Day of Pentecost

Sunday May 23 was the day of Pentecost.


Without getting into the history, this was a Jewish festival HOWEVER

Acts 2: "5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? 8Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?"

Did you notice that it said that "God-fearing Jews from every nation" were gathered .....
When reading the rest of the passage it seems obvious to many that A NEW THING was happening; the Christian church was being born from its Jewish roots.

Did you notice also that they were God-fearing Jews? Not just your average go to Shabbot-a-few-times-a-year Jew, but GOD-FEARING Jews! These were really sincere people.

"37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"  38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

If these were God-fearing men, why did they need to repent? Why did they need to turn their lives around? 

It is because as they recognized the truth of what Peter spoke they may have realized that their religion [not Judaism] but their own personal "religion" or relationship to God was a shell. It needed filling up. It needed completion.

And so it was that 3000 or more people began that day to form the Church of Christ.

Now if you are Jewish, I am NOT preaching at you. All of us, Christians, Jews and the rest of the world, we all fall short of what God would have for us. We often need to repent and get back on track. 

I love following my boss, a Jewish carpenter and he wasn't exactly a bad preacher either! He was a Jew. However he came to bring a new revelation, an expansion of present understanding. All those who recognized his truth began to follow him. I can too. You can too. We can learn a lot from him. 

But we never forget he WAS a JEWISH rabbi and we give much credit to the Jewish people from whom was birthed the Messiah. It is because God selected the Jews according to the Bible to show to the world a better way that we honour them as a race and make our best attempt to follow the example of our Jewish Messiah.

Also if you check my blog at http://peace-in-Israel.blogspot.com you will see EXTREMELY UNUSUAL achievements that this small beseiged, maligned country has contributed to the world. 

Chances are that you may be reading this on a Windows computer which was pioneered by in Israel.

Check out the "Cool Things about Israel" videos! THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY AMAZING!

Arguments of Atheists

Brian is one of my former students. I sure messed up teaching him, didn't I? (:-)

I will present Brian's comments that need an answer and then my answer. [I may leave out certain non-critical parts of his quote for simplicity.]

 

Brian : I would have to say it is unlikely there is a God. Therefore I regard myself as an Atheist.

 

Charles: Using Brian's format: I would have to say it is VERY unlikely that there is NOT a God! No evidence or argument presented but just a statement. We can all make statements including me. The only difference is that mine are right (:-) grin

Brian: I know very few Atheists that would say dogmatically that there is 100% no chance of there being a supernatural power one could call God. Even Richard Dawkins would not say that.

Charles:All atheists that I have dealt with ,ALL, say there is NO GOD. In fact the definition of an atheist is one who believes there is no God. If you are not sure, which seems to fit Brian, then you are an agnostic.

Brian: All the evidence I have seen so far has been flawed in one way or other. The logical arguments, the physical evidence, once you delve beneath the surface they don't hold up. I've been through a lot of this stuff and I'm sure there is way more that I haven't seen.

Charles: No evidence is presented but how can anyone arbitrarily say "all the evidence I have seen is flawed"? The fact that you say that means you have set yourself up as a superior being to the beings, such as myself, who have seen the EVIDENCE pointing DIRECTLY TO A GOD. So if you are a superior being and I am supposed to believe you, then you have created a god, that god being the superior being, in your eyes, who happens to be YOU. [So Brian does believe in a god... that god or superior being is him." On the other hand if he is NOT claiming that his reasoning or observations are superior, then perhaps my reasoning or observations are superior to his. Who is to know? (:-)

Charles: All the evidence I have seen that declares there is not God, in my view is flawed because everyone believes in some being who is superior to themselves, unless you are the highest of egocentrics, who believes NO ONE could be smarter than yourself.

Brian: "It always comes down to personal experience." 

Charles: Exactly! Your personal experience says there is no god or God and mine says THERE IS A GOD! Now to present some ideas which do not hold water in the atheistic religion.

• Is it possible that Brian [or anyone] has less than 10% of the world's knowledge? I am sure Brian would say, "Of course!"
• Is it possible that Brian has less than 5% of the world's knowledge? In which case, I can hear Brian saying, "Obviously! I probably have less than 1% of the world's knowledge!"
• Then I ask a simple question: "COULD GOD EXIST IN THE 99% OF THE WORLD'S KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE?" Any reasonable person would have to admit the veracity [truth] of that logic. Of course God can exist in that knowledge!
• I can say that "Platypuses do not exist! They are fictional! People have just been fooling with our brain by drawing a half-beaver-half-duck like animal! "
• Just because I have NEVER SEEN a platypus, does not prove the non-existence of one, does it?
• Just because I have never seen a coelacanth does not mean that they do not exist does it? See here. The coelacanth was a fish thought to be extinct until 1938 when one was caught ALIVE! IT DOES EXIST! " "...astounding coelacanth ("see-la-kanth"), the fusion of life and time, that following a supposed extinction of 65 million years, head-lined into human consciousness with its discovery alive in 1938."
• So Brian and other atheists have NOT FOUND EVIDENCE FOR A LIVING GOD. 
• SCIENTISTS had NOT FOUND evidence for a LIVING COELACANTH until they did!
• Why was one found in 1938 and not before? 
• Could it be that people were LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACES? Of course! They finally by accident found the RIGHT PLACE and also found a fish thought to be extinct but was still alive!!
• God is still alive even if you have looked in the wrong places! There are many intelligent famous people who like the scientists did NOT find God UNTIL they looked in THE RIGHT PLACE!
• Atheists Who Found God
• See Why I Left Atheism by John N. Clayton
• See Antony Flew story, British philosopher and 60-year atheist!
• See Peter Hitchens, brother of Christopher Hitchens story called "How I Found God and Peace with my Atheist brother.
• Fay Weldon, 70 years an atheist found God because she looked in the RIGHT place! 
• A good answer given by two individuals who thought they were atheists. 
• How Marilyn Adamson found God 
• Atheist author Terry Pratchett may have found God 
• Has Science Discovered God? 
• Debates between Atheists and Christians
• Lists of former atheists and agnostics who became Christians

