Declaration of Life

Today is not the 4th of July I had envisioned.

I love the 4th of July---its celebration of all the things I love about this country, in particular, its recognition of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The past several years I have invested much time and energy studying these core individual rights and attempting to defend them from the increasing onslaught of attacks. Instead of protecting these rights, our government's actions are primarily intent on eroding the distinctions between private individual rights and public claims to the life, labor and property of its citizens. Government is usurping more and more of our private lives through regulation, taxes, welfare and entitlement programs, and "public options." Having taken over banks and auto companies, it is now poised to control the health and energy industries. What will be next?

The past few weeks, I have been focused more on the pursuit of my own personal happiness: listening to my son's tales of his recent trip to Italy, accompanying my husband to 2 concerts (first Eric Clapton/Steve Winwood, and just last night, Yes.) The bulk of my time however has been helping my in-laws deal with the diagnosis and treatment of a recently discovered cancer. There is nothing like a life-threatening illness to force the clarification of one's priorities.

So the past few weeks my time has been much more focused on my less abstract and more immediate values. This has heightened for me the toll the state of our government takes on the quality of my life. Instead of being free to live my life according to my own personal values, a substantial part of my life must be spent fending off those who would deprive me of my liberty and property. In a freer world, with a greater understanding and recognition of the right of each individual to his own life and only his own life, much less time would be spent on self-defense, and more more time would be available to the pursuit of positive values.

This is not to belittle how much better off I am than many who live in more oppressive countries, or who lived in more oppressive times. Also, I recognize that one can never completely rest in defending one's rights. It is simply that these past few weeks I have been made so much more concretely aware that time spent defending my rights is time I am unable to spend with my family, and vice versa.

The more the ideals of the Declaration of Independence are implemented in our daily lives, the more we can truly live. It is not just a declaration of independence and of individual rights. It is a Declaration for Life.

July 4th Eve

May [the Declaration of Independence] be to the world, what I believe it will be (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man."

-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President

June 24, 1826 Source: letter to Roger Weightman on June 24, 1826. It was his last letter, written ten days before his death - July 4th, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.


"If the American Revolution had produced nothing but the Declaration of Independence, it would have been worthwhile.

-- Samuel Eliot Morison (1887-1976) Rear Admiral USNR, Naval historian

(Click on image for readable text.)

Just Science

For an excellent example of the kind of scientific discourse which is needed to further our understanding of the contribution of man to global temperature and climate, see "Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously" by Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, published in Energy and Environment, Vol. 18 No. 7+8, 2007.

From the Introduction:

In science, there is an art to simplifying complex problems so that they can be meaningfully analyzed. If one oversimplifies, the analysis is meaningless. If one doesn't simplify, then one can not proceed with the analysis. When it come to global warming due to the greenhouse effect, it is clear that many approaches are highly oversimplified.

The first section of the paper presents Lindzen's analysis of where the IPCC and its supporters have oversimplified and why the conclusions they have thus drawn are in error. The second section presents Lindzen's analysis of observed data which has led him to state "serious and persistent doubts remain concerning the danger of anthropogenic global warming despite the frequent claims that the 'science is settled'." Lindzen attempts to make the science accessible to an intelligent layman --but be prepared to work a bit as he presents a level of detail which goes beyond the usual simplifications.

Here are excerpts from his concluding remarks:

Using basic theory, modeling results and observations, we can reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed warming, leading to a climate sensitivity too small to offer any significant measure of alarm--assuming current surface and tropospheric trends and model depictions of greenhouse warming are correct. The virtue of the approach presented is that it offers testable points for assessing the arguments...

What this paper attempts to do is point the way to a simple, physically sound approach to reducing uncertainty and establishing estimates of climate sensitivity that are focused and testable. Such an approach would seem to be more comfortable for science than the current emphasis on models, large ranges of persistent uncertainty and reliance on alleged consensus. Hopefully, this paper has also clarified why significant doubt persists concerning the remarkably politicized issue of global warming alarm.

Throughout the paper, Lindzen's statements are straightforward and clear. His tone is objective. His points stay focused on explaining the science behind how and why he disagrees with the conclusions of the IPCC. He offers a reasoned critque of the analysis and conclusions presented in the 4th Assessment Report, and then offers specific recommendations how more accurate conclusions can be drawn. No attempt is made to propose any political action or government policy. It is work such as this which will bring us closer to a real understanding of the effects humans have on climate.

How is this a Coup?

When the Supreme Court of a country determines its President is acting against the country's constitution and requests the military to arrest him, and this move is clearly supported by the country's Attorney General and Congress, how is this a coup?

In declaring the ousted President of Honduras thecountry's only legitmte political leader, President Obama appears to be elevating democracy (populism and majority rule) over constitutionalism and the rule of law. This policy endangers the individual rights and liberty upon which the U.S. Constitution is grounded. Democracy unconstrained by individual rights and the rule of law is no less tyrannous than a dictator---just more people get to participate in the tyranny. Keep this in mind while watching process of appointing the next Supreme Court guardian of our own Constitution.

