Appreciate the mention of Silverthorne in your editorial - I wonder if anyone from the Recorder has actually attended their performances? Please do! The Skin of Our Teeth is incredible! Not your father's Thorton Wilder!! ...(full comment)
I wouldn't trust the pipeline companies on this; in other areas where they've installed pipelines they've mostly brought in outside workers. Also, the "we need jobs" argument just doesn't work - fine, you may need jobs, but that doesn't mean that every single proposed infrastructure project is thus valid. We could also propose that we dig a series of ditches across the state and then fill them back in - wouldn't be a positive outcome for MA, but hey, it's jobs, right? And one commenter also notes that there needs to be "balance" - sorry, but employing a few dozen people for 6-12 months or so does not outweigh the vast environmental damage that this project will cost over decades to millions of people. Gas is yesterday's fuel, and many times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide - expanding our reliance on it, especially when we are going to start competing with other countries since it WILL be exported thanks to this project, makes zero strategic sense. ...(full comment)
An announcement in the Globe today states that Rush Limbaugh will be broadcast on local airwaves. Limbaugh has deep ties to Richard Kinder, and is known to promulgate hate speech and stir up racism, bigotry and violence against scapegoat groups. There is a strategic reason for doing this. If you watch the behavior of this type of entity elsewhere in the world, hate speech is used to divide whole nations against their own self interest. It has enabled half of U.S. wealth to be taken from our economy and sent off shore, while austerity measures are used to impoverish the rest of the nation. It also leads to domestic terrorism. This is a strategy of these entities who have no moral compass and no love for anyone other than those they use for profit. ...(full comment)
Eminent domain is being used for private profit in this case, with Baker's tacit agreement. The behavior of the DPU is a first of its kind in the nation, and violates the rights of property owners, towns and their elected officials. This is literally taxation without representation, since these landowners bear the added burden of subsidizing energy infrastructure on their properties; now they can be rendered into incineration zones by corporate fiat. There is no reason to ruin all this property or endanger human life, except for greed: no funding of pipeline safety; no real oversight of these entities, and now: no representation according to the DPU. ...(full comment)
This project will ruin the retirements and life holdings of countless Massachusetts residents and the economies of whole towns. It will ruin the economies of these towns. It will ruin the nature and character of this region forever. The toxins spewed into water and sent into the air by giant compressor stations will put volatile organic compounds, neurotoxins, endocrine disruptors, and a long list of cancer causing chemicals into the air all along this route: to settle in farmland and in drinking water. In the end, it will destroy something precious. I wonder who will be left to pay the unemployment and taxes for union workers when the money syphoned off from this, leaves Massachusetts with all the burdens and none of the benefits. In other states, these workers have been encouraged to intimidate and threaten citizens on behalf of giant corporations. Can we expect this here, too? ...(full comment)
'There’s an axiom that is common to both science and law. It goes like this: extraordinary claims demand more scrutiny than usual to make sure they stand up. That is how science works. Claim and counter-claim: intellectual thrust and experimental parry.'*
Evolution has stood the test of time, and passed every challenge with flying colors. Intelligent Design, a form of religious creationism, was invalidated as science in the 1800’s, even before Darwin published. Nothing discovered since Darwin's day has changed that fact.
* Nature Magazine ...(full comment)
What if science is wrong and there was no "beginning" to the universe? Hard as it is to fathom, what if the "elements" that make up the universe have always been here and the Big Bang was one instansiation of a cycle of birth and death that happens every 15 billion years ( just a random number I put in). It's a it difficult to entirely believe in the "Big Bang" theory and buy the premise that in an "instant", or even a metaphorical 7 days, there was nothing and then there was everything. And if it was god, then who created that God. So if you can believe there was always a god, never a time without God, you could also believe that the universe always existed. That being said, I do believe that the universe has intelligence and that to me becomes a really interesting discussion. ...(full comment)
"Isn’t it interesting that the debate over intelligent design (creationism) and the theory of evolution (naturalism) continues 150 years after Darwin?"
No, not really. In some even more intellectually debased circles, the debate over geocentrism continues centuries after the evidence on that issue was clear. And it continues for the same reason: blind, uninformed ignorance based in religious faith. What should concern you more, given your chosen occupation, is why there are so many Christian denominations two millennia after the cobbling together of your Canon. Surely that goes directly to its provenance.
"Science has spoken on this issue, but not all of us believe it has spoken coherently. Many on the “science” side often speak more philosophy and opinion..."
This reveals nothing more than your complete ignorance of science.
What journals do you subscribe to? How many articles from the primary literature do you read per month? Have you sat down with a textbook of evolutionary biology and read it cover to cover? And then researched the footnotes?
Judging from the rest of your epistle, you have mistaken the lies peddled by creationist websites as somehow being representative of the state of scientific knowledge. I would wager you have never, even once, exposed yourself to a graduate level reading of the subject about which you pretend to have insight. This is roughly equivalent to expounding on the nature of theology based on a reading of the "witty" little signs outside low-rent churches.
What an embarrassment article this is for you. ...(full comment)
The pastor's evidence:
1 I don't know how this happened, therefore God.
2 I don't know how this happened, therefore God.
3 I don't know how this happened, therefore God.
Perhaps you need to learn what the word 'evidence' means.
Now to wait for the IDists to comment here and point out that the Pastor is not defending their claims but rather creationism. ID and creationism are completely different, don't you know? ...(full comment)
1) Intelligent design isn't *necessarily* creationism if, for example ET made us... so right off the bat you have proven that you don't *really* know what you are talking about...
2) The naturalist might also say that it appears as if we are *necessary* to the physical process... so we are *needed* into existence for this purpose... so again, you don't even know what all of the choices are, yet you feel like you are qualified to speculate....