"Flowing with Milk and Honey" - to Kill with Allergies and High Cholesterol?

For some time now we have been hearing that it is unnatural to drink cow's milk since it was designed for baby cows .... and it causes allergies and all kinds of problems ... that is what they say .

My skeptical scientific-method trained brain has always taken that thought with a whole shaker of salt ... forget a few grains!

I was discussing this with a young couple who is trying to get rid of allergies and other problems and so is doing a cleansing diet. Nothing wrong with trying that but what about the total elimination of milk?

This morning I woke up, got out of bed and the first thing that came to my mind were these ...

• we eat honey from bees which was created so young bees could live and grow...plus food for the hive's winter survival
• we eat eggs and you know what they are ... the embryo of a chicken

For those of us who know that the Bible contains hidden gems of wisdom, check these out [NASB]

1. Exodus 3:8
   (Whole Chapter)
   
   
   
   
   
   "So I have come down [Gen 15:13-16; 46:4; 50:24, 25; Ex 6:6-8; 12:51] to deliver them from the power of the Egyptians, and to bring them up from that land to a [Ex 3:17; 13:5; Num 13:27; Deut 1:25; 8:7-9; Jer 11:5; Ezek 20:6] good and spacious land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of [Gen 15:19-21; Josh 24:11] the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Amorite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite.
   
   
2. Exodus 3:17
   
   
   (Whole Chapter)
   
   
   
   "So [Gen 15:13-21; 46:4; 50:24, 25] I said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt to the land of [Josh 24:11] the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Amorite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, to a land [Ex 3:8] flowing with milk and honey."'
3. Leviticus 20:24
   
   
   (Whole Chapter)
   
   
   
   'Hence I have said to you, " [Ex 13:5; 33:1-3] You are to possess their land, and I Myself will give it to you to possess it, a land flowing with milk and honey " I am the LORD your God, who has [Ex 33:16; Lev 20:26] separated you from the peoples
4. Numbers 13:27
   
   
   (Whole Chapter)
   
   
   
   Thus they told him, and said, "We went in to the land where you sent us; and [Ex 3:8, 17; 13:5] it certainly does flow with milk and honey, and [Deut 1:25] this is its fruit.
5. Numbers 14:8
   
   
   (Whole Chapter)
   
   
   
   " [Deut 10:15] If the LORD is pleased with us, then He will bring us into this land and give it to us-- [Ex 3:8; Num 13:27] a land which flows with milk and honey. 
6. Deuteronomy 6:3
   
   
   (Whole Chapter)
   
   
   
   "O Israel, you should listen and be careful to do it, that [Deut 5:33] it may be well with you and that you may multiply greatly, just as the LORD, the God of your fathers, has promised you, in [Ex 3:8, 17] a land flowing with milk and honey. 

Does it seem that God was warning them about milk? Or does the "flowing with milk and honey" seem like a reward?

I don't believe it certainly ever hurts but helps to fast, to take certain things out of our diets for a time period... all good ..

But I don't think the Bible was talking about breast milk from human to child here was it?

Just for your thoughts.

Just like medications save lives on a daily basis, that does not make THEM always good, because they also kill people [druggies].

Just like water is great but put 1/2 a cup in your lungs can cause you to drown and die ...

Air is wonderful to breathe but put in your veins can cause, I am told, your death. ...

If I was a cautious person I would shut up and listen and make no comment ... I guess I am never going to be that guy ... (:-)

Will you take this for what it is worth and not as a rebuke?

Okay now I am thinking about how aspirin was discovered.... did you know it was a folk remedy that if you had aches and pains, you should chew willow bark .... of course scientists rejected ALL of these old ideas until later when someone tested willow bark ... you know what is in willow bark in higher than average concentrations? .... acetylsalicylic acid otherwise known as ASPIRIN...

Holding on to every accepted "wisdom" may be ridiculous as accepting in whole every new thought that comes along.

Thinking critically, nothing is perfect including standard medicine nor new wholistic ideas..

Editor's Notes:
Being a science teacher for over 20 years trained me to question any new idea using various criteria. That does NOT mean all new ideas are rejected. It is simply a check to make sure that some alarmists or companies with profit to gain are not behind various scares like the milk allergy scare mentioned above.

Some Scientific Criteria To Determine Facts

• Who is the authority that makes the claims?
• Is he/she qualified in that area of science? 
• Is there actually any research to support the claim or is it circumstantial or as a result only of case studies?
• Has the research been tested and verified by other qualified scientists?
• Has the person making the statement any bias or anything to gain by people believing the claim? [For example "health magazines" often published and distributed in "health food" stores is biassed as it is usually published by companies that sell "health food". It may be true and maybe not.

