Archive for October, 2007
October 30th, 2007 -- Posted in Story |
It can be argued that there are two separate ways of using terror as a weapon; one is to maintain the status quo and the other is to change something, usually in terms of a political and/or economic regime.
The question is, does the use of terror achieve these ends in either case?
The answer, surprisingly, seems to be ‘yes’ in the case of one and ‘no’ in the case of the other, while the two are nevertheless conjoined. Let’s look at each case separately.
Status Quo
The use of terror as a weapon is by no means exclusive to the underground movements associated with it in modern times. It has been used throughout history by governments and occupying powers to keep populations in check and maintain the rule of law, regardless of how harsh those laws may have been.
The extraordinary brutality of many of these attempts at control have been well documented since Roman times, although it’s interesting to note that few, if any, authorities have ever applied the epithet ‘terrorism’ to these activities. It is reserved almost exclusively for those who have opposed the status quo through violence and who continue to do so. However the purpose here is to examine whether violent measures actually achieved anything other than a temporary respite from the will of the people prevailing. History suggests the answer is ‘no’.
For example, when, in 1819, magistrates in Manchester, England, ordered cavalry to charge a peaceful gathering of 60,000 men, women and children at Peterloo Fields, resulting in 11 deaths and over 400 injured, did this prevent the repeal of the Corn Laws? History gives us the answer.
Similarly, did the largest standing army the world had ever seen, deployed concurrently with summary executions and concentration camps, prevent the dissolution of the British Empire and the establishment of independent and self-governing states? Again, clearly it did not.
Nor did the use of napalm and agent orange bring about a result in Asia that satisfied American interests, and the hanging of men and women in 18th century Ireland for wearing the color green also failed to achieve the desired result for the occupying power.
There is nothing benign about empires. They are, by their very nature, dictatorships whose will must be first imposed and later enforced as those who seek to break free from them hit back. The sheer cost of maintaining a military presence, coupled with a reluctance on the part of the occupying country’s own population to continue its support for the government involved, is usually sufficient to eventually bring about the regime’s downfall.
A Force For Change
The corollary of this argument, if acceptable, must therefore be that terrorism by elements of the local population does, in many cases, bring about change largely because it can turn the tide of popular opinion against the status quo, thereby bringing about its downfall at the ballot box. For as long as there is democracy in the home country of the occupying force, this is always likely to be the case.
To visit Ireland once again, an examination of the history of that land reveals atrocities on both sides, and for a long time successive British governments were able to maintain control using both regular forces and mercenaries in the form of the “Black and Tans”. They also enjoyed popular support at home and the political machinations that resulted in partition in 1922 were seen by the majority of the British people as an economic and political triumph.
It was not until the Provisional IRA brought the struggle for home rule to the British mainland that the electorate began to sit up and take serious note of what had been, up until then, something that was happening in another country. As the body count rose, so too did the clamour for change, a cry taken up by the media who, up until that point, had remained faithful to the government’s position of being in the ‘right’, while the rebelling forces were in the ‘wrong’.
It is arguable that the Conservative government’s hard line on Northern Ireland played a considerable part in their downfall, ushering in the more liberal regime of Tony Blair who sought and gained a settlement with the Irish interests involved in the struggle. The bombers stopped bombing, the political prisons opened their doors and the troops went home, back to the arms of their loved ones who had fought long and hard for their return.
Was this a triumph of democracy or terrorism? Surely, if anything, it indicates that change is brought about by the will of the people, but that the people’s will can in itself be changed by events that threaten the wellbeing and safety of the population. If terrorism changes anything, it changes attitudes and popular opinion. That change, regardless of political or economic interests, is ultimately the force that will determine the maintenance or otherwise of the status quo.
Michael Sheridan – The Cool Cook – is a former head chef and an acknowledged authority and published writer on cooking matters. His website at All About Cooking, contains a wealth of information, hints, tips and recipes for busy home cooks, including video based how-to guides.
October 29th, 2007 -- Posted in Story |
After water and food, perhaps the next most wanted commodity is energy. Most
of our energy requirements are met through fossil fuel and nuclear energy.
Recently there has been an increase in the amount in so-called renewable
energies such as wind and wave power.
An area that has been around for a long time now is solar energy. Some of its
early promise didn’t come to pass with a requirement for expensive
materials and high maintenance costs; and solar panels relied on sunshine which
is not available at night and is in limited supply in many areas of the world.
