Evil Christians

(See here) a Haaretz article that reports on the "scandal" of the Roman Catholic Pope not being contrite enough when he visited Auschwitz.

Let me note that while the "Polish Pope", John Paul visited Auschwitz and evidently his apology was "good enough", evidently more apologies are needed. When the Roman Catholic Church appoints a Deutsch Pope, more bowing and scraping is required.

How about this? If Pope Benedict goes to Auschwitz and agrees to have his bare back exposed, willingly subjects himself to being whipped as Jesus was, will the "apology" finally be accepted?

Any apology from a Christian leader involves going against the Christian New Testament in which it is pointed out that Jewish leaders proclaimed they would permanently, until the end of time, accept responsibility for the death of Jesus!

However Jesus also, in his prayer to the Father as he hung on the cross, asked God to "Please forgive them, because they know not what they do?" Jesus always had an answer for everything didn't he? My reasoning is that this is part of the reason he was put to death.

OK "you damn Jews", just how contrite must Pope Benedict be in order to qualify for your forgiveness? If he agrees to allow you to crucify him, will that be enough? I would not doubt that Pope Benedict might be willing to take things to these extremes. I do not doubt that "some Jews" might demand these extremes. However I am also fairly sure that those who demand it would not even be satisfied by even this.

I would counsel Pope Benedict to not go to extremes. Nothing is going to satisfy Jewish extremists even if you do. If Jewish extremists demand another sacrifice, will only be satisfied by this sacrifice, let me go in your place. The world can continue without me, but you have the power to "change the world" which I do not.

And this comes from a man who only calls Jesus "Rabbi" and who proclaims him to be the greatest Jew to have ever lived!

Abortion and Brainwaves

Abortion and Brainwaves.

(See here) an article written by Margaret Sykes that discusses fetal brain waves.

One very pointed critique I have of the article is that Margaret fixates on the cortex again. My understanding of things is that the cortex only serves as a bridge between what goes on in the body and what goes on in the "mind".

Margarets piece yields nothing on what happens in the cerebrum, or when activity in the the fetal brain might indicate the "fetus/baby" is starting to think.

More About the Jefferson Case

(See here) a Slate webzine article By Akhil Reed Amar that seems to argue there is nothing wrong with the Justice Department obtaining a search warrant and invading Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson's Capitol Hill office to sack it.

First let me state that the William Jefferson case is hard to defend. In my opinion, the man is a scoundrel, he evidently hid thousands of dollars of bribery money that was found in his home freezer. Ever heard of "cold cash"?

But what we are going to establish in the William Jefferson case is going to become precedent. Should EVERY Congressman be subjected to like invasions?

Perhaps Congress could still do its business if only miniscule percentages of the members were subjected to this. However what happens if a particularly powerful member of Congress is harassed with seizure of his "tools" for conducting business. Amongst the articles I understand seized from William Jefferson's office was the hard drive from his computer. Can it reasonably be expected that William Jefferson can continue to conduct his business when access to his hard drive is denied him?

I am making too much of too little? Well what happens if we subject the Executive Branch to these same rules. Let us say some Legislative Committee, or some special prosecutor, thinks it becomes necessary to seize the records of the President to pore over them. If every document and every hard drive the Executive Branch holds is subject to being seized, including all those contained in the Oval Office, just how could we expect the Executive Branch to function after all this documentation is seized and no longer in their possession? Isn't this reality also true of a member of Congress?

How can a constituent expect a Congressman to reply to his E-mail if the hard drive that contains the E-mail has been confiscated?

I am not trying to defend William Jefferson. From the evidence presented in the media, he is a guilty scoundrel. However I wish to protect future members of Congress that would be subjected to the precedence of what the Executive Branch was allowed to get away with in the William Jefferson case.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the William Jefferson seizures are allowed to stand, then the Executive Branch must be subjected to the same standards. I do not think this would be a good development.

Is the Executive Branch willing to live with this and willing to stop hiding behind "Executive privilege"? If the Executive Branch seeks to castrate the Legislative Branch, they better be willing to be castrated themselves!

Retirement Homes. Dens of Iniquity?

(See here) a Slate webzine article that reports STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease) spread is on the increase amongst of all groups, senior citizens!

The article gives as the number one explanation for the increase is the availability of Viagra, grin.

Perhaps we next will start seeing demonstrations from moral vigilante groups outside retirement homes demanding these "Dens of Iniquity" must be shut down!

Who could have known that the local "Senior Center" could become a hub for "swinging singles" to pair up?

I thought it was supposed to go "With age comes wisdom". I didn't know that "free sex" was part of the equation when it comes to getting old.

