Oil Storm! Those Clever Liberals Strike Again!

[Colleen Thomas]

Kendo1....

Middle and upper class Americans can afford either to pay high prices for gasoline or convert to alternative fuels when they become available.

But a high percentage of single young working Americans are working in entry level positions near the minimum wage levels between $5 and $7 per hour.

They buy old used cars or use public transportation when possible or walk or share rides. The imposition of higher prices by taxation or restricting the amount of petroleum products would make their continued existence tenuos to say the least.

We do always have future generations in mind as we invest in long term stocks and bonds and morgages on business and residential real estate. The accumulations we can make, outside confiscatory taxes on the 'wealthy' will provide a foundation for future generations.

By destroying the petroleum industry, as many adocate, you penalize future generations in many ways...


amicus...

Not that you sound like a texaco exec Amicus, but when did promoting research into alternative fuels and making viable alternatives avialable to the public become synanamous with destroying the petroleum industry?

Diversification is a watch word for today's corporations. If the oil companies made themselves leaders in research into alternative forms of fuel, they would still be in a commanding position when those alternatives become neccessary, rather than just a good idea.

At present, if they spent just a third of what they spend buying senators and reps on R & D, they would most likely be in a good position to dominate the market in alternative fuels as they dominate the market in fossile fuel.


Obviously, you can't corner the market on sunlight, but if you are the major producer of solar cells, you will still reap a nice profit. Then too, if you can find a stronger, cheaper, more cost effective method of isolating hydrogen you can clean up there too.

I'm not advocationg destruction of the petroleum indusrty. But I feel, it's a very short sighted strategy to do all in your power to hamstring efforts at finding alternatives when you know, well in advance of the fact, that your cash cow is finite and one day, there won't be any left to pump out of the ground.

 

[BeWeBoy]

I am not bitching and no I do not have a plan, people with far more insight than me have some exellent proposals and iniatives that I am sure the exploration and implementation of will bring positive changes(links further down). The issues and problems are wide ranging and complex. Having said that if one keeps to the simple and "do-able" initially then the natural evolution could prove beneficial to all.

If I did not care, if I simply wrote anyone who disagreed with me off as ignorant or an america basher, It would seem evident I wouldn't bother to post. Or, I would simply post something snide and not look back at the replies, as is SOP for some who hold viewpoints that are not popular. I generally, do not speak, unless I feel strongly about something, and if I feel strongly enough about it, I generally will stand in defense of it. In many cases, that has meant standing virtually alone against the tide of opinion here at lit.

We share this trait of holding to a veiwpoint and I do this in the RL hence I cannot go to Scandinavian Countries for another year for example, and a couple of other blots on my record, when I have stood for my beliefs and convictions.

I run a small business that promotes and sell environmentally preferable products and we are working on developing a composting facility for the municiple waste stream.

Within that historical context, the people doing the loudest screeching, have the least grounds to assume such a holier than thou attitude. Their own history shows that they were as bad, if not worse, in almost all cases. That is not living in the past, that is pointing out a pertinent fact. For all the outrage, they seem to want to forget that when they held the upper hand, they followed the exact same pattern we are following now. And it is that pattern, which I have tried to draw attention to.

http://www.makepovertyhistory.org/

Context of me. I am of British decent, born in South Africa, moved to Antigua aged 3(Caribbean now independent nation was British colony), up until I was 10ish I was at school here, about 10% of the school population was caucasion,high schooled in UK and have lived in Antigua for the last 14 years, the "missing period" travelled and worked in hospitlity industry inLondon in early'90. Met many young Yugoslavians fleeing the civil war, who had lost family, freinds.

I have sailed the Atlantic seven times, seen Dolphins and Whales in the wild. I've tried to stop their slaughter in the Faroe Isles, have you ever heard a whale scream while standing surrounded by others and the sea thick with blood? They get eaten by people, while the mercury content is in excess of recommended level. Murcury will cause serious neurological damage and as to unborn fetuses , well that is another gambit. The Danes are the criminals here.

I do not consider myself "British" I am aware of my Britishness, my accent and likes and dislike in food culture etc, that is about where it ends. In the context of this discussion I am just another person on planet earth.

I am a very lucky man to have experienced these things

My "screeching" does not come from a Nation. I live in a post colonial/slavery society that acheived it's independence in 1981 and politically until 23/3/03 had the same family in power for 28 some suggest 40 years. We are doing our best to correct things, but the corruption is within the fabric of society, it is amazing what people will do to defend greed and averice, together with the hangover of colonialism, the leaders use similar strategies as their forebearers in same seats of power, this is changing.

Power was held by the sugar syndicate up until the 60's and they did a great job of keeping the population down. Decended from slavery, but never realy freed from it until the 60's, similar to the US I suppose. This is the population I make up part of the society with neighbours freinds, lovers, work collegues etc.

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/caribbean/antigua_and_barbuda/history.htm

In sum, you are not demanding the US change her ways. You are demanding the US buck historical trend. A historical trend to which your countries by and large were at least the co authors of. Within that context, demands that we change are shown to be a lot more complicated than us simply doing what you want. It can be argued, realatively easily, that without the national bravado and self centeredness you are decrying, no country would ever reach preeminence.

I perceive that we live in a time of considerable change, the patterns and rule of the past are morphing, communication - morse code is no longer officially recognized yet I can use a box the size of a cigarette packet and speak to my freind in the Antarctic! Travel - airplanes with capacity of 800 + passengers, bookings can be made to go into space. This computer that I am using 50 years ago would have taken up the space of the Empire State building! So in that light perhaps nations can change and the meseaure of preeminece can change to something more holistic.

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=topics.home&topic_id=1413
http://www.worldwatch.org/features/security/tf/1

I do not endorse not knowing or caring what others think. I merely point out that's the way it is. That too is a historical trend here. This country has always prided itself on its independance. While you can argue that independance has becme arrogance, you are again, bucking a historical trend and within that context, you have an uphill battle just to be heard, much less taken seriously. The fact that you have little respect for our nation, is counterbalanced by the fact most of us could care less what you think or who you respect.

In the world within which I have lived, respect is earnt not given as an auomatic right, I imagine your experience is similar. I have not suggested I have no respect for the US, I am not a fan. There is a difference. America has many wonderful acheivements of which I have no issue with. But it is intresting that you point out..

Maybe this is a historical trend, but so is the disliking the bully who gets to big for his boots. You have said he is usually toppled from the top, yet do not acknowledge any of my examples that to me illustrate the contrary?

Within my argument, within historical context, exactly whom do you respect? What world power has done it so much better that you can compare us and we come up so wanting?

I would have thought it clear that "world power" at the expense of other races and culture is the very object I dispise. But sadly this is perhaps the evil of mankind himself and this is the paradox of our discusion. All powers have decimated races and cultures in their path to attain wealth and riches I agree and sadly in my limited knowledge you have me stumped. Which begs the question, is this an arguement, "I'm right your wrong" because if it is then I am in the wrong place.

And that's really the crux of it. You aren't asking us to stand up well to history. You are demanding we do it the way you want, holding us to a standard that is IMHO unobtainable by anyone.

What I would love to see is perhaps a better way of putting it. What I want is no different from what I believe everyone really wants. Which if it needs an example is probably best invisaged in the original Charter of the United Nations; June 26, 1945, which as you know came into being after some of the worst examples of mankind and world power. But the respect for this charter has been eaten away over the years.

And infact the disregard for it GWB has shown for it in March 2003 is probably the turning point for much of the respect that America had and the disrespect it finds itself victim now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memoplain.html

Your government, that represents your people, disregarded all critisism and international opposition. The fact that this was driven by the events of 9/11 which is seen as a terrorist attack leaves further bad taste in my mouth. I shall leave this otherwise I will stray from the point. As a historian you will recall Bin Laden's Fatwah of 1996.

So in your mind is the UN Charter of 1945 unobtainable?

The NIMBY attitude is no crime.

No it is not, but to allow it to happen in my back yard is especially to deny me the right to get pissed off about it, together in Piere's and Karim, Rita's it is ok to happen theirs are they not allowed to feel that. Do the residents of Bhopal not have that right? Or again is it only for Americans, isthat why the world wants to live there?

I think it also speaks well of the individual American that when crisis comes, when he or she is forced to confront a tragedy or disaster, we by and large give generously. If something happens that impressess itself, that relegates the daily grind to secondary importance, we, as a nation, tend to respond well.

Indeed I could not agree more, but again your country does not have that monopoly. A freind related a story of being abandoned in the Cape Verde Islands, they know what deprivation is, she was plump, decent cloths no holes etc. They welcomed her into their home, she was the guest her plate of mele meal was a mound and they had some! It is these human qualities that connect us irrespective of race, colour, or creed. Bill Gates from the corporate world is comendable as well.I know of others

I believe Ogs has noted we are now one of the largest, if not the largest debtor nation on earth.

Ogs ?? Official Government Statements y/n

That is probably true, but how did this come about would you suggest? I have my ideas but will be accused of being some rabid utopianist etc, who hates America.

You still do not get me about consummerism. I have not asked anyone in the USA to deprive themselves, in my mind you are doing that yourselves, but that is my opinion. I still think the obesity issue is a great example, the knock on health effects are obese people happy. If your government enforced laws that exist, the energy savings could be made.

http://www.rmi.org/
http://www.worldwatch.org/features/security/tf/3

The speed limit in the US is 50 mph due to the 70's oil crisis, has this been revised I do not know. Of the cars produced in the country by American firms which of them are NOT capable of exceeding lets say 80mph. And I will throw this arguement to every automobile nation in the world with the exception of Germany due to no speed limit on the Autoban, and this I understand is being reveiwed. What are the healthcare and policing costs due to this, accidents, deaths etc, again the US is not the only culprit.

Colleen, it saddens me that your country rightly or wrongly does not see beyond the end of it's nose. I am not America bashing, but when a country posseses such talent and expertise that is wrapped up in its military industry and so much of the world is in dire need is it not sad that you(as a country) cling so tight to the might is right opinion and will not allow rational conversation to occur, historical norms and all. Especially when as human beings we are all bound by the same emotions, and basic nutrient requirements to sustain life.Who was it that said after WWII that the defence industry would become dangerous?

http://www.enn.com/index.html

And if in your reponse you suggest I am still America bashing and demanding you deprive yourselves then you will have missed every thing I have done my best to communicate.

Just what are you suggesting as a course of action?

For people such as your self to use your intelectual attributes to see beyond the norm and to have the courage to enquire slightly deeper than the average person.

To allow people to be angry because maybe the have a reason. You have implied that as a nation people can not be bothered to to enquire more deeply.

To thank your lucky stars you have what you have and there are other people in the world who are not so lucky. If you feel your nation deserves the respect it does then have come respect for others.

Do not accept what your government tells you is the truth of things, domestically or otherwise.

To remember Newton's third law of physics
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

 

[Guest]

Just FYI -

The 55 mph was imposed in 1974 as an energy-saving measure after the Middle East oil embargo. In 1995 Clinton signed a bill that ended federal control over speed limits. States have set their own standard for nearly ten years.

Much of what you have said in your previous post carries the same type of misinformation. Some of it is admittedly true, some was true 30 years ago, but some is a complete fabrication.

What remains loud and clear, however, is your bias against the U.S.

 

[cloudy]

Just FYI -

The 55 mph was imposed in 1974 as an energy-saving measure after the Middle East oil embargo. In 1995 Clinton signed a bill that ended federal control over speed limits. States have set their own standard for nearly ten years.

Much of what you have said in your previous post carries the same type of misinformation. Some of it is admittedly true, some was true 30 years ago, but some is a complete fabrication.

What remains loud and clear, however, is your bias against the U.S.

I think I love you and Colly both.....in fact, I know I do.

 

[BeWeBoy]

Just FYI -

The 55 mph was imposed in 1974 as an energy-saving measure after the Middle East oil embargo. In 1995 Clinton signed a bill that ended federal control over speed limits. States have set their own standard for nearly ten years.

Much of what you have said in your previous post carries the same type of misinformation. Some of it is admittedly true, some was true 30 years ago, but some is a complete fabrication.

What remains loud and clear, however, is your bias against the U.S.

Well thanks for the correction on the speed limit.

So do correct my ignorance as I am not into untruths etc least of all fabrication.

I thought this was a place for discussion and free speech.

Simple text change on incorrect info works, I'll research.

I have no intrest in just winding people up.

 

[Guest]

Well thanks for the correction on the speed limit.

So do correct my ignorance as I am not into untruths etc least of all fabrication.

I thought this was a place for discussion and free speech.

Simple text change on incorrect info works, I'll research.

I have no intrest in just winding people up.

Free speech, of course.

Inflammatory speech, hopefully not. I'm not implying that you've done the fabricating, by the way. Perhaps your source is the culprit.

Of your major facts, please do some checking. A simple on-line search could probably reveal the other side of many of the issues you've brought forth.

 

[cloudy]

Your government, that represents your people, disregarded all critisism and international opposition. The fact that this was driven by the events of 9/11 which is seen as a terrorist attack leaves further bad taste in my mouth. I shall leave this otherwise I will stray from the point. As a historian you will recall Bin Laden's Fatwah of 1996.

What a damn minute......9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack???? Pray tell, then - what the hell was it? (and a word to the wise, tread lightly, I lost a family member there).

Indeed I could not agree more, but again your country does not have that monopoly. A freind related a story of being abandoned in the Cape Verde Islands, they know what deprivation is, she was plump, decent cloths no holes etc. They welcomed her into their home, she was the guest her plate of mele meal was a mound and they had some! It is these human qualities that connect us irrespective of race, colour, or creed. Bill Gates from the corporate world is comendable as well.I know of others

I agree, most people as individuals are very giving, but as a nation, we give of ourselves very generously - all the damn time. We're the first one called when someone needs help, and usually the first ones there.

Of the cars produced in the country by American firms which of them are NOT capable of exceeding lets say 80mph. And I will throw this arguement to every automobile nation in the world with the exception of Germany due to no speed limit on the Autoban, and this I understand is being reveiwed. What are the healthcare and policing costs due to this, accidents, deaths etc, again the US is not the only culprit.

As far as I know, there are NO cars made with restrictions, and those that were could be unrestricted with a screwdriver - so what? I drive a sports car that can do 170 easy. Does that mean I drive it that fast? Of course not.

Colleen, it saddens me that your country rightly or wrongly does not see beyond the end of it's nose. I am not America bashing, but when a country posseses such talent and expertise that is wrapped up in its military industry and so much of the world is in dire need is it not sad that you(as a country) cling so tight to the might is right opinion and will not allow rational conversation to occur, historical norms and all. Especially when as human beings we are all bound by the same emotions, and basic nutrient requirements to sustain life.Who was it that said after WWII that the defence industry would become dangerous?

Your bias is entirely apparent to me and others. We do give, and give generously, within our shores and without. To be quite honest, we have pockets of such poverty here, among ourselves, that the recipients of what I have to spare are here, my own people.

 

[amicus]

Colleen Thomas...

"
Not that you sound like a texaco exec Amicus, but when did promoting research into alternative fuels and making viable alternatives avialable to the public become synanamous with destroying the petroleum industry?

Diversification is a watch word for today's corporations. If the oil companies made themselves leaders in research into alternative forms of fuel, they would still be in a commanding position when those alternatives become neccessary, rather than just a good idea.

At present, if they spent just a third of what they spend buying senators and reps on R & D, they would most likely be in a good position to dominate the market in alternative fuels as they dominate the market in fossile fuel.


Obviously, you can't corner the market on sunlight, but if you are the major producer of solar cells, you will still reap a nice profit. Then too, if you can find a stronger, cheaper, more cost effective method of isolating hydrogen you can clean up there too.

I'm not advocationg destruction of the petroleum indusrty. But I feel, it's a very short sighted strategy to do all in your power to hamstring efforts at finding alternatives when you know, well in advance of the fact, that your cash cow is finite and one day, there won't be any left to pump out of the ground...."

First off, Colly, oil companies are already diversifying, and even advertising that fact on cable and public television to engender a more 'eco conscious' facade.

However, as you well know, we live in a world of competitive enterprise, where every business person attempts to maintain and expand each year; it is the nature of the beast.

While many, in and out of government, would like to saddle each industry with a 'world overview' that would benefit all sectors of the economy, here and there, that is simply not how an open competitive society works.

Our industrial strength is in the freedom of choice and investment, not in the guidance and directions from an all powerful government.

My objection was basically that the tax structure is such that the oil industry is being taxed to support government plans and programs intended to replace the petroleum industry. Now that may seem fair to you and others who assume that the best interests of the people lay in government planning, but as I have said so many times, I do not agree.

I contend that the market place will provide an alternative to fossil fuels when the time is right and that intervention in the market place will only slow that advance and make it more costly to all.

Althought it will provide increased employment for bureaocrats.

And for you to imagine that major petroleum cartels are not fully aware of the need to diversify and prepare for alternative energy sources...well...perhaps a little more research is in order.

amicus...

edited to add: Not that it matters…but something is afoot that has the old Amicus perplexed…

Although apparently few have seen ‘Oil Storm’ a Fox Channel production that has been running for a week on the FX Channel on cable television; it is a ‘tour de force’ of a cataclysm of the American oil industry brought about by a hurricane affecting Port Fourchon, Louisiana. The Port apparently handles about 30 percent of petroleum products entering the U.S.

Lo and behold, in addition to FX re running the film Saturday night, June 11th, 2005, the Discovery Science Channel ran a program entitled ‘Coastal Crisis’ which concentrated on the very same area, Port Fourchon, Louisiana.

Apparently way back in 1927, following a serious Mississippi flood, the US Government contracted the US Corps of Engineers to begin a decade long project of building dikes to contain the Mississippi river.

One of the results of that construction was the diversion of the river away from the marsh and swamp lands in lower Louisiana. Since the marshes had been built extended by sediment carried by the Mississippi for untold ages, the diversion has led to the destruction and loss of land in the Mississippi Delta.

That loss of land has and is threatening not only Port Fourchon, but also the City of New Orleans and many other low lying communities in the Delta region.

Now…I have long suspected the Discovery Science Channel to favor one particular political party and ideology, that of ecological preservation over human growth and development. But, I did not expect the Fox Network to follow suit.

It appears to me that Fox has teamed with a wing of the liberal democrat party and with a wing of the conservative republican party to form an unholy alliance…with what goal in mind?

In the Fox Network production of ‘Oil Storm’ the religious right was portrayed as being activist in a ‘food not oil’ movement, coordinating with farm labor in maintaining subsidies for agricultural products over solving the oil crisis.

I suspect that neither of these programs were created or aired by accident, or as ‘informational or educational’ only; I sense a political agenda. But just what agenda is it and who is behind it?

I have been closely involved in News, on radio, television and print media for nearly 40 years and this is truly an anomaly to me.

Any ideas? Anyone…?

A puzzled amicus…

 

[Colleen Thomas]

This will take a while and my computer skills are limited so bear with my streamlined quote system.

From past miscommunications, I try to remindmyself to use the more value neutral terms when in a debate, sadly, I still sometimes revert to using the word you. I intend it as a non inclusive plural, denoting the group I am discussing, but all to often, it is take in the personal singular. Let me state, emphatically, I have not intended to imply any of my comments were aimed at a specific poster, within the context of their views on the US.

Quote:

I am not bitching and no I do not have a plan, people with far more insight than me have some exellent proposals and iniatives that I am sure the exploration and implementation of will bring positive changes(links further down). The issues and problems are wide ranging and complex. Having said that if one keeps to the simple and "do-able" initially then the natural evolution could prove beneficial to all.

If those who scream the battle cry of you guys are consuming too much, polluting too much, ad infinitum, were less ready to make all inclusive statements and were more willing to offer practical ideas, Many of us, myself included, would be far less likely to get defensive. The observation that we overconsume is pretty meaningless if no practical solution is coupled with it.



In passing, I'm familar with Antigua and it's history. Granted I know more of it's history during the colonial period, but as a diver, I'm passingly familar with the current political scene, as I am with most carribean Islands.


Quote:
I perceive that we live in a time of considerable change, the patterns and rule of the past are morphing, communication - morse code is no longer officially recognized yet I can use a box the size of a cigarette packet and speak to my freind in the Antarctic! Travel - airplanes with capacity of 800 + passengers, bookings can be made to go into space. This computer that I am using 50 years ago would have taken up the space of the Empire State building! So in that light perhaps nations can change and the meseaure of preeminece can change to something more holistic.

Perhaps. I would say not, but that is most likely the sceptic in me. A neccisity, for a change in the paradigm would be a will to see it change and a willingness to sacrifice to achive that end. I don't see a very strong movement within the US to give up our position, nor do I percieve any major demand of our governemnt that we should sacrifice the fruits of being on top. In terms of real politik, I don't see a progressive attitude in China, which I feel is perhaps the closest power on earth at this moment to reaching a state of preeminence rivaling ours. Here, I see a hardening of the attitude that we are under attack and with it, a parallel attitude of scorn for those who are pressing us. Working under the theory that such change would have to be enacted over the strenuous protest of the politicval power here, I don't see it happening.Politicans, being politicians, are quite enamoured of power and would be hard pressed to voluntarily ceede a portion of their power to anyone else.


Quote:
In the world within which I have lived, respect is earnt not given as an auomatic right, I imagine your experience is similar. I have not suggested I have no respect for the US, I am not a fan. There is a difference. America has many wonderful acheivements of which I have no issue with. But it is intresting that you point out..

Maybe this is a historical trend, but so is the disliking the bully who gets to big for his boots. You have said he is usually toppled from the top, yet do not acknowledge any of my examples that to me illustrate the contrary?

I'm sorry, I didn't see any example presented. I will read back. However, I'll make my case here.

Persia (a regional power, but since that region was thought to be the world for the most part, I include it) was toppled by Alexander the Great.

Egypt was toppled by Alexander as well, but wasn't really eliminated as a power until the Romans.

Carthage, by any definition a worl power) was toppled by Rome.

Rome, was toppled by a combination of Gothic tribes and internal divisiveness. neither canbe said to have been the decisive factor, but without a doubt, she was toppled by an outside power, at least in part.

You don't have another power for along time, but the next solid powers are Sapin and Portugal. Portugal's fall is something of a mystery to me and seems to have had more to do with a lack of quality leadership after the demise of Henry the navigator. Spain, on the other hand was decisively toppled by England.

In no partiular order: Tsarist Russia was relegated to a second rate power after a drubbing by Japan. France suffered a decline in her power and prestige after an extremely brutal defeat at the hands of the English. The Dutch ceased to exercise world influence after a beating, again at the hands of the English. Prussia administered the coup de grase to Austrian aspirations of european hedgemony. Russia, Austria, and the English put an end to Napoleonic France's power.

In my experience, the power at the top falls usually to an outside power. Admittedly, some powers simply fall at their own hands. Macadonia, post Alexander and the Holy Roman Empire, post Charlemagne are good examples of internal division spelling doom without an over ridding shove from an outside power.

Quote:
I would have thought it clear that "world power" at the expense of other races and culture is the very object I dispise. But sadly this is perhaps the evil of mankind himself and this is the paradox of our discusion. All powers have decimated races and cultures in their path to attain wealth and riches I agree and sadly in my limited knowledge you have me stumped. Which begs the question, is this an arguement, "I'm right your wrong" because if it is then I am in the wrong place.

I try to avoid absolutes. I think, if you ask around, you will find I am a tough debateor, but I am not of the school that a debate must be won or lost. Princiapally, a debate should inform and broaden your horizons. I have bowed out of debates when I sense my passions overriding an openmind.

If it is just world powers you despise, then obviously, you will dislike the US. Since, for now, we are it. In my opinion, that stance will leave you always disliking someone. I do not think human nature allows for the kind of egletarian socicety that would embrace a world without power structures. Someone is going to be on top and that someone will almost always be there at the expense of those below him. that's true in interpersonal relationships as well as relations among natiions, in my opinion.

Quote:

So in your mind is the UN Charter of 1945 unobtainable?

In a simple word, yes. I need look no farther than the first tenent:

To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind

War is inevitable. From Kellog-Braind to Papal bulls, man has tried to outlaw it, avoid it, avert it. It never works. It never will. Until someone finds a way to remove the military option from all nations at one fell swoop, some nation will use it.

In practical trms, the UN has been a monumental failure in preventing war. In fact, it has found itself in the ironic position of waging war in it's own name.

It has also done great harm to it's own credibility, with sex scandals, money scandals, abject failures and allowing politics to rule it's actions. How many times has the UN condemned Israel without even giving the Palestinian terrorists a slap on the wrist?

As an aside, please don't quote the guardian to support a position. I would be more liekly to accept an article in the national Enquirer as valid and well researched without screming biase than I would anything printed in it's pages. It's a pet peeve, since I have on numerous occasions researched their articles and found the wanting of even the most cursory balance.


Quote:
No it is not, but to allow it to happen in my back yard is especially to deny me the right to get pissed off about it, together in Piere's and Karim, Rita's it is ok to happen theirs are they not allowed to feel that. Do the residents of Bhopal not have that right? Or again is it only for Americans, isthat why the world wants to live there?

If I say, not in my backyeard and fight to enforce that, I'm exercising my right. If you say the same thing, you are exercising yours. I'mnot realy sure what you are getting at on this. Could you eplain?

Quote:
Indeed I could not agree more, but again your country does not have that monopoly. A freind related a story of being abandoned in the Cape Verde Islands, they know what deprivation is, she was plump, decent cloths no holes etc. They welcomed her into their home, she was the guest her plate of mele meal was a mound and they had some! It is these human qualities that connect us irrespective of race, colour, or creed. Bill Gates from the corporate world is comendable as well.I know of others

Never in any post claimed it was a trait we alone have.

Quote:


Ogs ?? Official Government Statements y/n

This made me smile. Ogs is my shorthand for Oggsbashan, an Ah regular. He is one of the most inteligent and widely informed people I know. A man who has my utmost respect. And he is generally right. So generally, I never feel the need to ask him for proof of his statements. If he said it, I accept it, and he has said it, so I am pretty sure we are a debtor nation or great magnitude. It does how, however, that I ammaking assumptions in this conversation, something I should know better than doing.

Quote:
You still do not get me about consummerism. I have not asked anyone in the USA to deprive themselves, in my mind you are doing that yourselves, but that is my opinion. I still think the obesity issue is a great example, the knock on health effects are obese people happy. If your government enforced laws that exist, the energy savings could be made.

Here, I am unable to understand your position. You dislike our consumerism, but you don't advocate anyone deprive themselves. How can you curb consumerism, if you aren't asking anyone to stop consuming? It must be the logial part of my mind, but I keep drawing a wha? when I try to understand that.

Quote:
The speed limit in the US is 50 mph due to the 70's oil crisis, has this been revised I do not know. Of the cars produced in the country by American firms which of them are NOT capable of exceeding lets say 80mph. And I will throw this arguement to every automobile nation in the world with the exception of Germany due to no speed limit on the Autoban, and this I understand is being reveiwed. What are the healthcare and policing costs due to this, accidents, deaths etc, again the US is not the only culprit.

The Fedeal limit was 55, it is now up to the states, which is where the authority should have lain all along. In my home state of issisippi, the limit is 70. Also in Alabama part of tennesse and West Virginia. Va is 65, Maryland is 65 as well I think. Penn is 65, NY is 65. Not sure any state i regularly travel through still has 55.

Here, I think you are missing a point, this is a big country. I live in NY, my parents live in Mississippi. A trip to see them takes me 21 hours. Both are on the same side of the Mississippi river. You are talking about 1250 miles or so, and we are both in the eastern half of the US. if I were forced to go 55 the whole way, it would be a trip on the order of 27 or 28 hours. It would be a trip I couldn't make.

I'm not familiar with accident statistics, or with cost, but I can say, policing costs aren't affected. Our highway patrols aren't for safety, no matter what is said. they are there to produce revenue for the states. i fyou don't believe it, make a trip mind month and another near the end. You will see the cops all out trying to make quota.

I don't know of any car that won't make 80. I dont know of anyone who would own a vehicle that wouldn't make 80 by choice.

It's all well and good to drive egg beater cars at slow speeds when you haven't very far to go. It's a different story when you have a long trip. I think my drive home would carry me across most countries of europe, russia excluded of course.

Quote:
Colleen, it saddens me that your country rightly or wrongly does not see beyond the end of it's nose. I am not America bashing, but when a country posseses such talent and expertise that is wrapped up in its military industry and so much of the world is in dire need is it not sad that you(as a country) cling so tight to the might is right opinion and will not allow rational conversation to occur, historical norms and all. Especially when as human beings we are all bound by the same emotions, and basic nutrient requirements to sustain life.Who was it that said after WWII that the defence industry would become dangerous?

I'll never accuse anyone who is presenting a point and cares to support it with bashing. to me, bashing is voicing dislike without cogent arguments to back it up.

Rational conversation can occur. But you must also realize what I consider rational and what you consider rational may not be one and the same. If you work from the presupposition we are all human and thus we should support each other, you are being rational. But I am being just as rational if I draw a line along nationalistic borders and see the world in terms of us and them. It appears to me, you would like to see an end to nationalism, which may be a fine goal, but it isn't particularly rational in my estimation. A lot of the divergence in your position and mine seems to be based on assumptions and perspective.

Your view, that we are all humans and that the fact that we are should transcend nationalistic rivalry is, to me, very idealistic. From my more pragmatic view, you can't have a discussion of mankind right now and ignore nationalism. We can both be rational, but due to our perspective and suppositions we could easily both be speaking english, but not speaking the same language. If that makes sense? It' late and I'm tired, I've read that twice and my meaning is clear to me, but I've the feeling I'm not articulating what I mean as well as I could.

Quote:
For people such as your self to use your intelectual attributes to see beyond the norm and to have the courage to enquire slightly deeper than the average person.

To allow people to be angry because maybe the have a reason. You have implied that as a nation people can not be bothered to to enquire more deeply.

To thank your lucky stars you have what you have and there are other people in the world who are not so lucky. If you feel your nation deserves the respect it does then have come respect for others.

Do not accept what your government tells you is the truth of things, domestically or otherwise.

To remember Newton's third law of physics
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."


I think I do inquire more than average. I flatter myself to believe I inquire a good deal more than the average person, into most events and particularly into world events.

Being angry is normal. I don't have a problem with the anger. I have a problem with the way it is expressed by some. A continual rain of accusation and remidial whining, backed up by nothing more substantial than "I don't like" and distilled to a mantra of "you guys suck".

To reinterate, I don't care if you don't respect my nation. I don't care if you decide you need to vocalize that disrespect. If you have a beef and you air that beef and you have some substance to your complaint, I consider that to be a proper exercise of free speech. What draws my ire, is bitching and moaning, with no plan to remedy your beef, no sugestion of how it couldbe better or the nasty and personal double standard of blaming us when we do something and blaming us just as vehemnetly when we don't. I protest when the complants have fallen off to bitching for the sake of bitching. I become especially irate, when people who are citizens of a former world power mindlessly castigate us for doing exactly what they did when they were in power. Not because them doing it makes it right for us to do it, but because they. more so than others, should realize what they are railing against is a historic trend and not something uniquely American.

I'm a sceptic, I don't take what anyone tells me at face value. You can, over time, earn my respect to the point I will listen to what you say without my bullshit meter out. I'm not particularly thrilled with this administration, and I don't have any reason to cut them any slack. However, I cast the same jaundiced eye on anyone who speaks out against that government.

I find, more often than not, when claims are made, if you demand proof, you will get an earful of political theory. That holds true with the government and with most groups and organizations I have encountered as well as with many individuals. In demanding proof, I tend to set myself at odds with both sides. Because of this, I often end up expousing a moderate or centrist position.

Way past my bedtime. I hope this looks a coherent tomorrow morning as it does right now.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen Thomas...

"
Not that you sound like a texaco exec Amicus, but when did promoting research into alternative fuels and making viable alternatives avialable to the public become synanamous with destroying the petroleum industry?

Diversification is a watch word for today's corporations. If the oil companies made themselves leaders in research into alternative forms of fuel, they would still be in a commanding position when those alternatives become neccessary, rather than just a good idea.

At present, if they spent just a third of what they spend buying senators and reps on R & D, they would most likely be in a good position to dominate the market in alternative fuels as they dominate the market in fossile fuel.


Obviously, you can't corner the market on sunlight, but if you are the major producer of solar cells, you will still reap a nice profit. Then too, if you can find a stronger, cheaper, more cost effective method of isolating hydrogen you can clean up there too.

I'm not advocationg destruction of the petroleum indusrty. But I feel, it's a very short sighted strategy to do all in your power to hamstring efforts at finding alternatives when you know, well in advance of the fact, that your cash cow is finite and one day, there won't be any left to pump out of the ground...."

First off, Colly, oil companies are already diversifying, and even advertising that fact on cable and public television to engender a more 'eco conscious' facade.

However, as you well know, we live in a world of competitive enterprise, where every business person attempts to maintain and expand each year; it is the nature of the beast.

While many, in and out of government, would like to saddle each industry with a 'world overview' that would benefit all sectors of the economy, here and there, that is simply not how an open competitive society works.

Our industrial strength is in the freedom of choice and investment, not in the guidance and directions from an all powerful government.

My objection was basically that the tax structure is such that the oil industry is being taxed to support government plans and programs intended to replace the petroleum industry. Now that may seem fair to you and others who assume that the best interests of the people lay in government planning, but as I have said so many times, I do not agree.

I contend that the market place will provide an alternative to fossil fuels when the time is right and that intervention in the market place will only slow that advance and make it more costly to all.

Althought it will provide increased employment for bureaocrats.

And for you to imagine that major petroleum cartels are not fully aware of the need to diversify and prepare for alternative energy sources...well...perhaps a little more research is in order.

amicus...

edited to add: Not that it matters…but something is afoot that has the old Amicus perplexed…

Although apparently few have seen ‘Oil Storm’ a Fox Channel production that has been running for a week on the FX Channel on cable television; it is a ‘tour de force’ of a cataclysm of the American oil industry brought about by a hurricane affecting Port Fourchon, Louisiana. The Port apparently handles about 30 percent of petroleum products entering the U.S.

Lo and behold, in addition to FX re running the film Saturday night, June 11th, 2005, the Discovery Science Channel ran a program entitled ‘Coastal Crisis’ which concentrated on the very same area, Port Fourchon, Louisiana.

Apparently way back in 1927, following a serious Mississippi flood, the US Government contracted the US Corps of Engineers to begin a decade long project of building dikes to contain the Mississippi river.

One of the results of that construction was the diversion of the river away from the marsh and swamp lands in lower Louisiana. Since the marshes had been built extended by sediment carried by the Mississippi for untold ages, the diversion has led to the destruction and loss of land in the Mississippi Delta.

That loss of land has and is threatening not only Port Fourchon, but also the City of New Orleans and many other low lying communities in the Delta region.

Now…I have long suspected the Discovery Science Channel to favor one particular political party and ideology, that of ecological preservation over human growth and development. But, I did not expect the Fox Network to follow suit.

It appears to me that Fox has teamed with a wing of the liberal democrat party and with a wing of the conservative republican party to form an unholy alliance…with what goal in mind?

In the Fox Network production of ‘Oil Storm’ the religious right was portrayed as being activist in a ‘food not oil’ movement, coordinating with farm labor in maintaining subsidies for agricultural products over solving the oil crisis.

I suspect that neither of these programs were created or aired by accident, or as ‘informational or educational’ only; I sense a political agenda. But just what agenda is it and who is behind it?

I have been closely involved in News, on radio, television and print media for nearly 40 years and this is truly an anomaly to me.

Any ideas? Anyone…?

A puzzled amicus…

I get taxed for the running of a government that is dead set on making me a second class citizen, why should oil companies be exempt from the same ass fucking?

On a serious note, my contention was only that they should be leaders in the drive to find alternate forms of energy, not an albatross around the neck of the programs. they stand to loose themost, should we still be wedded to fosile fuels when the run out and with their expertise and bankroll, they stand to be the big winners if an alternative form comes from their labs. That was all.

As to oil storm, I'll offer a possible idea. If it is left wing, no left winger is watching Fox to notice. I personally don't atch TV so I can't be of mor ehelp there.

 

[BeWeBoy]

Cloudy,

My empathy on you loss, truely, freind of mine have their losses to, truely a human tragedy.

However as time has moved on I can not understand why people believe everything the US government puts out, much has come to light in the last few weeks regarding how information etc was twisted, altered to give the favourable to their aims. And Tony the Phoney has been in the whole deal to.

This said, a Fatwah is a declaration of war. sadly it was not taken as seriously as it should have been, because it came from an individual who headed/s an organization, deemed to be a terrorist one, I am not saying it is or is not and this is not the point right here/now.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html
http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm

Just because they did not turn up with conventional forces does not alter the fact that the organization that is blamed and claimed responsability for the act indeed did declare war against the nation of the United States of America. It is in this context that I say it was not a terrorist attack.

What still remains to be explained is the airplane journey collecting family memeber of Bin Ladens extended family while everyone else was grounded. This in creates more questions.

As far as I know, there are NO cars made with restrictions, and those that were could be unrestricted with a screwdriver - so what? I drive a sports car that can do 170 easy. Does that mean I drive it that fast? Of course not.

Restrictions are not what I am suggesting, design is. In my own country the speed limit is 40 mph, the UK it is 70 mph. So why are car companies allowed to even build such cars for public purchase? There is a waste of resources in manufacturing, apart from those involved in service delivery.

I understand how you may perceive my bias. But truelly it is not so, I live in another country, was raised outside your culture. I see things differently from you that is all.

Would you agree that democracy is the right form of government for all nations ?

I am angered by the British and the colonial system they have left in Antigua, but maybe you did not pick this up, I did point it out. But what they left was unavoidable, people learn from people.

.

I live in a post colonial/slavery society that acheived it's independence in 1981 and politically until 23/3/03 had the same family in power for 28 some suggest 40 years. We are doing our best to correct things, but the corruption is within the fabric of society, it is amazing what people will do to defend greed and averice, together with the hangover of colonialism, the leaders use similar strategies as their forebearers in same seats of power, this is changing.

Sadly as humans we tend to focus on what concerns us as individuals and miss some points made, I know I can be guilty of this.

With your intrest in how Native Americans have been treated I am quite surprised you do not understand what I am getting at in a Holistic sense.

America is a great country, if you believe it is the only right country and is all good then we will never see eye to eye.

In an age where many of these matters would appear to become more pressing whether from an environmental veiw point, humanitarian or otherwise they are all inter-related, it staggers me that peoples patriotic pride blinds to the possability.

I am not questioning individual generosity or any thing of the kind. I just fail to accept the apathy in the developed world of the majoruty to stand up and demand change from our governments and business's. And the poverty in your own country is no less real than in other countries, but how do governments in the developed world get away with their crimes. The Developed World is not just America.

BTW - it is great that the G8 has just declared the debt forgiveness it has. It is a start of a long process. Which has largly been driven by people not just governments.

"The sun never sets on the British Empire, only because God would never trust them in the dark" It does not exist any more but this is what anti-Imperialists.

 

[BeWeBoy]

Hi Colleen,

I hope in your passing of Antigua you were welcomed warmly and you enjoyed your stay. If it was for diving I trust you were not disappointed !

As you are aware of it's history colonial and passingly in its' modern history you may appreciate how I can get somewhat impassioned on some issues.Especially as I know stand and make my voice heard. Mainly on environmental, resource and governance issues.

If those who scream the battle cry of you guys are consuming too much, polluting too much, ad infinitum, were less ready to make all inclusive statements and were more willing to offer practical ideas, Many of us, myself included, would be far less likely to get defensive. The observation that we overconsume is pretty meaningless if no practical solution is coupled with it.

Indeed I agree if alternatives are not suggested this will be nothing but agrevating. These alternatives are being suggested how much they are being taken up is a different matter all together.

http://climate.wri.org/pubs_description.cfm?PubID=4031
http://materials.wri.org/pubs_description.cfm?PubID=2561

Perhaps. I would say not, but that is most likely the sceptic in me. A neccisity, for a change in the paradigm would be a will to see it change and a willingness to sacrifice to achive that end. I don't see a very strong movement within the US to give up our position, nor do I percieve any major demand of our governemnt that we should sacrifice the fruits of being on top. In terms of real politik, I don't see a progressive attitude in China, which I feel is perhaps the closest power on earth at this moment to reaching a state of preeminence rivaling ours. Here, I see a hardening of the attitude that we are under attack and with it, a parallel attitude of scorn for those who are pressing us. Working under the theory that such change would have to be enacted over the strenuous protest of the politicval power here, I don't see it happening.Politicans, being politicians, are quite enamoured of power and would be hard pressed to voluntarily ceede a portion of their power to anyone else.

Colleen, please put the sceptic to one side for a moment, you know yourself that it is any easy state of being. I ask you this, you I imagine are tired as you've said of critics bashing America for its conspicous consumption, are you really that bull headed not to be prepared to give something up so to have this stop and be respected and loved. One aspect I do not get is the level of poverty domesticly and the wider education system that many find lacking.

China is an intresting case, it has been a recipiant of "favoured nation status" in receipt of UN food aid and yet it charges on and as you suggest is begining to nip at the heels of America in trade any way, still repression is present, environmental degradation rapant due to development, corruption. The monsoon season is just begining and already we have many dead from landslides, generally due to some ill conceived development. Yet America has courted this nation, T'man Sq, Three Gorges Dam, Sweat shops tha provide cheap labour and allow US goods to become uncompetitive. Then you can have your cheap goods while another family hits the dole.

I'm sorry, I didn't see any example presented. I will read back. However, I'll make my case here

Well as you will see the examples are where the system has crumbled due to internal divide and pressure. Intrestingly the people of the nations concerned have seen to this and I wonder if the worlds people will create this, causing nations governments to represent their aspirations more closely than the are now.

You are so right about "despise" and some one being on top while comparing this to human relationships. And we suggest similar in different ways in my mind. But 100 years ago women did not have sufferage in England, they do now, surely as a woman this gives you hope that this could be possible, not in the near future, is it such a bad thing to aspire to.

I completly take your point about the UN especially in it's current form sadly, however in it's original form I feel it could have. As to war being inevitable, it is this that perhaps is one of "the evils of man". Perhaps the movie "Rollerball" has some thing to say in this matter. The Israeli/Palastinean conflict is one that I am not even going to touch, your point is registered though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

To replace the Guardian, I understand (! BTW how long ago was this you found this)

To suggest I am asking your nation infact all of the developed world as this is where my finger points to deprive themselves is a gross misuse of the word, especially in context of the subject. This is not the case at all. When one considers the nation of America is overweight in the majority and by the appearance of cruise ship pasengers I see I believe I am probably safe in this assumption. Their attitude towards food is gluttonus. And this repulses me when I know there are many who have little or none.

Look around and see if you took 5% away would you be really left with will you be deprived.

If I say, not in my backyard and fight to enforce that, I'm exercising my right. If you say the same thing, you are exercising yours. I'm not realy sure what you are getting at on this. Could you eplain?

Like the common generosity as humans we share, we also share what we do not want, nasty stuff happening in our back yard, this is why companies who run the risk of violating environmental regulations will find a country to operate in that is more favourable to their bottom line and to hell with the local population. Bhopal is an example of what can happen and I am sure similar happens else where and those who are ultimatly responsible are not brought to book settlements way below the real cost of the crimes. The point being that if we all adopt this stand which as humans we do it is fair to expect conflict will arise

Never in any post claimed it was a trait we alone have.

No I did not say you had, the fact that you fail to acknowledge that others do and your continued "screeching" how thankful the world as a whole should be by default aludes to the fact we are not. In times of crisis it restores ones faith in humanity that people put their hands in their pockets willingly and the size as some suggest being important (I do not follow with this) is not the point it's the willingness.

Sadly I am not missing the point at all. I only need to look at a map to see the size of your country. I 've flown Miami to LA and found hard to get my head round a 7 or so hour flight without leaving the country.

As you have established the max speed limit is 70 mph so let me suggest this is max nationwide. I reckon it is fair to say that to be able to buy a vehicle that can easily exceed this with ease is questionable responsability of the manufacturer and regulators. If cars were designed to be effecient due to policy and legislation then this will have an impact on fuel demand, together with materials for construction. And of course you remain within the speed limit all the time??! ( I know your thinking well he would not, your right

This is something I have not understood since I was a kid, here is a law, yet every device it regulates can easily exceed this??

Why would you not take the train. I for one would. BTW how long does it take you, no I am not going to report you to the fuzz. A great road trip I am sure.

My rational does indeed put nationalist ideals to one side as seems to cause conflict. Especially as historically the conflict usually is a result of a resource demand. No the mankind/nationalism discussion is very alive and we stand at a point of oppurtunity to create change. Look at what the G8 nations are now doing in terms of debt releif, driven by people of different races, culture etc have pushed leaders via protests, from Seatle"98 (?)Venice in 2001, Edinburough'05 and there have been others.

