George Washington

From today's American Minute blog:

On OCTOBER 3, 1789, from the U.S. Capitol in New York City, President George Washington issued the first Proclamation of a National Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer to Almighty God, as just one week earlier the first session of the U.S. Congress successfully approved the First Ten Amendments limiting the power of the Federal Government. The First Amendment begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In his Proclamation, President Washington stated: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God....we may...unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations..." Washington continued: "and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our...duties properly...to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws...and to bless them with...peace and concord...and the increase of science...and...to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best."

 Amen!

Read More

Content and Intent

No doubt you have heard about the disgusting "green: videos by 10:10. If not, be warned before you follow this link - the video is extremely graphic and depicts the murder of children. For those who prefer not to watch it, in the video a teacher asks her class to reduce their carbon emissions, and has the children who want to participate raise their hands. Two children don't and are murdered by the teacher, who detonates bombs in their desks, spattering the rest of the class with blood and body parts. There is another equally graphic video involving graphically murdering adults who don't do enough to cut their carbon emissions.

Of course the media and blogosphere is abuzz. One post I read asked "what's the difference between these images and graphic abortion images?" They are referring to images like these (warning again, link is directly to graphic images of aborted fetuses) used by organizations like the Center for Bioethical Reform. The image at the top of this post is taken from their college campus education program, the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP).

Anyway, the there are two major difference between graphic videos like 10:10 made and pictures (and videos) of abortions and aborted fetuses. The first is in content. The 10:10 videos are simply movie special effects (I hope), while the GAP photos document the actual killing of human beings. Like photos and videos of KKK lynchings, the Tiananmen Square, the JFK assassination, Nazi concentration camps, Civil War battles, North Korean executions, and many more, the GAP photos are important historically and as a warning for generations now and to come.

The second major difference is in intent. The 10:10 videos are advocating violence against children (and anyone who is not "green" enough), while the GAP photos are protesting violence against children and mothers.^*

Yes, there are major differences between the 10:10 videos and GAP photos and videos. The former are purely offensive and have no merit, while the latter, though equally disgusting, are essential.

[* Note to anyone who want to claim that 10:10 isn't promoting violence - imagine that the two children who are murdered in the video are gay, or black, or Muslim, and tell me if you don't think it would be interpreted as advocating violence. And for anyone who wants to claim that abortion isn't violence against children and mothers, go to the GAP site and look at the dismembered bodies of fetuses and tell me how none of them are human.]

Read More

Dry Gulching

Ya know what bugs me? When we were in Yellowstone this summer, pretty much the big stink at all the lodges/inns/hotels/cabins/resorts/marinas/camp grounds/etc. was how "green" they were. Every square inch of the landscape was plastered with signs saying how this toilet used less water, the light bulbs used less electricity, the paper towels were recycled. Since I wrote the recent post on acting "green", I wanted to mention my loathing of "faux green" things, and in general the inappropriate use of technology to try to promote something that isn't so.

But there's so much of it around us every day, I don't know where to start. I bet I could find 100 things that fit the category (inappropriate use of technology, usually to make one think something is "green") just around my own home. So I decided to pick a random thing that irked my in Yellowstone to start with. Paper towel dispensers.

At the top of this post is a picture of the standard towel dispenser in use in millions of restrooms all over the world. It's inexpensive, has no moving parts (I'm not counting the door to refill the dispenser, I mean it has no parts that need to move to dispense paper towels), cheap to construct, hygienic (made from easy to clean stainless steel) and kind cute. How could we improve on it?

Add inappropriate technology, of course! Almost every place we went in and near the park had those new fangled "motion sensor" paper towel dispensers, like the one shown at right. Now, rather than easy to clean (and recyclable) stainless steel, we are greeted by germy plastic. Each unit now requires a mercury and/or heavy metal containing battery (or in-wall wiring, but I believe most of these were battery powered, as the bathrooms hadn't been built anticipating that someone would use electricity to deliver a paper towel).

Just to make things better, nearly every one was "broken" like I believe the one pictured is. Rather than deliver a paper towel when you approach it and wave a hand in front of it (like the inappropriate ones I see around NJ), it leaves a paper towel hanging in the air, collecting overspray, germs, etc. When one tears off a sheet of paper, another one immediately descends, in order to catch whatever germs it can before the next hapless user arrives.

Another solution is to forgo paper entirely and use warm air to dry hands. While this may use less energy in the bathroom than it takes to create a paper towel and cart it to the bathroom and then the landfill, it uses electricity which (may have) involved carting fuel to the power plant, burning it, transmission losses (typically 50% of power is lost in the electrical lines) and the inefficiency of blowing the warm air onto your hand.

I have not seen an in-depth energy budget for these things, but I would suggest that if you use waste industrial heat to manufacture your paper towels, and at the end of life burn them in a co-gen facility, the paper towels wind up being "greener". There are just too many variables to make that analysis.

Plus, aside from the green arguments, they are noisy, take a long time to dry hands (relative to a wipe of a paper towel), and as one article I read points out, blow air at the perfect temperature to promote bacterial growth. Add to that the fact that they can't be used to wipe a stain off a shirt, or in fact wipe up anything, and I am not a big fan.

