Yes, yes, I know, I haven't written anything worthwhile in quite some time now. That's because I haven't had time to think of anything worth writing about, let alone to actually write it down. So in the meantime, enjoy this video I found on another blog I read. I'll have something interesting soon, I promise.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Check This Out!
I saw this video on one of the other blogs I read, and thought I was interesting enough to post here. 'Course, if you don't know much about Biology, it may be a little lost on you. But still, I enjoyed it, figured you might too.
I'll have a real post up sometime soon.
I'll have a real post up sometime soon.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
TINA
A week or so ago I attended a Sustainability workshop put on by some of the professors here. That may be surprising to those of you who know me; normally I don't really care about the environment. But they offered to pay me for it, and I thought it would be a good way to learn a little bit more about being "green" and global climate change, etc. I would hate to push an argument based on little or no fact and have it somehow effect the lives of other people in a harmful way. At the very least, it would be irresponsible, right?
I'll be honest, I wasn't expecting much out of the workshop. As I said, it was a subject that I wasn't really passionate about. So imagine my surprise at how much I enjoyed being there. This offered me a chance to look critically at a lot of information that opposed my own views, something I've been trying to do more of lately. Not only that, but it was a good chance for me to get to know some of my fellow Chem. students and to see what they thought about this issue. Overall, I'd say it was a positive experience.
But...
There were several things that were presented to us that really didn't sit well with me. Some of these things I brought up during the workshop, but it can be difficult to speak out when 1) you don't feel like you know the material well enough, and 2) you know everyone else disagrees with you. So I'm going to take the time to mention them now, in my safe little corner of the world, where I don't feel outnumbered.
First of all, I really dislike the terms "sustainability" and "green". The word "sustainability" bothers me because it has the connotation that our current methods aren't sustainable, that something must be changed. But amongst all the life-cycle assessments not once did I see any evidence that our current methods are not sustainable. Wasteful, sure, but will it eventually lead to a breakdown of society, the extinction of the human race, or something of that nature? I don't know, and apparently neither do they. I was never told what it is we're trying to sustain. Not only that, but it also has the connotation that the changes posited by the "sustainability" movement are the correct ones, that they are inherently better. Now on that one they may have a point(I'll address this in a bit), but I don't think it's necessary to use such a charged word. "Green" bothers me because it suggests that environmental concerns are the chief motivator, which I sincerely doubt.
The reason I doubt their sincerity when it comes to saving the environment springs from a lecture we attended about "Sustainable Business Practices." These sorts of business practices apply not only to chemical companies, but to all major corporations. There were several ideas presented that I found interesting. The first was the idea of a "Triple Bottom Line", the idea being that for the breadth of human history money makers have been concerned only with how much they're making(the "bottom line"). Now, we should focus on
-Financial success
-Environmental Impact
-Social Impact
Sure, those two new ones are important, but at the end of the day, which one do you think is going be the major factor, the one that really decides what a corporation is going to do? Financial Success. And why not? That's the point of starting a business in the first place, making money. And if people think your particular business is concerned with a particular issue, say the environment, and you're also concerned by that same issue, then whose products are you going to buy? I'm not saying that every corporation out there doesn't care about saving the environment. But in today's market, it pays to care, or at least convince everyone you do.
The other major theme we heard over and over again was efficiency. We were introduced to the idea of "Factor Four": twice the productivity with half the resources. Use less material, generate less waste, reuse your waste(or sell it to someone who can), use catalysts...All great ideas. Not one of them needs to be labeled "green". There may be an effect on the environment(less waste needing disposal, etc.), but I think there's an even bigger economic effect. By being more efficient in creating your product, you're saving money, plain and simple. We were given the example of BP, an oil company, who implemented sustainable business practices in 1996. They spent $20 million to do it. By 2006, they had saved $1.5 billion dollars because of it. Am I expected to believe they did it because they felt badly about their effect on the environment? That's asinine.
