Just stumbled upon this and thought others may be interested:
OIL AND BLOOD
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Imagine that an emergency made the need for blood transfusions especially urgent but Jehovah Witnesses were in charge. That’s what we are experiencing now, only not with blood but oil supply. In that case the Jehovah Witnesses are the environmentalists.
Jehovah Witnesses are often very nice people, certainly well mannered and often dressed spiffily. But their idea on the merits of blood transfusions is really, really perverse, like the ideas of Christian Scientists on seeking the help of physicians when one’s body is ailing. I am sorry but this is just so. Sure, so long as it pertains to them and they aren’t forcing their views on anyone else, I can live with both, although when either of them inflicts these views on their own children, I get very worried. Children are dependents, not yet of age so as to figure out what’s best, and when they are subjected to parents’ peculiar religious or any other sort of notions, especially ones that can kill them, it’s time to call in the trial lawyers, I say. They are injuring, even killing kids, with ideas the kids never had a chance to consider and decide about.
But never mind that. It is with the environmentalists’ impact on public policy that I am concerned. The country has been terribly dependent on imported oil and that would not be so bad if the oil were owned by reasonable people abroad, people who, like reason would guide one to do, wished to earn a decent living off their good fortune and hard work. That would make for healthy trade between, say, the oil rich Saudi Arabians or Venezuelans and the rest of the world.
Sadly, however, as things are, the oil abroad is under the control of a bunch of rouge states that (a) use it to make the population addicted to free lunches that can only last so long and (b) play geopolitical games instead of conduct trade with people outside their borders. This makes it especially crucial that the rest of the world institute rational economic policies when it comes to oil exploration, extraction and refinement.
No, of course oil will not last forever. But it could do us a lot more good without irrational restraint of production and trade that’s often brought about by the irrational exuberance of too many environmentalists who haven’t found an oil rig they didn’t hate or an oil refinery they didn’t want to ban.
Even in a time of emergency, such as many Americans had and are still reeling from involving the hurricanes, instead of retreating in shame of how little they care about human well-being, both the environmentalists and their political pawns in Washington prefer dragging a bunch of oil company executives in front of pontificating Congressional committees and subjecting them to various attempts to humiliation, as if their duties were first to appease the politicos rather than enrich all those who own oil stocks (which, by the way, includes millions of people who are far from “fat cats,” whoever that insulting term is supposed to refer to).
Oh, yes, about that gauging issue—no doubt some folks love to exploit other people’s dire needs, but it is simply impossible to know from afar who is doing this as opposed to taking reasonable advantage of having prudently saved up (horded) resources while others gave not a fig about a rainy day. If one thinks charging high prices for goods and services in short supply is a bad thing, we might as well shut down all labor unions which flourish by advocating that policy, or doctors who actually live by it (given how they are mostly needed and diligently charge for this when their patients are in dire need of their expertise).
Anyway, I look at environmental opposition to oil exploration in, say, Alaska, or offshore, or anywhere, as rank obstructionism and the cause of much misery, especially to those who can least afford or cope with it. This is just what you get when people’s value systems have become so warped that they are willing to put trees, snail darters, and rare frogs ahead of human lives and well-being on their list of priorities. But, like the Jehovah Witnesses or Christian Scientists, if they do it to themselves, that can only be argued with in a free country. But if they inflict their perverse notions on us all, they should be stopped. Tibor R. Machan
|1. 12/15/2005 - 11:28:6AM|
|BY: Danny Haszard|
|Why Jehovah's Witnesses reject blood transfusions.|
Jehovah's Witnesses have a non negotiable doctrine of their belief system to reject blood products. The origin of this dogma comes from their founding father Joseph Rutherford in the early 20th century.The consumption (eating) of blood was strictly forbidden under old testament law. The Watchtower leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses saw fit to extend this prohibition over to their belief system. They thought that the "end of the world" was coming back then(ca.1940),so,there would never be much causality.
It is well into the 21st century,with the "end of the world" on hold,the Watchtower leaders have blood on their hands,with the deaths of innocent minor children.How would they account for this body count, if they repealed the 'no blood ban' now? Many children have died since rejecting life saving blood transfusions. Why do they maintain adherence to this archaic creed at all cost?
