ARTICLES - HOT OFF THE FAGGOT

Scientists 'Reverse Aging Process' in Mice

Amplify’d from gawker.com
Scientists 'Reverse Aging Process' in Mice

A group of researchers was able to reverse the aging process in genetically-altered mice, "dramatically" regenerating their organs and restoring neurons to their brains. Next stop: Eternal life! Which almost sounds worse, to be honest.


As everyone knows, the worst thing about life is getting older, which happens literally every minute you are alive. But some Harvard scientists have figured out how to regenerate aging mice—and think the same processes could be applied to humans.

In a nutshell, the scientists bred a group of mice without an enzyme called telomerase, which helps prevent protective chromosome "caps" called telomeres from shrinking—a shortening that is closely linked with the degenerative properties of aging. Without telomerase, the mice aged rapidly; but when the enzyme was reactivated in those same mice, it "substantially" restored their bodies—including growing new neurons.

Now: The telomerase activation can't be directly applied to humans (in whom the enzyme is turned off at adulthood), as doing so would likely raise the risk of cancer. (A lack of telomerase helps control cell growth and prevent cancer.) And while the Harvard researchers seem to think their results could eventually prove useful to humans, other researchers don't seem so sure. So don't start planning to run a triathlon at 90 just yet. But feel free to use this study as you rationalize away your generally unhealthy life habits!


Send an email to Max Read, the author of this post, at max@gawker.com.

Read more at gawker.com
 

Newspapers Reveal Diplomatic Cables, While WikiLeaks Buckles Under Cyber Attack

Amplify’d from www.wired.com

Newspapers Reveal Diplomatic Cables, While WikiLeaks Buckles Under Cyber Attack

The first news reports from WikiLeaks’ long-expected disclosure of a quarter-million State Department diplomatic cables appeared on major newspaper websites on Sunday, though WikiLeaks’ own website was unavailable, purportedly due to a traffic-flooding cyberattack.

WikiLeaks’ media partners report that the secret-spilling organization gave them 251,287 diplomatic cables from America’s 270 embassies and consulates around the world, and another 8,000 diplomatic “directives” from Washington. About the half the documents are unclassified; the remainder are mostly at the relatively-low classification level “Confidential.” About 11,000 are classified “Secret.”

WikiLeaks is calling their latest blockbuster “Cablegate.” So far the news from the organization’s media partners suggests the leak is unlikely to topple the presidency, but there are some brewing scandals.

Bradley Manning (Facebook.com)

Most prominently, a series of secret directives from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and her predecessor Condoleezza Rice, instruct U.S. diplomats to gather intelligence on their foreign counterparts at the United Nations, including, according to one cable, “internet and intranet ‘handles’, internet email addresses, web site identification-URLs; credit card account numbers; frequent-flier account numbers; work schedules, and other relevant biographical information.” A directive sent to U.S. embassies in Africa instructs foreign service officers to collect DNA from local government officials, without specifying a method.

Another cable appears to confirm that the Chinese hacker attacks against the Dalai Lama, Google and a host of U.S. companies detected that surfaced over the last two years was the work of the Chinese government. A Chinese source for the American embassy revealed that China’s Politburo directed the intrusions as part of a cyber-intelligence gathering program erected in 2002.

The White House condemned the latest WikiLeak on Sunday in an e-mailed statement to reporters. “[S]uch disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government,” wrote White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. “These documents also may include named individuals who in many cases live and work under oppressive regimes and who are trying to create more open and free societies.”

The New York Times reports that WikiLeaks plans to release the cables on its website in stages, covering select regions of the globe in each release. On Sunday, WikiLeaks’ name server was resolving the sub-domain cablegate.wikileaks.org, but that address, and the main WikiLeaks site, were unreachable. The organization wrote on Twitter: “We are currently under a mass distributed denial of service attack.

The news outlets that enjoyed embargoed access to the documents include New York Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and the Guardian. Curiously, the Times reported that it obtained the cables from an “anonymous source,” and not WikiLeaks directly. The paper was among the outlets given embargoed access to earlier WikiLeaks disclosures, but fell out of favor with the organization when it profiled its leader, Julian Assange.

