Well it is now less than one week to the US Presidential election, and to hear the mainstream media tell it there are only two candidates running for the office, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. To some of us the menu is unpalatable.
President Obama is personally likeable, and as far as I can tell honest and sincere. But his record is lackluster at best. His policy decisions have often been muddled. He appointed a bipartisan commission to study the debt crisis, and when it issued its recommendations he ignored them. He has not proposed a serious budget in three years. His health care reform program is a bureaucratic monstrosity.
Mr. Romney is undoubtedly an astute businessman, but he gives the distinct impression of simply telling audiences what they want to hear. His plan to handle the deficit is incomprehensible. He doesn't want to cut defense spending, doesn't want to raise taxes, and waffled on his running mate's plan to reform Medicare. He wants to lower marginal tax rates, but won't state which credits and deductions he would eliminate to make up for the lost revenue.
Both candidates are enamored with a grandiose vision of spreading American democracy abroad and reforming the Islamic world.
Frankly, both candidates represent what is wrong in Washington today. They are more intent on getting elected than they are in finding real solutions to the problems that beset us. There has to be a better way.
Actually, there is. President Obama and Mitt Romney are not the only candidates running for president. There are, in fact, a number of third party candidates who deserve our attention.
Virgil Goode is the Constitution Party's candidate. He is a former congressman from Virginia. The Libertarian Party's candidate is former Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico. Both the Constitution and Libertarian parties are in favor of balancing the budget immediately, ending the war in Afghanistan, auditing the Federal Reserve, and protecting Second Amendment gun rights. There are some sharp differences between the two parties, however, particularly in the area of social issues. The Libertarian Party is calling same-sex marriage a "fundamental right," and is in favor of legalizing marijuana. The Constitution Party, on the other hand, wants to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, and is strongly pro-life on the abortion issue.
Former Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson is running for President on the Justice Party ticket. His position is similar to that of the Libertarians on a number of issues, including the war in Afghanistan and ending the war on drugs. But Anderson also wants a single-payer national health insurance plan and a federally funded jobs program.
Dr. Jill Stein is the candidate of the Green Party, and she would also like to see a federal jobs program. She likes to call her plan the "Green New Deal." It is not certain how either Anderson or Stein would pay for such a proposal.
Third parties play an important role in American democracy. They typically address issues that the major parties don't want to touch, and put forward new ideas.
Many conservative voters are inclined to vote for Romney just to get Obama out of office. But it makes little sense to vote for Tweedle Dee just to remove Tweedle Dum. We cannot sustain the current level of deficit spending forever. To balance the budget we must reform the entitlement programs, cut defense spending, and reform the tax code. In short, we need to act on the proposals of the Bowles-Simpson Commission. The reason we don't is because each program and each tax break has its own constituency, and the the politicians are afraid that they will be cutting their own throats if they take a scalpel either to the budget or the tax code.
Are you "throwing away your vote" by voting for a candidate who has little chance of winning? You are throwing away your vote by voting for a candidate who doesn't really believe what you believe, and who is part of the problem rather than the solution. The way to make your voice be heard is by supporting the candidate who is saying what you want to be said. The third party candidates deserve to be heard.
(Off topic post. Apologies)
ReplyDeleteBob, given your previous posts on Velikovsky, I thought you might find this interesting. Just found it by chance.
Link
Thanks for sharing the article. It was very interesting.
ReplyDeleteYou may know that in March, 2010 an international panel of scientists endorsed the hypothesis that the extinction of the dinosaurs was triggered by an asteroid crashing into the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. There has even been some speculation, among respected mainstream scientists, that several other catastrophic events may have happened at around the same time, including the Deccan Traps in India and the Shiva crater in the Indian Ocean.
The main problem with trying to identify this with the Biblical Flood is the dating. The scientists date the "K-T Extinction Event" at 65.5 million years ago, while the first species that I would think is recognizably human didn't appear, according to conventional dating, until about 2 million years ago. Thus if the asteroid caused global flooding, which it very likely did, there would not have been any human beings around to ride out the catastrophe in an ark. But I think that it does indicate that there are some serious problems with uniformitarianism, and that there is at least some partial truth to the claims made by Velikovsky and Morris.
