It’s that time of year. Here in the Lehigh Valley, and everywhere in America, countless thousands of young people will or have graduated from high school or college.
Many, if not most of them will breathe a sigh of relief. Exams are over, and there is no more studying to be done.
Or is there?
I’m not sure when exactly it happens, but by the time most of us have made it through school, we’ve picked up the idea that thinking is work—hard work—and is therefore something to be avoided.
Where this starts is not difficult to figure out. Though well intentioned, how many times do teachers, especially grammar school ones, tell their students to “think hard”?
Study is something we have to work hard at, we are told, over and over, and the message is repeated when we’re told to “work hard and get good grades.”
It is true enough that assigned scholarly tasks, ones we may not have chosen ourselves and may have little interest in, do indeed have the flavor of “work”—that is to say, learning something one does not want to, but does need to, is usually a bit onerous. And it can be frustrating. After all, it seems effortless to learn skills we’re eager to acquire.
But so many of the things we must gain knowledge about, either to get along in the world, or to get those good marks that are the keys to a “good future” are not on the list of what is utterly fascinating to us personally.
After 12 or more years of the “thinking is hard work” message, it seems that for most people it sinks in, sadly.
The message that thinking is hard work to be avoided is echoed throughout our adult lives by many, many media messages, particularly advertising.
If you don’t believe me, think (gently, don’t “work” at it) about it. Can you name any product that advertises itself as being difficult to use, or actually requiring thought?
Most products, particularly “new and improved” ones, carry the advertising message that says, “It’s so easy, you don’t even have to think about it.” I even once saw an ad for dishwasher detergent in ‘pods’ when this inane product was first introduced that said as much. Quite literally, the message from the ditzy blonde hired to push this stupidity was: “This is so easy, I don’t even have to think about whether I’ve put in the right amount.”
Wait a minute!!! Has thinking become such a chore that determining the right amount of dishwashing detergent to put in the machine is difficult? Does throwing in a “pod” really improve the quality of most dishwasher owners’ lives that much, saving them from the dreaded prospect of actually thinking about what one is doing?
If so, in my humble opinion, that is downright pathetic.
Once upon a time, each of us was young, very young, and the world was a new, fascinating place that we discovered something about every day. While there were definitely frustrations, often leading to tantrums and tears, there were also moments of incredible insight, those “AHA!” moments. Maybe you even remember one of those moments.
Unfortunately, it is rare that usual school subjects lead to that kind of satisfaction (except for the class valedictorian), but that doesn’t mean real satisfaction is unattainable. The things that really interest us, if pursued, can and do provide a lasting contentment, as well as “AHA!” moments and lasting contentment, things those who eschew deep thought will never know.
“Easy” may not be so easy in the end. “Easy” never leads to insight and often leads to boredom and discontentment. “Easy” does not build skills; it makes one more dependent on the purveyor of whatever it is, usually at a more exorbitant price, that have been “improved” to be so easy you don’t even have to think about it. And if one gets too into “easy,” one may find oneself so out of the habit of thought, that
Most things in life that are worth having are not easy things—they require work. But when it comes to thinking—that is, thinking things through, thoroughly—if the subject matter is interesting, it doesn’t really feel that way unless we’ve decided that any and all thought is, indeed, work.
So whether you graduated last week, or last decade, it might just be time to shed the idea that thinking is hard work, and instead remember how exhilarating it was when we were small, before the message of “this isn’t supposed to be fun” sunk in.
After all, you’re out of school now, and no one is telling you what to study. But study something, everyone should—just make sure it’s something you like, and you’ll be an expert in that field before you know it. Not to mention smarter than nearly everyone else, because you’ll know once again, that thinking is not hard work, not when you’re thinking for yourself.
It’s exhilarating.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Artificially inflated gasoline prices are inappropriate during holiday
Due to an ongoing family emergency, I’ve been driving a lot lately, and I can’t help but notice the price of gasoline.
This past weekend I had occasion to both make several trips to central New Jersey and also attend two Memorial Day events.
On the surface, it would seem these two things bear little connection with one another. But I noticed something that has been bothering me since this weekend, something I’ve not seen the pundits take note of.
This weekend, as it does every weekend, and especially on a holiday weekend, gasoline prices rose.
While this is not entirely unexpected, as I watched veterans and their families, along with “civilian” members of the public honor the sacrifices of those who have served in our armed services. Many of those sacrifices have been of life, as well as limb.
It may seem a lifetime ago, but just a few short years ago, I very clearly remember seeing war protesters with signs that said, “No blood for oil.” The slogan also became a bumper sticker.
We were assured by the current president and his administration that the conflict in Iraq is not about oil. I have to say, in the face of current gas prices, coupled with some very suspicious fluctuations (always on a holiday or a weekend, when many people have a need or a tendency to travel), I actually agree. This war was not about oil—it was about profits.
Not too long ago, I read a national news article that estimated our current vice president, Dick Cheney, makes about $22,000 per day from oil stock dividends and related income. This figure did not include other war profits one would be reasonably certain would be forthcoming (not to mention increasing) from being a stockholder in companies such as Halliburton that profit from the sale of armaments and military equipment.
Such a figure would arguably make one wonder how much our president, George W. Bush, would profit from increased oil prices. After all, that is the empire that made his family rich in the first place—along with holdings in military contracting companies. But, alas, that figure was not to be had. The very well researched and fact-checked article I read could not come up with an accurate figure. The reason given was that Bush’s holdings are so intertwined with the rest of the Bush family holdings that the author felt it was impossible to be able to estimate the amount—but that it was likely several times the amount Cheney receives in war profits.
The more I think about this, the more disgusted I become.
As companies like Texaco, Exxon and Chevron unabashedly inflate prices and proudly post record profits, our U.S. service men and women put it all on the line daily—and they are dying daily.
So, this weekend, as gas prices rose, so did my temper. It is a poor excuse to blame the war—after all, it is the same oil, the same refineries and the same pipelines that carry that petroleum to us. The only thing that’s changed is the price—and someone, very likely our elected officials and their oil company PAC cronies, is laughing all the way to the bank, all the while explaining to the American public, with their bare faces hanging out, that this is the consequence of war, a war they refuse to even consider ending.
Okay, so there’s a lot of money at stake, you say. But how many people would you kill for a few million, or even billion, dollars? Is there some amount of money, a minimum amount, say, that makes getting people killed so one can get richer (or richer) okay? Isn’t this the very definition of evil? And assuming one is actually that depraved to buy into that sort of thinking, that this is somehow okay, when does it end?
But either way, during a time reserved to reflect on the sacrifices of American service people, literally, our fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters, who have died and will continue to die until this current war is ended—Memorial Day weekend—it is especially pernicious to jack gas prices just to make an extra buck.
It’s enough to make one wish for instant karma.
This past weekend I had occasion to both make several trips to central New Jersey and also attend two Memorial Day events.
On the surface, it would seem these two things bear little connection with one another. But I noticed something that has been bothering me since this weekend, something I’ve not seen the pundits take note of.
This weekend, as it does every weekend, and especially on a holiday weekend, gasoline prices rose.
