Overpopulation AND Overconsumption.

[pan]

Both.

[BO]

"Every penny of my SSI is money that cannot be spent on depleted uranium weapons, wars for oil, nuclear power plants or other terracidal purposes."

Nice rationalization, Mark. But if you are benefiting from 'the system,' then you are a part of the system. The money you are given is the same money the military uses to fund its wars. It's all derived from the same source...taxes. As long as you willingly take that money to fund your own comfortable lifestyle (by world standards) then I sense a bit of hypocrisy in your claims that the American bloated lifestyle is the root of all evil.

So Mark, did you pay into the system for a long time before starting to collect your benefits? I would assume--based on the ideology you've layed out for us-- that you're taking far less from the system than you've put in.

[Mark]

BO writes: "Nice rationalization, Mark. But if you are benefiting from 'the system,' then you are a part of the system."

A bank robber benefits from the banking system, so you would say that a bank robber is a part of the banking system?

Bo: "The money you are given is the same money the military uses to fund its wars. It's all derived from the same source...taxes."

The money a bank robber steals from a bank is the same money that the banks uses to buy yachts for its corporate officers. It is all from the same source, but the money the bank robber steals cannot be used to buy yachts for the bank's officers.

Bo: "As long as you willingly take that money to fund your own comfortable lifestyle (by world standards) then I sense a bit of hypocrisy in your claims that the American bloated lifestyle is the root of all evil."

I never claimed to be perfect, BO, but I can tell the difference between somebody supporting the system and somebody opposing the system.

BO: "So Mark, did you pay into the system for a long time before starting to collect your benefits? I would assume--based on the ideology you've layed out for us-- that you're taking far less from the system than you put in."

Once again, you are addressing me rather than the issue. That's called an ad hominem attack, BO. Is that your purpose, BO? Is your goal to attack and discredit me because I oppose the corrupt capitalist system that is destroying our planet and you support it because you believe that it is a superior lifestyle?

If you consumed less than I do, and had a lifestyle that was less destructive of the planet, then you'd be within your rights to criticize me for doing more to destroy the planet than you do. But that isn't the case. You support a system that is totally corrupt and is destroying the planet because you believe that system is superior. Whenever I attack the system, you attack me or you attack some group that also isn't doing as much to destroy the planet as you are, because you feel a need to defend your destructive lifestyle.

You know that the American lifestyle is destroying the planet, yet you feel it is superior to lifestyles that don't destroy the planet. You feel that if it makes you more comfortable, it is worth destroying the planet for.

I don't know how destructive your lifestyle is, and I'm not probing into your personal life to look for areas where I can attack you, the way you always do to me. But the problem, BO, is people who have MORE destructive lifestyles, not the people who have less destructive lifestyles. And that's without regard to sex, race, age, birth rates, or any other factor.

I try to conribute to my own destruction and that of the planet to the least extent I can. Again, I'm not perfect and I don't claim to be, but I try. And I don't blame those whose lifestyles are even less destructive than my own, for the toxic lifestyles, which, if they continue unchanged, will inevitably lead to the destruction of us and our habitat. You're defending an unsustainable way of life because you believe it to be superior. And it might as well be a stone idol or a two-headed goat, because you believe in it and, as that essay you posted pointed out, you're not open to reason on the subject.

[BO]

Mark sez..."A bank robber benefits from the banking system, so you would say that a bank robber is a part of the banking system?"

No, I'd say that acceptance of the money the robber distributes to his associates, makes them accessories to the original crime. Especially, if they knew where the money came from. To say that you just took money destine for evil purposes is pure fantasy. Let's just say it wouldn't hold up in court.

Mark sez,..."Is your goal to attack and discredit me because I oppose the corrupt capitalist system that is destroying our planet and you support it because you believe that it is a superior lifestyle?"

Nope, I just don't agree with your theory that the world hasn't already surpassed its carrying capacity. You've made the claim that its unbridled imperialism and capitalism that's totally at fault. That without western influence, that there would plenty of resources to go around. All we need to do is reduce our consumption and quit taking what isn't ours.

As Pan and I have both told you, we agree with you that the US over-consumes and yes, we are guilty of being imperialists and of committing many atrocities. No argument there.

Where we digress in our beliefs is in thinking that if you were to strip away western imperialism/influence that the rest of the world would be able to re-allocate its resources and be just fine.

