Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Soldiers who hand prisoners to US could face legal action

WHEELS OF JUSTICE GRIND SLOWLY, BUT, INEXORABLY, WE CAN ONLY HOPE!

I WANT MY AMERICA BACK.  

Soldiers who hand prisoners to US could face legal action, MPs warned

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/29/military.law

British troops who hand over prisoners in Iraq to US military personnel could find themselves facing prosecution, according to a legal opinion compiled for parliament. The finding has led to calls for the British government to rethink its current policy and investigate how the US treats its prisoners, and whether torture is employed against them.

Earlier this year the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition sought legal opinion from Michael Fordham QC on whether a human rights violation would arise under the European convention on human rights (ECHR) and the 1998 Human Rights Act (HRA) if an individual in British detention in Iraq were handed over to US military personnel, "despite substantial grounds for considering that there is a real risk of that person being subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment".

The conclusion reached by Fordham and his colleague Tom Hickman is that an offence would definitely have been committed. If acted on, the opinion could mean that UK troops would not be allowed to "render" detainees to the US military until it was clear that they would no longer face the possibility of torture or ill-treatment.

What prompted the inquiry was a statement made in February this year by Ben Griffin, a former SAS soldier who was on active service in Iraq. In his statement, Griffin said that he was "in no doubt" that individuals handed over to the US military "would be tortured". He cited what had happened to those detained at Guantánamo Bay, Bagram airbase and Abu Ghraib prison.

The opinion adds: "UK forces operating in Iraq are potentially also subject to UK criminal law, tort law and Iraqi law. Notably, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it a criminal offence for a public official, whatever his nationality and wherever located, to commit an act of torture."

Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative MP who chairs the committee which commissioned the report, said there had been a number of allegations that UK forces had been capturing people and handing them over to US authorities, knowing that these detainees were at risk of being tortured or mistreated.

"I commissioned a legal opinion to establish whether the UK acted unlawfully when they were handed over," said Tyrie. "I now have the answer. The UK remains legally responsible for the subsequent treatment of anybody who has been detained by the UK. It is likely that British policy on this area is not only ethically questionable but is also unlawful. The government now needs to radically rethink its policy on this issue."

Clive Stafford Smith, director of the legal action charity Reprieve, also welcomed the findings. "We are delighted that the all-party parliamentary group has recognised the illegality of British troops handing over prisoners to US custody in Iraq, " he said. "These prisoners promptly disappear into an unaccountable prison network in which over 20,000 prisoners are held for illegal interrogation and torture. If it is confirmed that this has been happening, the British government must immediately reveal how many people have been handed over, where they are now, and what has been done to them."

Paul Marsh, president of the Law Society, called on the government to investigate what happens to prisoners rendered from British custody. "Extraordinary rendition has been used by some states as a means of bypassing the formal justice system," said Marsh. "To do so is a breach of the rule of law and puts individuals at risk of ill-treatment. The Law Society calls on the UK government to look beyond assurances from other countries and positively investigate and monitor whether individuals rendered from British custody are receiving equivalent standards of due process. It is time we returned to our values in the rule of law."

Palin as Caribou Barbie

Sarah Palin as "Caribou Barbie"
 
Sarah Palin as "Caribou Barbie" Realized

Comes with everything you see here:

- Dead Caribou

- M-16

- Snowmobile

- Sexy Librarian Glasses

She even talks with such fun phrases like: 

- "I'm a pitbull with lipstick!"

- "My family is off-limits!"

- "What is it the Vice President actually does?"

Coming soon: Bristol Palin with inflatable baby bump and John McCain with portable green screen background!

- Breast Pump for Little Trig's meal sold separately...

Monday, September 29, 2008

Thanks for Submitting a Haiku!

People for the American Way (PFAW) is asking for Haiku!

They have to be themed on how McCain/Palin:

A. will affect (infect?) the supreme court
B. are tied to the Right Wing

I like writing Haiku, so here's one (of the three) I wrote.

If you do or if you don't like to write haiku enjoy!

A traitorous man Misrepresenting record Viet Cong's "Songbird" ! (Maybe not quite on target, but I just had to do a nature theme, it's Haiku after all!)

Winners will be announced on October 27th.

If you've got poetic friends who might be interested in submitting a haiku — with the chance to get published in The Nation! — send them the link to the submission form (http://site.PFAW.org/haiku) or e-mail them about the contest using our Tell-A-Friend tool.

