John Stossel, my oldest child's hero, has a new article arguing that it is some people's civic duty not to vote; because they haven't a clue what is actually going on. As you can guess, he took a lot of flack for taking such a position.
Of course, what people really have is a civic duty to inform themselves. It's not hard these days. But if you haven't bothered, then I guess I would have to agree with Mr. Stossel: stay home next Tuesday, don't send in your early ballot. You can try again in 2 years.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Voting for judges
This article proposes willful sabotage of the current system of voting for judges, not by doing anything illegal or unethical, but by intentionally underming it. Do not read on if such an approach does not appeal to you.
In Arizona, we vote every 2 years on the sitting judges in the District and county courts. The vote is a straight up-or-down vote. They run unopposed, and presumably are replaced when voted out. I do not remember having such an opportunity in the 12 or so years I have lived here, but there may have been one or two.
On my ballot (which I just filled out today) there were at least 60 judges. Now, I consider myself a conscientious citizen, so I went to the trouble to find the performance reviews on the state site (you can find them here). For each judge, we given a review by a panel of 30, along with comments on the jurist by the lawyers and jurors who have worked with them.
All of this gives the impression of a lot of information, but is it? Let's examine the three sources. First, we know nothing of the biases, motivations (and in the case of the 18 citizens, qualifications) of the 30 members of the review panel. If they vote against a particular judge, was it because they were really incapable, or was it because they did not like how the judge ruled in some particular case. John Grisham has made me paranoid of the hidden workings of our judicial process. Second, how many of us really trust the opinions of the lawyers who appeared before these judges? Lawyers do their thing to win, and their judgment of a judge is likely to be colored more by past and pending cases than by any objective sense of the judge's qualifications. Finally, we are given the opinions of those who sat on juries in cases where the judge presided. Not to be too cynical, but you know the only people who serve on juries are those people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty. I know it's not exactly that, and I myself would love to serve some day, but the stress that this would place on my life means that my goal, at least for now, is to not serve. Further, what basis do we have for expecting that the jurors' opinion is anything more sophisticated than a personal like or dislike?
In the end, there may be a great deal of data, but very little information in these judicial review packets.
Is there a better way to select judges? I don't know. None comes to mind. But in the meantime, I am devoted to sabotaging the current system by voting NO on every judge on the ballot. I have done so in the last 3 elections, and will continune doing so into the forseeable future. I invite you to join me. Let's get rid of the current system, and make them devise another. It may not be better, but I doubt it will be worse.
Term limits do come to mind...
In Arizona, we vote every 2 years on the sitting judges in the District and county courts. The vote is a straight up-or-down vote. They run unopposed, and presumably are replaced when voted out. I do not remember having such an opportunity in the 12 or so years I have lived here, but there may have been one or two.
On my ballot (which I just filled out today) there were at least 60 judges. Now, I consider myself a conscientious citizen, so I went to the trouble to find the performance reviews on the state site (you can find them here). For each judge, we given a review by a panel of 30, along with comments on the jurist by the lawyers and jurors who have worked with them.
All of this gives the impression of a lot of information, but is it? Let's examine the three sources. First, we know nothing of the biases, motivations (and in the case of the 18 citizens, qualifications) of the 30 members of the review panel. If they vote against a particular judge, was it because they were really incapable, or was it because they did not like how the judge ruled in some particular case. John Grisham has made me paranoid of the hidden workings of our judicial process. Second, how many of us really trust the opinions of the lawyers who appeared before these judges? Lawyers do their thing to win, and their judgment of a judge is likely to be colored more by past and pending cases than by any objective sense of the judge's qualifications. Finally, we are given the opinions of those who sat on juries in cases where the judge presided. Not to be too cynical, but you know the only people who serve on juries are those people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty. I know it's not exactly that, and I myself would love to serve some day, but the stress that this would place on my life means that my goal, at least for now, is to not serve. Further, what basis do we have for expecting that the jurors' opinion is anything more sophisticated than a personal like or dislike?
In the end, there may be a great deal of data, but very little information in these judicial review packets.
