All Comments (290)

flat flat buy apartment

flat flat buy apartament

nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk

rynok kvartir sankt peterburg kuplyu kvartira pyatigorsk kuplyu 1komnatnuyu kvartiru prodazha kvartir m planernaya sdam kvartiru shartashskiy rynok novopodrezkovo prodazha kvartir arenda kvartir dombay prodazha kvartir m planernaya snimu kvartiru yaroslavskoe shosse

From today’s WP:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110902573_pf.html

Oil Price Rise Causes Global Shift in Wealth
Iran, Russia and Venezuela Feel the Benefits

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 10, 2007; A01

“High oil prices are fueling one of the biggest transfers of wealth in history. Oil consumers are paying $4 billion to $5 billion more for crude oil every day than they did just five years ago, pumping more than $2 trillion into the coffers of oil companies and oil-producing nations this year alone…”

“"There's never been anything like this on a sustained basis the way we've seen the last couple of years," said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economics professor and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. Oil prices "are not spiking; they're just rising," he added.

The benefits, to the tune of $700 billion a year, are flowing to the world's oil-exporting countries.

Two of those nations -- Iran and Venezuela -- may be better able to defy the Bush administration because of swelling oil revenue. Venezuela has used its oil wealth to dispense patronage around South America, vying for influence even with longtime U.S. allies. And Iran could be less vulnerable to sanctions designed to pressure it into giving up its nuclear program or opening it to inspection.”

The topic is:

“Are We Heading for WWIII?

President Bush has talked about the danger of World War III if Iran doesn't stop its nuclear program. What do people think is the risk of war where you are?”

My answer is:

Yes, primarily because of our dependence on Mid East oil and our war on Islam.

If we had spent the $1 Trillion that we have squandered on the illegal and immoral preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq on developing alternative energy sources instead, we would be well on out way to energy dependence, and would have dramatically reduced the likely of WWIII.

If we did not unconditionally support the illegal and immoral Israeli usurpation of Palestine from its rightful owners, the Palestinian people, we would not have enraged the Islamic world, and would not have served as the catalyst for a probable WWIII.

Some argue that the “State of Israel” is legal because of the Balfour Declaration and its inclusion by the League of Nations in the British Mandate following WWI. However, the Balfour Declaration was the British response to the lobbying influence of the powerful Jews Baron Rothschild and Barron Hirsch.

So as a spoil of war after WWI, and as a result of the lobbying influence of wealthy Jews on the British government, Palestine was taken away from its rightful owners, the Palestinian people who had tended their flocks and orchards and farmed this land for millennia, and given instead to the Jews.

In a like manner it was the lobbying influence of the powerful American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) that mislead us into the moronic and disastrous preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq. The dual motives for this disaster were our greed to control the world’s second largest oil field combined with the Israelis’ fear and loathing of Saddam Hussein. These same motives are at work in pushing us to bomb Iran’s suspected nuclear facilities.

Until we develop a fair and balanced policy with respect to Palestine, develop energy independence, and free ourselves from the influence of the Jewish lobby, the likelihood of starting WWIII will only increase.

The $64,000 question is: “Why are we digging ourselves such a deep hole in the Middle East? With the $1 Trillion that we have blown in Iraq; we could have achieved energy independence by now.

Remember that show, The $64,000 Question? Nah, ya’ll are way too young for that.

Here’s the link to the NBC wind power video:

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=6266fa18-666b-4d02-9a38-952858230437

By 2030, wind power could supply 20% of the power needs of the U.S. Denmark is the world’s leader in wind power; more than 5500 wind turbines off shore and on land provide 20% of Denmark’s power needs, with plans to expand to 50%. Denmark’s wind power industry is the world’s largest employing 20,000 people; 90% of the wind turbines produced are exported.

The tiny island of Samso with 4300 citizens became the focus of a government experiment in 1997. Could the island convert all energy to renewable sources in 10 years? The answer is yes. Using wind, solar and bio fuels, it’s not only carbon neutral, it is carbon negative.

On a West Texas ranch, you can see more Wind Turbines than in all Denmark, generating enough power to supply 1 million homes. The first turbines went up in 2001. Texas leads the western hemisphere in this technology.

Here's the link to the NBC wave power video:

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=1c9f32ef-9a20-43a5-a23f-b4c798189bdf

Wave power has the advantage of being more predictable than wind power. By 2025, wave power could provide 10 GW of power, enough to power the entire state of Massachusetts.

Jed said:

"It is hard to imagine how it will revive years from now."

Now Jed, you know how advances in theoretical physics occur irregardless of the engineer's search for practical applications. Don't you think that we will soon uncover the theory behind the successful Cold Fusion experiments that have occurred, even without overtly seeking to reproduce those results?

BTW, the price of oil is expected to crack the $100.00 per barrel threshold tomorrow.

General Musharraf has declared defacto Marshall Law in Pakistan.

President Bush is just itching to Bomb Bomb Iran (in the immortal words of John McCain).

The Palestine peace talks scheduled to occur in Annapolis later this month don't have a prayer.

NBC Evening News is running specials on alternative energy sources this week. Wind power in the Netherlands and Texas was covered last night, and wave power off the New Jersey cost is tonight. By 2025, wave power could provide 10 GW of power, enough to power the entire state of Massachusetts.

Rick quoted me quoting Max Planck:

"First, as Max Planck put it, progress in science occurs “funeral by funeral.” He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

I predict that if Cold Fusion doesn’t emerge as a successful new technology in the next ten years . . ."