Fear not! Technology has not stood still and things are on the move. I
predict for 2006 and over the next few years that there will be a series of
breakthroughs in the field of energy cells that use hydrogen as a fuel. This is
the beginning of the so-called Hydrogen Economy. Some, including the U.S.
President, welcome this as the future of energy production while others
throw cold water on the idea.
Hydrogen can be extracted from many substances, including water. The advantage of hydrogen is its
unusual atomic structure. The great difference in distance and size between the
proton and the electron produces great energy potential. Unfortunately this
attribute gives rise to a great problem: hydrogen tends to stick to other
elements as the wayward electrons become paired with foreign atoms. Extracting
hydrogen from these other elements has hitherto required a great deal of
energy, making the prospect pointless, or at least inefficient – and, if fossil
fuels are used to provide the required energy, the CO2 will still be emitted. There are two ways around this: first to
build large plants that will extract hydrogen on a large scale. The energy
efficiency of large plants would be far greater than cars, for example, which
are like mini mobile power stations.
The second method is to use of Aqueous Phase Reforming. This is where
hydrocarbons such as sugar, can be converted from a liquid into Hydrogen in one
process. The energy required is at a lower proportion than more conventional
hydrogen production methods. There is also no need to store or ship vast
quantities of hydrogen.
If we accept that fuel cell technology – in one form or another – will happen
in the near future (well, it’s happening now, so why not?), the question we
surely need to answer is:
How far should the production of hydrogen be from the point where it is used?
There is much talk of using renewable energy or biomass to provide the
considerable power required to produce hydrogen (to separate it from other
elements, such as with water). Possible examples of this would be vast offshore
wind farms and offshore solar panel farms combined with thousands of acres of
maze or other crop being grown as a bio fuel source. This solution would
involve a network of distributing the hydrogen similar to the one already
employed to distribute petrol – but much bigger and/or much more expensive
- since the lighter hydrogen requires more space – or more force to compress it
- than gas or diesel. It could be cooled down to its liquid form to aid
distribution, but this would require a great deal of extra energy.
The Aqueous Phase Reforming solution – pioneered by the University of
Massachusetts – may allow much more local production of hydrogen and
reduce the need for a large and expensive distribution solution. It can also be
scaled up or down to meet the needs of varying communities and circumstances.
Yes, I am convinced that there will be breakthroughs in this area. I am sure
that the debate about the efficiency and feasibility of hydrogen fuel will
gradually dissolve and a new debate will emerge – about how best to distribute
that energy. Distribution costs money and is a cost to our environment. The
greater the distance between the production and the consumption points, whether
this be hydrogen or anything else, the greater the energy, environmental and
financial cost. If we cut down these distances, we will probably need to settle
for more – and smaller – production plants with a reduction in efficiency,
leading to the same energy, environmental and financial problems. In the case of
hydrogen production, the question is, which method is right? Aqueous Phase Reforming
may provide a solution. Whichever way, the debate rages on…
Vernon Stent is the marketing consultant for 5es. Here is more information about distribution and logistics
October 21st, 2007 -- Posted in Story |
This article will explain the problems and solutions to deciding to download music online, free or not, legal or not. It will answer your questions about whether you want to spend $1000s. Or read the solution to your problem below…
The Big Problem
The biggest problem online today, especially with the younger audience that the Internet attracts is the use of illegal sites to download music, movies, games, and other things. So many people participate in this activity because they did not want to spend a fortune on their music collection. Some people want to download thousands of songs, and others only want to download a few. Whichever the case is, it is much better to find the site or program that offers lifetime subscriptions to access unlimited downloads.
Reasons To Not Go With The Free Music
— Many people think that if you download programs such as ares or limewire or kazaa to get your music, “there are to many people online to get busted.” Or “It has to be legal, so many people are doing it.” Well that is wrong, those are untrue assumptions, the real truth is that it is illegal. You really are cheating artists out of their work, and out of their pay. It is illegal, and no, I can not guarantee that you will get busted and you will have to go to jail, but there are many many true stories of kids and adults that have participated in these, and yes, they have faced the consequences.
