FreeLand

Debate bingo

2008-09-26T15:36:00.001-04:00

Just in case anyone needs debate bingo boards for tonight's debate:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/debatebingo/azc_bingo.html

Enjoy!

Its campaign season!

2008-06-28T20:23:00.002-04:00

Bob Barr is hitting youtube. Check him out. And just watch the clone campaigners as Obama shows his true character on FISA, I think because he is so sure he is going to win, he wants the power he would deny others. He will show who he is on other issues as the campaign roles on and McCain makes him run to the "middle".

The Lesser of Evils

2008-06-20T21:15:00.002-04:00

First, the rhetoric. Barak Obama is a baby-killing communist. John McCain is an imperialist hypocrite.

Now, seriously, without hyperbole. When voting, in those states that will be contested, voters will feel a tug of conscience. I am not one of those partisan bloggers who will tell you that voting your conscience is a waste of a vote. Indeed, while I am a realist, I hope never to be a pragmatist. Doing the right thing is the thing to do, even when its hard. I implore all who have real values and ethics to vote for the person they want, even if that person is a third party or independent candidate. There is no greater pragmatism than supporting evil, because you want to vote for a "winner", or because you want to deny another evil.

Now, there are magnitudes of evil of course. That is our topic today. How can one compare the American holocaust of abortion to the wanton slaughter of civilians and our own military people, in a war that does nothing to protect our country, or worse yet, expanding such wars to other countries? Those are the two greatest evils represented in this election. We will call that the tier one evil. With regards to tier one, in 2005 there were 1.2 million abortions in this country. (1) Down from 1.3 million the previous year. One estimate for civilian deaths in Iraq in the first 3 years was 655,000.(2) So, we'll say it was roughly 220,000 per year. I am not a nationalist, though I do consider myself a patriot. I feel very strongly about the Constitution and our country, but I do acknowledge that our country is not always right, in its policies, especially when it deviates from its founding documents and the intentions of the founders. So, I find it a morally bankrupt position to claim that American lives are worth more than lives of non-citizens. Its also pretty gruesome to try and compare who's position will kill more people, when they are both so incredibly high. Its actually heartbreaking that these are the mainstream choices, and one of them will likely be in a position to continue or worsen such bloody policies. Now, being a student of politics, I have not been taken in by Barak Obama's hints that he wants to bring our troops home. Nor do we have any reason to believe he will be more retrained in the use of our military than previous presidents. At the same time, there is no reason to expect that a McCain administration will actually produce any movement on ending the practice of legal abortion. Six years of republican rule of the legislative and executive branches of government should show us all that Republicans are not going to rock the boat on abortion.

What tier one really comes down to is this. One can hope, though there is no guarantee, that a McCain presidency would give us more good Supreme Court justices. We know what Obama will nominate. We have come a long way on the Court, and to take a step back would be tragic. If current trends hold up, and the Congress is a larger Democrat majority after November than it is now, Obama could get anyone confirmed. For McCain it would be a fight, but there would at least be hope. On the other hand, if Obama is the president, and the Democrats expand their majorities in the legislature, not only do we lose ground on the Court, but any military adventurism or other terrible foreign policy actions Obama wishes to take, are likely to be allowed, just as the Republican congress abdicated its responsibility regarding declaration of war in the Iraq situation.

Tier one is a tossup, with a slight positive (or lesser evil) for McCain. Not necessarily because he wants to do less evil, but we have hope that a gridlocked government will prevent him from committing worse evil. If the Democrats in congress grow spines, when their majority increases, they can prevent further military adventures, and if their oversight committees do their jobs, they can go some way toward protecting our freedoms. Now, all the capitulations recently in congress give me no hope this will actually happen, but nothing seems to motivate politicians to fight each other like partisan bickering. A good dose of split government is our best hope.

1. http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html

2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

The tier two evil is slavery. By that, we mean the forcible taking of the fruits of labor from one individual by another individual or entity (in this case, the government). Both our candidates support the idea of slavery mentioned here, with regard to forcible redistribution of wealth. There are larger differences here, in magnitude. As is usually the case, the Democrats want what amounts to all-out socialism, of the retirement system, of education, of health care, now of energy(3). The Republicans seem to have adopted a strategy whereby they don't argue the merits of socialism, or the benefits of a free-market. Instead, they attempt to slow the march to socialism by introducing half-assed socialist programs like No Child Left Behind, and expanded prescription coverage programs. At the same time, Republicans abandon positions like vouchers and social security privatization. Its really hard to say whats better, to get to a fully socialist system, so that the breakdown comes that much more quickly and we can right the ship, or to drag it out longer and longer. I worry, that like a frog in a pot on the stove, who doesn't notice the gradual change of temperature of the water, and eventually boils to death, perhaps the gradual approach is actually worse than going all the way, so people can see more immediately how terrible it is, and change back to a free market system.

Tier two is really a toss-up. Whether the government takes 25% of my salary for programs I do not support and find morally reprehensible, or 35%, I am still a slave.

3. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2033142/posts

Tier 3 is environmental alarmism and establishment of neo-paganism as the new national religion. Both candidates are Al Gore clones on this issue. No winner, just losers.

Those are the major issues I see right now. Let me know if there are any other issues or topics you would like me to compare.

At this point, I won't be voting for either evil, I will be holding my nose and voting Bob Barr for president. Hopefully his conversion away from things like the Patriot Act and the Drug War are sincere. But while I vote third party, a safe action for me, a resident of Maryland that will go Democrat in November, as it always does. The choice will be hard for those in states that are not yet decided. I hope, slightly that we end up with McCain, only because I hope for gridlock and divided government.

Freeform Wednesday- "Economic Ramblings"

2008-04-30T20:13:00.005-04:00

I saw this on an email list and thought it would be great for the open Wednesday post. I contacted the author and am printing excatly what he wrote below. Now, its very long, but also very interesting. I have not fact checked it, or his sources, and cannot personally verify or vouch for him, not knowing him personally (as is the case for anything I post on here that I have not personally written). But his message certainly jives with what one sees out there and is worth noting and arguing. To those who feel the urge to post a reply, please, use logic and argue with his points. It is very annoying when someone writes a thoughtful piece and is then attacked by critics who do not argue the issues and points, but rather nitpick cosmetic issues and the like.

Caveat: While what follows is the result of my research thus far. there may be unknown(by me) monetary policy tools that I have not mentioned which could act to somewhat mitigate the outcome of our current predicament. However, in all of my research thus far, I have not found them and would appreciate any additional information regarding this.

Also, I am not, nor have I been by nature a paranoid individual, although I am now an anxiously nervous one! Knowing that this may be posted on the internet, and pointing to the fact that there is nothing incite-ful or terroristic in my prose, I present this without identifying myself as I have no desire to attract the attention of the National Security State prior to the civil unrest that is about to befall us. The repudiation of our basic Constitutional rights under the Patriot Act and numerous Executive Orders coupled with activities brought to light by governmental whistle-blowers has served to severely degrade my belief in the benevolent nature of our government A uniquely empowered FEMA has been very busy in preparation. Besides, my wife insisted…

Economic Ramblings

By P.J.A. – A Concerned Patriot

Annapolis, MD

While I have been emboldened over the apparent increase in the numbers of Americans “waking up” and as evidenced in the numbers that have come to follow Ron Paul, we have quite a long way to go. It is so disheartening to acknowledge that a quorum of rubber stamping Republican and Democrat dilettantes still exist, enough so to continue to propel the American bus’s trip over the cliff. Until this quorum is chiseled away through the education of the masses coupled with an acceptance of personal responsibility and the ascendance of an honest leader, we will not see an end to the statist agenda that virtually both parties are following. The statists have a hammer lock on control of the two Party’s, look at what just happened during the 2008 Nevada GOP Convention. The Republicrats are about to bring great ruin on us all.

When you understand what follows, ask yourself two questions…Who would benefit from what is coming? The second question, (Why?) will be answered by the first…but only if you do the research. If not, you will be doomed to continue to be smacked around like an economic ping pong ball while elitists destroy the American middle class and sell us off into world government. This is not something that “might happen” in your future…it is in process right now and will have run its’ course within the next 5 years…probably much sooner given the state of the agri-oil markets and the extra speedy motors added to the printing presses within the Fed’s system. If you endeavor to learn, you may be able to protect yourself and protect me as well. What you really will have to do, once your jaw is raised back into place, is to take a stand against the dog and pony show that is the political system as we know it. Protection will lie in the absence of debt…including mortgages as bank failures will have these loans “called-in” in an environment where loans are non-existant…and the physical transference of cash equivalent assets into precious metals ASAP.

To begin, I have to state my new found respect for “Whistle-Blowers” and “Conspiracy Theorists”. For those that like to ridicule “Conspiracy Theorists” as wacko’s living in trailers, I’d challenge them to truly understand who these “theorists” are and what they are saying while honestly examining the evidence they present. Simply “spewing” ridiculem, backed by MSM (Main Stream Media) meme as the authority, will not serve you well. This is what I have done. Rather than jump on the “Ridicule Express”, I endeavored to understand why such seemingly insane opinions existed.

A couple of years ago, after hearing that 30%+ of the American Pubic were wacko’s that believed that 911 was an inside job, I was completely dumbfounded. I couldn’t understand how they could possibly believe in such things. I voted for Bush twice and certainly never held such beliefs. Even now, after months of investigation and research into 911, the illuminati, aliens, and other “theories” I am hard pressed to point a finger at “the government” per say…but I do have many questions that NEED answering before I give the powers that be a pass…on ALL of those subjects…yes, even the alien thing. Besides, can anybody truly differentiate between a “Conspiracy” and/or a “Strategy” and is it so hard to understand that history has been defined by the conspiracies of powerful men? Is there any amongst us who has not heard of a conspiratorial group called The Sons of Liberty? At some point, prior to the culmination of their plans, their machinations were performed in smokey back rooms and only whispered of in public. I wonder who laughed at the whisperers about the small cadre that was about to topple the greatest power that the world had ever seen.

The vast majority of these “conspiracy theorists” that we so readily throw under the bus, are from my experience, and now from my perspective, good Americans or lovers of liberty who have realized that a grave problem not only exists in our country, but is growing. They, more than any other subset of society, are truly the ones among us who have taken it upon themselves to honor personal responsibility in their own educations and are now therefore informed to a great degree, and are sounding the Klaxon for our benefit. They have turned off their televisions and taken it upon themselves to try and identify and understand who or what is driving their ill fated bus. They are the ones who have taken the proverbial bull by the horns, and they are the ones begging for your assistance in subduing the beast. The most surprising thing for me was to find that an over-abundance of substantive well researched information was available for all to see and it consisted of information that you WILL NEVER SEE in the corporate controlled media.

I don’t live in a trailer and am in fact an educated, professional bean counter (accountant) and a securities trader. Even with an educated background and the ability to do “research”, I found myself like most others, living my life in a media controlled daydream believing in the altruism of my government and the importance of a new quarterback for the Ravens. Well…no more. While we have all been told to beware of what we read on the internet, I have found that this is the place to get truly educated. The thing to be cautious of is the box that sits in your living room as it lulls you into a false sense of security, “spews” bullshit at regular intervals, and allows for little educated discernment.

We have incredibly difficult economic times ahead. I have prepared what follows from my research to awaken my friends and family to what is about to happen to us. It is very pertinent to us all as we are facing imminent financial collapse! There is little doubt of this in my mind, and you can find lots of support for what I am about to illustrate with little research. We have a currency in dire trouble so you have to understand one thing intrinsically, collapse is a very high likelihood and it may be currently imminent! You must act to protect your current purchasing power against the hyper-inflation that is coming.

What follows should engender an understanding of the goofiness of any candidate parading before us telling us how they are going to spend MORE of our money. It doesn’t matter what their “pet” issue is, there is no money for any of it other than what they will print. And those of you who would vote for McHilama and are not only allowing it, but are buying into it with your very livelihoods. I will never do this again. I will write in Ron Paul. Here is why:

Our currency is backed by nothing other than the world’s “faith” in the American government’s ability to make good on their obligations and the long standing Bretton Woods agreement that the US Dollar would act as the world’s reserve currency. This means that any country wanting to buy oil, must have US Dollars to pay for it. This has served to “prop up” the value of the dollar for as long as the phenomenon continues as the dollar’s value was defined in its use. Don’t expect this to last past 2009. Chavez has already begun selling in Euro’s and the Iranian Oil Bourse (a trading market) will open soon and adopt an alternative methodology in the process.

Our currency is a fiat currency that was ripped from any controlling valuation standard (like gold and silver) in a process that began in 1913 with the advent of the Federal Reserve Act and culminated in 1972 with a complete repudiation of any gold standard. America had printed and spent too much during the Vietnam War and was, by all measurements, broke and unable to pay its’ international debts in gold.

It is important to note that that all un-backed fiat currencies collapse. ALL! And they all collapse in relatively the same manner. At the very least, we have an irreversible financial crises ahead. With this said, you must understand that it is incumbent upon you to be aware and be ready for it. I see this happening sooner rather than later...much sooner. And while I am also driven by the desire for a more wholesome, rural environment for my son to grow up in, this "state of affairs" is certainly a factor in our desire to get to the mountains and get settled as soon as possible.

We have 80,000,000 baby-boomers reaching retirement age over the next few, but very important years. They will be required by law to begin to draw down their retirement accounts which will create its’ own downward pressure on the markets…a phenomenon that will begin this year and accelerate for the next ten years. The National Debt is currently at $9.4 Trillion, and most assuredly will be over $10 Trillion by the end of the year. The last estimate that I heard given, regarding the amount of unfunded liabilities and entitlements owed by the government, was $62 Trillion (This number seems to fluctuate each time I hear it referred to but, in any case, it is above $55 Trillion). These “unfunded liabilities and entitlements” consist of the money we will have to pay out for Medi-care, Social Security, and Welfare. Add these deficits and estimates together and you get $71 Trillion. That is $71,000,000,000,000.00 that we owe to the government to pay for these obligations over the next few years! Forget about continuing operations, forays and whims, I simply speak about what we currently owe. Just as a matter of perspective, and since these huge numbers are bandied about in the news like it’s just another dinner out…If we were to stack 71 Trillion crisp, new One Dollar Bills, one on top of the other in banded stacks of 100, the stack of bills would reach 11,205,808 Miles! That is the distance from Earth…to the Moon…and back… 23 times! Or another way to look at it…If you were to sit and count to 71 Trillion, and you did it constantly, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, you would finish in about…oh….6,745,000 years!

Given that we have 300 million people in the U.S.A., $71 Trillion in government debt is the equivalent of $236,000.00 of debt for every man, woman and child in the country…a mortgage for each of us without the house to back it! Usually one would then further extrapolate the $71 Trillion across only the swath that “actually pays federal income tax.” While statisticians would want to “adjust” this figure to reflect the fact that not everybody pays taxes, such jockeying belies an improper assumption about how the monetary system works…as you will see…

Yes, this is the government’s debt for all of the wonderful gifts that we've voted them into office to "give" us and collectively we somehow are able to emotionally and intellectually separate ourselves from this as if someone else will have to pay the tab. Typically we think that this has little to do with the exigencies of our own personal lives and it really has been “nice” to have other “more knowledgeable” people thinking about these things as it has allowed us more free time to pursue our personal desires. This is far from the truth.

First understand that, as an American, and since this is your government, these funds can only come from one place...your pocket. You will have to pay these governmental bills in addition to all other living expenses. Since our Income Tax and other federal taxes brought in $1.8 Trillion in 2007 and we are currently operating on $2.4 Trillion, we increased the amount we owe by around $6.00 per person, per day just in deficit spending and as a numeric measurement of the increase in the debt in 2007 alone. This year’s projected budget deficit, as mentioned by Ron Paul at Goucher College, is somewhere in the vicinity of $750 Billion, a number that is probably negatively suspect given all of the subterfuge and lies that seem to be growing unabated in Washington, DC. Bush has just proposed a budget in excess of $3 Trillion for 2009 and the economy has taken a downturn which will further apply negative pressure to the Government’s revenues for 2008 and the foreseeable future. In this very same environment, deficit spending will now reach over the $1 Trillion mark. But wait!...There is more…so much more...

Elected government officials are typically judged by, and re-elected for, what they can bring back to their constituents from Washington. Other than Ron Paul who has been trying, I have no imagination that would have any of them ever telling us the truth about this…at least not until it is too late (which it already is). Political reality says these things will be paid and since we don’t currently bring in enough money to pay for current operations, the only way for that to happen is by printing the money. What crushes me is that almost every person I talk to about this doesn’t know what this means and some think that I’m a bit crazed in my assumptions. What makes matters worse, is that most people are completely oblivious as to exactly how money is created and exactly how much inflation results from a few billion dollars in government spending…like the stimulus package the government is providing right now.

As it is my newly adopted habit to steer anyone who is in financial literacy limbo to the book "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin, and given that you are a bit further on than most, I will recommend it to you but take the time to at least address the "Mandrake Mechanism" which is how money gets "printed" in this country. It is something very few people know, even though it is not that complicated.

We exist under a system of fractional reserve banking. This means that banks, desirous of your deposits spend money and effort in attracting your business by providing an enticement of interest...let's use 3% for illustrative purposes. They make their money via fees and interest they earn when they "loan" the money that you have deposited to others. But, and this is a big “BUT", per the fractional reserve system, banks are allowed to lend more than what is deposited by their customers…nine times more!

Say I deposit $10,000.00 into M&T Bank. M&T has increased their cash reserves by my $10,000.00 and may now, under the rules of the Federal Reserve System, loan out nine times the amount that they have on deposit. This means that they are able to write loans of $90,000.00 based on my $10,000.00. This is absolutely no different than turning the presses on and letting them rip...exactly the same! They pay me 3% of $10,000.00 or $300.00 and receive say 6% of $90,000.00 or $5,400.00. Hearing this kind of makes you want to own a bank, doesn’t it?

As the creation of money is now mostly a computer transaction, it only takes a little time and a calculator to understand how much money is about to be printed from $750 Billion in deficit spending that ultimately ends up in the banks. Here...I'll help you...it turns into $6.75 Trillion over the course of the next couple of years! Never mind that mortgages may be harder to come by, the loans will instead be provided in other sectors of the economy or to third world countries through interaction with other banks, the Fed and the World Bank/IMF. It is their “right” to print it, and print it they shall for how else are they to earn money? It is what they do!

Now take the estimated deficit spending of next year of $1.25-$1.50 Trillion and you will see that this will result in "new money" being printed in the amount of $11.25-$13.5 Trillion because of next year alone! This means that the actions of the Government in collusion with the Federal Reserve will generate an increase of the money supply over the next few short years of approximately $18 Trillion give or take a Trillion or so. What results from this is illustrative of the law of supply and demand at its most blatant...as more dollars are available to chase the same goods (supply increase) prices rise or in other words...inflation results.

In 1980, and using round numbers, the M3-the money supply, was approximately $2 Trillion. Since Congress has no problem spending what they don’t have, the presses, by 1990, had increased the money supply to $4 Trillion. Between 1990 and 2000 it increased again to $6 Trillion! Between 2000 and 2007 this jumped to $10 Trillion…20 year’s worth of inflation in just 7 years! And now we will see the hyper-inflationary environment kick into high gear as we go from $10 Trillion to $28 Trillion in the next 4-5 years!!! Here is a graph showing the progression thus far:

Graph

Add to this that the government’s numbers are being fudged and market indices are being manipulated to paint rosy pictures that are in effect a complete fallacy. For instance, which index do you think still includes ENRON as part of their “calculation”? None. This means that the true reflection of the debacle no longer shows in the measurement of the markets. This is common for components to be “de-listed” which, in effect presents a false interpretation of economic performance.

It is my understanding that we have measured inflation via an accepted methodology for many decades until just a couple of years ago. What makes up “GDP” has also changed to reflect and include re-selling of imported goods manufactured off-shore by non-American workers. This is improper as GDP is supposed to be the measurement of “our” output. Further, using the new methodologies, we were told that we experienced 2-4% inflation last year. I don't know about you but it felt like a truck load more to me. I paid $3.19 for a half gallon of organic milk last year. Today it was $4.05! I don’t have to say anything about energy costs. If we were to return to the calculation methodology used for years and years, inflation last year was above 12%!

Now let's re-examine my previous statement that a statistical adjustment of the $71 Trillion, to take into account the fact that not everyone pays taxes, is really a canard. Imagine if you are some little old lady (or maybe you are) who is relying on the stipend provided by her questionable Hero...FDR. You may get a whopping $1,600.00 per month to live on. Can you imagine the effect that a hidden inflation tax of 12+% has on her? What will it be like next year when inflation crests 15+%? Can anyone absorb a hit of 25+% of their income in two years? And what about the year after that as inflation picks up speed? What about those on welfare? What about the working poor? What about you?

There are many in our society who exist either on a fixed income or on menial wages and nothing exists to change this. We are not the country that slipped into a morass in 1929. While the means of production sat idle for a few years, the means of production still existed. They no longer do...at least not here. They are in China, Taiwan, Sri Lanka and many other places…just not here. They have been dismantled and shipped off-shore. The "good jobs" that politicians love to crow about and promise you in their campaigns are non-existent and no stimulus package will bring them back prior to our joining the Third World! NAFTA and the WTO saw to that. Can't you hear Perot's "Huge Sucking Sound" now?

The last, though certainly not the least, problem is the high likelihood that the dollar's time as the world's reserve currency will end VERY, VERY soon. The threat of the loss of this position is why we are in Iraq as Saddam stopped taking dollars for oil in 2000. We invaded under pretext 6 months later. Iran's Oil Bourse will come on line very soon and will be traded in Euro's and other currencies which is why we are looking at them hard. Being the reserve currency means that people (countries) must own dollars so they can buy oil. This artificially props up the value of a currency which has allowed the collusive Federal Reserve/American Government “conspiracy”, and somewhat criminal partnership, to foist their scam on the world. The world is now wise and given the talk in OPEC, will soon dump the dollar in favor of a basket of currencies. This will be the end for the dollar.

In the Weimar Republic of Germany, in January of 1919 and towards the end of WWI, one ounce of silver sold for 12 marks. Due to the punitive Treaty of Versailles in June of that year, Germany had been forced into a surrender that included massive fines and recompense to her former adversaries. Within 4 years, by January of 1923, as they did what we are doing now...printing the money to meet their obligations, silver went to 23,277 Marks per ounce and one year later in January of 1924, the price of one ounce of silver rose to 543,750,000,000 Marks per ounce! Yes that is 543 Billion Marks per ounce! As more marks flowed into circulation, the amounts of marks chasing the same goods and services grew and so did the prices. This is known, of course, as “inflation”, or in this case, “hyperinflation leading to collapse of the currency”. With an equivalent collapse in our own economy do to the debasement of the currency, we will be facing the proverbial scenario of needing a “wheelbarrow of cash to buy a loaf of bread”. Given what I have already painted with regards to the amount of paper that such an amount would entail, one can see what a highly inadequate illustration this really is.

I was recently sent the below link by my father whom I had been urging to read the book, “The Creature from Jekyll Island”. The book completely explains the history of the Federal Reserve and its collusive and often nefarious activities over the years. It also explains in very understandable, even simple terms, the mechanisms of its operation.

As the book is almost 600 pages long, it can be daunting to most people. Even though the film I am linking to is sufficient in teaching you what is most pertinently of concern to us all, you should still commit to read the book. It is information that will be important to you in the future. Please don’t be afraid. It is a great book and it reads like a detective novel, not a textbook. It is actually exciting, complete with its intrigues and the conspiracies of powerful men. It really is one of best books I’ve ever read…and I read a lot. Once you have read this, you will never see the world in the same way again. You will also come away from it like a child with a new skill. You will have been completely informed about money and history but now you will possess an eye for the intrigue and subterfuge that most don’t see. It is information that may actually save you great financial pain and allow you the knowledge to maneuver through the troubled waters ahead.

Were everyone to know and understand what is in this book, and so have opened eyes as to what we have allowed politicians to do to us, I believe that neither the Republican, nor the Democratic parties would continue to exist and we would have a return to small constitutional government in short order. It is my hope that in such a utopia, we would regain control of our airwaves again…but that is a subject for another dissertation.

Please watch this video. This is the author of “The Creature From Jekyll Island” G. Edward Griffin, explaining the pertinent facts of the book, and the danger that is now upon us. Keeping the aforementioned example of Germany in mind, listen for and truly understand how the Mandrake Mechanism works. Griffin gives a very simple and understandable explanation of the effect. Once you understand how the government gets its money, and what the banks then do with this money, you will fully understand what is happening with every additional deficit dollar spent and see how bad this will get in the not to distant future. Hopefully you will now have the information and the knowledge to see the pitches being thrown, and act to safeguard yourself and your assets, as the pitches are now being hurled at your head.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6507136891691870450

David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States for the GAO has been traveling the country over the past two years trying to warn the public about what the government is doing to us. Sadly, he just quit his job for a position in a CFR think tank, so they have now shut him up by their preferred method...draw your own conclusions...

Of course the numbers Walker cites have changed. They have gotten worse. The only problem with his scenario, and it wouldn’t surprise me if he didn’t understand it, is that there is no discussion about the effect that all of the Trillions in new money placed into circulation is going to have on the ultimate money supply and value of the dollar. He only speaks of the debt burden.

Remember, when the government calculates inflation now, they are now using a different methodology than they used just a few years ago. Their new method says that we saw inflation of 2-4% last year when, had they used the proper method, or at least the method they have used for years; the rate would be more like 12-14%...you know…the rate we all felt. Also, in March 2006, the Federal Reserve stopped reporting the M3 which is basically the money supply report! The Fed stated:

“M3 does not appear to convey any additional information about economic activity that is not already embodied in M2 and has not played a role in the monetary policy process for many years. Consequently, the Board judged that the costs of collecting the underlying data and publishing M3 outweigh the benefits.”

