Chapters four through twelve of Exodus describe the plagues on Egypt that resulted in Israel being freed. Historically it takes place at the very end of the Middle Kingdom, shortly before the Hyksos domination around 1600 B.C. It is probable that the events listed in Exodus were major factors in the Hyksos being able to conquer Egypt even though they were rather weak. The story provides some interesting parallels to the present situation in the United States.
Some 430 years before, the Hebrews or Israel had gone into Egypt to escape famine in Palestine. They settled in the area known a Goshen, raising livestock and separated from the main Egyptian culture. In time, as their numbers grew, they came to be viewed as a threat to Egypt because their culture was different, and were subjugated by the Egyptian government under the Pharaohs. The slavery became increasingly severe as time passed and Israel began to seek their freedom. Moses was designated to negotiate with Pharaoh.
Pharaoh refused to discuss lessening the burden, further aggravating the the desire for freedom. A series of disasters or plagues ensued, each weakening the economic strength and stability of the nation, and the resolve of the Egyptian people. Pharaoh was able to isolate himself from most of the effects and maintained his position, unwilling to give up or delay his agenda for the benefit of his people. Each time he backed off his position, but as soon as the problem was alleviated, he went back to the original position.
In several of the plagues, Pharaoh’s advisors were able to cause similar effects thus convincing him that it was not of God and that they could control it. They did so, not by eliminating the cause of the problem but by repeating it. Finally, even his advisors gave up, and in Exodus 10:7 we find them telling him to let the people go because Egypt has already been destroyed. He promised to resolve the problem and the plague was removed, but as soon as the immediate symptom was reduced, changed his mind and resumed his original position. The final plague resulted in the deaths of members of every family in Egypt, including Pharaoh’s. This finally got his attention to the point of actually making real changes, freeing Israel. Even then, he changed his mind and tried to go back to the way it had been.
In the United States, several of our founding fathers resisted formation of parties, believing that they caused an isolation of the politicians from their constituents. Elections have become increasingly contests between the party issues and platforms, rather than candidates positions on the peoples interests, As one staunch Democrat said, its not about the candidate but the philosophy.
For several years, our Government has repeatedly faced economic crises. Each time they have promised changes. Republican controlled congresses have pledged tax relief, while Democrat controlled Congresses have promised regulatory reform. Tax rebates by Republicans and guarantees of loans by the Democrats, and other programs have been offered to alleviate the immediate symptoms. Quick, superficial changes then convince people that the problem is solved.
As soon as the pressure is reduced, we have returned to the original program that caused the problem, Political and financial figures are effectively isolated from the daily problems, and ignore it until it becomes severe enough to catch their attention again.
The common people are deal with the problems every day. Because they have discretionary income, price and tax changes have a much more immediate and dramatic effect on their situation. For example, the actual food a millionaire eats costs about the same as that for the fast food employee making minimum wage. The difference is in what they have left after buying food. A 10% increase in the price of the food, or sales tax, may make it unaffordable for the minimum wage earner, and be unnoticed by the millionaire. Few poor people are able to get into political life. They are too busy surviving. Congressional advisors, having a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, insist that the problem will go away if the pressure is relieved., encouraging inaction.
Even when the attention is obtained, like Pharaoh, when he was informed that Egypt was destroyed, the needs of the people are ignored. The town hall meetings about healthcare reform demonstrated that the political representatives are disconnected from the experiences of the people, passing it off as a Republican sponsored action, rather than recognizing that it was a demand from the people to focus on their problems rather than the party agenda.
Over fifteen million are un employed and another eleven million are not working full time at the present time. They are not worried about buying insurance. They can’t buy it. They have to spend what they have for food and shelter. Those who are employed are facing the possibility of losing their jobs. Requiring everyone to buy insurance could be enough to drive many of them or their employers into bankruptcy. They would like Congress to act on their real problem of how to support themselves.
Thirteen months after he was elected, President Obama finally held a meeting to discuss jobs. The sad part of that is that Congress was elected to deal with the needs of their individual districts. They have refused to do so until the president has been forced to do their job. Some in the news media have referred to an anti incumbent bias by the voters.
The switch to Democratic power in the 2006 and 2008 elections, the switch from Democratic to Republican majorities under Clinton all indicate that the people feel they are not represented. They are not anti incumbent, they want their problems addressed, and the incumbents are not listening.
Like Pharaoh, if Congress continues to focus on their ideals rather than resolving the problems, a collapse is inevitable. It doesn’t have to be, but it will require elected officials being willing to give up their own agendas for the good of their constituents. Until we make politicians responsible to the people rather than the party, it is unlikely to change. Governments have repeated this same scenario throughout history.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Killing The Goose That Laid The Golden Egg
Remember to old story of the goose that laid golden eggs? A fellow took the goose away from an evil giant. For several years, he and his wife kept the goose and became quite prosperous as a result of her eggs.
One day a thief observed them getting the eggs, and stole the goose. For a little while he enjoyed the benefits, but he wasn’t getting rich as fast as he wanted. He tried stopping feeding the goose to save the money for her feed but that didn’t make enough difference.
One day he decided to kill the goose and take the eggs out so he could get them quicker. Only a few small eggs were found inside, and when they were gone, there were no more eggs. The thief eventually lost everything as a result of his greed.
This story and others like it have fallen out of favor with the educational experts today, but they taught some important lessons. Our children are being deprived of some very basic education as a result.
In recent years, we have seen real life examples of this particular story time after time. The Enron scandal is a prime example. The founders of Enron built up a large oil producing company that made profits for many years. Ken Leigh was able to take control of the company, and began to try to get more from it. At first, he stopped spending money on development of new supplies. While it gave a temporary spike in profits, by reducing expenses, it left the company with less ability to produce, effectively starving the company.
The increase in profits prompted a raise in stock prices, even though it indicated a loss of value. The increase in stock prices gave Leigh a large personal profit, but he couldn’t starve the company any more so he began to disembowel the company, selling off oil rights and production facilities. The influx of capital was seen as a positive thing by the stock market and stock prices mushroomed, Finally all the production assets were gone, and there was no further increase of cash, and it was discovered that the company was no longer producing. Leigh had sold his stock and walked away, but those who had bought lost their shirts. The company collapsed because the goose was dead.
The same scenario is being played out on a much larger scale with the U.S. economy. For years, the economy had steadily produced slowly increasing profits. Over time those benefiting became more concerned with the profits than with the health of the economy. Government began to demand more and more, as did investors and financial institutions.
The increased taxes, compensation requirements, and difficulty of obtaining employees, coupled with increased competition from overseas competitors began to starve the companies. They began to move production outside our economy in an effort to make profit. This in effect was a cutting open the goose to get to the next egg. It greatly weakened the goose, lowering production , but was not immediately fatal.
Banks and insurance companies got greedy, and began using derivatives such as Credit Default Swaps to increase their profits. A few financial institutions realized that they could obtain a huge cash influx by forcing profitable companies into bankruptcy. This seriously damaged other financial institutions, and cut a huge hole in the underbelly of the economy, resulting in massive layoffs, and loss of buying power, weakening the entire economy. They the began foreclosing on homes, enlarging the hole.
In a frantic attempt to maintain their current spending level, Congress, and the Federal Reserve ripped another hole to get to those undeveloped eggs, borrowing huge amounts of money and doubling our federal deficit. By putting the money back int the banks, the illusion of health has been restored and stock prices skyrocketed. Unfortunately, the goose is near death., and not producing eggs at the moment. Various states are proposing increasing taxes to maintain their programs. To do so will further disembowel the goose. At some point it will be fatal, and the economy will collapse.
Saving the goose will require stopping attempts to get more and repairing damage already done. It will also mean learning to get by without her production until she recovers. That will require not only not increasing taxes, but limiting financial charges by financial institutions, cutting and in many cases eliminating Government programs, and removing some restrictions from businesses to allow them to compete successfully.
