...and a child shall lead them

Scientists knew about fossil fuels, CO2, and the potential for global warming a hundred years ago, and petroleum industry scientists accurately predicted today's temperature based on CO2 models in the 1982. We were taught about the greenhouse effect and global warming in elementary school in the early '80s. I read a small article in the back of Discover magazine in the late mid '80s that described what we call climate change today--what I would call "climate instability," which, like a thunderstorm, is the violent volatility that occurs as a system changes from one equilibrium to another. In 1979, amid the Arab oil embargo, Carter put a solar water heater in the roof of the White House, declaring that they represent an alternative that could lead us in a new direction--toward independence from foreign oil and (ambiguously) toward a new industrial adventure. In 1980, he put forth the Carter Doctrine, declaring that the US would assert itself in the Middle East, using the military if necessary, to secure US national interests, i.e. oil. While Carter can alone represent this decision point, we've watched it play out in alternating administrations change directions all the while sea levels have risen, temperatures have climbed, acidification of the oceans have threatened sea life. Fish and bird migrations have changed. Drought, widfires, and flooding have become worse and more frequent. I've been waiting anxiously for thirty years for politicians to do something substantial, to acknowledge this is a real problem that requires a concrete legal and policy response. How many wars has there been? How many alliances with brutal dictators? All for a path that no sane person, no moral person could choose?

As we face the global climate crisis, we must acknowledge what has brought us to this point--unbridled capitalism. The climate deniers and politicians who have stood in the way have done so for the almighty dollar. In the same manner that they caused and reaped the rewards of the housing crisis, of the opioid crisis, all the banking crises--all these things they have foisted on The People for their own profit--they have given us this climate crisis to line their own pocketbooks while placing upon us the ultimate costs. There are those who will say "there is a market-based solution." Well, I say we disembowel them in the Reagan Presidential Library and pour their blood on Ayn Rand's grave. Obama offered them a market based solution--less socialist that Reagan's embrace of Keynesian economics--and the capitalist puppet masters turned him down.

The world is fed up. The Ganges and Brahmaputra River valleys, part of the most densely populated region on Earth have faced repeated catastrophic monsoon floods. Oceania faces migration as a final resort just as racist nationalism and antiimmigration sentiment reach levels not seen in a hundred years, when the human population was 1/4 of what it is today. Houston and New Orleans, built on foundations of oil, are drowning in the flood waters they have brought upon themselves.

We need a total restructuring of society around the needs of Humanity and what remains of the 20th Century biosphere. Capitalism, the Billionaires, the plutocrats and oligarchs all need to take a back seat. They've had their chance. In the last year, a young lady, Greta Thunberg, beginning with a solo act of civil disobedience to protest and bring attention to our politicians' and leaders' failures and inadequacies and culminating in a million children and activists in cities around the world and on every continent marching to demand an appropriate response from society, she has rattles the halls of government and brought the next generation to their feet. Know that as we continue to spew CO2 from our tailpipes and our power plants, it is our ambivalence and apathy her generation is battling against--literally for their very survival but also for our own. It is our ambivalence and apathy. It is our ambivalence and apathy. IT IS OUR AMBIVALENCE AND APATHY that are the the problem.

Yes; your government is near useless and unresponsive. Yes; the problem is dire, nearly insurmountable, and possibly hopeless. And, the people you must fight are swimming in an ocean of money and power. They pull the strings of government like master marionettists. But, they bleed, and we CAN take the government back. With your lives and your children's lives at stake will you try, or will you sit back complacent and careless in your comfortable life and look out for yourself alone while the world your children hope to live in burns? Yield to the science deniers and skeptics, while the islands of Oceania drown, while the arctic and antarctic melt, while species go extinct daily?

Or, will you stand with this young lady and fight for a future for our kids? Write your Representatives and let them know your vote depends on their support for her cause? Let your Representatives know your vote depends on them turning their back on the capitalists who have bought their votes with campaign dollars? Let your Representatives know your vote depends on them taxing billionaires out of existence so they can no longer buy our government? Enforcing antitrust law and breaking-up the tech monopolies that have all of your personal information, profit off of it, and sell it to be used against you for political purposes? Let them know your vote depends on them working to build a world worth living in? Or, will you simply vote for someone who's not a self serving demagogue?

