The High Road

So, the Libertarian Party has been making a stink on Facebook about what a terrible blow for personal liberty it is that California didn't legalize marijuana this time around. This is one of the several reasons that, although I describe myself as a libertarian, I will never associate myself with the Libertarian Party.
While I don't have a philosophical issue with people doing whatever they want to their own bodies, marijuana can affect more people than those who actually use it.

But let's put aside the societal problems. Let's imagine that I *shudder* move to California--and the way our country has been going since 2006, forced relocation probably wasn't far off in the agenda. Why would I vote to legalize a whole new toxin for people to put into their systems, when I HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR MEDICAL EXPENSES?

Seriously; it was bad enough when I was being forced to buy a house for every deadbeat in the country. Now that the Obama administration has destroyed the health insurance industry, only to replace it with a government-regulated medical coverage industry, expenses are skyrocketing and we're all legally obligated to make those payments. Give me a free market economy, where one can buy a true insurance policy (or choose not to), and I'll be open to toxic recreation.

Ethics and Global Climate Change: A Rebuttal

As I mentioned on Facebook, my race to get this to my professor in time for drill weekend led me to fudge some page numbers in the citations. I've never had the time since to adequately fix them, so I've simply removed the offending citations. The remainder of my paper is below:


Stephen Gardiner, “Ethics and Global Climate Change”
A Rebuttal


Jason C. Diederich
Philosophy 401
Professor Ho
01 October 2010


A Rebuttal to Stephen Gardiner’s “Ethics and Global Climate Change”

Should wealthier nations pay more than poorer nations in addressing the cost of global climate change? Stephen Gardiner believes that they should. Gardiner makes essentially two arguments in support of this view, one scientific (to demonstrate that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions constitute a significant ecological threat) and one economic (to prove that it is just that wealthier nations pay for “adaptation” to climate change). This paper will demonstrate that the first argument is without value, and that the second is not an ethical position, but the motivating agenda behind Gardiner’s essay.

In making his “scientific” argument, Gardiner spends much time on two particular topics: First, he touts the IPCC’s use of computer models to demonstrate the potential for climate change devastation (Gardiner, 365-367). It should be noted that these models have been thoroughly debunked; these are the same models which commercial meteorologists use, obviously barely adequate to predict the weather five days in advance, let alone five centuries. He then spends a lot of time “discrediting” skeptic’s claims of scientific uncertainty in the realm of climatology—of course, this is a straw man to put opponents on the defensive; there is ample evidence to support a rebuttal of the IPCC reports without resorting to mere “scientific uncertainty.” Since these two claims are without merit, they will be dismissed in favor of treating actual claims of the IPCC quoted by Gardiner.

1. “The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6 C.”

It has been demonstrated that the data utilized by the IPCC in creating this figure is highly corrupted (McKitrick, 8). This figure was arrived at using only the thermometers in the Automated Surface Observation System—all of which are on land, and almost all of which are centered around cities. Cities being made of concrete and steel, and full of large mammals and internal combustion engines, this produces an overwhelming heat-trap effect, even if we allow for the probability of nearby heat and light sources for the convenience of temperature-readers. The IPCC completely ignores the satellite temperature record in their reports, even though it has proven (in contrast to the ASOS) to be both complete and perfectly accurate—because the satellite data does not support global warming. It should also be noted that subsequent temperature data in a 2008 study has shown temperature dropping at the rate of approximately 1° C/century from 2001-2008 (Monckton, 6). Along those lines, the IPCC (and Gardiner) relies almost entirely upon the production of carbon dioxide in their estimates of global warming impact—yet carbon dioxide comprises less than .003 of the atmosphere, and its effect on radiative absorption is negligible (Kiehl, 13).

2. “Globally, it is very likely that the 1990’s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the instrumental record, since 1861.”

The above statement is entirely fraudulent. Subsequent independent investigation into NASA databases discovered that the 1930’s was actually the warmest decade on record (despite human-caused CO2 emissions still being marginal), with several record high temperatures in the U.S. which remain unbroken (McIntyre). It should also be noted that the global temperature fell ≈ .1° C from 1940-1970, despite significant increases in carbon dioxide levels and output (Sussman, 55).

3. “The increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the largest of any century in the past 1,000 years.”

