I suppose it is news of sorts, at least for the American public trying to decide on which candidate to vote for in the next presidential election.

From what I have read the movie was made and financed by Stephen K. Bannon who spent over 1 million dollars in making the film. Bannon is a former naval officer and banker for Golman Sachs.

Apparently the movie was made to repair Sarah Palin's damaged reputation (or at least what some might see as a damaged reputation). Sarah Palin approved the movie and apparently she narrates the film herself. The movie also seems to promote Sarah Palin as a presidential candidate for 2012. (Of course, she had said before that she would not run for the presidential election, but then politicians do that often enough).

The big question is not whether Sarah Palin's movie to empty theaters or full theaters. The big question is: Is Sarah Palin fit to be president? Right wing and religious rethoric will appeal to neoconservative voters. However, certain trends in international politics are bound to creep up on her if she is elected president.

Some 15 years ago econmists were estimating that China would become the largest economy in the world by 2020. If China's current economic growth rate continues, China's economy will overtake American economy as the largest in the world by 2015. When that happens serious question will be raised about the American government's ability to pay its debts. It is quite likely that China will "downgrade" American "bonds" (t-Bills) and begin dumping them on the market. That is a strategy that makes sense as a way to wear down an economic competitor. The US dollar will take a pounding in international markets and the American government will find it extremely difficult to acquire more debt to sustain its deficit. At the present Ben Bernanke (Chairman of the Federal Reserve) has said that the government must raise its debt limit or face default on its loans. By 2015 the situation will be untenable and if China decides to, they will cash out billions of dollars in t-Bills by dumping them on the open market.

This is the biggest threat that the United States has faced in its history. This is bigger than Al Qaeda, or the Cold War. Sadly, this is something that Americans did to themselves by consuming more than they produce and by letting their biggest companies manufacture cheaply overseas.

The Bush administration knew this and did nothing about it. The Obama administration knows this and is doing nothing about it. Can Sarah Palin tackle this threat and if so how? Traditional right wing politics (tax cuts and spending cuts combined) will do not solve the problem. Neither will religious rethoric. It will take massive scaling back in consumption and decisive moves to bring manufacturing back from China and into the United States. Whoever does this must go against the same corporations that have supported right wing political parties for decades. They will also have to increase taxes on the rich and the upper middle class to compensate for decreased ability to borrow. Spending cuts will be drastic and they will involve a massive scaling back in military spending (which remains the most expensive part of the American government). These moves will be unpopular with both political parties, but more so with the Republicans. Can Sarah Palin takes decisive moves like these or will she try to solve the problem with the same supply side economics (Reaganomics) that caused the problem in the first place? In fairness to Sarah Palin, at the present I see no politician in the US equipped to deal with this threat.

We live in a police state. Local, provincial, state, federal, etc. The police operates at every level of government and society. Intelligence agencies have the technology, money and expertise to spy on, capture and interrogate anyone. Politicians have every interest in keeping the economic and political system as they are: working strictly in their own favour.

The media (TV, newspapers, Internet, etc.) functions to ensure that the right politicians will get elected at the time most convenient for the rich and powerful to expand their wealth and power.

The masses live and die like puppets who need only two things to be happy: Walmart and MacDonalds. As long as the masses have cheap junk food and cheap trinkets, they will consume themselves into oblivion, and live a life devoid of any fighting or revolutionary spirit. They will get up every morning, go to their jobs where they are used as wage slaves, return home to be indoctrinated by their TVs, and in their spare time they will go and consume more cheap trinkets and more cheap junk food.

Anyone who refuses to live in the consumer capitalist paradise is an enemy and therefore evil. Religion has taken the place of philosophy, and it has become a self-enforcing ideology in which fear of god is used to ensure the masses remain opiated and unwilling and incapable of changing anything.

This is the police state of 1984. The difference is that as long as the citizens are free to consume, they think they are free to act. As long as the citizens cast a meaningless little vote every 4 years, they think that they have political power and the power of decision and influence over the rich and powerful who rule them.

Once in a while it is necessary to sedate the masses, so a 'bad guy" is found. somebody who did not play by the rules of the system. A Bernie Madoff or a Rupert Murdoch are good examples. Then social discontent is channeled into indignation over some corrupt powerful man. They will bombard the masses with the wrongdoings of the corrupt rich, while pretending to do something about it so that the masses don't see the need to change anything meaningful or structural in the political and economic system.

We don't have Big Brother. We have the capitalist empire, and the all powerful intelligence agencies that control the population and keep it from erupting into revolution.

In the meantime, we all go on enjoying our junk food, we keep buying cheap consumer crap, and we tell ourselves that the half truths sold on TV are the "real news".

We are so lost that we cannot see any way in which anything could ever change. The Bernie Madoffs and Rupert Murdochs will be tried, even jailed. Only to be replaced by others just as bad as them. Menawhile the masses are incapable of changing anything because of their intellectual and ideological paralysis, and their willing submission to consumerism and the comfort of the TV remote control.

I have tried to understand why all of a sudden everybody cares about Rupert Murdoch. Politicians have known for decades about what was going on. They feign ignorance only to protect their own hides. All of a sudden everybody focuses on Rupert Murdoch even though they knew for a long time what he was and what his companies were doing. I can find only two explanations for this. First, maybe Rupert Murdoch made powerful enemies. People even more powerful than him could be trying to bring him down. Powerful people can be vindictive, specially when it comes to power struggles. Second, maybe somebody is trying to block the acquisition of BSkyB. A bigger rival company might be trying to acquire BSkyB and they are trying to eliminate Murdoch's bid. In the next few weeks we will see some other company acquire BSkyB. At that point we will see how had a vested interest in ruining Murdoch. Of course, it could be a combination of the two factors. A powerful enemy trying to bring down Murdoch's empire and block his acquisition of BSkyB. Then that enemy rising to the top over Murdoch's empire's ashes.

I wish these hypocrites would stop playing games and just be straight forward and honest. The worst thing of all is to see politicians coming out playing the "open government" and "transparency" game. I will believe that BS on the day when intelligence agencies and the police stop spying on people.

Artful Dodger:

> If you're an Obama zombie, you can ignore the connection.

Yes, the Obama administration also receives the credit for bringing down Osama Bin Laden. Could it be perhaps that the higher casualties are a reflection of something the Bush administration failed to do in Afghanistan? That is, concentrate on rooting out Al Qaeda rather than build an oil empire in Iraq.

I am not an Obama zombie. If anything, Obama is one more lackey of the Capitalist Empire. However, if Obama is guilty of sending more soldiers to their deaths, then he also deserves credit for giving Al Qaeda a severe blow from which it won't recover for a long time.

For those who don't know, I found a link to Just Foreign Policy:

http://justforeignpolicy.org/

They seem to skirt around the liberal way of thinking, in spite of their claiming to be non-partisan.

In light of the NoW scandal we have to wonder how safe we are from being spied upon. Every day the technology gets better and better, and anyone can buy it online. For example:

http://spyworld.com/
http://www.mscspytek.com/
http://www.4hiddenspycameras.com/

There are literally hundreds of websites advertising equipment for spying on others. What we see in online retail outlets is only the tip of the iceberg. Professionals such as law enforcement, intelligence agencies and private investigators have at their disposal even more sophisticated equipment.

