www.know-the-number.com
Our Climate is Changing!Please download Flash Player.
31 December 2011
16 December 2011
What Is Christmas?
This Sojourner's blog puts Christmas and the state of the world into perspective. I've posted most of the article, but the whole article can be read here. It's titled The Real War on Christmas...By FOX News, posted 12/15/2011 by Jim Wallis.
What is Christmas? It is the celebration of the Incarnation, God’s becoming flesh — human — and entering into history in the form of a vulnerable baby born to a poor, teenage mother in a dirty animal stall. Simply amazing. That Mary was homeless at the time,a member of a people oppressed by the imperial power of an occupied country whose local political leader, Herod, was so threatened by the baby’s birth that he killed countless children in a vain attempt to destroy the Christ child, all adds compelling historical and political context to the Advent season.
The theological claim that sets Christianity apart from any other faith tradition is the Incarnation. God has come into the world to save us. God became like us to bring us back to God and show us what it means to be truly human.
That is the meaning of the Incarnation. That is the reason for the season.
In Jesus Christ, God hits the streets.
That is the meaning of the Incarnation. That is the reason for the season.
In Jesus Christ, God hits the streets.
It is theologically and spiritually significant that the Incarnation came to our poorest streets. That Jesus was born poor, later announces his mission at Nazareth as “bringing good news to the poor,” and finally tells us that how we treat “the least of these” is his measure of how we treat him and how he will judge us as the Son of God, radically defines the social context and meaning of the Incarnation of God in Christ. And it clearly reveals the real meaning of Christmas.
The other explicit message of the Incarnation is that Jesus the Christ’s arrival will mean “peace on earth, good will toward men.” He is “the mighty God, the everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace.” Jesus later calls on his disciples to turn the other cheek, practice humility, walk the extra mile, put away their swords, love their neighbors — and even their enemies — and says that in his kingdom, it is the peacemakers who will be called the children of God. Christ will end our warring ways, bringing reconciliation to God and to one another.
None of that has anything to do with the Fox News Christmas. In fact, quite the opposite.
The other explicit message of the Incarnation is that Jesus the Christ’s arrival will mean “peace on earth, good will toward men.” He is “the mighty God, the everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace.” Jesus later calls on his disciples to turn the other cheek, practice humility, walk the extra mile, put away their swords, love their neighbors — and even their enemies — and says that in his kingdom, it is the peacemakers who will be called the children of God. Christ will end our warring ways, bringing reconciliation to God and to one another.
None of that has anything to do with the Fox News Christmas. In fact, quite the opposite.
Making sure that shopping malls and stores greet their customers with “Merry Christmas” is entirely irrelevant to the meaning of the Incarnation. In reality it is the consumer frenzy of Christmas shopping that is the real affront and threat to the season.
Last year, Americans spent $450 billion on Christmas. Clean water for the whole world, including every poor person on the planet, would cost about $20 billion. Let’s just call that what it is: A material blasphemy of the Christmas season.
Imagine Jesus walking into the mall, seeing the Merry Christmas signs, and expressing his humble thanks for how the pre- and post-Christmas sales are honoring to him. How about credit cards for Christ?
While we’re at it, here’s another point of clarification: The arrival of the Christ child has nothing to do with trees or what we call them.
Evergreens and wreaths, holly and ivy, and even mistletoe turn out to be customs borrowed from ancient Roman and Germanic winter solstice celebrations, assimilated and co-opted by the church after Constantine made peace between his empire and the Christians.
Last year, Americans spent $450 billion on Christmas. Clean water for the whole world, including every poor person on the planet, would cost about $20 billion. Let’s just call that what it is: A material blasphemy of the Christmas season.
Imagine Jesus walking into the mall, seeing the Merry Christmas signs, and expressing his humble thanks for how the pre- and post-Christmas sales are honoring to him. How about credit cards for Christ?
While we’re at it, here’s another point of clarification: The arrival of the Christ child has nothing to do with trees or what we call them.
Evergreens and wreaths, holly and ivy, and even mistletoe turn out to be customs borrowed from ancient Roman and Germanic winter solstice celebrations, assimilated and co-opted by the church after Constantine made peace between his empire and the Christians.
I have no problem with the public viewing of symbols from all of the world’s religions at appropriate times in their religious calendars (which can actually be educational for all of our children) and believe that doing so is consistent with our democratic and cultural pluralism.
But I don’t believe that respectfully and publicly honoring those many religious symbols has changed many lives, for better or for worse. Much more important than symbols and symbolism is how we live the faith that we espouse. And here is where Fox News’s war on Christmas is most patently unjust.
The real Christmas announces the birth of Jesus to a world of poverty, pain, and sin, and offers the hope of salvation and justice.
But I don’t believe that respectfully and publicly honoring those many religious symbols has changed many lives, for better or for worse. Much more important than symbols and symbolism is how we live the faith that we espouse. And here is where Fox News’s war on Christmas is most patently unjust.
The real Christmas announces the birth of Jesus to a world of poverty, pain, and sin, and offers the hope of salvation and justice.
The real Christmas offers the joyful promise of peace and the hope of reconciliation with God and between humankind.
The Fox News Christmas proffers the constant drumbeat of war, the reliance on military solutions to every conflict, the demonizing of our enemies, and the gospel of American dominance.
The real Christmas lifts up the Virgin Mary’s song of praise for her baby boy: “He has brought the mighty down from their thrones, and lifted the lowly, he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich empty away.”
The Fox News Christmas would label Mary’s Magnificat as “class warfare.”
So if there is a war on Christmas it's the one being waged by Fox News.
Jim Wallis~12/15/2011
08 December 2011
Fracking
In 2008 a small town in WY requested that the EPA investigate "water quality concerns in private drinking water wells" that are associated with hydraulic fracturing.
The EPA found "synthetic chemicals, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids, benzene concentrations well above Safe Drinking Water Act standards and high methane levels. There is a preliminary report on the EPA website of their findings" The article can be found here: .
There is a preliminary report on the EPA website here (this is 15mb pdf download): http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011.pdf
EPA also has the site description here: http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/index.html
and a news release here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/ef35bd26a80d6ce3852579600065c94e?OpenDocument
They are very careful to say that production conditions are different in this town than in other parts of the country. Also, that the chemicals are "generally" below established health and safety standards.
EPA has begun a national study on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. I wonder what their conclusion will be?
Opinions?
16 August 2011
English Paper
For those of you who don't fear the Turnitin Police, here's a 100% paper.
I'm a strong believer in The Commons: My work is here for you to benefit from and build on.
I'm a strong believer in The Commons: My work is here for you to benefit from and build on.
Edie’s Journey
“How I Met My Husband” by Alice Munro, is a short story about a young girl named Edie who works for the Peebles. The theme of her narrative is the coming of age of Edie, the protagonist in this story. Munro develops Edie’s character as she passes from innocent naiveté into adulthood. Munro uses various symbols that guide and shape Edie’s perspective through an ironic twist of events involving a letter that never arrives. Her believable story is told through first person point of view as an adult looking back on her life. Edie’s antagonist is not a person, but rather her own inner struggle as she strives to reach adulthood. During her struggle from a naïve teen into adulthood, she observes and interacts with other characters in the story. Even though there is not a major human antagonist in this story, several people influence Edie and her struggle to discover herself. These people do not aid her in conventional methods like advice, but by their actions, conduct, and Munro’s use of symbolism with each.