— Parents and kids and really anyone who owns a computer, mostly knows of the hassle of getting some virus or spyware of some sort on your computer. Well the P2P (Pier to Pier) network is just the gate for those, really, when you download something off of illegal programs, you have no idea what your actually downloading. Yes, you could be getting what you hoped for, but what are the chances that you are downloading the very virus that you have tried to stay away from for so long, you just don’t know, and it’s just not safe.
— If you are to use free, illegal programs to download music, then you would face several problems…
- You don’t really know if what your downloading is what you really wanted at all
- There could be hidden Trojans and spyware ready to destroy your computer
- The download speed will cause you to wait when you don’t have to
- I can’t stress this enough, it’s illegal
You can be fined, persecuted, jailed, and sued for this
The Solution To The Problem
What you need to do is find a site that you can pay either a one time rate for or a monthly rate for that will allow you to download unlimited music, movies, games, anything really. Most of them say that they are safe and have no virus. But sometimes that’s not always true. There are only a few that are really worth paying for. And if you do, you will save a lot of money in the long run.
This site below, will show you the best program for the information that I have listed above.
http://mp3-download-net.blogspot.com
Thank you for reading,
Drew Dyer
October 15th, 2007 -- Posted in Story |
As it turns out, some of your favorite celebrities may also be vegetarians. Pamela Anderson, Paul McCartney, Alicia Silverstone, Moby and Andre 3000 of Outkast are among the many vegetarian celebrities who decided to stop eating meat because of the harm that factory farming does to animals, our health and the planet.
Former Beatle Paul McCartney said he was first turned on to animal rights as a child. Disney movies like Bambi and Dumbo instilled in him a belief that animal cruelty is a bad idea. He once said, “If you think of Bambi, its mum gets killed by a hunter and I think that made me grow up thinking hunting isn’t cool”.
McCartney decided to finally make the move to vegetarianism when he and his wife Linda were eating a meal of lamb and happened to see lambs frolicking in a field. This experience helped him make the connection between the food on his plate and living, sentient animals.
Supermodel and former Baywatch star Pamela Anderson has been a vegetarian since the age of 16. In high school, she used to donate rolls of quarters to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the popular nonprofit animal rights organization. Since then this vegetarian celebrity has become an outspoken activist for PETA, participating in many of their campaigns including ones against fur, seal hunting and Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Alicia Silverstone, the young actress who made her debut in the movie Clueless, went vegan in 1998 for moral and political reasons. She once said to talk show host Rosie O’Donnell that she went vegan because she “was not going to contribute to the violence in the world anymore”. She said that going vegan meant putting food back into the mouths of starving children, since crops grown to feed cows could otherwise be used to feed villages.
Silverstone also has her own vegetable garden, where she grows vegetables like lettuce, kale and pumpkins. “To make your salad from your own garden is just amazing”, she once said to talk show host Ellen DeGeneres.
Singer Moby first exposed his veganism in an angsty punk rock album titled Animal Rights, arguably the most controversial album of his career. Since then, he has taken a more utilitarian approach in order to make his message more accessible to the masses.
Moby encourages vegetarians and vegans to become salesmen for what they believe. He himself does this by aggressively championing vegetarianism in the public eye. Moby also promotes vegetarianism in his vegetarian tea shop, Teany.
Outkast star Andre 3000 is also a vegetarian celebrity. In 2004, he won PETA’s award for Sexiest Male Vegetarian. When Andre was asked what he would do on his last day on Earth, he said, “I’d probably go for a great meal-some broccoli probably, because I’m a vegetarian”.
Other notable vegetarian celebrities include Coldplay’s Steve Martin, Pearl Jam’s Eddie Vedder, Avril Lavigne, Fall Out Boy’s Andy Hurley, Natalie Portman, Good Charlotte’s Benji and Joel Madden, Alec Baldwin, Anne Hathaway, Joaquin Phoenix, Tobey Maguire, Shania Twain and Weird Al Yankovic.
Michael Russell Your Independent Vegetarian guide.
October 12th, 2007 -- Posted in Story |
Isn’t it strange that, with all the talk about Global Warming (GW), we
just had one of the coldest winters we’ve had in a long time? The 2007
Farmers’ Almanac, whose predictions are up to 85% accurate, predicts
frigid temperatures, as much as 20 degrees below seasonal norms (and
nearly 40 degrees colder than last winter), for Montana, the Dakotas and parts of Wyoming. For the Gulf Coast up through New England,
unseasonably cold, or “shivery,” conditions are expected. Snow, and
lots of it, is also forecast for the nation’s midsection, parts of New
England, and the mountains of the Pacific Northwest. “The Great Lakes
and Ohio River Valley may be the only area spared the extreme cold,”
reveals Sandi Duncan, Managing Editor, “but this is not to say this area
won’t be without its cold spells and significant snowfalls.”
