The Plain Truth tag:typepad.com,2003:weblog-1727788 2010-02-08T19:11:00-05:00 God's Hand Behind Today's News TypePad Shackleton whisky recovered after 100 years in polar ice tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e554d79b0288330120a8702c4d970b 2010-02-08T19:11:00-05:00 2010-02-08T19:11:00-05:00 Five crates of whisky and brandy belonging to polar explorer Ernest Shackleton have been recovered after being buried for more than 100 years under the Antarctic ice, explorers said Friday. Bob Barney

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AFP) – Five crates of whisky and brandy belonging to polar explorer Ernest Shackleton have been recovered after being buried for more than 100 years under the Antarctic ice, explorers said Friday.

The spirits were excavated from beneath Shackleton's Antarctic hut which was built in 1908.

"To our amazement we found five crates, three labelled as containing whisky and two labelled as containing brandy," said Al Fastier of the New Zealand Antarctic Heritage Trust, who previously believed there were only two crates.

"The unexpected find of the brandy crates, one labelled Chas Mackinlay & Co and the other labelled The Hunter Valley Distillery Limited Allandale are a real bonus."

Some of the crates have cracked and ice has formed inside which will make the job of extracting the contents delicate.

However, Fastier said the trust was confident the crates contained intact alcohol, given that liquid could be heard when the crates were moved.

The smell of whisky in the surrounding ice also indicated full bottles of spirits were inside, albeit that one or more might have broken.

Richard Paterson, master blender at Whyte and Mackay, whose company supplied the Mackinlay's whisky for Shackleton, described the find as "a gift from the heavens" for whisky lovers.

"If the contents can be confirmed, safely extracted and analysed, the original blend may be able to be replicated," he said.

"Given the original recipe no longer exists this may open a door into history."

Fastier said the Trust would determine in the coming weeks how best to handle the "delicate conservation task".

Shackleton's expedition ran short of supplies on their long trek to the South Pole from Cape Royds in 1907-1909 and they eventually fell about 100 miles (160 kilometres) short of their goal.

No lives were lost, vindicating Shackleton's decision to turn back from the pole, first reached in 1911 by Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen.

Shackleton's expedition sailed from Cape Royds hurriedly in 1909 as winter ice began forming in the sea, forcing them to leave some equipment and supplies -- including the whisky -- behind.

The excavation of the whisky follows the discovery last month of two blocks of butter in an Antarctic hut used by British explorer Robert Falcon Scott on his doomed 1910-12 expedition.

The butter had been stored in stables attached to the expedition hut at Cape Evans in Antarctica.

 http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/02/shackleton-whisky-recovered-after-100-years-in-polar-ice.html New Research Rejects 80-Year Theory of ‘Primordial Soup’ as the Origin of Life” tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e554d79b0288330120a877dba6970b 2010-02-08T19:00:55-05:00 2010-02-08T19:00:55-05:00 Evolutionists and creationists alike, watch your language: the supposed “primordial soup” of life’s beginnings is no longer kosher Bob Barney

Evolutionists and creationists alike, watch your language: the supposed “primordial soup” of life’s beginnings is no longer kosher.


 
Evolution-9 Although Darwinists have not yet established how life could have arisen from non-life, they often make vague references to a “primordial soup” as the progenitor of the first life. They suppose that the soup contained the right pre-biotic chemicals and that an external source of energy transformed a spoonful of it into a self-reproducing entity. Scientists have suggested alternatives to the primordial soup before, and it appears some are ready to abandon the concept entirely. A European team publishing in BioEssays argues that deep-sea hydrothermal vents, not primordial soup, hosted early life. Team Leader Nick Lane of University College London explains why: “Textbooks have it that life arose from organic soup and that the first cells grew by fermenting these organics to generate energy in the form of ATP. We provide a new perspective on why that old and familiar view won’t work at all.”


Evolutionary biologist and team member William Martin added, “Despite bioenergetic and thermodynamic failings[,] the 80-year-old concept of primordial soup remains central to mainstream thinking on the origin of life. But soup has no capacity for producing the energy vital for life.”


It seems that evolutionists themselves have done an excellent job finding problems with other evolutionists’ origin-of-life tales. None of the speculative ideas, however, have explained away the need for a leap of faith—to believe that just the right molecules organized in just the right way by chance, assembling themselves into an organism capable of reproducing itself.

ScienceDaily: “New Research Rejects 80-Year Theory of ‘Primordial Soup’ as the Origin of Life”

 http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/02/new-research-rejects-80year-theory-of-primordial-soup-as-the-origin-of-life.html Water, the miraculous proof of God's existence tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e554d79b028833012877798c26970c 2010-02-08T17:26:31-05:00 2010-02-08T17:32:41-05:00 Because water freezes from the top down, the world's oceans remain liquid even though there may be layers of ice on the surface. If water didn't have this property, NO LIFE COULD EXIST ON EARTH! And believe it or not, WATER IS THE ONLY LIQUID that has this property! Bob Barney

By Bob Barney:Do you believe in a creator God? Did the universe arise from chaos? Are there clues that prove that a DIVINE FORCE was behind the creation of the universe and what are they? Most atheists' arguments, arises from a deep Ignorance of Natural Law! Here is a small lesson on the Divine design behind water! Most of our planet is  covered with water. Oceans and seas make up three fourths of the earth's surface while the land itself contains countless numbers of rivers and lakes. The snow and ice on the planet is water in its frozen form. A substantial part of the earth's water is in the sky, just as the Bible claims in Genesis chapter 1.


You see, every cloud contains millions–of tons of water in the form of vapor. From time to time, some of this water vapor turns into drops of liquid and falls to the ground: in other words, it rains. Even the air you're breathing now contains water vapor. Life could not exist with water - everyone admits that, but are you aware that water itself has miraculous properties that without those properties, life could not exist on earth? The most comprehensive analysis of the suitability of water for life was to come from Lawrence Henderson, a professor in the Department of Biological Chemistry of Harvard University. In his book, "The Fitness of the Environment", which some were later to call "the most important scientific work of the first quarter of the 20th century", Henderson makes these observations about water:1) Except for water, every other known solids decrease in size as they grow colder. This is true of all known liquids as well: as their temperatures decrease, they lose volume. As volume decreases, density increases and thus the colder parts of the liquid become heavier.


This is why the solid forms of substances weigh more (by volume) than they when they are in liquid form. There is one case where this "law" is violated: water. Like other liquids, water contracts in volume as it grows colder, but it only does this down to a certain temperature (4°C) thereafter–unlike all other known liquids–it suddenly begins to expand and when it finally solidifies (freezes) it expands even more. As a result, "solid water" is lighter than "liquid water". According to the normal laws of physics, solid water, which is to say ice, ought to be heavier than liquid water and should sink to the bottom when it forms; instead, it floats. 2) When ice melts or water vaporizes, it absorbs heat from its surroundings. When these transitions are reversed (that is, when water freezes or vapor precipitates) heat is released. In physics the term "latent heat" is used to describe this.  All liquids have a latent heat of some sort or other but that of water is among the highest known. At "normal" temperatures, the only liquid whose latent heat when freezing is superior to that of water is ammonia. In terms of its latent heat properties at vaporization on the other hand, no other liquid can compare with water. 3) The "thermal capacity" of water, that is, the amount of heat necessary to raise the temperature of water by one degree, is higher than the great majority of other liquids. 4) The thermal conductivity of water, its ability to convey heat, is at least four times higher than any other liquid. 5) The thermal conductivity of ice and snow, on the other hand, is low. What does this mean?   Simply, the significance of each of them is enormous because life in general and our own life in particular is possible in this world just because these five properties are what they are. Let's now take a look at them one by one. Other liquids freeze from the bottom up; water freezes from the top down. This is the first unusual property of water mentioned above and it is crucial for the existence of water on the surface of the earth. Were it not for this property, that is, if ice didn't float, much of our planet's water would be locked up in ice and life would be impossible in its seas, lakes, ponds, and rivers.



Let's examine this in detail to see why. There are many places in the world where the temperature falls below 0°C in winter, often considerably below that. Such cold will of course affect the water in seas, lakes, etc. These bodies of water grow colder and colder and parts of them begin to freeze. If ice didn't behave the way it does (if it didn't float in other words) this ice would sink to the bottom while the warmer bits of water would rise to the surface and be exposed to the air. But the temperature of that air is still below freezing so these will freeze too and sink to the bottom. This process would continue until there was no liquid water left at all. But this isn't what happens. What happens instead is this: As it gets colder, water grows heavier until it reaches 4°C at which point everything suddenly changes. After this, the water begins to expand and it becomes lighter as the temperature drops. As a result, the 4°C water remains on the bottom, the 3°C water above it, the 2°C water above that and so on. Only at the surface does the temperature of the water actually reach 0°C and there it freezes. But only the surface has frozen: the 4°C layer of water beneath the ice remains liquid and that is enough for underwater creatures and plants to continue to live.

Unlike all other liquids, water expands when it freezes. Because of this, ice floats in water.

(We should note here that the fifth property of water–the low thermal conductivity of ice and snow–is also crucial in this process. Because they are such poor conductors of heat, the layers of ice and snow keep the heat in the water below from escaping into the atmosphere. As a result of all this, even if the air temperature falls to –50°C, the layer of sea ice will never be more than a meter or two thick and there will be many fractures in it. Creatures such as seals and penguins that dwell in polar regions can take advantage of this to reach the water beneath the ice.) Again let us recall what would happen if water didn't behave this way and acted "normally" instead. Suppose water continued to become denser the lower its temperature became like all other liquids and ice sank to the bottom. What then? Well in that case, the freezing process in the oceans and seas would start from the bottom and continue all the way to the top because there would be no layer of ice on the surface to prevent the remaining heat from escaping. In other words, most of earth's lakes, seas, and oceans would become solid ice with a layer of water perhaps a few meters deep on top of it.


Even when the air temperature increased, the ice at the bottom would never melt completely. In the seas of such a world, no life could exist and in an ecological system with dead seas, life on land would also be impossible. In other words, if water didn't "misbehave" and acted normally, our planet would be a dead world.

Because water freezes from the top down, the world's oceans remain liquid even though there may be layers of ice on the surface. If water didn't have this

Why doesn't water act normally? Why does it suddenly begin to expand at 4°C after having contracted the way it should? That is a question that nobody has ever been able to answer.


