The Gravity of God

Today I was reminded of one of my beliefs. Christians, Jews and Theists in general not only believe in the existence of God, but also believe this Supreme Being has a constant set of characteristic and attributes. He is what defines morality, goodness, and truth. Such things are universal and do not change.
 

This almost instantly reminded me of the laws of physics. Specifically, I thought of gravity. Do we ever fear suddenly floating off the ground, that something thrown won't come down or that the Moon will crash into the Earth because gravity changes its mind? Of course not. Most would say those notions are silly. Why? Because gravity is real and constant.
 

Hulk Is A SuperVillain

Growing up, I read comic books. In those stories was the Hulk, a giant green mass of unearthly strength. I also watched the TV story of the same with Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno. I really enjoyed the narrative, but as I've grown older, I have considered this tale a bit differently.

Everything Requires Faith

I had a short online debate the other day with an atheist, something I have learned to try to avoid. It's not that I am afraid of debate, but the forum of typing my point, the other typing his and trying to trap one another in semantics and other childish debate techniques is not only faulty in its appeal but also lacks the intimacy and respect that a discussion of philosophical difference requires.
 

I think it is actually healthy to challenge others beliefs...and probably something not done enough in our current culture. There is much of a "fall in line" and "keep up with the times" thinking, stronger even that existed when I grew up, where no one thinks about there answers and so much of ANY belief relies on popularism and blind-acceptance of what others say that almost no one has faith anymore.
 

Call Me Diogenes

Diogenes: Also known as Diogenes the Cynic, this Ancient Greek philosopher was a controversial figure who criticized the social values and institutions of what he saw as a corrupt society. He was a renowned Cynic and Stoic. Many anecdotes of Diogenes refer to his dog-like behavior, and his praise of a dog's virtues. Diogenes believed human beings live artificially and hypocritically and would do well to study the dog. Unlike human beings who either dupe others or are duped, dogs will give an honest bark at the truth. Diogenes stated that "other dogs bite their enemies, I bite my friends to save them."
 

Today's topic: The meteor impact in the Russian mountains near Chelyabinsk. Or...Why scientific evidence should not be tweeted.
 

Everybody’s Solution Sucks

A lot of discussion has taken place in the aftermath of the Newtown tragedy. Many talk about gun control while others discuss mental illness. But let me just say for the record, everybody’s solution sucks: yours, mine and those pundits on TV.

Piracy in the Free Market

Anyone remember those Microsoft Windows jokes about if the highway system were like software? “Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car” was one of the listed gripes. The response from sensitive software engineers was something like “A computer is an interactive piece of machinery that evolves; it’s not passive like popping in a movie.”

Political Stats

So, I just finished reading the BGOV article which Clinton used as a reference in his speech for the DNC last night. I have to say I was a little stunned by the 42 million to 24 million ratio he quoted. It certainly defies my intuitive speculation.

A Prayer For Dads

Lord, so often I quit before the job is done, when it stops being fun. It is much easier for me to start something than to see it to its finish. I justify the progress I have made is simply "good enough."

As you know, God, my lazy approach even applies to the project of "building" my daughter into a well-balanced woman. Far too often, I find myself very impatient with her. Sometimes I feel like a failure, and I just want to quit.

But I confess these dark and innermost feelings so that I may ask for Your help to persevere. Please help me a loving, gracious, enduring and patient dad.

Amen.

A paraphrasing from Robert Wolgemuth's book, She Calls Me Daddy

Digital Society

I am reading "The Wikinomics Way" which compares social media and modern internet collaboration to Gutenberg's printing press. Many know about book burnings by the Grand Inquisitors, but I found the comments of Robert Burton (1616), vicar of Oxford, most interesting. He complained about the "vast chaos and confusion of books" which hurt both eyes and fingers.
 

How close-minded these thoughts seem today, but Burton struggled to adapt to the change which became unarguably useful and beneficial to the masses. Nonetheless, these words sound so familiar to the complaints I have heard about how uncontrolled and dangerous the internet or Facebook can be.
 

While I do agree there are scams, privacy concerns and other problems due to the internet, I wonder if it is much different from the early years of print. Book-smugglers might be the "hackers" of their day, fighting an authority who refuses to see the benefits of the new technology. Or perhaps some were malevolent and selfish, using books to brainwash the feebleminded. Whichever, but it does seem similar; right?
 

