Monday, May 31, 2010
For today, Memorial Day
I come from a family that has done its share, both my grandfathers were in WW I, my father was in WW II, my uncle was in the Korean War. This essay captures our duty today to the memory of all that have gone before to protect our freedom, overseas so that we would not have to endure the horrors of war at home. Because of their sacrifices we have never had to experience day after day of 9/11 multiple times a day as Europe and Japan did. Granted Germany and Japan were the aggressors and the rest of Europe the victims, but without their blood, honor, and valor, we would have ultimately been the victims.
Read the essay, and pause and give thanks either in prayer or a moment of gratitude to what all our veterans, dead and alive have done for us.
Read the essay, and pause and give thanks either in prayer or a moment of gratitude to what all our veterans, dead and alive have done for us.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Idiots Savant
In the days before Political Correctness and the introduction of “Savant Syndrome” there was a very descriptive term, “idiot savant,” which referred to a person that was mentally deficient yet displayed extreme ability in a very narrow field, such as mental arithmetic. The reason this was descriptive, was that at one time, there was a gradation of mental ability that has been made taboo by the gurus of offensiveness. People were normal, sub-normal, stupid, morons, idiots, and imbeciles in decreasing order of mental acuity. It was a somewhat precise scale, about 10-15 points on the intelligence scale separated each level. The term “savant” comes from the French verb savoir. A person of great knowledge was referred to as a savant.
I bring up this term because of a phenomenon I am observing more and more frequently these days, what appear to be very intelligent and accomplished people in a particular field, seeming to understand less and less about life in general. In a very narrow, specialized area they operate quite competently, even brilliantly, yet fail to cope with some of the more common and trivial issues.
The most obvious and prevalent examples are show-business celebrities. They act, dance, and sing brilliantly, yet when they open their mouths on any issue, sound like complete fools. They seem unable to know right from wrong, or to have any kind of stable relationships, all things that average people have a very good grasp on.
Another group that qualifies as contenders for this designation is the host of college professors that seem to think that academic freedom only applies to the ideas they approve of, and certainly not to their students. They forget the simple dictum that freedom is not divisible, it either is, or is not, and that if they espouse the suppression of ideas they don’t like, that sometime in the future, it will be their ideas that are suppressed.
What has occurred is that our education system over the years has reduced knowledge to isolated collections of facts, not integrated systems of ideas to be discussed and thought about. Students learn a profession, but never are educated in the classic sense of the word. They have no concepts of anything to judge with. They do not think in terms of principles or guidelines, but only in concrete facts of here and now with no context around them. These students go into the world armed with facts and slogans and no way to evaluate the truth or falsity of other facts and slogans. There are no standards, no principles, no absolutes, only competing ideas, all of which are considered equal by default.
People listen to TV news or read stories in the newspapers and accept it as possibly authoritative. (This does seem to be changing in the sense of not trusting the sources as completely honest or unbiased.) What is worse, the stories from those sources are being written by people with no more knowledge than the readers about the topics they are writing on. Without context and grounding and the ability to analyze even in rudimentary ways, the readers are misled with no way to prevent it.
What once was a fluke, an aberration in the order of things, is being created by our education system. Those who would lead us,or that we might look to lead us, once upon a time, people of common sense, even if political animals, now quote great detail about things with no comprehension of the underlying principles and processes. The would be followers hear the mass of facts and have no way of evaluating. In effect,we are becoming a nation of idiots savant.
I bring up this term because of a phenomenon I am observing more and more frequently these days, what appear to be very intelligent and accomplished people in a particular field, seeming to understand less and less about life in general. In a very narrow, specialized area they operate quite competently, even brilliantly, yet fail to cope with some of the more common and trivial issues.
The most obvious and prevalent examples are show-business celebrities. They act, dance, and sing brilliantly, yet when they open their mouths on any issue, sound like complete fools. They seem unable to know right from wrong, or to have any kind of stable relationships, all things that average people have a very good grasp on.
Another group that qualifies as contenders for this designation is the host of college professors that seem to think that academic freedom only applies to the ideas they approve of, and certainly not to their students. They forget the simple dictum that freedom is not divisible, it either is, or is not, and that if they espouse the suppression of ideas they don’t like, that sometime in the future, it will be their ideas that are suppressed.