The first person Munro introduces to the reader that aids Edie in her journey is Mrs. Peebles. She is a kind employer, but feels as if she is “tied down” (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 24) with her country life and two children. Edie and her family find this amusing (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 25) since Mrs. Peebles has many modern conveniences that they do not own including running water, an automatic washer and dryer, a double sink, and a modern bathroom. Edie describes the irony of Mrs. Peebles’ feelings compared to her mother’s workload. She points out the difference between washing clothes at home where it is a “struggle with the wringer and hang up and haul down” (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 25) and concludes it is difficult to remember now that she has these modern conveniences (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 25) in her adult life. In this way, she excuses Mrs. Peebles’ perspective by comparing it to the way she lives now.
Mrs. Peebles has many nice things that Edie may want when she finds her husband; however, the one item Munro uses to symbolize Edie’s inner struggle towards adulthood is Mrs. Peebles’ dress. Edie discovers dresses in Mrs. Peebles closet that are pushed to the back. She expresses her disappointment that there is no wedding dress (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 30), but tries on a beautiful satin dress. Mrs. Peebles dress represents two things. First, it shows Edie’s innocence and her desire to play dress-up. The second thing it symbolizes is her desire to try on Mrs. Peebles’ life to see if it suits her. After she puts on the dress, “one thing led to another” (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 31) and she loses herself in the moment. She is trying on the image of a well-off lady, but finds herself in an embarrassing situation with Chris Watters—something a lady of a higher social class may not find herself entangled in. This experience also leads her to conclude that she has crossed an unspoken line when she states that employers “...like to think you aren’t curious” (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 51) about anything but their wants. She enjoys trying on the dress, but also regrets that someone else found out her secret.
Loretta Bird, another character Munro introduces, is a woman that Edie does not want to become. She is nosy, judgmental, and at times rude. When she is alone with Edie she comments about Mrs. Peebles’ naps and how “[s]he wouldn’t find time to lay down in the middle of the day, if she had seven kids like I got” (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 22). This statement is both ironic and judgmental at the same time. She judges Mrs. Peebles by claiming she (Mrs. Bird) does not have time to take a nap. This is also ironic because Mrs. Bird has plenty of time to sit and gossip with Edie. She is also too curious about the Peebles’ personal life when she asks whether the Peebles fight or use birth control (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 23). She asserts that using birth control is a “sin” (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 23) passing another judgment on Mrs. Peebles.
There are ways Munro depicts Mrs. Bird’s rudeness, but the lawn chair represents how she insults Edie personally. When Edie returns from the kitchen with ice tea, she finds Mrs. Bird “had settled in [her] lawn chair” (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 101). Alice Kelling was invited to sit and wait with the family (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 96), not Mrs. Bird. Bird takes it upon herself to sit in Edie’s empty chair leaving her on the steps (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 101) separate from the other adults. As Edie observes Mrs. Bird’s behavior, she sees someone she does not want to become.
With Chris Watters, Munro uses visual symbols as well as personal interaction to nudge Edie into adulthood. When Watters first appears in Edie’s life, he is flying a flashy red and silver plane (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 1) to the abandoned fairgrounds across the street from the Peebles. According to Clugston (2010), the color red symbolizes passion and danger (sec. 7.2, table 7.1) the two things Edie encounters when she meets him in person. The danger she experiences is when Watters catches her playing dress-up in Mrs. Peebles’ clothes. Edie fears he will tell her secret and her job will be in jeopardy. She also experiences passion when Watters compliments her beauty and kisses her. During their first two encounters, she is unable to respond to his compliments with anything other than embarrassment (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 45) and nervousness showing her inexperience with men. Edie wants to gain experience by kissing him, but she is still too naïve to understand where the kissing might lead. Watters, on the other hand, realizes what could happen and takes the initiative to stop them from going further.
Watters’ plane also symbolizes the how easy it is for him to enter and leave Edie’s life, something she realizes later. The plane suggests that he has flown into Edie’s life to bring some excitement, but it also represents his inability to settle down. In fact, Watters admits this while talking to Mrs. Peebles. He tells her “he couldn’t settle down to an ordinary life, [and] this is what he liked” (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 86). Edie is too naïve at this point in the story to realize Watters is only making promises he will never keep including the letter he will never send.
Later in the story, Edie sits by the mailbox every day as summer winds down waiting for the promised letter from Watters. Munro uses the imagery of goldenrod and children returning to school (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 199) to show the physical changes in the seasons from summer to fall. As the Earth changes, so does Edie’s hopes of receiving a letter from Watters, and in fact thinks, “No letter was ever going to come.” (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 199) one day when the letter failed to arrive. She realizes “there were women all through life waiting, and women busy and not waiting” (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 200) and “knew which one [she] had to be” (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 200). It is in this moment that Edie takes a leap towards a mature adult and meets her husband.
As the reader finds out at the end of this story, Edie ironically meets her future husband, the mailman, while waiting for a letter from Watters. Munro suggests through this part of the narrative that the mailman is far more dependable than Watters will ever be. Edie claims the “mail came every day except Sunday, between one-thirty and two” (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 198) showing how dependable he is. He also enjoys seeing her and tells her “You’ve got the smile I’ve been waiting for all day!” (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 198) showing his obvious interest in her. Although Edie does not realize until he calls and asks her out that he is interested in her, she ends up marrying him. She also lets him tell the story of how she chased him because “it makes [him] happy” (Clugston, 2010, ¶ 202). This final line shows how Edie grew from a naïve young girl into a mature and caring woman by letting her husband think she was waiting for him—not a letter from another man.
Alice Munro shares a story of how Edie, a young hired girl, finds a husband. In her journey from child to adult, several people help her along the way. Some of these people she tries to emulate like Mrs. Peebles when she tries on the satin gown. Others, like Mrs. Bird, are not the type of person wants to be. One man, Chris Watters, helps Edie gain experience with situations that are more intimate. His empty promise to send her a letter keeps her waiting by the mailbox for many weeks. After weeks of waiting for a letter, Edie has a sudden moment of self-awareness. This is the moment she decides what type of woman she wants to be, but she also opens herself to another possibility—finding her future husband.
Reference
Clugston, R. W. (2010). Journey into literature. San Diego, California: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/books
29 July 2011
Lunch With Idiots
My story begins last week when the fridge at work went kaput in the public kitchenette. The boss decided to replace that one with the working fridge in the staff room. OK, not a problem...until....
One very nice lady was put in charge of cleaning out the staff fridge to make room for our shiny new one. My lunch (with my name on it) almost ended up in the trash, but was saved by my super. However, my cheese chunk wasn't saved. Now I have pita crackers, but no cheese. This was easily remedied by a trip to the store to replace the tossed cheese chunk with fresh. Today I decided to have some fresh fruit, pita crackers, and cheese for lunch. I set my spot at the table nicely with crackers, cheese, sliced fruit, water, and my book. I got up to place my knife in the dishwasher, turned around, and saw a staff member eating my pita crackers! Hello, didn't you notice ALL of my stuff sitting there? Then she started to complain about "how salty" the crackers were, said "I don't eat salt, so that's what it tastes like", and "where did these come from?" I sat down in my chair and picked up a piece of fruit FROM THE SAME PLATE and picked up my book. I told her I had bought those to go with my cheese and fruit. They were called "pita chips with sea salt". She then picked up another one made a face, ate it and complained some more. Whoa...didn't I just say I bought those to go with my cheese???? I'm sitting here with my lunch and you're eating it! She didn't even notice I had sat down in that spot WITH THE PLATE IN FRONT OF ME everything nicely sliced and arranged for me to enjoy. She walked over to the "communal counter" where everyone leaves snacks to share, grabs a handful of Doritos eats one and says "that's better" and walks out of the break room. What the HELL....
