This week, I had the pleasure hearing a portion of the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show. I have been exposed to Rush since I was reasonably young, as the father of my best friend growing up was a devout fan. I suspect he still is.
I hear snippets of the show every now and then, but I have yet to hear anything particularly enlightening come out of his mouth.
I'll give you two examples.
On 24 Feb, Richard Branson had a 747 flown from London to Amsterdam with one engine powered by coconut/fuel mixture. It was a demonstration of biofuel viability in commercial airliners. For the complete story, check here. Rush, authoring "Why We Can't Accept the Premise of the Liberal Global Warming Hoax," decided to provide his listeners with some thoughts on the use of coconut biofuels in commercial jetliners.
..."do you realize how ridiculous this is? Do you know what happens to coconut oil? At room temperature, it will solidify. I know, because I've got gazillion packets of it with popcorn that I use in my theatre. Coconut oil will solidify! You cannot put it in a jet fuel tank, especially at high altitude. It will freeze."
Thank you, Dr. Science. I'm sure the engineers at Boeing would like to know what will and will not work with their engines. I'm sure they would also appreciate it if you bound your thoughts in "reality." Yes, coconut oil you use with the popcorn in your theatre is solid at room temperature. (You have no idea how hard I am trying to avoid the obvious weight observation here...) Coconut oil is liquid above 76 degrees F. Last time I checked, however, jet engines don't run at 76 degrees F. They run someplace significantly higher, I suspect, depending on the design and type. Interestingly, even at "freezing" temperatures, nearing 550 mph at 35,000 feet, coconut oil could be maintained as a liquid.
As a point of interest, I specialized in rotating machinery, specifically jet engines, in college. Maybe that's just bragging, but it seemed pertinent.
It's not so much that Rush is wrong. It's that he claims to be an authority on anything and everything. "I now know what George Washington felt like." Somehow I think the struggles George Washington faced during the Revolutionary War, were significantly different, if not significantly more life-threatening, than the trials Rush faces on a daily basis. Although, perception being reality, Rush DID say that "the Revolutionary War was nothing," during his comparison of his conservative campaign relative to Washington in Valley Forge.
From conservative politics down to idea of burning coconut-kerosene fuel mixtures in jet airplanes, Rush claims to have definitive answers. Not opinions. Answers.
It's frustrating to me how conservatives allow this kind of arrogance define such a significant portion of the republican base.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Sex, drugs, and guns.
If you've read my blog for long, you'll not be surprised at my concerns regarding primary education within the U.S.
However, something that I think is well on the path to helping young people grow up is sexual education. Educating children (not too young, and no, I don't know what "too young" is) on the risks of having sex, and how to protect themselves, and the context in which sex is universally appropriate is an honorable endeavor. I think it makes tremendous sense for this to be taught in school where general information and context can be delivered uniformly to students. However, and I think most parents would agree (I will be the first to point out that I am NOT a parent,) sex education might be a part of primary education, but should be partnered with the individual context, morality, and communication of the parents. Schools probably shouldn't be involved in the "pre-marital vs. post-marital vs. extramarital," discussion, but can provide fact-based discussions of threats, risks, concerns, and protection about sexual relations.
The same thing goes for drug education. Warning children of the threat the drugs pose to our society as a whole, but also to individuals that partake in the drug culture is an appropriate venture for schools to take part in. However, like sex, it is up to parents to couple discussions and communications with the lessons in school to provide context on the individual morality associated with the values of the core family. Some values see drugs as a moral issue, others see them as a social issue. Providing that context probably shouldn't be done globally by the school, but by the parents, and reinforced by global, fact-based lessons, by the school.
So... how is it that guns don't fall into this category? It seems to me the topic fits snugly into the drugs and sex contexts. Schools could provide fact-based information on the threats, risks, and benefits of guns. Parents, however, can provide the core value context and morality of guns, gun control, and gun value to the children through open communications, much the same way this can (and probably should) be done with sex and drugs.
I believe that gun education at a young age is a start to helping folks at the most risk for abusing firearms, the same way we use education to promote (not abolish) safe sex and drug avoidance.
I would speculate that guns are a bigger threat in inner cities and suburbs, where children are not exposed to positive gun experiences and lessons at a young age (even if you normalize the data for population disparities). Truly, I would suspect that most inner city children are exposed to guns through either a negative source (someone "bad" that has guns locally, someone friendly being killed by guns) or through video games which glorify the use of guns as killing/vindication tools. However, in more rural areas, children are exposed to guns at a much younger age, and with positive connotations. Guns are to be respected. Guns are tools, not weapons. Guns are not to be mishandled.
