text:
John Neyman, MA., BCPC
105 S. PIKE RD (RT 356) Sarver, PA 16055, Sarver, Pennsylvania 16055
John Neyman specializes in special needs children such as: ADHD, OCD, ASPERGERS, AUTISM, PDD, ADD, etc. John Neyman is a Behavioral Specialist that has used proven techniques that transforms homes. If your home is in disarray, you are tired and worn out, and you just do not know what to do. call John Neyman today. He will assess your situation and provide you with the 10 effective strategies that have been very effective for other parents. They are Universal Laws that work for anyone. They will work for you! It is just a matter of knowing what strategies to use. You may feel like a bad parent, your not, but you need to know what to do so you are an effective parent.
Stephen Luther, MSEd, MEd, NCC, LPC
Licensed Professional Counselor
200 Freeport Road, New Kensington, Pennsylvania 15068
You need someone to help you with your hurting child but you don't want to trust just anyone. Treating hurt children requires extensive training beyond what most therapists get in school. I have trained with some of the best in the world when it comes to working with abuse and attachment issues in children. Treatment often involves working with both the parent and the child together to form the secure relationship that will help the child heal. You child and his/her issues are unique and they need to be treated as such. Treatment involves ongoing assessment and collaboration with you and your child to ensure the best results.
Kathleen Thomas, MSW
Licensed Clinical Social Worker
4559 Old William Penn Hwy., Murrysville, Pennsylvania 15668
Being well versed in working with Developmental Disabilities, Autism spectrum disorders, children with behavior disorders, ADHD and mood problems, I have a great understanding of the services available. I can help families manage systems to make the most of the services available for their young children with disabilities. I have experience working along side school systems to help students reach their potential.


text:
22 Jul 2013:
Forum: How Daring is
Obama's New Climate Plan?
President Obama has unveiled a proposal to combat global warming that would, for the first time, regulate carbon dioxide emissions from all U.S. coal-fired power plants. Yale Environment 360 asked a group of experts to assess the president's climate strategy.
Stymied by Congress, and no longer weighed down by concerns about re-election, President Barack Obama decided last month to take assertive action on climate change, unveiling a host of administrative actions to regulate carbon emissions, encourage the development of renewable energy, promote energy efficiency, and prepare the country to adapt to a warmer world.
To judge how effective the president's climate plan might be,
Yale Environment 360
asked a panel of policy makers, environmentalists, and scientists to answer the following questions: Do you think President Obama's recently announced climate change plan will make a major contribution to reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and, in particular, do you think he will succeed in regulating CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants by the end of his term?
Michael Mann
, climate scientist and director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center.
Ultimately, we need a comprehensive energy and climate policy that prices carbon pollution and levels the playing field for renewable sources of energy that are not degrading our climate and planet. But given that we have an intransigent Congress (the current House Science Committee leadership continues to deny even the existence of human-caused climate change), the president has been forced to turn to executive actions. His call for carbon emission limits on all coal-fired power plants, not just newly built plants, is a bold step forward. It will go some way to stemming our growing carbon emissions and the impact they are having on our climate. The president's comments about the Keystone XL pipeline are also encouraging. He indicated that he will block the pipeline if it is going to lead to increased carbon emissions. Since all objective analyses indicated that the construction of the pipeline will lead to increased carbon emissions (because it will lead to far greater extraction of Canadian tar sands oil), this should translate to a decision not to move forward on that project. Finally, the president spelled out promising ways forward to (a) introduce greater incentives for renewable, non-carbon based energy, (b) reduce energy usage/improve energy efficiency, and (c) adapt to those climate change impacts which are already locked in and unavoidable. All in all, it is the most aggressive and promising climate plan to come out of the executive branch in years.
Jane C. S. Long
, chairman, California's Energy Future Study, The California Council on Science and Technology.
The president's plan aims to eliminate emissions from electricity by invoking the Clean Air Act. But emissions from electricity are already being reduced without any government interference because of plentiful, inexpensive natural gas. And the good news is that gas has half the emissions of the coal it displaces, so some like to call natural gas the "bridge fuel." The bad news is also that gas has half the emissions of coal. These emissions have to go, too, because the climate problem will continue to get worse until we stop all emissions. To get off the other end of the gas bridge, either emissions from natural gas generation will have to be captured and sequestered away from the atmosphere or we will have to plan to stop using any fossil fuel, including gas. Using no fossil fuel means relying on renewable energy or nuclear power. Putting all our bets on renewable energy could mean significant delays in reducing emissions. The president's plan calls for the EPA to negotiate a timeline for emissions reductions with each individual state. If Obama is to significantly reduce emissions as quickly as possible, he needs to couple his legal approach with investments and policies that promote all forms of emission-free electricity, including carbon capture and storage and nuclear power, not just renewable energy.
Michael Gerrard
, director of Columbia University's Center for Climate Change Law.
Regardless of attempts by opponents of these regulations to obtain relief in Congress and the courts, the fact that President Obama has for the first time put EPA on a timetable to issue them sends a strong signal to the generating industry. It means that in addition to the competition from natural gas, and the prospect of expensive new rules on coal ash, cooling water, and conventional and toxic air pollutants, coal-fired power plants now face a good chance of yet another layer of restrictions. Few if any plans for new plants have been in the works for several years, thanks mostly to cheap natural gas; the principal effect of the anticipated rules will be on generator decisions whether to spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading old plants that are nearing the end of their useful lives. Even more of these units, which tend to be the dirtiest, will now be retired. Thus even before the rules complete the tortuous process of taking full effect, they will have a tangible impact on greenhouse gas emissions by inducing more owners to accelerate the retirement of their older units.
Bill McKibben
, author, Scholar in Residence at Middlebury College, and founder of
I think the biggest effect of his plan is to get us off the dime. Given the science, we need much steeper reductions than what the current plan entails. But most of all we need a start that breaks the logjam. That's why the remarks on Keystone and divestment were as important as the remarks on coal — if he blocks Keystone, for instance, then he'll be the first world leader to stop a project based on its effects on the climate. That's both a legacy and an opening bid in renewed climate negotiations. It will demonstrate credibility.
Nicolas Loris
, senior policy analyst, The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.
President Obama's climate plan would have a chilling effect on the economy, not the environment. If the Environmental Protection Agency moves forward on greenhouse gas regulations for new and existing power plants, which would particularly impact coal, it will cost more to heat and cool your home, to cook your meals, to light your home. Phasing out coal, electricity prices would increase 20 percent and cause a family of four to lose more than $1,000 in annual income. Higher energy prices would ripple through the economy. Consumers would have less money to spend. Businesses would face higher operating costs and pass those costs on to the consumer. As the economy is squeezed from both ends, Heritage found that significantly reducing coal as a source of energy would destroy more than 500,000 jobs by 2030. All of this economic pain would come with no real impact on the climate. Even if the U.S. stopped emitting all carbon dioxide today (virtually halting all economic activity), the Science and Public Policy Institute found that the global temperature would decrease by 0.17 degrees Celsius by 2100. The president is right to say that we can have economic growth and an improved environment. But this isn't the plan to do it.
Carol Browner
, senior fellow, Center for American Progress, and former director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy in the Obama administration.
President Obama has outlined a practical, common sense plan to address climate change by cutting carbon pollution from power plants, boosting investments in renewable fuels, and improving efficiency and conservation efforts. Power plants are the largest source of carbon pollution in the U.S., responsible for forty percent of the climate change-fueling pollution, and there are no existing limits on how much they can dump into the air. If we are serious about meeting our obligation to future generations to address climate change, cutting carbon pollution from power plants has to be part of the plan. We do not have to choose between a strong economy and a healthy environment. We can have both. We've seen that with the clean cars standard we achieved in the first term and with previous clean air standards for acid rain, CFCs [chlorofluorocarbons], smog, soot, and clean diesel fuel. President Obama's climate change plan can and will achieve similar economic benefits. In fact, we can cut carbon pollution from power plants while adding over 200,000 new jobs and saving the average American family a little bit of money on their electric bills, according to a new analysis released by the Natural Resources Defense Council and business and labor groups.
Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger
are, respectively, the president and chairman of The Breakthrough Institute, a think tank based in Oakland, California.
Three years after the collapse of efforts to pass cap-and-trade legislation in the U.S. Congress, U.S. emissions are well below those that would have been mandated by the cap. Indeed, since 2007, U.S. emissions have fallen faster than those of any other nation in the world, thanks to our glut of cheap natural gas. It will be several years before any of President Obama's proposed carbon dioxide regulations for coal plants are finalized and perhaps more to wind their way through the courts before they take effect. But while regulating emissions through the federal Clean Air Act is viewed by many as a less than optimal way to reduce emissions, the reality is that the regulations proposed by the President will functionally have the same effect as either proposed cap-and-trade legislation or a carbon tax — modestly accelerating America's transition from coal to gas.
The move from coal to gas is a welcome transition. Natural gas is better than coal on every human and environmental measure, including mortality, damages, air pollution, water pollution, and water use. But in recognizing the benefits of this shift, we should also keep in mind its limits. Gas is helping drive U.S. emissions down but those gains are limited. Regulations can help that shift along but are unlikely to bring us the cheap, zero-carbon technologies that will be necessary to achieve much deeper emissions. Ultimately, developing better zero-carbon technologies will determine how much emissions reduction regulations and pricing policies will be capable of achieving.
Mary Anne Hitt
, director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign.
