Does Pollution Really Exist?

Share

While listening to a recitation from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, I heard Alinsky assert that “once you organize people around something as commonly agreed upon as pollution” the battle is already joined. Since when do we agree on what is pollution, where it is, or how much is bad? Who even decided that pollution was bad? What does pollution really mean?

Pollution plain and simple means anything that enters an environment that upsets the stability of that environment. In that case, almost anything can be considered a pollutant, and at the same time nothing is a pollutant, depending on the point of view and scale under consideration. On a nanoscopic scale, anything except a pure substance pollutes it. Shoot, I have a vial of calcium chloride on my desk that is “polluted” by the fact that it’s hygroscopic and now contains more water vapor per mole than “natural”. On a universal or galactic scale, any conceivable natural product that exists anywhere in that realm of focus belongs where it is.

Plants are often used as the be-all and end-all for defining the health of the earth. I learned while studying Vitis vinifera as a graduate student that grapes are actually weeds, like ALMOST EVERY OTHER CROP PLANT. A weed is simply a plant that grows somewhere where we don’t want it. In that way, shade trees, bushes, tulips growing in the lawn, or lawn growing in the flower beds sometimes constitute weeds. People ignorant of metabolism will claim that carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, radioactive isotopes, terpenes, and gobs of other compounds are “unnatural”. Yet, from my own metabolic studies of grapes under water deficit stress I know that plants generate a great deal of “pollutive” substances naturally. I lack an exhaustive list, but keep in mind that even plants make carbon dioxide.

Any substance that could conceivably occur naturally anywhere randomly in the realm of focus belongs there. As such, I maintain that pollution is a creation of tyrants- a way for a small few to restrict the liberty of many others. Plants make rubbers, tars, volatile gases, poisons, refined sugars, narcotics, et al., naturally. In the process of the reconstitution of plants to raw materials, further “pollution” results. Is it really preferable to have mountains of vegetable matter sitting around that never rots than to have the microbes responsible for its reutilization metabolize and reuse it (including the production of fossil fuels)? Or is the claim of environmentalists to reduce, reuse, and recycle only extended to and expected from humans? Natural events cannot possibly be pollution.

When Mt. St. Helens erupted in the early 1980s, it threw gobs of volcanic ash into the atmosphere. That ash killed plants and animals and blocked the sun. The ash was however perfectly natural, a result of natural events within the earth’s core over which men exert little to no control. Nobody made a big deal about spending lots of money to stop volcanoes from being able to pollute in the future. They only care about men.

Environmentalism is the new communism. Green is the new red. They want to tell you what you can and cannot do- a new enslavement of man to whom God clearly bequeathed the earth as part of a responsible stewardship. If we don’t use the fossil fuels, heavy metals, radioactive materials, etc., in America, someone else will.

Pollution is something I don’t happen to like somewhere where I don’t happen to like it. There are plenty of “blades of grass” growing in the flower beds of civilization and free society. Marx would be so proud.

Doug Funny: A Namesake

Share

People keep asking me why I choose the nomes de plume that I employ online, so it’s time to comment as to the story behind this dramatis personae. Years ago and all through school, people mocked me for my name, attempting to malign me through association to a Nickelodeon cartoon character Doug Funny. Given that during the time it originally aired my parents opted out of TV (it cost money in FL to get local channels, so we had no TV at all), I knew absolutely nothing of the show.

When the opportunity presented itself after high school on Nick at Nite to watch Doug Funny reruns, I found I actually enjoyed the show. Like the cartoons of my youth, this particular series sought to fulfill two major goals: teaching of morays and dealing with controversial situations through satire.

Each episode ended with a thematic moral. Doug would comment on the things he learned as a result of his adventures and try to leave the audience with some lesson. So, the cartoons transcended the barrier of mere entertainment for those with eyes to see and ears to hear and served an important lesson now vacant, vanished from the vox populi of modern Americana. They showed us about human nature, just like the old classics, but in a manner to which children could relate, until such time as Hemmingway, Lewis, and Montesquie made sense to our immature minds.

All of Doug’s friends were different in ways that paralleled the modern world without actually pronounced demarcations. His best friend was blue skinned. His dog was intelligent. Some characters had funny shaped anatomy, and then there was of course Doug’s surname. Like Star Trek, which I also enjoy a great deal, this minutia represented microcosms of the world as a whole- differences in race, religion, gender, and culture. It allowed them to be dealt with as amorphous whole issues of differentiation without pointing to a specific group.

I owe those who mocked me a great debt of gratitude. Were it not for their gleeful disdain for my name, I might never have taken time to familiarize myself with that personae to which they attributed me. Maybe I’m not very funny in an entertaining way, but in terms of peculiarity and differing from the ordinary, that most certainly rings truth. More to the point, Douglas, originally from Gaelic, means “He who came from the Dark Water” or more to prose, “The Strange One” or “Dweller in a Dark Place”. So, yes, they were right when they called me Doug Funny, and so I proudly use the name today.

Rainbows

Share

As I jogged around this morning in the cool following yesterday's rain, I smiled a bit when I saw the rainbow forming ahead of me against the head of Black Mountain. It faded during the rest of my run as the sun dissipated the clouds and rose above them, but I still enjoyed what I imagine a great few individuals were able to see, especially in light of how infrequently we see a hearty rain in the Las Vegas basin.

It brought back to mind the lines of an old familiar song from Scott and Janice Perry that I wish to share as a Thanksgiving thought:

The Power of God

Listen to the wind blow, lonely as a sigh
Nothing overhead but empty sky.
Look up at starlight, on a dark night
Are we all alone, an island in space?
Or is there a plan where I have a place?

Could it be that Heaven is man's imagining,
Reaching out for hope in childish dreams?
Stories so old then, we've outgrown them!
Has God gone away, or hidden His face?
Have miracles ceased to be?

(Chorus)
But the power of God is plain to see;
There are wonders on every hand
For those who will see through eyes of faith
Beyond the mind of man!
For how could we hope
To see His face
Who never could see His hand?

Some would see a rainbow as nothing more than light;
Others see a promise and a sign!
Everyday wonders without number
Are here all around, and wait to be found
By those who have eyes to see!