What is more alarming is the electronic data trail that we all leave behind. For example:

- Medical and dental records: doctors record in computer systems every medical procedure, diagnostic procedure or treatment course that we take.
- Retail and service records: retailers and service providers record every product or service that we purchase.
- Credit and financial data: banks, financial insitutions and credit reproting agencies have detailed records of every cent we have borrowed, spend or used in some way. They know every financial detail about us, good or bad.
- Electronic mail: e-mail servers are routinely backed up and our messages are recorded and in many cases made available legally or illegally to others.
- Telephones: land and cellular telephone companies have records of every telephone call we make, including numbers, who owns the number, times of day, locations, etc. This also includes text messages, photographs, video or any other form of data sent through telephone systems.
- Any other form of electronic data that can be stored in a computer.

There are very few laws to protect individuals. At the present laws open the data systems to law enforcement and intelligence agencies in search for terrorists and criminals. However, there is nothing to stop governments from using all of these means of communication for curtailing individual freedom and imposing a totalitarian system.

The 9-11 tragedy was used to pass legislation that Americans would never even have dreamed of. The Patriot Act gives broad powers to the government, and there is no guarantee that another terrorist attack won't cause a panic that will move the government into an even more authoritarian direction.

At the same time, private companies own and operate most of the computer systems where all the electronic data is stored. What guarantee is there that those companies will not abuse all that data?

Passing laws to protect individuals might reassure the public a little, but in reality the law is only an abstract thing. People throw the law out of the window when politically or economically convenient. Murder is illegal, but that does not stop murderers from killing people. Likewise, abusing electronic data might be illegal, but that is no guarantee that somebody (whether in the government or a private company) will not abuse the data. NoW is a sign of that. All it takes is a change in the political climate and Big Brother will be looking at everything that we do electronically. It feels like we are sitting on a ticking time bomb. It is not a matter of whether the data will be abused, but rather a matter of when. In the meantime, we continue in our ignorant bliss, oblivious to the danger that this posses to individual freedom and our right to dissent.

Our politicians act all "outraged" when a scandal like the NoW affair happens. Yet we would be very naive to think that they were unaware of what was going on. Politicians in power are themselves playing this game, and now that NoW is caught they pretend to do something or to care.

The NoW affair is nothing new. People react so surprised. Isn't eavesdropping on people what police and intelligence agencies have been doing for the last 200 years? People should look at the story of French policeman Vidoq and the birth of modern policework, spying and corruption. The Roman Praetorian Guard did it too, and we are talking over 2000 years ago.

The only reason why people are scandalized is because it is a private company instead of "good and decent" people like the CIA and MI5. I wonder how much cell phone companies eavesdrop on people, as do Internet companies. People very quickly forget that companies like Google have for years been storing and data mining e-mail and other forms of communication, and the privacy policies behind Internet companies remain murky and ambiguous.

The reason why NoW is under pressure is because they used the eavesdropping for profit. Not that intelligence agencies don't engage in industrial espionage that will later end up in the hands of private companies for profit.

Where NoW really hits a low point is when it eavesdropped on vicitims of crime and terrorism. But then, police and intelligence agencies do that too, except not for profit. Well, except when paid up by somebody to disclose the information (like NoW did). Then if politicians (like a minister, for example) put pressure on the police or intelligence agencies to spy on people, isn't winning an election a form of profit too? Watergate comes to mind here.

The reality is that the media, the police, intelligence agencies and politicians play a game that is well integrated to ensure that money and political power fall in the right place. It is a scandal and a crime only when they get caught. Then there is "plausible deniability". "We were so busy doing something else that we never noticed". The public thinks that they are getting the news and the truth, when in reality they are getting sensationalism, propaganda and indoctrination. Newspaper and TV editors are central to the scheme. It is a vice that our governments learned during the Cold War when propaganda was central to the general anticommunist indoctrination of the population. Now the media and politicians merely use it for profit.

Artful Dodger:

> Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil and more than 250 cubic feet of natural gas per day each! But, as shown here petroleum is not just used for fuel.

Now we have an excuse to continue being dependent and to continue polluting.

Yes, 90% of the consumer crap we buy is made of oil in some way or another. So we should just keep consuming and wasting because pollution (like global warming) is fictitious.

Then many countries don't want to give their oil cheaply, or give any at all. Those "enemies" of our high standard of living should be forcibly removed and replaced with puppet dictators that will give us whatever we want. A dictator is "evil" when that dictator refuses to give away commodities to the empire cheaply. Good examples are Iran, Lybia and Venezuela. If a dictator does what the western empires want, that dictator is undesirable, but we can "work" with him. Good examples are Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, etc.

Rebels are "pro democracy" when they are willing to set up governments that give away commodities cheaply in exchange for money or weapons. The rebels in Lybia are a good example. They hadn't even organized into a proper government, but the tankers were there even before the fighting really started. Rebels are terrorists when they refuse to give commodities cheaply or do business in a way that benefits the empire's monopolies. A good example is the Taliban which refused to let Unocal (now owned by Chevron) build a pipleine through Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In the meantime, the empire would rather continue the status quo: promoting war and dependance. Promoting alternative energy sources or educating the public to stop wasteful consumption are convenient only when the empire wants a certain politiician to be elected by the already apatehtic and poorly educated masses.

Artful Dodger:

> Let's see...I find excuses for a business that is legitimate and legal, you find excuses for terrorists that blow up innocent women and children and use rape as a weapon.

Yes, war is a legitimate and legal business, specially when it is used to take forcibly commodities that belong to another country. Yes, oil is legitimate and legal. But then, war planes drop chocolate bars and not 2000-pound bombs. Then Lybia has no commodities anybody cares about, except oil

I don't see you defending the actions of western countries with respect to Bahrain. I wonder if the despotic king there plays into your defense of Nato axis imperialism. But then, Bahrain lends its territory for military bases for the UK and the US. I don't see you saying anything about that government putting in prison doctors and nurses who treated injured protesters, or the over 250 people who were made to "disappear".

It is all legitimate business in Bahrain. After all, besides allowing military bases in their country, they provide all the financial services for the oil industry in the Persian Gulf. I wonder if western banks and the Nato axis would be happy with regime change there. So what if it is a brutal dictatorship? It is all "legitimate and legal".

In the meantime, why is it that the Nato axis refuses to disclose how many civilians their planes have killed in Tripoli?

It is just like Iraq. Like Generalissimo Tommy Franks said "We don't do body counts".

Yes, Gaddafi is a brutal dictator. He should go. But then so should all the pro-western puppet dictators propped up by western intelligence agencies. Dictatorship is legitimate and legal, if it does what the empire wants.

Artful Dodger:

> They got beat by a bunch of farmers.

> We saved them in WWI and WWII.

Americans keep telling themselves that they saved the world from the Nazis. This is the myth they have repeated to themselves since the end of WW II.

But history shows that up until 1942 the US was doing business with the Nazis. The US did not decide to stop doing business with the Nazis until Pearl Harbor was attacked and until it was clear that the Nazis had lost the battle on the eastern front with the Soviet Union. The Traidng with the Enemy Act was not passed until 1942, and those Americans who collaobrated with the Nazis are well known.

The true saviors were the Soviets who lost 23 million people in order to give Hitler a crushing defeat. So bad was Hitler defeated by the Soviets that he had little left to defend the western front. The Soviets marched across Europe virtually unopposed. If the US had not entered the war, the Soviet Union would have completely taken over Germany and France under the Vichy government.

Well, Americans give no credit to the Soviet Union or to Nikita Kruschev, probably the best military leader of the 20th century. That is a legacy of the Cold War. The US and Western Europe downplayed the Soviet contribution to the war out of fear that people might see the Soviet Union as the ones who defeated Hitler.

Artful Dodger:

> leave it to you to find excuses for a known terrorist

Leave it to you to find excuses for an oil empire.

Artful Dodger:

> A Militant Gadhafi Threatens to Target European ‘Homes, Offices, Families’
Posted on July 1, 2011 at 2:30pm by Billy Hallowell

> ***This is exactly the type of threat that Saddam carried out. Instead of fighting the US, he targeted civilians in Israel. Both are thugs and cowards.

