GTCharlie:

> Cuba made their choices also, there didn't have to be an embargo

Yes, Cuba made its choices. I think that Cuba becoming a socialist country was unavoidable. There are those who will say that if the US had taken a more moderate approach then maybe Cuba would not have gone over to ask for help from the USSR. I disagree. I think in the end Cuba would have ended up where it was, with or without pressure from the USA.

> the USA are mean,evil and bad.

I think that the Cold War had little to do with being good or bad. I think both the USA and the USSR saw an opportunity to acquire wealth and power. They went ahead to compete for territory, natural resources, etc. A lot of smaller, weaker countries got squeezed in between. Some countries became communist, others remained capitalist. In the end the USA remained strong and powerful on account of its massive banking and lending economics. The USSR collapsed because they relied in commodity production (oil, gas and steel) and commodity prices collapsed in the 1980s.

The USA did what it had to do to protect the wealth and power of those that run its country. It meant promoting fascism and dictatorship in those countries that fell under American influence. The Soviets tried to do the same, and failed miserably at it. Both the USA and the Soviet Union oppressed people, because that is how the powerful react when they want to retain control ovr the political and economic systems.

Today we have the aftermath of the Cold War. Saddam Hussain, Osama Bin Laden, Iran's Ayatollahs, Fidel Castro, etc. These are men that got their start during the Cold War. Some fought for the USA, some for the Soviet Union. Others arose out of these countries failed foreign policies.

Once we strip ideological excuses (freedom, democracy, revolution, end of exploitation, etc.) the Cold War was an exercise in the pursuit of power and brutality. Ultimately the Cold War did not really end. It was merely put on hold. Soon enough Russia will rise again on account of its massive commodities production and the world's need for those commodities. China is getting richer day by day and eventually they will want to rise to the top of the echelon of power. The USA will react by trying to stop them, and the whole thing will start all over again. That is why these countries refuse to give up their nuclear weapons and their WMDs. They are insurance for the unavoidable "Cold War" that will return at some point. It is unavoidable because human nature is the same and the rich and powerful are as greedy as ever. In the end it is the poor and the innocent who pay the price. Millions died during the Cold War, and not even one of them was one of the rich and powerful who ran the show.

The Col:

> not sure how it has come along in the years since

Cuba is no paradise, but it is certainly better than it used to be. The big problem with Cuba is the disparity between how tourists live and how the locals live. Tourist resorts are really like a paradise. White coral sand beaches, 5 star hotels, great food, great music, great cigars, etc. For the locals it is a different story. There is a lot of poverty in Cuba and in many places people have seen little improvement in their lives in the last 20 years.

However, Cuba has certain things that no other Latin american country has. They have universal healthcare and everyone is entitled to the best healthcare the island can afford. It is so good that people go there for treatment from all over the world and "medical" tourism is one of the rising industries in Cuba. The healthcare system is one of the best in the world, in spite of the island's economic problems.

Cuba also has the best educational system in the western hemisphere. Every Cuban citizen is entitled to free education at any level, from kindergarten to post-doctorate degrees in universities. Compare that with the cost of education in Canada and the US and Cuba comes on top simply because it has a higher percentage of its population attending university. The only drawback to that is that people often have to work in occupations not even related to what they studied because the state cannot guarantee work for everyone. It was funny to be driven aroudn by a taxi driver with a Ph.D. in Spanish literature. High education means high expectations and many Cubans are unhappy with the lack of opportunity that the state can provide. Yet, they are educated, much more so than most other Latin American countries.

Cuba's biggest problems are a lack of infrastructure and viable manufacturing industries. The economic embargo left Cuba with little market for its exports, and the biggest consumer in the world (the US) cannot do business with Cuba. The situation will probably change in the next few years since the People's Republic of China has been investing heavily in Cuba and China is the new emergent market in the world.

The old guard (both in Cuba and the US) is aging, and with time their inflexible positions will give way on both sides. I doubt that the economic embargo will remain there for long and if George H.W. Bush and Henry Kissinger pass away then the main ideological opponents of a more open policy will not be there any more.

Bernice:
> what about Brazil and their seat in congress clown?

That goes to show that people are so fed up with politics that if they are going to have a circus act, they might as well put a real circus professional in the show.

The question is: Is the Brazilian clown better than Italy's porn star? Italians did elect La Cicciolina, a notorious porn star, into parliament.

Pedro Martínez:
> “socialism” and “dictatorship”

I suppose that most people's understanding of things like capitalism, socialism, democracy and dictatorship comes from whatever they learned in their high school social studies class.

In real life (that is, outside a little textbook) the lines are blurred. Capitalism has little to do with democracy, and socialism has little to do with dictatorship.

Sweden is a socialist country, and it is hardly a dictorship. Saudi Arabia is a capitalist country, and it is also a dictatorship. China is run by the Communist party, it is a dictaorship, and it is also a capitalist country. Canada, the US and the UK are a lot more "socialist" than the citizens of those countries would care to admit. The legal sytems in western countries are cumbersome. The bureacracy is huge. The government is in every sphere of life, from healthcare to laws that restrict where a dog can poop.

Most Americans woudl be surprised to know that the American government is more socialist than the government of the People's Republic of China. In terms of capitalism, it is easier to open and run a business in China than it is in moset western "capitalist" countries.

I have been to Cuba. Most of the Cuban economy is in the hands of private companies that run the hospitality businesses (hotels, resorts, etc.) In all of Cuba there is not a single statue or portrait of Fidel Castro. In fact, the only place to find his picture is in souvenir shops for tourists. Of all the heroes of the revolution, the only one whose likeness appears anywhere is Che Guevara. There is a big portrait of him in the building that houses Radio Havana (Cuba's braodcasting company). Other than that you would have to look really hard to find statues or portraits of him.

Most Cubans are ambivalent with respect to their countries situation. They know that Cuba is poor, but that is because after nearly 50 years of economic blockade the US (and msot of its allies) refuse to take a more moderate stance towards Cuba.

People have short memories. Most Cuban political prisoners went to the US during the Carter and Regan administrations. The Carter and Regan administrations were putting too much pressure on Cuba, so the Cuban government opened the jails, put all prisoners (political or otherwise) in a boat (the Mariel) and sent them to the US. There are still political prisoners left in Cuba. Mostly those who did plot or carry out terrorist attacks (mostly bombings and sabotage).

For sure there are people who are detained for purely political reasons. But then, most countries do that. Anyone who doubts it has to look at political prisoners and "unlawful combatants" captured during the War on Terror.

The reality of Cuba is simple. The US figured that Cuba would remain a "protectorate" just like Puerto Rico. Cuba chose a different path. Right wing American's are too proud to accept that other countries could chose a way of life different from the American way of life. So they try to squeeze Cuba hoping that some day the government there will collapse.

If western countries cared about dictatorship, they would have stopped doing busines not just with Cuba, but also with most countries in the Middle East, the People's Republic of China, as well as dictatorships in Latin America, Africa, Asia, etc. If being a dictatorship were the defining cause for stopping business with a country, the world economy would be paralized because most countries are dictatorships.

