There is, today, a political battle in progress that will determine the future of the United States. The war is between those who think that it is important for national leaders to make decisions based upon solid science, science that has been hammered out by SCIENTISTS who engage in the self-correcting process known as "science," and those who think that their ideas, their wants ("druthers"), and the desires of funding groups will yield the "facts" they need to promote their point of view. This is not a new battle, but one that has been on-going for many years.
Government leaders really first became convinced that they needed good hard scientific advice during the depression. As the nation began to take increasing notice of the machinations of the axis powers (to be), it became obvious to President Roosevelt that he needed help. So he created a wartime Office of Scientific Research and Development under Vannevar Bush (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar_Bush for a brief biography). Under President Eisenhower, the President's Science Advisory Committee, under MIT president James Killian gave the President needed advice. That office lasted until killed by newly sworn-in President Richard Nixon. Since then, presidents have made do with a series of more or less effective advisory groups, often on an ad hoc basis.
In 1972, Congress, feeling the need to legislate with effective scientific information created the Office of Technology Assessment ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessment for a brief overview of that office). It came under severe criticism from Republicans when it published a paper, by physicist Ashton Carter, that warned that the Reagan era Star Wars program would not protect America. A series of papers confirming that came under severe Republican criticism. The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, began to increase its attacks on OTA. When Newt Gingrich and his colleagues came to power in 1994, they suceeded in de-funding (killing) OTA. Congress has since had no internal organ to assess science or technology, despite calls for its re-creation. Today, political leaders hold hearing and invite "science experts" who agree with the hearing chairperson, hardly a path to unbiased scientific knowledge or advice.
In the meantime, attacks on scientific consenses continue, especially by far right-wing politicians. In a 2005 book, "The Republican War on Science," by Chris Mooney, the author documents dozens of attacks on science over the last thirty years. His book ends in 2005, when Mooney felt that the attacks couldn't get worse than they were then. That was before the 2012 Presidential campaign began in late 2010 and the attacks did, indeed, get worse. Today the attacks are broad-based and cover the gamut of the environment, energy, basic biology (of all things), climatology, medicine and other fields.
When this author worked in Naval Intelligence (for a bit less than two years), he read a book that cautioned that absolute knowledge of an enemy's intentions can never be had - for the dictator might change his mind after he leaves the final meeting. Likewise, we cannot know, for certain, that the current crop of Republican Presidential hopefuls really believe what they are saying. Pandering to the crowd is an old and acceptable feature of political life (here, as elsewhere). If one had to venture a guess, it would be that 25% or less of the people in a political rally audience, know much about science. Oh, they can twitter their minds out, make phone calls at 75 mph, but they have no clue how any of that magic actually happens. Their expectation is probably that it will always get better and better. So, in that environment, office seekers can tell the crowd whatever makes the crowd louder and more supportive. Do Perry, Bachmann, et al, really believe that creationism trumps evolution, that climate change is "just a normal thing and will get better no matter what WE do," that there will ALWAYS be more oil to suck out of the earth, or that medicine doen't need to be based on modern biological concepts to improve? If they do believe it, is it possible that they, with almost no scientific knowledge, could they be right? What would their tomorrow look like? If they don't believe it, what on earth do they believe, except that they somehow have the right to high political office and the power and wealth that would bring to them. Is that it? What kind of tomorrow is that?
We can't know the answer to any of that. And not knowing is really, really scary.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
The Right Wing Truth
The right wing in our country seems to have its own set of truths. These "truths" have nothing to do with facts. They have everything to do with a warped vision of some sort of make-believe reality that the right wing has made up. They seem to have a set of goals which, they believe, would take America back to the "good old days" that they have imagined. If they could just put actions in place, they think, to take the country back from the "tax and spend" liberals, all would be well. What would such a place be like? We have a couple of examples - incomplete as of yet, but heading in that direction. Let's look at one example.
In Texas, we have the specter of a de-regulated business environment, an inadequately insured work force, poor to nearly nonexistent decent educational opportunities for youth and/or adult learners, and an economy that is beginning to resemble that of the late 19th Century, when workers were poorly paid, unorganized, unprotected, and generally left to the whims of the owner-management classes. Texas is now at the bottom of the heap, along with Mississippi, for the highest percentage of jobs at a minimum wage level. It leads the nation "in the percentage of children who lack medical insurance," according to an editorial in the Washington Post by Harold Meyerson.
The number of young people lacking high school diplomas is over 12% and slated to reach 30% within 20 years - a damning statistic that condemns the youth of Texas to a life of ignorance and prejudice. Yet the current government has slashed educational funding by $4 billion. The governor's response is to call for teaching Bible Creation instead of modern biology. If they do that, students in Texas might as well never apply to go elsewhere to school, since Texas will be on an educational level with the worst third-world nations.
The current governor, Gov. Rick Perry, is running for President and stands a decent chance of becoming the Republican nominee. He advocates doing away with virtually all regulation and permitting the individual states to do things how ever they want to - sort of a throw-back to those wonderful days of 1781 - 1792, when the United States was a solid failure until a revised Constitution could be put into effect that gave much more power to the collective nation.
Perry further states his belief that scientists who hold the climate change is upon us and we are to blame are just greedy people looking to continue getting grant money for their favorite projects - which are all filled with lies anyway. It beggars belief that a man as scientifically ignorant as Perry obviously is makes supposedly authoritative statements about science. If Perry's ideas about science become the law of the educational world, human progress in this country would regress to the dark days of pre-medical science, pre-modern physics, pre-modern chemistry, and pre-modern biology. If Texans really want to be that ignorant, we should, of course, let them. But, Lord, don't let them across the border into the modern world!
In the ancient days, before modern educational institutions arose, the country held a debate over how much education people should receive. The answer, of course, was as much as they want or can handle. There was another side, though, that said education above the absolute minimum needed for manual labor or simple machine jobs, should be denied the "working classes" since too much education might make them want a better life, more leisure time, more "stuff" (which meant more money). An underlying motive behind all of this right wing rhetoric is to return the nation to that place - where the super-rich have 99% of the wealth, and the other 99% of us can fight over the 1% by competing for ever-lower paying jobs. And when companies want to increase productivity, they can squeeze the workers until they quit, then hire new drones at even lower wages.
Well, I'm an old man, now and I've had what little time in the sun I will ever have. But I love this country enough to have offered to die for it and I'll be damned if I'll let the right wing destroy the last, best hope for all of humanity. 'nuff said for one night.
In Texas, we have the specter of a de-regulated business environment, an inadequately insured work force, poor to nearly nonexistent decent educational opportunities for youth and/or adult learners, and an economy that is beginning to resemble that of the late 19th Century, when workers were poorly paid, unorganized, unprotected, and generally left to the whims of the owner-management classes. Texas is now at the bottom of the heap, along with Mississippi, for the highest percentage of jobs at a minimum wage level. It leads the nation "in the percentage of children who lack medical insurance," according to an editorial in the Washington Post by Harold Meyerson.
The number of young people lacking high school diplomas is over 12% and slated to reach 30% within 20 years - a damning statistic that condemns the youth of Texas to a life of ignorance and prejudice. Yet the current government has slashed educational funding by $4 billion. The governor's response is to call for teaching Bible Creation instead of modern biology. If they do that, students in Texas might as well never apply to go elsewhere to school, since Texas will be on an educational level with the worst third-world nations.
The current governor, Gov. Rick Perry, is running for President and stands a decent chance of becoming the Republican nominee. He advocates doing away with virtually all regulation and permitting the individual states to do things how ever they want to - sort of a throw-back to those wonderful days of 1781 - 1792, when the United States was a solid failure until a revised Constitution could be put into effect that gave much more power to the collective nation.
Perry further states his belief that scientists who hold the climate change is upon us and we are to blame are just greedy people looking to continue getting grant money for their favorite projects - which are all filled with lies anyway. It beggars belief that a man as scientifically ignorant as Perry obviously is makes supposedly authoritative statements about science. If Perry's ideas about science become the law of the educational world, human progress in this country would regress to the dark days of pre-medical science, pre-modern physics, pre-modern chemistry, and pre-modern biology. If Texans really want to be that ignorant, we should, of course, let them. But, Lord, don't let them across the border into the modern world!
In the ancient days, before modern educational institutions arose, the country held a debate over how much education people should receive. The answer, of course, was as much as they want or can handle. There was another side, though, that said education above the absolute minimum needed for manual labor or simple machine jobs, should be denied the "working classes" since too much education might make them want a better life, more leisure time, more "stuff" (which meant more money). An underlying motive behind all of this right wing rhetoric is to return the nation to that place - where the super-rich have 99% of the wealth, and the other 99% of us can fight over the 1% by competing for ever-lower paying jobs. And when companies want to increase productivity, they can squeeze the workers until they quit, then hire new drones at even lower wages.
Well, I'm an old man, now and I've had what little time in the sun I will ever have. But I love this country enough to have offered to die for it and I'll be damned if I'll let the right wing destroy the last, best hope for all of humanity. 'nuff said for one night.
Monday, August 1, 2011
The Past is Key to the Future
Copy of an article on Skeptical Science. Well written excerpt of a peer-reviewed article by these two emminent climate scientists.
===================================================================
Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
This a re-post of an article by James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato
The past is the key to the future. Contrary to popular belief, climate models are not the principal basis for assessing human-made climate effects. Our most precise knowledge comes from Earth's paleoclimate, its ancient climate, and how it responded to past changes of climate forcings, including atmospheric composition. Our second essential source of information is provided by global observations today, especially satellite observations, which reveal how the climate system is responding to rapid human-made changes of atmospheric composition, especially atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Models help us interpret past and present climate changes, and, in so far as they succeed in simulating past changes, they provide a tool to help evaluate the impacts of alternative policies that affect climate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humans lived in a rather different world during the last ice age, which peaked 20,000 years ago. An ice sheet covered Canada and parts of the United States, including Seattle, Minneapolis and New York City. The ice sheet, more than a mile thick on average, would have towered over today's tallest buildings. Glacial-interglacial climate oscillations were driven by climate forcings much smaller than the human-made forcing due to increasing atmospheric CO2 -- but those weak natural forcings had a long time to operate, which allowed slow climate feedbacks such as melting or growing ice sheets to come into play.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paleoclimate data yield our best assessment of climate sensitivity, which is the eventual global temperature change in response to a specified climate forcing. A climate forcing is an imposed change of Earth's energy balance, as may be caused, for example, by a change of the sun's brightness or a human-made change of atmospheric CO2. For convenience scientists often consider a standard forcing, doubled atmospheric CO2, because that is a level of forcing that humans will impose this century if fossil fuel use continues unabated.
We show from paleoclimate data that the eventual global warming due to doubled CO2 will be about 3°C (5.4°F) when only so-called fast feedbacks have responded to the forcing. Fast feedbacks are changes of quantities such as atmospheric water vapor and clouds, which change as climate changes, thus amplifying or diminishing climate change. Fast feedbacks come into play as global temperature changes, so their full effect is delayed several centuries by the thermal inertia of the ocean, which slows full climate response. However, about half of the fast-feedback climate response is expected to occur within a few decades. Climate response time is one of the important 'details' that climate models help to elucidate.
Fig. 1. Global temperature relative to peak Holocene temperature, based on ocean cores.
We also show that slow feedbacks amplify the global response to a climate forcing. The principal slow feedback is the area of Earth covered by ice sheets. It is easy to see why this feedback amplifies the climate change, because reduction of ice sheet size due to warming exposes a darker surface, which absorbs more sunlight, thus causing more warming. However, it is difficult for us to say how long it will take ice sheets to respond to human-made climate forcing because there are no documented past changes of atmospheric CO2 nearly as rapid as the current human-made change.
Ice sheet response to climate change is a problem where satellite observations may help. Also ice sheets models, as they become more realistic and are tested against observed ice sheet changes, may aid our understanding. But first let us obtain broad guidance from climate changes in the 'recent' past: the Pliocene and Pleistocene, the past 5.3 million years.
Figure 1 shows global surface temperature for the past 5.3 million years as inferred from cores of ocean sediments taken all around the global ocean. The last 800,000 years are expanded in the lower half of the figure. Assumptions are required to estimate global surface temperature change from deep ocean changes, but we argue and present evidence that the ocean core record yields a better measure of global mean change than that provided by polar ice cores.
Civilization developed during the Holocene, the interglacial period of the past 10,000 years during which global temperature and sea level have been unusually stable. Figure 1 shows two prior interglacial periods that were warmer than the Holocene: the Eemian (about 130,000 years ago) and the Holsteinian (about 400,000 years ago). In both periods sea level reached heights at least 4-6 meters (13-20 feet) greater than today. In the early Pliocene global temperature was no more than 1-2°C warmer than today, yet sea level was 15-25 meters (50-80 feet) higher.
The paleoclimate record makes it clear that a target to keep human made global warming less than 2°C, as proposed in some international discussions, is not sufficient – it is a prescription for disaster. Assessment of the dangerous level of CO2, and the dangerous level of warming, is made difficult by the inertia of the climate system. The inertia, especially of the ocean and ice sheets, allows us to introduce powerful climate forcings such as atmospheric CO2 with only moderate initial response. But that inertia is not our friend – it means that we are building in changes for future generations that will be difficult, if not impossible, to avoid.
Fig. 2. Greenland (a) and Antarctic (b) ice mass changes deduced from gravity field measurements by Velicogna (2009) and best-fits with 5-year and 10-year mass loss doubling times.
One big uncertainty is how fast ice sheets can respond to warming. Our best assessment will probably be from precise measurements of changes in the mass of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which can be monitored via measurements of Earth's gravitational field by satellites.
Figure 2 shows that both Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are now losing mass at significant rates, as much as a few hundred cubic kilometers per year. We suggest that mass loss from disintegrating ice sheets probably can be approximated better by exponential mass loss than by linear mass loss. If either ice sheet were to lose mass at a rate with doubling time of 10 years or less, multi-meter sea level rise would occur this century.
