We too easily forget the power given by elected office. Women have not been given as much power as men have but that will one day be changed. A person who is paranoid, greedy, evil, stupid, unscrupulous or many other negative qualities can ruin lives. Even those not elected, but with power of persuasion, experience built to pretend credibility (like Madoff)), seem to have no end of control over the lives of innocent, trusting people. They easily and unconscionably destroy them and the people who depend on them.
A friend sent me this You Tube URL of Edward R. Murrow on 3-9-1954. It is well worth watching since there are fewer and fewer of us left who remember this day and Murrow's words.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
SELF-HEAL PRODUCT FOR THINGS AND PEOPLE
Scientists have devised a coating that, when scratched, heals itself upon exposure to sunlight. Polymeric self-healing composites are used for longer lasting products. Sewers have long had a cutting board which has possessed that self-healing power.
Mankind as some self-healing powers in physical makeup and is working on making more of that possible. For the last eight years Bush stopped research with the type of stem cells which had the most promise for success. If I understand their potential greatest usage is that they will be used as closely to self-healing in the human body as any product we have today. Embryonic stem cells show the most promise because they have the most potential for being easily persuaded to become the type of cells needed to be corrective for innumerable conditions and illnesses.
Mankind as some self-healing powers in physical makeup and is working on making more of that possible. For the last eight years Bush stopped research with the type of stem cells which had the most promise for success. If I understand their potential greatest usage is that they will be used as closely to self-healing in the human body as any product we have today. Embryonic stem cells show the most promise because they have the most potential for being easily persuaded to become the type of cells needed to be corrective for innumerable conditions and illnesses.
EUPHEMISMS FOR DEATH
There are so many euphemisms (also known as doublespeak) when people speak of death. In terminal illness, many find it hard to speak the term death at all. Some of them are 'losing' the person. In some sense, the live person is lost to no further contact. The person is forever unabailable. It is also used as in 'losing one's virginity'; lost but never to be recalled again as is life then death.
A bit more colloquial is the term, 'bought the farm' whose origin is, according to Merriam-Webster: "The origin of this phrase is uncertain. It is 20th century and all the early references to it relate to the US military. The New York Times Magazine, March 1954, had a related phrase, in a glossary of jet pilots' slang: "Bought a plot, had a fatal crash."
That clearly refers to a burial plot. The 'bought' in that case probably doesn't suggest any actual or potential purchase, but to an earlier use of 'bought', i.e. being killed. This dates back to at least the early 20th century. This example from 1943 isn't the earliest, but it does make the meaning explicit. It's from Cyril Ward-Jackson's It's a piece of cake; or, R.A.F. slang made easy: "He's bought it, he is dead - that is, he has paid with his life." Specific references to 'the farm' come a little later. There are reports of the phrase being in use in the US military from 1955 onward. Here's a citation from 1963, in Ed Miller's Exile to the Stars: "The police dispatcher says a plane just bought the farm." There are a few suggested derivations for the phrase. One, put forward in a 1955 edition of American Speech, is the idea that when a jet crashes on a farm the farmer may sue the government for compensation. That would generate a large enough amount of money to pay off the farm's mortgage. Hence, the pilot paid for the farm with his life.
The second theory is that military men might dream of returning from the battlefront and settling down with a family to a peaceful life down on the farm. If someone were killed his colleagues might say, 'well, he bought the farm early', or similar. Well, yes they might, and there are numerous sentimental US films where dialogue like that wouldn't be out of place. That's not to say the phrase was coined that way though.
A third suggestion is the idea that, if a serviceman was killed in action, his family would receive a payout from the insurance that service personnel were issued with. This would be sufficient to pay off the family mortgage.
My twopenneth is on the last explanation but, given that we don't have the full evidence, that's just speculation."
Euphemisms seem to be used when people a) have difficulty speaking directly about subjects that might cause pain to the listener, b) can't face the concept of death themselves for their own reasons, c) assume that the custom, through whatever impetus, has set a social protocol which people are often relieved to follow. There may be other reasons such as the politically correct notions hold, I think, often incorrectly. Helping people face reality seems to me a better move towards fostering acceptance of an undeniable fact.
