gopher.createaforum.com/1/forums/renewablerevolution/p/17

DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Geopolitics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 51--------------------------------------------------
Power Structures in Human Society: Pros and Cons Part 1
By: AGelbert Date: October 12, 2013, 9:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][font=times new roman]Sexual Dimorphism, PowerStructures
and Environmental Consequences of Human
Behaviors[/font][/center]
[center]Why the 1% is responsible for more than 80% of
humanity's carbon footprint and why Homo sapiens is doomed
unless the 1% lead the way in a sustainable life style.[/center]
By A. G. Gelbert
Today humanity faces the fact that the parasitic relationship of
Homo sapiens with the biosphere is depleting the resources
hitherto relied on to maintain a standard of living somewhere
above that of other earthly hominids like the chimps or gorillas
that are, unlike us, engaged in a symbiotic relationship with
the biosphere. The chimps engage in rather brutal wars with
other chimp tribes where the victors set about to kill and eat
very young chimps of the vanquished tribe. This is clearly a
strategy to gain some advantage by killing off the offspring of
the competition. It cannot be, in and of itself, considered
morally wrong or evil behavior.
Dominance behavior and territoriality between same sex and
opposite sexes also can be filed under the category of
"successful behavior characteristics" for species perpetuation.
Behavior that appears on the surface to have no species
perpetuation purpose (like male chimps humping less dominant
males or sexually mature adolescent seals, locked out of mating
by bulls with huge harems, violently thrashing, and often
killing, small seal pups that stray into their area) are a
function of hormone biochemistry, not good or evil.
Some scientists might say this is just Darwinian behavior to
winnow out the less flexible, less intelligent or weaker members
of a species. I don't agree. I believe it is a downside of
hormones that distracts species from more productive behavior
but unfortunately cannot be avoided if you are going to
guarantee the survival of a species by programming in strong sex
drives.
I repeat, excessive aggression or same sex sexual activity as a
dominance display is a downside to the "strong sex drive"
successful species perpetuation characteristic. This "downside",
when combined with a large brain capable of advanced tool
making, can cause the destruction of other species through
rampant predation and poisoning of life form resources in the
biosphere.
The Darwinian mindset accepts competition among species in the
biosphere, where species routinely engage in fighting and
killing each other for a piece of the resource pie, as a
requirement for the survival of the fittest. Based on this
assumption, all species alive today are the pinnacle of
evolution.
Really? How does a meteor impact fit into this "survival of the
fittest" meme? It doesn't. Why? Because any multicellular
organism can easily be wiped out by random, brute force, natural
catastrophes like a meteor impact or extensive volcanism.
Darwinists are quite willing to accept the random nature of the
initial creation of single celled life on earth (even though the
latest advances in science show that any cell is an
incredibility and irreducibly complex piece of biomachinery that
absolutely [I]HAS[/I] to have several parts working in unison or
none of them work at all) but refuse to accept that the present
multispecies survival is just as random.
It's more like "survival of the luckiest" than "survival of the
fittest". From a strictly Darwinian perspective, the
extremophiles are the real pinnacle of evolution because of
their ability to survive just about anyhting that is thrown at
them. There is a type of Archaebacteria that can live in an
almost 32% salt concentration called halophiles. Halophiles can
be found anywhere with a concentration of salt five times
greater than the salt concentration of the ocean, such as the
Great Salt Lake in Utah, Owens Lake in California, the Dead Sea,
and in evaporation ponds. [
[center][img
width=440]
HTML http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/images/thumb/2/2c/C27x14halophiles.jpg/150px-C27x14halophiles.jpg[/img] [/center]
[center][img
width=440]
HTML http://img.springerimages.com/Images/SpringerBooks/BSE=5898/BOK=978-1-4020-9212-1/PRT=8/MediaObjects/THUMB_978-1-4020-9212-1_8_Part_Fig2-108_HTML.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]Carbon assimilation by Halococcus salifodinae, an
archaebacterial [/center]
If you want to talk about survival of the fittest, look at this
humble organism: Halococcus is able to survive in its
high-saline habitat by preventing the dehydration of its
cytoplasm. To do this they use a solute which is either found in
their cell structure or is drawn from the external environment.
Special chlorine pumps allow the organisms to retain chloride to
maintain osmotic balance with the salinity of their habitat. The
cells are cocci, 0.6-1.5 micrometres long with sulfated
polysaccharide walls.
The cells are organtrophic, using amino acids, organic acids, or
carbohydrates for energy. In some cases they are also able to
photosynthesize.
[center][img
width=340]
HTML http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/13212/350wm/B2440039-Halococcus_archaea,_SEM-SPL.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]Halococcus archaea[/center]
This primitive life form is organtrophic AND, not or, in some
cases, photosynthetic!
Now that's what I call a life form able to handle just about any
catastrophe thrown at it.
The more complex a life form becomes, the less flexible,
adaptable and the more fragile it becomes. That is why I think
the Darwinian approach to species interaction in the biosphere
severely understates the fragility of "higher" organisms. Just
as a type of fungus can infect the brain of an ant species to
climb before it dies and thereby aid in fungal sporulation, it
is not beyond the realm of possibility that the symbiotic
bacteria that constitute a high percentage of the human genes
(we cannot metabolize our food without them so they are an
inseparable part of being a human) actually drove our evolution
to simply to aid in the spread of the bacteria. No, I don't
believe that for a second but it shows that Darwinian "logic"
can be used to claim the exact opposite of what the Darwinians
claim is the "fittest" species.
Laugh if you want, but which is a higher organism, the fungus or
the ant?
[center][img
width=350]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070718144834.png[/img][/center]
A recent article in "The Scientist" explored the possibility
that human evolution (evolution, of course, must include human
intelligent development of advanced tool making for war,
transportation and food resource exploitation) can be explained
as bacteria driven. We may be a mobile expression of symbiotic
bacteria trying to spread all over the biosphere by ensuring
their human hosts do whatever it takes to blanket the planet for
God and bacteria (not necessarily in that order ;D)!
[quote]It is estimated that there are 100 times as many
microbial genes as human genes associated with our bodies. Taken
together, these microbial communities are known as the human
microbiome.[/quote]
[quote]These findings have the potential to change the landscape
of medicine. And they also have important philosophical and
ethical implications.
A key premise of some microbiome researchers is that the human
genome coevolved with the genomes of countless microbial
species. If this is the case, it raises deep questions about our
understanding of what it really means to be human.[/quote]
[quote]If the microbiome, on a species level, coevolved with the
human genome and, on an individual level, is a unique and
enduring component of biological identity, then the microbiome
may need to be thought of more as �a part of us� than as a part
of the environment.[/quote]
[quote]More important in the context of ethical considerations
is the possibility that if the adult microbiome is indeed
relatively stable, then such early childhood manipulations of
the microbiome may be used to engineer permanent changes that
will be with the child throughout life. There is thus the
potential that an infant�s microbiome may be �programmable� for
optimal health and other traits.[sup]2[sup] [/quote]
The article assumes WE are the ones that could engage in the
"programming". It doesn't mention WHO EXACTLY was doing all that
"programming" during our alleged evolution.
There is a greater quantity of microbial genes than what are
considered "human" genes but it's really just one package. Genes
drive genetics and evolutionary traits, do they not? I made a
big joke about it in the article comments: [quote]Perhaps the
scientific nomenclature for "us versus them" organism energy
transfer relationships need to be expanded upon; terms such as
parasitic, commensal, symbiotic, etc. don't address the fact
that the 'them' is really a part of "us". Pregnant women don't
think of their future children as parasites (which is what they
technically are - even the beefed up immune system the future
moms get is a function of that short lived organism, the
placenta).
Perhaps we are just some giant "pre-frontal cortex" type of
ambulatory appendage which exists for the purpose of spreading
bacterial colonies.
Oh, the irony of self-awareness and tool making intelligence
being an evolutionary device in the service of getting that
bacterial colony to vault over the edge of the giant petri dish
called Earth.
Can you picture the scientific community awarding [I]Escherichia
coli[/I] a PhD? Dr. E Coli, you are the best part of us!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/funny.gif
[/quote]
We must now bow and scrape to the pinnacle of evolution, the
reigning king of Darwinian evolutionary competition, that fine
fecal fellow, Dr. Escherichia coli.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
Now some folks out there on Wall Street might take offense to
being outcompeted by Dr. E. coli. They might even say it's a
shitty deal! ;D Others will have no problem relegating Wall
Streeters and the rest of the 1% to the category of "lower life
forms" in comparison to gut bacteria even if the other 99% of
Homo sap are included.
A commenter named, Lee Davis was not amused by the implications
of research in the direction the article was pointing:
[quote]Absolutely. "Manage" the Earth's biodiversity at your own
peril. Destroy the rainforests at your own peril. Acidify the
ocean with CO2 at your own peril. I read "Science and Survival"
by Barry Commoner in 1964. Since then, human "management" of the
planet has continued apace, with little regard for long term
consequences. The only thing he called attention to that was
actually changed was the halt in atmospheric nuclear testing,
but we've managed to replace that pollution with the exhaust
from nuclear power plant meltdowns. Half-assed demigods we
certainly are, not playing with a full deck and with little
understanding of how the game is played. Of course, we THINK we
know it All now...and if we don't, our computing machines
certainly do. [/quote]
Click here for Part 2
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/geopolitics/power-structures-in-human-society-pros-and-cons-part-1/msg148/#msg148
1.
HTML http://the-scientist.com/2012/03/01/who-are-we-really/#comment-464838811
2.
HTML http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8393081.stm

[font=impact]The Business of America Is War
HTML http://dl8.glitter-graphics.net/pub/1238/1238988d68zgywbnq.gif[/font]

[font=comic sans ms]No wonder our leaders tell us not to worry
our little heads about our wars --just support those troops, go
shopping, and keep waving that flag.
[/font]
Snippet 1:
The War of 1812 is sometimes portrayed as a minor dust-up with
Britain, involving the temporary occupation and burning of our
capital, but it really was about crushing Indians on the
frontier and grabbing their land.