Are we on the edge of a new shift, life from the Agrarian model to the Industrial one? How can we embrace the right changes and reject the ones doomed to fail? How will I know to invest in the VHS rather than the BetaMax? And will it matter?
 

Interesting thoughts...
 

Your Local Nigerian Scam

Ok, well - it's actually Uganda, not Nigeria, but one of the latest viral "truth" campaigns may eventually gain the same level of infamy as those Nigeria Bank Inheritance Scams.

Let me back up, earlier tonight my daughter asked me if I knew anything about Joseph Kony. I thought for a moment, trying to place which one of her Jr High classmates he was.  She continued with her explanation that several people at school had been talking about this murderous cult leader.

The name sounded familiar but wasn't really ringing a bell. So, to Google I went. I quickly realized this was the name of the "Lord's Resistance Army" (LRA) leader. Then many of the stories of the atrocities in Central Africa flooded back in my mind. The church I attend has several missions in Africa, specifically Uganda - so these horrors had been conveyed to me in the past.

As I explained what I knew, she told me about the StopKony campaign. While I listened and tried to recall my memory of the African events, something stirred, knowing something was amiss - but I couldn't quite figure out what.

Well, today I did a little digging - and now I know what bugged me during our conversation. Kony's reign of terror has already been stopped. Let me repeat that: KONY IS NO LONGER A THREAT!

What makes it worse is akin to the backlash of making Hitler Time Magazine's Person of the Century - it's a painful memory that many would like to forget. Many people in Uganda would like to move on and forget the horrors and feel this latest viral campaign brings notoriety and improper attention to an evil better off forgotten. Dr Beatrice Mpora, director of Kairos, a community health organization in Gulu, explained it this way, "What that video says is totally wrong, and it can cause us more problems than help us." - according to an article in the UK Telegraph.

Now, the exact fate of Kony gets a little fuzzy, depending on what source you believe. Of course, I personally think he should be captured and justice should be sought, but I also realize there is a difference between idealistic theory and pragmatic reality. Even if Kony were never captured, the fact his reign of terror has ended is the more important fact.

All of this has left many, myself included, wondering why the sudden push to capture Kony - or more importantly produce and promote a video to solve a problem that no longer exists. Although the LRA's demise is more recent than the Nazis, but imagine the absurdity of promoting the idea to stop Hitler. There is little difference, other than most of us are ignorant (and potentially able to be manipulated thereby) of Kony's acts of terror and genocide.

Perhaps the sadder part of the story is so many of us are unaware of the horrible things that happened in Uganda. Or perhaps it is someone might be taking advantage of that ignorance for profit. There are several groups now calling for an investigation into the Invisible Children charity, which may or may not have been started for the right reason.

I can't know for sure, as I have not had the time to investigate, but please allow me to remind everyone to due the proper diligence before donating or getting behind any charitable, humanitarian or political cause. Don't get caught up, being duped and looking foolish. I hope this debacle doesn't mar the image of Rihanna (and others) for supporting this bogus campaign. This, of course, is why I often question the legitimacy of many celebrities' real beliefs versus their own PR team's image that they care...but that's a different topic.

Anyway, I thought I'd share my findings and remind everyone: Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you read.

Why Did The Turkey Cross The Lunch Room?

Today I read a news report about the North Carolina school-lunch inspector who deemed a pre-K child’s “sack lunch” as unfit, forcing the child to eat from a standard platter that met the USDA standard of nutrition. Several people are upset about this, and I believe there is validity to be concerned. Based on the information we have been given, it does seem unreasonable and an invasion of parental rights.

However, as I read this I kept thinking that there must be more to the story and searched for additional information that would help make some logic as to how this apparent silliness happen. Now, many will blame a far-too-intrusive government explanation; that could be true. Some might suspect a windfall scandal by forcing parents to buy the school supplied meals. Others will follow my lead and believe we weren’t told the whole story, which is also possible.

