SavvySugar

Git'er Done Joe

Grandpa — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:44:24 -0800

Subject: SHERIFF JOE IS AT IT AGAIN!

You all remember Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona , who painted the jail cells pink and made the inmates wearpink prison garb. Well.........

SHERIFF JOE IS AT IT AGAIN!

Oh, there's MUCH more to know about Sheriff Joe!

Maricopa County was spending approx. $18 million dollars a year on stray animals, like cats and dogs. Sheriff Joe offered to take the department over, and the County Supervisors said okay.

The animal shelters are now all staffed and operated by prisoners. They feed and care for the strays. Every animal in his care is taken out and walked twice daily. He now has prisoners who are experts in animal nutrition and behavior. They give great classes for anyone who'd like to adopt an animal. He has literally takenstray dogs off the street, given them to the care of prisoners, and had them place in dog shows.

The best part? His budget for the entire department is now under $3 million. Teresa and I adopted a Weimaraner from a Maricopa County shelter two years ago. He was neutered, and current on all shots, in great health, and even had a microchip inserted the day we got him. Cost us $78.

The prisoners get the benefit of about $0.28 an hour for working, but most would work for free, just to be out of their cells for the day. Most of his budget is fo r utilities, building maintenance, etc. He pays the prisoners out of the fees collected for adopted animals.

I have long wondered when the rest of the country would take a look at the way he runs the jail system, and copy some of his ideas. He has a huge farm, donated to the county years ago, where inmates can work, and they grow most of their own fresh vegetables and food, doing all the work and harvesting by hand.

He has a pretty good sized hog farm, which provides meat, and fertilizer. It fertilizes the Christmas tree nursery, where prisoners work, and you can buy a living Christmas tree for $6 - $8 for the Holidays, and plant it later. We have six trees in our yard from the Prison.

Yup, he was reelected last year with 83% of the vote.
Now he's in trouble with the ACLU again. He painted all his buses and vehicles with a mural, that has a special hotline phone number painted on it, where you can call and report suspected illegal aliens. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement wasn't doing enough in his eyes, so he had 40 deputies trained specifically for enforcing immigration laws, started up his ho tline, and bought 4 new buses just for hauling folks back to the border. He's kind of a 'Git-R Dun' kind of Sheriff.

TO THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH JOE ARPAIO

HE IS THE MARICOPA ARIZONA COUNTY SHERIFF

AND HE KEEPS GETTING ELECTED OVER AND OVER
THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio (In Arizona ) who created the ' Tent City Jail':
He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.

He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their weights Cut off all but 'G' movies.

He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects.

Then He Started Chain Gangs For Women So He Wouldn't Get
Sued For Discrimination..

He took away cable TV Until he found out there was A Federal Court Order that Required Cable TV For Jails So He Hooked Up The Cable TV Again Only Let In The Disney Channel And The Weather Channel.

When asked why the weather channel He Replied, So They Will Know How Hot It's Gonna Be While They Are Working
ON My Chain Gangs.

He Cut Off Coffee Since It Has Zero Nutritional Value.

When the inmates complained, he told them, 'This Isn't The Ritz/Carlton......If You Don't Like It, Don't Come Back.'

A Possible Non-Christian teacher suspended after Facebook comments. Right or wrong?

PinkNC — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:39:45 -0800

Published: February 16, 2010

A Wake County middle school teacher has been suspended following complaints about disparaging comments she made about her class, Christianity and Southern culture on her Facebook page.

Melissa Hussain, an eighth-grade teacher at West Lake Middle School in Apex, wrote on her Facebook page that it was a “hate crime” that students left a Bible on her desk and how she “was able to shame her kids” over the incident. Her Facebook page included comments from friends saying that the parents of Hussain’s students were “bigoted, stupid and uncaring.”

Some parents were angry that she was allowed to stay in the classroom, leading them to complain to school board members on Friday. Hussain was later told to leave her classroom on Friday and is not back at the school.

Greg Thomas, a Wake schools’ spokesman, said Hussain has been suspended with pay. But he said he couldn’t discuss the reason for the suspension because of employee confidentiality rules. School administrators say they are still investigating the situation.

