About six weeks ago, in my blog article titled "The Media Have No Clue," I reviewed the hullabaloo surrounding Obama's "reversal" of the G. W. Bush Executive Order banning use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. What Obama actually did was tell the NIH to draw up some guidelines. Two things have happened since.
1. The NIH has published Draft Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research, and,
2. The 2009 Appropriations Act became law including, once again, the Dickey-Weiker Amendment.
The bottom line is that the Dickey-Weiker Amendment continues the ban on creation of new embryonic stem cell lines and the NIH guidelines, while extremely strict about just how those embryos can be donated, reaffirms that so long as there is a ban in the law, no federal funds may be used.
The Executive Order repeal is just as meaningless as the original Executive Order, because the Dickey-Weiker Amendment has been part of every federal funding bill since 1995. What has really happened is that the political pressure has increased to get Dickey-Weiker repealed and Obama got out of the line of fire.
The ban remains in place.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
35 Inconvenient Truths
Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" is such bad "science" that it's embarrassing. That this clown could get a Nobel Prize for producing lies, is beyond comprehension.
In October, 2007, the High Court in London identified nine “errors” in Gore's movie. The judge stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children. In short, it would be illegal to show that film in the UK to a child.
Those nine "errors" were simply the ones noted by the judge. The list has since been expanded to the 35 errors of fact published at scienceandpublicpolicy.org. And these are just the errors that Gore made that are contradicted by advocates of anthropogenic global warming!
To get the mistakes that the IPCC and their clique of friends have made, you need to look at "The Great Global Warming Hoax." I love their summarizing list:
1. The "Greenhouse Effect" is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.
In October, 2007, the High Court in London identified nine “errors” in Gore's movie. The judge stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children. In short, it would be illegal to show that film in the UK to a child.
Those nine "errors" were simply the ones noted by the judge. The list has since been expanded to the 35 errors of fact published at scienceandpublicpolicy.org. And these are just the errors that Gore made that are contradicted by advocates of anthropogenic global warming!
To get the mistakes that the IPCC and their clique of friends have made, you need to look at "The Great Global Warming Hoax." I love their summarizing list:
1. The "Greenhouse Effect" is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.
2. Modest Global Warming, at least up until 1998 when a cooling trend began, has been real.
3. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.
4. Man's contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn't cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.
5. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.
6. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.
7. CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. The cart is not pulling the donkey, and the future cannot influence the past.
8. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.
9. The UN IPCC has corrupted the "reporting process" so badly, it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole some kid's lunch money. They do not follow the Scientific Method, and modify the science as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions. In empirical science, one does NOT write the conclusion first, then solicit "opinion" on the report, ignoring any opinion which does not fit their predetermined conclusion while falsifying data to support unrealistic models.
10. Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs. The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat... particularly the North Slope oil fields.
11. There is no demonstrated causal relationship between hurricanes and/or tornadoes and global warming. This is sheer conjecture totally unsupported by any material science.
12. Observed glacial retreats in certain select areas have been going on for hundreds of years, and show no serious correlation to short-term swings in global temperatures.
13. Greenland is shown to be an island completely surrounded by water, not ice, in maps dating to the 14th century. There is active geothermal activity in the currently "melting" sections of Greenland.
14. The Antarctic Ice cover is currently the largest ever observed by satellite, and periodic ice shelf breakups are normal and correlate well with localized tectonic and geothermal activity along the Antarctic Peninsula.
15. The Global Warming Panic was triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been thoroughly disproved. The panic is being deliberately nurtured by those who stand to gain both financially and politically from perpetuation of the hoax.
16. Scientists who "deny" the hoax are often threatened with loss of funding or even their jobs.
17. The correlation between solar activity and climate is now so strong that solar physicists are now seriously discussing the much greater danger of pending global cooling.
18. Biofuel hysteria is already having a disastrous effect on world food supplies and prices, and current technologies for biofuel production [are said by some to] consume more energy than the fuels produce.
19. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.
20. In short, there is no "climate crisis" of any kind at work on our planet.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Supercavitation
Cavitation, as any old salt knows, is the bane of propellor-driven boats and ships. Props that run too fast cause "holes" to appear in the water and the result is both a decrease in efficiency and, in extreme cases, physical damage to the propellors as the cavities collapse with a "bang."
In the 1970s and 1980s, the Russian Research Institute of Applied Hydromechanics in Kiev developed a practical use for cavitation. Called supercavitation, it created a vapor-filled cavity around a torpedo that was so big that the water no longer touched the torpedo body. The result was a
rocket-powered torpedo called the VA-111 Shkval, capable of speeds above 200 knots (230 mph.) They produced quit a few and actually sold about 60 of them to China in the 1990's. Unfortunately, the Shkval was a "strait-shooter," meaning the Russians had not found a way to manuver the torpedo without destroying the cavity.
The US Navy has belatedly started work at ONR to find ways to use and to defend against supercavitation weapons. Theoretically, small vehicles can travel at speeds up to 600 MPH and submarine-sized vehicles can travel at speeds of 100 mph.
Needless to day, such weapons are super secret. Nobody is willing to talk about how they might be deployed and what defenses are possible. One obvious way is to use ship-ro-surface missles which themselves supercavitate, but detection and tracking, not to mention guidance, are left as "an exercise to the student."
The problem is especially acute given our current dependence on "conventional" nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines. The USS George H. W. Bush (CVN 77), commissioned in January, is the last of the Numitz-class carriers to be built. But the next generation of carriers, beginning with the USS Gerald Ford (CVN 78) is well into design and the keel has been laid. It's not stealthy; it's built on a hull about the same size and shape as the Nimitz class. It's due for delivery in 2015.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the Russian Research Institute of Applied Hydromechanics in Kiev developed a practical use for cavitation. Called supercavitation, it created a vapor-filled cavity around a torpedo that was so big that the water no longer touched the torpedo body. The result was a
rocket-powered torpedo called the VA-111 Shkval, capable of speeds above 200 knots (230 mph.) They produced quit a few and actually sold about 60 of them to China in the 1990's. Unfortunately, the Shkval was a "strait-shooter," meaning the Russians had not found a way to manuver the torpedo without destroying the cavity.The US Navy has belatedly started work at ONR to find ways to use and to defend against supercavitation weapons. Theoretically, small vehicles can travel at speeds up to 600 MPH and submarine-sized vehicles can travel at speeds of 100 mph.
Needless to day, such weapons are super secret. Nobody is willing to talk about how they might be deployed and what defenses are possible. One obvious way is to use ship-ro-surface missles which themselves supercavitate, but detection and tracking, not to mention guidance, are left as "an exercise to the student."
The problem is especially acute given our current dependence on "conventional" nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines. The USS George H. W. Bush (CVN 77), commissioned in January, is the last of the Numitz-class carriers to be built. But the next generation of carriers, beginning with the USS Gerald Ford (CVN 78) is well into design and the keel has been laid. It's not stealthy; it's built on a hull about the same size and shape as the Nimitz class. It's due for delivery in 2015.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Spring Surfs Into Montgomery
Spring has arrived! The winter debris has been removed from the front porch and the bouganvillea repotted. It wasn't doing well in a soil rich in compost. It likes dry feet.
The schefflera is getting out of hand. The next time we get a solid freeze, I may not be able to protect it. It's probably due for a severe pruning, but I've never had any luck with air layering and it would be a shame to waste the branches.
The bouganvillea in the ground has always done well, despite neglect and little water. I pruned it last Spring when it got leggy. It has bloomed continuously ever since.
This beauty is a Bauhinia, probably Bauhinia blakeana, aka the orchid tree. It has been featured on the flag of Hong Kong since the British left in 1997.