The original graph published by the IPCC on this topic shows that temperatures were significantly warmer 500 years ago than they are today, and that current warming is consistent with the trend observable in the transition into the Medieval Warm Period (≈1000-1400 AD), then Maunder Minimum (≈1400-1900 AD) and back out. Note that Michael Mann’s “hockey stick graph” in the third IPCC report actually deletes those natural periods of significant temperature fluctuation in order to make the current trend (measured without benefit of satellite data) appear unprecedented.

Economically, Gardiner’s entire argument can be summed up in a single-sentence quotation:
“The third proposal I wish to consider offers a different justification for departing from the per capita principle: namely, that such a departure might maximally (or at least disproportionately) benefit the least well-off.” (Gardiner, 378)

The astute reader will notice that Gardiner has just announced that it is okay for developing countries to continue to increase carbon dioxide production, but that wealthy countries must reduce carbon dioxide production. Why would this be okay if carbon dioxide has such a potentially destructive effect? The statement “maximally benefit the least well-off” is the key: it is almost a direct quote from John Rawls’ collectivist work, Political Liberalism (Rawls, 60). Note that if it is acceptable for some groups to increase their carbon dioxide output, carbon dioxide output can’t be the real problem Gardiner is trying to solve. Gardiner’s true issue is economic: he wants to punish developed countries (inevitably the most free) and force them to subsidize the less-developed countries (usually the most totalitarian). He is using global warming to sell Marxist economics, with “gradual adaptation” to make it easier to swallow (Gardiner, 372).

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Gardiner’s paper is his discussion of a “right to subsistence emissions.” By “emissions,” as previously noted, Gardiner intends “carbon dioxide emissions”—and we, as a species, inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. The author has no doubt that the controversy surrounding climate change will continue for as long as there are carbon credits to be sold—but one must ponder the sentiments of a man who considers humanity’s right to exhale to be a debatable point.


References

Gardiner, Stephen. (2004) “Ethics and Global Climate Change” In Morton E. Winston & Ralph Edelbach (Eds) Society, Ethics and Technology (pp. 317-329) Belmont, California: Cengage Publishers

Kiehl, J., & Trenberth, K. E. (1997). Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. Retrieved October 01, 2010 from CiteSeerX: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.168.831.

McIntyre, S. (2007). A New Leaderboard at the U. S. Open. Retrieved October 01, 2010 from Climate Audit: http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/08/a-new-leaderboard-at-the-us-open/.

McKitrick, R. R., and P. J. Michaels (2007), Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S09, doi:10.1029/2007JD008465.

Monckton, C., of Brenchley. (2008). Temperature Change and CO2 Change: A Scientific Briefing. Retrieved October 01, 2010 from Science and Public Policy: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/temperature_co2_change_scientific_briefing.pdf .

Rawles, J. (1971). Political Liberalism. Chinchester, West Sussex, New York: Columbia University Press.

Sussman, B. (2010). Climategate. Washington, D.C.: WorldNetDaily.

"It's Just My Scientist Against Your Scientist"

In a recent discussion on the topic of abortion, I linked to a webpage from Princeton illustrating that, scientifically speaking, life begins at conception. The response to this was, "Well, I can pull up scientists who say just the opposite, so you're really just playing 'It's My Scientist Against Your Scientist."

My response: Go ahead--I triple-dog dare you.

No post has been forthcoming.

The majority of the online pro-abortion opinion against me is that I am somehow seeking to subvert a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body (and I have been told in no uncertain terms that this means I cannot call myself a libertarian!). However, it should be noted that it is not the woman's body which is being aborted; an abortion is the killing of the unborn child, with the woman's body simply an obstacle which must be bypassed.

For those abortion proponents who wish to, there is a related argument you can make to defend a woman's right to do with her body as she wishes: you should oppose research and public service announcements regarding Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. After all, if you already believe that a fetus has no right to life, then it certainly has no claim at all to good health, and ingesting alcohol is (unlike an abortion surgery) something which the expectant mother really does do to her own body--the fetus is only indirectly affected.

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

In 1920, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. the United States. This case was to overturn the judgment of the District Court of the Western State of New York, which had made a judgment against the plaintiff based on secondary evidence. This secondary evidence had been gathered based on earlier evidence which had been gathered unlawfully; that is, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court overturned the earlier judgement, establishing a judicial precedent known as "The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine." This title comes from the Book of Matthew 7:17-20, "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

The idea is this: if evidence is gained in an illegal way (in this case, in violation of rights affirmed by the Fourth Amendment), then anything gained from that evidence is ALSO in violation of the law, and inadmissible. I bring this up because, as I am typing this, I am listening to politicians and pundits talk about how public opinion will change on the new health-insurance regulation legislation as people begin to see the "benefits" coming to them. These so-called benefits are nothing but "fruits of the poisonous tree," in the most certain definition of the term: the bill itself is a direct violation of the Tenth Amendment; therefore, nothing associated with it can be considered a "benefit." At best, they are bribes--paid not by the politicians who passed the legislation, but with money they have confiscated from other people's work--to keep you a quiet subject rather than a full citizen under the Constitution.

