Why the sudden attack on alchohol?

So by now I'm sure you've heard that the research is in, and alcohol leads to cancer.  I first saw it announced last year, and since then almost every other week I've seen news stories about how more and more research is drawing a thick, straight line between drinking and cancer.  So much so that, as this story says:

"There really isn’t a safe level of drinking when it comes to cancer risk."

You see that?  There just isn't a safe amount of drinking where cancer is concerned.  This isn't the usual 'research says a glass of wine is good for you/research says a glass of wine is bad for you' that we're used to hearing.  No.  This is a growing, concerted, coordinated assault on alcohol in general.

So I ask myself - why?  Yes, cancer seems to be on the rise, though you never know. I've heard it is on the rise one day, then I'm told it isn't on another.  I do know many things are getting worse - food allergies and Alzheimer's/dementia are said to be increasing and at younger and younger ages.  That much I can see and don't need research to point out the obvious. 

But for some reason, the press and medical establishment have gone pit bull on alcohol. Which is strange.  Because the processing of alcohol in some parts of the world, and perhaps even here in the States, is one of the few things left whereby traditional, more natural and less synthetic and artificially created chemical processes and preservatives are used.  Why in an age of most foods being injected with endless chemicals or pesticides or processed in ways hell and gone from natural, it's wine and beer that is the target has me scratching my head.

I brought this up in response to yet another story about the dangers of all alcohol, and received a puzzling answer.  I was told in the US it's often not the case that alcohol is processed naturally today. I was told we use as much artificial and manufactured chemicals in processing drinks today as with any other food group.  But to me, that seems like the problem is the artificial processing, not the alcohol. 

Yet the stories keep rolling out.  Every other week or more frequently.  So I ask, why?  Especially since it's impossible for me to think that if alcohol, something that has been consumed for thousands of years, is suddenly a problem, the rest of what we're eating and drinking should be off the scale and met with even greater warnings.  Yet little is being said there, despite a year long wave of broadsides against alcohol and alcohol alone. 

I should note that, at the end of the above story, it does say there are many, many issues in the research that need addressed, and much that is not known.  That's something I guess.  It's just that since last year, this more than anything has become a major point across the news media and in the medical fields, and I can't help but wonder why.  

Let it be known, BTW, that I'm not being paid by beer or wine companies here.  Nor am I encouraging people to drink.  It's just that in our modern age of post-truth and post-integrity, when something like this comes out of the blue when it seems so out of joint with everything else going on, it makes me wonder what is up.  What are they up to, and why. 

This might come as a shock

But apparently this last winter was the hottest on record.

Which is a headline getting as common as the morning traffic report.  For quite some time, every month, ever season, every year, every week, every day seems to be the hottest on record ever.  

Even when summers have been mild or we have been hit with disastrously arctic level freezes as a year or so ago.  The headlines always read 'Last [insert here] hottest on record.'  Sometimes there's a qualifier, like hottest in US, or hottest in Europe, or hottest in a month with an R in it.  But always the hottest.  Always.

Why do I feel like there is something about this that doesn't seem right?  I mean, they must have the stats, the numbers, the data.  Yet call me too much of a skeptic, but I can't help but think the headlines and the accompanying meteorological data somehow aren't the whole picture.

Of course I could be wrong.  It wouldn't be the first time. 

Ventilators and Covid

I am not a doctor.  I run an informal blog where I just noodle about, reading this or that story, commenting with my feet propped up, blathering about what interests me.  I avoid my own areas of expertise because I just don't have time to do them justice. This goes triple for subjects like medicine or almost any science, law, auto mechanics, or ballet dancing - subjects that are well beyond my ability to speak to them even halfway credibly and not look stupid.  

But this story jumped out at me.  Sadly we know several who died from Covid.  That's why I don't make light of it.  I get the problems, the Covid regulations, the disaster that all these measures were and the lives shattered by them.  But the disease is still serious.

Nonetheless, a few weeks ago my wife and I were discussing these last couple years.  We thought of those who we know who died.  A few of them were already in medical facilities because they were suffering from serious, basically terminal, problems.  When her uncle died of Covid, I was shocked he was still alive.  He had about a half dozen serious and essentially fatal conditions.  

But something else came to us as we thought about the people we know.  Everyone who died was in a hospital.  Even if they went to the hospital only for Covid.  True, almost everyone we know who died had some serious aliment one way or another.  But whatever the case, they were all  in the hospital when they died.

On the other hand, we also know many who came down with Covid who didn't die.  In fact, almost everyone we know came down with Covid, including us.  It could be serious and some of us were hit hard by the symptoms.  But almost none of us went to the hospital.  I think only one we know of went to the hospital who didn't pass away.

Three we know had it bad.  Real bad.  Close to death bad.  This includes two close family members - one who was fully vaccinated and the other who wasn't vaccinated.  There were times we thought we were going to lose them.  But they stayed home and fought it off.  And both have medical issues, including one with serious respiratory limits.  Yet they didn't die. 

Everyone we know of who died died in a hospital.  I have no way of knowing if they were on ventilators or not.  I think one was, a young fellow who was a classmate of my oldest.  He went to the hospital early December and was on a ventilator through most of the month, sadly passing a week or so before Christmas.  Yet everyone we know who lived stayed put and stayed home.

I won't say I'm not trying to say something, because I clearly am.  We've watched as the medical community has fumbled the ball a dozen times with this.  And that's without the politics of it.  Just the initial promise of what the vaccinations would do versus what they actually seem to do - based on what we know right now - is staggering.  When my wife and I thought of this, and then I saw the above article, I must admit it did little other than reinforce our initial observations.  And suspicions. 

Johns Hopkins and the Covid Lockdowns

A study published this January, 2022. 

Here's the juicy parts (you can read the whole for yourself if that's your choosing);

This study employed a systematic search and screening procedure in which 18,590 studies are identified that could potentially address the belief posed. After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-placeorder (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies. An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. 

    *** 

The use of lockdowns is a unique feature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns have not been used to such a large extent during any of the pandemics of the past century. However, lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy. These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument. 

How about that.  Once more, not only were the "Experts" wrong, but they were wrong in what they tried to accomplish, while devastating people and society in the process. 

We're the most educated and informed generation in the history of humanity.  Yet our media corps have proven that no amount of education or access to information can withstand imposed propaganda.  As I've said, propaganda is for both the weak and the willing minded.  

