jump to navigation

Evangelism- Apostolic Style January 30, 2008

Posted by reformedville in : Theology , add a comment

Acts 17: 22: “Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious;  for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you:  God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.  Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.  And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,  so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;  for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’  “Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,  because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”  And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, “We will hear you again on this matter.”  So Paul departed from among them.  However, some men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.”

When Paul spoke the gospel to these religious pagans in Athens on Mars Hill for the first time he didn’t wait to become friends first to “share his beliefs.” Rick Warren call your office.Paul took the time to explain their idolatry and and the truth. You don’t know how many chances you will get to speak to an unbeliever, so you speak as if it is your only time. You cannot be called an evangelist if your purpose is not to first bring the gospel but instead to be friends. This does not mean we ignore developing friendships, but to grow in a relationship takes time and time is not something that we all have. Friendships are not a necessity to speak the gospel message. It wasn’t to Peter in Acts 2 and it was not to Paul on his missionary journeys.

When I see my children in error, I am not concerned as their father whether they like the message. I deliver the mnessage and make my case with my authority. Neither did the apostles. Paul looked at the surroundings he was in and all he saw was false worship. Athens was famous for their temples that were works of art. There was no other place on earth at the time where so many idols were exhibited. Idolatry was the very thing that had God punish Israel over and over again. He went to his brethren first as his policy was in every city (Acts 17:1-2). He reasoned with them by engaging in an argument on what the Scriptures teach. He also discussed openly the things of God with those who were not Jewish. He did not start with making similarities with the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers; he started with teaching them of the death and resurrection of the Messiah. He did not begin with what they had but what they did not have. It was then that they identified him as one speaking about foreign gods v.18, something they have never heard of before. They prided themselves on being hip to the newest philosophy. Their interest perked, they were intrigued by Paul’s message and were eager to hear the latest teaching so they brought him to explain to others this new teaching.

The Epicureans(who lived in 341-270 B.C.), believed the chief end of living was pleasure. They believed in numerous gods who had no influence over the affairs of man and did not believe in the immortality of the soul.

 Paul’s audience was very hard to preach to,the Epicureans believed everything evolved they did not have a concept of creation. The Epicurians believed that the world was made accidentally by atoms which have been in perpetual motion from the beginning had brought this form. Aristotle’s school held “that the world was from eternity, and every thing always was from eternity, and every thing always was what now it is” (from Matthew Henry’s Commentary). The Stoics, founded by Zeno (c. 300 B.C.), believed that God was the world’s soul which indwelt all things, God was in all men, all men were brothers. That living in harmony with nature brought happiness. Many Stoics were men of high moral principle, and that human affairs were governed by fate.

We have known this as Paul’s appeal to the philosophers on Mars’ Hill. Paul though being courteous does not compromise his message. He started with the idols as false religious worship. (Which begs one to ask, why did Constantine allow them to bring their idols to make them comfortable with the transition to Christianity?)Their zealousness in devotion was superstitious, and Paul points out that they even erected an idol to a god they do not know. Paul now becomes philosopher to them instead of a theologian, as he would be with the Jews who have the ordinances of God. He appeals to their conscience and reveals to them a knowledge of the true and living God, who alone is to be the object of their adulation. He lays a foundation, instructing them in the primary principle of all religion, that there is only one God. However with these pagan philosophers he takes a different tack. He tells them we are created beings countering the Greek thought that men were gods.

Is this the model you are using? Today’s pragmatic gospel has left us wanting for the real thing because it is barely a shadow and a type of the real thing.

Is our former president hurting himself? January 24, 2008

Posted by reformedville in : culture, Government , add a comment

 Much has healed and been tucked away in the vault since President Clinton left office. Most just chose to forget the years of the blame game, Biased, the Right Wing Conspiracy, blame shifting, and loud rhetoric. America wanted to heal.

