During the conversation I ran into Ashleigh, a 21-yr-old schoolgirl who seemed full of inexperience and strong opinions. For example, she touted environmental responsibility – and indeed wanted everyone to learn a “deeper understanding of poverty” that would permeate their lifestyle choices like what car they drive… yet later admitted that she herself drives an SUV (so much for that “deeper understanding”). Even better… in her blog she recently posted that this carton right here is racist (!?) and she wants people to contact the editors of Christianity Today to “firmly let them know this is not acceptable” (wait ’till you actually see the “racist” cartoon).

Anyways… I engaged this girl in attempted logical discourse – which, for your entertainment, I have included here. My discussion responses are in normal text, my reflective commentary for you is in italics, and some highlighting has been added by me for emphasis.

The Discussion

Ashleigh:

[...] I appreciated the Earth Day snippet, but I also thought it was rather wimpy. It seemed to focus only on “People in the U.S. have too much food,” when in reality, that’s not the biggest problem as far as how the U.S. contributes to environmental degradation. [...] U.S. Americans are so deeply entrenched in an economic system that exploits the poor, and most of them don’t even know it. There are so many ways to continue expanding sponsors’ understanding of poverty that will impact their whole lives (what kind of house and neighborhood they live in, who they vote for, what they drive, where they shop, etc.) [...] I do understand that you will need to restrain your critiques at points– honestly, not all people are ready for them. [...]

Oh boy, a lefty… and a quick check to her blog reveals she’s only 21 and appears to still be in college… yet seems to know so much about “U.S. Americans” and their lack of all her good qualities. Here I go.

@ Ashleigh
I find your comments offensive.

I’m not sure how much of the world you’ve seen (or even if you’re out of school yet), but the United States (and the West in general) is a gold-standard of environmental goodness next to the rest of the planet. The countries that Compassion helps are often huge polluters and it’s only with the help of the US and the West (including the people you call “deeply entrenched in an economic system that exploits the poor”) that Compassion can keep doing what it’s doing for the poor.

We don’t need finger-pointing at Compassion’s generous sponsors – obviously they already must have some “understanding of poverty” to be a sponsor in the first place.

If transparency means that this blog is just going to be about bashing the United States then the superficial marketing style of blog is looking pretty good.

Ashleigh:

Interesting thoughts, Steve. I’m sorry you were offended by my comments. Let me try to clarify:

While I agree that other countries contribute to pollution, most people don’t have cars, multiple TVs, computer, etc. like we do here. Compared with the rest of the world, the carbon footprint of those of us in the U.S. is huge! I agree that we need better environmental standards across the board, but in many areas the U.S. trails behind other advanced industrialized nations in leading the way. For example, the U.S. decided not to sign in on the Kyoto Protocol.

Similar situations exist not only as far as environmental issues go but in a multitude of areas. The U.S. has pushed forward a lot of positive progress in the world, but it is not squeaky clean. There are points at which the U.S. government or businesses have quite intentionally taken advantage of others. All countries do this– not just the U.S. The U.S. just happens to be a position of power, so complaints are rarely heard.

I am not saying bitter finger-pointing is the answer, just that a lot more than $32/month is required if we really want to take on global poverty. Poverty is a complex problem to solve even when everyone wants to solve it. (That’s why economists like William Easterly and Jeffrey Sachs argue with each other about the best way to move forward!) We all always have more to learn, and there may be some very large changes individuals, institutions, and governments of many countries, including the U.S., must make if we are all to do our part.

Yeah, first of all I’m glad we didn’t sign Kyoto. Second, by “the U.S. government or businesses” do you mean businesses like the neighborhood pub? Or more like the local tattoo parlor? Or perhaps you are referring to some big, straw-man, evil corporation business led by a fat, white, male, cigar-smoking, suit-wearing, yacht-sailing CEO having his shoes polished by Mexicans… you know, the guy your liberal professors constantly harp about?

Before I could even address the politics of her post someone beat me to it.

Jore Lund:

We accept that there is much diversity of opinion on topics outside of the ones that bring us together. We choose to “prefer on another in love” and not focus on differences that could result in divisiveness.

This does result in some holding of the tongue, but it is worth it. I love to see liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans working side by side in obedience to Christ. Frankly, the process of laboring together with those of different opinions than my own, while respecting each other, has done more to alter my views than any sort of verbal banter.

