Rare Black-Bellied Tree Ducks Visit a Country Graveyard in Texas: Were They a Sign from God?

So much human energy and talk of God, His will, and all the infidels that need to be eradicated from the planet, seems to dwell in the hearts and minds of men after millennia of man’s evolution into the “divine” animal he still seeks to become. Does God exist? Many churches all over the world have immense power and influence. Most probably their income from those who seek salvation from the fires of hell exceeds the income and wealth of Exxon. The formula is easy: you pay us (popes, TV evangelist preachers, mullahs, and rabbis, et al) and you get to go to the Promised Land. Call it heaven, El Dorado, or Nirvana; it is the terminal bliss of all mankind, the only destination worth pursuing, we are told. The reward? Eternal life. You just don’t get swallowed up by the deep, dark, void when you die. You get to live forever as a spirit. Quite a concept, eh? Almost like an insurance policy, isn’t it?

But then it’s not all about the money. There’s the faith premise, too. By faith, you are saved from the temptations of the Devil, and you feel good about yourself that you could, with the help of God, defeat Evil. Oh, well, most Americans don’t let it go to that extreme a point of excitation and involvement, but many who are born and raised in theocratic governments seem to go high fervor in defining and even blowing up infidels. The massacre of 911 was an extreme act of terrorists who perhaps had let the concept of religion jump the tracks. Instead of doing good for your brothers and sisters, you kill them. I happen to believe that the attackers were demented and insane and not acting in the Muslim religious faith. But many believe that it is the Muslims who are to be feared as a race of Christian-haters who get their direction from the Quran itself. I do not agree. Again, this is an example of religion gone cuckoo and is not exemplary of the basis of most of the world’s religions. It’s about man. And greed. And power.

Nut cases that call themselves Christians are not without blame, too. The pastor who burned a copy of the Quran to piss off as many Muslims worldwide as he could, was not practicing the teachings of brotherly love as Jesus gave the world 2,000 years ago. It was just as hateful and anti-Christian in principle as it was when the Inquisition saw Torquemada torturing and killing Christians on the rack and by burning them at the stake when it came to cleansing them of their sins. But the Popes of Rome who sent thousands to their deaths in the Crusades to drive the infidels from the Holy Land take the cake. Here, 100s of thousands of knights and soldiers from Europe trotted off to Jerusalem and points thereabout to kill and plunder the Holy Land from those (mainly Muslims) who had lived there for thousands of years. But were they about the work and business of God? Or were they soldiers of fortune, seeking gold, jewels, and other booty for their time and trouble? And were they truly doing God’s work or were they simply wearing battle gear with giant red crosses as a tunic to justify their stealing from their fellow man? And were the Conquistadores such as Cortez and Pissarro genuinely seeking to convert the Aztecs and the Incas to Christianity or were they seeking to steal the gold of the Americas and send it back to the Spanish Treasury? Each high and low-ranking soldier got his own personal credited account with the Spanish Treasury, according to the amount of gold they sent back. Next time you are in Madrid, take a gander at the gold in the Museum of the Americas there.

Some say that religion is benign and well-intentioned until man gets hold of it and exploits his fellow Christians to pay up or to obey the Church in other ways such as fighting wars or voting for Ronald Reagan. Jerry Falwell proved that church and state could be cross-bred into political machines like the Moral Majority that could elect presidents, congressmen, or even mayors and dog-catchers. Today, there is Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, who, aside from lifting over $2 million a year from the offering plate of his Boone, NC ministries for his own personal consumption, is fanning the flames of hate toward Muslims. He calls them dangerous to world Christians. He says they are not worthy of being Americans because our founding fathers were of the Judeo-Christian variety, not Muslims. This negates the reason our ancestors came to America in the first place: to escape religious bigotry. So much for religion. It is easy to see how the right fruitcake who heads the Billy Graham Ministries can influence his religious followers to send his ministries $100,000,000 a year (tax-exempt, you know). On the premise of doing something good for man.  And while the Samaritan’s Purse does dispense millions of dollars annually to the needy, this same Graham organization pays out a pretty penny to the Graham family as well. Several cousins work for the Billy Graham Ministries, including Franklin Graham.  Last year his cut of the take was over $2 million dollars. As America gasps for economic relief and good people are walking away from their homes and losing their jobs, it just doesn’t seem all that Christian that Graham would be lining his own pockets with money given in the name of religion. It raises the question, Is religion good or bad?

Those who bend the teachings of Christ or Mohammed to their own purposes of greed and gain, well they just suck. But they flourish and rake in the cash all because those donors want eternal life and to feel good in their own hearts, I suppose, while they are alive and helping their fellow man. Only trouble is, to get there you got to help the gatekeepers, too: the Pope, the Grahams, Falwell Enterprises, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, you know the rogues gallery of “religious” leaders. Joel Osteen manages to still fly First Class all over the world, thanks to all those who send him millions in the name of Jesus. Are all these dudes helping mankind or are they just a bunch of well-trained actors skilled in the practice of separating their congregations from their money?