There are many more euphemisms for death, but in the interest of keeping each entry reasonably short, I will not detail them, only list some.
bite the dust (perhaps referring to the quote: ashes to ashes, dust to dust)
buy the box (coffin)
croaked (possibly referring to what is ;the death rattle' or other sound as vital organs stop working, lungs fill, or the body ceases to function as it should)
flatline (as in the first indication of brain death on a monitor)
going into the fertilizer business (about all the body can convert to for usefulness in death)
immortally challenged (in today's world of politically benign phrasing)
kicked the oxygen habit
left the building
living-impaired (another use of the trend to make potentially painful subjects as gentle-sounding as possiible)
pushing up daisies (no doubt this wild flower has covered many graves)
gone to sleep, sleeping (neglecting the lack of breathing that usually accompanies the state)
kick the bucket (this referred to the bucket on which one stood to hand themselves. There are some explanations to that effect with other speculations added)
passed , passed away (Whatever an ‘away’ is, it is assumed you have gone beyond it.)
gone to the great Beyond)
is with God, is in Heaven, is with the angels now, is with Jesus or whomever else you may be placed with according to your religious belief.
As the saying goes, the only sure things are death and taxes. Today most of us have little control of the degree to which either will touch our lives but, I firmly believe, both have to be faced directly and how one wishes to attend to them should be made clear.
A bit more colloquial is the term, 'bought the farm' whose origin is, according to Merriam-Webster: "The origin of this phrase is uncertain. It is 20th century and all the early references to it relate to the US military. The New York Times Magazine, March 1954, had a related phrase, in a glossary of jet pilots' slang: "Bought a plot, had a fatal crash."
That clearly refers to a burial plot. The 'bought' in that case probably doesn't suggest any actual or potential purchase, but to an earlier use of 'bought', i.e. being killed. This dates back to at least the early 20th century. This example from 1943 isn't the earliest, but it does make the meaning explicit. It's from Cyril Ward-Jackson's It's a piece of cake; or, R.A.F. slang made easy: "He's bought it, he is dead - that is, he has paid with his life." Specific references to 'the farm' come a little later. There are reports of the phrase being in use in the US military from 1955 onward. Here's a citation from 1963, in Ed Miller's Exile to the Stars: "The police dispatcher says a plane just bought the farm." There are a few suggested derivations for the phrase. One, put forward in a 1955 edition of American Speech, is the idea that when a jet crashes on a farm the farmer may sue the government for compensation. That would generate a large enough amount of money to pay off the farm's mortgage. Hence, the pilot paid for the farm with his life.
The second theory is that military men might dream of returning from the battlefront and settling down with a family to a peaceful life down on the farm. If someone were killed his colleagues might say, 'well, he bought the farm early', or similar. Well, yes they might, and there are numerous sentimental US films where dialogue like that wouldn't be out of place. That's not to say the phrase was coined that way though.
A third suggestion is the idea that, if a serviceman was killed in action, his family would receive a payout from the insurance that service personnel were issued with. This would be sufficient to pay off the family mortgage.
My twopenneth is on the last explanation but, given that we don't have the full evidence, that's just speculation."
Euphemisms seem to be used when people a) have difficulty speaking directly about subjects that might cause pain to the listener, b) can't face the concept of death themselves for their own reasons, c) assume that the custom, through whatever impetus, has set a social protocol which people are often relieved to follow. There may be other reasons such as the politically correct notions hold, I think, often incorrectly. Helping people face reality seems to me a better move towards fostering acceptance of an undeniable fact.
There are many more euphemisms for death, but in the interest of keeping each entry reasonably short, I will not detail them, only list some.
bite the dust (perhaps referring to the quote: ashes to ashes, dust to dust)
buy the box (coffin)
croaked (possibly referring to what is ;the death rattle' or other sound as vital organs stop working, lungs fill, or the body ceases to function as it should)
flatline (as in the first indication of brain death on a monitor)
going into the fertilizer business (about all the body can convert to for usefulness in death)
immortally challenged (in today's world of politically benign phrasing)
kicked the oxygen habit
left the building
living-impaired (another use of the trend to make potentially painful subjects as gentle-sounding as possiible)
pushing up daisies (no doubt this wild flower has covered many graves)
gone to sleep, sleeping (neglecting the lack of breathing that usually accompanies the state)
kick the bucket (this referred to the bucket on which one stood to hand themselves. There are some explanations to that effect with other speculations added)
passed , passed away (Whatever an ‘away’ is, it is assumed you have gone beyond it.)
gone to the great Beyond)
is with God, is in Heaven, is with the angels now, is with Jesus or whomever else you may be placed with according to your religious belief.
