zapatos

Ok, I'm confused. I thought you were saying that living in high density Mumbai is pleasant (or at least acceptable) and the people living there must be happy, otherwise they would move. Did I misunderstand you? Because what you are conveying in this post is that the tourists are having a grand time, travelling around the city, eating in nice restaurants, doing some sightseeing. I assume they went home to something other than a tin roof four feet over a dirt floor. In your first link, picture #14, you have a nice picture of a slum in Mumbai. And according to your statistics nearly 6 million people live like that, almost half the population of the city. Also according to you, this is likely a step up for them from what they experienced in rural areas. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharavi (I edited out some references and other non-critical information - my bolding) "Dharavi is a slum and administrative ward, over parts of Sion, Bandra, Kurla and Kalina suburbs of Mumbai, India. It is sandwiched between Mahim in the west and Sion in the east, and spread over an area of 175 hectares, or 0.67 square miles. In 1986, the population was estimated at 530,225, but modern Dharavi has a population of between 600,000 and over 1 million people, Dharavi is one of the largest slums in Asia." "Dharavi has severe problems with public health, due to the scarcity of toilet facilities, compounded by the flooding during the monsoon season. As of November 2006 there was only one toilet per 1,440 residents in Dharavi. Mahim Creek, a local river, is widely used by local residents for urination and defecation, leading to the spread of contagious disease. The area also suffers from problems with inadequate water supply." And ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India "The World Bank estimates that 456 million Indians (41.6% of the total Indian population) now live under the global poverty line of US$ 1.25 per day (PPP)." "Despite significant economic progress, one quarter of the nation's population earns less than the government-specified poverty threshold of 12 rupees per day (approximately US$ 0.25). As per the 2001 census, 35.5% of Indian households availed of banking services, 35.1% owned a radio or transistor, 31.6% a television, 9.1% a phone, 43.7% a bicycle, 11.7% a scooter, motorcycle or a moped, and 2.5% a car, jeep or van; 34.5% of the households had none of these assets." As far as moving if you are not happy there, you are probably not going to move far if you are making $0.25 per day.

Anyone in the public eye who starts out with "“I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot... But..." has got to know he is asking for trouble. Pretty minor from my perspective but these are the times we are in, and Juan should know it. On another note, do you think when he said: “But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they’re identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.", that he really meant it? I'm sure he flies all the time, he knows what airport security is like, he even reports on this kind of stuff. I guess I'm just wondering if he said it to give Bill O'Reilly some support for Bill's comments on The View.

Um, could you add a few steps to this line of reasoning? I spent a little time in Mumbai, and the vast majority of people I saw were living in 10x10 shacks made of whatever it was they could find in the pile of trash and garbage they were living next to, taking baths in puddles of muddy water, and squatting in the streets to defecate. I'm not sure where they did their grocery shopping although I did see quite a few women competing with dogs for the best of what was in the garbage pile. I guess I should have thought to ask if they were happy but I failed to do so. I'm sure if they were unhappy they would have just jumped on the internet, pulled out their American Express cards, and booked thier move to someplace in the mountains. Maybe Switzerland! Then again, maybe the people generating the garbage piles were the happy ones.

I never understand the great fear associated with cloning of humans. Why do people assume the worst? Let's say my wife and I have tried unsuccessfully for years to have a child. Turns out it's my problem. My boys won't swim. So we go to the doctor who gives us an option; we can either take my wife's egg and add some stranger's sperm to it to have a child, or we can use cloning and have a child that comes from my wife's cells only. That would be an easy choice for me. All we are really doing is getting cells to do what they are capable of doing anyway. It's not playing God. It's not creating Frankenstein. It's not creating a master race. To me these are just scare tactics. Same kinds of things we heard before Louise Brown was born

Ah, ok. So the pope is picking and choosing what to take a stand on based on his interpretation? Like 'do not mess with procreation' is more important than 'do not mess with bonding'. So that is just his opinion, and may change with the next Pope. Good point.

