O Say, Does that Star Spangled Banner Yet Wave?
This morning I was walking up onto campus, it was a beautiful day. Clear blue sky, brisk fall weather, bright sun shining over the mountain. I saw sticking up over one of the campus buildings the United States Flag waving with majestic brilliance. It was a beautiful scene. The words and music of our National Anthem came into my mind, "Oh say, can you see, by the dawn's early light, what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?" Can you see it? The flag that was flying last night, which we saw in the last dim light of the evening? Is it still there? The flag which represents the hope of this people? And then I remembered the words near the end of the verse, "O say, does that star spangled banner yet wave?" Tell me! Can you see it?
I think of today's world, of the rising division between good and evil, moral and immoral. The future of this nation, and the impact each individual citizen's moral integrity has on the outcome. And I ask, "O say, does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave?" I believe this upcoming Presidential Election is among the most important elections in the history of this Nation. It represents a crossroads, a choice our nation has to go one of two radically different directions, with radically different consequences. Will we or will we not continue to be a light upon a hill, shining forth to all nations? Will we continue to be the hope of the world, a symbol of truth and freedom? Do we remember our duty like our fathers did during World War II or our grandfathers did during the Revolution? Or instead will we become passive and apathetic, falling selfishly into ourselves, loving only comfort and vain pleasures, forgetting our blessings, neglecting our responsibility, and then without realizing it, loosing what we hold dear?
O say, does that star spangled banner yet wave
O're the land of the free, and the home of the brave?
Does it? Answer me now! Does it?
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
Comments; Climate Change
You know, it's hard being the younger brother of two college-attending, politically-aware jargon geniuses. Especially since you can tell that they spent some time spinning their elegant essays into streamlined, direct messages that read like a college textbook on steroids.
Ok, they're not exactly like that, but it's sure intimidating to try to write a post about anything when you're afraid you'll look like a wimp trying to fit in next to these guys.
I don't exactly have anything profound to say about modern neighborhoods, green cars, or futile research projects, but the other day I read the National Geographic article concerning climate change. All in all, it was actually a well-thought argument that was written in very reasonable terms. You can all read it here.
However, I have two reservations:
1. The article states that CO2 at 450 parts per million in the atmosphere is a threshold we should respect. But how does he measure that argument with the one I've heard from those that don't believe global warming: that there is evidence of ages where the CO2 level was ten times what it was now, and that there is little or no evidence of there being global disasters on a massive scale? I have yet to see a side-by-side analysis of the two arguments.
2. The author, to my astonishment, claims that "in the end, global warming presents the greatest test we humans have yet faced." Are we still so blind as to think that our greatest threats lie in our physical destruction? This incredibly bold claim is clearly just a gimmick meant to scare people into taking global warming seriously. That phrase alone undermines my ability to believe the rest of the article. I find it ironic to contrast this author's opinion to the Bible, where God flooded the earth and physically destroyed every living thing in an act of mercy - to protect the righteous, and to give a chance for those still in heaven to be born into a righteous family. Even if another big storm is coming, I believe we need to put cleaning up our act before cleaning up our air. There are many things more terrible than death.
Ok, they're not exactly like that, but it's sure intimidating to try to write a post about anything when you're afraid you'll look like a wimp trying to fit in next to these guys.
* * *
I don't exactly have anything profound to say about modern neighborhoods, green cars, or futile research projects, but the other day I read the National Geographic article concerning climate change. All in all, it was actually a well-thought argument that was written in very reasonable terms. You can all read it here.
However, I have two reservations:
1. The article states that CO2 at 450 parts per million in the atmosphere is a threshold we should respect. But how does he measure that argument with the one I've heard from those that don't believe global warming: that there is evidence of ages where the CO2 level was ten times what it was now, and that there is little or no evidence of there being global disasters on a massive scale? I have yet to see a side-by-side analysis of the two arguments.
2. The author, to my astonishment, claims that "in the end, global warming presents the greatest test we humans have yet faced." Are we still so blind as to think that our greatest threats lie in our physical destruction? This incredibly bold claim is clearly just a gimmick meant to scare people into taking global warming seriously. That phrase alone undermines my ability to believe the rest of the article. I find it ironic to contrast this author's opinion to the Bible, where God flooded the earth and physically destroyed every living thing in an act of mercy - to protect the righteous, and to give a chance for those still in heaven to be born into a righteous family. Even if another big storm is coming, I believe we need to put cleaning up our act before cleaning up our air. There are many things more terrible than death.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Research Paper? Or Not?
Research Paper? Or Not?
This world is full of unneeded and unfounded controversy. How often do we find this today in newspapers and on cable television? Every day reporters take a clear cut and straight forward story and then dig up the most improbable doubts, blow them up to a thousand times their original size, and then ask, "Or is it?". The Fox channel convinced thousands if not millions of Americans that NASA never did land a man on the moon, that it was all a hoax (1). Al Gore has stirred up the Global Warming controversy, partly with the help of misinformation (2). Millions of Americans have an unfounded fear of nuclear energy, mostly as a result of fear and ignorance.
O assigner of my research paper, are you expecting me to come up with some biased preconceived thesis, and then proceed to misrepresent scientific studies in an attempt to back up my claims? To require a solid "argumentative" thesis with hardly the knowledge of a few half-understood scientific publications, and then assume my conclusion will have some factual basis in reality, or do any good for the world is a very unreasonable assumption. I will only argue what I firmly believe to be right, after clear and honest study and research.
The problem is, I don't have the time for that kind of research. I don't have the knowledge at this time to write such a paper. I need a good grade in this class. So here I am, preparing to stir up yet another unfounded controversy...
