Another great article on MSN about going green. Check it out. Its good to see a big corporation be an advocate for this. I still don't do it very well, but I'm working on it.
http://boomers.msn.com/articleGH.aspx?cp-documentid=376469>1=8903
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Should Politicians take their Oaths on a Bible?
Here is my emailed reply to the author of this article. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2006/11/28/america,_not_keith_ellison,_decides_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on
Very interesting article you have written. I enjoyed reading it, but I do not agree with your view. I am not a Muslim, in fact, I am a seminary student seeking ordination. Because of this, the bible is near and dear to my heart. That being said, I would love for every politician to put their hand on the bible when taking an oath, but in reality, its not good for politics.
For the sake of ease, lets look at the people who have been caught in scandal in the past decade. If you had known that they were going to do what they did, would you have let them say that oath on the bible? Would you have let Clinton do it if you knew about his indescritions? I doubt it.
When our politicians manipulate symbols of faith in order to make voters feel comfortable, we all lose. If they really swore on the bible, they would be acting quite differently. I'd rather them just stop the smoke screen, stop acting and start doing what the bible says.
That being stated, a bit less seriousness to my statement. It would probably be better if politicians were made to swear their oaths on different objects depending on what issues they ran on. If you recieved money from PAC's, take your oath with their symbol. If you ran with strong emphasis on enviromentalism, take your oath with a tree. If you ran as a hawkish Christian, take your oath with a bible and a gun. At least that way I know they do not plan on turning their swords into plowshears and spears into pruning hooks.
Very interesting article you have written. I enjoyed reading it, but I do not agree with your view. I am not a Muslim, in fact, I am a seminary student seeking ordination. Because of this, the bible is near and dear to my heart. That being said, I would love for every politician to put their hand on the bible when taking an oath, but in reality, its not good for politics.
For the sake of ease, lets look at the people who have been caught in scandal in the past decade. If you had known that they were going to do what they did, would you have let them say that oath on the bible? Would you have let Clinton do it if you knew about his indescritions? I doubt it.
When our politicians manipulate symbols of faith in order to make voters feel comfortable, we all lose. If they really swore on the bible, they would be acting quite differently. I'd rather them just stop the smoke screen, stop acting and start doing what the bible says.
That being stated, a bit less seriousness to my statement. It would probably be better if politicians were made to swear their oaths on different objects depending on what issues they ran on. If you recieved money from PAC's, take your oath with their symbol. If you ran with strong emphasis on enviromentalism, take your oath with a tree. If you ran as a hawkish Christian, take your oath with a bible and a gun. At least that way I know they do not plan on turning their swords into plowshears and spears into pruning hooks.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Even NASA thinks the enviorment is in the pits...
Before reading the rest of this blog, check out this article from Reuters. http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=reutersEdge&storyID=2006-11-21T143055Z_01_L21794788_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-CLIMATE-HANSEN.xml&rpc=92
If you're too lazy to read it, it really boils down to the fact that NASA, our countries top scientists, say that if we don't take steps to address global warming, we're going to be in a lot of trouble. Now, quite frankly, I don't know how our President can not believe doing this would be the best thing for our country, but even if he believed he believed that the earth was getting cooler, it would still be to his benefit to believe these scientists.
I believe that the greatest failure of this administration, as far as the economy is concerned, is the fact that instead of inviting economic growth by giving money to new companies in emerging fields which could help wean this country off of oil, he has always believed that we ought to "stay the course" even when it comes to the old ways of the economy.
What does this lead to? If you've read any of my previous blogs, you'll see that there are a number of new, innovative ways which companies are harnessing renewable energy all across the world. But what it really comes down to is that it there are very few of these companies in the US, and the few that are, are being told by the President, along with "evangelical" (I hate that term to describe televangelists) leaders like Jerry Falwell, that supporting things like renewable energy is going to possibly damage the economy. Maybe I'm just not good at economics, but I would guess that supporting these companies would help our economy, as well as it would protect this wonderful earth that God has given us dominion over.
Call your local state representative, ask them to make your state use 35% renewable energy by 2015.
If you're too lazy to read it, it really boils down to the fact that NASA, our countries top scientists, say that if we don't take steps to address global warming, we're going to be in a lot of trouble. Now, quite frankly, I don't know how our President can not believe doing this would be the best thing for our country, but even if he believed he believed that the earth was getting cooler, it would still be to his benefit to believe these scientists.
