Man's Impact On Nature

I was sitting in my backyard last night thinking about how mankind has messed with creation. There is an industry that is rapidly rising to combat green house gas emissions. The “green” industry is going to be huge, it will be bigger than the .com explosion (implosion) we saw in the nineties, and may have the same outcome.

So as I gazed around my backyard I was impressed at how little in nature my home has disturbed. What hit me first, (as the droppings fell from the nest), were the doves that have made their homes in my patio eaves. In fact there were birds everywhere in my backyard, in the trees, on the wall and even on the telephone wires in the alley. Where would they perch if it weren’t for what we had planted, or built? There were ant holes, pack rat holes and an undetermined critter hole that was very large. All making their homes within the relatively safe confines of my walled backyard. It seems, in my back yard, that the animals have learned to adapt, and even thrive in what man has created. Then I looked at the plants we have planted and tended and our new garden. What would the world be like without man? What would be the reason for having an earth without man?

We have been given a commission by God to “rule the over the fish, the birds and all other living creatures” as it says in Genesis 1. And to till the land and be caretakers of the earth “by the sweat of our brow” as it says in Genesis 3. Frankly we are the reason that the earth and everything in it exists. The animals and plants were created for our sustenance and our pleasure and we have an obligation to maintain the earth and all that is in it. In the movie “Knowing” Nicholas Cage plays an MIT professor. He tells his students that either we are the result of “determinism” (intelligent design) or “randomism” (random coincidences) after he explained that the earth is perfectly located from the sun so that life could exist (yet he believed in randomism?). But, if the earth and all that is in it is the result of randomism, then we should be very afraid of a random cataclysmic event that could end the earth. If we are the result of intelligent design by an intelligent designer (God) don’t you think he has more control over what happens than we do?

A look at the City Budget

When times are good there is less concern about how we are spending our money. This is true personally, in business and in our government. I have received a copy of the proposed city budget and was particularly interested in the proposed funding of numerous non-profit organizations. I personally don’t believe that non-profits should receive any money from the government. The strings attached from government funding will take a good non-profit organization off mission. I also believe that personal giving and accountability between the non-profit organization and the donor is best for the organization. But, we know that federal, state and local governments have been giving money to non-profit organizations for years. The non-profit organizations receiving the funding have become dependent on the support. It reminds me of our failed welfare system where generations of people were enslaved to poverty because of their dependency on the government.

Another troubling issue with the government supporting non-profit organization is political in nature. If your non-profit organization is receiving funding from the government it then politicizes your organization. You will champion and campaign for the elected officials that are responsible for feeding your organization. This is also why I oppose churches promoting political candidates. It takes the church off its’ mission and opens the door for pandering politicians. The organization that will receive the most funding, (nearly $400,000), is Primavera Foundation. Of course the former Executive Director of Primavera is Councilwoman Uhlich. I don’t know how much influence she had on the funding, but it illustrates the politicizing of organizations. When organizations get off mission, the principles run for political office! They know how to get their bread buttered, and tax dollars are easier to procure than individual donations.

The other thing that jumps out in the budget is how non-profit organizations will tailor their requests in a way to position themselves for a grant. It may be completely off their mission, but to get the money it is imperative that they play to what the government is giving to. A case in point is 3 gifts to Wingspan. Wingspan is a gay, bi, trans sexual organization that is really a promoter of the homosexual lifestyle. I first became acquainted with them several years ago when they were running ads in middle school newspapers to reach out to “gay” students. Having been in advertising most of my life, these ads were really about recruiting kids to the homosexual lifestyle. Wingspan is receiving money for the Eon Youth Program, Anti-violence project and something called “growing up proud and strong”. They are receiving nearly $100,000 of your tax dollars. I seem to recall that they are housed in a government building for something like $1 per year. Do you think it is a good idea that our tax dollars are used to promote the gay lifestyle? Certainly they have the freedom to do that on their own, but not with my money.

Response to Fitzsimmons cartoon

I wrote this in response to a cartoon by Dave Fitzsimmons in the Arizona Star. It depicted possible Supreme Court nominees. It included Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton and Miss California. The caption under Miss California said that "gays aren't people entitled to rights, unless they are gay fetuses".


I think that Dave Fitzsimmons is an incredibly talented and funny man. Even if I don't agree with his take on an issue, his cartoons are usually very good. I do have a problem with the cartoon about selecting a Supreme Court justice in today's paper. I don't quite understand why he brought Miss California in to the mix. Coulter yes, Hillary ok and Sarah Palin, I guess she deserves it for having the audacity to run for Vice President and being from Alaska. But, all Miss California did was respond to a question from a gay activist about marriage.

Do you think Perez might have asked a different question if he didn't know that she was a (gasp) Christian? Plainly it was a set up meant to reveal her moral views from a religious bigot. Keep in mind that she answered the question the same way President Obama did when he was running for office. The mean spirited and hateful attacks on Miss California illustrates that Christians are open season to vindictive, small minded people. If she were Muslim and stated that according to her faith marriage is between a man and a woman, I doubt we would have heard a peep from critics. Although I don't think Perez would have asked the question if she were a Muslim, lest he endanger his life or limb. Dave is a bigger man (in heart) than to pillory a beauty contestant for her religious beliefs. She is not applying to take David Souder's platform on the Supreme Court; she will most likely be wearing platform shoes and modeling designer clothes. Unless the bigots blackball her. It is a shame that those that consider themselves "liberal" would take the place of Uncle Joe McCarthy.

Doug Martin