Her Facebook page included comments from friends about "ignorant southern rednecks,"

"I don't defend what the kids were doing," said Murray Inman, a parent one of Hussain's students. "I just couldn't imagine an educator, or a group of educators, engaging in this kind of dialogue about kids."

Hussain did not return calls and e-mail messages Monday.

Teachers across the nation have been suspended or fired because of questionable material posted on their Facebook pages and other online social networking sites.

In 2008, seven Charlotte-Mecklenburg school employees were disciplined and at least one person was fired because of Facebook postings. That led to a memo going to all Charlotte-Mecklenburg school staff warning that offensive postings to social networking sites are grounds for termination or disciplinary action.

The Wake school district doesn't have a policy on the use of social networking sites, Thomas said. But the district does have a code of ethics for employees that the school spokesman says applies to social networking. The code says employees' conduct "should be such as to protect both the person's integrity and/or reputation and that of the school system."

Picture of Jesus

In Hussain's case, the comments in question were on the public side of her Facebook page. She has since limited public access.

Parents of children in Hussain's class said they first learned about the comments last month, leading them to complain to the school three weeks ago.

Parents said the situation escalated after a student put a postcard of Jesus on Hussain's desk that the teacher threw in the trash. Parents also said Hussain sent to the office students who asked about the role of God in creation during a lesson about evolution .

On her Facebook page, Hussain wrote about students spreading rumors that she was a Jesus hater. She complained about her students wearing Jesus T-shirts and singing "Jesus Loves Me." She objected to students reading the Bible instead of doing her work.

But Annette Balint, whose daughter is in Hussain's class, said the students have the right to wear those shirts and sing "Jesus Loves Me," a longtime Sunday school staple. She said the students were reading the Bible during free time in class.

"She doesn't have to be a professing Christian to be in the classroom," Balint said. "But she can't go the other way and not allow God to be mentioned."

Hussain, a 2004 Florida State University graduate, has been a Wake teacher since 2006. Her religious affiliation is not posted on her Facebook page.

'Merry Christmas'

The flash point for the comments came after the Bible was left on Hussain's desk in December. The Bible was accompanied by an anonymous card, which, according to Hussain, said "'Merry Christmas' with Christ underlined and bolded." She said there was no love shown in giving her the Bible.

"I can't believe the cruelty and ignorance of people sometimes," Hussain wrote on her Facebook page.

Hussain also said she wouldn't let the Bible incident "go unpunished."

Her friends soon joined the discussion about the situation. The one who suggested Hussain's "getting even" by bringing the swastika-marred Earnhardt poster to class said it would be "teaching" students a lesson.

"And without a job," Hussain responded. "But I like it!"

Hussain's comments also included one where she complained that she "hates" parents who complain about their child's first B in middle school. She said her husband suggested she start a blog "based on ridiculous students and their parents."

Balint said it was clear to the class that Hussain was talking about her daughter. "I feel violated that she would say those things," she said.

The length of the investigation is frustrating parents.

"My biggest concern is whether the resentment between the students and the teacher will continue for the rest of the school year," said Robert Boretti, whose child is in Hussain's class.

********

Now here is PinkNC's thoughts:

I personally believe these kids were knowingly being rude to her - just trying to set her off because of her last name (Hussain) and the assumption of her religion because of it, which they assume is NOT Christian like theirs.

Hussain = Equals Muslim or terrorist..........NOT in PinkNC's opinion!

So tell PinkNC.........

Here's the question: Is it right for the teacher to be suspended because of her students behavior - when they cruelly set her off intentionally?

.
.
.

Teaching "Twilight"???

stephley — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:22:10 -0800

Soon, students at Cambridge University will be getting a new supplement to their educations: books from Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight series.

According to BBC News, a newly-opened Cambridge center for the study of children’s literature (they call it a “centre,” naturally) will cover, among other things, Twilight, the Harry Potter series, and video games as works of literature.

