Coffee Klatch

Today President Bush said that the U.S. economy is still strong and growing. What the heck? Is he living in the same country I’M living in?

[This morning President Bush] attempted to calm jittery economic markets and anxious Americans at a morning press conference, insisting that the U.S. economy is still growing despite its problems, even as new reports showed inflation rising at the fastest pace in more than a quarter-century, and the prospect of more bank failures loomed.

If consumer confidence is any indicator of the strength of the economy, it’s far from strong. Many other indicators say the same thing. Yet Mr. Bush chose to point out that:

“our economy’s continued growing, consumers are spending, businesses are investing, exports continue increasing, and American productivity remains strong.”

Food and gasoline costs are the highest they’ve ever been, there have been runs on several banks (some actually folded), the housing market is still going down, foreclosures are STILL going up, job losses are still going up, the stock market is still going down, and the U.S. dollar is weak all over the world (including at home). That sure doesn’t sound to me like a strong economy.

Somebody is seriously deluded.

He’d be better off explaining what’s truly going on and suggesting ideas to make it through the tough times he acknowledges we’re in. Instead, all I hear is “We’re doing fine. We’re doing fine!” That’s no help. It’s delusion.

The founder of the Weather Channel is saying he will sue Al Gore (among others) for fraud. He feels that the media is only presenting one side of the global warming issue and that the whole issue is nonexistent. But since he can’t get anyone to dialog seriously about it, he figures maybe the courtroom will get the issue discussed.

“As you look at the atmosphere over the last 25 years, there’s been perhaps a degree of warming, perhaps probably a whole lot less than that, and the last year has been so cold that that’s been erased,” he said.

“I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they’ve been scammed on this global-warming thing.”

You can read more about this news story here.

The British Medical Journal published an article yesterday written by two U.S. researchers who examined the evidence for seven “medical myths.” Here’s what they found out. (Click the link to read the full article and get the explanations.)

1. Drinking eight glasses of water a day to stay healthy has so scientific basis.
2. Reading in dim light will not ruin your eyesight.
3. Shaving your hair does not make it grow back faster or coarser.
4. Eating turkey does NOT make you drowsy (any more than chicken or other foods).
5. We do use more than 10% of our brains.
6. Hair and fingernails do not continue to grow after death.
7. Mobile phones are not dangerous in hospitals.

You’ve probably heard how the upcoming movie The Golden Compass is based on a book written by a militant atheist, how the books progress from something seemingly innocent to becoming very anti-God (the children apparently kill God in the end, so they (many Christians say) can do whatever they want in the misunderstood name of Freedom. The argument from many well-meaning Christians is that the movies (assuming the others will also be made into movies) and books start out fun, innocent, and exciting, so that children will get interested and then get the “true atheist message” by the end.

This post is NOT about the movie, the books, or the author. Instead, I want to talk about the Christian response to non-Christian or anti-Christian media.

Christians are called to be “salt and light” to the world. That is, to spread God’s news of salvation through Jesus Christ by what we say and how we live. Salt spreads its qualities (saltiness) to that with which it comes in contact, while light illumines the darkness, banishing shadows and exposing the truth. This requires walking a fine line between meekness and militancy.

So when Christians encounter a movie, book, or something in another medium that goes against Christianity, how should they respond? Some choose to ignore it. Others boycott it, trying to discourage other people from seeing it. Others learn all they can about it, seeking to form counterarguments and thereby “disprove” the points in question. Are any of these methods best? I will take a look at them using the example of a movie (could be any movie).

When Christians bash a movie (whether right or wrong) as being anti-Christian, insidious, dangerous, or otherwise to be avoided, that tends to draw more attention to that movie. We’ve seen it happen with The Da Vinci Code recently. Sure, I agree that it’s based on flawed research and anti-Christian ideas, but I also think that the movie and book wouldn’t have gotten so popular if so many Christians hadn’t shouted to the world to avoid them.

Granted, avoiding a movie keeps your dollars from casting their vote, as it were, in support of that movie, but loudly protesting the movie really backfires, driving more people to see the movie to find out what all the noise is about. This makes it sound like quiet avoidance might “further the cause” better.