I am glad you liked the book, but the problem is, as I explained in the rest of the paragraph, the cold fusion researchers are dying off a lot faster than the opposition. Look up cold fusion in any newspaper or in the Scientific American and you will find that it is remembered only as a mistake and a farce. There is no trace of institutional memory of the actual facts about it, even at the University of Utah. It is hard to imagine how it will revive years from now.

testing

Just in case anyone was offended or shocked by the reference to "white privilege" in an earlier post:

White Privilege Shapes the U.S.

By Robert Jensen

Department of Journalism

University of Texas

Here's what white privilege sounds like: I am sitting in my University of Texas office, talking to a very bright and very conservative white student about affirmative action in college admissions, which he opposes and I support.

The student says he wants a level playing field with no unearned advantages for anyone. I ask him whether he thinks that in the United States being white has advantages. Have either of us, I ask, ever benefited from being white in a world run mostly by white people? Yes, he concedes, there is something real and tangible we could call white privilege. So, if we live in a world of white privilege—unearned white privilege--how does that affect your notion of a level playing field? I ask. He paused for a moment and said, "That really doesn't matter."

That statement, I suggested to him, reveals the ultimate white privilege: the privilege to acknowledge you have unearned privilege but ignore what it means. That exchange led me to rethink the way I talk about race and racism with students. It drove home to me the importance of confronting the dirty secret that we white people carry around with us everyday: In a world of white privilege, some of what we have is unearned. I think much of both the fear and anger that comes up around discussions of affirmative action has its roots in that secret. So these days, my goal is to talk openly and honestly about white supremacy and white privilege.

White privilege, like any social phenomenon, is complex. In a white supremacist culture, all white people have privilege, whether or not they are overtly racist themselves. There are general patterns, but such privilege plays out differently depending on context and other aspects of one's identity (in my case, being male gives me other kinds of privilege). Rather than try to tell others how white privilege has played out in their lives, I talk about how it has affected me.

I am as white as white gets in this country. I am of northern European heritage and I was raised in North Dakota, one of the whitest states in the country. I grew up in a virtually all-white world surrounded by racism, both personal and institutional. Because I didn't live near a reservation, I didn't even have exposure to the state's only numerically significant non-white population, American Indians. I have struggled to resist that racist training and the ongoing racism of my culture. I like to think I have changed, even though I routinely trip over the lingering effects of that internalized racism and the institutional racism around me. But no matter how much I "fix" myself, one thing never changes--I walk through the world with white privilege.

What does that mean? Perhaps most importantly, when I seek admission to a university, apply for a job, or hunt for an apartment, I don't look threatening. Almost all of the people evaluating me for those things look like me--they are white. They see in me a reflection of themselves, and in a racist world that is an advantage. I smile. I am white. I am one of them. I am not dangerous. Even when I voice critical opinions, I am cut some slack. After all, I'm white.

My flaws also are more easily forgiven because I am white. Some complain that affirmative action has meant the university is saddled with mediocre minority professors. I have no doubt there are minority faculty who are mediocre, though I don't know very many.

As Henry Louis Gates Jr. once pointed out, if affirmative action policies were in place for the next hundred years, it's possible that at the end of that time the university could have as many mediocre minority professors as it has mediocre white professors. That isn't meant as an insult to anyone, but is a simple observation that white privilege has meant that scores of second-rate white professors have slid through the system because their flaws were overlooked out of solidarity based on race, as well as on gender, class and ideology.

Some people resist the assertions that the United States is still a bitterly racist society and that the racism has real effects on real people. But white folks have long cut other white folks a break. I know, because I am one of them. I am not a genius--as I like to say, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have been teaching full-time for six years, and I've published a reasonable amount of scholarship.

Some of it is the unexceptional stuff one churns out to get tenure, and some of it, I would argue, actually is worth reading. I work hard, and I like to think that I'm a fairly decent teacher. Every once in awhile, I leave my office at the end of the day feeling like I really accomplished something. When I cash my paycheck, I don't feel guilty.

But, all that said, I know I did not get where I am by merit alone. I benefited from, among other things, white privilege. That doesn't mean that I don't deserve my job, or that if I weren't white I would never have gotten the job. It means simply that all through my life, I have soaked up benefits for being white. I grew up in fertile farm country taken by force from non-white indigenous people. I was educated in a well-funded, virtually all-white public school system in which I learned that white people like me made this country great. There I also was taught a variety of skills, including how to take standardized tests written by and for white people.

All my life I have been hired for jobs by white people. I was accepted for graduate school by white people. And I was hired for a teaching position at the predominantly white University of Texas, which had a white president, in a college headed by a white dean and in a department with a white chairman that at the time had one non-white tenured professor. There certainly is individual variation in experience.

Some white people have had it easier than me, probably because they came from wealthy families that gave them even more privilege. Some white people have had it tougher than me because they came from poorer families. White women face discrimination I will never know. But, in the end, white people all have drawn on white privilege somewhere in their lives. Like anyone, I have overcome certain hardships in my life. I have worked hard to get where I am, and I work hard to stay there.

But to feel good about myself and my work, I do not have to believe that "merit," as defined by white people in a white country, alone got me here. I can acknowledge that in addition to all that hard work, I got a significant boost from white privilege, which continues to protect me every day of my life from certain hardships.

At one time in my life, I would not have been able to say that, because I needed to believe that my success in life was due solely to my individual talent and effort. I saw myself as the heroic American, the rugged individualist. I was so deeply seduced by the culture's mythology that I couldn't see the fear that was binding me to those myths. Like all white Americans, I was living with the fear that maybe I didn't really deserve my success, that maybe luck and privilege had more to do with it than brains and hard work. I was afraid I wasn't heroic or rugged, that I wasn't special.

