StoryOfStuff - Part 3

Continued from part 2

PRODUCTION: “Use energy to mix toxic chemicals in with natural resources to make toxic contaminated products” - Very crafty. Immediately we associate the words “toxic” “chemical” “contaminated” and “products” where there is not a necessary link. Chemicals are naturally occurring elements. Sodium Chloride is a chemical, and we use it in food to help our bodies retain water (Table salt). Dihydrogen Oxide is a chemical, and yet we’d die without it (water).
Over 100,000 synthetic chemicals in use in commerce today. - Very little could be made without them.
Only a handful tested for health impacts. - This is true, and a problem. Market pressure from a populace wealthy enough to pay for the extensive and expensive testing is the best way to fix.
None tested for “synergistic” health impacts: impacts when combined with other chemicals accidentally or purposefully. - See above
Toxins in = toxins out - True. Read about Lobsters. Talk to ShatteredChina.
BFR’s = neuro-toxins, flame retardants added to many products. - How many lives are saved because of it? Is there something better right now? There are places people can purchase products free of this.
Food with highest level of “toxic” contaminants: Human Breast Milk - Real gut-wrencher. Likely true, but what does it mean? Here in the most toxic land on the planet we have very low infant mortality rates. Why?
Babies = most vulnerable - What about abortion? Which is the greater moral ill: possible harm from higher toxin rates in their food, or killing them before they even have a chance?
Why are we not protecting “sacred” breast feeding.
Goes back to government: “I thought they were looking out for us” - Is the government morally responsible or is it defined in their limited scope to protect breast feeding? This is a ludicrous assumption. Government policy may indeed have been indirectly responsible for pollution, but if that is true, do you trust them, being part of the problem, to be part of the solution? Further, your rage, as a consumer with a voice, is much more effective in causing change on the part of the corporations which can develop and create and invent actual solutions to problems. Is the government capable of development of creative solutions?

Factory workers, many women, of reproductive age - This is a bloated claim. Quick to tug the heart strings, but without serious validity. The number of safety precautions in modern manufacturing are mind blowing. Further, this is reminiscent of the tales told in Sociology classes of the hideous conditions of the common man over the years of industry. They are sensationalist and disproven. The photographers famous for their cataloging of the ills of modern commerce were out to make a buck. “If it bleeds, it leads” is a truism and has led to many a distortion. Not that there are not cases of real damage, they just are not nearly as common or egregious as is commonly believe based on the narrative sold us by the purveyors of doom.
No other option - What about the better lives they are able to give their children because they have a more stable job with better wages? A good parent will do what is necessary to give their children every advantage they can. If that includes taking risks, that is a judgment made by each individual. Certain jobs carry risk. Do we ban jobs which entail risk? Would such a ban be truly beneficial?
Erosion of local economies and resources push people to leave previously self-sustaining local economies live in cities - If they were self-sustaining why did people leave? The agrarian economy is subject to a boom/bust cycle which is one reason the push to a industrial/commercial economy has been so embraced by so many. We tend to glamorize the agrarian life-style to a dangerous degree, philosophically. And while there are many good people who survive and thrive in that life-style, many choose to leave it, and have chose to leave it, due to it’s many hardships.
“many to live in slums” - Should we outlaw slums?
“looking for work no matter how toxic that work may be” - And now we are to outlaw work? As a husband and potential/hopeful father, I make a judgment call when I take a job whether the potential risk outweighs the potential benefit. Watch the Discovery Channel’s shows Dangerous Jobs, Ice Road, and other shows which highlight people performing hard work under extreme conditions. Often they enjoy the jobs. They fill serious needs and sometimes ‘frivolous’ desires of
“Not just resources wasted along this system, people are wasted, whole communities” - There is never a waste where people choose to apply themselves to a system which produces. This is loaded language with the intent of causing us to be increasingly against the heart of personal enrichment: the ability to create and earn wealth from that creation.
Environmental impact of production: toxic byproducts, pollution. - This is incontrovertible, but incomplete. Therefore it is misleading.
4 billion pounds US industry “admits” to releasing each year. - Spread that across the volume of the atmosphere, water, subtract for the processing ability of the green on the earth. Now how much is left?
“It’s probably a lot more because that’s only what they admit” - Leading language, assumes they are all crooks.
“So what do they do? Move the dirty factories overseas. Pollute someone elses land.” - Why is it that the Kyoto Accord and other such environmental pacts exempt third-world countries and their corporations and factories from any accountability? Because without the ability to produce “more than their fair share” of garbage until their populace gained enough general wealth they will not be able to afford the production standards and technology necessary to make cleaner factories and production environments.
Pollution “comes right back at us carried by wind currents” - This has been true for a long time. Early mariners sailing outside the Los Angeles bay and basin noted the smog in the areas. It’s not worth panicing over.