Cuba being a dictatorship has nothing to do with it. The real reason is Cuba not doing what the American government wants. If the Cuban government sold its natural resources cheap and let the people be used for the profit of big corporations, then Cuba would be best friends with the US. For decades the US was quite happy to give money, weapons and CIA training to dictatorships in Latin America. Simply because those dictatorships worked for the benefit of big American corporations. Cuba refused to do that, so they are the "bad guy".

Pedro Martínez:

“Dictatorship of the proletariat“

"Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"

It is all the same crap. Here is a political and economic elite. They have power and want to keep it in their hands. So they oppress everyone around them.

I saw it in Guatemala where I was born. The rich oppressed the poor and used them as cheap labour. When the poor figured that they had enough they rose up, and the rich responded by throwing the army at them. The CIA figured that communists were taking over, so they pumped money and weapons into the military and turned Guatemala into a Fascist dictatorship. The rich got richer, and the poor got screwed.

Hungary and Czechoslovakia were oppressed by the Soviet Union when they had had enough of "Communism". The question is: "Who had the power and why did they oppress?"

It is the same: capitalism and communism are equally oppressive. Stalin sent 9 million Ukrainians to their death in the name of the revolution. Our western "democracies" (mostly represented by the US, the UK and France) sent 6 million Vietnamese and 3 million Koreans to their deaths in the name of freedom and democracy. Every oppressive system uses ideology to justify itself. In the end, oppressors are oppresors, no matter how hard they try to justify their actions.

People and their political systems are defined not by their ideologies but by their actions. Ideology is just empty justification. Higher principles life freedom, democracy, equality, liberation and revolution are abstract concepts and the powerful use them to justify lining their pockets with money and pursuing political power.

Vikings:

Like I said, "outsourcing" is in every aspect of the economy. Both political parties represent different large corporations and monopolies. Government and private companies are so tightly intermingled that one could not survive without the other. If the government did not spend on infrastructure, construction companies would go bankrupt. If the government did not spend on defense, defense contractors would go bankrupt. It goes on and on.

We say that lobbying is bad, but it is how contracts are awarded and how private companies protect their own interests. Companies will lobby to kill some legislation that could cut down on their profits, and they will lobby to get lucrative contracts. At the present we have healthcare insurance giants crying foul over the healthcare bill. That is just because their lobbying efforts to kill the bill failed. Taxpayers groups are angry at the expense of the healthcare bill involved, but interestingly they have no problems with wasteful defense spending.

Individual interests are what rule lobbying and contracts, but then capitalism is about individual interests. The US could eliminate its deficit and pay for healthcare if it cut defense spending in half, but then in some cases the same people who oppose healthcare will fight against cuts in defense spending. There is a lot of hypocrisy in the system. It is OK to maintain weapons of mass destruction, but it is not OK to take money and use it to give healthcare to ALL the poor.

In the end, all western democracies suffer from the same problems. People focus on the US because it is the biggest economy in the world, but just about every country suffers from the same conflict between the public good and the economic and poilitical interests of individuals.

Artful Dodger:

> I think they did think of it. I don't think the US Government has any business operating outside of their Constitutional mandate.
> And since we know from history what the Founders were against, we ought to pay attention to that.

I think that all governments suffer from a contradiction between what they preach and what they do. If modern capitalist governments were to truly follow "free market" economics, the government would have no contracts for private companies at all. The entire industrial-military complex would have to be dismantled, and so would construction contracts, healthcare contracts, etc. If the government did not "outsource" all the things they do, companies would have to fend for themselves. Imagine boeing or Lockheed-Martin without the defense contracts. GE, General Dynamics, Haliburton, etc. They would all lose billions in revenue, and tax payers would save billions in deficits. It is a problem that extends beyond healthcare or banking. It is almost every aspect of the economy.

Vikings:

> apples and oranges
> contracting out vs. taking over

It seems to me more a matter of semantics. In the end politicians and their capitalist friends line their pockets with money. Call it "taking over" or "contracting out" or "outsourcing" or whatever. In the end greed is just greed, no matter what we call it.

Artful Dodger:

> What business the federal government thinks it has in the private sector is beyond comprehension.
> It's exactly the opposite of what the federal government is supposed to do.

I wonder if people thought the same with dick Cheney and Haliburton, or the Bush family and Arbusto Energy, or Condaleeza Rice and Chevron, or Adam Rumsfeld and Monsanto, or Todd Palin and BP, etc.

The American government IS made of capitalists, and that applies to both political parties.

The Col:

> Did you know Iraq showed a 50 billion surplus this year?

The question is: who is getting rich from it? Is it benefitting the average Iraqi citizen, or some elitist segment of the population, or foreign oil companies and defense contractors? Governments always say "The economy is going great" when the rich are getting richer. I never saw a government say that the economy is doing great when wealth is redistributed from the rich to the poor.

Artful Dodger:

> Milwaukee Alderwoman Milele Coggs hit a poll worker with her car Tuesday after what is described as a heated argument over results.

I found a link to a news article describing this episode:

http://www.wisn.com/r/25043170/detail.html

If she did this on purpose then she must be really stupid. If she did this accidentally, then she is really careless and she should lose her driver's license.

Artful Dodger:

> Interesting how the Democrats have fully run out of legitimate arguments. They can't stand on their record these past few years.

Putting aside the onanism gibes, I find it interesting that a long-term politician like Michael Castle was defeated. I think that the American public is getting fed up of old style politics. People are looking for meaningful change, but they don't seem to find it anywhere. I think it partly explains the popularity of younger politicians like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnel. It explains also the rise of other political parties like the Green Party and the Tea Party. People want their values represented, but both Republicans and Democrats are trapped in a system in which they constantly trump each other. The political culture is one of lobbying and underhanded deals. The American voting public wants change, but change is difficult in Washington, as the Obama administration can attest. In spite of their best efforts they are still trapped in the same old political games. Many countries in the world are like that. Here in Canada the government has become incapable of changing, and that means incapable of improving. This threatens to undermine democracy because people become disillusioned and disinterested. Politicians might like public apathy, but that apathy is bad for democracy.

The Col:

> I suppose the pro masturbation vote will be pitted against the anti masturbation vote, should make for an interesting race.

Come election day it will be easy to predict who will win. If a lot of blind guys with hairy palms come to the polls, then we know that Ms. O'Donnell will lose.

Bernice:

> I agree that an embryo is a human being but if it can be proved that THAT embryo isn't going to have an excellent quality
> of life for some reason unbeknown to people like us who know nothing about this, then I think stem cell research should
> be a priority to help those in need.

Most of the embrios used in stem cell research are frozen embrios remaining from in vitro fertilization. The embrios are frozen and kept for several years in case the parents decide to have more children. After several years frozen, the parents are asked what they want to do with the embrios. If the parents opt to have no more children then embrios are supposed to be thawed, effectively killing them. If the parents provide consent, the embrios can be donated to stem cell research.