What has occurred is that our education system over the years has reduced knowledge to isolated collections of facts, not integrated systems of ideas to be discussed and thought about. Students learn a profession, but never are educated in the classic sense of the word. They have no concepts of anything to judge with. They do not think in terms of principles or guidelines, but only in concrete facts of here and now with no context around them. These students go into the world armed with facts and slogans and no way to evaluate the truth or falsity of other facts and slogans. There are no standards, no principles, no absolutes, only competing ideas, all of which are considered equal by default.
People listen to TV news or read stories in the newspapers and accept it as possibly authoritative. (This does seem to be changing in the sense of not trusting the sources as completely honest or unbiased.) What is worse, the stories from those sources are being written by people with no more knowledge than the readers about the topics they are writing on. Without context and grounding and the ability to analyze even in rudimentary ways, the readers are misled with no way to prevent it.
What once was a fluke, an aberration in the order of things, is being created by our education system. Those who would lead us,or that we might look to lead us, once upon a time, people of common sense, even if political animals, now quote great detail about things with no comprehension of the underlying principles and processes. The would be followers hear the mass of facts and have no way of evaluating. In effect,we are becoming a nation of idiots savant.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Failing at being a Christian
I recently had this particular piece pointed out to me by one of my good friends. On the surface it appears fairly valid, but digging into it, I find it extremely judgmental and elitist. He lists ten ways Christians fail, and I will comment on all ten.
1) Too much money. "Wealthy Christian" should be an oxymoron
This attitude comes from a very literal reading of the scriptures, if his examples are to be used. I would ask him first of all did he do this? Did he take a vow of poverty? Regardless of the possible hypocrisy here, there is a very valid interpretation of the anti-wealth sayings that does allow for wealth accumulation. It has to do with whether one loves God or the money more. Jesus was after shock effect. He saw the love of money as corruptive of morality and was trying to get people's attention. There are a lot of interpretations of the "eye of the needle" verse, but notice that a camel could get through the eye of the needle if its packs were removed first. It didn't mean it couldn't happen at all. How does God's business get supported if not by the largess of wealthy people? Every church has certain donors that effectively are the prime support of the budget. And no, they are not trying to buy their way into Heaven. They give because of their belief in doing God's work. The important thing is how the money was acquired. If by moral means, then as long as it is less important than God, where is the harm?
2) Too confident God thinks we're all that and a leather-bound gift Bible. I'd like to humbly suggest that we spend a little more time wondering how we displease God and a little less time being confident that we do.
I will grant that there are people who attempt to assume their belief makes them better than others, but I find them few and far between. We don't have to go into a constant state of Mea Culpa to be humble. That was one of the things that drove Luther to find redemption directly in God's Grace. He could never list and beg repentance for all his sins. [Actually the way the sentence is constructed the author is suggesting spending less time being confident that we displease God.] But he is running counter to the Christian message here, that God loves us. As Christians we are expected to assume we are loved by God. One can draw a fine distinction here, that just because we are loved does not mean everything we do pleases God, but one of the reasons we go to church and pray is because we KNOW we don't please God all the time. We don't have to wonder about it. If we are honest with ourselves, we know when we sin. [What does the leather-bound Bible have to do with it?]
3) Too quick to believe that we know what God really means by what he says in the Bible
This is plain elitist in outlook. Yes, the Bible is complex and subject to many interpretations. The more I study it the more I am convinced there is no one correct interpretation of any of it. As long as the interpretations lead to a strong belief and good behavior, it is not really that important to most Christians. Very few of us are able to subject the basis of our beliefs to examination and questioning and still come out with any belief. Actually, few of us even want to do that. It doesn't take a genius studying the scriptures to make a good Christian. It takes a person willing to follow the bulk of the message. Whether they question it or not is immaterial. Generally they will ask questions, get an answer that satisfies them and go on. If what the pastor says the Bible means makes sense, then that is what is accepted as the meaning. Church is not a debating society, it is an expression of belief. Belief is ultimately unquestioning unless confronted by life events totally unaccounted for by the belief. He can worry over meaning all he wants and that is fine for him. For most people, once they believe, they put their energy elsewhere.
More so, which interpretation does he want us to accept, all of them, some of them? Choices have to be made and belief is built on those choices. Major theological questions are embedded in the translations we use—try comparing nine different translations of Jesus’ answer to Pilate as to whether he is the King of the Jews. There are at least seven different renderings.
Look at item 1. I would say he makes the same error, since there are other interpretations of the wealth scriptures.