(Chorus)
For the power of God is plain to see;
There are wonders on every hand
For those who will see through eyes of faith
Beyond the mind of man!
For how could we hope
To see His face,
Who never could see His hand?

Listen to the wind blow...then listen once again!

As I consider my life this year, I see myself in the best position in which I can recall at any point in my life. Amidst all the turmoil, strife, and wickedness, and despite the apparent futility of my Quixotic quest, I am richly blessed. Everything I control is going very well indeed, and even many things that I don't control either hold promise or go comparably splendidly despite upheavals all around. I live in a great country, for the which I am grateful indeed. Only one thing really eludes me- marriage and family, but that depends on the agency of another person, so I bide my time and remember that God has never let me down, even if sometimes he forces me to wait longer than I want for what I know I deserve.

Godspeed the right.

They Sin By Silence

Share

As I listen to politicians talk about how to fix the economy now that the election is over, I notice an appallingly and conspicuously absent line of thought. Despite all the talking about what should be done and who has a “plan that is better for man”, I hear nobody asking if the actions of the federal government are constitutional. Not even everyone’s favorite Libertarian hero, Ron Paul, ventured a statement to this effect. Previously, I registered disfavor with my elected officials, whose best answer revolved around “doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing at all”. I think Ron Paul, himself a gynecologist, would argue that. If not, he should.

Constitutionality of government policy ought become the first litmus test. Politicians think that with their calling and election made sure that it constitutes license to do whatever they want. Being elected does not give you carte blanch authority to do whatever you wish. Instead, they need to ask: do we have permission? May I play my crosshand piece? Rather, Obama says what he's going to do, because he has a plan and he is going to save us all, forgetting that as President he works for us, not vice versa. Every federal official would do well to remember that they took an oath when they came into office to serve the ultimate boss, and it’s not the director of their department, a cabinet member, a committee chair, or even the President of the United States. They gave their word to his boss- to the people. Obama chooses to forget that. He doesn't care what we want, and anyone with half a brain knows that; he's a wizard of smart, promising to wave a magic wand and fix our problems, the messiah who will rub mud in our eyes and give us back our vision of the future.

Here's mud in your eye: leftist programs will not fix anything except to fix liberals in power. Listen to the failed governor of MI who in her policies sounds exactly like Obama, promising road and school construction, green jobs, and alternative energies to free us from the current crisis. It strikes me as odd to propose we follow their example because Michigan is a failing state. The great alphabet soup programs of the Great Society and the New Deal (like the WPA, CWA, etc.) did not work. Obama's bridge/school/alternative energy program will not work. Green jobs are not the answer. If we want energy independence and a vibrant economy, unbind the fetters that hold back American industry and ingenuity. Despite claims to the contrary, Obama doesn’t want to do anything that will really help this country be stronger. If he wanted to really fix it, like Levin and Rush have said many times over, he would announce an immediate reduction in taxes, of whatever meager percent. Instead he threatens us with higher taxes and punitive regulations.

What happened to liberty? General Eisenhower linked the faith and future of America in this observation: “There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, the love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.” Let us alone, and we will feed the hungry, visit the sick, free the captive and right any other injustice which lies in our power. Throughout the campaign by contrast, every candidate scurried around trying to look busy to make it look like they were doing things to alleviate our pain. In the end, nothing they did helped. Do not mistake action for real change.

Adopting a platform of liberty may not make me very popular. Most constituencies expect their representatives to do things for them, ignorant apparently of the fact that liberty comes with responsibility. As such, a platform of self-government may seem from the outset doomed to failure. However, I would rather dash myself upon the shoals trying to establish a beachhead on the shores of tyranny than live in a world void of that America in which I believe. In the end, the person who does the most for society empowers the people to govern themselves, which means they will make mistakes from time to time.

Active and Passive Action

Share

A friend of mine asked me a question on Screwtape's 13th Epistle regarding an interesting CS Lewis quote.

Active habits are strengthened by repetition but passive ones are weakened.

This has fascinating repurcussions, a few of which I will attempt to address here.

First off, let me attempt to define active and passive habits. Active habits include things for which exertion is required, things that require an investment of work in order to bring them about. IN a larger sense, this has a physics aspect in the formula

G=q+w

where the sum of all our energies is the result of useful work and heat expenditure. For this equation, q is always negative, being representative of entropic forces of degradation that must be overcome by work in order for our energies and lives to mean anything. Look at a child's bedroom- it always becomes less orderly until mom either forces the child to clean (investment of work) or sucks it up and does it herself. Passive habits include things that occur spontaneously, because their activation energy is so low that anyone can do them. Therefore, active habits include things like: getting out of bed early, jogging 5 miles per day, reading the scriptures daily, daily prayer, home/visit teaching, mid-level car maintenance, etc., whereas passive habits include things like; staying up late watching TV, vegging in front of the TV, reading the newspaper daily, eating, buying gas for your car, etc. Passive habits are not necessarily unimportant, but they are things that any average joe might do for no good reason, and active habits include things that make one stand out from the crowd.

On to the subject of weakening and strengthening habits. Someone smarter than I once said, "That which we persist in doing becomes easier, not that the nature of the thing has changed but that our ability to do it has increased". As we continue to engage in active habits, we find it easier to continue doing them or do them more efficiently, more effectively, with more efficacy, etc. We run further, faster without fatigue. My friend noticed that she enjoys/prefers/benefits from retiring earlier and rising early, in part as a result of having met me. It comes with a unique set of advantages that set you up for success elsewhere. These good habits become set in stone as you keep them up. Contrast that to passive habits, which neither make you a better person for the indulgence therein nor foster a sense of efficiency, effectiveness and efficacy. As you continue to veg in front of TV stuffing your face, you spend more time doing less useful things and eating less nutritious foods. Not that watching TV is bad per se, but I watch TV while I lift free weights or work on art projects or something where my body can be active doing something else while I watch TV. Anybody (almost anyway) can stay up late, fill up their gas tank, graze and procreate, and as you do those things they become easier, but they also become less valuable to you in both a material and esoteric sense. How many people do you know who "can't get no satisfaction" despite the fact that they indulge in whatever animal instincts affect the family of man?