I watched the debate from SC between the three democratic hopefuls and the first thought that came to mind was, oh no,  not this again.  The video is from hardball by a democratic talk show host, described as “liberal” and the news article is from Financial Times.

What is your take on the video and article below?  And on the tone of the campaign itself? Comments welcome.

Check out the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-X9tEOp19o

Consider this from Financial Times:

Davos Bill risks tarnishing his global brand

By John Gapper

Published: January 23 2008 20:10 | Last updated: January 23 2008 20:10

Ingram Pinn

Up here in Davos, in the mountain air, the usual philanthropic suspects have gathered for the World Economic Forum. Bono, George Soros and Bill and Melinda Gates are all here. One old hand is out of town, however: Bill Clinton, the former US president and quintessential Davos man.

Davos is a place ideally made for Mr Clinton in his post-presidential incarnation. He embodies the aspects of the US that are still admired by the rest of the world after nearly eight years of George W. Bush. He is eloquent, thoughtful, sensitive to inequality and suffering outside US borders and determined to do something about it.

Just lately, however, Mr Clinton has been back on the campaign trail in the US in support of his wife Hillary. He has adopted tactics that, if he does not curb himself soon, may tarnish his global brand irreparably

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/516866be-c9c9-11dc-b5dc-000077b07658.html

Campaign promises…. January 24, 2008

Posted by reformedville in : Government , add a comment

Rudy’s Official Position

“Every potential solution must be pursued – from nuclear power to increased energy exploration to more aggressive investment in alternative energy sources. I believe that America can achieve energy independence through a national strategy that emphasizes diversification, innovation, and conservation.” – Mayor Rudy Giuliani

RUDY’S PLAN TO MOVE TOWARD ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

Diversifying Our Energy Portfolio:

Ethanol and Bio-fuels: America will use bio-fuels to help displace foreign oil use by our vehicles. Corn and cellulosic ethanol, as well as bio-diesel will play a role. The bio-fuels industry can help revitalize rural America.

Renewable Energy: Renewable sources of electricity, including solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal power, will play an important role in our move to energy independence.

Nuclear Power: America must expand its use of clean, affordable, and safe nuclear power. If France can get nearly 80% of its electricity from nuclear, America can significantly increase our percentage of power from nuclear energy.

Clean Coal: America possesses 27% of the world’s coal. We must commercialize clean coal technologies, including carbon sequestration, so we can utilize this vast domestic resource.

Natural Gas: We should use clean-burning natural gas, especially to replace oil in large truck and bus fleets.

North American Oil and Gas: America must expand environmentally-responsible access to the proven oil and natural gas reserves throughout North America, including in Canada and Mexico.

Future Technologies: America must encourage entrepreneurs in future technologies such as advanced hybrid cars and hydrogen fuel cells.

Securing, Renewing, And Expanding Our Energy Infrastructure: We must ensure the security and reliability of America’s energy infrastructure. We need new oil refineries, nuclear reactors, transmission lines, and renewable energy facilities. Expanding our infrastructure and diversifying its geographic location directly impacts national security, economic stability, and job creation. Key steps include enhancing security, cutting red tape in the regulatory process, investing in a digital “Smart Grid,” and developing batteries to more effectively store energy.

Efficiency And Conservation: America’s government, corporations, and individuals must engage in efficiency and conservation efforts that reduce demand for oil, without damaging America’s competitiveness worldwide or our standard of living. We need to use more energy-efficient technologies and take personal responsibility for conserving energy. Every gallon of gas and any electricity we do not use is energy we do not import and pollution we reduce.

EnergyStat: The Giuliani Administration will track key energy indicators to measure our progress toward energy independence. While the government already tracks energy statistics, EnergyStat will continuously monitor and measure a selected set of indicators that are specifically tied to the effective management of initiatives on energy independence and climate change. This data will also be online so the public can track our progress and hold government accountable.