I believe that the greatest failure of this administration, as far as the economy is concerned, is the fact that instead of inviting economic growth by giving money to new companies in emerging fields which could help wean this country off of oil, he has always believed that we ought to "stay the course" even when it comes to the old ways of the economy.
What does this lead to? If you've read any of my previous blogs, you'll see that there are a number of new, innovative ways which companies are harnessing renewable energy all across the world. But what it really comes down to is that it there are very few of these companies in the US, and the few that are, are being told by the President, along with "evangelical" (I hate that term to describe televangelists) leaders like Jerry Falwell, that supporting things like renewable energy is going to possibly damage the economy. Maybe I'm just not good at economics, but I would guess that supporting these companies would help our economy, as well as it would protect this wonderful earth that God has given us dominion over.
Call your local state representative, ask them to make your state use 35% renewable energy by 2015.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Another great energy resource
This is quite an amazing breakthrough in power generation. It’s safe, easy to deploy, and not harmful to the environment. Hopefully we can see these in north amertica soon.
A Scottish company will deploy sausage-shaped tubes off Portugal to create the world’s first commercial wave power plant, providing electricity to 1,500 homes from 2006, a partner in the Scottish firm said on Friday.
Ocean Power Delivery (OPD) will build the wave farm about three miles off Portugal’s northern coast, near Povoa de Varzim, OPD’s Norwegian backer Norsk Hydro said.
OPD will deliver three wave power generation units with capacity of 2.25 megawatts to Portuguese renewable energy group Enersis for million, but the project could be expanded significantly, Norsk Hydro said.
OPD’s Pelamis P-750 wage energy converter is an elongated metal unit that looks like a big semi-submerged sausage, with hinged segments that rock with the sea, up and down and side to side, pumping fluid to hydraulic motors that drive generators.
The power produced by the generators is fed into underwater cables and brought to land.
A letter of intent for a further 30 Pelamis wave machines for a total of 20 megawatts before the end of 2006 was also signed, subject to satisfactory performance by the initial installation, Hydro said.
“If all goes well, many additional sites producing up to a total several hundred MW could be developed along the coast,” Norsk Hydro said.
“We see this order as just the first step in developing the Portuguese market, which is anticipated to be worth up to a billion euros over the next 10 years,” OPD Managing Director Richard Yemm said in the statement.
OPD is also in talks with Scottish Power, which has shown interest in installing a wave farm in the United Kingdom, Hydro said.
The European Union requires 22 percent of electricity consumption to come from renewable energy sources — such as solar, wind and wave — by 2010. Renewables currently meet about six percent of European demand, Hydro said.
A Scottish company will deploy sausage-shaped tubes off Portugal to create the world’s first commercial wave power plant, providing electricity to 1,500 homes from 2006, a partner in the Scottish firm said on Friday.
Ocean Power Delivery (OPD) will build the wave farm about three miles off Portugal’s northern coast, near Povoa de Varzim, OPD’s Norwegian backer Norsk Hydro said.
OPD will deliver three wave power generation units with capacity of 2.25 megawatts to Portuguese renewable energy group Enersis for million, but the project could be expanded significantly, Norsk Hydro said.
OPD’s Pelamis P-750 wage energy converter is an elongated metal unit that looks like a big semi-submerged sausage, with hinged segments that rock with the sea, up and down and side to side, pumping fluid to hydraulic motors that drive generators.
The power produced by the generators is fed into underwater cables and brought to land.
A letter of intent for a further 30 Pelamis wave machines for a total of 20 megawatts before the end of 2006 was also signed, subject to satisfactory performance by the initial installation, Hydro said.
“If all goes well, many additional sites producing up to a total several hundred MW could be developed along the coast,” Norsk Hydro said.
“We see this order as just the first step in developing the Portuguese market, which is anticipated to be worth up to a billion euros over the next 10 years,” OPD Managing Director Richard Yemm said in the statement.
OPD is also in talks with Scottish Power, which has shown interest in installing a wave farm in the United Kingdom, Hydro said.
The European Union requires 22 percent of electricity consumption to come from renewable energy sources — such as solar, wind and wave — by 2010. Renewables currently meet about six percent of European demand, Hydro said.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Save the earth...one lightbulb at a time
1. If every one of 110 million American households bought just one ice-cream-cone bulb, took it home, and screwed it in the place of an ordinary 60-watt bulb, the energy saved would be enough to power a city of 1.5 million people.