Wonder why THAT hasn’t made the news!
We recently ministered to an 11-year old who was literally in tears
with fear over the GW scare they’d been discussing in school. The
child reasoned that, “If the world is ending; why bother with anything
but huddling together with my family?”
Every natural disaster that takes place these days is being blamed on GW.
Many world leaders are accepting GW as Gospel truth. A recent survey
revealed that 33% of Americans see GW as a very real threat to our
existence. TV shows such as Discovery’s “Planet Earth” are showy,
elaborate propaganda pieces for the GW agenda.
A MATTER OF FAITH
A news headline recently read: “Global Warming is not due to human
contribution of Carbon Dioxide.” Dr. Tim Ball is the Chairman of the
Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a Victoria-based
environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the
University of Winnipeg. In a February 5, 2007 article entitled, “Global
Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?” Ball writes: “Global Warming, as
we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to
make people open up their eyes and see the truth…few listen, despite
the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and
I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the
reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on
human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have
a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England
and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For
some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is
why.
“What would happen if tomorrow we were told that…the Earth is flat?
It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media
and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists
who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that
humans are not the cause nobody listens?
“Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution
of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This, in fact, is the greatest deception in the
history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars
while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with
no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags
about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate
change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible
scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations
and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
“…if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a
society… there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause, global
climate change…So how has the world come to believe that something
is wrong?
“Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global
cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. “It is a cold fact: the
Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social,
political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten
thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it
is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our
species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
“I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling
engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming…I am
not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed
since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age that
has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well
within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the
sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.”
TRUTH OR…SOMETHING ELSE?
Is GW a fact? Yes, actually. As Dr. Klaus Toepfer, executive director
of the United Nations Environment Programme, remarked, “More and
more, people around the world are aware that there is climate change.
Nobody is questioning that any longer.”
But don’t buy every opinion being pitched by Hollywood “scientists”
like Alec Baldwin, Leonardo, Tom Hanks, Will Farrell and movies like
“The Day After Tomorrow.” They’ve taken the bate being offered by
everybody’s favorite ex-Veep-now-Movie-Maker Al Gore and his
global warming crusade. More on him coming up (you’ve been warned).
Is GW OUR fault? No, it’s not. Though the European Parliament has
called for trade sanctions against the United States unless it agrees to
curb its CO2 emissions, more and more scientists are speaking out
AGAINST those who say mankind is to blame. Climatologist Pat
Michaels of the CATO Institute stated, “Climate changes, yes…but
climate has changed in the past without human beings having anything
to do with it…”
If we were to embrace what environmentalists say, we’d all believe
the polar ice caps are melting and America’s coasts will be submerged
soon. Don’t start building an ark just yet. If we consider that the North
Pole is a giant ice cube floating in the ocean, if that melts at Summer’s
end, that means nothing to sea level. The South Pole, is the largest ice
mass on the planet. Experts say it is gaining ice, not losing it.
The temperature of our planet has been fluctuating, at least, since the
invention of the thermometer. They say it was warmer 1,000 years ago
than it is today, but that it started cooling. Colonial America was gripped
by the last days of The Little Ice Age, with some of the deepest snows
and coldest temperatures in recorded North American history. Remember
Valley Forge? Jefferson wrote about life during the tail end of this climate
change. In his book, “Notes on the State of Virginia”, he wrote, “The snow
used to lie on the ground for months at a time; now it only does so for
weeks or days…”
It lasted into the 1800s. 1816 was known as the “year without summer.”
Today, some climatologists are more worried about another ice age than
global warming. CBN News reports that, ” these experts have been
drowned out by a worldwide movement that has branded global-warming
skeptics as evil, even comparing them to people who deny the existence
of the Holocaust.”
CBN goes on to say, “At least part of the European Left’s hatred of
George Bush is his refusal to sign onto the Kyoto Protocol (KP), an
agreement among industrialized nations to lower their carbon dioxide
emissions as a way to fight against global warming. But it is not all
President Bush’s fault – under President Clinton, the Senate killed the
treaty 95 to nothing. But at the 2005 G-8 summit in Scotland, British
Prime Minister Tony Blair pushed President Bush to finally join the
global warming fight.
