I scored a 7, a year ago would have been worse than that, 30 years ago would have been better.

I watched Farenheit 9/11 and Super Size today back to back, I had read Fast Food Nation and Reefer Madness, so Super Size was very enjoyable....F 9/11 renewed some PTSD....mostly anger..not so much at Bush and his cronies....he is just getting away with what he can...my anger is (according to polls) at 50% of the people who should know better, people who think Iraq and Osama Bin Forgotten are linked, that think Iraq is about keeping us out of Black Pajamas...oh excuse me that was another time. Oh to hell with I am getting tired of this shit !

Fear and Reason:

Maybe the biggest and inner most, hidden and darkly guarded fear Liberals have of terrorism, terrorism meaning those forces that want us and our children dead, is that reason and rationality might not really work with them - that a better and more equitable foreign policy might not really change their minds - that some better distribution of wealth might not have any affect on them at all - I often think of Neville Chamberlain when I hear this Liberal talk of alternatives to war with terrorist forces, as if it is more of a police matter than one of war, a matter more of diplomacy and compromise, fairness and Law and unity than of bombs and guns.

The fail-safe logic behind this Liberal assertion says reason and justice and equity and real Law has never really been fully employed. Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't. But what if they don't want anything but our destruction? What if they truly believe they are well beyond the point of no return with the West? Then what?

I say terrorists are more committed to their beliefs than we are to ours - they are more disciplined - they are more willing to employ whatever means they can to achieve their ends - they are as well trained as our military is - they have intelligence gathering capability and technology - they have equal weapons, obviously, because we wont employ our technology in urban areas - they have a very, very strong spiritual basis for their actions and we don't - they are more accustomed to hardship than we are - they are more willing to die than we are - you don't hear the wailing and whining in the Arab newspapers about the KIA rate of Iraqi insurgents, now do you? You don't see Americans using suicide bombs. This is a real eye opener all right, just think about it for a second. Yeah, they holler about civilian death rates, but do you hear them carrying on about all the brave and good fighters being wasted in Iraq? Of course not. Their supporters are not cheering them, they are cheering the death and harm the insurgents inflict. Think about that too - we don't celebrate the killing our soldiers do - we celebrate our soldiers as good guys making great sacrifices.This tells me they believe more strongly that they can win in the long term - their beliefs and commitment are significantly more potent than ours. And they are every bit as intelligent as we are and they have lots of money too. They fear the loss of a single engagement because less harm is inflicted in a loss, nothing more. This mind-set is well reflected in taking down airliners with box cutters. Allah loves simplicity, don't you?

I get a real laugh out of the counter-argument that the money and manpower being 'wasted' in Iraq could be better used elsewhere in the war on terrorism. Like invading the frontiers of Pakistan maybe? Or the border areas of Iran and Syria? What exactly are you going to do with the 130,000 US Troops there? How about sending them to Beirut again. I forget, there is no unity among terrorists and no real need for any military action since they are a small minority. How about just sending the FBI into the frontiers of Pakistan to arrest al qaidah and taliban forces? That would be the most simple plan of action, and the cheapest. We could placate Iran and North Korea with that 200+ billion so they won't have to sell nuke material to real terrorists, none of which exist in Iraq of course. We could make them promise not to do that, and not to spend that money on more weapons and secret police to keep their current leadership in power. Couldn't we? We could bribe the wealthy Saudis into closing bank accounts of terrorists - that would be very clever! We could up the reward to billions for the capture of bin laden - since mere millions are of no interest to anyone. That's obvious, isn't it? Can't you hear peasants just scoffing at notion of millions of dollars for one so wanted when obviously he is worth at least 200 billion? That's the real message these folks are sending you Liberals, but you are not hearing it.

Goesh,
What does that have to do with global footprint, or environmental destruction?

I hesitate to respond....frankly I am getting real tired of this "liberal" this and "liberal that" liberals whining ...it seems to me those of a conservative point of view are the ones doing the whining about LIBERALS....hell I don't know whata liberal as defined by Websters it sounds like a good idea to me...

But the point is (1) We are discussing the environment which is actually "us" (2) The people on this site are NOT liberals ..I would argue most are radical

I am not sure what goesh is defending: Status quo ???????