I don't know if there is any way to buy an indulgence these days. The rules are always changing in the Catholic church. I remember when I was a kid in school, they would pass around the plate to collect money for pagen babies. The idea there was that for $5, they would have enough money to fund the missionary work necessary to find and baptize one more baby. And it was important because if a baby was not baptized before death, they would go to limbo, where they would neither be punished nor find eternal happiness with God. I remember as a kid having these visions of a buch of babies all sitting around in a room with a cloudy mist on the floor. I laugh every time I think about it. I think limbo is no longer part of Catholic teaching, but I do wonder what happened to all those babies I was unable to keep out of limbo before they finally shut it down. Maybe spending eternity dancing the limbo!

"While i have no basis for feeling this way, i do feel that charging people to forgive their sins is less than straight forward and basically dishonest. The ease by which it was perverted seems to confirm this. Of course i was raised protestant, we do not have to ask anyone but god to forgive us and he does it for free..." You don't pay to have your sins forgiven. You must be forgiven first, and that is free in the Catholic church too, although you must use a priest as an intermediary between you and God. You pay so that you are not punished either on earth or in purgatory. The idea is that if you do something like pay some money to fund a church (or spend your time building a church), you will have cleansed your soul the same as if you had spent some nasty time in purgatory, or with some newly acquired disease.

Indulgences became increasingly popular in the Middle Ages as a reward for displaying piety and doing good deeds. The faithful asked that indulgences be given for saying their favourite prayers, doing acts of devotion, attending places of worship, and going on pilgrimage; confraternities wanted indulgences for putting on performances and processions; associations demanded that their meetings be rewarded with indulgences. Money raised by indulgences was used for many righteous causes, both religious and civil; building projects funded by indulgences include churches, hospitals, leper colonies, schools, roads, and bridges.[31] However, the later Middle Ages saw the growth of considerable abuses. Greedy commissaries sought to extract the maximum amount of money for each indulgence.[33] Professional "pardoners"[4] (quaestores in Latin) - who were sent to collect alms for a specific project - practiced the unrestricted sale of indulgences. Many of these quaestores unfortunately exceeded Church teachings, whether in avarice or ignorant zeal, and promised impossible rewards like salvation from eternal damnation in return for money.[31] With the permission of the Church, indulgences also became a way for Catholic rulers to fund expensive projects, such as Crusades and cathedrals, by keeping a significant portion of the money raised from indulgences in their lands.[31] There was a tendency to forge documents declaring that indulgences had been granted.[31] Indulgences grew to extraordinary magnitude, in terms of longevity and breadth of forgiveness. Engraving of the Mass of Saint Gregory by Israhel van Meckenem, 1490s, with an unauthorized indulgence at the bottom[34]The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) suppressed some abuses connected with indulgences, spelling out, for example, that only a one-year indulgence would be granted for the consecration of churches and no more than a 40-days indulgence for other occasions. The Council also stated that "Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land."[35] But very soon these limits were widely exceeded. False documents were circulated with indulgences surpassing all bounds: indulgences of hundreds or even thousands of years.[31] In 1392, more than a century before Martin Luther published the 95 Theses, Pope Boniface IX wrote to the Bishop of Ferrara condemning the practice of certain members of religious orders who falsely claimed that they were authorized by the pope to forgive all sorts of sins, and exacted money from the simple-minded among the faithful by promising them perpetual happiness in this world and eternal glory in the next.[36] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence (my bolding) Sounds to me like the misuse was not condoned. Unless of course you are saying that indulgences in general are wrong. And note, the purpose of the indulgence was to take away the punishment for sins that you asked forgiveness for, and received absolution for. You could not just wantonly sin and expect a get out hell card. If you weren't truly sorry, you were not forgiven.