Let's see. The Regan admnistration bombed his home and killed his son in the 80s. Then recently the Nato axis bombed his home and killed his other son, his son's best friend, and his three grandchildren, aged 2 years old and six months old. Gaddafi should love the West and send flowers and teddy bears to every western government in the Nato axis.

I am sure the Nato axis is very brave for killing children with war planes. Then the Nato axis really, really did not take sides in a civil war inside Lybia. The opposition trying to depose Gaddafi was never, never infiltrated by Al Qaeda. And oil tankers never came to rebel-held territory to ship oil to refineries in the UK.

Just like in Iraq, it is all about the war on terror and democracy. Oil has nothing to do with it. If Lybia had no oil, the Nato axis would still be bombing Lybia just like they took such an active role in Bahrain and deposed a despotic king who jailed and made disappear hundreds of opponents.

If Gaddafi is a coward and a thug, then the Nato axis is a fascist empire of hypocrites that acts only when politically and economically convenient.

Iamon lyme:

> They don't come close to extinguishing all life on earth.

Like I said in severfal of my posts below, the problem with global warm ing is not one of ice melting and coastlines rising. The worst that could happen is that governments will have to move cities inland as water advances slowly. Some cities already under sea level will be overrun by the sea. That is not the problem here.

The real problem is the vapour pressure of water. A change of 1 degree Celsius in atmospheric temperature causes an increase in the vapor pressure of water. That means that 1 degree rise becomes an increase of 5 to 8% in the rate of evaporation of water from the surface of the earth. Now soild are drying 5 to 8 % faster than before. That will lead to a large increase in arid regions (deserts) in the planet, and an accompanying decrease in arable land surface. That means that grain will become harder to cultivate and it will become a lot more expensive. The middle class will just pay more for their food. The real problem is the poor (which make 2/3 of the population of the world). The poor will not be able to afford higher grain prices and a lot of people will go hungry.

The problem is not one of the world "ending" as they paint it in a couple of sensationalistic movies. The problem will be one of growth of deserts and famine.

People have to get out of the "end of the world" mindset, and start thinking of a growing population and less land to feed it because deserts are getting bigger every day.

People in North America are spoiled because the Prairies produce so much grain. Imagine life with half the grain we have now, all because the planet warmed up 1 degree Celcius. The grassland prairies of North America are for the most part semi-arid. They are the breadbasket of the world and a reduction in water in the soil will push them from semi-arid to arid, making them a lot less productive. That will be the true impact of global warming. Coastlines will be merely but an incovenience when compared to famine.

rod03801:

> Well the problem with someone like G.E. is taken care of by fixing stupid tax loop-holes. NOT increasing taxes. Increasing taxes will just have G.E. finding loop holes for that too.

That's precisely the point. You say that the rich pay their fair share, but the truth is that they don't. All those "loopholes" are the exemptions and tax breaks that the rich can exploit to get away with paying less taxes. The entire taxation system (and that is not only in the USA but in most western capitalist countries) is designed to favor the rich and make sure that they pay far less taxes than the middle class. There is a myriad of exemptions and breaks that the big corporations can employ, and when that is nor enough they lobby for even more tax breaks. That is what is happening now. Republicans are pushing for tax breaks, but on behalf of big corporations. GE paid $0 in taxes. that's right, the third largest company in the world paid NO taxes in 2010. Then you have to wonder what other corporations are getting away with, and why the dificit is so bad. Is it because of massive spending or because of tax breaks for the rich? In reality it is both, but the proposed solution is to cut spending and at the same time give more tax breaks to the rich. That means that the burden of sustaining the deficit falls on the middle class, while the poor have less services from the government they elected.

rod03801:

> It's time to stop blaming and crying about who did what. It's past time to FIX it.

The question is: Can it be fixed? Cinsidering the number if manufacturing jobs that have been shipped overseas, and the large number of people employed by the military, can the American economy be sustained? Once the wars end and the troops come home, unemployment will rise very quickly and tax revenues will shrink. Retailers and manufacturers are quite happy to continue to manufacture overseas where salaries are low. That means that less Americans will contribute into the taxation system.

The only solution I see is to make the tax cuts targetted. Companies that manufacture domestically would receive a tax cut. Those that manufacture abroad would get no tax cuts at all. Not only that, but a tariff should be imposed when they import their products into North America. In the short term a measure like that would cause inflation, but in the long term it would create jobs and the revenue necessary to increase tax dollars coming into the treasury.

This idea will never fly because the companies that manufacture abroad (like Walmart, GE, Intel, etc.) have too much power and they would lobby to kill any legislation that protects American jobs.

rod03801:

> The "rich" already pay more than their share of the taxes.

I want you to prove that by telling us all how much General Electric paid in taxes last year. That might show us how the rich pay "their fair share".

lizrising:

> Please explain how vegetation produces CO2. I must have missed that lesson in biology class.

Plants, just like animals, consume carbohydrate for energy and growth. A plant releases carbon dioxide as it uses carbohydrate as fuel. A plant releases and absorbs carbon dioxide and oxygen through stomata on the leaves. During the day the plant udergoes photosynthesis and converts carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrate and oxygen. This carbohydrate is used to provide energy as well as a raw material for growth. At night there is no sunlight so photosynthesis stops. Instead the plant uses the carbohydrate and releases carbon dioxide and water, the reverse of photosythesis. The plant grows because during the day it produces far more carbohydrate than it burns. Since the amount of carbohydrate is in excess of what is consumed for energy, the plant produces a much larger amount of oxygen than the amount of carbon dioxide. While a plant produces carbon dioxide, the net result is one of oxygenation of the atmosphere. Plants remove carbon dioxide and turn into glucose, which is in turn polymerized into cellulose. When you see a tree, the trunk, branches, leaves, etc. are a big store of carbon dioxide converted into cellulose. That cellulose can be burned for energy. It is why wood is a good fuel. But when we burn wood all that stored CO2 is realeased back into the atmosphere.

Does more CO2 mean more vegetation? In a greenhouse it does. Many greenhouses enrich the atmosphere with CO2 to stimulate plant growth. it works because the plants get warth, CO2, fertilizer and water. On the global scale of our atmosphere more CO2 does not translate into more vegetation when rainfall is low or the soil can't retain moisture. With global warming, rainfall will become erratic or change its patterns. The soil will retain less humidity. So more atmosphereic CO2 might mean death of vegetation rather than a lush jungle everywhere.

rod03801:

> Seems regardless of whatever blame games everyone wants to play, FORCED cuts in spending are VITAL.

There is no other choice left. The USA will be forced to go into austerity measures like Greek and Portugal have done. The spending cuts that have been pushed through due to Republican pressure are not enough, and the tax cuts are simply adding wood to the fire.

Obama wants to leave Afghanistan because the USA has no choice. The cost of the war is too great. That lesson was learned during the Vietnam era. The US withdrew when the OPEC crisis caused a big spike in interest rates and the American government had no choice but to cut spending and leave the war.

The only thing that I dislike is how Republicans are bullying Obama when they started the mess in the first place.

Right now Republicans are forcing the Obama administration to cut spending and give tax breaks to the rich. Yet, why are the American economy and the deficit so bad? A new report estimates the cost of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to be at least 3.7 trillion dollars.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-cost-war-least-3-7-trillion-counting-110411362.html

Apparently, the interest alone for the deficit is 185 billion dollars.

