Friday, October 12, 2007

Obituary of Nobel Prize


Today is just another day.

Everyday we go by our own business. Some celebrate certain events, some mourn for certain events, and some feel indifferent for certain events. The significance of today is the death of Nobel Prize, the award that has inspired so many people since 1901. The truth of scientific spirit and discipline, unshaken, has sustained never-ending painstaking debates and cross-verifications, and the pinnacle of the honor in our time, the Nobel Prize, has graced those who humbly explored the new realm of the nature by faithfully defending the integrity of science. It is no more.

Science is humble, but scientists are arrogant.

A joke I used to make, every once in a while when the opportunity presented itself, was that if I hadn't been distracted or sabotaged by certain things during my teenage/young adulthood years, I could've won a Nobel Prize by now. Well, the joke had more to do with my respect for the Nobel Prize than my actual potential per se. So what happened all of the sudden I mourn for the death of the Nobel Prize? DIdn't the Nobel prize panel just gave out awards over the past few days?

It's all because of the inconvenient Nobel Peace Prize winners Al Gore and IPCC( International Panel on Climate Changes) for their manipulative work of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. The presentation of the award has symbolized the death of the Nobel Prize. For that, I'm writing this obituary to mourn for the corruption of the Nobel Prize review panel and disgrace to our science community.

My loyal readers should've known by now that I am very vocal about my displeasure of the political crap surrounding the anthropogenic global warming issue. In order to illustrate the atrocity of Nobel Peace Prize review panel's incompetency, let me borrow some words I used in another on-line debate about anthropogenic global warming to demonstrate Al Gore's inconvenient baloney.

The National Academy of Sciences, for instance, acknowledge that Man-made global warming is "very likely" but confess there is little certainty or agreement regarding its extent or effects.

The IPCC (funded and controlled by eco-extremists Ted Turner and Tim Wirth)
is certain that men are causing global warming and in 2001 forecast that melting ice caps would cause a sea level rise of 18". Once it became evident that the ice caps are not melting they conveniently ran out of funds to reassess the actual amount of sea level rising. Of course even that 18" figure was based on their "mid-level" emissions scenario which NASA has roundly rejected as being extreme.

And then there comes Al Gore, who shamelessly announces that all the ice on earth will melt to raise the sea level by 20 feet.

What mainstream scientists do agree on is that

1.) the earth is warming, and man is probably a part of the cause
2.) If you get your money form Ted Turner you are likely to make wild predictions about sea level rising.
3.) Al Gore is completely off the chart predicting sea level to rise many times higher than now-discredited IPCC predictions.

Conclusions:

a) NASA and NAS making moderate statements, hedged with lots of doubt and counter-studies.
b) IPCC making radical statements that the first two organizations reject.
c) On the far left is the Union of Concerned Scientists(UCS) making even more radical predictions that everyone outside the UCS rejects.
d) Of course, Al Gore outshines them all. His 'Inconvenient Truth" can only be true if the most radical scientists above understate the issue by at least a factor of five.

That's what the late Nobel Prize is honoring: a character and an institute that shamelessly abuse human trust by fabricating lies and manipulating scientific data to gain seeming moral high ground. For a century, Nobel prize has graced the brightest and most diligent minds having walked on the face of the earth in our time. And yet, an obscure antithetical force has invaded the very core of scientific integrity. On one hand Nobel institute has the credential of honoring the great discover of particle physics and the invention of semiconductor transistor, but on the other hand Nobel institute just glorified charlatans who exercise junk science. When you start celebrating junk science in the face of the science integrity of discipline, you discredit yourself as a scientific body.

Today, Al Gore celebrates his Nobel Prize. But I mourn for the death of the Nobel Prize.


Read more!

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

Credential Inflation(學位不值錢啦)


Have you ever gone to any on-line job site for a job search? If so, you ought to be familiar with the technical terms such as master of science is required but Ph.D is preferred, or MBA is essential. Then you look at the corresponding job title, you see "technical manager".

Hmmm, you need a higher education so you know how to yell at people technically?

A while back I read an article in the Wall Street Journals, it was about the decisions most of the surveyed CEOs made. The result was stunning: in average more than 80% of CEO's work related decisions are emotionally driven.

Emotionally driven!!!!!

So, please reason with me how getting a higher education can help you make better emotional decisions? If a higher education is irrelevant to the job performance, why do we see all the education credential attached to the job description? Something fishy is going on, don't you think?

