Any idea what this is used for?
The EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), on July 11, 2008, [Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act](http://epa.gov/climatechange/anpr.html). Ordinarily this would be of passing interest to me. But their own analysis shows that they will have to have control of **Everything** in order to handle this mandate, from Page 5 of the ANPR: > EPA’s analyses leading up to this ANPR have increasingly raised questions of such importance that the scope of the agency’s task has continued to expand. For instance, it has become clear that if EPA were to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act, then regulation of smaller stationary sources that also emit GHGs – such as apartment buildings, large homes, schools, and hospitals – could also be triggered. One point is clear: **the potential regulation of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land**.
This doesn't only include reaching into your home and setting your thermostat for you, or deciding how many cars you can own or what type of home or business you can build, it also extends to the food supply as commented by the USDA on page 67 of the ANPR:
> … many of the emissions are the result of natural biological processes that are as old as agriculture itself. For instance, technology does not currently exist to prevent the methane produced by enteric fermentation associated with the digestive processes in cows and the cultivation of rice crops; the nitrous oxide produced from the tillage of soils used to grow crops; and the carbon dioxide produced by soil and animal agricultural respiratory processes. **The only means of controlling such emissions would be through limiting production, which would result in decreased food supply and radical changes in human diets**.
This amount of control will effect you, this is not just an additional tax on the rich, or other such nonsense. These are real proposals that will limit your ability to live your life. The idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant is factually wrong. As a matter of fact high concentrations of CO2 are required for plant life, our food supply, to flourish. Bureaucratic control of where you set your thermostat, or if you are allotted enough energy to take two hot showers a day, or what types of food you can purchase is absolutely antithetical to freedom and the life of humans who depend on their reason and judgment to survive.
The EPA is now accepting feedback on this until November 11th. Now is the opportunity to make your voice heard.
There is information on how to submit on the EPA site, or distilled along with example letters and arguments [here](http://www.classicalideals.com/EPA_Ruination.htm).
*[EPA]: Environmental Protection Agency *[ANPR]: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking *[USDA]: United States Department of Agriculture *[CO2]: Carbon Dioxide
Ideas are important. Ideas shape culture and life. I had recently decided to improve my life I would work, in some fashion, to spread good ideas. So over the past month, along with diligent philosophical study, I have been trying to promote good ideas when possible. I have submitted two LTEs, one to USA Today and one to the Philadelphia Inquirer. They were both rejected but there was a brief moment of excitement when an editor at USA Today emailed me to confirm some information and tell me my letter was being considered for publication. I plan to continue trying to get LTEs published, but in the mean time I have posted a handful of comments on philly.com.
I have also worked to improve my business life. I have been classified as a "pusher" by some for my efforts to promote David Allen's GTD. But I am having some impact, three of my coworkers have purchased Getting Things Done, and to the extent any of his advice is incorporated into their daily routine it will benefit me greatly.
There is a need for good ideas in our culture. It is this intellectual vacuum that allows bad ideas to become so prevalent so quickly. So my advice is to know reality as well as possible and then be vocal in your judgment of the works and ideas of man. "Judge, and prepare to be judged."
*[LTEs]: Letters To the Editor *[GTD]: Getting Things Done
This is about my oldest daughter's first trip to the movies. When she was born we had decided, based on what a friend of mine had done with his son, that we wanted to wait to take her to a movie theater. Aside from the obvious insanity of taking an infant or a very young toddler to a place where they are expected to stay still and quiet for 90 minutes or more, I wanted the experience to be something that was memorable, special, something that we could look back on together with fondness. We chose to see WALL•E, the Pixar movie, about a robot and what happens when he develops a consciousness, chooses a goal, and goes after it. What follows is my analysis of the movie and of my attempt to write this review. I will probably include spoilers of all sorts, so if you don't want to know any of the plot then move along.
When I first watched a trailer the setting struck me as terrible. I saw a barren earth populated only by one robot and trash and thought, "Okay so the environmentalist movement has taken over Pixar, and it is an agitprop film that is anti-man." I had trouble reconciling this view with all of my other experience with Pixar, so based on their reputation of excellence I looked into it a little more. I found I was still annoyed by the background, but the WALL•E character and the excellent animation and sound effects that showed through in a handful of trailers, along with the fact that the negative points seemed to be secondary and not part of the main plot I decided to go ahead and check it out.
Allison was very excited leading up to July 6th, when we chose to go see it. We watched the trailers a few times to hype it up a bit and she couldn't wait to go see this big screen. I think she also really liked the idea of going out with both Mommy and Daddy and leaving her younger sister with Mom-mom. Once we got there she was very interested in the theater experience including the lighted walkways, the seat and especially the popcorn. Once the popcorn was finished the film held her attention pretty well despite the fact that the storyline was a bit complex for a 3 and 1/2 year old. She stood at the rail for about 40 minutes during the show, and only had her interest waver slightly. We have talked about the film a few times since going and I have been able to clarify the whys and whatfors of specific points for her (1). I was satisfied with the wait and the choice we made of when to take her.