2. Compact fluorescents emit the same light as classic incandescents but use 75% or 80% less electricity.
3. A $3 swirl pays for itself in lower electric bills in about five months.4. Compact fluorescents, even in heavy use, last 5, 7, 10 years. Years. Install one on your 30th birthday; it may be around to help illuminate your 40th.
5. The single greatest source of greenhouse gases in the United States is power plants–half our electricity comes from coal plants. One bulb swapped out: enough electricity saved to turn off two entire power plants–or skip building the next two.
6. In terms of oil not burned, or greenhouse gases not exhausted into the atmosphere, one bulb is equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the roads.
7. Last year, U.S. consumers spent about $1 billion to buy about 2 billion lightbulbs–5.5 million every day. Just 5%, 100 million, were compact fluorescents.
8. In the next 12 months, starting with a major push this month, Wal-Mart wants to sell every one of its regular customers–100 million in all–one swirl bulb.
9. Early CFLs cost $25 per bulb (and still paid for themselves in electricity savings). The light they produced was bluish or pinkish, or varied; the phosphor coating had to be refined. The ballast–built into the bulb rather than in a separate fixture, as with traditional fluorescent tubes–hummed and didn’t cycle the electricity quickly enough; it had to be made electronic and miniaturized. Costs came down, as did size. The same wizardry that gives us Hallmark birthday cards that play “Love and Happiness” makes possible CFLs at $2.60 instead of $25.
10. A 60-watt classic bulb and a 15-watt swirl are identically bright–the swirl just uses 45 fewer watts. Source: FastCompany
2. Compact fluorescents emit the same light as classic incandescents but use 75% or 80% less electricity.
3. A $3 swirl pays for itself in lower electric bills in about five months.4. Compact fluorescents, even in heavy use, last 5, 7, 10 years. Years. Install one on your 30th birthday; it may be around to help illuminate your 40th.
5. The single greatest source of greenhouse gases in the United States is power plants–half our electricity comes from coal plants. One bulb swapped out: enough electricity saved to turn off two entire power plants–or skip building the next two.
6. In terms of oil not burned, or greenhouse gases not exhausted into the atmosphere, one bulb is equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the roads.
7. Last year, U.S. consumers spent about $1 billion to buy about 2 billion lightbulbs–5.5 million every day. Just 5%, 100 million, were compact fluorescents.
8. In the next 12 months, starting with a major push this month, Wal-Mart wants to sell every one of its regular customers–100 million in all–one swirl bulb.
9. Early CFLs cost $25 per bulb (and still paid for themselves in electricity savings). The light they produced was bluish or pinkish, or varied; the phosphor coating had to be refined. The ballast–built into the bulb rather than in a separate fixture, as with traditional fluorescent tubes–hummed and didn’t cycle the electricity quickly enough; it had to be made electronic and miniaturized. Costs came down, as did size. The same wizardry that gives us Hallmark birthday cards that play “Love and Happiness” makes possible CFLs at $2.60 instead of $25.
10. A 60-watt classic bulb and a 15-watt swirl are identically bright–the swirl just uses 45 fewer watts. Source: FastCompany
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
My response to Fox Sports article on why Football is better than Soccer
Out of the 30 or so ideas, only one of two of them are decent...here are my responses...
Why Futbol is better than Football.
● Champion of the World…not just the United States of America and Canada, while attempting to exploit Mexico and Japan.
● Overtime give both teams an equal chance.
● Having the World Cup every four years makes the championship more prestigious.
● A third place match is just another way to make more money and watch a great game. It’s a surprise that we haven’t thought of this yet.
● It’s great to see Americans get pissed because France can beat them in a sport.
● Futbol pitches don’t have cheerleaders…this allows for more room for seats, so the fans can get much closer to the field.
● Futbol does not have scantily clad women who are paid to cheer…this is true…but what they do have is painted on bikini wearing fans that do it for the love of the game.
● Magic Spray is better than going back to the locker room to get an injection of pain killers so a player can finish the game.
● Football is played for 5 seconds…rest for 40 seconds…play for 5 seconds…rest for another 40. Must be exhausting.
● Players don’t need a helmet to head butt someone.
● Players play offense and defense…very few American football players can do that.
● Quarterbacks slide so not to get hit…futbol players slide to knock someone on their ass.
● Leave it to Football to make fun of the kicker…who quite frankly, is usually underpaid for someone who kicks the ball for the winning points in close games.
