About Me

Name: Joel Aaron
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Spark Topic: The Gender Gap?

Some experts say that kids are stretched to the breaking point these days and stand a 50-50 chance of attempting suicide before age 20 (in addition to the 70-30 chance that they will be misdiagnosed by an expert). Gender variance or gender identity disorder (GID) where a child doesn’t identify with his or her own biological sex, makes these statistics spike even higher during puberty among those children who fall in this category. Enter the neuroscientists and psychiatrists with a pharmaceutical rep to push a hormone blocker through Little Johnet’s derma layers and delay his-her physical maturity until either a) he’s old enough to emotionally handle becoming more womanly or b) pharmaceutical lobby reps succeed in arguing to legalize hormones that can aid LJ’s full transition to the opposite gender.


Should we artificially delay puberty for kids who don’t identify with their biological sex early-on?
How did gender variant children cope up until this point before the birth of “Miracle Treatments”? (Perhaps parents chose the sexual development of their gender variant child during their child’s infancy and didn’t wait until the cusp of adolescence). And what happens if the psychiatrist misdiagnoses one of the many children who will more than likely grow out of this naturally?


There are a host of ethics questions here. If you’re doing tests to determine gender pre-dispositions, does it mean you are forcing gender stereotypes on people and what does THAT do to gender equality? “Identifying a condition” sounds like a scavenger hunt! Suggestions of societal conditioning as a cause-effect relationship are too indicting and uncomfortable anyway…(for the child, of course). Some doctors will tell me I am confusing several issues. If I am, then help me. If GID applies as a physiological disorder and not an emotional one aided by environmental conditions in which the child is raised (at least in part), then why are we waiting until the outset of puberty to begin diagnosis and treatment? And notwithstanding extreme cases (hermaphroditic, for example) how would we know whether the good intentions of the psychiatrists recommending hormone blockers on the basis of their diagnosis is not, in fact, exacerbating a non-existent problem? Is only science suitable for serious inquiry into what makes a man a man…or a man a woman, for that matter? What happens when the inquiry produces unsatisfactory results to an agenda driven testing process? Do you then “identify a condition”? When a "condition" is pronounced upon observing varying degrees of social development, one should be wary of jumping to conclusions.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Spark Topic: Church Tithing Comes Under Fire

Can you put a price on faith? That is the question churchgoers are asking as the tradition of tithing -- giving 10% of your income to the church -- is increasingly challenged. Opponents of tithing say it is a misreading of the Bible, a practice created by man, not God. They say they should be free to donate whatever amount they choose, and they are arguing with pastors, writing letters and quitting congregations in protest. In response, some pastors have changed their teaching and rejected what has been a favored form of fund raising for decades.
The backlash comes as some churches step up their efforts to encourage tithing. Some are setting up "giving kiosks" that allow congregants to donate using their debit cards when they attend services. Others are offering financial seminars that teach people in debt how they can continue tithing even while paying off their loans. Media-savvy pastors sell sermons online about tithing. And in a shift, more Catholic parishes are asking churchgoers to tithe.

This trend worries some church leaders. "If everyone gives 2% of their income because that's what they feel like giving, you aren't going to have money to pay the light bill and keep the doors open," says Duane Rice, an official with Evangelical Friends International, a denomination that believes that tithing is required by the Bible.  (Fortunately, the "true believers" will fork over millions without asking questions). Steve Sorensen, director of pastoral ministries at Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, says the church requires its paid and volunteer leaders to tithe, and teaches new members to do so, although it doesn't make them show proof of income. "When you tithe, God makes promises to us, that he ... is not going to let anything bad or destructive come about," says Mr. Sorensen. For those who don't tithe, he says the Lord "is not obligated to do those things for you."  So if I tithe, God is obligated to do things for me? So God can be bought out like a cosmic gumball machine?

Resistance to tithing has been increasing steadily in recent years, as more churchgoers have questioned the way their churches spend money. Like other philanthropists today, religious givers want to see exactly how their donations are being used. In some cases, the growth of megachurches, some with expensive worship centers equipped with coffee bars and widescreen TVs, have turned people off of tithing.  Some Baptist churches are trying to encourage tithing by accepting credit-card payments and automatic deductions from checking accounts. Two years ago, the Rev. Marty Baker, pastor of Stevens Creek Church in Augusta, Ga., created the "giving kiosk" machine that allows congregants to donate at the church from their bank cards. He and his wife launched SecureGive, a for-profit company, which has placed 50 kiosks in churches. He says the machines can help track which families are giving the most. Why is there so much disproportionate animosity to the church over other non-profit institutions asking for money? Is it a backlash to an empire-building fixation among mega-churches? How do big churches get around that image, if at all? Then again, why should churches have to compete in the marketplace of ideas? It’s all God’s money anyway. Of course he wants you to spend it on the new building. It was created for Him so more people can hear about Him. You don’t think He can just turn up in conversation around the water cooler or in a cigar parlor?! He’s God. Jesus may have picnicked on a hillside, in the fish market or the Bethlehem Bar, but in this Season of Giving, remember, God doesn’t come on tap! Don’t blame the church for putting Him back in the temple where He belongs.