In an interview, the soon-to-be director of the center/centre dismissed suggestions that Twilight and other contemporary series are “trash,” and even said that academics had something to learn about the ethical development of young people from children’s series and video games:
BBC News:

Professor Maria Nikolajeva, who will be the centre’s first director, said it was important to get an understanding of what was influencing young people.

She said: “It’s easy to say that these things are just kids’ fashions or that they’re trash, but I don’t believe that’s good enough.

“If what we regard as trash is popular with young people, we need to know why and whether, as researchers and teachers, we can offer them something that addresses the same needs but also deals with these themes in a critical and ethical way.”

She added many trainee teachers did not understand the significance of the latest children’s books or films when they went into the classroom.

“Studying this can help us deal with questions which are important not only for the children themselves, but for adults as well,” she added.

http://www.geekosystem.com/twilight-cambridge-literature/

Obamas Cadillac Flip Flop

StolzeMama — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:26:10 -0800

In a video that rings so true it hurts, Lee Stranahan–a former Obama supporter–gives us the aspiring president’s own speech. Only a month before the 2008 election, Obama makes it plain just how bad an idea the “Cadillac” excise tax on health benefits actually is:

John McCain calls these plans “Cadillac plans.” Now in some cases, it may be that a corporate CEO is getting too good a deal. But what if you’re a line worker making a good American car like the Cadillac? What if you’re one of the steelworkers who are working right here in Newport News, and you’ve given up wage increases in exchange for a better health care?

Well, Senator McCain believes you should pay higher taxes too. The bottom line: the better your health care plan – the harder you’ve fought for your good benefits – the higher the taxes you’ll pay.

[]

You see, Senator McCain would pay for his plan, in part, by taxing your health care benefits for the first time in history.

This plan, as Stranahan (and Obama) make clear, is a new tax on the middle class. It’s the kind of tax that could potentially ruin the health insurance that many Americans struggled to get through the collective bargaining process.

Alas, some in organized labor have only sought to get exemptions or cutouts for themselves rather than oppose this regressive tax outright.

The House version of the legislation contained a better idea for funding health care reform-a small tax increase on the very highest incomes in the tradition of the progressive federal income tax that has worked to build this country’s best programs for nearly a century. But rather than stick to their better idea, House leadership has signaled that they will roll over for today’s President Obama, and accept the tax on health benefits, but request a temporarily higher threshold. Not smart, not small or large “D” democratic, not what Obama promised back in 2008.

“This entire health care plan is a huge sellout to the insurance industry,” says Stranahan, “There are side effects to mandating that every person be forced to buy private insurance. . . Obama “didn’t run on mandates, he ran against mandates.”

“We have been given a watered down, corporate-friendly health care bill”-this is not what Lee voted for, this not what any of us voted for.

Also this snipet I found interesting
For almost the entirety of the health care debate, the Obama Administration has relied on economist Jonathan Gruber to make the public case for its idea of reform - even the most unpopular parts. But as Firedoglake revealed on Friday, the Obama Administration has failed to disclose that it paid the same economist more than $780,000.

This is a huge ethical violation that undermines the entirety of health care reform.

http://firedoglake.com/2010/01/07/cadillac-flip-flop-obama-was-against-h...

Being transgender….do you really want to know them?

PinkNC — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:10:47 -0800

President Obama has appointed Amanda Simpson, a transgender woman, to be the Senior Technical Adviser to the Commerce Department. Some religious people have a great problem with this.

When it comes to people in high political positions, or just someone over you with a career that makes grave choices for you…

Is it hypocritical to demand the right to know someone else’s sexual nature?

If they are transgender, gay, or bi-sexual, is it your right to know so that you can freely judge them and their ideals, even work ethics?

*
*
*

A Highly Recommended Book

-B- — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:54:16 -0800

I have not been feeling well, which is obligatory of what I am going through, and I know there are people who are happy about this. So, I have turned from Sugar to reading a LOT! But, when I do have something of interest for you I will post it for you as I care deeply about so many of you. I am not looking for sympathy or empathy of any nature. Far from it. Taking a break from Sugar has been situational. Therefore READING has been a serenity of sorts. Absorbing information which I wish I would have attained months ago.

