National Parks and Funding

This will probably one of the few posts where I will discuss politics but I will try to remain as neutral as possible but we all have to acknowledge that most things we read do have some sort of bias especially when it comes to things like the federal budget so I apologize in advance. If you have been following this blog for any length of time you probably have a good idea of how I feel about the National Park System here in the United States. If you are new here or have just missed it lets just say I started a series discussing the National Parks I visit for a reason. This is why on Tuesday, March 29th, when I picked up the Texas Tech school paper, the Daily Toreador (DT), and saw an opinion piece advocating for no cuts to the National Park Service budget. The article is well written, for an opinion article in a college paper, and expresses a lot of my views on the subject.

People from around the world visit America’s national parks for a multitude of reasons. The parks offer unparalleled natural beauty, outstanding recreational activities, important historical preservation and education, and both mental and physical health improvement opportunities. Appropriating adequate funding to the national parks is essential to continue offering this to all Americans.

I was happy to see something like this in the school paper but I was soon to be disappointed. The following day, Wednesday March 30th, I picked up the school paper again and when I got to the opinion page saw this letter to the editor. I was seriously disappointed by what the author had to say because he seemed to be drastically misinformed. So I am going to try to destruct a lot of his argument, let me make sure to preface this by saying my economic background is lacking and there will be a lot of statements from personal experience that may not apply to everyone but I feel that these will work best for the arguments that he makes. So lets get started shall we.

While the author looks at the benefits of national parks, he fails to realize what the costs are. The budget for national parks is close to $3 billion. However, if you look at the budget for the department that oversees national parks (Department of Interior), its budget authority for 2011 is $18 billion.

$3 billion may sound like a lot of money but even when you compare it to the whole $18 billion for the Department of the Interior (DOI) that is really a small percentage. But let's expand this out, according to the New York Times, click the link for a really cool way to see where your money goes, the Federal Budget for 2010 was $3.60 trillion and President Obama's plan for 2011 is $3.69 trillion. So what does this mean? It means that if we cut all funding to the NPS you wouldn't see a change in either of those numbers. So how much percentage wise are we talking about, less than 1% of the federal budget for 2010 and in fact is less that 0.1% of the total budget. So we really won't save that much money if we cut the NPS out entirely.

Instead of spending money trying to conserve land and national resources, I would feel better auctioning off government-owned land, national parks and other resources. The federal government owns nearly 30 percent, or 650 million acres, of the United States.

Another solution proposed by Dr. Walter E. Williams of George Mason University is allowing people to exchange future Social Security benefits for government-owned land.

I included these two paragraphs together because lets face it they are arguing for the same thing. So his problem isn't with the NPS it is with the DOI, whose total operating budget is still less than 1% of the entire US Budget. These federal owned land which he feels should be sold include the National Parks but a far larger percentage of them belong to National Forests and National Grasslands, with some other land uses being by the BLM and Indian Reservations among others. National Forests and Grasslands are far from being just protected land they are land that the government allows for private use of. They do this by allowing logging and cattle grazing in these lands. Wait what? Yes that is right these lands can be used by private companies/individuals for logging and grazing but the government asks for a fee and that the land isn't overgrazed or clear cut. In order words they prevent private companies from destroying these resources for future use, so American will continue to have natural resources so we can continue to be a great country into the future, oh yeah and so we can continue to have clean drinking water.

The author also mentions how national parks can promote exercise and education. Nature is not the only place to get physical exercise. Doing an intense cardiovascular workout would burn more calories than hours at a national park.

Getting a 30 min "intense cardiovascular workout" may burn more calories in the short term, not that I am sure about this fact, but long hikes can build up endurance which means that you will have a better metabolism and be able to burn more calories sitting watching TV at the end of the day than if you just went to the gym. Also I feel the author has never hiked up a trail that included 2,000+ feet of elevation change over ~4 miles starting at ~1 mile above sea level, I loved the Guads, because trust me you are burning a ton of calories no matter who you are.

Now this next statement really got to me:

As for education, if people really wanted to get an understanding of history, they could spend an afternoon at the library or do online research.

I can read about Gettysburg all I want, I can hear that the Confederates had to cross a mile of open field, uphill, till the cows come home, but until you are standing at the Confederate position in Gettysburg and you see how impossible it really was. You can "learn" history from books but you don't really know history till you can experience it yourself, see it for yourself. This also neglects the fact that many of these historical locations saw the deaths of thousands of American soldiers many of them were never identified and were buried in mass graves which are often lost to history. The only thing we know about these graves is that they were on the battlefields, these battlefields serve as reminders as well as graveyards. The Civil War battlefields of the east especially those around Washington D.C. have already been built up around and we have lost portions of history forever and we need it to stop.