So is religion worthwhile? Does it help man, or does it do more harm than good? Is it a grand ruse perpetrated upon the masses who are sold a bill of goods while sending their hard-earned cash to a lock box in Dallas, Virginia Beach, or Boone, NC. The question, Does God exist, is a hard one when you see the grimy fingers of man manipulating the images of God into suicide bombers and preachers who take offerings to build universities and to drive Mercedes. The paradox of man doing the work of God via religion and tanks and planes to defeat “The Axis of Evil” or “The Evil Empire” is insane. Those two 16-year presidencies saw America borrow and spend 7 Trillion dollars under two Republican presidents: Reagan and George W. Bush. That, sports fans, is HALF our present National Debt of over $14 Trillion dollars! And stupid people such as John Boehner, Scott Walker, and Paul Ryan blame the Democrats for being the big spenders that bankrupted America! Such crocodile tears the GOP and the Tea Party shed as they seek to destroy the salaries and benefits of the little people, the teachers, the union workers, and those innocent Americans who had nothing to do with starting wars. All so a policy of borrowing and spending could make the likes of Halliburton rich. Oh well, if and when they cut Social Security, Medicare and other programs that serve the common man, to the bone, well we can say, well, I guess Cheney and Halliburton needed it worse than Joe Six Pack. In non-partisan fairness, is it necessary that Obama and Congress continue the tradition of borrow and spend to keep the wars, the occupation, Wall Street and the banksters alive, well, and thriving? When the world is turned upside down in the full tradition of General Cornwallis’ fateful melody of defeat played after his surrender to Washington at Yorktown? What a nation we have become! Is there no one who will stand up in outrage at the theft of America? Is religion and faith the answer? You decide.

Many years ago, I strolled through a country graveyard in Milam County, Texas. The Little River close by, meandered its silky way through the countryside where fewer people live now than a hundred years ago, and the sun was setting over the trees near Clays Creek where the wild turkeys roosted and called tenderly to their feathered family to say goodnight, I thought. It was the cemetery of 7 generations of my family. My brother, only 39, had just died of cancer and was buried near his great, great, great grandfather Hiram Madison. A few cardinals sang full-throated melodies to each other from the greenery of new-leafing oaks, elms, and junipers. 

The sun was bright. I was alone. Melancholy tugged at my heart.  

I needed a sign. Was all the struggle of all my ancestors worth all the years chiseled into the tombstones of so many generations? Was my brother Pat’s early death planned or just another impromptu irony of the Universe? Did God care that there were little ones of 2 and 6 left behind? Were we supposed to be joined collectively to help each other survive, and if so, then why the untimely demise of a fine young man and provider? Did the existence of God make the world a better place? How could we understand?

What if (I thought) a burst of cardinals suddenly flew up in the tree right above my head and began to sing to me? Would that be a proof that God did exist and know of man’s plight and insignificant means of mental comprehension of the mysteries of the Universe and His will? So be it, I thought. Let it happen if there is a God. Now.

Right on that same tree branch, two hefty Black-Bellied Tree Ducks hovered down like helicopters and perched and peered down at me. Instantly. Silent at first and unafraid as they looked me in the eye, they worked their webbed feet softly about the branch to get the proper traction. I knew what they were only from endangered species photographs. I had never seen a real one before, but they were Black-Bellied Tree Ducks, alright. http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/image/112542824

Darkness began to envelope us in the solitude of the graveyard, and the ducks cooed little whistle sounds to each other. What a grand surprise. You ask for cardinals, and She gives you such rare beauty from Her splendid store of nature. “You want cardinals? Let me show you some of the good stuff!” What a Sprite. What humor. Or was it just my wanting to believe?

Was this a message from God? Did He, when I asked for a ham sandwich, give me King Solomon’s banquet table? I don’t know. Perhaps. But it is why I still have hope for me and for us. All of Us.

Who Knew?

Who could have known Wall Street and the American banking system would fail? Who foresaw the U.S. Government forced to bail out entire financial houses to rescue the nation and world from certain collapse? Of those who predicted, who had the courage to warn?

The answer is many.

Upon Bush’s ascension in 2000, and even before in 1999 as he was putting out “feelers” to run,” I predicted economic collapse as a result of his capturing the White House. His economic philosophy mirrored Ronald Reagan’s except more extreme “trickle-down.” Openly he advocated transforming Clinton’s surpluses into deficits to reward his wealthy fans with excessive tax cuts. It was much more important for the right to “starve the beast” than act in the best interests of the nation.

The pillars of wealth are (1) innovation and (2) industry. America’s twin pillars have both have been deliberately undermined, and like the Twin Towers, have come crashing down in huge plumes – changing history forever.

The right advocated outsourcing. They achieved it with little or no resistance from the passive left. The right advocated giving huge tax breaks for whole industries relocating overseas. The limp-wrist left capitulated as per norm. The right encouraged employers to hire illegals in a direct effort to undermine labor. The left rolled its eyes in opposition. The right weakened education and career training in this country. The left failed to counterattack but instead prescribed compromise.

