Full Transcript:

The Book of Wisdom is one of the seven wisdom books comprising the Septuagint. The others are Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Song of Solomon), Job, and Sirach. The Book of Wisdom, or the Wisdom of Solomon is included in the canon of Deuterocanonical books by the Roman Catholic Church while most Protestants consider it part of the Apocrypha.

It includes an exhortation to justice, a speech contrasting the wicked versus the just, and an exhortation to wisdom. Solomon’s speech addresses wisdom, wealth, power and prayer. The historical narrative includes references to false worship, past and future plagues, and a concluding doxology.

While there is general agreement by scholars that the book was most likely composed in Alexandria, Egypt, there is some controversy as to the authorship and the intended audience. Some attribute it to Hebrew authorship, intended for the rulers of the earth, urging them to love righteousness and seek wisdom. Others hold that the book was written by an Egyptian scribe named Amenemope as a book of instruction for his son.

Athanasius, the 20th bishop of Alexandria, wrote that the Book of Wisdom along with three other deuterocanonical books, while not being part of the Canon, “were appointed by the Fathers to be read” Whatever the book’s origins, the supreme value of wisdom is underscored throughout. Consider the following quote from the Book of Wisdom: “For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen.” Now also consider the way C.S. Lewis addressed the value of “analogy” as he wrote about the limitations of a circumscribed language of the realm. I quote Lewis:

“If the richer system is to be represented in the poorer at all, this can only be by giving each element in the poorer system more than one meaning. The transposition of the richer into the poorer must, so to speak, be algebraical, not arithmetical. If you are to translate from a language which has a large vocabulary, into a language that has a small vocabulary, then you must be allowed to use several words in more than one sense. If you are to write a language with twenty two vowel sounds in an alphabet with only five vowel characters then you must be allowed to give each of those five characters more than one value. If you are making a piano version of a piece originally scored for an orchestra, then the same piano notes which represent flutes in one passage must also represent violins in another.

“As the examples show we are all quite familiar with this kind of transposition or adaptation from a richer to a poorer medium. The most familiar example of all is the art of drawing. The problem here is to represent a three-dimensional world on a flat sheet of paper. The solution is perspective, and perspective means that we must give more than one value to a two-dimensional shape. Thus in a drawing of a cube we use an acute angle to represent what is a right angle in the real world. But elsewhere an acute angle on the paper may represent what was already an acute angle in the real world: for example, the point of a spear on the gable of a house. The very same shape which you must draw to give the illusion of a straight road receding from the spectator is also the shape you draw for a dunces’ cap. As with the lines, so with the shading. Your brightest light in the picture is, in literal fact, only plain white paper: and this must do for the sun, or a lake in evening light, or snow, or human flesh.

“It is clear that in each case what is happening in the lower medium can be understood only if we know the higher medium. The instance where this knowledge is most commonly lacking is the musical one. The piano version means one thing to the musician who knows the original orchestral score and another thing to the man who hears it simply as a piano piece. But the second man would be at an even greater disadvantage if he had never heard any instrument but a piano and even doubted the existence of other instruments. Even more, we understand pictures only because we know and inhabit the three-dimensional world.

“If we can imagine a creature who perceived only two dimensions and yet could somehow be aware of the lines as he crawled over them on the paper, we shall easily see how impossible it would be for him to understand. At first he might be prepared to accept on authority our assurance that there was a world in three dimensions. But when we pointed to the lines on the paper and tried to explain, say, that “This is a road,” would he not say that the shape which we were asking him to accept as a revelation of our mysterious other world was the very same shape which, on our own showing, elsewhere meant nothing but a triangle. And soon, I think, he would say, “You keep on telling me of this other world and its unimaginable shapes which you call solid. But isn’t it very suspicious that all the shapes which you offer me as images or reflections of the solid ones turn out on inspection to be simply the old two-dimensional shapes of my own world as I have always known it? Is it not obvious that your vaunted other world, so far from being the archetype, is a dream which borrows all its elements from this one?”

Now, in light of the C.S. Lewis treatment on analogy, prayerfully consider the Jesusonian Parables and just how the direct teachings of Jesus, and his wisdom, have gracefully transcended time, space, and the paucity of human language. When, rather than promising more holy books or additional layers of ecclesiastical authority, he promised a Spirit Helper, the Spirit of Truth that would guide us into all truth, he knew what he was doing.