In that light I did a very little research on the web regarding the widespread belief that cow's milk should not be consumed by humans. Any research on the web or anywhere else can be subject to incorrect data. Ask yourself if this is a credible source or does the researcher have something to gain.

Calgary Allergy Network - formed by a group of parents whose children have allergies...

"The Calgary Allergy Network evolved from a local group of parents meeting to share their challenges of living with allergies and asthma. We met for 2 years until succumbing to people's busy schedules and the ease/reach of the Internet. We were reaching 10 times more people by the Internet than in monthly meetings.
It's now mainly a web site which offers practical information and resources to the Canadian (and by default) the international communities. The founder and web master, N Wiebe, is a volunteer and parent of a formerly peanut-allergic child. We have other food and enviromental allergies and intolerances just to keep the fun going. Local support is still available on a limited basis. Please contact us by email and we'll likely phone you back. 

We are affiliated with the Allergy/Asthma Information Association (AAIA), a registered  Allergy/Asthma Information Association (AAIA), a registered Canadian charity dedicated to helping individuals and their families cope with allergies and asthma. It has been in operation since 1964.  
Does this organization sound credible? Do they care about their children and not want them to be exposed to any additional health problems?

Here are there conclusions about milk and allergies:

• "Milk allergy results from hypersensitivity of the immune system to the proteins in cow's milk possibly caused by genetic disposition. Studies show that 2 to 3% of infants are milk allergic and most outgrow it within a couple of years. If drinking milk was really 'out of harmony with nature' one would expect the allergy incidence to be much greater. [Ed. due to the use of milk products in so many other products]
• "There is NO evidence that dairy products cause asthma. A person with a milk allergy may develop asthma but there is no cause and effect relationship between the two. Note: An allergic reaction to milk may trigger wheezing, especially in infants."
• "Constipation is not related to what we eat but rather to what we don't eat...."

Calgary Allergy Network website


Pediatric Myths by Dr Jen ......

Quotations for Consideration

"The nutritional content of soy isn't as good as cow's milk based formulas. Soy formulas are not recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics or your pediatrician. The soy formulas all advertise that they are gentler to the stomach or are easier to digest or will guarantee your child's admission to an ivy league school or something, but really, they don't. The truest sign of formula intolerance is diarrhea, and I mean water coming out, with gas, distention and sometimes blood in the stool. The overwhelming majority of kids who do not tolerate cow's milk protein based formulas do not tolerate soy. It really doesn't help spitting up because the spitting up is from an anatomical problem and not a digestive one.  And soy formulas don't have lactose in them.  See the Lactose Free section below : lactose is important in infants."
http://www.drjen4kids.com/myths/mythformula.htm

"Lactose Free formulas: Lactose is the sugar in breastmilk. And all formulas are designed after the content of breastmilk.  Since things in nature rarely happen by chance, it's worth it to figure out why, out of all the sugars in the world, we have lactose in human milk.
Lactose helps with the intestinal absorption of calcium and iron.  It helps promote the growth of good bacteria in the gut.  And probably most importantly, it is a component of a lipid needed for brain development. Now, I don't know about the other sugars we put in formulas, other than lactose, but I think the jury is still out whether or not they do as good a job as lactose does.  Lactose is important in brain development--I'd suggest keeping it in the diet if we can."

Created, written and maintained by Jenny Thomas, Pediatrician, Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Scott Smith since May, 2000. Her website is called Dr. Jen 4 Kids. 

From The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto one of the largest teaching hospitals in the world we have ....


When discussing the issue about drinking Cow's milk or not, this is what they have to say...

A few excerpts from their conclusions.

Cow's Milk: Pros and Cons

"Occasionally, recommendations are made that children over 2 years old and adults should not drink cow's milk. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association strongly disagree with this position. Here are the reasons the benefits of drinking cow's milk outweigh the risks.

The benefits of cow's milk

Dairy products are an inexpensive source of protein. They are a convenient source of calcium. In addition, they often taste good. These benefits of milk haven't changed."

There are also cautions for certain children who may have problems with milk on that same page. Check it out. 

No attempt has been made to present both sides of this issue. The other side is well presented in various media and from certain types of medical practitioners. However what is presented is as unbiassed as possible being from research by parents of kids who have allergies and medical researchers and doctors.

Letter to Investment Executive Magazine and Gord McIntosh

Editor's Note: Investment Executive magazine [newspaper] is sent to enrich the understanding of financial advisors in Canada. I happened to notice one piece that seemed rather more partisan than financial written by Gord McIntosh. In his article he is slamming the Tories for being undemocratic.

Here is my answer:

You had better tell your email server that you really want feedback since it rejected my email without even reading it!

Therefore I decided to send it to you [i.e. Publisher Sylvain Bedard] since the "editorial@...." route bounced back.

Regarding Gord's Schoolyard Tactics piece:

Gord may be right on much of what he says. Where I take issue is when he seems to think that proroguing parliament is a new tactic with the Tories.

"Powers noted that Jean Chretien, Canada's Liberal Prime Minister from 1993 to 2003, prorogued government four times during his time in office while Harper has prorogued Parliament three times since he came into power in 2006."-- [http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091231/parliament_prorogued_091231/20091231?hub=TopStoriesV2]

I believe one also has to remember that Jean Chretien prorogued parliament WHEN he had a MAJORITY government. So if Gord thinks this time it is uncalled for, then what did he think then?