Those Republicans that are pushing the Obama administration for spending cuts and tax breaks should at least have the decency to admit that it was their political party and the Bush administration that decided to plunge the United States into war. Now the same people that created the mess are forcing cuts and tax breaks. I wonder if those Republicans will cut their own salaries as a gesture of admission of the mess they created. Can the Obama administration be expected to succeed in anything considering the mess left behind by the Bush administration? The Republicans mortgaged away the future of the United States, and now that mortgage can't be paid.

Artful Dodger:

> Hey, she's hot, hot, hot. ;)

The question is, when some hostile country develops a nuclear bomb, will her good looks save the world?

Artful Dodger:

> How much steel and land do “environmentally friendly” energy technologies use? Is this “sustainable”?

Every industrial activity (even the "Green" industries) consume land, natural resources and energy. It is a given.

Wind turbines require steel, aluminium, lubricants, wiring, electronics, etc. Pollution is generated from the manufacture of wind turbines.

Solar panels are not much better. Refining silicon wafers is very energy intensive. There there is copper, plastics, metal, glass, etc.

If wind turbines use land, so do oil wells and drilling rigs. If wind turbines use steel, so do oil wells, drilling platforms, pump jacks, etc.

One must look at the sum total of energy spent during manufacture and energy generated during consumption. Oil wins at the moment because the amount of energy used during extraction, transportation and refining is relatively low compared to the amount extracted when oil products are burned. This is why oil is cheaper than wind turbines.

One must also look at the amount of pollution generated during manufacture, production, transporation, consumption, accidental spills, etc. Oil production can be very messy when spills occurr. Oil releases a lot of carbon dioxide when burned. There is also nitrogen oxides, ozone and other pollutants generated during combustion. Windmills and solar panels win on the pollution side because once they are manufactured and installed, they generate almost no pollution. That is what makes renewable energy sources attractive.

Then we have to remember that is most of the energy comes from renewable sources, then a more ecologically balanced manufacture or wind turbines and solar panels is possible. The raw materaials can come from recycled steel, aluminium, plastics, glass, etc. The energy comes from a renewable source, so less fossil fuels are used during manufacture.

Slowly, the renewable side can add up leading to a decrease of our dependance on oil. The problem is that people want a solution right now. People don't want to wait 30 years for renewable energy to become viable.

Artful Dodger:

> Not at 100% levels. And it won't drive our cars. At the moment, you need both types of energy. And you can't stop producing oil when you don't have in place a replacement. It's that simple.

Not with the current technology. We still need oil for motor vehicles. There is no current technology that can replace the diesel engine in a tractor-trailer carrying tons of cargo. The day might come when we will. In the meantime we still need oil.

But electricity is something else. The problem is that people think in very selfish, nationalistic terms.

If Iceland can make 100% of its energy from geothermal sources, North America should aim at developing a similar source in places where it is viable. It would be impossible to do that in Saskatchewan or Florida, but it might be viable in volcanic regions. Electricity could be generated in Guatemala (a very volcanic country) and redistributed north through Mexico and the USA. It would help Guatemala and Mexico develop thier economy while the USA would get a respite from some of the oil dependence.

Unfortunately, everybody gets nationalistic. The USA has the capital to invest, but not the willingness to do so while oil remains cheap. Mexicans will want to make a big profit, as will Guatemalans. Guatemala completely lacks the infrastructure and the capital. All in all everybody will keep using oil until it becomes so expensive that building geothermal plants in Central America becomes cheaper.

Once energy is generated efficiently from a renewable source, it can be used to generate synthetic fuels. For example, electricity can be used to power a Fischer-Tropsch catalyst and make hydrocarbons from carbon dioxide and water. Methanol can be synthesized too and used in fuel cells to power motor vehicles.

The big challenge right now is the lack of infrastructure and capital. Many of the technologies are there, but their cost is too great when compared to oil extraction and refining. We could replace oil at this point, but the cost would be too great. Nobody wants to pay $2000 per month for an electricity bill.

Artful Dodger:

> I know that there are BILLIONS of dollars just waiting for green energy producers. They are no different than other so-called greedy fossil fuel energy companies. And in spite of what the Geek claims, the question isn't between an energy source that produces LESS pollution, it's about one energy source that works, and another that is yet to prove it can meet demand (it can't - and you'll be dead before it can).

Are green energy producers greedy? Sure they are. It is greed that drives capitalism.

The question is, can green energy meet the demand?

In the UK 7% of electricity consumes is produced from renewable sources. In the USA electricity generation from renewable sources has now reached 10%. Japan also produces 10% of its electricity from renewable sources. Germany produces 18% of its electricity from renewable sources. France produces 14%.

In Denmark 29% of the energy is produced from wind power and renewable energy sources. The Danish transition occurred in the last 15 years or so, and "Green" energy generation is increasing at a rate of about 1% per year. It might seem like slow progress, but then their reliance on fossil fuels decreases every day.

In Canada 64.5% of the electricity consumed is produced from renewable energy sources. Considering Canada's long, dark winters, it is a good record. However, the public perception among Canadians is that the government is not doing enough.

Then, we look at Iceland where 100% of its electricity generation is from renewable resources with geothermal energy being the dominant form of green energy. Iceland can do this on account of high volcanic activity, high incidence of geisers and other surface geothermal vents, and a low population. Hower, it shows that where there is a will there is a way.

The myth that renewable (i.e. green) sources cannot meet the demand is probbly more true in motor vehicles. It is in this big sector that fossil fuels still dominate. However, if more electricity is generated from renewable sources, then consumers will slowly switch to electrical vehicles for daily transport while slowly phasing out gasoline-powered vehicles.

We should also note that the USA consumes a lot more electricity per person than many other countries. Renewable sources do have a difficult time meeting the high demand in the USA. Renewable energy will become the dominant form of energy production as oil becomes more expensive and North Americans begin to rethink their energy consumption habits.

China is another country that has a hard time adopting renewable energy. The fast rate of economic expansion has meant that demand for electricity is far in excess of the supply. To meet that demand China uses their main natural resource, coal, and imports vast quantities of oil from neighboring Kazakhstan and Russia.

What we can learn from this is that the situation is complex. The viability of green energy sources is affected by population distribution, weather patterns, geological patterns, geography, water availability, economic growth, etc. Under some circumstances green energy has worked very well. In other cases fossil fuels can meet the demand.

I suppose it is a matter of willingness to change and willingness to invest. One thing is certain. Whether global warming is true factor or not, we should make every effort to reduce pollution.

Artful Dodger:

> The reason is sounds like a hoax is because it is a hoax.

OK, let's say that global warming is a hoax. Does that mean that it is ok to continue to release carbon dioxide and other pollutants in the way we are doing now? Is it OK to continue to increase gas emissions from fossil fuels? It is a hoax, does that mean it is OK to continue polluting?

Artful Dodger:

> green energy can't produce anything without some sort of pollution for one.

Every industrial activity pollutes. The question is, what pollutes more or less? Green energy also generates pollution and waste. But does it produce more than fossil fuels? What is more desirable more or less pollution?

> And for two, there isn't ANY efficient green energy that can supply energy needs to huge populations. Period.

Can green energy outdo fossil fuels? It depends on environmental factors. In cold, long, dark winters it can't. In sunny, warm and temperate climates solar energy is viable. In other places wind turbines might be more appropriate, as could harnessing energy from tides, volcanoes, crops that produce ethanol or methanol.

The problem we face is that the fossil fuel industry wants no competition. They want to retain their energy monopoly. People who promote green energy are not blind or dumb. The objective is not to destroy the oil industry. The objective is to reduce the amount of fossil fuel consumed to a sustainable level, rather than continue to increase the atmospheric concentration of pollutants. The public perception has shifted. People now want to see changes in the way we generate energy. "Drill, drill, drill" might have found resonance several years ago. Now people wonder "Drill and pollute what?"

