I’m surprised that so far The Happy Feminist is the only blog I see listed in UUpdate writing about Banned Book Week. IN PRAISE OF BANNED BOOKS
I've always thought Banned Books Week was about politics, not about the principal of free speech. There is no such thing as a "banned" book in America today, unless that book contains photographic child pornography or defense secrets. Save for those two things, no author has been jailed for writing a book, no publisher jailed for printing a book, no book is illegal to possess. Ask Salman Rushdie about real banned books.
What we have instead is a debate about what books are to be carried in specific schools' libraries. Are we to call every book not carried in a grade school library "banned"? If not, then it boils down to the question of who gets to choose which books are stocked. Since most states require by law that children go to school, and most parents cannot afford private schools, then de facto most children are required by law to go to government schools. If, therefore, the parents are not allowed to choose those books through their elected school boards, then what we have is the government denying parents by force of law the right to decide what their child is exposed to- is anyone prepared to argue that the first amendment gives government the right to force parents at gunpoint to have their children read books the parents consider obscene? If not, then why grouse about what books the school boards do decide to stock- or not?
Government should only intervene in the parents’ handling of their children when there is a compelling interest, such as the child’s health and safety. If a loonytune parent were to object to the math book on the grounds that their religion says that 2+2=5, one could argue that the resulting education would be so inadequate as to amount to no education at all, therefore a compelling interest in the child’s welfare. The same argument can of course be made for science books- but once you leave the realm of the objective, that argument goes away. Are we really going to argue that the failure to have read “Heather Has Two Mommies” will so damage a child as to amount to abuse requiring government intervention? Gee, I, and tens of millions of others, managed to grow up into an adult that believes in sexual equality without having read that particular book. I would have no problem with a child of mine reading any of the books on the “banned” list... but that’s *MY* choice. I certainly would not try to force any parent to have them have their child read them, however- that’s *THEIR* choice.
The issue is not whether those books are “banned”, for they are not- every one of them is available at Barnes & Noble, and any parent can buy them for their children if they so desire. The issue is whether the state has the right to indoctrinate children in morals and values against the parents’ wishes... and anyone arguing for that should look at what other countries are doing with that right. If that’s not what you are arguing for, stop throwing around loaded terms such as “banned books”.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
What is to be the UUA’s role in the world?
In my last post I proposed the elimination of the UUA Washington Advocacy Office. Does this mean I want the UUA to stop being a political action committee? Anyone who has read my posts here, or my comments on the Chaliceblog or CFUU or Beliefnet knows my answer is *YES* When our constituent denominations were formed, churches were the only advocates the poor and the powerless had. But times change, and we must change with them. Today there is no issue that doesn’t have its own advocacy group, and almost invariably with more power than the church spokesmen. There’s a saying in football that when a team claims to have two running backs, they have none. What this means is that if they had a star, he’d be the running back... is there any issue at all in which we are the advocates? Be honest- is there any political issue in which we even make a difference? Then why are we wasting our time, money, and moral capital?
So if we’re shouldn’t be lobbyists, what is our mission? We could speak out. I don’t mean “speaking truth to power”- the catchphrase of the day- everybody and his grandmother is doing that, although nine times out of ten it merely means calling the President a nazi. In fact, so many are doing it that ours is a lost voice in the cacophony. I mean speaking truth to the people.
The Religious Right is right about one thing: our culture is sick. We religious liberals tend to dismiss that message because we disagree with the RR on so many issues- but anbody can stumble into the truth, and that is indeed a truth. Instead of calling the President a nazi, why don’t we call Fergie of the Black Eyed Peas a slut? It’s just as true, but it’s a truth none dare speak. In a communications class twenty years ago I saw a public service commercial that was never aired because it was controversial. I forget the exact numbers, but it went something like this: “Last year three African Americans were killed by the Klu Klux Klan. One was killed by the American Nazi Party. And 11,000 were killed by gangs. If you’re a gangbanger, you’re not hip- you’re a TRAITOR!” THAT was speaking truth to the people. If we can, as a denomination, denounce the Republican party for wanting to change the filibuster rule, why do we find it so difficult to denounce gansta rappers for degrading women and deadening the human spirit?
Government and laws simply cannot solve the ills of society; only a higher awareness within that society can- and who is better suited to lead a drive to social consciousness and personal responsibility than a church already known for fighting for equality? We have abdicated the fight for public morality to the Religious Right- and that was the biggest mistake the religious liberal ever made. We should be the ones out there teaching that choices have consequences, but we’re too terrified of being called “judgemental”. I believe we concentrate on politics just to avoid directly confronting situations involving “judgements”. There are so many “inconvenient truths”... that it’s far more true that crime causes poverty than the other way around... that the number one cause of poverty and indeed nearly all human misery is bad choices and bad lifestyles... that one consequence of the interconnected web is that we all have to pay for your sins.
Of course, first we’d have to have a debate within ourselves on what morality is. I don’t believe that having no creeds means having no morals, but we’re afraid to have the debate for fear of offending members and having some leave. That’s a strange one to me, for we have no fear of offending people over political issues and driving them from the church. I say we should leave politics to the politicians, and return to the issues people turn to churches for: philosophy, spirituality, and morality. I believe that even in the short term we’d have far more impact by trying to get people to do the right thing than by sending out yet another flurry of hot faxes from the Washington Advocacy Office.
So if we’re shouldn’t be lobbyists, what is our mission? We could speak out. I don’t mean “speaking truth to power”- the catchphrase of the day- everybody and his grandmother is doing that, although nine times out of ten it merely means calling the President a nazi. In fact, so many are doing it that ours is a lost voice in the cacophony. I mean speaking truth to the people.
The Religious Right is right about one thing: our culture is sick. We religious liberals tend to dismiss that message because we disagree with the RR on so many issues- but anbody can stumble into the truth, and that is indeed a truth. Instead of calling the President a nazi, why don’t we call Fergie of the Black Eyed Peas a slut? It’s just as true, but it’s a truth none dare speak. In a communications class twenty years ago I saw a public service commercial that was never aired because it was controversial. I forget the exact numbers, but it went something like this: “Last year three African Americans were killed by the Klu Klux Klan. One was killed by the American Nazi Party. And 11,000 were killed by gangs. If you’re a gangbanger, you’re not hip- you’re a TRAITOR!” THAT was speaking truth to the people. If we can, as a denomination, denounce the Republican party for wanting to change the filibuster rule, why do we find it so difficult to denounce gansta rappers for degrading women and deadening the human spirit?
Government and laws simply cannot solve the ills of society; only a higher awareness within that society can- and who is better suited to lead a drive to social consciousness and personal responsibility than a church already known for fighting for equality? We have abdicated the fight for public morality to the Religious Right- and that was the biggest mistake the religious liberal ever made. We should be the ones out there teaching that choices have consequences, but we’re too terrified of being called “judgemental”. I believe we concentrate on politics just to avoid directly confronting situations involving “judgements”. There are so many “inconvenient truths”... that it’s far more true that crime causes poverty than the other way around... that the number one cause of poverty and indeed nearly all human misery is bad choices and bad lifestyles... that one consequence of the interconnected web is that we all have to pay for your sins.
Of course, first we’d have to have a debate within ourselves on what morality is. I don’t believe that having no creeds means having no morals, but we’re afraid to have the debate for fear of offending members and having some leave. That’s a strange one to me, for we have no fear of offending people over political issues and driving them from the church. I say we should leave politics to the politicians, and return to the issues people turn to churches for: philosophy, spirituality, and morality. I believe that even in the short term we’d have far more impact by trying to get people to do the right thing than by sending out yet another flurry of hot faxes from the Washington Advocacy Office.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
How UU can grow...
... and what the UUA can do to help. There’s a story, no doubt apocryphal, from the early days of the air war over Europe in WWII. Bomber losses were intolerably high, and a crash program was initiated to make the planes more survivable. Boeing engineers were taken to a badly shot up B-17, and were told to improve the armor on all the places most heavily damaged. “No,” the engineers said, “We should armor the places that weren’t hit- after all, this plane came back!” Using that logic, I think the best way to figure out what changes are needed to grow the UUA is not to guess why people that “should” be joining in higher numbers aren‘t, ( see this discussion ), but to look at those who did join, and try to get more like them. After all, they (we) are the ones who are here, whatever the UUA’s faults.
So why do people join the UUA? One classic reason from the past is that UUs were willing to marry mixed couples when no one else would- my in-laws joined for that reason. Now, however, liberal Christian denominations are willing to marry almost as many people as we are, so that’s much less an advantage than once it was. Oh, well, our lost advantage is society’s gain.
A big reason- perhaps the biggest- today is our RE program. As this is one of the very few things that every congregation I know of actually does, it would be something the UUA could run national advertising for. I could easily see a campaign along the lines of “For parents who want their kids educated, not indoctrinated!” Run the ads on Sundays during the news and analysis programming- any parent seeing the ad will feel guilty for sitting there watching the show instead of taking their kids to Sunday School.
Another reason people go to a new church is that they haven’t been since they were a kid, it’s Christmas or Easter, and they’re lonely. We should make sure to have services on the major Christian and Jewish holidays, Islamic and Pagan, too, if you have any local experts, and run national advertising for it. I’m sure a clever copywriter could play on nostalgia and spiritual homesickness, while simultaneously reassuring people that we’re more welcoming even than the childhood services they’re missing.
The reason I joined was that Rev Clear’s sermons were intriguing, and discussions with him were like auditing a college comparative religion class. I was able to reexamine my beliefs and look at new ones. I think an adult level RE class, perhaps on weekday evenings, would be very attractive to just that set of people we would most like as new members anyway. As this would pose an intolerable burden on most ministers, I think the UUA should do it as broadcast classes, on satellite or public access or the like.
None of the things I’m proposing require us to adopt new beliefs, use the language of reverence, or change in any way- except to actually do something rather than just pass a resolution about it. And where would the UUA get the funding to do all this advertising and broadcasting I’m proposing? Well, never once in my entire life have I ever met anyone who ever said that the reason they joined their church was its first-rate Washington lobbying office. I propose shutting down the entire Washington Advocacy office, and transferring its funding to this cause. If that's not enough, I'm sure others could come up with other offices that could be "sacrificed" for the effort. I think it'd be worth it.
UPDATE:
Here is the kind of program I was speaking of above. If Yale can do it, surely the UUA can do it. Maybe even attach a forum to it- get people hooked, then direct them to their nearest UU church. Why not?
So why do people join the UUA? One classic reason from the past is that UUs were willing to marry mixed couples when no one else would- my in-laws joined for that reason. Now, however, liberal Christian denominations are willing to marry almost as many people as we are, so that’s much less an advantage than once it was. Oh, well, our lost advantage is society’s gain.
A big reason- perhaps the biggest- today is our RE program. As this is one of the very few things that every congregation I know of actually does, it would be something the UUA could run national advertising for. I could easily see a campaign along the lines of “For parents who want their kids educated, not indoctrinated!” Run the ads on Sundays during the news and analysis programming- any parent seeing the ad will feel guilty for sitting there watching the show instead of taking their kids to Sunday School.
Another reason people go to a new church is that they haven’t been since they were a kid, it’s Christmas or Easter, and they’re lonely. We should make sure to have services on the major Christian and Jewish holidays, Islamic and Pagan, too, if you have any local experts, and run national advertising for it. I’m sure a clever copywriter could play on nostalgia and spiritual homesickness, while simultaneously reassuring people that we’re more welcoming even than the childhood services they’re missing.
