Koran Burning? Dead Soldiers? Nice!

Pastor Terry Jones
Dove World Outreach Center
5805 NW 37th St
Gainesville, FL 32653

My Dearest Pastor Terry Jones,

First, I wish to thank you for your excellent service. Your blind ambitions have done more to advance my cause then could have been hoped for.

Second, congratulations on keeping “International Burn a Koran Day” alive.

Following up on Terry's inane book, "Islam is of the Devil", is his new title.

You did not cave into pressure from those fools who would put love, peace and human harmony ahead of hatred and bigotry. I am particularly impressed that you would resist pressure from the commanding general of coalition forces in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, who stated emphatically that your decision would result in the deaths of coalition troops. Your message trumps the petty lives of those pawns they call soldiers

Third, I am overjoyed by your partnership with Westboro Baptist Church. I have worked hard to link up your churches, and am so pleased to see you both publicly condemning to hell all who do not agree with your message. Perhaps we can get you to partake in Westboro’s celebrations of the deaths of US military personnel. I particularly like Westboro’s “Thank God for dead soldiers” signs that were displayed at soldier’s funerals. What a great partnership. Such possibilities.

Finally, a personal note. In my dealings with man, I have learned that never is a man so wrong as when he is convinced that he is so right. You my dear Pastor Jones are so solidly convinced of how right you are. Do not doubt your path or your faith. Don’t think things through. Just believe in how right you are. The more you are convinced of that, the greater your service to me.

Your Lord and Master,

Satan
Father of Lies

Innocence Lost: The Travails of a US Citizen

The war in Iraq has left me with muddled thoughts: I originally supported the war, now I oppose the reasons for entering it, but support completing what we started. The war has left me feeling betrayed, exhausted, vulnerable. In other words, politics as usual.

I feel America’s leaders have lied to us; either through gross incompetence or sheer deceit. I am leaning towards the latter. I thought President Bush spoke the truth when he said Saddam Hussein represented a real threat to the Middle East and Western civilization. I believed Colin Powell’s remarks to the UN about the strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction (and I think Powell believed them when he said them). I believed it was a necessary evil to use military force in Iraq – even if it would distract from the on-going efforts in Afghanistan. How idiotic of me.

Had Israel not destroyed the nuclear reactor in Iraq in the 1980s, then history may have been different. However, they did. We did not invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons, as politicians today try to re-write the reasons for the invasion. We nominally did it for security reasons. I now believe it was for a single reason: Oil. How could I have been duped so?

We squandered the good will of our citizens, the international community, and the resources in fighting the real battle against terrorism. All for what gain? Could I have been any more stupid?

I cringed at the so-called “Patriot Act”, because of how it impinged civil liberties – yet I did not actively oppose it. I thought it necessary in the wake of September 11 and our need for counter-terrorism. What I fool I have been.

The words of The Who resonate with me: “I get on my knees and I pray, we won’t get fooled again“.

I watched the Watergate hearings on television when I was young. Then, there was an aura of innocence lost. If the president could be so deceitful, what hope was there for integrity in any political process?

The feeling I have today is strangely reminiscent of that era.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Stuck in the Middle With You

One thought has been nagging at me lately: Liberals and conservatives both have their galvanizing issues. Those on one extreme or the other get the majority of the press. But polls show that most of us exist in the middle – moderates. So why is it that the tripe spewed by Rush Limbaugh and Al Gore gets most of the play, when us, we the people, are virtually ignored.

Well, I think it has to do with the issues themselves. Moderates are, by definition, those who hold some conservative and some liberal beliefs. For example, I consider myself a moderate. On specific issues though, you could try to pigeon hole me into one extreme or the other. I believe the “war on drugs” is a waste, we should invest more in drug treatment and not in incarcerating users, I think we should invest in alternative energy solutions, and I believe in conservation. On the flip side of the coin, I look at abortion and can’t help but think the fetus gets the raw end of the deal of the body-rights issue, I believe in an armed citizenry, and I’m not convinced that “greenhouse gases” from humans cause “global warming”.

Now, another person may hold opposite views that I do (and I’m sure MANY do). Yet, this person too, could be labeled a moderate. Liberals and conservatives have a platform; but we moderates do not. I believe having a platform unites, but at the expense of critical thinking.

So, what are we to do? In my humble opinion, we should continue to debate. Talk about the issues. Keep an open mind. That’s the only way we can come up with new ideas, and bring innovation into the process.

The one’s who get the press SAY they debate the issues. Bullshit. All the Rush’s and the Gore’s do is mouth rhetoric, and their followers nod their heads – and the press reports on it. We, the majority, can refocus the spotlight, if we talk about our differences, and discover how we can bridge the gap between our varying beliefs.

