Chamblee54

We are pumping too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The primary source of this is use of fossil fuels. primarily coal and petroleum. Most of the attention has focused on the effect this imbalance has on the air. Informed Comment has a feature today about the effects of excess carbon dioxide on the planet’s water.
The oceans absorb excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As The National Science Foundation tells the tale, “The oceans act like a sponge to draw down excess carbon dioxide from the air. The gas reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid, which over time is neutralized by fossil carbonate shells on the seafloor. If too much carbon dioxide enters the ocean too quickly, it can deplete the carbonate ions that corals, mollusks and some plankton need for reef and shell-building.”
The NSF feature deals with the history of the earth over the last 300 million years. (It is noted that ” because ocean sediments older than 180 million years have been recycled back into the deep Earth, scientists have fewer records to work with.”) At various times, the carbon portion of the atmosphere has risen dramatically. The reasons are open to speculation, but many feel it was due to volcanic activity, and an asteroid collision.
“In a review of hundreds of paleoceanographic studies, the researchers found evidence for only one period in the last 300 million years when the oceans changed as fast as today: the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM. In ocean sediment cores, the PETM appears as a brown mud layer flanked by thick deposits of white plankton fossils. About 56 million years ago, a mysterious surge of carbon into the atmosphere warmed the planet and turned the oceans corrosive. In about 5,000 years, atmospheric carbon doubled to 1,800 parts per million (ppm), and average global temperatures rose by about 6 degrees Celsius. The carbonate plankton shells littering the seafloor dissolved, leaving the brown clay layer that scientists see in sediment cores today. As many as half of all species of benthic foraminifera, a group of one-celled organisms that live at the ocean bottom, went extinct, suggesting that deep-sea organisms higher on the food chain may have also disappeared, said paper co-author Ellen Thomas, a paleoceanographer at Yale University.”
It should be noted that the current atmospheric changes have occured over the last 200 years. Over a period of 50,000,000 years, the earth has recovered to the point of supporting a fabulous variety of life. In .00004% of that time, the promiscuous use of fossil fuels has almost ruined paradise. What G-d created in a year, man has destroyed in 21 minutes.
Alternet has a feature, Our Oceans Are in Dire Shape, But Without Them All Life on Land — Human, Plant and Animal — Is Totally Screwed. Here is a quote.  “Already the increased levels of ocean acidification have led to a loss of phytoplankton and of coral reefs. And losses of phytoplankton and of coral reefs have a ripple effect.
First, much marine life relies on them for nourishment. Flounder, haddock, pollock, salmon and shrimp all eat phytoplankton. Humans eat many of these fish. Krill eat phytoplankton and whales eat krill. So a decrease in one threatens the liveilhood of the other.
Second, phytoplankton also absorbs carbon dioxide. Phytoplankton floats along the ocean’s surface absorbing CO2 as land plants do in photosynthesis. As the CO2 is absorbed, the plant dies and sinks to the ocean floor, releasing CO2 along the way. Cold water can hold higher levels of CO2 than warmer water, so most of the CO2 released, which turns water acidic, is to be found along the ocean floor. But this acidic water does not stay at the ocean’s floor. During an upswell, it rises to the surface. Its acidity is deadly for the shells of marine life, such as shrimps, clams and oysters.
If the smallest part of the food chain is affected by ocean acidification, it ripples all the way up the food chain, making the largest part of the food chain vulnerable.”
Global warming may be the least of our worries. Pictures are from ” The Special Collections and Archives,Georgia State University Library”.

Palestinian Pundit links to a fine story, Robert Fisk: The heroic myth and the uncomfortable truth of war reporting. There is an old saying … in wars, the first casualty is the truth. Stories for the home front are a key part of the war effort. The government often sees war reporters as being a part of the propaganda offensive, and many play along. Mr. Fisk has been playing the game for many years, and has a few stories to tell.
“The flak jacket has now become the symbol of almost every television reporter at war. I’ve nothing against flak jackets. I wore one in Bosnia. But I’ve been increasingly discomfited by all these reporters in their blue space-suits, standing among and interviewing the victims of war, who have no such protection. I know that insurers insist correspondents and crews wear this stuff. But on the streets, a different impression emerges: that the lives of Western reporters are somehow more precious, more deserving, more inherently valuable than those of the “foreign” civilians who suffer around them.”