My rational does indeed put nationalist ideals to one side as it seems to cause conflict. Especially as historically the conflict usually is a result of a resource demand. And with the history of the Iraq conflict and what has been said and done what ever any one says is just this, to believe differently is naive, there is also revenge being played out.

No the mankind/nationalism discussion is very alive and we stand at a point of oppurtunity to create change. Look at what the G8 nations are now doing in terms of debt releif, driven by people of different races, culture etc have pushed leaders via protests, from Seatle"98 (?)Venice in 2001, Edinburough'05 and there have been others.

Although I am not presenting a plan I do propose that if the thinkers like yourself are to think beyond the accepted boundries of what has gone before and what is accepted some major and intresting results will occur.

Simple things like only spend your hard earned cash with companies and businesses that can prove via certification or similar their positive code of ethics, environmental, human etc. Support organic farming, reuse, reduce recycle etc all these things and initives are happening but the need support to work and pay the bills/wages. They genuinly create jobs and make a difference.

Take this to work if your an office type or give to office type
http://business.wri.org/pubs_description.cfm?PubID=3756

I'm not particularly thrilled with this administration, and I don't have any reason to cut them any slack. However, I cast the same jaundiced eye on anyone who speaks out against that government.

Now this has me scratching my head beyond, is this not a misplaced patriotism, it was suggested by a poste that the issue is more of dislike and of the administration.

All these issues aare really about how your sense of value is composed!

Hope you slept well, you were still coherant, not sure I was though!!

 

[TheEarl]

Cloudy,

My empathy on you loss, truely, freind of mine have their losses to, truely a human tragedy.

However as time has moved on I can not understand why people believe everything the US government puts out, much has come to light in the last few weeks regarding how information etc was twisted, altered to give the favourable to their aims. And Tony the Phoney has been in the whole deal to.

This said, a Fatwah is a declaration of war. sadly it was not taken as seriously as it should have been, because it came from an individual who headed/s an organization, deemed to be a terrorist one, I am not saying it is or is not and this is not the point right here/now.

A fatwah may be a declaration of war of sorts, but war is between two countries. Al-Quaeda are not a country, they do not have territory which can be attacked and they shelter amongst civilians. They are not an army; this is not a war. It is terrorism, pure and simple.

That's like saying that the IRA are not a terrorist organisation because they declared war on the British Army. So they hid amongst normal people, planted bombs to murder innocent Englishmen and then hid again. That's not war.

BTW - it is great that the G8 has just declared the debt forgiveness it has. It is a start of a long process. Which has largly been driven by people not just governments.

It's actually Teflon Tony's pet project.


Colly: One pre-eminent nation which was never taken from thetop wasactually the British Empire. We slipped down the pecking orde due to owing money, rather than being beaten in war.

The Earl

 

[Black Tulip]

Not that you sound like a texaco exec Amicus, but when did promoting research into alternative fuels and making viable alternatives avialable to the public become synanamous with destroying the petroleum industry?

Diversification is a watch word for today's corporations. If the oil companies made themselves leaders in research into alternative forms of fuel, they would still be in a commanding position when those alternatives become neccessary, rather than just a good idea.

At present, if they spent just a third of what they spend buying senators and reps on R & D, they would most likely be in a good position to dominate the market in alternative fuels as they dominate the market in fossile fuel.


Obviously, you can't corner the market on sunlight, but if you are the major producer of solar cells, you will still reap a nice profit. Then too, if you can find a stronger, cheaper, more cost effective method of isolating hydrogen you can clean up there too.

I'm not advocationg destruction of the petroleum indusrty. But I feel, it's a very short sighted strategy to do all in your power to hamstring efforts at finding alternatives when you know, well in advance of the fact, that your cash cow is finite and one day, there won't be any left to pump out of the ground.

LOL Colly,

I wish I could put it as clear as you can.

As for oil companies using their brains:

Shell website about new energies

 

[Colleen Thomas]

A fatwah may be a declaration of war of sorts, but war is between two countries. Al-Quaeda are not a country, they do not have territory which can be attacked and they shelter amongst civilians. They are not an army; this is not a war. It is terrorism, pure and simple.

That's like saying that the IRA are not a terrorist organisation because they declared war on the British Army. So they hid amongst normal people, planted bombs to murder innocent Englishmen and then hid again. That's not war.



It's actually Teflon Tony's pet project.


Colly: One pre-eminent nation which was never taken from thetop wasactually the British Empire. We slipped down the pecking orde due to owing money, rather than being beaten in war.

The Earl

I intentionally didn't include the British empire in either column, since, to my mind, the factors that contributed to the fall of the Empire were so complex. For example, the Japanese kicked your behinds in the Far east. No insult intended, they kicked everyone's ass. But their program of Asia for the Asiatics found resonance and even after they were defeated, independence and anti-colonial movements pretty much spelled doom for anyone's long term prospects of keeping colonies there. The India independence movemnet was also considerably bolstered by the Japanese Burma campaign.

World War I, World War II, internal divisiveness, independance movements, empty coffers. They all played a role and I freely admit, it's beyond me to assign primacy to any one particular aspect.

 

[TheEarl]

I intentionally didn't include the British empire in either column, since, to my mind, the factors that contributed to the fall of the Empire were so complex. For example, the Japanese kicked your behinds in the Far east. No insult intended, they kicked everyone's ass. But their program of Asia for the Asiatics found resonance and even after they were defeated, independence and anti-colonial movements pretty much spelled doom for anyone's long term prospects of keeping colonies there. The India independence movemnet was also considerably bolstered by the Japanese Burma campaign.

World War I, World War II, internal divisiveness, independance movements, empty coffers. They all played a role and I freely admit, it's beyond me to assign primacy to any one particular aspect.

I'd say the empire had fallen before WW2. The fact that we owed huge amounts of money to the USA put Britain at someone else's mercy and that had not happened since the Spanish Armada. We were never pre-eminent after that.

The Earl

 

[Colleen Thomas]

However as time has moved on I can not understand why people believe everything the US government puts out, much has come to light in the last few weeks regarding how information etc was twisted, altered to give the favourable to their aims. And Tony the Phoney has been in the whole deal to.

This said, a Fatwah is a declaration of war. sadly it was not taken as seriously as it should have been, because it came from an individual who headed/s an organization, deemed to be a terrorist one, I am not saying it is or is not and this is not the point right here/now.

This, is crap.

Pure and simple. AQ is a terrorist organization, not a soverign nation. They can't issue declarations of war. They can only announce whom they intend to target with their vile campaign of murder and intimidation.

The only justification anyone could have for not classifying them terrorists would be to call up the old saying one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. But that dosen't wash here either, because AQ represents no nation. They are not fighting for the freedom of any occupied country. The don't even expouse a creedo of doing so.

The represent no nation, wear no uniforms, intentionally target civilians and you have the gall to intimate this is a war? You obviously have a screw or two loose.

They are vermin. They need to be exterminated, in the same way you would get rid of cock roaches. Actually, cock roaches have more redeeming qualities and deserve more consideration. They are just trying to get by and aren't intentionally hurting anyone. The same cannot be said of AQ.

And before you ask, the answer is Damn skippy. I don't consider them human beings, I don't feel like they deserve any consideration, and my only complaint with lining them up against a wall and shooting them would be it dosen't hurt enough. I would be wholly in favor of bringing back the traditional English death for traitors in their case. At the very least, burning at the stake should be seriously considered.

I live in New york. I saw first hand the kind of devestation they visited upon orinary people. Not soldiers, fighting a war. Not politicians, with the power to do something. Just simple people, going to work, trying to make a living. While I grieve for those who died, I've seen the damage done to those who survived and those who lost someone, and it is their suffering that has me fully ready to advocate flaying the sons of bitches alive with a dull butter knife.

 

[TheEarl]

However as time has moved on I can not understand why people believe everything the US government puts out, much has come to light in the last few weeks regarding how information etc was twisted, altered to give the favourable to their aims. And Tony the Phoney has been in the whole deal to.

This said, a Fatwah is a declaration of war. sadly it was not taken as seriously as it should have been, because it came from an individual who headed/s an organization, deemed to be a terrorist one, I am not saying it is or is not and this is not the point right here/now.

This, is crap.

Pure and simple. AQ is a terrorist organization, not a soverign nation. They can't issue declarations of war. They can only announce whom they intend to target with their vile campaign of murder and intimidation.

The only justification anyone could have for not classifying them terrorists would be to call up the old saying one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. But that dosen't wash here either, because AQ represents no nation. They are not fighting for the freedom of any occupied country. The don't even expouse a creedo of doing so.

The represent no nation, wear no uniforms, intentionally target civilians and you have the gall to intimate this is a war? You obviously have a screw or two loose.

They are vermin. They need to be exterminated, in the same way you would get rid of cock roaches. Actually, cock roaches have more redeeming qualities and deserve more consideration. They are just trying to get by and aren't intentionally hurting anyone. The same cannot be said of AQ.

And before you ask, the answer is Damn skippy. I don't consider them human beings, I don't feel like they deserve any consideration, and my only complaint with lining them up against a wall and shooting them would be it dosen't hurt enough. I would be wholly in favor of bringing back the traditional English death for traitors in their case. At the very least, burning at the stake should be seriously considered.

I live in New york. I saw first hand the kind of devestation they visited upon orinary people. Not soldiers, fighting a war. Not politicians, with the power to do something. Just simple people, going to work, trying to make a living. While I grieve for those who died, I've seen the damage done to those who survived and those who lost someone, and it is their suffering that has me fully ready to advocate flaying the sons of bitches alive with a dull butter knife.

Well said and may I add "And so die all terrorists!"

The Earl

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'd say the empire had fallen before WW2. The fact that we owed huge amounts of money to the USA put Britain at someone else's mercy and that had not happened since the Spanish Armada. We were never pre-eminent after that.

The Earl

It's hard to say. Up to and even well into World War II, england was still the ominant Naval power and that pretty much equals preeminence. Even today, our power is predicated on command of the seas.

You also were able to call upon the empire for troops. In north Africa alone there were english, Australian, Indian, South African and New Zealand troops under english command.

The empire was in decline, but I don't think it was done.

 

[BeWeBoy]

It's actually Teflon Tony's pet project.

Yes, I know.

But Why ?

So he can go out looking sweet and nice.

It's not much more than him possibly waking up together with perhaps he see's the waves of people who are concerned about this issue.

I see that we are not going to ever reach any common ground due to the blinkered opinions, whether they are mine or yours.

Thanks for making me understand that

Keep the masses down,but do not be surprised when they bite?

Historical trends I believe show this to be true as well.

 

[TheEarl]

Yes, I know.

But Why ?

So he can go out looking sweet and nice.

It's not much more than him possibly waking up together with perhaps he see's the waves of people who are concerned about this issue.

Check my thread called 'African Debt Relief' - I'm well aware that our lump of a PM is trying to carve out a legacy. Frankly, on this issue, I don't much care what his motives are. He's doing good and this is a rare thing for Blair.

The Earl

 

[haldir]

You still doin this thing?

Against my better judgement (and by the way - criticism of Amicus' arguements does not imply either criticism of either Amicus or, more importantly the US) here goes.

Amicus - individual rights and freedoms are a part of every democratic system. However, taking your arguement to it's extreme (as exemplified by Liar's earlier post about choosing NOT to feed his child) do you draw any boundaries at all? And if you do - what is the role of "central" governement in this?

 

[amicus]

Haldir...

Most of my questions have arisen from a writing project I have chosen, a fictional account of the first inhabitants of North American which is said to be between 8 and 13,000 bce.

To avoid ethnic characteristics, one might just assign letters or numbers to what appears to be individual bands of 30 to 50 individuals, 'tribes or clans', as you will.

Sometimes it is difficult to work from the macro, present, down to the micro, in other words, it must seem imperative to many, to now have a 'strong central government' as society has grown so large and complex.

What I am in the process of doing is trying to understand how the smaller groups combined with larger groups and settled differences between them. I suspect most groups had strong leadership or they would not have survived.

Just how that strong leadership, in competing groups, arrived at amelioration, really is a key question. Was it only by conquest and defeat or were there occassions of compromise and accomodation?

Then, assuming a loose cooperative between, 'city states', as the population grew, what do the next steps become?

The are several ways to view the moral and ethical growth of these people, way back then: that the 'belief system' of one group imposed their values on the others; that a recognition of 'common values' (such as feeding a child), became universally accepted as the 'right' way to do things.

These individual 'city states' bound by compromise or conquest to surrounding city states, likely soon realized they needed a central body to coordinate combined efforts. Whether that avenue was one of further cooperation or extended control, is a matter of debate, perhaps a bit of both.

We have the advantage of 'hindsight' here in the present day, we can often surmise which systems worked and which did not.

It becomes the task of scholars, perhaps, to make an abstract of societal growth as it refers to each aspect of human development; and from the diversity of modern cultures, ethnic groups and nations in general, this often becomes an extremely complex endeavor.

Only in the past few hundred years has mankind proffered that 'human life' might in fact be the fundamental value upon which all other valuations are made.

Since the 'freedom' to live as one chooses is a corollary to life itself, then the 'degree and amount' of that individual freedom and liberty comes into question as opposed to the 'greater good' of the group as a whole.

So while semantically, the question of whether a parent is required to 'feed' a child' may seem significant, in reality and practical terms, we all know the 'correct' answer.

So the function of a 'central authority' in a society basically depends upon the nature of that society. Since you projected 'democracy' wherein some degree of individual liberty always exists, then perhaps the discussion might be limited to understanding the differing amounts of individual liberty among those existing democracies and the inherent obligations of citizens and government.

That should sound sufficiently obfuscated to confuse most, I think.

amicus...

 

[kendo1]

Amicus

Thanks Amicus, you cleared that up quite nicely.


Going back to my earlier point, I believe government to be in the business of keeping itself in business- so many people involved in pointless pursuits.
I suspect that someone came up with this bright idea in ancient times, 'a central body to coordinate combined efforts'- sure! Lets substitute ' a nice little earner and we'll stay top dog.'

Ken

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'll probably regret this, but for what it's worth, cultural anthropologists seem to be of the opinion that centralized government arose to oversee large agricultural projects, such as were found in the Nile valley, the valley of the Indus, the Fertile Crescent of Mesopotamia, etc.

You can't have cities until you have agriculture, nor can you have non-food producing classes like priests and soldiers and craftsmen until you produce an agricultural surplus. To produce a surplus you have to have large-scale agricultural projects that control flooding and planting and harvesting. Those civilizations that were able to organize their workers to produce the irrigation systems of Egypt and the Indus or the dam-and-dyke system of the fertile crescent survived, while those that were unable to organize their workers never got off the ground.

You find government and strong centralized authority only in agricultural societies where there's a food surplus to support them. Hunters and gatherers just don't have time for that kind of stuff. Rulership in hunters is more a matter of who gets the most respect. It comes from the bottom up rather than from the top down.