Prometheus is the Titan god of ancient Greece characterized by forethought. He was credited with stealing fire from the most hoity-toity of the gods and then gifting it to humanity as a cornerstone for civilization. The United States Supreme Court’s unanimous decision was published on April Fool’s Day. It rejected the chief cornerstone for our constitutionally grounded democratic republic in the Prometheus case, a case challenging a recent Federal Communications Commission decision ditching the ownership rules originally intended to elevate the public discourse.

By unanimously discounting the refiner’s fire of viewpoint diversity, the Court has once again brought attention to its lack of intellectual rigor; for it ignores the declaration of intent, the value proposition, the mission statement, and the cardinal precepts of The United States Constitution as they were so carefully delineated in the Preamble. That front matter is, arguably, the spirit of the law. The Court’s perception problem is really one of clear discernment by an increasingly honked-off public.

While Kavanaugh referred to Section 706(2)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act, the APA, he was highly selective in the actual treatment of the way the court had arrived at its conclusion. The APA instructs courts reviewing regulation to invalidate any agency action found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” The arbitrary-or- capricious test is used by judges when reviewing the factual basis for agency rule-making. Courts can overturn agency rules if they find the underlying rationale or factual assertions to be unreasonable.

In the Prometheus case, the hop-skippety-jump logic of the FCC, that was focused exclusively on gender and race diversity while ignoring the more general diversity of viewpoint factors, is clearly problematic. We are blessed with two eyes and two ears precisely because of the value of such diversity and the way it favors depth of perception. And, once we move beyond the excessively prominent head cases, there is value to considering the viewpoint of our fellow citizens as we move to form a more perfect union.

Kavanaugh wrote: “A court simply ensures that the agency has acted within a zone of reasonableness and, in particular, has reasonably considered the relevant issues and reasonably explained the decision.” The Supreme Court, throughout its history, has steadily contracted this “zone of reasonableness” in ways that run well afoul of constitutional imperatives with respect to our nation’s movement towards a more perfect union. As the framers worked meticulously to dovetail the “consent of the governed” phrasing contained within the Declaration of Independence, to that of a “We the People” initiative as reflected in the Preamble to the United States Constitution, the Justices have again “strained at gnats while swallowing camels.”

In other areas of law, consent must be properly informed. The incoherent reasoning of the Supreme Court in this case has shown its contempt for democracy and favored the prevarications of autocratic wannabes. We have seen the rise of a fictitious corporate personhood in tandem with the demise of the fairness doctrine. Our so-called independent judiciary has exhibited a high tolerance for dark money in its own nominations, confirmations, and accommodations. Is there any linkage between such covert bribery and the First Amendment hits our country has sustained through the more recent attacks attacks on net-neutrality and the ownership rules?

As we labor to make our democracy more authentic, to what extent will we tolerate deceptive practices by those occupying positions of honor and trust? When judges, masquerading as originalists and textualists, segment the constitution in such a way as to render it devoid of context, is that a deceptive practice? When legislators stand before cameras to convince the public that a bill contains something other than what it really spelled out, is that a deceptive practice? When executives selectively amplify, filter, and contextualize facts, is that a deceptive practice?

Judges operate in an arena where facts are facts and alternative facts are perjury. And yet, they seem to be entirely ok with political candidates that secure prestigious positions through perpetrating a fraud on the public. They appear to be equally sanguine when elected representatives actively deceive the electorate while holding office.

The Prometheus case is about preventing a concentration of media power within individual markets. The SCOTUS decision advances the kind of monopoly power that autocracies favor and democracies do not. As the justices work deliberately to distract us from noticing just how very far they have strayed from constitutional imperatives, their own systematized delusions, with respect to corporate personhood, proceed unabated.

What our country’s founders called “foreign potentates,” are often the ones in control of the so-called corporate persons. The addled Supremes have clearly demonstrated they lack the forethought long ago attributed to Prometheus. The court has, in effect and actual fact, converted what Marshall McLuhan once described as a “whirlpool of information” into a cesspool of disinformation.

Listen to the Audio and/or Subscribe to the Podcast

Full Transcript:

Again, we continue our conversation with Dr. Richard Bates and discuss the characteristics of diesel and gas engines, using a farm tractor as preparation system, sewage treatment, two stage wood stoves, and using waste heat.