I let go of some of that fear when I realized that, indeed, I wasn't special, but that I was still me. What I do well, I still can take pride in, even when I know that the rules under which I work in are stacked in my benefit. I believe that until we let go of the fiction that people have complete control over their fate--that we can will ourselves to be anything we choose--then we will live with that fear. Yes, we should all dream big and pursue our dreams and not let anyone or anything stop us. But we all are the product both of what we will ourselves to be and what the society in which we live lets us be.

White privilege is not something I get to decide whether or not I want to keep. Every time I walk into a store at the same time as a black man and the security guard follows him and leaves me alone to shop, I am benefiting from white privilege. There is not space here to list all the ways in which white privilege plays out in our daily lives, but it is clear that I will carry this privilege with me until the day white supremacy is erased from this society.

Frankly, I don't think I will live to see that day; I am realistic about the scope of the task. However, I continue to have hope, to believe in the creative power of human beings to engage the world honestly and act morally. A first step for white people, I think, is to not be afraid to admit that we have benefited from white privilege. It doesn't mean we are frauds who have no claim to our success. It means we face a choice about what we do with our success.

copyright Robert William Jensen 1998 (first appeared in the Baltimore Sun, July 19, 1998)

Jed said:

In response to my question: Assume for the moment that Cold Fusion isn’t going to be available for the next 100 years.

“Well, it will either be in the next 10 years or never. The researchers are mainly WWII-era retired professors and National Lab researchers, such as Schwinger. One of them was the guy who pressed the button to trigger the first bomb at Trinity. He died some years ago, like so many others in this field. They will all be dead or incapacitated in 10 years, and cold fusion will be forgotten. Young scientists aren't allowed to do creative or risky stuff. As soon as the top brass finds out they are interested in cold fusion, bang! -- out the door. (You can thank the Washington Post for that. They have a charming habit of accusing all cold fusion researchers of criminal misconduct, fraud and lunacy, which kind of puts the damper on funding and people's careers.)

Anyway, assuming the geriatric scientists cannot make it work . . .”

Not so fast my friend. Jed also said in the introduction to his wonderful (free) e-Book:

http://www.lenr-canr.org./BookBlurb.htm

“First, as Max Planck put it, progress in science occurs “funeral by funeral.” He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

I predict that if Cold Fusion doesn’t emerge as a successful new technology in the next ten years, it will eventually emerge if it is viable. And your wonderful technical library and inspirational (and free) e-Book will play a large part in it.

What World War III May Look Like:

http://antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=11666

Yup, we are all nuts!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/31/104328/05

Americans support bombing Iran

by Hiraga

Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 07:48:55 AM PDT

According to "Raw Story" Zogby International reports that 52% of Americans polled support air strikes against Iran.

In spite of all the talk on this site about Bush's approval ratings tanking, Bush "best Democratic strategist ever", and so on, this poll is absolutely devastating. The American public is ignorant, fearful, and violent as ever. I've never felt this way before, but what this 52% number means is that we - the progressive, reality-based community have lost. Media consolidation, the concentration of power in the hands of a corporate elite, the military industrial complex, the hubris of empire - all of this institutional power that the reactionary right has - is too much for us.

This country is on a glide path to a bloody, reactionary, anti-democratic late imperial demise. I'm sick to my frickin' stomach.

The title of this thread is "Cooperate or Die". The message to the Iranians is "Cooperate or be Nuked".

Did you see PBS’s News Hour yesterday? Here’s the link to the transcript:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec07/iran_10-29.html

“JUDY WOODRUFF: And the debate goes on outside Congress with perhaps even more intensity. Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz wrote in June that military force was "required" to stop Iran from getting a bomb and offered this description of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Quote, "Like Hitler, he is a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism," end quote.”...

...“Gentlemen, thank you very much for being with us.

Norman Podhoretz, let me begin with you. You wrote over the summer that, if Iran is to be prevented from going ahead with a nuclear program, then the United States has "no alternative" but to strike against Iran. Do you still believe that? And if so, why?”

“NORMAN PODHORETZ, Foreign Policy Adviser, Rudy Giuliani: Very much so. It seems to me that most people in the world, at least until recently, agreed that it would be catastrophic to allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear capability. The only debate was over what the best means to prevent this from happening might be.

Well, for over four years, diplomacy has been tried, first by the Europeans and then with some American participation, and all they've accomplished, these negotiations, is to buy the Iranians more time with which to move forward inexorably toward a nuclear capability...

...So that leaves us with only one terrible choice, which is either to bomb those facilities and retard their program or even cut it off altogether or allow them to go nuclear. And I agree with what Senator McCain has said in the past: The only thing worse than bombing Iran is to allow Iran to get the bomb.”

“JUDY WOODRUFF: Fareed Zakaria, the choice, either strike Iran or allow them to go nuclear, are those the only two choices?”

FAREED ZAKARIA, Editor, Newsweek International: Well, there is a third choice, Judy, which is the choice we have used for pretty much every other country that has developed nuclear weapons, and that is deterrence.”...

... “This would be the third invasion of a Muslim country that the United States would have undertaken in the last five years; that seems to me a pretty serious business. And we've seen deterrence work against all these other countries...

...Let us even assume that Iran gets the bomb, and it's not clear that it will. Why are they more crazy than Kim Jong Il, a man who let two million of his own people starve in the last decade?”

“JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, you pose several points that I want to bring to Norman Podhoretz, but, number one, this question of deterrence. If these other countries Mr. Zakaria is listing have listened to the argument to use nuclear weapons they be destroying themselves, why do you think that argument doesn't work with Iran?”

“NORMAN PODHORETZ: Well, I'll tell you why. First, I want to say that I think the attitude expressed by Fareed Zakaria represents an irresponsible complacency that I think is comparable to the denial in the early '30s of the intentions of Hitler that led to what Churchill called an unnecessary war involving millions and millions of deaths that might have been averted if the West had acted early enough...