Since seventy five percent of our economy is estimated to depend on discretionary spending by consumers, the customer must have more discretion in how he spends. Increased taxes and forced payments for insurance or government fees reduce his available discretionary funds. While it is felt that savings slow recovery, it is necessary to realize that those savings are available discretionary funds. Loan and mortgage payments reduce available funds, weakening the economy. We need to review our entire approach.
One day a thief observed them getting the eggs, and stole the goose. For a little while he enjoyed the benefits, but he wasn’t getting rich as fast as he wanted. He tried stopping feeding the goose to save the money for her feed but that didn’t make enough difference.
One day he decided to kill the goose and take the eggs out so he could get them quicker. Only a few small eggs were found inside, and when they were gone, there were no more eggs. The thief eventually lost everything as a result of his greed.
This story and others like it have fallen out of favor with the educational experts today, but they taught some important lessons. Our children are being deprived of some very basic education as a result.
In recent years, we have seen real life examples of this particular story time after time. The Enron scandal is a prime example. The founders of Enron built up a large oil producing company that made profits for many years. Ken Leigh was able to take control of the company, and began to try to get more from it. At first, he stopped spending money on development of new supplies. While it gave a temporary spike in profits, by reducing expenses, it left the company with less ability to produce, effectively starving the company.
The increase in profits prompted a raise in stock prices, even though it indicated a loss of value. The increase in stock prices gave Leigh a large personal profit, but he couldn’t starve the company any more so he began to disembowel the company, selling off oil rights and production facilities. The influx of capital was seen as a positive thing by the stock market and stock prices mushroomed, Finally all the production assets were gone, and there was no further increase of cash, and it was discovered that the company was no longer producing. Leigh had sold his stock and walked away, but those who had bought lost their shirts. The company collapsed because the goose was dead.
The same scenario is being played out on a much larger scale with the U.S. economy. For years, the economy had steadily produced slowly increasing profits. Over time those benefiting became more concerned with the profits than with the health of the economy. Government began to demand more and more, as did investors and financial institutions.
The increased taxes, compensation requirements, and difficulty of obtaining employees, coupled with increased competition from overseas competitors began to starve the companies. They began to move production outside our economy in an effort to make profit. This in effect was a cutting open the goose to get to the next egg. It greatly weakened the goose, lowering production , but was not immediately fatal.
Banks and insurance companies got greedy, and began using derivatives such as Credit Default Swaps to increase their profits. A few financial institutions realized that they could obtain a huge cash influx by forcing profitable companies into bankruptcy. This seriously damaged other financial institutions, and cut a huge hole in the underbelly of the economy, resulting in massive layoffs, and loss of buying power, weakening the entire economy. They the began foreclosing on homes, enlarging the hole.
In a frantic attempt to maintain their current spending level, Congress, and the Federal Reserve ripped another hole to get to those undeveloped eggs, borrowing huge amounts of money and doubling our federal deficit. By putting the money back int the banks, the illusion of health has been restored and stock prices skyrocketed. Unfortunately, the goose is near death., and not producing eggs at the moment. Various states are proposing increasing taxes to maintain their programs. To do so will further disembowel the goose. At some point it will be fatal, and the economy will collapse.
Saving the goose will require stopping attempts to get more and repairing damage already done. It will also mean learning to get by without her production until she recovers. That will require not only not increasing taxes, but limiting financial charges by financial institutions, cutting and in many cases eliminating Government programs, and removing some restrictions from businesses to allow them to compete successfully.
Since seventy five percent of our economy is estimated to depend on discretionary spending by consumers, the customer must have more discretion in how he spends. Increased taxes and forced payments for insurance or government fees reduce his available discretionary funds. While it is felt that savings slow recovery, it is necessary to realize that those savings are available discretionary funds. Loan and mortgage payments reduce available funds, weakening the economy. We need to review our entire approach.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
What Are We eforming?
A lady went into the hospital for a common type of surgery. It was successful, and she received the bill for some $20,000 in just a few days. Her insurance was an 80-20 co pay policy, meaning she is required to pay 20% or $4,000. She paid her balance in full and assumed that the insurance company would take care of the rest. Months later, she received another bill for the balance. She also discovered that her credit rating had been lowered due the unpaid hospital bill, resulting in a substantial increase in the interest rate on her credit card.
She contacted the hospital to inform them that she had been erroneously billed, and was informed that the insurance company had not yet made the payment. Fearing that the company had found some excuse to not pay, she contacted her insurance company and was informed that there was no problem, and that payment had been approved and was to be sent within a few days. Explaining what had happened to her credit card company received assurances that as soon as the bill had been paid, she could contact them and they would lower her interest rate .
What the customer didn’t know was that the insurance company had a policy that they would pay no more than $5,000 for an operation such as the one she had, and that the hospital had agreed to accept that amount as full payment. Because she had an 80-20 agreement she would be responsible for $1,000, making them responsible for the remaining $4,000. The delay in payment was ostensibly to review the bill. In reality, both they and the hospital knew how much would be paid.
Since the hospital had agreed to accept $5,000 as payment in full, the lady had paid an extra $3,000 for the operation, and received a drop in her credit score as a result. In addition, she had paid about $400 per month for her insurance or $4,800 in insurance premiums. The hospital made an extra $3,000 and the insurance company still made $800, just off that years premiums.
Had she been able to pay $650 per month, she could have gotten a policy with no co-pay. The Hospital would have settled for the $5,000 check from the insurance company, but the delay would have still caused her credit rating to drop. She would have paid in $7,800 for the year, satisfying the hospital and giving the insurance company a $2,800 profit for the year. She would still be out the $2,800 but she might accept that, as her health care expenses were actually $1,000 less than they were under the cheaper policy.
Had she had no insurance, however, she would have been liable for the entire $20,000, even though the hospital had defined the value of the surgery at $5,000 in their agreement with the insurance company. She would have been ripped off for $15,000 by the hospital. If she were unable to pay the full amount immediately, her credit rating would be destroyed, and she would be burdened with debt for years to come. The hospital will not drop their claim because to do so would expose their excessive charges and the agreements, destroying the insurance company profits, and reducing their income.
The above story is fictitious but it actually happens in varying degrees on a regular basis according to insurance insiders. One employee said this is what happens if they can’t find some excuse for not paying at all, in which case the customer pays as if they had no insurance, the company keeps all the premiums, and the hospital gets the full overstated payment.
The Healthcare Reform passed by the House Of Representatives takes no action against such abuses of the public by hospitals and insurance companies. It requires that everyone purchase insurance, penalizing those who stay healthy, and perpetuating and expanding the abuse. The only provision that does not benefit the insurance industry appears to be the public option, which places insurance companies in direct competition with the federal government, at taxpayer expense.
The Health care reform bill also appears to offer no relief to pricing on medicines produced by our pharmaceutical companies. The same medicine can be sold in Canada or Mexico for one third the price, and it is illegal to bring them back across the border. Why? The excuse is that we are paying for the costs of development. Why should American consumers be charged more than other people, especially since many times the costs are partially or completely paid through government research grants. The taxpayer has already paid part of the cost of development.
It is not hard to understand the opposition of many to the proposed legislation. The only beneficiaries are the healthcare industry, who are already abusing the system, giving them a broader base of captive victims. I salute the congressmen who’ve stated that they can’t support a bill which does not address some of these issues. Almost everyone desires healthcare reform. The problem is, this is not a reform. Nothing of value has been changed.
She contacted the hospital to inform them that she had been erroneously billed, and was informed that the insurance company had not yet made the payment. Fearing that the company had found some excuse to not pay, she contacted her insurance company and was informed that there was no problem, and that payment had been approved and was to be sent within a few days. Explaining what had happened to her credit card company received assurances that as soon as the bill had been paid, she could contact them and they would lower her interest rate .
What the customer didn’t know was that the insurance company had a policy that they would pay no more than $5,000 for an operation such as the one she had, and that the hospital had agreed to accept that amount as full payment. Because she had an 80-20 agreement she would be responsible for $1,000, making them responsible for the remaining $4,000. The delay in payment was ostensibly to review the bill. In reality, both they and the hospital knew how much would be paid.