Ignoring the latest

If this was written eight months ago it would be better.  Now Dr. Fauci and company are saying they're going a different direction with pursuing a 'universal Covid' vaccine.  Plus, multiple reports since last week say the two most protected groups are previously infected - vaccinated then, close behind, unvaccinated. That's unvaccinated and previously infected being safer than merely vaccinated.  Not to mention the current requirement for endless booster shots given in ever diminishing timespans to remain 'fully vaccinated'.   

All of this is an off handed way of saying 'the current approach hasn't worked as we imagined'. And it hasn't.  The difference between ICU and death with Omicron has dropped to as low as 64% unvaccinated to vaccinated in some reports.  And doctors admit that you're just as likely to get it and spread it if you're vaccinated or not.  Something our experience more than confirms. 

That's a far cry from '98% of hospitalizations are unvaccinated' from a year ago (remember, when it hits 50%, the vaccine officially becomes irrelevant).  And then we have the creeping number of severe side effects.  They have reduced promoting one vaccine (J&J) because of multiple confirmed deaths linked to it.  The others continue to see occurrences of severe side effect increasing, especially among younger recipients.  

In the end, with all that has developed and the underperforming of the initial rollout, you just can't keep saying 'Get the Shot!'.  You certainly can't compare such a flawed product as the current vaccines to the Sacraments.  Words fail me on that last one. 

Speaking of Fred Phelps discussing gay rights

I saw this Twitter thread from Fr. James Martin regarding vaccines:  

You can feel the contempt and refusal to listen.  That Fr. Martin seems to adopt the 'Science is 100% right 100% of the time' principle also appears clear.  Which is odd.  I don't expect science to always be right.  I know it's been shocking for people to watch the scientific community 'make the sausage' when it comes to Covid.  The scientific community has been wrong about many things since this virus first popped on the scene.  Yet our modern sloganeering about science, which is based on anything but science, has given people a false sense of what actual science is all about.  And it ain't about always being 100% right 100% of the time. 

Of course those who choose to be vaccinated, or wear masks, or social distance, or stay home are fine with me. I completely understand and I support their right to take care of themselves as they see fit.  But we now know that you can get Covid even when vaccinated, and you can spread Covid even when vaccinated,  especially with Omicron.  And based upon one report where 167 fully vaccinated and 157 unvaccinated were in the ICU due to Covid, it's appears the old 'plague of the unvaccinated' slogan might be dead on arrival. As have so many claims made since the beginning of the Covid era. 

Therefore the decision to vaccinate is increasingly a decision for yourself and yourself alone.  To deny the obvious means you're only willing to deny the obvious, not 'follow the science'. And that makes me wonder how concerned you really are about the science, or vaccines, or even the people involved. 

Whatever the case, I'm glad he's not our priest.  I don't think I knew a Protestant fundamentalist pastor with such contempt for those in his church who wouldn't agree with him.  I wonder if that's what Pope Francis is thinking when he calls out fundamentalism. Nah. 

On the other hand, there is always hope:

Hardcore vaccine proponent Deacon Greydanus draws the line at dancing on the graves of the unvaccinated.  The call to whip it out and piss all over dead people who dared question the latest infallible science gets a Barthian Nein!  

I would have liked it if Deacon Greydanus actually admitted that some of the advocates for his side can be pretty wretched to the core.  After all, I notice how easy it is for some to find a single case of crazy opposition to the vaccines and use it to paint everyone who questions the vaccines the same color. 

Nonetheless, I'll take it.  Proud of Deacon Greydanus for calling out wretched, especially when it's someone clearly on his side.  Even if he doesn't go to great lengths to portray it that way. 

Life in the world of Sciencedom

Merlin gets it

The one God comes to drive out the many gods.  The spirits of wood and stream grow silent.  It's the way of things.   Excalibur, 1981. 

So said Merlin in the movie Excalibur.  One of many old tropes in which the Enlightened march of Christianity and the Western way came to drive out the barbarism and paganism of the old world.  

Well, let's try that now given developments over the past few years:

Science comes to drive out the old Christian god.  The spirits and demons grow silent.  It's the way of things. 

I'd say that's accurate.  Whether it should be accurate or not isn't my concern.  But I'd say it is accurate for our time.  Science is, in many ways, the default god of our time; science is the religion, science is the church, and scientists are the priesthood.  

Whether or not they should be, or science is really this and not is irrelevant.  I'd wager in the minds of many - perhaps most - Westerners, this is the fact.  Science long ago dispelled religion as an archaic superstitious attempt to answer questions of the world.  Science is now the answer to everything. 

Certainly people outside the Faith hold this view and are open about it.  Science and scholarship utilizing the methods of science have long debunked ancient religious myths and folktales.  Moses, David, and Jesus are now no more real than leprechauns, minotaurs and banshees.  The spirit world has faded into nothing but viruses and molecules, and everything that was explained by the spirit world is now explained by science. 

That's the non-believer.  Within the halls of the faithful, many have more or less accepted this at face value as well, with the caveat that there's still God of sorts, and eternity is as good as always.  But in most cases, the Bible is no more than a collection of myths and fairy tales no different than the Aeneid or the Iliad.  More than one of my old liberal Protestant colleagues held to such a viewpoint. 

Others, of course, don't go so far.  But they'll certainly concede that science has opened up an entirely new way of seeing things.  Gone is Jesus casting out demons.  Epilepsy you see.  Gone are Adam and Eve.  Those are just ancient representations of some vague moment when our ape ancestors evolved into the current version of humanity.  Gone are many old tales that clearly came from a primitive past outside of the realm of scientific inquiry and our modern knowledge of how things really work.  

And those are the faithful Sunday to Sunday believers who still hold to the physical Resurrection or the Virgin Birth.  It's just other parts of the Christian vision of the world they're willing to rewrite or dismiss as ancient tales from an ancient world perspective because, well, Science. 

So given that, it hasn't been difficult for this new age of Science to become the new religion.  An age of Sciencedom you might say.  And like being a pagan in old Christendom, being a Christian in Sciencedom is becoming increasingly difficult.  Sure, it took some time for the Christian faith to eliminate most vestiges of old pagan beliefs.  It's taken less time for Sciencedom to do the same thing to a growing list of Christian beliefs.

What about those who have been the faithful, who have clung to the reality of people walking on water and rising from the dead and crossing Red Seas?  Given the speed with which so many of them are now throwing out old priorities, old moralities, old teachings on everything from the nature of humans to the exclusivity of the Gospel message to traditional Christian morals, it makes you wonder just how much they really had resisted the new gospel of Science after all.  