I don't mind being labled as a liberal, liberal as meaning "favoring civicl and political liberties, democratic reforms and protection from arbitrary authority (problem with that Goesh?), but I agree that most of us here want radical change. But Goesh, when you post tangential tirades like this in a thread that is quite unrelated, it suggests to me that you are reacting in a completely irrational manner, which is an interesting subtext to your argument about the irrational single-mindedness of the terrorists who apparently are your #1 focus and fear.

I'd love to take on a good portion of that above, but not here in a thread about the dwindling resources of the planet.

BTW, Rowan, I finally saw "The Day After Tomorrow" last night. Hollywood, yes, but still with some compelling scenarios.

Well, after that most hairsplitting mindboggling trip that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand....

I scored an 8 with my current living arrangements. It would take 1.8 planets to sustain human life my way. Once I move into a bigger house (a bigger house meaning a 2 bedroom mobile home), my score jumps to 10 and 2.2 planets. I thought I was doing pretty good. Even those of us here in America considered to be living in the depths of poverty are draining the planet's natural resources at an unsustainable rate. But heaven forbid if we poor people even consider living a little lower. Neighbors start asking questions and the state interferes if you live too low.

And for those focused on terrorism. Imagine the terror of waking up some morning and finding out that all power sources were no longer functioning and you could not put gas in your car in order to get to work on time. And since there is a prediction of the 'Big Chill,' imagine waking up to a totally chilled atmosphere and having no way to warm up (the furnace won't work). Mr. Freeze might find this environment delightful, but real live human beings will be in for a rude shock should the predictions of "The Day After Tomorrow" actually materialize.

- a thousand apologies - it was late, I'm in too many forums/discussion groups, I was roughing out a piece for a defense industry trade journal - but be of good cheer, my reformation draws near - if Kerry is elected, I am going to convert and become an ELF martyr - I will immolate myself on Wall Street - some here may be willing to strike the match for me - anyway.....

Paradoxes and Footprints:

Regarding the global footprint, humans became parasitic once the industrial revolution began. Whereas the most obvious culprits deserve lashing, I keep in mind that many others would follow stronger suit if they had the resources. Many bike riding Europeans would be driving a car if they could afford it. GNP=consumption. It becomes almost a moot point when considering the exponential birth rate of the 3rd world, or lesser developed countries. These people are going to have to eat and use resources, and this leads to the paradox.

The paradigm of modern medicine as an oppositional force to ecology is not a popular one. Does anyone really know the time, money and resources expended in industrial nations to lenghten life spans? Ain't it just precious that we can keep old Granny alive in a comatose, vegetative state for 10 years? Ain't it sweet that we increase the medications and resources for terminal patients? How big is YOUR footprint, Doc?? You leave a mighty deep one, not easily measured and categorized.

Lets vaccinate all the 3rd-worlders, unload tons of antibiotics on them so they can live on an average of 10 more years - that's mucho slashing and burning , Doc - that's alot of consumption. How do we juxtapose this? 3rd worlders are not going to diminish family size unless they have the technology to eliminate the need for it. How many more cars are going to be driven in Mexico City and the big cities in India 50 years from now? If you think our big cities have bad air, check out Mexico City. The last estimate I read says 9.0 -9.5 billion will populate the planet in about 60 years. Does this calibration take into account new miracle cures modern medicine may develop in the same time frame? The Hippocratic oath is not in the best interest of the planet.

I am not certain I understand your reference to third world peoples, but consider the death rate of infants and children under 5. Third world peoples have the highest infant mortality rates in the world. In some African countries, a mother will have an average of 7 babies in her lifetime. Half of those babies will die before the age of five. It is my theory that if we were able to truly help these people survive the first years of their lives, the birth rates would lower in relation to their infant mortality rates. I have yet to prove my theory as cause and effect or just simply correlation.
Perhaps at a later time, I can share my data. It is somewhere on another disk that is in storage.
I realize this offers no consolation to the population boom in those regions. However, if you read the news, people are starving to death by the thousands in war torn regions. Though the populations in third world countries surpass that of industrialized nations, we, the industrialized nations consume and waste more than all of the third world peoples do combined. Consider the food waste that leaves restaurants in America, for example. I would bet that we waste enough food in restaurants to feed the entire continent of Africa for a day. A stretch maybe, but I believe it is a valid guess. And how many starving peoples actually own a bicycle? Some live in shelters comprised of materials like tarp and cardboard. As poor as I have ever been, I have never been reduced to a cardboard box. Knock on wood, I pray I never do.