The reason I joined was that Rev Clear’s sermons were intriguing, and discussions with him were like auditing a college comparative religion class. I was able to reexamine my beliefs and look at new ones. I think an adult level RE class, perhaps on weekday evenings, would be very attractive to just that set of people we would most like as new members anyway. As this would pose an intolerable burden on most ministers, I think the UUA should do it as broadcast classes, on satellite or public access or the like.
None of the things I’m proposing require us to adopt new beliefs, use the language of reverence, or change in any way- except to actually do something rather than just pass a resolution about it. And where would the UUA get the funding to do all this advertising and broadcasting I’m proposing? Well, never once in my entire life have I ever met anyone who ever said that the reason they joined their church was its first-rate Washington lobbying office. I propose shutting down the entire Washington Advocacy office, and transferring its funding to this cause. If that's not enough, I'm sure others could come up with other offices that could be "sacrificed" for the effort. I think it'd be worth it.
UPDATE:
Here is the kind of program I was speaking of above. If Yale can do it, surely the UUA can do it. Maybe even attach a forum to it- get people hooked, then direct them to their nearest UU church. Why not?
Friday, September 15, 2006
Humanist Vs. Theist redux
Well, the old battle between the UU Humanists and UU Theists hasn’t ended yet. Thanks to The Wild Hunt and WitchVox for pointing out these articles about an event at a UU church in Rhode Island. Pagan Pride Day event and Unitarians spark controversy with Pagan Pride Day .
In this case, it isn’t the Pagans stirring up the controversy as much as the UU’s; it seems that this congregation hosts a CUUPS chapter who has organized a “Pagan Pride” day, and the Humanists aren’t happy about it. They quote a letter being circulated, but any UU Theist already knows what it says without having to read it; we’ve heard it so very many times before- “superstition”, “flakey spirituality”, “occult practices”, “the God myth”... the only one they missed is “psychotic break”. And actually, even that may be in there; they didn’t print the full text. It’s good that UU is such a welcoming religion.
I’ll tell you old-school UU Humanists out there something: you should thank Bertrand Russell that you don’t always get what you wish for... if all the UU Christians and UU Pagans left, the average age of the average congregation would approach triple digits, and the membership list would drop down to double digits- and half of them would be Buddhist. We irrational, superstitious psychotics are keeping your doors open; the least you can do is sneer at us behind our backs instead of right in our faces.
In this case, it isn’t the Pagans stirring up the controversy as much as the UU’s; it seems that this congregation hosts a CUUPS chapter who has organized a “Pagan Pride” day, and the Humanists aren’t happy about it. They quote a letter being circulated, but any UU Theist already knows what it says without having to read it; we’ve heard it so very many times before- “superstition”, “flakey spirituality”, “occult practices”, “the God myth”... the only one they missed is “psychotic break”. And actually, even that may be in there; they didn’t print the full text. It’s good that UU is such a welcoming religion.
I’ll tell you old-school UU Humanists out there something: you should thank Bertrand Russell that you don’t always get what you wish for... if all the UU Christians and UU Pagans left, the average age of the average congregation would approach triple digits, and the membership list would drop down to double digits- and half of them would be Buddhist. We irrational, superstitious psychotics are keeping your doors open; the least you can do is sneer at us behind our backs instead of right in our faces.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
This I believe, part 1
Public radio has been reprising a program from the 1950s, “This I Believe”, in which people are invited to send in essays about what they believe. I have decided to post mine here from time to time- here is the first such entry.
I believe that President Bush is a decent, honorable man who believes that he is doing the right thing.
I believe that Al Quieda members were the only ones involved in the events of 9/11.
I believe that those white things following airplanes are ConTrails, not ChemTrails.
I believe that Apollo 11 went to the Moon and returned.
I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and that all shots were fired by him.
I believe that the greatest threat to America is posed by the increasing cynicism, despair, and disengagement among the American people.
I believe that truth cannot be determined by a poll.
I believe that aside from literature, the arts went into decline with the first world war, and that since then the finest poetry is to be found amongst singer/songwriters, not poet laureates; the finest visual arts are found on album covers and posters, not in museums, and the finest of the plastic arts are found in industrial design and neighborhood craft fairs.
I believe that hunger and want can be ended within the lifetimes of some of the people readings these words if we have the will to do so.
I believe that President Bush is a decent, honorable man who believes that he is doing the right thing.
I believe that Al Quieda members were the only ones involved in the events of 9/11.
I believe that those white things following airplanes are ConTrails, not ChemTrails.
I believe that Apollo 11 went to the Moon and returned.
I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and that all shots were fired by him.
I believe that the greatest threat to America is posed by the increasing cynicism, despair, and disengagement among the American people.
I believe that truth cannot be determined by a poll.
I believe that aside from literature, the arts went into decline with the first world war, and that since then the finest poetry is to be found amongst singer/songwriters, not poet laureates; the finest visual arts are found on album covers and posters, not in museums, and the finest of the plastic arts are found in industrial design and neighborhood craft fairs.
I believe that hunger and want can be ended within the lifetimes of some of the people readings these words if we have the will to do so.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Vindication for CC
Chalicechick has written a lot about WalMart lately, both in her own blog The ChaliceBlog: How being anti-Walmart is hurting the Democrats , and as comments in others. Hers seems to be a minority opinion in the UU blogosphere. This morning’s Indianapolis Star has an editorial, It's not Wal-Mart, stupid; how about important issues?
, that echoes everything CC has ever said about WalMart, including its use as a campaign issue. Interestingly, the author is the Efroymson Professor of Economics at Butler University- and Efroymson was a UU!
, that echoes everything CC has ever said about WalMart, including its use as a campaign issue. Interestingly, the author is the Efroymson Professor of Economics at Butler University- and Efroymson was a UU!
Monday, September 11, 2006
Update to 9/11 conspiracies
On this fifth anniversary of the World Trade Center attack, the talk shows are still full of the conspiracy theorists. Although I have tackled the subject before, CUUMBAYA: 9/11 Conspiracies I thought I would take one more stab at getting those who still believe in those conspiracies to see reason.
The central issue is “Would the buildings really have collapsed in the manner we all witnessed?” All else hinges on this; if the buildings really were brought down by the aircraft that hit them rather than by demolition charges, all the other silly claims fall like the buildings themselves did. As all the explanations as to why they couldn’t have been brought down in the manner explained by the 9/11 commission are based on misunderstandings of physics and construction techniques, I thought I’d try to explain it in lay terms. Disclaimer: I am not a working engineer, but I did start in engineering at Purdue before changing to another trade- I feel that may be an advantage as unlike a graduate engineer, I still speak English rather than technobabble.
Most materials are much stronger under tension (pulling on it, like a rope) or compression (just what it sounds like) than any other type of stress. For example, an arrow is strong enough under compression to punch all the way through a large animal like a deer- but has so little strength under a bending load that you can easily bend and break it with your bare hands. In fact, the impact energy that arrow shaft withstands is probably greater than your weight, unless you’re as fat as I am. So could we use an arrow as the shaft of a bar stool?
No- because that arrow is only so strong when all the forces acting on it are perfectly aligned along the shaft, as in flight. In fact, even then if it doesn’t hit straight, it will shatter- ask any bow hunter. There is no possibility that you could sit on it without causing it to bend, which will cause it to shatter. Suppose we were to use a dozen arrow shafts, spaced evenly, so that the stool resembles a bird cage, making it twelve times as strong- would that work? No- strength wasn’t the issue in the first place; bending was. Each of those twelve shafts would be just as likely to bend and break as a single shaft would; there is nothing to prevent this flexing. Now suppose we put several shelves inside the birdcage, rigidly attached to the arrow shafts- they are no longer permitted to flex or bend, and we now have an enormously strong, lightweight stool. This is how the Trade Center towers were built.
Suppose while you’re sitting on the stool somebody kicks it and breaks some of those shafts- does your stool break in half and fall over to the broken side? No- because those rigid shelves prevent the shafts from bending, so the force is distributed to the remaining shafts... but the stress on them is enormous. Now break one of those shelves- what happens? The remaining shafts will instantly shatter at the point where they are now allowed to flex- it will happen so fast that your butt will still be centered over the base. There is simply no time for the weight to fall over sideways; the shafts will go with explosive force and you’ll fall vertically.
There is actually an experiment you can do at home to demonstrate this phenomenon; it requires an empty beer can and two pencils. Stand the can up on end, kneel down, and place one foot on the can. You can put quite a bit of weight on it- in fact, if you use two people (one to steady the other) the can will support the weight of a small adult... as long as that weight is PERFECTLY centered. Now reach down with the pencils and poke both sides of the can. (we poke both sides so that the metal will bend rather than pushing the can sideways) The can will instantly collapse, completely vertically, leaving a flat disk! This is also, by the way, what happened to the plane that struck the Pentagon, and why there is such a small hole- an airplane is a nearly empty hollow aluminum tube, just like that beer can, 99% air.
But back to the building. I can hear the conspiracy nuts now- “Yes, yes, I get it- the floors of the Tower were like the shelves in your bar stool; once one or two went, the structural members shattered and the towers dropped vertically... but it’s a scientific fact that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to have melted those floors! get around that one, smart guy!” Never- with the possible exception of Paris Hilton’s attempt to prove herself an actress- has so much bandwidth been spent trying to prove a non-issue. Nobody ever claimed the floors melted! Metal begins to loose strength at temperatures far below their melting point; jet fuel burns at a temperature high enough to weaken structural steel by nearly half- but the real damage was done by temperatures even lower than that. Hot metal expands- look at any steel highway bridge and you’ll find it sits on rollers or pivots, to allow for several inches of expansion; you’ll also find expansion joints where the steel meets the road, and in-between two steel sections... and that’s just for a hot summer day! At hundreds of degrees, those floors would have expanded a couple feet or more, and probably twisted and bowed as well- instead of preventing the structural shafts from flexing, they were introducing flex where none had been before, while simultaneously those structural members were carrying a greater load than they had been designed for. Of course they went bang- the forces concentrated on those points were greater than the energy contained in the demolition charges normally used to raze a building.
“But look at the cleanup,” the conspiracy nuts say, “weeks later, girders pulled from the hole were still cherry-red and dripping! Jet fuel couldn’t have burned hot enough for them to still be cherry weeks later; it must have been thermite charges used to melt the floors!” As I said before, the jet fuel didn’t melt the floors; in fact, it would have burned itself out within minutes- the fuel merely served as lighter fluid. And yes, thermite could have melted the girders- but a thermite charge burns out in seconds, perhaps minutes if it were a really big one. For the steel to still be hot weeks later merely proves that the fire was still raging under the rubble! Those building were filled with things that are not normally particularly flammable, but if adequately fueled would have burned long and hot- and adequate fuel there was in abundance. The many lower levels of the building contained many machines with flammable fuels and greases; large gas and diesel tanks for emergency generators; natural gas lines- and, of course, a hundred stories of carpets, paneling, and furniture. There are coal-mine fires that burned for decades underground, and a used tire fire burned for nine months - these fires are nothing in comparison.
So come on, people, do a little research before you call the talk shows or write your chicken-little blogs or- God save the mark!- teach a college class . The Dixie Chicks are embarrassed that Bush is from Texas? I’m embarrassed that a third of my countrymen can swallow a camel of a conspiracy theory and strain at a gnat of logic.
