Today's product: DeKuyper's Sour Apple Pucker.
Man do I love this stuff. You see, I drink a little bit of alcohol because statistically speaking, moderate drinkers do better in life, have more fun, make mor money, live longerr etc. But I don't like wyne or beeer. So back win I were a teenager (shhhhhh!) I discoverd appel puker nd is gud stiff.
Plush as wee al kno, Jesus drank two!
WirelessFourSurroundSound
P.S. This post demonstrates simulated drunkenness. I was a no point impaired in most of the usual ways. "What the eff does that mean" you say? Exactly.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Question of the Day
Question: Where did Coffee come from?
Answer: I can't figure this one out. It's like somebody went out in the forest, found this small spindly tree and said "Hey, lets pick these fruits off here, but don't eat them, strip the fruit off the seed and then dry the seed. Then bake it, now I know what you're going to say, but stick with me, this is where it gets good. After you bake it, grind it up real fine. Then run hot water through it, then drink the water, but make sure to drink it while it's still hot otherwise it will taste just as bad but it will be cold. It will wake you up in the morning just as good as say, an apple, but you don't have to worry about flavor or worms."
I can figure out how we got wine, but how we got coffee is beyond me.
WiredForStereo
Answer: I can't figure this one out. It's like somebody went out in the forest, found this small spindly tree and said "Hey, lets pick these fruits off here, but don't eat them, strip the fruit off the seed and then dry the seed. Then bake it, now I know what you're going to say, but stick with me, this is where it gets good. After you bake it, grind it up real fine. Then run hot water through it, then drink the water, but make sure to drink it while it's still hot otherwise it will taste just as bad but it will be cold. It will wake you up in the morning just as good as say, an apple, but you don't have to worry about flavor or worms."
I can figure out how we got wine, but how we got coffee is beyond me.
WiredForStereo
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Is Satan Green by Thomas D. Rowley
Is Satan Green?
By Thomas D. Rowley*
In the three years since PBS’ Bill Moyers asked “Is God Green?” the answer from American Christendom has become a resounding “yes!” Proclaimed by everything from eco-friendly Palm Sunday fronds to the soy-based, Kermit-hued ink in the Green Bible, God’s color has been decided.
But what about Satan’s?
I know. I know. Talk of the devil these days is déclassé. Too fire-and-brimstone for our post-everything mindset. Plus, everyone knows he’s red with horns, tail and a pitchfork. Right? But what if C.S. Lewis were still uncovering missives from that diabolical Undersecretary of Temptation, Screwtape to his nephew and Junior Tempter, Wormwood? What might that reveal about Hell’s slant on the environment? With apologies to Lewis, perhaps something like this…
My Dear Nephew:
I see a certain despondence in your last correspondence. The long-delayed awakening of Christians to the Enemy’s directive to steward the Earth has gotten you down. Particularly, the awakening of that pesky group called evangelical Christians--a label that writers of the New Testament might well have thought redundant! Do not let it. As with all surges of that army, this, too, can be redirected. Confusion is the order of the day, dear Wormwood. Confusion!
To begin with, keep striking the chords that have proven so successful for us already. Keep your patients focused on the politics of it all--feeding the notion that the Enemy simply could not mean them to side with those they growlingly call “tree-hugging liberals.”
At the same time, nag them with doubts about science; keep them asking, albeit subconsciously, how something associated with abortion and evolution (thanks to your good works, Nephew) could ever be trusted?
Play, too, the note that says “it will all burn anyway, and the sooner the better.” Ah, there’s nothing finer than bad theology mixed with hopelessness for turning them aside.
Finally, addle their puny brains with false dichotomies: Surely, they cannot evangelize and care for the poor, for example, while also stewarding nature! Needless to say, you must keep hidden from them the indisputable facts that nature sings so disgustingly of the Enemy who created it and that upon nature the poor of the world so heavily depend.
As always, keep them from thinking deeply on any of these matters. There lies our undoing! Instead, fill their minds with the busyness of life—the grocery list, the children’s piano lesson or the church committee meeting. Should you detect a serious thought forming, however, simply give a nudge that now is the perfect time to text message, email or turn on some enlightening talk radio. Oh, how I love that last one! What victories it has given us!
Should these attempts fail to keep them off balance and ignoring the Enemy’s directive, we, too, can become green—at least our own shade of it. Here, I, of course, mean money, that ancient yet infallible tempter. How they love their money! Forgetting as they so laughably do that it is not theirs and that the Enemy has warned them again and again about what He ridiculously refers to as idolatry. I’ve also learned of a new shade of green developed by our labs: that of the perfect green lawn. How delightful! The illusion of health and beauty fostered by poison, copious amounts of precious water, and the weekly toiling behind a deafening, fume-belching machine! Brilliant! Simply, brilliant!
Above all--and I really shouldn’t have to warn you of this--keep them from opening that dastardly book the Enemy gave them! Rare indeed is the patient who can be retrieved once he has devoted himself to study there.
Finally, make sure to keep our correspondence secret. Human ignorance of our plans is one of our very best weapons. Nevertheless, should this letter leak to the press, I am confident that misunderstanding and emotion (never forget the power of emotion) will cause such a disturbance that you and I will be dismissed as the depraved imaginings of some witless human writer.