Other avenues to obtaining human stem cells have not been as successful. Scientists have tried to clone stem cell, thus eliminating the need to harvest them from embrios. As I understand to date the experiments have not been successful. Scientists have extracted stem cells from some tissues, particularly skin and umbilical cord. However, it seems that the adaptability of the stem cells is not as fruitful as it is with embrionic stem cells.

It is a difficult thing because we are dealing with potential human life. Even though many of those embrios were condemned to be destroyed, it is still difficult to think in terms of a potential life being used to save another.

I suppose that if the government were to invest heavily in cloning stem cells, scientists might succeed. Then we have another can of worms being opened: Embrionic cloning.

The Col

What is she planning to do? Make it illegal?

More seriously, this came about because of an MTV documentary about sex in the 90's in which she talked about why masturbation is wrong according to the Bible. I found a copy of the clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzHcqcXo_NA

Apparently she won the Delaware Senate primary, defeating incumbent Republican Mike Castle who had been senator for 9 terms. She had the backing of the Tea Party and Sarah Palin.

I found interesting the postings about Frontotemporal Dementia, Alzeimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, etc.

The current theory on how these diseases arise is that there are external as well as genetic factors that can lead to the death of neurons in the brain. As the neurons die, they are slowly replaced by fibrous tissues made mostly of collagen fibers. This "plaque" interferes with transmission of signals between neurons and this causes the slow deterioration of essential functions of the nervous system. Hence people observe changes in behaviour, loss of memory, loss of motor control and all the other symptoms associated with these diseases.

Stem cells have been used successfully in animals to "regenetrate" lost neurons in the brain. Embrionic stem cells have been introduced in the brains of animals and those stem cells have become new neurons in response to chemical signalling from adjacent neurons.

Scientists have tried to do stem cell research in humans to try to regenerate neurons as well as other essential cells in the body. However, the research remains controversial since the stem cells have come from human embrios. The question is: Is such research acceptable? I am always curious to hear opinions on it. It is a topic that is difficult because for many people an embrio is a potential human being, thus they see embrionic stem cell research as taking the life of one human being to save another.

I am one who fully believes in stem cell research and its potential to heal many people and ease the suffering of millions. I have friends who suffer from neurodegenerative diseases, and they could be helped. A friend of mine has the early stages of Parkinson's Disease. This likely arose from genetic factors and her gradual deterioration will happen as she grows older over the next few years. Another friend is a woman who developed symptoms of Parkinson's disease as a result of having been married to an abusive husband during her youth. Her ex-husband used to beat her until she was unconcious, and her doctor believes that those beatings gradually damaged her brain until now that she is older she has developed this disease.

If embrionic stem cells could help patients like these, is their research justified?

I find that baptism is often misinterpreted in light of baptism being a requirement in many churches for conversion to Christianity. Some 130 posts ago I mentioned that baptism originated in the Jewish ritual of Mikveh, a ritual bath used in cases where individuals converted to Judaism. Baptism is supposed to be a spiritually cathartic process. A person not baptized is tainted with Adam's original sin. Once baptized the person becomes cleansed of that sin by the power that Jesus has to save humanity. This is in line with Paul's view of Jesus as the giver of life, as opposed to Adam who condemned humanity to death by his original sin.

A good example would be to contrast two cases:

1. A person is baptized as a child, but later rejects Jesus Christ as the savior.
2. A person was never baptized, but that person accepts Jesus Christ as the savior.

Who will be saved by Jesus? Only that person who accepts Jesus as the savior. Baptism alone is not enough, and it is not a requirement in light of true faith in God. It is true faith that saves. Baptism is an extension of that faith, but it is not the faith itself.

I mentioned baptism, simply because it is one of the doctrines that identifies Christianity as opposed to its predecessor, Judaism. Baptism is not unique to Christianity and it does have its origins in the Jewish ritual of Mikveh. Mikveh (literally "collection of water" in Hebrew) was used as a means to purify oneself after different circumstances. such circusmtances were not necessarily sinful. This ritual bathing was and is still used as a means to symbolize a conversion to Judaism. While Judaism did not actively seek converts, it allowed for procedures and rituals for those wanting to convert. Christinaity took the ritual of Mikveh and gave it a different spiritual significance. Baptism became a symbolic purification of a convert to remove Adam's original sin. The convert must accept Jesus Christ as the true savior.

However, baptism is not necessary for being saved by Jesus because Juses had the power to save above and beyond baptism. This is clear in the New Testament since in many cases those saved by Jesus simply had faith. In fact, it is not at all clear whether the apostles and Mary Magdalen and even the Virgin Mary were all baptized. However, there is some indication that John the Baptist may have baptized a lot of people prior to his death. The New Testament does show that faith alone is enough to save a person. There is no other requirement. The example of the thieves during the Crucifixion is good, as is Lazarus, and the healing of the lepers, the blind, paralytics, etc. In most cases they simply believed and they were healed or saved by faith alone.

(V):

> Is it? Is that straight out of Roman Catholicism ..?

Just to clarify, Jesus as the savior of humanity comes directly from Saint Paul. In the Pauline view of salvation, human beings are born tainted with Adam and Eve's original sin. In Paul's interpretation, death (or damanation if you will) came through one man: Adam. Then life (salvation) came through one man, the Messiah; that is, Jesus Christ. I forget the exact verses of the New Testament, but it is attributed to Paul.

Then, the sacrament of baptism takes the place of circumcision. Circumcision is the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. When a Christian is baptized, he or she accepts Jesus Christ as their true savior and enters a new Covenant between God and humanity. When Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist we have the manifestation of the Holy Trinity, and at that moment God enters into a ne Covenant with humanity. At least that is the theological interpretation that came through the centuries.

I am no expert in theology, but I did do some reading on it. The "meat and bones" of Christianity is found in Paul's writings. He was Christianity's first great theologian.

(V):

> The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman,
> but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

Mary is virgin because in that way there can be no doubt about the parentage of Jesus. If Mary were not a virgin, somebody could say that Jesus was the son of a man and not the son of God. Thus the Immaculate Conception is the miracle that proves that Jesus is the son of God, and not of Joseph, Mary's husband. We can compare this with Greek gods consorting with humans and giving birth to demi-gods. Zeus would take human or animal form and physically have intercourse with women. God is different in that the Immaculate Conception is not a physical act, but a spiritual act. Jesus is born out of God himself entering Mary's body without the need for physical intercourse. For Christians that miracle belongs to God alone.

> Judaism does not demand that everyone convert to the religion.

However, only those who follow Abraham's Covenant with God can be Jews. From early on Jews had a sense of heredity. Abraham retains Isaac, the son of Sarah, but expells Ishmail, son of Hagar (Sarah's handmaiden). Jews did not pursue conversion of others because of a sense of uniqueness and heredity, and because throughout their history the Jews fought against invaders from northern Africa, Asia Minor and Europe. Being prosecuted meant that conversion of others was both impractical and potentially dangerous.

