Blog Action Day

I was just informed that today is blog action day--bloggers are being asked to blog about the environment today. I could, of course, post the obvious: We only have one planet, and if we keep polluting it, our children or grandchildren will have no place to stay. I could blog about what to do about it, but a lot of other blogs are doing that. Still, this is the day, and it is important, so here goes:

I think that there are a lot of misconceptions out there about environmental issues. For one thing, there has been a lot of talk about electric cars, or hybrid cars that can run on gas or electricity. The problem with that is that we're really just moving the pollution. about 70% of the electricity produced in this country comes from burning fossil fuels, so, if you're driving a car with an electric motor, your car may not be polluting, but there's a very good chance that the power plant that produced the electricity for you car is. In point of fact, considering the inherent inefficiencies of the power plant, the power distribution system, the charger for the battery in your car, and so forth, the power plant probably produces at least as much (if not more) pollution per mile than your car would using gasoline. The solution, of course, would be to build more power plants that don't burn anything. There are two kinds of power plants that don't burn anything: Hydroelectric, and nuclear. Hydroelectric is good, we simply dam up a river, and use the current to drive turbines to make electricity. Unfortunately, there are only so many rivers, and only so many places where we can make lakes. That leaves nuclear, which the environmentalists generally don't like. I'm not entirely at odds with them, but I do think that they overdramatize the issue. A lot of them worry about having a Chernobyl here in the United States. That's unlikely, at best. Without going into a lot of detail, the Soviets put a lot of emphasis on efficiency--getting the most kilowattage for the ruble--as opposed to safety. Our safety record isn't all that great, either, but our designs are more of a compromise between efficiency and safety. Three Mile Island is pretty much a worst case scenario for an American-made reactor, and even that was preventable (well, Chernobyl was preventable, too; if they had incorporated a boron fill system--but I digress). The point is, that Chernobyl was built on an entirely different philosophy than American reactors--even those built in the same time period. Still, we don't want another Three Mile Island, either; that's a legitimate concern. I would hope that nuclear plant operators have a better understanding, now, of just how wrong things can go; still, we human beings have a bad tendency to make mistakes, even with something as dangerous as nuclear power (and when profits are on the line, corporations can minimize or even eliminate safety margins).

On the other hand, there are things that we as individuals can do. I am not going to beat the recycling drum, common sense will tell you that recycling is good. It has picked up some detractors on the basis of it isn't cost-effective--only because of government subsidies is recycled paper priced about the same as 'new' paper. Let's be honest with ourselves--reuse the paper, or use it to fill a landfill somewhere so that in a hundred years or so, it will become dirt (or, if we're really lucky, it becomes fossil fuel).

We're doing a lot of the right things, we're just not doing enough. We, as a species, thought for centuries that our biosphere was too large and too complex for us to have a lasting impact on it. We know better now, but we're stuck in old habits. Remember, the biggest difference between a rut and a grave are the dimensions.

Understanding Women

I heard something on the radio this morning about married women not liking to give their husbands hints. It seems kind of unladylike. On the other hand, I've heard comedians joke about how hints don't work. Women seem to think that being in love means never having to explain yourself--your partner always knows what you're thinking. Women always seem to think they know what their significant others are thinking. I think they'd be pretty surprised if they really knew what we were thinking--and, most of the time, we're not trying to keep it a secret!