Thanks again,
People For the American Way

Frish

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Michael Shermer Responds to Frish: Forgiveness sought by both!

Michael:
I accept your apology/explanation and hope you can forgive me, I copied those I copied before, and your response is included below (almost) in it's entirety.

While your initial reaction to VHEMT is one of the most frequent responses of people upon hearing of the movement, I'm a salesman and quite tuned into people and their body language, voice inflection etc.  I must admit I missed any humor/sarcasm/facetiousness expressed in your response.   That doesn't happen often, hence my reaction and expressed disappointment!

On another note:

You said: "The Earth could easily support 12 billion people at 'our level of life'".  

2 Internal combustion engine cars in every garage?  McDonalds on every corner in the world?
I can't accept that as true, but, very short time will tell.  

The Earth can't support the 6.X billion we have now! 

Yes, I understand your Libertarian bent, you mentioned it during your presentation.  So, I can see how you could blame corrupt dictators for the mishandling of resources (Zimbabwe, a country my parents lived in for a time, being the current poster child for mismanagement by government), I'd submit governments aren't very much of the REAL problem at all.

Capitalism - Each Corporation maximizing their respective shareholder interests without regard to minimizing their environmental impacts (or coordinating with other corporations to minimize impacts) are far more of the problem.  

Greed, not just by investors, but by consumers - the Third World saw Dallas, now they want to live like Dallas!  Globalization of Western Civilization, our way of life is enviable and has been put forth as the way people ought to live...it is comfortable, I certainly enjoy it!

But, the environmental impacts of the way of life we're enjoying here are simply unsustainable.

If U.S. corporations weren't "persons" under the law that would go a hell of a long way to making things better.  (No free speech rights, hence no lobbyists!)

If corporations had to guarantee that new chemicals and products they introduced were not harmful BEFORE letting them out into the world, that would help too.

However, while not many agree with me YET, I'm convinced...we've ALREADY broken the biosphere, the fix will come from Gaia herself, and we ought to minimize our numbers, hence voluntary human extinction.

When the evidence becomes even more clear, and the effects of our deprecations are more prevalent, within a decade or less, corporations and their boards may well get it into their charters to attempt to save the planet, since without customers they won't have much reason for being!

Being almost 54, I won't be around for the real deal at the end (I hope!), and, my kids (having none) can't blame me.

Happier everyday I'm child-free!

Again, my apologies for not "getting" your intent...I do write a powerful note though, eh?

Appreciate your response.  
Frish

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Michael Shermer <mshermer@skeptic.com> wrote:
(A redacted expletive deleted), Michael, I was JOKING!!!! I don't think you should commit suicide. I must be the millionth person to say that to you in response to first hearing about the "voluntary extinction movement." Why would you send out such a message to everyone without asking me first?! Who in their right mind would SERIOUSLY suggest that someone commit suicide. Not me anyway.

By the way, that aside, I do disagree with you on overpopulation. I think Julian Simon was right: more people means more brains, more ideas, more innovation, etc. I'm pro-people. The earth could easily support 12 billion people at our level of life, if all the corrupt dictators and governments would get out of the way and allow their people to flourish. 

Michael Shermer

Michael Shermer's reaction to VHEMT!

Dear Mr. Shermer, Volunteers, Supporters, Brights, Atheists, and other correspondents:
As Fearless Leader of the LA Brights I attended the Atheists Alliance International Convention on the Queen Mary this weekend.

I found the convention wonderful for many reasons!

Michael Shermer, (http://www.michaelshermer.com/), perhaps the most famous skeptic in the world, gave a lovely presentation.  

I had an opportunity to introduce myself to Mr. Shermer, as I'm certain he'll recall.

Atheism is an important truth, no doubt about it.  
However, it also loses some of its importance when compared to the risks facing the future of humankind.

Technology has always been used to overcome nature's limits.  
However, our technology has now totally overwhelmed nature and any of nature's means to cope with the toxic (to us) changes we're introducing.

These two things (atheism and human caused climate chaos) are actually closely related, as those who "believe" 
(the SUPER-MAJORITY OF HUMANITY (Brights, get the pun?!)) may derail the very efforts necessary to save the biosphere from human technology's effects, since "god will provide" so not to worry, eh?!

Therefore, I felt it important to introduce Michael to the concept of Voluntary Human Extinction.
My predisposition was that a Skeptic would also be inquisitive, at least!  Seemed a low bar, but...  