 +++++++++++

Giuliani Firm, Utilities Team Up to Fight Renewable-Energy Plan

By Daniel Whitten and Tina Seeley

Enlarge Image/Details

Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) — A lobbying blitz by some of the U.S.’s biggest utility companies is likely to strangle the most potent provision in energy legislation that’s making its way through Congress.

Southern Co., American Electric Power Co. and other producers hired top Washington lobbyists, including Rudy Giuliani’s firm, to help defeat a measure that would force them to boost electricity generated by wind, solar and other forms of renewable energy to 15 percent of the U.S. total by 2020. That’s up from less than 2 percent today, and is a move the industry says would cost at least $67 billion.

The Senate failed on Dec. 7 to get the 60 votes needed to move the legislation, a day after the House of Representatives approved it. To get the bill to President George W. Bush’s desk this year and steer clear of a White House veto threat, the Senate will probably have to pass a weakened measure.

“The lobbying effort led by Southern Co. is the principal obstacle to America unleashing a renewable-electricity revolution,” says Representative Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who has led the fight for a federal standard on the new energy sources.

The legislation pits the utilities and oil companies against wind and solar-electricity producers, as well as venture-capital firms such as Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, where former Vice President Al Gore is a partner. Those firms have made billions of dollars in clean-energy-technology investments, which would pay off if the bill becomes law.

Tax Increase

Atlanta-based Southern Co. and Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power are leading the opposition to the renewable-energy measure because they mainly operate in the Midwest and Southeast, where wind- and solar-power production lags behind the rest of the country. Oil and natural-gas companies object to the more than $13 billion in taxes that would be imposed on them — levies that may also have to be scaled back to gain Senate passage.

“We’re not opposed to renewable energy,” says David Ratcliffe, chief executive officer of Southern Co. “We are opposed to sort of a one-size-fits-all federal mandate that would be very difficult for us to achieve with any economic sense.”

Ratcliffe says his executives met with lawmakers including Representative John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat who heads the House energy committee, to seek a compromise. They asked that more forms of clean energy be added — including nuclear power - -and that some states be allowed to “opt out” of the standard.

“All of that has been rejected out of hand” by the Democratic leadership, Ratcliffe says.

More Than Exxon

Southern Co. has spent $7.26 million this year lobbying Congress, more than Exxon Mobil Corp. or General Motors Corp., according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics. It hired such firms as Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, where Republican presidential front-runner Giuliani is a partner.

The Giuliani firm’s involvement goes deeper: Scott Segal, a Bracewell lobbyist, is director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, an industry group that focuses on air- quality issues and includes Southern Co., Progress Energy Inc. and other utilities.

“Advocates for the renewable-portfolio standards have a tough road ahead of them to get the votes in the Senate,” says Segal, who adds that his firm also represents renewable-energy companies on other issues.

Giuliani’s campaign says the former New York mayor supports alternative fuels. “He is an advocate for developing renewable energy as a way of achieving energy independence,” spokeswoman Maria Comella says. She didn’t comment on the lobbying effort.

New Fuel Standards

Other provisions of the energy bill, such as the first increase in automobile fuel-economy standards in three decades and a mandate to increase the use of ethanol and other alternative fuels, aren’t as disputed. That’s because they were largely worked out with industry input and would be included in any bill sent to the president.

The renewable-electricity standard is contentious because it may substantially raise electricity bills in some regions. Wind, solar and biomass power production are more expensive than fossil energy options such as coal or natural gas. The power companies say they can’t meet the standard because environmental conditions in the South and Midwest don’t lend themselves to wind energy.

The bill would require utilities to obtain 2.75 percent of their power from renewable sources starting in 2010, ramping that up to 15 percent by 2020. Almost one-quarter of the mandate could be met by improving efficiency. Companies that fail to meet the standard would have to pay a penalty to the federal government.