But here is the problem. Believers and non-believers are using two different sets of rules in their arguments. You are using logic, science, etc. and trying to refute what the church believes. But they believe God said it. From their perspective God easily trumps logic and science. So, just like a believer will never be able to use the bible to convince you that evolution is false (because you have logic and science on your side), you will never be able to convince them the bible (and the beliefs it inspires) is false (because they have God on their side). So while I love watching and learning from the arguments given when believers and non-believers square off, I know no one is actually going to win. It's like one side thinking they won because they scored the most goals, while the other side thinks they won because they ran the fastest.

What argument is clearly false? Are you saying that the church IS stupid because of what some unscrupulous members of the church did during the middle ages? BTW, my aunt had a plenary indulgence she used to keep framed on her wall. She received it after confessing and receiving absolution for past sins.

Evil sounds a bit strong to me. I don't believe their intent is to cause harm. I would say their intent is to build a framework that will help people achieve high moral standards and a fulfilling life, and to do good in the world. I can't see how you can look at all the good works of the church and say they are evil. You say sex "should be freely given". That is simply your opinion, just as the opposite is simply the opinion of the church. I can't see where your or their opinion should reign supreme. I had 12 years of Catholic school, and sent my kids to 12 years of Catholic school. I also told them there is no excuse for not using a condom during premarital sex. While I have plenty to disagree with in the church, I feel that my kids and I are better off for the high morals and character the church helped develop in us. Yes, religion restricts love between dedicated partners, but it is because they believe that is what God asks, and for an ultimately greater reward. And it is not simply to control them. You may not agree with their position, but I don't understand why you think the church is full of hand wringing evil doers. I agree there is much harm caused in this world by the Catholic church, but not because of their intent to do harm. It is much the same as the harm caused in this world by government. Not by intent but because of the byproduct of people trying to do good. I doubt it was GWBush's evil plan to kill so many innocent Iraqis. It was just the result of him doing what he thought was right, and if some are harmed in the process, so be it. I fall somewhere between agnostic and atheist, but my experience with the church tells me it wants to do good, whether that is the end result or not. And they believe in what they say because GOD told them. Just like they are wasting my time using the bible to prove to me evolution is not true, I think I'd be wasting my time trying to prove to them the Bible is wrong and condoms are really a good thing in the world.

"Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children. But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation" http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp This is what the Catholic Church believes. This came from God. I think it is unreasonable to ask the church to condone birth control (a sin) in teenagers, when if they wouldn't be having premarital sex (also a sin) in the first place, they wouldn't need birth control. And while not perfect, Natural Family Planning can be 95% effective, especially if used in a Catholic inspired marriage. If you use this method religiously (no pun intended) you have a reasonable chance of having the family size you desire (more or less). It seems to me that the Church has taken a stand on what is right and what is wrong, and if you follow what they teach there will be no out of wedlock children and there will not be an AIDS epidemic. It doesn't seem fair to ask them to preapprove one sin (condoms) because someone is planning to go ahead with another sin (premarital sex). And the Church is not stupid. They know some Catholics will sin anyway. But the solution is for them to quit sinning, not for the Church to allow it. The government has laws against murder, but they don't go ahead and allow it since they know people will commit murder anyway. Seems to me like a well thought out and logical plan. And if you want to be a Catholic then you have to accept that these are the rules. I have no problem with the Church setting high standards and working to achieve them.

It bothers me that when some people have a situation they don't like, their solution is to expand the oversight of government. The last thing I need is to have the government come in and tell me how to set up my phone system to communicate with my customers!

Yes, you're right of course. But I was actually only going after your words "contained all the information" because then I could use the analogy like it was. If I had to create an analogy for the whole of your perfectly reasonable observation, then my analogy wouldn't have been (in my warped sense of humor) nearly as funny. I was snickering when I was writing it, and I of course intended in no way to disparage your comments.

