly's Ellen Ruppel Shell for her August 1997 article, "Resurgence of a Deadly Disease."
If Carson's crusaders are really concerned about saving lives and helping developing countries, then must allow DDT to be used without repercussions.
"Malaria kills a few million every year; each life lost is a potential Mandela, Shakespeare, or Edison, and nothing is less reversible than death, nor more tragic than the death of a child," Dr. Roger Bate said. "Hundreds of millions suffer chronic illness, which creates a painful economic burden and perpetuates poverty. This may not be the intention of those who are debating a DDT ban, but it surely will be the outcome."
If that is not enough to convince them, Carson's crusaders should realize that their actions against DDT might eventually boomerang.
"[B]anning DDT worldwide is beyond ignorance, it is just plain stupid," Koenig said. "[Although m]alaria still is prevalent in the countries in the equatorial regions . [it] is only a matter of time, a short time, before we see these diseases again in the regions between the tropics and the poles."
Until that time comes, the malaria plague seems to be off the public radar. However, let there be no mistake: Rachel Carson and the worldwide environmentalist movement are responsbile for perpetuating an ecological genocide that has claimed the lives of millions of young, poor, striving African men, women and children, killed by preventable diseases.
I saw a headline from Milloy that people want to name a bridge in Pennsylvania after her. Her picture is on the wall at Bookman's. The Reason article said her book is the most influential of the last 50 years. So how does a person like this get a bridge named after her? One could argue she is responsible for more deaths than Hitler. (How is that for sensationalist?)
I only write things when I get excited or mad so this blog represents the loudest of my opinions. I realize that sometimes it may sound crazy. There are lots of things that are correct but don't sound right without proper introduction. But I usually only login and type when there is something more interesting than a million other distractions.
-
As for Rachel Carson, I don't know a lot about her. I don't really care. I would never read her book because I think it is stupid. I described her and other environmentalist as human-hating creeps. I think they are. Or they just use it to make money and get power. The results are terrible and I think the motives are worse.
I thought the article that Mel shared was interesting, informative. But far too diplomatic for the damage that is done in countries plagued with malaria and other diseases. Steve Milloy has assembled a report here. Milloy's death clock estimates that 90 million people have died since malaria was banned.
Some statements from the Reason article are good
-"effects of DDT on wildlife, especially birds, still vexes researchers." Eggshell thinning is shown to be a fraud.
-"Carson improperly cited cases of acute exposures"
- "Carson’s statistic is essentially meaningless unless it’s given some context, which she failed to supply. It turns out that the percentage of children dying of cancer was rising because other causes of death, such as infectious diseases, were drastically declining."
-In fact, cancer rates in children have not increased
-Meanwhile, Carson’s disciples have managed to persuade many poor countries to stop using DDT against mosquitoes. The result has been an enormous increase in the number of people dying of malaria each year. Today malaria infects between 300 million and 500 million people annually, killing as many 2.7 million of them
-the legacy of Rachel Carson is more troubling than her admirers will acknowledge.
Article from Front Page illustrates some of the damage done by banning the chemical. Poor people die from diseases that are easy to eradicate. For example
"Malaria keeps Africa down, and down is where the rest of the world wants us to be. If this was a disease of the West, it would be gone," Mamadou Kasse, medical editor of Senegal's largest newspaper, Le Soleil, told Atlantic Monthly's Ellen Ruppel Shell for her August 1997 article, "Resurgence of a Deadly Disease."
If Carson's crusaders are really concerned about saving lives and helping developing countries, then must allow DDT to be used without repercussions.
"Malaria kills a few million every year; each life lost is a potential Mandela, Shakespeare, or Edison, and nothing is less reversible than death, nor more tragic than the death of a child," Dr. Roger Bate said. "Hundreds of millions suffer chronic illness, which creates a painful economic burden and perpetuates poverty. This may not be the intention of those who are debating a DDT ban, but it surely will be the outcome."
If that is not enough to convince them, Carson's crusaders should realize that their actions against DDT might eventually boomerang.
"[B]anning DDT worldwide is beyond ignorance, it is just plain stupid," Koenig said. "[Although m]alaria still is prevalent in the countries in the equatorial regions . [it] is only a matter of time, a short time, before we see these diseases again in the regions between the tropics and the poles."
Until that time comes, the malaria plague seems to be off the public radar. However, let there be no mistake: Rachel Carson and the worldwide environmentalist movement are responsbile for perpetuating an ecological genocide that has claimed the lives of millions of young, poor, striving African men, women and children, killed by preventable diseases.
I saw a headline from Milloy that people want to name a bridge in Pennsylvania after her. Her picture is on the wall at Bookman's. The Reason article said her book is the most influential of the last 50 years. So how does a person like this get a bridge named after her? One could argue she is responsible for more deaths than Hitler. (How is that for sensationalist?)
Response to Katrina
I thought I had previously posted a link to this article. Couldn't find it so here it is again. Author questions the response to Katrina from the government. If their goal was other than helping (like grabbing power) than they did pretty well.
Government did not fail
Government did not fail
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Communism vs. capitalism
Was it communism vs. capitalism in the Cold War? Joe says no. He writes about license and freedom. Very good and short
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Topics
I have topics adding up again but not enough thought to finish a post.
Penicillin and DDT
Reading “Brave new world Revisited”. Huxley was speaking of overpopulation, on which he was dead wrong (along with Ehrlich and others) and said that advances in medicine and technology such as DDT and penicillin were saving so many lives that it was creating a population crisis. Interesting. I bet DDT saved more lives than penicillin ever has. Probably why the human-hating creeps like Rachel Carson wanted it banned.
Declaration of Independence
I would like to finish part II of what I wrote. I was comparing King George and the Brits to Pres. George and the DC bureaucrats. Americans had less taxes and more representation under the King.
Government School
I really don't like government schools. Waste of time and resources. I tire of explaining it. Hard to keep energy up in that fight. Too many people trying valiantly to save the monster.
More disgust with Katrina and the welfare
No good Arizona governor candidates
Individuals vs. collectives I think collectivism of any sort is evil :)
So many topics to write on........
Penicillin and DDT
Reading “Brave new world Revisited”. Huxley was speaking of overpopulation, on which he was dead wrong (along with Ehrlich and others) and said that advances in medicine and technology such as DDT and penicillin were saving so many lives that it was creating a population crisis. Interesting. I bet DDT saved more lives than penicillin ever has. Probably why the human-hating creeps like Rachel Carson wanted it banned.
Declaration of Independence
I would like to finish part II of what I wrote. I was comparing King George and the Brits to Pres. George and the DC bureaucrats. Americans had less taxes and more representation under the King.
Government School
I really don't like government schools. Waste of time and resources. I tire of explaining it. Hard to keep energy up in that fight. Too many people trying valiantly to save the monster.
More disgust with Katrina and the welfare
No good Arizona governor candidates
Individuals vs. collectives I think collectivism of any sort is evil :)
So many topics to write on........
Monday, December 05, 2005
Medicaid is welfare
New article from NCPA.org
Cracked me up when I read this - have to remind people that these socialist programs are welfare.
Medicaid, the joint federal-state health program for the poor, is a welfare
program, says health policy expert Merrill Matthews. "So why isn't the goal to
get people off the Medicaid rolls and into private-sector insurance?"
Cracked me up when I read this - have to remind people that these socialist programs are welfare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