As far as I can tell, all the things described to me at this workshop are simply much needed refinements of old methods. Why can't we call it "new" chemistry? Or how about "efficient" business practices? Because, as I said before, caring sells. And this doesn't only relate to businesses. Universities are effected by this as well. We were asked how many of us chose our school because of its "green" reputation. Almost all of us raised our hands(I did not). Now, we weren't a representative slice of the student population, but still, it's kinda telling. More students equals more money, and more minds to reach. And universities all over the country are taking up the green mantle. I imagine it'll replace the doctrine of diversity before long.
I still haven't answered the one major question I had going into this workshop: should I be worried about our impact on the environment? The answer I received from them was an incontrovertable "Yes!" Of course it was; I was at a sustainability workshop. In fact, we were told by one of the professors that there was no controversy surrounding global climate change. We are having an effect. Of course this was all backed up by shiny graphs and numbers. But apparently he didn't check his facts that well. There happens to be an organization, located in Portland of all places, called the Cascade Policy Institute, that says we don't know if we're having an effect, and presents evidence showing that maybe we're not doing as much damage as we thought. They're backed up by scientists from around the country. So it seems there is indeed disagreement within the scientific communtity. It's not so cut and dry. Were we shown any of this data? Nope. Not a bit.
I'll leave you with one last thing I learned at the workshop, a new acronym, T.I.N.A. There Is No Alternative. This came from our lecture on sustainable business practices. We were told that this is the wave of the future, that it's the "hip and sexy" trend in the business world. What bothers me about this idea is that the next generation of leaders in society(I mean us) is being told that we're screwing up the environment, that we have to change now, otherwise our children are screwed(which I think is a terribly low blow). We are going to be the ones influencing public policy, and yet we're being fed this message, by scientists, before any sort of a consensus has been reached. Not only that, but we were being trained to communicate to the public, presumably so that we can spread their message. This is starting to sound an awful lot like another organization that we all know I have a distaste for. But I suppose I should just sit back and relax, buy some carbon credits to make myself feel better, and enjoy the environment while I still can.
After all, there is no alternative.
I'll be honest, I wasn't expecting much out of the workshop. As I said, it was a subject that I wasn't really passionate about. So imagine my surprise at how much I enjoyed being there. This offered me a chance to look critically at a lot of information that opposed my own views, something I've been trying to do more of lately. Not only that, but it was a good chance for me to get to know some of my fellow Chem. students and to see what they thought about this issue. Overall, I'd say it was a positive experience.
But...
There were several things that were presented to us that really didn't sit well with me. Some of these things I brought up during the workshop, but it can be difficult to speak out when 1) you don't feel like you know the material well enough, and 2) you know everyone else disagrees with you. So I'm going to take the time to mention them now, in my safe little corner of the world, where I don't feel outnumbered.
First of all, I really dislike the terms "sustainability" and "green". The word "sustainability" bothers me because it has the connotation that our current methods aren't sustainable, that something must be changed. But amongst all the life-cycle assessments not once did I see any evidence that our current methods are not sustainable. Wasteful, sure, but will it eventually lead to a breakdown of society, the extinction of the human race, or something of that nature? I don't know, and apparently neither do they. I was never told what it is we're trying to sustain. Not only that, but it also has the connotation that the changes posited by the "sustainability" movement are the correct ones, that they are inherently better. Now on that one they may have a point(I'll address this in a bit), but I don't think it's necessary to use such a charged word. "Green" bothers me because it suggests that environmental concerns are the chief motivator, which I sincerely doubt.
The reason I doubt their sincerity when it comes to saving the environment springs from a lecture we attended about "Sustainable Business Practices." These sorts of business practices apply not only to chemical companies, but to all major corporations. There were several ideas presented that I found interesting. The first was the idea of a "Triple Bottom Line", the idea being that for the breadth of human history money makers have been concerned only with how much they're making(the "bottom line"). Now, we should focus on
-Financial success
-Environmental Impact
-Social Impact
Sure, those two new ones are important, but at the end of the day, which one do you think is going be the major factor, the one that really decides what a corporation is going to do? Financial Success. And why not? That's the point of starting a business in the first place, making money. And if people think your particular business is concerned with a particular issue, say the environment, and you're also concerned by that same issue, then whose products are you going to buy? I'm not saying that every corporation out there doesn't care about saving the environment. But in today's market, it pays to care, or at least convince everyone you do.