President Obama's climate plan, with carbon pollution standards for coal plants as its centerpiece, is a roadmap that could help us finally curb climate change. But whether or not his plan will actually reduce carbon emissions is now up to us. The president's plan is a testament to the grassroots climate movement. For more than a decade, more than 100 organizations have worked to tackle our biggest source of carbon pollution: coal plants. 149 coal plants have announced their retirement since 2010, and clean energy like wind and solar are powering the nation at record levels. Meanwhile, EPA safeguards limiting power plant carbon emissions are required by the Clean Air Act, have been upheld by the Supreme Court, and are strongly supported by the American public. Not surprisingly, polluters are already lobbying hard for a weak standard. But we will push for strong safeguards, while also tackling other key climate issues left out of the president's plan, including natural gas fracking, mountaintop removal, and the sweetheart deal for coal companies on public lands. President Obama's plan is the beginning of a crucial new chapter in our climate fight — one we all have an opportunity, and a responsibility, to shape.
POSTED ON 22 Jul 2013 IN
Business & Innovation
Policy & Politics
Science & Technology
North America
Stumble Upon
Eh, ok, so how daring is it? Will it lower emissions?
Posted by Gustav Fransson Nyvell on 22 Jul 2013
Yes. President Obama's new climate plan is bold. I salute him for the wise plan. Climate change mitigation is everybody's duty to have a clean world.
Dr. A. Jagadeesh Nellore (AP), India
Posted by Dr.A.Jagadeesh on 23 Jul 2013
Natural gas and Obama save earth! Burning more natural gas, which leaks methane like a sieve, while exporting record amounts of coal for others to burn makes Obama a genius. Yale rhymes with stale.
Posted by Robert on 23 Jul 2013
Obama doesn't have a 'climate plan' except to geoengineer his way into the good graces of the financial community.
Posted by Austin Observer on 23 Jul 2013
Where is the part of the "President's climate plan" that challenges the assumption of endless growth on a finite planet? It won't be, not ever. And that means there will be no climate relief but there will be a lot of political theater around the pretense of doing something.
Every talking head you list here is up to their elbows in oil including Bill McKibben. The talk about converting to "non-polluting clean fuel sources" is like the fiction of perpetual motion. It only works in the realm of the imagination. As Chris Hedges aptly points out, we are hopelessly addicted to "hope" as a solution to our predicaments.
Most of the above quoted talking-heads have never contemplated what it takes to maintain their imperial set of living arrangements nor the very real possibility of near-term human extinction. They see the climate crisis as another problem to be "solved" with "engineering".
Posted by Michael Sosebee on 24 Jul 2013
I wish Yale E360 would break out of its habit of asking the same same same voices, many vested, to comment. Why not look a little further afield for some input. I am co-director of Biofuelwatch. We participate in a national grassroots network of people and communities opposing biomass incinerators as "renewable energy." There are lots of great activists opposing nuclear, fracking and other dirty energy. Try talking with THE PEOPLE. Ask indigenous peoples to chime in. This is tedious and needs fresh insights.
Posted by Rachel Smolker on 25 Jul 2013
I see in these comments some hope that this plan can move us in the right direction--and that is my belief. I would like to see a bolder plan, but in this real world of climate politics 2013, can we imagine a bolder plan that would stand any chance of being carried out? I don't think so. The Congress still holds the purse strings.
As for the cynics here (and I understand their position), I wish they would use that same energy to work for real-world solutions.
Posted by Larry Chamblin on 27 Jul 2013
Well if history is something to go by, the U.S. will drag the chain and put being voted back in money ahead of the environment. When the climate is so screwed up that no one with any semblance of intellect can deny it, then we will see action happen on a big scale. Climate change will force the U.S. and world leaders to bring in new technology to clean up the environment. Big business and all tiers of government will have to work together to bring in the clean green economy. The need to go to a hydrogen economy is urgent to eliminate fossil fuels and then try and restore our environment over the generations.
We are not going to fix it in an instant, it took a couple of hundred years to screw it up and get to this situation. One thing is for sure Mother Nature will change her climate to suit what parameters are in play. It doesn't matter if one denies Climate change or not or how much money or power one has. I feel sorry for the future generations to try and sought out the mess were making. ..... John Duczek
Posted by john from Kapunda AUSTRALIA on 06 Aug 2013
Nicolas Loris, senior policy analyst, The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, seems to base his science on the findings of the Science and Public Policy Institute.
The following information clearly shows (as might be expected) that the Institute is firmly rooted in the right wing's world of distortion and denial:
[The Science and Public Policy Institute] describes itself as:
a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science. Free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics...
The organization's Executive Director is Robert "Bob" Ferguson, who was previously executive director of an organisation called Center for Science and Public Policy.[2] He is also a former Chief of Staff to Republican Congressmen Jack Fields (1981–1997), John E. Peterson (1997–2002), and Rick Renzi (2002). The chief policy adviser is Christopher Monckton, a former special adviser to Margaret Thatcher. Joe D'Aleo is the institute's Meteorology Adviser. Further science advisers, as listed in 2011, include:
Robert M. Carter
Craig D. Idso
William Kininmonth
David Legates
Willie Soon, a proponent of the theory that climate change is caused by solar variation, was at one time the chief science advisor.[3]
On its homepage one can read:
"Science based policy for a better world."
Here's some information about the persons responsible for that science:
Monckton was educated at Harrow School and Churchill College, Cambridge (where he received his B.A. (Classics, 1974, Cantab., now M.A.)), and at University College, Cardiff, where he obtained a diploma in journalism studies...
Monckton...has referred to himself as "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature" in a letter to US Senators,[14] and also as "a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote."[15]
The House of Lords authorities have said Monckton is not and never has been a member and that there is no such thing as a non-voting or honorary member of the House.[6][16] In July 2011 the House took the "unprecedented step" of publishing online a cease and desist letter to Monckton from the Clerk of the Parliaments, which concluded, "I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not."[17][18]
...Monckton has asserted that he served as science adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during his years with the Number 10 Policy Unit, and that "it was I who—on the prime minister's behalf—kept a weather eye on the official science advisers to the government, from the chief scientific adviser downward."[30] However, John Gummer, who was Environment Minister under Thatcher, has said that Monckton was "a bag carrier in Mrs Thatcher's office. And the idea that he advised her on climate change is laughable."[31] Writing in The Guardian, Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment notes that Thatcher's memoirs, The Downing Street Years, do not mention Monckton and credit George Guise with the role of science advisor.[30]
...After a presentation by Monckton at Bethel University (Minnesota), Professor John P Abraham[44] of University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) produced a rebuttal to Monckton's claims.[45] Abraham investigated the origins of many of the claims by contacting the authors of those papers Monckton had cited[46][47] and concluded that "he had misrepresented the science".[47]
In short, Monckton has no scientific background, he has repeatedly made grandiose, unsubstantiated claims about himself, he misrepresents his sources, and his "science" has been thoroughly debunked. See also:
(Skip the introduction. The mordant demolition starts at 0.01:11.)
Another of the Institute's scientific advisors is David Legates:
Legates is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".[9]
The declaration states:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."
...According to the News Journal, "the Union of Concerned Scientists published a study listing Legates among several scientists it described as 'familiar spokespeople from ExxonMobil-funded organizations' that have regularly taken stands or sponsored reports questioning the science behind climate change warnings."[11] Legates is a senior scientist of the Marshall Institute,[12] a research fellow with the Independent Institute,[13] and an adjunct scholar of the Competitive Enterprise Institute,[14] all of which have received funding from ExxonMobil.[15][16]
I recognize that The Heritage Foundation has a loud voice in the American political debate. I think though that Yale Environment 360 should ask whether Heritage's suggestions are based on ideological fantasies or facts. Differing points of view are not equally legitimate. Some are not legitimate at all.
Posted by Philip C Stone on 08 Aug 2013
Comments are moderated and will be reviewed before they are posted to ensure they are on topic, relevant, and not abusive. They may be edited for length and clarity. By filling out this form, you give Yale Environment 360 permission to publish this comment.
Email address
Please type the text shown in the graphic.
Why Supreme Court's Action
Creates Opportunity on Climate
The U.S. Supreme Court order blocking the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan may have a silver lining: It provides an opportunity for the U.S. to show other nations it has a flexible, multi-faceted approach to cutting emissions.
With Court Action, Obama's
Climate Policies in Jeopardy
The U.S. Supreme Court order blocking President Obama's plan to cut emissions from coal-burning power plants is an unprecedented step and one of the most environmentally harmful decisions ever made by the nation's highest court.
Facing Tough Market at Home,
U.S. Coal Giant Pushes Overseas
With prospects in the U.S. increasingly uncertain, Peabody Energy, the world's largest private coal company, is expanding its operations abroad. But that strategy could carry significant risks, as coal-consuming powerhouses like China are working to reduce their dependence on the fossil fuel.
Marines Push to Front Lines in
Renewable Energy Innovation
A backpack that generates electricity? A vest that cools you in a hot tent? As the U.S. military looks to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, the Marine Corps is leading the way with cutting-edge technology and innovative devices.
An Advocate in Pursuit of
Environmental Justice at EPA
Matthew Tejada is taking over the EPA's Office of Environmental Justice after helping low-income communities in Houston fight air pollution in their neighborhoods. He talks to Yale Environment 360 about how his work in Texas prepared him for the challenges of his new post.
MORE IN Forum
Obama's Environmental Legacy:
How Much Can Trump Undo?
Few groups were as shocked and chagrined by Donald Trump's victory as the environmental community. Yale Environment 360 asked environmentalists, academics, and pro-business representatives just how far Trump might roll back President Obama's environmental initiatives.