The conversion of others into Christianity is something born out of the teachings of Jesus himself, and the miracle of the conversion of Saint Paul. Jesus converts his apostles, and later he apperas to Saul (later called Paul) and converts him through a miracle. Paul's ministry starts with the conversion of the Roman Sergius Paulus. The conversion of others into Christianity comes from Jesus being the savior of humanity. Only those who accept Jesus as their savior can enter His kingdom (i.e. Heaven), thus conversion is necessary in order to be saved.

Jews have no such stimulus for conversion because salvation will come when the Messiah arrives. For Christians Jesus is the Messiah.

Artful Dodger:

> I don't think there is just one single reason to believe the Bible to be the Word of God.

The question is: "Is the Bible the ONLY word of God?" Many Christians are offended to even think that anything other than the Bible could also be the word of God. The same is true of Moslems who regard the verses of the Koran as the ONLY word of God.

If I showed somebody a book on modern chemistry, physic or genetics, could they consider that also the word of God? I see science as the new word of God, yet I am probably a heretic for saying that. If God's words are ONLY in ONE book, then God is a limited being, and we just imposed a human limitation on God. If God accepts ONLY MY beliefs, then I just imposed my own human limitations on God. But God, as an infinite being, can only be described in an infinite number of books, and by an infinite number of beliefs.

It is why I see organized religion as wrong. A "spiritual leader" goes and tells people his or her interpretation of God, and reduces God to ONLY that interpretation. Now God became a limited being, conforming to the expectations of the spiritual leader and those who will believe him or her. Intelligent people see beyond pre-digested interpretations of God, but sadly, people don't always act according to their intelligence. Some of the worst terrorists have PhD degrees, having being educated in Oxford or Harvard. In spite of their intelligence, they believe blindly, and so do many intelligent Westerners who think that war against Islam is OK.

> I do however believe that many do blindly follow their political leaders.

Aren't many religious leaders in posession of political and economic power too? I recall some church leaders in the US telling people that they should vote for George W. Bush because if they did not they could go to Hell. Could the United States vote for a man (or woman) if that person said openly "I am an atheist" or "I am a Moslem"? Even now tabloids accuse President Obama of being a Moslem. Intelligent people will see though all this, yet, millions believe what they are told or what they read, without questioning whether it is true or not.

I grew up in a Christian family. As a child I went to two schools, one run by Baptists and another one run by Catholics. all through my childhood I saw pastors and priests tell both children and adults to believe, without really explaining why. And people accepted it, because they were afraid of eternal damnation. I ask myself why it is that I did not learn about how Saint Paul transformed Christianity, or how the four Gospels were probably based on one or two earlier books, or how the New Testament did not exist until 300 years after Christ died. I had to become an adult and apply the scientific method to religion to understand those things. Yet, how many people actually do that? Most people don't even know when the oldest hand-written version of the Bible is, and whether 2,000 years of copying and recopying have changed the text.

It is the word of God and you better believe it or you will go to Hell. Now I removed reasoning and intellect from the equation. Then the believer has become an automaton that never questions. I realize that not everybody is like that, but many religions operate that way, and particularly the extremist religions.

The real problem is more than just burning Koran's or Bibles. The real root cause of the problem is organized religion. An individual or a small group of individuals is given political power over others on account of their being "spiritual leaders". Then we are surprised when those who lead the religion behave like idiots, zealots or megalomaniacs. I am sorry to say that in most churches (or mosques, sinagogues, temples, etc.) that I have seen, people are herded like sheep, all because that sheep instinct allows them to overcome any doubts they might have about their own beliefs. Then most people believe blindly. Most people don't realize that the religion they follow might have been born centuries ago, but its current beliefs might have sprung only in the last 300 years because most current organized religious sects did not exist before the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

Everyone is trying to impose human limitations on an infinite God, and the belief that a single book can contain EVERYTHING that there is to know about God is the worst limitation of all. Let us describe God in a book written centuries ago, by people who were not even there when the events happened, in a language other than that of the original creator of the religion. Then let's call that book the ultimate truth and base our organized religion (and political power) around that book. My interpretation of that book is the ultimate truth and if you don't believe it you will go to hell, or worse, I will grab a weapon and kill you. I will call my country a "my-religion country" (like contries in the Middle East call themselves Islamic, or the US calls itself a Christian country, or Israel a country for the Jews). Then if I am really stupid I will kill those who don't fit my country's religion, and if I want to claim some higher moral ground I will "tolerate" those of other religions.

And at the root cause of human stupidity sits organized religion and the sheep that follow it. They need their opium and they go and get their dose every weekend.

A radio commentator here said the following, in a rather sarcastic tone:

"Since when has anything bad happened when people decide it is OK to burn books."

If the idiots in Florida go ahead, the following will happen:

1. Moslems in many countries will make big bonfires and burn copies of the New Testament.

2. There will be massive protests in Islamic countries, and they will put a price on the head of that pastor, just like they did with Salman Rushdie.

3. Al Qaida will come out and say "we told you so", referring to how "American imperialists hate Islam".

3. There will be an increase in terrorist attacks against both military and civilian targets both in the Middle East and elsewhere.

In the mantime that pastor will get more people into his church, which means more notoriety and more money for him. I doubt that his motives are fuelled by a "Christian" sentiment, or any real sense of loss after the tragedy of 911.

I wonder how Christian would feel if somebody did the same with the Bible. Say, a bunch of Communists decided to commemorate the birth of Karl Marx by burning the New Testament. The man who is trying to burn the Koran is either too selfish and too stupid to even realize what he is doing, or he is too destructive and wants to provoke Moslems.

Artful Dodger:

> That's what is meant by wanting him to fail. We want Obama's efforts to fundamentally
> change America to fail because we believe he is taking us in the WRONG direction.

I think that Obama's true failure is not in trying to change the US, but in failing to realize that the US is a country that cannot change. The American political, legal and economic systems have become such that the US can no longer see itself in a different way. The United States has an inertia to change, and Barack Obama fails to accept that. The US is very good at technical change (computers, cell phones, satellites, etc.) but it has become fossilized in its inability to change politically or socially.

Certain things point to the American failure to accept change. For example, the nuclear threat fo the Cold War and the thousands of soldiers killed in imperialist wars should have given Americans a distaste for war. Instead the US is more militarized than ever and the American government is constatnly trying to find enemies to justify the ever increasing militarization of the American economy. The situation is such that one of the main sustainers of the American economy is the congressional-industrial-military complex.

Another example of the American unwillingness to change is the bailouts to the banks. Rather than accept that the Capitalist system has some serious flaws and contradictions, the American government decided to intervene and save a failed financial system. In the past the cyclical collapse of the financial system pointed to the recurring crises in Capitalism. Rather than accept that there is a need for change in the economic system, the Us refuses change and decides to save banks in order to maintain the status quo.