The other major theme we heard over and over again was efficiency. We were introduced to the idea of "Factor Four": twice the productivity with half the resources. Use less material, generate less waste, reuse your waste(or sell it to someone who can), use catalysts...All great ideas. Not one of them needs to be labeled "green". There may be an effect on the environment(less waste needing disposal, etc.), but I think there's an even bigger economic effect. By being more efficient in creating your product, you're saving money, plain and simple. We were given the example of BP, an oil company, who implemented sustainable business practices in 1996. They spent $20 million to do it. By 2006, they had saved $1.5 billion dollars because of it. Am I expected to believe they did it because they felt badly about their effect on the environment? That's asinine.
As far as I can tell, all the things described to me at this workshop are simply much needed refinements of old methods. Why can't we call it "new" chemistry? Or how about "efficient" business practices? Because, as I said before, caring sells. And this doesn't only relate to businesses. Universities are effected by this as well. We were asked how many of us chose our school because of its "green" reputation. Almost all of us raised our hands(I did not). Now, we weren't a representative slice of the student population, but still, it's kinda telling. More students equals more money, and more minds to reach. And universities all over the country are taking up the green mantle. I imagine it'll replace the doctrine of diversity before long.
I still haven't answered the one major question I had going into this workshop: should I be worried about our impact on the environment? The answer I received from them was an incontrovertable "Yes!" Of course it was; I was at a sustainability workshop. In fact, we were told by one of the professors that there was no controversy surrounding global climate change. We are having an effect. Of course this was all backed up by shiny graphs and numbers. But apparently he didn't check his facts that well. There happens to be an organization, located in Portland of all places, called the Cascade Policy Institute, that says we don't know if we're having an effect, and presents evidence showing that maybe we're not doing as much damage as we thought. They're backed up by scientists from around the country. So it seems there is indeed disagreement within the scientific communtity. It's not so cut and dry. Were we shown any of this data? Nope. Not a bit.
I'll leave you with one last thing I learned at the workshop, a new acronym, T.I.N.A. There Is No Alternative. This came from our lecture on sustainable business practices. We were told that this is the wave of the future, that it's the "hip and sexy" trend in the business world. What bothers me about this idea is that the next generation of leaders in society(I mean us) is being told that we're screwing up the environment, that we have to change now, otherwise our children are screwed(which I think is a terribly low blow). We are going to be the ones influencing public policy, and yet we're being fed this message, by scientists, before any sort of a consensus has been reached. Not only that, but we were being trained to communicate to the public, presumably so that we can spread their message. This is starting to sound an awful lot like another organization that we all know I have a distaste for. But I suppose I should just sit back and relax, buy some carbon credits to make myself feel better, and enjoy the environment while I still can.
After all, there is no alternative.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Slightly Redundant
I think it's a pretty fair assumption that the people who read my blog also read my wife's blog(and vice versa). A couple days ago, I showed her a couple youtube videos that I thought were pretty damn funny. Her response was write a short post, and include those videos.
That thunder thief! I was going to post them!!!
So, for most of you(honestly, I don't know why I keep talking like there's a large audience here...anyway...) this will be slightly redundant. I say slightly, because I've chosen other vids that I like a little bit more. So there.
That thunder thief! I was going to post them!!!
So, for most of you(honestly, I don't know why I keep talking like there's a large audience here...anyway...) this will be slightly redundant. I say slightly, because I've chosen other vids that I like a little bit more. So there.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Warning! Explicit Sexual Content!
If you are easily offended by material of a sexual nature, than I suggest you not read this post. It's not actually that bad(not by my standards, anyway), but I felt obligated to say something.
You have been warned.
