Family Friday: Is there a life sentence for murdering plants?

According to the Daily Mail, I am a murderer.

Yes, dear, gentle, Tina Seward, wife, mother and Christian, stands accused, tried, and convicted of murder.

All because I am a plant eater.

This article in the Daily Mail online cites a study done by researchers at the University of Missouri that says that "plants can 'hear' themselves being eaten.

So, a carrot can hear the munch, munch of a rabbit using it for a midnight snack?

Well, not really.  At least, I don't think so.

The study discovered that plants can identify nearby sounds--such as the sounds of eating--and then react defensively.  

Specifically, the study followed the behavior of a plant called Arabidopsis, described as "a small flowering plant related to cabbage and mustard". The people doing the study placed caterpillars on Arabidopsis, then used a laser and a small piece of reflective material on the plant's leaf. Scientists could then measure the movement of the leaf in response to the caterpillar as the caterpillar chewed on the leaf.  (I assume that the caterpillars they picked had not yet had their lunch.)

The scientists then played back their recordings of "caterpillar 
feeding vibrations"
to one set of plants, but played back only silence to another set of plants. 

Later, at their next meal opportunity,
the caterpillars were allowed to eat on both sets of plants.
(Perhaps their caretakers realized that said caterpillars needed to gain some weight or be better nourished?)

Well, 
during this meal, at least one set of caterpillars was disappointed and may have gone away with their appetite unsatisfied. 

Because the researchers discovered that the plants exposed to "feeding vibrations" produced what are called mustard oils, which is a chemical that caterpillars
do not like. 

However, plants exposed to other vibrations, such as wind or different insect sounds, didn't produce mustard oils. Conclusion: plants can "distinguish feeding vibrations from other common sources of environmental vibration."  In other words, the plants knew that they were about to be eaten and secreted the mustard oils in self-defense. 

Today, I made a smoothie with the following ingredients: one apple, one carrot, a handful of spinach, one banana, some yogurt, and milk. As I turned on the blender and listened to the sound of my smoothie being prepared, was what I heard the whirring of my blender as it grated and pureed the ingredients into a delicious drink made solely for my enjoyment?

Or was it, instead, the sounds of horrific screaming as the plants realized that they were spinning towards their inevitable doom?

None of the plants secreted mustard oils.  At least, not that I was aware of.  At least, I didn't taste anything that tasted like mustard oils.  So, it's possible that they were never aware of their ultimate fate. 

But does this mean that I will never be able to enjoy a smoothie again without feeling enormous guilt over the murder of defenseless, innocent plants that gave their lives so that I may be better nourished? 

Naaahhhh.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Family Friday: Oh, rats!

After seeing this article in the Daily Mail about the burgoning rat population in New York City, I only have one thing to say:

The rat race is over.
The rats won.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Manic Monday: Liberal and conservative frustration . . .

I'm a conservative, which means I believe that Americans are smart enough to run their own lives without all that much help from the goverment.  Government is needed to protect the public safety and provide certain public services.

I disagree with those who "lean left" about the role of government in certain areas, like health insurance, Social Security, environmental protection, and others.  But I also admit to some frustrations with both sides of the aisle.

There are people who need health insurance and who will either go bankrupt from trying to pay for health care or die without it.  How do they get insurance if they're unemployed or can't afford to pay the premiums?  That was one of the points of the Affordable Care Act, to get insurance into the hands of those that needed it.  What I objected to was the way it was pushed through Congress.  Also, I think trying to address so many health care issues in one bill was biting off more than one could chew.  One thing I would have liked to have seen in the bill was the ability to buy health insurance across state lines, which may have made obtaining health insurance easier.

And there are people who are disabled and can't work, or who can only work in certain jobs.  I know families who deal with seriously disabled members--people with cerebral palsy, or severe autism, or severe mental illness, or Lou Gehrig's disease . . . I could make an endless list.  How do you get medical treatment for these people?  And how do you support the caregivers of these families?

The IRS, TSA, and EPA are probably the most hated governmental agencies in America.  There are legitimate concerns about all three of them--overreaching authority, audits that might not be necessary, patting down people that don't need to be patted down, and other concerns.  But there are people who cheat on their taxes, or who innocently have made mistakes and need help.  The environment does need to be cared for, because dirty air, dirty water, contaminated land--all of them are health hazards.  (And as a Christian, I am called to be a good steward of what has been entrusted to my care.)  And, as much as we might not like to think about it, there are terrorists out there who want to kill Americans, on American soil, and we do need to find them before they can do their job.

On the other hand, we have 18 trillion dollars in debt, and it's fast rising.  Social Security, Medicaid, and other government programs eventually will run out of money.  You can tax and tax all you want, but unless Congress gets out of the habit of spending more than they receive, none of the financial problems of the US will be solved.

Neither liberals nor conservatives seem willing to work with each other to solve the problems we're facing.  Nor do they seem to be willing to crawl into the other side's skin to try and see things from the other point of view, lest they be accused of "compromising".  Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill, while they disagreed with each other philosophically, had drinks together.  At least they were willing to work together.  When was the last time John Boehner and Barack Obama had drinks together?