The Hub Radio Show - America's First Competition Talk Show
Listen LIVE Saturdays 6pm on 920am WGKA - Streaming online at
www.920wgka.com and downloading for FREE at www.thehubradioshow.com. Call in at 1-888-920-2665.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Spark Topic: Are Democrats the `Party of the Rich'?

Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study (by the Michael Franc of the Heritage Foundation) says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts. Franc used IRS income data on a state-by-state, district-by-district scavenger hunt (with no agenda other than the truth :) to realize that while more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in decidely Democrat-controlled Senate districts, the vast majority of conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-income districts. Franc extrapolates that that pattern shows the likelihood of electing a Democrat to the House is very closely correlated with how many wealthy households are in that district. (Or how few Republican hard core capitalists have found their way into the District yet on the ladder climb to the top). So will the class warfare that’s become a staple in the Democrats political playbook come back to bite them in the butt? How long will they be able to play both sides against the other? Haven’t we always known this? Republicans are the party of NASCAR. Was there ever a NASCAR fan born with a silver spoon in his mouth unless that spoon carried a Yoplait Yogurt or other assorted sponsorships?

The Hub Radio Show - America's First Competition Talk Show
Listen LIVE Saturdays 6pm on 920am WGKA - Streaming online at
www.920wgka.com and downloading for FREE at www.thehubradioshow.com. Call in at 1-888-920-2665.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Spark Topic: Flight of the Data Raider

The British Government unveiled plans last week to take up to 53 pieces of information from anyone entering or leaving Britain.  For every trip, security officials will want credit card details, vacation contact numbers, travel plans, email addresses, car numbers and even any previous missed flights.  The information, taken when a ticket is bought, will be shared among police, customs, immigration and the security services for at least 24 hours before a trip is due to take place. Anybody about whom the authorities are dubious can be turned away when they arrive at the airport or station with their baggage. If this proves successful, can we be far behind? Since our government is not allowed to spy on its own citizens, can this be a way we let Britain do it for us? Will this cause tourism to suffer in Great Britain? Will Heathrow loose airline business to other European hubs-especially for connecting flight?

The Hub Radio Show - America's First Competition Talk Show
Listen LIVE Saturdays 6pm on 920am WGKA - Streaming online at
www.920wgka.com and downloading for FREE at www.thehubradioshow.com. Call in at 1-888-920-2665.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Spark Topic: Emerging Out of Emerging Adulthood

The Christmas Season. The season of the inner child, innocence, magic and a growing generation of adults who remind us that there is a curious new generation social scientists are saying are not emerging into adulthood but creating “adultolescent” status. What is happening to a culture where our adolescent years are being put on overdrive into our late 20s and early 30s? Is it natural social conditioning or is it only natural because its become widely accepted? Should it be widely accepted? Is it healthy or unhealthy to have the adolescent mind in your post-college years? Do you see these activities as adolescent or just a release from the pressure cooker of life? Sure, life stages are large social constructs defined by outside environmental influences. But four factors seem to be contributing to a category of in-betweens at a level never before seen in American society. Factor one, is the growth of higher education. Much of this got its jump-start after the introduction of the GI Bill that fostered changes in the American economy, and government subsidizing of community colleges and state universities that serviced a spike in high school graduates going on to college and beyond. A second factor is the delay of marriage until one's late 20's, brought on by a prolonged need to explore options (a combination of more options and more knowlege of available options) and the unprecedented levels of freedom. A third factor are economic changes in the American economy and beyond that have undermined stable, lifelong careers replaced by lower stability, higher turnover careers. Career tracks have trumped careers in a specific company. Finally, aware of the pressures on the next generation to succeed, parents are becoming increasingly willing to subsidize their children financially and otherwise well into their twenties. This pipeline helps young adults maintain the freedom longer. The operative question is, Is this the freedom to find reality or the freedom to avoid reality? Is society enabling "emerging adults" to engage or withdraw from meaningful contributions?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Spark Topic: China Ties