Any time you move to a new place, you spend the first little bit familiarizing yourself with your new environment. You learn where the grocery store is, where the laundromat is, etc., and most people have their own preferences as to which places they like to shop. Personally, I prefer Safeway to other grocery stores, for example. So, in familiarizing myself with Eugene, I've been trying to keep an eye out for a new adult store to replace the one in Spokane we used to go to(Castle Superstore). Problem is, most people feel ashamed about going into these places, so most of them are in pretty crappy areas of town, and look like the kind of place you would be ashamed to be seen in.
Imagine my surprise then, when Jen tells me we're going on an adventure to Springfield(which is connected to Eugene, not far away at all). I had no idea where we were going; I was expecting a restaurant or something. Lo and behold, our corporate society prevails! Not only was there a Castle in Springfield, but they were having an autograph session with Lisa Ann, a porn star famous for her "Who's Nailin' Palin?" video series(they also have "Obama's Nailin' Palin" and "Letterman's Nailin' Palin"). In these videos, she dresses up like Sarah Palin, and then has sex with people also dressed like political figures. At least, that's the assumption. I've not seen these videos(it's a bit gimmicky for my taste), but I do like meeting porn stars. She does look quite a bit like Sarah Palin when she's in costume(she was wearing it while we were there).
The problem is, what do you say to a porn star? "I love your work, it got me off in no time!" I mean, I'm sure they've come to grips with what they do and how the public sees them, but to be face to face with someone who watches you have sex for entertainment...It's gotta be a strange experience. The only thing I could come up with was, "So...where else are you going on your tour?"
But that made me start to think: Do porn stars like their jobs? I don't mean the actual sex, although that can't be terrible. What I mean is, do the benefits of having that job outweigh the disadvantages? On the one hand, you get to have sex at work, and get paid for it. If you're successful, you can make millions of dollars. On the other, you have to tell all your friends and family what you do for a living(come on, it's not like you could keep it a secret for long). Most of society looks down on porn stars, regarding them as little more than prostitutes. There's the risks involved in having sex with multiple partners(I don't necessarily mean at the same time). And I'm sure it makes having a normal relationship with anyone nearly impossible. For some people, this is a no-brainer, but I honestly think it's a difficult question. Maybe next time I'll have the wherewithal to actually ask.
On a related note, any time you start feeling that you live in a society of boring, mindless robots, visit a sex shop. The innovation in the sex toy industry is rivaled only by that of the weapons manufacturing industry. I can't believe some of the things people come up with. Of course, usually there's only one or two original ideas and then a ton of copycats, but every once in a while you come across something that's makes you stop and think. I had one of those moments the other day when I came across a product produced by Aneros.
I intend to describe this product and what it does. If you are squeemish at all, TURN BACK NOW.
This little device is what's known as a prostate stimulator, designed to hit the "male G-spot." It works like this: the man inserts the device into the anal cavity. Contractions of the anal sphincter move the device around, stimulating the prostate gland. Apparently, this device can cause orgasm with no stimulation of the penis whatsoever; in fact, the directions tell you not to(it may cause ejaculation!). According to the literature, it's a much more intense experience, so much so that "[m]any users have reportedly entered into euphoric and altered states of consciousness..." I remain skeptical.
It's things like this that reaffirm my faith in humanity. I mean that in all seriousness. Imagine the drive it must've taken to take this product from a dream to a reality. Once you had your idea, you'd have to find people to test it("You want me to do what?"). You'd have to find investors("So, you do what with it now?"). Then you'd have to convince people it's worth $50 ("...euphoric and altered states of consciousness..."). And yet here it is. It's even been featured in an MSNBC article.
The American dream lives on.
You have been warned.
Any time you move to a new place, you spend the first little bit familiarizing yourself with your new environment. You learn where the grocery store is, where the laundromat is, etc., and most people have their own preferences as to which places they like to shop. Personally, I prefer Safeway to other grocery stores, for example. So, in familiarizing myself with Eugene, I've been trying to keep an eye out for a new adult store to replace the one in Spokane we used to go to(Castle Superstore). Problem is, most people feel ashamed about going into these places, so most of them are in pretty crappy areas of town, and look like the kind of place you would be ashamed to be seen in.
