As far as physical infrastructure is concerned, there are only a few doubts about what the blue model can achieve.
Most of my questions revolve around what, over time the blue model can sustain.
One stoic's look at living in the Upper Midwest, mostly about time spent outdoors, dogs, and food.
07 June, 2014
06 June, 2014
First Eulogy for a G.I.
No one chooses the time or place of their birth. We all emerge to circumstances, from parents, with a genetic inheritance, and in an environment beyond our control. When we are born there is only one thing promised to us, one day, soon or late, we will die. We are fragile creatures living in a fragile world. The only thing we can ever lay credit to is how we live the life that we are given. What we do with the time and talents we find ourselves blessed with between our emergence from the earth and our return unto it.
We have gathered to say “goodbye” to Donald Tooley. He was my grandfather. He was my friend. He was a man who played well the hand that he was dealt.
Donald Tooley was born in 1926 and in a few short years afterward would find his nation plunged into the Great Depression and his father lost to him. Guarded, protected, and nurtured by extended family and community, still he started his life without many of the things the rest of us take for granted. Other than an offhand comment that he would never eat another rabbit in his life because he’d eaten a lifetime’s worth of rabbit during the Depression, he never talked to me much about his childhood. When I look at the earliest pictures of him I see a lean but plucky and optimistic young man. Donald Tooley drew a difficult hand but he was never a victim. He believed in opportunity. He believed in the ability of the individual to overcome. He believed in the future.
Before he would graduate high school, he would find his nation drawn into the second great world war and the globe burned from Moscow to London, across northern Africa, and from India to Pearl Harbor. When he completed his senior year, he joined the navy as part of the preparations to invade the Japanese home islands. While the invasion proved unnecessary, it was a fight that was predicted to be so costly in terms of human flesh that the War department filled a warehouse with nothing but Purple Hearts that were to be awarded the casualties. Seventy-years later, after Korea, after Vietnam, after Iraq, and with the long war in Afghanistan on-going, our military is still awarding Purple Hearts produced in 1944. That is the kind of fight the nation expected. Donald Tooley signed up for that kind of fight because he believed in his nation, the values on which it was founded, and the positive role America could play in the world.
After the war Donald Tooley came home, furthered his education and became a teacher. Wearing a suit to
work he demonstrated a work ethic second-to-none. Going beyond the requirements of his work he was a mentor and role model, building cooperative education programs, often reaching out to young men who had lost their fathers. Donald Tooley believed in young people.
Donald Tooley was a craftsman, a carpenter and a woodworker. I have even heard, even from people who not close friends, say, “He does excellent work and he never charges what it is worth.” Don Tooley brought all of himself into every job he undertook. If it was worth doing, it was worth doing right. Whether the job was writing a sentence, refinishing a chair, or building a house, Don believed the craftsman is reflected in the work he does. He did not charge as much as some would expect, not out of some false sense of modesty, but, I believe, because he thought his neighbors were deserving of the best he could provide for them. Don Tooley believed in his neighbors.
Don Tooley was not a saint. He was not perfect. He was fully, completely, and utterly human. But he was a human who played the hand he was dealt with skill, with an attitude of service, a concern for justice and with a strong sense of human dignity. That we honor. That is the Don Tooley we carry forward as we make our own journey from earth unto earth.
How do we say goodbye to this man? I don’t know. I’m really bad at them. But if I may re-frame the question, “how do we honor and remember this man?” We honor and remember him by carrying forward the faiths that empowered him to live well. We honor him best, we remember him best, when we share some of his faith that made him who he was.
When we believe in opportunity, in our ability to grab hold of it, and refuse to see ourselves as victims.
When we believe in young people and help them as they help themselves grow into competent and confident adults.
When we believe in the values of independence, equality and human dignity which made America a light to the nations, even in the midst of foreign war machines, or domestic economic troubles.
When we believe in our neighbors and concern ourselves a little less with our own gain or loss, and seek to be of genuine service to humanity through the person right in front of us and at the job right at hand.