Previous releases of classified material from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were also followed by standing-room-only press conferences in London. But it’s unclear if Assange will make a public appearance this time around. Last week a Swedish appeals court upheld an international arrest warrant for the former hacker in a rape investigation in Stockholm.

That investigation stems from encounters Assange had with two women during his visit to Sweden last August. According to local news reports, the woman told investigators the sexual encounters began as consensual, but turned non-consensual when Assange refused to stop despite condom mishaps. Assange has denied any wrongdoing and hinted the case is part of a U.S.-led “smear campaign” targeting WikiLeaks.

The “Cablegate” release has been anticipated since the arrest last spring, first reported by Threat Level, of Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning. In online chats with the ex-hacker who ultimately turned him in, Manning, now 23, described providing WikiLeaks with a cache of 260,000 diplomatic cables, which he  smuggled out of a secure facility on CD-RW labled “Lady Gaga.

Manning said the cables documented years of secret foreign policy and “almost-criminal political back dealings.”

“Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public,” Manning told former-hacker Adrian Lamo.

Manning was charged on July 5 with downloading more than 150,000 cables onto an unclassified computer, and leaking at least 50 of them to an unnamed third party. Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange has repeatedly denied receiving the cables, but the organization abandoned that position this week after the State Department confirmed it had begun warning foreign diplomats about the impending disclosure.

Manning described obtaining the cables by way of a U.S. information-sharing initiative called Net-Centric Diplomacy.

Established in the government’s post-September 11 drive to break down information barriers between agencies, Net-Centric Diplomacy makes a subset of State Department documents available on the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, or SIPRNet, the Pentagon’s global, Secret-level wide area network. SIPRnet is accessible to cleared American military service members and civilian agencies around the world.

To put their cables on SIPRnet, foreign service officers add a special designator to the header: “SIPDIS,” for SIPRnet Distribution. Department rules preclude certain types of communications from being marked SIPDIS, such as sensitive cables between an ambassador and the U.S. Secretary of State or the White House. Cables containing personally identifying information, such as Social Security numbers, and cables describing department personnel issues would also be omitted.”

Manning’s chats showed that he expected the cable leak to have historic impact.

“Everywhere there’s a U.S. post, there’s a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed,” he wrote. “It’s open diplomacy. World-wide anarchy in CSV format. It’s Climategate with a global scope, and breathtaking depth. It’s beautiful, and horrifying.”

Update: 17:00 EST The WikiLeaks “Cablegate” site is now reachable. It currently hosts 219 cables. WikiLeaks appears to be redacting the names of at least some U.S. sources.

(With previous reporting by Kim Zetter. AP Photo/Lennart Preiss)
Read more at www.wired.com
 

Wikileaks: Saudis on Iran: "Cut off the head of the snake."

Amplify’d from www.jpost.com


Wikileaks: 'US: Turkish leadership divided, unreliable'

Meir Dagan


US State Dept. documents say Erdogan has "little understanding of politics beyond Ankara"; Saudis on Iran: "Cut off the head of the snake."

US diplomats have cast doubts on the reliabilty of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan as a partner and portrayed Turkey's leadership as divided and permeated by Islamists, according to the German Der Spiegel magazine's website, citing leaked Wikileaks documents that were released Sunday night.

According to a report of the more than 250,000
cables
leaked by WikiLeaks, Erdogan was described as having "little understanding of politics beyond Ankara," Der Spiegel said.
Erdogan had surrounded himself with an "iron ring of sycophantic (but contemptuous) advisers," the leaked cable suggested.

The leaked cables also showed that key Arab states, foremost among them Saudi Arabia, that have publicly
been
sitting on their hands regarding Iran’s nuclear march have privately
been
exhorting the US to military action.

According to a report that appeared on The
Guardian
’s website, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah
asked the US repeatedly to attack Iran and destroy its nuclear program,
and in
2008 the monarchy’s envoy to Washington told US Gen. David Petraeus to
“cut off the head of the snake.”

The Guardian
noted that the Saudi king
was recorded as having “frequently exhorted the US to attack Iran to put an end
to its nuclear weapons program,” one cable stated.