Though he symbolically signed it, Bush declared, “America’s
unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our
friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary,
my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of
climate change … Our approach must be consistent with the long-term
goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.”
It’s been stated that the reason the U.S. won’t ratify the agreement is that,
unlike Europe, we recognize that the Kyoto Protocol will do nothing
measurable about global warming. In other words, “G. Dubya” hasn’t
fallen for the whole GW-thing. By one estimate, it would make a
difference of only seven one-hundredths of one degree Celsius after
50 years – an amount too small too measure. The European response
seems to be, “At least we’re doing something!”
Yes, they are doing something. From the Bush administration’s
perspective, they’re wasting money that they could use to invest in the
technologies of the future, throwing it at solar energy and windmills. It’s
been pointed out that the biggest supporters of KP in the industrialized
world have the worst economies, most with double-digit unemployment
(the US is at a mere 4.4%, incidentally). Critics of Kyoto say signing on
would take from our gross domestic product billions annually. New
technologies could eventually replace fossil fuels, if these nations don’t
first cripple their own economies with concepts like KP.
CBN reports, “Stephen Milloy, who runs JunkScience.com, says
corporations have been caving in to pressure from environmentalists.
He said, “Global warming pushers are going company by company,
getting corporate management to be supportive of either the KP or other
GW provisions. And eventually, they’re going to develop enough political
support among corporations that corporations will begin forcefully
lobbying for GW restrictions in the U.S.”
AN INCONGRUOUS TRICK
“Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the
truth as they see it,” Al Gore insists in his film “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Very true, Al. Let’s ask ‘em: “What do world climate experts actually
think about the science of Al’s movie?”
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James
Cook University, says: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak
that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are
commanding public attention.”
Carter must certainly be part of what Gore sites as a tiny cadre of
“climate change skeptics” who disagree with the “vast majority of
scientists.” Y’think?Actually, according to Tom Harris, Executive
Director of Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Carter is one of
hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby
group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions
of CO2 are causing significant global climate change. According to
Harris, “Climate experts” is the operative term here. Why? “Because
what Gore’s “majority of scientists” think is immaterial when only a
very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.”
Though many scientists focus their global change studies on everything
from polar bears to poison ivy, they are not all to be considered climate
change experts.
Carter writes, “We should listen most to scientists who use real data to
try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and
extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community,
there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.”
He gives a sampling of the side of the GW debate we almost never
hear:
Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson – “There
is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature
over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten
times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet
was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion
years…how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small
increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s
modest warming?”
“Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and
“hundreds of other studies” reveal: on all time scales, there is very good
correlation between Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena
such as changes in the brightness of the Sun…Antarctica has survived
warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not
a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future,” said Carter.
Gore tells us in the film, “Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous
drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap.”
This is misleading, according to Ball: “The survey that Gore cites was
a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of
October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling
period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September,
using a wholly different technology.”
A paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor
Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is
supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but
no overall temperature rise.
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography
and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden – “For several
published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years,”
Carter goes on to say, “Concerning Gore’s beliefs about worldwide
warming…in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas
of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of
the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean;
the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New
Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. …”
“Gore’s point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time
high temperature records is also misleading,” Carter asserts.
Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of
Alabama in Huntsville – “It is not unusual for some locations, out of the
thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records,” he
says. “The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the
U.S. were not unusual.”
Carter adds,”The man [Gore] is an embarrassment to US science and its
many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state
publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.”
How’s that for a critique? Hollywood gave this film an Academy award
for Best Documentary – which speaks volumes to me – and Gore has been
nominated to receive the Nobel Prize in October for his wide-reaching
efforts to draw the world’s attention to the dangers of Global Warming.
Deception is everywhere, all the time.
As others have already stated, just follow the money and those who
worship it to find out what’s really happening here. Whether its Gore’s
‘carbon offset’ concept that would make him the richest man in town
(by the way, he owns a company* you’d buy credits from that would
help us each to reduce our carbon “footprint” – a concept intended to
get us accustomed to paying a usage fee for fossil fuels), or a proposed
CO2 Tax intended to reduce emissions do solve a problem that’s not
even proven to exist, somebody’s cranking up their money machine over
this supposed catastrophe.
