Dan C <youmustbejoking> wrote:

>Well, it may be that you get differing opinions depending on what
>method/group you are sampling from. Actually, that is quite obvious. I
>would have to say that sites like YouTube and Digg are frequented mostly
>by younger (college age) type kids, who are eager to be "heard" and are
>regurgitating the propaganda that their college professors indoctrinated
>them with. Naturally they will claim that Fox is right-wing-biased,
>because Fox doesn't propagate the same Liberal biased reporting that ALL
>other news sources bombard them/us with. It *seems* that way to them,
>anyway. The reality is that Fox is the closest to the center (although
>admittedly perhaps *slightly* to the right) of any news source available.
>
>If you were to somehow get a sampling of opinions regarding news media
>from the middle-aged portion of America, where folks have had time enough
>in their lives to actually understand politics a little, I believe you'd
>get a different evaluation than what you see on the Internet sites.

You're probably right that it's the younger more educated people that
tend to give the commentary sites a viewpoint more to the left of the
national average. OK, Fox News must strike a chord with some people, if
it's as popular as you say. Wikipedia tells me that it's part of
Murdoch's News Corporation and the CEO was personally appointed by him.
That places it better for me, judging from what Murdoch newspapers look
like in the UK.

TJ wrote:

> Jim Beard wrote:
>
>> Oops! You are correct. I am wrong. Ghengis was the old
>> man and Kublai his fourth son by his favorite wife, according
>> to my old copy of the EB.
>>
>> Now I wonder if a remembered sketch of Gengis Khan studing
>> Chinese texts was indeed a sketch of Gengis or a misremembered
>> sketch of Kublai. Now if I could just remember where I saw
>> the sketch...
>
> I thought Khan was that genetically-enhanced guy on Star Trek who looked
> like Ricardo Montalban. ;-)

He was called Khan Noonien Singh and was the main villain in one of the
original "Star Trek" series episodes, as well as in the "Star Trek" movie
"The Wrath Of Khan".

The name was later on recycled for the character of Dr. Noonien Soong in
"Star Trek: The Next Generation" and its offsprung movies, as the creator
of the androids Lt. Commander Data, his "evil twin" Lore and the limited
capacity android B-4 in "Star Trek: Nemesis". Just like all of the
androids, the character of Dr. Noonien Soong was portrayed by actor Brent
Spiner.

Nice to see there are still Trekkies around. :-)

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]

On 2008-04-28, Aragorn <aragorn> wrote:
>
> The name was later on recycled for the character of Dr. Noonien Soong in
> "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and its offsprung movies, as the creator
> of the androids Lt. Commander Data, his "evil twin" Lore and the limited
> capacity android B-4 in "Star Trek: Nemesis".

I wonder if Data and his siblings run on linux, and if so, whether
they can access the video at foxnews.com.

--keith

evodawg wrote:

> Aragorn wrote:
>>> Well, at the risk of getting accused of sounding anti-American (again), I
>> don't think your voting system could do with a serious revision.
>
> You don't really sound anti-American.

Thank you, because I am indeed not anti-American. I do have a problem with
George W. Bush and with certain previously made American decisions or
certain American customs, but I have an equally big problem with similar
decisions or customs elsewhere in the world, including those in my own
country. And boy, do they know how to make a mess of things here... <grin>

> Think a lot of systems in the US need revision.

I think the _whole_ _world_ could do with a serious overhaul if we want to
see the human race survive the threat of global warming - they announce all
kinds of resolutions that will take effect by 2050, but by that time it'll
already be too late as we're already at the point of no return now - let
alone that the human race would survive for another millenium.

>> Either way, if you're a Belgian citizen on Belgian soil and you're not
>> withheld from voting by your job or by some medical condition, you *have*
>> to go, whether it's a vote for the municipality, the province, the
>> regional government, the federal government or the European Parliament.
>> Similarly, those who monitor the voting process are selected by a
>> computer and are mandated to appear before their "call of duty", at the
>> risk of the same high fines as for no-show voters.
>
> Wow, vote or get fined. Now that's a new one.

I can imagine you would react that way, because we're one of only two or
three countries in the world where voting is mandatory. There have been
propositions and promises to abolish this lunacy, but the traditionalists
want to keep the voting obligation, because they know all too well that the
election results will seriously drop in if they drop it, and they owe that
to their own ridiculousness.

At the last Federal elections last year, I voted for Yves Leterme, our
current prime minister. His party is the CD&V (Christian-Democrat &
Flemish), and is in a cartel with NV-A (New Flemish Alliance), a similar
party that strives for independence of The Flanders. I voted for Leterme
because he's rather a technocrat. He's a man of integrity and honor, and
he doesn't care for any childish games.

Yet, because of the fact that CD&V and NV-A are in a cartel - which means
that they went to the elections with a common list - the French-speaking
politicians have given Leterme hell for 9 months as he was trying to form a
government. The cartel with NV-A had made a promise to the voter that
there would be a new phase in the state reform - presumably from a Federal
State to a Confederal State - and the unionist French-speaking politicians
were playing a game all along, as well as bickering among themselves.

Eventually, the exiting prime minister Guy Verhofstadt (from OpenVLD, the
neo-liberal/libertarian party) had to step in and form a temporary
transitional government. Verhofstadt is more experienced, having had
several terms in the last decade and in the early 1990s, and carries more
weight with those French-speaking politicians, particularly also because
he's a Liberal (in the European sense), and both the Flemish and Wallonian
liberals were pushing really hard to keep the socialists out of the new
government - in which they have succeeded, but then again the Flemish
socialists had already announced that they wouldn't participate in the new
government the day the election results were made public.

That decision of theirs was solely driven by the disappointment over their
election results and was intended rather as a psychological game - they
wanted to be *asked,* rather than to volunteer, because they've made it all
too clear later on that "they would have liked to participate, but they
were never asked". At the same time, there was also the problem that
despite the MR - i.e. the French-speaking counterpart of OpenVLD - had won
most of the votes in Wallonia, although the Wallonian Socialists (PS) were
still the biggest party there, and MR was trying to get into a coalition
without the PS.

The Christian-Democrat CD&V is a very large party here in the Flanders and
was (in cartel with NV-A and thus also thanks to their voters) the winner
of the elections in the Flanders. However, their Wallonian counterpart CDH
is only a very small party, but yet their leader, Joëlle Milquet is called
"Madame Non" (Mrs. No), and proved herself worthy of her reputation at the
negotiations to form a new government.

So with a circus like that going on, postponing the formation of a new and
democratically elected government for 9 months from the day of the
elections on, you can imagine that if the people were given the choice
*not* to vote, they would stick their middle finger up to the politicians
and stay home that day. ;-)

>> Also, John McCain does support the war in Iraq and the hardline national
>> security approach instated by Bush. So that makes him quite a typical
>> Republican in my book.
>
> He only supports it because we are there. He does not want to lose. Bush
> broke it, he only wants to fix it. I was not in favor of going to Iraq but
> was to Afghanistan.

I personally felt that Bush had no legitimate reason whatsoever to invade
Iraq, but I had no objections whatsoever either whereas the invasion of
Afghanistan was concerned. That was - in my humble opinion, and as a
European - a justified move, given that Al Qaeda had attacked the USA and
their leader was being protected and hidden by the Taliban of Afghanistan.

> I would love to see us leave, but what would happen if we did?

Frankly, I don't see much good coming out of it either way. When Bush
invaded Iraq, he popped the lid of a snakepit. With Saddam gone and an
incompetent and still partially corrupt new Iraqi government in place, a
power vacuum was created and now it's an outright civil war.

Of course, the current Iraqi administration is heavily appealing onto the
Americans to stay, because they themselves are all too aware that they
can't solve the problem by themselves. And on the other hand, a prolonged
American residence in that area tends to only pour fuel on an already
ferocious fire of hatred versus the US and anything Western by the Muslim
extremists, who are also fighting among themselves over who has the best
imaginary friend - i.e. the Sunnites against the Shi'ites.

So I can't really give you an answer, but I /presume/ that the best course
of action would be to let them figure it out for themselves. It would save
the US lots of Dollars and lots of soldiers' lives, and it would cause less
of an allergic reaction in that region versus anything Western.
Things /might/ cool down a bit.

At least, that's my assessment of it...

>> While I can understand that those in the military don't want to lose
>> their jobs, excessive military expenses should not be of this day and age
>> anymore. There is a lot of needless investment in military technology
>> that could just as easily have been (better) spent on civilian
>> applications, especially with regard to social security and healthcare.
>
> Its not about losing their job. It's about security. I agree to a point
> that to much is spent on Defense and wasteful spending but there is a old
> saying, "when your on top of the mountain there is always someone trying
> to knock you off".

Well, that depends on how you profile yourself. If you constantly keep
screaming that you are on top of the world, then there will indeed always
be somebody somewhere who feels up to the challenge of knocking you
off. ;-)

> Russia with Putin's help is reverting back to Socialism/Communism and
> supporting Iran's quest for Nukes.

Hmm... I disagree. Poetin is a nationalist and a former KGB chief, and he
is still following the same hard line as the Soviets did, but he's no
socialist. He's just a carefully masqueraded dictator, and now that he's
finishing off his last term as a president, he's already sure of his
comeback as prime minister in the next government, so he'll still be in
charge, pulling the strings of the new president.

Poetin is unpredictable, just like a shark. That's what makes him
dangerous. And George W. Bush has seriously - albeit probably
unintentionally - provoked him. And I think that's an alley down which we
don't want to be taking a stroll anymore today...

> China is stealing our military secrets and becoming an economic power with
> our help because of stupid trade policy's.

Stealing military secrets? Everyone steals everyone else's military
secrets. That's how it's always been, and that's how it'll always be
unless mankind starts growing some common sense. But I think the latter is
too much of a stretch to hope for... :-/

> [...] Dems just want to tax and make Government bigger. I believe the
> opposite. Less Government is better. Government only screws things up.

Actually, it's bureaucracy and political mindgames that screw things up.
But indeed, to have an efficient government, it should be kept lean.
Efficient, but lean.

On the other hand, a more elaborate social security system wouldn't do you
guys any harm, and this need not necessarily imply a more complex
government. Over here, we have a great social security system - not
perfect yet, but it's getting better - but a lot of that is handled through
non-governmental organizations.

> You have folks here that believe they're entitled to sit on their asses
> and collect.

Careful now, because that is something I myself have been blamed of as well,
by those who simply lack the intellectual capacity to realize that there
are some specimens in the human race with a genetically predetermined
condition for being incapacitated.

In my case, is the combination of my Asperger Syndrome, my
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and a number of anxieties/phobias. I've
never asked for any of them, and I have tried the best I could to fit in
with the rest, but it just doesn't work. So what am I supposed to do?
Starve to death? Kill myself?

On the other hand, a perfect society, a utopia in which every citizen is
well-behaved and complies by the rules of said society does not exist and
cannot exist. Just look at the prison facilities. They are the ultimate
proof that there will always be individuals who refuse to show respect to
their fellow human beings.

> You have others that take pride in contributing to society. Those that
> contribute are getting tired of paying through taxes of course, for those
> that won't. Get them of the welfare payroll and you'd probably have enough
> for National Health Care but not sure that's the answer.

This is already happening here. But how do you determine who's for real and
who's not? And how do you fight bureaucracy and "public servant
elitarianism"? Many public servants - especially at the municipal level -
enjoy their power over "ordinary citizens", and their lust for power may be
what determines life or death for the less fortunate.

This is in a great part responsible for why many people over here end up in
the outskirts of society.

> Anything controlled by the Government is not going to work. It never does,
> here anyway.

No, not necessarily so. But what we need - "we" being everyone everywhere
on this planet - is a government of people who (1) know what they're doing,
(2) aren't doing it for the sake of their own ego, a political career or
personal wealth, and (3) are bright enough to make long-term decisions
towards durable solutions, rather than the short-term narrowminded view
most politicians have. They lack the courage to plan things on a larger
scale, while this is exactly what humanity needs in order to survive.

> Would you really want the Department of Motor Vehicles controlling the
> Health Care Industry?

I don't think that would be particularly wise... :p

>
> I thought that might be the one you had in mind, but was not sure because
> to call Adolf Hitler an intellect might be a stretch.

Well, it's controversial, but many do see him as an intellectual, albeit a
totally deranged one, if only over his (ab)use of Nietzsche's and
Wittgenstein's philosophies.

> I would just rather call him a lunatic.

That would even be far too kind for him. The man was a monster in a human
body, no more, no less.

> An artist and painter in his own mind maybe.

No, actually he was indeed a painter, but not a successful one. So I guess
that's why he got into politics and vented his frustration there. ;-)

>> Hitler's philosophical views were largely based upon those of
>> Wittgenstein and Nietzsche, and both of those could be considered rather
>> rightwinged as well, albeit that I think neither of them had ever
>> imagined that their devoted follower would start a World War and would
>> massacre 6 billion Jews.
>
> Yes and didn't he have them killed?

