Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Buff Jesus
Had a Jehovah's Witness guy come over the other day and he left some literature. I didn't get to talk to him about fossils, but I enjoyed this pamphlet. I'm noticing a few trends with mainstream religions these days. One is Jesus is getting whiter and whiter all the time. His hair is also getting shorter, although it is a bit longer than the Jehovah's Witness handout I received in 2008 (see post Nov 2008).
Now a new thing, as you can see in this image, is that Jesus is getting more buff. Those arms are getting thicker, the muscle tone is tremendous, and the hands powerful and large. He's starting to look like a John Buscema illustration of Conan.
I don't really have a point here. I guess different religious groups like to think of Jesus in their own way, blacker or whiter, thinner or thicker, long haired or nicely groomed.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Abortion in the Healthcare Debate
The context of abortion in the US health care debate shows how too often we Americans tend to frame the problems of our time incorrectly. Today, there is tension and anger over "public funding of abortions," or tax money going towards women's abortions. In many cases, such as with international financial support to other countries, this extends to other services like contraception and sex education as well.
When you trace this conflict back to the source, the opposition to abortion is nearly always religious in nature - or "the right," and those in favor of abortion rights are typically women's rights groups and other "liberal" organizations.
But really, aren't we ALL in favor of fewer abortions? Fewer unwanted pregnancies? Nobody really wants an abortion, and nobody really wants to perform them either. Women seek abortions because of the circumstances they find themselves in. So, if we were to reframe the idea, "What is the best way to minimize the number of abortions?," then we would look at those circumstances and work on those.
Many would like to outlaw abortions, but currently about 70,000 women die each year worldwide from unsafe abortions, which are typically performed in countries where abortions are outlawed. That's a lot of people, and when those women die they impact their children that are already born and their families and jobs, etc. The rate of abortions in almost every nation is around 3% of women - regardless of whether or not the country has outlawed abortions or not. So outlawing abortion seems to keep the 3% rate the same while making the death rate of women much higher in nations where abortions are illegal. Therefore outlawing abortions doesn't minimize the number of abortions, but rather increases the deaths of women who are seeking abortion. Are we trying to kill more women? Or have fewer abortions? Additionally, the outlaw approach also leaves the circumstances that drive women to abortion untreated.
One place to start might be to look at the country with the lowest abortions world wide, and that country is currently, and has been for decades, the Netherlands. They come in at 1%, fully 2% lower than the rest of the world. They also lead the world in the lowest teen pregnancy rates. The Dutch and external research groups say these numbers are the results of things like sex education, readily available contraception that is fully covered by universal health care, more open discussion of sexuality, and a general trend towards understanding and accepting things like human sexuality, the need for contraception, and the details about abortion.
When comparing the Netherlands to a poor African nation, you'll also find a ton of other differences and variables as well. But the health care approach, especially in this country, is a good place to start because it's readily attainable and quantified.
Abortion should be dead-center in our health care debate - yet it's a hot potato because of misguided religious forces. Do Christians want fewer abortions? If so, then they should fully support the most effective system in the world, which is currently a universal health care system that fully supports sex education, contraception, and access to safe abortion. Saying abortion is wrong doesn't lower the number of abortions. Action does.
If not, then one has to ask what the real motive is here. Is it the welfare of the citizens of the United States? Or is it a religious objective?
Abortion should be a common-ground rallying point for all Americans. Instead it remains a divider that is holding this country back.
When you trace this conflict back to the source, the opposition to abortion is nearly always religious in nature - or "the right," and those in favor of abortion rights are typically women's rights groups and other "liberal" organizations.
But really, aren't we ALL in favor of fewer abortions? Fewer unwanted pregnancies? Nobody really wants an abortion, and nobody really wants to perform them either. Women seek abortions because of the circumstances they find themselves in. So, if we were to reframe the idea, "What is the best way to minimize the number of abortions?," then we would look at those circumstances and work on those.
Many would like to outlaw abortions, but currently about 70,000 women die each year worldwide from unsafe abortions, which are typically performed in countries where abortions are outlawed. That's a lot of people, and when those women die they impact their children that are already born and their families and jobs, etc. The rate of abortions in almost every nation is around 3% of women - regardless of whether or not the country has outlawed abortions or not. So outlawing abortion seems to keep the 3% rate the same while making the death rate of women much higher in nations where abortions are illegal. Therefore outlawing abortions doesn't minimize the number of abortions, but rather increases the deaths of women who are seeking abortion. Are we trying to kill more women? Or have fewer abortions? Additionally, the outlaw approach also leaves the circumstances that drive women to abortion untreated.