  Sweat and Cool off The second and third properties of water mentioned above–high latent heat and thermal capacity greater than other liquids–are also very important for us. These two properties are the keys to an important bodily function whose value we rarely give a thought to. That function is sweating. Indeed, what good is sweating? To explain this, we have to take give you a bit of background first. All mammals have bodily temperatures that are fairly close to one another. Although there is some variation, it is not much and mammalian body temperatures range between 35-40°C. In human beings it is about 37°C under normal conditions. This is a very critical temperature and absolutely has to be kept constant. If your body's temperature were to fall just a few degrees, many of its vital functions would fail. If it rises even a few fractions of a degree, as it does when we become ill, the effects can be devastating. A sustained bodily temperature over 40°C is likely to bring on death. In short, our bodily temperature has a very critical equilibrium in which there is very little room for variation. However our body has a serious problem here: it is active all the time. All the physical movements, even those of machines, require the production of energy to make them happen. But whenever energy is produced, heat is always generated as a by-product. You can easily see this for yourself. Put this book aside and go take a ten-kilometer run in the blazing sun and see how hot your body gets.



The thermal properties of water enable us to discharge excessive heat from our body through sweating.
But in fact, if you think about it you'll realize that you didn't get nearly as hot as you should have done... The unit of heat is the calorie. A normal person running 10 kilometers in one hour will generate about 1,000 calories of heat. That heat has to be discharged from the body. If it weren't, you'd collapse into coma before you finished the first kilometer. That danger however is precluded by the second two properties that water has. The first of these is the thermal capacity of water. What this means is that in order to increase the temperature of water, a great deal of heat is required. Water makes up about 70% of our body but because of its thermal capacity, that water doesn't get hot very fast. Imagine an action that generates a 10°C increase in bodily heat. If we had alcohol instead of water in our bodies, the same action would lead to a 20°C increase and for other substances with lower thermal capacities the situation would be even worse: increases of 50°C for salt, 100°C for iron, and 300°C for lead.  The high thermal capacity of water is what prevents such enormous changes in heat from taking place.

But even an increase of 10°C is would be fatal as we mentioned above. To forestall that, the second property of  water–its high latent heat–comes into play. To keep itself cool in the face of the heat that is being generated, the body employs the sweating mechanism. When we sweat, water spreads over the surface of the skin and quickly evaporates. But because water's latent heat is  so great, that evaporation requires large amounts of heat.

The heat, of course, is withdrawn from the body and thus we are kept cool. This cooling process is so effective that it can sometimes cause us to experience a chill even when the weather is rather warm. Because of this, someone who has run ten kilometers will reduce his body temperature by 6°C as a result of the evaporation of just a liter's worth of water. The more energy he expends, the more his body temperature will increase but, at the same time, the more he will sweat and thus cool off. Among the factors that make this magnificent thermostat system of the body possible, foremost are the thermal properties of water. No other liquid would provide for sweating as efficiently as water does. If alcohol were present instead of water for example, the reduction in heat would be only 2.2°C; even in the case of ammonia, it would be only 3.6°C. There is another important aspect of this matter. If the heat released within the body were not conveyed to the surface, that is to the skin, neither the two properties of water nor the process of sweating would be of any use. Thus the structure of the body must also be highly conductive of heat. It is at this point that another vital property of water appears comes into play: unlike all other known liquids, water has a very high capacity for thermal conductivity, that is, the ability to conduct heat. For this reason, the body conveys the heat generated inside it to the skin. (The blood vessels near the skin expand to achieve this and this is why we become flushed when we're overheated.) If water's thermal conductivity were less by a factor of two or three, the rate of conveyance of heat to the skin would be much slower and this would make it impossible for complex life forms like mammals to live. What all this shows is that three very different thermal properties of water work together to serve a common purpose: cooling off the bodies of complex life forms such as human beings. Water is a liquid specially designed for this task.


SOURCE

Notes
1. John Ray, The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Word of Creation, 1701; Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny, p. 73 
2. Lawrence Henderson, The Fitness of the Environment, Boston: Beacon Press, 1958, Foreword. 
3. The latent heat is the heat which does not change the heat of water but enables it to change it from solid state to liquid state or from liquid state to gas state. When you give heat to ice to melt it, the ice reaches to 0oC and no increase in heat occurs even if you continue to heat it. Yet, it is no longer ice; it dissolves and becomes water. This heat, which is needed to  convert the solid state into the liquid state despite causing no difference in temperature is "latent" heat. 
 http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/02/water-the-miraculous-proof-of-gods-existence.html Pentagon Looks to Breed Immortal ‘Synthetic Organisms,’ Molecular Kill-Switch Included tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e554d79b0288330120a87027fa970b 2010-02-08T07:11:00-05:00 2010-02-08T07:11:00-05:00 The Pentagon’s mad science arm may have come up with its most radical project yet. Darpa is looking to re-write the laws of evolution to the military’s advantage, creating “synthetic organisms” that can live forever — or can be killed with the flick of a molecular switch. Bob Barney

The Pentagon’s mad science arm may have come up with its most radical project yet. Darpa is looking to re-write the laws of evolution to the military’s advantage, creating “synthetic organisms” that can live forever — or can be killed with the flick of a molecular switch.

As part of its budget for the next year, Darpa is investing $6 million into a project called BioDesign, with the goal of eliminating “the randomness of natural evolutionary advancement.” The plan would assemble the latest bio-tech knowledge to come up with living, breathing creatures that are genetically engineered to “produce the intended biological effect.” Darpa wants the organisms to be fortified with molecules that bolster cell resistance to death, so that the lab-monsters can “ultimately be programmed to live indefinitely.”    Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02/pentagon-looks-to-breed-immortal-synthetic-organisms-molecular-kill-switch-included/#ixzz0esZ6hThc

 http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/02/pentagon-looks-to-breed-immortal-synthetic-organisms-molecular-killswitch-included-.html Today's Headlines for Monday Feb 8, 2010 tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e554d79b028833012877740711970c 2010-02-08T01:40:00-05:00 2010-02-08T01:40:00-05:00 'There are bodies everywhere,' says disaster witness Power plant explosion mistook for earthquake 10 miles away --Hartford Courant At Least 100 Hurt, Fatalities After Explosion At Middletown, Conn. Power Plant... Nearby homes damaged... In other News: Ahmadinejad Orders Higher Enrichment... Bob Barney http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/02/todays-headlines-for-monday-feb-8-2010.html Palin's risky bid to lead tea party tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e554d79b0288330128777293f3970c 2010-02-07T19:11:00-05:00 2010-02-07T19:11:00-05:00 After flirting coyly for months, Sarah Palin this weekend launches an aggressive play to become the leader of the tea party movement, a move with major political upside for the former Alaska governor but also one rife with risk. Bob Barney

NASHVILLE — After flirting coyly for months, Sarah Palin this weekend launches an aggressive play to become the leader of the tea party movement, a move with major political upside for the former Alaska governor but also one rife with risk.

Her positioning could boost her prospects of securing the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, which she is widely believed to be eyeing. And the tea party is a natural fit for Palin, whose populist anti-Washington rhetoric and working mom persona have made her a movement favorite since its grass-roots activists burst onto the scene last year in opposition to the big-spending initiatives of President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress.    Read more PLUS VIDEO: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32610.html#ixzz0esYW8WFg

 http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/02/palins-risky-bid-to-lead-tea-party.html NJ Senate bill would give tax breaks for fuel-efficient vehicles tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e554d79b0288330120a8702454970b 2010-02-07T15:09:00-05:00 2010-02-07T15:09:00-05:00 The bill was introduced last year in both the Assembly and the Senate as part of a series of economic stimulus bills but did not go anywhere. Bob Barney
New Jersey would give a sales tax break on some energy-efficient vehicles and appliances under a bill up for discussion Monday in a state Senate committee.
 
The bill (S-756) would lift state sales tax on the first $40,000 of the price of a vehicle that gets 35 miles per gallon or more - except for diesel vehicles - and sales tax on major appliances with the Energy Star seal. It would expire in two years.
 
It's one of a number of moves by the government to promote fuel-efficient vehicles and products. The federal government last year included tax credits in stimulus funds for electric cars and energy-efficient appliances, and gave incentives for buying fuel-efficient vehicles through Cash for Clunkers.
 
"The thought was not only do we want to stimulate the economy by providing an incentive, but we also want people to purchase things that are highly efficient and positive contributors to the environment," said Sen. Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth), the bill's sponsor. "We're tyring to move people in that direction."
 
The bill was introduced last year in both the Assembly and the Senate as part of a series of economic stimulus bills but did not go anywhere.
 
Beck said legislative staff members had said it was not possible to determine how much money the state would lose in tax revenue through the tax break, because of the variables involved.
 
The bill is up for discussion Monday in the Senate's Environment and Energy committee. The committee is scheduled to meet 10 a.m. at the Statehouse in Trenton.
 http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/02/nj-senate-bill-would-give-tax-breaks-for-fuelefficient-vehicles-.html Americans in Haiti Prison Pen Note Saying 'We're Afraid' tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e554d79b0288330120a86fb81b970b 2010-02-07T15:06:00-05:00 2010-02-07T15:06:00-05:00 Eight of the 10 U.S. Baptist missionaries charged with child kidnapping in Haiti are pleading for help in a letter one of them slipped to a journalist through prison bars. Bob Barney
Eight of the 10 U.S. Baptist missionaries charged with child kidnapping in Haiti are pleading for help in a letter one of them slipped to a journalist through prison bars.

"We fear for our lives Here in Haiti," said the letter, which was signed by everyone in the Idaho church group except spokeswoman Laura Silsby, and her close aide, Charisa Coulter.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


The arrested Americans covertly passed the note to an NBC News producer during a jailhouse interview on Saturday.

Also written on the scrap of paper was: "Please you must listen. We have No Way to Call. Court will NOT let us have a say with anything about trust for US. We only came as volunteers. We had NOTHING to do with any documents and have been lied to."

An investigating judge charged the Americans on Thursday with kidnapping for trying to take 33 children across the border into the Dominican Republic on Jan. 29 without documentation

The Baptist group, most of whose members are from two Idaho churches, had said they were rescuing abandoned children and orphans from the nation. UNICEF says that 380,000 youngsters fit that description even before the quake.

Silsby said she believed she had all the necessary documents to take the children.

