Monday, December 14, 2015

Why limit climate discussions

Recently a very large number of nations entered into a climate change agreement.  Simply entering into the agreement will not close or end discussions on the subject no matter how much some people want it to.  The biggest problem with the climate change debate is and has been the debate itself, or lack thereof.

First off let me preface my remarks by noting I am not talking about any merits or facts for or against climate change, global warming, global cooling, or any other weather phenomenon.  The only thing I will remark on this at this time is that climate always changes in different ways and has for as long as we have records or evidence for.

So why the discussion now?  That is really the ultimate question in all of this:  Why?

My first “Why” is to ask why some people are so ready to limit debate?  Science is about testing and retesting.  It is about reevaluating and being able to share the information with other scientists who can reproduce exactly what the other scientist or team of scientists have done.  That is not what we have here.  To quote one famous leader “The Science is settled”.  To me, that is one of the most ludicrous statements ever made, as having science be “settled” goes against everything that science is – exploration, experimentation, and the ability to reproduce results.  Science is not facts by consensus, but proof by evidence.

The same famous leader has also compared those who doubt global warming / climate change as “Flat-Earthers”.  Currently the discussion back and forth with those who believe the one group of scholars who support the view of man-made global warming, etc and with those scholars who have issues with it does resemble the flat-earth discussions of long ago, but I think some people have the idea backwards.

While the history of how much of the world believed the earth was flat vs how much believed it to be spherical is debated (many scholars debate what you may have been taught in school), the concept is the same that there were varying opinions on subjects such as the shape of the earth, whether the sun goes around the earth, or if the earth is the center of the universe.  In many scientific areas, from my recollection, there were several views strongly supported by the governments in Europe and the Catholic Church who, at the time, was intertwined with the governments.  (An over-simplification, but I don’t want to side track with the entire history of church and government intertwining here, nor does debating the exact level of support for various ideas.  That is really the point here).  It was at this time that the government, based primarily on biblical interpretation, maintained that the earth was flat, and the center of the universe, and those that would dare contradict that statement would be outcast, ostracized, and punished up to and including death.  The experts and those experts paid for by the leaders were in a consensus as to the nature of the Earth in the universe.  Today we have the same scenario – where governments, leaders, and those that are supported by those governments and leaders constantly point out their consensus position and ostracize, outcast, and to the extent possible punish those who would dare speak otherwise.  Why is that?

Why do we have climate change summits made up of mostly politicians and dictators when we have thin trust in their motives to begin with?  Because these leaders have various motives and agendas, I become suspect when I see them engage in “climate talks”.  Why?  Simply because while I would love world leaders to suddenly become selfless and do things to save the world, it is really wishful thinking.  While some of the leaders may be that way, many will just be there to get what they can for themselves.  A “what’s in it for me” scenario.  This has bothered me for a long time – from the first time I heard it announced about an international convention of global leaders and scientists.  Why do you need a conference of both scientists and political leaders for such a discussion?  Would not the political pressure have a tendency to pollute the science?  Money and power tend to do just that.  Does having scientists on-hand really put any additional pressure on dictators?  What pressure or leverage can they place? 

All of these items – limiting debate, government sponsored studies that align with political agendas, co-mingling of science and politics, among others should all be red flags to people that something could be wrong.  Not that there is a problem, but at least to take a second look.  Having scientists who have different takes on the data should be examined, not shot down.

Debate and discussion is important, especially when it comes to scientific studies and should be an area that can never be completely “settled”.  If someone or group of people try to shut down such discussion, should we not question their motives in doing so?  Or should we blindly accept the answers given and move on.

I always seek the truth.  Limiting discussion indicates to me, usually, that the truth lies elsewhere.

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Making the USA a better place

I was asked the following question: Jeremy Hannon if you became President, what would you do to make The United States a better place?  What is your plan to make that happen?

What a huge question!  There are many things that I would do, each with its own implementation plan.  All, however are rooted in a few ideals.