One of the restrooms I was in had an even higher-tech "green" solution, the Dyson air blade. This device vacuums water off the hands, and claims to be faster and use less energy than the warm air drier. You simply insert your hands and the drier activates, blowing and sucking water off of them. Not only can't this device wipe anything, it can't even dry anything other than hands. Admittedly my hands are rather large, but I had a hard time getting them in and out of the slots in the device without rubbing against the germy plastic. I have no data on the reliability of the unit, but I'll note that the unsupported plastic arch sticking out looks like a target for being bumped, sat on, etc. and broken.

Note that, in addition to the above complaints, since most of these device must sense your hands, they uses electricity 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, whether someone is drying their hands or not. I doubt that fact is advertised as a cost by the manufacturer.

All this to save the energy in a paper towel. While I support not wasting paper, is this actually a large enough issue to warrant the time, expense, and sanitary compromises made in order to use these high-tech solutions? Don't we have bigger waster and energy use issues to solve?

Admittedly, some of these technologies have some benefits to offset the disadvantages, but one does not. It delivers the same old paper towel, but with more waste. And so I hereby award the prize for most inappropriate use of technology in a restroom to the motion sensor paper towel dispenser.

Read More

40 Days is in full swing!

Had a tough day? Feeling a little blue? Want to have your spirits lifted? Then check out the Blog at 40 Days for Life! If you're not familiar with 40 Days for Life check out my earlier post. As of today we are eight days into the 40, and I'm reading stories like "Abortion Center Closes". Aside from the title story are the following:

A nurse walked out of the abortion center that is the site of one of the 40 Days for Life vigils in the El Paso area and gave her phone number to one of the prayer volunteers.

“Please help me find a new job,” she said. “I quit!”

... Over the weekend, [a man who just recently took a job as a security guard at a facility where a 40 Days for Life vigil is in progress] was approached by a young woman who had come for an abortion — and she’s pregnant with twins!

The abortion was her boyfriend’s idea — not hers. In fact, she didn’t want the abortion at all. But he was pressuring her, and she explained her situation to the guard.

His response: “Do what your heart tells you to do.”

That was amazing enough. But the guard then told the boyfriend that it was basically time to man-up and do the right thing. And, he added, if the boyfriend continued to threaten his girlfriend, she could press charges.

The young man broke down in tears and admitted he was wrong. The couple then left the abortion center.

and just two days ago, the post "44 Babies Saved". Some of the stories:

One young woman went into the Planned Parenthood center — and turned right around and left within 15 minutes. She spoke to one of the volunteers and followed her to the pro-life pregnancy center nearby, where she decided to keep her baby.

Later, a couple took information from a volunteer, but entered the Planned Parenthood building and stayed for hours. It didn’t look good. But finally they walked out — with huge smiles — and told the people praying they canceled the abortion.

With all the bad news we receive every day, take heart that there is are also good, courageous people in the world. If you'd like to help out, please consider joining 40 Days for Life. There's still plenty to be done.

Read More

Science? I think not!

My son came home on the second day of school with a science project assigned - to give a talk about "controversial science". Of course, I began salivating immediately, as we began to discuss ideas. In the course of our discussion, it became clear that this science teacher was promoting ideas that, while politically popular, were not supported by fact. My son said he was a bit confused because I exhibit some behaviors that would lead him to think I believed in the junk science, while in fact I oppose it. So I explained a whole lot of things to him, and thought I might do the same here.

For instance, I know that anthropogenic global warming er, I mean climate change um... anthropogenic global climate disruption is a load of hooey. If you look at actual scientific data (which is hard to find, by the way - our governments have done a good job of repressing it) there are two conclusions which can be drawn.

First, there is no data that supports the theory. There is no correlation in historical climate data between human influence and temperature. In fact, there is a strong correlation between solar activity and temperature. This makes sense when you think of the vast amount of energy delivered to Earth by the sun (174,000,000,000,000,000 or 174 petawatts) versus the minuscule changes in the greenhouse effect that humans have made. Even a tiny fluctuation in solar output has a large effect on our climate.

Secondly, there is no science involved. The climate models that have been publicized are computer simulations that are just plain wrong. The code that was published does not even properly handle historical data (e.g. if you plug in data up to 1950 it predicts we'll all die by now). Instead the authors have written the code to throw away the output of the model on historical data and simply output its input, so it appears to follow the Earth's actual climate to date. As Climategate has shown us, the "scientists" who promote the theory are biased and doing bad/no science, just politics.

On the other hand I do recycle, compost and try to reduce my energy consumption where possible. Why? Because of my faith. I want to be a good steward of the natural resources God has given me. Just because we are not going to die from melting glaciers in 10 years doesn't mean I should needlessly squander God's creation.

I read somewhere that Americans make up 5% of the Earth's population, but consume 25% of the available energy and raw materials. I believe that everyone should be able to live the best lifestyle possible, and in that regard it is up to those who have to at least allow for that possibility. That means either generating five times as much energy/pollution/waste/etc. or using 80% less of it ourselves.