In Part 6 we will discuss rocket stoves, flue gases vs, engine exhaust gases. Join us then.

Full Transcript:

When the Son of God descended to experience the human condition as the Son of Man; in weakness made powerful by faith-submission to the will of Our Father, he directly confronted the Arch Deceiver. Our entire universe of principalities and powers, clearly and forever recognized the justice of doing, in the role of mortal flesh, those things which mercy admonished him not to do by the power of arbitrary authority. Even those fomenting spiritual wickedness in high places and the rulers of the darkness in this world saw the fairness, and were thus challenged in ways they did not anticipate.

The decision Jesus made, to live a life wholeheartedly motivated to do the will of Our Father, thus to reveal God, is our inspiration. Jesus is quoted as saying: “Why do you call me good? There is none good but God.” Contrast this humility to the brash demeanor of excessively prominent personalities. Self-confidence, self-reliance and self-sufficiency may be the bread of this world, but the faith-son does not vest ultimate faith in anyone but God.

The apostasy of the apostle who denied Jesus may have been less severe than that of the apostle who betrayed Jesus, but each of these single points of failure was a potential known to, and foretold by, Our Sovereign. The command “Go tell the apostles and Peter” inspired the forgiven apostle to become instrumental in delivering over two thousand souls to the service of the Kingdom during his highly enthusiastic Pentecost sermon.

The gospel that Jesus taught redeemed us from the superstition that we are children of the devil. Jesus gave us dignity as faith sons and daughters of God. As the Spirit of Truth came to dwell in our hearts, we became liberated from all dependence on ecclesiastical authority and pharisitic tradition. As we walk by the direct tutelage of the Spirit we too may get periodic humility lessons similar to Peter’s “Get behind me Satan” moment. For ultimately, there is none true but God, there is none beautiful but God and there is none good but God.

The supreme sovereignty of Christ Jesus comes from God, and that is why we call him Lord. As he dwelt among us, in the role of a teacher, he gave immediate attention to the liberation and inspiration of our spiritual nature. He illuminated the darkened human intellect, healed the souls of humankind, and emancipated our minds from age-old fears. He ministered to us addressing both our physical well-being and our material comfort. He lived the ideal religious life for the inspiration and edification of all within his universe.

The Supreme Values of Truth, Beauty and Goodness, belong exclusively to God. We are as fishers of men stationed along a highly intricate network designed and maintained by Our Heavenly Father. As we become authenticated; as the potentials of intellectual theology give way to actual faith; and as we come into alignment with the things, meanings and values that are the design criteria for His Universe, we will discover the keys to knowing His will in every situation.

So the next time you log into what has become known as the Internet, think about the world that Lucifer fell to. The next time you’re clearing the spam out of your mailbox, think about the deceitful practices we’ve come to accept as routine politics. The next time your electronic system freezes, think about how the tail of the dragon swept down a third of the stars from Heaven before he was bound and loosed again. And, the next time you endure a denial of service attack, get your browser hijacked or respond to an email that may or may not be from the person or institution listed as the sender, think about the value of a trusted source.

While the avowed atheist will seek some form of subjective gratification by confiding in postulates or getting in touch with his inner cookie, we can enjoy true objective satisfaction knowing the Kingdom of Heaven, our living, loving Heavenly Father is within us. We strike step with Eternity by looking to the One through Worship.

Jesus did not command us to fall into and out of some ethereal love when we feel like it. He instead commanded us to love one another as he loves us. It is our faith that informs our response to Divine leading as well as our grasp of universal values. When these become truly meaningful to us, we too can produce seed bearing fruit. The love, devotion, loyalty, fairness, honesty, hope, trust, mercy, goodness, forgiveness, tolerance and peace loving ways of the truly faithful combine in a spiritual fragrance that will unfailingly attract kindred souls. When we can thus enjoy spiritual unity without insisting upon theological uniformity, the fears and the defensiveness quickly dissolve. These are among the qualities we must develop, as individuals, if we are to advance along Eternity Road.

Full Transcript:

Net-neutrality is the most important First Amendment issue of our time. It is the principle that all information, moving throughout the internet, should be unfiltered, unimpeded, and equally accessible to consumers. Broadband providers are specifically prohibited from blocking or degrading content. This includes sites and services that compete against their own services.