`Far Too Expensive’

“The only reason renewable electricity needs to be mandated in the first place is that these alternatives are far too expensive to compete otherwise,” says Ben Lieberman, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington research group that opposes more federal regulation of energy. “Washington is forcing costlier energy options on the public.”

Congress first began debating a renewable-electricity bill in the 1990s, and three different versions have passed in the Senate since 2001. Currently, two-dozen states, including California and Texas, have such mandates.

Other countries have struggled to meet similar targets. The U.K. said last month that it won’t reach its goal of generating 10 percent of its electricity from sources such as wind and energy crops by 2010, and is now aiming for 2020.

The European Union has a goal of producing 20 percent of all energy from such sources by 2020.

`Old Guard’

In the U.S., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made passing the federal standard a priority. Her goal: to cut reliance on fossil fuels that must be imported and contribute to global warming.

“Power plants are responsible for 40 percent of all U.S. global-warming pollution,” says Jeremy Symons, executive director of the global-warming program for the National Wildlife Federation. “The old guard will continue to argue for the most polluting technologies.”

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy released a study last week saying the new standards would cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 100 million metric tons, slash electricity use and create tens of thousands of jobs.

The greater efficiency required would also reduce electricity bills, says Bill Prindle, deputy director of the Washington-based group. He says the industry’s price-tag estimates also don’t account for escalating coal and natural-gas costs and future drops in renewable-electricity rates.

Paying Off

Still, the lobbying effort is paying off. Senator David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, says his party’s support for the energy bill collapsed after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, “completely reneged” on a pledge to deliver legislation without the renewable-electricity standard.

The office of House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican, sent out an e-mail last week with the headline: “Democrats take dead aim at Southern ratepayers by attaching billion-dollar mandate to lights-out energy bill.” It included links to hundreds of news stories, blogs, and industry data trashing the measure.

The opposition is so strong that Reid says he may strip out the renewable-energy and tax provisions. “If we can’t get it all, we’ll get part of it,” he told reporters on Dec. 6. “The American people deserve it.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Tina Seeley in Washington at tseeley@bloomberg.net ; Daniel Whitten in Washington at dwhitten2@bloomberg.net .

Is self-loathing affecting Christianity ? January 22, 2008

Posted by reformedville in : culture, Ethnicity, Theology , add a comment

Cultural self hatred is a real danger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjwGAKISo28

Eco-Freaks January 18, 2008

Posted by reformedville in : culture, Government , add a comment

 I would strongly suggest reading this book.

Tree-huggers may actually be squeezing the life out of the environment.

In a book that is alternately alarming, enlightening, ironic, and entertaining, award-winning journalist John Berlau explores the myriad ways in which shortsighted environmentalism actually endangers trees, wildlife, and people. In chapter after chapter, Berlau debunks myths and libels about:

Mother Nature is not a gentle person, and Berlau’s pointed reporting reveals the very real dangers to people and their environments when Eco-Freaks prevent us from restraining her.

“Berlau makes a powerful case. . . . Thinking environmentalists who read this book will be forced to revisit at least some of their most deeply held beliefs.”
-Joel Himelfarb, Washington Times

“Berlau says a lot of things that are not generally known that needed to be said.”
-Bruce N. Ames, recipient, National Medal of Science, 1998

Save the Planet . . . and Ourselves

In Eco-Freaks, award-winning journalist John Berlau provides a much needed and startling expose about how the environmental movement with its radical, shortsighted eco-activists has actually helped amplify the dangers of natural disasters and destroyed the lives and property of millions of Americans.

As Berlau writes, “America . . . is still mighty prosperous, but environmentalism is putting us on the brink of danger as well. As technology after technology that our grandparents put in place is being banned, and new technologies never even come to market, we risk a public-health disaster. Environmentalists have promoted all sorts of doomsday scenarios about population explosions and massive cancer crises from pesticides that have been shown to be false. But now, because we have done away with so many useful products based on those scares, we are in danger of an old-fashion doomsday returning, because we’ve lost what protected us from the wrath of nature. Indeed, as we will see throughout this book, public health hazards caused by environmental policies are already on the scene.”