The central issue is “Would the buildings really have collapsed in the manner we all witnessed?” All else hinges on this; if the buildings really were brought down by the aircraft that hit them rather than by demolition charges, all the other silly claims fall like the buildings themselves did. As all the explanations as to why they couldn’t have been brought down in the manner explained by the 9/11 commission are based on misunderstandings of physics and construction techniques, I thought I’d try to explain it in lay terms. Disclaimer: I am not a working engineer, but I did start in engineering at Purdue before changing to another trade- I feel that may be an advantage as unlike a graduate engineer, I still speak English rather than technobabble.
Most materials are much stronger under tension (pulling on it, like a rope) or compression (just what it sounds like) than any other type of stress. For example, an arrow is strong enough under compression to punch all the way through a large animal like a deer- but has so little strength under a bending load that you can easily bend and break it with your bare hands. In fact, the impact energy that arrow shaft withstands is probably greater than your weight, unless you’re as fat as I am. So could we use an arrow as the shaft of a bar stool?
No- because that arrow is only so strong when all the forces acting on it are perfectly aligned along the shaft, as in flight. In fact, even then if it doesn’t hit straight, it will shatter- ask any bow hunter. There is no possibility that you could sit on it without causing it to bend, which will cause it to shatter. Suppose we were to use a dozen arrow shafts, spaced evenly, so that the stool resembles a bird cage, making it twelve times as strong- would that work? No- strength wasn’t the issue in the first place; bending was. Each of those twelve shafts would be just as likely to bend and break as a single shaft would; there is nothing to prevent this flexing. Now suppose we put several shelves inside the birdcage, rigidly attached to the arrow shafts- they are no longer permitted to flex or bend, and we now have an enormously strong, lightweight stool. This is how the Trade Center towers were built.
Suppose while you’re sitting on the stool somebody kicks it and breaks some of those shafts- does your stool break in half and fall over to the broken side? No- because those rigid shelves prevent the shafts from bending, so the force is distributed to the remaining shafts... but the stress on them is enormous. Now break one of those shelves- what happens? The remaining shafts will instantly shatter at the point where they are now allowed to flex- it will happen so fast that your butt will still be centered over the base. There is simply no time for the weight to fall over sideways; the shafts will go with explosive force and you’ll fall vertically.
There is actually an experiment you can do at home to demonstrate this phenomenon; it requires an empty beer can and two pencils. Stand the can up on end, kneel down, and place one foot on the can. You can put quite a bit of weight on it- in fact, if you use two people (one to steady the other) the can will support the weight of a small adult... as long as that weight is PERFECTLY centered. Now reach down with the pencils and poke both sides of the can. (we poke both sides so that the metal will bend rather than pushing the can sideways) The can will instantly collapse, completely vertically, leaving a flat disk! This is also, by the way, what happened to the plane that struck the Pentagon, and why there is such a small hole- an airplane is a nearly empty hollow aluminum tube, just like that beer can, 99% air.
But back to the building. I can hear the conspiracy nuts now- “Yes, yes, I get it- the floors of the Tower were like the shelves in your bar stool; once one or two went, the structural members shattered and the towers dropped vertically... but it’s a scientific fact that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to have melted those floors! get around that one, smart guy!” Never- with the possible exception of Paris Hilton’s attempt to prove herself an actress- has so much bandwidth been spent trying to prove a non-issue. Nobody ever claimed the floors melted! Metal begins to loose strength at temperatures far below their melting point; jet fuel burns at a temperature high enough to weaken structural steel by nearly half- but the real damage was done by temperatures even lower than that. Hot metal expands- look at any steel highway bridge and you’ll find it sits on rollers or pivots, to allow for several inches of expansion; you’ll also find expansion joints where the steel meets the road, and in-between two steel sections... and that’s just for a hot summer day! At hundreds of degrees, those floors would have expanded a couple feet or more, and probably twisted and bowed as well- instead of preventing the structural shafts from flexing, they were introducing flex where none had been before, while simultaneously those structural members were carrying a greater load than they had been designed for. Of course they went bang- the forces concentrated on those points were greater than the energy contained in the demolition charges normally used to raze a building.
“But look at the cleanup,” the conspiracy nuts say, “weeks later, girders pulled from the hole were still cherry-red and dripping! Jet fuel couldn’t have burned hot enough for them to still be cherry weeks later; it must have been thermite charges used to melt the floors!” As I said before, the jet fuel didn’t melt the floors; in fact, it would have burned itself out within minutes- the fuel merely served as lighter fluid. And yes, thermite could have melted the girders- but a thermite charge burns out in seconds, perhaps minutes if it were a really big one. For the steel to still be hot weeks later merely proves that the fire was still raging under the rubble! Those building were filled with things that are not normally particularly flammable, but if adequately fueled would have burned long and hot- and adequate fuel there was in abundance. The many lower levels of the building contained many machines with flammable fuels and greases; large gas and diesel tanks for emergency generators; natural gas lines- and, of course, a hundred stories of carpets, paneling, and furniture. There are coal-mine fires that burned for decades underground, and a used tire fire burned for nine months - these fires are nothing in comparison.
So come on, people, do a little research before you call the talk shows or write your chicken-little blogs or- God save the mark!- teach a college class . The Dixie Chicks are embarrassed that Bush is from Texas? I’m embarrassed that a third of my countrymen can swallow a camel of a conspiracy theory and strain at a gnat of logic.
Friday, September 08, 2006
The myth of overpopulation
Whenever politics or environmentalism is discussed, the “fact” that the world is overpopulated is bound to come up. It is a central tenet of groups like “Earth First!” and “ZPG”, and has even been an issue agreed upon by GA vote of the UUA... but these votes don’t make it true. The arguments are based on two things: world hunger, and mankind’s “footprint”. Let’s discuss hunger first.
Is hunger caused by there being too many people for the available food supply? Not according to the United Nations! George McGovern, (U.S. Senator, 1963-1981; Presidential candidate 1972; first Director of the United States Food for Peace Program, United States Ambassador to the United Nations agencies on Food and Agriculture in Rome) writes in the United Nations Chronicle : “Hunger is a political condition... the world now produces a quantity of grain that, if distributed evenly, would provide everyone with 3,500 calories per day, more than enough for an optimal diet. This does not even count vegetables, fruits, fish, meat, poultry, edible oils, nuts, root crops, or dairy products.” I took the initiative of counting those foods he left out (the numbers are readily available from the UN and the US Dept. of Agriculture): including protein cakes and edible oils from soybean, rapeseed, cottonseed, groundnuts, etc; fish; eggs; meats, including beef, lamb, pork, and poultry; milk and cheese; vegetables; and fruits: 2.59 billion metric tons per year! That’s .43 metric tons per person per year, or 2.6 lbs of meats and vegetables per day- on TOP of 3,500 calories worth of grain products! That’s enough to make every man, woman, and child on Earth morbidly obese- so why is there world hunger?
Is it because the developed countries refuse to share? Not according to the U.N.- again quoting Ambassador McGovern: “...78 per cent of the world’s malnourished children live in countries with food surpluses.” What he doesn’t say, and again is readily available information, is that nearly all the rest live in countries bordering those with surpluses. The answer is politics. War. Dictators routinely withhold food to punish provinces that revolt. Civil wars prevent food distribution. Remember the famines in Ethiopia and Eritrea? Remember those commercials with Sally Struthers telling us that pennies a day would save those starving children? What she didn’t say was that even as she was begging for pennies, the governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea were spending millions a day on a twenty year long war!
So much for food- what about the damage Humankind is doing to the Earth? Again, it’s a matter of mismanagement, not necessity. For example, outside of the G-8 nations, agricultural practices are- and let’s be generous- 100 years out of date. In large portions of the third world, agriculture still means a wooden plow pulled by an ox, with the ox providing the fertilizer as he goes. Production per acre in the U.S. has increased twenty-fold in the last 100 years; if the third world were to build tractors and combines instead of tanks, and processing plants instead of nuclear weapons programs, world output could easily be increased three-fold in the next ten years. As there is already enough food, that means we could reduce the number of acres under cultivation by two thirds, allowing tens of millions of acres to return to nature! That means enough vegetable protein to replace most fish production, giving the beleaguered oceans a break! And if we used modern mass hydroponics technology, even those acres needed for farming could be moved to the deserts and badlands, where there’d be plenty of solar power to run them!
How do we get there from here? Not by unencumbered foreign aid- only the oligarchies in the countries involved will ever see any benefit of that. If there’s any lesson to be taken from the last half-century, it’s that one. Even though McGovern does call for some money in the article I referenced, he stumbles into the real necessity: “Education and democracy may be the most powerful combatants in the war on hunger and poverty.” That’s George McGovern talking, not the much-hated neo-cons. Democracy is the answer. During the 1930s, there was real hunger in both the US and the USSR... Stalin solved it liquidating the kulaks; FDR started government food programs and the WPA. If the North Korean people were allowed a vote, I’m guessing they’d prefer food to nuclear weapons.
Blaming the world’s problems on overpopulation is, it seems to me, a cop-out. Since population cannot be reduced in the short term, blaming overpopulation allows you to think that passing a resolution about zero population growth is actually doing something about hunger. If you blame overpopulation, then you don’t have to do anything about the evil regimes that starve their populations into submission. It allows you to be non-judgmental about other cultures, while assuaging those faint nagging doubts by denouncing excessive consumption in the West instead.
Is hunger caused by there being too many people for the available food supply? Not according to the United Nations! George McGovern, (U.S. Senator, 1963-1981; Presidential candidate 1972; first Director of the United States Food for Peace Program, United States Ambassador to the United Nations agencies on Food and Agriculture in Rome) writes in the United Nations Chronicle : “Hunger is a political condition... the world now produces a quantity of grain that, if distributed evenly, would provide everyone with 3,500 calories per day, more than enough for an optimal diet. This does not even count vegetables, fruits, fish, meat, poultry, edible oils, nuts, root crops, or dairy products.” I took the initiative of counting those foods he left out (the numbers are readily available from the UN and the US Dept. of Agriculture): including protein cakes and edible oils from soybean, rapeseed, cottonseed, groundnuts, etc; fish; eggs; meats, including beef, lamb, pork, and poultry; milk and cheese; vegetables; and fruits: 2.59 billion metric tons per year! That’s .43 metric tons per person per year, or 2.6 lbs of meats and vegetables per day- on TOP of 3,500 calories worth of grain products! That’s enough to make every man, woman, and child on Earth morbidly obese- so why is there world hunger?
Is it because the developed countries refuse to share? Not according to the U.N.- again quoting Ambassador McGovern: “...78 per cent of the world’s malnourished children live in countries with food surpluses.” What he doesn’t say, and again is readily available information, is that nearly all the rest live in countries bordering those with surpluses. The answer is politics. War. Dictators routinely withhold food to punish provinces that revolt. Civil wars prevent food distribution. Remember the famines in Ethiopia and Eritrea? Remember those commercials with Sally Struthers telling us that pennies a day would save those starving children? What she didn’t say was that even as she was begging for pennies, the governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea were spending millions a day on a twenty year long war!
So much for food- what about the damage Humankind is doing to the Earth? Again, it’s a matter of mismanagement, not necessity. For example, outside of the G-8 nations, agricultural practices are- and let’s be generous- 100 years out of date. In large portions of the third world, agriculture still means a wooden plow pulled by an ox, with the ox providing the fertilizer as he goes. Production per acre in the U.S. has increased twenty-fold in the last 100 years; if the third world were to build tractors and combines instead of tanks, and processing plants instead of nuclear weapons programs, world output could easily be increased three-fold in the next ten years. As there is already enough food, that means we could reduce the number of acres under cultivation by two thirds, allowing tens of millions of acres to return to nature! That means enough vegetable protein to replace most fish production, giving the beleaguered oceans a break! And if we used modern mass hydroponics technology, even those acres needed for farming could be moved to the deserts and badlands, where there’d be plenty of solar power to run them!