As the saying goes, the only sure things are death and taxes. Today most of us have little control of the degree to which either will touch our lives but, I firmly believe, both have to be faced directly and how one wishes to attend to them should be made clear.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
WHY GOVERNMENT RESEARCH IS SO IMPORTANT
The simple difference between governmental research and private company research is the freedom to be without conflict of interest. If you are doing research for a pharmaceutical company whose survival depends on profit, it is difficult to consider the researchers free of conflict of interest since it will add to their personal wealth in the long run by salary, bonus, longer life and security to the corporation, or whatever.
When GW Bush put personal religious beliefs before the medical survival of fellow human beings, it made clear how little he understood his mandate to do his best for American citizens as a whole. We listen to many non-scientists speak about how we don't need umbilical cord or neo-natal stem cells or cells from in vitro fertilized ovum which will likely be thrown away if not utilized. But, if you listen to the scientists doing the research, you understand that it closes the door on complete research. It would be inaccurate to say that no scientists are swayed by their own personal religious beliefs, either. Thus it is very difficult for the average layman to be able to reach objective conclusions...a problem with all the man-on-the-street interviews to which we are subjected when there is no news, for fill-in material since the media has to fill the air, presumably to keep the audience from flipping to another channel by which they would lose their place in the ratings.
Not only are we assaulted today and overwhelmed with stuff to read or absorb visually on TV, details to handle, etc. but we are inundated everywhere now that there is so much opportunity for people to express their opinions to an wide audience, with lots of things that sounds sensible but are probably not.
Bruce G. Charltona, The Corresponding Author, Editor-in-Chief wrote an editorial on: Invisible colleges, private patronage and commercial profits versus public goods, government funding and ‘crowding-out’: Terence Kealey on the motivations and incentives driving science. A summary of an article (the whole can be purchased online): "What kind of a thing is science and how does it work? [Kealey T. Sex, science and profits: In a recent book (Sex, science and profits: how people evolved to make money. London: William Heinemann; 2008) (p. 455)] Terence Kealey argues persuasively that the motivations driving science are widely misunderstood. Science is often assumed to be useful to the public but an economic loser for the scientist and his or her paymasters – in other words, science is supposed to be a ‘public good’. The public good argument is used to support large-scale government funding of science, on the basis that if government does not fund science it will not be funded adequately. But Kealey argues that most science is profitable to commercial organizations, and other types of worthwhile science will be supported by private patronage. Yet excessive government funding tends to ‘crowd-out’ potential private sources of funding – both by replacing and by deterring private investment. And scientists are not primarily motivated by money, but instead by striving for status within the ‘invisible college’ of active researchers in their field. Kealey’s take-home message is that overall and in the long-term, science neither requires nor benefits from government funding. Scientific research would be better-served by private funding from commercial organizations that are seeking profit, combined with patronage from charities and foundations that regard science as intrinsically valuable.What kind of a thing is science and how does it work? [Kealey T. Sex, science and profits: In a recent book (Sex, science and profits: how people evolved to make money. London: William Heinemann; 2008) (p. 455)] Terence Kealey argues persuasively that the motivations driving science are widely misunderstood. Science is often assumed to be useful to the public but an economic loser for the scientist and his or her paymasters – in other words, science is supposed to be a ‘public good’. The public good argument is used to support large-scale government funding of science, on the basis that if government does not fund science it will not be funded adequately. But Kealey argues that most science is profitable to commercial organizations, and other types of worthwhile science will be supported by private patronage. Yet excessive government funding tends to ‘crowd-out’ potential private sources of funding – both by replacing and by deterring private investment. And scientists are not primarily motivated by money, but instead by striving for status within the ‘invisible college’ of active researchers in their field. Kealey’s take-home message is that overall and in the long-term, science neither requires nor benefits from government funding. Scientific research would be better-served by private funding from commercial organizations that are seeking profit, combined with patronage from charities and foundations that regard science as intrinsically valuable."
