Greenpeace says that we're destroying our ancient forests at an alarming rate. One wonders how truly alarmed we ought to be.
It gets rather tiring after a while to hear all the horror stories that typically come out in the media. We're running out of trees, we're running out of oil, we're running out of farmland. Yet the general ecology is better than it's ever been, people (on the whole) are eating, well, well enough, the air is cleaner than the smoke filled cities of the early 1900's, and everyone seems able to get gas for their cars. Why is there always that segment of the population which worries and frets, and indeed threatens our daily lives, so much?
To be sure, good conservation of our resources is expected of us. We cannot run wantonly over planet Earth and not expect some repercussions. But are we, as individuals, truly acting that wantonly?
Part of the blame surely lies with the sensational nature of apocalyptic stories. Telling someone that 'you're gonna die' is bound to get a reaction, pro or con. And it is difficult for laymen to tell the good guys from the bad. Greenpeace tells us they speak for the environment against evil corporatism; isn't it fair to ask how self-interested they are in what they do, and whether that may cloud their judgment?
We obliged to good stewardship of the environment. But if the best we can muster is that the sky is falling when it clearly is not, we are left to question the intent of the doomsayers.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
A Victory for Religion
A 7-foot tall cross, made of metal pipe and in an isolated spot in the Mojave Desert, has been saved by a narrow vote of the Supreme Court. On a thin 5-4 ruling with no less than six Justices penning their own opinions, it was decided that the cross could stay uncovered. It has been in place since 1934 as a memorial to World War I troops killed in battle.
This is a good and fine ruling. As Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society,". There is nothing wrong with a simple cross, especially in this case, where it is far from public view and on land turned over to private interests.
Other religious groups claim they feel excluded over such a thing. Well, okay, then, petition to put up a symbol of your religion somewhere to honor your fallen. It isn't likely that mainstream Christianity would be offended. Because the main point here is that it is not wrong of government to recognize what religion means in our society and our history. To be particularly blunt, it is safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of Americans killed in WWI were Christian. We do no disservice to that onerous 'ideal', separation of church and state, in a simple acknowledgment of that. Especially as freedom of religion was one of the things those doughboys and sailors and Marines fought to protect. Can we not honor them in a manner they would see as fitting?
Hopefully the ruling will lead to a greater acceptance of religious symbols mixed with government action. Yet that will almost certainly hinge on future Court rulings, rulings which will be decided by, perhaps, future justices. Which means we need to make sure that someone gets elected in 2012 who is most likely to appoint folks who would support such cases appropriately.
That movement must start in the 2010 elections. Otherwise, we shall have little left of our common religious bonds save dusty old directives noted only in our history books.
This is a good and fine ruling. As Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society,". There is nothing wrong with a simple cross, especially in this case, where it is far from public view and on land turned over to private interests.
Other religious groups claim they feel excluded over such a thing. Well, okay, then, petition to put up a symbol of your religion somewhere to honor your fallen. It isn't likely that mainstream Christianity would be offended. Because the main point here is that it is not wrong of government to recognize what religion means in our society and our history. To be particularly blunt, it is safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of Americans killed in WWI were Christian. We do no disservice to that onerous 'ideal', separation of church and state, in a simple acknowledgment of that. Especially as freedom of religion was one of the things those doughboys and sailors and Marines fought to protect. Can we not honor them in a manner they would see as fitting?
Hopefully the ruling will lead to a greater acceptance of religious symbols mixed with government action. Yet that will almost certainly hinge on future Court rulings, rulings which will be decided by, perhaps, future justices. Which means we need to make sure that someone gets elected in 2012 who is most likely to appoint folks who would support such cases appropriately.
That movement must start in the 2010 elections. Otherwise, we shall have little left of our common religious bonds save dusty old directives noted only in our history books.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
English as a First Language
Arizona has passed a new, tough immigration law. Alabama has a candidate for governor who wants to do all he can to make people speak and work in English. Presumably Alaska and Arkansas will be next in the parade of States in declaring something about the primacy of English in the USA. Alphabetical order is important, you know.
Kidding aside, what we have happening lately is, at least arguably, much ado about nothing which is being made into more of an issue than it needs to be. Those who assert that Americans ought to speak English are right for several reasons, not the least of which is that a common language unifies a people more than any other single point. If we cannot understand one another is very difficult to come together and grow strong. Yet that does not mean that having certain accommodations for the recently arrived is a bad thing either.