How do we get there from here? Not by unencumbered foreign aid- only the oligarchies in the countries involved will ever see any benefit of that. If there’s any lesson to be taken from the last half-century, it’s that one. Even though McGovern does call for some money in the article I referenced, he stumbles into the real necessity: “Education and democracy may be the most powerful combatants in the war on hunger and poverty.” That’s George McGovern talking, not the much-hated neo-cons. Democracy is the answer. During the 1930s, there was real hunger in both the US and the USSR... Stalin solved it liquidating the kulaks; FDR started government food programs and the WPA. If the North Korean people were allowed a vote, I’m guessing they’d prefer food to nuclear weapons.
Blaming the world’s problems on overpopulation is, it seems to me, a cop-out. Since population cannot be reduced in the short term, blaming overpopulation allows you to think that passing a resolution about zero population growth is actually doing something about hunger. If you blame overpopulation, then you don’t have to do anything about the evil regimes that starve their populations into submission. It allows you to be non-judgmental about other cultures, while assuaging those faint nagging doubts by denouncing excessive consumption in the West instead.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
What gets me through the night
Rev. Sean will be hosting the Third UU Blog Carnival, and he’s chosen as his topic “ “What gets you through the hard night?” More specifically, what is it in our faith tradition, that brings you the strength and/or comfort you need to face difficult times?” UU Blog Carnival #3
I do have some favorite prayers from childhood, and some favorite hymns- Morning Has Broken never fails to raise my spirits, make me feel as fresh as that first morning. But what really gets me through that long dark night are my Pagan beliefs, truths I instinctively knew even as a child before the term “Neopagan” had ever been coined.
Neopagan faiths are called “Earth based religions”; most people think that means we worship the Earth itself. Some in fact do- there is that old joke that Wiccans make the best lovers, because they really do worship the ground you walk on! But it also means that we are oriented on this world, not the next. The Abrahamic faiths teach that the next world is the real one, that this life is merely an entrance exam. Most Neopagans believe in a form of reincarnation- either as an entity, or that the energies we have gathered are recycled, like a rock band breaking up to form new groups with new sounds. Even those that do believe in an afterlife- primarily those that call themselves heathens- believe that any judgment they face is based on their performance in this world, not on the mental gyrations they went through to prepare for the next. The essence of all these possibilities is one reality at a time... if you make yourself truly worthy of this world, you have nothing to fear from any other.
But there is yet another depth to the term “Earth centered”- that we must live in the present tense. Here is what I have written in my personal Book of Shadows:
The Divine has given you this day; do not waste it by attempting to live in the past. Reliving glory days is not harmful per se, but misty eyes are blind to the joy of the moment. If overindulged, it can sap your will to drive for new accomplishments. Obsessing over past pains or guilt is worse still. You are required to learn from your sorrows, to incorporate whatever lessons can be gleaned from them; but having done so, it is your duty to The Divine to move on. Do not squander the gift of the day.
Living in the future is equally futile. It is your duty of the day to make plans for the future; but having done so, lay them aside and enjoy the moment. Anticipation of future joy is foolish. The expected event may or may not happen; if it happens, it may or may not live up to your expectations- in which case the joys it did possess have been spoiled.
Fear of the future is equally foolish. Again, the event dreaded may or may not happen; if it does, it may be better or worse than you imagine. Either way, there will be plenty of time to suffer when the time comes- are you so eager for pain that you must borrow it from the future to spoil the day? To live in fear is to suffer the pains of injuries you have not received. Make what preparations you can do today- and then let tomorrow deal with tomorrow.
And the pains of today? All pains are growing pains, all experiences are learning experiences. Sometimes we are lucky enough to learn from the pain of others; sometimes we must be the lesson. I know that this too shall pass, and that I will be a different person tomorrow. I may not understand the lesson today; perhaps not even in this lifetime- perhaps this must be entered into that enormous volume of things I do not understand. My duty is to try to learn; I have not failed if I die still trying.
Lastly, I know that my responsibility is mine alone; no one can take it from me even if I wished they could. Nor can I take responsibility for another, even if I wish to make the sacrifice. If I have done all that can be expected of me today, I can sleep soundly... if the world goes to Hell as I sleep, it will be my sorrow in the morning, but it is not my responsibility tonight. I trust that whether or not it is clear to me, no doubt the Universe is unfolding as it should.
I do have some favorite prayers from childhood, and some favorite hymns- Morning Has Broken never fails to raise my spirits, make me feel as fresh as that first morning. But what really gets me through that long dark night are my Pagan beliefs, truths I instinctively knew even as a child before the term “Neopagan” had ever been coined.
Neopagan faiths are called “Earth based religions”; most people think that means we worship the Earth itself. Some in fact do- there is that old joke that Wiccans make the best lovers, because they really do worship the ground you walk on! But it also means that we are oriented on this world, not the next. The Abrahamic faiths teach that the next world is the real one, that this life is merely an entrance exam. Most Neopagans believe in a form of reincarnation- either as an entity, or that the energies we have gathered are recycled, like a rock band breaking up to form new groups with new sounds. Even those that do believe in an afterlife- primarily those that call themselves heathens- believe that any judgment they face is based on their performance in this world, not on the mental gyrations they went through to prepare for the next. The essence of all these possibilities is one reality at a time... if you make yourself truly worthy of this world, you have nothing to fear from any other.
But there is yet another depth to the term “Earth centered”- that we must live in the present tense. Here is what I have written in my personal Book of Shadows:
The Divine has given you this day; do not waste it by attempting to live in the past. Reliving glory days is not harmful per se, but misty eyes are blind to the joy of the moment. If overindulged, it can sap your will to drive for new accomplishments. Obsessing over past pains or guilt is worse still. You are required to learn from your sorrows, to incorporate whatever lessons can be gleaned from them; but having done so, it is your duty to The Divine to move on. Do not squander the gift of the day.
Living in the future is equally futile. It is your duty of the day to make plans for the future; but having done so, lay them aside and enjoy the moment. Anticipation of future joy is foolish. The expected event may or may not happen; if it happens, it may or may not live up to your expectations- in which case the joys it did possess have been spoiled.
Fear of the future is equally foolish. Again, the event dreaded may or may not happen; if it does, it may be better or worse than you imagine. Either way, there will be plenty of time to suffer when the time comes- are you so eager for pain that you must borrow it from the future to spoil the day? To live in fear is to suffer the pains of injuries you have not received. Make what preparations you can do today- and then let tomorrow deal with tomorrow.
And the pains of today? All pains are growing pains, all experiences are learning experiences. Sometimes we are lucky enough to learn from the pain of others; sometimes we must be the lesson. I know that this too shall pass, and that I will be a different person tomorrow. I may not understand the lesson today; perhaps not even in this lifetime- perhaps this must be entered into that enormous volume of things I do not understand. My duty is to try to learn; I have not failed if I die still trying.
Lastly, I know that my responsibility is mine alone; no one can take it from me even if I wished they could. Nor can I take responsibility for another, even if I wish to make the sacrifice. If I have done all that can be expected of me today, I can sleep soundly... if the world goes to Hell as I sleep, it will be my sorrow in the morning, but it is not my responsibility tonight. I trust that whether or not it is clear to me, no doubt the Universe is unfolding as it should.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Ranting Rev nails it
As a Goldwater/Reagan conservative- think of a Libertarian who doesn’t want to legalize crystal meth- I’ve been dismayed by big-spending, homophobic Republican congressmen. Being more devoted to a cause than a party, I’ve been hoping that Republicans would loose seats, so that we old-timers can reclaim a party that’s more interested in foreign policy and sound currency than who marries whom. The problem has been that the Democratic party is not cooperating!
For four years I’ve been begging the Democrats to come up with a party line and campaign on it- but for six solid years their candidates have run on a single issue: Bush is a doody-head. Some of the more sophisticated have added that he wasn’t elected, he was appointed... but when the chips were down, they still joined hands and chanted “Bush is a doody-head”. When I correctly predicted the last two election cycles in Beliefnet and CFUU and AUC forums, saying that you can’t win votes by spewing hatred and venom, that incumbents can only be unseated by earnest-sounding candidates with real ideas, I was ridiculed. When I said that you can’t win by saying, “Your man is a Nazi and you’re a fool- oh, by the way, can I have your vote?”, I got more than one response of “He just wants us to stop telling the truth so that the conservatives can call us names themselves.” Well, a liberal is now echoing my sentiments: The Ranting Rev: Can These Bones Live? - A Sermon for the Democratic Party
How did the Republicans win control of Congress in the first place? Yes, yes, I hear you- by lying. But that glib answer is simply wrong. They won because of Newt’s “Contract with America”. And don’t bother telling me they broke the contract- that’ll simply prove you still haven’t gotten the point. They had a unified message, they talked about issues, not their opponents- in short, they sounded like statesmen, whether they were or not. That wins votes. That wins elections. And that’s a lesson the Democratic party has still not learned. Back on December 10, ‘05, I predicted the following in comments on the ChaliceBlog: “I now predict that if there's not a big shake-up the Democratic party leadership within the next three months, Republicans will retain majority in both houses in the upcoming election. I further predict that if Republicans retain control of Congress, a Republican will be elected president in 2008.” I stand by it, absent a major disaster like a second Katrina occurring. Not because the Republicans have earned it; they haven’t- but because the Democratic party has been throwing it away. The triumvirate of Howard Dean, Michael Moore, and Moveon.org have so crippled the Democratic party that a conspiracy minded person might wonder if they were undercover Republican operatives. Had someone like “The Happy Warrior” Humphrey or Pat Moynihan had been the party chairman, they’d control both houses of Congress by now.
Why am I, a conservative, so concerned with saving the Democratic party? Because I want to separate the religious right from the traditional right, and that will never happen as long as Republicans keep winning under the current coalition. Because I’m worried that the Democrats will decide that they have to cater to the religious right, too- I’ve seen some evidence of it. This country is ready to elect a Libertarian, but neither party will nominate one- and the Libertarian Party can never elect one while the two major parties control “election reform”.
For four years I’ve been begging the Democrats to come up with a party line and campaign on it- but for six solid years their candidates have run on a single issue: Bush is a doody-head. Some of the more sophisticated have added that he wasn’t elected, he was appointed... but when the chips were down, they still joined hands and chanted “Bush is a doody-head”. When I correctly predicted the last two election cycles in Beliefnet and CFUU and AUC forums, saying that you can’t win votes by spewing hatred and venom, that incumbents can only be unseated by earnest-sounding candidates with real ideas, I was ridiculed. When I said that you can’t win by saying, “Your man is a Nazi and you’re a fool- oh, by the way, can I have your vote?”, I got more than one response of “He just wants us to stop telling the truth so that the conservatives can call us names themselves.” Well, a liberal is now echoing my sentiments: The Ranting Rev: Can These Bones Live? - A Sermon for the Democratic Party
How did the Republicans win control of Congress in the first place? Yes, yes, I hear you- by lying. But that glib answer is simply wrong. They won because of Newt’s “Contract with America”. And don’t bother telling me they broke the contract- that’ll simply prove you still haven’t gotten the point. They had a unified message, they talked about issues, not their opponents- in short, they sounded like statesmen, whether they were or not. That wins votes. That wins elections. And that’s a lesson the Democratic party has still not learned. Back on December 10, ‘05, I predicted the following in comments on the ChaliceBlog: “I now predict that if there's not a big shake-up the Democratic party leadership within the next three months, Republicans will retain majority in both houses in the upcoming election. I further predict that if Republicans retain control of Congress, a Republican will be elected president in 2008.” I stand by it, absent a major disaster like a second Katrina occurring. Not because the Republicans have earned it; they haven’t- but because the Democratic party has been throwing it away. The triumvirate of Howard Dean, Michael Moore, and Moveon.org have so crippled the Democratic party that a conspiracy minded person might wonder if they were undercover Republican operatives. Had someone like “The Happy Warrior” Humphrey or Pat Moynihan had been the party chairman, they’d control both houses of Congress by now.