Continue reading in part 4

StoryOfStuff - Part 2

Continued from Part 1

EXTRACTION: “Trashing the planet”
1st limit: running out of resources = using too much stuff.
Last 3 decades used up 1/3 of planets’ resources. Gone. - Where are the figures? This is a bold statement, and there are no references to the actual figures, their source, and their justification. It is also a startlingly bold statement considering the dearth of information about the planet. Do we understand our own planet enough to know the total amount of resources it contains?
Less than 4% of original forests in US. - This is either false or misleading, the United States has more forested acres now than it did when Europeans first landed. It may be true there are fewer ORIGINAL forests, but there are more forests and they are larger now. Also, natural systems such as fires frequently destroyed entire forests as a natural cycle, clearing the way for new growth. But now we fight these fires and protect the forests, meaning they last longer and continue to grow.
40% of waterways become undrinkable. - Advanced filtration systems allow reclamation of the water to allow for better use of the water we have and the use of water previously unusable.
Using “more than our share” of resources. - USA most efficient user of resources. For each unit of resource we use, we produce more than other industrialized nations.
US has 5% of world population, using 30% of world resources. - Once again: how do we know the total of the resources contained in the entire earth? Further, with that 30%, due to the fact that we are most efficient, we create more usable product than any other nation could create if they had that 30%.
Creating 30% of global waste. - USA is most efficient of industrialized nations. For that 30% of waste, we create significantly more usable product than another nation could held to that same level of waste.
US response: take someone else’s resources = exploit third-world. - See above.
“Our stuff that somehow got on somebody else’s land” = trashing. - This is a judgment of motive. The Bible says we cannot know the heart of man, only God can. How can we divine the motive of an entire nation?

75% of global fisheries farmed at or above capacity. - Business acts in it’s own best interest. How can a business act in such a way that it destroys it’s own ability to continue to act in that way?

80% of global forests gone - Where is the data? How much of this is the aridization of Saharan Africa?
If you don’t own or buy stuff = no value.

Continue reading in part 3

I Am Responsible

Do you want to control your own resources gained from the use of your own abilities according to the dictates of your own conscience?

Then vote for McCain.

Do you want a wasteful and treacherous government to take your resources and distribute and squander them according to their whims and philosophies?

Then vote for Obama.

Do you believe that an unborn child is a human, or even barring that, do you believe that if a child survives the murderous intent of an abortion doctor and is alive outside the mother they ought to to be protected as a living being?

Then vote for McCain.

Do you believe that such a survivor, because the intent of their parents and doctor, deserves no protection and ought to be left to die?

Then vote for Obama.

Do you believe in personal responsibility?

The vote for McCain.

Do you believe the government knows best and is the best caretaker for all needy?

The vote for Obama.

It’s that simple.

NYTimes: Obama’s Health Plan Hurts People

The NYTimes goes through the numbers and estimates and says that Obama’s health plans will cause the cost of hiring people to go up for businesses, and this will cause businesses to decide not to hire people.

thatmarkguy says the NAA(L)CP is really involved in this election. More so than the last one. Much more so.

Compare the homepages then and now. There is one link to an article lower on the homepage regarding voter supression back in 2004, when two old white men were once again battling for head honcho.

Now the website looks like an election campaign, complete with the large black bus with the slogan “Vote Hard”. Conspicuously absent is the direct object. I suppose they expect the reader to add their own as applicable: “Left” being their preference.

Election 2008:

Election 2004:

It’s almost like it’s the leftists who want it to be about race while screaming interminably about how racist the right is…

Whodathunkit?!?

What will he say this time?

Is it just me, or are people really not listening to our political candidates. I can understand people not listening to John McCain. He has nothing to say and has been using the same lame attacks for about three weeks now. However, why aren’t people listening to Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden. They have a ton to say. In fact, the more they talk, the more they reveal themselves. Here is one example and here is another example.