China has it together. They always have. Why would question anything to the contrary? Their GNP and national financial reserves are through the stratosphere, they have graciously assumed large portions of America's national debt (along with our national pride and national production mechanisms) their people live real long time, the working conditions we have access to look buttoned up and they have the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beiijing. What's not to love? Then again, what about this high tech internet censorship operation still calling to mind the existence of a free speech xenophobe lurking just beneath the surface? If everything's above the bar in China (which of course it is, I wouldn't dare say otherwise and question their...resolve) then what are they trying to to keep in and out of the country (certainly not Wal-Mart shelf stock) and why? DO you believe, as some experts have said, that Communism is dead in the Red Giant? Sure, Friedman, open markets would (oops, WILL...Friedmian Slip) hold their political aspirations at bay. But are they really open markets or are you just trying to sell the 15th edition of The World Is Flat: The World Is Flatter: The World Is Flattest? Nothing against your book but it's still hard to innovate against a production work force that does not have to play by the regulatory rules in place for my state-side production. Indulge my ignorance, how do I innovate around sweat shops?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Spark Topic: Animal Rights in Georgia

Attorneys in Atlanta at the firm Schiff Hardin LLP raised their collective steak knives last week with a legal victory against the Georgia Department of Agriculture for not enforcing the 1990 Humane Euthenasia Act across the board. The gassing of Georgia's yet uneaten animals - mostly domesticated and not of the bovine persuasion - continues under a grandfather clause that allowed for already existing canine concentration camps to persist. My question: If they were grandfathered in, what's illegal about that? The real issue is over a "new" facility built in Cobb County as a replacement to a chamber that had fallen into disrepair. They weren't violating as much as they were assuming operational costs. Furthermore, why not euthenize through gas chambers? How is that any less humane than lethal injections, not to mention the danger to humans that occur when administering injections that require workers to be in very close proximity to sometimes desperate animals. Either way, if you're dying you ain't gonna feel great, no matter how they put out the lights! And wouldn't you rather not be a burden on yourself and others under living conditions that could send you into a pet therapy group? What's more humane? Protracted misery or a quick fix? Thanks to that spineless wretch, Bob Barker, you've already lost your balls. Good riddance to him!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is America Shooting At Israel?

The field of international relations looks clean when packaged in a 5 minute newscast. The reality on the ground is often much more complicated as author and World Net Daily journalist Aaron Klein (who interviews senior Islamo-terrorists like you talk to your neighbor face-to-face on the front lawn) is pointing out in his startling new book, Schmoozing Terrorists. According to Klein, the U.S. has been arming, training, funding and coordinating security with known terrorist operatives including the senior leadership of one of Palestine's most active groups since before the turn of the century. Our State Department, ever the optimists sleeping with copies of Louise Diamond and Benjamin Ferencz books under their pillows at night, stood up in August to announce the training of Force 17 (an arm of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah forces) in the use of military weapons of which we are the supplier. This is all courtesy of an $85 million dollar United States Congress-approved grant. But, you say, Fatah has long been working to defeat the Islamofascism of Hamas and Hizbollah so where's Klein's beef? Turns out many of the Fatah regime and the Preventative Security Services in Palestine have been moonlighting in the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade for years. According to Klein, the Brigade, along with the Islamic Jihad terror group, has presided over virtually every suicide bombing in Israel in the last 3 years with thousands of shooting attacks and grenade launches along the West Bank to their name.

So what does a U.S. training camp for terrorists look like and what does it cover? According to Abu Yousuf, a Force 17 officer Klein interviewed, the training includes both intelligence and military tactics. Intelligence training for him included the collection of information on suspected persons, how to tail a suspect, how to infiltrate organisations and how to penetrate cells. The only thing left out was how to cook a mean chili dog and bake an apple pie! Militarily, the training included weapons and explosives, sniper techniques, special units training, et cetera. When asked about a terrorist's incentive for coughing up information on America in a Hub Radio Show interview last week, Klein explained that for Yousuf and others, it's one more opportunity to give Americans' an embarrasing paper cut in the War on Terror ink-on-paper PR war. The more grave threat are stories of the unintented use of American dollars to prop up Hamas-run schools and at least one university where the chemistry Lab Coats are turning out rockets and suicide bomb belts.