Again, I'm not saying this is what science is, or that science should be used this way, or that it's an affront to science or not.  Nor am I saying it was the fault of science and it was science that made a bunch of devout believers question everything.  

I know full well that many in high places of Western intelligentsia were already questioning even the existence of the One God long before Industrialization came into play.  It could be that the faith has been wavering for a while, and now that the institutions of Sciencedom are beginning to push harder, we're seeing just how many had remained faithful to the old time religion, and just how many had already begun to lose faith. 

Vaccines and us

We haven't received our Covid vaccines.  We are not antivaxers.   We have had our children vaccinated as a matter of course over the years.  And yet we haven't received the Covid vaccine.  There are many reasons for this in our thinking, but let me set the stage for you when it comes to our thinking.  What we bring to any discussion of a vaccine, and what is on our mind always where medications and vaccinations are concerned, is as follows. 

First, years ago we gave our second oldest son, who had a few health problems early on, an over the counter med when he was little. He ballooned up and broke out in a rash.  We asked his then-pediatrician about it. She insisted the reaction couldn't have been that particular medicine.  Reactions to that cold medicine do not look like that.  Therefore the next time he got sick, we gave him that medicine again.  Once again, he reacted the same way.  Once again she insisted that the side effects of that particular medication do not react in such ways.  We found a different doctor and stopped giving him that particular medicine.  He's had no such reactions since. 

Second, years ago after my mom was living with us, she went to get her annual flu shot.  We never got the flu shot because we seldom got the flu.  And I knew plenty who got the flu shot who ended up getting the flu.  So in our family, despite not being antivax, we passed each year on the flu shot.

Mom didn't, however, and received her shot.  That very night her shoulder went completely lame.  It ached and she was in much pain, being unable to use her shoulder where she received the shot.  We took her to the doctor the next day and asked how the shot could cause that.  He said it couldn't.  That is not a side effect of any flu shot.  We went to an expert, and the expert insisted the same thing, that it was merely a sudden flare up of severe arthritis.  I said that may be true, but the morning before her shot she didn't have any problems.  

True, years earlier she had something happen and to this day nobody knows what.  Doctors said it was everything from a stroke to shingles.  But since then, her shoulder and arm were generally back to normal until she had the flu shot that afternoon.  Nonetheless, they insisted the two were not connected.  It may have been a flare up owing to the condition she had some years earlier, but it was simply a coincidence that it became bad on that particular day.

Finally, my oldest son was on track to be a gourmet chef because of his love for - and abilities with - cooking.  He had done some basic education at a local community college owing to his white privilege.  Before he transferred, his doctor - wrongly - told him that to go to any university would require his vaccines be up to date, including his flu shot.  He explained we didn't get that shot normally, but the doctor - former doctor - pressed him.  So he, alone among all of us, got his first flu shot along with updating a couple other vaccines.  

A few months later we were eating at a restaurant and he began to choke.  We thought perhaps he was eating too fast.  He managed to get it down and my wife drove him home while the rest of us finished.   We thought no more of it.  Some months later, we had friends over and he planned on cooking a fine salmon dinner for us.  While bringing the dishes out to us on the deck, he looked like hell.  He face was swollen, he was having a difficult time breathing.  One of our friends was a nurse and she recognized immediately a severe food allergy reaction.  We were able to use  meds at hand to reduce the symptoms.  We then took him to the doctor and an allergist and they diagnosed him with a severe fish allergy.  Since we didn't eat fish that often unless it's Lent, it took us time to see this development.

We pointed out that he had never had anything close to a reaction to fish or any food.  We also pointed out that we first saw this only after he received that battery of vaccines at his doctor's insistence.  Nonetheless, they said these things were in no way connected.  There was no reason to think his sudden, and debilitating, food allergy is in any way connected to the vaccines.

So that's our experience.   Not once has anything gone wrong with us from getting vaccines.  We know this because every doctor, specialist and medical expert has insisted it hasn't.  Dumb, blind luck and cosmic coincidence, but no connection.   Causation and correlation after all. 

My mom has been unable to use her arm since then.  Furthermore, it was her inability to use her arm that led to her falling, which led to a near death emergency that, among other things, hastened her dementia as such medical crises often do.  

My oldest had to give up on a culinary career. No culinary school or restaurant would hire a chef who could die in the kitchen from simply smelling fish or fish ingredients.  He can't go to a random restaurant, but must call ahead to make sure they don't serve fish.  No trips to the beach, aquariums, or anything with the smell of fish in the air.  He can't be around if a coworker brings fish for lunch.  He can't even be in a Walmart supercenter if they are cleaning the seafood department, even if he stands on the other side of the store, without developing symptoms. 

Yet none of this is connected to vaccines, because the experts assure us they aren't.  We are not antivaxers, and have always made sure our boys were up to date with all of the essentials.  But we are also skeptical.  We are skeptical because nobody seemed the least bit interested in looking at even the possibility that, say, a modern flu shot could trigger a reaction they don't expect.  Even as, according to a BBC article a few years ago, food allergies are exploding exponentially since the 1990s, they're sure there is no connection.  More than that, they don't seem interested in even entertaining the possibility.

If that's the case with these, could it not be the case with the Covid vaccine?   We've known many who received their shots.  Most have had no major problems, only the usual shot reaction.  A few became sick, a couple very sick.  Two we know had emergencies and had to rush to the ER.  One has developed a blood clot.  

Then again, we know several who have tested positive for Covid.  To this day, only a couple had the slightest symptoms.  Most who were found to have Covid had no symptoms at all.  From younger to older, you wouldn't know they had anything.  Some looked healthier than I am while they had it.  

None of this is to say I recommend not getting the Covid vaccine.  We're still on the fence.  I'm not saying we never will, but this might explain why we're a bit hesitant.  And that's with vaccines in general.  With Covid, misinformation is an added problem, including the kind you find on social media.  The inconsistency of messaging that has defined the Covid era also doesn't help.  Plus it's impossible for me not to see that with Covid there might be medical considerations in what we are told, but you can't miss the politically motivated considerations that appear just as important.

The ghosts of Covid

By, of all things, CNN.  I read through this, chuckled, sighed and rolled my eyes.  It's a propaganda piece for Covid of course, telling about cases where those who died due to Covid have been reaching out from beyond the grave to their loved ones.  Not that I have a problem with the premise itself, but that it's soooooooo wrapped around Covid Press is the difficult part to stomach. 

