Pangloss

This is not a scientific argument, it's a religio-socio-political one. As such, you may (only) continue it here: http://www.scienceforums.net/showthread.php?t=22685

You started off so well, but you lost me at the end. I've done a LOT more than just "basic homework". There is a reason why so few respected and authoritative experts are willing to embrace and champion your fatalistic, faith-based ideology. The simplest expression of your ideology, and the core of what you can't defend, is right here: You don't know that at all, you're just making flat assertions based on science that even you admit is constantly changing. That's what I mean by "religion". I see nothing in the rest of your post to warrant any further response. You just haven't got anything other than a thrilling sales pitch.

I'm tired so I'll keep it short. This -> Japan+nukes -> China upset -> empty Wal-Mart shelves. Not really trying to push the alarmism button, mind you, obviously there's a long road ahead. I just thought I'd cut right to the chase. (grin)

Former Secretary of State (under the first President Bush) James Baker was on "This Week" on ABC this morning, and he had some comments that I thought were interesting. This first one is more of an interesting observation rather than something that speaks to any potential solutions, but I think it speaks volumes about the situation. Many Americans wondered back in 1991 why we didn't take out Saddam Hussein then. Oh there were plenty of good reasons, but I myself was never really comfortable with it. I think the problem (just speaking for myself here) was that I just couldn't really fathom the kind of ideological divides that we were told Saddam was keeping in check. Surely that's just an exaggeration, right? No country could really be all that divided, could it? Bear in mind that this was BEFORE Yugoslavia came apart, and right at the same time as the Iron Curtain was coming down, and I think a lot of Americans probably looked at it the same way. We understood what we were told, we just didn't get it. The comment that Baker made this morning that I thought was really interesting is that he said that he used to get asked all the time when he would go on speaking tours why they didn't take out Hussein in 1991. He would explain patiently the reasons, but the questions would just come up again in the next city he visited. He doesn't get those questions anymore. The other thing I thought was interesting was that he had a response to what I've been calling "the Biden Plan", which is the concept of dividing Iraq into three sub-governments along religious lines. I'd never really heard a good argument against that. The argument against it is that the cities are too tightly integrated and mixed, and there are no clear dividing lines. So actually splitting up the country that way might produce the kind of all-out civil war that we're hoping to avoid. BUT he doesn't want to completely dismiss the idea and he implied that it may ultimately be the best solution. The reason all of this is important is that Baker (a Republican) is teamed up with Lee Hamilton (a prominent Democrat and co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission) and a number of other key independent voices (such as former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner) to study the situation in Iraq. They've been working on their study for six months now, and are rumored to be close to producing a unanimous report. Because this group enjoys support from both Congress and the White House, it's quite possible that this report could point toward a major change in direction for the War in Iraq. If, for example, it recommends withdrawl, then that could in fact happen. Especially since the report will likely come out AFTER the election. It's likely that the tone of the pro-war side will change dramatically after November.

Actually, if there's one thing I can say for certain it's that you've demonstrated your own ideological agenda but completely failed to prove anything about peak oil. And your post looks even more ridiculous coming on the heels of falling crude prices and talk about cutting production -- not because of concerns amongst OPEC nations about dwindling supplies (since supplies are increasing!), but because of fears of oversupply! You say there's no new supply, but in fact the opposite appears to be true. The general rise in oil prices over the last few years to what may be a new level of pricing reality actually opened up a number of new methods, such as the vast fields of sludge in Canada which, if properly counted under the new economics of oil, constitute one of the largest supplies of oil in the entire world. Same thing with deeper drilling -- you say there's no relief there, but in fact science and engineering is showing us exactly the opposite. Oh but I guess I just don't have the proper charts and graphs (from peak oil nuts) to show me the truth, right? Never mind the fact that the charts and graphs are all based on presumptions and preconceptions that are turning out to be false. I didn't say that we were "all saved", you put those words in my mouth. You, on the other hand, are all about selling something regardless of the facts. And ultimately you fail, not because peak oil doesn't have a point, but because when it comes to that kind of zealotry, you can't sell it. You're not informing the world about a serious potential problem, you're evangelizing a matter of faith. It's pointless, hostile fear-mongering of the worst sort. And frankly I'm not even sure why we tolerate it here. If you were evangelizing religion to the exact same extent that you currently evangelize "peak oil" (which is basically a religion), you'd have already been booted.