As always, your affectionate (and green if need be) uncle
Screwtape
*Rowley is Executive Director of A Rocha USA, a nonprofit conservation organization mobilizing Christians to steward the Earth. For more information, please see www.arocha-usa.org.
By Thomas D. Rowley*
In the three years since PBS’ Bill Moyers asked “Is God Green?” the answer from American Christendom has become a resounding “yes!” Proclaimed by everything from eco-friendly Palm Sunday fronds to the soy-based, Kermit-hued ink in the Green Bible, God’s color has been decided.
But what about Satan’s?
I know. I know. Talk of the devil these days is déclassé. Too fire-and-brimstone for our post-everything mindset. Plus, everyone knows he’s red with horns, tail and a pitchfork. Right? But what if C.S. Lewis were still uncovering missives from that diabolical Undersecretary of Temptation, Screwtape to his nephew and Junior Tempter, Wormwood? What might that reveal about Hell’s slant on the environment? With apologies to Lewis, perhaps something like this…
My Dear Nephew:
I see a certain despondence in your last correspondence. The long-delayed awakening of Christians to the Enemy’s directive to steward the Earth has gotten you down. Particularly, the awakening of that pesky group called evangelical Christians--a label that writers of the New Testament might well have thought redundant! Do not let it. As with all surges of that army, this, too, can be redirected. Confusion is the order of the day, dear Wormwood. Confusion!
To begin with, keep striking the chords that have proven so successful for us already. Keep your patients focused on the politics of it all--feeding the notion that the Enemy simply could not mean them to side with those they growlingly call “tree-hugging liberals.”
At the same time, nag them with doubts about science; keep them asking, albeit subconsciously, how something associated with abortion and evolution (thanks to your good works, Nephew) could ever be trusted?
Play, too, the note that says “it will all burn anyway, and the sooner the better.” Ah, there’s nothing finer than bad theology mixed with hopelessness for turning them aside.
Finally, addle their puny brains with false dichotomies: Surely, they cannot evangelize and care for the poor, for example, while also stewarding nature! Needless to say, you must keep hidden from them the indisputable facts that nature sings so disgustingly of the Enemy who created it and that upon nature the poor of the world so heavily depend.
As always, keep them from thinking deeply on any of these matters. There lies our undoing! Instead, fill their minds with the busyness of life—the grocery list, the children’s piano lesson or the church committee meeting. Should you detect a serious thought forming, however, simply give a nudge that now is the perfect time to text message, email or turn on some enlightening talk radio. Oh, how I love that last one! What victories it has given us!
Should these attempts fail to keep them off balance and ignoring the Enemy’s directive, we, too, can become green—at least our own shade of it. Here, I, of course, mean money, that ancient yet infallible tempter. How they love their money! Forgetting as they so laughably do that it is not theirs and that the Enemy has warned them again and again about what He ridiculously refers to as idolatry. I’ve also learned of a new shade of green developed by our labs: that of the perfect green lawn. How delightful! The illusion of health and beauty fostered by poison, copious amounts of precious water, and the weekly toiling behind a deafening, fume-belching machine! Brilliant! Simply, brilliant!
Above all--and I really shouldn’t have to warn you of this--keep them from opening that dastardly book the Enemy gave them! Rare indeed is the patient who can be retrieved once he has devoted himself to study there.
Finally, make sure to keep our correspondence secret. Human ignorance of our plans is one of our very best weapons. Nevertheless, should this letter leak to the press, I am confident that misunderstanding and emotion (never forget the power of emotion) will cause such a disturbance that you and I will be dismissed as the depraved imaginings of some witless human writer.
As always, your affectionate (and green if need be) uncle
Screwtape
*Rowley is Executive Director of A Rocha USA, a nonprofit conservation organization mobilizing Christians to steward the Earth. For more information, please see www.arocha-usa.org.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Don't Give Thanks for the Food, Pray Against it.
I have recently been formulating a blog about praying against our food for all the things it does to us and to everyone, but I guess PETA beat me to it.
Anyway, back to my idea.
Of course it is good to thank God for sustenance he has given us, but before we are too thankful, let us be reminded of what our food does to us and the rest of the world.
Our Father in heaven,
Thank you for the blessing of this food you have placed before us. While we eat, let us remember the 35,000 children who starve to death every day.
Be with the starving people all over the world because crop land is used not to grow food but fuel for our gas guzzling cars.
Lord, remember the people affected by factory farms whose manure and antibiotic runoff destroys streams, and creates superbacteria that our bodies cannot defend against.
Protect us from the chicken litter that contains known toxins and human carcinogens that enter our food supply when they are used on plant crops and when the dust blows into our homes.
Protect our children from the air pollution created by factory farms and the transport of factory grown meat to market that gives them asthma.
Heal us from the effects of pesticides that lower our intelligence, lower our fertility, and cause birth defects.
And bless all the people of the world who have to breathe in the particulate matter, mercury, lead, cadmium, and radioactive contamination that is produced by the coal power plant whose power we used to cook this food.
We pray this in Jesus name,
Amen
Pray like Satan's about to get you.
WiredForStereo
Anyway, back to my idea.
Of course it is good to thank God for sustenance he has given us, but before we are too thankful, let us be reminded of what our food does to us and the rest of the world.
Our Father in heaven,
Thank you for the blessing of this food you have placed before us. While we eat, let us remember the 35,000 children who starve to death every day.