Since the hospital had agreed to accept $5,000 as payment in full, the lady had paid an extra $3,000 for the operation, and received a drop in her credit score as a result. In addition, she had paid about $400 per month for her insurance or $4,800 in insurance premiums. The hospital made an extra $3,000 and the insurance company still made $800, just off that years premiums.
Had she been able to pay $650 per month, she could have gotten a policy with no co-pay. The Hospital would have settled for the $5,000 check from the insurance company, but the delay would have still caused her credit rating to drop. She would have paid in $7,800 for the year, satisfying the hospital and giving the insurance company a $2,800 profit for the year. She would still be out the $2,800 but she might accept that, as her health care expenses were actually $1,000 less than they were under the cheaper policy.
Had she had no insurance, however, she would have been liable for the entire $20,000, even though the hospital had defined the value of the surgery at $5,000 in their agreement with the insurance company. She would have been ripped off for $15,000 by the hospital. If she were unable to pay the full amount immediately, her credit rating would be destroyed, and she would be burdened with debt for years to come. The hospital will not drop their claim because to do so would expose their excessive charges and the agreements, destroying the insurance company profits, and reducing their income.
The above story is fictitious but it actually happens in varying degrees on a regular basis according to insurance insiders. One employee said this is what happens if they can’t find some excuse for not paying at all, in which case the customer pays as if they had no insurance, the company keeps all the premiums, and the hospital gets the full overstated payment.
The Healthcare Reform passed by the House Of Representatives takes no action against such abuses of the public by hospitals and insurance companies. It requires that everyone purchase insurance, penalizing those who stay healthy, and perpetuating and expanding the abuse. The only provision that does not benefit the insurance industry appears to be the public option, which places insurance companies in direct competition with the federal government, at taxpayer expense.
The Health care reform bill also appears to offer no relief to pricing on medicines produced by our pharmaceutical companies. The same medicine can be sold in Canada or Mexico for one third the price, and it is illegal to bring them back across the border. Why? The excuse is that we are paying for the costs of development. Why should American consumers be charged more than other people, especially since many times the costs are partially or completely paid through government research grants. The taxpayer has already paid part of the cost of development.
It is not hard to understand the opposition of many to the proposed legislation. The only beneficiaries are the healthcare industry, who are already abusing the system, giving them a broader base of captive victims. I salute the congressmen who’ve stated that they can’t support a bill which does not address some of these issues. Almost everyone desires healthcare reform. The problem is, this is not a reform. Nothing of value has been changed.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Replacing God
In Genesis 3:5 Satan lied to Eve telling her that eating the fruit would make mankind like God. Eve fell for that idea, and man has continuesd since that time. Genesis 11:6 tells uc that God caused the separation to slow the rebellion of men because nothing would keep people from attempting everything they could imagine.
The old saying, What man can concieve, man can achieve is not entirely true. Man is still limited. However, I do believe man will attemp anything they can imagine, regardless how dangerous, evil. or pointless. They are not willing to be limited by God in any manner. Sometimes I am shocked by how pervasive the attitude is.
Evolutionists try to convince everyone there is no God, perverting science in their attempts. Atheists attempt to ban all mention God or his guidelines. Abortionists want to deny his authority to demand responsibility for our actions. Planned parenthood, and various gruops supporting euthanasia wish to deny him control over life and death. So do many doctors, convincing themselves that they should have that authority, and trying to force people to live, or hasten their death. Some even refer to each other as a godd.
Everyperson who commits suicide is denying that God has the right to determine what he experiences. Every person who commits murder is denying God right to control determine a persons lifespan. Every person who has multiple sex partners denys God's right to regulate marriage, as does every person who walks out on a marriage. It is prevalent in every area of our society
What is shocking to me is the number of people who call themselves Christians who have the same attitude. The woman who told me tha church had no right to fire the pastor because of his anger, despite the Bible's clear statement that a pastor must not be characterized by anger clearly doesn't consider it God's right to decide. The pastor who decides to preach his convictions is no different than any other who preaches his own doctrines. The pastor who tells his people that they are to obey him regardless of the Bible has set himself in God's place. How often do we hear "I know the Bible says, but..."? In other words, the speaker claims the right to overrule God. While few are as blatant as the "Evangelist" who said "I am God", there are many who portray the idea by their actions.
The idea that this is a post modern development and requires a new approach is becoming widespread. However, a study of history shows the philosophy thruoghout time. As we saw, It started in the garden of Eden, and continues to the present time. Romans 1:18-25 describes man's deliberate effort throughout history. The only real change is our terminology.
The Bible warned us that wickedness would wax worse and worse, to point that Jesus asked "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" The present conditions make one wonder if he will. Praise God, man's unbelief does not lessen his power or authority. He is still in control, and will keep his promises.
It is easy to get discouraged by what is happening, yet we know that in reality, it is just a step closer to his return. Man is not and will never be God. Give God his proper place.
The old saying, What man can concieve, man can achieve is not entirely true. Man is still limited. However, I do believe man will attemp anything they can imagine, regardless how dangerous, evil. or pointless. They are not willing to be limited by God in any manner. Sometimes I am shocked by how pervasive the attitude is.
Evolutionists try to convince everyone there is no God, perverting science in their attempts. Atheists attempt to ban all mention God or his guidelines. Abortionists want to deny his authority to demand responsibility for our actions. Planned parenthood, and various gruops supporting euthanasia wish to deny him control over life and death. So do many doctors, convincing themselves that they should have that authority, and trying to force people to live, or hasten their death. Some even refer to each other as a godd.
Everyperson who commits suicide is denying that God has the right to determine what he experiences. Every person who commits murder is denying God right to control determine a persons lifespan. Every person who has multiple sex partners denys God's right to regulate marriage, as does every person who walks out on a marriage. It is prevalent in every area of our society
What is shocking to me is the number of people who call themselves Christians who have the same attitude. The woman who told me tha church had no right to fire the pastor because of his anger, despite the Bible's clear statement that a pastor must not be characterized by anger clearly doesn't consider it God's right to decide. The pastor who decides to preach his convictions is no different than any other who preaches his own doctrines. The pastor who tells his people that they are to obey him regardless of the Bible has set himself in God's place. How often do we hear "I know the Bible says, but..."? In other words, the speaker claims the right to overrule God. While few are as blatant as the "Evangelist" who said "I am God", there are many who portray the idea by their actions.
The idea that this is a post modern development and requires a new approach is becoming widespread. However, a study of history shows the philosophy thruoghout time. As we saw, It started in the garden of Eden, and continues to the present time. Romans 1:18-25 describes man's deliberate effort throughout history. The only real change is our terminology.
The Bible warned us that wickedness would wax worse and worse, to point that Jesus asked "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" The present conditions make one wonder if he will. Praise God, man's unbelief does not lessen his power or authority. He is still in control, and will keep his promises.
It is easy to get discouraged by what is happening, yet we know that in reality, it is just a step closer to his return. Man is not and will never be God. Give God his proper place.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Reducing teen pregnancy.
Today, I talked to a mother of girl who has been raped. It had occurred a few years ago, but the parents just learned about it. They had thought the girl was just rebelling against them. Now they are carrying a huge sense of guilt for allowing it to happen, and it is seriously affecting the whole family.
This weekend, I am aware of baby showers for two unmarried teenage mothers. One of the girls is only 15. The other girl thinks she and the father will probably get married. Schools have their own daycare centers for their students babies.
Last night there was a report on tv. about the increasing number of teen pregnancies, despite ongoing mandantory sex education classes in an effort to reduce the level. One state's sex education classes were devoted solely to teaching the kids how to use birth control products more effectively to prevent pregnancy and spread of disease. The second state focused their effort on abstinence as a means of controlling the problems. Neither program has been very successful, despite more than 20 years of trying.