When GW Bush put personal religious beliefs before the medical survival of fellow human beings, it made clear how little he understood his mandate to do his best for American citizens as a whole. We listen to many non-scientists speak about how we don't need umbilical cord or neo-natal stem cells or cells from in vitro fertilized ovum which will likely be thrown away if not utilized. But, if you listen to the scientists doing the research, you understand that it closes the door on complete research. It would be inaccurate to say that no scientists are swayed by their own personal religious beliefs, either. Thus it is very difficult for the average layman to be able to reach objective conclusions...a problem with all the man-on-the-street interviews to which we are subjected when there is no news, for fill-in material since the media has to fill the air, presumably to keep the audience from flipping to another channel by which they would lose their place in the ratings.
Not only are we assaulted today and overwhelmed with stuff to read or absorb visually on TV, details to handle, etc. but we are inundated everywhere now that there is so much opportunity for people to express their opinions to an wide audience, with lots of things that sounds sensible but are probably not.
Bruce G. Charltona, The Corresponding Author, Editor-in-Chief wrote an editorial on: Invisible colleges, private patronage and commercial profits versus public goods, government funding and ‘crowding-out’: Terence Kealey on the motivations and incentives driving science. A summary of an article (the whole can be purchased online): "What kind of a thing is science and how does it work? [Kealey T. Sex, science and profits: In a recent book (Sex, science and profits: how people evolved to make money. London: William Heinemann; 2008) (p. 455)] Terence Kealey argues persuasively that the motivations driving science are widely misunderstood. Science is often assumed to be useful to the public but an economic loser for the scientist and his or her paymasters – in other words, science is supposed to be a ‘public good’. The public good argument is used to support large-scale government funding of science, on the basis that if government does not fund science it will not be funded adequately. But Kealey argues that most science is profitable to commercial organizations, and other types of worthwhile science will be supported by private patronage. Yet excessive government funding tends to ‘crowd-out’ potential private sources of funding – both by replacing and by deterring private investment. And scientists are not primarily motivated by money, but instead by striving for status within the ‘invisible college’ of active researchers in their field. Kealey’s take-home message is that overall and in the long-term, science neither requires nor benefits from government funding. Scientific research would be better-served by private funding from commercial organizations that are seeking profit, combined with patronage from charities and foundations that regard science as intrinsically valuable.What kind of a thing is science and how does it work? [Kealey T. Sex, science and profits: In a recent book (Sex, science and profits: how people evolved to make money. London: William Heinemann; 2008) (p. 455)] Terence Kealey argues persuasively that the motivations driving science are widely misunderstood. Science is often assumed to be useful to the public but an economic loser for the scientist and his or her paymasters – in other words, science is supposed to be a ‘public good’. The public good argument is used to support large-scale government funding of science, on the basis that if government does not fund science it will not be funded adequately. But Kealey argues that most science is profitable to commercial organizations, and other types of worthwhile science will be supported by private patronage. Yet excessive government funding tends to ‘crowd-out’ potential private sources of funding – both by replacing and by deterring private investment. And scientists are not primarily motivated by money, but instead by striving for status within the ‘invisible college’ of active researchers in their field. Kealey’s take-home message is that overall and in the long-term, science neither requires nor benefits from government funding. Scientific research would be better-served by private funding from commercial organizations that are seeking profit, combined with patronage from charities and foundations that regard science as intrinsically valuable."
RUSH LIMBAUGH ASKS , "WHO IS RUNNING THE COUNTRY?"
As I was replacing batteries in the radio I keep for emergencies (if power should be lost), I recognized a familiar voice as the radio sparked into volume...Rush Limbaugh. Choking to control my gag reflex, I heard him take off on a negative, vitriolic, blast at Obama. He asks why Obama can never talk without a teleprompter. If I hadn't thought the man was ignorant before, that one sentence would have convinced me. Rush, of course, is not important enough to be speaking to millions on TV time that has to be carefully timed. He also must have no memory of the campaign in which Obama ad-libbed more than most of the memorized, canned speeches from most of the automatons running at the time. Further, he has not noted that the man is sticking to his campaign promises as closely as is possible in the current political and economic wars among the Legislature. USA Election Polls on 3/9/2009 state: Republicans Now Seen As A Leaderless Party
Tags: General (3/9) - Synopsis
68% of Republican voters say they have no clear leader. If Rush thinks he is going to make a leader for them, I think that would be extremely inappropriate of him.