The result was a house of cards waiting for the first gust. The twins INDUSTRY and INNOVATION collapsed like the WTC. We’ve been surviving on fumes since – credit and deficit. It’s a shell of an economy, a balloon artificially inflated by foreign money, past success, and now artificial stimulus.

As soon as the stimulus evaporates, the economy is destined to dive again. But this time Humpty Dumpty cannot be put back together again, for all the King’s treasure is now controlled by the very element which pushed Humpty off the wall.

As mentioned, more than a few warned of economic calamity. Our little email ring began in 2002 which included about 300 active writers. One was an economist from the Miami area who saw the handwriting on the Wall Street when emailing the group AmeriVoice on December 1, 2002.

His message is presented below – names and specific contact info redacted or code-named for privacy. I happened upon his email early 2011 when reviewing the group’s archived files.

====================================

Subject: The Plague of Wall Street... US Banks and their genius elite 

WARNING!!!

Date: 12/1/02 12:28 PM Central Standard Time

From: AmeriVoice Member #127

All investors and banking customers -- beware! Avoid Wall Street like the plague!

Do not have anything to do with the major NYC commercial banks, brokerages or investment banking or securities analyst firms.

Leading contenders Citigroup, Solomon, Smith Barney, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns, MLPFS, etc... (1) regulatory penalties, (2) equity -bal sheet holdings- adjustments or write-downs, (3) restatement or charge-off of nonperforming loan portfolio items, and (4) the recognized of a total failure to provide a bad debt reserve for high risk and soon to fail OTC derivatives... will soon leave these institutions financially insolvent.

This group of financial geniuses, led by the new avarice ethnicity elite of Wall St., will soon face potential total instability due to this forced recognition of lost asset value and uncoverable debt burden to the estimated tune of about $1,000,000,000,000 (plus)... that's right One Trillion Dollars.

Several in this group, if not all, will collapse entirely without any hope of reorganization or salvaging in any form. This will create a worldwide financial havoc never seen before in all history....

Mark my word, on this date of original authorship (01DEC02), this unfortunate but true scenario of disclosure, recognition, hell and damnation on Wall Street will commence being clearly visible to the public as the fog lifts in the near future.

"Sir" Alan Greenspan's December 1996 warning about "irrational exuberance" was the beginning of the end of this story and that bubble has now been partially pierced to put it politely.

This is not a slow or sluggish recovery but a rational reality that is replacing the ignorance that fostered irrational exuberance.

Stand aside Joe Granville so as not to dampen the remaining fragile and thin fabric of our democracy ... this soon to begin unfolding story will make even you gag.

For the good of the order,

Sincerely,

Dr. AmeriVoice Member #127 (anonymous), Juris Doctorate and Doctor of Economology

===================================================

Credible and factually substantiated

I am an economist, hold a doctorate in law and have throughout my career worked for and/or briefly traveled with four U.S. Presidents.

I have had five careers in my adult life... starting in private law practice, then in corporate America, some public service and several different tenures in academia (college and law school).

I write under my own name, as well as two nom de plumes (one for political science pieces and one for economics).

I prefer to have my message heard and understood without regard to my personal identity... and I can plainly state that I seek no political office. Nor would I consider such even if offered.

I have spoken personally with members of the U.S. House and Senate, and both of the most recent SEC Chairmen Arthur Levitt and Harvey Pitt, whose comments I will not quote at this juncture but whose opinions gave me factual confirmation of my underlying fears.

I feel strongly about the truth and accuracy of these statements and fear their impact on our nation and our economic system.

I cannot say any more to you at this time... but would ask if you would mind disclosing who you are, where you are located, what is your interest in this topic and specifically in my comments?

With personal regards,

Dr. AmeriVoice Member #127, Boca Raton, FL

Emailing on 6 December 2002, Member #127 wrote:

Loren:

Thank you for your considerate reply, and yes, you have my permission to submit my writing to your "email ring."

Obviously nothing can be assured in this life except uncertainty and the unpredictable nature of our political and economic environment. I feel very strongly about the fact that few are seeming to recognize and none are addressing solutions for the primary root causes underlying most of the economic and political problems facing us in America today... not the media, not the government, nor academia ... not to mention the general public whose dialogue is generally guided by the leadership of these groups...

I appreciate your interest in this one man's opinion. I usually write under the by-line of either "The Independent American Statesman" or "The Independent American Economist" depending upon the economic or social bent and content of the piece. I like to think of my views as the conscience of American independent and nonpartisan thinking and analysis.

I too have a deep concern and interest in environmental and social issues, and my initial career background was in International Law, with a brief internship study at the UN in NYC, so I too have a special interest in foreign relations. I also taught International Law at a Midwest law school a number of years ago.

