Ecological Crisis

Since the medieval times drastic changes in technological and ecological transformations have occurred, refutation of this is not plausible, but explaining those changes and tracing back their historical roots to anthropocentric attitudes is not as apparent. The continuous debate of where Anthropocentrism stemmed from is not only polarizing but also greatly needed, especially since, “history attempts to capture a moment in time and explain what it was like to live then, how history has changed over time and how it has grown and declined (Reilly)." More notable is that by looking into our past (history) we are supplied with answers and a more thorough understanding to our present situation and future. And with that, we need to understand the history of our anthropocentric roots which has a direct connection to our current ecological crisis.
“Man named all the animals, thus establishing his dominance over them. No purpose but to serve mans purpose.” White believes that anthropocentrism and the bible are mutually inclusive, “Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen.” When reading the bible it is hard to ignore the ethnocentric ideas presented, and while White acknowledges the complexity of Christianity, and different views that are presented in different texts, he also clearly points out the consequences with believing everything one reads. Galileo was one of the first to disprove the ideas of the bible by confirming the heliocentric system by Nicolaus Copernicus. This created huge conflict within the Catholic Church since they believed in geocentrism, “…the professionals resented his intrusion.” By refusing a clearly factual non-anthropocentric view because it conflicted with the Bible texts demonstrates that their ideas and advancements on the expense of others, directly correlates from the scriptures. How we comprehend the ecologic crisis has greatly to do with Christian dogma. Through creation God has gave us life and nature, and in order to reveal his divine mentality the religious studies of nature occurred, known as natural theology. At first the study of nature was artistic rather than scientific, but as time progressed and advancements were not quickly occurring the reading of the text began to shift. Justification for dominance and/or anthropocentrism occurred by “religious motivations,” thus it was widely accepted.
While my theory strongly coincides with Whites theory I believe that Darwin's Origin of Species is the reason for our anthropocentric society. Before the work was published people did not view the world in the same anthropocentric way that they do today. These outlooks that have formed overtime have led to non-human testing, on products that make life more convenient for humans, extinction of many species and an ecological crisis. Anthropocentric ideology has no doubt changed since Darwin's paradigm, and it is my contention that we since Darwin a more potent form of self centrism has derived.
Pre-Darwinian Anthropocentrism rests heavily on the un-educated view of the world, the earth is not a part of the universe, but is the cosmos itself. This anthropocentric view is demonstrated through several passages in the bible as White mentions throughout the text. "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth on the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hands they are delivered." Anthropocentrism and biblical readings are mutually inclusive, especially regarding the belief that man was created “to rule the world” and everything in it, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Thunder and lightning represented anger of God, sun and good crops represented the friendship with god and plagues sweeping across the land were the cause of God upon errant people.
Both religion and non-religion driven philosophical beliefs entail the exclusivity of man, furthermore scientists, psychologists, and other professionals arrive to the assumption that human consciousness is a vast leap above that of animal consciousness. The secular and non-secular followers credit our superiority to our consciousness, language, reasoning ability and imposable thumb. Charles Darwin who compared the physical and emotional aspects between humans and animals did not agree with those beliefs, finding much commonality between the both (a position I myself hold true) through evolution and biotic phylogeny. Charles Darwin's work was anti-anthropocentric and influenced others to his similar thinking through his evolutionary and biotic phylogeny works, illustrating that man is just another spec in the circle of life, no better than the trees and birds. The Origin of Species was a blow to anthropocentrism in 1859 proving that we all involved from a single cell, ameba, nonetheless taking away the belief that man was the most superior creation of God. The Origin of Species not only questioned but challenged man's distinction from the rest of creation. The resultant aftermath shook the ideology of anthropocentrism; proving man was no longer superior but equal. But was equality a good thing? Many started to view humans as un-responsible for animals because according to The Origin of Species we are animals, furthermore our domination of another species is in turn just “survival of the fittest”1, and we are the fittest.
The “Survival of the fittest” manifests from the competition of survival or predominance. This predominance is evident in the extinction of animals and deforestation. Every year I travel to Wallowa Lake in Oregon and witness first hand the ecological crisis as the once barely known vacation destination has now become more popular.


Here are some pictures from my last trip, that I took in June.

Censorship...what year are we living in?

There are way more Liberal news outlets than Conservative outlets, actually I can only name two large Conservative outlets; FOX, & CNN. But despite the lack of conservatism Barrack still wants rightwing television to be censored, and to display his dissatisfaction he refuses to go on any of these news stations. George Bush felt the hostility from leftwing news when he was President, and I feel it is a burden you take when you except the job as the most Powerful man in the United States.