One very nice lady was put in charge of cleaning out the staff fridge to make room for our shiny new one. My lunch (with my name on it) almost ended up in the trash, but was saved by my super. However, my cheese chunk wasn't saved. Now I have pita crackers, but no cheese. This was easily remedied by a trip to the store to replace the tossed cheese chunk with fresh. Today I decided to have some fresh fruit, pita crackers, and cheese for lunch. I set my spot at the table nicely with crackers, cheese, sliced fruit, water, and my book. I got up to place my knife in the dishwasher, turned around, and saw a staff member eating my pita crackers! Hello, didn't you notice ALL of my stuff sitting there? Then she started to complain about "how salty" the crackers were, said "I don't eat salt, so that's what it tastes like", and "where did these come from?" I sat down in my chair and picked up a piece of fruit FROM THE SAME PLATE and picked up my book. I told her I had bought those to go with my cheese and fruit. They were called "pita chips with sea salt". She then picked up another one made a face, ate it and complained some more. Whoa...didn't I just say I bought those to go with my cheese???? I'm sitting here with my lunch and you're eating it! She didn't even notice I had sat down in that spot WITH THE PLATE IN FRONT OF ME everything nicely sliced and arranged for me to enjoy. She walked over to the "communal counter" where everyone leaves snacks to share, grabs a handful of Doritos eats one and says "that's better" and walks out of the break room. What the HELL....
30 May 2011
Ms. Kitty Plays Tag
My story begins with a promise to the girls to let them outside while I was weeding yesterday. True to my word, I let them out while I was pruning shrubs and pulling weeds. They were content to roll around on the sidewalk and sniff the clippings from the shrubs. However, Cloe decided she was hot (she's covered in black fur and it was 80++ degrees) and found a cool spot under a shrub with a good view of the birds overhead. What more could a cat ask for?
Ms. Kitty had other plans for her outdoor time. Ms. Kitty, the adventure seeker she is, found something new in the flowerbed. A few years ago, a small garter snake made its home there. Ms. Kitty wanted to introduce herself and possibly make friends. Who better to make friends with than Gertie the snake? Gertie, however, wasn’t feeling neighborly and tried to escape from Ms. Kitty. Ms. Kitty would have no part of this and insisted that Gertie come out and play. She flushed her out of hiding and followed her as she slithered under Cloe's resting place. Poor Cloe, nothing's worse than dozing in the shade then finding a snake slithering over your paw. She shot from beneath the shrub with all of her hair standing on end. Gertie was hot on her heels trying to escape. Or were they playing tag? Ms. Kitty couldn’t decide and tagged them both. Both Gertie and Cloe hit back. Ms. Kitty thought this was great fun because she managed to attract Cloe's attention, make her fur poke out all funny, and have a game of tag all at once. This would be a wonderful day for Ms. Kitty.
Unfortunately, it was not for Gertie or Cloe. Poor Gertie had now attracted the attention of not one, but two cats. The first wanted to play tag and the second wanted revenge for disturbing her nap. No matter which way Gertie turned there was a furry beast blocking her path. She curled up in her defensive position ready for the attack. Ms. Kitty made the first move and was rewarded with a nip on her nose. This only made Cloe's hair stand up more (she had a squirrel tail now!) Cloe circled around the two taking it all in and absent-mindedly walked into the grass (see Ms. Kitty Catches a Bird to understand what an important piece of information this is.). I calmly looked on to see how far she would go before she noticed. She didn't. Apparently, there is a difference between freshly weed-eated terrifying grass and regular terrifying grass. As soon as she crossed the line into the regular terrifying grass, her hair poked out even more (if that’s possible) and she darted to the safety of the driveway glaring at Ms. Kitty. She knew this was all Ms. Kitty’s fault.
When Gertie glanced in my direction, I could see the look in her eyes. We had an agreement and I had broken it. She was welcomed into the flowerbed in turn for keeping mice and other creepy crawlies out. My end of the bargain was to leave her in peace to sun herself on the rocks and hibernate under her favorite shrub. I immediately picked both cats up and apologized to Gertie for my blunder. Today, she is happily sunning herself on her favorite rock. I let the girls have outdoor time by the patio. Gertie deserves a rest.
Ms. Kitty had other plans for her outdoor time. Ms. Kitty, the adventure seeker she is, found something new in the flowerbed. A few years ago, a small garter snake made its home there. Ms. Kitty wanted to introduce herself and possibly make friends. Who better to make friends with than Gertie the snake? Gertie, however, wasn’t feeling neighborly and tried to escape from Ms. Kitty. Ms. Kitty would have no part of this and insisted that Gertie come out and play. She flushed her out of hiding and followed her as she slithered under Cloe's resting place. Poor Cloe, nothing's worse than dozing in the shade then finding a snake slithering over your paw. She shot from beneath the shrub with all of her hair standing on end. Gertie was hot on her heels trying to escape. Or were they playing tag? Ms. Kitty couldn’t decide and tagged them both. Both Gertie and Cloe hit back. Ms. Kitty thought this was great fun because she managed to attract Cloe's attention, make her fur poke out all funny, and have a game of tag all at once. This would be a wonderful day for Ms. Kitty.
Unfortunately, it was not for Gertie or Cloe. Poor Gertie had now attracted the attention of not one, but two cats. The first wanted to play tag and the second wanted revenge for disturbing her nap. No matter which way Gertie turned there was a furry beast blocking her path. She curled up in her defensive position ready for the attack. Ms. Kitty made the first move and was rewarded with a nip on her nose. This only made Cloe's hair stand up more (she had a squirrel tail now!) Cloe circled around the two taking it all in and absent-mindedly walked into the grass (see Ms. Kitty Catches a Bird to understand what an important piece of information this is.). I calmly looked on to see how far she would go before she noticed. She didn't. Apparently, there is a difference between freshly weed-eated terrifying grass and regular terrifying grass. As soon as she crossed the line into the regular terrifying grass, her hair poked out even more (if that’s possible) and she darted to the safety of the driveway glaring at Ms. Kitty. She knew this was all Ms. Kitty’s fault.
When Gertie glanced in my direction, I could see the look in her eyes. We had an agreement and I had broken it. She was welcomed into the flowerbed in turn for keeping mice and other creepy crawlies out. My end of the bargain was to leave her in peace to sun herself on the rocks and hibernate under her favorite shrub. I immediately picked both cats up and apologized to Gertie for my blunder. Today, she is happily sunning herself on her favorite rock. I let the girls have outdoor time by the patio. Gertie deserves a rest.
27 May 2011
MS. KITTY CAUGHT A BIRD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ms. Kitty and Cloe were on the front porch with me. The birds were taunting them on the low branch of the tree. They would take turns flying onto the porch, into a bush, then back to the tree. Ms. Kitty saw this pattern and took advantage of it. A bird landed on the porch and she raced and pounced on it. It managed to escape to a bush, but she dove into the bush, snatched it up and ran to the driveway with it. It was squawking and flapping its wings trying to get away. The other birds flew down and circled her squawking and flapping their wings. She held the bird down with her paw and looked at all the birds surrounding her trying to decide what to do. <> She finally decided to keep the one she caught and ran to the porch with it (and we thought she was the stupid one). Of course Cloe was amazed that Ms. Kitty had a bird and wanted to see it. Ms. Kitty hissed and the bird escaped into a bush. Ms. Kitty was convinced that the bird was under the bush when in fact it had escaped out the other side--which Cloe saw. While Ms. Kitty was occupied sniffing for her lost bird under the bush, Cloe was poised to make her move. However, the bird was squawking and flapping its wings about 3 feet away an IN THE TERRIFYING GRASS. What should she do? As she weighed her options--terrifying grass/catch bird--sidewalk safety/wait for bird to come to her--the bird recovered and flew into the tree. All the birds then flew to the tree and squawked for a very long time. Now every time the girls go out onto the porch, the birds fly away to the pine trees and squawk--but only when Ms. Kitty is out. In fact, if she sits in the window or front door they fly away terrified that she will come out and catch them again. Cloe doesn't strike the same fear in them--yet. If only we would remove the terrifying grass, she could catch them all and KILL...KILL...KILL them for taunting her.