I learned how to shoot a rifle (BB gun) when I was 3. I have a strong respect for what guns can do, and how they should be handled/treated. To this day, I do not shoot often. I own a small handful of guns, but they are on my grandfather's farm several hundreds of miles away. I have no desire to own a gun in my house, not because I'm "anti-gun," or because I don't like guns, but because I view them as a liability in my home. Why should I have a gun in my home? If someone were to break in, there's nothing in my house (aside from my wife) that I would be willing to kill for. And I have learned that if you're going to point a gun at something, you better be willing to shoot it, and if that something is a person, you better shoot to kill. That's not a responsibility I want in my home. I don't even like having the responsibility of taking out the trash! So I choose not to have a gun. I'm guessing that rationale does not go through the head of the street thug in downtown Detroit.
However, I believe the vast majority of "anti-gun" lobbyists/activists, have never been to a gun education course. They have never fired a rifle and handgun. They do not know what it means to "respect" a gun. They know what it means to avoid guns.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. It's not about making guns go away. It's about making sure that only responsible, trained, educated people have guns in appropriate situations.
However, something that I think is well on the path to helping young people grow up is sexual education. Educating children (not too young, and no, I don't know what "too young" is) on the risks of having sex, and how to protect themselves, and the context in which sex is universally appropriate is an honorable endeavor. I think it makes tremendous sense for this to be taught in school where general information and context can be delivered uniformly to students. However, and I think most parents would agree (I will be the first to point out that I am NOT a parent,) sex education might be a part of primary education, but should be partnered with the individual context, morality, and communication of the parents. Schools probably shouldn't be involved in the "pre-marital vs. post-marital vs. extramarital," discussion, but can provide fact-based discussions of threats, risks, concerns, and protection about sexual relations.
The same thing goes for drug education. Warning children of the threat the drugs pose to our society as a whole, but also to individuals that partake in the drug culture is an appropriate venture for schools to take part in. However, like sex, it is up to parents to couple discussions and communications with the lessons in school to provide context on the individual morality associated with the values of the core family. Some values see drugs as a moral issue, others see them as a social issue. Providing that context probably shouldn't be done globally by the school, but by the parents, and reinforced by global, fact-based lessons, by the school.
So... how is it that guns don't fall into this category? It seems to me the topic fits snugly into the drugs and sex contexts. Schools could provide fact-based information on the threats, risks, and benefits of guns. Parents, however, can provide the core value context and morality of guns, gun control, and gun value to the children through open communications, much the same way this can (and probably should) be done with sex and drugs.
I believe that gun education at a young age is a start to helping folks at the most risk for abusing firearms, the same way we use education to promote (not abolish) safe sex and drug avoidance.
I would speculate that guns are a bigger threat in inner cities and suburbs, where children are not exposed to positive gun experiences and lessons at a young age (even if you normalize the data for population disparities). Truly, I would suspect that most inner city children are exposed to guns through either a negative source (someone "bad" that has guns locally, someone friendly being killed by guns) or through video games which glorify the use of guns as killing/vindication tools. However, in more rural areas, children are exposed to guns at a much younger age, and with positive connotations. Guns are to be respected. Guns are tools, not weapons. Guns are not to be mishandled.
I learned how to shoot a rifle (BB gun) when I was 3. I have a strong respect for what guns can do, and how they should be handled/treated. To this day, I do not shoot often. I own a small handful of guns, but they are on my grandfather's farm several hundreds of miles away. I have no desire to own a gun in my house, not because I'm "anti-gun," or because I don't like guns, but because I view them as a liability in my home. Why should I have a gun in my home? If someone were to break in, there's nothing in my house (aside from my wife) that I would be willing to kill for. And I have learned that if you're going to point a gun at something, you better be willing to shoot it, and if that something is a person, you better shoot to kill. That's not a responsibility I want in my home. I don't even like having the responsibility of taking out the trash! So I choose not to have a gun. I'm guessing that rationale does not go through the head of the street thug in downtown Detroit.
However, I believe the vast majority of "anti-gun" lobbyists/activists, have never been to a gun education course. They have never fired a rifle and handgun. They do not know what it means to "respect" a gun. They know what it means to avoid guns.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. It's not about making guns go away. It's about making sure that only responsible, trained, educated people have guns in appropriate situations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)