...The reason deterrence can't work with Iran is that there's a different element involved here than was involved with either Mao or even Kim Jong Il or Stalin, and that is the element of religious fanaticism.

The fact of the matter is that, with a religious fanatic like Ahmadinejad and the "mullahcracy" ruling Iran generally, there's no assurance that self-preservation or the protection, preservation of the nation, will deter them.

And let me tell you why. Here is what the Ayatollah Khomeini, of whom Ahmadinejad is a devoted disciple, once said. He said: We do not worship Iran. We worship Allah, for patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land of Iran burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.

Well, you can't deter a nation that is led by people with that kind of attitude...”

FAREED ZAKARIA: “You know, I had a feeling Norman would bring up that one quotation that he's used before, so I have one from now. "If the worst came to worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain, while imperialism would be razed from the ground." This is what Mao said.

And it wasn't just his words. It was his actions. He was actively aiding revolutionary movements and killing Americans all over the world.

So the question about Iran's rationality rests on this: They've been in power for 30 years. What have they done? Iran has followed a pretty rational, national interest-oriented foreign policy.

If you look at the way in which they opposed al-Qaida and the Taliban, this was another Islamic revolutionary movement. You'd think that they would find them sympathetic, but, no, they were the sworn enemies of al-Qaida and they helped the United States depose the Taliban.

By and large, over the last 30 years they've been fairly calculating, they have followed their national interest. When it has bumped up against the United States, they have worked against us. When they have thought that our interests were in common, as in Afghanistan, they've worked with us.”...

JUDY WOODRUFF: Gentlemen, we would love to have this go on for an hour. Unfortunately, we have only a minute or less left, so I have one final question...

I do want to ask you both, because I think it's important. Mr. Podhoretz, do you think that, as you wrote a few months ago, this administration, this president intends before he leaves office to strike Iran?”

NORMAN PODHORETZ: “Yes, I do believe he will, because he has said many times -- or at least two times that I know of in public -- that, if we allow Iran to get the bomb, people 50 years from now will look back at us the way we look back at the men who made the Munich pact with Hitler in 1938 and say, "How could they have let this happen?"

Well, unlike Fareed Zakaria and the foreign policy establishment that is complacent and irresponsible, in my opinion, I think the president recognizes the danger. I think he knows that time is short, that time is not on our side. And I think he will take military action, not an invasion, but air strikes before he leaves office.”

JUDY WOODRUFF: “And, Fareed Zakaria, if you would, a brief response.”

FAREED ZAKARIA: “Oh, I would doubt it. Look, in the early 1980s, Norman Podhoretz and the neoconservatives believed the Soviet Union was going to take over the world and Finlandize Europe. When Reagan started talking to the Soviets, started talking to Gorbachev, Mr. Podhoretz excoriated him, called it the "Reagan road to detente" and such.

It turned out he was wrong. It turned out that the Soviets were not that powerful, and that history was on our side, and that things were going to work out as long as we kept our cool.

I believe in just the way that we have deterred the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Kim Jong Il, history will prove that we can use deterrence and containment to contain the problem of Iran and that we do not need to launch a third unilateral invasion just to do that.”

NORMAN PODHORETZ: “God help us if we follow that counsel.”

JUDY WOODRUFF: “Norman Podhoretz, we thank you. Fareed Zakaria, gentlemen, we thank you both very much.”

Maybe one should give Waldo's post a little more thought. Jumping into the conclusion that there was no grain of truth in his analysis of Jihadist is wrong.

Not to miss, the ones who are applauding her awards are the ones who have actually won them.

Men are charmed by her blog personality and sharp wit on the blogs. As Norrie Hoyt wrote she is a modern Indonesian woman married to a Malaysian Muslim. Jihadist made it a point to mention that her mother is Dutch and her father is Indonesian Muslim. Psychoanalytically speaking she made sure of the unconscious acceptance for her half white ancestry. With that she put herself above the average non-white Muslims of her country and in the league of white converts to Islam in the West who enjoy special privileges because of their Caucasian ancestry. Although it is not politically correct to say that people are affected unconsciously by such factors, Jihadist is smart enough to play her cards well. The other card she plays is to mention in passing that she is young and good looking, without need for Botox yet, without actually mentioning her age.

When questions about Islam get really tough Jihadist plays the charming woman and slips away by talking about her person instead. She makes it a point to emphasise that she is no different from the millions of Westerners in her tastes in music, food, hobbies, reading etc. She makes it a point to assure everyone she is no different from a 'living large' atheist at all. Atheists aren't asking themselves if they are dealing with Islamic views at all. Most don't really care about religions one way or another anyway. An entertaining and witty conversation is good enough. So the essay on pole dancing is considered fantastic although it has nothing to do with On Faith questions. Responding to questions about the sex life of Mohammad in a tittilating way was another ploy. Ross was given an award for his obsession and for hounding the Islamic women with questions on the sex life of Mohammad. Note how the posts seem to be geared to titillate the male mind. That seems to be the tactic of the three most popular female Islamics on this thread. The tactic was called 'using honey' to attract non-Islamics to Islam, the idea being once the non-Islamics are enamoured by the subtle erotic imagery, their love for Islam will follow. Pole dancing indeed!

As to awards

In case no one has noticed, this is not Jihadist blog. Only someone who is not an active participating member of the blog could make objective assessment.

Jihadist's choice smacks of nepotism loud and clear. Jihadist wanted to attract the attention of certain members for her own personal and political reasons. She invented award categories to suit that need. Period.