But details have emerged that may prove otherwise.

The Dominican consul in Haiti said he warned Silsby her mission would be considered child trafficking if she lacked adoption papers signed by Haitian officials.

And the group's Haitian defense attorney, Edwin Coq, said Silsby knew the group couldn't remove the youngsters without proper paperwork. He characterized the other nine missionaries as unknowingly being caught up in actions they didn't understand.

Coq has now been accused of trying to bribe the missionaries' way out of jail and has been fired, the attorney who hired him said Saturday night.

Coq denied the allegation. He said the $60,000 he requested from the Americans' families was his fee.

Jorge Puello, the attorney in the neighboring Dominican Republic retained by relatives of the 10 American missionaries after their arrest last week, told The Associated Press that he fired Coq on Friday night. He had hired Coq to represent the detainees at Haitian legal proceedings.

Coq orchestrated "some kind of extortion with government officials" that would have led to the release of nine of the 10 missionaries, Puello charged.
 http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/02/americans-in-haiti-prison-pen-note-saying-were-afraid.html World's oldest monastery restored tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e554d79b0288330120a87022f0970b 2010-02-07T14:09:21-05:00 2010-02-07T14:09:21-05:00 Egypt has completed the restoration of reputedly the world's oldest Christian monastery, called Saint Anthony's. Bob Barney
Monastery of St Anthony
Visitors take a tour of the newly-restored monastery

Egypt has completed the restoration of reputedly the world's oldest Christian monastery, called Saint Anthony's.

The monastery is believed to be 1,600 years old. The government-sponsored restoration project cost over $14m (£8.9m) and took more than eight years.

The monastery is a popular site for Coptic Christian pilgrims.

The restoration comes soon after Egypt's worst incident of sectarian violence in a decade, when six Copts were shot dead on Christmas Eve.

BBC's Cairo correspondent Yolande Knell says it is hoped the newly-restored monastery in Suez City will be held up as a sign of co-existence between Egypt's Muslim majority and Christian minority.

Solitary life

Speaking at the site, Egypt's chief archaeologist Zahi Hawass stressed that restoration work at the monastery was carried out by Muslims.

"The announcement we are making today shows to the world how we are keen to restore the monuments of our past, whether Coptic, Jewish or Muslim," said Mr Hawass.

Saint Anthony settled in a cave in remote mountains close to the Red Sea at the end of the 3rd Century to live in isolation. When he died, his followers built the monastery and named it after him.

The project has restored an ancient wall, a tower, two main churches and the monks' quarters.

http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/02/worlds-oldest-monastery-restored.html RFK, Jr. 15 months ago: Global warming means no snow or cold in DC tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e554d79b02883301287771f4b3970c 2010-02-07T11:10:18-05:00 2010-02-07T11:10:18-05:00 Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who flies around on private planes so as to tell larger numbers of people how they must live their lives in order to save the planet, wrote a column last year on the lack of winter weather in Washington, D.C. Bob Barney

By: David Freddoso
Online Opinion Editor
12/21/09 1:51 PM EST

Mary Mitchell cross country skis in a deserted downtown in front of the U.S. Capitol December 19, 2009 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who flies around on private planes so as to tell larger numbers of people how they must live their lives in order to save the planet, wrote a column last year on the lack of winter weather in Washington, D.C.

In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today's anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don't own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.

In those days, I recall my uncle, President Kennedy, standing erect as he rode a toboggan in his top coat, never faltering until he slid into the boxwood at the bottom of the hill. Once, my father, Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, brought a delegation of visiting Eskimos home from the Justice Department for lunch at our house. They spent the afternoon building a great igloo in the deep snow in our backyard. My brothers and sisters played in the structure for several weeks before it began to melt. On weekend afternoons, we commonly joined hundreds of Georgetown residents for ice skating on Washington's C&O Canal, which these days rarely freezes enough to safely skate.

Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and its carbon cronies continue to pour money into think tanks whose purpose is to deceive the American public into believing that global warming is a fantasy. 

Having shoveled my walk five times in the midst of this past weekend's extreme cold and blizzard, I think perhaps RFK, Jr. should leave weather analysis to the meteorologists instead of trying to attribute every global phenomenon to anthropogenic climate change.

 http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/02/rfk-jr-15-months-ago-global-warming-means-no-snow-or-cold-in-dc.html You really can be bored to death, scientists discover tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e554d79b0288330128776f7ce4970c 2010-02-06T23:21:44-05:00 2010-02-06T23:21:44-05:00 Boredom could be shaving years off your life, scientists have found. Researchers say that people who complain of boredom are more likely to die young, and that those who experienced 'high levels' of tedium are more than two-and-a-half times as likely to die from heart disease or stroke than those satisfied with their lot. Bob Barney

Boredom could be shaving years off your life, scientists have found. Researchers say that people who complain of boredom are more likely to die young, and that those who experienced 'high levels' of tedium are more than two-and-a-half times as likely to die from heart disease or stroke than those satisfied with their lot.

More than 7,000 civil servants were studied over 25 years - and those who said they were bored were nearly 40 per cent more likely to have died by the end of study than those who did not.Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1249073/You-really-bored-death-scientists-discover.html#ixzz0eowTjlEY

 http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/02/you-really-can-be-bored-to-death-scientists-discover.html The Andrew Breitbart and WorldNetDaily Editor-in-Chief Joseph Farah Clash! tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e554d79b0288330128776f6b8c970c 2010-02-06T22:59:54-05:00 2010-02-06T22:59:54-05:00 "I should prove, what, a birth certificate that may or may not exist?" Farah had gotten irritated. "That’s ridiculous. You don’t even understand the fundamental tenets of what journalism is about, Andrew. It’s not about proving things. It’s about asking questions and seeking truth." Bob Barney
Attending the Tea Party Convention in Nashville this weekend, The Washington Independent's always-excellent David Weigel recounts an extraordinary hallway confrontation between online publisher Andrew Breitbart and WorldNetDaily Editor-in-Chief Joseph Farah over the question of President Obama's citizenship. (Here's the video of his speech, courtesy of C-SPAN. It follows Angela McGlowan's pep talk, starting at the 12.10 mark.)

During his speech, Farah said he hoped that Mr. Obama would not be able to go into any city without seeing signs asking about his bith certificate. "It's a simple question but it hasn't been answered," he said, adding that "it's one of the most important questions that we can be asking."

Following the speech, Farah was cornered by Weigel, who informed him that Breitbart had dismissed the birther argument as a losing political argument. When Breitbart later walked by, Farah insisted that it was "a winning issue." (You can read the entire article but I want to reproduce this verbatim snippet.)

"It’s not a winning issue."

"It is! It becomes even more of a winning issue when the press abrogates its responsibility–"

"You don’t recognize it as a fundamentally controversial issue that forces a unified group of people to have to break into different parts? It is a schism of the highest order."

"Nothing exposes the president’s–"

"Then prove it!"

"The press isn’t asking the question–"

"Prove it!"

"Prove what?"

"Prove your case."

"I should prove, what, a birth certificate that may or may not exist?" Farah had gotten irritated. "That’s ridiculous. You don’t even understand the fundamental tenets of what journalism is about, Andrew. It’s not about proving things. It’s about asking questions and seeking truth."

Breitbart tensed up after that insult. "Right."

"I know you’re not a journalist, so that’s fine. But don’t diminish people who’ve been doing this for 35 years."

"So you’re going to go on record saying that I’m not a journalist?"

"Are you? I’ve never heard you claim to be. Are you?"

"I’ll let it be answered by you."

"Well, I knew [Matt]Drudge didn’t consider himself a journalist, so I assumed that you were. … I don’t know, I’m not trying to insult you."

"You did."

SOURCE:

 http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/02/the-andrew-breitbart-and-worldnetdaily-editorinchief-joseph-farah-clash-.html ‘Birther’ Movement Rears Head in Nashville tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e554d79b0288330120a86d013f970b 2010-02-06T22:54:26-05:00 2010-02-06T22:54:48-05:00 Farah, a conservative newsman whose raison d'etre of late has been to challenge Obama's eligibility to be president, used the bulk of his remarks to hit that point -- and got quite a welcome reception from the hundreds of tea partiers in the room. The room burst into applause. When he first brought up the issue, Farah got a standing ovation. Bob Barney

The so-called "birther" movement apparently is alive and well at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville.

While the bulk of the three-day affair has been spent on strategizing for the 2010 elections and figuring out how to grow the conservative activist base, convention-goers shifted their attention from tax-and-spending complaints to President Obama's citizenship during a rousing speech after dinner Friday night by WorldNetDaily.com founder Joseph Farah.

Farah, a conservative newsman whose raison d'etre of late has been to challenge Obama's eligibility to be president, used the bulk of his remarks to hit that point -- and got quite a welcome reception from the hundreds of tea partiers in the room.

"Where's the birth certificate?" he asked, echoing the words from a controversial billboard campaign he started. "It's a simple question and it has not been answered."

The room burst into applause. When he first brought up the issue, Farah got a standing ovation.

The WND head proceeded to contrast the supposed genealogical evidence behind Jesus' birth against the evidence behind Obama's birth.

"God didn't want there to be any doubt about Jesus' eligibility or qualifications to be the king of kings," Farah said. "There's a lesson in this story for Barack Obama. His nativity story is much less known."

He said Americans are being asked to "accept on faith" that Obama is a citizen.

Obama's presidential campaign released a copy of his "certification of live birth" showing he was born in Honolulu. But that hasn't settled the issue among hardened skeptics, as some theorists argue that's not official enough and want more proof.

For the most part, conservative commentators and mainstream Republicans have stayed far away from the "birthers," viewing it as a sideshow that does little to advance conservative causes.

Those at the tea party convention seem to have a multitude of causes, with fiscal responsibility and lower taxes topping the list -- but fears about Obama, and the possibility of the country somehow losing its identity and power, cut through.

The convention has treated patriotism as a lost art that it's trying to revive. Former Rep. Tom Tancredo's opening speech Thursday focused on that theme.

Before Farah spoke, convention organizer Judson Phillips held an impromptu Pledge of Allegiance, saying he'd had many requests. So the room full of dinner guests stood up, held their hands over their hearts and pledged themselves to the flag, after a hearty "USA!" chant.

