Not to wander too far off this blog's intended path, but a couple of thoughts keep rattling 'round my head as I listen to discussions of marriage in the news. I'd like to keep this to one narrow point.
From a social, legal, and governmental viewpoint, one of the significant purposes of marriage has always been to provide legal protection for women and their children, and, to a lesser degree, protection for husbands & fathers. Where is that in the current discussion of same-sex marriage? Government has a vested interest in promoting and protecting families (parents and children) because they are the fundamental unit of society from which social order comes (and a lot else), and that is in part accomplished by the legal contract of marriage and the benefits bequeathed therewith. From a KSL.com editorial:
"Redefining marriage would also diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and their biological children and for men and women to marry before having children. It would be very difficult for the law to send a message that fathers matter once it had redefined marriage to make fathers optional. On the subject of fathers, by the way, social science is not ambiguous. Children raised in households headed by a single mother (the most common single-parent situation) face many disadvantages, often through no fault of the mother. It would be wrong to assume this is merely because the child needs just two people, of any gender, in a parental role. Fathers and mothers, men and women, provide unique role models and nurturing capabilities from which children develop into healthy, balanced adults"
When both partners are the same gender and their marriage, by design, cannot produce children, exactly what would be the purposes of such "marriage" from a social, legal, and governmental point of view? Government and society do not have a vested interest in promoting and protecting same-sex unions anywhere near as important as promoting and protecting families -- the results of the two to society are radically different. I understand the desire for same-sex couples to get the economic, legal, and tax benefits that married couples get, which seem to be the heart of the matter, and I think it would be wise for those issues to be addressed specifically without redefining "marriage."
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Energy Philosophy
Based on recent discussions in the news, I offer a philosophy for your consideration.
Wind- and solar-based power plants cannot operate all the time because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. That means that behind these power plants, we must have traditional power plants (hydro, coal, gas, geothermal, or nuclear).
Isn't that a waste of money to build redundant systems?
Imagine that you have a car that can use sunshine to drive. What do you do when the sun goes down? You must turn on the gasoline engine. So why pay for the solar system to begin with? It made your car significantly more expensive.
"But it uses no fuel and is good for the environment," you may say. But solar power costs several times more than traditional electricity, making it inaccessible to most of the world. Photovoltaic panels are quite environmentally damaging to produce and dispose of.
"It could run on batteries," you may say. Do you know where batteries come from? They are, frankly, the environmentalist's worst nightmare. They are prohibitively expensive, as Prius owners are discovering (over $4000 per car), and they are recharged by whatever power plants are in your regional electrical grid (coal, in most of the country). So your Prius runs on coal and heavy metals -- that ought to soothe your green little heart.
The point is: There is no perfect energy source. There are, however, some than can provide all of our needs all of the time while at the same time are affordable to most of the world. In my mind, redundant systems like wind and solar do not make sense at the large scale or in the long-run.
My proposal: Convert coal-fired power plants to gas immediately. As we can, replace as many power plants as we can with nuclear. Build geothermal plants around Yellowstone and along the west coast. Stop wasting tax dollars on wind and solar subsidies, and let them win or lose in the competitive market. Remove Federal regulations that prevent high efficiency vehicles from coming to the U.S.
Wind- and solar-based power plants cannot operate all the time because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. That means that behind these power plants, we must have traditional power plants (hydro, coal, gas, geothermal, or nuclear).
Isn't that a waste of money to build redundant systems?
Imagine that you have a car that can use sunshine to drive. What do you do when the sun goes down? You must turn on the gasoline engine. So why pay for the solar system to begin with? It made your car significantly more expensive.
"But it uses no fuel and is good for the environment," you may say. But solar power costs several times more than traditional electricity, making it inaccessible to most of the world. Photovoltaic panels are quite environmentally damaging to produce and dispose of.
"It could run on batteries," you may say. Do you know where batteries come from? They are, frankly, the environmentalist's worst nightmare. They are prohibitively expensive, as Prius owners are discovering (over $4000 per car), and they are recharged by whatever power plants are in your regional electrical grid (coal, in most of the country). So your Prius runs on coal and heavy metals -- that ought to soothe your green little heart.
