A Must Read for July 4th

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security....

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

We hold these semi-truths to be self-evident…

I love reading about history, American history in particular, but especially the period surrounding the founding of our nation. There are many books on the subject, a few I would highly recommend are David McCullough’s “John Adams” and “1776”, Joseph J. Ellis’ “American Creation” and Steven Waldman’s “Founding Faith.” When I choose a book on almost any subject, I like to check out reviews on Amazon to see how historically accurate the book is. I may not agree with an author’s interpretation of or opinions on the facts, but if the author presents true facts, it is most likely a book I’ll read. When it comes to history, the facts must be presented truthfully.

Which brings me to today’s topic of stretching, embellishing or otherwise distorting the facts surrounding that mythical period of our nation’s founding. In particular, I want to look at a widely circulated and oft quoted piece regarding the fates of those men who signed the Declaration of Independence (DoI) in 1776. Here are a few of the “facts” generally stated as follows:

• Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died.
• Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned
• Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army, another had two sons captured.
• Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War
• Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife and she died within a few months.
• John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year, he lived in forests and caves, returning to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later, he died from exhaustion and a broken heart.

The difficulty I have with such “facts” is that they are presented in a context of each one having undergone these hardships as a direct result of their signing the DoI. But as we’ll see, the true facts prove otherwise. (Courtesy of Snopes and other sources)

#1: Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died.

Right off the bat, this statement starts off with a verifiable truth (5 signers were indeed captured) but quickly goes downhill on the steep slope of fabrication. Four (Walton, Heyward, Middleton and Rutledge) were not captured as traitors or for their involvement in the signing of the DoI, but were taken as prisoners of war due to their military involvement. Richard Stockton was the only once captured specifically because of his involvement in signing, but he was also the only one of the 56 signers who violated the pledge to support the DoI. He was granted release only after recanting his signature and swearing allegiance to King George III. The four who were captured as prisoners of war were not tortured, but were given the same ill treatment given to all prisoners of war. They were later released.

#2: Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned

Taken at face value, this is a true statement. However, the implication that they were targeted as a result of their signing the DoI is false. A common part of warfare during this period was the seizure or destruction of personal property by both sides of the war. It’s also worth noting at this point that, at the time of the signing in 1776, the war had been going on for over a year.

#3: Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army, another had two sons captured
Abraham Clark had two sons captured and imprisoned. Only one signer had a son die in the Army: John Witherspoon’s eldest son was killed in the Battle of Germantown.

#4: Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War

Here, too, we see an embellishment of fact. Nine of the signers did indeed die during the time of the War, but none of them died from wounds or hardships inflicted on them by the British. Several did not even take part in the war. Button Gwinnett was the only one who died from wounds, but these were as a result of a duel against a fellow officer.

#5: Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife and she died within a few months.

Francis Lewis’s wife ignored an order to evacuate Long Island and as a result was captured by the British. However, she was later exchanged for wives of British officials captured by the Americans. She lived for a few more years (not months) after her capture and died (most probably due to the hardships she faced as a prisoner) in 1779. One note in this particular case is that Lewis and his family was indeed targeted for his role in signing the DoI.

#6: John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year, he lived in forests and caves, returning to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later, he died from exhaustion and a broken heart.

Hart’s wife Deborah was practically bedridden with sickness, probably due to the hardships incurred by the Hessians destroying their property earlier in 1776 (some accounts list their property as only being damaged, not destroyed.) Hart was on his way home from his duties as Speaker of the New Jersey Assembly on the day Deborah died on Oct. 8, 1776. It was not until later in the year that Hart was forced to go into hiding. Further, he was twice re-elected as Speaker as well as served numerous other offices before dying of kidney stones in May 1779, two and a half years (not a few weeks) after the death of his wife.

There are others, but these are ones that I want to highlight. The signers of the DoI fought long and hard over the issue of independence. When at last it was passed, those signing knew the risks they were taking in officially breaking away from what was then one of, if not THE most powerful empire in the world. As Benjamin Franklin quipped, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” They also knew they were founders of something monumental. However, we tend to overdramatize these men’s lives as well as the price they paid, almost to the point of deifying them and making them martyrs of a quasi-religious nature. The true accounts of these men’s lives are so much more fascinating than these blurbs (and others) really tell. Further, we don't see the struggles that they faced, either on a personal level or on the national level (such as the decision to almost completely sidestep the issue of slavery.) With such accounts as the ones above, we lose the human elements experienced, the uncertainties faced, the herculean decisions made and both the physical & intellectual battles fought. Don’t settle for “sound-bite media” when the full story is so much more worth the time to read.

"Lest You Forget"

In honor of Memorial Day, reflect on this poem by Pvt. Andre P. Fallwell, who was killed in the Battle of the Bulge, 1944. (You can read more about the poem and Pvt. Fallwell here.)

Lest you forget --
We piled into assault boats bobbing high,
And charged the beach amid the thundering roar,
Meanwhile the winds and dismal rain whipped by
To watch us die
On Europe's battered, bleeding shore!
We fought our way to land;
We left there in the sand
Our native blood. Although the sea
Will drench it clean, we claim our hand
Released the forces soon to free
Old Europe's battered bleeding shore!

On, comrades, on! We stay behind --
The peace is yours to win.
The fight claims us, but you will find
Us here for all eternity;
As though we hadn't been
The price for our posterity --
Do you remember when?

Lest you forget --
Our fight is over now, and it is won;
But we are not alive to share the goal
Of glory, Only see that all your sons
Recall our guns --
Before the drums have ceased to roll!

Our standards lie amuck
Where last we falling stuck
Them waving proud. Although the next
Will take it up, we claim our pluck
Has written freedom's newest text --
Before the drums have ceased to roll!

