Sunday, April 30, 2023

Pearl Jam at Uniondale 20th Anniversary

 





Hard to believe - damn near impossible, actually - to think that this concert happened 20 years ago already! I have seen Pearl Jam a bunch of times, but this one was certainly one of the most memorable shows that they had. Some might argue that this was not for the right reason, although in fact, I would disagree. Indeed, it is possible that this was the show when I personally felt the most proud of them, when they showed the character that helped to make me such a big fan of the band in the first place. 

In any case, I did not want to write a whole new thing about it, so am reposting this from many years ago. But it seemed like something worth recognizing on this anniversary. 


Background


I have long been a huge fan of Pearl Jam, but I would have to say that my following them reached it's peak in 2003. I had been a fan of the group for over a decade by that point, and had gone to see them numerous times, had read books about the group, collected t-shirts, bootlegs, posters, and other artifacts, and just generally  You might think that I would have tired of them, but it was quite the opposite, feeling I had grown with the band, and they had been a constant presence. If anything, I was an even bigger fan of the band after ten years than I had been at the beginning.

There is a reason for this. I was absolutely disgusted with George W. Bush. I remember feeling absolutely disgusted with Bush. I mean, before he was even elected, when the Republicans chose him as the "obvious" heir apparent to the White House, as if his resume to that point was so commendable and golden. Yet, as Jello Biafra suggested during the NO WTO Combo's show during the "Battle in Seattle", "King George" was already anointed unofficially by 1999. He was the chosen, so to speak, by the powers that be.

Unfortunately, however, he did wind up as President. I remember feeling so depressed at having to hear the words "President George Bush" once again, as he was sworn in on January 20, 2001, following the stolen election (let's remember our history, and call a spade a spade, as well).

I did not like George W. Bush, and distrusted his intentions. That was true before the election, and afterwards, too. That included on September 10th, 2001, and September 12th, 2001, although I tried to suspend my skepticism in hopes that he might show real leadership. As far as I am concerned, he did not, and that included that moment that exhilarated so many, when he stood on the rubble and declared that the terrorists were going to hear the American people. And then, of course, that included the lead up to the war in Iraq, and everything that happened afterwards.

But the atmosphere was so stifling at that time. People tried to intimidate you if you were opposed to the Iraq  invasion at the time, like it was such an obviously good idea. Given that all the stated justifications for the war were proven false, and that the war proved far costlier to Americans than almost anyone had expected or anticipated. Thousands of lives were lost, and tens of thousands more were seriously wounded.

Yet, the biggest outrage, I remember, was when Americans finally heard about the price tag of the war (What?! War costs money?!! Who knew?). That was when the real outrage seemed to hit home, and the popularity of the war plummeted.

I got in numerous heated arguments with quite a few people who were supportive of the war and/or President Bush. I remember some of them well. In particular, I remember urging supporters of that war, my age and younger (I was in my twenties at the time) to go ahead and join the war effort. Why have others do your fighting for you? You think this guy (Saddam) is really an immediate and serious threat to world peace? That he is Hitler incarnate? Then go ahead and go overseas, and join the fight! Why not? If I believed that he was that dangerous and threatening, I would do that!

More or less, that was what I told many of the supporters, particularly male supporters. Usually, that was met with an uncomfortable smile, as if I were kidding. Some challenged me to join the army, to which I replied, simply, that I had not supported the invasion to begin with, and did not believe that the war in Iraq was justifiable on any level.

Yet, the atmosphere was stifling, and you did not hear too much dissent on the television.

So, quite naturally, I looked for outlets. Art has always been an outlet for expression of all sorts, and I have never been one to think that politics is somehow "out of bounds". Some feel that way, including the friend that I was originally supposed to bring to one particular concert of a band that I really turned to quite a bit in 2002-03, during the height of the Iraqi war fever - Pearl Jam.

I saw Pearl Jam a few times that year, and they meant more to me than ever before. It was nice to hear the voice of others who did not think that George W. Bush was the greatest president, or that he, and his views, represented America. That, moreover, he actually represented the worst of America.

Pearl Jam had released "Riot Act". I do not believe that this was the band's strongest effort, although I like it far more than some people. But it was an interesting album, with some solid music. It came to be important to me, also, because it was an anti-war album. The band did not shy away from voicing their opinions, at a time when far too many seemed to be willing to go with the war fever that had taken hold. Note that this title, Riot Act, could be interpreted as having numerous meanings. Riot Act could be taken as a rebellion, or it could be seen as clamping down on rebellion. Some suggested that they had expected the album to be far harder, given the name. But also, if you add the letters P, A, and T to the front of the name, you get something very different, and very relevant, to those times, as well as another reminder of the actions of your friend and mine, George W. Bush.

Of course, it should be mentioned that there was a reason that I felt a need for some kind of "outlet", and that is that the atmosphere politically in the nation was stifling. For far too many people did not question George W. Bush's motives for going to war in Iraq, and accepted his premises unconditionally. I knew quite a few people (probably a good majority of people I knew, actually) who fit this description. But particularly disappointing to me were three people, intelligent people, who fit into this description. They each had shown a strong capacity for independent thinking prior to September 11th. But once that tragedy struck, they automatically assumed that Bush's militaristic crusade was more than justified, it was necessary.

One of those people, when lecturing me for ten minutes in a public restaurant in New York City about the virtues of George W. Bush and the war in Iraq (and mind you, this was a man who could not stand Bush prior to September 11th), calling "those people" (by which he meant, Muslims, or possibly Arabs, or, possibly, even both) savages, and claiming that "we need to civilize them". He must have noticed my silence at some point, because he stopped in mid-sentence and asked if I supported Bush. Now, I did not want to engage in some heated and pointless discussion with someone that was showing an undeniable strand of ignorance (and not a small amount of arrogance). But when a question is posed to me directly, I will usually make a point of answering as honestly as I can.

So I did. I said, simply one word.

"No."

I swear, that was the only word I said, although I had quite a few other words in mind that I wanted to say, but held back.

He spent the next ten minutes going off about how naive I was being, and how the war was necessary. He was drunk, and loud. He has somewhat of a hearing problem, so his voice tends to be a bit loud anyway. But by that point, the alcohol and the anger mixed to make sure that the conversation was clearly heard by all of the restaurant's patrons. Ten more minutes, with me silently sitting there, trying to politely listen, mentally taking notes when there was something that I felt he was clearly wrong about (there were quite a few of these). But I said nothing, and that was more or less the way it went until he ran out of steam. His wife had tried to stop him at some point, but he told her to shut up. Sometimes, people have to vent, and even if you do not feel they are right, you have to let them get it out.