4) Too action-oriented. We Christians could stand to spend less time acting in the name of God, and more time reflecting on the (ever subtle) majesty of God
This sounds like the feel-good versions of Christianity. What I profess is good enough. Works have no importance. We are not justified by works according to most Protestant interpretations, but by Grace. However, having been justified by Grace does not absolve us from the charge to carry out God’s work in the world. Christianity is mission-oriented. It was the charge from Jesus before he left the disciples to go forth, baptizing in the Name of the Father. Along with that were all his other teachings that had to do with helping the poor, the downtrodden. From my reading of the scriptures, it is not possible to be too action-oriented if it furthers God’s kingdom on Earth. The associated link to his post makes no more sense than the text with the item. The pairs of what he considers opposites, end up as an insult to those who actively practice doing good.
5) Too invasive of others generally. It is my personal, humble opinion that anyone seeking to mix church and state has failed to understand the nature and role of either.
It is not possible to have a firm belief in the morality espoused by Christianity and not bring that to the table politically. This comment sounds like he is a member of the hard wall separation of church and state. It also sets up an invalid straw man that grossly misinterprets the anti-disestablishment clause. First of all the clause reads that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, and the second part, which is commonly ignored, nor make any law against the practice of religion. The author sets up a straw man of “exclusionary imperatives of a particular religion” which is expressly forbidden then generalizes it to be all of religion for his argument. He would have people deny their moral standards in the name of “impersonal, objective” government. This is of itself an oxymoron. Government is the common ground arrived at by agreement among INDIVIDUAL’s “personal, subjective” beliefs and desires. It is by nature subjective at its core. It is the common agreement of what will be governing that applies to all people equally.
6) Too invasive of others personally. We Christians are too often too eager to get up into the faces of others about their personal religious beliefs
I rarely encounter Christians that are “too eager to get up into the faces of others.” Again, I think he takes the very few and makes them the representative of the whole. Most Christians do exactly what he says, live their lives by their beliefs and evangelize by example. And I strongly disagree with the idea that it is impossible to talk someone into being a Christian. There are those who have the Pauline experience, and there are those who come to Christianity by bits and pieces, thinking and talking about each step of the way. It is certainly obvious if a stranger accosts you with the equivalent or the exact words of, “Have you been saved?” that it will be a turn off. However, that is not how good evangelism is done, and he does a disservice by acting as if it is.
7) Too quick to abandon logic. When talking to others about our faith, we Christians too often resort to a language and line of reasoning that leaves good ol' fashion logic sitting on the ground behind us, waving a sad good-bye.
It is hard where to start with this statement and its accompanying text. First, by implication, he ignores the huge world of theological literature with its varied and complex reasoning. He then expects everyday Christians to step outside their beliefs and see them as subjective and then act in some pure mode of speech that makes this clear. We are talking about belief here, and when Christians state the basis of their belief, they don’t really care whether they impress others or not. Those who are unimpressed or unsympathetic are not going to be converted in that way. At the same time, he makes the same kind of mistake in item #4 saying that there should be “more mysticism.” There is little or no logic in mysticism. It is a complete abandonment of logic.
8) Too fixated on homosexuality. Can we Christians stop already with the gay and lesbian fixation?
Considering that we are constantly bombarded in the media with Rainbow Coalition issues, how can Christians not be concerned? Actually, I question who is fixated with the question. Christians see the world as being deliberately sinful, even celebrating that sinfulness, and are trying to do something about it. Ignoring it will not have it go away. His dismissiveness is quite insulting to people to whom this is a vital question. [I personally have little brief with such issues, mostly a live and let live approach. However, his attack on those who do care is uncalled for.]
9) Too insular. When I became a Christian, one of the things that most amazed me about Christians is the degree to which they tend to hang out only with other Christians
This is a version of I want my cake and eat it too. I want to be a Christian but still go around with all the sinners and enjoy their parties and music. He apparently joined an insular group of Christians and generalized it to all Christians. Sure Christians associate with the people they know best—other Christians. They also avoid behavior that they consider sinful, which translates into not associating with non-Christians in some cases. My experience is that most Christians associate freely within their beliefs of what is acceptable behavior, not conditioning their associations on what the other people believe, but on how they act. His glib, “The heathen class has all the good music.” Ignores the history of music and for that matter modern Christian Rock.