If this blog becomes a location for knock-down, drag-out discussions of controversial topics then I think we are eroding something precious.

Compassion’s purpose is not to create a hot-bed of social discourse. As one wise Compassion friend taught me; we are trying to help people see Christ in the children that are living in poverty, and give them an opportunity to be Christ to these children.

So as we try to push the outside of the envelope, let’s not rip the paper.

@ Jore
Well spoken. I think we can credibly have a fulfilling and Christ-honoring discourse here (despite our varied ideologies and perspectives) if we leave the politics and student activism out of it. There are plenty of blogs for that.

Ashleigh:

I don’t think we’ve really gotten into politics.

Is simply admitting that the U.S. isn’t perfect (nor is any other country) so political? People sin against each other, and I think it’s important to remain open to confronting and confessing sin as necessarily. Nehemiah confessed on behalf of his Israelite ancestors– is it inappropriate for us to do the same?

She’s really backpedaling at this point. Apparently ALL she did was admit “that the U.S. isn’t perfect”, and even the Bible says that America isn’t perfect. I’ll make sure to remember in the future that if I say anything offensive it’s merely me pointing out that nobody’s perfect. Anyways, despite indications of leftist retardation I’m going to try and help her.

@ Ashleigh
I think that there is a line between honest self-critique and politically charged rhetoric. For instance, saying “Americans are so deeply entrenched in an economic system that exploits the poor” is wholly leftist and is not only political, but (in my opinion) is painfully erroneous. Although it may further Obama’s kingdom… it doesn’t further God’s kingdom, which is why we’re here.

With regard to Compassion’s generous sponsors: Have you ever been to a church on a Sunday night where the preacher was scolding his church for its shabby Sunday night attendance? The trouble is… he’s yelling at the wrong people! Don’t be too quick to convict the $32/month sponsor when you don’t know what else they’re doing (besides their support of Compassion) to further His kingdom.

You’ve got energy and spirit and I don’t want to mute that… only to help you channel it to maximize your positive effect on your circle of influence.

Ashleigh:

Steve,
I majored in political science and took a class on international political economy. Though you may disagree with my opinions (and opinions they are), they are valid views and not inherently anti-Christian as you seem to imply. My concern is for the poor, a concern which plays a pivotal role in God’s kingdom, though I realize people have different ideas of the best means by which to help the poor. I would appreciate it if you would refrain the from unsubstantiated bashing of certain political identities without even knowing if I claim them as my own.

I am not in any way trying to say Compassion sponsors aren’t generous people. I just know that in my own life, $32 is only so significant. I am still struggling to understand how I can truly give up my white U.S. American privilege that others might be blessed. $32 is a step for me, too, but I feel called to something higher than that. I think it’s important for us to wrestle with what it means to love the poor beyond simply offering a monthly donation, even one that is heartfelt.

I feel I can speak to this part of the Compassion sponsor experience because I am one, and I know what a struggle it is to truly integrate values of compassion and justice into one’s everyday life. It’s a journey I’m not finished with.

I appreciate your kindly meant closing, but that, when combined with your earlier remarks about my guessed age feel patronizing.

Maybe we can continue to discuss the ideas behind my original post rather than the specifics? I essentially said, (1) Compassion isn’t perfect and should be upfront and (2) the U.S. isn’t perfect and should be upfront. I don’t know how anyone could argue that either of these entities are perfect (even if you believe they’re mostly good!). Do people agree that an important part of this blog’s role would be engage with difficult issues like the struggles of both Compassion and the U.S. to bless the world’s poor with integrity?

Ok, I burst out laughing when I read how she’s majoring “in political science and took a class on international political economy”. With merely a few credit hours of study she’s been transformed into a global economist!! Good Father in Heaven, its a miracle!!

Notice that my mention of Obama is “bashing” to her… which is precisely why everyone should be really bashed in any form at some point in their life – so that our bash-o-meters are calibrated and don’t register false positives. She also seemed taken aback that I would insinuate she supports Obama without knowing for sure – apparently her own blog post using phrases like “my dear Barack” surrounded by near-romantic politi-gah-gah isn’t conclusive.