Glad you liked it. It's not every day Velikovsky gets mentioned.
ReplyDeleteBut I think that it does indicate that there are some serious problems with uniformitarianism, and that there is at least some partial truth to the claims made by Velikovsky and Morris.
I don't see how.
You need to demonstrate how you get to here from there.
I don't say that to be snarky.
Velikovsky did not simply talk about an asteroid. His speculations were grandiose nonsense, filled with physical impossiblities.
Had he only said "Hey, a long time ago an asteroid smashed into the Earth and caused an extinction event" then nobody would regard him today as a crackpot.
It's a real possibility that's been around for quite a while. It's only now that the scientific community has begun to settle for it in the light of new research.
I encourage you to look at the recent detective work on the subject. It's serious work and opens a window on how the scientific community does their job, using multiple lines of evidence.
Research that Velikovsky and Morris were conspicuously unable to do. Printing coffee table books? That they did by the bucket load and the money poured in.
Actual scientific research? Not so much.
Speaking of Morris, how about those holes in the moon?
How do you think, as a reasonable and sane person, that they were formed? What's the basic, rational explanation for how they got there in your opinion?
I really have no idea what Morris had to say about the holes in the moon. I did recently reread his book The Genesis Flood, and may write a review on it soon. I just wanted to see how well his argument held up under the test of time. I think that both he and Velikovsky made some telling criticism of uniformitarianism, and each one, as it turns out, was partially right. There was an asteroid collision and it did cause many of the effects that Morris described. The weakness of Morris' book was the dating. He tried to refute radiometric dating, but not very convincingly. In fact, if I understand his argument on this point, if he was correct about the variability of the radioactive rate of decay, the earth would actually be older than it appears, not younger. But if it really is true that there was a worldwide extinction event cause by an asteroid, then I should think that we might have to rethink how we read the geological column.
ReplyDeleteI really have no idea what Morris had to say about the holes in the moon.
ReplyDeleteI understand that but...that's not what I asked you.
I asked you about what you (not Morris) thought caused the holes in the moon.
How do you (not Morris) think they got there?
Look up at the night sky.
Observe the moon like you've done countless times before.
How do you think, as a reasonable and sane person, that those holes in the moon they were formed? What's the basic, rational explanation for how they got there in your opinion?
Not Morris' opinion - your opinion.
What's the first thing that springs to mind?
I think that both he and Velikovsky made some telling criticism of uniformitarianism...
A quick google search of the word "uniformitarianim" seems to reveal that the term is outdated and has been for some time. To be honest, I've never seen it applied in modern scientific literature. That doesn't mean all that much since it's only a personal anecdote but it's enough to make me question how important is that term nowadays.
I think that both he and Velikovsky made some telling criticism of uniformitarianism, and each one, as it turns out, was partially right.
Again, you'd have to show how you get here from there. You'd also have to account for all the silliness they mentioned and is roundly dismissed by the scientific community. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
But if it really is true that there was a worldwide extinction event cause by an asteroid, then I should think that we might have to rethink how we read the geological column.
I would not make that assumption without hearing directly from the scientific community itself. They would have to say it repeatedly, from multiple sources, in plain English and show their research that demonstrates such a claim.
Otherwise, it just could be creative speculation from certain interested but misinformed parties.
The moon obviously has craters, and these were most likely created by meteorites, etc., striking its surface.
ReplyDeleteOn the K-T Extinction event you might want to look at the Wikipedia articles on "Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event," "Chicxulub crater," and "Shiva crater."
Morris started with the biblical description of the flood, discussed the possible geological effects of such a catastrophe, and correlated them with the actual geological data. What he did not do was to speculate on a possible natural cause of the catastrophe. Velikovsy,on the other hand, looked for possible natural causes for events described in the Bible and various ancient myths and legends, and speculated that they could have been caused by asteroids hitting or passing close by the earth. As it turns out, there actually was at least one asteroid that did hit the earth, and it apparently caused some of the phenomena described by Morris.