1) see:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277642/
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
2) see:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html
This world is full of unneeded and unfounded controversy. How often do we find this today in newspapers and on cable television? Every day reporters take a clear cut and straight forward story and then dig up the most improbable doubts, blow them up to a thousand times their original size, and then ask, "Or is it?". The Fox channel convinced thousands if not millions of Americans that NASA never did land a man on the moon, that it was all a hoax (1). Al Gore has stirred up the Global Warming controversy, partly with the help of misinformation (2). Millions of Americans have an unfounded fear of nuclear energy, mostly as a result of fear and ignorance.
O assigner of my research paper, are you expecting me to come up with some biased preconceived thesis, and then proceed to misrepresent scientific studies in an attempt to back up my claims? To require a solid "argumentative" thesis with hardly the knowledge of a few half-understood scientific publications, and then assume my conclusion will have some factual basis in reality, or do any good for the world is a very unreasonable assumption. I will only argue what I firmly believe to be right, after clear and honest study and research.
The problem is, I don't have the time for that kind of research. I don't have the knowledge at this time to write such a paper. I need a good grade in this class. So here I am, preparing to stir up yet another unfounded controversy...
1) see:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277642/
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
2) see:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Communities of the 21st Century
Cars, cars, cars. We love them, we drive them, we develop asthma from their exhaust, and we waste an unbelievable number of hours sitting in them. There is a better way, but it is going to take some work. The real problem is that we have built our communities in such a way that it is very difficult to get along without a car. We've created a vicious circle of need and demand, and now we must live with the daily commute to wherever we need to be. Stores, schools, and workplaces are all just too far to get to easily by walking. Modern roads are not friendly to bicyclers and public transportation just takes two long. Now American's are fatter then ever and consume more resources per capita than just about everybody in the world. American's pollute more than anybody, and we've been getting away with it simply because we are so spread out. What a sorry state of affairs.
Things are going to have to change, but how? Even though many environmentalist would like us too, Americans are not going to voluntarily slow down, let alone reverse, economic growth for the sake of environmental concerns. We want to have our cake and eat it too.
China, on the other hand, is discovering that if they build their economy the same way America has, they won't have enough good air to breath or water to drink. This difficult truth is starting to sink in. As a result, China is at the forefront of a new paradigm shift. They have chosen to invest in communities that will be "sustainable." It makes good sense to replace what you consume, but historically we haven't done a good job. We've always depended on the environment to clean our air, clean our water, rejuvenate the soil, provide animals that we can eat, and keep this world of our a nice place to live. Now there are so many of us that natural cycles can't keep up. This is something that we like to ignore, and we do a reasonable job of doing so in the US. China doesn't have the luxury.
China is investing in an experimental city called Dongtan. This metropolis will contain half a million people, and do so without tearing down the environment around it. People will live close together so they can share resources and access public transportation. Open spaces will be preserved and power will come from renewable sources. To learn more about this experiment, look here:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.05/feat_popup.html
This dramatic effort for developing the ideal 21st Century City is not limited to China. Smaller communities with more modest goals tuned to American sensibilities are also in development. Daybreak Community near Salt Lake City, Utah, is another effort to make cities better. With store, homes, workplaces, and schools all within walking distance, this community hopes to drastically reduce the need for cars. Bike trails and sidewalks wander around homes, parks, and open spaces. Water and power are conserved through good engineering and design. You can read more about it right here:
http://www.daybreakutah.com/index.php
These communities are not just about saving the environment, they are about recapturing what it means to be a community: where everyone knows their neighbors, and no one feels like a stranger. These communities are bound to have problems, but problems will be overcome and improvements made. I feel that these efforts will bear valuable fruit and future generations will live in communities that are more sustainable, friendly, and beautiful than anything we've ever dreamed of.
Things are going to have to change, but how? Even though many environmentalist would like us too, Americans are not going to voluntarily slow down, let alone reverse, economic growth for the sake of environmental concerns. We want to have our cake and eat it too.
China, on the other hand, is discovering that if they build their economy the same way America has, they won't have enough good air to breath or water to drink. This difficult truth is starting to sink in. As a result, China is at the forefront of a new paradigm shift. They have chosen to invest in communities that will be "sustainable." It makes good sense to replace what you consume, but historically we haven't done a good job. We've always depended on the environment to clean our air, clean our water, rejuvenate the soil, provide animals that we can eat, and keep this world of our a nice place to live. Now there are so many of us that natural cycles can't keep up. This is something that we like to ignore, and we do a reasonable job of doing so in the US. China doesn't have the luxury.
China is investing in an experimental city called Dongtan. This metropolis will contain half a million people, and do so without tearing down the environment around it. People will live close together so they can share resources and access public transportation. Open spaces will be preserved and power will come from renewable sources. To learn more about this experiment, look here:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.05/feat_popup.html
This dramatic effort for developing the ideal 21st Century City is not limited to China. Smaller communities with more modest goals tuned to American sensibilities are also in development. Daybreak Community near Salt Lake City, Utah, is another effort to make cities better. With store, homes, workplaces, and schools all within walking distance, this community hopes to drastically reduce the need for cars. Bike trails and sidewalks wander around homes, parks, and open spaces. Water and power are conserved through good engineering and design. You can read more about it right here:
http://www.daybreakutah.com/index.php
These communities are not just about saving the environment, they are about recapturing what it means to be a community: where everyone knows their neighbors, and no one feels like a stranger. These communities are bound to have problems, but problems will be overcome and improvements made. I feel that these efforts will bear valuable fruit and future generations will live in communities that are more sustainable, friendly, and beautiful than anything we've ever dreamed of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