Anyway, he was one of three people that I knew like this. Another was my friend, who was at the time the guy that I usually would go to concerts with. He and I must have gone to dozens of concerts together over the years. Hell, he even got me my first ever Pearl Jam tickets, to Randall's Island in 1996, which we went to together, with another friend of mine. In 1998, I paid him back for this by getting him tickets to the show at Continental Airlines Arena in East Rutherford, through the fan club. I did not know it then, but those seats were simply amazing! The best seats that I have ever had to see Pearl Jam (or almost any group, for that matter). Second row and just off center! The attendant took out tickets, and we just kept walking closer and closer to the stage. I grew very excited, and when she showed us our seats, it took my breath away! Speaking of "Breath", I still have the one makeshift poster from that show that someone had made, requesting the song "Breath", which is pictures in the book "Twenty". They did not play it at that show, although I would see them play it in the future.

But I digress. Majorly, actually, since this is a post about the Uniondale show, and I have hardly spoken of that at all yet, although I have been trying to set the background up. So, here goes:

My Own Little Ticket Controversy:


It seemed that this was the go to guy for tickets and concerts in general. So, once again, when I got fan club tickets in 2003, I offered these tickets to him. He accepted. And so, it seemed we would see Pearl Jam  for what would have been the third time together (I had already seen Pearl Jam with other people).

But then something happened. Following April 1st, this friend (let's call him Glen) informed me that he would not be able to attend that show. His voice had an edge to it when he told me this, and so, wondering if I had done anything to offend him, asked why. He then expressed his anger at the "actions" of Pearl Jam at a recent concert in Denver. Following "Bushleaguer", many fans (varying accounts range from dozens to thousands) left after the song was played, supposedly as a protest against the anti-President Bush song. Glen was particularly incensed that Eddie Vedder had allegedly "impaled" a mask of Bush.

We talked about it, and I read the conflicting reports from the show, and the response by fans. But he wanted no part of them anymore. He mentioned that he intended to sell the albums that he owned of them, and wanted nothing more to do with the band, ever.

So, obviously, I had to find someone to go with me, and it wound up being my brother, who is likeminded about many things, including George W. Bush.

The Concert


And as it turned out, it was a good thing that Glen didn't actually go with me to that particular show, because as it turns out, the negative response in this show would make the Denver show response look mild by way of comparison. I am absolutely certain he would have been one of the ones booing as they played "Bushleaguer", probably the loudest one booing. Possibly even one of those who were throwing things on stage in anger towards the band.

The thing is, up to that point, the crowd was hugely excited! I think it was one of the loudest Pearl Jam shows that I had seen, and the crowd was one of the wildest and most enthusiastic that I had seen (although Philadelphia ranks close by, too - I think that was an even more enthusiastic crowd, and most of us stayed on our feet literally through the whole show, without pause!). The fact of the matter is, Uniondale's show was highly intense and enjoyable.

They played some really cool tunes, and they just seemed on fire. Everything was clicking, and the crowd was responsive! It was just a very good concert. I recently listened to it again on the official bootleg, and found it apropos, given what was about to transpire, that they performed "Save You", which includes these lyrics:

And fuck me if I say something that you don't wanna hear
And fuck me if you only hear what you wanna hear
Fuck me if I care.....but I'm not leaving here

Well, actually, they did leave there that night, and earlier than expected. Of course, the lyrics obviously have a much wider reference than that, though. But it was the first time that I truly listened to the lyrics (which i was already familiar with from when Riot Act first was released) for that specific song, for that specific concert. Ten years later, and I just noticed the irony of that. Not too quick on the uptake all of the time, I guess.

However, back to the show. it really was fantastic, with terrific crowd response and participation. Everything about it was simply awesome. Everyone in the building was having a good time.

But the feeling all changed almost as soon as the first few chords of "Bushleaguer" were played. The atmosphere changed, radically. it was still highly charged, but now, it was for a different reason. There was anger, and a nervous atmosphere underneath. I'm not sure that anyone knew what to expect, and that probably includes the audience, the band themselves, and the security. It was just....well, it's hard to explain. It was probably the most unique, bizarre ending to a concert that I had ever seen.

Now, it is time for an admission that goes two-fold. I was glad that they played "Bushleaguer". After all, I was no fan of Bush, and will say this about their performance of the song that night: I have never been prouder to be a Pearl Jam fan. They took a stand, knowing there would be strong risks. It was not a popular thing to do, and of course, they could possible raise the ire of Ann Coulter, among others. But they took a stand for what they believed in, and challenged those booing to think. Plus, there is something to be said about being present for something memorable like that.

Yet, it's time to admit something else, as well. I really actually don't like that song that much. I like the lyrical content, and the protest value. But the song itself? Not really all that enjoyable to listen to, frankly. Since Bush left office, I have not made a point of putting that song on. Even worse, I usually find myself skipping that particular track.

That said, it meant a lot to me that night. A lot. Again, I was never so proud of the band as I was at that moment.

The weird thing is, it reminded me a lot of wrestling, back in the old days. You know, you have the bad guy, and he's trying to instigate the crowd, to rile them up against him? That's what it seemed like Eddie Vedder was doing. Hell, Mike McCready even waved his arms, gesturing for more response. It was kind of weird, admittedly. So, yes, it reminded me of watching wrestling as a little kid, and seeing the hated bad guys trying to elicit a reaction from the crowd.

There was energy after the song, but it was a different kind of energy. Whereas before, they were excited and enjoying a great show, now, all that anyone wanted to discuss, or seemed to remember, was the weird, unconventional ending.

Pearl Jam cut their set list short, and Vedder slammed the microphone stand to the ground as they walked off.

Aftermath


My brother and I walked out to the car and, like with everyone else who attended the show, there was only one topic of conversation. What had just happened was just highly unusual, and warranted discussion.

It had been a strange situation. Again, to reiterate, I had never before (or since) been to a concert that ended in a more bizarre manner.

Yet, it was not exactly what everyone thinks it was. Yes, the band was more or les booed offstage. True enough. But there were people there - and quite a few of them - who were applauding Pearl Jam's makeshift protest against Bush. True, they were drowned out, but there were some there (my brother and I being among them, of course).

I was glad that Glen did not go. From that point onward, he took a book out of Vedder's page, in trying to taunt me about how meaningless Pearl Jam was to him. I frankly did not care. Still don't, even though we have lost touch. I know what I like, and it has nothing to do with some sort of show of popularity or not. Certainly, I was not looking for his stamp of approval in order to listen to and enjoy whatever music that I liked, but he seemed to be under that impression. What I was disappointed with was his suddenly juvenile approach.

We had gotten in a few political discussions, and let me just preface this by saying that this guy was quite taken by a certain famous personality (who shall remain anonymous). He emulated this personality in every way, including the way that he looked, and even the way that he talked. The way he told stories, specifically.