Screwtape's entire premise is about preventing us from doing useful work (or w). That way, he wins because we waste away the days of our mortal probation without improving on our time. We may feel we ought to do something about it, but unless we invest our energies in things that are productive, we never act as we should and rise above our animal natures to keep our second estate. Remember that in Screwtape's first letter the senior tempter distracted a patient once by convincing him that the issue was far too important to tackle on an empty stomach and best handled after a hearty lunch. Satan wins if he wastes our time, distracts us from our duty, and eventually renders us unable to do either what we should or what we want. Eventually, the goal is to make us past feeling, to where we no longer recognize let alone wish to obey the commandments of our Creator.

A free agent does useful work. A free man actively engages in habits that exalt the family of man. Use your freedom or it will atrophy. Ask any old man you know whose chest has now become his drawers...

Icebergs and Evidence

Share

I want to go back before the election to pull up some historical events for this analysis as part of a larger issue. Before the election, two former Nevada judges, DelVeccio and Halverson, faced charges of judicial misconduct. Just this week, Lt. Governor Kroliki informed the public that some prosecutor intended to indict him. Indictment, and even may I say conviction, does not necessarily translate into guilt. Accusations against men often translate into politically motivated efforts irrespective of evidence meant to move opinion.

Remember the Duke LaCrosse case with the stripper who alleged rape by members of the team? Not only were all of the defendants exonerated, but they also won a civil lawsuit against the District Attorney. So, when I heard that DelVeccio, indicted for sexual misconduct among other breaches of protocol, received a settlement with the dismissal of the sexual allegations, I knew that such a move was tantamount to admission on the part of the DA’s office that they’d made a mistake. Halverson, despite a pity ploy when her husband attacked her with a frying pan, lost her bid before the bar, and is now barred forever from judicial office. Personally I’m glad, since we paid her $250K/year for her entire term and she never actually heard a case to completion. Now Kroliki asserts that the pending indictment constitutes nothing more than a witch hunt meant to discredit him. I’m inclined to agree.

Whatever else these people did, it remains as ever with law enforcement to gather and present evidence. Preponderance of evidence establishes criminal behavior. People do not, for example, generally make the leap from spit-shined lives to robbing banks, and we learn from our own Declaration that it takes a “long train of abuses and usurpations” that “evinces a design”. Most of what the police present amounts to circumstance.

In a somewhat highly publicized case in 1832 London, one Sir Percy defended a murder client against unfounded accusations. With Constable Jones on the stand, after the Constable admitted dereliction of protocol following his apprehending the accused, Sir Percy pointedly asked him, “So, in other words, you investigate the obvious and ignore all else?” That sowed the seed of doubt and ultimately established the accused as an innocent. Unfortunately, because of such blunders it does seem to come down more to the quality of one’s attorney than the jurisprudence of one’s peers. Naturally, rich men afford better lawyers who do a better job at forcing the police and prosecutors to present a preponderance of evidence necessary for conviction.

These stories illustrate that so many things we take at face value ignore the Iceberg Principle. Only a small portion of what lies beneath is visible, and without taking into account the entire width and breadth of an issue, it’s easy to sink yourself on half truths and whole lies. When DNA analysis came out, several convicted felons were released because DNA RFLP technology exonerated them, even after a jury found them guilty. Just because someone throws allegations at you doesn’t mean they are true. No matter what you believe, the truth remains.

Why Women Didn't Drive

Share

Back when I was learning to drive in 1994, my dad bought this old clunker chevy pickup truck with three on the tree so I could learn to drive a manual transmission. After about 30 minutes, having killed the engine at every stop sign and in a major intersection, I was at my wit’s end and asked to be excused. My dad jumped behind the wheel to drive home and admitted that this was the most difficult manual transmission he’d ever driven.

The first cars manufactured lacked not only many of the creature comforts on which we depend for Fahrvergnuegung, but they also lacked many of the mechanical advantages that make driving easy enough that some people insist on text messaging, eating, and yes, even putting on their makeup while they drive. As recently as 1995, Saturn made a base model so void of accessory features that it lacks power steering, power windows, power locks, etc. I know; I own one. Car manufacturers have consistently made improvements in order to get more people behind the wheel, but that wasn’t always the case.

Vehicle transmissions went through much iteration before they arrived where we are now in the 1990s. Henry Ford invented the basic Planetary transmission in 1908, which eventually gave way to a more complicated version of Manual transmission, which is basically the same one still used today. The first manual-automatic hybrid was the Fluid drive which emerged around 1930, followed by another fluid iteration called the Hydra-matic in 1940. Following the war, manufacturers recognized the need to make it easier for women to drive vehicles, seeing as how many of them took over men’s jobs in industry, so the first of the modern automatic transmission types or Dynaflow came out in 1948. Eventually, metallurgy and engineering allowed for smoother starts and stops in the Torque conversion transmission built in 1960. With the advent of computers, transmission technology took its final and most revolutionary leap with the introduction of the Solenoid in 1980, which ablated the need for fluid systems to drive gears and made it possible via electronic control for anyone to enjoy a smooth and comfortable acceleration.

The design of car components also made it possible for more people, including primarily women and eventually teenagers, to drive. As cars became lighter in favor of more fuel economy, coupled with the addition of power steering, it became easier to manage a car into tight spaces, around corners, and at high speed. Consequently more people felt comfortable driving and verily desired the privilege thereof.

Finally, cost measures played a pivotal role in driving. In Europe, I once drove a high-ranking official’s family home in his Mercedes because I, as an American, had a license. To obtain a license in Austria, which is for life, costs between $5000 and $6000, thereby precluding the average person from obtaining permission to drive. Hyundai introduced a line of very very cheap (but also comparably unsafe) vehicles into the American auto market, allowing consumers to buy a new car for the price of a used one. Consequently, people started owning more and more cars who might otherwise elect not to.

Women were kept from driving, not by misogyny as women’s rights advocates claim, but by physics and economics. As soon as it became feasible for a woman to manipulate the gears, turn the drive shaft, and afford a car, they did so, and in great numbers. Even then, just because one is male doesn’t automatically mean one can operate a car. It takes time to learn how to drive correctly, time and patience and practice. Sadly, too many people view driving as a right and not as rightly befits it- a privilege.