We were told to pursue higher educations so we can fulfill our potential. Yes and yes. All things being equal, we would learn many essential technical tools in schools so once we are certified, i.e. a degree to prove our credibility as suitable operators, we could contribute handsomely to this society. Unfortunately, how this society functions is not so simple. As a matter of fact, most of the skills in the cutting edge industries are acquired on the job or through the experiences rather than from the previous academic trainings. Let's face it, the materials we learn in school are well defined, with clear causality. While in the real world, the problems we tackle are rarely defined. What enables you to solve the real-world issue is not your academic credential, it's your on-the-job experience, your character, and your initiative.

That being said, how would you choose a potential employee if you were a hiring manager? All things being equal, wouldn't a kid with a master's degree more attractive than a kid with a bachelor's degree in the same field? It would depend on the circumstances. Nowadays the process to get a master's degree is pretty much taking 30 academic credits, i.e. roughly 10 courses, then you would be elevated above BS. Would those 10 courses make all the differentials above those BS workers who, instead of spending hours working on the graduate school homework, actually solve real-world issues?

The answer is NO.

The advancement of individual's knowledge and skills is through the initiative and the motivation to improve, rather than through the well-constructed academic setting. You don't have to sit in the classroom or working on your homework assignment to register critical information into your brain. You can learn advanced subjects by utilizing your spare time, reading and studying. The discipline required for such a task is the very same discipline you were taught when you were in the elementary school. It's your own action dictates your ability. Your credential doesn't dictate your ability. What credential provides is a superficial way to prove one's credibility, and unfortunately more often than not it fails to measure one's true ability.

Decades ago, the criteria for a management position was a high school's diploma. Then it got bumped up to a bachelor's degree. Then it got bumped up to MBA. Somehow as our society gets more technically sophisticated, the requirement for a managerial position is also getting sophisticated. As if you don't have an MBA you would be hopeless in managing a small group of people. Yeah, stick that to Abraham Lincoln, who only had 18-month worth of formal education training (mostly self-educated) and yet became one of the great presidents in US history. MBA? please take a backseat.

Many jobs, that could be adequately done by people who have high school training in the past, now require a minimum of bachelor's degree. The question is, why are we seeing such a credential inflation in this society? Has our school system gone backward so that kids don't learn nearly as much in the grad schools then they have to go to college to complete their basic knowledge? or simply that there is a huge interest from both the academia and the government loan/grant special lobbyists who want to increase the demand of their services by promoting the concept of "higher education"? Let's face it, not all kids like math and science. Some people are just not good at it. You shovel it down their throats and brainwash them about the inadequacy of their existence if they fail to complete the college, in the meantime ruthlessly charge them a hefty interest on their college school loans. Sooner or later, the reality sets in then they realize that employers don't necessarily pay college graduates top dollars for their ability to recite what they were taught in the college classroom. Because of the elevation of the education standard, the criteria for the workforce standard follow the elevation. I've seen local state college engineering graduates packing grocery, John Hopkins U biology graduate working as a sales clerk in the department store, and etc. They signify what's wrong with our higher education culture: the credential inflation has rendered our college education irrelevant.

I'm not against higher educations. It's quite noble to explore a new realm of knowledge outside your ordinary routine setting. What I'm against is to oversell higher education then be subject to the inevitable credential inflation, which conveniently turns us into credential snobs, no less.


Read more!

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Separation of Church and State


My daughter was parked in front of TV for a few hours while my wife took care of her business stuff yesterday. I would be the first one to admit that it wasn't a good practice to have TV babysit your 5 years old. We rarely did it and I hope that God give us wisdom to avoid the future occurrence. Anyway, she was watching WGBH, our public broadcast TV. During the morning hours, WGBH airs a lot of kids programs and cartoons. And my daughter got a feast of TV watching. Interesting enough, during the lunch time she commented the following to my wife:

"Mommy, how come I didn't see them talking about God at all on TV?"

What would you answer her then?

It's not a secret that the media in this country is very secular. Carrying the banner of "the wall of separation", the so-called separation of church and state, the secular progressive are in the process of removing Christianity from the public domain. Of course, they can’t do this without some legal maneuver. In this case, the sinful separation of church and state comes into play. As I preached in the earlier Learning USA series, is a very religious social body. 90% of Americans believe in God (supreme beings). And the majority of those 90% are Christians. Open your wallet then take a look at the dollar bills or the coins, you shall see “In God we Trust” on every one of them. Unfortunately, the secular left really want to undermine our system, that propelled this country to an economy super power, then establish a pro-European socialist central government system, that is a one-way street to the Marx communist utopia. The atrocious strategy is to reduce the Christianity influence, then shift people’s faith from God to the central government. Once the majority of the people turn into atheists, the democracy process would kick in to change the system based on welfare and government dependency. Finally, the communist utopia would be taking shape. With the separation of church and state in their arsenal, their assault has begun.

