Category Archives: History

The DDT Global Ban Myth

Posted on by
7

The Green Death

“Who is the worst killer in the long, ugly history of war and extermination? Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? Not even close. A single book called Silent Spring killed far more people than all those fiends put together.

Published in 1962, Silent Spring used manipulated data and wildly exaggerated claims (sound familiar?) to push for a worldwide ban on the pesticide known as DDT – which is, to this day, the most effective weapon against malarial mosquitoes. The Environmental Protection Agency held extensive hearings after the uproar produced by this book… and these hearings concluded that DDT should not be banned. A few months after the hearings ended, EPA administrator William Ruckleshaus over-ruled his own agency and banned DDT anyway, in what he later admitted was a “political” decision. Threats to withhold American foreign aid swiftly spread the ban across the world.

The resulting explosion of mosquito-borne malaria in Africa has claimed over sixty million lives. This was not a gradual process – a surge of infection and death happened almost immediately. The use of DDT reduces the spread of mosquito-borne malaria by fifty to eighty percent, so its discontinuation quickly produced an explosion of crippling and fatal illness. The same environmental movement which has been falsifying data, suppressing dissent, and reading tea leaves to support the global-warming fraud has studiously ignored this blood-drenched “hockey stick” for decades.”

— Doctor Zero

>http://www.doczero.org/2010/02/the-green-death/

On February 10th, 1970, almost a year before he founded the EPA, President Nixon announced, “we have taken action to phase out the use of DDT and other hard pesticides.” It therefore seems highly likely that the DDT ban was decided by Nixon long in advance of the EPA hearings, which is probably why Ruckelshaus, who Nixon put at the head of the agency he founded “over-ruled his own agency”. Nixon seemed to expect nothing less than absolute loyalty from those he put in high positions. In what became called “The Saturday Night Massacre,” Ruckelshaus and his boss, Elliot Richardson, famously quit their jobs at the Justice Department rather than obey an order from Nixon to fire the prosecutor investigating Watergate.

The conservative myth is that the ban was worldwide. While the ban did affect the price and popularity of DDT donated to poorer countries like Africa, Ruckelshaus’ decision was based on whether the ban was good for America, which it was and still is. We had alternatives that were just as good and the decision is cited by scientists as a major factor in stopping the bald eagle from going extinct. But the ban was a terrible decision for Africa because it caused a very poor country to adopt more expensive chemicals, causing a large number of unnecessary human deaths. This definitely should have been considered by Nixon and Ruckelshaus before they decided to institute the ban, but even today Ruckelshaus doesn’t see the link between his decision and how the DDT ban affected poorer countries.

While foregoing the ban would have saved countless lives, it also goes against one of the prime tenants of medicine: “Don’t make the patient any worse.” DDT is hardly a harmless miracle cure demonized by overzealous environmentalists. A 2006 study says found many children exposed to DDT as fetuses (found in trace amounts in the umbilical cord) had decreased attention and cognitive skills. Studies done in poorer regions that use DDT have found unhealthy levels of it in breast milk. Another study of Chinese textile workers found DDT and early pregnancy loss. A case-control study in Japan supported by several other studies concluded that in utero DDT exposure may affect thyroid hormone levels and be a factor in cretinism.

As for “Silent Spring,” Carson never advocated banning DDT, not in America and certainly not worldwide. She only advocated limiting it because its overuse would cause insects to evolve defense mechanisms against it, and she was right about that. She certainly didn’t manipulate data as that article claims. Her science was vindicated by President Kennedy’s Science Advisory Committee and Discover Magazine calls it one of the one of the 25 greatest science books of all time. The conservative claim repeated in “the Green Death” that scientific studies have proved that DDT had no effect on the thinning of eagle and falcon shells is actually technically true: it is a metabolite of DDT, called DDE, that actually causes the thinning of the shells.

There is certainly no comparison to be made between the DDT banning controversy and global warming. The DDT ban was a political decision made by a Republican and was never meant to be globalized by the liberals who supported it. Global warming is an observed scientific fact accepted by every major scientific organization in the world.