>:(
The Mexican-American War was another land grab, this time for
the benefit of slaveholders.[img width=128
height=076]
HTML http://i1.wp.com/gas2.org/files/2013/05/stupid.png[/img] 
>:(
The Spanish-American War was a land grab for those seeking an
American empire overseas, while World War I was for making the
world �safe for democracy� ::) -- and for American business
interests
globally.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gifhttp://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-monster-001.gif
>:(

Even World War II, a war necessary to stop Hitler and Imperial
Japan, witnessed the emergence of the U.S. as the arsenal of
democracy, the world�s dominant power, and the new imperial
stand-in for a bankrupt British
Empire.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil12.gif
>:(
Korea? Vietnam? Lots of profit for the military-industrial
complex
HTML http://www.smilies.4-user.de/include/Spiele/smilie_game_017.gifand plenty of
power
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-015.gif for the Pentagon
establishment.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-animal-031.gifhttp://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-monster-001.gif
>:(

Iraq, the Middle East, current adventures in Africa?
Oil,
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
markets, natural resources, global
dominance.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif
>:(
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-looney-toons-008.gif
Snippet 2:
War as Disaster Capitalism
Consider one more definition of war: not as politics or even as
commerce, but as societal catastrophe. Thinking this way, we
can apply Naomi Klein's concepts of the " shock doctrine" and
"disaster capitalism" to it. When such disasters occur, there
are always those who seek to turn a profit.
Most Americans are, however, discouraged from thinking about war
this way thanks to the power of what we call �patriotism� or, at
an extreme, �superpatriotism� when it applies to us, and the
significantly more negative �nationalism� or
�ultra-nationalism� when it appears in other countries.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/290.gif
Snippet 3:
We�re discouraged from reflecting on the uncomfortable fact
that, as �our� troops sacrifice and suffer, others in society
are profiting big time
HTML http://www.smilies.4-user.de/include/Spiele/smilie_game_017.gif. Such thoughts are considered unseemly and unpatriotic. ;)
Snippet 4:
-- President Calvin Coolidge, that is. �The business of America
is business,� he declared in the Roaring Twenties. Almost a
century later, the business of America is war, even if today�s
presidents are too polite to mention that the business
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-monster-001.gif
is
booming.
Snippet 5:
As Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky pithily observed, �You may
not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.� If
war is combat and commerce, calamity and commodity, it cannot be
left to our political leaders alone -- and certainly not to our
generals.
HTML http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/business-america-war
#Post#: 148--------------------------------------------------
Power Structures in Human Society: Pros and Cons Part 2
By: AGelbert Date: October 23, 2013, 5:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Power Structures in Human Society: Pros and Cons Part 2
CLICK HERE for Part 1[/I]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/geopolitics/power-structures-in-human-society-pros-and-cons-part-1/
Leaving the improbably strange hypothesis of bacterial driven
evolution, which stands the concept of the purpose of
intelligence and toolmaking on its head for a moment, consider
human society and sexual dimorphism.
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Male_and_female_pheasant.jpg[/img]
Female and male pheasant
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Male_and_female_A._appensa.jpg[/img]
Female [I]Argiope appensa[/I] spider is bigger
[[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Anas_platyrhynchosZZ.jpg[/img]
Mallard ducks - The male has the green colored head
Dimorphism just means that, when there are two sexes in a
species, they are different in some way. The difference can be
size, color, etc.
In humans, as we well know, "mars" and "venus" differences are
not just about physical characteristics like body strength and
pelvic size. Those hormones affect behavior far removed from
mating rituals.
Freud thought EVERYTHING was about sex but most would agree
today that we aren't that mindless. Is the aggressive,
testosterone driven male human responsible for the mess we have
made of things or are both sexes equally culpable? I think both
sexes share the blame[i] equally.
Are women superior to men? Would women have, whether driven by
their microbial genes or not, somehow avoided pushing the
biosphere to the point that doomed themselves and many other
species had they been "in charge" instead of men? Of course not!
Who, exactly, raised human male children since we've been
around? Who trained them in most activities prior to reaching
adolescence?
The roles women had in primitive societies were many and varied
including some where they ran the show. Women have been just as
capable of mass slaughter when leading armies as men, though
this has never been the norm. The relationship of mankind to the
biosphere has been parasitic but the relationship of the two
sexes to each other has been, although certainly asymmetrical in
regard to power, strength and dominance, unquestioningly
symbiotic.
There are those who equate historical female submission to a
form of slavery. This is not now, or ever was, true. Large
differences in strength don't just make it easier to lord it
over the weaker sex. In a primitive society, these differences
make for stable rolls for both sexes.
Consider that Homo sapiens would have died out long ago if both
sexes had equal strength. A female bodybuilder injects
testosterone into her body to build up muscle. Nature has
selected women to be, on the average, physically weaker. And
mind you, for most of our existence, it has been ALL ABOUT who
is bigger and stronger.
Why hasn't that changed now that, with industrialization and
modern weapons, women have the physical ability to assume
leadership roles in society that would, theoretically, save us
from ourselves due to women's less aggressive nature?
Because they aren't "cursed" with testosterone! Women are every
bit as smart as men. The default setting of a human embryo is
female. That is the basic template. It's the hormonal changes
triggered by the male chromosome that modifies the default
female setting. All males are initially females that receive a
hormone bath and become males.
The fetus itself, regardless of the fact that it starts out as a
female, is a "take no prisoners" parasitic invader. The placenta
fools the mother's immune system into not rejecting the foreign
body (sometimes that doesn't work and the fetus dies - RH factor
problems) even as it strengthens the mother's immune system to
protect the fetus and the mother during gestation.
Through the placenta, the fetus sends waste into the mother's
bloodstream and takes oxygen and nutrients that it needs,
regardless of whether the mother does or doesn't have enough of
them. Pregnant women can become anemic or lose too much calcium
and be in danger of breaking bones because when the fetus needs
something, it just TAKES IT.
If the fetus is male, aggression and territoriality come with
the testosterone during and after he grows to manhood. So, the
idea that if we could just put all the women in charge and we
would have peace and harmony is never going to fly because, as
long as testosterone is around, men will prevent it. The enemy
is not "HE". The enemy is failure by BOTH sexes in the human
power structure to envision environmental collapse from rampant
resource extraction.
So, are we doing all this because our microbial DNA just wants
to spread and spread and we are really just gut bacteria robots?
I don't think so. Mankind got into trouble with the biosphere
when he got carried away with his tool making. To a degree, we
appear to be fouling our nest and dooming ourselves to
extinction because we quite literally cannot stop (industrially,
not physically speaking) "****ting" where we "eat".
The biomass of humans is smaller than that of all the ant
species on earth yet they don't have a carbon footprint problem.
We have a serious carbon footprint problem coupled with a lot of
biosphere poisoning. The media love to remind us of this. But
here is where the "**** where you eat" metaphor breaks down.
Carbon footprint is about poison, not feces. Seven billion
humans could quite conceivably make excellent use of their
humanure to eliminate the need for chemical fertilizers and much
of the wasted water used in sewage treatment.
It 's a very convenient dodge to claim the solution to our
problem is to reduce the population. The false claim is made
that then all those cars and trucks wouldn't ruin the planet and
the biosphere could have a chance. That is a "solution" that
only solves about 20% of the pollution problem and leaves the
real heavyweights (about 80% of the pollution), industry and
military operated of, by and for the 1% elite, out. That is
where the major carbon footprint IS. For those who are shaking
their heads, go look at those U.N. stats on how many people out
there are living on 2 dollars a day and tell me THEY are the
problem.
They aren't, no matter what Bill Gates says. The combined feces
of all the ants and every other life form out there, far, far
exceeds how much we defecate. As RE, myself and many others here
have correctly pointed out, the people at the top refuse to
accept responsibility for their horrendous attack on the
biosphere and are trying to shift the blame on the rest of us.
Those of us little piggies in the USA and Europe are the
favorite whipping BOYS of those who say we 55k or less (median
income in the USA at present) share almost as much as the 1% in
the pollution blame.
They hasten to add that depopulation, especially in the piggy
countries like ours, is rational. I would support it if it was
rational but it is irrational because it fails to deal with, and
make an example of, the worst offenders FIRST. People will not
give up their pickup trucks until Warren Buffett gives up his
jets and multiple houses. The fact that a few of us have reduced
our carbon footprint voluntarily as an act of conscience does
not mean that most aren't still Bernays brainwashed.
What we need is a detailed map like this one of UK for the USA:
[img width=640
height=780]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-231013152659.png[/img]
[quote]Experian have found a direct link between wealth and
willingness to embrace a green agenda; those most concerned
about climate change tend to live in the wealthiest parts of the
country.
Poorer and greener
But here's the rub. The company has also found that the richest
constituencies... are also the most polluting.[sup]2[/sup]
[/quote]
And that's just the homes. Try adding the carbon footprint
piggery these rich have added to their homes with stock
portfolios, ownership of retail space, factories, ships, office
buildings, jets, etc.The 55K or less crowd have none of these
things. At any rate wages don't even begin to tell the real
carbon footprint piggery story; the real story is in who owns
what. More on this later.
Here's a breakdown of carbon footprint by income decile in
Sweden, a country with far less extremes in wealth dstribution
than the USA. Notice that the top decile have nearly 6 times the
carbon footprint of the lower decile. [sup]3[/sup]
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-231013151834.png[/img]
[quote]The figure illustrates three types of emissions presented
by adult equivalents. The direct emissions come from the
household�s consumption (the private consumption) of fuel and
heating. The indirect emissions come from the production of
goods and services in the Swedish private consumption.
International indirect emissions come from the production of
goods and services consumed in Swedish households, before being
imported. All three types of emissions above sum up to the total
emissions from private consumption in Sweden.[sup]3[sup]
[/quote]In the USA, the per capita CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions of
about 21 metric tonnes is VERY misleading. (This data is about 5
years ol and. as of 2012, is much lower) This paper studies the
differences in emissions from state to state without addressing
income levels.
