Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Friday, June 23, 2006
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Commentary: Global Warming?
An article from the AP about global warming makes some interesting and strong claims. The article, based on a study from the National Academy of Sciences, claims that global warming is real and that it is caused by people. The report makes it sound like it's an open and shut case. Global warming exists, and we are the cause. Time for the Kyoto Protocol and other flawed and economically destructive policies, right? To quote Lee Corso, "Not so fast, my friend."
First, the claim that global warming is real can only be substantiated by direct temperature records for only the past 150 years. In that time, there does seem to be a sort of warming trend. )This, of course, ignores a dip in temperature observed during the 1970s.) Before about 1850, climatologists have to use indirect methods, such as looking at ice cores, tree rings, and lake sediments. Therein lies problem number one. Such indirect methods indicate some information about temperature, but because of the complex nature of this world, it is difficult to construct an accurate tempearture profile for the past. It is primarily guess work, and personal bias can easily affect such guesses. It's possible that this was the case.
However, I do not wish to deny the possibility that we're seeing global warming. Certainly, in the past 150 years, the average temperature of the lowest part of the atmosphere seems to have increased. So, the earth could be warming up. The data, though, are not as conclusive as the report (and article) make it seem.
Secondly, even if global warming exists, the evidence for human causes are unfounded scientifically. The best that scientists can do is point to a correlation between increased temperature and increase greenhouse gases. However, as any first-year statistics student will tell you, correlation does not mean causation. Is it a good idea to try to reduce "greenhouse gases?" Sure, it is a good idea, but to take desparate measures to limit greenhouse gases will only wind up doing greater economic damage than anything forecast by global warming.
So, in the end, we should take reasonable, economically feasible steps to limit any contribution that we may be making to global warming. Let's make sure, though, that we don't create an economic catastrophe in trying to prevent a possible environmental one.
First, the claim that global warming is real can only be substantiated by direct temperature records for only the past 150 years. In that time, there does seem to be a sort of warming trend. )This, of course, ignores a dip in temperature observed during the 1970s.) Before about 1850, climatologists have to use indirect methods, such as looking at ice cores, tree rings, and lake sediments. Therein lies problem number one. Such indirect methods indicate some information about temperature, but because of the complex nature of this world, it is difficult to construct an accurate tempearture profile for the past. It is primarily guess work, and personal bias can easily affect such guesses. It's possible that this was the case.
However, I do not wish to deny the possibility that we're seeing global warming. Certainly, in the past 150 years, the average temperature of the lowest part of the atmosphere seems to have increased. So, the earth could be warming up. The data, though, are not as conclusive as the report (and article) make it seem.
Secondly, even if global warming exists, the evidence for human causes are unfounded scientifically. The best that scientists can do is point to a correlation between increased temperature and increase greenhouse gases. However, as any first-year statistics student will tell you, correlation does not mean causation. Is it a good idea to try to reduce "greenhouse gases?" Sure, it is a good idea, but to take desparate measures to limit greenhouse gases will only wind up doing greater economic damage than anything forecast by global warming.
So, in the end, we should take reasonable, economically feasible steps to limit any contribution that we may be making to global warming. Let's make sure, though, that we don't create an economic catastrophe in trying to prevent a possible environmental one.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Rambling: US vs. Italy
Even though the game is now two days past, I wanted to write a few comments about the World Cup soccer match between the U.S. and Italy.
First, I was proud of the way the US played. Despite being reduced to 9 men for most of the second half, they held on for a tie, and very nearly produced the equalizer. The offside call that nullified the goal was correct, but it was disappointing.
Second, I was disappointed in the way the Italian team played. They were diving all over the place. The slightest bit of contact from a US player, and the Italians started flopping like a freshly caught fish. Italy's sole goal came as the result of one of those dives. The yellow and red cards the US received were all dives.
Third, I was disappointed in the quality of the refereeing. The center seemed to spend the majority of the game buying all of the Italians' diving, which disappointed me greatly. The result of all those Italian dives was a significant foul differential (US 24-Italy 13), which is unusual for this level when two teams were as closely matched as the US and Italy were. I would expect a referee at that level to be able to recognize when a player goes down way too easily and with way too much flourish. Apparently, he didn't, which is too bad. In addition, I'm not sure why the US players were sent off. I watched the replay of the red card, and it seemed to me that our player's timing was correct, his feet stayed down, and he got the ball, tripping the Italian incidental to the play. If he came in late or with his cleats up, I could see perhaps a yellow, but certainly not a red because the tackle certainly did not endanger the safety of the opponent. As far as the second red card, the result of two yellows, I did not see anything in either case that I thought merited cautioning the player. Sadly, the referee saw it differently.