His reaction to VHEMT www.vhemt.org was that I ought to lead the way and commit suicide.
He wasn't kidding, although I'm hopeful that upon reflection his curiosity might override his gut reaction.

I was surprised at the naked hostility...and greatly saddened that someone who I hold up as heroic for his Skepticism and tremendous  ability to confront superstitious nonsense wasn't at least more thoughtful before dismissing the concept altogether.  

And wishing me dead to boot, lucky I'm a Bright and dismiss witchcraft in any form!  ROFLMAO

I learned a lot, and thank him for the experience.

Human Extinction is inevitable, no one can argue that.  
Many VHEMTers hold the extinction will be quite soon.
That is currently debatable, but the ability of the biosphere to continue to sustain human life erodes every day, and our technology only provides more velocity and momentum to it's failure in the near term.

Perhaps Shermer is simply skeptical about Human Caused Climate Chaos. 
Perhaps he's got "faith" in technology's ability to get us out of the hole that technology is digging, ever faster...

Having no children is the only moral choice, by anyone, anywhere, anywhen.  That is the best means to reduce the numbers of humans who will be suffering when the world discontinues it's ability to support human life.

Obviously, not everyone is on board with the "inevitability" part yet, but soon more will be and child-less-ness will become "fashionable".

VHEMTers are sensible enough to know we cannot stop procreation by all, everywhere, forever, that's just the goal.  
If you don't aim high you'll be sure to miss!

Peace.  Live long and die out.
--
Frish
VHEMT Volunteer
Fearless Leader, LA Brights

Saturday, September 27, 2008

I don't often share videos...

But this looks real!
Enjoy.

Frish

Friday, September 26, 2008

Sarah Silverman says: Visit your grandparents in Florida for Obama


The Great Schlep from The Great Schlep on Vimeo.

The Pastor responds to Frish and Frish's response.

David:
The very definition of faith (the religious kind, faith has several definitions) is belief that is not based on proof...you need no reason for faith, only the capability to "hope" something is true.

Does that make faith and reason mutually exclusive?  Well, certainly on matters of belief in god it does, your belief in omni-god requires no reason whatsoever!

there are 11 different definitions of the word faith however, and you are mixing them up in your note back to me!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

Interesting that you know what "god intends"...just by reading a book written by men...
What about all the "other" gods that are historic or being worshiped around the planet?  Odin, Zeus, Krishna?  Why aren't they the god(s) you ought be listening to?

Do I "operate" out of a "scientific materialist worldview"?
You and I both operate thanks to our chemistry.  When our chemistry ceases to operate, so do we.  We die.

I am a Bright.  As a Bright I reject the supernatural and superstitious and mystical and base my ethics and actions on a naturalistic worldview.

That's what we see around us.  That's what we can prove via scientific method, a means to test hypothesis and gain knowledge.

"Saying god exists is as rational as saying other people have minds"?  NOT!
We share reality, I accept the fact you have a mind (sure, "I take the fact you have a mind on faith" but that's not the same definition of the word faith as your faith in god...) and can demonstrate I have one, that's how I'm typing and reading.  I cannot read your mind, nor does your consciousness exhibit any impact upon the world that is not associated with your physicality (that is, you cannot "will something to happen at a distance" (i.e. prayer doesn't do anything for example).  You must make things happen by touching them for example, you cannot move the pencil across the desk by thinking about it!

Please explain what you mean that all pre-suppositions begin with faith.
I suggest you are speaking of a different definition of the word faith than you use when describing your faith in god.  (Just like I said in the prior paragraph!)

We share reality.  I have "faith" that your reality and mine are similar, for the most part, even if you choose to include supernatural elements that are not provable as being in existence, and that I proved cannot exist in the universe we share (you didn't say anything to respond to my disproof of omni-god by the way, hummm, wonder why!  My guess is that no one has prepped you for this argument, and that's not surprising, since it is my argument, and not one generally known in the philosophical world...so you have no one to fall back on to deny what I stated, sorry about that!  I'm original, and my argument regards "what particle holds the thoughts of god" is also unassailable...).

We exhibit this shared reality through words.
That's how our brains/minds connect/understand each other.
No faith involved so far, eh, except faith that our defintions of words mean similar things.

If you wish to re-define god to be everything we don't already know, then yes, I could agree with that definition of god.  By that definition, god is diminished a little bit everyday, as we learn more about reality that surrounds us.  So what? 

The Omni-god is not real, cannot exist in this universe, and is not necessary for any function whatsoever!

