Artful Dodger:

> That's what is meant by wanting him to fail. We want Obama's efforts to fundamentally
> change America to fail because we believe he is taking us in the WRONG direction.

I think that Obama's true failure is not in trying to change the US, but in failing to realize that the US is a country that cannot change. The American political, legal and economic systems have become such that the US can no longer see itself in a different way. The United States has an inertia to change, and Barack Obama fails to accept that. The US is very good at technical change (computers, cell phones, satellites, etc.) but it has become fossilized in its inability to change politically or socially.

Certain things point to the American failure to accept change. For example, the nuclear threat fo the Cold War and the thousands of soldiers killed in imperialist wars should have given Americans a distaste for war. Instead the US is more militarized than ever and the American government is constatnly trying to find enemies to justify the ever increasing militarization of the American economy. The situation is such that one of the main sustainers of the American economy is the congressional-industrial-military complex.

Another example of the American unwillingness to change is the bailouts to the banks. Rather than accept that the Capitalist system has some serious flaws and contradictions, the American government decided to intervene and save a failed financial system. In the past the cyclical collapse of the financial system pointed to the recurring crises in Capitalism. Rather than accept that there is a need for change in the economic system, the Us refuses change and decides to save banks in order to maintain the status quo.

Americans do not want to see that the current economic system is unsustainable. For a long time the largest companies in the World were American companies. General Motors used to be the biggest until it nearly collapsed. Now Toyota and Hyundai compete for the top spot in the automobile manufacturing sector. Exxon remains the biggest oil company in the World, but at its current rate of growth, Russian giant Gazprom will be the biggest energy company by 2020. The largest steel manufacturers in the world are now Arcelor Mittal (based in Luxembourg and India), Shanghai Baosteel (in China) and Posco (in South Korea). United States Steel Corp. is now ranked 11th in the World when 100 years ago it produced 60% of the World's steel and was the largest company in the world. At the current pace China will have the largest economy in the World by 2017.

Since light and heavy manufacturing have slowly shifted overseas, the US has sunk into a masive trade deficit that is eating away at the American economy. The response to this presented itself in banks taking more aggressive and more risky investment strategies that eventually led to the collapse of 2008. At the same time, the increasing militarization of the US has been used as a way to stimulate economic and technological development.

Maintaining the military system and the banks has come at a high price. Funds that were meant to provide for social services and "entitlements" were heavily diverted mostly to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. People have already forgotten George W. Bush going to congress to literally "beg" for more funds because the war effort in Iraq was constantly running out of money (or course, to the benefit of companies like Haliburton, who made hundreds of billions out of the War). Congress simply shifted funds that were "earmarked" for the pension system and reallocated them to the Pentagon. In doing so the War in Iraq was paid with the pensions of the Baby Boomer generation.

Alan Greenspan (former chair fo the Federal Reserve) warned that by 2017 the pension system could run out of funds. At the same time, as many of the poorer segments of American society retire, the stress on the healthcare system will increase.

Barack Obama tried to rectify some of this economic problems, but he failed to realize how reluctant to change the American public is. Americans want to have it all: the biggest economy, the most powerful military, the highest standard of living, AND the lowest taxes. Therein lies the contradiction. You can have a big military by taking from the poor and reallocating money to the pursuit of military might. You can have a high standard of living with good pensions and good healthcare, but only by having a higher rate of taxation. You can have the largest economy in the world if the manufacturing sector is strong, but all manufacturing is now done overseas. Something has to give: either a smaller military, a lower standard of living, or higher taxes.

Barack Obama pretends to want to change things, but does nothing to change the nature of the system. That is why Barack Obama is failing and the public, unable to see what the true nature of the problem is, will simply hand both houses to Republicans, thus making sure that the US is politically, economically and socially stuck for several more years. Republicans behave as if everything is fine with this political and economic inertia. The question is, what will the US do when China becomes the largest economy in the World in 2017? That is only 7 years from now and the way things are looking it is quite likely that Sarah Palin will be in office by then!

Artful Dodger:

> Obama has borrowed 3.5 Trillion in just 19 months.

Enlighten me. How much of that was for the bailouts for the banks? And who came up with the bailouts in the first place?

Artful Dodger:

> Did you NOT see how much money that idiot is borrowing against our future?
> Did you not see the comparison over the last 200 plus years vrs his 19 months in office?

Is that Bush or Obama? The truth is that every president has always borrowed more than the previous guy, even Bill Clinton, who ended with a surplus, borrowed more than the previous administrations. George W. Bush borrowed more than any president in history. That information you posted a while back assigned to Obama the bailout for the banks, and that was George W. Bush's idea. Obama merely enacted a lot of policies born at the end of the Bush administration in agreement with the Federal Reserve. In that sense it is unfair to blame Obama for a lot of policies generated in a Republican administration.

"GERRY":

> The true native canadians have the power now so why worry

I wonder where in Canada you live. I suppose having Stephen Harper as prime minister really really means Canadians have political power. But then, most Canadians are too complacent to even realize how bad the government here is. Living in Alberta all I can say is that Conservatives here are good for only one thing: giving money away to big business. People here dream that if enough oil money comes into this place, their lives will somehow be better. Nobody wants to see that all that the Conservatives ever did is give away our natural resources to Big Oil, in exchange for peanuts and scraps. The Liberals merely turned a blind eye to it and couldn't even pretend to care. The Socialists (NDP) were too worried trying to look centrist and not left wing, so they did nothing. The Green Party are just like the Liberals, except they pretend to care about the environment, as long as the Capitalist business agenda is not affected. The Bloc Quebecois can't see past the borders of Quebec and cares about nobody else and uses Quebecois nationalism as a tool to cement their own political power. Other parties are too small to even make a dent on the system. Canada probably has the most mediocre political system on the planet. At least in other parts of the World people have the guts to fight back, but we Canadians are gutless.

True native Canadians? You means First Nations like Cree, Black Foot, etc.? If you mean Frist Nations people, they are the poorest, most dispossed and least empowered people in this country. From where I stand, 60% of the people in this country are first or second generation immigrants. Most of my friends (even those with 3 or 4 generations in Canada) have immigrant relatives somewhere, or relatives outside of Canada. We are a country of immigrants. What is a true native Canadian? I am curious to know.