Americans do not want to see that the current economic system is unsustainable. For a long time the largest companies in the World were American companies. General Motors used to be the biggest until it nearly collapsed. Now Toyota and Hyundai compete for the top spot in the automobile manufacturing sector. Exxon remains the biggest oil company in the World, but at its current rate of growth, Russian giant Gazprom will be the biggest energy company by 2020. The largest steel manufacturers in the world are now Arcelor Mittal (based in Luxembourg and India), Shanghai Baosteel (in China) and Posco (in South Korea). United States Steel Corp. is now ranked 11th in the World when 100 years ago it produced 60% of the World's steel and was the largest company in the world. At the current pace China will have the largest economy in the World by 2017.

Since light and heavy manufacturing have slowly shifted overseas, the US has sunk into a masive trade deficit that is eating away at the American economy. The response to this presented itself in banks taking more aggressive and more risky investment strategies that eventually led to the collapse of 2008. At the same time, the increasing militarization of the US has been used as a way to stimulate economic and technological development.

Maintaining the military system and the banks has come at a high price. Funds that were meant to provide for social services and "entitlements" were heavily diverted mostly to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. People have already forgotten George W. Bush going to congress to literally "beg" for more funds because the war effort in Iraq was constantly running out of money (or course, to the benefit of companies like Haliburton, who made hundreds of billions out of the War). Congress simply shifted funds that were "earmarked" for the pension system and reallocated them to the Pentagon. In doing so the War in Iraq was paid with the pensions of the Baby Boomer generation.

Alan Greenspan (former chair fo the Federal Reserve) warned that by 2017 the pension system could run out of funds. At the same time, as many of the poorer segments of American society retire, the stress on the healthcare system will increase.

Barack Obama tried to rectify some of this economic problems, but he failed to realize how reluctant to change the American public is. Americans want to have it all: the biggest economy, the most powerful military, the highest standard of living, AND the lowest taxes. Therein lies the contradiction. You can have a big military by taking from the poor and reallocating money to the pursuit of military might. You can have a high standard of living with good pensions and good healthcare, but only by having a higher rate of taxation. You can have the largest economy in the world if the manufacturing sector is strong, but all manufacturing is now done overseas. Something has to give: either a smaller military, a lower standard of living, or higher taxes.

Barack Obama pretends to want to change things, but does nothing to change the nature of the system. That is why Barack Obama is failing and the public, unable to see what the true nature of the problem is, will simply hand both houses to Republicans, thus making sure that the US is politically, economically and socially stuck for several more years. Republicans behave as if everything is fine with this political and economic inertia. The question is, what will the US do when China becomes the largest economy in the World in 2017? That is only 7 years from now and the way things are looking it is quite likely that Sarah Palin will be in office by then!

Artful Dodger:

> Obama has borrowed 3.5 Trillion in just 19 months.

Enlighten me. How much of that was for the bailouts for the banks? And who came up with the bailouts in the first place?

Artful Dodger:

> Did you NOT see how much money that idiot is borrowing against our future?
> Did you not see the comparison over the last 200 plus years vrs his 19 months in office?

Is that Bush or Obama? The truth is that every president has always borrowed more than the previous guy, even Bill Clinton, who ended with a surplus, borrowed more than the previous administrations. George W. Bush borrowed more than any president in history. That information you posted a while back assigned to Obama the bailout for the banks, and that was George W. Bush's idea. Obama merely enacted a lot of policies born at the end of the Bush administration in agreement with the Federal Reserve. In that sense it is unfair to blame Obama for a lot of policies generated in a Republican administration.

"GERRY":

> The true native canadians have the power now so why worry

I wonder where in Canada you live. I suppose having Stephen Harper as prime minister really really means Canadians have political power. But then, most Canadians are too complacent to even realize how bad the government here is. Living in Alberta all I can say is that Conservatives here are good for only one thing: giving money away to big business. People here dream that if enough oil money comes into this place, their lives will somehow be better. Nobody wants to see that all that the Conservatives ever did is give away our natural resources to Big Oil, in exchange for peanuts and scraps. The Liberals merely turned a blind eye to it and couldn't even pretend to care. The Socialists (NDP) were too worried trying to look centrist and not left wing, so they did nothing. The Green Party are just like the Liberals, except they pretend to care about the environment, as long as the Capitalist business agenda is not affected. The Bloc Quebecois can't see past the borders of Quebec and cares about nobody else and uses Quebecois nationalism as a tool to cement their own political power. Other parties are too small to even make a dent on the system. Canada probably has the most mediocre political system on the planet. At least in other parts of the World people have the guts to fight back, but we Canadians are gutless.

True native Canadians? You means First Nations like Cree, Black Foot, etc.? If you mean Frist Nations people, they are the poorest, most dispossed and least empowered people in this country. From where I stand, 60% of the people in this country are first or second generation immigrants. Most of my friends (even those with 3 or 4 generations in Canada) have immigrant relatives somewhere, or relatives outside of Canada. We are a country of immigrants. What is a true native Canadian? I am curious to know.

Artful Dodger:

> He said one thing, he did another. He's under-handed and totally unqualified to be
> President. He's a fish out of water. He's clueless. And he's ruining America. He's
> surrounded by a bunch of incompetents who are clueless on how to effectively run a
> government.

Is that Bush or Obama?

All presidents seem to fit your comment! Nixon? Carter? Clinton? Bush Sr.? Even Ronald Regan falls into this one.

I can say the same about all our Canadian Prime Ministers and prominent politicians. Say one thing, do another. Undermine the opposition. Use underhanded tactics to get what you want. Chose incompetent, clueless fools to the highest posts in office, etc.

If Obama were a Republican, would he be different? Maybe only in so far as giving more tax breaks to the rich. But then, all politicians are really good at giving free money to the rich in the form of tax breaks, bailouts, etc. I see little difference from one party to another, because the real infection is in the political system itself, not just individual parties.

I suppose after some 70 years or so our western societies have forgotten where "welfare capitalism" came from. There was a time when we had no healthcare, no welfare payments for the poor, no employment insurance, etc. The State was not involved in those things. Taxes were low, governments were small and those in need had to fend for themselves.

We have to go back to the 1920s and 1930s. If you were poor, you had very little and you had to somehow survive. You would look at the rich and wonder why they had so much, while you had so little. The end result was massive social unrest. It became so bad that from 1917 to 1949 we went from a world that was entirely Capitalist to 1/3 of the people of the world going into revolution and falling under Communist rule. After all, the Communist promise sounded good. Take from the rich and give to the poor.

Then we had millions of people returning home from WW II. Those people fought hard to protect their freedom. They would come home and find no work. They would ask themselves "Is this what I fought for?" So Communism was still sounding really good.

Capitalist governments faced a lot of pressure to change, or else have huge revolutions. So those in power figured that if they taxed the wealthy and the middle class, and used that money to provide services, then they could reduce hardship on people and put an end to the rising social unrest. It was pressure from Communists and Socialists that made things change. Just as the French Revolution had made western societies abandon aristocratic rule and give people democracy, so the Soviet revolution made western society give up some of its capitalist selfishness and greed and give people some relief from their poverty.