I am not going to address his last two paragraphs as they are purely political and I don't want to get into these statements here. Some other arguments have thankfully been put forth in a letter to the editor of the DT today, Friday April 1st, so go read those as well. Also I want to admit that there are reasons that you could justify cutting some money from the NPS and DOI but none of the above are them. Let me end with words that should probably be familiar to all, well at least those from the U.S., explain the need to protect a lot of these lands from President Abraham Lincoln.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Lubbock Paleontology

When I first moved out to Lubbock, Texas I wasn't sure what I was getting myself in for. I knew that the terrain would be flat but I had also heard stories that there is nothing to do here. While I have been living out here I have found plenty of things to do, including visits to the Museum of Texas Tech and the American Windpower Center (among others) within the city and trips further west to visit several national parks. One of the places in Lubbock that came as a surprise to me was the Lubbock Lake Landmark (LLL) (Wikipedia article) [Photo at left of Short Faced Bear, Arctodus simus, statue at the LLL]. The LLL is a primarily archaeological site that shows evidence of at least 12000 years of human civilization from Clovis time to present. Well an article in today's Daily Toreador, the Texas Tech University student paper, talks about a new exhibit at the LLL that shows the animals that have been found at, or near, the site through time.

The exhibit includes surprising animals once living in Lubbock. The Hub City once was home to many exotic animals no longer found anywhere near Lubbock.

“Short-faced bears, sloths and camels all lived in Lubbock at one time or another,” [Susan] Rowe [education program manager of the LLL] said. “Many visitors are very surprised about camels once living in our area.”

I saw the exhibit a few weeks ago and while it is small it is really well done. Most of the animals they show are from the site itself but some of them have not been found on site but at a nearby site, about an hours drive, and a formation that underlies most of the landmark, the Blancan Formation (yes the type locality for the Blancan Land Mammal Age). Overall worth a couple of hours of your time if you are in Lubbock.

Satire at its finest

So while trying to accomplish the general truck load of stuff you have to accomplish at the end of every semester add too that trying to get Thesis proposals finalized I have found very little time to do much else. So I daily take a coffee break and read the school newspaper, as I am sure you have figured out by now. Well today I came across this article and while I recommend you read the whole thing let me point out one section that really got my attention, let me preface this by saying that for the whole month of April we are supposed to get 1.29 inches of rain and as of writing this article we had received 4.56 inches and most of that was over a 4 day period (source):

Thirdly, they proclaim the rest of the civilized world has it. Clearly not, as Lubbock has not implemented them.

One Lubbock resident obviously disagrees as well. “Real American cities don’t need such tomfoolery like science on our roads. The internal combustion engine in my Hummer, powered by foreign liquids found under the Earth’s crust only needs a flat stretch of formulated asphalt to work. Science has its place: where I’m not.”

I’m also skeptical. Anything that uses the laws of physics to move water from a dangerous spot to a basin seems like it could be witchcraft, which is why I call upon whoever is in charge of the Tech roads to ban these contraptions from our university’s streets. They should continue to do important things, like arresting that bicycle for not parking on a university-approved bike rack, regardless if there are no open spots or ticketing that car that has been parked in the 30-minute zone for 32 minutes.

I was still unsure, although I was leaning toward it being, if it was satire or not till I reached this point. After reading this it took everything in me to not just start cracking up. This is how a lot of America feels and that is what makes this funny. This opinion has been taken on publicly by Gov. Sarah Palin when she was addressing global climate change and said that we [Americans] don't need, "this snake oil science stuff" (source).

Satire at its best should make us think about ourselves and our surroundings but do so in a slightly funny way that points out how funny some of what we believe actually is. Unfortunately many people become so ingrained with a belief system that even when you point out some of the more ridiculous parts of it, and every system has them, people accuse you of trying to offend them. I don't know that this piece was aimed at the right audience some will get it some won't for sure but the people who will see it probably won't get that it isn't just saying that we need drainage here in Lubbock, we do, but will miss the broader point he is trying to make. I agree this is far from a great piece of literature that will be studied for years to come but the point still comes across pretty darn well.

For a good satirical YouTuber who angers a lot of Christians go here!

