LIARS!

Cure? My backside!

I am convinced that the cancer industry is not only uninterested in finding a cure, but actively suppresses anything even remotely smelling of a cure. The bigger the whole "pink" campaign (an all similar others) becomes, the more it smacks of makin' money.

A cure for cancer would be an international crisis in terms of the health care industry. So many people would be out of work that there would be economic devastation.

Don't think so? Count up the number of people just working in areas related to cancer - docs, nurses, technical staff, lab staff, building staff, maintenance staff, auxiliary services (food, cleaning, suppliers) at just one hospital in your city .... now multiply that by every hospital in the world.

Now add in the international cancer research community and everything that's attached to that....

Now add in hospice services and all the staff and auxiliary services attached to that industry.

Now add in the cancer fund-raising industry internationally - all the people involved in that; advertisers, product suppliers, etc, etc....

Now add in the droning, wealthy, predatory machine that is Big Pharma. They're not supporting cures for anything bigger than a hang nail, believe me. They're NOT in the business of making themselves obsolete. They like you to be fat and sick. In fact, their product mix makes sure you are fat and sick. Get the picture? A cure for cancer would very probably put the entire world into a depression. Bad news.

Speaking of Michael Moore, I watched Fahrenheit 911 last night. I found out that the Bush, Cheney and Bin Ladin families are not only all really good, close friends, but that they share in three large, international businesses that have all profited HUGE from the war.

Fahrenheit proposes that there was a terrorist attack but I don't think so. I still know it was an inside, known about, planned for job. Regardless, the Cheney family, the Bush family and the Bin Ladin families all made zillions of dollars. Oh, and the Saudis own some 7% of the US.... Just watch it.

I seems that President GW Bush is a liar, a cheat, a scammer, and an idiot. He was illegally elected and should never have had the presidency. The optics make it look like his family was so involved in manipulating that election that it is stunning people in the US stand for it. Amazing actually. Really Amazing. How is it a country that purportedly contains the leaders of the free world allows this 'person' to be in charge? HOW IS IT? It looks very much like the US president is using the US and Afghanistan to stage a war for his and these two other families' personal gain. SICK!

Only my opinion - and possibly Michael Moore's - but that's what it looks like .

Consumerism SUCKS

Some of you who know me well will know how opposed I am to people blindly buying in to marketing campaigns without really analysing the product or its necessity to anyone's life.

Working in financial services, I am daily exposed to people who cannot say no to anything that is well-marketed - meaning marketed in such a way that these people think they 'need' such products. In 99% of cases, there's no 'need' at all. There's 'want' and 'entitlement' and 'image.'

Diamonds and the diamond trade are a case in point. The international perception that diamonds are rare is the result of a 80 year long marketing campaign by one company. The damage, death, poverty and war that has resulted from the De Beers campaign is more devastating than all recent wars combined due to the irreparable destruction of numerous cultures and countries, most of which are in Africa.

Click this story for a chronological expose of how YOU came to believe the hype about diamonds.

Now go be a rebel and start analysing every marketing campaign you're exposed to.

Oh, and go see SICKO while you're at it ... and 9/11: Fear and The Selling of the American Empire... and then apply the "art" of immoral and unethical manipulation to global warming....

Arghghg.. I feel a rant coming on.

Why?

Follow up to a previous blog.....

Why is this young man wearing 'civilian clothing?'

Because, he's accepting a diploma for his brother, Connor, who was killed by a DRUNK DRIVER.

Connor was 17, clean and sober, well loved by MANY, beloved friend of Mike Hagar and John Broadbent. Both Mike and John were injured in the same accident.

Mike has just been released from hospital, still can't stand, can barely speak and will be forever changed. John's physical damage is over but his mental anguish is forever.












Connor is gone. He begged the first person to come on the accident to please tell his parents the accident wasn't his fault, that he was being careful and that he was so sorry. Then he died in a stranger's arms.

The drunk? 25 years old; habitual offender; several previous offenses.
Alive? Yes.
Injured, No.
Likely to quit drinking and driving? No.
Likely to reoffend? Yes.
Prosecuted? No. Not for another year.
Jail? Probably.
Will any of that bring Connor back or make Mike whole or take away the awful, brutal, vivid memories John will always carry?