In a heated Congressional meeting this summer, Ron Paul took Chairman Bernanke to the woodshed over this and he just did it again recently…accompanied by cheers from the trading floor in Chicago. The traders on the floors of the exchanges were chanting his name as he did so. Those with monetary policy intelligence apparently know exactly what is happening to us. Below are both a video David Walker produced in 2006 and a 60 Minutes interview from early 2007.

Google Video

Google Video

I am also including a link to a Youtube poster’s account. The owner of the account has posted numerous clips from a seminar given by economic experts David and Donald McAlvany. These will hammer home the very drastic and dangerous future that is upon us. I am providing this information to warn you so that you can make plans to protect yourself and your families. Good luck in all that you do. I hope this information comes in time for you to make the necessary adjustments for survival.

Google Video

Here is Kiyosaki talking about this problem.

http://www.richdad.com/RichDad/RichContent.aspx?cpid=63

The majority of Catholics in America are heretics

2008-04-13T06:39:00.005-04:00

According to a new poll, Catholics in America are actually thinking like they are protestants.

Here are some examples from the article that prove that:

few parishioners overall said they go to confession, and
Sixty-eight percent of all Catholics surveyed said they agreed that they believed they could be in good standing with the church without going to weekly Mass.
For Catholics who attend Mass at least once a month, an overwhelming majority of the young and older generation believe Christ is present in the Eucharist
nearly one-third of the nation's 64 million Catholics attend Mass in any given week

Even though, not surprising, this is incredibly sad. Bishop Niederauer was "was encouraged by the openness to faith in the survey but said it highlighted the need for better religious instruction."

"Better religious instruction"? Well, that's putting it lightly. All priests should be embarrassed by these figures; they are the shepherds of the flock and their flock is going astray!

Where does money come from?

2008-04-06T12:44:00.002-04:00

I was looking at some blogs, such as http://libertymaryland.com/ and I followed a link to the campaign site of Peter James. He had this video embedded in his site. Its fascinating. If you ever wondered where money came from, you need to see this video. If you never wondered, you should see this video anyway.

A quick note on the new Fed powers

2008-04-03T20:10:00.002-04:00

First, the point has to be made, the Fed has done such an incredible job of managing our free market (irony intended), by giving us a housing bubble, deflating our currency, thus driving up the costs of everything (some people call that inflation), that it makes a ton of sense to give them huge, broad new powers.

Here is a video of Ron Paul Vs Ben Bernanke (chairman of the Fed):

I promise to do a thorough review of the new powers proposal, and what it means later. This little video will have to do for now.

Chuck Norris takes on Oprah and the "New Age"

2008-03-03T18:00:00.002-05:00

While Chuck and I most assuredly disagree on certain dogmatic and theological points, I REALLY like this article he wrote.

An excerpt:

My battle is not with Oprah – she has her guru (Tolle), and I have mine (Jesus). The real war is between those who espouse to be bearers of the truth, like Tolle and Jesus. And the question is: With contradicting truths, will we believe a mere man or one who claimed to be so much more? As C.S. Lewis, the great Oxford scholar and writer of the "Narnia" series who was once an avid atheist, wrote,
A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a good moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great moral teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

That might not be what Oprah, Tolle or others around the world want to hear on their webinar, but he is everything we all need to obtain peace with God and peace with one another.

Ethically acceptable vaccines to be made?!?!

2008-03-02T20:07:00.002-05:00

I got this in email. Wondering if anyone can offer more details.

Biotech Firm To Provide Ethical Alternatives to Aborted Fetal Vaccines

(Seattle) In a victory for pro-life families around the world, AVM Biotechnology LLC (AVM Biotech) today announced their decision to provide ethical alternatives in the fields of biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and vaccine development.

Dr Theresa Deisher, AVM Biotech Research and Development Director and founder stated, “We will be working to bring commercially available, morally acceptable, vaccines to the US market and to use existing technology to produce new morally certified vaccines. Revenues from the vaccine business will also further the research, development and commercialization of morally certified therapeutics in other areas of medicine as well.”

The announcement was an answer to years of hard work and prayers for Children of God for Life, a pro-life organization that has battled to bring moral alternatives to aborted fetal vaccines to the US market for nearly a decade.

“There are no words sufficient to express our deepest gratitude to Dr Deisher and AVM Biotech”, noted the group’s Executive Director, Debi Vinnedge, who was also named to AVM Biotech’s Advisory Board for vaccine development.

While most vaccines and medicines are produced in an ethical manner, several are manufactured using cell lines derived from aborted fetal tissue with no competing ethical products available. Vinnedge noted this has left concerned pro-life families in both a difficult and unjust position.

“For too long parents who want to protect their children without compromising their deeply held pro-life and religious beliefs have been coerced into an unnecessary and unjust moral dilemma,” she stated. “No one should be forced to choose between these two fundamental human rights.”

Both organizations hope that the news will spark members of Congress to move forward with their Fair Labeling and Informed Consent legislation, a bill that would require full disclosure from the pharmaceutical industry whenever aborted fetal or embryonic cell lines are used in medical products.

“Every consumer, whether pro-life in philosophy or not, has the right to know if human fetal cell contaminants are present in the drugs they receive”, noted Dr Deisher. “Consumers should be informed and empowered to make the best health care choices for themselves and their families. Surely, if we have the right to know what is in our fast food, we should also have the right to know what is in our medicine."

AVM Biotech intends to further assist in this effort by certifying that its therapeutic products are not discovered, screened, evaluated, produced, or tainted in any way by the use of electively aborted human fetal material, human embryonic material, or any other unethically obtained materials.

The Federal Reserve

2008-01-23T16:21:00.000-05:00

I got into a debate with a guy at work, he is a Finance and Econ major. He said he didn't understand why people opposed the Federal Reserve, or what their problem with it is. I admit to not being up enough on it, so I threw a couple points out about it not being right for a small group of people to control the money supply and mentioned how the Fed's messing with interest rates, is what cause the real estate bubble, and then their raising of rates brought about the real estate crash. At any rate, he was under the impression that the Fed has been very successful at managing the money supply and inflation. I am putting up the following links so I can send him to this page later. But also for others curious about this side of the debate. If you have anything to add or argue, please do so in the comments. This is in an interesting issue that only Ron Paul is addressing right now. And due to the nature of our economic problems in this country today, I think it deserves study.

Ron Paul debates a Fed guy, from 1983. This is part 1, the other parts are clickable from this video.

Ron Paul's Fed debate from 1983 part 1 and part 2 (these are not the full debate which is accessible above, but deals with why "paper" currency with no value won't work, philosophically).

An index of books and internet debate criticizing the Fed.

Happy reading.

Tune in to Dr Ron Paul Tonight

2008-01-06T16:20:00.000-05:00

For those similarly disgusted with Fox News for leaving Ron Paul out of the last New Hampshire debate before the primary, CNN is re-airing last night's debate tonight.

For those who already saw it and want to learn more, you can watch a webcast of Ron Paul's town hall meeting tonight.

Enjoy!

Trite Phrase, But Wisdom Nonetheless

2007-12-30T22:27:00.000-05:00

A simple thought, for those of you on the fence in the primary elections. You can find plenty of supporting material via google. I think the statement is enough. I am sure other have said it, and said it better but here you go.

Choosing the lesser among evils is still choosing evil.

If you choose an evil, you are not helping the good.

There you have it.

How to Fix the Debates

2007-12-08T21:13:00.000-05:00

As a political junkie, I have watched or listened to almost all the presidential debates, for both Republican hopefuls and Democrat hopefuls this year. For any of you have similarly been plugged into the primary debates, perhaps you share my observation. This is not really a comment on the candidates, though if they cared about the debates they could likely fix the flaws in the system. This is more a commentary on our broken political system.

Each debate, whether it be the more formal, candidates behind podiums, responding to questions from moderators, to the more informal "Youtube" debates where "regular people" supposedly ask the questions, has the same flaw. That is, each debate is a repeat of the previous debate. For those of us that are serious observers of the political system, we do not need to watch eight debates, to finally see that Hillary Clinton cannot take a stand on any issue that will offend or alienate more than eight percent of voters from her campaign. The debates are essentially horrible repeats, and each new episode, the same sort of questions are asked, the same sort of answers are delivered, the only difference is the tone of rhetoric used by the candidates, and the greater likelihood that one of the candidates will mis-speak or finally be called out on their inability to take an honest position on an important issue, as Romney just showed us in the Republican Youtube debate, with his refusal to discuss what means of interrogation constitute "torture".

What our system needs, and I believe would get, with a debate between candidates Kucinich and Paul, is an honest debate about the real issues confronting our country, and what methods are A. allowable constitutionally to address those issues and B. most effective in addressing those issues. Lets take "Health Care" for example. I don't think you will find anyone in the country that will not acknowledge that the system is broken for themselves or someone else. The question then becomes, what is the federal government, under our current constitution, allowed to do about it, and what methods or involvement, if any, would actually produce desirable results. This sort of debate, and discussion of the issues is not happening with our current system, and will not with the current system.

As one who likes to fix things, I think I have a good starting point, that may lead us in a direction to fix the current debate problem. I propose that the parties take a certain number of the debates, lets say 6 or 8, that they know ahead of time will occur, and then assign to each debate a single topic. Lets say the topics for the debates are Health Care, War on Terror, Gun Control, The Economy, Taxation, Abortion/Execution/Stem Cell issues (we'll call it the Life issue debate), Education, Energy Policy, for example. Now, each debate would deal only with one topic. Candidates like Rudy Giuliani would have to be kept, by the moderators, from bringing issues in the education debate back to 9/11, but that should be do-able. Each candidate should be allowed to answer each question, and each candidate should have the same amount of time to answer each question. Whats more, each answer should be given around 5 minutes, not 30 seconds. I would like the candidates to be able to submit questions that they would all have to answer (after all, as politicians, they understand a lot of the nuances better than most citizens, and may be able to highlight some of the policy complexities nicely for the public), and I don't see why candidates could not know some of the questions ahead of time and prepare real honest, and thoughtful answers.

I find our political system to be terribly broken, but reforming the debates, so that they actually provide some value to the voting public, could be a good place to start. The system will never be without personal attacks, and hyperbole, and demagogy, but as is true with all systems, entropy reigns if we do not put in the work to create order in the systems that produce the people who govern us.

The Iranian Problem

2007-11-12T16:01:00.000-05:00

With Iran being presented much the same way Iraq and Saddam Hussein were in the past, and with it receiving so much attention in the 2008 presidential campaign, reason needs to be presented to counter our march to unnecessary war. You won't hear reason from any of the media-loved Republicans on this issue (Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, or McCain) , nor will you hear it from the media-chosen Democrats (Clinton, Obama etc).

America's policy on nuclear proliferation in Iran specifically, and Iran's influence in the middle east in general, brings out the worst of American imperialist politics. First, America needs to step back from "pre-emption". That is, the policy of invading or taking military action against a country we "think" might be planning to harm our "interests". Pre-emption is a code word for imperialism. It means that we can attack anyone we think might be looking at us funny, as "interests" are so loosely defined as to make anything permissible. The only acceptable cause for using military force is to defend life or property of our citizens. Anything else opens up the slippery slope we have too often slid down, to our own peril and harm.

When a politician is asked, "Will you allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons if you are president?", it would be refreshing and give hope for peace and freedom if the politician would answer "it is not my place, or the place of our country to decide who can have what weapons". Unless we are currently at war with another country, we are overstepping our rights as human beings, when we presume to tell them how they can defend themselves. We are setting ourselves at a higher position, that of demi-gods or imperials lords, when we attempt to control others in such a manner. This is bad for freedom, bad for human dignity, and bad for our own souls.

Further, if one studies history, and understands why Iran and the United States are at odds today, one can see that the problem may not be intractable. Indeed, all the arguments made by our mainstream politicians regarding the sanity of the Iranian government and religious leaders totally ignores the fact that China, and Russia, and plenty of other countries are not terrified by that Iranian government. If Iran hated us for being Christian, or immoral (smut peddlers), or free, or whatever other imagined reasons Iran should like to kill us all, one who understands Islam, would have a hard time explaining why China and Russia and North Korea and all these other atheist nations, nations that one would think, based on their horrible human rights records, and their horrible records repressing the religious of any faith, are not at all worried about a nuclear Iran. This suggests to me that our problems with Iran are primarily political, that our terrible record in the middle east of supporting brutal dictators like the Shah in Iran, like Mubarak in Egypt, like Hussein in Iraq, like Fahd in Saudi Arabia, like Musharraf in Pakistan, like any number of others there and around the world, is a much bigger problem for our credibility and relations when dealing peacefully with Iran.

Perhaps, if our foreign policy met reasonable expectations and took reasonable actions, our problems with Iran would not fill us with such fear, but then, we would have to become educated about the bad things our country has done, in the name of its "interests". That may be too much to ask of Americans, but without that level of introspection and decency, our nation cannot stand in the face of the hate we whip up against ourselves around the world.

Now, there are clearly lines we may one day have to draw, to defend ourselves from religious fanatics who will not rest until everyone is Muslim or dead. But that day is not now, and that battle does not have to be ours alone. That war is not inevitable at this time. Before we walk down that path to destruction, that lonely path, we ought to regain the credibility and moral highground by reforming our imperialist and immoral policies around the world. We need to stop pushing our genocide against non-white people around the world (stop pushing abortion and birth control on other countries), we need to bring our troops home from countries and regions they don't belong in, such as Japan, Germany, South Korea, the middle east, etc. We need to stop supporting brutal regimes everywhere, indeed, we ought not be giving money to foregin police and military under the cover of the "war on terror" or the "war on drugs" or the war on anything else. That money is used by bad people to oppress and subjgate their populace. We need to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries and allow them to experience self-determination. We need to embrace our own ideals, and stop our mega-corporations from enslaving the peasants of the world, China must not be allowed to continue to enslave its population so that WalMart executives get richer. The way to stop this is not through more pre-emption, the way is through proper trade tariffs and trade policy and an American government that will educate its people to make the proper and honrable choices at the marketplace.

Short of this, we are on a march to war, indeed, we are on a march to destruction. One country cannot control the world, many have tried, they have all failed. Our history cannot be any different.

Its Time to Put Your Money Where Your Hope Is

2007-10-28T23:20:00.000-04:00

So, I changed my party affiliation, and for the first time ever, am a registered Republican. I even had a nightmare about it last night.

I dreamt that a person I do not know, (in the dream) from the company that currently employs me, called me into an office at work, and explained that the company was concerned about diversity in its workforce. He told me that they had analyzed the political habits and party memberships of all employees, and that they simply had too many Republicans, so they were letting me go. I freaked out and explained that I only joined the Republican party to vote for Ron Paul in the primary! He wouldn't accept that as an answer. The people I worked with were far too busy to talk to me, they were in meetings all day. I finally broke down and considered suing.

Wow, that was certainly a nightmare. But, you know what would be a bigger nightmare? If we get another 4 or more years of the same socialist/corporatist economic and domestic policy, mixed with 4 or more years of the same old imperial foreign policy. Its time for a change, not just of the name of the head of the executive branch, but of philosophy. Its time to bring freedom back, to make liberty stylish again. With that, join me in pledging (and in following through on your pledge) for Ron Paul's campaign.

Disclaimer: I am not in any way affiliated with the site linked below, but I believe the sentiment is fantastic, and I am on board. The site aims to have 100,000 people donate $100 dollars to Ron Paul's campaign, in a single day.

If your browser won't allow pop-ups, click here.

Interesting Reading

2007-09-27T21:10:00.000-04:00

Two books have caught my fancy lately. Both I have experienced on audio CD, borrowed from a friend, and I highly recommend.

First, All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror
Its a very well written and engaging story of our fledgling covert ops system and how it contributed to the current mess we are dealing with in dangerous areas of the world. It is a fantastic example of how a foreign policy of non-entanglement, like that proposed by Ron Paul, is the only sane foreign policy. In the very least, it is a fantastic argument against attempting to topple governments and install puppets in other countries. Much like the film Sid and Nancy convinced me as a teenager never to try heroin, this book confirmed my belief that not only is it wrong, egotistical, presumptuous, and immoral to engage in covert activities aimed at controlling foreign governments, its not practical either.

The second, The Age of Sacred Terror: Radical Islam's War Against America
A wonderful inside look at the philosophies of today's leading radical Islamic terrorists. It covers in great detail how our government operated with respect to counter-terrorism primarily before 9/11, and with somewhat less detail after 9/11. It makes a strong case against Louis Freeh's FBI and Condi Rice in the run-up to the attacks of 9/11. It points out many interesting flaws and quirks within our system along the way.

Both books came very highly recommended from a friend, and I found them very interesting. While I do not agree with all the conclusions of the authors, I find their insight extremely helpful and enlightening.

Ron Paul, switch

2007-09-24T13:04:00.001-04:00

Bet he made the sale!

2007-08-16T18:33:00.000-04:00

Heart attack victim saved by sales pitch

Ron Paul Virtual Magazine

2007-07-28T12:06:00.000-04:00

I got this from his Myspace page.

Visit RonPaul2008.com
Designed by SIRBERUS.

A Look at Obama

2007-07-18T22:05:00.000-04:00

I have heard many people parrot national media sources who claim that Obama is a "different" type of politician, or that he is not divisive. People who parrot these talking points, I find, have generally not done any research. So here is a little bit for your consumption, just to show, that while we don't despise Obama as much as Hillary yet, we surely will if he becomes the Democratic nominee, let alone the president.

Obama believes kindergartners ought to go through "age appropriate" sex-ed.

Obama's version of socialized medicine would also include taxpayer funded abortions.

The Old Mass Has Been Freed!

2007-07-07T11:07:00.000-04:00

Explanatory letter from the Pope.

Actual text of the Motu Proprio

Highlighting a great blog, and updates

2007-06-30T17:22:00.000-04:00

If you enjoy sarcasm, check this blog out.

Also, I attended a mini "Face the Truth Tour" warmup today. I will have a post on that once I get some pictures sent to me.

MUST SEE TV....

2007-06-27T00:07:00.000-04:00

or...youtube, anyway!

My Hands are Bananas

Children of Men - part II

2007-06-23T13:03:00.000-04:00

Ahhh...

If you projected the population trend (which is unrealistic, but revealing), the last European child would be born in 2148, and the last European would die in about 2225.

From Human Life International's State of the World Report: 2005-06

Book Review: Like Always

2007-06-22T13:18:00.000-04:00

Robert Elmer’s Like Always promises a tale of “triumph of real-life love.” In summary, Will and Merit Sullivan find themselves in midlife and their lives changing with their son returning home from Iraq, their decision to purchase an isolated resort and a surprise pregnancy. Knowing this information from the back cover, the first one-third of the book is far from engaging. Elmer is painfully slow in building up to the main plot and conflict. Furthermore, despite the claim of being based on a true story, Like Always seems contrived and overly sentimental.

The Sullivans are a nice family. Honestly, they probably are representative of the majority of Christian Americans in lacking a real sensibility of knowledge of what they claim to follow. The Sullivans are likable in their self-awareness of their shortcomings as Christians. For example, Will considers himself to be “a good lapsed Lutheran.” When the reader learns of Will’s vasectomy, a truly anti-life procedure, the Sullivans’ knowledge of the Christian life is exposed as being stunted and ill-formed; the Sullivans claim a faith they appear to acknowledge only when convenient, which provides the predictable conflict. Elmer puts a sexually selfish couple in a situation where being selfless is a hard lesson.

When the news of pregnancy and terminal illness are presented to Merit along with her options, Elmer creates two camps without much dialogue or reasoning between them. Merit makes a meritorious choice and is vociferously opposed to an abortion. She never questions forgoing treatment until following the birth of the baby. The other side, which includes the remaining Sullivans, the media and the doctors all make the outrageous claim that Merit is committing suicide. In exasperation at Merit’s decision, Will’s selfishness is confirmed once more as he asks, “Are you even thinking about how I might feel?” There is no mention of when life begins, the principle of double effect or other pressing issues at the core of the pro-life movement.

Without a doubt, Elmer has a pro-life agenda by writing a story of a mother’s unwavering value of the life of her unborn child. Unfortunately, Like Always is mildly satisfying as the real-life stories upon which it is based are simply better stories. Elmer does not hesitate to mention his inspiration for the story more than once: Rita Fedrizzi. Fedrizzi’s head-lining choice appeared less than one year following the canonization of St. Gianna Beretta Molla who refused treating a uterine tumor until following the birth of her child. St. Gianna died due to infection at the caesarean incision, but as a physician she understood the risks she freely chose.

Regardless of feeling manufactured, Like Always does offer characters who are somewhat likable due to their flaws and the story is refreshing in so far as the life of the baby is protected and cherished.

Children of Men

2007-06-20T14:28:00.000-04:00

We just finished viewing Children of Men and started discussing fertilty.

As timely as ever, this little article appeared in my inbox:

Men Conceived Through Fertility Treatment Have a Sperm Count Half the Normal, Danish Study Reports

Finally a number

2007-06-18T11:57:00.000-04:00

260 reports of abuse yearly in Protestant churches

The [Catholic] church has revealed that there have been 13,000 credible accusations against Catholic clerics since 1950 -- 228 a year.

yep, just as we already knew.

DownsizeDC.org

2007-06-15T20:22:00.000-04:00

I got this on one of my email lists today. I checked out the web page and didn't find anything I disagree with. I think the OSTA is a fantastic idea. I suppose I will need to add this to the list of organizations I am donating to next month, including Human Life International, and the Ron Paul presidential campaign.

Here is the email:

Subject: Something you can show your friends

Imagine your Congressman before a large audience. Someone stands and
asks him, "Do you think you should be able to pass unpopular
legislation by combining it with a popular, but completely unrelated
bill?"

How could he answer yes, in front of all those people?

Imagine challengers supporting the "One Subject at a Time Act" as a
way of attacking incumbents. How much pressure of this kind would it
take before Congress yields and passes the "One Subject at a Time
Act" (OSTA)?

OSTA is a tool. OSTA is a weapon. OSTA, like the "Read the Bills
Act," is designed to . . .

* Expose Congress
* Embarrass Congress
* Corner Congress
* And make Congress pay a price for upsizing the Federal Monopoly

If Congress can't pass bad bills by combining them with good bills,
if every measure has to stand and fall on its own merits alone, then
Congress will have to work much harder to make the Federal Monopoly
grow. And we won't have to work quite as hard to make it downsize.

OSTA is a way of making Congress defend itself. OSTA turns the
tables. Instead of us always defending against what they're doing, we
can play offense for a change, and make Congress defend itself
against what we're doing.

OSTA is the kind of reform most Americans would support. It can help
us attract a large army to exert relentless, inescapable, resistance
numbing pressure on Congress. And when that happens . . .

Will you be able to open the webpage for the OSTA campaign and show
your friends your name on the roster of people who brought OSTA to
life?

That may depend on what you do today.

Today is the deadline for getting your name put on the OSTA webpage.

The minimum contribution to be listed is a $5 monthly pledge, or a
$60 one time contribution. Contribute more if you can because the
names will be listed by the size of the contribution.

You can contribute here.http://www.DownsizeDC.org

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.


D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC
Foundation

CONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project

http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. -- a
non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual
liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.

You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business
associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items
herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the
subscription instructions above are included.



“---Laissez-Faire was and is revolutionary, and we have come to
fulfill the work begun by the martyrs who have gone before; we have
come to complete and resuscitate the Revolution.”     Rothbard

An anti-child mother

2007-06-15T13:35:00.000-04:00

Last week I was having a polite discussion with the wife of an aquaintance of my father's. She is young - 28 yrs old to be exact - and has two beautiful girls, ages 9 and 5. She made a comment of how "nice" it was that my second child is a girl since my first-born is a boy. I made it clear that we will have more if God wills it.

She mentioned that her husband, who is also 28 yrs old, would like to have more children, but she refuses stating that two kids are enough and she was done having kids nine years ago!

I choked. She has a five-year-old!

Fortunately her dog started a fight with my father's dog, so I was saved from a potentional awkward silence and from fumbling to find a new course of conversation.

Wow.

Dedicated... to utilitarianism

2007-06-02T20:26:00.000-04:00

says Schwarzenegger:

"I am a Catholic and a very dedicated Catholic . . . I know that stem-cell research . . . will save, very quickly down the line, lives and cure a lot of these illnesses.

ah... yes... he is the "Terminator."

At the same event, Premier Dalton McGuinty, another politician who while referring to himself as Catholic supports abortion, backed the California Governor's stance. "I would argue ... there's one moral imperative that transcends all faiths, all culture and all traditions, it would be this fundamental desire to relieve pain and suffering and death where we find it," he said.

Relieving pain apparently means hurting women and killing babies for the "greater good."

What priest shortage?

2007-05-27T07:40:00.000-04:00

The May issue of the Knights of Columbus' magazine, Columbia, has a thought-provoking article by the Rev. Michael P. Orsi. In "Heroes: Then and Again," Fr. Orsi writes,

Our most common mistake is forgetting that God will always provide for his Church. . . . [T]he decline in vocations actually began before Vatican II, and [Sullins' book] points out that the decline in the priest-to-parishioner ratio after Vatican II has been largely offset by the decline in Catholics attending Mass and requesting the sacraments.

This seems so obvious that I wonder why it didn't occur to me earlier.

Baby killing

2007-05-26T21:28:00.000-04:00

There are a few topics that really get me going. One is the unbelievably rampant use of hormonal birth control. I cannot fathom the reasons women claim to justify the use of such means of contraception. The proof of all the horrible side-effects is well-documented. It makes no sense to me why women willingly take so many risks and screw up their bodies' hormonal balances for the sake of not having children. God created us perfectly. Part of that perfection includes ovulation and menstruation. Oh, yeah, and intercourse within marriage.

I digress.

This video is worth watching: Abortifacient

It poses a great question: if the failure rate of the birth control pill is 3-5%, how often do breakthrough ovulation and fertilization occur to only end up as an embryonic abortion?