Now Capitalist countries wish they could do away with many of those programs. The question is: "Could they?" I think that without those social programs we would fall back into the anarchic days of social unrest. I think that if poverty were to increase massively, people would rethink their posture against Communism. Then they would look at China and say "look at their economic prosperity, maybe Communists got it right after all".

Welfare capitalism is there for one main reason, to stop Communism from gaining ground.

Jim Dandy:

It is not a doomsday scenario. It is merely the government not having enough to pay for it. Then having to either raise taxes or cut elsewhere to pay for it all. People are now talking of changing the retirement age to 70 so people can work a few extra years. Still, if you live to be 85, and retire at 65. That is 20 years of pension to be paid. People are living longer and longer. The pension system can't keep up. The most wasteful are of most governments is the military. Eventually the money will have to come from there. Where else?

I think that ultimately the United States will have to make some tough choices on "entitlements" and other government expenses.

This year 2010 represents the first year since "baby boomers" (those born after 1945) begin to retire. Over the next 10-20 years the American healthcare and pension sytems will face tremendous pressure to come up with the funds to continue to give people services.

As the population ages, those costs will continue to increase and the American government will have to either raise more funds or cut services. Since the funds come from taxation, it is quite likely that the US will have no choice other than raise taxes. The US already has the largest public debt in the World accounting for nearly 28% of the entire World's public debt.

Even without "Obamacare" the American healthcare and pension systems are already stretched to the maximum. The other option is to take money from somewhere else. That could mean less spending on infrastructure (e.g. tranportation infrastructure), a bad idea since that would slow down the economy too much. It could also mean a drastic reduction in military spending.

The Iraq War was payed in part through massive borrowing (never had the US borrowed so much money in its history) and in part through "reallocation of entitlements". The Bush administration took hundreds of billions of dollars that were sitting "idle" in the pension system, and through fiscal manouvering, reallocated them to the military. Alan Greenspan knew this and he was glad to be a part of it, but he warned that if something was not done the pension system would run out of money by 2017.

The only way the US will be able to restore those funds and pay for healthcare and old-age pensions will be with drastic cuts in the military. That will mean a massive recession and massive unemployment because the Cold War turned the US into a war economy. The US will have to take big steps backward in its global military presence, and scrap wasteful defense initiatives such as the ICBM Interception System, which at the research stage alone is costing over 1 trillion dollars.

So the priorities will be clear cut. Either healthcare and old age pensions, or continue to spend trillions in the military. A tough choice for a superpower!

Artful Dodger:

> I don't agree.

You would disagree even with the Old Testament? I am not making up the story of Ishmael. It is in Genesis!

Artful Dodger:

> Who can really understand God? But as I understand it, the Spirit is personal, distinct from God the Father, but ONE with the Father.
> The Spirit IS God as God is God as Jesus is God. The Spirit is the second Person of the Trinity.

This is an interpretation of the Gospels. When John the Baptist baptizes Jesus, Jesus comes out of the water and Heaven opens. There descends a dove, and a voice from Heaven says "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

The interpretation is that the voice is God as the Father, the dove is God as the Holy Spirit, and Jesus is God as the Son.

This is God's miracle. He can be three beings at the same time. Thereby God shows that He has a power beyond that of a human being. Only God can be father and son at the same time. In other words, God creates himself, and manifests himself spiritually, without the physical limitations of a human being.

Of course, this is a matter of faith. Moslems do not see Jesus as the Son of God. As this Arab I met years ago told me. "Why should God need a son? If God wants to do something, He does it himself. He needs nobody else."

I suppose faith is a tricky thing, particularly since there is no solid historical proof that Jesus or John the Baptist existed. Belief in the Holy Trinity is entirely a matter of faith.

Artful Dodger:

> Christians don't claim that the God of the Jews isn't the same ONE as the God of the Christians. They are the same.

You said that Moslems have a different god. The point I am trying to make is that Moslems do worship the same God, not only that, but Zoroastrianism predates Judaism and it also worshiped the same monotheistic God.

Of course, Genesis says clearly that Abraham had a son with Hagar, Sarah's handmaiden. This son was called Ishmael and was the father of race today identified with the "northern Arabs". Arabs consider themselves Abraham's descendants too. Thise just merely points to a common origin for all Semitic people's of Asia Minor.

Jesus was a Jew. He was born a Jew and he died a Jew. Christianity as such did not exist until Saitn Paul reinterpreted the death of Jesus as the salvation of mankind from the Original Sin that all human beings inherited from Adam. Thus, both Judaism and Christianity worship the same God. Of course both religions are very different since Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Judaism is still waiting for its Messiah, although it did have four in the past in the forms of Moses, David, Solomon and Darius the Great (he is called a Messiah in the Old Testament even though he was a Zoroastrian Persian).

Islam arose later, out of Judaic and Christian beliefs among Arabs. The Prophet Mohammed reinterpreted both the Old and New Testaments. In his view (or rather that of Moslem scholars through the Middle Ages) Jesus was a prophet, but not the Son of God. All of the prophets of the Jews are also the prophets of Islam, and Islam also acknowledges Abraham as the first true prophet.

To say that the religions worship different Gods is wishful thinking. It is the desire to set each other apart, and it is born out of prejudice and fear. "There is no way my Christian God is the same as the Islamic God or the Jew God." It might appeal to those who are prejudiced and ignorant.

Of course, the first monotheistic religion was Zoroastrianism. The Chaldean civilization was an offshoot of the Babilonian civilization, and Abraham was a Chaldean. As such he would have been aware of Zoroastrian monotheism, and Genesis clearly points in some passages to the existence of other monotheistic tribes in ancient Judea.

Of course, it was the Zoroastrians who first personified good as God (Ahura Mazda) and evil as the Devil (Ariman). According to the Zend Avesta their epic war was waged for eons. Zoroaster predates Abraham by about 400 years, but neither Jews nor Christians nor Moslems acknowledge Zoroastrianism because that was the religion of the Persians, one of the dominant empires of antiquity.

Ferris Bueller:

> It has been 10 years and no decision has been made about how the victims should be honored in the space of the Twin Towers.

I think the real problem is that the Towers sat on one of the choicest pieces of real estate in the world. There were those who expected that the site would be rebuilt with even bigger towers for bankers to make more money. Now they see a memorial site and there is no profit in that.

I think that this is an instance where racism has reared its ugly head behind a mask called "the United States is a Christian nation." It is like saying "X is an Islamic nation and now these Christians want to build a church here." It is all about extremism and prejudice.

I think that the greatest memorial the world could build there is a monument against war. If a lesson should have been learned it is that war and violence beget war and violence. In 2014 we will celebrate 100 years since the start of WW I, what was called "the war to end all wars". I think a memorial commemorating WW I and the tragedy of 911 would be the most appropriate thing. 911 is testament to how the lessons of WW I were never learned. A memorial against war could at least show that some of the lessons have been learned.

Artful Dodger:
> Libs always run things into the ground. Their philosophy is wrong.
> Republicans loose out when they violate their principles of low spending, limited
> government, and deference to the states.