Nope.

This one is forever.

Whew! I feel GREAT: It's Someone Else's Job To Raise My Kids!

I have received this e-mail chain letter a few times recently. I really dislike chain mail because it is usually such bloody garbage, but this takes the cake.

READ it and then READ MY RESPONSE. It is long. You're going to be here a while so get a coffee - or a scotch: Laphroaigh Quarter Cask preferably.

Here's the chain mail:

Dear God:

Why didn't you save the school children at ?. ..

Moses Lake, Washington 2/2/96
Bethel, Alaska 2/19/97
Pearl, Mississippi 10/1/97
West Paducah, Kentucky 12/1/97
Stamp, Arkansas 12/15/97
Jonesboro, Arkansas 3/24/98
Edinboro, Pennsylvania 4/24/98
Fayetteville, Tennessee 5/19/98
Springfield, Oregon 5/21/98
Richmond, Virginia 6/15/98

Littleton, Colorado 4/20/99
Taber, Alberta, Canada 5/28/99
Conyers, Georgia 5/20/99
Deming, New Mexico 11/19/99
Fort Gibson, Oklahoma 12/6/99
Santee, California 3/ 5/01
El Cajon, California 3/22/01 and

Blacksburg, VA 4/16/07 ?

Sincerely,

Concerned Student
-----------------------------------------------------
Reply:

Dear Concerned Student:
Sorry,

I am not allowed in schools.

Sincerely,

God

----------------------------------------------------------

How did this get started?...

Let's see,
I think it started when Madeline Murray O'Hare complained
She didn't want any prayer in our schools.

And we said, OK.

Then, someone said you better not:
Read the Bible in school;
The Bible that says
"thou shalt not kill,
Thou shalt not steal,
And love your neighbors as yourself,"

And we said, OK...

Dr. Benjamin Spock said
We shouldn't spank our children
When they misbehaved
Because their little personalities
Would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem.

And we said,
An expert should know what he's talking about
So we won't spank them any more..

Then someone said
Teachers and principals better not
Discipline our children when they misbehave.
And the school administrators said
No faculty member in this school
Better touch a student when they misbehave
Because we don't want any bad publicity,
And we surely don't want to be sued.

And we accepted their reasoning...

Then someone said,
let's let our daughters have abortions if they want,
And they won't even have to tell their parents.

And we said, that's a grand idea.

Then some wise school board member said,
Since boys will be boys
And they're going to do it anyway,
let's give our sons all the condoms they want,
So they can have all the fun they desire,
And we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school.

And we said, that's another great idea...

Then some of our top elected officials said
It doesn't matter what we do in private as long as we do our jobs.

And we said,
It doesn't matter what anybody, including the President,
Does in private as long as we have jobs and the economy is good....

And someone else took that appreciation a step further
And published pictures of nude children
And then stepped further still by
Making them available on the Internet.

And we said, everyone's entitled to free speech....
And the entertainment industry said,
let's make TV shows and movies that promote
Profanity, violence and illicit sex...
And let's record music that encourages
Rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes...

And we said,
it's just entertainment
And it has no adverse effect
And nobody takes it seriously anyway,
So go right ahead.

Now we're asking ourselves
Why our children have no conscience,
Why they don't know right from wrong,
And why it doesn't bother them to
Kill strangers, classmates or even themselves.

Undoubtedly,
If we thought about it long and hard enough,
We could figure it out.
I'm sure it has a great deal to do with...

"WE REAP WHAT WE SOW"

Why is it our children can not read a Bible in school, but can in Prison.

Points to consider:Here's what I think:

Why should religion be in schools when the family is responsible for the well-being and upbringing of children? Teachers educate – a one-dimensional, secular job; parents RAISE children; a holistic responsibility that allows for specific religious (or not) instruction.

If children are loved, cared for, appropriately directed and given whatever spiritual instruction at home, why should it ever be the responsibility of the school system or of any teacher to fill in or pinch hit for parents? Neither the teachers nor the system is responsible for the fundamentals; the family is. Teachers and schools are not babysitters or daycares, nor are they replacements for family or parents, regardless of how much some parents want that to be the case.