Be with the starving people all over the world because crop land is used not to grow food but fuel for our gas guzzling cars.
Lord, remember the people affected by factory farms whose manure and antibiotic runoff destroys streams, and creates superbacteria that our bodies cannot defend against.
Protect us from the chicken litter that contains known toxins and human carcinogens that enter our food supply when they are used on plant crops and when the dust blows into our homes.
Protect our children from the air pollution created by factory farms and the transport of factory grown meat to market that gives them asthma.
Heal us from the effects of pesticides that lower our intelligence, lower our fertility, and cause birth defects.
And bless all the people of the world who have to breathe in the particulate matter, mercury, lead, cadmium, and radioactive contamination that is produced by the coal power plant whose power we used to cook this food.
We pray this in Jesus name,
Amen
Pray like Satan's about to get you.
WiredForStereo
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Made in the USA Product of the Day
We all should know why it's important to buy products made on our shores. It keeps our jobs here and keeps us from bleeding money as a country.
Today's product, Maruchan Ramen.
I love this stuff, I've eaten literally thousands of packages and it is my favorite brand.
And it's CHEAP!!!
WiredForStereo
Today's product, Maruchan Ramen.
I love this stuff, I've eaten literally thousands of packages and it is my favorite brand.
And it's CHEAP!!!
WiredForStereo
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Disconnect
My wife and I delivered some coats and things to an event where poor and/or homeless people come to get coats and a meal in a local park. I happened to meet a person there who if you'll remember had gotten quite caustic with me on Facebook when I decried her gloating over killing the health bill. She had demanded that I list everything I had done to help the poor to make me prove that I was better than (or maybe as good as) her in doing such things. I flatly refused and she she tore me up, calling me a hypocrite and laying down insults in her status updates. Remember, this was because I wouldn't tell her, not because I had nothing to tell, just because I wouldn't. She insulted liberals, me, and even one of her friends who agreed with me that bragging about our works was not appropriate.
Of course I believe that the work she does with the poor is admirable, but I can't help but think about the disconnect that this demonstrates to me. And forget that I think she's a poor example of a Christian. It just seem strange to me to outwardly be so generous, but inwardly be so caustic. To give coats to poor people and yet vote for measures and representatives who will make more poor people.
Now I know of course that she will disagree and say that I am the one who is making more poor people, but tell me, who's favorite representatives are for free trade which allows us to ship the jobs to other countries?
I'm under no delusion about the ramifications of what I believe. If my goals were enacted, it would absolutely make some people poorer, the rich ones. I believe in progressive tax policy which readjusts the distribution of wealth to a greater proportion of the population. If I can provide health care to the poor on the backs of the rich, I'll do it. No man is an island. No man becomes a millionaire without someone else doing a bunch of the work.
But, my goals and beliefs are consistent. I advocate for a tax policy that distributes the wealth more evenly among the classes, and I also advocate for the disadvantaged. I don't help the poor and then actively advance policies that will swell their ranks.
It's not productive.
WiredForStereo
Of course I believe that the work she does with the poor is admirable, but I can't help but think about the disconnect that this demonstrates to me. And forget that I think she's a poor example of a Christian. It just seem strange to me to outwardly be so generous, but inwardly be so caustic. To give coats to poor people and yet vote for measures and representatives who will make more poor people.
Now I know of course that she will disagree and say that I am the one who is making more poor people, but tell me, who's favorite representatives are for free trade which allows us to ship the jobs to other countries?
I'm under no delusion about the ramifications of what I believe. If my goals were enacted, it would absolutely make some people poorer, the rich ones. I believe in progressive tax policy which readjusts the distribution of wealth to a greater proportion of the population. If I can provide health care to the poor on the backs of the rich, I'll do it. No man is an island. No man becomes a millionaire without someone else doing a bunch of the work.
But, my goals and beliefs are consistent. I advocate for a tax policy that distributes the wealth more evenly among the classes, and I also advocate for the disadvantaged. I don't help the poor and then actively advance policies that will swell their ranks.
It's not productive.
WiredForStereo
Monday, November 9, 2009
Carbon Dioxide, Global Warming, and Pollution: What to do, what to do.
I was discussing global climate change with one of my professors, who also happens to be my mentor, at school the other day. He is a Civil Engineer, Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering, specializing in ground water. So I asked him what he thought about climate change and the like not knowing what he would say because he is also a Christian and I wasn't sure what his opinions were. Let me qualify that by saying as you know that many Christians, especially here in the Bible belt are conservatives and conservatives tend not to be on the global warming bandwagon, so I just like to feel around usually before I make an ass of myself.
Somewhat surprisingly, what he told me was extremely similar to my own beliefs on the subject. He said that he tended to be somewhat cynical but was not trying to discredit the science. I was excited.
So we talked about the true pressing problems in the world. We talked about one of the climate reports that said if we don't do something in the next few decades, by 2050 some people were going to be displaced or something. We also compared that to how a billion people in the world have no access to clean water and how two billion have no access to sanitation. We talked about how many million people die each year from diseases related to lack of clean water.
And I have thought about this before, I've even blogged about it in passing, so I decided to blog about it again, but in more detail this time. I want to enumerate the real exigent issues and how they relate not only to our world, politics, people, but also to how I live out my faith through those things.