I disagree. It's my belief, that at this point in human history, unless population levels are drastically reduced, that our time on planet earth is very limited. Even without the influence of western culture. Which I might add is being somewhat modulated by the collapse of western economies.

My own philosophy is such that with much a much reduced world-wide population that the standard of living of all humans could be drastically improved. Truth is, I don't find all technology to be evil, nor do I feel guilty about a modicum of creature comforts. I don't believe that man was put on the world to suffer. But it is up to man to choose his own destiny. If he is unable to equate his own population growth with stresses to the planet, then he probably doesn't deserve to survive.

The formula is simple...

consumption x population > or < carrying capacity

There are three ways to meet carrying capacity requirements. You can choose to modulate consumption, the population, or both. The formula is indisputable.

All here agree with the premise that politics have a great influence on consumption. But, it doesn't negate the other variable in the equation. It's simple biology.

The problem I have with your argument, Mark, is that you try to negate the population growth variable. Your argument that population size--even at current levels--doesn't matter, is simple lunacy. Truth is, it is the third world which is--and is expected to continue--experiencing catastrophic growth in its populations. That their populations happen to be non-white isn't the issue at all. What is probably of greater issue are their cultural beliefs. And personally, I pull no punches for delusional thinking just because the person just happens to be of a different race.

That said, yeah, I took a couple of cheap shots at you. I just sense a bit o' hypocrisy in your arguments and wanted to inject a bit of reality. Not that you haven't been guilty of your own attacks. But, it probably didn't do the Karma much good.

[Mark]

Let's try this again, BO.

You wrote, "Nice rationalization, Mark. But if you are benefiting from 'the system,' then you are a part of the system."

I responded: "A bank robber benefits from the banking system, so you would say that a bank robber is a part of the banking system?"

Now you say, "No, I'd say that acceptance of the money the robber distributes to his associates, makes them accessories to the original crime. Especially, if they knew where the money came from"

Sorry. If you buy stolen goods, even if you knew they were stolen, you are not an accessory to the crime and you wouldn't be charged with it. You'd be charged with possession of stolen goods.

BO: "To say that you just took money destine for evil purposes is pure fantasy. Let's just say it wouldn't hold up in court."

I didn't say that. But if you're concerned about me being a burden on the taxpayer, BO, the only time I ever had a job that paid a living wage was that short time when I worked for the Navy. They hired me as a disabled person, so they got tax money to reward them for doing that, but in addition to the Civil Service regulations and the union contract, there were some strings tied to that tax money, saying that they couldn't fire me without cause. Unless there was something wrong with my work, as determined by at least two unsatisfactory evaluations in any 3-month period, the only way they could get rid of me was by giving me a different job. But they didn't want me there. So they fired me without cause. Naturally, I sued to get my job back because I felt I could work and didn't want to be a burden on the taxpayer by going back on disability checks. And I had an excellent case as they admitted under oath that I'd never had a single unsatisfactory evaluation and that my work was, in their words, "flawless and excellent."

But they didn't want me there and they had unlimited taxpayer money to draw on, so they spent at least two million dollars fighting the case, until I finally ran out of money, energy, and hope, as I realized that they were going to keep the case in court until I died before they'd give me that job back or compensate me in any way. Two million dollars, even with the highest paying job I ever had, is more than I could have earned if I'd worked until I was a hundred years old and gotten steady promotions and raises. So I ended up back on disability checks, which give me in a month about what I was earning in a week (disability checks automatically turn to old age checks when you reach 65 or 66, as I did a few years back), and the taxpayers saved a bundle. Had I kept fighting, since I'm pretty good at arguments and had the law entirely on my side, the government might have spent many millions more. I don't expect you to thank me for all the money I saved you, but I don't need any criticism either.