Right, yeah, I think mike90 misunderstood my post there, thanks. I'm fairly convinced something is wrong with my post-marking, too, because I missed that post yesterday. Thanks for catching that misunderstanding there. I'm a guy, by the way. Not that it really matters, it's just easier to follow and catch up on threads when the gender's right.

No apology necessary, and I can't imagine anyone wouldn't be sympathetic to the circumstances of parents these days. But in a harsh and unfortunate way, this is exactly what I was talking about. In my view these are all these excuses for keeping up with the Joneses: Many older cars have outstanding servicability. People used to know this, but more and more people seem to have forgotten it, especially with all those shiney new cars coming out all the time. You don't have to "crawl under an early-model chevy and replace something every couple of weeks". And even if you go with a newer car, you don't need a Lexus when a Toyota will do. That in-dash CD changer is a luxury, not a necessity. You don't need a navigation system, just plan your route ahead of time on Mapquest and print out those directions. 30 cents beat $3,000 any day. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. People buy stuff they don't need because they don't have to pay for it up front -- it's set up for them in nice, easy, monthly installments. And if the payment they're saddled with as they walk out the door is much higher than they anticipated (and budgeted for) walking in, well, that must be because cars are "just too expensive these days", right? Books are great for that. Cheap too. Life sucks sometimes. You know what doesn't fix it, but instead only makes it worse? Spending more money than you make. I'm not sure I get your point here. Are you saying that it's better to say "yes" to them? If this is about getting society to change, we'd perhaps agree somewhat there. It has gotten crazy materialistic, as incomes and spending continue to rise. But society always has uncontrollable elements that make parenting difficult. You have to stay on top of it. The parent decides, not society. If they don't like it, tough noogies. I would very much like to see society become more supportive of parents on many levels. It's outrageous the way people are ostracized for not spending ridiculous amounts of money on their children. If I were a parent I would be a "no" parent", and laughing in the face of any parent who disagreed with me. But I guess not everyone can do that sort of thing. Oh well, I digress. I don't really agree with that second premise, but I'm sure the idea of putting your children first is a common theme amongst parents. I just think they need to put more thought into whether going into debt is actually an example of "putting your child first", or if it is instead an example of "teaching him or her the wrong lesson" and "rewarding their bad behavior". Or to take an example from above, "getting them out of your hair" (because you just got home from a 14-hour day). Yeah I think we're on the same page there. Again no problem at all, but I don't think you've established here that going into debt is necessary. You're welcome to take another shot at it. I don't pretend to understand the trevails of parenting, so I'm endeavoring to keep an open mind about it.

I still think the single biggest threat to the American worker is personal debt. And for that they have absolutely nobody to blame but themselves. The mass media throw straw men out like leaves in the Fall, telling us all about Jane Doe, a single mom with three kids who "has to work in order to keep her family fed" (but who in reality also happens to have a late-model automobile, a recently-purchased computer, digital cable and high speed internet, and an X-Box 360... you know... "for the kids").