21 May 2011
Messin with things we shouldn't
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 (EPA, 2011) establishes minimum standards to protect tap water in the US. It includes protection for both surface and underground sources of established drinking water and also potential sources of drinking water. First, I'd like to address storing natural gas in empty gas wells in the Marcellus Shale bed in PA. This shale bed is found throughout the Allegheny Plateau region in North America and contains potential natural gas reserves. This was once the main oil producing region in the US and currently an area where fracking is controversial. (Trivia time: PA is the "Quaker State", which explains the motor oil's name. PAs peak oil production was in 1891 and could produce enough oil to power the US for 7 months. Of course now it would only last 3 hours.)
What is really interesting about this area is that people are concerned with well water contamination around this storage site. The USGS studied this after problems were noted as early as 2001 (Breen, et al., 2007, p. 12). In the Tioga River Valley the USGS team identified isotopes unique to the stored natural gas in wells that drew water from the aquifer underlying the area. These aquifers are an important drinking water source in this region and partially recharged by the Tioga River. It turns out the stored gas migrated through fault lines unique in the Marcellus Shale to people's drinking water sources. It took several years for the USGS to determine the impact of storing the natural gas in depleted wells something the project team may not have considered during the NEPA process or even had this time-frame in mind. It is also interesting to note how closely related the geology of this region is with its water sources. Because of the fractures in the Marcellus Shale unusual things can happen like this example.
I bring this up because if stored natural gas can migrate to a well or aquifer, what is hydraulic fracturing doing? If an area is over-pressurized a fracture in the bedrock occurs and the natural gas/methane follows a route of least resistance. Something to think about.
What is really interesting about this area is that people are concerned with well water contamination around this storage site. The USGS studied this after problems were noted as early as 2001 (Breen, et al., 2007, p. 12). In the Tioga River Valley the USGS team identified isotopes unique to the stored natural gas in wells that drew water from the aquifer underlying the area. These aquifers are an important drinking water source in this region and partially recharged by the Tioga River. It turns out the stored gas migrated through fault lines unique in the Marcellus Shale to people's drinking water sources. It took several years for the USGS to determine the impact of storing the natural gas in depleted wells something the project team may not have considered during the NEPA process or even had this time-frame in mind. It is also interesting to note how closely related the geology of this region is with its water sources. Because of the fractures in the Marcellus Shale unusual things can happen like this example.
I bring this up because if stored natural gas can migrate to a well or aquifer, what is hydraulic fracturing doing? If an area is over-pressurized a fracture in the bedrock occurs and the natural gas/methane follows a route of least resistance. Something to think about.
20 May 2011
I probably shouldn't post this here before it is graded, but I couldn't resist.
Since I'm all for limited copyrights, I've decided to post one of my AU discussion board Q & A. Even though I am the original author, the Turnitin Police will flag my DB as not being original. I like to play fast and loose with my education. I wonder if it will flag my own work as not being my own work? A question for my Philosophy class: When is your original work not your original work? When you post it in your personal blog before its graded!
The law should allow for the mashups and remixes that many people post in places like YouTube. They are creating something to express themselves, not to profit from someone else's work. Creative works and intellectual advances are a part of the creative commons. This means they are a part of our culture and should be shared and enjoyed by everyone. The commons are a part of our collected resources (natural, creative, or intellectual) and define us as a nation. We all share and benefit from these commons which are the basis of future creative and technological advancements from members of our society. Stifling people's creativity stifles us as a nation. We fall behind other countries not only in the arts, but in other areas. We are holding back a whole generation's ability to learn, create, and imagine something new that could benefit us all. We are placing a roadblock in their way, and we'll be the poorer for it.
By perpetuating the copyright laws for so long, market competition shrinks and out goes open access to information. In comes a few/one entity controlling the markets, which the Constitution forbids.
References:
Heins, M. (2011, April 28). The delecate balance between copyright and free expression. Retrieved from http://www.fepproject.org/commentaries/eldredcomment.html
Lessig, Lawrence. (2010, May). Re-examining the remix [Video-cast]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html
Library of Congress. (n.d.). United States copyright office: A brief introduction and history; Circular 1a. Retrieved from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html
- Do you think the law should allow these kinds of creative expressions? Why?
The law should allow for the mashups and remixes that many people post in places like YouTube. They are creating something to express themselves, not to profit from someone else's work. Creative works and intellectual advances are a part of the creative commons. This means they are a part of our culture and should be shared and enjoyed by everyone. The commons are a part of our collected resources (natural, creative, or intellectual) and define us as a nation. We all share and benefit from these commons which are the basis of future creative and technological advancements from members of our society. Stifling people's creativity stifles us as a nation. We fall behind other countries not only in the arts, but in other areas. We are holding back a whole generation's ability to learn, create, and imagine something new that could benefit us all. We are placing a roadblock in their way, and we'll be the poorer for it.
- How can creative culture of user generated content be revived? Why is it important? Or not?
- Is Creative Commons good for copyright holders and market competition? Why? Or not?
"Perpetual monopolies of every sort, are forbidden
not only by the genius of free Governments,
but by the imperfection of human foresight."
- How should these intellectual property rights of people who create images, videos, and music be protected? Why is it necessary?
- Should digital rights management (DRM) technologies be utilized? Why?
References:
Heins, M. (2011, April 28). The delecate balance between copyright and free expression. Retrieved from http://www.fepproject.org/commentaries/eldredcomment.html
Lessig, Lawrence. (2010, May). Re-examining the remix [Video-cast]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html
Library of Congress. (n.d.). United States copyright office: A brief introduction and history; Circular 1a. Retrieved from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html
19 May 2011
Turnitin Experiment
This is already graded and turned in. Now I want to see if anyone steals my work that I posted here for all to see if they only put in the correct key words. For any who stumble on this, it isn't the final copy, but I did receive a 100%. Feel free to use any part of it, but beware, it will be flagged. Use caution and change a few words here and there if you are desperate enough to recycle an old paper.
Project Study Area: Offshore Windfarms in Lake Erie--
Recent research by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) shows that the Great Lakes region has a potential more than 250 gigawatts (OWWG, 2009, p. 1) in offshore wind power. Cleveland, Ohio has chosen to go forward with a small offshore wind farm to study the feasibility of wind power generation in Lake Erie. This area is unique in the respect that it is shallower than the other Great Lakes which will make it easier to install and maintain wind turbines. Since the Project Study Area (PSA) for offshore wind farms are placed in the Waters of the United States, the site chosen for this project falls under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). An environmental impact statement (EIS) was filed and approved before the PSA could move forward. However, stakeholder concerns with this plan were potential real estate impact, infrastructure support for prospective growth, and impacts on bird and bat populations.