"If we are about to face economic catastrophe…" a big "if", but unfortunately I feel it is headed directly at us like a speeding asteroid. Alan Greenspan's December 6, 1996 speech warning about "the irrational exuberance" in the market place went nearly totally unheeded… even though it became the most widely quoted phrase of the last decade. I now say that irrational exuberance has become a rational reality that America finally recognizes in Wall Street and the American financial and security circles. The reluctance to invest has been forced but is a god-send if you ask me…

And to back up my belief with some integrity I can honestly and accurately state that I have no personal investment or retirement money in the stock market today.

I have cautioned people since 1997 about the stock market manipulation and tomfoolery. I have also advised family, friends, neighbors and readers since late 1999 to prepare by withdrawing from the market. Those who heeded my advice early on lost nothing but many did not, including an older sister in Michigan, who has now lost a bundle… and just a few years before full retirement.

The old Boy Scout motto still rings true to life today…"Be prepared"!

Again, thank you for your interest and comments.

Personal regards,

Dr. AmeriVoice Member #127

LIBYA: “Liberal Intervention” and the Left.

What is the objective of the British, French and US NATO military intervention in Libya? The UN security council resolution under which it operates, sanctions the defence of civilians against attacks by Gaddafi’s armed forces. It does not sanction regime change. At the time of writing (15 April) it is apparent that the divisions within the NATO camp have not been resolved. Neither is there any unity about objectives amongst the countries of the Arab League or the African Union. Until a few days ago it looked as though the Obama administration was determined to scale back US involvement, but this has now changed. Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron have declared that they will pursue military action until Gaddafi is toppled. It is almost certain that their declaration will further fracture this fissiparous alliance. When security council resolution 1973 was passed on 17 March, those promoting it seem to have imagined that a short, sharp shock aimed at Gaddafi’s forces then poised to capture the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, would suffice to turn the fortunes of war quickly in favour of the insurrectionists who would then resume their triumphant march on Tripoli. It was assumed that the ”no fly zone” would be enough to tip the balance and enable the rebels to deliver the coup de grace against the regime. It has not turned out that way.

It is not possible to predict how things will turn out in Libya. The various pressures on the regime may still hasten its downfall in the shorter rather than the longer term – within weeks perhaps. But this is far from certain. Particularly in light of the Iraq debacle it is going to be difficult for the Anglo-French-US protagonists to convince the more skeptical amongst their associates that the terms of resolution 1973 can be stretched to support regime change. Should they fail to do so, they will require another resolution from the security council and it is unlikely that the Russians and the Chinese will be prepared to support this. Then there is the question of the organization, unity and capacity of the rebels. Even if they receive the arms they need, are they capable of using them to the necessary effect? There is some indication that that underground oppositionist forces in Tripoli are stepping up attacks on the regime there, but the reports are unreliable. It is difficult to assess how much real support Gaddafi still enjoys in the capital. It is certainly a lot less than the regime’s propagandists would have us believe, but it is hardly negligible. Unless there are further large-scale defections, including from the armed forces, Gaddafi appears to be capable of sitting it out for quite some time. And that poses a real problem for the rebels and their NATO supporters. In openly committing themselves to regime change they are delivering a hostage to fortune. Should they fail to gain the degree of support they need in NATO and if the UN fails to deliver a second resolution, are the British, French and the US prepared to proceed regardless? If so, how will they proceed? Air power alone cannot achieve the desired objective. It is already apparent that the NATO strikes have resulted in growing numbers of civilian deaths, including amongst the rebel fighters they are supposed to be defending. Will combat forces be sent in to support the rebels? If so, it will be in breach of resolution 1973. Following Iraq and Afghanistan, how will this be received in the Arab and Muslim world?

The perception that the Western intervention is motivated by the need to ensure continued control of Libya’s oil resources is already widespread. When Gaddafi asserts that this is indeed the case, he speaks to a sympathetic audience beyond his frontiers. Libya’s experience of Western colonialism stretching back over one hundred years, may not be of much concern to Europeans or Americans, but it resonates with many in the former colonies of France, Italy and Britain. The claims of “liberal interventionists” to be motivated solely by the need to protect the innocent from the brutalities of rampaging dictators, or from the stifling repression of autocratic despots, seem completely hypocritical given the selective nature of their interventions. It is reasonable to ask, why Libya? Or, if Libya, why not Yemen, or Syria – or, indeed, Saudi Arabia? And, of course, if the answer should be that it is all a matter of degree and the urgent need to prevent a bloodbath, or genocide, then the obvious response is, why (as in the case of Saudi Arabia and elsewhere) continue to supply arms to the despots, enabling them to snuff out any hint of dissent from their long-suffering people. It is crystal clear that the choice of candidates for “liberal intervention” is primarily a matter of “realpolitik”: we intervene when and where it is considered to be in our national interest to do so. This goes back a long way. In the 1870’s Disraeli’s realpolitik trumped Gladstone’s moral-liberal appeal to intervene against the Ottomans’ massacre of Greek Christians in the Balkans. Turkey was a bulwark against Russian expansion, which threatened the British Empire, so it was necessary to turn a blind eye to the atrocities.