From Net Right Nation:

In Honduras, Freedom Restored
ALG News - Sunday, 28 June 2009

Earlier this year, in the face of strong public opposition, Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales declared that he would stage a referendum to have the country’s constitutional term limits law overturned, thereby allowing him to remain indefinitely in power. The people of Honduras had adopted the single, four-year--term limit as part of their Constitution in January of 1982. Significantly, the term limits provision is one of only eight “firm articles,” out of 375. By law, cannot be amended.

The Supreme Court of Honduras declared the Zelaya referendum unconstitutional, his own Liberal Party came out in strong opposition, and the public overwhelmingly opposed his power grab. Despite this, Zelaya, a leftwing politician with strong ties to Cuba’s Castro and Venezuela’s Chavez, scheduled the referendum for Sunday, June 28. At midnight, Wednesday, June 24, the strong-arm president gave a televised speech accusing his opposition of promoting “destabilization and chaos” by attempting to thwart his unconstitutional referendum.

As the situation in Honduras continued to deteriorate, the Zelaya’s attorney general called for his ouster; his Defense Minister resigned; he fired the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for stating that he would refuse to send out troops to put down public protests; the chiefs of the army, navy, and air force resigned; and the country’s Supreme Court ordered the nation’s army and police not to support the unconstitutional referendum. (All emphases added.)

From the Wall Street Journal:

Honduras Defends Its Democracy by Mary Anastasia O'Grady

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal and that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out....

It's not surprising that the chavistas throughout the region are claiming that he was a victim of a military coup. They want to hide the fact that the military was acting on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution, and that the Congress asserted itself for that purpose too.

Coup Rocks Honduras

President Barack Obama said he was "deeply concerned" and called on all political actors in Honduras to "respect democratic norms"...

Honduras's Supreme Court gave the order for the military to detain the president, according to a former Supreme Court official who is in touch with the court.

Later, Honduras's Congress formally removed Mr. Zelaya from the presidency and named congressional leader Roberto Micheletti as his successor until the end of Mr. Zelaya's term in January...

Moves to try to stay in power through the ballot box have become increasingly common in Latin America. Leftist Latin American leaders such as Venezuela's Mr. Chavez, Ecuador's Rafael Correa and Bolivia's Evo Morales have used referendums for a similar purpose, and Colombia's right-wing President Alváro Uribe is trying to change the constitution to allow him a third term...

Latin America analysts said the Honduran coup will complicate President Obama's efforts to re-engage a region where anti-Americanism has flourished in recent years. They said Mr. Chavez is likely to seize on the crisis to depict Central America as under attack.

As a result, analysts said Mr. Obama will need to aggressively call for the reinstatement of President Zelaya, despite U.S. concerns that he is seeking to mirror Mr. Chávez's campaign to secure limitless rule.

From the New York Times:

In a Coup in Honduras, Ghosts of Past U.S. Policies

President Obama on Monday strongly condemned the ouster of Honduras’s president as an illegal coup that set a “terrible precedent” for the region, as the country’s new government defied international calls to return the toppled president to power and clashed with thousands of protesters...

American officials did not believe that Mr. Zelaya’s plans for the referendum were in line with the Constitution...

[O]ne administration official said that while the United States thought the referendum was a bad idea, it did not justify a coup.“On the one instance, we’re talking about conducting a survey, a nonbinding survey; in the other instance, we’re talking about the forcible removal of a president from a country”...

[A]dministration officials said that they did not expect that the military would go so far as to carry out a coup. “There was talk of how they might remove the president from office, how he could be arrested, on whose authority they could do that,” the administration official said. But the official said that the speculation had focused on legal maneuvers to remove the president, not a coup...

Roberto Micheletti, the veteran congressional leader who was sworn in by his fellow lawmakers on Sunday to replace Mr. Zelaya, seemed to plead with the world to understand that Mr. Zelaya’s arrest by the army had been under an official arrest warrant based on his flouting of the Constitution.

The Honduran president was forcibly removed from office with the assistance and support of the military. Power has been quickly returned to civilian control with the appointment of a new president by the country's legislative body. From what I am reading, the former President was in violation of the law and those who acted to remove him from office were acting to preserve the rule of law.

If a "coup" is simply a sudden take-over of power, then this term is being accurately used. However, the connotations which accompany the term imply an illegal act by the military against the proper supremacy of civilian government. Recent events in Honduras do not at this time appear to fall within this meaning of the term and it should therefore be avoided.


.

Science vs. Politics, Part 3

Since the automatic feeds don't show comments, I wanted to bring two recent ones to more promience by posting them on my "front page." Doug links to an article by economist Dr. George Reisman which argues that the free market is the best mechanism for dealing with environmental concerns. Burgess puts in syllogistic form the alarmist's argument, starkly showing the missing link.

Doug Reich said...

Beth,

Per your request, here is Dr. Reisman's post in which he addresses this issue

http://georgereisman.com/blog/2008/02/word-to-environmentalists.html#links

Brilliant as usual.

Burgess Laughlin said...

> "This fact in and of itself should make their 'scientific' conclusions suspect."

Indeed, and the problem is not only pseudo-science, but pseudo-philosophy.

Beth, thank you. Your brief post presents a radical challenge. If pro-reason advocates pick it up and use it, the environmentalists must answer--or reveal themselves as evaders.

The challenge is to show how to complete this syllogism:

1. The climate is changing.
2.
3. Therefore an increase in statism is needed.