Calvin Coolidge, the 30th President of the United States, presided over what was, in my opinion, the last true conservative government this nation has seen.
His was a government of reduced spending, reduced regulations, and lower taxes - all the things modern conservatives cheer. But his government was also one of high tariffs, protectionism and isolationist policies - things modern "free trade" conservatives decry.
But... when did conservatism become incompatible with 'America first'?
When did protecting American businesses, (who pay a fair living wage), from unfair competition with foreign businesses, (who utilize cheap overseas labor), become anathema to conservatives?
If America doesn't wake up and protect its own - who will?
And if America loses the manufacturing battle (as it will without either protection -or- some form of legalized slavery) what will we do when the inevitable invasion comes. Ask yourself this: If the rest of the world declares war on America tomorrow, will we have the manufacturing capacity to defend ourselves?
That should be the focus of American conservatism - not global trade markets.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Thomistic ID
I'm going to put forth the hypothesis that Otto H. Schindewolf's "types" and Aristotle's "forms" are equivalent terms when it comes to biological organisms.
This marriage of Schindewolf's saltational theory of evolution with Aristotelian metaphysics is my attempt at building a framework for, what I would call "Thomistic ID". "Thomistic" because Thomas Aquinas (possibly the greatest Christian philosopher of all time) took Aristotle one step further - fully integrating Aristotelian metaphysics into Christian theology - and "ID" because the questions I'm going to ask are scientific questions (though in a metaphysical framework) directly related to the Intelligent Design debate.
First off, Aquinas settled for himself (and a lot of others) the proof of God's existence and the design of nature in his "Five Ways" or "Five proofs of God's existence", so there is no need for the Thomist to speculate about whether something that is "complex" has to be designed. That's not what this is about. This is all about "potential". I'd like to focus in particular on Aquinas' concept of active and passive potential: In Aquinas' view, something that has active potential to become something else can do so without the need for God's intervention, but something that has only passive potential to be something else can only do so if God intervenes.
Schindewolf, arguably Europe's foremost paleontologist of the mid 20th century, outlined his basic theory regarding the evolution of "types" (characterized by "basic orgainizational and structural differences") which was based on the sudden appearances of major types in the fossil record. In his view, Darwinian evolution could not account for the appearance of new types.
These then are the 2 big questions I have for science:
1. Does one form have the active potential to evolve into another?
2. Do non-living materials have the active potential to become living organisms?
The answers can only be settled by scientific inquiry - through experimentation and observation. If we, or any other created force, can cause either of these things to occur, then (according to thomism) God's direct intervention was not required. If we cannot, through repeated attempts, make either of these happen, we can then assume that these things possess only passive potential and must therfore (again, according to thomism) be activated by God.
This marriage of Schindewolf's saltational theory of evolution with Aristotelian metaphysics is my attempt at building a framework for, what I would call "Thomistic ID". "Thomistic" because Thomas Aquinas (possibly the greatest Christian philosopher of all time) took Aristotle one step further - fully integrating Aristotelian metaphysics into Christian theology - and "ID" because the questions I'm going to ask are scientific questions (though in a metaphysical framework) directly related to the Intelligent Design debate.
First off, Aquinas settled for himself (and a lot of others) the proof of God's existence and the design of nature in his "Five Ways" or "Five proofs of God's existence", so there is no need for the Thomist to speculate about whether something that is "complex" has to be designed. That's not what this is about. This is all about "potential". I'd like to focus in particular on Aquinas' concept of active and passive potential: In Aquinas' view, something that has active potential to become something else can do so without the need for God's intervention, but something that has only passive potential to be something else can only do so if God intervenes.
Schindewolf, arguably Europe's foremost paleontologist of the mid 20th century, outlined his basic theory regarding the evolution of "types" (characterized by "basic orgainizational and structural differences") which was based on the sudden appearances of major types in the fossil record. In his view, Darwinian evolution could not account for the appearance of new types.
These then are the 2 big questions I have for science:
1. Does one form have the active potential to evolve into another?
2. Do non-living materials have the active potential to become living organisms?
The answers can only be settled by scientific inquiry - through experimentation and observation. If we, or any other created force, can cause either of these things to occur, then (according to thomism) God's direct intervention was not required. If we cannot, through repeated attempts, make either of these happen, we can then assume that these things possess only passive potential and must therfore (again, according to thomism) be activated by God.
My New Blog
I will be posting new thoughts and old (like the one I just posted from my old blog) in the coming months. I've had two previous blogs - one under a ficticious name and one that closed shop - I'm hoping that this will be my permanent home!
Raise the Debt Ceiling Why?
A whole slew of politicians and pundits are harping about how we "have to" raise the debt ceiling (think of it as the national credit card limit - which is currently set at $14.294 trillion!!!) They all act as if the economy will collapse if we don't allow them to borrow more money.
Yeah right.
What they forget to tell us is that if we don't raise the debt ceiling, but instead actually pay off some of the debt, they can still borrow money - as long as the total owed is not over $14.294 trillion. So essentially the debt ceiling is a hard cap.
So why raise it?
I'll tell you why. Our politicians are addicted to spending. That's it. Imagine for a moment that you were so irresponsible that you completely maxed out your credit cards. Then imagine that you had the power to magically raise your credit limit on your own. What would you do? Well, most responsible people would never put themselves in that position in the first place so it’s hard for us to imagine such a thing, but these politicians are not responsible. They’re like shopaholics who can continually raise their own credit limit! All they'll ever want is MORE!!!
It's time to put a stop to it. If the debt ceiling is not raised, it will force these money-grubbers to stop the spending spree and start to pay off the massive debt we already owe. Then what we should do is periodically lower the debt ceiling until we get it to zero!
So I say, any politician who votes to raise the debt ceiling - for any reason - should be currently serving their last term in office.
Yeah right.
What they forget to tell us is that if we don't raise the debt ceiling, but instead actually pay off some of the debt, they can still borrow money - as long as the total owed is not over $14.294 trillion. So essentially the debt ceiling is a hard cap.
So why raise it?
I'll tell you why. Our politicians are addicted to spending. That's it. Imagine for a moment that you were so irresponsible that you completely maxed out your credit cards. Then imagine that you had the power to magically raise your credit limit on your own. What would you do? Well, most responsible people would never put themselves in that position in the first place so it’s hard for us to imagine such a thing, but these politicians are not responsible. They’re like shopaholics who can continually raise their own credit limit! All they'll ever want is MORE!!!
It's time to put a stop to it. If the debt ceiling is not raised, it will force these money-grubbers to stop the spending spree and start to pay off the massive debt we already owe. Then what we should do is periodically lower the debt ceiling until we get it to zero!
So I say, any politician who votes to raise the debt ceiling - for any reason - should be currently serving their last term in office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)