Granted, not using a resource doesn't put it in the hands of someone else, but on the contrary, using a resource does keep it from someone else. In other words, I do not take the position "you must stop your CO2 emissions so that I can drive my SUV". I would rather say "I will forgo my SUV so that you can drive a car if you want." (guess where I stand on "cap and trade"?). I use this as an example not because I believe in global climate whatevertheyaresellingthisweek but because gasoline is a resource. I could say the same of paper, aluminum, steel, or any other thing I consume.

I bothers me when people I respect and consider intelligent, like Jeff Miller or Jimmy Akin post stories about how they are against "going green" or tweet that they are going to leave lights on or turn up the AC to protest those who conserve. I agree that too many people go too far, or push their own "too much of you, just enough of me" agenda, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for crunchy Catholics, or those of us who, like me, fall somewhere in the middle of things.

Read More

What is it with Obama and Embryonic Stem Cells?

As you may recall, back in August a federal judge blocked president Obama's expansion of Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR). Which got me to thinking "why does Obama love embryonic stem cells?" Contrary to garbage "news" stories like "Science, not Politics" ESCR is 100% politics. If we look at the science, there is no reason to perform ESCR.

First off, ESCR does not work, for a very simple reason. In 1901 Karl Landsteiner discovered blood types, which was an important step in our understanding of the human immune system and tissue rejection. Today we can transplant major organs. But organ transplants are not "natural". The body naturally attacks tissue that does not belong there. Organ receivers have to take powerful drugs to suppress their immune systems. These drugs make the person susceptible to infections and have all sorts of other nasty effects. It's worth it, if you need a heart, though.

While not an entire organ, embryonic stem cells are similar in that they are tissue from another human's body, and the immune system reacts to it. Because of this, people treated with embryonic stem cells develop cancers and immune system problems.

Secondly, even if one solved the immune system problems, there is no need to use embryonic stem cells. Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (IpSC) have been proven to be identical in function to embryonic stem cells. The difference is that IpSCs are created without the destruction of human life.

Thirdly, why pour money into research that is decades away from solving a problem, when we have other avenues of research that are solving those problems today? Adult stem cell research has produced cures for over 70 diseases/conditions.

The current administration has done its best to confuse the issue in the public eye, and has reduced funding of adult stem cell research in order to put the money into ESCR. Quite frankly, I'm angry that my money is being thrown away and used to kill humans. Or to put it another way:

I have been told that I need to respect the opinion that human embryos are just a mere clump of cells and full of promise for cures.  Well, respect is a two way street.  If you want embryonic stem cell research, then you pay for it.

Don't make me, and millions of people like me who find research that relies on the destruction of human embryos morally reprehensible, support it with our tax dollars.   When you do, you are forcing your belief that a human embryo has no value on me.

But why? Why not fund adult stem cell research? IpSC research? Why must it e ESCR? I didn't have a good answer, until I read an interview with a former ESCR scientist, Theresa Deisher. Ms. Deisher says:

Embryonic stem cells have never been used in a viable treatment, despite research on animals going back to the late 1970s. On the other hand, research on adult stem cells began a decade later and has already led to many viable treatments.

Nonetheless, she says, human embryonic stem-cell research is more attractive commercially because the cells are patentable. A patent-owning drug company will be able to charge $50,000 to $500,000 per patient for individual treatments. “Adult stem-cell treatments are much more affordable, around $10,000, and without side effects.”

And it all makes sense. So perhaps, in addition to the ethical and scientific objections, we should ask why our president, who claims to want to reduce health care costs, uses federal dollars to fund research whose only goal is to allow drug companies to charge more for the same patient benefits.

Read More

40 Days

This Wednesday, September 22^nd, is the start of the next campaign of 40 Days for Life. Twice a year, for 40 consecutive days, a group of people (over 350,000) pray and fast, at home or at abortion clinics in all 50 states, plus several other countries. Our goal is ambitious - to end abortion.

I got involved in the movement last fall, following the example of an online friend. I had heard about it before but was uncertain, and a little scared. I had seen and heard reports of pro-life "extremists" as well as pro-choice "extremists" and thought it would be a horrible, stressful experience. However, as I discovered it is a beautiful way to do something positive, and help save lives.

You can sign up without any obligation other than moral support. Most of my support takes the form of prayer at home, although I do try to actually get to the clinic for at least an hour a week. Praying at the clinic is not hard at all. There is a wonderful group of people there, and you can pray alone or with others, or hold a sign, or have a conversation, or just be there. You don't have to do anything you don't want to do. Heck, you don't even have to be Christian, just pro-life.

It is a very positive experience. Not only are the people there friendly, but as cars pass and see our signs (the place we go to is on a busy road) there is a nearly constant stream of people tooting their horn and waving, cheering, giving us a thumb's up. Of course there are one or two cars in the hour I am there that shout something else (always the same thing, too), but there is an overwhelming amount of support that increases my faith in humanity.

Do I make a difference by going? Perhaps not me personally, but the group certainly does, I have seen people pull up to the clinic, approach some of the "40 days" people, thank them and leave. Did they change their minds, or did they just come back later? I don't know, but I can hope.

Read More