Nah. Didn't think so. Gave up on you a long time ago, to be honest.

https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm

https://www.sciencealert.com/exxon-expertly-predicted-this-week-s-nightmare-co2-milestone-almost-40-years-ago

https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-white-house-solar-panels-3322255

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1977-80v18/d45

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Not-so-Christian Love

I have learned not to engage in pointless conversations, but every once in a while I digress.  Newt Gingrich while speaking in SC recently said "The domestic challenge is defeating the secularists."  So, as a member of the most hated and derided of American minorities (people who think God is a silly fucking idea), my dander was up, and I got into this little spat on facebook.   If the story linked below is interesting, check-out this blog where someone has collected the many, many incredibly violent remarks--mostly threats and incitements to violence--made by a young girl's schoolmates.  Really just astonishing.

Friend    very christian of the asshats, typical though  

Christians bombard teen activist with hate and abuse.

www.examiner.com

It's not really news that Christians are often hateful and abusive towards secular activists.  We've seen it enough times now. (LINK)  As with reports

Top of Form

Friend’s Friend Yeah, I saw this earlier this week. All shit like this does is make me want to do something to raise the ire of those idiots on a national level. You want to be big men and target a teenaged girl? Rock it, but you better be the same big men when I'm the target, though I'll give 'em a place to meet me (I'd say give 'em my address, but no need for my mother to get involved as she lives downstairs ;-)).

Friend’s Sister I don't believe the majority of Christians are like this. I would even venture to say that those people are not Christians at all.

Me I agree those people aren't Christians. But, I don't think most Christians are very Christian either. I'm god-free, and I'm more of a Christian than most of 'em.

Friend’s Other Friend

I believe this story deserves press, but the first line is irritating to me. I don't like how open game christians are to scrutiny like this. I don't like how open game christians are to scrutiny like this. It is unfair to generalize christians like that. of course the nutjobs are the ones who get the attention. They are the ones causing the attention. But to categorize an entire religious intitution over a few knuckleheads is wrong. No different than the reputation jihadists give to muslims or street thugs give to african american community. The media (even bloggers) are much more careful how they report those type stories. Christians for the most part always seem like fair game.

Friend’s Other Friend Then, after reading the entire article, wow. That writer is like a regular Joseph Goebbels. He makes every attempt possible to categorize the entire christian population with some idiots in a single community.

Me I see a lot of such incidents. The event and comments aren't unique; they're typical. Comparing the journalist to the likes of Goebbels is also pretty typical. I think the writer does a pretty nice job of reporting a fairly normal instance of Christian anger that results from their delusions of oppression, minority status, and victimhood. :-)

Friend’s Other Friend

a lot of the comments the blogger posted as examples had no particular reference to religion, christian or otherwise. some simply expressed disappointment and a notion that the mentioned banner had some history for this town. In fact most were obviously written by classmates i can assume are classmates with the typical maturity level you'd expect. I understand completely what you mean by "reporting a fairly normal instance of Christian anger that results from their delusions of oppression, minority status, and victimhood." But i don't think it is as nice of a job as you suggest. In fact, after I read it, it seemed a little more like using an isolated incident to criminalize christian "behavior" which is also pretty typical in this type of journalism :) Just the fact that this prayer mural was up in 2012 tells me either this is probably not a community used to this type deviance or it meant a little more to this school than just the prayer inscribed (as referenced in some of the posted comments). Not excusing the behavior, but I am certainly not going to excuse the prejudicial tone of the blog either. The Goebbels reference was obviously an exaggeration. Not as much of an exaggeration of the christian population in this blog though. I just don't like the generalization. there are extremists in any group. christians included. especially when you are dealing with a small american town where the community may not be as diverse or culturally diluted therefore it ends up being influenced by itself.
Most of the people I've ever met in my life were christians. From all different denominations, cultures, states, countries, etc. I have never met any that are this extreme. I have met some that are passionate about their faith and some that are "lukewarm". I have known christians with opinions influenced by their faith and I have known some that felt it thier (annoying, but harmless) duty to share their beliefs with a non believer. But never have I met anyone as extreme as any of these "crazy christians" stories we always hear about. Now, either I have just been really lucky in my own experience, or there is a bit more generalization going on here.