UPDATE: Missouri has joined the joint lawsuit with 13 other States to repeal this legislation.

Damned Selfish Conservatives!

Recently on Facebook, I came across the question: "Do conservatives ever care about anything except their own money?" Here is my response:

If American conservatives were ever primarily concerned with money, that period ended with the ascent of the New Right in 1980. The concern of conservatives today is FREEDOM--specifically, those freedoms won by the Founding Fathers and enshrined in the U. S. Constitution. To say that American conservatives are unconcerned with other peoples' welfare is the height of absurdity; American conservatives are hands down the most generous people in the world, giving dozens of times the amount in donations to charity that liberals do (as a percentage of individual income, and not just in toto).

The difference is that, being concerned primarily with keeping people FREE to live their own lives, conservatives do not use the government to FORCE everyone else to pay for what they think is good for them (under threat of prison). That is the province of today's so-called "liberal." Conservatives take care of their own house, so as not to burden others, and help others from their own pocket... rather than helping themselves TO everyone ELSE'S pocket.

Hardly Historic

So, the LA Times, the Wall Street Journal, MSNBC and others are reporting that on Sunday night, the House of Representatives passed an "historic" health care bill. In point of fact, the is nothing historic about this bill.

From the Soviet Constitution (1936):

Article 42. Citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection.

Other socialist dictatorships, such as Fascist Italy and NAZI Germany, had the same mandates. This is not to say that people interested in universal health care are NAZI's or Communists; it is only to illustrate the roots of the school of thought which gave birth to these ideas. Remember, when the government runs health, the government RUNS health--by ceding control of our own health-care to the Federal government, we have given up the protection of Bill of Rights and given the Federal government license to regulate and penalize any activity which may affect our health in any way.

I know that there are people out there who are either devoted leftists, or who think that they're apolitical and don't realize how deeply the left has affected their thinking, who don't see a problem with this. Being "healthy" is good for us, so who cares if the government mandates it? Ignoring the obvious question of who defines what "healthy" is (by guidelines currently accepted by the U. S. government, Arnold Schwarzeneger at the height of his bodybuilding career was grossly obese), let's look at the right of the government to mandate how we live our lives at all.

What if this mandate had come from the Right instead of the Left? What if, instead of Nancy Pelosi deciding that she knew what was best for everyone's physical well-being, Newt Gingrich decided that he knew what was best for everyone's spiritual well-being? After all, from his point of view, the well-being of your eternal soul is far more important than the well-being of your physical body. What if he formed a coalition that rammed through (against massive protests) a measure which mandated that every American citizen would attend services at a Roman Catholic church weekly, and that if anyone could not afford a minimum required tithe, federal funds would be used to subsidize them?

Would you still fail to see the Constitutional problems of the Federal government mandating activities and funding them with taxpayers' money? Please let me know what you think below.

When You Get Angry...

Starting today, and progressing until either Obamacare's full effect in 2014 or its hopeful repeal, you will notice changes in your insurance. First, it is by definition no longer insurance; that is, a back-up investment to cover the expense of potential future problems. From now on, what we call "health insurance" is really a government co-op, just like your utility company, designed to be your sole method of payment for medical expenses.

Of course, there are a few differences. The increased regulatory measures of Obamacare are going to INCREASE your insurance costs--insurance companies now have to "insure against" things which have already happened. It will also raise your taxes--and the taxes of employers, who will be able to hire fewer people. The government-mandated subsidy will do to general medical care precisely what Medicare has done to the pharmaceutical industry--consumer prices will skyrocket.

As our economy stagnates and your bills rise, remember this: the Democrats, who are now utterly controlled by the elitist Progressive movement (Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have all stated so publicly), OWN THIS THING lock, stock and barrel. We have to get as many of them out of office as quickly possible. I'm not saying that Republicans have all the answers... but they are the only ones who can mount a majority quickly enough to fix ANY of this.

The bottom line is this: America tried to send a message to the Republican Party, and wound up selling itself down the river. Make sure you know EXACTLY whom you're voting for.