On the other hand, reading a book or watching a movie will indeed help you learn about it, so that you can better discuss the issues with others. The tradeoff is that you spend some money to achieve this, resulting in more sales for said book or movie. Ultimately, you’ll probably do more good being able to intelligently discuss why you agree or disagree with a movie than by avoiding spending a few dollars on it.

For too long Christians of the modern Western world have blindly followed people who formed blacklists and said to avoid this or that movie, song, book, or whatever. I totally agree that there are some things that Christians probably SHOULD avoid, for the sake of their spiritual health. Books on Satanism or films with graphic sexual content are good examples. However, Christians who avoid exposure to TOO much remain ignorant and narrow minded. I would argue that it is much better for Christians to LEARN about the world and society around them. You can’t be “salt and light” to the world if you totally avoid exposure to that world. Christians are NOT called to be blind and ignorant.

The Harry Potter books and movies are a good example. So are the Lord of the Rings books/movies. Most Christians would agree that they’re relatively innocent and don’t come close to advocating actual real-world witchcraft. When dealing with stories that take place in a fantasy world–that is, one that is not based on premises and concepts that are found within our real world–you have to go more on the morality of the characters, since the operating laws of physics, spirituality, and magic are changed from those in our real world.

So… how should you respond to movies like The Golden Compass? Only you can decide for yourself. It depends on your comfort level with the content and how you feel about spending your money. It can be argued either way (as you’ve seen), but I have to say it does no one any good for you to remain ignorant about something just because some Christians have said it’s bad. Don’t “dabble” in anything that’s obviously sinful or that will lead you down the wrong path, but do be informed. If you choose to avoid going to see it, make sure you know WHY you’re avoiding it and be able to explain your reasons to others.

The most dangerous thing for a non-Christian world is a well-read, well-informed, rational Christian.

Current music: Pater Noster: Settings of the Lord’s Prayer

There are two types of verbs: transitive and intransitive. Transitive verbs require a direct object while intransitive verbs don’t have direct objects. You usually see these in the dictionary with the abbreviations v.t. and v.i..

Transitive Examples: Make, Cut, Give
Intransitive Examples: Fall, Speak, Pause

There are times when transitive verbs don’t have a direct object, but they’re usually implied. And then there are quite a few verbs that come in both forms, meaning they can have a direct object or not, such as Drive or Whisper. Here’s a good website with more explanations.

Anyway, my problem is with how some people use the word “grow.” Yes, it is another one that can be either type of verb, depending on the definition. Here are the definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition:

INTRANSITIVE VERB:
1. To increase in size by a natural process.
2a. To expand; gain: The business grew under new owners. b. To increase in amount or degree; intensify: The suspense grew.
3. To develop and reach maturity.
4. To be capable of growth; thrive: a plant that grows in shade.
5. To become attached by or as if by the process of growth: tree trunks that had grown together.
6. To come into existence from a source; spring up: love that grew from friendship.
7. To come to be by a gradual process or by degrees; become: grow angry; grow closer.

TRANSITIVE VERB:
1. To cause to grow; raise: grow tulips.
2. To allow (something) to develop or increase by a natural process: grow a beard.
3. Usage Problem To cause to increase or expand by concerted effort: strategies that grew the family business.

PHRASAL VERBS: grow into 1. To develop so as to become: A boy grows into a man. 2. To develop or change so as to fit: She grew into her job. He grew into the relationship slowly. grow on (or upon) 1. To become gradually more evident to: A feeling of distrust grew on me. 2. To become gradually more pleasurable or acceptable to: a taste that grows on a person. grow up To become an adult.

IDIOM: grow out of To develop or come into existence from: an article that grew out of a few scribbled notes.

ETYMOLOGY: Middle English growen, from Old English grwan. See ghr- in Appendix I.