What Pope Francis Should Say
In His Upcoming UN Address
Pope Francis will speak to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 25 about poverty, the environment, and sustainable development. In a Yale Environment 360 forum, seven leading thinkers on the environment and religion describe what they would like to hear the pope say.
Top Climate Scientists Assess
Latest Report from U.N. Panel
Yale Environment 360 asked some leading climate scientists to discuss what they consider to be the most noteworthy or surprising findings in the recently released report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group on the physical science of a warming world.
Forum: Assessing Obama's
Record on the Environment
When Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, environmentalists were optimistic that their issues would finally become a priority at the White House. So how is Obama doing?
Yale Environment 360
asked a group of environmentalists and energy experts for their verdicts on the president's performance.
Forum: Just How Safe
Is 'Fracking' of Natural Gas?
New technologies for freeing natural gas from underground shale formations have led to a hydraulic fracturing boom across the U.S. that is now spreading to other countries. In a
Yale Environment 360
forum, eight experts discuss whether "fracking" can be done without serious harm to water and air quality and what environmental safeguards may be needed.
Forum: Is Extreme Weather
Linked to Global Warming?
In the past year, the world has seen a large number of extreme weather events, from the Russian heat wave last summer, to the severe flooding in Pakistan, to the recent tornadoes in the U.S. In a
Yale Environment 360
forum, a panel of experts weighs in on whether the wild weather may be tied to increasing global temperatures.
As Copenhagen Talks Near,
What Are Prospects for Success?
For months, hopes that a climate treaty would be signed at the upcoming Copenhagen conference have been raised, then dashed, then raised again. Now, with prospects waning that a binding accord on reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be reached this year, ten environmental leaders and climate experts outline for Yale Environment 360 what they believe can still be accomplished at Copenhagen.
The Waxman-Markey Bill:
A Good Start or a Non-Starter?
As carbon cap-and-trade legislation works it way through Congress, the environmental community is intensely debating whether the Waxman-Markey bill is the best possible compromise or a fatally flawed initiative. Yale Environment 360 asked 11 prominent people in the environmental and energy fields for their views on this controversial legislation.
Putting a Price on Carbon:
An Emissions Cap or a Tax?
The days of freely dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are coming to an end, but how best to price carbon emissions remains in dispute. As the U.S. Congress debates the issue, Yale Environment 360 asked eight experts to discuss the merits of a cap-and-trade system versus a carbon tax.
A Green Agenda for the
President's First 100 Days
Environmentalists – from Bill McKibben and Paul Hawken, to Fred Krupp and Frances Beinecke – offer President Obama their advice on the priorities he should set for the first 100 days of his administration.
RELATED e360 DIGEST ITEMS
17 Jan 2017:
China Cancels Plans for
100 New Coal-Fired Power Plants
12 Jan 2017:
A Bay in Denmark May
Hold The Global Record for Carbon Storage
12 Jan 2017:
Republican Who Led EPA Urges
Confronting Trump on Climate
11 Jan 2017:
First Carbon-Capture Coal
Plant in U.S. is Now Fully Operational
06 Jan 2017:
U.S. Likely to Become Exporter
Of Energy by 2026, New Report Says
05 Jan 2017:
Natural Disasters Caused $55
Billion in Damage in North America in 2016
05 Jan 2017:
Interview: In Costa Rica, Momentum
Builds for a Clean-Energy Economy
04 Jan 2017:
Scientists Confirm Once Again
That Global Warming Hiatus Never Happened
03 Jan 2017:
Indian Industrial Plant
Converts Captured CO2 Into Baking Soda
29 Dec 2016:
Affluent Chinese Families
Now Have Similar CO2 Footprint as Europe
Yale Environment 360 is
a publication of the
Yale School of Forestry
& Environmental Studies
SEARCH e360
RSS Feed
Email Updates
Mobile Site
About e360
Submission Guidelines
E360 en Español
Yale Environment 360
articles are now available in Spanish and Portuguese on
, the online educational network.
Visit the site.
e360 Digest
Video Reports
Business & Innovation
Policy & Politics
Pollution & Health
Science & Technology
Antarctica and the Arctic
Central & South America
Middle East
North America
e360 VIDEO
A look at how acidifying oceans could threaten the Dungeness crab, one of the most valuable fisheries on the U.S. West Coast.
Watch the video.
e360 MOBILE
The latest
Environment 360
is now available for mobile devices at
e360 PHOTO ESSAY
An aerial view of why Europe's per capita carbon emissions are less than 50 percent of those in the U.S.
View the photos.
e360 VIDEO
An indigenous tribe's deadly fight to save its ancestral land in the Amazon rainforest from logging.
Learn more.
e360 VIDEO
video series looks at the staggering amount of food wasted in the U.S. – a problem with major human and environmental costs.
Watch the video.
e360 VIDEO
Residents of the Chocó Rainforest in Ecuador are choosing to plant cacao over logging in an effort to slow deforestation.
Watch the video.
e360 VIDEO
Tribal people and ranchers join together to stop a project that would haul coal across their Montana land.
Watch the video.
Centre for Science and Environment
Circle of Blue
Climate Progress
Ecological Internet
Environmental Health News
Environmental News Network
New Scientist
Real Climate
Science Blogs
Scientific American
Yale Climate Connections
© 2008-2015 Yale University |

subset: commoncrawl


text:
by John MacArthur
Although heaven will be our first encounter with true, complete perfection, the Lord is already at work in the lives of His people preparing us for that perfection.
God begins the process of perfecting us from the moment we are converted from unbelief to faith in Christ. The Holy Spirit regenerates us. He gives us new hearts with new, holy desires (Ezekiel 36:26). He transforms our stubborn wills. He opens our hearts to embrace the truth rather than reject it, to believe rather than doubt. He gives us a hunger for righteousness and a desire for Him. Thus the new birth transforms the inner person. From that point, everything that occurs in our lives—good or bad—God uses to make us like Christ (Romans 8:28–30).
In terms of our moral and legal status, believers are judged perfect immediately—not on the basis of who we are or what we have done, but because of what Christ has done for us. We are forgiven of all our sin. We are clothed with a perfect righteousness (Isaiah 61:10; Romans 4:5), which instantly gives us a standing before God without any fear of condemnation (Romans 5:1; 8:1). And when Paul writes that God has "raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:6), he is again speaking of this position of favor with God that we have been granted by grace alone.
We are not literally, physically seated with Christ in the heavenlies, of course. We are not mystically present there through some kind of spiritual telepathy. But legally, in the eternal court of God, we have been granted full rights to heaven. That is the high legal standing we enjoy even now, on this side of heaven.
But God does not stop there. Having judicially declared us righteous (Scripture calls that justification), God never stops conforming us to the image of His Son (that is sanctification). Although our legal standing is already perfect, God is also making us perfect. Heaven is a place of perfect holiness, and we would not be fit to live there unless we too could be made holy. In a sense, then, the blessing of justification is God's guarantee that He will ultimately conform us to the image of His Son. "Those whom He justified He also glorified" (Romans 8:30).
The seeds of Christlikeness are planted at the moment of conversion. Peter says that believers have been granted "all things that pertain to life and godliness" (2 Peter 1:3). If you are a Christian, the life of God dwells in your soul, and with it all that you need for heaven. You have already passed from death to life (John 5:24). You are a new person (2 Corinthians 5:17). Whereas you were once enslaved to sin, you have now become a slave of righteousness (Romans 6:18). Instead of receiving the wages of sin—death—you have received God's gift of eternal life (Romans 6:23). And eternal life means abundant life (John 10:10). That is what Paul means when he writes, "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come" (2 Corinthians 5:17).
Now let's be honest. Even the most committed Christian doesn't always live as if "the new has come." We don't always feel like a "new creation." Usually we are more keenly aware of the sin that oozes from within us than we are of the rivers of living water Christ spoke of. Although we "have the firstfruits of the Spirit, [we] groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies" (Romans 8:23). And we groan this way all our lives. Remember, it was a mature apostle, not a fragile new Christian, who cried out in Romans 7:24, "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?"
Here's the problem: Like Lazarus, we came forth from the grave still bound in grave clothes. We are incarcerated in human flesh. Flesh in the biblical sense refers not just to the physical body, but to the sinful thoughts and habits that remain with us until our bodies are finally glorified. When Paul speaks of flesh and spirit he is not contrasting the material body with the immaterial spirit—setting up a kind of dualism, the way gnostic and New Age doctrines do. He uses the word flesh to speak of a tendency to sin—a sin principle that remains even in the redeemed person.
Paul clearly spells out the problem from his own experience in Romans 7.
For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. (Romans 7:15–21)
For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. (Romans 7:15–21)
As believers we are new creatures—reborn souls—vested with everything necessary for life and godliness, but we cannot fully appreciate the newness of our position in Christ because of the persistent presence of sin.
Like Paul, we "delight in the law of God, in [our] inner being" (Romans 7:22). Only the principle of eternal life in us can explain such love for the law of God. But at the same time, the flesh constricts and fetters us like tightly bound grave clothes. This flesh principle wars against the principle of new life in Christ. So we feel like captives to the law of sin in our own members (Romans 7:23).
How can this be? After all, Paul earlier wrote in this very epistle that our bondage to sin is broken. We are supposed to "have been set free from sin" (Romans 6:22). How is it that just one scant chapter later, he says we are "captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members" (Romans 7:23)?
