Too Much to Ask...

Here's a fun little video that has Nancy Pelosi, then Minority Leader, complaining how she couldn't even read a bill before voting on it and how disgraceful that was. I guess she learned something from her years in the minority -- how to ignore them once she was in the majority. It goes both ways, which is just normal politics. However, the frustrating thing is that she can't be honest enough to admit it. Enjoy:

The Contrast in Theology and Life

I quote in full a recent post from Christ is Deeper Still:

Fred Sanders reflects on the death of Paul Tillich -- liberal theologian, serial adulterer -- here. Sanders recounts:

After his death, [Tillich's wife Hannah] returns home and opens his locked drawers. “All the girls’ photos fell out, letters and poems, passionate appeal and disgust. Beside the drawers, which were supposed to contain his spiritual harvest, the books he had written and the unpublished manuscripts all lay in unprotected confusion. I was tempted to place between the sacred pages of his highly esteemed lifework those obscene signs of the real life . . . ."

If there could be placed between the sacred pages of our theological lifework the obscene signs of the real life, would there be much difference between Paul Tillich and us, really?

Noonan on the Presidents "Rubble"

In a wonderfully-written article by Peggy Noonan (I've always liked her style), she explains why it's time for the President to "own" his lot in life. The take-away quote for me, however, is:

"...It is never a good sign when the president gets folksy, dropping his g's, because he is by nature not a folksy g-dropper but a coolly calibrating intellectual who is always trying to guess, as most politicians do, what normal people think. When Mr. Obama gets folksy he isn't narrowing his distance from his audience but underlining it. He shouldn't do this. "

The Beta-Male President

This is an interesting analysis of President Obama's approach to global issues/leaders from the American Thinker. Author Greg Lewis uses the dog-meet-dog metaphor to help explain the logic in Obama's interactions on the world stage. It is very well thought-out and written. It is well worth the read, and fairly persuasive over all. Although it is the most logical conclusion to the argument, I did not expect the very last line of his piece:

"It's the height of folly to think that other nations won't be doing everything they can to make President Obama their bitch."

Type without a Brain

I haven't posted a "funny comment" post in a while, but this one made me laugh out loud. It was at Hot Air on a post related to SNL's lame attempt to mock Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. The commenter is quoting some else's comment and then giving his reply (and I did LOL):

I think it’s funny how Limbaugh thought that Bush should get the Peace Prize.

LOL

Spathi on October 11, 2009 at 4:26 PM

I think it’s funny how you can type without a brain.

LOL.

Tu Y Yo (You and I) by Juanes

I have been listening to this song on the canned music at work for the last couple weeks or more and have combed the world (google) trying to find out who sang it. I finally found someone who spoke Spanish in the store and they told me it was Juanes. So I found the song on youtube and the translation, as well. I normally prefer a female voice, but there's something about the sound of this guys voice that I really enjoy. After listening to most of the songs on his album through Playlist.com, it seems World Market has used almost every song on the album in their stores. He really is that good. Enjoy.




Here is the loose translation:
You And I
You and I, we really love each other
and we've made a home together...you and me
The most beautiful time of my life were these years that I've spent with you, Sweetheart
We've lived so many things
We've had so many glories and defeats

Bonded for ever because we love each other
and we need each other
in the name of the love of all these years
I want to give you this song
You know this love was handmade
just the way good craftsmen work
With lots of pulse, care and dedication
I'm telling you...

Look how beautiful life can be now
let's make the most of the fact it toasts for us being together
because this house needs you to look it more beautiful
Let's make the most of the fact we love each other with no limits

You and me...
We love each other...
We desire each other...
Till death do us part, you and me...

You and me,
we really love each other
and we've made something valuable out of this love...you and me
Till the moment you've entered my life
I've never been so happy before, sweetheart
We've lived so many things together, so many glories and defeats, you and me

Bonded for ever because we love each other
and we need each other
in the name of the love of all these years
I want to give you this song
You know this love was handmade
just the way good craftsmen work
With lots of pulse, care and dedication
I'm telling you...

Look how beautiful life can be now
let's make the most of the fact it toasts for us being together
because this house needs you to look more beautiful
Let's make the most of the fact we love each other with no limits

You and me...
We love each other...
We desire each other...
Till death do us part, you and me...
From: http://www.lyricstranslate.com

The Social Organization of Denial

As I was tracking through links for the last post, I came across this blog post at Well Sharp. The post summarizes a research paper written for The World Bank. The blogger opens her summary with this disclaimer:

[The paper is mainly focused on understanding what is happening in the rich (and high greenhouse gas emitting) countries of our world. It seems reasonable to assume that similar dynamics may be at play for the rich within less-developed nations, but that different dynamics are at work for the world's poor.]

I'm intrigued that it "seems reasonable to assume" that all rich people have similar denial issues regardless of the wealth of the country they come from. But let's not linger on this.

The real shocker to me was the following summary:

Thinking about the problem of climate change is deeply disturbing for most people – it generates a cascade of negative emotions that motivate us to processes of denial.