OTHER FORMS: grower —NOUN
growing·ly —ADVERB

USAGE NOTE: Grow has been used since medieval times as an intransitive verb, as in Our business has been growing steadily for 10 years. It has been used with an object since the 18th century, meaning “to produce or cultivate,” as in We grow corn in our garden. But the transitive use applied to business and nonliving things is quite new. It came into full bloom during the 1992 presidential election, when nearly all the candidates were concerned with “growing the economy.” The Usage Panel is decidedly less fond of this development than business leaders and politicians are. Eighty percent of the Panel rejects the phrase grow our business. The Panel is more accepting of, though not enthusiastic about, the phrase grow our way, perhaps because of way’s established use in expressions like make our way and find our way: 48 percent accept We’ve got to grow our way out of this recession. The Panel has no affection for the odd but occasionally heard phrase grow down: 98 percent reject If elected, I shall do my utmost to grow down the deficit.

They sum up well what has been bothering me about using the word “grow” transitively with the object of business. The only time “grow” is properly used that way is with things that are living and do grow naturally, like corn in the example. They may be directed, planted, and cultivated, but “growing corn” sounds much different from “growing your business.” It should be “cause to grow.” It’s nice to read that 80% of their Usage Panel rejected the phrase “grow our business.” That’s exactly my problem. And it always irritates me to hear that phrase used.

At least I now can document that it’s not actually an appropriate or proper grammatical phrase and can say why.

Current music: Duruflé: Requiem

The UK’s Inquirer news site reported today that Wikipedia now has a page for reporting errors found in Encyclopedia Britannica. Some of the errors uncovered include birthdays, the birth name of Bill Clinton, the definition of NP problems in mathematics (whatever THEY are ), and other scientific, linguistic, historical facts.

Does this mean Wikipedia is a better source for information than Britannica? It depends what information you want. In general, the rule of thumb is that you should ALWAYS double-check your information with a second source before you use it in any way that matters (like a research paper or blog post). While Wikipedia DOES self-correct rather quickly due to the vast number of people who follow different topics, you can always come across misinformation added or changed by someone right before you loaded the page. No matter HOW authoritative a source of information is, you should always cross-check the information with other sources, if only to make sure you didn’t misunderstand what you read.

For what it’s worth, Wikipedia and Britannica are more alike than you might think. Many of the articles on Wikipedia have been taken (literally cut and pasted) right from the 1911 version of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is now in Public Domain.

Do you want to know more about how Wikipedia works? I mean REALLY works? There’s a great article published on the Harvard Business School’s website called HBS Cases: How Wikipedia Works (or Doesn’t) that discusses how a Wikipedia article was started, recommended for deletion, actually deleted, restarted in greater detail, recommended for deletion again, etc. It’s a little long, but it’s VERY good and should be required reading for anyone who works with technology and information.

So, a couple weeks ago I blogged about the gas prices going up right before Memorial Day and the Indy 500 race weekend when thousands more cars are in the city. I also said I’d report on what happened afterwards. So here’s the scoop.

The prices went up twice by about 30 cents each time the week before the race. Since then, it’s gone down. Not dramatically, so it wouldn’t be obvious (in my opinion), but it’s been a little over a week since the race and the prices are averaging $3.15 a gallon, which is 44 cents lower than it was on the weekend of the Big Race. It dropped by about 20 cents in small increments over the five days after the race and it’s continued to drop a few cents a day since then.

I can’t say for sure what’s going behind the scenes with the costs of oil and all that, but I DO know that the week BEFORE the Indy 500 gas prices jumped a total of about 60 cents and the week and a half AFTER the race the prices have fallen by three quarters of that.

Conspiracy? Gouging? Sheer coincidence? We may never know.

Current music: ZZ Top - Greatest Hits

For those of you haven’t heard about this, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody religion founded by Bobby Henderson who was reacting against science curriculum standards being proposed by the Kansas Board of Education a couple years ago. Here is an excerpt from a letter he wrote:

Open Letter To Kansas School Board

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Adherents call themselves Pastafarians and I get the impression that most of them are simply using this a way of mocking those who believe in Intelligent Design. From the comments on their site, it seems many Pastafarians view all religions as superstitions made up by groups within societies to fill some emotional need that their intellects weren’t advanced enough to deal with.

Many ID-ers certainly have gotten upset by FSMism and communicated that. It’s kinda sad how many Christians have taken them seriously and tried to disprove it or argue about it. It was started by someone with a sense of humor and a disbelief in Intelligent Design. People who are reacting against FSMism should realize that and treat the issue a little more lightly.