Not only western reporters, but the western soldiers and mercenaries as well. There is something ugly about an advanced society going into a backwards country to kill people. In Vietnam, we had  B52s raining napalm on peasants living in bamboo shacks. In Pakistan, we have unmanned aircraft slaughtering helpless women and children.
In the old days, soldiers marched into battle, protected only by their weapon. Now, they move in armored vehicles, which they exit leave wearing body armor. The hosts are left to struggle as best they can… with i.e.d.s and suicide bombers. The blood of the people is the weapon of mass destruction.
“A similar and equally uncomfortable phenomenon appeared 15 years ago. How did reporters “cope” with war? Should they receive “counselling” for their terrible experiences? Should they seek “closure”? The Press Gazette called me up for a comment. I declined the offer. The subsequent article went on and on about the traumas suffered by journalists – and then suggested that those who declined psychological “help” were alcoholics. It was either psycho-babble or the gin bottle. The terrible truth, of course, is that journos – and for God’s sake, we must stop demeaning our profession by calling ourselves “hacks” – can fly home if the going gets too tough, business class with a glass of bubbly in their hands. The poor, flak-jacketless people they leave behind – with pariah passports, no foreign visas, desperately trying to stop the blood splashing on to their vulnerable families – are the ones who need “help”.
“Yes, all honour to those who reported from Homs. But here’s a thought: when the Israelis unleashed their cruel bombardment of Gaza in 2008, they banned all reporters from the war, just as the Syrians tried to do in Homs. And the Israelis were much more successful in preventing us Westerners from seeing the subsequent bloodbath. Hamas forces and the “Free Syria Army” in Homs actually have a lot in common – both were increasingly Islamist, both faced infinitely superior firepower, both lost the battle – but it was left to Palestinian reporters to cover their own people’s suffering. They did a fine job. Funny, though, that the newsrooms of London and Washington didn’t have quite the same enthusiasm to get their folk into Gaza as they did to get them into Homs. Just a thought. A very unhappy one.”
Pictures are from The Library of Congress .

There is a discussion brewing in the Jesus Worship blogosphere on the question of ” Is Christianity really monotheistic ”. This is in response to a post, on the subject of the unquestioning Christian .
There is a “motivational” poster, with the headline “Ten signs you are an unquestioning Christian”. One of these (either number one or ten) deals with monotheism. To wit: “You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of G-ds claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your G-d.” Some writers are promising/threatening to write about all ten of these arguments, and the feature on monotheism is the first.
PG is a recovering Baptist, who is severely alienated from Jesus, and Jesus Worship. He does suspect that there is a G-d, and is in no way an “atheist”. The tracts linked to above tend to break down the discussion to atheists vs. christians, which is highly misleading.
In any event, PG has been knocking around for some time the idea of a post about the six G-ds of Jesus Worshipers. The appearance of this series…at blogs that ban PG from commenting…has spurred him into action. Whether or not there will be more comments (from PG) remains to be seen.
Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. This means, there is only one G-d. In contrast, the Romans and Greeks had G-ds and G-ddesses galore, and the Hindus have literally millions of deities. In what was claimed by some as an advancement, the Jews worshiped one G-d. (Zoraroastrians are said to be monotheistic, and did it before the Jews. There may be others.)
One of the sacred tracts of Judaism and Christianity is the ten commandments . The first three relate to the concept of monotheism, and the proper way to talk about G-d.
1-Thou shalt have no other G-ds before me.
2-Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy G-d am a jealous G-d, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
3-Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy G-d in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
As a side note, PG has heard something about the use of Lord as a name for G-d. The riff is that “Lord” was an expression for an English nobleman. When the Bible was translated by James I, his workers used the L word as a synonym for G-d. The words for G-d in the Greek and Hebrew texts that comprised the Bible do not translate as Lord…that word was inserted by the anglocentric workers of James I. This is something that PG read in a book by Tom Robbins, and has no other source for. It may, or may not be true. If it is, then it just might be a violation of the third commandment.