Why am I, a conservative, so concerned with saving the Democratic party? Because I want to separate the religious right from the traditional right, and that will never happen as long as Republicans keep winning under the current coalition. Because I’m worried that the Democrats will decide that they have to cater to the religious right, too- I’ve seen some evidence of it. This country is ready to elect a Libertarian, but neither party will nominate one- and the Libertarian Party can never elect one while the two major parties control “election reform”.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
More thought on Peacebang’s “Vague Buddhism”
I’ve been neglecting the blog (don’t you hate when the “real world” interferes with what you really want to do?), but I have been pondering- primarily Peacebang’s Humanists or vague Buddhists? , by way of Oversoul’s Response to Peacebang‘s blog and Lizard Eater’s No More Elevator Speech . I realized that much of what I written in response to Christian questions about my Pagan beliefs is applicable to the discussion within UU.
The question I was asked as a Pagan was “If your tradition contradicts the tradition of another Wiccan, can they both be objectively true? If you cater/construct your religion according to your desires, then isn't it nothing more than your own invention?” Here was my answer: Yes, they are both objectively true- and no, they are not merely our inventions. The freedom to choose is not license for catering to whims, it’s an obligation, a duty- you are required to find through study, soul-searching, and prayer the way to the Divine. Both the Wiccan and the Christian can say “The Earth is real; I can touch it. God is real; I can touch him.” To them both, each experience was equally factual. We are each of us prisoners within our own skulls; I cannot know exactly what a Pentecostal is experiencing when the spirit takes them anymore than they can experience what I feel in circle- we each come to the Divine one at a time. In a very real sense, there are six billion religions! My body will reject an organ transplant even from a close relative (absent drugs); objectively, only my kidney will work for me, and yours for you... each is different, and each is the only true way for each other. My need for that specific kidney- or that specific faith- is not my invention.
I would modify that answer only slightly for a UU, by substituting “Truth” for “The Divine”, as there are many atheist UUs... but so altered, I believe it to be true: by becoming UU, you have assumed an obligation to find your truth. We have rejected the other denominations’ set answers, but the human psyche is not built to live with a vacuum; therefore we must be seekers. This is where I disagree with Peacebang’s reply to Lizard Eater, when she said “I absolutely agree with you that personal witness is more powerful than trying to stammer out a definition of Unitarian Universalist. However, while the Christian witness is testifying to the saving grace of God/Christ in their life, we're witnessing to the saving grace of a congregation in our life. When I try to answer the question "what are we worshiping?" your post validates my sad conclusion that we are, in fact, worshiping ourselves.” If a graduate of Harvard’s Divinity school sings its saving virtues, it is understood that he is not worshipping it; he is praising its part in bringing him to that which he does worship. When I praise All Souls Indianapolis, I’m expressing gratitude for its help in my own spiritual growth; I am not worshipping All Souls.
Our duty to seek truth is also why I disagree with Oversoul’s statement:
"Someday, UUism will have to squarely confront three fundamental questions:
1. Is there a Higher Power?
2. If yes, what is its nature and how do we relate to it as a religious community?
3. How do the answers to questions 1 and 2 inform the way we live our lives?"
UUs have this obligation- but the UUA does not. Those questions are my responsibility, and as I wrote in my creed, “I believe that responsibility, for good or ill, is my one irrevocable possession.” In their hearts, all people know this to be true- is there a single faith more than fifty years old that has not schismed into multiple denominations? Even within those denominations, is there one with 100% agreement between congregates?
Worshipping together does not have to mean worshipping the same thing.
The question I was asked as a Pagan was “If your tradition contradicts the tradition of another Wiccan, can they both be objectively true? If you cater/construct your religion according to your desires, then isn't it nothing more than your own invention?” Here was my answer: Yes, they are both objectively true- and no, they are not merely our inventions. The freedom to choose is not license for catering to whims, it’s an obligation, a duty- you are required to find through study, soul-searching, and prayer the way to the Divine. Both the Wiccan and the Christian can say “The Earth is real; I can touch it. God is real; I can touch him.” To them both, each experience was equally factual. We are each of us prisoners within our own skulls; I cannot know exactly what a Pentecostal is experiencing when the spirit takes them anymore than they can experience what I feel in circle- we each come to the Divine one at a time. In a very real sense, there are six billion religions! My body will reject an organ transplant even from a close relative (absent drugs); objectively, only my kidney will work for me, and yours for you... each is different, and each is the only true way for each other. My need for that specific kidney- or that specific faith- is not my invention.
I would modify that answer only slightly for a UU, by substituting “Truth” for “The Divine”, as there are many atheist UUs... but so altered, I believe it to be true: by becoming UU, you have assumed an obligation to find your truth. We have rejected the other denominations’ set answers, but the human psyche is not built to live with a vacuum; therefore we must be seekers. This is where I disagree with Peacebang’s reply to Lizard Eater, when she said “I absolutely agree with you that personal witness is more powerful than trying to stammer out a definition of Unitarian Universalist. However, while the Christian witness is testifying to the saving grace of God/Christ in their life, we're witnessing to the saving grace of a congregation in our life. When I try to answer the question "what are we worshiping?" your post validates my sad conclusion that we are, in fact, worshiping ourselves.” If a graduate of Harvard’s Divinity school sings its saving virtues, it is understood that he is not worshipping it; he is praising its part in bringing him to that which he does worship. When I praise All Souls Indianapolis, I’m expressing gratitude for its help in my own spiritual growth; I am not worshipping All Souls.
Our duty to seek truth is also why I disagree with Oversoul’s statement:
"Someday, UUism will have to squarely confront three fundamental questions:
1. Is there a Higher Power?
2. If yes, what is its nature and how do we relate to it as a religious community?
3. How do the answers to questions 1 and 2 inform the way we live our lives?"
UUs have this obligation- but the UUA does not. Those questions are my responsibility, and as I wrote in my creed, “I believe that responsibility, for good or ill, is my one irrevocable possession.” In their hearts, all people know this to be true- is there a single faith more than fifty years old that has not schismed into multiple denominations? Even within those denominations, is there one with 100% agreement between congregates?
Worshipping together does not have to mean worshipping the same thing.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
9/11 Conspiracies
This month’s Popular Mechanics magazine has an editorial letter from Senator John McCain about the various wingnut 9/11 conspiracy theories. Hardly surprising that they are still news, I guess, with 36% of the American people believing it’s possible, Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy , but it’s still disheartening that it’s necessary to even print it. On the off-chance one of your friends believes this crap, here’s a few resources to show them: 9/11: Debunking The Myths , Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation , and Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect that address most of the conspiracy theories in layman’s terms.
What amazes me is the mentality of the conspiracy nuts. They doubt the word of the mainstream media- which is fine, any intelligent person does- but then accept as gospel the word of home-grown “experts” on the internet without demanding their credentials and without peer review of their competing claims. It never occurs to them that if there was anything at all to their claims, if they were as “obvious” to trained engineers as they claim, foreign governments would leap at the chance to damage Bush and/or the U.S. by publicizing it- but of course, not even Cuba or North Korea or Iran is willing to put their national prestige behind claims that can be debunked that easily. Nor does it bother them that of all the people who would have to have been involved- the CIA, most of the upper Pentagon brass, the airlines involved, civilian air traffic control, the building demolition experts (and there aren’t that many capable of guaranteeing the results desired, they could be tracked down easily), no one has come forward.
They are great at examining the official timeline, but never consider the timeline of a conspiracy. Bush had only been in office less than 8 months, and hadn’t had his own people confirmed in place for more than weeks; many of the necessary people mentioned above were still Clinton personnel. (unless this was actually a Clinton plot to ruin Bush’s first term...) Bush would have had only weeks to conceive of the plot, recruit hundreds if not thousands of top government and military staff so loyal to him personally that they were willing to commit treason and mass murder for their beloved leader, run feasibility studies, arrange secret financing, pull it off, then cover up so perfectly that not only was the Congressional inquiry fooled, but also the intelligence services of the world- even the nations that hate us. To believe those theories is to believe Bush to be the most brilliantly competent conspirator in history.
Yes, disheartening. Disheartening to think that there are so many citizens who vote and serve on juries who can believe in such things, and even one Congresswoman- Cynthia McKinnon. I know P.T. Barnum said there was one born every minute, but I had always hoped that was mere hyperbole.
What amazes me is the mentality of the conspiracy nuts. They doubt the word of the mainstream media- which is fine, any intelligent person does- but then accept as gospel the word of home-grown “experts” on the internet without demanding their credentials and without peer review of their competing claims. It never occurs to them that if there was anything at all to their claims, if they were as “obvious” to trained engineers as they claim, foreign governments would leap at the chance to damage Bush and/or the U.S. by publicizing it- but of course, not even Cuba or North Korea or Iran is willing to put their national prestige behind claims that can be debunked that easily. Nor does it bother them that of all the people who would have to have been involved- the CIA, most of the upper Pentagon brass, the airlines involved, civilian air traffic control, the building demolition experts (and there aren’t that many capable of guaranteeing the results desired, they could be tracked down easily), no one has come forward.
They are great at examining the official timeline, but never consider the timeline of a conspiracy. Bush had only been in office less than 8 months, and hadn’t had his own people confirmed in place for more than weeks; many of the necessary people mentioned above were still Clinton personnel. (unless this was actually a Clinton plot to ruin Bush’s first term...) Bush would have had only weeks to conceive of the plot, recruit hundreds if not thousands of top government and military staff so loyal to him personally that they were willing to commit treason and mass murder for their beloved leader, run feasibility studies, arrange secret financing, pull it off, then cover up so perfectly that not only was the Congressional inquiry fooled, but also the intelligence services of the world- even the nations that hate us. To believe those theories is to believe Bush to be the most brilliantly competent conspirator in history.
Yes, disheartening. Disheartening to think that there are so many citizens who vote and serve on juries who can believe in such things, and even one Congresswoman- Cynthia McKinnon. I know P.T. Barnum said there was one born every minute, but I had always hoped that was mere hyperbole.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Vague Buddhism?
Peacebang has started a fascinating discussion with her two latest posts, Humanists, or "Vague Buddhists?" , Humanism or Vague Buddhism, Part II ,and ChaliceChick continues with The ChaliceBlog: Response to PB's "Vague Buddhists" post . The timing is, for me, amusing, as our last small groups meeting was about Buddhism!
I think Peacebang has something in concept- I believe we are headed for “Buddhism Lite” as a denomination. First consider Buddhism stripped of the cultural trappings such as vegetarianism or reincarnation, and look only at the 4 Noble Truths, and the 8fold path, and the Middle Way. The Middle Way is merely avoiding extremism- don’t we hear that every single week in a UU congregation? If you reworded the 8 fold path such as to make its Buddhist origins less obvious, any humanist would be happy to claim it, and if you’re careful with the translations of the 4 Truths, (I’m told the word “suffering” is not exact), the same is true of them as well. Buddhism and Humanism both put the emphasis on behavior rather than belief. Where Buddhism differs from Humanism is that Buddhism does not require a deity, but has no trouble with your worshipping of one, whereas the wording of the Humanist Manifestos denies the possibility of the existence of a deity. One could say that a Buddhist is a Humanist who has no beef with god-Talk.