Children 'bad for planet'

2007-05-07T14:19:00.000-04:00

This is just so inane that my first reaction was laughter.

HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank. [source]

Amazing. And these people will be the ones complaining about not having social security.

Blood on their hands

2007-05-05T07:58:00.000-04:00

Nothing should surprise me about the bishops, nonetheless, this did:

In testimony before the Wisconsin Senate Committee last week, the Wisconsin Catholic Conference noted that Catholic hospitals were in fact already administering the morning after pill with the use of pregnancy tests. Kim Wadas, Associate Director for Health Care at the Conference, told the committee, 'Catholic hospitals in Wisconsin can and do treat victims with emergency contraception.'

Read the rest: Bishops Conferences Admit to Approving Abortifacient Drugs for Rape at Catholic Hospitals

Children of the Reformation

2007-05-01T07:23:00.000-04:00

A Short & Surprising History of Protestantism & Contraception

by Allan Carlson

More kids = better health

2007-04-28T10:49:00.000-04:00

just adding to the vaccine controversy

After an elderly relative was instructed to get the shingles vaccination, I was prompted to investigate.

Marc Brisson and his team [at Britain's Public Health Laboratory Service] say their research shows that adults living with children have more exposure to the virus that causes chickenpox and enjoy high levels of protection against shingles. Being close to children means that adults are exposed to the virus, which acts like a booster vaccine against shingles, they believe. But if all children were vaccinated, adults who have had chickenpox would no longer be protected against developing shingles.

Ah ha! Not only does the chickenpox vaccine pose problems for the elderly, our current "older" population is the group who started the whole phenomenon of having just a few kids. Now it seems that older people need kids around to help with the natural boost in immune systems, however, most older people end up either in nursing homes or just without the regular company of children (since their kids also aren't having kids).

Before we carried away with the fact that drug companies know that vaccines are not 100% effective and that any acquired immunity is not life-long, we need to not forget that the chickenpox vaccine does contain "human diploid cells" (aka: aborted fetal tissue). Nothing like remote participation in evil all for a useless vaccine.

And just one more:

Three different analyses of reported cases of shingles and chickenpox were published today in the October 2003 issue of Vaccine and suggest the threat of a shingles epidemic in the US due to mass vaccination with varicella (chickenpox) vaccine. Data collected under the CDC-funded Varicella Active Surveillance Project (VASP) of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services Acute Communicable Disease Control Unit revealed that when chickenpox disease was significantly reduced in a population, there was an unexpectedly high number of shingles cases among unvaccinated children with a previous history of chickenpox. . . . [Gary Goldman, Ph.D.] observed that because the vaccine is eliminating chickenpox disease, children and adults no longer receive the natural boost to their immune systems that they received from periodic exposures to the disease.

Liviu Librescu: Holocaust Survivor and Hero of the Virginia Tech Massacre

2007-04-17T22:20:00.000-04:00

Liviu Librescu: Holocaust Survivor and Hero of the Virginia Tech Massacre

Another reason to like Ron Paul

2007-04-17T11:00:00.000-04:00

Ron Paul at his desk. At least he doesn't hide the facts.

[source]

The "perfect" family

2007-04-11T13:23:00.000-04:00

We often hear children who were the "only child" talk about how they wanted a sibling. But what about children of the so-called "perfect" family? What do they think?

Being in the two-child age, I thought a recent comment from a mother of five found on a blog I frequently read should be read over loud speakers to all of those "two-and-out" couples who think one boy and one girl are the "perfect" family:

. . . I grew up with only a brother and had my own room. I longed for a sister my whole life (and even ache for one now that I watch my girls interact). I couldn't wait to get to college and get a roommate. We were opposite as night and day. Me the neat freak, her the slob. I loved every minute of it!

John Paul II has said the greatest gift parents can give to their children is siblings. Mother Teresa asked, "How can there be too many children? That is like saying there are too many flowers."

The saddest thing about some children from larger families is that they choose to limit children based on material desires, so that their kids can have more things than they did. I personally know someone who told me this, so this is not mere conjecture. Others choose to be child-free for other reasons.

I'm constantly amazed by the mansion-like "luxury" single-family homes being erected that are more than likely only going to hear the pitter-patter of one or two - if that - children toddling across the floors. Money and material goods are much more appealing than the self-sacrifice of raising children.

Of course, not every couple is able to conceive or have more than one or two children. Aside from serious health matters, discerning serious reasons to avoid pregnancy are not always easy. But we do know several things regarding the conscious refusal of children:

There is really no surprise when, at Fatima, Mary told the children that people go to hell for sexual sins more often than any other type of sin. Sexuality is something to be reserved for marriage for both unity and procreation. When either of those two elements are missing the result is many lonely children.

International news

2007-03-25T02:29:00.001-04:00

German family being ripped apart because of the horrible crime of........homeschooling

Fr. Euteneuer Vs. Hannity's Fox-Priest

2007-03-12T20:20:00.000-04:00

I must keep you all up to date on this unfolding situation. A Fox News Analyst, a Father Morris, wrote an "open letter" to Sean Hannity, it was published on Fox's web site today. It essentially, based on my reading, said that Fr. Euteneuer should not have been so harsh. Father Euteneuer then writes a letter back to Father Morris. I am pasting that letter below. Quite an interesting battle here, I can only thank God that priests like Father Euteneuer still exist and are able to clarify Church teaching in the face of these "Catholics" like Hannity, Pelosi, Kennedy, etc. For those of you non-Catholics reading this and wondering what in the world the big deal is, well, if you are, post a comment and I will answer. I am not going to go into a huge piece on how dumb Hannity was, or how wrong he was. Instead read these posts to get a feel for the things I would have said. Without further delay, here is the text of the most recent letter on the topic.

An Open Letter To Fox Analyst Father Jonathan Morris
[Fr. Morris’ letter to Sean Hannity is reprinted below this “Open Letter.”]
Dear Father Jonathan,

Your letter to Sean Hannity indicates that you did not know that I asked to speak to him in private about this matter in 2004 otherwise you may have tempered your remarks about my supposed lack of charity in dealing with a high profile Catholic who dissents from clearly-defined and reiterated Church teachings. [See “Fr. Euteneuer asks to meet with Hannity about birth control” on sidebar.] You also seemed to be unaware of the fact that Sean was the one who invited me on his program and who then promptly “[threw] civility to the wind,” refused to display “cultivated intelligence” on the issues and jeopardized another person’s “reputation and dignity.” May I also point out that you did not employ with me the same standard of “fraternal correction” that you expected me to employ with Mr. Hannity. I at least made the attempt to speak to him about this issue in private without success; you, in contrast, went immediately to the internet to take me to task. I do not intend to understand your motives; I can only evaluate what I see in your actions.

The question that comes to mind is an obvious one: if you are a Fox analyst on Catholic matters, wouldn’t you have been the one to have had those “private conversations” on birth control with Mr. Hannity? How about discussions on his abortion exceptions? When you told Sean “in person” that you “disagreed with him,” was it on the issue of birth control? If you had done that, I applaud you, but your powers of persuasion may need a little honing—Sean has only gotten more vocal on this issue over time. If you did not speak to him about his public dissent, then I ask you, “Why?” While we are on the subject, have you also analyzed and disagreed with Bill O’Reilly’s perfectly horrible disdain for the Holy Father and the Church that you represent?

The church sex abuse scandal was not just about homosexual and predatory priests. It was about clerical negligence and silence on issues that not only affect people’s souls but also ruin people’s lives. It is highly unusual that you or anyone else would want a priest to be silent on issues that affect the salvation of souls. We used to recognize “admonishing the sinner” as one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy, and I consider my admonishment of Mr. Hannity to have been done in that spirit. I might also add that in doing so I have fulfilled my duty as a priest which is a requirement for my salvation.

As a seminary rector, I would sincerely hope that you are not teaching by word or example the young men in your charge to be politically correct sissies who are afraid to roll up their sleeves and defend the Church in private and in public. We have tons of those types in the clergy already. I would advise you to drink deeply of the wisdom of the Number Two man at our Headquarters who has in no uncertain terms told all of us that high profile dissenters are a scourge and a danger to souls. [See item: “Bertone: Dissident Catholics More Worrying Than Atheists.” http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07011003.html.]

I wish you fraternal blessings for your priestly work.

Sincerely,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer
President
Human Life International

Sean Hannity destroys himself on national TV

2007-03-10T22:52:00.000-05:00

Wow, is all I can say. Fr. Euteneuer of Human Life International destroys Sean Hannity on Hannity's tv show. Hannity needs to take a step back and realize, that with the positions he has taken he is aligning himself with the Nany Pelosi and Ted Kennedy wing of the Catholic Church. Perhaps Hannity needs to stop being so defensive (which translates into open aggression and ridiculous attacks) and learn some humility. Anyway, I would say enjoy this, but its really just sad.

More posts on the topic here.

EDIT (3/12/07)

I can now post the video, rather than sending you to a Fox link.

A "good" Republican for the Primary

2007-03-04T20:26:00.000-05:00

For those of you registered Republicans, consider throwing your support behind Ron Paul. He seems like a very good candidate (I am not too hot on his immigration position, but then I don't have much detail). What a coup for liberty it would be if we could make him the Republican nominee. I have yet to learn of a good Democratic nominee. If there is one you like, let me know. As the campaign season starts to heat up, feel free to submit your picks and I will see about posting information about them.

A Priest on the American Church's State of Emergency

2007-02-19T09:17:00.000-05:00

I am giving you a taste of the original article here. Do the right thing and go read the whole article. It offers various insights such as:

Forty years have gone by since the Second Vatican Council concluded its work. The 16 conciliar documents have brought about many changes in the Catholic Church. One of the most visible changes is the way the Mass in the Latin rite is celebrated.

Unfortunately, shortly after the close of the council, the liturgical reforms the council set in motion have been upset by ignorance, misinterpretation, and even infidelity. The liturgy in America has become an ongoing battle between three groups of Catholics.

...

As the chaos and polarization continued, the Tridentine Mass movement began to take shape. Close to Ridgefield, just over the state line, Fr. Francis Fenton and Fr. Robert McKenna of the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement began to say the Tridentine Mass every Sunday in a converted barn on the property of Bob and Doris Cleary. The two priests were later assisted by the first priests ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who were just beginning their apostolate on Long Island, NY. Years later, the Society of St. Pius X purchased the Jesuit Retreat House in Ridgefield, which presently functions as a very successful retreat center.

...

First of all, we have the problem that many bishops have taken Bishop Walter Curtis's position. They have spent their time building hospitals and parishes, but have done nothing to properly educate and correct their priests.

...

First and foremost, bishops need to be courageous shepherds. As George Weigel pointed out in his excellent work, The Courage to be Catholic, something needs to be done to reform the way bishops are selected in America. The present system is broken. It encourages ambition and favoritism.

...

Regarding the Society of St. Pius X, they need to come home. It would be a terrible tragedy if this schism were to continue. Lay people involved with the SSPX are there precisely because they have been so terribly scandalized by lunatic bishops and priests who have destroyed the liturgy in many parishes around the country. The pope should grant an indult for the full use of the Tridentine Mass in order to keep the scandalized laity in the Church. The leaders of the SSPX, for the good of the people they serve, should be humble and obedient, and reconcile with Rome. At the same time, Rome cannot play games with the SSPX — nor can the leaders of the SSPX remain stubborn. The faith and spiritual fervor of the laity attached to the SSPX is remarkable. It would be a tragedy if we were to lose these good people.

Southern Poverty Law Center takes aim at Rad Trads

2007-02-15T11:59:00.000-05:00

I had read some time ago that the Southern Poverty Law Center was investigating traditionalist Catholics, and here it is.
I also want to ensure you read the response from The Remnant (a traditionalist Catholic newspaper) here.

In the past, my impression of the SPLC has been a good one, that they do a valuable public service. After reading the response from The Remnant though, I wonder just how much of the SPLC's article is made up or simply wrong. These are some pretty huge accusations being tossed around by the SPLC, and it would be nice if rather than just label everyone who disagrees with them politically or theologically as "anti-semites" and similar terms, more detailed factual evidence was presented. I could run through the SPLC article and point out assertion after assertion, with absolutely no evidence. I wonder if this is why its called an "Intelligence Report". Perhaps they are taking their cues from the American intelligence agencies that apparently determined Iraq was a threat due to its chemical and nuclear weapons and weapon ambitions, but who after our invasion were unable to produce anything that resembled a threat worthy of pre-emptory invasion.

Great Article on "motu proprio"

2007-01-26T14:28:00.000-05:00

"The other week Pope Benedict XVI phoned a few French bishops, and it wasn't to find out what they got for Christmas. According to Britain's Catholic Herald, the pope was doing a bit of old-fashioned arm-twisting in response to these bishops' very public opposition to Benedict's intention to grant Catholics more access to the pre-Vatican II rite of the Mass."
...
"The-not-too-subtle message of this revolution was, if the Mass, the thing the Church held most sacred, could be monkeyed with, then it was open season on doctrine, discipline, religious authority, religious vows, church music, education, sexuality, marriage, and life itself. As the Catholic Church sank into chaos, many Catholics jumped ship. A 1958 Gallup poll found that in the United States 75 percent of Catholics went to Mass every Sunday; today the number has dropped to 25 percent. By the way, on any given Sunday in France, the bishops can count on seeing about five percent of the population.

MASS ATTENDANCE WAS NOT the only thing that suffered in the upheavals that followed Vatican II. Today 53 percent of American Catholics believe that one can have an abortion and still be a good Catholic. And 70 percent of American Catholics in the 18-44 age group say they do not believe that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, that it is only a symbol of Jesus. "
...

You can read the whole article here.

Pope Benedict, please, give us faithful Bishops

2007-01-26T09:16:00.000-05:00

Here are some recent examples of the complete lack of zealotry one would hope to find in a Catholic Bishop or Priest.

The Deacon stands while the Priest and Bishop fall.

Archbishop of Washington DC prefers not to confront those that support the holocaust, indeed, even worse, he welcomes them.

Nobody stands up to John Kerry.

Nobody stands up to Ted Kennedy.

Now, these are just a couple recent examples where big-name politicians are given an apparent dispensation from following, or even endorsing fundamental Church teaching.

This is exactly the sort of scandal that destroys the Church. If the clergy whose job it is to teach the faith, refuse to do so, how can they expect anyone to believe? If you are looking for a reason for the lack of new priests, you can lay plenty of blame at the feet of those who show the country and the world that Christ's church stands for nothing.

Luckily, I have had enough experience with real Priests, and and have read enough to know that real Bishops are out there, to keep my hope alive. I can only pray that the Pope will fix these problems in the American church, sooner than later.

Here is an article that says what I am saying, but better than I did.

Fairly unrelated, but certainly worth reading, here is a story on how the Communists, during the cold war, sought to destroy the Church.

March for Life

2007-01-25T13:05:00.000-05:00

On Monday, January 22, I attended the annual March for Life. I had intended to visit the Blogs4Life conference, but due to circumstances beyond my control (our bus was later than we had planned for) I was unable to make the conference. I did however, still make the march. Following is some video from the march.

Here is video I shot before and after the Mass at DAR Constitution Hall. For an NO Mass, that was so large, it actually went fairly well. Cardinal Rigali from Philadelphia presided. I did not video any of the actual Mass, just the music beforehand, and the Cardinal leaving afterward. Note that this was the smaller of two Masses in DC at the same time. The larger one was at the Verizon center (used to be MCI center), where the Washingon Wizards basketball team plays.

Here is video immediately following the event at Constitution Hall as the group from the Mass makes its way to the march.

Here we have video of the more interesting speakers at the march. I skipped alot of the politicians as they are boring and not to be trusted, in general. I did get my congressman, Roscoe Bartlett from Maryland. My favorite speaker is the guy from the AME church in Frederick. The Rabbi is also there every year and always has something incendiary to say.

Here is video of the actual march. Its not a terribly long march, and there were absolutely no counter-protesters on hand.

So, there you have the video. I just wanted to add a comment about the march, both last year and this year... I noticed there are several different types of people that go to these marches. You have the people who are there and celebrate by chanting college fight songs, or cadences, or other types of music. They are usually younger people, and tend to be there with their college or high school, or youth group. I find it unsettling, because I am more the somber person, there to mourn and protest the holocaust. I would almost prefer a silent candle-lit march. I think that would somehow be more appropriate given the gravity of what I, and presumably the other march attendees believe is going on.

One last item to chew on. Thinking back to the Nazi holocaust, pretend for the sake of argument that the Nazis had allowed those who sympathized with their victims to hold a rally and march once a year in Berlin. How would we view the hundreds of thousands of people who one would assume would have turned out to march? How will history view us, assuming we will win one day, and human life will be protected by the law? We march once (some of us more often at smaller events) a year, we "pray" for an end to the holocaust, we donate time and money to oragnizations and groups that work to provide alternatives to abortion, for those women who seek an alternative. Is it enough? Would it have been enough for the Germans to do the same?

Blogs4Life Conference

2007-01-19T11:11:00.000-05:00

Just a note to let you all know that for the second consecutive year, I will be attending the Blogs4Life conference prior to the march on Monday. You can also still attend if you like. I will be bringing a video camera and plan to try and get some footage of my own from both the conference and the march, to post here sometime next week.

Snippets from a libertarian debate on abortion

2007-01-08T08:15:00.000-05:00

I am involved in a debate on abortion, from a libertarian perspective, on a libertarian email list. I thought I would present a couple snippets. The author gave me his permission, so here is an interesting bit on persistence and reason. I have added a link to the text, so that you can see the resources the author is describing.

***
I can give you a personal example of someone (me) changing his mind on the abortion issue.

I use to believe that the fetus became a person at some point between conception and birth and that therefore abortion was acceptable before that point of development was reached.. Doris Gordon challenged me to define where that point was and why. Over a number of years I kept responding to her and she kept defeating my argument based, of course, on reason and science. Finally I conceded that, rationally, there was no such point between conception and birth. A person is a unique being at the moment of conception and that its development proceeds, if allowed to, in a continuous, unbroken process that does not have a 'eureka' point at which its nature changes from a non-human into a human being.

Note that I used the terms 'reason' and 'science'. Most people do not reach their position on abortion through a rational process. It is almost always based on emotion (even when couched in scientific terms), often grounded in religious belief. That's why most people's position on abortion will not be changed by a rational argument. They can only be reached emotionally. I think that some of the recent advances in in utero imaging, which allows people to 'see' the fetus as a person (a baby), will do more to change minds on the abortion issue than the most carefully reasoned arguments in the world.

Jay Baker, Rockville MD
***

One more slip down the slope towards the brave new world...

2007-01-04T00:44:00.000-05:00

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2530561_1,00.html

"Parents defend decision to keep girl a child

Her name is Ashley X, and she is the little girl who will never grow up.

Until New Year’s Day, not even her first name was known. Ashley was a faceless case study, cited in a paper by two doctors at Seattle Children’s Hospital as they outlined a treatment so radical that it brought with it allegations of “eugenics”, of creating a 21st-century Frankenstein’s monster, of maiming a child for the sake of convenience.

The reason for the controversy is this: three years ago, when Ashley began to display early signs of puberty, her parents instructed doctors to remove her uterus, appendix and still-forming breasts, then treat her with high doses of oestrogen to stunt her growth.

In other words, Ashley was sterilised and frozen in time, for ever to remain a child. She was only 6.

Ashley, the daughter of two professionals in the Seattle area, never had much hope of a normal life.

Afflicted with a severe brain impairment known as static encephalopathy, she cannot walk, talk, keep her head up in bed or even swallow food. Her parents argued that “keeping her small” was the best way to improve the quality of her life, not to make life more convenient for them.

Because of her small size, the parents say, Ashley will receive more care from people who will be able to carry her: “Ashley will be moved and taken on trips more frequently and will have more exposure to activities and social gatherings ... instead of lying down in her bed staring at TV all day long.”

By remaining a child, they say, Ashley will have a better chance of avoiding everything from bed sores to pneumonia — and the removal of her uterus means that she will never have a menstrual cycle or risk developing uterine cancer.

Because Ashley was expected to have a large chest size, her parents say that removing her breast buds, including the milk glands (while keeping the nipples intact), will save her further discomfort while avoiding fibrocystic growth and breast cancer.

They also feared that large breasts could put Ashley at risk of sexual assault.

The case was approved by the hospital’s ethics committee in 2004, which agreed that because Ashley could never reproduce voluntarily she was not being subjected to forced sterilisation, a form of racial cleansing promoted in the 1920s and known as eugenics (it was satirised in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby). However, the case of Ashley X was not made public, and, as a result, no legal challenges were ever made.

Ashley’s doctors, Daniel Gunther and Douglas Diekema, wrote in their paper for the October issue of the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine that the treatment would “remove one of the major obstacles to family care and might extend the time that parents with the ability, resources and inclination to care for their child at home might be able to do so”.

The paper inspired hundreds of postings on the internet: many supportive, others furious. “I find this offensive if not perverse,” read one. “Truly a milestone in our convenience-minded society.”

It was the critical comments that finally provoked Ashley’s father to respond.

While remaining anonymous, he posted a remarkable 9,000-word blog entry at 11pm on New Year’s Day, justifying his decision.

The posting includes links to photographs of Ashley, in which the faces of other family members, including Ashley’s younger sister and brother, have been blanked out. “Some question how God might view this treatment,” he wrote. “The God we know wants Ashley to have a good quality of life and wants her parents to be diligent about using every resource at their disposal . . . to maximise her quality of life.”

Ashley’s father went on to describe how her height is now expected to remain at about 4ft 5in (1.3m), and her weight at 75lb (34kg). Without the treatment, she would have grown into a woman of average height and weight, probably about 5ft 6in and 125lb, with a normal lifespan.

The medical profession is divided. “I think most people, when they hear of this, would say this is just plain wrong,” wrote Jeffrey Brosco. of the University of Miami, in an editorial. “But it is a complicated story . . . (But) high-dose oestrogen therapy to prevent out-of-home placement simply creates a new Sophie’s Choice for parents to confront.

“If we as a society want to revise the nature of the harrowing predicament that these parents face, then more funds for home-based services, not more medication, is what is called for.”

George Dvorsky, a director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, countered: “If the concern has something to do with the girl’s dignity being violated, then I have to protest by arguing that the girl lacks the cognitive capacity to experience any sense of indignity.” "

The Murder of Saddam Hussein

2007-01-02T22:23:00.000-05:00

Capital punishment (The Death Penalty) is not a complicated issue for the detached, rational observer. From the perspective of a detached rational observer (someone who is not related in any way to the victim, for which the convicted is being killed), "capital punishment" is a premeditated, planned, "cold blooded" (emotionless for the executioner - the executioner has no more stake in the crime being avenged than I do), taking of a human life. One could easily use this definition to describe murder. That is fairly easy and there isn't a whole lot more to say, but I will anyway.

One can certainly understand how a victim, or the relative or friend of a victim of a terrible crime could become angry. Indeed, seeking revenge is certainly a natural impulse. Unfortunately, revenge is not "justice", revenge is an emotional, base impulse, and for Christians, revenge is a sin. I will not jump into the religious arguments against capital punishment, because its really quite obvious that capital punishment/murder is incompatible with a Christian outlook, despite what some "Christians" claim. Instead, let us focus on the objective truth and reality, that all can easily agree on. One cannot undo a murder, so clearly murdering a murderer simply compounds the crime.

Perhaps the argument that capital punishment is a deterrent holds some statistical relevance, I don't know and haven't bothered to look it up, because frankly, execution as a deterrent does not make the execution any less a murder. Statistics therefore, don't matter here. One could argue that a murderer (convicted person) has given up all rights to life or freedom or anything by committing murder. Without diving into religion and the dignity of all human beings and such, lets dispel any thought that man or "the state" in the example of capital punishment, which is a representative of man (whether endorsed by the governed overtly, or by the lack of the governed making an effort to overturn its government) has any right to murder another man. No man has the right to murder another, as soon as such an imagined right is championed by one man or the state, the very nature of equality and freedom break down, because the entity that now holds the power over life and death has been elevated to a higher status than the victim of the murder (execution). Once a man, or state has the power to determine who can and shall be killed, all who do not hold the position of greatest power in the state are potential victims. It is not hard to look through history and find examples of this power being abused, as it will always be abused, due to man's imperfection. One cannot be free or considered equal with other men, if his very life continues at the whim of other men. If the life of all men is not respected, the life of no man, save he who holds power, is respected. As a note to those whole hold power, no man holds power forever, and evil men are dealt with in evil ways in time.

The only time an execution is excusable is when it is unavoidable. For example, if ten people are trapped on a small deserted island, and one man murders another. The eight people on the island, may feel they need to kill the murderer, since no prison exists in which to hold the murderer and keep him away from the peaceful citizens. In that example, one would have to search long and hard for an alternative to execution. In the real world however, there is no shortage of prisons. Murderers can be imprisoned until natural death with very little difficulty and cost. For those people that believe they should not be forced to pay, through taxes, for murderers to be housed and fed, banishment is always an option as well. Murder however, is never justified.

For those that read this and then ask if I am a pacifist, the answer is easily no. Murder, which we defined several paragraphs above and killing in self-defense are clearly not the same.

So, what does this all have to do with Saddam Hussein and his execution? It was afterall the Iraqi's and not the USA that executed Saddam Hussein right? Well, yes, the USA did not open the trap door that dropped Saddam to his death. Our government, and therefore we who support our government (and that is everyone who pays taxes, whether you voted for those in power or not) are complicit in his murder. We held him for the current Iraqi government. We then handed him over to the Iraqi government for his execution. Further, we are responsible for protecting and keeping in power the current Iraqi government. Therefore, a great deal of responsibility is ours. Why should you care? Afterall, we execute our own people all the time, who cares of an Iraqi is executed? We have shown the world, once again, that we support cowards and terrorists. As one can clearly see in the pictures of Saddam's execution in media outlets the world over, his murderers didn't even have the courage to show their faces. They wore ski masks, just like the cowardly terrorists who wore masks while they sawed the heads off of living American citizens and then released the videos to the internet. The people we are dealing with in Iraq today, are no better than those we are supposed to be fighting. Now we know it, and so does the rest of the world. This is something to deplore not celebrate.