I bought it as a one-foot plant at the Mercer Arboretum four years ago. It has grown to about 15' and will be full of 4" blooms next week. Gorgeous!
The double azaleas are doing well by the back door, despite a very dry Winter. This group was planted maybe 18 months ago. They will get fertilized and pruned back to the same height after blooming.
The single azaleas have been here more than my five-year stay. More pruning and fertilizing to do.
I know. The kalanchoes with the iridescent red flowers clash badly with the azaleas. They were planted by gf. The yard is full of her kalanchoes and bromeliads.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Media Have No Clue
When it comes to science, the media are absolutely clueless. The reporting today on Obama's decision to allow stem cell research using discarded human embryos is the latest proof. They have never reported the facts properly, but it just gets worse. Can't they even do basic Internet research?
1. Since the beginning, they have reported that the Bush administration had forbidden the use of federal funds to do stem cell research. That was and remains false. Federal funds may not be used for research involving the sacrifice of human embryos - except for a set available as of August, 2001. As I recall, there were about a 21 lines that can be used. So that's two mistakes; federal funds can be used for stem cell research as long as it doesn't involve the destruction of new embryos and nothing in the executive order stops others from funding embryonic stem cell research. The States of California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York have done do for several years as have some private philanthropies.
2. Embryonic stem cells are not the best solution for use in patients because they are essentially foreign bodies; there is a potential for the patient's rejection mechanisms to produce damaging antibodies. As a result, in September of 2005, researchers at Harvard produced stem cells from skin cells using the existing pool of embryonic cells as a "catalyst." That research was probably federally funded. It was barely reported while the media ranted and raved over "the ban."
3. Last Fall, researchers at Harvard again found a way to create stem cells from skin, this time adding cell-reprogramming genes to adenoviruses, a type of virus that infects cells without affecting their DNA. It was confirmed that no DNA damage was induced, but researchers continued seeking a way to do the job without using viruses. The media either ignored or misreported the discovery by emphasizing the "danger" of using a virus.
4. Last week, Canadian researchers published a paper in Nature reporting they had created stem cells from the skin of a mouse without using adenoviruses. Before long, there will be no need to destroy human embryos because a better method is being developed. Not one word about this breakthrough was on any news report that I saw this evening. Instead, they all fawned over "Obama reversing the Bush ban." Even that was not true!
5. What Obama really did was give instructions to NIH to come up, within 90 days, with a set of ethical guidelines for using embryonic stem cells in federally-sponsored research. This is not a trivial difference. Presumably, NIH knows that the whole controversy is about to become moot; there will soon be no need for destroying human embryos to harvest stem cells. Under the circumstances, I expect there to be some severe restrictions placed on their use and perhaps some sunset provisions. Whatever NIH decides, the president will have to take additional action to approve the new guidelines and allow existing federal funding, if any, to be used under those guidelines. Ultimately, nothing really changes unless Congress funds more research.
Meanwhile, the clueless media publishes sound bites from equally misleading researchers who are thrilled for a chance to suck the federal teet. One had the audacity to say that this took Bush politics out of science. Wrong. Bush didn't inject politics into the situation, he inserted ethical guidelines based, in part, on religious principles. It's the media and some supporters of embryonic stem cell research who injected politics into the situation.
The message: when you hear the media reporting on science, you can believe they got it wrong. Ignore them, or do your own research on the Internet.
***************************************************************************************
March 14th. Flip-flop already. The omnibus spending bill signed by Obama this week included the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. That amendment bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." So much for the political grandstanding of reversing the Bush Executive Order banning funding of embryonic stem cell research - at least until the next spending bill is passed. But that amendment is a measure Congress has included in spending bills in every fiscal year since 1996. And even if it's not included some day, good luck getting Congress to fund stem cell research without it.
It's far from clear whether the Dickey-Wicker Amendment only applies to research in which the embryos are destroyed; some contend that it does not apply to stem cells created since 2001 by other researchers. But, once again, good luck getting funds appropriated.