Some quotes:

“Critics claim that restrictions on the use of DDT in vector control have resulted in substantial numbers of unnecessary deaths due to malaria. Estimates for the number of these deaths range from hundreds of thousands, according to Nicholas Kristof,[107] to much higher figures. Robert Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health said in 2007 that “The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children.”[108] These arguments have been called “outrageous” by former WHO scientist Socrates Litsios, and May Berenbaum, an entomologist at the University of Illinois, says that “to blame environmentalists who oppose DDT for more deaths than Hitler is worse than irresponsible.”[81] Investigative journalist Adam Sarvana and others characterize this notion as a “myth” promoted principally by Roger Bate of the pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM) in service of his anti-regulatory, free market ideology.[109][110]

Criticisms of a “ban” on DDT often specifically reference the 1972 US ban (with the erroneous implication that this constituted a worldwide ban and prohibited use of DDT in vector control). Reference is often made to Rachel Carson‘s Silent Spring even though she never pushed for a ban on DDT. John Quiggin and Tim Lambert have written that “the most striking feature of the claim against Carson is the ease with which it can be refuted.”[111] Carson actually devoted a page of her book to considering the relationship between DDT and malaria, warning of the evolution of DDT resistance in mosquitoes and concluding:

It is more sensible in some cases to take a small amount of damage in preference to having none for a time but paying for it in the long run by losing the very means of fighting [is the advice given in Holland by Dr Briejer in his capacity as director of the Plant Protection Service]. Practical advice should be “Spray as little as you possibly can” rather than “Spray to the limit of your capacity.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt

“In one of her last public appearances, Carson had testified before President Kennedy’s Science Advisory Committee. The committee issued its report on May 15, 1963, largely backing Carson’s scientific claims.[56] Following the report’s release, she also testified before a Senate subcommittee to make policy recommendations. Though Carson received hundreds of other speaking invitations, she was unable to accept the great majority of them. Her health was steadily declining as her cancer outpaced the radiation therapy, with only brief periods of remission. She spoke as much as she was physically able, however, including a notable appearance on The Today Show and speeches at several dinners held in her honor. In late 1963, she received a flurry of awards and honors: the Audubon Medal (from the National Audubon Society), the Cullum Medal (from the American Geographical Society), and induction into the American Academy of Arts and Letters.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson

“Ruckelshaus made the right decision — for the United States. At the time, DDT was mainly sprayed on crops, mostly cotton, a use far riskier than indoor house spraying. There was no malaria in the United States — in part thanks to DDT — so there were no public health benefits from its use. ”But if I were a decision maker in Sri Lanka, where the benefits from use outweigh the risks, I would decide differently,” Ruckleshaus told me recently. ”It’s not up to us to balance risks and benefits for other people. There’s arrogance in the idea that everybody’s going to do what we do. We’re not making these decisions for the rest of the world, are we?”

In fact, we are — the central reason that African nations who need DDT do not use it today. Washington is the major donor to W.H.O. and Roll Back Malaria, and most of the rest of the financing for those groups comes from Europe, where DDT is also banned. There is no law that says if America cannot use DDT then neither can Mozambique, but that’s how it works. The ban in America and other wealthy countries has, first of all, turned poor nations’ agricultural sectors against DDT for economic reasons. A shipment of Zimbabwean tobacco, for example, was blocked from entering the United States market because it contained traces of DDT, turning Zimbabwe’s powerful tobacco farmers into an effective anti-DDT lobby. From a health point of view, of course, American outrage would have been more appropriate if traces of tobacco had been found in their DDT than the other way around.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/what-the-world-needs-now-is-ddt.html?pagewanted=4

“Most people would consider the June 1972 ban of DDT by the Environmental Protection Agency the beginning of the end for widespread use of the insecticide, the most effective anti-malaria pesticide still in existence. For his role in promulgating the ban in the face of a contrary finding by the EPA hearing, then Administrator William Ruckelshaus has become almost a hate figure amongst the anti-malaria community. Now it appears though that the hate figure should actually be then President Richard Nixon.

In February 10th 1970, President Nixon announced, “we have taken action to phase out the use of DDT and other hard pesticides.” In December 1970, the administration created the EPA to implement executive environmental policy. As a 1975 study out of Northern Illinois University notes, “This is important . . . before the EPA hearings were convened and even before the EPA was created, Ruckelshaus’ boss, President Nixon, had stated that DDT was being phased out. This leaves the hearings themselves superfluous, satisfying only a court requirement. As long as the head of EPA was responsible for the final order, it was impossible for the result to be other than as occurred.” Thus, the exhaustive studies and hearings conducted to “decide” the fate of the chemical in the two years following President Nixon’s statement were nothing but a political farce designed to add ex post science to a political decision. The decision had already been made rendering the hearings, studies and litigation pointless.

…..