On, comrades, on! We stay behind --
The peace is yours to win
The fight claims us, but you will find
Us here for all eternity;
As though we hadn't been
The price for your posterity --
Do you remember when?
And after war deserts our kind,
Will you remember when?

Pro-Life Pastor Chooses Jail

...over a plea bargain and finds an unexpected ministry outlet.

For 19 days in March and April, Walter Hoye was locked in a cell with 29 other prisoners at the Santa Rita jail near Oakland, Calif. There were times when he wished he could have stayed longer.

When the metal door first clanged shut behind him on March 20, Hoye, 52, decided the space was really more of a cage than a cell. A metal grid penning in prisoners. Fifteen bunks lining two walls. Two toilets and a urinal for all 30 men, and a shower that inmates had gradually transformed into a pornographic shrine.

As Hoye made his way to an empty bunk, a few prisoners, mostly black and Latino, dogged his path. "You smuggle in any drugs, man?" one of them asked.

"No," Hoye said quietly.

Then the veteran inmates left him alone, he told me, except for "one of the brothers who was kind enough to help me make up my bed."

A few minutes later, another man walked over to Hoye's bunk and jabbed his finger at a newspaper he was holding. "This you?" he said, eyeing Hoye skeptically.

Hoye peered at the Oakland Tribune headline: "Anti-abortion pastor chooses jail."

"Yeah, that's me," he said.

In the next moment, the inmate was striding up and down the length of the cell, announcing, "Hey, he don't have to be here! He turned down probation! He doing straight time for what he believed in!"

It was true: On Feb. 19, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Stuart Hing sentenced Walter Hoye, a Missionary Baptist minister, to 30 days in jail after Hoye refused a plea deal that included three years' probation, a small fine, and an order that he stay at least 100 yards away from Family Planning Specialists, an Oakland abortion clinic.

Passionate about the sky-high abortion rate among African-Americans, Hoye began offering men and women assistance at the clinic in 2006. About one in three Oakland residents is black, compared with a statewide African-American population of 6 percent. And though blacks make up only 12 percent of the U.S. population, they account for one-third of all abortions performed in the United States. More than three in 10 black women abort their unborn children.

According to the 2006 census, deaths now exceed live births among African-Americans. "We're no longer replacing ourselves," Hoye said. "So we're not using terms like holocaust and genocide just to elicit a response. It's the truth."

In response, once a week Hoye stood quietly outside Family Planning Specialists with a sign that said, "Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help." When people approached the clinic, Hoye would ask their permission to speak with them about abortion alternatives; he also offered them pamphlets describing available help.

In 2007, pro-abortion clinic "escorts" began to show up in groups, surrounding Hoye and impeding his movement. They blocked his sign with sheets of blank cardboard and shouted down his low-key offers of help. When that didn't scare Hoye off, clinic managers lobbied the Oakland city council and in December 2007, the council instituted a "bubble-zone" ordinance applicable within a 100-foot radius of any Oakland abortion clinic. The law made it a crime to "approach within eight feet of any person seeking to enter" a "reproductive health care facility" in order to offer literature, display a sign, or engage in "oral protest, education, or counseling."

"This law is horribly unconstitutional," Hoye said. "It allows abortion clinics to decide which U.S. citizens are allowed to retain their constitutional right to free speech."

Represented by Life Legal Defense Fund (LLDF), Hoye challenged the ordinance in court. The case is still pending, but in May 2008, Oakland public attorneys acting in cooperation with clinic managers charged Hoye with "unlawful approaches" to women, and "force, threat of force, or physical obstruction."

What prosecutors did not know was that LLDF attorneys possessed four hours of uncut videotape documenting Hoye's activities outside the clinic on the dates in question. At trial in January 2009, the tapes impeached the testimony of clinic director Jackie Barbic, who claimed that Hoye repeatedly broke the 8-foot rule and that she and a patient had to put up their hands to fend him off. Instead, the tapes showed Hoye standing still as Barbic approached him; then they showed Hoye walking away. No incident shown on the tape matched Barbic's testimony, and even clinic escorts testified that Hoye was always cordial and never obstructed anyone's path or used threats or force.

Inexplicably, the jury still found Hoye guilty. At sentencing, the prosecutor recommended the probation and the clinic stay-away order—or two years in jail. When Hoye refused the stay-away order, Judge Hing appeared "surprised," Hoye said. "The judge was essentially asking me to stop trying to help men and women outside an abortion clinic, and I just would not voluntarily give up my First Amendment rights."

In February, Hing levied a sentence of 30 days and Hoye reported to the Santa Rita jail a month later. After the newspaper-reading inmate touted the Tribune article to the other prisoners—many of them inner-city drug dealers whose highest aspiration was to stay out of prison, they clamored to know why a man would choose jail over freedom. From that moment on, Hoye found himself in constant demand.

"I would be holding court with about 30 guys, explaining why I did what I did," he said. "I explained what an abortion actually does, that it takes an innocent human life. We held prayer vigils, we had Bible studies. I must have counseled and mentored guys all day and all night. It got to the point where we started talking seriously about Christ."

Most of the men in the cage at first mouthed pro-choice slogans, Hoye said. "But when I forced them to complete the sentence, 'I believe that a woman has a right to choose to kill an innocent life,' they couldn't do it."

One morning at about 2:30 a.m., a good-looking young man named Terrell approached Hoye's bunk and asked what actually goes on during an abortion. Using his fingers to simulate a woman's legs spreading, Hoye showed Terrell how the abortionist inserts a vacuum aspirator and sucks out the developing child.

Terrell, 18, told Hoye he had gotten his girlfriend pregnant and that she had aborted. "She made the decision," he said. "It was her choice."

"Yes, I know that, but what did you do?" Hoye replied. "Did you offer to marry her?"