With those possible explanations in mind, let’s also consider why would a school have a “home lunch inspector” at all? It is understandable why the USDA standards exist to provide children who buy their lunch at school, but why does it matter about those parents who exercise their liberties to send lunch with their children? There are many theories, but I believe this most likely began innocently and with very good intentions. Unfortunately, like the road paved with such, it soon led to the media-hell it became today.

Let’s consider an extreme example to discern what is within the school’s obligation for the protection of the children in its care. After all, that is the explanation being given for this incident – to protect our children from becoming obese. Yes, that’s the initiative behind the current standards, but the premise is rooted in protection, not necessarily the obesity threat specifically.

The school has an obligation to protect children from general, non-specific threats, such as fire for our extreme example. If a child catches fire, for whatever reason, the workers at the school have a duty to put the flames out and provide care for that child. If the staff ignored a burning student, parents would sue and a public outrage over the negligence would certainly occur. And I said “for whatever reason” to cover the even-more extreme event should the child’s parent be the one to ignite the child on school grounds.

Okay – I did say extreme. But no one would disagree that the school would be duty-bound on moral, ethical, health and safety grounds to protect that child if even the parent were causing direct harm by fire. So, switch the offense to hunger, but let’s stay extreme. If a parent failed to send any food with the child, what obligation does the school have? Now, one might be able to argue “religious fasting” in infrequent circumstances, but I believe most would argue the school has an obligation to feed that child.

The reality is the school likely chooses this obligation more based in fear of litigation and poor public opinion than it does in moral or health values. Nonetheless, the choice is still the same; the obligation remains; and the school “forces” the child to eat a platter from the cafeteria in our “extreme” example.

Now, it is a matter of determining where to draw the line. Even those who feel the new story above falls into “fascist government intrusion” of parental rights will probably agree the school should feed that child whose parents fail to send any food at all. So, I believe most would agree that the school is in a tough position on when to take such a stance; the institution can't err too far on one side or the other. It is possible this story is merely a genuine concern about proper nutrition for children because of ignorant or negligent parenting, blurring the line between a poor meal and no meal at all. Perhaps the worker meant well, but drew the line a little too far from center and more towards the personal-trainer side of the line; now the school won’t back down because one infraction should not take away from the grander premise of protecting the children.

If that were true, then I would feel better and gracefully forgive the overzealous school worker. However, when I mentioned there must be more to the story…well, there is. And sadly, odds are this is not about the children’s health or protecting them from obesity, despite the well-made case to elicit sympathy for the premise and agenda.

After researching a bit further beyond the headline news articles, I discovered more information which made it seem like Pharisaic rule-keeping on the USDA standards. The apple juice the mother sent failed the USDA standard because it was not a 100% juice product. The potato chips were not permitted to count as a vegetable. Perhaps both of these “violations” were valid in the perfect-interpretation of USDA standard, but it still seems like splitting hairs for a lunch that did include a banana and a turkey-and-cheese sandwich. Those items met three of the four requirements. It seems it would have been simpler to hand the child a box of raisins and called it good. But rule-sticklers are not to be trifled with…

However, the final missing detail made this story all come together for me. I blame an unaccountable bureaucracy combined with greed and pride for this lunch substitution decision. The nutritional ruling did not come from a school staff member. Instead it was a state-worker from Human Services who was present to inspect lunches.

This pre-K program was a special program receiving funding from the State of North Carolina. The earnings to the school were measured by metrics, and compliance with the USDA meal standard per child was a large factor in those dollars. The school had previously lost points (and therefore dollars) because the provable USDA meal-quota was not high enough. The point-loss was significant to cause either one of two things, depending on whose conjecture one believes. Either the school called the state-worker in to rule on the nutritional value of the sack-lunches or the scores were low enough to prompt the visit from the State who pre-conceived an existing nutrition problem and felt funding might need to be cut.

Whichever way, the motivation is not about the protection, health, or well-being of the children. Instead it is about the money. And how ironic is that for a non-profit, social program designed for the common good to be corrupted by money. I guess Wall Street doesn’t have the monopoly on greed after all.

What Stands Behind Me

When recently sharing with close friends a dispute I had with my ex-wife, I came to think on who I am when I am single and unattached compared with the person I am when I am in a relationship. Clearly, we function somewhat differently by the very nature of the role and interdependency. However, I am now considering my decisions, thought-process and successful life-navigation in each scenario.