Is it possible that god exists?  I could wave a wand and stop all war, but, you'd pretty much discount that as so improbable as to be impossible.  Same as my knowledge of what you call god, so improbable it is essentially impossible.

Have you read and understood the Old Testament, and god's first commandment?
"Have no other gods before me."

First, god admits that there are other gods, so much for monotheism altogether!
Second, he commands us to have none, before having him.
I take him literally, and will continue to have none before having him.

Yes, I get the joke, hope you do too, the point being that the bible is so fraught with examples of things that can be ambiguously interpreted that it is unstable at best, misleading for certain, and a really bad means to determine truth.  Why are there 20,000+ Christian Sects?  They all interpret the "infallible word of god" differently!

Does your church "stone" people for biblical infractions as is stated in the bible?

How many of the 10 commandments are actually law today?  They were all stoning offenses in their time, guess what, culture/society moved on, and now murder, theft and perjury are the only ones left!

Frish

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Burke Community Bible Church <bcbc@directus.net> wrote:
Dear Michael,
Thank you for responding to the article. You are suggesting that reason and faith are mutually exclusive. I would suggest to you that God intends for us to fully employ our intellects alongside of our faith. The great commandment encourages Christians to love the Lord with all their heart, mind, soul and strength.
Do you operate out of a scientific materialist worldview?
 If you only believe in physical phenomenon and a material universe, then may I ask you this,Do you believe that other people have minds? Is this rational?  Scholar Alvin Plantinga argues that saying God exists is as rational as saying other people have minds. Both philosophical conclusions are logical in the same way. Since all presuppositions begin with faith, God is as rational as any other first premise.
One other question. Do you claim to possess all knowledge? If you are intellectually honest you would have say no. So is it possible that in the realm of which you have no knowledge that God could exist?
David
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 9:24 PM
Subject: a response to your "Atheist....really!" article, from a real atheist!

To David Doster, Pastor:

I responded to your article http://www2.morganton.com/content/2008/sep/25/atheist-really/#comments 

because I'm Fearless Leader of the LA Brights, and part of our mandate is to respond to articles such as yours.

My response follows:

1. The definition of faith - belief without reason.
Therefore, the "faithful" and atheists can agree: "No reason for god(s)"

2. Disproving the idea of an omni-present, omni-potent, omni-temporal, omni-xxx god is simple.

To do what that god is said to be able to do is to defy the laws of the known universe. That "god" must be able to operate at greater than light speed.

"He" is also supposed to have purpose. Therefore, "he" must think and be "an entity".

For information to exist, the information that makes up this "entity", it must have a physical substrate upon which to exist.

Since no particle exists that operates faster than light in our universe, what holds the thoughts of god?

God cannot exist.

Easy to prove, although it does depend on what YOUR definition of god is.

I'd ask the preacher, and Mr. Colson, how they can prove god does exist, since they claim "he" does...

They cannot.

If you synthesize all the best philosophy and theological work on what god is and how "he" operates, you are left with "God works in mysterious ways".

Now, I know that nothing like god(s) can or even need exist.

I also know that most people seek a higher power.

That seeking is due to evolutionary and excellent survival behaviors from our distant past.

The "need to seek" is what religions of the world prey upon, to get more people into the tent.

There is no soul
there is no god(s)
there is no afterlife
there is only our own chemistry
there is no shared cosmic consciousness

However, most don't believe that, since they are born with "a need to seek".

Enjoy.

I cannot convince you, even with the most rational and logical and scientific argument (such as the one presented above).

That's because most of you don't have freewill in this matter.

Enjoy it.

We are born moral, and our conscience is culturally determined.

Religion and god have absolutely NOTHING to do with it, but religion would like to take credit for it.

Enjoy.

--

That was the comment I left below your article, happy to "test your faith" further if you care to correspond. 

Cheers,

Frish
Fearless Leader, LA Brights

Thursday, September 25, 2008

a response to your "Atheist....really!" article, from a real atheist!

To David Doster, Pastor:

I responded to your article http://www2.morganton.com/content/2008/sep/25/atheist-really/#comments 

because I'm Fearless Leader of the LA Brights, and part of our mandate is to respond to articles such as yours.

My response follows:

1. The definition of faith - belief without reason.
Therefore, the "faithful" and atheists can agree: "No reason for god(s)"

2. Disproving the idea of an omni-present, omni-potent, omni-temporal, omni-xxx god is simple.

To do what that god is said to be able to do is to defy the laws of the known universe. That "god" must be able to operate at greater than light speed.