In the future all this pollution will cause problems of agricultural production and human health. Trying to save plant and animal species is important. However, the real problem is going to be drier top soil, drought, desert expansion, and reduced grain production. That is the human impact of global warming. Like I said, 1 degree Celcius means 5 to 8% increase in the rate of water evaporation from the soil. The middle class will simply pay more for food. The poor will starve because they won't be able to afford it. We are not the ones who will pay the price. It is young people 50 years from now who will suffer and have to deal with the mess we leave behind. I certainly don't want my grandchildren to live in a wolrd like that.

Artful Dodger:

> Conservatives give of their own money.

Is that so? When Ronald Regan caused the largest percent increase in the deficit and the national debt, was he giving away "conservative money" or "liberal money"? What about Bush? When he bankrupted the American economy, did he give away "conservative money"? Get real, for all their talk, right wingers have caused the largest increases in the deficit and the national debt. Their "tax breaks" did not save the economy, they just sank it into a deeper hole.

> Liberals want to take money from others and distribute it. That is what most liberals mean by heart.

Yes, it is terrible to tax the rich and give to the poor. I mean, it is horrible to help poor people. We should just let them all starve to death. Then when they are poor and desperate we can have a revolution and let the communists take over. For all of their talk, right-wingers are incapable of admitting that without social programs that "redistribute wealth" we would have massive social unrest. If anything, all those social programs arose in order to stop communism from continuing to expand and gain support among the poor.

> Look at the Geek. He's so happy to vilify the big oil companies. Are those of you on the left so foolish to really believe that there isn't billions to be made on green energy as well? Even while the promises of going green are bigger than the reality, those in the green business are just as bad, if not worse, than those in the big oil companies. Only a completely gullible person would think a green CEO isn't in it for the money.

Like I said, who deserves my hard-earned cash, a polluter or a cleaner. You tell me. Do you truly believe that a company that encourages pollution (like Exxon has done by giving money to anti-climate change "experts") deserves your hard-earned dollars?

Yes, "Green CEOs" are in it for the money. This is supposed to be capitalism, or should the state openly work for the benefit of oil companies like the Bush admnistration did? Oh, just to remind myself, what does Arbusto Energy mean, who worked for Haliburton, who worked for Chevron? Should the state favor companies that pollute more or companies that pollute less?

Artful Dodger:

> you are so naive. Who do you think is driving the green energy? Non profits?

Let me see ... Who should profit from my hard-earned money? A company that pollutes more or one that pollutes less? I guess giving my money to oil companies that pollute more is OK. At least that is what right-wingers seem to think. If a solar-power company makes a profit it must be really bad compared to how many billions fossil fuel companies make.

Yes, i am naive for thinking that if the world is capitalist, those companies that want to clean it up should make a profit in preference to those that want to pollute it more. But then, Exxon never gave money to your anti-climate change experts.

People don't get the problem with global warming. It is not floods, or tornadoes, or temperture extremes, or melting of ice caps, or sea levels. All of that is important, but not the key. The real problem is one of the vapor pressure of water. Near room temperature (25 degrees celcius) an increase of 1 degree leads to an increase of 5 to 8% in the vapor pressure of water. That means that water evaporates at a rate 5 to 8% higher just by increasing the temperature 1 degree Celcius. If the entire atmosphere of the planet increases in temperature by 1 degree Celcius, then evaporation of water from the top soil will increase by 5 to 8%. That means that the soil will become drier than it already is. That spells a catasprophe in agricultural terms because some of the most fertile areas of the Earth (the Prairies) will yield a lot less grain if soil humidity decreases. This will lead to a terrible shortage of grain worldwide. As it is, grain prices are already at an all time high. A furthe increase will leave hundreds of million of people hungry. We will see famine on a scale that has not been seen since the 19th century. That is the real problem with global warming, the spectre of famine. Sea levels and ice caps are nice to worry about, but nobody seems to worry much about the poor of the world who will go hungry if something is not done. The problem is that those who speak of global warming do it from their own comfortable middle calss stance, and those oil, gas and coal companies that oppose global warming do it thinking only of their profit without caring about the fate of the poor. Nobody wants to talk about this because in our capitalist world thinking of the poor goes against individualistic, selfish profits for individuals.

Artful Dodger:

> It's not worth ruining our economy over something that isn't necessary.

Is it your economy or Exxon's economy? Who benefits from oil consumption and who makes the profit?

Of course, those who do not believe that CO2 is bad could explain to people whether smog in cities is bad or not. After all, all that smog is coming from motor vehicles, factory exhausts, HVAC systems, etc. I wonder if those who think that global warming is a joke would agree that living in polluted cities is good. Well, it is easier to say that global warming is a hoax than to accept that reducing energy consumption and waste is necessary. I wonder if those who are trying to debunk global warming ever got money from oil companies.

"One of the biggest opponents of action on global warming has been the fossil fuels energy industry, and particularly the oil industry, such as ExxonMobil, which regularly publishes papers minimizing the threat of global warming. In 1998, the company started providing financial support to organizations and individuals who disagreed with the scientific consensus that human activities were contributing to climate change. One of the groups that received funds from the company was the Competitive Enterprise Institute. ExxonMobil also helped create the "Global Climate Science Team" whose members were active climate contrarians. According to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil dispersed roughly $16 million to organizations that were challenging the scientific consensus view. After heavy criticism from the press and environmental groups in late 2006 and early 2007, ExxonMobil began distancing itself from these organizations.
In 2005, the oil giant opposed a shareholders' resolution to explain the science behind its denial of global warming."

What a coincidence what Exxon (the biggest cotributor to the Bush election campaigns, and biggest profiteer in Iraq) wqould fork out money to oppose global warming.

Tuesday:

> What were the political charges against Jesus?

According to the Gospel of Matthew, when jesus was born, Herod the Great set out to kill every infant in Bethlehem. The Massacre of the Innocents occurred because the Magi announced that a new king of the Jews had been born. Herod wanted to kill the infant so as to protect his throne from an usurper. This is the first attempted killing of Jesus on political accounts, since Herod saw the new king of the Jews as a political threat. It must be noted that biographers of Herod the Great deny the event took place since there are no records of it outside the gospel of Matthew.

When Jesus was captured, the Sanhedrin (Council of the Jews) accuse him, find him guilty and sentence him to death because Jesus had claimed to be the Son of God. Jesus was sent to Pontius Pilate for trial. Pontius Pilate sends him to Herod Antipas (son of Herod the Great) because Jesus fell under Herod's jurisdiction. Herod Antipas mocks Jesus for not wanting to perform miracles for him, and sends Jesus back to Pilate. Pontius Pilate found Jesus innocent of any crime under Roman Law. However, the mob demands the release of Barabbas (a rioter, revolutionary and criminal) instead of Jesus. Politically, Barabbas opposed the Roman occupation, so to the crowd he would have been a favorite. The killing of Jesus was orchestrated by Caiphas, a Roman-appointed Jewish high priest.

What would be the political reasons for killing Jesus?
1. Pontius Pilate wanted to give the mob what it wanted instead of dealing with a rebellion caused by the incarceration of Barabbas.
2. Herod Antipas (like his father Herod the Great) would execute anyone claiming to be the King of the Jews. Otherwise the people could accept somebody else as king rather than himself.
3. Caiphas would execute anyone claiming to be the son of God because that would mean that there was somebody with a closer relationship to God than Caiphas had in his role as high priest.
4. The mob wanted a known rebel and rioter like Barabbas freed because he was more likely to oppose Roman domination than a pacifist like Jesus.