[quote]If U.S. per capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were
equal to those of its most populous state, California, global
CO2 emissions would fall by 8 percent. If, instead, U.S. per
capita emissions equaled those of Texas, the state with the
second-largest population, global emissions would increase by 7
percent.
What makes Californians� emissions so different from those of
Texans, and from U.S. average emissions? And are the factors
that explain these differences amenable to replication as policy
solutions?[sup]4[/sup][/quote]
If you live in any one of the following states (or D.C), your
per capita CO[sup]2[/sup] emissions are less than 10 metric
tonnes:
NY, DC, OR, CA, RI, WA, VT, NH, AZ, CT. In Vermont, direct
residential of about 3 tons is an average. Just one mansion here
can equal 4 or five 2,000 sq. ft. houses and the small homes
like mine with less than 1,000 sq. ft. are much lower. People
like myself, and there are lots of them here, are probably not
running a carbon footprint above 3 metric tons due, in addition
to having less house to heat, to driving less than 2,000 miles a
year.
But what is published is the national 21 metric tons. NY's per
capita footprint appears the lowest in the nation at around 7.
That's obviously not taking into account the Wall Street Banks
and investors in NY that own stock in retail space and just
about every other high carbon footprint venture in the USA
including weapons contractors. I'll wager NY's would be double
AK's 34, the state with maximum per capita footprint, if the
real estate throughout the country that the banks owned (Bernie
Sanders said it was 60% of the country's wealth) was figured in.
Since the study just looks at homes and not the money the rich
spend to "green up" their homes with geothermal (remember Bush's
ranch?) or PV while they own stock in and support weapons
contractors and dirty industries elsewhere, it is expected that
the study would come up with this gem:
[quote]The lack of correlation between income per capita and
transportation and electricity emission per capita demonstrates
that, at least among states of the U.S., there is no rigid
relationship between affluence and emissions.10
Similar incomes can be associated with very different levels of
emissions. It is possible � as evidenced by the contrast between
California and Texas � to enjoy the typical American lifestyle
with per capita emissions that are widely divergent from the
U.S. mean.[sup]4[/sup][/quote]
The above statement is an excellent example of scientific
blinders in the service of raw wealth. The hypermobility alone
of these rich would skew their footprint up (lots of vehicles of
all sizes) if those engaged in this study had bothered to count
boats, cars, airplanes, etc. They do, however, provide a
sensible explanation of why states like Vermont keep their
carbon footprint relatively low:
[quote]Information about policies that have succeeded in
reducing emissions in some states should be circulated to the
rest of the country. How have some states managed to reduce
their emissions well below the national average? In broad
strokes, states with low per capita emissions:
" Drive less per person and have, on average, better fuel
economy;
" Use less electricity per person in their homes;
" Have higher gasoline and electricity prices;
" Rely more on public transportation; and
" Use less oil for heating and less coal for electricity
generation.
What does our analysis say about the difference between per
capita emissions in California and Texas? Transportation
emissions are almost one and a half times as great in Texas as
in California.[sup]4[/sup]
[/quote]
[move]WHY don't these carbon footprint researchers look at this
kind of data: ???[/move]
[quote]FAA statistics show the number of U.S. business jet
flights grew 11 percent in 2010, after plunging 20 percent in
2009. And providers of private jet services are expanding: In
March 2011, NetJets (owned by Warren Buffet�s Berkshire
Hathaway) placed a $2.8 billion order for 50 new Global business
jets from Bombardier, with options for 70 more; last fall, it
ordered up to 125 Phenom 300s from Embraer�and it bought Marquis
Jet, a marketer of private jet cards. Also in March, CitationAir
by Cessna added six 604-mph Citation Xs�which it calls the
fastest business jet in the sky�to its fleet of 81 jets,
targeting �busy executives and business travelers who often need
to be in multiple cities within a compressed timeframe,� a
spokesman says. XOJET has added to its fleet as well and has
hired 45 new pilots.[sup]5[/sup]
[/quote]
Does anybody want to take a stab at what umpteen executive jets
used EXCLUSIVELY by the 1% do to the USA carbon footprint? I
know a little something about airplanes. I never flew a jet for
hire but I flew Piper Navajos for a year or so. Each engine used
18 gallons per HOUR. Now when people start talking about all
those J6P pickup trucks out there while ignoring executive jets,
I sigh. The carbon footprint of those jets is massive.
[quote]How much greater are the emissions from executive jets? I
am indebted to HalogenGuides Jets, "the insider's guide to
private aviation", for doing the stats.
They reviewed 10 popular private jets using emissions stats
provided by TerraPass, the offset company used by Chief
Executive Air. The planes ranged from the Gulfstream 400, which
burns up 32l of fuel a minute and can carry up to 19 passengers,
to the Learjet 40XR, which burns more than 13l a minute to carry
a maximum of five passengers.
[I]HeliumReport[/I] converts this fuel burn into carbon dioxide
emissions per hour. If we assume the plane is fully loaded with
passengers, they mostly come in at between 200-300kg of carbon
dioxide put into the atmosphere per passenger per hour. But of
course, the purpose of having your own jet is that you are not
stuck with silly cost-cutting exercises like filling every seat
on the plane.
I know of no analysis of how full private jets normally fly, but
let's assume they are mostly half full. That gives emissions per
passenger-hour of 400-600kg of carbon dioxide. That's about half
a tonne.
How does that compare with a regular commercial flight? For one
from London to Paris, which is roughly an hour, TerraPass
reckons 59kg per passenger per hour, or little more more than a
10th as much as flying your own, half full, Learjet.
If you are interested in carbon emissions, these numbers are
scary. An hour's flight on a private jet will emit more carbon
dioxide than most African do in a whole year.[sup]6[/sup]
[/quote]
The African CO[sub]2[/sub] footprint referred to is about one
metric ton but let's compare it with our "rich" Americans making
anywhere from 55k a year on down that only see executive jets in
movies. In 20 hours of of flying, an afterthought for the jet
set 1% of the USA, they use up one yearly quota of J6P's
"greedy irresponsible pig" footprint. Now count the executive
jets and count the total hours they fly each year and you will
absolutely gasp at the carbon footprint the 1% is happily
spewing into our biosphere. There are over 10,000 private jets
in the USA as of 2008. [quote]How private jet travel is
straining the system, warming the planet, and costing you
money.[sup]7[/sup]
[/quote]
And this is JUST THE EXECUTIVE JETS part of their piggery!
And Buffett thinks it's A-OKAY to add more. >:(
China's per capita carbon footprint, in the meantime, has become
greater than that of several U.S. states, including Vermont.
[quote]The latest report shows that in 2011 China's per capita
emissions increased 9%, rising to 7.2 metric tons per person.
[sup]8[/sup]
[/quote]
Click here for Power Structures in Human Society: Pros and Cons
Part 3 (conclusion and recommendations)
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/geopolitics/power-structures-in-human-society-pros-and-cons-part-1/msg149/#msg149
1.
HTML http://the-scientist.com/2012/03/01/who-are-we-really/#comment-464838811
2.
HTML http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8393081.stm

Joe Six Pack (J6P) makes a real convenient whipping boy but that
does not reflect the facts on the ground even before you account
for 1% piggery. What matters is not data points like how much
retail space there is in the USA (a huge amount is now empty
anyway since 2008) but who OWNS that retail space and all the
other large carbon footprint piggery. The wealth breakdown in
the USA (as of 2007 - it's even more concentrated at the top now
according to senator Bernie Sanders) shows that 1% own 42.7%,
the next 19% own 53.7% and the BOTTOM 80% own 7%.[sup]10[/sup]
I am using the financial wealth stats rather than the "net"
worth stats because that reflects the sad reality that the 15%
attributed to the bottom 80% is now about 7% and the "net" worth
of the top 20% matches 2007 financial wealth percentages (The
top 20%, but mostly the top 0.5%, have exponentially increased
their ownership of everything in the USA since the Greater
Depression began in 2007).
The last time I checked, when you OWN something, [size=18pt]you
are responsible for its carbon footprint. [/size] The fact that
the predatory capitalist "drug pushers" are out there pushing
the consumerist "drug" does not justify blaming the addicts. The
addicts must be treated but the priority is to get the pushers
off the street. Every addict can go cold turkey and the pushers
will adjust by giving the "drug" away really cheap until they
hook a new set of addicts. Focusing on the addicts while giving
lip service to the evils of the 1% to the point that the addicts
are given a 40/60% (99% carbon footprint vs 1% carbon footprint)
responsibility ratio in biosphere degradation when it is more
like a 20/80% ratio is just plain wrong and doomed to failure.
Of course the 1% love this kind of "blame the victim" illogic.
We need a REAL deciles breakdown like they did in Sweden of the
CO[sub]2[/sub] footprint of our population. Here is a look at
carbon footprint in cities across the USA. Most of the heavy
polluters are east of the Mississippi.[sup]11[/sup].
[img
width=800]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-231013202702.png[/img]
US energy use concentration
That's a start but we still need to zero in on stock, high tech
toys and real estate ownership as a function of carbon
footprint. Maybe then people would get a clearer picture of who
the responsible parties for the biosphere degradation are. It is
little wonder that no data of this nature is published in the
USA. This is the reality that side issues like blaming gender or
psychopathy for humanity's biosphere degradation fail to
address.
It's really an Occam's razor type problem (a principle urging
one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes
the fewest assumptions). Because the 1% are our leaders, the
masses of humanity always attempt to imitate what the 1% do,
period. When the 1% stop their massive piggery, the small scale
piggery of the masses will stop as well. Claiming that the 1%
only "do what they do" because the 99% are a bunch of sheep is a
half truth. True, we sheep are unfortunately permitting the 1%
to parasitically prey on us. But putting the onus on the sheep
is "blame the victim" illogic.