Well that could be, I mean the conservative side of the blogosphere sure likes to portray him in the worst possible light. And it's not helpful at all, because just as it's bad for Venezuela for Chavez to ally himself with Cuba and Iraq and North Korea, it's bad for us as well, so we're not helping ourselves by encouraging him to go further in that direction. But it's important to bear in mind that all of what we're talking about here fall under the domain of non-governmental actions. It's all stuff that people do under "free speech" which we really can't do anything about. But this has two troubling ramifications. America is collectively international in a way that no other country in the world is. Our media, our stars, our culture, our people, are observed in obsessive detail by the entire world, to an extent that is not even dimly fathomed by most Americans. When a caller gives Rush Limbaugh a ring and rants uninformed nonsense about "Hurricane Hugo", he thinks he's talking to Rush's audience of "like-minded people" (most of whom, like Rush, have "half their brains tied behind their backs"). He doesn't realize that his stupidity is being observed by people who know better and understand just how stupid and uninformed his comments are. And sometimes that can result in a misinterpretation of both American opinion and American goals. The second ramification is that the government itself has a diplomatic job to do, and this kind of public demogoguery makes that job harder. I mean honestly, can anyone imagine a job any harder than that of Condoleeza Rice? Quick, somebody offer Danny Glover a job at the State Department with a compliance clause in his contract!

I'm actually really glad you said that, because it's a perfect illustration of the "Danny Glover mistake" -- the error that so many Hollywood types make when they dable into politics when they're not busy jetting about in their Gulfstreams from one premiere to another and complaining to each other about how everyone but them is responsible for global warming. They figure hey, all he's doing is bashing Bush and Republicans/conservatives, so it must be okay, right? We're the good guys, they're the bad guys, and everyone knows that, so therefore Chavez can't be all that bad, right? Don't get me wrong, I know you phrased that as an honest question and I'm not equating you to those guys -- I'm speaking more to the implication behind the post. I applaud you asking the question, and it's clear that it's a question that Danny Glover neither asks nor cares about, so good for you. Anyway, to answer your question, Chavez is troublesome and problematic for a number of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with conservatives/Republicans. He has a long history of questionable political intrigue that I won't go into here. The most common current complaints revolve around questionable election practices, mistreatment of political prisoners, control/censorship of the media, and radical constitutional changes put through by controlling other branches of government with the backing of the military. And he holds it all together via popular mandate. Essentially he's the world's most successful demogogue. He's sometimes-changed and sometimes-just-ignored key laws and more or less bludgeoned his way along. Of course, many Bush opponents in this country and abroad have pointed out Bush's own shortcomings in this area and asked whether Bush has a right to criticize Chavez on that basis. But not only is this a rather bald case of two-wrongs thinking, but there is also a VAST difference in the degree of subversion taking place in Venezuela. One could certainly point to Venezuela as a textbook case of how things could go wrong in the US if we're not more careful about guys like Bush (if that's one's inclination), but that's as far as it goes. The danger here, of course, is that popularity doesn't put food in people's mouths. Oil is a particularly fickle bedfellow -- it could crash tomorrow for all we know. In fact Chavez wouldn't be in power if it wasn't for fickle oil -- Venezuela has a long history in this area. You don't think it's an accident that every time he opens his mouth to blast George Bush, the price per barrel goes up, do you? Bear in mind that every government in Latin America understands these things -- they are a part of the political landscape of the region. They can't NOT know them. Americans are notoriously ignorant about Central and South American politics. The citizens of Central and South America, however, are not. When Chavez speaks out against America/Bush/whatever, one of his most important audiences are the leaders of those countries. They have to get along with him, trade with him, work with him on important agreements, and so forth. They're not stupid, and the understand the danger that Chavez represents in their own countries. And they need an ally in dealing with Chavez. And the biggest ally to have in this hemisphere is the US. So getting back to your question, what has Chavez done, well he hasn't really done anything to me, and I don't propose doing anything directly to him. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to have diplomatic impact on the situation in Venezuela. Somebody has to look out for the little guy in Caracas, because the big guy in Caracas is looking out only for himself.

No, but I'm looking forward to Woodward's new book. I read the first two and thought he had a lot of interesting insight.