Is there a better way to select judges? I don't know. None comes to mind. But in the meantime, I am devoted to sabotaging the current system by voting NO on every judge on the ballot. I have done so in the last 3 elections, and will continune doing so into the forseeable future. I invite you to join me. Let's get rid of the current system, and make them devise another. It may not be better, but I doubt it will be worse.
Term limits do come to mind...
Arizona Proposition 300 - NO
Prop 300 is a pay raise for Arizona legislators.
I am not always against such pay raises. In general, I believe that not paying a legislature guarantees that only the wealthy can serve, because of the time involved. But as several of the comments in the Secretary of State booklet point out, the only real job given to the Arizona legislature by the constitution is the passing of a budget. This is technically true, and if you have read my initial comment on this subject, you know that I am not a big fan of the way that they have used the initiative process to avoid making politically difficult decisions.
Of course, we do get what we pay for, but it has been a long time since I felt we even got that from this group.
I recommend voting NO on 300.
I am not always against such pay raises. In general, I believe that not paying a legislature guarantees that only the wealthy can serve, because of the time involved. But as several of the comments in the Secretary of State booklet point out, the only real job given to the Arizona legislature by the constitution is the passing of a budget. This is technically true, and if you have read my initial comment on this subject, you know that I am not a big fan of the way that they have used the initiative process to avoid making politically difficult decisions.
Of course, we do get what we pay for, but it has been a long time since I felt we even got that from this group.
I recommend voting NO on 300.
Arizona Proposition 202 - NO
Prop 202 is a promoted as an initiative for further cracking down on the hiring of illegals by increasing penalties for identify theft (the means many illegals use to obtain jobs) and by revoking the licenses of business that knowingly or intentionally hire illegals. These are laudable goals, but the initiative is so convoluted, and makes so many changes, that at a minimum the law of unintended consequences should warn us about voting for it.
But there are more serious issues with prop 202 than that. First, it overturns Arizona's E-Verify program, which by all reports has been very effective in reducing the number of illegals even looking for a job. Why would the writers of this proposition seek to eliminate such an effective program. Second, the new penalties proposed only apply to businesses which are licensed by the state. My fear is that, in an effort to increase the reach of this law, the state would expand the definition of "licensed" further eroding our liberties. Finally, the law requires that the state wait to act until the Federal government has itself acted. But isn't that what we are complaining about - that the Federal government is not acting?
Taken together, these issues cause me to have no problem at all recommending that you vote NO on 202.
But there are more serious issues with prop 202 than that. First, it overturns Arizona's E-Verify program, which by all reports has been very effective in reducing the number of illegals even looking for a job. Why would the writers of this proposition seek to eliminate such an effective program. Second, the new penalties proposed only apply to businesses which are licensed by the state. My fear is that, in an effort to increase the reach of this law, the state would expand the definition of "licensed" further eroding our liberties. Finally, the law requires that the state wait to act until the Federal government has itself acted. But isn't that what we are complaining about - that the Federal government is not acting?
Taken together, these issues cause me to have no problem at all recommending that you vote NO on 202.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Arizona Proposition 201 - NO
Prop 201 calls itself the "Homeowner's Bill of Rights."
Rather than include an outline of its content, I will make my recommendation right up front. Vote AGAINST 201. The proposition forbids home builders from recovering attorney's fees from buyers who sue them. This removes all incentive to mediate or find a mutually acceptable resolution to a dispute over flaws in a new home. If this proposition passes, lawyers will troll new neighborhoods looking for clients to sue the home builder over the smallest of flaws. No risk to the purchaser, but a massive risk (read cost increase) for the builder.
I am for massive lawsuit reform, including loser-pays. This is the very opposite.
I recommend voting NO on 201.
Rather than include an outline of its content, I will make my recommendation right up front. Vote AGAINST 201. The proposition forbids home builders from recovering attorney's fees from buyers who sue them. This removes all incentive to mediate or find a mutually acceptable resolution to a dispute over flaws in a new home. If this proposition passes, lawyers will troll new neighborhoods looking for clients to sue the home builder over the smallest of flaws. No risk to the purchaser, but a massive risk (read cost increase) for the builder.
I am for massive lawsuit reform, including loser-pays. This is the very opposite.
I recommend voting NO on 201.
Arizona Proposition 200 - NO
Prop 200 is a massive re-write of the laws that regulate the deferred-presentment industry, also known as "payday loans."