Anyway, I noticed that his viewpoint about George W. Bush changed at about the same time as this famous personality began to change his viewpoints. Around the time of the Uniondale concert, he was lecturing me about how the country was better off with George W. Bush, and insisting that I had to admit that I felt "safer" with Bush in charge. (Oh, really?)

Maybe a year later, he had changed his tune, and was critical of Bush (once again, surely coincidentally, making the same arguments as this famous personality). Against my better judgment, I reminded him of his former unconditional support of Bush. He got angry, and apparently, did not remember nearly so much as I did. Perhaps that even included the reasons for why he refused to go to the Pearl Jam show. I laughed as he  told me that he was getting angry. Such a convenient escape from an uncomfortable conversation. My main point was this: agree or disagree, I have my own value system, and judge things my own way. I try and be fair, and not jump the gun on conclusions, but will admit to having strong opinions. Agree or disagree, wrong or right, however, my opinions are my own.

Of course, he was far from the only one just going with the flow of popular, conventional, very unoriginal thinking. A lot of people suspended their doubts about Bush in the aftermath of September 11th. Glen certainly was not the only one. Nor was that other man that spent twenty minutes yelling about how "those people" were uncivilized barbarians, and that we needed to go over there to "control those people".

Obviously, he was in favor of official policy.

Pearl Jam received a lot of flack for their actions, but I always wondered why so many people, Bush supporters generally, were so critical of the actions of a band, yet suspended any critical thinking when it came to the actions of a President, who outright lied about the reasons for an unpopular invasion that most of the rest of the world strongly condemned. There were scandalous headlines about artists like Pearl Jam and the Dixie Chicks, as well as Michael Moore, among others. Everything and everyone was harshly scrutinized, it seemed - except the President.

Excuse my language, here, but what kind of shit is that, anyway?

In any case, I can go on and on about that particular line of reasoning, but this a post about ne particular show, from one particular band. They received a lot of criticism for that, and many people felt that they were wrong. But a large part of their identity from the earliest days was political, and it's hard for me to imagine people going to a Pearl Jam show, and then claiming to be shocked that they would express their political beliefs, and how strongly they differed than what most people tend to apparently believe - particularly in this country. They have opinions, and they were willing to express them in a very public manner, using their art to express these viewpoints. That was a large part of the reason that I became a fan of the group, and remain so to this day.

I remember after the first Pearl Jam show that I ever say, back in 1996 at Randall's Island, thinking that it was likely going to be the most memorable show of the band that I would ever see. But that proved untrue. Every time that I hear the opening chords to "Bushleaguer", a little part of that show lives on.  Also, you can view the entire performance of that song on the extended "Twenty" DVD, which I would highly recommend watching. It's not exactly like being there, but it documents what happened, and much of the reaction.

Looking back, although it made me a bit mad at the time, I am glad that Glen canceled. I would have had to hear his bullshit support of Bush afterwards, and talking crap about Pearl Jam. Our views diverged, simple as that. But it was nice not to hear some neocon rantings against the band at precisely the moment when I felt more pride in them, and what they stood up to and for, than ever before.

That concert, whether you consider it one of their most famous, or infamous concerts, continues to stand out. Today mark twenty years to the day since that show.


 

A Memo From the Carter White House Days Reveals Climate Change Predictions From the 1970’s Have Largely Come to Fruition

 


Picture of Jimmy Carter at a book signing in Harvard that I attended back in 2014.



“We must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.” 

 - President Jimmy Carter, address to the nation announcing a new national renewable energy plan, 1977 



One of the things which I think about for the month of April is Earth Day. Usually, I dedicate a week on Earth Day week when I post at least one blog entry about Earth Day and/or environmental issues. And while that was now about one week ago, it seemed fitting to dedicate at least one more blog entry towards what I still feel is a worthy cause, which would be trying to lessen our overall human footprint on this planet.

So with that, I am republishing an article which I originally published last summer. It was about how one former president, who I sincerely consider a legitimate American hero, had a memo regarding climate change - before it was widely accepted as true, as it generally is now - which made incredible predictions which, in fact, have largely come true. Here is that original blog entry:




Newly Revealed Carter Era Memo Show Climate Change Predictions From the 1970’s Came True, originally published on June 16, 2022:

https://charbor74.blogspot.com/2022/06/newly-revealed-carter-era-memo-show.html



A memo dating back to the days when Jimmy Carter was in the White House is making news suddenly. It is a rather stunning memo, because it seemingly accurately predicts some serious problems with climate change for the future, which have actually come to pass since. 

What specifically came true? Well, here's part of the memo:

Fossil fuel combustion has increased at an exponential rate over the last 100 years. As a result, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is now 12 percent above the pre-industrial revolution level and may grow to 1.5 to 2.0 times that level within 60 years. Because of the “greenhouse effect” of atmospheric CO2 the increased concentration will induce a global climatic warming of anywhere from 0.5 to 5°C.

That one was accurate. It was not the only one that was accurate:

The potential effect on the environment of a climatic fluctuation of such rapidity could be catastrophic and calls for an impact assessment of unprecedented importance and difficulty. A rapid climatic change may result in large scale crop failures at a time when an increased world population taxes agriculture to the limits of productivity.

And still more:

The urgency of the problem derives from our inability to shift rapidly to non-fossil fuel sources once the climatic effects become evident not long after the year 2000; the situation could grow out of control before alternate energy sources and other remedial actions become effective.

Yet, all of this was not a new revelation to everyone. People were aware of climate change since back in the 1950's and 1960's, although it was not such widespread knowledge back then. What was changing during the days of the Carter administration, however, was the abundance of scientific evidence that supported the truth of climate change:

As you know this is not a new issue. What is new is the growing weight of scientific support which raises the CO2-climate impact from speculation to a serious hypothesis worthy of a response that is neither complacent nor panicky.

However, urgent action on an executive level was not taken following this memo. Why? Because when Press’s memo made it to President Carter’s desk, James “Jim” Schlesinger, America’s first secretary of energy, made his own note in response to all of this:  ​​

My view is that the policy implications of this issue are still too uncertain to warrant Presidential involvement and policy initiatives.

Not everyone was so blasΓ© about it. Carter's White House Domestic Affairs Advisor Stu Eizenstat was deeply affected by the contents of the memo, considering it a "transformational moment." It helped to get him far more involved in work on climate change in the future "including his decision in 1997 to serve as the United States’s principal negotiator for the Kyoto global warming protocols."

Yet, he explains why more official actions by the Carter administration were not taken when the opportunity was present to perhaps do so:

“We realized our dependence on foreign oil was dangerous and, very importantly, alternative energy was in its infancy,” Eizenstat said. “So Carter was both doing conservation and still encouraging more domestic oil and gas as a way of reducing dependence on foreign oil,” said Eizenstat. “As with all policy, you have conflicting goals.”