A book advised for reading:
"The Moral Sense" by James Q. Wilson

Mark Twain once advised, "Always do right. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest." (you know how I love my quotes). The thought of astonishing people is certainly appealing, yet somehow we have to know what's right before we can do it. How do we know what's right? It's not easy, despite the fact that there's a vast field of study devoted to the topic which is described using terms like "Ethics," or "Moral Philosophy." However, countless philosophers writing shelves full of books over have hardly improved on the age-old cliche', "treat others as you want to be treated." Albert Schweitzer rephrased it this way: "A man is truly ethical only when he obeys the compulsion to help all life which he is able to assist, and shrinks from injuring anything that lives."

But why should we even be interested in opening the question? Why not just leave the discussion of ethics to theologians?

Despite the fact that religion and ethics are sometimes assumed to be interchangeable ideas, a standard of morality is important whether one believes in a higher power or not. It makes society work and establishes the basis by which human beings can relate to each other and to their environment safely and responsibly. If our ethical lines shift according to whim, others won't be able to anticipate our responses or predict our stance on any issue. We all have a strong desire to know where we "stand" in relation to others. Do they care about us? Do we care about them? How do we know whether our relationships can be relied upon? Generally we know "where we stand" with others based on their treatment of us and their responses to our actions. We have the best relationships with those people we feel certain will react more or less as we expect. Since this works both ways, we want to treat them with the same regard and respect that we expect them to extend to us.

In his book, "The Moral Sense", modern philosopher and educator James Q. Wilson argues that there are ethical "inclinations" that are common to almost all people. Although he cautions that "this doesn't mean we have found a set of moral rules," he also believes that most of us try to keep society's laws out of higher concerns than merely a fear of retribution. He notes, "a sense of duty, a desire to please, a belief in fairness, and sympathy for the plight of others."

Discoveries in neuroscience over the past decade suggest that there might even be something of this sort hard-wired in our brains. "Mirror neurons" have created quite a stir since their discovery by Italian scientists in the 90's, and subsequent studies have had fascinating results. The same areas of the brain are activated not only when we perform an action ourselves, but also when we watch the same action being performed by somone else. Many scientists are convinced that this indicates the seat of our brain's ability to internally simulate the experiences of others. As some neuroscientists say "Today, mirror neurons play a major explanatory role in the understanding of a number of human features, from imitation to empathy."

Empathy, of course, is what allows us to "treat others as we want to be treated." Maybe we really do have a certain degree of a "moral sense," as Wilson argues. If so, it would seem to weaken the arguments for moral relativism and to elevate words like "values" and "ethics" to a status somewhat higher than "tastes" or "preferences." This distinction is very important in the study of ethics. Among other things it allows us to see modern examples of man's inhumanity to man as the horrors they are, rather than as merely another culture's chosen practices.

Those who believe in a higher power may have reasons to adhere to a variety of additional codes and ethical standards, but whether one believes in a higher power or not, our "moral sense" at least should compel us to go about our lives with ethical standards founded on empathy and concern for others.

As for John Q. Wilson, in a still, small voice he concludes his book with the words, "Mankind's moral sense is not a strong beacon light, radiating outward to illuminate in sharp outline all that it touches. It is, rather, a small candle flame, casting vague and multiple shadows, flickering and sputtering in the strong winds of power and passion, greed and ideology. But brought close to the heart and cupped in one's hands, it dispels the darkness and warms the soul."

Please be good to one another. It is so easy and healthy. Let us consider the feelings of one another - not just ourSELVES. This book has taught me more than was learned through 16 years of schooling.

It is not expensive - yet is so very valuable.

Love
B

HELP! Thank you for your positive comments

TxGem — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:47:16 -0800

I have 10 years experience as an insurance agent. I have 5 years experience in General,Auto and Workers Compensation Liability Claims. I have 10 years experience as a Pharmacy Technician. I have 20 years experience as a mother of 2 teenage daughters (18,21) and my 4 yr old son. I volunteered at a nursing home for 5 years as a teenager. I sold newspaper door to door to make pocket money when I was 14. I had my first child at a very young age and have been working ever since, just recently been unemployed. I have very good work ethics and loyal to my employers. I live in Houston, Texas. Driven, eager and highly motivated.