The proposition actually does 2 things: first, it extends the law that permits payday loan businesses in Arizona. Currently, the law that regulates this industry is set to expire in 2010, at which time it would be illegal to operate a payday loan business. Secondly, the proposition adds significant new regulations to the system.
The gist of the regulations is to make these businesses less profitable and to make the loans more difficult to obtain. Such a policy has great appeal - the people who generally need these loans tend to be at the margins of society, and the costs of these loans can appear excessive (at much as a 400% interest rate, depending on how you calculate it).
However, I am passionately against this proposition, not because I would like to see the end of payday loan businesses, but because I believe that this law would reduce the options for the many people who already have few options. Let me give one example. The law would reduce the fees that these stores can charge to a level below what banks can charge for returned checks. This seems compassionate. But fees reflect the risk that a business assumes in a transaction. If you reduce the fee, then it becomes riskier to provide the service, and there will be fewer options. I despise predatory lending, and want the best for those people who do not have access to the funds they need to meet their obligations; but reducing the number of options they have does not help them. If there is a market for lower-cost payday loans, then eventually someone will come in and fill that need. I assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that the fees charged by this industry reflect actual risks.
The state legislature should simply extend the authorization for these businesses, then have hearings to understand specific issues surrounding them, adding reforms as needed. A massive re-structuring like 200 is likely to do more harm than good.
I recommend voting NO on 200.
The proposition actually does 2 things: first, it extends the law that permits payday loan businesses in Arizona. Currently, the law that regulates this industry is set to expire in 2010, at which time it would be illegal to operate a payday loan business. Secondly, the proposition adds significant new regulations to the system.
The gist of the regulations is to make these businesses less profitable and to make the loans more difficult to obtain. Such a policy has great appeal - the people who generally need these loans tend to be at the margins of society, and the costs of these loans can appear excessive (at much as a 400% interest rate, depending on how you calculate it).
However, I am passionately against this proposition, not because I would like to see the end of payday loan businesses, but because I believe that this law would reduce the options for the many people who already have few options. Let me give one example. The law would reduce the fees that these stores can charge to a level below what banks can charge for returned checks. This seems compassionate. But fees reflect the risk that a business assumes in a transaction. If you reduce the fee, then it becomes riskier to provide the service, and there will be fewer options. I despise predatory lending, and want the best for those people who do not have access to the funds they need to meet their obligations; but reducing the number of options they have does not help them. If there is a market for lower-cost payday loans, then eventually someone will come in and fill that need. I assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that the fees charged by this industry reflect actual risks.
The state legislature should simply extend the authorization for these businesses, then have hearings to understand specific issues surrounding them, adding reforms as needed. A massive re-structuring like 200 is likely to do more harm than good.
I recommend voting NO on 200.
Arizona Proposition 105 - NO
Prop 105 would require that any tax or spending-increase ballot proposition be passed, not by a majority of the votes cast, but by receiving a number of votes exceeding 1/2 the number of registered voters.
The libertarian in me loves the thought of this. All the arguments against note that this would make it effectively impossible for such an initiative to pass. I cannot imagine a tax proposition that I would want to pass, and this prop would reduce the number of propositions on the ballot.
However, to be consistent, I need to note that I am in general against ballot propositions because of the law of unintended consequences. While voting for this might reduce the number of overall propositions, I cannot in good conscience recommend voting for this proposition. I am against real, current propositions, not potential future propositions.
I recommend voting NO on 105.
The libertarian in me loves the thought of this. All the arguments against note that this would make it effectively impossible for such an initiative to pass. I cannot imagine a tax proposition that I would want to pass, and this prop would reduce the number of propositions on the ballot.
However, to be consistent, I need to note that I am in general against ballot propositions because of the law of unintended consequences. While voting for this might reduce the number of overall propositions, I cannot in good conscience recommend voting for this proposition. I am against real, current propositions, not potential future propositions.
I recommend voting NO on 105.
Arizona Proposition 102 - YES
Prop 102 would amend the Arizona constitution to define marriage solely as the union between one man and one woman.