Imagine my surprise then, when Jen tells me we're going on an adventure to Springfield(which is connected to Eugene, not far away at all). I had no idea where we were going; I was expecting a restaurant or something. Lo and behold, our corporate society prevails! Not only was there a Castle in Springfield, but they were having an autograph session with Lisa Ann, a porn star famous for her "Who's Nailin' Palin?" video series(they also have "Obama's Nailin' Palin" and "Letterman's Nailin' Palin"). In these videos, she dresses up like Sarah Palin, and then has sex with people also dressed like political figures. At least, that's the assumption. I've not seen these videos(it's a bit gimmicky for my taste), but I do like meeting porn stars. She does look quite a bit like Sarah Palin when she's in costume(she was wearing it while we were there).
The problem is, what do you say to a porn star? "I love your work, it got me off in no time!" I mean, I'm sure they've come to grips with what they do and how the public sees them, but to be face to face with someone who watches you have sex for entertainment...It's gotta be a strange experience. The only thing I could come up with was, "So...where else are you going on your tour?"
But that made me start to think: Do porn stars like their jobs? I don't mean the actual sex, although that can't be terrible. What I mean is, do the benefits of having that job outweigh the disadvantages? On the one hand, you get to have sex at work, and get paid for it. If you're successful, you can make millions of dollars. On the other, you have to tell all your friends and family what you do for a living(come on, it's not like you could keep it a secret for long). Most of society looks down on porn stars, regarding them as little more than prostitutes. There's the risks involved in having sex with multiple partners(I don't necessarily mean at the same time). And I'm sure it makes having a normal relationship with anyone nearly impossible. For some people, this is a no-brainer, but I honestly think it's a difficult question. Maybe next time I'll have the wherewithal to actually ask.
On a related note, any time you start feeling that you live in a society of boring, mindless robots, visit a sex shop. The innovation in the sex toy industry is rivaled only by that of the weapons manufacturing industry. I can't believe some of the things people come up with. Of course, usually there's only one or two original ideas and then a ton of copycats, but every once in a while you come across something that's makes you stop and think. I had one of those moments the other day when I came across a product produced by Aneros.
I intend to describe this product and what it does. If you are squeemish at all, TURN BACK NOW.
This little device is what's known as a prostate stimulator, designed to hit the "male G-spot." It works like this: the man inserts the device into the anal cavity. Contractions of the anal sphincter move the device around, stimulating the prostate gland. Apparently, this device can cause orgasm with no stimulation of the penis whatsoever; in fact, the directions tell you not to(it may cause ejaculation!). According to the literature, it's a much more intense experience, so much so that "[m]any users have reportedly entered into euphoric and altered states of consciousness..." I remain skeptical.
It's things like this that reaffirm my faith in humanity. I mean that in all seriousness. Imagine the drive it must've taken to take this product from a dream to a reality. Once you had your idea, you'd have to find people to test it("You want me to do what?"). You'd have to find investors("So, you do what with it now?"). Then you'd have to convince people it's worth $50 ("...euphoric and altered states of consciousness..."). And yet here it is. It's even been featured in an MSNBC article.
The American dream lives on.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Kids on Fire
I have just witnessed the most disturbing film of all time. It's called Jesus Camp.
A central player in the film is Becky Fischer, a pentecostal preacher and organizer of a summer camp called "Kids on Fire." I wish I was making that up. The film opens with a fun little song and dance routine put on by a bunch of kids, singing about how great Jesus is. I'd say that's a normal part of church; no problem there. Except the boys are dressed in camouflage(with their faces painted to match), the kids are carrying sticks as though they were weapons, and the dance moves kind of looked like karate(little kid karate). Becky then proceeded to stand in front of these children and tell them what a terrible world we live in and asked the kids why didn't God "just fix it". She also told them how fat and lazy Americans are. Judging from the size of her, I'd guess she doesn't believe in leading by example. It all ended with the children on their feet, shaking uncontrolably and speaking in "tongues" (read "gibberish").