Watchtower leadership REPEAL THE BLOOD BAN NOW! UPDATE:The absurdity of the Watchtower rulings now allow any of the COMPONENTS of blood to be transfused, but not whole blood, and yet people are dying and lives and families are being ruined over a few old men in Brooklyn New York usa who are always changing their minds on this matter. Some educational links provided below:
http://www.ajwrb.org/ Jehovah Witness blood policy reform site
(Jehovah's Witnesses use many products that are derived from blood banks but they themselves won't donate a drop.)
-tell the truth and don't be afraid- Danny Haszard Bangor Mainewww.dannyhaszard.com
[utilize/adapt/edit freely tel.# 207-433-7627 email [email protected]
|2. 12/15/2005 - 13:30:31PM|
|BY: Edward Safranski|
|Instead of complaining about oil, why not switch to alternate technology which has always been viciously suppressed by the consortium of petroleum companies? For starters, there's hemp. Hemp stalks can be processed into charcoal to burn for electricity, and into alcohol which can power internal combustion engines. Hemp seed can also be made into superior diesel fuel than is produced from petroleum. Experts have said that six percent of the farm land in America, used to grow hemp for energy, could supply all of the power for American industry and consumers, with far less pollution. In addition, hemp can be made into clothing, paper, plastic, pressboard, and even resin composites used to manufacture auto bodies and airframes for military, commercial, and private aircraft. In almost every case, products from hemp are superior to the products from other sources which they replace. The growth of hemp would keep untold billions of dollars in the bank accounts of American farmers. Besides that, the leaves are fun to smoke! |
If that is not enough for you, there is also the technology for cold fusion, which can take a gallon of water and a chunk of palladium and produce enough electricty for an entire city. If you don't believe it, get the video, War Against Cold Fusion, part of the Phenomana Archives series, available at Blockbuster and other outlets. (Though it may not be easy to find.) The oil companies are run by ruthless criminals. Were it not for them, America would be much wealthier, cleaner, safer and have no shortage of cheap clean fuel.
|3. 12/15/2005 - 14:11:41PM|
|BY: Tom Anderson|
|It's rogue and gouge, but otherwise, bravo.|
|4. 12/15/2005 - 16:16:2PM|
|BY: Larry O. Reid|
|You should read your bible a little more thoroughly; you would understand why Jehovah does not want us taking blood into our bodies. Especially as in almost all case's it is totally unnecessary, they can use plasma in most emergency cases rather than run the risk of tainted blood. As in anything else you would look at that Jehovah wishes us to do it's just plain common sense. Check it out, you will be amazed at what you can learn.|
|5. 12/15/2005 - 16:55:23PM|
|BY: Truth about blood|
|You seem to have no idea about the dangers of blood transfusions, not to mention how out of date this knee-jerk treatment really is. With the technology today, and the more complete understanding of how our body works, it's realized that all that is needed is a volumizing agent to make sure that oxygen gets to the body organs. Blood is made up of MILLIONS of organs, yet when an organ transplant takes place many factors are concidered and checked twice; however, in the case of blood, only a couple conditions need be met before transfusion(transplant) is attempted. For this reason, blood transfusions often make people's conditions WORSE, not better, yet this fact is often hidden behind people dying "from complications related to surgery" or some other ambiguous phrase. I'm not saying doctors are evil or anything, but usually they are just ignorrant and don't know any better. People, Jehovah's Witness or not, who do not receive transfusions usually have a much faster recovery. Blood transfusions do NOT save lives, stop being hood-winked by those who make money from blood sales to hospitals, and start finding out the truth!|
|6. 12/15/2005 - 17:19:47PM|
|BY: You have probably already heard...|
|Your comments about Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood Transfusions have probably gotten you lots of feedback already, however, I would just like to make certain you are aware of the peer-reviewed opinion released in the August 2005 Journal of Church and State entitled: "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation".|
It promotes a theory that may make it possible to sue the organization for misrepresenting secular facts in the process of indoctrination on their blood policy. It raises the possibility that fiduciary trust was violated by doing so. If that is found to be the case it will allow for pursuit of tort of misrepresention.