While this is not entirely unexpected, as I watched veterans and their families, along with “civilian” members of the public honor the sacrifices of those who have served in our armed services. Many of those sacrifices have been of life, as well as limb.
It may seem a lifetime ago, but just a few short years ago, I very clearly remember seeing war protesters with signs that said, “No blood for oil.” The slogan also became a bumper sticker.
We were assured by the current president and his administration that the conflict in Iraq is not about oil. I have to say, in the face of current gas prices, coupled with some very suspicious fluctuations (always on a holiday or a weekend, when many people have a need or a tendency to travel), I actually agree. This war was not about oil—it was about profits.
Not too long ago, I read a national news article that estimated our current vice president, Dick Cheney, makes about $22,000 per day from oil stock dividends and related income. This figure did not include other war profits one would be reasonably certain would be forthcoming (not to mention increasing) from being a stockholder in companies such as Halliburton that profit from the sale of armaments and military equipment.
Such a figure would arguably make one wonder how much our president, George W. Bush, would profit from increased oil prices. After all, that is the empire that made his family rich in the first place—along with holdings in military contracting companies. But, alas, that figure was not to be had. The very well researched and fact-checked article I read could not come up with an accurate figure. The reason given was that Bush’s holdings are so intertwined with the rest of the Bush family holdings that the author felt it was impossible to be able to estimate the amount—but that it was likely several times the amount Cheney receives in war profits.
The more I think about this, the more disgusted I become.
As companies like Texaco, Exxon and Chevron unabashedly inflate prices and proudly post record profits, our U.S. service men and women put it all on the line daily—and they are dying daily.
So, this weekend, as gas prices rose, so did my temper. It is a poor excuse to blame the war—after all, it is the same oil, the same refineries and the same pipelines that carry that petroleum to us. The only thing that’s changed is the price—and someone, very likely our elected officials and their oil company PAC cronies, is laughing all the way to the bank, all the while explaining to the American public, with their bare faces hanging out, that this is the consequence of war, a war they refuse to even consider ending.
Okay, so there’s a lot of money at stake, you say. But how many people would you kill for a few million, or even billion, dollars? Is there some amount of money, a minimum amount, say, that makes getting people killed so one can get richer (or richer) okay? Isn’t this the very definition of evil? And assuming one is actually that depraved to buy into that sort of thinking, that this is somehow okay, when does it end?
But either way, during a time reserved to reflect on the sacrifices of American service people, literally, our fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters, who have died and will continue to die until this current war is ended—Memorial Day weekend—it is especially pernicious to jack gas prices just to make an extra buck.
It’s enough to make one wish for instant karma.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Whatever happened to all those silly summer pop tunes?
It’s that time of year. You know the moment when it hits. The sun is shining and the breeze is warm. You’re in the car, the windows are down, and that song, one you haven’t heard in forever, comes on the radio. And, all of a sudden, life is very good.
But what ever happened to those silly pop tunes? Granted, at the time, an awful lot of them seemed really annoying. There would always be some tune that got played incessantly, and it would usually be the most inane thing out there.
But it struck me recently that there really are no more new happy, mindless tunes to hum along to on the radio. Unless you actually like the very narrow list of old hits that get played endlessly on the canned, preprogrammed digital loops that pass for radio these days, you are out of luck.
I found myself pondering the death of good pop over a microbrew at one of my favorite Easton establishments recently. The bar’s house CD player, which holds about 100 of the owner’s picks, shuffled to a song I haven’t heard since I was in grade school—“Mr. Blue Sky” by the Electric Light Orchestra.
It had been so long since I’d heard it, I wasn’t sure I was really hearing it, and I wasn’t even sure at first it really was ELO, despite the distinctive sound.
But the experience hit a nerve, and I went out and bought a “best of” CD. While I was at it, I stumbled over Yes’ 90125 album, which was popular when I was in high school.
Okay, so I’m dating myself here. Both bands and albums are ancient history, right?
Yup, it’s true. But I’ve noticed something interesting while I’ve been basking in the complex vocal harmonies and sounds of analog synthesizers of yesteryear.
This music is actually designed to put one in a good mood. And it succeeds admirably, which is why it was so popular in the first place, even if it has been buried by Clear Channel today.
This is a concept that is missing from most of the currently popular stuff I hear on TV and the radio. While some of the best of today’s music is designed to make one think, TV and radio don’t generally play what I consider to be the best, and the message is more than just generally negative—it’s downright toxic.
I started to think even more about it, and I tried to remember the last popular, relatively new tune I’ve heard on the radio that specifically makes me feel good.
The most recent I came up with was “Give a Little Bit.” But interestingly enough, it’s a remake of a “silly pop tune” written by Supertramp in the 1970s.
So I thought a little bit more. The closest thing I could come up with was a few Green Day tunes, but much as I like them, they really don’t qualify because they’re cynical, even if the melodies are relatively happy.
I still can’t trace back exactly when the last time I heard a new purely “feel good” pop song is, but I think it may go back to the beginning of the war in Iraq, if not even before that. But really, can you think of any new, original hits with a positive tone that have come out since 9/11?
They may have been headed out for even longer than that. Silly pop tunes are by nature happy, bubbly creatures, but the world is pretty far from that mentality right now.
However, it may be just what we need. I’ve been playing that ELO CD in my car a lot lately, and it’s been pretty nice out. You know, the weather’s fine, the breeze is warm and the windows are down most of the time. And, as I drive by, I have noticed that the music makes just about everyone smile, just like it was written to, three decades ago.
“Sun is shining in the sky
There ain't a cloud in sight
it's stopped raining
Everybody's in the play
And don't you know it's a beautiful new day, Hey-hey
Running down the avenue
See how the sun shines brightly
In the city
On the streets where once was pity
Mr. Blue Sky is living here today, Hey-hey
Mr. Blue Sky,
please tell us why,
you had to hide away for so long,
Where did we go wrong?”
—“Mr. Blue Sky,” by Jeff Lynne of the Electric Light Orchestra
But what ever happened to those silly pop tunes? Granted, at the time, an awful lot of them seemed really annoying. There would always be some tune that got played incessantly, and it would usually be the most inane thing out there.
But it struck me recently that there really are no more new happy, mindless tunes to hum along to on the radio. Unless you actually like the very narrow list of old hits that get played endlessly on the canned, preprogrammed digital loops that pass for radio these days, you are out of luck.
I found myself pondering the death of good pop over a microbrew at one of my favorite Easton establishments recently. The bar’s house CD player, which holds about 100 of the owner’s picks, shuffled to a song I haven’t heard since I was in grade school—“Mr. Blue Sky” by the Electric Light Orchestra.
It had been so long since I’d heard it, I wasn’t sure I was really hearing it, and I wasn’t even sure at first it really was ELO, despite the distinctive sound.
But the experience hit a nerve, and I went out and bought a “best of” CD. While I was at it, I stumbled over Yes’ 90125 album, which was popular when I was in high school.
Okay, so I’m dating myself here. Both bands and albums are ancient history, right?