Naturally CNN, being CNN, has to believe that unless a lab-coat-science-guy can label it, it's not credible. Sadly, that seems to be many church leaders', and church traditions', approach.  Assume more or less an atheistic model of the universe, primarily material, explainable by science and only science ,,, but if that doesn't work then spirit and miracles stuff is a nice fallback. 

With rising suicides, drug abuse, depression, diseases, cancer rates among younger and younger age groups, dementia and Alzheimer's being found among younger and younger age groups, food allergies skyrocketing, and a plethora of other ailments and syndromes being diagnosed, you'd think we'd question this dogged veneration of STEM and the latest Research (TM).  

More than that, as we look at the last half century of applying 'science and research' to all of our problems, and see rising rates in these and other problems - not to mention how often the latest 'revelation by the 'experts' turns out to be dismissed by generations of later experts - we might want to consider the possibility that STEM isn't the end all answer to everything.  

Maybe mental health is a lucrative industry, but a poor substitute for religious devotion and spiritual enlightenment.  And perhaps there are parts of Creation, both visible and invisible, beyond the reach of STEM, lab coats, modern scholarship and the "experts", opening up the door for religion to step in and reassert itself.  You'd think, wouldn't you. 

The missing Covid X-Variable

Can we admit we have no clue about Covid?   There is clearly something missing in the 'how to survive Covid' equation.  We were talking about our governor, Mike DeWine, a couple days ago.  Last year, early in the pandemic, his little Covid dream team came out to explain why the need to do lockdowns and social distancing and masks and all.

One thing DeWine kept bringing up was the early 20th Century's Spanish Flu.  He had little charts showing us all the states that took immediate, and at times draconian, measures to combat the flu, and which ones didn't.  It was a pretty simple chart that showed those states that took action had lower rates of flu deaths, while those that didn't had higher.  Pretty simple stuff.

But here's the problem.  I notice with Covid, there is no such easy chart to plot when it comes to anti-Covid measures and Covid cases and Covid deaths.  States that have instituted draconian measures have, in some cases, led the pack when it comes to deaths and infections and hospitalizations.  On the other hand, some states with the most brutal measures to combat Covid have had much better results.  Same with those states that have maintained loose responses to fighting Covid.  The same goes for countries from what I can tell, but those numbers seem difficult to pinpoint.

In fact, all we need do is look at now.  While more Americans than ever are being vaccinated, the numbers in Covid cases and hospitalizations are rising.  Or so they say.  What's that even mean?  How are the vaccines helping if that is the case?  Or do they say it would be worse if we weren't vaccinated?  That's always an easy claim.  Sure millions died because of this idea we tried, but billions may have died otherwise.  I don't know.  I don't even know how the vaccines help, how often they have to be boosted, and we can't - despite statements to the contrary - know of any long term effects yet. 

And then there is Texas, which sent shockwaves through the media a month or so ago by announcing it would lift all statewide Covid restrictions.  Based on what everyone said, this would usher in a tsunami of Covid cases and restart the entire pandemic.  But last I looked, it appears Texas is actually not seeing the same spikes as other states where restrictions are still quite harsh.

All of this suggests to my layman's eyes that there is something else about Covid we don't know. There is something else that is the real variable showing why people get infected.  A missing information link if you would.  Likewise, there could be other variables behind why some get Covid and never know they had it, others die, and still others are wrecked by debilitating side effects of having the virus.  Granted, not knowing could be a reason to take immediate action, if we knew or could in any way see exactly what actions did what, and which ones worked and which ones didn't. 

Again, we don't know. While there are plenty who no doubt are willing to let millions of lives be ruined so they can stay safe, it becomes troubling when you consider their lives are being ruined for what may prove to be no real purpose.   Not that we should do nothing.  If only 10% of deaths attributed to Covid in the United States were in fact a direct result of Covid, that's still a mighty bad flu season.  Bad enough that the decent thing to do would be do what we can.

But there's a difference between saying do what we can, and mandating controlled responses that have seen skyrocketing drug abuse rates, crime rates, suicide rates, depression rates, not to mention millions of lives thrown upside down.  And we won't even get into the millions of small business owners who don't care about poor people in the third world.  Some of them may never be able to get back on their feet again.  In fact, we may be seeing the first time in which the means to combat an epidemic may cause problems that outlast for years the pandemic they were supposed to fight.  It certainly warrants more of an answer than the usual variations on 'shut up and obey' that we've heard for the last year. 

For a disease that we still clearly know little about, and that has significant variables not accounted for in the calculations about its spread and impact, that begins to be a troubling development.  That despite the gaping holes in our knowledge, we make daily, sometimes contradictory, pronouncements with the assurance of a Jonestown resident.  At least for anyone who doesn't strut under the mantra that there is no end to the suffering and dying I'm willing to allow so that I may be safe and happy, that should be a troubling observation. 

Salvation through vaccination

Or Franciscan University blasphemes the gospel of STEM.  At least supposedly. At least Franciscan University - a much loathed and hated university among the always enlightened and tolerant Catholic Left and former conservatives - declined to have the university host a vaccine site.  

We know this is bad because since then, dozens of positive Covid cases have occurred.  This wouldn't have happened if they had offered the vaccine site.  We know that because more and more people than ever have been vaccinated while Covid rates have been on the rise.  That, however, is due to variants in the Covid virus, which seem either to be addressed by the vaccines or not addressed.  In any event, we know the vaccines are doing their job because rates were alternately rising and shrinking before the vaccines, unlike now when they have been steadily rising. 

Which is why everyone should be vaccinated, so we can get back to almost normal.  Though we may still need to social distance, avoid non-BLM mass gatherings, and perhaps continue to wear face masks.  This being because not everyone has been vaccinated, or perhaps we may still need to anyway.  

Nonetheless, vaccines obviously work and they are completely safe.  There were a couple cases of blood clots in women that may be linked to the vaccines but those are the only problems.  Oddly enough, in our family we personally know three individuals who had severe reactions not connected to having received the vaccines, including one elderly woman who had to be rushed to the emergency room, again in no way connected to the vaccination she received. So it's appalling that Franciscan University hates Science.  

For our part, we haven't been vaccinated.  That's because we're frothing at the mouth, anti-Science, anti-Vaccers.  Or, it's because after we watched the elderly lady rushed to the ER - the mother in law of a doctor who went to our former church no less - we reasoned my own Mom, at the tender age of 90 and, while healthy, not up to fending off what that woman went through, might not fare so well. 