"He" is also supposed to have purpose. Therefore, "he" must think and be "an entity".

For information to exist, the information that makes up this "entity", it must have a physical substrate upon which to exist.

Since no particle exists that operates faster than light in our universe, what holds the thoughts of god?

God cannot exist.

Easy to prove, although it does depend on what YOUR definition of god is.

I'd ask the preacher, and Mr. Colson, how they can prove god does exist, since they claim "he" does...

They cannot.

If you synthesize all the best philosophy and theological work on what god is and how "he" operates, you are left with "God works in mysterious ways".

Now, I know that nothing like god(s) can or even need exist.

I also know that most people seek a higher power.

That seeking is due to evolutionary and excellent survival behaviors from our distant past.

The "need to seek" is what religions of the world prey upon, to get more people into the tent.

There is no soul
there is no god(s)
there is no afterlife
there is only our own chemistry
there is no shared cosmic consciousness

However, most don't believe that, since they are born with "a need to seek".

Enjoy.

I cannot convince you, even with the most rational and logical and scientific argument (such as the one presented above).

That's because most of you don't have freewill in this matter.

Enjoy it.

We are born moral, and our conscience is culturally determined.

Religion and god have absolutely NOTHING to do with it, but religion would like to take credit for it.

Enjoy.

--

That was the comment I left below your article, happy to "test your faith" further if you care to correspond. 

Cheers,

Frish
Fearless Leader, LA Brights

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Methane, It's a gas!

Esteemed VHEMTers and those who question our mission:

Well, the permafrost is giving up it's treasure of methane.

Welcome to greatly accelerating Human Caused Climate Chaos...

Here's the article:

Here's my comment, on a comment to that article that describes nuclear power as some sort of answer!
Live Long and Die Off - happier every day I'm a Volunteer, couldn't be more proud!
--
Cheers,  Frish

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Just a suggestion!

Dear  Friends:
Few can be happy with Sarah Palin's position on reproductive rights.
 
Her position on abstinance-only education is ironic at least and destructive for certain,
and no abortion (even for incest or rape victims) is positively medieval. 

Hence my suggestion:  Make a $5 minimum donation to Planned Parenthood.  In Sarah Palin's name.
When you make a donation to PP in her name, they'll send her a card telling her that the donation has been made in her honor.
Here's the link to the Planned Parenthood website.

https://secure.ga0.org/02/pp10000_inhonor
The address to use to send the 'in Sarah Palin's honor' card:  

McCain for President/Sarah Palin
1235  S. Clark Street
1st Floor
Arlington, VA   22202

Send this along to all your friends.

Frish
 
This message definitely NOT approved by McCain.  Or Palin.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Morton C. Frishberg's Obituary Published

Dear Family and others copied...

I signed the guest book.  

September 21, 2008

My father was a wonderful human being, a highly moral actor, brilliant in things technical and marketing. Along with his remarkable combination of expertise he was a fabulous public speaker. He recognized very early in his life the threats to our very existence that we see unfolding now. He did more than most to attempt to "fix things". The results of the impacts he had on daily life around the world will never be acknowledged and, at the same time, cannot be overemphasized.

We miss you Mort, here's a haiku for you!

Morton C. Frishberg
Every way an Emcee
"Truth is easier"
  Michael Frishberg (West Hollywood, CA) 

And, don't forget the donation to Obama in Mort's name thanks...

-- 
Cheers,

Frish
Michael W. Frishberg

Betty Bowers, America's Favorite Christian, interviews Sarah Palin

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Scientists and Political Correctness

Why have scientists succumbed to political correctness?                
Written by Albert Bartlett 
Editor's note: Albert A. Bartlett, Physics professor emeritus at
University of Colorado at Boulder, has long been a tireless educator
of the public on the subjects of energy and the fallacy of sustainable
economic growth. Below he first exposes the scientific establishment
on the subject of U.S. overpopulation, and following that his
critique of Scientific American. His bio and work history follow.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY ... Albert's lecture

http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=210&Itemid=1

Throughout the world, scientists are prominently involved in seeking
solutions to the major global problems such as global climate change
and the growing inadequacy of energy supplies. They present their
writings in publications ranging from newspapers to refereed
scientific journals, but with a few rare exceptions, on one point they
all replace objectivity with "political correctness." In their
writings the scientists identify the cause of the problems as being
growing populations. But their recommendations for solving the
problems caused by population growth almost never include the
recommendation that we advocate stopping population growth. Political
Correctness dictates that we do not address the current problem of
overpopulation in the U.S. and the world.
We can demonstrate that the Earth is overpopulated by noting the
following:

A SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH
If any fraction of the observed global warming
can be attributed to the actions of humans,
then this, by itself, constitutes
clear and compelling evidence
that the human population, living as we do,
has exceeded the Carrying Capacity of the Earth,
a situation that is clearly not sustainable.