What is done is done, it cannot be taken back, and all will have to live with the consequences, in this case it was not just a simple murder, but it was a murder that shows the world once again that our commitment to freedom and democracy are hollow and meaningless.

Evolution and ID from a Catholic perspective

2007-01-02T22:03:00.000-05:00

Interesting article. After reading it, I still believe what I believe, and am no closer to knowing if I am out of line with what I believe. Without a whole lot of explanation to why, I will just state, I believe in microevolution but do not believe we came from single celled organisms. I have no idea how old the earth is, and don't really care. I am not convinced that God measures time the way we measure time, so I am not committed to a literal reading of Genesis, but I have no personal need to buy into other "scientifically" based theories with regards to the age of the earth. There, I put it all out there, I don't feel a need to debate or argue much of this, as my opinions are philosophical in nature. And being a skeptic, convincing me otherwise would be quite difficult. Now, go read the article and see if it clears anything up for you, should you have questions yourself.

Denying the Holocaust

2006-12-27T11:06:00.000-05:00

I stumbled across this article by Rabbi Marc Gellman, and felt obliged to respond to him, for what I believe is a glaring omission. My response is below.

Dear Rabbi Gellman,

In your list of abominations, the Holocaust, Slavery, Darfur, etc.. You fail to mention abortion. How can Christians and Jews and Muslims allow abortion and continue to go to church, synagogue, and mosque and ask God to bless their families? I have no idea where you stand on abortion, if you recognize it for what it is, then you ought to include that in your list of atrocities. I find it hard to believe you would just forget about it, so it leads me to believe you are leaving it out for the sake of political expediency. If you are an abortion denier, then you don't have the moral authority to be labeling abominations, any more than the Holocaust deniers do.

There are other items to dispute or quibble with in your article, but they are minute compared to inclusion of abortion in your list of abominations, and to nitpick about who needs to explain what, and who did what to whom won't get us any closer to stopping the holocaust of unborn children that is going on today, right now, and right here.

I think this is worthy of pointing out to many people, so I will include a link to your article as well as my response on my blog http://freelanders.blogspot.com

Thank you for your time,
Paul

From Ahaz to Zerubbabel

2006-12-25T03:32:00.000-05:00

Come Christmastime every year, we often hear these oh-so-familiar seventeen verses from the first chapter of Matthew at Mass:

"A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife, Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon. After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Eliud, Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ."
-----------

From an English teacher’s standpoint, the story of salvation history, for being God’s bestseller and the greatest story ever told, begins with some majorly plodding exposition.

As a little kid at midnight Mass on Christmas Eve, I would of course let loose my few requisite giggles at the funnier names like "Jehoshaphat" and "Uzziah", then, when roundly berated by my parents for giggling during Mass, promptly fall asleep through the rest of the genealogy. My next real exposure to Matthew’s genealogy was at seventeen when, during my freshman year of college, my then-boyfriend and his friends adopted "Abijah", son of Rehoboam, as a sort of celebratory interjection akin to "Dude!" (Ex.: "Abijah! I just kicked your ass at Halo!") And even when studying Scripture in college theology courses, I would typically skirt over the genealogical passages in order to get to the good stuff. I mean, seriously -- what with a mysterious star and singing angels and visiting shepherds and wandering Magi and fleeing into Egypt, whether or not Shealtial begat Zerubbabel seemed an awfully superfluous point.

Yet, in the words of the incomparable G. K. Chesterton, “If you look at a thing nine hundred and ninety-nine times, you are perfectly safe. If you look at it the thousandth time, you are in frightful danger of seeing it for the first time.” Tonight, at Christmas Eve Mass, I found my eyes restlessly wandering down the page of my missal during the interminable litany of the ancestry of Christ. My gaze came to a full stop on verse 5: “Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab . . .” The name “Rahab” rang a bell. I paused to filter through my atrophied knowledge of random Old Testament trivia, and vaguely recalled her as some prostitute who helped save Israel by offering hospitality to spies sent by Joshua, Moses’ successor.

Intrigued, I moved on to verse 6. “David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife.” David, of David and Goliath fame, of course we all know. The “man after God’s own heart”, who in a moment of weakness, succumbed to his lust, slept with Bathsheba, knocked her up, and then sent her poor husband Uriah to sleep with the fishes to cover his own tracks. Yet here in Matthew chapter one, we find that the incarnate God of the Universe Himself chose to descend from the lineage of this sometime slipshod adulterer and murderer.

In verse three, we find mention in the lineup of “Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar.” While a seemingly innocuous listing, a few minutes of Old Testament reconnaissance will reveal that Tamar disguised herself as a temple prostitute and was impregnated by her father-in-law Judah with twins Perez and Zerah. We are talking some friggin' twisted and bizarre people with whom the Savior of the world chose to share bloodlines.
Uzziah, whose name I found so amusing in childhood, started out all right but, on a serious power trip in 1 Chronicles 26, recklessly appropriated the office of the High Priest, burst into the sanctuary, and burned incense himself, ticking God off.

Ahaz, another of Jesus’ great-great-great-granddaddies, was a wicked king of Judah (check out 2 Kings 16) who brought about his own kingdom’s ultimate subjection to the Assyrians by choosing to ignore the warnings of the prophets Isaiah, Hosea, and Micah. He died a tragic death at thirty-give, and Scripture tells us he was such a loser that he wasn’t even permitted burial in the sepulcher of the kings.

Baffled, it suddenly dawned on me by the middle of the Christmas Eve Gospel reading, with my kid sister beside me snickering over "Jehoshaphat" and "Uzziah", that a disproportionate number of the ancestors of Jesus Christ were heathens, prostitutes, murderers, foolish rulers, and worldly failures.

To me, this revelation means two things this Christmas season that I wanted to share with you. First, that we have a God Who is so gloriously nondiscriminatory about His offer of salvation that He rolled up His sleeves and entered into grubby, dirty human history to die a grubby, dirty death on grubby, dirty Calvary Hill for the sake of a bunch of grubby, dirty bipeds who really, at the end of the day, didn’t deserve such an awesome outpouring of divine humility; that He has called to Himself not only the pious and unsullied and innocent of the world but also the St. Peters, the St. Thomases, the Mary Magdalenes, the St. Augustines, the Tamars and the Rahabs, and used all of them, whatever their walk of life, whatever their failings, whatever the enormity of their past sins, to fulfill His plans and accomplish His purposes; that, fortunately for all of us, God wants to take us as we are, where we are, beaten and bruised and lazy and flawed and sinful and wallowing in the muck, and with the transformative workings of His grace, make something beautiful of us; that He has chosen the weak of this world to shame the wise, and that His power is made perfect in our weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9).

Second, that sometimes God’s plans take a seemingly haphazard and roundabout path to reaching their culmination, and we often fail to recognize them because they don’t come to us in the packaging we expected. Yet if Jesus Christ Himself was descended from a bunch of hookers and hit-men, none of God’s more convoluted workings in our own daily lives should ever take us too much by surprise. I know in my own life, if it weren’t for some painful and unhappy detours which the past two years of my life took, providential happenstance would never have landed me in a random city six hundred miles south of home finding the most amazing job of all time. I am thus eternally grateful for some of life’s dodgiest curveballs sent in love by one who knew what I needed better than I knew myself, and for the incognito workings of grace that ultimately got me where I needed to be. “For we know all things work together for good, for those who love the Lord, who are called according to His purpose.” (Romans 8:28)

Something to think about. Merry Christmas.

Fy Authority

2006-12-23T23:13:00.000-05:00

In modern English, the prefix "de" is a common one. It derives from Latinate origin and usually implies a reversal or reduction of that which follows it.

Fair enough.

By this seemingly logical rationale, we get verbs like "deactivate", "decontaminate", and "deconstruct", signifying that we've stopped our activating, ceased our contaminating, and undone our constructing. We derail trains. We detox ourselves.

All that being said, then where on earth do we get "deplore", "deprive", "defy", and plethoric other verbs which fail to follow the established conventions? Why the crap, if I can deplore a poor worldview or an ideology, can't I plore a good one? And if I had a happy and fulfilled growing-up experience, why can't I say I was a prived child? Would the linguistic police write me up for reckless endangerment if I put a bumper sticker on my car which proclaimed, "Fy Authority"?

Are we really such a glass-is-half-empty culture that we have only managed to maintain all these terms in their negative constructions? I mean, seriously, where have all the ploring, priving, fying people gone? Are they with the ept, couth, peccable ones?

On that note, please enjoy the following New Yorker piece by Jack Winter (25 July 1994). It's so brilliant I could have written it, but sadly, didn't.

"How I Met My Wife

It had been a rough day, so when I walked into the party I was very chalant, despite my efforts to appear gruntled and consolate. I was furling my wieldy umbrella for the coat check when I saw her standing alone in a corner. She was a descript person, a woman in a state of total array. Her hair was kempt, her clothing shevelled, and she moved in a gainly way. I wanted desperately to meet her, but I knew I'd have to make bones about it since I was travelling cognito. Beknownst to me, the hostess, whom I could see both hide and hair of, was very proper, so it would be skin off my nose if anything bad happened. And even though I had only swerving loyalty to her, my manners couldn't be peccable. Only toward and heard-of behavior would do.

Fortunately, the embarrassment that my maculate appearance might cause was evitable. There were two ways about it, but the chances that someone as flappable as I would be ept enough to become persona grata or a sung hero were slim. I was, after all, something to sneeze at, someone you could easily hold a candle to, someone who usually aroused bridled passion. So I decided not to risk it.

But then, all at once, for some apparent reason, she looked in my direction and smiled in a way that I could make heads or tails of. I was plussed. It was concerting to see that she was communicado, and it nerved me that she was interested in a pareil like me, sight seen. Normally, I had a domitable spirit, but, being corrigible, I felt capacitated ~ as if this were something I was great shakes at ~ and forgot that I had succeeded in situations like this only a told number of times.

So, after a terminable delay, I acted with mitigated gall and made my way through the ruly crowd with strong givings. Nevertheless, since this was all new hat to me and I had no time to prepare a promptu speech, I was petuous. Wanting to make only called-for remarks, I started talking about the hors d'oeuvres, trying to abuse her of the notion that I was sipid, and perhaps even bunk a few myths about myself. She responded well, and I was mayed that she considered me a savory character who was up to some good. She told me who she was. "What a perfect nomer," I said, advertently. The conversation become more and more choate, and we spoke at length to much avail. But I was defatigable, so I had to leave at a godly hour. I asked if she wanted to come with me. To my delight, she was committal. We left the party together and have been together ever since. I have given her my love, and she has requited it."

This post brought to you courtesy of intellectual OCD and Guinness Extra Stout.

The Prizewinner of Defiance, Ohio: WATCH this movie!

2006-12-23T05:17:00.000-05:00

You gotta watch it!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0406158/

Day Break: the best show to be cancelled in my memory

2006-12-22T11:37:00.000-05:00

I must start this by giving a respectful nod to the people that never gave Day Break a chance. Ok, so a CSI type Groundhog Day may be a laughable concept. But, had you ever watched the show, I have no doubt you would have been as hooked as I was. To give you some idea, a friend I work with, who has never seen an episode, lampoons my love of the show every time I mention it. He and I share a mutual affection for Lost and the new Battlestar Galactica. So my taste is clearly not out of the mainstream. But I must say, that until this past Wednesday when I read Day Break had been cancelled, after settling down to watch it at its normal time, it was the best show currently on television.

Its a paradox, but the show's only failing was its premise. The only thing that could have been viewed as not good about the show was the Groundhog Day type premise, where the main character wakes up every day in the same day, trying to get things "right". Other than that, the show was fantastic. And, if you would have given the show a chance, it wouldn't have bothered you, once you saw what a great device it is, for story-telling.

You see, Day Break doesn't overdose you on flashbacks like other shows, in an attempt to develop characters. Instead it takes the characters, as they are on one day, and then shows how the simple act of living a day differently can impact everyone a person comes in contact with. You get, I think, a much more interesting, effective, and deeper knowledge of the characters and their interactions, by showing how they react, based on their learned biases through their lives and experiences with the world and each other, to how a single character behaves differently one day to the next.

Clearly, I really enjoyed the show. I thought the acting was great, and the usually 2 dimensional cardboard cutout cop-show character really came alive, and really developed depth the way Day Break unfolded. It is the show I will most miss in my memory. And I will certainly by the whole series when it comes out on DVD.

Farewell Detective Hopper, I won't see you again, it seems, until you are available at my local DVD store.

The Death of Germany

2006-12-12T15:10:00.000-05:00

This past March, BBC.com had a front page article, Dwindling Germans Review Policies, which is about the population implosion facing Germany and what the government is to do about it.

"A German woman has on average 1.37 children during her lifetime, well
below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman. . . . For years,
demographers and politicians have warned about the dangers of a declining birth
rate and ageing population. But the recent statistics make uncomfortable
reading, and it's prompted a passionate debate in the German media."

Not suprisingly, the article focuses on working moms and how difficult it is for a woman to have a career and to raise a family. Suzanne Venker has already tackled the problem of the "working mom" in her book, 7 Myths of Working Mothers: Why Children and (Most) Careers Just Don't Mix. Regardless of the conflict between modern society and traditional family roles, one woman in the article says,

"More employers have understood that if they don't want to do without a
qualified female workforce, then they have to create the options for women to
work part-time. But this doesn't necessarily mean that you can count on a lot of
sympathy as a working mum."

She concedes that while the government does offer financial incentives for women to have children, she questions whether they are the right ones.

But more importantly, should the government really be paying parents 67% of their income for 10 months in a state-funded welfare scheme so that parents can "afford" to raise their kids? In general, the cost of raising a child is directly related to the parents' choices (e.g. breastmilk vs. formula or all-new clothes vs. used clothing). Other countries, such as Italy and Japan, are tackling the population crisis by paying couples per child as an incentive to have families. But there are other problems, such as in Italy, where people are paid to retire early. A demographics professor from Florence admits:

"We have the best pension system in Europe and the worst system for family
support. Rich old people supported by the labor of poor young people. No wonder
nobody wants to have a family."

It seems that even with government incentives people are choosing to not have families whether or not they are in Germany.

From the above discussion it may be easy to assume that Germany's abortion rate is quite high, however, that is not the case. Germany has a low rate of abortion, but a high rate of contraceptive useage. In another BBC article, UK sterilisation 'double average' the figures cite 16.2% of German women are sterilized and 82% use contraceptives while the abortion rate is 9%. In 1972, the abortion rate was 33%.

Men and women are not unequal, but they do possess different abilities and traits for the proper balance in society; a balance that's perfected through the family, which is why state-funded schemes cannot be the only recipe for sucess. The family is a microcosm of society and when the family is dysfunctional, so will be the state. So, in this case, when society freely and openly accepts mulitiple means of halting procreation then families will adopt these ideas and will cease to reproduce at a rate beneficial for the state.

Germany is just another example of a society contracepting and aborting itself to death in the name of gender equality and sexual freedom. This is not new information. Countries around the world have already started worrying about the future of their growing numbers of geriatrics who produced too few children to support the economic dynamics and natural-law-driven base a thriving state requires. But a solution cannot be found solely in monetary incentives; a change in mindset regarding the value of reproductive capabilities must occur, too.

Its Time for an Inquisition

2006-11-27T10:46:00.000-05:00

Things like this convince me that maybe it is time for the Church to conduct a new inquisition.

Thanks Vatican II, thanks alot.

I often get upset with the media for its dumb questions, which I am convinced are simply wishful thinking that Catholic Church will make itself irrelevant (by showing the world it doesn't believe what it has preached for the last 2000 years) as the Anglicans have (for a shorter period of time, but you get the point).

Four examples, are these articles on the Catholic Church and condoms in dealing with AIDs in Africa.

What these people don't get, and I cannot understand why (even before I considered myself religious, I did at least understand how religions work), is that the Catholic Church cannot just change its mind on something so fundamental as "life". The Church is not going to wake up one day and decide abortion is ok. The Church is not going to wake up one day and say women priests are ok. The Church is not going to wake up one day and say condoms are ok, even in special very rationalized situations.

Perhaps its precisely because these media people, and even some who claim to be Catholic, do not believe in the Church as Christ's church. They look at it as just another large denomination that was and is created, run, and manipulated by men. Certainly, if I take that viewpoint, then it would make no sense to me why the Church could not just change its mind on what it claimed to be fundamental truths.

What I find particularly cynical of them, and very frustrating however, is that they clearly believe those who run the Church do not believe any of what they themselves teach. I think Pope John Paul II (to a lesser extent than Pope Benedict XVI) and Pope Benedict the XVI, have shown time and again that they do believe in what the Church teaches. Yes, they are both very liberal Popes (JPII more than Benedict), but not in the political sense, rather in the liturgical sense. My faith is strengthened by our Pope's adherence to the Church's teachings on morality.

A lot of this misunderstanding I think stems from scandal. It has been said that the greatest threat to Christianity is Christians. In other words, scandal within the Church convinces others that Christians are hypocrites and don't believe what they preach, which ruins the credibility of the Church and casts doubt upon its truths. It is for this reason, that the current "purge" (a word used by various media outlets), underway by our new Pope is so welcome. Liturgical abuses, sex abuse cases by clergy, Communion given to those known to be outside a "state of grace" (a Catholic term for "in good standing with the Church"), etc etc, the list goes on.

Some fantastic news on this front, returning to the real translation of "pro-multis" meaning "for many" away from the warm and fuzzy super inclusive but incorrect translation to "for-all" is a great step (while this is primarily a semantics argument -even those who like "for all" can agree that Christ knew not all would accept him and his fogiveness, making it not really all, but instead many, hence pro-multis- , it is also a great example of why the universality of a Latin Mass is so desirable). Many of the excesses after Vatican II look to be on the way out, which can only be hailed as a great thing.

While our last Pope worked extremely hard to protect the Church in Eastern Europe in the first part of his Papacy, our new Pope seems intent on reuniting Christ's followers in His Church. I think this is one of the greatest things I have been alive to see, and I pray he is successful, I also find it fascinating that the media is completely missing this, the biggest story affecting the Church. What Pope Benedict the XVI is attempting, by reaching out to the Orthodox churches, on his visit to Turkey, and his later visit to Greece, as well as the apparent effort he is making to mend ties with the Society of St. Pius X, and others who are devoted to the Mass, is potentially huge. Indeed, the Pope seems to be doing a good job of reaching out to Anglicans as well, letting them know that there is still a Church faithful to all of His teachings, not just those teachings that are convenient for certain individuals.

I would love to have the Church returned to orthodoxy and tradition, the wacky pro-abortion, pro women priest, "Catholics" who do not believe in the real presence really ought to go find a Protestant denomination to attach themselves to. My hope is that reuniting the Church with those who are still faithful to Christ, will shed so many of those "followers" who continue to bring scandal on the Church, by, among other things, showing the world that they hold the same view as so many in the mainstream media, that the Church can just change its mind, because, they think, even the Pope doesn't really believe what he teaches.

"Moses supposes his toes are roses...."

2006-11-15T17:38:00.000-05:00

And, LO, did Moses go to the top of the mountain, and God gave him the tablets to take down to the people.....and LO, when Moses did go down to the people....he showed them the tablets, and bespake to the people the Ten.....Amendments?

Christian Student of Science

2006-11-11T17:03:00.000-05:00

I've been following this story about the American and British scientific team that has been able to bend electromagnetic waves so as to conceal an object from detection, at least by a microwave sensor.

Something I have had to give a lot of thought to lately is whether or not I as a Christian should even be concerned with this.

Christ pleads our case at the right hand of the Almighty Himself and that is really all I ever need to know. I have no eternal need to understand tsunamis or cancer or why we still cannot cure the common cold. In the end it does not matter because it has nothing to due with my eternal destiny, absolutely nothing.

So why bother? If your hope is found nowhere in this world, but in the house prepared by the Lord that awaits us in the next, why should you bother with science? (For that matter, if you have no hope at all after the grave, why bother with that or anything at all?)

I have come to realize that the reason we are compelled to study science is because the Lord provides. Christians get up and go to work everyday, fully aware that money does not matter and will never get us into heaven. Yet still we get up and go to work every day. We do it because that is one of the means by which the Lord provides. He provides what we need, when we need it, and in whatever manner He sees fit to give it to us. So as long as we do not delude ourselves into thinking there is any greater hope in science than how to build a better light bulb or alleviate sickness (or maybe, just perhaps, space travel and a cure for cancer), we are on the right track. Scientific advances are kind of like dollar bills. They do not get you into heaven, but they sure help out down here. And nobody understands the how's and why's of that better than our Redeemer does.

There, I am done blabbing. Now back to some equations. Woo-hoo!

Voting by Approval

2006-11-10T13:45:00.000-05:00

Following is an email from a Libertairan email list I am on. Neil puts forward some great ideas, and so, I am sharing those ideas.

------

Thank you, Lorenzo, for your encouraging words. And thank you Kevin
for making your run and giving it your all. I appreciated being able
to cast a vote for you.

I would really like to take this opportunity to propose to all
"alternative" parties to consider making it a long term goal to press
for a very easy but very significant change in the voting system. I
think this would do more for us than anything else we could realistically
imagine. It's Approval Voting. It requires no modification of any
paper ballots except to erase the printed "vote for 1" and similar
phrases preprinted on them, and very little modification to any vote
counting tools.

I mentioned it before but to recap, Approval Voting is different from
the current system only in that it allows people to grant a vote for as
many candidates as they want no matter how many seats are open, thus
"approving" or disapproving of each candidate. All votes for all
candidates are tallied and the highest vote-getter wins. A voter might
vote for all candidates, but the effect is the same as voting for none.
A vote for all but one would effectively be a vote against that one
candidate, or the person might choose to only approve of one like they
do now. There are no run-off elections, instant or otherwise, and no
complicated ranking of candidates to confuse simple minded voters.
Approval voting is simple and allows voters to express opinions about
all the candidates and not just one.

The current one-vote system is very restrictive and thereby promotes
the 2-party duopoly via the "wasted vote syndrome" which, in spite of
our campaigns, IS a very real obstical. Approval voting, on the other
hand, grants 3rd party candidates true viability. Stated another way,
multiple candidates for a single seat are no longer competing against
other candidates for each voter's vote, but instead are competing alone
for each voter's approval. When voters understand this, they will then
have a reason to turn to consider "third" parties.

Given the merits and ease of which approval voting could be implimented,
it should be considered an insult for voters to be restricted to
expressing their views on only a single candidate, which the current
system does. In all likelihood it is an archaic system simply left over
from the days when people voted by placing cards with hidden names written
on them in a box -- obviously it wouldn't do then for someone to stick 2
cards into the box as they might be for the same candidate, so they were
resticted to one.

But there is NO reason this archaic system should have been brought into
the 20th century (much less the 21st). We have the technology. We can
make it better that it was. And we should.

We really need to wake up, smell the coffee and see the reality of what's
plaguing us and promoting this duopoly, and frankly, understand that unless
and until this diseased system (I'll call it that) is cured, we will continue
to struggle against not just the media but the very voting system itself.
We can (and certainly will, in my case) continue to rattle the cages of the
republicrat voting base of the futility of voting either democrat or
republican, but I fear that the best large scale benefit to that will be
stirring some people academically.

Consider further this. How many of us who have arrived to our third
party homes have done so with the realistic expectation that we can win,
without first realizing that we *can't* truely win in either of the big
two. Is there any among us that still holds on to some substantial degree
of allegience to the R or D? I think the answer is "no" because anyone
of us holding such such allegiences would simply not be here. You'd
still be an R or D where you believe your vote "still counts".

... which tells us what we're really waiting for, which is nothing less
than for existing Joe Sixpack and Susy Soccermom republicrats to also
come to this same realization. But it never quite happens on any real
scale. They just flip flop from R to D and back again looking for integrity
and common sense and they don't stop hoping.

I really think we need to focus on the voting system. I think all of us
in all parties should give some formal consideration to approval voting
and push for it. It probably wouldn't be easy to get it legislated but
the mainstream parties might go for it if they think it would let them
gain third party votes for their candidates...... and dang, we could even
bill it to them as our wanting to vote for one of them while still staying
loyal to our own affectionate puppy-dog 3rd parties and they might be stupid
enough to believe it. There were a few races where the difference between
the R & D candidates was less than the independent/3rd party vote.

This might also be something that mainstream voters actively support.
Unlike just about every other measure like lowering sig requirements
for candidates and such, anyone who's even moderately fed up with the
R&D parties would have a reason to support it. They'd not be favoring
it just on the principles, they'd favor it because it actually gives
them a stronger voice.

If there's an effort to be made for 3rd party legislation wise, I raelly
think Approval Voting is where that effort is best spent. I dare say
even at the expense of party recognition, if need be. Could this be made
into a Constitutional Amendment ballot initiative?

I'm very serious about this.

Neil

Election is Over, Now What?

2006-11-08T15:45:00.000-05:00

I thought I would share my opinions on the election results thus far.

First, I am disappointed, though not surprised that not one real independent was elected in any major race. Americans continue to get what the deserve, by sending the same quality of people back to office over and over.

Second, while I tend to support Democrat positions less than I do Republican ones, there are some positions I would be excited about with the Democrats victory, except that I know that Democrats are hypocrites just like Republicans. I thought I would present a short list of good Democrat positions anyway, for posterity, not that I actually expect Democrats to do what they say they will, anymore than I expect it from Republicans.