However, the case of Libya poses some difficult questions. It is almost certainly true that prior to March 17. Gaddafi was poised to crush the rebels in their Benghazi stronghold. The balance of military forces was decisively in his favour. Everyone who had been inspired by the rolling Arab revolution, which had already resulted in the ousting of Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt, was filled with apprehension at the very real prospect of the Libyan uprising being crushed. Gaddafi’s eccentricities and self-proclaimed revolutionary credentials could not disguise the fact that his was a brutally repressive regime that tolerated no dissent. His close relations with radical forces and governments in Latin America and his association with left-wing anti-imperialist forces in the Third World, in no way excuses the deeply repressive nature of his regime. Does it follow from this that supporters of the revolutionary movement in the Arab world should have supported the Western intervention?

In attempting to address this question it may be instructive to consider it within a broader context: in what circumstances, if at all, may it be justifiable to intervene militarily in another country’s affairs? One possible answer is that it is justifiable only if such intervention is authorized by the United Nations – that is, by a vote in the security council. An obvious problem with this is that the use of the veto by any of the permanent members can (and frequently has) prevented action. Those who consider the UN to be the only legitimate voice of “the international community” will accept this as the best of a bad job. Opponents of the Iraq war argued persuasively that, in the absence of a UN resolution specifically sanctioning the invasion, the war was illegal. That was the view of the great majority of international lawyers. The mass demonstrations against the war stressed its illegality. It would have not have been so easy to mobilize such a broad-based opposition had there been a clear-cut UN vote for military intervention. It is significant that the Stop the War coalition has been unable to muster any substantial support against the NATO intervention in Libya. An obvious reason for this is that the Left is fully behind the revolutionary movements in the Arab world and supports the opposition to the Gaddafi regime. But this has resulted in a dilemma. It was clear that the internal opposition in Libya was not capable of achieving there what had been achieved in Tunisia and Egypt. By early March there was no doubt that without some form of outside assistance the rebels would be defeated and there could be little doubt about the nature of the fate that awaited them in Benghazi.

In a rare appearance on BBC Television’s Newsnight, Noam Chomsky, interviewed by Jeremy Paxman, was asked whether he would support intervention by the Western powers in support of the rebels. He said that he would not. When asked why not, he replied that the rebels had not requested outside support. The implication of his answer was that had they requested it, his answer might have been different. Shortly afterwards, they made clear that they would welcome support from NATO. Almost certainly Chomsky’s view, shared by most on the Left, is that military intervention by US imperialism and NATO should always be opposed because it is always motivated by self interest – that is, the interests of corporate capitalism. This is a very persuasive argument strongly supported by much historical evidence. However, it does not adequately address the situation in Libya at the beginning of March. It can be stated in stark terms: if the alternatives are (a) the complete defeat of the insurrection and a likely counter-revolutionary bloodbath, or (b) a NATO military intervention which prevents this and restores the initiative to the rebels, what should be the response of those who support the Arab revolution? This is the dilemma that faces the Left.

Is anything to be learned from the history of the twentieth century? There have been many situations where the Left has called for and supported military intervention to further progressive causes. In 1932 Leon Trotsky, then in exile after his expulsion from Soviet Russia, argued that, in the event of a Nazi seizure of power in Germany, the Red Army should intervene to overthrow a fascist regime that would be a mortal enemy of the working class and the Soviet Union. During the Spanish Civil War the Left condemned the non-intervention policy of the British and French governments and demanded that they respond to the appeal of the Spanish republic for military aid. In 1978 the Left supported Tanzanian intervention to topple Idi Amin in Uganda and likewise in 1979 supported the military intervention by Vietnam to overthrow the genocidal Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. The Vietnamese intervention was condemned by the United States. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s Cuba sent thousands of troops to fight alongside the MPLA in Angola against US backed mercenaries and South African interventionists. So, non-intervention has never been a universal principle of the Left.

The principle has been that military intervention is justified in specific circumstances where it is in support of a progressive struggle for freedom and democracy against a repressive regime. Military intervention in Third World countries by imperialist and post-imperialist powers is almost always motivated by the interests of the corporate power elites that rule those countries and dominate the military blocs to which they belong. In the case of Libya, the NATO intervention, while it may have provided an opportunity for the Libyan rebels to regain their initiative, will, if it is prolonged, serve only to lock an alternative government into the embrace of the Western powers. Therefore a post-Gaddafi regime must demand the complete withdrawal of NATO forces from the country and insist on complete economic and political independence.

Baptism Is Primitive, Irrational and Grotesque - Now You Can Strike Back By Undoing It

"With soap, baptism is a good thing." Robert Green Ingersoll

When I was born in Philadelphia in 1938 to Irish-Catholic parents, baptism was not a choice - it was as much a part of getting started as cutting the umbilical cord and being burped. As an adult, however, I was a decade removed from my entry culture, a staunchly secular and a well-educated father who had no use for, interest in or tolerance for the old customs.