Women seem to think that love grants one psychic abilities. It doesn't. We can't read your mind, and you can't read ours. You can generally get an idea about what we're thinking, because men are much less inclined to play games with it. Women will often create a pretense just to see if the man catches it. Even if we know that your behavior is a sham, we generally don't know what to about it. Dave Barry wrote a column in which he said, "A woman is someone who, when you ask her what is wrong, says, 'Nothing.' A man is a person who, when a woman tells him nothing is wrong, believes her." Obviously, that's not entirely true. At the very least, Mr. Barry has learned (from long, hard experience, no doubt) that when a woman says nothing is wrong, that usually means that something is very wrong, but she isn't willing to talk about it. Are we then to begin guessing as to what it wrong? Not really, because that simply leads to further denials about there being anything wrong. Sometimes, you can wear her down to the point where she will say, "If you loved me, you would know what was wrong." Again, there is a big difference between being in love, and being psychic. Frequently, men get frustrated and just quit worrying about it (or, at least, try not to worry about it); after all, eventually she will tell us what's bothering her, or get over it. In any case, without a clue as to what is going on, we can't really do much about it, except play dumb. I know there's something wrong, but she wants to pretend that nothing is wrong, so I'll play her game. This generally means that retribution will be much harsher, later, but she's not in the mood for a game of twenty questions, anyway. I'll go watch the game, or finish fixing the closet door, or whatever else I've got to do, and wait on her.

Another thing about women that I don't get: Why is it, that when a woman wants affirmation that she is still loved, that she can't wait for a commercial? Why does it always have to be when the score is tied, there's thirty seven seconds left on the clock, our team has the ball, and it's third and twelve; or the TV detective has just called all of the suspects together and is about to reveal who the killer is, or the guys in the black hats have got our hero pinned down and he only has one bullet left... And she wants to turn the TV off and discuss what color tile should go in the hall bathroom. Of course, we both know that this isn't about floor tile, this is about her making sure that she is more important than whatever it was we were doing. We know that, but it's still frustrating (less frustrating with TIVO, of course, but still).

Jerks

It was nice having a three day week-end. Hope you enjoyed yours. I would have enjoyed mine more, except I'm suffering from a cold. Nothing major, really, it's pretty minor. It mostly made it hard for me to sleep. The bad part of a cold like this one is that you need to sleep in order for your immune system to fight off the cold, but the cold symptoms keep you awake at night. I think I'm going to invest in some Nyquil this afternoon. Over the week-end, sleep wasn't really that big of a deal, because I didn't have to get up in the morning. Now that I'm back at work, I definitely need to be getting up in the morning, so I need to sleep like lumber. Still, it was a good week-end. Even with the cold, I got a lot done.This week may be a little strained. They caught somebody last week playing games on his computer when he was supposed to be working. From what I understand, he was the fourth one in less than three weeks. Now, no one is allowed to go on the internet, except during lunch. I'm not sure how long this will last. Usually knee-jerk reactions are good for about three weeks. Usually nobody actually tells us that the moratorium has been lifted, but it takes about that long before people start doing what they were doing before, and the powers that be have either forgotten, or decide that it's not worth pushing it. I'm not sure if it has occurred to anybody that you don't need the internet to waste time (but it sure helps!).Of course, this is the same organization that, a few years ago, decided that the workers needed more mobility, and had the IT department acquire laptops for everyone, and replaced the desktops. Do you understand what I'm saying? They took away everyone's desktop computer, and replaced them with laptops. Then, less than a week later, started having concerns about laptops getting stolen, so, they came in and cable-locked the laptops to the desks. So, they got us laptops for better mobility, but then locked them to the desks, so that we couldn't go anywhere with them. Brilliant people--always thinking ahead.

Bible Difficulties

There have been a lot of people that oppose the Bible due to the fact that there are difficulties in it. How can we believe a book that has problems? It seems to me that the problems are not so much with the book, as just our understanding of it.

One that has been pointed out to me is that the Bible talks about unicorns, which are mythical creatures. Are they? As far as the horse-like creature with a pretty horn protruding from its forehead, yes, that's a mythical creature, but that's not what the Bible is talking about. What is it talking about? The term unicorn simply means, one horn. So it is (or was) some creature with a single horn, or maybe an animal with its horns arranged in a row in the middle of its head, rather than on either side. Something like a rhinoceros, perhaps? I don't know; that's just a suggestion. I can certainly understand if rhino's were not well known to the Jews at the time, and none of them had stuck around one long enough to realize that it had more than one horn.