Further, he went on to say that the Stimulus bill was not read by Obama. The high rating the citizens of the country give Obama does not reach this grandiose, narcissitic, over-confident blowhard. He accused Nancy Pelosi of having written it. I think he called it something that rhymed with Ridiculous Bill, probably taken as a take-off on Bill Maher's Religulous movie.
In honesty, I must admit, I had never voted for GW and it wasn't until he had made so many majority-harmful decisions like stopping government support for stem cell research, withdrawal of funds to African family clinics that offered family planning assistance (thus making sure that babies would be born to suffer malnutrition and illness for the few months of their life,impulsively starting a war that caused the deaths and ruined lives of millions, and other decisions which were destructive to so many. It was not the first time that someone came into office for whom I had not voted, but I considered myself intelligent enough to allow enough time in office to demonstrate why others thought he was worth the office. Though rare (she says with a blush), I have been known to be wrong in judging people. I wished that was true here but as books began to pop up like Bush's Brain and so many brilliant offerings on the blunders of the Bush Administration, I joined the throng of negative voices about the man, his history, and how he was running my country. Objectively, I have to stress I did not do it less than a month after he had come to office and had reinforcement of my criticisms to support my dislike of the man as my President.
Since Limbaugh represents no constituents and is not running for office, only for ratings to keep the station owners happy, he has little pressure on him. His oratory of lies carries him as though he speaks from the pulpit, so enthralled of him are some of his listeners.
Since Rush Limbaugh seems to rewrite history so often to suit any point he wishes to make, anyone who is aware of the truth does not view what he says as credible. His addiction to prescription drug abuse has not added to my wish to find him worthy of my respect or trust. that which worries me most of all is that so many, seemingly intelligent people, seem to reflect a faith similar that held for clergy for him. That this showman says there is no one heading the Republican party is visibly accurate. To say there is no one heading the Democratic party is a reflection of his inability to see reality, but that he fabricates for himself and passes on to confuse his already uninformed listeners.
Tags: General (3/9) - Synopsis
68% of Republican voters say they have no clear leader. If Rush thinks he is going to make a leader for them, I think that would be extremely inappropriate of him.
Further, he went on to say that the Stimulus bill was not read by Obama. The high rating the citizens of the country give Obama does not reach this grandiose, narcissitic, over-confident blowhard. He accused Nancy Pelosi of having written it. I think he called it something that rhymed with Ridiculous Bill, probably taken as a take-off on Bill Maher's Religulous movie.
In honesty, I must admit, I had never voted for GW and it wasn't until he had made so many majority-harmful decisions like stopping government support for stem cell research, withdrawal of funds to African family clinics that offered family planning assistance (thus making sure that babies would be born to suffer malnutrition and illness for the few months of their life,impulsively starting a war that caused the deaths and ruined lives of millions, and other decisions which were destructive to so many. It was not the first time that someone came into office for whom I had not voted, but I considered myself intelligent enough to allow enough time in office to demonstrate why others thought he was worth the office. Though rare (she says with a blush), I have been known to be wrong in judging people. I wished that was true here but as books began to pop up like Bush's Brain and so many brilliant offerings on the blunders of the Bush Administration, I joined the throng of negative voices about the man, his history, and how he was running my country. Objectively, I have to stress I did not do it less than a month after he had come to office and had reinforcement of my criticisms to support my dislike of the man as my President.
Since Limbaugh represents no constituents and is not running for office, only for ratings to keep the station owners happy, he has little pressure on him. His oratory of lies carries him as though he speaks from the pulpit, so enthralled of him are some of his listeners.
Since Rush Limbaugh seems to rewrite history so often to suit any point he wishes to make, anyone who is aware of the truth does not view what he says as credible. His addiction to prescription drug abuse has not added to my wish to find him worthy of my respect or trust. that which worries me most of all is that so many, seemingly intelligent people, seem to reflect a faith similar that held for clergy for him. That this showman says there is no one heading the Republican party is visibly accurate. To say there is no one heading the Democratic party is a reflection of his inability to see reality, but that he fabricates for himself and passes on to confuse his already uninformed listeners.