This difference is where UU comes in. It seems as if it were a near thing, but the UUA could never quite bring itself to become formally atheistic- in fact, the pendulum now seems to be swinging in the other direction, with the recent “Language of Reverence” debates. Oh, we’re still embarrassed by words such as “God” or “Prayer”, but openly expressed hostility is no longer common. It seems, just from my limited experience, that what growth we are enjoying is because of that, that we’re getting religious humanists, often young families who believe in God, but not religion, and are looking for a generically religious tradition for their children.
It seems inevitable to me that the UUA head in that direction. There are very few of the old-school “anti-theist” type of humanists left; vocal as they are, they’re starting to get drowned out in debate. More and more New-Age types are joining, largely people who have been unchurched for 20 years, and are starting to want fellowship again. There are the UU Pagans and the UU Christians who are getting more vocal. All of these trends, it seems to me, are bound to result in a denomination that will more openly embrace Divine inspiration, but retain the behavior-oriented posture of our humanist tradition. If you were to take Buddhism and intentionally rewrite it for western ears and cultural references, is that not exactly what you would get? Is there a better word for that than Peacebang’s, “Vague Buddhism”?
Peacebang asks “What I was wondering was whether or not we were mostly putting Buddhist teachings and readings and quasi-spiritual practices (like 30- second 'meditation') where Christian instruction and ritual used to be.” Well, of course! Inertia is the most powerful force in the universe- the forms and trappings will change last, if ever; the content is much less important than the format. After all, in any religion not one congregate in a thousand truly understands their own creed and liturgy- ask the man on the street the theological differences separating the Methodists from the Episcopalians. in fact, the way our own members treat the PPs like a creed should demonstrate that point. So if the content must change to permit more open acceptance of theists and spiritual issues without the minister being accused of sounding too Christian, the only way to do it is to insert Buddhist teachings into an otherwise normal Protestant church format.
I think Peacebang has something in concept- I believe we are headed for “Buddhism Lite” as a denomination. First consider Buddhism stripped of the cultural trappings such as vegetarianism or reincarnation, and look only at the 4 Noble Truths, and the 8fold path, and the Middle Way. The Middle Way is merely avoiding extremism- don’t we hear that every single week in a UU congregation? If you reworded the 8 fold path such as to make its Buddhist origins less obvious, any humanist would be happy to claim it, and if you’re careful with the translations of the 4 Truths, (I’m told the word “suffering” is not exact), the same is true of them as well. Buddhism and Humanism both put the emphasis on behavior rather than belief. Where Buddhism differs from Humanism is that Buddhism does not require a deity, but has no trouble with your worshipping of one, whereas the wording of the Humanist Manifestos denies the possibility of the existence of a deity. One could say that a Buddhist is a Humanist who has no beef with god-Talk.
This difference is where UU comes in. It seems as if it were a near thing, but the UUA could never quite bring itself to become formally atheistic- in fact, the pendulum now seems to be swinging in the other direction, with the recent “Language of Reverence” debates. Oh, we’re still embarrassed by words such as “God” or “Prayer”, but openly expressed hostility is no longer common. It seems, just from my limited experience, that what growth we are enjoying is because of that, that we’re getting religious humanists, often young families who believe in God, but not religion, and are looking for a generically religious tradition for their children.
It seems inevitable to me that the UUA head in that direction. There are very few of the old-school “anti-theist” type of humanists left; vocal as they are, they’re starting to get drowned out in debate. More and more New-Age types are joining, largely people who have been unchurched for 20 years, and are starting to want fellowship again. There are the UU Pagans and the UU Christians who are getting more vocal. All of these trends, it seems to me, are bound to result in a denomination that will more openly embrace Divine inspiration, but retain the behavior-oriented posture of our humanist tradition. If you were to take Buddhism and intentionally rewrite it for western ears and cultural references, is that not exactly what you would get? Is there a better word for that than Peacebang’s, “Vague Buddhism”?
Peacebang asks “What I was wondering was whether or not we were mostly putting Buddhist teachings and readings and quasi-spiritual practices (like 30- second 'meditation') where Christian instruction and ritual used to be.” Well, of course! Inertia is the most powerful force in the universe- the forms and trappings will change last, if ever; the content is much less important than the format. After all, in any religion not one congregate in a thousand truly understands their own creed and liturgy- ask the man on the street the theological differences separating the Methodists from the Episcopalians. in fact, the way our own members treat the PPs like a creed should demonstrate that point. So if the content must change to permit more open acceptance of theists and spiritual issues without the minister being accused of sounding too Christian, the only way to do it is to insert Buddhist teachings into an otherwise normal Protestant church format.
Monday, August 07, 2006
War news
11 dead, seven injured in 72 hours... no, not Beirut, not Haifa, not Baghdad- Indianapolis. So many arrests that 30 criminals a day are released on their own recognizance; not because of their record, but because the jail is so overcrowded that a judge ruled that adding any more would be inhumane. although still more comfortable than the conditions the men and women stationed in Iraq are enduring.
One of the major reasons for this crime spree is Indianapolis’ position as crossroads of the nation; not just for commercial freight operations, but for illegal drugs as well- drug distributors from Mexico are fighting gangs from Chicago for control of the vital hub. Of course, anyone calling for control of our borders is a racist- crying crime is just an excuse. The UUA has the real answer- first legalize the drugs, Of course, drug dealers who will kill other drug dealers to control their market share would never dream of killing a corporate drug representative to control that same market, and impose tighter gun control. One of the gun battles involved automatic weapons- weapons that that have already been illegal for 70 years. But I’m sure that if we went from really illegal to really, really, illegal, they’d stop.
Only an old reactionary could even think of putting any of the blame on the modern “gangsta” urban culture, despite 3 deaths in 3 days at clubs, a number held artificially low by one of the clubs “voluntarily” closing Saturday and Sunday after a Friday killing, obviously the real cause is poverty; we need jobs programs. Of course the gangbangers who wiped out an entire family a couple weeks ago in a home invasion robbery looking for a big stash would gladly lay down their arms for $9.00 an hour jobs. And again, legalizing drugs would drop their prices, naturally, a corporation who obeys OSHA and EPA and FDA and labor laws and union contracts is going to be cheaper than criminals who can ignore all those laws so people wouldn’t have to break the law to afford them. And the young woman convicted recently of pimping her 8 year old daughter to buy crack would have no trouble finding an employer willing to allow her to stay stoned all day long.
*sigh*
UPDATE: Two more murders overnight... 13 in 5 days. With domestic totals like this, who needs foreign terrorists?
One of the major reasons for this crime spree is Indianapolis’ position as crossroads of the nation; not just for commercial freight operations, but for illegal drugs as well- drug distributors from Mexico are fighting gangs from Chicago for control of the vital hub. Of course, anyone calling for control of our borders is a racist- crying crime is just an excuse. The UUA has the real answer- first legalize the drugs, Of course, drug dealers who will kill other drug dealers to control their market share would never dream of killing a corporate drug representative to control that same market, and impose tighter gun control. One of the gun battles involved automatic weapons- weapons that that have already been illegal for 70 years. But I’m sure that if we went from really illegal to really, really, illegal, they’d stop.
Only an old reactionary could even think of putting any of the blame on the modern “gangsta” urban culture, despite 3 deaths in 3 days at clubs, a number held artificially low by one of the clubs “voluntarily” closing Saturday and Sunday after a Friday killing, obviously the real cause is poverty; we need jobs programs. Of course the gangbangers who wiped out an entire family a couple weeks ago in a home invasion robbery looking for a big stash would gladly lay down their arms for $9.00 an hour jobs. And again, legalizing drugs would drop their prices, naturally, a corporation who obeys OSHA and EPA and FDA and labor laws and union contracts is going to be cheaper than criminals who can ignore all those laws so people wouldn’t have to break the law to afford them. And the young woman convicted recently of pimping her 8 year old daughter to buy crack would have no trouble finding an employer willing to allow her to stay stoned all day long.
*sigh*
UPDATE: Two more murders overnight... 13 in 5 days. With domestic totals like this, who needs foreign terrorists?
Friday, August 04, 2006
Who killed the electric car?
This is the title and subject of a new documentary out this week. I haven’t seen it, nor do I plan to- it’s the kind of movie that makes me heave a mighty sigh. Why do we have to assign conspiracy to everything we disagree with or disapprove of?
Don’t get me wrong; from what I’ve read, this is no Michael Moore propaganda piece- the facts are accurate, and not artificially sensationalized. But facts are not truths. Nobody “killed” the electric car, there is no conspiracy to keep electric cars off the market- they simply are not yet a viable option for enough car buyers to sell them profitably. Nor does the nation have the infrastructure to support them if we bought them. Nor would they reduce pollution- they would merely shift it to different venues.
The key log in the electric car traffic jam is the question of infrastructure. We simply do not have the electric generating capacity to recharge millions of electric cars. Depending on size and performance, electric cars need between 12 and 25 kilowatt-hours to fully charge- let’s use 15 kwh for a low average. 15 kwh times 75 million cars (there are actually 400 million cars registered in the US, but only 75 million in use on any given work day) equals one and an eighth billion kwh... on top of what we’re already using! The electric grid doesn’t have even a fraction of that available- the only reason we’re not having rolling blackouts during the current heat wave is that people have learned from past blackouts and are turning their thermostats up and their large appliances off. I think an automobile qualifies as a “large appliance”. Nor are any more power plants being built or even planned- ironically, the same environmentalists who want us to drive electric cars are preventing us from building new generators.
Infrastructure means more than generating power- you also have to deliver it, and we can’t. Every “destination” facility- hotels and motels, convention centers, sports arenas, ball parks, amusement centers, museums, state and national parks, resorts- would need a recharge socket for every parking slot. After all, the entire point of these places is to draw crowds from hundreds of miles away- go to any Cincinnati Reds game and you’ll find the parking lot full of Indianapolis license plates; without a recharge socket, not one of those cars would be there. No tourist attraction could survive depending on only those within round-trip (25-35 miles) range. Each facility would require the electrical service of a major factory, which means tens of thousands of miles of high-tension lines strung through virgin countryside, something else the environmentalists are not crazy about.
The infrastructure question alone means that the electric car can never be the only car in a family; it would have to be a second car, used only for work and shopping trips. Especially in the suburban and rural communities- you’ll notice that all the rave revues electric cars get are from people who live in big cities, where everything is close together. This would keep sales so low that the price per unit becomes unbearable- according to Wikipedia, the cost of the EV1 (the car the movie was about) was $40,000 without subsidies, the Honda EV Plus $53,000, Ford Ranger EV $50,000 without subsidies. In addition, those prices do not include the taxpayer subsidized research that went into the cars mentioned above- I saw one estimate that the true cost of the EV1, including everything that was needed to take concept to street, divided by the number of vehicles actually produced, would have been $900,000 each.
This is why serious environmentalists are concentrating on hybrid and hydrogen technologies instead of battery powered cars. A hydrogen fueled internal combustion vehicle has all the advantages of a gasoline car, the zero emissions an electric car promises but doesn‘t truly deliver, (the power plant that recharges it, at least here in Indiana, belches coal smoke) and no toxic batteries to dispose of in hazardous waste facilities. And, as all the technology except the fuel tank is off-the-shelf, it would be priced competitively with the gasoline vehicle. Is it any wonder car companies are turning their attention there, rather than the EV1? No conspiracy, only reality.