However, even though I thought the ritual was silly if not crazy, when my first child was born, I went along with the desires of my parents for the baptism of their first grandchild, as well as my wife's wishes given that her parents (as well as mine) viewed the baptismal rite as an absolute necessity, as consequential as feeding, clothing, changing, sheltering and loving our sweet little infant daughter. Their religion, passed down from their parents and their parent’s parents through generations, had inculcated the "sanctity" of this ritual at a deeply emotional level.

I understand their attachment: They were taught that if a child were to die without having been baptized by a robed priest of the only authentic creed (Roman Catholicism), the babe would be consigned by God to a place called "Limbo." Limbo was better than hell (no fires) but nowhere near as cool as heaven. If you are not Catholic or, like me, an ex-Catholic, this Limbo idea must seem really weird. Trust me - it's weirder than you think. An online American Heritage dictionary describes Limbo as "a place where souls remain that cannot enter heaven." What souls would that be? Why un-baptized infants, naturally. The dictionary contains this clarification: "Limbo in Roman Catholic theology is located on the border of Hell."

Well, if there is a hell, I'm certain the lunatics who foisted this nonsense on an ignorant populace in the middle ages are roasting there, along with the charlatans who came up with the idea of baptism itself.

When the time came to baptize my daughter, I did initially resist. It seemed unprincipled to go along with this egregious nonsense, however much the older folks wanted it. For a while after the fact, I wondered if I did the right thing by caving in to the loving mob. I rationalized the incident as something that made my wife, my parents and my in-laws happy and avoid strife and grief. Besides, I suspect that someone in the family would have done what Christians did with Jewish babies in Europe for centuries, namely, clandescently baptize the child without my knowledge or consent. So, maybe I did the right thing, after all. Since everything about religion is BS as far as I'm concerned, maybe it's best to just laugh the long-past incident off and think of it no more.

Well, maybe not. Why continue to consent to any practice that seems primitive, irrational and grotesque? After all, consider what baptism represents: That an infant must be cleansed of a stain the church calls "original" sin - and only the baptism ritual can do the trick. Imagine that - a newborn already requiring forgiveness from God. "What is the babe's offense?" you ask? Being human, I suppose. The new human is held partly responsible for a creationist character that ate an apple that a snake advertised - thousands of years ago. (Someone please cue the theme music of "The Twilight Zone.")

Well, it's not too late for me or my daughter and millions of others who were caught up in this craziness. There is a remedy. We can all have ourselves "Debaptized!" What began in England when more than 100,000 Britons downloaded "certificates of de-baptism" (created by the National Secular Society - NSS) has been adopted by the Madison, WI Freedom from Religion Foundation.

You can order two original embossed frameable copies on parchment signed by Dan Barker online for $5 or print copies available at the FFRF website free of charge.  Just sign it, have it witnessed and Voila - you are free of mumbo-jumbo. You are de-baptized.

Check it out and be well.

Donald B. Ardell is the Well Infidel. He favors evidence over faith, reason over revelation and meaning and purpose over spirituality. His enthusiasm for reason, exuberance and liberty are reflected in his books (14), newsletter (573 editions of a weekly report) and lectures across North America and a dozen other countries. Write Don at awr.realwellness@gmail.com

The U.S., Oil & the Libyan War

Cynicism is not a healthy sentiment, and as the late Molly Ivins pointed out, it absolutely wrecks good journalism. But watching events in the Middle East unfold these days makes it a pretty difficult point of view to avoid.

Let’s take the current U.S bombing of Libya. The rationale behind United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians from being beaten, shot up, and generally abused.

But while this applies to Libya, it does not apply to Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, or Yemen, where civilians are also being shot up, beaten, and generally abused. Is this because Moammar Gadhafi is uniquely evil? Crazier and odder, certainly, but being in the “opposition” in any of those countries is not a path to easy retirement. Civil liberties don’t exist, prisons are chock full of political prisoners, and getting whacked if you don’t like the leader is an operational hazard.

So what’s it all about? Okay, here is the cynical joke: “Is it all about oil? Nope. Some of it is about natural gas.”

Too simplistic? Maybe, but consider the following.

In 2009, the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicted that world oil reserves had “peaked,” and that over the next several decades, supplies would drop and prices would rise. There is some controversy over the study, but there is general agreement that easy-to-get petroleum sources are getting harder and harder to find.

Approximately 65 percent of the world’s remaining oil reserves are in the Middle East, as well as considerable amounts of natural gas. Iran has the second greatest reserves of gas outside of Russia.

The U.S.—with the largest economy in the world—uses around 21 million barrels of oil per day (bpd). Since it produces only 7.5 million bpd domestically, it imports two thirds of its oil. Its major sources are (in descending order) Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Iraq.