Monday, March 9, 2009
PROTECTING OUR VIRGIN FORESTS
Reading the headlines to this article: America's Love Affair with Really Soft Toilet Paper Is Causing an Environmental Catastrophe
By Tara Lohan, AlterNet. Posted February 27, 2009, really puzzled me. It seems that America is the leading cause of the demand for virgin tree forests being cut down, thus spiraling us as leaders on man-made causes to promoting Global Warming. This came somewhat as a surprise as I have been promising myself that the next time I buy a case of toilet paper it will not be the 1 ply, thousand sheet kind, that is like using waxed tissue paper, often without even the wax. I came to this conclusion after realizing that you have to use twice as much 1-ply, and and more squares because it falls apart on contact with any liquid.
Now I am conflicted. Will my use of 2-ply, softer toilet paper made the Arctic melt faster, thus coming down to shove the Gulf Stream further South, thus turning the UK and Europe back into an Ice Age. I who never feel guilt over anything began to perspire at the very thought that all that rain in Britain may be turned to snow just so that my rear will have a kinder and gentler wipe.
However, that paled next to the Greemnpeace Guide which suggests recycling tissue. Not seeing the meat that gets ground up into sausages assaults my imagination quite enough; recycling toilet paper??? Reading on in the Guide, it suggests: Reusable Cloth Products
"Greenpeace also recommends using reusable cloth hankies instead of facial tissues as using handkerchiefs further reduces our impact on ancient forests." No they can't be suggesting that we all go back to wearing diapers, can they? Oddly, nowhere did I find any instructions as to just what we should be recycling that makes TP. I assumed that if we are crass enough to waste virgin trees for soft TP, we are also wasting water flushing it down. On no! They can't mean we are to recycle the paper before we waste water flushing it away! I was once told a way to conserve TP is to use both sides and felt wasteful when I did not follow that suggestion.
Reading on, I began to feel a bit more comfortable because they use bleach, and we all know bleach will kill most anything and make it white again. I read: "Greenpeace used product labeling and direct verification of claims by the companies included in our Guide. In the few cases where companies did not respond to our request for verification of recycled content percentages and whitening processes used, we assumed 0% overall recycled, 0% post-consumer recycled and ECF bleaching." So now I know what they SHOULD be doing though, as I read it, not all people follow the rules.
Nearing total distress now, I study other options. They no longer make Sears and Roebuck catalogs, that was my first hope. Here in the snowy Northeast, there is not enough green leaved stuff out there long enough to make it a practical alternative. I remember what TP was like before someone DID invent some soft stuff...in fact it was such a joy to one man on TV he could not stop squeezing it. That was quite touching though I was never brought to that degree of fond expression, personally.
Alas, I have concluded since our town's recycling is but once a week, I will limit myself to recycling bottles, plastic, and cans. Since I get no newspapers I am limited to recycling shopping catalogs (which I really think cost more trees than TP but I can't check on that other than to say the volume of shopping catalogs and free coupons in my household, in a week, far exceeds the volume of TP used in all three bathrooms.
I'm left with an insurmountable puzzle. While I wish to keep our planet green, I still don't know what to recycle. It is a dilemma with which I will have to continue to struggle until an acceptable solution comes to me.
By Tara Lohan, AlterNet. Posted February 27, 2009, really puzzled me. It seems that America is the leading cause of the demand for virgin tree forests being cut down, thus spiraling us as leaders on man-made causes to promoting Global Warming. This came somewhat as a surprise as I have been promising myself that the next time I buy a case of toilet paper it will not be the 1 ply, thousand sheet kind, that is like using waxed tissue paper, often without even the wax. I came to this conclusion after realizing that you have to use twice as much 1-ply, and and more squares because it falls apart on contact with any liquid.
Now I am conflicted. Will my use of 2-ply, softer toilet paper made the Arctic melt faster, thus coming down to shove the Gulf Stream further South, thus turning the UK and Europe back into an Ice Age. I who never feel guilt over anything began to perspire at the very thought that all that rain in Britain may be turned to snow just so that my rear will have a kinder and gentler wipe.
However, that paled next to the Greemnpeace Guide which suggests recycling tissue. Not seeing the meat that gets ground up into sausages assaults my imagination quite enough; recycling toilet paper??? Reading on in the Guide, it suggests: Reusable Cloth Products
"Greenpeace also recommends using reusable cloth hankies instead of facial tissues as using handkerchiefs further reduces our impact on ancient forests." No they can't be suggesting that we all go back to wearing diapers, can they? Oddly, nowhere did I find any instructions as to just what we should be recycling that makes TP. I assumed that if we are crass enough to waste virgin trees for soft TP, we are also wasting water flushing it down. On no! They can't mean we are to recycle the paper before we waste water flushing it away! I was once told a way to conserve TP is to use both sides and felt wasteful when I did not follow that suggestion.