Abortion was offered as a solution, but though abortions are more readily available than ever, the rate continues to climb, and many have serious problems with the concept of abortion. While I commend the mothers who try to keep their babies, I think our whole approach needs to be re-examined.
Before the Roe vs Wade decision, it was generally accepted that if a girl got pregnant, if the guy had any standards, he would marry her and give the baby a name and a home. Many did not engage in sex because they didn't want to have to take such responsibility. While there had been some abortions before Roe vs Wade, they were illegal, and most people were unwilling to take the chance.
After the Roe vs Wade decision, Abortion became legal, and the number of abortions skyrocketed. While there was a drop in birthrate, it nowhere near accounted for thde increase in abortions. The obvious inference was that people no longer worried about having to take responsibility, and thus indulged more freely in sex. Studies of attitudes since that time support the conclusion.
I believe that the current focus on preventing pregnancy has neglected a far more important issue, that of taking responsibility. Our entire society seems to be avoiding it in as many areas as possible. The idea of adopting out unwanted children is only marginally better than aborting them, and encourages the same attitude of not taking responsibility.
The old idea of marrying a girl if she got pregnant, while better than the current philosophy, Still ignored a very basic responsibility. Exodus 22:16 says "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife." It did not matter whether she got pregnant or not, the very sex act forced them to marry. While this was the Old Testament standard, Paul says basically the same thing in I Corinthians 6:15-16. "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." His statement is based on the description of marriage in Genesis 2:23-24.
If we were to begin to see sex as requiring responsibility, rather than as entertainment, it is probable that the incidence of sexual; behavior would decrease, resulting in a drop in pregnancy rates. Guys would not brag of their irresponsible sexual behavior, and in time, even the media would begin to be held responsible. This will entail developing a comprehensive biblical doctrine of marriage, rather than the superficial and fragmented doctrines held by many today.
I do not think it will be easy, but until we start, it will never be accomplished
This weekend, I am aware of baby showers for two unmarried teenage mothers. One of the girls is only 15. The other girl thinks she and the father will probably get married. Schools have their own daycare centers for their students babies.
Last night there was a report on tv. about the increasing number of teen pregnancies, despite ongoing mandantory sex education classes in an effort to reduce the level. One state's sex education classes were devoted solely to teaching the kids how to use birth control products more effectively to prevent pregnancy and spread of disease. The second state focused their effort on abstinence as a means of controlling the problems. Neither program has been very successful, despite more than 20 years of trying.
Abortion was offered as a solution, but though abortions are more readily available than ever, the rate continues to climb, and many have serious problems with the concept of abortion. While I commend the mothers who try to keep their babies, I think our whole approach needs to be re-examined.
Before the Roe vs Wade decision, it was generally accepted that if a girl got pregnant, if the guy had any standards, he would marry her and give the baby a name and a home. Many did not engage in sex because they didn't want to have to take such responsibility. While there had been some abortions before Roe vs Wade, they were illegal, and most people were unwilling to take the chance.
After the Roe vs Wade decision, Abortion became legal, and the number of abortions skyrocketed. While there was a drop in birthrate, it nowhere near accounted for thde increase in abortions. The obvious inference was that people no longer worried about having to take responsibility, and thus indulged more freely in sex. Studies of attitudes since that time support the conclusion.
I believe that the current focus on preventing pregnancy has neglected a far more important issue, that of taking responsibility. Our entire society seems to be avoiding it in as many areas as possible. The idea of adopting out unwanted children is only marginally better than aborting them, and encourages the same attitude of not taking responsibility.
The old idea of marrying a girl if she got pregnant, while better than the current philosophy, Still ignored a very basic responsibility. Exodus 22:16 says "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife." It did not matter whether she got pregnant or not, the very sex act forced them to marry. While this was the Old Testament standard, Paul says basically the same thing in I Corinthians 6:15-16. "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." His statement is based on the description of marriage in Genesis 2:23-24.
If we were to begin to see sex as requiring responsibility, rather than as entertainment, it is probable that the incidence of sexual; behavior would decrease, resulting in a drop in pregnancy rates. Guys would not brag of their irresponsible sexual behavior, and in time, even the media would begin to be held responsible. This will entail developing a comprehensive biblical doctrine of marriage, rather than the superficial and fragmented doctrines held by many today.
I do not think it will be easy, but until we start, it will never be accomplished
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
When Did The Exodus Occur?
Several years ago, Reader’s Digest had an article about the biblical record of the nation of Israel. The author concluded that it was impossible to identify the time of the Exodus because there were no Egyptian records of them having entered or left Egypt. The article called attention to a problem I had run into earlier, and prompted me to study the matter further.
Most historians have accepted Ussher’s Chronology as to the dates of events referred to in the Bible. Unfortunately, Bishop Ussher was not a very good mathematician. He allotted a period of about 230 years to the Judges. Adding up the time periods named for each of the Judges, we find that the period was at least 390 years, a discrepancy of 160 years. In addition, since the Bible never specifies how long Joshua and Samuel led Israel, he assigns each a period of about 20 years. Eli’s administration is ignored completely.
Joshua is described as a young man in both Exodus 33:11 and in Numbers 11:28. It is reasonable to suppose that he was no older than Caleb, who was 80 at the end of the time in the wilderness. He died at the age of 110, making him leader for at least 30 years, and Joshua 24:31 tells us that Israel served the Lord all his days and all the days of the elders that out lived him. It is not unreasonable to suppose that his total impact extended to at least 40 years.
After the death of that entire generation, we find Israel turned away from God and he finally sent them into captivity for eight years. It is a near certainty that the period from Joshua 1 to Judges 3 10 was more than 40 years, but I adopted this as a conservative estimate.
No time frame is established from Samson’s death in Judges 16 until Eli dies in I Samuel 4, although it appears to have been several years. After Eli’s death, Samuel becomes the judge. and continues until Saul is anointed king. Samuel was born during Eli’s priesthood, and served until he was an old man according to I Samuel 8:1. Sixty years would seem to be a conservative estimate of the duration of this entire period.
Adding the 40 years for Joshua’s influence, and the sixty years for Eli and Samuel, both of which are probably low, and the 160 years additional time listed in Judges to the specified times of other events, and we find that the Exodus or flight from Egypt would have occurred during the period between the Middle Kingdom and the New Kingdom of Egyptian history.
Exodus 12:40 tells us that Israel spent 430 years in Egypt, 400 of them as slaves. This places Jacob and his family coming into Egypt during the period between the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom.
The Old kingdom collapsed as a result of prolonged drought, a couple hundred years after the Sahara began to turn to desert. Using our estimates, The flood would have occurred about 300 years before the desertification began, or about 100 years before the Old Kingdom began.
According to Genesis 45, Jacob and his family went to Egypt during a drought. There are few records from the period between the Old and Middle kingdoms, and it is not surprising that the coming of a family group of seventy people is not recorded.
During the Old Kingdom period, public works were built by the Egyptians themselves and were usually of Stone. During the Middle Kingdom period, There was a movement to slave labor, and brick became the most common building material. Toward the end of the period, the quality of the brick was much lower, as straw was replaced with stubble as a strengthening material. This is in line with descriptions in Exodus 5.
At the end of the Middle Kingdom, Egypt was conquered by the Hyksos, a weak people from Canaan, who ruled Egypt for about a hundred years. During this period, Egyptian culture largely went underground, and few records have survived. Again, it is not surprising that Israel’s flight is not recorded. It is known that most of Egypt’s slaves escaped during the period between the Middle and New Kingdoms.
After God brought the plagues on Egypt, the leaders advised Pharaoh that Egypt was destroyed in Exodus 10:7. When Pharaoh released the people, he changed his mind and sent the army to bring them back. Chasing Israel into the middle of the Red Sea, the Egyptian army was destroyed. There were no survivors. It would not have been difficult for even a weak people such as the Hyksos to conquer a destitute and defenseless Egypt.