And Saudi Arabia was
not alone. According to the Guardian report, “officials in Jordan and Bahrain
have openly called for Iran’s nuclear program to be stopped by any means,
including military.”
Likewise, leaders in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab
Emirates and Egypt referred to Iran as “evil,” an “existential threat” and a
power that “is going to take us to war,” the paper reported.



The cache of
more than 250,000 diplomatic cables, many of them characterized as “secret,” was
made available in advance to five newspapers – London’s The Guardian, The New
York Times
, Germany’s Der Spiegel, France’s Le Monde and Spain’s El País – which
began excerpting from them on Sunday night.



Before publication of the
documents began, one Israeli official told The Jerusalem Post that there was
concern in neighboring countries that their public declarations would be shown
to have been greatly at odds with what was said in private
conversations.



Israeli officials have said for years that the way Arab
leaders talk in private is significantly different than what they say in public,
a dissonance that became evident with the first revelations of what was in the
documents.



Netanyahu: US did not brief us on documents specifically

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu cryptically alluded to this
during a press conference on Sunday while observing work on a security barrier
along the Egyptian border.



“We did not get any specific briefing [from
the Americans] regarding these things,” Netanyahu said of the WikiLeaks
documents. “It is accepted in these reports [cables] that there is a gap between
what people say privately, and what is said publicly. The difference is that in
Israel, the gaps are not that great, but in a number of states in the region,
the gaps are very, very big.”



Israel had no official reaction to the
leaks on Sunday night.



While Israel was not, as Netanyahu rightly
predicted, the center of attention, there were a number of cables that related
to Israel and Israel-related issues.



• Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin, who stepped
down as head of the IDF’s Military Intelligence last week, said in a meeting in
2009
with US Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Florida) that Israel was not in a position to
underestimate Iran and be surprised like the United States was on 9/11.




Mossad director Meir Dagan told Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns in 2007
that Israel and the United States need to do more to create regime change in
Iran
.



• Dagan also told Frances Fragos Townsend, assistant to the US
president for homeland security and counterterrorism, in the summer of 2007 that
IDF operations against Hamas in the West Bank were preventing the terrorist
group from taking over the Fatah-controlled territory, according to a cable from
the US Embassy in Tel Aviv to the State Department.



• According to
another cable sent from the embassy in Tel Aviv, Barak revealed to a
congressional delegation in 2009 that Israel tried to coordinate Operation Cast
Lead with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian President
Hosni Mubarak.



• Iran used the cover of the Iranian Red Crescent to
smuggle intelligence agents and missiles into Lebanon during the Second Lebanon
War in 2006, according to a cable from 2008 that originated in Dubai and was
based on a meeting between a US diplomat and an unnamed source.



Washington: Leaks can deeply impact foreign policy interests

The White
House, meanwhile, issued a statement saying that “field reporting to Washington
is candid and often incomplete information. It is not an expression of policy,
nor does it always shape final policy decisions.”



Nevertheless, the
statement said, “these cables could compromise private discussions with foreign
governments and opposition leaders, and when the substance of private
conversations is printed on the front pages of newspapers across the world, it
can deeply impact not only US foreign policy interests, but those of our allies
and friends around the world.”



The statement added that “President Obama
supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the
world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal. By
releasing stolen and classified documents, Wikileaks has put at risk not only
the cause of human rights, but also the lives and work of these individuals. We
condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified
documents and sensitive national security information.”



Among the other
disclosures that were reported on The New York Times website:

• A dangerous
standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has
mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani
research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be
diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device.



In May 2009, Ambassador
Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by
American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “If the local
media got word of the fuel removal, they certainly would portray it as ‘the
United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.’”

• Gaming out an eventual
collapse of North Korea: American and South Korean officials have discussed the
prospects for a unified Korea, should the North’s economic troubles and
political transition lead the state to implode. The South Koreans even
considered commercial inducements to China, according to the American ambassador
to Seoul.



She told Washington in February that South Korean officials
believe that the right business deals would “help salve” China’s “concerns about
living with a reunified Korea” that is in a “benign alliance” with the United
States.



• Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison: When American
diplomats pressed other countries to resettle detainees, they became reluctant
players in a State Department version of Let’s Make a Deal.