Nietzsche and Wittgenstein both lived in a different era, if my memory
serves me right. Or were you referring to the Jews? Yes, of course, I did
write that he massacred 6 million Jews. So did Joseph Stalin, by the way.

> So much for turning a lunatic on your philosophy.

Ehm, I'm not sure what you mean to say by this sentence. :-/ If I have
given you cause to believe that I support either Hitler, his atrocities or
even his philosophy, then I must apologize and then I insist on rectifying
this immediately. :-/

Hitler was a fascist, a murderer, a deranged rightwing extremist with some
serious personality issues, and with an ego too large to fit his entire
country. I on the other hand am a moderate leftwinger who believes in
democracy, peace and harmony.

I couldn't be more juxtaposed to the man's vision than I already am, and I
am quite wellknown as someone who vehemently loathes fascism or nazism.

> There are some Canadian immigrants but they're legal.

That was my point. :-) Canada is a highly developed and civilized country,
so there would be no reason for any Canadian to want to move to the US
illegally, unlike in the event of Mexican people.

> Nothing like the illegals coming up from Mexico. And the Mexican
> Government is encouraging it.

We've got similar situations here with refugees from the countries that used
to make up for the former Yugoslavia. Mainly, they're just gangs of
thieves and mobsters.

Yet our immigration policy is all wrong, just as our firearms/weapons
legislation. Our politicians have yet to reach the point of wisdom where
they realize that you can't stop crime by punishing the righteous.

>>>> [...] George W. Bush as made ample use of his veto right already in the
>>>> past couple of years, and so in the end, he's still the one on top of
>>>> the chain of command. ast another year or so.
>>>
>>> To bad he doesnt have the Line Item Veto!!!!
>>
>> I am not familiar with that term...
>
> When a bill comes across the Presidents desk it's full of PORK or
> unnecessary spending installed in the bill by members of Congress to
> impress their constituency. As it stands now the bill either gets approved
> or veto in it's original form. What many Presidents want is the option to
> strike out the pork and just approve the original bill as it was written.

It seems more logical to me to simply return the bill to its maker then and
demand a budgetary review. That's how it's done here anyway.

>> The European Union has far more subtle ways of handling situations. We
>> don't have to wave our barrels around and scare people in order to gain
>> respect.
>
> Yes and we have seen the wonderful accomplishment the EU and the United
> Nations have involved themselves in. Don't get me started on this subject.
> As far as I'm concerned those two are worthless entities.

I disagree, although I will support the idea that they could do with a
serious overhaul. As things are right now, it's more of the same
bureaucracy that has already imbued just about every form of government on
this planet.

>
> You think maybe public opinion had anything to do with that? The United
> States at the time wanted nothing to do with war and wanted to stay
> isolated.

Which only underscores that the US had an agenda of their own when they
finally decided to get involved in World War II, and that might have had
something to do with the fact that the US was already at war with the
Japanese at that time, and that the Japanese were allies of the Germans and
the Italians, and were heavily receiving logistics support from them.

> My recollection, Europe didn't do much to stop the advance of
> the Nazi's except for the British and that probably would not have
> happened except for Churchill.

We sure tried, but the Belgian army was overrun in a matter of days or weeks
- well, Belgium isn't all that big - and so was most of the European
mainland. The Italians were moving in from the South and the Germans from
the East. Hitler and Mussolini had a very powerful military apparatus.

That's why most of the fighting by the natives was done through underground
resistance groups. My grandfather was with the White Brigade, a local
group of partisans who fought the Germans and hunted down the Gestapo
collaborators when the war was over.

In addition, I've put in my military service myself - up until 1994 we had
drafting duty, and I served from December 1983 until September 1984.
Originally I was trained as a "stormtrooper" - which is the equivalent of
the US Army Rangers - but later on I was transfered to an administrative
unit because I had gotten injured during combat training.

So I know all too well how well-trained our military is. Unlike the US
military, Belgian military is not overspecialized and overly dependent on
technology. We have to make do with far less advanced stuff, and we are
trained to get by with the few means we have.

> The French are worthless when it comes to fighting a war.

You probably haven't heard of the French Foreign Legion then. They *all*
have a commando training very similar to the British SAS, or the American
Green Berets, if you will. Their training camps are in the Algerian
desert, but they go on training missions all over the world, from the
fjords of Norway and the ice of Antarctica to the jungle of French Guyana.

You don't wanna mess with /those/ guys... ;-)

> It was only their underground that helped save face. Du Gaul was an
> idiot.

Well, I'll leave that up to you and the French to debate. ;-) France was
occupied territory and about half of France was collaborating with the
Germans and the Italians, but their underground resistance movement was
very strong and quite successful.

>> So please don't try to sell me that propaganda. I'm a grownup with a
>> mind of my own, and I prefer to maintain an objective view of the facts.
>> I am willing to pay each and every member of this newsgroup the proper
>> respect whatever their beliefs, but I expect the same in return. So
>> please do not insult my intelligence with propaganda, thank you.
>
> Well if you took it that way then sorry. It was not my intent. Its my
> opinion and you know what they say about opinions, its like an asshole
> everyone has one. Its my views and now you know what College Professors
> are guilty of.

Okay, I accept your apology. :-)

>>> Extreme Muslims are causing problems. Seems you have a Muslim problem at
>>> the moment.
>>
>> Do we now? That's funny because I don't see any Muslim problems here.
>> What I do see is a lot of problems with criminal and violent behavior by
>> youths, of whatever ethnicity or religion.
>
> Well for some reason it was my understanding you lived in a Dutch region
> but now I know its Belgium.

I live in The Flanders, which is the Northern part of Belgium. The native
language there is Southern Dutch, versus Northern Dutch as spoken by the
Dutch people, i.e. the inhabitants of The Netherlands, which lay North of
Belgium.

Southern Dutch differs from Northern Dutch in a way very similar to how US
English differs from UK English, and also in that Southern Dutch is
actually an artificially maintained language. It is the language that is
officially used for proper communication via correspondence, on the radio
and on television.

In practice however, the Flemish people all speak regional dialects, which
are based on a much older form of Dutch. As such, there are also a lot of
French words in our Flemish dialects - due to the double French occupation
- while the Northern Dutch of the Netherlands has in the last 30 years or
so also known an evolution with a pronunciation that intermixes Dutch with
German and American English.

For instance, the Dutch people will now pronounce a "w" at the beginning of
a word as a "v", just like the Germans do. An "r" is somewhat muted when
it's in the middle of a word, or pronounced in a "rolling" fashion like an
American/Irish "r" when it's the last character of a word, etc. Northern
and Southern Dutch used to be much more alike in the past.

> Guess I was confusing some of the other regions in Europe plagued with a
> Muslim mess and conflicts over their Religion and beliefs.

We do have a few minor problems with the fact that Muslims tend to be
traditional and conservative, while we are more open. For instance, there
have been several debates surrounding the issue of Muslim women covering
their head when in public service, when there are certain people - myself
included - who feel that a government or municipal official in charge of
dealing directly with the public should always maintain a neutrality with
regard to religious or philosophical beliefs.

Also, there have been some issues with Muslims refusing to allow a male
doctor access to their pregnant wife in the event of an emergency delivery.
Yet the official Muslim organizations in our country condemn this kind of
behavior and openly state that *any* doctor should be allowed to intervene
in the event of an emergency.

Yet those are all just minor problems. Every once in a while, we do get
bomb threats and so, but so far none of them have ever yielded the
discovery of an actual explosive device. And at the same time, our
country's anti-terrorist forces have also been quite successful in
apprehending terrorists who were planning assaults abroad.

>>>> Yet, as a European, I want to see the war in Iraq come to an end and a
>>>> more "internationally friendly" attitude from the USA than under George
>>>> W. Bush. Iran, China and now also Russia again are things best handled
>>>> with a great deal of care and caution. And thus, also in light of my
>>>> own political preferences, I would opt for a Democratic candidate, and
>>>> so if I have to decide which one of the current Democratic Candidates
>>>> to pick, I'd go with the lesser of the two evils, so to speak, and I
>>>> would pick Obama.
>
> I want to see it over to. But how do you get out without causing another
> Genocide?

I have already expressed my concerns regarding this matter higher up, so I'm
going to save everyone the extra bandwidth on this one. :-)

> I don't know why Europe is concerned they have nothing invested.

That is totally untrue. Many European countries have sided up with the
British and the Americans for the invasion of Iraq. France springs to
mind, and The Netherlands have troops there too. So do the Italians, and a
lot of other European nations.

Belgium on the other hand does not, and I for one am glad that we didn't get
into that mess in the first place.

>> Nobody was mentioning a threat, although they *are* a nuclear force. I
>> was merely speaking in terms of their non-compliance with elementary
>> human rights and their possible support for other less trustworth nations
>> in that region - e.g. North Korea.
>
> And lets not forget China's relationship with Iran. And their threats to
> Hong Kong and the Dali Lama and his homeland.

Tibet was invaded and annexed by communist China, but the Tibetan people
could never accept that, although the Dalai Lama has always favored a
peaceful resistance. However, the bucket was bound to spill one day, and
that day has now arrived.

Tibet should be given back its freedom. I simply can't understand why so
many nations want to occupy another nation, even when there is nothing to
gain from doing so. Sadly enough, my lack of understanding this does not
prevent it from happening. Tibet is not the only story in that book, by
the way.

>> Might I advise you to consider a more neutral vantage, though? Just
>> because you love your country doesn't mean you have to get into either
>> believing nor the spreading of propaganda... :-/
>
> opinions I don't believe are the same as propaganda. I see things
> differently than you. Guess we can agree to disagree.

It does become propaganda when you're rewriting history. But yes, I will
agree to disagree. I have no desire of bringing the wrath of certain
people upon me again by attempting to debate the undebatable.

Been there, done that, didn't turn out well. :-/

> The Democrat Party has turned into the Communist/Socialist Party.
> And I'm not a big fan of either but I'm totally against Communists and
> Socialists, so you can see why my views are what they are.

Communism and socialism are often wrongfully confused with eachother.
Communism is a far more extreme form of socialism in that it tends to be
far more dictatorial, but socialism in itself is usually considered
communism by Americans, and isn't necessarily all that bad if it is only
moderate.

But then again, as with all regimes, power corrupts, and socialist regimes
do tend to lean towards communism in the long run, forbidding all personal
property, etc. I'm not a fan of that either.

> A third party is not allowed to exist in the US, why? Because the Dems and
> Republicans have to much money and spend them out of existence even though
> many would welcome one.

I think having more choice should be mandatory. On the other hand, we over
here in Belgium already have too much choice, and that needlessly
complicates things just as well. ;-)

Dan C wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:57:53 +0200, Aragorn wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
> Yes, there is a strong "movement" on each side. What that has to do with
> my statement above regarding college campus politics is quite beyond me.

It has to do with the fact that _where_ the movement occurs is rather
irrelevant. As I stated, intellectuals and academics tend to lean over to
the left, but the corporate world and the military tend to lean to the
right, so it's in balance nevertheless. At least, as I see it.

And as for indoctrination, who *isn't* indoctrinated in this world? Or more
accurately perhaps, who in the political landscape *doesn't* indoctrinate?

> Since you don't have any first-hand experiences on a US college campus,
> I'll have to say that you don't know as much about it as I do.

Okay, I'll grant you that.

> There is absolutely NO doubt that what I said is correct, and even the
> Libs/leftists will readily agree with that assessment. Sorry, but you
> don't know what you're talking about there.
>
> As for the rest of your lengthy comments, I simply don't have the
> motivation to attempt to reply to them. All I can say is that your
> information is filtered/modified as it passes all the way across the
> oceans, [...

You've told me that before, but I think history has proven that my
information was by far not as filtered as you thought, and in fact even
less filtered in some areas than your own information was.

I don't wish to drag up any old fights - in fact, I am a peaceful man and I
always lean towards a constructive dialog rather than an argue - but do you
remember how you chastised me over my claims regarding the Bush
Administration transporting alleged terrorism-suspects to other countries -
via Belgium, among others - where torture was not illegal, in order to
avoid violating American laws? And do you remember that you accused me of
anti-American propaganda?

And now, do you also remember that only a few months later - I had already
left this newsgroup by that time, although that had nothing to do with my
previous debate with you - *both* George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice
publicly admitted that this had indeed been happening?

No offense, but while I do acknowledge that you will know far more about the
USA than I do, considering that you live there and that you've served in
the military, I think my information is by far not as filtered as you think
it is, and perhaps you may also start wondering to what extent the
information that you got had been filtered, and by whom and what for.

Just my two cents. You don't have to take it from me. Just keep an open
mind. That's all everyone needs.

> and you cannot truly understand how things are from such a
> distance away. No offense intended.

None taken.

John Thompson wrote:
> I'm not aware of any left/liberal biased television networks in the
> United States. Some are just somewhat less right-skewed than others
> (e.g. PBS).