Adopting these revised dates appears to resolve many historic questions, and I have been unable to find any reason for not accepting them. It does appear that my estimates are a little low, as a slightly longer period fits more precisely with the other historical records. I believe it would justify further research, but definitely appears to support the biblical record.
Most historians have accepted Ussher’s Chronology as to the dates of events referred to in the Bible. Unfortunately, Bishop Ussher was not a very good mathematician. He allotted a period of about 230 years to the Judges. Adding up the time periods named for each of the Judges, we find that the period was at least 390 years, a discrepancy of 160 years. In addition, since the Bible never specifies how long Joshua and Samuel led Israel, he assigns each a period of about 20 years. Eli’s administration is ignored completely.
Joshua is described as a young man in both Exodus 33:11 and in Numbers 11:28. It is reasonable to suppose that he was no older than Caleb, who was 80 at the end of the time in the wilderness. He died at the age of 110, making him leader for at least 30 years, and Joshua 24:31 tells us that Israel served the Lord all his days and all the days of the elders that out lived him. It is not unreasonable to suppose that his total impact extended to at least 40 years.
After the death of that entire generation, we find Israel turned away from God and he finally sent them into captivity for eight years. It is a near certainty that the period from Joshua 1 to Judges 3 10 was more than 40 years, but I adopted this as a conservative estimate.
No time frame is established from Samson’s death in Judges 16 until Eli dies in I Samuel 4, although it appears to have been several years. After Eli’s death, Samuel becomes the judge. and continues until Saul is anointed king. Samuel was born during Eli’s priesthood, and served until he was an old man according to I Samuel 8:1. Sixty years would seem to be a conservative estimate of the duration of this entire period.
Adding the 40 years for Joshua’s influence, and the sixty years for Eli and Samuel, both of which are probably low, and the 160 years additional time listed in Judges to the specified times of other events, and we find that the Exodus or flight from Egypt would have occurred during the period between the Middle Kingdom and the New Kingdom of Egyptian history.
Exodus 12:40 tells us that Israel spent 430 years in Egypt, 400 of them as slaves. This places Jacob and his family coming into Egypt during the period between the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom.
The Old kingdom collapsed as a result of prolonged drought, a couple hundred years after the Sahara began to turn to desert. Using our estimates, The flood would have occurred about 300 years before the desertification began, or about 100 years before the Old Kingdom began.
According to Genesis 45, Jacob and his family went to Egypt during a drought. There are few records from the period between the Old and Middle kingdoms, and it is not surprising that the coming of a family group of seventy people is not recorded.
During the Old Kingdom period, public works were built by the Egyptians themselves and were usually of Stone. During the Middle Kingdom period, There was a movement to slave labor, and brick became the most common building material. Toward the end of the period, the quality of the brick was much lower, as straw was replaced with stubble as a strengthening material. This is in line with descriptions in Exodus 5.
At the end of the Middle Kingdom, Egypt was conquered by the Hyksos, a weak people from Canaan, who ruled Egypt for about a hundred years. During this period, Egyptian culture largely went underground, and few records have survived. Again, it is not surprising that Israel’s flight is not recorded. It is known that most of Egypt’s slaves escaped during the period between the Middle and New Kingdoms.
After God brought the plagues on Egypt, the leaders advised Pharaoh that Egypt was destroyed in Exodus 10:7. When Pharaoh released the people, he changed his mind and sent the army to bring them back. Chasing Israel into the middle of the Red Sea, the Egyptian army was destroyed. There were no survivors. It would not have been difficult for even a weak people such as the Hyksos to conquer a destitute and defenseless Egypt.
Adopting these revised dates appears to resolve many historic questions, and I have been unable to find any reason for not accepting them. It does appear that my estimates are a little low, as a slightly longer period fits more precisely with the other historical records. I believe it would justify further research, but definitely appears to support the biblical record.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Getting More Cows is Not The Answer
A wealthy Eastern family bought a large ranch in Wyoming. One of the family members moved to the ranch to manage it. After several years, he told my brother he needed to get more cattle, as he wasn't making it with what he had.
Terry, a career cattleman, was managing a ranch for a large company, which owns several ranches, asked what he meant. Joe,(not his real name)explained that he only had about 500 head and had lost about $25,000 the previous year. If he could up his herd to around 1,000, he'd make some profit.
Terry pointed out that he had lost $50 per cow and asked how much would he have lost if he had 1000 cows. Joe stared at him for minute, as he realized he would have lost more. "If a bigger herd would only have increased my losses," he asked, "How can you make money in this business?" He went on to explain that in their primary business, increasing sales increased profits.
Terry pointed out that in that business, they could cut production costs per unit by increasing production in the same facility. Making more money on the ranch required reducing production costs also. Merely increasing the number of cows would not automatically reduce production costs, because the cost of feed would remain the same for each cow.
In order to make a profit, one must be more efficient in his use of time and money to increase yield for his investment. For example, if 2 pounds of alfalfa hay will produce 1 pound of beef, but 4 pounds of grass hay are required, then alfalfa hay at twice the price is cheaper because it takes less effort to feed and store.
Selling cattle earlier, before they have reached maximum weight may make more profit because you may be able sell them before it is necessary to begin feeding, saving a significant amount. Selling calves in the fall rather than wintering them and selling as finished cattle may make more money for the same reason. Simply increasing volume, will not increase profits if there is not a profit for each unit.
During the last recession finance companie discovered that they could package debt and sell the packages, called derivatives, to investors for around 115% of the package value. Because the jump in interest rates and penalties for late payments made them very attractive, they sold quickly. The Bank could then lend that 115% and repeat the profit. Banks lowered their lending standards in order to increase their number of loans. Eventually, too many people were unable to make their payments, and the derivatives became unprofitable, making them impossible to sell. This ultimately led to the present credit crisis.
One of the current suggestions for resolving the credit is for the federal government to buy the bad derivatives. This will cause new demand for derivatives, putting us back to where we were 6 years ago, with readily available credit.
Unfortunately, This is very much like Joe's idea that getting more cows will automatically make a profit. Unless the program is changed, it is inevitable that we will get the same results. Increasing the demand for derivatives will give a temporary increase in available loans, but will ultimately increase the losses in the long term. Sooner or later we will come to another crisis, with much larger losses.
Following the same path can only lead to the same result. Doing it more vigorously only increases the amount of the results, it does not change what they are. That can only be changed by doing something different.
For information on information on running your own business, go to www.Entrepreneur.DoBetterToday.coma
Terry, a career cattleman, was managing a ranch for a large company, which owns several ranches, asked what he meant. Joe,(not his real name)explained that he only had about 500 head and had lost about $25,000 the previous year. If he could up his herd to around 1,000, he'd make some profit.
Terry pointed out that he had lost $50 per cow and asked how much would he have lost if he had 1000 cows. Joe stared at him for minute, as he realized he would have lost more. "If a bigger herd would only have increased my losses," he asked, "How can you make money in this business?" He went on to explain that in their primary business, increasing sales increased profits.
Terry pointed out that in that business, they could cut production costs per unit by increasing production in the same facility. Making more money on the ranch required reducing production costs also. Merely increasing the number of cows would not automatically reduce production costs, because the cost of feed would remain the same for each cow.
In order to make a profit, one must be more efficient in his use of time and money to increase yield for his investment. For example, if 2 pounds of alfalfa hay will produce 1 pound of beef, but 4 pounds of grass hay are required, then alfalfa hay at twice the price is cheaper because it takes less effort to feed and store.
Selling cattle earlier, before they have reached maximum weight may make more profit because you may be able sell them before it is necessary to begin feeding, saving a significant amount. Selling calves in the fall rather than wintering them and selling as finished cattle may make more money for the same reason. Simply increasing volume, will not increase profits if there is not a profit for each unit.