California enacted a law in 2017, that reinforced this principle after Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Ajit Pai, a former in-house Verizon attorney, rolled back federal net-neutrality regulations. The Trump Justice Department immediately sued California to overturn its law. Broadband providers, through their trade groups, followed with a request for a preliminary injunction to stop the California law while the lawsuit wound its way through the courts.

On Feb. 23rd in 2021, Judge John Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The group of internet service providers had also brought suit in 2018 to stop the state law from going into effect. The judge’s ruling cleared the way for California to enforce its net neutrality law, thereby ensuring equal access to internet content.

The trade groups suing the state said in a joint statement that they were reviewing the court decision and deliberating next steps. But they argued against state laws that create a patchwork of regulations for broadband providers.” They said “a state-by-state approach to internet regulation will confuse consumers and deter innovation, just as the importance of broadband for all has never been more apparent.”

The enactment of the California law is a move that is sure to be followed by other states in the absence of unambiguous federal regulations that will insure the free flow of information without a dollar skew. Washington, Vermont and Oregon are among a handful of states that enacted similar laws after the federal rollback of the rules.

California’s attorney general, Xavier Becerra, said in a statement: “We applaud the court for affirming that California has the power to protect access to the internet.” He went on to say: “The ability of an internet service provider to block, slow down or speed up content based on a user’s ability to pay for service degrades the very idea of a competitive marketplace and the open transfer of information at the core of our increasingly digital and connected world.”

The Biden administration has made statements supporting the reinstatement of federal net neutrality rules. One month into the new administration, the Justice Department dropped its lawsuit against California’s law. The telecommunications industry’s request for a preliminary injunction was the last hurdle before that law could go into effect.

The California state senator who wrote the legislation, called the decision a victory. “The internet is at the heart of modern life. We all should be able to decide for ourselves where we go on the internet and how we access information. We cannot allow big corporations to make those decisions for us,” said Senator Scott Wiener.

Acting F.C.C. chairwoman, Jessica Rosenworcel, had fiercely opposed the agency’s decision in 2017 to scrap net neutrality regulations. Although she has not announced plans to reinstate federal rules, she is focused upon a mandate by Congress to bridge the digital divide for broadband access to low-income Americans. Shortly after the February 23rd court decision, the Acting Chairwoman tweeted: “Tonight a court in California decided that the state law can go into effect. This is big news for #openinternet policy.”

It bears repeating that states and municipalities have additional options to combat the industry’s assault on the First Amendment. The incumbent telecommunications companies have long lines that the upstarts do not. That mature infrastructure gives AT&T, together with the baby Bells, an unfair advantage if the long lines, stretched along railroad rights-of-way, are not regulated in accordance with common carrier statutes, as they were when what became the Bell System first gained access.

The extent to which municipalities also make public utility easements available to Internet Service Providers is clearly relevant in the context of Net-Neutrality. The Internet was created and funded to serve the public interest. First for defense, then for research, and eventually opening it up for commerce along with personal use. The Internet is a critical part of our nation’s communications infrastructure. The short-sighted gamesmanship of self-serving ISPs and politicians can have an adverse consequence related to the three flows of commerce and our country’s overall competitiveness.

One would hope that the courts will ultimately recognize the critical importance of net-neutrality but, if they don’t, any filtering, blocking, or impeding of content should be swiftly met with the state and local governments giving a more service motivated class of competitors superior access to the public utility easements and rights-of way.

Listen to the Audio and/or Subscribe to the Podcast

Full Transcript:

Is gasification a viable component of a sustainable future? Can a tractor mounted gasifier be used to supplement other forms of energy generation as it does its traditional tractor chores? Should the engine be diesel or gasoline? What kind of modifications are required? Can such an effort help us to keep on keepin’ on even when there are disruptions in the petroleum supply? As we continue our conversation with Dr. Richard Bates, we will discuss these issues and more.

Just prior to the publication of this briefing, a big ol’ container ship ran aground in the Suez Canal. For the better part of a week, it blocked the long supply line for a wide variety of goods including petroleum products. There are preppers among us that want the option of running completely off grid because of such eventualities. In this interview segment, Dr. Bates had suggested that old diesel engines could be dual fueled, using diesel for ignition and start-up and then switching to the gasification process for keeping it running. I wrote to Rick about the use of home-brewed bio-diesel within the dual fuel scenario. 