Non award winners must rest assured that Jihadist's judgement mean nothing at all. It has been seconded only by the winners.

No doubt Jihadist is an entertaining and intelligent woman. If all Muslims were like her there would have been no 9/11 and other terrorist attacks in the name of Islam. But Jihadist cannot change the verses of the Quran based on which Islam used violence to propagate itself for many centuries. Jihadist cannot stop the terrorists from using Quran verses to justify their zeal for their religion. It would be time well spent if Jihadist would use her charm with the Islamic terrorists to keep their minds occupied with her brilliance.

Trying desperately to be politically correct is one thing. But dealing with real problems associated with verses from the Quran is another.

Don't dismiss Waldo's comments outright. Norrie Hoyt did mention that he was 68 or 71 years old. Norrie Hoyt is a charming, kind and intelligent man. He managed to convey that without using erotic imagery. His age doesn't matter on a blog such as this at all.

I want to thank he academy for this award. You like me, you really like me. Seriously, perhaps I come across as a militant in my writings but I would like to clear one thing up. If people practice their religion in their churches and homes and among those that think as they do, I have no problem. My problem comes when religious groups force their beliefs on the rest of us. Politicians are enacting laws that do just that. Thats when the little militant in me come into play. Our planet could be in serious trouble and we might not have much time to do much about it. Science will not be able to bail us out because religious groups will not let our government fund research. Every idea we the people have seems to be challenged by the likes of Jim Dobson, Tony Perkins, ACLJ and other well funded religious groups. They have a big say in our government because week-kneed politicians on both sides don't want to anger these groups for fear of losing votes or otherwise support. No other group is powerful enough to challenge these religious groups right now, but I am reading some encouraging reports that a new evangelical is being heard and is concerned about the planet and helping less fortunate people and are not pushing for government laws against gays and athiest. (NOTE: Jack Lahay sp author of the left behind series has stated on the Glen Beck show that athiests are mentally sick and should be put away)
So there is some encouragement from religious groups that want to live and let live. Get back to what religion is supposed be about. Teaching the gospel, feeding the poor and talking better care of the planet. I hope these people win out. Until they do I will be a militant secularist. JWEST

I wonder if the 'report of Imperialist Aggression' was really a plot against Islam. If it encouraged population control in Nigeria, it would be to their benefit. That same attitude in Africa, that the west is telling lies to 'harm them by encourageing lower fertility rates', has led to a generally held belief that AIDS is a western lie and spread through inoculations from WHO and the like and the highest rate of AIDS infection in the world.

BTW, the conversion of crop production from food to biofuel may have contributed to food prices and reduced aid to starving African populations. Fuel prices and the displacement of Christian and Animist peoples by muslims taking over oil producing areas have done as much harm if not more.

Despite China's economic openness it still keeps an iron fist around its new outlets. What I have heard seems pretty dire. Has anyone seen a good source for info on China's environmental problems lately?

Rafael says:

“The sooner people drop the issue of population growth in the developing world as the driving force in environmental degradation, the sooner they will recognize the problem is in themselves.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree that the third world doesn’t consume too much, but it clearly can’t support its population. Either it must limit its population (voluntarily or through starvation), or the rest of the world must share the wealth.

Bulletin: this just in, the rest of the world is not likely to share the wealth.

Here is a link that may explain why Rafael says to “drop the issue of population growth in the developing world”.

http://www.missionislam.com/conissues/popcontrol.htm

“Population Control:

Centrepiece of Imperialist Aggression Against the Muslim World

One of the most politically explosive incidents in this history of American foreign aid took place in Nigeria in early 1991. That was when a group of researchers uncovered a plot to plant fake Islamic teaching manuals in religious institutions in northern Nigeria.”

I asked Jihadist and Victoria for their opinion on this, and you can read Jihadist’s response at:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2007/10/science_and_religion/comments.html

The time of day of Jihadist’s post was: October 29, 2007 10:27 PM

Jed says:

"Also, assuming that Nuclear will have to be a strong part of supplying our doubled population in 66 years . . ."

“Let us hope the population does not double! That can be avoided more easily and for much less money than it would take to increase energy and food supplies. Frankly, I doubt that third world nations can support twice their present numbers. People already die of malnutrition in large numbers. If the population increases to ~8 billion, hundreds of thousands of children will die every week, and that will stabilize the population. You can thank the Vatican for that.”

I agree, but let’s do more than hope. If we refuse to take decisive positive action, the current world wide average growth rate of 1.167% will insure that the current population of 6.6 billion will double to 13.2 billion in 66 years. And the third world growth rate is much higher than the world average.

Here is another interesting article on population growth:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/wrjp365p.html

...“Moreover, the world has enough resources to feed and shelter any foreseeable world population. For example, current agricultural technology is capable of feeding a population of 80 billion using less than 10% of the Earth's land for crops.

The solution to improving the living conditions for the present and future world population is increased access to wealth and resources--in other words, a free market economy. Taiwan has five times the population density of mainland China, but has a standard of living ten times higher. This is because Taiwan has a free market economy, whereas mainland China's communist government still controls both the economy and individual human ingenuity.

Opponents of free markets have variously suggested or imposed various methods to "control" population growth. The most extreme case is mainland China, with severe penalties for families who have more than one child and (despite official claims) mandatory abortions against the will of the mothers, sometimes in the ninth month of pregnancy. Those who prefer to limit human freedom as a solution often praise China's policies in general.”

We obviously need to get our political and religious leaders of the world together to resolve this issue. Jed and Wm. Robert Johnston, argue that the best solution is to eliminate poverty. Mr. Johnston says that it’s as simple as converting the world to a free market economy.