Let me start by saying that I'm not a "climate change denier" nor do I want to be bellicose toward this issue. I am most certainly not against science, but I think there are a few things not adequately explained by the popular climate change theory, scientifically speaking. I do definitely line up on the side of the issue that says pollution has got to go, it's bad, it's not loving our neighbor as ourselves when we pump the sky full of toxic substances. However, carbon dioxide is not a toxic substance, you inhale a little and exhale a bunch with every breath. Nor do I find it to be the major component of greenhouse gases on this planet. I also feel that the sun causes much of our climate change though I believe man probably has something to do with it. But finally, I don't believe it to be the most pressing issue of our day, and though it may cause rising ocean levels, possibly displacing millions of people, millions of people are already dying because of things that are far easier and cheaper to fix.
Water woes are set to become far more visceral an issue than climate change. The primary thing a culture needs to become great is water. Without water, many people cannot live in tightly packed cities, and without sanitation, disease will run rampant. A civilization cannot thrive unless it has water. So in this age where in America, we flush 1.6 gallons of purified drinking water down the crapper just to wash away a 3 ounce turd and less than 3% of the water purified for supply to our houses actually enters a human body, why are we not focused on providing water to a billion people who don't have it? Why are we so focused on an invisible menace while ignoring a manifest obstacle?
Well, I don't know. Maybe it's sexier. Maybe it's a way to be better than other people. "I have a smaller carbon footprint than you." Maybe people don't really care about other people.
I'd like to think of myself on a lot of issues as a progressive. I think of it this way, I'm not a conservative because I don't think we should go back to something that was better than it is today. I'm a progressive because I think it's never so good that it can't get better tomorrow. I like progressive taxation, conservationism, social justice, and many other progressive ideals. I want things to change, I want them to get better.
For instance, the United States is still about 50% reliant on coal for electrical power. Aside from the issue that coal is about the most carbon intensive form of energy generation, there are a crap ton of other reasons why it's the most horrible of all ways to make power. Look at it from the cradle to the grave. Massive amounts of devastation are wrought to collect the coal at the beginning of the process. Mountaintop removal destroys wild land, mines drool water pollution, and dams that hold tailings from the mines collapse and kill people and ruin watersheds. Most coal is transported to power plants by diesel trains which though quite efficient provide the US with an incredible 10% of its nitrogen oxide pollution. At the plant, the coal is burned, releasing hundreds of tons of toxic metals such as mercury, cadmium and lead which lead to all sorts of diseases from lowered IQ's to full on birth defects and destroying fisheries. Leftovers from the burning include fly ash which gets piled up in heaps which can collapse and make a huge mess as we have recently seen. From Genesis to Revelation, coal power is bad. It's bad for health, for safety, for beauty, for nature and just really really bad.
Despite being a little cynical of the imporance of carbon dioxide in the world, I am most definitely for climate change legislation for the simple reason that it will probably prevent scores of new coal power plants from being built and will hopefully choke off existing ones. With the populist swell against coal that already exists, coal plants are being abandoned left and right. Hopefully, more of the same will happen if Carbon Cap and Trade comes to be.
Also understand that I am an avid reader of Treehugger and Mother Earth News. Both are excellent avenues for finding ways to consume less and for highlighting the real problems with consumption and pollution in the world. They still focus an inordinate amount of time on climate change, but that's their prerogative.
I guess another reason why climate change gets more press is that it's too easy to be against climate change. It's hard to go to a foreign country to provide water purification, but it's easy to be pro-climate. You don't really have to do anything. Its unfortunate, but people will always be lazy, self centered and apathetic. We all know it's so much easier to do nothing rather than something.
If ocean levels rise (they haven't risen much so far, but we'll see, I'm young) yes, millions of people will be displaced. However, as I've mentioned before there are already bigger problems. But people can move. People have the ability to move. 20,000 years ago, ocean levels were 130 meters below where they are today. The earth is constantly in flux. Tides can fluctuate tens of feet every day in some places. Saying that ocean levels can rise is describing the occurrence from an extremely human centered point of view. I'm sure the rise will be quite welcome to brackish water swamp creatures. We can adapt, we will adapt. One day we will run out of coal. Truth be told, all that coal was once free atmospheric carbon dioxide anyway.
What really needs to happen is for us to leverage our resources in such a way to make a sustainable way of living for future generations. People need clean water. People need food. These problems are a trifle in cost compared to the costs of mitigating climate change, but they will be ignored in favor of sexier problems, ones people see on TV and in disaster movies.
I don't care about carbon dioxide. Yet I pursue sustainable living, renewable energy, waterless toilet technology, and the like. Why? Because the pollution, the real pollution that I make travels around the world and causes my brothers and sisters and neighbors to suffer.
That's not loving others like I love myself. That's just loving myself.
WiredForStereo
Somewhat surprisingly, what he told me was extremely similar to my own beliefs on the subject. He said that he tended to be somewhat cynical but was not trying to discredit the science. I was excited.
So we talked about the true pressing problems in the world. We talked about one of the climate reports that said if we don't do something in the next few decades, by 2050 some people were going to be displaced or something. We also compared that to how a billion people in the world have no access to clean water and how two billion have no access to sanitation. We talked about how many million people die each year from diseases related to lack of clean water.