During the last recession finance companie discovered that they could package debt and sell the packages, called derivatives, to investors for around 115% of the package value. Because the jump in interest rates and penalties for late payments made them very attractive, they sold quickly. The Bank could then lend that 115% and repeat the profit. Banks lowered their lending standards in order to increase their number of loans. Eventually, too many people were unable to make their payments, and the derivatives became unprofitable, making them impossible to sell. This ultimately led to the present credit crisis.
One of the current suggestions for resolving the credit is for the federal government to buy the bad derivatives. This will cause new demand for derivatives, putting us back to where we were 6 years ago, with readily available credit.
Unfortunately, This is very much like Joe's idea that getting more cows will automatically make a profit. Unless the program is changed, it is inevitable that we will get the same results. Increasing the demand for derivatives will give a temporary increase in available loans, but will ultimately increase the losses in the long term. Sooner or later we will come to another crisis, with much larger losses.
Following the same path can only lead to the same result. Doing it more vigorously only increases the amount of the results, it does not change what they are. That can only be changed by doing something different.
For information on information on running your own business, go to www.Entrepreneur.DoBetterToday.coma
Chicken Little is Alive and Well
Remember the story of Chicken Little?
A little chick was walking across the barnyard when something hit him on the head. He jumped to the conclusion that the sky must be falling, and rushed out to warn everyone else. The geese and several other animals are panicked by the fact of the falling sky. Finally, one of the animals convinces the others to look at the sky, then go back and see what really hit Chicken Little. When they found what it was, everyone had a big laugh at the silly little chick.
Two morals were apparent in the story. First, you shouldn’t spread rumors of disaster with no evidence. Secondly, don’t believe rumors without evidence. It seems that we’ve forgotten both of these morals.
We’ve just recently gone through a scare about swine flu. Initially, it was announced that over 1500 cases had been detected in Mexico and several hundred had died. Final totals indicate that probably only about 500 were actually sick, and about 50 may have died of swine flu. Since that time cases have been diagnosed in various other countries.
Swine flu is a serious form of flu, but it is rarely diagnosed as such, unless there is a major outbreak and many die. Most years, it is not identified, although cases probably occur every year. Because it was not tested for earlier, no one knows how many cases we had during the past winter, that were not identified. Nearly all the cases in the United States had already recovered before they were identified. There was no pandemic.
Even when Swine Flu killed a number of people several years ago, the fatalities were all among those with other health problems which had weakened them to the point they were unable to overcome the virus. We are being told that it is necessary to spend billions developing a vaccine in case the virus happens to resurface next winter in a more virulent form.
We had a similar series of events regarding Bird Flu a couple years ago, with the same claims. There were even less people infected and died, yet the same claims were made. Nothing further has come of that looming Pandemic. Millions of dollars were lost by growers over possibly infected tomatoes during the summer of 2008 on a similar panic claim. Simply demanding that all produce be washed before cutting and serving would have eliminated any possible spread of the infection, but that would have not cost nearly as much.
Gardasil is heavily promoted as preventing cervical cancer, and it’s manufacturer, Merck, recommends vaccinating every girl with it by age nine. They are pushing for regulations requiring vaccination for ever girl before they can attend school. In reality the vaccine does not prevent cervical cancer. It does kill four strains of Human Papiloma Virus. Women who have had HPV are more likely to develop cervical cancer than are those who have not.
Human Papiloma Virus is a sexually transmitted disease, having eighteen known variations. Gardasil works to prevent four of those strains, or less than one in four. Unfortunately, other causes of cervical cancer cause at least as many cases, reducing it’s potential benefits to about one in eight or less.
According to reports filed with the FDA, thirty four girls between the ages of 12 and 21 have died of complications resulting from the vaccinations in the United States. Another 1100 have gone into comas. More girls have died and more have had worse reactions than were affected in the total Bird Flu epidemic that was going to be so bad, yet far less people received shots than were exposed to the Bird Flu. More girls died than died of the infected tomatoes, and more were seriously sickened. Despite this, huge expenses were incurred to prevent these problems, while attempts to require the shots continue.
This is in spite of the fact that Cervical cancer deaths have dropped by over 75% in recent years, and that safe sex practices are more effective at preventing every form of HPV than Gardasil is on the four it works on. In addition, Gardasil has had no studies to determine the probable protection period. It is hoped that the protection will be for up to five years, meaning that girls receiving the shot at nine will need another at 14 and another at 19.
Chicken Little is making a lot of money, and hurting a lot of people with his sky is falling approach to health and safety. We need to check out his claims mor carefully.
For articles relating to general medical problems, go to www.Medical.DoBetterToday.com
A little chick was walking across the barnyard when something hit him on the head. He jumped to the conclusion that the sky must be falling, and rushed out to warn everyone else. The geese and several other animals are panicked by the fact of the falling sky. Finally, one of the animals convinces the others to look at the sky, then go back and see what really hit Chicken Little. When they found what it was, everyone had a big laugh at the silly little chick.
Two morals were apparent in the story. First, you shouldn’t spread rumors of disaster with no evidence. Secondly, don’t believe rumors without evidence. It seems that we’ve forgotten both of these morals.
We’ve just recently gone through a scare about swine flu. Initially, it was announced that over 1500 cases had been detected in Mexico and several hundred had died. Final totals indicate that probably only about 500 were actually sick, and about 50 may have died of swine flu. Since that time cases have been diagnosed in various other countries.
Swine flu is a serious form of flu, but it is rarely diagnosed as such, unless there is a major outbreak and many die. Most years, it is not identified, although cases probably occur every year. Because it was not tested for earlier, no one knows how many cases we had during the past winter, that were not identified. Nearly all the cases in the United States had already recovered before they were identified. There was no pandemic.
Even when Swine Flu killed a number of people several years ago, the fatalities were all among those with other health problems which had weakened them to the point they were unable to overcome the virus. We are being told that it is necessary to spend billions developing a vaccine in case the virus happens to resurface next winter in a more virulent form.
We had a similar series of events regarding Bird Flu a couple years ago, with the same claims. There were even less people infected and died, yet the same claims were made. Nothing further has come of that looming Pandemic. Millions of dollars were lost by growers over possibly infected tomatoes during the summer of 2008 on a similar panic claim. Simply demanding that all produce be washed before cutting and serving would have eliminated any possible spread of the infection, but that would have not cost nearly as much.
Gardasil is heavily promoted as preventing cervical cancer, and it’s manufacturer, Merck, recommends vaccinating every girl with it by age nine. They are pushing for regulations requiring vaccination for ever girl before they can attend school. In reality the vaccine does not prevent cervical cancer. It does kill four strains of Human Papiloma Virus. Women who have had HPV are more likely to develop cervical cancer than are those who have not.
Human Papiloma Virus is a sexually transmitted disease, having eighteen known variations. Gardasil works to prevent four of those strains, or less than one in four. Unfortunately, other causes of cervical cancer cause at least as many cases, reducing it’s potential benefits to about one in eight or less.
According to reports filed with the FDA, thirty four girls between the ages of 12 and 21 have died of complications resulting from the vaccinations in the United States. Another 1100 have gone into comas. More girls have died and more have had worse reactions than were affected in the total Bird Flu epidemic that was going to be so bad, yet far less people received shots than were exposed to the Bird Flu. More girls died than died of the infected tomatoes, and more were seriously sickened. Despite this, huge expenses were incurred to prevent these problems, while attempts to require the shots continue.
This is in spite of the fact that Cervical cancer deaths have dropped by over 75% in recent years, and that safe sex practices are more effective at preventing every form of HPV than Gardasil is on the four it works on. In addition, Gardasil has had no studies to determine the probable protection period. It is hoped that the protection will be for up to five years, meaning that girls receiving the shot at nine will need another at 14 and another at 19.
Chicken Little is making a lot of money, and hurting a lot of people with his sky is falling approach to health and safety. We need to check out his claims mor carefully.
For articles relating to general medical problems, go to www.Medical.DoBetterToday.com
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Dragons and Minnows
About 4 years ago I read an article in National Geographic about Komodo Dragons. The article stated that the dragons, a large carnivorous lizard, grew to approximately 5- 7 feet in length and weighed 150-200 pounds. The dragons were very agressive.