Yup, it’s true. But I’ve noticed something interesting while I’ve been basking in the complex vocal harmonies and sounds of analog synthesizers of yesteryear.
This music is actually designed to put one in a good mood. And it succeeds admirably, which is why it was so popular in the first place, even if it has been buried by Clear Channel today.
This is a concept that is missing from most of the currently popular stuff I hear on TV and the radio. While some of the best of today’s music is designed to make one think, TV and radio don’t generally play what I consider to be the best, and the message is more than just generally negative—it’s downright toxic.
I started to think even more about it, and I tried to remember the last popular, relatively new tune I’ve heard on the radio that specifically makes me feel good.
The most recent I came up with was “Give a Little Bit.” But interestingly enough, it’s a remake of a “silly pop tune” written by Supertramp in the 1970s.
So I thought a little bit more. The closest thing I could come up with was a few Green Day tunes, but much as I like them, they really don’t qualify because they’re cynical, even if the melodies are relatively happy.
I still can’t trace back exactly when the last time I heard a new purely “feel good” pop song is, but I think it may go back to the beginning of the war in Iraq, if not even before that. But really, can you think of any new, original hits with a positive tone that have come out since 9/11?
They may have been headed out for even longer than that. Silly pop tunes are by nature happy, bubbly creatures, but the world is pretty far from that mentality right now.
However, it may be just what we need. I’ve been playing that ELO CD in my car a lot lately, and it’s been pretty nice out. You know, the weather’s fine, the breeze is warm and the windows are down most of the time. And, as I drive by, I have noticed that the music makes just about everyone smile, just like it was written to, three decades ago.
“Sun is shining in the sky
There ain't a cloud in sight
it's stopped raining
Everybody's in the play
And don't you know it's a beautiful new day, Hey-hey
Running down the avenue
See how the sun shines brightly
In the city
On the streets where once was pity
Mr. Blue Sky is living here today, Hey-hey
Mr. Blue Sky,
please tell us why,
you had to hide away for so long,
Where did we go wrong?”
—“Mr. Blue Sky,” by Jeff Lynne of the Electric Light Orchestra
Monday, May 21, 2007
What really happened to electric cars?
“It’s like waking up every morning with a full tank of gas—except that it’s not gas.”—an EV1 driver
“What the detractors and the critics of electric vehicles have been saying for years in true. The electric vehicle is not for everybody. Given the limited range, it can only meet the needs of 90 percent of the population.”—EV1 driver Ed Begley Jr.
You may have heard a little about the concept of electric cars. You may have also heard that they are not practical, that there were problems with batteries being able to store enough energy.
That may have once been true, but viable electric cars have been around since cars were first introduced. In fact, about a hundred years ago, there were more electric cars on American roads than gasoline-powered ones.
Modern electric cars were introduced in California in 1996. The state had introduced the Zero Emission Vehicle mandate in 1990. Since automakers had already been developing electric car technology and California had been working towards an electric car charge-up infrastructure, initially, the idea seemed to work well.
Ford’s Saturn division first introduced the EV1 in the late 1990s, an entirely electrically powered vehicle. While in just a few months, thousands of people signed up on a waiting list to lease the vehicles—they were never offered for outright sale—in the end only about 800 EV1s were actually made, and the competition for those vehicles was high. Mel Gibson, who eventually was able to lease one of the vehicles, had to fill out a detailed questionnaire to prove he was a worthy candidate. Sales representatives were required to get permission to lease the vehicles they were supposedly trying to “sell.”
When first introduced, the EV1 held a charge that was good for about 75 miles. But interestingly enough, GM didn’t use the best technology available, even though it was reasonably affordable. The first EV1s utilized standard acid-lead batteries manufactured by AC Delco, a GM subsidiary, even though GM had purchased superior nickel-hydride technology for the project, which would allow a charge to take the car about 125 miles. But this technology was not utilized until later, and when it looked like it might actually succeed, the technology was sold to Chevron Texaco.
In 2001, California was sued by car manufacturers for its zero emission law, and the federal government, led by our current president, George W. Bush, joined the suit against California. Interestingly enough, the White House Chief of Staff at the time was Andrew Card, former vice president of GM and president and CEO of the American Auto Manufacturers.
Meanwhile, supposed grass-roots organizations that were lobbying against an electrical charging station infrastructure in California were exposed to be funded by the oil industry.
Eventually, in April of 2003, while war raged in Iraq, California killed its zero emissions mandate.
GM and other manufacturers of electric vehicles immediately took action—they began recalling leased electric vehicles.
Nearly every electric car was available only for lease, not purchase, and lessors were not allowed to buy or re-lease their vehicles, despite the fact that many tried. Complaints from customers fell on deaf ears.
The fleet of EV1s was collected by GM and taken off the road. Research and photos gathered by electric car enthusiasts and activists indicate that nearly without exception, the EV1 fleet was systematically crushed, shredded and dumped in a landfill. Similar electric vehicles, including the Ford Think, Toyota’s Rav EV series and Honda electric vehicles were similarly gathered and similarly destroyed.
In a number of California cities, protests were held, and activists and EV drivers even staged a funeral. Even local officials attended, as many were EV drivers and supporters, including Los Angeles City Council President Eric Garcetti and California State Senator Alan S. Leventhal, both of whom were EV1 drivers and enthusiasts.
None of this is ancient history—the calculated fall of electric vehicles has taken place in just the last few years, all during the war in Iraq. The destroyed electric cars were still only a few years old, and they were mechanically sound. People wanted to drive them, and in fact, EV1 drivers and activists offered GM $1.9 million to buy out the leases on the last remaining 78 vehicles. GM never responded and destroyed the cars.
So what was the real motivation behind the destruction of the EVs? There are a lot of answers and nearly all of them lead back to big oil.
But I think the problem is a little larger, if you can believe that. See, you generally charge up an EV at home—you just plug it in and it charges overnight, at an equivalent cost of about 60 cents a “gallon.” Enterprising homeowners in appropriate geographical locations could even use solar or wind power to supplement their charging. This “autonomy,” not being dependent on big oil or big corporations, combined with the possibility of using an actual renewable power source is what really irks big oil and car manufacturers.
Also, electric vehicles do not depend on the internal combustion engine, a device that requires a lot of costly parts and maintenance, which means further “lost” profits for those companies. Electric cars don’t require oil changes, catalytic converters, or even an exhaust system, since they do not produce exhaust. They even require less brake maintenance, since the car automatically brakes itself to an extent when one ceases to apply pressure to the accelerator.
Each gallon of gasoline burned produces 19 pounds of carbon dioxide. Existing electrical plants supply the power for EVs, and even coal-fired plants provide a better efficiency than current gasoline-powered vehicles, especially since pollution created by power-plants can be controlled and collected at the source, as opposed to being released everywhere one’s car goes.
In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush proudly said that his administration was working towards alternative fuel technologies, particularly hydrogen fuel cell technology. But there are still major problems with this concept, and a working fleet of vehicles is still well over a decade away. In addition, hydrogen vehicles will never allow the consumer to fuel up at home—a large infrastructure of at least 20,000 to 30,000 hydrogen filling stations will be needed before these vehicles will be viable.