The peace I have in Don Tooley’s passing arises from the example we have received from him. Starting all at a different times and different circumstances but we too come from earth and will return to it and I am a better player of my own hand for his influence and his friendship. This is the inheritance that I have from him. For this, I am thankful.
Peace unto you,
We have gathered to say “goodbye” to Donald Tooley. He was my grandfather. He was my friend. He was a man who played well the hand that he was dealt.
Donald Tooley was born in 1926 and in a few short years afterward would find his nation plunged into the Great Depression and his father lost to him. Guarded, protected, and nurtured by extended family and community, still he started his life without many of the things the rest of us take for granted. Other than an offhand comment that he would never eat another rabbit in his life because he’d eaten a lifetime’s worth of rabbit during the Depression, he never talked to me much about his childhood. When I look at the earliest pictures of him I see a lean but plucky and optimistic young man. Donald Tooley drew a difficult hand but he was never a victim. He believed in opportunity. He believed in the ability of the individual to overcome. He believed in the future.
Before he would graduate high school, he would find his nation drawn into the second great world war and the globe burned from Moscow to London, across northern Africa, and from India to Pearl Harbor. When he completed his senior year, he joined the navy as part of the preparations to invade the Japanese home islands. While the invasion proved unnecessary, it was a fight that was predicted to be so costly in terms of human flesh that the War department filled a warehouse with nothing but Purple Hearts that were to be awarded the casualties. Seventy-years later, after Korea, after Vietnam, after Iraq, and with the long war in Afghanistan on-going, our military is still awarding Purple Hearts produced in 1944. That is the kind of fight the nation expected. Donald Tooley signed up for that kind of fight because he believed in his nation, the values on which it was founded, and the positive role America could play in the world.
After the war Donald Tooley came home, furthered his education and became a teacher. Wearing a suit to work he demonstrated a work ethic second-to-none. Going beyond the requirements of his work he was a mentor and role model, building cooperative education programs, often reaching out to young men who had lost their fathers. Donald Tooley believed in young people.
Donald Tooley was a craftsman, a carpenter and a woodworker. I have even heard, even from people who not close friends, say, “He does excellent work and he never charges what it is worth.” Don Tooley brought all of himself into every job he undertook. If it was worth doing, it was worth doing right. Whether the job was writing a sentence, refinishing a chair, or building a house, Don believed the craftsman is reflected in the work he does. He did not charge as much as some would expect, not out of some false sense of modesty, but, I believe, because he thought his neighbors were deserving of the best he could provide for them. Don Tooley believed in his neighbors.
Don Tooley was not a saint. He was not perfect. He was fully, completely, and utterly human. But he was a human who played the hand he was dealt with skill, with an attitude of service, a concern for justice and with a strong sense of human dignity. That we honor. That is the Don Tooley we carry forward as we make our own journey from earth unto earth.
How do we say goodbye to this man? I don’t know. I’m really bad at them. But if I may re-frame the question, “how do we honor and remember this man?” We honor and remember him by carrying forward the faiths that empowered him to live well. We honor him best, we remember him best, when we share some of his faith that made him who he was.
When we believe in opportunity, in our ability to grab hold of it, and refuse to see ourselves as victims.
When we believe in young people and help them as they help themselves grow into competent and confident adults.
When we believe in the values of independence, equality and human dignity which made America a light to the nations, even in the midst of foreign war machines, or domestic economic troubles.
When we believe in our neighbors and concern ourselves a little less with our own gain or loss, and seek to be of genuine service to humanity through the person right in front of us and at the job right at hand.
The peace I have in Don Tooley’s passing arises from the example we have received from him. Starting all at a different times and different circumstances but we too come from earth and will return to it and I am a better player of my own hand for his influence and his friendship. This is the inheritance that I have from him. For this, I am thankful.