● Not allowing unlimited substitutions shows us what an athlete is made of. Futbol players don’t take breaks after every tough play.
● At least in Futbol…when someone is offside, the play is in action. How smart can a player be if they line up offside from the beginning?
● Leave it to America (and maybe Japan’s Sumo wrestling) where overweight players is something to be proud of.
● Futbol has more blood…Ask the American captain.
● In Futbol, the plays are changed on the fly. You don’t set up and try to figure it out before the play starts.
● Instead of trying to get better, America just says that if we lose to Ghana, we should quit. Great attitude.
● No commericial breaks. 45 straight minutes of action per half.
● Futbol fans are better at math. While Football fans have their time counted down, Futbol fans can figure out how much time is left on their own.
● One referee cannot perfectly keep track of 22 players on the field. If the ref didn’t see it, it didn’t happen. In the NFL, you have at least five referees for 22 players and they still can’t get it right. They have to use a replay because they can’t do it on their own.
Why Futbol is better than Football.
● Champion of the World…not just the United States of America and Canada, while attempting to exploit Mexico and Japan.
● Overtime give both teams an equal chance.
● Having the World Cup every four years makes the championship more prestigious.
● A third place match is just another way to make more money and watch a great game. It’s a surprise that we haven’t thought of this yet.
● It’s great to see Americans get pissed because France can beat them in a sport.
● Futbol pitches don’t have cheerleaders…this allows for more room for seats, so the fans can get much closer to the field.
● Futbol does not have scantily clad women who are paid to cheer…this is true…but what they do have is painted on bikini wearing fans that do it for the love of the game.
● Magic Spray is better than going back to the locker room to get an injection of pain killers so a player can finish the game.
● Football is played for 5 seconds…rest for 40 seconds…play for 5 seconds…rest for another 40. Must be exhausting.
● Players don’t need a helmet to head butt someone.
● Players play offense and defense…very few American football players can do that.
● Quarterbacks slide so not to get hit…futbol players slide to knock someone on their ass.
● Leave it to Football to make fun of the kicker…who quite frankly, is usually underpaid for someone who kicks the ball for the winning points in close games.
● Not allowing unlimited substitutions shows us what an athlete is made of. Futbol players don’t take breaks after every tough play.
● At least in Futbol…when someone is offside, the play is in action. How smart can a player be if they line up offside from the beginning?
● Leave it to America (and maybe Japan’s Sumo wrestling) where overweight players is something to be proud of.
● Futbol has more blood…Ask the American captain.
● In Futbol, the plays are changed on the fly. You don’t set up and try to figure it out before the play starts.
● Instead of trying to get better, America just says that if we lose to Ghana, we should quit. Great attitude.
● No commericial breaks. 45 straight minutes of action per half.
● Futbol fans are better at math. While Football fans have their time counted down, Futbol fans can figure out how much time is left on their own.
● One referee cannot perfectly keep track of 22 players on the field. If the ref didn’t see it, it didn’t happen. In the NFL, you have at least five referees for 22 players and they still can’t get it right. They have to use a replay because they can’t do it on their own.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Colbert Report steals my ideas
For those of you who watch the Colbert Report on Comedy Central, more specifically, saw the episode on Monday April 17, 2006, you will notice that a lot of my previous post made it into the show. Perhaps we share a bit of creative genius, or they stole my idea, which ever it is, it was a good show. Of course, I can't prove that some writer viewed my blog, but oh well, I can dream.
Jesus riding on huge chunks of ice...where do people come up with this crap?
Jesus riding on huge chunks of ice...where do people come up with this crap?
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Does Jesus use ice to "walk on water"?
There was an article posted on MSN.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12152740/?GT1=7938 this evening that has tried to explain the supossed miracle of Jesus walking on the water, which can be found in John 6:16-21. The story is as follows.
16When evening came, his disciples went down to the lake, 17where they got into a boat and set off across the lake for Capernaum. By now it was dark, and Jesus had not yet joined them. 18A strong wind was blowing and the waters grew rough. 19When they had rowed three or three and a half miles,[b] they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water; and they were terrified. 20But he said to them, "It is I; don't be afraid." 21Then they were willing to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the shore where they were heading.
Now people have been attempting to use science to explain away the miracles of Jesus. Thats fine. People need to write their doctoral dissertations on something, but in my opinion, this concept does not make the story any less miracilous.