The take home of Schmoozing Terrorists and my interview with Klein were several lessons learned from the terrorists themselves. One, contrary to peace-niks who would call us warmongerers for saying it (and I can think of nothing I would rather do than promote my affinity for warfare as a heartless big business capitalist longing to cash in on the machine...NOTE: call my broker to check on the earnings status of my military contract stocks) terrorists see cease-fires as nothing more than a chance to reload. They even have Quranic support from the religion of peace-by-negotion. The Arabic word for truce is "hudna" which in the Quran falls in line with Muhammed's 10 year cease-fire in the Truce of Hudaybiyah. This "truce" refers to the attacking Quraysh tribe of Mecca in the seventh century. In Islam the principle known as "Takiya" bears the right to "fake" peace when you are weak in order to wait for a more opportune time to strike. (Gotta love a purist!) And we all know the outcome for the Quraysh tribe. (FYI- They weren't around to talk about it.) Two, unilaterally evacuated territory like the West Bank (a la the pie-in-the-sky two state Israeli-Palestinian "dis-solution") creates a vacuum that terrorists are more than willing to fill. Three, terrorists like Hamas' Abu Abdullah are calling America's bluff on the notion of a "war on terror". Says Abdullah, "How can you fight an idea?" Islamic Jihad's Abu Mosaab furthers, "You [America] fight for your own materialistic reasons...but insurgents...[are] fighting for Allah and looking to die and be killed as a shaheed (martyrs). Brigade leader Al Aqsa Adassi echoes those sentiments. "After we put aside that you are the terrorists and we are resistance movements leading a legitimate religious war that will not accept any compromise, I must say how foolish it is of Bush to launch a war against something called terror." Nothing like a little Islamo-fascist brow beating to wake you up in the morning. Aaron Klein, for one, hopes his new book will be just that - a triple shot espresso to America's regional response to terrorist relations. For the record, America does not negotiate with terrorists.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Trigger Happy Gets Blackwater a Black Eye

On September 16th, 11 Iraqis were killed and 20 more wounded in the gunfight involving Blackwater USA, a private contractor security firm that the U.S. State Department has been paying off to the tune of $1 billion dollars since 2001. The sticky issue Blackwater chairman Eric Prince seems to be working through now with the help of House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and his ilk is that Prince's organisation has been involved in 195 shooting incidents since 2005 alone.  The NY Times reported that a bullet struck an Iraqi man driving his mother to pick up his father, a pathologist, at a hospital. The dead man's weight probably stayed on the accelerator and propelled the car toward a Blackwather convoy who opened fire on it, supposedly after getting spooked. The ever-sneering Maureen Dowd started playing connect the dots last week in her column with her explanation that some of the no-bid contracts from the State Department to Blackwater were based on years of support by Prince and his family for Republican candidates and specifically the President. With me, this registers a big, fat happy...SO? Would you rather be overlooked as a friend when a job comes up with one of your friends that is in your industry or be rewarded for your loyalty? All this confirms is that human beings do, in fact, like to support their friends when they are able. God, that is one sinister plotline! Add to that the no-bid contract debacle and you have D.C. tabloid material of the highest grade. Call me a simpleton but no-bids contracts sometimes come out of convenience by way of NECESSITY. If I need to get my package of curds and whey to Grandma by dinner tomorrow, I don't go bargain shopping for the cheapest and most value-driven option of all the options strewn on the landscape that is the residential shipping industry, I go next door and FedEx for $5 dollars more. I bet even Maureen Dowd goes back to her short list of contacts when a column is under a hard deadline.
But for politicians and journalists most adept at stumbling all over themselves to pass the buck, no one plays the "didjaknowit hand-in-the-cookie-jar" game better than John Edwards. He connected the lines of guilt by loose association to Hillary Clinton for her employment of Mark Penn, a PR man and her "primary adviser" according to Edwards, who is also representing Blackwater USA.  Despite the fun subplot, Mark Penn in fact owns the PR firm Burson-Marsteller, he's not a politician. (Cue the cynic: Yeah, right, everybody's a politician). Nevertheless, pushing the cynic aside, Penn takes work from whence it comes. He gives strategic advice as it is requested of him by the dead president's that are wired to his business account. Is he responsible for making sure none of his clients, if linked together, screw themselves over in a political orgy? I think not. And as hard as it might be for we civilians to admit it, a war struggle where one's military is expected to honor Geneva Conventions and fight fair against a terrorist network not bound by those rules of engagement may need a little outside help to get the job done. Either that or risk the literal diplomatic fallout of diplomats falling out of convoys after the spray of gunfire or a roadside bomb.