In addition, owing to his white privilege, my oldest son still lives with us while going through college,.  He can't have the vaccinations because at least one of the vaccines could kill him, since he developed a fatal seafood allergy not related to the flu vaccine he received weeks before developing the allergy out of the blue.  While we only know of one Covid vaccine brand for sure that could kill him, we're not sold on the idea that other vaccines addressing the same problem could be any safer.

Since that's two who live with us who don't feel comfortable getting the vaccine for the sake of their health, we've concluded that, as of now, the rest of us getting the vaccine won't help, unless we throw the other two out on the street or lock them in the attic.  

True, we could just get them anyway, since except for six women with blood clots, not a single serious reaction has been documented.  But again, we're till waiting to see.  Dr. Pope Francis has said we should, and I know that carries more weight than Franciscan University.  After all, as Bill Nye has shown us all, to have any degree or classes in any science discipline is to be an expert in them all. 

Nonetheless, despite it all, we're still waiting and seeing.  Why Franciscan University did what it did I don't know, but I'm sure the reasons were most evil.  That's because anyone who questions the vaccines or fails to conform 100% to the latest demands of the Experts can only be both stupid and the most reprehensibly evil.  And that, kids, is what's called smart thinking in the 21st Century. 

Why I'm waiting on the whole 6% news about Covid

What's that?  The news reported that only 6% of those who have died of Covid died only with Covid.  The other 94% had various other conditions, ailments, or comorbidities (a new addition to the breakfast table lexicon this year).  

In other words, 94% of those who die have something else.  That's all that means.  In fact, it probably means not much more to the medical pros from Dover.  It just means 6% certainly died of Covid since they had nothing else.  The other 94% had something else as well.  Whether they developed the other conditions because of Covid, had it before hand and Covid exacerbated their other conditions, or they just died of the other conditions and only coincidently had Covid is not mentioned.

Now this isn't actually news.  Truth be told, and I hate to break it to people, but "Science(TM)" doesn't always know everything.  It doesn't even know what our pop culture narrative assumes it knows (which is usually close to everything).  Nor is there some magical science room where all the stats and all the proof of all the facts in the universe are kept and we can just go in, open a file, and there's the answer!  Nope.  

Fact is, one thing we've learned during all this is just how limited and often ignorant of things scientists can be.  So far, most of what they've come up with - aside from the technological equipment that can help keep people alive - is what pioneers in the 19th century probably would have figured out: if you get sick, take care of yourself, avoid others, try not to spread it, and if it gets bad get to the doctor. Everything else is still up in the air, or the science has proven to be wrong, or they just don't know yet. The same goes for most academic and scholarly disciplines, but right now we're just doing science as it relates to C19. 

So it's nothing to see that there isn't an exact count of how many actually died of the Flu in a given year.  Or AIDS. That's another common one.  You'll get how many died, but then you'll often have a little asterisk that says the numbers are likely much higher, but it's tough to tell if it's AIDS or something else the individuals died from. 

Now, if I had something to ask, it would be why it hasn't been until now that this has become a thing.  I wouldn't be like the good deacon above and flippantly dismiss it.  I would like to know why in other cases, when there could be many causes behind a person's death, we often only get the most restrained reporting of numbers regarding those who clearly died of the ailment in question.  Why, for instance, do we hear that 7K to 9K Americans die of AIDS, and only see in the footnotes that the numbers could be much higher, but we don't know?  Why isn't that how Covid-19 is reported: "There have been over 10,000 deaths from Covid-19 in the US, but when considering co-morbidities and other compromising conditions the numbers are likely much higher."? 

Why we wonders?  That's what I would like to know.  Perhaps it would be nice knowing if that discrepancy is common (6% vs. 94%).  I mean, is it usually that big of a difference?  But if I had one question at a microphone in a town hall, that would be my question.  Why the difference in how Covid versus other infectious diseases is being reported where deaths are concerned?

Where the Aliens are

Michael Flynn of the TOF Spot is back, which is always great news.  He has taken on the old notion of strange lifeforms and weirdos from other planets.   Read it here.  I'll leave his excellent post to speak for itself.

I will mention this bit, however, which leaped out at me:

What a waste! All that great big honkin' universe out there and we're all there is? But, why should there be anyone else in the universe, regardless of its size? How many dandelion seeds are scattered to make a single dandelion? How many stone chips litter the workshop to make one statue? Why should it not take a universe to make a world? If the mass of the universe were much less, it would have expanded into vichyssoise long ago. If it were much greater, it would have collapsed back on itself before anything could get started. This is how big a universe must be to make galaxies, stars and petunias, whether one world or a gazillion be inhabited.

One of my growing gut feelings is that the Church has been dropping the ball for some time.  Not that it ever navigated this sod well without messing up.  We are fallible humans in a fallen world after all.  But in recent years, the Church has gone left when it should have gone right on very fundamental notions of, well, reality.  And it has been doing this for quite some time.

Part of this is because of the clout that the whole rationalist Enlightenment era had and the boost this new science based approach to everything received from the Industrial Revolution.  In only a couple generations, the world suddenly had things that for a zillion years were not even in the dreams of madmen.  That seemed enough to say that we were clearly in a new phase in the history of humanity.  There was pre-modern, and now there was modern where we would get smarter, better, and discover how wrong everyone was all along.

Somewhere in all of this, the Church began a 'keeping up with the Jonses' approach to things.  It assumed the basic ideas behind the infallibility of progress and the ever improving lives which we had as a result.  Gradually, it seemed to accept this silly notion that us Christians clinging to our old religious worldviews were just the simple types, and it was those brilliant scientists, experts, and scholars who would show us the way.

And it wasn't only Catholics.  Heck, I have an old  Biblical Archaeology magazine from back in the 1990s where this was actually a debate.  Even that late in the game, the two sides were over whether Christians should take at face value the theories and conclusions of non-believers or not.  One side said no, but there was an opposite side that took the idea that only non-believers are truly objective and fair and unbiased.  And that was in the 90s, when such a blind faith in the objectivity of anything human was already crumbling.  Think of what it must have been a few generations earlier.

So we more or less accept a secular, atheistic spin on - everything.  Even a Catholic exorcist said that the Church makes sure there is no 'material' explanation before plunging into the whole 'spiritual warfare' phase of the exorcism.  That is, assume a material universe with material rules and explanations for material problems.  If that doesn't work, then God stuff.  Matter here, spirit otherwise over there. 

That very dichotomy is the stuff of the non-believer. Yet I'd bet most Christians accept it as well.  We go, sometimes by guidance, with the idea that anything and everything can be handled by the experts, but if that doesn't work, then get to prayer.