> Was anyone else crucified for claiming to be who he was?

The Gospels mention false prophets living during the time of Jesus. There were men performing feats of magic and claiming to be the Messiah. The Gospels do not indicate the fate of those men because the focus of the Gospels is on the life of Jesus. In all likelyhood, men like that would be incarcerated or killed for opposing the power of the Herods and the high priests. Jesus would not have been the only one to claim to be the Son of God or the Messiah. Of course, to Christians Jesus is the true Son of God and the Messiah, but to the Jews in Judea of 2000 years ago Jesus would have been one more heretic making grandiose claims.

It must be noted that neither the Massacre of the Innocents, nor the existence of Jesus Christ or Jesus Barabbas, or the practice of freeing prisoners during Passover are mentioned anywhere else outside the New Testament. Historically, none of the events can be proven by corroboration with historical records from that era.

As an aside: Coincidentally, Barabbas was actually called Jesus bar-Abbas. Jesus was a common name. The actual Hebrew is יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yĕhōšuă‘, Joshua), Jesus being the latinized version of the Hellenic transliteration of the name.

Tuesday:

> The Jews didn't reject Jesus? He was beaten beyond looking human, and hung on a cross. It was mostly because they couldn't accept a poor man and one of their own as the Son of God.

That is a blanket statement. First, it was not every Jew that did this. Second, crucifixion was a Roman form of execution. Jews would most likely have practiced stoning to death. Third, from the point of view of the Jews of that era, Jesus was a heretic, someone who did not follow traditional Judaism.

Would the Jews accept Jesus as the Son of God? Some guy walks out of the street and tells you: "I am the true son of God". Would you believe him? You are thinking in terms of how modern Christians see Jesus. To the Jews of that era Jesus would not have been the only man to claim to be the Messiah or the son of God. Many religious zealots made that claim, just as today we have many preachers who claim to talk to God, or who claim to know when the Final Judgement will come, etc. Jesus was lost among all the false prophets and zealots. Of course, what would later become Christianity accepted him as the Son of God. However, people forget that Christianity did not exist when jesus was alive, and Jesus did not think of himself as the originator of a new religion. Jesus was first and foremost a Jew who preached a different message. The Bible says that he was executed wrongfully and cruelly. However, it is obvious that his execution was political. The mob wanted Barrabas released, and the Romans always gave the mob what it wanted in order to avoid strife and dissent within the empire. Jesus was executed not out of rejection of his teachings, but as an execution by an angry mob. He was paraded around to give the mob a spectacle as well as to terrify the mob into submission first to Rome and second to the power of the Pharisees.

Tuesday:

> The Jews rejected his teachings and Peter had a vision telling him to teach the Gentiles as well after Jesus' own ppl rejected him.

We have to remember that Christianity did not exist at the time of Jesus. Jesus never set out to reform or modify Judaism. Neither did the Jews accept or reject his teachings. In reality Jesus belonged to a minority of Jews who was dissatisfied with the way the powerful Pharisees in Jerusalem were running things. People from Galilee saw their greed for wealth and power as opposed to what God had intended for human beings to do on this earth. John the Baptist was also from that same stream of thought.

At the time there were many religious "dissidents", most of them living near the shores of the Dead Sea, away from Roman rule. The Pharisees and Herod had completely surrendered to the Romans. Some people chose armed struggle, others chose a spiritual form of rebellion. Those who sought a spiritual path to liberation started questioning the old ways. This is how baptism arose as a way to clean a person from their sins.

When Jesus had his ministry, he was not the great originator of a new religion as we see him today. He was merely a carpenter's son trying his best to teach people a different way in a world full of greed and violence. Jesus lived and died without immediate impact. His teachings remained only among his apostles and relatively few followers. In that sense Jews neither accepted or rejected him, because for the majority of the population he would have been one more spiritual rebel trying to change the world.

It was St. Paul who worked hard to change things. St. Paul himself had been converted from a Jew and Roman into a follower of Jesus. Prior to his conversion Paul the Apostle persecuted the early Christians, probably along with other dissidents of Pharisee spiritual rule. St. Paul saw the strength of Jesus' message, and set out to spread it along with his apostles. Jesus teachings did not find much resonance among Jews, but they found resonance among Greeks. It is at that point that Christianity accepted Gentiles into the fold, because Paul himself was a gentile Roman. It is also why the New Testament was written predominantly in Greek and not Aramaic.

In reality the distinction between Judaism and Christianity arose slowly over two hundred years after the death of Christ. Christians took many of the old rituals of Judaism and transformed them into symbolic rituals. Circumcision was replaced with baptism. The ritual sacrifice of lambs was replaced with the Eucharist. Many of these conversions had an origin in alternate rituals in old Judaism, but they did not gain their deep spiritual significance until the apostles spread the word of Jesus.

I wouldn't say Jews rejected Jesus. Rather, Jews had no chance to hear his message considering the brutality of Roman rule and the ultimate expelling of Jews from their homeland. Jews survived as a distinct culture and religion by handing onto their old ways as best as they could. The more they were prosecuted, the harder they fought to retain their religion culture and values. It comes as no surprise that they refused conversion to Christianity and Islam in spite of 2000 years of discrimination and prosecution.

Artful Dodger:

> It was a political conflict and the US got involved because of world politics and NOT becasue of any religious belief.

That is exaclty what I am getting at. I see these right wing evangelicals come out and say that the US is a Christian nation.Yet as Christian they gladly put aside some of Christianity's central teachings in order to condone a war. The question then is? How can these people call themselves Christians and condone a war? Others (I can't remember if you yourself did) have posted in the past that the US is a nation founded on Christian principles. You yourself come out and defend Christianity on one hand, and war on the other. Then you say "the other side made us do it" or "Islam is evil". You make political excuses for compromising your faith.

Sarah Palin defends gun posession. Is that the Christian way? Or is she merely compromising her faith for political gain? I have seen too much of that among Christians. Let's say that we believe one thing, and do another. Did you or did you not support the war in Iraq? And if you did, how does that reconcile with your Christian teachings? Or did you compromise your teachings for the sake of politics? Did you protest against the war based on deeply held beliefs in peace and love for other human beings? Or did you say, "geez, they are so evil that war is OK"? How does that compare to Jesus dying on the cross and saying "forgive them father for they know not what they do"?

Radical Moslems are violent because the Koran "says that they should be". At least in their interpretation of it. But the NT says that people should be good to one another, they should avoid violence, they should treat others as they want to be treated themselves. So what excuse do Christians have for condoning war?

Al Qaeda is an Islamic organization. Al Qaeda attacked the United States killing nealry 3000 people. Therefore an Islamic organization killed nearly 3000 people.

The logic is simple and there is no way Al Qaeda can weasel its way out of that one.

Iran is an Islamic country. Iran supports Hezbollah, a terrorist group. Therefore an Islamic country supports a terrorist group.

Again, the logic simple and there is no way Iran can weasel its way out of that one.

On the other hand ...

The United States is a Christian Nation. The United States went to war in Vietnam killing 6 million people. Therefore a Christian nation went to war killing 6 million people.

The United States is a Christian Nation. The United States went to war in Iraq based on false intellegence, and killed 400,000 people. Therefore a Christian nation went to war in Iraq based on false intellegence, and killed 400,000 people.

The United States is a Christian Nation. The United States has supported, funded and armed brutal fascist dictators around the world. Therefore a Christian nation has supported, funded and armed brutal fascist dictators around the world.