The available record (Figure 2) is too brief to provide an indication of the shape of future ice mass loss, but the data will become extremely useful as the record lengthens. Continuation of these satellite measurements should have high priority.
=============================================================
References
Hansen, J., M. Sato, 2011: Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change, Accepted for publication in "Climate Change at the Eve of the Second Decade of the Century: Inferences from Paleoclimate and Regional Aspects: Proceedings of Milutin Milankovitch 130th Anniversary Symposium" (A. Berger, F. Mesinger, and D. Šijači, Eds.)
Velicogna, I., 2009: Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19503, doi:10.1029/2009GL040222.
Posted by James Hansen on Tuesday, 26 July, 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
===================================================================
Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
This a re-post of an article by James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato
The past is the key to the future. Contrary to popular belief, climate models are not the principal basis for assessing human-made climate effects. Our most precise knowledge comes from Earth's paleoclimate, its ancient climate, and how it responded to past changes of climate forcings, including atmospheric composition. Our second essential source of information is provided by global observations today, especially satellite observations, which reveal how the climate system is responding to rapid human-made changes of atmospheric composition, especially atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Models help us interpret past and present climate changes, and, in so far as they succeed in simulating past changes, they provide a tool to help evaluate the impacts of alternative policies that affect climate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humans lived in a rather different world during the last ice age, which peaked 20,000 years ago. An ice sheet covered Canada and parts of the United States, including Seattle, Minneapolis and New York City. The ice sheet, more than a mile thick on average, would have towered over today's tallest buildings. Glacial-interglacial climate oscillations were driven by climate forcings much smaller than the human-made forcing due to increasing atmospheric CO2 -- but those weak natural forcings had a long time to operate, which allowed slow climate feedbacks such as melting or growing ice sheets to come into play.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paleoclimate data yield our best assessment of climate sensitivity, which is the eventual global temperature change in response to a specified climate forcing. A climate forcing is an imposed change of Earth's energy balance, as may be caused, for example, by a change of the sun's brightness or a human-made change of atmospheric CO2. For convenience scientists often consider a standard forcing, doubled atmospheric CO2, because that is a level of forcing that humans will impose this century if fossil fuel use continues unabated.
We show from paleoclimate data that the eventual global warming due to doubled CO2 will be about 3°C (5.4°F) when only so-called fast feedbacks have responded to the forcing. Fast feedbacks are changes of quantities such as atmospheric water vapor and clouds, which change as climate changes, thus amplifying or diminishing climate change. Fast feedbacks come into play as global temperature changes, so their full effect is delayed several centuries by the thermal inertia of the ocean, which slows full climate response. However, about half of the fast-feedback climate response is expected to occur within a few decades. Climate response time is one of the important 'details' that climate models help to elucidate.
Fig. 1. Global temperature relative to peak Holocene temperature, based on ocean cores.
We also show that slow feedbacks amplify the global response to a climate forcing. The principal slow feedback is the area of Earth covered by ice sheets. It is easy to see why this feedback amplifies the climate change, because reduction of ice sheet size due to warming exposes a darker surface, which absorbs more sunlight, thus causing more warming. However, it is difficult for us to say how long it will take ice sheets to respond to human-made climate forcing because there are no documented past changes of atmospheric CO2 nearly as rapid as the current human-made change.
Ice sheet response to climate change is a problem where satellite observations may help. Also ice sheets models, as they become more realistic and are tested against observed ice sheet changes, may aid our understanding. But first let us obtain broad guidance from climate changes in the 'recent' past: the Pliocene and Pleistocene, the past 5.3 million years.
Figure 1 shows global surface temperature for the past 5.3 million years as inferred from cores of ocean sediments taken all around the global ocean. The last 800,000 years are expanded in the lower half of the figure. Assumptions are required to estimate global surface temperature change from deep ocean changes, but we argue and present evidence that the ocean core record yields a better measure of global mean change than that provided by polar ice cores.
Civilization developed during the Holocene, the interglacial period of the past 10,000 years during which global temperature and sea level have been unusually stable. Figure 1 shows two prior interglacial periods that were warmer than the Holocene: the Eemian (about 130,000 years ago) and the Holsteinian (about 400,000 years ago). In both periods sea level reached heights at least 4-6 meters (13-20 feet) greater than today. In the early Pliocene global temperature was no more than 1-2°C warmer than today, yet sea level was 15-25 meters (50-80 feet) higher.
The paleoclimate record makes it clear that a target to keep human made global warming less than 2°C, as proposed in some international discussions, is not sufficient – it is a prescription for disaster. Assessment of the dangerous level of CO2, and the dangerous level of warming, is made difficult by the inertia of the climate system. The inertia, especially of the ocean and ice sheets, allows us to introduce powerful climate forcings such as atmospheric CO2 with only moderate initial response. But that inertia is not our friend – it means that we are building in changes for future generations that will be difficult, if not impossible, to avoid.
Fig. 2. Greenland (a) and Antarctic (b) ice mass changes deduced from gravity field measurements by Velicogna (2009) and best-fits with 5-year and 10-year mass loss doubling times.
One big uncertainty is how fast ice sheets can respond to warming. Our best assessment will probably be from precise measurements of changes in the mass of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which can be monitored via measurements of Earth's gravitational field by satellites.
Figure 2 shows that both Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are now losing mass at significant rates, as much as a few hundred cubic kilometers per year. We suggest that mass loss from disintegrating ice sheets probably can be approximated better by exponential mass loss than by linear mass loss. If either ice sheet were to lose mass at a rate with doubling time of 10 years or less, multi-meter sea level rise would occur this century.
The available record (Figure 2) is too brief to provide an indication of the shape of future ice mass loss, but the data will become extremely useful as the record lengthens. Continuation of these satellite measurements should have high priority.
=============================================================
References
Hansen, J., M. Sato, 2011: Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change, Accepted for publication in "Climate Change at the Eve of the Second Decade of the Century: Inferences from Paleoclimate and Regional Aspects: Proceedings of Milutin Milankovitch 130th Anniversary Symposium" (A. Berger, F. Mesinger, and D. Šijači, Eds.)
Velicogna, I., 2009: Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19503, doi:10.1029/2009GL040222.
Posted by James Hansen on Tuesday, 26 July, 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Senator Jones Statements on Energy
In the Thursday, July 28, 2011 edition of the Marion County Observer was an article by Leigh Williams entitled "Gas prices inch back toward record highs." Much of the article was filled by statements by State Senator John O. Jones, a friend of the "energy interests." Several of his comments call for response, so he is mine (I have taken the liberty of correcting two obvious word-choice errors in the original article):
"We have different blends of gasoline in this country. Chicago has a different blend than we do because of pollution and government regulations. If [the federal government] would life (lift?) those regulations all of our refineries could produce the same gas. Gas produced in Wood River could be sold in California." If that happened, which blend would go to California? Would our "simple" and, presumably cheaper, blend be forced upon the good people of Los Angeles? The picture above was taken in 1988! This was after the worst of the smog years. Maybe we could vote on it, LA's 8,000,000 people vs Salem's 8,000 people. OOPS! [Tad]
I was born in New York City in 1939 and lived for a number of years there and just across the Hudson River in New Jersey. When we went to visit "in the country" we would always remark, as we returned home again, about the grey cover over New York City from their terrible smog.
Senator Jones goes on the say, "We could help everyone if the federal government could go to a single standard." I hate to point it out, but smog KILLS people. In the days of heavy smog, hundreds of deaths each year would be attributed to smog. How Sen. Jones can think that doing away with modern flexible standards would help anyone but the oil companies is beyond imagination. [Tad]
Senator Jones then goes off into some sort of imaginary world: "We have somebody filling up a few weeks ago for $50 and not (now?) that costs $80 which is an additional $30 that can't be spent on other things." I suppose it all depends upon the meaning of "a few weeks." Earlier in the article author Williams notes that, 'on average, [gas costs] 8.4 cents per gallon higher than one month ago. Let's take that almost five weeks to mean "a few weeks ago." So if one bought $50 worth of gasoline a month ago, at $3.709 per gallon, they got 13.48 gallons of gas. At the higher price of 3.799 their 13.48 gallons would cost $51.21, HARDLY the $30 increase that Jones mentions. But, of course, using outlandish figures is what politicians do - facts be DAMNED! [Tad]
We might consider looking at two other culprits - Big Oil and Oil Speculators (businessmen). Everyone in the industry with current knowledge recognizes that Oil Speculators (these are business people who "play" the commodities markets, running prices up to the point where they can sell their holding at as large a profit as possible) were largely responsible for the Spring prices increases. But as the chart above shows, the Oil Companies are taking advantage of that price run-up to achieve record profits (the blue bar represents oil costs, the red bar, corporate profits - all for the second quarter of the year, 2009, 2010, and 2011). Senator Jones might consider looking at his sponsors for some answers rather than continuing to try to "baffle us with bullshit."
If we, American citizens, let ourselves be persuaded by the BS factories and don't take the trouble to learn the truth, then, of course, we will achieve the future we deserve. Or, to use an old Indian saying, "If we continue to go the way we are headed, we will get there." [Tad]
I was born in New York City in 1939 and lived for a number of years there and just across the Hudson River in New Jersey. When we went to visit "in the country" we would always remark, as we returned home again, about the grey cover over New York City from their terrible smog.
Senator Jones goes on the say, "We could help everyone if the federal government could go to a single standard." I hate to point it out, but smog KILLS people. In the days of heavy smog, hundreds of deaths each year would be attributed to smog. How Sen. Jones can think that doing away with modern flexible standards would help anyone but the oil companies is beyond imagination. [Tad]
Senator Jones then goes off into some sort of imaginary world: "We have somebody filling up a few weeks ago for $50 and not (now?) that costs $80 which is an additional $30 that can't be spent on other things." I suppose it all depends upon the meaning of "a few weeks." Earlier in the article author Williams notes that, 'on average, [gas costs] 8.4 cents per gallon higher than one month ago. Let's take that almost five weeks to mean "a few weeks ago." So if one bought $50 worth of gasoline a month ago, at $3.709 per gallon, they got 13.48 gallons of gas. At the higher price of 3.799 their 13.48 gallons would cost $51.21, HARDLY the $30 increase that Jones mentions. But, of course, using outlandish figures is what politicians do - facts be DAMNED! [Tad]
If we, American citizens, let ourselves be persuaded by the BS factories and don't take the trouble to learn the truth, then, of course, we will achieve the future we deserve. Or, to use an old Indian saying, "If we continue to go the way we are headed, we will get there." [Tad]
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Where the Wild Things Are
Boston Pond, Stephen A. Forbes State Park, Marion County, Illinois.
On Tuesday, May 3rd and Wednesday, May 4th, I served as a guide to about 380 fifth grade students from around the county, plus their teachers and a few accompanying parents. The walk was listed as a Habitat Walk, in which the students would see multiple habitats. The original walk dealt with three habitats, prairie, wetland pond, and forest. But an excess of rain in the last few weeks made that trail far too wet for all but those equipped with good boots, so I was shifted to the Boston Pond area where we looked at forest and pond habitat. I had conducted a partial species survey of the original Wetlands Trail and found about 30 - 35 species to pick from, but had not seen Boston Pond until 30 minutes before the first group showed up, so I took a quick walk over the 1/4 mile trail looking for a few topics to discuss.
At 9:20 AM on a cool, wet, Tuesday the first group arrived. Over the next two days I would escort sixteen groups on a twenty minute walk around Boston Pond. The group pictured was the first group on Wednesday, May 4th when the temperature was close to 40 degrees F! Strangely, a few boys noted that it was cold! I briefed each group on some simple safety items (don't touch 3 leaved small plants - Poison Ivy, or 5 leaved plants - Poison Oak; don't run, don't pick up sticks, be careful of wild blackberry - it has thorns, and watch your step - you might trip over a root and fall). In the two days, only one person tripped over a root and fell - me! And, oh, by the way, it had been raining and he pathway was quite muddy and wet. I was my own best bad example! Then off we all went.
The main habitat was forest. We looked into the forest to see, in general, the kinds of trees it had - pine and broadleafed deciduous, which is good cover for the animals that live there; deer, fox, coyote, racoon, squirrel, skunk, and an assortment of birds and reptiles. They all call it "home" because it had all the things they needed to live, which is as good a definition of habitat as there is, I suppose. We looked at the shells of many walnuts in one place and talked about the importance to the animals of having a good food supply. The learned the semi-technical term, "Mast," which literally means "a pile of nuts" and is used to define in general the presence of good food for the animals.
The kids all looked at the "lay of the land" and most figured out right away that the gullies were formed by flowing water and erosion. The question I had posed was, "How did these gullies form?" One girl, in a church school, said, "God put them there." I told her the since this was not a science classroom quiz, I'd accept the answer, but would pose another for her, "Very good, but tell me, just how did he do that?" That led to a nice discussion about water, etc. by her and all of her classmates.
We then walked across the earthen dam and looked at what they called a "Honeysuckle Bush," that has the formal name "Amur Honeysuckle." It is an example of an invasive species that is crowding out the native flora. Among the most important native trees are Oaks and Hickories (producers of "hard" mast). When the seed (nut) is dropped and germinates, the young plant is very shade intolerant. With the honeysuckle (Amur and Japanese/Asian) and other invasive plants providing a strong shade cover, the young Oak or Hickory can't survive. And so our native trees are beginning to disappear. One parent on the tour told me that she "just loves" honeysuckle, but doesn't let it spread. I didn't say anything, but the birds are carrying the seeds away without her knowledge, and spreading the plant anyway. From such innocent and benign events come great tragedy in the natural world.
We looked at transplanted Bald Cypress growing in the water (it is actually native to far Southern Illinois, but with climate change will likely adapt here fairly well if it is given shelter from winter's harshest cold and winds). There was a small stand of cattails, which gave me an opportunity to talk about the filtering qualities of many water grasses, like the cattail and the common reed.