Why did Nixon push for a ban? We may never know. A few older Washington DC policy experts have suggested that some of his election campaign supporters were chemical companies that produced alternatives to DDT and so stood to gain handsomely by the DDT phase out. Others say that it is more likely that senior officials in his administration pressured Nixon into the decision given the potential votes he stood to lose in his native and very green state of California. But the why of his decision pales beside what this decision has wrought: two million deaths a year from malaria alone.”

http://www.aei.org/article/20314

“It’s not DDT per se that is thought to do the damage to eggshells, but a DDT metabolite known as DDE. Thus the most persuasive feeding study refers to it: “DDE-induced Eggshell Thinning in the American kestrel: A Comparison of the Field Situation and Laboratory Results.” This groundbreaking study was published in the Journal of Applied Ecology by Jeffrey Lincer in 1975.

Kestrels, commonly called sparrow hawks, are small falcons. Lincer noted that the “inverse correlation between DDE in North American raptor eggs and eggshell thickness is clear but does not prove a causal relationship since other chemicals or factors could be involved.” So to find out what effect DDE might have, Lincer fed captive kestrels a DDE-laced diet and then compared their eggs with those taken from the nests of wild kestrels. Lincer found that dietary levels of three, six, and 10 parts per million (ppm) of DDE resulted in eggshells that were 14 percent, 17.4 percent, and 21.7 percent thinner respectively. “Despite the recent controversy, there can be little doubt now as to the causal relationship between the global contaminant DDE and the observed eggshell thinning and the consequent population declines in several birds of prey,” concluded Lincer. As best as I can tell, he’s right.

Still, there is a piece missing in the full scientific picture. Despite considerable research, no one has ever identified the physiological mechanism(s) by which DDE causes eggshell thinning, according to Anderson.”

http://reason.com/archives/2004/01/07/ddt-eggshells-and-me

Kelley Ross and the “Post-Copernican Left”

Posted on by
4

Kelley Ross’s “Proceedings of the Friesian School” website probably has the most and the best historical content on the internet. Unfortunately, it’s also created by a hardline Neo-Con who thinks he’s a Libertarian. In Ross’ mind, everything that is bad comes from the left, even anti-science!

Although Anglo-American philosophy tended to worship at the feet of science, the drift of academia to the left has led to characteristically totalitarian political attacks on science itself. The “post-modern” move may even be called the “post-Copernican” move, where the “de-centering” of meaning and objectivity (giving new meaning to the word “obscurantism”), returns the “marginalized” literary critic or theorist to the Ptolemaic center of the universe, whence modern science, now demystified and unmasked as an instrument of Euro-centric oppression, had proudly thought to have dislodged an arrogant humanity. Where the arrogance has settled now is all too plain to those familiar with American academic life.

http://www.friesian.com/

How many people on the Left really believe this? Lefties believing in a “post-Copernican” world where science is a “Euro-centric” invention of oppression is not an idea that has received any amount of traction by any stretch of the imagination. This has got to be the ultimate straw-man argument, especially since Ross doesn’t even believe the science of global warming.

Question: what is science? Who decides that evolution is real science and global warming is pseudo-science? Does every individual, whether they hold a degree in science or not, get to choose what the word means?

Ross attempts to act as if his Ph.D. in Philosophy gives him the authority to decide what is and what is not science yet he makes no attempt to explain how global warming has become accepted throughout the entire scientific community rather than just a crazy idea coming from a few liberal tree-hugging environmentalists. His global warming web page tries to blame most of it on Al Gore. In fact, there is no credited scientific organization on the entire planet that challenges the science, not even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which not too long ago gave Michael Crichton their yearly award in “Journalism”!

To give an idea how Ross categorizes the question of global warming in terms of the great minds debating the question, one only need look at the name of the html page his global warming essay appears on:

http://www.friesian.com/crichton.htm

Ross doesn’t even attempt to hide the fact that he starts with the politics and works backwards from there. His anger towards the Left is evident in the way he accuses *them*, not the scientific community(!), of “inventing something else” if it wasn’t global warming.

The financial pressure to maintain the status quo hardly needs an explanation, but does Ross really believe that people on the Left hate their country or the rich or whatever so much they just somehow convinced everyone except a few “true science-followers” into this Green conspiracy? The money trail from oil companies to anti-climate change astroturf organizations is clear enough for anyone with a computer to see yet there is not one financial link that can be found connecting clean energy to climate scientists. A conspiracy like this would have to be over 100 times larger than the “9/11 Truther” conspiracy with large sums of bribe money needed, and yet not a single financial connection between the liberal politics and the climate science can be found.