The issue is not about gender or the criminal insanity endemic
to psychopaths in the 1%; psychopaths are unfortunately
represented at all income levels even if they are concentrated
at the top. Whether this super aggressive behavior destroying
the biosphere is caused by microbes willing us to spread,
testosterone in the male of the species or the inability of our
big, but still brutish, brains to react to threats on a
multigenerational time horizon, the fact remains that the main
authors of the rampant biosphere damage are these humans in the
1%.
It's not the 99%'s biomass (e.g. ants have more than humans)
that is destroying the biosphere; it's the 1%'s carbon footprint
by a huge margin despite their tiny biomass. A detailed study of
per capita footprint which includes resource ownership by wealth
would conclusively prove that. And as to males of the species
being the culprit, the statement, "We have met the enemy, an he
is us, and he is "HE", is barking up the wrong tree! Perhaps a
world where humans were all females and reproduction was by
cloning would be less parasitic and become symbiotic with the
biosphere but most women on Earth, not to mention G. I. Joe
Testosterone and friends, would take offense to that notion (to
put it mildly :P).
Putting women in charge, as long as there are men around, will
not change our suicidal trajectory. Because the 1% are our
leaders, the masses of humanity always attempt to imitate what
the 1% do, period. When the 1% stop their massive piggery, the
small scale piggery of the masses will stop as well. Claiming
that the 1% only "do what they do" because the 99% are a bunch
of sheep is a half truth. True, The 1% ARE mostly PARASITIC. But
putting the onus on the sheep is "blame the victim" illogic. The
less aggressive (the normal 99% that are folded, stapled and
mutilated by the 1%) humans are not responsible for what the 1%
has conned them into doing.
What, exactly, do you expect from sheep? The 1% pushed,
connived, lied and killed anything in their way to BE the 1%.
They've got the "Will To Power" on steroids. If all of us had
the aggressiveness of the 1%, Homo sapiens would have self
destructed long ago. Sexual dimorphism and hormones dictate
different levels of strength, aggressivity and dominance in
human beings for real and valid species perpetuation purposes.
Nature cares not about egalitarian relationships among opposite
sexes or societies (see the moths, ants, spiders, bees, ducks,
lions, chimps, etc.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/geopolitics/power-structures-in-human-society-pros-and-cons-part-1/msg148/#msg148); it "cares" about what works to promote the reproduction of a
species. Asymmetric power relationships in societies and among
the sexes in species aren't democratic but they have more
species perpetuation power than horizontal relationships.
That's just the way it is. If you want to "improve" on that
model, you'd better but your "God" outfit on and pack a lot of
sandwiches because you are bucking up against the biosphere
species interrelationship status quo.
The ones who hold the power are ALWAYS in the driver's seat. If
they don't adequately react to a threat to the species, it's
curtains.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818185038-1648302.gif
The 1% enjoy their RHIP which provide them many privileges but
they cannot evade their responsibility.
[center][img
width=400]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-101217181314.jpeg[/img][/center]
The 1% don't have to lose their "better to reign in hell than
serve in heaven" attitude for mankind to survive; they just have
stop believing their own PR.
If they bite the reality bullet and lead the way into
sustainable living, we might make it. Otherwise, the fungi,
extremophiles and the humble descendants of human microbial
bacterial colonies will inherit the Earth. The planet will
become hot as hell and only the simplest and toughest life forms
will live here.
[center] [img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/styles/renewablerevolution/files/4144_Hotter%20than%20you%20think.png[/img][/center]
Send this to someone in the 1% if you know any. Who knows? They
might even read it and think postively about doing the right
thing. [img
width=50]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-221017161839.png[/img] 
1.
HTML http://the-scientist.com/2012/03/01/who-are-we-really/#comment-464838811
2.
HTML http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8393081.stm

3.
HTML http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____104319.aspx
4.
HTML http://www.e3network.org/papers/Why_do_state_emissions_differ_so_widely.pdf
5.
HTML http://www.executivetravelmagazine.com/articles/flying-on-private-jets
6.
HTML http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/29/private-jets-green
7.
HTML http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/high_flyers
8.
HTML http://www.greendrinkschina.org/news/chinas-per-capita-carbon-emissions-solidly-reach-developed-nation-levels/
9.
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
10.
HTML http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
11.
HTML http://green.wikia.com/wiki/Carbon_Footprint_of_American_Cities
#Post#: 344--------------------------------------------------
�Responsibility to Protect� (R2P): An Instrument of Aggression
By: AGelbert Date: November 15, 2013, 5:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][font=times new roman][I]�Responsibility to Protect� is a
bogus doctrine designed to undermine the very foundations of
international law. It is law rewritten for the powerful. �The
structures and laws that underlie the application of R2P exempt
the Great Power enforcers from the laws and rules that they
enforce on the lesser powers.�[/I][/font][/quote]
Edward S. Herman
Both the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and �Humanitarian
Intervention� (HI) came into existence in the wake of the fall
of the Soviet Union, which ended any obstruction that that
contesting Great Power had placed on the ongoing power
projection of the United States. In Western ideology, of course,
the United States was containing the Soviets in the post-World
War II years, but that was ideology. In reality the Soviet Union
was always far less powerful than the United States, had weaker
and less reliable allies, and was essentially on the defensive
from 1945 till its demise in 1991.
The United States was aggressively on the march outward from
1945, with the steady spread of military bases across the globe,
numerous interventions, large and small, on all continents,
engaged in building the first truly global empire. The Soviet
Union was an obstruction to U.S. expansion, with sufficient
military power to constitute a modest containing force, but it
also served U.S. propaganda as an alleged expansionist threat.
With the death of the Soviet Union new threats were needed to
justify the continuing and even accelerating U.S. projection of
power, and they were forthcoming, from narco-terrorism to Al
Qaeda to Saddam�s weapons of mass destruction to the terrorist
threat that encompassed the entire planet earth and its outer
space.
There was also a global security menace alleged, based on
internal ethnic struggles and human rights violations, that
supposedly threatened wider conflicts, as well as presenting the
global community (and its policeman) with a moral dilemma and
demand for intervention in the interests of humanity and
justice. As noted, this morality surge occurred at a moment in
history when the Soviet constraint was ended and the United
States and its close allies were celebrating their triumph, when
the socialist option had lost vitality, and when the West was
thus freer to intervene. This required over-riding the several
hundred year old Westphalian core principle of international
relations � that national sovereignty should be respected �
which if adhered to would protect smaller and weaker countries
from Great Power cross-border attacks. This rule was embodied in
the UN Charter, and could be said to be the fundamental feature
of that document, described by international law scholar Michael
Mandel as �the world�s constitution.� Over-riding this rule and
Charter fundamental would clear the ground for R2P and HI, but
it would also clear the ground for classic and straightforward
aggression in pursuit of geopolitical interests, for which R2P
and HI might supply a useful cover.
It is obvious that only the Great Powers can cross borders in
the alleged interest of R2P and HI, a point that is recognized
and taken as an entirely acceptable premise in every case in
which they have been applied in recent years. The Great Powers
are the only ones with the knowledge and material resources to
do this �benevolent� global social work. As NATO public
relations official Jamie Shea explained in May 1999, when the
question came up as to whether NATO personnel might be indicted
for war crimes during NATO�s bombing war against Serbia, which
seemed to follow from the letter of the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) charter: NATO
countries �organized� the ICTY and International Court of
Justice, and NATO countries �fund these tribunals and support on
a daily basis their activities. We are the upholders, not the
violators, of international law.� This last is a contestable
assertion, but Shea�s other points are clearly valid.
It is enlightening that when a group of independent lawyers
submitted an extensive dossier in 1999 showing probable NATO
violations of ICTY rules, after a long delay and following open
pressure from NATO authorities, the anti-NATO claims were
disallowed by the ICTY prosecutor on the ground that with only
496 documented killings of Serbs by NATO bombs �there is simply
no evidence of a crime base� for indicting NATO, although the
original May 1999 indictment of Milosevic involved a crime base
of only 344 deaths. It is of similar interest that International
Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo declined to
prosecute NATO officials for their attack on Iraq in 2003,
despite over 249 requests for ICC action, on the ground that
here also �the situation did not appear to meet the required
threshold of the Statute.�
These two cases illustrate the fact that the structures and laws
that underlie the application of R2P (and HI) exempt the Great
Power enforcers from the laws and rules that they enforce on the
lesser powers. It also exempts their friends and clients. This
means that in the real world there is nobody responsible for
protecting Iraqis or Afghanis from the United States or
Palestinians from Israel. When U.S. Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright acknowledged on national TV in 1996 that
500,000 Iraqi children may have died as a result of UN (but
really U.S.) -imposed sanctions on Iraq, declaring that U.S.
officials felt these deaths were �worth it,� there was no
domestic or global reaction demanding the end of these sanctions
and the application of R2P or HI on behalf of the victimized
Iraqi population. Similarly there was no call for any R2P
intervention on behalf of the Iraqis when the United States and
Britain invaded Iraq in March 2003, with direct and induced
civil war killings of perhaps a million more Iraqis.
When the Canadian-sponsored International Coalition for the
Responsibility to Protect considered the Iraq war in relation to
R2P, its authors concluded that abuses by Saddam Hussein within
Iraq were not of a scope in 2003 to justify an invasion, but the
coalition never even raised the question of whether the Iraqi
people didn�t need protection from the invaders responsible for
the death of vast numbers. They worked from the imperial premise
that the Great Power enforcers, even when aggressing in
violation of the UN Charter and killing hundreds of thousands,
are exempt from R2P as well as the rule of law.
This works from the top of the global power structure on down;
Bush, Cheney, Obama, John Kerry, Susan Rice, Samantha Power at
the top, then on the way down we have Merkel, Cameron, and
Hollande, then further down Ban Ki-Moon and Luis Moreno-Ocampo,
and with their power base to be found in the corporate
leadership and media. Ban Ki-Moon and his predecessor Kofi Annan
have been open servants of the Great NATO Powers, to whom they
owe their status and authority. Kofi Annan was an enthusiastic
supporter of the NATO attack on Yugoslavia, a believer in the
enforcement responsibility of the NATO powers, and keen on the
institutionalization of R2P; and Ban Ki-Moon works in the same
mode.