|7. 12/15/2005 - 18:32:5PM|
|BY: matt harris|
|Tibor R. Machan, you should research the benefits of bloodless medicine and surgery. You would find that these have become the gold standard of care. After you find that out you will notice that Jehovah's Witnesses are responsible for doctors even taking note of the need for this type of care.|
|8. 12/15/2005 - 18:36:15PM|
|Get off on tangents much? So what happens when the state decides circumcision is bad, do you think this requirement of the Jewish faith should be done away with also?|
|9. 12/15/2005 - 19:19:2PM|
|BY: John Mayers|
|I find the analogy between oil/religion, and blood/religion very disturbing. I can see what point Mr. Machan is trying to make, but disagree with the comparison. Christian Scientists consider the human body (blood)to be the temple of God, and Jehovah Witnesses consider blood sacred. What relation does this have to the Muslim faith and the use of a commodity? Muslim's do not consider oil to be sacred, nor do they consider it a religious matter. What Mr.Machan should try and do is investigate the various religions that he is drawing negative attention to, and find out the reasons WHY the beliefs exists.|
Muslims place a great emphasis on Qat Haldl (food acquired through honest means); and in Muslim oil producing countries, honesty is religiously relied on when selling a commodity such as oil. Jehovah Witnesses place great emphasis on the sanctity of blood, and that includes not eating it (eating not only being implied by swallowing through the mouth). Christian Science believes in prayer as a force of healing. Blood transfusions are not requested because of the use of the healing powers of prayer over conventional medical science. Understanding the different religious beliefs will help the writer of this statement to convey a more realistic approach to his analogy, rather than possibly offending the his various readers religious beliefs.
|10. 12/16/2005 - 2:5:19AM|
|BY: Daniel Parker|
|Sir, may I suggest you do more thorough research on the question of blood transfusion. The ideas you put forward are out dated. There are a huge range of alteratives to blood transfusions. Your attitude to oil is only bringing this world closer to enviromental disaster. You remind me of an addictive smoker who justifies addiction by believing he will never get killed by an illness connected with smoking despite the scientific evidence.|
|11. 12/16/2005 - 14:39:52PM|
|This article certainly has produced a wide range of interesting feedback. I would like to add yet another perspective. If we accept Mr. Machan's assertion that the economic value of the oil and other energy resources untapped in our country outweighs any environmental impact caused by their extraction and we also accept the idea that fossil fuels will eventually be used up, does it not make sense for us to hold on to what we have as long as possible and wait for the price to rise to astronomical levels? In the mean time we can use the rest of the world's resources for lower prices. So from a purely profiteering point of view, the enviromentalists are doing us a favor, by giving us the political will to not squander our resources prematurely.|
|12. 12/18/2005 - 3:13:37AM|
|BY: R Ingersoll|
|Imagine if Jehovah's Witnesses were in charge of the intire earth!? There would be no war, because Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to join the military and fight. There would be no political infighting, because Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to take part in politics. There would be world wide cooperation among people of varying ethnic, racial and socio-economic boundaries, because Jehovah's Witnesses view all of mankind as equals. Yes, imagine if Jehovah's Witnesses were in charge!|
|13. 12/19/2005 - 6:34:7AM|
|BY: S Lang|
|Sadly, although the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses are sincere, their belief that 12 Men sitting in Brooklyn Heights have some kind of Monopoly of what God/Jehovah/Yahweh wants us to know, smacks at the hypocrasy of other organised religions, whilst there are dangers in Blood Transfusion (isn't there a risk with everything?). When reading their leaflets on blood, it's plainly obvious that card stacking information is given, Jehovah's Witnesses can only make decisions fed to them by their own society, hardly an informed choice. And while they advocate this belief via scriptures, I've yet to find find scriptures that allow blood fractions which they are happy to receieve. You just have to conclude that while they will accuse other religions of being "followers of men", it's time for Pot meet Kettle.|
|14. 12/19/2005 - 19:44:31PM|
|BY: Kevin Russell|
|Joining global oil supply with Jehovah's Witnesses is one of the more inane linkages I've seen in a while, and I must add that your positions on each have some flaws in them as well. Whether out of a sudden need to pummel religious conservatives (and you picked on JW’s because everyone else does) or just because you needed a good tie-in, you’ve waded into a subject that you appear to know little about. You obviously are not religious yourself (I ‘m guessing), but why slam JW’s and Christian Science just because they hold some odd positions? They are not secular humanists, but so what? Just what IS your problem?|
JW’s have “blood issues” in the same way that Jews have peculiar dietary laws. You don’t have to like them or agree with them, but there are reasons in each case for these beliefs (however flawed or challenged by science). Very few JW’s, for example, have HIV, and in part because of their refusal of blood transfusions. As you say, they are mostly “good” people, and not many of them (I suspect this is an understatement) shoot drugs, either. No JW, moreover, is telling you NOT to get a transfusion. If a JW chooses to raise their children in this fashion, why does this hack you off so much? Are you so wise (and believe so strongly in state authority) that you would force JW’s to act counter to this belief? I thought you believed in the independent citizen, free from Leviathan? You should also praise the JW’s for being so peaceful and not wishing (in large part) to be part of social welfare and the UN’s new world order.