One place to start might be to look at the country with the lowest abortions world wide, and that country is currently, and has been for decades, the Netherlands. They come in at 1%, fully 2% lower than the rest of the world. They also lead the world in the lowest teen pregnancy rates. The Dutch and external research groups say these numbers are the results of things like sex education, readily available contraception that is fully covered by universal health care, more open discussion of sexuality, and a general trend towards understanding and accepting things like human sexuality, the need for contraception, and the details about abortion.
When comparing the Netherlands to a poor African nation, you'll also find a ton of other differences and variables as well. But the health care approach, especially in this country, is a good place to start because it's readily attainable and quantified.
Abortion should be dead-center in our health care debate - yet it's a hot potato because of misguided religious forces. Do Christians want fewer abortions? If so, then they should fully support the most effective system in the world, which is currently a universal health care system that fully supports sex education, contraception, and access to safe abortion. Saying abortion is wrong doesn't lower the number of abortions. Action does.
If not, then one has to ask what the real motive is here. Is it the welfare of the citizens of the United States? Or is it a religious objective?
Abortion should be a common-ground rallying point for all Americans. Instead it remains a divider that is holding this country back.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Pew Research Test
Pew has as short interactive quiz on current event knowledge, real basic stuff in the news. 66% of the general public people that have taken this quiz (as of 2/13/10) got more than half of the 12 questions incorrect. This has to have a large impact on how people see issues, regardless of politics.
This takes about 60-90 seconds to complete, and it's pretty interesting to see where you fall and where the rest of the public falls on these questions.
http://pewresearch.org/ politicalquiz/quiz/index.php
This takes about 60-90 seconds to complete, and it's pretty interesting to see where you fall and where the rest of the public falls on these questions.
http://pewresearch.org/
Monday, February 8, 2010
Some context on misinformation, a brief look back
About 16 months ago, there were all sorts of claims about Obama that I think are interesting to look back on now.
For example, a big one was that Obama will not put his hand on a Bible, since he's Muslim and will only put his hand on the Qur’an. Except, of course, that he's Christian and put his hand on Lincoln's Bible when he was sworn in. But, that emotional, dramatic misinformation was held to be truth by many who were against him, and was one of the primary rumors circulating through blogs, word of mouth, television, and mass emails leading up to the election.
Another one circulating at the same time was that Obama would not say the Pledge of Allegiance or put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. We heard that he was a "radical Muslim" who "will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance." Misleading photographs and text were mass emailed all over the place, and discussions of this stuff wound up on blogs and TV. That was wrong, too.
We heard that Obama had no birth certificate and was therefore not a US citizen and therefore could not be the President. Obama provided a copy, and the Hawaii state government confirmed his certificate. You and I need so show our birth certificate just to get a passport! Why would the CIA, FBI, and all the other government powers not have checked this out before letting anyone be the president of the US?
Then there were all the claims that Obama is/was the anti-Christ. I guess we'll just have to see on that one. Snopes has a great long list of these things that you can scan in a minute or two here.
But the most important thing to take away from all this misinformation, emotion, and drama is this: The same folks in the mainstream media that were happy to puff up these lies leading right up to the election are the same folks that you'll hear today going on about death panels in health care (and the long line of other ridiculous claims about health care reform circulating out there) and many other claims. However, considering that most everything said previously has been proven false, I'd recommend looking at multiple, varied sources before taking something hook, line and sinker. And look at the source. Is someone who said that Obama wouldn't put his hand on a Bible the same one telling you that the new health care plan will kill old people? If so, you may want to find a new source of information so you can make informed decisions as a responsible citizen of the greatest democracy in the world.
If you don't like Obama and/or his policies that's fine, just please make sure you form your opinions based on skeptical thinking and reasoning. It's for the good of the country.
For example, a big one was that Obama will not put his hand on a Bible, since he's Muslim and will only put his hand on the Qur’an. Except, of course, that he's Christian and put his hand on Lincoln's Bible when he was sworn in. But, that emotional, dramatic misinformation was held to be truth by many who were against him, and was one of the primary rumors circulating through blogs, word of mouth, television, and mass emails leading up to the election.
Another one circulating at the same time was that Obama would not say the Pledge of Allegiance or put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. We heard that he was a "radical Muslim" who "will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance." Misleading photographs and text were mass emailed all over the place, and discussions of this stuff wound up on blogs and TV. That was wrong, too.
We heard that Obama had no birth certificate and was therefore not a US citizen and therefore could not be the President. Obama provided a copy, and the Hawaii state government confirmed his certificate. You and I need so show our birth certificate just to get a passport! Why would the CIA, FBI, and all the other government powers not have checked this out before letting anyone be the president of the US?