Evidently the generation of Woodstock did not change their ways when they put the AARP membership card in their wallet.

Common Sense From The Quran?

(See here) an article by Mohammed El-Moctar El-Shinqiti that is published on the English version of the Aljazeera website.

I am rather ill informed as to what type of pieces appear on the Arabic Aljazeera website or over the air waves. However if this type of material appears, I am wondering about what all the fuss is about? Certainly some American outlets are more "one sided", "offensive" and "intolerant" then is Aljazeera.

This article publicizes some things that are contained in the Quran that I would describe as "common sense". Let me quote:

The Quran says: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from falsehood" (2:256); "Say (O Muhammad): This is the truth from the Lord of you all. Then whoever wishes, let him believe, and whoever wishes, let him disbelieve" (18:29).

Moreover, Muhammad was told in the Quran that his mission was to teach and preach, not to impose or compel: "remind them, for you are only a reminder. You are not a coercer over them" (88:21-22); "You are not one to overawe them by force. So admonish with the Quran those who fear My Warning!" (50:45).

One critique I have (and this might only be because I am ignorant) is the last quotation. It is my understanding that the Quran is a compilation of the teachings of the Prophet, however this compilation in written form was not accomplished until well after the death of the Prophet. How then did the Prophet receive the message that people were to be admonished by that which was not yet compiled? Certainly the Prophet realized that a non-written, oral only, Quran was subject to being compromised by evil men much as he seemed to feel happened to the teachings of Jesus contained in the New Testament?

Personally, I have been exposed to enough beautiful quotations and common sense "truth" coming from the Quran to be motivated to get my hands on an English translation and do some reading on my own. If nothing else, it might help me to better understand my Moslem brethren (I define "brethren" very narrowly, however this "narrow" definition might include a sizable fragment, or even a majority, of Moslems). Of course if I do so, I guess I better watch out for the NSA. One of the "targets" I specifically heard of as being within the sights of the Patriot Act was those who dared to check out a Quran from the local library. Grin.

The Jefferson Case

Louisiana House Representative Jefferson's governmental office was invaded, under warrant, to gather evidence that he is a corrupt individual worthy of scorn.

First let me state that the federal government apparently does not need any evidence they have obtained from a search of his office. I would imagine they only obtained the authority to search his office by the overwhelming evidence they obtained through other means.

I am going to stand on the principle of separation of powers. The precedence that could be established by the Jefferson case could erode the separation of powers to too great an extent for us to sit on our hands and allow this. Never before has the executive branch been allowed such powers in the face of obvious abuse of powers. Why? Because the risk posed to honest legislatures has been too great.

The case against Representative Jefferson does not even need the evidence obtained from a search of his office. If the search is allowed to stand because he obviously violated the law, what protection is there for a member of the legislature who is only "suspected" of violating the law without any real proof, only generalized suspicion?

What is to prevent the Executive Branch from obtaining search warrants to search offices of the Legislative Branch based upon political standings? Were the records of Richard Nixon subjected to search and seizure after his obvious violations of the law?

If the Executive Branch is willing to subject themselves to the same standards they seek to impose upon the Legislative Branch I think I am all ears. If however the Executive Branch continues to twist law so that it could be used to punish political opponents while holding themselves not subject to the same laws I give them the big raspberry.

There are dangers inherent in allowing governmental officials special privileges. I feel these dangers are no less then those granted by the Constitution in granting an ordinary citizen the right to "keep and bear arms". For the greater good, some rights and protections granted under the Constitution need to be adhered to, even if we can not see the wisdom under short term circumstances.

The Representative Jefferson case does not serve as a good example to test the limits of powers between the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch. There is already enough evidence to prove the guilty bastard is guilty. Let us not make this case a test case of limits of authority. Do not let the objective of "proving the case" against one dishonest man torpedo our system of government.

That is unless the Executive Branch is willing to submit to the same requirements they impose on the Legislative Branch. In which case I am all ears, but wondering how they will be able to conduct business.

Barghouti's Peace Proposal

(See here) an MSNBC Newsweek article by Christopher Dickey that discusses the proposed negotiating stance of imprisoned Palestinian leaders such as Fatah member Marwan Barghouti and Hamas member Abdel Khaleq Natche.

While the prisoners' proposal is certainly a step in the right direction, it is important to note that even Hamas "moderates" who have expressed an interest in the proposal have indicated that any peace agreed to as a result would only represent a temporary hudna and that they would not give up on their dream of liberating all of that which they consider to be Palestine. My understanding is that they do not draw the line at 1967 borders as that which they consider Palestine.