Discuss. To that end, I will try to make sense of some of my ramblings, and commit those irrelevant ramblings to electronic ink. I would invite you to criticize, debate, and analyze my thinking. I will do the same with others’ posts.

Hopefully, all involved can grow just a bit wiser.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

The Late, Great Planet Earth

No, this is not about Hal Lindsey’s famous book. Rather, I had intended to write an article about anything other than energy/the environment However, two blog posts dragged me back in (screaming and kicking, you can be assured).

The posts describe the earth as dying, or in need of saving. I took issue with these posts, writing a comment, that in part said:

“[We can] neither save nor kill the earth (or the environment, for that matter).

“Mankind’s existence on this world is but an eye-blink, geologically speaking. No matter what we do to this earth, life will continue. We may destroy our own kind, and we may destroy other species. But, after we are gone, other species will evolve, and the earth will have forgotten about our brief presence. Hundreds of millions of years of life preceded us, and hundreds of millions of years of life will succeed us – regardless of what we do now.

“If we cannot destroy the earth, we cannot save it either. Therefore, what are we actually trying to save with environmentalism? “

Making such broad claims of “saving the earth” smacks of smug, self-righteous, false-altruism. When someone says they want to “save the earth”, they imply that anyone who disagrees with them wants to destroy it. Such hyperbole is not helpful. A common consensus would be much easier to achieve when the real goals are spelled out. Otherwise, we may just as well be arguing over religion.

The author of the second blog I listed, responded with a well thought out response. In it, he stated a sentiment I can agree with; that the goals of environmentalism include the conservation of resources.

I would ask though: Conserve for whom? Ourselves. Future generations. Other species. After all, nature really doesn’t give a damn if we destroy an ecosystem; over time it will be replaced – but it’s impact on us humans can be devastating.

We should embrace environmentalism, not because the earth is in peril, but because it is the right thing to do – for ourselves.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Cheap Gas! – Redux

What price are we willing to pay to willfully waste oil?

Two blogs have caught my attention lately, that highlight a common theme – wasting energy purely for the sake of the waste. The first is a blog commentary about Rush Limbaugh’s intentional use of a gas-inefficient vehicle over long distances. He did this to “stick it to the environmentalists”. The second is in a similar vein – a blog entry in response to a commentator urging public buildings to reduce air conditioning. In order to flaunt his ability to waste energy, the blogger turned his thermostat down to 65 degrees Fahrenheit – even though he is not there to enjoy it.

Nominally, Rush and the blogger are the one bearing the “cost” of their actions. If they have the money, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do this – even if it is wasteful? Even though gas is $4.00 per gallon, these guys decided to use this expensive commodity, and pay for it themselves; right? But, what are the *real* costs?

How many marines are you willing to let die in the middle east, so Rush can drive his 12 mile-per-gallon behemoth? How many soldiers should lose their legs, arms, eyesight or portions of their brains, so bloggers can turn thermostats to 65 degrees – just to prove a point? Because these are the *real* costs.

We import more than a third of the energy we use (includes all raw energy we consume, like that used to generate electricity). More than one-fifth of the imports come from the Persian Gulf.  Significant imports also come from Nigeria and Venezuela. Do you think we would be fighting in Iraq if not for oil? If we are on a humanitarian mission there, then why do we not also fight in Rawanda? How about Zimbabwe? Cuba?

We, the people, have already funded terrorists via Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the Emirates. We have built the nuclear facilities in Iran. We ponied up the money for bin Ladin and his 9/11 band. All paid for by America’s oil obsession.

Why have we seen success disarming a nuclear North Korea (who’s leader is as much a whack job as anyone), but have no luck with Iran?

It is only a matter of time before we are involved in other wars on other continents. Nigeria is a corruption mess, that is becoming more and more important as an oil exporter to the United States. We are funding Hugo Chavez’s anti-American stance (and raising his role from petty-wacko dictator to regional trouble maker), by purchasing Venezuela’s oil. How long before troops are in Africa and South America, losing life and limb, so we can rest assured Rush can waste freely, and bloggers can freeze their abodes to prove their point?

At what price?

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Global Warming: A Whole Lot of Mistakin’ Going On

Ok kids, it’s time for your global warming quiz. Sharpen up your number 2 pencils, and answer the following questions:

1. Approximately what percent of annual CO2 release to the atmosphere are humans responsible for?
a) 95%
b) 75%
c) 50%
d)  3%

Answer: d, 3%. Source: International Panel on Climate Change and Dr. Elmar Uherek.

There is a lot of hand waving about how much CO2 we are “polluting” the earth with. However, nature sources about 97% of the CO2 gas released annually.

2. Which chemical is responsible for the vast majority of the “greenhouse” affect?
a) CO2 – Carbon Dioxide
b) CH4 – Methane
c) H2O – Water

Answer: c, Water. Source: realclimate.org (estimates 67% to 85% of greenhouse affect), and Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models (estimates 95% of greenhouse affect).  (Note, I have not personally seen the latter paper).