1. Our sense of ontological security is threatened: Large scale environmental problems such as climate change seem threaten the very conditions of our life and society. This feeling may be amorphous, but it is certainly unpleasant. (p.30)
2. We feel helpless: The problem often seems overwhelming, far too large to grapple with, and we don’t always have confidence that our governments and the world community can be relied upon to solve the problem. (p.30)
3. We feel guilty: We are aware that our privileged lifestyles and actions contribute to the problem, and that makes us feel bad. (pp.30-31)
4. We don’t want to feel like ‘a bad person” or a member of a ‘bad nation’: Individually and collectively, citizens of rich nations gain very real material benefits from their greenhouse gas polluting activities. We want to continue to believe in ourselves as good people. Engaging with climate change issues, and with climate change facts such as our failure to meet emission reduction targets, challenges that positive sense of self. (p.32) Clean-Green New Zealand, anyone?
5. It is difficult to link to daily life:“rather than [being] a problem we can touch and see for ourselves, climate change is a threat which must be interpreted for us through scientific expertise, using complex instrumentation. As a result, the environmental problem of contaminated water feels invisible to those who can easily afford to buy their water bottled.” (p.33)

I'll jump to the chase: Option #5 is the only real issue for me, being the wealthy man that I am. The other 4 options are actually laughable. But this is the thinking that the World Bank is now operating with. I'm speechless. Let me set the record straight - I don't feel guilty. I have no shame. I am not embarrassed. I don't think I come from a bad nation. None of this applies AT ALL.

There is not one hint that the wealthy people ARE informed and just don't buy it. Is it not possible that our denial comes from our reasoning abilities? No, of course not. And this is made clear from the next portion of the summary as follows:

Furthermore, talking about it with others is difficult, as for most people it falls outside social norms – it is not a popular activity to talk about matters that make people feel uncertain and guilty. And yet conversation is vital for the sharing of information and ideas, and the creation of collective meaning and the building of community, so this absence of talk about climate change leaves us in a position where in a sense “we don’t know how to know about it”. (p.28)

Really? I don't know how to know about Global Warming? I hear about it in the news, at public rallies, every company in my world is "going green" and I have no idea what they are talking about. I even have the internet. I'm curious how "conversation is vital for...the creation of collective meaning and building of community..." has anything to do with global warming. I guess the conversation I have, and the resulting community and meaning I get from it, must not be significant enough if I don't include the ideas of global warming. Now that I think about it, I really do feel so alone in this polluted world. Will someone help?

But the paper doesn't stop there.

Finally, there are a range political-economic factors that work as barriers to effective action, including:

1. The ability of the fossil fuel industry to influence government policy [and in countries less directly influenced by the industry, the influence major fossil fuel using industries and the general economic growth ideology]
2. The existence of climate change skepticism campaigns funded by fossil fuel interest groups
3. The lack of quality information about climate change in the mass media
4. The distortion of climate science as presented in the media due to the operation of “balance as bias” (pp.36-37)

I have no problem talking with people about such issues. I actually quite enjoy such lively discussions. But of course, the fossil fuel industry is the evil satan and has us all deceived or enslaved so we cannot break free from our bondage and see the world as it really is. Either that, or my "general economic growth ideology" prevents me from acknowledging it. I'm not sure which one it is.

Funny, I've never taken a dime of funding from any fossil fuel interest group (although I wouldn't refuse it if they offered it to me), and yet I still think the way I do. How is it possible? Truly a mystery.

I'm glad the World Bank has got this paper to explain it all. And now you know as well.

No Hockey Stick Here

This chart shows two lines: The red one going up and the black one maintaining a level "bounce" across the page. This happens to reflect the graph Al Gore used in his "Inconvenient Truth" movie and the results of doing the tests over again (resulting in the black line).

There is an article in the UK Telegraph that explains how this black line came to be. It is an interesting story and worth clicking through the links, as well as an opposing view here.

There's quite a "dialog" about this review of the data that has produced these new results. Obviously, someone is wrong with their projections and there are consequences for being wrong (i.e. credibility, funding, the destruction of the planet, etc).

The "Believers" (in Man-made global warming, which the red "hockey stick" demonstrates) say,

"So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever."

The "Deniers" (of Man-made Global Warming, which the black line validates) say,

"In a comment to the same post, I clearly stated my view that there was no crude cherrypicking of the type that Briffa accuses me of implying. I stated :

bender, I agree with your point. I've tried to steer a careful line here. If you think otherwise, can you give me particulars as I don't wish to unintentionally feed views that I don't hold. It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked. My guess is that the Russians selected a limited number of 200-400 year trees - that's what they say - a number that might well have been appropriate for their purpose and that Briffa inherited their selection - a selection which proved to be far from random and which, as you and I agree, falls vastly short of standards in the field for RCS chronology (as opposed to corridor or spline chronologies)."

Well, I guess us non-scientific people will just have to stand back and watch this food-fight continue. Again, my own bias is to default to the sceptic view. So if, as the Telegraph article explains, this new black line is a true result of the data being worked again, and is a valid use of the data that originally produced the "hockey stick", than maybe the world won't end before I die. That's what I'm hoping for, at least. Now if we could only find some climate scientists who were as certain as the economists we have around this country we'd be in great shape.

Post Office Jobs

I thought only GM and the auto-worker's union did stuff like this. But I guess someone thought it was a good business practice for the US Postal Service as well.

I really don't understand how anyone can justify this. But that's what happens when you get a government job, I guess.