Another is that the gospels give two different genealogies for Jesus. Jesus had two parents, didn't He? Joseph wasn't His father, though. True, but Jesus' lineage through Joseph is important because it was a royal lineage. Joseph was descended from the kings of Judea, and, in fact, would have been king if Judea had not been under Roman occupation. So, Matthew lists Jesus' lineage through his adopted father (and an adopted son would still be considered royalty), and Luke lists Jesus' lineage through Mary.

In Habakkuk 2:3 it says, talking about 'an appointed time,' "...though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry." See there? It contradicts itself, right there in the same verse! Wow. You dug pretty deep for that one. Most people never even read the book of Habakkuk, but, okay, let's consider this. As I mentioned earlier, this is talking about 'an appointed time.' God hasn't given us any indication as to when this appointed time will be. As a matter of fact, in Matthew 24:36, Jesus said that no man knows the day or the hour. So how would we know if the appointed time did tarry? But certainly, if things continue as they were, as they always have been, it becomes easy for us to think that the time has been delayed, and that it tarries. I heard a cute announcement on the radio recently where a bomb squad technician gets called out to deal with an explosive device that has no timer on it. He takes the attitude that, since he doesn't know when the bomb is set to explode, it could be days, while another police officer tries to impress on him that it could just as easily be minutes. If you don't know what the appointed time is, then you may convince yourself that it is a long way off, but you just don't know. Maybe Habakkuk should have written, "...though it seem to tarry..." but I think anyone who is reading the Bible in an attempt to understand it will get the meaning, but people looking to form an argument will just jump on that as a 'clear contradiction.'

Mary and Elizabeth were cousins, and yet, Mary was a Judean, and Elizabeth was a Levite. How is that possible? Let me ask you a question: Do all of your cousins have the same last name that you have? If Mary's father was a Judean, then she would be considered Judean, wouldn't she? And if Elizabeth's father were a Levite, then she would be considered a Levite, right? But that doesn't say anything about their mothers' lineage. They could have both been Benjamites, for all we know. By the way, some of you may be saying, "But Jews figure their lineage differently than we do--they trace lineage through their mothers" (which makes sense; there's rarely any question about who a baby's mother is). Okay, so reverse the parents in the above example. Maybe Mary's father and Elizabeth's father were brothers; it doesn't really matter. The point is that cousins are not necessarily of the same tribe (or have the same last name).

Biblical Expressions

When I was younger, my father used to make a point of holding the door for my aunt, and saying, "Age before beauty." Her response was always the same, she would smile sweetly, and say, "Pearls before swine." I don't remember when I realized that my aunt was quoting Jesus (sort of).

There are a lot of other expressions that are used in the Bible, some of them originated in the Bible. Judas was left holding the bag, but that expression doesn't seem to have had the implication of guilt that it does now. Paul (or Saul at the time) was knocked off his high horse, although, in all fairness, the Bible doesn't say that he was riding a horse, but the expression fits: Here is a man who was so wrong, and so sure that he was right (and so proud of being right) until being proven completely and unarguably wrong. Also the term scapegoat comes from the Bible. When I was in the Navy, we used to keep a rope ladder on the ship in case of an emergency, known as a Jacob's ladder. Belshazzar saw the handwriting on the wall. Jesus warned against letting your left hand know what your right hand is doing, which can be a good thing, but today is normally viewed as poor communication. Abraham Lincoln is usually credited with saying that a house divided against itself shall not stand--but he was quoting Jesus. Herod's stepdaughter wanted John the Baptist's head on a silver platter... The expression, the blind leading the blind is fairly well known, now, I don't think it was when Jesus said it. Washing one's hands of something is basically allowing without accepting the blame for--it didn't work so well for Pontius Pilate. Money is the root of all evil is a common expression, but it's also a misquote. The truth shall set you free. Out of the mouths of babes come truth. Apostle Paul had a thorn in his side. Can a leopard change it's spots? (I've blogged about that before--but not using that reference) Why is a skeptic referred to as a doubting Thomas?