If you look at the original post you will see that the analogy was to refute an implication that life begins once all the information necessary for a fully formed human is gathered together. And a cake recipe does have all the information necessary to create the cake. I said: "I have a difficult time with the idea that the starting point for human existence begins at the point that all of the information necessary for a fully formed person is gathered together. It seems if this concept worked for persons, then it should also work for other things." While it may not be a perfect analogy to human reproduction (which it wasn't intended to be), I think it worked quite well for the purpose it was intended.

I can't just pick any moment and pretend I believe that. And if I did pick the moment of conception then I would have to consider all those who have abortions as murderers. That's fine if I really believe it, but I don't. I'm just not sure. So while I consider the fertilized egg to be a significant form of life, I find the needs of a conflicted and tortured young girl to be more significant. And I think the fertilized egg is more significant than my needs, if I was just too lazy to put on a condom and now find that having another kid is going to be financially challenging. And of course once the fertilized egg becomes a human person, then the needs of the conflicted and tortured young girl can no longer reign supreme.

Sorry for repeating myself, but you said (all bolding is mine): "When you go to bed and make love, two real, physical cells come together to begin an actual human being. If that joining did not occur, no human would be made. How can you say any other moment could possibly be the beginning of life?" I took this to mean that you believed that two real, physical cells coming together is the only moment that could possibly be the beginning of life. You then said: "However, if we figure out how to parthenogenically get an egg or sperm cell to start dividing and to start a new life; when it starts dividing is when it becomes a new life." Since 'parthenogenesis' means: "a form of reproduction in which the ovum develops into a new individual without fertilization" (http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/parthenogenesis.aspx), I took this to mean that you believed that it was NOT necessary that two real, physical cells coming together is the only moment that could possibly be the beginning of life. Since it appeared to me that you were making two contradictory statements, I said that it doesn't seem to be clear to YOU when life begins. And looking at it again I still do not understand where you stand on this issue. Is it necessary that life begins with an egg and a sperm, or is it not? I accept that I may have misunderstood what you were saying so I'd be happy to be corrected. Regardless, it is still unclear to ME when life (or from my perspective, human existence) begins. Your explaining why you believe it starts at a certain time did not clear up anything for me. I still am not comfortable picking some milestone, such as conception, cell division, brain development, self awareness, birth, or any other. And the possibility that I may have to change my definition of when it begins based on current technology makes it even worse. If there is a God, I hope He isn't changing His definition of when life begins just because of changing human technology. I drop my cake analogy (even though I thought it was kind of amusing). I'll come up with one involving animate objects. As an aside, do Christians belive in human parthenogenesis, given the virgin birth of Jesus Christ?

First you said: Now you say: So which is it? Has to be an egg and a sperm coming together or not? It's not crystal clear to me, and based on what you are saying it doesn't even seem to be crystal clear to you. Will you be able to envision another moment that could possibly be the beginning of life if we can come up with a different technology to create a human organism? And I know you didn't like my cake analogy, but let's apply the concept of regression to that. It's a cake when it comes out of the oven. I can go back second by second to when the Miss egg met Mr. flour (and sugar and butter and...). But I still don't think I'd call that mass of goo a cake.

I said nothing about the beginning of life. I talked about the starting point for human existence. But here is another moment that could possibly be the starting point for human existence. When we reach the point through cloning or some other method to start human organisms without two real, physical cells coming together to begin an actual human being. And if we can create humans using parthenogenesis then we can say that is the starting point for human existence. Or since there was no sperm involved, maybe the starting point for human existence was when the egg was created, not when it started dividing. So I guess I'm not sure what the starting point is. That's why I'm unsure. I find it easy to say that once the baby is born it is human. And I'm pretty sure that sometime before that it is human, but exactly when is not so clear to me. I dont' see how it can it be so clear to you.