10) Too uneducated about Christianity. Generally speaking (which of course is the most offensive way to speak about any group of people), Christians tend to embarrass themselves by knowing so little about either the Bible or the history of Christianity
Embarrass themselves to whom? An auto mechanic doesn’t have to have an engineering degree to be a good mechanic, nor does a carpenter have to be an architect. Similarly a Christian doesn’t have to be a theologian. Nor does it really make any difference where a belief came from if it is a moral belief. It is only those who would argue the basis of belief, and they are few of the Christian population, that really need or care to know how things were decided. Most people have neither the time, interest, nor the ability to study the roots of Christianity, and it is pure elitist bull crap to expect it. Rather it is a way of saying , “I am better because I do know this.”
All of us know Christians that rub our noses in their Christianity, then go out and do things that appear to completely contradict what they say. We also know Christians that have beliefs we are not in agreement with. That does not mean they fail to be Christians. The post this author makes does a great disservice to all Christians. He has used a sound-bite type of approach, focused on the aspects of Christianity practiced by a few Christians in some cases and by the majority in others that would make it look the worst possible in the eyes of a secularist and presented it as a global criticism of Christianity. From this particular post and from the associated posts from his blog, he appears to be a Christian that believes that the profession of belief and the experiencing of the overwhelming awe of God are all that is required. He then condemns the rest of Christianity by those standards plus a requirement that Christians be as scholarly as he. Far from the inclusiveness he wants in item #9 towards non-Christians, he is being exclusionary towards those with whom he supposedly professes a common belief.
If one considers the context of the publication of this post, it bears a strong resemblance to the politics of the English nobility in WW II who actually were sympathetic of the Nazis. The Huffington Post is one of the most left/liberal of the well-known blogs, right along with the Daily Kos. Left/liberals are strongly allied with the secularist approach to society—remove God from the public view, and let government do all the charity. This is the enemy in the holy war currently being waged in our country today. It is an attempt to completely undercut all that we, as a country, stand for and are built on. It becomes easy in such a context to read an underlying political motivation into the post. In particular items #1, #3, #4, #5, and #8 can be used in a political context and are definitely reminiscent of current political hot-buttons. This post has great propaganda value to a secularist. “Look, even a Christian condemns Christianity.” Rather than separating politics and religion, this article strongly associates them, but makes it very hidden.
1) Too much money. "Wealthy Christian" should be an oxymoron
This attitude comes from a very literal reading of the scriptures, if his examples are to be used. I would ask him first of all did he do this? Did he take a vow of poverty? Regardless of the possible hypocrisy here, there is a very valid interpretation of the anti-wealth sayings that does allow for wealth accumulation. It has to do with whether one loves God or the money more. Jesus was after shock effect. He saw the love of money as corruptive of morality and was trying to get people's attention. There are a lot of interpretations of the "eye of the needle" verse, but notice that a camel could get through the eye of the needle if its packs were removed first. It didn't mean it couldn't happen at all. How does God's business get supported if not by the largess of wealthy people? Every church has certain donors that effectively are the prime support of the budget. And no, they are not trying to buy their way into Heaven. They give because of their belief in doing God's work. The important thing is how the money was acquired. If by moral means, then as long as it is less important than God, where is the harm?
2) Too confident God thinks we're all that and a leather-bound gift Bible. I'd like to humbly suggest that we spend a little more time wondering how we displease God and a little less time being confident that we do.
I will grant that there are people who attempt to assume their belief makes them better than others, but I find them few and far between. We don't have to go into a constant state of Mea Culpa to be humble. That was one of the things that drove Luther to find redemption directly in God's Grace. He could never list and beg repentance for all his sins. [Actually the way the sentence is constructed the author is suggesting spending less time being confident that we displease God.] But he is running counter to the Christian message here, that God loves us. As Christians we are expected to assume we are loved by God. One can draw a fine distinction here, that just because we are loved does not mean everything we do pleases God, but one of the reasons we go to church and pray is because we KNOW we don't please God all the time. We don't have to wonder about it. If we are honest with ourselves, we know when we sin. [What does the leather-bound Bible have to do with it?]