In respect to children who kill, their pain is so deep, so long-term and so profound that no teacher or school or system can do anything for those children. Those children are alienated first and foremost by and within their families and specifically by their parents, who are usually so focused on themselves, their own pursuits and the so-called rules and regulations that they forget their children are thinking, feeling humans. If the parents do not realize the deep crisis their one child is in, why ever would we expect teachers to notice one child in 30 or more?

No amount of prayer in schools will ever fix the pain of an alienated, depressed, desperate child. Prayer is NOT a replacement for an aware, humble, committed, loving parent. Too often people resort to prayer when they should be making a move.

As for spanking, the church position on this legitimizes abuse of children due to an incorrect interpretation of “spare the rod.” The “rod” is not a physical object. It is correctly interpreted as “STANDARD.” When correctly interpreted, there is NO direction to hit, beat, whip or physically abuse a child. Christian scripture also says “provoke not the child to anger.” Hitting, slapping, whipping, slagging, insulting or any such abuse is not discipline. It is abuse and indicates a parent out of control. Parents in control and who are skilled at providing standards for their children NEVER need resort to angering or striking their flesh and blood.

In no case should a teacher ever strike a student. There is no excuse for anyone, especially a professional, hitting a child. They certainly have the right to have the child leave the class, but in no circumstance does a teacher have the right to hit another person, even when that person is young and small. Hitting is an abuse of power; it is not discipline. It is an expression of anger and frustration on the part of an out-of-control adult and is no less painful or damaging than verbal abuse, which is also an abuse of power.

The point about abortion is very interesting. As you know, I am highly opposed to abortion. However, I am pro-choice. Choice must include everything a woman has in her arsenal to PREVENT pregnancy – pre-conception. I have no respect for those who play Russian Roulette with their bodies then choose to kill their pre-born offspring when the trigger goes off and they lose the game. That’s not choice. That’s abdication of right/responsibility.

Having said that, and I know the statistics very well, due to substantial research and face-to-face interviews with several doctors (including my previous OB-GYN) and two nurses who work in the field: unplanned pregnancies are more common with girls from religious families than in the general population. This is because religious families are very disinclined to discuss sex and related topics, are judgmental and are inclined to use fear tactics. Girls in those environments are at greater risk because they’re terrified to ask for information and disinclined to protect themselves. I have done specific research in this area due to my four years with the Calgary Pro-Life Association and via research for several published articles I wrote in the late 90s.

The reason girls in these environments don’t tell their parents anything is that they’re terrified to do so. That terror indicates a parental flaw, not a child’s flaw. If children are terrified of their parents and/or their parents reactions, what are they to do? The stay silent and hope they’re never found out.

Pre-marital sex is not the sole property of this generation. I personally know three couples of my parent's generation who engaged and were ‘caught’ due to unplanned pregnancies. Part of the reason the church is so anti pre-marital sex and so rabid about marriage is that both those allow for social control and management of economic resources (not relevant in our time, but relevant at the time when protecting the family assets was tantamount to preventing clan/tribal wars) by managing family lineages. It doesn’t work, however.

It is sexist to say ‘boys will be boys.” Males and females are equally likely to pursue. It may be distasteful to some, but the reality is people engage and no amount of religious fear mongering or threats of hell fire has ever or will ever change that. None of the three couples noted above was able to fight the biological imperative with fear of eternal damnation. It is better, if people are going to engage, that they be protected from diseases and pregnancy than they become sick or they have abortions (which are damaging to the woman’s body and obviously terminal for the unborn).

As for privacy, neither the government nor the church has any place in the bedrooms of people in free countries – or any country. This does not make incest or abuse or paedophilia right and the government should be expanding their efforts to go after abusers and perpetrators who use electronic resources. Where it comes to sexual practice though, what one person thinks is ok another thinks is abhorrent: there will never be consensus on what thing falls in which category.

As for practice or preference, Paedophilia is neither. It is a serious, incurable illness. If it were a sexual practice or true preference, the practice or preference could be altered or eliminated. Paedophilia is not curable and is by definition a chronic mental disorder. There will never be a cure, no matter what anyone says, barring chemical or actual castration (of males. Not sure what the cure would be for female paedophiles.)