Goesh, sometimes, nay most of the time, I don't agree with you, but you do make some excellent points, other times I think you need to up your meds ! The Hippocratic oath is not in the best interest of the planet ? First do no harm, are not words to live by ? Don't you think there can be a balance ? Maybe thinks are different on yor coast, but out here at least in Portland, Oregon, lots of people ride bikes to work everyday in the rain that can afford to drive very expensive cars. I have relatives that earn very good salaries and ride thier bike to work rain or shine...they do it for two reasons (1) Environment and (2) health, although she has been hit twice by cars.

The biggest problem I have with your posting or at least the last two is that they ramble so much and ,at times you even contradict yourself...but the biggest problem is it would take an entire evening to respond to the post. I prefer to read a book.

Talk to you again soon.....at least we never get bored...by the way where's that Bushrod ...can't wait to tell him how many votes I got FOR medical pot, gay marriage, protecting the forest and all kinds of what you folks want to call LIBERAL issues.

Peace !

Labor In The 3rd World:

I'm not referring to work here, rather labor in child birth. Most of the birth rate on the planet is going to come from the 3rd world, not in the West/Europe. Who can afford to have kids, eh? These folks don't share the same world view we do. Among the many, many things I have done in my time was to serve in the Peace Corps in W. Africa. I can't tell you the number of times people would ask me why I would leave the good things I had in America to come there and live with no electricity, no running water, no paved roads, no medical care, no system of Justice, no public transportation, etc. They simply could not understand it. They want what we have - they want the 'good life' - look how fast symbols of the West make inroads into their cultures - you see alot of Coca-cola and Marlboros in the bush. They are going to consume and their rate of consumption is going to significantly increase and they won't give a second thought to the ramifications of their consumption. Nope, they won't bat an eye over it. Do you think they would care if they could get a car that it was polluting the atmosphere? Do you know how traditional honey gatherers work? They find a honey tree and start a fire at the base of the tree - the smoke drives the bees away, they gather the honey and leave. I saw lots of smoke in the bush from lots of burning trees. Reforestation doesn't really work there because goats find seedlings to be delicious - goats can't be fenced in because they need to forage, and besides, there is no fencing to be had, and the intensive labor needed to sustain themselves leaves no one available to keep the goats out of a plot of seedlings. It is quite a cycle. It is foolish to examine the 'foot prints' of industrialized nations and ignore the other 'foot prints', including modern medicine. Yup, it's one hell of a paradox - that which sustains and lengthens life is directly contributing to the destruction of the planet. Sounds almost like the white man's burden in reverse.

And Bushrod? who knows where he is at. I would imagine he is off in Ohio and PN and FL telling soccer Mom's how Kerry's anti gun stance threatens their security and protection from terrorists. After all, it's true, isn't it ?? ha ha

All I can tell you is that I can act in a responsible, diciplined manner here in my own little universe. I realize Coca Cola et al are peddling thier wages all over the world.....I can tell you several countries have found out the advantage of having fast food as health care costs are on the rise as result of KFC, Mikey D and others.

So while any reasonable person would agree you have to look at the world in a global perspective, that doesn't mean I can't implement change here in my backyard via my life style, and hopefully some will see that you can live without a dishwasher, three familes can share a washer dryer, I have gone 14 years as a non meat eater as well as everybody in my family, grandchildren included. Why ? Well we read Robbins book, we talked about it decided we have a responsiblity.

I have been without a car for about three or four months now, I share other family members, or I use Flex Car, Tri Met or just walk.

Now I am not arrogant enough, for good or bad, to run and around and tell others this is how THEY SHOULD live, I hope they can learn by example, before they are forced to adapt.

In the movie Super Size Me he talks about personal responsibility and corporate responsbility, all I can addres is personal and only purchase goods and services from those who practice corp. responsiblity.