*The offset provider invests your money in tree planting projects and
other similar projects that take the place of the environmental impact of
your emissions – car, business, air travel. An offset purchased through a
nonprofit company might help preserve a forest in the Northwest, or it
might help with rainforest restoration in Ecuador. That does NOT mean
there will literally be a tree in the Ecuadorean rainforest with your name
on it. Unfortunately, customers will not get to choose how their donations
are distributed. One possible place where your money may go, for
example, is to project intended to reduce CO2 emissions at truck stops
would allow drivers to plug in their trucks at night rather than leave them
idling.
BE STILL AND KNOW THAT I AM GOD
Environmentalists say we cannot continue to spew CO2 into the air. I agree
that we should be the best stewards of the planet that God has given us.
But I’ve also read that more air pollution is coming from the open cooking
fires of Chinese villages and gas omitted by the world’s farm animals than
by our cars and factories. Not kidding!
The skeptics answer that the world is doomed. Such talk instills fear in
people and fear is faith in the devil. As Christians, our faith is SUPPOSED
to be in God.
Be anxious for NOTHING!
Fear not, the Lord is with you!
The extreme views on both sides of the aisle are all any of us ever hear
about in regard to this issue. It seems to me that there is always something
we can ALL always do better. But I can live the healthiest lifestyle ever
known to man, eating right, exercising, avoiding cigarettes and alcohol, but
I could be run over by a beer truck at any moment. Likewise, we can take
wonderful care of this Earth, but when we’ve had our run, our run is over.
Heaven and Earth will pass away, but God’s Word will never pass away,
Jesus said. Prophecy WILL be fulfilled. Things WILL get worse before they
get better.
In the meanwhile, we, The Church, have a Great Commission with which to
keep ourselves occupied. We won’t change this world by lobbying, debating,
making propaganda films, taking shorter showers or car-pooling. That’s not,
after all, what Jesus directed us to do.
I love this planet. I really do, but let’s make sure to worship the Creator and
NOT merely His creation.
Every blessing…
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Michael Tummillo
A servant of God
http://www.YourTown4Jesus.com
His mission is to bring Discipleship and Encouragement to the Body of Christ. Since ‘99, he has broadcast nearly 700 inspirational articles to his online subscribers and a dozen booklets on subjects sure to interest the thinking Christian and accelerate the process of spiritual development.
He is the founder of t.e.a.m. ministries. An Author, Pastoral Counselor and Teacher, his eMail broadcasts, known as “Your Town for Jesus” are read around the globe. Subscribe at team1min@our-town.com
October 8th, 2007 -- Posted in Story |
Camille Minichino’s first work under the pen name Margaret Grace is a great adventure set in the sleepy hamlet of Lincoln Point, California, nestled near Mountain View and San Jose Airport. Geraldine Porter is a retired high school English teacher and, since widowed, has become immersed in her hobby of crafting miniature dollhouses.
During her granddaughter’s summer visit, Gerry is selling her wares at a local craft faire when her high-maintenance best friend Linda skips out, leaving Gerry in the lurch and then calls at 2am needing to be picked up at an abandoned gas station just off Route 101. (I think I know where that is!)
The body of a woman is found at the exact spot where Gerry rescued Linda, and Gerry can’t keep her nose out of her police nephew’s business as she probes the mystery surrounding her best friend.
Minichino, as Grace, seems more at ease in writing about the world as miniature dollhouses or maybe crafts translate to the written word better than physics research. The pace of the book moves at a comfortable speed, and never bogs down or becomes overwhelming. The characters do not seem contrived or two-dimensional, rather believable and realistic.
There are frequent scenes where Grace shows subtle but hilarious comic wit, as Gerry Porter is appalled at the numerous errors in grammar and spelling in a city populated with people she taught. In one instance, Gerry is mortified more at her granddaughter’s grammar than she is of her bluntness. Then she fights the urge to correct the spelling on a picketer’s sign. Grace’s Porter is very lovable as she has to adjust to her ten-going-on-thirty granddaughter, who’s more tech savvy than Gerry will ever be.
This is a very enjoyable read and I liked the mystery very much, but I hope Dr. Camille does not abandon her Periodic Chart Mysteries. I am looking forward to The Fluorine Murder.