Listen to The Hub Radio Show on Saturdays at 6PM on 920am WGKA. Streaming online at www.920wgka.com. For more information log on to www.thehubradioshow.com. Call in during LIVE Talkback segments at 1-888-920-2665.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Spark Topic: Men Opting to End Reproductive Years Early is on the Rise

Toby Byrum has become a bit of an exhibit for a cultural phenomenon, not because he decided to get a vasectomy, but because he did it early-on at age 28 as an only-child and, thus, the only hope for preserving the Byrum franchise. Byrum expressed to Matt Lauer recently on The Today Show that having a child simply to continue his legacy would be selfish. He continued to explain that he views the next 15-20 years of [his] life as some of the best years. "I wanted to make sure those years were...going to make me ultimately the happiest person I could be." Apparently Byrum's tubes weren't the only thing from which he was experiencing a disconnect at the time he snipped the branches on the family tree. His logic seemed to be failing. How does a man make a decision to end his reproductive years out of a desire to not "be selfish" while at the same saying he wants the next 20 years of his life (the best years) free from the burden of children so that he can insure his highest level of happiness? So it's all about YOU and YOUR happiness and that isn't selfish?
Urologists around the country are reporting a small but growing number of young men who are deciding to throw the switch on fatherhood at a young age. My question is, how ready is a guy to make that decision in his late 20s anyway? Aren't our early years ruled by self-centered hedonism and isn't that expanding culturally into later and later in life? Doesn't make it right, just an observation. But at a minimum, wait until you are at an age when you have enough responsibility to garner the need for life insurance!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Our History Is History!

Realists muse that every cloud has a silver lining...and every year thousands of people die (presumably starry-eyed idealistic youth wishing upon a star) from lightning strikes while they stare at dark clouds. Enter the American Civic Literacy Program and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute to seed the clouds of academia with another dose of reality. The ACLP just released their follow-up to last year's blockbuster study that concludes American university students are as dense as bricks when it comes to U.S. history and civic education (which tends to preclude involvement).  Our very own Georgia College and State University and UGA rank near the top of the bottom of the pile of 50 randomly chosen institutions.  The problem here is that in the name of political correctness we've created a textbook climate of whitewashed historical monologues where a vast throng of American college graduates would now confidently cast the Jeffersonian "wall of seperation between church and state" out of the Danbury Baptist Letters and into the 1st Ammendment itself - "freedom OF religion becomes freedom FROM religion" (notwithstanding post-modernism) and we are none the wiser. The average senior has completed only four courses in the combined areas of history, political science and economics by the time they flip the tassel and many are experiencing what ISI study mogels call "negative learning" where seniors end up knowing less than incoming freshman.

The ISI study cornered 14,000 students with a 60-question test where the vast majority scored a big red "F". (Cue the apologists: This is tragic! Scores like this can only mean that ISI tests are dangerous, misleading and must be re-written to fit the times. This test is ancient history)!  Foreign students taking classes in the States scored even worse than American students (less than one-tenth of one point) and minorities lost out to whites in knowlege gained by a 6 to 1 margin.  

So how did we arrive where we know more about Britney's custody battle than the Battle of Gettysburgh? What is our take home from these study results? For starters, prestige doesn't buy knowlege. Several schools entangled in their ivy of underperformance include Cornell, Yale, Duke and Princeton (all costing more annually than a new model Vette). If parents and students are looking to schools like these to increase their knowlege of America, then apparently their flushing money down the toilet. Why the silence in the wake of the fallout? For many parents, the criterion for schools has shifted from education to prestige that translates to higher earning potential and when results match expectations, everybody goes home happy with their student loan debts in tow. And what of alum and philanthropists forking over millions a year in donations? According to the Council for Aid to Education, individuals, corporations, religious groups and others contributed $28 billion dollars to American colleges in 2006. Is this symptomatic of the American way of throwing money at the problem (passive engagement) rather than the active involvement of seeing higher education as a supplement to efforts at home and expecting nothing less than a positive extension of those efforts? It turns out that the key factor in trending the tide is the answer to the question, "Was it Smurfs or senators at your childhood dinner table?" For students with families where history and current events were often discussed, parents were married and living together and at least one parent was in posession of a bachelor's diploma, student test scores gained an average of 2.3 percentage points over those who did not benefit from those factors (providing a veritable conundrum for new model family advocates working to drop the A-bomb over the traditional nuclear family).

When confronted with the findings, Tom Jackson, vice president for public affairs at UGA called the study "insignificant" with hidden motives (like the furthering of education) revealed by a questionable methodology (you chose my school and gave me a failing grade). Hmm, when you don't like the diagnosis, discredit the doctor. (ISI statisticians are simply Freebird shoot'n, beltway elitists). Skeptics of history would say: We learn  from history that we learn nothing from history  because history invariably repeats itself. So what of learning from repetition? If history has no power to inform the macrocosm of the human experience enough to keep us from collective train wrecks, then at a minimum, it can still inform individual souls longing for proven means to an end. It inspires a search for truth on an individual level. And that may be the biggest fear of social progressives revising your child's history textbook right now. Will we engage before a generation has no understood reason for which to say, God Bless America?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Land Ho! The Race for the Arctic North Heats Up