Since the Project Study Area (PSA) is the first of its kind in the Great Lakes region, there are not many examples to compare the real estate impacts with. However, it is still important to address this issue since homeowners have questioned this aspect of the planned project. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducted a study in 2009 funded by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to address concerns of communities in regards to wind project impact on property values. The U.S. DOE (Hoen et al., 2009) studied sales of single-family homes located within ten miles (p. iii) of wind farms in nine different states (p. iii). This study showed that compared to similar homes outside the visual range of wind farms that the "impacts...are either too small and/or too infrequent" (p. iii) to determine any observable impact on the resale or property values of these homes. In fact, the results of the study found that an announcement like the Lake Erie's PSA would not have an adverse effect on property values (Hoen, et al., 2009, p. 76). Since this study was conducted with on-land turbines, the only adverse finding suggested that property values within a one-mile radius (Hoen, et al., 2009, p. 74) were affected. However, the PSA wind turbines are located three miles offshore where no homes are located.
Another aspect of this project, if plans proceed to develop beyond the PSA, is the cumulative impact on infrastructure and secondary development from an employment in-migration. As Marriott (1997) suggests housing, roads, and public transportation (pp. 96-97) come into play when projecting employment impacts. If the PSA succeeds and more wind farms are built offshore, it will have a direct and secondary employment impact in the region, because part of the appeal of offshore wind farms in Lake Erie is rebuilding NE Ohio's manufacturing base. If the PSA is successful, future wind farms would use local suppliers to provide components to build and supply parts for ongoing maintenance. However, bringing more jobs to the area will bring an influx of workers that need a place to live. If the projected secondary employment is large, team members must consult local officials to address the possible need for homes in a variety of price ranges (Marriot, 1997, p. 96).
While housing and manufacturing businesses in the immediate area is studied, another aspect to consider is increased commutes from surrounding suburbs. There will be a new demand placed on local roads and public transportation that may require changes and updates to the existing infrastructure. This may have adverse effects on local funds that some stakeholders would like to spend elsewhere. However, with the current economic slump the Cleveland area is experiencing, these types of economic impact may seem positive.
Finally, as with most wind farms there is always controversy surrounding the impacts on bird populations. If stakeholders are concerned enough about environmental impacts, a project may never be realized no matter how positive the economic impact may be. First, there are one billion bird deaths in the U.S. each year, but only 0.01% (Erin, 2009, p. 2) is from wind turbine collision. However, it is still a concern for many stakeholders and needs to be addressed. For the PSA, Guarnaccia and Kerlinger (2009) were chosen to present an informational brochure for the public. Their study showed that in the PSA there are a large number of birds that use Lake Erie during migrations. However, many of these species use inshore migration routes where they feed and rest in marsh areas (Guarnaccia & Kerlinger, 2009, p. 2) not in the PSA. While some species do migrate over Lake Erie, these birds fly at altitudes above the wind turbine heights. This information is supported by five years (Guarnaccia & Kerlinger, 2009, p. 23) of archived NEXRAD data. Also, to support their study, Guarnaccia and Kerlinger (2009) consulted the Audubon Ohio. Their information states that the Cleveland Lakefront Important Bird Area (IBA) only extends one mile into Lake Erie (Guarnaccia & Kerlinger, 2009, p. 24) short of the PSA. The only significant finding were gulls that forage for food around wind turbine bases.
Project Study Area: Offshore Windfarms in Lake Erie--
Recent research by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) shows that the Great Lakes region has a potential more than 250 gigawatts (OWWG, 2009, p. 1) in offshore wind power. Cleveland, Ohio has chosen to go forward with a small offshore wind farm to study the feasibility of wind power generation in Lake Erie. This area is unique in the respect that it is shallower than the other Great Lakes which will make it easier to install and maintain wind turbines. Since the Project Study Area (PSA) for offshore wind farms are placed in the Waters of the United States, the site chosen for this project falls under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). An environmental impact statement (EIS) was filed and approved before the PSA could move forward. However, stakeholder concerns with this plan were potential real estate impact, infrastructure support for prospective growth, and impacts on bird and bat populations.
Since the Project Study Area (PSA) is the first of its kind in the Great Lakes region, there are not many examples to compare the real estate impacts with. However, it is still important to address this issue since homeowners have questioned this aspect of the planned project. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducted a study in 2009 funded by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to address concerns of communities in regards to wind project impact on property values. The U.S. DOE (Hoen et al., 2009) studied sales of single-family homes located within ten miles (p. iii) of wind farms in nine different states (p. iii). This study showed that compared to similar homes outside the visual range of wind farms that the "impacts...are either too small and/or too infrequent" (p. iii) to determine any observable impact on the resale or property values of these homes. In fact, the results of the study found that an announcement like the Lake Erie's PSA would not have an adverse effect on property values (Hoen, et al., 2009, p. 76). Since this study was conducted with on-land turbines, the only adverse finding suggested that property values within a one-mile radius (Hoen, et al., 2009, p. 74) were affected. However, the PSA wind turbines are located three miles offshore where no homes are located.
Another aspect of this project, if plans proceed to develop beyond the PSA, is the cumulative impact on infrastructure and secondary development from an employment in-migration. As Marriott (1997) suggests housing, roads, and public transportation (pp. 96-97) come into play when projecting employment impacts. If the PSA succeeds and more wind farms are built offshore, it will have a direct and secondary employment impact in the region, because part of the appeal of offshore wind farms in Lake Erie is rebuilding NE Ohio's manufacturing base. If the PSA is successful, future wind farms would use local suppliers to provide components to build and supply parts for ongoing maintenance. However, bringing more jobs to the area will bring an influx of workers that need a place to live. If the projected secondary employment is large, team members must consult local officials to address the possible need for homes in a variety of price ranges (Marriot, 1997, p. 96).
While housing and manufacturing businesses in the immediate area is studied, another aspect to consider is increased commutes from surrounding suburbs. There will be a new demand placed on local roads and public transportation that may require changes and updates to the existing infrastructure. This may have adverse effects on local funds that some stakeholders would like to spend elsewhere. However, with the current economic slump the Cleveland area is experiencing, these types of economic impact may seem positive.
Finally, as with most wind farms there is always controversy surrounding the impacts on bird populations. If stakeholders are concerned enough about environmental impacts, a project may never be realized no matter how positive the economic impact may be. First, there are one billion bird deaths in the U.S. each year, but only 0.01% (Erin, 2009, p. 2) is from wind turbine collision. However, it is still a concern for many stakeholders and needs to be addressed. For the PSA, Guarnaccia and Kerlinger (2009) were chosen to present an informational brochure for the public. Their study showed that in the PSA there are a large number of birds that use Lake Erie during migrations. However, many of these species use inshore migration routes where they feed and rest in marsh areas (Guarnaccia & Kerlinger, 2009, p. 2) not in the PSA. While some species do migrate over Lake Erie, these birds fly at altitudes above the wind turbine heights. This information is supported by five years (Guarnaccia & Kerlinger, 2009, p. 23) of archived NEXRAD data. Also, to support their study, Guarnaccia and Kerlinger (2009) consulted the Audubon Ohio. Their information states that the Cleveland Lakefront Important Bird Area (IBA) only extends one mile into Lake Erie (Guarnaccia & Kerlinger, 2009, p. 24) short of the PSA. The only significant finding were gulls that forage for food around wind turbine bases.