This same global power structure also means that ad hoc
Tribunals will be formed and used against villains of choice, as
well as international courts. Thus when the United States and
its allies wanted to dismantle Yugoslavia and weaken Serbia,
they were able to use the Security Council in 1993 to establish
a tribunal, the ICTY, precisely for this service, which the ICTY
carried out effectively. When they wanted to help their client
Paul Kagame consolidate his dictatorship in Rwanda, they created
a similar tribunal for this service, the ICTR. If these powers
want to attack and bring about regime change in Libya, they can
get the ICC to accuse Gaddaffi of war crimes speedily and
without independent investigation of any charges, and based
mainly on anticipations of civilian killings. But as noted, the
ICC couldn�t find any basis for action against the invaders of
Iraq whose killings of civilians were large-scale and realized,
not merely anticipated. There was, in fact, a major World
Tribunal on Iraq organized to hear charges against the United
States and its allies for their actions in Iraq, but it was
privately organized and had a critical anti-war bent, so that
although it held hearings in many countries and heard many
prestigious witnesses, this tribunal was given negligible
attention in the media. (Its final sessions and report in June
2005 were unmentioned in the major U.S, and British media.)
R2P fits snugly into this picture of service to an escalating
imperial violence, with the United States and its enormous
military-industrial complex engaged in a Global War on Terror
and multiple wars, and its NATO arm steadily enlarging and
embarked on �out of area� service, despite the ending of its
supposed role of containing the Soviet Union. It conveniently
premises that the threats that the world needs to address come
from within countries, not from cross-border aggression in the
traditional mode that the makers of the UN Charter considered of
first importance. They are wrong: William Blum lists 35 cases
where the United States overthrew governments between 1945 and
2001 (thus not even counting the war-making of George W. Bush
and Barak Obama; Blum, Freeing the World to Death [Common
Courage, 2005], chaps. 11 and 15)
In the real world, while R2P has a wonderful aura of
benevolence, it will be put in play only at the instigation of
the Great NATO Powers and it will therefore never be used in the
interest of unworthy victims, defined as victims of the Great
Powers or their clients (see Manufacturing Consent, chap 2,
�Worthy and Unworthy Victims�). For example, it was never
invoked to constrain Indonesian violence in its invasion and
occupation of East Timor from 1975 onward, although this
invasion-occupation accounted for an estimated 200,000 deaths on
a population base of 800,000, thus exceeding the proportionate
deaths under Pol Pot. In this case the United States gave the
invasion a green light, gave further arms to the invaders, and
protected them from any UN response. This is a case where the UN
Charter was being violated and East Timorese desperately needed
protection, but as the United States supported the invader no
international response transpired.
It is enlightening and amusing to see that Gareth Evans has been
perhaps the leading spokesperson in support of R2P.as an
instrument of justice. Evans is a former Foreign Minister of
Australia, author of a book on R2P, past president of the
International Crisis Group, a co-founder of the International
Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, and a
participant in several reports and debates on R2P. Evans was the
Foreign Minister of Australia during the years of Indonesia�s
genocidal occupation of East Timor, and in that role Evans
honored and feted Indonesian leaders and worked with them in
sharing the stolen oil rights of East Timor. (See John Pilger,
�East Timor: a lesson in why the poorest threaten the powerful,�
April 5, 2012, pilger.com.) So Evans was really a collaborator
in a major genocide. Can you imagine the media�s response to a
non-NATO human rights campaign that used as spokesperson a
Chinese official who had maintained friendly relations with Pol
Pot during his most deadly years?
It is enlightening to see how Gareth Evans deals with the
criteria for enforcing R2P. In answering questions on this
subject at a UN General Assembly session on R2P, Evans appealed
to common sense: R2P �defines itself,� and the crimes, including
�ethnic cleansing,� are all �inherently conscience-shocking, and
by their very nature of a scale that demands a response�It is
really impossible to be precise about numbers here.� Evans notes
that sometimes modest numbers will suffice: �We remember starkly
the horror of Srebrenica� [with only 8,000 deaths]. Was Racak
with its 45 victims in Kosovo in �99 sufficient to trigger the
response that was triggered by the international community?� It
was sufficient to trigger a response for the simple reason that
it helped advance NATO�s ongoing program of dismantlement of
Yugoslavia. But Evans dodges answering his own question. You may
be sure that Evans does not ask or attempt to explain why there
was no triggering of a response to East Timor with its 200,000
or Iraq�s 500,000 plus a million. The politicization of choices
here is total, but Evans has apparently internalized the
imperial perspective so completely that this huge double
standard never reaches his consciousness. But the most
interesting fact is that a man with such a record and such
blatant bias can be accepted as an authority and his biased
perspective is treated with respect.
It is interesting, also, to see how Evans never mentions Israel
and Neither Palestine, where ethnic cleansing has been in active
process for decades, works openly and is deeply resented by vast
numbers across the globe. do other members of the power pyramid
suggest Israel-Palestine as an area where consciences are
shocked and the nature and scale of abuse demands a response
from the �international community.� In order to obtain her U.N.
Ambassadorship, Samantha Power thought it was necessary to go
before a group of pro-Israel U.S. citizens and assure them, with
tears flowing, that she regretted any past suggestions that
AIPAC was powerful and that its influence had to be over-ridden
for developing a U.S.-interest policy toward Israel and
Palestine. She pledged a devotion to Israel�s national security.
The world will wait a long time for Power and her bosses to
support R2P�s application to ethnic cleansing in Palestine
In sum, the international power structure in the post-Soviet
world has worsened global inequality and at the same time
increased Great Power interventionism and literal aggression.
The increased militarism may have contributed to the growing
inequality, but it is also designed and serves to facilitate
pacification at home as well as abroad. In this context, R2P and
HI are understandable developments, providing a moral cover for
actions that would repel many people and constitute a violation
of international law if viewed in a cold light. R2P puts
aggression in a benevolent light and thus serves as its useful
instrument. In short, it is a cynical fraud and a constitution
(UN Charter)-buster.
Edward S. Herman
Edward S. Herman is professor emeritus of finance at the Wharton
School, University of Pennsylvania and has written extensively
on economics, political economy, and the media. Among his books
are Corporate Control, Corporate Power (Cambridge University
Press, 1981), The Real Terror Network (South End Press, 1982),
and, with Noam Chomsky, The Political Economy of Human Rights
(South End Press, 1979), and Manufacturing Consent (Pantheon,
2002).

#Post#: 472--------------------------------------------------
Re: Power Structures in Human Society: Pros and Cons Part 1
By: AGelbert Date: November 29, 2013, 2:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]agelbert
We also need to convince the oligarchy that they need to stop
believing their social Darwinist predatory capitalist PR or the
biosphere and their descendants are toast.
WrenchMonkey agelbert
The plutocratic oligarchy cannot be "convinced" of anything. It
is composed primarily of essential psychopaths who are devoid of
conscience and compassion and immune to reason. They understand
only force.
Just my opinion
agelbert WrenchMonkey
If they cannot be convinced that their survival is imperiled by
their blindness, arrogance, greed and stupidity, then Homo SAP
has had it.
Why?
Excerpt from the article on the 1%'s responsibility:
"The issue is not about gender or the criminal insanity endemic
to psychopaths in the 1%; psychopaths are unfortunately
represented at all income levels even if they are concentrated
at the top.
Whether this super aggressive behavior destroying the biosphere
is caused by microbes willing us to spread, testosterone in the
male of the species or the inability of our big, but still
brutish, brains to react to threats on a multigenerational time
horizon, the fact remains that the main authors of the rampant
biosphere damage are these humans in the 1%.
It's not the 99%'s biomass (e.g. ants have more than humans)
that is destroying the biosphere; it's the 1%'s carbon footprint
by a huge margin despite their tiny biomass. A detailed study of
per capita footprint which includes resource ownership by wealth
would conclusively prove that."
"The ones who hold the power are ALWAYS in the driver's seat. If
they don't adequately react to a threat to the species, it's
curtains. Power cannot be divorced from responsibility.
The 1% enjoy their RHIP which provide them many privileges but
they cannot evade their responsibility.
That said, The 1% don't have to lose their "better to reign in
hell than serve in heaven" attitude for mankind to survive; they
just have stop believing their own PR.
If they bite the reality bullet and lead the way into
sustainable living, we might make it."
The 1%'s Responsibility to Shoulder 80% of the COST of a 100%
Renewable Energy World
WrenchMonkey agelbert
I'm sorry. I don't think you comprehend the nature of the
psychopath. It's not that they won't change their ways, the
can't.
HTML http://ponerology.com/evil_1.h...
And by the way, 100% renewable energy will not end the
destruction of the ecosystem. It still requires and industrial
civilisation and industrial civilisation is not sustainable.
Just my opinion
agelbert WrenchMonkey
I understand psychopathy and ponerology quite well.
You labor under the assumption that 100% of the 1% are composed
of psychopaths. I agree with you that psychopaths are
incorrigible. I disagree with you that they dominate the 1%,
despite the fact they are over-represented in that group.
I never said we would have paradise just because we had 100%
renewable energy. I stated that our survival depends on it. It
would give us time to bioremediate all the other environmental
damage done.
But I realize where you stand on this and I will put it to you
in black and white.
Your assumption that you can solve humanity's problems by offing
the bad guys is as old as humanity and has never worked.
It's been the siren song of every would be tyrant wooing the
masses until he seizes power and double crosses his followers
who hoped for a more egalitarian world. It's a comfortable
fantasy.
Just my opinion and that of the history of "civilization".
Renewable Revolution
WrenchMonkey agelbert
I labour under no such assumption and you're being presumptuous
by making such a statement. I make a great deal of effort to
assume nothing.