10 Principles for Peace of Mind..

Iveenia — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:38:15 -0800

this came fm my friend Nandita (Indian Lady) who lives in Dubai with her husband - she is brilliant with her conclusions and this i had to share with you

1. Do Not Interfere In Others' Business Unless Asked.

Most of us create our own problems by interfering too often in others' affairs. We do so because somehow we have convinced ourselves that our way is the best way, our logic is the perfect logic and those who do not conform to our thinking must be criticized and steered to the right direction, our direction. This thinking denies the existence of individuality and consequently the existence of God. God has created each one of us in a unique way. No two human beings can think or act in exactly the same way. All men or women act the way they do because God within them prompts them that way. Mind your own business and you will keep your peace.

2. Forgive And Forget:

This is the most powerful aid to peace of mind. We often develop ill feelings inside our heart for the person who insults us or harms us. We nurture grievances. This in turn results in loss of sleep, development of stomach ulcers, and high blood pressure. This insult or injury was done once, but nourishing of grievance goes on forever by constantly remembering it. Get over this bad habit. Life is too short to waste in such trifles. Forgive, Forget, and march on. Love flourishes in giving and forgiving.

3. Do Not Crave For Recognition:

This world is full of selfish people. They seldom praise anybody without selfish motives. They may praise you today because you are in power. But no sooner than you are powerless, they will forget your achievement and will start finding faults in you. Why do you wish to harm yourself if in striving for their recognition? Their recognition is not worth the aggravation. Do your duties ethically and sincerely.

4. Do Not Be Jealous:

We all have experienced how jealousy can disturb our peace of mind. You know that you work harder than your colleagues in the office, but sometimes they get promotions; you do not. You started a business several years ago, but you are not as successful as your neighbor whose business is only one year old. There are several examples like these in everyday life. Should you be jealous? No. Remember, everybody's life is shaped by his/her destiny, which has now become his/her reality. If you are destined to be rich, nothing in the world can stop you. If you are not so destined, no one can help you either. Nothing will be gained by blaming others for your misfortune. Jealousy will not get you anywhere; it will only take away your peace of mind.

5. Change Yourself According To The Environment:

If you try to change the environment single-handedly, the chances are you will fail. Instead, change yourself to suit your environment. As you do this, even the environment, which has been unfriendly to you, will mysteriously change and seem congenial and harmonious.

6. Endure What Cannot Be Cured:

This is the best way to turn a disadvantage into an advantage. Every day we face numerous inconveniences, ailments, irritations, and accidents that are beyond our control... If we cannot control them or change them, we must learn to put up with these things. We must learn to endure them cheerfully. Believe in yourself and you will gain in terms of patience, inner strength and will power.

7. Do Not Bite Off More Than You Can Chew:

This maxim needs to be remembered constantly. We often tend to take more responsibilities than we are capable of carrying out. This is done to satisfy our ego. Know your limitations. . Why take on additional loads that may create more worries? You cannot gain peace of mind by expanding your external activities. Reduce your material engagements and spend time in prayer, introspection and meditation. This will reduce those thoughts in your mind that make you restless. Uncluttered mind will produce greater peace of mind.

8. Meditate Regularly:

Meditation calms the mind and gets rid of disturbing thoughts. This is the highest state of peace of mind. Try and experience it yourself. If you meditate earnestly for half an hour everyday, your mind will tend to become peaceful during the remaining twenty-three and half-hours. Your mind will not be easily disturbed as it was before. You would benefit by gradually increasing the period of daily meditation. You may think that this will interfere with your daily work. On the contrary, this will increase your efficiency and you will be able to produce better results in less time.

9. Never Leave The Mind Vacant:

An empty mind is the devil's workshop. All evil actions start in the vacant mind. Keep your mind occupied in something positive, something worthwhile. Actively follow a hobby. Do something that holds your interest. You must decide what you value more: money or peace of mind. Your hobby, like social work or religious work, may not always earn you more money, but you will have a sense of fulfillment and achievement. Even when you are resting physically, occupy yourself in healthy reading or mental chanting of God's name.

