"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.... Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
George Washington
From his Farewell Address
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
O Say, Does that Star Spangled Banner Yet Wave?
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?
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?
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