Friend’s Friend

By saying "those people aren't Christians" you just exacerbate the problem. The definition of Christianity is a belief system derived from the teachings of the New and Old Testaments of the Bible. Those people are absolutely following just that. Of course, one sect ignores one passage and emphasizes another, while another sect does the opposite. However, both sides are equally Christian. By going with the "They're just not Christian" argument you encourage the silent moderate majority to continue to let the most extreme finge elements be the voice.

As for Mr. Friend’s Friend's comments: Well, I'll give you that very often entire groups are placed within the full spectrum of the most extreme because those groups generally allow the most extreme to be their voice. However, other than that quit trying to play this "Christianity is the victim" bullshit. The only reason Christianity is favored in these discussions over the other faiths is simply because they are the majority. They are the most vocal of the 3 monotheist faiths in this country. It's not a matter of singling out, though playing it off as such is the easiest way to get the idiot mass that dominates our populace riled up.

Friend’s Other Friend

Sorry, in no way am I trying to play a victimized card. I am completely impartial to any opinion in reports of bigotry. On the contrary, i am fascinated by it especially in the way we excuse it in some ways and in others cheer it on.
So i really want to clarify what i was saying. First, the blog was weak in it's point. It starts off citing examples of typical christian controversy (which we agree will have a higher ratio due to it's majority presence) and suggesting that such incidents make us not notice new incidents that are just as bad as pedophilia and homosexual pastors. then it reminds us Christian corruption still lives on and we are just desensitized to it because of the tales of debauchery that we are all too familiar with.
then we are treated to the story of a small scale incident in a small town in a small state in a part of the US that doesn't even show up on a map. It related this local story to a generalization that christians have no class when dealing with secular protest. It backed it's story up by posting 21 examples of the "CHRISTIAN THREATS" this young lady was subjected to.

Of these 21 there are 9 comments that are obviously written by high school peers. I am definately not playing "christianity is the victim" when I guess that typically the girls in biology class and facebook spammers don't reflect christian morality.

In fact, only 4 comments out of the 21 made any mention of religion OR lack thereof.

An equal 4 comments relate disdain because of the banners history. I believe this is where the biggest outcry comes from. This wasn't just some temporary paper banner. This banner was part of the auditorium, erected in the school in 1963. It isn't even a prayer. It was more or less a code of honor for the school. But since it started with "Oh Heavenly Father" and ended with "amen" it was deemed offensive by this girl and she took to the ACLU to have this banner removed.

A 50 year staple to the school now has to be brought down to appease one individual who finds it offensive for the next two years she'll be there. that tends to annoy people, christian or not.

The author stresses "The cause of all this abuse is the removal of one banner from a school. One banner is getting taken down. One banner." I wonder if he read the banner, I did. It isn't even religious. I wonder if he researched the tradition of the school, I did.

In no way am i condoning by the banner loving, teenage residents of West Cranston RI, (because really, that is a more accurate description to the culprits than "christians") I am just clarifying my point of view that this blogger is irresponsible and obviously trying to create a hot topic out of nothing. This is where my criticism comes in.
Maybe the author could write blogs on school pride fervor.

Finally, the blog concluded with a choice for our own assessment. Two simple options : "Either most Christians really are hateful, or most Christians are unwilling to be good Samaritans and come to the aid of non-Christians, as their holy writ instructs. In either case, it is understandable why so many people are left with a sick feeling in their stomachs after experiencing "Christian love"

WOW, now, I am not a christian, nor a christian sympathizer, but for the blogger to summarize that article with no better examples than 4 out of 21 (of course hand-picked) comments, by asking if christians are that hateful, or if they are just unwilling to come defend some teenager in some highschool in some small town in some small state

As I said, i am fascinated by this type of social topic. I am curious to the unconditional social rules involving a changing culture of diversity and the tolerance thereof. To me there is an obvious set of boundaries on different creeds, cultures, ethnicities and religions and this article exemplifies that. In fact, the only reason why I read this article in the first place was the strong accusatory title.