In the end, though, no referee can cause a team to lose a game. The US proved that on Saturday by how they played. They never let the questionable calls or the constant theatrics of the Italians frustrate them. They played with great courage, and under the circumstances they saw, a draw is an excellent result. Now, all we have to do is beat Ghana and have Italy beat the Czech Republic. It could happen, and I can't wait to see if it does!
First, I was proud of the way the US played. Despite being reduced to 9 men for most of the second half, they held on for a tie, and very nearly produced the equalizer. The offside call that nullified the goal was correct, but it was disappointing.
Second, I was disappointed in the way the Italian team played. They were diving all over the place. The slightest bit of contact from a US player, and the Italians started flopping like a freshly caught fish. Italy's sole goal came as the result of one of those dives. The yellow and red cards the US received were all dives.
Third, I was disappointed in the quality of the refereeing. The center seemed to spend the majority of the game buying all of the Italians' diving, which disappointed me greatly. The result of all those Italian dives was a significant foul differential (US 24-Italy 13), which is unusual for this level when two teams were as closely matched as the US and Italy were. I would expect a referee at that level to be able to recognize when a player goes down way too easily and with way too much flourish. Apparently, he didn't, which is too bad. In addition, I'm not sure why the US players were sent off. I watched the replay of the red card, and it seemed to me that our player's timing was correct, his feet stayed down, and he got the ball, tripping the Italian incidental to the play. If he came in late or with his cleats up, I could see perhaps a yellow, but certainly not a red because the tackle certainly did not endanger the safety of the opponent. As far as the second red card, the result of two yellows, I did not see anything in either case that I thought merited cautioning the player. Sadly, the referee saw it differently.
In the end, though, no referee can cause a team to lose a game. The US proved that on Saturday by how they played. They never let the questionable calls or the constant theatrics of the Italians frustrate them. They played with great courage, and under the circumstances they saw, a draw is an excellent result. Now, all we have to do is beat Ghana and have Italy beat the Czech Republic. It could happen, and I can't wait to see if it does!
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Rambling: Am I Really That Old?
I just got my new driver's license today, and I look so much older than I think I am. In some ways, I feel like I've been stuck at 25 ever since I started teaching. That's probably because not much has changed around me. Friends have gotten married. Some already have kids. Anyway, I digress. The point is that I really am shocked at how I look. I don't look the way I expect myself to look. I look, well, tired. And old. :-(
Monday, June 12, 2006
Rant: World Cup Soccer Seeding
<rant>Well, the U.S. has seen its hopes of reaching the second round of the World Cup diminished greatly after a 3-0 loss to the Czech Republic. Of course, the Czechs are ranked #2 in the world. The U.S. is currently ranked #5, but I'm sure that will go down with this loss. What I want to know, though, is why the U.S. was put in the same group as the Czech Republic and Italy. Observe the following to see how unfair the U.S.'s draw is.
The average ranking of teams in the U.S.'s group (Group E) is 8.9. Consider the teams in the U.S.'s group. The Czech Republic is ranked #2, Italy #13, and the U.S. #5. (Ghana is ranked 48). Meanwhile, in other groups, the draw is much, much easier. Brazil, for instance, the best team in the world according to the rankings, is in a Group F with such soccer "heavyweights" as Australia (ranked 42), Japan (ranked 18), and Croatia (ranked 23). The average ranking in Group F is 12. Compare those average ratings to average ratings of each group. The average ranking of Group A is 27. Group B has an average ranking of 22. Group C comes in at 14. Group D also rates out at 14. Group E, as mentioned above, is 8.9. Group F, as mentioned, averages 12. Group G averages 27. Group H has an average ranking of 20.
So, the U.S. is in the hardest group by far, with three strong countries, and probably won't make it to the next round. Meanwhile, countries that wouldn't move on if the pools were created by seeding, such as Switzerland, Croatia, and the Ukraine, will probably wind up making it into the next round. It's unfair.</rant>
The average ranking of teams in the U.S.'s group (Group E) is 8.9. Consider the teams in the U.S.'s group. The Czech Republic is ranked #2, Italy #13, and the U.S. #5. (Ghana is ranked 48). Meanwhile, in other groups, the draw is much, much easier. Brazil, for instance, the best team in the world according to the rankings, is in a Group F with such soccer "heavyweights" as Australia (ranked 42), Japan (ranked 18), and Croatia (ranked 23). The average ranking in Group F is 12. Compare those average ratings to average ratings of each group. The average ranking of Group A is 27. Group B has an average ranking of 22. Group C comes in at 14. Group D also rates out at 14. Group E, as mentioned above, is 8.9. Group F, as mentioned, averages 12. Group G averages 27. Group H has an average ranking of 20.