This contemplation stemmed from a ridiculous accusation that I am unable to take care of myself and since the divorce others must resolve problems trailing behind me. This claim was near-immediately dismissed because of the evidence to the contrary that came to mind. Without listing everything, let me summarize. Over the past five year post-divorce, I am now more accomplished and more effective in my career, spend more meaningful time with my daughters, manage my finances far more effectively, and I purchased a new home.

There is a certain ironic vindication best exemplified by the house because the only woman who assisted in any way was my realtor (and she was completely professional). However, there were some women who after visiting my new house seemed impressed and perplexed I was able to select so well without their help. Now, I’m not a mind-reader, so I can’t be sure…but I believe egos may have been bruised and suspicions laid that I didn’t act on my own.

There’s a play on the famous proverb which states “Behind every successful man is a very surprised mother-in-law.” However, in my case, I believe it would be better phrased to say “an ex in denial.”

All joking aside, this has led me to consider if I make better decisions when I am flying solo. Do I lose my good judgment when I’m romantically involved? Perhaps my teamwork skills are just poor. Perhaps I fear disappointing my partner. Or perhaps the women I select are…what word should I choose…stronger than I can handle. I suppose it’s possible I’m just not built to be married – I’ve never considered that before.

At any rate, my journey of self-discovery and life renovation continues.

Fancy Schmancy Internet

Fancy Schmancy Internet

The other day, I labeled myself as one of those old people who complain about all this new-fangled technology. The irony, of course, (at least for those who know me) is I am an I.T. professional with multiple credentials: Microsoft Certified Solution Developer, State-Certified microcomputer repair technician, certified database administrator, certified network engineer, blah, blah, blah... Of course this sounds like a bit of bragging, but I simply want to illustrate I have a multi-disciplined technology skill set beyond the customer support phone guy in India. (No insult to Hindu-technologists.)

The greater irony is I am starting to lose a little faith in my profession. This is not about me, or even something where I suggest I know things more acutely than any other I.T. person, but rather about where technology has taken us and the trade off it presents. Let me also state this is not a doom-speak rant about how the machines will turn against us or our dependency on them will turn us into a society of Idiocracy.

However, the dependency does create problems. I love find-and-replace as well as spell-check, but there is some truth about this dependency. I have allowed my spelling to become lax because I know F7 will fix it for me. Thus, when I'm writing with a pen, I struggle with proper spelling (making it more difficult to OCR my notes later).

All kidding aside, the dependency is only part of the issue. The larger point is trust. We trust technology because of its higher degree of accuracy (or so perceived) than that of human beings. That - and the lack of emotionality to our responses. If I click "transfer to Store #123" in a browser, I trust the machines to do what I ask even if I've been bitching about the transaction, while the clerk behind the counter I trust to hang up the phone once I'm out of sight.

So, this week I have had several major issues with technological reliance, specifically in commerce. Of course, the fiasco I mentioned in my last post about filling a prescription (or inability to do so because a printer didn't work). Then there is the inventory control issue I explained in that same post. However, these are mainly inconveniences and things that probably breakdown on the human-side anyway. The clerk at the pharmacy is an idiot; that's not the computer's fault. Some stock boy probably didn't put the items on the shelf in the other incident; again, not something to blame the e-commerce website.

However, I just got charged a bank fee for an automated system's process failure and inability to deviate from the expected after it created the problem. And I'm sure this is more a human-flaw in the process than the math-machine's blame. But allow me to explain. Last weekend, I shopped online to purchase Kristina a new laptop. The "Electronics Marketplace" allowed me to do an in-store pickup and routed the order to a store where there was that particular model in stock. I selected a store I don't usually frequent because "my store" didn't have any available. I clicked the "Place Order" button, gave my Paypal details and received a confirmation receipt. Moments later I got a notice from Paypal stating the funds had been transferred from my bank and were in route to said store.

When arriving at the store, I was told that the item was not in inventory and they haven't had that model for a while. I then spoke with a salesperson back in the actual store area (not the store pickup center), who checked his computer to notice there was one available at...wait for it..."my store." You've got to be kidding I thought to myself and tried to explain my woes to the unsympathetic clerk.