In his response he was careful to refer to the products of gasification as “producer gas” because people in alternative energy circles generally define biogas as it relates to methane mixtures that naturally emanate from biomass, typically manure. He also said it would be wise to caution potential users of biodiesel that some diesel engines, especially modern diesel engines, may have issues with do-it-yourself biodiesel. He suggested that, until the user knows just how their engine will react, to err on the side of caution and just run straight petroleum diesel while experimenting with a weak blend of biodiesel and petroleum diesel.

Full Transcript:

As his executioners were nailing his hands to the crossbeam, Jesus said: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

For those with questions about forgiveness and mercy in the absence of repentance, the big answers are, of course, found in prayer. And yet part of the answer is to be found in the definition and nurture components of mercy, for it is more than the forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one’s sphere of influence. It goes beyond the discretionary power of a civil magistrate to pardon someone or to mitigate punishment. Mercy can also be a simple act of compassion, or something that gives evidence of divine favor; merited or unmerited. It is truly a blessing and entirely consistent with Our Lord’s Gospel of loving-kindness.

As Jesus demonstrated on the cross, there is a higher quality of righteousness than justice. Jesus told us to minister to the sick, the fainthearted, and those bound by fear. As we share the Gospel, we help free those enslaved by evil. And we can do all of this unencumbered by any analysis paralysis or concern over judgment for excessive kindness because of the grace factor. Grace is, by definition, unmerited favor. Consider the words of Jesus: “Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me.”

Consider also, the example Jesus gave about the man who steals your coat. By the Master’s admonition, in our time we would likely give the thief a set of matching gloves and perhaps even a scarf for a dash of color. Now would we do this simply to keep from getting shot or is there a larger principle involved? I believe our act of kindness in the face of such evil is the Peacemaker’s equivalent of shock and awe. It would serve to challenge the righteousness of the self-centered thief. And even though it may not spur in him an instant conversion to altruistic hero, it also won’t support his notion that everyone’s in it for themselves. He has, at least, one unsettling example of a fellow human being acting unselfishly. Until he grows to understand your motivation, the unusual experience will be hard to reconcile in his mind.

Jesus said: “Freely you have received, freely give.” There appears to be no record of any requirement that we play Mother May I to go about doing good. And yet we have all seen the cartoon of a boy scout trying to help an elderly woman across the street only to have her beat him with her umbrella. We’ve experienced disappointment in situations where our charitable acts have failed to produce lasting improvement in the lives of those we’ve sought to help. But we are not called to micromanage the attitudes or the lives of others, for we know that a world without the possibility of unwise judgment would be a world without free intelligence.

If someone we are trying to help seems impelled, by the accumulation of emotional conflicts, to seek relief in unhealthy forms of self-expression; or if they persist in the unwise pursuit of destructive pleasures, it would be inconsistent with our loving service mandate to be a pit-stop along such a suicidal course. We are not required to cater to every indulgence or to support professional alms takers. When Jesus told us to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves, He was teaching us the value of discretion in the context of patience, tolerance, and forgiveness.

While we are not called to sit in judgment on the heart and soul of others, we can certainly respond to their outward expression. Jesus said: “By their fruits you shall know them.” The Gospel is about the value we each add to the living, growing family within the Kingdom of Heaven.

The ministry of mercy is, in essence, the choreography of the Spirit. Jesus described the role of the Spirit as one of helper, leader and comforter. Implicit to the Spirit’s ability to lead us into all truth are the powers of discernment and discretion required by anyone actively engaged in mercy ministry. When God calls us to a ministry, He makes provision which means He insures that we are appropriately equipped.

Jesus said: “This is my commandment, That you love one another, as I have loved you.” His is a wise parental love. And He demonstrates, even today, that the key to such wisdom is prayerful submission to the Father’s will. Through prayer we enjoy a clarification of viewpoint, an enrichment of thought, a technique for the adjustment of difficulties, and the opportunity to express our gratitude. When prayer moves us beyond a recital of personal concerns to become a declaration of faith and a sincere expression of spiritual attitude; when it transcends the petitioner’s repetitions and embarks on the discovery of higher inclinations, it transforms the soul for a mighty mobilization.

Our part in mercy ministry is to go where great things are waiting to be done; to set the stage for healing, to bring about opportunities for salvation. We are as notes in merciful chords of divine compassion. We know that God will not suffer a single person who calls on His name in true faith, and with a pure heart, to fail. And our merciful ministrations help to reveal the Father’s heart of love and compassion. The spirit techniques of mercy ministry may well be beyond our comprehension, but we can understand, even today, that mercy is essential to growth.