Next we meet some of the little children who will be attending the "Kids on Fire" camp. Seriously, what self respecting parent would let their children attend a camp where the name implies that they will be SET ON FIRE?! Anyway...we meet little Levi, an 11 year old who already has a career preaching. Levi is home schooled by his mother(according to the movie, 75% of homeschool children in America are evangelicals). She asks him what he would think if a public school science teacher were to say creationism is stupid, to which he says he wouldn't agree. Then she asks him the same question, only about evolution. I think you can guess what his reply was.
We also get to meet his little sister, who prays to Jesus with all her heart that he will...help her get a strike while bowling. Really? Apparently, God cares deeply about your bowling average. Guess I'm fucked. She also decides to walk up to a random woman and tell her that God cares about her, and that she should follow a righteous path(or something similar, it all sounds the same to me). When her Dad asks her why she did it, she said God told her to.
The entire film is like this, swaying back and forth between absolute absurdity to shocking horror at the brainwashing these kids are enduring. I had to fight back tears a couple times while watching it. One of the sermons these children went to had this message: "a person's a person, no matter how small." But the message wasn't about the acceptance of others, like Dr. Seuss intended. No, instead the pastor/preacher/whatever the hell you call him then proceeds to open up a small box, containing tiny plastic models of human embryos at various stages of development. He tells them that one-third of their friends wanted to be there today, but couldn't because they weren't given the chance to live. Then the children had red tape with the word "Life" written in black placed over their mouths, and then led in a prayer about wanting to be washed in the blood of christ. Their doctrine of "Life" apparently only extends to the unborn, however, as the day before Becky told the kids that Harry Potter would have been put to death for being an enemy of God, no matter how big a hero he was. A death sentence pronounced upon a fictional character...these people have a big problem distinguishing fact from fiction.
Probably the most powerful message pushed on these kids is that they're the most important generation ever. Here's a nice little quote from Levi's little sister: "...we're being trained as soldiers..." In fact, the theme of war runs throughout the entire film. The evangelicals are fighting a war to win back America for christ, and they're using their children to do it for them. At one point the children are asked, "How many of you want to be those who would give up their lives for Jesus?" Of course, they all raise their hands. In the beginning of the film, Becky talks about how Islamic children are taught from a young age to use guns and grenades, and says no wonder they're willing to kill themselves when they get older. Apparently, she thinks this is a great idea. The evangelicals even have a flag and a pledge of allegiance. Here's the flag:
Before you denounce the evangelicals as just a bunch of whackos who aren't representative of America, let me remind you of two things.
1) You don't have to be numerous to be dangerous.
2) The evangelicals make up 28.6% of the American population(according to this study). That's 85,800,000 (estimated US pop 3 hundred million) of these crazy nutjobs.
One last thing: the voice of reason in this movie comes by way of a Christian radio show host. He shows up a couple times, and each time he's pointing out what's wrong with evangelism. Of course not all Christians are like the evangelicals, and it's great to see a christian with a little influence doing something to keep these people in check. I hope more follow his example.
I took so many notes during this movie, I can't possibly put it all down here. You really should just watch the movie. I'll end with a couple of choice quotes:
"I can go into a playground of kids that don't know anything about Christianity, lead them to the Lord in a matter of, just no time at all, and just moments later they can be seeing visions and hearing the voice of God, because they're so open. They are so usable in Christianity." -Becky Fischer
"If the evangelicals vote, they determine the election." - Ted Haggard, then leader of the National Association of Evangelicals
"God hears the cries of children" -Becky Fischer
A central player in the film is Becky Fischer, a pentecostal preacher and organizer of a summer camp called "Kids on Fire." I wish I was making that up. The film opens with a fun little song and dance routine put on by a bunch of kids, singing about how great Jesus is. I'd say that's a normal part of church; no problem there. Except the boys are dressed in camouflage(with their faces painted to match), the kids are carrying sticks as though they were weapons, and the dance moves kind of looked like karate(little kid karate). Becky then proceeded to stand in front of these children and tell them what a terrible world we live in and asked the kids why didn't God "just fix it". She also told them how fat and lazy Americans are. Judging from the size of her, I'd guess she doesn't believe in leading by example. It all ended with the children on their feet, shaking uncontrolably and speaking in "tongues" (read "gibberish").