Terrell shook his head. "No, I didn't."

"Did you offer to help her raise the child?"

"No, I didn't."

"Did you tell her that you love her and that you were going to go the distance with her as a man should, even if she decided to give the child up for adoption?"

"No, no, I didn't," Terrell said, his eyes filling with tears. "I never knew. No one ever told me what an abortion is. No one ever made it plain."

When Terrell understood that he had, "perhaps because of his own lack of participation, been complicit in the murder of his own child, it really broke him," Hoye said.

Before Terrell went back to his own bunk that night, Hoye prayed with him. "I told him God could forgive him, that what he'd done wasn't an unforgivable sin."

But the conversation didn't end then. Terrell continued to visit with Hoye. "He began to understand that men have a responsibility to women, and vowed that, for him, an abortion would never happen again. He came to me a young man in jail for dealing drugs, trying to make some money and live the large life. I began to see him grow up."

Released from jail on April 7, Hoye rejoined his wife, Lori, in their Oakland home. Today, he is not sorry for his choice. "I've been a jail chaplain in jail before, and even had the privilege of being a guest preacher at San Quentin. Being an inmate is completely different. I was actually one of them and it gave me a different kind of credibility. I'm sure my adversary meant my incarceration for evil, but God used it for good."

HT: Challies

Augmented Reality

Okay, as any of you may have guessed by now, I learned a long time ago to embrace my inner geek. So when I came across GE’s Augmented Reality web site, I exclaimed “How incredibly cool is that?!?” Just ask my wife who only looked at me with a worried expression on her face.

GE has historically had some pretty cute marketing ideas. This one is designed to promote their Smart Grid technology, billed as being a more eco-friendly by using alternate energy sources such as wind turbines and solar panels. Further, according to Wikipedia, “a smart grid delivers electricity from suppliers to consumers using digital technology to save energy, reduce cost and increase reliability.” While I don’t know all the ins and outs, pros and cons of Smart Grid Technology (sounds like a good idea, at least), I have to say that GE’s Augmented Reality is pretty cool. Check out the following video demonstration. If you want to try it out for yourself, click here. You’ll need a web cam and be able to print out a sheet of paper from the web site.

(Side note: as was pointed out to me, you have to wonder about the eco-friendliness of a promotional tool that has you print out a piece of paper only to throw it away 5 minutes later. But anyway…)

Twitter Overboard

So I’m on my way to work this morning, driving along, happily listening to my audiobook (Tony Horwitz is a pretty good writer, just finished Voyage Long and Strange and am now listening to Confederates in the Attic. Good stuff.) I glanced up at the digital billboard near Lowes/Home Depot and had to do a double take. The ad was simply a blue background, the Twitter logo, and the words “Follow Ashton Kutcher” and gave his twitter address. That’s it.

I remember thinking, “That is incredibly odd. Is this guy really that in need of attention that he pays for advertising to drive people to his twittering or tweeting or whatever it’s called?” But as with most things, there was a bigger story here. Once again, Google came to the rescue.

Apparently, Kutcher and CNN were in some kind of race to see who would be the first to reach 1 million twits – I mean followers. This more than likely explains the billboard. CNN lost by about 1,200. Now we’ll get to hear from all the talking heads and pundits about how one person gained a greater following than the giant news media that is CNN.

For all those poor saps who started following Kutcher’s or CNN’s blatherings and are now discovering that you can’t “unfollow” them, there is good news. CNET tells how to unfollow either one of them (or both!). You can thank me by following my tweets. ;)

The Shocking Surpise of Susan Boyle

With shades of Paul Potts, Britain's Got Talent seems to have found its winner once again in a person who at first glance seems the most unlikeliest of vocalists. When the video first begins, the audience's and the judge's reaction to Susan Boyle was one of incredibly skepticism. They were judging her before she had even sung her first note. But then she started singing and the responses went from skepticism to adoration with lightning speed. And what a voice! Enjoy the following video of Susan Boyle singing one of my favorite pieces from Les Miserables, "I Dreamed a Dream." Embedding was disabled, but the click is well worth your time.

For fast breaking news, tune in to --Twitter?

Yet another piece of evidence that traditional media is getting some competition from the more "non-traditional" media.

Twitter first to publish dramatic crash pictures

(CNN) -- The social networking site Twitter again stole a march on traditional media when it was the first outlet to publish dramatic pictures of the Turkish Airlines crash.

Moments after the plane crashed at Amsterdam's Schipol airport on Wednesday morning the news was appearing on Twitter, CNN International correspondent Errol Barnett said.

"This is a story that broke on Twitter first and continued to unfold from there. Eyewitnesses were posting comments about the shock of seeing the plane 'dive' and amazement of passengers walking out of the wreckage," Barnett said.

"It was a dramatic image of a fractured plane posted on Twitter.com that was the first worldwide view of the Turkish Airlines crash."

Barnett said that when CNN saw the image it moved quickly to confirm with Dutch officials that a crash had happened.

"Within minutes we were reporting on the story.

"This proves that social networking sites can be a real asset in covering breaking news and gathering eyewitness accounts but the web should always be treated with extreme caution," Barnett said.

"We make a concerted effort to reach out to people posting on the Internet to verify what they say matches up with official accounts."

HT: Journalism.org

The Crisis of Credit Visualized

Ever wondered what in the world was going on with all the banks going bust, and mortgages going south? Here's a fairly simple explanation. Total run time is about 10 minutes, but it's definitely worth watching.





HT: Michael

We're all gonna DIE!!!!