Anyway, I went to the other store, checking my email on the way. I did indeed receive an email saying the original store reported an inventory problem and that the order could not be filled at this time. Further, if I wanted to cancel the order, I had to do nothing as it would expire automatically in a few days and my method of payment would not be charged. When arriving at "my store," I discovered they had the item and were happy to sell it to me; however, it could not be processed as a completion of the original online purchase; I would have to buy it from the store directly, as it was not possible to transfer the item from "store inventory" to "online-purchase inventory."

What? How does that explanation work again? I asked if I bought it online originally as a store-pickup from this store, from whose inventory would it be taken from? The answer, of course, was "store inventory." But you guys can't take it from "store inventory" now? They explained they could not because it was tied to the other store's inventory, not theirs. Despite the fact that I can select any store's available inventory for store pickup at the time of the sale, apparently there is no way to edit this, even though the email I received stated I could have the order re-routed to another store for pickup....blah, blah, blah...

I decided for convenience and ran my bank card for the few hundred dollars again. After all, the original order will automatically be canceled and money restored in a matter of days. I could float that; acting as the financial clearing house for a billion-dollar company who clearly couldn't afford to extend the credit was not something that excited me, but it put the laptop in my hands that day and no harm should have come from it.

Like a sit-com script, everyone can now guess what happened. That's right; the order didn't expire. However, the terms of timely payment did, and my bank had released the hold on the funds due to those terms. However, with the merchant not releasing the order, Paypal tried to pay on those funds anyway and requested the funds again. Of course, by this time, I didn't have the extra few hundred dollars accessible, the transfer failed, and my bank charged me a fee from "bouncing" a transaction.

I am now preparing a letter to send to what I'm sure will be a deaf customer support center to try and resolve this. I will claim they owe me the money for the fee as it is their failure which caused it. However, I am quite certain the bureaucracy will point the finger everywhere else, delay and deny, all in hopes that I won't pursue for such a small amount. I will most likely actually have to send a demand letter with a threat of litigation to actually receive any compensation, which won't arrive until weeks of threats and negotiations and of course the added duration of a full accounts-payable cycle.

None of those last items, the delay and deny part, are actually technology's fault either. These human flaws have been around since before the abacus. Yet, the catalyst of all my frustrations and now a bank charge is the trust and dependency on technology, promoting a foolish complacency on my part and on the part of the part of the store and its employees. What happened to the days where someone went into a store and knew something was available to buy or not? Or even call the store and talk to a person who could tell you if they have the item? Now we trust the e-commerce site to know the inventory is accurate because it's more reliable than those people. Ah, the irony.

Final note: spell-check corrected 11 words in this document.

What I’m Not, But Often Confused For

In my last post, I expressed my skepticism over Anthropogenic Global Climate Disruption. (That’s the newest term.) However, what I find interesting is some of the non-published comments that get sent my way, and the accusations that come with them.

While I am not promoting “raping mother earth,” I don’t have a problem with questioning the validity of Climate Change theory. This does not make what I say absolute in any way. Often I bring up points that don’t get talked about but seem significant in my mind.

However, I hope that I never promote the idea that I know the answer or that if you disagree with me then you are stupid. I’m simply stating why I question something and claim that I would like a clearer explanation because what I’ve heard thus far is akin to marketing scare-tactics with lots of science-you-can’t-understand-so-no-reason-to-let-you-examine-it excuses.

But please, I’m neither smart enough nor comically in-tune enough to claim I know anything for sure.

I sometimes get accused of having no compassion, too. This one stings me a bit, but I’ve grown some thicker skin over time. To this I reply that I think a common misunderstanding among those who perpetually disagree is the consensus of what their disagreement is.

In the example above, just because I am a skeptic of global warming does not mean that I’m am promoting pollution. Ironically, pollution is an issue I’m quite concerned about – and I wish the global warming angle of the green movement would move aside so we could address the pertinent parts of the problem, such as too-few recycling programs, toxic waste disposal procedures and the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Those who know me well understand that I have a great concern for the world’s clean water supply.

But my point is the name-calling and red herrings that most disagreements turn into. Neither side really wants to listen or to address the problem. And both sides assume the other is extreme and ignorant, while the truth is each probably agrees about more than they disagree.