And in case you haven't figured it out, the reason they didn't want me there had nothing to do with my "flawless and excellent" work. It was a very racist and sexist workplace where blacks were called niggers and females were called cunts, and they knew from my personnel files and their own medical examination, that I was a female. But since I didn't have a stereotypical name, and I didn't dress, act, talk, or look like a cunt, people were calling me Mark, Sir, and Mister instead of cunt. So they had to violate the confidentiality of my personnel files to tell people I was a cunt so that people would be able to call me a cunt. And when they did that, I filed a complaint and they determined to get rid of me at any cost to the taxpayer. Because once they violated the privacy laws so that they could discriminate against me, I started filing complaints any time that anyone in my vicinity called any female a cunt. Which was ordinarily about fifty times a day, but once I started filing complaints it got cut down to no more than ten because they didn't like dealing with all that paperwork. Hostile workplace. Sexual harassment. Discrimination. I was spoiling everybody's fun and hell hath no fury like racists and sexists who are frustrated in their discriminatory activities. They just wanted to have a little fun with me--kinda like you and Pan, y'know? Just a little harmless, innocent fun. I can understand that because I like to have fun too. We just differ on what we define as fun. Fascists think fun is fucking with females and minorities, and I think fun is fucking with fascist scum.

I wrote:."Is your goal to attack and discredit me because I oppose the corrupt capitalist system that is destroying our planet and you support it because you believe that it is a superior lifestyle?"

BO responds: "Nope, I just don't agree with your theory that the world hasn't already surpassed its carrying capacity."

It's not my theory, BO. Ever hear of a book called, Diet For A Small Planet, by Frances Moore Lappé? It came out a long time ago and caused quite a stir. Lappé's theory was that the world was so overpopulated that there wasn't enough food and other resources to go around. The book was so well received that it made a lot of money and a Foundation was started to promote conservation. But what they learned when they were able to afford to do the research was that there were no shortages. In the books, topic, I mentioned one of Lappé's more recent books, called, Getting a Grip: Clarity, Creativity, and Courage in a World Gone Mad. Turns out we're feeding cows instead of people, cars instead of kids, and thinking there are shortages when there's actually an abundance of everything we need. Not everything you might like, but everything that the world needs. The "world gone mad" part is because some people think it is more important that they have cars than that brown-skinned people have food.

BO writes: "You've made the claim that its unbridled imperialism and capitalism that's totally at fault. That without western influence, that there would plenty of resources to go around. All we need to do is reduce our consumption and quit taking what isn't ours."

Thanks, but I don't get the credit for that one. There are many people, including some very successful people, who say the same thing.

BO writes: "As Pan and I have both told you, we agree with you that the US over-consumes and yes, we are guilty of being imperialists and of committing many atrocities. No argument there."

Glad we agree on something.

BO writes: "Where we digress in our beliefs is in thinking that if you were to strip away western imperialism/influence that the rest of the world would be able to re-allocate its resources and be just fine."

Well, that's a different argument. That's not saying that the world has exceeded its carrying capacity, just that if we didn't overconsume, somebody else might. Those of us concerned with the survival of the planet feel that if Americans could be convinced to be less destructive of the planet, other people could also be convinced. We just feel that it is more productive to start with the worst offenders, as they're causing the most damage. And, of course, if we, the worst offenders, decided to change our ways, we'd still be the world's sole stupidpower and we could simply nuke anyone who doesn't want to go along with the program to smithereens. It does cost us a few trillion a year for weapons and military bases to force people to see things our way, but coercive or not, we're still the trend setter.

BO writes: "I disagree. It's my belief, that at this point in human history, unless population levels are drastically reduced, that our time on planet earth is very limited. Even without the influence of western culture. Which I might add is being somewhat modulated by the collapse of western economies."

You have a Constitutional right to your beliefs, and there's no arguing with a belief. But people who don't have a racist bias, don't agree.

BO writes: "My own philosophy is such that with much a much reduced world-wide population that the standard of living of all humans could be drastically improved."

I went to see another movie this evening, BO. It's called "Crude." It is about how Texaco improved the standard of living in the Amazon so greatly that many tribes became almost extinct, they have epidemics of childhood cancers, they no longer have clean or water, and plants and animals die. Yes, if you kill off 90% of the world's population, everyone left can drive a big gas guzzling SUV and call that a better standard of living. But they'll still be polluting the air and water and soil, still be causing cancers, and still be killing themselves and the planet. It would slow the pace of destruction a bit until the next overpopulation peak, but it wouldn't solve the problem.

On the other hand if instead of thinking that a better standard of living means cars and computers and plastic bags and other poisons, and starting thinking that a better standard of living means clean air and water, nutricious food, more leisure time, and less stress, it would solve the problem without killing billions of people. Of course we've always done things the stupid way, so there's no evidence that we're capable of adapting. But not everyone on the planet is hellbent on destroying it in order to have more toxic garbage. We always have to kill people when they won't let us civilize them, so if they wanted us to civilize them, we wouldn't have killed so many people. Ever consider that maybe you don't know what they want better than they do, you just think you know what's best for them better than they do, and that you could be wrong?