(ok, yes, eventually, but not from this. It just sounded like a good post header)

Yellowstone Earthquakes Under Supervolcano Caldera
by James Pethokoukis

The headline "Scientists track unusual earthquake swarm beneath Yellowstone" only means one thing to fans of the Discovery channel like myself: supervolcano. Here is what the earthquake center at the University of Utah had to say yesterday afternoon:

The University of Utah Seismograph Stations reports that a notable swarm of earthquakes has been underway since December 26 beneath Yellowstone Lake in Yellowstone National Park, three to six miles south-southeast of Fishing Bridge, Wyoming. This energetic sequence of events was most intense on December 27, when the largest number of events of magnitude 3 and larger occurred.

The largest of the earthquakes was a magnitude 3.9 (revised from magnitude 3.8) at 10:15 pm MST on Dec. 27. The sequence has included nine events of magnitude 3 to 3.9 and approximately 24 of magnitude 2 to 3 at the time of this release. A total of more than 250 events large enough to be located have occurred in this swarm. Reliable depths of the larger events are up to a few miles. Visitors and National Park Service (NPS) employees in the Yellowstone Lake area reported feeling the largest of these earthquakes.

Earthquakes are a common occurrence in the Yellowstone National Park area, an active volcanic-tectonic area averaging 1,000 to 2,000 earthquakes a year. Yellowstone's 10,000 geysers and hot springs are the result of this geologic activity. A summary of the Yellowstone's volcanic history is available on the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory web site (listed below).

This December 2008 earthquake sequence is the most intense in this area for some years and is centered on the east side of the Yellowstone caldera. Scientists can not identify any causative fault or other feature without further analysis. Seismologists continue to monitor and analyze the data and will issue new information if the situation warrants it.

The University of Utah operates a seismic network in Yellowstone National Park in conjunction with the National Park Service and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These three institutions are partners in the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory.

And what if the supervolcano blew? Kind of like if a giant rock hit the Earth. A planet killer. An extinction-level event. Let me quote the words of President Tom Beck (Morgan Freeman) in the comet-hitting-earth film Deep Impact:

Within a week, the skies will be dark with dust from the impact and they will stay dark for years. All plant life will be dead within weeks. Animal life within a few months. So that's it. Good luck to us all.

Such a scenario would be very bad for equity values and the outlook for the labor market.

HT: Google Trends

The Great Conspiracy reviewed

I few days ago I wrote a review on Fox TV’s “Conspiracy: Did We Land on the Moon?” I was also asked to review Barrie Zwicker’s “The Great Conspiracy: the 9/11 News Special You Never Saw.” In it, Zwicker attempts to show that the tragic events of 9/11 were, in fact, orchestrated by our very own government. This is my review.

In (mis)quoting Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “The greatest thing we have to fear is fear itself,” Zwicker opens with “Fear may be the greatest single motivator. It can serve us and it can save us, but ill-founded fear – that’s another story.”

And there, in the first 2 minutes of this “documentary” Zwicker has provided the irony of his own theories. In attempting to show that instead of fighting fear, “today’s leaders traffic in it, chiefly the fear of terrorism,” he simply creates another fear - the fear that our government is somehow duping us in order to gain further control over us.

First off, I have to really wonder about the validity of someone’s claims when they cannot even get one of the most well-known quotes of American history right in the first two minutes of their program. Roosevelt did not say “The greatest thing we have to fear is fear itself” but rather “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” A minor point you might say. But in saying the “greatest thing” it is implying there are other things to be feared, whereas Roosevelt gave only one thing to fear – fear itself. It makes me wonder that since Zwicker couldn’t even get this quote right, what other stuff has he completely missed or even made up? As the program continues, it seems this isn’t the only thing he’s embellished, misrepresented or fabricated.

There are a couple of things that Zwicker gets exactly correct right off the bat. It would seem that a person’s level of patriotism is directly correlated to that person’s level of support for our military endeavors or what our government deems best. I agree that this should not necessarily be the case. Someone can still be extremely patriotic and not agree with the reasons for our being in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Secondly, there has indeed been an overuse of sensationalizing headlines or, as Zwicker puts it, “the promiscuous issuing of terror alerts.” I daresay these are used by media outlets solely for the purpose of selling newspapers or garnering higher ratings simply because bad news sells. However, the connection between these two things and a government conspiracy is shaky at best. A brief look at American history will show that both of these tactics have been used since the nation was first founded and probably even before then. This is certainly nothing new

What is the great conspiracy? According to Zwicker, it is the “fact” of “bloody terrorist events carried out, not by foreign, but by our governments to trick the public into supporting war and police state agendas,” namely as evidenced in the 9/11 tragedy. Since in conspiracy theories such as this, you’ll hear the term “police state” quite frequently, let’s pause for a minute and define what exactly is meant by the term. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a police state as “a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.” This is important to keep in mind.

Zwicker attempts to show how the U.S. has practiced its own version of terrorism in foreign nations for at least the past 50 years. He then goes back even further to Columbus’ conquests in 1492 to show that this American version of terror isn’t new. But here again, attempting to paint these accounts with the conspiracy brush, he ignores human tendencies when it comes to national governments. Why didn’t he go back to the Inquisition? Or the Crusades? Or any number of wars throughout the world’s history? Each and every one of these displayed the exact same human tendencies of conquest and the desire for national power. Were these some sort of conspiracy to gain a police state? He also points out that “on one side – ours – the use of terror either is not admitted or is simply defined as ‘not terror’ and the other side’s terror is defined as ‘the only kind of terror.’” In doing this, he seems to overlook not only motivations behind varying acts of terror, but seems to be lumping any act of national defense (of any sort) as an “act of terror.”