Now, people will have no problem accepting the first two about Al Qaeda and Iran. But the ones about the US will be unacceptable. Right wing evangelical Christians in the US insist that the US is a Christian nation founded on the principles of Christianity. Now, considering the wars that the US has been involved in, we can say that a Christian nation has gone to war, as much as an Islamic nation has supported terrorism. Can the US weasel its way out of that one without making lame excuses?

Artful Dodger:

> The big flaw in your thesis is that in Islam, the evil is in the teachings. In Christianity, you won't find that same kind of teaching in any measure. Christianity does not promote, advocate, or encourage evil in any way shape or form. Islam does.

The flaw with your thesis is that you assume that people are defined by their ideology, but that is wrong. People are defined by their actions. I can go and say that I am a great Christian, then cheer when my country goes to war for oil. that is hardly a good Christian but a hypocrite. Then when people ask me why I supported the war, I will say that it was the other side that was to blame and in doing so I will have washed my hands of the simple fact that I condoned violence. Hypocrysy at its best. Christianity has been like that through its history. Christians suffer from a "victim" complex, always blaming others when in reality it is their own greed and selfishness that has driven them to war.

> You're an atheist. More people have been killed in the world by godless people than have by those professing faith in Jesus.

Is that so? Christians sent an estimated 60 million natives in the Americas to their deaths. Entire cultures were massacred, violated and enslaved. So great was the killing that Europeans had to start importin African slaves to work the plantations after they ran out of natives to abuse. Not even a madman like Joseph Stalin can compare to that.


> The New Testament clearly teaches killing is wrong. No amount of complaining by you will change that.

And ALL Christians REALLY follow that?

> Early in the 1600's, when different countries were vying for control of the New World, Protestants and Catholics were at war. The Catholic French were killing en mass the Protestant immigrants. The opposite was true as well. It was a Territorial war as much as it was about religion. Each side believed they were doing what God wanted. How they could possibly kill in the name of God is strange to those living in the 21st century. Clearly, there is no NT teaching to support such things.

Again you insisit in dovorcing people's actions from their ideology. The teachings are great, and people's actions don't count. It is the lame excuse of those who refuse to accept that Cristians are hypocrytes in spite of the good teachings they received from Jesus. A Moslem could very well argue that the violent tone fo the Koran is a reflection of the politics of the times. Mohammad had to fight against the powerful men in Mecca and Medina. Hence the the tone is violent, but it had nothing to with the "true" teachings of Islam. Blah blah, it would be the same empty excuse of divorcing actions from ideology.

Christians are defined by their actions. In the end is God not judging people's actions? Christianity has been brutal in its history, and Christians close their eyes and deny it because accepting the truth is too painful.

> But these facts say nothing about Christianity. You can't get these ideas from the Bible. They aren't there. Further, any intelligent student of the Bible understands that the Old Testament isn't a guidebook for the New Testament believer. So appeals to the OT are moot.

So Christians are worse then because at least Moslems have an excuse. The Koran says I should go to war, so i did. But Christians are a lot worse. The Bible says I should be peaceful, but instead I disregard my teachings and I go to war. Moslems have an excuse, what excuse do Christians have?

> However, the Koran is full of such teachings of hate and killing. As are the other authoritative writings in Islam. And Muhammad's life, as an example, clearly shows a history of violence, war, and aggression. He taught his followers to do the same.

Like I said, Islam has an excuse on accounts of their violent ideology. What is Christianity's then?

Artful Dodger:

> SOME individual Muslims are ok. Islam is evil. Completely evil. Yes.

I think some religious people are OK, but in esence religion is evil, completely evil. We look at the millions who have died in religious wars and that convinces me that the problem is not just Islam but all religion. Christianity is no better because Christians have been as war like and destructive as other religions. If Islam is evil, so is Christianity and its zeal to convert others, willingly or forcibly. Those who doubt it have to look at the Inquisition, the Crusades, the conquest of the Americas, and the brutal support of Christianity for fascist dictators.

Artful Dodger:

> You're right. Women are too stupid to figure it out on their own. Let's get the government involved.

I don't see where Al Gore said that. He is talking about educating women. Nowhere does he say that the state should impose on women how many children they should have. Well, as always, people read something quoted out of context by somebody else. It is normal these days.

For edification purposes, I found the Games for Change Convention website:

http://www.gamesforchange.org/

According to their website:

"Founded in 2004, Games for Change is the leading global advocate for supporting and making games for social impact. We bring together organizations and individuals from the social impact sector, government, media, academia, the gaming industry and the arts to grow the field, incubate new projects and provide an open platform for the exchange of ideas and resources."

They make games that try to educate about socially important issues. For example, they have a game called EnerCities in which the player is supposed to try to balance people, the planet's environment and profit.

At the event Al Gore gave the opening keynote speech about how digital games can have a positive social impact. His speech was never about women or the government.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/35310/G4C_Al_Gore_Says_Games_Have_Clearly_Arrived_As_A_Mass_Medium.php

If the issue of women's education arose, it would have been during the Q&A period after his speech, and then at no point in time did he intimate that the state should control women's choices.

I think that when you read your blogs, you have to remember that those who blog are self-appointed experts. They give their own interpretation (good or bad) of something else.

I do agree with Al Gore. Women have to be educated and empowered and it is a woman's right to have control over her reproductive abilities. It is the only way to ensure sustainable population growth. Of course, those who criticize indiscrimantely won't see that.

Artful Dodger:

Maybe I am too thick but I see nothing wrong in what Al Gore said there. Educate women, give them a choice on how many children to have, etc. I imagine that is what a modern, intelligent society would do.

I make no assumptions, but "you have to educate girls and empower women" sounds to me like a reasonable suggestion.

I suppose we could educate women to have as many kids as the Bible says, then when those kids are hungry and poor we can have churches sell their land, building and assets to feed the poor.

(V):

> With the intermix of borders I don't think it matters even if.

The point I am trying to make is how hypocritical our governments are.

Did you know that yesterday in Bahrain they passed sentence on pro-democracy protesters. 8 people were given life sentences. 15 people were given sentences ranging from 2 to 25 years. Then two weeks ago the Bahrain government tried 59 doctors and nurses behind closed doors. These medical staff were charged with crimes against the state because the hospitals they worked in were used to treat people injured by the police and the military during the crackdown. It is estimated that over 250 people "disappeared" and thousands were injured during the crackdown.

Why is it that the Nato axis did nothing about Bahrain? The answer is simple. The dictatorial king there allowed Bahrain to become the naval base for both the US and the UK in the Middle East. There are two huge naval bases there, one for the UK and one for the US. If the regime were to change, it is likely that ademocratically elected government would question whether it is appropriate to have those bases in Bahrain.

I guess the king there is not a despotic nutter, he is just a pro-western dictator, and as such he is acceptable to the Nato axis and the Empire.

As always, it is all about hypocrysy and greed. All the talk about Lybia is nothing but excuses to get that country's oil cheaply. If western governments really cared about democracy, they would have bombed Bahrain too. Not to mention Morocco, Yemen and Egypt. What a coincidence that those more "moderate" countries receive military aid from the west. Then of all the dictatorial regimes in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is the worst. That place is so backward that they don't allow women to vote in general elections, run for office or even go unaccompanied in the street without a male relative. I don't see any Nato axis planes over Saudi Arabia, even though no country has given more money to Al Qaeda than Saudi Arabia has.

(V):

> Can you actually win a civil war?

Which bring us to the poiint: why did the Nato axis take sides in the Lybian civil war? After all, they ignored Bahrain and Yemen. They appeased Morocco's king, and for all the tough talk they do nothing about Syria. Is it just me or is Lybia the only country with oil in all the ones I mentioned.

As a side thought, as V pointed out, which God are we talking about?

