G.K. Chesterton was a writer of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He was mainly a writer, but he was also a great philosopher. I've been reading his book "The Everlasting Man," and it has lead me to many deep thoughts: conflicts within the mind of one. I have not finished the book, but read a passage that I wish to post here on the theory of evolution:
"Most modern histories of mankind begin with the word evolution, and with a rather wordy exposition of evolution, for much the same reason that operated in this case. There is something slow and soothing and gradual about the word and even about the idea. As a matter of fact, it is not, touching these primary things, a very practical word or a very profitable idea. Nobody can imagine how nothing can turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth" even if you only mean, "In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process." For God is by its nature a name of mystery, and nobody ever supposed that man could imagine how a world was created any more than he created one. But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else, just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read The Origin of Species."
Chesterton was a genius. More passages from the book will probably be posted here as I find ones that particularly grab my attention as this one did.
December 22, 2008
December 10, 2008
Roswell & Nazi-UFO Connection
Roswell was no doubt a coverup, but this video (along with a few others that I cannot locate) made me change my mind on the actual coverup. Most who believe that it WAS a cover believe that it was in fact covering the remains of a UFO. These videos suggest that it was not so much to coverup UFOs, but to imply them while covering up secret US military air crafts and technological advancements: concepts stollen from Nazi research during WWII.
I could not figure out how to post the video directly on my blog, but you can watch it by clicking here. The video is around 45 minutes long, but is definitely worth watching. Very interesting.
You can also see the video by going to the blog entitled The Daily Ramblings from the Master of Confliction (click on the link). This is where I originally saw this particular video. There is much more information there as well, and other videos and links to articles if you wish to further pursue this topic.
I could not figure out how to post the video directly on my blog, but you can watch it by clicking here. The video is around 45 minutes long, but is definitely worth watching. Very interesting.
You can also see the video by going to the blog entitled The Daily Ramblings from the Master of Confliction (click on the link). This is where I originally saw this particular video. There is much more information there as well, and other videos and links to articles if you wish to further pursue this topic.
December 3, 2008
Devil's Advocate
This is a quick post regarding the carbon tax vs. the cap and trade in Canada. It will be mostly facts, but there will be some of my own opinion because well... I just can't resist throwing my opinion in there. Feel free to comment with facts OR opinion. I'm going to evenly consider both sides, playing Devil's Advocate... hence the name.
I would choose the cap & trade over the carbon tax in an ideal system.
Unfortunately it would never work in an ideal way (this will be argued further down). Because of this, I have to expect the carbon tax will be better as a long-term solution.
In favor of the carbon tax:
1. A cap & trade was implemented in Canada in the early 1990's (it was called the "Clean Air Act", if you feel like looking into it). It failed in 2006 BECAUSE of Harper. Now they're trying to re-implement the exact same thing under a different title. This poses two problems to me:
The first is that, if it failed once directly because of Harper, why would we leave him in charge of the exact same project once again?
The second is more of a personal objection. It seems to me that Harper seems to think that Canadian citizens don't follow politics, or are just blatantly moronic. I think he needs to address his failures, and explain how he plans to avoid the same mistakes. Otherwise he seems to believe that we don't know, or don't remember about the first attempt.
2. A cap & trade allows the government to, after the companies buy emission permits, auction off more permits. The result is that bigger companies get more permits, and the government gets more money. The problem with this is that the government doesn't put the money to its intended use. You can see this by looking into the cap & trade currently implemented in Europe.
3. Although it would not force companies to limit emissions, it would greatly encourage them to do so. When large companies emitting high amounts pollution no longer see it as financially viable to pay an incredibly high carbon tax, they would begin to find ways to reduce their emissions.
The cap & trade would work in an ideal system:
1. It worked in the 1970's to reduce the overwhelming excess of smog in the air. Then it was for some reason removed once the environment was acceptably cleared up.
2. Unlike the carbon tax, it would directly limit the amount of emissions released. The carbon tax would only do so indirectly (as previously mentioned). It would not, however, fix the problems we have already caused. It would simply prepare for the future (which is obviously necessary).
3. It has reduced and controlled emission release in Europe.
For these reasons (and a few more that I'm keeping in my inventory), I would pick cap & trade in an ideal system. However, seeing that it has already failed under the current government, and that it would not be implemented under an ideal system (in fact, our current system is quite an unstable one), I have to be in favor of the carbon tax... until I am proven that the cap & trade would work this time around.
Kudos to mankind, we have failed.... this time on far too many levels.
I would choose the cap & trade over the carbon tax in an ideal system.
Unfortunately it would never work in an ideal way (this will be argued further down). Because of this, I have to expect the carbon tax will be better as a long-term solution.
In favor of the carbon tax:
1. A cap & trade was implemented in Canada in the early 1990's (it was called the "Clean Air Act", if you feel like looking into it). It failed in 2006 BECAUSE of Harper. Now they're trying to re-implement the exact same thing under a different title. This poses two problems to me:
The first is that, if it failed once directly because of Harper, why would we leave him in charge of the exact same project once again?
The second is more of a personal objection. It seems to me that Harper seems to think that Canadian citizens don't follow politics, or are just blatantly moronic. I think he needs to address his failures, and explain how he plans to avoid the same mistakes. Otherwise he seems to believe that we don't know, or don't remember about the first attempt.
2. A cap & trade allows the government to, after the companies buy emission permits, auction off more permits. The result is that bigger companies get more permits, and the government gets more money. The problem with this is that the government doesn't put the money to its intended use. You can see this by looking into the cap & trade currently implemented in Europe.
3. Although it would not force companies to limit emissions, it would greatly encourage them to do so. When large companies emitting high amounts pollution no longer see it as financially viable to pay an incredibly high carbon tax, they would begin to find ways to reduce their emissions.
The cap & trade would work in an ideal system:
1. It worked in the 1970's to reduce the overwhelming excess of smog in the air. Then it was for some reason removed once the environment was acceptably cleared up.
2. Unlike the carbon tax, it would directly limit the amount of emissions released. The carbon tax would only do so indirectly (as previously mentioned). It would not, however, fix the problems we have already caused. It would simply prepare for the future (which is obviously necessary).
3. It has reduced and controlled emission release in Europe.
For these reasons (and a few more that I'm keeping in my inventory), I would pick cap & trade in an ideal system. However, seeing that it has already failed under the current government, and that it would not be implemented under an ideal system (in fact, our current system is quite an unstable one), I have to be in favor of the carbon tax... until I am proven that the cap & trade would work this time around.
Kudos to mankind, we have failed.... this time on far too many levels.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)