Both Velikovsky and Morris were critical of Uniformitarianism, and argued that modern mainstream geology rests on faulty assumptions, and on this I think they were right.
The moon obviously has craters, and these were most likely created by meteorites, etc., striking its surface.
ReplyDeleteThat's the sane, humdrum, mudane answer.
It's the answer that I was hoping you would say.
It's the answer that's fully supported by the scientific community.
Now look up Morris' answer.
Make sure you are sitting down and not drinking any coffee though.
Morris started with the biblical description of the flood, discussed the possible geological effects of such a catastrophe, and correlated them with the actual geological data.
Yep, that's not what a scientist would do. Starting with your conclusions and then fishing around for "evidence" is not good.
Velikovsy,on the other hand, looked for possible natural causes for events described in the Bible and various ancient myths and legends, and speculated that they could have been caused by asteroids hitting or passing close by the earth.
His speculation made him famous and brought in good money but they did not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
As it turns out, there actually was at least one asteroid that did hit the earth...
That's not news. It's been known for a long time. Morris and Velikovsky made no contribution at all. They failed to do any work.
Both Velikovsky and Morris were critical of Uniformitarianism...
Again, the term is outdated.
...and argued that modern mainstream geology rests on faulty assumptions, and on this I think they were right.
Your opinion is not supported by the scientific community.
There's no good reason for you to think that they were right about anything at all.
You have to allow for the possibility that you are mistaken and try and verify your opinion with the actual scientific community as a whole.
If you can't do that then you need to honestly ask yourself why.
So where did Morris say that? His main concern was to present the geological evidence for the Flood and to refute evolution. Why would he be concerned about the moon? I have several, but not all, of his books, and he doesn't discuss the moon in any of them.
ReplyDeleteI would like to think that true science weighs the evidence on its own merits. Whether or not a given hypothesis is valid really doesn't depend on whether or not the person offering it is a creationist out to prove the Bible or a psychologist who made a ton of money writing best-selling books. In fact, one of the points that Morris makes in The Genesis Flood (preface to the 6th printing) is that Charles Lyell was a lawyer, Charles Darwin was a former divinity student, and various other groundbreaking scientists were theologians, a surveyor, a mathematician, and an agriculturalist. We need to look at the evidence, not the person making the claims.
So where did Morris say that?
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm tempted to tell you but I don't want to spoil the surprise.
It's pretty juicy though.
If you google it, it should pop up easily enough. It's worth the effort. Yet based on how you answered the question about the moon, I don't think you will approve at all.
I would like to think that true science weighs the evidence on its own merits.
No argument here.
Whether or not a given hypothesis is valid really doesn't depend on whether or not the person offering it is a creationist out to prove the Bible or a psychologist who made a ton of money writing best-selling books.
Very true.
We need to look at the evidence, not the person making the claims.
I agree completely. Yet evidence does not usually fall neatly into your lap.
Science demands work and lots of it.
Science is the study of reality.
"Study" is the key work here.
Only the work counts.
You've got to roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty.
You have a hypothesis? Test it. Now do it again. And again. And again. Now get your friend to test it independently of you. And again. And again. Now publish. Let the science bun fight begin.
Did you win? Congrats, stand in line for your Nobel Prize.
Did you lose? Then it's back to the drawing board.
Velikovsky and Morris did no work. They simply play-acted at being real scientists. They never did the ground work necessary and then defend their work in the scientific arena.
Instead, they milked the public.
Charles Lyell? He did real work. Scientists have no problem acknowleging his contribution to science.
Charles Darwin? No slouch in the research department. His collections are still highly valued today.
"...groundbreaking scientists..." are usually called ground breaking because they got out there and broke ground.
I can respect a scientist that puts in the man hours and ends up being wrong. I can't respect a fraud that preys on the gullible.