A similar proposition was on the ballot 2 years ago, prop 107, and was voted down. At that time, I went back-and-forth on the issue, ultimately voting against it (in spite of what I indicated in my blog). My reason for this was described in this post.
I am going to vote for this amendment. My primary concern with 107 was the exclusion of benefits for homosexual partners. I believed then, and believe now, that it is wrong to write that language into law. With that gone, I believe that it is reasonable to offer the population the option of specifying the "sense of the people" on what marriage means.
This amendment will not limit the rights of homosexuals in this state. They can still be in relationship, find companies that will allow them to share benefits, and press for clarification of how assets can be shared.
I still believe that the best, ultimate solution to the issue of gay rights is for the government to simplify the tax code, allowing individuals more say in what they do with their money. Such a change would eliminate nearly all of the issues that are supposedly at the core of this question. But I do not expect that to happen any time soon.
I recommend voting YES on 102.
A similar proposition was on the ballot 2 years ago, prop 107, and was voted down. At that time, I went back-and-forth on the issue, ultimately voting against it (in spite of what I indicated in my blog). My reason for this was described in this post.
I am going to vote for this amendment. My primary concern with 107 was the exclusion of benefits for homosexual partners. I believed then, and believe now, that it is wrong to write that language into law. With that gone, I believe that it is reasonable to offer the population the option of specifying the "sense of the people" on what marriage means.
This amendment will not limit the rights of homosexuals in this state. They can still be in relationship, find companies that will allow them to share benefits, and press for clarification of how assets can be shared.
I still believe that the best, ultimate solution to the issue of gay rights is for the government to simplify the tax code, allowing individuals more say in what they do with their money. Such a change would eliminate nearly all of the issues that are supposedly at the core of this question. But I do not expect that to happen any time soon.
I recommend voting YES on 102.
Arizona Proposition 101 - NO
Prop 101 prohibits any government in Arizona from passing laws that criminalize health insurance decisions. Like nearly everything having to do with health insurance, the comments about the initiative confuse health insurance and health care. Be aware, this proposition speaks only about health insurance, it says nothing about obtaining health care.
The arguments against Prop 101 are all focused on the fact that this proposition would prevent the state from creating a mandatory state-wide health care plan. There is also an argument that future government decisions shouldn't be restricted in this way.
Let's take the second issue first. It is the nature of constitutional amendments to restrict the governments actions. You may disagree with any particular amendment, but no one who believes in the governmental approach of the United States can be against the concept of amending the constitution, although obvious care must be taken in this process (which is why I am against using the initiative process to amend the constitution in general).
Which leads to the first issue. I am against, as a matter of principal, the very notion of government-mandated health insurance program. Such programs are failing around the world, and I do not believe that the government has the solution. I believe that some regulation, along with an increase in the options people have, and a decrease in the tax regulations around health insurance, has a great chance of making real in-roads in increasing the availability of affordable health care for most people.
All that being said, I do not know if this proposition is a good idea. Again, I am hesitant to make changes to the constitution in the absence of a crisis. Since I do not see a crisis, I am inclined to vote NO on 101, although I can understand why someone else may vote for it.
The arguments against Prop 101 are all focused on the fact that this proposition would prevent the state from creating a mandatory state-wide health care plan. There is also an argument that future government decisions shouldn't be restricted in this way.
Let's take the second issue first. It is the nature of constitutional amendments to restrict the governments actions. You may disagree with any particular amendment, but no one who believes in the governmental approach of the United States can be against the concept of amending the constitution, although obvious care must be taken in this process (which is why I am against using the initiative process to amend the constitution in general).
Which leads to the first issue. I am against, as a matter of principal, the very notion of government-mandated health insurance program. Such programs are failing around the world, and I do not believe that the government has the solution. I believe that some regulation, along with an increase in the options people have, and a decrease in the tax regulations around health insurance, has a great chance of making real in-roads in increasing the availability of affordable health care for most people.
All that being said, I do not know if this proposition is a good idea. Again, I am hesitant to make changes to the constitution in the absence of a crisis. Since I do not see a crisis, I am inclined to vote NO on 101, although I can understand why someone else may vote for it.
Arizona Proposition 100 - YES
Prop 100 prohibits any state or local government from enacting a tax on the sale or transfer of real estate.