Don’t get me wrong; from what I’ve read, this is no Michael Moore propaganda piece- the facts are accurate, and not artificially sensationalized. But facts are not truths. Nobody “killed” the electric car, there is no conspiracy to keep electric cars off the market- they simply are not yet a viable option for enough car buyers to sell them profitably. Nor does the nation have the infrastructure to support them if we bought them. Nor would they reduce pollution- they would merely shift it to different venues.
The key log in the electric car traffic jam is the question of infrastructure. We simply do not have the electric generating capacity to recharge millions of electric cars. Depending on size and performance, electric cars need between 12 and 25 kilowatt-hours to fully charge- let’s use 15 kwh for a low average. 15 kwh times 75 million cars (there are actually 400 million cars registered in the US, but only 75 million in use on any given work day) equals one and an eighth billion kwh... on top of what we’re already using! The electric grid doesn’t have even a fraction of that available- the only reason we’re not having rolling blackouts during the current heat wave is that people have learned from past blackouts and are turning their thermostats up and their large appliances off. I think an automobile qualifies as a “large appliance”. Nor are any more power plants being built or even planned- ironically, the same environmentalists who want us to drive electric cars are preventing us from building new generators.
Infrastructure means more than generating power- you also have to deliver it, and we can’t. Every “destination” facility- hotels and motels, convention centers, sports arenas, ball parks, amusement centers, museums, state and national parks, resorts- would need a recharge socket for every parking slot. After all, the entire point of these places is to draw crowds from hundreds of miles away- go to any Cincinnati Reds game and you’ll find the parking lot full of Indianapolis license plates; without a recharge socket, not one of those cars would be there. No tourist attraction could survive depending on only those within round-trip (25-35 miles) range. Each facility would require the electrical service of a major factory, which means tens of thousands of miles of high-tension lines strung through virgin countryside, something else the environmentalists are not crazy about.
The infrastructure question alone means that the electric car can never be the only car in a family; it would have to be a second car, used only for work and shopping trips. Especially in the suburban and rural communities- you’ll notice that all the rave revues electric cars get are from people who live in big cities, where everything is close together. This would keep sales so low that the price per unit becomes unbearable- according to Wikipedia, the cost of the EV1 (the car the movie was about) was $40,000 without subsidies, the Honda EV Plus $53,000, Ford Ranger EV $50,000 without subsidies. In addition, those prices do not include the taxpayer subsidized research that went into the cars mentioned above- I saw one estimate that the true cost of the EV1, including everything that was needed to take concept to street, divided by the number of vehicles actually produced, would have been $900,000 each.
This is why serious environmentalists are concentrating on hybrid and hydrogen technologies instead of battery powered cars. A hydrogen fueled internal combustion vehicle has all the advantages of a gasoline car, the zero emissions an electric car promises but doesn‘t truly deliver, (the power plant that recharges it, at least here in Indiana, belches coal smoke) and no toxic batteries to dispose of in hazardous waste facilities. And, as all the technology except the fuel tank is off-the-shelf, it would be priced competitively with the gasoline vehicle. Is it any wonder car companies are turning their attention there, rather than the EV1? No conspiracy, only reality.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
My favorite word of reverence
CC asks for essays on the subject of “Religion words that move us, religion words that don't.” The ChaliceBlog: No, seriously, the UU Blog Carnival is getting close For me, it’s no contest- the most profoundly moving word is “Thanks”. Thanksgiving is my favorite prayer and my favorite holiday.
The church I was raised in stressed the petitionary prayer- heal the sick, feed the hungry, and pay the rent. The Bible specifically instructs you to use this type of prayer. When I first started questioning what I was taught, it came to me that this was a very negative process. It comes from the common Christian view of the world as a broken place that needs fixing, the view that holds “worldly” as a pejorative. Petitionary prayers reinforce this by forcing you to concentrate on misery, keeping your mind on what’s wrong with the world, your mate, yourself. They require you to focus on unhappiness. They require you to believe that you’re powerless to change things on your own... simultaneously telling you that you can’t make a difference, and setting you up for failure if you try. Even if unconsciously, they set performance standards for God, making your love conditional. In some cultures it’s not unconscious- they will neglect or even vandalize their God’s shrine if he doesn’t come through!
Prayers of gratitude are altogether different. They force you to concentrate on all the innocent delights she offers us. They leave your soul refreshed by the memory of joy, not anxious about a future that could go wrong. Gratitude for gifts bestowed is pure and unconditional- as unconditional as the love of the Divine that keeps pouring those gifts out. And there is so much to be grateful for! I right about it in detail here: CUUMBAYA: How do we know God loves us?
A grateful soul is a happy soul; one cannot be depressed while remembering joys. A happy soul wants everyone else to be happy, too, and is in his/her most charitable and giving mood. A grateful soul knows that they are truly loved, and will- at least at that moment- share that love with the world... may we all be more grateful!
The church I was raised in stressed the petitionary prayer- heal the sick, feed the hungry, and pay the rent. The Bible specifically instructs you to use this type of prayer. When I first started questioning what I was taught, it came to me that this was a very negative process. It comes from the common Christian view of the world as a broken place that needs fixing, the view that holds “worldly” as a pejorative. Petitionary prayers reinforce this by forcing you to concentrate on misery, keeping your mind on what’s wrong with the world, your mate, yourself. They require you to focus on unhappiness. They require you to believe that you’re powerless to change things on your own... simultaneously telling you that you can’t make a difference, and setting you up for failure if you try. Even if unconsciously, they set performance standards for God, making your love conditional. In some cultures it’s not unconscious- they will neglect or even vandalize their God’s shrine if he doesn’t come through!
Prayers of gratitude are altogether different. They force you to concentrate on all the innocent delights she offers us. They leave your soul refreshed by the memory of joy, not anxious about a future that could go wrong. Gratitude for gifts bestowed is pure and unconditional- as unconditional as the love of the Divine that keeps pouring those gifts out. And there is so much to be grateful for! I right about it in detail here: CUUMBAYA: How do we know God loves us?
A grateful soul is a happy soul; one cannot be depressed while remembering joys. A happy soul wants everyone else to be happy, too, and is in his/her most charitable and giving mood. A grateful soul knows that they are truly loved, and will- at least at that moment- share that love with the world... may we all be more grateful!
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Rich getting richer?
Thanks to Will Shetterly It‘s All One Thing for pointing out this list of The wealthy 100: a ranking of the richest Americans past and present This list is very interesting, as it ranks them by their percentage of the Gross National Product, a surer comparison even than trying to correct for inflation, and a clearer vision of their impact on society. Bill Gates, for example, only ranks at no. 31 on this list; no. 1 is John D. Rockeller, which most historians would agree is a fair comparison of their respective social and political power.
The other interesting thing I noticed is that this listing belies the conventional wisdom that the rich are getting richer. While the list doesn’t say exactly when their fortunes were earned, it does list their birth and death, and I think we can safely say their money was made before their death- possibly not counting Elvis and Tupak who kept recording and releasing new albums long after they died. I have broken down how many of these vast fortunes were earned by historical eras:
Before 1800: 4
1800-1850: 8
1850-1900: 24
1900-1950: 48
1950-2000: 7
Still alive: 9
84% of all American mega fortunes were made before most of us were born- and clearly nowadays, one must do something that truly changes the course of society to make it, as Bill Gates or Sam Walton did. (leaving aside the issue of whether those changes were positive or negative) And even so, they won’t have the power that the rich did in the past- J.D. Rockefeller was 1/65 of the entire nation’s economy; Bill gates, despite all his billions, is only 1/425 of today’s GDP. The rich are getting less influential with each passing day. This is a good thing.
The other interesting thing I noticed is that this listing belies the conventional wisdom that the rich are getting richer. While the list doesn’t say exactly when their fortunes were earned, it does list their birth and death, and I think we can safely say their money was made before their death- possibly not counting Elvis and Tupak who kept recording and releasing new albums long after they died. I have broken down how many of these vast fortunes were earned by historical eras:
Before 1800: 4
1800-1850: 8
1850-1900: 24
1900-1950: 48
1950-2000: 7
Still alive: 9
84% of all American mega fortunes were made before most of us were born- and clearly nowadays, one must do something that truly changes the course of society to make it, as Bill Gates or Sam Walton did. (leaving aside the issue of whether those changes were positive or negative) And even so, they won’t have the power that the rich did in the past- J.D. Rockefeller was 1/65 of the entire nation’s economy; Bill gates, despite all his billions, is only 1/425 of today’s GDP. The rich are getting less influential with each passing day. This is a good thing.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Warning: low humor
I had lunch with a dear friend and fellow gourmand today, and afterwards we went to a "world cuisine" supermarket she had been telling me about for a long time. It is a fabulous place, big as a Walmart, with food from places I've never even heard of, and I did well in geography.
Naturally in such a place you'll see many poor translations and misspellings on labels, and normally they're an innocent source of amusement, but I'll admit my mind went straight to the gutter when I saw a packet of seasoning labeled "Cock Flavor". Of course, I immediately thought of friends I could send it to- and was so intent on the mental list that it took me a moment to understand why my friend started laughing when I said it would be a great gag gift.
Naturally in such a place you'll see many poor translations and misspellings on labels, and normally they're an innocent source of amusement, but I'll admit my mind went straight to the gutter when I saw a packet of seasoning labeled "Cock Flavor". Of course, I immediately thought of friends I could send it to- and was so intent on the mental list that it took me a moment to understand why my friend started laughing when I said it would be a great gag gift.
Monday, July 24, 2006
The problem with saying “God is love”
You hear this phrase all the time. Whether the speaker means that God is all loving, or that love itself is God, it’s a comforting sentiment. The kind of person who would say that is not the kind who would worship a vengeful God, a God who could condemn frail mankind to everlasting damnation- that’s why we hear it said at UU churches so often.
The problem is that the kind of person who would say that frequently cannot understand the type of person who worships the vengeful God. They cannot believe that anyone really, down deep, believes it. They all too often tend to think that a person espousing hatred in the name of God is only using religion for their own ends, that a true religion could not advocate violence. They are wrong. It’s gratifying that so many people cannot believe that sincere, profound religious faith could possibly lead to violence, mass murder, genocide, but they are wrong. This misunderstanding leads to mishandling any situation that involves it.
This misunderstanding caused the tragedy in Waco. The “experts” in the Justice Dept. advised Janet Reno that nobody could really believe that stuff- the gullible Branch Davidian followers, perhaps, but their leader couldn’t possibly actually believe it. They believed that David Koresh was just another religious scam artist, and if they hit them hard he would fold. Big mistake- one that resulted in a holocaust that cost a lot of innocent lives.
I hear the same misunderstanding frequently in any discussion of the troubles in the Middle East. When one points outs that the charter of Hamas calls for the obliteration of Israel, otherwise sensible people say “They don’t really mean that- they’re practical people; give them the right deal and they’ll accept it.” No, they won’t. Or rather, they will accept concessions, then go on killing anyway... because they really do believe it. They really do believe the existence of a Jewish state is an insult to Islam. The reason for the attacks is not the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, or the exact borders of Israel; the problem is the existence of Israel. They do not want a restoration of the 1967 borders, they want the 1947 borders.