One of my favorite parts of IQ (Tim Robbins, Meg Ryan and Walter Mathau) is where the scientists are all driving around in the Studebaker and the driver swerves out of control. As he berates the other driver for reckless behavior, he says, “They should make you have to take a test before they let you drive”. One of the other scientists asks, “Didn’t you have to take a test to get a license?” The ignorance of the general public really appalls me. They believe whatever they’re told. Perhaps they’ll listen now.

Liberty: Necessary to Life

Share

One of the things that got me into science was chemistry. Chemistry is ironically one of the hardest subjects for me, but it has always fascinated me how two dangerous substances can, under the right conditions, combine into two of completely innocuous nature.

NaOH + HCl --> NaCl + H₂0

A strong acid with a strong base, taken singly in their own right can kill you, but the products of their chemical interaction are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to life.

My credentials and actual expertise in science come from the study of plants. From chlorophyll fluorescence, to polyphenol distribution, to water deficit stress, I dealt with metabolic balances in plants and how genetics drives those relationships. The plants for which I cared depended on me for their livelihood, and I upon theirs, not individually, but as a group. Our gas exchange makes organic life possible.

Any idiot with half a cognizance about photosynthesis knows that plants use sunlight to fix carbon dioxide into sugars. Environmentalists allege that the presence of CO₂ in our atmosphere poses a threat to us. However dangerous CO₂ may be to some things or the careers of some people, CO₂ is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to life, because without CO₂, all plants, in whom we live and move and have our being, would die. Then what would vegans, vegetarians, and environmentalist wackos eat? What would they breathe?

Back in graduate school, the place I parked lay in such a position that on the way to work I always passed a law office whereat an environmentalist worked. On his bumper stood a sticker that said, “Thou shalt not kill. Go Vegetarian”. This sentiment bespeaks the woeful ignorance of the irredeemably wicked who make of themselves hypocrites in their defense of animal and human rights while endorsing infanticide.

Animals and plants live in a symbiotic balance. Neither can survive without the other. If we cease to make CO₂, plants die. If they cease to incorporate it, we die.

Nobody bans sodium hydroxide or hydrochloric acid despite the dangers posed by them. If so, we’d all have to turn ourselves in. In the right place at the right time, these natural substances prove essential to life. This is the maxim of the universe: all things, in the right place at the right time for the right reasons to the right degree, are good for life. Liberals, like CS Lewis says in the Screwtape Letters, follow a formula meant to corrupt what God created. Since nothing God created is bad, all things lead towards our good. Liberals might say as Wormwood:

All we can do is to encourage the humans to take the pleasures which our Enemy has produced, at times, or in ways, or in degrees, which He has forbidden. Hence we always try to work away from the natural condition of any pleasure to that in which it is least natural, least redolent of its Maker, and least pleasurable. An ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula. It is more certain; and it's better style-- To get the man's soul and give him nothing in return.

That is what you get with Liberalism. Forget the hype, the promises, and the historic nature of this election. Barack Obama, and his friends, give high ideals lip service so that once you sign over your soul you belong to them. Once they own you, they will give you nothing.

Liberty is absolutely necessary to life, to make use of what we have responsibly, prudently, and charitably, not by force but because we do what is right.

Live As You Please

Share

Earlier this week on some late night news program, I overheard the commentators blaming GM’s monetary woes on the fact that it launched a new line of Hummers. His allegations demonstrate a gross ignorance on his part of the situation at hand, which ignorance is typical of those who point fingers and offer no solutions.

General Motors languishes, not under the line of new vehicles it proposes, but under the line it currently produces. Café standards and government regulations forced GM to build cars people didn’t want to buy, and union contracts leave the company with sufficiently high numbers of workers who sit idle waiting for a job to come along that they like, all the way drawing down a paycheck. How many former GM employees draw pensions for a period longer than what they spent as employees? GM was in financial trouble before the Hummer rolled off the assembly line, so this is a red herring.

Tell me what is so offensive about a hummer. They’re good enough for our soldiers. Some woman on the show answered with her propaganda that those who want to drive such cars apparently want to be greedy and waste gasoline and do bad things to the environment. Her group of socialists hate us because we drive what we want to drive and live our lives as we wish. They envy us our homes, our jobs, our lives, and actually in end effect our happiness.

I make it no secret that I really want a family and children. Children are an heritage of the Lord, and happy is he that hath his quiver full of them. People drive Hummers, vans, and SUVs, not to destroy the environment but rather because they have too many children to fit in a sedan or mini golf cart type car, and they want to protect their loved ones. Even I admit that if I had a family I would buy a different car. For my purposes of commuting to work and since I am the only person in my household, what I drive matters very little. You can’t move a family of six hundreds of miles to a vacation, reunion, or anything else with any amount of luggage in a SmartCar or a Mini. I don’t care how good for the environment those cars may be, they are really anti-family.

When I sat down to right this, I had no idea I was going to make that point, but the liberal left is very much anti-family. They endorse abortion, contraception, small cars, higher taxes, all in the name of the greater good, putting the family of man above your family. Such a prospect is preposterous. Read Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, and you will see how he asserts that it society as a whole cannot sympathize with or care for your family as well as you, and reciprocally you cannot help anyone by trying to help society. You help society best by helping the people close to you, which would be your family. Liberals think from the top down and put government first, when society was established from the bottom up with family first.

Like Thomas Paine says, “Society in every form is a blessing; government at its best is a necessary evil, at its worst an intolerable one”. Society encourages intercourse; government creates distinctions. Created by our wants, society is a patron; necessitated by our wickedness, government becomes a punisher.

Years ago, I wrote a poem about small town mentalities about how “General Small Town” will plan out your whole life, what to eat and where to sleep and who will be your wife. The entire concept of a one-world village is contrary to family, to yours and mine, setting up government as leader of the tribal family. Government doesn’t give life. We gave it life. Before there was a United States, my ancestors were here. They came here to have a life, to live as they pleased, even if it meant driving a hummer or eating themselves to death with saturated fat. Liberals share the attitude of the Tories, but they would do well to remember Paine who said that it is folly that an island should rule a continent or that the many should be ruled, not by the dictates of their own conscience under the umbrella of the law, but by some small few. We won that war. We will win this one.