I am my usual skeptical self and doubt that this will happen. The only alternative that I can see is world wide government mandated sterilization programs (modeled after China perhaps) in regions that cannot (or will not) voluntarily regulate their population. I doubt that this will happen either.

No wonder this is such an intractable problem. My prediction is that we will just continue to proceed down the path of doing nothing, and continue to see more and more children (Jed says hundreds of thousands) on our TV screens, with their swollen bellies protruding below their skeletal rib cages and covered with flies. This will eventually stabilize the population at a very high misery index, but what a path to follow.

Of course we can thank the Vatican for that, but we must also be sure to thank ourselves.

Rick,

The moderators must have scrubbed it. Something about repent and be saved. That probably offended someone.

CTCNL,

What ever are you talking about? I don't see any Canyon posts on this thread.

You'd better take a break; you're working too hard.

Rick -

As to your referenced article by Maureen Dowd...now don't you think that was a total spoof on Cheney and his (not so fictional) pro-war stance toward Iran?? I would agree that this very conversation might have taken place somewhere in the bowels of the Whitehouse, but I see a little comedic hyperbole contained therein. As secretive as this outfit it, I can't imagine that anybody, including Tim Russert, is going to get a newspaper byline warning Iran just before an imminent strike. Then again, the smell of sulfur is in the air.......

No apologies, no prisoners & no warning - that's the Bush/Cheney operating policy. Unfortunately this monumental abuse of power is very far from abating & anything is possible. I would agree that this is more than a tongue in cheek exercise.

Thanks for the red alert!

Terry

Canyon,

Wow, you are thumping hard today!!! Those conference calls with you, God and your "pwtfft" must be going well.

Rick wrote:

"This may surprise some that Iran has one of the better population control records (and not just from hanging gays I’m assuming). But I guess the Iranian people do look more favorably on the western life style than most Muslims."

I would not call the use of contraceptives a "western life style." Muslim doctors developed effective methods for both camels and people in the 8th century, as I recall. The first effective spermacide contraceptives were described in Egyptian texts dating back to 1550 BC. The Japanese population growth was restrained with contraception and abortion throughout the Edo period.

Of course modern methods are safer and far more effective.

The Iranian government has had good public health policies since it was founded. Their infant mortality rate (IMR) has fallen from 122 to 29 since the revolution. The IMR is usually a good indication of overall public health.

Rick wrote:

"How about Hydrogen as an alternative to fuel cells? Is it really better?"

It is not an alternative. Hydrogen is most efficient when used with fuel cells, rather than combustion. See this NREL data:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf

"Also, assuming that Nuclear will have to be a strong part of supplying our doubled population in 66 years . . ."

Let us hope the population does not double! That can be avoided more easily and for much less money than it would take to increase energy and food supplies. Frankly, I doubt that third world nations can support twice their present numbers. people already die of malnutrition in large numbers. If the population increases to ~8 billion, hundreds of thousands of children will die every week, and that will stabilize the population. You can thank the Vatican for that.

". . . and generating supplies of Hydrogen, how big a part will it play, and how will we handle the waste disposal? Can’t anyone come up with a safe use for the nuclear waste products?"

In my opinion, the danger of nuclear waste disposal has been somewhat exaggerated. Spent nuclear fuel rods can be recycled with breeder reactors, and much more energy can be generated with them. But at present this technology is extremely expensive & dangerous, so it is much better to use virgin uranium. perhaps in a hundred years we will improve reader technology and begin re-using the spent fuel rods.

People talk about the difficulties of preserving the spent fuel for tens of thousands of years without harming the environment. I think this should not be a concern. Within a hundred years or at most 200 years I expect we will have very cheap & reliable space elevator technology. People will then be able to take nuclear waste and dispose of it on the moon, or drop it into the sun. The actual mass of spent fuel and other long lived radwaste is small. I expect the space elevators in the year 2500 will be able to transport the whole kit-and-caboodle in a few days, at very little expense, with far greater safety and reliability than today's trucks and ships. I do not think that our descendents will be upset with us for leaving the mess for them to clean up. It is better than leaving the world afflicted with global warming.

"Tidal power is one extremely clean source that is only being exploited it a few places in the world."

The problem is, it can only be used in a few places in the world. Not many places have large tides.

"Assume for the moment that Cold Fusion isn’t going to be available for the next 100 years."

Well, it will either be in the next 10 years or never. The researchers are mainly WWII-era retired professors and National Lab researchers, such as Schwinger. One of them was the guy who pressed the button to trigger the first bomb at Trinity. He died some years ago, like so many others in this field. They will all be dead or incapacitated in 10 years, and cold fusion will be forgotten. Young scientists aren't allowed to do creative or risky stuff. As soon as the top brass finds out they are interested in cold fusion, bang! -- out the door. (You can thank the Washington Post for that. They have a charming habit of accusing all cold fusion researchers of criminal misconduct, fraud and lunacy, which kind of puts the damper on funding and people's careers.)

Anyway, assuming the geriatric scientists cannot make it work . . .

In that case, I recommend the aggressive development of solar-thermal, wind, energy transport with hydrogen, and geosynchronous space-based solar. All four can be accomplished with today's technology. Spaced-based solar has made large strides since it was first proposed in the 1970s, because of the widespread use of geosynchronous satellites for television and telecommunications. It could supply unlimited amounts of energy. See:

http://www.powersat.com/

Once space elevators become available, the cost of geosynchronous space-based solar would fall to practically nothing. The earth-side "footprint" for this is also the smallest of any energy source (except cold fusion). A 5 GW receiver would be an oblong net, about 1.5 miles on the long side. It would probably no impact on the environment. Crops could be grown under it, just as they are grown under PV solar installations in Germany, and under wind turbines in the U.S.