[url down]
(snipurl.com URL for a newsroom.ucla.edu webpage
titled "Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist"
By Meg Sullivan
dated December 14, 2005)

[url down]
(a URL for the webpage titled
"A Measure of Media Bias"
which is an
"Article provided by MIT Press in its journal The Quarterly Journal
of Economics"
Volume (Year): 120 (2005)
Issue (Month): 4 (November))

Here is the Abstract from the latter of the two URLs above:

"We measure media bias by estimating ideological scores for several
major media outlets. To compute this, we count the times that a
particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups,
and then compare this with the times that members of Congress cite
the same groups. Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the
news outlets we examine, except Fox News' Special Report and the
Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member
of Congress. Consistent with claims made by conservative critics, CBS
Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left
of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS News Hour, CNN's
Newsnight, and ABC's Good Morning America; among print outlets, USA
Today was closest to the center. All of our findings refer strictly
to news content; that is, we exclude editorials, letters, and the
like.
Copyright (c)
2005 Massachusetts Institute of Technology."

Regarding the latter of the two URLs above:
I don't have a subscription, and I didn't want to pay ten US dollars
to RTFA.

I am ignorant of Fair Use and copyright, so I beg for mercy if I have
violated copyright in this Usenet article.

Aragorn wrote:

> evodawg wrote:
>
>> Aragorn wrote:

>
> Thank you, because I am indeed not anti-American. I do have a problem
> with George W. Bush and with certain previously made American decisions or
> certain American customs, but I have an equally big problem with similar
> decisions or customs elsewhere in the world, including those in my own
> country. And boy, do they know how to make a mess of things here...
> <grin>
>

>
> I think the _whole_ _world_ could do with a serious overhaul if we want to
> see the human race survive the threat of global warming - they announce
> all kinds of resolutions that will take effect by 2050, but by that time
> it'll already be too late as we're already at the point of no return now -
> let alone that the human race would survive for another millenium.
>

I don't see it as global warming more like global change. Besides it not
like China or other emerging countries are going to abide by any
restrictions we put on ourselves. I do believe we should do what we can to
be good stewards of the earth, without causing harm to economies. But it
seems that maybe happening at the moment, with oil and finance problems in
the US. It might not be a bad thing for the earth to take revenge on
humans. The earth will be here long after we are gone. It has survived
without us so to think we can control it is a bit of a misnomer. Hell an
asteroid could hit it tomorrow and we and all that's on it would disappear.
And it would start all over again.


[..]
> extremists, who are also fighting among themselves over who has the best
> imaginary friend - i.e. the Sunnites against the Shi'ites.
>
> So I can't really give you an answer, but I /presume/ that the best course
> of action would be to let them figure it out for themselves. It would
> save the US lots of Dollars and lots of soldiers' lives, and it would
> cause less of an allergic reaction in that region versus anything Western.
> Things /might/ cool down a bit.
>
> At least, that's my assessment of it...

Yeah maybe. If they are fighting among themselves than at least their not
planning an attack on Europe or the US. I'm talking about Al Queda of
course.

>
> Well, that depends on how you profile yourself. If you constantly keep
> screaming that you are on top of the world, then there will indeed always
> be somebody somewhere who feels up to the challenge of knocking you
> off. ;-)
>> Hmm... I disagree. Poetin is a nationalist and a former KGB chief, and
> he is still following the same hard line as the Soviets did, but he's no
> socialist. He's just a carefully masqueraded dictator, and now that he's
> finishing off his last term as a president, he's already sure of his
> comeback as prime minister in the next government, so he'll still be in
> charge, pulling the strings of the new president.
>
> Poetin is unpredictable, just like a shark. That's what makes him
> dangerous. And George W. Bush has seriously - albeit probably
> unintentionally - provoked him. And I think that's an alley down which we
> don't want to be taking a stroll anymore today...

True

>> Stealing military secrets? Everyone steals everyone else's military
> secrets. That's how it's always been, and that's how it'll always be
> unless mankind starts growing some common sense. But I think the latter
> is too much of a stretch to hope for... :-/
>> Actually, it's bureaucracy and political mindgames that screw things up.
> But indeed, to have an efficient government, it should be kept lean.
> Efficient, but lean.
>
> On the other hand, a more elaborate social security system wouldn't do you
> guys any harm, and this need not necessarily imply a more complex
> government. Over here, we have a great social security system - not
> perfect yet, but it's getting better - but a lot of that is handled
> through non-governmental organizations.

Not sure the social security system is as bad as you think. But Medical is
out of control. Costs have risen with no end in site. Maybe people are just
living to long. Keeping people alive just for the sake of doing it maybe
the wrong approach. When its time its time.

>
>> You have folks here that believe they're entitled to sit on their asses
>> and collect.
>
> Careful now, because that is something I myself have been blamed of as
> well, by those who simply lack the intellectual capacity to realize that
> there are some specimens in the human race with a genetically
> predetermined condition for being incapacitated.

I meant if you are able then you should produce. If you are disabled then of
course the situation is different.

>
> In my case, is the combination of my Asperger Syndrome, my
> Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and a number of anxieties/phobias. I've
> never asked for any of them, and I have tried the best I could to fit in
> with the rest, but it just doesn't work. So what am I supposed to do?
> Starve to death? Kill myself?

Of course not.

>
> On the other hand, a perfect society, a utopia in which every citizen is
> well-behaved and complies by the rules of said society does not exist and
> cannot exist. Just look at the prison facilities. They are the ultimate
> proof that there will always be individuals who refuse to show respect to
> their fellow human beings.

true true. Guess that's why rehabilitation has gone by the wayside. There
are some that just can't be reformed.

[..]
> in the outskirts of society.
>> No, not necessarily so. But what we need - "we" being everyone everywhere
> on this planet - is a government of people who (1) know what they're
> doing, (2) aren't doing it for the sake of their own ego, a political
> career or personal wealth, and (3) are bright enough to make long-term
> decisions towards durable solutions, rather than the short-term
> narrowminded view
> most politicians have.

Pipe dream. Humans are much to flawed to travel down that path.


> They lack the courage to plan things on a larger
> scale, while this is exactly what humanity needs in order to survive.

Good luck with that. Humans can barely see far enough to see their hand in
front of their face.

>
>> Would you really want the Department of Motor Vehicles controlling the
>> Health Care Industry?
>
> I don't think that would be particularly wise... :p
>

Well that's what kind of Health System we would have here.


>
> Well, it's controversial, but many do see him as an intellectual, albeit a
> totally deranged one, if only over his (ab)use of Nietzsche's and
> Wittgenstein's philosophies.
>> That would even be far too kind for him. The man was a monster in a human
> body, no more, no less.
>> No, actually he was indeed a painter, but not a successful one. So I
> guess that's why he got into politics and vented his frustration there.
> ;-)
>

>>
>> Yes and didn't he have them killed?
>
> Nietzsche and Wittgenstein both lived in a different era, if my memory
> serves me right. Or were you referring to the Jews? Yes, of course, I
> did
> write that he massacred 6 million Jews. So did Joseph Stalin, by the way.


No I meant his mentors. I know all about the 6 million and Stalin's
massacre. I believe Stalin killed even more. Isn't it ironic that you had 2
mass murders at the same time in History??? But knowing Humans it's
probably happened many times in History.

>> So much for turning a lunatic on your philosophy.
>
> Ehm, I'm not sure what you mean to say by this sentence. :-/ If I have
> given you cause to believe that I support either Hitler, his atrocities or
> even his philosophy, then I must apologize and then I insist on rectifying
> this immediately. :-/

No that's not how I took it. At the time I was writing this I was trying to
do 3 or 4 things at the same time. Not a good idea.

>
> Hitler was a fascist, a murderer, a deranged rightwing extremist with some
> serious personality issues, and with an ego too large to fit his entire
> country. I on the other hand am a moderate leftwinger who believes in
> democracy, peace and harmony.
>
> I couldn't be more juxtaposed to the man's vision than I already am, and I
> am quite wellknown as someone who vehemently loathes fascism or nazism.

I see that.

>
>> There are some Canadian immigrants but they're legal.
>
> That was my point. :-) Canada is a highly developed and civilized
> country, so there would be no reason for any Canadian to want to move to
> the US illegally, unlike in the event of Mexican people.
>
>> Nothing like the illegals coming up from Mexico. And the Mexican
>> Government is encouraging it.
>
> We've got similar situations here with refugees from the countries that
> used
> to make up for the former Yugoslavia. Mainly, they're just gangs of
> thieves and mobsters.

Same here just looking for an easy target and handouts. Some are hardworking
but most just want a free ride. They can't get it in their own country so
come here.


>
> Yet our immigration policy is all wrong, just as our firearms/weapons
> legislation. Our politicians have yet to reach the point of wisdom where
> they realize that you can't stop crime by punishing the righteous.
>
They keep trying to do that here to.
>
>>> I am not familiar with that term...
>>
>> When a bill comes across the Presidents desk it's full of PORK or
>> unnecessary spending installed in the bill by members of Congress to
>> impress their constituency. As it stands now the bill either gets
>> approved or veto in it's original form. What many Presidents want is the
>> option to strike out the pork and just approve the original bill as it
>> was written.
>
> It seems more logical to me to simply return the bill to its maker then
> and
> demand a budgetary review. That's how it's done here anyway.
>

Who said politicians do anything right or simple. It's got to be a dumb ass
process to justify their existence.

>> Yes and we have seen the wonderful accomplishment the EU and the United
>> Nations have involved themselves in. Don't get me started on this
>> subject. As far as I'm concerned those two are worthless entities.
>
> I disagree, although I will support the idea that they could do with a
> serious overhaul. As things are right now, it's more of the same
> bureaucracy that has already imbued just about every form of government on
> this planet.
>

>
> Which only underscores that the US had an agenda of their own when they
> finally decided to get involved in World War II, and that might have had
> something to do with the fact that the US was already at war with the
> Japanese at that time, and that the Japanese were allies of the Germans
> and the Italians, and were heavily receiving logistics support from them.
>> We sure tried, but the Belgian army was overrun in a matter of days or
> weeks - well, Belgium isn't all that big - and so was most of the European
> mainland. The Italians were moving in from the South and the Germans from
> the East. Hitler and Mussolini had a very powerful military apparatus.
>
> That's why most of the fighting by the natives was done through
> underground
> resistance groups. My grandfather was with the White Brigade, a local
> group of partisans who fought the Germans and hunted down the Gestapo
> collaborators when the war was over.

Must have had lots of stories to tell if he wanted to bring up bad memories
that is.

>
> In addition, I've put in my military service myself - up until 1994 we had
> drafting duty, and I served from December 1983 until September 1984.
> Originally I was trained as a "stormtrooper" - which is the equivalent of
> the US Army Rangers - but later on I was transfered to an administrative
> unit because I had gotten injured during combat training.

Not to sound disrespectful but didn't your condition get in the way of
service to your country?

>
> So I know all too well how well-trained our military is. Unlike the US
> military, Belgian military is not overspecialized and overly dependent on
> technology. We have to make do with far less advanced stuff, and we are
> trained to get by with the few means we have.
>
>> The French are worthless when it comes to fighting a war.
>
> You probably haven't heard of the French Foreign Legion then. They *all*
> have a commando training very similar to the British SAS, or the American
> Green Berets, if you will. Their training camps are in the Algerian
> desert, but they go on training missions all over the world, from the
> fjords of Norway and the ice of Antarctica to the jungle of French Guyana.
>

Oh yes I have heard of them. I was talking about the General Army. From what
I understand after WWI France didn't really have the will to fight anymore
wars.

> You don't wanna mess with /those/ guys... ;-)

I'm sure their a tough breed.

>
>> It was only their underground that helped save face. Du Gaul was an
>> idiot.
>
> Well, I'll leave that up to you and the French to debate. ;-) France was
> occupied territory and about half of France was collaborating with the
> Germans and the Italians, but their underground resistance movement was
> very strong and quite successful.

yes and I said that.

>
>>> So please don't try to sell me that propaganda. I'm a grownup with a
>>> mind of my own, and I prefer to maintain an objective view of the facts.
>>> I am willing to pay each and every member of this newsgroup the proper
>>> respect whatever their beliefs, but I expect the same in return. So
>>> please do not insult my intelligence with propaganda, thank you.
>>
>> Well if you took it that way then sorry. It was not my intent. Its my
>> opinion and you know what they say about opinions, its like an asshole
>> everyone has one. Its my views and now you know what College Professors
>> are guilty of.
>
> Okay, I accept your apology. :-)
>

[..]
> delivery. Yet the official Muslim organizations in our country condemn
> this kind of behavior and openly state that *any* doctor should be allowed
> to intervene in the event of an emergency.
>
> Yet those are all just minor problems. Every once in a while, we do get
> bomb threats and so, but so far none of them have ever yielded the
> discovery of an actual explosive device. And at the same time, our
> country's anti-terrorist forces have also been quite successful in
> apprehending terrorists who were planning assaults abroad.
>

>> I want to see it over to. But how do you get out without causing another
>> Genocide?
>
> I have already expressed my concerns regarding this matter higher up, so
> I'm going to save everyone the extra bandwidth on this one. :-)
>
>> I don't know why Europe is concerned they have nothing invested.
>
> That is totally untrue. Many European countries have sided up with the
> British and the Americans for the invasion of Iraq. France springs to
> mind, and The Netherlands have troops there too. So do the Italians, and
> a lot of other European nations.