The more I have researched the Carter years, and the man and his presidency, the more I feel the United States missed some serious opportunities to prepare for a better, more promising future. These days, it seems very common to hear people talking about every new election as "the biggest in our lifetime." However, to my mind's eye, perhaps the biggest and most consequent election in actuality during my own lifetime (even though I was far too young to realize or even understand it at the time) was the 1980 election. The country seemed to face a very serious choice then. It was a question of style over substance, and that is what the country elected, by a landslide. All of the problems and political trends that we have seen since, it feels, all seem to have their roots with that one election, and the political rise of the wildly popular Ronald Reagan, who's polished image as most people's apparently ideal president outweighed the reality that his actual polices were in fact detrimental to the country. One of the first things that Reagan did was take down the solar panels that President Carter had installed atop the White House. Reagan also got the ball rolling with popular perceptions of the evils of big government, even though the reality was that government grew during his years in the White House. Reagan also weakened environmental standards, weakened unions, and greatly inflated the military budget. The national debt and budget deficit soared. Wages and benefits stagnated in a very real sense. Yet, the perception that most people had was that the wave of patriotism and flag-waving made the country feel stronger and better, which allowed them to get past the uncertainty of the turbulence of the sixties and seventies, and perhaps particularly of the Vietnam conflict.

Had the country given Carter a real chance, and if he had actually gone ahead as planned with making the country more energy independent, I feel that the United States would be in much stronger position today. Perhaps we would not have gotten involved in some of the costly (in every sense of that word) wars that we involved ourselves in during the decades since. Perhaps our dependence on oil would have been significantly less, had we actually listened to what he and his administration were warning us about back then. But Reagan seemed to epitomize a success story, having been a Hollywood celebrity. He sure acted the part of the kind of a leader that most Americans wanted to believe in. Also, he had a nice smile, I was told repeatedly by people back then when asked why they liked Reagan so much. The trend of pretty politicians with no real substance telling people pretty lies might not have began with Reagan, but it sure seemed to get so popular as to define American politics, then and ever since. Reagan made future leaders like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush possible. And the Clintons and the Bushes made Trump possible. Who knows what Trump will make possible for future leaders of this nation. But it sometimes feels like everything that we are seeing and facing was made possible by our national decision back in 1980. That was the first step down, and it made every step down since not only more possible, but frankly, more inevitable. 

We have been following those steps downward ever since. 


Below is the link to the Guardian article about this story, which provides further detail on the memo and the circumstances surrounding it:

The 1977 White House climate memo that should have changed the world by Emma Pattee of The Guardian, 14 June, 2022: 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/14/1977-us-presidential-memo-predicted-climate-change




Picture of Jimmy Carter at a book signing in Harvard that I attended back in 2014.




This is the one and only selfie I ever managed to take with Jimmy Carter in the picture. This was as close as I could get to him and get a picture. This was from another book signing event in Ringwood, New Jersey, during the summer of 2015. 
 
 
 
 

This is the closest, and possibly the best, picture that I took of President Carter when I took my son to this particular book signing, back in March of 2014. My son was young at the time, just 8 years old. Yet, he says that he does remember this, for which I am glad. Carter actually spoke to him a little bit, and my son actually responded a little. President Carter also urged me to take good care of him just before we left. This was one time that I felt warranted pulling my son out of school for the day. Priceless memories, and he has some signed books by a former president as a lasting souvenir.

Sunday Funny: 5-Year-Old Reluctantly Lets Crying Mom Sleep In His Bed Again

This was a clever turn around of expectations and roles within the article.

Thought it would be worth sharing for this Sunday Funny.

Enjoy!



5-Year-Old Reluctantly Lets Crying Mom Sleep In His Bed Again Published October 23, 2013

https://www.theonion.com/5-year-old-reluctantly-lets-crying-mom-sleep-in-his-bed-1819575755?utm_campaign=TheOnion&utm_content=1680545818&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_source=twitter&fbclid=IwAR0v9UufELre1OzlkJA0kKoR1LKzVSxhbl8kYHPjUrMJa20pzyHgUl25a64

Saturday, April 29, 2023

Montreal Recently Given Distinction As One of Cities In the World With Most Convenient Public Transportation Systems




Earlier this month, MontrΓ©al received an international distinction which, I feel, the people of the city, and more generally Canadians and especially the QuΓ©bΓ©cois, can be rightly proud of.

The city of MontrΓ©al was ranked 16th in the world, according to this poll published by Time Out, where 50 cities around the world were rated. Number one was Berlin, and the list of the 19 cities with the best and most convenient overall public transportation systems was dominated by Asian and European cities, although a few North American cities - namely New York City, Chicago, and of course, MontrΓ©al - made the tail end of this list. 

"Canada’s second-largest city is a delight to explore, whether on foot or via the well-developed Montreal public transportation system. The latter makes the former easier, of course – 83 percent of Montrealers say the city is easy to traverse via public transit," Time Out said.

To read more details regarding all of this, please click on the link to the article below:







Montreal Was Ranked Among The Best Cities In The World For Public Transit by Mike Chaar, Assistant Editor of MTL Blog, Apr 08, 2023

The only Canadian city to make the cut! 

https://www.mtlblog.com/montreal/montreal-was-ranked-among-the-best-cities-in-the-world-for-public-transit

Marjorie Taylor Greene Defends Suspect in Classified Documents Leak Because He is ‘White, Male, Christian And Antiwar’

Meant to publish this a while ago, but I am only getting around to it now, admittedly.

Marjorie Taylor Greene receives a lot of criticism, and rightly so. In fact, I have criticized her here on my blog, and probably more than once, at that. But the thing is, she deserves it.

Here is one prime example. Recently, a young Massachusetts Air National guardsman, Jack Teixeira, was arrested for leaking classified documents. That is a major federal offense, not usually to be taken lightly. And the apparent reason why he did it was rather shocking to the nation: he was an immature young man trying to impress other immature young men, and showing how much access to power he actually has. Since this news broke, people have been questioning how somebody so young, and evidently so astonishingly immature, could have gotten access to such sensitive material to begin with. He has kind of become the poster child for a young generation which seems to lack the maturity to understand the significance of leaking such documents.

In any case, Greene defended this man, and how she did so should have made more headlines, frankly. Many self-identified conservatives here within the United States tirelessly accuse "elitists" and "libtards" of starting up cultural wars. It is all part of their perception of the massive culture wars that, they feel, are threatening the very fabric of the nation, and Greene clearly is one of those who believes in all of this. She defended this man by saying that he is being singled out for being "white, male, Christian and antiwar."