We can debate about the precise actions ad infinitum, but there is no reason that we cannot agree on the basic idea. We should want to welcome people willing to come to America and become productive Americans, and part of that is surely to give consideration of what they need to adjust to our language and ways. In the meantime, the new arrivals ought to be working hard to make that adjustment, which surely must mean learning the dominant tongue.
Take the multi-language driver's license exams in Alabama, for example. Why can't they be in someone's native tongue at first, if necessary, with the requirement that after a reasonable period of time they must be mastered in English? After all, not all road signs are simple figures or simple art depicting this or that. We often see construction signs and freeway warning signs in English only. At some point it is only reasonable to expect that any given driver should be able to read them, as there may truly be life or death ramifications involved.
As to whether the Arizona law is bad law or not, or Alabama gubernatorial Tim James rant bad form, let that play out in the political arena. In the meantime, why don't we all consider what it is to be an American, and act the part with as fair and unbiased an outlook as we can muster.
Kidding aside, what we have happening lately is, at least arguably, much ado about nothing which is being made into more of an issue than it needs to be. Those who assert that Americans ought to speak English are right for several reasons, not the least of which is that a common language unifies a people more than any other single point. If we cannot understand one another is very difficult to come together and grow strong. Yet that does not mean that having certain accommodations for the recently arrived is a bad thing either.
We can debate about the precise actions ad infinitum, but there is no reason that we cannot agree on the basic idea. We should want to welcome people willing to come to America and become productive Americans, and part of that is surely to give consideration of what they need to adjust to our language and ways. In the meantime, the new arrivals ought to be working hard to make that adjustment, which surely must mean learning the dominant tongue.
Take the multi-language driver's license exams in Alabama, for example. Why can't they be in someone's native tongue at first, if necessary, with the requirement that after a reasonable period of time they must be mastered in English? After all, not all road signs are simple figures or simple art depicting this or that. We often see construction signs and freeway warning signs in English only. At some point it is only reasonable to expect that any given driver should be able to read them, as there may truly be life or death ramifications involved.
As to whether the Arizona law is bad law or not, or Alabama gubernatorial Tim James rant bad form, let that play out in the political arena. In the meantime, why don't we all consider what it is to be an American, and act the part with as fair and unbiased an outlook as we can muster.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Hawking may be on the Right Path
Eminent scientist Stephen Hawking has expressed concerns that extraterrestrial life may not be what we assume. Aliens may be dangerous rather than charitable and giving, he asserts in an upcoming Discovery Chanel special. If nothing else, cultures advanced enough to reach Earth may have an effect similar to the discovery by Europeans of the Americas: devastating to the so discovered.
Other scientists disagree: many believe a sophisticated alien race reaching our world could only be good.
Truth be told, we really don't know what to expect. Who's to say aliens would be bad? Or good? It's all simply presumption. That said, the only honest appraisal of contact with any given extraterrestrial life form would be the same as with meeting any given stranger on Earth: approach with caution, olive branch extended yet with the proper amount of reserve to counter their actions and intentions if need be.
Our science fiction has had a great propensity to view potential alien life as superior to ours in almost every way. It is good to see a prominent scientist point out that that may not be the case.
In the end it may all be conjecture. Presuming that other lives on other planets would face the same daunting tasks of physics as we do, interstellar travel itself may be little more than science fiction. The folks at SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, seem to think that the best we can hope for is hearing them through radio transmissions. That sounds like the most reasonable prediction on the matter.
In short, the possibility of sentient life other than us in the universe is fun to discuss but nothing is likely to come of it. Still, it is good that Professor Hawking has sought to balance the scales. There's no good assuming that technical superiority means morally advancement.
Other scientists disagree: many believe a sophisticated alien race reaching our world could only be good.
Truth be told, we really don't know what to expect. Who's to say aliens would be bad? Or good? It's all simply presumption. That said, the only honest appraisal of contact with any given extraterrestrial life form would be the same as with meeting any given stranger on Earth: approach with caution, olive branch extended yet with the proper amount of reserve to counter their actions and intentions if need be.