The footprint for cold fusion is zero, or negative, actually. Machines powered by it will be more compact than the ones we have now, because the power density is high and the fuel takes up practically no space; i.e. ~1 gram of heavy water per year per automobile. Plus you don't need the distribution network, such as electric power lines, pipelines, gas stations and the like.

Did you see this Tim Russert interview of Darth Vader this weekend?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/opinion/28dowd.html?ei=5087&em=&en=3b06bd6ceca4de30&ex=1193803200&pagewanted=print

W.M.D. in Iran? Q.E.D.

TIM RUSSERT: Mr. Vice President, welcome to “Meet the Press.”

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: Good morning, Tim.

RUSSERT: How close are we to war with Iran?

CHENEY: Well, I think we are in the final stages of diplomacy, obviously. We have done virtually everything we can with respect to carrots, if you will. It’s time for squash. Not to mention mushrooms, clouds of them.

RUSSERT: But you squashed Iraq and that didn’t work out so well.

CHENEY: Iraq will be fine, Tim. It just needs a firmer hand. We learned that lesson. We’re not going to get hung up on democracy this time. (Expletive) purple thumbs.

RUSSERT: Isn’t Secretary Rice still pushing carrots for Iran?

CHENEY: The more carrots Condi feeds ’em, the better they’ll be able to see the bombs coming....

The rest is at the link.

Ender,

You say:

“I would be curious if some of the Muslims posters would comment on attitudes toward birth control and population growth in Islam. I would be suprised if it were not like the Catholic policy that encourages breeding followers to the point of outnumbering the 'competition'.”

Here is link:

http://bmz.de/en/service/infothek/fach/spezial/spezial049/190.pdf

Population Policy in the Islamic Countries

Ahad Rahmanzadeh

Study commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development

This study concludes that:

“Conclusion:

...There is a close correlation between urbanisation and population development. However, low population growth in Azerbaijan, which has a large rural population but a diversified employment structure, and high population growth in the Arab (oil) countries, which have a largely urban population with simple occupational structures, seem to contradict the assumption that had been generally held up until now that urbanisation on its own slows down population growth...

...The striking features of Iran's reproductive health policy are the complementarity of the programmes and the great part played by information and education. In contrast with some other policy areas, this policy endeavours to gain the participation of those concerned and their involvement of their own free will. The support and, to some extent, participation of the clergy is absolutely decisive in this. Indeed, contraceptive use is higher than in the neighbouring secular state of Turkey...

... Whilst population development has slowed down considerably in the three sample countries and the growth rate at the beginning of the 21st century now stands at between 1 % and 1.5 %, some other Islamic countries are recording very high growth rates. These include countries such as Saudi Arabia (3.1 %), Iraq (2.8 %), Syria (2.8 %) and Oman (as much as 3.9 %). Despite its reproductive health policy, Pakistan also still has a growth rate of 2.8 %3.”

This may surprise some that Iran has one of the better population control records (and not just from hanging gays I’m assuming). But I guess the Iranian people do look more favorably on the western life style than most Muslims.

Jed,

Did you comment on this post by Ender? It sounds awfully good to me. How about Hydrogen as an alternative to fuel cells? Is it really better? Also, assuming that Nuclear will have to be a strong part of supplying our doubled population in 66 years, and generating supplies of Hydrogen, how big a part will it play, and how will we handle the waste disposal? Can’t anyone come up with a safe use for the nuclear waste products? Assume for the moment that Cold Fusion isn’t going to be available for the next 100 years.

Ender says:

“Tidal power is one extremely clean source that is only being exploited it a few places in the world. Fundy bay on the Maine/Canada border has 50 ft tides. Tubines that remained submerged most of the day could produce huge amounts of power, and with very little new technology be made ecologically harmless. Electricity generated could be used on the spot to create hydrogen from ocean water.

A new patent by a former IBM designer makes hydrogen fuel safer than the best fuel cells. A mixture of Gallium and Aluminum dropped into water produces hydrogen, so little hydrogen needs to be stored. The bi-product is aluminum oxide which can be easily collected and recycled at a cost effective rate by aluminum processors which already process recycled aluminum and aluminum oxide.

My point is that for the $Trillions we will have spent killing Iraqis and American soldiers, and rebuilding the bodies and infrastructure we have broken, we could have many technologies operating where they fit best and cause the least harm, and a hydrogen infrastructure developed. Even if we went nuclear we would still have to convert water to hydrogen as batteries are an ineffective storage media.

We should not be waiting for the perfect solution. We should be doing the doable. If private enterprise can't do it, and especially when they block progress, then it should be done by the gov't we elect to supposedly act in our interest.”

(Scientific/statistical) "Estimates of the number of human beings who have ever lived on Earth constitute an extremely large range, with low estimates around 45 billion, and the highest estimates topping out around 125 billion. Many of the more robust estimates fall into the range of 90 to 110 billion humans."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Whatever the true number, Heaven, Hell and Purgatory are very crowded places giving credence that all three (if they exist) are spirit states as alluded to by Aquinas and JPII. http://eternal-word.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM

Conclusion: Earth's population problem (if it exists) can be easily solved by converting Earth to a spirit state. Or we could simply go on a food and energy diet :))))

Rick wrote:

"I am more concerned about the leaders of the world being able to convince their people to voluntarily limit population growth. . . .

As I said, it is easy to convince people to do this. Just give them a decent job and health care and nearly everyone will limit their family size. The hard part is to convince wealthy people and nations to give the poor people a chance. There has been significant progress in this. Microloans and other innovations have greatly reduced extreme third-world poverty in the last 30 years. If the U.S. would end subsidies to big agriculture it would save our taxpayers billions of dollars and it would a tremendous help to third world farmers who cannot compete with our subsidized exports. It would also go a long way to reducing our obesity problem. Entrenched welfare-for-the-rich government largesses is difficult to root out, but sometimes the good guys win.