Getting back to monotheism, does Christianity live up to the first commandment? This may seem to be a silly question when you consider the concept of the trinity. At some point in the early days of Jesus Worship, a decision was made top split G-d into three parts. We now had the father, the son, and the holy ghost. (Which makes for a neat blessing…the father the son the holy ghost, whoever eats fastest gets the most) The first commandment is still in effect, but, well, you just have to understand. The Jews continued to worship one G-d, and when Mohammed started his franchise, he changed the name to Allah. In that version, there is no G-d but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger.
Meanwhile, the Jesus Worshipers were good at converting and reproducing, and soon had a very popular religion. But was it one G-d only? The faith had a book of ancient texts that they call “the word of G-d”. The fact that it was written, copied, edited and translated by man did not stop folks. The first commandment would seem to prohibit this custom, but, you just have to believe.
PG is willing to concede the point that he doesn’t understand the concept of the Trinity. He thinks it is a concoction of the Council of Nicea, and is a violation of the first commandment. This is something that seems to happen a lot with Christianity…to proclaim one thing as a rule, to apparently violate that rule, but have a clever explanation that few seem to understand.

This does not explain the other G-ds of Christianity. For this discussion, we will focus on three…the Bible, Satan, and Salvation.
The Catholic Church had a conference to establish a consistent canon for their church. This conference became known as the Council of Nicea. (This conference is where the concept of the Triune G-d was formulated.) The texts in use by the church at the time were collected in one book. Some texts were not used, and there is a good possibility that the texts that were used were edited. This committee effort became known as the Bible.
During the protestant reformation, the new churches needed a source for their authority over the people. It was during this time that the concept of the Bible as the “Word of G-d” became known. This in effect made a G-d out of a book. This is in direct defiance of the First Commandment, which teaches to have no other G-d before you.
The book has been interpreted into many languages, and the interpretations have been interpreted. The star of the New Testament, Jesus, spoke Aramaic. His words were recorded, in Greek, many years after he *died*.Any quote from Jesus has been translated at least twice. This is from texts that were written many years after he lived. And yet, people talk about what Jesus taught, and have confidence, that they know what they are talking about. (The only thing we know about Jesus is what the Council of Nicea chose to tell us.)
At some point, the idea began to float around that the Bible was not only the word of G-d, but that it was inerrant…that is, without errors. This would presume that no scribe copying a text, no Catholic editor assembling a canon, and no one translating ancient languages made a mistake.
This one is too blatant to let slide. When you declare a text to be the “word of G-d”, you are making a G-d out of a book. There is a semantic argument to be made, you can say that this isn’t worship. Lets say it out loud…calling the Bible the “word of G-d” makes a G-d out of a book, in violation of the First Commandment. This is not monotheism.
A quick look at the way Satan is treated by the church shows a curious similarity to worship. Yes, it is backhanded worship, and lots of negative things are said about Beelzebub. He with the horns and tail is given credit for all kinds of powers, and needs to be fought ( with human collateral damage). Yes, Jesus Worshipers give the Devil his due, and then some.
The last “G-d” that we will look at today is Salvation, or the Christian scheme for life after death. Anyone living in the USA has heard this plan a thousand times, and many agree with it. Some do not agree with it. It is up to your imagination (and none of your business) how PG feels.
What is undeniable is the importance placed on salvation in Christianity. It is discussed in every church meeting, often at top volume, and with dramatics that would shame a ham actor. Salvation is said to justify all the rudeness and verbal abuse that Jesus Worshiper inflict on their neighbors. If you do not agree with the concept of Salvation, you have no business belonging to a Christian Church.
Does this hysterical emphasis on Salvation make a G-d out of the concept? As with the Bible and Satan, it is a matter of perspective. A good argument could be made that Jesus Worshipers treat these three items with G-d like devotion, and make G-ds out of them.
Pictures are from The Library of Congress. This is a repost.

Internet personality Andrew Breitbart passed away this morning. It is considered classless to say unkind things about most of the recently deceased. Shirley Sherrod would be justified in dancing for joy. Instead, she issued a statement: “The news of Mr. Breitbart’s death came as a surprise to me when I was informed of it this morning. My prayers go out to Mr. Breitbart’s family as they cope through this very difficult time.”
Some find it odd that a 43 year old man would drop dead. A co worker of PG had a sudden heart attack at 41. Mr. Breitbart was a controversial man, and it is possible that someone thought he had gone too far. For the time being, it is a mystery.