SOURCE:

 http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/02/birther-movement-rears-head-in-nashville.html In their words: Experts weigh in on Mac vs. PC security tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e554d79b0288330128776cfc8f970c 2010-02-06T14:31:00-05:00 2010-02-06T14:31:00-05:00 When I am asked the question "Which is more secure, Mac or PC?" I find myself stumbling around for a response because I don't have a clear-cut answer. I use both. And I use antivirus software with both. Bob Barney

WHY WE USE MACS AT THE PLAIN TRUTH


When I am asked the question "Which is more secure, Mac or PC?" I find myself stumbling around for a response because I don't have a clear-cut answer. I use both. And I use antivirus software with both.

So I decided to conduct an informal survey of a bunch of security experts and see what they had to say in the hopes that people can use the information to help them come to their own conclusions.

Before I provide quotes from the 32 experts who participated in the survey, along with edited comments from an interview with a Microsoft representative and a link that Apple provided, I'd like to share some relevant research from antivirus vendor ESET.

Macvspc

More than half of Americans believe that PCs are "very" or "extremely" vulnerable to cybercrime attacks, while only 20 percent say the same about Macs, according to this ESET survey.

(Credit: ESET)

ESET released the results of a survey in November related to awareness of cybercrime in the U.S. The survey of more than 1,000 people found that while both PC and Mac users perceive the Mac as being safer, Mac users are victims of cybercrime just as frequently as PC users.

Meanwhile, Mac users are just as vulnerable to Web-based attacks like phishing as PC users are, and Mac users who fall prey to phishing tend to lose more money on average than PC users do, the survey found. "Viruses are a diminishing percentage of what we're seeing," said Randy Adams, director of technical education at ESET. "A lot of attacks have to do with social engineering and that kind of attack is platform agnostic."

For my survey I asked security experts: Which is more secure for consumers--Mac or PC, and why? Here are their (mostly) unedited responses, in alphabetical order by last name.

Ross Anderson, professor of security engineering at the Computer Laboratory at University of Cambridge: "Computer criminals differ from ordinary criminals in that they're more rational. The bulk of normal crime--burglaries, muggings, car thefts--is done by disadvantaged young men, often illiterate and with drug and alcohol problems. The bulk of e-crime is done by technically sophisticated people living in poor countries like Russia, India, or Brazil. So while preventing normal crime is about sociology, preventing online crime is about economics. Malware writers are rational, as are botnet herders. They would far rather attack Windows PCs as there are lots more of them. So you are much less likely to be bothered by malware if you use a Mac, or run Linux on your PC."

Jacob Appelbaum, hacker and researcher: "It's possible to have a well-secured machine regardless of operating system. Users generally aren't able to secure machines and so this responsibility often falls to the vendor...Mac OS X and Windows both encourage users to download programs from the Internet without any thought for security. Both of those operating systems run many services by default and offer them to anyone who cares to look. While Windows offers digital signatures for some programs, it's still very common for users to run buggy, untested software they download from random places on the Internet. The same is true for Mac OS X. Both suggest that a vendor should offer source code for applications so that users may make their own assessments."

"If you haphazardly visit every link and download every file sent to you in e-mail or posted to your social-networking pages, sooner or later you're going to get nailed. Period. Platforms are passe. Apps are where it's at."
-- Robert G. Ferrell, IS security specialist, U.S. Defense Dept.

Mike Bailey, senior researcher at Foreground Security: "I'm a hardcore Unix guy, but I am happy to say that I have about as much faith in Windows 7 as I do in OS X. Both have a solid design, a great SDL (software development lifecycle), security-minded developers, and a responsive support team. OS X does still have a small edge due to its smaller install base, but it is quickly losing that.

"I still prefer OS X, but due to ease-of-use and customization, not security reasons. In my mind, the OS question is quickly becoming moot, and will soon be replaced by the already-intense Web browser holy wars--especially with Google jumping into the fray there."

Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at Sophos: "They're both mature operating systems from the security point of view, and as good as each other. But, crucially, it's not about the operating system that is being run on the computer, it's the fleshy human sitting in front of it...I would argue that an Apple Mac user wanting to watch the 'Erin Andrews Peephole Video' is just as likely to download a bogus browser plug-in to help them do that, as a Windows user. And it doesn't matter that Mac OS X will ask them to enter their username and password to install the plug-in--they want to watch the video, they will enter their username and password. Social engineering is the unifying threat that puts all computer users at risk, regardless of operating system. And that's what most threats exploit.

"So, the next question is--when people ask me what kind of computer should they buy for home, which one do I recommend? Well, I recommend Apple Macs to my friends. Compared to Windows (where we see 50,000 new malware samples every day) malware for Mac is still a novelty. Mac malware is becoming more common, is in the wild, and is financially motivated...You can still get hit--but there are a lot less arrows being thrown at Mac users...I do tell my friends that they should run antivirus on their Macs, just like I do on the Macs my wife and I use at home."

Dino Dai Zovi, independent researcher: "Neither. Consumers should see if Apple's iPad or the forthcoming devices based on Google's Chrome OS suit their needs because both are significantly more secure than any general-purpose desktop system, Linux, Mac, or PC."

Nitesh Dhanjani, researcher and consultant: "I realize the market share argument is a cliche, but I feel it is true--OS X wins from a security perspective because it has a lower market share. Windows Vista and Windows 7 have some impressive security controls that are not present in OS X. If we were to flip the market share, we would see a lot more exploitation in the wild. More specifically, browser security is one of the more important items to consider today from a risk perspective. I know Internet Explorer has had a considerable share of vulnerabilities, but the Safari Web browser also has a lousy reputation in the security community--it almost seems a child's play to locate an exploitable condition in Safari. Apple really needs to get its act together with Safari since OS X is enjoying a healthy market share climb at the moment."

Carole Fennelly, director of content and documentation at Tenable Network Security: "I will give you a frustrating answer: the most secure system is the one that you know how to secure :) Meaning if you're pretty knowledgeable in Windows, or even just disciplined enough to keep up with Windows updates and keep your antivirus up to date, there's no reason you can't run a Windows box relatively securely. My mother-in-law has a Windows machine and does very well with it. HOWEVER if you are the type to not let Windows do its updates, tend to click on anything, etc., I'd say get a Mac. I had my parents get a Mac for this reason.

"In short, Mac is probably more secure in that more people write Windows exploits. This would probably change if the majority of people had Macs. Windows requires effort to be secure. Then again, so do most OSes."

"If you look at the number of published vulnerabilities in software and the number of users and compare Windows versus Mac OS you will discover that Mac OS has far more published vulnerabilities per user than Windows does so I think the data pretty much speaks for itself."
-- 3ric Johanson, security researcher

Paul Ferguson, network architect at Trend Micro:"Well, that's a difficult (and tricky!) question to answer--I think that cybercriminals will always prefer to target the platform with the largest user footprint, so it's really not a question of whether a 'PC or Mac' is more secure than the other one, in my opinion."

Robert G. Ferrell, information systems security specialist at the U.S. Dept. of Defense: "Is it more dangerous to take off from a terrorist-infested airport, or land at one? Flippancy aside, I just don't think this question (Mac or PC) has any real meaning today. Far more relevant to me are the browser and e-mail clients a consumer is using, irrespective of the operating system or hardware platform. Even more critical from a safety standpoint is the level of security awareness exhibited by that consumer. If you haphazardly visit every link and download every file sent to you in e-mail or posted to your social-networking pages, sooner or later you're going to get nailed. Period. Platforms are passe. Apps are where it's at."

Halvar Flake, head of research and CEO of Zynamics: "General state of affairs: Vista/Win7 has more extensive countermeasures against attacks and a codebase with presumably fewer security issues. But it's the operating system of the majority of users, hence making it profitable to attack. Attackers will therefore spend lots of time bypassing the countermeasures. Mac OS has fewer countermeasures and lots of easily exploitable bugs, but the market share is low, making it a less likely target.

"In the end, for the consumer, if he doesn't think he'll ever be deliberately targeted, using a low market share operating system is safer as attackers pool their resources for the largest target (even though the largest target might be significantly more secure, technically)."

Joe Grand, president of Grand Idea Studio, hardware hacker, inventor: "Not taking into account the human factor of falling for social engineering, phishing scams, etc., which could affect any operating environment, I would say right now the safer route is Mac OS X, primarily because there just isn't a huge amount of directed attacks against the operating system compared to a Windows environment (yet).

"I hear way more about zero days coming up on Windows environments compared to Mac. Maybe Apple is better at keeping their security issues under the rug. On a PC, if you drop your guard for one moment and forget to keep your products up-to-date, it could be game over. People [attackers] are still focused on targeting Windows (and other associated Microsoft and Adobe products), but that may change at some point. For an everyday consumer that just wants to use a computer and not worry about getting owned with every click of the mouse, I'd go for a Mac."

Jeremiah Grossman, founder and chief technology officer at WhiteHat Security: "To ask that question from a consumer's perspective you probably should be using the word 'safe' rather than 'secure'; two completely different things. 'Secure' is a supermax prison. 'Safe' is a playground in suburbia. Follow?

"Macs may or may not be technically more secure than PCs, but that is irrelevant if NOT getting hacked is most important to you. In the current threat climate, Macs do not get attacked nearly as often as PCs. So in that context, Macs are safer for consumers."

Frank Heidt, CEO of Leviathan Security: "I'm tempted to go with the safe answer that the size of the installed Microsoft base makes Apple 'more secure' because it is targeted less often. The risk landscape for consumers (and enterprises) has changed over the last few years. Operating systems as such are no longer the primary target of consumer-targeted attacks; applications are. In light of that fact, I'd say each operating system has its benefits and liabilities. The real risks lie in the consumer's browser choice, and security habits. From a browser standpoint, I would choose Firefox over IE, and IE over Safari."

Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer at F-Secure: "Mac is more secure, simply because it has less attacks targeting it. If Mac would be targeted more, it could have exactly the same problems as PC does today.

"There's two main reasons why Mac isn't targeted as much as PC:

1) Smaller user base--making it less a lucrative target 2) Lazy attackers--their existing codebase and expertise is on Windows, so they keep creating more Windows attacks. Hey, if they make a nice enough living by writing malware targeting Windows XP, why change to anywhere else?"

3ric Johanson, security researcher: "If you look at the number of published vulnerabilities in software and the number of users and compare Windows versus Mac OS you will discover that Mac OS has far more published vulnerabilities per user than Windows does so I think the data pretty much speaks for itself."