Peace unto you,
05 June, 2014
The Parents of D-Day
He's old enough now that you can start to see the man emerging. Eight short years and he'll be of an age to storm beaches like those of Normandy or Iwa Jima. A lot has been said about the "G.I. Generation" and I won't deny it. But being a parent has taught me a side of the story under-reported in the history we've received.
When the news hit, a nation of parents held their breath until it hurt, hugged, wept, and then went back to work while they waited. What else was their to do?
Those were the children of the first great European war and that is why they tried to keep America out of the Second. They knew what they were sending their children in to and would have avoided it if that had been possible.
I wish I could have known them better. They were heroes in their own right. And if you think those G.I.s were the "Greatest Generation," best ask who it was that raised them with the stuff necessary to accomplish what they did.
04 June, 2014
When Good Dogs go to War
There is a wonderful set of photographs over at the Atlantic. I chose just a few to display below. You really should go check them all out!
State Compensation for Wolf Kills
I was surrounded by a bunch of beekeepers when a newer beekeeper asked about how to deal with a problem bear that had been harassing their hives.
"Three S's," a grizzled old man replied.
"What do you mean?" the newbie asked.
A wide grin came across a bunch of faces as the experienced hand described his stratagem, "Shoot, shovel, and shut up."
I am sure there is much bravado in these beekeeping circles. Old men talk amongst themselves about killing problem wildlife in the same way young men talk about their exploits with young women.
That the illegal killing of problem wildlife happens less than advertised, is not to say that it does not happen.
Reducing teen pregnancy and reducing illegal wildlife kills both begin in the same place, accepting reality as it stands. In the first case that means accepting that teenagers are sexual beings; in the second that abundant wildlife imposes a cost.
People feel emboldened when inaction costs them money.
These are widely understood. My wife hit a turkey last month to the tune of a $2,500 repair bill. My insurance company went out of their way to explain that, because the damage was caused by wildlife, my monthly premium would not change. Urban drivers who are less likely to strike wildlife are, in effect, subsidizing my auto insurance.
It is a price they pay to keep those who leave near wildlife from suffering from that wildlife.
Farmers are regularly compensated for livestock losses due to wildlife. This is not controversial because most Americans understand the role of and are sympathetic to farmers.
In Wisconsin those who hunt bear, raccoon, bobcat or coyote with dogs and suffer wolf losses are also compensated. One writer is attempting to arouse some controversy around the issue.
The screed, re-printed by a variety of publishers, is a flimsy attack posing as investigative journalism.
Let's take the main points one at a time.
Point: Wisconsin is the only state with a program that compensates dog owners.
Counter-Point: The rebound of Wisconsin's wolf population has exceeded all expectations and we are now wondering how many wolves the state can sustain. Perhaps Wisconsin is doing something right? I don't know and neither does the author.
Point: People who have broken the law in the past have received payments.
Counter-Point: So what? Does receiving a speeding ticket mean you forfeit your right to other legal protections under the law or restrict them from benefits they'd otherwise be entitled to?
Point: Many people are repeat claimants to the compensation.
Counter-Point: People like to hunt near where they live and in places that are familiar. Wolves are not a random event but are more likely to kill dogs in the area that they range. Sometimes the range of wolves and the range of particular hunters are going to overlap. It is not surprising that there would be repeated claimants. Perhaps people are not learning from experience, how exactly should we address that?
Point: The program rewards people who put their dogs at "extreme risk."
Counter-Point: The program compensates people who work dogs that were bred for work. Work includes risk. The presence of wolves is what makes that work an "extreme risk" and the program exists for the very reason of compensating hunters for a risk they did not undertake but was fostered on them through the Wolf re-introduction program.
Point: Some of the attacks happen in the same place and people keep on going back to that area.
Counter-Point: If one pack is a particular problem, perhaps the DNR should cull that pack? Otherwise we might just have statistical noise.
I can speak from my own experience that the official map of the Wisconsin wolf range is conservative to the extreme. That little circle in Dunn County, I live there and I see wolves annually and stumble upon scat and kills often enough that it is almost not worth mentioning anymore. Somehow, I doubt that small green oval represents one wolf or one pack in isolation.