Sight Check

Share

I met with TSGT Bishop yesterday for a vision exam at O’Callaghan Federal Hospital as ordered by the MEPS as part of my package to join the military. This came as quite a surprise to me since last December when I went to the MEPS nobody said anything to me about needing to have my vision checked. Not only am I too old to become a rated officer, but it was never my intent to join the military in a combat position, and as such I figured my eyesight mattered less than it might otherwise have.

We learned as we signed in something very odd about the Air Force’s personnel database. When the SGT looked up my SSN, she discovered that my records are still in the computer, which apparently indicates that I have 26 years of military service and currently hold the rank of 2^nd Lieutenant. That’s a neat trick and quite a surprise given my age. I wonder where they’ve been sending my paychecks… Ordinarily, my records should have been expunged at 23 years of age when I officially left dependent status irrevocably under my sponsor, himself a lt.col. in the USAF.

Despite my goatie and this encounter, the paperwork passed on to the doctors continued to proclaim that I held a rank I do not have. The doctors and nurses continued to call me “Lieutenant”, much to the surprise of everyone waiting to be seen seeing that I wore civilian garb and don’t conform to military grooming regulations.

Ultimately, and unfortunately, the doctors were not able to correct my vision to 20/20. If this ends up barring me medically from military service, I imagine, since it has been my bane all my life to have less than perfect visual acuity, that God never intended me to serve in arms after this fashion but has some use in mind for which I should be able to say I tried.

The military says I need a sight check. I think they need to take a second look themselves. Not to say I won’t take the extra rank and back pay, but it seems odd that I’m the one being held accountable and that in a time of war it should prove so difficult for a willing body to join the service.

"I solemnly swear that I am a US Citizen"

Share

My boss told me a few months ago that when reviewing resumes for the job I currently hold one thing stood out in everyone’s mind. While some other influential opinions held out for other candidates, one phrase from the header of my paperwork helped me to stand out. I thought it pertinent to address that issue because it just goes to show you that you never know what might work out for you and that the Lord works in mysterious ways.

After finishing graduate school and being essentially laid off, I embarked on a concerted quest to find gainful employ. The connections allegedly forged by my father proved either unable or unwilling to deliver on their promises, and so I quickly turned to the general job market. Every job at which I thought I had a remote chance and in which I was even remotely interested received an application and resume from me. Seemingly, the more I sent out, the more rejections came back, but still I kept trying to elevate my estate.

Government jobs proved the most frustrating. Some of the rejections didn’t surprise me, but the ones that infuriated me said something to the effect that “You were chosen for further consideration, but another qualified candidate was selected”. In every case, the rejections came with such an air of ambiguity that I knew not how to improve my chances or where I made a mistake. However, the unintended benefit of these applications was yet to be seen.

As part of a federal job application, federal law requires a statement as to your citizenship. Accordingly, I inserted into the header of these job applications just after my personal identifying information the following words:

“I solemnly swear that I am a US Citizen”

At the time I had no idea that this phrase would eventually get me exactly where God wanted me to be.

While the powers that be at this university debated relative credentials and potential and balked at the prospects that I might not stay here for a prolonged period which would necessitate further hiring, my boss could not get that phrase out of mind. My boss comes from the Philippines originally and values very much the precious gift of US citizenship. In the end, my boss held out against the opposition and chose me for the job I currently hold.

While anecdotal at best, this seemingly inauspicious comment, obscure in the header, saved my skin and put me into a position that has done more to elevate my life than anything else I’ve ever done. Although not a faculty position per se, this job has allowed me to teach, to keep abreast of science, to putatively get into research, to ultimately perhaps get a PhD, to make a difference in the lives of students, and to make something of my life. God went to great lengths keeping me in Nevada, and he seems to have spared no amount of effort getting me onto the staff of this learning institution. I know for a fact that in small ways at least my presence here has already made a difference and changed lives.

You may think this is foolishness in me to think this way. By small and simple things oftentimes are great things brought to fruiting, and small means in many instances confounds the wise. Edison and ordinary thread gave us the first lightbulb; a humble Idaho farmboy gave us television; a frontiersman gave us the Emancipation proclamation. God works through means to bring to pass his eternal purposes, and by very small means he confounds the wise and brings to pass the salvation of many souls.

Despite the economic downturn and threats of putative reduction of force at this institution, I am doing better at this time in my life than at any other that I recall. Professors at this institution, including the department chair, have already attested to their belief that the institution cannot dispense with my services. I started initiatives that saved the institution more money than it costs to employ me. I teach as well as perform staff research scientist duties. I helped validate and bring new experiments online. I repaired or reevaluated equipment and put it to use, eliminating new capital expenditures. Most importantly of all, if not for this job and the free time it provides me in the evenings, I may never have written/finished any books, read as many as I have, or met some of the fine people whose acquaintance it has been my great privilege to make, and who have indelibly touched my life.

I may still be alone, but I account my being single as a blessing. Everything else for which I hold God accountable or in which I recognize his hand seems intended toward my good fortune. I refuse to believe that deficiency to be anything but of similar fashion and intention. I do not know what he intends, but I thank him for all those rejections in federal jobs. Arguably I do more for the cause of liberty and of worth to the souls of men here than I would there. Also, it served, by the monotony of repetition to cement a phrase into my curriculum vitae that landed me where I am today.

I solemnly swear that I am a United States Citizen, in every sense of the word.

Having a Life

Share

As part of my retreat this weekend, and part of some subsequent personal conversations with friends and associates, the topic of life came up once again. In many political elections, the subject of life is hotly contested, but unlike the concept of death, very few pundits and politicians actually take on the concept of what life really means. Those few who do make sweeping assertions about the biological aspects while ignoring all other facets of what it means to have a life.

Just because a zygote manages to survive the ravages of those who support abortion and enters into the world as a biologically living entity, does that suffice to give it life? I know many people who waste and wear out their lives in things of no eternal consequence, preferring to indulge in things unnecessary to their salvation. The dilemma comes from misunderstanding and misapprehension about the purpose of life. As I will pursue in my next book, Educating the Free, for most people, life is all about getting money.