Our science fiction has had a great propensity to view potential alien life as superior to ours in almost every way. It is good to see a prominent scientist point out that that may not be the case.
In the end it may all be conjecture. Presuming that other lives on other planets would face the same daunting tasks of physics as we do, interstellar travel itself may be little more than science fiction. The folks at SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, seem to think that the best we can hope for is hearing them through radio transmissions. That sounds like the most reasonable prediction on the matter.
In short, the possibility of sentient life other than us in the universe is fun to discuss but nothing is likely to come of it. Still, it is good that Professor Hawking has sought to balance the scales. There's no good assuming that technical superiority means morally advancement.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Capital Punishment
The death sentence is under the spotlight once more. The focus has been drawn there recently by the plight of convicted Utah killer Ronnie Lee Garnder. His requested method of execution: firing squad.
Much can made from that. Gardner himself says that there's no mistakes with the method, and that's why he selected it. Yet that excuse appears far too simple. Lethal injection has not proved ineffective so far. So we are left to little more than conjecture. Why should a convicted felon choose a loud and abrasive method of death over something much cleaner, and at least arguably easier on him?
Republican Sheryl Allen of the Utah legislature complains that such a method of carrying out the sentence distracts from the penalty. There may be more sympathy for the murderer than the victims. She has a point; the emphasis on the matter does change according to the method of carrying it out. The firing squad seems particularly brutal. Indeed, barbaric. Any sympathy for the victims or their families surely is lessened by that.
If Mr. Gardner's point is to show us the real brutality of such measures as capital punishment, well, to be frank and fair, what difference does it make by how one dies at the hands of a (presumably) just society? But is that his real intention? Does he have a perhaps masochistic reason for the option?
Conjecture, yes, no matter how we view the issue. Capital punishment is one of those questions which leave a bad taste any way you interpret it. Society has a right to protect itself and that right may at times entail taking the life of someone completely recalcitrant. Yet it is only right to ask whether we are becoming animals ourselves if we keep up with the old eye for an eye standard.
It is a mess and that is that. The real and true hope here is that Mr. Gardner's victim and his family are in a position and mind frame of willingness to forgive if the man really wants forgiveness, and that Mr. Gardner himself is willing to meet his fate with the right mentality. If he is merely grandstanding, he will not help himself (or others) regardless. If his victims, attorney Michael Burdell and his family, are not willing to forgive, then what lesson is left?
Much can made from that. Gardner himself says that there's no mistakes with the method, and that's why he selected it. Yet that excuse appears far too simple. Lethal injection has not proved ineffective so far. So we are left to little more than conjecture. Why should a convicted felon choose a loud and abrasive method of death over something much cleaner, and at least arguably easier on him?
Republican Sheryl Allen of the Utah legislature complains that such a method of carrying out the sentence distracts from the penalty. There may be more sympathy for the murderer than the victims. She has a point; the emphasis on the matter does change according to the method of carrying it out. The firing squad seems particularly brutal. Indeed, barbaric. Any sympathy for the victims or their families surely is lessened by that.
If Mr. Gardner's point is to show us the real brutality of such measures as capital punishment, well, to be frank and fair, what difference does it make by how one dies at the hands of a (presumably) just society? But is that his real intention? Does he have a perhaps masochistic reason for the option?
Conjecture, yes, no matter how we view the issue. Capital punishment is one of those questions which leave a bad taste any way you interpret it. Society has a right to protect itself and that right may at times entail taking the life of someone completely recalcitrant. Yet it is only right to ask whether we are becoming animals ourselves if we keep up with the old eye for an eye standard.
It is a mess and that is that. The real and true hope here is that Mr. Gardner's victim and his family are in a position and mind frame of willingness to forgive if the man really wants forgiveness, and that Mr. Gardner himself is willing to meet his fate with the right mentality. If he is merely grandstanding, he will not help himself (or others) regardless. If his victims, attorney Michael Burdell and his family, are not willing to forgive, then what lesson is left?
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Reflections
Today is my 50th birthday. They say you're as young as you feel, and I feel about 12 right now.
I suppose we're supposed to reflect on our lives at certain milestone points in them, so I'll go ahead and do that. I'll start by asking why even, decaded numbers (decaded numbers; I'm allowed to make up words today, aren't I? I mean, our birthdays every ten years) are so much more important than others. 51 or 49 aren't so far off the mark, eh? Last year was about the same as this one, and the next one ought not be so different.