An Old Rant
Tonight I'm going to wallow in the world of plagerism. This is a post that I copied (felony 1) and pasted onto my jump drive (felony 2), and now am going to repost here (felony 3). I don't remember who this guy was, but I love what he had to say. If he stumbles across this (highly unlikely), I'd like to give him a KUDOS for seeing what the average, ignorant, unable to think analytically person does see AND put it into words. We're not as stooopid as they think we are. They just have more money to side-step everything we have to plow through and try to survive. I'll highlight my favorite parts.
I don't think it matters who is in office; All of them are driven by self interest, not by a sense of duty to the people! I don't know who or what to believe anymore. I'm just a blue collar guy. I don't have the time to do an indepth personal research on the issues. I wish I had the time, but wouldn't know where to start if I did! I listen to NPR alot and that is where I get most of my information with which I form an opinion. But how bias is that information? Much of my time is currently spent trying to find employment, not researching issues. A few folks in here seem to think that the lack of education of the general population is part of the problem and we are ignorant and incapable of analitical thinking because of this. I would like to point out that the captains of industry, investors, and our government officials are the most educated people in the world; It doesn't seem to have done them much good! They are the ones that have created this mess we find ourselves in! It's going to be up to the common,ignorant,uneducated majority of the population to do the work and dig our way out of this, just as we always have! Our government, corporations, and investors seem to forget that it was the hard work of the common people that put them in the position of power, wealth and privilige that they currently enjoy. It's time they started giving some back! Instead, investors are pouring money into "emerging" economies, corporations are moving the jobs overseas to take advantage of less oversight and lower wages, and not only is our government allowing this to happen, it passes the financial burden on to the common average citizen in the form of financial bail outs to the investors, banks, and corporations that created this crisis and now turned their backs on us! It seems to me that our government, investors, and corporations are deliberately dismanteling our economy and infrastructure.
While listening to NPR the other night, they were talking about the economic recovery. It was pointed out that there are two seperate economies in the U.S.,the corporate and investor economy, and the worker economy. The corporate/investor economy is looking great! Corporations are recording record profits! The worker economy....ah...not so good; And things aren't projected to be that much better in 2011. Even a common, undereducated, ignorant person incapable of analitical thought, such as myself, understands that in a parasitic/host relationship once you suck the life blood from one host, it's time to find another host and start the whole process over again.
So now you see why I couldn't resist the plagerism part. Technically it wasn't plagerism, I did give him credit and didn't repost it as my own.
I don't think it matters who is in office; All of them are driven by self interest, not by a sense of duty to the people! I don't know who or what to believe anymore. I'm just a blue collar guy. I don't have the time to do an indepth personal research on the issues. I wish I had the time, but wouldn't know where to start if I did! I listen to NPR alot and that is where I get most of my information with which I form an opinion. But how bias is that information? Much of my time is currently spent trying to find employment, not researching issues. A few folks in here seem to think that the lack of education of the general population is part of the problem and we are ignorant and incapable of analitical thinking because of this. I would like to point out that the captains of industry, investors, and our government officials are the most educated people in the world; It doesn't seem to have done them much good! They are the ones that have created this mess we find ourselves in! It's going to be up to the common,ignorant,uneducated majority of the population to do the work and dig our way out of this, just as we always have! Our government, corporations, and investors seem to forget that it was the hard work of the common people that put them in the position of power, wealth and privilige that they currently enjoy. It's time they started giving some back! Instead, investors are pouring money into "emerging" economies, corporations are moving the jobs overseas to take advantage of less oversight and lower wages, and not only is our government allowing this to happen, it passes the financial burden on to the common average citizen in the form of financial bail outs to the investors, banks, and corporations that created this crisis and now turned their backs on us! It seems to me that our government, investors, and corporations are deliberately dismanteling our economy and infrastructure.
While listening to NPR the other night, they were talking about the economic recovery. It was pointed out that there are two seperate economies in the U.S.,the corporate and investor economy, and the worker economy. The corporate/investor economy is looking great! Corporations are recording record profits! The worker economy....ah...not so good; And things aren't projected to be that much better in 2011. Even a common, undereducated, ignorant person incapable of analitical thought, such as myself, understands that in a parasitic/host relationship once you suck the life blood from one host, it's time to find another host and start the whole process over again.
So now you see why I couldn't resist the plagerism part. Technically it wasn't plagerism, I did give him credit and didn't repost it as my own.
17 May 2011
Snippets from my AU Animal Rights DB
What rights do animals have?
I always find an ethical debate about animals and their rights to be muddled up with the higher intelligence/which species deserves rights/what rights should they have rather than how they should be treated. Sometimes I think that an ethical debate is more about proving the other person's theory wrong rather than what is being debated. Or maybe I have no patience for ethics today. However, I believe Nussbaum's essay (Sunstein, p. 300) points us in the right direction. We share limited resources with other creatures and not all resources are for us. After all, we are not the only species that relies on natural resources to sustain us, so why should we be polluting another's water and air supply? Francione (Sunstein, p. 108) argues his point from eliminating animals as property and suggests we are treating them as resources. He also points out that laws protecting them revolve around protecting the people that own them. After reading his essay, I began to realize that we often measure an animal's rights and intelligence to our own, so maybe Wise's theory falls flat. We've judged other humans as being savages so therefore they have fewer rights (look at our own history). Maybe we shouldn't fall into the same mind-set when considering animals and their intelligence/rights either.
Sunstein, C., & Nussbaum, M. (Eds.). Animal rights: Currents debates and new directions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/
Oiled animals from BP Blowout:
The animals that were oiled did have a legal right for themselves and their habitat to be cleaned. The most important reason is that it was humans who made the mess in the first place, not the animals. We are the ones who have a fossil-fuel based economy and are the ones who are demanding oil. While oil is a necessity right now, we must take responsibility to clean up any harm that occurs to the environment and other species that live there.
The people who devote their time to cleaning these animals feel the burden of this responsibility and act on it. Most depend on this area for their livelihood, research, or just people who want to help. While many of us watched the BP spill on TV, these people acted and helped clean the oiled animals. I admire their tenacity and resolve to make a difference any way they could.
I believe that these actions reveal that many people do not want our society to operate in a "one generation society...[and]...that the future matters" (Thiele, 1999, p. 62). Nature is important, not only for our benefit, but for the future of the entire planet. The Earth may go on without us if we pollute it enough, but it shows poor judgment on our part to let it go in such a way. I also believe we should strive to ensure a healthy environment and encourage our lawmakers to make a contract with the future (Thiele, 1999, p. 74). We should be transitioning to renewable energy sources rather than remaining stuck in the past with fossil fuels and the harm they cause.
Reference:
Thiele, L. (1999, April). Environmentalism for a new millennium: The challenge of coevolution. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/docDetail.action?docID=10142340
Who should represent an animal and its rights?
Animals have human advocates for their rights, since they have no legal standing as humans do. The organizations listed in our guidance are examples of people protecting animals and their habitats. Habitat protection is the key to maintain biodiversity and ensure survival of many endangered species. Without these organizations and people who devote their time to educating the public, many species would be extinct--including our own National Bird the Bald Eagle.
I'm old enough to remember the Weekly Reader that highlighted DDT, its effect on eggshells, and its contribution to lower survival rates of many bird species including the bald eagle. Some may argue that DDT did not contribute to this ecological problem, but they are ill-informed. DDT does break down into different metabolites and DDE is thought to be the one that interfered with calcium deposition in the eggshells. Thinner shells lead to the adults accidentally breaking the eggs in the nest which equals lower survival rates.
I realize DDT is used to protect humans against malaria in developing countries and has lowered human death rates, but at what cost to their ecosystem I wonder? I haven't read any studies concerning this, but can rely on my own work and readings to figure out what is happening to the birds, fish, and aquatic microorganisms. So while we save poorer countries from malaria, we are at the same time destroying their livelihood in many instances. We are left with an ethical dilemma in this situation that isn't easily answered.