Upon Further Consideration...

Man, I just can't sleep.

At any rate, last night I watched the House of Representatives vote as it occurred. At about 9:45 pm, the "health-care" bill passed, and I wrote a vehement note on Facebook that if Obama signed this bill into law, I would drop my health insurance rather than comply with an illegal Federal mandate.

I'm now rescinding that decision.

I know that very, very few people read this blog or give a hoot what I think. I know that some people will read this and think that I'm a coward who caved on his convictions when he finally took the time to consider the consequences. That's fine. Those who know me personally know that I'm hardly one to be put off by the threat of physical or financial hardship, and those who've deployed with me know that the threat of legal action won't deter me from doing what's right (Prison? Hell, have you met my ex-wife? FEAR HER STEREO.)

The fact is, on the off chance that anyone cares or, God help me, wanted to join me in dropping their insurance, that it would actually be counter-productive. Not only am I not actually "obeying the Federal mandate" (I'm not buying health insurance; I already have it), but in dropping my insurance I would be taking money away from the working Americans in the insurance company, and FUNDING the very tyrants whom I oppose (via the penalty which will be applied to uninsured individuals, which will not be applied to any insurance coverage).

It pains me to have voluntarily contracted my entire adult life to allow myself to be put in harm's way to protect the world from tyrants, only to have tyrants take over my own country through a dishonest back-door. However, I'm a big enough man to admit when I'm wrong (unless it involves asking for directions), and my quick decision on Facebook was poorly-considered. Here's to the United States of America using this debacle as a rallying cry for freedom and common sense.

PACE

The Second-Funniest Thing I've Ever Heard...

A friend of mine asked me yesterday why I don't blog anymore, so I guess I feel motivated today...

Anyway, I heard the second-funniest thing I've ever heard yesterday. The funniest thing I've ever heard was (embarrassingly) on an episode of Xena: Warrior Princess. In it, one of the characters gives this advice to another: "write what you know." Now, this is sound advice on writing--but coming from writers whose mouthpiece to deliver it is a woman, supposedly of Classical Greece but sporting red hair and calling herself a "bard," it's downright hilarious.

The second-funniest thing I've ever heard was delivered in speech by President Obama yesterday: he told Congress that the *ahem* "health-care" bill should be passed because "it goes right down the middle of American politics." Let me give you a counter example of this logic: Here I have a roast-beef sandwich. Here I have a sandwich made from my own feces. I'll split them right down the middle, and you can have the resulting sandwich.

How's your appetite?

Supreme Court upholds First Amendment

In a case originally regarding a film examining the Presidential qualifications of Hillary Clinton, SCOTUS voted 5-4 to uphold the validity of the First Amendment in allowing freedom of political speech.

Democrats Doing Good in Indiana

Defending the right to privacy, not only for gun-owners but for non-gun owners as well.

Socialized Medicine is Coming

Senate Majority Leader Harry "Surrender Monkey" Reid announced today that the healthcare bill headed to the Senate floor for a vote includes a public option, with an opt-out for individual states. Note that,if the opt-out is being done at the state level, that means that the un-Constitutional barrier which prevents insurance companies from competing in different states is being left in place. Since no private insurance company will be able to compete with the public option, it won't be long before the "public option" is all that's left--and it won't be optional for long after that.

Steven Crowder "Interviews" the Governator

S

Heart-ache

I was looking into running for office in the Missouri House of Representatives. Turns out that I can't run while I hold a job as a National Guard technician. Hmmm...

About the Tea Party

On April 15th, I attended the Tea Party at the Capitol Building of Jefferson City, MO. There had been some confusion regarding the event--apparently the larger event was on the 14th--but a sizable and robust crowd showed up anyway. I've got over an hour of video clips, both from actual speakers at the event, and of attendees that I managed to interview. (Turns out there's a technique to it!)

Some of the videos are posted below, but Blogger takes too long to load videos--so I've posted everything on a new YouTube Channel.

The Tea Party was a great experience, and I'm looking forward to attending another one in July. I met some great people, and heard some great ideas. That having been said, I have some thoughts for my fellow attendees:

There are two reasons that you might have attended such an event. The first is ask the government to give you back a few dollars on your paycheck. This is certainly a valid reason to have gone, but it isn't why I was there. I went to take back my freedom from a government that is ignoring the Constitution. If you also went there because you believe that the taxes are just a symptom, then you need to keep in mind other people's First Amendment rights:

The Freedom of Religion: I won't say that your politics shouldn't be informed by your religion. That is an idiotic statement made by people who have no idea what religion is. However, at the rally we had several Muslims and Native Americans who were there to support our fight for freedom... and several others that wanted to make the entire movement about Christianity.
Christianity is the greatest force for good that world has ever seen; Christianity can speak for itself. Freedom, however, cannot. Our Constitution does not establish Christianity as the American religion, nor does it establish us as a secular nation. We are a freely religious nation, and when you try to make this movement a statement of Christianity, you drive away many good people who could be our allies.