As a consequence it is AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH
that all proposals or efforts
at the local, national or global levels
to solve the problems of global warming
are serious intellectual frauds
if they fail to advocate that we address
the fundamental cause of global warming
namely overpopulation.

We can demonstrate that the U.S. is overpopulated by noting that we
now (2008) import something like 60% of the petroleum that we consume,
around 15% of the natural gas that we consume and about 20% of the
food we eat. Because the U.S. population increases by something over 3
million per year, all of these fractions are increasing. Natural gas
production in North America has peaked in spite of the drilling of
hundreds of new gas wells annually. In a nutshell, the U.S. in 2008 is
unsustainable.

Let's look at two prominent examples of this political correctness.
The book, "An Inconvenient Truth" (1) was published to accompany Al
Gore's wonderful film by the same name. On page 216 Gore writes; "The
fundamental relationship between our civilization and the ecological
system of the Earth has been utterly and radically transformed by the
powerful convergence of three factors. The first is the population
explosion…"

It's clear that Gore understands the role of overpopulation in the
genesis of global climate change. The last chapter in the book has the
title, "So here's what you personally can do to help solve the climate
crisis." The list of 36 things starts with "Choose energy-efficient
lighting" and runs through an inventory of all of the usual suspects
without ever calling for us to address overpopulation!

As a second example, in the Clearinghouse Newsletter (2) we read the
statement, "Human Impacts on Climate" from the Council of the American
Geophysical Union, The title recognizes the human component of climate
change which we note is roughly proportional to the product of the
number of people and their average per capita annual resource
consumption. The last paragraph of the A.G.U. statement starts with
the sentence, "With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human
footprint on Earth is apparent." The rest of the paragraph suggests
what must be done, and it's all the standard boilerplate. "Solutions
will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies
and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science,
technology, industry, and government." Etc., Etc., Etc… There is no
mention of addressing the overpopulation which the statement
recognizes is the cause of the problems.

A few years ago I wrote an article calling the attention of the
physics community to this shortcoming.(3) To my amazement, most of the
letters to the editor responding to my article supported the
politically correct unscientific point of view. (4), (5)

Many journalists look to the scientists for advice. The scientists
won't talk about overpopulation, so the journalists and the reading
public can easily conclude that overpopulation is not a problem. As a
result, we have things such as the cover story in TIME Magazine, April
9, 2007, "The Global Warming Survival Guide: 51 Things You Can Do to
Make a Difference." The list contained such useful recommendations as
"Build a Skyscraper," (No. 9, Pg. 74) but not one of the 51
recommendations deals with the need to address overpopulation!

What's one to do when scientists and political leaders demonstrate
their understanding of the fact that overpopulation is the main cause
of these gigantic global problems, yet the scientists' recommendations
for dealing with the problems never call for addressing overpopulation?

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

(1) Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, The Planetary Emergency of Global
Warming and What We Can Do About It. Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA, 2006
(2) Teachers Clearinghouse for Science and Society Education
Newsletter, Winter 2008, Pg. 19
(3) A.A. Bartlett, "Thoughts on Long-Term Energy Supplies: Scientists
and the Silent Lie," Physics Today, July 2004, Pgs. 53-55
(4) Letters: Physics Today, November 2004, Pgs. 12-18
(5) Letters: Physics Today, April 2006, Pgs. 12-15

The author can be reached at Albert.Bartlett "at" colorado "dot" edu
Or send mail to Albert A. Bartlett, University of Colorado at Boulder,
80309-0390

The above article first appeared in the Teachers Clearinghouse for
Science and Society Education Newsletter, Vol. 27, No. 2, Spring 2008,
Pg. 21

* * * * *

Scientific American and the Silent Lie
by Albert Bartlett

Editor's note: As long as the forces of industrial expansion are able
to spew pro-growth propaganda that denies the laws of physics and the
reality of overpopulation, the sustainability movement is at a
disadvantage in reaching the public. Professor Bartlett has long been
a tireless communicator for common sense in the area of energy and
environment. - JL

The September 2006 issue of Scientific American(SA) is a "Special
Issue" devoted to "Energy's Future Beyond Carbon" with the subtitle
"How to Power the Economy and Still Fight Global Warming." As I read
the issue I thought of Captain Renault, the Chief of Police in the
movie "Casablanca" who says to an assistant, "Major Strasser has been
shot. Round up the usual suspects." The implication of the Chief's
order is clear. Never mind finding the culprit, just "round up the
usual suspects."