The article caught my attention because in 1968, I had read an article in Life Magazine about the Komodo dragon, and prepared a report for school about the subject. The article in Life said that Komodo dragons could be over 15 feet in length and weigh 1500 pounds or more. It also described larger ones as being slow moving and generally nonagressive unless hungry. At that time there were only a very few large specimens. Komodo dragons are found only on a few islands in Indonesia, of which is the largest is the Island of Komodo, about 20 miles by 20 miles in size. The Island was home to several hundred species of birds, small mammals, insects and other reptiles found only on that particular island.
Information about Komodo dragons found on the internet says that the largest ones known are about 10 feet long and weigh about 300 pounds. It also says that local reports describe much larger specimens a few years ago. I did not learn the date of this information, but I suspect it was collected between the other reports.
Because of the small number of dragons, an effort to protect them was begun. After more than twenty years of protection, their number has grown tremendously and today there are many thousand on the island. In fact, the program to protect them now imports thousands of cows to be slaughtered annually to feed the dragons. Their primary food found on the island is other dragons.
Today, according to National Geographic, there are no other species of wildlife left on the island. many of the species are now extinct. Because there is no longer sufficient natural food, the dragons are almost totally dependent on the program for their food. The only other source of food for them is to eat each other. As a result they have become very agressive, and have eaten at least 2 researchers. The lack of food prevents attaining normal mature growth.
Serious misjudgements by those concerned about protecting the dragons has caused the extinction of many species of other animals. It has also eliminated the ability of the island to support the population of dragons, actually increasing their likelihood of beicoming extinct.
In the rivers of Colorado and New Mexico there is a small fish known as the silvery minnow. it is currently a protected species. In the effort to save them, ecologists have repeatedly sued to force the Corp of Engineers to increase waterflows from existing dams. Despite the efforts, populations continue to decline.
Prior to the construction of the dams, the rivers frequently went completely dry during the summer, yet the silvery minnow managed to survive for thousands of years, without protection. Interestingly, biologists tell us that the silvery minnow does not reproduce except when water levels are low, and that high water tends to prevent survival of the young. Apparently, the continuing decline in population is the result of actions taken in efforts to protect them.
It has been reported that 90% of all environmental lawsuits world wide are filed by a single individual in Scottsdale Arizona. Obviously, he can not understand every situation worldwide. People who are genuinely interested in preserving the environment need to see if the actions taken will actually preserve the environment rather than hastening it's destruction.
As a Christian, I believe that when God gave man dominion over the living things of the earth, he made us responsible for taking care of thwe earth. He will hold us accountable for mis using it. Destroying it in the name of environmentalism is no better than destroying it for easy money.
The article caught my attention because in 1968, I had read an article in Life Magazine about the Komodo dragon, and prepared a report for school about the subject. The article in Life said that Komodo dragons could be over 15 feet in length and weigh 1500 pounds or more. It also described larger ones as being slow moving and generally nonagressive unless hungry. At that time there were only a very few large specimens. Komodo dragons are found only on a few islands in Indonesia, of which is the largest is the Island of Komodo, about 20 miles by 20 miles in size. The Island was home to several hundred species of birds, small mammals, insects and other reptiles found only on that particular island.
Information about Komodo dragons found on the internet says that the largest ones known are about 10 feet long and weigh about 300 pounds. It also says that local reports describe much larger specimens a few years ago. I did not learn the date of this information, but I suspect it was collected between the other reports.
Because of the small number of dragons, an effort to protect them was begun. After more than twenty years of protection, their number has grown tremendously and today there are many thousand on the island. In fact, the program to protect them now imports thousands of cows to be slaughtered annually to feed the dragons. Their primary food found on the island is other dragons.
Today, according to National Geographic, there are no other species of wildlife left on the island. many of the species are now extinct. Because there is no longer sufficient natural food, the dragons are almost totally dependent on the program for their food. The only other source of food for them is to eat each other. As a result they have become very agressive, and have eaten at least 2 researchers. The lack of food prevents attaining normal mature growth.
Serious misjudgements by those concerned about protecting the dragons has caused the extinction of many species of other animals. It has also eliminated the ability of the island to support the population of dragons, actually increasing their likelihood of beicoming extinct.
In the rivers of Colorado and New Mexico there is a small fish known as the silvery minnow. it is currently a protected species. In the effort to save them, ecologists have repeatedly sued to force the Corp of Engineers to increase waterflows from existing dams. Despite the efforts, populations continue to decline.
Prior to the construction of the dams, the rivers frequently went completely dry during the summer, yet the silvery minnow managed to survive for thousands of years, without protection. Interestingly, biologists tell us that the silvery minnow does not reproduce except when water levels are low, and that high water tends to prevent survival of the young. Apparently, the continuing decline in population is the result of actions taken in efforts to protect them.
It has been reported that 90% of all environmental lawsuits world wide are filed by a single individual in Scottsdale Arizona. Obviously, he can not understand every situation worldwide. People who are genuinely interested in preserving the environment need to see if the actions taken will actually preserve the environment rather than hastening it's destruction.
As a Christian, I believe that when God gave man dominion over the living things of the earth, he made us responsible for taking care of thwe earth. He will hold us accountable for mis using it. Destroying it in the name of environmentalism is no better than destroying it for easy money.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Global Warming, Is it an Inconvenient Truth?
We are told that Global Warming is a fact, and that in the next few years The ice pack will melt with disastrous consequences. As proof, statistics are quoted indicating that 2003 was the warmest year in history. The shrinking of the polar icecap, is cited as further proof.
We are told that as a result of this global warming, if action is not taken to stop it, polar bears will be extinct by 2025. The water level in the ocean will rise by possibly as much as 1-2 feet. flooding huge areas of costal plain and reducing or eliminating vast areas of farm land. The warming climate will cause reduced rainfall, resulting in much of the earth becoming desert.
The cause of this warming trend is believed to be the increased emmissions of so-called greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide from cars, factories, and other fuel burning applications. The solution is a cessation most use of carbon fuels worldwide to reduce the levels of these gases. The proof of the cause is that the levels of hydrocarbons in glaciers is much higher in newer ones than in those of several hundred thousand years old.
As a result, a concerted effort to unite all nations to combat this situation has been mobilized. Every effort is being exerted coerce uninvolved nations to become part of the effort. The biggest problem is getting emerging economies to decide they'd rather remain in poverty.
Back in the 1960's a hole in the ozone layer was discovered. the hole was growing at an alarming rate, allowing heat to escape from thae atmosphere. If allowed to continue, the earth would continue to cool, causing huge areas to become unproductive. The polar icecaps would grow, causing the ocean to lower and rainfall to decrease as more and more was frozen. By 2000, the climatic change could well cause the loss of many tropical species. The cause of the problem was that the refrigerants in use at that time were causing depletion of the ozone layer. Does this sound familiar?
Historically, such claims as Global Warming have occurred from time to time. Always, It has been decreed that a specified action must be taken. Unfortunately, some of the solutions have produced worse results than the problem they were to prevent. Others have served only to make their proponents rich. The ozone layer depletion is a case in point.
About 1970-71 a program was begun to eliminate those harmful refrigerants, replacing them with less harmful versions worldwide. Some were banned immediately, while others were to be phased out over the next 30-40 years. in the meantime, observation of the ozone hole was to be continued to determine if faster action was required. The program has continued, and this year, another of the newer refrigerants is to be eliminated, making it essential to replace existing units. Chemical companies and equipment manufacturers have made a killing.
By 1980, It was determined that the hole in the ozone layer expanded and contracted with changes in temprature of the atmosphere, and that those changes while dramatic, did not infact indicate changes in the amount of ozone present. The refrigerants had no effect on the ozone layer. The situation has continued to be monitored and no overall change in the ozone layer has ever been observed. Nevertheless, we continue to follow the guidelines laid down because of the depletion of the ozone problem.