Slovenia was
told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Barack Obama, while
the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars
to take in a group of detainees, cables from diplomats recounted.



The
Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners would be “a
low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.”



• Suspicions of
corruption in the Afghan government: When Afghanistan’s vice president visited
the United Arab Emirates last year, local authorities working with the US Drug
Enforcement Administration discovered that he was carrying $52 million in
cash.



With wry understatement, a cable from the American Embassy in Kabul
called the money “a significant amount” that the official, Ahmed Zia Massoud,
“was ultimately allowed to keep without revealing the money’s origin or
destination.” (Mr. Massoud denies taking any money out of Afghanistan.)

• A
global computer hacking effort: China’s Politburo directed the intrusion into
Google’s computer systems in that country, a Chinese contact told the American
Embassy in Beijing in January, one cable reported.



The Google hacking was
part of a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage carried out by government
operatives, private security experts and Internet outlaws recruited by the
Chinese government. They have broken into American government computers and
those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses since 2002,
cables said.



• Mixed records against terrorism: Saudi donors remain the
chief financiers of Sunni terrorist groups like al-Qaida, and the Persian Gulf
state of Qatar, a generous host to the American military for years, was the
“worst in the region” in counterterrorism efforts, according to a State
Department cable last December.



Qatar’s security service was “hesitant to
act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the
US and provoking reprisals,” the cable said.



• An intriguing alliance:
American diplomats in Rome reported in 2009 on what their Italian contacts
described as an extraordinarily close relationship between Vladimir V. Putin,
the Russian prime minister, and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister
and business magnate, including “lavish gifts,” lucrative energy contracts and a
“shadowy” Russian-speaking Italian go-between. They wrote that Berlusconi
“appears increasingly to be the mouthpiece of Putin” in Europe.



The
diplomats also noted that while Putin enjoys supremacy over all other public
figures in Russia, he is undermined by an unmanageable bureaucracy that often
ignores his edicts.



Among the leaked documents were dispatches that
disclosed US nicknames for a number of world leaders.



Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was referred to as “Hitler,” French President Nicolas
Sarkozy as a “naked emperor,” the German chancellor was called Angela “Teflon”
Merkel and Afghan President Hamid Karzai as “driven by paranoia.”



Putin
was referred to as “Alpha Male,” while Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is
“afraid, hesitant.”



The documents also say that North Korean leader Kim
Jong Il suffers from epilepsy, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s full-time nurse
is a “hot blond,” and Berlusconi loves “wild parties.”



The article also
quotes the State Department as saying that Obama “prefers to look East rather
than West,” and “has no feelings for Europe.”



“The US sees the world as a
conflict between two superpowers,” the diplomatic cables say. “The European
Union plays a secondary role.”



Jerusalem Post staff contributed to this
report.
Read more at www.jpost.com
 

Religious Freedom and National Security

Amplify’d from www.christianpost.com

Religious Freedom and National Security

By Chuck Colson|Christian Post Guest Columnist
colson

If you’re like me, you typically associate national security with diplomacy, intelligence, and, of course, the military. That’s why I was intrigued by a recent conference at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at Georgetown University. The conference was called “Religious Freedom and National Security Policy.”

“Under what conditions,” the speakers were asked, “might greater U.S. support for religious liberty abroad help to reduce political instability, religious radicalism and terrorist violence?”

On this question, they all agreed that religious freedom is a bellwether, the canary in the coalmine, if you will. For example, University of Texas professor Will Imboden, formerly of the National Security Council, showed how any erosion in a country’s religious freedom invariably signals the erosion of all other liberties and human rights. Governments that are not committed to religious liberty become increasingly intolerant and coercive, insisting that they have a monopoly on truth that must be forced on others.

Imboden went on to say that not only is such a government a threat to its own people, it becomes a threat to its neighbors, growing increasingly aggressive and belligerent.

Without religious freedom, democracy suffers, economic stagnation becomes inevitable. But in countries where religious freedom thrives, so does democracy and economic vitality.