So in other words, she is accusing the Biden administration, and presumably other "elitists" and "liberals" for persecuting this young man. Instead of assessing what he did, and determining that he may indeed have been too immature to actually handle such documents, and furthermore, may indeed have been guilty of leaking these documents, she is instead claiming that he is merely being persecuted for being a white, Christian male who happens to oppose the war in Ukraine. Using that logic, she likely would not have made a big deal of this at all, and would probably believe the person to be guilty if it was a non-white, female of another religion, perhaps particularly Muslim, and if she supported Ukraine in the war against Russia. 

People like Greene see themselves as being persecuted everywhere, and at all times. She seems to typify the mindset that believes that someone saying "Happy Holidays" in December is guilty of waging a war on Christians and Christmas, more specifically. She probably believes that people trying to maintain a separation of church and state are actually starting a war against Christians, and persecuting them. Of course, people who believe that truly do not know what actual persecution is. Ask those who were sent to death camps in Europe during the Holocaust what persecution is, or people who were publicly stoned for adultery in some Middle Eastern countries, or people who burned at the stake when they were deemed to pose a threat to the Church in Europe centuries ago. That's real persecution.

As for the fixation on skin color, and the presumption that whites are now being persecuted, that too is nonsense. For a very long time - we're talking centuries here - whites literally institutionalized white supremacy in the United States. It was secured first through slavery and the genocide of Native Americans, then it was altered a bit after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, but brought back in a different form with Jim Crow racial segregation, which was very real, and enforced through both legal and social means. It was not that long ago - about ten years before I as born - when there were separate entrances for whites and non-whites to public buildings, and had separate neighborhoods, bathrooms, water fountains, and would sit is separate sections on planes and buses. We're not talking ancient history here. 

When that began to change, many people - particularly whites like Greene - clearly did not like it. For a long time, they seemed to remain silent, when racism was clearly deemed unacceptable. But once Trump in particular seemed to give permission to so-called "white nationalists" to voice their dissent, and their desire for a reversal of civil rights actions which were designed to try and bring about greater equality in opportunities, many of these people jumped on the chance to voice what are effectively still racist viewpoints. After all, what kind of a defense is it to simply side with somebody because he is "white, male, Christian and antiwar?" Does this mean that he is innocent of the crimes which he is charged with? It sure seems that she is siding with him automatically, instinctively, precisely because he is "white, male, Christian and antiwar." And that is a problem, as is the fact that Greene has so much influence and her opinions are effectively broadcast and printed in boldfaced every time that she says ridiculous things like this. 

It just goes to show that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Especially in the modern day United States. 



‘White, Male, Christian And Antiwar’: Marjorie Taylor Greene Defends Suspected Classified Documents Leaker Siladitya Ray Forbes Forbes Staff, Apr 14, 2023:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2023/04/14/white-male-christian-and-antiwar-marjorie-taylor-greene-defends-suspected-classified-documents-leaker/?sh=78d105d15523


Friday, April 28, 2023

Anonymous Player Poll Shows That Most View Michael Jordan - Rather Than LeBron James - As Greatest Player Ever

  



πŸ€ πŸ€ πŸ€ πŸ€ 



Right now, the NBA playoffs are in full swing. Some teams, like the New York Knicks (for the first time in over a decade) have already advanced to the second round. 

When I personally think of the NBA playoffs, it is difficult not to remember what I still feel were the glory years for the NBA, the nineties. One memory that particularly resonates is the famous (or infamous, depending on your viewpoint) game by Reggie Miller in Game 5 of the Eastern Conference Finals. 

Part of what made that especially memorable, ironically, is that it was unexpected (at least for me). It felt like the Knicks were dominating that game and bound for victory, and then Miller suddenly roared to life, took the game on his shoulders, and carried the Pacers to the finish line, earning them a stunning, and obviously memorable road victory at MSG.

But one player who never seemed to surprise with truly astonishing performances was Michael Jordan. He had numerous games and performances on that kind of level. So often did this happen, in fact, that it was not as surprising. You just assumed that he would get it done because....well, he was the greatest.

Now, there have been two players in particular - Kobe and LeBron - who have challenged Jordan with their own eras of dominance. Yet, they both feel like they pale in comparison to MJ, truth be told.

Recently, an anonymous poll among NBA players seems to confirm this. Indeed, I still feel that MJ was the greatest ever, bar none. And if anyone challenged this, it might be Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, or possibly the late Bill Russell. 




Michael Jordan Beats LeBron James As NBA GOAT in Anonymous Player Poll avril 23, 2023Mamba Black

https://wlight360.com/michael-jordan-beats-lebron-james-as-nba-goat-in-anonymous-player-poll/?fbclid=IwAR2pwyNE3JZpCIHIZvC4f_vpV8G2KCtMu2n5DeVxf0bCX-i3kW_TchauwuI

April 27, 4977 B.C., Was the Day When Johannes Kepler Believed That the Universe Was Created

Didn't get to publish this yesterday. Meant to when I got to work, but it proved to be quite a chaotic start to the shift, and I just never really got the chance.

In any case, I had wanted to recognize that German mathematician and astronomer Johannes Kepler recognized April 27th as the day, back in 4977 BCE, when the universe began.

Not sure why he was so specific, or whether or not his science and math to prove this would stand up today.

Still, it was an interesting and quirky bit of history, which seemed worth sharing here. 

Thursday, April 27, 2023

Book Review: Our Missing Hearts by Celeste Ng

                                                         


“‎The America I love still exists at the front desks of our public libraries.”  

― Kurt Vonnegut


I added this quote above by one of my longtime favorite authors, because it seemed appropriate for this review of a book by an emerging favorite author of mine. There is a good reason for this, however. As I was reading this book, it strongly reminded me of this quote, and the article in which Vonnegut wrote about American librarians being perhaps the last bastion of the America which he still loved. Because you get the sneaking suspicion that Celeste Ng feels very much the same way while reading this book. And you know what? There may even be some serious truth to this.

Yes, I enjoyed the prior Celeste Ng novel so much, that I made a point of borrowing another of her novels from my local library as soon as possible.

This time, unfortunately, it took me a bit longer - no reflection on how good the book was - and wound up returning the book late.

Yet, it was good. Really, really good.

This is very different than the previous book from her which I read, "Little Fires Everywhere." This one almost has a science fiction feel to it, taking place as it does in some alternative future. Yet, this future is neither very far off, nor even very difficult to imagine. Indeed, it is a near future here in the United States largely defined by PACT (which stands for Preserving American Culture and Traditions Act), an act by Congress and signed into law by the president, which effectively helps make the country much less democratic, and largely "free" in name only. For all intents and purposes, PACT has turned the United States into a de facto dictatorship.