BO: "Truth is, I don't find all technology to be evil, nor do I feel guilty about a modicum of creature comforts."

Yeah, I get that, BO.

BO: "I don't believe that man was put on the world to suffer.'

And I don't believe that man was put on the world to cause others to suffer so that he could have more creature comforts.

BO: "But it is up to man to choose his own destiny. If he is unable to equate his own population growth with stresses to the planet, then he probably doesn't deserve to survive."

Did you ever read Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins, BO? You should read it. We don't let people choose their own destinies. We overthrow governments who won't let our corporations steal their countries' resources, replace them with governments "more favorable to U.S. interests," bribe whom we can and kill whom we can't bribe, and commit war crimes and kill millions of innocent people so that we can get our "creature comforts" when they don't want to give up the land where they are living simply and sustainably for us to mine, drill, and irreparably pollute. 57% of your tax money goes to our military so that we can prevent people from choosing their own destinies and force them to supply our creature comforts instead.

Bo: "The formula is simple...consumption x population > or < carrying capacity There are three ways to meet carrying capacity requirements. You can choose to modulate consumption, the population, or both. The formula is indisputable."

Right. You choose to modulate population, rather than consumption. I'd prefer to modulate consumption because it doesn't involve killing millions of innocent people. Try varying your variables, BO. Let's assign carrying capacity a value of ten. Now if consumption is 2 and population is 5, they equal carrying capacity. If consumption is 1 and population is 10, they equal carrying capacity. If consumption is 1 and population is 20, you've exceeded carrying capacity. If consumption is 20 and population is 1, you've exceeded carrying capacity. To have an American lifestyle with the world's present population, we'd need three more planets. To have an indigenous lifestyle with the world's present population, we'd have ten times as much as we need and the planet could sustain ten times as many people as it does now.

BO: "All here agree with the premise that politics have a great influence on consumption. But, it doesn't negate the other variable in the equation. It's simple biology."

There is nothing biological about trading freedom for slavery and a mess of pottage. Biology gave us everything we needed to survive forever. A habitat that supplied all our needs for free. Technology took it all away and called it progress.

BO: "The problem I have with your argument, Mark, is that you try to negate the population growth variable. Your argument that population size--even at current levels--doesn't matter, is simple lunacy."

Right. Anything that contradicts your beliefs is lunacy. I get it, BO.

BO: "Truth is, it is the third world which is--and is expected to continue--experiencing catastrophic growth in its populations."

I know you don't want to, and therefore won't hear it, BO, but the catastrophes they're experiencing aren't from population growth, they're from environmental degradation caused by us seeking creature comforts.

BO: "That their populations happen to be non-white isn't the issue at all."

I'm sure you believe that. You probably think it is just coincidence that all our creature comforts are gained by genocide against people who just happen to coincidentally be darker skinned. Not racism, just that there's too many dark skinned people between us and our creature comforts.

BO: "What is probably of greater issue are their cultural beliefs. And personally, I pull no punches for delusional thinking just because the person just happens to be of a different race."

Their cultural beliefs, or their religious beliefs, or anything that justifies us killing them so that we can have more creature comforts. The question is whether the delusional belief is in destroying the planet for creature comforts and killing anyone who gets in our way, or whether the delusional belief is that there's a better way to live.

BO: "That said, yeah, I took a couple of cheap shots at you. I just sense a bit o' hypocrisy in your arguments and wanted to inject a bit of reality. Not that you haven't been guilty of your own attacks. But, it probably didn't do the Karma much good."

Variables and theories aren't reality, BO. Reality is that we're destroying the planet so that we can have creature comforts, and capitalism can afford to spend a few billion persuading people that the problem is brown-skinned people having babies. That enables us to kill more of them so that we can have more creature comforts. It isn't the Jews, it isn't the Moslems, it isn't immigrants, and it isn't people with different cultures or beliefs having too many babies, BO. We have an enemy who is trying to destroy us, BO. It is a very evil enemy that will tell big, big lies and even bomb its own people to justify wars of aggression for private profit. It is very adept at bribing people and at shaping public opinion with propaganda, but it won't hesitate to kill anyone who questions it. It has pseudo-scientific studies proving how superior it is, but the only superiority it really has comes from the most primitive forms of violence--even when they're carried out with the most advanced technologies. And someday, if you ever stop blaming others long enough, BO, you're going to meet that enemy and find out that it was us all along.

