Being a complete sucker for good sci-fi special effects, I went to see The Day After Tomorrow. Unbelievably well done, and in that respect alone, it’s an entertaining movie. As for the subject matter, well, there’s not much to say. Anyone who cares to spend only the briefest space of time gathering their own information will plainly see that the science of global warming and massive climate change are not nearly as settled as one-half of the circus vying for political power (and their media soul mates) would have you believe. In fact, even if you accept that the earth is warming, you still are left with showing that man’s industrial and consumption activities cause anything more than negligible effects on such global events. From there, you need to show that such warming will cause net harm to civilization rather than net benefit. A lot of dots to connect, which is why most real scientists hold the only tenable position on the matter: inconclusive. Returning to the film, it was only after a few minutes that I was gratified to realize that the Church of the Environment had relegated itself to the same level as those who have been predicting…
Archives for May 2004
The story and pictures. And here’s the official page for the two guys who put it together.
Joshua Holmes at No Treason sure opened the flood gates in a post about how libertarians, normally allied against statism, are quite divided in their positions on The War. …the War on Terror and the War on Iraq have separated the libertarians who mean it and the libertarians who are faking it. He concludes: Really, what separates we libertarians from market-oriented conservatives is that radical critique of the power of the state. More than empty small government conservative promises, the libertarian critique says the power of the state is so immoral that it must either be drastically limited or completely abolished. Saying, “Boy, I hope the Bushies get their act together in Iraq!” isn’t a critique a libertarian makes. A libertarian goes right to the heart of the problem: the state. When I first read it a few days ago, I really didn’t think much of it. While I regret that we are at war, as any sane person would, I also understand that there are a lot of things in play. Sometimes in life, you are not able to get to a place you want [or have] to be without going through a place you’d rather not traverse. Running…
After many years of having a minimalist website for my company, and now that we’re getting to be upwards of 40 employees, it was time to do a complete redesign. You can view it here.
The tax protester movement actually does far more harm that good. These bunch of well-meaning nitwits go around telling the lawmakers, courts, media and everyone else what amounts to: “it’s perfectly fine to rob me, but please make it legal, first.”
There’s one hell of a lot wrong with the world. Good moms are one thing that’s sure right with it. So, here’s that silly little email:
But, given sufficient reflection, it’s damn hard not to wonder if these assholes actually have a point. Given that there are so many of these creeps running my life and yours, and that they were elected to these positions and remain there, at what conclusion do we arrive? What other than extreme naïveté, unfathomable ignorance, or breathtaking stupidity can explain it?
Whether you willingly give someone the power, or whether they take it by gun-backed threat of force (all governments worldwide, throughout all time), when someone has the virtual unchecked ability to dictate what your values are going to be and make you pay for them whether you like it or not, it’s going to result in a mess. Every time. Without exception. There is no fixing it. There’s no patch. And there’s no middle ground. If you are not choosing your own values, then you are the subject of whomever is choosing them.
So, what’s the simple moral principle that was illustrated in that story, the moral principal that goes far beyond the accounting for that paycheck? The principal is that if it’s morally wrong to rob someone, then it’s wrong if I do it, you do it, or anyone else does it, regardless of what they call themselves (“the public interest;” “the social contract;” “the government;” “the people;” “the democracy;” “the greater good”), and, regardless of what they purport to do for you in exchange, be it shining you shoes or providing you an insurance policy on retirement.
Boy gets first job. Boy buys first shoeshine. Boy saves for retirment.
Unfortunately for believers, science will never prove or disprove the existence of God. It won’t even become close. For, in the most fundamental terms, God is whatever science is not. Nothing can bridge that gap.
As a former U.S. Navy officer with 10 years of service (two as a Midshipman), I do not believe this military needs any such defense. When I heard of it, and saw the pictures, my initial reaction was that the military will get to the bottom of it and render justice in a most deliberate, sweeping, and objective way. Du-uh!
Honor the 100 million people who paid with their lives to bring you this lesson in history. Begin your journey here.