Some conferees suggested efforts by the United States to spread religious freedom amounted to cultural imperialism. And still others said it raises the question of hypocrisy. After all, the Manhattan Declaration clearly states, religious freedom is increasingly endangered in this country. So who are we to be forcing it on others?

Well, that’s all wrong, responded Pauletta Otis, Professor of Security Studies at Marine Corps University. Religious freedom in America is a work in progress. Sure, we’ve disagreed repeatedly about its scope and application. And we’ve disagreed loudly, publicly, and vigorously. But we also disagree without violence and bloodshed-we abide by the rule of law. And we rightly resist infringements upon religious liberty. That, she insisted, is something the world needs to see.

So how then do we promote religious freedom and build a more secure world? First of all, said Eric Patterson, Assistant Director of the Berkley Center, the U.S. government-at every level-must show a consistent, firm commitment to religious freedom.

The president, vice-president, and cabinet secretaries need to be clear voices for religious freedom, engaging leaders and the peoples of the world. And they need to insist that countries that violate the religious freedom of their citizens live up to the international agreements most of them have already signed.

But that’s not what’s happening. Instead, the administration seems to be shying away from freedom of religion. Whether by accident or in a deliberate attempt to appease the likes of China and the Islamic world, it prefers instead to talk about “freedom of worship.” And as I’ve said before, “freedom of worship”-the ability to pray as you like in private-is a far cry from freedom of religion, the freedom to live out your faith in all areas of life.

But instead of enhancing our stature in the world, retreating from our historical commitment to religious freedom ironically, ends up undermining that most vital role of government, which is to safeguard our national security.

From BreakPoint, November 24, 2010, Copyright 2010, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. “BreakPoint®” and “Prison Fellowship Ministries®” are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship
Read more at www.christianpost.com
 

Religious Freedom and National Security

Amplify’d from www.christianpost.com

Religious Freedom and National Security

By Chuck Colson|Christian Post Guest Columnist
colson

If you’re like me, you typically associate national security with diplomacy, intelligence, and, of course, the military. That’s why I was intrigued by a recent conference at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at Georgetown University. The conference was called “Religious Freedom and National Security Policy.”

“Under what conditions,” the speakers were asked, “might greater U.S. support for religious liberty abroad help to reduce political instability, religious radicalism and terrorist violence?”

On this question, they all agreed that religious freedom is a bellwether, the canary in the coalmine, if you will. For example, University of Texas professor Will Imboden, formerly of the National Security Council, showed how any erosion in a country’s religious freedom invariably signals the erosion of all other liberties and human rights. Governments that are not committed to religious liberty become increasingly intolerant and coercive, insisting that they have a monopoly on truth that must be forced on others.

Imboden went on to say that not only is such a government a threat to its own people, it becomes a threat to its neighbors, growing increasingly aggressive and belligerent.

Without religious freedom, democracy suffers, economic stagnation becomes inevitable. But in countries where religious freedom thrives, so does democracy and economic vitality.

Some conferees suggested efforts by the United States to spread religious freedom amounted to cultural imperialism. And still others said it raises the question of hypocrisy. After all, the Manhattan Declaration clearly states, religious freedom is increasingly endangered in this country. So who are we to be forcing it on others?

Well, that’s all wrong, responded Pauletta Otis, Professor of Security Studies at Marine Corps University. Religious freedom in America is a work in progress. Sure, we’ve disagreed repeatedly about its scope and application. And we’ve disagreed loudly, publicly, and vigorously. But we also disagree without violence and bloodshed-we abide by the rule of law. And we rightly resist infringements upon religious liberty. That, she insisted, is something the world needs to see.

So how then do we promote religious freedom and build a more secure world? First of all, said Eric Patterson, Assistant Director of the Berkley Center, the U.S. government-at every level-must show a consistent, firm commitment to religious freedom.

The president, vice-president, and cabinet secretaries need to be clear voices for religious freedom, engaging leaders and the peoples of the world. And they need to insist that countries that violate the religious freedom of their citizens live up to the international agreements most of them have already signed.

But that’s not what’s happening. Instead, the administration seems to be shying away from freedom of religion. Whether by accident or in a deliberate attempt to appease the likes of China and the Islamic world, it prefers instead to talk about “freedom of worship.” And as I’ve said before, “freedom of worship”-the ability to pray as you like in private-is a far cry from freedom of religion, the freedom to live out your faith in all areas of life.