Indeed, the target in this book specifically are Asian Americans, or particularly, those from Far Eastern origins. This is particularly true of the Chinese, but pretty much all citizens and arts and literature from Far Eastern nations that bear any resemblance to China, including Japan and Korea (and presumably Vietnam and other nations) find themselves largely forbidden by law. Library books which show any kind of sympathy to these cultures or countries are pulled from bookshelves. Yet, it gets far worse. Children are removed from their parents on some vague pretense of showing anything resembling "unpatriotic" sentiments. Remember, this is not something which this author merely made up, or which has not happened. Indeed, she reminds us in the notes that those who had Japanese backgrounds were held in detention camps during World War II, and children have been taken from their parents at several points in American history,. This would include Native American children, with the presumption of the "noble" mission of civilizing them. It would also include the much more recent trend where children of illegal immigrants were taken from their parents during the so-called "zero tolerance" policies of the Trump years. 

In this still fictional (for now) version of the United States, it has become unlawful to even criticize PACT. Those who express anything deemed "unpatriotic" basically lose their rights, including the right to continue raising their own children. Even though I do not believe that the author specifically mentioned the actual Patriot Act, it was difficult not to think about that. Remember how that gave the authorities previously unprecedented powers of surveillance, including the ability to see what books an individual took out from the library? And the proposed Patriot Act II would have gone even farther, with a clause that would have given the government permission to revoke citizenship if somebody was deemed overly critical of the government. So while the specifics of this book are largely fiction (again, for now), we have already flirted with this kind of thing becoming our new reality. 

Ultimately, this is a beautifully written book. It is engaging and captivating, with characters who feel real, making decisions and facing challenging circumstances which help add to the realistic feel of this story. After reading "Little Fires Everywhere," I really wanted to pick up another book by Celeste Ng, and I was not disappointed. My guess is that you won't be, either.

Highly recommended!


Animals Tend To Be Far More Intelligent Than Most Humans Assume

Human beings tend to be dismissive of this world, and our collective disregard of most of the other life on it, at least based on our actions. We seem to act like we truly feel we own it, as opposed to belonging to it, being a part of it, and thus sharing it with other life forms. That, of course, includes animals, which many of us tend to dismiss as dumb.

In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. I remember reading a book by Daniel Quinn once, where he explained how an animal relies on all sorts of senses to inform it of things that we humans are largely blind and deaf to. They may know, for example, how a beetle's tracks will reveal how long ago it was there, how it might know if that beetle is injured or now, what direction it is going, and on and on. Things that we human beings would not be able to know. 

We only view our knowledge and base our perceptions of intelligence on this, but there certainly are other forms of intelligence. But if the electricity were suddenly to go out tomorrow, and we lost access to all of our modern conveniences and had to actually use other skills in a world turned much more primitive, the same animals that we often dismiss as dumb would be far smarter and more capable of surviving - and indeed, perhaps thriving - in such a world, while our own survival skills would be largely in doubt. 

So it seemed like this link was worth sharing, if only to put such things into perspective, and challenge our long-held, and overly convenient and rarely challenged, assumption of superior intelligence.

Enjoy!



How Intelligence Is Measured In The Animal Kingdom As understandings of human intelligence evolve, so, too, do understandings of animal intelligence. By Conor Feehly, Jan 17, 2023:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/how-intelligence-is-measured-in-the-animal-kingdom?utm_campaign=organicsocial&utm_content=as_understandings_of_huma&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR25wM7wnllZ7Dpe0Um3NWTMo0iiuNGnyTUgTxITa-Tr6eNg1lzmhhGrWF8

Wednesday, April 26, 2023

Fighters in Khartoum Take Over Health Lab With Sensitive Materials, Kick Out Technicians

There has been fighting in recent days and weeks in Khartoum, the capital city of Sudan. It appears to be part of an escalation of a new civil war. It feels at the moment that the government there is on the cusp of a collapse.

Well, one of the sides - it was not made clear which - has taken over a health laboratory and, according to reports, they then ‘kicked out all of the technicians’.

So what exactly does that mean? Well, according to a quote from the World Health Organization (WHO) in the Al Jazeera article used in writing this particular blog entry (see link below):

The expulsion of technicians and power cuts in Khartoum mean that “it is not possible to properly manage the biological materials that are stored in the lab for medical purposes,” WHO said.

Not a reassuring development, to say the least. 




WHO says ‘huge biological risk’ after Sudan fighters occupy lab published by Al Jazeera, 25 Apr 2023:

‘One of the fighting parties’ has seized control of the central public health laboratory in Khartoum and ‘kicked out all of the technicians’.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/4/25/more-foreigners-flee-sudan-fighters-seize-labouratory

Show Review: ESPN's 30 For 30: Bullies of Baltimore

 

Baltimore Ravens

 
Super Bowl XXXV Champions 



The 2000 Ravens were surely the best defense was surely the best single season defense that I ever saw as a football fan, and I've been watching since 1981. Prior to them, I would have said that the '85 Bears had been the toughest, most intimidating defense. And of course, I had always heard about the Steel Curtain Defense of the Steelers of the 1970's. Since then, the 2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the 2013 Seattle Seahawks also have earned some of the highest accolades for ranking among elite NFL defenses. Yet to me, it seems obvious that the 2000 Ravens were the best of all time.

Why?

Consider this: the NFL rules had already changed considerably to favor offenses. The Ravens were playing in a league that already had "video game offenses." The Minnesota Vikings had shattered all sorts of offensive records in 1998, and in 1999, the St Louis Rams, with an offense that earned the nickname "The Greatest Show on Turf," had also set records and ultimately won the Super Bowl. More and more teams were trying to contend by focusing on having an explosive offense, rather than a dominant defense. That included the Oakland Raiders, who the Ravens would actually meet in the AFC Championship Game that season. 

Yet, that Ravens defense really did bully their way to a level of dominance which the NFL had never before seen. They allowed 165 total points in 16 regular season games, or averaged 10.3 points per game. Baltimore was particularly tough against the run, allowing a total of 970 yards, the least ever allowed by an NFL team during a 16-game regular season. The Ravens forced 49 turnovers, far more than any other team in the league that season. They shut out opponents four times during the regular season, and held opponents to 10 points or less 11 times.

Then in the playoffs, they beat Denver 21-3, outlasted the Titans in Tennessee, 24-10, and battered the Raiders in Oakland, 16-3. In Super Bowl XXXV, they forced the Giants to have the worst offensive performance by any team in Super Bowl history, literally shutting out the offense. The Ravens won by blowout, 34-7, with the Giants sole touchdown coming by way of special teams. If you are keeping track, that means that the Ravens allowed 16 points total in their four postseason games, for an average of 4 points per game. In other words, they saved their best for last, performing at optimal level when it mattered the most. I would argue that this qualifies them as the greatest and most intimidating defense in NFL history. 