As to those who make and/or consume child porn, too often those around them who are aware, are also silent. Someone always knows about the little girl or boy who disappears into that apartment…. As long as people make jokes about it and people continue to consume products designed to sexualize children, the environment will persist. We, as a society, tacitly allow the practice to exist. Don’t think so? Have you ever bought “toy” high heels or ‘toy’ makeup for a little girl; strongman suits for little boys – dress up clothing made to render a child into a parody of an adult? We are complicit, however innocently we participate.

I am absolutely opposed to institutionalized censorship. Too much wonderful literature and art has been banned due to people’s discomfort with subject matter and use of words. HOWEVER, I am absolutely for and actively engage in PERSONAL censorship. If something is abhorrent then do not buy, rent or use that thing. It is not for me to choose for you, but I will always act on MY right to choose for ME. If everyone who was opposed to a certain book or film or product or whatever just didn’t buy it themselves, the market for that item would seriously decrease. However, humans are curious beings; they often believe they are alone in their protest and therefore powerless to change anything. They are curious in the other sense too: one may heartily dislike the subject matter of book or film but is yet compelled to know what it is we opposed to. That is the dichotomy. Sadly, too often people are so obsessed with what everyone else is/might be doing, that they fail to monitor their own consumption.

Schools are and must remain, non-religious and non-denominational. People in the west are terrified by and opposed to Madrassas overseas (Pakistan, Afganistan, etc), but they completely fail to see the parallel between Madrassa and ‘religious’ schools. Only the semantics change; the foundations are exact. As such, no bible, torah, Q’uran belongs in any school. Those things belong at home, in the family, where the family can put their own stamp on that education. It strikes me as odd that people clearly disrespect teachers and schools (the items below indicated that very clearly) yet expect teachers to mete out something as personal and specific as religion.

The last point in the items below - "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW" - is true. Whenever people – parents in particular –get real about what and how they’ve sown, and when they quit blaming the establishment, the schools, the teachers, films, music, books, the ‘devil,’ and the water, and when PARENTS take PERSONAL responsibility first for their OWN behavior, only then will they be able to provide excellent examples, a solid foundation and appropriate guidance for their children. Only then will what we reap be wonderful, productive, respectful, loving, compassionate, self-assured children. Literal, rule-bound, non-thinking people raise literal, rule-bound, non-thinking and usually confused and angry kids.

Am I gloating?? Damn right. I live by what I write here. I have raised my children in an utterly open environment, where every question was met with an appropriate, honest, often researched answer. Have I been angry with my kids, yes. Have they been angry with me, yes. The greatest gift I have been able to give my children is the simple admission “I’m wrong, and I’m sorry.” Do I think I’m right about all this and that my way of raising children works? If the comments of my children’s friends, and the parents of those friends, the comments from teachers, employers and, in some cases complete strangers are any indication, yes, I’ve done a great job by controlling myself, not my kids; by being honest rather than hiding the truth; by being vulnerable and fallible and admitting it; by managing my anger and not taking it and my disappointments out on my children; and by NEVER blaming anyone else for failing to provide that which was my responsibility where it came to providing a solid standard for my children to live by.

The items in the chain e-mail may allow the reader to feel justified and righteous, but when looked at and considered, all except the last are statements that provide escape routes for people who would rather others do the jobs they should do themselves.

Friends

Over the weekend, last, an anonymous comment was left on my post, "A Short but True Story."

I knew almost instantly who the 'anonymous' poster is; a friend - a good friend.

My friend posted three simple lines, but the content of those lines was dense and rich with meaning and as welcome and comforting as a warm hug.

I met this friend by complete and utter accident and quite simply because I liked a photo I saw on line, not of this friend, whose existence I had no knowledge of at the time, but of their business. Absolutely random.

We have several things in common - events and incidents that are similar enough to have caused a bond.

Yes, my friend, I will write your story. I am blessed to know you and to be however small a part. I am so looking forward to flying over with my youngest angel and looking forward to her meeting you and all the angels who live with you.

What kind of Therapy would you prescribe?