The main body of this special issue consists of nine articles relating
to global warming, each dealing with one or more of the usual
suspects. These are summarized in the first article, "A Climate Repair
Manual." There we read that global warming is a major problem:
"Preventing the transformation of the earth's atmosphere from
greenhouse to unconstrained hothouse represents arguably the most
imposing scientific and technical challenge that humanity has ever
faced. Climate change compels a massive restructuring of the world's
energy economy. The slim hope for keeping atmospheric carbon below 500
ppm hinges on aggressive programs of energy efficiency instituted by
national governments." The culprit is world population growth, but SA
is just rounding up the usual suspects.

The complete article on this website is at
culturechange.org

Read about Prof. Bartlett's work, courtesy oilcrisis.com:

Biographical Sketch

Professor Albert Allen Bartlett

Al Bartlett is a retired Professor of Physics who joined the faculty
of the University of Colorado in Boulder in September 1950. His B.A.
degree in physics is from Colgate University (1944) and his M.A. and
Ph.D. degrees in physics are from Harvard University (1948), (1951).
In 1978 he was national president of the American Association of
Physics Teachers. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 1969
and 1970 he served two terms as the elected Chair of the four-campus
Faculty Council of the University of Colorado.

In the late 1950s Al was an initiator of the citizens' effort to
preserve open space in Boulder, and this ultimately led to the
establishment of the City of Boulder's Open Space Program which (1998)
has purchased over 26,000 acres of land to be preserved as public open
space. He is a founding member of PLAN-Boulder County, an
environmental group for the City and County.

Since the late 1960s he has concentrated on public education on the
problems relating to and originating from population growth. Since
1969 he has given his lecture, "Arithmetic, Population, and Energy"
over 1300 times to audiences of all levels from coast to coast. More
recently he has written on sustainability, examining the widespread
misuse of the term, and examining the conditions that are necessary
and sufficient for sustainability in any society.

ARITHMETIC, POPULATION, AND ENERGY (A popular lecture)

Professor Bartlett lectures regularly to a wide variety of audiences
from coast to coast on the topic "Arithmetic, Population, and Energy."

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to
understand the exponential function."

With these words, Prof. Bartlett starts his one-hour talk.* First he
gives a very elementary introduction to the arithmetic of steady
growth, showing what steady growth of population means in Boulder, in
Colorado, and in the world. Then the talk examines the situation where
one has steady growth in a finite environment and the results of this
are applied to fossil fuels, particularly to petroleum and coal. Data
from the U.S. Department of Energy are used to show that the realistic
lifetimes of U.S. coal, U.S. petroleum and world petroleum are much
shorter than the optimistic figures that are so often quoted. Next the
talk then examines reassuring statements from experts, the press,
scientists, political leaders, and others, that are wildly at odds
with the facts. The talk then examines the widespread worship of
economic growth and population growth throughout the western world.
These facts give the listener a better understanding of the real
meaning of "sustainability," which Prof. Bartlett explains in terms of
the First Law of Sustainability:

"You cannot sustain population growth and / or growth in the rates of
consumption of resources."

This allows the listener to appreciate fully the implications of the
growth path of western society and in particular, of the United
States. The talk closes with a plea for the widespread education of
people on the arithmetic and consequences of growth.

September 19, 1999 is the 30th anniversary of the first time Professor
Bartlett delivered the talk. In the 30 years since then he has given
the talk 1325 times in 48 states, Canada, and overseas, to audiences
including high school students, graduate students, community groups,
scientific colloquia, scientific and non-scientific local and national
conventions, and to Congressional staff people in Washington. Well
over a thousand video tapes of the lecture have been sold by the
University of Colorado.**

*The talk is easily divided into two parts for groups where talks are
limited to a half hour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY Albert's lecture

** A one-hour videotape of this lecture is available from the Ms.
Kathleen Albers Department of Information Technology Services
University of Colorado at Boulder (80309 - 0379); (303) 492 - 1857
Kathleen.Albers@Colorado.EDU

ALBERT ALLEN BARTLETT

2935 19th Street, Boulder, Colorado, 80304-2719 Phone, (303) 443-0595:
FAX (303) 492-3352 E-Mail: albert.bartlett "at" colorado "dot" edu

Albert A. Bartlett; Professor Emeritus of Physics University of
Colorado, Boulder, 80309-0390; (303) 492 7016 Department Office: (303)
492 6952: FAX (303) 492 3352
--
Cheers,

Frish

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Not "Governor Barbie" - She's "Caribou Barbie"!

Response to an web posted article on Palin and her "Barbie"-esque qualities...
Actually... 
Posted by: fluffmuffinmom on Sep 13, 2008 8:16 AM
I think there is something to this...

My husband and I were watching her on abc last night and I realized that her legs look exactly like Barbie's! Then I realized that her entire look is Barbie's. "Governor Barbie" - LOL!

Frish Responds:
Actually...it's Caribou Barbie

Caribou Barbie and Todd - "The first polluter dude" Yes, Todd, an oil supervisor and "snow machine" (what was wrong with Snowmobile anyway) racing champion, bringing just a hint of carbon monoxide and a whole lot of unnecessary noise to a pristine wilderness no where near you! Palin insults me. She's not exactly convinced about human contribution to climatic change, evidenced by her weaselly non-answer during her Gibson interview.

Global Warming is way under-statement. I'm promoting "Human Caused Climate Chaos" as that reflects the reality. Did you see the size of Hurricane Ike?  As big as Texas, and that's meaningful and not an Texageration, but guess what?
The role of science needs to be recognized AS IMPERATIVE FOR all of OUR SURVIVAL AS HUMAN BEINGS ON THE PLANET, including Rabid Fundamentalists of all stripes. Palin is the victim of faith.  Faith is defined as "belief without evidence". No reason needed for faith.

Science requires reason.

Why isn't her church equally in the MSM with Obama's and the retired Rev. Wright? Palin is the object lesson in why dogma must be questioned. Via the scientific method. Something that doesn't even exist in Palin's separate reality.

Frish

Friday, September 5, 2008

VHEMT Volunteer Responds to a Scottish Reporter's request...

Vicky: I did live in the UK once upon a time, and enjoy haggis, but that's doesn't exactly make me Scottish eh?
Hi.  I am not a woman either, but I'm definitely happy to share.  One thingy, Sex is fun, the outcome is children, there is no Evolutionary reason to have a biological urge as well.  Biological Clocks ticking are a very recent sound...

I decided not to have children many many years ago, well before there was a VHEMT.
I was 8 years old (1962) and was told to "eat those vegetables since there were starving children in China".
I thought right then, and I still know it is correct, that if there are starving children ANYWHERE then there are too many children.

My training is in Archaeology and I know what life was like 20,000 years ago.  What we are seeing today is only a reflection of our all too human nature, a relentless drive to OVERCOME natural limits.  We've now reached the point where we've ALREADY OVERWHELMED nature's limits...and we're only beginning to see the results (more powerful Hurricanes, melted arctic ice, etc.)...

We're smart enough to Ruin the planet, but we're not wise enough to Run it.

I was married to a wonderful woman for 29 years and we managed to survive together without children.  She agreed with me that she ought not have children, and, while her resolve wavered at times during our togetherness, today I'm certain she's extraordinarily thrilled she didn't procreate...

It is one of my most proud achievements, to keep myself and my mate sans kids...the best possible thing I did or could do for the environment.

The Old Testament suggests that God created the world for man.  And, creation stopped at that point.  This cultural meme is extraordinarily entrenched, but, when people step back and realize that evolution continues today, and sharks have had to evolve right alongside everything else to survive (new diseases, new proteins to digest (mammalian ones for example), so sharks are just as "evolved" as we are) it gives a new perspective.

We are not Evolution's Entree, we are the LEFTOVERS of evolution, those individuals that are 'lucky' enough to have survived natural limits.

Given today's outlook, it is immoral to have children, by anyone, anywhere, anywhen!

BTW, Les and I have discussed this:  No One Has Ever Decided Not To Procreate Simply By Having Seen www.vhemt.org
We all decided not to be parents well before finding out about the Yahoo group and/or the website.
So, a Promethean Task, to convince all and every not to have children. 

Thanks for spreading the word!
--
Cheers,

Frish