Long before Alex the Great was creating the irony of "Great" in association with imperialism that would cause revisionist historians centuries later to play footsie with textbook symantics, mankind had begun its never-ending race to claim strategic land and strategic resources. This summer, for the first time in recorded history, the Northwest Passage was ice-free from the Pacific to the Atlantic. And with the meltdown in the North Arctic making it possible to go after the estimated 25% of the world's black gold reserves located there, everyone from Russia to Canada to Denmark and Norway are racing for the land grab. Why is it all escalating now for the U.S.? Is it really because we can finally tap natural resources that were too difficult to reach before or because we're concerned that countries' with presidents who like to do topless photo ops on fly fishing trips and fraternize with other world powers with whom we have beefs are going for the glory...not to mention the military strategery.

This week, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joe Biden will begin hearings for the U.S. adoption of the Law of the Sea convention which came in to force for many other nations in 1994. Why are we ramping up rhetoric for ratification? Because the U.N. provisions on the Law give a country exclusive economic rights to the sea's resources within 200 nautical miles of the countries' respective coastline with a provision to extend the limit to 350 miles if they can prove that their continental shelf extends that far. Enter Russia, Denmark and Canada to duke it out over the underwater Lomonosov Ridge that is currently in question. Essentially, the U.S. must sign the convention in order to legitimize ourselves in the race for everything from the strategic military outpost to the potential natural resources that Santa's Sweatshop represents. Some conservatives in the U.S. have seen the proposed signing as a no-win acknowledgement of U.S. sovereignty bowing to "world government" of the high seas. They fear this might hinder our ability to, say, apprehend ships with terrorist ties cruising through the Northwest Passage.

Despite the political "hand fold" that some feel would be communicated by a ratification, Biden is optimistic with support coming from everyone from the Administration to the American Petroleum Institute AND the World Wildlife Fund. The real political trick here would be for Republicans to find some way to take credit from Senator Biden and the Democrats if the ratification goes through and somehow get campaign finance support from both  groups, no matter how disparate their intentions for the area may be. For the API, the Republican pitch could be, "We are helping you squeeze profits from a faraway land that is too difficult for Green Peace to do a location shoot and use against you in a television smear-ad." For the World Wildlife Fund, "We are influencing Senator Biden so that you can set up a polar bear reserve before big biz petroleum gets there and disrupts Yogi's natural habitat."

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who seems perpetually miffed at Washington for insisting that the Northwest Passage is an international strait and should be open to ALL ships, stated in August that "the first principle of Arctic sovereignty is use it or lose it, eh? (use inflection)". Of course, the Maple Leafers maintain their concerns are more environmental than militaristic. And for his part, Anatoli Sagalevich, the Russian commander who piloted a submarine to plant the Russian flag on the North Pole seabed in August, professes astonishment at the nervous twitch his actions received from the international community. "The Americans placed their flag on the moon, and it doesn't mean the moon became theirs." (Aside: No, but it does mean we could land a lunar rover on a moon crater faster than you could).

Truly, why do we even concentrate on black gold when two out of three polar bears polled are lobbying for cellulose ethanol as a better energy source and the third bear is discounted for already having drowned in the melting Northwest Passage. Cellulose ethanol is the wave of the future. Don't believe me? Ask the molecular biologist sitting atop millions in federal grant money. Nevermind that some of our greatest men in lab coats have been working on generating energy from plant matter at a competitive price for several decades. Cellulose may be a tricky little molecule to break down for energy but, hey, keep it up! The polar bears are counting on you and Russia can't exploit corn reserves against our French allies in the war on terror.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Spark Topic: Russia on the Rise!

The not-so-former Soviet Union capped off a home run derby of tyrannical-leaning political moves last week with the consecration of the government-sanctioned “Conception Day”, making sex for population increase a sign of good citizenship. This came on the heels of concern from France that Russia is exploiting its oil wealth with strongarm tactics, an ever cozying relationship with Iran as they look to President Putin for support under U.S. trade sanctions, the successful testing of a “super bomb” that would allegedly make Oppenheimer’s little invention look like a submission at a 6th grade science fair, and Putin’s ousting of his 2nd in command for a potential “puppet prime minister” of little regard. What is Putin's goal here? Why does Iran turn to Russia so quickly when they feel the pinch from the international community? Are the oil controls of which French President Sarkozy complains really meant to weaken other trade countries or is this just good ol' Russian pride and posturing? What is the greatest problem we face with Russia and why should we care?