Then we reached the end of our little quarter-mile hike. Some kids asked good questions or had excellent observations to add to the group. Some just had a day off from school, but that's ok, too. They might have heard something that will stick with them. My final pitch to them was that the park, all 1600 acres of it, is there for them and for their use. Since they were all 12 years old, they could come to Boston Pond and try their hand at catching trout, bass, or catfish without even getting a fishing license - just bring an adult, with one, with you. The park is a return of a little bit of land to a more natural state. Come and enjoy it.
I also learned a couple of lessons myself:
1. Obey your own teachings - look for the roots before you stop talking and simply turn to walk away.
2. Fifth grade boys are drawn to primitive toilets like flies to a garbage heap (they must have the smallest bladders on the planet). In one class, every single boy had to visit the "outhouse."
3. When in the company of 20 - 25 fifth graders, don't expect to actually see any real wildlfe.
4. They all understood the value of "catch and release."
I had fun. I hope that most of them did, as well. This way to the egress!
Note: All photographs copyright Thomas A. Davis 2011. Permission granted to download and/or use for personal non-commercial use only.
The main habitat was forest. We looked into the forest to see, in general, the kinds of trees it had - pine and broadleafed deciduous, which is good cover for the animals that live there; deer, fox, coyote, racoon, squirrel, skunk, and an assortment of birds and reptiles. They all call it "home" because it had all the things they needed to live, which is as good a definition of habitat as there is, I suppose. We looked at the shells of many walnuts in one place and talked about the importance to the animals of having a good food supply. The learned the semi-technical term, "Mast," which literally means "a pile of nuts" and is used to define in general the presence of good food for the animals.
The kids all looked at the "lay of the land" and most figured out right away that the gullies were formed by flowing water and erosion. The question I had posed was, "How did these gullies form?" One girl, in a church school, said, "God put them there." I told her the since this was not a science classroom quiz, I'd accept the answer, but would pose another for her, "Very good, but tell me, just how did he do that?" That led to a nice discussion about water, etc. by her and all of her classmates.
We then walked across the earthen dam and looked at what they called a "Honeysuckle Bush," that has the formal name "Amur Honeysuckle." It is an example of an invasive species that is crowding out the native flora. Among the most important native trees are Oaks and Hickories (producers of "hard" mast). When the seed (nut) is dropped and germinates, the young plant is very shade intolerant. With the honeysuckle (Amur and Japanese/Asian) and other invasive plants providing a strong shade cover, the young Oak or Hickory can't survive. And so our native trees are beginning to disappear. One parent on the tour told me that she "just loves" honeysuckle, but doesn't let it spread. I didn't say anything, but the birds are carrying the seeds away without her knowledge, and spreading the plant anyway. From such innocent and benign events come great tragedy in the natural world.
Then we reached the end of our little quarter-mile hike. Some kids asked good questions or had excellent observations to add to the group. Some just had a day off from school, but that's ok, too. They might have heard something that will stick with them. My final pitch to them was that the park, all 1600 acres of it, is there for them and for their use. Since they were all 12 years old, they could come to Boston Pond and try their hand at catching trout, bass, or catfish without even getting a fishing license - just bring an adult, with one, with you. The park is a return of a little bit of land to a more natural state. Come and enjoy it.
1. Obey your own teachings - look for the roots before you stop talking and simply turn to walk away.
2. Fifth grade boys are drawn to primitive toilets like flies to a garbage heap (they must have the smallest bladders on the planet). In one class, every single boy had to visit the "outhouse."
3. When in the company of 20 - 25 fifth graders, don't expect to actually see any real wildlfe.
4. They all understood the value of "catch and release."
Note: All photographs copyright Thomas A. Davis 2011. Permission granted to download and/or use for personal non-commercial use only.
Monday, April 11, 2011
The Fake Debt Crisis
The latest clamor over the evils of public debt have me puzzled. According to certain members of GOP, Inc., public debt is the grandest scam ever perpetuated on the American people. According to recent polls, over 60% of the people agree with that and note that getting rid of the debt is absolutely necessary, even in these times of economic stress.
To help me understand all the noise, I have set up a simple model for myself. First, a couple of figures:
1. 2010 USA Gross National Product (GDP) was approximately $13.2 Trillion Dollars.
2. 2010 National Debt Limit is approximately $14.4 Trillion Dollars
3. The Ratio of 2010 Debt/2010 GDP is, therefore, 1.09 to 1.
The question is, is this ratio dangerous? Well, here is my simple model, based upon the GOP, Inc. statement that “I have to pay all my bills. The Federal government should have to do the same.”
Let’s create a hypothetical simple nation, named “You.” The nation of "You" has a population of four, one producer, one supporter, and two welfare cases, ranging in age from 6 to 9. "You" doesn’t do manufacturing or agriculture or mining. It is a nation that provides services to other nations in the form of labor. The GDP of "You" is, for purposes of discussion, $60,000. From that amount the nation conducts its business, buying groceries, insurance, communications, fuel, etc. It also pays the welfare recipients $3.00 and $5.00 per week for miscellaneous chores.
Now what about debt? If the GOP, Inc. people are correct, "You" shouldn’t have any since “the bills are paid each month and year.” But is that really true? Experience shows that it is not. Consider the following debts of "You":
1. Borrowed from foreigners (banks) to pay other foreigners (Sellers) for land and building purchases = $180,000 (approx)
2. Borrowed from foreigners (banks) to pay other foreigners (Car financing firms) for transportation equipment = $40,000 (approx)
3. Borrowed from foreigners (banks) to pay other foreigners (appliance stores) for Infrastructure needs = $10,000 (approx)
4. Borrowed from foreigners (banks) to pay other foreigners (contractors) for construction labor (to put a add-on into the main government and legislation building) = $40,000 (approx)
5. So total debt to foreigners is $270,000, giving "You" a debt to income ratio of 4.5 to 1
This is the same as if our federal government had a debt of $59.4 Trillion Dollars!
There are those who will say that the Federal Government is a different situation because it doesn’t make or sell anything, but they would be incorrect. The Federal government buys security, control, assistance, transportation infrastructure, scientific services, and all sorts of other things, like medical care for retired people (ALL retired people, not just the poor), and the security needed to help with the vicissitudes of old age by assisting in the social security of elder citizens.
Does the national debt need to be taken in hand? Undoubtedly. But the problem is nowhere near as disastrous as GOP, Inc. would have us believe. Doing this rationally and effectively if one party to the conversation insists that it can only be done by punishing the poor and middle classes while enhancing the wealth of the richest one percent of the population is a recipe for disaster and, in the end, an invitation to social revolution. Doing it together cooperatively might even work and make us a better nation. Well, one can hope, can't one?
To help me understand all the noise, I have set up a simple model for myself. First, a couple of figures:
1. 2010 USA Gross National Product (GDP) was approximately $13.2 Trillion Dollars.
2. 2010 National Debt Limit is approximately $14.4 Trillion Dollars
3. The Ratio of 2010 Debt/2010 GDP is, therefore, 1.09 to 1.
The question is, is this ratio dangerous? Well, here is my simple model, based upon the GOP, Inc. statement that “I have to pay all my bills. The Federal government should have to do the same.”
Let’s create a hypothetical simple nation, named “You.” The nation of "You" has a population of four, one producer, one supporter, and two welfare cases, ranging in age from 6 to 9. "You" doesn’t do manufacturing or agriculture or mining. It is a nation that provides services to other nations in the form of labor. The GDP of "You" is, for purposes of discussion, $60,000. From that amount the nation conducts its business, buying groceries, insurance, communications, fuel, etc. It also pays the welfare recipients $3.00 and $5.00 per week for miscellaneous chores.
Now what about debt? If the GOP, Inc. people are correct, "You" shouldn’t have any since “the bills are paid each month and year.” But is that really true? Experience shows that it is not. Consider the following debts of "You":
1. Borrowed from foreigners (banks) to pay other foreigners (Sellers) for land and building purchases = $180,000 (approx)
2. Borrowed from foreigners (banks) to pay other foreigners (Car financing firms) for transportation equipment = $40,000 (approx)
3. Borrowed from foreigners (banks) to pay other foreigners (appliance stores) for Infrastructure needs = $10,000 (approx)
4. Borrowed from foreigners (banks) to pay other foreigners (contractors) for construction labor (to put a add-on into the main government and legislation building) = $40,000 (approx)
5. So total debt to foreigners is $270,000, giving "You" a debt to income ratio of 4.5 to 1
This is the same as if our federal government had a debt of $59.4 Trillion Dollars!
There are those who will say that the Federal Government is a different situation because it doesn’t make or sell anything, but they would be incorrect. The Federal government buys security, control, assistance, transportation infrastructure, scientific services, and all sorts of other things, like medical care for retired people (ALL retired people, not just the poor), and the security needed to help with the vicissitudes of old age by assisting in the social security of elder citizens.
Does the national debt need to be taken in hand? Undoubtedly. But the problem is nowhere near as disastrous as GOP, Inc. would have us believe. Doing this rationally and effectively if one party to the conversation insists that it can only be done by punishing the poor and middle classes while enhancing the wealth of the richest one percent of the population is a recipe for disaster and, in the end, an invitation to social revolution. Doing it together cooperatively might even work and make us a better nation. Well, one can hope, can't one?
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
More on Gardening
Today was a bit cool, but I decided to get out and work on my compost bins. Here's the story behind them.
About 12 years ago I bought a dump-truck load of what was called "top soil." When the guy left it in my back yard he said, "Better use it as soon as possible." Well, one thing led to another, my health had some ups and downs, and the soil sat in place for about four years. When I went out to take some to use in my Rose Garden, I found it to be a hard as a rock - some topsoil! More time went on and I would, every so often, take a pick ax to the pile and chop up a few wheel barrow loads. Each time I would add peat moss, organic matter, and, when I had it, planting soil. Then I would place the load where I wanted it. In a few months, the little hill would get hard and difficult to handle.
Well, now it is spring and I'm determined to get this mess straightened out. I divided the bin into two piles, separating them by a wire fence. In one I added all of the peat moss I had, about two bales. The other awaits my attention. Over the last week, I've turned the better bin twice and, lo and behold, it is beginning to take shape. It is fairly easy to handle and lacks the compactness of the clay I had been having, so I feel that I'm on the right track.
As noted previously, I bought 120 pounds of good topsoil in 40 pound bags. I put that into a trash can parked at one end of the compost bins (there will be a set of three when I'm done.). Yesterday I bought some limber to use for the front of the bins. Then today, I finished setting posts for the front of bin #1 and bin #2. Bin #1 holds the "good compost," while bin #2 has the old stuff. I also put my new 1" X 6" X 4' boards in the front of Bin #1 and Bin #2, to assist in taking out composted material and adding new material to be composted.
The next stage is to complete bin #3, then turn half of bin #2 into #3, removing the worst clay to the final bin. I was able to start working the soil in bin #2 today and it is loosening up already. I added about 12 pounds of kitchen slops to bin #2 and covered it with good topsoil. Now maybe it can actually begin to compost properly, generating heat as it decays.
Tomorrow or Thursday I'll buy more peat moss (probably only two bales) to split between Bin #2 and Bin #3. Then I can start the process of working the three bins to get good nutritious compost for the gardens.
I'm something of a "satisficer" - I don't aim for perfection in these things. The side and read walls of the bins are wire fencing wrapped around metal posts driven into the ground. That means the walls are not straight, but bow before the weight of the soil. I'll work on that over time, as well as covers for each of the bins to keep nutrients from leaching away in the rains - although some water is needed for the composting process. It is all a work in progress and if anyone actually reads this, have pity on me, a poor sinner who doesn't know any better!
About 12 years ago I bought a dump-truck load of what was called "top soil." When the guy left it in my back yard he said, "Better use it as soon as possible." Well, one thing led to another, my health had some ups and downs, and the soil sat in place for about four years. When I went out to take some to use in my Rose Garden, I found it to be a hard as a rock - some topsoil! More time went on and I would, every so often, take a pick ax to the pile and chop up a few wheel barrow loads. Each time I would add peat moss, organic matter, and, when I had it, planting soil. Then I would place the load where I wanted it. In a few months, the little hill would get hard and difficult to handle.
Thinking about it, I thought, "Well, maybe if I put it into a compost heap with loads of other stuff it would actually soften up." So last year I built a new set of two compost bins - not very fancy and, to be honest, of rather poor construction. I am a simple man. Then I began to add organic matter and grass clippings, layering that with the "topsoil" from my old pile. In a couple of weeks it got as hard as concrete and when I tried to turn it, I was able only to turn part of it. By fall I said, "The heck with it," and let it sit over winter. to the left is a picture, after I tried to turn it all over. You can see the big clumps of clay. Welcome to Marion County, Illinois.
As noted previously, I bought 120 pounds of good topsoil in 40 pound bags. I put that into a trash can parked at one end of the compost bins (there will be a set of three when I'm done.). Yesterday I bought some limber to use for the front of the bins. Then today, I finished setting posts for the front of bin #1 and bin #2. Bin #1 holds the "good compost," while bin #2 has the old stuff. I also put my new 1" X 6" X 4' boards in the front of Bin #1 and Bin #2, to assist in taking out composted material and adding new material to be composted.
The next stage is to complete bin #3, then turn half of bin #2 into #3, removing the worst clay to the final bin. I was able to start working the soil in bin #2 today and it is loosening up already. I added about 12 pounds of kitchen slops to bin #2 and covered it with good topsoil. Now maybe it can actually begin to compost properly, generating heat as it decays.
Tomorrow or Thursday I'll buy more peat moss (probably only two bales) to split between Bin #2 and Bin #3. Then I can start the process of working the three bins to get good nutritious compost for the gardens.
I'm something of a "satisficer" - I don't aim for perfection in these things. The side and read walls of the bins are wire fencing wrapped around metal posts driven into the ground. That means the walls are not straight, but bow before the weight of the soil. I'll work on that over time, as well as covers for each of the bins to keep nutrients from leaching away in the rains - although some water is needed for the composting process. It is all a work in progress and if anyone actually reads this, have pity on me, a poor sinner who doesn't know any better!