But consider that above.  Beyond the atheistic theories about parallel universes and dimensions, most say our universe is so vast that it demands other lifeforms.  But why?  Maybe as God created the material aspects of Reality (the smaller and less significant parts to be sure), perhaps this vast universe is exactly all that is needed to  produce a single rock upon which life develops.  Assuming  we take at face value all the latest theories about the origins of life and evolution and all, why not think this?  Maybe we were the focal point all along, and the universe God made simply required a universe that we see in order to make it happen.  You never now (and it may be we never will).

I'm not saying science is all wrong or we need to go back to caves.  Or that we put the kibosh on medical science.  Or we get rid of toilet paper.  Heaven forfend!  I merely point out that there is a large gap between what we think all the experts and scientists and researchers know, and what they know.  Beyond that, there is also not a level playing field when it comes to benefits and payoff for many of the great advancements and leaps forward in knowledge and practical living that we've come to take for granted.  The same leaps that seem to have given the secular such clout in the modern mindset.

For instance, science and experts and researchers and scholars have all shown us new things, and discovered things and solved problems and helped us know things we never knew.  And yet, conversely, they have also helped us forget things that people knew for much of the first period of human history.  From a Christian point of view, that includes forgetting, or at least struggling to remember, the spiritual reality that dwarfs the mere physical universe we love to ogle when the latest Nova special is on PBS.

One of the byproducts of the Church's acquiescing to a materialist model of Creation with some added spiritual stuff is the thought that there is a dividing line a billion miles wide between material and spiritual, no matter how Sacramental we say we are.  You see it still.  Some scientist, or not a few theologians, will chuckle that we no longer think the milk spoiled because of demons.  I've heard that said many times in various forms over the years.  It shows how much smarter and knowledgeable we are than those goofy superstitious people of yore.

But consider this.  Those old timers may have thought that about spoiled milk, but just because we know how the spoilage occurs, does that mean it is therefore shorn of any spiritual linkage?  Plus, as far as those silly old timers with their stupid superstitions, how about us?  Whatever they believed about milk or other foods spoiling, they generally knew how to keep things like that from spoiling nonetheless.  

How are we, us super smart science era types, on that  level?  Our foods are preserved only by adding endless artificial preservatives and synthetics and chemicals, none of which have anything to do with the increasing rates of cancer food allergies we're experiencing.  Those silly old timers were quite capable of doing what we can't do, and all while doing it naturally.  That's the ones who thought the world we see is just a small part of the greater heavens and spiritual realms that were present everywhere and in everything they experienced.

You be the judge.

Thank goodness parents are not spanking their children

Before our kids developed the mass murder approach to problem solving

Yep.  Apparently, once again we find that fewer parents than ever are spanking their kids.  That number has been dropping for decades.  The majority of parents 50 years ago spanked and used other forms of traditional means for raising children.  By the 1990s, that number had hit the halfway point, being around 50%.  Today, it's down to about 35% of parents still spanking.

And isn't the world a better place for it! The world of doctors and experts rejoice, of course, for they have been preaching for years that parents should not use negative reinforcement, but should use positive reinforcement.  You know, the Time Out approach. 

Here's my thing.  As I've said in other areas, I believe never before have those who would reclaim a traditional understanding of Creation, and its subsequent values, had the chance to make the argument like today.  Consider this. These 'experts' in child behavior laud parents for listening to them and changing traditional wisdom where raising children are concerned.  And in what context do they do this? 

That would be a world where drugs and drug addiction, in addition to mental health crises, among youth and children are at all times highs.  A world in which teen suicide is at its highest rates ever, and for the first time suicide is a leading cause of death for children as young as ten years old.  Did you get that?  Suicide is now a leading cause of death for children as young as ten!  That's my youngest's age.   We won't even discuss that we are having a national dialogue about arming teachers because of the all too common mass murdering happening in our schools between students.  Nor does it count the rise in violent crimes in general among our youth. 

It takes a certain level of moxie to say 'ever since you've listened to our new game plan, we've had one losing season after another ... great job!'  But that's just what is happening here.  And it's happening beyond just the world of child psychology.  How many things today are we told the experts have been right about that a plain and common sense appraisal screams otherwise?

My wife and I say that nothing makes you question the 'child experts' more than having kids fourteen years apart.  When our youngest was born, it seemed as if half of the things those experts told us we must do for our newborns in the 90s were the opposite by 2009.  The most glaring was the idea in the 90s that newborns must be forced to sleep on their sides to avoid death by SIDS (that's Sudden Infant Death Syndrome - meaning babies die and we don't know why).  When our youngest was born, they said newborns should be forced to sleep on their backs to avoid death by SIDS.  We brought up putting him on his side and were told no way, that could be fatal.  So what could kill our newborn in 2009 is just what you told us we had to do in 1995? 

We still live in the 'scientists, experts and researchers rock!' world where we assume coffee must be bad for you since the new research suggests last week's research about the health benefits of coffee is wrong.  And we do that with, well, everything.  Not just medical, not just behavioral, and not just dealing with children.

I'm not saying grab clubs and start beating you kids.  To be honest, I've seldom spanked our kids, saving it for the most extreme punishment for potentially life and death violations on their parts.  For that matter, I seldom yell or raise my voice.  But is it possible that at least something has gone wrong in our approach to  child rearing?   Certainly it wouldn't only be this one subject.  For instance, I'm not saying we ignore the impact of both mom and dad scurrying into the workplace and letting minimum wage workers raise our kids in their formative years and the impact that could have.  But is it worth at least considering the possibility that following the experts on this hasn't led to a better world for our kids? 

Or is it just Trump's fault?  I guess it could be that.

When science is fun

This is cool, close up photos of the sun that are closer than we've ever seen.  It's fascinating, but also a reminder of just how much we don't know about the things we've discovered over the years.

How to reclaim the world for the Gospel

Easy.  Stop acting like the World is always right about everything, but on those rarest of occasions where it might drop from perfection, then God stuff.

This Saint day website I visit had this nifty insight as it reflected on today's feast of Saint Camillus de Lellis:

Are you sick and in need of healing? Do you realize that you can lay hand on yourself, family, friends and call on Jesus with faith to heal . This should be the first step before going to the hospital. Medications and hospitals are gift of God to mankind. They should be used with deep gratitude to God.  Jesus is still active in the healing ministry and testimonies abound.