One must also remember that the Liberals in the Senate have been basically acting contrary to the will of the Canadian people who elected MP's from all opposition parties. 

Even though all parties in the House of Commons agreed,  the unelected Liberals in the Senate have held up or stopped the will of the Government of Canada. 

This should not be. It is time for an elected termed Senate which scrutinizes and "polishes" bills but does not go against the entire Parliament which WAS elected to do the will of the people.

I think this proroguing IS an appropriate tactic for many reasons at this time but most of all to support Canada's Olympic athletes during February. Also it may give the opportunity for all parties to cool down and decide what is in the greater good of Canada.

I have not heard ONE person in public, talking about the "treatment" of terrorists who would cut off our soldier's heads in a moment if they had the chance other than the news media and opposition complainers. 

I believe yes we do need to have standards but we certainly can not create an instant "little Canada" in Afghanistan when their culture has not progressed anywhere near to our own.

What do we do? Capture and imprison ALL terrorists or Taliban [not sure there is much difference] or realize that when we leave we cannot take them with us... sooner or later the enemy combatants will have to answer to the government of Afghanistan, infant that it may be and suffer the consequences of treasonous behaviour against THEIR government. Perhaps a few of them already have. 

It is certainly NOT our responsibility to FORCE our standards on the government of Afghanistan even though we may disapprove.

Yes we can explain why WE do not torture [If indeed there was any torture. Some reports seem to indicate that nothing more happened than would happen in a fight in a schoolyard. Are you listening Gord?] But inevitably THEY will have to decide what to do without us interfering with their due process given that it is NOT our country.

P.S. May I respectfully request that if the Investment Executive is going to engage in partisan politics rather than financial matters that you provide a comments section after each article sot that those who see another side to this political debate may have a chance to democratically have their say?

Or are you going to continue to prorogue comments which may not agree with your own? 

If that is the case, perhaps Gord should re-think or retract his article. 

Fair Trade or UNFAIR SCAMS?

Recently I have heard a lot about supporting fair trade which is supposed to support companies which give better prices to their workers.

The question comes up. How do you KNOW that workers are being paid unfair prices?

How do you KNOW that a bag of coffee which says it is approved by "fair trade" is not a downright lie?

Research Helps: However anyone can put anything up on the internet but when published in newspapers, there is some chance of legally being sued if a reporter falsifies information. So I take note especially of the information published in the Telegraph below.

I think perhaps asking missionaries who work closely with the natives in any country would be the most reliable source of information but I have not heard from them.

Here are some answers to those questions.

More about “Fairtrade is a fraud” – nice pamphlet by the Institute of Economic Affairs

22 April, 2008 · 2 Comments

David Davis
Last month one of our experienced writers said that “Fairtrade is a Fraud”.  While this IEA pamphlet here today does not deny the inherent and (very) inconvenient truth of this statement, it enlarges on some of the relationships involved in the whole “Fairtrade” scam, and explains why the entire “Fairtrade” flim-flam-branding exercise has the welfare of the “growers” as the least of its concerns.
http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book408pdf?.pdf
Or you can see it here.
Here is part of the article on Fair Trade is a Fraud

Fairtrade is a fraud

18 March, 2008 · 4 Comments

Thankfully “Fairtrade Fornight” is now over. But if you want to remember why Fairtrade is not a good idea, especially if you are having it rammed down your throat by do-gooders and busybodies, here’s what Alex Singleton had to say in The Sunday Telegraph:

Despite Fairtrade’s moral halo, there are other, more ethical forms of coffee available. Most Fairtrade coffee is roasted and packaged in Europe, principally in Belgium and Germany. That is unnecessary and retards development. Farmers working for Costa Rica’s Café Britt have climbed the economic ladder not just by growing beans but by doing the processing, roasting and packaging and branding themselves.

But Café Britt is not welcome on the Fairtrade scheme. Most Café Britt farmers are self-employed small business people who own the land they farm. That is unacceptable to the ideologues at FLO International, Fairtrade’s international certifiers, who will accredit farmers only if they give up their small-business status and join together into a co-operative.

As Brian Micklethwait puts it:

Fairtrade is, in other words, a front organisation, crafted by unregenerate collectivists to con believers in nice capitalism to buy something which is neither nice nor capitalist. And the way to deal with cons is to expose them for what they are, so that only those who really do believe in the actual values being promoted here continue to support the thing.

The Truth About "FAIR TRADE" IS HERE.
OR

Big Surprise: Fair Trade Coffee is a Scam

September 21, 2006 9:14 PM by Justin Ptak (Archive)

The Financial Times reports that:
"'Ethical' coffee is being produced in Peru, the world’s top exporter of Fairtrade coffee, by labourers paid less than the legal minimum wage. Industry insiders have also told the FT of non-certified coffee being marked and exported as Fairtrade, and of certified coffee being illegally planted in protected rainforest.
This casts doubt on the certification process used by Fairtrade and similar marks that require producers to pay the minimum wage.
It also raises questions about the assurances certifiers give consumers about how premium-priced fair trade coffee is produced...
...Though certified coffee makes up less than 2 per cent of the global coffee trade it has become increasingly mainstream as large retailers such as Starbucks and McDonald’s adopt it."