Researchers discover fallen nature of man January 18, 2008

Posted by reformedville in : Theology , add a comment

 And I thought we were all good, what happened? LOL

We all lie, all the time. It causes problems, to say the least. So why do we do it?

It boils down to the shifting sands of the self and trying to look good both to ourselves and others, experts say.

“It’s tied in with self-esteem,” says University of Massachusetts psychologist Robert Feldman. “We find that as soon as people feel that their self-esteem is threatened, they immediately begin to lie at higher levels.”

Not all lies are harmful. In fact, sometimes lying is the best approach for protecting privacy and ourselves and others from malice, some researchers say.  Some deception, such as boasting and lies in the name of tact and politeness, can be classified as less than serious. But bald-faced lies (whether they involve leaving out the truth or putting in something false), are harmful, as they corrode trust and intimacy—the glue of society.

Kidding yourself

Many animals engage in deception, or deliberately misleading another, but only humans are wired to deceive both themselves and others, researchers say.  People are so engaged in managing how others perceive them that they are often unable to separate truth from fiction in their own minds, Feldman’s research shows.

Mystery Monday
Each Monday, this LiveScience series explores an amazing aspect of the world around you.Previous articles:

For instance, In one experiment, Feldman put two strangers in a room together. They were videotaped while they conversed. Later, independently, each was asked to view the tape and identify anything they had said that was not entirely accurate. 

Rather than defining what counts as a lie and to avoid the moral tone of the word “lie,” Feldman’s experimenters simply asked subjects after the fact to identify anything they had said in the video that was “not entirely accurate.”

Initially, “Each subject said, ‘Oh, I was entirely accurate,’” Feldman told LiveScience. Upon watching themselves on video, subjects were genuinely surprised to discover they had said something inaccurate. The lies ranged from pretending to like someone they actually disliked to falsely claiming to be the star of a rock band.

The study, published in the Journal of Basic and Applied Psychology, found that 60 percent of people had lied at least once during the 10-minute conversation, saying an average of 2.92 inaccurate things.

“People almost lie reflexively,” Feldman says. “They don’t think about it as part of their normal social discourse.” But it is, the research showed.

“We’re trying not so much to impress other people but to maintain a view of ourselves that is consistent with the way they would like us to be,” Feldman said. We want to be agreeable, to make the social situation smoother or easier, and to avoid insulting others through disagreement or discord.

Men lie no more than women, but they tend to lie to make themselves look better, while women are more likely to lie to make the other person feel better.

Extroverts tend to lie more than introverts, Feldman found in similar research involving a job-interview situation.

Workplace lies

Other research has delved into prevarication in the workplace.

Self-esteem and threats to our sense of self are also drivers when it comes to lying to co-workers, rather than strangers, says Jennifer Argo of the University of Alberta.

Related Articles

A recent study she co-authored showed that people are even more willing to lie to coworkers than they are to strangers.

“We want to both look good when we are in the company of others (especially people we care about), and we want to protect our self-worth,” Argo told LiveScience.

The experiment involved reading a scenario to a subject, telling them they had paid more than a coworker for the same new car. When the coworker, in the scenario, mentioned what they had paid, $200 or $2,000 more in different versions of the experiment, the subject was asked to report how they would respond.

Argo found that her subjects were more willing to lie when the price difference was small and when they were talking to a coworker rather than to a stranger.

Consumers lie to protect their public and private selves, she wrote in the Journal of Consumer Research with her colleagues from the University of Calgary and University of British Columbia.

Argo said she was surprised that people are so willing to lie to someone they know even over a small price discrepancy.

“I guess closely tied to this is that people appear to be short-term focused when they decide to deceive someone—save my self-image and self-worth now, but later on if the deceived individual finds out it can have long-term consequences,” she said.