Next comes an historical misrepresentation from just before our involvement in WWII. No conspiracy theory is complete without some correlation to Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler and in this point, Zwicker does not disappoint. He recounts the burning of the Reichstag building in Berlin, Germany in 1933 and how Hitler used the ensuing fear of communism to pass legislation in the German government “to counter the ‘ruthless confrontation of the Communist Party of Germany.” (Wikipedia) In showing how governments perform acts of terrorism on themselves Zwicker states that “The Nazis masterminded the torching of the Reichstag…one week before a national election. That they did so is historical fact.” This is where the misrepresentation comes in. A quick Google search will reveal that whether or not the Nazis themselves were involved is far from “historical fact” and is still a matter of some speculation. Yes, the Nazis certainly capitalized on the event, but to say that their involvement is “historical fact” is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. Yet Zwicker uses this to show the correlation between the Nazi government and the U.S. government, particularly in light of the 9/11 events. In the same manner as the Nazis, he alleges, “within hours of the planes crashing into the WTC, the Bush White House designates the alleged villains.”

Another claim made frequently by conspiracy theorists is that civil liberties have been reduced and dissent criminalized. But which civil liberties have been reduced has yet to be spelled out or detailed. Again, the ironic truth is that his dissenting “documentary” is still available for anyone to watch, conspiracy theory books are still available in bookstores, dissenting websites are still available, and authors of these works are not in jail. So much for a police state.

Zwicker makes what is perhaps the most ignorant statement when he says, “The designated scapegoats of 9/11 [the Muslim men] gained nothing positive from it.” Apparently, he is either completely ignorant of the teachings of radical Islam or is convinced that such a teaching is also a fabrication of the U.S. government. And here again, the non sequitur is made that whoever’s agenda benefits the most is obviously the cause of the event. But even this assumes all benefits are equal or at least of the same nature. These two issues alone – ignorance of Islamic teaching and non sequiturorial assumptions – are the basis for the entire “documentary.”

As another example of linking one thing with another when it doesn’t necessarily follow is the statistic he gives from a Canadian study. The poll says that 63% of Canadians think that “individuals within the U.S. government including the White House had prior knowledge of the plans for the events of September 11^th, and failed to take proper action to stop them.” Having prior knowledge of an event and being an instigator of that event are two different and entirely separate things. This is evidenced by a statistic from the same study that was not cited: that only 16% of those surveyed thought the U.S. government was in some way “involved in the planning and execution of the events of September 11th.”

The list and Zwicker’s droning goes on and includes such “facts” that the U.S. government had a “secretly contrived” hand in the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, the attack on Pearl Harbor, etc. Zwicker doesn’t provide any evidence whatsoever for these mentioned and the evidence that he does attempt to show does not provide proof or evidence of any kind other than that the government could have done such and such. And since it has been done before (argues Zwicker), then obviously “it wouldn’t be a first” for the Bush administration to do so either.

Zwicker finally gets to the main point of the “documentary” in discussing the government’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks. He quotes varying sources and documents, and includes an interview with Michael C. Ruppert, another conspiracy theorist, author and investigator. The ultimate motive behind the attacks is, of course, oil or the growing lack thereof. Once again, however, the problem with the so-called “evidence” and “facts” presented here is simply someone taking one thing said or done, reading into it their own preconceived notions of what actually happened, and presenting the results as “Here’s what actually happened!” However, this line of thinking takes a mistake and puts malice into the intents of those who made the mistake. It attempts to claim an inside scoop into what those who made the mistake were thinking, feeling, and wanting.

Zwicker questions what Bush knew and when he knew it. He begins with the classroom whisper in Bush’s ear that purportedly informed Bush of what was going on. Zwicker points out that this whisper came “20 minutes after the first aircraft smashed into the WTC, 18 minutes after CNN breaks into regular programming.” Later, in attempting to show that Bush knew about what was going on before he even got to the school, Zwicker quotes a report by ABC’s John Cochran in which Cochran claims to have asked Bush as he left his hotel, “Do you know what’s going on in New York?” to which Bush replies in the affirmative. Here’s the problem I have with that. Timelines put Bush leaving his hotel at approximately 8:30 a.m. The first plane did not hit the WTC until 8:46 a.m., a full 15 minutes later. How could the reporter know what had happened in New York before it had even happened? And once again, how could Zwicker possibly know Bush’s motives for continuing his visit with the school once Bush had been told? Is it possible that since at the time of Bush’s arrival at the school, only one plane had been crashed and the scope of the emergency was not yet known? And further, as the 9/11 Commission Report points out, when Bush was informed of the second plane, is it not feasible to think that Bush did indeed want to project a calm demeanor? The point is, we don’t know and thus cannot assign malicious intent, let alone some grand government scheme, from these and similar events. Zwicker also contends that Bush’s statement that he saw the first plane hit the WTC couldn’t have occurred (and he couldn’t have) unless government-operated cameras were set up so that he could watch. However, once again, this is attributed malice to a simple verbal mistake. It’s funny that even though the media loves to pick apart Bush’s statements that, quite honestly, are often filled with horrible verbiage, yet in this he is taken quite literally without any hint of the possibility that he misspoke.

In yet another misrepresentation, Zwicker quotes the 9/11 Commission Report saying, “The Commission imagines, page 39, that as late as 9:30, quote ‘no one in the (president’s) traveling party had any information…that other aircraft were hijacked or missing.’ Wrong! The Commission imagines that it can get away with such claims, even though millions of people saw T.V. news reports about the hijackings on CNN beginning at 8:48.” Zwicker would have us believe that the Commission is saying the President didn’t know about either of the first two plane crashes. But what does the report actually say and what timeframe were they talking about? In the report just a few paragraphs before the one Zwicker quotes, it clearly states that the president was told about the second plane. The “other aircraft” mentioned are NOT the first two planes as Zwicker would want us to believe as evidenced by his reference to CNN coverage of those two crashes, but rather the report’s focus is the remaining two aircraft, the first of which did not crash until 9:43. The report is clear on this and I have a hard time believing Zwicker did not read the few paragraphs that came before the quote. Yet he seemingly purposefully misleads by insisting the report is talking about the first two aircraft.