Perhaps religion is a good example of this – for what better topic of disagreement is there? The Christians and the Muslims think everyone is going to hell. The Jews no longer believe in hell after dying. And the Buddhists claim we are in a continuous process of dying. In the meantime, the atheists think they’re all a bunch of fools. Hard to get more contentious than that.

But I’m reminded of what C.S. Lewis wrote when discussing the various cultures and religions of the world. While the explanations of origin may vary, in all cases the values and morals taught, the proper behaviors expected and the wisdom given were all quite similar. No religion or culture promoted lying, cowardice, swindling and murder.

The same is true for many of the social and political issues about which I choose to write. Neither liberal nor conservative want more violent crime. No one wants greed and corruption in our economy. We all would love to live in a peaceful world without war. Everyone agrees better education and healthcare reaching more people is a good idea. Nobody, not even me, thinks poisoning the earth is good.

But the devil’s in the details – not to hark back to religion. Although we tend to claim the other side doesn’t recognize the problem, that’s probably not true. It’s the method of resolving it where the debate occurs, at least when rational, solution-oriented people dispute. If someone is calling you a bleeding-heart liberal who doesn’t understand human nature, then don’t debate with them. Even though I would probably agree with their stance on the issue, I doubt they know why I do…or even why they do.

Thus, in this vein, allow me to be a little defensive concerning past, present and future accusations of what I am. I’d like to give a high-level summary of why I hold the stance I do on a few key issues. I won’t burden you with the detail, but I am willing to explain my position further for individuals who are curious of the reasons behind my premises.

Welfare: I don’t want anyone to be without basic necessities. I believe there is a minimum level of human dignity one should expect from society. However, the recent extension of payouts and removal of much accountability in the system give incentive to many capable people not to work and not to improve their condition. I believe in Lao Tzu’s perspective here. The goal should be to turn consumers into producers and not simply sustain the non-productive. Sometimes helping is enabling, and I feel we’ve erred too far on that side. And while I generally oppose governmental welfare, I am a huge proponent of private and personal charity. I also don't give cash to vagrants, but I do keep a stack of fast-food gift cards in my car to give away to the hungry.

Universal Healthcare: If a fiscally responsible plan could provide more medical care to more people than are currently treated as needed, and the quality of that service would be the same or better – then I’m all in for the plan. But that's the idealistic pitch rather than the reality, as I do the math. The current plan trades sick people into the healthy pool but exchanges more previously-covered people to the 'useless treatment' plan, doing more harm than good. Poorer medical coverage with a higher total cost, enforced by the IRS – that seems to be the existing plan. Worse yet, the administration of the system is in the power of a small oligarchy who have special medical privileges and who have no risk or accountability for the plan’s success or failure, which simply exacerbates the haves-versus-have-nots reason this issue exists.

Airport Security: Do I want passengers carrying weapons to hijack or explode planes? Of course not. But the response to the underwear bomber doesn’t match the threat. The new scanners do not detect explosive powders. Who sold the idea of taking naked pictures of people as security? Plus, the TSA has lied about how the machines work. Yes, it can and does store the image. That’s been demonstrated. But even if it hadn’t, think about it. How would they prosecute without one? How would they defend the probable cause position to perform a violation to the Fourth amendment without demonstrating that cause? I have no clue why these machines were placed into service. Capitalistic terror-profiteering? Ignorance of the technology? Unknown ulterior motive? Or perhaps just stupidity in general. But what I feel strongly on this topic is it has almost nothing to do with actually securing the safety of the passengers. And that’s what I wish we would focus on.

Global Warming (or whatever your favorite climate buzz-term is): So, let’s just say – I’m not pro-pollution and I don’t want to rape the planet. But more specifically, I seriously question the strength of the IPCC’s evidence and credibility. The scientists have been seriously wrong (and even manipulative) in several calculations. Doomsayers have been with us since recorded history, but all marine life didn’t die off in the twentieth century, England is still above sea-level and Phil Jones has still not released the data requested through the Freedom of Information. I don’t deny that global temperatures statistically changed, but I question whether this is due to mankind’s behavior or whether this is just a natural cyclical pattern, similar to seasons or ocean current patterns. However, I see great harm economically if we react for long-term changes without better understanding the true cause. (Google “Winooski 1979” for an example.) Trillions of dollars could be spent on people who have yet to be born for something we don’t even know is real. I wonder how much of that money could be redirected on hungry, homeless and uninsured people alive right now.