I was reading today in Maclean's Magazine, June 4th edition, in the article "The Long Arm of Charles Taylor Versus the Law" about the legions of child soldiers in Sierra Leone and Liberia. Shocking and I can't even quantify how much.

Read the article and then consider where you live and the probability of your children being abducted by this or a similar madman...

If you live in Canada, the UK, the US or most of Europe and you are prone to complaining about your first-world lifestyle, do shut up.

But where did my mind go when reading parts of this article? To celebrities and rich people....

Getting therapy is a badge of honour in some communities - for rich chicks and bored housewives and people who are still angry at their parent's failings 20 years after the fact - and being in therapy for AGES is some badge of success.... I'm sure Paris Hilton will be so terribly traumatized by her 23 days inside that she'll be screwed for ever, despite the lush lifestyle she has....

But, for these kids, most of whom must kill their own parents and who've witnessed things you can't even imagine before they're abducted, and are then supplied with addictive, mind altering, cell-destroying drugs and alcohol, drafted into civil war, sometimes by the age of SIX, raped, abused and essentially rendered dead, there is no therapy that can ever erase experiences that word "traumatising" doesn't begin to address.

In the same magazine, a long, interesting article on zombies as a metaphor for the human propensity for self-annihilation.

Drive an Edsel, Save the Planet!

Anyone who knows me knows I don't trust anything that has a corporation or corporations, big pharma or politicians involved.

When it is all three of these at the same time plus the 'moral majority' and the 'religious right', I'm seriously on red alert.

Such is the case with Al Gore's global warming initiative. I think it is a crock and it is based on VERY faulty science.

I am, however, dead impressed with the former president-to-be's marketing ability, and the machine behind him. I'm also impressed that he's willing to use, slightly altered, the Bush slogan, "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists." In Gore's case, 'If you don't support this initiative, you're for the destruction of the planet. In short, get on board or you're a seriously flawed and horrible human being.

Additional to that is the evangelist's tactic of "Why would you ask questions? We have all these experts who say this is the truth. Just buy in, will you? Don't question the Gore, your Climate Change Guru."

On Monday, a friend forwarded me an excellent, well researched essay destined for a local MP (read: total dead end). I have requested and obtained permission to reprint this essay. My sincere thanks to Dr. H. May Gore walk through the giant hole in his theories and be reborn.

Here's Dr. H's great piece:
Much attention has been given to a group of well intended individuals who would like to see that green house gases especially CO₂ are reduced to prevent global warming. While I admire their intentions; there is an old saying that "A little knowledge can be dangerous." In this case these people have an over-simplified hypothesis that ignores some of the best proven facts about climate change. If they proceed as planned they could actually make the planet warmer rather than preventing global warming.