You see that?  Lay on hands as a first order?  I'm sure they don't mean if you're pinned under a truck or your arm just got sliced off by a lawnmower.  Though I don't know. 

I've become more convinced than ever that the Church's 'keep up with the worldly Joneses' approach has allowed endless seeds of doubt and confusion to be sown in the minds of the faithful for generations.  It's even to the point where a Catholic exorcist says that the  Church assumes a purely  materialistic, atheistic explanation for problems and if that fails, then we go demon and angel.

That hasn't worked, and it reflects poorly on the spiritual Creation that Christianity proclaims.  For Christianity proclaims God and God's Creation, the Holy Trinity, and the whole of the human person made in God's image and alive in his Creation, which includes that one aspect of Creation we call the universe.  Letting the godless and the secularist have the wheel has allowed us to assume the secular view that the vast, eternal universe is all that and a bag of chips, and then maybe spirit stuff (but probably not). 

So there you have it.  I won't make prescriptions about just when you should default to the laying on of hands before consulting the medical doctors of the day.  But just the fact that someone says it as such a matter of course was worth noting. 

Yes NASA fudged Climate data

So says Snopes. Snopes is, like most media today, a partisan outlet promoting its agendas and ideologies.  In Snopes' case, it does so under the guise of 'fact checker.'  That is, it takes a story and then rates it as True, False or something in between.  The assumption is that it is the neutral judge, the referee looking at the instant replay to determine the real truth behind various stories or political pronouncements.

So we had a blog cycle of people jumping on a story that suggests NASA was faking climate data.  The stories claimed that NASA had been caught 'red handed' in the scam.   Now, I'm no scientist, so all the delving into the facts doesn't really help me.  You might as well have people arguing over Sanskrit as to argue the numbers about Global Warming.

But since Snopes took up the cause to assess the claim's validity, I thought I would see if there is something there there.  Turns out, Snopes smacks the claim down with a resounding False!.  NASA did not fake the data, according to Snopes.  Or, I should say, according to an initial reading of Snopes.

Once I read through the article, however, I saw how Snopes did it.  Basically, per Snopes, the claims are true.  And they are what both advocates and critics have admitted for some time.  Climate data is not based on a thermometer on every square foot of the planet recorded and analyzed every day for the last five billion years.  It's based on data collected at particular places around the world, based on records that date only to about 150 years ago, and laden with assumptions and guesses to fill the gaps.

Think of that scene in the movie Jurassic Park, when the cartoon is trying to explain DNA cloning to an uneducated audience.  It says the DNA for the dinosaurs was extracted from fossils, particularly mosquitoes trapped in tree sap.  The DNA, however, was incomplete.  Therefore the DNA of other animals had to be fit into the DNA gaps to make a complete DNA strand (and therein lies at least some of the mischief in the Jurassic Park mythos).

Same thing here.  We don't have some magical science box that takes the temperature of every square foot of Planet Earth, analyzes it, and says 'Thus will the world be in a hundred years.'  We have very sparse data in some cases, sometimes inconclusive data, and data that could potentially be impacted by certain conditions - such as data collected deep in major metropolitan areas that tend to be warmer on average than more rural areas.  Everyone knows it.  Everyone admits it.  Scientists then step in to improvise where gaps or certain inconsistencies might arise.

And that's where Snopes focuses.  It's not saying the data wasn't tweaked or embellished or even flat out added to.  It was, and Snopes admits it.  It's saying the story is false because nobody was caught 'Red Handed'.  All of this was already out there.  There was nothing being caught.  And since Snopes accepts the obvious truth of Global Warming and, like Pope Francis, apparently assumes the purity of heart and intellectual efficacy of Global Warming advocates, that's all we need to know.

Here's the thing.  Perhaps the story is false in the usual 'Ten reasons Climate Change is a lie, #7 will shock you!' sort of way.  But the essence of the story is what critics have been charging for years; for decades.  It comes down to those pushing for a more hysterical approach to Climate Change insisting that all of these variables and subjective interpolations into the data are no big deal, versus those saying that such an approach to the data is a very big deal and could actually skew the resulting portrait of what is really happening, much less what will happen.

In short, Climate Change activists insist the practice, the variables, and the poetic licence used at times doesn't matter.  The findings are close enough, and we know Climate Change is real, so whatever trivial details are in the mix is small potatoes.  The critics, however, point out that this is the problem.  Since those adding the extra info already believe in the Climate Change Apocalypse to begin with, it's very possible that when they adjust something here or interpret a model there, they are doing so in a biased way; one that pushes the data where they want it to go, not where it should go.

Given the long history of failed predictions and adjusted paradigms for understanding just what is happening with the climate (is it Climate Change, Global Warming, Climate Disruption?), never mind the vast chasm between the hysterics and the actual personal sacrifice seen in so many Climate Change activists, I'm inclined to think there could be more to this story than Snopes wants to admit.

There sure is more to a sane conclusion than accepting the explanation of 'sure we're biased and what we adjust is likely based on our biases, but trust us, despite all the times we've been wrong so far, at least in terms of future predictions, this time we'll be spot on'.  I'm inclined to say what I've said, that Global Warming is a scientific molehill upon which a mountain of agendas and biases has been piled.

Suggestions for youth who are panicking about Global Warming

Yep.  And I could add more.  I've often told my sons about going to school without air conditioning, or not having it as I grew up.  Heck, my parents wouldn't use air-conditioning even if the house we moved into had it, unless the temps got up to bright side of Mercury level heat.   All in all, with few exceptions, we had no more in terms of electronics and pollution than my parents did in the 30s.  We had TV, and they didn't.  We had cassette players and they had only record players.  They had electric stoves and refrigerators and washers and driers as we did.  I don't think we had a dish washer until I was out of college.  We did have a microwave.  That's about it.

Now, of course, most of what we have is plugged into something.  We have phones - needing electricity and hence power, and computers or laptops or tablets - needing electricity and hence power; we have televisions as always, and multiple electronic devices.  I know of no modern buildings that don't have air conditioning and that don't use it.  I see lighting for decorations, massive lighting displays on a variety of holidays, not to mention the sheer size and volume of electronic everything today.  Of course this doesn't include video games and computer games and other electronic equipment that chew up far more carbon than our old ball bats and footballs from back in the day (it's worth noting I saw a story on the decline of interest among up and coming generations in things like sports).

I've said a thousand times that I absolutely believe it when scientists say STEM has caused climate change.  Every day I become more and more convinced that the way in which we approached the scientific revolution and subsequent industrial and technological revolutions reminds me of a couple kids finding the keys to their parents' liquor cabinet while the parents are away.