Full Transcript:

As federal, state, and local governments take a new look at what companies should have access to public easements and utility rights of way, they really should consider all the angles. Especially since common carrier, public utility, or natural monopoly status may actually be in flux. One factor to consider might be the array of cases where a part of our essential communications infrastructure, specifically Internet Service Providers (ISPs), have sued municipalities that wanted to deliver their own Internet services. Two of the biggest ISPs, the ones that orchestrated an attack on net-neutrality, and thereby the First Amendment, should re-commit to serving the public interest as common carriers.

They should obtain this re-classification in an above board manner. Not by means of the usual political sophistries, that only serve to make our “elected representatives” even less representative. In the meantime, they should not enjoy a presumption of unfettered access to public utility easements or rights of way without the common carrier classification.

American enterprises have historically benefitted from the commons. And those private enterprises, enjoying superior access rights to spaces secured through eminent domain, have obligations to insure they are serving the public interest. The bad actors among them would convert and monopolize the commons, intentionally ignoring the ways their gamesmanship works to the detriment of everyone else.

It may be through taking the concept of “natural monopoly” to illogical extremes. It may be through fouling the air and the water, offloading the cost of any real consequences to future generations. Or, it may be through the privatization of things originally built by the taxpayers or through their forbearance. The one thing that certain malign actors, within business, have in common is the extent to which they privatize gains while socializing expenses and losses. Consider these examples:

• The taxpayer invests tremendous amounts of money to insure vital research is conducted in the public interest. Then we watch helplessly as essential medicines, that have been in the public domain for decades, are deliberately made scarce so that certain manufacturers are unjustly enriched by gouging people who are in desperate need.

• The taxpayer funded the development of software that would allow them to file their taxes directly with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Then, companies that reverse engineer the software and want to be paid for providing those same services, covertly bribe politicians to prevent the funding public from using the web interface they already bought.

• The taxpayer funded the systems used by the National Weather Service (NWS) to develop forecasts and convey that information to the public. Then, companies that effectively duplicate the service work to prevent the NWS from disclosing it directly to the public. Consider how you might be affected if the one minute advanced tornado warning is free while the five minute one is only available to paying customers.

• A city makes a wide range of special accommodations available, including favorable tax treatment, so that a baseball franchise can build a stadium. Then, when the players go on strike, the same city is denied any role in the negotiations even though the value of their investment is diminished and the city is impacted financially by the work stoppage.

• A charitable hospital system is built, over the course of a century, while avoiding taxes on the income, the supplies, the land, and for use of the locality’s infrastructure. Then, when the institution is privatized, just how does the taxpayer get compensated for their forbearance, for the extra taxes we all paid because the hospital was built-out without paying any?

Of particular interest in the Net-Neutrality context is the extent to which municipalities make public utility easements available to Internet Service Providers. The Internet was created and funded to serve the public interest. First for defense, then for research, and eventually opening it up for commerce along with personal use. Now, as the individual ISPs become increasingly self-serving, they sue these same municipalities for any attempt to provide their Internet services directly to the public.

There is, at the time of this briefing, a legislative initiative that on its face proposes, and I quote: “to improve public access to Wi- Fi.” This is misleading, for the actual bill contains the following phrasing:“to prohibit a state or a political subdivision thereof from providing or offering for sale to the public retail or wholesale broadband Internet access service.”

While at least one major ISP has deliberately slowed the deployment of fiber infrastructure, the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee installed a fiber optic network in 2010. It is now celebrated as one of the best Wi-Fi services in the entire United States. UniNetworks.org lists 63 cities, across the country, with similar publicly owned fiber networks. Those cities have, at their disposal, a wide variety of options in the legal toolkit to defend their publicly owned network from the ravages of unbridled privatization. The principles clearly articulated, as the Internet was first created and funded by taxpayers, remain relevant today.

One would think those who feel they’ve been “taxed enough already,” would want a decent return on the taxpayer funded investments they already made.

Listen to the Audio and/or Subscribe to the Podcast

Full Transcript:

As we continue our discussion on gasification, we will now explore how it can help in leveraging the waste stream and insights gained by Dr. Bates from work with a municipality in an effort to avoid excessive disposal costs while generating some electricity. Can these lessons be applied to similar problems on a home scale? Can gasification play a role in both waste management and its elimination on the homestead?