I could've respected Westboro Baptist church as a better example for the author's thoughts. go after the church that applauds at the funerals of servicemen, they've been to Norfolk. cheering in front of mourning mothers and daughters at the burial. but really. in the author's own words "The cause of all this abuse is the removal of one banner from a school. One banner is getting taken down. One banner."

here is the link to the actual news story, where you can read the banner. as it relates to the story, this isn't a believer - non believer issue.
http://cranston.patch.com/articles/ahlquist-fight-over-mural-despite-harrassment-threats-worth-it#photo-8111939

Friend’s Other Friend

here is the banner. erected in 1963. other than the opening and closing, it has no religious tone whatsoever: our heavenly father
grant us each day the desire to do our best to grow mentally and morally as well as physically. to be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers. to be honest with ourselves as well as with others. help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win. teach us the value of true friendship. help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to cranston high school west
amen

Me

First of all, how is a "prayer" that asks that a magical spaceman help us be good sports, get good grades, etc. NOT religious? Please don't answer.

Let's pretend like you're really concerned about bad journalism and overgeneralization/ stereotyping. First, you're missing the point if you think this article is about this one instance. The author is using this one instance to illustrate the general state of things. This happens repeatedly all over the country every year--I would venture a guess around 10 times. I can’t give you a real number, because there's no good book keeping on stats of such cases.   I usually go with the American Heritage Dictionary, but in this case I'll go with Random House's terrorism: "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes" or Collins' terrorize: "to coerce or control by violence, fear, threats, etc." The sampling of comments clearly represents a case of terrorism against this young girl. I don't think it's "history" that's got 'em all astir. And, this one case reflects the norm that we see in all such cases. Christians try to ram their religion down everyone else's throat, thinking "we're all Christians, so how could this offend anybody?" And, on the rare occasions that any "deviants" stand up for their First Amendment right not to be proselytized to by government institutions, they receive a barrage of _terrorism_. The fact that the banner was in violation of the First Amendment would be obvious to anyone who knew—or cared to recognize—the simple facts of law re. church-state separation. The fact that, despite the federal judge’s ruling, the banner was not removed but rather conspicuously covered with a tarp and that the city are considering an appeal rather than comply with the ruling on what is a very basic case of First Amendment violation drives home the fact on religious intolerance. Additionally, every florist in town has refused to deliver flowers to her. At least one cited the safety of delivery persons rather than her [non]religious beliefs, but all claiming the right to choose their customers. Even this girl’s elected representatives have chimed-in. “Rhode Island State Representative Peter Palumbo… made comments about Ahlquist…. Palumbo called her ‘an evil little thing’ and said ‘Poor thing. And it’s not her fault. She’s being trained to be like that.’” And another RI state senator, Beth Moura, posted on twitter, “Look at ACLU’s sweetheart Twitter acct and rhetoric of her followers. Not good.” Basically, the whole f-ing town showed-up to demand that the school board use taxpayer money to appeal the ruling and fight for the right to proselytize to children using taxpayer money. This shit is precisely why the First amendment was written and why it’s the FIRST Amendment. So, don’t pretend you’re upset about some dude stereotyping this girl’s Christian assailants. They represent the community at large, who though they are probably conditioned to deny it while being privately proud of it are a bunch of aspiring theocrats.

And, this isn't about our increasingly diverse society. This problem of aspiring theocrats has been with the US since it's inception. Theocracy was a substantial reason for migration to the colonies and the major reason for the US's establishment of a secular government, which has constantly been under attack by people like this girl's assailants ever since.

Me Now, go to bed!

Friend’s Friend Mr. Me, you sir, are tits! ;-) (Sometimes the group I belong to, "Things That Are Tits!" bleeds over)

Me Why, thank you.