Your right I generalized.

>
> Belgium on the other hand does not, and I for one am glad that we didn't
> get into that mess in the first place.
>

yeah really!

>> And lets not forget China's relationship with Iran. And their threats to
>> Hong Kong and the Dali Lama and his homeland.
>
> Tibet was invaded and annexed by communist China, but the Tibetan people
> could never accept that, although the Dalai Lama has always favored a
> peaceful resistance. However, the bucket was bound to spill one day, and
> that day has now arrived.
>
> Tibet should be given back its freedom. I simply can't understand why so
> many nations want to occupy another nation, even when there is nothing to
> gain from doing so. Sadly enough, my lack of understanding this does not
> prevent it from happening. Tibet is not the only story in that book, by
> the way.

Kind of wondering how the Olympics will end up. Think any protest will pop
up?

>

>> opinions I don't believe are the same as propaganda. I see things
>> differently than you. Guess we can agree to disagree.
>
> It does become propaganda when you're rewriting history. But yes, I will
> agree to disagree. I have no desire of bringing the wrath of certain
> people upon me again by attempting to debate the undebatable.
>
> Been there, done that, didn't turn out well. :-/

Think I remember. You left for a time. Was that a result of a debate or
disagreement?

>
>> The Democrat Party has turned into the Communist/Socialist Party.
>> And I'm not a big fan of either but I'm totally against Communists and
>> Socialists, so you can see why my views are what they are.
>
> Communism and socialism are often wrongfully confused with eachother.
> Communism is a far more extreme form of socialism in that it tends to be
> far more dictatorial, but socialism in itself is usually considered
> communism by Americans, and isn't necessarily all that bad if it is only
> moderate.

Hmmm not sure about that I think your explanation below makes that clear.
And yes true about Americans making no distinction between socialism and
communism. Its all the same in my book.

>
> But then again, as with all regimes, power corrupts, and socialist regimes
> do tend to lean towards communism in the long run, forbidding all personal
> property, etc. I'm not a fan of that either.

exactly!

>
>> A third party is not allowed to exist in the US, why? Because the Dems
>> and Republicans have to much money and spend them out of existence even
>> though many would welcome one.
>
> I think having more choice should be mandatory. On the other hand, we
> over here in Belgium already have too much choice, and that needlessly
> complicates things just as well. ;-)

To many choices like you said can be a problem too. I'm a builder, remodel
contractor and the one thing I don't do is send a client to pick tile lets
say. I will get an idea what I think they like and bring over 3 or 4
samples and have them pick one. I tried the other approach and the customer
was to overwhelmed to pick anything. Example fits


Later

evodawg wrote:

> Aragorn wrote:
>
>> I think the _whole_ _world_ could do with a serious overhaul if we want
>> to see the human race survive the threat of global warming - they
>> announce all kinds of resolutions that will take effect by 2050, but by
>> that time it'll already be too late as we're already at the point of no
>> return now - let alone that the human race would survive for another
>> millenium.
>>
>
> I don't see it as global warming more like global change. Besides it not
> like China or other emerging countries are going to abide by any
> restrictions we put on ourselves.

This is why such restrictions should be enforced globally, which is possible
through the United Nations. I know you question their potential, but I
believe a change is taking place there.

Unfortunately, most of the anti-climate change measures need being
implemented by national governments, and this is where things go wrong,
because everyone is always thinking in terms of its effects on the economy.

Yet, a perfectly healthy economy - not that I believe in such a thing,
especially not with capitalism having been adopted by the whole world and
the most powerful nations striving for imperialism rather than just a
market-driven economy - won't do anyone much good if and when the earth
finally turns on us.

Furthermore, no economy need to suffer from investment in more durable
energy sources, but the problem there is that you'd need a
government-corrected economy - something which Americans are not too fond
of - in order to make the transition from say fossil fuels to alternative
energy sources.

And just to emphasize that I'm not necessarily anti-American, there is a
company in the US called Tesla Motors - named after Nikola Tesla, the
inventor of alternating current, among many other things - which produces a
roadster, based upon the chassis of the Lotus Elise, but entirely electric.
Top speed is limited to ~200 km/h (or ~120 mph) but that thing goes from
0-100 km/h (62 mph) in under 5 seconds, and it looks and handles just like
a real sportscar.

Now, being a car fan - and again, I really love the American muscle cars
from the 1960s (with the '67 Camaro being my favorite), as well as most
American automobiles from the late 1940s until the late 1950s - that is an
initiative I can only support. Sadly enough, that car is not being
exported yet. There are similar other electric cars as well - also
American-made, I believe.

Of course, as I stated in another thread somewhere, human beings also emit
greenhouse gases, and the global human population has increased by 50% over
the last century. Now we can't be expected to start killing eachother -
well, we're already doing that anyway - but I firmly believe that we could
all have a positive impact on the environment if we were to really commit
ourselves to it.

This could all be happening now as we speak, but sadly enough there isn't
enough commitment yet, simply because there are people whose priorities are
more short-term - I'm thinking of the oil industry, for instance - and the
majority of people doesn't think the situation is urgent enough yet.

Plain old human stupidity. And it's going to kill us all, and wipe away
everything we've created in the meantime.

> I do believe we should do what we can to be good stewards of the earth,
> without causing harm to economies. But it seems that maybe happening at
> the moment, with oil and finance problems in the US. It might not be a
> bad thing for the earth to take revenge on humans.

Oh, I agree. Mankind has this one coming, earned in full. :-/

> The earth will be here long after we are gone. It has survived
> without us so to think we can control it is a bit of a misnomer.

So very true.

> Hell an asteroid could hit it tomorrow and we and all that's on it would
> disappear. And it would start all over again.

Well, the dinosaurs ruled the earth for over 150 million years - compared to
humanity only existing for about 10-15 million years in a rough estimate;
civilizations started much, much later than that, but early humans already
seem to have existed about 10 million years ago - but then again the
dinosaurs weren't screwing eachother over a percentage or domination of the
market. And then there was that meteorite, and bang, it was over.

(The meteorite denies any involvement and has asked to speak with its
attorney before further interrogation, though. :p)

>> So I can't really give you an answer, but I /presume/ that the best
>> course of action would be to let them figure it out for themselves. It
>> would save the US lots of Dollars and lots of soldiers' lives, and it
>> would cause less of an allergic reaction in that region versus anything
>> Western. Things /might/ cool down a bit.
>>
>> At least, that's my assessment of it...
>
> Yeah maybe. If they are fighting among themselves than at least their not
> planning an attack on Europe or the US. I'm talking about Al Queda of
> course.

Cynical as that comment may be, you might be right. ;-)

>> On the other hand, a more elaborate social security system wouldn't do
>> you guys any harm, and this need not necessarily imply a more complex
>> government. Over here, we have a great social security system - not
>> perfect yet, but it's getting better - but a lot of that is handled
>> through non-governmental organizations.
>
> Not sure the social security system is as bad as you think. But Medical is
> out of control. Costs have risen with no end in site.

This is where a correction of the economy would be warranted. Medical care
should not have to depend on profit margins. This is something our
government and our own health funds over here (mostly) manages to keep
under control.

There are always exceptions to the rule, of course, because the
pharmaceutical industry is an industry like any other and seeks to make a
(serious) profit.

> Maybe people are just living to long.

We _are_ all living longer now, on average. Well, with the exception of
Africa, of course (and sadly enough).

> Keeping people alive just for the sake of doing it maybe the wrong
> approach. When its time its time.

Most people feel life is too short, even if they live to be over a hundred
years old. I for one certainly don't ever want to grow that old.

>>> You have folks here that believe they're entitled to sit on their asses
>>> and collect.
>>
>> Careful now, because that is something I myself have been blamed of as
>> well, by those who simply lack the intellectual capacity to realize that
>> there are some specimens in the human race with a genetically
>> predetermined condition for being incapacitated.
>
> I meant if you are able then you should produce. If you are disabled then
> of course the situation is different.

Yes, but whether I am able to produce or whether I'm disabled is a matter of
opinion, and more precisely the opinion of someone of authority. And that
if that person happens to be incompetent, then you're screwed.

Fortunately, I have now officially been recognized as a disabled person as
of last year, although not in full yet. Concretely, this means that I have
to stay registered as unemployed, but I now no longer have the obligation
to look for work at the penalty of losing my unemployment fee - which is an
amount still well below the European poverty limit, but anyway - if I
don't.

>> On the other hand, a perfect society, a utopia in which every citizen is
>> well-behaved and complies by the rules of said society does not exist and
>> cannot exist. Just look at the prison facilities. They are the ultimate
>> proof that there will always be individuals who refuse to show respect to
>> their fellow human beings.
>
> true true. Guess that's why rehabilitation has gone by the wayside. There
> are some that just can't be reformed.

A large part of the responsibility in crime rates going up is also the fact
that there is so much economical pressure on modern households now that
parents no longer spend enough time educating their children into becoming
responsible adults.

They dump their kids with a daycare mom or rely on schools to do the
educating, but teachers feel that it is their task to do so, especially not
when more and more kids are physically threatening or assaulting teachers.
This is a situation of which I know that it already exists for some time in
the USA and even in the UK, but here in Belgium this has started to happen
about ten years ago as well.

Back in my days, if you weren't paying attention in class, the teacher would
just smack you - not that I condone any of that; I'm just stating it as a
sign of the times - but now the kids smack the teachers.

>>> Would you really want the Department of Motor Vehicles controlling the
>>> Health Care Industry?
>>
>> I don't think that would be particularly wise... :p
>
> Well that's what kind of Health System we would have here.

Hmm... I'd hate to have my dentist pull out a plasma torch on me. :p

> [...] I know all about the 6 million and Stalin's massacre. I believe
> Stalin killed even more.

That is correct, yes. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was quite
a lot more, even.

> Isn't it ironic that you had 2 mass murders at the same time in History???

Oh, but life has _always_ been cynically ironic. <grin>

> But knowing Humans it's probably happened many times in History.

Oh yes, it has. It has even been speculated - albeit not proven - that
the /homo/ /recens/ (modern man) has eradicated the /homo/ /neanderthalis/
at some point in the prehistoric age.

Both were human and sentient, but the genetic difference between those two
subspecies was larger than the genetic difference between members of
different races today. Allegedly there were also other and equally
genetically diverse human subspecies, but only modern man survived.

>> [...] My grandfather was with the White Brigade, a local group of
>> partisans who fought the Germans and hunted down the Gestapo
>> collaborators when the war was over.
>
> Must have had lots of stories to tell if he wanted to bring up bad
> memories that is.

As the matter of fact, he never talked about it. I heard those stories from
my grandmother and my mother. Apparently he was deported to Germany as a
labor prisoner at one stage, but I'm not sure how he made his way back.

There was also someone living close by my grandparents' place back then who
was a Gestapo collaborator, but in appearance only, because secretly he
helped the resistance. He even helped my grandfather get through the
German barricades by having him impose as a Gestapo officer, but at the end
of the war, my grandfather had to arrest him for openly having been a
collaborator. Sad story... :-/

>> In addition, I've put in my military service myself - up until 1994 we
>> had drafting duty, and I served from December 1983 until September 1984.
>> Originally I was trained as a "stormtrooper" - which is the equivalent of
>> the US Army Rangers - but later on I was transfered to an administrative
>> unit because I had gotten injured during combat training.
>
> Not to sound disrespectful but didn't your condition get in the way of
> service to your country?

It has always gotten in the way of everything, but at that stage, I could
still more or less keep my neuroses under control - they have gotten worse
as I grew older - and back then, I didn't even know I had Asperger yet, or
what that was.

You have to keep in mind that Asperger Syndrome - otherwise known as
High-Functioning Autism - was only internationally accepted as a
neurological condition as of the late 1980s or early 1990s.

And even then, I really only found out what it was - and that I had it -
about three and a half years ago, and by accident. All of my life, I had
felt "different" from other people, without being able to say why.

And well, with respect to the military, you were drafted and given a quick
medical exam, and then you were approved for duty. The only two reasons
back then for not being approved fit for military service that I know of
were if you either had a serious problem with your spinal column or if you
had had surgery to your eyes.

Everything else was gladly accepted as cannon fodder. <grin>

>
> Kind of wondering how the Olympics will end up. Think any protest will pop
> up?

Oh, absolutely! It's already happening on quite a large scale all over
Europe today, and France has stated that for them the issue of Tibet will
be a major problem with regards to their support of the Olympics.

Ironically, while there still is quite a lot of protest going on in China
itself, the Chinese media are not mentioning a single word of it. But then
again, they don't have freedom of speech over there and they are heavily
censored by the government.