In the end, was there some incredible incompetence in how the events and subsequent investigations were handled? Absolutely. But does this incompetence necessarily require both a pre-existing knowledge and an active role in bringing the events about? Absolutely not! And here Zwicker fails miserably in trying to prove his theories.

Zwicker does end on a correct note and one worth repeating: “Upholding the U.S. Constitution obligates one to guard against enemies, foreign and domestic. The founders of the country included that for a good reason. They knew that for centuries, governments had turned toxic. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and not just from outside threats.”

Rick Warren, Websites, and Inaugurations, Oh my!

Much hoopla has been made already about the fact that Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church and author of the hugely popular “Purpose Driven” books, has accepted the invitation to give the invocation at President-Elect Obama’s inauguration. I’m not really interested in going into the why’s or why not’s of whether he should be offering the prayer. My opinion is that if someone is going to do it, why not a person with at least some evangelical leanings?

The latest development that has some evangelicals in an uproar is that the Saddleback website appears to have removed their page covering questions about creation, evolution, and homosexuality. This has been interpreted as Warren’s bowing to pressure in order to be more “politically correct” or perhaps “less offensive.” Those who already disagree with his accepting the invitation have latched onto this as further ammunition against the man.

Now, I’m not particularly a fan of Rick Warren and in all fairness I have yet to read any of his materials and so cannot offer an objective opinion on his beliefs. But, to borrow a Shakespearean phrase, methinks much ado is being made about nothing. Did Saddleback really remove any reference to their beliefs on these issues? A closer look will reveal the truth.

The page in question was the Small Group Information page, which previously had questions “taken from actual questions from Saddleback members and the resulting answers from Saddleback’s pastors.” While the contents of this page has been completely removed, a Google cache of the page can be found here. The questions/answers under scrutiny are #s 30 and 48. If you were to type in the same URL, you would see a page pretty much empty of content, except for side links of course. However, another page has appeared with a slightly different URL, but looking very similar.

At first glance, it would seem that the list is identical to the cached/removed page with the exception of the “offending” questions, but that is perhaps because we are specifically looking for these questions. Take another look at the two lists. You’ll notice that not only are they are vastly different in content, they are different in focus. Surprising to me is the fact that while the omission of the questions regarding homosexuality and creation are spotlighted, very little issue has been made about the omission of questions regarding communion, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, baptism, salvation, etc. Why are these far more important doctrinal issues ignored while the two hot topic items of creation and homosexuality focused on? As mentioned before, it also appears that the page in general has shifted the focus from general questions about Saddleback to more specific questions about Small Groups, which makes sense given that the page is about Small Groups.

But has the Saddleback website erased any reference to its stance on homosexuality and creation? No! A quick search of the website brings up this page answering the question “What does the Bible say about Homosexuality?” Another page from the Small Group Pastoral Care Resources addresses the issue in discussing sexual purity. Further, there are several pages dealing with the topic of creation and evolution in a manner that makes it evident what Saddleback’s position is. There are also pages dealing with questions on the Trinity, salvation, etc. on their Bible Q&A page.

While on the surface the changes might seem at the very least done in bad timing, we certainly don’t know the behind-the-scenes intentions of those responsible for the website. Perhaps this change was already in the works. We don’t know. As believers, let’s follow James’ advice: “Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger” (James 1:19) and avoid the Christian tin foil hat.

Fly me to the moon

I was asked to view a couple of programs and to write my thoughts on them. The first is Fox TV’s “Conspiracy: Did we Land on the Moon?” The other is “The Great Conspiracy” – a documentary focusing on the events surrounding the 9/11 tragedy. This review will focus on the first and at some time later I’ll try to review the second.

To begin with and to be fair, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I don’t own a tin foil hat. So I am already biased against any “factual” evidence or information that was presented in these documentaries. Also, there are many, many websites that have reviewed this program and conspiracy theory. One of which is of course, Snopes. Another site is Bad Astronomy (BA), which reviews the program in detail and which I have cited a couple of times.

The “Conspiracy: Did We Land on the Moon?” program examines whether or not NASA’s Apollo space program actually succeeded in putting a man on the moon. The program attempts to question the validity of the government’s claim that we did indeed land on the moon by presenting a number of “factual problems” that conspiracy theorists have with the evidence. The difficulty that I have with conspiracy theories such as these is that each claims to have an inside scoop on what really happened. They supposedly say that they simply want the viewer to decide for themselves, yet only show one side of the argument – theirs. There are so many factually incorrect statements or faulty assumptions made that to go over each of them would take too long and probably bore the reader. I’ll only touch on a few of them, but if you are interested further, I would highly recommend visiting the Bad Astronomy site above.

The main protagonist is a skeptical analyst and engineer named Bill Kaysing, who worked for Rocketdyne, the designing company of the Apollo rockets. His first comment arises from the many issues of the Apollo program “that led people to believe that we’re never going to make it to the moon.” Right off the bat, there are a couple of things worth noting. First, Kaysing is “regarded as the instigator of the moon hoax movement.” (Wikipedia) As such, the program cites him heavily. Second, although he is presented as an authority on the Apollo rockets, Kaysing was not actually employed by Rocketdyne during any of the Apollo space program’s manned flights. (He resigned in 1963 and the first manned flight was not until 1968.) Third, while he claims to have knowledge of this and other space programs by way of documents he was privy to, this was apparently not even sufficient concrete evidence for him because all he could lay claim to was “a hunch, an intuition, … a true conviction.” In my opinion, if someone has seen documented evidence that a hoax was being perpetrated, as Kaysing claims, that person shouldn’t have to rely on “a hunch.” Later in the program, Kaysing says (with dramatic music cueing in the background!) “What actually happened in my mind, during the 60’s, is they said if you can’t make it, fake it (emphasis added).” So Fox TV is here quoting a guy who relies heavily on hunches and his own interpretation (“What actually [?] happened in my mind [!]) of what may have happened.