I always find an ethical debate about animals and their rights to be muddled up with the higher intelligence/which species deserves rights/what rights should they have rather than how they should be treated. Sometimes I think that an ethical debate is more about proving the other person's theory wrong rather than what is being debated. Or maybe I have no patience for ethics today. However, I believe Nussbaum's essay (Sunstein, p. 300) points us in the right direction. We share limited resources with other creatures and not all resources are for us. After all, we are not the only species that relies on natural resources to sustain us, so why should we be polluting another's water and air supply? Francione (Sunstein, p. 108) argues his point from eliminating animals as property and suggests we are treating them as resources. He also points out that laws protecting them revolve around protecting the people that own them. After reading his essay, I began to realize that we often measure an animal's rights and intelligence to our own, so maybe Wise's theory falls flat. We've judged other humans as being savages so therefore they have fewer rights (look at our own history). Maybe we shouldn't fall into the same mind-set when considering animals and their intelligence/rights either.
Sunstein, C., & Nussbaum, M. (Eds.). Animal rights: Currents debates and new directions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/
Oiled animals from BP Blowout:
The animals that were oiled did have a legal right for themselves and their habitat to be cleaned. The most important reason is that it was humans who made the mess in the first place, not the animals. We are the ones who have a fossil-fuel based economy and are the ones who are demanding oil. While oil is a necessity right now, we must take responsibility to clean up any harm that occurs to the environment and other species that live there.
The people who devote their time to cleaning these animals feel the burden of this responsibility and act on it. Most depend on this area for their livelihood, research, or just people who want to help. While many of us watched the BP spill on TV, these people acted and helped clean the oiled animals. I admire their tenacity and resolve to make a difference any way they could.
I believe that these actions reveal that many people do not want our society to operate in a "one generation society...[and]...that the future matters" (Thiele, 1999, p. 62). Nature is important, not only for our benefit, but for the future of the entire planet. The Earth may go on without us if we pollute it enough, but it shows poor judgment on our part to let it go in such a way. I also believe we should strive to ensure a healthy environment and encourage our lawmakers to make a contract with the future (Thiele, 1999, p. 74). We should be transitioning to renewable energy sources rather than remaining stuck in the past with fossil fuels and the harm they cause.
Reference:
Thiele, L. (1999, April). Environmentalism for a new millennium: The challenge of coevolution. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/docDetail.action?docID=10142340
Who should represent an animal and its rights?
Animals have human advocates for their rights, since they have no legal standing as humans do. The organizations listed in our guidance are examples of people protecting animals and their habitats. Habitat protection is the key to maintain biodiversity and ensure survival of many endangered species. Without these organizations and people who devote their time to educating the public, many species would be extinct--including our own National Bird the Bald Eagle.
I'm old enough to remember the Weekly Reader that highlighted DDT, its effect on eggshells, and its contribution to lower survival rates of many bird species including the bald eagle. Some may argue that DDT did not contribute to this ecological problem, but they are ill-informed. DDT does break down into different metabolites and DDE is thought to be the one that interfered with calcium deposition in the eggshells. Thinner shells lead to the adults accidentally breaking the eggs in the nest which equals lower survival rates.
I realize DDT is used to protect humans against malaria in developing countries and has lowered human death rates, but at what cost to their ecosystem I wonder? I haven't read any studies concerning this, but can rely on my own work and readings to figure out what is happening to the birds, fish, and aquatic microorganisms. So while we save poorer countries from malaria, we are at the same time destroying their livelihood in many instances. We are left with an ethical dilemma in this situation that isn't easily answered.
Human Logic; It makes me LOL
There is something intrinsically wrong with human logic when the Earth is treated the way we have of late. It is evident that something is amiss in our thinking when animals, who have sustained us for centuries have suddenly developed diseases that are more virulent than science has ever seen. We may have "boldly gone where no one has gone before", but at what costs to our Biosphere's health? It seems with the evidence presented that science has answers to push us forward into more and more unknown regions of biotechnology, but is only able to produce more problems that some day the human race will have to come to terms with. Either by re-awakening the knowledge that humans are only a part of the whole of our world, even the universe, or by becoming just another blip on the extinction chart.
Creating new diseases or extreme forms of known ones is not the path civilization should follow. We may take nature and shape it to our will to serve our own ends, but has it ever caused so much destruction? Some will say yes, but do they know the far-reaching ramifications of our current activities in biotech world? Would nature create a "terminator gene", a living thing that would purposely drive itself into extinction? The way of the world is to survive, it is written in our very genetic code--the thing science thinks it can "manipulate" without any ill effects to life.
What are we thinking when we say, "Humans have done this for years", when it does not compare to past actions? When the average person does not even understand the basic science behind gene manipulation when making this statement? In the past, we merely took what was already there and encouraged it to flourish. We did not try to create something new; the sacred boundaries evolution drew between species were not crossed. Life was not meant to cross this line.
Life co-evolved in ways humans cannot, even may not ever, understand. To treat deliberate manipulation between species as if it can and should compare to the evolutionary differences within a species is nothing more than arrogance on our part. To think that this line should be crossed to re-make nature into what we see fit is illogical. Have we entered the abyss that Dr. Moreau entered? Are we creating a "perfect island" were nature has no laws, and anything goes?
What I find most abhorrent in this field is the insistence that it is merely an extension of what's been going on all along in nature, we're just giving it a little push in the direction we want it to go. To insist that a species would take such a course, to de-evolve to a previous time and recombine its genetic make-up is ridiculous. Evolution pushes forward, it does not choose to back-peddle. Yes, outside forces have pushed evolution backwards--even to extinction for some--something to consider when arguing for "genetic modification"--but it begins its fight forward once again. A plant is a plant because that is its path--either by biotic or abiotic pressures--it is a plant. The genes that turned off eons ago that could have made it something else are still there, but remain dormant for a reason.
Do we understand this reason? Most likely not, something we as humans must embrace: There are things in the universe we do not understand, concepts we cannot grasp, and something we should not interfere in until we do reach this plane of understanding about life. To insist that something should be remade before we understand the essence of its life, is to taunt nature, the one that made it.
We can, of course, hypothesize, study, examine, and theorize, but should not engage in wide-spread experiments on the population without thorough, extensive research. Making bold and broad statements about the genetic tweaks we make as being "comparable to its counterpart so it must be safe" is childish. If it still looks like the familiar apple, it must not be bad. If it in a familiar package, it's accepted to be good. After all, it does not resemble the horrible mutant often associated with genetics gone awry. Outward appearances are shallow and meaningless. It is what at first attracts us, but whether we accept it as something to cherish depends on deeper things--what is inside. In the case of genetics, it is something most cannot and will never see so we rely on those who can--the "experts" in the field.
Who are these experts? The experts are the ones who's livelihood depends on the corporate giant who's bottom line is to make money at any cost. So our experts are already biased towards the industry, something science shies away from and even makes rules against. Our experts are the ones who are paid to present to the public the "cutting edge of technology" wrapped in the familiar, so we accept without question. Have we been so conditioned by our advertising industry that we cannot think critically or objectively? Can we not formulate our own hypothesis based on what we feel, even know is wrong down to our core--our DNA--the very essence of who we are?
Are we so arrogant to think we can re-make the very mechanism that shaped us? We may have the upper hand on Earth, or so we think, but in the grand scheme of things we are but mere cogs in the larger machine that is life. When we become beings who feel we have all the answers and solutions, in our own minds we become God-like, and gods we are not.