So, the U.S. is in the hardest group by far, with three strong countries, and probably won't make it to the next round. Meanwhile, countries that wouldn't move on if the pools were created by seeding, such as Switzerland, Croatia, and the Ukraine, will probably wind up making it into the next round. It's unfair.</rant>
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Rambling: Contentment
I was thinking about contentment today, and what it means to be content. 1 Timothy 6:6 says, "But Godliness with contentment is great gain." Hebrews 13:5 says, "Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, 'Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.' " These verses talk about contentment with a financial situation. What does contentment look like in other aspects of life? Read on for my thoughts.
This question is a struggle for me because I see circumstances in my life that are not good. (I'm going to be vague here because the circumstances themselves are not the issue. It's my reaction to them that matters.) My displeasure with how things are leads me to be discontent with how they are. I want to see those circumstances change, and I'm afraid that if I decide to be content with how they are that they will remain in that bad state. But is contentment the same as saying, "Well, that's how it is, and I won't work to change it"?
I don't think it is. Saying that would result in settling for less than God's best in many situations. I think contentment is saying that, yes, this particular situation is not good. Yet, I'm not going to let one bad circumstance ruin for me all the good circumstances with which God has blessed me. Instead, I will still seek after Him for the wisdom, grace, and mercy to change that aspect of my life that I don't like, if He is willing. A friend of mine once put it succinctly, "I will not let my circumstances ruin the joy of my salvation." That's a decent definition of contentment. Above all, though, the issue is whether I am willing to be led (and to do any work that is necessary) to the circumstances that He wants me to be in. If I am willing to do that, maybe then I will be able to say, like Paul, "I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation." Philippians 4:12
This question is a struggle for me because I see circumstances in my life that are not good. (I'm going to be vague here because the circumstances themselves are not the issue. It's my reaction to them that matters.) My displeasure with how things are leads me to be discontent with how they are. I want to see those circumstances change, and I'm afraid that if I decide to be content with how they are that they will remain in that bad state. But is contentment the same as saying, "Well, that's how it is, and I won't work to change it"?
I don't think it is. Saying that would result in settling for less than God's best in many situations. I think contentment is saying that, yes, this particular situation is not good. Yet, I'm not going to let one bad circumstance ruin for me all the good circumstances with which God has blessed me. Instead, I will still seek after Him for the wisdom, grace, and mercy to change that aspect of my life that I don't like, if He is willing. A friend of mine once put it succinctly, "I will not let my circumstances ruin the joy of my salvation." That's a decent definition of contentment. Above all, though, the issue is whether I am willing to be led (and to do any work that is necessary) to the circumstances that He wants me to be in. If I am willing to do that, maybe then I will be able to say, like Paul, "I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation." Philippians 4:12
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Commentary: If You Deny Media Bias Exists...
Read the headlines and first paragraphs of each of these articles, one from CNN and one from Fox News. See if you can tell each author's attitude towards the story.
CNN
Fox News
It's clear to me that CNN has a definite liberal bias in the story. It fails to identify what the amendment truly was about, instead describing it as a "ban on same-sex unions". That is in no way what the amendment was about. It is not about taking away rights. It is about protecting the rights of marriage by defining it to be as it has always been understood to be. That such an amendment is even necessary represents a sad day for this country.
CNN
Fox News
It's clear to me that CNN has a definite liberal bias in the story. It fails to identify what the amendment truly was about, instead describing it as a "ban on same-sex unions". That is in no way what the amendment was about. It is not about taking away rights. It is about protecting the rights of marriage by defining it to be as it has always been understood to be. That such an amendment is even necessary represents a sad day for this country.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Commentary: "Gay" Marriage
I keep noticing that most media outlets keep referring to the upcoming vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment as being about "gay marriage". There's a major problem with this phrase. It makes it sound like a homosexual person is forbidden from getting married. He's not. He can get married, so long as he marries someone of the opposite gender who is of legal age. The issue, rather, is whether we should allow "same-sex marriage", a concept that would undermine the fabric of society: traditional marriage. So, in discussing it as "gay marriage", the media is once again showing its bias against traditional marriage by making marriage sound like a right. It's not. Because if it were, I could validly claim that my right to marry a beautiful woman of God has been violated for these past 10 or so years (ever since I turned 18). :-)
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Rambling: Thoughts on Esther
I spent about 45 minutes this afternoon reading through and pondering the book of Esther. Here are some of the thoughts I had while reading it.
