Today In History

40 years ago Paul Erhlich published his pseudo-scientific book The Population Bomb. The book predicts the end of the world brought on by a growing human population. Indeed, the man blasted from the roof tops that England would no longer exist in the year 2000. I think he was wrong, which brings me to my point. We often hear criticism of self-interested corporations using dubious methods to support their products in an effort maintain or increase sales. So, why is their no criticism of intellectual malfeasance used to drum up non-existent problem that need solving at the expense of your tax dollars?

Here is how this industry works. An academic speculates a problem based on some complex research project. Using self-interest and political bias, the academic writes a paper laying the problem at the feat of western society. In this paper, terrible visions of doom and gloom are predicted. The solution lies in funding research which will inevitable unlock the proper way to ameliorate the coming catastrophe. Finally, Congress is lobbied and billions of dollars are given away with no accountability. Academics are not disinterested, they want the big money to roll in and fund their pet projects. I like to call this obscene profits selling snake oil to the common person all in the name of getting rich and famous.

I HAVE AN INTERVIEW DATE!!!!!

Yes folks
Its official
Mac and I finally heard today (via my dad who checked our mail) that we have an interview at the Montreal Consulate for my Visa. We will be interviewed at 8:30am on Thursday, July 31st. Your prayers would be deeply appreciated for that day!!!!!!!

Melting Northpole Ice

Sorry about the lack of research, but I heard about some new volcano in the Arctic ocean. I wonder if there might be a correlation between volcano eruptions and ice melting.

http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1707-02-

The Gardening continues

Most of my (Melissa's) chores down here in Virginia continue to revolve around gardening -- and i'm loving it! It feels more like play time than work :)

Yesterday i finished a project I had started before we left for Toronto the last time. Out the side of the house there is good sized flag-stone patio. Around the patio are 2 Azalea bushes and another green shrub/bush. Well they were in bad need of taming as they had grown unchecked for a couple years. There were also copious amounts of weeds -- including ivy and poison ivy. Well i got all that taken care of and put red cedar mulch down around the exposed.

Here are a few pictures of where i got to before we left:






























Yesterday I completed the project by adding some flowers:



The white stuff in the photo is called Dusty Miller. Its a leaf plant that has leave that look like white has been painted (or dusted) over top of the green leaf. Eventually it gets a yellow flower. It has a really beautiful leaf patter, but i forgot to take a picture of it to show you.

I think all the other flowers show up in individual photos below.



















Doesn't look like much now, but this will become some Black-eyed Susans.












This flower i don't remember the name of. But its the same flower as the white one in the next photo. Its a very vibrant red (but washed out here).




























Unfortunately the colours didn't turn out very well in this photo (but that's what i get for using a digital point and shoot rather than an SLR) -- they are called Lantana and are a very very vibrant red, orange and yellow in the blossoms. In this photo the flowers are very washed out.







This little guy is called Gazania. I have five of them. 2 in white, 2 in yellow and 1 in a burnt orange sort of colour.










Today i started on my next gardening project -- the side garden. Jewel had planted a beautiful garden with lots of different flowers -- too many to name. And they all re=bloom every year. The trouble is this stunning garden has been let to itself, and is now heavily populated with numerous vine plants (ivy, poison ivy, grapes etc), grass, wild cherry trees, pine sapplings and a host of other weeds. So i will be spending about 3 hours outside each morning starting around 6:30. Its getting pretty warm out here, so to be doing outdoor labour is twice as exhausting after 10 as it is before. So while i would rather not get up before 8am, i will be up at 6am (except for weekends and when God sends showers), working. I was very pleased with the headway i made today. I'm really excited to see what hte garden looks like once everything is weeded and pruned back. I'm hoping to put in a few new rose bushes.

This Is Becoming Worrisome

As reported in a previous post, certain environmentalists want to lock dissenters in jail. Now this mentality is starting to gain a following within the US. Dr. James Hansen of NASA called for the jailing of corporate CEOs whose companies fund organizations that dissent with his political point of view on man made global warming. For all Hansen's bellyaching about being silenced by the Bush administration, a laughable charge at best, this seems to be the height of hypocrisy. Hansen is calling for the old-style totalitarian mechanism of making policy differences criminal. For all the silencing of the guy, he sure is loud and clear on his plans for future dissenters.

Failed Policies of the Past

Barack Obama is promising to challenge and change the failed policies of the past. Who doesn't want to change the failed policies of the past? That begs another question, which policies have failed? Well, Obama means 'conservative' policies and make no mistake about it. Today, McCain actually did a politically astute maneuver. He called for increased US exploration for oil. Talk about a failed past policy, it was the Liberal anti-energy policy that stopped oil exploration and now look at the price of gasoline.