I'd suggest you reread the section in Political Ponerology
entitled "Spellbinders" beginning on
page 155. Or, if you don't have the book, you can read the
section titled PONEROLOGY on the website.
It's my conclusion that, at this point, the essential psychopath
not only dominates the "1%" but, through the power and influence
acquired, holds sway in nearly all the patriarchal hierarchies
that control the economies and thus the governments of the
world's "sovereign" nations and most of those that aren't so
sovereign as well.
I'm afraid I must disagree with your conclusions regarding
"renewable" energy. These techno-fixes are well meaning but
misguided attempts at "saving" our "civilisation", which is the
last thing we need to do. They all require the continued
extraction and destruction of non-renewable resources in order
to maintain the industrialism and market based economies that
are destroying the ecosystem.
I'm sorry to contradict, but you actually do not realise where I
stand. I neither said nor even implied that humanity's problems
can be solved by "offing the bad guys". If that's what you think
you've read in my comments, then you've misinterpreted them
badly.
In order to actually better understand "where I stand", I
suggest you read "Endgame", volumes 1 & 2, "A Language Older
Than Words" and "Deep Green Resistance". If you are already
familiar with these works and disagree with their premises then
you and I will be better served by simply agreeing to disagree.
It is incumbent upon neither of us to "convert" the other.
IMHO the solution to our dilemma lies more in prehistory than in
the history of our civilisation.
Have a safe and happy holiday insofar as that's possible.
agelbert WrenchMonkey
History, not PRE-history, will prove you wrong in the next
decade. I hope you are humble enough to accept the truth.
Techno-fixes were never the issue. You didn't read my article,
obviously.
The issue, for the last time, is that hierarchy is the natural
state of affairs in millions of species on the planet and works
quite well, thank you very much. Egalitarian concepts are pipe
dreams.
You will never have a stable society without a pecking order.
You can dream otherwise and believe this, that and the other but
you will continue to be frustrated by an unworkable hypothesis.
Mankind is BENEATH the biosphere in the pecking order and will
perish if he doesn't GET that. However, within our species,
asymmetric power relationships are the ONLY way we can have a
stable society. Laugh if you wish.
Have a nice day.
WrenchMonkey agelbert
This article ?:
HTML http://www.ren
ewableenergyworl...
Yes, I read it. I've read a great many things with which I don't
wholly agree. I would have commented but I don't want to "create
a free account" to do so.
I even followed a few of the links. Your complete immersion in
scientific minutia is a bit too clinical for me. It smacks of
absolute certainty, which I find very disconcerting. It's a
common mistake among the professional scientific community.
�A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them the light, but rather because its
opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is
familiar with it.� Max Planck
While there's much you have to say, regarding the ruling class,
the 1%, wall street, etc, with which I can agree, I think your
ideological stance, manifested in your absolutism, makes any
comprehensive agreement impossible.
It's saddening that I seem to detect a sense of sneering
superiority in your comments here and your essays at Renewable
Energy World and Renewable Revolution. I have no desire to
provoke, offend or dominate you. I simply do not agree with your
viewpoint, though I most certainly would defend your right to
it.
As I said before, it is incumbent upon neither of us to
"convert" the other.
Once more and finally, let us agree to disagree without rancour.
agelbert WrenchMonkey
" it is incumbent upon neither of us to 'convert' the other."
I agree and without rancor! :>)
Thanks for reading the article.
The piece at Renewable Energy World was the third part. In the
earlier parts I went to great pains to show "how it works" as to
power relationships in nature. I may appear overly "sure" of
myself because I have the backing of the stable behavior and
perpetuation of millions of species on this planet. It's not
about me or you; it's about those that control the future of our
species (i.e. our leaders).
I just write about it hoping one them that is not a psychopath
will read it and over rule the crazies.
Here at common dreams for at least a decade I have watched the
purists, deep ecologists, zealous progressives, and other people
I share many viewpoints on, harp on the quixotic view that the
only way to solve this mess is to scrap the whole failed
paradigm. At first I believed it. But when I looked deeper I
realized this was just a form of escapism unrelated to real
world solutions.
I was all fired up to "convert" people to the "right" way of
thinking. But I was wrong.
The only ones that hold our future are not prone to progressive
thinking. However, they have been rather "good", as in a fecal
bolus floating to the surface of a toilet bowl, of surviving all
sorts of calamities in history far better than most of the other
Homo saps.
Common Dreamers have cows and kittens every time I tell them
that the 1% are part of us, warts and all, and we solve this
thing together or we perish. They want to off the Wall Street
vermin. It's a fun thought but it won't happen.
Be well.
Renewable Revolution
[url=
HTML http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/11/27-4#comment-1143792349][size=18pt]Full Common Dreams Thread Here
[/size][/quote]
#Post#: 479--------------------------------------------------
View From the Catbird Seat PART 1 of 2 parts
By: AGelbert Date: December 2, 2013, 12:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg[/img]
View From The Catbird Seat
HTML http://dl8.glitter-graphics.net/pub/1238/1238988d68zgywbnq.gif 
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif 
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
Agelbert NOTE:Originally published about a year and a half ago.
Since the ATTITUDE of the greedballs among the 1% hasn't
changed much, if at all, I have updated it and am republishing
it. Now it is even more urgent for the 1% to understand the
"nature" of their "nature". :evil4:
What is the 1% and the 1% wannabes up to these days as we
approach the event horizon of accelerated environmental
collapse? Well, they appear to be building hidey holes.
[quote]The secret world of doomsday shelters[/quote]
Snippet 1
[quote]Unlike 1950s-era fallout shelters and newer aboveground
"safe rooms," meant to protect against storms and home
invasions, bunkers are buried at least 6 feet under, in part to
shield occupants from nuclear radiation.
You can buy a bare-bones shelter for $38,000 uninstalled or
spend tens of millions of dollars � and a surprising number do �
on a lavish, custom-made subterranean sanctuary.
Bunker builders cite a long list of client fears, from war and
terrorism to megastorms and epic earthquakes. But the customers
themselves aren't talking. "Secrecy is their defense," says
shelter manufacturer Walton McCarthy, of Radius Engineering in
Terrell, Texas. Shelter owners don't want neighbors and
strangers pounding on the entry hatch in an emergency, he
explains.
Also, many have installed shelters without building permits.
While city and county authorities may disagree, McCarthy
maintains that his prefabricated shelters fall outside building
codes.
"These have no foundations, so technically don't come under
building code. They're self-contained and are not hooked up to
the grid."
b]To sidestep nosy neighbors and building authorities,
contractors may disguise the projects as swimming pool
installations. "The hole is dug on Friday," McCarthy says. "We
get there Friday at 5, by Monday it's in, and the neighbors can
call whoever they want."[/b][/quote]
For those of you that read my post on the rich and their NBC
(Nuclear Biological Chemical) filtered doomsday shelters, I was
kidding about the filter duration but I wasn't making their
existence up.
Snippet 2
[quote]McCarthy entered the field in 1978 as a young mechanical
engineer, designing and making concrete shelters, then steel and
now fiberglass. He wrote the �U.S. Handbook of NBC Weapon
Fundamentals and Shelter Engineering Design Standards.� And he
reports that his business generates $30 million to $45 million
annually through the sale of 50 to 100 shelters a year. Radius
sells to businesses, homeowners, churches and government. Most
of the shelters hold 20 people or more and can sustain life for
one to five years. Half are sold in the Washington, D.C., area.
The smallest Radius shelter, an eight-person unit, costs
$108,000. Here's what you get:
A ribbed, composite cylinder 12 feet wide, 11 feet high and 24
feet long; with no metal parts, it's meant to be undetectable by
radar or thermal-detection devices.
Your shelter comes with a diesel-powered generator, a toilet and
septic tank, a kitchen, plumbing, air filters, a ham radio, a
shower, a DVD player and TV, bunks and furnishings. Radius sells
preserved food separately.
Shipping is extra � about $10,000 from coast to coast, for
example � and installation is an additional $20,000 to $25,000.
And then there's excavation: The shelter requires a hole 25 feet
deep, so it's too big to fit under a home.[/quote]
You too, can imitate the greedy, calloused and selfish rich. For
a sum most middle class folks can afford, you too can purchase
some pie in the sky (or is it a mole in the hole?):
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://justpiper.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/mojave.jpg[/img]
Snippet 3
[quote]Vivos plans as many as 20 community shelters of various
sizes in the U.S. and says six are now under construction. Its
sells fractional ownerships in the projects. Buying into a
944-person underground facility near Omaha, for example, costs
$25,000 per person. This rendering shows a plan for �a typical�
Vivos community bunker. // � Vivos[/quote]
HTML http://realestate.msn.com/-the-secret-world-of-doomsday-shelters
[img width=640
height=580]
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/MGalleryItem.php?id=385[/img]
View From the Catbird Seat
Are those that contributed most to our polluted world and
dog-eat-dog insane predatory capitalist mindset really stupid
enough to believe they can survive the environmental collapse?
After about a year and half of pre-engineering, I switched to
aviation and obtained pilot and flight instructor certificates.
It was 1967 and I firmly believed their was a bullet in Viet Nam
with my name on it so I joined the Air National Guard in the
hopes of dodging it. I scored well on the Air Force test that
reminded me of those IQ tests they gave us in Kansas when I was
a kid with lots of box shapes and pattern recognition type
questions so I was given a wide range of job choices. I chose
"Link Trainer Technician" because it was aviation related and,
being an 11 month school, would teach me a lot about
electronics.
I was turned down because I am nearsighted. Even though it was
obviously corrected to 20-20 (It's rather difficult to get a
pilot's license without proper vision), they claimed my glasses
would inhibit my ability to work in enclosed places in the
trainer while servicing electronics assemblies. I said I'd get
contacts but to no avail. I didn't want to do the grunt work of
aircraft mechanic or loading bombs or bullets on fighters so so
I ended up training at Lowry AFB in Denver training in the dual
AFSC (Air Force Specialty Code) of Intelligence Operations
Specialist/Photo Interpreter (16 week school) after basic
training in Lackland AFB.