Barack Obama does not hurt the feelings of rightwing thinkers by doing this, he only hurts himself. He continues to put distance between the right and the left, even though he prides himself on being "partisan."

The funniest thing I have ever seen....

CNN News asked a sarcastic question to Speaker of the House Pelosi, "Does Osama Bin Laden have to be read his rights when he is arrested?" As she stood there with a blank stare I could not help but laugh. What would they expect when they harp on the CIA and argue the rights of the terrorists who are responsible for thousands of deaths.

Protest!!!

A protest was held in St.Louis against Obamacare.

Afghanistan war

America prides themselves on being the land of the free and the home of the brave, yet many are failing to do what is needed to continue this lifestyle. Basically giving up on the War in Iraq democrats are still not doing what is needed in Afghanistan.

Speaker Pelosi lashed out at the brave Afghan leader, who has survived several assassination attempts. Pelosi told NPR News’ Morning Edition, “The president of Afghanistan has proven to be an unworthy partner. We cannot fund a mission where we don’t have a reliable partner and where whatever civilian investments we want to make, which are so necessary, will be diverted for a corrupt purpose,” Karzai was inaugurated yesterday.Pelosi and Biden are both skeptical on sending more troops to Afghanistan, while the small amount of troops over there are dieing daily.

Sarah Palin bouncing back.

Despite what seemed to be a world wide smear campaign ran last year I am happy to see Palin is bouncing back, she actually plans to be in Idaho during the first part of December to sign books.
FOX News reported:

As Sarah Palin blankets the media on a whirlwind book promotion tour, the former vice-presidential contender is clearly back on America’s radar screen. Despite being characterized by many as a divisive force in her party and the nation, Americans are much more likely to give Palin a positive rating (47 percent favorable) than another prominent female leader — Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (28 percent favorable). Moreover, about six in 10 Americans (61 percent) think Palin has been treated unfairly by the press, according to the latest Fox News poll.

Haha.

One bad decision after another

Where are the prisoners going to go? This is the age old question Obama should of thought about before setting out to prove something within his first days of office. Now his first days in office which resulted in endless praise are now coming back to haunt him, as all states oppose having Gitmo terrorists living in their backyards, go figure. A plan to transfer prisoners currently held at Guantanamo Bay to a nearly deserted Illinois jail is sharply dividing the state's politicians, with Democrats largely supporting the plan and Republicans hell-bent on blocking it.
"I adamantly oppose this plan to bring the terrorists to northwestern Illinois, where they could one day be released into our communities," Manzullo told the Chicago Sun-Times. Much speculation has grown about sending the prisoners to
the Thomson Correctional Center in western Illinois, but after inspection and countless Illinois Republicans arguing against the idea, Illinois no longer has to worry as the facility was said to be "unreliable" for the Jihadist terrorist, my question then would be, What is "reliable" when we are talking about some of the most dangerous men in the world?
Republican Rep. Don Manzullo, whose district includes the Thomson prison, exclaimed adding additional security measures beyond any maximum security prison in the country would not change his mind.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Why don't we see these cartoons in The Lewiston Morning Tribune? Could It be because they are a 100% left wing newspaper? That sounds about right.

Stop Animal Abuse, NOW.

I love animals! Here are some pictures of my animals!!




I feel the laws protecting animals are not adequate enough, thus I need to be a voice to the voiceless.

Parental Notification Law: An Absolute Must.

"Parents must give consent before their child can have their ears pierced or a tattoo put on. In fact, in public schools and emergency rooms, parents must give consent before their child can be treated with so much as an aspirin. Most voters agree that it is outrageous to allow a child to undergo any surgical procedure, let alone an invasive, irreversible procedure such as an abortion, without parental notification." -John Pinkerton, former Democratic senatorial candidate from California, during his 1998 campaign.