China—the world’s number two economy—uses about 8 million bpd, a demand that is projected to rise to 11.3 million bpd by 2015. Since it only produces 3.7 million bpd domestically, it too relies on imported oil. It main suppliers are (in descending order) Saudi Arabia, Iran, Angola, Russia, Oman and Sudan.

It is estimated that sometime between 2030 and 2050 China will surpass the U.S. and become the world’s number one economy—provided that it can secure enough energy for its growing industrial needs. Insuring oil and gas is a major focus of Chinese foreign policy, particularly because Beijing is nervous about how it currently obtains its supplies. Some 80 percent go by sea, and all of those routes involve choke points currently controlled by the U.S. The U.S. Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain controls the Hormutz Straits, through which Saudi Arabian, Iranian, and Omanian oil passes. The Fifth also dominates the straits of Bab el-Mandab that control access to the Red Sea and through which Sudan’s oil exits into the Indian Ocean. Added to that is the Malacca Straits between Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula, the major transit point for oil going to China. The U.S. Seventh Fleet controls that choke point.

China’s nervousness over its sea-based oil supplies is one of the major reasons behind Beijing’s crash naval program, its construction of ports in South and Southeast Asia, and its efforts to build land-based pipelines from Russia, Central Asia, and Pakistan.

The Chinese are also trying to cope with the fact that Iran, its second largest supplier of oil and gas, is currently under international sanctions that have reduced production and cut into China’s supplies. Beijing has invested upwards of $120 billion to upgrade Iran’s energy industry, but recently has had to cutback investments because its banks could end up being sanctioned for helping out the Teheran regime.

The Chinese are not the slightest bit cynical about why the U.S. is bombing Libya and hugging Bahrain and Yemen: Bahrain hosts the U.S. Fifth Fleet, and Yemen’s port of Aden dominates the Red Sea. China can play chess.

As for Libya. The U.S. doesn’t get oil from Libya, but its allies in Europe do. And the current crisis is African Command’s (Africom) coming out party. Up to now the record of the spanking new military formation has been less than impressive. First, no one would host it because the U.S. military in Africa makes the locals nervous. So it is still based in Germany. Then it coordinated the absolutely disastrous Ethiopian invasion of Somalia that ended up turning most of the country over to the extremist Shabab.

But Libya is a fresh slate for Africom, and that is making the Chinese even more nervous (and explains why they have so cranky about civilian casualties in Libya). When Africom was in its infancy it war-gamed a military intervention in the Gulf of Guinea in case “civil disturbances: caused any disruptions in oil supplies. Angola, China’s other major African supplier, is in the Gulf of Guinea. It hardly seems like a coincidence that at the very moment that African oil supplies becomes important, that the U.S. creates a new military formation for the continent. Africom is currently advising and training the military forces of 53 countries in the region.

Okay, so here you are in Beijing. Your industries are clamoring for power. Media in the United States reflect a growing hostility toward you, with headlines in newspapers reading, “The Chinese Tiger Shows Its Claws,” and U.S. politicians routinely blame you for America’s economic problems. And the U.S. has basically puts its thumb on each one of your oil and gas sources. Nobody is cutting off any supplies at this point, but the implied threat is always there.

In end, it is not so much about oil and gas itself, as the control of energy. Any country that corners energy supplies in the coming decades will be in a powerful position to dictate a whole lot of things to the rest of the world. That’s not cynicism, its cold-blooded calculation. And right now a lot of people in the Middle East are paying the price of the ticket.

America’s New Curse-Why the Future of Green Energy Seems So Black

I have written countless articles and columns on how Green Energy Policies here in America might change our future, cure all that is wrong with our dollar, and help us pay off our entire National Debt. But instead of seeing our technology and science improve and improvise upon what we already know about producing clean, green energy from the sun, the wind, and waterfalls all over the world, we are still in infancy when it comes to green energy.

There was a reason Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House roof. Carter was a scientist, an explorer of new frontiers, much like Thomas Jefferson whose optic glasses and busts of Sir Francis Bacon adorn the halls of his Monticello planation. Carter understood the nuclear physics of how when the sun’s rays struck silicon cells, billions of electrons were kicked out of orbit. These free electrons he knew, could be collected and stored in a battery to be used later as electric current to power things like the White House lights, or the Christmas tree. Or his electric razor. Free energy, any questions?

Well, you got to ask, why when Reagan took office 4 years later, why did the Great Communicator have the solar panels removed? Interesting. You got to wonder if that was all his own idea.

Following the money is always a great trail to track when seeking answers to simple questions. Why take the solar panels down when they are helping our government pay for itself instead of tapping into tax dollars necessary to pay for the White House electric bill? I can only assume that Big Electric companies lobbied Reagan to take the solar panels down. Why would they do that? Perhaps they did not want people to get the idea that they could get free electricity from the sun that, if it took off, could compete with the coal-fired and nuclear–powered electric generating plants that dot the American landscape from coast to coast. Clean, Green Energy, my, my. What a threat it must have been to Big Electric.