The answer is, being a captive is not quite the same thing as being enslaved. As unredeemed sinners, we were full-time slaves of sin—willing servants, in fact. But as Christians who are not yet glorified, we are captives, unwilling prisoners of an already defeated enemy. Although sin can buffet and abuse us, it does not own us, and it cannot ultimately destroy us. Sin's authority and dominion are broken. It "lies close at hand" in the believer's life (Romans 7:21), but it is no longer our master. Our real allegiance is now to the principle of righteousness (Romans 7:22). It is in this sense that "the new has come" (2 Corinthians 5:17). Even though we still fall into old patterns of sinful thinking and behavior, those things no longer define who we are. Sin is now an anomaly and an intruder, not the sum and substance of our character.
God is changing us from the inside out. He has planted the incorruptible seed of eternal life deep in the believer's soul. We have new desires to please God. We have new hearts and a whole new love for God. And all those are factors that contribute to our ultimate growth in grace.
Although sin has crippled our souls and marred our spirits—scarred our thoughts, will, and emotions—we who know Christ have already had a taste of redemption. As we set our hearts on heaven and mortify the remaining sin in our members, we can experience the transforming power of Christ's glory on a daily basis. And we long for that day when we will be completely redeemed. We yearn to reach that place where the seed of perfection that has been planted within us will bloom into fullness and we will be completely redeemed, finally made perfect (Hebrews 12:23). That is exactly what heaven is all about.
(Adapted from The Glory of Heaven; all Scripture references are taken from the ESV unless otherwise noted.)
You have 3000 characters
remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted.
Email me when someone posts a comment.
Thank you, John, so much for this powerful and encouraging description of so many of the things God has done for us as believers, the tension we live in while still on Earth, and the final resolution. Your paragraph dealing with the difference between a slave and a captive to sin was incredibly helpful; I've wrestled with trying to understand what Paul was addressing in Romans 6 and Romans 7, and your explanation of it gave me one of those wonderful moments of clarity when the Word opens up.
Thanks for all that you and GTY provide for us; your faithfulness and stewardship are terrific examples.
You have 3000 characters
remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted.
Email me when someone posts a comment.
The Christian's life ... encapsulated perfectly. I'm praying, studying and working so hard so that what comes out of my mouth glorifies God ... always pointing to Jesus Christ and the cross.
My way of saying 'thank you' for putting into words God's plan for the elect!
You have 3000 characters
remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted
thanks for your blessed teachings. I read the Glory of Heaven!! loved it . cant wait to worship our savior in His presence and in Heaven!!!
Thank you for sharing John "Changed from the Inside Out"
Thank you for that timely message as I am struggling a bit when I see nothing happening (it doesn't mean that nothing is happening). Thank you for your thorough and encouraging teaching of His Word for so many years, as I listened from Ohio for over 20 years. I was also a member of your church for 2 years and got to experience you and all of the wonderful pastors/teachers, first hand at GCC. I am now in Ecuador, ready and eager to serve as I learn the language.
May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
"Remember, it was a mature apostle, not a fragile new Christian, who cried out in Romans 7:24, "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?"
Sorry, John, but I cannot believe that.
The last half of Romans 7 is often explained as the Christians struggle with sin as he lives his life, as you mention above.
John, this is not the Christian struggle. Romans 7 is Pauls' explaination of why the Mosaic Law cannot save a person from wrong living. And how Jesus does save a person from wrong living. Look at Romans 7:8:
"But sin, taking opportunity through the Law, produced in me strong wrong desires of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead." If the law could do that, then how could it save you from wrong living? Paul says it can't, that is why you need Jesus.
"Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" Romans 7:24-25a. Call on Jesus and experience: "Jesus responded, "I assure you: Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. Therefore, if the Son sets you free, you really will be free." John 8:34&36
Thank you for this glimpse of heaven and what is going on with us down here.
God bless you!
Can you clarify what exactly you mean when you say:
"Call on Jesus and experience: "Jesus responded, "I assure you: Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. Therefore, if the Son sets you free, you really will be free." John 8:34&36"
I think you mean the following, but please correct me if I am wrong:
A non-believer commits sin.
Anyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.
A Christian has been set free by the Son.
If you have been set free by the Son, then you are no longer a slave to sin.
Therefore, if you are Christian, you will not sin.
Is this what you are trying to say?
Wow, this is just what I needed. It explains those areas in my walk where I struggle, and clearly points out to me that the work is already completed for us through Christ. Sometimes I feel like I'm not doing enough ... but it's not what "I" do, it's what the Lord has ALREADY done for us. Thank you John!
Chris Leduc,
That is indeed what I am saying. That should be the Christian experience. I once was an acoholic. When I became a Christian, I could finally quit drinking. But I noticed another thing. I quit thinking about swear words, and quit swearing. I quit having a desire to be a con man, so lying went away. And my fits of anger dissapeared. Pornography became unacceptable and gross. All these were replaced with a strong desire to read the Bible and be in fellowship with other believers. I experienced : "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" Romans 7:24-25a. Thank God I found a church that accepted Romans 7 for what it says.
But your conclusion need clarifying. Because I am no longer a slave to sin, as you say, "We know that our old sinful selves were crucified with Christ so that sin might lose its power in our lives. We are no longer slaves to sin." Romans 6:6, that does not necessarly mean I would NEVER sin. It menas I SHOULD NEVER SIN. "For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives." Hebrews 12:6. Why would I be disciplined if I NEVER did wrong? Just because I am not a slave of sin does not mean I would never choose to sin, so sometimes I need a little discipline, as we all do. As I experience discipline, I find I choose to sin less and less, but, thank God, I am never a slave to sin any longer. But I find that the sins I have done since being saved do not fall into the catagory of going back to my old ways. See Psalm 85:8: "I will listen to what God will say; surely the LORD will declare peace to His people, His godly ones, ONLY do not let them go back to foolish ways." I find sometimes God asks me to do things that I strongly do not understand, or that maybe I am fearful of doing. Kinda like Jonah. Instead of taking it by faith, I stop. Jonah was not the only one, remember Moses spent a chapter and a half saying no to returning to Egypt to free the Isreals, until, the Bible says, Gods anger was kindled. And remember Deborahs General also. AND, when Kind David did go back to the 'foolish ways', the prophet said unto him: "Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die." "Great occasion" was because he did go back, as opposed to the stumbling along as we all do, not getting done what we know we should.
One other thing you should know. After I got saved, I experience sometimes great temptation to go back to drinking. After getting all of the Holy Spirit later, after I got saved, even the temptation to go back to drinking went away. The Bible says it is by the Holy Spirit we "put to death the deeds of the body" Romans 8:13, so it seems to me that complete victory came at that point, so ask God for all the Holy Spirit you can get, if you are having trouble.
Thanks for the response. While I agree with most of your post, and I say Amen! and Amen! to most of it as is so similar to my own personal testimony, I ultimately must say that your understanding of Romans 7 is not correct. It is, as Dr MacArthur explains, Paul's description of the Christian's life.
The first of my concerns is that it appears that your definition of "sin" appears to be way too narrow. If we were to look just at the greatest commandment (Per Jesus) "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." Matthew 22:36, we should quickly see a problem. The truth is that almost from the moment you open your eyes, to the moment you close them, you live almost exclusively in sin - we all do. None of us are able to love God, the way He deserves, the way He demands, with 100% of our heart, soul and mind at all times, or even most of the time. And that realization has caused Christians throughout the last 2000 years to cry out "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?" be ever so grateful that our salvation (in all senses) is based solely upon our Lord Jesus Christ.
If you narrowly define sin as just the things you used to do that are obvious violations of the law, then it appears we can be doing pretty well a lot of the time. But when truly considering the greatest commandment, and then the second greatest, we all fall short or miss the mark much of the time.
The second issue I have comes from a plain reading of the text. Paul switches to what would be considered present tense in the latter half of the chapter as opposed to the first half. He is talking about currently reality. Then he confirms this with the final verse of the chapter.
The next issue is that your interpretation disagrees with not only how the text is interpreted throughout this Church is this county, and throughout the Church global, but it also contradicts how the Church has historically interpreted the text for the past 2000 years. Anytime our interpretation differs in a manner like that, we have to be very cautious and concerned.
So while I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding the truly amazing reality of what it is to be a new creation in Christ, I think you are also missing a lot of what it means to be a new creation in Christ ie the growing realization that we are far more sinful and un Christ-like than we ever had imagined! And that should cause you, as it has me, to echo Paul in saying "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."
The answer is, being a captive is not quite the same thing as being enslaved
Just that one line alone that makes a clear distinction got the whole thing clear in my mind once and for all. Of course like Paul, and others in the faith its an ongoing struggle, this sin deal, and in the midst of the daily struggle, these matters can become unclear. This may not be entirely biblical but I think its great to have John as one of the 'Generals' out there passing on the commands and hope to life's battle field and helping to make the canon crystal clear from the true source, the almighty God.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I will try to give you my views as well as I can.
First of all, your use of the two greatest commandments would make us all sinners most of the time, as you mention. But I believe that I love Jesus as he leads me to, not being under the Law. I am under relationship with Him, and he gives me the love for Himself as He decides for the time. Luke 7:47: " "For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little." This is where we all start; when she got saved, above, forgiven much meant loving Jesus much. I am sure that she grew in the Lord, and even began to love him more all the time. And to those who did not sin so much, but still saw their need for Jesus, becoming saved, may start out by loving not so much, but they also, would grow in their love for Jesus. They are not sinning, to me, as they grow in love. It appears to me you would having them living in sin as they grew, which I could not agree with, unless they began to refuse to grow further in love, than I could agree with you. That is one example of how and why we are not under the Law.
