and another thing

I'll just start by saying that since noone ever comments on my posts, I have no filters and no feeling of censoring what I write about- I'm either a)too wordy and nobody reads the whole thing b) too boring or c)way too out there for anyone to throw me a lifeline. I suspect it's A, but its hard to tell. Anyway, since noone comments, I must not be ticking too many people off, or knowing the blogosphere, I'm sure I'd hear about it- although that is making the haughty assumption that ANYone reads this but me! Whatever the case, I'm having fun and noone else seems to want to join the ride on my crazy train so off I go!

The last few days I've been struck by a few of those inconsistency issues. Inconsistency is my hobgoblin. I dislike it. It seems to get worse around election season, and no wonder, what with candidates trying so hard to be all things to at least 51% of the people (in the right states). First is my observation that SOME of those who disagree with the assertion that climate change is man-made also happen to ascribe to the literal timeline of creation (6,000 years give or take). Now, how is it that in one argument you can say that the world is only 6,000 years old and that the fossil record and so forth are up for debate, and in the other argument say that we can't blame global warming in human activity when it can be scientifically be proven the earth has been warm in eons past. Yes, its true that the world has been warmer in eons past- when all the midwest was one giant carribean ocean, and loads of dinosaurs ate the swampy grass matter (and each other) in this humid (but also equitorial) environment. This is pre-ice age, and is dated to be over 100,000 years ago and more so! Which is impossible if the world is only 6,000 years old. So, if you're going to be consistent, you will have to admit that the current temperature quotients are the highest they've ever been in the last 6,000 years. So, since man came into the picture, the globe has gotten warmer. You can't have it both ways!

My second incosistency has to do with the Episcopal church (national) which is doing it's damnest (and I think that's the perfect word here) to fulfill the UN's millenial Development Goals, and do social outreach and all sorts of good 'work' to help those oppressed by our systemic sinful governments and empires while at the same time is so very quiet about two huge uses of money that they are involved with. One is the ongoing lawsuits and legal wrangling to hold onto property and assets and things of this world- as dioceses and parishes remove themselves from the church- "You can't have it- it's MINE!" There is also no response to many calls for financial transperancy on this matter nor any divulgence of exactly how much money is being spent to pay legal and lawyer fees. Secondly, they have been mute in regards to the Wall Street meltdown and corporate greed that is threatening to take down the world financial markets. Why? I think its because they own Wall Street- literally- because Trinity Church, Wall Street owns their whole block and rents it out to those self-same corporations involved with this sub-prime mortgage credit crunch asset CEO bonus oil rich meltdown of a mess we're in. That church and the national church (also in NYC) gain amazing amounts of wealth from their own stocks, money markets, mutual funds and so forth. Trinity even has its own parish conference center in Connecticut. How much money do we need to simply sustain our pretty buildings? A lot I guess, to pay the lawyers. But meanwhile we dare to call the government of say, Germany, out on their reluctance to relinguish 3rd world debt? The last I read it, Jesus said to go and sell all you own and follow him. But I guess that's a little unclear in these uncertain times.

Cynically yours and longing for consistency- Smitty