Be a butterfly

When we were children our family provided love and shelter, a kind of cocoon, so that we could undergo the metamorphism into an adult. In many cases, however, the cocoon we had was not as strong and supportive as we would have liked. Sometimes in childhood we are given very little love and care, or at least we were not given nearly as much as we think we deserved.

There is a tendency to sit on the fragments of our cocoon, after we have broken through, and contemplate how unfair our cocoon experience was. We blame those who we felt should have given us more - more love, more nurturing, more support.

No matter how broken we are, it does no good to remain tethered to the memories of the inadequate cocoon. We cannot go back to the cocoon and change it. We are adults now, and we must be butterflies.

Circumcision for the dead

If I were to learn that under the direction of a rabbi someone circumcised a volunteer for and in behalf of one of my ancestors, would I be offended? Would I think that the memory of my ancestor had been dishonored?

Not at all. I would be delighted to know that my Jewish brethren were so concerned with the welfare of my ancestors that they would make this sacrifice of time and, ah, effort. I don't think it would do my ancestors any good, but that would make no difference to me.

So, why do some Jewish people get upset when they learn that the Mormons have baptized someone for and in behalf of a departed Jew? Why should anyone be upset for any baptism for the dead?

James

I looked up to my brother James. I admired him. He knew so much more than I did. And he had special powers. He told me so himself. He could see faster than light. And he had x-ray vision, almost like superman.

"Tink," he said to me one day, when no one else was around, "My teacher told me that the fastest thing in the world is the speed of light. Nothing moves faster than light. It moves so fast that you could not possibly see it move." But then he learned toward me and said in a low voice, "But my eyes are so fast that I can see light move."

"No! Really?" I asked. I was impressed. "What's it like to see faster than light?"

"Well, when I turn off the lights it gradually gets dark, and not all of a sudden. My eyes are seeing the light go out of the room. Pretty neat, huh?" That night when I turned off the lights I was surprised to find out that my eyes were fast, too. I turned the lights off and on a few times just to be sure. Amazing! So there were two of us in the world with eyes faster than the speed of light.

James told me about his x-ray vision one day when he was in a mood to share a special secret. He said that if he held out his hand in front of him, he could see right through a finger.

"Look," he said. "I hold up this finger." He had his left eye closed. Then he moved his finger from side to side. "Behind my finger is that book on the shelf. Now when I concentrate real hard, to get my x-ray vision going, I can see both my finger and the book behind my finger." By this time James had both eyes open.

"That's amazing," I said. "X-ray vision, just like Superman! How do you do it? Maybe I have x-ray vision too!" I held up my finger and closed one eye to determine better what was behind the finger. I tried to look through it, but I couldn't. I must have ordinary vision. How disappointing.

"I'm really special, Tink," whispered James. "Don't tell anyone else. You don't think just everybody has x-ray vision, do you?"

"Why can't we tell the others?" I whispered back.

"They'd be jealous and mad at me." I could understand that. That was normal life for me.

I tried it again. "Hey, I can see through my finger now. My x-ray vision is working now!" I was sure excited. James looked at me in disbelief.

"Ah, you're just saying that to copy me. Let's see if you can see what is behind my back."

I stared and stared. But it was no use. I couldn't see through him. This made me feel bad. Then I had an idea. "Well, can you see what is behind my back?"

"Hmmm," said James. "That's a funny thing about my x-ray vision. It must not be as good as Superman's. I can only see through little things close in front of me."

"Well, I really can see through my finger. Only it kind of comes and goes. I look at my finger and I can't see through it. But then I try to see the book and I see it. The finger is then sort of hard to see. Strange."

James looked again at his finger. "Hey, that's just the same as it is for me. Maybe you do have x-ray vision, too. We'll have to keep it a secret, O.K.?"

"O.K." I said. It was great to have a brother like James. We were both special.

Why I was in a dumpster on Father’s Day

Those who know me would be shocked that I would be dumpster diving. Others would be shocked that I was doing such an activity on the Sabbath. Then why on Father’s Day, of all days? Well, let me explain.

I got married thirty four years ago today. At that time I gave my new bride a gold wedding ring. Five months earlier I had given her a diamond engagement ring. The years passed and she had the engagement ring welded to the wedding ring, forming what we might call the One True Ring, or OTR.

More years passed. About sixteen years ago my bride slipped and fell while carrying a baby. In order to protect the baby she landed hard on her left hand. Her ring finger was messed up, and she could no longer slip the OTR over her knuckle. After she managed to take the OTR off she put it away in a safe place. And thus the OTR lay dormant.

About two months ago my oldest child got married. At this time my wife took out the OTR and decided to wear it again, on her little finger. She was happy, and the OTR seemed happy.

Some friends of ours got married last Friday. My wife volunteered to prepare a luncheon for the wedding party. The marriage was at a temple about 150 miles from where we live, and the luncheon was to be in a nearby chapel. So my wife drove the 150 miles, prepared the luncheon, cleaned up afterward, and drove back home exhausted. The next morning she discovered that the OTR was missing.

She searched high and low for the OTR, but she could not find it. The rest of the family looked for it, and none of us could find it. At about 6 PM on Sunday, before we had even eaten lunch or dinner, she decided she must drive to the chapel near the temple and search the dumpster for the ring. Because she might have lost it in the trash when she helped clean up. I couldn’t very well let her make this trip on her own, so I went with her. She couldn’t get all of the bags of trash out of the dumpster without someone climbing into the dumpster, which is why I came to be in a dumpster on Father’s Day.