Most of the major climate change of the last 1000 years can be easily explained by looking at one simple cause, "Suspended Particulate Matter." Ozone depletion explains the rest. The way this works is that suspended particulate matter blocks the suns rays and causes "Global Cooling". As we will see soon; this can be severe. Ozone depletion allows more of the suns rays to enter causing some increased warming and lots of melting..
First, let’s journey through the past thousand years and see several major cycles. In the beginning the air was clean and the Earth was warm. In 1066 William the Conqueror invaded England and at this time they could grow grapes in England. You can't do that now. About the same time a Viking named Eric the Red was banished to Greenland because he had murdered someone in Iceland. He started a colony there. They grew crops and gardens and animals grazed. You can't do that today. The planet was probably at its warmest ever then and suspended particulate matter (aka pollution) was at its lowest ever. This temperature was probably "normal" and this is probably how things would be again if there was no pollution. Interestingly, CO₂ was probably at its lowest then when the planet was at its warmest.
Now lets skip forward to the 1500's when we saw "The mother of all climate change" Throughout Europe there was a century long cold snap that many historians called a Mini Ice Age. Crops froze, growing seasons shortened, some years there was no summer. People and animals starved and died. In North America things weren't any better. The Spanish reported that some years the Rio Grande River froze. Scientists and historians blame this severe climate change entirely on suspended particulate matter. They believe that a great deal of volcanic activity somewhere spewed so much smoke and ash and dust into the atmosphere over a long period of time that this climatic event was the result. So, if you ever wondered how much particulate matter could become suspended in the atmosphere and how much this particulate matter can change the climate; now you know. It can cause a mini ice age! It is powerful and it is predictable. So, hold that thought.
Now we are going to move forward to 1819. The volcanoes have settled down, the dust and ash has settled, and the planet is nice and warm again. How warm is it? During this year Sir William Edward Parry lead an expedition in search of the Northwest Passage. Parry sailed along the north-east side of Baffin Island into Lancaster Sound, through Barrow Strait, and Viscount Melville Sound. He discovered and mapped Melville Island, one of the most westerly Arctic Islands. Lancaster Sound, Barrow Strait and Viscount Melville Sound collective make up the Parry Channel which is the best route for a Northwest Passage. It is at about 74 degrees north latitude about or 1100 miles from the North Pole. It is about 700 miles long. But the point is that Parry sailed through this passage in 1819 in a wooden sailboat. You couldn't do that today. So it must have been a lot warmer in 1819 than it is today. So what could have caused this global cooling. What event might have caused a lot of particulate matter to be released unchecked into the atmosphere over the next 150 years. Perhaps it was the Industrial Revolution. That caused a lot of smoke and pollution.
The Industrial Revolution was barely under way in 1819. The only big polluters at that time were coal-powered steam engines and the steel industry. But, big polluters came thick and fast after that. In 1879 Thomas Edison finally perfected the electric light bulb creating a huge demand for coal powered electricity generators.. Then in 1888 Gotlieb Daimler and Carl Benz perfected the internal combustion engine. In 1904, the Wright brothers got their first airplane off the ground. This was followed by too many inventions to mention. But the point is, it was exciting times up until the 1960's and no one cared about pollution. Pollution went completely unchecked.
The 150 years from 1819 to about 1966 were very important years for learning about global climate change. For the last 750 years, through one ice age and two of the hottest periods on record, CO₂ levels had hardly budged. Now, CO₂ levels were about to start moving upward. The problem was that suspended particulate matter was also increasing. Increasing CO₂ levels are supposed to cause global warming. Increased suspended particulate matter (aka pollution) definitely causes global cooling. This is the classic confrontation. Who is the boss? Will the planet get warmer or colder? Well, the North-west passage froze solid and remains impassable to this very day, so, I guess it got colder.
People didn't start to worry about pollution until about the 1960's but once they did some interesting things started to happen. The planet started warming. And, in 1966, for the first time in 900 years we actually saw CO₂ levels rising at the same time as the planet was warming. But what is happening with suspended particulate matter? Clean air acts are just starting to be put in place and people are starting to do a lot of things to reduce the amount of particulate matter that is released into the atmosphere Suspended particulate matter is decreasing and this alone could explain the global warming that we have seen over the last forty years. As suspended particulate matter decreases the planet 's temperature may be trending back to the warmer , normal levels of 1066 and 1819.
The problem with the idea of trying to control the temperature of the planet at its current levels by reducing CO₂ levels is that the current temperature of the planet is probably lower than it should be and it is only being held at these lower levels by suspended particulate matter(aka pollution)Any attempt to reduce CO₂ levels by reducing the use of fossil fuels is almost certain to also reduce the amount of suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere and this would almost certainly cause global warming instead of stabilizing temperatures. If there is some compelling reason why temperatures must be stabilized at their current levels then this should be a matter of concern to you. But, that might be a bit complicated, so let’s look at a simpler problem.
Let's suppose for a moment that you can actually reduce CO₂ levels in isolation without any other factors and let's suppose that you are wildly successful and reduce CO₂ levels back to their 1066 level; what temperature do you think you would get? A certain amount of logic would suggest that you might get the temperatures that we had in 1066 which were the hottest ever in the last 1000 years. So you got global warming again. This is tricky. What is going on here?
One of the central flaws of the CO₂ theory of Global Warming is that in 1066 when CO₂ levels were at their lowest, the planet was at its hottest and in 2007 when CO₂ levels are at their highest, temperatures are quite a bit cooler. This doesn't necessarily mean that CO₂ doesn't cause global warming as some might conclude but it definitely alerts us to the fact that there are other more powerful factors at play in this. However, one needs to get this figured out before we start spending a lot of money and doing a lot of hard work, or it could all go to waste. In fact, if we do not completely understand this problem and don't know what we are doing, we could embark on a journey to correct our “CO₂ problem” that could easily make things worse instead of better because in fact, the problem is not CO₂ at all – it is suspended particulate matter..
Let's talk about Ozone. The CO₂ advocates are always quick to point out that while change is slow in North America and Europe where the cars are; the really big action is at the north and south poles. They say that there is a lot of melting going on there, and I believe them! But, they don't know much about snow. Any Canadian can tell you that raising the temperature at the top of a snow bank from -30C to -20C or -10C or even 0C is not going to change the rate of melting one bit. But snow does melt at -20C. That is why our rivers and streams run all winter. Snow melts at -20C because it is translucent and because it is 90% air, so it is a good insulator. The sun’s rays hit the snow and they pass right through the translucent snow until they reach the ground below. Then the sun’s rays release their energy as heat. Heat is trapped under the snow, which is a good insulator, the temperature at the bottom rises and the snow at the bottom melts. If melting is increasing drastically at the South Pole it can only be due to an increase in the amount of the sun’s rays reaching the snow and this is easy to explain. Remember those holes in the ozone layer that we were all excited about 10 or 20 years ago? They were over the North and South Poles and they are probably still there. Since ozone blocks the sun's rays; holes in the ozone layer would let more of the sun's rays in and cause increased melting. But this melting has nothing whatsoever to do with global warming and even less to do with CO₂. It is an entirely different problem.