First, if I read the book of Esther in multiple languages, would that mean that I was a fan of "poly-Esther"?
Xerxes gave a 180-day party! That's six months long. Can you imagine what that must have been like? Six months of one man showing off how great he thought he was! Then, he gives a banquet for everyone, from the least to the greatest. There must have been some pretty happy peasants!
During this banquet, "each guest was allowed to drink in his own way" (NIV). There must have been some really happy peasants. (A note in my Bible quotes the Greek historian Heroditus as writing that the Persians "are very fond of wine, and drink it in large quantities...It is also their general practice to deliberate upon affairs of weight when they are drunk...Sometimes, however, they are sober at their first deliberation, but in this case they always reconsider the matter under the influence of wine.") The importance of wine to the Persians will show up several more times in the book.
Speaking of happy people, Xerxes drank enough during the banquet to be "in high spirits" (i.e. drunk). Then, he decided to have his queen, Vashti, come parade before all of his noblemen. When she refused, he deposed her and then issued a strange command.
This edict said that "every man should be ruler over his own household". This command is strange because it is either superfluous, or it means that the general state of affairs in Persia was quite the opposite. :-)
Esther was not very God-fearing. She was willing to be married to a pagan king and to hide her Jewish ancestory. God's name is not mentioned once in the book of Esther.
Haman was quite the arrogant man. Upset that Mordecai won't show him respect, he gets together with his friends and his wife and boasts about how great he (Haman) is. I feel sorry for those listening, particularly his wife, who has to hear her husband brag about how many sons he has.
Wine shows up again when Esther makes her appeal for Xerxes to issue a decree to save the Jews from Haman's plot to destroy them. Esther throws a two-day banquet for just Xerxes and Haman. In each case, "as they were drinking wine", Xerxes asked Esther what request she would like. It seems that Heroditus wasn't exaggerating a whole lot!
I close with this observation: God kept His covenant with the Jews even when they were not keeping their part of the covenant. Great is His faithfulness!
First, if I read the book of Esther in multiple languages, would that mean that I was a fan of "poly-Esther"?
Xerxes gave a 180-day party! That's six months long. Can you imagine what that must have been like? Six months of one man showing off how great he thought he was! Then, he gives a banquet for everyone, from the least to the greatest. There must have been some pretty happy peasants!
During this banquet, "each guest was allowed to drink in his own way" (NIV). There must have been some really happy peasants. (A note in my Bible quotes the Greek historian Heroditus as writing that the Persians "are very fond of wine, and drink it in large quantities...It is also their general practice to deliberate upon affairs of weight when they are drunk...Sometimes, however, they are sober at their first deliberation, but in this case they always reconsider the matter under the influence of wine.") The importance of wine to the Persians will show up several more times in the book.
Speaking of happy people, Xerxes drank enough during the banquet to be "in high spirits" (i.e. drunk). Then, he decided to have his queen, Vashti, come parade before all of his noblemen. When she refused, he deposed her and then issued a strange command.
This edict said that "every man should be ruler over his own household". This command is strange because it is either superfluous, or it means that the general state of affairs in Persia was quite the opposite. :-)
Esther was not very God-fearing. She was willing to be married to a pagan king and to hide her Jewish ancestory. God's name is not mentioned once in the book of Esther.
Haman was quite the arrogant man. Upset that Mordecai won't show him respect, he gets together with his friends and his wife and boasts about how great he (Haman) is. I feel sorry for those listening, particularly his wife, who has to hear her husband brag about how many sons he has.
Wine shows up again when Esther makes her appeal for Xerxes to issue a decree to save the Jews from Haman's plot to destroy them. Esther throws a two-day banquet for just Xerxes and Haman. In each case, "as they were drinking wine", Xerxes asked Esther what request she would like. It seems that Heroditus wasn't exaggerating a whole lot!
I close with this observation: God kept His covenant with the Jews even when they were not keeping their part of the covenant. Great is His faithfulness!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)