But instead of enhancing our stature in the world, retreating from our historical commitment to religious freedom ironically, ends up undermining that most vital role of government, which is to safeguard our national security.

From BreakPoint, November 24, 2010, Copyright 2010, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. “BreakPoint®” and “Prison Fellowship Ministries®” are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship
Read more at www.christianpost.com
 

Fellowship and Forbidden Fruit

Amplify’d from www.spectrummagazine.org

Fellowship and Forbidden Fruit


By Karl. G. Wilcox

Image of Biblical Lions by Nicki Anderson (http://media.photobucket.com/image/lions%20bible/nikianderson/lions.jpg)

The tragic case of the “Man of God” (1st Kings 13) bears special relevance to Adventist belief. For starters, Jeroboam does two things that mark him as a shadowy precursor of the Anti-Christ: he makes the Hebrew religion “easier” and he also messes about with the Hebrew calendar. On both counts he anticipates, quite neatly, Ellen White’s warning of an emerging “Apostate Protestantism”, fully enamored with both false revivals and false sabbaths.

Jeroboam's political anxiety fastens upon the notion that, because the temple that served both nations lay within the territory of Judah, his people might, over time, begin to dream of reunification. In order to preempt this, the king indulges in some revisionist theology. The facts of the Exodus remain, but their allegiances shift. The two golden calves find new meaning, not as idols, but as gods of deliverance (idols now get the credit for delivering Israel from idolatry). And the Feast of Booths (arguably, Israel's most celebratory sabbath) gratuitously moves to a new date on the calendar, exactly one month after its proper time. These modifications all find their ostensible rationale in Jeroboam's argument that it is just “too hard” to have to travel all the way to Jerusalem to worship at the Temple. The arguments for convenient religion promise a blithe return to Edenic bliss, but they always forget that grim and sword-bearing angel at the gate.

Into the middle of this ersatz celebration (Jeroboam ignores Moses’ warning to not employ images during the Feast of Booths) strides the lean figure of patient integrity. The Man of God’s dire prediction, the shattered altar, and Jeroboam’s withered hand find a natural corollary in the Man of God’s refusal to eat anything. By not eating, he witnesses against false enjoyment or the idolatrous celebration of life. He stands against the idea that religion requires no discrimination; that it should never entail guilt, shame, or strict accountability, or that one can slide into Heaven on a diet of celebratory pastry.

Jeroboam’s invitation to the Man of God to share a meal with him seems gracious enough, but in this context, a meal signified a lot more than just eating. If the Man of God had eaten with the king, that act would have allied him to the king’s brassy worship style. This is in the nature of a shared meal. To eat merely is to survive, but to share a meal with another person implies commonality. Eve did not eat the forbidden fruit because she needed food, she ate because she wanted to join what C.S. Lewis calls the ‘inner circle’ — she wanted to be a “god” among gods. By not eating, the Man of God eschews common cause with the dominant culture of false satiety. The state of being hungry, in this context, marks true religion as sometimes depriving itself of one of God’s seminal gifts in order to draw a severe line between true satisfaction and the illusory fullness of sin. How can a hungry Man of God demonstrate the fullness of God? Well, the paradoxes of faith will persist, but I would suggest a hungry man is less likely to settle for something that is not food than a man who insists upon his right to never miss a meal.

When the “Old Prophet” hears of what the “Man of God” has done, he responds with uncanny speed. The Bible does not reveal his motives — and that's a good thing. Also, instead of the Bible telling us that the Old Prophet was envious, or an “agent of Satan” (the Bible rarely moralizes), we get only a stark narration of his acts. Contrary to what we expect, nearly everything the Old Prophet says and does tokens a modicum of good will towards the Man of God. No doubt, the Old Prophet had converted to Jeroboam’s facile new faith; this could explain why God did not send the Old Prophet to confront the king. As a probable advocate of an easier Judaism, the Old Prophet’s mendacity could have been justified on rhetorical grounds (the end justifies the means). Does he lie to the Man of God in a sincere attempt to win him over to a progressive faith? At the same time, the Old Prophet appears eager to win recognition as a fellow prophet. Does he harbor some nostalgia for his own lost integrity, or does the lying prophet simply want to bring a good man down? We cannot elucidate precise motive here, but we ought to note that, in working out this range of possibilities, we inevitably get schooled in the base entendre of our own dark hearts.