We will discuss how gasification can help us to, not only reduce waste but top off our batteries while producing a useful byproduct called biochar. Here again is Dr. Richard Bates.

Once again, our conversation has returned to engine questions and specifically the problems associated with converting various engine types to make use of these different kinds of biomass. We will continue that discussion in Part 4.

Full Transcript:

While attention to detail is a good thing, every nurseryman will tell you, rot is often the result of over-feeding or over-watering. Now it may be useful to dwell on this particular axiom for a moment because it lends itself well to the case for and against micro-managing. At the risk of pursuing analogies that break down or the folly of subjecting parables to allegorical interpretation; I would point out that Jesus demonstrated a particular fondness for growth parables.

In the modern day nursery, young plants are routinely fed, watered on a precise schedule, and even enjoy supplemental lighting on cloudy days. The nursery temperature is carefully monitored and adjusted. Predatory insects are kept away. If the plant is mainly ornamental and destined for the indoors, it may live out its entire life without serious challenges to its own splendiferous array and luxurious growth. It is, in effect, bred to expect just the right amount of light, food, water and heat at precisely the right time.

If, on the other hand, the seedling is being raised for field service, for erosion control, reforestation or holding fast against the winds, it must successfully transition from the nursery to, what is in essence, boot camp in the form of a cold frame. Here the new recruit will itself have to dig in for nourishment, to establish and maintain its stance while reaching high for the nourishing rays of the sun. It must do all of this while subjected to randomized cycles of hot and cold plus less predictable lighting. It must elbow its way to the canopy top and overcome increasingly crowded conditions.

Now if we truly care about our charges, how can we consign them to such brutal conditions? If we are raising a family of hothouse orchids or other fragile flowers to occupy a fine tuned environment, little correction is ever warranted. We may run for the watering can at the first sign of a wilted leaf or panic at the first sign of an aphid attack. We may indulge the impulse to intervene at the first hint of adversity. But generally things will run smoothly and we can take great pride in our floral displays.

If however, we are raising our young charges to make their mark in the outside world well then, a hardening off must ensue. The nurturing infrastructure necessarily becomes increasingly competitive. As with the wheat and the tares, seedlings may be permitted to grow together so that the more desirable plants can develop superior disease resistance and the quality of endurance. As our fledglings become less perishable we worry less about how they will stand up against the onslaughts of time.

Likewise God is raising ruggedized human beings for service in the mission field, an arena of competing ideas. He has given us the chance to experience the thrill of victory in the face of temptations to default. And yet, this does not lessen our responsibility for exercising special care and attention during a child’s tender years. We must, of course, guard against any narcissistic tendencies and encourage the ascent of true character.

No courage is required of those immature souls that have aligned themselves with the popular, the rich, and the powerful. In contrast, mature adults can reasonably be expected to stand steadfast against the lure of superficiality, the ravages of licentious authorities and seduction by discredited principalities. It takes great amounts of moral fiber to avoid the pitfalls and speak truth to power. But we are seemingly submersed in a counter-culture that is designed to break down and digest that fiber. The decomposition enzymes in this case are the incessant yearnings of a glandular elite that wields great influence and offers very little in the way of common sense.

When such a culture becomes an indispensable part of a child’s nurturing environment, we have introduced a pathogenic predator into the nursery. Whether by the adolescent mentality of those indiscriminately parading, and thus cheapening, their libido; or by the purposeful designs of those who would undermine all that is true, beautiful and good; parents have a unique obligation to safeguard their children against all such corruptive influences.

Sowing seeds of self denial for some undisclosed but higher reality is the mark of maturity. Personal discipline is a key component to any reality based success. And it is the undying hope of all true parents that their children shall enjoy such a success. Good and bad habits take hold during the formative stages of growth. And no child should be burdened with having to overcome bad habits that were ingrained as part of a failed parenting strategy.

In the story of Job we encountered the unwise counsel of a self-indulgent Elihu who said: “I will speak, that I may be refreshed.” While free speech is a fundamental right, it can also be an unwise form of self-gratification. Fully engaged parents recognize the difference. Aloofness does not. Parental guidance informs a child’s values. Laxness does not. The practice of self mastery is a mark of superior parenting. Unbridled pleasure seeking is most certainly not. And, by their fruits you shall know them.