As for me, once I got a glimpse of "Buy N Large" and saw the were to *blame* for the wreckage of Earth, I was very annoyed. And then I got a look at the big fat humans that were too stupid and lazy to take care of their bodies but were able to create space cities which can transport thousands of people in ultimate comfort. They can create robots that are very sophisticated and can carry out complex tasks but can't figure out how to dispose of waste properly or grow a plant. I was more than annoyed. However, I was able to just block out these parts that I disagreed with as I intended to go author a scathing review which exposed Pixar for the irrational capitalism haters that they were. As I was enjoying watching a film with Allison I tried to enjoy the story as well.
I found the plot compelling the characters likable and excellently done. I liked the story despite the obvious background flaws. I left it feeling very annoyed at the contradictions in the film. On one hand man can create wonders and can rise up and act heroically, but on the other hand they were unable to walk or not cover every square foot of the planet with 5 feet deep of trash.
So in trying to find the essential flaw in the film, the main root of the insanity, I kept running into the fact that I liked it and it had many good points. I couldn't reconcile the flaws with the strengths. It wasn't until I happened across a review by Jennifer Snow that she pointed out my problem. I was trying to judge the work by non-essentials, by the background, by the fact that it was set in a man made trash heap.
Upon understanding this I relived the experience in my head and saw all the heroic acts by WALL•E as he identified his goals and gave everything he could to achieve them. I saw the other robots that gained consciousness and worked and fought to gain their values, and the parallel to the humans on the ship that gained consciousness when WALL•E crossed their paths and woke them up. I saw the contrast of the actions by the "broken" reject robots compared to the mindless dogmatic robots like the autopilot. I saw the stylistic way the robots were made more real with visual detail than the cartoonish humans by the artists. I saw how the background and how it got that way wasn't the focus, but just where the action happened to take place.
It was after this realization it was possible to write down my thoughts. There was no overt contradiction, I just needed to check my premises. I went there looking for flaws and I sure found them. But if my focus is on flaws then what good can I find or offer? While I would have preferred a different back story, the heroic journey by WALL•E and all of the people and other robots in the movie is well done and is definitely worth seeing.
1. Why? and What for? are just about my favorite questions that my kids ask. It certainly can be tedious at times and I will often challenge them to come up with their own reasons behind things. But I think the asking of these questions might be the most important developmental milestone for a child.
This site has languished because there was absolutely no purpose or reason for it. I have spent some time and decided a few reasons for continuing it, and have thus renewed my interest in maintaining and updating it. The below reasons are published here and on the site's colophon for newcomers to understand the purpose.
Previously Logical Disconnect served as a diary of rants and various diatribes of no particular purpose and with no cohesive theme. Often it had, as most blogs, come off as complaints and sometimes information that was too personal to be of much use to anyone even those who know me. Primarily it was a personal outlet for unformed notions I wanted to share but with no one in particular.
In some sense the personal nature will continue, however, I have recently decided to use the writing here as a means to further my study of Objectivism.
My plan is to use it to write in order to learn. It became explicit to me when listening to Dr. Leonard Peikoff's lecture series The Philosophy of Education that writing is a tremendously valuable cognitive tool. It forces you to slow down your thought process and make well reasoned arguments. If you don't want the concrete, the writing, to be utter nonsense then you must understand and mentally organize the subject. And by doing this it requires you to integrate the concepts, you wish to write about, into your own hierarchy of knowledge. To really understand the ideas in order to convey them. This is to be part of my defense against any kind of dogmatism or other irrationality in my study of philosophy.
This is analogous to the "trick" I used in college to give focus to study. When it became generally well known that I was doing well, I was often asked for help by other students in my classes. By agreeing to help others I was required to understand the material well enough to convey it to them. And if you have ever tried to teach, especially someone who is honestly seeking to learn, you can't fake this understanding. After spending time teaching the concepts to others, my understanding of the material was unshakable. This activity greatly focused my effort and diminished my need for additional independent study.
By making the writing public I could be subject to criticism or counterarguments which may help me refine my ideas. It will provide additional context to those I have been having frequent philosophic discussions with recently. And will also further my wife's growing understanding that she has chosen a very unique individual to share life with.
I also plan to use the writing here as a tool for introspection and as a secondary value I would like my children to be able to have this as a concrete reference for knowing about their Father. I know reading a copy of a single letter I discovered, which my father wrote years ago at work[1] gave me a different and unexpected perspective and even greater admiration for him.
Yes this is a very selfish motive and personal collection of articles. I intend to derive great value from writing them.
1. Yes letter, not email. I said years ago.
--
Kevin McAllister
Sent from mobile
--
Kevin McAllister
Sent from mobile
5720 calories worth
Wrecking my sidewalk
Nothing like waking up to a back hoe on your sidewalk. And the stench of gas outside. Heres hoping to avoid a raging inferno.