I'm frustrated with both sides of the aisle, which is why I often think, "A plague on both your parties!"  Both sides of the aisle make decisions about which I can do nothing, yet I have to live with many of the consequences of those decisions.  As do the rest of us.

Is there just no way for both sides to work together without one side completely caving to the other, or one side being accused of "compromise" with the other side?

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Family Friday: Birthday

I am 52 today, and I've spent the day enjoying myself.

Things are challenging . . . but I am still alive!

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Little footprints

"In 900 years of time and space, I've never met anyone who wasn't important." -- The Doctor, "Doctor Who"

This month is Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month.  Today, specifically, is set aside to remember those who were a moment on this earth but forever in the hearts of those who loved them.

Some years ago, I "met" a woman on CafeMom, a social media site, who was grieving the loss of twins.  She lost one of the twins early in her pregnancy and then lost the other to a stillbirth.  Later, she became a Facebook friend and once told me, "No one ever remembers."

She's no longer on Facebook, but I've always remembered her saying that.  So I want someone to remember.

Here are those I remember:

Anna

Ana

Bobbie Lee

Caley

Cecile

Daniel

Grace

Hope C.

Hope K.

Ian

John William

June

Sarah Grace

Taylor

I know there are many others whose names I have forgotten or I can't remember.  I remember them, too.

There is no foot too small that it cannot leave an imprint on this world.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Worship Wednesday: "Proving" it

"Everyone believes they are right, and everyone can 'prove' it by Scripture."  This is one of my major complaints about modern Christianity.

Arguments about doctrine are nothing new.  They've been around since the 3,000 were baptized in Acts 2.  In Acts 15, we read about the Jerusalem Council, in which the question "should Gentiles be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses?" when they turned to God and accepted Jesus as the Messiah?

I'll take baptism as an example of "proving it".

The word "baptism" in the New Testament comes from the Greek "baptizo", meaning "dip, plunge, immerse".  My own church, the Church of Christ, practices baptism by immersion.  Baptists do, also; and I believe Pentecostals do.  I'm sure there are others of which I am not aware.  Churches of Christ use Acts 2:38-39, I Peter 3:21, Romans 6:3-7, and others to "prove" that baptism is necessary, and use the Greek to "prove" that is must be by immersion.

There are others who practice baptism by sprinkling (Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, and others).  Isaiah 52:15 is used to "prove" that sprinkling is okay; also, Ezekiel 36:25.  (I pulled these from this website, written by a Methodist minister.)

Some use pouring (which is probably also referred to as "sprinkling"); i.e., pouring water on top of the head.  The Amish, among others, do this.

If you look at the website by the Methodist minister, you can see that he uses Scripture to "prove" his points.  On the other hand, I have been in studies with Church of Christ people who have also used Scripture to "prove" their points.  And, anyone that wants to tell me that "the verses on sprinkling are from the Old Testament, and Christ fulfilled the Old Testament, and the church was founded on the New Testament--may I point out that, at least in the tradition of the Churches of Christ, the Old Testament is used to justify several practices?  (Nadab and Abihu, an Old Testament account, is often used to explain why Churches of Christ don't do certain things.)

I could probably use other examples:  instrumental music, women's roles in the church, speaking in tongues, divorce, homosexuality . . . but for me, they all boil down to one thing:  Everyone has a Scripture to "prove" that they are right.

So who is?

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Manic Monday on Wednesday: Last night's debate . . .

I didn't watch last night's debate.  But I have heard news coverage and read social media, and while the news consensus seems to be that Clinton won, I've seen at least one poll where Sanders was declared the victor.

I heard about discussions regarding Obamacare, free college education, paid family leave, etc. etc. What I'm not finding, though, is a serious discussion of how it's all going to get paid for.  This is what I see to be a major problem with certain proposals:  where is the money going to come from to fund free community college, paid family leave, etc.?

You can "tax the rich" all you want, but you can only "tax the rich" so much; then you either have to stop funding for the programs you want, or redefine who is "rich" so that you get more money.

Sanders openly admits that he is a socialist.  While socialism is about "equality for all" and looks good on paper, take a look at the countries where socialism has been tried.

Like Russia and Eastern Europe.

How'd that work for them?

(And before you mention Scandanavia, check this article.)

What people fail to understand is that there is no such thing as "free".  I love having "freebies", I confess; and in the interest of full disclosure, my son did receive a so-called "freebie" through Medicaid.  He, as well as many others, received Medicaid coverage through the Katie Beckett waiver, a special waiver allowing medically fragile children to qualify for Medicaid when the parents don't otherwise qualify.  (Most parents use this as secondary, not primary, medical coverage.)

In writing about Medicaid, I feel the frustration:  I know there are those who desperately need medical insurance.  I know that there are those who will go bankrupt without medical insurance. (That was the main point of Obamacare--to get insurance into the hands that needed it.  I just think that the Affordable Care Act was the wrong way to do it.)  And there are others who will make valid arguments in favor of the very things Clinton, Sanders, and others want.

But I also know that someone has to pay for the freebies.  And I don't think people are thinking about that part of the issue.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.