At the risk of sounding apologetic for my ideals, I hope that I have demonstrated my heart is not in a bad place when it comes to the reasons I believe what I do. We may disagree on how the problems should be addressed, but I hope I never convey the idea that I don’t care or claim you’re a fool if you differ with my stance. I actively try to ignore the sound bite and hear the logic. I hope others will afford me the same courtesy.

Only through acknowledging those who differ from our view are not morons…or perhaps I should say, they are not morons solely because we differ… (Sorry, but some are morons whether they differ or agree.) But this is the first step in compromise, opening our eyes to the drawbacks of our own opinions and finding solutions that are mutually beneficial. For true social benevolence, we must view our antagonists for what they are not.

The Planet Won’t Save Us!

It’s been a pretty harsh winter in Oklahoma. Well, the latter part of winter, anyway. I recall comments before Christmas by neighbors talking about how mild the weather had been and how fortunate we were. Today, they say the weather is wickedly unpredictable and this chaotic climate has been consistent nearly every day for the past several years….What?

It’s this type of anecdotal evidence, based on frustration and poor memories, which perpetuate all the crazy weather theories out there. Only scientific data can really shed any light on the circumstance. But even then –the best we get is correlations, not causality. That’s when the agendas come out of the woodwork to convince you to behave and mostly buy the things that benefit the soothsayer.

For those less familiar with what a correlation is allow me to explain. In its simplest definition it is a mathematical relationship between two factors. Such as age and height in a child – as one increases, the other tends to also increase, or food to starvation – as food decreases, starvation increases. These examples are “strong” correlations; however, a correlation could be there has been an increase in timberline acreage in America over the past 100 years and the population in America has also increased over the past 100 years. This would be a “weak” correlation as the cause of the two are likely not related, but the facts and data are true and crazy arguments could be made that to control population in America we should cut down more trees.

I think I was a teenager when I understood correlations did not necessarily mean causality and could be sold to sound scientific and convince people to change what they did. I read an article that said men who had sex more often were healthier and better looking. It mostly implied, but actually stated at times, that having sex would make one healthier and more attractive. Then I shook my head and laughed, realizing the converse was a better explanation – healthy, good-looking men are more likely to be having sex (at all) and therefore more often.

Anyway, back to the green part of the message. I read in the Wall Street Journal this week that climate alarmists are now switching gears about “planet warming” and now claiming (with handy-dandy statistical correlations) that the increased CO2 that humans have put in the air is the cause of the crazy cold we’ve been experiencing the last few years, and also the droughts and out-of-season heat waves around the world. However, the statistical conclusion of this claim simply doesn’t bear out.

The specific claim tested is that increased CO2 shows more extreme weather as this life-giving gas is increased in the atmosphere. (Yes, I did call CO2 life-giving; it’s not a poison – look it up). The study showed no indication of this at all. I’ve also read other studies that claim the weather is not getting more extreme, but rather the information about extreme weather is simply better distributed. There is even some evidence that the climate is actually milder now than two hundred years ago. And one of my favorite scientific “greenhouse gas” findings is the ratio of CO2 to water vapor’s proportionality for both quantity and quality for contributing to global warming. There is more statistical evidence that water is destroying the planet than carbon di-oxide is.

“But what if you’re wrong?” is always the counter-debate I get when I discuss these things. “It’s not worth the risk if it turns out you’re wrong, Dj!” (Note the Chewbacca defense.)

A friend from Florida addresses this best, I think. He explains weather risk by comparing computer models’ abilities to tell him whether or not to abandon and protect in half-a-million dollar investment (called his house) when a hurricane is less than 36 hours from the coast. “It’s still a crap shoot as to where it’s really going to hit, when it’s only 36 hours away,” he says. “Now, I’m supposed to trust their prediction of the temperature fifty to a hundred years from now – and put my money into their undeniable truth? No, THAT is too risky!”