This weekend we sit down on The Hub Radio Show with Yuri Feltshinsky, author of Blowing Up Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror, to talk about where our fears should lie with the former Soviet Union and where Putin is taking the country.


Listen to The Hub Saturday from 6-8pm and call in to talk with Yuri Feltshinsky at 1-888-920-2665. LISTEN LIVE at www.920wgka.com. For more information on the show go to www.thehubradioshow.com.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Richard Dawkins Has God on the Ropes: Science vs Religion: Round 2

Reprinted from Nov 15, 2006

The New Atheists still hold onto the hope that God may be tapping out of the fight. In recent months, they have hit the campaign trail in a fury. New Atheist rockstar Richard Dawkins has shown up on The O'Reilly Factor and The Colbert Report, Sam Harris has covered cable talk shows and talk radio segments, and even the late great Carl Sagan is making a comeback post-mortem with a new release due out in the coming months with or without the help of George Noory. Despite all the valiant efforts, New Atheists still find themselves running into some marketing setbacks. For one, they never seem to propose realistic solutions to the damage religion can cause. Atheism and fatalism start to sound synanomous after awhile. New Atheism fancies itself a straightforward appeal to our intellect, no emotion involved. The problem is, this approach proves dangerous if the religious community comes back and supports their belief with (shock and awe) Reason.

If truth is merely an idea with no Figurehead, you’re going to have a hard time getting a movement off the ground, right? Maybe the movement needs an Ascension into Heaven. Perhaps look into making a god to follow out of someone with star power – a galvanizing character of their own to follow. Oprah and Keanu Reeves come to mind. Sam Harris might do, but no offense against Sam, they need a little more sex appeal, a haggard beard, the Hippie-look, someone like Jesus Christ. Someone that people see like they did back with the Guy from Galilee and say, now there’s a guy that has that Shepherd Smith swoon appeal. I’ll follow him to the ends of the earth. Where do I put my nets?

The Urgency Conundrum

In addition to the lack of a Mobilizing Force, New Atheism wrestles with what I call the Urgency Conundrum. Warren Allen Smith, author of the year 2000 encyclopedia “Who’s Who In Hell?”, spent six decades up to age 85 sending letters asking people if they believe in God. He is a committed atheist. He is currently working on his magnum opus: a Web site called Philosopedia. He’s working hard. Why the urgency, you ask? He fears he doesn’t have many years before the memory drain. And he worries about the threat of fundamentalism in the East AND the West. It's a bit paradoxical. Why be so worried about saving a world with no intrinsic value, anyway? We don’t bend over backwards to save a cockroach. All they do is freak out the kids. We kill it, then we flush it, and we still sleep well at night.

The March of Morality

Another big question the movement can't seem to market its way out of is the "Origins of Morality" quest. A recent U.S. News article finds Jay Tolson planting these questions in the scientific fields of Consciousness Research. French mathematician Rene' Descartes gave us Cartesian Dualism where bodily organs send perceptions and other information via the brain to the mind. The mind would ponder, then makes decisions and direct the bodies' responses in word and deed. Cognitive theorists, over time, scoffed at this as the “Ghost in the Machine” argument but it worked well for awhile.

Recently neuroscientists like Francis Crick have picked up the trail with works such as "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul". He argues that "You, your joys and sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”

Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett backs him up with his `Fame in the Brain' analogy. At any one moment there are many potential conscious states in the body, many contending neuronal "assemblies", vying for "celebrity", for their moment in the spotlight. But only one can win the competition and it all depends on who is the Alpha-Neuronal assembly.

This begs the question, Where do the rules come from for the game? The conscious mind comes up with orderly representations of meaning, but it doesn’t create meaning. Where do we get the meaning from? Why do we want to give something meaning? Why does a kiss mean more to us than just, “Hmm, my brain just registered pressure from an outside force against my face. (Maybe that’s why man invented the French Kiss, just to take the pressure off the situation, but I digress).

All of this brings up the question posed by Jay Tolson. Am I just a survival machine? Is "meaning" nothing more than the sum of appropriate responses to information in ultimate service to life. If this is true, then life purpose, freedom and individuality are just reassuring illusions of possible survival value. (And great fodder for making the NY Times Bestseller list for a lot of psychobabblers involved in Life Coaching). But if our personality and very beliefs are simply the end result of some physiological Great Race to the service of our ultimate survival, then why do we have heroes willing to die for others rather than survive? Somebody should tell firefighters that they’re really screwed up in the head!

As recent as this summer, Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, himself a professed convert to Christianity, faced off in a scientific smackdown at the invitation of Time Magazine. Evolution, the complexity of life, miracles, stem cell research, the problem of good and evil and other heady topics were discussed. My impression after reading the transcripts is what follows.