Artful Dodger:

> He said one thing, he did another. He's under-handed and totally unqualified to be
> President. He's a fish out of water. He's clueless. And he's ruining America. He's
> surrounded by a bunch of incompetents who are clueless on how to effectively run a
> government.

Is that Bush or Obama?

All presidents seem to fit your comment! Nixon? Carter? Clinton? Bush Sr.? Even Ronald Regan falls into this one.

I can say the same about all our Canadian Prime Ministers and prominent politicians. Say one thing, do another. Undermine the opposition. Use underhanded tactics to get what you want. Chose incompetent, clueless fools to the highest posts in office, etc.

If Obama were a Republican, would he be different? Maybe only in so far as giving more tax breaks to the rich. But then, all politicians are really good at giving free money to the rich in the form of tax breaks, bailouts, etc. I see little difference from one party to another, because the real infection is in the political system itself, not just individual parties.

I suppose after some 70 years or so our western societies have forgotten where "welfare capitalism" came from. There was a time when we had no healthcare, no welfare payments for the poor, no employment insurance, etc. The State was not involved in those things. Taxes were low, governments were small and those in need had to fend for themselves.

We have to go back to the 1920s and 1930s. If you were poor, you had very little and you had to somehow survive. You would look at the rich and wonder why they had so much, while you had so little. The end result was massive social unrest. It became so bad that from 1917 to 1949 we went from a world that was entirely Capitalist to 1/3 of the people of the world going into revolution and falling under Communist rule. After all, the Communist promise sounded good. Take from the rich and give to the poor.

Then we had millions of people returning home from WW II. Those people fought hard to protect their freedom. They would come home and find no work. They would ask themselves "Is this what I fought for?" So Communism was still sounding really good.

Capitalist governments faced a lot of pressure to change, or else have huge revolutions. So those in power figured that if they taxed the wealthy and the middle class, and used that money to provide services, then they could reduce hardship on people and put an end to the rising social unrest. It was pressure from Communists and Socialists that made things change. Just as the French Revolution had made western societies abandon aristocratic rule and give people democracy, so the Soviet revolution made western society give up some of its capitalist selfishness and greed and give people some relief from their poverty.

Now Capitalist countries wish they could do away with many of those programs. The question is: "Could they?" I think that without those social programs we would fall back into the anarchic days of social unrest. I think that if poverty were to increase massively, people would rethink their posture against Communism. Then they would look at China and say "look at their economic prosperity, maybe Communists got it right after all".

Welfare capitalism is there for one main reason, to stop Communism from gaining ground.

Jim Dandy:

It is not a doomsday scenario. It is merely the government not having enough to pay for it. Then having to either raise taxes or cut elsewhere to pay for it all. People are now talking of changing the retirement age to 70 so people can work a few extra years. Still, if you live to be 85, and retire at 65. That is 20 years of pension to be paid. People are living longer and longer. The pension system can't keep up. The most wasteful are of most governments is the military. Eventually the money will have to come from there. Where else?

I think that ultimately the United States will have to make some tough choices on "entitlements" and other government expenses.

This year 2010 represents the first year since "baby boomers" (those born after 1945) begin to retire. Over the next 10-20 years the American healthcare and pension sytems will face tremendous pressure to come up with the funds to continue to give people services.

As the population ages, those costs will continue to increase and the American government will have to either raise more funds or cut services. Since the funds come from taxation, it is quite likely that the US will have no choice other than raise taxes. The US already has the largest public debt in the World accounting for nearly 28% of the entire World's public debt.

Even without "Obamacare" the American healthcare and pension systems are already stretched to the maximum. The other option is to take money from somewhere else. That could mean less spending on infrastructure (e.g. tranportation infrastructure), a bad idea since that would slow down the economy too much. It could also mean a drastic reduction in military spending.

The Iraq War was payed in part through massive borrowing (never had the US borrowed so much money in its history) and in part through "reallocation of entitlements". The Bush administration took hundreds of billions of dollars that were sitting "idle" in the pension system, and through fiscal manouvering, reallocated them to the military. Alan Greenspan knew this and he was glad to be a part of it, but he warned that if something was not done the pension system would run out of money by 2017.

The only way the US will be able to restore those funds and pay for healthcare and old-age pensions will be with drastic cuts in the military. That will mean a massive recession and massive unemployment because the Cold War turned the US into a war economy. The US will have to take big steps backward in its global military presence, and scrap wasteful defense initiatives such as the ICBM Interception System, which at the research stage alone is costing over 1 trillion dollars.

So the priorities will be clear cut. Either healthcare and old age pensions, or continue to spend trillions in the military. A tough choice for a superpower!

Artful Dodger:

> I don't agree.

You would disagree even with the Old Testament? I am not making up the story of Ishmael. It is in Genesis!

Artful Dodger:

> Who can really understand God? But as I understand it, the Spirit is personal, distinct from God the Father, but ONE with the Father.
> The Spirit IS God as God is God as Jesus is God. The Spirit is the second Person of the Trinity.

This is an interpretation of the Gospels. When John the Baptist baptizes Jesus, Jesus comes out of the water and Heaven opens. There descends a dove, and a voice from Heaven says "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

The interpretation is that the voice is God as the Father, the dove is God as the Holy Spirit, and Jesus is God as the Son.

This is God's miracle. He can be three beings at the same time. Thereby God shows that He has a power beyond that of a human being. Only God can be father and son at the same time. In other words, God creates himself, and manifests himself spiritually, without the physical limitations of a human being.

Of course, this is a matter of faith. Moslems do not see Jesus as the Son of God. As this Arab I met years ago told me. "Why should God need a son? If God wants to do something, He does it himself. He needs nobody else."

I suppose faith is a tricky thing, particularly since there is no solid historical proof that Jesus or John the Baptist existed. Belief in the Holy Trinity is entirely a matter of faith.

Artful Dodger:

> Christians don't claim that the God of the Jews isn't the same ONE as the God of the Christians. They are the same.

You said that Moslems have a different god. The point I am trying to make is that Moslems do worship the same God, not only that, but Zoroastrianism predates Judaism and it also worshiped the same monotheistic God.