The principal argument against the proposition is that it would be irresponsible to exclude any form of potential income when the economy may be slowing down.
I reject any such argument. The truth is, we the people should put as many restrictions on the sources of income our beloved government has access to. The money belongs to those who have it, that is one of the truths that has made America great.
I recommend voting YES on 100.
The principal argument against the proposition is that it would be irresponsible to exclude any form of potential income when the economy may be slowing down.
I reject any such argument. The truth is, we the people should put as many restrictions on the sources of income our beloved government has access to. The money belongs to those who have it, that is one of the truths that has made America great.
I recommend voting YES on 100.
The Arizona Ballot Initiatives
I am in the process of reviewing the various ballot propositions, and decided I should use my blog (which I neglect far too often) to spell out my thoughts. I will be posting over the next day or so my thoughts on the various initiatives.
But I gotta say that I find the whole thing so indicative of the failure of leadership in our country. We have so many ballot initiatives in part because our legislature refuses to make hard decisions. They leave it to the initiative process, where good information is nearly impossible to find. See my post from 2 years ago
If you are an Arizona voter and want more information, here are 2 very good resources:
Center for Arizona Policy
Arizona Secretary of State
But I gotta say that I find the whole thing so indicative of the failure of leadership in our country. We have so many ballot initiatives in part because our legislature refuses to make hard decisions. They leave it to the initiative process, where good information is nearly impossible to find. See my post from 2 years ago
If you are an Arizona voter and want more information, here are 2 very good resources:
Center for Arizona Policy
Arizona Secretary of State
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Stem Cells - An analogy
With the discovery that Governor Palin is against embryonic stem cell research, the hysterical left is clouding the issue by misrepresenting the stand of those of us who are against such research. For example, I just saw Joy Behar on Larry King (talk about an echo chamber) complaining - what are we, in the 1800s? Come on, let's do what we can to help people! A correspondent from CNN complained likewise that people like Governor Palin are trying to prevent everyone else from getting better just because she doesn't support embryonic stem cell research. The problem is that both of those complaints miss the point. Perhaps an analogy will be useful:
Suppose that tomorrow we awoke to hear that researchers at the Mayo Clinic have discovered that certain cells in the body of women nearing menopause can be harvested and used to treat any cancer that results from a degradation of DNA. In this press release, the researchers note that to be most effective, the cells must be gathered from a living woman. However, here's the kicker. While the cells in one woman's body can provide a cure for as many as 20 different cancer victims, the process of harvesting the cells, even to treat one person, will result in the death of the donor. So, should we begin rounding up pre-menopausal women and killing them, given that one woman's life can save 20? I cannot believe any sane human being would agree to such a plan.
Here's the rub - I believe (as do millions of my fellow Americans) that the life of a viable embryo is of equal worth to a pre-menopausal woman. It is therefore to me as unthinkable and immoral to destroy the embryo as it would be to kill pre-meopausal women.
You may disagree with my value system - so be it. But let's not pretend that the disagreement is about anything other than the relative value of a human embryo. And if I am right, and the life of the embryo is in fact as worthy of protection as that of any other human, then it is immoral to destroy it, no matter how many people would potentially be helped.
Suppose that tomorrow we awoke to hear that researchers at the Mayo Clinic have discovered that certain cells in the body of women nearing menopause can be harvested and used to treat any cancer that results from a degradation of DNA. In this press release, the researchers note that to be most effective, the cells must be gathered from a living woman. However, here's the kicker. While the cells in one woman's body can provide a cure for as many as 20 different cancer victims, the process of harvesting the cells, even to treat one person, will result in the death of the donor. So, should we begin rounding up pre-menopausal women and killing them, given that one woman's life can save 20? I cannot believe any sane human being would agree to such a plan.
Here's the rub - I believe (as do millions of my fellow Americans) that the life of a viable embryo is of equal worth to a pre-menopausal woman. It is therefore to me as unthinkable and immoral to destroy the embryo as it would be to kill pre-meopausal women.