1. Repeal the Patriot Act(s)
2. Repeal the DMCA
3. Fight against and get rid of Bush's Military Commissions Act
4. Reaffirm rules of engagement that do not include torture as acceptable
5. Get to the bottom of our spy agencies' programs that may violate our rights and sort it out
6. Put an end to federal capital punishment (death penalty)

Its hard to find much else that the Democrats are right about, I will be hoping they actually do something about the issues I list, but I am not going to hold my breath.

A really moving pro-life music video

2006-11-07T01:22:00.000-05:00

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3858369431186397914&q=Flipsyde

Maryland Election Endorsements

2006-11-05T21:58:00.001-05:00

There are tons of races, I tried to break down the important statewide races, and then some of the local ones around where I live. Feel free to email me or comment if there are other candidates around the country you believe deserve attention.

U.S. Senate
Michael Steele, by a mile.

Governor
John Simmins (write-in), by a mile.

Maryland Comptroller
No good candidate

US House of Representatives
District 1
none acceptable
District 2
none acceptable
District 3
John White (R)
District 4
none acceptable
District 5
none acceptable
District 6
Roscoe Bartlett (R)
District 7
none acceptable
District 8
Jeffrey Stein (R)

Maryland General Assembly
Way too many options for me to list. Go to this voter guide for a fairly good voter guide on some of the more important issues facing our civilization today. Just for your reference, I looked at the League of Women Voter's voter guide and questionnaire and found it pretty worthless.

Maryland State Senate District 2
Donald Munson (R)
As of this writing there is no registered write-in. The main problem with him is he supports the death penalty, other than that he seems acceptable.

House of Delegates 2B
Christopher Shank (R)
As of this writing there is no registered write-in. The main problem with him is he supports the death penalty, other than that he seems acceptable.

Washington County States Attorney
Jerry Joyce (D), he is running against an incumbent that isn't even running any sort of campaign as far as I can tell.

Bishop Morlino, of the Madison, Wisconsin Diocese Makes a Stand

2006-11-04T22:54:00.000-05:00

I came across this fascinating story on the Bishop of the Madison, Wisconsin Diocese taking a firm stand against those in his Diocese who are not doing their part to teach the faith, and stand up for what is right.

Here is the letter he sent to all priests in his Diocese instructing them that they are required to play a 14 minute homily during this weekend's Masses.

Here is a link to that recorded homily.

"I beseech you in the bowels of Christ think it possible you may be mistaken"

2006-11-03T19:01:00.000-05:00

I have been baffled at the ugliness that atheists often read into the behavior and beliefs of religious people. In my recent readings I have come across a lot of heat directed towards religious people, specifically Christians. This negative reaction towards traditional faith is especially pointed and vehement when it comes to parents passing on their religious inheritance to their children.

These writings I have read are challenging and well written. They have given me pause for thought. I have come to realize that atheists of the Dawkins persuasion are actually people of great faith. They start with evolution, or some other strictly scientific tenet, and then make the gigantic leap from there to "Thus There Is No God". This is an act of bravery - they take on Pascal's wager with little more than a conviction in their own cleverness. I pray for that kind of faith. It is a real treasure.

But I still have to struggle with why that particular belief system is often accompanied by a fully admitted intolerance toward people of other faiths, and specifically a very great opposition to parents teaching their children traditional dogmas. What is it that anti-religious people see as so repellent?

One thing I do know is that the most repellent thing in a person is sin. Sin is the word I use - others may use different words, like hypocrisy, obstinate bigotry, destructive stupidity, etc. When sin is perceived, disgust is a completely appropriate reaction. Sin must be what the anti-religionists see in their more religious brothers and sisters.

It is true there have always been people who are not just religious, but make the mistake of being too religious. The Lord during his earthly ministry railed against such people (they were usually members of the Sanhedrin) and warned His followers against those who had become disfigured by such sins. That was Saint Paul’s problem, back in the days when he was known as Saul, holding the coats of other much-too-religious people while they stoned to death those who were not.

But to say all religious people are like this is, well, silly. It is bigoted, actually. It is the same old error all over again; Take a group of people you don't agree with, find a few bad apples who have fallen into the particular pitfalls that threaten that group (every group has them), and then say "oh, they are all like that". Atheists, it turns out, are perfectly capable of this same old error, no matter how bright they may be.

My wife and I are currently preparing our oldest child for his first confession and first communion. Now, one of these militant atheists might be aghast at this. But I really do not feel like we are shackling our child with unnecessary guilt or committing some kind of crime against humanity as the militant atheist would have us believe. I see it more like communicating to my child his true worth in the eyes of God(and introducing him to a limitless supply of God’s grace!).

We Catholics often refer to confession as the “sacrament of conversion”. Since confession is not something that occurs only once, so neither is conversion. In our view conversion is an ongoing, life-long process. This means we live our lives in the constant awareness that we are not perfect. This awareness has its benefits for both sides of the grave. We are able to admit we are in error when error is perceived, because we know that the only person who is ever completely right at any time is the Lord Himself.

It is always sad when someone loses this perception. It is a great loss if someone is never able to consider for a moment that perhaps they are mistaken.

Liturgical Abuse in Frederick MD, at St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church

2006-11-01T12:53:00.000-05:00

I tried to go to mass today. at 12:15pm, as it is a holy day of obligation. I will have to go again tonight, as I walked out after a female Lecter read the Gospel. For those interested in a Catholic Church that follows the rules, St. John the Evangelist in Frederick, Maryland, is not for you.

According to Catholic.com this is not allowed. From Catholic.com:

At a local monastery they sometimes have one of the nuns read the Gospel. What is the status of this?

Within the celebration of the sacred liturgy, the reading of the Gospel . . . is reserved by the Church’s tradition to an ordained minister. Thus it is not permitted for a layperson, even a religious, to proclaim the Gospel reading in the celebration of Holy Mass, nor in other cases in which the norms do not explicitly permit it (63).

Here is the text of the letter on Liturgical abuses. I am going to email this blog post to the St. John the Evangelist Church, and will update this post if there is any response.

Interesting article

2006-11-01T09:52:00.000-05:00

On contraception / NFP:

http://www.envoymagazine.com/familyplanning.htm

Take this voting test

2006-11-01T09:30:00.000-05:00

I scored :

You scored 350 out of 350 possible points, or 100.00%

A+
Not only should you vote, you should consider a career in politics.

How will you do?

Patterns of Error

2006-10-28T16:36:00.001-04:00

We are all different yet we all make the same mistakes.

Most of the people I have met in this life are deeply flawed. But then it is easy to see the splinter in someone else's eye and miss the plank that is in your own. Which leads me to wonder "How completely crazy am I?"

We expect and depend on others to point out our mistakes at our work, or when we are learning a new sport or craft. We know we would not be able to learn otherwise. Yet we dig our heels in and mount all kinds of defenses when others criticize how we are doing our own lives and handling our relationships.

Whenever I train a new person at work, it is always a different experience. But still a new trainee always makes the same set of errors that all the other trainees make while they learn to do their job. This set of mistakes seems finite; I could probably contain them all with their corresponding corrections in a single college ruled notebook.

So what about our lives? What about the way we treat others as we go through life? I imagine that the errors contained therein are more numerous but just as finite. How big of a book would that take? I dont think it would be that big. All of the same old mistakes we make year in and year out could be contained, along with the antidotes for those mistakes, in a single volume.

Therefore it does not strike me as strange that in order to save us from the pitfalls of this life, He chose not only His body and blood but also a book.

Election Note for Maryland Governor's Race

2006-10-26T21:54:00.000-04:00

After asking those people that I know, who happen to call themselves pro-life (and are over 30), if they would consider running with me, or consider being my "treasurer" to satisfy Maryland's onerous requirements for running as a write-in candidate, I was told that while they (my friends) are pro-life, they just can't stand O'Malley (the Democratic candidate) so much that they would vote for Ehrlich (the Republican incumbent), a man who actively supports America's holocaust (abortion).

I have decided not to be used by "moderate" Republicans, the way the abolitionists were used by them, and the way so many in the pro-life community are used by them now. I will not support any candidate who does not fulfill one simple requirement, they must be opposed to abortion. Some might say that makes me a single issue voter, I suppose that is sort of true, in that I will not vote for someone that is "pro-choice", but if there were two pro-life candidates, there are a ton of issues that help me further narrow down which one to support.

So, after running out of options for my own gubernatorial candidacy, I have decided to throw my support behind a fellow pro-life activist. I am asking those that would have voted for me, to ensure that your votes are counted among those that vote for LIFE, to instead cast your write-in votes for JOHN SIMMINS. You will see after perusing his page, that he is not a libertarian, but he is closer than the other candidates to one, and at the same time fulfills my one major requirement, supporting an end to the murder of defenseless, voiceless children.

As the election draws near, next week, I will post my recommendations or endorsements for the various races in Maryland.

Thanks for your support.

To view all candidates currently registered in Maryland, the board of elections site.

Below is the text of my email to John Simmins, announcing my support of his candidacy.

Hello there, I am going to actively campaign for you guys. When I saw the mailer from Ehrlich about stem cells I began planning to run myself as a write-in candidate. I got all the forms together, and was prepared to file them, but realized I needed at least three people to satisfy Maryland's requirements. Then my wife found your site. I am going to inform those who I told I would run of your campaign and work to get you guys at least some amount of protest vote. I am a third degree night and extremely pro-life. I am also a libertarian (with a small L), so we may not see eye to eye on 100% of things, but life issues are a litmus test for me, and I am not ashamed, afraid, or apologetic about saying that. Anyway, I know what you had to go through to register as a write-in candidate, and appreciate the effort. I look forward to voting for you.

Election update again

2006-10-26T08:13:00.000-04:00

Well, this is more difficult than I had hoped. Apparently, all my conservative wacko friends are willing to vote for virtual socialist Ehrlich over O'Malley, even though Ehrlich supports America's abortion holocaust. I just can't bring myself to do that. Its like picking between Mao and Ho Chi Min. So, I may have to draft my wife to be my running mate, and then I will try to get a neighbor to be my treasurer. The laws for this in Maryland are a little bit nuts, and this has truly been an educational experience. I will try to keep this site updated, if I do not get my papers filed, any votes for me will just be ignored, so its imperative that I get those papers filed.

Election Update

2006-10-25T14:51:00.000-04:00

Just a note to let my supporters know that being a write-in candidate is not as simple as writing someone's name on a ballot. I actually have to file to be a write-in candidate. I guess this makes sense if my name is John Smith. So, I have about 16 pages of forms to fill out, including financial disclosures, I even have to open a bank account for my campaign entity, even though I am neither asking for, nor accepting donations. Holy cow! I have to choose a Lt. Governor running mate. Lots more work than one might think at first. But, I am committed to giving Maryland a real choice, so I am going to do all I can to file by the deadline. I will update this space tonight after I have it all figured out, and let my supporters know how its progressing.

I Hereby Announce My Candicacy for Governor of Maryland

2006-10-24T09:37:00.000-04:00

Friends and fellow citizens,

I hereby announce my willingness to accept your write-in votes for Governor of Maryland. If elected, I will accept the position. So that you might understand my motivation in this, I will explain.

As you all know (citizens of Maryland), we have two candidates for Governor in Maryland. Bob Ehrlich (R) the incumbent, and Martin O'Malley (D) the mayor of Baltimore. You may also know that both candidates are essentially the same when it comes to important issues. Their campaign has basically sunk to a point where all one hears is that O'Malley failed to bring the murder rate in Baltimore down to the level he promised, and that Ehrlich, who is as leftist a Republican as I have seen, is somehow tied to George Bush, and because of that should be voted out, due to the Iraq war.

If you actually care about serious issues, affecting Maryland, as I do, neither candidate can be taken seriously or as someone worthy of a vote. I have looked and have been unable to find either a Constitution Party candidate or a Libertarian candidate for this office, in this election. Yesterday, I received a campaign brochure in the mail from Governor Ehrlich's campaign, touting his devotion to state funded stem cell research here in Maryland. This is the Republican campaign mind you. And he is clearly pandering both to the so-called "moderates" at the same time he is pandering to Maryland's huge bio-tech-genetic-research industry. It became painfully clear in that instant that we have no pro-life or liberty loving candidates running for this office.

While I do not expect to win, especially with this extremely limited campaign, which will consist of me emailing this blog post to a bunch of people in hopes that they will forward it on, I do think if I can get a couple thousand write in votes, with this extremely limited campaign, maybe we can convince a pro-life, libertarian, conservative type candidate to run in the next election, so that we at least have someone to vote for.

For the sake of being honest in my campaign, I will run down my brief series of issues and my positions:

-I am in favor of school vouchers for all Kindergarten through twelfth grade students in Maryland
-I support tax credits for home-schooling families
-I would veto and fight any attempt to fund stem-cell research with taxpayer money
-I would veto and fight any attempt to provide taxpayer money for abortions
-I would support and sign a ban on abortions similar to South Dakota's recent ban
-I would support a law that made it illegal for a state auto inspector to fix the vehicle he is inspecting
-I am completely opposed to any attempt to take someone's property and give it to another private entity (as in the recent eminent domain cases)
-I support and would push for a flat income tax for the state
-I support building lots more roads to ease traffic congestion
-I am of course opposed to violent and property related crimes and would do all I could to protect people and their property

I can best be described as a pro-life Libertarian. That is how you would be able to expect me to behave as governor. While I am pretty universally consistent in my support of Libertarian positions, the positions listed above are those that I would most focus on. Should other issues come up, you could expect me to continue to be Libertarian.

Now, for practical purposes, if you are indeed interested in sending a message to those in government here in the "blue state" of Maryland, my name is Paul Buede. To help you remember how to spell my last name, think of suede but with a B instead of S. Thats not how we pronounce it, but pronunciation doesn't matter for this exercise.

If you, like me, believe that both Republocrat candidates are essentially equally bad, and that we have no decent choice for governor, I hope you will consider sending a message on election day. Write me in!

PAUL BUEDE for Governor of Maryland

Your chance to break the two party hold on power

2006-10-23T09:15:00.000-04:00

I got this in my email. For all of those who bemoan the lack of options in an election, here is your chance to start a tidal wave of change in government. There are numerous chances in the email I am reposting below to click over to his campaign and put your money where your mouth is. Rarely is there a chance this great to actually win an election. Lets hope people make the most of it.

Help Wanted: Your Assistance Needed to Send Mr. Smither to Washington

This is the most important Libertarian Party e-mail message I've ever written. Because of a very strange series of events combined with a well respected Libertarian candidate with strong community ties, we are close to sending our first LP candidate to Congress. I don't like sending out long campaign e-mail messages, but time is of the essence and you will need as much information possible in order to make a very important decision at the end of this message. As there are a lot of pictures contained in this message, please click here if graphics don't show in your e-mails .

The Bob Smither campaign in Tom DeLay's old congressional district is becoming more and more exciting with each passing day. As you probably recall, this is a 65 percent Republican district which was gerrymandered by DeLay specifically to ensure a GOP victory. The only problem for the GOP (again, because of DeLay) is that they have no Republican candidate on the ballot in this hotly contested race.

Liberal Nick Lampson is running as the Democrat in this race. His polling numbers seem to have peaked in the low 40 percent range, which is consistent with the historical Democratic base in this district. Without switching parties, it's unlikely that he can bring his numbers up high enough to win a majority of votes in the district.

Most of you have already heard of Bob Smither through the mainstream media or Internet sources. A quick overview provides that he is a fifth generation Texan who works both as an adjunct professor and private consultant in electrical engineering. More importantly, Smither serves on several important local boards and has received quite a few honors and awards for his community work.

While there are multiple Republican write-in candidates in the race, one of them seems to have been anointed by the party machine to bear the GOP standard. As we all know, write-in campaigns have an extraordinarily high failure rate. This candidate has a very cumbersome name, making any write-in campaign even less likely to succeed. She seems to be spending all of her money simply teaching people how to spell her awkward name.

Since Lampson's numbers are expected to remain fairly stable, the key question for this race seems to be how the roughly 60 to 65 percent conservative portion of vote total is to be divided. An average of the last three published polls published on the race indicates:

Nick Lampson (D)----------------39%

Bob Smither (L)-------------------20%

Key Write-in Candidate (R)---12%

Undecided/Other------------------29%

The undecided group is very conservative and has voted Republican in recent elections. If he picks up the remaining undecided votes, Smither will not only beat Lampson, but will be within one point of a majority vote total.

While the key Republican write-in is currently polling at 12%, many of those votes won't actually surface on Election Day because:

Quite a few of the votes won't be counted due to spelling errors and the complexity of the electronic thumb dial voting equipment.

Straight party ticket voters won't be able to vote for a GOP candidate in this race.

Republicans are disillusioned nationwide and aren't expected to have a high turnout on Election Day.

A lot of conservatives are not happy with the write-in candidate because of her abysmal voting record on the Houston City Council pertaining to property rights and that she keeps suggesting new federal programs with huge price tags.

In what will sound very ironic to a Libertarian audience, we've got to convince enough Republican voters that a write-in vote is nothing but a wasted vote. A vote for Libertarian Bob Smither is the only hope for their district to be represented by someone with traditional Texas conservative values. Keep in mind that a good portion of this district was represented by Congressman Ron Paul before redistricting, so local voters are already well aware of the common ties between Libertarians and true fiscal conservatives.

Many pundits and senior Republican leaders have already said that a write-in campaign can't work. In order to ensure a Libertarian victory, we've got two weeks to convince the conservative voters of Texas CD-22 that the only way not to waste their vote is by supporting Bob Smither. Because the amount of undecided voters is high even this late in the race, we can win with your help!

Currently, 4'X8' "Republicans for Smither" signs are popping up all over the district. Here's some of what we've accomplished so far:

Attended many candidate forums and community events
Have received significant local and national mainstream media coverage
Have already placed over 120,000 telephone calls to local voters
Are running an aggressive sign campaign
Have organized block walking activities several days a week
Produced our first two radio commercials

Here's what we intend to do over the next two weeks:

Hold a campaign rally with former Republican Bob Barr
Pursue more national media and announce more endorsements
Continue knocking on doors and placing lawn signs
Launch a 100 hour GOTV effort using BallotBase
Aggressively work polling places on Election Day
Launch a specially targeted telephone and mail campaign
Spend every dollar possible on radio advertising

These ads will be finalized with "I'm Bob Smither and I approve this message."
Listen to the 60 second radio spot

Listen to the 30 second radio spot

These radio advertisements are incredibly important. The campaign has already committed an amount in the five-digit range to air these spots on local conservative talk radio stations.

The Republicans just sent Dick Cheney to the district to raise $200,000 to teach conservatives how to spell the name of their anointed write-in candidate. Our job is significantly easier; all we have to do is convince them not to waste their vote.

If you have ever wanted to see a Libertarian Party member in Congress, this is quite simply our best opportunity of the last 35 years. But it can't happen without your support. If there ever was a time to dig deep, really deep, and contribute every last dollar you can to support a Libertarian campaign, this is it!

To the best of my knowledge, Libertarians have never pulled off a six-digit e-mail fundraising letter. However, we've only got two weeks left and each radio ad we run brings us one step closer to an electoral victory, not just a moral one.

In order for this to happen, we've got to beat LP online fundraising records. If Smither wins this seat in Congress, just think of how very proud you will feel knowing how vital a role you played in his victory. There has never been a more important time for you to click here to be part of sending Mr. Smither to Washington.

It gets even better! In addition to the General Election, there will also be a Special Election to fill Tom DeLay's seat until the new Congress convenes. Both elections will take place at the same time. The Republican vote will be split four ways and there will be no Democrat in the Special Election. Just think about the possibilities: no Democrats, one Libertarian, and a Republican vote split four ways.

This provides voters two chances to vote for Libertarian Bob Smither and it gives you two opportunities to donate to his campaign. Your contribution to the General Election campaign as well as donations to the Special Election can be made here.

Republican corruption has provided this unique opportunity for the Libertarian Party in November. Our success in this race will help set the stage for additional Libertarian victories in 2008. Thanks so much for your important role on the Bob Smither Libertarian Victory Team!

In Liberty,
Kevin Tunstall
Campaign Manager

P.S. It is critical that we raise over a hundred thousand dollars on the Internet over the next few days and there is no time to generate a snail mail letter to accomplish this goal. After you have contributed what you can to the Smither campaign, please forward this e-mail to your friends, family and especially your e-mail lists. Again, thanks!

Olbermann On Our Rights

2006-10-20T13:32:00.001-04:00

I don't know Olbermann well, and I would wager I disagree with him on a great many things. I am even slightly uncomfortable with a couple of the ways he phrases some statements in the video. But, at the same time, his point is right on, and one that needs to be heard. The election in November is very frustrating because Republicans have so abandoned the positions they advocated in the last several elections. No real surprise there, but the Democrats, who do all they can to obstruct the will of the people are supposed to be the alternative? I still remember Clinton, and am not going to participate in going back to Democrat control of the government. Instead, I suggest everyone consider their third party options. There are Libertarians and Constitution Party candidates running in many areas, please vote for a decent candidate, and don't throw away your vote putting a Republocrat back in power.

Age of the Earth Series - 5

2006-09-28T05:58:00.000-04:00

Lecture 5 - The Theology of an Old Earth

Welcome the the fifth lecture in our five lecture series on the age of the earth. In lectures 1 and 2, we surveyed in some depth the major methods of measuring the ages of rocks on earth - why these methods were accurate - and how they overcame challenges such as open system behaviour and lack of knowledge of initial conditions.

In lectures 3 and 4, we showed the total failure and scientific illiteracy and inconsistancy of creationist arguments agaisnt radiometric dating, and for a younger earth. We could have ended the discussion there - having shown the creationist side to be nothing but pseudo-science and deception, and having proven scientifically that the earth is very old indeed by various methods. However, that would neglect the root of creationist thinking - which is a belief in the bible as a literal and inerrant account of creation by God himself - as opposed to what it is - an account of 2 seperate creation myths, probably written down by Moses or one of his antecendants, a few thousand years ago.

The question remains then - how do we reconcile the theology of Christianity with the view that the stories in Genesis are just that - stories - and not literal or indeed inerrant accounts of creation. After all, Jesus referred to Noah and the Flood - and the whole Jesus story refers to the fall of man in the Garden. Doesn't casting doubt on the literal events of Genesis caste doubt on the whole of Christian thought?

Therefore in this lecture, we will attempt to show that Christianity and Science are reconcilable as two seperate majesteria of thought, one dealing with the spiritual realities of our world, and one with the physical realities. When seen in this way - both represent God since both represent truth - but they cannot conflict by definition, since one regards the subject of the other as incidental to its field of study.

Apples and Oranges

I once went up to my sister in the supermarket, with an apple in one hand, and an orange in another, and started going on about how different the two were. It took her a while, but in the end she got it. She told me to stop being stupid. However, it's true to say that apples and oranges are dissimilar in many ways. Sure, they're both fruits, but they differ in texture, colour, taste, internal and external structure and shape, average weight, and variety. You could never mistake an apple for an orange, or a fig, or even a grape for that matter.

But what about mythical apples? I can think of one very famous mythical apple - the one that grew on the mythical Tree of Knowledge, in the mythical Garden of Eden, that a mythical Eve gave to a mythical Adam. What about that apple? Could it ever be mistaken for an orange, or a fig? If I replaced oranges for apples in your apple pie, you would surely be able to instantly tell the difference - but if I replaced oranges for apples in Christian tradition, would the religion of Christianity be any different? Are they interchangeable?

Of course, the answer is yes. The actual fruit eaten by Eve and Adam in Eden is by-the-by - the texture, taste, internal and external structure, in fact all physical qualities of the fruit are superfluous - rather what the fruit signifies is the temptation of disobedience and sin - the eating of it signifies a fall from grace. It could have been an orange, a fig, a Kentucky Fried Chicken(TM) - the important part of the narrative is the spiritual reality that the fruit signifies, not its physical dimensions, or even its physical reality.

Of Materialism

I bemoan the materialism of the world today, but especially that that is growing in the Christian community. We all assume in this scientific age that the only thing that matters - the only objects of any importance - are material ones. When we go to the cinema, even though we know full well the plot played out in the film is false, we look for the smallest flaws and inconsistancies. So and so's costume changes slightly half way through a scene. Time travel could *never* happen, it's not scientifically possible. The Matrix couldn't exist, human batteries would be necessarily less efficient than burning the food you feed them. And in doing so, we tend to neglect the overarching spiritual aspects of what we see and read.

The same is true of the bible. If we read it assuming that the physical, material, scientific aspects are what's important, then we miss the real story. In reality, it doesn't matter what type of fruit it was. It doesn't matter if there was a tree. It doesn't matter if there was an Eve, or a garden. It doesn't matter if it was or wasn't 6,000 years ago, it doesn't matter if it all happened in 7 days. We only place importance on these details because we make the fundamental assumption of materialism in everything we read and everything we do. The spiritual reality of the story passes us by - of a creation by God, an order in that creation, and a fall from grace - because we're too busy questionning the truth of the superfluous physical setting.

Because of our modern materialist bias, we now grossly misunderstand the storytelling traditions of the ancient world. We discount moral fables and creation myths as "false", because we judge them only on account of their scientific truth, not their overarching ethical content. All our modern stories have to be "realistic", or else they have no worth. We can gain no deeper understanding from the story of Shiva and Parvati - or of the Tepeu and Gucumatz - or of Isis and Ra - or Adam and Eve - because they didn't *really* happen, did they? Because what is "real" to us is the unique preserve of the physical plain of existence.

The ultimate irony is that, while our creationist friends accuse us of materialism, it is they who make the ultimate materialist assumption. They assume that evolution erodes biblical truth - because they can't see past physical truth and see that the bible is really communicating underlying spiritual truths. They think an old earth unhinges Christianity, only because they believe that the Christian story is underpinned by the physical and material aspects of the stories it tells, rather than the spiritual. They think they are in conflict with science, ultimately, because their book says apple, and science says orange.