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Arming Libyan Fighters
We are now at a point in which we have basically fullfilled, insofar as possible, the UN mandate to establish a no-fly zone in Libya to protect the civilian populace. We learned, today, that there are CIA operatives on the ground in the "liberated" areas advising the fighters and getting to assess them. One would expect that part of that assessment process would be to determine the depth of Al Qiada influence with these people. I would also hazard a guess that these good people are being assessed for their ability to handle the kinds of arms needed to defend themselves and the amount of training required to make them capable of functioning as an effective fighting force.
Qaddafi, of course, has an army that is equipped with artillery, armour (tanks, mostly), and some hefty machine guns, grenade launchers, and small arms. The people we are thinking about arming have, as a group, little of no experience in using weapons to counter Qaddafi's, the ubiquitous AK-47 being the gun of choice; a great small arm. but useless against the massed fire of a well-armed platoon . If we decide to arm them, we will be taking on an enormous task - likely made more difficult by the inability of CIA operatives to fully comprehend the level of arms and extent of training neccessary. Who will determine the weapons mixture likely to be successful? A CIA guy? Give me a break.
I have watched the TV reports showing these "freedom fighters" in action. When, and if, they are successful, they immediately leap up, dance and shout, and fire their rifles into the air, thereby showing their total lack of military discipline. Unknown is whether or not they develop and carry out military operations that display any knowledge of tactics (some things would, perhaps, be obvious, like use the high ground effectively, use the low ground to conceal movement, etc). Who is going to train these people? Will they be willing to suspend their private lives for weeks or months, learning things military? Bear in mind that we send a soldier to basic training for several months, then on to Advanced Infantry Training for more months before we let them be followers. Where will the leaders come from? How long does it take to minimally train a fire team leader, a squad leader, a platoon commander, a company commander?
And while that is taking place, someone (NATO?) is going to have to hold Quaddafi at bay. Will that take "boots on the ground?"
I don't doubt that the thing is do-able, I simply question whether of not it is being thought out in anything other than political terms - the "wimpy President" vice the "warmonger President." The charge, by the way, seems to come from the same people, depending upon which they believe will most embarrass him. The point here is that none of those critics has had to confront these issues, even those with some military experience. Sen. John McCain was a Navy Squadron Commander of an Attack Squadron. I was the Weapons Officer on a Guided Missile Destroyer. He and I have comparable capabilities for conducting combined operations warfare - zilch!
With all of the harping going on, is there really going to be a sensible conversation over what the best course of action might be? The Commander in Chief will have to make the final decision. I have no clue right now what that will be, although Sec State keeps dropping "shoot 'em up, bang, bang" signals. I just want there to be the best chance possible for a good outcome to all of this. And that will take much more than just "seat of the pants" flying.
Qaddafi, of course, has an army that is equipped with artillery, armour (tanks, mostly), and some hefty machine guns, grenade launchers, and small arms. The people we are thinking about arming have, as a group, little of no experience in using weapons to counter Qaddafi's, the ubiquitous AK-47 being the gun of choice; a great small arm. but useless against the massed fire of a well-armed platoon . If we decide to arm them, we will be taking on an enormous task - likely made more difficult by the inability of CIA operatives to fully comprehend the level of arms and extent of training neccessary. Who will determine the weapons mixture likely to be successful? A CIA guy? Give me a break.
I have watched the TV reports showing these "freedom fighters" in action. When, and if, they are successful, they immediately leap up, dance and shout, and fire their rifles into the air, thereby showing their total lack of military discipline. Unknown is whether or not they develop and carry out military operations that display any knowledge of tactics (some things would, perhaps, be obvious, like use the high ground effectively, use the low ground to conceal movement, etc). Who is going to train these people? Will they be willing to suspend their private lives for weeks or months, learning things military? Bear in mind that we send a soldier to basic training for several months, then on to Advanced Infantry Training for more months before we let them be followers. Where will the leaders come from? How long does it take to minimally train a fire team leader, a squad leader, a platoon commander, a company commander?
And while that is taking place, someone (NATO?) is going to have to hold Quaddafi at bay. Will that take "boots on the ground?"
I don't doubt that the thing is do-able, I simply question whether of not it is being thought out in anything other than political terms - the "wimpy President" vice the "warmonger President." The charge, by the way, seems to come from the same people, depending upon which they believe will most embarrass him. The point here is that none of those critics has had to confront these issues, even those with some military experience. Sen. John McCain was a Navy Squadron Commander of an Attack Squadron. I was the Weapons Officer on a Guided Missile Destroyer. He and I have comparable capabilities for conducting combined operations warfare - zilch!
With all of the harping going on, is there really going to be a sensible conversation over what the best course of action might be? The Commander in Chief will have to make the final decision. I have no clue right now what that will be, although Sec State keeps dropping "shoot 'em up, bang, bang" signals. I just want there to be the best chance possible for a good outcome to all of this. And that will take much more than just "seat of the pants" flying.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Climate change: Rising waters threaten North Carolina | McClatchy
Climate change: Rising waters threaten North Carolina McClatchy
Above is a link to a news article concerning the responses of coastal North Carolinians to sea level rise resulting from climate change. In the article, a panel of experts in NC noted that they expect to see a one foot rise in sea level by the year 2100. That would bring about massive damage to the coastal eco-system of that state. The problem, like so many in this area, is that the science keeps updating the anticipated results of climate change. The latest data, as of January 2011, is that a sea level rise of 1 yard (actually 1 meter, but let's not quibble over a few inches), and that estimate may be conservative (it could be more, probably not less).
The Greenland icecap is melting at a rate far higher than expected AND the current models do not yet factor that increased rate of melting. Each new report brings with it a greater estimate. The current large snowfalls in the United States are symptomatic of warming in the Arctic regions. In fact, the temperatures in Northern Canada are currently running 30 degrees warmer than normal, on the average. The melting of the Arctic ice over the summer resulted in a much later than normal autumn freeze, hence sunlight that should have been reflected back to space by sea ice hit, instead, a darker ocean surface. The increased warmth of the polar atmosphere is disturbing normal ice forming regions in dramatic ways.
The sun is still in an abnormally cool phase, which slows the rate at which the earth is warming. Imagine what will happen when the sun goes back to a maximum output phase, which it will, since the average cycle is about eleven years.
In the meantime, our human output of CO2, the gas that is the current climate forcing agent, increases instead of decreasing. How much more will we damage our climate system before we finally come to our senses? I hope and pray we do so before we bring about a major extinction event - something that appears increasingly likely.
Above is a link to a news article concerning the responses of coastal North Carolinians to sea level rise resulting from climate change. In the article, a panel of experts in NC noted that they expect to see a one foot rise in sea level by the year 2100. That would bring about massive damage to the coastal eco-system of that state. The problem, like so many in this area, is that the science keeps updating the anticipated results of climate change. The latest data, as of January 2011, is that a sea level rise of 1 yard (actually 1 meter, but let's not quibble over a few inches), and that estimate may be conservative (it could be more, probably not less).
The Greenland icecap is melting at a rate far higher than expected AND the current models do not yet factor that increased rate of melting. Each new report brings with it a greater estimate. The current large snowfalls in the United States are symptomatic of warming in the Arctic regions. In fact, the temperatures in Northern Canada are currently running 30 degrees warmer than normal, on the average. The melting of the Arctic ice over the summer resulted in a much later than normal autumn freeze, hence sunlight that should have been reflected back to space by sea ice hit, instead, a darker ocean surface. The increased warmth of the polar atmosphere is disturbing normal ice forming regions in dramatic ways.
The sun is still in an abnormally cool phase, which slows the rate at which the earth is warming. Imagine what will happen when the sun goes back to a maximum output phase, which it will, since the average cycle is about eleven years.
In the meantime, our human output of CO2, the gas that is the current climate forcing agent, increases instead of decreasing. How much more will we damage our climate system before we finally come to our senses? I hope and pray we do so before we bring about a major extinction event - something that appears increasingly likely.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Old Folks
From a military Retired Affairs Office newsletter:
Have You Heard?
An old prospector shuffled into the town of El Paso, Texas leading an old tired mule. The old man headed straight for the only saloon in town, to clear his parched throat. He walked up to the saloon and tied his old mule to the hitch rail. As he stood there, brushing some of the dust from his face and clothes, a young gunslinger stepped out of the saloon with a gun in one hand and a bottle of whiskey in the other. The young gunslinger looked at the old man and laughed, saying, "Hey old man, have you ever danced?" The old man looked up at the gunslinger and
said, "No, I never did dance... never really wanted to."
A crowd had gathered as the gunslinger grinned and said, "Well, you old fool, you're gonna' dance now," and started shooting at the old man's feet. The old prospector, not wanting to get a toe blown off, started hopping around like a flea on a hot skillet. Everybody was laughing, fit to be tied. When his last bullet had been fired, the young gunslinger, still laughing, holstered his gun and turned around to go back into the saloon. The old man turned to his pack mule, pulled out a double-barreled shotgun, and cocked both hammers. The loud clicks carried clearly through the desert air.
The crowd stopped laughing immediately. The young gunslinger heard the sounds too, and he turned around very slowly. The silence was almost deafening. The crowd watched as the young gunman stared at the old timer and the large gaping holes of those twin barrels.. The barrels of the shotgun never wavered in the old man's hands, as he quietly said, "Son, have you ever kissed a mule's ass?" The gunslinger swallowed hard and said, "No sir..... but I've always wanted to." There are two lessons for us all here:
1. Don't waste ammunition.
2. Don't mess with old people.
Have You Heard?
An old prospector shuffled into the town of El Paso, Texas leading an old tired mule. The old man headed straight for the only saloon in town, to clear his parched throat. He walked up to the saloon and tied his old mule to the hitch rail. As he stood there, brushing some of the dust from his face and clothes, a young gunslinger stepped out of the saloon with a gun in one hand and a bottle of whiskey in the other. The young gunslinger looked at the old man and laughed, saying, "Hey old man, have you ever danced?" The old man looked up at the gunslinger and
said, "No, I never did dance... never really wanted to."
A crowd had gathered as the gunslinger grinned and said, "Well, you old fool, you're gonna' dance now," and started shooting at the old man's feet. The old prospector, not wanting to get a toe blown off, started hopping around like a flea on a hot skillet. Everybody was laughing, fit to be tied. When his last bullet had been fired, the young gunslinger, still laughing, holstered his gun and turned around to go back into the saloon. The old man turned to his pack mule, pulled out a double-barreled shotgun, and cocked both hammers. The loud clicks carried clearly through the desert air.
The crowd stopped laughing immediately. The young gunslinger heard the sounds too, and he turned around very slowly. The silence was almost deafening. The crowd watched as the young gunman stared at the old timer and the large gaping holes of those twin barrels.. The barrels of the shotgun never wavered in the old man's hands, as he quietly said, "Son, have you ever kissed a mule's ass?" The gunslinger swallowed hard and said, "No sir..... but I've always wanted to." There are two lessons for us all here:
1. Don't waste ammunition.
2. Don't mess with old people.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
The Truth Shall set you free, stay away from Fox!
Here is one result of the poll that found that Fox News is deceptive (climateprogress.org):
THE POLLING CHART OF THE YEAR:
A World Public Opinion (WPO) poll finds that a remarkable 60% of those who watched Fox News almost daily believe that “Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring,” whereas only 30% who never watch it believe that. Only 25% of those who watch CNN almost daily hold that erroneous belief — and only 14% who listen to NPR or PBS almost daily.
This is not terribly surprising given that, as we learned this week, as of last December, Fox News managing editor Bill Sammon has required reporters and producers that report on even the most unequivocal scientific facts about global warming to dispute those facts ” IMMEDIATELY.”
Erroneous views turn out to be commonplace among regular Fox News viewers, as ThinkProgress explains:
Last week, World Public Opinion (WPO) released a poll exploring political information in a post-Citizens United national election and found that 90 percent of voters “said that in the 2010 election they encountered information they believed was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently.” More troubling, the poll also found “strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the key issues of the campaign.” WPO said that voter misinformation contained beliefs about current issues such as TARP, the Recovery Act, health care reform, the economy, and climate change that were “at odds with the conclusions of government agencies, generally regarded as non-partisan, consisting of professional economists and scientists.”
WPO found one bright spot in its lengthy report: “Those who had greater exposure to news sources were generally better informed. In the great majority of cases, those with higher levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation.” However, there was one exception, Fox News:
There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue. Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:
– Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely) (91 percent of those who watch Fox News “almost every day”)
– Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points) (72 percent)
– The economy is getting worse (26 points) (72 percent)
– Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points) (60 percent)
– The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points) (63 percent)
– Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points) (49 percent)
– The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points) (56 percent)
– When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) (38 percent)
– And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)(63 percent)
As Mark Howard at AlterNet notes, this data coincides with results of previous surveys finding that Fox News viewers are more misinformed about public policy issues. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll out last year found that Fox News viewers were overwhelmingly misinformed about health care reform proposals. A 2008 Pew study ranked Fox News last in the number of “high knowledge” viewers and a 2007 Pew poll ranked Fox viewers as the least knowledgable about national and international affairs. And a 2003 study from the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that Fox News viewers were most likely to believe that Saddam Hussien had links to Al-Qaeda, that coalition troops found WMD in Iraq, and that world public opinion supported President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.
The WPO reports that 62% of those who voted Republican believed “There is not agreement among most scientists that climate change is occurring, whereas only 26% who voted Democrat believe that. The WPO has a nice box that explains the facts of the matter:
Status of Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
In 2005 the United States’ National Academies of Science joined the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom in making a joint statement about all aspects of the climate change issue. As to the reality of climate change, the academies stated: “Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century.”