There are other Muslims who believe in the World Caliphate. They call the United States “The Great Satan” not because the US supports Israel, or because of economic injustice, or because of environmental concerns; the oppose the U.S. because it is committed to secular government. To someone like Osama Bin Laden, the greatest tragedy in human history was when Turkey stripped the Caliphate of secular power and became a secular state. This is why Al Queida started targeting Iraqis instead of US soldiers after the elections; the concept of a secualar Iraq is anathema to them. They really do believe that there are only three things a Muslim can do when meeting an unbeliever: convert him, subjugate him, or kill him.
Yes, I hear you screaming at me, “Islam is a religion of peace! You’re misinterpreting those passages, it’s a bad translation!”. Fine, I believe you- but I’m not the one you have to convince. I’m not the one slowly sawing a man’s head off, drowning out his screams with shouts of “God is great!”. It’s not gentiles you must convince that Islam is a religion of peace- it’s Muslims who need to be convinced of that. And yes, it’s a minority of Muslims who believe in violence- but it’s a much larger minority than the “God is love” crowd believes it is. To field a soldier- any soldier, be it American, Israeli, or Hezbollah- a huge support staff is required. That soldier must be trained, equipped, fed, clothed, housed, and paid. His weapons must be paid for, maintenanced, stored in good condition. Heavy weapons, such as the Katyusha rockets Hezbollah is firing off at such a prodigious rate, require large crews, equally well trained. And when you have 13,000 such rockets, you also need a huge building and maintenance staff just to store them.
My point? If there are 100,000 terrorists worldwide, (remember that attacks aren’t limited to the ME; it occurs in Africa, India, Malaysia, Russia, the Philippines, other places), then there are millions of Muslims directly supporting them, and there are tens of millions more who know exactly what’s going on but will never tell the authorities. Still a minority of Islam, to be sure- but big enough to ensure that there will never be peace. And no solution can be found until everyone- Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Pagan or Atheist understands what the problem is. Until you understand that millions of people really do believe that God calls for innocent (in western eyes) men, women, and children to be killed on a daily basis, you are part of the problem.
The problem is that the kind of person who would say that frequently cannot understand the type of person who worships the vengeful God. They cannot believe that anyone really, down deep, believes it. They all too often tend to think that a person espousing hatred in the name of God is only using religion for their own ends, that a true religion could not advocate violence. They are wrong. It’s gratifying that so many people cannot believe that sincere, profound religious faith could possibly lead to violence, mass murder, genocide, but they are wrong. This misunderstanding leads to mishandling any situation that involves it.
This misunderstanding caused the tragedy in Waco. The “experts” in the Justice Dept. advised Janet Reno that nobody could really believe that stuff- the gullible Branch Davidian followers, perhaps, but their leader couldn’t possibly actually believe it. They believed that David Koresh was just another religious scam artist, and if they hit them hard he would fold. Big mistake- one that resulted in a holocaust that cost a lot of innocent lives.
I hear the same misunderstanding frequently in any discussion of the troubles in the Middle East. When one points outs that the charter of Hamas calls for the obliteration of Israel, otherwise sensible people say “They don’t really mean that- they’re practical people; give them the right deal and they’ll accept it.” No, they won’t. Or rather, they will accept concessions, then go on killing anyway... because they really do believe it. They really do believe the existence of a Jewish state is an insult to Islam. The reason for the attacks is not the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, or the exact borders of Israel; the problem is the existence of Israel. They do not want a restoration of the 1967 borders, they want the 1947 borders.
There are other Muslims who believe in the World Caliphate. They call the United States “The Great Satan” not because the US supports Israel, or because of economic injustice, or because of environmental concerns; the oppose the U.S. because it is committed to secular government. To someone like Osama Bin Laden, the greatest tragedy in human history was when Turkey stripped the Caliphate of secular power and became a secular state. This is why Al Queida started targeting Iraqis instead of US soldiers after the elections; the concept of a secualar Iraq is anathema to them. They really do believe that there are only three things a Muslim can do when meeting an unbeliever: convert him, subjugate him, or kill him.
Yes, I hear you screaming at me, “Islam is a religion of peace! You’re misinterpreting those passages, it’s a bad translation!”. Fine, I believe you- but I’m not the one you have to convince. I’m not the one slowly sawing a man’s head off, drowning out his screams with shouts of “God is great!”. It’s not gentiles you must convince that Islam is a religion of peace- it’s Muslims who need to be convinced of that. And yes, it’s a minority of Muslims who believe in violence- but it’s a much larger minority than the “God is love” crowd believes it is. To field a soldier- any soldier, be it American, Israeli, or Hezbollah- a huge support staff is required. That soldier must be trained, equipped, fed, clothed, housed, and paid. His weapons must be paid for, maintenanced, stored in good condition. Heavy weapons, such as the Katyusha rockets Hezbollah is firing off at such a prodigious rate, require large crews, equally well trained. And when you have 13,000 such rockets, you also need a huge building and maintenance staff just to store them.
My point? If there are 100,000 terrorists worldwide, (remember that attacks aren’t limited to the ME; it occurs in Africa, India, Malaysia, Russia, the Philippines, other places), then there are millions of Muslims directly supporting them, and there are tens of millions more who know exactly what’s going on but will never tell the authorities. Still a minority of Islam, to be sure- but big enough to ensure that there will never be peace. And no solution can be found until everyone- Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Pagan or Atheist understands what the problem is. Until you understand that millions of people really do believe that God calls for innocent (in western eyes) men, women, and children to be killed on a daily basis, you are part of the problem.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
U.S. energy use
This is an update of an essay I had posted on CFUU four years ago, and brought to mind by the new troubles in the Middle East. Naturally, our dependence on foreign energy supplies has been a big part of the debate, and once again I am hearing a factoid that’s been a part of that discussion for years, and is published in UUA documents concerning energy: the U.S., with 5% of the world's population, uses 25% of the world's energy resources. This is an interesting statement; it's accurate without being true, and it's deeper meaning is the exact opposite of it's surface implication.
While it's true that the U.S. uses 25% of the world's coal, natural gas, and petroleum products, those are not the only fuels burned in the world today. In fact the fuels of choice in the homes and small businesses of the Third World are wood, dried dung, and industrial waste such as old tires, construction site debris, and solvents. When I heat my home with my 94% efficient gas furnace, every liter of gas is metered and recorded in the U.S. totals; when a Mexican pottery company fires it's kiln with old truck tires, that isn't counted against the Mexican total because tires are not an official energy source being tracked. Nor is it counted against their Kyoto carbon allowance, for the same reason. Another confusing point is that the U.S. is also a huge energy producer- and that energy is counted as part of the world total. Thus when an Indiana power company burns Kentucky coal, it's using "the world's energy resources". While technically true, the phrase is very- deliberately, in my opinion- misleading.
Even if the 25% figure were accurate, it still would reflect well on the U.S.- we are, after all, more than one third of the world's economy. By their own figures, American industry is more energy efficient than the rest of the world. Those industries aren't just making luxuries for rich Americans, either; we are the world's leading food producer- and agriculture is one of the most energy intensive industries there is. Nor does the American consumer waste more energy than the rest of the world does; he does, however, have large energy expenditures that the Third World does not. The first of these, and the biggest energy bill for the average American, is home heating. Look at a map of where the world population is densest- Africa, India, Southeast Asia, Indonesia- and you'll find they're all in the tropics. Two-thirds of the human race has never experienced what we would call winter; a resident of buffalo, NY, burns more energy just living through the night in January than many Third-Worlders will use in a year. Home cooling is another vast energy consumption, and before you say that Americans are effete, let me assure you that air-conditioning is not mere luxury- in the 2003 heat wave, 15,000 Parisians died while in all of America combined the death toll was under a hundred.
Water is another of the large energy expenditures. Most of mankind has no reliable source of clean fresh water; this was highlighted in a recent U.N. initiative. It takes a fantastic amount of power to pump billions of gallons of water to 300 million people daily- in a second hand way, you're using electricity when you turn on a faucet or flush a toilet. Treating that water after it’s been flushed takes a lot of energy, too, and that’s something the Third World does very little of. Heating that water is another large energy use, and hot water is not just luxury, either; it’s a public health measure. Remember also that it takes power to keep utilities on standby, 24/7, ready for your use. Many places in the world that have power, water, and telephones have them for only a few carefully rationed hours a day.
When you really study that "5%/25%" statement, the inescapable conclusion is not that the U.S. uses too much energy, but that the rest of the world uses too little- not even enough to maintain civilization in many cases. When all the peoples of the world have a roof over their heads, access to schools and hospitals, clean plentiful water, and sewers that lead to treatment plants rather than ditches or streams, they will be using as much energy as the people of the U.S. That is why we must be pushing as hard as we can right now to develop new technologies and new energy sources, so that the whole world can have a decent way of life without causing ecological or economic disaster.
While it's true that the U.S. uses 25% of the world's coal, natural gas, and petroleum products, those are not the only fuels burned in the world today. In fact the fuels of choice in the homes and small businesses of the Third World are wood, dried dung, and industrial waste such as old tires, construction site debris, and solvents. When I heat my home with my 94% efficient gas furnace, every liter of gas is metered and recorded in the U.S. totals; when a Mexican pottery company fires it's kiln with old truck tires, that isn't counted against the Mexican total because tires are not an official energy source being tracked. Nor is it counted against their Kyoto carbon allowance, for the same reason. Another confusing point is that the U.S. is also a huge energy producer- and that energy is counted as part of the world total. Thus when an Indiana power company burns Kentucky coal, it's using "the world's energy resources". While technically true, the phrase is very- deliberately, in my opinion- misleading.
Even if the 25% figure were accurate, it still would reflect well on the U.S.- we are, after all, more than one third of the world's economy. By their own figures, American industry is more energy efficient than the rest of the world. Those industries aren't just making luxuries for rich Americans, either; we are the world's leading food producer- and agriculture is one of the most energy intensive industries there is. Nor does the American consumer waste more energy than the rest of the world does; he does, however, have large energy expenditures that the Third World does not. The first of these, and the biggest energy bill for the average American, is home heating. Look at a map of where the world population is densest- Africa, India, Southeast Asia, Indonesia- and you'll find they're all in the tropics. Two-thirds of the human race has never experienced what we would call winter; a resident of buffalo, NY, burns more energy just living through the night in January than many Third-Worlders will use in a year. Home cooling is another vast energy consumption, and before you say that Americans are effete, let me assure you that air-conditioning is not mere luxury- in the 2003 heat wave, 15,000 Parisians died while in all of America combined the death toll was under a hundred.
Water is another of the large energy expenditures. Most of mankind has no reliable source of clean fresh water; this was highlighted in a recent U.N. initiative. It takes a fantastic amount of power to pump billions of gallons of water to 300 million people daily- in a second hand way, you're using electricity when you turn on a faucet or flush a toilet. Treating that water after it’s been flushed takes a lot of energy, too, and that’s something the Third World does very little of. Heating that water is another large energy use, and hot water is not just luxury, either; it’s a public health measure. Remember also that it takes power to keep utilities on standby, 24/7, ready for your use. Many places in the world that have power, water, and telephones have them for only a few carefully rationed hours a day.
When you really study that "5%/25%" statement, the inescapable conclusion is not that the U.S. uses too much energy, but that the rest of the world uses too little- not even enough to maintain civilization in many cases. When all the peoples of the world have a roof over their heads, access to schools and hospitals, clean plentiful water, and sewers that lead to treatment plants rather than ditches or streams, they will be using as much energy as the people of the U.S. That is why we must be pushing as hard as we can right now to develop new technologies and new energy sources, so that the whole world can have a decent way of life without causing ecological or economic disaster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)