JACK ARMY

I Don't Understand This [Updated]

Perhaps someone can explain it to me... why is it that those who don't believe in any religion feel it necessary to deliberately offend those that do?

In recent years, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Madison, Wis., has used the public-forum rule to crash civic Christmas displays with deliberately provocative signs declaring, "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

The goal: To offend the faithful, in hopes that they will come to understand that a creche is equally offensive to nonbelievers. (source)

So, the point is this: I don't like what you are displaying so I'll display something that pisses you off.  Ah, great way to convince people - anger.  If that is your argument, I'll ask you a question in the style of Dr. Phil: How's that working out for ya?

Certainly I agree that fair is fair.  If a private group or organization can receive permission to put a display on city/county/state/federal property, then any group should be able to do so, provided the  isn't vulgar or inciteful, right? 

But, why must this fairness be enforced concurrently?  If a religious group wants to put up a display at the time of a recognized by government religious holiday, why must a non-religious group be allowed to put one up at the same time?  How about putting up your "religion is stupid" display in December?  Or January?  And you get to display your "religion is for fools" tree for as long as any other group can receive a permit to display the creche or manger scene or menorah or whatever. 

After all, fair is fair.  But being deliberately inciteful is just plain rude.

UPDATE: It's everywhere!

My Take on Global Warming... Errrr.... Climate Change?

What are we calling it this week?  "Global Warming" or "Climate Change"?  I mean, we have to describe a political phenomenon in politically correct terms, right?  Make no mistake about it, this whole mess with the "Denialists" and the hacked emails and "hiding the decline" is purely political.  Whatever gets the most votes is the way the majority of politicians will lean.  So, let me take a minute and describe the entire "debate" the way I see it.  (Oh, why is debate in quotations?  Because I think the idea of debating a scientific uncertainty to be laughable.  Until the data is collected, compared, understood and reviewed, there can not be a solid hypothesis.  Right now, it seems the theory presaged the data, which is why the hacked emails are so interesting... but I digress!)

The way I see it, the earth has been around a long, long time and during that time it has gone through periods of amazing climate change, swinging from one extreme to the other.  There is scientific data to support this idea in the shape of tree rings, carbon dating, ice core samples, geologic rock and sediment formations and on and on.  So, there's a fact.

Here's another fact: through all those changes - from extremely hot planet to the various ice ages - the planet has survived.  So, as a matter of fact, has life.  Granted, not every species was able to endure the climatic shifts and they became extinct.  Most of the species that ever lived on this blue marble are extinct though.  But they didn't all die off in the 19th and 20th Centuries, when man's industrial revolution exploded the amount of carbon dioxide he was spewing into the atmosphere.  To say that I'm a little skeptical about any current climate change being man-made is similar to saying that Dennis Miller just barely enjoys the metaphor.

But, let's play the "what-if" game a little bit, shall we?  What if the planet is warming?  Then, supposedly, the polar ice caps and all the glaciers will melt and the oceans will rise.  I say supposedly because I'm not quite convinced that will happen if the average global temperature rises only a degree or two.  Here's why: remember that glass of ice-cold lemonade you enjoyed as a kid?  Remember the time you took a little sip, set it down on the porch and ran off to continue your game off cowboys and indians or whatever?  When you came back an hour later, the ice had all melted.  Remember what the level of liquid in the glass did?  Yeah, it went down.  As the ice melted, is displaced less liquid and the level went down.  But, you'll argue, the ice in the glaciers isn't displacing any ocean water, so the sea-level will go up!  Well, maybe, a little, I think... but maybe not if the amount of ice displacing volume in the oceans now is more than the amount of liquid volume that will be taken up by the melted glaciers.  And I suppose if one were to measure all the glacial ice on the planet and then what volume it would be as a liquid and then compare that to all the floating ice on the planet now and what volume it displaces and subtract out the volume replaced by the melted floating ice... well, you get the idea.

Anyway, I'm skeptical about that one.

But, what if, it happens the way we are being sold told and the oceans do rise?  What happens then?  Well, beaches move inland, along with all the residents currently living in low-lying areas.  Maybe we'll inhabit the areas formerly covered by glaciers?  I don't know for sure, but I do know this: we will survive.  Maybe not all of us because some stubborn SOB is not going to move off his land no matter what and then the simple fact that water is not breathable by humans will overcome his stubbornness, but the vast majority of the human species will survive, simply by picking up and moving elsewhere.  Especially since the rise in sea-levels will happen gradually.  We'll have time to "outrun" the rising tides.  Plenty of time.

Then what?  Well, I suppose once all the ice on the planet is melted, we can pump all the carbon we want into the atmosphere, since it won't matter anymore, right?

The sentiments expressed by Gary Sutton kind of sum up how I feel about this whole thing.  (h/t Drudge)

Another concept that sticks in my mind, I heard years ago, is the analogy of earth being a dog and humans being fleas... when we get too bad, earth'll just shake us off.  Not a perfect analogy, but you get the point.  We'll destroy ourselves before we get even close to destroying the earth.

Changes in Health Care Delivery

After reading this article at CNN, I find it interesting in how the delivery of health care seems to be adapting, not just to the way our health care system works now, but to the way people think it is going to be when Congress and the President change it.

Personally, I think I like the idea of a retainer-based plan.  Basically, you give the doctor some money to be YOUR doctor, and he promises to be that.  Some basic services go with the retainer and some services are guaranteed at a certain price, but the doctor and the patient have some flexibility and some certainty with such a plan.  More than one would with a beaurocrat-run system, whether government or not. 

At least that's the way I see it.  You?

FTC to Monitor Blogs

FTC to Monitor Blogs (via Outside The Beltway) is an interesting post about how some bloggers are making money while blogging and how it is going to be monitored by the Federal Trade Commission.  The original article (linked at OTB, follow link above) describes bloggers as receiving thousands of dollars or free items such as laptops to blog about certain products, trips and cruises, and the like.

In the interest of full disclosure at this point, I'll let you know that I have received 2 free books in exchange for a blog review.  One book I gave away, the other I have yet to review (sorry!) so it is still sitting on my bookshelf.  Also, I initially used Google's Adsense and received one check for $100.  However, I stopped using Adsense at some point when some policy or public remark from Google irritated me (I can't recall what it was, but that doesn't matter to me any more, now it's just the principle of the thing that I'm hanging onto like a dog with a bone).

I really like James Joyner's point that "journalists employed by someone else get paid.   That’s the nature of employment.  Independent bloggers, by contrast, are entrepreneurs.  Actually, most make no money or barely cover expenses, making them, in effect, hobbyists."

At this time, I fall into the hobbyist category, but I would love to make blogging an entrepreneurial enterprise (hint, hint!).  So, I feel no guilt for the very little that I have received for blogging.  My expenses to blog far outweigh the "income" I've received, so if the FTC and/or government would like to know about it, then I think I should claim both the income and expenses on my IRS return and the current tax laws will cover it.  Right?

Health Care Reform

This was the title of the very last post on the the Blogger JACK ARMY.  I don't know why, but that blog was deleted.  So, having already considered moving to my own domain, that forced me to do it now.  But, what did I say about health care reform?  In general, I equated the concerns of many senior citizens to that of a younger person who faces the possiblity of being denied health care because of the lifestyle choices he or she makes.  No, I wasn't referring to sexual orientation, either.  Anyway, I'm not against reform, but I am against anything that jeopardizes the quality of care we generally receive in the United States now.  There's a reason people from other countries come here for health care... maybe because ours is the best.  What do you think?