Energy Crunch Threatens South American Nations

By now the talk about global warming on this site amounts to beating a dead horse, as the granting of the Nobel prize to Al Gore should demonstrate. Clearly, because we fail to take necessary action now as well as in the immediate (as in, the next 3-5 years) future, we are headed towards some catastrophic changes in the way the ecosphere functions to support our main life support systems. There are irreversible changes occurring all around the planet due to the chain of events started by industrialization, the least of which are the opening up of the Northwest passage, the melting of the Siberian permafrost (releasing massive amounts of methane, a far more potent source of pollution than carbon dioxide), rapid melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, and increases in chaotic weather (and I’m putting it mildly – like the recent 40 degree drop in temperature from 90 to 50 in the past few days here in Chicago), to name a few.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Response thread to Elmer’s Brother – on nationalism, abortion, and pre-emptive war

Hi EB,

So as not to be off-topic in your current posts I reposted here. I take it that you’re:

  1. a practicing Christian
  2. Pro Israel
  3. Pro America (a nationalist)
  4. by 2 and 3, neoconservative

I don’t believe that Christians act primarily for the benefit of the state nor Israel (hence the “I disagree with the nationalism and “Politely knocking on Taquiyya’s door” bit). Instead I am convinced that we act out of God’s interests, derived from a heart of worship to God, which in turn may or may not be in the mutual benefit of the state.

I also believe Christians don’t have the moral obligation to protect the state of Israel. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus give this commandment.

Regarding my allergy to nationalism, I believe this was one of the root causes for the spiritual wandering of the Israelites found in the OT.

These are some of my reasons.

re: Comment Commandments revisited/soccermomunplugged open thread

This is in reference to Comment Commandments revisited and the previous Pope to Muslim Fanatics: Why bother? posts in soccermomunplugged.

Cate implicates my comments in the “Pope…” post are inflammatory and purely malicious in nature.

– are inflammatory without addressing the issue of the blog

– are purely malicious in nature

Going by this definition of malicious, I fail to see where I am acting out of pure malice. Also, if the first few posts are any indication, I am sure that my characterization of your (Cate’s) generalized opinion of ME Arabs is on the mark.

I believe you (Cate) and I reached some sort of commonality of spirit at the “end” of our discussion, but judging by your last comment of the night, I believe it was built on false pretenses or a false unity, hence your post and following ban.

Allow me to illustrate:

No I didn’t forget that Jesus would know. But I am making the point that we all generalize. How aboutwe concede that we both reacted adversely to our triggers.

We are both probably on the same side of the issue anyway. You and I both want Muslims to be seen in a better light. Only I want the fanatics to stop doing everything in their power to reinforce negative stereotypes and you want President Bush and I not to generalize and create a hostile environment for innocent Muslims. Got it. I’ll make sure my Palestinian friend and her family feel welcome when they come for dinner on Tuesday evening.

Good night, Albert. (#97)

Continue reading