Feldman says people should become more aware of the extent to which we tend to lie and that honesty yields more genuine relationships and trust. “The default ought to be to be honest and accurate … We’re better off if honesty is the norm. It’s like the old saying: honesty is the best policy.”

More about lying

In times of trouble… January 16, 2008

Posted by reformedville in : Government , add a comment

Scenario: The year is 2009, a new president has just been sworn in, but the cabinet is not in place. The United States is attacked several times by non-state entities and suffered serious infrastructure damage. There is no one to declare war on except terrorists, who we can’t identify. The antiquated power grid has been taken out . In the ensuing months ,the federal banking system has all but collapsed, The FDIC and FSLIC can not cover losses from collapsed banks, the stock market collapses, insurance companies go broke and foreign creditors are calling in the nations debt.  The federal government can no longer meet any other obligations than military protection of our borders. The federal government can no longer provide any social services or benefits to the people.

What does the church do? 

 Or has it become to dependant on the state and failed to teach its people not to place it’s trust in the government but in their Bridegroom?

if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

Don’t try this at home, you’d be arrested January 16, 2008

Posted by reformedville in : culture, Government , add a comment

What Lockbox?

Name any of the really big threats our nation faces and you’re bound to find a large number of respected people who will argue that it’s really no big deal. But there is one exception; one scenario we face that virtually every expert agrees could bring America to its knees. And the Real Story is that this scenario is already starting to play out, and no one from the political realm wants to even address it.

(more-click here)

‘Environmentalism As Bad As Communism’ January 16, 2008

Posted by reformedville in : culture, Government , add a comment

Czech President Vaclav Klaus has offered fresh warnings that environmentalism and measures to curb climate change are a threat to human freedom.The President’s most recent and controversial statements came when replying to questions sent to him by members of the U.S. House of Representatives energy and commerce committee which had requested his views on climate change.

Klaus is known for calling climate change “a false myth” or a “nonsensical fiction”, and he opposes the Kyoto Protocol on limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

Vaclav Klaus was one of the leading political figures of post-communist Czechoslovakia and was prime minister of the Czech Republic between 1993 and 1997, leading the newly independent country in its economic transformation. The old Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia Jan. 1, 1993.

An enthusiastic supporter of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan’s policies, Klaus was founder of the Civic Democrats (ODS), a neo-liberal party now in government.

The U.S. congressmen were asking how humans contribute to climate change and how these changes should be dealt with in legislation.

Another high-ranking figure whose views were heard was former U.S. vice-president Al Gore, one of the leading voices calling for changes in human behaviour to avert an environmental catastrophe.

Conversely, the Czech President asked the congressmen not to yield to pressure from environmentalists and abandon the principles of free society: “the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism.”

“This ideology,” Klaus said, “wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world.”

The Czech President is strongly opposed to environmentalism, which he calls a “religion based on political ambitions rather than science,” and accuses environmentalists of using “sophisticated methods of media manipulation” to spread “fear and panic”.

Klaus also reminded environmentalists, in a text charged with economic jargon, that “policymakers should protect taxpayers’ money and avoid wasting it on doubtful projects,” and that each measure “must be based on a cost-benefit analysis.”

Klaus fears environmentalist policies could set “artificial limits” and have “devastating” effects on national economies, harming growth rates and “the competitiveness of firms on international markets.”

In the opinion of the Czech President, climate change is an unavoidable and natural consequence of “exogenous and endogenous natural processes,” and that “no government action can stop the world and nature from changing.”

While most Czechs are by now familiar with Klaus’s radical pro-market views, he managed to surprise many when claiming that “while some deserts may get larger and some ocean shores flooded, enormous parts of the earth” could become “fertile areas able to accommodate millions of people.”

Vojtech Kotecky from Friends of the Earth replied by asking Klaus whether he thought “people from flooded Bangladesh or dried up Africa should move to Siberia only to allow obsolete industrial forms to continue emitting pollutants.”