Ross’ “crichton.html” webpage on climate change is especially lame. The guy has the best website on the planet. Seriously, the maps of the pyramids he has posted are awesome and his work on the historical obscurity of the Eastern Roman Empire being caused by a pro-Italian bias is pure genius. But like setting loose the child with crayons upon the Mona Lisa, a perfectly good website is ruined by right-wing idiocy.

http://bahumuth.bitfreedom.com/proceedings-friesian-school

http://www.friesian.com/decdenc1.htm

Ross just does not seem to understand that some 15 loose, incomprehensible, and extremely unscientific pages worth of content on “Unstoppable Global Warming” (one-third of which concentrates on a science fiction author) does not compare to the thousands upon thousands of pages of peer-reviewed research from actual scientists in countries throughout the world working on many independent lines of evidence. You might as well try to disprove evolution by writing about the volcano theories of L. Ron Hubbard on a cocktail napkin, which, come to think of it, isn’t far from how supply-side economics was invented.

Can you really be on the side that says scientists, not fossil fuel industries, are deluding the entire world and at the same time say it’s the Left who is covering up science with ideology? Isn’t it just a little disconcerting that the top guys fighting Climate Change science today is an English Lord with a Classics degree and a Creationist Senator who belongs to a Fundamentalist Christian organization linked to the C-Street sex scandals? If he really thinks science can be bought so easily, then he should at least admit to being somewhat “anti-science” himself, at least as far as the current official stance is in relation to the truth. The Right can’t even buy their own climate scientists. Was it a mistake of history that the entire world body of climate science ended up on the Left despite the Left’s “post-Copernician” hatred towards their profession? Is there another example in history in which the science got it wrong and traditional beliefs got it right? The funny thing about Neo-Cons is that, unlike their fathers, they finally admitted that the Left was correct about evolution, but they still don’t know why.

The theory that massive amounts of carbon inserted into the atmosphere causes global warming is over 100 years old. Congress was warned about this from James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies over 20 years ago. They have been proven by the hottest decade on record, the melting icecaps, the forest fires in California, the desertification of Australia, etc., etc., etc., all of which either follows or surpasses the worse-case scenerios predicted by the much-despised IPCC. Stephen Hawking, who some consider to be the smartest physicist in the world, ranks climate change along side the proliferation of nuclear weapons as one of the greatest threats to the future of the world. And once again, every accredited science organization on the planet says the “alarmists” are right. If you are going to present yourself as unbiased, you need to at least admit to some kind of even-handed criteria to which you would take the other side. What exactly do climate scientists need to present to accept their occupation as belonging to the realm of science instead of being a world-wide conspiracy theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

Ross’ online shrine to Ayn Rand lists a compendium of “communist bullet points” appearing alongside red-colored rats, associating things like “child protective services,” “urban planning,” the “minimum wage” and “community service” with Communism, not a few inches away from the bust of Che Guevera himself. Next in the line are the green rats which he describes as being like watermelons: green on the outside, but red on the inside.

Finally, the black rats:  “relativism”, “nihilism”, and “ignorance”, which he associates with the post-Modern Marxists who seem to have completely taken over the vast majority of state universities without anyone realizing it:

Considering the millions murdered, tortured, enslaved, and impoverished by Marxists in the 20th Century, one would have to consider continued true believers [of “critical theory”] among the most uncritical people, let alone the most naive or dishonest, in intellectual history — a description that is sadly all too applicable to much academic culture in the United States, where Marxist doctrine and Leninist behavior are alive and well.

Even his views on philosophy are tainted by the anti-Leftist chip on his shoulder. Like, for one, he argues that: “Trendy intellectuals, however, would never want to admit that Nazi anti-Semitism owed any genuine, rather than merely a confused and misrepresented, debt to Nietzsche.” Maybe that’s because Nietzsche made numerous statements criticizing Anti-Semitism, Pan-Germanism, racism, and nationalism. Nietzsche even broke off all communication with his editor, his sister, and his good friend, the acclaimed German composer Richard Wagner, over their own Anti-Semitism. In Beyond Good and Evil, he criticized patriotism and advocated Europe unite peacefully. After his mental breakdown, he even wrote about fantasies in which he shot all the Anti-Semites. Nietzsche stopped writing after his mental breakdown but after his death, Nietzsche’s sister and her Nazi husband rewrote some of his unpublished writings and released it as a Nazi propaganda piece under the name The Will to Power, a concept Nietzsche wrote extensively about, but never in a nationalistic sense.

http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm

http://www.friesian.com/#manifesto

http://www.friesian.com/NIETZSCH.HTM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche#Nietzsche.27s_criticisms_of_anti-Semitism_and_nationalism

One might even be led to believe that Ross is making these accusations against Nietzsche as some kind of subconscious scapegoat for his own favorite philosopher. Ross admits that the philosopher of Kantian logic the website is named after, Jakob Friedrich Fries, was himself a German nationalist who wrote what Ross calls an “anti-Jewish tract.” Ross, however, fails to elaborate that a large part of that tract included the suggestion that Jews should be marked with a distinct sign so that they could be identified. Yet despite this, Ross actually tries to makes Fries out to be unfairly judged by historians, seemingly out of a Hegellian (yes, yet another competing German philosopher who Ross doesn’t like) bias:

In criticizing Fries, Shlomo Avineri (in Hegel’s Theory of the Modern State, Cambridge University Press, 1972, pp. 119-122), has correctly pointed out that German nationalism was already displaying some of its worst tendencies, including the book burning at the Wartburg Festival, and anti-Semitism — with Fries himself contributing an anti-Semitic tract. The horrifying overtones of this led Avineri to dismiss Fries and the Burschenschaften, not as “liberal, idealistic,” but as proto-Nazis; and he attributed the affinity between them all to the subjectivism and irrationality of Fries’ thought. This repetition of Hegel’s own charge, however, is nonsense.

http://www.friesian.com/fries.htm

Yes, how ridiculous that Fries should be called a proto-Nazi just because he was a right-wing nationalist who believed the Jews needed to wear signs to identify themselves just like the Nazis did.

One of Fries’ own students, Karl Sand, assassinated a German dramatist who spoke out against the Anti-Semitism of student nationalists. When the daughter of the dramatist caught Sand in the act, the assassin actually stabbed himself in remorse, but later recovered only to be executed for murder. A note from Fries warning Sand not to get involved with secret societies led the authorities to accuse Fries of complicity and he lost his philosophy teaching position only to teach math and physics elsewhere. Ross tries to claim that Fries’ Anti-Semtitism was no different than any of other liberal philosophers of the time, but to defend him while castigating Nietzsche is completely hypocritical.

By the way, the name of that tract that Fries wrote? “On the Danger of Well-Bring and Character of the Germans Presented by the Jews”. It starts off saying:

For about forty years now the Prussian scholars, in particular, have defended the Jews in face of the antipathy shown them by the common people. Some where motivated by friendship… positive forms of religion… still others, because they had become dependent on the rich, individual Jews….

The idea that the Jews were excessively oppressed in civic matters derives from this [erroneous belief that the Jews were treated with blind hatred]. If they were only to receive more civic rights, it is held, they would thus improve themselves. Ruehs has clearly shown that the opposite is true by using examples from history. Both in Germany and abroad the Jews have dwelt in free states where they enjoyed every right, and even countries where they reigned–but their sordidness, their mania for deceitful, second-hand dealing always remained the same. They shy away from industrious occupations not because they are hindered from pursuing them but simply because they do not want to.

Not exactly the kind of guy I would want to name my philosophy website after.

The Documentary Hypothesis

Posted on by
Reply

One of the interesting aspects of studying higher criticism of the Bible is the way you can find multiple stories combined in Genesis to make a larger, completely different story. There’s many interesting examples of how stories are combined and retold in a way that make them more than the sum of their parts.

Take a look at this story and see if you can find anything missing or any logical inconsistencies in it:

Yahweh saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. Yahweh was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So Yahweh said, ‘I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.’ But Noah found favor in the eyes of Yahweh. Yahweh then said to Noah, ‘Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. Take with you 7 of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and 2 of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also 7 of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. And 7 days from now I will send rain on the earth for 40 days and 40 nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.’ And Noah did all that Yahweh commanded him. And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. Then Yahweh shut him in. For 40 days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than 15 cubits. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. And the rain had stopped falling from the sky. The water receded steadily from the earth. After 40 days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark. Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark. He waited 7 more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth. He waited 7 more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. Then Noah built an altar to Yahweh and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. Yahweh smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: ‘Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. ‘As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.

Now read story #2 and see if there are any problems with it:

Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with Elohim. Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth. Now the earth was corrupt in Elohim’s sight and was full of violence. Elohim saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So Elohim said to Noah, ‘I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within a cubit of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. You are to bring into the ark 2 of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.’ Noah did everything just as Elohim commanded him. Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as Elohim had commanded Noah. And after the 7 days the floodwaters came on the earth. In the 600th year of Noah’s life, on the 17th day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth 40 days and 40 nights. On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his 3 sons, entered the ark. They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as Elohim had commanded Noah. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. The waters flooded the earth for 150 days. But Elohim remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed. At the end of the 150 days the water had gone down, and on the 17th day of the 7th month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The waters continued to recede until the 10th month, and on the 1st day of the 10th month the tops of the mountains became visible. And he sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. By the 1st day of the 1st month of Noah’s 601st year, the water had dried up from the earth. By the 27th day of the 2nd month the earth was completely dry. Then Elohim said to Noah, ‘Come out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and their wives. Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you—the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground—so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number upon it.’ So Noah came out, together with his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives. All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birds—everything that moves on the earth—came out of the ark, one kind after another.