Under God in the Pledge

So while reading the school paper yesterday I came across an opinion article written by one of the more liberal writers for the paper (typically the antithesis of Mr. Long). Well apparently in West Texas even the liberals are pretty freaking conservative. The article (found here) discusses why the "under God" portion of the pledge should not be removed. Originally I was going to break this down point by point but the commenters on the article did it pretty well already so I will just address one thing that drew my ire more than the rest. After discussing how the pledge was originally written to be used by any country that wanted it he says this:

Still, identifying with Christian beliefs myself, I’m sure some of you who do not are saying, “Well of course you see it that way.” My response to those people is quite simple: At any time you are free to leave the United States.

Despite my religious views or those of the next man, I think some have failed to realize this isn’t an issue of religion; it’s an issue of patriotism. The pledge was not designed to pay tribute to God or any other higher power. It was adopted with the intentions of its use being to express pride and support of our country. When the pledge is said, we face a flag, not an alter [sic].

This issue is far from an issue of patriotism. I love this country and am always grateful to those who have sacrificed so I can live here in peace and drink excess of coffee and do what I want, to a certain extent obviously. But your God and my God may very well difference this country was founded on freedom of religion (regardless of what the Texas School Board thinks). In fact the First Amendment to the Constitution in what we call the Bill of Rights says this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;[...]

There have been court cases to back this up since then including Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994) in which the Justice David Souter when writing the opinion of the majority said, "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." Even as recently as 2007 court cases have supported this, see Inouye v Kemna. So Mr. Irby if you would prefer to live in a country that has an established religion then you are currently living in the wrong one. This is a democracy as you point out but we have rules in place to prevent:

Nor should a country founded on the basis of democracy be made to deny the wishes of the majority given that accommodating these wishes hurts no one, but denying them is in essence denying our country’s foundation and principles upon which it was built.

We have these rules to prevent this majority or mob rule from interfering on the rights of the minorities!

Really Mr. Long, Really?

So I have been sitting at 99 posts for a long time but I feel so proud I have somehow managed to put together 100 posts, counting this one. Yay! go me.

Ok now on to the real reason for this post. So one of the opinion writers, Roy Long, for the Texas Tech University paper, the Daily Toreador, has published some things before that I have disagreed with majorly (see here and trust me there are more that I didn't blog about), well he did it again. While the majority of the article (found here) I have no problem with it is about being able to change our views as new evidence comes forth, heck this is what science is all about. In fact early on he says this:

If I could travel in time and re-write those articles, I would change a few of them.

I would be more careful about wording because certain phrases I have used in columns have offended others and caused them to not pay attention to the message of the column.

Yes this is very true many times does the point of his article get lost in amongst some small piece of evidence he uses to "support" his view that is outright wrong. I will openly admit that I have had to relook over some of his articles because of this. But in the end doesn't this come down to the writer of the article?

Well this doesn't seem bad so far I was actually enjoying the article and he was making a valid point then he says this:

However, our society does not act this way. One glaring example is “Climategate.” The scientific community has been afraid to even accept data that might possibly argue the so-called climate change theory is wrong. They intentionally changed data so there would be no opposition to their theories. This is the ultimate appeal to dishonest consistency.

I literally put the paper on my desk at this point. I thought alright well climate change is still a developing science so maybe he was just confused or maybe he just hasn't read the full e-mails (see here, here, and here for starters). So I picked the paper back up and read this:

The response to the “intelligent design” theory has also been very similar. Instead of addressing the issues that have arose from Behe’s ideas, the scientific community at large has simply dismissed him because he dares question the god of evolution. Science, which was once progressive because it dared to contradict the wrong but established theories of men, has fallen to dogmatism.

I know rushed through the rest of his article and went out in the hall looking for someone to talk to, seeing no one I relaxed and read the rest of his article again. Why did this paragraph draw such a reaction out of me? Because Behe is wrong and intelligent design is not science and therefore should be dismissed by the scientific community (see Kitzmiller vs. Dover). I could cite the hundreds of people who have refuted ID as an invalid theory but in science it only takes one so may I recommend Only a Theory by Dr. Kenneth Miller (see my post here).

So why are these your two examples in the entire paper when both of them are the exact opposite of what you are trying to prove? Both ID and global climate change denialists (doesn't have the same ring as global warming denialists) are doing what you are claiming you are against. They are trying the keep the status quo the same they are not admitting they are wrong and moving on. With global climate change the e-mails were quote mined to get just a couple of quotes that sound like global climate change isn't happening or at least isn't man made. At least IDers see that there is some evidence for evolution but they still want God in there. Guess what that is still a very unprogressive statement.

So somewhere along the lines I really lost what Mr. Long was trying to argue so congrats Mr. Long you have successfully written another article that does the complete opposite of what you were trying to achieve.