The events that constitute a real life are not about simply being birthed onto the earth. Do trees and goats really live? They build nothing, they write nothing, and they experience things in a way exigent to our understanding. How much of what we do helps us to really live? I grant you that while money may help us live and the biological components of life are absolutely requisite, they are not the full width and breadth of the matter.

As part of my sojourn in Cedar City this weekend, I stayed with a very fine family. Although not necessarily there to spend time with them, in the waning hours of the evening, finding myself popular with their five children, I took time and interest in their activities. We played with toys, sang songs, and talked about the birds in a book from which they made drawings. One of them even drew something for me, an almost perfect stranger. Some may argue that sitting at home when you could be hobnobbing, socializing, or finding other forms of entertainment may not make much fun, but I have been bereft of the attention of children long enough that I rather enjoyed it. Granted, at the end of the day, I can simply hand them back to their parents and not worry about their care, but they took me into their circle and made me part of their life. For one day at least then this year, I can honestly say that I lived.

Pro-life efforts must be pro-family in order to fulfill the true purpose of life. Life is about more than bandaids and koolaid and brushing your teeth. It's about the little moments in between when we go watch our brother's soccer game and come home to declare victory and say how proud we are of his team. It's about staying up late playing board games and talking with one another. It's about lazy afternoons on the trampoline and crisp fall mornings raking up the leaves. Life is more than biological.

Without a family, I contend we cannot really get a life. Fortunately for my own part I belong to a good family, seeing as I have as yet none of my own, and no prospects in the foreseeable future. When I think back on my parents, they did more than give me biological life. They helped me live- to enjoy life, to make my mark in it, and to take advantage of what there is to offer. By reproducing we fulfill our biological function. By making our own families, we fulfill the measure of our creation. Consider what your family did to help you live and what you plan to do to carry on the tradition or to improve upon those that came before you. Help others to have a life, and in so doing you will find your own.

Starry Starry Eyes and Taxes

Share

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called for tax cuts today to stave off the global economic crisis. I find this particularly interesting for two reasons. Firstly, it strikes me odd because Gordon Brown comes from a socialist labor party, the party of unions and big government, and secondly, because our own President Elect calls for precisely the opposite. I know he says he wants to cut taxes for 95% of Americans when only 67% of Americans pay taxes, but you can't cut taxes for people who don't pay them in the first place, and you cannot fund his massive initiatives without raising taxes somewhere.

The Democrat party thinks that more regulation, oversight, and taxes will save the economy. As I maintained just after the election, this type of economic policy will bankrupt the country and destroy the party hegemony in the 2010 midterm elections. Gordon Brown has it right. Put money back into the pockets of the productive class of people, and the economy will recover. While some may horde the money, others will put it back into circulation which will keep people employed, keep goods moving, and generate tax money.

Adam Smith spoke at length about the productive sector in his book The Wealth of Nations. In contrast to the ruling aristocratic class, which finds itself represented in America by the rich and powerful including politicians, the productive sector creates with the money they earn reasons for monetary transactions. The aristocratic class is far more likely to spend their means in things of negligible value to society, in bread and circuses and riotous living, which are spent and have an end. All they do is eat and poop. Unless you can find a use for human feces, the aristocracy's appetite serves society very little.

Government policy on taxes reflects the same fallacy as that which caused the mortgage crisis. You restore solidarity by freeing up the market, not by further abuses and usurpation. Taxes work the same way as money being lent. Since a bank must only keep 10% of the deposit money in the coffers and may lend the other 90%, if I deposit $100 and they loan $90 to someone else, who buys $90 of good with it which a business deposits and that bank loans $81 to someone else, my original deposit of $100 has multiplied in value many times over. It represents $271 so far of value to banks as well as $90 worth of goods and services, or 3.6 times its original value. Tax money likewise accrues every time someone moves the money from one hand to another. When we earn it, we are taxed. When we spend it, we are taxed. If we save it, we are taxed. If we inherit or bequeath it, they collect taxes.

Money in motion makes more revenue. No matter whether you are a bank or a business or a regular Joe the Plumber or even the Treasury itself. Money in the treasury does not make more money. Give it back to us. We know what to do with it. I don't care what Obama and his starry-eyed psychophants say- the Average American makes better use of a dollar than the average politician, bar none.

Beautiful Nevada

Share

I decided it was time to post a few more of my favorite pictures to this blog as a preview of my book. I promise it's coming. I'll be working on it through the end of the year now that things are quieting down at work and I'm not so harried. I expect to have it published early next year.



Caliente Depot Union Pacific



Hoover Dam Vistor's Center



Kershaw-Ryan State Park




Steam Locomotive- Pioche



Paranguat National Wildlife Refuge



Passenger Waiting Area Caliente Depot



Miner's Stove- Pioche



Cleft in the Rock- Cathedral Gorge



Railroad tunnel enroute to Hoover Dam, Lake Mead NWRA



From the lookout over Cathedral Gorge



Cathedral Caves, Cathedral Gorge



Walker Lake



Rails near Eglin NV

Marriage is What Brings Us Together

Share

As I grow older and remain single, I think a lot about marriage and dating and families. Although I’ve written about this before, I found it very interesting when USA Today wrote an article about the optimal dating age. They make a few salient points but neglect to analyze some interesting trends or discuss underlying factors that may contribute. Marriage is an important decision and commitment, dealing directly with Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and so therefore I feel it salient for regular discussion.

The above image shows the average marrying age over time since the census was being taken according to the USA Today article. Interestingly enough, the average age for men varies very little compared to that a century ago, with parallel trends along the course of history. I wonder what happened in the 60s that made people want to marry young…threat of nuclear war perhaps? What the graph does not tell you is that if you omit Mormons from the data, the ages would trend even higher, since many Mormons marry in their very early twenties and such a one as myself single at the age of 29 does not endear himself well to women, regardless of their age. Also, another salient fact it omits is that prior to this date in time, men typically married older. John Adams (29) and his wife Abigail (20) represented a typical family- let the man become established in his career so as to better support the family. The difference today is that women too are preparing for the eventuality that they will bear their own support, hence a rise in the female age.