Meanwhile, oil companies continue to profit. Gasoline prices in the Lehigh Valley hover around $3 per gallon. In 2003, oil company profits were about $33 billion. In 2004, profits were approximately $47 billion, and in 2005, they were $64 billion.
Clearly, some people have monetary incentive to keep the status quo, no matter what the cost to the rest of us, or the planet we live on and call home.
Clean, quiet, fast (EVs can generally do 0 to 60 miles per hour in under 4 seconds), non-polluting technology that is not dependent on foreign oil exists—and was literally shredded less than five years ago. While an unjust war based on lies over oil rages in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter, I cannot think of a more unwise move, nor one that was less moral.
To find out more about the rise and fall of electric vehicles, see the documentary, “Who Killed the Electric Car?” or go to www.whokilledtheelectriccarmovie.com
Christina Georgiou is the editor of The Easton News. She is currently on extended leave due to a family emergency, but can be reached at cgeorgiou@lehighvalleynewsgroup.com.
“What the detractors and the critics of electric vehicles have been saying for years in true. The electric vehicle is not for everybody. Given the limited range, it can only meet the needs of 90 percent of the population.”—EV1 driver Ed Begley Jr.
You may have heard a little about the concept of electric cars. You may have also heard that they are not practical, that there were problems with batteries being able to store enough energy.
That may have once been true, but viable electric cars have been around since cars were first introduced. In fact, about a hundred years ago, there were more electric cars on American roads than gasoline-powered ones.
Modern electric cars were introduced in California in 1996. The state had introduced the Zero Emission Vehicle mandate in 1990. Since automakers had already been developing electric car technology and California had been working towards an electric car charge-up infrastructure, initially, the idea seemed to work well.
Ford’s Saturn division first introduced the EV1 in the late 1990s, an entirely electrically powered vehicle. While in just a few months, thousands of people signed up on a waiting list to lease the vehicles—they were never offered for outright sale—in the end only about 800 EV1s were actually made, and the competition for those vehicles was high. Mel Gibson, who eventually was able to lease one of the vehicles, had to fill out a detailed questionnaire to prove he was a worthy candidate. Sales representatives were required to get permission to lease the vehicles they were supposedly trying to “sell.”
When first introduced, the EV1 held a charge that was good for about 75 miles. But interestingly enough, GM didn’t use the best technology available, even though it was reasonably affordable. The first EV1s utilized standard acid-lead batteries manufactured by AC Delco, a GM subsidiary, even though GM had purchased superior nickel-hydride technology for the project, which would allow a charge to take the car about 125 miles. But this technology was not utilized until later, and when it looked like it might actually succeed, the technology was sold to Chevron Texaco.
In 2001, California was sued by car manufacturers for its zero emission law, and the federal government, led by our current president, George W. Bush, joined the suit against California. Interestingly enough, the White House Chief of Staff at the time was Andrew Card, former vice president of GM and president and CEO of the American Auto Manufacturers.
Meanwhile, supposed grass-roots organizations that were lobbying against an electrical charging station infrastructure in California were exposed to be funded by the oil industry.
Eventually, in April of 2003, while war raged in Iraq, California killed its zero emissions mandate.
GM and other manufacturers of electric vehicles immediately took action—they began recalling leased electric vehicles.
Nearly every electric car was available only for lease, not purchase, and lessors were not allowed to buy or re-lease their vehicles, despite the fact that many tried. Complaints from customers fell on deaf ears.
The fleet of EV1s was collected by GM and taken off the road. Research and photos gathered by electric car enthusiasts and activists indicate that nearly without exception, the EV1 fleet was systematically crushed, shredded and dumped in a landfill. Similar electric vehicles, including the Ford Think, Toyota’s Rav EV series and Honda electric vehicles were similarly gathered and similarly destroyed.
In a number of California cities, protests were held, and activists and EV drivers even staged a funeral. Even local officials attended, as many were EV drivers and supporters, including Los Angeles City Council President Eric Garcetti and California State Senator Alan S. Leventhal, both of whom were EV1 drivers and enthusiasts.
None of this is ancient history—the calculated fall of electric vehicles has taken place in just the last few years, all during the war in Iraq. The destroyed electric cars were still only a few years old, and they were mechanically sound. People wanted to drive them, and in fact, EV1 drivers and activists offered GM $1.9 million to buy out the leases on the last remaining 78 vehicles. GM never responded and destroyed the cars.
So what was the real motivation behind the destruction of the EVs? There are a lot of answers and nearly all of them lead back to big oil.
But I think the problem is a little larger, if you can believe that. See, you generally charge up an EV at home—you just plug it in and it charges overnight, at an equivalent cost of about 60 cents a “gallon.” Enterprising homeowners in appropriate geographical locations could even use solar or wind power to supplement their charging. This “autonomy,” not being dependent on big oil or big corporations, combined with the possibility of using an actual renewable power source is what really irks big oil and car manufacturers.
Also, electric vehicles do not depend on the internal combustion engine, a device that requires a lot of costly parts and maintenance, which means further “lost” profits for those companies. Electric cars don’t require oil changes, catalytic converters, or even an exhaust system, since they do not produce exhaust. They even require less brake maintenance, since the car automatically brakes itself to an extent when one ceases to apply pressure to the accelerator.
Each gallon of gasoline burned produces 19 pounds of carbon dioxide. Existing electrical plants supply the power for EVs, and even coal-fired plants provide a better efficiency than current gasoline-powered vehicles, especially since pollution created by power-plants can be controlled and collected at the source, as opposed to being released everywhere one’s car goes.
In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush proudly said that his administration was working towards alternative fuel technologies, particularly hydrogen fuel cell technology. But there are still major problems with this concept, and a working fleet of vehicles is still well over a decade away. In addition, hydrogen vehicles will never allow the consumer to fuel up at home—a large infrastructure of at least 20,000 to 30,000 hydrogen filling stations will be needed before these vehicles will be viable.
Meanwhile, oil companies continue to profit. Gasoline prices in the Lehigh Valley hover around $3 per gallon. In 2003, oil company profits were about $33 billion. In 2004, profits were approximately $47 billion, and in 2005, they were $64 billion.
Clearly, some people have monetary incentive to keep the status quo, no matter what the cost to the rest of us, or the planet we live on and call home.
Clean, quiet, fast (EVs can generally do 0 to 60 miles per hour in under 4 seconds), non-polluting technology that is not dependent on foreign oil exists—and was literally shredded less than five years ago. While an unjust war based on lies over oil rages in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter, I cannot think of a more unwise move, nor one that was less moral.
To find out more about the rise and fall of electric vehicles, see the documentary, “Who Killed the Electric Car?” or go to www.whokilledtheelectriccarmovie.com
Christina Georgiou is the editor of The Easton News. She is currently on extended leave due to a family emergency, but can be reached at cgeorgiou@lehighvalleynewsgroup.com.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
God’s self-appointed sales crew and other nuisances of modern living
So I’m at home at my desk writing one Monday afternoon recently, and the doorbell rings. Not once, but a whole bunch of times in a row, hard, like it’s really urgent—a delivery guy who has no time to wait, or an actual emergency.