Point: Other states report fewer incidents and they do not have a compensation program.
Counter-Point: Hunters are less likely to report a loss when there is no compensation to be had. It is called incentive. It was covered in your Freshman year economics course.
I doubt the issue truly the $56,000 dollars were spent to compensate the owners of hunting dogs in 2013. $56,000 is a lot of money to me but, in terms of the decreased ill-will it purchases, it is the deal of the century.
What really seems to be at work is the continued ideological assault of armchair naturalists who adore the idea of nature to the extent of vilifying hunters who spend time in it, make use of it, and, through purchases of licenses and permits, fund it.
It is to the Wisconsin DNR's credit, they've done a lot to educate the public on the risks posed by wolves and recognize that total avoidance is not realistic. The DNR is also resisting calls to end the practice of compensating dog owners.
We love the outdoors. We love our dogs. We, for the most part, enjoy sighting wolves, bears, and other not always benign wildlife, in the places we live, hunt, and camp. Money does not replace the loss of a good dog, but it does communicate that the loss is recognized and provides compensation for the some of the time and money invested in a hunting dog.
It is the feeling of not being heard, that government is unresponsive, combined with financial loss that causes anger at wildlife losses to mount over time. Eventually "shoot, shovel, and shut up," becomes less an issue of bravado and more standard practice. And that would be a loss to the state's bio-diversity and the citizenry as a whole.
"Three S's," a grizzled old man replied.
"What do you mean?" the newbie asked.
A wide grin came across a bunch of faces as the experienced hand described his stratagem, "Shoot, shovel, and shut up."
 |
| Wolf and Hound: Enemies in fact and fiction |
That the illegal killing of problem wildlife happens less than advertised, is not to say that it does not happen.
Reducing teen pregnancy and reducing illegal wildlife kills both begin in the same place, accepting reality as it stands. In the first case that means accepting that teenagers are sexual beings; in the second that abundant wildlife imposes a cost.
People feel emboldened when inaction costs them money.
These are widely understood. My wife hit a turkey last month to the tune of a $2,500 repair bill. My insurance company went out of their way to explain that, because the damage was caused by wildlife, my monthly premium would not change. Urban drivers who are less likely to strike wildlife are, in effect, subsidizing my auto insurance.
It is a price they pay to keep those who leave near wildlife from suffering from that wildlife.
Farmers are regularly compensated for livestock losses due to wildlife. This is not controversial because most Americans understand the role of and are sympathetic to farmers.
 |
| One of the costs of hosting a wolf population |
The screed, re-printed by a variety of publishers, is a flimsy attack posing as investigative journalism.
Let's take the main points one at a time.
Point: Wisconsin is the only state with a program that compensates dog owners.
Counter-Point: The rebound of Wisconsin's wolf population has exceeded all expectations and we are now wondering how many wolves the state can sustain. Perhaps Wisconsin is doing something right? I don't know and neither does the author.
Point: People who have broken the law in the past have received payments.
Counter-Point: So what? Does receiving a speeding ticket mean you forfeit your right to other legal protections under the law or restrict them from benefits they'd otherwise be entitled to?
Point: Many people are repeat claimants to the compensation.
Counter-Point: People like to hunt near where they live and in places that are familiar. Wolves are not a random event but are more likely to kill dogs in the area that they range. Sometimes the range of wolves and the range of particular hunters are going to overlap. It is not surprising that there would be repeated claimants. Perhaps people are not learning from experience, how exactly should we address that?
Point: The program rewards people who put their dogs at "extreme risk."
Counter-Point: The program compensates people who work dogs that were bred for work. Work includes risk. The presence of wolves is what makes that work an "extreme risk" and the program exists for the very reason of compensating hunters for a risk they did not undertake but was fostered on them through the Wolf re-introduction program.