Some general talking points from these audio clips include:

• The Constitution doesn’t say what the federal government must do on my behalf. (Actually it does. It says that the federal government is to protect me and create an environment for me to prosper in. However, it condones little else.)
• The Supreme Court is wrong for not addressing the redistribution of wealth or the economic injustice in this society (My goodness, keep the courts out of this. If they courts [especially the Supreme Court] are supposed to interpret the Constitution, why would they even touch this issue seeing as it is not addressed in the Constitution.)
• Civil Rights movements didn’t break free from the constraints of the Constitution. (No, it redefined the Constitution to protect all citizens of the United States. It was not supposed to give give people the liberty to steal the money of hard working Americans.)
• The Constitution is actually a list of negative liberties. (Darn right it is. The Constitution was supposed to be a restraint on Government and all its dealings, not on the citizens. Remember where the founding fathers came from? Yah, they didn’t want an oppressive government.)
• The civil Rights movement didn’t do enough to bring about a “redistribution of uh, um, uh change” (you wanted to say wealth, right?)
• Redistribution of wealth is an administrative responsibility. ( Keep your butter finger government hands out of my pocket. You are supposed to do a good enough job for us to want to give you money, or at least not mind paying our taxes. That is the administrative role. Do a good job, earn our respect. Earn our dollar. Then manage the money to OUR advantage. But, since you can’t properly manage the redistribute halfway legitimate taxes [anyone remember Social Security], why would I want to trust you with the stealing and redistribution of my money.)
• The Constitution reflects “The” fundamental flaw that continues to this day. (What, the lack of a redistribution of wealth to the lazy or the down right racism that is rampant in all parts of the United States? Guess what, I have news for you, the majority of the U. S. is color blind now. Take a trip to California. It is hard to find racism there, unless it is directed at Mexican-Americans [and the African-Americans are the primary proponents of that racism]. However, Mr. Obama, you will find racism if you look for it. I mean, just look at the fact that estimates say that 95% of African-Americans will be voting for you.)

And here are a couple gems from this article.

People had a way of hearing what they wanted in Mr. Obama’s words. Earlier, after a long, tortured discussion about whether it was better to be called “black” or “African-American,” . . . According to Mr. Ogletree, students on each side of the debate thought he was endorsing their side. “Everyone was nodding, Oh, he agrees with me,” he said.

[In a Robotic Tone] Yes Master . . . Lead on oh Great One . . . The world will bow before your superior rhetoric . . .

But mainly, Mr. Obama stayed away from the extremes of campus debate, often choosing safe topics for his speeches. At the black law students’ annual conference, he exhorted students to remember the obligations that came with their privileged education. His speeches, delivered in the oratorical manner of a Baptist minister, were more memorable for style than substance, Mr. Mack said. “It’s the inspiration of the speech rather than the specific content,” he said.

Yes Great One . . . another great showing . . . your superior speaking ability sent shivers down my spine . . .

a mouse infestation at the review office provoked a long exchange about rodent rights — as well as some uncertainty about what Mr. Obama himself thought about the issue at hand.

In dozens of interviews, his friends said they could not remember his specific views from that era, beyond a general emphasis on diversity and social and economic justice.

Yes master . . . you listen to my needs . . . you know who I am and what I want . . . you will give me my deepest desire . . . All will see you as our Savior from . . . um, uh, um  . . . What can you save us from, I didn’t hear that part?

In interviews, Mr. Obama was modest and careful. (In a rare slip, he told The Associated Press: “I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me.”)

I’m No President

A common wish of many people voting for President is that he be one of “them”. A buddy/pal kind of person who they feel can relate to them and understand their pain.

This desire is closely related to the thought that the government is supposed to come along side us and assist us with many of our problems.

One thing I know about myself: I’m not presidential material. Not right now anyways (necessary caveat in case anything else on this blog is ever used to preclude my suitability to that office).

I don’t want someone like me in the Oval Office. I want someone stronger, wiser, more patient and cunning, more determined and shrewd. In short, someone very much not like me.

Some candidates may feel that appealing to voter’s humanity is the best way to win them: for many voters this is true. But I will try to support those who are independent, who have lived their lives and made no apologies for who they and and how they have achieved in life.

A candidate can appeal to my humanity be showing they love the less fortunate, not necessarily relate to them.

We are not all the same.

On another note, this Pro-Obama blog says that unless Obama is ahead by more than they are ahead by now, McCain wins by a landslide. Facts, figures, and honesty follow:

McCain Set To Win by Landslide! The Polls vs. Reality in Presidential Elections

…The people who will be shocked are those in the media. Even though they know the polling from the past juxtaposed with the actual election results is never very kind to the Democrats. They are so hyped on McCain losing and Obama winning, that they fail to be objective in the least.

McCain/Palin No Messiah Either

Some good and sane friends of mine have professed their decision to support a third party candidate on the contention he is a closer match to their own beliefs.

It struck me in reading their comments that just as many in America are looking toward Barack Obama as a messianic figure of boundless ability, there are many conservatives looking to Washington with too much longing and desire.

McCain/Palin can no more be expected to be capable of delivering on many of their campaign promises than can Barack/(whoever he’s running with). Neither can any of the third-party candidates be trusted to perform most of their promises.