If there is some compelling reason why we must stabilize the planet’s temperature at its current leval; rather than allowing it to return to its levels of 1066 & 1819; then we should pursue a strategy with a proven record. I can not see where CO2 had much to do with the major climate changes of the last 1000 years. The CO2 theory of climate change was cooked up by some guy with a computer about 40 years ago and his theory has holes in it big enough to walk Al Gore through. There is no doubt that the planet has warmed over the past forty years but I have never seen very convincing proof that CO2 was the major cause of this change. In fact, the case could be made that you could do more to prevent global warming by convincing Ford to bring back the Edsel as a pollution stabilizing measure.

Author’s note: Since a lot of this theory hinges on the change of temperature and ice conditions in the arctic between 1819 and the mid 1960’s; it is worth noting that Sir William Parry wrote two books, “Voyages for the Northwest Passage” in 1821 and “Narratives of an attempt to reach the North Pole in Boats” in 1828. These books may give a huge insight into the climate in the Arctic in the 1820’s.

Yah!!! Why hasn't Bush been impeached yet??? WHY?

Great article by Gary Kamiya:

Go HERE

Why people in the US were so freaked out over the Clinton blow job that they wanted him impeached but they're seemingly not bothered by GW Bush's lies and cover ups and illegal war and illegal election, is TOTAlLY beyond me.

What the HELL people??

WAKE UP USA

How to Build a Nation By Fear, With Lies and Via Coercion

Last week, someone told me they didn't think I really understood the situation in the middle east. That was probably one of the most true things anyone's ever said about me. Except that I am not alone.

Nobody understands the middle east. The only way one could ever understand the middle east would be to suspend their knowledge - and thus their bias - of their own culture and to live in the middle east for several years. Then said person would have to regain their knowledge of their own culture. Oh. and they'd have to be able to grasp the preceding 1000 years of strife and religious tension in the middle east, as well as to understand why people would choose not only to expose their children to violence on a huge, cultural level but to also involve those children in it by way of teaching them at the earliest possible moment why they should hate the child across the street....

No, I don't understand it. From my privileged western perspective, it is entirely incomprehensible and always will be.

I do understand,however, that a nation that presumes itself to be the 'leaders of the free world' is taking quite advantage of 1000 years of disturbed life in the middle east to further its own agenda.

There's a great site called Best On Line Documentaries where I was directed to this video: 9/11: Fear and the Selling of the American Empire

I suppose a bunch of my readers will see this and go "propaganda."

Well, dear readers, where there's smoke, there's fire.