The US Congress in 2008 requested The National Academy of Sciences to research climate change. The NAS’s information base, in turn, rests in great part on climate change research that was mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 and has been conducted by various government departments and agencies.
In April 2010 the Proceedings of the NAS published a study of expert opinion, “Expert credibility in climate change,” which found—after surveying the publications of 1,372 climate researchers—that “97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change].”7
In May 2010 the NAS released its most recent report, which stated: “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems. This conclusion is based on a substantial array of scientific evidence, including recent work, and is consistent with the conclusions of recent assessments by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, and other assessments of the state of knowledge on climate change.”8
Actually, the traditionally conservative and staid NAS made a stronger statement in May:
A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….
Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
Global warming is “unequivocal,” that climate change is occurring is a “settled fact” — unless you watch Fox News, of course, in which case there are no settled scientific facts, at least if they interfere with conservative ideology.
=========================================================================
The above is copyright 2010 by Joe Romm, Climate Progress.
THE POLLING CHART OF THE YEAR:
A World Public Opinion (WPO) poll finds that a remarkable 60% of those who watched Fox News almost daily believe that “Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring,” whereas only 30% who never watch it believe that. Only 25% of those who watch CNN almost daily hold that erroneous belief — and only 14% who listen to NPR or PBS almost daily.
This is not terribly surprising given that, as we learned this week, as of last December, Fox News managing editor Bill Sammon has required reporters and producers that report on even the most unequivocal scientific facts about global warming to dispute those facts ” IMMEDIATELY.”
Erroneous views turn out to be commonplace among regular Fox News viewers, as ThinkProgress explains:
Last week, World Public Opinion (WPO) released a poll exploring political information in a post-Citizens United national election and found that 90 percent of voters “said that in the 2010 election they encountered information they believed was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently.” More troubling, the poll also found “strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the key issues of the campaign.” WPO said that voter misinformation contained beliefs about current issues such as TARP, the Recovery Act, health care reform, the economy, and climate change that were “at odds with the conclusions of government agencies, generally regarded as non-partisan, consisting of professional economists and scientists.”
WPO found one bright spot in its lengthy report: “Those who had greater exposure to news sources were generally better informed. In the great majority of cases, those with higher levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation.” However, there was one exception, Fox News:
There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue. Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:
– Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely) (91 percent of those who watch Fox News “almost every day”)
– Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points) (72 percent)
– The economy is getting worse (26 points) (72 percent)
– Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points) (60 percent)
– The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points) (63 percent)
– Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points) (49 percent)
– The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points) (56 percent)
– When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) (38 percent)
– And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)(63 percent)
As Mark Howard at AlterNet notes, this data coincides with results of previous surveys finding that Fox News viewers are more misinformed about public policy issues. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll out last year found that Fox News viewers were overwhelmingly misinformed about health care reform proposals. A 2008 Pew study ranked Fox News last in the number of “high knowledge” viewers and a 2007 Pew poll ranked Fox viewers as the least knowledgable about national and international affairs. And a 2003 study from the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that Fox News viewers were most likely to believe that Saddam Hussien had links to Al-Qaeda, that coalition troops found WMD in Iraq, and that world public opinion supported President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.
The WPO reports that 62% of those who voted Republican believed “There is not agreement among most scientists that climate change is occurring, whereas only 26% who voted Democrat believe that. The WPO has a nice box that explains the facts of the matter:
Status of Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
In 2005 the United States’ National Academies of Science joined the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom in making a joint statement about all aspects of the climate change issue. As to the reality of climate change, the academies stated: “Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century.”
The US Congress in 2008 requested The National Academy of Sciences to research climate change. The NAS’s information base, in turn, rests in great part on climate change research that was mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 and has been conducted by various government departments and agencies.
In April 2010 the Proceedings of the NAS published a study of expert opinion, “Expert credibility in climate change,” which found—after surveying the publications of 1,372 climate researchers—that “97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change].”7
In May 2010 the NAS released its most recent report, which stated: “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems. This conclusion is based on a substantial array of scientific evidence, including recent work, and is consistent with the conclusions of recent assessments by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, and other assessments of the state of knowledge on climate change.”8
Actually, the traditionally conservative and staid NAS made a stronger statement in May:
A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….
Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
Global warming is “unequivocal,” that climate change is occurring is a “settled fact” — unless you watch Fox News, of course, in which case there are no settled scientific facts, at least if they interfere with conservative ideology.
=========================================================================
The above is copyright 2010 by Joe Romm, Climate Progress.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
The God of Hope - and Evolution
The God of Hope - and Evolution
Every so often one of our local pastors feels impelled to write or speak out again the evil called “Evolution.” Recently, a local Baptist preacher wrote a “sermonette” for the local bi-weekly paper. He titled his sermonette, “Folly of Evolution.” I thought about writing an opposing sermonette, but decided against it, since that would accomplish little or nothing, But when I am confronted with items of this sort, I tend to think things out by writing about them. Here is, for what little it is worth, my response.
My colleague wrote that he accepted the fact of evolution, but, he said, people misunderstand it. He, of course, bases his ideas on the Book of Genesis, which has been given pride of place by long-ago Jewish scholars. My colleague writes that what we call “creation” was actually God’s “recreation” of a prior creation. The immediate problem which arises, of course, is that this implies, very strongly, that God didn’t get it right before. There have been, science tells us, five major extinction events. If my friend is correct, then God messed up multiple times. It’s as if he said, “Well, screwed that one up. I’ll try again with some different critters.” Eventually, of course, we turned out to be the next critter. But, and this is a big “but,” given what we’ve done to the planet, how can we make any claim to being the final “good” thing?
My poor literalist friends are, it seems, getting themselves trapped in a maze of their own creation for in their desire to condemn evolutionary science they create erroneous science and support this with an inadequate theology. There is, of course, an alternate explanation. I am indebted to The Reverend Canon Dr. Sir John Polkinghorne, whose book “The God of Hope and the End of the World,” has given me many hours of challenging and delightful reading in this area. I have, frankly, stolen part of his title for this little “sermonette.” The other author I must acknowledge is Dr. John F. Haught, professor of theology at Georgetown University, whose book “God after Darwin: a Theology of Evolution” is an exceptionally well written treatise on modern natural process theology (my term for it).
Dr. Polkinghorne is a former particle physicist (and was knighted by Queen Elizabeth for his work in reconciling science and religion) and is a Fellow of the Royal Society (Great Britain’s premier scientific organization). The book I am using was printed in 2002, at which time Polkinghorne was “Canon Theologian to Liverpool.”
Polkinghorne cites St. Paul, “Faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love. (1 Cor 13:13)” Polkinghorne, however, focuses on hope. He quotes Jügen Moltmann, “From first to last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving, and therefore also revolutionary and transforming the present.” (note: eschatology is the study of end things) But it is all too easy to misunderstand hope. Polkinghorne quotes Janet Soskice that “even in churches today there is a tendency to represent hope as if it were a psychological mood. ‘Lack of faith and charity can be treated by prayer, but lack of hope is treated with antidepressants.’”
Understanding the real significance of hope involves differentiating two very different components of eschatology; futurist eschatology, which focuses on the final end and transformation of this reality into the new reality of God’s realm; and realized eschatology, which focuses upon the transformations of life that take place in present history. Hope is deeply involved in both components. Polkinghorne points out that “For the Christian, hope arises out of endurance in the face of adversity, based on trust in the love of God (Romans 5:3-5).” He goes on to note that hope is, at its essence, moral in its character, “for it is a good future for which we may dare to hope.”
If we have this hope then we should be prepared to work for it. The ultimate result of this lies in the hands of God, but this must not deter us from letting ourselves be changed; letting ourselves become new creation. Hence a realized eschatology involves change, involves all of God’s creation, involves evolving in ways we do not and cannot control or direct. My pastoral colleague cited an unknown source who explained evolution as a process of sea worm deciding to go on land, land worm deciding to walk, and ape deciding to become human. This is, of course, a non-scientific statement and would never been uttered by an individual with even a modest scientific education. I often hear my fundamentalist friends say that “All biology teachers teach that man descended from an ape.” I must admit I’ve never heard this. I collect older science textbooks and my collection goes all the way back to Darwin. None ever said that.
From a theological standpoint, the statement is simply nonsense, for even theologians recognize that the ability to decide questions lies with humans. As a prayer in the Episcopal Church’s Book of Common Prayer has it, “You have blessed us with reason, memory, and skill.” That is our blessing or curse, depending upon how you look at things. But the point is that we, alone among the animals, can think and reason, and decide. Everything else is driven by more primitive processes.
Before Darwin, Natural Theology sought to seek God in nature, an effort that failed for a number of reasons. Today, natural theology is making a comeback, often among scientists, but increasingly among theologians. John Haught’s book explores this in some depth (it is a “popular” book, not one written with professional theologians as an audience). Haught writes, “Even though much of the revival of natural theology is now the work of scientists… it is an important instance of contemporary engagement of religious thought with the natural setting of evolution.” Modern natural theology is very process oriented. He also writes, “… all the moments of an evolving world are harvested into the divine experience…. Here all the suffering, struggle, loss, and triumph in evolution are finally endowed with eternal meaning.” One interesting proposal from process theologians is that “The ‘point’ of the universe [may have] something to do with the production of a beauty that is God’s experience never fades but grows increasingly wider and deeper and abides everlastingly.”
In this scheme, Darwinism is but a recent episode in a larger cosmic story. Darwin, however, has played a role in the development of the modern theological notions of creation, eschatology, revelation, divine love, divine power, and redemption.
Creation, to take just one of these notions, is “central to the faith of millions,” notes Haught. He goes on to indicate that “Taditionally Christian theology spoke of three dimensions of God’s creative activity: original creation (creatio originalis), ongoing creation (creatio continua), and new creation or fulfillment of creation (creatio nova).” Prior to the modern era only the first of these was stressed. But with the advent of modern critical analysis and modern science, the second and third areas have taken on greater emphasis. With this modern thought, Haught notes, “… the fact of evolution now allows theology to realize more palpably than ever that creation is not just an ‘original’ but also an ongoing and constantly new reality. This ongoing and ever changing reality is part of the realized eschatology previously mentioned.
Bringing the two streams of thought together, we can see that hope is inextricably intertwined with the process of creation, the continuing evolution of all of creation. It is in this hope that we can perceive that all that is, both seen and unseen, are moving. In Haught’s words, “And so the horizon of human expectations [can] begin to shift toward a future that includes the universe and the entire sweep of its evolution. This moving is a seeking for the future, it is the hope for that future. To paraphrase St. Paul, “… the whole of creation has been groaning in labor pains until now…. (Romans 8-22).” It groans as it seeks fulfillment and, after Darwin we can “speak more assuredly than ever about the inseparability of cosmic and human destiny.
Evolution is not something to fear. In fact, it appears to be the means by which God has, and is, calling creation forward into new creation. That the future will bring us closer to God, to that end-thing we cannot yet see, is an article of faith, expressed in our hope, trusting in God’s love.
Feast day of John of the Cross
Every so often one of our local pastors feels impelled to write or speak out again the evil called “Evolution.” Recently, a local Baptist preacher wrote a “sermonette” for the local bi-weekly paper. He titled his sermonette, “Folly of Evolution.” I thought about writing an opposing sermonette, but decided against it, since that would accomplish little or nothing, But when I am confronted with items of this sort, I tend to think things out by writing about them. Here is, for what little it is worth, my response.
My colleague wrote that he accepted the fact of evolution, but, he said, people misunderstand it. He, of course, bases his ideas on the Book of Genesis, which has been given pride of place by long-ago Jewish scholars. My colleague writes that what we call “creation” was actually God’s “recreation” of a prior creation. The immediate problem which arises, of course, is that this implies, very strongly, that God didn’t get it right before. There have been, science tells us, five major extinction events. If my friend is correct, then God messed up multiple times. It’s as if he said, “Well, screwed that one up. I’ll try again with some different critters.” Eventually, of course, we turned out to be the next critter. But, and this is a big “but,” given what we’ve done to the planet, how can we make any claim to being the final “good” thing?
My poor literalist friends are, it seems, getting themselves trapped in a maze of their own creation for in their desire to condemn evolutionary science they create erroneous science and support this with an inadequate theology. There is, of course, an alternate explanation. I am indebted to The Reverend Canon Dr. Sir John Polkinghorne, whose book “The God of Hope and the End of the World,” has given me many hours of challenging and delightful reading in this area. I have, frankly, stolen part of his title for this little “sermonette.” The other author I must acknowledge is Dr. John F. Haught, professor of theology at Georgetown University, whose book “God after Darwin: a Theology of Evolution” is an exceptionally well written treatise on modern natural process theology (my term for it).
Dr. Polkinghorne is a former particle physicist (and was knighted by Queen Elizabeth for his work in reconciling science and religion) and is a Fellow of the Royal Society (Great Britain’s premier scientific organization). The book I am using was printed in 2002, at which time Polkinghorne was “Canon Theologian to Liverpool.”
Polkinghorne cites St. Paul, “Faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love. (1 Cor 13:13)” Polkinghorne, however, focuses on hope. He quotes Jügen Moltmann, “From first to last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving, and therefore also revolutionary and transforming the present.” (note: eschatology is the study of end things) But it is all too easy to misunderstand hope. Polkinghorne quotes Janet Soskice that “even in churches today there is a tendency to represent hope as if it were a psychological mood. ‘Lack of faith and charity can be treated by prayer, but lack of hope is treated with antidepressants.’”
Understanding the real significance of hope involves differentiating two very different components of eschatology; futurist eschatology, which focuses on the final end and transformation of this reality into the new reality of God’s realm; and realized eschatology, which focuses upon the transformations of life that take place in present history. Hope is deeply involved in both components. Polkinghorne points out that “For the Christian, hope arises out of endurance in the face of adversity, based on trust in the love of God (Romans 5:3-5).” He goes on to note that hope is, at its essence, moral in its character, “for it is a good future for which we may dare to hope.”