Environment minister and chairman of the Green Party Martin Bursik said that the President had ridiculed himself and the country.

“The congressmen gave Klaus the opportunity to express his favourite clichés and ideas,” Jan Drahokoupil, analyst at the Czech Economy and Society Trust told IPS.

“He has been active trying to prove climate change is a myth, organising conferences and even helping fund translations of books supporting this view. He draws resources and funding from like-minded American foundations,” Drahokoupil said.

The President’s text was criticised for being simply ideological and lacking any evidence, examples or statistics, but several scientists and other Czech personalities were especially enraged by Klaus’s comparison of environmentalism to communism.

“He relies on the anti-communist card because anti-communist sentiments are very strong in the Czech Republic,” Drahokoupil told IPS. “It’s a very powerful tool in politics and media to compare something to communism; Klaus uses it against anything he doesn’t like.”

Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, a member of Klaus’s ODS, initially refused to comment on the President’s views, but later said he had the right to his opinion and that some of his ideas were close to him.

But Topolanek has had to accommodate some environmentalist views as he was forced to include the Greens in the cabinet he formed last January. In spite of their belonging to the same party, Klaus was unhappy about Topolanek’s choice of coalition partners and did not make an effort to conceal his criticism.

Many in the ODS are unhappy with the Green Party pushing through its energy policies, which ODS first deputy chairman Pavel Bem considers as being “way off mark”. Bem also warned that disputes within the governing coalition were likely to escalate.

Nonetheless, the Prime Minister, who considers climate change “a big business,” called on the right to start acting before “the Socialists” take the initiative and “start allocating very valuable public resources in a wrong way.”

On Mar. 9 Topolanek agreed with other EU member states to curb climate change by partially harmonising the organisation’s energy policy with the goal of reaching a one-fifth share of renewable energy production by 2020.

The Czech Republic, presently not ranking among the most renewables-friendly EU states, was part of the small group of countries that found the goal to be unrealistic. A compromise was eventually found allowing member states to reach different shares.

Chain letter reply- The italics are words I changed January 15, 2008

Posted by reformedville in : culture, Uncategorized , add a comment

Hello, my name is  John  and I suffer from the guilt of not forwarding 50 billion freaking chain letters sent to me by people who actually believe that if you send them on, a poor 6-year-old girl in Arkansas with a breast on her forehead will be able to raise enough money to have it removed before her redneck parents sell her to a traveling freak show.Do you honestly believe that Bill Gates is going to give you, and everyone to whom you send “his” email, $1000?

How stupid are we?

“Ooooh , looky here! If I scroll down this page and make a wish, I’ll get laid by a model I just happen to run into the next day!”

What a bunch of bullcrap.

Maybe the evil chain letter leprechauns will come into my house and sodomize me in my sleep for not continuing a chain letter that was started by Peter in 5 AD and brought to this country by midget pilgrims on the Mayflower.

PLuck ‘em.

If you’re going to forward something, at least send me something mildly amusing. I’ve seen all the “send this to 10 of your closest friends, and this poor, wretched excuse for a human being will somehow receive a nickel from some omniscient being” forwards about 90 times.

I don’t freaking care.

Show a little intelligence and think about what you’re actually contributing to by sending out these forwards. Chances are, it’s our own unpopularity.

The point being? If you get some chain letter that’s threatening to leave you shagless or luckless for the rest of your life, delete it. If it’s funny, send it on.
Don’t piss people off by making them feel guilty about a leper in Botswana with no teeth who has been tied to the ass of a dead elephant for 27 years and whose only salvation is the 5 cents per letter he’ll receive if you forward this email.

Now forward this to everyone you know.

Otherwise, tomorrow morning your underwear will turn carnivorous and will consume your genitals.

Have a nice day.

P.S. Send me 15 bucks
——————————————————————————–