"This requires the cooperation of our scientists and religious leaders to address the morality of this issue. As you know, reducing population growth is a most difficult topic to discus even with mainstream Catholics, let alone right wing religious extremists."

I do not think the Catholic hierarchy will support contraception anytime soon. The present Pope is even more retrograde than the last few. Fortunately, Catholic people and nations are ignoring the church and taking matters into their own hands. For example, here is a CBC report from Brazil, May 2007:

"Brazil's government is cutting the price of birth control pills to less than 25 cents for a month's supply so poor women can afford the contraceptive.

The move comes just two weeks after a visit by Pope Benedict XVI, who used his time in the mainly Roman Catholic country to condemn abortion, contraception and sex outside marriage. . . ."

I am sure the timing was not accidental. They are saying the same thing to the Pope that La Guardia said, regarding sex: "You no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules."

Right wing extremists have also had their day. Their grip on power is weakening. They went too far in the Iraq war, and they will be out of power for a generation. Then the liberals will go too far, and the pendulum will swing back.

I would never say that war and a hellish future are impossible. People are capable of suicidal folly. The 20th century was one of the grimmest on record. We still have thermonuclear weapons, although we have reduced the numbers from ~60,000 to around 5,000, which makes it much less likely that we will wipe out the entire human race with the damn things. But most people are sane. In my book, I wrote:

"Most people are sensible and right-minded. Our species would not have survived otherwise. Democracy and the free market system would never have worked. History has been a test of strength between the rapacious, foolish, greedy, shortsighted minority and the sensible majority. So far, in cold fusion, the fools have won every round, suppressing nearly all research. I have had a ringside seat at this fiasco. No one knows better than I how powerful the fools can be, and how badly the cold fusion researchers have muffed the few opportunities that have come their way. Without public support, researchers will never receive funding, yet they have often scorned opportunities to convince the public of the validity of their work. But history shows that people have often changed their minds, reformed, overcome great difficulties, and beaten back hordes of fools and angry naysayers. History gives us guarded hope that things may yet turn out as I have predicted here."

Jed,

Your arguments are persuasive, but I am not concerned so much that the required technologies will be developed in the area of clean energy, although this is a difficult enough challenge. I am more concerned about the leaders of the world being able to convince their people to voluntarily limit population growth. As you say, it will be difficult to support a doubling of our population, which is predicted to occur in just about 70-75 years, even with the improved technology that you describe.

No, I don’t think that we are facing the end of history in 75 years, but as you said, we may face some serious setbacks in our quality of life (and disastrous wars) that would be unnecessary, if we could just work together to reduce the rate of growth of our population. This requires the cooperation of our scientists and religious leaders to address the morality of this issue. As you know, reducing population growth is a most difficult topic to discus even with mainstream Catholics, let alone right wing religious extremists.

Rick wrote:

"So, it's 66 years, not 5 (blush). The odds of us getting our act together in 66 years is still about as good as that of the Skins beating the Pats this afternoon.

Not very good."

Are you sure? Based on what? Think about how much the world changed from 1850 to 1900, or from 1900 to 1966. Our ancestors remade the face of the planet and changed their way of life beyond recognition during these periods. They overcame seemingly intractable problems. Why do you think we are incapable of doing what they did? Human nature has not changed, and we are no less capable than they were. When the need for change becomes acute, people often accomplish astounding things in a short time. Not always. Sometimes societies collapse and people die out. But I would not bet on our extinction quite yet.

If you think the resources are not available, then I suggest you do not know enough about fission, solar and wind energy. If you think this is the end of history and nothing new is left for us to discover, then I suggest you study cold fusion. There are a million, million unknown and unexplored facets of nature. In the distant future we will develop technology unimaginably better, more powerful, more advanced and more dangerous than what we have now.

If you are betting against human ingenuity and our fierce will to survive, you are betting on the wrong side of history.

DZ,

So, it's 66 years, not 5 (blush). The odds of us getting our act together in 66 years is still about as good as that of the Skins beating the Pats this afternoon.

Not very good.

DZ,

Yup, you are right of course.

Thanks!

Rick:

I keep failing to finish. Sorry.

OR, you can just do 78/1.167 and get 66 years. It's a long-standing method of calculating how long it would take an investment to double at a given rate of return or what rate of return is necessary to double the investment in a given period of time. Rule of 78

Rick:

I expressed it poorly. The growth rate is .01167. To get 13.2 billion, it takes 66 years.

6.6 billion * 1.01167 = 6.71 billion at end of Year 1

6.71 billion * 1.01167 = 6.79 billion at end of Year 2

6.79 billion * 1.01167 = 6.87 billion at ebd of Year 3

Etc. 66 years

Rick:

Nope. Wrong. Learn the Rule of 78. It's a growth rate of 1.167% not 116.7%. Do .01167 to the 5th power.

BTW, Anon was me.

Jed,

I should have said that the chance of us getting our act together in 5 years is about as good as the Skins beating the Pats this afternoon.

DZ,

I don't know about your "rule of 78", but I think that we are dealing with a power series here.

If you raise 1.167 to the 5th power, or multiply 1.167*1.167*1.167*1.167*1.167, you get 2.16; and 2.16*6.6 billion = 14.3 billion; pretty close to 15 billion.

Rick:

Yes, you are reading your calculator. Remember the Rule of 78. At a growth rate of 1.167, it would take 66 years for the population to double to 13.2 billion. It would then take another 8-10 years to get to 15 billion.