Chinese newsreporting and even Chinese parliamentary "discussions" are all
orchestrated from Bejing. It's a façade to give the impression of
democracy and freedom.

>> It does become propaganda when you're rewriting history. But yes, I will
>> agree to disagree. I have no desire of bringing the wrath of certain
>> people upon me again by attempting to debate the undebatable.
>>
>> Been there, done that, didn't turn out well. :-/
>
> Think I remember. You left for a time. Was that a result of a debate or
> disagreement?

Well, I had gotten into a heated debate with Matt "left_coast" Templeton -
who showed severe signs of paranoia and obsessive-compulsive personality
disorder (OCPD), which is not the same thing as obsessive-compulsive
disorder (OCD)[1] - and eventually Matt decided to harass me via several
repeated false claims to my ISP about me allegedly indulging in spamming.

As much as I was annoyed by that, the thing which actually made me decide to
leave was - and I am really being candid here - the fact that I had been
killfiled by two people here over my debate with Matt, and threatened with
being killfiled by a third person, while on each occasion, those people
could just as easily have killfiled the *thread* and get it over with.
After all, I was only defending myself from Matt's delusional allegations
and the stalking.

At the same time, Bit Twister and myself tried to get Matt's ISP to cancel
his subscription or even simply reprimand him over the fact that 95% of his
posts were nothing but flames and flamebait, and the fact that he was
stalking both Bit Twister and myself, even in newsgroups he had not been
subscribed to previously but of which he knew Bit and I were there.

Because of my being killfiled by two people on this newsgroup - one of them
being a person I respected a great deal - and my impression that the rest
of the newsgroup chose to just let Matt get away with the stalking, the
threatening, the insulting, the lying, etc. instead of siding up with Bit
and myself to have his ISP intervene on our behalf, I felt that my
credibility as a poster had been compromised.

And even if I say so myself, I know that I had quite a good reputation
before all of that, and so to suddenly see - or at least, that is how I
experienced it - that my credibility/respectability had gone down the drain
was very painful and upsetting, and so I chose to gracefully leave this
group myself, eventhough I didn't really want to do that.

Similarly, another poster whom I also respected had also labeled me as
"going off the deep end" in an earlier thread with regard to some things I
said about the Bush Administration and which were vehemently being denied
by Dan C (among others), eventhough everything I said was made public by
Condoleezza Rice first and by George W. Bush himself later, only a few
months after I had already left the group.

So much for my alleged "going off the deep end", but the damage to my
selfesteem and - as I felt it - my reputation had already been done.

I am merely telling you all of the above because you've asked me about it,
and I am being truthful about it - well, why would I lie anyway? - but I
had and still have no intention whatsoever to dig up old bones.

I have mentioned my concerns in full earlier to several present and former
members of this newsgroup who were kind enough to express their regret over
my leave of absence, but I did so only in private, via e-mail. I'm not a
troublemaker. But that doesn't mean that this particular page of my Usenet
history hasn't left a thick scar, which still freaks me out today whenever
I get into a (pseudo-)political debate, such as several issues in this
exchange of information here.

[1] People with an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) do not
feel that there is anything wrong with them and even find pleasure in
indulging in their obsessions. On the other hand, obsessive-compulsive
disorder (OCD) - which is what I have, as a side condition to my autism and
partly in result to a very traumatic youth - do realize that their
obsessions are irrational.

OCD is an anxiety disorder, with the obsessions being the anxiety and the
compulsions being a kind of rituals to help overcome that anxiety. The
pertaining anxieties are all about very personal things, as opposed to say
high anxiety, claustrophobia or arachnophobia - the latter also being a
condition I have to a rather severe degree, by the way.

>> Communism and socialism are often wrongfully confused with eachother.
>> Communism is a far more extreme form of socialism in that it tends to be
>> far more dictatorial, but socialism in itself is usually considered
>> communism by Americans, and isn't necessarily all that bad if it is only
>> moderate.
>
> Hmmm not sure about that I think your explanation below makes that clear.

Well, the distinction *is* rather subtle, but there really is one.

> And yes true about Americans making no distinction between socialism and
> communism. Its all the same in my book.

Perhaps this is because Americans tend to see concepts such as socialism or
communism through American eyes, and in light of the cold war and the
anti-communist persecution and indoctrination in the US under McCarty in
the 1950s.

I grew up in a socialist household, but for us, socialism simply meant
"what's good for the working class", as opposed to "what's good for the
rich". You have to understand that up until World War II, Belgium and
especially The Flanders were domineered by the Roman Catholic clergy and
the bourgeois class. The (original) Belgian Socialist Party was the only
political entity to come up for the working class.

Now that I am older, I have of course also come to evaluate the many
political parties, and I find socialism a bit too narrowminded for my
taste. Apparently, so did the socialist party, because they have now
become a party of social-democrats, but as I wrote earlier, they have
become somewhat ambiguous in the process, to the extent that they're all
for a capitalism-driven free market economy, but while still wanting to
retain control over things, and quite stringently so in some cases.

As such, they are not modern enough in my view. They overlook what's really
important under pressure from the libertarians while at the same time
trying to be strict nannies. And not only does that not work, it's also
ridiculous in this day and age.

Therefore I now feel more strongly attracted to leftwing liberalism (as
defined by European standards), in that I believe in individual freedom,
but with solidarity and justice towards the less fortunate, and with
commitment towards the whole of society, or even the whole of human
civilization.

My being committed to social justice has a lot to do with the traumas of my
youth, my resistance against the rightwing extremist tendencies that
existed among my fellow students throughout my highschool years - and to
make matters even worse, I was in a Catholic school, for that matter - and
the fact that I know what it's like to be an outcast.

You may find this surprising, and I actually don't think back of it too
often myself, but at one point - in the fall of 1985 - I was homeless for
about a month, with two mouths to feed - my at-that-time girlfriend and
myself. And I was not homeless because I couldn't pay my bills, but
because I was still living with my parents at that time and they kicked me
overnight when they discovered that I was seriously involved with my
girlfriend, who was still legally married at that time - *that* in itself
also turned out a rather bizarre history of its own, on which I'm not going
to expound here as it's way beyond the scope of what I'm trying to convey.
(Hey, I know I ramble on and on, but it's got to end somewhere, right? :p)

Granted, we had my (small) car to spend the night in, but that doesn't make
it any more comfortable to sleep, nor does it make it any warmer than
outside. But we had no clothes or even underwear except for what we had
on, we had no food, and we had no money. And there were many people
frantically looking for us, but not exactly with the right intentions, so
we didn't want to them to find us. (My parents were looking for us in
order to be able to control my life again as they had been, and her husband
- a known streetfighter who saw the fact that my parents, acquaintances of
his own parents, had kicked me out as a license to beat the crap out of me
(and out of her!) - had his /homies/ looking for us as well.)

Now I don't know about how things are in the US, but over here it's illegal
to sleep in a car that doesn't have curtains and isn't parked at a
registered camping ground. But as we had no money, we had no choice, and
so in order to avoid being found/caught by those seeking us as well as by
the cops, we had to find a different spot to park every night.

So you can imagine where I'm coming from, and perhaps now you will also have
a slightly better understanding of European/Belgian politics and life out
here... ;-)

> Later

I'll be here. :-)

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:40:20 +0200, Aragorn wrote:

>> I don't see it as global warming more like global change. Besides it not
>> like China or other emerging countries are going to abide by any
>> restrictions we put on ourselves.

> This is why such restrictions should be enforced globally, which is possible
> through the United Nations. I know you question their potential, but I
> believe a change is taking place there.

How will such restrictions be "enforced"? Will the task fall nearly
entirely to the US, as most other UN initiatives do? Will the rest of the
world then condemn the US (again) for trying to be the "world's policemen"?

Here's a free clue: you CANNOT make China do anything they don't want to
do. They simply don't care what anyone else says or does, and we're not
about to start a world war over it. Oh, and we forgot to mention India,
which is nearly the same situation.

> Unfortunately, most of the anti-climate change measures need being
> implemented by national governments, and this is where things go wrong,
> because everyone is always thinking in terms of its effects on the economy.

Climate change is a naturally occurring (cyclic) phenomenom, and there's
nothing we can (or need) to do about it. It's simply more marketing hype
by those seeking to get rich from the "crisis". Global "warming" is
possibly the biggest scam ever attempted, and as predicted, the masses are
falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

<snip>

> Of course, as I stated in another thread somewhere, human beings also emit
> greenhouse gases, and the global human population has increased by 50% over
> the last century. Now we can't be expected to start killing eachother -
> well, we're already doing that anyway - but I firmly believe that we could
> all have a positive impact on the environment if we were to really commit
> ourselves to it.

Commit ourselves to *what*? Killing each other? That's what you said
there above, although I know you probably meant some form of population
control. That issue needs to be addressed to Asia/India.

> This could all be happening now as we speak, but sadly enough there
> isn't enough commitment yet, simply because there are people whose
> priorities are more short-term - I'm thinking of the oil industry, for
> instance - and the majority of people doesn't think the situation is
> urgent enough yet.
>
> Plain old human stupidity. And it's going to kill us all, and wipe away
> everything we've created in the meantime.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Nonsense.

>> The earth will be here long after we are gone. It has survived without
>> us so to think we can control it is a bit of a misnomer.

> So very true.

Ummmm, yes, this is true. Kind of goes against all the rhetoric spouted
above, though, doesn't it?

<snip remaining long-winded rambling>

Dan C wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:40:20 +0200, Aragorn wrote:
>
>>> I don't see it as global warming more like global change. Besides it not
>>> like China or other emerging countries are going to abide by any
>>> restrictions we put on ourselves.
>
>> This is why such restrictions should be enforced globally, which is
>> possible through the United Nations. I know you question their
>> potential, but I believe a change is taking place there.
>
> How will such restrictions be "enforced"? Will the task fall nearly
> entirely to the US, as most other UN initiatives do? Will the rest of the
> world then condemn the US (again) for trying to be the "world's
> policemen"?

No, by doing the one thing every nation will listen to: economic embargos.
Threaten them to cut off whatever supplies they get from abroad.

> Here's a free clue: you CANNOT make China do anything they don't want to
> do. They simply don't care what anyone else says or does, and we're not
> about to start a world war over it. Oh, and we forgot to mention India,
> which is nearly the same situation.

See above. China exports a great deal - especially counterfeit stuff - and
also requires a lot of import of materials they cannot produce or mine for
themselves.

You simply have to speak the language they will listen to. In a world
economy so heavily relying on international trade, that is something they
will listen to. Perhaps not immediately, for as long as their stocked
supply will last, but eventually, yes.

>> Unfortunately, most of the anti-climate change measures need being
>> implemented by national governments, and this is where things go wrong,
>> because everyone is always thinking in terms of its effects on the
>> economy.
>
> Climate change is a naturally occurring (cyclic) phenomenom, and there's
> nothing we can (or need) to do about it. It's simply more marketing hype
> by those seeking to get rich from the "crisis". Global "warming" is
> possibly the biggest scam ever attempted, and as predicted, the masses are
> falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

I see you are still using the same old lines as George W. Bush has been, but
even *he* is now beginning to acknowledge that "there /might/ be a
problem", albeit that I don't expect him to do anything about it. Given
the time he's got left as the president of the USA, it might not even be
possible for him to effectively take an initiative in that area and see it
through.

Nevertheless, while I do agree with you on that global warming is a cyclic
phenomenon, there's very conclusive and strong evidence that mainly
industrial activity is accelerating this natural phenomenon.

It has now also been discovered that the North Pole's icecap is melting down
at a rate four times faster than was predicted, and that's not just bad
news with regard to climate changes directly - in terms of the Gulf Stream
falling away - but also in terms of the fact that the white ice helps
reflect the light back into the atmosphere, and with that ice gone, the
global warming process will accelerate even farther.

> <snip>
>
>> Of course, as I stated in another thread somewhere, human beings also
>> emit greenhouse gases, and the global human population has increased by
>> 50% over the last century. Now we can't be expected to start killing
>> eachother - well, we're already doing that anyway - but I firmly believe
>> that we could all have a positive impact on the environment if we were to
>> really commit ourselves to it.
>
> Commit ourselves to *what*? Killing each other? That's what you said
> there above, although I know you probably meant some form of population
> control. That issue needs to be addressed to Asia/India.

No no, I wasn't talking of population control at all, although in itself
that would not be such a bad idea, especially - as you said - on continents
like Africa - where birth control is virtually non-existent - and in Muslim
countries, where having lots of children is considered a sign of wealth.

No, in fact when I wrote that, I was saying it to show that the phenomenon
of global warming is not caused by one single process, but by lots of
seemingly unimportant things all working together.

One thing we could do in order to cut down on the use of fossil fuels -
albeit that I believe that this is not something the US has a problem with,
but rather Belgium itself, as well as other European countries - is to turn
of the gigantic spotlights illuminating all of our "classic and not so
classic" buildings at night.

There are two things that can be seen clearly from outer space. One is the
great Chinese Wall. The other is Belgium.