In this particular episode, the peaks and valleys of the Ravens are explored. From the drama surrounding Ray Lewis when he attended the Super Bowl literally a year before he would play in, and win, his first one, when he was involved with a murder case, to the often racist chants he endured during the actual 2000 season, to the drought of five games without a touchdown and a three game losing streak, to suddenly catching fire by relying on the enormous strength of a historically dominant defense and a suddenly much more cautious approach on offense, and qualifying for their first ever postseason in franchise history. Then winning their way - some might suggest dominating their way - to the first ever Super Bowl title for the franchise. It was quite a fascinating and entertaining episode, with some funny stories particularly by the late Tony Siragusa, who was an enormous presence - literally and figuratively - for that historic defense. 

Having watched a number of these "30 For 30" shows/movies, I have to say that this is a great series! I have enjoyed many of them, and some of them quite thoroughly. This one, "Bullies of Baltimore," was pretty good, although I guess you would have to be a fan of American football in general, and particularly of the old school, slow and defensive style of play that seemed to dominate the league until somewhere in the nineties, when explosive offenses began to be all the rage. The Ravens were kind of a throwback to that, and I would argue that nobody ever played defense better than they did.

If you are a football fan, I would recommend this. 



Comparing the 1985 Chicago Bears and 2000 Baltimore Ravens 

https://www.nfl.com/videos/comparing-the-1985-chicago-bears-and-2000-baltimore-ravens-270094



The NFL’s Best All-Time Defense Is? Kenny Miller by Kenny Miller · June 12, 2015 

https://russellstreetreport.com/2015/06/12/flashbackfridays/the-nfls-best-all-time-defense-is/#:~:text=The%20'85%20Bears%20did%20post,numbers%20don't%20stack%20up.

Paul McCartney Makes New History By Getting Onto Billboard’s Dance Charts





Paul McCartney is back on the Billboard Charts. This time, it's a little different, because he earned his first hit on Billboard's Dance charts.

Wow. 

It's 2023, and this guy is still topping charts, for a seventh decade now. 

Unbelievable. 



Paul McCartney Earns His First Hit On Billboard’s Dance Charts Hugh McIntyre Contributor Follow 1 Apr 16, 2023:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2023/04/16/paul-mccartney-earns-his-first-hit-on-billboards-dance-charts/?fbclid=IwAR3wXzbdX0LJ_aPtZvRZOHKMp5PuJeOhmrqnqAwnqthYwV7Xu4im4dd9ioE&sh=c3f756646373

Tuesday, April 25, 2023

North Dakota Governor Bans Almost All Abortions in State

Another attack on abortion rights yesterday, this time in North Dakota. Republican Governor Doug Burgum signed legislation that effectively bans almost all abortions in his state. There is a short period during the first six weeks when abortions might still be legal, although that obviously is a narrow window. Some women never even know that they are pregnant that early on.

“This bill clarifies and refines existing state law ... and reaffirms North Dakota as a pro-life state,” Burgum said in a statement.

The law was supposed to take effect immediately, although it is worth noting that the state's Supreme Court is still holding up another abortion ban for the state passed last year, not long after the United States Supreme Court effectively overturned Roe v. Wade last year. 

Below is the link to this story, including where I obtained the quote used above:


North Dakota governor signs law banning nearly all abortions by Trisha Ahmed, April 24, 2023:

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-north-dakota-six-week-ban-2bccde2925d30dd4772aaed84f3c2d98

🌎 🌲 Earth Day Week: Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" First to Suggest Human Activity Detrimental to Earth 🌲 🌎

  Earth from Space with Stars


Photo courtesy of DonkeyHotey Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/6143809369




The old button from the Environmental Club days which I just happened to find on Earth Day! It is a little beat up (particularly the ends of the ribbon), but no worse for the wear, I think. And it is one of the few items that I have left from those days, so it carries a lot of great memories for me! Nothing Changes Until You Do!



Here is a picture of a very similar logo, with the same message, that was on the t-shirt that I purchased from the BCC Environmental Club and, if memory serves me correctly, may even have helped to make. There were a few projects like that which club members, myself included, were regularly involved with. It has been so long, however, that I no longer recall specifically if I actually helped to make these or not, although I do believe so, since I remember seeing the process of the t-shirts being dyed. In any case, I loved this t-shirt, and have kept it ever since, even if I do not regularly wear it. Since it was part of my experience with the BCC Environmental Club days, as well as more generally having an environmental theme, it seemed appropriate to share it here. 



"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed."

~Mahatma Gandhi


"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future."
  
~John F. Kennedy  




"The earth does not belong to man. Man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites one family. Man did not weave the web of life. He is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web he does to himself."

- Native American Philosophy (most often attributed to Chief Seattle)


“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.”

~ Chief Si’ahl (Seattle) 








Avatar

“Now polluters are looked upon as ordinary Joes just doing their jobs. In the future, they will be looked upon as swine”

~ Kurt Vonnegut



A lot of arguments could be made about where the environmental movement really began. I heard many people say Henry David Thoreau started it with his writings, and particularly with his landmark book, Walden. I think an argument could certainly be made for the Native Americans, who had a sustainable relationship with the Earth, and urged the encroaching white culture to find a more sensible and balanced approach in terms of their use of the land. Some might say that it started with Senator Gaylord Nelson, and his creation of Earth Day.

But Daniel Quinn argues that the new conscience regarding the problems that human activity has created on the planet really began in the early 1960's, with Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. This was the first time that someone actually revealed that our activities with chemicals being buried in the ground and the pollution that we were causing everywhere actually was effectively poisoning the planet, and calling it what it really was: evil.

Yes, evil. That is not too strong of a word to use in such a case. If anything, it does not go far enough, although some will surely dismiss it automatically. Funny, how the main incentive for denying it almost always tends to be the profit motive.

In any case, that was what awoke a previously sleeping world to the dangers of our activity, and to the knowledge that there were indeed limits to what we could do to this world, before it began to have a serious effect on life here.


"The most alarming of all man’s assaults upon the environment is the contamination of air, earth, rivers, and sea with dangerous and even lethal materials. This pollution is for the most part irrecoverable; the chain of evil it initiates not only in the world that must support life but in living tissues is for the most part irreversible. In this now universal contamination of the environment, chemicals are the sinister and little-recognized partners of radiation in changing the very nature of the world — the very nature of its life." 
-- From Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring








Clip: The Bravery of Rachel Carson May 15, 2014 by Karin Kamp:

Monday, April 24, 2023

Television Show Review: ESPN's '30 for 30' Short: “Deerfoot of the Diamond”

Earlier today, I just happened to see an episode of ESPN's 30 for 30, although this one was one of those short films.