Still, I’m going to try and help her…

@ Ashleigh,
Ahh, much better… hardly any political rhetoric this time.

Did you notice that your latest comment centered around _your_ own experiences, struggles, and challenges in reflecting Christ to the poor… whereas your earlier comment seemed to center around what _others_ were or were not doing? Do you see the fundamental difference in the way it reads and the perceived attitude?

And while the US and the West definitely have their issues governmentally, open critique seems to be a bit beyond the scope of this blog (although any moderators are free at any time to tell me to go jump in a polluted third-world lake). Although, we can always write our elected officials and let them know our feelings regarding upcoming legislation, current events, and foreign policy. Perhaps a good blog post might be about about just that.

I actually like what Chris was saying the best with regard to the blog “having a blend of posts that run the gamut from promotional, to informational, to educational with some being silly, others being serious, some asking questions and others answering questions”.

Ashleigh:

Steve,
Thanks for your thoughts, but I’d appreciate you let me be my own editor. I’m an adult that can take responsibility for my own thoughts and expressions; I don’t take back my initial comments, nor did I write these later ones in an attempt to please you. As I stated before, despite your good intentions, these kinds of questions and comments are patronizing and hurtful.

If you would like to respond to the new questions/ideas I presented, feel free.

Thanks,
Ashleigh

The Conclusion

*sigh* Poor Ashleigh.

Again, this post could have also been called: Al Gore Finally Won Something

And even before you read any further you should think about checking out Planet Gore.

Last night at the Democratic National Conven- err… I mean at the Academy Awards, Al Gore’s well-made yet scientifically shady documentary called An Inconvenient Truth won for best documentary (or something like that). I have trouble believing a guy who parades around the world on private jets to persuade people to “use less fuel”. While I’m at it why doesn’t Rosanne Barr invite me to Old Country Buffet to pitch me a low calorie diet.

Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’? — $30,000 utility bill
ABC News

Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the Oscar awarded to “An Inconvenient Truth,” the documentary he inspired and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore’s environmental hypocrisy.

Armed with Gore’s utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president’s 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

[...]

Gore is not the only environmentalist associated with “An Inconvenient Truth” who has come under fire for personal habits — and not all the criticism has come from the Right.

Writing in The Atlantic Monthly in 2004, liberal writer Eric Alterman criticized producer Laurie David for her use of private Gulfstream jets. David, he wrote “reviles the owners of SUVs as terrorist enablers, yet gives herself a pass when it comes to chartering one of the most wasteful uses of fossil-based fuels imaginable.” New Republic writer Gregg Easterbrook followed up, computing that “one cross-country flight in a Gulfstream is the same, in terms of Persian-Gulf dependence and greenhouse-gas emissions, as if she drove a Hummer for an entire year.” [...]

So why is it that über-wealthy jabber-jaws can get away with such insane hypocrisy? Why can Rosie O’Donnell say that no “normal” citizen has any reason to own a gun, yet she hires personal bodyguards who carry concealed firearms to protect her? Why can the president of Virgin Airways be stroked alongside Al Gore at environmental symposiums when his industry is “supposedly” the problem? It’s because none of this is about truth… it’s about image and agenda. Surprise, surprise.

Governments in rich nations are spending billions of dollars to buy a clearer conscience over climate change. Are they getting their money’s worth?

Enlightened individuals, those who stay awake at nights wondering what they can do to prevent the polar caps from melting, at least have a growing menu of choices.

Sydney-based Easy Being Green says it will mitigate your cat’s flatulent contribution to global warming for $8. The same company could also make your granny “carbon-neutral” at $10 a year, according to a report in the Australian newspaper last weekend. [...]

~ China, India Smile as West Overpays for Climate, by Andy Mukherjee

You can’t make this stuff up. In lieu of the “findings” that a huge portion of global-warming comes from bovine flatulence, the normal pet owner can now buy credits to offset their pet’s flatulent contribution to greenhouse gases. This is more like a sick dystopic sci-fi novel than reality… but inconvenient truth is stranger than inconvenient fiction, I guess. However, I did find an article that I think deserves serious attention – The Onion reports that the temperature of coffee is expected to rise nine degrees by the end of the 21st century!