Of course, there are some jokes that have evolved from the expressions in the Bible. What is God's favorite automotive brand, and how do we know? Well, he drove Adam and Eve out of the garden in a Fury, so He must like Plymouths. On the other hand, the early church was partial to Hondas--on the day of Pentacost, they managed to squeeze 120 people into one Accord. What kind of sports did they play in the Bible? Well, baseball, obviously, because the Bible starts out saying, "In the big inning..." But also tennis, because Daniel served in the king's court. No mention of football that I know of, although some people in modern times have made the request, "Drop kick me, Jesus, through the goal posts of life..."

Of course, there are also misunderstood expressions. I've blogged about 'fetching a compass' before. In Acts 7:54, it says that when Stephen preached the gospel to the crowd, they 'gnashed on him with their teeth." To gnash means to grind together--all this is really saying is that they gnashed their teeth at him or because of him. I heard some people say that these people were so upset that they were chewing on Stephen; I don't think so. In 1st Samuel 5, the Bible talks about God smiting the Philistines with 'emerods.' This is a word that is no longer in common use. The word has 'evolved.' For some reason it has attracted a lot more letters. Let's just say that if the word hadn't changed, there would be commercials now for tubes of 'Preparation E.'

Quizzes

I get a little frustrated from time to time with quizzes. I like to have my mind challenged, but sometimes the people that want to challenge my mind don't do a very good job of it.

Some time ago, I was visiting a web site that had quizzes on a number of different subjects, but most of the choices didn't really appeal to me. There was one on science fiction, so I clicked on that one. A ten question quiz, the first question was about Star Trek, and it was easy. The second question was about Star Wars, also easy. The rest of the questions dealt with Joss Wheedon stuff. Okay, Joss Wheedon has done some science fiction ("Alien: Resurrection", "Titan A. E.", "Firefly" and "Serenity"), but none of these questions dealt with any of that. The remaining eight questions all dealt with "Buffy" and "Angel"--not science fiction. I managed to guess right on four of those questions, giving me a 60%. Normally I would be disappointed in myself for scoring 60% on a science fiction quiz, but, considering that only 20% of the quiz dealt with science fiction, I felt pretty good about myself--just not very good towards whoever put the quiz together.

Another web site was trying to set itself up as a collection of expertise, and they were taking applications from people who felt that they were experts in a particular field. In order to qualify, though, you had to score well on a quiz prepared by one of their existing experts. No, science fiction was not an available category (not that I really think that I'm an expert in science fiction--I know more than a lot of people, but not nearly as much as some), but the Bible was. That's interesting; let's see if I can qualify as a Bible expert. I didn't. One question in particular that bothered me was, "How many loaves of bread and how many fishes did Jesus use to feed the multitude?" That's kind of a vague question, since Jesus fed the multitude more than once; but the first time it was five loaves and two fishes, the second time it was seven loaves and 'a few' fishes. Neither one of those were possible answers. The closest I could find was five loaves and three fishes, so I put that. WRONG! The 'correct' answer was five of each. I'd sure like to know which version of the Bible that came from...

There was also another one that was obviously put together by someone just trying to be contentious--they asked a lot of very strange questions (meaning that I didn't know how to begin to answer them) , but one in particular asked, "What is the seventh commandment?" Their answer: "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk." That's not even in the right chapter...

Anyway, one that I like much better is on the gotoquiz web site. To be honest, they call this "The Ultimate Bible Quiz," but most of the answers can be deduced even if you don't know (they have a bad tendency to ask 'who in the Bible' questions with two of the choices being people born in the twentieth century...). Maybe that's why I like it... Personally, though, I think the ultimate Bible quiz should have questions on it like, "Name both of Ruth's husbands." with choices like, "a. Mahlon and Chilion b. Mahlon and Boaz c. Chilion and Boaz d. Mahlon, Chilion, and Boaz," or, name all of the women mentioned in the lineage of Christ in Matthew. But, of course, I'm sure that such a quiz would have questions on it that I wouldn't be able to answer--but it would be fun to learn from it.