It would be easy to think that the temptation under the oak tree only concerned food. But the real hook must have been the promise of renewed fellowship (or maybe even the prospect of winning a convert). When the text identifies the Man of God as both “deceived” and guilty of an act of “rebellion”, it tells us more than we want to know (about ourselves). We don’t like to bring those two words together. We think of the deceived as harmless victims and the rebellious as wicked perpetrators, but the text refuses this distinction. When the Old Prophet exclaims, “I am also a prophet like you” the Man of God must choose between what he knows to be true, and his now quite beleaguered need to be liked. The prospect of mundane acceptance, good-will among fellows, and the security of shared beliefs in a hostile place all converge like so many welcome blessings upon the Man of God.

Oh, it’s easy enough for the stalwart Adventist to vow that he would never violate the Sabbath even at the cost of not being able to “buy or sell”. But rarely do we contemplate how little fortitude we can muster for enduring the status of the social pariah. Loneliness and the prospect of painful anonymity terribly haunts the bold reformer as he realizes, perhaps too late, that nobody might join him after all. Jeremiah’s painful isolation, Peter’s denial of Jesus, and Jerome’s recantation: these figures best know the true severity of that leafy seduction. To deny ourselves (at testing time) our fundamental need for human society (or human recognition) seems counter to the very nature of our being — and it is. But from our very creation this has been a dangerous world of seeming friends and benefactors where shady groves harbor asps and grinning publicans poison our food.

When the old prophet unexpectedly finds himself the voice of God, he must bear witness not only to the rebellion of the Man of God, but also to the wickedness of his own heart. Thus, the Man of God’s doom becomes the Old Prophet’s gut wrenching “second chance”.

We might remember Moses’ earthly fate and wring some hope (and fear) from it — he too died for a single act of rebellion and forfeited his temporal life with its promised land. It seems unfair that Moses should die for a single rebellious act while the children of Israel lived on to sin another day. Yet, we should recall that Moses’ earthly fate did not prevent him from going to Heaven, and it may help others get there too.

The Man of God, like Moses, could perhaps be punished more severely than his wicked counterpart on the simple grounds that he was ready to die — an axiom that can be applied throughout the Bible to both the irreversibly righteous and wicked. We may, perhaps, take from this that the Man of God will be in heaven, and the Old Prophet may well be there too.

The Old Prophet’s confession that, indeed, the Man of God was truly a “Man of God” (and not just another false prophet like himself) creates space for a curious end of life request that offers still further hope. The Old Prophet’s request, “bury my bones with his bones”, holds out a more honest invitation to fellowship than the original promise of a shared meal ever did, and, as we discover later, that morbid pairing of dead men's bones produced a remarkably durable (and fire-resistant) union.

Read more at www.spectrummagazine.org
 

Brain Imaging Studies Show Different Cultures Have Different Brains

The emerging field of cultural neuroscience reveals fascinating differences in brain function between cultures and environments. Christie Nicholson reports

Brain Imaging Studies Show Different Cultures Have Different Brains

The emerging field of cultural neuroscience reveals fascinating differences in brain function between cultures and environments. Christie Nicholson reports

Listen to this Podcast

Did you know that our brain function is entirely different when we think about our own honesty versus when we think about another’s honesty? That’s if the “we” is American. For Chinese people their brains look identical when considering either.

These sorts of studies fall into so-called cultural neuroscience; the study how our environment shapes our brain function.

Following up on the cultural differences between Asians and Americans, one study published in Neuroimage, found that when faced with the same image people’s neural responses are totally different. Scientists found that when American subjects viewed a silhouette in a dominant posture (standing up, arms crossed) their brain’s reward circuitry sparked. Not so for Japanese subjects.   For the Japanese their reward circuitry fired when they saw a submissive silhouette (head down, arms at sides.) This physiological response matches a well-known behavioral difference: Americans favor and encourage dominant behavior. Japanese culture reinforces submissive culture.