At Lowry I learned how to kill millions of living beings of all
sorts with atomic bombs. There was this bombing encyclopedia
with radar cross sections of every city in the entire world (USA
included). We would figure the megatonnage out to make sure we
killed as many of the "enemy" as possible (e.g. two air bursts
of 5 megatons spaced about 25 miles apart do more damage than a
single 15 megaton air burst). All this was top secret stuff of
course but most of that info is declassified now and available
on the internet so I'm free to talk about it.
We learned how to spot infrastructure resources from aerial
photography (oil refineries and bridges were a favorite) and how
best to "take them out". I was an atheist at the time and had
accepted the view that human males fight over land, stuff and
women whenever they thought they could take one or more of those
"items" away from the other guys.
Hey, I was raised by an Army officer. Being a cardboard asshole
was mandatory in my daddy's world view. Those who have read any
of my current thoughts know I woke up to the bankruptcy of such
a narrow mindset decades ago. Anyway, this is how I learned
interrogation techniques (e.g. Mutt and Jeff - good cop bad cop)
and what NBC filters are.
The US Government has LOTS of excellent underground facilities
equipped with years of human survival need supplies and NBC
filtration. So does Russia. The Swiss have some super doomsday
shelters as well complete with modern hospital equipment. All
the "first" world countries probably have callously taken steps
to protect the decision makers among them. I say "callously"
because underground hospitals with the latest equipment don't
just sit there while people on the surface excluded from the
catbird seat get average to poor health care, just for starters.
They don't just throw a bunch of canned beans in a hole and
leave it at that; these facilities are constantly maintained and
the supplies and equipment upgraded.
No, I can't prove it. I am extrapolating from my observations of
rich people in the thrall of egotism greed and hubris.
Yep, I have some personal experiences with rich people. No they
aren't at the elite decision making level (although I did
personally met with one of their lackeys, General Westmoreland,
for a brief one way conversation about not pissing upstream when
he learned I had written home about hazing at West Point) but I
can relate to you what I believe is a common mindset among the
rich and you will see what I mean.
I have an older sister who became a millionaire in the stock
market. She also claims to be a Christian. She's a world class
hypocrite that embraced "prosperity preaching" from
televangelist con artists. She is quite willing to pray for all
those poor and donate a tax deductible (of course!) pittance
every now and then but firmly believes it's their fault for
being poor and prosperity is a mark of "God's blessing". She
would run naked over a frozen lake to pick up a nickel. I
learned some time ago that my old man abused her sexually when
she was 13 so I try to make amends for her "a liberal is someone
that has never been mugged" worldview.
The bottom line for her is that she was used so she used any
damned thing out there, including religion to "get hers" though
she won't admit it. Daddy was a predator and he passed it on to
his oldest daughter (in a different form; she never abused her
children). I say without a hint of sarcasm or humor that I hope
God has mercy on her.
Nevertheless, she is still a hypocrite and is, through her
embrace of the status quo, complicit in the harm being visited
on the biosphere. Her concept of good stewardship is limited to
her bank account. Her pro-war stand is revealing about how
Orwellian mainstream "Christianity" has become. I once sent her
an article in protest of the Iraq war of a two year old girl
screaming in terror at a checkpoint in Iraq where our soldiers
had just killed her parents and there was blood all over the
place. She sent me a picture of her two year old grandaughter.
:(
My Friend Steve the Millionaire
My other experience with a millionaire is with a fellow named
Steve who was a high school classmate. His dad had a chain of
department stores. Though we weren't friends in high school,
Steve became my friend later in life during my atheist period.
Steve liked to play monopoly, eat Oreo cookies and drink milk in
his $400,000 house (1970s).
He was sure about everything and uncertain about nothing. He had
a pair of Bull Mastiff dogs in his back yard and a collection of
weapons (and a room just for them) that was quite impressive. He
bought my old man's Army 45 because he liked having some
"stopping power" available at all times (He "carried").
If you get the impression he was an arrogant, overbearing prick,
then you are wrong. He was actually quite low key and affable in
his mannerisms. As to his phallic symbol worship, you would
never know it from his demeanor and voice. He was soft spoken
and never cross in facial expressions. He could discuss any
topic, no matter how different from his world view with aplomb.
He was also a henpecked husband who's wife Bonnie (another
former classmate of mine) was a real handful. She made no effort
to hide the fact that she had the hots for me and Steve made no
effort to hide the fact that he had the hots for my former wife.
Eventually that ended the friendship because wife swapping was
never my thing and I would not hear of it. Bonnie and I had
almost been an item before she married but I had my own rules
about messing with married women and I managed to keep them.
But I digress. Steve, when he was winning at monopoly would say,
"Money makes money". At other times when we discussed problems
of wealth distribution in society he would say that, if all the
wealth was evenly distributed, within 5 years present wealth
distribution of the most money at the top with peanuts at the
bottom would be established again because, you see, that is the
proper social equilibrium of humanity, etc.
I would remind him that unethical practices like the 150% markup
on cost (or more) that he would brag about to me in the
department stores weren't right when the poor were the main
targets. He would say that the poor would do exactly the same
thing in his shoes (To his credit, he never got angry or tried
to spin my charge as being false, envious or vindictive. Steve
was wrong but he wasn't a hypocrite). By the way, I got a great
discount on a TV and TV table from him so I didn't exactly have
clean hands then.
Steve was born with a silver spoon in his mouth but never
doubted that he was just lucky even though he held the
conflicting view that the rich have some innate money making
skill that the rest of the populace don't share. I guess he
resolved this obvious logical conflict with the firm belief that
the rich train their kids to be rich and that's why the rich get
richer and mostly stay rich.
Those that scratch their way up like my sister are loathe to
admit that luck, not smarts or God's favor are the main
ingredients in their upward mobility. Of course neither of these
two individuals are criminals in the Walls Street model. They
both actually worked hard and played by some rules. But both of
these types of millionaires share a biosphere killing worldview.
EndisNigh brought to our attention here at the Doomstead Diner
some quotes from Craig Dilworth in "Too Smart for our Own Good"
humanity's basic problem of refusing to recognize that the
average human has serious cognitive impairment in dealing with
multigenerational biosphere harming technologies and other
threats that are not immediate.
The rich are the worst offenders because they have gained a
short term, but actually quite temporary and artificial, high
standard of living at the expense of everyone, including their
own future offspring's health. For the poor and many of us in
the middle classes throughout the world, it is not rocket
science to know the system cannot be improved by tinkering or
minor adjustments here and there. No, the "growth is better
forever" insanity must be properly labelled as such.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
Continued in Part 2
#Post#: 480--------------------------------------------------
View from the Catbird Seat Part 2 of 2 parts
By: AGelbert Date: December 2, 2013, 12:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
View from the Catbird Seat Part 2
All this stuff and nonsense the rich have grown so fond of with
those euphemistic terms for the use of capital and the role of
financialization like "leverage" are all part of a mindset that
flat refuses to see how deadly for the human race the embrace of
this entire bankrupt paradigm is. Leverage is right up there
with "enrichment" of Uranium in ridiculous terms. Uranium is
concentrated, not enriched. No one gets rich from concentrating
Uranium except some nuclear fuel corporation externalizing costs
on we-the-people.
And what, exactly, is "Leverage"? It's a deliberate attempt to
ascribe POWER to a financial agency such as a bank, hedge fund,
venture capital firm or vulture capital crooks by equating
usurious financial tools including fractional reserve banking,
derivatives and futures contracts, among other fraudulent
mechanisms in the world of finance and credit markets to the
torque increase one gets when they increase lever length
exerting force over a fulcrum.
[img width=640
height=580]
HTML http://nicholaspayton.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/jasmine_man-and-lever.jpeg[/img]
It's a totally false metaphor. For every increase in length of
the lever, you are actually exerting LESS force for a given
distance traveled over the arc the far end of the lever travels
in comparison to the short arc length of a short lever. With a
long lever, the total arc distance may be several times the arc
distance of a short lever. Granted, you can move a bigger weight
but there is a trade off. The lever length is not a freebie. You
have to make it very strong so it doesn't snap when the force is
exerted. You need a way to grasp the lever over a lot of travel
on the arc.
[img width=640
height=580]
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/MGalleryItem.php?id=383[/img]
The clever rascal economists don't care that their "leverage"
lever is a figment of the imagination that is so weak that it it
needs the force of a government to keep everyone from using the
same scam. Leverage is basically a loan WITHOUT collateral in
the service of the upper class.
[img width=640
height=580]
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/MGalleryItem.php?id=389[/img]
What's the big deal, you may ask. Economists can't win any Nobel
prizes if they can't make up a lot of new formulas and catchy
buzzwords for their "profession". Financial bullshit is their
beat. Well, they are the spearhead of the elite spear that is
buried deep in the biosphere. If we don't pull that spear out,
the biosphere is going to get gangrene from an infected open
wound or bleed to death.
No, I don't think the spearhead is in the heart (YET). And when
I say "we", I include all of the human race. Some will say that
there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting the elite to
change their fatal support for this festering wound.
They've got a pack of funnel tubes all along the wound entrance
and are happier than pigs in poop even as the surrounding tissue
begins to necrotize. Which brings us to the title of this post
and the "bacteria eats all the agar in the petri dish leading
to a massive dieoff" view of humanity's fatal flaws.
Are the rich really that stupid? Would all of us here, if we
were in the catbird seat, behave exactly the same due to our
brain's inability to react to a threat that isn't immediate?
My experience with only two rich people is anecdotal and those
two are certainly not part of the decision makers that
constantly exert force through their lackeys and counterfeited
"leverage" in economic systems to inhibit, not just action to
obtain sustainability, but the adoption of the "love and respect
of all life" paradigm that delegitimizes their elite worldview.
The elite believe they are in the catbird seat because they
deserve to be there. They also believe they are the most
intelligent humans on earth and rightfully should make all the
most important decisions as to how to preserve the biosphere
sustainably. I really do believe that they believe that.