Arguing against abortion is a losing battle, but arguing for the Parental Notification law should be a absolute must(don't get it confused with the Parental consent laws, which state that a parent or guardian need to give consent in order to have an abortion). The parental notification law slightly differs between states, but basically it says, "That a parent or guardian needs to be notified by the abortion clinic prior to their love one receiving an abortion." The notification law of Nebraska (Nebraska is 1 of 11 states that currently have this law in place) is typical. The Abortion & Contraception Clinic of Nebraska's web site describes a pregnant minor's options under the law.
*The law applies if the woman has not reached her 18th birthday at the time of her clinic appointment. Nebraska law requires one of the following:
*A parent or court-appointed guardian may come to the clinic with the pregnant woman and sign a statement acknowledging that they have been notified of the abortion.
*A clinic doctor can inform a parent or court-appointed guardian by telephone.
*The clinic can send a written notification to the parent or guardian by certified mail (with return receipt requested and restricted delivery) at least 72 hours before the appointment.
*The woman may obtain a Judicial Waiver of Notification. She goes to the Juvenile Court Clerk's Office at her local county courthouse, or the courthouse in the clinic's county, or any adjacent county. The judge will meet privately with the woman; she can be accompanied by her lawyer, and may request that others be present. The judge can take up to one week to decide whether to grant the waiver. If the request is denied, the woman may theoretically appeal to the state Supreme Court. However, this might not be an option because of cost or time restraints.

There are two strong reasons why I feel this law needs to be present throughout the entire United States. (1) Little girls go out for the day and come back a different woman. The negative psychological effects are often worst than expected, and minors within the 12-16 age group are not mature enough to properly cope. (2) If this law is not carried out throughout all the states women will continue to travel to a nearby state which does not have a law requiring parental involvement. The statistics in Virginia and Texas support my argument. Baruch College at City University of New York conducted a study after these states implemented the notification laws and in both states they found a drop in abortion but the abortion rate in Virginia, which dropped about 20% during the first 5 months, was believed to be due to teens traveling to nearby Washington DC where they can freely obtain abortion, this correlation was drawn because the substantial increase in abortion numbers in Washington DC. In Texas the abortion rates for teens aged 15 to 17 fell 11 to 20%. No increase in surrounding states occurred because surrounding states have similar laws in place.

2012 Republican Candidates

I know, I know, it's early to start speculating about who the 2012 republican candidate will be in the presidential race against Barack Obama but here's a short rundown of possible candidates.

Sophia's Top 5:

5) Sarah Palin (seems like the most obvious candidate at this point but I feel she does not have what it takes to beat Obama, especially since the recent smear campaign.)
Strengths: Lots of support from major republicans which will translate into lots of money from the right. Palin is also very charismatic, an excellent speaker, has an interesting background which clearly demonstrates a conservative background and she is not afraid of a fight.

Weaknesses: Lack of experience which was over exaggerated in this previous election by leftist media outlets. Also by walking out of governor position her approval rating in Alaska largely slipped. Palin is a controversial republican candidate because she is very polarizing; many either hate or love her. Her final weakness (which is pretty pathetic considering we are in the year 2009) is that she is a female; men are still viewed as more dominant.



4) Ron Paul:
Strengths: He is more recognized among conservatives since his 2008 run but needs to continue gaining popularity. Paul also appeals to very conservative individuals (the older generation), and he has a strong background in financial issues and also foreign affairs.

Weaknesses: He needs to be better-know if he wants to get the GOP nomination. His lack of charisma inhibits him from doing so.



3) Mike Huckabee:
Strengths: He has tremendous charisma, and puts himself out there. Huckabee appeals to conservative democrats and is working hard to build faithful followers.

Weaknesses: He is not as well financed as some of the other candidates and may not be "conservative enough."



2) Newt Gingrich:
Strengths: Gingrich is very experienced and it a great speaker. Has very conservative ideals and he will be able to raise the money needed. Not afraid to voice his opinion, this is obvious with the election of Barack Obama. He is also a major supporter of troops and veterans.

Weaknesses: Very critical of Obama's policies, which attract conservatives but not democrats and liberals. His personal life is also a cause for concern, as many reports state that he is involved with a woman half his age.




1) Tim Pawlenty:
Strengths: He is the Governor of Minnesota, which is a key state in the electoral race. He has also greatly improved the education system and liberals flock to him because his efforts to go "green" with energy reform. His work on the Minnesota's budget is also praised.

Weaknesses: Not well known so raising money will be difficult.

Conservative Party: The need to re-invent is not far off.