And I'm so pissed that childish or not, I'm going to freakin' say, "I told you so." Because I did. Even though I knew you wouldn't listen. And by the way, I'm 5'1", small build, and no unusual chromosomes. I'm not even very smart, but I live in a world with a lot of very stupid people who think they're smart when they're not.

[BO]

" And by the way, I'm 5'1", small build, and no unusual chromosomes. I'm just very, very smart."

Glad you have that opinion of yourself, Mark. It's obvious that your great humility has given you a clearer picture of reality than the rest of us. (that was sarcasm in case your superior brain didn't catch it.)

Guess I don't equate your argumentativeness to superior intelligence the way you do. As Pan said, your arguments tend to be repetitive and narrowly focused on one small part of a more complex issue. Kind of like the way christians defend christianity--first, you have to accept their belief system before anything they say makes sense. Hence Pan's name for you--Johnny One-note.

I do think you have potential though. But to truly self-actualize and be the smarty pants you think you are, you'd have to get your anxiety under control so your thinking was less rigid and more balanced. We could help, but you'd have to agree to our (mine and Pan's) care and supervision until you were better.

Til then, enjoy your delusions of grandeur. It's one of the more enjoyable psychosis's. But a psychosis just the same.

[Mark]

Congratulations, BO--there's not a single logical argument in that post, nothing of substance addressed to any issue whatsoever, nothing to contribute to the discussion, and the entire post is an ad hominem attack on me.

Thank you for proving me right.

[pan]

So no people of color are responsible for their own actions? Only the white gods up on Mt. Olympus toying with the lives of the puny, insignificant ones below them! Kinda sounds like you have come up with a new version of the White Man's Burden.....

[Mark]

Yeah, when we use multi-billion dollar bombers to bomb $5 mud huts, we are responsible for the damage we do. Just because we're white doesn't give us the right to dump bombs and poisons on poor people who never did anything to us. So we want to run an oil pipeline through Afghanistan for Rockefeller's Exxon-Mobil Corp. And we're willing to spend trillions of dollars bombing a country of poor people who have nothing, just so that we can run that pipeline through their territory. And you don't feel guilty about it? You think we have a Divine Right to that oil because we're white Christians and they're brown Moslems?

I'm saying that WE should start being responsible for our own actions and quit blaming the Vietnamese, the Cambodians, the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Somalis, the Congolese, or whoever we decide has something we want badly enough to blow them to smithereens if they won't give it to us. Doesn't matter if we want THEIR oil, land, coltan, or whatever, just because we use weapons of mass destruction on unarmed civilians doesn't give us the right to say it is all their fault because they have too many children. They certainly don't overconsume.

The racism is spending trillions of dollars to bomb innocent civilians just because they're brown and have something we want, and then blaming them for everything we do by claiming that it is their own fault fior having too many children. They're not poor because they have too many children, they're poor because they have so far resisted being domesticated and industrialized by colonialist empires. And I hope our empire falls before they do. They have a right to resist industrialization, particularly since in every other country we've industrialized by force, their products were exported to us and only increased poverty for them.

You keep mocking the noble savage thing. It so happens that a man who lives in Chiapas, who farms the communal land the same way his ancestors did for thousands of years, knows that he is self-sufficient, and prefers his "poverty" to our slavery. No matter how difficult his life, how simple his diet, how shabby his ragged clothes, whether or not he owns a pair of sandals, and even if he'll never have a bicycle, he has friends who have visited the United States or were born in the United States and he knows that he wouldn't want to be a landless wage slave here. He knows he's better off in his little mud hut with its thatched roof, than a "rich" American who has to tolerate all kinds of workplace abuse in order to make the mortgage and car payments on items the stress probably won't allow him to live long enough to actually own. Nobody can outsource his job and he'll die fighting for his community's land. He may be noble, but we're the savages with our Plan Mexico and multi-billion dollar war on drugs that is actually a war on Communists that is actually a war on anyone who doesn't want to be industrialized, forced off their land, and cut off from their food source.