Of course, Genesis says clearly that Abraham had a son with Hagar, Sarah's handmaiden. This son was called Ishmael and was the father of race today identified with the "northern Arabs". Arabs consider themselves Abraham's descendants too. Thise just merely points to a common origin for all Semitic people's of Asia Minor.

Jesus was a Jew. He was born a Jew and he died a Jew. Christianity as such did not exist until Saitn Paul reinterpreted the death of Jesus as the salvation of mankind from the Original Sin that all human beings inherited from Adam. Thus, both Judaism and Christianity worship the same God. Of course both religions are very different since Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Judaism is still waiting for its Messiah, although it did have four in the past in the forms of Moses, David, Solomon and Darius the Great (he is called a Messiah in the Old Testament even though he was a Zoroastrian Persian).

Islam arose later, out of Judaic and Christian beliefs among Arabs. The Prophet Mohammed reinterpreted both the Old and New Testaments. In his view (or rather that of Moslem scholars through the Middle Ages) Jesus was a prophet, but not the Son of God. All of the prophets of the Jews are also the prophets of Islam, and Islam also acknowledges Abraham as the first true prophet.

To say that the religions worship different Gods is wishful thinking. It is the desire to set each other apart, and it is born out of prejudice and fear. "There is no way my Christian God is the same as the Islamic God or the Jew God." It might appeal to those who are prejudiced and ignorant.

Of course, the first monotheistic religion was Zoroastrianism. The Chaldean civilization was an offshoot of the Babilonian civilization, and Abraham was a Chaldean. As such he would have been aware of Zoroastrian monotheism, and Genesis clearly points in some passages to the existence of other monotheistic tribes in ancient Judea.

Of course, it was the Zoroastrians who first personified good as God (Ahura Mazda) and evil as the Devil (Ariman). According to the Zend Avesta their epic war was waged for eons. Zoroaster predates Abraham by about 400 years, but neither Jews nor Christians nor Moslems acknowledge Zoroastrianism because that was the religion of the Persians, one of the dominant empires of antiquity.

Ferris Bueller:

> It has been 10 years and no decision has been made about how the victims should be honored in the space of the Twin Towers.

I think the real problem is that the Towers sat on one of the choicest pieces of real estate in the world. There were those who expected that the site would be rebuilt with even bigger towers for bankers to make more money. Now they see a memorial site and there is no profit in that.

I think that this is an instance where racism has reared its ugly head behind a mask called "the United States is a Christian nation." It is like saying "X is an Islamic nation and now these Christians want to build a church here." It is all about extremism and prejudice.

I think that the greatest memorial the world could build there is a monument against war. If a lesson should have been learned it is that war and violence beget war and violence. In 2014 we will celebrate 100 years since the start of WW I, what was called "the war to end all wars". I think a memorial commemorating WW I and the tragedy of 911 would be the most appropriate thing. 911 is testament to how the lessons of WW I were never learned. A memorial against war could at least show that some of the lessons have been learned.

Artful Dodger:
> Libs always run things into the ground. Their philosophy is wrong.
> Republicans loose out when they violate their principles of low spending, limited
> government, and deference to the states.

Historically, it was always Republicans who lead massive increases in the deficit and national public debt, usually by giving tax cuts away while increasing massively on defense spending. We can look at the Regan and both Bush administrations for that.

Democrats are more of a mixed bag. Bill Clinton finished his term in office with the first surplus since WW II. Barack Obama is seeing a massive increase in the deficit, mostly due to the bailout for the banks (which in fairness was George W. Bush's last act as president, and was carried over into the new administration). That ill-fated healthcare plan is going to cost a lot, and the only way to take care of that is to take away the tax cuts that the Bush administration gave to the rich.

In reality, both political parties are full of "brilliant" and "expensive" ideas. I see Democrats and Republicans as two sides of the same coin. Both parties represent the interests of monopolies and the corporate elite. The difference being mostly on who they represent. However, deep at heart both parties exist to protect the interests of mega-capitalists and the American corporate elite.

In that sense, to say that the Democrats are socialists is like saying that the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is capitalist. The US democrats don't even come close to Europe's Social Democrat parties.

I always wondered why Jeb Bush never ran for higher office. I am sure he must have some appeal among Republicans.

Übergeek 바둑이:

Something I did hear about is about Joe Biden leaving the vice-presidency. If that were the case maybe Hilary Clinton would become the vice-presidential candidate. An Obama-Clinton ticket would be very difficult to beat.

Artful Dodger:

I think that is wishful thinking. I doubt that he would just step away from the presidency. I think the real challenge is on the other side. The Republicans have to mount an aggressive campaign and chose their best possible candiadate. It will be interesting to see who their candidate is. I haven't read any opinion poll results showing who the favorite Republican candidate would be. I imagine that Sarah Palin, maybe even Mike Huckabee.

Artful Dodger:

Reelect Barack Bin Laden!

Artful Dodger:
> All of the above have been done by our 44th president.

> Again, I ask, what would a jihadist do?

Barack Bin Laden for president! Hurray!!!

Tuesday:

> Name one problem in the word that wasn't man made.

That's exactly my point. A perfect God makes NO mistakes. If God had made even the slightest mistake, then he would not be perfect. Humanity is imperfect. The only way God can be perfect again is to erase his mistakes, but He is a creator and not a destroyer, so He left us to erase our own mistakes. I might be able to become a better person as an individual, but humanity is iincapable of becoming better as a whole. Eventually, our mistake will be fatal and we will completely destroy ourselves and everything in this planet. Then God's mistake will be erased and God will be perfect again. The only way we could save ourselves would be to get rid of every weapon, stop every war, stop every bit of environmental destruction, stop releasing cancer-causing chemicals, stop being greedy, stop being selfish, eliminate all poverty, etc. etc. But we are unable to, and given our history for the last 10,000 years, we never will. Thus it is a matter of time before some insane moron triggers Armageddon. All it takes is a nuclear bomb and the push of a button. That is the ultimate price of free will. It is in free will that God made his mistake. But we are arrogant, and want to see ourselves as more than we are. We want to be God's preferred children, rather than a mere evolutionary mistake.