I’m not expecting anyone, and it’s never a good idea to just buzz someone into the building, so I grab shoes and keys and bolt down two flights of stairs to see who it is, only to find no one there.
I step outside and look up and down the block. Maybe it was the postal carrier and something needs to be signed for. I see no one.
Just as I’m giving up and going back in, a woman, accompanied by two men, comes out of the hair salon downstairs from me, and says, “Oh, there you are. I just rang your doorbell.”
“Yes, I heard you. That’s why I tried to answer the door,” I say. “Can I help you?”
“I just wanted to tell you about the Bible,” she says, smiling, taking a step forward.
The look on my face stopped her cold.
“You dragged me down two flights of stairs in the middle of my work day to tell me about the Bible? You’re kidding, right? I’m a Greek news editor—I promise, we’ve heard about the New Testament,” I tell her.
She takes not one, but two steps back.
“And by the way,” I continue, “if God is up in heaven, then I was definitely closer to Him a few minutes ago, when I was still working peacefully in my apartment on the third floor.”
I turned and headed back inside, but I’d swear I saw all three raincoated (why do door-to-door missionaries always seem to wear suits and raincoats? It may be mean to say, but I always wonder if it’s because they want to be prepared in case of an unexpected rain of frogs...) figures actually running away before I firmly slammed the door.
_______
It’s approaching dinnertime on a weeknight, and the phone rings.
“Hello,” I answer, in the customary, time-honored fashion.
“Hi, this is Danny from TruGreen Chemlawn. How are you this evening?” says an eager voice on the phone.
“Lawnless,” I answer, deadpan.
This is apparently a new one on Danny. He loses his rhythm. “What?’ Danny stammers.
“Lawnless. I live in a third-story city apartment, and I don’t have a lawn,” I explain.
This is apparently exactly the right thing to say, because he tells me he is very sorry for bothering me and hangs up before I can utter another syllable.
I bet I never hear from Danny again.
Yea! I win.
_________
Again, the phone rings. (I am beginning to develop an unconscious habit of flinching when the phone rings at certain times of day...)
“Hi, this is Ed from Soandso Marketing in Somewhere, Virginia. I’m looking for William.”
Yes! They are not a marketing company looking for me. I can tell them they have the wrong number and be rid of them.
“Sorry, you have the wrong number,” I say. “There’s no William here and never has been.”
“Well, is this 610-555-9999?,” he asks.
“Yes,” I say, repeating, “And there’s no one named William here, and there never has been.”
“Well, that’s okay, because we really just wanted the number,” he tells me.
Internally, I groan. Great. Telemarketers have somehow figured out yet another way to bug the ever-living tar out of us all by calling and pretending to look for someone who doesn’t exist.
“What for? And what are you selling?” I ask warily.
“We wanted to inform you that you have been entered in our dream prize sweepstakes.”
“Great,” I reply. “And just how would you know what my dreams are? More to the point, what are you selling?” (I’m amazed at how many times one has to repeat oneself with these folks. Maybe because they are forced to repetitively say the same thing, they don’t hear incoming data until it’s been repeated several times?)
“We have a bunch of prizes. One of them must fulfill one of your dreams,” he tells me.
I think this is rather presumptuous and tell him so.
He tells me my dreams must be rather special, why don’t I tell him about them?
EWWW!! This is getting far too touchy-feely for me. A telemarketing stranger calls up and wants to know my dreams? Why do I even answer the phone?
I tell him he’s dreaming if he thinks I’m going to tell him my dreams and could he get to the point already please, before I’m forced by sanity’s dictates to hang up the phone and end the conversation?
Get this—he tells me that’s it. I’ve been informed I’ve been entered.
I’m not sure that’s the case, since I didn’t give any real information about me other than that I am not William.
In what contest, for what supposed prize, I still don’t know. And I don’t care.
Because the day I really win, I will know it. It will be a day when no one contacts me needlessly, trying to parasitically waste my time or try to sell me something I don’t want or need.
I’m not expecting anyone, and it’s never a good idea to just buzz someone into the building, so I grab shoes and keys and bolt down two flights of stairs to see who it is, only to find no one there.
I step outside and look up and down the block. Maybe it was the postal carrier and something needs to be signed for. I see no one.
Just as I’m giving up and going back in, a woman, accompanied by two men, comes out of the hair salon downstairs from me, and says, “Oh, there you are. I just rang your doorbell.”
“Yes, I heard you. That’s why I tried to answer the door,” I say. “Can I help you?”
“I just wanted to tell you about the Bible,” she says, smiling, taking a step forward.
The look on my face stopped her cold.
“You dragged me down two flights of stairs in the middle of my work day to tell me about the Bible? You’re kidding, right? I’m a Greek news editor—I promise, we’ve heard about the New Testament,” I tell her.
She takes not one, but two steps back.
“And by the way,” I continue, “if God is up in heaven, then I was definitely closer to Him a few minutes ago, when I was still working peacefully in my apartment on the third floor.”
I turned and headed back inside, but I’d swear I saw all three raincoated (why do door-to-door missionaries always seem to wear suits and raincoats? It may be mean to say, but I always wonder if it’s because they want to be prepared in case of an unexpected rain of frogs...) figures actually running away before I firmly slammed the door.
_______
It’s approaching dinnertime on a weeknight, and the phone rings.
“Hello,” I answer, in the customary, time-honored fashion.
“Hi, this is Danny from TruGreen Chemlawn. How are you this evening?” says an eager voice on the phone.
“Lawnless,” I answer, deadpan.
This is apparently a new one on Danny. He loses his rhythm. “What?’ Danny stammers.
“Lawnless. I live in a third-story city apartment, and I don’t have a lawn,” I explain.
This is apparently exactly the right thing to say, because he tells me he is very sorry for bothering me and hangs up before I can utter another syllable.
I bet I never hear from Danny again.
Yea! I win.
_________
Again, the phone rings. (I am beginning to develop an unconscious habit of flinching when the phone rings at certain times of day...)
“Hi, this is Ed from Soandso Marketing in Somewhere, Virginia. I’m looking for William.”
Yes! They are not a marketing company looking for me. I can tell them they have the wrong number and be rid of them.
“Sorry, you have the wrong number,” I say. “There’s no William here and never has been.”
“Well, is this 610-555-9999?,” he asks.
“Yes,” I say, repeating, “And there’s no one named William here, and there never has been.”
“Well, that’s okay, because we really just wanted the number,” he tells me.
Internally, I groan. Great. Telemarketers have somehow figured out yet another way to bug the ever-living tar out of us all by calling and pretending to look for someone who doesn’t exist.
“What for? And what are you selling?” I ask warily.
“We wanted to inform you that you have been entered in our dream prize sweepstakes.”
“Great,” I reply. “And just how would you know what my dreams are? More to the point, what are you selling?” (I’m amazed at how many times one has to repeat oneself with these folks. Maybe because they are forced to repetitively say the same thing, they don’t hear incoming data until it’s been repeated several times?)