Point: Some of the attacks happen in the same place and people keep on going back to that area.
 |
| That "Probable Range" is conservative to the extreme. |
I can speak from my own experience that the official map of the Wisconsin wolf range is conservative to the extreme. That little circle in Dunn County, I live there and I see wolves annually and stumble upon scat and kills often enough that it is almost not worth mentioning anymore. Somehow, I doubt that small green oval represents one wolf or one pack in isolation.
Point: Other states report fewer incidents and they do not have a compensation program.
Counter-Point: Hunters are less likely to report a loss when there is no compensation to be had. It is called incentive. It was covered in your Freshman year economics course.
A follow-up article attempts to cast the compensation program, not as a legitimate response to legitimate needs, but the fruit of high powered, pro-hunting, lobbying groups who have donated a combined (shudder) $56,000 to the re-election campaigns of Governor Scott Walker and the members of the legislative committees overseeing natural resources.
The real influence of hunter's groups, however, arises not from thousands of dollars of campaign contributions but rather thirty-six million dollars of revenue collected in hunting licenses and permits, all of which support the wild places we all love. It may drive animal lovers nuts, but animal hunters finance the infrastructure that makes Wisconsin's wild places possible.
The wolf population was financed by hunters, including those who hunt with dogs.
 |
| Source |
The wolf population was financed by hunters, including those who hunt with dogs.
I doubt the issue truly the $56,000 dollars were spent to compensate the owners of hunting dogs in 2013. $56,000 is a lot of money to me but, in terms of the decreased ill-will it purchases, it is the deal of the century.
What really seems to be at work is the continued ideological assault of armchair naturalists who adore the idea of nature to the extent of vilifying hunters who spend time in it, make use of it, and, through purchases of licenses and permits, fund it.
It is to the Wisconsin DNR's credit, they've done a lot to educate the public on the risks posed by wolves and recognize that total avoidance is not realistic. The DNR is also resisting calls to end the practice of compensating dog owners.
We love the outdoors. We love our dogs. We, for the most part, enjoy sighting wolves, bears, and other not always benign wildlife, in the places we live, hunt, and camp. Money does not replace the loss of a good dog, but it does communicate that the loss is recognized and provides compensation for the some of the time and money invested in a hunting dog.
It is the feeling of not being heard, that government is unresponsive, combined with financial loss that causes anger at wildlife losses to mount over time. Eventually "shoot, shovel, and shut up," becomes less an issue of bravado and more standard practice. And that would be a loss to the state's bio-diversity and the citizenry as a whole.
03 June, 2014
Herding the Poor
Bad answers spoken authoritatively and piously will get you a long way in the world but, eventually, in a free society, you will get exposed. Take this piece from the anti-planner.
It gets better from there. Read the whole thing.
Ignoring the mistakes of the policy recomendations, look at what it reveals about the writers.
The problem is the them, the other, the poor.
Solutions require changing other kinds of people, not for the likes of the white-collar, college grads with enlightened opinions. They can jet around the world, the poor should be discouraged from driving cars.
Privilege for the clergy, enforced piety for the peasantry.
It is classism at its most base, unjust, and unreflective. Soup for me, but none for you. My kid will vacation on Bali, you should not drive your own to little league practice.
It is almost enough to make you wanna holler.
It is enough to make this man stop grumbling to himself and say something.
TransForm, a smart-growth group in Oakland, has analyzed California's household travel survey data and made what it thinks is a fascinating discovery: poor people drive less than rich people. Moreover, poor people especially drive less than rich people if they live in a high-density development served by frequent transit.
According to TransForm's report, poor households who live in transit-oriented developments (TODs) drive only half as much as poor households who live away from TODs, while rich households who live in TODs drive about two-thirds as much as rich households who don't live near TODs (see figure 1 on page 7).