Three Dwarves

I told a joke on my blog a few months ago about three dwarves. Jokes are the last remaining bastions of storytelling in our culture, because, as far as I know, those three dwarves didn't exist, and noone seemed to mind or complain. That's because it's clear that's not what the story was about - the content was humourous, not scientific. If you think the dwarves must exist for the joke to have value, you've missed the point. Similarly, I often wonder, if we confronted Moses and his tribe with the scientific truths we have uncovered today - that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old - that life is unified by common ancestry - what his reaction would be? I wonder if his faith would be shaken? I wonder if his life would be altered? Or I wonder if he'd say "I think you've missed the point."

It is ironic, that as Berkeley pointed out, the only thing we know to exist for certain is immaterial - our own consciousness - our own being. We cannot measure it, we cannot touch or feel it - but we know for certain that it exists, with more certainty than we can know the physical world exists, or any of its attributes. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that physical reality is unimportant, or insubstantial, it's not. The study of science has made up most of my adult life - I wouldn't be able to fly to the United States - or bake a cake - or use this computer without it. All I ask is that we don't see every narrative as scientific - that we don't transpose our modernist assumptions onto religious and spiritual texts. By seperating the two, and viewing them rightly as different Magesteria, we do them a service. By mixing them, we corrupt, pollute and discredit both.

Making a Universe make itself

But then the religious extremists challenge us - 'why would God take 13 billion years to make a universe? Why would he not just create it as is written in the bible? Do you doubt His power - do you detract from His glory?".

Yet, I answer, is there more glory in making a universe - or in making a universe make itself? What a testament to the power of the almighty God that, starting with pure energy, and a set of basic physical laws that He instituted, that he could direct and command a universe of such complexity, such beauty, such awesome proportions, to create itself from the ground up. The heavier elements on earth that make our bodies, the carbon, the iron, the oxygen - all the products of the fires of first generation stars in our galaxy - long since exploded and burnt out. Is there more wonder in just being created - or being created from stardust, fallen to earth from the sky?

The 12 hour clock

There is an exhibit at the natural history museum that chronicles the 4.5 billion year history of earth on a 12 hour clock. Human beings appear about 5 seconds before midnight. If we were to chronicle the whole history of the Universe like this, we would appear about 1 second before midnight.

I ask you, is there any greater a God than one who would spend 11 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds to create a vast universe, a beautiful planet, a balanced ecosystem, just for us to live in it a second? Just to be with us for a single second in geological time. And then, when we rejected His work, and rebelled against Him, to nevertheless love us enough to come down to earth and be nailed to a tree just to give us a chance to be with Him again?

Geology, physics, science - they don't distract us from God's essence or make us doubt His plan - rather they can only magnify His eternal glory and bring into sharp focus the boundless extent of His love, grace and forgiveness in sending His Son Jesus Christ to die with our sins.

Unlike my creationist friends, I didn't check my brain in at the door of my religion. I'm really glad I didn't.

The Weak Link in American Democracy

2006-09-27T13:45:00.000-04:00

The following is a post by "Shihar" on Slashdot that I felt deserved to be reprinted and referenced outside of the Slashdot world.

The sections in italics are a previous post which he is quoting and to which he is responding. The entire post is copy/pasted and has not been edited. I find his post refreshing for many reasons, one of which is that it soundly rejects the conspiracy-hurling assertions placed by those who wish to escape blame and culpability for our current problems. People are far too quick to claim victim status, rather than taking the responsibility and actions necessary to bring about that which they claim they value.

--------------------

So this is why 2 american presidential candidates were arrested trying to gain entry to the 2004 debates?

The green and Badnark got arrested for trespassing. You can get yourself arrested too without much trouble; that doesn't make this Soviet America. You can't even put the US and a solid half of the world nations on the same scale when it comes to political freedom. Suggesting that you can simply shows deep ignorance about the state of the rest of the world.

oh please!.. the 2 reigning parties have essentially made it impossible for new parties to form.

I don't disagree in the slightest. You miss the larger point though which we shall get to in just a moment.

ross perot had 2 billion dollars at his disposal. Unless everyone else has that kind of money no.. the system does not work, and how dare you try to pretend otherwise

Ahh, now we are getting closer to the "problem" with American politics...

And this is why the majority of americans dont vote.. they know it's essentially communist china here with a little potpurri on the grungier and more totalitarian aspects.

And this is where the point flies right over your head. The Americans could have made Ross Perot president if they wanted to. Nazi storm troopers didn't drag Perot off in handcuffs. No evil corporate death squads showed up to prevent people from voting. Americans just didn't vote for him. They could have and they didn't. End of story.

Ask yourself why Ross Perot did so well. To give you a little history, this man for a brief time actually was LEADING in the polls. He only started to get trounced after his somewhat defective personality was brought to light by his public appearances. Ross Perot almost won because of marketing. Don't get me wrong, he had a message too, but what made him different from the Greens and Libertarians that loose each year is that not only was his message centrist enough to appeal (lets face it, the Greens and the Libertarians are extremist), but he had enough money drive his message like a spike through every single American's head.

This is the heart and the root of the problem with American democracy. Americans are too fucking lazy to learn about politics. You need to practically beat the American public in voting. You need to blast the airwaves and the TVs. You need to shove your message down their throat and send out armies of volunteers. The problem isn't that the poor oppressed masses of Americans don't have an alternative. They do have an alternative; they just either don't know about it because they don't bother to look. Even when they do have the alternative (as was the case with Perot), they further fail to not just vote for the alternative, but the majority simply fail to vote. The Americans are not the poor oppressed people whose will have been broken as you make them out to be. They are just flat out lazy and/or stupid. America's lack of choice is American's fault. Pure and simple.

If Americans were not so complicate and easily swayed by corporate sponsored political marketing campaigns, corporations would have no power. If Americans spent 5 minutes on the Internet, found an alternative, then voted for the alternative, the democins and republicrats would be out within a week. The Gestapo isn't going to stop them from voting or rig the election. No one is going to be sent to the Gulag for failing to vote for one of the two established parties. If they simply voted differently, the established parties would vanish.

Any political failures in the American political system are not the fault of evil corporations and politicians. The blame lies completely and ONLY on the shoulders of the voting (and more importantly) non-voting public. The failures of our political system stem directly from a failure to exercise the political power that all Americans over the age of 18 have.

So can it with the inane talk of revolutions and evil corporations. If you think the system is so corrupt, do this one simple thing and you don't need to bother with the guns, the mass protests, and the riots to change the system. Simply get 25% of all the Americans who can vote to vote for one "alternative" candidate. They don't need to arm themselves. They don't need to quit work. They don't need to risk their life and liberty in a peaceful or violently struggle. They need to take just one fucking hour out of their day every 2 years and vote. You don't even need to achieve a majority. Since less then 50% of Americans vote, you actually only need 25% of the voting population to agree. In fact, you need even less if you can leech from people who currently vote democrat and republican.

If you can't accomplish the simple feat of getting a quarter of the population to vote differently, then the problem isn't in the corrupt political system. The problem is SQUARLY on the shoulders of the American people. We let this political system get built and we could sweep it out by simply spending 1 hour every 2 years voting.

So, excuse me while I laugh my ass off at the idea of an American revolution. If you can't even a quarter of the people to waste a messily hour voting for one alternative candidate, you are fucking delusional if you think you are going to get people to roll up their polo shirt sleeves and start a revolution.

The only thing wrong with the American democracy is that it relies on Americans to run it.

Mercy Killing

2006-09-26T11:17:00.000-04:00

Because I can't stop talking about "mercy killing".

"... Fortunately, good people know the fundamental difference between right and wrong, and have compassion for those that are most vulnerable. Regardless of these dehumanizing labels, they realize that preying on the brain injured is not a way of showing kindness, nor is it some form of altruism, but rather a selfish and cowardly act by those who justify in their minds that the killing of the weak and voiceless is somehow "okay"."

Terri Schiavo's brother in a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe.

Rest in peace Emmie-Rose

2006-09-22T09:15:00.000-04:00

www.23weeks.blogspot.com

Good thing the court appearance for determining whether or not she could have her food reinstated was scheduled for....the day she died. :(

What's wrong with this world?

Age of the Earth Series - 4

2006-09-20T08:43:00.000-04:00

Lecture 4 - Creationist Arguments for a Young Earth

In Lecture 3, we dealt with the major creationist arguments against radiometric dating, and we showed just how poorly informed they are - and just how poorly informed they rely on their audience being to succeed. When held up to the light of scientific fact, and how radiometric dating is actually done, they are either very naive, or just plain contradictory to the facts of the matter.

I hope that are you read this lecture, and you see just how poorly informed creationist arguments for a young earth are, you start to ask yourself a very important question: how can it possibly be that they've got their science this wrong? Many of the arguments I am going to present here have been around since the writing of Henry Morris' text, "The Genesis Flood", in the 1960s. Since then, they have been formally rebutted many times - sometimes in front of such esteemed audiences and the US Supreme Court (in Mclean vs Arkansas Board of Education in 1981, for example - the landmark ruling from which can be found here - and God bless America).

Then you should ask yourselfs, given the poverty of these arguments, their factual errors and naive assumptions - and their many, varied and public rebuttals - why is it that you can go online to google and find them all on countless creationist websites? Why is it that young adults and adults alike "challenge" me with them when I tell them I believe in an old earth, even to this day?

I'm sure as you ponder these questions that you will come to the same conclusion as I have, as Judge William Overton did in 1981, that creationists are not interested in truth, or in scientific discovery, but rather have already come to their conclusions and refuse to change them no matter what the evidence says. As the judge himself put it in his concluding statements:

"The Creation Research Society employs the same unscientific approach to the issue of creationism. Its applicants for membership must subscribe to the belief that the Book of Genesis is "historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs" (28). The Court would never criticize or discredit any person's testimony based on his or her religious beliefs. While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation."

I say it again, God bless the First Amendment, God bless the Lemon Test, and God bless the United States of America.

Argument 1: Salt goes into the seas and oceans from rivers every day. At the rate that salt is being added to the seas, they cannot be more than 10,000 years old.

Firstly, it's worth knowing that the seas have many different types of salts in them. For the more reactive salts, if you calculate the ammounts in the seas today, and the divide by the ammounts added per year, you get an "age" of the earth as only a few hundred years old. And other salts give an "age" of many millions of years old. Clearly this cannot be a good way of telling the age of the earth - we know it isn't really a few hundred years old.

So what is the matter with this method? The simple answer is that there is a "saline cycle". Anyone knows that if you keep adding salt to a glass of water, no matter how hard your stir, the salt will eventually precipitate at the bottom of the glass. The same happens in the sea, salt precipitates, how fast it does this depends on the reactivity of the salt. The salt and other sediment then forms layers on the sea bed - and either ends up being uplifted above sea level to form mountains and new land (creating the streams and rivers that then deposit it into the seas again) - or subducted into the earth's crust, and recycled eventually in volcanic activity - hence the high salinity of volcanic streams.

The reason we get a high discordance between salts is that we are not measuring the age of the seas, but the residence time of the salt. The more reactive salts precipitate quicker and therefore leave the seas quicker, and are recycled more often. These give very low residence times, whereas the less reactive salts give higher residence times. This argument and its rebuttal appears in Science and Creationism, by Ashley Montagu, first published in 1981 in reaction to Mclean vs Arkansas Board of Education, 3 months before I was born. If you search today, 25 years later, just as I am about to take out my first mortgage, it still appears on many creationist websites. You will find this same sad truth with all the arguments rebutted here.

Argument 2: Planets and stellar bodies collect dust as they move through space. If the moon had been around for billions of years, it would have collected hundreds of feet of dust, which would never have been moved or cleared.

This argument is very popular, and is often accompanied with a mythological account of how NASA expected their lunar lander to sink in the hundreds of feet of dust they thought they would find on the moon. It is also based on data taken in the 1950s, on earth, of how much interstellar dust we encountered. Although this measurement was taken in a remote area, and at high altitude, it was not taken in space itself, and was orders of magnitude out.

However, as you can all imagine, the ammount of dust collected in space is hugely important to NASA and other space agencies, because it affects the efficacy of satellites. And, as you can also imagine, NASA have now made direct measurements in space. In fact, they made them in the 1970s, over 30 years ago. Using these figures (please email me if you want the details of the maths) the depth of dust found on a 3.5 billion year old moon is only a few inches, which is the actual depth found.

Of course, this doesn't mean that this is an accurate way of telling the age of the moon - there is no evidence that the ammount of interstellar dust has remained the same over the years. But it is nevertheless interesting that taking accurate data, as opposed to data that is hundreds of times out from the truth, we arrive at a fairly accurate age for the moon.

Argument 3: The earth's magnetic field is decaying. Had this been occuring for billions of years, that would mean the initial field was impossibly high.

This is a classic creationist argument. Classic because, once understood in the light of scientific evidence, it actually turns into yet another evidence for an old earth, and yet more proof of antiquity of the geological record.

It is true that the earth's magnetic field is getting smaller. But it is reversing, not decaying. It's flipping over. In a few thousand years, our compasses will point south, weird as this may be, hard as it might be to believe. These reversals have occured hundreds of times during geological history.

How do we know this? Were we there to measure the field millions of years ago? The answer is no, of course, but fortunately the rocks were there to measure it for us. Many rocks and minerals contain iron - which is a magnetic material. When a rock containing iron solidifies, all the iron atoms align themselves to the direction of the earth's magnetic field at the time. The rocks becomes a "little magnet" - its iron atoms are pointing in the direction of the current magnetic field.

As we dig down the geological column, we find that all of a sudden, the direction of these rock's magnetic fields switch suddenly. Then switch again. Then again. Over and over - hundreds of these reversals of the earth's field are known throughout geological history. And we're due one, and we have the privelege of living through one now in order to study it.

We still do not know why these reversals happen - but what we can say for certain is that the so-called "decay" of the earth's magnetic field is certainly not a good way of telling the age of the earth. And we can say that the earth must be many many times older than creationists state, in order to accomodate the hundreds of known reversals of the field in geological history.

Argument 4: The moon is receding from the earth every year - it is getting further away. If the moon is billions of years old - the moon would have been touching the earth, and this is impossible.

Firstly it is important to understand that the moon is getting further from the earth, because it is having energy transferred to it from the earth's rotation and through tidal forces. The newtonian mathematics of this is beyond the scope of this discussion, but it's true that the moon is an will recede from the earth.

It is ironic though that creationists, who always accuse scientists of making "uniformitarian" assumptions - should be the ones who always assume that things now are as they were in the past. The moon is receding at 6 inches a year, giving about 2 billion years in the past before it reached the "Roche Limit", at which point it would break up (the Roche Limit is a limit for the closeness of two liquid objects before the gravity of one would destroy the other - since the moon was probably molten at the time of its creation, it must have been created beyond the Roche Limit).

Now, the moon is 3.5 billion years old - so the question is, has it always been receding at 6 inches a year. The answer is "no". As Hansen 1982 pointed out, "The present rate of tidal dissipation is anomalously high because the tidal force is close to a resonance in the response function of the oceans; a more realistic calculation shows that dissipation must have been much smaller in the past and that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was well outside the Roche limit".

In other words, more energy is being transferred to the moon now from the tides than is usually the case (for the mathematics behind the concept of "resonance" please email me). There is therefore no problem with a 3.5 billion year old moon.

Argument 5: The Moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both of which are short-lived isotopes that would have expired long ago if the Moon were 4.5 billion years old.

This is one of the poorest informed creationist arguments around, worse perhaps than those that have preceeded it.

Thorium-230 is a direct decay product of Uranium-238 - which has a half life of over 4 billion years. It is therefore being constantly produced on the moon and elsewhere by long lived isotopes. Uranium-236 is also being constantly produced by neutron capture in some Uranium ores. Therefore there is no problem with the existence of either on the moon or elsewhere that long-lived forms of Uranium exists.

These are not isolated arguments. A common version these days is C-14 existing in coal samples and oil deposits. This can be found in the recent paper from the Institute for Creation Research's "RATE" team - a team set up to prove that the earth is young. The first irony of this argument is that it appeared in the same paper that hypothesised that during the flood rates of decay had been massively accelerated. We dealt with this argument in the last lecture - but isn't it funny that in the same paper - creationists should advance two mutually exclusive arguments: one that the earth is young because decay rates have been massively accelerated - and one that the earth is young because C-14 exists in coal and oil, C-14 that shouldn't exist if decay rates had been massively accelerated.

Again, the answer to this latter argument is similar - that near other radioactive sources C-14 can be generated from ordinary carbon materials.

Argument 6: The sun is shrinking at 5 feet/hour which limits the earth-sun relationship to less than 5 million years.

There are two major problems with this argument. The first is that suns do not expand and contract at the same rate throughout their stellar evolution. It's a little like watching the tide go out and concluding that the water level must have fallen at that rate since the earth began. Therefore, working backwards, much of the land must have been under water a few weeks ago! Since careful inspection shows no signs of such a flood, the earth can't be older than a few weeks!

In other words, the shrinking-sun argument rests squarely on a naive extension of a rate measured over a relatively short period of time. It's the type of blunder one might find in a high school science project. The second assumption is that there is scientific consensus as to what the change in the sun's diameter is per year. In fact, the data that creationists are using "5 feet per year" - was only ever published in abstract form, and has since been heavily discredited.

Argument 7: The rates of erosion / land formation are too high

Amazingly, both these argument appear in the same Chapter of "The Genesis Flood" by Henry Morris, father of modern creationism. The fact that my viewers have by now probably figured out that the arguments cancel out, in that erosion and land formation are competing forces, is part of the tragedy of the creationist mindset - that they cannot see what is in front of their faces because they have already drawn their conclusion.

Now, the reality is that at any one time, erosion or land formation is likely to dominate - one is likely to be higher than the other at any one measurement. Anyone who's ever played SimEarth will realise this. But the way it is today isn't necessarily the way it's always been - and both these forces oscillate to destroy land and create it in roughly equal portions over geological time.

Argument 8: Marine fossils on top of mountains proves that the geological column was created in Noah's flood.

This is another popular creationist classic. The irony here is that one of the original papers explaining this phenomenon was written by Charles Darwin himself after his Voyage on the Beagle, the nemesis of the creationist.

Darwin found from measurements of the height of mountains and geological features, that mountains were not constant features of the environment, but were constantly uplifting and down-dropping. Although Darwin didn't know it, the forces behind these uplifts and downdrops were caused by tectonic plates moving and colliding. The modern day Himilayas were formed from the Indian subcontinent crashing into Eurasia, forcing rock from both up the way, and causing Everest and its partners.

The earth is an amazing and ever changing place, where sea beds can become mountain tops, and vice versa, in the course of the millions of years of geological history. Sadly, those who believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old miss this amazing history in their reckoning, and therefore miss out on the wonder of creation. In our next lecture, we will expand on this concept, and talk about how an Old Earth and modern science deepens our understanding of the divine, and fits in with all but the most naive and literalist theology.

Sadly we have not had time to go through every creationist argument here, but I'm sure you get the idea, and if you have another you want answered, feel free to post it up in the comments section and I'll do my best.

Pockets of Nazism and Struggles with Islamism

2006-09-19T10:17:00.000-04:00

Evil is making a progress in the United States. Murder of those who cannot speak for themselves, what is being termed euthanasia by those who condone such murder, is spreading and is becoming more and more socially and legally acceptable. The latest case, which is gaining a higher and higher profile as the days drag on, is the case of Emmie Rose(1). She, a very prematurely born baby, is being starved to death, by the hospital and medical practitioners who are supposed to be trying to help her.

--------

Radicals in the Muslim world are furious over comments made by Pope Benedict the XIV(2). In a lecture on "Faith and Reason" at the University of Regensburg in Germany, Benedict XVI cited one of the last emperors of Byzantium, Manuel II Paleologus. Stressing the 14th-century emperor's "startling brusqueness," the pope quoted him as saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."(3)

In a rush to prove that the Pope is crazy, angry Muslims began burning down Christian churches, calling for the Pope to be executed(4), and in an event that may or may not be linked to anger at the Pope, a Nun, yes, an unarmed woman whose mission was to provide nursing care and education(5), was murdered (martyred) in Somalia(6). I am really glad the Muslim world cleared all that up, and showed the world that the 14th century emperor was way off base.

--------

1. http://23weeks.blogspot.com

2. http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=52&story_id=33165

3. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008963

4. http://washtimes.com/world/20060919-120633-1744r.htm

5. http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=95050

6. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/19/europe/
EU_GEN_Vatican_Pope_Nun_Slain.php

Age of the Earth Series - 3

2006-09-16T08:00:00.000-04:00

Lecture 3 - Creationist Arguments Against Radiometric Dating Techniques

In this lecture, the third in my series of lectures on the age of the earth, I intend to highlight the most common arguments I come across in creationist literature and from creationists themselves against radiometric dating techniques. I will use the information from the first two lectures to show why each and every one of these is false. Then in my next lecture, I'll show why all the supposed proofs of a young earth are also false.

Clearly I won't be able to cover every single argument in either this lecture or the next. I cannot claim to have read every single piece of creationist propaganda ever. But I'm pretty experienced in this field, having had many debates with many creationists, and having read many creationist texts and websites. So I hope to give a good insight into their methods and arguments, and strong rebuttals for them all.

Argument 1: You have to know the initial conditions of a rock to date it, including how much parent and daughter were in a rock. This is impossible, because noone was there when it formed

Well, now we've heard the first two lectures, this is a simple argument to answer. Even the simplest Uranium-Lead methods use minerals that exclude lead chemically, and thereby excluding the possibility of non-radiogenic lead being present within the rock at formation.

K-Ar dating uses the fact that Argon is an inert gas and will bubble away at formation - any atmospheric argon-40 that is trapped at formation will also be trapped with atmospheric Argon-36, in a ratio of 295 parts to 1 (the atmospheric ratio of Ar-40 to Ar-36). We can therefore measure the Argon-36 in a sample and work out how much Argon-40 is non-radiogenic, and remove this from our calculations. Since the K-Ar method uses potassium salts, which are hard and crystalline in a strong ionically bonded lattice, we can be sure that no Potassium-40 has been lost or added since formation.

In isochron methods, we need no information whatsoever about the starting concentrations of elements, only the gradient of the isochron. In fact, as we have seen, even if we did need these starting ammounts, the y-intercept of the isochron gives us these directly - we can actually measure the starting ammounts using the isochron method.

Argument 2: Radiometric dating assumes closed system behaviour - that nothing leaks out or gets into a sample post-formation. Therefore any open system behaviour will make radiometric dating unreliable.

Again, this is simply not true. As we know from isochron methods, the isochron will tell us if open system behaviour has occured - because it will not be a straight line. Therefore we cannot get a "false" date from an isochron without knowing it.

Furthermore, the Ar-Ar methods and the Concordia/Discordia method both can deal with open system behaviour - in fact the latter is *designed* to deal with such behaviour. A discordia cannot exist unless there has been open system behaviour!

Argument 3: Radiometric dating of samples often gives different ages for different methods

Actually, this is just false - the power and strength of radiometric dating is that, as we have shown in lecture 2, we often get massive levels of agreement from many different methods of dating. Of course, given the hundreds of thousands of dating samples now taken, there are bound to be some that will give discordant readings - a mixing isochron here and there - a K-Ar date disrupted by open-system behaviour - and inherited isochron.

But the bulk majority of radiometric dating samples do come back with similar dates over many different and independent techniques. There is now more than sufficient evidence from these to conclude with a high degree of certainty that the earth is old.

Argument 4: Carbon-14 dating is reliant on calibration, you have to know how much C-14 was in the atmosphere at any one time, and you can't know that.

Despite the fact that Carbon-14 dating has never been used by any credible scientist to date the age of the earth - and despite the fact that most biblical archaeology relies on C-14 dating, I see this argument an awful lot.

Firstly, you'll have noted from lectures 1 and 2 that I didn't mention C-14 dating. That's because it is never used to date the age of the earth. This is for two reasons - firstly that it can only date things up to 55,000 years old, because of the short half life of C-14 - and the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Secondly, it does need objects of known age to calibrate it - the creationist argument is partially right - we already have to know that the earth is 50,000 years old because we have to have an object known to be 50,000 years old to make C-14 work.

However, secondly, we do have such objects. We find out the ammount of C-14 in the atmosphere at any one time in the past 50,000 years using 3 methods. Firstly, dendochronology - the study of tree rings. Secondly, varves, seasonal deposition of sediment in sea beds that give a year by year record of the earth's atmosphere going back tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, stalactites and stalagmites are useful to cross check the former two methods.

Argument 5: It is impossible to make accurate measurements of half life - especially for long lived isotopes like Rb-87, whose supposed half life is 47 billion years. Has anyone been around that long to check it?

Half life is actually measured from the activity of a sample (how many decays there are per second from a known quantity of sample), not from waiting around 47 billion years to see if half has decayed.

Basically, in order to establish the half-life of an element, the only thing we need to know is: what is the probability of any one atom decaying in any one second? What that means is, if we take a large enough sample with enough atoms in it (a sample of 1 gram of Rb-87 will contain 7 thousand billion billion atoms), and measure how many atoms decay for a long enough time, we will be able to work out the probability of any one atom decaying in any one second.

From this we can very accurately establish the half life, sufficiently accurately for the "error" in our estimation of half life to be negligable compared to random statistical errors in methods of dating.

Argument 6: But what if half life has changed? There is no way of going back into the past and measuring it?

Having had the previous 5 arguments answered a million times, creationists are now getting desperate. They know fine well that many methods of radiometric dating agree - and they know they are very well tested. So they are trying to come up with something that could be more fundamentally wrong with radiometric dating, in this case, the idea that during the year of Noah's Flood - the half life of elements changed such that 4.5 billion years of decay occured in a single year.