They Are Lying To You

By now, I think most of us have seen internet ads that proclaim, "They're lying to you, and it's costing you a fortune!" They're right. Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that those ads are entirely true, either.
As far as home-based or internet-based businesses, if you think that you can just painlessly make the transition from working for someone else and being self-employed, guess again. Granted, when you're part of the 9-to-5 mass, it can seem like Heaven to not have to punch a clock anymore, but, setting your own hours can be disastrous. You still need to get your work done; being able to decide when to work sometimes means not getting the work done. It's very easy to put off doing things (especially things that you don't really want to do) when 'situations' arise (and they do). In the early days (or months or years) of being self-employed, it usually means working more hours (the person who set you up promised no more 40-hour work weeks--that's true; you'll be wishing for 40 hour work weeks before too long) for less pay.
Some of us have heard that the government is lying to us about 9/11 and Iraq. There's probably a lot of truth in that, too (but don't take the accusers at face value, either).
I have to wonder about the Jena 6. If they were really trying to kill that white boy, they sure didn't do a very good job of it. He received outpatient treatment at the local hospital. He attended some event the night he was beaten (some reports say a party, some say a school event). It seems to me that if 6 people tried to kill me, I wouldn't be willing to leave the hospital right away, much less go to a party; sounds to me like he didn't get beaten that badly. Did the Jena 6 get interrupted? The media has been strangely silent about why the victim had so little injury. On the other hand, the one of the Jena 6 that's been convicted already (the conviction was overturned on the grounds that he isn't old enough to be tried as an adult), Mychal Bell, has been convicted 3 times before (in juvenile court, I assume) of violent crimes. In any case, the lack of proof of intent to kill should not result in a finding not guilty, just guilty of a lesser charge.
None of this is really my point today. Most people take what information they are given and internalize most of it without really questioning it, whether it comes from politicians, or our bosses, or the media, or our religious leaders. It seems like a lot of people have lost the ability to question sources. Don't misunderstand me, almost everybody questions some sources, but they almost always have some sources that they don't question that aren't any more honest than the sources that they question.
For many years, a lot of established religions have taught that one shouldn't read the book or books that the religion is allegedly based on. The usual reason given is that common people can't understand the writings, they are much too complex. There may be some legitimate concern about exactly that, but, by teaching that you shouldn't read the Bible or the Koran, or whatever, but trust your religious leaders to explain the writings to you, it gives the clergy an immense amount of power. Don't misunderstand me, I believe that most priests and imams are careful not to abuse that power, but there will always be a few. And, to be honest, IMHO, most people are really at least a little afraid of finding out what the book actually says. It's a holy book, and I am so far from being holy... I think that's why there are so many books out there that try to explain what the Bible says. There was a very popular series of books recently that dramatized the writers' interpretation of the book of Revelation. How accurate was it? Most people that read the books didn't read Revelation, so they really have no way of knowing. This in spite of the fact that most people had never heard of either of the two men before these books came out, and have no real reason to trust either one of them. Even if these two men are giving their honest evaluation of what will probably happen as the prophecies play out, why would you want to limit yourself to their understanding?
All I'm saying is, if you believe the Bible, then read it; better yet, study it. If there are things in there that confuse you, then pray for understanding. If you believe the Koran, then read it, study it. I understand that Islam teaches that only certain people are considered to be qualified to interpret the writings of the Koran, so if there are things in there that you don't understand, you should find out what they think. But I would encourage you to be skeptical; you don't want to be limited to some man's understanding. God wants you to understand what He expects from you. If you run from that, it doesn't make you any less accountable.

Update: I saw this 'toon on Reverendfun.com, and it goes so well with my post, I just had to add it.