It’s TAR sand, DUMMY!!

You know the stuff that the black top roads are made of? That is Bitumen. Hard as a rock, heat and weather resistant, right? That is the stuff in TAR sand. Not oil. Bitumen. That stuff must be heated, melted and hydrogenated to make oil, which then can be heated and cracked into various fuels and other products. The processing of TAR sand uses a lot of energy that oil processing does not, and produces huge amounts of carbon dioxide that oil production does not.
Interesting that the Oil Industry, Exxon-Mobile in particular, the Pipeline Industry and the Republicans are trying to rebrand TAR sand as OIL sand. Why is that do you suppose? Hmmm?
I don’t know about you, but where I come from, pig shit is pig shit, even if you call it pate`.
USA Today: Hundreds arrested during pipeline protest at White House
http://usat.ly/rmqklB

James Hansen: tar sands would be "game over" for climate
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110603_SilenceIsDeadly.pdf
McKibben: tar sands are "the great American carbon bomb"
http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175417/
Image: http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTAvGCaYBPYavcs6tmVNLOPOJ9rsFV-sS36rdSoZQ5ABrVwNpXYcSwLsmo
Imge: http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/8/7/8/i/3/9/5/o/800px-EVOSWEB_013_oiled_bird3.jpg

On-line science? Why Bother?

I just finished teaching 4 Anatomy and Physiology labs, 2 Wednesday and 2 today (Thursday). The students were a delight to be around. Eagar, smart and ready to get into a health profession. We will do lots of stuff this term. Tallahassee Community College A&P labs use mostly high quality models and little real material. We have some human specimens, heart, brains, some reproductive parts and others. Look and touch only, no cutting. I wish we used more fresh material but, alas, we don’t.

The joy of these labs is not the models, it’s the students as they struggle to learn. It’s the one-on-one moments where I teach them how to learn something. It’s the light in their faces when they get it. It’s the interaction with people they don’t know. It’s sooo much more. And all this is lost in an on-line lab. Sure, you can look at high quality photos of models and dissected human legs, but if you can’t understand what you are looking at because the only living thing you have ever seen up close and dead was KFC, then the abstractions are a real impediment. There certainly is a place for on-line education for some people. But not nearly all.

Look. Go back 50k years. I wanted to learn how to make a spear point. You sat down with me and showed me. I practiced while you watched. Or I had to learn to pick non-poisonous plants to eat. I followed you around and watched you, you showed and talked to me, I tried it, got it wrong, and finally learned what to touch and what not to touch. I learned EVERYTHING that way. Humans and their antecedents have been learning the same way for millions of years. Either one-on-one or in small face-to-face groups. It must be good because here we are. So why would anyone think that putting people in a small dim room with a computer and a box of “labs” would be a better way to teach and learn? Beats the hell out of me.

Image: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/newsletter/2002/dec-jan/images/p5.jpeg

How to Become a Nonbeliever

A friend and I were talking and I mentioned that I was once headed for seminary. She knows I am an atheist, or minimally an agnostic, and asked "- -why a young man headed for seminary then decides there's no God." Good question. The story begins in my teens. I went to University and persued the dual pastimes of raising hell and being religious. There I had a conversation with my mentor/priest in which I said I had a problem, and that was I was becoming convinced there was no God. He said something like "Hmmm. That could be a problem. Maybe you should take some time to reconsider your options." I did, and stand here now not a priest. Why, though? That is difficult. I was raised in the Church (Episcopal, the other Church), and did all the things you do. Lessons, confirmation, first communion, Sunday school, choir, poems about Jesus. The whole nine yards. But somewhere in the late days of high school and the early days of college I just changed. First I came to understand that the trinity was a fabrication of men, that Jesus,if he existed at all was a good man hard put upon, and finally that the God needed man more than man needed God. From there it was not a long step to atheist.

Lately, though, I have seen developing a biological explanation. This centers around the tendency to be a "believer" or a "non-believer". In any population and in every time we have records of there is always a subset of people that eschew the concept of the Divine. Period. The majority believe in some Divine, and 10% or so do not. And cannot. I am in that 10%.