Kaysing’s first real issues come when he’s watching video footage of the Apollo landing and realizes that there are no stars in any of the photographs, that the U.S. flag is waving in an atmosphere without air (i.e., a vacuum), and there is no blast crater underneath the Lunar Landing Module (LLM). I’ll only mention the bit about the stars by copying a quote from the BA site:

“So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

"So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!"

Perhaps the silliest part of the program is where similarities are drawn between the movie Capricorn One and the Apollo landings. Capricorn One was a movie about how NASA had to fake a landing on Mars. Fox TV’s program says “The Apollo footage is strikingly similar to the scenes in Capricorn One” even down to some of the dialogue (“the surface is fine and powdery…”) Wow, so the Apollo hoaxers copied the movie to make their fake moon landings, right? Well, um, no. See, Capricorn One wasn’t made until 1978, almost 10 years after the Apollo 11 landings. So is it any surprise that a movie being made about a hoax landing be patterned after a real landing to offer authenticity? That this correlation between the movie and the Apollo landing was even mentioned in the program is incredibly sensationalizing at best. Once again, a Kaysing interview is shown where his reasoning for claiming that the whole thing was a hoax was that NASA had the budget to pull it off (since their budget is obviously so much greater than a film producer), but didn’t have the technology for the real thing. However, even then, no factual evidence is even presented.

Coming a close second in silliness is the association with, you guessed it, Area 51. Did you know that Area 51 has hangers that look like movie studios? Never mind the fact that movie studios look like hangers. Did you know that in the desert around Area 51, there is sand very similar in texture to moon dust/sand? And (and I know this is hard to imagine), the desert is barren just like the moon, complete with craters! Why, even astronauts see the similarities! Yes, this is the kind of ridiculous associations made by these conspiracy theorists.

Unfortunately, the program along with the conspiracy theory is chock full of these astounding assumptions, all of which are necessary to uphold the absurd claims made by those who believe them. As noted by a NASA spokesman in the program, every single piece of evidence showing a moon landing must be refuted in order to allow the conspiracy theorists their day in the spotlight. However, all the theorists have is conjecture, presupposition, and a whole rocket load full of faulty assumptions. They even go so far as to claim that NASA purposefully murdered astronauts in order to keep the hoax a secret. As pointed out earlier, they “have a hunch” or present what happened “in their mind” or what "could/may have happened"– all this without one shred of evidence to support these hunches. Overall, this program, like the theory it is about, can have holes poked in it as easy as, well, as tin foil.

International Space Station fly-by

Last night, we were treated to a fly-by of the International Space Station, along with the space shuttle Endeavour docked to it (although we couldn’t really distinguish the two). I had read in the paper that it could be seen around 6:10 p.m. So right after dinner, I took Carlos out on the deck behind our house and told him that we should be able to see the space station go overhead. Sure enough, off to the southwest, we saw the fairly bright object making its way at approximately 17,200 mph through the sky toward the northeast. To add to the coolness factor, it appeared right between Jupiter and Venus. And I just found out today that yesterday was the ISS’s 10^th birthday. Had I known that, perhaps we could have sung Happy Birthday to it. Of course, Carlos was all full of questions. What is the space station? How did it get up there? How big is it? Who drives it (that one was my favorite)? So we spent a little while watching youtube videos of a space shuttle launch and finding pictures of the space station. It was pretty cool and Carlos seemed really interested in learning more.

Here’s a few fascinating facts about the ISS:

-The ISS is the largest man-made object ever to orbit the Earth

-It has completed 57,309 orbits of the Earth or a distance of 1,432,725,000 miles (that's billion - it gets good gas mileage). As a comparison, that's roughly twice the distance from the Earth to Saturn.

-The space shuttle Endeavour, currently docked to the ISS, was the delivery vehicle of the first US component of the station.

Gettysburg Address - 145 years ago today

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

"But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Obama Llama

Just had to post this. This is hilarious in an odd sort of way. Check out www.obamallama.org.

HT: Darrell

Don’t Keep Abortion in Politics

The streamers have been swept up. The balloons have been popped. The talking heads are still talking. The election season is over.

But what about the issues? Or, more pointedly, what about THE issue, the issue that is perhaps the one most brought up by conservatives during every election campaign? Yes, THAT issue.

Abortion.

For many voters, the issue of abortion was the single issue that drove them to vote one way or the other. There were no doubt other issues that the campaigns used to help sway voters into their camp; but without a doubt, the issue of abortion was perhaps the most polarizing.

And now that the elections are over, will this issue quietly fade into the background as it has seemingly done with past elections? I am saddened (and deeply convicted) that after all the efforts to put abortion in the spotlight in previous elections, it is then rarely seen until the next election season rolls around. When I stop and think about it, I have to ask myself, “Have all I done to help is talk about it in light of politics?” I don’t particularly care for the answer.

Abortion is not a solely a political issue. It’s not something we should get all riled up about only in trying to gain support for a candidate. Don’t get me wrong – much good or hurt can come about because of our political choices. But abortion is a 365-day a year issue. What are we doing to help?

Thankfully, there are indeed men and women who are actively working to fight with love and grace against abortion. These are the men and women of pregnancy centers around the nation who work to counsel those facing the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. Many of these centers lend support in providing necessities such as clothes, food, and diapers to those young women who make the choice not to terminate their pregnancy.

