Who is the most prolific of them all?

Loose Ends

By John Taylor; 2008 March 03, 02 Ala, 164 BE

The fast is upon us. Marie set the alarm an hour early this morning, so I ate early and am therefore spaced out of my mind earlier than usual as well. I am not even going to try to organize my thoughts this time. First, a disappointing discovery.

This morning while browsing the Web I came across a blog that is more prolific, at least as far as frequency of posting goes, than the Badi' Blog. It is called Baha'i Views, "Pithy excerpts, personal learning, and mentions of `Baha'i' online," and can be found at <http://bahaiviews.blogspot.com/> Here is a little chart on how much more prolific this site is than mine:

Number of posts so far this year (2008):
Baha'i Views: 285 Badi' Blog: 55
Number of postings in March:
Baha'i Views: 5 Badi' Blog: 2
Postings in February:
Baha'i Views: 129 Badi' Blog: 24
January Output:
Baha'i Views: 155 Badi' Blog: 29

No matter how hard I write, I do not see me ever putting out more than one essay a day. In January, as you see, I succeeded in that goal every day of the month, except a couple. But even that was not good enough to come anywhere near Baha'i Views. Worse still, many of the links and articles on Baha'i Views are extremely useful, and I do not think I will be able to ignore what goes on there. For example, one link on Baha'i Views points to a well designed "Baha'i sign in the middle of rural Wisconsin" at Flickr:

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdbrown/2141432509/>

Nor can I complain that my work is ignored at Baha'i Views. I did a search for "Badi" and found that some time ago it had excerpted my comments on "why I am a Baha'i," along with other favorable comment.

I know; I am comparing apples and oranges here. As far as number of words the Badi' blog is still almost certainly the most prolific Baha'i blog. But what kind of a distinction is that? I talk more? I know, before anybody sends me the Master's NY talk telling us that the distinction we Baha'is should be striving for is spiritual, I know. It is just that no matter how advanced the internet gets I do not see blogs ever getting a meter for spirituality the way they have meters for the number of hits.

Here is a link to "Project ForkenSwift EV: first electric test drive." These fellows were half way through a garage project to convert a car to electric, and this records the spontaneous reactions of passersby when they hear a silent electric vehicle drive by:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDERyAILOak>

I have always been of the opinion that that there is no need for any big technological advances, that you could just stick ordinary car batteries in any car and it would be as good or better for 90 percent of the uses people put cars to. The supposed need for gasoline is a big crock. The success of these tinkerers tends to back that argument.

In technical issues, as in anything else, it is best to stick to principle. This is from the recent BIC statement on poverty:

"The essential merit of a principle-based process is that it guides individuals and institutions away from a focus on isolated, short-term concerns to consider problems from a systemic and long-term perspective. For any decision to garner support and deliver results, the decision-making process itself must have integrity: it must involve those directly affected by the decisions and it must be governed by transparent, agreed-upon ethical standards."

As soon as you depart from the principle, you get bogged down in trivialities. If we want a better transportation system, we need to educate specialists in transportation, not cars or trains but the whole transport system, from locality to world transit. Only that way will real solutions start to come within our grasp. If we are not properly educated and informed, our words are generated by our own lower desires and interests. Such consultation is worse than useless. When consultation fails, the only thing to do is break it off and go pray, and come back another time.

Here is a post made back in January by science Catherine Brahic, online environment reporter for New Scientist Magazine, on the idea that climate deniers have adopted the same techniques of denial that slavery advocates used in the 19th Century. It is called "The rhetoric of climate and slavery,"

<http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2008/01/rhetoric-of-climate-and-slavery.html>

"Davidson claims that historical hindsight shows how preposterous the claims made in favour of slavery were. He suggests they bear striking resemblance to claims made against taking any action on climate change by contemporary members of Congress. The implication is that some years down the line, in a century or two perhaps, the comments of climate "deniers" will seem just as shocking as those of the slave owners of the 1800s."

She cites two examples of slavery advocates' argumentation. The first tries to argue that there are only very uncertain benefits from outlawing slavery:

"...the course of [the abolitionists] whose precipitate and ignorant zeal would overturn the fundamental institutions of society, uproar its peace and endanger its security, in pursuit of a distant and shadowy good, of which they themselves have formed no definite conception." (in: Simms 1852, p. 98)

Another slaver argued that the cost of change would be too high:

"Their [the slaves'] value, at $400, average, (and they are now worth more than that,) would amount to upwards of 900 millions. The value of their annual increase, alone is 24 millions of dollars; so that to free them in 100 years, without the expense of taking them from the country, would require an annual appropriation of between 33 and 34 millions of dollars. The thing is physically impossible." (James Henry Hammond, senator of South Carolina, 1836)

This comparison provoked a great deal of comment, mostly negative. For me, whether it is fair or not, the most important thing to be learned is not to forget historical lessons from past debates, especially the part about getting beyond debate and getting down to positive action, even in the face of uncertainty and possible high cost.

Several years ago, just after 9-11, somebody asked Doug Martin, then on the UHJ, during a rare speaking tour by a member of that body, what the UHJ is doing to usher in the Lesser Peace. Here is somebody's notes on his answer.

"The world needs "unity." We are the community of unity and this is becoming increasingly recognized. We are not seen as a lobby group. We are seen as the elected representatives of a large cross-section of humanity. Our opinion is valued and now being sought by heads of state and other leaders in the world. It's minor at present, but it gives us a chance to develop what and who we need to be as this role may increase... We are going about our business (building up our communities) while the politics of the world is failing. We are the example of steadiness and calm.
"Consider, during this time of uncertainty and fear ... about what will happen to America (that) we are assured by our writings of America's role and destiny. As just one example of a way you can help your fellow Americans feel this is by giving them a copy of Abdu'l-Baha's "Prayer for America." You should make copies of it and give it out to your friends and the people you meet. (Later he clarified this as a service individual could provide. He was not talking about Assemblies.)"