And it is our mindless braying for salvation from Washington DC that feeds these pols need to fill our hungry little mouths with meaningless lies.

Even many conservatives have fallen prey to the temptation to vote ourselves pieces of the pie. Our desired pieces are just not necessarily monetary.

Our true Savior, Jesus, is the only one deserving of the desire and hope pinned on our candidates. To put it anywhere else is to commit idolatry and to set ourselves up for the failure of our hopes and dreams.

When our hope is in the Lord, we are less likely to put a false or unhealthy amount of hope in humans. We are anchored to the only Rock which cannot be moved. The inherent property of the Rock that is Jesus is that it cannot be moved.

No matter the storms of time, that Rock ever has and ever shall hold firm.

With a steady Rock to stand on, I am free to take the long view.

I do not need to look for salvation from Washington DC because I know real help comes from above.

Disturbing musings

I was rather disturbed recently when reading about the Democrat’s need to suppress right leaning speech.

Here are a few quotes from the articles.

Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn’t seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan’s FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating “fairness.”

Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent, while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of “fairness” is seductive.

But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome. . . One such measure would be to impose greater “local accountability” on them - requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. . . The measure is clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows. . .Finally, the Democrats also want more minority-owned stations and plan to intervene in the radio marketplace to ensure that outcome.

It might just be me but does this sound like a direct attack on a multitude of the basic rights that freedoms that are supported and coveted by conservatism. Is this an attack on ideas like say . . . free speech, free market, free enterprise. Wait, I think I just had a revelation . . . Isn’t this a DIRECT attack on freedom.

Honestly, what are the liberal puppeteers trying to accomplish? Isn’t it clear that this is the suppression of dissention, the bridling of local choice, and forceful creation of unsuccessful enterprises in the name of equality (that last quote really sounds like what happened to housing in the United States).

To sum it all up, I know that tomorrow will be better because of what I have done today, but why does today have to be so bleak? I am sorry if this offends some, but I am almost at the point where I cannot look at the presidential candidates without a measure of disdain, distrust, and disturbance.

In other news . . . A government funded scientific study supports industial advances. However, the English government cannot stand the truth they themselves found and so there is a cover up (sounds like the fair and representative government has an agenda).

I love my life and am going to have a great day today. I just wish my loving, protective government would stop getting in my way.

Dirty Pol

Dirty politics are not what people call dirty politics.

Dirty in this context means wrong, false, lying, etc…

Truth is not dirty.

Are you with me so far?

It is a matter of fact that Bill Ayers is an unrepentant (and very lucky) terrorist.

It is a matter of fact that Jeremiah Wright (the man is unworthy of reverence) is a racist agitator.

It is a matter of fact that leading Democrats worked tirelessly to prevent any regulation of the Sub-prime mortgage market and allowed their community organizer arms to berate and bamboozle any who called for protection against this sure failure.

It is a matter of fact that Barack Obama associated himself and his family with the racist agitator Jeremiah Wright, that he valued his relationship with that man, and that he trusted his teaching and his counsel.

To make any of these factual statements is not dirty politics.

It is truth telling.

Dirty politics occur when people lie about their opponent and seek through illegal and unethical means to diminish their statements, beliefs, or person.

Dirty politicians occur more frequently than dirty politics, since even dirty politicians prefer to use the truth whenever possible to gain their desired goal.

Dirty politicians object most stridently to the truth being used against them because they have most to hide and the most to lose.

Dirty politicians cry “dirty politics” most often because they fear the truth most.

Dirty politicians know their so-very-righteous indignation is false at very best and continue using their own dirty methods to achieve their own dirty ends. Their desired end is usually their own power.

Their ultimate end is always the same.

Israel, a clear foreign policy.

And the mouth continues to blab . . .

Just to take a quick quote from the article about the Reverend Jessie Jackson.

He promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy - saying America must “heal wounds” it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the “arrogance of the Bush administration.”

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

Initially ones reaction might be to think that the “Reverend” Jessie Jackson is just trying to show his support of Senator Obama. However, I have a feeling that this is Jackson’s true belief. I cannot speculate on how he arrives at this anti-semetic conclusion, but I can tell you that he lacks some basic biblical knowledge.

 “I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” (Genesis 12:2-3)

We live a world that is larger that political differences, national pride, or international cooperation, but is defined by spiritual warfare. God has given nations a simple formula for survival, Bless My People. Genesis 12:2-3 should really be our primary international agenda and paradigm.

Reverend Jackson, you invoke power from the most high and have been working to be a difference. However, is it really so easy to forget who gave you this authority, who gave you this direction, and what he commands. I am no biblical scholar, but I see a very clear command.

I don’t know about you, but I think it would make sense for us to follow it.