“We have a bunch of prizes. One of them must fulfill one of your dreams,” he tells me.
I think this is rather presumptuous and tell him so.
He tells me my dreams must be rather special, why don’t I tell him about them?
EWWW!! This is getting far too touchy-feely for me. A telemarketing stranger calls up and wants to know my dreams? Why do I even answer the phone?
I tell him he’s dreaming if he thinks I’m going to tell him my dreams and could he get to the point already please, before I’m forced by sanity’s dictates to hang up the phone and end the conversation?
Get this—he tells me that’s it. I’ve been informed I’ve been entered.
I’m not sure that’s the case, since I didn’t give any real information about me other than that I am not William.
In what contest, for what supposed prize, I still don’t know. And I don’t care.
Because the day I really win, I will know it. It will be a day when no one contacts me needlessly, trying to parasitically waste my time or try to sell me something I don’t want or need.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Goodling scandal may indicate a deeper problem
In these United States, we tolerate many ideas—nearly all ideas, in fact. We trust that everyone each has an equal say by way of their vote, and that our elected officials and those they appoint are a fair representation of the diverse viewpoints that make up our society.
But what would happen if one group of people, possibly a large group but still a minority, decided that things were not going to their liking and that they have been instructed by God to recitify that situation? What if they decided that they were specifically entitled to rule over others because of their morally superior position? What if they decided to make a concerted effort to get their people into government, even if it meant a couple of decades of work, and then perhaps violating the very principles they espouse to further that cause? What do you think about an America run on the principles of Pat Robertson?
These are not entirely a hypothetical questions, though few people have been asking them—at least not very publicly and not as many as should be asking.
In the news in the last few weeks have been the question of firings in the U. S. Attorney General’s office.
Folks who have been watching trends in government have been increasingly alarmed by the droves of longtime experienced staffers that are resigning, being forced to resign or retire, or are outright fired or removed from positions in which they have years of expertise. The Bush administration has replaced these people with its own people—people loyal to its neo-conservative cause, but not necessarily (and more often than not, not) the best in their field. Hence, the Katrina fiasco.
A few weeks ago, the name of Monica Goodling surfaced in connection with those firings, when she resigned abruptly without explanation after refusing to testify about her role in the firings of several U.S. attorneys for what appear to be partisan reasons, while asserting her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Goodling, who was senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Justice Department liaison to the White House, like many new legal appointees in the White House, is a graduate of Regent University, the college founded by evangelist Pat Robertson 29 years ago.
Regent’s Web site boasts that 150 of its graduates have been placed in high-ranking federal government positions since 2001 and are currently serving in this administration and that “approximately one out of every six Regent alumni is employed in some form of government work.” About 5,000 students currently attend Regent University.
That seems an amazing feat for a college that is less than three decades old. Not so long ago, Regent grads had trouble passing their bar exams, though the school has apparently raised its standards since then. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft teaches at Regent, and other graduates have been raised to positions in the Bush administration.
The school’s motto is “Christian Leadership To Change the World,” and that is precisely what it and its graduates seem to be attempting. Their goal is not only to tear down the wall between church and state in America, but to enmesh the two.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t really want to wake up one day to find I live in some alternate version of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which is what this is eerily beginning to sound like. There are very good reasons for a secular government. Having specifically Christian standards may sound like a good idea to some, but who gets to decide which Christian standards? Never mind the million of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, as well as the myriad of other religions practiced by American citizens.
And then there is the question, as in the case of Goodling, of people who appear to start out having the best of intentions, only to have them manipulated for political gain, which seems to be the case every single time in all of history that religion and politics are entwined.
Have folks like Robertson always vied for political power and gain? Yup. But the problem here is that he and folks like him have been quietly gaining ground.
If you actually think Robertson is just a man inspired by God to become a preacher to millions, above political ties or thought of power and personal gain, think again. His biography alone, quoted from Robertson’s own Web site, is evidence against that idea:
“Marion Gordon ‘Pat’ Robertson was born on March 22, 1930, in Lexington, Virginia, to A. Willis Robertson and Gladys Churchill Robertson. His father served for 34 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. Robertson’s ancestry includes Benjamin Harrison, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and governor of Virginia, and two United States presidents, William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison, the great-grandson of the signer of the Declaration of Independence. Robertson also shares ancestry with Winston Churchill.”
Okay, so Robertson claims a few famous ancestors. So what?
He’s also the founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network.
Still, despite a few million viewers, so what? What does that have to do with the rest of us?
Well, the problem may just go deeper than a bunch of lawyers in Washington, though that situation is more than a little disturbing. There is a bit of evidence that there’s a whole bunch of folks that have quietly been working to push their own “Christian” agenda, regardless of what the rest of us might think.
Lest you think I’m being entirely paranoid, I offer the following quote from a press release I received recently from a local evangelical group looking to promote National Prayer Day.
“The National Day of Prayer Task Force’s mission is to communicate with every individual the need for personal repentance and prayer, mobilizing the Christian community to intercede for America and its leadership in the five centers of power: Church, Education, Family, Government and Media.”
The National Day of Prayer Web site does go on to state that “The National Day of Prayer Task Force was a creation of the National Prayer Committee for the expressed purpose of organizing and promoting prayer observances conforming to a Judeo-Christian system of values. People with other theological and philosophical views are, of course, free to organize and participate in activities that are consistent with their own beliefs.”
(By the way, I didn’t change anything in these quotes—the grammatical error and capitalizations are theirs.)
It’s nice that they put in a disclaimer that we’re still free to organize around our own beliefs, but ultimately the underlying message here is that if you’re not with them, you’re inferior. And that’s a little disturbing, coming from a group that wants to “intercede for America and its leadership in the five centers of power: Church, Education, Family, Government and Media.”
There’s a big difference between taking initiative on fixing a perceived problem, and taking it upon oneself to decide that one’s way is the only right way and that it must be imposed at all costs, even by a stealth coup, if necessary. One way has a chance of success for all, and the other is a delusional psychosis that, if successful, could take us all to hell in a hand basket, literally.
I really do hope I’m just being paranoid.
But what would happen if one group of people, possibly a large group but still a minority, decided that things were not going to their liking and that they have been instructed by God to recitify that situation? What if they decided that they were specifically entitled to rule over others because of their morally superior position? What if they decided to make a concerted effort to get their people into government, even if it meant a couple of decades of work, and then perhaps violating the very principles they espouse to further that cause? What do you think about an America run on the principles of Pat Robertson?
These are not entirely a hypothetical questions, though few people have been asking them—at least not very publicly and not as many as should be asking.
In the news in the last few weeks have been the question of firings in the U. S. Attorney General’s office.
Folks who have been watching trends in government have been increasingly alarmed by the droves of longtime experienced staffers that are resigning, being forced to resign or retire, or are outright fired or removed from positions in which they have years of expertise. The Bush administration has replaced these people with its own people—people loyal to its neo-conservative cause, but not necessarily (and more often than not, not) the best in their field. Hence, the Katrina fiasco.