Mr. McCain, if you know what is good for you, take a page from the liberals and create a populist message based on the struggles of average and poor Americans trying to get to work. Say something like,

"Americans all over the land are wondering if they can make it to work today. You see, the gas tank is close to empty and so is the cupboard. Filling the tank costs $50, but that is what the family's food costs for the weekend. The check doesn't come until Monday and taking a sick day because you can't afford to get to work puts your job in jeopardy. The failed energy policies of the past forced on the American people by Liberals are now touted by Barack Obama as the way forward. No family in America should need to choose between getting to work and feeding the family. Barack Obama's liberal energy policies will keep fuel costs on the rise. Barack Obama's energy policies are bad for poor and working class families."

There you go Mr McCain, no charge.

Oy Che!!

I was generally appalled by the CBC's glowing proclamation of Che Guevara's 80th birthday. What is it with news outlets and their love of left-wing murderous revolutionary thugs? Maybe because he only killed a few dozen people all in the name of social justice? Idi Amin did much the same in Uganda didn't he? I don't see his face on pop fashion. Isn't Robert Mugabe much the same? These men ascended to power whereas Che retained that abstraction of a revolutionary tearing down the oppressive structures. In my book, they are all racist thugs abstracting the term 'justice' a la Derrida, Foucault et al. and Literary Theory to teach people to hate. Shame on you CBC and all the merchants who sell his likeness on shirts.

Stepping In It

This is probably unpopular to say, but I don't care. People who took out adjustable rate mortgages in order to buy a big(ger) house should not be bailed out by my tax dollars. People who dipped into their equity to buy cars, vacations, and decks should not be bailed out by my tax dollars. I read the sob story of a lady who was 5 years away from paying off her mortgage and decided to take out a home equity loan to buy stuff. She defaulted on the loan and is now in foreclosure. This is not a sob story this is a greed story. It is sad how people can be controlled by greed instead of good sense.

This goes for the lenders as well. Commissions on McMansions are pretty good I assume. Turning a blind eye to the borrowers capacity to repay is wrong. Having worked in accounting for 10 years, stupid financial decisions make businesses go bust. How many times must we witness the unscrupulous take advantage of the free market and destroy the companies they work for? The market has a pretty rigorous policy for cleaning up messes...remember Enron, Global Crossings, Tyco, Arthur Anderson, MCI-Worldcom. However the clean up is painful for many innocent people.

In this political season, we will hear promises to bail out the victims of the subprime mortgage fiasco. Piffle! They are not victims but willing accomplices. It's kind of like driving 35 in a 25 zone and thinking I can get away with it, but when the police pull you over you argue that you didn't know the speed limit was 25. Living in a materialistic culture where we are told that stuff is the thing of happiness, I am not surprised by what I see. However, I am disappointed when certain Christian theologies put salvation squarely on the shoulders of material stuff. It drives this sort of greedy behavior. Just because someone has less stuff than another person does not mean there is systematic oppression.

Creating a Perfect Storm

One of the key points used by Enviros to scare the life out people is the 'tipping point' argument. Briefly reviewed, the tipping point is when CO2 PPM go over a speculated level leaving the Earth in ruin for centuries and humans dying in record numbers...basically the Gaia version of four horsemen of the Apocalypse. So, in order to control the environment (a laughable notion left over from the modern idea that humans with enough knowledge can control anything they desire), the UN IPCC has called for biofuels, alternative energy...you know the list.

So, here is the perfect storm. In our rush to control, has anyone asked the question, "What if we are not in control?" Seriously now, food prices have spiked in one year because food is being used for fuel at the highest level in history. This comes at a time when worldwide crop yields are off the chart. This article in the Financial Times talks about the greening of the planet. What if it all stops? What if this warm period is like every other warm period in history and eventually it stops and gets colder? When crop yields start to drop, who gets the biomass, Energy or human families? I don't like speculative social engineering based on pie-in-the-sky ideas. Just look at the communist paradises. Energy is needed, just don't get it from what people need for nourishment.

Can you agrue against the case for Atheism?

One of the charges leveled against Christians in the Christian v. Atheism debate is that our argumentation is flawed and illogical. I found this video online today (at the Lee Strobel site) and found it very interesting. He's responding to a specific person's argumentation (sorry i forget the name), so it should not be taken as the points of all Atheists, but it does demonstrate that perhaps Christians aren't the only ones with less-than-perfectly logical arguments.

Morality

One last beef, and then I'm done for today.
Christians often seemed to be charged with forcing their morality on people who do not share their belief system. Granted that has often happened, and still does. But when a person makes a decision based on their faith/morality for themselves their decision is dismissed as a "moral" decision.

For instance, a number of months ago there was a radio program that was debating the position of a pharmacist (sorry i don't remember where). Anyways, a woman brought a prescription for the morning after pill to the pharmacy and the pharmacist refused to fill it. One of the hosts (as did some of the callers) agreed with the pharmacists position. If a person does not agree with abortion, they should not be required to participate in it in any form. The other host (and some of the callers) argued that a pharmacy is a public resource and the pharmacist had no right to refuse service based on moral grounds. First of all -- a pharmacy is a privately owned business, not public, therefore if they don't want to have certain drugs that's their choice. I have a friend who requires a medication that she can only pick up in certain drug stores, its not wildly carried. So she simply goes elsewhere.