"Microsoft has done more in terms of its inherent security features than Apple has in the operating system. All of that said, Microsoft gets attacked a lot more than Apple does. Right now your odds of being infected as a Mac user by malicious software are quite a bit lower than a Windows user, unless you do stupid things."
-- Rich Mogull,
CEO, Securosis

Paul Kocher, president and chief scientist at Cryptography Research:"The fair answer is that with the latest versions of each operating system there isn't a compelling security reason to pick one or the other. It used to be that Apple was doing a better job, but with Windows 7 Microsoft has caught up. There are some differences; Windows has a better security ecosystem. On the other hand, Apple tends to have more expensive hardware and has a smaller market share, so it attracts fewer malware writers. Both have security bugs. Both need patches. Both can be broken if someone finds a zero-day exploit."

R. Adrian Lamo, threat analyst: "I'm not sure this question is really as relevant as it would have been just a few years ago. The security posture of the average Internet user depends less on their computing platform and more on their browser choice and configuration. My loved ones use Macs, with some gentle encouragement from me, but that's mostly to save me time playing Geek Squad for them.

"Personally, I never had a significant malware issue when I used a PC running Windows full-time--choices and practices define security more than an operating system does. It's worth remembering that, in locating security vulnerabilities, I've often not had to trouble myself with the target operating system.

"There's no one-size-fits-all answer to this question. A PC, common sense, and NoScript http://noscript.net/ [Firefox plug-in] will help a user reduce their exposure profile more than a Mac and no common sense + clicking on anything that flashes. But the former isn't because it's a PC, and the latter isn't because it's a Mac."

Steve Manzuik, senior manager of security research at Juniper Networks: "I think for consumers it really comes down to what operating system they are the most comfortable configuring and using. Windows is by far the biggest target, but this is not necessarily because they are the most insecure but more a result of their dominant position in the market. Regardless of the operating system, the easiest way for an attacker to compromise a system is by going after the application level and causing the user to click, open, or run something they should not. "The trend of patches over the last couple of years from Microsoft, Adobe, and even Apple supports this. Unfortunately, you cannot 'secure' user behavior. But both Apple and Microsoft operating systems, as well as third-party application vendors, can still make a lot of improvements on protecting users. However, those types of changes do not happen quickly as the vendors are forced to consider usability and compatibility."

Gary McGraw, chief technology officer at Cigital: "I have a Mac. Having a Mac is more secure because not that many people have Macs. I think their market share is still less than 15 percent. For every point of market share, the risk goes up. Mostly I have a Mac because it is a better machine, not because it is more secure."

Charlie Miller, a principal analyst at consultancy Independent Security Evaluators: "Technologically speaking, PCs are a little more secure than Macs. Macs have a larger attack surface out of the box (Flash, Java, support for a million file formats, etc.) and lack some anti-exploitation technologies found in PCs like full ASLR [Address Space Layout Randomization]. This means Macs have more vulnerabilities and it's easier to turn a vulnerability into an exploit on the platform. Despite the fact it is less secure, paradoxically, Macs are actually safer to use for most people. This is because there simply isn't much risk of being exploited or installing malware.

"This safeness is purely a function of market share. Since Macs are only around 10 percent of computers out there, and it takes just as much effort for bad guys to write malware or exploits, they tend to spend all of their time targeting PCs. In other words, despite the fact that Macs are less secure than PCs, if you give one teenager a Mac and another a PC and come back in a month, the odds are the Mac will have no problems and the PC will be infected with malware. At some point the market share of Macs will reach a threshold to interest attackers, and then things will quickly turn bad for Mac users."

"If you believe the hype and the flashy commercials the answer would be Mac. But if you take a look at the two platforms, and the mindsets of the companies behind them then the PC wins hands down."
-- Tyler Reguly,
senior security research engineer, nCircle

Rich Mogull, CEO at Securosis:"It depends on which version of Windows we're talking about. Clearly there are major differences between Windows XP and Windows 7. Second is, are we talking about safety versus security? Microsoft has done more in terms of its inherent security features than Apple has in the operating system. All of that said, Microsoft gets attacked a lot more than Apple does. Right now your odds of being infected as a Mac user by malicious software are quite a bit lower than a Windows user, unless you do stupid things, such as download free versions of commercial software. And some of the pornography sites on the Internet, the dark corners of the Internet have stuff that will hurt a Mac.

"But I want to give Microsoft credit because the more advanced features they put into their operating system are superior to what Apple has done. It's really a balance because there's little motivation for Apple to do more at this time. The Mac OS has got some holes in there that Microsoft has closed down. But since it's attacked less there is less motivation for Apple to close the gap."

Jose Nazario, security research manager at Arbor Networks: "While I use Macs, time and time again we've seen they're no more secure than Windows systems. But, at present, you're less likely to be exploited on a Mac because there are just fewer viruses and attackers targeting them. Sadly, there are more tools for Windows like AV [antivirus], personal security suites, etc. The Mac desktop is lagging behind. Also, Apple has often shown less aggressiveness than Microsoft in addressing security issues."

Tyler Reguly, senior security research engineer at nCircle: "If you believe the hype and the flashy commercials the answer would be Mac. But if you take a look at the two platforms, and the mindsets of the companies behind them then the PC wins hands down. If you compare Windows 7 to Snow Leopard, then the simple winner is Windows 7. Microsoft brought in teams of security professionals to look at their code and find problems leading to a more secure product while Apple is often criticized for ignoring issues.

"The idea of the consumer being protected due to lack of market share is fairly obtuse, as more people buy into the product and market share grows, targeted attacks will grow as well. You also have to consider that Microsoft has a patch program in place that provides patches and updates on a more regular basis than Apple, this is something that the consumer should care about, as should they care about the plethora of PC security products that exist.

"The big risk is client side attacks and most of that could be prevented by using adequate software on the desktop, along with common sense while surfing. Until consumers can learn to do this on a regular basis it won't matter if they are running a Mac or a PC...they'll be at risk."

Avi Rubin, computer science professor at Johns Hopkins University: "Right now the Mac is more secure than the PC, but only because the PC still has almost 90 percent of the market. The Mac is no more difficult to hack than the PC, but hackers get much more bang for their hacking buck attacking Windows. So, you're safer on a Mac...for now."

"Mac, because there's much, much less malware out there that targets a Mac."
-- Bruce Schneier,
chief security technology officer, BT

Patrik Runald, senior manager of security research at Websense: "My opinion on this is that if you look at the raw numbers of threats then there's no doubt a Mac is safer. However, I've seen Mac users run/click on anything because of this and that is bound to get them into problem at some point. I'm using a Mac myself."

Bruce Schneier, chief security technology officer of BT: "Mac, because there's much, much less malware out there that targets a Mac."

Joe Stewart, director of malware research at SecureWorks: "The answer is 'for the average user, at this moment in time it is less risky to use Mac OS than Windows.' The paradox is, by promoting that idea we've just made Macs a little less safe, since we are potentially increasing Apple's market share by a tiny fraction, making it more of a viable target over time. Fundamentally Mac and Windows suffer from the same weakness--human programmers make mistakes and users are easily social-engineered. Whichever platform has the most users is ultimately the riskiest to use."

Johannes Ullrich, chief research officer for the SANS Institute: "I recommend Macs. The main advantage for Mac users is the lack of interest from malware writers. Macs don't really have an advantage over Windows systems when it comes to malware. A lot of malware (for example, the recent fake-antivirus examples) is installed willingly by users. Mac users would do the same thing if asked to install software under the right pretense. Right now, there is no well tested anti-malware solution for Macs due to a lack of samples."

Paul Vixie, founder of the Internet Systems Consortium: "Mac is more secure for consumers, for three reasons. First, the code base is smaller and more easily audited. Second, the code base came from the old minicomputer world of UNIX rather than from the old microcomputer world of MSDOS, and things like multiuser and multiprocessor and protected virtual memory have been around longer in the UNIX world than in the MSDOS world. Third and finally, because the Mac market size is smaller, there are fewer users and fewer ISV's [independent software vendors] and fewer device driver writers and it's just not as interesting a target for bad guys."

Vincent Weafer, vice president of Symantec Security Response: "If you look at the security landscape as a whole, PCs tend to be targeted by more attacks then the Mac platform. So, from that perspective, the Mac would appear to have the edge. However, in reality, all technologies are subject to security vulnerabilities, including the Web browsers, common Web browser plug-ins and common applications that run on top of the operating systems. So in reality, consumers can fall victim to online threats regardless of the operating system they're using. Also consider that we're seeing today's cybercriminals almost exclusively going after personal and financial information, and often times, they do this by employing social-engineering tactics, like phishing attacks, that are platform agnostic.

"I think the Mac is less risky, not more secure. The difference is in the threat environment. An analogy would be an unlocked house in an urban vs. rural environment. Both are insecure. One, the rural, is less risky."
-- Chris Wysopal,
chief technology officer, Veracode

It's also important to keep in mind that as any platform gains popularity, its likelihood of becoming targets for cybercriminals increases. Ultimately, what it comes down to is computer users deciding which platform best fits their computing likes and dislikes and then doing everything they can to make sure that they have protected themselves. This includes keeping up-to-date with security patches, having full-featured security software protection, setting sensible policy and controls on how they use their computer--especially in open environments such as free Wi-Fi hot spots--and being aware of how to spot threats and how not to fall victim to them."

Chris Wysopal, chief technology officer at Veracode: "My wife, kids, and parents all use Macs on my recommendation. I think the Mac is less risky, not more secure. The difference is in the threat environment. An analogy would be an unlocked house in an urban vs. rural environment. Both are insecure. One, the rural, is less risky.

Bugs similar to the flaw in Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 that was exploited at Google in China certainly exist in Mac applications, but attackers don't spend the time required to find them and build attacks using them. This is because it is much more often a PC than a Mac between the attacker and the attacker's target."

Peiter "Mudge" Zatko, technical director of National Intelligence Research and Applications for BBN/Raytheon: "Both [OS X and Windows] are particularly vulnerable to client side application exploitation, both still have vulnerabilities at lower levels within file system, network, and directory services, and the content that most people want to view or process is often from unknown sources and requires a fair amount of control of the system for 'proper' execution--e.g. flash etc. But I suppose that 'neither' is not an acceptable answer...If a nonsecurity-paranoid user next door were asking which OS is more secure and was attempting to use that as their sole purchasing decision. I would have to advise them that bad news lies in either direction and they should instead make their purchasing choice based on other criteria such as what tasks they need to perform and what software/support they are looking to utilize.