While it is bad form to badmouth the recently departed, the current climate of attack politics is fair game. Nothing you say about your opponent is out of bounds. Two wrongs make a right, and you can always find something your enemies did that justify your sorry behavior. While bare knuckles politics is an old American tradition, one could wish for something better. (There is a law in Georgia. You must repeat a certain saying whenever the subject of wishing comes up. “You can wish in one hand, and poop in the other, and see which one gets full faster.” Whichever choice you make, you should wash your hands when you are through.)
PG heard a radio whiner this morning. A caller complained about all the terrible things BHO was doing. Why doesn’t anyone listen to us, when we warn them about this horrible President. PG thought that the right wing spent so much time screaming about BHO’s birth certificate, and other goofy attacks, that no one takes anything they say seriously. The boy who cried wolf is a powerful story.
A comment at Little Green Footballs speaks volumes. ” Unfortunately, lest we not forget…Breitbart had a few things to say when Ted Kennedy died … We do not have to repay him in kind. Sadly, however, this is a major part of his legacy… I’ve seen that brought up a few times already. And I don’t know what Andy’s response to the outrage was at the time, but I know that more than a few who indulged in glee at Kennedy’s passing said the same thing to me in each instance: “You did the same when Reagan died.”
Pictures today are from The Library of Congress .

PG saw a notice on Facebook. “I am attempting to help out someone who is very dear to me and they need 150 people to take this survey: http://nyustern.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_2nrHnDrbfj71IJm PG used to take surveys door to door, and likes to visit the world of market research from time to time. If nothing else, it will provide text to put between some pictures, from The Library of Congress .
When you click on the link, you see the Objective. “This survey is being conducted by NYU Stern MBA students to collect information about brand-awareness, perceptions and preferences around luxury vehicles. In addition, we will also ask your thoughts on one particular luxury brand. If you’re interested in cars, we’re interested in you. We’d like to understand more about your needs, what you want in a car, what excites you – what drives you.”
The next paragraph is Benefits. “This survey should take no more than fifteen minutes of your time and will help us create better vehicles and service experiences for you. There is no compensation to participants, however, the research team will donate $1 to the Wounded Warrior Project charity (www.woundedwarriorproject.org) for each completed response. ” PG had a dodgy experience with the Wounded Warrior Project charity a few years ago, and is skeptical about any benefits.
The rest of the first page is boilerplate about confidentiality. It is reassuring to PG that NYU is not selling information about his luxury car buying habits. It would be a very short report.
Page two is where the data starts to dribble. There are two multiple choice questions… “Which category of vehicle have you owned or leased? On average, how often do you purchase or lease a new vehicle?” The third question is where things get weird. “How soon are you looking to purchase or lease a new luxury vehicle?” PG is a pointA-to-pointB type of car owner. Luxury, by modern standards, is something that he cannot afford.
In many surveys, they have qualifying questions at the start. You don’t want to waste your time on people who are not in your target market. When PG answered the first question, and did not indicate that he ever owned, or wanted to own, a luxury vehicle, the survey should have terminated. The presence of PG in this project is going to corrupt the data.
Of course, the smart MBA students don’t have a qualifying question, and PG takes the rest of the study. When asked to type in “What features are most important to you in a luxury vehicle? Please enter as many items as you wish.”, PG answers brakes. On page two, where you agree of disagree with a series of statements about “Before purchasing a luxury vehicle it is important to know…”, the answers were marked “neither agree nor disagree”. (One of the statements was “Which vehicle athletes, musicians & entertainers drive”.)
At the bottom of page three, we find out who is sponsoring the study. “What do you associate with the Lincoln brand? What thoughts immediately come to mind?” (Please type your response in the box below.) John Kennedy was shot while riding in a Lincoln Ford. Abraham Lincoln was shot in Ford’s theater.
Before long we get to the demographics. When asked “What is your gender?”, PG checked “Prefer not to respond”. When you hit the >> button, you get to see a video for the Lincoln 2012 MKZ Hybrid. Nobody said thank you.

PG read A Man In Full, by Tom Wolfe, all 742 pages of the dern thing. Normally, there is a 400 page limit, but when your knee is torn up, and your computer torn down, you need diversion. AMIF can keep your attention intact, even as the plot gets more, and more, ridiculous.