A few weeks ago, the name of Monica Goodling surfaced in connection with those firings, when she resigned abruptly without explanation after refusing to testify about her role in the firings of several U.S. attorneys for what appear to be partisan reasons, while asserting her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Goodling, who was senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Justice Department liaison to the White House, like many new legal appointees in the White House, is a graduate of Regent University, the college founded by evangelist Pat Robertson 29 years ago.
Regent’s Web site boasts that 150 of its graduates have been placed in high-ranking federal government positions since 2001 and are currently serving in this administration and that “approximately one out of every six Regent alumni is employed in some form of government work.” About 5,000 students currently attend Regent University.
That seems an amazing feat for a college that is less than three decades old. Not so long ago, Regent grads had trouble passing their bar exams, though the school has apparently raised its standards since then. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft teaches at Regent, and other graduates have been raised to positions in the Bush administration.
The school’s motto is “Christian Leadership To Change the World,” and that is precisely what it and its graduates seem to be attempting. Their goal is not only to tear down the wall between church and state in America, but to enmesh the two.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t really want to wake up one day to find I live in some alternate version of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which is what this is eerily beginning to sound like. There are very good reasons for a secular government. Having specifically Christian standards may sound like a good idea to some, but who gets to decide which Christian standards? Never mind the million of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, as well as the myriad of other religions practiced by American citizens.
And then there is the question, as in the case of Goodling, of people who appear to start out having the best of intentions, only to have them manipulated for political gain, which seems to be the case every single time in all of history that religion and politics are entwined.
Have folks like Robertson always vied for political power and gain? Yup. But the problem here is that he and folks like him have been quietly gaining ground.
If you actually think Robertson is just a man inspired by God to become a preacher to millions, above political ties or thought of power and personal gain, think again. His biography alone, quoted from Robertson’s own Web site, is evidence against that idea:
“Marion Gordon ‘Pat’ Robertson was born on March 22, 1930, in Lexington, Virginia, to A. Willis Robertson and Gladys Churchill Robertson. His father served for 34 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. Robertson’s ancestry includes Benjamin Harrison, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and governor of Virginia, and two United States presidents, William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison, the great-grandson of the signer of the Declaration of Independence. Robertson also shares ancestry with Winston Churchill.”
Okay, so Robertson claims a few famous ancestors. So what?
He’s also the founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network.
Still, despite a few million viewers, so what? What does that have to do with the rest of us?
Well, the problem may just go deeper than a bunch of lawyers in Washington, though that situation is more than a little disturbing. There is a bit of evidence that there’s a whole bunch of folks that have quietly been working to push their own “Christian” agenda, regardless of what the rest of us might think.
Lest you think I’m being entirely paranoid, I offer the following quote from a press release I received recently from a local evangelical group looking to promote National Prayer Day.
“The National Day of Prayer Task Force’s mission is to communicate with every individual the need for personal repentance and prayer, mobilizing the Christian community to intercede for America and its leadership in the five centers of power: Church, Education, Family, Government and Media.”
The National Day of Prayer Web site does go on to state that “The National Day of Prayer Task Force was a creation of the National Prayer Committee for the expressed purpose of organizing and promoting prayer observances conforming to a Judeo-Christian system of values. People with other theological and philosophical views are, of course, free to organize and participate in activities that are consistent with their own beliefs.”
(By the way, I didn’t change anything in these quotes—the grammatical error and capitalizations are theirs.)
It’s nice that they put in a disclaimer that we’re still free to organize around our own beliefs, but ultimately the underlying message here is that if you’re not with them, you’re inferior. And that’s a little disturbing, coming from a group that wants to “intercede for America and its leadership in the five centers of power: Church, Education, Family, Government and Media.”
There’s a big difference between taking initiative on fixing a perceived problem, and taking it upon oneself to decide that one’s way is the only right way and that it must be imposed at all costs, even by a stealth coup, if necessary. One way has a chance of success for all, and the other is a delusional psychosis that, if successful, could take us all to hell in a hand basket, literally.
I really do hope I’m just being paranoid.
Goodling scandal may indicate a deeper problem
In these United States, we tolerate many ideas—nearly all ideas, in fact. We trust that everyone each has an equal say by way of their vote, and that our elected officials and those they appoint are a fair representation of the diverse viewpoints that make up our society.
But what would happen if one group of people, possibly a large group but still a minority, decided that things were not going to their liking and that they have been instructed by God to recitify that situation? What if they decided that they were specifically entitled to rule over others because of their morally superior position? What if they decided to make a concerted effort to get their people into government, even if it meant a couple of decades of work, and then perhaps violating the very principles they espouse to further that cause? What do you think about an America run on the principles of Pat Robertson?
These are not entirely a hypothetical questions, though few people have been asking them—at least not very publicly and not as many as should be asking.
In the news in the last few weeks have been the question of firings in the U. S. Attorney General’s office.
Folks who have been watching trends in government have been increasingly alarmed by the droves of longtime experienced staffers that are resigning, being forced to resign or retire, or are outright fired or removed from positions in which they have years of expertise. The Bush administration has replaced these people with its own people—people loyal to its neo-conservative cause, but not necessarily (and more often than not, not) the best in their field. Hence, the Katrina fiasco.
A few weeks ago, the name of Monica Goodling surfaced in connection with those firings, when she resigned abruptly without explanation after refusing to testify about her role in the firings of several U.S. attorneys for what appear to be partisan reasons, while asserting her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Goodling, who was senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Justice Department liaison to the White House, like many new legal appointees in the White House, is a graduate of Regent University, the college founded by evangelist Pat Robertson 29 years ago.
Regent’s Web site boasts that 150 of its graduates have been placed in high-ranking federal government positions since 2001 and are currently serving in this administration and that “approximately one out of every six Regent alumni is employed in some form of government work.” About 5,000 students currently attend Regent University.
That seems an amazing feat for a college that is less than three decades old. Not so long ago, Regent grads had trouble passing their bar exams, though the school has apparently raised its standards since then. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft teaches at Regent, and other graduates have been raised to positions in the Bush administration.
The school’s motto is “Christian Leadership To Change the World,” and that is precisely what it and its graduates seem to be attempting. Their goal is not only to tear down the wall between church and state in America, but to enmesh the two.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t really want to wake up one day to find I live in some alternate version of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which is what this is eerily beginning to sound like. There are very good reasons for a secular government. Having specifically Christian standards may sound like a good idea to some, but who gets to decide which Christian standards? Never mind the million of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, as well as the myriad of other religions practiced by American citizens.
And then there is the question, as in the case of Goodling, of people who appear to start out having the best of intentions, only to have them manipulated for political gain, which seems to be the case every single time in all of history that religion and politics are entwined.
Have folks like Robertson always vied for political power and gain? Yup. But the problem here is that he and folks like him have been quietly gaining ground.