You may disagree with my value system - so be it. But let's not pretend that the disagreement is about anything other than the relative value of a human embryo. And if I am right, and the life of the embryo is in fact as worthy of protection as that of any other human, then it is immoral to destroy it, no matter how many people would potentially be helped.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The "Montauk Monster"
If you haven't seen the story, there is a photo of a supposed monster that washed up on a beach somewhere. The really weird thing a bout this is that it is unbelievably easy to demonstrate that this is a fake. If you take the original image from Gawker, zoom in on it using something like Photoshop, you can see any number of places where the image is clearly constructed. Here are two examples:
Here is a zoomed in image of the area around the monster's neck. There is a hard edge at the left of the neck. Such edges are almost never present in real photographs, especially in situations like this where there is a smooth transition from one surface to another.
The second shows two areas of the monster. The section on the left is from the body, the one on the right is from the head. Notice that the image from the head looks blurrier than the one on the body. That's because the image of the body was taken with a higher resolution camera than was the one from the head. No camera can do that.
Finally, I think the author of this picture left us a message. Take a look at this zoomed in image of the "hand" of the monster:
I think it's flipping us off!
Here is a zoomed in image of the area around the monster's neck. There is a hard edge at the left of the neck. Such edges are almost never present in real photographs, especially in situations like this where there is a smooth transition from one surface to another.
The second shows two areas of the monster. The section on the left is from the body, the one on the right is from the head. Notice that the image from the head looks blurrier than the one on the body. That's because the image of the body was taken with a higher resolution camera than was the one from the head. No camera can do that.
Finally, I think the author of this picture left us a message. Take a look at this zoomed in image of the "hand" of the monster:
I think it's flipping us off!
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Amazing adult stem cells
There is a story today that a boy born with a rare genetic disorder that renders him extremely susceptible to infection has been cured using the combination of chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant to create for him a new immune system. You can read the story here.
In case you didn't know, a bone marrow transplant is a transplant of adult stem cells. I am a huge fan of stem cell research. Adult stem cell research. Because it saves lives without sacrificing them.
In case you didn't know, a bone marrow transplant is a transplant of adult stem cells. I am a huge fan of stem cell research. Adult stem cell research. Because it saves lives without sacrificing them.
Monday, June 02, 2008
A good predictive theory
It is my observation, nothing more, that Darwinian evolution has proven a poor source of predictions about the actual world. The obvious predictions: that we would in time find a wide range of transitional fossils, that the processes of life could be developed in iterative steps, these need not be addressed. I have a more interesting case of the theory's poor predictive behavior, in two different examples.
I have a friend who suffers from horrible back problems. She has been subjected to innumerable surgeries (I'm sure she knows how many, but it's a lot). Many of her early surgeries were intended to remove some of the curvature from her back; as it was reasoned 3 decades ago that the amount of curvature in our spine is an evolutionary holdover, and in her case, reducing it would be advantageous. Of course, we now understand that the curvature of our spines is not a "holdover," but the very way they need to be shaped to support our bodies during upright locomotion, and her most recent surgeries have been to re-introduce the curvature. Oops.
Second, there is an article in National Geographic from several months ago (I am way behind) about the push to develop man-made analogues to some of the more remarkable naturally-occurring materials like spider silk. The article observes that scientists work from the assumption that the systems that produce these remarkable materials are constructed "accidentally," or piece-wise, and so try to find those parts that are "essential" for manufacturing. The problem is this is not working out so well. They are having little luck in simplifying the manufacturing processes, for the natural processes themselves exceed in every way our modern design capabilities. The article even admits that it appears that many of these processes may in fact be entirely essential, a counter-intuitive result when step-wise evolution is assumed to be the design force (their point, not mine).
I would like to see what would happen if a group of scientists and engineers started with the assumption that these systems were designed - would they have any greater luck in understanding and reproducing them? Maybe not, but we couldn't do any worse that the evolutionists have done so far.
I have a friend who suffers from horrible back problems. She has been subjected to innumerable surgeries (I'm sure she knows how many, but it's a lot). Many of her early surgeries were intended to remove some of the curvature from her back; as it was reasoned 3 decades ago that the amount of curvature in our spine is an evolutionary holdover, and in her case, reducing it would be advantageous. Of course, we now understand that the curvature of our spines is not a "holdover," but the very way they need to be shaped to support our bodies during upright locomotion, and her most recent surgeries have been to re-introduce the curvature. Oops.