Next we meet some of the little children who will be attending the "Kids on Fire" camp. Seriously, what self respecting parent would let their children attend a camp where the name implies that they will be SET ON FIRE?! Anyway...we meet little Levi, an 11 year old who already has a career preaching. Levi is home schooled by his mother(according to the movie, 75% of homeschool children in America are evangelicals). She asks him what he would think if a public school science teacher were to say creationism is stupid, to which he says he wouldn't agree. Then she asks him the same question, only about evolution. I think you can guess what his reply was.
We also get to meet his little sister, who prays to Jesus with all her heart that he will...help her get a strike while bowling. Really? Apparently, God cares deeply about your bowling average. Guess I'm fucked. She also decides to walk up to a random woman and tell her that God cares about her, and that she should follow a righteous path(or something similar, it all sounds the same to me). When her Dad asks her why she did it, she said God told her to.
The entire film is like this, swaying back and forth between absolute absurdity to shocking horror at the brainwashing these kids are enduring. I had to fight back tears a couple times while watching it. One of the sermons these children went to had this message: "a person's a person, no matter how small." But the message wasn't about the acceptance of others, like Dr. Seuss intended. No, instead the pastor/preacher/whatever the hell you call him then proceeds to open up a small box, containing tiny plastic models of human embryos at various stages of development. He tells them that one-third of their friends wanted to be there today, but couldn't because they weren't given the chance to live. Then the children had red tape with the word "Life" written in black placed over their mouths, and then led in a prayer about wanting to be washed in the blood of christ. Their doctrine of "Life" apparently only extends to the unborn, however, as the day before Becky told the kids that Harry Potter would have been put to death for being an enemy of God, no matter how big a hero he was. A death sentence pronounced upon a fictional character...these people have a big problem distinguishing fact from fiction.
Probably the most powerful message pushed on these kids is that they're the most important generation ever. Here's a nice little quote from Levi's little sister: "...we're being trained as soldiers..." In fact, the theme of war runs throughout the entire film. The evangelicals are fighting a war to win back America for christ, and they're using their children to do it for them. At one point the children are asked, "How many of you want to be those who would give up their lives for Jesus?" Of course, they all raise their hands. In the beginning of the film, Becky talks about how Islamic children are taught from a young age to use guns and grenades, and says no wonder they're willing to kill themselves when they get older. Apparently, she thinks this is a great idea. The evangelicals even have a flag and a pledge of allegiance. Here's the flag:
Before you denounce the evangelicals as just a bunch of whackos who aren't representative of America, let me remind you of two things.
1) You don't have to be numerous to be dangerous.
2) The evangelicals make up 28.6% of the American population(according to this study). That's 85,800,000 (estimated US pop 3 hundred million) of these crazy nutjobs.
One last thing: the voice of reason in this movie comes by way of a Christian radio show host. He shows up a couple times, and each time he's pointing out what's wrong with evangelism. Of course not all Christians are like the evangelicals, and it's great to see a christian with a little influence doing something to keep these people in check. I hope more follow his example.
I took so many notes during this movie, I can't possibly put it all down here. You really should just watch the movie. I'll end with a couple of choice quotes:
"I can go into a playground of kids that don't know anything about Christianity, lead them to the Lord in a matter of, just no time at all, and just moments later they can be seeing visions and hearing the voice of God, because they're so open. They are so usable in Christianity." -Becky Fischer
"If the evangelicals vote, they determine the election." - Ted Haggard, then leader of the National Association of Evangelicals
"God hears the cries of children" -Becky Fischer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)