If we have this hope then we should be prepared to work for it. The ultimate result of this lies in the hands of God, but this must not deter us from letting ourselves be changed; letting ourselves become new creation. Hence a realized eschatology involves change, involves all of God’s creation, involves evolving in ways we do not and cannot control or direct. My pastoral colleague cited an unknown source who explained evolution as a process of sea worm deciding to go on land, land worm deciding to walk, and ape deciding to become human. This is, of course, a non-scientific statement and would never been uttered by an individual with even a modest scientific education. I often hear my fundamentalist friends say that “All biology teachers teach that man descended from an ape.” I must admit I’ve never heard this. I collect older science textbooks and my collection goes all the way back to Darwin. None ever said that.
From a theological standpoint, the statement is simply nonsense, for even theologians recognize that the ability to decide questions lies with humans. As a prayer in the Episcopal Church’s Book of Common Prayer has it, “You have blessed us with reason, memory, and skill.” That is our blessing or curse, depending upon how you look at things. But the point is that we, alone among the animals, can think and reason, and decide. Everything else is driven by more primitive processes.
Before Darwin, Natural Theology sought to seek God in nature, an effort that failed for a number of reasons. Today, natural theology is making a comeback, often among scientists, but increasingly among theologians. John Haught’s book explores this in some depth (it is a “popular” book, not one written with professional theologians as an audience). Haught writes, “Even though much of the revival of natural theology is now the work of scientists… it is an important instance of contemporary engagement of religious thought with the natural setting of evolution.” Modern natural theology is very process oriented. He also writes, “… all the moments of an evolving world are harvested into the divine experience…. Here all the suffering, struggle, loss, and triumph in evolution are finally endowed with eternal meaning.” One interesting proposal from process theologians is that “The ‘point’ of the universe [may have] something to do with the production of a beauty that is God’s experience never fades but grows increasingly wider and deeper and abides everlastingly.”
In this scheme, Darwinism is but a recent episode in a larger cosmic story. Darwin, however, has played a role in the development of the modern theological notions of creation, eschatology, revelation, divine love, divine power, and redemption.
Creation, to take just one of these notions, is “central to the faith of millions,” notes Haught. He goes on to indicate that “Taditionally Christian theology spoke of three dimensions of God’s creative activity: original creation (creatio originalis), ongoing creation (creatio continua), and new creation or fulfillment of creation (creatio nova).” Prior to the modern era only the first of these was stressed. But with the advent of modern critical analysis and modern science, the second and third areas have taken on greater emphasis. With this modern thought, Haught notes, “… the fact of evolution now allows theology to realize more palpably than ever that creation is not just an ‘original’ but also an ongoing and constantly new reality. This ongoing and ever changing reality is part of the realized eschatology previously mentioned.
Bringing the two streams of thought together, we can see that hope is inextricably intertwined with the process of creation, the continuing evolution of all of creation. It is in this hope that we can perceive that all that is, both seen and unseen, are moving. In Haught’s words, “And so the horizon of human expectations [can] begin to shift toward a future that includes the universe and the entire sweep of its evolution. This moving is a seeking for the future, it is the hope for that future. To paraphrase St. Paul, “… the whole of creation has been groaning in labor pains until now…. (Romans 8-22).” It groans as it seeks fulfillment and, after Darwin we can “speak more assuredly than ever about the inseparability of cosmic and human destiny.
Evolution is not something to fear. In fact, it appears to be the means by which God has, and is, calling creation forward into new creation. That the future will bring us closer to God, to that end-thing we cannot yet see, is an article of faith, expressed in our hope, trusting in God’s love.
Feast day of John of the Cross
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Autumnal Gazing
Ever since my days as a boy in North Sanford, NY, I have been deeply appreciative of the Autumn season. I love the colors in the forest - red, yellow, orange, pink, green - all mixed together in a chaotic jumble of exquisite beauty. I love the warm sun on my face and arms, the heat seeping through the fabric of sweater, shirt, or jacket. I love the chill of cool to cold northern breezes, raising "goosebumps" on my skin as the sun settles in the west and the earth's heat radiates back through the deepening blue of the sky into the black of starlit space.
Here, in Southern Illinois, our autumn scenery is what I would call "very pretty," but it lacks the crispness of mountain flora and atmosphere. The warm days are more summer-like than I prefer, although I have grown used to them over the last thirty years of living here. The black nights are not as black, since the population density here is much higher than it is in upsate New York, and every farm has an array of spotlights and security lights, and floodlights - as if the people are frightened of the dark. If you read the papers and talk to people, you will learn that in the twenty-first century of the Common Era, fear of night is returning - which today is not fear of wild animal or savage Indian, but fear of neighbor or of neighbor's kin. I suspect that this is also more true than I would want in Broome and Delaware Counties of New York, as well. It does not speak well of us as a species.
Today the newspaper carried a story that this fall will be rather bland. There have been "spot droughts," you see. A fungus has infected the trees and a wasp infestation has resulted in the tree leaves being attacked by insect larva - I have seen the galls on the leaf bottoms, myself. All of this has affected the ability of the tree to produce the appropriate amount of sugar during the growing season and that will affect the ability of the leaves to show forth their most brilliant colors. Good fall color will be, they say, a rather hit or miss affair.
Meanwhile we are in the middle of a political drought of sorts. As one writer put it, we have the specter of "two bankrupt political parties, busy bankrupting the country." The country seems to be infected with a swarm of money wasps, attacking the political system, implanting the multitude of growing parts with galls of money, bringing productive governance to a halt - all to feed their own greed. The American political system is currently for sale. Good fall color will be, they say, a rather hit or miss affair.
Here, in Southern Illinois, our autumn scenery is what I would call "very pretty," but it lacks the crispness of mountain flora and atmosphere. The warm days are more summer-like than I prefer, although I have grown used to them over the last thirty years of living here. The black nights are not as black, since the population density here is much higher than it is in upsate New York, and every farm has an array of spotlights and security lights, and floodlights - as if the people are frightened of the dark. If you read the papers and talk to people, you will learn that in the twenty-first century of the Common Era, fear of night is returning - which today is not fear of wild animal or savage Indian, but fear of neighbor or of neighbor's kin. I suspect that this is also more true than I would want in Broome and Delaware Counties of New York, as well. It does not speak well of us as a species.
Today the newspaper carried a story that this fall will be rather bland. There have been "spot droughts," you see. A fungus has infected the trees and a wasp infestation has resulted in the tree leaves being attacked by insect larva - I have seen the galls on the leaf bottoms, myself. All of this has affected the ability of the tree to produce the appropriate amount of sugar during the growing season and that will affect the ability of the leaves to show forth their most brilliant colors. Good fall color will be, they say, a rather hit or miss affair.Thoughts on Missions in Springfield
Marti asked a couple of questions about the outreach fund and about the funding of mission churches. Those are two totally different issues.
Sue gave an excellent response regarding the outreach fund. What follows is my opinion about the funding of the mission churches and place of those missions in the life of the diocese.
For a number of years, I was a member of the Department of General Mission Strategies (DGMS), culminating with my serving a term as Chair of DGMS. When I became chair, Bishop Beckwith and I had a discussion in which we both agreed that the continued growth in funding the mission churches could not go on. The original concept (long before my time on DGMS) was that the diocese would fund "up to half" of the Vicar's pay (the priest-in-charge of a mission is, in our usage, called the "Vicar"), but the mission churches were tasked with improving their own stewardship, with the goal of ultimately eliminating the need for diocesan assistance. Over the years some churches (mine of St. Thomas, Salem) worked diligently to work our way to zero assistance. We achieved that goal around 2001 or 2002, if my memory serves well. Some churches, though, were happy to give their Vicar a raise, simply passing the need on to the diocese in their annual request for assistance.
It was that growth that I wanted to end. Bishop Beckwith wanted, for reasons we didn't explore sufficiently (my bad), to eliminate the funding altogether. I said, "Aye, aye, sir" in good military fashion (I'm a retired Navy Lieutenant Commander [of the Line], he a retired Rear Admiral [Chaplain Corps]) and off I went. In a few short years, around 2006, I believe, mission funding had been reduced to zero. At it's maximum, the total funding had been around $60,000 per year (give or take - I don't have an old journal to look at). We, in DGMS, allocated those funds to each church, EXCEPT IN THE HALE DEANERY, where the diocese handled the funding. The Hale deanery money would be above and beyond the DGMS administered funds. DGMS was never given an adequate report as to the Hale Deanery money, so we just quit asking, on the theory that to Bishop Beckwith and Treasurer Jim Donkin, we had become "just a noisy gong." The elimination of mission funding dealt only, we understood, with the non-Hale Deanery mission churches.
At the present time, all of the mission churches (Hale Deanery and part of the Darrow Deanery excepted) are on their own to secure priests. In the case of St. Thomas, Salem, the Bishop's Committee (the mission church version of the vestry) voted to pay me $16,992/year (I really forget how we came up with that strange number) starting in late 2002 (when I was a Deacon on the way to becoming a priest). That number has never changed, over the last eight years, but has resulted in a slow decline in reserve funds over the last four years as we lost a couple of fairly high giving members to death. I presume, but do not know, that other mission churches have similar problems.
That, of course, raises a good set of questions, as Marti indicates. Does the Episcopal Church, in its Springfield incarnation, want to have a mission role? Or does it prefer to "hunker down" in the parish churches of the larger congregations?
We need to recognize that in many of the Illinois communities (mostly large towns that the state, in its wisdom, has declared to be "small cities), the Episcopal Church cannot compete, in numbers, with either the Roman Catholic Church or the fundamentalist Protestant Churches (mostly in the guise of Baptist or Christian Church denominations). Do we really want to?
We are, and will always be, a small minority church, with mostly family size (less than 75 members) congregations. These can be quite dynamic, as any number of the small missions can tell you. But if, as Marti implies, we have the wrong model, then we need to rethink that model. That may, as Bishop Beckwith wanted, to mean the raising up of local deacons and priests, who are willing, as I am, to work for minimum or no wage at all, depending upon other sources of income to support our ministry (as noted, I'm retired from the military). But that means that the people must do much, much, more to pull their share of the load. In my church, they do. Almost everyone, not just "the few," do most of the work. But the importance of being part of the diocese, and not being seen as "step-children" cannot be over-emphasized. The problem of "big parish" versus "little mission" cannot be ignored. I suggest that both the parish churches AND the mission churches have been, and are, guilty of "us versus them" thinking, to the detriment of our Christ-given commandment to spread the good news.
So that's my "two cents, or less" on the subject.
Peace and blessings to all. Tom+
Sue gave an excellent response regarding the outreach fund. What follows is my opinion about the funding of the mission churches and place of those missions in the life of the diocese.
For a number of years, I was a member of the Department of General Mission Strategies (DGMS), culminating with my serving a term as Chair of DGMS. When I became chair, Bishop Beckwith and I had a discussion in which we both agreed that the continued growth in funding the mission churches could not go on. The original concept (long before my time on DGMS) was that the diocese would fund "up to half" of the Vicar's pay (the priest-in-charge of a mission is, in our usage, called the "Vicar"), but the mission churches were tasked with improving their own stewardship, with the goal of ultimately eliminating the need for diocesan assistance. Over the years some churches (mine of St. Thomas, Salem) worked diligently to work our way to zero assistance. We achieved that goal around 2001 or 2002, if my memory serves well. Some churches, though, were happy to give their Vicar a raise, simply passing the need on to the diocese in their annual request for assistance.
It was that growth that I wanted to end. Bishop Beckwith wanted, for reasons we didn't explore sufficiently (my bad), to eliminate the funding altogether. I said, "Aye, aye, sir" in good military fashion (I'm a retired Navy Lieutenant Commander [of the Line], he a retired Rear Admiral [Chaplain Corps]) and off I went. In a few short years, around 2006, I believe, mission funding had been reduced to zero. At it's maximum, the total funding had been around $60,000 per year (give or take - I don't have an old journal to look at). We, in DGMS, allocated those funds to each church, EXCEPT IN THE HALE DEANERY, where the diocese handled the funding. The Hale deanery money would be above and beyond the DGMS administered funds. DGMS was never given an adequate report as to the Hale Deanery money, so we just quit asking, on the theory that to Bishop Beckwith and Treasurer Jim Donkin, we had become "just a noisy gong." The elimination of mission funding dealt only, we understood, with the non-Hale Deanery mission churches.
At the present time, all of the mission churches (Hale Deanery and part of the Darrow Deanery excepted) are on their own to secure priests. In the case of St. Thomas, Salem, the Bishop's Committee (the mission church version of the vestry) voted to pay me $16,992/year (I really forget how we came up with that strange number) starting in late 2002 (when I was a Deacon on the way to becoming a priest). That number has never changed, over the last eight years, but has resulted in a slow decline in reserve funds over the last four years as we lost a couple of fairly high giving members to death. I presume, but do not know, that other mission churches have similar problems.
That, of course, raises a good set of questions, as Marti indicates. Does the Episcopal Church, in its Springfield incarnation, want to have a mission role? Or does it prefer to "hunker down" in the parish churches of the larger congregations?
We need to recognize that in many of the Illinois communities (mostly large towns that the state, in its wisdom, has declared to be "small cities), the Episcopal Church cannot compete, in numbers, with either the Roman Catholic Church or the fundamentalist Protestant Churches (mostly in the guise of Baptist or Christian Church denominations). Do we really want to?
We are, and will always be, a small minority church, with mostly family size (less than 75 members) congregations. These can be quite dynamic, as any number of the small missions can tell you. But if, as Marti implies, we have the wrong model, then we need to rethink that model. That may, as Bishop Beckwith wanted, to mean the raising up of local deacons and priests, who are willing, as I am, to work for minimum or no wage at all, depending upon other sources of income to support our ministry (as noted, I'm retired from the military). But that means that the people must do much, much, more to pull their share of the load. In my church, they do. Almost everyone, not just "the few," do most of the work. But the importance of being part of the diocese, and not being seen as "step-children" cannot be over-emphasized. The problem of "big parish" versus "little mission" cannot be ignored. I suggest that both the parish churches AND the mission churches have been, and are, guilty of "us versus them" thinking, to the detriment of our Christ-given commandment to spread the good news.