Also this week, Obama said the stem cell policy is designed so that it "never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. Such cloning," he said, "is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society or any society." Now that's a weird statement! Use of human embryos in stem cell research almost always involves cloning. The alternative is to use a new embryo for every experiment. So is Obama making a distinction between "human reproduction," meaning taking clones to full-term and birth as opposed to cloning embryos, growing them for a while, and destroying them for stem cell research? You have to wonder if Obama knows what he just said.
Politicians are so devious that you need a score card to keep track. Don't count on the media to give you the full story. Meanwhile, (surprise!), the New York Times editors are pushing for repeal of Dickey-Wicker while Sheryl Gay Stolberg, a writer for the New York Times, discusses the impossibility of "removing politics from science."
1. Since the beginning, they have reported that the Bush administration had forbidden the use of federal funds to do stem cell research. That was and remains false. Federal funds may not be used for research involving the sacrifice of human embryos - except for a set available as of August, 2001. As I recall, there were about a 21 lines that can be used. So that's two mistakes; federal funds can be used for stem cell research as long as it doesn't involve the destruction of new embryos and nothing in the executive order stops others from funding embryonic stem cell research. The States of California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York have done do for several years as have some private philanthropies.
2. Embryonic stem cells are not the best solution for use in patients because they are essentially foreign bodies; there is a potential for the patient's rejection mechanisms to produce damaging antibodies. As a result, in September of 2005, researchers at Harvard produced stem cells from skin cells using the existing pool of embryonic cells as a "catalyst." That research was probably federally funded. It was barely reported while the media ranted and raved over "the ban."
3. Last Fall, researchers at Harvard again found a way to create stem cells from skin, this time adding cell-reprogramming genes to adenoviruses, a type of virus that infects cells without affecting their DNA. It was confirmed that no DNA damage was induced, but researchers continued seeking a way to do the job without using viruses. The media either ignored or misreported the discovery by emphasizing the "danger" of using a virus.
4. Last week, Canadian researchers published a paper in Nature reporting they had created stem cells from the skin of a mouse without using adenoviruses. Before long, there will be no need to destroy human embryos because a better method is being developed. Not one word about this breakthrough was on any news report that I saw this evening. Instead, they all fawned over "Obama reversing the Bush ban." Even that was not true!
5. What Obama really did was give instructions to NIH to come up, within 90 days, with a set of ethical guidelines for using embryonic stem cells in federally-sponsored research. This is not a trivial difference. Presumably, NIH knows that the whole controversy is about to become moot; there will soon be no need for destroying human embryos to harvest stem cells. Under the circumstances, I expect there to be some severe restrictions placed on their use and perhaps some sunset provisions. Whatever NIH decides, the president will have to take additional action to approve the new guidelines and allow existing federal funding, if any, to be used under those guidelines. Ultimately, nothing really changes unless Congress funds more research.
Meanwhile, the clueless media publishes sound bites from equally misleading researchers who are thrilled for a chance to suck the federal teet. One had the audacity to say that this took Bush politics out of science. Wrong. Bush didn't inject politics into the situation, he inserted ethical guidelines based, in part, on religious principles. It's the media and some supporters of embryonic stem cell research who injected politics into the situation.
The message: when you hear the media reporting on science, you can believe they got it wrong. Ignore them, or do your own research on the Internet.
***************************************************************************************
March 14th. Flip-flop already. The omnibus spending bill signed by Obama this week included the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. That amendment bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." So much for the political grandstanding of reversing the Bush Executive Order banning funding of embryonic stem cell research - at least until the next spending bill is passed. But that amendment is a measure Congress has included in spending bills in every fiscal year since 1996. And even if it's not included some day, good luck getting Congress to fund stem cell research without it.
It's far from clear whether the Dickey-Wicker Amendment only applies to research in which the embryos are destroyed; some contend that it does not apply to stem cells created since 2001 by other researchers. But, once again, good luck getting funds appropriated.