Historically, it was always Republicans who lead massive increases in the deficit and national public debt, usually by giving tax cuts away while increasing massively on defense spending. We can look at the Regan and both Bush administrations for that.

Democrats are more of a mixed bag. Bill Clinton finished his term in office with the first surplus since WW II. Barack Obama is seeing a massive increase in the deficit, mostly due to the bailout for the banks (which in fairness was George W. Bush's last act as president, and was carried over into the new administration). That ill-fated healthcare plan is going to cost a lot, and the only way to take care of that is to take away the tax cuts that the Bush administration gave to the rich.

In reality, both political parties are full of "brilliant" and "expensive" ideas. I see Democrats and Republicans as two sides of the same coin. Both parties represent the interests of monopolies and the corporate elite. The difference being mostly on who they represent. However, deep at heart both parties exist to protect the interests of mega-capitalists and the American corporate elite.

In that sense, to say that the Democrats are socialists is like saying that the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is capitalist. The US democrats don't even come close to Europe's Social Democrat parties.

I always wondered why Jeb Bush never ran for higher office. I am sure he must have some appeal among Republicans.

Übergeek 바둑이:

Something I did hear about is about Joe Biden leaving the vice-presidency. If that were the case maybe Hilary Clinton would become the vice-presidential candidate. An Obama-Clinton ticket would be very difficult to beat.

Artful Dodger:

I think that is wishful thinking. I doubt that he would just step away from the presidency. I think the real challenge is on the other side. The Republicans have to mount an aggressive campaign and chose their best possible candiadate. It will be interesting to see who their candidate is. I haven't read any opinion poll results showing who the favorite Republican candidate would be. I imagine that Sarah Palin, maybe even Mike Huckabee.

Artful Dodger:

Reelect Barack Bin Laden!

Artful Dodger:
> All of the above have been done by our 44th president.

> Again, I ask, what would a jihadist do?

Barack Bin Laden for president! Hurray!!!

Tuesday:

> Name one problem in the word that wasn't man made.

That's exactly my point. A perfect God makes NO mistakes. If God had made even the slightest mistake, then he would not be perfect. Humanity is imperfect. The only way God can be perfect again is to erase his mistakes, but He is a creator and not a destroyer, so He left us to erase our own mistakes. I might be able to become a better person as an individual, but humanity is iincapable of becoming better as a whole. Eventually, our mistake will be fatal and we will completely destroy ourselves and everything in this planet. Then God's mistake will be erased and God will be perfect again. The only way we could save ourselves would be to get rid of every weapon, stop every war, stop every bit of environmental destruction, stop releasing cancer-causing chemicals, stop being greedy, stop being selfish, eliminate all poverty, etc. etc. But we are unable to, and given our history for the last 10,000 years, we never will. Thus it is a matter of time before some insane moron triggers Armageddon. All it takes is a nuclear bomb and the push of a button. That is the ultimate price of free will. It is in free will that God made his mistake. But we are arrogant, and want to see ourselves as more than we are. We want to be God's preferred children, rather than a mere evolutionary mistake.

Tuesday:

There are many things about the Interpretations of the Bible that really bother me. If God created EVERYTHING, did he create Adolf Hitler too, and Osam Bin Laden and Ted Bundy, etc. Then people quote the Devil. Lucifer strayed and became the root of all Evil, but then, who created Lucifer?

Of all things that people interpret from the Bible these are what bothers me the most:

> The Bible tells us that God's ultimate purpose for the universe is to reveal His glory.

God's glory is revealed in nuclear bombs, and gas chambers, and the terrible things that human beings do? After all, if God made people in his own image and we are a reflection of His own glory. I think we are arrogant to think God made us in His image and that His glory is expressed through mankind.

> The Bible tells us that God's ultimate purpose for mankind is to reveal His love.

Every day there are floods, earthquakes, wars, etc. Is that God's love? Then we come to the old "He will reveal His glory and his love on the Day of Judgement". It sounds to me like an excuse. If God loves all of humanity, then why give a child cancer, or let a child be raped in a war? If God loves us, he is sure taking His time showing it.

> In a nutshell, God created mankind for His pleasure. He didn't need to create us, but
> He chose to create us for His own pure enjoyment. God is a loving Father and we
> were created to be His children.

I doubt that God enjoys war and suffering. So we tell ourselves that God aches for us, that he suffers as much as we do when he sees how bad we are. so we keep making excuses for God neglecting us and we keep telling ourselves that some day, somewhere, somehow, God will come and set things straight.

A long time ago I was a child and I understood as a child, and when I became a man I put away childish things, then I understood that God stopped caring about humanity a long time ago, because we have done nothing but disappoint him all along. He sent us prophets, wise men and even His own Son, and we still turned our backs on God. So God stopped loving humanity. Now we make excuses for ourselves and for why God never shows Himself to us.

Thus I developed a simple theory. God created life, and with life He created evolution so that some day an intelligent being would arise. That was Homo sapiens sapiens, the creature that was supposed to be the pinnacle of evolution on this planet and the true expression of God's creative power. But then something went wrong. Homo sapiens sapiens was defective. It started preying on everything, even itself. It destroyed everything it touched. It polluted every river and every lake. It slowly took over and destroyed every corner of the planet. Homo sapiens sapiens was God's evolutionary mistake. God wanted to erase that mistake, but he did not have the heart to destroy intelligent beings, so he left Homo sapiens sapiens to itself, so that it would slowly destroy itself in its own cruelty and arrogance. And so we are slowly killing ourselves. We try our best to get better, to be better, but our basic design flaw rears its ugly head. We keep preying on each other, exploiting each other, using each other for our own pursuit of wealth and power. Now we have the tools to destroy every living being on this planet, and it is only a matter of time before we do. Our own nuclear bombs will soon enough erase God's mistake. Then God can be perfect again, without that mistake hanging over Him. I think the reason why we never found intelligent life in the universe other than our own is because God did not wat to make the same mistake twice, so he never created another Homo sapiens sapiens. Making that mistake once was enough.

Tuesday:

> If everyone followed the teachings there would be no war but not everyone is going to follow so what do we do to protect ourselves.

There is no solution because religion is a tool in the hands of the wealthy and the powerful. As long as there is religion there will be those who abuse it and exploit it for their own ends.

Communists tried to solve it by getting rid of religion completely. When the Soviet Union came into Afghanistan they tried to change that place, but between the CIA and Mujahideen the Soviet Union failed and now we have the Taliban and Al Qaida (both the Mujahideen's bastard children). Interestingly, at the time the US saw it as its duty to stop the Godless communists (obviously out of some sense of Christian duty).

The Communist solution (elimination of religion) was bound to fail because without religion people feel lost. People need to believe in something other than the physical world. Without God there is no salvation, and people fear death and non-existence more than anything else. It is that fear that is used by the powerful to manipulate the masses. "If you do what I, your religious leader, say, you will go to Heaven. If you don't, you will be damned in the fires of hell."