The late George Carlin gives a pretty good skeptics take on the environmental movement. He even humorously states that the earth deliberately evolved humans in order to create plastic because it couldn’t do it on its own. “And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet…Save the planet? We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned how to care for one another. But we’re gonna save the f***ng planet?”

Another friend of mine mirrors Carlin’s sentiments. He asks why we are trying to “save the planet.” He points out that most evidence shows the planet tries to kill us. Perhaps bad environmentalism is just a preemptive strike against the monster. Okay, not seriously, but he does laugh at the idea of saving the planet and follows up with the statement – should he be absolutely wrong and this global warming is truly man’s fault, then worst case, all the humans die and the planet wins. If we truly are that horrendous of a species, then cosmically that’s a good thing.

Well, perhaps I can’t go that far, but he does have an interesting point. And mother nature seems a bit tougher than we give her credit. Last year's oil spill showed us this in a way most Sierra club members won't talk about. Now don't think I'm promoting dumping crude into the oceans; that's absolutely not what I'm saying. However, the Gulf self-cleans 40 million gallons of naturally seeping oil annually; thus when a man-made one occurs, it may not be quite the planet-ending disaster we tend to conclude it to be.

Then again, even if I'm wrong - perhaps near-global annihilation isn’t a bad thing. According to geologists and evolution, it has happened at least five times before, without which, we wouldn’t even be here. It provokes curious thought. I’ve never equated the green movement with nihilistic existentialism before…but don’t worry – it’s only a correlation.

EMSA TotalCare

Paying some bills, I noticed that I am being charged $3.65 per month on my OKC utilities bill for a line item which reads, “EMSA TOTALCARE.” There is absolutely no mention of this on the backside of the bill, where they place the fine print. Going to the city website, I found no mention of it whatsoever.

For those not in my local area, EMSA is the ambulance service. However, it is a private company and not a governmental service. This begs the question: why is it on my City bill?

So, on EMSA’s website, I found some answers. I also found the link to the city’s explanation, which apparently can’t be navigated to from the city's top level (or at least not logically).

What happened is the City and EMSA struck a deal last October, with nearly no announcement to the public, to bill city residents for a privatized insurance plan to cover the expense for ambulance trips to a hospital in life-threatening circumstances. While this may be a reasonable deal, I had to examine what it does and does not include.

First, it only covers should the ambulance be called directly to your residence. If you are elsewhere or in a car wreck, this insurance does not apply. Further, it only covers permanent residents of your home, no visitors, relatives or guests. Even children who are in shared custody may not be covered because only one home can be considered a permanent residence for the child. Finally, this program still collects from the recipient’s insurance, Medicare or Medicaid for the applicable fee and then waives the left-over.

So, what do we have? A person must have a life-threatening condition in their own home for this program to apply. Even then – that person will still be billed at the full rate so that insurance or other coverage will pay. They will receive bills during the interim of the insurance processing and after it is paid. The recipient must then request to apply the program waiver or they are responsible for the remainder of the bill.

What are the odds of that? Well, for some – maybe they have enough risk, but to me it sounds a bit like a city-company collaborative scam to get an extra $43 per residence in the coffers. By the way, if no one opted-out (which you can), that would bring in an extra $9.6 million for the two to split however they will.

While programs like this are valuable for some, most residents do not need it. Moreover, it seems a bit dubious that a government and private company would collaborate to do this and sneak it in under the radar, making everyone automatically enrolled and billed. I recall a similar if-you-don’t-reply-you’ll-be-billed method was used on students when I was in college. I found myself on television and the outcry against such unscrupulous tactics caused a reversal of the billing for everyone. I doubt that happens this time, as this city hall is bigger and the “students” aren’t listening.

Anyway, for those who are listening – if you want to keep it, no problem; do nothing. However, if you’d like opt out, follow this link. You will have to create an account, wait for an email to validate your account, log in, and verify your account number and last billing amount. After all this, you can have the option to opt out of this program for the address of that address. If you have multiple residences, then you have to opt out for each. It’s not easy – which is the point. Oh, one more thing – you can only opt out during the month of September each year.

Good luck. I will post a reminder here – and I may buy an ad in the paper. I’m quite disgusted with my local government. Look for a big MAPS or other municipal project to keep you distracted. Aaargh!