This particular episode was called “Deerfoot of the Diamond,” and told the story of Louis Sockalexis, the first ever Native American to play professional baseball. Sockalexis was a Penobscot from rural Maine, who grew up learning to play baseball, and eventually he developed into an incredibly talented athlete. He played for the Cleveland Spiders, and was supposed to be one of the most gifted natural athletes in early baseball history. But the fact that he was a Native American earned him all sorts of attention, much of it unwanted. People would raise the noise and imitate some makeshift war chants, or at least what they thought passed as Native chants. One star opposing pitcher in New York's Polo Grounds guaranteed that he would strike Sockalexis out, Instead, Sockalexis hit a homerun.

The reaction to Sockalexis seemed to be a mixture of people (particularly Cleveland fans and the media) rooting for him, but often with more than a touch of condescension to it, as well as outright hostility (such as the aforementioned pitcher in New York, who's name I am forgetting. Many began unofficially called the Cleveland baseball team the "Indians," obviously in reference to the presence of Sockalexis.

His career in professional baseball only lasted a few months. He was injured, and the team's fortunes spiraled downwards after this injury. Many of the same people who had seemed to be pulling from him early on began mercilessly blaming him for the team's misfortunes. When he got in altercations in other cities, he was often arrested, and seemingly faced longer and longer sentences after each such incident. He began drinking more and more, until he developed a problem with alcoholism. 

“No matter where we play, I go through the same ordeal,” Sockalexis said in an interview Edmands uses. “And at the present time, I'm so used to it that I forget to smile at my tormentors, believing it to be part of the game. Had I cared, they would have driven me out of the business long ago. I got it from the very first day I played.”

Eventually, he went back to rural Maine, once his short baseball career ended. He died young, in 1913. The Cleveland Spiders were relegated to the minor leagues after some truly terrible, even historically bad seasons. The Cleveland Blues became the major league baseball team for the city, and in 1915, two years after the death of Sockalexis, they changed their names to the Cleveland Indians. By the 1950's, the mascot would be given the name "Chief Wahoo." It is argued in the film that while many fans proclaimed that the name and logo (Chief Wahoo) for the franchise were actually meant to honor the legacy of brave Native Americans, the ridiculous nature of the caricature was anything but a compliment. Yet, the franchise would keep the name until 2018, when they finally got rid of the Indians name, and stopped using "Chief Wahoo" as their logo. They have since come to be known as the Cleveland Guardians. 

This was an excellent documentary that told a story which, frankly, I was unfamiliar with. Granted, I am not a big baseball fan. Yet, this had some similarities to what happened with Jackie Robinson, although it actually happened half a century earlier. I would recommend this particular episode, or movie, to anyone. Truly fascinating and highly recommended!



Review: ESPN's '30 for 30' explores Guardians change through legacy of Louis Sockalexis by  George M. Thomas of The Akron Beacon Journal, September 27, 2022:

https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/sports/mlb/cleveland-guardians/2022/09/27/review-espns-30-for-30-takes-clear-eyed-look-at-cleveland-guardians-change-mlb-louis-sockalexis/69520841007/

🌎 🌲 Earth Day Week: Pope Francis Feels Combating Climate Change is Christian Duty 🌲 🌎

  Earth from Space with Stars


Photo courtesy of DonkeyHotey Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/6143809369




The old button from the Environmental Club days which I just happened to find on Earth Day! It is a little beat up (particularly the ends of the ribbon), but no worse for the wear, I think. And it is one of the few items that I have left from those days, so it carries a lot of great memories for me! Nothing Changes Until You Do!



Here is a picture of a very similar logo, with the same message, that was on the t-shirt that I purchased from the BCC Environmental Club and, if memory serves me correctly, may even have helped to make. There were a few projects like that which club members, myself included, were regularly involved with. It has been so long, however, that I no longer recall specifically if I actually helped to make these or not, although I do believe so, since I remember seeing the process of the t-shirts being dyed. In any case, I loved this t-shirt, and have kept it ever since, even if I do not regularly wear it. Since it was part of my experience with the BCC Environmental Club days, as well as more generally having an environmental theme, it seemed appropriate to share it here. 



"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed."

~Mahatma Gandhi


"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future."
  
~John F. Kennedy  




"The earth does not belong to man. Man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites one family. Man did not weave the web of life. He is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web he does to himself."

- Native American Philosophy (most often attributed to Chief Seattle)


“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.”

~ Chief Si’ahl (Seattle) 








Avatar

“Now polluters are looked upon as ordinary Joes just doing their jobs. In the future, they will be looked upon as swine”

~ Kurt Vonnegut



Why does it seem that, for many, being a good Christian means specifically ignoring what is best for our planet, and voting against what is best for it? How charitable and spiritual is that?

Well, that might finally be changing.

Pope Francis I, who seems like a very cool Pope so far and, frankly, a breath of fresh air, seems to take a different tact when it comes to the environment then a lot of other Christian leaders, who seem almost to view the Earth as the property of mankind and, thus, subject to whatever the hell the owners want to do with their parcel of land, no matter how potentially detrimental this may be to the health of the planet.

Pope Francis took a decidedly, refreshingly different approach some years ago:

“Creation is not a property, which we can rule over at will; or, even less, is the property of only a few: Creation is a gift, it is a wonderful gift that God has given us, so that we care for it and we use it for the benefit of all, always with great respect and gratitude.” 

Now, that does not sound like so many Christian leaders here in the United States, who almost seem to feel that doing anything to preserve the natural Earth is tantamount to Godless communism and evil.

Francis went further, even. He likened the destruction of the Earth - of God's Creation - as a sin! Here is some more of what he said on the subject:

“But when we exploit Creation we destroy the sign of God’s love for us, in destroying Creation we are saying to God: ‘I don’t like it! This is not good!’ ‘So what do you like?’ ‘I like myself!’ – Here, this is sin! Do you see?”

He referred to Christians as "custodians of Creation" who needed to have a healthy admiration and sense of wonder for the “beauty of nature and the grandeur of the cosmos”.

Finally, we are seeing and hearing something quite different from the general indifference with which too many religious leaders in the past have ignored the subject of environmental degradation.

Now, let's see if this has a widespread impact among the world's over 1 billion Catholics!

One way or another, however, I do want to say how refreshing this is! Pope Francis seems to me to truly be a man of the strongest faith, and one who does not overlook any aspect of that faith, and who does not leave his faith open to many (if any) contradictions.




Here is the link to this story:

Pope Francis Makes Biblical Case For Addressing Climate Change: ‘If We Destroy Creation, Creation Will Destroy Us’