I think you do too. Come on, admit it. We have all sorts of fun
deriding the abysmal stupidity of these reptiles but deep down
we know they aren't just greedy and selfish; we know they have a
plan. We have seen their PR outlets slowly but surely beginning
to push the plan. Part of the plan is less people. The elite are
cheapskates so they always try to "leverage" whatever scam they
are pushing by investing as little capital as possible.
Just killing off the surplus population is extremely expensive
and can create major difficulties among your gophers doing the
killing when they realize they can just take the NBC filtered
bunkers from the 1% if, or when, TSHTF.
No, some finesse is called for. It's probably quite convoluted
and complex and I'm not privy to the details. I mention this
part of their plan because the other part, bioremediation of the
biosphere appears to be absent from their plan. I don't know.
It is my hope that these people in the elite have a solid grasp
of the causes and long term effects of the coming environmental
collapse. The Chinese leadership appear to take this very
seriously with their 5 year plans. Just looking at the huge
jumps in wind and solar power far beyond even the 5 year plan
proposals is quite positive.
On the other hand, the massive pollution problems in China often
pointed to by RE and JoeP along with China's insane decision to
build nuclear power plants does not bode well for Homo SAP.
Is this "ring circling" (see bacteria in a petri dish when the
agar runs out) dynamic of the 1% going on worldwide, but in
secret, because we-the-people don't have tickets to board this
boat?
Please follow this sequence of pictures:
[img width=640
height=360]
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/MGalleryItem.php?id=375[/img]
A few decades ago things still looked calm to the average
person.
[img width=640
height=360]
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/MGalleryItem.php?id=376[/img]
Then disturbances sprang up here and there.
[img width=640
height=360]
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/MGalleryItem.php?id=377[/img]
Sometimes things got quite turbulent but we were assured it
would pass.
[img width=640
height=360]
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/MGalleryItem.php?id=379[/img]
[img width=640
height=360]
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/MGalleryItem.php?id=378[/img]
Depending on where the average person was on the globe, things
looked better in some places and worse in others but this was
because we weren't in the catbird seat.
[img width=640
height=360]
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/MGalleryItem.php?id=381[/img]
This is the view from the catbird seat.
[img width=640
height=360]
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/MGalleryItem.php?id=380[/img]
Doomstead Diner readers have figured out that this is coming.
Most people won't see it until it's too late.
Now let's go back to the first photo in the sequence.
[img width=640
height=360]
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/MGalleryItem.php?id=375[/img]
This is what we saw decades ago.
[img width=640
height=360]
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/MGalleryItem.php?id=382[/img]
This was the view back then from the catbird seat. IOW they knew
then and they don't have alzheimers.
[img width=640
height=360]
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/MGalleryItem.php?id=384[/img]
This is the hope of the elite; to make it through the turbulence
to the, relatively, smooth waters while the biosphere rebounds.
They are right that a reduced population will lower
environmental stress but they are wrong to think they can carry
the putrid seeds of environmental destruction essential to their
world view and not fail in achieving their environmental
paradise.
That's why I write this stuff. I hope to convince THEM that
their mindset is now, and always has been, the "bacteria eating
up all the agar in the petri dish" and there is no way you can
put lipstick on that pig.
It is in their best interests to condemn greed and rampant
competition for resources now. If they don't, their own little
group of pseudo Olympian gods will immediately be at each others
throats in the lifeboats after the environmental collapse.
Feel free to pass this on. Maybe, just maybe, some of them will
stop they're calm aplomb and assurance about anything and
everything like my friend Steve used to have. Maybe they will
realize that the environmental collapse threat that they have
been aware of long before we were and planned accordingly for is
not the the real threat to homo sapiens;[I] their worship of
greed and power is.[/I]
As in The Lord of the Rings book, they must recognize that the
problem is not external to them and they cannot externalize it.
They tried and failed to externalize environmental costs.
They tried and failed to provide proper allocation of resources
through their usurious leverage based economies.
They must recognize those two failures and the fact that both of
them are based on the failure to recognize that egocentrism is a
cancer and they, as long as they cling to it, are the cancerous
cells that will destroy everything they touch, including
themselves. If they accept that, there is hope.
If they don't, then yes, the human bacteria will reduce it's
numbers with genocide but the killers will, nevertheless, find
themselves, unable to avoid engaging in the same or greater
environmental destruction and "king of the hill" competition and
warfare. The problem is not lack of agar, it's the ATTITUDE.[/I]
The core requirement for human survival is that the parasitic
human bacteria MUST modify itself to become symbiotic with the
biosphere, period.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/mjak/mjak1112/mjak111200030/11651257-glass-petri-dish-with-agar-and-three-cartoon-germs.jpg[/img]
[move][i]The 1% emerge from their Lifeboat after the
Environmental Collapse[/move]
#Post#: 492--------------------------------------------------
The F35
By: AGelbert Date: December 3, 2013, 6:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Written a couple of months ago by a good citizen of
Vermont:[/center]
THE MYTH OF MITIGATION
The Free Press� September 28 editorial on the F-35 � which
essentially said, learn to live with it� plays into the
disinformation campaign that has been waged by politicians and
the GBIC.
They consistently talk about �mitigating� the dangers to our
area from basing this fighter-bomber in a densely populated
neighborhood.
But the whole problem is that the dangers cannot be mitigated.
That�s not an opinion. That�s a fact.
The reason why the Air Force states that 8,000 people will end
up living in a zone that is �incompatible for residential use�
is because mitigation is impossible. That�s why they conclude,
�land acquisition and relocation is the only alternative.�
The fact that intense noise blasts from existing F-16s cannot be
mitigated is the reason why many homes near the airport are now
vacant. The noise blast from F-35�s will be 3 to 4 times louder.
Not one of the politicians or the GBIC has offered any facts to
dispute the harm to residents that is detailed in both the Air
Force and World Health Organization reports. They have chosen to
stonewall and refuse to meet with residents in the area.
But extreme noise blasts are not the only problem. Newly
designed fighter jets have a very high crash rate during the
first years after they become operational. The Air Force has
confirmed this.
That�s why a newly designed fighter-bomber has never before been
based at a residential airport such as Burlington�s. They have
always been based at military bases in remote areas until the
bugs have been worked out.
The F-35 is particularly problematic should a crash occur
because it is loaded with 18,000 pounds of fuel and is made from
highly flammable composite materials�42% by weight�that emit
very toxic fumes and fibers when burned. Moreover, the fire
produced from composite materials is far different from fire
from a burning metal aircraft.
As the Boston Globe reported, Burlington would not have been
selected were it not for political pressure from Senator
Leahy.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-looney-toons-008.gif He has stated that he believes it is an honor
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2194.gif
for the
Vermont Guard to be the first recipient of the new Joint Strike
Fighter. >:(
I support and respect the men and women in the Guard. However,
if being the first to have this plane is an honor, it is one
that dishonors the people who live near the airport. This is not
being a good neighbor. This is not something whose dangers and
noise can be �mitigated�. And it�s a strange kind of honor
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif 
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
that seeks to have
Vermont be the first base for a botched fighter-bomber that
Senator John McCain has called �one of the great national
scandals.�
I don�t know if it�s a developer�s bonanza, or honor, or pride,
or politics that has caused
Leahy/Sanders/Welch/Shumlin/Weinberger to act in lockstep, [img
width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img] but I am actually shocked at their callousness in failing to
protect the children and adults that will be harmed physically,
cognitively, and
financially.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
The Air Force will not be liable for all of these damages, and
neither will the politicians. The City of Burlington will be
left holding the bag.
As the landlord of the airport, the City of Burlington has the
right to prevent its tenant, the Air Force, from basing F-35s on
the City�s property. On October 7, the Burlington City Council
has the opportunity, the responsibility, and the obligation to
act on a resolution to protect the health and welfare of the
citizens living near its airport. May they act in a spirit of
care and compassion and reason.
�Ben Cohen, Burlington
�The numbers were fudged�if the scoring had been done correctly,
Burlington would not have been rated higher (than others).�
- Boston Globe quoting an anonymous Pentagon official
Of all potential F35 bases, only Burlington basing will have an
increased impact on residential land.
- Air Force EIS report
Not basing in Vermont is the preferable environmental
alternative.
- Air Force EIS report
�It would be more costly to do [F35] missions at Burlington� but
political promises were made.�
- Anonymous Pentagon official
�Putting the F-35 into production years before the first test
flight was acquisition malpractice. It should not have been
done, OK? But we did it.�
- Frank Kendall, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition
�I take seriously allegations that the scoring process may have
been flawed.�
- Senator Bernie Sanders
Report
Endangered Health: The Threat to Public Health from the Proposed
F-35 Basing at Burlington International Airport
Current scientific consensus confirms that health effects of
aviation noise, in both children and adults, are far more severe
than the Air Force
acknowledges
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201604.png
HTML http://www.stopthef35.com/
[img width=640
height=880]
HTML http://www.stopthef35.com/wp-content/uploads/f35%20poster%20b.jpg[/img]
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FQ9dZwknXCw/S6NnFiONwhI/AAAAAAAAAHI/_S9vRUglbms/S1600-R/F35.jpg[/img]
HTML http://www.stopthef35.com/
�Mayor� Weinberger�F-35 Booster and CEO for the
military-industrial-real estate complex
HTML http://www.stopthef35.com/news/
[move][b]Vermont National Guard, announces that the U.S. Air
Force has decided to base the F-35 fighter jet at the Burlington
Air National Guard base in South Burlington, on Tuesday,
December 3, 2013.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gifhttp://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil12.gif
[/move]
HTML http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20131203/NEWS02/131203019/Video-F-35-coming-Burlington
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.stopthef35.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/image001.jpg[/img]
[i]So it goes. [color=maroon]Everybody
knows.[/I]
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2953.gif 
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb050.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/mog.gif 
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/dying.gif
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page