Anyways, I’ll leave you with a little inconvenient truth about Al Gore’s personal conservation efforts:

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER ‘TRUTH’
Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET
www.drudgereport.com

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

For Further Information, Contact:
Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431
editor@tennesseepolicy.org

Every time you see a news story about the “catastrophic sky-rocketing” price of gasoline they always stick a microphone in the driver’s window of some rusty lemon and get candid comments from a below-average joe claiming to be sweating crude because he can’t afford to buy gas to go to work… but he’s got $20 of McDonald’s and $15 in cigarettes sitting in the front seat. And seriously… a buck more a gallon makes commuting to work unaffordable? Are you kidding me? Where do you commute to work… the sun? We’re paying a fraction of what Europeans pay… is it still too much? We’ll pay $2.75 for 12oz of Spring Water (whatever the heck that is) and $4.60 for a 16oz Mochaccino, but that extra $5 that it’ll cost to drive to work this week is out of the question? Puh-lease.

This is the friggin’ United States of friggin’ America. This is an amusement park where everyone is richer than they realize. Really. People drop $5000 on a family vacation but then tell the news reporter that because of gas prices they’re afraid they’ll have to change their plans. What?! NEWS FLASH: Unless you’re going to travel the friggin’ country by automobile gasoline is not, has never been, and will never be the primary, secondary, or tertiary expenditure on a vacation. This family who’s ready to drop five G’s is going to pay about $30 more in gas. That’s less than 1% of their total vacation cost and they’re thinking of scrapping the whole thing?! What about sales tax (from around 5 to 8%)? Sales tax is like ten times the extra cost of gasoline on our vacations… but I don’t hear anyone saying that they’re going to have to scrap that exotic nude tropical island getaway because of the blasted sales tax. School taxes will go up ridiculous amounts each year… hundreds of dollars… but everyone would rather freak out about the extra $.80 in gas it cost to go to the mall and buy $125 sneakers and $62 cologne. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

Should I mention that many complaining of fuel prices are driving highway-legal Sherman tanks not known for their efficiency? That’s ok… the people didn’t buy them for their efficiency… because they didn’t have to… because they could pay $20 a gallon for gas before they’d change their driving habits. And you know what? They’d probably still buy the Sherman tank. And nothing says “I Love Me” quite like a Lincoln Navigator or a Cadillac Escalade.

Speaking of habits and behavior… oil is one of the most inelastic commodities there is… and until oxygen is no longer free oil will probably be THE most inelastic commodity (see the graph to the right). In our society everyone drives except in deep urban settings with robust public transportation systems. As such, people will buy gasoline so they can drive where they need or want to go. The price of gas goes up… but people still buy the same amount of it. Why? Because their driving habits stay the same. In our culture it’s not like we’re all in a big dorm room and all my dorm-mates head to the same class at the same time every day and we can carpool just like that. No. Everyone does their own thing and they have different destinations… different stops on the way… different times they like to leave and different times they like to arrive… and in our fiercely independent society nobody is in a hurry to give any of that up an inch, even if it means paying more in gas. We’re demonstrating everyday that we’re willing to pay mad duckets in gasoline so that we don’t have to change our personal routines… myself included.

And with regard to gas prices… many like to target the oil companies because they’re making record profits. Well done them. Here’s another NEWS FLASH: Oil companies don’t set the price of gas. Their profits are reflections of the rising price of gas. If you purchase real estate and the price of land in your area jumps up, then you’ve made yourself a big profit. Well done you. Oil, being a commodity, is set on the commodities market… and the price is whatever commodities brokers are willing to pay. Most of the fluctuations in price are due to human skittishness and fear more than anything. And it’s too easy to envision the oil companies as fat, white, middle-aged CEO’s who are stealing these so-called profits right out from under us. Oil companies are like any big company… they are tens of thousands of employees of various levels who are all smiling at the high cost of gas… just like you’d be smiling if you’re industry came into mega-bucks. Now, if you want to ask why the CEO gets a $400 million dollar bonus… that is a good question, but not related to gas prices.