And I have thought about this before, I've even blogged about it in passing, so I decided to blog about it again, but in more detail this time. I want to enumerate the real exigent issues and how they relate not only to our world, politics, people, but also to how I live out my faith through those things.
Let me start by saying that I'm not a "climate change denier" nor do I want to be bellicose toward this issue. I am most certainly not against science, but I think there are a few things not adequately explained by the popular climate change theory, scientifically speaking. I do definitely line up on the side of the issue that says pollution has got to go, it's bad, it's not loving our neighbor as ourselves when we pump the sky full of toxic substances. However, carbon dioxide is not a toxic substance, you inhale a little and exhale a bunch with every breath. Nor do I find it to be the major component of greenhouse gases on this planet. I also feel that the sun causes much of our climate change though I believe man probably has something to do with it. But finally, I don't believe it to be the most pressing issue of our day, and though it may cause rising ocean levels, possibly displacing millions of people, millions of people are already dying because of things that are far easier and cheaper to fix.
Water woes are set to become far more visceral an issue than climate change. The primary thing a culture needs to become great is water. Without water, many people cannot live in tightly packed cities, and without sanitation, disease will run rampant. A civilization cannot thrive unless it has water. So in this age where in America, we flush 1.6 gallons of purified drinking water down the crapper just to wash away a 3 ounce turd and less than 3% of the water purified for supply to our houses actually enters a human body, why are we not focused on providing water to a billion people who don't have it? Why are we so focused on an invisible menace while ignoring a manifest obstacle?
Well, I don't know. Maybe it's sexier. Maybe it's a way to be better than other people. "I have a smaller carbon footprint than you." Maybe people don't really care about other people.
I'd like to think of myself on a lot of issues as a progressive. I think of it this way, I'm not a conservative because I don't think we should go back to something that was better than it is today. I'm a progressive because I think it's never so good that it can't get better tomorrow. I like progressive taxation, conservationism, social justice, and many other progressive ideals. I want things to change, I want them to get better.
For instance, the United States is still about 50% reliant on coal for electrical power. Aside from the issue that coal is about the most carbon intensive form of energy generation, there are a crap ton of other reasons why it's the most horrible of all ways to make power. Look at it from the cradle to the grave. Massive amounts of devastation are wrought to collect the coal at the beginning of the process. Mountaintop removal destroys wild land, mines drool water pollution, and dams that hold tailings from the mines collapse and kill people and ruin watersheds. Most coal is transported to power plants by diesel trains which though quite efficient provide the US with an incredible 10% of its nitrogen oxide pollution. At the plant, the coal is burned, releasing hundreds of tons of toxic metals such as mercury, cadmium and lead which lead to all sorts of diseases from lowered IQ's to full on birth defects and destroying fisheries. Leftovers from the burning include fly ash which gets piled up in heaps which can collapse and make a huge mess as we have recently seen. From Genesis to Revelation, coal power is bad. It's bad for health, for safety, for beauty, for nature and just really really bad.
Despite being a little cynical of the imporance of carbon dioxide in the world, I am most definitely for climate change legislation for the simple reason that it will probably prevent scores of new coal power plants from being built and will hopefully choke off existing ones. With the populist swell against coal that already exists, coal plants are being abandoned left and right. Hopefully, more of the same will happen if Carbon Cap and Trade comes to be.
Also understand that I am an avid reader of Treehugger and Mother Earth News. Both are excellent avenues for finding ways to consume less and for highlighting the real problems with consumption and pollution in the world. They still focus an inordinate amount of time on climate change, but that's their prerogative.
I guess another reason why climate change gets more press is that it's too easy to be against climate change. It's hard to go to a foreign country to provide water purification, but it's easy to be pro-climate. You don't really have to do anything. Its unfortunate, but people will always be lazy, self centered and apathetic. We all know it's so much easier to do nothing rather than something.
If ocean levels rise (they haven't risen much so far, but we'll see, I'm young) yes, millions of people will be displaced. However, as I've mentioned before there are already bigger problems. But people can move. People have the ability to move. 20,000 years ago, ocean levels were 130 meters below where they are today. The earth is constantly in flux. Tides can fluctuate tens of feet every day in some places. Saying that ocean levels can rise is describing the occurrence from an extremely human centered point of view. I'm sure the rise will be quite welcome to brackish water swamp creatures. We can adapt, we will adapt. One day we will run out of coal. Truth be told, all that coal was once free atmospheric carbon dioxide anyway.
What really needs to happen is for us to leverage our resources in such a way to make a sustainable way of living for future generations. People need clean water. People need food. These problems are a trifle in cost compared to the costs of mitigating climate change, but they will be ignored in favor of sexier problems, ones people see on TV and in disaster movies.
I don't care about carbon dioxide. Yet I pursue sustainable living, renewable energy, waterless toilet technology, and the like. Why? Because the pollution, the real pollution that I make travels around the world and causes my brothers and sisters and neighbors to suffer.
That's not loving others like I love myself. That's just loving myself.
WiredForStereo
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Question of the Day
Question: What's with moonhoaxtards?
Answer: Every conspiracy needs a nut, every nut needs a conspiracy. I'll call that a "diamond in the rough" paraphrase of Proverbs.
I coined a new phrase:
"May you live long enough to reload." - WiredForStereo
P.S. That's a Halo reference.
Eat your heart out Spock. (That's a Star Trek reference.)