Christianity is not immune. And these days we replace religion with ideology. "If you don't go to war, your freedom and democracy will end and you will be condemned to anarchy and dictatorship." "If you don't go to war, socialism and the revolution will end and you will be condemned to capitalist exploitation and the abuses of the bourgeosie." It is all the same thing, fear packaged under different wording.

Tuesday:

> Old Testament was scary times. That was before Christ.

The modern world is even scarier, and this is AFTER Christ!

This is a question for any good Christian out there:

Is it right for any country to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons? Does having those nuclear weapons (which could kill every living thing in this planet) contradict Christian teaching? After all, the biggest arsenals of nuclear weapons are in the hands of predominantly "Christian countries".

Is it right for any country to support fascist dictators, then have those dictators kill Communists? What about killing millions people in anticommunist wars (like Russia, Vietnam, Korea, certain wars in Africa and Latin America)? Can those actions be reconciled with Christian teaching?

Al Qaida killed 3000 in New York, and the Coalition of the Willing killed over 300,000 people in Iraq. Who can point the finger to whom? Can the killing of hundreds of thousands be reconciled with Christian teaching?

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Western culture glorifies its billionaires and wealthy capitalists. Is there not a contradiction between that and the Sermon on the Mount?

I think Islamic Law is oppressive and wrong, specially the Sharia law that the Taliban is imposing in Afghanistan. However, for Christians to come and claim superiority is hypocritical in view of the history of Christianity and war. After all, Christianity is a religion that spread itself around the world through violence, brutality and cruelty. If you don't believe it look at how the indigenous peoples of the Americas were "converted" to Christianity.

Jesus was a man who praised love and kindness above all. Christians are supposed to follow the teachings of Jesus. Those teachings go out the window when it comes to wealth and power.

People go home and say to themselves "it has nothing to do with me, I am not the one who made nuclear bombs and went to war", but then, they voted into office those who made the bombs and went to war, and then paid for it with their tax dollars. They bury their heads in the sand of self-righteousness.

Artful Dodger:

In reality, it would be unfair to single out Christians (or Moslems) in terms of war and violence. I could easily have said:

Nothing says "good ______" like fearing and hating other religions.

The history of organized religion is also the history of violence and war. the reason is that those in power use religion as a tool to manipulate the masses into hatred, fear and war.

Unfortunately, there is a big difference between what people preach and what people do. The Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam and their variants) have been used as excuses for war. People claim to believe in the Bible, but conveniently ignore its key points when political power and wealth are involved.

Unfortunately in most places organized religion has become organized hypocrisy. God must sit in heaven and wonder if it is really worth saving humanity. After all, we have done nothing but disappoint God all along. We have come to glorify wealth, power and war beyond kindness, understanding and tolerance.

I can go to most Christians and tell them: "Do you think it is a good idea to get rid of our nuclear weapons? What about dismantling our bloated armies? Should we turn those millions of soldiers into something else, people who don't kill?" Most of them would have no answer for me. In the US most good Christians would rather keep the nuclear weapons and the war planes and the armies, even though their "Christian beliefs" say otherwise. Those Christians that heavily criticize that mosque will be the first to say the wars in the Middle East are OK. So much for "good Christians".

Nothing says "good Christian" like fearing and hating other religions.

Most people out there are really ignorant when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Those who oppose them think that governments are willing to just give up their stockpiles and that somehow those in power will give up nuclear wapons out of the goodnes of their hearts.

Those who want to keep nuclear weapons (like Sarah Palin and other of similar right wing tendencies) are thinking that if you keep the wapons, nobody will ever attack you out of fear. The so called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) principle.

Out there there are only 7 countries with the so called hydrogen bombs (two-stage thermonuclear devices). To put it into perspective, we must realize that WW II saw the deployment of an equivalent of 2 megatons of TNT by all parties involved. In other words, the equivalent of 2,000,000 tons of TNT were detonated by all countires involved in the war.

The first country to develop a thermonuclear device was the US, which developed the Ullam-Teller design (H Bomb) in 1951. The ultimate capability of that bomb was 25 megatons, the equivalent of an explosion of 25,000,000 tons of TNT. Now think about this, a single bomb detonated with the power of 12.5 times all the explosives used in WW II.

Then the Soviet Union followed in 1957 with what is called Sakharov's Third Way (apparently similar to the Ullam Teller design of the US). In 1961 the Soviet Union detonated the largest bomb in history. The Tsar Bomba had a yield of 50 megatons. Originally it had been designed as a 100 megaton bomb, but they decided to cut the yiel in half at the last minute. A single bomb could explode with 25 (and potentially 50) times the amount of all explosives used in WW II.

Later the UK developed its Granite series of bombs in 1957 and ultimately achived explosions of 3 megatons.

The People's Republic of China detonated its H bomb in 1967 and achieved yeilds of 3.3 megatons.

France followed in 1968 with Canopus bomb and achieved 2.1 megatons.

Israel is believed to have H boms, but they have never detonated or tested any nuclear weapons (obviously the reduced land area of Israel makes it unsafe to test any devices. It is bleived that Israel had nuclear devices as early as 1961 since Stanislaw Ulam probably passed his design onto Israel from very early on.

India detonated an H bomb in 1998, but achieved only about 50 kilotons of yield.

Thus we can see that there are only 5 countries with H bombs that yield in the megaton range. While schematics of H bombs are well known, details of their design are the most closely guarded secrets in the world, and they should be because in reality nuclear weapons are not as complex as people think. It is the purification of the fissile material that is difficult, and Pakistan's developments in that area and how Pakistan has sold that information means that nuclear weapons are now easier to make than ever.

Other countries have nuclear weapons of the type called "uranium" and "plutonium" type. Pakistan has detonated nuclear weapons and is still increasing its stockpile. North Korea is a recent addition to the nuclear club, but compared to other countries their techonology is primitive.

South Africa had nuclear weapons in the 1980s but apparently dismantled them and its nuclear programs in the 1990s. Most countries in NATO share nuclear weapons and are technologically advanced enough to develop them on their own, as are most countries that were part of the Soviet Union. Belarus, Kazkhstand and the Ukraine inherited thousands of missiles from the Soviet Union but they got rid of them and returned them to Russia or destroyed them.

In other places countries like Brazil, Argentina, Japan, Australia, Taiwan, Albania, Algeria, Syria, and a few others have the technical know-how but refuse to pursue nuclear weapons, at least openly! The US is on Iran's case about it, although the motivivations there are more political since Pakistan is 1000 times the threat that Iran is, but then Pakistan is an "ally" of the US.

In my opinion, in the next 30 years we will see at least 10 other countires detonate nuclear weapons and there is nothing the US or Russia can do about it.

The US insisted in pursuing the arms race during the Cold War (of course, the Soviet Union was happy to follow along). Now the US has the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction and it has become impossible for the US to feel safe without them. People like Sarah Palin play on that fear because when the bombs drop, they are not the ones who will do the dying. The likes of Sarah Palin will safely stash themselves away in underground bunkers while the rest of the world dies. I wonder if these people ever saw Dr. Strangelove.