Is the separation of church and state really constitutional? It got to be correct, right? Otherwise, we heard it over and over again from the secular left as the argument to ban any religious activity in schools or public places with orchestrated effort. To answer this question, it needs to take a serious look at our Constitution and the history of America. Justice Black made a career out of misrepresenting the intentions of constitutional lawmakers. He misrepresented their intentions concerning religious related statutes, particularly ignoring the 10th Amendment power of the states to address religious issues. More specifically, he misrepresented their intentions in order to sell his treasonous interpretations of both the establishment clause and the religious aspects of the 14th Amendment. The purpose of Black's treasonous mischief was to unlawfully legislate absolute church and state separation from the bench.

Shocking? Please read on.

This is what Justice Black said:

“The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. ….. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. , supra, 98 at page 164." --Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.

That is where the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state” came from. However, it turns out that Jefferson himself had acknowledged that the Founders had written the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to delegate government power to address religious issues to the state governments:

“Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that the powers not delegated to the . by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved, to the states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

He also said:

“In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378

He continued:

“I consider the government of the as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808

Now, let’s look at our Constitution Amendments concerning our religious practice.

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

14th Amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unfortunately a hundred something years ago the southern states used their unchecked 10th Amendment power as a loophole to justify slavery. In contrast, the northern states regarded the Declaration of Independence as the law as much as the Bill of Rights and demanded that the southern states should treat all men equally and abolished slavery. However, the southern states wouldn’t comply. Therefore there came the civil war. The 14th Amendment, the result of the Civil War, was arguably the needed check on the unique, 10th Amendment powers of the states, the 10th Amendment likewise a formal check on the 14th Amendment protected personal federal freedoms.

Of course, Justice Black cleverly perverted the 14th Amendment by stating:

“Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day - even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited”

Notice that he didn’t mention a peep about the 10th Amendment? Given that official religious exercises in public schools survived the 14th Amendment, it virtually proved that the 14th Amendment was never intended to stop Protestant religious exercises in public schools in their ongoing attempt to "reconcile" their differences with the Catholics after the civil war, despite of the Spanish inquisition concern. As a matter of fact, Protestant religious exercises continued to be practiced in public schools as if the 14th Amendment had never been made.

As we have seen, Justice Black had a bad habit of rewriting history so that he could misrepresent the intentions of two generations of constitutional lawmakers to advance his special interest agenda. Black's illegal "wall of separation" and the most church and state separation cases that he had influence in fail to reference the 10th Amendment power of the states, particularly its religious aspects. Black seems to have considered the 10th Amendment as too much of a loose canon with respect to pushing his unconstitutional agenda of absolute church and state separation.

And not only did Black and his crooked justice colleagues establish the tradition of sweeping the religious aspects of the 10th Amendment powers of the states under the carpet, but secular-minded justices who have followed in their footsteps have regarded Black's unconstitutional, "sleeper cell" interpretations of the establishment clause and the 14th Amendment in case opinions as case precedents that are somehow more important than the Constitution itself. Indeed, does it surprise you that secular-minded judges who hypocritically bow down to Black's unconstitutional case precedents are actually ignoring the precedent established by Justice Marshall that the courts are bound to uphold the Constitution?

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." --Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison 1803.

Using Thomas Jefferson’s apprehensions concerning bogus interpretation of the Constitution:

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450

Considering today's dubious interpretations of the Constitution by liberal judges, another Jefferson excerpt is appropriate.

"Strained constructions... loosen all the bands of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to George Ticknor, 1817. FE 10:81

The bottom line is that the people need to get a grip on what the honest interpretations of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments actually say about our religious freedoms. One day when the people wise up to the fact that they are essentially prisoners of conscience to the bogus interpretation of the establishment clause by a renegade, anti-religious expression Supreme Court majority, they will hopefully follow Lincoln's advice for dealing with crooked judges.

"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln, Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.


Special thanks to the person who kindly enlightened me with the precious and organized information.


Read more!