Friend’s Other Friend

I wasn't merely pretending to be more concerned about overgeneralizing. That is the only interest I have in this blog. Also I am completely aware of the author's intent. I am not arguing any opinion about the incident. In fact, his point isn't anything I necessarily disagree with. I just find it a weak example of what he is trying to convey. Like I said in my last comment, there are better examples to drive home the same point. Now I see nothing suggesting that students were required to chant the scripts of the banner, like, say the morning brainwashing ritual of the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance, which not only references a God, but also has kids as young as 5 more or less taking an oath to the government. That would be a different story altogether. But this seems to be more of an ornamental thing. The comments the author cited as an example of "christian outrage" fall short of convincing me that the girl is being targeted more by the christian population and not so much by some local classmates that are pissed at her for altering the school's identity. Again, I am not dismissing the actions, only commenting on the validity of the article itself as it relates to behavior of christians as a whole. I'm not arguing what's right or wrong in this article. I am arguing the blogger's ability to make his point using this incident as an example. Not saying bullying is right, not saying standing up for what you believe in as wrong. Only saying that the blogger's point was weak and is an irresponsible way to categorize the christian majority. IF there was a larger scale call to arms throughout the christian community to threaten this girl into intimidation, then those examples should have been included. But as the article stands, there are 21 examples the author lists with only 4 that have any kind of religious tone, christian or otherwise (in fact, none of those 4 identify 100 % as christian). Hell, you posted better examples in your comment than the author posted in the entire blog about the florists and the comments made by the state elected official. How could this not be an example of overgeneralizing?

Friend’s Sister I'm proud to profess my Christianity, but it was a long road for me to get where I am now. But even when I wasn't living within Biblical principles I didn't have any hatred towards any group. And I wouldn't refer to any person's higher power as a "magical space-man."

Me

My apologies, Friend’s Sister. I'd like to say I didn't mean to be disrespectful. But, obviously the opposite is true. I however do regret offending you personally.

Friends Friend, I'll accept that your only objection is that the guy constructed his argument poorly. But, I think the guy's target audience is one that keeps track of these incidents and doesn't need the entire picture drawn for them. That kinda makes the point moot. And, you're being absurdly skeptical to think there's a Mormon's chance in Sodom that this girl's terrorists aren't (self identified) Christians. When a father stones his daughter after she's been raped, no one needs to prove that the guy is following his religion...or what that religion is.

Friend, I'll get off your wall now. Sorry.

Friend’s Sister Wow, Mr. Me, you are a classy guy. Thanks.

Back again...

I usually wake-up to the radio. Sometimes I latch right on to what they're saying; less often I just want to beat the clock into oblivion. This morning was one of the former. Fricking John McCain was on the radio talking about how we can't end the "don't ask--don't tell" policy re. gays in the military. Not surprising, really. He is both conservative and old (ie. really conservative). But, what reason does he give? Not that it's an abomination or against God or bad for morale or or or. Many things could provide sufficient reason for a conservative to discriminate against ...well... anyone they choose, but no. He says we can't eliminate the policy until we study the problem further--military studies, congressional studies, any studies. Of course he just wants to postpone the inevitable. But, isn't that some shit. He chooses the stereotypically liberal reason. Studies mean people get paid your tax dollars to perform the study--even if it's a sham study (because we know the answer already). Paying people with your tax dollars to waste their time on unwanted useless shit has to be the definition of bad big government. How on earth can he let his mind even go there? Is it the new well-right-of-center congress that might back him? Is he just getting senile? Is it that he is totally broken after being tossed aside for Bush II and then scuttled by his campaign managers who brought-in Sarah Palin? Idunno, but the first thought that came out of my little head this morning was "that's awfully hypocritical."

Bush's millennialism

Former President Bush's reputation as a Christian Fundamentalist is widely recognized. In at least one White House press briefing it has been asked what millennialist/ apocalyptic beliefs he had with the result being Scott McClellan immediately ending the press conference--"running off the stage." Admittedly some...many...Americans have no problem with this, but there are many more who find it very disturbing. Simply put, if the leader of the nation believes that the four horsemen of The Apocalypse could be trotting up the street at any time, then the leader is practically bound to make some ill-advised decisions. Reportedly, he is ...and did. And, Blair was on board with him.