Second, there is an article in National Geographic from several months ago (I am way behind) about the push to develop man-made analogues to some of the more remarkable naturally-occurring materials like spider silk. The article observes that scientists work from the assumption that the systems that produce these remarkable materials are constructed "accidentally," or piece-wise, and so try to find those parts that are "essential" for manufacturing. The problem is this is not working out so well. They are having little luck in simplifying the manufacturing processes, for the natural processes themselves exceed in every way our modern design capabilities. The article even admits that it appears that many of these processes may in fact be entirely essential, a counter-intuitive result when step-wise evolution is assumed to be the design force (their point, not mine).
I would like to see what would happen if a group of scientists and engineers started with the assumption that these systems were designed - would they have any greater luck in understanding and reproducing them? Maybe not, but we couldn't do any worse that the evolutionists have done so far.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
A Pet Peeve
I cringe every time I hear something like: "Savings of up to 50%, or more!"
This sort of redundancy is becoming more prevalent. The phrase is used even in promos done by talk radio hosts who ought to know better.
If it can be more than 50%, then it is not accurate to say "up to 50%." Either the "up to" is redundant, or the ceiling ought to be raised. That is, it is either:
"Savings of 50% or more"
or
"Savings of up to 75%."
Just a pet peeve.
This sort of redundancy is becoming more prevalent. The phrase is used even in promos done by talk radio hosts who ought to know better.
If it can be more than 50%, then it is not accurate to say "up to 50%." Either the "up to" is redundant, or the ceiling ought to be raised. That is, it is either:
"Savings of 50% or more"
or
"Savings of up to 75%."
Just a pet peeve.
Monday, May 26, 2008
One nation
Today is Memorial Day. Before I do anything else, I want here to express my gratitude to those men and women who have given their lives for my freedom. I never served in the military, though for no nobler or baser reason than that it never came up. I had an invitation to West Point, but chose another path. It is a decision I sometimes wish I had made differently, if for no other reason than to have given myself to this great country.
But my post is not about today. I was reading the Gettysburg Address today, and noticed that Lincoln ended with "that this nation, under God..." And I wondered if this is the origin of the phrase, and if the addition of "under God" to the pledge was motivated simply by a desire to commemorate that brilliant turn of a phrase by Lincoln. I don't know, and unfortunately, no one reads my blog who could likely confirm or deny.
Maybe I'll call Dennis Prager on Friday.
But my post is not about today. I was reading the Gettysburg Address today, and noticed that Lincoln ended with "that this nation, under God..." And I wondered if this is the origin of the phrase, and if the addition of "under God" to the pledge was motivated simply by a desire to commemorate that brilliant turn of a phrase by Lincoln. I don't know, and unfortunately, no one reads my blog who could likely confirm or deny.
Maybe I'll call Dennis Prager on Friday.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Life is hard
It is a shame that we live in a country where people can enjoy such abundance and still complain about what they don't have.
The following comic really says it all. When I went to Tibet several years ago, I found myself appreciating the simple fact of toilet paper as well. Every now and agan, it's good to remind myself of that.
The following comic really says it all. When I went to Tibet several years ago, I found myself appreciating the simple fact of toilet paper as well. Every now and agan, it's good to remind myself of that.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
They missed the obvious solution
My boys and I were watching a show on National Geographic Channel called Naked Science (not sure why it is called that). This episode covered the entire lifespan of the sun. After tracking the past 5+ billion years since it was formed, the show goes on to discuss what happens in the next billion as the sun continues to warm and expand.
The show observes that conditions on the earth will change dramatically as the temperature rises some 60 degrees in this time. The voice concludes that only a handful of humans, possibly living underground, will survive this long. My oldest boy looks over at me and asks the question that had just popped into my mind: "Don't you think, if they really believed in evolution, that they would just assume that life would evolve? One billion years is a long time."
He's right, you know.
The show observes that conditions on the earth will change dramatically as the temperature rises some 60 degrees in this time. The voice concludes that only a handful of humans, possibly living underground, will survive this long. My oldest boy looks over at me and asks the question that had just popped into my mind: "Don't you think, if they really believed in evolution, that they would just assume that life would evolve? One billion years is a long time."
He's right, you know.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