Based on this, TransForm has a modest proposal: build lots of "affordable housing" in the TODs, then herd encourage poor people to live in those TODs. Apparently, TransForm's thinking is that moving poor people into TODs will have the greatest effect on driving, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. Putting "more affordable homes near transit ... would be a powerful and durable GHG reduction strategy" says TransForm (emphasis in the original).
Anyone associated with this report should back away in embarrassment. First, TransForm has committed a simple arithmetic error when it concludes that the best greenhouse-gas reduction strategy would be to focus on low-income people. Though the data show rich people in TODs drive only a third less than rich people away from TODs, the rich drive so much more than the poor that the greatest impact would come from herding the rich to the TODs.
It gets better from there. Read the whole thing.
 |
| From the New York Times |
The problem is the them, the other, the poor.
Solutions require changing other kinds of people, not for the likes of the white-collar, college grads with enlightened opinions. They can jet around the world, the poor should be discouraged from driving cars.
Privilege for the clergy, enforced piety for the peasantry.
It is classism at its most base, unjust, and unreflective. Soup for me, but none for you. My kid will vacation on Bali, you should not drive your own to little league practice.
It is almost enough to make you wanna holler.
It is enough to make this man stop grumbling to himself and say something.
I remember 1989
The Empereor Hirihito, used as a sock puppet by the Japanese nationalists during the Second World War, died in January, closing the book on another chapter of that wars' legacy. How were we to know how much more of that war's legacy, the power of the Soviet Bloc, would also fall that year?
The first amazing even was the legalization of Solidarity in Poland in January and the last was that nation's withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact in December.
In between, Czechoslovakia and Hungry would bring their Communist Dictatorships to a peaceful end. Romania would line its dictator and his wife against the wall and have them shot. East Germans would begin traveling through those countries as they fled for the West. In September we would see Berlin Wall fall to the ground.
By the time summer came around, the momentum of events seemed unstoppable. I stopped expecting to see Soviet tanks surge again across Eastern Europe. Breaking News Alerts became moments of anticipation, not dread. Mom was never that fond of the television, but she let me watch an unlimited amount of news, especially that year.
The conflict that had dominated my childhood and hers was coming to an end.
On June 3rd of that year, however, it became obvious that the course of the two major Communist powers would diverge. In the west, people would overcome power. In the east, tanks would grind the movement the bones of students into the ground.
Grandma Nadine was visiting. I was awaiting my sixteenth birthday. The regular broadcasting schedule was interrupted. Anticipation rose as news reporters reported on being sequestered to hotels and then fell as, even removed at a distance, tanks could be seen. They were followed by smoke and "unconfirmed reports." In the days and weeks to come, pictures would begin to be smuggled out.
The Tiananmen protest had met a bloody end.
I remember.
I will continue to remember.
The first amazing even was the legalization of Solidarity in Poland in January and the last was that nation's withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact in December.
In between, Czechoslovakia and Hungry would bring their Communist Dictatorships to a peaceful end. Romania would line its dictator and his wife against the wall and have them shot. East Germans would begin traveling through those countries as they fled for the West. In September we would see Berlin Wall fall to the ground.
The conflict that had dominated my childhood and hers was coming to an end.
On June 3rd of that year, however, it became obvious that the course of the two major Communist powers would diverge. In the west, people would overcome power. In the east, tanks would grind the movement the bones of students into the ground.
Grandma Nadine was visiting. I was awaiting my sixteenth birthday. The regular broadcasting schedule was interrupted. Anticipation rose as news reporters reported on being sequestered to hotels and then fell as, even removed at a distance, tanks could be seen. They were followed by smoke and "unconfirmed reports." In the days and weeks to come, pictures would begin to be smuggled out.
The Tiananmen protest had met a bloody end.
I remember.
I will continue to remember.
02 June, 2014
Well Hot Cow Crap!
We may disagree on a lot of down ticket issues, including the last 1/3 of this commencement speech, but on the issue of free speech I have nothing to say to Micheal Bloomberg but "Amen."