Now about Paul switching to the present tense. When I discuss Romans 7 with theology/pastor types who do not agree with me, they do not bring this up. The reason why is that in all literature, authors often switch into the present tense to make a point clearer. And doctrine could not therefore be determined through literature style.
The last issue you mention is that my belief differs with church history. It seems you find my belief different from anyone. But the pentecostals in this country all believe the way I do. And historically, John Wesley also taught this. Being one of the greatest revivalists/pastors in all of history, I do believe history clearly finds a place for my beliefs. But there are others, as well as him. In fact, if you research this much in commentarys, as Romans 7 is introduced, statements like "these verses are often hotly debated" are abundant. At that time they go on to state the two different beliefs talked about, as we are doing here. This clearly tells me that many others have had this discussion.
I must go now, but I will post more later, wanting to mention about what the theology/pastors types that I talk to about this bring up to me when they want to challenge me, I think you may want to read some of this also. Thanks again for your thoughtful post.
or browse by Topic or


text:
Over the last two weeks, we polled the Awful Announcing readers on their opinions of each local broadcast team around the majors. The polls were broken down division by division to gain the perspective of both fans and rivals for each broadcast team.
The votes are in, and we weighted your grades on a four point scale for each broadcast crew and sorted them to determine who your favorite and least favorite broadcast teams were. Each "A" vote received 4 points, 3 points for a "B" vote, down to 0 points for an "F" vote. The total points scored were divided by the total number of votes to calculate what amounts to a GPA for each broadcast booth.
If you're interested, you can see the full vote tally here.
After everything was tabulated, the end results may end up surprising you, but we feel that they're a pretty accurate ranking of the 30 broadcast crews in the league. Without any further ado, here we go.
30) Chicago White Sox – 1.37
-Hawk Harrelson (play by play)
-Steve Stone (analyst, play by play – select)
-Aaron Rowand (analyst -select)
-Mike Huff (analyst – select)
-Tom Paciorek (analyst – select)
Most popular grade: F (46% of voters)
Analysis: No crew received more total F's or a higher percentage of F's than the White Sox crew. Essentially, people either despised Hawk (for obvious reasons) or tolerated him for the sheer humor of it all, while there was a soft spot for analyst Steve Stone.
Reader Comments:
"In Dante's inferno of baseball, [Harrelson] will be forced to watch endless loops of Sox striking out with the signature HE GONE being yelled in his ear for all of eternity." -CinVinman
"They support the team they work for, call a good & fair game, get on the team when it's performing badly and call out the shockingly bad state of MLB umpires." -josephfinn
"I usually can tolerate his schtick, and be honest, who doesn't love sad Hawk? Hearing Steve Stone still makes me sentimental to his days alongside Harry Carey" -jvanee24
29) Colorado Rockies – 1.63
-Drew Goodman (play by play)
-Jack Corrigan (play by play)
-Jerry Schemmel (play by play)
-George Frazier (analyst)
-Jeff Huson (analyst – select)
Most popular grade: C (43% of voters)
Analysis: No crew received fewer A's (21) or a lower percentage of A's (just 3%) than Colorado. People really didn't seem to like the Rockies crew at all with few positive comments for any of the broadcasters aside from Jeff Huson.
Reader Comments:
"Love Jeff Huson. Very smart, articulate and probably underrated and unknown nationally – as almost anyone Rockies-related is." -CD_21
"Goodman calls a good game, but Frazier is outdated with his analysis most of the times, and he tends to act like a homer if you don't keep him on a leash" -DanielOrmsby
28) St. Louis Cardinals – 1.67
-Dan McLaughlin (play by play)
-Rick Horton (play by play/analyst)
-Al Hrabosky (analyst)
-Tim McCarver (analyst – select)
Most popular grade: F (31% of voters)
Analysis: There was a shocking lack of homerism by Cardinals fans in this poll – only 12% of readers gave St. Louis' team an A. Dan McLaughlin didn't exactly get rave reviews, but based on the negative comments about the analysts he works with, I wonder how much of that negativity is caused by him. And then there's the McCarver factor.
Reader Comments:
"Dan Mclaughlin is terrible. He is extremely boring and offers no sense of humor or quick wit which is essential when doing baseball." -paulgordo1330
"Dan is good for the Cards. He obviously pulls for the Cards but is very objective. Al Hrabosky is horrible. I can't stand him. He brings less to a telecast then Dickie V." -scottyankey
"Dan McLaughlin isn't anything amazing, but he remains underrated because of who he is saddled with." -The Stork
27) Washington Nationals – 1.79
-Bob Carpenter (play by play)
-F.P. Santangelo (analyst)
-Johnny Holliday (play by play – select)
-Ray Knight (play by play – select)
Most popular grade: F (31% of voters)
Analysis: Washington was one of three teams (along with the Yankees and Braves) to receive at least 200 votes of each grade, though they received the second most F grades of any crew in the league. No one likes Bob Carpenter. A few people like F.P. Santangelo.
Reader Comments:
"Bob Carpenter may be the worst baseball announcer I have ever heard. […] FP Santangelo is a good analyst, talks a little too much, but I truly believe he is covering for Carpenter." -mikefromde
"I think F.P. Santangelo might be the worst color guy in all of baseball. Just cliche after cliche." -danzyl66
26) Philadelphia Phillies – 1.90
-Tom McCarthy (play by play)
-Matt Stairs (analyst)
-Jamie Moyer (analyst)
-Mike Schmidt (analyst – Sundays)
Most popular grade: C (26% of voters)
Analysis: The jury may still be out on Philadelphia's new broadcast team, and they may have finished lower if the Tom McCarthy/Chris Wheeler/Garry Matthews trio was still calling games this year. We don't have much of a sample for Stairs, Moyer, and Schmidt (in this incarnation, at least), but I think they'll end up getting into a nice groove as the season goes on.
Reader Comments:
"Tom McCarthy is awful in the fake announcer sort of way. He screws up frequently and his big cackle and constant laughter is beyond irritable and very, very distracting." -MattSmith2
"Phillies radio announcers are great. TV is putrid. God bless Harry Kalas" -@Elinapmac


text:
Highlights from the Marine Programme at GRID-Arendal for August 2010
1. Featured Project
OCEANIDS - Ocean Commons for Environmental and Natural resources Information and Data Sharing
New areas of the seabed and deep sea are facing management challenges related to the potential impacts of various human activities. The global community, with developing states and small island developing states in particular, requires credible, science-based marine data and information for purposes that include support to: 1) scientific investigation, 2) environmental and natural resource management and 3) reporting on the state of the marine environment in an overall effort to promote the sustainable use of the oceans.
OCEANIDS seeks to make relevant interdisciplinary and multithematic public marine data searchable, accessible and meaningful to users by combining the development of an ease-of-use web platform with GRID-Arendal's marine capacity building activities and initiatives. OCEANIDS will primarily function as a searchable catalogue of publicly available datasets needed to support scientific, management and policy decisions.
For more information, please contact Yannick Beaudoin
2. Data and Products
Methane Gas Hydrates website
The United Nations Environment Programme under the auspices of GRID-Arendal, is in the process of compiling a Global Outlook on Methane Gas Hydrates. This product is designed to provide credible, science-based information in an unbiased format for use by the general public and decision makers. Expertise from 7 national research groups (US, Canada, Germany, Norway, Japan, India, Korea), industry (Statoil, Schlumberger) and NGOs (Forum for the Future) has been assembled to guide the development of the report. As a first milestone, a project website has now been launched:
The site (designed for informing experts and policy makers) contains details on the project, topical news, an events calendar and a multimedia gallery.
3. Events
Recent events
Seminars/meetings/conferences related to the marine environment where representatives from GRID-Arendal have participated:
Upcoming events
1 September
Arendal, Norway: His Royal Highness Crown Prince Haakon Magnus and Her Royal Highness Crown Princess Mette-Marit visit GRID-Arendal as a part of their official tour of Aust-Agder county. They will be given a tour of the office, and an orientation about the work being done with regards to The International Year of Biodiversity.
6-7 September
Winchester, UK: Steering Committee meeting for InterRidge.
9 September
Ottawa, Canada: North American Regional Consultation Meeting for the UNEP Global Environmental Outlook-5 Process.
12-16 September
Montreal, Canada: World Energy Congress.
13-16 September
Washington D.C., USA: Arctic Ocean Review workshop and PAME II meeting, organised by the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME).
For more information, please contact Tiina Kurvits
20-22 September
Bergen, Norway: 12th UNEP Global Meeting of the Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans.
For more information, please contact Morten Sørensen
4. Other
EarthWire Marine user survey
GRID-Arendal's EarthWire Marine news service has been online for one year, and therefore we have made a survey to find out what its users - and even non-users - think about it. Please take the survey and help us improve the EarthWire Marine! It is open until 12 September.
Take survey here!
Did you know that…
…two of the world's largest Marine Protected Areas, the Phoenix Islands Protected Area (Kiribati) and the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (Hawaii, USA), have been designated as UNESCO World Heritage sites as of 1st Aug 2010? Both MPAs are important areas for coral reefs.
Sources: Phoenix Islands Protected Area and NOAA
…cold water corals are found in waters all over the world, and in Europe they form a belt of about 4500 kilometres? In comparison, the length of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia is 2300 kilometres.