So what’s the solution. Ask four people and you’ll get five answers. There’s no viable competing auto fuel that’s feasible for present-day society… maybe eventually electric or hydrogen cars will be more prevalent, but not yet. So as long as gasoline is the only car fuel and we refuse to change our habits the demand curve for oil will stay inelastic. As long as the demand curve is inelastic there won’t be sufficient feedback in gas prices to offset the rising costs of it. In effect we’re all doing the Kabuki Dick Dance here… so if you want to do something proactive either learn all the horse trails that lead to your job and local malls, or do what I did. I heavily invested in oil funds, both last year and this year, and I’m smiling ear to ear when I see the price fluctuate, because I make money the more scared people get about gas and the future of energy. So please… be afraid… be very afraid.

When life hands you lemons, make lemonade.
- unknown

Today the term guitar solo is commonly taken to refer specifically to the idiom of rock music. Although solo passages for guitar are found in many musical genres, the ‘guitar solo’ has an almost iconic place in rock, and particularly in the subgenres called hard rock or heavy metal.

Although in principle any kind of guitar can be used in a rock guitar solo, and counter-examples abound, the characteristic solo sound is created using an electric guitar with the timbral effect known as distortion…

- Guitar solo, Wikipedia.org

All music undergoes various movements and shifts of energy and rhythm. There needs to be highs and lows, louds and softs for the piece to be able to accentuate the finer qualities of tonal and vocal communication.

The guitar solo helps the development of most rock and harder pop pieces by serving as a break from the main lyrical content and often offering opportunity to incorporate a new chord progression or rhythm breakdown. The guitar solo is like the month of March… it can come in like a lamb and go out like a lion, or vice versa, or be all lamb or all lion.

Probably most important, a good guitar solo will emote a significant and tangible message to a song. Great solos are extensions of the lyrical and musical intent of the song itself and are tailored to fit the overall composition. A given solo would not have the same effect if lifted out of one song and placed into another.

Here are just a very few of my favorite guitar solos that I think are nearly perfect examples of form, expression, and song fit. Keep in mind that this is just a tiny smattering of the list I could generate and that these are not necessarily my favorite songs… this is a list for the solos (guitarist — song — artists/group — album):

• Zakk Wylde — No More Tears — Ozzy Osbourne — No More Tears
• Marco Sfogli — Pretender — James LaBrie — Elements of Persuasion
• John Petrucci — Pull Me Under — Dream Theater — Images & Words
• Chris DeGarmo — Silent Lucidity — Queensryche — Empire
• Phil Collen — White Lightning — Def Leppard — Euphoria

The GreenBleach founder is Patrick Moore and his entire article is linked here.

Nuclear Engineers have known the environmental superiority of nuclear energy as a large-scale, safe and reliable source of energy for decades. Most reputable scientists and citizens with common sense have also known this for decades. So why are the greens, who are supposed to be so-called “Earth’s defenders”, the biggest opponents of nuclear energy… a curious stance which cutely and ultimately enough hurts the very dirt they worship? Simple. Personal politics.

Nuclear energy, unfortunately, is synonymous with nuclear weapons in ignorant circles (like GreenBleach)… and of course to greens nuke weapons are the phallic tools of greedy white patriarchs seeking to starve all poor children and destroy all planetary animal life. Just using the word nuclear will send many a UC Berkley graduate into an epileptic fit worthy of an Amsterdam rave. Henceforth anything sounding nuclear becomes a Republican plot to make more money, and thus… no matter how much environmental scientific evidence can overwhelmingly support it… out of political fervor most greens will oppose it. But the honest ones are starting to come around.

This phenomenon, by the way, isn’t unique to the environmental issue… you’ll see it everywhere. There are some scientists who, despite the evidence for some intelligent design in nature and the grave problems with a purely naturalistic evolution model, will oppose the idea of design simply because (and they readily admit this) they refuse to face the philosophical and moral dilemma of a designer. In the same vein many oppose intelligent design (ID) not because they believe in evolution, but because evolution fits their worldview better. If you’d prefer to do what you like without the pesky guilt trip then you embrace existentialist claptrap and fight like the devil to keep anything resembling God out of view. This includes opposing ID in schools because they want to keep “Bible-thumpers” from re-writing their school curricula (a noble fear, I must admit).

But alas, I am getting onto a topic for another time. And in reality if there were such a thing as “green conservatives” I would probably be prototypical. So, as a nuclear engineer I applaud any green who decides to put common sense, science, and… *gulp* …the environment before politics. Let us pray for his ostracized soul.