I have a difficult time with the idea that the starting point for human existence begins at the point that all of the information necessary for a fully formed person is gathered together. It seems if this concept worked for persons, then it should also work for other things. For example, let's say that my wife and I go into a closed room together and after a lot of activity, sweating and moaning, we emerge with a recipe for a cake. All of the information necessary to create that cake is contained in the recipe. But my wife is still going to add ingredients, in some particular order, passing various milestones, and then leave the properly assembled items in her oven at a certain termperature for a set period of time. Now, it seems clear to me that we have a cake once it comes out of her oven, and probably at some time prior to that. But is it a cake when it still a recipe on a piece of paper?

The reason to collect CO2 in trees (not sure a tree is considered a fossil fuel) is that it is cheap and easy, and the technology is already in place (trees). Is there some reason you object to the idea of using trees?

Yes, CYA certainly. But it serves other purposes as well, such as keeping people aware that the problem has not gone away. If I don't ever hear about people coming down with measles, maybe I don't really worry about getting my kid vaccinated. And if I go a long time without hearing about the bad guys planning to do me harm, maybe I don't take any action when I see that unattended bag on the bus.

I agree the risk is minimal to any one individual and that the warning is therefore not going to do much to increase my safety. But it is the government's job to look out for its citizens and let them know if there is a potential issue. I know they can't warn me of everything, but I'd rather have too much information and count on myself to weigh my options for what is best for me. I also wouldn't be surprised to find that many of the people who are unhappy with the government releasing the warning (because the people don't feel they need the information) are also sometimes unhappy when the government does not release information (because the people felt they would need the information). Puts the government in a tough spot. No matter what they do, someone is going to be unhappy with them. I warn my kids about all kinds of unlikely dangers. I don't expect them to take steps to avoid all of them all the time or they couldn't get out of bed in the morning. But I think they are better off for hearing them, and they may do a better job of spotting danger on that rare occassion when it does come up. So... I guess to me this was just a friendly warning, to be aware of something that may come up but probably won't, and not to take it too seriously. I didn't find anything nefarious in the government's actions. I filed it with all the other warnings I get in a day (Do not use the toaster near water! Placing the plastic bag over your head is dangerous! Deer crossing! etc.). I just don't see what the big deal is.

"To mitigate global climate change, a portfolio of strategies will be needed to keep the atmospheric CO2 concentration below a dangerous level. Here a carbon sequestration strategy is proposed in which certain dead or live trees are harvested via collection or selective cutting, then buried in trenches or stowed away in above-ground shelters. The largely anaerobic condition under a sufficiently thick layer of soil will prevent the decomposition of the buried wood. Because a large flux of CO2 is constantly being assimilated into the world's forests via photosynthesis, cutting off its return pathway to the atmosphere forms an effective carbon sink. It is estimated that a sustainable long-term carbon sequestration potential for wood burial is 10 ± 5 GtC y-1, and currently about 65 GtC is on the world's forest floors in the form of coarse woody debris suitable for burial. The potential is largest in tropical forests (4.2 GtC y-1), followed by temperate (3.7 GtC y-1) and boreal forests (2.1 GtC y-1). Burying wood has other benefits including minimizing CO2 source from deforestation, extending the lifetime of reforestation carbon sink, and reducing fire danger. There are possible environmental impacts such as nutrient lock-up which nevertheless appears manageable, but other concerns and factors will likely set a limit so that only part of the full potential can be realized. Based on data from North American logging industry, the cost for wood burial is estimated to be $14/tCO2($50/tC), lower than the typical cost for power plant CO2 capture with geological storage. The cost for carbon sequestration with wood burial is low because CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by the natural process of photosynthesis at little cost. The technique is low tech, distributed, easy to monitor, safe, and reversible, thus an attractive option for large-scale implementation in a world-wide carbon market." http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/3/1/1

Wow. That is one powerful warning. I guess it is also possible they want us to be careful because they have heard of a possible plot against tourists. And according to your link: "US citizens were not told to avoid travelling in Europe, and the advisory is less serious than a travel warning."