"Of course, I'd still tell them (either way) to disable all of the JavaScript, Active-X, and plug-ins on their browsers (and other applications...such as PDF viewers and various office applications) and to fight the urge to re-enable all of these hairy areas of risk to watch the latest viral video or view noisy Web sites."


Microsoft

Paul Cooke, director of Windows client and enterprise security: "One of our major goals [for] Windows 7 was to keep malware off the box...When we look at the Smart Screen Filter in IE 8, it was built to help users understand if the sites they go to are safe or are known phishing sites...On top of that there is integration with Windows Live Mail and other features...If you try to download a piece of known unwanted software we will warn the user and tell them this piece of software is known to be bad...Windows running with IE 8 is the only combination of browser and operating system technology that has anything like an XSS (Cross-Site Scripting) filter. It is aimed at helping ensure that when you go to your banking or other trusted sites that you are actually interacting with that site.

"Windows 7 has investments that extend the security enhancements from Vista (like) Data Execution Prevention technology, Address Space Randomization technology, kernel patch protection, User Account Control ... [and new technologies like] Structured Exception Handling Overwrite Protection and Fault Tolerant Heap.

"The Mac and OS X is not a panacea against security methodologies and attacks. You can go on the Internet and see the patches that Apple puts out. Like all operating system platforms they have vulnerabilities. This is something that as an ecosystem, we all have to deal with. I've been a security guy over 20 years and never seen an organization with a commitment to security like Microsoft has. It's why I came here."

Microsoft also directed me to this site and this site for more information about Windows 7 security features.


Apple

Apple did not provide a representative for comment but referred me to this page that says: "Mac OS X doesn't get PC viruses. And its built-in defenses help keep you safe from other malware without the hassle of constant alerts and sweeps."

"The 64-bit applications in Snow Leopard are even more secure from hackers and malware than the 32-bit versions. That's because 64-bit applications can use more advanced security techniques to fend off malicious code," the Apple page says.

The site also says Mac OS X "prevents hackers from harming your programs through a technique called "sandboxing"--restricting what actions programs can perform on your Mac, what files they can access, and what other programs they can launch. Other automatic security features include Library Randomization, which prevents malicious commands from finding their targets, and Execute Disable, which protects the memory in your Mac from attacks."

Elinor Mills covers Internet security and privacy. She joined CNET News in 2005 after working as a foreign correspondent for Reuters in Portugal and writing for The Industry Standard, the IDG News Service, and the Associated Press. E-mail Elinor.

http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/02/in-their-words-experts-weigh-in-on-mac-vs-pc-security.html Coming food crisis as world's soil 'vanishes in 60 years' tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e554d79b0288330120a86a9ae1970b 2010-02-06T11:25:00-05:00 2010-02-06T11:25:00-05:00 Fertile soil is being lost faster than it can be replenished and will eventually lead to the “topsoil bank” becoming empty, an Australian conference heard. Bob Barney

Fertile soil is being lost faster than it can be replenished and will eventually lead to the “topsoil bank” becoming empty, an Australian conference heard.Chronic soil mismanagement and over farming causing erosion, climate change and increasing populations were to blame for the dramatic global decline in suitable farming soil, scientists said. Read more>>>>>>>>

 http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/02/coming-food-crisis-as-worlds-soil-vanishes-in-60-years.html Military hospitals ordered to carry 'morning-after' pill tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e554d79b0288330120a86a9312970b 2010-02-06T10:19:21-05:00 2010-02-06T10:19:21-05:00 Officials at the Pentagon have announced military hospitals will now be required to carry Plan B and Next Choice, a pair of drugs referred to as "morning-after" pills for their ability to prevent – or as some contend, terminate – pregnancy shortly after sexual activity. Bob Barney

Pentagon mum on conscience exemption for alleged abortion drug

By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Officials at the Pentagon have announced military hospitals will now be required to carry Plan B and Next Choice, a pair of drugs referred to as "morning-after" pills for their ability to prevent – or as some contend, terminate – pregnancy shortly after sexual activity.

And despite the medication's controversial nature as a potential abortifacient, Defense officials have offered no assurance that medical doctors will have the right of conscience in refusing to administer the drugs.

Defense spokeswoman Cynthia Smith says the Obama administration's decision follows the recommendation of the Department of Defense's Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, which voted 13-2 in favor of the new policy in November.

The morning-after drugs consist of high doses of a hormone found in many typical birth-control pills and are intended to prevent pregnancy when taken within 72 hours following unprotected sex.

"This independent expert panel made the right call: Women in the military serving overseas should be able to access [emergency contraception] the same way women stateside do," said Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America in a statement. "It's a tragedy that women in uniform have been denied such basic health care. We applaud the medical experts for standing up for military women."

Several pro-life organizations, however, object to the pills, arguing that if the high-level hormones prevent an already fertilized egg from implanting in the woman's uterus, the pills effectively act as an early-term, chemical abortion.

Open your eyes to the ugliness inside the abortion industry with "Lime 5: Exploited by Choice"

"It can prevent the embryo from implanting and therefore destroy a human life," Jeanne Monahan, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, told the Washington Post. "Women serving in the military deserve to know the truth about their medications. Because this can be the difference between preventing and destroying life, a requirement to carry this drug could violate the conscience rights of military personnel who have moral objections."

WND contacted the Department of Defense to learn if there exist any provisions to protect military medical personnel's right of conscious in distributing the pills, but a public affairs official admitted he simply didn't know.

"I haven't heard anything about that," said the official. "I'm not aware of anyone raising any objections to this."

And while Keenan at NARAL Pro-Choice America touts the Pentagon's overturn of Bush-era policies restricting potentially abortive drugs as "an end to the political intrusion of the previous administration," others see the current administration as the culprit of political machinations.

"The military needs to focus on its prime mission, yet leftists view it as a means to promote their agenda," Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America told LifeNews.com. "The morning-after pill is highly ineffective in preventing pregnancies and completely useless in preventing sexually transmitted diseases. But it's a political tool for abortion advocates."

Wright also worries this decision is just the first in making abortion more and more available at military hospitals.

"By making this drug required, the next step will making drugs like RU-486, the abortion pill, mandatory," she said. "And doctors or pharmacists who have objections will be purged from the ranks."

Wright also worries about a newer morning-after pill, Ellaone, which a recent study published online in The Lancet medical journal claims is effective in eliminating 50 percent of pregnancies up to five days after unprotected sex.

Josephine Quintavalle of the Pro-Life Alliance told London's Daily Mail, "If you take a morning-after pill within 24 hours, there is always the argument that the sperm may not have fertilized the egg by then, meaning pregnancy has not yet happened.

"But if this pill works for five days there is no argument," she said. "This is not a contraceptive; it is an abortive agent."

Wright told LifeNews.com, "Designating the morning-after pill as required to stock, and easy to obtain, may open the door for an abortion pill – which undisputedly kills an unborn child and can be extremely dangerous to the mother – to fit in that category."

Related offers:

"Struggling for Life: How our Tax Dollars and Twisted Science Target the Unborn"

"Betrayed by the Bench"

Get the magnetized bumper sticker with the pro-life message: "Former embryo on board"

Get "The Audacity of Deceit," and learn about the looming hostile attack on Judeo-Christian values and freedoms Americans hold dear

Open your eyes to the ugliness inside the abortion industry with "Lime 5: Exploited by Choice"

Previous stories:

Crisis-pregnancy centers to be gagged?

Planned Parenthood sparks teen-pregnancy boom?

'Planned Parenthood lacks standing in abortion case'

Judge requires statement that abortion ends life

State threatens abortion business license

Planned Parenthood accused of 'defying' court decision

Planned Parenthood fails to open doors

YouTube pulls plug on shocking abortion video

Planned Parenthood admits 'bending' rules

YouTube spikes pro-life video

Abortionists losing special treatment, maybe $1 million

Prosecutor wants assault reporting law changed

Video reveals Planned Parenthood's advice to lie

County yanks future funding from abortionists

Abortionists fighting to keep taxpayer money

Planned Parenthood to patient: Lie to judge

http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/02/military-hospitals-ordered-to-carry-morningafter-pill.html 'Deception': Christians war over worship day tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e554d79b0288330120a8552f01970b 2010-02-06T10:08:00-05:00 2010-02-06T10:08:00-05:00 Joe Kovacs is executive news editor for WorldNetDaily.com and author of the No. 1 best-selling book that champions the absolute truth of Scripture and reveals the underreported glorious destiny of Christians, "Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told." Bob Barney

Centuries-old clash continues over disputed commandment
Posted: March 16, 2008
5:24 pm Eastern

By Joe Kovacs
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


This sign at the Mesa Avenue Church of Christ in Grand Junction, Colo., is typical of churches announcing their worship services on Sunday.

Two thousand years after Jesus walked the Earth, Christians are at war with each other concerning – as strange as it may sound – a day of the week mentioned in the Ten Commandments.

The issue boils down to: "When is God's Sabbath?" In other words, what is His holy day of rest?

Most Christians today think it's Sunday, when the majority of churches hold services.

But others confidently say it's Saturday, calling Sunday worship "the most flagrant error of mainstream Christianity," believing Sunday-keepers are victims of clever deception.

Some high-profile evangelical pastors such as California's Greg Laurie say it's simply "wrong to set Saturday apart as a special day for worship."

Whether it's the Sabbath or what the Bible says is the true, glorious destiny for mankind, find out what some don't want you to know in the No. 1 best-seller, "Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told" -- autographed only at WND!

Today, some high-school sports teams refuse to play in state tournaments for the sole reason the events are held on Saturday – what they say is God's Sabbath.


Scottish sprinter Eric Liddell

Conversely, the 1981 film "Chariots of Fire" was based on the true story of Eric Liddell, a Scottish sprinter and Christian missionary who disqualified himself from his best event at the 1924 Olympics because the race was on Sunday – the Sabbath in his view.

Christians seem irreparably split, as this issue goes back to the beginning of time itself.

In the beginning ...

There are seven days in a week, but historians have no consensus about the cycle's origin, since it has no basis in astronomy.

The Bible, though, indicates God created the Earth and its life forms in six days, and then rested on the seventh.