For example, I think it was George Schultz, Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, who when asked about policy on some environmental issue--like global warming--responded something like "The world is coming to an end anyway, so why should we bother?" In light of current events (global politicians at long last embracing scientists concerns about CO2 and its climatological effects) we can see how such Apocalyptic Millennialism could have, at the time, led the Reagan administration to fail in its environmental responsibilities. (There's a good bit more on Reagan ~page 239 of "Longing for the End" on Googlebooks.)

Belief that human existence faces some finite fate over which they have no control is one thing (a sufficiently silly thing on it's own), but actively trying to bring about The Apocalypse is a whole other! Using the military of a supposedly areligious/ secular nation as the means? Illegal and immoral. Believing that some god is telling you to do it? Delusional. Believing you have the right, obligation, or mandate to do it? Megalomaniacal. Believing for a second that some prehistoric Apocalyptic fantasy is a part of your personal reality or that of all of us? Fucking wacko. Voting for a millennialist to be POTUS? Well...

And, with all the hullabaloo currently being made over the end of the the Mayan calendar in 2012, the biblical "end of the age" as well as the Mayan prediction are astronomical predictions--not even necessarily astrological. So, turn off the Nostradamus special on the "History" Channel, and go get a fish sandwich.

Bonus psychobabble.

Honored more in the breach than in observance

A great chapter in Samuel Kramer's History Begins at Sumer thirty-nine firsts in recorded history is The First "Sick" Society. Identifying himself as a Sumerologist, Kramer conveys vividly Sumerian culture and societal values. In this chapter he set out to compare our contemporary (mid to late 1900s) social ills with ancient ones. What he found was basically a mirror image of today's society that "yearned for peace but was constantly at war," "professed ideals such as justice, equity, and compassion but abounded in injustice, inequality, and oppression," that was "materialistic and shortsighted." The general message seems to me to be human society hasn't changed so much in 4500 years. It is particularly interesting though that the examples, which repeatedly point to the ideal of justice and the eradication of injustice, specify that it is the thievery and brutality of the rich and powerful that must be reigned-in. Perhaps it's telling that Sumer was an egalitarian society and that Sumerian kings generally rose from the population and therefore were all too acquainted with the ways of the rich and powerful and the challenges of the poor and meek--also that they relied on the support of the populace to maintain their rule. So, even 4500 years ago the picture of human values seems a battle between the rich, the powerful, the egoist and the poor, the meek, the altruist.

Evolution deniers are idiots.

Just a little pointer for evolution deniers: George Bush, a denier himself hedged his bet on the Almighty when he directed Federal agencies to prepare for the adaptation of bird flu to human infection. For, if bird flu was not adapting so much as being engineered by a god to infect humans, then Bushie would be going against the will of the god. And, that just couldn't be the case, could it?

Now, there is an even more striking similar case of evolution in which “the flu … combines pig, bird and human viruses in a way that researchers have not seen before, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday. The evolution and outbreak of this virus seem to be a pretty novel occurrence—it’s the platypus of viruses.

I just caught onto his as an everyday example of evolution, but it is also interesting that it could just as well provide fuel for intelligent design advocates. You see, while the scientific community generally sees phylogeny in the similarity of DNA and RNA, ID advocates say the appearance of phylogeny is the result of God’s re-use of previously created building blocks. For example, chimps must have been the last thing created before homo sapiens, since they have the most similar DNA to us.

Anyway, the point is that evolution deniers are idiots.

Happy late Darwin Day.

Evangelism is rampant in the military...duh!

This story on NPR about Sikhs not being allowed to maintain their religiously prescribed personal grooming after enlistment is interesting. There are some issues in conflict--military respect for religious freedom, military rules laid-out for practicality and uniformity, the honorable service of Sikhs in the armed forces before the rather recent "gotta-shave" rule, basic fairness. But, what really gets me is that so many of the commenters seem oblivious to the fact that religious bias is not only accepted in the US armed forces, Christian evangelism is unofficially endorsed, sanctioned, and promoted--despite rules that prohibit any such act. Perhaps the mass uninformedness is a result of news media failure. The Public Record is the only journal doing a decent job of covering the issue, and their latest article is here.

Maybe Rapture is really meant to save the rest of us from the "saved" by getting them off my planet?! If so, bring it on!