I've lived in Honduras in a hut like that for several years. I was happy. I didn't have running water, electricity, a refrigerator, a car, a phone, a computer, or any technological garbage, but I had healthy organic food that grew right there, an unpolluted environment, books, time to read, friends, and I neither needed nor wanted anything more. I was born in Brooklyn and I know what civilization and industrialization is. So do the people in Honduras and Chiapas and Afghanistan. They don't aspire to an American lifestyle, and they'll fight to the death to avoid being force into it the way that we or our ancestors were. Were your ancestors colonists and conquerors with charters from a king or queen, or were they criminals, debtors, or part of the overpopulation of Europe who aspired to a better life? When were your ancestors forced off their lands and cut off from their food supply, or were they like mine and never had any land to begin with? Why did your ancestors come here? Were they merchants, farmers, or teachers who could pass down an inheritance, or were they slaves and indentured servants who never owned anything and had nothing to pass on?

Were your ancestors slaveholders, slaves, or Indian killers? If they called themselves settlers, they were Indian killers. You can't "settle" land unless you first kill the people who are already living on it.

A person who hasn't been forced off their land by armies or bombs or death squads, won't willingly trade it for a temporary $3 an hour job with no security and no benefits. Or even a $30 an hour job. Or even a business that is dependent upon an unsustainable economy. A way of life that has persisted for thousands of years, is sustainable.

[pan]

overpopulation means exceeding the carrying capacity of one's territory?

How do you define "one's territory"? If you define it as the planet then we are in agreement.

[Mark]

No, I define it as the land an individual or group can get food from without having to shoot or kill anyone.;

We, the United States of America, do NOT own the planet. Sorry. But we get most of our resources from other countries, which is why we maintain close to a thousand military bases overseas--the only way we can get THEIR resources is by force or blackmail. We, 5% of the planet's population, consume 50% of its resources.

Don't blame those we steal from for our thefts. If we stopped stealing from Africa and Latin America, their standards of living would improve because they are getting by on less than 2% of the world's resources. The rest goes to places like Europe and Saudi Arabia.

[BO]

Some sound advice for insane times...

How to talk to complete idiots
Three basic options. Choose wisely, lest you go totally insane
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, September 25, 2009

There are three basic ways to talk to complete idiots.

The first is to assail them with facts, truths, scientific data, the commonsensical obviousness of it all. You do this in the very reasonable expectation that it will nudge them away from the ledge of their more ridiculous and paranoid misconceptions because, well, they're facts, after all, and who can dispute those?

Why, idiots can, that's who. It is exactly this sort of logical, levelheaded appeal to reason and mental acuity that's doomed to fail, simply because in the idiotosphere, facts are lies and truth is always dubious, whereas hysteria and alarmism resulting in mysterious undercarriage rashes are the only things to be relied upon.

Examples? Endless. You may, for instance, attempt to explain evolution to an extreme fundamentalist Christian. You may offer up carbon dating, the fossil record, glaciers, any one of 10,000 irrefutable proofs. You may even dare to talk about the Bible as the clever, completely manufactured, man-made piece of heavily politicized, massively edited, literary myth-making it so very much is, using all sorts of sound academic evidence and historical record.

You are, of course, insane beyond belief to try this, but sometimes you just can't help it. To the educated mind, it seems inconceivable that millions of people will choose rabid ignorance and childish fantasy over, say, a polar bear. Permafrost. Rocks. Nag Hammadi. But they will, and they do. Faced with this mountain of factual obviousness, the bewildered fundamentalist will merely leap back as if you just jabbed him with a flaming homosexual cattle prod, and then fall into a swoon about how neat it is that angels can fly.

But it's not just the fundamentalists. This Rule of Idiocy also explains why, when you show certain jumpy, conservative Americans the irrefutable facts about, say, skyrocketing health care costs that are draining their bank accounts, and then show how Obama's rather modest overhaul is meant to save members of all ages and genders and party affiliations a significant amount of money while providing basic insurance for their family, they, too, will scream and kick like a child made to eat a single bite of broccoli.

Remember, facts do not matter. The actual Obama plan itself does not matter. Fear of change, fear of the "Other," fear of the scary black socialist president, fear that yet another important shift is taking place that they cannot understand and which therefore makes them thrash around like a trapped animal? This is all that matters.