The point is: There is no perfect energy source. There are, however, some than can provide all of our needs all of the time while at the same time are affordable to most of the world. In my mind, redundant systems like wind and solar do not make sense at the large scale or in the long-run.
My proposal: Convert coal-fired power plants to gas immediately. As we can, replace as many power plants as we can with nuclear. Build geothermal plants around Yellowstone and along the west coast. Stop wasting tax dollars on wind and solar subsidies, and let them win or lose in the competitive market. Remove Federal regulations that prevent high efficiency vehicles from coming to the U.S.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Why NIMBY is Often Irrelevant
NIMBY -- "not in my back yard" -- is a reaction to anything proposed to be near you. It could be something small like a business, church, school, road improvement, or zoning change, or it could be something big like a prison, refinery, or nuclear power plant. NIMBY is considered in decisions every day, and it often affects the outcome, as it should.
But wait a minute. Some things will be opposed by someone no matter where they proposed to be. I doubt you could propose to build an oil refinery anywhere without opposition, for example. The question is, in such a case what do we do with NIMBY? Is it a valid reason, of itself, on which to base a decision?
I say it is not, and here's why.
First, if a factor is the same everywhere, we routinely disregard it as logic dictates we should. Gravity, for example, would not be a consideration in locating an oil refinery because it is essentially the same everywhere (in detail it is not, as some of you realize, but the differences are negligible). Similarly, if NIMBY is everywhere, it can be ignored in the decision-making process.
Second, it is likely that some of the reasons brought up by the NIMBYs (the people in opposition) are legitimate and should be considered; however, it is vital to realize that the logic and reasons of the argument are distinct and different from the opposition itself. Some opposition is gut reaction and not based on valid reasons or evidence, and that kind of opposition should be summarily dismissed.
If our society is to continue to thrive and grow, we must base decisions on valid logic, reason, and evidence, and not on emotional reactions. That is why NIMBY is often irrelevant.
But wait a minute. Some things will be opposed by someone no matter where they proposed to be. I doubt you could propose to build an oil refinery anywhere without opposition, for example. The question is, in such a case what do we do with NIMBY? Is it a valid reason, of itself, on which to base a decision?
I say it is not, and here's why.
First, if a factor is the same everywhere, we routinely disregard it as logic dictates we should. Gravity, for example, would not be a consideration in locating an oil refinery because it is essentially the same everywhere (in detail it is not, as some of you realize, but the differences are negligible). Similarly, if NIMBY is everywhere, it can be ignored in the decision-making process.
Second, it is likely that some of the reasons brought up by the NIMBYs (the people in opposition) are legitimate and should be considered; however, it is vital to realize that the logic and reasons of the argument are distinct and different from the opposition itself. Some opposition is gut reaction and not based on valid reasons or evidence, and that kind of opposition should be summarily dismissed.
If our society is to continue to thrive and grow, we must base decisions on valid logic, reason, and evidence, and not on emotional reactions. That is why NIMBY is often irrelevant.
Monday, March 11, 2013
Italian Scientists Appeal Conviction
Last year, a judge convicted Italian seismologists for failing to adequately warn citizens of an earthquake. 297 people died in the M6.3 quake. The conviction sent forehead-slaps throughout the scientific world.
First of all, earthquakes are not predictable. Period. End of sentence. Fuggeddaboudit.
Second, earthquakes don't kill people, buildings do. If you feel a need to put someone on trial, how about those responsible for poor building construction? How about the government that failed to promote adequate preparation and mitigation measures?
Fortunately, the outcry against this conviction has been loud and wide-spread.
See a recent article at http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/08/italian-scientists-appeal-earthquake-manslaughter-verdict/
First of all, earthquakes are not predictable. Period. End of sentence. Fuggeddaboudit.
Second, earthquakes don't kill people, buildings do. If you feel a need to put someone on trial, how about those responsible for poor building construction? How about the government that failed to promote adequate preparation and mitigation measures?
Fortunately, the outcry against this conviction has been loud and wide-spread.