Creating new diseases or extreme forms of known ones is not the path civilization should follow. We may take nature and shape it to our will to serve our own ends, but has it ever caused so much destruction? Some will say yes, but do they know the far-reaching ramifications of our current activities in biotech world? Would nature create a "terminator gene", a living thing that would purposely drive itself into extinction? The way of the world is to survive, it is written in our very genetic code--the thing science thinks it can "manipulate" without any ill effects to life.
What are we thinking when we say, "Humans have done this for years", when it does not compare to past actions? When the average person does not even understand the basic science behind gene manipulation when making this statement? In the past, we merely took what was already there and encouraged it to flourish. We did not try to create something new; the sacred boundaries evolution drew between species were not crossed. Life was not meant to cross this line.
Life co-evolved in ways humans cannot, even may not ever, understand. To treat deliberate manipulation between species as if it can and should compare to the evolutionary differences within a species is nothing more than arrogance on our part. To think that this line should be crossed to re-make nature into what we see fit is illogical. Have we entered the abyss that Dr. Moreau entered? Are we creating a "perfect island" were nature has no laws, and anything goes?
What I find most abhorrent in this field is the insistence that it is merely an extension of what's been going on all along in nature, we're just giving it a little push in the direction we want it to go. To insist that a species would take such a course, to de-evolve to a previous time and recombine its genetic make-up is ridiculous. Evolution pushes forward, it does not choose to back-peddle. Yes, outside forces have pushed evolution backwards--even to extinction for some--something to consider when arguing for "genetic modification"--but it begins its fight forward once again. A plant is a plant because that is its path--either by biotic or abiotic pressures--it is a plant. The genes that turned off eons ago that could have made it something else are still there, but remain dormant for a reason.
Do we understand this reason? Most likely not, something we as humans must embrace: There are things in the universe we do not understand, concepts we cannot grasp, and something we should not interfere in until we do reach this plane of understanding about life. To insist that something should be remade before we understand the essence of its life, is to taunt nature, the one that made it.
We can, of course, hypothesize, study, examine, and theorize, but should not engage in wide-spread experiments on the population without thorough, extensive research. Making bold and broad statements about the genetic tweaks we make as being "comparable to its counterpart so it must be safe" is childish. If it still looks like the familiar apple, it must not be bad. If it in a familiar package, it's accepted to be good. After all, it does not resemble the horrible mutant often associated with genetics gone awry. Outward appearances are shallow and meaningless. It is what at first attracts us, but whether we accept it as something to cherish depends on deeper things--what is inside. In the case of genetics, it is something most cannot and will never see so we rely on those who can--the "experts" in the field.
Who are these experts? The experts are the ones who's livelihood depends on the corporate giant who's bottom line is to make money at any cost. So our experts are already biased towards the industry, something science shies away from and even makes rules against. Our experts are the ones who are paid to present to the public the "cutting edge of technology" wrapped in the familiar, so we accept without question. Have we been so conditioned by our advertising industry that we cannot think critically or objectively? Can we not formulate our own hypothesis based on what we feel, even know is wrong down to our core--our DNA--the very essence of who we are?
Are we so arrogant to think we can re-make the very mechanism that shaped us? We may have the upper hand on Earth, or so we think, but in the grand scheme of things we are but mere cogs in the larger machine that is life. When we become beings who feel we have all the answers and solutions, in our own minds we become God-like, and gods we are not.
What I have learned
Many people today believe that God and our relationship with him is a personal one. I agree, but with a few exceptions. There is a lot of stress placed on our personal relationship, but to what end? To be able to grow and learn from Him and the Bible, of course. Then what? Just leave it there? Is there no real world applicability to what we learn?
I'm asking these questions because I see a trend in our government where we are leaving the poorest in our country without any safety net--a means for food, shelter, clothing, health care, and education. I have heard a few times that the budget cuts that we make reflect who we are as a nation. I don't want to be defined as being unfeeling and cold-hearted towards those who don't have enough. In this country of plenty we are leaving many without the basic necessities to a happy and healthy life. How can we dismiss this part of our community? Where does the Bible say we shouldn't help them and keep all of our "hard earned money" to ourselves? As far as I can see, it doesn't. In fact in many places we are encouraged to lend a helping hand to those less fortunate. There are places in the Bible where a land owner is told to leave some of his crops in the field for the widows and the poor. Does this sound like we are to keep all of our profits for ourselves? Or does it sound like there are concessions made for those who don't have enough?
As far as the government, where does it say it should have a hands-off approach and push the responsibility onto a charity? In a growing "me" society I doubt that many would help except at holidays or for tax purposes. We are told to emulate God and his love every day. Christians even try to justify not helping others in some crazy ways. Cherry picking words from the Bible rather than absorbing its whole message is a mistake. We miss out on what God is conveying to us through his word and probably on many blessings.
What message is He trying to convey? In my opinion it is that the individual is only one part of the whole. One part of humanity and in order for it to function properly, we all must participate. Some will not be able to participate like we do, but should their input be dismissed? Are the "seniors" who live on a limited income not our elders? We should be learning from them, not taking. Aren't the poor children our future just like the ones with money? We are what we sow. If we ignore the poor children, how will they view the world? How will they strike out at an uncaring and unfeeling community that wouldn't give them a chance to succeed because they were one of the "less fortunate"?
There are so many questions that I have about our society and I don't think that placing yourself and your needs above everyone else's is the answer to our problems. That is too self-centered and not what God teaches us. If we have excess, we should give to others. We are not a poor country, but a mis-managed country who has a few priorities screwed up.
I'm asking these questions because I see a trend in our government where we are leaving the poorest in our country without any safety net--a means for food, shelter, clothing, health care, and education. I have heard a few times that the budget cuts that we make reflect who we are as a nation. I don't want to be defined as being unfeeling and cold-hearted towards those who don't have enough. In this country of plenty we are leaving many without the basic necessities to a happy and healthy life. How can we dismiss this part of our community? Where does the Bible say we shouldn't help them and keep all of our "hard earned money" to ourselves? As far as I can see, it doesn't. In fact in many places we are encouraged to lend a helping hand to those less fortunate. There are places in the Bible where a land owner is told to leave some of his crops in the field for the widows and the poor. Does this sound like we are to keep all of our profits for ourselves? Or does it sound like there are concessions made for those who don't have enough?
As far as the government, where does it say it should have a hands-off approach and push the responsibility onto a charity? In a growing "me" society I doubt that many would help except at holidays or for tax purposes. We are told to emulate God and his love every day. Christians even try to justify not helping others in some crazy ways. Cherry picking words from the Bible rather than absorbing its whole message is a mistake. We miss out on what God is conveying to us through his word and probably on many blessings.
What message is He trying to convey? In my opinion it is that the individual is only one part of the whole. One part of humanity and in order for it to function properly, we all must participate. Some will not be able to participate like we do, but should their input be dismissed? Are the "seniors" who live on a limited income not our elders? We should be learning from them, not taking. Aren't the poor children our future just like the ones with money? We are what we sow. If we ignore the poor children, how will they view the world? How will they strike out at an uncaring and unfeeling community that wouldn't give them a chance to succeed because they were one of the "less fortunate"?
There are so many questions that I have about our society and I don't think that placing yourself and your needs above everyone else's is the answer to our problems. That is too self-centered and not what God teaches us. If we have excess, we should give to others. We are not a poor country, but a mis-managed country who has a few priorities screwed up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)