Neither of these stories are in the Bible. Both have been interwoven into one larger story which can now be found in Genesis. The first story was written by an author known as J, who wrote most of Genesis. The second one was written by P, who wrote most of Leviticus and Numbers. Now try this with any other story and see if you can get the same effect.

J: Gen. 6:1-8; Gen. 7:15,7,16b-20,2-23; Gen. 8:2b-3a,6,8,-12,13b,20-22; Gen. 9:18-27
P: Gen. 6:9b22; Gen. 7:8-16a,21,24; Gen. 8:1-2a,3b-5,7,13a,14-19
Redactor: Gen. 6:9a
Other: Gen. 7:6

Notice also how the two stories are actually more consistent now that they have been separated:

* J uses the name Yahweh and P uses the name Elohim. This is because P consistently uses the name Elohim in the story until Elohim tells Moses, “I am Yahweh. And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai” (Ex. 6:2). This narrative device of switching the name at the time of Moses was also used by an earlier source, E, who did the same thing 3 chapters earlier (Ex. 3:14). After this point, all three sources use the name Yahweh consistently.

* J says says that everything “died” (7:22) while P uses a different Hebrew word meaning “destroy” or “expire” (6:17, 7:21).

* J has Noah send out a dove. P has Noah send out a raven.

* J says the rain lasted 40 days and 40 nights. P envisions the flood lasting a year (370 days).

* J has 7 pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals while P has only one pair of each animal. That was because the clean animals were needed for the sacrifice after the flood. But this also matches the theological differences of J and P. J consistently shows Biblical characters making sacrifices at many different places and times before Moses. P has none of the other patriarchs before Moses make sacrifices because it undermines his argument that Jerusalem is the one and only place where sacrifices are legitimate.

* Unlike J, P is concerned with ages, dates, and measurements. This same obsession is found in P’s long descriptions of the temple, the ark of the covenant, the priestly garbs and duties, etc. in his story. P’s penchant for statistics is why the fourth book of the Torah is called “Numbers.”

* J describes Yahweh in very human terms: having regrets, personally closing the ark, and smelling Noah’s sacrifice. P describes Elohim as being more transcendent.

* Throughout the entire Torah, the euphemism “to know” meaning sex, occurs 5 times and only in J. “To lie with” occurs 13 times, and 11 are in J. The term “Sheol” as a place for the dead, as in Hades, occurs 6 times and only in J. The term “to suffer” occurs 7 times and only in J.

* Throughout the entire Torah, the terms “gathered to his people”, “fire came out from before Yahweh”, “he fell on his face”, “be fruitful and multiply”, “property”, “expire”, the root ” ‘dp”, and over 100 references to “congregation” appear only in P.

* Linguistic analysis has confirmed that J and E use an older form of Hebrew than P, and P uses an older form of Hebrew than Deuteronomy. This has been shown in books and papers written by Robert Polzin, Gary Rendsburg, Ziony Zevit, Jacob Milgrom, Avi Hurvitz, and Ronald Hendel.

If you look at Gen. 5, it begins with the sentence “This is the Book of Records of Adam,” indicating it’s the beginning of a different source. The style of repeating exactly how many years were lived before and after the birth of each son is nothing like the way J writes when he gives a geneology from Cain to Lamech in Gen. 4:17-24. If you take out chapter 5, then you have a much smoother, more readable narrative that goes from Cain to Lamech to Noah. Having the Book of Records of Adam inserted into the narrative instead makes this Lamech out to be a different man with the same name from the line of Seth. Lining these two genealogies up shows that they are very similar to one another:

Seth: Cain
Enosh: Enoch
Cainan: Irad
Mahalalel: Mehuya-el
Jared
Enoch
Methuselah: Metusha-el
Lamech: Lamech
Noah

Now let’s look at the story of Joseph:

Story 1:

Joseph, a young man of seventeen, was tending the flocks with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives, and he brought their father a bad report about them. And he made a richly ornamented robe [of many colors] for him. Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers, they hated him all the more. He said to them, “Listen to this dream I had: We were binding sheaves of grain out in the field when suddenly my sheaf rose and stood upright, while your sheaves gathered around mine and bowed down to it.”His brothers said to him, “Do you intend to reign over us? Will you actually rule us?” And they hated him all the more because of his dream and what he had said.Then he had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. “Listen,” he said, “I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” When he told his father as well as his brothers, his father rebuked him and said, “What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?” His brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the matter in mind. “Here comes that dreamer!” they said to each other. “Come now, let’s kill him and throw him into one of these cisterns and say that a ferocious animal devoured him. Then we’ll see what comes of his dreams.” So when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his robe—the richly ornamented robe he was wearing. they looked up and saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead. Their camels were loaded with spices, balm and myrrh, and they were on their way to take them down to Egypt. Judah said to his brothers, “What will we gain if we kill our brother and cover up his blood? Come, let’s sell him to the Ishmaelites and not lay our hands on him; after all, he is our brother, our own flesh and blood.” His brothers agreed. And they sold him for 20 shekels of silver to the Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt. Then they got Joseph’s robe, slaughtered a goat and dipped the robe in the blood. They took the ornamented robe back to their father and said, “We found this. Examine it to see whether it is your son’s robe.”He recognized it and said, “It is my son’s robe! Some ferocious animal has devoured him. Joseph has surely been torn to pieces.”Then Jacob tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and mourned for his son many days. All his sons and daughters came to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. “No,” he said, “in mourning will I go down to Sheol [Hades] to my son.” So his father wept for him.

Story 2:

Now Israel loved Joseph more than any of his other sons, because he had been born to him in his old age. When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of them, they hated him and could not speak a kind word to him. Now his brothers had gone to graze their father’s flocks near Shechem, and Israel said to Joseph, “As you know, your brothers are grazing the flocks near Shechem. Come, I am going to send you to them.” “Very well,” he replied. So he said to him, “Go and see if all is well with your brothers and with the flocks, and bring word back to me.” Then he sent him off from the Valley of Hebron.When Joseph arrived at Shechem, a man found him wandering around in the fields and asked him, “What are you looking for?” He replied, “I’m looking for my brothers. Can you tell me where they are grazing their flocks?” “They have moved on from here,” the man answered. “I heard them say, ‘Let’s go to Dothan.’ ” So Joseph went after his brothers and found them near Dothan. But they saw him in the distance, and before he reached them, they plotted to kill him. When Reuben heard this, he tried to rescue him from their hands. “Let’s not take his life,” he said. “Don’t shed any blood. Throw him into this cistern here in the desert, but don’t lay a hand on him.” Reuben said this to rescue him from them and take him back to his father. And they took him and threw him into the cistern. Now the cistern was empty; there was no water in it. As they sat down to eat their meal. So when the Midianite merchants came by, his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern. When Reuben returned to the cistern and saw that Joseph was not there, he tore his clothes. He went back to his brothers and said, “The boy isn’t there! Where can I turn now?” And the Medanites sold Joseph in Egypt to Potiphar, one of Pharaoh’s officials, the captain of the guard.

Here’s how these stories were combined:

J: Gen. 37:2b,3b,5-11,19-20,23,25b-27,28b,31-35
E: Gen. 37:3a,4,12-18,2122,24-25,28a,29-30,36
Redactor: Gen. 37:2a

Notice the differences between these stories:

* J uses the name Jacob; E uses the name Israel.

* In J, Joseph is sold to Ishmaelites; In E, he is sold to Midianites (although the last sentence instead refers to them as Medanites). The original person who combined J and E made it appear that the Midianites sold him to the Ishmaelites, but he leaves a contradiction in that Potiphar is said to have bought them from Medanites.

* In J, Judah tries to save Joseph; In E, Reuben tries to save Joseph. This fits with J’s favoritism towards Judah.

* In the Blessing of Jacob in Gen. 49 passes up the older brothers Reuben, Simon, and Levi in order to bless Judah: Reuben for “ascending your father’s bed” and Simon and Levi for their “implements of violence”, which roughly correlate to Reuben sleeping with his father’s concubine and the J story of Simon and Levi massacring prince Shechem (the original capital of Israel) in revenge for the defiling of their sister Dinah. But in Gen. 48, E has Israel bless Joseph and his sons instead, in particular Ephraim, north of Jerusalem, corresponding to E’s location in Shiloh. The prophet Ahijah from Shiloh instigated Jeroboam’s rebellion against Solomon, but then felt betrayed when Jeroboam failed to make them the sole priests of Israel and instead set up the golden calves.

* In order to get the blessing intended for Esau, Jacob deceives his father by using his brother’s cloak and the meat and hide of a goat (Gen. 27). We know this earlier narrative is a J story because it also uses J words like Yahweh and Jacob. Thus, Jacob’s sons using the blood of a goat is ironic retribution for Jacob’s own deception, which is very characteristic of J’s strong reoccuring themes on family deceptions.