  • The government must be empowered by the people - not the government permitting the people to act.
  • A government must be open, transparent, and be truthful
  • The way the government spends and manages money must fundamentally change.  Budgeting should reflect common sense and operate more like a business and allocate money where it is needed to accomplish tasks that are needed.   Currently we just increase a department's budget each year and assume they needed and wisely spent the money from last year and will continue to have the same need in the following year.
  • The federal government is the best place and is best equipped to handle some things - but those things are very few.  The governmental choices should be as close to the people as  possible.
Now I could get into the plans to change the way the executive branch manages itself and those agencies and services it oversees.  I could go into the plan to reduce some agencies to their core services and stop the "government sprawl" and their increasing encroachment into our daily lives.  I feel that there is, however, a more fundamental question here.

When the first draft of the Declaration of Independence was penned it had the phrase "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Property".  Private property was an important concept to the founding fathers, but they wanted something even broader and more inspiring so it was changed to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".  I think we need to reach for these higher ideals and broader inspiration.

The best way to make the United States a better place is to set an example.  Our leaders, all of which are human (last time I checked), need to realize they have been placed in a position of authority and need to lead by example themselves.  Each one needs to strive to live their life as if others were looking to them for guidance.  Each one needs to strive to be better for all.  Each one needs to strive to look at the big picture and leave their world just a little bit better.

Some of you may be thinking this is too "touchy-feely", but actually this is about work ethic and how we run the government.  Putting this attitude in place would make great strides in a more efficient government - one that responds to the people and wastes less.  For this to work, however, this attitude must come from the top.

For many years people have looked at a leader's qualifications, those things on paper, to determine who to vote for in the big position of President.  Morals, etc. were not a factor.  This has consequences for every position under the President, and to that of the whole country.  I believe that at this point in our nation's history we need a President that is from the common people, and can lead by example themselves, to change the attitude in the government, in this nation, and in how other nations perceive use.

In short, the best way to make America better is not in the numerous policies, reduction in taxes, and improving the environment for business and jobs to thrive -- all of which I would do.  The government is not one person, but the tone and direction is set by that one person.  The best way is to simply set a good example, and teach other leaders in the government to do the same.

The problems in America

Yesterday, I was on Afternoons Live with Dave Diamond, and I was asked what would I fix as President, what was the number one problem in this country.  After saying there are many problems, I went into a discussion on the economic problems that are caused by our government.

I was wrong.  While this is a major problem in America today, in part it is a symptom of the much bigger problem in America.  This problem goes by the name of Tyranny.

Tyranny - Cruel and oppressive government or rule.  It is what you get when a government goes unchecked.  Whether by sudden overthrow or by slow process, tyranny is not acceptable.

The government these days seems to be great at producing one thing:  red tape.  They seem too be able to build this at an alarming rate, or buy it in bulk on borrowed money.

The absolute first thing that needs to be fixed is to stop the ever encroaching federal government into our lives and give it back to the people.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Stepping out of the boat

As we look upon the current state of affairs in this country, in this state of California, and further into international affairs it is becoming increasingly clear to me that now is not the time to mince words. Now is the time for action - so that others may understand what truth is and what power there is in simple truths.

As I have talked with others, all excitement about the Presidential candidates has drained away.  Voter turnout has gone from the higher numbers in the early primary states, to very low turnout now.  People I have talked to do not want to vote for anyone, preferring to mark nothing, write in "Mickey Mouse", or to simply not show up at the polls.  In this storm of crisis we face, this is not acceptable.

I am far from perfect. No one living on this earth is without flaws. The question is can one person still make an impact on today's bigger political scene? I believe so. With the lack of enthusiasm in the current presidential race, including record low voter turnouts, I believe not only should this theory be put to the test, but it must be put to the test. Therefore, for those who have asked, and those who want a different choice, I have taken the step of allowing myself to be a qualified write-in candidate for President of the United States here in California.

I am not doing this to show how great I am -- far from it.  What I want to do is give people a choice.  I am, as some would say, from "the 99%".  I am one who has virtually no political experience -- which is exactly what we need on the White House now.  We need someone who will lead on principle as they have lived by their principles;  who will protect our freedom and liberty, not their political friends.  The same can not be said of those who currently hold office.

If you are for my candidacy, or against it, let me know. I intend to follow my principles I laid out in my previous posts including answering nearly any question asked of me on any subject.