Methods of measuring decay rates in the past:

There are, as you can expect, many problems with this assertion. The first problem is that it is actually possible to measure half life in the past through several methods. The first method is to use a time machine, and look into the past. By "time machine" I mean "telescope". You see, if you look out of your window and look at the sun, you're not seeing the sun right now, you're seeing it 8 minutes ago. That's how long the light has taken to reach you. If I look at a sun that is very far away, say 4000 light years, I will see 4000 years into the past. We have studied stars hundreds of thousands of light years away - and we have measured decay of radioactive elements within those stars.

Another method of reassuring ourselves that decay rates have not changed is by looking at Uranium decay chains / series. I mentioned these in lecture 1. You see, these chains settle down to a steady state - called a "secular equilibrium" - where the ammounts of each element in the chain remain the same. The ratio of each element to each other element at secular equilibrium is determined by the ratio of their half-lives. What that means is that, if half lives had changed say, 4000 years ago, every decay chain would have been disturbed. Then if the half-lives had changed back to present day values say, 3999 years ago, it would take another 2-3 million years for these chains to go back into secular equilibrium. In other words, if this creationist assertion were true, we should find a total of zero uranium decay chains at secular equilibrium. In fact, we find many.

There are other methods of measuring decay rates in the past, although they are more complex. For example, the neutron absorbtion ratio from natural nuclear reactors such as the Oklo reactor can be used to measure physical constants and decay rates in the long past. But discussion of these sorts of methods is outwith the scope of this lecture, enthusiasts can write to me to find out.

Other problems with half-life dramatically changing:

There are several other problems with the idea that half-life has dramatically changed. Firstly, as we learnt in lecture 1, we have a good understanding of the theory behind nuclear physics, and what causes a nucleus to be radioactive. We know that radical change to half-life would involve radical change to the constants in the Semi-empirical mass formula. There is no reason at all why this should occur just because there was a worldwide flood. Not only that, God would have to arrange it such that all elements had the same percentage change in decay rate so that radiometric dates would agree - how or why he would do so is open to question. What physical constants he might alter to do this are unknown.

However, there is a much bigger problem with the idea of half life changing dramatically, and that problem is heat. We learnt in lecture 1 that the reason nuclei decayed is that they were unstable - they had too much energy. The Semi-empirical mass formula is actually a measure of the energy each nucleus has. In other words, radioactive decay happens because nuclei have too much energy, they are unstable, and they need to get rid of some energy to become more stable.

What that means is that all radioactive decay produces heat. There are no exceptions to this rule. If it doesn't release energy, it isn't radioactive decay. In fact, radioactivity produces a lot of heat. We all know this - because we all know what happens when you make unstable nuclei like Uranium split apart in a process called fission (thus releasing the energy of several decays at once). You get a big explosion. Hiroshima style. Or you get a nuclear power plant. In fact, the reason the core of the earth is still hot, despite it loosing heat, is because of natural radioactivity keeping it hot.

Now creationists want 4.5 billion years worth of decay to have happened in a year. That means an increase in radioactivity of about 450 billion percent. Sure, the clever ones among you are saying "does all that energy mean the rocks would melt and isochrons would be reset and Argon would be released?" And yes, I guess it does. But more worryingly, it means that large parts of the earth would be vapourised or melted. That obviously hasn't happened in the last 4000 years. Heat is a more general problem for "flood geology" actually - what with the heat produced from all the continents shifting at several meters per second, and of course the idea that almost all the igneous rock was produced in that time.

Argument 7: What about pressure and heat - do these not affect half-life and make radiometric dating inaccurate?

The answer to this is generally no. We have subjected light elements to hundreds of thousands of atmospheres of pressure and pretty extreme heat, and we have only seen minute changes to radioactive decay. The reason for this is that the nucleus where decay occurs is pretty immune to either chemical environment or outside pressure. It is not involved in chemical bonding, and the forces within it are so powerful as to render even massive external pressure negligable.

The only exception to this is for bound-state beta decay in a plasma. Let me explain. Beta-decay is when a neutron turns into a proton and an electron. In bound state beta decay, this electron does not escape, but actually starts orbiting the new nucleus. Such decay is common in Rhenium-187 in the interior of stars, where the heat from the stars has stripped many or all of the outer electrons of the Rhenium, and therefore bound state beta decay can occur.

In other words, when beta-decaying elements exist in a plasma state, with their outer electrons ripped away, beta-decay can happen much more quickly in a "bound-state" form. One young-Earth proponent suggested that God used plasma conditions when He created the Earth a few thousand years ago. This writer suggested that the rapid decay rate of rhenium under extreme plasma conditions might explain why rocks give very old ages instead of a young-Earth age. This writer neglected a number of things, including: a) plasmas only affect a few of the dating methods. More importantly, b) rocks and hot gaseous plasmas are completely incompatible forms of matter!

Argument 8: What if God made the earth mature, like he made Adam mature, and created the star-light in transit?

This final question intrudes slightly on the topic of Lecture 5 - the theology of an old earth, but it is worth dealing with here. Most people who are ignorant of the evidence for an old earth, and ignorant of the science of cosmology, advance this kind of argument because they don't think through the actual implications.

When we look up at the stars we just see points of light. They're pretty. We can lie back on the grass with our girlfriends and gaze up at them, and hope that the romance of the situation will lead to a snog and a grope. It is easier to believe that God might just have created the light in transit to give us a such a great view, and a better chance at a snog and a grope.

But when scientists look at stars, they don't just see points of light. They look through telescopes, and see all sorts of wonderful details - but the most important detail of all is that these stars are not static. Stuff happens in them. Events. Things are going on. From radioactive decay, to cosmic jets, to supernovae expanding and contracting - these stars are a hotbed of activity! If God created the light in transit therefore - there is only one conclusion we can make about all this activity - all of these events we see. They never happened.

God made them up, like Steven Speilberg makes a CGI movie sequence up. If we observe a star going nova 500,000 light years away - the supernova we see forming never formed. That star might not actually exist, for all we know, because we have never really seen it. All of the decays we counted, all of the expansion we measured, all of the flashes and movement we saw - was all an elaborate hoax - a movie reel - a piece of divine CGI animation.

All the chicks love a scar

We all build up scars in our lives, and stretch marks, and various other annoyingly permanent but occasionally impressive blemishes. They remind us of how we became who we are - of the period where we lost weight quickly - that time we fell off our bikes when we were 6 - the tooth we chipped playing rugby. Scars are permanent reminders of real incidents in our past - our life history is written in them - we weren't created yesterday.

Sadly, there are still people around whose minds have been so bent and twisted by religious fundamentalism, that they believe the earth *was* created yesterday. Or, more specifically, about 6,000 years ago. They say that, if God created Adam mature, why should He not create the earth mature? But I have news for them. If God created Adam, he didn't create him with a scar on his navel from an operation on his gall bladder. Nor would Adam have possessed scarring from a bilateral hernia, nor a BCG injection scar. His teeth would have been perfect and new, and showed no signs of the wear and tear they would have gone through in teenage years, because he didn't have teenage years. His little toes would never have been broken, because he'd never broken them. He would have had no stretch marks, because he would never have grown. Adam didn't have a history, and God isn't a liar.

The earth has so many scars. Of great meteor impacts that eradicated dinosaurs in the Cretaceous, and rocked the end-Permian era. Of animal tracks buried under layers of sediment, built up over millions of years. The fossils of beings the likes of which we've never seen, the radioactive elements in the rocks that contain them, the order of the strata in which the rocks lie - ghosts of a past, a real history, that haunt the modern day creationist. And even when we turn our gaze away from the earth beneath us towards the heavens, using our telescopes to see stars hundreds of thousands of light years away, are we to seriously believe that we observe a faked history? Are we to imagine that the God of truth created images of supernovae exploding, and coded these images into light, and put that light in transit toward earth - even though the supernovae never existed - and the explosions never occurred?

And I'll let you ponder those questions for a little while longer, as I create lecture 4 in this series!

http://23weeks.blogspot.com/

2006-09-13T21:29:00.000-04:00

http://23weeks.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, September 13, 2006
September 13th ONE MORE BLOW!!!!
Well here's the deal... We have been on the phone all morning with Docs trying to get her transferred to another Hospital for a Second Opinion. Problem with that is the Docs at U of M are talking these other hospitals out of accepting Emmie-Rose for the Second Opinion that Rightfully We are allowed to receive.

We called Toledo back for a letter of acceptance and explaination to send to the Insurance Company for an appeal. In turn, The Doc tells Us that They have spoken to U of M and U of M has discouraged them from taking her due to another Ethics Committee meeting that We werent even told about or asked if We wanted to attend. The way the Docs at U of M are going We will NEVER get an Unbiased opinion. The Ethics Committee is now involved at Toledo even though they have NOT even assessed Emmie-Rose's condition firsthand and without an overturn decision by that Committee, the Doc that is willing to take her case is not allowed to do so.

They have now taken it upon Themselves to take away her TPN (nutrients She needs to grow, her "food") and her Blood Transfusions, Platelets and Lipids. She has had all of these things since birth until last Sunday when She had her surgery. They told Us She would die in two days, a week later She is still here and We asked them to give her her TPN, Blood and Platelets back and they did (yesterday). Yesterday they called a meeting to let Us know that "THEY" have "decided" amongst themselves that they are going to NOT feed her anymore or offer Her anymore Blood, Platelets or anything else that will help her to grow. So basically they want to starve her and let her blood run out so She can die. What does that sound like to you??? Torture if you ask ME!!

We just dont understand how a group of people who call themselves "doctors" can just "decide on a whim" that because this Child isnt "PERFECT" in their eyes that She isnt worth fighting for. They keep feeding Us the line "Well, do you know how hard it is going to be down the line/in the future". WHO CARES ABOUT TOMORROW, Lets work on today. They feel that Emmie-Rose is a "dead" issue and they have been just waiting for her to die. GUESS WHAT PEOPLE, LOOK WHO's STILL HERE!! NOW WHAT????????????? So their next course of action is to keep everything away from her that She has needed since birth and see if that makes her die. They let her blood get so low that that could have killed her. They are tired of dealing with Emmie-Rose because they see Her as "imperfect" and thats what they want to save is the ones that are going to make it "Long term". Who knows but the Lord who will make it the next 2 minutes let alone a yr from now. Obviously, U of M is trying to play "god" here and take it amongst themselves to kill Her at this point.

We need an Unbiased Second Opinion that We are entitled to as well as requested from the U of M team. We need someone out there to give Our Little Girl the chance. We want Her to live or die with Respect and Dignity that any Human being has the right to have. U of M is just completely giving up on a Living Human Being and that is NOT Right. We need to fight for Our Loved Ones and Stand Up for them when No One else will. Emmie-Rose is a fighter and until the Lord calls Her home, Mommy and Daddy are going to be fighting for Her every step of the way. There is a reason She is here and touching so many lives in the process. As long as She is going to fight, So are We.

Please Help Us!! IF Anyone has any contacts to help Us out with this situation, please either post or email Us. We need help from Everyone to Help Our Little Girl to get the Care She so deserves. This is a very time sensitive thing, We need to move quickly before U of M decides to take things into their own hands with more bad decisions.

Love,
Stephanie and Chris
Emmie-Rose's Mommy and Daddy

We need help finding a Doc to accept her and look at her without hearing one side only. If anyone knows a Neonatologist, a Ped Surgeon, Ped Doc with Nicu experience... Please pass Our story on. We need to move pretty fast.

Thanks for reading!

Please Continue the Prayers!!

You GROW GIRL!!!

posted by ShopGirl2U2000 @ 10:27 AM

Age of the Earth Series - 2

2006-09-13T06:54:00.000-04:00

Lecture 2 - Complex Dating Methods

In this lecture, we'll go through the various more complex methods of radiometric dating - talking first about Argon-Argon Plateaus, second about isochron methods, and lastly about the Uranium-Lead Concordia Discordia method, the most complex of all.

These methods of dating are extremely powerful, and build in clever mechanisms to test or eliminate the so-called "assumptions" that creationists often criticise geochronologists for making. That's why it's very important to understand them, and to read this lecture carefully before we go on to lecture 3 - where we will show creationist arguments against radiometric dating to be false.

The Argon-Argon Plateau

We talked in lecture 1 about the K-Ar method of dating - comparing the Potassium and Argon in a rock to find its age. This method uses exactly the same parent and daughter isotopes as the potassium-argon method. In effect, it is a different way of telling time from the same clock. Instead of simply comparing the total potassium with the non-air argon in the rock, this method has a way of telling exactly what and how much argon is directly related to the potassium in the rock. Even though it has been around for nearly half a century, the argon-argon method is seldom discussed by groups critical of dating methods.

In the argon-argon method the rock is placed near the center of a nuclear reactor for a period of hours. A nuclear reactor emits a very large number of neutrons, which are capable of changing a small amount of the potassium-39 into argon-39. Argon-39 is not found in nature because it has only a 269-year half-life. The rock is then heated in a furnace to release both the argon-40 and the argon-39 (representing the potassium) for analysis. The heating is done at incrementally higher temperatures and at each step the ratio of argon-40 to argon-39 is measured. In other words, the sample is heated in steps, say 10 degrees, and for each step, how much Ar-40 and Ar-39 that is dislodged is measured.

If the argon-40 is from decay of potassium within the rock, it will come out at the same temperatures as the potassium-derived argon-39 and in a constant proportion. On the other hand, if there is some excess argon-40 in the rock it will cause a different ratio of argon-40 to argon-39 for some or many of the heating steps, so the different heating steps will not agree with each other. In other words, Ar-40 / Ar-39 should be constant for each step, unless Ar-40 has either been added or subtracted from the rock during the time it's been existent. From this we form the Argon-Argon Plateau:

In this sample, a real sample by the way, the Ar40/Ar39 ratio is fairly constant over the temperature steps. This means the rock has not been disturbed, and we have taken, in this case, 25 different and independent measurements of age that have all come out the same. This is a very powerful evidence that the rock is as old as the method claims. It also tests the assumption that argon has not been added or taken away from the rock.

It also means that we can use this method on partially metamorphised rocks. If a rock has gone through a period of heating - but only been partially melted, the argon-40 at the lower temperature steps will have leaked away. But the argon-40 that was harder to dislodge, that only came out at the higher temperature steps, will have remained constant. We will then get a partial-plateau - with lower ratios at the lower temperature steps, but then a constant plateau at higher temperature steps. This method therefore gives us a way of measuring age even in rocks that have been partially metamorphised.

It also tells us definitively if a rock has been tampered with. Here is a "bad" Ar-Ar plateau for reference:

As you can see - the plateau is never constant. Although more of the harder to get out Argon-40 remains at higher temperature, the plateau is never truly flat. This method tells us when a rock is unsuitable for dating then, because argon has been leached. Inspirational stuff. God bless science.

Isochron Methods

In nearly all of the dating methods, except potassium-argon and the associated argon-argon method, there is always some amount of the daughter product already in the rock when it cools. Using these methods is a little like trying to tell time from an hourglass that was turned over before all of the sand had fallen to the bottom.

However one can think of ways to correct for this in an hourglass: One could make a mark on the outside of the glass where the sand level started from and then repeat the interval with a stopwatch in the other hand to calibrate it. Or if one is clever she or he could examine the hourglass' shape and determine what fraction of all the sand was at the top to start with. By knowing how long it takes all of the sand to fall, one could determine how long the time interval was. Similarly, there are good ways to tell quite precisely how much of the daughter product was already in the rock when it cooled and hardened.

In the rubidium-strontium method, rubidium-87 decays with a half-life of 48.8 billion years to strontium-87. Strontium has several other isotopes that are stable and do not decay. When the rock first cools, all parts of the rock have the same strontium-87/strontium-86 ratio because the isotopes were mixed in the magma - and because Sr-87 and Sr-86 are chemically indistinguishable - a mineral cannot distinguish chemically between them. At the same time, some of the minerals in the rock have a higher rubidium/strontium ratio than others. Rubidium has a larger atomic diameter than strontium, so rubidium does not fit into the crystal structure of some minerals as well as others. In other words, Rubidium is chemically distinguishable from Strontium. Therefore the Rb-87/Sr-86 ratio will vary from mineral to mineral. Over time, the Rb-87/Sr-86 ratio decreases as Rb-87 decays to Sr-87. Similarly, the Sr-87/Sr-86 ratio increases over time, as Sr-87 is formed from Rb-87.

The result of this is an isochron, as seen above. This is a plot, for several different minerals, of Sr-87/Sr-86 on the Y-axis and Rb-87/Sr-86 on the X-axis. At the start, you will have a straight flat line, because although there will be different Rb-87/Sr-86 ratios for different minerals, the Sr-87/Sr-86 ratio will be the same, as these are chemically indistinguishable. As time goes on, you will get increasing slopes of line, like this:

The gradient of the line is therefore proportional to the age. Notice also that where the line cuts the Y-axis, we get the exact starting ratios of all the elements, in other words, this method tells us directly what the elemental composition of a rock was to start off with. Enthusiasts can write to me and I'll send them the mathematics behind deriving the age from the gradient.

But the most clever thing about this method is the fact that, if any of our assumptions about the rock are wrong - if the rock has been interfered with - if elements have spread or scattered or left or entered - we won't get a straight line. The very existence of a straight line is proof, in and of itself, that our assumptions were correct.

In a few very rare instances the rubidium-strontium method has given straight lines that give wrong ages. This can happen when the rock being dated was formed from magma that was not well mixed, and which had two distinct batches of rubidium and strontium. One magma batch had rubidium and strontium compositions near the upper end of a line, and one batch had compositions near the lower end of the line.

In this case, the minerals all got a mixture of these two batches, and their resulting composition ended up near a line between the two batches. This is called a two-component mixing line. It is a very rare occurrence in these dating mechanisms, but at least thirty cases have been documented among the tens of thousands of rubidium-strontium dates made.

However, there is a mathematical test (the Reciprocal test) for mixing lines - plus exactly half of all mixing lines are negative - and anyhow, if a two-component mixture is suspected, a second dating method can be used to confirm or disprove the rubidium-strontium date. The agreement of several dating methods is the best fail-safe way of dating rocks - because mixing lines do not agree with other dating methods. So other than mixing, for which we can test and that we know is rare - this is an excellent method of telling the time.

Uranium-Lead Concordia/Discordia

The U-Pb method relies on the decays of U-235 and U-238. These two parent isotopes undergo series decay involving several intermediate radioactive daughter isotopes before the stable daughter product is reached. We have already covered the basic U-Pb method in Lecture 1.

Two simple independent “age” calculations can be made from the two U-Pb decays: U-238 to Pb-206, and U-235 to Pb-207. However, what if lead has leaked out? We found out in lecture 1 that the minerals that Uranium-Lead dating is performed with, like zircons, chemically exclude lead - that also means that during metamorphism and heating lead tends to leak out, giving an artificially young age. How can we get around this problem?

The answer is using a Concordia/Discordia plot. The U-Pb concordia-discordia method circumvents the problem of lead loss in discordant systems and provides an internal check on reliability. This method involves the U-238 and U-235 decays and is used in such minerals as zircon, a common accessory mineral in igneous rocks, that contains uranium but no or negligible initial lead. This latter requirement can be checked, if necessary, by checking for the presence of Pb- 204, which would indicate the presence and amount of initial lead.

In a closed lead-free system, a point representing the 206Pb/238U and 2O7Pb/235U ratios will plot on a curved line known as concordia. The location of the point on concordia depends only on the age of the sample:

In other words, a rock that has not undergone any deformation or metamorphism or leaching will lie on a concordia plot - this means that both U-235 and U-238 methods are in agreement on age, basically. As the rock gets older, it progresses up the concordia plot.

If at some later date (say, 2.5 billion years after formation) the sample loses lead in an episodic event, the point will move off of concordia along a straight line toward the origin (again, the maths of this I'll send to the enthusiast). At any time after the episodic lead loss (say, 1 billion years later), the point Q in the last diagram will lie on a chord to the concordia connecting the original age of the sample and the age of the lead loss episode. As you can see in the diagram, the chord intercepts the concordia at 1 billion years (the time between the last metamorphic event and present day) and 3.5 billion years (the true age of the sample).

This chord is called discordia. If we now consider what would happen to several different samples, say different zircons, from the same rock, each of which lost differing amounts of lead during the episode, we find that at any time after the lead loss, say today, all of the points for these samples will lie on discordia:

As we can see, by drawing the concordia and plotting the discordia from measurements, we can now find the true age of the rock and when the metamorphic event that caused the discordia occured. This is a very powerful method of dating therefore - not only is it self-checking of assumptions - it is actually built specifically to deal with open system behaviour. As we will see in lecture 3 - creationists complain that dating methods have to assume a closed system - that no elements will leak in or out of the sample during the time of its existence. We now know that isochron methods and Ar-Ar methods can handle this - now we've learnt that U-Pb Concordia/Discordia is actually built specifically to deal with this. By the way, the above graph is from a real sample, from the Morton Gneiss, Minn. This rock was also measured at around 3.6 billion years old by several other dating methods.

Dating with multiple methods

As you can see from the results below, amazingly concordant dates are a common feature of radiometric dating using many different methods. These results are from the Amitsoq Gneisses of Western Greenland:

In this case, the gneisses were dated several times using U-Pb, Lead-Lead (another name for Concordia/Discordia methods), Rb-Sr isochron methods, and a couple of lesser used isochron methods, lutetium-hafnium and samarium-neodymium. All the dates agreed to within bounds of error with an age of 3.61 billion years old. The different methods of completely independent, there is no reason that they should agree other than that they represent the real age of the rocks. We will talk about such fallacious creationist claims that these similar results could be caused by a speeding up of radioactive decay rates in lecture 3.

However, that aside, dating with many methods which come up with the same result is a hugely powerful evidence that the earth really is very old. The oldest rocks yet found are about 4.3 billion years old, in Western Australia, making scientists conclude that the earth itself is about 4.5 - 4.6 billion years old in total, giving time for some cooling and rock formation. This age could move back as older rocks are found.

I hope this gives you a good insight into the complex methods of radiometric dating, and that it was not too complex to follow.

Age of the Earth Series

2006-09-07T12:40:00.000-04:00

Welcome to Paul Buede’s requested “Age of the Earth” series of lectures. This first lecture goes through, in broad terms, what radioactivity is, what half life is, and the main methods of radiometric dating.

In the next lecture, we will talk about the two most mathematically complex methods of dating – Isochron dating, and the Uranium-Uranium Concordia Discordia method. This lecture will be for enthusiasts, who are unhappy with the rather hand-wavy explanations I give in lecture 1.

In lecture 3, we’ll go through the common arguments that creationists give against radiometric dating, and show why they are false. In lecture 4, we’ll go through the main arguments creationists give for a young earth, and show why these are false. Then in lecture 5, we’ll have a brief discussion of the theology of an old earth – and how modern science deepens our understanding of creation, and our bond with a loving God.

Throughout, I encourage you to read the American Scientific Affiliation article, by Dr Roger Weins, called “Radiometric Dating – A Christian Perspective” – it will give you much needed background material for all lectures. I would also recommend the first chapter of “Science and Creationism” by Ashley Montagu, and the whole of G. Brent Dalrymple’s seminal text “The Age of the Earth”.

Lecture 1 – Radioactivity and Dating Methods – an Introduction

The Nucleus

Matter is made out of small units called atoms. Atoms have a nucleus in the centre - which is heavy and made out of sub atomic particles named "nucleons". Positive protons and neutral neutrons are examples of nucleons. Shells of electrons, which are negative, spin round the nucleus at very high speed in orbits (this is a simplification, electrons actually exist in a quantum state in these shells – they do not technically orbit).

The nucleus determines the nature of a substance - the number of protons determines what element a substance is, for example. The nucleus is also where radioactive decay happens. You see, protons actually repel each other electromagnetically - positive repels positive - driving the nucleus apart. However, the neutrons and protons attract each other, with a force called "the strong force", keeping the nucleus together.

Radioactive Decay

However, if the mix of protons and neutrons is wrong - or there are too many of each - the nucleus becomes unstable, because the forces aren't balanced right. That means that certain nuclei become unstable - and can even collapse and split apart. This is called radioactive decay.

There are 3 types of decay:

Alpha decay: This is when an "alpha particle" (made up of 2 neutrons and 2 protons) is ejected from the nucleus. This is especially common in heavy nuclei, that need to get rid of nucleons fast to become stable.

Beta decay: This is when a neutron turns into a proton and an electron - or a proton turns into a neutron and a positron (a positive electron). This occurs normally when the balance of neutrons and protons isn't right.

Gamma decay: This is a special type of decay where some of the excess mass of the nucleus is converted into energy, and given off as a burst of gamma radiation (a type of very very high energy invisible light).

Half life

The physics behind radioactivity is well researched - there is even a formula where you plug in the number of protons and neutrons and it'll tell you if the atom is radioactive (called the “Semi-empirical Mass Formula). There are also formulae to work out how quickly atoms will decay on average.

Of course, it is an average, because decay is a probabilistic/statistical process - but experimentally you'll find that decay rate is very very close to the average, because there are so many atoms making up the sample. Kind of like if the average height of men is 6 feet, if you take 2 men they might not have a 6 foot average - but if you take a million men, then it's likely to be close to the average. There are literally billions of atoms in a tiny spec of matter - meaning that radioactive decay follows the average pretty closely.

If we know how quickly atoms will decay on average, then we can tell how much will have decayed after a certain amount of time. We have a very useful measure, called the "half life", which is the amount of time it takes for 50% of a radioactive material to have decayed. In other words - if you have 1 kg of a substance with a half life of a year - if you wait a year, 500g of radioactive substance will be left, the rest will have decayed.

Decay Series

Now, what happens when an atom decays radioactively? Well, it turns into a different substance - because it'll have a different number of neutrons and protons left. This new substance is called the "daughter" of the decay (because it is literally born of the decay), and the radioactive element is called the "parent".

Sometimes though, when a parent decays, it decays into a daughter that is also radioactive! Then the daughter decays, giving birth to another daughter, which might also be radioactive. This can create a chain of radioactive parents and daughters, all the way down finally to a daughter that isn't radioactive, and then the chain stops. This happens often when the original parent is very heavy, like in the decay of Uranium.