3) Too quick to believe that we know what God really means by what he says in the Bible
This is plain elitist in outlook. Yes, the Bible is complex and subject to many interpretations. The more I study it the more I am convinced there is no one correct interpretation of any of it. As long as the interpretations lead to a strong belief and good behavior, it is not really that important to most Christians. Very few of us are able to subject the basis of our beliefs to examination and questioning and still come out with any belief. Actually, few of us even want to do that. It doesn't take a genius studying the scriptures to make a good Christian. It takes a person willing to follow the bulk of the message. Whether they question it or not is immaterial. Generally they will ask questions, get an answer that satisfies them and go on. If what the pastor says the Bible means makes sense, then that is what is accepted as the meaning. Church is not a debating society, it is an expression of belief. Belief is ultimately unquestioning unless confronted by life events totally unaccounted for by the belief. He can worry over meaning all he wants and that is fine for him. For most people, once they believe, they put their energy elsewhere.
More so, which interpretation does he want us to accept, all of them, some of them? Choices have to be made and belief is built on those choices. Major theological questions are embedded in the translations we use—try comparing nine different translations of Jesus’ answer to Pilate as to whether he is the King of the Jews. There are at least seven different renderings.
Look at item 1. I would say he makes the same error, since there are other interpretations of the wealth scriptures.
4) Too action-oriented. We Christians could stand to spend less time acting in the name of God, and more time reflecting on the (ever subtle) majesty of God
This sounds like the feel-good versions of Christianity. What I profess is good enough. Works have no importance. We are not justified by works according to most Protestant interpretations, but by Grace. However, having been justified by Grace does not absolve us from the charge to carry out God’s work in the world. Christianity is mission-oriented. It was the charge from Jesus before he left the disciples to go forth, baptizing in the Name of the Father. Along with that were all his other teachings that had to do with helping the poor, the downtrodden. From my reading of the scriptures, it is not possible to be too action-oriented if it furthers God’s kingdom on Earth. The associated link to his post makes no more sense than the text with the item. The pairs of what he considers opposites, end up as an insult to those who actively practice doing good.
5) Too invasive of others generally. It is my personal, humble opinion that anyone seeking to mix church and state has failed to understand the nature and role of either.
It is not possible to have a firm belief in the morality espoused by Christianity and not bring that to the table politically. This comment sounds like he is a member of the hard wall separation of church and state. It also sets up an invalid straw man that grossly misinterprets the anti-disestablishment clause. First of all the clause reads that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, and the second part, which is commonly ignored, nor make any law against the practice of religion. The author sets up a straw man of “exclusionary imperatives of a particular religion” which is expressly forbidden then generalizes it to be all of religion for his argument. He would have people deny their moral standards in the name of “impersonal, objective” government. This is of itself an oxymoron. Government is the common ground arrived at by agreement among INDIVIDUAL’s “personal, subjective” beliefs and desires. It is by nature subjective at its core. It is the common agreement of what will be governing that applies to all people equally.
6) Too invasive of others personally. We Christians are too often too eager to get up into the faces of others about their personal religious beliefs
I rarely encounter Christians that are “too eager to get up into the faces of others.” Again, I think he takes the very few and makes them the representative of the whole. Most Christians do exactly what he says, live their lives by their beliefs and evangelize by example. And I strongly disagree with the idea that it is impossible to talk someone into being a Christian. There are those who have the Pauline experience, and there are those who come to Christianity by bits and pieces, thinking and talking about each step of the way. It is certainly obvious if a stranger accosts you with the equivalent or the exact words of, “Have you been saved?” that it will be a turn off. However, that is not how good evangelism is done, and he does a disservice by acting as if it is.
7) Too quick to abandon logic. When talking to others about our faith, we Christians too often resort to a language and line of reasoning that leaves good ol' fashion logic sitting on the ground behind us, waving a sad good-bye.
It is hard where to start with this statement and its accompanying text. First, by implication, he ignores the huge world of theological literature with its varied and complex reasoning. He then expects everyday Christians to step outside their beliefs and see them as subjective and then act in some pure mode of speech that makes this clear. We are talking about belief here, and when Christians state the basis of their belief, they don’t really care whether they impress others or not. Those who are unimpressed or unsympathetic are not going to be converted in that way. At the same time, he makes the same kind of mistake in item #4 saying that there should be “more mysticism.” There is little or no logic in mysticism. It is a complete abandonment of logic.
8) Too fixated on homosexuality. Can we Christians stop already with the gay and lesbian fixation?