This is why, even when you whip out, say, a fresh article by the goodly old Washington Post -- not exactly a bastion of lopsided liberalthink -- one that breaks down the rather brutal truth about the real cost of health care in this country, it will likely be hurled back in your face as an obvious piece of liberal propaganda. Go ahead, try it. Or better yet, don't.

Option two is to try to speak their language, dumb yourself down, engage on the idiot's level as you try to figure out how their minds work -- or more accurately, don't work -- so you can better empathize and find a shred of common ground and maybe, just maybe, inch the human experiment forward.

This is, as you already sense, a dangerous trap, pure intellectual quicksand. It almost never works, and just makes you feel gross and slimy. Nevertheless, plenty of shrewd political strategists believe that the best way for Obama and the Dems to get their message across regarding everything from health care reform to new environmental regulation, would be to steal a page from the Glenn Beck/Karl Rove/sociopath's playbook, and start getting stupid.

It's all about the bogus catchphrases, the sound bites, the emotional punches-to-the-gut. Death panels! Rationing! Fetus farms! Puppy shredders! Commie medicine! Gay apocalypse! Forced vaccinations! Exposed nipples during prime-time! Let one of these inane, completely wrong but oh-so-haunting verbal ticks bite into the below-average American brainstem, and watch your cause bleed all over the headlines.

The big snag here is that the Dems, unlike the Republican Party, aren't really beholden to a radical, mal-educated base of fundamentalist crazies to keep them afloat. Truly, the political success of the liberal agenda does not depend on the irrational, Bible-crazed "value voter" who's terrified of gays, believes astronomy is a hoax and thinks Jesus spoke perfect English and really liked giving hugs.

In other words, there really is little point in the liberals adopting this strategy, save for the fact that the major media eats it up and it might serve to counterbalance some of the more ridiculous conservative catchphrases. What's more, it could also give the whiny, bickering Dems something slightly cohesive to rally around -- because the truth is, the Democratic Party isn't all that bright, either.

And now we come to option three, easily the finest and most successful approach of all. Alas, it also remains the most difficult to pull off. No one is exactly sure why.

The absolute best way to speak to complete idiots is, of course, not to speak to them at all.

That is, you work around them, ignore them completely, disregard the rants and the spittle and the misspelled protest signs and the fervent prayers for apocalypse on Fox News. Complete refusal to take the fringe nutballs even the slightest bit seriously is the only way to make true progress.

This also happens to be the invaluable advice of one Frank Schaeffer, noted author and a former fundamentalist nutball himself, who made a simply superb appearance on Rachel Maddow's show recently, wherein he offered up one of the most articulate, fantastic takedowns of the fundamentalist idiot's mindset in recent history. It's a must-watch. Do it. Do it now.

Now, you may argue that, while Schaeffer may be dead right and also rather deserving of being quoted far and wide, it's also true that calling people stupid is no way to advance the debate, and is itself rather childish and stupid. And you'd be absolutely right.

But you'd also be missing the point. When you ignore the idiots completely, you are not calling them anything at all. You are not trying to advance any sort of argument, because there is no debate taking place. You are simply bypassing the giant pothole of ignorance entirely.

You are not kowtowing to the least educated of your voting bloc, like the GOP is so desparetely fond of doing. You are not trying to give the idiotosphere equal weight in the discussion. As Schaeffer says, "You cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot." By employing option three, you are doing the only humane thing left to do: you are letting the idiotosphere eat itself alive.

Do it for the children, won't you?


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/09/25/notes09...

[curt]

Whoops! Mark, here's the improved version but by deleting the faulty post, your post that followed it was deleted as well. Sorry ;-)

Overpopulation will, not can, will be resolved in due time in an astronomical way.

Map

There are three families of near-Earth asteroids:[3]

* The Atens, which have average orbital radii closer than one AU[19] and aphelia of greater than Earth's perihelion (0.983 AU), placing them usually inside the orbit of Earth.
* The Apollos, which have average orbital radii greater than that of the Earth and perihelia less than Earth's aphelion (1.017 AU).
* The Amors, which have average orbital radii in between the orbits of Earth and Mars and perihelia slightly outside Earth's orbit (1.017 - 1.3 AU). Amors often cross the orbit of Mars, but they do not cross the orbit of Earth.


definition

multimedia

not to mention gamma rays.

But until then, the discussion will go on.