No objective analysis may omit the impact of careers on the change in marrying age. With more and more college required just to begin practice, men are often less able to provide a certain standard of living at 23 compared to yesteryear. Also, many families work on a dual income system, where their standard of living necessitates multiple incomes in order to buy a decent home in a decent zip code free of crime and with access to educational and vocational opportunities. Multiple cars necessitated by distal location of the home relative to work or school further exacerbate the need for earning power, further postponing marriage and children.

Some couples skew the data due to other trends. Long dating and cohabitation of partners who eventually marry but marry later further skew the data. This kind of “living in sin”, once socially taboo, now resounds as tinkling brass in the status quo as trendy and in. Marriage and family are in part obfuscated by what Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Tyagi refer to as a problem with cohabitation (see previous link). People try each other on as if they’re buying shoes, having apparently forgotten the reason why humans forge families in the first place. Perhaps that’s not surprising when you consider that California had to pass Proposition 8 this election just to remind its citizens thereof.

Once people eventually try to marry, they may find their options limited. How many fish remain in the sea? A dear aunt of mine, dedicated and driven but no less attentive to a desire to marry and rear children, waited until she was 33 to marry. Her multiple degrees and home intimidated the guys brave enough to attempt a relationship, and the lack thereof on the part of potential suitors tipped her off to problems with goals and dedications in the character of others who quite frankly needed to grow up. By waiting too long, some people find the supply of potential mates with whom happy and lasting relationships can be forged decreased so much that they opt never to marry or settle, leading to unhappiness and ultimately divorce. I find that as you get older, you also find less variety in which to find potential mates. Once you finish school and hobnobbing with people in your age, socio-economic and philosophical bracket, going after people becomes much more difficult

Consider also the problem of divorcees and one parent families. As the children advance in age, it becomes more difficult for them to accept a new parent figure, undermining the new parent’s authority and standing in the family. Also, for my own part I have witnessed people balk at dating the previously married, as if they were lepers, assuming that they are incapable of forging a happy and healthy relationship because a previous one failed. Ironically, I don’t know many people who married their first love, let alone those who are in a perfect relationship with their first crush.

Many of the young unmarrieds to whom I speak cite another problem, one of personality. They speak of Readiness and Self-identity as barriers to forging of families. Many young people define themselves as unready, more often than not out of fear or selfishness. Others have yet to find themselves, having identified themselves previously by their parents, peerage, or projection of the same, meaning that they aren’t currently a person in their own right. I empathize with folks who run up against this type of immaturity and self-centeredness. You don’t really want someone who isn’t their own person, who identifies themselves as “Mrs. John Smith”. If their character, identity, personae, and personality depend on their spouse, then they aren’t really a fleshed-out person yet, and therefore the person you marry may not be the person they ultimately end up becoming. Further still, these “plastic personalities” are often the people pursued by popular punditry, but they are not really persons with whom you can forge a relationship. Mercutio was an ever-changing personae, and not one with whom it was easy to get along.

Beware a trend revealed in the article to “postpone marriage until everything in your life is in working order”. If you wait until then, you will never be ready. There is always a complication, an unexpected event, or a change of plan. You might get laid off, find out you carry triplets instead of just one child, or catch a rare disease. Those are wild examples, but small things can change your course by a matter of degrees that puts you so off your endgame that you eventually find it impossible to arrive at your destination.

Like they say in the article however, it is very tough to see everyone you know around you settling into a family life and ask why you are not. For my own part, I believe that the fullness of satisfaction and happiness in life is not possible without a family. With great potential for sadness and disappointment come the greatest chances for happiness. Risk follows reward, and if you wait too long, you risk losing all. Am I brazen enough to pronounce a perfect age? No way. I know some people wait too long and some people don’t wait long enough. Thank God for prayer.

Born of Goodly Parents

Share

I have no children, but I would really like to find a nice girl with whom I mesh well intellectually, spiritually, and grammatically, with whom I could raise a family. That’s really the only complaint I have about my life thus far- that it doesn’t seem complete because I’m missing out on an opportunity I would really like and at which I estimate I would excel by comparison. My brother and his wife suffer from similar frustrations. Yet, I know people living together out of wedlock who are welcoming children into their homes under less than auspicious circumstances and worse still parents who tell their children that they were “mistakes” or who ignore their own offspring in favor of those belonging to others. Some people, I feel, don’t deserve to be parents. I don’t know why God sends spirits into their homes, and while I do not question his wisdom, years ago I wrote in my journal about bringing as many spirits into my home as possible to spare them from lesser opportunities elsewhere. Thus far, he has not seen fit to acquiesce to that attitude.

Obfuscated by the media in favor of the “change” mantra and how “historic” Obama’s election was, voters turned out en masse for a referendum on marriage and family. The much publicized Proposition 8 in California and similar movements in over a half dozen other states handily defeated same sex marriage laws in the states and, in Arkansas, the established right for gay couples to adopt. This begs the question in my mind about what’s best for the children. Are bad parents better than none at all?

Where homosexuality comes from is a broader topic than this post allows for, but consider a few things. Gay people are always born from people who at least act heterosexual. Gays claim that they cannot avoid it. Poppycock. You have power over the impulses and lusts of the flesh. Just because I am “subject to latent heterosexual tendencies” doesn’t mean that I go around sowing my wild oats in whatever womb I come across. If I can live a life of abstinence in a sex-crazy world, I know it’s possible for any person to resist any inclination/temptation/impulse with which they find themselves beset, be it genetic or not. Even if it is genetic, since both parents of a gay person were acting heterosexual at the time of conception, their parents demonstrated an ability to overcome same gender attraction, and Mendelian genetics relegates this tendency to that of autosomal recessive, meaning that it’s very rare and not necessarily advantageous.

People who conform completely to their homosexual urges cannot biologically have children. It is impossible for two men or two women to copulate and fertilize a zygote. Therefore, even if it is genetic, it should never be passed on if people live true to “what they were born to be”. Furthermore, men and women were made to fit together; their biology is compatible, their psychology coagulates to a fullness, and they come with advantages and disadvantages in dealing with the eventualities of life.