See a recent article at http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/08/italian-scientists-appeal-earthquake-manslaughter-verdict/
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Oblivions
Oblivions (prounounced "oblivi ONs") -- you know, those individuals who seem oblivious to what's obvious to everyone else. You see them wreaking havoc in traffic. You see them talking loudly into their mobile phones in restaurants. You see them blocking supermarket aisles. You hear them talking during movies.
And I see them in classes. This one is from a comment about a homework assignment. The question was followed by a long blank for an answer: "I got the last question wrong because I left it blank, but it just said "Think:" so I left it blank. I don't think that I should get it wrong because it didn't ask us to answer, just to think."
Oh boy...
And I see them in classes. This one is from a comment about a homework assignment. The question was followed by a long blank for an answer: "I got the last question wrong because I left it blank, but it just said "Think:" so I left it blank. I don't think that I should get it wrong because it didn't ask us to answer, just to think."
Oh boy...
Doomsday!
Doomsday predictions have been around for hundreds of years, which if you think about it is proof that they're never right!
Lately I've seen comments on volcanic eruptions at Mt. Etna in Italy, Sakurajima in Japan, and Tolbachik in far-eastern Russia, and they all go about like this: "SUBSCRIBE FOR PREDICTIONS THAT MAY AFFECT YOU - -...Massive record breaking volcanic eruptions strike Russia...REVELATION... The appearance of smoke is seen emerging out of the ground all over the earth. It appears generally white or foam like, coming out of cracks in the ground, seemingly blurring the images of certain structures. The word sulphur is heard...." and various quotations of Biblical scripture.
Facts: Every day, dozens of volcanoes erupt around the earth. This is news to a lot of people, but it's old news to the volcanoes and volcanologists! The advent (pardon the wording) of omnipresent cameras and instant global communications has fundamentally changed mankind's view of the world. Only within the past 15 years do we see video of a volcanic eruption, earthquake, tsunami, flood, or landslide in a far-off and remote place within hours or even minutes of its occurrence. The result is a change in mankind's perception. It only seems like there are more natural disasters now than in the past because we hear and see about them much more than at any time in the past. Another factor is the yearly increase in scientific instrumentation (like seismometers and satellites) that record more and more events every year.
Reality: There are no more earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or other natural disasters in the world today than in the past. Experts have data to prove it, which you can find on the web with minimal effort (remember to stick to expert sources -- the scientists and their agencies themselves. For most natural events, try USGS.gov, the U.S. Geological Survey). And in fact, for any category of natural disaster you can name, there are examples of bigger, badder ones in the past (which you can also find via the experts). Some day, I'll post examples.
Another factor: Because global population has doubled in the past several decades and technology and wealth allow us to live in locations where we never did before, more people are in the way of natural disasters. That means more people are affected by natural disasters now than at any time in the past.
Summary: Doomsday postponed.
What's This Blog About?
Do you ever read or hear about something going on, and say to yourself, "What!?" Politics, news media reports, pseudoscience, celebrity quotes, letters to the editor and comments pages, social media -- they're all rich in examples of the profound lack of logic, reason, and knowledge in our society today. That's what this blog is about.
I call such occurrences "forehead slappers" because that's what they make reasonable people want to do.
As forehead slappers happen, I will comment on them here.
We won't get into political, religious, philosophical, or social debate -- we'll simply look at facts and logic.
Join me as we thoughtfully digest and dissect outrageous claims, exaggerations, distortions, misinformation, misdirections, leaps and lack of logic, lack of education, hypocrisy, and urban myths that, from a delightfully twisted point of view, keep modern life interesting -- and make the future of civilization frightening indeed.
I call such occurrences "forehead slappers" because that's what they make reasonable people want to do.
As forehead slappers happen, I will comment on them here.
We won't get into political, religious, philosophical, or social debate -- we'll simply look at facts and logic.
Join me as we thoughtfully digest and dissect outrageous claims, exaggerations, distortions, misinformation, misdirections, leaps and lack of logic, lack of education, hypocrisy, and urban myths that, from a delightfully twisted point of view, keep modern life interesting -- and make the future of civilization frightening indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)