Tuesday:

There are many things about the Interpretations of the Bible that really bother me. If God created EVERYTHING, did he create Adolf Hitler too, and Osam Bin Laden and Ted Bundy, etc. Then people quote the Devil. Lucifer strayed and became the root of all Evil, but then, who created Lucifer?

Of all things that people interpret from the Bible these are what bothers me the most:

> The Bible tells us that God's ultimate purpose for the universe is to reveal His glory.

God's glory is revealed in nuclear bombs, and gas chambers, and the terrible things that human beings do? After all, if God made people in his own image and we are a reflection of His own glory. I think we are arrogant to think God made us in His image and that His glory is expressed through mankind.

> The Bible tells us that God's ultimate purpose for mankind is to reveal His love.

Every day there are floods, earthquakes, wars, etc. Is that God's love? Then we come to the old "He will reveal His glory and his love on the Day of Judgement". It sounds to me like an excuse. If God loves all of humanity, then why give a child cancer, or let a child be raped in a war? If God loves us, he is sure taking His time showing it.

> In a nutshell, God created mankind for His pleasure. He didn't need to create us, but
> He chose to create us for His own pure enjoyment. God is a loving Father and we
> were created to be His children.

I doubt that God enjoys war and suffering. So we tell ourselves that God aches for us, that he suffers as much as we do when he sees how bad we are. so we keep making excuses for God neglecting us and we keep telling ourselves that some day, somewhere, somehow, God will come and set things straight.

A long time ago I was a child and I understood as a child, and when I became a man I put away childish things, then I understood that God stopped caring about humanity a long time ago, because we have done nothing but disappoint him all along. He sent us prophets, wise men and even His own Son, and we still turned our backs on God. So God stopped loving humanity. Now we make excuses for ourselves and for why God never shows Himself to us.

Thus I developed a simple theory. God created life, and with life He created evolution so that some day an intelligent being would arise. That was Homo sapiens sapiens, the creature that was supposed to be the pinnacle of evolution on this planet and the true expression of God's creative power. But then something went wrong. Homo sapiens sapiens was defective. It started preying on everything, even itself. It destroyed everything it touched. It polluted every river and every lake. It slowly took over and destroyed every corner of the planet. Homo sapiens sapiens was God's evolutionary mistake. God wanted to erase that mistake, but he did not have the heart to destroy intelligent beings, so he left Homo sapiens sapiens to itself, so that it would slowly destroy itself in its own cruelty and arrogance. And so we are slowly killing ourselves. We try our best to get better, to be better, but our basic design flaw rears its ugly head. We keep preying on each other, exploiting each other, using each other for our own pursuit of wealth and power. Now we have the tools to destroy every living being on this planet, and it is only a matter of time before we do. Our own nuclear bombs will soon enough erase God's mistake. Then God can be perfect again, without that mistake hanging over Him. I think the reason why we never found intelligent life in the universe other than our own is because God did not wat to make the same mistake twice, so he never created another Homo sapiens sapiens. Making that mistake once was enough.

Tuesday:

> If everyone followed the teachings there would be no war but not everyone is going to follow so what do we do to protect ourselves.

There is no solution because religion is a tool in the hands of the wealthy and the powerful. As long as there is religion there will be those who abuse it and exploit it for their own ends.

Communists tried to solve it by getting rid of religion completely. When the Soviet Union came into Afghanistan they tried to change that place, but between the CIA and Mujahideen the Soviet Union failed and now we have the Taliban and Al Qaida (both the Mujahideen's bastard children). Interestingly, at the time the US saw it as its duty to stop the Godless communists (obviously out of some sense of Christian duty).

The Communist solution (elimination of religion) was bound to fail because without religion people feel lost. People need to believe in something other than the physical world. Without God there is no salvation, and people fear death and non-existence more than anything else. It is that fear that is used by the powerful to manipulate the masses. "If you do what I, your religious leader, say, you will go to Heaven. If you don't, you will be damned in the fires of hell."

Christianity is not immune. And these days we replace religion with ideology. "If you don't go to war, your freedom and democracy will end and you will be condemned to anarchy and dictatorship." "If you don't go to war, socialism and the revolution will end and you will be condemned to capitalist exploitation and the abuses of the bourgeosie." It is all the same thing, fear packaged under different wording.

Tuesday:

> Old Testament was scary times. That was before Christ.

The modern world is even scarier, and this is AFTER Christ!

This is a question for any good Christian out there:

Is it right for any country to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons? Does having those nuclear weapons (which could kill every living thing in this planet) contradict Christian teaching? After all, the biggest arsenals of nuclear weapons are in the hands of predominantly "Christian countries".

Is it right for any country to support fascist dictators, then have those dictators kill Communists? What about killing millions people in anticommunist wars (like Russia, Vietnam, Korea, certain wars in Africa and Latin America)? Can those actions be reconciled with Christian teaching?

Al Qaida killed 3000 in New York, and the Coalition of the Willing killed over 300,000 people in Iraq. Who can point the finger to whom? Can the killing of hundreds of thousands be reconciled with Christian teaching?

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Western culture glorifies its billionaires and wealthy capitalists. Is there not a contradiction between that and the Sermon on the Mount?

I think Islamic Law is oppressive and wrong, specially the Sharia law that the Taliban is imposing in Afghanistan. However, for Christians to come and claim superiority is hypocritical in view of the history of Christianity and war. After all, Christianity is a religion that spread itself around the world through violence, brutality and cruelty. If you don't believe it look at how the indigenous peoples of the Americas were "converted" to Christianity.

Jesus was a man who praised love and kindness above all. Christians are supposed to follow the teachings of Jesus. Those teachings go out the window when it comes to wealth and power.

People go home and say to themselves "it has nothing to do with me, I am not the one who made nuclear bombs and went to war", but then, they voted into office those who made the bombs and went to war, and then paid for it with their tax dollars. They bury their heads in the sand of self-righteousness.

Artful Dodger:

In reality, it would be unfair to single out Christians (or Moslems) in terms of war and violence. I could easily have said:

Nothing says "good ______" like fearing and hating other religions.

The history of organized religion is also the history of violence and war. the reason is that those in power use religion as a tool to manipulate the masses into hatred, fear and war.

Unfortunately, there is a big difference between what people preach and what people do. The Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam and their variants) have been used as excuses for war. People claim to believe in the Bible, but conveniently ignore its key points when political power and wealth are involved.

Unfortunately in most places organized religion has become organized hypocrisy. God must sit in heaven and wonder if it is really worth saving humanity. After all, we have done nothing but disappoint God all along. We have come to glorify wealth, power and war beyond kindness, understanding and tolerance.

I can go to most Christians and tell them: "Do you think it is a good idea to get rid of our nuclear weapons? What about dismantling our bloated armies? Should we turn those millions of soldiers into something else, people who don't kill?" Most of them would have no answer for me. In the US most good Christians would rather keep the nuclear weapons and the war planes and the armies, even though their "Christian beliefs" say otherwise. Those Christians that heavily criticize that mosque will be the first to say the wars in the Middle East are OK. So much for "good Christians".

Nothing says "good Christian" like fearing and hating other religions.

Most people out there are really ignorant when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Those who oppose them think that governments are willing to just give up their stockpiles and that somehow those in power will give up nuclear wapons out of the goodnes of their hearts.

Those who want to keep nuclear weapons (like Sarah Palin and other of similar right wing tendencies) are thinking that if you keep the wapons, nobody will ever attack you out of fear. The so called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) principle.

Out there there are only 7 countries with the so called hydrogen bombs (two-stage thermonuclear devices). To put it into perspective, we must realize that WW II saw the deployment of an equivalent of 2 megatons of TNT by all parties involved. In other words, the equivalent of 2,000,000 tons of TNT were detonated by all countires involved in the war.

The first country to develop a thermonuclear device was the US, which developed the Ullam-Teller design (H Bomb) in 1951. The ultimate capability of that bomb was 25 megatons, the equivalent of an explosion of 25,000,000 tons of TNT. Now think about this, a single bomb detonated with the power of 12.5 times all the explosives used in WW II.

Then the Soviet Union followed in 1957 with what is called Sakharov's Third Way (apparently similar to the Ullam Teller design of the US). In 1961 the Soviet Union detonated the largest bomb in history. The Tsar Bomba had a yield of 50 megatons. Originally it had been designed as a 100 megaton bomb, but they decided to cut the yiel in half at the last minute. A single bomb could explode with 25 (and potentially 50) times the amount of all explosives used in WW II.

Later the UK developed its Granite series of bombs in 1957 and ultimately achived explosions of 3 megatons.

The People's Republic of China detonated its H bomb in 1967 and achieved yeilds of 3.3 megatons.

France followed in 1968 with Canopus bomb and achieved 2.1 megatons.

Israel is believed to have H boms, but they have never detonated or tested any nuclear weapons (obviously the reduced land area of Israel makes it unsafe to test any devices. It is bleived that Israel had nuclear devices as early as 1961 since Stanislaw Ulam probably passed his design onto Israel from very early on.

India detonated an H bomb in 1998, but achieved only about 50 kilotons of yield.

Thus we can see that there are only 5 countries with H bombs that yield in the megaton range. While schematics of H bombs are well known, details of their design are the most closely guarded secrets in the world, and they should be because in reality nuclear weapons are not as complex as people think. It is the purification of the fissile material that is difficult, and Pakistan's developments in that area and how Pakistan has sold that information means that nuclear weapons are now easier to make than ever.

Other countries have nuclear weapons of the type called "uranium" and "plutonium" type. Pakistan has detonated nuclear weapons and is still increasing its stockpile. North Korea is a recent addition to the nuclear club, but compared to other countries their techonology is primitive.

South Africa had nuclear weapons in the 1980s but apparently dismantled them and its nuclear programs in the 1990s. Most countries in NATO share nuclear weapons and are technologically advanced enough to develop them on their own, as are most countries that were part of the Soviet Union. Belarus, Kazkhstand and the Ukraine inherited thousands of missiles from the Soviet Union but they got rid of them and returned them to Russia or destroyed them.

In other places countries like Brazil, Argentina, Japan, Australia, Taiwan, Albania, Algeria, Syria, and a few others have the technical know-how but refuse to pursue nuclear weapons, at least openly! The US is on Iran's case about it, although the motivivations there are more political since Pakistan is 1000 times the threat that Iran is, but then Pakistan is an "ally" of the US.

In my opinion, in the next 30 years we will see at least 10 other countires detonate nuclear weapons and there is nothing the US or Russia can do about it.

The US insisted in pursuing the arms race during the Cold War (of course, the Soviet Union was happy to follow along). Now the US has the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction and it has become impossible for the US to feel safe without them. People like Sarah Palin play on that fear because when the bombs drop, they are not the ones who will do the dying. The likes of Sarah Palin will safely stash themselves away in underground bunkers while the rest of the world dies. I wonder if these people ever saw Dr. Strangelove.

OldFartNamesArt:

Is it Obama's job to stop the oil spill or to pass regulations to ensure companies work safely? How quicly everyone forgets that it was the Republicans under Bush who lowered the environmental standards that oil companies have to meet, all under the guise of decreasing dependency on foreign oil sources.

How quickly everyone forgets Sarah Palin saying "Drill baby, drill" during the presidential campaign. Since she is so much in favour of drilling, shouldn't she do something other than criticize Obama and point to oiil companies supporting his campaign? According to Hufftington Post, she blamed environmentalists for the oil disaster because they force tougher regulations?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/03/sarah-palin-blames-enviro_n_598977.html

Her logic is that deep sea drilling is being fuelled by oil companies being unable to drill in Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge. I suppose the fact that her husband is an oil company employee does not color her desire to drill in the wildlife refuge. She goes on to say that America shouldn't trust BP because it is a foreign oil company, even though her husband worked for BP for years.

In an interview in Fox News she talks of the media not doing enough to be on top of Obama's case for receiving campaign donations from BP. That is real grand from her considering her husband is a company employee!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh4ESaeUE2A

Here is some footage of Sarah Palin calling offshore drilling "environmentally friendly" during the presidential campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn2Tyh6b5dE&feature=fvw

The funny thing is that when the next presidential race comes around, Sarah Palin will score votes against Obama saying that he did nothing, even though she was the one who championed offshore drilling during the previous campaign.

It just goes to show that a good politician is a good hypocrite.

I think that the big problem with the Middle East is that western nations and the United Nations have double standards which greatly favour some countries, while acting to the detriment of others.

One good example is our view of democracy in the region. We tell Iran to become more democratic and to reform its electoral process, while we condone Saudi Arabia's autocratic regime. Most people don't know that women were not allowed to vote in Saudi Arabia in the first local election ever held (that's right, the first ever). Most likely they won't be allowed to vote in 2011 for the next election, just as they are not allowed to drive a car, or go out in public without a male relative or husband to accompany them. Yet our governments point the finger at Iran as the bad guy in the Middle East.

Another good example is nuclear proliferation. Our governments point fingers at Iran and North Korea, yet Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons as a "deterrent". Israel has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and they refuse to allow anyone to inspect their nuclear facilities. That's right, nobody can go into Israel and say "Are you making plutonium?" Yet we want other countries to abandon nuclear programs. We tell them "don't make weapons of mass destruction" even though our countries have the biggest and most deadly arsenals of weapons of mass destruction in history. That's right, nobody has WMDs than the US.

Another interesting one is military aid. Currently Israel gets US $3 billion per year in military aid from the American government. All that money goes to a country that has fighter jets, tanks, battle ships, nuclear weapons, etc. Israel has the 4th largest military in the world. In contrast Palestinians get no military aid. They have sling shots and stones, and when militants make poorly designed rockets everybody calls them terrorists. Imagine having a sling shot and having to fight the 4th largest army in the world, an army that gets billions in military aid every year?

The truth is that the Middle East will be a mess as long as western superpowers see political, economic and military benefits there. We see oil in Saudi Arabia, and a strategic location for military dominance in Israel. So our governments turn a blind eye to all the worngdoings in those places. Our enemies are those governments that act for their own self-interest rather than the political and economic interests of western capitalism. If Iran was a lackey of western superpowers, they would be allowed to have nuclear weapons just like Israel, Pakistan and India are. Then Iran would be called a "democracy" and not a "threat".

Artful Dodger:

Don't you think the "immediate" environment is part of the planet too? When CO2 is released, where does it go? Outer space? Into a cave? We have removed 2/3 of the world's forests, that means 66% less CO2 consumption by plants. At the same time we have pumped tons and tons of CO2 that was trapped in fossil fuels. It took nature millions of years to transform that CO2 into hydrocarbons. We have changed the balance literally overnight.

We look at the problem from a purely consumerist point of view. We want to keep consuming fossil fuels, plastics, consumer products, etc. The pollution that comes in the process is going somewhere, and it is not outside this planet. What you call "immediate" environment is the planet itself. All it comes down to is the fact that the middle class wants to consume and not feel guilty about it. So we make excuses. Scientists are wrong (now, there is something really, really new in history) so let's keep the status quo. Let's drill some more, release a bit here and there. In 300 years, it will be somebody else's problem. We will be dead by then, so the resposibility is not ours anyway.

Artful Dodger:

> Man's overall impact on the planet and climate IS insignificant.

I guess the destruction of forests, the disappearance of thousands of species, the pollution of the oceans, all those garbage dumps, those clouds of emmissions visible from satellites in outer space, the high incidence of cancer and other diseases, etc. All that is "insignificant". The fact that deforestation and desertification have been out of control for decades is insignificant. Anything as long as we can justify continuing to burn fossil fuels. I am sure that "Climategate" has now made it OK to destroy our planet. Who cares anyway? It is the poor who live in deserts and die of hunger. As long as the middle class can keep consuming, "environmental concerns" are "insignificant". It is all lies spread by left-wing socialist scientists anyway. The planet is OK and our grandkids will live in an eternal oasis.

I am sure people really, really believed that our western capitalist systems could change; specially with somebody like a "liberal" president in the United States.

The fact that for the last 150 years the same two political streams (centre-right liberals and right wing conservatives) have ruled the world really points to how easily and how well western society can change.

In most countries middle class men would rather cut off their left nut rather than do anything that would change the status quo. I am sure the rich will give up their wealth and power and help the poor and the dispossed out of the goodness of their hearts. After all, Christian values and love for one's fellow man are the guiding principles of western society!

Bernice:

Is it that different from little "cadet" training for kids? What about parents who teach their kids to use guns, or who send them to "military school"? We have video games designed by the Pentagon. Those games have as their objective to desensitize youth and to advertise a career in the military for them. Most war video games are being produced with funding from the military. Many Hollywood movies have funding from the military too, and the military supplies vehicles, aircraft, ships, etc. when film companies want to make movies. For the military it is "free advertising".

We might feel that we are better, but our culture is a culture of violence too. The difference is that instead of fundamentalist islam, we sell freedom and democracy as an excuse for militarizing our youth. Then we are surprised about things such as the Columbine High School Massacre.

In Capitalism everything is a business and everything generates profit for somebody. People forget that terrorism is not an exception.Whether covertly or openly, there are those who have profitted from terorism. In western governments the corrupt have profitted from cimes such as drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, prostitution, racketeering, etc. Likewise, there are those in western society who have profitted from terrorism.

Then Bin Laden family is one of the rishest families in the world and Osama Bin Laden raised funds for his terrorist operations by bringing cheap weapons to war-torn African countries and exchanging them for blood diamonds. Then those diamonds were brought to Europe where they were sold at high prices. Osama Bin Laden made a fortune, and so did De Beers, the big diamond monopoly, and all those "commodities traders" who bought and sold diamonds for profit.

After the Sep. 11 attack, weapons manufacturers made superprofits by selling weapons to both domestic and foreign markets. Very often the same weapons that are used by Coalition forces also end up being sold to Al Qaida fighters through the black markets.

Security firms have made a bundle by selling security systems, scanning sytems, consulting services, security "guards" (mercenaries), etc. Mercenaries is the old name, now we call them "security contractors".

"Oil service" companies have made a fortune in "reconstruction". In the first year of the war Haliburton made US $38 billion in profit by selling mostly water and foods to the military, as well as putting out oil well fires, rebuilding pipelines, etc.

Of course, the media have made a fortune. News organization, TV and cable channels, even filmmakers have profitted from the war on terror.

In general, the higher the "level of terror" and the "security threat", the higher the profits from terrorism have been. The more paranoia is sown in the population, the bigger the profits. It is why western governments have shown every interest in feeding public paranoia. When those at the top are running the companies that make the most money, they have every interest in using terrorism for profit.

Artful Dodger:

White Supremacist Timothy McVeigh carried out the Oklahoma City Bombing aided by Terry Nichols. Should we profile single Caucasian males of Irish Catholic descent? What about potential white supremacists, say people who look Germanic or with blond hair and blue eyes? After all, we don't want another Oklahoma City bombing. When was the last time profiling along these lines occurred and a Caucasian person was given a hard time at an airport or office building?

I can understand the logic behind profiling. However, the problem is that racial profiling targets individuals based on a physical stereotype. Italians must be mafiosi. Latin Americans deal in drugs. Blacks are all gansgstas who are really good at basketball. Russians are either communists or gansters. Now we translate those stereotypes into "forensic profiles" and target individuals in those communities.

Here in Canada the a newspaper did a study and found that black motorists were three times more likely to be stopped by police officers, even though blacks make up less than 3% of the population. Anybody can see that there is something wrong because between profiling and racism there is a very fine line.

Artful Dodger:

> I wouldn't decide. I'm just an average Joe. But experts in this area know what to look for. Profiling can be, and is, beneficial.

I suppose profiling helps when the looks of a person dictate their behaviour.

A few years back I travelled to South Korea. I went through the airport in a connection travelling to Asian countries. I am Latin American and I have tattoos on both my forearms.

As I am walking through the airport this "security" moron starts hassling me. How much money I am carrying, what is my destination, give me your passport, etc. All based on my looks. I am a chemist by profession and taught college courses in chemistry. I suppose profiling is beneficial. It helps some half-wit moron decide who is and who is not a criminal based on looks alone. I wonder how many Japanese tourists he stopped that day!

Of course, every time I have travelled to Europe they "lose" my luggage. They simply flag it for searching for a few days and I always end up without my things for a few days. Single Latin American male with tattoos travelling alone. Must be a drug-dealing murderer of sorts. I should just tattoo "scarface" to my forehead.

Profiling is beneficial, specially when the person doing the profiling comes with their own racial prejudices, stereotypes or just plain old-fashioned paranoia.

In the meantime, my travelling experience is crap and that is why I refuse to visit the US as a tourist in spite of my family begging me to go.

Artful Dodger:

> The halls of congress would be empty

... or the country would be run by a bunch of rather nerdy 10-year-old kids

Tuesday:

> I could get more from a 6th grader than her.

I think that all politicians should go to that show "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?" Those who fail should not be elegible to run for office.

Bernice:

> Elton John says Jesus was/is gay.....any thoughts on this?

Let's say that somebody found full evidence of Jesus being gay (or married, or something not in line with traditional Christian dogma). Would that make Jesus' message any less relevant? By his message I mean not the interpretations of one particular church or another, but the actual content of the Sermon on the Mount:

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm

I am not a Christian. I don't even believe in God. But I can appreciate what Jesus was trying to teach people. Stop being rotten to one another. That is a good message, whether it comes from a gay man or not.

I think that how any politician would do as president could easily be determined if we asked ourselves how that person would react in a given circumstance. What would Sarah Palin do if ...

1. Iran tested and detonated a nuclear bomb.

2. Russia decided to become aggressive and retake some of its former republics such as Georgia, Adzerbaijan, etc.

3. China decided that the US dollar has lost too much value and decided to dump all the debt they hold in treasury bonds.

4. Opec became tired of the low value and instability of the USD and decided to switch its oil trading currency to the Euro.

5. Venezuela decided to entirely expel all American oil and banking companies and nationalize those industries completely.

6. The current recession is not abated and there is a massive shortfall in tax revenue for the treasury, forcing the government to cut services. Which services would she cut, and how?

7. The rising costs of healthcare and elderly care force the government to cut pensions for the elderly. (A warning that Allan Greenspan gave to the goverment about 8 years ago.)

8. Latin American countries, disillusioned with the failure of American capitalism to improve the lives of the poor, decide to form their own economic block and independent banking system, thereby cutting off the US from its most lucrative business revenue since WW II.

9. The rising drug and violence in the drug trade causes the massive violence experienced in Mexico and Central America to spill into the US.

10. There is some natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina that leaves thousands of Americans in danger.

We could go on and on with real amd imaginary threats to the US. Those 10 I listed are a few of the ones that I can pick out of the top of my head. Many of them are completely unknown to the American public, such as economic threats in Latim America, China and Opec.

I think at this point there is no candidate out there capable of handling all that. Even Barrack Obama is having a hard time with this, and in the last election he was clearly the best choice Americans were presented with (even if many Republicans disagree, Obama was the better candidate). Could Sarah Palin be the person to tackle this kind of problems? I think she is very capable in many ways, and lacks experience in others. It would be foolish to underestimate her, and ever more foolish to overestimate her.

I suppose waterboarding had no bad consequences beyond the "few" cases it was used for. Now parents are considering waterboarding as punishment for their kids since it is not "torture":

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2010/02/09/waterboard_kids/index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room

I wonder what those who defended waterboarding have to say about this.

Czuch:

> 你好，誰是否這裡讀中文？

From Chinese to Kilngon to Vulcan to Ferengi to English ...

How illogical! How can a president get a Nobel prize when the only ones who can afford it are 5-year-old Romulan kids with a weekly allowance? Kaplah!

Czuch:

> as bad as you claim Bush was and how different you would be,
> you turned out worse, simply because you said you were better

You got to the point I was trying to make. When G. W. Bush was president a lot of us were on his case. He did many things that many people considered down right terrible and that is why both inside and outside of the US his image suffered.

Barack Obama comes in, preaching change. That might sound great at election time, but the political system in set up in such a way that it has become nearly impossible for any president to effect meaningful change.

Now the Republicans get their turn at taking pot shots at the president. Come election time the Republicans will also preach change. Will they be able to deliver? Probably not, because the legislative process in congress and the senate is set up so that the status quo will stay there. Politicians represent their own interests first, then the interests of those who paid for their election, and then, if there is a chance, the interests of those people who voted for them.

Sarah Palin will be nothing like Bush. That is true, but only to the extent that the limits of power on the president will allow. That means "big business and the current distribution of wealth must operate as usual".

As all previous presidents in history, the president will do some good things, a lot of bad things, and his/her popularity will start out great and drop as people become disillusioned with their inability to change anything.

Here in Canada it is not any better. I have not seen this country get much better in the last 20 years. We went through free trade agreements, a huge recession in 90/91, then a slow climb out of it in the 90s, then we had an oil boom from 2003 to 2007, only to be followed by the current recession and all the bailouts for banks, car makers, etc.

In all of this, we had both Liberals (Democrats in the US) and Conservatives (Republicans in the US) promising change and improvement. The system is such that nothing got better or changed in 25 years.

We might have techno gadgets (computers, cell phones, etc.) but when we look at the overall picture of the world, did anything change since the end of the Cold War? We replaced an enemy for another. Communists gave way to terrorists. Poor people are still poor. Rich people are still getting richer. Can a president (or any president, prime minister, etc.) effect meaninful change?

As a final thought I will say that I might joke about Sarah Palin, or the First Gentleman, etc. but it would be a mistake to underestimate her abilities, just as it is a mistake to underestimate President Obama.

If she were to win, Todd Palin would become the First Gentleman. I think that is the proper term. The question is, would he feel at home in pictures like this photo of a club made of 36 first ladies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_Ladies_2008.jpg

There are a few countries with female heads of state. I imagine that he could form a First Gentlemen's club with guys like Joachim Sauer (First Gentleman of Germany), Pentti Arajarvi (First Gentleman of Finland), Martin MacAleese (First Gentleman of Ireland), and Jose Miguel Arroyo (First Gentleman of the Philippines).

If Dalia Grybauskaite (Madame President of Lithuania) gets married then there might be another bloke joining the club. Oleksandr Tymoshenko is kind of the First Gentleman of the Ukraine but he doesn't like appearing in public and he might refuse to join the club.

With five or six blokes in the club they might have poker nights. I can see them betting a few million here and there over a hand of Texas Hold'em.

More seriously, if Sarah Palin is elected and they decide to drill baby drill in Alaska's Artic National Wildlife Refuge, will they rename it to Alaska's Arctic National Oilfield Refuge? I would rename it Arctic Arabia.

Now that the Democrats lost a senate seat in Virginia, we can see a trend for the upcoming senate and congress elections. The Republicans will sweep both houses and the Obama administration will be paralized. Then in 3 years Sarah Palin will become president.

Once the Republicans take over the government, the US will really, really experience massive changes for the better, just like it did under G.W. Bush. I foresee a golden age of change and renewal.

Czuch:

All I can say that the list is published by "International Living Magazine". It seems like a reputable publication. I guess the average peasant in the mountains of Uruguay has a better life than the average citizen of the UK!

Czuch:

> BTW, you must be against our recent health care bill?

I think that while the Obama administrations intentions are good, the health care bill will probably fail. If it fails, it will be because the Republican party cares more about protecting the business of private insurers than about the lack of adequate care for the poor. Well, the US is the only modern industrialized country without universally available health care. I think it bothers Democrats that the US is behind the trend in other industrialized countries.

The next 10 years will prove whether private insurers can keep up with rising healthcare costs. As the Baby Boomer generation ages, the pressure on private insurers will increase to the point that some of them will go bankrupt. It is at that point that state-run healthcare will probably come to the forefront, as a bailout for a failing private system. I expect a full bailout, as it happened with the banks last year.

I doubt Obama's healthcare bill will succeed, but his successor in 7 years will be forced to do something about it.

Czuch:

> My guess is thsat we got off cheap!

You go and tell it to the families and all those dead people. I am sure they will agree with you.

Czuch:

> I still believe that taking him out was worth the cost

What was the cost? 150,000 civilians killed by violent death; another 500,000 killed as a result of destroyed hospitals, water treatment facilities and other infrastructure; 4,568 non-American coalition forces soldiers; and 4,345 American soldiers.

Here are some nice quotes:

"According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017."

"As the total passed US$450 billion in 2007, the cost for the Iraq war reached approximately $1500 per person in the United States. If the Iraq war were to wind up costing 1.9 trillion dollars, the cost would be over 4.2 times higher ($6,300 per United States citizen.) This would put the expense at $25,000 for an average family of four, or $32,000 per family if Afghanistan is included."

Getting rid of Saddam was worth every dollar spent, and every human life lost. Now we can recover the cost in oil, and let Haliburton, Exxon and Chevron keep the profits.

I guess Americans can happily accept spending 32K per family of four, just to let oil companies reap the profits from the war. Now, where are the WMDs? Who is responsible and who pays for manufacturing false intelligence?

GTCharlie:

> You can have the strictest No Gun laws in the world or in history. That just creates an excellent black market.

I think that there should be no restrictions on buying guns of any kind. People should be free to go to their nearest convenience store and get whatever they want. AK47s. Uzis, M16s, any automatic, semiautomatic assault or non-assault rifle should be available. All weapons and ammunition should be available freely and legally to anyone who wants it. The only requirement would be registering the weapon under your name with a picture ID and a fingerprint. Registration would be free and it would happen over the counter at the time of purchase of the weapon.

Then, anyone who is convicted of murder or attempted murder should get a mandatory death sentence. Armed robbery and other violent crimes committed with weapons should be capital offences too. "You can buy any weapon you want, but if you train it on another human being, then you deserve the chair." Stealing a weapon should be a capital offence too, as would using any weapon not registered under your name.

At the same time, we should legalize all drugs. Ecstasy, marijuana, amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, PCP, heroin, etc. People should be free to buy anything they want for themselves. However, if anyone sells or gives any drugs, tobacco or alcohol to anyone under the age of 21 then that person should receive a mandatory death sentence. "If you are over 21, you can zonk your brains out, but heaven help you if you give anything to anyone under 21. If you provide, you get a lethal injection."

There would be next to no black market, just as there is relatively little black market for alcohol or knives. The question is, how long before half the people of the world are dead?

To pay for the legal and health costs of freely available weapons and drugs, the government should impose a very high tax on them. If you want your goodies, you have to pay taxes through the nose, because overdoses and gunshot wounds cost money to fix, and executions don't come for free.