The Freedom of Speech: Do we need to hear from the opposition? No. We hear from the opposition everywhere, all the time. But remember, the whole purpose of Freedom of Speech is to protect speech you don't like. Standing in front of a Democrat to block his face, rushing up and pounding the podium, trying to shout him down--these are not the tactics of people who want freedom. These are the tactics--the VERY tactics--of Communists. They don't help us; they don't protect anyone from suddenly converting to liberalism. All they do is provide the media with a video clip of us being hateful to play rather than playing our ideas.

I went to the Tea Party to support freedom. I hope in the future, everyone else will remember that that's why they are there, as well.

Tea Party, Jefferson City, MO; 15 APR 2009

Ammunition Accountability

Hey, good news! (not)

You remember how Barack Obama said he wasn't going to take our guns? Well, apparently his cronies are coming after our ammunition!

The "Ammunition Accountability Act" is currently being proposed in 18 states (including Missouri--thanks, Claire!). It will not only require that all new ammunition be encoded by laser-etching, it will require the destruction of all non-etched rounds--including privately-owned, re-loaded ammunition! It will also place a five cent tax on EVERY BULLET.

If this bill is being proposed in your state--and remember, this is being proposed in state legislatures, not the U. S. legislature--call upon your district representatives to vote it down quickly and decisively. It is not only a clear violation of the Second Amendment, but a terrible invasion of privacy.

My Thoughts on Proposition 8

A certain segment of society would have you believe that Proposition 8 discriminates against homosexuals by denying them the right of marriage, and that it was created and forced onto the public by gay-hating Christians. I have some thoughts on this matter:

1. Proposition 8 does not prevent homosexual people from getting married. It bans same-sex couples from getting married. Anyone who truly wants to get married is free to find a partner of the opposite gender and do so. Personally, I’m interested in becoming a member of the Roman Catholic communion. I can’t, since they don’t allow Freemasons. If I wanted it badly enough, I’d give up being a Freemason to become a Catholic--but I don’t want it that badly.

2. Of course, I could just say that I’m not a Freemason--but anyone who respects the Church enough to really want to join would know that that lie would render invalid any sacrament--including marriage--in which I participated. Similarly, a marriage decree issued by by a Christian church to a same-sex couple--being against Church doctrine--would be invalid. These people aren’t interested in marriage rights for homosexuals. They are interested in offending Christians. These are the same protesters who go to Communion and spit the Host on the floor.

3. While sexual-orientation discrimination is not being practiced (see above), gender discrimination is. Only couples of mixed genders may obtain marriage licenses. If it can be proven that gender discrimination is not accepted under California law--that is, that all public restrooms and high school locker rooms are unisex--then I will consider that Proposition 8 may be invalid.

4. Even without same-sex marriage, there are no rights available to married people that are not available to same-sex couples. Marriage is a sacrament of the Church; it provides no legal standing that is not also provided by a civil union. Further, there are many organizations--especially in California--which are happy to provide beautiful, moving wedding ceremonies for such civil unions.

5. As mentioned above, marriage is a sacrament of the Church. It is therefore protected by the First Amendment. Using the government to violate the sanctity of a religion by re-defining marriage sets a dangerous precedent against the First Amendment.

My solution? All secular weddings should be referred to as "civil unions," and such unions should be available to anyone. The "license" which provides privileges such as tax breaks and hospital visitation rights, should be secular, and not use the word "marriage." "Marriage" should refer specifically to a religious ceremony involving a husband and a wife, with no language tying it to legal standings.

NOVEMBER 4TH!

Don't forget to vote today--Senator McCain needs every vote he can get! The Democratic campaign has run every dirty trick they can, from accepting private donations to allowing fraudulent donations on their website to registering fraudulent voters!
It's up to the honest folks to show that American can't tolerate that sort of politics--elect Senator McCain!

UPDATE: That's okay, America--I didn't want to retire someday, anyway.

New Video on Democrats and Iraq

Why are people voting for Democrats again?