Then there were all the claims that Obama is/was the anti-Christ. I guess we'll just have to see on that one. Snopes has a great long list of these things that you can scan in a minute or two here.
But the most important thing to take away from all this misinformation, emotion, and drama is this: The same folks in the mainstream media that were happy to puff up these lies leading right up to the election are the same folks that you'll hear today going on about death panels in health care (and the long line of other ridiculous claims about health care reform circulating out there) and many other claims. However, considering that most everything said previously has been proven false, I'd recommend looking at multiple, varied sources before taking something hook, line and sinker. And look at the source. Is someone who said that Obama wouldn't put his hand on a Bible the same one telling you that the new health care plan will kill old people? If so, you may want to find a new source of information so you can make informed decisions as a responsible citizen of the greatest democracy in the world.
If you don't like Obama and/or his policies that's fine, just please make sure you form your opinions based on skeptical thinking and reasoning. It's for the good of the country.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Another Beef Recall
These seem to be cropping up every month like clockwork, sometimes every two months. This time it's from a slaughterhouse in Missouri.
For those who haven't seen it, put Food, Inc on your Netflix list. It's not gruesome or PETA-flavored, but a business-view on food production in the States. It does show nicely how you buy chicken that's been treated with ammonia to kill all the bacteria that result from filthy meat processing plants, where production has exceeded human ability to inspect and clean the meat before it's processed.
Another book that is more gruesome, but still wonderfully vivid and eye-opening is Slaughterhouse by Gail Eisnitz. I'll have to do a longer review here but it's a great read if you want to know how the packing industry works.
For those who haven't seen it, put Food, Inc on your Netflix list. It's not gruesome or PETA-flavored, but a business-view on food production in the States. It does show nicely how you buy chicken that's been treated with ammonia to kill all the bacteria that result from filthy meat processing plants, where production has exceeded human ability to inspect and clean the meat before it's processed.
Another book that is more gruesome, but still wonderfully vivid and eye-opening is Slaughterhouse by Gail Eisnitz. I'll have to do a longer review here but it's a great read if you want to know how the packing industry works.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Bomb One MInute; Pray the Next
I watched the trailer for Frontline's upcoming show this Tuesday, Digital Nation. In that trailer, they show a US Predator drone pilot bombing a target in either Iraq or Afghanistan from a location near his home in the US. The pilot then drives home and prays to Jesus Christ before dinner.
Now, I'm not really saying anything is right or wrong in that. But there is a pretty stark dichotomy there. Or maybe there is no dichotomy, and I'm missing something.
Here's the link to the trailer and show if interested.
Now, I'm not really saying anything is right or wrong in that. But there is a pretty stark dichotomy there. Or maybe there is no dichotomy, and I'm missing something.
Here's the link to the trailer and show if interested.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Why are you so angry about Obama?
There are so many people that are rabid in their open anger (sometimes hatred), hostility, disrespect for, or whatever, of President Obama, that frankly, I've been surprised. I mean, I remember the Tea Party folks starting up in April of 2009, scarcely 4 months into his first term. GW Bush didn't even show up for his first year for the most part until Sept 11, and Cheney was having secret energy commissions and the whole bit and nobody seemed to mind at all. I didn't like that, but I didn't lose respect for Bush until his Axis of Evil lunacy.
If you're one of those people that just hate Obama or just seeing him makes you angry, I'm genuinely curious as to what your reasons are. Why do you hate him? What, specifically, has he done to make you so angry or disappointed? And, if you think of it, perhaps you could mention where you get your news and information each day as well (and be honest).
Because I'll be honest, when I hear the arguments against him, and when I hear his responses, such as this past week when he met w/Republicans in Baltimore, his answers make sense to me. They seem well thought out. Maybe I'm an idiot - it's very possible. And I know he's a politician. But I'm just not seeing anything to be so angry about. So please let me know why you're so angry.
Thanks in advance for your time and candor.
If you're one of those people that just hate Obama or just seeing him makes you angry, I'm genuinely curious as to what your reasons are. Why do you hate him? What, specifically, has he done to make you so angry or disappointed? And, if you think of it, perhaps you could mention where you get your news and information each day as well (and be honest).
Because I'll be honest, when I hear the arguments against him, and when I hear his responses, such as this past week when he met w/Republicans in Baltimore, his answers make sense to me. They seem well thought out. Maybe I'm an idiot - it's very possible. And I know he's a politician. But I'm just not seeing anything to be so angry about. So please let me know why you're so angry.
Thanks in advance for your time and candor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)