Answer: Every conspiracy needs a nut, every nut needs a conspiracy. I'll call that a "diamond in the rough" paraphrase of Proverbs.
I coined a new phrase:
"May you live long enough to reload." - WiredForStereo
P.S. That's a Halo reference.
Eat your heart out Spock. (That's a Star Trek reference.)
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Question of the Day
Question: If you are listening to music and you sing along with the backup singers, is that a sign of low self esteem?
Answer: You tell me.
WiredForStereo
Answer: You tell me.
WiredForStereo
Friday, October 9, 2009
Did Jesus Drink Alcohol? Wine? Or was it non-alcoholic?
For some reason after 2000 years there's still question as to if Jesus actually drank wine or not, so I've actually waited a while to answer this question because I wanted to get it right. Now I think I've got enough evidence so I'm going to go about this a few different ways. I've talked to pastors, professors, home brew beer makers, and made wine and mead myself. I've heard a bunch of arguments, and I've even heard if from the pulpit of several churches including First Baptist of Bentonville. I've actually even heard that the wine Jesus drank was nonalcoholic. So let's explore this.
First of all, let's talk about grape juice. It may surprise you to know that there really was no such thing as grape juice before about 150 years ago. This guy named Welch (that's right) came along and figured out that you could Pasteurize grape juice and refrigerate it and it wouldn't ferment. In fact, he even advertised and sold it as alcohol free communion wine. Until that point, virtually all communion wine was in fact wine.
I've also taken time to get a scientific perspective on this question. I've spoken to University of Arkansas microbiology Professor Dr. Timothy Kral about this subject and he has had quite a bit to say and in no uncertain terms. It goes like this. There are wild yeasts (single celled organisms of the fungi kingdom which produce alcohol as a waste product) which naturally grow on grapes. When the grapes are pressed, the yeasts begin to reproduce and rapidly consume sugar and oxygen in the juice until the whole mix becomes anaerobic. At this point, the yeasts cease respiration as a means of energy production and expand to fermentation as a sole means of survival. They feed off the glucose (sugar) and other nutrients in the mash until one of two things happens. First, they either run out of food, or second, alcohol (waste product) kills them off. Some yeasts can stand a higher alcohol content that others, but just about all yeasts can stand above 10% which is well higher than beer. The yeast completely spread throughout the liquid fermenting the sugar into alcohol. Since alcohol is a toxic waste product, it then preserves the entire batch and it can be stored indefinitely. I asked Dr. Kral if it were possible to keep the juice aerobic to keep the fermentation from happening and possibly make non-alcoholic wine. He said absolutely not. Firstly, if the juice were kept completely aerobic, it would spoil and no one would drink it because it would be nasty and disgustingly acidic. Secondly there will always be some yeasts in the mix making at least some alcohol.
Let's look at the Bible. One of the best known cases is the wedding at Cana when Jesus turns water into wine. There are several arguments here. Some say that the bad wine was wine wine while the "wine" Jesus makes and everyone likes so much is actually grape juice. There are a few problems with this. First, logically, which wine is good wine? The rule of thumb is generally the older the better. Any grape juice more than 6 hours old is wine. Better wine is older wine. Jesus made the better wine. Secondly, this even took place around the time of Passover, in the spring. Grape harvest is in the fall. Without pasteurization, refrigeration and hermetically sealed containers, all grape juice is completely fermented into wine by this time. There would have been some mighty suspicious people if Jesus showed up with grape juice. No, Jesus made the good wine, the aged high alcohol content good wine.
Jesus also tells a parable about wine skins. He says that if you put new wine in old wine skins it will burst the skins. He is right. "New wine" or freshly squeezed grape juice will begin to ferment immediately releasing carbon dioxide. A sealed container not able to stretch (an old wine skin for example) will burst within hours. A new wine skin will be fresh and able to stretch and so won't break. But there's another clue in here. Only a sealed container will have the possibility of bursting. Why would it be sealed? Because if it wasn't, it would not ferment and it would rot and ruin the wine and the skin. Jesus knew you had to seal the container to make wine, wine that has alcohol. There wasn't any uncertainty at all, Jesus was talking about real wine.
Finally, think about the cultural perspective. Ancient cultures, the Jewish culture especially, used wine ubiquitously. It was the only way to purify water. Paul told Timothy to mix some wine with his water because of his stomach. Paul knew well as did everyone of the time that the alcohol in wine stopped stomach ailments which as we know now is due to the the killing of the microorganisms by the toxic alcohol. Think about what the main ingredient in hand sanitizer is. Wine or beer was the only way store or purify water. Many sources of water were polluted, especially near cities and the alcohol in wine was the only thing beside boiling that the ancients could use to kill the stomach bug.
The Jews were very much into wine. One of their official prayers basically says "Dear God, we like grapes, amen." Jesus was a Jew. Though there were some Jews, the Nazarites, who never consumed any wine or alcohol or grapes or anything, Jesus was not one, he was a Nazarene, they're different. The Nazarites eschewed even grapes because they as well as modern day scientists know that if you have grape juice, you have wine, it happens automatically. The yeast grows on the grapes, you can't escape it. In fact, it is general practice to boil wine after mixing it because you want to kill all the wild yeasts so you can add special breeds or blends to get just the right taste. You can't have unrefrigerated juice without having wine. Jesus most certainly drank real wine. He drank real wine with alcohol in it. Science says it, history says it, culture says it, the Bible tells it, logic dictates it.