Despite all of the concern over CO2, water constitutes between two-thirds and nineteen-twentieths of the total “greenhouse” affect.

3. If the concentration of pre-industrial revolution CO2 in the atmosphere were doubled (a 100% increase), this would increase the total CO2 affect on global climate by:
a) 1,000%.
b)   100% (or double).
c)    12%.

Answer: c: 12% increase. Source: A combination of the following: using calculation from the International Panel on Climate Change This professor thinks the IPCC estimates are high. This site also offers a radically different interpretation from the IPCC. Note: ALL sources predict a logarithmic relationship (this is known from basic chemistry) – the disagreement is one of scale.

Because of saturation, CO2 (and other “greenhouse” gasses), have a logarithmic, not linear, relationship with the amount of gas versus the amount of energy the gas can hold. Therefore doubling CO2 concentrations would not double the affect.

Climate change is a natural occurrence. Our world has experienced many cycles of warming and cooling over the last 400,000 years or so. Many “ice ages” have occurred, and “global warming” has followed.

We are seeing climate change today. We will see it in every era, because of the natural cycles. The question really is: are our activities as humans having a significant affect on the earth’s climate? Are we causing “global warming”?

Frankly, I don’t know. But people hand waving and frothing at the mouth about poorly understood items are not helpful. I do not claim that spewing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is a good idea. However, the public at large is ignorant of what “greenhouse” affects are, how we came up with the idea of man-made climate change, and where the numbers come from that predict dire increases in temperatures.

Yet, we are insisting our politicians make decisions based on our own ignorance.

Our data sets are narrow. Precision temperature measurements are only good for the past 100 years or so. Predicting a .5 degree Celsius average temperature increase using data with an error factor of a +- 2 degrees, is just foolish.

We also must understand how the predictions for a future rise in average temperature is made. This is done using computer models, that are very simplified, and make many assumptions. These assumptions have been wrong before. This NASA data resulted in large scale changes to the models in 2004. Lately, more sattelite data, has shown some of the basic premises of human contributions to global warming to be incorrect. The result; the current models are mere guesswork, not scientific fact.

What should be done? We need to let the scientists do the science. They will eventually figure it out. But when politics mixes with incomplete data, the science debate changes. It becomes a creationism vs. evolution debacle, where fanaticism overrides concrete data and common sense.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Cheap Gas!

Gas prices have hit record highs. Even adjusted for inflation, the price-per-gallon of gasoline is higher than it was in the 1970s. These increases have affected everything from costs of travel to Wal-Mart discounts to agriculture prices. Our economy is deeply affected by the price of a barrel of oil, and peoples’ jobs are at stake. And the high cost of oil is the best thing that could happen to America.

We, as a nation, knew 30 years ago that we were vulnerable because of our dependence on imported oil. When we were embargoed in the 1970s by the Arabic oil-producing nations, gas prices soared, our economy soured, and people waited in line for hours just to get gas. When the crisis passed, what actions did the United States take to assure our future energy supply? We bought SUVs and Ram trucks with 8-cylinder engines, that bypassed laws on MPG ratings – just to take our kids to school or go to the shopping center. We shunned alternative energy sources, because the initial costs were more expensive than continuing to use oil. We built suburbs in Phoenix, Atlanta and Las Vegas, useful only with intensive vehicular travel. We demanded the cheapest electric sources NOW, regardless of other impacts. We let ourselves believe the North Sea and Mexican oil discoveries had saved us.

We have not demanded government investment in renewable domestic energy. We have not demanded that our country stop doing business with countries who fund terrorists. We have not availed ourselves of public transport systems. And today, we bitch about gas prices.

Because of cheap oil, we continued pouring money into nations who were, and are, funding our enemies. Osama Bin Laden would not have been a household name, if not for cheap oil. Hugo Chavez would be a name like Castro – disliked but easy to ignore, if not for cheap oil. We would not have a war in Iraq, if not for cheap oil. Iran’s nuclear ambitions would be moot, if not for cheap oil.

We brought it on ourselves. WE are to blame. WE bear some responsibility for September 11th, because of our love affair with SUVs. WE are the reason our economy is in trouble today. WE will have to bear the pain in order to save ourselves.

Had we worked on this issue 30 years ago, the pain would have been less, the transition easier. Now, however, we’ve proved that the only way we will act, is for oil to be expensive. We *still* think we can get our cheap oil back without pain. Groups, such as this blog one , delude themselves into thinking we can go on forever; just like the stock market of 1999, and the real estate market of 2005. We need to be familiar with terms such as “peak oil” and “the Hubbert curve”, if we think the party will just go on forever.

Expensive gas will make our country more secure, keep less of our dedicated armed forces from dying overseas, and maybe, just maybe, bring us to our senses.