Secondly -- EVERY DECISION A PERSON MAKES IS MORAL. Humans are moral creatures. Do we have different standards and beliefs about what is right and wrong? yep! For instance, to go to an extreme -- Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and other serial killers know that killing is wrong socially, but for their own morality, they don't really have a problem with it. It's ok. For the majority of the population (thankfully) murder is wrong and it lies no where within our "morally allowed list" (except, perhaps when its self-defense). Is Charles Mason lacking of morals? No. His set is/was different than my own is. It is not helpful to claim that one side (usually those who are on the political or religious right) is relying on their "morals" without realizing that the "other" side makes equally moral decisions. They are just different.

So who moralizes? Both sides -- but usually those who label the other side's positions as being "moral" and therefore untenable actually seem to be trying to force their moral decisions down someone else's throat.

Open vs. Closed minded

Normally, Mac does the philosophical/theological/political posts on this site, but clearly I'm taking my turn.

One thing I've noted in the debates i've been reading between Christians and Atheists/Agnostics is the concept of close-mindedness vs. open-mindedness. Frequently, though not always, the debate goes this way:

Christian: I believe in God/pro-life/sanctity of marriage (insert other topic that is part of the Christian worldview here).
Atheist/Agnostic: Well that's illogical and you're just being closed-minded.

And the conversation goes on from there, the Christian doing his or her best (maybe) to back up their position and the Agnostic/Atheist poking holes in the arguments, but cycling around the same theme the Christian is closed-minded.

And quite frankly, is the Atheist/Agnostic right? Is a Christian closed-minded about certain topics? Yes. Speaking from my own faith, there are certain things that I will not entertain. For instance, I am pro-life. While i will gladly enter the discussion and talk about it, I am simply not going to change my mind. No apologies. Am I being closed minded? Sure. And I'm not upset to admit it.

But are people on the other side of the debate not being equally closed minded? I mean the definition of being closed minded means there are certain positions/topics/world views that you are simply not going to entertain. Someone who is an atheist or agnostic, while willing to enter into discussion with Christians/Theists, are unwilling to change their position. Many (not all, but any) will argue that they have surveyed all the evidence and have made their decision. Therefore they are not closed minded, but actually open minded. I'm sorry a couple problems with that line of argumentation. First of all -- you can't have surveyed all the evidence. It simply is not humanly possible to know everything. Secondly, as soon as you have come to a solid decision and are unwilling to change it, you are closed minded on that topic.

Now the question -- is being close minded a problem? Not at all. We need to be. Otherwise we would be completely gullible and unable to think through the different issues that come your direction. Everything you see on TV, hear on the news, read in a book or watch in a movie suddenly becomes fairground for being true or worthwhile to bring into your lifestyle. To be that open minded would be somewhat dangerous because your ability to engage in critical thinking and measure things is diminished/gone. I do not accept everything I read by a Christian/Theologian. I read it and weigh it and decide whether I agree with the assertions made. Likewise, I don't believe everything I see on TV.

The reality is, we are all somewhat closed-minded and that is a healthy thing -- any psychologist would agree with that statement. So let's take that terminology out of our discussions and actually get to the issues!

Christianity vs. Atheism

Tonight I was a bit bored when i got home so i went surfing on the internet and found the Google "group" for Christianity vs. Atheism. As i looked at the different posts and their topics, i realized that a) it wasn't really Christianity vs. Atheism (at least not for the Atheists), it was Theism vs. Atheism. They aren't debating the Christian faith and whether it is actually legit/reasonable/real etc, but whether there is a God at all.

But that wasn't what frustrated me. The general tone of the Atheists on the site was that Christians are idiots who can't think for themselves, are unable to come up with thought provoking discussion, and are stupid. Their comments were frequently rude, snide and aimed more at making Christians look like fools than anything else. Ok, fine. I don't expect a "fair fight", though if you were actually interested in a discussion/debate, i would think it would be helpful if you actually read the responses of your opponent and at least tried to respect them, if not what they believe/stand for.

The sad part: the Christians weren't much better. There posts/questions were not well thought out, convincing or, sometimes, even coherent. One post quoted an article that said that Sen. Kennedy asked for people's prayers for his recovery, and then closed stating: "I think I've made my point!" Umm..... what was your point? That Kennedy asked for prayers? That the media allows for a certain level of spirituality? That prayer exists?? This begs for people to think that Christians aren't intelligent and aren't able to hold water in a debate. But what was worse was that many if not most of the Christians were snide, rude and also seemed to want to make fools of their opponents. Perhaps the Christian posters (or some of them anyways) deserved what they got?

I would love to engage in a forum where Christians and Atheists/non-Christians engage in discussion about issues of the day. I think it would be something that both sides would benefit from. But I would hope that if I were to write something that the people I "talked to" would know that I was respecting them and trying to at least "hear" where they were coming from. I can't believe that the people posting in this group are as horrible as they come across, but i wonder if the "anonymity" of the website allows for a lack of responsibility in how you frame your words, which just isn't allowable (or excusable) when you speak to someone face to face.
If we are going to enter into discussions/debates -- let's pick our words wisely.