Other commitments regarding the slowing down of global warming could be to
switch to non-fossil fuel and renewable energy sources. Of course, many
seek to enrich themselves by that, as is the case whenever any new
technology emerges - do you remember the original retail price of the IBM
PC, or the first color TV? The first car? The first cellphones?

It's just a market factor; if it's new, you're bound to pay an arm and a leg
for it. But it doesn't have to be that way, and that's where governments
can step in and (at least temporarily) declare a maximum price for a
certain technology.

>> This could all be happening now as we speak, but sadly enough there
>> isn't enough commitment yet, simply because there are people whose
>> priorities are more short-term - I'm thinking of the oil industry, for
>> instance - and the majority of people doesn't think the situation is
>> urgent enough yet.
>>
>> Plain old human stupidity. And it's going to kill us all, and wipe away
>> everything we've created in the meantime.
>
> The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
>
> Nonsense.

I beg to differ. How many civilizations have already annihilated themselves
all throughout the history of humanity? The ancient Greek, the Romans, the
ancient Egyptians, even the Aztecs. It's our own human arrogance, equating
ourselves with gods and thinking that we can overcome everything.

Well, I've got news for you. It may work like that in the movies, but
reality is quite a different thing. Just look at what hurricane Katrina
did, and all others before it, and all others after it.

Sure, there have always been hurricanes, but their number *and* their
violence are increasing. Over here in Belgium, it was extremely rare for
us to see a tornado. Maybe once in 10 years. Now there's several every
year.

It's a pity your prejudices disallow you to view Al Gore's "An Inconvenient
Truth" just because the man is a Democrat. That documentary is full of
scientific evidence though.

>>> The earth will be here long after we are gone. It has survived without
>>> us so to think we can control it is a bit of a misnomer.
>
>> So very true.
>
> Ummmm, yes, this is true. Kind of goes against all the rhetoric spouted
> above, though, doesn't it?

Only if you can't or won't understand what I've said, and I think it's
rather a matter of choice on your part than a matter of inability.

What I have been saying all along was that we as human beings *could* make a
difference now in order to ensure that we won't become extinct as a species
in a couple of decades. But whether we do or don't become extinct, the
planet will continue to exist, yes.

Life on earth will continue to exist, but things being as they are right
now, chances are quite real that it won't be *human* life anymore.

> <snip remaining long-winded rambling>

This comment only illustrates how biased your responses to me are. In your
mind, you've got me pinned down and labeled, because it makes you more
self-secure and in control. Yet it's exactly this narrowmindedness that
leads to conflicts, and that will eventually lead to the demise of the
human species.

And all of that because I happen to openly disagree with your (obviously
very) rightwinged views (while at the same time, I have proven to speak the
truth about things that you were denying).

Well, go ahead and be biased then if it makes you feel better. Just realize
that one day you will be dead and buried (or cremated) while your children
and grandchildren will still have to live on this planet.

After all, given how technological developments are only endorsed if they
serve either the economy or the military and stifled otherwise, I don't
really see the human race colonizing other earthlike planets yet in the
foreseeable future. (The closest earthlike planet would be in the Alpha
Centauri system, at approximately four lightyears from earth, so...)

You know, ostridges tend to stick their head in the sand to evade predators.
They think that just because they don't see the predator anymore, it won't
see them anymore either. Doesn't exactly stop them from getting eaten,
though.

Tsss...

Aragorn wrote:

> evodawg wrote:
>
>> Aragorn wrote:
>>

>>
>> I don't see it as global warming more like global change. Besides it not
>> like China or other emerging countries are going to abide by any
>> restrictions we put on ourselves.
>
> This is why such restrictions should be enforced globally, which is
> possible
> through the United Nations. I know you question their potential, but I
> believe a change is taking place there.

I have a real problem with the United Nations getting their claws into my
life. They already have to much power and have caused problems, in my
opinion with the sovereignty of the US. Have a hard time with some of the
Treaties the US has signed on to. I also believe the UN is completely
ineffective on almost all fronts and would relocate to some other country.
It seems they only go after large producing countries and leave the newly
developing countries to their own devices. The Nuclear branch of the UN is
completely incompetent. As you can tell I have no use for them and I
completely mistrust their motives. This is one Organization that really
strikes a cord with me. A bunch of Bureaucrats sitting on their high horse
and getting nothing done and wasting billion of dollars.

[..]
> of - in order to make the transition from say fossil fuels to alternative
> energy sources.
>
> And just to emphasize that I'm not necessarily anti-American, there is a
> company in the US called Tesla Motors - named after Nikola Tesla, the
> inventor of alternating current, among many other things - which produces
> a roadster, based upon the chassis of the Lotus Elise, but entirely
> electric. Top speed is limited to ~200 km/h (or ~120 mph) but that thing
> goes from 0-100 km/h (62 mph) in under 5 seconds, and it looks and handles
> just like a real sportscar.

There's many companies here researching all kinds of alternatives. But what
has been applied is also hurting. Does Ethanol ring a bell? Seems all the
corn and wheat and whatever else that goes into making this is now causing
food shortages not only around the world but in the US. Not so much
shortages but rise in price here. With oil products reaching record highs
here, I'm sure more emphasis will be put on other alternative. For months
now I've seen more and more used car lots filling with the big SUV's many
have been accustomed to driving but can no longer afford to fill up.

>
> Now, being a car fan - and again, I really love the American muscle cars
> from the 1960s (with the '67 Camaro being my favorite), as well as most
> American automobiles from the late 1940s until the late 1950s - that is an
> initiative I can only support. Sadly enough, that car is not being
> exported yet. There are similar other electric cars as well - also
> American-made, I believe.

Aah you do??? I have a 1969 SS Chevelle 396 cu.in. 450 horse power
completely restored Gets about 4 miles to the gallon. I don't drive it
much but it sure is nice to look at. It's very FAST!

>
> Of course, as I stated in another thread somewhere, human beings also emit
> greenhouse gases, and the global human population has increased by 50%
> over
> the last century. Now we can't be expected to start killing eachother -
> well, we're already doing that anyway - but I firmly believe that we could
> all have a positive impact on the environment if we were to really commit
> ourselves to it.
>
> This could all be happening now as we speak, but sadly enough there isn't
> enough commitment yet, simply because there are people whose priorities
> are more short-term - I'm thinking of the oil industry, for instance - and
> the majority of people doesn't think the situation is urgent enough yet.

Not sure this will happen unless someone can figure a way to make money from
it. That is the key.

>
> Plain old human stupidity. And it's going to kill us all, and wipe away
> everything we've created in the meantime.

I don't see how the human population can come together on this when we can't
even get along long enough to stop killing each other.

>> Oh, I agree. Mankind has this one coming, earned in full. :-/
>> So very true.
>> Well, the dinosaurs ruled the earth for over 150 million years - compared
> to humanity only existing for about 10-15 million years in a rough
> estimate; civilizations started much, much later than that, but early
> humans already seem to have existed about 10 million years ago - but then
> again the dinosaurs weren't screwing eachother over a percentage or
> domination of the
> market. And then there was that meteorite, and bang, it was over.
>
> (The meteorite denies any involvement and has asked to speak with its
> attorney before further interrogation, though. :p)
>

Its just amazing to me how little humans have been here in the overall
scheme of things. We are only a spec in time compared to the overall
existence of earth. I've been watching that series on Discovery or History
Chanel on the Earth. It blows my mind on some of what earth has gone
through and basically life forming here almost by accident.

>>
>> Yeah maybe. If they are fighting among themselves than at least their not
>> planning an attack on Europe or the US. I'm talking about Al Queda of
>> course.
>
> Cynical as that comment may be, you might be right. ;-)
>

>
> This is where a correction of the economy would be warranted. Medical
> care
> should not have to depend on profit margins. This is something our
> government and our own health funds over here (mostly) manages to keep
> under control.
>
> There are always exceptions to the rule, of course, because the
> pharmaceutical industry is an industry like any other and seeks to make a
> (serious) profit.
>> We _are_ all living longer now, on average. Well, with the exception of
> Africa, of course (and sadly enough).
>> Most people feel life is too short, even if they live to be over a hundred
> years old. I for one certainly don't ever want to grow that old.
>

>
> Yes, but whether I am able to produce or whether I'm disabled is a matter
> of
> opinion, and more precisely the opinion of someone of authority. And that
> if that person happens to be incompetent, then you're screwed.
>
> Fortunately, I have now officially been recognized as a disabled person as
> of last year, although not in full yet. Concretely, this means that I
> have to stay registered as unemployed, but I now no longer have the
> obligation to look for work at the penalty of losing my unemployment fee -
> which is an amount still well below the European poverty limit, but anyway
> - if I don't.
>


I did read the above

>>
>> true true. Guess that's why rehabilitation has gone by the wayside. There
>> are some that just can't be reformed.
>
> A large part of the responsibility in crime rates going up is also the
> fact that there is so much economical pressure on modern households now
> that parents no longer spend enough time educating their children into
> becoming responsible adults.

That's a fact!

>
> They dump their kids with a daycare mom or rely on schools to do the
> educating, but teachers feel that it is their task to do so, especially
> not when more and more kids are physically threatening or assaulting
> teachers. This is a situation of which I know that it already exists for
> some time in the USA and even in the UK, but here in Belgium this has
> started to happen about ten years ago as well.
>
> Back in my days, if you weren't paying attention in class, the teacher
> would just smack you - not that I condone any of that; I'm just stating it
> as a sign of the times - but now the kids smack the teachers.
>


But if you look back at those tactics they seem to have had there place,
meaning they worked. Thinking we should go back to the tough love. Society
in general has broke down. Wonder how long we have until Mel Gibson's movie
Road Warrior comes to fruition?

[..]
>
> Oh yes, it has. It has even been speculated - albeit not proven - that
> the /homo/ /recens/ (modern man) has eradicated the /homo/ /neanderthalis/
> at some point in the prehistoric age.
>
> Both were human and sentient, but the genetic difference between those two
> subspecies was larger than the genetic difference between members of
> different races today. Allegedly there were also other and equally
> genetically diverse human subspecies, but only modern man survived.
>

>>
>> Must have had lots of stories to tell if he wanted to bring up bad
>> memories that is.
>
> As the matter of fact, he never talked about it.

That's understandable

> I heard those stories
> from
> my grandmother and my mother. Apparently he was deported to Germany as a
> labor prisoner at one stage, but I'm not sure how he made his way back.
>
> There was also someone living close by my grandparents' place back then
> who was a Gestapo collaborator, but in appearance only, because secretly
> he
> helped the resistance. He even helped my grandfather get through the
> German barricades by having him impose as a Gestapo officer, but at the
> end of the war, my grandfather had to arrest him for openly having been a
> collaborator. Sad story... :-/
>

Any stories from that time in history really interest me. I love getting
stories from the source. But can understand why he didn't want to talk
about it. I watched that series on one of the cable channels "Band of
Brothers" I could not get enough of it.

Saw a WWII vet the other day had a baseball cap on with the USS Arizona
(ship sunk at Pearl Harbor) insignia on it. He was very old and I knew he
was on it. I went up to him and thanked him for his service. His eyes lite
up and he thanked me. I almost cried, I knew he didn't have long to live
and felt honored to HONOR him. That was some Generation!!


[..]
> felt "different" from other people, without being able to say why.
>
> And well, with respect to the military, you were drafted and given a quick
> medical exam, and then you were approved for duty. The only two reasons
> back then for not being approved fit for military service that I know of
> were if you either had a serious problem with your spinal column or if you
> had had surgery to your eyes.
>
> Everything else was gladly accepted as cannon fodder. <grin>
>

gotta it.

>> Kind of wondering how the Olympics will end up. Think any protest will
>> pop up?
>
> Oh, absolutely! It's already happening on quite a large scale all over
> Europe today, and France has stated that for them the issue of Tibet will
> be a major problem with regards to their support of the Olympics.

Seems the French protest everything. They'd protest a hangnail. Kinda
wondering why the Olympic Committee even awarded it to them. It had to know
what was in store.

>
> Ironically, while there still is quite a lot of protest going on in China
> itself, the Chinese media are not mentioning a single word of it. But
> then again, they don't have freedom of speech over there and they are
> heavily censored by the government.
>
> Chinese newsreporting and even Chinese parliamentary "discussions" are all
> orchestrated from Bejing. It's a façade to give the impression of
> democracy and freedom.
>

Should be interesting. I just hope nothing gets in the way of the Athletics
competing.


>>
>> Hmmm not sure about that I think your explanation below makes that clear.
>
> Well, the distinction *is* rather subtle, but there really is one.
>
>> And yes true about Americans making no distinction between socialism and
>> communism. Its all the same in my book.
>
> Perhaps this is because Americans tend to see concepts such as socialism
> or communism through American eyes, and in light of the cold war and the
> anti-communist persecution and indoctrination in the US under McCarty in
> the 1950s.

Oh yeah. Very true. Although the Hollywood Crew would love a Socialist
system in the US. Wonder how they would feel being told what they can and
cannot produce? Dumb asses

>

[..]
> husband - a known streetfighter who saw the fact that my parents,
> acquaintances of his own parents, had kicked me out as a license to beat
> the crap out of me (and out of her!) - had his /homies/ looking for us as
> well.)
>
> Now I don't know about how things are in the US, but over here it's
> illegal to sleep in a car that doesn't have curtains and isn't parked at a
> registered camping ground. But as we had no money, we had no choice, and
> so in order to avoid being found/caught by those seeking us as well as by
> the cops, we had to find a different spot to park every night.

It's illegal here to. Well we all have our skeletons, I have mine to but
won't go into that.

>
> So you can imagine where I'm coming from, and perhaps now you will also
> have a slightly better understanding of European/Belgian politics and life
> out here... ;-)

Thanks to you I do. I also must admit your English writing skills are
impressive. I was born and raised in the US and you have a better
understanding of English than I. But then again I'm doing 3 things at once
while writing but still admit your English is excellent. I take my hat off
to your education system.
[..]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:39:22 +0200, Aragorn wrote:

>>> This is why such restrictions should be enforced globally, which is
>>> possible through the United Nations. I know you question their
>>> potential, but I believe a change is taking place there.

>> How will such restrictions be "enforced"? Will the task fall nearly
>> entirely to the US, as most other UN initiatives do? Will the rest of the
>> world then condemn the US (again) for trying to be the "world's
>> policemen"?

> No, by doing the one thing every nation will listen to: economic embargos.
> Threaten them to cut off whatever supplies they get from abroad.

You've got to be kidding me. How well did that work in Iraq and Iran
(where embargos have been in place for *decades*)? It doesn't work
because even if the US and all of Europe did such a thing (which is a
pipedream in itself), there are other nations in the world which would see
it as an economic opportunity to sell things, and the country in question
would get what it needed anyway. It's that simple, and is proven by
precedent.

>> Here's a free clue: you CANNOT make China do anything they don't want to
>> do. They simply don't care what anyone else says or does, and we're not
>> about to start a world war over it. Oh, and we forgot to mention India,
>> which is nearly the same situation.

> See above. China exports a great deal - especially counterfeit stuff - and
> also requires a lot of import of materials they cannot produce or mine for
> themselves.

See above, indeed. The US will *NEVER* do a blanket-embargo on China,
because the citizens here would not stand for the drastic price increases
on all the cheap goods we are accustomed to buying. I'm pretty sure the
exact same thing would happen in Europe. It's just not gonna happen.

> You simply have to speak the language they will listen to. In a world
> economy so heavily relying on international trade, that is something they
> will listen to. Perhaps not immediately, for as long as their stocked
> supply will last, but eventually, yes.

Nope. See above.

>> Climate change is a naturally occurring (cyclic) phenomenom, and there's
>> nothing we can (or need) to do about it. It's simply more marketing hype
>> by those seeking to get rich from the "crisis". Global "warming" is
>> possibly the biggest scam ever attempted, and as predicted, the masses are
>> falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

> I see you are still using the same old lines as George W. Bush has been, but
> even *he* is now beginning to acknowledge that "there /might/ be a
> problem", albeit that I don't expect him to do anything about it. Given
> the time he's got left as the president of the USA, it might not even be
> possible for him to effectively take an initiative in that area and see it
> through.
>
> Nevertheless, while I do agree with you on that global warming is a cyclic
> phenomenon, there's very conclusive and strong evidence that mainly
> industrial activity is accelerating this natural phenomenon.

I've yet to see any of this "conclusive and strong" evidence that has much
credibility to it. And no, Al Gore doesn't count as credible.

> It has now also been discovered that the North Pole's icecap is melting down
> at a rate four times faster than was predicted, and that's not just bad
> news with regard to climate changes directly - in terms of the Gulf Stream
> falling away - but also in terms of the fact that the white ice helps
> reflect the light back into the atmosphere, and with that ice gone, the
> global warming process will accelerate even farther.

<...YAWN...>

<snip>

> Other commitments regarding the slowing down of global warming could be
> to switch to non-fossil fuel and renewable energy sources. Of course,
> many seek to enrich themselves by that, as is the case whenever any new
> technology emerges - do you remember the original retail price of the
> IBM PC, or the first color TV? The first car? The first cellphones?

Agreed on this. Nothing wrong with renewable energy at all.

<snip>

>>> Plain old human stupidity. And it's going to kill us all, and wipe
>>> away everything we've created in the meantime.

>> The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
>> Nonsense.

> I beg to differ. How many civilizations have already annihilated
> themselves all throughout the history of humanity? The ancient Greek,
> the Romans, the ancient Egyptians, even the Aztecs. It's our own human
> arrogance, equating ourselves with gods and thinking that we can
> overcome everything.

Those civilizations died out for reasons far removed from what we have
been discussing. The reasons and factors for those do not apply to the
present day.

> Well, I've got news for you. It may work like that in the movies, but
> reality is quite a different thing. Just look at what hurricane Katrina
> did, and all others before it, and all others after it.

> Sure, there have always been hurricanes, but their number *and* their
> violence are increasing. Over here in Belgium, it was extremely rare
> for us to see a tornado. Maybe once in 10 years. Now there's several
> every year.

It's a simple cyclic pattern of the weather systems, which has been
happening for ages. Nothing new about it, nothing which has been caused
by mankind, and nothing which can be done about it.

> It's a pity your prejudices disallow you to view Al Gore's "An
> Inconvenient Truth" just because the man is a Democrat. That
> documentary is full of scientific evidence though.

How would you know if I've viewed the movie, or not? The movie is quite
short on "scientific evidence", and long on speculation and theory.

>>>> The earth will be here long after we are gone. It has survived
>>>> without us so to think we can control it is a bit of a misnomer.

>>> So very true.

>> Ummmm, yes, this is true. Kind of goes against all the rhetoric
>> spouted above, though, doesn't it?

> Only if you can't or won't understand what I've said, and I think it's
> rather a matter of choice on your part than a matter of inability.

Here I don't understand you. First you say that we cannot control it, and
yet you think we are causing it's downfall? Does that make sense to you?
It doesn't have anything to do with me understanding what you've said.
It's a clear contradiction in terms. So, set me straight. Can we control
the earth/climate, or not? If not (as you said), then how are we the
cause of "global warming"? Please explain.

> What I have been saying all along was that we as human beings *could*
> make a difference now in order to ensure that we won't become extinct as
> a species in a couple of decades. But whether we do or don't become
> extinct, the planet will continue to exist, yes.
>
> Life on earth will continue to exist, but things being as they are right
> now, chances are quite real that it won't be *human* life anymore.

Oh, puh-lease. Really, let's try to stay serious, OK?

>> <snip remaining long-winded rambling>

> This comment only illustrates how biased your responses to me are. In

Nope, it simply illustrates how you've fallen for the mass-media-hysterics
which are propagated worldwide regarding the impending doom of the planet
and how we have brought this upon ourselves. It's just not true, and has
nothing to do with any bias towards you (by me).

> your mind, you've got me pinned down and labeled, because it makes you
> more self-secure and in control. Yet it's exactly this narrowmindedness
> that leads to conflicts, and that will eventually lead to the demise of
> the human species.

Wrong. It's not narrowmindedness, it's practicality and logic. The human
species is in no danger.

<snip>

> After all, given how technological developments are only endorsed if
> they serve either the economy or the military and stifled otherwise, I
> don't really see the human race colonizing other earthlike planets yet
> in the foreseeable future. (The closest earthlike planet would be in
> the Alpha Centauri system, at approximately four lightyears from earth,
> so...)

What was that about "narrowmindedness"? We'll have people living on Mars
full-time within 30-50 years.

> You know, ostridges tend to stick their head in the sand to evade
> predators. They think that just because they don't see the predator
> anymore, it won't see them anymore either. Doesn't exactly stop them
> from getting eaten, though.

Such a profound statement! Who's doing that? Who's buying the marketing
hype and mass-media hysterics? That's right. Those are the ones with
their heads in the sand.

> Tsss...

Right.

Aragorn wrote:

> Dan C wrote:
>> No, by doing the one thing every nation will listen to: economic embargos.
> Threaten them to cut off whatever supplies they get from abroad.
>> See above. China exports a great deal - especially counterfeit stuff -
> and also requires a lot of import of materials they cannot produce or mine
> for themselves.
>
> You simply have to speak the language they will listen to. In a world
> economy so heavily relying on international trade, that is something they
> will listen to. Perhaps not immediately, for as long as their stocked
> supply will last, but eventually, yes.

Whats to keep China from just taking what they need? Hmmmm we need this
commodity, this country over here has what we need lets negotiate a deal if
that fails we will just invade it.

>> I see you are still using the same old lines as George W. Bush has been,
> but even *he* is now beginning to acknowledge that "there /might/ be a
> problem", albeit that I don't expect him to do anything about it. Given
> the time he's got left as the president of the USA, it might not even be
> possible for him to effectively take an initiative in that area and see it
> through.
>
> Nevertheless, while I do agree with you on that global warming is a cyclic
> phenomenon, there's very conclusive and strong evidence that mainly
> industrial activity is accelerating this natural phenomenon.
>
> It has now also been discovered that the North Pole's icecap is melting
> down at a rate four times faster than was predicted, and that's not just
> bad news with regard to climate changes directly - in terms of the Gulf
> Stream falling away - but also in terms of the fact that the white ice
> helps reflect the light back into the atmosphere, and with that ice gone,
> the global warming process will accelerate even farther.

And I have also heard that those Polar ice caps are coming back. In the US
this year the Rockies which have been in a drought for several years have
had record snow falls and the reservoirs that hold this run off are
reporting record level of water. Some reporting the levels will return to
75% of lost areas this year alone. The mid west is still getting snow this
late in the year and there's suppose be a warming problem?

[..]
> I beg to differ. How many civilizations have already annihilated
> themselves
> all throughout the history of humanity? The ancient Greek, the Romans,
> the
> ancient Egyptians, even the Aztecs. It's our own human arrogance,
> equating ourselves with gods and thinking that we can overcome everything.
>
> Well, I've got news for you. It may work like that in the movies, but
> reality is quite a different thing. Just look at what hurricane Katrina
> did, and all others before it, and all others after it.

That's called natural phenomena and a bunch of corrupt politicians that
never did anything to fix a levy even though the money was allocated.
Wonder where the money went?

>
> Sure, there have always been hurricanes, but their number *and* their
> violence are increasing. Over here in Belgium, it was extremely rare for
> us to see a tornado. Maybe once in 10 years. Now there's several every
> year.
>
> It's a pity your prejudices disallow you to view Al Gore's "An
> Inconvenient
> Truth" just because the man is a Democrat. That documentary is full of
> scientific evidence though.
>

Oh you mean the guy that invented the Internet. Al Gore is a moron, the guy
is a bumbling idiot. Most of what that movie represents has already been
proved bogus. Sorry you don't know this man as many in the US do. And it's
not because he'd a democrat.

[..]
> Life on earth will continue to exist, but things being as they are right
> now, chances are quite real that it won't be *human* life anymore.
>> This comment only illustrates how biased your responses to me are. In
> your mind, you've got me pinned down and labeled, because it makes you
> more
> self-secure and in control. Yet it's exactly this narrowmindedness that
> leads to conflicts, and that will eventually lead to the demise of the
> human species.

Now now lets not start throwing stones. I don't want to see you get pissed
off and disappear from this newsgroup. You have valuable info and I would
not want to see that problem happen again. Step back take a breath!

>
> And all of that because I happen to openly disagree with your (obviously
> very) rightwinged views (while at the same time, I have proven to speak
> the truth about things that you were denying).
>
> Well, go ahead and be biased then if it makes you feel better. Just
> realize that one day you will be dead and buried (or cremated) while your
> children and grandchildren will still have to live on this planet.

Biased? these are opinions, these opinions are not written in stone. It's
debate, not important enough to start a war over.


>
> After all, given how technological developments are only endorsed if they
> serve either the economy or the military and stifled otherwise, I don't
> really see the human race colonizing other earthlike planets yet in the
> foreseeable future. (The closest earthlike planet would be in the Alpha
> Centauri system, at approximately four lightyears from earth, so...)
>
> You know, ostridges tend to stick their head in the sand to evade
> predators. They think that just because they don't see the predator
> anymore, it won't
> see them anymore either. Doesn't exactly stop them from getting eaten,
> though.

Nobody is sticking their head in the sand. The one thing I have a hard time
with, with liberals that is. Its their way or the highway and if not they
start throwing stones. What ever happened to responsible civilized debate?

>
> Tsss...
>
now now

Aragorn wrote:

> Dan C wrote:
>> No, by doing the one thing every nation will listen to: economic embargos.
> Threaten them to cut off whatever supplies they get from abroad.
>> See above. China exports a great deal - especially counterfeit stuff -
> and also requires a lot of import of materials they cannot produce or mine
> for themselves.
>
> You simply have to speak the language they will listen to. In a world
> economy so heavily relying on international trade, that is something they
> will listen to. Perhaps not immediately, for as long as their stocked
> supply will last, but eventually, yes.

I can see that working for smaller countries, but our economy is so tied
in to the Chinese, that I wonder who is hurt worse by an embargo - us or
them?

Dan C wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:39:22 +0200, Aragorn wrote:
>>
>
> You've got to be kidding me. How well did that work in Iraq and Iran
> (where embargos have been in place for *decades*)? It doesn't work
> because even if the US and all of Europe did such a thing (which is a
> pipedream in itself), there are other nations in the world which would see
> it as an economic opportunity to sell things, and the country in question
> would get what it needed anyway. It's that simple, and is proven by
> precedent.

While what you are saying is true, it should thus also become a rule that
any nation not complying with the embargos versus another nation gets to
suffer from the same embargos.

Eventually that would work, and I think that if it's done by the United
Nations - I repeat, they're starting getting their act together now, albeit
that I will agree that they're not quite there yet - then I see no reason
as to why the USA and the individual European nations couldn't come to a
consensus.

>>> Here's a free clue: you CANNOT make China do anything they don't want
>>> to do. They simply don't care what anyone else says or does, and we're
>>> not about to start a world war over it. Oh, and we forgot to mention
>>> India, which is nearly the same situation.
>
>> See above. China exports a great deal - especially counterfeit stuff -
>> and also requires a lot of import of materials they cannot produce or
>> mine for themselves.
>
> See above, indeed. The US will *NEVER* do a blanket-embargo on China,
> because the citizens here would not stand for the drastic price increases
> on all the cheap goods we are accustomed to buying. I'm pretty sure the
> exact same thing would happen in Europe. It's just not gonna happen.

China does not have the monopoly on the production of such goods, and
chances are that any replacement for that branch of goods made elsewhere
will be of higher quality, and not necessarily more expensive.

However, if *you* as a US citizen say that the US would never do a blanket
embargo on China - something on which you're probably better informed than
I am - then this point would indeed turn out moot. It takes everyone's
compliance, and as long as we don't have that, we're going nowhere.

>> Nevertheless, while I do agree with you on that global warming is a
>> cyclic phenomenon, there's very conclusive and strong evidence that
>> mainly industrial activity is accelerating this natural phenomenon.
>
> I've yet to see any of this "conclusive and strong" evidence that has much
> credibility to it. And no, Al Gore doesn't count as credible.

Try the very elaborate and superscientific United Nations report then.

>>
> Those civilizations died out for reasons far removed from what we have
> been discussing. The reasons and factors for those do not apply to the
> present day.

I am not debating that they died out for other reasons, but the keywords in
my case here are "human arrogance", or otherwise put, humanity's tendency
to ignore the writing on the wall and then find themselves past the point
of no return on the Highway To Hell (TM - Thank you, Angus and Malcolm
Young.)

>> Well, I've got news for you. It may work like that in the movies, but
>> reality is quite a different thing. Just look at what hurricane Katrina
>> did, and all others before it, and all others after it.
>
>> Sure, there have always been hurricanes, but their number *and* their
>> violence are increasing. Over here in Belgium, it was extremely rare
>> for us to see a tornado. Maybe once in 10 years. Now there's several
>> every year.
>
> It's a simple cyclic pattern of the weather systems, which has been
> happening for ages. Nothing new about it, nothing which has been caused
> by mankind, and nothing which can be done about it.

I really don't see why you fail to comprehend what I'm saying. For the
third time, I did not say that humans cause global warming. I am saying
that we are accelerating it, and to a quite high pace even.

>> It's a pity your prejudices disallow you to view Al Gore's "An
>> Inconvenient Truth" just because the man is a Democrat. That
>> documentary is full of scientific evidence though.
>
> How would you know if I've viewed the movie, or not?

Oh, I had a strong suspicion that you would refuse to even go see it, given
that it comes from a Democrat who formerly ran a campaign for presidency of
the USA and was Bill Clinton's Vice President even before that.

> The movie is quite short on "scientific evidence", and long on speculation
> and theory.

What constitutes "speculation and theory" for you is statistically proven
data for others.

>>
>
> Here I don't understand you. First you say that we cannot control it, and
> yet you think we are causing it's downfall? Does that make sense to you?
> It doesn't have anything to do with me understanding what you've said.
> It's a clear contradiction in terms.

No, it's not. Global warming is a cyclic phenomenon. Yet, given enough
time, mankind would be able to find a way around it, or possibly even
devise a way to undo it, or at the least slow down the *natural* cycle.

However, as things are _*now*_ global warming is not going through its
regular cycle, and we're certainly not slowing it down either. In fact, we
are accelerating the process, and to such a rate that by the time we really
do hit the point of no return, we won't be ready for it.

> So, set me straight. Can we control the earth/climate, or not? If not
> (as you said), then how are we the cause of "global warming"? Please
> explain.

Yes, we can control the earth's climate, up to a certain extent - at least,
while it is still within certain parameters, but once those boundaries have
been crossed, there's nothing we'll be able to do about it anymore. It's
called a safety margin, and we're well on our way of exceeding that margin
in the very foreseeable future.

No, we are not the cause of global warming. We are a catalyst in global
warming. A very _important_ catalyst.

>>> <snip remaining long-winded rambling>
>
>> This comment only illustrates how biased your responses to me are. In
>
> Nope, it simply illustrates how you've fallen for the mass-media-hysterics
> which are propagated worldwide regarding the impending doom of the planet
> and how we have brought this upon ourselves.

Anyone who knows me well - which by demonstration of your attitude towards
me as well as your responses to the actual issues here would not include
you - *knows* that I'm absolutely not the kind of person to fall for
mass-media hysterics at all.

In fact, I question and investigate any information sent my way, with
varying degrees of thoroughness depending on how interested I am in the
subject. So if you were to say that the Boston Celtics won the game last
night, I would *not* investigate and take your word for it - not because
it's you who said it, but because I couldn't care less about sports. Well,
other than the occasional F-1 Grand Prix, but even that can't always
capture my interest.)

Yet on the other hand, if a certain thing is made public that I do find
interesting or important and this particular thing is being spread all over
the media, then I would want to know more about it and then I check my
sources for credibility and then - if applicable - I want to know and
understand the science behind it. I'm a scientist, not a religious person
who buys what they tell him.

Don't get me wrong, Dan. Perhaps you are thinking that an Aspie such as
myself is very gullable and easily influenced. Well, that may have been
the case when I was much younger and strongly under the influence/control
of my family, but I have turned 45 years old this month, so I'm not some
dumb, clueless kid who buys into the media.

In fact, I am one of the most reactive people whenever a new hype surfaces,
because I know all too well what hypes are, and how they are devised by
"the fairly clueless" for the sake of grabbing the attention of "the
totally clueless".

I loathe hypes and deliberate misinformation. I find them to be insults to
human intelligence. If I were so influenceable as you think I am, then I
wouldn't have started using GNU/Linux, or OS/2 before it, or even the NT
4.0 that I've used in the two years in between OS/2 and GNU/Linux -
eventhough I saw NT as a compromise solution back then and I wasn't so
strongly into IT yet as today, as I've already explained many times before.

No, if I really was such a conformist, then I would have adopted whatever
operating system came with the computer - i.e. when I still bought
pre-assembled stuff - and then I'd be running Windows, with no questions
asked, and taking Windows for granted with all of its quirks.

I've said it a few paragraphs up: everyone who knows me will gladly call me
an eccentric non-conformist with a very critical and analytical mind. Yet
- I really hate to drag this up again - you yourself have already shown
bias with regard to the dismissal of something you labeled as hype and in
which my words have proven to be truthful, just as you are clearly showing
bias towards me by the way you dismiss my comments.

Perhaps you remember that once upon a time, you used to respect me. And
perhaps you will then also remember that all of a sudden, your respect for
me was gone in the blink of an eye, just because I made those comments
about issues very similar to what we're talking about now - comments that
after all appeared to be the truth, which you at the time refused to see or
believe.

So of the two of us, who is the one falling for the hypes and the
propaganda, Dan? Just because something comes from a political angle you
have no sympathies for - and that is your given right - doesn't mean you
have to automatically dismiss it as being a hype or propaganda.

I say things as they are. Tactfully if possible. Sometimes with diplomacy
- which by definition means that you can't really say what's on your mind.
But the bottom line of what I'm saying will always be fair and unbiased.

Everyone deserves to be heard, but when there are conflicting viewpoints, my
apparent siding up with one the parties is only that: an appearance.
Because in reality, the truth is the only thing I side up with.

>> your mind, you've got me pinned down and labeled, because it makes you
>> more self-secure and in control. Yet it's exactly this narrowmindedness
>> that leads to conflicts, and that will eventually lead to the demise of
>> the human species.
>
> Wrong. It's not narrowmindedness, it's practicality and logic. The human
> species is in no danger.

The human species is *always* in danger. From ourselves as well as from
nature. It just happens to be a human trait that we deem ourselves to be
gods and above it all, and that's what gets us into trouble time and time
again.

>> After all, given how technological developments are only endorsed if
>> they serve either the economy or the military and stifled otherwise, I
>> don't really see the human race colonizing other earthlike planets yet
>> in the foreseeable future. (The closest earthlike planet would be in
>> the Alpha Centauri system, at approximately four lightyears from earth,
>> so...)
>
> What was that about "narrowmindedness"? We'll have people living on Mars
> full-time within 30-50 years.

I said "earthlike". I know about NASA's plans for going to Mars and
establishing a colony there, and there are various scenarios for that, all
with varying degrees of the possibility that they could succeed. (Uh-oh,
now you've done it; you've gotten me started about one of my favorite
subjects. :p)

It would be possible to create some kind of dome city where you have a
breathable atmosphere inside a dome, in which there are constructions in
which people live and which they can freely walk between. It would be
possible - and quite possibly this will be the first approach - to simply
use an airtight base, and have the people wear spacesuits to go outside.
It *could* also be possible to terraform Mars, to such a degree that we
convert Mars's atmosphere to be more like the one on earth.

But the latter is only a patch. Mars is a dead planet. It no longer has a
magnetosphere. In addition, all that is known of its surface so far
appears just rock and sand. There /might/ still be water there underground
somewhere, but we can't tell for sure.

In my view, Mars might be an interesting choice to - as you put it - have a
base on. But we'll never be able to move the earth's population there.
The planet just can't handle that kind of complexity of life anymore, if it
ever could to begin with - we don't know that either yet.

When I think of humans colonizing another planet, I think of a planet that
already has life on it. Plantlife and animal life. A planet with oceans,
and with a climate and geography very similar to our own. And such a
planet cannot be found within our solar system, because the only three
planets in the inhabitable zone are Venus, Earth and Mars.

Earth we know. Venus used to be a lot like Earth, but is basically an oven
now, unless you want to dwell in the clouds, and then still it'd be hotter
than in the Arizona desert. And Mars is dead. Barren. A planetary
corpse.

Alpha Centauri is the nearest star system to ours, and is at approximately 4
lightyears away. We know there are earthlike planets there in terms of
their location in orbit and their size - size matters a lot in terms of
gravity (which influences chemical reactions and determines atmospheric
density and pressure) and periodicity - but whether they are actually
inhabitable or not is yet another matter, and then there is even the fact
that Alpha Centauri is a triple-sun system, which means that the radiation
levels will be quite high and that the planet's orbital trajectory might be
unstable, possibly causing it to collapse into one of the three stars in
just a couple of million years, which is a very short lifespan for a
planet.

And then there's the problem of getting there. Nothing with rest mass can
attain the speed of light because it would require either infinite
acceleration with finite energy, or finite acceleration with infinite
energy. And then there's the time dilation factor. Possibly desirable for
one-way trips, but certainly not for round trips - if we were ever to have
such powerful ships that they could travel at least near the speed of
light, that is.

So we'd have to overcome the relativistic limitations. Wormholes are still
not proven to exist - personally I believe they might, but then they would
be highly unstable - and scientists don't even agree on whether or not they
would violate causality if they do exist.

Warpdrive isn't going to happen anytime soon yet either. The concept exists
aq a loose theory - look for Miguel Alcubierre or the Alcubierre drive on
Wikipedia, or just look into NASA's Advanced Propulsion Program, which has
now been abandoned - but nobody knows how to make one, let alone that
Alcubierre's concept relies on the deployment of and control over dark
matter, of which some scientists still even doubt that it actually exists,
let alone that we'd know what exactly it is.

Hyperspace? Most scientists believe that if it does exist, it'll be too
compacted for us to even enter it - all in the context of the curled-up
higher dimensions of string theory - and even if it were big enough to send
a ship through, the ship would be a physically threedimensional structure -
time not included - in a four- or higher dimensional environment. It would
literally fall apart the minute it entered hyperspace.

Nope, we're not quite there yet. Not us... Other, more advanced
civilizations off-world, possibly yes. But not us. No way.

(Well... So far for my narrowmindedness, I guess, huh?)