10. Do Not Procrastinate And Never Regret:

Do not waste time in protracted wondering " Should I or shouldn't I?" Days, weeks, months, and years may be wasted in that futile mental debating. You can never plan enough because you can never anticipate all future happenings. Value your time and do the things that need to be done. It does not matter if you fail the first time. You can learn from your mistakes and succeed the next time. Sitting back and worrying will lead to nothing. Learn from your mistakes, but do not brood over the past. DO NOT REGRET. Whatever happened was destined to happen only that way. Why cry over spilt milk?

The Science and Politics of Climate Change

Roarman — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:22:10 -0800

Science never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete.

I am a climate scientist who worked in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the 1990s. I have been reflecting on the bigger lessons to be learned from the stolen emails, some of which were mine. One thing the episode has made clear is that it has become difficult to disentangle political arguments about climate policies from scientific arguments about the evidence for man-made climate change and the confidence placed in predictions of future change. The quality of both political debate and scientific practice suffers as a consequence.

Surveys of public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic about man-made climate change continue to tell us something politicians know only too well: The citizens they rule over have minds of their own. In the U.K., a recent survey suggested that only 41% believed humans are causing climate change, 32% remained unsure and 15% were convinced we aren't. Similar surveys in the U.S. have shown a recent reduction in the number of people believing in man-made climate change.

One reaction to this "unreasonableness" is to get scientists to speak louder, more often, or more dramatically about climate change. Another reaction from government bodies and interest groups is to use ever-more-emotional campaigning. Thus both the U.K. government's recent "bedtime stories" adverts, and Plane Stupid's Internet campaign showing polar bears falling past twin towers, have attracted widespread criticism for being too provocative and scary. These instinctive reactions fail to place the various aspects of our knowledge about climate change-scientific insights, political values, cultural moods, personal beliefs-in right relationship with each other. Too often, when we think we are arguing over scientific evidence for climate change, we are in fact disagreeing about our different political preferences, ethical principles and value systems.

If we build the foundations of our climate-change policies so confidently and so single-mindedly on scientific claims about what the future holds and what therefore "has to be done," then science will inevitably become the field on which political battles are waged. The mantra becomes: Get the science right, reduce the scientific uncertainties, compel everyone to believe it. . . and we will have won. Not only is this an unrealistic view about how policy gets made, it also places much too great a burden on science, certainly on climate science with all of its struggles with complexity, contingency and uncertainty.

The events of the last few of weeks, involving stolen professional correspondence between a small number of leading climate scientists-so-called climategate-demonstrate my point. Both the theft itself and the alleged contents of some of the stolen emails reveal the strong polarization and intense antagonism now found in some areas of climate science.

Climate scientists, knowingly or not, become proxies for political battles. The consequence is that science, as a form of open and critical enquiry, deteriorates while the more appropriate forums for ideological battles are ignored.

We have also seen how this plays out in public debate. In the wake of climategate, questions were asked on the BBC's Question Time last week about whether or not global warming was a scam. The absolutist claims of two of the panelists-Daily Mail journalist Melanie Phillips, and comedian and broadcaster Marcus Brigstocke-revealed how science ends up being portrayed as a fight between two dogmas: Either the evidence for man-made climate change is all fake, or else we are so sure we know how the planet works that we can claim to have just five or whatever years to save it. When science is invoked to support such dogmatic assertions, the essential character of scientific knowledge is lost-knowledge that results from open, always questioning, enquiry that, at best, can offer varying levels of confidence for pronouncements about how the world is, or may become.

The problem then with getting our relationship with science wrong is simple: We expect too much certainty, and hence clarity, about what should be done. Consequently, we fail to engage in honest and robust argument about our competing political visions and ethical values.

Science never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete. This is especially the case with the science of climate, a complex system of enormous scale, at every turn influenced by human contingencies. Yes, science has clearly revealed that humans are influencing global climate and will continue to do so, but we don't know the full scale of the risks involved, nor how rapidly they will evolve, nor indeed-with clear insight-the relative roles of all the forcing agents involved at different scales.