Reading on, I began to feel a bit more comfortable because they use bleach, and we all know bleach will kill most anything and make it white again. I read: "Greenpeace used product labeling and direct verification of claims by the companies included in our Guide. In the few cases where companies did not respond to our request for verification of recycled content percentages and whitening processes used, we assumed 0% overall recycled, 0% post-consumer recycled and ECF bleaching." So now I know what they SHOULD be doing though, as I read it, not all people follow the rules.
Nearing total distress now, I study other options. They no longer make Sears and Roebuck catalogs, that was my first hope. Here in the snowy Northeast, there is not enough green leaved stuff out there long enough to make it a practical alternative. I remember what TP was like before someone DID invent some soft stuff...in fact it was such a joy to one man on TV he could not stop squeezing it. That was quite touching though I was never brought to that degree of fond expression, personally.
Alas, I have concluded since our town's recycling is but once a week, I will limit myself to recycling bottles, plastic, and cans. Since I get no newspapers I am limited to recycling shopping catalogs (which I really think cost more trees than TP but I can't check on that other than to say the volume of shopping catalogs and free coupons in my household, in a week, far exceeds the volume of TP used in all three bathrooms.
I'm left with an insurmountable puzzle. While I wish to keep our planet green, I still don't know what to recycle. It is a dilemma with which I will have to continue to struggle until an acceptable solution comes to me.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
CATHOLIC CHURCH LOSES MORE RESPECT
The Vatican backed a Brazilian Bishop who excommunicated the doctor and mother of a 9 year old girl who had been sexually abused by her father for three years and was impregnated with twins. The church saw no reason why the twins weren't allowed to live, thinking nothing whatsoever of the life, physical and and mental health of that nine year old, when the mother and doctor saw that she was aborted this week.
The concept that a church can really believe that forcing a 9 year old child to bear twins to term is Godly is shocking. Preventing the child from going through childbirth (if she could even carry twins that far)would save, at least, a life that is already sentient. It also prevents the child from forever wondering what happened to the children to whom she gave birth and never being able to have anything that vaguely resembles a normal formative childhood and teen development. The hypocritical values of the church leave me mind boggled. What is most shocking to me is that the church has taken nothing from the research finding in this century, either physical or psychological, that allows them to speak medically or therapeutically in any way for this child. Excommunication means nothing when it is done by man who cannot speak for a God, even if there is one. If there is decision to be made of Paradise or eternal punishment in Hell, it will not be made by a Brazilian Bishop, I'm reasonably confident about.
However, Amnesty International defies the stance of the Catholic Church in prohibiting abortion as the product of a rape. It is my belief that the Church has backed itself into an archaic corner. Much of what it is selling is like ice cubes to residents of the Arctic in mid-Winter.
The priests may have religious training but they are not living in the 21st C. If the Church is to survive and continue to be useful to anyone, it must do what the rest of the world has had to do....move to be current in our religious as well as secular life.
The concept that a church can really believe that forcing a 9 year old child to bear twins to term is Godly is shocking. Preventing the child from going through childbirth (if she could even carry twins that far)would save, at least, a life that is already sentient. It also prevents the child from forever wondering what happened to the children to whom she gave birth and never being able to have anything that vaguely resembles a normal formative childhood and teen development. The hypocritical values of the church leave me mind boggled. What is most shocking to me is that the church has taken nothing from the research finding in this century, either physical or psychological, that allows them to speak medically or therapeutically in any way for this child. Excommunication means nothing when it is done by man who cannot speak for a God, even if there is one. If there is decision to be made of Paradise or eternal punishment in Hell, it will not be made by a Brazilian Bishop, I'm reasonably confident about.
However, Amnesty International defies the stance of the Catholic Church in prohibiting abortion as the product of a rape. It is my belief that the Church has backed itself into an archaic corner. Much of what it is selling is like ice cubes to residents of the Arctic in mid-Winter.
The priests may have religious training but they are not living in the 21st C. If the Church is to survive and continue to be useful to anyone, it must do what the rest of the world has had to do....move to be current in our religious as well as secular life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)