There has always been a conservative tradition in America, but the “New Conservatism” was a United States political movement which originated in the late 1960s among conservatives and some liberals who were concerned with political and cultural trends of the time, including political radicalism displayed by the left and a general lack of reverence for authority and tradition. This movement was thought to be the end of the democratic party. There are many factors that led to the “New conservatism” .
In the late 1950s and early 1960s conservatives were widely dismissed as "crazy" and had no hope of winning political power, many journalist were running a wide smear campaign in hope of forever bringing down the conservatism party. This tactic was successful until the conservatives united behind the unsuccessful 1964 presidential campaign of Senator Barry Goldwater, who published Conscience of a Conservative (1960), a best-selling book that explained modern conservative theory. Many organizations backed the conservative ideology such as; The John Birch Society and Young Americans for Freedom. The rise of New Conservatism can also be contributed to the appeal it had of white conservative Southern Democrats and also devout Catholics and evangelical Christians who felt American morals were disappearing at an alarming rate. “Blue states” transformed into “Red states” in the south and many democratic senators joined the Republican Party, thus making republicans the dominant power.
Growth in homosexual relationships, promiscuity and violence were the reason people backed the conservative party. Many noticed that tradition between man and women, and the tradition of Catholicism becoming more liberal, prompting action to be done. Many believed Conservatism and Catholicism go hand in hand.
Nixon, Reagan, and Bush are proof that the movement was successful. “New Conservatism” reached the idyllic point in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan and the republican control of the Senate. Reagan shaped the conservative party and by many supporters he is viewed as an icon of the American conservative movement, who transformed the politics of the United States, and is the reason for the success of the Republican Party.
I think that the rise of conservatism has had a positive influence on American’s because it gives people more choices when deciding on who to vote for and I too believe that tradition and religion is dying throughout the world. Changes occur frequently between parties and I believe that eventually the republican or conservatism party will be desolate because morals in young people are dramatically being lessened. Unfortunately I feel the Republican Party will need to reinvent themselves as a more modern party, thus appealing to a new audience and a younger demographic.

Parallels of Vietnam and Iraqi War: We must not let history Repeat itself.

President Lyndon B Johnson stepped into office when emotions were high and president approval was even higher. The second red scare was not far behind the United States and the fear of communism “reds” was more prevalent than ever. With the assassination of John F. Kennedy America was united and willing to finish the beloved Kennedy’s mission to stop the overtake of South Vietnam and the spread of communism.
The charismatic former president JFK was assassinated in 1963 prompting Johnson to become the President of the United States and start from where JFK left off. Kennedy was fighting the spread of communism in Vietnam with limited military action. His determination to stand firm against the spread of communism, was backed with fear many had from the “red scare”. Kennedy continued the previous administration's policy of military help for the Southern Vietnam Government, furthermore reassuring South Vietnamese people political and economic freedoms. Kennedy sent military advisers to the area and Special Forces which escalated tensions dramatically.
The fight against communism was taken over by Johnson on November 22, 1963 the day Kennedy lost his life. Generally we see that if tragedy strikes all Americans, such as a death, or terror attack unification is certain and approval ratings for the current president skyrockets. President Johnson had to fight the communism fear at home with the fight of communism in Vietnam. But, not everyone was convinced that sending American troops into war was the right answer. America’s military involvement in the Vietnam War was opposed by many, that was until the Gulf of Tonkin attack, this attack was what Johnson needed to entrench; young and old, fathers and sons deep into Vietnam.
The Gulf of Tonkin attack was when two U.S ships were attacked off the coast of Vietnam in neutral water, even though much speculation today questions whether these attacks were justified or even occurred, but one things certain, Johnson’s decision to use this situation as a reason to move deeper into Vietnam and his decree of a series of air strikes against North Vietnam territory. Johnson hoped that America’s attacks from the air and undeniable presence of combat troops on the ground would be provisional pending North Vietnam’s exhaustion and desire of peace talks, which we now know was not the case. The lack of troops in South Vietnam meant more American troops, thus the draft began which coincided with anti-war movements.
When looking back on past wars, movements, or influential people, many critiques can be made on what should have been done, and the actions that needed to be taken. But, with mistakes occurring in the present we are blind and voiceless, and seldom look back to history for the answers. In reflection now we notice that much could have been done to have avoided going deeper into the quagmire. The U.S. involvement in the area escalated the problems between the North and South Vietnamese people. The United States crucial mistake began while Kennedy was in office and then continued to worsen, we never should of brought special forces or troops to Vietnam before the war even began. The United States backed North Vietnam into a corner by surrounding them with troops and naval ships, thus making them feel threatened. Special forces should have been substituted with negotiators and the U.S ships on the coast of Vietnam should not of occupied coastal waters.
Many parallels can be drawn between the Iraqi war and Vietnam war, but only time will tell if history will repeat itself or history will be made. Lets make history!!