So that's my "two cents, or less" on the subject.
Peace and blessings to all. Tom+
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Little Egypt Parade
For those who don't know, this section of So. Illinois is known as "The Gateway to Little Egypt." The story is told that a drought in the northern part of the state led farmers south seeking corn and fodder for their animals. That was a trek that became known as the journey to Little Egypt. So, of course, in a truly American way, we have a parade and time of festivities in early October to celebrate the name, if not the occassion.
The good people of St. Thomas always have a free lemonade stand, only on cold years it becomes a hot chocolate give-away. This year was one of those exceeding strange days. When the sun was shining, we had a run on lemonade. But when the sun went behind the clouds, the temperature dropped a quick 8 - 10 degrees and hot chocolate was favored. But no one left thirsty.
St. Thomas also had a small float in the parade. The theme, as set up by chairperson Martha Stiehl, was "Volunteers: The Saints of God." They played and sang the good old hymn, "I sing a song of the Saints of God." The float was peopled by Jim Stiehl (a doctor - in life as on the float), Joan Baker (not a queen, but one of our English-women - isn't that about the same), Bill Smith (a soldier in life and on the float), Jeff Kozuszek (soon to be ordained - we hope), Willie and Olivia Shuler, along with Nick Kozuszek, at tea, Liz Hinman as an artist, and, of course, our Musical genius, Martha Stiehl. Enjoy the Video of them passing the church.
The good people of St. Thomas always have a free lemonade stand, only on cold years it becomes a hot chocolate give-away. This year was one of those exceeding strange days. When the sun was shining, we had a run on lemonade. But when the sun went behind the clouds, the temperature dropped a quick 8 - 10 degrees and hot chocolate was favored. But no one left thirsty.
St. Thomas also had a small float in the parade. The theme, as set up by chairperson Martha Stiehl, was "Volunteers: The Saints of God." They played and sang the good old hymn, "I sing a song of the Saints of God." The float was peopled by Jim Stiehl (a doctor - in life as on the float), Joan Baker (not a queen, but one of our English-women - isn't that about the same), Bill Smith (a soldier in life and on the float), Jeff Kozuszek (soon to be ordained - we hope), Willie and Olivia Shuler, along with Nick Kozuszek, at tea, Liz Hinman as an artist, and, of course, our Musical genius, Martha Stiehl. Enjoy the Video of them passing the church.
Monday, September 27, 2010
An Exciting Time
This is an exciting time for me. My days as Vicar of St. Thomas are rapidly drawing to a close. As of today, I have 54 days of active time remaining. In the last two months I have:
Be at Peace. Tom+
- Taken part in the nomination and election of the next Bishop-elect, Fr. Dan Martins.
- Completed confirmation classes for three ladies (two for confirmation, one for reception).
- Conducted a First Communion Class for two lovely young ladies, and celebrated their First Communion.
- Begun (and am half way through) a course of instruction from the University of Illinois Extension Service that will, in about a year's time, result in my certification as an "Illinois Master Naturalist." Note photo of White Snakeroot, a wood-edge prairie wildflower. This plant killed Abraham Lincoln's mother with what was called "the Milk Sickness" after cows ate the toxic plant.
- Continued to provide pastoral care to my little flock of 60 souls.
- Continued to provide outreach and counseling to community people with either financial needs or just a person to talk with.
Be at Peace. Tom+
Monday, January 25, 2010
Gays in the Church
Two full lifetimes ago, in my first career (I'm now in my third), I was the Weapons officer on a U. S. Navy guided missile destroyer, USS Parsons DDG-33. I reported to Parsons in July of 1971 and, after the ship moved to Japan, spent from December 1971 until just before Christmas of 1972 in the combat zone of Vietnam. In January 1973 I was due for relief and a lieutenant named "Bob S." took over from me so that I could get the first shore duty tour in over fifteen years of service.
Bob was a "real" combat veteran, having served a tour in-country in Vietnam and had earned a purple heart while there. To me, who had spent almost 44 months in the combat zone, always on board cruisers and destroyers, Bob was the real "hero," since he had served in much greater danger than I and had paid a price for that service. He took over as Parsons' Weapons Officer and, from all that I heard, served admirably in that capacity.
I left Parsons and served for a year and a half on the staff of the Commander, Naval Forces, Japan, working in Naval Intelligence. Then, in October of 1974 I was transferred to the Surface Warfare Officer's School Command at Newport, Rhode Island for what I knew upfront was to be my final active duty tour. I was Lieutenant Commander by that time and I ended up being in charge of all of the weapon system instruction at the Cruiser-Destroyer Head of Department School (previously known as "Destroyer School," or, colloquially, as "DesTech"). I was also the school's instructor in Surface-to-Air Guided Missiles, or SAMS.
Shortly after my arrival, I was pulled aside and given the job or re-organizing all of the Weapons instruction into one "Combat Systems Branch" for the school. And, best of all, I was given an assistant to help with the SAM instruction - one "Bob S." From December 1974 until my retirement from active duty on December 1, 1977, Bob and I got to know one another quite well. I learned a tremendous amount about him and from him, even though he was my subordinate officer.
First of all, Bob was exceptionally proficient in all of the technical aspects of guided missiles. In time we were also handed the task of teaching the Harpoon Anti-Ship missile system and Bob applied himself wonderfully to learning that new system (the precursor, in many ways, of the Tomahawk missile used in Dessert Storm). Bob explored tactical elements of deploying the Harpoon at a time when the Navy, itself, still didn't know what to do with this new toy.
Secondly, Bob was always available to answer questions of issues that I might raise, some of which had moral consequences. His advice was always sage - always "spot on" to use a old phrase. When I, who had become single via the divorce route, was tempted to date our secretary, Bob told me why that was not a good idea and reminded me of the damage it could bring into our branch, he was completely correct and so my bright idea for "a date" ended up being a "coffee" time to get to know my administrative assistant a bit better - and that was a far better route to take than the one I first envisioned.
Finally, I came to learn (or to confirm long-held suspicion) that Bob was a celibate gay man. By then I had come to know Bob, to trust him and his judgement, and to value his friendship. So his "secret" was something that had to be protected at all times, for there are always those who perceive an opening to advancement be the destruction of the career of another person. I am glad that during my tenure, no harm came to Bob in his career by the words of anyone else. This blog is the first time that I have ever publicly taken notice of Bob's sexuality.
At that time, I felt that his sexuality was his own business and should play no role in either advancing or delaying his career. I was, by the standard of the day, quite forward looking. But I have come to see that the entire conversation should be unnecessary, for human sexuality is a gift that we are born with. Gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and trans-sexuals are all the equal - total equal of this heterosexual male. All of us, glbth, have God-given gifts and fully deserve the entire spectrum of possibilities to be ours. No one should be denied something based upon their sexuality.
My Church, the Episcopal Church, has been struggling with this for almost fifty years. The topic first came up in the 1960s and we began to talk about it. We talked about it for forty years. In 1998, the highest deliberative body in the Anglican Communion of Churches (of which The Episcopal Church is but one Church of many) passed a resolution that tried to "split" the differences, but merely managed to muddy the waters. It stated that same-sex relations were impediments to marriage and ordination. Then it said, but homosexual people are full members of the Body of Christ and swore that we all, throughout the world, were committed to a listening process, to hear the experiences of gay and lesbian people.
The Episcopal Church, which had been talking for almost forty years - very loudly - began to listen more deeply and then, in 2003, took action. We ordained a practicing homosexual man as Bishop of New Hampshire. And all of those parts of the Anglican Communion that had their fingers crossed when they resolved in 1998, screamed bloody murder that we Episcopalians are damaging the communion. Funny, I thought we were simply actually listening, dialoging with our glbt friends, and then taking their experiences to heart.
As a progressive and broad Episcopalian, I am heartened by what The Episcopal Church (TEC) has done. Will it make us more popular with the average American? Of course not. Will it make us more popular with God? That is a non-sensical question, for we all already have God's love. We are called to practice it. I have the hope and continue to pray that we are indeed practicing Godly love as we continue to work to include all of God's children in this Church.
Thanks be to God, the father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, who lives and reigns with the Holy Spirit, one God, calling us to become. Amen. TAD+
Bob was a "real" combat veteran, having served a tour in-country in Vietnam and had earned a purple heart while there. To me, who had spent almost 44 months in the combat zone, always on board cruisers and destroyers, Bob was the real "hero," since he had served in much greater danger than I and had paid a price for that service. He took over as Parsons' Weapons Officer and, from all that I heard, served admirably in that capacity.
I left Parsons and served for a year and a half on the staff of the Commander, Naval Forces, Japan, working in Naval Intelligence. Then, in October of 1974 I was transferred to the Surface Warfare Officer's School Command at Newport, Rhode Island for what I knew upfront was to be my final active duty tour. I was Lieutenant Commander by that time and I ended up being in charge of all of the weapon system instruction at the Cruiser-Destroyer Head of Department School (previously known as "Destroyer School," or, colloquially, as "DesTech"). I was also the school's instructor in Surface-to-Air Guided Missiles, or SAMS.
Shortly after my arrival, I was pulled aside and given the job or re-organizing all of the Weapons instruction into one "Combat Systems Branch" for the school. And, best of all, I was given an assistant to help with the SAM instruction - one "Bob S." From December 1974 until my retirement from active duty on December 1, 1977, Bob and I got to know one another quite well. I learned a tremendous amount about him and from him, even though he was my subordinate officer.
First of all, Bob was exceptionally proficient in all of the technical aspects of guided missiles. In time we were also handed the task of teaching the Harpoon Anti-Ship missile system and Bob applied himself wonderfully to learning that new system (the precursor, in many ways, of the Tomahawk missile used in Dessert Storm). Bob explored tactical elements of deploying the Harpoon at a time when the Navy, itself, still didn't know what to do with this new toy.
Secondly, Bob was always available to answer questions of issues that I might raise, some of which had moral consequences. His advice was always sage - always "spot on" to use a old phrase. When I, who had become single via the divorce route, was tempted to date our secretary, Bob told me why that was not a good idea and reminded me of the damage it could bring into our branch, he was completely correct and so my bright idea for "a date" ended up being a "coffee" time to get to know my administrative assistant a bit better - and that was a far better route to take than the one I first envisioned.
Finally, I came to learn (or to confirm long-held suspicion) that Bob was a celibate gay man. By then I had come to know Bob, to trust him and his judgement, and to value his friendship. So his "secret" was something that had to be protected at all times, for there are always those who perceive an opening to advancement be the destruction of the career of another person. I am glad that during my tenure, no harm came to Bob in his career by the words of anyone else. This blog is the first time that I have ever publicly taken notice of Bob's sexuality.
At that time, I felt that his sexuality was his own business and should play no role in either advancing or delaying his career. I was, by the standard of the day, quite forward looking. But I have come to see that the entire conversation should be unnecessary, for human sexuality is a gift that we are born with. Gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and trans-sexuals are all the equal - total equal of this heterosexual male. All of us, glbth, have God-given gifts and fully deserve the entire spectrum of possibilities to be ours. No one should be denied something based upon their sexuality.
My Church, the Episcopal Church, has been struggling with this for almost fifty years. The topic first came up in the 1960s and we began to talk about it. We talked about it for forty years. In 1998, the highest deliberative body in the Anglican Communion of Churches (of which The Episcopal Church is but one Church of many) passed a resolution that tried to "split" the differences, but merely managed to muddy the waters. It stated that same-sex relations were impediments to marriage and ordination. Then it said, but homosexual people are full members of the Body of Christ and swore that we all, throughout the world, were committed to a listening process, to hear the experiences of gay and lesbian people.
The Episcopal Church, which had been talking for almost forty years - very loudly - began to listen more deeply and then, in 2003, took action. We ordained a practicing homosexual man as Bishop of New Hampshire. And all of those parts of the Anglican Communion that had their fingers crossed when they resolved in 1998, screamed bloody murder that we Episcopalians are damaging the communion. Funny, I thought we were simply actually listening, dialoging with our glbt friends, and then taking their experiences to heart.
As a progressive and broad Episcopalian, I am heartened by what The Episcopal Church (TEC) has done. Will it make us more popular with the average American? Of course not. Will it make us more popular with God? That is a non-sensical question, for we all already have God's love. We are called to practice it. I have the hope and continue to pray that we are indeed practicing Godly love as we continue to work to include all of God's children in this Church.
Thanks be to God, the father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, who lives and reigns with the Holy Spirit, one God, calling us to become. Amen. TAD+
Friday, December 25, 2009
Christmas Adventures
I'm glad that my older years are still filled with unexpected adventures. I think it helps to show that I'm not quite ready for the nursing home.
Yesterday morning (Christmas Eve) I drove to Salem to get a haircut. Now what can wrong in doing that? I figured, "nothing" so I took the car, my wallet, and my longish hair to Dean Fox's Barber Shop. I got my usual nice short cut and Dean and I had a nice chat about a little of everything. Then I left there and drove to the local Moto-Mart to buy a coke and a newspaper. When I got back in the car it started right away, but I couldn't get the gear shift lever out of park.
After trying the usual things - like turning the car off, restarting, and trying again with no luck, I walked next door to the church, let myself in, and called the nearest GM dealer (Max Dye). His mechanic, Barry, gave me another clue, so I went back to the car and tried that - with no luck.
So I got out the Owner's Guide for my 2008 Impala and my title papers, walked back to the church and called Barry again. He said that I needed to have the car towed in and, since it was still under warranty, there was a set of procedures in the guide to do that. He said that he would not be able to get to my car until Monday - with Christmas off and all that.
