Lessons of Copenhagen

Representatives from virtually all nations recently gathered in Copenhagen to try to solve the problem of global warming, which threatens to ruin the environment of the whole planet. Yet despite the urgency of the problem, and strenuous efforts by several nations, the summit is being called a failure. There have been no firm commitments to reduce CO2 emissions. The bottom line is, there will be no alleviation of warming and its devastating effects--rising sea levels, disappearance of polar ice, flooding of coastal communities and desertification inland. Failure to address the core issue augers environmental disaster.
The failure of Copenhagen is an indictment of the political status quo. Like Kyoto, Copenhagen was ineffective for two basic reasons. First, the solution to global warming is sacrifice. Reducing emissions means less industrial output, less profit and fewer jobs and material goods sought by the masses. However vital such sacrifices may be, in view of the consequences of climate change, a democracy simply can't impose them, because they are too unpopular. Second, even if one or more states were able to compel sacrifice, there is no global authority strong enough to ensure that all, or enough, nations would follow suit to solve the problem. In short, saving the planet requires an end to democracy and national sovereignty. Copenhagen shows that both are obsolete and should go, if Earth is to survive.

Origin of the "heaven" and "hell" Myths

Scholars have noted that the earliest christian writings, such as those of Paul and Mark, spoke of Jesus returning to usher in his kingdom on earth, or of a "Son of Man" arriving to inaugurate god's kingdom in this world. These apocalyptic scenarios envisaged rewards and punishments being meted out to people here on earth, and quite soon. As the gospel of Mark makes clear, Jesus expected the "Son of Man" to arrive quickly, within the lifetime of some of his contemporaries. Early christians expected an imminent second coming of jesus himself. Obviously, these were false hopes, and toward the end of the first century people began to realize it. Even after decades of preaching, Jesus never returned in fulfillment of prophecy. Faced with increasing derision, christian writers had to switch tactics. Instead of Jesus returning here to reward and punish, the gospel of John conjured up "heaven" and "hell." In other words, rather than rely on the promise of an earthly kingdom, which could easily be falsified since jesus never does show up, the christian authorities invented otherworldly realms of reward and punishment, which were not falsifiable, to maintain the faith of people, and control their behavior.
Amazingly, countless millions of people have taken the promise of "heaven" and threat of "hell" seriously, when they are in fact pure cockamamie, pulled out of thin air by those desperate to save christian faith and control in the wake of failed prophecy.

A relevant book for the holiday season

Ehrman's Jesus Interrupted taught me more about christianity than I had learned in the preceding 50 years. I had long doubted the veracity of religious teachings, especially christian ones. But I didn't realize just how phony christianity really is. The claim that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem, for example, was a pure invention by the gospel writers. Bethlehem was where the kings of ancient Israel were born. To make Jesus appear more exalted, Matthew and Luke contrived tales of how he was born there. We can be sure such stories are false because e.g. there is absolutely no historical evidence that Augustus ordered people to return to their places of birth for a census. Not only do the historians make no mention of such a census, the notion can be dismissed since it would've caused too much disruption.
Ehrman stresses that the views he presents are standard among scholars and are routinely taught in colleges and seminaries. But generally they have been withheld from the masses, no doubt to help preserve christianity.
In light of all the obvious falsehoods concerning the birth of christ (among other things) nativity scenes are worse than ludicrous. More people should become aware of the truth: that the nativity stories are as fake as santa claus.

Obama's Blunder

After weeks of vacillation, the President gave in to his advisors and ordered the deployment of an additional 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan (on top of the 21,000 sent previously by his Administration, or 68, 000 total already there). This is a foolish mistake. Just as the end of one quagmire, Iraq, is finally in sight, Obama is rushing headlong into another. At a time when huge deficits already threaten us with bankrupcy, this costly move will push us further toward the abyss.
Why is Obama doing this? It appears he is a victim of his own campaign rhetoric. Rightly sensing that Iraq was a terrible waste of resources, but wary of looking like a liberal pacifist, Obama opposed the Iraq war on the grounds that "the real fight against terror is in Afghanistan." That was a clever campaign position, but unwise if translated into policy. Since the US crushed the Afghan Taliban, al-Qaida has become more of a nonterritorial movement. It does not require an Afghan base to function. It also has Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. Apparently, Obama's advisors talked him into sending reinforcements as part of a longterm strategy to prevent Pakistan's nuclear arsenal from falling into militant Islamic hands. But US troops are superfluous. The Pakistani armed forces are quite capable of keeping the militants at bay on their own. They beat them in Swat and in Wasiristan. Ironically, a US Afghan surge may worsen matters for Pakistan, simply by forcing the Taliban across the border, intensifying the pressure on Pakistan.
While Obama's long delay in approving McCrystal's request for reinforcements attests to his reluctance, or realization that it is bad policy, another consideration made him finally give in. The blunder stemmed from a desire to improve his political standing--what else is new in this country? Eager to appeal to a broader and more conservative base of Americans, Obama is partly motivated by a desire to be a great "wartime President," protecting this country from the dire threat of 60-100 Pakistani nukes in terrorist hands. Yet again, real national interests are being sacrificed on the alter of politics.