"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it." (Genesis 2:2-3)

Biblically speaking, the first six days of the week had no special name. They were simply identified by ordinal numbers, such as the first, second and third day. But the seventh day was given a unique name. In Hebrew, it's "shabbat," meaning "rest." In English, the word is "Sabbath," and it's detailed in the Fourth Commandment.

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work ... . For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day." (Exodus 20:8-11)

In many languages, the word used for the seventh day of the week – what we call Saturday – is actually the same word used for "Sabbath." In Greek, it is sabbaton; Italian, sabato; Spanish, sábado; Russian, subbota; Polish, sobota; and Hungarian, szómbat. Even the French "samedi" is from the Latin "Sambata dies," for "day of the Sabbath."

Names of days in today's English come from ancient paganism, where they were originally associated with celestial objects and heathen gods.


Table traces the seven days of the week from their pagan Latin origin through the names of Norse gods to their current names in English

In the King James Version of the Bible, the word "Sabbath" appears 137 times. The word "Sunday" is absent, though its equivalent, the first day of the week, occurs eight times – nine if the "first day" of creation is counted.

Some examples of the use of Sabbath include:

  • "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant." (Exodus 31:15-16)
  • "But pray ye that your flight be not in winter, neither on the sabbath day." (Matthew 24:20)
  • "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." (Mark 2:28)

Most biblical scholars have little disagreement when asked what day the Bible specifically calls the Sabbath.


Prof. Richard Bauckham

"The seventh day, Saturday," says Richard Bauckham, professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. "No other day is called the Sabbath in Old or New Testaments."

In 2001, Jan Marcussen, a Seventh-Day Adventist from Thompsonville, Ill., was so sure there was no Bible verse declaring the first day to be the Sabbath, he offered up to $1 million for clear, Scriptural proof.

"I didn't get even one response claiming the $1 million from any theologian, bishop, cardinal, pope or anyone else," Marcussen, author of "National Sunday Law," told WND. "Why not? Because they can't. [Observing Sunday as the Sabbath] is the biggest hoax the world has ever seen."

But while the Bible never calls the first day of the week a Sabbath, the vast majority of Christians today gather for worship then. Many think Sabbath-keeping was either abolished or moved to Sunday once Jesus rose from the grave.

"There's not a simple answer," said Dr. Roger Felipe, a Baptist preacher from Marco Island, Fla., who is also director of programs for Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, part of Trinity International University. "From [today's] Christian point of view, the Sabbath is Sunday."

There is little, if any, argument Jesus and His fellow Jews observed the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week, as the Bible states, "as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read." (Luke 4:16)

But it's what took place after His death and resurrection that's key.

The rising of the Son

One reason many Christians provide for gathering on Sunday is the belief Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week.

"It's a powerful symbol," says Felipe.


An angel informs women that Jesus is not in the tomb, but has already risen.

His sentiments echo a 1998 writing by Pope John Paul II in which the pontiff referred to the origins of Sunday-keeping.

"In the weekly reckoning of time, Sunday recalls the day of Christ's Resurrection," the pope stated.

But the idea Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday is not universal.

The Bible is actually silent on the precise moment of resurrection. Jesus' followers came to His tomb before dawn on the first day of the week (Sunday), but they did not witness Him coming back to life. They merely found an empty tomb.

A tomb with a view

 "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen," is what an angel told the women. (Luke 24:5-6)


John Pinkston, Congregation of God Seventh Day

"Christ was already gone!" exclaims John Pinkston, a retired Air Force navigator who is founder and president of the Congregation of God Seventh Day in Kennesaw, Ga. "So that shoots in the foot the belief that He was raised on Sunday."

Pinkston is typical of many Sabbath-keepers, believing Jesus was neither killed on a Friday, nor raised on Sunday. He believes Jesus was actually put to death on a Wednesday, and remained in the grave 72 hours until Saturday evening. When the women came to the tomb early Sunday, they found it empty, indicating Jesus arose prior to their arrival.

Even the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, a Sunday-keeper and chancellor of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., agreed with that timetable, telling WND in 2001, "I personally believe He was crucified on Wednesday evening ... and rose after 6 p.m. Saturday evening."

Most Christians today think Jesus died on a Friday and rose on Sunday. They point to Scriptures indicating a Sabbath day followed Jesus' execution. But Sabbath-keepers claim it was not the weekly Sabbath of Saturday approaching. Rather, they say it was an annual Sabbath, a "high" holy day in the Hebrew calendar known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which supposedly occurred on a Thursday the week Jesus was killed. The Gospel of John mentions that Sabbath was the annual type.

"The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) ... ." (John 19:31)

In other words, Sabbatarians say there was more than one day of rest that week. Their timeline has Jesus slain on Wednesday – the day before the "high day" annual Sabbath on Thursday. They believe Jesus was in the grave for a full three days and three nights, finally arising Saturday evening, the second Sabbath of the week.

The mention of "three days and three nights" is important for many, as Jesus used that phrase to prove His divine identity:

"For as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days and three nights, so I, the Son of Man, will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights." (Matthew 12:40, New Living Translation)

There's disagreement if that phrase means a full three days and three nights – 72 hours – or merely parts of three days and three nights, leading many to stick with the Friday-evening-to-Sunday-morning timeline.

The last shall be first?

Beyond the resurrection issue, there are several Bible references to "the first day of the week," none of which are clear on the Sabbath issue.


Prof. Margaret M. Mitchell

"The New Testament evidence is not conclusive, and nowhere 'ordains' or instructs [Sunday-keeping]," said Margaret M. Mitchell, professor of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Mitchell says the "evidence is, historically speaking, tantalizing but not absolutely clear."

She notes the apostle Paul, for instance, in 1 Corinthians 16:2, "calls on the Corinthians to treasure up on the first day of the week."

"He does not explicitly say there whether the envisioned context is a gathering of the assembly, or if this refers to what people do in their own homes," Mitchell said.

Another mention of the first day is in Acts 20:7, as Paul is shown breaking bread with fellow believers in ancient Troas, a peninsula in modern-day Turkey: "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them ... ."

Mitchell told WND: "This text appears to show a particular Sunday eucharistic gathering, but it does not tell us if this replaced the Sabbath observance or stood alongside it, [i.e., people observed both]."

Interestingly, while most Bible versions use the phrase "first day of the week" in Acts 20:7, a 1990 word-for-word translation of the same Scripture by Greek experts Robert K. Brown and Philip W. Comfort in the New Greek English Interlinear New Testament from Tyndale House Publishers, actually renders it as "one of the Sabbaths."

Their version reads: "And on one of the Sabbaths having been assembled us to break bread, Paul was lecturing them ... ."

If the Tyndale translation is accurate, it could heighten the Saturday-vs.-Sunday controversy, since this alleged evidence for Sunday worship may not have been a Sunday at all, but the usual Saturday Sabbath.

'The Lord's Day' – or is that 'Day of the Lord'?

And then there's something called "the Lord's Day." Though mentioned just once in the Bible, many today assume it means Sunday.

The Scripture, written by the apostle John on the Greek island of Patmos, says, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet." (Revelation 1:10)


Depiction of John on Patmos by Pat Marvenko Smith, (c) 1992. Used with permission. Revelation Illustrated

Some Sabbatarians like Pinkston believe the term has no connection to the first day of the week.

"It's not talking anything about Sunday," he said. "It's talking about the 'Day of the Lord' mentioned in the Old Testament. It's prophecy about when Christ comes back. The Book of Revelation reveals the events of the 'Day of the Lord.' It has nothing to do with a worship day."

Others think it is indeed a worship day, but not Sunday. They suggest "the Lord's Day" is actually a Saturday Sabbath, noting Jesus called himself "Lord of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28) and that God referred to the Sabbath as "my holy day." (Isaiah 58:13)

Thus, according to this reasoning, if any day of the week were really "the Lord's Day," it's the seventh-day Sabbath, not Sunday.

However, Prof. Bauckham in Scotland believes there's good evidence from early Christian sources the phrase does indeed refer to Sunday.

"John probably means that his visionary experience happened during the time when other Christians were gathered for worship," he said.

"The other interpretation [equating it with the 'Day of the Lord'] doesn't really make sense because the earlier parts of the vision are not placed temporally at the end of history. That is only approached over several chapters [into Revelation]."

The Encyclopedia Britannica equates Sunday with "the Lord's Day" in Christianity, stating, "The practice of Christians gathering together for worship on Sunday dates back to apostolic times, but details of the actual development of the custom are not clear."

The New Testament, penned within the first century, never specifically mentions a Sabbath change.

"From a logical point of view," says Pinkston, "if the New Testament had intended for us to start worshipping on the first day of the week, then we'd find ample evidence for it. Yet, it's not in there."

One example Sabbatarians point to is when Paul is shown preaching to both Jews and Gentiles (non-Hebrews) on a Sabbath, and not Sunday. He's then asked to preach again on the following Sabbath.

"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. ... And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." (Acts 13:42-44)

The argument is, if there were some kind of worship on the first day of the week, then Paul would have just told the people – especially those with no connection to Jewish customs – to simply come back tomorrow (Sunday) to learn more, rather than wait an entire week for the next Sabbath to arrive.

Man of the Sabbath

A well-known expert on the Sabbath is Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, a retired theology professor at Andrews University in Michigan.


Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi

Bacchiocchi earned his doctorate in Church History at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and was awarded a gold medal by Pope Paul VI for his summa cum laude class work and dissertation, "From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity."

Bacchiocchi, a Seventh-Day Adventist, believes there's no Scriptural mandate to change or eliminate Sabbath-keeping, and he singles out the Catholic Church for its role in changing the day.

"The Church of the capital of the empire, whose authority was already felt far and wide in the second century, appears to be the most likely birthplace of Sunday observance," he writes.

In the 1876 book, "The Faith of Our Fathers," James Cardinal Gibbons, the Catholic archbishop of Baltimore, agreed the shift to Sunday was not based on the Bible, but was solely the work of the Catholic Church.

"You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify," Gibbons wrote.

Bacchiocchi also told WND: "Anti-Judaism caused the abandonment of the Sabbath, and pagan sun worship influenced the adoption of Sunday."

He says evidence of anti-Judaism is found in the writings of Christian leaders such as Ignatius, Barnabas and Justin in the second century. He notes these three "witnessed and participated in the process of separation from Judaism which led the majority of the Christians to abandon the Sabbath and adopt Sunday as the new day of worship."