Also this week, Obama said the stem cell policy is designed so that it "never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. Such cloning," he said, "is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society or any society." Now that's a weird statement! Use of human embryos in stem cell research almost always involves cloning. The alternative is to use a new embryo for every experiment. So is Obama making a distinction between "human reproduction," meaning taking clones to full-term and birth as opposed to cloning embryos, growing them for a while, and destroying them for stem cell research? You have to wonder if Obama knows what he just said.
Politicians are so devious that you need a score card to keep track. Don't count on the media to give you the full story. Meanwhile, (surprise!), the New York Times editors are pushing for repeal of Dickey-Wicker while Sheryl Gay Stolberg, a writer for the New York Times, discusses the impossibility of "removing politics from science."
Thursday, February 19, 2009
NCO Financial and Similar Crooks
If you haven't been harassed by NCO Financial, it's just a matter of time. This Pennsylvania company claims to be a legitimate collection agency, but they have been sued by several state attorneys general, have a huge file of complaints at every BBB in the country, and violate every rule of conduct required of collection agencies by law. Google them. Or Goggle 18666278195. Both their name and number usually show up in your caller ID.
They started harassing me about two months ago. I get at least one call a day, usually more. They use predictive dialling, so it's easy to spot them, even if you don't have caller ID. My habit is simply to hang up if a real person is not immediately on the line. Sometimes they have a recording that gives you a clue.
Today I finally got the only clue I need; the recording said they wanted to speak to David Somebody. I forget the name, but it wasn't mine.
I've had this phone number for about ten years, far longer than the statute of limitations for most kinds of debt in this state. So even if they have the "right" phone number for the debtor, they are basically beating a dead horse. That explains the horror stories you can read on the Internet about people who have been silly enough to stay on the line and try to reason with them. The NCO Financial people actually start screaming and using foul language if you dare tell them they have the wrong number.
They can do a reverse look up of the phone numbers they call and find the name of the person who owns that number. If that doesn't convince them that they have the wrong number, I'm certainly not able to do it by staying on the line and hearing their tirade.
NCO Financial is not the only bunch of crooks trying to collect noncollectable debts from the wrong people. Googling sleazy or crooked collection agencies will turn up many more.
Bottom line is that any legitimate debt collection agency will have the Social Security number of the debtor; they can easily find the current address of the right person. If they can't send you a certified letter, they are not legitimate.
Since these slimebags don't even know my name, I feel fairly safe from damage to my credit report, but I'll keep an eye out. The last thing I want to do is tell them my real name; with my luck they would claim I'm using an alias and then I would really feel their assault. Meanwhile, let them waste their time calling the wrong number. Caller ID and Google are my friends.
Now if only Vonage would offer a call-blocking feature! You would think that some bright engineer would offer a device that handles this for you, but the only one I have ever found is Caller ID Blocker and it appears to be permanently out of stock.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2/20/09 Good news! I found a used Caller ID Blocker for 1/2 price and also found some PC software (callclerk) that does the same job and more. Also, the mystery of what became of the Caller ID Blocker company is solved. They (InterceptorID) are working on a new version and ran into quite a few unexpected snags - like their manufacturing vendor lost the tools used to make the original and they are now being recreated by InterceptorID.
They started harassing me about two months ago. I get at least one call a day, usually more. They use predictive dialling, so it's easy to spot them, even if you don't have caller ID. My habit is simply to hang up if a real person is not immediately on the line. Sometimes they have a recording that gives you a clue.
Today I finally got the only clue I need; the recording said they wanted to speak to David Somebody. I forget the name, but it wasn't mine.
I've had this phone number for about ten years, far longer than the statute of limitations for most kinds of debt in this state. So even if they have the "right" phone number for the debtor, they are basically beating a dead horse. That explains the horror stories you can read on the Internet about people who have been silly enough to stay on the line and try to reason with them. The NCO Financial people actually start screaming and using foul language if you dare tell them they have the wrong number.