Is it the Christian God (Jesus)? Certainly not the Jewish God (YHVH). Even less the Moslem God (Allah). Hindus have a bunch of gods. I might be confused to think whether it is Shiva or Vishnu.

Buddhists and Atheists have no God, so they don't count.

The Pledge of Allegiance was originally written by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister in 1892. Louis A. Bowman, a chaplain for the Sons of the American Revolution, came up with the idea of "under God". He claimed to have taken it from the Gettysburg address. It was EisenHowar who officially added "under God" after church pastor George MacPherson Docherty convinced Eisenhowar that "under God" was missing in the pledge.

The trend seems clear. The pledge originated, evolved and was enacted as law at the bequest of Christian clergymen. The God in "under God" is the Christian God. In doing so the pledge establishes Christianity as religion. That is in opposition to the First Ammendment, but no lawmaker in the US is going to admit to that because they would be booted out of office by the 75% of Americans who are Christians.

Instead, compromises have been made. Children are not required to say the pledge, even if teachers yell at them that they are unpatriotic. People are required to stand, but they are not required to say anything, or to salute.

I am not a Christian or an American, but there is such a thing as respecting other people's beliefs. If I had to instruct my son, I would tell him to do what he believes is right, and if he disagrees with the pledge, to stand silently and respectfully. If a teacher gave him a hard time, I would go to the teacher and remind them that the law protects people's rights to not say the pledge.

"Prominent legal challenges in the 1950s were brought by the Jehovah's Witnesses, a group whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power other than God, ("Jehovah's Witnesses-Proclaimers of God's Kingdom"1993 pgs 196-197) and who objected to policies in public schools requiring students to swear an oath to the flag. They objected on the grounds that their rights to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment were being violated by such requirements."

It seems to me that they have a point. Is it right for a Christian to swear loyalty to a power other than God? After all, God is the one and only power in the universe. One thought from God, and the whole world would be reduced to dust.

This is one of the few things I agree with. Pledging allegiance to anything other than God seems rather a compromise of one's beliefs. Of course, the country could be renamed to the United States of Christianity. That would clear things up a bit and avoid unnecessary misunderstandings.

Artful Dodger:

Of course, oil companies make no money at all when we use a lot of energy from fossil fuels. Then car exhaust fumes are perfectly harmless. As are fumes coming out of factories.

The reality is that the problem is not the carbon footprint, or carbon emissions. The problem is that we consume without measure, and we waste without measure. Many people try to recycle, use less, drive less, etc. But it is not enough because profits that drive consumes capitalism drive mass production, and that drives pollution in the form of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, ozone-destroying substances, etc.

The carbon tax is a very inefficient way to regulate the problem. What it is saying is that the consumer should pay more for products according to how much carbon dioxide is produced by those products and their manufacturing process.

Instead they should give tax credits to companies that invest in the reduction of pollution. If the capital gains tax runs at a certain percentage, that percentage should be much lower for companies that can prove that they have reduced the pollution produced during manufaturing, use and disposal of a product. In that way more of the capital would remain in the hands of companied that pollute less as opposed to those that pollute more.

There should be no "carbon credit trading" of any kind, because that simply encourages companies that pollute a lot to buy credits from those that pollute less. Companies that pollute more can simply buy their way out of the problem, rather than have an incentive to improve the manufacturing and design of their products.

Well, capitalism is all about profit and the legislators that are trying to address the problems of pollution have only one objective in mind: to make sure that the capitalists keep getting rich, whether by reducing pollution, or keeping it as it is.

> And what's wrong with carbon anyway? Nothing.

Would you breathe the exhaust fumes from a car? Would you move your family next to a big factory with a huge smoke stack bathing your house in carbon dioxide? And when carbon is released into the atmosphere, where does it go? Our atmosphere is a relatively closed system and gases released there stay there for a long time. I think that presuming that the problem is global warming is not quite accurate. The problem is one of generalized pollution and the effects it has on human health and the plants and animals. It is foolish to think that carbon dioxide is "harmless". If it were, people would have no problem breathing the exahust fumes coming out of their cars.

Artful Dodger:

I am talking about big powerful men that are not in the public eye. Like politicians, they get paid with tax dollars, but they are exempt from public scrutiny. We live in a wolrd of hypocrysy and double standards, that is all. Taxpayers don't care as long as they don't know about it.

Artful Dodger:

> Politics isn't like that. It's about the power. It's weak to resign. Most politicians are addicted to power so resigning isn't part of their makeup. Some do resign, but most don't. They just ride out the storm. Then people forget.

The difference with big private contractors is that instead of power, it is money, and since they are not in the public eye, nobody even finds out what they are up to. We never hear: "This guy makes rifles for the military, rakes in millions, and is a philanderer. He should resign!" Instead, the rich CEO takes his money, enjoys his life, makes strategic campaign contributions, and continues on in his ways. For him there is no storm to ride. People don't need to forget his wrongdoings, because they never knew them in the first place.

Artful Dodger:

> Interesting that it doesn't happen to women in politics but it does with some women in education (like all those female teachers having sex with their students).

I doubt that female teachers are worse than male teachers. The difference is that in the public eye a male teacher having sex with a female student is considered a terrible thing. A philandering male teacher is seen as a creep and a low life.

A female teacher having sex with a male student is treated in more sensationalistic and voyeuristic terms. She will be the subject of TV specials, psychological analysis in newspapers, and tabloid reports. The male student will not necessarily be treated as a victim of a predator, but rather as a misguided teen in trouble. Female readers of the story will wonder: "Was it true love?" Male readers will wonder "What if it I had been that kid? It might have been kinda fun." Self-righteous readers will say "How immoral!" And more vulgar readers will say "What a cougar!"

Artful Dodger:

> He was well liked and effective. He is a smooth operator!

Like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Ahnuld was the beloved of the masses. when he was elected governor, a woman sued him for sexual harrassment, then a lot of women came forward. But nobody cared. Now we know he is the proud father of his maid's son. And still people love Arnie in spite of it all.

Tuesday:

> Are they out campaigning with a different face?

No, they are tendering contracts and getting paid with tax dollars. The difference is that they are not in the public eye like politicians are. Private contractors can get away with it because they are never elected into office, they don't need to give public speeches, and they are not held to the same level of accountability as politicians are. If a banker receives a huge bailout, and uses that bailout money for his own self-gratification, there is no accountability. But politicians are a different matter. People expect them to be "righteous", to always tell the truth, to always be honest, to respect women, etc. But those who make millions in tax payer dollars do not have such expectation thrust upon them. It is a double standard.

(V):

> If we went by a rule that everyone who strays and is in public office has to resign.. Does that mean teachers, the bin men, police officers, etc all have to quit?

What about those who work for private companies but are paid contracts by taxpayers?

For example, the roof leaks in a government-owned building. The government hires a roofing contractor to fix that roof and the contractor is paid with tax dollars. The contractor does the same thing as Weiner did. Should that contractor be sacked and scrutinized publicly?

Another example. A "security contractor" is hired by the CIA to do some work among terrorists in Afghanistan. This contractor turns out to do what Weiner did. Should that contractor be ridiculed publicly and sacked?

What about a CIA operative doing a sensitive intelligence matter? If his identity is revealed publicly it would jeopardize an intelligence operation. He goes on to do what Weiner did. Should that person be scrutinized publicly?

There are a lot of examples of this. Many private companies are paid millions of dollars in contracts. Some of these companies do multi-billion dollar projects paid for by taxpayers. If the CEO of one of those companies uses his money and position to become a philanderer, should he be scrutinized publicly and sacked? After all, that CEO will make millions at taxpayers expense.

(V):

If that is the case he should have joined the Montyh Python crew!