[From http://blog.mises.org/archives/005654.asp]
Here is one set of intelligent comments from a gentleman in South America

• 
  
  
  Francisco Torres
  
  The thing is, those are developing countries, and almost by definition they lack the right sort of institutions to maintain equitable results during the development transition.
  What they lack is property rights. We in Latin America are drowning in institutions. However, even with the "right" kind of institutions, I fail to see how is it unfair to the peasants what others are doing with their own property, even if it is growing coffee.
  
  Subsistence farmers get displaced as land and/or water resources get taken up by export-oriented cash crops like coffee, and so on.
  Again, this indicates that the problem is one of property rights. The US should have the "right" kind of institutions (being a developed country) and yet private property rights are not assured either - I do not believe that not having the "right" kind of institutions is the problem here.
  
  with sound institutions already in place, they would have been bought out for fair compensation - but that doesn't happen.
  Only problem is that "fair compensation" is a subjective term. The only sound compensation is that which the market provides, and not some institution, the reason being that institutions fall into the economic calculation problem whenever they try to make decisions on what is "fair" and what is not.
  Growing coffee by itself should not displace peasants. If I own a piece of land and a coffee grower wants to have it, he or she should offer to buy it at a price I like. That is the market solution. The "Institutional" solution would be one of expropriation, a la Eminent Domain or through bribing a State bureaucrat.
  
  
  
  Published: September 22, 2006 10:31 AM
  
  
  
  

Or if that one didn't make you think, how about this comment?

• 
  
  
  arya
  
  According to information published on Fair Trade Labelling Organization's (FLO) website www.fairtrade.net (Fair Trade's umbrella organization), the Fair Trade price paid to coffee farmers is set at $US 1.06 per pound or $US 2.35 per kg (inclusive of a Fair Trade "premium" of $US 5 cents/Ib to be used for development projects within the community).
  The same coffee - after having been processed in northern countries - is marketed and sold to socially-conscious (and naive) consumers under the Fair Trade label at an average retail price of $US 40- $US 50/kg, which means that the HUGE difference between the price paid to small-scale farmers ($US 2.35/KG) and the average retail price of coffee labelled, marketed and sold as Fair Trade ($US 40 to $US 50 per KG) generated from value-addition has ended up enriching the numerous mostly foreign economic agents within the supply chain(i.e. traders, exporters, shippers, processors, marketing agents, wholesalers and retailers, etc.)In this context, one wonders who is helping who...?
  Furthermore, the coffee has not been processed in the country of origin, thus failing to create much needed local employment and to generate income within the local economy. Processing the coffee in the country of origin would also enable coffee producing nations to break free from the dictate of the world market and from the vicious trap cycle of declining prices of coffee on the world market accentuated by increases in production to offset the initial price decline, thus further decreasing world prices and further impoverishing coffee and other primary agricultural commodity producers in poor nations. This is a vicious trap cycle, which the Fair Trade "business" is brilliantly using to its advantage...The Fair Trade "business" is capitalizing and prospering on both declining prices of primary commodities on the world market and on the good conscious and naivete on Western consumers...
  Fair Trade coffee statistics
  -The Fair Trade price paid to coffee farmers ($US 2.35/kg) only represents about 5% of the average retail value of coffee beans sold to consumers under the Fair Trade label ($US 40/kg -$US 50/kg).
  -1 KG of coffee makes on average 50 cups of coffee.
  -The average starting retail price for a cup of coffee in coffee shops or restaurants in the West is $US1-$US2: Thus, the equivalent price paid for a cup of coffee is $US 50/kg to $US 100/kg. The "Fair" Trade price paid to small-scale farmers only represents 2.5%-5% of the average retail price of a cup of coffee in the West.
  In this context, one wonders how "fair" the Fair Trade price paid to coffee farmers is and who is helping who...?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Published: October 9, 2006 7:50 AM
  
  
  
  

Or you may wish to check out or purchase the book explaining the Fair Trade Fraud

[http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Trade-Fraud-James-Bovard/dp/0312061935]

Or you may want to go to the source of a lot of this controversy and ask "IS FAIR-TRADE HELPING FARMERS OR HELPING THEMSELVES?"

Here is part of the article ...

Blogs Home » News » Alex Singleton

Alex Singleton

Alex Singleton writes about politics from a free-market perspective. You can get his insightful email bulletin (sent every few weeks) by clicking here and you can follow him on Twitter at alexsingletonuk.

The poverty of Fairtrade coffee

By Alex Singleton Last updated: February 23rd, 2008
41 Comments

“Fairtrade purports to work within the market economy but its rise has been largely based on marketing subsidies and public-sector procurement,” says Tom Clougherty, policy director of the Adam Smith Institute. Despite huge pressures on the public purse, local councils are squandering large sums becoming Fairtrade towns and cities, distributing posters and leaflets to nanny people into only buying Fairtrade. Meanwhile, the Fairtrade Foundation has received over £1.5m from the Department for International Development. It wants more. In December, reminiscent of 1970s-style industrial policy, it called for £50m of development aid to be spent as “strategic investment” on Fairtrade.