I should have said "oil" rather than "gas(oline)", by the way. Presumably the gasoline that's already on its way to 7-11 stores will be consumed. Once it's refined for US consumption it's not very useful overseas, as I understand it. Different regulations and engine specs, etc. Anyway, it does matter, though perhaps ultimately it matters more to Citgo (and its shareholders) than to Chavez. It takes time to establish supply and distribution channels, and that costs money. And it's a total write-off, because you're pretty much going to get X amount of money for your gasoline no matter what. But yes, presumably Venezuela can sell this oil elsewhere. China would presumably be eager to snap it up, for example, if they can do so without angering the US. But aside from keeping a few windows lit overnight at Foggy Bottom, it's unlikely that the US would do much about it. But most likely this oil would still be sold in the US. If I remember correctly, the US military is the largest consumer of Venezuelan oil.

7-11 stores announced today that they'll no longer stock Citgo gas, which is Venezuela's US distribution company. That cuts out about 2100 stores that Venezuela will now have to find another market for. In the end it doesn't matter a whole lot, but I would call the impact significant. Here's a story on it: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060928.RCITGO28/TPStory/Business This of course follows in the wake of Chavez's pretty anti-Bush comments in the UN. I think it's interesting the amount of negative reaction that has taken place as a result of those comments (which are not exactly atypical of Chavez). Danny Glover received him with open arms in New York City right after the speech, but the House representative for that exact same area promptly went on camera denouncing Chavez's comments. Congressional leadership for the Democrats was very vocal in denouncing Chavez. This also has political implications in Latin America. Chavez has been trying to talk more LA countries into joining his anti-American cause, but for every step he takes forward he ends up taking either one or two steps backward. This is just another example, and I'm sure there was a negative reaction in diplomatic circles in Latin American governments. Sorry Hugo. People just aren't that stupid.

Anybody who gets frustrated or annoyed in debate (myself included) is forgetting the fact that the most important purpose of debate is not to speak but rather to listen. I mean sure, obviously if everyone was only listening then it would get real quiet. (grin) But there is a purpose that is served by hearing what someone who disagrees with you has to say. People don't typically have fully-formed opinions, they have vague sketches about how they feel on a subject in general. Through debate they can basically ratchet up the resolution and split the appropriate hairs on sub-subjects, etc. For example, one might be opposed to "animal rights nazis", but through debate come to be reminded that animal abuse does happen, it is illegal, and perhaps come to appreciate the good work done by some (most) people in groups like SPCA/PETA, etc. Put another way, debate allows us to go beyond broad generalizations that do nothing to advance society, and come to find the middle ground necessary to move society forward. In this particular thread, some of the interesting and relevent points raised include the differentiation between animal rights advocacy and property terrorism, the distinction between property terrorism and violent terrorism, the problems inherent with vigilante justice, the problems that even animal advocates see in groups like ALF, and the potential value of fighting (to some extent) for animal rights. That is a valuable debate. Whether people all come to agree in the end is actually irrelevent. What matters is that people participated in it, and (whether they may realize it or not) learned something in the process.

ROFL! Best subject line of 2006....

My wife and I (avid movie buffs) picked up Cowboy Bebop (the movie) and some of the Miyazaki titles and enjoyed them quite a bit. My personal favorite was Spirited Away. I was fascinated by the cultural cues. The only other animation I've enjoyed recently are the Pixar movies. The rest is garbage as far as I can tell. I'm sure there are other anime titles I would enjoy, but American studios are flooded with animated nonsense these days (so much so that audiences are starting to turn away). Oh, I also enjoyed "Grave of the Fireflies" quite a bit. That one's not so much an animated film as it is a socio-political statement about the firebombing of Japan in 1945 -- a very emotional story. I tend to think of it as the "Japanese Schindler's List" (strictly in terms of emotional content).

Kind of a damper on interesting debate, aren't I? Sorry about that.