I don't need any supernatural constructs. I don't rely on some absent landlord to look after me. I follow my own understanding of the rules to live by and live by them. They are much like the Golden Rule, and from that all others devolve. I don't believe that the 10 commandments are at all Divine, and some, like honor your mother and father, are nonsense. I honor those that deserve and earn it, not some accident of birth. Should a child molested by her father honor him? Pure nonsense. And not killing? Ha! People have always and will always kill. Any serious god would either forget that commandment or enforce it.

So there you have it. An early recognition that God isn't necessary for anything besides the control of churches, and nature has all the answers anyone needs. I do agree, however, that the 90% of you who are believers are comforted by your beliefs. I just don't understand how you can be so blind as to not see the truth as I see it. Of course, the converse is also true. And when I die, I will be dead. Period. Or to borrow a line from Flanders and Swann "- - and out went all the lights." (1)

Image:http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/LWR_Image.JPG

1.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyeMFSzPgGc

To Kill Manuel Valle

Thirty three years ago he killed a policeman during a traffic stop. No argument. The crime took place in 1978 and the conviction in 1981. And that is the problem I have.
I was for the death penalty before I was against it. I am still against it. But here is my dilemma: I have no moral objection to killing someone who has purposely and brutally killed someone else. Ted Bundy? Kill him. Charles Manson? Kill him. But do it promptly. Where no doubt, not reasonable doubt, is present, after conviction just take them behind the courthouse and kill them.
My objection is found in the dozens of wrong convictions, the dozens of 30 year waits on death row, the system tainted by racism, the uneven application of penalty by state, and probably more. So now I am against the death penalty because it has not and apparently cannot be applied fairly and justly. I think we should cancel all death penalties in every state, commute the sentences to life, and let the innocent prove themselves.
Besides, it cost too much to execute someone. Far cheaper to keep them in prison for life. We demean ourselves before the world for killing innocent people in the name of justice. We have already lost the moral high ground in many ways so why not take a bit back?
Manuel Valle? Thirty years ago he should have been taken out behind the courthouse and shot. Today he should be left to die a slow and lonely death on death row. Let him spend the rest of his miserable life thinking about the life he could have had, and the life he took.
Image: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/InmatePhotos/8/853220.jpg
Manuel Valle: http://www.postonpolitics.com/2011/08/manuel-valle-execution-set-for-sept-6/

The Gods are Waiting for You

I was driving this morning listening to a PRI program on Science and Spirituality and was held in rapt attention by Diana Beresford-Kroeger (1). She is a botanist and medicinal biochemist among other things. She describes herself as the last of an ancient line of Druidic people, taught many of their secrets by her grandmothers. In keeping with the theme of the series, she described the interactions between people and trees, and explained that it is possible to commune with them, and feel their communications. The sounds they make cannot be perceived by the human ear, but can be felt in the air-filled chambers of the chest. You can hear her interview at the first link and read about her at the second (2)
I was taken back at once to an experience Sal and I had in an ancient Douglas Fir forest on the Olympic Peninsula. We had followed a forest road for several miles when we spotted a trail and parking area cut from the roadside. The forest was quiet and cool and was clearly second growth. We walked the trail for a mile or so, found a creek and followed it a bit, and then turned uphill into a green paradise. Moss and ferns covered almost everything on the floor of the forest, and giant old growth firs towered above. As soon as we entered we felt as if we were in the presence of spirits of immensely old times. And of course we were. We sat for a while, quiet, just soaking up the sense of peace and ancient love, and gave what we had in return. It was as close to magic as you will ever find, and defines God in a way that needs no supreme being, no creator. If there ever were gods, these ancient ones qualify.
We have found the same sense of peace and harmony in other ancient places, some even treeless planes with only standing stones. The gods are out there waiting for you. All you have to do is go and be open.

1. http://ttbook.org/book/diana-beresford-kroeger-power-trees
2. http://www.recreatingeden.com/index.php?pid=8&season=05&episode=60
Image: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPI8MIY0Sju7724TApLyX69_ircqy6P-95Cg5z5KLzMG0I7Rz7MZM8dhRzaayDczivQu8mxemjSqjlrQ4whhBnbRjvy-MOa7k6Jmcz4k6wkQ6Gl6LGVw3cxB-elLN9Fr6HsusID6nBlIw/s320/Old+Growth+Tree+Climb+Salmon+River+july+09+004.jpg