Source: HERMES - Hotspot Ecosystem Research on the Margins of European Seas
Our favorite website of the month
International Coral Reef Initiative
If you would like your website to be featured here, please contact Rannveig Nilsen
EarthWire Marine
EarthWire Marine is a free online news service provided by GRID-Arendal. You can get marine environment news e-mailed to you every day or sign up to an RSS feed. Registering is simple. We pledge to protect your privacy, and users can at any time unsubscribe from the service. To subscribe visit the EarthWire Marine website.
For previous editions of this Marine Newsletter, please visit our Marine Programme website.


text:
Columbia Men's Utah Utes Crimson Flanker Full-Zip Fleece Jacket
NOW: $39.97 (33% off!)
Was: $60.00*
Product Information:
The next time you head to a Utes game, layer up with the Columbia® Utah Utes Flanker™ Fleece Jacket. You're sure to stand out as a dedicated Utah fan with the embroidered team logo featured on the left chest of this full-zip jacket. The Flanker's™ soft, insulating fleece fabric and adjustable drawcord hem ensure that you'll stay warm and comfortable during those crisp fall games.
- Columbia® Utah Utes full-zip fleece jacket
- Embroidered team logo on left chest and wordmark on back neck
- Embroidered Columbia® logo at right chest
- Two zippered pockets for storage and hand-warming
- Adjustable drawcord hem for a custom fit
- Machine washable
- Officially licensed collegiate product
- Fabric: 100% polyester
- Columbia
Country of Origin: ImportedWeb ID: 22343366


text:
Most pet owners consider their cats and dogs members of the family and cannot imagine life without them. However, recent data released by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) revealed that fewer American households include pets.
The 2012 U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook, which is released every five years, polled more than 50,000 Americans last year. It found that total pet ownership dropped 2.4 percent from 2006 to 2011. During that time, cat ownership decreased 6.2 percent, while dog ownership dropped 1.9 percent. Still, there are more than 74.1 million pet cats, and 69.9 million pet dogs in the United States.
A separate study conducted by the American Humane Society looked at the reasons why some people don't open their homes - and hearts - to a furry friend.
According to Care2.com, 1,500 adults were polled for the study. Some had previously owned a cat or dog, while others never had a pet. The study, titled "Reasons For Not Owning A Dog Or Cat," revealed there are three main reasons people hesitate to get a pet - the costs associated with caring for an animal, lack of time and the grief over the loss of a previous pet.
The good news is that many of those interviewed for the study indicated that pet ownership isn't out of the question for them in the future. Nearly half (45 percent) of previous dog owners said they would consider getting another, while 34 percent of previous cat owners said they may bring another feline friend into their homes. Many also indicated that they would choose an animal at a shelter for their next pet.
Among those who have never owned a pet, 25 percent said they were "probably" or "definitely' open to bringing a dog into their family, compared to 10 percent for cats. More than half (51 percent) said they would adopt or rescue a dog, while 42 percent said they would choose a cat from a shelter.
"By understanding the reasons why so many Americans do not own a pet, and learning what we can do to increase lifelong retention of those that do, we can take the necessary steps to change minds, change policies and change activities to help get more of these beautiful animals out of shelters and into the arms of loving families," Dr. Robin Ganzert, president and CEO of the American Humane Association, told Care2.com.
Whether you purchase, adopt or rescue a cat or dog, pet health experts say owning a pet is a responsibility that requires time, effort and some expense. In addition to ensuring you provide your pet with proper nutrition, exercise and attention, regular visits to a veterinary hospital are essential to the long-term health and well-being of your animal.
Veterinarians also recommend pet owners have their animals spayed or neutered in order to control the animal population and ensure the health of their pets. According to VCA Animal Hospitals, spaying is the surgical removal of a female animal's reproductive organs. Neutering is the surgical removal of a male animal's testicles. Both operations are performed when your pet is under general anesthesia.


text:
B.J. Hoeptner Evans, Manager, Communications, Phone: (719) 228-6800, E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.com
USAV Facebook - @USA_Volleyball - @USAV Beach
LONG BEACH, Calif. (July 24, 2013) – Four U.S. women's beach volleyball teams have advanced to the second round of single elimination at the FIVB Long Beach Grand Slam while three U.S. men's teams are 2-0 in pool play.
Women's pool play concluded on Wednesday. The No. 8 seeded team of Lauren Fendrick (Carlsbad, Calif.) and Brittany Hochevar (Hermosa Beach, Calif.) were the only U.S. team to win their pool and advance straight to the second round after winning their final pool play match, defeating Switzerland's No. 9 Nadine Zumkehr and Joana Heidrich, 21-10, 21-19 in 38 minutes. Fendrick and Hochevar
In Thursday's second round, Fendrick and Hochevar will face their U.S. compatriots, No. 12 Jennifer Fopma (Bellflower, Calif.) and Brooke Sweat (Fort Myers, Fla.). Fopma and Sweat lost their final pool play match on Wednesday to Brazil's No. 5 Agatha Bednarczuk and Maria Antonelli (21-19, 29-27 in 45 minutes), but came back in the first round to defeat Czech Republic's No. 23 Martina Bonnerová and Barbora Hermannová (21-8, 21-11 in 28 minutes).
The No. 1 seeded team of April Ross (Costa Mesa, Calif.) and Jennifer Kessy (San Clemente, Calif.) came back from its Tuesday pool play loss to advance to the second round. The U.S. pair won its final pool play match against Finland's Emilia Nystrom and Erika Nystrom by injury forfeit. In the first round, they topped Germany's No. 14 Germany's Victoria Bieneck and Julia Großner, a team they had never played before, 21-11, 14-21, 15-12 in 45 minutes.
"All the Germans are really good and a lot of them play similarly," Ross said. "They like to get up and hit the ball and they have great hands. They can misdirect the ball. They have really good ball control. We knew they would be good."
Kessy and Ross will play Brazil's No. 5 Agatha Bednarczuk and Maria Antonelli, a team they are 0-3 against this season, in Thursday's second round.
Finally, in the last match of the day on Wednesday, the No. 15 seeded team of Summer Ross (Carlsbad, Calif.) and Emily Day (Torrance, Calif.) defeated Nystrom and Nystrom, 21-10, 21-15 in 30 minutes to advance to the second round where they will face Spain's No. 6 Liliana Fernández Steiner and Elsa Baquerizo McMillan.
No. 27 seeded Whitney Pavlik (Laguna Beach, Calif.) and Annett Davis (Long Beach, Calif.) did not advance from pool play after finishing 1-2.
The U.S. men went 3-2 on Wednesday. No. 1 seeded Jake Gibb (Bountiful, Utah) and Casey Patterson (Van Nuys, Calif.) defeated Latvia's Ruslans Sorokins and Toms Smedins, 21-19, 21-18 in 39 minutes.
Gibb and Patterson had the second set well in hand and reached match point at 20-14, before Latvia scored four straight points to fight off the loss. Gibb called a timeout and Latvia's next serve went out of bounds.
"We played really well and then we put on the breaks there at the end for some reason," Gibb said. "We let down our guard a little bit. But it was a nice win."
No. 4 Phil Dalhausser (Ventura, Calif.) and Sean Rosenthal (Redondo Beach, Calif.) also took a 2-0 victory over Sweden's No. 20 Hannes Brinkborg and Stefan Gunnarsson (21-18, 21-19 in 39 minutes). Todd Rogers (Santa Barbara, Calif.) and Ryan Doherty (Toms River, N.J.), seeded No. 11, defeated Italy's No. 27 Gianluca Casadei and Paolo Ficosecco (21-17, 21-15 in 36 minutes).
No. 22-seeded Nick Lucena (Davie, Fla.) and John Hyden (Sherman Oaks, Calif.) fell to Canada's Ben Saxton and Chaim Schalk (21-19, 18-21, 15-7 in 45 minutes) and No. 30 Casey Jennings (Las Vegas, Nev.) and Stafford Slick (Hermosa Beach, Calif.) lost to Spain's No. 14 Pablo Herrera Allepuz and Adrián Gavira Collado (18-21, 21-18, 15-11 in 52 minutes).


text:
Present: Gandolf, Sam, rachel, Ken, Lucea, Julie, Grant, Raul, Michal, mike, lynne
Studios - evrything is good, Nix has cleared the fire exits. all studios are full, all artists have paid, all bar one are up to date with volunteer hours. ≈
Cave -
It is open. All equipment is working, one PA speaker is broke, Owen has ordered component and will fit it. Cave booked approx a third of the time.
BookingSystem will be re-written.
Proposal accepted: Morning rental is 3 hours from 10am to 1pm for price of 2 hours.
Darkroom -
meetings every tue.
pinhole Day 25th April, informal workshop 20th march, everyone would come and make a simple pinhole camera.
screenprint -
it will move into CraftyRoom. There will be an action day soon...
Woodwork. -
Still need a list of tools needed, still need to move the metal work stuff out.
Need to keep the power tools cabinet looked.
Proposal accepted: a list of people that are deemed compitent will be created and only these people will be given access to the power tools key. Ken, Nix, Gandolf, Jude, Jamie, mike, rachel. Sam. - any two of these people can add a new person to the list.
AP: rachel to create actionpoint scedule to improve functionality.
AP: nix to speak to Matt about moving Bike gen stuff. and will make sure
AP: Ken to get screws & screw table together.
Hall -
Proposal: The hall is an ArtistFacility. we offer to bring the Hall Project into the Artist Facilities Working Group, subject to ForestWorkingGroup approval.
Multi core, we have a 24chanel desk and a dodgy 6 channel Multicore.
we need more. 15m? 8 (or more) channels? XLR, should be portable.
lockable box for mics etc.
Blackout Curtains.
AP: Gandolf to measure the windows.