Before 150 years ago, there was no big argument about whether Jesus drank grape juice or wine because everyone understood the reality that there was no such thing as grape juice. How ignorant some of us have become.
WiredForStereo
First of all, let's talk about grape juice. It may surprise you to know that there really was no such thing as grape juice before about 150 years ago. This guy named Welch (that's right) came along and figured out that you could Pasteurize grape juice and refrigerate it and it wouldn't ferment. In fact, he even advertised and sold it as alcohol free communion wine. Until that point, virtually all communion wine was in fact wine.
I've also taken time to get a scientific perspective on this question. I've spoken to University of Arkansas microbiology Professor Dr. Timothy Kral about this subject and he has had quite a bit to say and in no uncertain terms. It goes like this. There are wild yeasts (single celled organisms of the fungi kingdom which produce alcohol as a waste product) which naturally grow on grapes. When the grapes are pressed, the yeasts begin to reproduce and rapidly consume sugar and oxygen in the juice until the whole mix becomes anaerobic. At this point, the yeasts cease respiration as a means of energy production and expand to fermentation as a sole means of survival. They feed off the glucose (sugar) and other nutrients in the mash until one of two things happens. First, they either run out of food, or second, alcohol (waste product) kills them off. Some yeasts can stand a higher alcohol content that others, but just about all yeasts can stand above 10% which is well higher than beer. The yeast completely spread throughout the liquid fermenting the sugar into alcohol. Since alcohol is a toxic waste product, it then preserves the entire batch and it can be stored indefinitely. I asked Dr. Kral if it were possible to keep the juice aerobic to keep the fermentation from happening and possibly make non-alcoholic wine. He said absolutely not. Firstly, if the juice were kept completely aerobic, it would spoil and no one would drink it because it would be nasty and disgustingly acidic. Secondly there will always be some yeasts in the mix making at least some alcohol.
Let's look at the Bible. One of the best known cases is the wedding at Cana when Jesus turns water into wine. There are several arguments here. Some say that the bad wine was wine wine while the "wine" Jesus makes and everyone likes so much is actually grape juice. There are a few problems with this. First, logically, which wine is good wine? The rule of thumb is generally the older the better. Any grape juice more than 6 hours old is wine. Better wine is older wine. Jesus made the better wine. Secondly, this even took place around the time of Passover, in the spring. Grape harvest is in the fall. Without pasteurization, refrigeration and hermetically sealed containers, all grape juice is completely fermented into wine by this time. There would have been some mighty suspicious people if Jesus showed up with grape juice. No, Jesus made the good wine, the aged high alcohol content good wine.
Jesus also tells a parable about wine skins. He says that if you put new wine in old wine skins it will burst the skins. He is right. "New wine" or freshly squeezed grape juice will begin to ferment immediately releasing carbon dioxide. A sealed container not able to stretch (an old wine skin for example) will burst within hours. A new wine skin will be fresh and able to stretch and so won't break. But there's another clue in here. Only a sealed container will have the possibility of bursting. Why would it be sealed? Because if it wasn't, it would not ferment and it would rot and ruin the wine and the skin. Jesus knew you had to seal the container to make wine, wine that has alcohol. There wasn't any uncertainty at all, Jesus was talking about real wine.
Finally, think about the cultural perspective. Ancient cultures, the Jewish culture especially, used wine ubiquitously. It was the only way to purify water. Paul told Timothy to mix some wine with his water because of his stomach. Paul knew well as did everyone of the time that the alcohol in wine stopped stomach ailments which as we know now is due to the the killing of the microorganisms by the toxic alcohol. Think about what the main ingredient in hand sanitizer is. Wine or beer was the only way store or purify water. Many sources of water were polluted, especially near cities and the alcohol in wine was the only thing beside boiling that the ancients could use to kill the stomach bug.
The Jews were very much into wine. One of their official prayers basically says "Dear God, we like grapes, amen." Jesus was a Jew. Though there were some Jews, the Nazarites, who never consumed any wine or alcohol or grapes or anything, Jesus was not one, he was a Nazarene, they're different. The Nazarites eschewed even grapes because they as well as modern day scientists know that if you have grape juice, you have wine, it happens automatically. The yeast grows on the grapes, you can't escape it. In fact, it is general practice to boil wine after mixing it because you want to kill all the wild yeasts so you can add special breeds or blends to get just the right taste. You can't have unrefrigerated juice without having wine. Jesus most certainly drank real wine. He drank real wine with alcohol in it. Science says it, history says it, culture says it, the Bible tells it, logic dictates it.
Before 150 years ago, there was no big argument about whether Jesus drank grape juice or wine because everyone understood the reality that there was no such thing as grape juice. How ignorant some of us have become.
WiredForStereo
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
First Entertainment Review: Dexter
I already do movie and book reviews, but I like some other things too, so I decided to review them too. Entertainment reviews will be less specific and may contain anything that entertains, not just movies or books. Today, I am going to review the TV show Dexter starring Michael C. Hall.
Dexter appears on Showtime, and as such contains material not appropriate for many people, however, I don't watch it for the visual content. I watch it for the exploration of morality it represents.
