If the answer is Morality, what is the question?

You tell me.

If the answer is Science, what is the question?

You tell me.

If the answer is “Christ”, what is the question?

You tell me.

If the answer is “God”, what is the question?

You tell me.

Truth, Acceptance, and Belief

What if you had to re-invent the scientific wheel every generation? Life would get  very complicated , wouldn’t it?

We are fast approaching a time when human beings cannot possibly learn or keep up with scientific explanations of the universe because their lives are full of other things. Like Facebook and Twitter.

Which brings me to this question: Are scientific pronouncements becoming a  question of Faith in Science?

Are ordinary and  common people looking at scientific explanations in the same fashion as religious and mystical explanations?  Has it come to a point where people choose to believe science like people choose to believe in God, crystals, and voodoo?

Why should people believe in scientific explanations if they do not understand science? Is science becoming too mystical and  magical in asking people to believe it because ’scientists say so’?

If every generation must learn that hard science is truth and that truth is more beneficial to people than mysticism, will we reach a point when  a generation will look at the wonders of science with the same awe that others reserve for God?

Is God perhaps ’ As Yet Unexplained Science’? Or will Science become ’God With An Explanation Instead of Faith’ ?

At the moment do you view Creationism and Global Warming with the same amount of  information in your head about each?  Why do you accept one and not the other? Let me know.  

Take a look at this: (H/T to Obsidian Wings)

Which is the greater surprise: that too few in the public believe in evolution or that too many scientists do not?

And what about global warming?

What do you do to figure out the truth of things so that you can  accept what you are told by others?

Wisconsin Exit 126 is a fine pilsner

Flying Fish Brewery, whose motto is “Proudly Brewed in New Jersey: You Got a Problem with That?”, has chosen to release beer named after exits.

The first, a Belgian-style ale, came out earlier this year in honor of Exit 4, the exit nearest the suburban Philadelphia industrial park that Flying Fish calls home.

The next beer, Exit 11 Hoppy American Wheat Ale, is scheduled to start hitting bars and stores in the region on July 15. The intersection of styles is a tribute to Woodbridge’s exit, where the Turnpike meets the Garden State Parkway.

The original idea was to brew  beers with an alcohol content equal to the exit number. This would make Exit 126 beer  here more like jet fuel than beer,  if it could be made at all.

Drug Quiz …

Know your ’stuff’ on the history of drugs? 

Try this.

Good luck.

Corporate Personhood Unbound?

Thom Hartmann has a piece over at Common Dreams that I always want to know more about. Corporate personhood. I became interested a few years ago and I decided that I was generally against the concept that a corporation has the same standing under the law  as person. As I understood it at the time, corporations and people had the same rights and responsibilities as a person except there was difference in accountability. You might have guessed that corporations do not go to jail and have no sense of shame, guilt, honor, or any other trait that may bind a person to an honorable, moral,  and ethical way of life. Whatever honor or ethics may be involved in corporations  is due to the traits of the management team: change the team , change the ethics and the morality.  

Wikipedia  describes  corporate personhood this way :

The corporate personhood debate refers to the controversy (primarily in the United States) over the question of what subset of rights afforded under the law to natural persons should also be afforded to corporations as legal persons.

Thom Hartmann’s piece talks about upcoming Supreme Court cases that may permit corporations to enter into political campaigning the same as as any person would do. Mr. Hartmann provides a good background of legal cases that touched upon this concept and gives us some insight into the Supreme Court thinking on this issue. It is not good for ordinary people like you and I.

I oppose the concept of corporate personhood and would like to see the privileges,  not rights, of corporations identified clearly under the law. Corporations have no constitutional rights by my thinking.

The Declaration of Independence begins “When in the course of human events….”  

The Constitution of the United States begins with “We, the people of the United States, …”

This is enough to convince me that corporations were never intended to have any federal standing whatsoever. Corporations are never mentioned in the Constitution and have been within the jurisdiction of the States to charter since America was born. They are not federally established nor controlled.

Read Thom Hartmann’s piece  as well as the Wikipedia entry to become more familiar with the idea and,  hopefully, you will agree  that corporations should not  have all the ‘rights’ of a person.

Sally Kern says so…Must be true…*cough*

 

Sally Kern’s resolution says:
“WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and
WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and
WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and
WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and
WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior”

The New McCarthyism

Edward R. Murrow said this about Sen. Joe McCarthy:

“His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. [...] We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn’t create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it — and rather successfully.”

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage,Michelle Malkin, Bill O’Reilly, Denis Prager, Laura Ingrahm, and all of  America Right Radio. The New McCarthyism.

The New McCarthy-ists brandish their verbal swords against  Socialism in exactly the same manner as Sen. Joe McCarthy wielded his against Communism.

It has now gotten to the point that the propaganda of Limbaugh against the American  government is reaching out for the overthrow of the Obama Administration.