Hall action day.
AP: Mike. explore what activities are limited by Forest insurance.
AP: Mike to find solutions to buzzword issues


text:
Stones are as varied as the customers who buy them. The ideal product mix should provide plenty of buzz for advertising and marketing programs and ultimately drive traffic to the store, increase sales and boost profit. The following are some of the most popular stone types selling across the nation in 2013 that will provide an excellent base to get any dealer started in the category.
Crema Marfil Marble: Crema Marfil is a classic cream marble from Spain with tan undertones. It is ideal for indoor bathroom and kitchen applications such as flooring, countertops, backsplashes and wall coverings.
Crema Marfil Marble
Arabescato Carrara: This marble is an exquisite combination of whites and grays with medium variation. It is available in slabs and a wide variety of coordinating tiles including mosaics, patterns, octagons and a variety of other shapes. It is recommended for interior use as flooring, countertops and walls in both commercial and residential properties.
Arabescato Carrara
Calacatta Gold: This distinctive Italian marble of whites and golds comes in honed and polished in tiles, slabs and mosaics allowing for the perfect coordination in bathrooms, kitchens and other interior design projects.
Calacatta Gold
Crema Cappucino: Imported from Turkey, Crème Cappucino is a golden and ivory marble with slight variations. It is recommended for interior projects including walls, backsplashes, countertops and flooring for both residential and commercial properties.
Emperador Dark: Emperador Dark is a polished marble from Spain featuring a range of dark rich browns and grays. This marble is recommended for interior use in residential and commercial buildings for flooring, walls and countertops.
DkEmperador Dark
Cblerema Marfil MarblepCrema Marfil MarbleEerador Dark Emperador Dark
Durango Cream: Durango Cream Travertine is a classic beige travertine imported from Mexico.
Durango Cream
Tuscany Walnut: Tuscany Walnut tiles are rich and dynamic with shades of browns, taupes, tans and creams. They are available in a variety of sizes and finishes and recommended for interior use in residential properties including floors and walls.
Tuscany Walnut
Red and Green Onyx: Here's the showstopper that is an alternative to granite, marble and other more popular stone surfaces. Onyx is formed in caves as stalactites and stalagmites drip to form this precious stone.


text:
Mature Gaming is a community driven video gaming website dedicated to bringing players closer together through tournaments, competitions, events and arranged meet ups, as well as providing a one stop shop for all your video game news, reviews and topics. Sign up today, fill in your profile and start making new friends for quality gaming sessions on Xbox 360, Playstation 3, PC or Wii. Seek out tips and tricks from our vast member base in the forums and join a gaming group (or two or three...) and stay up to date with all the activity you need to through automated email alerts.
Twice a year we run a Video Game LAN called MG LIVE - a chance to meet the gamers you're online with every day.


text:
Almost a fifth of children admitted to Dutch hospitals have acute or chronic malnutrition; risk factors include underlying disease and non-white ethnicity
Definition and prevalence of malnutrition
This very important study examined the prevalence of malnutrition in children in Dutch hospitals. Malnutrition includes disorders of nutrition status resulting from a deficiency of nutrient intake, impaired nutrient metabolism, or overnutrition.1 In this article, the authors specifically examined undernutrition.
Undernutrition in children is a common problem around the world. In low-income countries, the prevalence of undernutrition is estimated at 8–43%.2 In hospitals, the rate is even higher. In high-income countries, the prevalence of undernutrition in hospitalized children is around 6–19%.3,4 Undernourished children are at higher risk for improper physical and psychological development2,5 and may have permanent mental and physical disabilities as they age.6
Review of study
In this article, researchers investigated the prevalence of undernutrition in …


text:
iHerb Customer Reviews
Savings of: $20.74 (32% off)
Posted by zoso52 on Mar 19, 2011
I would put this in the must have group along with jack3d,a good BCAA and optimum`s whey protein!I am on my second tub with another ready to go.It`s one of those rare products that delivers on it`s promise,if your serious about your training and goals i would recommend you try it!.
Great product
Posted by Reviewer2299434 on Apr 05, 2011
I am very satisfied, good taste and dissolves well. I noticed a better recovering, more strength e some lean mass gain.
Posted by Reviewer2756447 on Mar 29, 2011
Not sure yet
Posted by Reviewer2982475 on Mar 13, 2012
Still not sure of the effect of this, but I'll keep on having it in my diet and we'll see if I notice anything.
Items 1-4 of 4 total


text:
Skip to comments.Teacher defends "Santa" remarks (Full, unedited statement)
Posted on 12/26/2005 8:11:14 AM PST by Conservatrix
To the Editor:
"Last week I substituted at a local elementary school in Lebanon County. The lesson plan required me to read the 1882 poem The Night Before Christmas by Clement Clarke Moore to two classes of students. While I can appreciate the poem for its literary value, the subject matter is offensive to me, and the reading of this poem to the children imposed values upon me which are against my deeply held religious beliefs. I could not in good conscience present the notion of Santa Claus as a truth to the children, and stated so.
No public school teacher should be required to teach a belief, or custom, or religion that he or she believes to be false, or be required to pass those purported falsehoods onto impressionable children, without the right to state a disclaimer. Furthermore, freedom of speech and religion, no matter how unpopular the speech or against cultural norms the religion, are protected rights under the Constitution of the United States. A secular public school should not be propagating any kind of religion. The belief in Santa Claus as a divine, magical, omniscient, powerful, giving, loving father-figure, to which children are taught to make supplications and requests, is a religion indeed-- a distorted substitute for the Judeo-Christian God; a false form of Christianity; a zealously-protected American idol.
In presenting the poem, I gave the children quick historical background about the Santa Claus myth-- its evolution from the historic Nickolaus, Bishop of Myrna in Asia Minor, who died in 343 A.D., to its amalgamation with ancient Western pagan traditions of German, Scandinavian and Dutch origins, to the current manifestation in the secular Christmas culture of today. (Dutch children, for example, would put their wooden shoes out at night for Sante Klaus to fill with candies.)
The current Santa Claus figure was popularized in the late 19th Century by artist Thomas Nast of Harpers Weekly Magazine, who depicted Saint Nick, not as an elf, but a rotund, pipe-smoking man in a red and white suit. This is the deity to which countless public school children today are taught to make supplications, and about whom they sing their many songs at annual public school Christmas programs.
If people are upset about the revelation to children that Santa Claus is a myth-- which all children who are taught this lie find or figure out eventually-- perhaps it is because Santa is that zealously-guarded idol of their own modern religion. Therefore, as a religion, let Santa be kept out of the public school classroom (no more Dear Santa letters to line those school hallways)--or perhaps, in the interest of diversity, make his mythical, oversized personage share equal representation in literature, and song, and Christmas programs, with the other Person of the season: the Lord Jesus Christ, God made flesh, God with us."
We look at cultures, and Santa is immersed in the culture. We also teach about Hanukkah.
She's a self-important knucklehead who needs to take herself a little less seriously...
"Six year olds? How many six year olds do you suppose still believe that Santa Claus is a real figure?
I hope the vast majority."
Pathetic. If you are a Christian, why do you want you children to believe in a falsehood? Why not teach them about Jesus who is the REAL person who is all-knowing, all-seeing, and rewards their good deeds?
Gawd, you must have had a miserable Christmas.
I am a grade A dope. I grew up and failed to connect the dots. Santa is a part of Christianity? I missed that in Bible school, I missed that in the public school. I blame the sloppy public education system for failing to teach me this fact, while educating me on the merits of earth day, kwanza and diversity. What excuse does the church have for failing to properly educate its youth about the Santa-Christianity connection?
"Santa Claus is not being 'taught as religion'. Noone is being told to pray to Santa Claus, noone is being told that Santa Claus created the world, and noone is being bussed to the Universal Church of Santa Claus on the taxpayers dime."
You are absoultely worng. "Dear Santa, I would like...." What are you doing? You are asking an invisible being for something. THAT, my friend, is the definition of prayer. Children are being taught that Santa "sees you when you're sleeping, knows when you're awake, knows when you've been bad or good." Those are attributes of a divine being.
If I were a lawyer and parent of a kid for whom she ruined the idea of Santa, I'd sue her crabby @ss just for the fun of it.
You sound so terribly threatened and to me, that is "pathetic".
I have two 7's going on 8, and I too was a child at one time.
I think I know from first hand experience what they believe and how their beliefs will evolve and serve them as they grow and gain in understanding of symbols of love and caring for others.
Our house will ALWAYS be a more special place and they will ALWAYS feel a little more special because, as small kids, they believed in miracles, they believe that one occurrs here in our family room, and they believe a good loving figure validated their wishes and their goodness and worthiness with his magic powers.... one night a year.
Even the charity gifts are delivered to poor families in the projects here by a volunteer dressed as....Santa Claus. For one moment of one night each year, anyone of any age can feel universally loved and cared for and worthy of receiving a loving miracle.
At least, that's how I grew up and how I hope they will chose to raise their own kids someday.
I also think I am the best guide for my kids about how and why our family chooses to celebrate Christmas, not some substitute teacher with a chip on her shoulder about the mythical "Judeao-Christian God", Santa Claus as a "symbol" of Him, and the misery she feels at others' "misguided" beliefs. Somehow I think "Santa" skipped this teacher as a child. Poor sad little girl growing up with "reality"... now a poor sad bitter woman existing only in "reality".
Just another egotistical, self centered a$$hole with a chip on her shoulder.........
"Scripted by the ACLU..."