Life has been good. I've been married to a good woman willing to tolerate me for almost 30 years and have three great kids, and tomorrow looks good. All those big and not so big issues I talk about are not about to go away, so they'll always be fodder for friendly and not so friendly discussion. Which I like: it keeps the creative juices flowing, and even the people I disagree with are courteous enough to talk back. All you out there who don't like what I say, thanks for reading. I honestly do appreciate it. Your input is always welcome even if it doesn't seem like it at the time.
All of you who listen and agree with my drivel, thank you too. It is such support that makes me want to continue. For truth is a beautiful thing; everyone should pursue her with the ardor of the chivalrous knights of old. Wisdom is essentially feminine because she understands on a level more profound than simple, rote knowledge: this is right, do it, or, this is wrong, do not.
To my family and friends, and to all those not so friendly or familial but willing to at least listen, I love you all. From the depths (the very deepest depths) of my heart, have a great day. And have one beer or adult beverage of your choice or coffee or tea or glass of water on old Marty today.
I suppose we're supposed to reflect on our lives at certain milestone points in them, so I'll go ahead and do that. I'll start by asking why even, decaded numbers (decaded numbers; I'm allowed to make up words today, aren't I? I mean, our birthdays every ten years) are so much more important than others. 51 or 49 aren't so far off the mark, eh? Last year was about the same as this one, and the next one ought not be so different.
Life has been good. I've been married to a good woman willing to tolerate me for almost 30 years and have three great kids, and tomorrow looks good. All those big and not so big issues I talk about are not about to go away, so they'll always be fodder for friendly and not so friendly discussion. Which I like: it keeps the creative juices flowing, and even the people I disagree with are courteous enough to talk back. All you out there who don't like what I say, thanks for reading. I honestly do appreciate it. Your input is always welcome even if it doesn't seem like it at the time.
All of you who listen and agree with my drivel, thank you too. It is such support that makes me want to continue. For truth is a beautiful thing; everyone should pursue her with the ardor of the chivalrous knights of old. Wisdom is essentially feminine because she understands on a level more profound than simple, rote knowledge: this is right, do it, or, this is wrong, do not.
To my family and friends, and to all those not so friendly or familial but willing to at least listen, I love you all. From the depths (the very deepest depths) of my heart, have a great day. And have one beer or adult beverage of your choice or coffee or tea or glass of water on old Marty today.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
National Hockey League Referees, Officiating Stink
National Hockey League referees are awful. The general officiating of the League isn't much better either.
The refs call penalties with such inconsistency that it's easy to wonder whether there are any actual rules in the game. A guy gets absolutely mugged and nothing happens, while a slight bump is interference and someone gets sent to the sin bin. It's no wonder teams have enforcers; the league certainly doesn't mete out punishments in any rational manner.
Then we have issues such as goal review, to make sure the calls are right to help ensure the proper outcome of games. Yet the on ice official cannot be overruled without significant video evidence. That's understandable, one supposes, except that if the call is wrong it doesn't matter what the referee said at the time of the play. Why worry about what the guy said on the rink? Just get the call right. As it is, there's an incentive to lean towards the on ice ruling instead of getting the call right. It's almost schitzo.
Hockey needs better officiating and better oversight if it wants a broader audience. Until then, the game will only matter to the fanatics who don't care about consistency.
The refs call penalties with such inconsistency that it's easy to wonder whether there are any actual rules in the game. A guy gets absolutely mugged and nothing happens, while a slight bump is interference and someone gets sent to the sin bin. It's no wonder teams have enforcers; the league certainly doesn't mete out punishments in any rational manner.
Then we have issues such as goal review, to make sure the calls are right to help ensure the proper outcome of games. Yet the on ice official cannot be overruled without significant video evidence. That's understandable, one supposes, except that if the call is wrong it doesn't matter what the referee said at the time of the play. Why worry about what the guy said on the rink? Just get the call right. As it is, there's an incentive to lean towards the on ice ruling instead of getting the call right. It's almost schitzo.
Hockey needs better officiating and better oversight if it wants a broader audience. Until then, the game will only matter to the fanatics who don't care about consistency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