And the OTR has not allowed itself to be found.

It may be interesting to some to see how scientific research gets funded. I speak from personal experience of the last thirty two years.

First, there are a lot of very smart people working in science. I believe that most scientists are honest. But there are a number of realities that must be faced that dictate the direction that research will take.

It takes money to do scientific research these days. It takes money to pay for salaries, money for equipment, and money for support people. There is only a limited amount of money available. As a result every scientist is in competition for money, and every successful scientist is keenly aware of that fact.

Nowadays you have to sell your research proposal to someone who doesn't understand the science nearly as well as the researcher. Those who control the money are looking to solve problems. They are looking for a return on their investment. As a result the scientist has to pitch his proposal to appeal to what the money manager thinks is an important issue. If the issue is sensational, that will help sell the project. Making something a crisis will help get someone’s attention. Usually this involves taking "worst case scenarios," or making computer models that show just how bad things could get. The modest researcher, the one who feels obligated to explain all the limitations of the theory and predictions tends to lose out in the dollar competition. Professional presenters (who don’t know the science) are hired to make important pitches.

The money manager considers how important the issue is, and how big a return on investment he can expect based on the sales pitch. He relies in part on his own judgment, but he also relies on what others in the scientific community consider important issues and important problems to solve. He examines the credentials of the researcher. Since he is not equipped to judge the research himself he again relies on professional associations, number of articles printed in professional magazines, and general esteem the researcher is held by the scientific community.

That is why it is so important to achieve recognition by your peers in your field. You are intimidated to conform to mainstream thought. Those who don’t conform are labeled as quacks or worse, and their articles won’t be published in the best journals, which are also anxious about their reputations. Not being able to publish restricts your ability to get funding, which restricts your ability to do credible research, which further restricts your ability to get published or funded.

It is to the advantage of your competitors to make you look hopelessly out of date or going against “known scientific facts.” They are anxious to jump on the bandwagon and declare that “the debate is over.” You find yourself frozen out of the competition.

Sometimes you find it necessary to seek funding from those that are oppressed by the currently popular scientific theory. Unfortunately this is the kiss of death, for your research will forever after be labeled as tainted. Those who support the politically correct doctrine will be funded from universities or environmental advocacy groups, or a similar group that appears unbiased to the casual observer. Actually these groups are part of a multi-billion dollar juggernaut that is very careful to reward only those who support their political agenda, and their research is every bit as much tainted as the opposite point of view.

Frequently these theories take the form of some impending doom to the planet. The sensational stories sell in the mass media. It is important to have some crisis to arouse the generally apathetic majority into donating money to one of those many mass mailings calling on you to save the environment, or the whales, or the polar bears, or the world from burning to a crisp. Everyone feels important participating in the cause. The last thing they want to hear is evidence that things are not as bad as previously thought.

I’ve lived through a lot of scares we were told came from scientists, but are usually exaggerations made by non-technical activists interpreting the scientists. I remember not long ago how the “fact” of globally cooling, leading us into an ice age, was past the stage of debate. There have been numerous health scares, numerous environmental scares. They were all overblown or proven false.

Increasing carbon dioxide levels would help to make the planet greener

A while ago someone told me that he didn’t understand the science of global warming, but we should be good stewards of the land and refrain from polluting the planet. I told him that the greenhouse gas some people were most concerned about, carbon dioxide, was not really a pollutant. More carbon dioxide would only help the trees to grow better. He thought that was crazy and backwards. He thought trees are useful because they take the carbon dioxide out of the air. I did a little research and here is what I found.

1. Plants need carbon dioxide in order to grow. Without carbon dioxide plants will die.

2. The fraction of the atmosphere that is carbon dioxide is about 0.000340 (340 parts per million or ppm). Some estimates I've seen are as high as 0.00038 (380 ppm). As you can see, carbon dioxide is a very small part of the atmosphere, yet critically important to life on earth.

3. Plants in a greenhouse consume carbon dioxide, which inhibits plant growth. As a result steps are taken to increase the level of carbon dioxide in the greenhouse. Burning fossil fuels helps.

4. Increasing carbon dioxide levels improves plant growth and vigor, earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength, and flower size. Growers regard CO2 as a nutrient.

5. Benefits to plants increase with increasing addition of carbon dioxide in the air. At about 1000 to 1300 ppm (fraction 0.001 to 0.0013) the benefits tend to level off, and further carbon dioxide has only a small improvement to the plant. In other words any increase in the levels of carbon dioxide up to a factor of three or more over present levels only aides in the greening of the planet.

6. Tripling carbon dioxide levels would aid photosynthesis by about 50%.

7. Without adding carbon dioxide in a closed greenhouse, levels of carbon dioxide would fall to about 200 ppm, reducing plant growth by about 50%.

8. Some scientists believe that carbon dioxide levels were only around 284 ppm in 1832 (pre-industrial), and now they are at 383 ppm.

9. We breathe out air that is about 0.045 (4.5%) carbon dioxide.

10. Conservatively you should probably limit prolonged (all day) exposure to levels of carbon dioxide to less than 0.005 (0.5% or 5000 ppm).

In conclusion, we may have increased carbon dioxide levels from 284 ppm to 383 ppm during the last 175 years of industrial activity. If we increased our carbon dioxide levels to 1000 ppm, or 1300 ppm we would greatly benefit the plants on our planet. We would have to increase carbon dioxide levels many times more than that in order to reach any kind of level considered at all harmful to our health.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide and http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm