The Skeptic's Guide To Global Warming

[Le Noir Faineant]

Not trying to meddle into this, I'll let a great present day philosopher speak for me - twice.

"...He watches SOCCER!"

John McCain is a Cyborg!

Not specifically dealing with global warming, I guess you'll understand what I mean if you listen attentively...

[PapersAndPaychecks]

PapersandPaychecks wrote:

Isn't it the oil-producing cartels who really have their hands in the US's pocket?

Problem is Papers, its not just the U.S, its Western countries in general. If your point is that some on the thread seem to think this is not what drives U.S policy, then your point stands.

Well, I respectfully submit that it's not Western countries in general. Personally I live in the UK, which has North Sea Oil. The vast majority of oil we burn in the UK was produced here.

PapersandPaychecks wrote:

Consider voting for whichever party wants to invest a reasonable sum in fusion research.

Papers, that party is not part of the "two-party system' here. In this way you must understand that the ideas you are talking about don't even make it into the public forum of left and right here. The only left that seriously talk about such ideas are third party political organizations.

Then I suggest you might want to speak up to whoever represents you in government, and donate a few dollars to some appropriate pressure group.

PapersandPaychecks wrote:

Because fusion research wouldn't necessarily succeed, and future generations of Americans would benefit from reduced energy costs, right?

No, the West would buy fossil fuels from China and Venezuala, right?

The US would need to, at least.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Clinging stubbornly to your "right" to burn oil, coal and natural gas is effectively building up a mortgage the next generation will have to pay off. Because the supplies WILL run lower and prices WILL keep going up. The nations that use less of this stuff are going to be at an ever-increasing economic advantage in the 2010s and 2020s.

The market will develop something else. It's really not terribly important.

It certainly won't develop fusion. Doing that in the early twenty-first century is a project equivalent to flying to the moon in the mid-twentieth: the market will benefit from it, but only government has the kind of money and power it takes to actually DO it.

I'm not suggesting the US government should raise taxes to fund fusion research; that wouldn't be a fiscally responsible move. My view is that the US government should view reducing its oil dependency as a matter of the defence of the realm, and take the cost from the defence budget accordingly.

After all, the US spends about seven times more on defence than any other country. (And the country that spends the second most, incidentally, is the US' closest military ally.) That's out of proportion to the threat the military are supposed to deal with.

And because the US spends seven times more on defence than any other country, Europe doesn't have to bother. France is safe in the knowledge that any threat to France will be dealt with by the US military at the US taxpayer's expense, so it can sit there with an ever-reducing defence budget and sneer at US (and British!) military actions from behind the safety of a wall we've built to protect them.

It's nuts. Divert some of those funds into something that'll benefit the US taxpayer, instead of Frenchmen and Arabs.

Whether you love Kyoto or hate it, solving the looming energy crisis is a challenge this generation faces.

It's a contrived crisis to consolidate power in global gov't and multinational corporations. Big businesses love government regulation as it keeps their smaller competitors from getting any bigger, and keeps would-be competitors out of the market entirely.

Whether you blame International Communism or Tyrants And Monopolies, energy costs are a problem the individual taxpayer is going to have to pay for until it gets solved, yes?

[sepulchre]

Papers wrote:

it's not Western countries in general. Personally I live in the UK, which has North Sea Oil.

Papers, yes and I remember the Scots bemoaning who would get the rights to that oil the summers I spent studying there (another topic I realize ). However, British petroleum, then Anglo-Iranian oil, from the 20'-40's supplied all of the oil to the UK and it came from, Iran. The Saudi's were getting a 50/50 split of the profit in relation to refining with the West, but Anglo-Iranian oil wasn't having that, nor in the thirty years that they had been in Iran were any Iranians trained to the level of technician necessary to extract the oil. After the democratically elected Mossaedeq nationalized the oil, the British government tried to have him recind the legislation and prosecute him in the World Court ( yes of which the U.S will not be a part of, given) because he 'stole private property'. Meanwhile, the British foreign service was expelled from the country along with all of its attendant spies which always reside among the ranks of embassy staff. Mr. Churchill veted the Truman administration to incite a coup through the C.I.A. Truman, one of the few, did not believe the C.I.A was in the bussiness of directly overthrowing governments. Once regime change came with Eisenhower and his secretary of state, Dullas, a life-time corporate lawyer, the U.S changed its policy. Dullas, who had worked his whole life serving big bussiness could not imagine the people of any sovereign country being allowed to curtail the designs of the private sector (this is the paradigm in the West). Roosevelt's nephew, actually, instigated a coup with 3-4 weeks, and Mossaedeq was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.

My point here is that this policy about resources hasn't changed (and it doesn't have to be oil either- genetically engineered seeds, water, corn, rice etc.). Now British Petroleum has its hands elsewhere, it got into the same mess with prospect on potential oil fields in Somalia which prompted a U.N. occupation with the U.S leading the charge. The warlord, Iadide (sp?) wanted a split, B.P considered him a criminal and viewed him as 'trying to steal private property'. Unfortunately, England is just as much a part of this along with the U.S and other European nations. Why do you think Africa and Central and South American have the highest arm sales in the world when Western countries know -KNOW this is a means of destabilization. It's about resources, oil. Texaco, which probably isn't even owned by the U.S any longer, is in the largest environment law suit in World history with Equador right now. The list of countries goes on and on, from Chile to the Congo and Niger. The G8 are the countries we are talking about, and not even countries themselves, but a select group of powerful entrenched families in each.

Then I suggest you might want to speak up to whoever represents you in government, and donate a few dollars to some appropriate pressure group.

Respectfully, Papers, we have three major media corporations (internationally owned) that have bought up what we commercially hear,read, and watch on radio, newspaper, and tv, locally and nationally. The largest lobby in congress are those groups that represent the media corporations. The Bush administration began the deregulating ownership of media outlets (and they're trying really hard with the internet as we speak). There was a public outcry because of a grass roots internet movement. The FCC held public hearings and its assertions for free market media were stalled and put down after a vote on the floor of congress (most of whose members claimed to not even be aware of it). Congress, months later, turned around and fed the legislation back into one of its many bills filled with so much varied information that no one who cared in congress nor the press noticed it until it was too late. This is politics in America.

After all, the US spends about seven times more on defence than any other country.

The U.S spends more on defense than all other nations combined in the world. We have over 700 military bases internationally (Central and South America, Africa, the Middle East, South East Asia, and the Pacific) - the pentagon calls them 'lily-pads' jumping off place where we can protect our interests at any time. Our spending never declined after the Cold War and the arms race it actually increased. Money makes money, and all that money being spent has to be making money now or in the future. Much of the military contracting is done as a 'no bid' contract, that is the pentagon just hands out the contract to whomever it wishes. The Pentagon was audited by the U.S Congressional Auditor who serves both houses of congress. The Pentagon could not account for 4 trillion dollars of spending, that is no paper trail, sure off-shore accounts of private contractors and corporations, but no way to account for a bill that the poor and middle-class tax payers will bear. Four Trillion dollars.

Welfare is a bad word in our country, trouble is if you attach corporate to the word, it becomes priceless, literally. I say this because - this is politics in America. Neo-liberal/Neo-con its the same party and people who do care about things ideas like fusion must work on a grass roots level.

On another note, one Britains finest journalists, John Pilger tells of how when the B.B.C was first created there was national labor strike. At the outset, the B.B.C had claimed to be a voice for labor and the people. As soon as the factory owners violentry began to put down the strike (and I do not recall what were the issues of the labor party at the time) the B.B.C marginalized the entire strike and did not cover the story until the private sector had already squashed the movement. In democracies, more often than not, the demands of common people are the last story to be told for a reason. Smugly, as if it is a concession, the right will then claim that we couldn't tell our story in China.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Now there's a post densely-packed with points of interest.

From my point of view, Scotland is fortunate it has south-east England to pay its bills. It's a "country" with a smaller population than London dependent on Londoners to subsidize its lifestyle.

The oil companies' history is rich and long, and I can't help seeing parallels with the East India Company. I think the East India Company shows the most likely paradigm for their eventual failure and collapse, which is certainly not imminent, but foreseeable.

As for US politics--the details hold little interest for me personally, fascinating though they presumably are to Americans. If you can't find someone in government who broadly shares your views, and there are no effective pressure groups you could support, then you face taxation without representation and I suggest you act accordingly.

The four trillion dollars you mention is a distinctly alarming figure. If you told the taxman you had four trillion dollars you "couldn't account for" you'd be jailed, so I presume heads will shortly roll.

As for welfare... to me looking in from outside, that's one of the really big problems the US faces. Simply because of questions like "who's having the children?"

Looking in from outside, I see millions of US families struggling to pay the mortgage and raise one or two kids. And millions more who can't afford kids because both parents have to work to pay the mortgage. And welfare-dependents in trailer parks who have seven toddlers and don't seem to be able to afford to wash them.

Which means the next generation won't be the children of the hard workers, will it? It'll be the children of the trailer trash and the immigrants.

The BBC nowadays is a reputable organisation noted for its journalistic integrity. I agree Britain's got a long and unpleasant history of oppressing people--our own citizens as well as those of other countries. I like to think we're mostly past that now.

[sepulchre]

Papers wrote:

Scotland is fortunate it has south-east England to pay its bills.

I have to confess I am not up on this schism or if it is still as much of a part of the culture of Great Britain collectively as it was in the nineties when I was there.

can't help seeing parallels with the East India Company.

Hey, interesting comparison, anything you would be willing to elaborate?

the details hold little interest for me personally,

Papers, it has to, and here is why. The relationship of elected leaders, multinational corporations, legislation that works globally (be it the bio-engineering of seed, or the engineering of trade policies), and military expenditure is a model that the U.S is setting as a precident and leading with globally. Other nations, including Great Britain, are neither blind nor disconnected from this model.

If you told the taxman you had four trillion dollars you "couldn't account for" you'd be jailed, so I presume heads will shortly roll.

Sad thing is, this is old news here, though not widely reported if at all. As for the taxman, our income tax was never legally past in the first place. Moreover, if any ordinary citizen ever lent 10x what they had in capital, which is what banks are legally allowed to do they would be jailed. This kind of corruption is a trademark of the democracy pedalled here.

I see millions of US families struggling to pay the mortgage and raise one or two kids. And millions more who can't afford kids because both parents have to work to pay the mortgage.

After Roosevelt's 'New Deal' which was supposed to create a safety net for Americans the trend went something like this: first, the husband worked, then both the husband and the wife worked, then they mortgaged the house, then they needed credit cards, eventually there is the shadow of bankruptcy and they move a little farther down the economic food chain. As I said above, inflation rises as the total supply of money and credit expand faster than the available goods and services. Money, here, is printed by an institution run by private bankers (The Fed) and credit is offered by banks at ten times what they actually own in capital. This is an international paradigm by the way. Who is going to profit and have more buying power if there are higher prices, higher interest rates, and more money in circulation. As Guiliani said after 9/11, 'go shopping', or Bush during the debates in 2000, 'environmental policy is determined by the market.'

And welfare-dependents in trailer parks who have seven toddlers and don't seem to be able to afford to wash them. Which means the next generation won't be the children of the hard workers, will it? It'll be the children of the trailer trash and the immigrants.

Papers, who do you think is going to get college credit and a signing bonus for fighting all the wars in which our now global national security is threatened. Soon they'll be giving out citizenship if you serve. Moreover the above is only guaranteed if they can fulfill their contract, sorry if you were injured or killed. The pentagon is now charging soldiers for lost helmets if they were injured or killed and lost their head gear (that can mean the families of the dead even). Media, man, it's smoke and mirrors.

Moreover a populace 'trailer trash' with slashed public sector spending for education and a knowledge base that is driven by a market-based media can't remember enough history or focus long enough to recognize themselves outside of all this. Therefore they are ineffective in the public domain, their rights become forfeit. As for immigrants, how perfect, a work force that has no rights, works for pennies without any labor protection, and can't read or speak the language well enough to know the nations history or demand their own rights. It is if we are back in the early 1900's, only it's not the age of industry but of technology. This model is not simply that of America, it is driven by global markets involved in the trading of commodities and currency without any regard for nations.

The BBC nowadays is a reputable organisation noted for its journalistic integrity...I like to think we're mostly past that now.

Depending on which version one watches. It is often better than what we have available here in the states. In general England is a home to many phenominal journalists like Pilger, Robert Fisk and ex-patriots like Greg Pallast. We have them here, but most are work independently and their work reported on non-commercial outlets.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I have to confess I am not up on this schism or if it is still as much of a part of the culture of Great Britain collectively as it was in the nineties when I was there.

Well, the Scotland matter could be a thread in itself. They're Her Majesty's subjects, though; they owe the Crown the same duty the rest of us do, so the oil belongs to all of us.

Hey, interesting comparison, anything you would be willing to elaborate?

The East India Company existed for about 250 years, iirc. It was founded to represent British trade interests in India and by the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, came to exert a stranglehold over world trade as strong as the present-day oil companies do, controlling the market in goods as varied as silk, tea, cotton, opium and saltpetre. It had a similarly massive influence over military policy.

As you're probably aware, the East India Company's monopolistic and anti-competitive practices were one of the main factors in the Boston Tea Party.

Eventually, the East India Company became so vital to British interests that it was nationalised. The Crown literally took it over.

I can see that future for the big oil and coal companies: as their influence grows and the need for their products gets more and more desperate, as prices rise and their practices become more objectionable, governments will want in on the racket. And they have the power just to take it.

Incidentally, in the UK, a major bank (the Northern Rock) was recently nationalised.

Papers, it has to, and here is why. The relationship of elected leaders, multinational corporations, legislation that works globally (be it the bio-engineering of seed, or the engineering of trade policies), and military expenditure is a model that the U.S is setting as a precident and leading with globally. Other nations, including Great Britain, are neither blind nor disconnected from this model.

Hm. I don't see this as some kind of new trend the US is setting.

We Brits have been there. We've run a global empire based on vast exploitative companies and overwhelming military power; and we've perpetrated the Amritsar Massacres and the Boer Wars. And it's not just us. The French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch all did it in the last few centuries too. We all know where it leads.

What's different about the US? Well, several things.

First, the US is isolationist and, for a superpower, remarkably unwilling to risk the lives of its soldiers intervening in world affairs. It takes a lot to rouse the US to action... big explosions on the US mainland or in US naval bases seem to be the only spur that really works.

Second, the US is remarkably forgiving of its leaders. Its politicians and leaders seem able to drift around in this sort of complacent warm fog, and then when something goes horribly wrong, they put on this sincere expression and make excuses. And to my constant amazement, they get forgiven, time after time. The US voters don't really seem to give a damn, or else they don't think things will change if they replace an incompetent.

Third, and probably connected to the second, is that the US seems to have no real notion of its own decline. The relative positions of the US and European economies, or standards of education and healthcare, or prevailing crime rates, just don't seem to register. US politicians and leaders still talk as if they were world leaders.

And last, there's the concept of a nuclear deterrent that guarantees some countries immunity from US intervention no matter what. So the US is in a weaker military position than historical superpowers ever were.

Sad thing is, this is old news here, though not widely reported if at all. As for the taxman, our income tax was never legally past in the first place. Moreover, if any ordinary citizen ever lent 10x what they had in capital, which is what banks are legally allowed to do they would be jailed. This kind of corruption is a trademark of the democracy pedalled here.

Oh, sure, but when the taxpayers just shrug and lap it up, what do you expect?

Nothing will change until the populace wakes up and smells the coffee.

After Roosevelt's 'New Deal' which was supposed to create a safety net for Americans the trend went something like this: first, the husband worked, then both the husband and the wife worked, then they mortgaged the house, then they needed credit cards, eventually there is the shadow of bankruptcy and they move a little farther down the economic food chain.

That's the "I want it now" culture rearing its head, though, isn't it. (And I speak of my own country as well as the US here!) It's not a problem with the welfare state per se. It's a problem of priorities, a sympom of a sick culture that won't give up the second car or the air conditioning system or the 50" plasma TV its grandparents would never have dreamed were so important.

Fortunately there are some less avidly consumerist cultures out there poised to take over when the UK and the US finally drown in their own debt.

Papers, who do you think is going to get college credit and a signing bonus for fighting all the wars in which our now global national security is threatened. Soon they'll be giving out citizenship if you serve. Moreover the above is only guaranteed if they can fulfill their contract, sorry if you were injured or killed. The pentagon is now charging soldiers for lost helmets if they were injured or killed and lost their head gear (that can mean the families of the dead even). Media, man, it's smoke and mirrors.

It's another old, old pattern. Time was when a rich man could buy a commission in the King's Army, and he had to buy his own uniform. Those blokes in red coats went out there and fought for most of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and there were so many of them they could control the whole coast of Europe and the Canadian-US border all at once.

They went into the army and navy as urchins and immigrants, and the ones who survived became solid British citizens and pillars of the community. Though most of them couldn't write their names.

Depending on which version one watches. It is often better than what we have available here in the states. In general England is a home to many phenominal journalists like Pilger, Robert Fisk and ex-patriots like Greg Pallast. We have them here, but most are work independently and their work reported on non-commercial outlets.

I don't really know enough about US journalism standards to comment. It seems obvious to me that journalism needs one taxpayer-funded centre of excellence that's independent of government, plus some commercial competitors to keep them sharp and honest.

[dcs]

I don't really know enough about US journalism standards to comment. It seems obvious to me that journalism needs one taxpayer-funded centre of excellence that's independent of government, plus some commercial competitors to keep them sharp and honest.

It is impossible for something that is taxpayer-funded to be independent of government. If it depends on the government for its existence, how could it possibly be independent of the State? At best (or worst, depending on one's POV), the State could be a neglectful parent. It is no accident that the media are called the Fourth Estate.

In old days men had the rack. Now they have the press. That is an improvement certainly. But still it is very bad, and wrong, and demoralising. Somebody - was it Burke? - called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time, no doubt. But at the present moment it really is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by Journalism.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

It is impossible for something that is taxpayer-funded to be independent of government.

You say that as if it were obvious and incontrovertible.

I take quite the opposite view. I think most governments throw huge amounts of taxpayers' money at things they can't control at all.

The BBC is one of them.

[Greyharp]

It is impossible for something that is taxpayer-funded to be independent of government.

You say that as if it were obvious and incontrovertible.

I take quite the opposite view. I think most governments throw huge amounts of taxpayers' money at things they can't control at all.

The BBC is one of them.

This is true in Australia also. The government owned ABC is the biggest and most persistent critic of the government in this country, much to the disgust of our previous conservative government. The obscenely rich media moguls who own pretty much all the other channels, don't allow the same level of criticism to be aimed at their mates in government, that the ABC journalists get away with.

[sepulchre]

Papers wrote:

They're Her Majesty's subjects, though; they owe the Crown the same duty the rest of us do, so the oil belongs to all of us.

If a constituent has a grievance with their representation by a head of state reminding them that they are a subject of said leader is probably not going to really address said constituent. All that said my knowledge of the situation is minimal at best and you are right it would better serve another thread, but if such a day comes I would wish to hear what you have to say.

As you're probably aware, the East India Company's monopolistic and anti-competitive practices were one of the main factors in the Boston Tea Party.

Indeed, it is interesting though, that many of the colonial merchants pedaling tea were actually charging higher prices than the Brits.

The Crown literally took it over.
That actually makes sense since to my knowledge there had been a sort of class war going on between the aristocracy and the merchant class. I am thinking specifically of the contest over currency during Cromwell's time, but obviously this goes back to the Middle Ages.

governments will want in on the racket.

Except that now the private sector is the government, most officials quoted by commercial media sources are former private sector people with active ties to industry.

Incidentally, in the UK, a major bank (the Northern Rock) was recently nationalised.

What does that ultimately mean? Here in America, one doesn't have to nationalize. The private sector merely insinuates its cronies into the political processeither through election, appointment, or lobbies. As I said the U.S centralized banking institution, the Federal Reserve, is composed of private sector bankers who are appointed to their positions from within the existing ring of bankers.

Hm. I don't see this as some kind of new trend the US is setting.

No doubt there is nothing original about the machinations of empire in the U.S. As a former colony we have taken our cue from the Old World Powers. Moreover, given that most of America is internationally owned especially by Great Britain, one might argue not only has Europe blazed this path before, but that U.S imperialism is its latest manifestation.

First, the US is isolationist and, for a superpower, remarkably unwilling to risk the lives of its soldiers intervening in world affairs.

Papers we wouldn't have a 4 trillion dollar shortfall in the pentagon audit, the highest military spending on the globe, and military bases in almost every country if we were isolationist. It doesn't take a lot to rouse the U.S to action, it takes a lot to convince its people that there is an actual threat to their lives. Every government has to convince the poor and the middle class that there is something worse waiting for them than the daily struggle they already bear under the yoke of those in power. The Nazis did this when they invaded Poland and sent back news reels of a dead Polish soldier dressed up like a German soldier, fooling the populace into believing it was Germany that had actually been invaded.

the US is remarkably forgiving of its leaders.

The collective memory of any populace is short, the U.S population and its media being no exception. Forgiving though, we have the middle of the country to contend with, the religious right, and a sinister history of puritanism of which Christian fundamentalism grew out of. For instance, Congress and the Bush administration had to be petitioned over and over again before a commission could be formed to investigate 9/11. They started with only 4 million dollars and after two years finally recieved about 17 million. In contrast Congress willingly spent over 80 million in tax payers dollars investigating the Clintons.

The US voters don't really seem to give a damn, or else they don't think things will change if they replace an incompetent.

Those who do give a damn don't last long in a conventional two-party politics. As an example congresswoman Cynthia Mckinny of Alabama was one of 3 people who stood on the floor of congress a pleaded with her fellow representatives to investigate Jeb Bush's wiping clean the voter rolls of over 100,000 registered voters, primarily African Americans, through enlisting the services of a computer technology company called Data Tech (I think the name was). Mckinny lost her seat in congress two years or so later because any constituent in Alabama can vote during party's state primary. She was voted out of office by republicans who flooded the polls of a democratic primary. She is now running for president on the Green Party ticket. Through the work of American Civil Liberties Union African Americans had their day in court with the state of Florida - an event that gained no corporate media coverage in this country. Moreover, many Americans have suffered heavily for being politically dissident. The civil rights movement, the Anti-War movement, the Green movement, the Anti-nuclear movement (God bless the Aussie Helen Cauldicott) and others are still very vibrant in this country. Many of its constituents are still being arrested and jailed. One, however, would not know about it at all if you got your information from the corporate press.

The relative positions of the US and European economies, or standards of education and healthcare, or prevailing crime rates, just don't seem to register.

Here's the bigger picture. The Decline is intentional on the part of its leaders. The wealthy elite of the country have been trying to dismantle the 'New Deal' since it was passed. The goal is deregulation of all hinderances to a global free market, privitization of all goods and services, consolidation of all media outlets. These goals serve to maximize profit by forcing out other technologies and ideas that lack the capital to back themselves, leaves the welfare of the populace at the mercy of profit margins of the private sector, and convinces the populace that somehow they are dependent upon the corporations. An example of this is how the pharmaceutical industry has managed to demonize almost every behavior in child and adult alike. There is a vaccine or drug for everything. Oh, and by the way you're going to pay through the nose for it. Moreover, since it all is privatized, a contract for oversight and review of your drug or vaccine will probably be done by a subsidary of the parent company that makes said drug or vaccine. As for crime rates, who do you think are working for Microsoft at 5 cents an hour - its not solely immigrants this time? Its about the sustained profit of multinational corporations not the welfare of nations.

So the US is in a weaker military position than historical superpowers ever were.

That is why countries like China are accessed for cheap labor, mass production, and huge profits for a few.

Oh, sure, but when the taxpayers just shrug and lap it up, what do you expect? Nothing will change until the populace wakes up and smells the coffee.

To play off your metaphor, the coffe bean is a free-trade commodity, very few imagine their coffee to be anything but just coffee. No tax payer of any nation rises up until he has lost almost everything or is told that he will lose everything (as if the Twin Towers had anything to do with working class people). Freud, like many before him, realized that the populace was afflicted by a schism between inner and outer reality and that pschoanalysis might heal that divide since the outer politcal reality would not even consent to its existence. Individual people are complicated and believe me the elite that sell them a bill of goods that says you are helpless with us plays off that complication.

...the 50" plasma TV its grandparents would never have dreamed were so important.

Though I could care less about his music this is what Marlyn Manson aptly called the society of 'fear and consumption'.

there are some less avidly consumerist cultures out there poised to take over when the UK and the US finally drown in their own debt.

Who are you thinking of here? I am thinking of Bolivia, Equador, and Venezuala, but you might be on another page....

....Though most of them couldn't write their names.

interesting, nice explication, yes, how similar.

journalism needs one taxpayer-funded centre of excellence that's independent of government, plus some commercial competitors to keep them sharp and honest.

This is the sad fact that as voices that need to be heard are marginalized by major media, they themselves have to incorporate or become a 'not-for-profit' entity to find any kind of niche. That niche continues to be diminished as the private sector exerts its power through its elected officials to deregulate things like the airwaves which first and foremost belong to the public trust.

[JDJarvis]

That's the "I want it now" culture rearing its head, though, isn't it. (And I speak of my own country as well as the US here!) It's not a problem with the welfare state per se. It's a problem of priorities, a sympom of a sick culture that won't give up the second car or the air conditioning system or the 50" plasma TV its grandparents would never have dreamed were so important.

Spoken like, someone who doesn't live in the U.S.. I live in a "wealthy household" according to the democratic party and no extra vehicles, no air conditioning system beyond a tiny window unit and no place to put a 50" plasma tv if i wanted or could afford one.