At first, as the original parent starts to decay forming a chain, the chain grows. After a while (a few million years with Uranium) the chain settles down to a steady state. These decay chains can therefore be used to date rocks up to a few million years as the chain grows - but in older rocks, they can assure us that the rock is *at least* a few million years old, but they can't tell us exactly how old.

Radiometric Dating

Now, the half life of radioactive elements depends on the nuclear properties of the element. That means that it won't change over time - and since the nucleus is almost completely immune to high temperature and pressure - we know that even under very very extreme conditions the half life won't change that much.

Now, as rocks form inside the earth, and in lava flows, they often contain radioactive elements. And when they solidify, those elements decay inside the rock, and the daughter products are stuck within the confines of the rock. That means that millions of years later, we can pick up the rock, measure the proportion of daughter and parent elements, and estimate how old the rock is, using various methods.

Below I'll tell you about the various methods of dating rocks using radioactive material - and why we're sure they're accurate.

Types of Radioactive Dating

Uranium Dating

Uranium decays to lead, through a rather long decay series. That means that firstly, because of decay series, we often know for absolute sure that the rock is at least a few million years old (after all, what's the chances that exactly the right amounts of each daughter element in the series existed in the rock out of chance, to form a decay chain?)

Despite the reassurance of decay series, Uranium is still the crudest dating method - and the simplest. You take the amount of Uranium, the amount of lead, and plug it all into a formula to get a date out the other end. This method is usually used in Zircons – a type of mineral that chemically excludes lead. The reason for this is so we can be sure that all the lead within our sample is daughter element – it wasn’t there to start off with.

Now, clearly there is a source of error in this form of radiometric dating. What if some lead has been “leached” – what if it’s leaked away while the rock has been heated or partially metamorphosed? Well, these are valid sources of error, and hence this form of dating is less accurate than others. However, of course, this is a random source of error, and given enough samples, it ought to average itself out. It is also a source of error that predominantly gives artificially young ages – because if lead has disappeared, we will date the rock as younger than it really is.

Also, this method of dating is now rare, it has been overtaken by a method called the “Uranium-Uranium Concordia/Discordia” method – that takes into account the possibility of metamorphosis and leaching. We will talk about this method in broad terms later on in this series.

Potassium-Argon Dating

This type of dating is known as K-Ar (K and Ar being the letters representing Potassium and Argon in the periodic table). Now, this method of dating is very interesting for two reasons.

Firstly, Argon, the daughter element, is a rare inert (unreactive) gas - which means that it usually boils off and bubbles off into the atmosphere when a rock or crystal is formed. That means that we can be fairly sure that the original level of Argon was very very low in the rock. Furthermore, any atmospheric argon-40 that is trapped at formation will also be trapped with atmospheric Argon-36, in a ratio of 295 parts to 1 (the atmospheric ratio of Ar-40 to Ar-36). We can therefore measure the Argon-36 in a sample and work out how much Argon-40 is non-radiogenic, and remove this from our calculations.

Secondly, this type of decay takes place in salt crystals. That means that if the crystal has been disturbed, or cracked, or tampered with, it is fairly easy to see from it's structure - and also, all of the daughter argon is trapped in the crystal lattice, it cannot escape. Furthermore, no more Potassium can be added, the crystal structure is firm and does not allow this addition to take place.

That means that K-Ar dating is much more accurate than Uranium dating - yielding error margins as low as 1-2% in some cases. We also have a method known as the Ar-Ar Plateau method – which takes into account the possibility of metamorphism and leaking of argon during periods of heating. This method will be explained later in this series.

Rubidium Strontium Dating

This type of dating is one of the most accurate - and the most interesting. It's also the most complicated mathematically - so you'll have to forgive me for skipping over and simplifying the maths. It can only date old rocks though, at least over 10 million years old - because Rubidium has a very long half life (47 billion years!)

There are several different types of Strontium - only one type is created through radioactive decay. However, we also find the other types of Strontium in the rock - but we also know that the naturally occurring ratio of these different types of Strontium is constant at any one time on earth.

That means, with a bit of mathematics, we can come out with a straight line graph, (called an isochron, for enthusiasts), whose gradient is the age of the rock. But get this - if any part of the rock is tampered with, it won't be a straight line. If the rock has partially melted and resolidified, it won't be a straight line.

Basically, the results of this type of dating allow us to check all our assumptions that weren't possible to check with Uranium dating. We can know exactly how much Rubidium there was to start with. We can know if the rock has been tampered with. We can know if any daughter or parent element has been lost or added to any part of the rock. In other words, this method is self checking, and self calibrating - it's the near perfect method of telling time - and often yields errors as low as 1%.

If you ever hear scientists say that a rock is "unsuitable" for radiometric dating - chances are that they've tested it using Rb-St - and found that they didn't get a straight line, meaning that the rock has been tampered with and it's difficult to use it for dating. Unfortunately, creationists often twist this to an unwary public - and say that scientists throw away bad results and blame it on the rocks being unsuitable. Nothing could be further from the truth of course - in actual fact, it's because this dating method is so good that we can tell from it if our assumptions are correct, and therefore if a rock is suitable. We will go into more detail on isochron dating methods later in this series.

Dating Using Several Methods

We scientists aren't very often satisfied with one result. That's why we often date several rocks from any one site, and use as many methods of dating as possible to check our results. For example, the oldest rocks ever found date at about 4.2 billion years - and these were checked with all three methods of dating, all of which agreed to within bounds or error.

Final Quirky Little Proof of an Old Earth

I can't remember who came up with this one, but it's very interesting. There are many radioactive elements that we know about. Some occur naturally all the time - some do not generate naturally.

Of those that do not generate naturally, some have a half life of over 50 million years, and some do not. We find traces of every single one of the ones with a half life over 50 million years, and absolutely no trace at all of any of the ones with a half life below 50 million years.

Only the earth being many times old than 50 million years can explain how why we only find elements with long half lives - because the elements with low half lives have all decayed to nothing.

Science and Its Limits

2006-08-29T14:35:00.000-04:00

I've been reading "Science & Its Limits" by Del Ratzsch and I've finally gotten to the chapter on Intelligent Design. So far it has been quite a page turner and has pushed my understanding of philosophy and science to its limits. I'm no philosopher, so I admit that my eyes glazed over at times but Ratzsch has a knack for bringing me back into the conversation using good summaries and explanations.

While I'm not a strict believer in Intelligent Design per se, i.e. I believe in a specific Creator who makes moral and personal demands of His creation, I find the discussion very stimulating. If it is possible for us to recognize something as designed but cannot identify the designer, why could that designer not be supernatural? Science is willing to accept possible alien agency while at the same time barring the possiblity of supernatural agency. It seems to me to be a problem of fear and pride - fear that once opened, the supernatural pandora's box would wipe science clean because science would be admitting that at any moment the laws of nature could be set aside by supernatural beings - and pride because all of the knowledge science claims as her own to possess and discover would in fact belong to someone else.

What do you think? Is Intelligent Design a viable philosophy? Leave your comments below. (This article is reposted from Theology Monger - mainly because I'm too busy to write new stuff.)

Anti-Catholicism - the last prejudice?

2006-08-16T05:42:00.000-04:00

You're not a Roman are you?

Meeting your new family, before getting married, is a nervous occasion. So it proved for my sister, meeting her grandmother-in-law for the first time. She looked my sister up and down, staring at her, and finally said "You're not a Roman are you?" My sister was confused. She'd never even been to Italy.

This sort of reaction isn't uncommon among the white chattering classes in England - and it's even more common north of the border (in Scotland, for my geographically challenged transatlantic cousins). My mother met her common-law husband's family for the first time - one of them asked "you're not *whisper* Catholic *unwhisper* are you? I mean I mean I mean, not that I have anything against that of course!"

Unpatriotic and Satanic

Since the Reformation in Scotland - and since the Glorious Revolution in England - Roman Catholicism has been viewed as something suspicious - something "other". Despite their best attempts, Catholics have been labelled unpatriotic ("one eye to Rome"), and even satanic. The Church of Scotland, a voice of moderation believe it or not, required its officers to believe that the Pope was "a man of sin, son of perdition, anti-Christ" up until the General Synod of 1988. How many of its officers actually believed this is open to question, I would bet on none, but it's the principle of the thing.

There is no serious debate as to whether Catholicism is Christianity of course - other than in the same community who think that Allah was a Moon God, and that dinosaurs and men walked hand in hand in Glen Rose, Texas. However the popular conception of Catholicism in Britain is as a religion apart from the established Church - strange in its customs and rituals, led from another country, suspiciously focused on Mary, anti-British and supportive of foreign terrorists. This probably has a lot to do in modern times with the issue of Ireland, and the IRA, but nevertheless.

The Test Act

These attitudes towards Roman Catholics in the UK still lead to sectarianism and discrimination. For example, the only religious grouping that can be discriminated against in terms of employment are Catholics - in that a Catholic cannot hold the office of Prime Minister or Lord Chancellor. Technically, Tony Blair is breaking the law taking the Lord's Supper in a Roman Catholic Church. If he declared himself a Catholic, it would lead to a constitutional crisis.

This archaic law dates back to the Test Act, instituted in the 1600s, which made taking communion in a Protestant church a pre-requisite for holding office in the army, holding power in government, and taking various posts at Universities. This act was brought into place for good reason mind you - the religious turmoil of moving from Protestant king to Catholic Queen and back again had led to the British army being involved in massacres of Protestants in what is now Northern Ireland.

It was King James II's attempted repeal of the Test Act, and of Habeus Corpus, that prompted the Glorious Revolution - his ousting from the throne, and the invitation to King William of Orange, a Protestant Prince from Holland, to rule in his place. The Act of Settlement, still in place in the UK, still reads: "it hath beene found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfaire of this protestant kingdome to be governed by a popish prince or by any King or Queene marrying a papist". The time of reformation and revolution, however, has passed - it seems perverse to carry on these traditions and laws.

Football, Flutes and Bigotry

However the memory of the Glorious Revolution is still very much alive in the minds of the populous, especially in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Orange marches still take place regularly in the marching season around the 12th of July, the anniversary of the Williamite victory over King James at the Battle of the Boyne, in 1690. And more popular still is sectarian rivalry in football - Glasgow Rangers being the Protestant club, and Glasgow Celtic the Catholic.

Although both clubs are now actively trying to crack down on sectarian hatred - and the situation has improved from the riots of the 70s and 80s - there is still bitterness and bigotry on both sides. At Rangers matches, most chants and songs end in "f*ck the pope" - at Celtic they sing "f*ck the queen". A popular Rangers song is "No Pope of Rome" (to the tune of "Home on the Range"):

"Oh give me a home / where there's no Pope in Rome / where there's nothing but protestants stay / Where seldom is heard a discouraging word / and flute bands play The Sash every day / Oh, there's no Pope in Rome / No chapel to sadden my eyes / No nuns and no priests - f*ck your rosary beads / Every day's like the 12th of July"

The hatred has progressed to a stage that all Rangers vs Celtic matches have to be played before 12 noon, to stop the fans getting drunk enough to beat each other up - and the Scottish Football Association has had to rearrange the footballing Calendar to make sure that there is never a title-deciding Rangers vs Celtic match, after the stabbings of 1998. It is ironic that, in their ignorance, the fans do not know that the Vatican, angry at King James' attempts to convert people by force, supported King William, bribing France not to join in on King James' side.

We hate Catholics, but we hate Muslims worse

There is a glimour of hope however for Catholics in the UK. For as much as there is suspicion and sometimes hatred against them (although both of these are ebbing away in a new, secular generation) - everyone seems now to agree that we can put our differences aside and unite in suspecting muslims instead.

Perhaps, ironically, anti-Catholicism won't be the last acceptable prejudice in the UK - not because there is no prejudice or it isn't accepted - but because there is a new and uniting prejudice to replace it.

Sadly, that will come too late for some. On my mother's side, I only ever knew half my family - because the other half disowned their share - they couldn't face the marriage of their Catholic daughter to a Protestant groom. Prejudice, it would seem, works both ways - and only breeds more hatred on the other side of the fence.

The Power of Education

It is time now for reconciliation - but most of all for education. Sadly in Scotland and Ireland, schools are often split on sectarian lines. People grow up only hearing rumours and Chick.com tracks about the "other" religion. This ignorance breeds distrust and fear - and it is ignorance that is the universal, not just the British, common denominator in sectarian prejudice. We should all be making an effort, for our children's sake, to cross the divide and have our children make friends on the other side through social mixing. It is harder to believe that Catholics are satanists when you've actually met one, and when they are your friends.

And we should be making an effort to educate adults also as to the true beliefs of our respective Churches - emphasising the similarities, shared traditions and beliefs, and the 1600 years of heritage that we have in common. There may, sadly, never be a scope for a common celebration of communion between us - but at least, outside of 9-11 on a Sunday (and 3pm - 4:45pm on a Saturday - football hours for my US comrades), we can all be friends.

Paul Vs. Slashdot

2006-08-15T17:20:00.000-04:00

Ok, so I let myself get a little sucked into this issue. Ok.. so I kind of started it. Anyway, I decided to take on the genius, smarter than anyone else, ultra scientifically astute, readers of slashdot. I wasn't arguing any scientific points, as you can not win that sort of argument against someone who knows everything and refuses to permit anyone to question the current prevailing conventional wisdom (sounds like the scientific atheists complaint against the church hundreds of years ago I know, funny how these things go in circles). I was simply asking for these people to resepct logic and reason. Anyway, read it if you like. Even comment if you like. I am always interested in the insight of the super-smart.

Nik Vs. Scientology

2006-08-14T09:17:00.000-04:00

Nik goes undercover!

A Message to Osama

2006-08-11T22:34:00.000-04:00

Nik and I don't agree on everything. Indeed, we find lots to disagree on, but he has a message for Osama that needs to be seen and appreciated. It makes me proud to call Nik a friend, and excited about having Britain as our 51st state! (Just kidding Nik hahaha)

Its the monthly Call For Life today

2006-08-04T10:15:00.000-04:00

August Monthly Call For Life

Hello friends of the unborn, it's time to Call For Life!

Go to http://www.monthlycallforlife.com where you will find everything
you need to know to speak for the unborn today. This Call for Life only
comes once a month, so please don't miss your opportunity.

Why is this going to make a difference anyway? Two points.

1) There are millions of us pieces of the pro-life puzzle working in our
individual efforts around the country. Coming together and speaking as
one on a regular basis unites and amplifies our message.
2) Our representatives need to hear from us frequently, otherwise they
will start to think that they can get away with murder, like the
embryonic stem cell research bill which was passed by the House and
Senate, & was almost made law in July, 2006.

Do you know the many ways the unborn are killed in America today?

> Embryonic stem cell research - Yes, just because the federal
government didn't fund it, doesn't mean it's not being funded by state
governments. Billions of dollars are being spent on human killing research.
> Abortion
> Sex / Gender selection - Hard to believe? You to can kill your girl
if you desire a boy instead. Here's one company that offers to help you
with that little problem of having too many girls or boys.

http://www.gender-select.com/

What's their tag line? "Boy or Girl? Not just a matter of choice"
Let's not forget they can also help you with with children who might
have "defects". They will be glad to screen your children before they
are born & will kill any of them who aren't perfect. No joke, this is
from their web site:

"If an embryo shows any of these defects, it is not used for transfer to
the uterus"

What a nice way to say they will kill your children for you so that you
don't have to go through the inconvenience.

Remember, the unborn only have us, and if we don't show up for them,
they will die alone

http://www.monthlycallforlife.com

United we stand - Divided they die - Pass it on

The Israel-Lebanon/etc Issue

2006-08-02T15:59:00.000-04:00

The Israel-Hezbollah/Hamas war has been getting lots of press lately. The issue is an extremely complicated one, as it stretches back at least 50 years, and in some cases involves the question of who which deity gave what to. In order to not fall into the trap that so many fall into on this issue, which is one of picking sides and defending one's side without attention to details or facts, one must look at the current situation as a single incident. To lump all the events surrounding the larger issue, which is whether Israel should be allowed to exist anywhere within its current borders, together is a mistake. Each incident must be approached individually, if any sort of objective analysis is to be done.

First, let us consider the obvious answer to all of this awful mess on a large scale. That answer is the one the Vatican seems to be intent on pushing, which is to simply stop the violence. Now, in order for a cessation of hostilities to work, both sides have to stop fighting. The first hard part of course, is one side has to be willing to trust the other and stop first. The second hard part is the other side actually has to stop, or the first party will start fighting again. The easy part should be a mediated settlement by an objective third party. The Vatican seems like a party that could do that job if the two sides let them. The Vatican has no interest in who controls the "Holy Land" as long as access to it is open to all. Israel and the Palestinians both want to control the "Holy Land". Neither one should care which one controls it, as long as they still have access to the land and its religious landmarks. A huge step would be to get the religious of both sides (the people who seem most intent on their own side winning), to meet and discuss an independent commission or group that could oversee the management of those areas, to the benefit of all groups with such an interest.

Once the religious aspect is being solved, the issue of land ownership needs to be addressed. Again, an objective third party, which is neither the US (very pro Israel) nor most of Europe (very pro Palestinians) could set up a court of sorts. It would be this court's job to hear the cases of displaced Palestinians, whose land was taken from them (not ancestors, only living victims). The government of Israel would then pay those victims some amount as determined by the objective body, as reparations. The land boundaries of whatever the last peace agreement which was agreed to by both sides should be put into place by both sides.

Once the land dispute issue is under way, the issue of government should be addressed. One hears different stories about the Israeli government from different sources. I will relay the two sides I have heard. I don't know which is true, so both are presented. Pro-Israel people state that there are Arab members of Israel's parliament, that non-Jews have representation and rights in Israel. Pro Palestinians claim that non-Jews are not treated as full citizens by Israel and that they are oppressed. At the same time, the government of what, for lack of a better term, we will call Palestine (the area controlled by Arafat and then Abbas, before Hamas won so much in the recent elections), clearly needs reform. Both governments should be Republics, which guarantee the rights of their respective minorities. The Republican form of government is the only answer for countries that have minority groups.

Now, on to the current mess. Assuming, for the sake of argument that Hamas won those elections fair and square, that government needs to be respected by international parties as the legitimate government of those areas. But, at the same time, democracy and elections carry consequences, and those who voted for Hamas had to know, and must expect that other countries will refuse to deal with groups they have defined as terrorists. Now, after that recent election, the US started to withhold aid, and Israel stopped giving that government the money that it had previously agreed to give it as part of the peace process. An objective outsider cannot expect a country or countries to fund groups and parties whose stated goal is the funders destruction. If those who elected Hamas expected a different result, their is no accounting for that kind of stupidity. If Hamas wanted to be taken seriously, and not treated as terrorists, they could have renounced terrorism and agreed to the terms of the peace process which included agreeing to Israel's right to exist.

All that said, Hamas began the current hostilities by attacking Israeli positions. Israel began to respond and then Hezbollah jumped in. Clearly, Israel has a right to defend itself as President Bush has correctly stated. Much has been made of terms like "restraint", and "proportionate responses". When a country is attacked, by uniformed soldiers of another country's military, or by militants hiding in another country, it is a government's responsibility to defend its people. As has been clearly demonstrated by both pro Israeli and pro Lebanon supporters, the Lebanese army is simply not strong enough to stop militants hiding in Lebanon from attacking Israel. Israel has no choice but to attack those militants. At the same time, there has now been ample proof to show that Hezbollah purposely stations is military assets around civilians and other non-military targets. Those decrying the Israeli military response argue that Israeli lives are not worth more than Lebanese lives. That is clearly true, however, the Israeli military's job is to defend Israelis, not to determine that a strike at militants in Lebanon will harm 10 more people than would be harmed if they stood down and let Israel be attacked. The Israeli military should of course do all it can not to kill innocents, but it cannot abandon its core mission, which is to protect Israel, not because they are "Zionists" or whatever other hot-button term those who oppose Israel use, but because its their job to defend their country.

This brings us all back to the fundamental reality that war is hell. People die in war, not just soldiers but innocent people as well. This is why war is bad. War is a last resort, it is something you do when you realize those you must protect are going to be killed if you do not take up arms. The squeamishness of the "West" is truly galling. It used to be in war, that the US and its allies were willing to bomb cities with nuclear weapons to end a war. It used to be that the US and its allies were willing to firebomb whole cities in order to stop the military-industrial capability of an enemy. It was America's willingness to defend itself at ALL COSTS including all-out nuclear war, later referred to as MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), that protected the US and Europe and much of the world from the evil Soviet and Chinese communists during the Cold War. Without that resolve, to defend oneself at all costs, all the weapons in the world will not deter evil forces from the desire to attack. If there is a true lesson to be learned from the Vietnam "conflict", it is the Powell Doctrine, the most important part of which is to go to war with overwhelming force, willing to do whatever is needed to complete the mission, which ought to always be to destroy the enemy, or beat them into submission. The West's weakness of resolve in places like Iraq where the US population turns against a war after only a couple thousand of its military volunteers die (and I am not attempting to demean the dead, we pray for the dead, but compare that number with those killed in any of America's successful wars involving ground forces) can only open the West to more challenges to its willingness to defend itself. Indeed, what does the spineless flipflop in a war like that say about how seriously Americans take killing other people? We are willing to fight a war if it only kills other people via jets and cruise missiles, but if we actually have to sacrifice our own people its not worthwhile? That judgment is one Americans need to make BEFORE a war. If the war is not worth losing our own people, we should not be there in the first place.

Hopefully, the "international community" will come together, as it was supposed to do in the past on this very same Lebanon issue, and this time send a real-armed multinational force that will enforce peace on the border of Lebanon and Israel. I like to think of myself as an optimist, but its extremely hard not to see this war getting worse and engulfing Syria and Iran before its over.

A special weekend treat

2006-07-15T22:36:00.000-04:00

Vader, like you have never heard him before.

Friday's Funny

2006-07-07T16:42:00.000-04:00

One of the funniest things I have seen in a very long time. I actually picked up the link to it on a Fiero forum. Here is the link to the site posted on that forum, and HERE is the link to the content. Its a spoiler of the upcoming Battlestar Galactica season.

And for those of you interested, here is the link to the Fiero forum.

Columbine Documents Released

2006-07-06T18:54:00.000-04:00

Documents taken from the Klebold and Harris families, that were written by the Columbine killers have been released. Here is a deep link right to the file. This is a link to the news story about the release and is the article that contains the deep link. I, being a former black trenchcoat wearing person in high school, years before the Columbine stuff, am very interested to see what is in there. You see, for those that do not know, not all of us who wore the trenchcoat were similarly inclined. My cohorts in high school were on the "Its Academic" team, on the "Model UN", and hung out after school to play chess in the O-Zone (thats what we called the "orange" cafeteria). Anyway, I hope this answers some questions.

Net Neutrality

2006-06-23T12:57:00.000-04:00

Being a professional geek, and at the same time, a Libertarian, I think I need to make known my position on this issue. The easiest way to do it, is to copy and paste the feelings of a Slashdot poster. View the full topic thread here. View the subthread where I grabbed this quote here.

"I've realized something: the real problem here isn't actually "net neutrality" or lack thereof; that's a red herring. The real problem is actually the fact that the telcos want to keep their monopoly protection and common-carrier status, but get rid of all those pesky regulations that keep them from abusing their power even worse than they do now"

"mrchaotica" is right on. Net neutrality, and federal involvement in regulating internet traffic is not the answer to whatever preceived dangers exist at the hands of government created monopolies (telcos and cable companies). The answer is to attack the real root of the problem, that problem is that those government created monopolies are now hoping to flex their muscle and abuse their power, as monopolies.

Several years ago, I lived in Bowie, MD. That is Prince Georges County for those of you out of the Washington, DC area. I went through a lot of grief with DSL not long after it became available. I was buying my DSL service through a Covad reseller. Now, I don't know how much you know about all of the DSL stuff that went on, and probably still is going on, but Verizon, in this area, owns all the copper to your house. They were forced by the government to make that available to competitors like Covad, who could then offer me service over those copper wires. Verizon though, was still able to make the whole thing hard enough, unreliable enough, and not help Covad enough (while Covad could use the lines, they weren't allowed access to them to fix them when there was a problem, they had to call Verizon and get Verizon to do it), to make Covad look awful. Because I knew what was going on, I went to the cable modem, rather than reward Verizon.

After seeing the lack of options from Comcast (at the time, one could not get a static IP or different ranges of bandwidth other than the single flat amount), I began to look into what other choice I had. I had none. I knew of a company called Starpower , related to RCN, and called them. In certain parts of Montgomery County (another county in Maryland, just outside DC) I had heard they were laying their own fiber to people's homes. They told me that they had come very close to operating in Bowie, they had a deal all set to go through with the PG county government, but the County Executive (at the time) had nixed it after RCN had basically refused to give money to his re-election or something. The real thrust here being that a possible competitor to the local communications monopolies was unable to do business in a county, because they wouldn't play ball with the corrupt local government. I haven't live in Bowie for many years, so I do not know what the situation is now, I am sure Bowie is big enough now that they have WISPs (Wireless ISPs) and the like. And thats great for them. But that does not exist everywhere. The only true solution to the issues we face in the future, is to allow the market to solve the problem. And we cannot do that by giving more power to monopolies. We also should not do that by layering more regulation on those monopolies. Those regulations are doomed to abuse and fraud, as all government regulations are. The only answer is to destroy the monopolies, by allowing other companies to offer the same services.

Abortion survivor upsets the status quo in Colorado

2006-06-22T11:36:00.000-04:00

This is an amazing story, picked it up over at the Weblog of the Inquisition.

Saddly, they (the pro-aborts) must know they commit evil, and just don't care, stories like this one are moving and amazing, and can only leave one wondering how the other side can continue, in the face of science and logic to permit, justify, and fight for legal murder.