While I personally have problems with the position stated in the proposal as to what the proposal indicates the Palestinian side would agree to, I agree with Christopher that this could serve as a starting point for negotiations. While I would consider some of the conditions of the proposal unreasonable, I also feel that the Israeli position, as put forth by Israeli PM Olmert is also unreasonable.

Personally, I feel any "fair and just" peace agreement is going to have to look something like the Geneva Accord. If either (or both) side(s) enter into negotiations and point to the other side as being unreasonable and the differences unsolvable, I am going to end up pointing at the Geneva Accord as proof the differences can be solved. Must the final result be a mirror image of the Geneva Accord? No it need not. The Geneva Accord only serves as proof that no difference can not be resolved.

If Mahmoud Abbas feels he can circumvent Hamas opposition to negotiations through a national referendum, at a minimum it must be clear in the referendum that if the Palestinian People vote for this position then any outcome would represent a permanent and lasting peace, and not a temporary hudna.

America's Noble Warriors

(See here) an MSNBC/AP piece by Russ Bynum that reports on reactions to Dubyah Bush's recent comments on the Iraq war from families that have lost loved ones in the conflict.

I am not surprised that many family members express reservations about whether the sacrifice of their loved ones' lives were worth it. I am not sure I would be able to resist the motivation to state "Nothing is worth losing the life of my son/daughter."

(See here) a related piece by Charley Reese titled "What People Believe" that appears on Lew Rockwell's anti-war/Libertarian website.

Charley opens his piece with this question:

How do you persuade a man who has a wife and children and who works hard but can barely make ends meet to take a pay cut and go do something that has a high probability of getting him killed or seriously injured?

Let me try to answer Charley's question. I am a retired Navy CPO. I was amongst those against the invasion of Iraq BEFORE we started. However once we engaged, I became convinced that since we made the decision to invade, and made a mess by doing so, we had to stick it out long enough to clean up the mess we made. This is still my opinion, although I am starting to wonder just how successful we are going to be in cleaning up the mess.

When things began to get real dicey over there, I again considered volunteering to do my part to serve my nation. I was not going to try to return to active duty, but I noted there was a real need for civilian truck drivers to support our active duty troops. Since I took up truck driving as a career after my retirement from the Navy, I figured I should be willing to "put up or shut up". I started enquiring about how I could go about becoming one of these civilian truck drivers in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

As I enquired I discovered that while the pay was good enough to continue putting my kids through college while I served, there was a problem in that if I were maimed or killed while doing so, there were little protections offered. Only a miniscule amount of "wartime" life insurance and zero disability coverage. I was starting to wonder if it would be possible to obtain such coverage on my own. I am sure it would have been expensive, however I figured the pay was good enough that I probably could afford it and still have enough money left for my family.

One female family friend, when she overheard I was considering this, asked why would I do such a thing? Her reasoning was that since I had already done over 20 years in the service, surely I should consider that I had done my "time in the barrel" and it was somebody else's turn. I believe my reply to her was that it would be wrong for an old fart like me to ask someone else to take on the burden and risks if I was unwilling to do so myself.

What kept me from following through was I talked with another truck driver who actually had served over there for several months. I found out from him that in order to qualify one must pass an extremely rigorous physical. While I am in good enough health to pass the Dept Of Transportation mandated physical in the United States required to drive a commercial vehicle I am not free from health issues. The one area that I am certain that would disqualify me is the pulmonary aspects. The truck driver I ran into had an extremely difficult time passing this area, and in fact had to return to be retested a couple times to pass. He didn't even smoke and I smoke at least two, and as much as three, packs of cigarettes a day. Back when I still served on active duty, and smoked less, I was informed I already back then suffered from reduced lung capacity.

I am certain I could not pass the physical. Evidently one must be in perfect health to be allowed to risk your life for your country.

Oh, from the truck driver I also noted one other real (and possibly humorous) condition I still would have had objections to. Civilian truck drivers in Iraq are forced to drive around in triple digit temperatures without air conditioning. Since it is not unusual for me to spend thousands of dollars per year in keeping my air conditioning running in my truck, I would have held out for Haliburton to provide me with a truck to drive that included air conditioning. While I might have been willing to risk my life, I was reluctant to do so in sweltering conditions!