What did the electric companies have to fear? Well, for one thing it would not be practical for an individual homeowner to construct his own coal-fired electric generating station, with whirling magnets, batteries, maintaining an electric grid of his own, why the task would be enormous. But with simple little solar panels with no moving parts to break down or maintain, a homeowner could collect and use all the electricity he would ever need with a few panels. And if need be, he could build them for little of nothing except some flux and a good soldering iron.

Germany proved it could be done, and they did it. Many years ago, Germany got the wild notion that they wanted to improve the state-owned electric company, and they wanted to get the German citizens, villages, and hamlets to do all the work. Germany gave them all a huge incentive. In a market where Germany charged a rate of 15 cents per kilowatt hour, the German government bellied up and paid their citizens and village electric coops, a stunning 55 cents per kWh! Wow! In no time, Germany, a place of minimal sun days, had panels spring up everywhere as they collected free power for their own use and sold the excess power they created back to the government-owned electric company at the whopping rate of 55 cents per kWh.

The result? The new German grid is the most modern per capita in the whole world. As time passed Germany reduced the rate of 55 cents per kWh, downward until this day where the going rate paid is similar to the rate Germany normally charges for electricity. The result? Germany got a new grid, 100% efficient. All the excess power from the sun created is now tucked back onto the German grid and sold to the whole country and neighboring countries. You can make smashing profits, too, when someone else does all the work of building the panels for the electric company.

It is unfortunate that the United States wishes to remain in the Stone Age when it comes to the electric grid. Our 100-year old grid is prone to blackouts, brownouts, and blowouts without warning. It becomes overloaded and is only about 50% efficient at this writing. It will remain that way as long as America refuses to go green. And why not go green? There is little to no incentive. There used to be tax credits to make solar panels more affordable, but they have all but vanished. Our Treasury is a mess what with bailing out companies who went trillions of dollars in the whole, remember AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Lehman Brothers, to mention just a few? The federal government and the states have no more money for green energy credits.

So what? Why can’t the energy companies give out their own rebates and incentives to individuals to produce sun energy as per the German model? They could. But they don’t want to. The electric companies (Big Brown) have effectively lobbied the state legislators across the nation to make things tough to impossible for private individuals to produce and sell back power generated by their private solar cell farms at a decent enough profit to make it worthwhile. Selling individual-generated electricity back to the grid is called NET METERING. And Big Brown don’t want no net metering around heah, fo sho. Some states might condescend to giving you half the going rate that they charge for electricity, but that is only if you jump through mountains of paperwork hoops and buy license after license, and then just maybe you can get the AVOID PRICE (about half the going rate for electricity in any given area). Some companies say slap out NO to net metered sales. They seem eat up with paranoia.

President Obama and Congress know exactly what to do to generate interest in spontaneously leaping our country into the modern age, but Big Brown says no. They want it all. And they pay the campaign contributions to the candidates of their choice. So, in following the money, America is still a nation of carpetbaggers and crooks, and the little man hasn’t got a chance in helping green up the planet. Big Brown spends more money on spin dollars to make a coal-fired plant look like a green oasis with birds and fish, oh you know the lies they tell. What they won’t tell you is that every square inch of surface water in the USA is polluted with levels of Mercury so high that many advisories on eating no more than 8 ounces of fish per month are posted as we speak and never change for the better.

It’s like man would rather lie for profit now and die young for the pollution he brings to the planet than to face the hard choices now for a better quality of life tomorrow. Funny how few humans give a damn about tomorrow. The money to be made now is too powerfully attractive to the human animal. Even over preserving a quality life for all the offspring he generated. Funny how every state congressman is for sale, too. They don’t even try to hide it anymore.

The Germans are progressive in the solar parabolic mirrors that heat up miles of extruded glass filled with a liquid salt solution. This solution becomes hot enough to create instant steam which of course powers turbines that generate megawatts of electricity, enough for a medium-sized town. Schott Solar has plants all over the globe including Albuquerque, NM that make the long glass tubing for the furnaces. The Spanish are the forerunners of solar tower furnaces that collect and focus the sun’s rays on fields of towers with generators to create steam to drive electric turbines. The Dutch are world leaders in giant wind turbine electricity production. At present they have hundreds of these giant turbines that float just below the waterline of the North Sea and are stabilized with outriggers to remain upright even in the most severe winds and storms.

A country can go green if it really wants to. I researched building a solar farm in America for over 2 years, only to discover that none of the electric companies would pay enough for your generated electricity to make such a venture worthwhile. I looked in 16 different states for laws and regulations friendly to private solar electricity production and the ability to net meter back to the grid at a price to where the electric companies would not lose money but would gain a backup new part of the grid that just might save them in periods of heavy usage leading to blackouts.  But the answer was still no. Thanks but no thanks. We will just keep on trucking with the smokestack coal plants we have all come to love. These are the known money-makers, a given. And if the air is cancerous and the waterways of America are full of mercury as a result, well that is the cost of progress, right? It is a big price. I hope we can pay it on our way to bankrupt lunacy as a nation.