But most of the time, these are paid staff members of pregnancy centers and let’s face it, not everyone can be nor should be working in this capacity full time. Take heart, there is still plenty that can be done to lend hands and feet to your voice. Most, and I would daresay all pregnancy centers rely on contributions to keep the center running. And it's not only money that is needed. The clothes, food, diapers, etc. that are given out are a result of people donating these items to the center and without these donations, the centers are unable to provide this to young mothers. In the Roanoke area, the Blue Ridge Women’s Center does an excellent work in not only offering assistance to expectant mothers, but doing so in a manner that is honoring and glorifying to God. This is even evidenced in a recent column written by Shanna Flowers of The Roanoke Times. After visiting the center and meeting with the staff, she said, “I developed a new respect for at least a portion of a movement I had thought of as one-dimensional.” I would highly recommend reading the entire article.

The issue of abortion should not be dragged out only in election season. It should be constantly on our minds. But let’s not allow it to simply stay in our minds only to make an appearance during election season. Get it into your hands and feet. And even if the next four years turn worse for the cause of abortion, let’s support those on the front line all the more. Ask your local pregnancy center how you can help.

History is Made - President Obama

No matter what your political stance or who you voted for, you cannot help but marvel at and appreciate the history being made right now. For the first time in its history, the United States of America has elected an African American president. Let’s put it into historical perspective.

Almost 150 years ago, this nation was embroiled in one of the most bitter and costly wars it has experienced to this day. Among the issues being fought over was the issue of slavery – specifically slavery of the black people. The black people were not even considered people but property to be bought, sold, traded, and treated as livestock. The war ended and slaves were freed. The blacks may have been freed legally, but by no means were they freed socially. Racial discrimination and segregation was prevalent in many areas of the U.S. Blacks were not allowed to go to the same schools as whites, use the same restrooms, even drink from the same water fountains. In essence, they were still viewed as subhuman. And this was not even 50 years ago. Through the incredible workings of the Civil Rights Movement, all this began to change, albeit painfully slowly. Slowly but surely, African-Americans were granted equal rights, desegregation took over, and respect began to grow toward the black community. Robert Kennedy once said in 1962: “"[T]he Irish were not wanted here. Now an Irish Catholic is President of the United States. There is no question about it, in the next forty years a Negro can achieve the same position.” Although off by only 7 years, this has still rung true.

America is painted as the land of opportunity. The land where any one can grow up to be President. Not until now has this claim been solidified for the African-American community. Today, we have elected Barack Obama, an African-American, to the highest office in the land. To the African-American community, this is more than a simple election of one man over another. This is an echo of the cry for freedom heard throughout the last four centuries of American history. This is indeed cause for celebration in seeing just how far we’ve come even in the last 50 years.

Election Day

I voted! And in honor of Election Day, a bit of humor courtesy of JibJab

Let's play "Spot the Bias"

If there’s one thing this election year has shown, it’s the blatant bias of the media coverage of the candidates. And not just at the national level, but more specifically in The Roanoke Times. Let’s do a little comparison.

First things first, if you weren’t aware of it, Gov. Sarah Palin will be visiting the Roanoke Valley today, speaking at the Salem Football Stadium. More information, including obtaining the necessary tickets, can be found at here. The event was originally scheduled to be at the Salem Civic Center, but because organizers have had such an overwhelming response, the event has been moved to the Salem Football Stadium.

So what’s this about The Roanoke Times being biased? Glad you asked. Before we get to that, let’s go back in time a few weeks to October 17, 2008. Barack Obama was coming to the Roanoke Civic Center to speak to a crowd of over 8,000. In preparation, The Roanoke Times included on its front page a little blurb about the candidate along with a very nice bulleted list of the details of the event – where to go, when to go, admission (free), what to do about parking, where to catch a shuttle bus, etc. All at the top of the page or, as they say in the newspaper industry, “above the fold.” (“Above the fold” is important since coin operated racks have a folded copy in the door and anything below that fold cannot be seen, and thus will not be likely to drive sales).

Fast forward to today. You’re walking down the street and, hearing that Palin is coming, you want some information. Ah, look, there’s a Roanoke Times rack. Surely the newspaper would have some information on it, right? Before plopping your $0.50 in, you glance at the front page. Hmm, there’s nothing there about Palin! Just some article about local high school sports teams dealing with tough travel schedules. Surely, with such a huge event (estimated to draw a crowd larger than the Obama rally!), the Times would want to capitalize on the need for information, right? After all, their stated purpose is to be the leader in local information, right? [deafening silence]

Okay, well, you decide to purchase the paper anyway. Oh look, at the bottom of the page, there actually is a small piece about Palin’s visit. It says to check in the Virginia section (the middle section of the paper). Nothing about what time, where to park or anything on the front page. Turning to the Virginia section, you finally find the necessary information. Well, almost. There’s an article about all the prep work needed for moving the event to the stadium, with an underlying hint that the article is more about pointing out the inconvenience to all the vendors for having it moved than anything else. Oh and the local Democrats have to have their say that “Palin’s visit ‘is too little, too late.’” So where’s the event information?!? Oh wait, there it is. “If you go: A shuttle bus to take people to the Salem Stadium for the Sarah Palin rally will begin running at 10 a.m. today at the Plaza of Roanoke-Salem at 4100 Melrose Ave in Northwest Roanoke. Parking also is available at the stadium and at the Salem Civic Center. The gates open at 3:30 p.m. The even begins at 5:30 p.m.”

That’s it.

No mention of the fact that tickets are needed and where they can be obtained. No nicely bulleted, easy-to-read list. No blurb about the candidate. Even WSLS has better information.

Hmm, nope, no bias here.

I can’t wait to see the newspaper’s coverage (or lack of) tomorrow.