This study, and many others, is referenced in a recent article in the American Psychological Association’s Monitor.

One might think, well, these studies add nothing revolutionary and are simply revealing the wiring behind already well-known behavior. Then again isn’t it a good thing for science to understand the wiring behind a light bulb, instead of just observing that it goes on when someone walks into a room?

—Christie Nicholson

Read more at www.scientificamerican.com
 

Is Climate Change Too Scary?

Doom and gloom doesn't motivate action on environmental problems, but is there hope for behavior change? David Biello reports

Is Climate Change Too Scary?

Doom and gloom doesn't motivate action on environmental problems, but is there hope for behavior change? David Biello reports

Listen to this Podcast

When it comes to persuasion, doom and gloom doesn't work. If that wasn't clear from the morass that is international climate change negotiations starting this week or the constant reports of extinction of plant and animal species worldwide, new research [pdf] from the University of California, Berkeley shows it's so.

The researchers canvassed 97 Berkeley students, and found that the 25 young men and 72 young women largely believed in a so-called "just world." That means they think the world is generally just, orderly and stable—despite appearances to the contrary.

Those students who then read warnings of the apocalyptic potential of climate change were more likely to be skeptical of man-made global warming than those who read an article focusing on potential solutions. Dire warnings actually spurred climate contrarianism. 

Of course, apocalypse isn't the only way climate change gets presented. But understanding how to motivate actual behavior change is as important—if not more important—than breakthroughs in energy technology. It's shifting away from gadget lust, car envy and the disposable society that might actually reverse some of the gloomiest environmental trends.

And the key will not be making bad decisions scary. It’s making good decisions easy. 

—David Biello

Read more at www.scientificamerican.com
 

'Celebrate Reason’: New Atheist Billboard Calls Christmas a Myth (Video)

I have to agree with the Atheist on this one!

Amplify’d from www.hapblog.com


'Celebrate Reason’: New Atheist Billboard Calls Christmas a Myth (Video)

Outside the Lincoln tunnel in NJ
A group called the American Atheists has paid for a huge billboard on Route 495 outside the Lincoln Tunnel in North Bergen, N.J., that is raising some eyebrows.

The billboard shows a silhouette of the Three Wise Men approaching the Nativity, with the words: “You KNOW it’s a Myth / This Season, Celebrate REASON!”

The group says the billboard is not designed to convert Christians to atheism. Rather, Dave Silverman, a spokesman for the American Atheists, says the sign is designed to encourage existing atheists who are going through the motions of celebrating Christmas to stop
Read more at www.hapblog.com
 

In the face of all the commotion between the Koreas: Where's Ban Ki-Moon?

Amplify’d from endrtimes.blogspot.com


Thank you > kamsahamnida

Hyundai Motor President Yang Seung-suk (right) hands to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon the first of one million soccer balls to be donated to African children.

Where's Ban Ki-Moon?

In the face of all the commotion between the Koreas: Where's her favorite son?
While the South Koreans and the United States Armed Forces are conducting war games off the Coast of the Korea peninsula: Where's the most notable Korean on the planet?

The secretary of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, is a Korean from South Korea; Since the North Korean aggression took place earlier this week, when 2 soldiers and 2 civilians lost their lives in a territory disputed by both Koreas; Where has the global celebrity - Hyundai/Samsung/Daewoo/Kia poster child been?

I've yet to hear Ban Ki-Moon, the secretary general of the United Nations call for a cessation of the hostilities, or for an Emergency Session of the General Assembly?

Is Ban Ki banking on the problem to fix itself, or to escalate?

Is Ban Ki busy shuttle diplomacy-ing around the world, consummed implementing the MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS, and is too busy to see that his homeland is on the verge of a precipice?

Is all this saber rattling just a false flag operation? Problem > Reaction = Solution?

Does Ban Ki-Moon know something that you and I don't?

Or, is Ban Ki-Moon waiting for the top of the 9Th inning to give his two cents?


kamsahamnida!
Read more at endrtimes.blogspot.com