Temperaturs and rainfall levels across the United States began to be recorded systematically about 1950, partly as a result of the dustbowl. Many areas around the world do not have systematic records even at the present time. Nevertheless, proponents of Global warming insist that the records show that 2003 was the warmest year since 1950. As i examined their data, I discovered that While 2003 did appear to average approximately one half degree warmer than the temperature in 1950, no records were available for prior years. In addition, of all the years since 1950, only 2003 was higher, and while there had ben a gradual upward trend,from about 1980, there had ben acorresponding downward trend from 1950 until about 1980. The overall temperature average had fluctuated less than 2 degrees. No margin of error was given. At least 2 years since 2003 have been lower than 2003. and I have not seen 2007 or 2008 figures.
One year ago, galacial melting revealed some farms in northern Europe which had not been seen since about 1740. This implies that some time prior to 1740, the area had been enough warmer for a considerable time that the area could be farmed. It is not the first time it has been that warm.
The measures greenhouse gases in glaciers is far less exact than commonly supposed, especially as they tend to escape over time. and determining the age of a layer of ice is very imprecise.
Before we decide global warming is a fact, and take vigorous action. we need to review whether it is in fact scientific, or mere hyperbole. The money devoted to solving it might well be better spent on other things, including the economic crisis.
We are told that as a result of this global warming, if action is not taken to stop it, polar bears will be extinct by 2025. The water level in the ocean will rise by possibly as much as 1-2 feet. flooding huge areas of costal plain and reducing or eliminating vast areas of farm land. The warming climate will cause reduced rainfall, resulting in much of the earth becoming desert.
The cause of this warming trend is believed to be the increased emmissions of so-called greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide from cars, factories, and other fuel burning applications. The solution is a cessation most use of carbon fuels worldwide to reduce the levels of these gases. The proof of the cause is that the levels of hydrocarbons in glaciers is much higher in newer ones than in those of several hundred thousand years old.
As a result, a concerted effort to unite all nations to combat this situation has been mobilized. Every effort is being exerted coerce uninvolved nations to become part of the effort. The biggest problem is getting emerging economies to decide they'd rather remain in poverty.
Back in the 1960's a hole in the ozone layer was discovered. the hole was growing at an alarming rate, allowing heat to escape from thae atmosphere. If allowed to continue, the earth would continue to cool, causing huge areas to become unproductive. The polar icecaps would grow, causing the ocean to lower and rainfall to decrease as more and more was frozen. By 2000, the climatic change could well cause the loss of many tropical species. The cause of the problem was that the refrigerants in use at that time were causing depletion of the ozone layer. Does this sound familiar?
Historically, such claims as Global Warming have occurred from time to time. Always, It has been decreed that a specified action must be taken. Unfortunately, some of the solutions have produced worse results than the problem they were to prevent. Others have served only to make their proponents rich. The ozone layer depletion is a case in point.
About 1970-71 a program was begun to eliminate those harmful refrigerants, replacing them with less harmful versions worldwide. Some were banned immediately, while others were to be phased out over the next 30-40 years. in the meantime, observation of the ozone hole was to be continued to determine if faster action was required. The program has continued, and this year, another of the newer refrigerants is to be eliminated, making it essential to replace existing units. Chemical companies and equipment manufacturers have made a killing.
By 1980, It was determined that the hole in the ozone layer expanded and contracted with changes in temprature of the atmosphere, and that those changes while dramatic, did not infact indicate changes in the amount of ozone present. The refrigerants had no effect on the ozone layer. The situation has continued to be monitored and no overall change in the ozone layer has ever been observed. Nevertheless, we continue to follow the guidelines laid down because of the depletion of the ozone problem.
Temperaturs and rainfall levels across the United States began to be recorded systematically about 1950, partly as a result of the dustbowl. Many areas around the world do not have systematic records even at the present time. Nevertheless, proponents of Global warming insist that the records show that 2003 was the warmest year since 1950. As i examined their data, I discovered that While 2003 did appear to average approximately one half degree warmer than the temperature in 1950, no records were available for prior years. In addition, of all the years since 1950, only 2003 was higher, and while there had ben a gradual upward trend,from about 1980, there had ben acorresponding downward trend from 1950 until about 1980. The overall temperature average had fluctuated less than 2 degrees. No margin of error was given. At least 2 years since 2003 have been lower than 2003. and I have not seen 2007 or 2008 figures.
One year ago, galacial melting revealed some farms in northern Europe which had not been seen since about 1740. This implies that some time prior to 1740, the area had been enough warmer for a considerable time that the area could be farmed. It is not the first time it has been that warm.
The measures greenhouse gases in glaciers is far less exact than commonly supposed, especially as they tend to escape over time. and determining the age of a layer of ice is very imprecise.
Before we decide global warming is a fact, and take vigorous action. we need to review whether it is in fact scientific, or mere hyperbole. The money devoted to solving it might well be better spent on other things, including the economic crisis.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Should a President Allow Other Party Members in the Cabinet?
The news media is really excited about Obama selecting a Republican for his cabinet. Apparently they believe that only men of the same party have any intelligence. They also ignore the fact that as President, Mr Obama represents both Democrats and Republicans and is responsible to both.
Abraham Lincoln selected one of his opponents because he believed the man was the best qualified for the job, and because he needed views of someone who would not always agree with him. I am amazed by the arrogance of those who think it wise to choose only those of ones own party as advisors. History has repeatedly shown that both parties make mistakes. being open to a different view may help one to see flaws in ones own position, and correct them or replace the idea.
I realize that most seem to feel that only their own party has anything of value to contribute, but I have found that it is easy to look only at the positives of my position, and convince myself that my idea is the only possible solution. Being willing to listen to someone who definitely disagrees about some things is a sign of a mature intelligence. President Obama not only opens doors with the Republicans by this decision, he also displays a level of concern for the nation. He wants to find the best solution, not just one that he or his party thought up.
I wish that both parties would focus on the good of the country, not just their party. Unfortunately, too many are politicians, rather than statesmen. They are focused on their political benefit instead. One reason the economic crisis has reached the proportions it has is that Both parties have been so busy trying to get control of Congress for the last three years that they ignored warnings and refused to deal with the problems when they were warned in 2005, choosing to focus on the 2006 and 2008 elections.
The American people did not elect their representatives to run for office, but to conduct our business. Many congressmen were like Governor Richardson of New Mexico, who spent many months running for office, leaving the lieutenant governor to run the state. Residents have every right to be upset that he was more interested in getting another job than in fulfilling his current duties.
Abraham Lincoln selected one of his opponents because he believed the man was the best qualified for the job, and because he needed views of someone who would not always agree with him. I am amazed by the arrogance of those who think it wise to choose only those of ones own party as advisors. History has repeatedly shown that both parties make mistakes. being open to a different view may help one to see flaws in ones own position, and correct them or replace the idea.
I realize that most seem to feel that only their own party has anything of value to contribute, but I have found that it is easy to look only at the positives of my position, and convince myself that my idea is the only possible solution. Being willing to listen to someone who definitely disagrees about some things is a sign of a mature intelligence. President Obama not only opens doors with the Republicans by this decision, he also displays a level of concern for the nation. He wants to find the best solution, not just one that he or his party thought up.
I wish that both parties would focus on the good of the country, not just their party. Unfortunately, too many are politicians, rather than statesmen. They are focused on their political benefit instead. One reason the economic crisis has reached the proportions it has is that Both parties have been so busy trying to get control of Congress for the last three years that they ignored warnings and refused to deal with the problems when they were warned in 2005, choosing to focus on the 2006 and 2008 elections.
The American people did not elect their representatives to run for office, but to conduct our business. Many congressmen were like Governor Richardson of New Mexico, who spent many months running for office, leaving the lieutenant governor to run the state. Residents have every right to be upset that he was more interested in getting another job than in fulfilling his current duties.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)