Of course the post war generation invented the spare car household, spread into areas of the country that were lightly populated because of the availability of air conditioning and bought huge televisions (13" sets even) and made them part of the culture. Foolish grandchildren think they can afford the equivalent.

My grandfathers generation was an America wherein anyone willing to work hard at a fair job could own his own home and his wife could stay and take care of the home and what children they had. That U.S. has been gone for three or four decades now. The politicos don't seem to have noticed.

[Thoth Amon]

Those who do give a damn don't last long in a conventional two-party politics. As an example congresswoman Cynthia Mckinny of Alabama was one of 3 people who stood on the floor of congress a pleaded with her fellow representatives to investigate Jeb Bush's wiping clean the voter rolls of over 100,000 registered voters, primarily African Americans, through enlisting the services of a computer technology company called Data Tech (I think the name was). Mckinny lost her seat in congress two years or so later because any constituent in Alabama can vote during party's state primary. She was voted out of office by republicans who flooded the polls of a democratic primary. She is now running for president on the Green Party ticket. Through the work of American Civil Liberties Union African Americans had their day in court with the state of Florida - an event that gained no corporate media coverage in this country. Moreover, many Americans have suffered heavily for being politically dissident. The civil rights movement, the Anti-War movement, the Green movement, the Anti-nuclear movement (God bless the Aussie Helen Cauldicott) and others are still very vibrant in this country. Many of its constituents are still being arrested and jailed. One, however, would not know about it at all if you got your information from the corporate press.

I thought she was from Georgia?

[TRP]

Those who do give a damn don't last long in a conventional two-party politics. As an example congresswoman Cynthia Mckinny of Alabama was one of 3 people who stood on the floor of congress a pleaded with her fellow representatives to investigate Jeb Bush's wiping clean the voter rolls of over 100,000 registered voters, primarily African Americans, through enlisting the services of a computer technology company called Data Tech (I think the name was). Mckinny lost her seat in congress two years or so later because any constituent in Alabama can vote during party's state primary. She was voted out of office by republicans who flooded the polls of a democratic primary. She is now running for president on the Green Party ticket. Through the work of American Civil Liberties Union African Americans had their day in court with the state of Florida - an event that gained no corporate media coverage in this country. Moreover, many Americans have suffered heavily for being politically dissident. The civil rights movement, the Anti-War movement, the Green movement, the Anti-nuclear movement (God bless the Aussie Helen Cauldicott) and others are still very vibrant in this country. Many of its constituents are still being arrested and jailed. One, however, would not know about it at all if you got your information from the corporate press.

I thought she was from Georgia?

Sorry Thoth, that sort of thing only matters to Southerners. To those north of Mason-Dixon, the South is just one big state. You know, like Massachusetts and New York are the same state.

sepulchre, many of the things you mention can be had by anyone listening, even just semi-regularly, to NPR. CPB/NPR provides news stories you often will not get from CNN/FOX/ABC/NBC/CBS/Whoever. It's also nice to hear news stories appropriated the amount of time necessary to tell the story properly, instead of it being squished into a 30 second to 2 minute sound/picture munchy.

As for anthrowhatever-caused global warming, who cares? If it's a general consensus that the climate is changing for the warmer, whether it be slowly, quickly, humanity-caused or divine intervention,then what does it matter how much or why? I still don't understand how a slow and controlled transfer from fossil fuels would devastate the U.S. economy. During all the back and forth in this thread over the issue, I still haven't read an explanation about exactly why and how a controlled conversion would bring about the collapse of the United States.

Also, FWIW, I frankly don't give a rats ass if the U.S. ratifies Kyoto or not, because you don't have to acknowledge a piece of frickin' paper to start gearing yourself for a late 21st Century economy. I mean, does anyone really believe that in 2020+ the best we can do, economics-wise, is 20something miles to the gallon, or that by 2050+ oil and coal are the best we can do? Forget global warming, how about just plain ol' efficiency? Sure, the more expensive oil becomes, the more technology you can buy to get at the harder to get stuff in the ground. While that may be good news for Big Oil, it's still going to leave Joe Six Pack with the tab.

[dcs]

You say that as if it were obvious and incontrovertible.

I take quite the opposite view. I think most governments throw huge amounts of taxpayers' money at things they can't control at all.

The BBC is one of them.

It's simply a matter of will. It's not that they "can't" control it, it's that they "won't" control it.

Even if one argues that it is a matter that must be put before a democratic vote, the government can contrive a crisis to get the voters on board.