Obama shouldn’t be silencing opposition

I want to start by apologizing for not posting recently studying and writing has been getting in the way of that, I should be studying now but I don't want to so I'm not.

This post won't be about science like normal and while I said don't want to talk about politics in here well sometime you can't escape it. I came across this story while reading the paper this morning. Now maybe I am a masochist but whatever it I always read the opinion portion of the paper and that is when I came across this. So I read the headline and decided to go ahead and read it.

The article started to annoy me right from the start:

Among the many volatile threads common in the current administration, there is one that is especially troubling. That is the repetition of the attacks our president and his media representatives have repeatedly made against any voice that dares counter his own.

We saw this when they set up a White House Web site for citizens to report any suspicious or contrary information about health insurance during the summer. We saw it when they unleashed havoc on Fox News for daring to criticize President Barack Obama. And we saw it when the administration decided to let loose another attack. This time it battled Edmunds.com over its criticism of the cash for clunkers program.

Ok the White House did not set up a way to report people who were lying, and there were plenty of lies, during the summer they just wanted to know about misconceptions about the health debate so they could correct them in speeches etc. Next how did they unleash "havoc on Fox News"? All they did was refuse to be interviewed by Fox News I would too if they were calling me these type of things:



But you know what I'll give you a chance lets see how you summarize the Obama vs Edmunds argument:

To sum up the squabble quickly, Edmunds claims the administration failed to deliver the facts about each “clunker,” costing taxpayers $24,000, and although it boosted third-quarter sales, the fourth quarter, which is traditionally the worst season for car dealerships, will report abysmal numbers at best.

This administration reports, in contrast, the excitement of an inventive vehicle program drew in purchases that previously would not have happened. What they fail to say is this is highly unlikely for those who did not qualify, which is a greater percentage than one would initially think and during the CFC program, prices on vehicles actually rose.

Really that is it they disagree on what is going to happen in the future? And how is this silencing the opposition? Last time I checked we were allowed to say what we want and we were allowed to disagree in none of the things that you quoted did the Obama administration stop anyone from saying anything. You can speak your mind and guess what he is a citizen of the U.S. so he can...speak his mind too heaven forbid it disagrees with what you think.

I will let you read the rest of the article if you want but he pretty much goes on to say that Obama is wrong and that he doesn't let us use free speech but there is one last thing I want to discuss from the article:

The First Amendment states American citizens have liberty in the areas of the free exercise of religion, of speech, of the press, of assembly and to redress grievances before government. This is a statement that ought to take primacy in the lives of our leaders.

Guess what Obama is an American citizen and has the right to say what he thinks as well but even more so find me one instance where Obama has stopped any of these. Where the Tea party protesters allowed to protest? Yup. Are people still allowed to practice whatever religion they want? Sure. Do people call Obama a Nazi/Hitler? Yup. Has it ever been stopped? Nope. So you and he disagree on political issues, what did I expect living in West Texas, but that doesn't mean that you are being oppressed in what you can do/say.

Facts vs Politics

So some times I have to look for something to go off about and sometimes you just pick it up on the way to your office. Today it was the later when I came across this article in today's Daily Toreador, the school paper for Texas Tech.

So most of the article is not what I want to deal with it is kind of blah and not really something I care to make an statement on and there were somethings I actually agreed with while reading this. That was until I came to these next few statements:

The fact these individuals believe [...] or that we did not evolve from lower forms of life [...] does not make them evil people.

and then further on

However, if we turn off our minds to their reasoning([...] they do not bow to the supposed all-powerful altar of scientific theory, etc.) we only damage ourselves.

This pretty much pissed me off but what did I expect I am in West Texas. A scientific theory is not a matter of personal belief it is based on evidence, far too much to list right now. You are truing off your reasoning by accepting what has been told to you by church leaders for hundreds of years. Examine the evidence, all of it, with open eyes not with the idea that it is already wrong. The fact that they mix in evolution with Political ideals such as socialism etc is exactly what makes me mad it is not a political issue it is not an idea to be put up for debate by the common person the ideas are being refined and debated amongst scientist and trust me if someone disproves evolution it will very quickly be published in the popular media.

So some of you might be wondering why I don't write a reply in the student paper. I am not because 1) my writing is pretty obviously crappy because I know what I think just not how to write it down and 2) That is not the main topic that they are talking about in their piece, although with the way these topics are included he kind of goes against the main point in his article. Anyway feel free to leave any comments if you think I am over reacting or under reacting here as well as state your opinion on the page for the article itself.