Sure, at first, it looked all peaches and cream.  Everything could be solved by science and math, and industry and technology will fix all the problems.  Give it all a blank check and we'll fix the world.  Though even at the beginning, there were those who expressed concern about either the physical changes, or at least the social ones.

But now, after the last century, after a growing list of problems attributed to various forms of the STEM family, at seeing the limits of science, and how often the scientists and experts and researchers of the past ended up being wrong, you'd think we'd be rethinking the whole thing.

Instead, it's as if those kids with the keys to the liquor cabinet woke up with a horrible hangover from drinking too much whisky, admitted it was the whisky, and are now hellbent on drinking yet more whiskey to make them feel better.

As it is, if we are really serious about his being the crisis of all history and the world will be destroyed by 2100, then we would be making serious, radical and all-bets-are-off changes - including changes that impact ourselves.  Instead, we are seeing people who want others to do the suffering so they can go on living a life that has brought us - per the science - to the very crisis they're panicking about.

Greta Thunburg and the new fortunate sons

Blessed are the poor...

It ain't me, it ain't me.  I ain't no millionaire's son, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no
Creedence Clearwater Revival 

What was a fortunate son?  That was the name given to those wealthy young men back during the Vietnam era whose wealth and privilege helped them dodge the draft.  That left the bulk of soldiers slugging it through the rice fields coming from America's lower classes.  Or at least that was how the concept was presented to me when I was growing up.

So Ms. Thunburg is a young 16 year old who has become an international rock star.  She recently sailed in a specially fitted yacht that was solar paneled and had nothing else in it for the crew, like kitchens, bathrooms and the like.  She already made the news before, being a very vocal advocate leading school children to strike for climate change action.  From there, she has been praised by world leaders, celebrities, millionaire activists, and even met the pope.

I know little about her.  Stories said her parents are both successful entertainers in Sweden, but I don't know what that means.  Is a successful opera singer and actor in Sweden on the same level of success and wealth as the same in America?  No clue.  Though given the speed with which they travel and their availability to fly to link up with her suggests they're not hurting.

And that brings us to the problem.  This Daily Wire piece goes into the obvious fact that the whole yacht sailing thing was more symbolic than anything.  Much time, money and carbon went into it, as it will the subsequent travel and follow up expenses.  Naturally, those who criticize her will be attacked on personal levels and accused of sexism and any other label the Left can come up with.   It's the Left, and by now we shouldn't expect better.

But here's the thing.  However successful her family is, I'll wager they don't qualify as poor.  Probably not middle class, at least from the few domestic pictures I found.  And that's what Climate Change has become.  An alarm bell sounded by very wealthy individuals demanding solutions that will likely hurt a great many people other than those wealthy individuals sounding the alarm bell.

The extra regulations and costs will be passed down to the blue collar worker, the lower middle class, and the working class. Those on the bottom rungs of the world will see what they can afford sliced and diced, and likely will experience hardships in the industries targeted by the regulations meant to save the world.  Those industries will chug along, keeping their profits, and serving their leaders who will rub shoulders with the millionaire activists untouched by the same heroic solutions to climate change they demand.  And those activists will continue on in their limos, their private jets, their yachts, and their mansions that will chew up more carbon in a week than many lower class neighborhoods will in a month.

FWIW, I don't typically go after youngsters who are out fighting for a cause.  I might support them if I agree with their cause, but usually follow the Thumper rule if I don't because, well, they're kids.  I went after David Hogg and the Parkland radicals because of their collective 'F-You, we hope you die if you get in our way to save the world' attitude, and the subsequent praise and free passes they've received from the leftist state as a result.

In young Ms. Thunburg's case, her middle finger to President Trump was a sign of disrespect that took away the shield in my opinion.  If people are going to flip the bird to those who aren't in the peanut gallery, then they open themselves up for scrutiny, even if as young as sixteen.

Nonetheless, I wonder just who will be the fortunate sons in the great war against climate change.  My guess is that they will be the ones born to wealthy parents, given passes into Ivy League schools, and apprenticeships into the halls of power.  They will devote small portions of their abundant wealth and privilege to causes meant to save the world, but whose solutions will only bring harm to the riff-raff, the lower class, the blue collar worker, and of course, the struggling minority.  Consider that when they insist it is the very world at stake if we don't take extreme actions immediately.  Ask just what those saying this are planning to sacrifice.  And what sacrifice those with no say will be expected to make.

Oh, and to show it's not some grudge I bear young activists, here is a story that really does deserve praise and attention.  A young boy hits the pavement and rolls up his sleeves and hands out bags of blessings - as he calls them - to the homeless.  It's a few pennies of thought, and will not end the problem of poverty or save the planet. But it's just the sort of widow's mite that God loves. Because he's out their sacrificing, not on yachts from the piles in his bank account, but by being on the street, in the trenches, with the people he helps face to face.

Nor is it that I reject the idea that our overemphasis on STEM has brought harm to many things in the world including, but not limited to, the environment.   But right now those wealthy activists,  celebrities and even well paid scientists are insisting radical measures must be taken, even if it harms the lower classes.  When I see them act like things are that desperate, and they're willing to do anything to save their lives, including flying coach, taking public transportation and even selling their mansions and penthouses, then I'll think the actual threat matches their demands for others.

God talk around the Apollo landings

As a matter of fact, no, I hadn't heard of this.  Ever.  It has never been played in any history lesson or news cast that I've seen.  It has never been mentioned.  In fact, so new is this, I'm prepared to think it's a hoax.

Except I realize that even if America on the street level held to a form of Christian religion by the time of the moon landings, most of our elite society had long abandoned the Faith.  Knowing also that media bias and educational indoctrination is not something that just happened following the debut of Game of Thrones, I'm inclined to believe the inconvenient part of hyped up stories might have found their way onto the cutting room floor - over and over and over again.

Nonetheless, assuming it isn't a vast Christian right wing conspiracy to make this up, it's interesting that even as late as 1969, God and religious faith still played a prominent part in our cultural soup, even in the hallowed halls of NASA.  It's also sad to see how quickly it has been utterly jettisoned and sent to the closet and the catacombs.
 
But then, how many years ago would we have scoffed at the idea of people going to jail for opposing gay marriage, or being condemned because of scribbling in a high school yearbook, or being called racist merely because of their skin color, or being told their Christian faith should preclude them from public office?  Beware of fast societal changes.  They seldom turn out well.