Bacchiocchi also explains the influence of pagan sun worship provides a "plausible explanation for the Christian choice of Sunday" over the day of Saturn. Its effect wasn't just limited to Sunday. It apparently led to the placement of Jesus' birth in late December.

"The adoption of the 25th of December for the celebration of Christmas is perhaps the most explicit example of sun worship's influence on the Christian liturgical calendar," Bacchiocchi writes. "It is a known fact that the pagan feast of the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti – the birthday of the Invincible Sun, was held on that date."

Christian fact, pagan Mithra

One of the Roman names for this "Invincible Sun" god in the days of the apostles was Mithra. There are striking similarities between the ancient worship of Mithra and today's Christianity, leading some to think early Christians adopted Sunday worship from heathen customs.


The pagan sun god Mithra, also known as 'the Invincible Sun'

For instance, Mithraism's sacred day of Sunday was said to be called "the Lord's Day."

Donald Morse, a retired professor at Temple University, wrote a 1999 essay comparing the tenets of Mithraism to modern Christianity, explaining Mithra was worshipped on Sunday; was born of a virgin known as the "mother of God" on Dec. 25; was part of a holy trinity; and had a "Last Supper" with his 12 followers before his death and resurrection at Easter time near the spring equinox.

Mithraists were also taught they had immortal souls that went to a celestial heaven or an infernal hell at death.

"All of these religions intermingled in those days," Morse, who is Jewish, told WND. "There's no way to know who stole from whom."

On the change from Sabbath to Sunday, Morse suggested early Christian leaders including Paul felt "the best way to convert pagans was to not have them change too much. Just accept their [pagan] holidays, as long as they accepted Jesus as Messiah. They didn't really have to do much more than that."

There's no place like Rome

As Christianity spread through the pagan Roman Empire, it was finally given official toleration in the year 312 by Emperor Constantine, who purportedly had a vision that prompted his soldiers to fight under a "symbol of Christ," leading to a key military victory. The emperor then restored confiscated church property and even offered public funds to churches in need.


Roman Emperor Constantine sees a symbol of Christ in the sky before the battle at Milvian Bridge outside Rome in A.D. 312

Sunday observance received a historic boost when Constantine – himself a pagan who is said to have adopted Christianity at least nominally – established Sunday as the first day of the week in the Roman calendar and issued a mandatory order prohibiting work on that day, in honor of the sun god.

On March 7, 321, he decreed, "On the venerable Day of the Sun, let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed." Farmers were given an exception.

"The importance of the actions of Constantine cannot be overstated," says author Richard Rives in "Too Long in the Sun." "During his reign, pagan sun worship was blended with the worship of the Creator, and officially entitled 'Christianity.'"

Before the end of the 4th century, Sunday observance prevailed over Saturday.

At the Council of Laodicea in 363, the Church of  Rome – today known as the Roman Catholic Church – declared: "Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honoring the Lord's Day [Sunday]; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ."

In 380, Emperor Theodosius made Sunday-keeping Catholic Christianity the official religion of the empire, outlawing all other faiths:

We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that the shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics.

While some went along with the decrees, others apparently did not. A letter from Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, reveals differences in Sabbath practices in his own city from those in Rome. It led to the well-known proverb, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

Once Sunday had the imperial power of the Roman Catholic government behind it, Saturday Sabbath-keepers became less visible, though some Sabbatarian websites have documented mentions of seventh-day observers through the centuries.

For example, the Catholic Church persecuted Sabbath-keepers in the 15th century. At the Catholic Provincial Council of Bergen, Norway, in 1435, it was said:

We are informed that some people in different districts of the kingdom, have adopted and observed Saturday-keeping.

It is severely forbidden – in holy church canon – [for] one and all to observe days excepting those which the holy pope, archbishop, or the bishops command. Saturday-keeping must under no circumstances be permitted hereafter further that the church canon commands. Therefore we counsel all the friends of God throughout all Norway who want to be obedient towards the holy church to let this evil of Saturday-keeping alone; and the rest we forbid under penalty of severe church punishment to keep Saturday holy.

The Catholic Encyclopedia even refers to Sabbath-keeping as "the superstitious observance of Saturday," noting it was forbidden by that council.

Coming to America

As Christianity headed west, the earliest settlers to America included both Sunday-keepers – such as the Puritans who landed at Plymouth, Mass., in 1620 – and Sabbath-observers like the Seventh Day Baptists, whose first church was founded in Newport, R.I., in 1671.

When the Puritan Christians used the word Sabbath, they would mean Sunday – "the Lord's Day" – and passed rules enforcing its observance from sunset Saturday to sunset Sunday.

Connecticut's so-called Blue Laws of the 1650s had strict codes of conduct said to include:

  • No one shall run on the Sabbath day, or walk in his garden or elsewhere, except reverently to and from meeting.
  • No one shall travel, cook victuals, make beds, sweep house, cut hair, or shave, on the Sabbath day.
  • No one shall read Common-Prayer, keep Christmas or saints-days, make minced pies, dance, play cards, or play on any instrument of music, except the drum, trumpet, and the Jews-harp.
  • Adultery shall be punished by death.


Instructions for colonists in New Haven, Conn., drafted in 1655 and published in London in 1656 became known as blue laws.

In her 1909 book, "The Sabbath in Puritan New England," historian Alice Morse Earle documented "lists of arrests and fines for walking and travelling unnecessarily on the Sabbath," regarded here from Saturday evening to Sunday evening:

A Maine man who was rebuked and fined for "unseemly walking" on the Lord's Day protested that he ran to save a man from drowning. The Court made him pay his fine, but ordered that the money should be returned to him when he could prove by witnesses that he had been on that errand of mercy and duty. As late as the year 1831, in Lebanon, Conn., a lady journeying to her father's home was arrested within sight of her father's house for unnecessary travelling on the Sabbath; and a long and fiercely contested lawsuit was the result, and damages were finally given for false imprisonment.


Spring of 1642: Puritan settlers in New England observe the Sabbath on Sunday, Courtesy the Stamford Historical Society, Stamford, Conn.

Christians observing the Sabbath on Saturday also spread throughout America, but in fewer numbers than Sunday-keepers.

The teachings of the Seventh Day Baptists are said to be instrumental in the founding of the Seventh-day Adventist Church – which claims a membership today of 15 million – and the Church of God (Seventh Day) – which has more than 200 congregations in the U.S. and Canada and a worldwide fellowship of more than 300,000.

Other Christians promoting Saturday rest include many offshoots of the Worldwide Church of God, such as the United Church of God, Living Church of God, Church of God International, Philadelphia Church of God , Christian Biblical Church of God and Intercontinental Church of God.

Messianic Jews, including Dallas-based Zola Levitt Ministries, are also seventh-day proponents.

Some Sabbatarians, such as Richard Ames of the Living Church of God, produce TV shows like "Tomorrow's World," asking, "Which day is the Christian Sabbath?"

On one program, Ames points to Luke 4:16 in the Bible and says, "It was Jesus' regular custom to worship on the Sabbath, and since that time, and centuries before, the Jewish community has very carefully documented their observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, Saturday. In other words, history demonstrates that time has not been lost, that the seven-day cycle has been accurately recorded to this day."

In another episode, Ames' colleague, Roderick C. Meredith, calls Sunday observance "the most flagrant error of mainstream Christianity" and "the most obvious deception of all."

"Do you realize that this deception is blinding millions of people from knowing God?" asks Meredith.

Despite such rhetoric, many Catholic and Protestant Sunday-keepers reject Sabbath-keeping on Saturday.


Greg Laurie

Greg Laurie, a WND columnist and senior pastor of Harvest Christian Fellowship in Riverside, Calif., one of the eight largest Protestant churches in America, maintains it's wrong for Christians to observe Saturday, claiming Jesus and the apostles never taught anyone to keep the Sabbath. He says it's the only one of the Ten Commandments not specifically repeated in the New Testament.

"Of all the New Testament lists of sins, 'breaking the Sabbath' is never mentioned," Laurie said. "That is because it was given to the Jews, not the non-Jews."

Back in Florida, Sunday-keeper Roger Felipe thinks God is not overly concerned with the Sabbath issue.

"Paul is very clear that we Christians don't use [one particular day] as a determining factor if someone is right with God," Felipe said.

At the same time, though, the minister supports the idea of resting one day each week to stay on track with God.

"Humanity has forsaken the importance of Sabbath rest," he said. "God desires us to be renewed spiritually. We should observe a day ... to be consecrated and to be devoted to God, to be renewed and refreshed. In terms of affecting the human quality of life, it would do us very well to observe a Sabbath rest."


Related story:

Anti-Judaism at root of 'Sunday Sabbath'?

If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.


Are you a representative of the media who would like to interview the author of this story? Let us know.

Special offers:

Whether it's the Sabbath or what the Bible says is the true, glorious destiny for mankind, find out what some don't want you to know in the No. 1 best-seller, "Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told" -- autographed only at WND!

"From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity"

Bible comes alive: Entire New Testament on video!

Does science back up Jesus' resurrection?

History of the World: Not the phony stuff you've been taught

Chart the world's history all the way back to Adam and Eve

Save Temple Mount from destruction

Significant moments in Christian history

What happened in the First Six Days?

DVD: The Forbidden Book: The History of the English Bible

Geneva Bible of 1599

King James Giant Print Reference Bible

Previous stories:

Sunday, holy Sunday? Pastor resurrects Sabbath debate with $1 million reward

Basketball champs refuse to play on Sabbath

Sabbath-breaking 'caused tsunami'

Israel's airline to fly on the Sabbath?

Religious players win Sabbath case

Christmas in America becomes battleground

Flood of claims for 'Noah's Ark'

Pharaoh's chariots found in Red Sea?






Joe Kovacs is executive news editor for WorldNetDaily.com and author of the No. 1 best-selling book that champions the absolute truth of Scripture and reveals the underreported glorious destiny of Christians, "Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told."
http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2010/02/deception-christians-war-over-worship-day.html How Christianity was almost drowned out tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e554d79b028833012877576df8970c 2010-02-06T07:11:00-05:00 2010-02-06T07:11:00-05:00 Richard Rives is president of Wyatt Archaeological Research and author of "Too Long in the Sun" and the "Time is the Ally of Deceit" book and DVD study series. Bob Barney