* In J, the brothers (not the Midianites) sell Joseph for 20 weights of silver. Later, Joseph will arrange to have 20 portions of silver returned to their grain sacks (9 brothers come back on the first return, and 11 come back on the 2nd return), again hinting at an ironic payback for the brother’s deception.

* J is also the main author of Judges and 2 Samuel. By reading J in it’s original version (which can be found in Richard Friedman’s “The Hidden Book in the Bible”), it’s much easier to see the many correlations that J makes between the patriarachs and the Court of David. The way the Bible is set up now, having to plow through the tedium of Leviticus and Numbers makes most readers completely forget the things they read in Genesis by the time they get there. For example, the destruction of Sodom in Genesis 19 directly mirrors the destruction of the Benjamanite city of Gibeah in Judges 19. The story of Levi and Simon avenging their sister while Jacob does nothing is mirrored in the story of Absalom avenging his sister while David does nothing. All of these connections are almost impossible to remember reading the Bible from front to back.

* What’s even more fascinating is the way J effectively brings his story full circle when he ends his story at 1 Kings 2:37-46, with Solomon telling the rebellious Shimei “In the day you go out of Jerusalem, you will die!”, mirroring Yahweh’s words in Eden, “In the day you eat from it: you will die!” Much of the same words like “knowledge”, “good”, “bad”, and “death” are repeated numerously both at the beginning and ending of the story.

Income Equality in the U.S.

Posted on by
Reply

Last Friday, Bill Maher touched on something I had noticed a while back. In the 60s, a middle class family could be raised by only one money-earner in the family. Then by the 70s, the mother started to also have to work in order to provide an adequate living. Conservatives were still bitching about it in the 80s, but the rich guys finally figured out that they can just keep wages the same while costs skyrocket and make all that extra money for themselves, so the “moral majority” basically just called their dogs off that issue. In the 80s and 90s, even two people couldn’t make enough for a family, but it didn’t matter because the house had increased so much in worth. Now that that bubble has burst, the middle class has nothing, the rich has everything, and instead of blaming it all not on the “business party” that has fought tooth and nail to keep wealth stratified at the top, the main criticism with the right is that poor, uneducated minorities tricked rich, trend-calculating bankers into giving them money they had no ability to pay back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

Lord Monckton Is In Ur Blog, Dising Ur Cred

Posted on by
4

Here’s an idea of how badly conservatives are scraping the bottom of the barrel in their attempts to get their propaganda passed off as legitimate science and legitimate “news.” Conservative circles became very excited about the American Physical Society apparently making an about face to their long-held stance supporting the science behind global warming. The story was pushed off by Drudge Report, Jonah Goldberg, and conservative blogs on — of all days — the same day Gore is giving a speech on the subject, using headlines like “Group Repping 50,000 Physicists Opens Global Warming Debate…” and “Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate”! The title of this “exploding” news story should actually read: “Washed-Up British Viscount Manages to Publish Crackpot Theory on Non-Peer-Reviewed Online Newsletter.”

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/19/the-rights-misguided-frenzy-over-the-american-physical-society/

The editor didn’t even bother to get a scientist. “Lord Monckton” has no degrees in the subject. He inherited his title from his dead father and was a former policy adviser to Margret Thatcher. The bogus news story has forced the association to put a disclaimer on both the header of the article and the front page of their website. The front page points out the newsletter is from the “APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS.” Hardly something that represents all 50,000 members. The writings themselves are not new and have long been debunked as a “sleight-of-hand.” Quoting from the Sunday Times and the Times, Monckton’s science is “self-taught and his paper qualifications nonexistent” and “he is trying to take on the global scientific establishment on the strength of a classics degree from Cambridge.” One of the models used by Monckton was made up by himself, but another one comes from JunkScience.com, a front end for Steve Milloy, a long time tobacco, drug, and oil industry lobbyist, which has published other ‘cuckoo science’ pieces over the years.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/19/american-physical-society-stomps-on-monckton-disinformation-thank-you-climate-progress-readers/

Cuckoo Science


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton%2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

http://www.aps.org/

If you recognize the name, that’s because Lord Monckton is the same guy that the Heartland Institute was using as their resident expert when they were trying to double dog dare Gore to get into a debate with him in that ludicrously-titled article “Gore Confronted by Own Scientists- ‘Confusion Between Hypothesis and Evidence’,” which was raked over the coals in one of the first posts I made on this blog. (Although only 5 short paragraphs long, I still somehow managed to elicit 5 pages worth of explainable errors with the article.) It kind of gives you an idea about how pathetically low conservative hacks are stooping that they aren’t even bothering to switch out the henchmen they use to fictionalize the news.

Here is a good article by a real scientist:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/index.html