There is an idea floating around college campuses — including here at Harvard — that scholars should be funded only if their work conforms to a particular view of justice. There’s a word for that idea: censorship. And it is just a modern-day form of McCarthyism. [...] This spring, it has been disturbing to see a number of college commencement speakers withdraw, or have their invitations rescinded, after protests from students and — to me, shockingly — from senior faculty and administrators who should know better.
"The former Mayor of New York went on to note," according to the American Interest, "that 96% of the Ivy League faculties contributed to Barack Obama in the last elections. When the crowd began to clap, he continued, 'there was more disagreement among the old Soviet Politburo than there is among Ivy League donors.'"
There is an idea floating around college campuses — including here at Harvard — that scholars should be funded only if their work conforms to a particular view of justice. There’s a word for that idea: censorship. And it is just a modern-day form of McCarthyism. [...] This spring, it has been disturbing to see a number of college commencement speakers withdraw, or have their invitations rescinded, after protests from students and — to me, shockingly — from senior faculty and administrators who should know better.
"The former Mayor of New York went on to note," according to the American Interest, "that 96% of the Ivy League faculties contributed to Barack Obama in the last elections. When the crowd began to clap, he continued, 'there was more disagreement among the old Soviet Politburo than there is among Ivy League donors.'"
Food elitism
 |
| Fear: first it kills the mind, then others. |
It is rooted in fear and it is a fear that kills.
It limits opportunity just as efficiently. It operates under the radar. Some homo sapiens march around advertising it as their virtue. Class-ism is most evident in our arguments over the food system.
We now have thousands of studies that GMO foods do no harm.
Increased yields lower the cost of food, a basic necessity.
The poor spend a larger amount of their take home pay on food, so the benefit disproportionately from the use of GMOs.
I actually don't mind giving people a choice to eat non-GMO foods. Maybe this is a case where I am wrong. Maybe this is a case where big business is at work. Maybe we are doing harm to the earth.
If you want to waste your money, go ahead. I wish I could bring myself to be among those who take it from you.
But don't use your virtue to hurt others. Don't be a fundamentalist. Don't force your religion down my throat or the throat of the poor. If you want to change our mind you're going to have to find more evidence of harm than the studies already produced.
If we fed a lab rat nothing but organic strawberries, we would see negative outcomes as well.
I'd like to see the poor raise more of their own food. If I tried to eat as well as I do while buying the things we produce on the farm, I would quickly be poor. I'm not into any kind of Maoist forced collectivization, however.
When science and reason come together to say there is no threat, we should give people choice.
01 June, 2014
No Bigotry and No Apologism
The power of faith is in the community of faith.
The power of atheists, is a community of support.
Leaving Islam for Atheism
Much more at the link.
Can I get an "Amen?"
The power of atheists, is a community of support.
Leaving Islam for Atheism
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Women talked about “coming out,” being open with their families, leaving “the closet” at a conference here this month. But the topic was not sexuality. Instead, the women, attending the third Women in Secularism conference were talking about being atheists. Some grew up Catholic, some Jewish, some Protestant — but nearly all described journeys of acknowledging atheism first to themselves, then to loved ones. Going public was a last, often painful, step.
Anyone leaving a close-knit belief-based community risks parental disappointment, rejection by friends and relatives, and charges of self-loathing. The process can be especially difficult and isolating for women who have grown up Muslim, who are sometimes accused of trying to assimilate into a Western culture that despises them.
“It was incredibly painful,” Heina Dadabhoy, 26, said during a discussion called “Women Leaving Religion,” which also featured three former Christians and one formerly observant Jew, the novelist Rebecca Newberger Goldstein. “My entire life, my identity, was being a good Muslim woman.”
Ms. Dadabhoy, a web developer who lives in Orange County, Calif., and who often gives talks about leaving Islam, said the hardest part of the process was opening up to her family.
Much more at the link.
Can I get an "Amen?"
Won't be missed
I do not know exactly how severely we are "fucking our selves over." I do know, however, that nature bats last and nature does not care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)