Lets say that the article is right. That there were huge pieces of ice that were large and stable enough for a person to stand on. Now, even if that was true, Jesus would have had to ride a chunk of ice for 3 miles in rough water with very high winds. Plus, the man would have been in sandals...floating on a huge chunk of ice...in nearly frozen water. Thats a miracle in and of itself.
Seriously...what kind of idiot thinks that a person rode a slab of ice for 3 miles in crappy weather...that is quite honestly the dumbest thing I've ever heard of in regards to someone trying to explain away a miracle.
16When evening came, his disciples went down to the lake, 17where they got into a boat and set off across the lake for Capernaum. By now it was dark, and Jesus had not yet joined them. 18A strong wind was blowing and the waters grew rough. 19When they had rowed three or three and a half miles,[b] they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water; and they were terrified. 20But he said to them, "It is I; don't be afraid." 21Then they were willing to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the shore where they were heading.
Now people have been attempting to use science to explain away the miracles of Jesus. Thats fine. People need to write their doctoral dissertations on something, but in my opinion, this concept does not make the story any less miracilous.
Lets say that the article is right. That there were huge pieces of ice that were large and stable enough for a person to stand on. Now, even if that was true, Jesus would have had to ride a chunk of ice for 3 miles in rough water with very high winds. Plus, the man would have been in sandals...floating on a huge chunk of ice...in nearly frozen water. Thats a miracle in and of itself.
Seriously...what kind of idiot thinks that a person rode a slab of ice for 3 miles in crappy weather...that is quite honestly the dumbest thing I've ever heard of in regards to someone trying to explain away a miracle.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
MLK...a new view of the holiday
For the longest time, MLK jr day has been just another day off. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, I have always had a day to sleep in on the monday closest to January 15th. Also, because my brother shares the same birthday as King, we were more inclinded to spend it doing something he enjoyed instead of going to a parade in King's honor.
If I had not had an experience concerning Martin Luther King jr two weeks ago, this post would not be written and my blog would remain dormant, but an article in today's Express-Times greatly annoyed me.
The president of the Bethlehem NAACP has been pushing for all of the Bethlehem Area School District employee's to have off. All students and teachers have off, but 23% of employee's had to come into work on the federal holiday.
In my humble opinion, this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Can anyone tell me that what the Rev. King wanted was for the country to take a day off from work? If someone can successfully argue to me that it is better to honor the birth of one of America's greatest men by having a day off from school instead of going to school and actually learning something important on that day about King's civil right's movement, then I will shut up forever about the subject.
Instead of giving students the day off so a handfull of them can attend a parade of poor quality, why are they not in school, spending the day being educated about King and what he stood for?
That's what the NAACP should be fighting for, for more education, not for less. That's what Rev. King was about. Education. He let the world know about what atrocities were being committed against people of color.
Everyone complains that the fight is still going on. We all need to work harder to make the civil right's movement, the equality of all humanity, a reality, but fighting for a day off from work and school just will not cut it.
All organizations that believe in what King stood for need to embrace the idea that a day off for students and teachers to honor such a man is wrong. When they realize this, maybe, just maybe, people will begin to see what the holiday is all about.
If I had not had an experience concerning Martin Luther King jr two weeks ago, this post would not be written and my blog would remain dormant, but an article in today's Express-Times greatly annoyed me.
The president of the Bethlehem NAACP has been pushing for all of the Bethlehem Area School District employee's to have off. All students and teachers have off, but 23% of employee's had to come into work on the federal holiday.
In my humble opinion, this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Can anyone tell me that what the Rev. King wanted was for the country to take a day off from work? If someone can successfully argue to me that it is better to honor the birth of one of America's greatest men by having a day off from school instead of going to school and actually learning something important on that day about King's civil right's movement, then I will shut up forever about the subject.
Instead of giving students the day off so a handfull of them can attend a parade of poor quality, why are they not in school, spending the day being educated about King and what he stood for?
That's what the NAACP should be fighting for, for more education, not for less. That's what Rev. King was about. Education. He let the world know about what atrocities were being committed against people of color.
Everyone complains that the fight is still going on. We all need to work harder to make the civil right's movement, the equality of all humanity, a reality, but fighting for a day off from work and school just will not cut it.
All organizations that believe in what King stood for need to embrace the idea that a day off for students and teachers to honor such a man is wrong. When they realize this, maybe, just maybe, people will begin to see what the holiday is all about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)