Oh, and to further show the sense of humor behind this, it’s only permitted to worship and teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster while wearing full Pirate regalia.

In my mind, it’s a way to play at religion and do/say “religiony” things without being committed to a serious system of beliefs. Does that show a deep need for people to believe in a higher power even when their brains are telling them it’s all made up? That’s a topic for another day.

And if you’re a Pastafarian yourself reading this and you disagree with me, then May You Be Touched By His Noodly Appendage.

Today I got an email forwarded to me by a coworker. It asked me to NOT purchase any gas on May 15, touting how this boycott had been going on annually for 10 years now and had made gas prices drop by 30 cents overnight. Being the good doobie that I am, I immediately checked Snopes.com and found out some things that I’ve included below this quotation from the email.

—–Original Message—–
>I only pass this on as asked & will abide Let’s do this
>
>NO GAS…On May 15th 2007 Don’t pump gas on MAY 15th In April 1997,
>there was a ‘gas out’ conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices.
>Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight. On May 15th 2007,
>all internet users are asked to not go to a gas station in protest of high gas prices.
>Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places. There are 73,000,000+
>American members currently on the internet network, and the average car
>takes about 30 to 50 dollars to fill up. If all users did not go to the
>pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000.00 (that’s almost 3
>BILLION) out of the oil companies pockets for just one day, so please
>do not go to the gas station on May 15th and let’s try to put a dent in
>the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least one day. If you agree
>(which I can’t see why you wouldn’t) resend this to all your contact
>list. With it saying, ”Don’t pump gas on May 15th’

Here’s what I learned from Snopes:

• The first email-based boycott of gasoline for a day was in April 1999, not 1997.
• It didn’t make any difference.
• People just bought gas the day before or after instead, so there was no change in the overall market.
• A boycott is a long-term campaign where people totally and continually DO WITHOUT something to get their point across.
• The very premise of this idea is flawed because the amount of gas being used doesn’t change at all.
• Avoiding driving (or at least severely reducing it) would have more impact that not pumping gas on one day.

Their conclusion:

Not buying gas on a designated day may make people feel a bit better about things by providing them a chance to vent their anger at higher gasoline prices, but the action won’t have any real impact on retail prices. An effective protest would involve something like organizing people to forswear the use of their cars on specified days–an act that could effectively demonstrate the reality of the threat that if gasoline prices stayed high, American consumers were prepared to move to carpooling and public transportation for the long term. Simply changing the day one buys gas, however, imparts no such threat, because nothing is being done without.

Gasoline is a fungible, global commodity, its price subject to the ordinary forces of supply and demand. No amount of consumer gimmickry and showmanship will lower its price in the long run; only a significant, ongoing reduction in demand will accomplish that goal. Unfortunately, for many people achieving that goal would mean cutting down on their driving or opting for less desirable economy cars over less fuel-efficient models, solutions they find unappealing.

An event like a “gas out” can sometimes do some good by calling attention to a cause and sending a message. In this case, though, the only message being sent is: “We consumers are so desperate for gasoline that we can’t even do without it for a few days to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with its cost.” What supplier is going to respond to a message like that by lowering its price? Those who really want to send a “message” to oil suppliers should try not buying any gasoline for several months in a row.

And there was a nice list of “Sources” at the end of their article.

I replied to the email I received with the following:

For what it’s worth:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/nogas.asp

Truth be told, it’s never had an effect on the gas market or prices. The email campaign to boycott gas stations began in 1999, not 1997, and the prices did not drop 30 cents a gallon overnight. Prices HAVE changed that much in one day, but not because of a boycott (or one-day abstention).

Just thought you should know.
Scott

Their response? “Thanks for the clarifications. I’ll be participating. Ethics are what its worth to me.”

From my point of view, no disrespect intended, ethics would require either doing an actual boycott or not pretending that my one-day thing was efficacious.

What it REALLY comes down to is self-delusion, convincing yourself that what you’re doing matters, even if all the evidence says there is no effect. Again, no disrespect intended, but if it really was a matter of ethics, then they should work at taking steps that CAN reduce the price instead of just trying to feel good.

Current music: On the Way to Bethlehem (Music of the Medieval Pilgrim)