My youngest son attempted to join the service. Like me, he too was against the invasion of Iraq before we started. As he and I discussed his possibly serving, he wondered if it would be wrong to serve even if he disagreed with the war. If it would be OK for him to serve while Dubyah Bush, who he did not vote for, served as Commander In Chief. I remember trying to communicate to him that he should consider it as serving and defending the American People, and that this was still a noble thing to do. I believe I left unsaid my belief that if only gung-ho cowboy types enter the service we will end up with a military comprised only of gung-ho cowboys. This would not be a good thing. (As a sidenote, my son did attempt to enter the service, but was prevented from doing so. While he passed the mental entrance exam with an extremely high score, he could not pass the physical due to a childhood injury.)

What pisses me off is that there are not more Americans willing to serve then there are. A number approaching (but not quite reaching) 50% of Americans were in favor of the invasion before we started. Why are there not lines of people queued at the recruiter's office seeking the privilege of serving from amongst these citizens? Why do they leave it to those individuals (and the sons and daughters of these individuals) who were against the war to serve while we clean up the mess they were in favor of making?

Why are the ranks of our military not filled with the individuals (and their offspring) who cheered when Dubyah Bush stated "Bring it on"? They were in favor of making the mess, and now that the mess has been made, they are unwilling to make the sacrifices needed to clean it up.

Beer Sales Sag

(See here) a MSN Money article by Robert Walberg that reports on sagging beer sales in the United States. Apparently the American consumer is developing a taste for beverages like (gasp) wine!

This is un-American! I have decided to start a one man campaign to prop up the market share of the breweries. I hereby vow to attempt to consume as much beer as I can (and I promise not to drink and drive).

I am heartened to hear that breweries may engage in a price war. This means the industry might end up subsidizing my noble effort. I am all in favor of that.

Is DDT Really Dangerous?

Is DDT really as dangerous to the environment as environmentalists claim?

(See here) an article by Steven Brockerman that argues studies show this is not the case, that in reality studies cited by environmentalists actually point to a different conclusion. That the harms to the environment that environmentalists claim is caused by DDT were either evident prior to the use of DDT or were due to other causes. That subsequent studies conducted by reputable institutions (such as Cornell University) "found no tremors, no mortality, no thinning of eggshells and no interference with reproduction caused by levels of DDT which were as high as those reported to be present in most of the wild birds where 'catastrophic' decreases in shell quality and reproduction have been claimed".

Perhaps studies should be conducted as to whether banning the use of DDT actually causes greater harm to the environment? My thoughts are that by banning use of small amounts of effective DDT, repetitive use of larger amounts of less effective pesticides are required. Is this really a good thing?

Perhaps it is time to reopen the DDT debate. Since the use of DDT has been banned, there has been a resurgence of pests such as bedbugs. What is worse is that incidences of malaria have been on the increase in tropical locations and malaria has been developing resistance to anti-malarial drugs.

Alternative Energy

During this last time out I took what, for me, is a rare load of freight through the North Central and North Western states. I try to avoid these loads because due to contractual specifics I get paid less money per mile to haul these loads while at the same time the fuel costs run higher in these areas.

While traveling through North Dakota I heard some interesting news. On NDPR (North Dakota Public Radio) I heard of the ground breaking for a new ethanol facility that will produce 100 million gallons of ethanol per year. At first my heart leapt at the good news, but then the story continued. Seems the development of this facility was being pushed by an alliance of North Dakota farmers and coal miners. Why the coal miners? Because part of the development was a new steam plant that will provide steam to this facility (as well as to a conventional barley and malt processing facility). This steam plant is going to use good old fashioned coal as an energy source.

Here's some news for North Dakota farmers, you are going to lose some public support, or at least my support, for ethanol if you use coal as an energy source. Clean coal technology has not progressed anywhere near to the point where it in any way minimizes the effects of CO2 emissions. From my understanding, North Dakota is not even going to try and use the "clean coal" technology that has thus far been developed. Part of the reason I support ethanol is because it is supposed to approach CO2 emission neutrality. If you are going to emit vast amounts of CO2 anyway by burning coal, I am going to start writing my Congressman to modify tax inducements so that only greenhouse gas friendly ethanol qualifies. I am also going to personally be less motivated to pay extra money to buy an E85 capable vehicle. I might still buy E85 if it is cheaper, but gone will be the rosy "and I'm even helping the environment" feelings I would have had as I was putting your product into my tank.

Further along in the trip, as I neared my destination in Washington state, I started hearing of a new bio diesel facility that would be developed near Seattle. There were no reports of what energy source the facility would use. What I found interesting is where the vegetable oil to be processed into bio diesel would come from. Reports were that the facility would mainly rely on foreign vegetable oil. Due to transportation costs, it would be cheaper to import vegetable oil from foreign sources via water then to bring it from the Midwestern USA via rail. Sigh.