The best place for children is in the homes of the parents who sired them, parents who ostensibly and ideally love each other and dedicate their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the needs of their offspring. Any other place where children go sets them at a disadvantage. In single-parent households, children grow up without a keen and necessary contribution from the absent gender. They do not learn to understand, trust, and deal with people of that other gender, setting them at a perpetual disadvantage dealing with them in the future. In a gay home, while they have two parents, the parents come from the same cloth. If we allow gays to adopt, what message does that send? It tells them that it’s alright to not only live without one parent but that one can dispense with the other gender altogether, that gender is irrelevant and biology an imposition. Placing children into other homes puts them with people who cannot possibly care about them and care for them as well as their biological parents could, despite how well intentioned these surrogates may be. I knew a foster parent once at my last job who took the children not to raise them but as a way to bring in extra tax-free income. They were more tenants in his home than real children, as was evidenced by preferential treatment given to his own biological offspring, which sent another terrible message to those children.

I maintain that good things done for the wrong reasons remain wrong things. Placing children in bad homes does them unforeseen damage and disservice not encountered in circumstances void of poor parental examples. While they may not see how families work, they won’t see what doesn’t work, and since people imitate what they see, I do not feel that it’s in the best interest of society to place children with homes just because those people accept the children when those homes provide nothing more than basic sustenance and an illusion that their intellectual and moral needs are being met. You cannot teach wrong behavior and expect right behavior to result.

Nuclear families may not be a panacea. I know plenty of parents who fail in their covenants to each other and their offspring in favor of other pursuits. However, the family is ordained by our Creator to give children the best possible framework and foundation on which to build a future. I find it a true shame that so many children enter the world under inauspicious circumstances in homes ill equipped and ill suited for their needs and best interests, and even more disheartening that one such as I who cares about family and desires children remains bereft thereof. Not that I believe myself a perfect putative parent, but at least I want to be one. Many people can’t and won’t and don’t say the same thing.

I thank my Creator that I at least was born of goodly parents who taught me in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. They cared about me enough, not to give me everything I wanted but rather to make sure I had everything I need, even if it necessitated that they withhold some things from me for my benefit.

Making History

Share

This past month, I finally saw Tim Burton’s Nightmare Before Christmas, and as I watch the reaction to Barack Obama’s election, the song from that movie “Making Christmas” reverberated in my mind. The characters in the film are trying to overwrite what it meant to have Christmas in favor of their new matrix, which is precisely what the pundits wish to accomplish in making mountains out of molehills in their haste to attach themselves to a “historic” precedence with the first black president. I have nothing against them. In fact, I wanted Colin Powell to run. Thank God he didn’t since apparently he’s more of an opportunist than a statesman. So many people want to make a hullabaloo about what a great thing Obama’s election is and how historic it is. If they mean by historic that it’s been done before, they are right. If they mean it means something new and something good, they are way off base.

My friends who studied history can recite quotations galore about how history repeats itself. If you ignore his age and his complexion, Obama represents things that have been tried before that failed. Obama is a socialist, a communist, and a Marxist. His election, while in truth a historic event, represents a rewind of history to failed policies of the past, which is ironically exactly what he campaigned against. He represents nothing new. He can’t even…erm…come up with…um…an articulate…eh…phrase without…um…a telegraph, er teleprompter. Being the first person of his race to be elected doesn’t make it a good thing. I didn’t want Hillary Clinton to be the first woman president, regardless of her race. I opposed Clinton and Obama on their policy, irrespective of gender, race, creed, etc. We cannot get caught up in the historical nature of this and allow it to overcome our common sense. His ideas are what matters most, and his ideas, though historic, aren’t necessarily good. Many other things were historic: the Holocaust, the invasion of the Mongols, the crusades, the bombing of Hiroshima, the Inquisition, the Boston Massacre, the assassination of Lincoln, but I dare you to prove to me how those were good.

Obfuscating the banality of the facts with sweeping emotions, people got caught up in the moment, based on identity rather than on substance. So, in essence, Obama’s election constitutes a reflection for the microcosm found in High School student council and prom elections- popularity and identity over value. If you look back at my yearbook to those voted most popular or to prom court and look at what they did with their lives in the past 10 years, you’ll find their curriculum vitae resoundingly disappointing. While they make a big deal about massive turnout to vote in this election, they ignore the fact of the matter that in general turnout was no bigger than 2004, and black vote was up from 12% to 13% of registered voters. What few blacks I saw vote on election day came at the last minute. That’s inconsistent with excitement in my estimation.

Obama basically bought the election. He outspent his opponent, who never managed to drum up enough support among his base to get them to show up and donate money. Even still, despite all the money spent and all the excitement over Obama and all the first time voters, Obama didn’t bring people out in droves to vote, nor did any other candidate for that matter. I live in and worked at the polls for politically active precincts. How else do you account for the fact that 1200 out of 1860 voters had already voted before election day?

McCain handed Obama everything else he needed. McCain was weak, so Obama skirted virtually without opposition to the win. Despite posts designed to describe how McCain could win, he never followed any of my advice. My father commented last week how glad he was that he never served under Captain McCain, since McCain demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding regarding how to win a military contest. If you want to win, you attack, and then you never let up. In Jennifer Lopez’s role in Enough, her trainer asks, “What do you do after you attack?” to which she answers, “Nothing…because I never stop attacking.” By contrast, McCain would attack, and then take it back. They criticized him for not reigning in Sarah Palin, who went on the offensive whenever possible and charged up the base for the first and really only enduring time during McCain’s entire botched and half-hearted effort. Without Palin, it would have been a landslide for Obama. Such slipshod effort makes me wonder if McCain was in collusion to get Obama elected. Huckabee cut a deal to cut out Romney, then McCain ran a slipshop, half-hearted effort such that I was never sure he ever wanted to win.

Oh yes, this election was historic. We elected a big-government socialist opposed by an appeasement centrist “nice guy”, just like McGovern v. Carter in 1976. Will it pave way to another Reagan Revolution and the accompanying return to liberty? God save us if it doesn’t.