Fairtrade coffee is not actually the most ethical form available
Monday sees the start of Fairtrade Fortnight, the time each year when we are hectored into paying more for a cup of coffee. Charities, politicians and primary school teachers will deliver the scheme as an undisputed good. With all this effort, it is a pity Fairtrade does not work.
Fairtrade’s supporters blame the plight of coffee farmers on world prices and ruthless multinational companies. But supporters ignore the real causes of poverty among growers. Farmers I interviewed in Kenya told me that the problems they face are not caused by global influences but their own government’s interference. They are forced to use milling companies granted regional monopolies, who fleece them. They want to boost productivity by using fertiliser, but they cannot afford the inflated prices demanded by the government fertiliser monopoly. Imported tools and machinery would transform their output but are subject to punitive tariffs. Police roadblocks slow their goods and involve money exchanging hands.
Brazil, conversely, pursued free-market reforms and the farmers have mechanised. This has enabled five people and a machine to enjoy the same output as 500 unaided farmers. Yet the Fairtrade Foundation, the lobby group behind the scheme in the UK, seems oblivious to this and admits it has no programmes to encourage the use of technology. Even worse, it is giving counterproductive advice to farmers, encouraging them mix different crops in the same field, thereby cutting productivity and making future mechanisation more difficult.
Despite Fairtrade’s moral halo, there are other, more ethical forms of coffee available. Most Fairtrade coffee on sale in UK supermarkets and on the high street is roasted and packaged in Europe, principally in Belgium and Germany. This is unnecessary and retards development. Farmers working for Costa Rica’s Café Britt have been climbing the economic ladder by not just growing beans but by also doing all of the processing, roasting and packaging and branding themselves. Shipping unroasted green beans to Europe causes them to deteriorate, so not only is Café Britt doing far more to promote economic development than Fairtrade rivals, it is also creating better tasting coffee.
But Café Britt is not welcome on the Fairtrade scheme. Most of Café Britt’s farmers are self-employed small businesspeople who own the land they farm. This is wholly unacceptable to the rigid ideologues at FLO International, Fairtrade’s international certifiers, who will only accredit the farmers if they give up their small business status and join together into a co-operative. “It’s like outlawing private enterprise,” says Dan Cox, former head of the Speciality Coffee Association of America. Many African farmers, organised along tribal lines, are similarly excluded from the scheme. Other producers complain that accreditation is needlessly bureaucratic and costs five times as much as organic certifications.
Café Britt accuses the Fairtrade scheme of failing to understand the cultural realities in countries like Costa Rica where many farmers simply do not want to become part of co-operatives. Unlike campaigners’ romantic vision of developing country co-ops, the overwhelming evidence is that they are breeding grounds for corruption and abuse of workers. Co-operative leaders, who routinely get re-elected in fiddled votes, rake money from ordinary farmers, keeping them in the dark about their output’s true worth.
While true that certification requires an annual inspection (for a fee) these can range from simple visits to requests for paperwork by post. The scheme does not verify wages paid to labourers. Those co-operatives who run free elections are little better, with leaders often unwilling to make tough but necessary choices for fear of losing popularity with their voters. Moreover, an independent investigation into Peruvian Fartraide farms found breaches of Fairtrade rules, with many workers being paid less that that country’s minimum wage and non-certified coffee being passed off as Fairtrade.
Meanwhile, Fairtrade has the effect of encouraging relatively affluent, but not very efficient, producers to stay in the market. Being more affluent, they find it easier to jump the bureaucratic hurdles the scheme imposes. Accordingly, Mexico is the largest single Fairtrade coffee producer, despite the country having free access to US markets and enjoying average wages eighteen times those of its coffee rival Ethiopia, which loses out as a result.
Unfortunately, the juggernaut of Fairtrade marketing has been extremely damaging by crowding out other ethical approaches. While Café Britt’s products are sold globally, its products have found competing in the UK very difficult. Its UK distributor, 100% Arabica, was recently forced out of business. Good African Coffee, a non-Fairtrade Ugandan firm that packages and brands its coffee in Uganda, has done better but has still only gained a very small part Britain’s ethical coffee market.
While high-street chains like Starbucks and Caffe Nero have encouraged consumers to favour higher-quality, speciality coffee, there is growing evidence that Fairtrade is damaging quality, too. Fairtrade farmers typically sell in both Fairtrade and open markets. Because the price in the open market is solely determined by quality, they sell their better quality beans in that market, and then dump their poorer beans into the Fairtrade market, where they are guaranteed a good price regardless. Moreover, because co-operatives mix every farmer’s beans together, farmers who improve quality receive the same payment as those who do not, which discourages improvements. That’s worth considering next time you pop out for a double espresso.
[From http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alexsingleton/4019311/The_poverty_of_Fairtrade_coffee/]
There are often two sides to "truth" and sometimes the side that claims to be on the side of the "poor", "developing nations" are actually more interested in destroying FREE TRADE not helping farmers in developing countries at all.
I guess you will have to decide. However I have been scammed myself too often to simply accept the word of a large organization that seems to be making MORE MONEY themselves than that which is HELPING the farmers they claim to help.
-Charles

The Tongue: From Idioms to Idiocy

[Editor: I sometimes have a tongue problem. Do you? God has corrected most of it but I still give retorts when others insult or mock me. My prayer is that I can be like Jesus and give no answer to those who misuse their tongue against me.]

When we cut down or insult another person, what is it that is in us that wants to put someone else down?

Is that the only way we can feel lifted up by mocking others? WWJD?

If we are Christians, even if we think we are teasing, can you picture Jesus insulting his disciples or mocking their traits? Did Jesus ever mock Peter because he reacted too quickly and sometimes foolishly? Those that have an ear to hear know what Peter did in the Garden of Gethsemane.