If you actually think Robertson is just a man inspired by God to become a preacher to millions, above political ties or thought of power and personal gain, think again. His biography alone, quoted from Robertson’s own Web site, is evidence against that idea:
“Marion Gordon ‘Pat’ Robertson was born on March 22, 1930, in Lexington, Virginia, to A. Willis Robertson and Gladys Churchill Robertson. His father served for 34 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. Robertson’s ancestry includes Benjamin Harrison, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and governor of Virginia, and two United States presidents, William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison, the great-grandson of the signer of the Declaration of Independence. Robertson also shares ancestry with Winston Churchill.”
Okay, so Robertson claims a few famous ancestors. So what?
He’s also the founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network.
Still, despite a few million viewers, so what? What does that have to do with the rest of us?
Well, the problem may just go deeper than a bunch of lawyers in Washington, though that situation is more than a little disturbing. There is a bit of evidence that there’s a whole bunch of folks that have quietly been working to push their own “Christian” agenda, regardless of what the rest of us might think.
Lest you think I’m being entirely paranoid, I offer the following quote from a press release I received recently from a local evangelical group looking to promote National Prayer Day.
“The National Day of Prayer Task Force’s mission is to communicate with every individual the need for personal repentance and prayer, mobilizing the Christian community to intercede for America and its leadership in the five centers of power: Church, Education, Family, Government and Media.”
The National Day of Prayer Web site does go on to state that “The National Day of Prayer Task Force was a creation of the National Prayer Committee for the expressed purpose of organizing and promoting prayer observances conforming to a Judeo-Christian system of values. People with other theological and philosophical views are, of course, free to organize and participate in activities that are consistent with their own beliefs.”
(By the way, I didn’t change anything in these quotes—the grammatical error and capitalizations are theirs.)
It’s nice that they put in a disclaimer that we’re still free to organize around our own beliefs, but ultimately the underlying message here is that if you’re not with them, you’re inferior. And that’s a little disturbing, coming from a group that wants to “intercede for America and its leadership in the five centers of power: Church, Education, Family, Government and Media.”
There’s a big difference between taking initiative on fixing a perceived problem, and taking it upon oneself to decide that one’s way is the only right way and that it must be imposed at all costs, even by a stealth coup, if necessary. One way has a chance of success for all, and the other is a delusional psychosis that, if successful, could take us all to hell in a hand basket, literally.
I really do hope I’m just being paranoid.
But what would happen if one group of people, possibly a large group but still a minority, decided that things were not going to their liking and that they have been instructed by God to recitify that situation? What if they decided that they were specifically entitled to rule over others because of their morally superior position? What if they decided to make a concerted effort to get their people into government, even if it meant a couple of decades of work, and then perhaps violating the very principles they espouse to further that cause? What do you think about an America run on the principles of Pat Robertson?
These are not entirely a hypothetical questions, though few people have been asking them—at least not very publicly and not as many as should be asking.
In the news in the last few weeks have been the question of firings in the U. S. Attorney General’s office.
Folks who have been watching trends in government have been increasingly alarmed by the droves of longtime experienced staffers that are resigning, being forced to resign or retire, or are outright fired or removed from positions in which they have years of expertise. The Bush administration has replaced these people with its own people—people loyal to its neo-conservative cause, but not necessarily (and more often than not, not) the best in their field. Hence, the Katrina fiasco.
A few weeks ago, the name of Monica Goodling surfaced in connection with those firings, when she resigned abruptly without explanation after refusing to testify about her role in the firings of several U.S. attorneys for what appear to be partisan reasons, while asserting her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Goodling, who was senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Justice Department liaison to the White House, like many new legal appointees in the White House, is a graduate of Regent University, the college founded by evangelist Pat Robertson 29 years ago.
Regent’s Web site boasts that 150 of its graduates have been placed in high-ranking federal government positions since 2001 and are currently serving in this administration and that “approximately one out of every six Regent alumni is employed in some form of government work.” About 5,000 students currently attend Regent University.
That seems an amazing feat for a college that is less than three decades old. Not so long ago, Regent grads had trouble passing their bar exams, though the school has apparently raised its standards since then. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft teaches at Regent, and other graduates have been raised to positions in the Bush administration.
The school’s motto is “Christian Leadership To Change the World,” and that is precisely what it and its graduates seem to be attempting. Their goal is not only to tear down the wall between church and state in America, but to enmesh the two.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t really want to wake up one day to find I live in some alternate version of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which is what this is eerily beginning to sound like. There are very good reasons for a secular government. Having specifically Christian standards may sound like a good idea to some, but who gets to decide which Christian standards? Never mind the million of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, as well as the myriad of other religions practiced by American citizens.
And then there is the question, as in the case of Goodling, of people who appear to start out having the best of intentions, only to have them manipulated for political gain, which seems to be the case every single time in all of history that religion and politics are entwined.
Have folks like Robertson always vied for political power and gain? Yup. But the problem here is that he and folks like him have been quietly gaining ground.
If you actually think Robertson is just a man inspired by God to become a preacher to millions, above political ties or thought of power and personal gain, think again. His biography alone, quoted from Robertson’s own Web site, is evidence against that idea:
“Marion Gordon ‘Pat’ Robertson was born on March 22, 1930, in Lexington, Virginia, to A. Willis Robertson and Gladys Churchill Robertson. His father served for 34 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. Robertson’s ancestry includes Benjamin Harrison, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and governor of Virginia, and two United States presidents, William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison, the great-grandson of the signer of the Declaration of Independence. Robertson also shares ancestry with Winston Churchill.”
Okay, so Robertson claims a few famous ancestors. So what?
He’s also the founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network.
Still, despite a few million viewers, so what? What does that have to do with the rest of us?
Well, the problem may just go deeper than a bunch of lawyers in Washington, though that situation is more than a little disturbing. There is a bit of evidence that there’s a whole bunch of folks that have quietly been working to push their own “Christian” agenda, regardless of what the rest of us might think.
Lest you think I’m being entirely paranoid, I offer the following quote from a press release I received recently from a local evangelical group looking to promote National Prayer Day.
“The National Day of Prayer Task Force’s mission is to communicate with every individual the need for personal repentance and prayer, mobilizing the Christian community to intercede for America and its leadership in the five centers of power: Church, Education, Family, Government and Media.”
The National Day of Prayer Web site does go on to state that “The National Day of Prayer Task Force was a creation of the National Prayer Committee for the expressed purpose of organizing and promoting prayer observances conforming to a Judeo-Christian system of values. People with other theological and philosophical views are, of course, free to organize and participate in activities that are consistent with their own beliefs.”
(By the way, I didn’t change anything in these quotes—the grammatical error and capitalizations are theirs.)
It’s nice that they put in a disclaimer that we’re still free to organize around our own beliefs, but ultimately the underlying message here is that if you’re not with them, you’re inferior. And that’s a little disturbing, coming from a group that wants to “intercede for America and its leadership in the five centers of power: Church, Education, Family, Government and Media.”
There’s a big difference between taking initiative on fixing a perceived problem, and taking it upon oneself to decide that one’s way is the only right way and that it must be imposed at all costs, even by a stealth coup, if necessary. One way has a chance of success for all, and the other is a delusional psychosis that, if successful, could take us all to hell in a hand basket, literally.
I really do hope I’m just being paranoid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
