Archive for the 'Current Events' Category

The Lesser of Two Evils?

Published
by
David
on 2007-12-20
in Constitution, Current Events, Philosophy and Politics
. Closed

I am trying to cement a voting strategy. I think I have a candidate: Ron Paul. I have long thought that I should not vote for a candidate that (as I said in an email the other night) I would not let my daughter marry. Look! my daughter is six, and he is only about 70 years her senior, love is blind! But, seriously, I am not convinced that if they were more appropriately matched I would be willing to see my daughter marry him.

Based on his YouTube Videos that he ostensibly endorsed, I think his libertarianism outweighs his Trinitarianism:

  • I found a button on one of them that shows him and around his head is the phrase “Oh my God I’m Winning”—Taking the Lord’s Name in vain.
  • His record-breaking fund-raising effort was initiated on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party:
    • That was a Sunday—breaking the sabbath.
    • The Tea Party was seditious act that led to a terrible revolt—the Bible likens rebellion to witchcraft.

Ron Paul is an appealing candidate in the most plain terms. But he is primarily a constitutionalist and a libertarian. He seems more moral than I presume a Southern Baptist pastor would be. But he has already shown substantial shortcomings in his recent activities for the reformed believer. I am a willing recipient of libertarianism, not a proponent. I am opposed to it practically, because it is generally held that those things that are left to an individual’s conscience or more appropriately state’s rights are things that are morally incumbent upon us to prohibit: abortion, sabbath breaking, adultery, etc. But I like that it leaves me free to practice what I believe without fear of reprisal.

I have not thought all of this out. From here, I am tempted to vote for him, to be sure. But I cannot endorse him whole-heartedly, and that is something I think I ought to be able to do before I vote for someone. While talking with my wife on the way home from church this evening, she asked me: would you vote for a Presbyterian (RPCNA) for president? I answered that I did not know. There are two real questions I am left with:

  • Is it a Christian’s duty to vote?
    • If so, based on what?
  • What are the criteria a candidate must meet in order to be worthy of a Christian’s vote?

If you have the answers to these questions, I would definitely like to hear them. Please email me (david.eldridge@darkroastwebs.com).

Environmentalists ‘Bad for People’ & Down the Rabbit Hole

Published
by
David
on 2007-05-20
in Atheism, Current Events, Media and Science
. Closed

It is ridiculous to think that I can cover so many bases in one story. I am only posting it now until I can pull it down and piece it out into separate stories.

In a recent story in news.com.au, Sarah Kate Templeton (London) said that children are bad for the planet, in her story, Children ‘Bad for Planet.’ Her thesis is basically this: the more children people have (especially in developed nations) the more resources we use, which leads ot a greater carbon footprint. Neat! What does that mean to real people?

Of course that means that the world is headed for gloom and doom. The fallout is going to be terrible if we don’t change our ways. What is carbon (dioxide) really doing for us? In 1997, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT gave testimony to the senate on this subject. During which he cited from the American Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability

There are a couple problems with this whole global warming thing: it is at its root godless. It presumes that science is king, not God. But science is man’s knowledge, where the Bible is God’s knowledge. Men constantly waffle and bend on their views, noteworthy among them is the fact that in the not-so-distant past, American scientists thought we were headed for an ice age, and thought it was prudent that we ramp up to curb the ebb of that activity. Now we are saying that we are headed for global warming.

The hypocrisy of the media is not helpful. They continue in the pattern of Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, CNN’s Iraq coverage, and the BBC’s coverage of all things American, to spin things that they think are appropriate. The problem with that is that they don’t have the knowledge to keep them from being bowled over by their interviewees. But they do not mind, because they are looking for a scientist to support their own theses, not for the most honest or correct. This is the very problem that science has always had: if you go into your work with a hypothesis, you will slant your work. If you go in without a hypothesis or direction, you will not know where to begin or end or what to collect.

Reporters are no different. They don’t know what they are talking about, they only find people who seem to. If reporters knew what they were talking about, they would be the expert and reporters would be asking them the questions. So where does this leave us?

We need reporters, because we live in a democratic system, and they help us to make informed decisions, they ensure that our right to know is maintained, and a bunch of other cliché tripe: We are not guaranteed (so far as I know) a right to a fourth estate (which acts more like a fifth column anyway). The only right to know we seem to be guaranteed is by the Government, and that is only the stuff that they say we are allowed to know with the freedom of information act. We are not a democracy or a democratic republic. We are a representative republic, we are probably most akin to an aristocracy.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2001, May 2). On the Climate Change Debate. Cambridge, MA: Lindzen, Richard S. Retrieved July 17, 2006 from the World Wide Web: <http://eaps.mit.edu/ /faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf>