El Mamerro

And surprisingly enough, no mention of that quote anywhere on that PDF, based off a 15 minute overview admittedly. I only see logical, measured assessments of the state of the world, discussed by a number of internationals, mostly asian. Rockefeller is mentioned several times, but there is absolutely nothing in there written by him. if the quote is in there, I'd appreciate some direction as to where to find it.

This quote is fucking amazing. Perfectly engineered and crafted to give you dudes conspira-boners, to a comically suspect degree. Haven't found a single legit source to its veracity, big surprise.

Humans aren't dumb, we just haven't completely mastered our brains enough to solve all the problems we have made for ourselves (like long term ones that affect us on the species level) while fantastically solving other problems (short term ones that affect us on the organism level). Many inherent behavioral factors unrelated to intelligence stand in the way of realizing our potential as well. We're smart cookies, we just cant help but act dumb a lot of the time. Also, intelligent ≠ wise.

I find it very hard to believe that a spacefaring species would not have the insight and means to learn of every possible risk involved in making contact/engaging in war with humans. I mean, we humans, who cannot travel through space, already have that insight (we would study the shit out of anything we were to find before we made actual contact), so to think aliens wouldn't think of it as well is absurd to me. This is the reason I always found the ending of War of the Worlds (and Signs) pretty stupid.

Any alien species that has mastered interstellar travel will have a far superior understanding of physics (which are universal) than we currently have... projectile and energy-based weapons will be extremely easy to understand for them, since they are based on very fundamental principles of physics.

Christo laid it out very clear, if you don't agree/believe with his explanation for what new world order really means, then there is nothing else to be discussed. I made good use of my time and watched "Guns, Germs, and Steel" instead, which was awesome and not pushing gotcha-edited bullshit within the first 15 minutes.

Watch it. It's pretty fucking awesome.

Frankiefiver is right. Zig is wrong. The end.

I'm surprised you're willing to sit down and feel like tearing your hair out for 2 hours just to entertain this guy. I already went through that with Loose Change and most of Zeitgeist and heaven forbid I wanna try it again.

Engaging, compelling ≠ entertaining

People don't want to get into real discussion about the issue because it's really not worth the time and effort to us. Most of us have traveled that road before and found it pretty unrewarding in the end. You obviously don't agree with that, too bad. If a movie or a documentary doesn't present a compelling case to continue watching beyond the opening 15 minutes, it is fundamentally flawed from a storytelling and educational perspective and probably not worth watching. What IS worth watching, however, is that clip Pet posted.

Second CRU inquiry report... big surprise. Yawn. Direct PDF download. Only 5 pages long, very easy to go through.

As far as I know, no. We have pretty much no say on the dealings behind this site, but if it was my call, I'd definitely look into it. On a personal level I can't even begin to list the number of things I've done to cut on my energy footprint and reduce waste. And yet it's still too much. As individuals dependent on an excessively wasteful culture, there are limits on how much we can scale back without dramatically affecting our ongoing lives in a negative manner. I believe it is entirely possible to live our rich, energy-hungry lives if we take a stand together as a planet and pool our best resources into cracking sustainability. All I can gather from responses to the dilemma presented is the equivalent of "But... but... who knows, as long as it's not the government!". Oh wait, governments protect the right for companies to pollute. Excellent, you have pointed out one key thing we can get started on overturning. The private waste disposal example doesn't quite cut it and the reasons have been explained. Let's keep on going, what else can we do? Obviously regulations are a big deal to most of you, but I don't think government intervention begins and ends with just that. What about incentives? Oh, right, those require money, which come from taxes, which you don't want to pay more of (cause you have no say on how they're doled out... but what if you did?). If we have basically established that the free market cannot solve the problem (it can't act directly on it due to lack of profit incentive), and neither can the government (it can act directly, but will almost certainly do it quite badly), what is the alternative we have to go forward on? If nothing shows up, we have to choose one of the two. Until I hear a better answer, I can only side with the one with the greater possibility of enacting change.

evil

I did this last summer and gave myself a hefty month and half to really savor it. However, I started in Miami, drove up north to RI, then headed out west across the north to LA. I'm kind of a camping nut, so my trip out to the west was based on rad camping, did upstate NY (Ithaca camping, das boot-drinking with Rage in Albany), checked Toronto out with KEY3/zesto, then Detroit and Chicago before I headed out to the middle of nowhere. I did the Badlands and the Black Hills in South Dakota, Yellowstone in Wyoming, Zion and Grand Canyon in Utah, Vegas, and finally LA (ran out of time to check out Joshua Tree). All of those were spectacular, but I'd single out the Badlands as the most trippy place I went to (check out this panorama I took). Depending on who you are, you could find it extremely boring or super fascinating, so I don't know if to recommend it. Zion National Park was a huge surprise and much awesomer than I expected it to be... even better during the summer cause you can freely hike up the shallow river into the Narrows and the water is just perfect.

I'm not gonna go point by point cause your science is faulty right from the start. The difference in time decomposition and space displacement between paper and plastic is still completely negligible to a landfill owner. Plastic will take thousands of years to decompose, treated paper will take decades (they do not properly decompose in landfills). The amount of space "liberated" by decomposing paper is negligible, and only significant after an extended period of time at which point the business could very well be obsolete. Science 101. Timber companies take care of their property in as much as it allows them to operate efficiently as a business. They can and do create long-term damage to the environment that does not affect their short-term life span as businesses. Self-interest regulates actions that are relevant, at the most, to <100 year lifespans, and generational transfers within that. The environment and the natural world do not operate on that schedule. People taking action in the interest of a 20yr business does not in any way translate to benefit an environment that functions on a whole other scale of time and progression. This is why we keep on making decisions that will make things REALLY shitty for people born in 2080, because whatever happens then is of no relevance whatsoever to a business/individual that is operating/living now. The bee thing I posted just to show an example of why thinking property rights are the be-all-end-all solution for natural management is profoundly flawed. Sure, the farmer could put new bees in his property, but he may have ruined his soil in the collapse and not be able to get his farm running profitably again. I am not saying the first person did not have a right to get rid of the bees, only showing how making decisions purely out of self interest can generate massive unbalances in natural systems that are completely intertwined among our properties. Humans have come up with the concept of property rights in order to advance as a civil society, but that doesn't mean those principles are fundamental to the way nature works.

...the same stuff we've been hearing from you for years that seem to hold no bearing on the reality of human society and behavior. To humor you though, I don't see in your example exactly why a private disposal company would have an incentive to charge more for plastic bags. It takes the same amount of cost and effort to toss both in a landfill. The environmental choice MUST be the more profitable one, or else it won't happen. And the whole pollution argument we've been over already. In the past, I offered the bee example, which I believe you dismissed with no convincing argument... I own a property that happens to house several bee hives that pose a threat to my family's health, so I decide to eliminate them completely. My neighbor's farm down the road all of a sudden loses its primary pollinators and suffers catastrophic losses before he realizes what happened. Pollution is complex and incredibly hard to quantify for individual cases. Delving into the minutiae for every particular case would create a legal quagmire, hold the courts up, and waste a tremendous amount of money in the study and research of every specific claim. And anyways, companies get sued by everyone already, but they command incredibly powerful teams that are able to steamroll past the common man very easily and make it very undesirable and unworthy of their effort. Your approach is naive. Environmental affairs must be mostly taken care of with broad, overarching strokes, because the environment affects us all in broad, overarching ways. You also clearly don't realize that pollution and environmental damage is very often intangible and offers no immediate "pain" that would cause people to react in time to stop before irreversible damage is made. People are not gonna sue a company because they're making the air brown, they'll do it years down the road when they start dying of lung cancer and the environment is already beyond repair. And so I restate my case, the only way the environment will be taken care of by the market is if it's more profitable than not taking care of it. The way our society and culture is structured, not taking care of it is more profitable in the short term, therefore it will not be taken care of. People like Al Gore step up, say "oh hey let's make money by saving the environment" and people jump down his throat for it. I mean dude, wise up, cause it's either that approach, or the government. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I hope you're not suggesting that an increase of 1°C from the current temperature is equivalent to a increase of 33.8°F from the current temperature. That would be a crass misinterpretation. No, it's the opposite. Ron Paul's approach to the environment is such, because he thinks the government shouldn't be involved in anything. As much as I agree with the fact that the government is involved in too many things it shouldn't be right now, there is simply no other way to deal with the environment than to order people to get their shit together. There is literally zero incentive for the free market to enact an environmentally friendly policy. None. The consumer public will never demand it to the extent that will cause a shift in the market's behavior towards the environment. It is painfully clear that the decision to change towards a sustainable lifestyle will never come out of the pure hearts of consumers who have spent decades being conditioned to a market of overconsumption and extreme resource drain. Someone or something HAS to step in and change the way things are done. If the government is not the one to step in and enact this change, then tell me, who is?

That bitch got "Prey" tatttooed on her forehead, then got subsequently fixed to look like an a. Look at the "e" in "Sinners", it's identical (as NBB pointed out). They just added another vertical bar then moved the tail of the "y" over.

Aliens is simply the best movie ever made. Period.

No, I didn't mean to imply it was caused by global warming, though I kinda see why it was taken that way. Just extending the metaphor and linking it to a real world event... liberty and privacy is useless to a Haitian crushed under the rubble of his own house. Doing something for the environment will be profitable economically and politically to someone. It will probably be people you don't like very much. There is simply no way to avoid this, given the way we have structured our society and the way we have taught everyone to pursue goals within it. So again I say, disliking the people who have cleverly positioned themselves to benefit from changes to our environment is in no way a tolerable excuse to sit back and refuse to take necessary steps. It's not gonna make the tiger magically disappear. I'm a definite non-fan of cap and trade as well, but it's a first step into integrating environmental concerns into a capitalist system that has absolutely no incentive whatsoever to give a damn about it. It's a model that needs to be refined and most likely completely tossed out, but it gets the ball rolling and gets the money people involved in environmental affairs they've been ignoring for far too long because the market will never demand it. And corporate social responsibility is not about companies being morally responsible, it's about companies giving the impression they are being morally responsible. The sincerity of any company decision and effort that fits the CSR schema is to be taken with a grain of salt. And finally, sure there are some regulations being exacted on big coal and oil. Harsh enough? I don't know. But we also need to get behind a SERIOUS push towards stronger incentives for companies working on more sustainable energy production. The market will NEVER demand clean energy. We need to work out alternate means to push our economy in that direction, and it'll most likely involve the consumer public having to sacrifice some things they have taken for granted.

You can't get robbed, lose your privacy, or your liberty in a house that just collapsed. All of that stuff is meaningless if you've lost your home to begin with. Ask a crushed Haitian about how he feels about his privacy and property right now. I did reply to the rest of the stuff you said and re-said on this post, mainly with the fact that THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOMEONE WHO BENEFITS TREMENDOUSLY by any given situation, at any given time. Of course people are gonna look for ways to get rich off environmentalism. It's called fucking capitalism, it's how our entire society works. If shit doesn't make money, shit doesn't happen. If we want to fix the world, well damn right we have to figure out a way to make money doing it. It's like standing on the edge of a cliff, with a tiger running straight towards you, and refusing to jump off the cliff cause there's a guy on the bottom that wants to charge you for landing on his mattress. And dude is holding a megaphone screaming THERE'S A FUCKING TIGER COMING, JUMP ONTO THIS MATTRESS!, and you're like "Well he's just saying that for his own economic benefit, I'm not falling for this nonsense". And clearly you are not familiar of the concept of corporate social responsibility and why companies put effort and money into causes that appear to be opposed to their interests. It's not as clear cut as you lay it out, there's several layers of strategic thought involved that in the end do serve the company's interest, however opposite it may seem. Also, energy companies are wising up to the fact that there's money to be made in green technology, so they will definitely want to dip their toes in it while still holding on to their bread and butter.

Follow up: Soldier given suspended sentence for handing shotgun to police 'should have been given award instead' By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 4:29 PM on 18th December 2009 A former soldier arrested after handing in a sawn-off shotgun was given a suspended sentence today - but said he should have received an award instead. Paul Clarke, 27, spotted a black binliner in his back garden earlier this year and discovered it contained a 20 gauge double-barrelled gun. When he took it to a police station four days later, he was shocked to be arrested for possessing the firearm. He was found guilty of that offence by a jury last month, but claims his arrest was a 'stitch-up' by police. Clarke said today that he failed to call 999 when he found the gun because he had suffered 'harassment' from Surrey Police over a relationship he was having with a female detective. He told Reading Crown Court: 'I was sleeping with a detective from Reigate and I think another officer got a bit jealous and I'd had a bit of harassment since then.' Clarke admitted he had been in trouble with police before, and added: 'I didn't want to call 999 and get trigger-happy police turning up on my doorstep.' Instead, he contacted a police officer he knew personally and set up a meeting with him, in which he produced the bin liner containing the gun from his trouser pocket. He was arrested and taken to police cells where he was questioned. Lionel Blackman, defending, said it was an 'exceptional case' and quoted Home Office guidance which says: 'No obstacle should be placed in the way of a person who wants to surrender firearms or ammunition to the police.' However, because possession of a firearm is a strict liability offence, Clarke's intent in handing it in was deemed to be irrelevant. Judge Christopher Critchlow told Clarke the minimum sentence for possessing a firearm is normally five years, but admitted it was a 'highly unusual' case. Instead, he gave Clarke a 12-month sentence, suspended for one year, and put him under a one-night curfew from 8pm tonight until 7am tomorrow. He told Clarke: 'I understand you were once a soldier, and you in particular ought to have appreciated the danger posed by such a weapon and should have asked the police to come and collect it right away.' Speaking after the sentencing, Clarke said: 'It's pathetic how Surrey Police have ignored Home Office policy. 'The Crown Prosecution Service has betrayed the public interest, all over a personal grudge. 'I think I should get a good citizen's award. I'm the only victim here.' The judge said he believed the case was unique. He told the court: 'This is the only case, as far as I know, where a person has been charged with such an offence, having surrendered such a weapon at the police station.' But he said that, despite the circumstances, sawn-off shotguns are used by 'serious violent criminals to commit very serious crimes'. The judge added: 'It must be appreciated that it is vital that these weapons are taken out of circulation immediately they are found. 'Otherwise, there is a risk a serious offence might be committed using such a weapon.' Clarke had stored the gun in a wooden chest at his home in Merstham, Redhill, Surrey, for safety after finding it in his garden, which backs on to a playing field, on March 16. He said he thought the gun might be a replica, but also feared it could have been a murder weapon. Clarke said he wanted to meet his contact, Chief Superintendent Adrian Harper, Divisional Commander for East Surrey, sooner, but the policeman was not available. He said he did not want to contact any other officers, and admitted: 'I've had a few run-ins with the police before. I know how the armed unit acts.' Clarke said he did not want to throw away the weapon, so handing it in was his only course of action. He added: 'I was more concerned that I would be done for wasting police time than anything else. It never even crossed my mind that I would be arrested.' When he was indeed arrested, Clarke said he was told the worst he could expect was a caution, which he protested he did not want as he had done 'the right thing'. The judge said there was no evidence suggesting that Clarke came to have the gun in his possession by any other means, but told him: 'Your account seems somewhat implausible but I am not prepared to find, bearing the burden and standard of proof and that I must be sure upon such matters, that it was other than as you have maintained.' Clarke, whose supporters in court included UK Independence Party MEP Nigel Farage, said: 'I hadn't done anything wrong. I wish I had thrown it in the lake, but unfortunately I didn't.' Mr Blackman said his client's actions were 'laudable' and that he should be receiving a reward, not punishment. He said: 'If there is any culpability on his part, it is his failure to act immediately and getting it into the safe custody of police. 'The reality is that many citizens of this country have reasons not to trust all policemen all the time, and this defendant has explained that he has reasons not to trust all policemen all the time.' Clarke was previously convicted of handling stolen goods in 2001, of possessing a stun-gun in 2002 and of affray in 2008. Speaking outside court, Mr Blackman said: 'As a matter of urgency, the Home Office should issue clear public guidelines on what to do when firearms are found. 'The public money spent on this trial could have been better spent publicising an amnesty for those who surrender firearms. 'Parliament should rethink the strict liability for possession of a firearm and the mandatory minimum sentence of five years.' Mr Farage hailed the sentencing as an 'outbreak of common sense' and said he was delighted by the outcome. He added: 'However, I still intend to write to every MP in this Parliament, and the next if necessary, to talk about the concept of strict liability. 'There is still a big question mark in people's minds over what they should do if they find a shotgun in their gardens. 'If you've been in trouble with the police, you're going to think twice.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236976/Soldier-given-suspended-sentence-handing-shotgun-police-given-award-instead.html