Similarly, we endow analyses about the economics of climate change with too much scientific authority. Yes, we know there is a cascade of costs involved in mitigating, adapting to or ignoring climate change, but many of these costs are heavily influenced by ethical judgements about how we value things, now and in the future. These are judgments that science cannot prescribe.

The central battlegrounds on which we need to fight out the policy implications of climate change concern matters of risk management, of valuation, and political ideology. We must move the locus of public argumentation here not because the science has somehow been "done" or "is settled"; science will never be either of these things, although it can offer powerful forms of knowledge not available in other ways. It is a false hope to expect science to dispel the fog of uncertainty so that it finally becomes clear exactly what the future holds and what role humans have in causing it. This is one reason why British columnist George Monbiot wrote about climategate, "I have seldom felt so alone." By staking his position on "the science," he feels alone and betrayed when some aspect of the science is undermined.

If climategate leads to greater openness and transparency in climate science, and makes it less partisan, it will have done a good thing. It will enable science to function in the effective way it must do in public policy deliberations: Not as the place where we import all of our legitimate disagreements, but one powerful way of offering insight about how the world works and the potential consequences of different policy choices. The important arguments about political beliefs and ethical values can then take place in open and free democracies, in those public spaces we have created for political argumentation.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870410710457457161321577133...

Will religion be a force for good or evil in the future?

PinkNC — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:39:26 -0800

*This article was NOT written by me but I did find it interesting and wanted to share it*

Is religion a force for good or for evil? There is evidence both ways, and I don't know how to balance the pluses and minuses.

Certainly religion provides comfort to many people, and perhaps gets some to behave more ethically than they might otherwise. Religions have inspired many great works of art, architecture, and music. They have sponsored charitable, medical, and educational institutions.

On the other hand, religion is divisive and provides impetus for discrimination, cruelty, family breakup, and persecution toward those of different religion. Religion is a medium for some people's hypocrisy. Even murder and child neglect are sometimes ordered by the god.

I am reminded of a quote from Steven Weinberg (Nobel laureate in physics): “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil - but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”

People fight and die over religious holy places, some of which are claimed by more than one religion, as in Jerusalem and India.

In some cases religion makes people miserable through arbitrary rules, such as those about divorce, birth control, shunning, and limitations on medical care.

There are also some large-scale horrors to which religion contributed: wars, pogroms, crusades, jihads, persecutions, inquisitions, witch hunts. We have seen these things in old history and some continue today.

Here are just a few of the many examples we have had in very recent times: In the countries of former Yugoslavia, there were Catholic Croats, Orthodox Christian Serbs, and Muslims all at each other. In Lebanon, it was Christian Arabs (supported by Israel) versus Muslim Arabs in a terrible civil war. In India, it is Sikhs and Hindus fighting over a holy place.

Almost every modern religion has at times been the perpetrator and at other times the victim of such evils.

Religion has served as justification, if not the real reason, for slavery, colonialism, and even cruelty to animals.

On another level, it can be argued that religions tend to discourage people from thinking independently and clearly. For religions insist on the Truth of ancient stories and superstitions regardless of any evidence or reasoning that appeared since their origin. The religious mindset of smug rectitude and superiority gets in the way of a mindset toward justice and reason.

“The simple faith of a child”, sometimes glorified by religious people, can be charming in a young child, but is disgraceful in an intelligent adult.

There are many what if questions one can pose (but not answer). Here are a few:

• What would the world be like now if there had never been the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition?

• How different would the United States be today if there had never been religious persecutions in other countries, which sent so many of our ancestors here?

• What would the UK be like if Henry VIII hadn't broken so bitterly with the Catholic Church?

• What would India-Pakistan be like if there had been no religion-based partition?

• How would the world be different if there had not been the religious motivations of people like Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, and Albert Schweitzer?

• Where would scholarship be now if churches hadn't founded such great universities as Harvard and Oxford?

• Would we have the music of Johann Sebastian Bach if he hadn't been employed by a church?

Most of this article concerned the past, which of course, we are powerless to change.

*
*
A more important question is: Will religion be a force for good or evil in the future?

*
*