No, scripted from the heart and conscience of someone willing to live by what they believe to be true.
*Scripted! PRESCRIPED! Too contrived and very timely! Right out of the neoPavlovian leftist workshop. She is a cloned ideologue - pooped-out of the brainwash lab.
Key words and code words prove it.
BTW ... I'm gonna say this, and I don't care if I do raise some hostile eyebrows. ;)
Merry Christmas!
Keep your religious philosophy to yourself in the classroom or better yet get a job at a Kingdom Hall someplace. You'll fit right in with 'em.
If you think the lesson plan is somehow offensive to your delicate little sensibilities then show some real courage and quit.
Wow! Look at all the bile and venom this woman's actions have brought out, all because she told children about the MYTH of Santa Claus.
She's "scum", a "b***h", and *gasp!* a "liberal"! Some of these same folks, when confronted with the hypothetical you offered about abortion would applaud a substitute teacher for refusing to teach that abortion is okay, according to the "lesson plan" but Santa, whoa! That "b***h" should have stuck with the lesson plan because it's okay to teach children about a jolly fat guy in a red suit who "sees you when you're sleeping, knows when you're awake, knows when you've been bad or good so be good for goodness' sake" who delivers whatever they want to them, all in one night!
She really touched a sacred cow, this time, eh? She better not be teaching near Easter and tell the truth about that character or the fur is REALLY going to fly!
"If she said the same about God, because she was an atheist, or that homosexuality is a good life style, it would be okay because she believed it to be true?
Finally, somebody got it! "
No, somebody, didn't get it. She is a conservative, republican, pro-life, Christian who is not for homosexual marriage or promoting homsexuality. She could not teach those things to children either, if she was required to teach it.
"He sees you when you're sleeping; he know's when you're awake; he knows when you've been bad or good."... gee, that sound like the God you say you believe in.
You can't be serious?
Students can make distinction between Santa Claus, and that of the birth of the Christ child in a manger.
They don't mix the two up.
The teaching of Santa is not religion. Santa is a cultural icon, and therefore we continue to teach about the culture the students are immersed in.
I can't believe I am having to argue this point.
You still cannot refute that Santa is :
rewarding the good
giving gifts
just like ..... God himself???????
Santa Claus is a mythological figure. Santa does not really exist. It is the idea of Santa Claus that is attractive. At age six, this will not be the first time these kids will have been exposed to the fact that Santa is not real. Other kids will have disabused them of that fact already, I guarantee.
Woa woa woa. There is to a santa claus. Where is the moderator to kicked this guy off our site.
Actually she just keeps digging deeper and deeper.
I suggest the "Holy Church Of Uptight Bitties".
agreed. I bet she's one of those mixed nuts who says "herstory" instead of "history".
We agree rarely, but this time we agree. For all the hoopla raised this year about Christmas and the lack of interest by many in the real reason for that celebration, it seems odd that so many want to perpetuate the silly fairly tale of Santa Claus.
A lot of conservative Christians oppose the entire Santa Claus myth specifically because it masks the true meaning of Christmas.
This teacher, apparently, is one of those who consider the Santa Claus story, as it is told to children, is not consistent with Christmas.
So, she explained the origins of Santa Claus to the students. And related it to Christmas as celebrated by Christians.
So, what do we have here: A bunch of the same people who were decrying the "War on Christmas" slandering a woman who is pointing out that Santa is not a deity, nor is Santa real.
"Twas the Night before Christmas" makes no mention of Jesus' birth. It doesn't mention the reason Christmas is celebrated at all. It's a strictly secular poem. It's about gifts and that sort of thing, and venerates a mythical character that distracts from the real story of Christmas.
I'm an atheist, and don't believe in the divinity of Jesus in the first place, but I'd like to see some consistency from those who do. Santa and this poem are purely secular, as presented here.
You want the "War on Christmas?" The commercial use of Santa Claus is at the heart of it. "The Night before Christmas" has nothing to do with Christianity, nor with the reason Christmas is celebrated.
"You can't be serious?Students can make distinction between Santa Claus, and that of the birth of the Christ child in a manger.They don't mix the two up."
Oh yes they do, my friend. I just heard the story of a man who, when he was young, was told finally that his parents lied to himn about there being a Santa Claus. The then-boy replied, "Dad, when are you going to tell me Jesus isn't real also"?
Okay, the teacher is a Christian, conservative republican. I like the way she delineated the history of Santa Claus, how he's depicted in other countries. That's fine. But she crossed a line because these were small kids, 6 and 7, albeit that they probably found out the truth on the school bus. If one child raised his hand and demanded to know if there really was a Santa Claus, she could have finessed the question, and frankly, there's a little Santa Claus in all of us and not just at Christmas. That spirit of caring and giving and generosity toward others. Katrina and the tsunami come to mind.)
Well put.
I am amazed that one of the few people who acutally gets the point of this whole thing is an atheist.
Thanks for getting it.
People who get their knickers in a wad over Santa seriously need to get a life, and most certainly shouldn't preach to fellow Christians. MYOB.
My impression from the original article was that she was a fool and a prig. She has now confirmed that initial impression, at length, in her own words.
Kudos, Theresa. The world needs straight-shooters like you.
"she could have finessed the question, and frankly, there's a little Santa Claus in all of us and not just at Christmas. That spirit of caring and giving and generosity toward others. Katrina and the tsunami come to mind.
That, my friend, is the spirit THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, not Santa Claus. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." YOu cannot bleive in other gods if you love Jesus Christ .
Your analogy is not correct. There is a lot of difference between poetry and life/death situations. You are mixing apples and oranges saying they are the same. Wrongo here!! Now the perfect analogy would be asking if you would teach that James Whitcomb Riley's poem, "Little Orphan Annie" was written to scare children into behaving correctly, or to tell a childhood fantasy about gobblins and ghosts? Both poems, "Night Before Christmas" and "Little Orphan Annie" were written to enhance childrens' fantasies, no more and no less. To make it anything else is not to be tolerated nor accepted by the general public. Hence, your rebuke is not correct.
Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that she has told these youngsters that the US invaded Iraq to get their oil?
"People who get their knickers in a wad over Santa seriously need to get a life, and most certainly shouldn't preach to fellow Christians. MYOB"
Quote the contrary, it is the mainstream popular culture who is in a wad oiver someone who disagrees with the mainstream.
"Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that she has told these youngsters that the US invaded Iraq to get their oil?"
No, she did not. She voted for George Bush and is a conservative republican Christian.
"Children are being taught that Santa "sees you when you're sleeping, knows when you're awake, knows when you've been bad or good." Those are attributes of a divine being."
First of all, the children are NOT BEING TAUGHT that Santa...it's NOT in the curriculum! The above named attributes are the attributes of excellent parents.
What sophomoric (prescribed and stale) reasons you provide.
If this sanctimonious, tight-*ss b*tch had to write a paragraph without using the words "I", "me", or "my", she would have nothing to say.
Guess what, sweetie, it ain't about YOU. You were asked to do a simple task in a first grade classroom, not sit there and pontificate on your beliefs.
This person is the kind who gives "Christians" a bad name.
"Little Orphan Annie" was written to scare children into behaving correctly, or to tell a childhood fantasy about gobblins and ghosts? Both poems, "Night Before Christmas"
wrong argument. No children are being taught to ask Little Orphan Annie for Christmas presents. Santa is being taught as a God substitute.
Look, if you or anyone else doesn't want your children to believe in Santa for a few short years of their childhood, that's fine. But don't go preaching to those of us who do, and don't you dare get out of your parental bounds and tell children, who are not yours, about personal Christmas traditions that none of your business.
"Guess what, sweetie, it ain't about YOU. You were asked to do a simple task in a first grade classroom, not sit there and pontificate on your beliefs. This person is the kind who gives "Christians" a bad name."
I think if a person has the courage to stand up to what they belive, that is admirable. The story is about being forced to teach something against one's religous beliefs in a secular school. Why would any Christian want to teach their children that some guy in a red suit who smokes a pipe is the one who anwers their prayers, gives them their presents on Christmas, and rewards their deeds because he sees them and hears them all the time?
My 5 year old and 10 year old still believe. I tell them that Santa and Jesus are friends.
We put out a piece of Jesus' birthday cake for santa instead of cookies. If a teacher EVER thought it their right to tell my kids that Santa doesn't exist, I would be so mad.
A few years ago, I was unemployed at Christmas time and told my kids that the only way we were going to have presents was if God and Santa got together and decided to provide it for them. We woke up to a black trash bag on my porch filled with presents, and no idea where it came from. We have also been blessed by the generosity of our fellow freepers.
This substitute teacher is a good example of the undereducated product of our liberal colleges. These young women have earned teaching degrees so they can go into our public schools and tear down American traditions. When they are not eroding American traditions, they are giving our adolescent boys hands-on learning experiences in sexual education.
"don't you dare get out of your parental bounds and tell children, who are not yours, about personal Christmas traditions that none of your business."
Read the letters. Someone is being asked to promote YOUR belief, not the other way around.
The good news is that Theresa is a substitute. Kids never pay attention to the substitutes.
Here's a clue for you babe. Don't teach in public schools. You'll just get your panties in a bunch over stuff that makes you look like a nutjob.
Now, go find yourself a nice teaching post at a private religious school and you won't be exposed to the evil horror that is Santa Claus.
Geez....what a nutball.
I tell them that Santa and Jesus are friends.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Santa does not exist, and Jesus is your Lord, and you tell your chidlren a lie?
Get out your Bible and read it sometime.
Read further. The teacher in question is a Conservative Christian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.