AMIF is about Atlanta, the home of PG. Some of the action takes place in Chamblee, the namesake of this blog. PG’s mother grew up in Atlanta, and was a constant reader. AMIF was the last book she read, before her death in 1998. PG found a hardback copy at a yard sale, and began to read it when his knee went out. (He heard that at his mother’s knee, or some other low joint.)
A lot of what you need to know about AMIF can be learned from the picture included here. (The other pictures are from ” The Special Collections and Archives,Georgia State University Library” ). It is a shot of downtown, taken from where Freedom Parkway crosses Boulevard. (The hospital that birthed PG is across the street.) Two landmark buildings… The Peachtree Plaza Hotel, and 191 Peachtree … stick up like a peace sign. To the left of 191, the Georgia Pacific tower rises, out of the ashes of Loews Grand Theater. Except GP doesn’t fit in with the statement of the book designer, and is shrunk down to half it’s size. A halfsize copy of the Bell South tower is next to the Peachtree Plaza. The BS tower is a mile north in real life, behind the Fox Theater.
The text of AMIF is the same way… it is based on Atlanta, but poetic license is “liberally” applied. An example is a road trip made by the mayor ( based on a slimmed down Maynard Jackson), and his Morehouse buddy, Roger Too White. They start at City Hall, and cross Ponce de Leon, noting the role of that seedy boulevard as a racial borderline. They go down Piedmont, towards the park, and the Mayor says that the Northside is all uphill, and the expensive car goes up and up. In real life, the stretch of Piedmont between Ponce, and the park, is flat.
In one of the opening chapters, Roger Too White is stuck in Freaknik, trying to get to an appointment in Buckhead. The standard line about Freaknik… the Piedmont Driving Club crowd is upset because black kids are doing what white kids do… is trotted out. The racial divisions in Atlanta get lots of attention. This is a subject that can be blathered on about for another 742 pages, and still not make sense. The temptation is to say we have a yankee writer, trying to write southern gothic. The only trouble is, Tom Wolfe is from Virginia. He did spend a lot of time in New York. This is the opposite of the typical OTPerson, who moved here from Ohio, and  is occasionally  civilized by the patient natives.
The main character of AMIF is Charles Croker. He is a filthy rich developer, in debt to his eyes, with a quail hunting plantation, a trophy wife, a bum knee, and a half empty skyscraper in Cherokee County. The bank is threatening to kick him out on the streets. A well dressed Morehouse man lawyer offers him a way out of his troubles, but it involves betraying his longtime friend. Take race, sex, money, conspicuous consumption, mix well, cook for 742 pages in a well greased pan.
PG was about to give up, and skim over a chapter. This was when a former employee of Mr. Croker gets out of prison because of an earthquake. The jailbird, Conrad Hensley, winds up in Chamblee, living in an antique shop, and working for a home health care provider. Conrad … now known as Connie … is assigned to work for Mr. Croker. This leads to the conclusion of the story.
AMIF got 128 one star reviews at Amazon. Here are a few.
Amazing what a good publicist can do March 24, 1999 By A Customer
We’ve been had. The publicity machine surrounding Tom Wolfe is probably the real story here. And probably a lot more interesting than A Man in Full.
Oh dear me January 6, 2000 By A Customer
Peppered with Wolfe’s bizarre and laughable descriptions of burly male physique, A MAN IN FULL is a slow moving story filled with stock characters. Thank God that the universally panned BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES, the movie, will prevent this from ever hitting the big screen.
Flat January 12, 1999 By h20pipe@swbell.net (usa)
What a bunch of liberal mish mash. A selfmade millionaire is made a laughing stock, while an escaped convict is held up the hero. Typical New Aged balogney. All form and no substance. I wish I could get my money back
Save your time, integrity and money/ March 11, 1999 By A Customer
All the depth of a baby pool . .
A Man in Full January 9, 2001 By Norwest (Port Lavaca, Texas United States)
I should have quit reading when he mentioned shooting quail with buckshot. The author apparently did no research to make this a credible story. The ending was deplorable. The characters are caricatures. The dialoque unreal. The verbose, stilted descriptions of clothing, architecture and furnishings added nothing unless you consider embellishment of the author’s ego worthwhile.. This will be my last Tom Wolfe book.