Considering that we are constantly bombarded in the media with Rainbow Coalition issues, how can Christians not be concerned? Actually, I question who is fixated with the question. Christians see the world as being deliberately sinful, even celebrating that sinfulness, and are trying to do something about it. Ignoring it will not have it go away. His dismissiveness is quite insulting to people to whom this is a vital question. [I personally have little brief with such issues, mostly a live and let live approach. However, his attack on those who do care is uncalled for.]
9) Too insular. When I became a Christian, one of the things that most amazed me about Christians is the degree to which they tend to hang out only with other Christians
This is a version of I want my cake and eat it too. I want to be a Christian but still go around with all the sinners and enjoy their parties and music. He apparently joined an insular group of Christians and generalized it to all Christians. Sure Christians associate with the people they know best—other Christians. They also avoid behavior that they consider sinful, which translates into not associating with non-Christians in some cases. My experience is that most Christians associate freely within their beliefs of what is acceptable behavior, not conditioning their associations on what the other people believe, but on how they act. His glib, “The heathen class has all the good music.” Ignores the history of music and for that matter modern Christian Rock.
10) Too uneducated about Christianity. Generally speaking (which of course is the most offensive way to speak about any group of people), Christians tend to embarrass themselves by knowing so little about either the Bible or the history of Christianity
Embarrass themselves to whom? An auto mechanic doesn’t have to have an engineering degree to be a good mechanic, nor does a carpenter have to be an architect. Similarly a Christian doesn’t have to be a theologian. Nor does it really make any difference where a belief came from if it is a moral belief. It is only those who would argue the basis of belief, and they are few of the Christian population, that really need or care to know how things were decided. Most people have neither the time, interest, nor the ability to study the roots of Christianity, and it is pure elitist bull crap to expect it. Rather it is a way of saying , “I am better because I do know this.”
All of us know Christians that rub our noses in their Christianity, then go out and do things that appear to completely contradict what they say. We also know Christians that have beliefs we are not in agreement with. That does not mean they fail to be Christians. The post this author makes does a great disservice to all Christians. He has used a sound-bite type of approach, focused on the aspects of Christianity practiced by a few Christians in some cases and by the majority in others that would make it look the worst possible in the eyes of a secularist and presented it as a global criticism of Christianity. From this particular post and from the associated posts from his blog, he appears to be a Christian that believes that the profession of belief and the experiencing of the overwhelming awe of God are all that is required. He then condemns the rest of Christianity by those standards plus a requirement that Christians be as scholarly as he. Far from the inclusiveness he wants in item #9 towards non-Christians, he is being exclusionary towards those with whom he supposedly professes a common belief.
If one considers the context of the publication of this post, it bears a strong resemblance to the politics of the English nobility in WW II who actually were sympathetic of the Nazis. The Huffington Post is one of the most left/liberal of the well-known blogs, right along with the Daily Kos. Left/liberals are strongly allied with the secularist approach to society—remove God from the public view, and let government do all the charity. This is the enemy in the holy war currently being waged in our country today. It is an attempt to completely undercut all that we, as a country, stand for and are built on. It becomes easy in such a context to read an underlying political motivation into the post. In particular items #1, #3, #4, #5, and #8 can be used in a political context and are definitely reminiscent of current political hot-buttons. This post has great propaganda value to a secularist. “Look, even a Christian condemns Christianity.” Rather than separating politics and religion, this article strongly associates them, but makes it very hidden.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
When there is no crisis to take advantage of......
In USA Today, front page below the fold, this headline:
"Toxins inflicting 'grievous harm'"
followed by
"Obama advisory panel urges national attention"
Two members (the third position is vacant) of the President's Cancer Panel says that the government has grossly underestimated the problem because of lack of research. [They could have also overestimated the problem for the same reason. bk] It urges the President to act even if the evidence isn't definitive. [Sounds like global warming to me. bk] The American Cancer Society called the report "unbalanced" and said it states hypotheses as facts. The ACS also says that the risk from smoking is many times higher.
......invent one.
"Toxins inflicting 'grievous harm'"
followed by
"Obama advisory panel urges national attention"
Two members (the third position is vacant) of the President's Cancer Panel says that the government has grossly underestimated the problem because of lack of research. [They could have also overestimated the problem for the same reason. bk] It urges the President to act even if the evidence isn't definitive. [Sounds like global warming to me. bk] The American Cancer Society called the report "unbalanced" and said it states hypotheses as facts. The ACS also says that the risk from smoking is many times higher.
......invent one.