For those who care, is it godly to insult and mock others for real or imagined characteristics? If God created and the Evil One destroys, whose side are you on when you mock or destroy a person's sense of self-esteem?

There is a fantastic TRUE book which illustrates very well the power of the tongue to build someone up or to destroy them verbally.

It is called "Positive Words, Powerful Results" by Hal Urban subtitled Simple Ways to Honor, Affirm, and Celebrate Life.

Hal Urban was a high school teacher for many years and also taught at the University of San Francisco. He is a well-known leader in the Character Education movement and is in constant demand as a speaker at national conferences and school and community events. He raised three sons as a single father, and now lives in Redwood City, California with his wife, Cathy.

Part One of the book has these telling chapters ...

1. Words Make Us Human
2. Words Can Change Lives
3. Words Can Hurt and Offend
4. Words Come from the Heart
5. Words are Choices

Then in Part Two he goes on to explain the WIN-WIN REWARDS OF POSITIVE WORDS

It is one of the best books I have ever read to explain the Biblical principles presented in excerpt below.


I found this article for your consideration. The article is presented in excerpts...
Here are the Excerpts that Apply Most Commonly



Sins of the Tongue

Much can be said of a person's character by the way they use their tongue. Sanaca once said, "Speech is the index of the mind." Jesus said that "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." (Mat. 12:34)

According to Proverbs 18:21, "Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof." In James 3:6, the Bible says that the tongue is "a fire, a world of iniquity", and James 3:8 calls the tongue a "deadly poison."

As a fool would carelessly play and prank with a loaded gun, so many Christians today do likewise with their deadly tongue. If only we could fully realize the untold damage that we are doing to the body of Christ! If only we could see the full effect of the words we use!

Perhaps a closer look into the Bible can help. God made man, and God made man's tongue, so surely God should be qualified to comment on the subject. Surely God should have some good counsel concerning the use and misuse of the human tongue. Let us consider some sins of the tongue as we find them revealed in God's word.

The Lying Tongue

Proverbs 25:18 says, "A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow." So a lying tongue is a misuse of a deadly weapon. It can be used to harm others near at hand (a maul), a few feet away (a sword), or a great distance away (an arrow). Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44), and God said that he hates a lying tongue (Pro. 6:17). All liars will have their part in the lake of fire, according to Revelation 21:8.


The Overused Tongue

Some people sin by simply overusing their tongue. Ecclesiastes 5:3 says that "a fool's voice is known by multitude of words." People think they appear smart by much talking, but the Bible states just the opposite. Ecclesiastes 5:2 says, "Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few." God doesn't like a blabber mouth. You say, "Well, that's just the way I am!" Then REPENT! Confess your sin and repent. Stop justifying your wickedness and ask God to help you repent.

The Swift Tongue

Some people are guilty of speaking too swiftly when they really need to wait before saying anything. God's word says the following in Proverbs 18:13: "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." How many times have you had to "eat" your words because you spoke too swiftly? James 1:19 warns us to be swift to HEAR and SLOW to speak. Why do you suppose God gave us two ears but only one mouth?

The Talebearing Tongue


Proverbs 18:8 says, "The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly." Leviticus 19:16 says, "Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people. . ." Every Christian has the duty to deny his own desires and seek to edify other Christians (Rom. 14:19; Philip. 2:3). Talebearing runs wholly contrary to Christian edification. Talebearing (carrying and telling tales. or gossip) spreads all sorts of hurtful information around, and Satan uses such information to hinder and tear down God's work. A victim of talebearing, according to Proverbs, is a "wounded" person. God forbid that a Christian should wound another Christian, but it does happen all the time! Some Christians live as though they think God has "called" them to bear tales on other Christians. Many "Christian" newsletters are dedicated to informing the body of Christ on the latest news about someone's ministry or personal life. There are many nice words and phrases used to justify such conduct, but the Bible word is TALEBEARING.

The Cursing Tongue

Some people, Christians included, have a nasty habit of using their tongue for cursing. Romans 3:13-14 says, "Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."

The Piercing Tongue

Another sinful tongue is the piercing tongue. Proverbs 12:18 speaks of this tongue by saying, "There is that speaketh like the piercings of a sword: but the tongue of the wise is health." Some people have a sharp piercing tongue which Satan uses to offend and insult others. The Bible commands Christians to have their speech dominated by GRACE (Col. 4:6), yet most churches have a few people who use their tongue like a sword to pierce their brethren in Christ.

It was Teddy Roosevelt who said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick," but the truth is that if you speak softly you won't need a big stick!
 
Titus 2:8 commands us to use sound speech which cannot be condemned. Friend, do you use graceful speech which cannot be evil spoken of, or do you possess a piercing tongue? Every Christian's prayer should be, "Lord, make my words gracious and tender, for tomorrow I may have to eat them."

"For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body." (James 3:2)

Copyright © 2001 James L. Melton

Isn't it time for us to grow up and stop getting our jollies from putting others down? How childish is that? What effect does it have on you when others compliment you sincerely about something you do or something you are?

What effect does it have when others belittle you?

Which would you or I rather be remembered for? Building others up or tearing them down?