Story: Dexter Morgan is a police blood spatter analyst by day, and a serial killer by night. His father, a police detective, realized what he was when he was young after he adopted him when he began to kill small animals. His father trained him to be extremely discreet and to kill only those who deserved it. Thus, Dexter avoids prison and serves a useful purpose by cleaning up what the justice system misses. Oh, and he also gets to be the most successful prolific serial killer in the world.
The question of morality comes when you understand what Dexter is. If we are really honest, Dexter is a cold blooded murdering psychopath. Well, maybe he's warm blooded. But properly understood, he doesn't kill for the justice in it, that's just a side effect. He kills to sate his "dark passenger" mentioned in the novels and recently more often on the show. One of the novels explains the dark passenger like a malevolent spirit or ancient god, though that specific novel was unpopular due to the spirituality therein.
Much of the show evolves around the "code" Dexter's father Harry taught him. The code keeps him from getting caught and keeps his activities in the realm of a service rather than a menace to society. In the first season, the main villain is Dexter's long lost biological brother who for the same reason is likewise a psychopath, only without the code, tries to kill Dex's sister, so he kills him. In the second season, Dexter's exploits are discovered but he gets lucky when his mistress frames someone else for him, so he has to kill her. In the third season, he reluctantly accepts an apprentice of sorts who won't follow the code and kills in anger, so Dexter kills him. Also in the third season is a Nicaraguan torture expert who though he says he tortures to extract information, really just does it because he likes it. He tries to kill Dexter so Dexter kills him. Now we have the fourth season where the villain is a long time serial killer and has been exposed in the first episode, and I'm not sure how it will play out, but I think Dexter will kill him.
I really like this show. They could really cut down on the swearing and nudity, but the gore seems pretty accurate generally speaking. I swing back and forth between for and against the death penalty, but it really comes down to being for it for all who deserve it regardless of race or economic status. As you may know, nearly all cases of the death penalty are executed upon people of the lower classes, and that's just not right. So pragmatically, I'm against the death penalty as law. But it would be a very interesting situation indeed if there were a guy in the world who kills only murderers and rapists. This show is definitely not for minors, and not for the squeamish.
9/10
WiredForStereo
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Questions of the Day
Long day of discussing (arguing) some things with a super hard core conservative.
Question 1:
What do you call the guy who backs out of the argument first?
Answer:
The loser.
Question 2:
What's the point of believing the Bible is inerrant, infallible, etc. if you don't read the f@ck!ng thing?
Answer:
F@ck if I know.
Tell me how it went.
WiredForStereo
Question 1:
What do you call the guy who backs out of the argument first?
Answer:
The loser.
Question 2:
What's the point of believing the Bible is inerrant, infallible, etc. if you don't read the f@ck!ng thing?
Answer:
F@ck if I know.
Tell me how it went.
WiredForStereo
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Which Christian Nation?
I've been trying to explain to people why the United States is not a Christian nation. My focus in doing this is trying to convince people that many of the main figures of the Founding Fathers were not Christians, or not Evangelical Christians, or at least not the kind of Christians we have today. We do have wonderful Christian figures who have done great things throughout history such as William Wilberforce, but our country is no more a Christian nation than if you walk into a garage you are a Volkswagen.
In that vein, I found some quotations from our founding fathers and I did some research to check their validity. First is Thomas Jefferson. For the uninitiated, he actually wanted to see the end of the Christian faith and favored more of a universal moral gospel.
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." Thomas JeffersonThis quotation is a paraphrase of the original here (emphasis mine):
"...those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man, endeavored to crush your well earnt, & well deserved fame." - Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, Washington, 21 March 1801
“Religions are all alike -- founded upon fables and mythologies”“The Christian God is a being of terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust”
Also: "But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Thomas Jefferson
Next Ben Franklin. He was really a Deist, known by some as a champion of generic religion, and claimed by several denominations, he did not affirm some extremely vital tenets of faith in Jesus such as: salvation, hell, Jesus Christ’s divinity, and he believed in the goodness of man.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin FranklinAnd Finally John Adams.
“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it”
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." John Adams (To be perfectly fair, this one is also credited to George Washington, so it may be one or both.)
The overriding principle here is that even if each and every one of the founders were born again evangelical Christians, the goals of the US as a country and the principles of the American Dream do not mesh with true Christian principles. We are promised "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and all these "freedoms" bandied about by the politicos of today. The Bible doesn't promise us any "freedoms." The Bible promises us death, imprisonment, and torture. So as you can see, our country was not founded solely on Christian principles and more importantly, it is not a Christian nation. We even have separation of church and state, something that not even Switzerland has. Our country was founded as a nation where there is freedom of religion, which may be somewhat of a Christian ideal, but Christianity functions best under persecution. But, freedom of religion does not equal Christian Nation. Nor is there anything in there about freedom from taxes, liberals, homosexuals, or Asian automobiles.
What has been done in the name of being a Christian nation by a self proclaimed born-again president has done incalculable damage not only to our country, but especially to the true faith of Jesus Christ. Wars started in the name of a god are the kind of thing done in Islam, not in true Christianity. Our politicians need not soil the name of God by proclaiming publicly that attacking a sovereign nation without just cause is "the will of God" because it is no such thing.
Please do some research. Faith's only worth is found in the object toward which it is directed. Faith in politicians who tell you what you want to hear is useless.
WiredForStereo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