So I asked about a loaner. I got transferred to the owner, Max, who said he did have one. I finally had the presence of mind to ask how late they would be open on Christmas Eve. Max said, "Until 12 noon." I glanced at my desk clock, which indicated that it was now 11:50 AM. Max said he would stay a bit late until I got there. I called Al Lever, one of the leaders in the church, and he drove over and picked me up, delivering me in short order to Max Dye's place. He gave me a Cadillac Deville (a few years old with 108,000 miles on it, but it runs very well).
Then it was back to the church to call the Chevrolet Roadside Assistance people. I spoke with a very nice lady who took care of all my needs. Then all I had to do was to wait for the tow truck. He came out of Mt. Vernon (about 20 miles south of Salem), but he was sent to Centralia (about 20 miles to the Soutwest of Salem). He finally got to Salem and began the process to extract my car from the parking spot by literally dragging it along the surface of the parking lot, since he needed to tow it from the front!
Once he got the car pulled out, the tow driver took position in front of my Impala and tried to lower his hydraulic unit into place. It wouldn't engage. So while I stood in the ever colder wind, he called his boss and the two of them figured out a way to make it engage. That all took about twenty minutes, but finally my Impala was attached to the tow truck properly and he towed it to Max Dye's place. We dropped it off and he returned me to the church, where I picked up the Caddy and drove home, arriving around 2:30 PM.
At 4:30 PM, Sue and I drove back to the church and began preparations for the Christmas Eve service. It was a lovely service with nearly a full house. The Church was decorated beautifully, our musicians (organist and harpsichordist Martha Stiehl and assisting organist Elizabeth Shuler) made fantastic music, the "corps de Ballet" performed their roles wonderfully and most of the people said that they enjoyed the service immensely. Afterwards we had our usual Church Christmas Party and everyone stuffed themselves with fantastic food prepared by a number of the ladies. Then it was time to get home to bed.
This morning, Christmas Day, I awoke and went downstairs to feed the kitty cats. I noticed that the truck to the Caddy was open - even though I had never opened it. I must have pressed that button on the key before I went up to bed the night before. At any rate, the battery was dead. So Sue and I went to church in my pickup truck. We set up the church for the morning service, but no one ever showed up, so after a while we secured everything and came back home.
When we got home I looked around the house and found an old jump start box that I bought years ago and had never used. So I plugged it into the wall, hoping that it would take a charge. By 6:00 PM this evening, it indicated that it was ready for use, so Sue and I went out and I searched the engine box for the negative connector (the positive pole was easy to find). Finally finding it, I connected the jump unit and Sue hit the key. The Caddy started right up! Thank you, God, even though I know you aren't into jumper units.
We took a nice hour long drive to get the battery charged back up and arrived back home just before 8:00 PM tonight. I came in, did the pots and pans, started the dish washer, ate a bit of supper and am ready to quit for the day.
Tomorrow we do grandchildren and that will probably be another adventure. Until then, God Bless all of you and sleep well this mid-winter night. TAD+
Yesterday morning (Christmas Eve) I drove to Salem to get a haircut. Now what can wrong in doing that? I figured, "nothing" so I took the car, my wallet, and my longish hair to Dean Fox's Barber Shop. I got my usual nice short cut and Dean and I had a nice chat about a little of everything. Then I left there and drove to the local Moto-Mart to buy a coke and a newspaper. When I got back in the car it started right away, but I couldn't get the gear shift lever out of park.
After trying the usual things - like turning the car off, restarting, and trying again with no luck, I walked next door to the church, let myself in, and called the nearest GM dealer (Max Dye). His mechanic, Barry, gave me another clue, so I went back to the car and tried that - with no luck.
So I got out the Owner's Guide for my 2008 Impala and my title papers, walked back to the church and called Barry again. He said that I needed to have the car towed in and, since it was still under warranty, there was a set of procedures in the guide to do that. He said that he would not be able to get to my car until Monday - with Christmas off and all that.
So I asked about a loaner. I got transferred to the owner, Max, who said he did have one. I finally had the presence of mind to ask how late they would be open on Christmas Eve. Max said, "Until 12 noon." I glanced at my desk clock, which indicated that it was now 11:50 AM. Max said he would stay a bit late until I got there. I called Al Lever, one of the leaders in the church, and he drove over and picked me up, delivering me in short order to Max Dye's place. He gave me a Cadillac Deville (a few years old with 108,000 miles on it, but it runs very well).
Then it was back to the church to call the Chevrolet Roadside Assistance people. I spoke with a very nice lady who took care of all my needs. Then all I had to do was to wait for the tow truck. He came out of Mt. Vernon (about 20 miles south of Salem), but he was sent to Centralia (about 20 miles to the Soutwest of Salem). He finally got to Salem and began the process to extract my car from the parking spot by literally dragging it along the surface of the parking lot, since he needed to tow it from the front!
Once he got the car pulled out, the tow driver took position in front of my Impala and tried to lower his hydraulic unit into place. It wouldn't engage. So while I stood in the ever colder wind, he called his boss and the two of them figured out a way to make it engage. That all took about twenty minutes, but finally my Impala was attached to the tow truck properly and he towed it to Max Dye's place. We dropped it off and he returned me to the church, where I picked up the Caddy and drove home, arriving around 2:30 PM.
At 4:30 PM, Sue and I drove back to the church and began preparations for the Christmas Eve service. It was a lovely service with nearly a full house. The Church was decorated beautifully, our musicians (organist and harpsichordist Martha Stiehl and assisting organist Elizabeth Shuler) made fantastic music, the "corps de Ballet" performed their roles wonderfully and most of the people said that they enjoyed the service immensely. Afterwards we had our usual Church Christmas Party and everyone stuffed themselves with fantastic food prepared by a number of the ladies. Then it was time to get home to bed.
This morning, Christmas Day, I awoke and went downstairs to feed the kitty cats. I noticed that the truck to the Caddy was open - even though I had never opened it. I must have pressed that button on the key before I went up to bed the night before. At any rate, the battery was dead. So Sue and I went to church in my pickup truck. We set up the church for the morning service, but no one ever showed up, so after a while we secured everything and came back home.
When we got home I looked around the house and found an old jump start box that I bought years ago and had never used. So I plugged it into the wall, hoping that it would take a charge. By 6:00 PM this evening, it indicated that it was ready for use, so Sue and I went out and I searched the engine box for the negative connector (the positive pole was easy to find). Finally finding it, I connected the jump unit and Sue hit the key. The Caddy started right up! Thank you, God, even though I know you aren't into jumper units.
We took a nice hour long drive to get the battery charged back up and arrived back home just before 8:00 PM tonight. I came in, did the pots and pans, started the dish washer, ate a bit of supper and am ready to quit for the day.
Tomorrow we do grandchildren and that will probably be another adventure. Until then, God Bless all of you and sleep well this mid-winter night. TAD+
Saturday, December 12, 2009
A Sailor's Christmas Story
In 1959 I was attending the Nuclear Propulsion School in Vallejo, California. The school shut down over the holidays and most of the men took leave. I didn't take leave, initially, because I was in my usual state of being totally broke, except for enough money to feed myself and go the movies once in a while. But I was terribly homesick. A friend told me that I could hitch a ride to Travis Air Force Base, then get a "hop" to the east coast, where I could hitch hike home. Then I could simply work it backwards to return to California in early January.
So off I went, with only my pea coat, a small bag of clothing, and around $50. Getting to Travis was no problem, but I found myself waiting with a few hundred men to catch hops to anywhere but there. I met an Air Force guy who was driving to the east coast and he was rounding up others to help pay for gas - we would drive straight through, he said. So four more of us piled into an old Ford and hit the road.
By the end of day #1, we had gotten as far as Edwards Air Force base where the guy's old car expired. So an Army guy and I checked into the terminal and lo and behold, we got right out on a hop to New Jersey. While waiting for the plane, I had to make a quick pit stop in the restroom. When I came back out, someone had taken off with my pea coat! But I figured, well, the weather didn't look too bad and anyway, I'd being getting rides up NY 17 to my home. So off I went, only to fetch up at a now-closed AFB on Long Island (I've forgotten the name). I took a bus into New York City, another over into New Jersey and found route 17 and stuck out my thumb for a ride.
The first few rides I got were fairly short ones and after a hour or two had only gone about 15 miles. By then the Northeast Winter had begun to settle in and I found myself walking along route 17 in a blowing snow. A bit later I found myself walking past Westwood. I saw a small diner just off the highway (it was a four-lane highway even then), so I left the highway to get something to eat. It was during the diner hour.
In the diner, all the talk was about how hazardous Route 17 was becoming to the northwest, the direction in which I was heading. I was really getting nervous, since I was now without my coat and the temperature was well below freezing. I remembered that my parents knew a couple in Westwood, a Mr. Cornell and his daughter Helen. So, on a whim, I when to the public phone in the diner (most places had them, then) and called them. I explained my predicament to them and asked if it would be possible to come to there place and camp out overnight. They, of course, said, "Yes," and said that Mr. Cornell would be over to pick me up shortly.
When I hung up the phone, and turned back to the counter to finish my meal, every eye in the place was on me. They had all heard my story of trying to get home, having lost my pea-coat, and how I was getting a bit desperate for some kind of shelter. The owner would not let me pay for my meal, even though I did have enough money for that. And, before Mr. Cornell arrived, they had each given me some words of encouragement.
That night I spend in the Cornell's spare bedroom and slept like a log. I expected to hit the road the next morning, but when I got up, Mr. Cornell had already gotten me a train ticket (on the old weary Erie Rail Road). They took me to the station and saw me safely off for the holidays, wishing me and my folks a very Merry Christmas.
In January I flew back to California, but that's another story. This one is a true story that showed me that the best thing a person can have in this world is love from friends and family. Merry Christmas to all of you. TAD+
So off I went, with only my pea coat, a small bag of clothing, and around $50. Getting to Travis was no problem, but I found myself waiting with a few hundred men to catch hops to anywhere but there. I met an Air Force guy who was driving to the east coast and he was rounding up others to help pay for gas - we would drive straight through, he said. So four more of us piled into an old Ford and hit the road.
By the end of day #1, we had gotten as far as Edwards Air Force base where the guy's old car expired. So an Army guy and I checked into the terminal and lo and behold, we got right out on a hop to New Jersey. While waiting for the plane, I had to make a quick pit stop in the restroom. When I came back out, someone had taken off with my pea coat! But I figured, well, the weather didn't look too bad and anyway, I'd being getting rides up NY 17 to my home. So off I went, only to fetch up at a now-closed AFB on Long Island (I've forgotten the name). I took a bus into New York City, another over into New Jersey and found route 17 and stuck out my thumb for a ride.
The first few rides I got were fairly short ones and after a hour or two had only gone about 15 miles. By then the Northeast Winter had begun to settle in and I found myself walking along route 17 in a blowing snow. A bit later I found myself walking past Westwood. I saw a small diner just off the highway (it was a four-lane highway even then), so I left the highway to get something to eat. It was during the diner hour.
In the diner, all the talk was about how hazardous Route 17 was becoming to the northwest, the direction in which I was heading. I was really getting nervous, since I was now without my coat and the temperature was well below freezing. I remembered that my parents knew a couple in Westwood, a Mr. Cornell and his daughter Helen. So, on a whim, I when to the public phone in the diner (most places had them, then) and called them. I explained my predicament to them and asked if it would be possible to come to there place and camp out overnight. They, of course, said, "Yes," and said that Mr. Cornell would be over to pick me up shortly.
When I hung up the phone, and turned back to the counter to finish my meal, every eye in the place was on me. They had all heard my story of trying to get home, having lost my pea-coat, and how I was getting a bit desperate for some kind of shelter. The owner would not let me pay for my meal, even though I did have enough money for that. And, before Mr. Cornell arrived, they had each given me some words of encouragement.
That night I spend in the Cornell's spare bedroom and slept like a log. I expected to hit the road the next morning, but when I got up, Mr. Cornell had already gotten me a train ticket (on the old weary Erie Rail Road). They took me to the station and saw me safely off for the holidays, wishing me and my folks a very Merry Christmas.
In January I flew back to California, but that's another story. This one is a true story that showed me that the best thing a person can have in this world is love from friends and family. Merry Christmas to all of you. TAD+
Monday, December 7, 2009
Advent
The season of Advent is a wonderful one, but we've managed to mess it up by insisting that the coming of Christ is a woeful event. Personally, I love the season and its climax on Christmas Eve when we all gather to celebrate God's coming into the world to take it on himself. So I will continue to joyously celebrate this season of the Church.
But for those of you who prefer something more somber, here is a little ditty I got off the internet:
Have Yourself a Dismal Little Advent
(An Advent Carol?)
Have yourself a dismal little Advent,
Filled with guilt and gloom.
You’ve got these four weeks to contemplate your doom.
Turn down all those party invitations;
Mustn’t celebrate;
You should stay home fasting, and self-flagellate.
Shun the lure of the shopping mall,
Where they’ve decked the hall since May.
Just recall it’s the eschaton You must focus on today.
It’s no time for singing Christmas carols;
That we can’t allow!
Chant Psalm 51, if you remember how–
And have yourself a dismal little Advent now!
Thanks to Ann Fontaine, quoting Mary Cox who, I presume, wrote this little ditty.
Peace to All. TAD+
But for those of you who prefer something more somber, here is a little ditty I got off the internet:
Have Yourself a Dismal Little Advent
(An Advent Carol?)
Have yourself a dismal little Advent,
Filled with guilt and gloom.
You’ve got these four weeks to contemplate your doom.
Turn down all those party invitations;
Mustn’t celebrate;
You should stay home fasting, and self-flagellate.
Shun the lure of the shopping mall,
Where they’ve decked the hall since May.
Just recall it’s the eschaton You must focus on today.
It’s no time for singing Christmas carols;
That we can’t allow!
Chant Psalm 51, if you remember how–
And have yourself a dismal little Advent now!
Thanks to Ann Fontaine, quoting Mary Cox who, I presume, wrote this little ditty.
Peace to All. TAD+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)