Moreover, I’m still awaiting your comments about abortion (to go off on a tangent of my own). Does a woman “own” her fetus, is it the property of the state (a trustee for its welfare), does the biologic father have a stake, or is the issue even more complex than this? I assume you think the mother should be able to terminate “her” fetus. A similar logic can be applied to children and medical care and a parent’s control over the welfare of their children. You seem to think the state should intervene here (in the case of JW’s denying transfusions). Are you being consistent?
As for your position on oil companies and “excess” profits, I mostly agree with you, but I would like to see your comments about the concepts of joint ownership and national interests. I suspect you’d like to see all governments and nations eliminated, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I think you’re trying to say let the markets operate even partly free, and we’ll have all the energy supplies we need. I agree with you, but do wonder about the depth of the monopolies operating in a supposed “free” industry. I own oil stock and cash dividends, so I understand the profit motive, but are oil supplies largely unmanipulated? I wonder. As for the case of undeveloped prospective oil lands (such as ANWR), I think it's a more “sided” topic than you imply. If the abundant-supply people are right (there is no shortage), development of ANWR is not that important and it will happen when it makes most sense (economically, politically and environmentally). If Peak Oil is real, the potential reserves at ANWR will make little difference in the big picture anyway. It will simply be another place to make money, or a prime icon for the Porsche-driving Hollywood elite (limousine socialists all). The question is, who does own ANWR, and who should? Precedence says that publicly owned resources (much of both Alaska and Nevada, where I live) have to be managed using best practices and "best" use; in some cases, society (or call it the body politic; I know you hate this concept) decides not to develop a resource at all (think of offshore California after a couple of bad oil spills). Is the US hypocritical in some of its environmental practices, while still sucking up 25% of the world energy production? Yeah, so what? For those whining about the latter fact, I say make us pay full value for the oil (I think we are). If these tyrants and sheiks (and the socialists north of our border) get tired of our paper dollars, make us pay gold. In other words, sooner or later our “wasteful ways” will catch up with us, if markets mean anything. Some one else will offer to pay more (in real value) for the energy, and we’ll be sucking hind tit. Deal with it, and no doubt we will, when that evil day arrives. Hell, we might even decide to drill again off the California coast.
|15. 12/23/2005 - 16:15:4PM|
|BY: Auld Thorn|
|Imagine if Jehovah's Witnesses were in charge of the world! All humans would be equal except those who were appointed to positions of authority over others, and if anyone didn't do as they were asked they would be shunned by the whole world. Eventually, not everyone in the world would be Jehovah's Witnesses anymore because not everyone would agree with their views.|
Of course, they do more than imagine such a world. They believe God will eventually destroy every human who does not agree with their dogma. Which is why they feel justified in subverting the laws of man on issues such as blood transfusions. There is no law requiring blood transfusions, so the arguments regarding laws about circumcision are pointless, but now there is a possibility of suing for damage done by misrepresentation of material fact and possibly for coercion through threat of shunning for non-compliance.