They can do a reverse look up of the phone numbers they call and find the name of the person who owns that number. If that doesn't convince them that they have the wrong number, I'm certainly not able to do it by staying on the line and hearing their tirade.
NCO Financial is not the only bunch of crooks trying to collect noncollectable debts from the wrong people. Googling sleazy or crooked collection agencies will turn up many more.
Bottom line is that any legitimate debt collection agency will have the Social Security number of the debtor; they can easily find the current address of the right person. If they can't send you a certified letter, they are not legitimate.
Since these slimebags don't even know my name, I feel fairly safe from damage to my credit report, but I'll keep an eye out. The last thing I want to do is tell them my real name; with my luck they would claim I'm using an alias and then I would really feel their assault. Meanwhile, let them waste their time calling the wrong number. Caller ID and Google are my friends.
Now if only Vonage would offer a call-blocking feature! You would think that some bright engineer would offer a device that handles this for you, but the only one I have ever found is Caller ID Blocker and it appears to be permanently out of stock.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2/20/09 Good news! I found a used Caller ID Blocker for 1/2 price and also found some PC software (callclerk) that does the same job and more. Also, the mystery of what became of the Caller ID Blocker company is solved. They (InterceptorID) are working on a new version and ran into quite a few unexpected snags - like their manufacturing vendor lost the tools used to make the original and they are now being recreated by InterceptorID.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Blessed BeThe Newsmakers
Steven Bates has a priceless article in Slate today titled Blessed Be The Newsmakers. His thesis is that newspapers can stop their decline by declaring themselves as a religion.
"... as New York University's Jay Rosen points out (and noted earlier), American journalism itself constitutes a sort of religion, "a belief system and meaning-making kit that is shared across editorial cultures in mainstream newsrooms." What qualifies as news reflects an idealized notion of democracy. Public corruption brings forth righteous wrath from the press's pulpit. Reporters strive to "evoke indignation at the violation of social values," media scholars James S. Ettema and Theodore L. Glasser observe in their book "Custodians of Conscience"—as, they add, the prophet Jeremiah did."
"Just as the Puritans vowed to purify the Church of England, journalists seek to purify the country's institutions of self-government. "Democracy," Philadelphia Evening Bulletin editor Fred Fuller Shedd declared in 1931, 'functions largely through the efficient service of the newspaper'—no great leap from 'No one comes to the Father except through me.' The Scripps Newspapers' motto admonishes, 'Give Light and the People Will Find Their Own Way.' See also John 8:12: 'I am the light of the world.'"
Bates concludes with "It shouldn't be that hard to reposition the press as a church. It's already halfway there." Well, maybe that's an average, but the New York Times has been there for decades.
"... as New York University's Jay Rosen points out (and noted earlier), American journalism itself constitutes a sort of religion, "a belief system and meaning-making kit that is shared across editorial cultures in mainstream newsrooms." What qualifies as news reflects an idealized notion of democracy. Public corruption brings forth righteous wrath from the press's pulpit. Reporters strive to "evoke indignation at the violation of social values," media scholars James S. Ettema and Theodore L. Glasser observe in their book "Custodians of Conscience"—as, they add, the prophet Jeremiah did."
"Just as the Puritans vowed to purify the Church of England, journalists seek to purify the country's institutions of self-government. "Democracy," Philadelphia Evening Bulletin editor Fred Fuller Shedd declared in 1931, 'functions largely through the efficient service of the newspaper'—no great leap from 'No one comes to the Father except through me.' The Scripps Newspapers' motto admonishes, 'Give Light and the People Will Find Their Own Way.' See also John 8:12: 'I am the light of the world.'"
Bates concludes with "It shouldn't be that hard to reposition the press as a church. It's already halfway there." Well, maybe that's an average, but the New York Times has been there for decades.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