For reference:
 Thank you for joining with me on this important journey.  I offer myself as an alternative choice, but let us not forget that the goal is to save this country, to help people see their full potential, and to restore truth and honor.  Whoever you vote for, please vote with your eyes wide open.  But most importantly, vote - and vote for all the various positions on this and every ballot in the same manner.  With the way things are now, this is too important an election to stay at home.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Buying Congress

Today's question from Brett J:
What reforms will you take to ensure that corporations and unions cannot "buy" seats in Congress and other positions, both legislative and executive?
There are really only two ways to "buy" seats in elected positions:

  1. To spend an extraordinary amount of money to influence voters
  2. To actually coordinate and commit voter fraud, including election rigging, etc. 
As for spending money, the solution is to not limit the amount spent by anyone (excluding foreign interests).  This allows everyone's voice to be heard regardless of how skillful you are at funneling money to the right places.  It is really the only fair way to do it and then hope the voters wake up to the truth.

A lot of these ad campaigns step way over the line into the illegal territory.  If I were president I would make sure one priority of the justice department would be to investigate and prosecute all election related crimes, regardless of party, race, etc.  We must have a fair election system in order to restore trust in government and ensure that those that wish to see the US destroyed do not have an illegal way into the government.  That, and those who just have shady motives.

On top of this, though, we ultimately need to make it less desirable to "buy" seats, beyond straight prosecution.  There must be ways to reduce the ability for congress to profit from their positions via special interests, inside information for their own personal business deals, ear marks to help their friends, etc.  Until you reduce the direct value of the position, people and groups will still try to buy their way in.

Maybe the original plan in the constitution for senators was right -- have them placed by their state legislature making them accountable to their state, not whoever can give them enough money to get elected.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Question: Money has too much influence in politics?

Today's question from American's Elect was asked by Shane M:
In the wake of the Citizens United decision by the United States Supreme Court, many people believe that money has too much influence in political campaigns. Do you agree? If so, how might we reform current election laws to change this?
For better or for worse money will always be a part of politics. On the downside the political power that positions bring will always bring people who want to influence those decisions. On the upside, in a republic like ours it can be a way to voice our opinion and help get someone who we think will represent us and our interests into office.

My understanding of the Citizens United decision specifically is that it essentially allowed corporations and other organizations such as unions the ability to use unlimited funds to do their own political activities including those that promote or propose to remove a candidate.

The problem is not that corporations can contribute in unlimited amounts, but that ordinary citizens are limited.

People who feel strongly about a cause will find a way to help it. If they can't contribute directly, they will do it indirectly. Currently we have very low limits onto what an individual can contribute. If we removed this limit people could give directly without going through back-door channels.  They could join together to pool their money to do their own promotion without fear of the FEC.

I believe we should remove most contribution limits from United States Citizens and create stronger enforcement of disclosure and tracking laws. If you really want to give to that person, should you not have the right to do that with your own money? Should we not have the right to spend it how we want to?

This is part of having freedom and liberty - the ability to do with your own finances as you see fit.  Limiting this is simply further limiting our individual liberty and our voice in how we are governed.  Remember, in the US we grant the government its power over us -- a government of the people, by the people.

Monday, January 2, 2012

Americans Elect & their questions

If you have not already heard, there is an organization that is forming an alternative, internet based way of nominating a candidate for president.  Americans Elect is currently getting signatures to qualify their eventual candidate onto the ballots of every one of the 50 states.

Here you can register and "track" the candidates you are interested in.  Ultimately, those who get a sufficient quantity of "clicks" will qualify for their primary process.  They claim you can participate in their primary process as long as you are a registered voter and regardless of whether you voted in your own party's primary or not.  You do not have to change parties.

This could have a lot of interesting consequences on the election process itself, but I will let you think about that for awhile and put my comments in on it another time.

The most fascinating section is where registered members can post questions that they want to ask potential candidates.  Members can then rate them up or down.  You can look at the highest rated questions at .

I am planning on giving my own answers to several of the questions as I would answer them.  Are there any I should tackle first?  Hmmm....