Newt would be quite an interesting candidate to see in terms of Science Forums and Debate -- a far-right/religious-right candidate who supports science and technology. He has a strong "common sense" streak that I've always found to be very attractive in a politician, and he's also not afraid to speak his mind. He has also been a writer and historian, teaching at a fairly prestigious southern university. He presents quite a quandry for anyone who equates "far right" to "anti-science". True story: I first met Newt Gingrich at a science fiction convention in 1984. No, really. He sat on a panel discussing NASA's mission and the future of the space program in general, with author Larry Niven and (if memory serves) a NASA scientist and someone else I can't remember (I want to say Owen Gingrich, who's a famous space observer and professor at Harvard, but maybe I'm just channeling that due to the similarities with Newt's last name). They talked about space stations and whatnot, and I remember being impressed with Newt's knowledge of the subject. Since then I voted for Newt twice as my representative to the House of Representatives. That was all before he took a strong turn to the right, which was part of his campaign to become Speaker. Since then I didn't have any more opportunities to vote for or against him, though, having moved to a different locale. Anyway, as I say he presents a quandry for those who advocate the notion that the religious right is anti-science. Many of them are, of course, but I don't think most people realize that MOST southerners are NOT anti-science. I think a lot of folks have this mental image of the South as a backwater, intellectually-challenged part of the Western world, and it's just not so. Southern voters may be willing to set aside intellectual honesty in favor of a candidate with the "proper moral values" (choke), but I'm not sure that's any different from the kind of idiocy voters undertake in democracies all over the world. I don't really see Newt as a serious candidate, nor is he one I could vote for because of the way he courts the Dobson types. But it would be interesting.

Well in terms of verbal sparring I think Clinton did, as Severian eloquently put it, wipe the floor with him. This is the side of Clinton, however, that I think is unfortunate to see in a former president. I understand it, but I think he should stand above it. He's wallowing with pigs, and as the old saying suggests, it's fair to say that Chris Wallace quite thoroughly enjoyed it.

The animal terrorism thing is pretty divisive, and as such I (personally) see no point in discussing it with its defenders (like IMM, who's opinion I respect a great deal; I just don't see the point in arguing with her about it since our positions are just not likely to change). They believe that their position is justified. Fortunately (in my opinion this is fortunate) society will not allow them to take matters into their own hands, any more than they will allow any other kind of vigilante "justice". There is a "right" way which society has determined is how we will allow laws to be enacted and changed, and that's that. End of story. There is no debate. Incidentally, there have been cases (although I think they involve SPCA rather than PETA or ALF, but I'd have to check sources on this) where animal rights activists convinced local authorities to raid animal farms and sieze the animals in spite of the fact that the conditions they were living under were normal or even above-par. They hire consultants to tell the authorities that the conditions are sub-par, take secret video which they then attach monologues to which sound really horrible (but in fact they're presented to judges and policemen who have no clue what they're actually looking at), and then they swoop in for the kill with the full power of law enforcement behind them, seizing animals which they then simply turn around and sell at 100% profit. The purpose of this activity is to increase awareness and drive funding goals. This has been well-documented and the subject of many debates around the internet. ABC News ran a story on it earlier this year, if memory serves. The point being that just because someone does good does not guarantee that everyone who acts in the name of that cause also does good. It's a shame that this activity casts a bad light on people who are honestly trying to help by dealing with animal-raisers who treat their animals poorly (which, I will note, is in violation of the law!). Police can't keep up with all that stuff, and I'm as sickened as anyone else when I heard about cases of animal abuse. If activists can help in that area then I say more power to them. But it's also important that authorities and citizens understand that there are people out there who will take advantage of the situation.

I'm almost as afraid of the people who made that web site as I am of Islamic extremists.

Jefferson was kind of a curmugeon anyway. He'd be right at home in the blogosphere.

And they all see you as their doG!

But religionforums.net is an active religion rebate site, and it's *never* a good idea to point people (even accidentally) at the competition.

Yeah you would think that, right? Instead it produces legions of people ready to sign up for death squads. Go figure.