References

• Why Mock Others? http://livinforchrist.multiply.com/journal/item/2392
• Why Mock and Tease? 
• Dealing with Mockers 
• Put-Downs 
• Why Do Some Criticize and Put Down? 
• People Who Put You Down 
• Do You Put People Down to Boost Your Self-Esteem 
• Can't Stand People that Put Others Down
• Why Do People Put You Down?
  

Bashing Walmart

I just saw a video bashing Walmart because a mom and pop store is struggling.

Just go to Google videos if you want to search for it. I won't give you the address.
That is a sad story. It is unfortunate. There are a LOT of things that are worse because of our modern age.

It was probably also unfortunate that:

• We still do not use horse and buggies because blacksmiths and their families  are extinct
• There are no liveries in town so the liverymen are unemployed or have gone elsewhere
  
• There are no more shoemakers because we cannot get our shoes repaired and they are so cheap imported from China.
• That there are very few passenger trains so there are few jobs for firemen, trainmen, conductors and station hands
• Section hands that tend track are a thing of the past, not needed any more
  
• We import things from China because even though very poor Chinese people are employed, much poorer than any North American, Americans and Canadians cannot have those jobs because the Chinese have them
  
• General stores are a thing of the past so all the people that worked there are unemployed
• Tim Horton's has probably put many small restaurants out of business
• Unions have probably made cars so expensive by much higher than average wage demands that new cars are now out of the reach of one-income families
• Newspapers a long time ago put press operators out of business by computerizing
• GM used to hire more people until they brought in computers which take away men's jobs
• Barrel-makers have been out of business for some time since we started using separate boxes to put the crackers in
• Coopers who made the rings which hold the barrels together are unemployed for the same reason
• Are there any tailors in your town? Not in ours because clothes are so cheap we don't need to repair clothes any more
• When I was young there were icemen that used to sell ice on the street. Where are they now? Unemployed since refrigerators were invented and cheap enough for the average person to buy.
• Also there used to be junkmen pulling a wagon down the street asking for your old scrap metal and materials. Where are they now? Now they just all go to the dump.

• Yep. When you think about it we were a lot better off in the 1800's.
•  I think we should get rid of all our cars and buy horses, take off all our Chinese clothing, throw away our Chinese runners, crowd out the existing railway stations so that they will put on more trains, hire more firemen, engineers, trainmen and conductors and section-hands,
• We should stop buying newspapers until they go back to printing presses.
• We need to start getting a tailor to make all your clothes, throw out your refrigerator, energy star or not, and get an icebox, ask someone to collect your junk metal instead of putting it in recycling, ask if anyone can repair your shoes even tho it does cost a lot more just so a shoemaker can have a job.
• Some of us need to learn how to make barrels and let's get those crackers OUT of the boxes and back into the barrels.
• All coffee shops should be closed down within 2 miles of a small restaurant even if the coffee is worse, so those mom and pop restaurants can stay in business.
•  Yes sir, we would be so much better off, even if more people die because of the spread of germs from food in open barrels, it was a better day to which we should return.
• Or NOT.
  

Anybody can say anything about anything on the internet which does not make it true.

Anybody also can make a video and upload it to YouTube. I always reserve judgement whenever I see something like this since it is the agenda of the far left to belittle Walmart usually because they shop at the Gap or other high-class store and do not see that Walmart is for the average person, the poorer person who cannot afford Gap prices.

Walmart helps people in every community it exists in including Mexico and third-world countries.

I have not even looked at the video yet but I am assuming when I see the words "prepared for .... class" that some kid did this. Even if it was CNN, there have been notable errors in CNN, CBS [Dan Rather], and absolute lying in articles in the New York Times.

So even before I look at the video my suspicion level goes up. Liberals are taught that Walmart and stores like them are using people and treating them poorly and not giving them the same benefits as American citizens...

Well, duh of course! They AREN'T usually American citizens in other countries, in fact very few would be, and when Walmart comes to Mexico, as I learned when I was down there the Mexicans that are hired think they have died and gone to heaven. They can finally make a decent stable living whether the pay is $5 an hour [which is about $5 more an hour than they WERE getting] or $15 an hour.

Who stands to gain by discrediting Walmart? Would UNIONS be one? Do unions ever see Walmart as taking their jobs and giving them to people overseas like China because Walmart buys so much overseas?

Are unions always honest and upright?

Would they like to discredit Walmart so that people would go to stores that  ALWAYS sell American-made products?

And of course we know Walmart has no competition. There are no Target stores anywhere. No Ace or Value hardware, no Best Buy, no Radio Shack. No dollar stores.

There should be laws against buying ANYTHING outside of our country so that more people in OUR country can work. Forget those Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and Taiwanese. Just because they don't have bread; let them eat cake!

As for those poorer people who obviously shop at Walmart because the prices are low, they should just wake up and get a higher-paying job so that they can afford to shop at the Gap.

Those lazy ...... protect MY $75 an hour job [including benefits]! I don't care about yours! So there!

Yup. I think the real problem is that CHANGE should be OUTLAWED! We should NOT ALLOW CHANGE! Look what it is doing to our country! Actually making things affordable! (:-)

And then we should protest in front of Walmart stores and prevent shoppers from coming in! That'll teach 'em!

Then when they close down and move farther away who cares about the lost jobs? It's all Walmart's fault.

(:-) Like I say, anyone can make a heart-rending video. However when your heart is rent you tend not to be able to use your brain.

EMOTION OVER THINKING makes you look like you've been drinking!