Every decade or so a new group of people rise up to take God to the mat over His existence. They do this because they are enlightened. They have seen ALL the variables and have measured God and found Him wanting. Their omniscience allows them to do this. They explain to us that our faith has held us back from exploring and they show us gently how we have explained God into existence. They can do this because they have explained Him out of existence. They pity us. We should pity ourselves. If we were only willing to try something new, we would discover things we would never have known otherwise. Think about it, someone had to be the first to look at a cow and say, "I think I'll squeeze these dangly things, here, and drink whatever comes out", right? If it wasn't for someone's faith...er...enlightenment, we'd still be eating our cereal dry. And if it wasn't for these enlightened individuals, we'd all still be running around amazed by the size of the universe and acting like we don't yet understand its farthest reaches. When all is said and done, I say, thank GOD for atheists!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Richard Dawkins Has God on the Ropes - Science vs Religion: Round 1

Reprinted from November 14, 2006

Friedrich Nietzche is getting new support from Big Wig Atheists in the `God Is Dead Campaign’. Fortunately God is being leant support from morticians in the `Nietzsche Is Dead Campaign’”. According to a recent study, 85% of America has a faith in God ("What We Believe" Time Magazine, Oct 30th, 2006). However, we part ways into one of several categories when we drill down to Who or What God actually is. Undeterred by our obstinance, the New Atheists of the world hold onto their faith (no, that's not a Freudian Slip though maybe it should be) that God may yet be on the verge of tapping out of the ring. A slew of recent works have flown off the shelves by the likes of Oxford University prof Richard Dawkins, neuroscience Know-it-All Sam Harris, and Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett. We now have the Multiverse Hypothesis in cosmology saying we may have upwards of 300 billion universes, and if we’re one in a billion, why not spring up accidentally without divine intervention? Annoyingly enough, that also increases the chances that nature is even more outside the scope of our understanding, but, I digress.

Logic Attacks Religion

Dawkins sees it as a closet movement “I believe we’re in the same position the gay movement was in a few decades ago. There was a need for people to come out. The more people who came out, the more people had the courage to come out. I think that’s the case with atheists.” He goes on to goad in a November Wired Magazine article that “Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists. Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. Either they’re stupid, or they’re lying. And have they got a motive for lying?…Everybody knows that an atheist can’t get elected.”

Yeah, and your point? Most people, on occasion, grant legislators both stupidity and dishonesty. But what do you do with the other 85% of "stupid" God-fearing Americans when you figure that many of them are doctors, lawyers, and the like. New Atheist Glen Slade, the organizer of the monthly atheists “Brights” group in London offers more hope that the War on Terror is setting the stage for a No-Faith Takeover by raising awareness about the existence of more than one world religion. Well, so do specials on The History Channel but no matter how high-priced basic cable gets, it’s still cheaper than a war on terror – I think we had knowledge of multiple world religions before the war stepped in. Glen Slade continues, "A lot of moderates give a power base to extremists. A lot of Catholics use condoms and get divorced and even listen to punk rock like Bad Religion (Greg Graffin’s an atheist). They still stay Catholic. But when the Pope speaks, he still gets credit for speaking for a billion people." Hmm, I actually like Slade. He’s more religious than most religious people I know. He wants to call BS on religious apathy. It's all or nothing, baby! Dawkins, however, gives a tired argument. "As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect from the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers.” Sure it is, if you believe that all religions are fundamentally the same.

So if logic can't win the day for the New Atheist, you can always drag out the Apocalytic Threat.
Sam Harris, author of Letter to a Christian Nation, believes we are going to kill ourselves off over religion. But he’s not worried that time won’t change us and we will eventually see the error of our ways. He points to slavery and rests his case. “At some point it is just going to be too embarrassing to believe in God." But won’t that only work for those who succumb to the very thing you’re asking them to lay aside, namely, groupthink and a culture of religious belief? When asked about the look and feel of a world without God, Sam offers a Religion of Reason, the 21st Century equivalent of Robespierre's Culture of the Supreme Being. He offers the Atheist Prayer – “That our reason will subjugate our superstition, that our intelligence will check our illusions, that we will be able to hold at bay the evil temptation of faith.”

All of this double-speak makes my head hurt. It works on the tired premise that religion is not rational. Well, riddle me this, Batman? Where does your motivation for disproving faith come from? A desire to have cognitive resonance? Where is your dissonance coming from? These incovenient questions pose a marketing hurdle for the New Atheist movement. (That and the supremely depressing end result of their logical arguments). As it turns out, so does new scientific discovery in the field of consciousness research. And that is where we will turn in Round 2...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »