Moving Into: TOTAL WELLNESS

While we have in the past, discussed the role of AIPAC in setting U.S.
policy, it appears to me that we have underestimated it. And I suspect that
while it is not prominently known, the Mormons of Utah play a huge role in
providing funding for AIPAC. It should be noted that Utah is mainly a
Republican State.

I also learned today that there is now a group called "Post - Mormons" who
are now taking exception to the policies of the Mormon Church.

Co-incidentally along these lines I saw a huge billboard sign on the way
into San Diego, placed strategically near the San Diego State University
exit which reads: "SO, YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD? You Are Not Alone."
Unfortunately, I was unable to get the contact information on that trip but
plan to go back and obtain it.

As time passes, I am getting the message that more and more people are
becoming aware of religion as a "social engineering program" largely
constructed by the Holy Roman Catholic Church in order to control the world.
And while there are many groups that have broken off from the original and
created their own version, there still remains the mythology of Jesus and
God passed off as "the gospel truth" but, in reality, constructed as a
control mechanism to provide the basis underlying this belief system.


-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:23 AM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] How the Lobby Made Mincemeat of the Obama
Administration


"When the dollar finally goes, so will the government's ability to
conduct wars of aggression, underwrite Israel, finance its red ink and pay
for imports.  That's when the printing press will really get going."


How the Lobby Made Mincemeat of the Obama Administration
America's Dismal Future
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts11122009.html
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

It did not take the Israel Lobby long to make mincemeat out of the Obama
administration's "no new settlements" position.  Israeli prime
minister Netanyahu is bragging about Israel's latest victory over the US
government as Israel continues to build illegal settlements on occupied
Palestinian land.

In May President Obama read the Israelis the riot act, telling the Israeli
government that he was serious about ending the Israeli conflict with the
Palestinians and that a lasting peace agreement required the Israeli
government to abandon all construction of new settlements in the occupied
West Bank.

On November 10 Obama's White House chief of staff, Rahm Israel Emanuel,
surrendered for his boss at the annual conference of the United Jewish
Communities. The ongoing Israeli settlements, he said, should not be a
"distraction" to a peace agreement.

Allegedly, the US is a superpower and Israel is a client state whose very
existence depends entirely on US military and economic aid and diplomatic
protection.  Yet, in the real world it works the other way.  Israel is the
superpower and the US is its client state.

This true fact is proved to us at least once every week and sometimes two
or three times in one week.    A few days ago the US House of
Representatives voted 344 to 36 in favor of disavowing the UN report by the
distinguished Jewish judge Richard Goldstone that found that Israel had
committed war crimes in its attack on the civilian population in the Gaza
Ghetto.  The Israel Lobby demanded that the House repudiate the fact-filled
report, and the servile House did as its master ordered.

US Rep. Dennis Kucinich spoke to his colleagues for 2 minutes in an effort
to make them see that their vote against the Goldstone report would be a
great embarrassment to the US government and demean the House in the eyes
of the world.  But none of that matters when Israel gives its servants an
order.  The US House of Representatives preferred to demean itself and to
embarrass the US Government rather than to cross the Israel Lobby.

Retribution quickly fell upon Kucinich for his 2 minute speech.  On
November 9, Kucinich was forced to withdraw as the keynote speaker for the
Palm Beach County (Florida) Democratic Party's annual fundraising dinner.
The Israel Lobby gave the order--dump Kucinich or there's no money and no
one is coming to the dinner.  County Commissioner Burt Aaronson called
Kucinich "an absolute horror."

Kucinich is the rare Democrat who stands up for his party's principles,
the working class,  and tried to get health care for those Americans the
corporations have thrown out on the street. But helping Americans doesn't
count.  Israel uber alles.

Meanwhile, the US dollar continues to decline relative to other traded
currencies.  Since spring, anyone could have made a double-digit rate of
return betting on most any currency against the US dollar.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently expressed concern that
despite the dollar's continuing slide, it might still be over-valued.
The Federal Reserve's low interest rate policy encourages speculators to
use the dollar for the "carry trade."  Speculators, whether individuals
or financial institutions borrow dollars at rock bottom interest rates and
use the almost free capital to purchase higher yielding instruments in
other countries.  The demand for dollars to finance the "carry trade"
keeps the dollar higher than it would otherwise be.

Last year it was the Japanese Yen that was used for the "carry trade"
due to the practically zero Japanese interest rates. The next scare that
unwinds the "carry trade" will cause another big drop in financial
asset values.  This means that the stock market is very volatile.  It is
based on speculation, not on fundamentals.

When the "carry trade" next unwinds, the demand for US dollars to pay
off the loans will temporarily boost the dollar.  But don't be fooled.
The large US trade and budget deficits are the dollar's death warrant.

When the dollar finally goes, so will the government's ability to conduct
wars of aggression, underwrite Israel, finance its red ink and pay for
imports.  That's when the printing press will really get going.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan
administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be
reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@...

Moving Into: TOTAL WELLNESS

IMHO, the TOTAL WELLNESS community of tomorrow will look nothing like that
of today.
And, we simply must stop attempting to put the second story on the house by
taking the building blocks of the basement and trying to use them in this
way.

BTW, please note that I never use the term: "sustainable development" and
instead write: "sustainable living." Perhaps instead of "alternative energy"
we should be thinking in terms of how to create and maintain sustainable
energy sources.  And I do believe that Zero Point Energy can be harnessed
for our use - we only need to FOCUS our efforts on learning how to do this
and stop mucking around with trying to maintain the current flawed economic
system that benefits only a few.


-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 1:36 PM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] The Fallacy Of Alternative Energy


The Fallacy Of Alternative Energy
http://www.countercurrents.org/goodchild141109.htm
By Peter Goodchild

14 November, 2009
Countercurrents.org

The term "alternative energy" starts its life as something like an
oxymoron. A "source of energy" either exists or it does not. If it
exists, it is being used, and the word "alternative" is therefore at
best confusing if not deliberately misleading. If it does not exist, it is
not being used. There is no mysterious borderland between those two states
of existence and nonexistence.

It is not possible for an "alternative energy" to exist somehow in a
virginal state, to be utterly undetected and unused. Refusing to deal with
overpopulation directly, humans live in a world of ubiquitous destitution,
and they have incessantly tried to find ways of relieving the pressures of
resource consumption. In such a milieu, the search for an untouched form of
"alternative energy" is irrational.

There is an air of both desperation and credulity in the quest for such an
elixir, a mad scrambling for something that is basically an object of blind
faith. To "desperation and credulity" could even be added
"intemperance," replacing "elixir" with "elixirs": How many
forms of "alternative energy" would humans need to find and utilize
before they were happy?

The above principles can be extended even further. There is a rough
positive correlation between the "sustainability" or future longevity
-- as well as the practicality -- of a "source of energy" and the
number of years to which this source has already been put to use. A
thousand years from now, firewood will no doubt be harvested to some
extent, but uranium is unlikely to be a major item of trade.

As with "source of energy," I am putting the words "alternative
energy" in quotation marks to emphasize that it is a highly problematic
term, perhaps one that should be avoided. As a close cousin to an oxymoron,
"alternative energy" is in the same league as "sustainable
development [or growth]" and "eco-village" or "transition town"
(which, contrary to my previous understanding, is not a town where donkeys
are ridden). In terms of logic, or the lack thereof, the use of the term
"alternative energy" can also be seen as incorporating a petitio
principii, which Webster's defines as "the fallacy of assuming in the
premise of an argument the conclusion which is to be proved."

Something else resembling an oxymoron, in the same class as the others
above, and used for similar fallacious purposes, would be "cutting-edge
technology," as the term frequently appears in my email in-box: "Peter,
you're ignoring the exciting trends in cutting-edge technology." As is
often said, it's curious how these exciting trends only pop up when human
beings are suddenly facing the reality of expensive cars with no gasoline.
But I generally just refer my correspondent to Dmitry Orlov's statement
in "Our Village":

"There is an element to American culture that never ceases to amuse me.
Even when grappling with the idea of economic disintegration, Americans
attempt to cast it in terms of technological or economic progress:
eco-villages, sustainable development, energy efficiency and so on. Under
the circumstances, such compulsive techno-optimism seems maladaptive. I
love the new advances in organic farming, which I find fascinating and very
useful, but why do people seem incapable of doing the simplest things
without making them into projects, preferably ones that involve some
element of new technology? Thousands of years of happy composting using
heaps and pits are behind us: now we need bins -- and plastic, oil-based
ones at that!"

Plastic compost bins are the tip of a gigantic pyramid, the summit of a
vast infrastructure composed of government, education, and extensive
division of labor. When that huge edifice is no longer in place to create
those plastic compost bins, we can stop dreaming such back-to-nature
dreams. Piling garden refuse into such containers might be pleasant, and it
may even have a purpose, but by using these things one is hardly following
the precepts of Rousseau and Thoreau. A high-tech solution is precisely no
solution.

Let us return, however, to the term "source of energy." As it is
generally used, it suffers from a lack of scientific rigor. Is there any
objective, unprejudiced collection of empirical evidence that the planet
Earth, or parts thereof, should be looked upon as "sources of energy"?
From what perspective do we derive this term? The geologist's? The
astronomer's? Certainly it is not that of the physicist. Yes, a physicist
might use such a term, but not as if it were a universally recognized label
meaning "coal, oil, natural gas, and so on." The label might suit the
purposes of the historian or sociologist, but only with the understanding
that these disciplines are those of the humanities, not of the sciences.
The label would also suit the purposes of the engineer, but again only in
terms of human goals. "Source of energy," in other words, has meaning
from the perspective of human needs, but as it is now used it is
questionable as a term reflecting an objective event in external reality.

The planet Earth, if I may be forgiven for belaboring the obvious, was not
designed and built with "sources of energy" as parts of its structure.
(I would be inclined to say that it was not designed and built at all, but
that would be a digression.) If, by some quirk of geology or biology, there
was plant material, or falling water, or uranium, that could, with human
ingenuity, be used to produce heat and light, then that was lucky for
humanity, but it says nothing else.

The major "sources of energy," using the term in that subjective and
non-scientific sense, are fairly obvious: oil, coal, and natural gas, as
well as -- much further down the list -- nuclear power and hydro. These
sources now allow us to "produce energy" (in the humanistic sense) at
the rate of about 16 terawatts. All other sources of "energy" amount to
far less than 16 terawatts, and that will always be the case. (Yes, solar
energy reaching the Earth is considerable, but it is spread out so thinly
that it is not very useful.)

Descending from these Aristotelian heights, what grand conclusions can we
draw? Perhaps the most important deduction is that the Earth is not an
infinite repository of "sources of energy" for the delectation of
mankind. The Earth is just a rock, floating in space. If a "source of
energy" was not there at the beginning of the Earth, then all the
"cutting-edge technology" with which we are so enamored is not going to
put it there.

We, as humans, are not in a position either to create or to redesign a
planet that has an equatorial diameter of about 12,756 kilometers but is,
in essence, nothing more than an accident of Nature. If anything appears on
Earth that is of use to us, then we are fortunate. If such a thing does not
appear on Earth, perhaps contrary to our expectations, then we must be
resigned to the fact.

I sympathize with those who, since about the 1960s, have been putting all
their money into the bottomless pit of the "alternative energy"
industry, but my compassion does not extend to prevarication. There is
really no sense in devoting vast amounts of time in trying to prove that
2+2=5. But the case is worse than that: unfortunately, so many people who
get into discussions over "alternative energy" have simply never
bothered to do their basic homework.

The kind of writing I look for could be roughly described as follows. We
might consider the 11 points listed below. Then we might ask: What would
points 12 and 13, etc. be? At the same time, of course, we should not be
brooding perpetually over points 1 and 2, or acting as if 1 and 2 were
great new discoveries.

1. The entire world's economy is based on oil and other fossil fuels.
These provide fuel, lubricants, asphalt, paint, plastics, fertilizer, and
many other products. In the year 2000 alone, about 30 billion barrels of
oil were consumed.

2. In 1850, before commercial production began, there were about 2 trillion
barrels of oil in the ground. By about the year 2008, half of that oil had
been consumed, so about 1 trillion barrels remained.

3. By the year 2030, oil production will be down to about half of its peak
production.

4. "Unconventional oil" is not very useful. Oil can be produced from
tar sands, for example, but 2 barrels of conventional oil must be burned as
fuel in order to produce 3 barrels of tar-sands oil.

5. The amount of energy that can be derived from "alternative energy"
is not sufficient to replace that of 30 billion annual barrels of oil -- or
even to replace more than a small fraction of that amount. In addition,
"alternative energy" itself requires "oil energy," even if only as
an infrastructure.

6. "Alternative energy" has a host of other problems. Fuel cells
require hydrogen derived from fossil fuels. Biofuels require enormous
amounts of land. Hydroelectric dams are reaching their practical limits.
Solar, wind, and geothermal power require prodigious amounts of equipment,
a self-defeating process. Nuclear power faces a shortage of fuel, and it
creates serious environmental dangers.

7. Modern agriculture depends on fossil fuels for fertilizers, pesticides,
and for the operation of machines for harvesting, processing, and
transporting. Without fossil fuels, it will be impossible to feed a global
population of several billion people. Widespread famine is inevitable.

8. The global economy is highly dependent on metals, including iron,
copper, and aluminum. The mining industry faces two problems: huge
requirements of energy (derived from fossil fuels), and a shortage of
high-quality ore.

9. The global economy also uses enormous amounts of electricity.
(Electricity is not a source of energy; it is just a means of carrying
energy.) Electricity is almost entirely derived from disappearing sources:
fossil fuels, water power, or nuclear energy.

10. Without oil, metals, and electricity, modern forms of transportation
and communication will disappear. Without transportation and communication,
the social structure in turn will disappear: government, education, and
large-scale division of labor.

11. Small human communities will survive, but they will be relying on
primitive technology, since their daily needs will have to be provided
mainly by resources in the immediate environment. These communities may
need to defend themselves against - or isolate themselves from - groups
that are less able or less willing to be self-sufficient.

To say that the coming centuries will be a challenge would be an enormous
understatement. Perhaps in a future scriptorium, when the facts and legends
about the present era are being scratched onto parchment, there will be a
chance to reflect on the foolishness of spending time on electric toys and
magic tricks, when so much of more practical value could have been done to
mitigate the ravages of famine, plague, and war.

Peter Goodchild is the author of Survival Skills of the North American
Indians, published by Chicago Review Press.

Moving Into TOTAL WELLNESS

Unfortunately, ending the centuries of the U.S. economy which have been
little more than pyramid schemes built on continual bursting bubbles, will
cause a lot of discomfort. Perhaps we might consider it a little like
recovering from cancer -- a healing that must take place before wellness can
set in -- the accumulated pus of corruption must drain from the sore before
recovery can take place. War and waste must be replaced by health and
wellness. Let us begin the job now and get it over with no more
procrastination -- it's back to basics for everyone.

-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 2:21 PM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] Thriving in the Age of Collapse


Thriving in the Age of Collapse
by Dmitry Orlov
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dtxqwqr_19gjjvp8


A while ago Matt Savinar proposed that I write an article that specifically
addresses the situations and concerns of some of the visitors to his Web
site. He was also kind enough to provide me with three profiles, each of
which is a composite of many people. One profile is of a young
professional, another is of a middle-aged couple, and a third is of a high
school student. My task was to adapt my knowledge of the circumstances in
which people in Russia found themselves after the Soviet economy collapsed
to the needs of diverse people in the United States. This I have tried to
do. Keep in mind, however, that these are not real people, and that
although I sometimes offer them detailed advice on subjects such as
education, law, finance, and medicine, I do not practice any of these
professions, and what I express here is mere opinion.

My premise is that the U.S. economy is going to collapse, that this process
has already begun, and will run its course over a decade or more, with ups
and downs here and there, but a consistent overall downward direction. I
neither prognosticate nor wish for such an outcome; I just happen to see it
as very likely. Furthermore, I do not see it as altogether bad. There are
some terrible aspects to the current state of affairs, and some wonderful
aspects to the post-collapse environment. For example, the air will be much
cleaner, there will be no traffic jams, and people will have plenty of time
to devote to their children and to people within their immediate community.
Wildlife will rebound. Local culture will make a comeback. People will get
plenty of exercise walking around, carrying things, and performing manual
labor. They will eat smaller and healthier diets. I could go on and on, but
that is not the point.

  Since such a scenario might seem outlandish to some people, I would like
to sketch out why I find it entirely plausible. There is an ever-increasing
amount of mainstream media attention being paid to the looming energy
crisis. At this point, very few people still argue that there is not a
problem with the energy supply, immediately for natural gas, eventually for
oil. There is also a viewpoint, which is ever more closely and persuasively
argued, that what we have to look forward to is a permanent energy
shortfall, which will cause economic and societal dislocations that will be
monumental in scope, and will transform the patterns of everyday life. The
current, consumer-friendly economy would be no more, replaced with a
subsistence economy characterized by a good deal of privation and
austerity.

  This viewpoint is usually served up under the rubric of “Peak Oil” -
the all-time global peak in the rate of extraction of conventional crude
oil. The connection between the inability to goose up oil production beyond
some already icecap-melting number, and the immediate trotting out of the
four horsemen of the apocalypse, is not immediately obvious. But apparently
the U.S. economy is a sort of pyramid scheme, based on nothing more than
faith in its growth potential, and can only continue to exist while it
continues to expand, by sucking in ever more resources, particularly
energy. Even a small energy shortage is enough to undermine it. So Peak Oil
is hardly the problem – it is the foolish notion that infinite economic
growth on a finite planet is possible. Collapse can be triggered when any
one of many other physical limits is exceeded - drinkable water, breathable
air, arable land, and so on – and so the limit to sustained oil
production is only one of many physical limits to growth.

I do not feel the need to argue for the inevitability of a permanent energy
crisis, not only because others have already done so quite persuasively,
but also because it involves arguing with people who do little more than
shout slogans. The slogans that are heard most often range from the
simplistic “There is plenty of oil!” to the ideologically hidebound
“The free market will provide!” to the somewhat more nuanced but
technologically implausible “Technology will provide!” to the
perennially hopeful but unrealistic “Other sources of energy will be
found!” There is even the refreshingly irrational “People have said
that oil would run out before, and they were wrong!” repeated endlessly
by Daniel Yergin, an oil historian who believes that history repeats itself
endlessly, even the history of nonrenewable resource extraction. Facile
notions of this sort will remain popular for some time yet, but I feel that
it is already quite safe to start ignoring them.

It bears pointing out that most of us would prefer to remain blissfully
unaware of any and all such arguments and notions, perhaps choosing to
concern ourselves with topics less likely to depress our libido. Awareness
of topics of global import is certainly not compulsory, and may not even be
beneficial. Why worry about disasters we can do nothing to avert? Why not
just enjoy our day in the sun, come what may? Also, large groups of people
can be dangerous when panicked, and so I do not wish to panic them.

  As for the few of us who are concerned, my message to you is a cheerful
one, because I believe that you can still exercise some measure of control
over your destiny. So, if you want some help thinking things through with a
positive attitude, read on. If not, do not concern yourself unduly. Instead
of reading this, you could lift your spirits by going for a drive, or going
shopping, or taking a nap. Rest assured that these are all good things for
you to do, the nap especially. Rather than you being menaced by some issue
of global importance, any number of other unpleasant eventualities could
bring about your untimely demise, on which you should likewise refrain from
dwelling morbidly. Your participation in this program is optional.

  The first step in this program is admitting that what is looming on your
horizon is economic collapse – that the economy, as you are used to
thinking about it, will cease to serve your needs. You will not hear about
it on the evening news, and there will be no signs in shop windows that
read “Out of business due to economic collapse.” The traditional array
of experts will be on hand, claiming that prosperity is just around the
corner, and offering this or that short-term fix, which, for all we know,
might even work for a little while.

An economy collapses one person, one family, one community at a time.
First, the dreams evaporate: the future starts looking worse than the
present, and ever more uncertain. Then people are forced to withstand ever
greater indignities and privations, which they tend to accept as their
personal failings. The resulting stress causes them to experience a variety
of physical and psychological symptoms. Our pride, our habits and
expectations, and our unwillingness to adapt, can kill us faster than any
physical hardship. But eventually something has to give, and even if life
does not get any easier, one morning we wake up, and not only has life all
around us been transformed out of all recognition, but everyone we
encounter recognizes that times have changed. And we realize that none of
this is about us personally, and feel better.

I feel qualified to write on this subject because I had the opportunity to
observe an economic collapse firsthand. I did some of my growing up in the
Soviet Union, and the rest in the United States. I have visited Russia
repeatedly, on personal trips and on business, during the years of
Perestroika, the ensuing collapse, and the lean years of the 1990s. I feel
equally at home, or, on occasion, lost, in both places. Unlike most Russian
émigrés who witnessed the collapse, I was fascinated rather than
traumatized by my experiences there, and have not tried to blot them out of
my memory, as many of them have. Also unlike most émigrés, I know quite
a lot about the United States, its society and its economy, see its fateful
weaknesses, and care about what happens here. When peering apprehensively
into the unknown, it is useful to have as your guide someone who has
already been there. Since no such guide is available, you will have to make
do with someone who has been someplace vaguely similar.

Transportation

The main use of oil in the United States is for transportation. Once the
crisis gets underway, there will be much less transportation available, of
goods as well as of people, at any price, exacerbated by the lack of public
transportation infrastructure. The U.S. Gross Domestic Product turns out to
be almost strictly proportional the number of vehicle miles traveled, and
this implies that large reductions in the availability of transportation
will translate into similar-sized reductions in the size of the economy
overall. A few years on, roads and bridges will start falling into
disrepair, making travel slow and difficult even when enough fuel for the
trip can be found. People will be forced to stay put most of the time,
perhaps making seasonal migrations, and to make use of what they have
available in the immediate vicinity.

To see what that will be like for you, all you have to do is to give up
driving; not cut down on driving, but sell your car, and refuse to ride in
one on a regular basis. If this forces you relocate, or to switch jobs or
careers, you should probably do so now. You will be forced to do so, when
everyone else tries to do it at the same time. I sold my car a few years
ago, and my life got better, not worse. Now I work within bicycling
distance from home. I am physically fit because I ride for at least an hour
a day, and I am saving more money than I was before because I do not have
the expense of keeping a car. If you have children that ride the school bus
to school, assume that the school bus will not run any more. You might be
able to work out a home schooling arrangement, or find another school
closer to home that the kids can walk or bicycle to.

Food and Clothing

Consumer society, as it currently exists in the United States, is propped
up by the still relatively cheap and accessible energy, and by the fact
that the Chinese, and other nations, are still willing to dispense goods to
us on credit. This credit is secured by the promise of future economic
growth in the United States, which is already being whittled down by the
high energy prices. Thus, the energy crisis will in due course translate
into a consumer goods crisis.

Therefore, as part of your exercise, assume that every supermarket and big
box store is out of business, driven bankrupt by the high cost (and low
availability) of diesel, electricity, and natural gas. Shop only at the
local farmer's markets, small neighborhood groceries, and thrift stores.
Buy as few new things as possible: trash-pick what you can, and repair
items instead of replacing them. Learn to grow or gather at least some of
your food. If you do not wish to go strictly vegetarian, raising chickens
and rabbits is not so hard. To buy staples such as rice, travel into town
and buy them in bulk from small immigrant-owned groceries – you can be
sure that these will be around even after the supermarkets are gone.

Shelter

If your lease or mortgage requires you to have a full-time job in order to
afford it, find a way to change your living situation to one that you can
keep even when there is no more work. If you can cash out your equity and
buy a place that is smaller, but that you can own free and clear, do so.

Pay particular attention to how difficult a place will be to heat; do not
assume that heating oil, natural gas, or large quantities of firewood will
be available or affordable. Also, pay very close attention to the
neighbors. Are they people you know and trust? Will they help you? Do not
assume that there will be police protection or emergency services. If you
live in an area with a history of ethnic strife, how sure are you that you
will be able to find a common language and make peace with everyone there,
even people whose culture and background are vastly different from yours?

Know where to escape to in case your primary residence becomes unlivable,
either permanently or for a time. Your arrangements might be as simple as a
friend's couch, or a campsite that you rent by the season, or some land
where you know you can camp, or an unused farm, ranging all the way to an
alternative residence somewhere else in the world that you can relocate to.

Medicine

If you have or foresee significant ongoing medical needs, staying in the
United States will pose a unique set of problems; you might even consider
seeking refuge in one of the many countries that provide free basic and
emergency medical care to their entire population. The United States is a
very special case in having made basic medicine into a profit-making
industry rather than a social service. The medical system here has become a
parasite, bloated and ineffectual. The doctors are saddled with
unreasonable regulations and financial liabilities.

When it comes to medicine, almost any country in the world will be better
than one that is full-up with unemployed medical specialists, insurance
consultants, and medical billing experts. In Belize, which is quite a poor
country, I received prompt and excellent free emergency medical care from a
Cuban medic. In the U.S., in similar circumstances, I had to wait 8 hours
at an emergency room, then was seen for five minutes by a sleep-deprived
intern who scribbled out a prescription for something that is available
without a prescription almost everywhere else in the world. Then there
ensued a paper battle between the hospital and the insurance company,
lasting for many months, over whether the hospital could charge for a
doctor's visit on top of the emergency room visit. Apparently, in U.S.
emergency rooms, doctors are optional.

There are specific steps you may be able to take to avoid having to depend
on the medical system. Do whatever you can to be in good health, by getting
enough sleep and exercise, and by avoiding unnecessary stress. Avoid
processed food and junk food. If you do not feel well, get plenty of rest,
instead of medicating yourself and attempting to keep to your schedule.
Unless your life is in danger, try to do without maintenance regimens of
prescription drugs, keeping in mind what will happen when you lose access
to them. Be sure to have a living will that allows your family to have
control of your medical care. Look for alternative medicines for
symptomatic relief of minor complaints.

Money

For several decades now, the U.S. Dollar has been able to keep its value in
the face of ever larger trade and fiscal imbalances largely because it is
the currency most of the world uses when buying oil. Other nations are
forced to export products to the United States because this is the only way
for them to gather the dollars they need to purchase oil. This has produced
a continuous windfall for the U.S. Treasury. This state of affairs is
coming to an end: as more and more oil-producing nations find alternative
ways of doing business with their customers, trading oil for Euros, or for
food, the U.S. Dollar erodes in value. As the Dollar drops in value, the
price of an ever-increasing list of essential imports goes up, driving up
inflation. At some point, inflation will start to feed on itself, and will
give rise to hyperinflation.

If your immediate thought is, “Hyperinflation in the U.S.? Impossible!”
then you are not alone. A lot of people have trouble thinking about the
possibility of hyperinflation, economists among them. Hyperinflation, they
say, requires the government to emit vast amounts of money, which, being a
good, prudent government, it simply will not do. But this government is
drowning in red ink, and will do what desperate governments have always
done: opt for inflating its debt away rather than defaulting on it, to
retain at least some spending ability in the face of a collapsing tax base
and dried-up foreign credit. The people at the Fed do have to be kept fed,
after all.

Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Fed, has voiced the viewpoint that since
oil expenditure is such a small percentage of the overall economy,
increased oil prices will have little effect on it, and, of course, he is
right. I am, however, still a bit concerned about lower overall quantities
of oil, regardless of the price, because these would result in less
economic activity. What I would like Mr. Greenspan to reassure me on is,
How is a small national economy going to be able to support a big national
debt? By the way, I have an idea: print some money.

Others who doubt the inevitability of hyperinflation point to the weakness
of trade unions, and say that workers in the U.S. are too badly organized
to bargain collectively and secure cost of living adjustments that would
propel the economy along an inflationary spiral. These people seem to feel
that the workers will somehow continue to be able to work even as their
entire paycheck disappears as they buy gasoline for their daily commute.
They remind me of the proverbial farmer who trained his horse to stop
eating, and almost succeeded, but unfortunately the horse died first. Those
who have work that needs to be done will have to make it physically
possible for someone to do it.

There are also plenty of people in this country – the ones  who are
closer the top of the economic food chain, or just feel like they are –
who will pay themselves whatever they require, giving themselves, and those
upon whose loyalty they must depend, any cost of living adjustment they
deem necessary. They will continue doing so until they are bankrupt.
Because wealth is distributed so unevenly, these people make a
disproportionately large difference.

Lastly, there is a large group of people who feel that such matters are for
economists to decide. But decide for yourself: in March of 1999, The
Economist magazine ran an article entitled “Drowning in Oil.” In
December of the same year, it was compelled to publish a retraction.
Economists are starting to look a bit ridiculous, as their predictive
abilities are repeatedly shown to be quite feeble. Moreover, the whole
discipline of economics is starting to become irrelevant, because its main
concern is with characterizing a system – the fossil fuel-based growth
economy – which is starting to collapse.

Perhaps the difficulty in reconciling oneself to such a possibility stems
from history and culture, not economics. Unlike the Russians or the
Germans, whose historical memory includes one or more episodes of
hyperinflation, it is hard for Americans to imagine living in a time when
their paper money is not worth its weight in toilet paper. But such
conditions have been known to occur. Savings boil off into the ether.
People who still receive paychecks or retirement checks cash them
immediately, and do their best to buy the things they need to survive as
quickly as they can, before the prices go up again.

There are some steps you can take to prepare yourself for life without
money. For a time, you might not have an income at all, or an income so
meager it will not be enough for even one meal a day, so find out just how
little money you need to stay active and healthy. Learn to rely on family,
friends, and acquaintances. Find out what you can take from them, and what
you have to offer in return.

Perhaps most importantly, assume that your retirement income, whether
government or private, will in due course become quite close to zero, and
make some other arrangements for your old age. If you have children, start
buttering them up now – you will need their help to survive in your
dotage. If you do not have children, then think about having some, or
adopting one or two. If you do not have or want children, then be sure to
have some good friends who are younger than you.

For each economic arrangement involving money, try to come up with an
alternative arrangement that does not involve money. For example, if you
pay a baby-sitter, try to find a baby-sitter who is willing to work in
exchange for lessons. If you pay rent, find a caretaker situation where you
pay with your labor. If you pay for food, start growing your own food.

As you are learning to live with less and less money, you will inevitably
find that the money system works to your disadvantage. If you have debt, it
becomes harder and harder to make the payments. If you own property, it
becomes harder and harder to afford the taxes. The money system takes a
bite out of everything you do. But this is true only if your economic
relationships are monetized – if they have monetary value and involve the
exchange of money. As you try to reduce your dependence on the money
economy, you will need to invent ways to demonetize your life, and that of
the people around you.

Savings and personal property can be transformed into the stock in trade of
human relationships, which then give rise to reciprocal flows of gifts and
favors – efficient, private, and customized to personal needs. This
requires a completely different mindset from that cultivated by the
consumer society, which strives to standardize and reduce everything,
including human relationships, to a client-server paradigm, in which money
flows in one direction, while products and services flow in the opposite
direction. Customer A gets the same thing as customer B, for the same
price.

This is very inefficient from a personal perspective. Resources are
squandered on new products whereas reused ones can work just as well.
Everyone is forced to make do with mediocre, off-the-shelf products that
are designed for planned obsolescence and do not suit them as well as one
crafted to suit their specific needs. A commodity product can be
manufactured on the opposite side of the planet, whereas a custom one is
likely to be made locally, providing work for you and the people in your
community. But this is also very efficient, from the point of view of
extracting profits and concentrating wealth while depleting natural
resources and destroying the environment. However, this is not the sort of
efficiency you should be concerned with: it is not in your interest.

This, then, is the correct stance vis à vis the money economy. You should
appear to have no money or significant possessions. But you should have
access to resources, such as food, clothing, medicine, places to stay and
work, and even money. What you do with your money is up to you. For
example, you can simply misplace it, the way squirrels do with nuts and
acorns. Or you can convert it into communal property of one sort or
another. You should avoid getting paid, but you should accept gifts, and,
of course, give gifts in return. You should never work for money, but
always donate your time and effort charitably. You should have a minimum of
personal possessions, but plenty to share with others. Developing such a
stance is hard, but, once you do, life actually gets better. Moreover, by
adopting such a stance, you become collapse-proof.

Law

The American justice system favors the educated, the corporations, and the
rich, and takes unfair advantage of the uneducated, the private citizen,
and the poor. It would seem that almost any legal entanglement can be
resolved through the judicious application of money, while almost any
tussle with the law can result in financial penalties and even imprisonment
for those who are forced to rely on public defenders.

Many people naïvely believe that a criminal is someone who commits a
criminal act. This is not true, at least not in the American system of
justice. Here, a criminal is someone who has been accused of committing a
criminal act, tried for it, and found guilty. Whether or not that person
has in fact committed the act is immaterial: witnesses may lie, evidence
can be fabricated, juries can be manipulated. A person who has committed a
criminal act but has not been tried for it, or has been tried and
exonerated, is not a criminal, and for anyone to call him a criminal is
libelous.

It therefore follows that, within the American justice system, committing a
crime and getting away with it is substantially identical to not committing
a crime at all. Wealthy clients have lawyers who are constantly testing
and, whenever possible, expanding the bounds of legality. Corporations have
entire armies of lawyers, and can almost always win against individuals.
Furthermore, corporations use their political influence to promote the use
of binding arbitration, which favors them, as the way to resolve disputes.

This state of affairs makes it hopelessly naïve for anyone to confuse
legality with morality, ethics, or justice. You should always behave in a
legal manner, but this will not necessarily save you from going to jail. In
what manner you choose to behave legally is between you and your
conscience, God, or lawyer, if you happen to have one, and may or may not
have anything to do with obeying laws. Legality is a property of the
justice system, while justice is an ancient virtue. This distinction is
lost on very few people: most people possess a sense of justice, and,
separate from it, an understanding of what is legal, and what they they can
get away with.

The U.S. legal system, as it stands, is a luxury, not a necessity. It is
good to those who can afford it, and bad for those who cannot. As
ever-increasing numbers of people find that they cannot pay what it takes
to secure a good outcome for themselves, they will start to see it not as a
system of justice, but as a tool of oppression, and will learn to avoid it
rather than to look to it for help. As oppression becomes the norm, at some
point the pretense to serving justice will be dispensed with in favor of a
much simpler, efficient, streamlined system of social control, perhaps one
based on martial law.

People have been known to get along quite happily without written law,
lawyers, courts, or jails. Societies always evolve an idea of what is
forbidden, and find ways to punish those who transgress. In the absence of
an official system of justice, people generally become much more careful
around each other, because running afoul of someone may lead to a duel or
give rise to a vendetta, and because, in the absence of jails, punishments
tend become draconian, coming to include dispossession, banishment, and
even death, which are all intended to deter and to neutralize rather than
to punish. When disputes do arise, lay mediators or councils may be
appealed to, to help resolve them.

The transition to a lower-energy system of jurisprudence will no doubt be
quite tumultuous, but there is something we can be sure of: many laws will
become unenforceable at its very outset. This development, given our
definition of what is criminal, will de facto decriminalize many types of
behavior, opening new, relatively safe avenues of legal behavior for
multitudes of people, creating new opportunities for the wise, and further
tempting the evil and the foolish.

As a safety precaution, you might want to distance yourself from the legal
system, and, to the extent that this is possible, find your own justice. As
an exercise, examine each of your relationships that is based on a
contract, lease, deed, license, promissory note, or other legal instrument,
and look for ways to replace it with relationships that are based on trust,
mutual respect, and common interest. Think of ways to make these
relationships work within the context of friendships and familial ties.

To protect yourself from getting savaged by the justice system as it
degenerates into oppression, try to weave a thick web of informal
interdependency all around you, where any conflict or disagreement can be
extinguished by drawing in more and more interested parties, all of them
eager to resolve it peaceably, and none of them willing to let it escalate
beyond their midst. Struggle for impartiality when attempting to mediate
disputes, and be guided by your wisdom and your sense of justice rather
than by laws, rules, or precedents, which offer poor guidance in changing
times.

Moving Into:  TOTAL WELLNESS



How we think effects the economic factor and until we are thinking about
changing our lifestyles to be “life-enhancing� instead of based on the
death-defining ways of war and waste, we will continue to sink into what many
call “hell�.  So, let’s get on the right track here and move into TOTAL
WELLNESS.



I know it isn’t easy to accomplish change especially when the media, bought
and paid for by Big Pharma and other corporate interests, tempts us into going
in the wrong direction with sugar-coated propaganda designed to lure us into the
hell we have created by selling us on the idea that war and waste are good for
us in order to line their own pockets.



Let’s just turn off the TV, stand up and say “no more� – it really
isn’t as difficult as you think it is.  I mean what are a few soap operas,
sports entertainments, and false news reporting events missed compared to having
it all when the threats of dis-ease are removed from one’s life by just
learning to “think differently�.



I’m going to try this “mock turkey� recipe for Thanksgiving.  How about
you?





From: 147068@... [mailto:147068@...] On Behalf Of The
Live Food Factor Newsletter
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 11:06 AM
To: Mary Hampton
Subject: Will supplements be legal next year? Mock Turkey, special offer on DVD,
& listen to me on a radio show





You've received this email because you signed up or made a purchase at
http://www.livefoodfactor.com




   <https://www.mcssl.com/content/147068/livefoodfactor.jpg>







Listen to my 1.5 hour interview with Joe Kasper of www.FireYourDiet.com

Call 712 432-1280 access code 709529# for recording


There is no charge. It will be up for only one week.









Today, Saturday November 14th is World Diabetes Day.



The theme for the years 2009 to 2013 is "Diabetes Education and Prevention."
It's funny though how "Education and Prevention" can mean totally different
things to different people.

For the International Diabetes Organization and the over 12 drug companies that
sponsor World Diabetes Day it means educating people about how they can "manage"
their diabetes with insulin.

For the team that made the film "Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days" it
means educating people on how they can prevent and even reverse diabetes with a
raw and living foods diet.

Now don't get me wrong, insulin is an absolutely amazing thing that has saved
countless lives, but it's not something you want to use regularly.

The goal should always be to get off of medication
whenever possible.

And if that's the case how come there's no mention of eating a raw and living
foods diet on the World Diabetes Day website? Kind of crazy don't you think...
To help with the real meaning of "Education and Prevention" for World Diabetes
Day the team behind the film "Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days" is
offering a huge 50% OFF discount on their film and the companion "Raw for Life"
2 disc DVD set.

You can see the trailer for the film and what they're doing here:

http://rawfor30days.com/cmd.php?af=874463

Also, when you pick up a copy of Simply Raw or Raw for Life today you'll also
get ALL of the bonuses listed below. One of the really cool things about theraw
food community is how we all come together to support a cause like reversing
diabetes.

A lot of people have stepped up to contribute amazing bonuses for this event.

Don't miss out on getting all of these bonuses...

* Bonus 1: "Kitchen Gadgets" 40 Minute Instructional Video by Raw Food Chef
Cherie Soria of The Living Light Institute($14.99 Value)

* Bonus 2: Jennifer Cornbleet's Favorite 5 Recipes from her Book "Raw Food Made
Easy"($4.99 Value)

* Bonus 3: A One Month Raw Menu Planner by Tera Warner of "The Raw Divas"
($14.99 Value)

* Bonus 4: Audio Interview with Ani Phyo on How to Stay Raw While Traveling
($4.99 Value)

* Bonus 5: The entire "The Raw Life: Becoming Natural in an Unnatural World"
E-Book by Paul Nison ($14.99 Value)

* Bonus 6: The entire "Revealing the Physical Changes" E-Book by Angela Stokes -
63 Pages! ($19.95 Value)

* Bonus 7: The entire "Revvellutionize Your Life In 30 Days" E-Book by Revvell
Revati of Rawkin Radio ($19.95 Value)

* Bonus 8: The entire "Raw Success " book, written by Matt Monarch - ($15.95
Value) plus a 15% Discount Coupon for his Raw Food World Online Store

* Bonus 9: Chapter 1 of Susan Schenk's book "The Live Food Factor" ($4.95 Value)

That's a lot of great extra health insight and education...
and you get it all FR@E when you purchase the Simply Raw or Raw for Life for 50%
off.

Go here right now to see all the details and get your copies:

http://rawfor30days.com/cmd.php?af=874463

Until next time...
Much love,
Susan

P.S. - This special half off World Diabetes Day Sale ends at midnight on Friday,
November 20th. If you'd like to get this revolutionary film that so many people
are raving about... and save 50%, then go here now:

http://rawfor30days.com/cmd.php?af=874463





A LONG-STANDING NOTICE FOR ALL OUR RAW-FOOD ENTHUSIASTS: Victoria BidWell and I
want you to make use of and enjoy the fun and life-saving information, the
live-food inspiration and how-to-do-raw motivation, the raw recipes and
money-saving offers at www.4livefoodfactorfriends.com.

Her first 7 e-newsletters are now posted in a single document along with 6 other
finished documents, including her download "WELCOME 4LIVEFOODFACTORFRIENDS"
gift:

The Fruit & Vegetable Lovers' Calorie Guide. Victoria writes several times a
month, always with notes and recipes from her unfinished manuscript: The Health
Seekers' BeverageBook! CHEERS!






  T


WILL SUPPLEMENTS BE LEGAL AFTER 12/31/09?

I saw Brian Clemment talk last week. He is the director of Hippocrates Institute
in Florida. He had just gotten word that Codex Alimentarius will NOT pass. They
have planned this since 1962—to ban all supplements except for weak ones
available only by MD prescription. However, it did not pass. (Brian thinks it
will in 2 years, but I am hopeful that awareness is rising too quickly.) In
Europe it passed a few years ago, and alternative health has had a great set
back.

It gets confusing at times, because we are told that green smoothies are so
important as they maintain the fiber. (And of course, they are so much faster
and easier to make than juicing!) Yet Brian says that 85% of the nutrients are
destroyed by the heavy duty blender! If you juice, on the other hand, 90% of the
nutrients are maintained as long as you drink it immediately.

Brian is convinced that disease begins with self depreciation. He says to remedy
that, keep a journal an d before you sleep, write down 7 things you liked about
yourself or what you did that day—what makes you feel good about yourself.
After 3 months, take 30 minutes every night and read what you’ve written. You
will have about 600 things by then and can start to see patterns and
repetitions. Then go back to the 7 things a day. After one year you will have
2,400 good things about yourself. Then your self-confidence will soar! You can
do greater things. You will love yourself! When you love yourself, your health
automatically improves. Also, you are intuitively guided to find the right
foods, supplements, and healing modalities.


Listen to this RAW FOOD RAP SONG by the Segei Boutenko & friends!
http://tinyurl.com/ykw5g4u









Mock Turkey Loaf

Adapted from Alissa Cohen's book Living on Living Food
Alissa said her recipe was adopted from
Leslie Kenton's book The New Raw Energy.
Things You'll Need:
•    1 cup cashews
•    1 cup pumpkin seeds
•    1/2 cup Brazil nuts
•    5 stalks celery
•    1 scallion or several green onions
•    1 teaspoon or more of sage (or use Thanksgiving blended spices)
•    1 cup cranberries
•    Honey to taste
In a food processor, grind the cashews, pumpkin seeds, Brazil nuts until fine.
Add celery, scallion, and sage and blend until smooth. Remove from food
processor and place on large plate. Form into a loaf.
Cranberries for the Cranberry Sauce
1 cup cranberries
Honey or agave to taste

Blend the cranberries in a blender. Add honey or agave to taste. Blend until
Smooth.
Spread cranberry sauce over the loaf. Garnish with pecans.



| | |







www.livefoodfactor.com

www.livefoodfactor.com/specialoffer


The Live Food Factor

PO Box 712423
San Diego, CA
92171-2423
US


If you no longer wish to receive communication from us:
Cancel <http://autocontactor.com/app/r.asp?ID=131869485&ARID=0&D=>

To update your contact information:
Update <http://autocontactor.com/app/r.asp?c=1&ID=131869485&D=>

  
<http://autocontactor.com/app/trackBroadcast.asp?x=nDrGLxY7qtSRb0RVfWxuaPfMj%2BN\
82A>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Moving Into:  TOTAL WELLNESS



I am most appreciative of Dr. Bruce H. Lipton's endorsement of this program.




From: David Wolfe [mailto:Dave@...]
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 12:59 PM
To: maryrose333@...
Subject: A Must See Documentary Film...



What do the actor Woody Harrelson, peak performance coach
Tony Robbins, Rev Michael Beckwith from "The Secret,"
Morgan Spurlock from "Super Size Me," Dr. Gabriel Cousens
and myself all have in common...

We're all featured in the powerful raw food documentary
film "Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days." If you
haven't yet seen this film it is something that you
absolutely must check out.

You
<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=60256757&msgid=730967&act=Z0V3&c=
343397&admin=0&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawfor30days.com%2FWorldDiabetes
Day2009.html>  Can See The Trailer For The Film Here

Today, Saturday November 14th, 2009 is World Diabetes Day,
a United Nations sanctioned event. This is a huge worldwide
event with one major flaw...

it is funded by over a dozen drug companies who have a strong
interest in seeing that information about reversing diabetes
through raw and living food is kept quiet.

That's why on this World Diabetes Day I have teamed up with
the producers of the film Simply Raw to help spread accurate
information about how to reverse diabetes.

For 6 day only the producers of the film are giving away
"Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days" and the companion
"Raw for Life" 2 disc DVD set for 50% OFF the regular price in
an effort to raise awareness on how to reverse diabetes with
raw and living foods.

They're also giving away a laundry list of amazing bonuses
if you pick up a copy in the next 6 days. So take a minute
to watch the trailer for this amazing film by visiting the
site below.

http://www.rawfor30days.com/WorldDiabetesDay2009.html
<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=60256757&msgid=730967&act=Z0V3&c=
343397&admin=0&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawfor30days.com%2FWorldDiabetes
Day2009.html>

And remember, diabetes is a pandemic situation with over 246
million people today suffering from diabetes. If you or
anyone you know is suffering with diabetes make sure that
they watch this film. It just may save their life...

David "Avocado' Wolfe









This message was sent from David Wolfe to maryrose333@.... It was sent
from: leonard foley, 9 Carlito Rd NM , Sante Fe, NM 87508. You can
modify/update your subscription via the link below.

  <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Email Marketing by
  <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> iContact - Try It Free!





<http://app.icontact.com/icp/static/images/icons/email_manage_subscription.p
ng>
<http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=60256757&l=118054&s=Z0V3&m=
730967&c=343397> Manage your subscription
<http://app.icontact.com/icp/sub/forward?m=730967&s=60256757&c=Z0V3&cid=3433
97>


<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/track.php?msgid=730967&act=Z0V3&r=60256757&c=
343397>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Krunkles@... [mailto:Krunkles@...]
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 1:27 PM
To: maryrose333@...
Subject: Re: FW: FW: [globalnetnews-summary] Why Are Hawkish Lawmakers Willing
To Pay ...



It could be that the corporate state just goes on inventing reasons for war
because war is profitable, but I think the Afghanistan war is more mundane than
that. It may be to control the opium trade and finance the CIA, and it may be to
counter the power of a Russia/China alliance. In any case, the proximity to the
Persian gulf, and some 72% of the world's known oil reserves is certainly
relevant.



Peter



Comment from m r:  Peter, while you are correct here, what you are attempting to
do is to “particalize� this.  But, in fact, it is part of the same wave of
mentality – war is war however you try to slice it or dice it.





  message dated 11/;14/2009 5:14:12 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
maryrose333@... writes:





Moving Into: TOTAL WELLNESS



Peter Van Zandt writes:



Indeed, why are these lawmakers taking these positions? If we don't understand,
perhaps it's because we know less than they about what the true stakes are. The
official line is that the Taliban protect potential Al Qaeda terrorists who
might attack us. Personally, I almost immediately dismiss this. Several other
possibilities I have seen or heard:



1. In the 1990s, we were negotiating with the Taliban for a pipeline to bring
Caucusus oil to where we could use it. Negotiations broke down, for reasons not
entirely clear. Some say that it was because the Taliban refused to turn Osama
Bin Laden over to us, others say it was because negotiating with such an
obviously sexist regime became an embarrassment. Any way, that oil is still
there, although, as I understand it, it has turned out to be a much smaller
quantity than originally thought. it seems unlikely that this is the motive.



2. We want to control Afghanistan's opium trade, since dealing heroin is a major
source of financing for the CIA. Plausible, I've seen it before.



3. We want a base to counter the power of a future Russia/China alliance. Also
plausible.



M R comments:  Perhaps it is because the U.S. economy is dependent upon war to
keep it going.  Since war is the most lucrative business for the elite
capitalists to indulge themselves in, then their focus is on keeping the
military-industrial complex involved so that all the larger corporations serve
this end.



But ultimately it is based in the state of the collective human consciousness at
this point in time.  If we want to change the world, then we must change the
collective consciousness one person at a time. Changing the collective
consciousness means changing the way we think about things as a society.  And,
while this is happening it is not happening quickly enough – we the people do
not as yet have a “collective� voice.  Meanwhile the world is run via
monetized politics.  So, where we must turn our attention is to ending monetized
politics and instituting a new form of governance that is focused on creating
life-enhancing social systems that work in the best interests of all concerned.



This may mean changing the Constitution because the Constitution as it stands
today was written to serve the interests of those who wanted to develop
corporate power in the interests of the elite of that time. Remember that 
signers of the Constitution were wealthy men and slave owners who
disenfranchised women, people of color, and non-land owners. And ever since,
while there have been many attempts to reinstate the rights of those
disenfranchised, it has never happened – and even in today’s world it has
been impossible to get an equal rights amendment passed for women – we are
still considered second class citizens.  We still operate under the “dominator
paradigm� instituted by the Church and going back as far as 1600 A.D. This has
to change.





We must be the change we wish to see in our lives. M Gandhi





From: Krunkles@... [mailto:Krunkles@...]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 7:34 PM
To: maryrose333@...
Subject: Re: FW: [globalnetnews-summary] Why Are Hawkish Lawmakers Willing To
Pay For ...







In a message dated 11/13/2009 5:54:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
maryrose333@... writes:

Moving Into:  TOTAL WELLNESS

This question needs to be answered!!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 3:22 PM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] Why Are Hawkish Lawmakers Willing To Pay
For An Escalation Of The War But Not For Health Care?


Why Are Hawkish Lawmakers Willing To Pay For An Escalation Of The War But
Not For Health Care?
Nov 12th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/12/health-care-afghanistan/

lolieberman In recent days, heated policy discussions in Washington have
largely focused on two topics: a possible escalation of the war in
Afghanistan and health care legislation. Both a troop escalation and health
care legislation carry significant price tags: roughly $100 billion and
$80-$100 billion a year respectively. (It should be noted that health care
reform, unlike a troop surge, would cut the deficit.)

In his New York Times column today, columnist Nicholas Kristof asks why
hawks claim health reform is "fiscally irresponsible" while
enthusiastically supporting a troop surge in Afghanistan, given the fact
that fixing our broken health care system is, unlike a troop surge,
essential to the health and well-being of Americans:

     The health care legislation pays for itself, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, while the deployment in Afghanistan is
unfinanced and will raise our budget deficits and undermine our long-term
economic security.

     So doesn't it seem odd to hear hawks say that health reform is
fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger
deployment of troops in Afghanistan?

     Meanwhile, lack of health insurance kills about 45,000 Americans a
year, according to a Harvard study released in September. So which is the
greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional
insurance system?

Indeed, hawkish legislators have lined up to both demand a costly surge in
U.S. troops in Afghanistan while at the same time claiming that
deficit-cutting health care legislation would simply be too expensive:

     - Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has called for providing the "resources
[needed]" for a "significant increase in U.S. forces" while warning
that he is "really worried about what [health care reform] would do to
the deficit." [9/13/09, 10/26/09]

     - Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has complained that passing health care
legislation would "expand government spending even more," while also
boasting of his Republican caucus's "broad support" for any troop
increase in Afghanistan. [10/21/09, 10/11/09]

     - Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) wrote a letter to President Obama stating
that we "urgently need more resources" in Afghanistan, "including
more combat troops," while at the same time claiming that passing health
care legislation would be tantamount to "generational theft" that would
run up "unconscionable and unsustainable deficits." [11/10/09, 8/27/09]

Kristof's question bears answering. Why is it that hawkish lawmakers are
so willing to spend such enormous resources in both lives and treasure on a
troop surge in Afghanistan that is increasingly opposed by Americans and
Afghans, but are so quick to bark at the price tag of health care
legislation that could save the lives of the 45,000 Americans who die every
year because they don't have access to health care? As Glenn Greenwald
notes, "Urging that more Americans be sent into endless war paid for with
endless debt, while yawning and lazily waving away with boredom the hordes
outside dying for lack of health care coverage, is one of the most
repugnant images one can imagine."



Indeed, why are these lawmakers taking these positions? If we don't understand,
perhaps it's because we know less than they about what the true stakes are. The
official line is that the Taliban protect potential Al Qaeda terrorists who
might attack us. Personally, I almost immediately dismiss this. Several other
possibilities I have seen or heard:



1. In the 1990s, we were negotiating with the Taliban for a pipeline to bring
Caucusus oil to where we could use it. Negotiations broke down, for reasons not
entirely clear. Some say that it was because the Taliban refused to turn Osama
Bin Laden over to us, others say it was because negotiating with such an
obviously sexist regime became an embarrassment. Any way, that oil is still
there, although, as I understand it, it has turned out to be a much smaller
quantity than originally thought. it seems unlikely that this is the motive.



2. We want to control Afghanistan's opium trade, since dealing heroin is a major
source of financing for the CIA. Plausible, I've seen it before.



3. We want a base to counter the power of a future Russia/China alliance. Also
plausible.



Peter Van Zant



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Moving Into: TOTAL WELLNESS



Peter Van Zandt writes:



Indeed, why are these lawmakers taking these positions? If we don't
understand, perhaps it's because we know less than they about what the true
stakes are. The official line is that the Taliban protect potential Al Qaeda
terrorists who might attack us. Personally, I almost immediately dismiss
this. Several other possibilities I have seen or heard:



1. In the 1990s, we were negotiating with the Taliban for a pipeline to
bring Caucusus oil to where we could use it. Negotiations broke down, for
reasons not entirely clear. Some say that it was because the Taliban refused
to turn Osama Bin Laden over to us, others say it was because negotiating
with such an obviously sexist regime became an embarrassment. Any way, that
oil is still there, although, as I understand it, it has turned out to be a
much smaller quantity than originally thought. it seems unlikely that this
is the motive.



2. We want to control Afghanistan's opium trade, since dealing heroin is a
major source of financing for the CIA. Plausible, I've seen it before.



3. We want a base to counter the power of a future Russia/China alliance.
Also plausible.



M R comments:  Perhaps it is because the U.S. economy is dependent upon war
to keep it going.  Since war is the most lucrative business for the elite
capitalists to indulge themselves in, then their focus is on keeping the
military-industrial complex involved so that all the larger corporations
serve this end.



But ultimately it is based in the state of the collective human
consciousness at this point in time.  If we want to change the world, then
we must change the collective consciousness one person at a time. Changing
the collective consciousness means changing the way we think about things as
a society.  And, while this is happening it is not happening quickly enough
- we the people do not as yet have a "collective" voice.  Meanwhile the
world is run via monetized politics.  So, where we must turn our attention
is to ending monetized politics and instituting a new form of governance
that is focused on creating life-enhancing social systems that work in the
best interests of all concerned.



This may mean changing the Constitution because the Constitution as it
stands today was written to serve the interests of those who wanted to
develop corporate power in the interests of the elite of that time. Remember
that  signers of the Constitution were wealthy men and slave owners who
disenfranchised women, people of color, and non-land owners. And ever since,
while there have been many attempts to reinstate the rights of those
disenfranchised, it has never happened - and even in today's world it has
been impossible to get an equal rights amendment passed for women - we are
still considered second class citizens.  We still operate under the
"dominator paradigm" instituted by the Church and going back as far as 1600
A.D. This has to change.





We must be the change we wish to see in our lives. M Gandhi





From: Krunkles@... [mailto:Krunkles@...]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 7:34 PM
To: maryrose333@...
Subject: Re: FW: [globalnetnews-summary] Why Are Hawkish Lawmakers Willing
To Pay For ...







In a message dated 11/13/2009 5:54:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
maryrose333@... writes:

Moving Into:  TOTAL WELLNESS

This question needs to be answered!!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 3:22 PM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] Why Are Hawkish Lawmakers Willing To Pay
For An Escalation Of The War But Not For Health Care?


Why Are Hawkish Lawmakers Willing To Pay For An Escalation Of The War But
Not For Health Care?
Nov 12th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/12/health-care-afghanistan/

lolieberman In recent days, heated policy discussions in Washington have
largely focused on two topics: a possible escalation of the war in
Afghanistan and health care legislation. Both a troop escalation and health
care legislation carry significant price tags: roughly $100 billion and
$80-$100 billion a year respectively. (It should be noted that health care
reform, unlike a troop surge, would cut the deficit.)

In his New York Times column today, columnist Nicholas Kristof asks why
hawks claim health reform is "fiscally irresponsible" while
enthusiastically supporting a troop surge in Afghanistan, given the fact
that fixing our broken health care system is, unlike a troop surge,
essential to the health and well-being of Americans:

     The health care legislation pays for itself, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, while the deployment in Afghanistan is
unfinanced and will raise our budget deficits and undermine our long-term
economic security.

     So doesn't it seem odd to hear hawks say that health reform is
fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger
deployment of troops in Afghanistan?

     Meanwhile, lack of health insurance kills about 45,000 Americans a
year, according to a Harvard study released in September. So which is the
greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional
insurance system?

Indeed, hawkish legislators have lined up to both demand a costly surge in
U.S. troops in Afghanistan while at the same time claiming that
deficit-cutting health care legislation would simply be too expensive:

     - Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has called for providing the "resources
[needed]" for a "significant increase in U.S. forces" while warning
that he is "really worried about what [health care reform] would do to
the deficit." [9/13/09, 10/26/09]

     - Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has complained that passing health care
legislation would "expand government spending even more," while also
boasting of his Republican caucus's "broad support" for any troop
increase in Afghanistan. [10/21/09, 10/11/09]

     - Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) wrote a letter to President Obama stating
that we "urgently need more resources" in Afghanistan, "including
more combat troops," while at the same time claiming that passing health
care legislation would be tantamount to "generational theft" that would
run up "unconscionable and unsustainable deficits." [11/10/09, 8/27/09]

Kristof's question bears answering. Why is it that hawkish lawmakers are
so willing to spend such enormous resources in both lives and treasure on a
troop surge in Afghanistan that is increasingly opposed by Americans and
Afghans, but are so quick to bark at the price tag of health care
legislation that could save the lives of the 45,000 Americans who die every
year because they don't have access to health care? As Glenn Greenwald
notes, "Urging that more Americans be sent into endless war paid for with
endless debt, while yawning and lazily waving away with boredom the hordes
outside dying for lack of health care coverage, is one of the most
repugnant images one can imagine."



Indeed, why are these lawmakers taking these positions? If we don't
understand, perhaps it's because we know less than they about what the true
stakes are. The official line is that the Taliban protect potential Al Qaeda
terrorists who might attack us. Personally, I almost immediately dismiss
this. Several other possibilities I have seen or heard:



1. In the 1990s, we were negotiating with the Taliban for a pipeline to
bring Caucusus oil to where we could use it. Negotiations broke down, for
reasons not entirely clear. Some say that it was because the Taliban refused
to turn Osama Bin Laden over to us, others say it was because negotiating
with such an obviously sexist regime became an embarrassment. Any way, that
oil is still there, although, as I understand it, it has turned out to be a
much smaller quantity than originally thought. it seems unlikely that this
is the motive.



2. We want to control Afghanistan's opium trade, since dealing heroin is a
major source of financing for the CIA. Plausible, I've seen it before.



3. We want a base to counter the power of a future Russia/China alliance.
Also plausible.



Peter Van Zant



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Moving Into:  TOTAL WELLNESS

This question needs to be answered!!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 3:22 PM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] Why Are Hawkish Lawmakers Willing To Pay
For An Escalation Of The War But Not For Health Care?


Why Are Hawkish Lawmakers Willing To Pay For An Escalation Of The War But
Not For Health Care?
Nov 12th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/12/health-care-afghanistan/

lolieberman In recent days, heated policy discussions in Washington have
largely focused on two topics: a possible escalation of the war in
Afghanistan and health care legislation. Both a troop escalation and health
care legislation carry significant price tags: roughly $100 billion and
$80-$100 billion a year respectively. (It should be noted that health care
reform, unlike a troop surge, would cut the deficit.)

In his New York Times column today, columnist Nicholas Kristof asks why
hawks claim health reform is "fiscally irresponsible" while
enthusiastically supporting a troop surge in Afghanistan, given the fact
that fixing our broken health care system is, unlike a troop surge,
essential to the health and well-being of Americans:

     The health care legislation pays for itself, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, while the deployment in Afghanistan is
unfinanced and will raise our budget deficits and undermine our long-term
economic security.

     So doesn't it seem odd to hear hawks say that health reform is
fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger
deployment of troops in Afghanistan?

     Meanwhile, lack of health insurance kills about 45,000 Americans a
year, according to a Harvard study released in September. So which is the
greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional
insurance system?

Indeed, hawkish legislators have lined up to both demand a costly surge in
U.S. troops in Afghanistan while at the same time claiming that
deficit-cutting health care legislation would simply be too expensive:

     - Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has called for providing the "resources
[needed]" for a "significant increase in U.S. forces" while warning
that he is "really worried about what [health care reform] would do to
the deficit." [9/13/09, 10/26/09]

     - Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has complained that passing health care
legislation would "expand government spending even more," while also
boasting of his Republican caucus's "broad support" for any troop
increase in Afghanistan. [10/21/09, 10/11/09]

     - Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) wrote a letter to President Obama stating
that we "urgently need more resources" in Afghanistan, "including
more combat troops," while at the same time claiming that passing health
care legislation would be tantamount to "generational theft" that would
run up "unconscionable and unsustainable deficits." [11/10/09, 8/27/09]

Kristof's question bears answering. Why is it that hawkish lawmakers are
so willing to spend such enormous resources in both lives and treasure on a
troop surge in Afghanistan that is increasingly opposed by Americans and
Afghans, but are so quick to bark at the price tag of health care
legislation that could save the lives of the 45,000 Americans who die every
year because they don't have access to health care? As Glenn Greenwald
notes, "Urging that more Americans be sent into endless war paid for with
endless debt, while yawning and lazily waving away with boredom the hordes
outside dying for lack of health care coverage, is one of the most
repugnant images one can imagine."

For your convenience.



From: Bruce Lloyd [mailto:info@...]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 9:39 AM
To: maryrose333@...
Subject: Shaping Tomorrow Insight Newsletter



If you have trouble viewing our newsletter via email please click here to view
it online: http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/newsletter.cfm


  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com> Click here to go to the website

Insight Newsletter
13 November 2009
Edited by Bruce Lloyd <mailto:info@...>

   _____


Algae - Miracle or Mirage?


  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/trendAlert.cfm?id=14023> Algae



Interest in and optimism about the potential of algae to produce bio-fuels has
been growing for several years. Investment and research have been followed by
pilots and now scale ups.  While many big name companies are involved in these
projects, there are one or two lone voices which dissent on its viability to
deliver profitably.

We have written a  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/trendAlert.cfm?id=14023>
summary of what is changing in the world of algea as a fuel source and why we
think it is important.

Author:  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/trends.cfm?bio=7675> Sheila Moorcroft,
Director of Research

   _____


Latest Insights

Welcome to our latest  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/welcome.cfm?wtxt=421>
Insight newsletter. Read the trend alerts, article and video links below to find
your  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/welcome.cfm?wtxt=412> Trends before others
do.

Our weekly newsletter is just a gentle reminder of what's maybe changing
imperceptibly around you. The website itself contains a much larger selection of
structured content, with likely high relevance to you and your organisation, and
is updated daily.

We have added 360 new links this week including


  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60992> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60992> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60992>

  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60992>
Can Technology Persuade Us To Save Energy?
Future "machines designed to change humans", also known as persuasive
technology, could save us huge amounts of energy and money
  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/insights.cfm> Comment


  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60987> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60987> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60987>

  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60987>
Marketing Drugs: The Pitfalls Of Direct To Consumer
Researchers believe pharma companies could take several steps to make their ads
more effective, emphasizing they should find new ways to connect meaningfully
with patients
  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/insights.cfm> Comment


  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60954> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60954> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60954>

  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60954>
Global Environmental Change: The Threat To Human Health
Over the past two-to-three hundred years, humanity’s ecological footprint has
ballooned to such an extent that we are now fundamentally altering the planet.
  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/insights.cfm> Comment


  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60876> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60876> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60876>

  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60876>
GE Reveals Phone-Sized Ultrasound Device
GE CEO and Chairman Jeff Immett debuted a pocket sized ultrasound scanner a few
weeks ago at the Web2.0 conference in San Francisco. The Vscan is aimed at
enhancing the level of diagnostic power of the average doctor, helping detect
dangerous conditions before they get worse.
  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/insights.cfm> Comment


  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60874> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60874> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60874>

  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60874>
Augmented Reality Goes Mobile
The market for AR applications on smartphones is so new that it has gone from
virtually no users in 2008 to an expected 600,000 by the end of 2009. By 2012
there will be 150 million to 200 million users. That would make up only about 3%
of the world's mobile-user base but still a high percentage of smartphone users.
  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/insights.cfm> Comment


  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60798> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60798> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60798>

  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60798>
Smart Meter Installations To Reach 250 Million Worldwide By 2015, Says Pike
Research
Smart meters are the vanguard of Smart Grid deployments
  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/insights.cfm> Comment


  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60734> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60734> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60734>

  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60734>
Space Hotel Says It's On Schedule To Open In 2012
A company behind plans to open the first hotel in space says it is on target to
accept its first paying guests in 2012 despite critics questioning the
investment and time frame for the multi-billion dollar project.
  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/insights.cfm> Comment


  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60727> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60727> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60727>

  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60727>
Malware Inc.: The Criminals Behind the Attacks
Malware makers–the criminals responsible for viruses and worms –have become
increasingly organized and sophisticated
  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/insights.cfm> Comment


  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60714> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60714> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60714>

  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60714>
Europe Plots Black Boxes For Cars
The European Commission's study into feasibility of fitting black box recorders
to cars to record 20 types of data in case of accidents looks set to recommend
the devices are fitted to all European cars.
  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/insights.cfm> Comment


  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60703> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60703> 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60703>

  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/loginform.cfm?page=nav-frameset.cfm?li=60703>
Futurists' Report Acknowledges Dangers Of Smart Robots
Scientists are preparing to publish a report this month that examines, in part,
whether robots could eventually become so smart they pose a threat to society.
The report will include concerns some researchers have voiced about the legal
and ethical use of artificial intelligence
  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/insights.cfm> Comment

   _____

A Guide to Practical Foresight: Part 47 - Benefits

Part 47 of a year long series on how to use Practical Foresight for competitive
advantage:

The measure of excellence for scanning is use of the resulting information in
planning and decision-making. An appropriate Horizon Scanning process will
provide content, search mechanisms, updating processes, and a host environment
that:

* Several key benefits to the ultimate success of a robust Horizon Scanning
system accrue from adopting all four modes of continuous scanning and a robust,
collaborative framework.
* Users can find much more relevant material to their everyday work, thus
encouraging greater usage of the Horizon Scanning system.
* Users can comment on and tag upcoming change creating a people-driven view of
expected future change.
* Researchers can quickly see new serendipitous discoveries of previously unseen
linkages between factors.
* A wider range of material can be sourced and time-lined to provide evidence of
the issue's changing signal strength.
* Conditioned viewing is improved by the earlier addition of new factors,
modifying existing issues, and the retirement of old ones as things change
dynamically.
* It becomes far less likely that narrow searching in only one or two scanning
modes misses major issues and innovations and therefore reduces potential for
future criticism or threat.
* The system can be kept continually up-to-date and remain topical.
* The resulting knowledge base brings an integrated approach to Horizon Scanning
and improves an organization's ability to offer a comprehensive futures
intelligence service to its management.

You can read the  <http://practicalforesight.wetpaint.com/> full guide or 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/content.cfm?webtext=13> contact us to learn how
to improve Practical Foresight in your organisation.

   _____

Environmental scanning

  Maree Conway <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/images/mconway.jpg> Join Maree
Conway for this second webinar on environmental scanning! This webinar will help
you understand what environmental scanning (ES) is in the context of strategy
development and strategic planning, and help you get started with scanning in
your own work.

She will cover: what environtmental scanning is, where it fits in the strategy
cycle, why you must do it, how to do it, and how to get started when you go back
to work.

Register here <https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/426592904>

Contents

§  Algae - Miracle or Mirage? <>

§  Latest Insights <>

§  A Guide <>  to Practical Foresight: Part 47 - Benefits

§  Environmental scanning <>

§  China <>

§  Recession: What recession? <>

§  Situation vacant <>

§  Global Megacrisis Survey <>





China

Shaping Tomorrow is looking for more researchers with strong connections and
past experience of China. We have a number of clients who are seeking to better
understand this exciting market.

Contact  <mailto:kerry@...> kerry@... for
details.



Recession: What recession?

  <http://shapingtomorrowmain.ning.com/profiles/blogs/recession-what-recession>

Quick Asian trip report


Some enduring memories of Mike Jackson’s latest trip to Asia.



Recession Watch

Use this social network graph to see which way our contributors think the world
is heading. Last updated 10th November 2009.

   <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/images/st-rec-1011.gif>

Take advantage of any upturn or prepare for a further downturn, ahead of the
pack, by reading our 'what to do now' recession tips for how to survive and get
to more positive futures, faster.

  <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/content.cfm?webtext=537> Read more



Situation vacant

Emerging markets futurist and/or Africanist position at Stanbic/Standard Bank.

Contact  <mailto:mike.jackson@...>
mike.jackson@... for details.



Global Megacrisis Survey

Make a point of looking at the "
<http://www.techcast.org/hot-issues-global-warming.aspx?IssueID=15&ID=14> Global
Megacrisis Survey" under hot issues on Please also take the survey at the end.
Mike Marien and Bill Halal are having this published in the Futurist, World
Future Review, Futures, Foresight, Shaping Tomorrow and other places to make it
a little "mega-study".

If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, please 
<http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/r.cfm?M=31106&e=maryrose333@att.net&unsub=yes>
click here

   <http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/nav-emclick.cfm?id=31106>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

FYI and consideration.  It is a good thing to get involved with the Transition
Movement.  If we are to accomplish anything “wholesome� for our future, we
must become organized and learn how to change our social systems so they are
“life-enhancing�.

Think about the future of our children and grandchildren to whom we owe a debt
– we have robbed them of a meaningful future unless we act now to ensure they
have one.

From: Transition Ohio [mailto:mail@...]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 7:49 AM
To: maryrose333@...
Subject: Transition US webinars - Decision-Making Part One recording with Part
Two on Wednesday, 18th





Transition Ohio

Community Resilience, Self-Reliance, Renewable Energy & Cooperation


A message to all members of Transition Ohio


Also posted on Transition Ohio
http://transitionohio.ning.com/profiles/blogs/transition-us-webinars


Decision-Making for Transition Groups: Part One (1:00 - 2:30 PST)
Webinars
Date: November 11, 2009
View a recording of this event.
<https://admin.na5.acrobat.com/_a768775060/p22539541>

~*~*~

How can Transition groups function effectively, democratically in ways that
empower members and also get stuff done? Starhawk presents her Five-Fold Path of
Productive Meetings: Right People, Right Container, Right Process, Right
Facilitation, Right Agenda.

Part One will focus on who should be at the meeting, how to choose the right
container, and how to decide which process is right for your group. She'll
introduce ways to make Consensus and Modified Consensus work for you.

In Part Two (on <http://transitionus.org/node/380>  November 18th), she'll focus
on the Facilitator's Toolbox, how to create agendas that work, and what to do
when groups get stuck.

Starhawk has been training groups in consensus and facilitation for over
twenty-five years. She is an activist, permaculture designer and teacher, and
author of eleven books, including The Fifth Sacred Thing, The Earth Path, and
her latest, The Last Wild Witch. She teaches Earth Activist Trainings,
permaculture design courses with a grounding in spirit and a focus on organizing
and activism. www.earthactivisttraining.org. Her website is www.starhawk.org and
her blog, Dirt Worship, is www.starhawksblog.org.

Visit Transition Ohio at: http://transitionohio.ning.com



To control which emails you receive on Transition Ohio, click
<http://transitionohio.ning.com/profiles/profile/emailSettings?xg_source=msg_mes\
_network>  here

  
<http://transitionohio.ning.com/xn_resources/widgets/index/gfx/spacer.gif?msgtyp\
e=broadcast>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:06 PM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] The great global land grab


(To change your settings or unsubscribe please go to
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/globalnetnews-summary)

  Published Nov 7 2009 by Red Pepper, Archived Nov 11 2009
The great global land grab
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/The-great-global-land-grab

News of another big land deal between a rich nation and a poor developing
country is becoming a common occurrence. In August a group of Saudi
investors said that they would be investing $1 billion in land in Africa
for rice cultivation. They are calling it their '7x7x7 project', since
they are aiming to plant 700,000 hectares of land to produce seven million
tonnes of rice in seven years. The land will be distributed over several
countries: Mali, Senegal and maybe Sudan and Uganda.

A few weeks earlier South Korea acquired 700,000 hectares of land in Sudan,
also for rice cultivation. India is funding a large group of private
companies to buy 350,000 hectares in as-yet unspecified countries in
Africa. A group of South African businessmen is negotiating an 8 million
hectare deal in the Democratic Republic of Congo. And so it goes on. The
United Nations believes that at least 30 million hectares (about 74 million
acres, well over the size of the UK) were acquired by outside investors in
the developing world during the first half of this year alone.

The land grab was indirectly spawned by the international financial crisis.
It's interesting to trace the investors' train of thought because it
says a lot about the kind of world we're heading towards. Some two years
ago many financial players - the investment houses that manage workers'
pensions, private equity funds, hedge funds, big grain traders and so on
- saw that the sub-prime mortgage bubble was about to burst and moved
money into the safer commodities market. Although there was no real
shortage of food, food prices (especially of cereals, but also of dairy and
meat) rose dramatically.

Countries dependent on food imports were badly hit, with a big increase in
the domestic price of some food staples, particularly rice. People coped by
changing their eating habits, in many cases cutting back on meals, but they
also took to the streets to demand government action. By early 2008 riots
had broken out in nearly 40 countries, instilling fear among the world's
political elite. Panic-stricken governments rushed to increase their food
imports, leading several food-producing nations to restrict exports,
fearful that they too could be hit by shortages.

The big winners from the crisis were not the farmers, as one might have
expected. They enjoyed a big increase in the prices they were paid at the
farm gate, but all their potential income gains were gobbled up by higher
production costs. The people who made a real killing were the suppliers of
agricultural inputs. With their quasi-monopoly control over seeds,
pesticides, fertilisers and machinery, these giant companies made obscene
profits out of the higher prices squeezed out of largely poor populations.

Close on their heels in the ranking of the profiteers came the world's
largest grain traders. These companies played a role in artificially
creating the food scare in the first place, so they made sure they were
well placed to profit from it. Cargill, the world's largest grain trader,
reported an increase in profits in 2008 of nearly 70 per cent over 2007, a
157 per cent rise in profits since 2006. Profits for ADM, the world's
second largest grain trader, showed a lower rate of increase in 2008,
partly because of its heavy investments in the sinking ethanol market, but
the company's profits were still more than 200 per cent higher than they
were in 2006.

Going abroad
The crisis eventually eased, at least temporarily, but by then its impact
on rich, food-insecure nations had been profound. Take Saudi Arabia. Since
the late 1970s the country had been seeking to become self-sufficient in
some foods, particularly wheat. But just before the food crisis erupted,
the government reluctantly decided that this strategy was doomed, largely
because the country simply didn't have enough water to irrigate crops.

In a radical change of tack, it decided that it would cover all of its
grain consumption through imports by 2015. But this, of course, left the
country completely reliant on the world market, just at a time that this
market was showing itself to be alarmingly unreliable. Not surprisingly, a
rather panic-stricken government sent out a directive to private
businessmen instructing them to invest in agricultural production abroad.
Adnan al-Naiem, secretary general of the Asharqia Chamber in the Eastern
Province, put it succinctly in a briefing: 'The objective is to achieve
long-term food security for Saudi Arabia and to secure a continuous supply
of food to the kingdom at low and fair prices.'

China is another example. While self-sufficient in food at the moment, it
has a huge population, its agricultural lands have been disappearing to
industrial development and its water supplies are under serious stress.
With 40 per cent of the world's farmers but only 9 per cent of the
world's farmland, it should surprise no one that food security is high on
the Chinese government's agenda. And with more than $1.8 trillion in
foreign exchange reserves, China has deep pockets from which to invest in
its own food security abroad.

As many farmers' leaders and activists in south-east Asia know, Beijing
has been gradually outsourcing part of its food production since well
before the global food crisis broke in 2007. Through China's new
geopolitical diplomacy, and the government's aggressive 'Go Abroad'
outward investment strategy, some 30 agricultural cooperation deals have
been sealed in recent years to give Chinese firms access to 'friendly
country' farmland in exchange for Chinese technology, training and
infrastructure development funds.

Other countries, such as South Korea, Egypt, Libya, Kuwait, India and
Japan, have also decided for their own reasons that, faced with the
prospect of a world shortage of food in the future, it makes sense to find
reliable sources outside their own borders for at least part of their food
supply. This is what is driving the current land grab, comparable in a way
to the 'scramble for Africa' in the late 19th century. Huge areas of
the world are being taken over by foreign powers, but they are no longer
using military force - they are waving chequebooks, which in today's
world can be an even more powerful weapon.

Although land is being grabbed in many different parts of the world, Africa
is under heavy assault. Many impoverished governments in sub-Saharan Africa
are sorely tempted by the offer of money up-front, and the foreign
investors know that if the deals go sour in the future the weak governments
will find it hard to expel them. Not that the foreign investors are leaving
much to chance. There have already been reports of some of the leased land
being protected by private security firms.

There is much to worry us about the new carve-up. Some of the world's
poorest countries are letting go of land that they need to feed their own
populations. The Sudanese government has sold a 99-year lease on 1.5
million hectares of prime farmland to the Gulf states, Egypt and South
Korea. But Sudan is also the world's largest recipient of foreign aid,
with 5.6 million of its citizens dependent on food packages from abroad.
All principles of basic justice tell us that Sudan should be using this
land to feed its own people.

At the moment, the foreign investors speak of a win-win situation, in which
both occupying and occupied countries benefit. Take the 7x7x7 Saudi project
mentioned earlier. 'West Africa has an annual deficit of about 2 million
tonnes of rice,' according to the Foras International Investment Company,
one of the partners in the scheme. 'Our project will confront the food
shortage crisis, increase agricultural output and improve rice
productivity.' In other words, there will be enough rice to feed the
local population and to send abroad. Yet the day may come when there
isn't enough rice for both Arabs and West Africans. It is hard to imagine
that the investors will put the needs of impoverished African families
before the needs of their own, much richer, more powerful people.

The day the food runs out
The day that the food starts to run out in the world may come far more
quickly than most of us imagine. At present, there are more than a billion
people going hungry even though there is no shortage of food. The very poor
don't eat enough because they don't have enough money. The underlying
problem is one of social inequality, of the highly skewed distribution of
financial resources in the world.

Over the next century much worse food shortages may emerge. The climate
crisis is already arriving far more quickly than scientists expected and
proving far more dangerous. For a while, many scientists believed that the
increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be partly compensated
for by an increase in plant growth, caused by the greater availability of
CO2. But now it seems that carbon fertilisation, as it is called, will not
happen or will happen far less reliably than was once imagined.

One of the most comprehensive models of the impact of climate change,
carried out in 2007 by William R Cline, predicts that, without carbon
fertilisation, crop productivity in the developing world is likely to
decline drastically, by 21 per cent over the next 80 years. And these
predictions may also be underestimates, as they haven't taken into
account all the so-called 'positive feedbacks' - the melting of the
ice sheets in the Arctic and the Antarctic, the melting of the glaciers,
the much greater frequency of forest fires, the growing water shortage and
so on - which will make everything worse. Indeed, many of the nations
that are scouring the world for arable land will have been warned by their
own scientists that a world of dire shortages lies ahead.

Yet, in this dog-eat-dog world, the very actions that the rich countries
are taking will increase the likelihood of a global food shortage. The land
being grabbed by outside powers has its own precious ecosystems and much of
it is used, at least for parts of the year, by local people. Even though
governments say that they are only selling 'empty' or 'marginal'
land, such a concept simply does not exist for many of the traditional
peasant and indigenous communities in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

And the world destroys its biodiversity at its peril, for it is hugely
important to have genetically varied populations and species-rich natural
and agricultural ecosystems, particularly at times of environmental stress.
Biodiversity plays a crucial role in supplying the raw materials and the
genes that make possible the emergence of the new plant varieties on which
we all depend. Such new varieties will be urgently required as the world
heats up.

The outside investors, however, working with large private companies, are
destroying existing ecosystems and creating huge areas of monoculture crops
dependent on chemical fertilisers and pesticides. With the destruction of
the ecosystems comes the dispersal of the peasantry and other traditional
communities of farmers and herders, who have a profound knowledge of the
local biodiversity. These communities could play a crucial role in
combating climate change.

To give just a single example, with adequate financial support they could
be linked together in a vast network of seed markets, stretching across the
whole of the African continent, that would help plants to 'migrate' as
climatic conditions change. They are perhaps mankind's greatest hope of
coping with the climatic cataclysms that lie ahead. Yet the current
breakneck land grab is destroying the very basis of their livelihoods. And
it is all of us, throughout the world, who will pay the price.

Moving Into: TOTAL WELLNESS

Just as some are playing games with instituting a health care plan that is
affordable for all, others are playing games with both the amount of oil
that will be available and the onset of climate change.

Yet, if ever there was a time for truth it is now! We cannot move forward on
these issues based on falsified information -- we must have a clear picture
upon which to base intelligent decisions.



-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 10:54 AM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] Oil: future world shortages are being
drastically underplayed, say experts


Oil: future world shortages are being drastically underplayed, say experts
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/12/oil-shortage-uppsala-aleklett

Thursday 12 November 2009 19.57 GMT

. Swedish academics slate IEA's report as 'political document' for
countries with vested interest in low prices
. Oil production 'likely to be 75m barrels a day rather than 105m'

A leading academic institute has urged European governments to review
global oil supplies for themselves because of the "politicisation" of the
International Energy Agency's figures.

Uppsala University in Sweden today published a scathing assessment of the
IEA's annual World Energy Outlook, saying some assumptions drastically
underplayed the scale of future oil shortages.

Kjell Aleklett, professor of physics at Uppsala and co-author of a new
report "The Peak of the Oil Age", claims oil production is more likely to
be 75m barrels a day by 2030 than the "unrealistic" 105m used by the IEA in
its recently published World Energy Outlook 2009. The academic, who runs a
Global Energy unit at Uppsala, described the IEA's report as a "political
document" developed for consuming countries with a vested interest in low
prices.

The report from Aleklett and others, including Simon Snowden from the
University of Liverpool, says: "We find the production outlook made by the
IEA to be problematic in the light of historical experience and production
patterns. The IEA is expecting the oil to be extracted at a pace never
previously seen without any justification for this assumption."

There is particular concern about high future production rates from
"unconventional" sources such as tar sands, with the Uppsala report saying
there is a lack of information about the figures in the 2008 Outlook and
largely repeated in the latest one. "We must therefore regard the IEA
production figure as somewhat dubious until it is explained more fully,"
added the Swedish report, which is to be published in the journal Energy
Policy.

The Uppsala findings come days after the Guardian reported that IEA
whistleblowers had expressed deep misgivings about the way energy
statistics were being collected and interpreted at the Paris-based
organisation. Insiders questioned whether US influence and fears of stock
market "panic" were encouraging the IEA to downplay the potential for
future oil scarcity.

Aleklett, whose latest work was funded by the state-owned Swedish Energy
Agency, said he had experience of similar internal worries about the IEA.

"The Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) gave me
the task of writing the report, Peak Oil and the Evolving Strategies of Oil
Importing and Exporting Countries. This report was one of those discussed
at a round-table meeting that was held in the IEA's conference room in
Paris. At that opportunity, in November 2007, I had a number of private
conversations with officers of the IEA. The revelations now reported in the
Guardian were revealed to me then under the promise that I not name the
source. I had earlier heard the same thing from another officer from Norway
who, at the time he spoke of the pressure being applied by the USA, was
working for the IEA."

The energy agency dismissed the suggestions of political influence on its
analysis as "groundless". It said the annual document was reviewed by 200
different and independent experts.

The IEA was always trying to find ways to make its estimates even stronger,
a spokeswoman said: "We would be happy to see any initiative to improve the
data quality on reserves and decline rates. We believe our World Energy
Outlook 2008 opened an important door to have more field data and
transparency and would very much welcome similar efforts to help improve
transparency in the oil sector."

Meanwhile, Steve Sorrell, author of a recent oil supply report for the UK
Energy Research Centre, which also warned of British government complacency
on the issue, said the Uppsala paper was a "useful contribution" to the
debate on "peak oil" - the period at which maximum levels of crude output
is reached after which there will be terminal decline.

"The IEA has taken some useful steps in recent years to give more
information about how it is arriving at certain conclusions and that is to
be welcomed. But its [oil supply/demand] scenarios have also changed
radically and that deserves greater explanation. We still need greater
access to the data that provides these assumptions," he said.

Aleklett added: "I am a scientist, not an economist or a politician. I
believe in the facts and if someone can prove me wrong I will happily
change my mind."

Moving Into:  TOTAL WELLNESS

The only solution to this imho is for "we-the-people" to take charge of our
own lives by "eating to live" instead of "living to eat" as most of us now
do. And to couple this with a total energy management system exercise like
Tai Chi or Qigong which the Chinese spent between three and four thousand
years perfecting.

Changing the way we eat will result in changing the way we raise our food
and eliminate many of the problems associated with our agriculture system
resulting in loss of topsoil at 17% faster than it can be replaced
worldwide. Civilization was built on topsoil and without it we cannot
restore our fragile ecosystems to peak efficiency so that their carrying
capacity can be increased to meet the demands of the number of people on
Earth today.

Disease prevention is the answer, not making insurance companies rich at our
expense through payment of insurance premiums.

We need to start "thinking straight" here, not playing into their hands.


-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:58 PM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] Goldman To Private Insurers: No Health Care
Reform At All Is Best


Goldman To Private Insurers: No Health Care Reform At All Is Best
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/goldman-to-private-insure_n_355998.
html
Updated: 11-12-09 11:31 PM


A Goldman Sachs analysis of health care legislation has concluded that, as
far as the bottom line for insurance companies is concerned, the best thing
to do is nothing. A close second would be passing a watered-down version of
the Senate Finance Committee's bill.

A study put together by Goldman in mid-October looks at the estimated stock
performance of the private insurance industry under four variations of
reform legislation. The study focused on the five biggest insurers whose
shares are traded on Wall Street: Aetna, UnitedHealth, WellPoint, CIGNA and
Humana.

The Senate Finance Committee bill, which Goldman's analysts conclude is the
version most likely to survive the legislative process, is described as the
"base" scenario. Under that legislation (which did not include a public
plan) the earnings per share for the top five insurers would grow an
estimated five percent from 2010 through 2019. And yet, the "variance with
current valuation" -- essentially, what the value of the stock is on the
market -- is projected to drop four percent.

Things are much worse, Goldman estimates, for legislation that resembles
what was considered and (to a certain extent) passed by the House of
Representatives. This is, the firm deems, the "bear case" scenario -- in
which earnings per share for the top five insurers would decline an
estimated one percent from 2010 through 2019 and the variance with current
valuation is projected to be negative 36 percent.

What the firm sees as the best path forward for the private insurance
industry's bottom line is, to be blunt, inaction.

The study's authors advise that if no reform is passed, earnings per share
would grow an estimated ten percent from 2010 through 2019, and the value
of the stock would rise an estimated 59 percent during that time period.

The next best thing for the insurance industry would be if the legislation
passed by the Senate Finance Committee is watered down significantly.
Described as a "bull case" scenario -- in which there is "moderation of
provisions in the current SFC plan" or "changes prior to the major
implementation in 2013" -- earnings per share for the five biggest insurers
would grow an estimated ten percent and the variance with current valuation
would rise an estimated 47 percent.

The report, a Goldman official stressed, was analytic not advocacy-based.
Their job was to provide a sober assessment of the market realities facing
private insurers under various versions of health care reform.
Story continues below

"If no reform at all happens you would see the largest rise in EPS," a
Goldman official acknowledged. "But what we are doing is just analyzing
what the stocks would do under different scenarios."

The study does note on the front page that the firm "does and seeks to do
business with companies covered in its research reports." Those companies
include Aetna, Wells Point and United Health.

goldman -

In the context of the current health care debate, the findings provide a
small window into the concerns that have driven the private insurance
industry's opposition to reform legislation. Simply put: health care reform
is going to hurt their bottom line. No less a prestigious voice than
Goldman Sachs is telling them so.

Some insurers, in the end, will be hit harder than others. CIGNA is the
lowest of the big five, for instance, because it does little business
providing insurance plans to Medicare patients, individuals and families
buying health plans directly, or small employers that offer health plans to
their workers.

In addition, some reforms are going to hurt the industry more than others.
Regulatory changes -- such as prohibiting the prejudice against consumers
with pre-existing conditions -- will have an impact across the board, as
will the funding cuts to Medicare Advantage.

Overall, Goldman calculates the probability of reform passing Congress at
75 percent. Though the limitations of Goldman's political prognostications
were on full display earlier in the document:

     By mid-late October, we expect a cloture vote (60 votes) to bypass a
potential filibuster followed by several weeks of debate over proposed
amendments on the Senate floor (with a similar process under way in the
House). If both the Senate and House are able to pass legislation (perhaps
before the Thanksgiving recess), a House-Senate conference negotiation
should produce combined legislation for final approval (perhaps by
mid-December).

From: Luis Morago - Avaaz.org [mailto:avaaz@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:00 PM
To: maryrose333@...
Subject: A hunger scandal



Dear Friends,


  <http://www.avaaz.org/en/world_hunger_pledges/?cl=367723992&v=4458> The
economic crisis has poverty and hunger skyrocketing in poor countries. World
leaders meeting in Rome next week are in danger of backing out on a $20 billion
pledge to fund life-saving food production -- sign the petition calling on them
to keep their promise:

  <http://www.avaaz.org/en/world_hunger_pledges/?cl=367723992&v=4458> Sign The
Petition!

1 in 6 people worldwide go hungry everyday. With the recent financial crisis,
poverty is skyrocketing, but our governments are failing to take significant
action.

In a few days, leaders meet at the World Food Summit in Rome to tackle this
growing crisis. The best solution is funding to boost sustainable agriculture in
poorer countries, but France, Germany, UK, Italy and Japan are backing out on a
$20 billion promise made earlier this year.

Millions of lives are on the line and this is our chance to hold them to their
word. Sign the petition below and it will be delivered directly to world leaders
and through a spectacular stunt at the Roman Colosseum on the eve of the Summit:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/world_hunger_pledges
<http://www.avaaz.org/en/world_hunger_pledges/?cl=367723992&v=4458>

The world produces enough food to feed everyone. Yet the number of people
suffering from chronic hunger across the planet has reached the record-high
figure of 1 billion this year.

Hundreds of billions are spent by wealthy governments to bail out banks and
financial institutions, but the G8 countries are trying to cut a promised $20
billion agriculture fund for the poorest countries to only $3 billion in new
money. With literally millions facing life-threatening hunger, this is a
scandal.

The Rome summit is our best opportunity to push governments to promote small
holder food production -- growing evidence shows that intensive farming models
are not effectively countering hunger and have a highly damaging impact on our
environment.

We are teaming up with anti-poverty organisation ActionAid and global farmers
networks to show our governments that we refuse to accept a world where people
die every minute from hunger. Sign the petition to the Rome Summit -- every
signature will be represented at a stunning delivery event at Rome's Colloseum:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/world_hunger_pledges
<http://www.avaaz.org/en/world_hunger_pledges/?cl=367723992&v=4458>

The economic crisis and climate change are hitting the poorest hardest and
pushing millions to the very brink of survival. It´s at times like these when
we must stick closer together and show that we care for those whose most basic
rights are denied. Sign the petition below:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/world_hunger_pledges
<http://www.avaaz.org/en/world_hunger_pledges/?cl=367723992&v=4458>

With hope,

Luis, Alice, Benjamin, Graziela, Ricken, Pascal, Iain, Paula, Paul, Veronique
and the entire Avaaz Team

Sources

Global Hunger worsening, warns UN:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8306556.stm

Only 15% of G8 pledge is new money, Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL3424540

ActionAid's HungerFREE Scorecard: Small scale farming systems critical in
tackling hunger and poverty:
http://www.hungerfreeplanet.org/what-we-do/world-food-day

More information about ActionAid´s HungerFREE global campaign at:
http://www.hungerfreeplanet.org/

World Food Day: There is enough food grown in the world for everyone (Op-ed),
Oxfam International:
http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2009-10-16/world-food-day

About the World Food Summit:
http://www.un-ngls.org/spip.php?article1399

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

   <http://www.avaaz.org/act/open/367723992.gif>
Want to support Avaaz? We're entirely funded by donations and receive no money
from governments or corporations. Our dedicated online team ensures even the
smallest contributions go a long way -- donate here
<https://secure.avaaz.org/en/donate_to_avaaz> .


ABOUT AVAAZ Avaaz.org is an independent, not-for-profit global campaigning
organization that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's
people inform global decision-making. (Avaaz means "voice" in many languages.)
Avaaz receives no money from governments or corporations, and is staffed by a
global team based in Ottawa, London, Rio de Janeiro, New York, Buenos Aires, and
Geneva. Click  <http://www.avaaz.org/en/report_back_2/> here to learn more about
our largest campaigns. Don't forget to check out our Facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/Avaaz>  and Myspace <http://www.myspace.com/avaazorg> 
and Bebo <http://www.bebo.com/Avaaz>  pages! You can also follow Avaaz on
Twitter! <http://twitter.com/Avaaz>

You are getting this message because you signed "Stand with Tibet -
<http://www.avaaz.org/en/tibet_end_the_violence>  Support the Dalai Lama" on
2008-03-30 using the email address maryrose333@.... To ensure that Avaaz
messages reach your inbox, please add avaaz@... to your address book. To
change your email address, language settings, or other personal information,
click here: https://secure.avaaz.org/act/index.php?r=profile
<https://secure.avaaz.org/act/index.php?r=profile&user=a98a963da1ffa62878f25e4ba\
46af430&lang=en> &user=a98a963da1ffa62878f25e4ba46af430&lang=en or simply click
<https://secure.avaaz.org/act/?r=unsub&cl=367723992&email=maryrose333@att.net&b=\
730&v=4458&lang=en>  here to unsubscribe.

To contact Avaaz, please do not reply to this email. Instead, write to us via
the webform at http://www.avaaz.org/en/contact. You can also call us at
+1-888-922-8229 (US) or +55 21 2509 0368 (Brazil).



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 2:48 PM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] Common Sense for the Clean Energy and
Climate Debate


Common Sense for the Clean Energy and Climate Debate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-redford/common-sense-for-the-clea_b_353
750.html
Robert Redford
Actor, Director, and Environmental Activist
Posted: November 11, 2009 11:07 AM

In January of 1776, Philadelphia essayist Thomas Paine published a 47-page
pamphlet that changed the world. Within three months, Common Sense had sold
150,000 copies -- in a land of just 2.5 million people -- framing the terms
of debate for the American colony's epic break from British rule. By July
of that year, the national conversation charged by Paine's work culminated
in the Declaration of Independence.

In that hallowed tradition, Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural
Resources Defense Council, has penned a modern classic in revolutionary
thought. Titled Clean Energy, Common Sense, this book calls on us, as a
nation, to rise to the challenge of climate change while there's still time
to act.

Time is of such essence, Frances writes, that every American of conscience
must
be engaged. Reading this essay is an essential first step.

Like Paine's pamphlet, Clean Energy, Common Sense is small enough to fit
into your pocket and brief enough to read in two hours. It is accessible
and timely and destined to shape the climate conversation now, when it
matters most.

Because right now, the Senate is debating the single most important
environmental bill of this generation: a clean energy and climate act that
could generate millions of jobs and slash our global warming emissions.

But the stakes are higher still. In a few days, President Obama will travel
to China, where climate change and clean energy will be top of the agenda.
No doubt both nations will be positioning themselves for the international
climate talks in Copenhagen in December.

This is a pivotal moment in our nation's history, a time when complex and
fateful decisions must be made.

There are people of good will who hear claims on both sides of the climate
change debate and aren't sure what to believe. If that feels familiar, this
little book is for you.

In a clear and compelling tone, Beinecke draws from the most current and
authoritative sources anywhere to lay out the case for American action
against world climate change. She outlines solutions that can help get
American workers back on their feet, strengthen our country and set us on
the path to a clean energy future.

And she calls on each of us to take up paper and pen to urge Congress to
act.

This is what I find so inspiring about Beinecke's book. I believe that the
act of making our voices heard is the best of American politics. I have
seen it work time and again -- I have seen citizens, neighborhoods, entire
communities carry the weight of truth to our lawmakers. But in order to
succeed, we must raise our voices loudly and fully. This is what Beinecke
moves us to do.

I have known Beinecke for more than 35 years, and I admire her unwavering
commitment to protecting the environment. Beinecke's dedication and
intelligence make her a formidable fighter, but she is also an optimist.
She trusts that green solutions and smart policies can diffuse the climate
crisis. And she believes that we can create a cleaner, healthier planet for
our children.

This is the spirit that infuses her book. Beinecke writes:

     This book is a call to action, one citizen's honest appeal. It is not a
political treatise. It is not a partisan screed. Maybe that's because my
politics on this are simple. I believe Democrats and Republicans alike have
a real chance here to lead, to look to the future and show us the way to a
brighter future.

Two centuries ago, Paine wrote, "I offer nothing more than simple facts,
plain arguments, and common sense." That's precisely the approach Beinecke
has taken in her stand against climate change. Simple facts, plain
arguments, and common sense. It's all there in her book.

Moving Into:  TOTAL WELLNESS

The words "things will never be the same again" from Sandy Wang at a trade
show in China at the Canton Fair foretell of the change that the future
portends as everything changes around us due to worldwide economic collapse,
resource depletion, end of cheap oil, end of the Industrial Age, end of need
for human labor, and global climate change. While there is talk of moving
into new emerging markets in the developing world, e.g. those of Latin
America and Australia, again we must be reminded of resource depletion which
mining waste dumps may be able to alleviate over the short term, but we must
soon come to the realization that even resources found in dumps will soon be
depleted as well. Real hope for a future for our children and grandchildren
lies in our ability to design a future constructed from conscious choice to
move into simpler yet more fulfilling lifestyles. The days of the
military-industrial complex must soon end if we
are to be a viable human family.

-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:54 AM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] Chinese adapt to changing economic climate


(To change your settings or unsubscribe please go to
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/globalnetnews-summary)

Chinese adapt to changing economic climate
U.S. orders have been hurt by the economic crisis, so the Asian nation's
manufacturers are targeting emerging markets such as Latin America
November 12, 2009
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-tc-biz-china-1111-1112-nov12,0,35
42342.story

GUANGZHOU, China -  -- With 190,000 foreign buyers roaming 12 million
square feet of showroom floor, Sandy Wang hoped there would be plenty of
orders for her company's steel-toe work boots and leather loafers.

But despite recent signs of an uptick in global trade, Wang's booth at the
Canton Fair saw little action. There were plenty of lookers, she said, but
few takers.

"Things will never be the same again," said Wang, who has seen her U.S.
orders drop 20 percent in the last year. "We're all very worried."

As President Barack Obama prepares for his trip to China this weekend, the
anemic Chinese economy could complicate his push to "rebalance" the global
economy.

The U.S. would like the Chinese government to allow its currency to
appreciate, a move that could help U.S. companies ship goods to China. But
China has resisted letting the yuan to rise again and hurt China's exports
by making them more expensive.

At one of the world's largest trade fairs last week, exhibitors said they
were adjusting to doing business in a world where the ubiquitous "Made in
China" label has been humbled by the economic crisis.

Many said they were targeting new markets such as Latin America to make up
for the diminished role of U.S. consumers. Others spoke of having to drop
prices or use cheaper materials to stay competitive.

It has been a difficult year for China's light manufacturers -- the mostly
private enterprises that, for years, have produced the nation's baseline
exports such as clothes, shoes and household items.

Fallen demand has exposed their vulnerability to foreign markets. And when
policymakers discuss China's continuing economic development, they speak of
shifting from being the world's cheap factory floor. The future, they say,
is in value-added products.

"Light manufacturing is still very important, but it is a little
anachronistic," said Ben Simpfendorfer, chief China economist for the Royal
Bank of Scotland. "It's less relevant than it was a decade ago."

Between 2002 and 2008, the share of China's light industrial products fell
from 45 percent to 30 percent of the nation's total exports, according to
research company Dragonomics.

On the other hand, exports of heavy industrial goods such as steel and
chemicals grew from 29 percent to 40 percent in the same period. The
remaining balance was made up of electronic goods.

The 52-year-old Canton Fair, in more recent times, has been considered a
barometer for the health of China's light manufacturing industries that
make the everyday goods that fill the likes of Wal-Mart, Target and Sears.

There may be no better place than the biannual event in Southern China to
witness the scope of the Chinese manufacturing machine.

Tens of thousands of goods are showcased inside seemingly endless lanes of
stalls -- everything from velvet yarmulkes and bags of MSG to a leather
massage chair that plays the theme song to the movie "Titanic."

At the end of the three-week session, exhibitors said it will be difficult
to return to the heady days before the financial crisis.

In dollar terms, China's exports between January and September decreased
about one-fifth compared with the same period last year, according to
Global Trade Information Services.

Manufacturers said they're seeing some improvement in orders as retailers
replenish their inventories for Christmas. The demand for factory labor
also has rebounded. Chinese exports fell 15.2 percent year-on-year in
September -- the slowest decline of any month this year and a significant
improvement from the August decline of 23.4 percent.

Many producers are turning to emerging markets, where competition between
Chinese products is not as fierce as in the U.S. or Europe.

Simon Cheng of Xiamen Funchain Garments Co. makes board shorts and athletic
pullovers for Wal-Mart and Sears, and since the financial crisis orders
have been down. The lesson Cheng took was to diversify. He's looking into
South American and Australian markets. His biggest leap was when he opened
his own retail store in China.

"We have to balance things," Cheng said from his booth at the trade show.
"We can't rely on the U.S. forever."

Moving Into: TOTAL WELLNESS

While I agree with Mr. Kucinich on the idea of unlimited money for war, I
also disagree with him that we can continue to create jobs and preserve the
environment at the same time. The economy on which we have based our living
since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has been an aberrant one
based on "death-defining" social systems which consider neither the
well-being of the people nor our life support system. The only consideration
has been for "what makes money" for a few while moving the rest of us into a
fascist state as wage slaves so that what I term "raw capitalism" can
continue. We must recognize that capitalism requires continual growth to
survive and that on a finite planet continual growth is not possible.

It is time for change.



-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 2:42 PM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] Kucinich: Why Is It We Have Finite
Resources for Health Care but Unlimited Money for War?


Kucinich: Why Is It We Have Finite Resources for Health Care but Unlimited
Money for War?
November 6, 2009
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/11/06-3

WASHINGTON - November 6 - Following a statement on the Floor of the House
of Representative, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the
following statement:

"Why is it we have finite resources for health care but unlimited money for
war?

"The inequities in our economy are piling up: trillions for war, trillions
for Wall Street and tens of billions for the insurance companies. Banks and
other corporations are sitting on piles of cash of taxpayer's money while
firing workers, cutting pay and denying small businesses money to survive.

"People are losing their homes, their jobs, their health, their
investments, their retirement security; yet there is unlimited money for
war, Wall Street and insurance companies, but very little money for jobs on
Main Street.

"Unlimited money to blow up things in Iraq and Afghanistan, and relatively
little money to build things in the US.

"The Administration may soon bring to Congress a request for an additional
$50 billion for war. I can tell you that a Democratic version of the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan is no more acceptable than a Republican version of
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Trillions for war and Wall Street, billions for insurance companies...
When we were promised change, we weren't thinking that we give a dollar and
get back two cents."

Two polls find America in a sour political mood

by Michael Muskal
The Los Angeles Times
November 11, 2009




	 Two
polls released today show that America’s mood is turning as dark as a
black hole in space, and that likely means a dour event horizon for
incumbents.


It’s not unusual for support to erode as a new administration is
forced to deal with the difference between the adrenaline high of
campaigning compared with the prosaic problems of governing. This was
probably exacerbated by the wave of hope that President Obama and
fellow Democrats rode into the White House and control of government.


But the numbers tell a cautionary tale as the nation continues to
grapple with domestic and foreign policy problems ahead of the 2010
midterm elections.


In its latest survey, the Pew Research Center for the People &
the Press found that two-thirds of the public says it is dissatisfied
with the way things are going. About 90% say national economic
conditions are not more optimistic than fair and a hefty majority,
two-thirds, say their personal finances are poor or fair. More
Americans now say the Afghanistan war is not going well, while a
plurality say they oppose healthcare reforms pending in Congress.


A second poll, conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Media for
the Associated Press, is just as gloomy overall. About 56% of those
surveyed said they believed the country was heading in the wrong
direction, up from 51% last month. The number of people who question
Obama’s handling of the Iraq war rose from 37% last month to 45%; 48%
disapprove of his handling of the Afghanistan war, up from 41%.


Despite the dreary views of public problems, Obama continued to
hold on to a majority of popular support. The Pew poll found the
president has a 51% approval rating, while the AP-GfK poll placed him
at 54%.


Congress did not fare as well.


According to the Pew poll, 52% of registered voters would like to
see their own representative reelected next year, while 34% say that
most members of Congress should be reelected.



“Both measures are among the most negative in two decades of Pew
Research surveys. Other low points were during the 1994 and 2006
election cycles, when the party in power suffered large losses in
midterm elections,� according to Pew.


The AP poll found only a third approved of how Congress was doing its job.

For the full Pew report,

For details on the AP-GfK poll
Republicans pass Democrats: Swing '09, see the Swamp:



























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

American’s Reality Check

November 11, 2009

8:00 p.m. Eastern

Dial: 724-444-7444

Code: 29521#

Chat: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=29521&cmd=tc



Please join us Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 8:00 pm Eastern, as we here at
American’s
Reality Check (ARC) Welcome Margie Slagle of the Ohio Justice and policy Center
to discuss the AWA reaction in Ohio and the recent Supreme Court of Ohio's
hearings on the Adam Walsh Act and SB 10.



Couple thoughts if you seen the footage of the Supreme Court: (available for
download at the ARC link above)

Did you feel that the Justices asked some very good questions so they
can uphold the Ohio constitution?

Was the Assistant AG lost for words? or was he "punked"?

Who do you think was the winning side with the most "factual
information" during these hearings?

Some of these questions and more will be raised during this episode. So
please do join us on this night.



ARC Hosts,



Kevin and Mary

www.americansrealitychekc.com





The Adam Walsh Act
A False Sense of Security or an
Effective Public Policy Initiative?
Naomi J. Freeman
New York State Office of Mental Health, Albany
Jeffrey C. Sandler
University at Albany, New York

Criminal Justice Policy Review OnlineFirst, published on June 25, 2009 as
doi:10.1177/0887403409338565

Conclusion
The idea behind the enactment of the AWA, to standardize registration and
notifica-
tion procedures nationwide, appeared to address limitations of the current
system. In
reality, however, the three-tiered system, as outlined in SORNA, fails to
increase the
effectiveness of current registration and community notification practices. In
fact, as
indicated by the results of the current study, the system proposed in SORNA
actually
decreases the ability of states to predict which sex offenders will sexually
reoffend and
which ones will not. More specifically, the use of almost any empirically based
risk
factor would yield more accurate predictions than the SORNA tier level, which is
based solely on crime of conviction. Although no risk prediction system can
accurately
predict sexual recidivism 100% of the time, the results of the current study
indicate
that SORNA is almost completely ineffective at categorizing sex offenders based
on
risk of sexual recidivism. As such, it appears enactment of the AWA (and,
therefore,
SORNA) would not only cost states more money than they would lose if they were
not
to enact it, but also that such enactment would unlikely increase public safety.
There is, however, a broader question surrounding the ability of any sex
offender
registration and notification law to increase public safety. Specifically,
several recent
studies (e.g., Petrosino & Petrosino, 1999; Sandler et al., 2008; Walker et al.,
2005;
Zevitz, 2006; Zgoba et al., 2008) have found registration and notification laws
to be
ineffective methods of reducing sexual victimizations . Furthermore, there is
some
evidence to suggest that these types of laws are increasing recidivism, as the
unin-
tended consequences of these laws may aggravate stressors known to be associated
with sexual reoffending (Freeman, in press). Winick (1998) argued that
by denying them [sex offenders] a variety of employment, social, and educational
opportunities, the sex offender label may prevent these individuals from
starting a new
life and making new acquaintances, with the result that it may be extremely
difficult
for them to discard their criminal patterns. (p. 556)
Given that the SORNA provisions increase the reporting requirements as well as
the public distribution of housing and employment information, it is possible
that the
enactment of the tier system, as outlined in SORNA, may actually increase
reoffend-
ing rates of convicted sex offenders. As such, perhaps it is time to replace
these well-
intended, yet ineffective, public policy initiatives (e.g., r

egistration, community
notification) with ones that are scientifically supported.

Live your life in such a way that when you wake in the morning and your feet hit
the floor that satan shudders and says
OH hell, she's awake.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Moving Into: TOTAL WELLNESS

For your consideration. Is Sony Pictures using 2012 Prophecies to beef up
its bottom line? And, if so, what does this say about our society today?

-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:20 PM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] 2012 Prophecies Sparking Real Fears,
Suicide Warnings


2012 Prophecies Sparking Real Fears, Suicide Warnings
Updated: 11-10-09 12:36 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/10/2012-prophecies-sparking_n_352296.h
tml
by Brian Handwerk for National Geographic News


It's almost the end of the world, according to purported Maya predictions,
and the 2012 apocalypse business is booming.

Survival kits, documentaries, and nearly 200 books presenting the "real"
2012 story are all on offer. And you could probably surf the Web from now
until Armaggedon-tentatively slated for December 21, 2012-and still see
just a fraction of the Web sites and products devoted to the topic.

But amid all the hype-including a viral marketing campaign for 2012, the
disaster movie opening Friday-some people are developing honest "end
times" anxiety that has experts seriously concerned.
SEE PHOTOS: Six End-of-the-World Myths Debunked

NASA's Ask an Astrobiologist Web site, for example, has received thousands
of questions regarding the 2012 doomsday predictions-some of them
disturbing, according to David Morrison, a senior scientist with the NASA
Astrobiology Institute.

"A lot of [the submitters] are people who are genuinely frightened," said
Morrison, who thinks movie marketers, authors, and others out to make a
buck are feeding some of the fears.

"I've had two teenagers who were considering killing themselves, because
they didn't want to be around when the world ends," he said. "Two women in
the last two weeks said they were contemplating killing their children and
themselves so they wouldn't have to suffer through the end of the world."

2012 Movie Just Entertainment

Part of the worry, Morrison says, is being fanned by a suite of Web sites
created by 2012 distributor Sony Pictures Entertainment.

The sites appear to represent scientific organizations, press releases, and
2012 whistle-blowers all intent on telling the "truth" about our upcoming
doom.
SEE PHOTOS: 10 Failed Doomsday Prophecies

Now all the 2012 marketing sites display clear disclaimers that the
contents are "Part of the 2012 Movie Experience."

But those labels weren't there from day one, adding to the suggestion that
the doomsday scenarios might have some truth behind them, Morrison said.

Sony Pictures spokesperson Steve Elzer argues that it's clear the film's
marketing materials are tied to the promotion of the movie.

"When moviegoers see trailers or visit Web sites linked to our film," he
said, "they know this is an entertainment experience, just as those who see
materials created for Transformers understand robot aliens have not really
landed or those who attend Twilight: New Moon know vampires are not
actually among us."

2012: Is This the Way the World Will End?

In general, fear over the 2012 doomsday prediction is just another example
of a scenario that has been repeated over the centuries, said University of
Wisconsin historian Paul Boyer.

Baptist preacher William Miller, for example, convinced as many as a
hundred thousand Americans in the early 1800s that the second coming of
Jesus Christ would happen in 1843. It didn't, much to the Millerites'
"great disappointment."

And Hal Lindsey's 1970s national bestseller The Late, Great Planet Earth
suggested that the end could come in the 1980s. We're still here and so is
Lindsey, who has since revised his theories.

"The crucial date always seems to be within a decade or so of the present,
so that you have a sense of imminence, that it's going to happen soon,"
said Boyer, author of When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern
American Culture.

A healthy distrust for authority fuels the fire.

Conspiracy theorists often believe that world governments and those "in
power" know all about some impending disaster but are doing nothing to save
the rest of us.

Now, thanks to the Internet, such theories can gain traction quickly and
spread more widely than ever before.

Yet something must account for the enduring appeal of an upcoming
Armageddon. Perhaps it's knowing the future when others don't, or being one
of the select few to solve impenetrable mysteries, Boyer said.

"For a lot of people I think it's almost kind of a parlor game. But there
are also people who take it very seriously," he said.

"What strikes me is the total lack of historic awareness that people who
get caught up in these things seem to exhibit. The most elementary look at
history shows such a series of these episodes that are then proven false.

"Yet despite that, there always seems to be a market."

Maya 2012: Truth Better Than Fiction

Anthony Aveni, a Maya expert and archaeoastronomer at Colgate University in
Hamilton, New York, has also seen the effects of 2012 hysteria firsthand.

"I got into an email dialogue with a high school student who was quite
seriously concerned that the world was going to end," he said. "This person
thought we were all going to die. That motivated me to write about it."

His book, The End of Time: The Maya Mystery of 2012, is one of several
attempts by experts to dispel the myths of the Maya apocalypse and instead
focus attention on the facts about the ancient culture.

"It's a teaching moment," Aveni said. "If we allow people to fear 2012 and
miss a great opportunity to learn about the Maya and their amazing culture,
then we're not doing our job."

ON TV 2012: Countdown to Armageddon airs Sunday, November 15, at 7 p.m. ET
on the National Geographic Channel.

Moving Into: TOTAL WELLNESS

Perhaps if we weren't so busy plotting against one another and united in an
effort to save our life support system, we wouldn't need to break into one
another's security systems.

Please don't try to tell me that the U.S. has not done this to other
countries but yet cries "foul" when it is done to us.

-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:37 PM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] On Bush's Watch, U.S. Suffered Its
"Electronic Pearl Harbor"


(To change your settings or unsubscribe please go to
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/globalnetnews-summary)

On Bush's Watch, U.S. Suffered Its "Electronic Pearl Harbor"
Updated: 11-10-09 11:25 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/10/on-bushs-watch-us-suffere_n_352204.
html

Sunday's 60 Minutes featured a pretty terrifying report on the potential
threat the United States faces from cyberterrorism. It's territory that the
show has mined before.

As Steve Kroft pointed out at the outset of the report, the show had "less
than a decade ago" gone to the Pentagon to learn more about how computers
could be used by hackers "as a weapon." "Much of it was still theory,"
Kroft related, "But we were told that before too long, it might be possible
for a hacker with a computer to disable critical infrastructure in a major
city, and disrupt essential services, to steal millions of dollars from
banks all over the world, infiltrate defense systems, extort millions from
public companies, even sabotage our weapons systems."

Eep! Sounds like someone better get on that, before something terrible
happens! Except guess what, something terrible already did. "Plus a lot
that we don't even know about," Kroft said. Great.

Enter Jim Lewis, who directs the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, who says that the United States experienced its "electronic Pearl
Harbor" in 2007:

     LEWIS: Some unknown foreign power, and honestly, we don't know who it
is, broke into the Department of Defense, to the Department of State, the
Department of Commerce, probably the Department of Energy, probably NASA.
They broke into all of the high tech agencies, all of the military
agencies, and downloaded terabytes of information.

Lewis goes on to point out that the entire Library Of Congress is the
equivalent of 12 terabytes, so that sort of puts things in perspective,
doesn't it? And it's not like hackers were making off with William Faulkner
novels!

And last November, according to Lewis, "someone was able to get past the
firewall and encryption devices of one of the most sensitive U.S. military
computer systems and stay inside for several days." That system? The
CENTCOM network, which you might know as "the people who are fighting all
of our wars." The hackers were able to sit inside the network, tracking
information and documents "like they were part of military command."

This, Lewis said, is the "most significant" breach of security ever
"acknowledged by the Pentagon." Not acknowledging this, however, is the
Bush administration, on whose watch all of this happened. Asked why the
public was never told about the extent to which the United States had
already suffered significant cyber-casualties, Lewis said: "You know, I've
been trying to figure out why that is. And some of it is the previous
administration didn't want to admit that they had been rolled in 2007."
Worse yet, in Lewis' estimation, the seriousness of the threat, even now,
"doesn't seem to be sinking in."

Hopefully, Liz Cheney will find some way to waterboard the Internet!

Moving Into:  TOTAL WELLNESS

What are we-the-people to do when one group deliberately sets out to destroy
the government that we have overwhelmingly voted into office by a large
majority?

Perhaps it is time we consider the system itself and whether or not it
really serves our needs as the human family.

-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 6:53 AM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] Lawsuit alleges that New York Post DC
bureau chief's goal was 'to destroy' Obama


Lawsuit alleges that New York Post DC bureau chief's goal was 'to
destroy' Obama
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/10/post-destroy-obama/

NYPost-Logo2The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports today that a fired
New York Post employee, Sandra Guzman, has filed a complaint against the
Post, the paper's parent company News Corp., and Post editor-in-chief Col
Allan "alleging harassment as well as 'unlawful employment practices
and retaliation.'" Stein reports that Guzman "paints the Post
newsroom as a male-dominated frat house and Allan in particular as sexist,
offensive and domineering. Guzman alleges that she and others were
routinely subjected to misogynistic behavior." But in addition to
horrible workplace conditions, the Post's news division is operating with
a clear partisan bias, according to Guzman. She said the Post's
Washington D.C. bureau chief vowed to bring down President Obama:

     She says that hiring practices at the paper - as well as her firing
- were driven by racial prejudices rather than merit.

     And she recounts the paper's D.C. bureau chief stating that the
publication's goal was to "destroy [President] Barack Obama."

Guzman's revelation isn't all that surprising considering that a Senior
Vice President at Fox News, also a News Corp. subsidiary, admitted earlier
this year that the network is consciously aiming to be "the voice of
opposition" to the Obama administration "on some issues."

Moving Into:  TOTAL WELLNESS

When one considers the number of suicides per month at Ft. Hood, is it any
wonder that the tragedy which left 13 people dead and 30 injured occurred
there? And, I must question the word "incomprehensible" used by President
Obama to describe this act.

That we are an insane society certainly cannot be denied when one considers
what we are doing to our life support system (and to other members of the
human family) as the human family. And, our insanity caused by the endless
pain which we cause ourselves when we indulge in acts of violence toward
either ourselves or the environment in which we live, particularly in the
name of "money" which has become our God as all our acts become subservient
to it.

As David Ray Griffin writes in: "Introduction to Suny Series in Constructive
Postmodern Thought:" Modernity, rather than now being regarded as the norm
toward which all history has been aiming and into which all societies should
be ushered--forcibly if necessary--is instead increasingly seen as an
aberration. A new respect for the wisdom of traditional societies is
growing, as we realize that they have endured for thousands of years and
that, by contrast, the existence of modern society for even another century
seems doubtful.

And, while wars may have served a useful purpose in the past for some, the
time has now  arrived when we must consider the benefits to all of humanity
as modern communications technology has united us as the human family living
in a small global village.

We must stand together as one people and demand the end to what has now
become an "endless" war.

The insanity will only increase as people are forced from their homes in
this economic crisis, and we must be prepared to deal with the inevitable
outcome of forcing people out of their comfort zone and into war zones
whether fought on the battlefields in distant countries by military forces,
or by acts of humanity embroiled in money and greed here at home.

It is time for we-the-people to stand up and just say "NO MORE" as we bring
our monetized political system under control and bring a more life-enhancing
form of governance into being. Some are calling this new form of governance:
"Design by conscious choice"-- something far different than monetized
politics as found within the system of raw and unbridled capitalism as
touted by the Republicans, et al.

The choice is ours to make.



-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 PM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] 10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War
Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink


10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the
Brink
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KK10Df07.html
By Dahr Jamail, Asia Times. Posted November 10, 2009.

The shooting tragedy at Fort Hood on Friday points to a much larger problem
of combat stress and overdeployment in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Editor's Note: This Tuesday, President Obama attended a memorial service
for the shootings at Ft. Hood last Friday. He called the attack
"incomprehensible," when in fact it's quite easy to comprehend. Obama would
do well to consider that the war policies he's continuing, extending the
occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, are the underlying cause of acts of
madness and desperation by soldiers at Ft. Hood. As Dahr Jamail illustrates
in the article below, this one military post alone is averaging 10 suicides
a month so far this year.

PHOENIX, Arizona - While investigators probe for a motive behind the mass
shooting at the Fort Hood military base in Texas last Thursday, in which an
army psychiatrist killed 13 people, military personnel at the base are in
shock as the incident "brings the war home".

"We're all in shock," said Specialist Michael Kern, an active-duty veteran
of the Iraq war, told Inter Press Service (IPS) by telephone. Kern, who is
based at Fort Hood, served in Iraq from March 2007 to March 2008. "Every
single person that I've talked to is in shock," Kern added.

"I'm surprised this hits so close to home, but at the same time, I knew
something like this was going to happen given what else is happening - the
war is coming home, and something needs to be done. Innocent civilians are
being wounded and killed here at home by soldiers, and this is completely
unacceptable," he said.

The gunman, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, entered a Soldier Readiness Center
(SRC), where troops get medical evaluations and complete paperwork just
prior to being deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, and opened fire with two
non-military issued handguns.

Hasan killed 13 people, 12 of them soldiers, and wounded over 30 others,
before being shot four times by a civilian police officer. Hasan is now in
stable condition in a local hospital, where he is in the custody of
military authorities.

Colonel John Rossi, a spokesman at Fort Hood, told reporters that Hasan was
"stable and in one of our civilian hospitals". Rossi added, "He's on a
ventilator."

Hasan, 39, joined the army just out of high school. He had counseled
wounded war veterans at Walter Reed Hospital, and was transferred to Fort
Hood in April. He had recently received orders to deploy to Afghanistan.

His cousin, Nader Hasan, has said in media interviews that Hasan was very
reluctant to be deployed overseas and had agitated not to be sent. "We've
known over the last five years that was probably his worst nightmare," he
said.

Responding to the allegations in the media that the attack was based on his
Muslim faith, Kern told IPS that he did not know of anyone on the base who
felt this was the case.

"We all wear the same uniform here, it's all green. I've seen the news, but
most folks here assume it's just a soldier that snapped," Kern explained.
"I have not talked to anyone who thinks what he did has anything to do with
him being a Muslim. There are thousands of Muslims serving with dignity in
the US military, in all four branches."

Fort Hood, located in central Texas, is one of the largest US military
bases in the world. It contains up to 50,000 soldiers, and is one of the
most heavily deployed to both occupations.

Tragically, Fort Hood has also born much of the brunt from its heavy
involvement in the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Fort Hood soldiers
have accounted for more suicides than any other army post since the US
invasion of Iraq in 2003. This year alone, the base is averaging over 10
suicides each month - at least 75 have been recorded through July of this
year alone.

In a strikingly similar incident on May 11, 2009, a US soldier gunned down
five fellow soldiers at a stress-counseling center at a US base in Baghdad.

Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of
Staff, told reporters at a news conference at the Pentagon at the time that
the shootings had occurred in a place where "individuals were seeking
help".

Mullen added, "It does speak to me, though, about the need for us to
redouble our efforts, the concern in terms of dealing with the stress ...
It also speaks to the issue of multiple deployments."

Commenting on the incident in nearly parallel terms, US Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates said that the Pentagon needs to redouble its efforts
to relieve stress caused by repeated deployments in war zones that is
further exacerbated by limited time at home in between deployments.

The condition described by Mullen and Gates is what veteran health experts
often refer to as post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.

While soldiers returning home are routinely involved in shootings, suicide
and other forms of self-destructive violent behaviors as a direct result of
their experiences in Iraq, we have yet to see an event of this magnitude on
a base in the US.

To many, the shocking story of a soldier killing five of his comrades did
not come as a surprise considering that the military has, for years now,
been sending troops with untreated PTSD back into the US occupations of
Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to an Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center analysis, reported
in the Denver Post in August 2008, more than "43,000 service members -
two-thirds of them in the army or army reserve - were classified as
non-deployable for medical reasons three months before they deployed" to
Iraq.

In April 2008, the Rand Corporation released a stunning report revealing
that, "Nearly 20% of military service members who have returned from Iraq
and Afghanistan - 300,000 in all -- report symptoms of post-traumatic
stress disorder or major depression, yet only slightly more than half have
sought treatment."

President Barack Obama, speaking during an event at the Department of the
Interior in Washington, said that the mass shooting at Fort Hood was a
"horrific outburst of violence". He added: "It is horrifying that they [US
soldiers] should come under fire at an army base on American soil."

Victor Agosto, an Iraq war veteran who was discharged from the military
after publicly refusing to deploy to Afghanistan, has had first-hand
experience with the SRC at Fort Hood, where he too was based.

"I knew there would be a confrontation when I was there, because the only
reason to do that process is to deploy," Agosto, speaking to IPS near Fort
Hood, explained.

Agosto was court-martialed for refusing an order to go to the SRC to
prepare to deploy to Afghanistan.

"I was court-martialed for refusing the order to SRC in that very same
building. I didn't enter the building, but I didn't go in because I was
refusing the process," Agosto continued. "It's a pretty important place in
my life, so it's interesting to me that this happened there."

Moving Into: TOTAL WELLNESS



Thanks again to Tim Jones for sharing some of his marvelous nature
photography with us - a reminder of this precious paradise we live in and
how worthwhile an all out endeavor toward restoring our life support system
is.



With love and in gratitude for all you do, Tim.





Tim Jones [mailto:deforest@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 4:29 PM
To: Nature Images:; rick@...
Subject: Photo: Lazuli Bunting



Lazuli Bunting  Passerina amoena



Waterstone, Wimberley, Hays County, Texas

05-05-09

Tim

--

<http://www.groundtruthinvestigations.com/>









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Moving Into:  TOTAL WELLNESS

As indicated by the Ecological Footprint, by the year 2030, we will need the
equivalent of 1 more earth in order to provide all of the  resources
necessary to supply 9 billion people on the Earth. Which means we are at the
present time ecologically-bankrupt. We definitely need a more down to earth
approach to tomorrow.

While mining the waste dumps and retrieving some resources will ease the
pressure, there is a question as to how many dumps can be mined and what
equipment will be used to do the job. While Dr. Vernon Woolf has a plasmic
field generator that will do the job, the question is how many of these can
be built and put into service by the time the materials are desperately
needed. Check out "the Phoenix Project" on the menu on his website
www.holodynamics.com for more information.

What is so sad about articles like this one is that the authors cannot even
seem to conceive of any new technology that could come on line that would
begin to ease the problem. And here again, the author uses the words "local
agriculture" when the trend is toward "local
permaculture". What is readily apparent, at least to me, is that we cannot
continue to rely on "jobs" to provide people with incomes with which to
purchase the necessities of life. The reason being that what we refer to as
"jobs" are changing so rapidly that it will be difficult for people to
retrain quickly enough to apply their skills for very long.  And, the more
practical way to get things done as nanotechnology and bio-mimicry quickly
replace "industrial human labor" is to use advanced technology which is far
more appropriate for
the job as human hands are too large to handle the small parts associated
with nanotechnology. Indeed, some articles I have been reading are
predicting that technology will change so fast that manufacturers will have
to train any human laborers necessary "on the job" as there will be no time
to train people in schools and get them in place when the technology is
ready.

We must quickly change the way we "think" about jobs and the new technology
because we cannot solve the challenges we face today with the same type of
thinking that created them. Yet, I don't really experience much 'new think'
as I read the hundreds of articles that cross my desktop each day.






-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 8:02 PM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] Scientific American's Path to
Sustainability: Let's Think about the Details


"The problem is that we really don't have 50 years to make a transition. We
already are on the downslope. We should have started back in the 1960s with
a project like this... Instead of the high tech approach advocated by
Scientific American, we may want to find solutions that can be done
locally, with local materials. For example, we may want to encourage local
agriculture."


Scientific American's Path to Sustainability: Let's Think about the Details
by Gail Tverberg
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5939
  Published Nov 8 2009 by The Oil Drum, Archived Nov 9 2009

Scientific American presents "A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030" in its
November issue. In many ways, it sounds good. But let's think about the
details: What would the end result look like? Would it really be
sustainable? What would the costs really be? Is there any way we could
afford to do what is proposed?

The authors of the article, Mark Jacobson and Mark Delucchi, propose
substituting wind, water, and solar (WWS) energy for all other forms of
energy by 2030, not for just the US, but for the world. The types of energy
sources that would be eliminated include the following:

. Petroelum (including gasoline, diesel, propane, heating oil, etc.)

. Natural gas

. Coal

. Liquid biofuels, such as ethanol

. Wood and other biomass

. Nuclear

All that would remain would be wind, wave power, tidal energy,
hydroelectric, geothermal, and solar. Because of the ambitious timeframe,
the only techniques that can be used are ones that work at large scale
today, or are very close to working.
What would we end up with?

Essentially, we would need to change all of the world's infrastructure to
use either electricity or solar or water power directly--by 2030. What
might this mean?

. Airplanes. The authors propose that airplanes be powered by hydrogen
powered fuel cells (with the hydrogen be made by hydrolysis using WWS
energy sources). I understand that hydrogen is three times as bulky as
gasoline, explodes easily, and escapes fairly quickly from its holding
tanks, making it difficult to store for very long. It seems like airplanes
and helicopters would need to look more like blimps, to hold the necessary
fuel. Unless the explosion issue is solved, the popularity of hydrogen fuel
cells would likely be pretty low.

. Ships. The authors don't tell us how ships would be powered. Clearly
sailing ships would meet the criteria, but would be quite slow. Because of
their slow time for passage, we would need a lot more sailing ships than
the types of ships we use now, because so many would be in transit at a
given time. Barges could float down rivers, and if the current isn't too
strong, could perhaps be towed back in some way (boat with fuel cell?).
Ships powered by hydrogen fuel cells might also work, but they would have
the same issues as for airplanes. Because of their long trips, leakage
would be more of an issue than on airplanes.

. Automobiles and Trucks. According to the authors, these would be
powered by batteries or hydrogen powered fuel cells. There are several
issues--the technology is only barely there for automobiles and trucks--for
example, I don't know of anyone working on battery-powered technology for
long distance trucking. Fuel cell technology is very expensive. David
Strahan in The Last Oil Shock says that the current cost is about $1
million dollars per car. He quotes the chief engineer at Honda as saying it
would take 10 years to get the cost down to $100,000 a car.

Minerals shortages are also likely to be a problem for converting autos and
trucks to batteries or to hydrogen fuel cells. The Scientific American
article mentions following materials as being in short supply: rare-earth
metals for electric motors, lithium for lithium-ion batteries and platinum
for fuel cells. The article mentions recycling as a partial solution.
Analyses published at The Oil Drum, such as this one, indicate that we
would likely run out of rare materials fairly quickly, even with recycling.

. Farm equipment; bulldozers; cement mixers; and other heavy equipment.
Would need to be converted to electric. It is not clear that the technology
(or rare materials needed for the technology) exist to do so.

. Heating of buildings; heating for cooking and baking; hot water
heating; commercial heating; heating of grains to remove excess moisture.
Would need to be converted to electric, or in some cases solar. This would
be true, even where heating is now done over wood or charcoal fires, such
as in Africa or China.

. Mining and manufacturing. Would need to be converted to all electric.
Presumably oil and natural gas extraction would continue, but at possibly
lower rates, because of their uses for non-energy uses, such as textiles,
asphalt, plastics and lubrication. Drilling for oil and gas would be
converted to electric as well.
What steps would be needed to build all of these things?

It seems like we would first need to figure out what the end point would
look like, and then work backwards.

We are told that the authors of the Scientific American article think we
would need the following:

. 3.8 million large wind turbines

. 90,000 solar electricity generating plants

. "Numerous geothermal, tidal, and rooftop photovoltaic installations"

Besides these, we would need to build all of the new airplanes, ships,
cars, trucks, heavy equipment, and new appliances that would be needed
under the new regime. Individual homeowners would need to get their homes
rewired for the larger amount of electricity they would use--especially if
they are converting to electric home heating.

One thing we need to plan for is a greatly expanded and improved electrical
grid. The Scientific American article indicates that the variability in
generation would be mostly smoothed out by combining electrical
transmission of many different types--wind, hydroelectric, solar,
geothermal, and wave--over a wide geographical area. To do this will
require considerable long distance transmission, often between different
countries--including some that may not be friendly with each other. The
grid will also need to be upgraded to be "smart," so automobiles can draw
electric power at the times of day when it is not needed elsewhere.

Once we have figured out what the new system will look like, we will need
to figure out what kind of factories are needed to build all of the devices
for the new system, and what raw materials the factories will need. Some of
the raw materials can perhaps be obtained by recycling, and some factories
can perhaps be obtained by converting other factories, but this won't
always be the case. It is likely that new factories will need to be built,
and new mines opened, especially for the rare minerals.

By the time we start seeing many finished good produced, it is likely that
we will be at least half way through the 20 year period. In part, this is
because we are still working out technology details (for example, how to
efficiently build a hydrogen fuel cell powered airplane). Also, once we get
those details worked out, we need to build mines for raw materials and
build the factories to make the new devices. It is only when we get those
steps taken care of that we can build what we really want--the airplanes,
the new ships, the wind turbines, the solar PV, and all of the rest.

When sizing the factories, we will need to size them not for "normal"
production levels, but for converting the economy quickly to use the new
power sources. For example, under normal circumstances, if earth-moving
equipment is expected to last for 40 years, we would expect to need
factories to make 1/40 of the world's needed earth-moving equipment in a
given year. But if we need to ramp up to replacement in 10 years, we will
need 4 times as many factories. (What do we do with the excess factories at
the end?)
How much would this all cost?

The authors tell us that they expect the cost of the new WWS energy
generation equipment would be $100 trillion over 20 years. But that doesn't
include the cost of all the new infrastructure to go with it--the new
airplanes and ships and cars and trucks, or the electrical transmission
lines. In total, the cost will be far higher than $100 trillion--lets guess
$200 trillion--to be paid for over the next 20 years.

The Scientific American article gives the impression that the costs will be
low, because it looks only at the cost the new electricity generation, and
assumes that cost of generation will go down with volume and with
additional research. It also implicitly assumes that debt financing over a
long period, such as 40 years, will be used, so we don't have to pay for
the cost of the new system before we start using it. But how realistic is
that?

The cars, trucks, boats, airplanes, coal fired power plants, etc. we are
currently using won't have much trade-in value once power is generated by
WWS, and the new equipment will likely be fairly expensive. So we will be
faced with buying new high priced equipment, with little trade-in value
from what we used previously. In many cases, businesses would not normally
be replacing equipment this soon. The debt that was taken on to pay for all
of our current equipment won't magically go away either--it will still need
to be paid.

So how will we pay for all of the new equipment? The governments of the
world are pretty much maxed out for borrowing. Companies are not going to
be able to take on a project of this magnitude either, especially since
they already have debt to service. It seems to me that the only way a
program such as the program of WWS fuels replacing other fuels can be
financed is through increased taxes that would cover each year's
expenditures, as they are made.

So let's think about how much this would cost. $200 trillion over 20 years
amounts to $10 trillion a year, spread over world economies. The US share
of this would be something around 21%, based on the ratio of US GDP to
world GDP. So let's say that the US would need to fund $2.1 trillion a
year. Let's compare this to current taxes. In 2008, US Federal, State, and
Local taxes combined amounted to $4.1 trillion according to the US Bureau
of Economic Analysis. In order to collect $2.1 trillion more, a tax
increase equal to slightly more than 50% of all taxes currently paid would
be required. If the additional tax were collected as a percentage of
"personal income" (which includes wages, social security income, rents,
dividends, etc.), it would amount to 17% of personal income. It seems
unlikely that a tax of this magnitude, or even half of this magnitude,
would be agreed to by tax payers.

If such a tax were passed, after a few years there would be benefits that
would start offsetting its cost, and might lead to a lower tax, and after
2030, perhaps lower costs overall, because it is no longer necessary to
purchase fossil fuels. The benefits that would start offsetting costs would
be sales of electricity and other energy, and sales or leasing of vehicles
and other goods produced. Many of the sales of goods would be going to
replace automobiles that had worn out, factories beyond their useful life,
and ships that no longer had value to the owners.

But there is a remaining issue. There will be a lot of assets which would
still have considerable value in 2030, if it weren't for the new law. For
example, a new car with an internal combustion engine that was manufactured
in 2028 will still have considerable value, and a gas fired stove a
homeowner owns will still have value, even though he needs to replace it
with an electric one. A coal fired power plant built in 1980 is likely to
still have value, apart from this law, and so will all of the tankers used
for international transport of oil, and all of the natural gas pipelines.
Should the owners of these assets be compensated for value of their
otherwise-useful assets? There is nothing built into the tax to do so.

It would seem to me that these owners should be compensated, even if it
takes a higher tax to do so. In part, this compensation could come in the
form of "trade in" value, if a new automobile or electric stove or other
item is purchased. But suppose the assets that lose value belong to
businesses, and aren't easily traded in for corresponding asset--such as a
coal fired power plant, or natural gas pipelines. I would argue that
compensation for the remaining value of these is really needed as well.

The assets that will lose value because of the new law are typically owned
by a company. The stocks and bonds of these companies will generally have a
wide variety of owners--very often pension plans, insurance companies,
endowment funds, and individuals saving for their retirements. If the
otherwise-useful assets of these companies are taken without compensation,
the companies are likely to default on their bonds, and the stocks of these
companies will lose value. This will mean that some pension funds will not
be able to pay their promised payments, and some life insurance policies
will not pay as promised. If there is no compensation to these companies by
a tax or some sort, the loss will flow through the system and hit
others--with retirees likely hit the hardest. So there will be a loss to
the system, one way or another.
How sustainable would this system be?

There are a number of weak areas in this system:

. There are not likely to be enough rare minerals (and even not-so-rare
minerals), to make all of the desired high-tech end products. Recycling
will help, but it is likely that the system will run into a bottleneck in
not very many years.

. The system will use a huge number of electrical transmission lines.
These transmission lines are subject to all kinds of
disturbances--hurricane or other windstorm destruction, forest fires, land
or snow slide, malicious destruction by those not happy for some reason
(perhaps those unhappy by wealth disparities). Fixing lines that need
repair will be challenging. We currently use helicopters and specialized
equipment. These would need to be adequately adapted to a system without
fossil fuels.

. If electricity is out in an area, pretty much all activity in an area
will stop (except that powered by local PV), and there will be no back-up
generators. Residents will not be able to recharge vehicles, so they will
quickly become useless. Even vehicles coming into an area may get stranded
for lack of recharge capability. Food deliveries and water may be a
problem. The current system at least offers some options--back-up
generators, and cars and trucks powered by petroleum that one can drive
away.

. Operating the system will require a huge amount of international
co-operation, because the transmission system will cross country lines. If
one country becomes unable to pay its share, or fails to make repairs, it
could be a problem.

. All of the high tech manufacturing will require considerable
international co-operation and trade. This could be interrupted by debt
defaults by major players, or by countries hoarding raw materials, or by
difficulty in producing enough ships and airplanes to handle international
trade.

. The system clearly can't continue forever. It could be stopped by a
lack of rare minerals, or international disputes, or lack of adequate
international trade. The system doesn't provide any natural transition to a
truly sustainable future. For example, food production is likely to still
be done using industrial agriculture, with the food that is produced
shipped to consumers a long distance away. It will be difficult to
transition to a system which is truly sustainable at the point the system
stops working.
What would a reasonable timeframe for transition be?

It seems to me that a reasonable timeframe for a transition such as that
discussed in the Scientific American article would be 50 years, rather than
20 years suggested in the Scientific American article. With such a
timeframe, there will be a little more time to fine tune technology, so as
to find cost-efficient solutions that scale well. We also have more time to
use the factories that are built, so that we don't have to overbuild, just
to meet a deadline. Costs are likely to much easier to handle, since there
will not be as much of an overlap issue. In addition, there will be much
less problem of having to dispose of other-wise useful assets.

The problem is that we really don't have 50 years to make a transition. We
already are on the downslope. We should have started back in the 1960s with
a project like this.

It seems to me that all we can do is a very much reduced version of an
approach such as the one described in the Scientific American article.
Given the timing, we may not even want to do an approach such as described
in the article. The approach described assumes a high level of
international trade continuing long-term. This is a fairly optimistic
assumption, given the difficulty of air and ship transportation without
fossil fuels.

Instead of the high tech approach advocated by Scientific American, we may
want to find solutions that can be done locally, with local materials. For
example, we may want to encourage local agriculture. For industry, we may
want to look at solutions that have worked in the past, such as wind
powered factories, as discussed in this recent post. These were built with
local materials, and were used to power factories directly, without
conversion to electricity. With such solutions, a transition to a truly
sustainable future will be much more of a possibility.

Greetings:

This information is posted at The UsuryFree Eye Opener at this URL:
http://usuryfree.blogspot.com/2009/10/on-usuryfree-day-friday-november-13th
html

Friday, November 13th 2009 Conspiracy Culture presents...
http://www.conspiracyculture.com/events_usuryfree5.html

~ An Event for UsuryFree Day ~??You're invited to attend a special workshop
to launch the 5th annual UsuryFree Week

In mid-November 2009 (November 13th to 19th) usuryfree creatives from all
walks of life will gather in meetings - at kitchen tables, in living rooms,
in restaurants, in small boardrooms, in community halls,
In church basements, in retail store fronts etc. They will either watch DVDs
or videos in front of computer monitors or TV screens or listen to guest
speakers and have follow up discussions about topics related to (a) our
orthodox economic system of usury-based, debt money and/or (b) the usuryfree
community currency movement. Anyone and everyone is invited to participate
and help us to celebrate this Fifth
Annual UsuryFree Day and Week.

These gatherings commonly begin with a brief history about the birth and
evolution of UsuryFree Day (November 13th, 2005) and UsuryFree Week since
its initial launch five years ago.

The concept of UsuryFree Day and Week was born in a small town, Tamworth,
Ontario, Canada. Tamworth is situated in the rural, eastern and economically
deprived area of the province. The initial idea was to celebrate the 1st
anniversary of the launch of the usuryfree time currency called Tamworth
Hours which commenced on November 13th, 2004.

Since its launch in Tamworth, UsuryFree Day and Week has evolved to its
present state in 2009 where there will be a multitude of meetings/gatherings
in local communities anywhere and everywhere on
Planet earth. The purpose of these get-togethers is to re-educate those
people who are ready and willing to be re-educated about (a) the many
problems associated with the design flaw of usury and how its function
causes the positive feedback within our orthodox system of debt money and
(b) the optimal solutions as offered by the innovative models of usuryfree
community currency that are being perfected with the intent of re-building
local community so that everyone can experience the reality of usuryfree
living.

At many of these gatherings the pioneering usuryfree creatives will assume
leadership roles as they share their information and resources with those
who choose to participate. Since the early 1980s, when the usuryfree LETS
(Local Employment Trading System) software was created by Michael Linton,
numerous usuryfree creatives have held the vision for usuryfree living and
they have blazed (and continue to blaze) the trail for others to follow.

Part seminar, part inter-active workshop, part re-education, part
brainstorming, the events of UsuryFree Day and Week always attract
prospective usuryfree creatives to the usuryfree community currency
Movement. It has been said that the activities of UsuryFree Day and Week
offer an opportunity for people from anywhere/everywhere to communicate and
interact with usuryfree thinkers and charge or re-charge their economic
battteries - whether they be alternative or 'complementary.

This year, usuryfree creatives are expecting the largest ever number of
participants to celebrate the Fifth Annual UsuryFree Week, because it is now
nearly impossible to be ignorant of whats been happening in
Our orthodox economci system of usury-based, debt money. It is the hope of
usuryfree creatives that a heightened awareness of the many problems
associated either directly and/or indirectly with the design flaw of usury
as exacted by greedy creditors, will motivate the formerly subservient
debtors to individual and collective action.

Rather than withdrawing and throwing in the towel and portraying a defeatist
attitude, usuryfree creatives implore debtors everywhere to attend (or
create) an event in your local area to commemorate UsuryFree Day, Friday,
November 13th, 2009. Otherwise, an event can be planned for any time during
this Fifth Annual UsuryFree Week - scheduled from November 13th to 19th.
Hopefully, debtors everywhere will be motivated to participate and thereby
commit to following a self-imposed course on how money creation really works
in our orthdox system of usury-based, debt money and why they ought to seek
to eventually live a usuryfree lifestyle.

The optimal path to follow is to assume the role of a becoming usuryfree
creative and lead the way in your respective local community. Do your own
research and then take an active role in helping to launch a usuryfree
community currency with a goal to re-build the local economy. Eventually,
you will choose to become an active usuryfree creative and commit yourself
to doing whatever you can do to help shift the individual and global
consciousness towards creating a usuryfree lifestyle for everyone on this
planet.

Usuryfree creatives advocate shopping locally. A new word locavores has
been created to describe those consumers who choose to shop locally. The
obvious, supporting catalyst that encourages consumers to shop locally is
the networking of family, friends, neighbours, working colleagues, small to
medium-sized retail businesses and home-based enterprises so that a database
of products, services, talents, etc. Can be listed for inter-trading. All
who choose to participate will be re-educated about how they can create and
spend their own usuryfree community currency. Armed with their re-education,
they will be motivated to action with the spirit of re-building their
respective local community.

This sort of activity is being likened to launching your own economic
lifeboats and thereby being ready to abandon the usury-based, Titanic of
orthodox, debt money when their (the bankers) faltering, economic
system goes down.

It is this spirit of re-building our respective, local communities that
usuryfree creatives are celebrating during this Fifth Annual UsuryFree Week.
Our collective hope is that by the end of this Fifth Annual UsuryFree Week,
we will have more usuryfree creatives talking not about the gloom and doom
of usury-based, orthodox economics, but rather about the possibility of joy
and love, peace and prosperity for
everyone on this planet as we shift our collective consciousness and move
ahead to a world of usuryfree living.

To read more background information about UsuryFree Day and Week in general
do a search at any search engine for UsuryFree Day and Week. For more
specific information about the Fifth Annual UsuryFree Day and Week in
particular, you are invited to read these articles which are posted at The
UsuryFree Eye Opener:

http://usuryfree.blogspot
com/2009/08/fifth-annual-usuryfree-dayweek-nov-13th.html

http://usuryfree.blogspot
com/2009/08/invitation-to-participate-and-celebrate.html

http://usuryfree.blogspot
com/2009/10/fifth-annual-usuryfree-day-week-looking.html

http://usuryfree.blogspot.com/2009/10/debtors-revolt-and-usuryfree-resolve
html

http://usuryfree.blogspot.com/2009/09/winged-lion-awards.html

And do check The UsuryFree Eye Opener for any updated details that may be
posted between now and November 13th, 2009. http://usuryfree.blogspot.com

NOTE: If you live within driving distance of Toronto, Ontario, Canada do
make plans now to attend a special event on UsuryFree Day, Friday, November
13th, 2009 at 7:00 PM at Conspiracy Culture, 1696, Queen St. W.

Peter Jon Simpson, researcher, publisher, seminar leader will be the keynote
guest speaker. Peter has been enlightening audiences relative to economic
truth, personal sovereignty and related matters for over
38 years. We are pleased that Peter has generously travelled to assist us in
re-educational and specific usuryfree community currency initiatives here in
Ontario. Peter resides in Atwater, Minnesota.

What's the Cost of Admission??

Attendees are invited to pay-what-they-think-it-is-worth to be present and
learn from those who are making the presentations. Cash, cheques, money
orders and any usuryfree community currency accepted.

The expenses to be covered are: (a) a gift to Conspiracy Culture for
offering to share the space for the meeting (b) advertising (c) gifts or
donations to the guest speaker to cover his travel expenses and his
time investment for any preparation and the presentation. Obviously, the
advertising costs and the travel costs of the speaker will require federal
cash. Attendees are encouraged to be generous with 'gifts' or 'donations' so
that this workshop model can be copied or duplicated in any community in
Ontario or elsewhere.

Remember, RSVP's are requested for this Special Workshop in honour of our
Fifth Annual UsuryFree Day. The first 45 RSVP's will be accepted. Please
request your seat for this event by telephoning:
1.416.916.1696

The event will start at 7:00 PM and will end at roughly 9:00 PM. The event
location is Conspiracy Culture: 1696 Queen St. W. Toronto, ON. Canada M6R
1B3??NOTE: (There are only 45 spaces available so call your RSVP to Patrick
to confirm your intent to attend sooner than later as the event is sure to
fill up).

NOTES:

There will be an event at City Hall in Kitchener, Ontario on Saturday,
November 14th. For complete details of this event forward an email to:
garyanne@...

There will be an event in Ottawa, Ontario on Sunday, November 15th. For
complete details of this event forward an email to: tom@...

There will be a second event in Toronto, Ontario on Tuesday, November 17th.
For complete details of this event forward an email to: ralph.idema@gmail
com

Look for details of other events to be posted at The UsuryFree Eye Opener.
http://usuryfree.blogspot.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Moving Into:  TOTAL WELLNESS

When I read some of these articles, it just cracks me up because most of
them portray the future as being a duplicate of the present.  That we are
just going to keep on doing things the same old way, raising thousands and
thousands of acres of grain to be fed to beef cattle, driving cars with the
same old engines in them consuming the same amount of gas and on and on it
goes. Doesn't anyone get it
that we have to change the way we think about things so that we change our
behavior and create systems that are life-enhancing instead of
death-defining.  We must move into another level of consciousness because if
nothing changes, nothing changes.



-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 10:19 AM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael
Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food


Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About
the Real Price of Cheap Food
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/143718/despite_censorship_by_beef_mag
nate%2C_michael_pollan_spreads_message_about_the_real_price_of_cheap_food?pa
ge=entire
AlterNet. Posted November 9, 2009.

Pollan took on Big Ag and cheap food in a panel discussion, after the
protests of a meat industry chairman led to his speech at a University
being canceled.


Award-winning food journalist Michael Pollan was invited to speak on
October 15 at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo
but after pressure from a university donor who is chairman of the Harris
Ranch Beef Co., the university changed his speech to a panel discussion.

Pollan, whose works include The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of
Four Meals and In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto is the Knight
Professor of Environmental Journalism at the University of California,
Berkeley. He's also no stranger to attacks from Big Ag.

Pollan used the forum to continue to challenge people to think about the
ways in which we are growing food in our current fossil-fuel dependent
system of agriculture. "We're producing ourselves into a hole," he warned
the audience.

Joining him on the panel was Gary Smith, the Monford Endowed Chair of meat
science at the University of Colorado and Myra Goodman, the co-founder of
Earthbound Farm.

What follows is a transcript of the discussion, edited by the AlterNet
staff for length and clarity.

Moderator: What is sustainability?

Michael Pollan: I would be remiss if I didn't address a little bit the
circumstances surrounding this event, which I don't think we can let pass
in silence. But one of the reasons we're doing the panel and not a
conventional speech is that there was a real challenge to the university
posed by the government, and what is potentially a real threat to academic
freedom. And as much as agriculture is what we want to talk about today,
academic freedom under girds the ability to have the kind of conversation
about agriculture we want to have.

Let me tie this back to sustainability. One of the things we understand
from the science of ecology is that the best way to achieve resilience, in
any system, is by diversity: biodiversity and intellectual diversity. And
that having a diversity of views on this campus -- you know, because
universities are the place where these conversations should take place,
without any kind of bullying, without any kind of threats. It's critical to
trying to figure out how to deal with the challenges that we have.

You could have a monoculture of a university -- one that only tolerated one
kind of thinking - and when the world changes, as it inevitably does, you
would find yourself in serious trouble. But when you have a lot of
different ideas, and they're all nurtured, and they're all brought into
contact with one another as we hope to do today, that is where you get the
resources to withstand shocks to the system. And god knows those shocks are
coming.

Let me just talk about sustainability and the agricultural format, because
I really do believe that it's connected. You know, sustainability is a
complex concept in one way, but it's also very simple: A sustainable system
is one that can go on indefinitely, without destroying the conditions on
which it depends -- or without depending on conditions it can't depend on.

So take for example fossil fuels: a system that is highly dependent on
cheap oil may not be a sustainable system when oil prices go up. A system
that depends on large quantities of free or cheap water has a problem when
those situations change.

So sustainability is really -- it's an ideal. There are sustainable
systems. A forest. A prairie. I mean, these are sustainable systems; they
can go on year after year. They don't need inputs. They don't destroy the
conditions on which they depend. But as soon as we get involved and start
changing things to feed ourselves, we get into more complicated
relationships. So it's a matter of degree, I would say.

Now the question is, 'is the system we have sustainable today?' I just want
to offer one little prop to tell you where I think the problem is. I
brought along something [laughter] from McDonald's. This is a double
quarter-pounder with cheese. Those of you in front can probably smell it.
Anyone is welcome to have it [laughter].

Moderator: I believe the students might.

MP: Whoever asks the first question. And I've got some glasses here. Each
of these glasses holds six ounces, Okay? It takes a lot of oil to make a
modern fast food hamburger. An astonishing amount of oil. And I did a
little research to find out just how much went into this.

The oil comes in in several different stages. There is the biggest part,
probably: the petroleum needed to create the fertilizer to grow the corn,
which is the diet, typically, of these animals. But there's also the moving
of that corn, the moving of the burger, the processing, you know, and
getting it to a McDonald's near you.

So oil. Six ounces. Six more ounces. Eighteen. Twenty-four. Twenty-six.
That's a lot of oil to make the burger! And you have to ask yourself: Is
the system that produces that burger sustainable?

Moderator: Thanks, Michael. Myra, sustainability. Could you define it?

Myra Goodman: How do you follow that?

MP: With milk, maybe [laughter].

MG: To me, sustainability is protecting and preserving our resources so
that they are there for our children, you know? And I think it feels almost
impossible for me as a farmer and a manufacturer of a food product to not
be consuming a lot of fossil fuels to get our food to market. And I think a
big part of this conversation is the population that we're supporting now
on this planet, and I think if you look at ... these perfect systems
Michael talks about, I think that those little farms work well in a much
less populated planet.

But New York City is our biggest market, and they don't have the ability to
grow any fresh greens there for more than half the year. And we know that
eating healthy organic food -- organic produce -- is a great thing for them
to be eating, versus eating this burger with...how many ounces?

MP: Twenty-six.

MG: Twenty-six ounces of oil. So for our company, you know, we feel that we
have made great strides in terms of how to farm on a large scale
successfully, organically, without all these synthetic inputs, and we work
really hard to reduce our use of fossil fuels and water and a lot of
valuable resources. And then we've made some great strides -- mostly with
post consumer recycled materials. We've switched to post-consumer recycled
cardboard and post-consumer recycled plastics with our clam shells. We were
the first company to do that. But we're still using a tremendous amount of
resources.

So I ask myself: Am I leaving this planet better for future generations --
I think in certain ways I am, we are. But in certain ways, we're not, and I
don't know how to accomplish that.

Gary Smith: Well, the concept of sustainability has been around a long
time. We really only started to use the word in the last five years. If you
look in a dictionary, the definition is: "to provide nourishment for." And
the second definition is: "to be able to prolong or continue." So
basically, if you put it together, can you in fact provide nourishment for
the foreseeable future?

The word sustainability, unless you qualify it, means nothing because it's
anything you could keep going. So you have to put some words in front of
it. It's really interesting. There's a wonderful article by Liz Sloan in
the last issue of Food Technology. She cited nine studies where they had
actually gone up to people and said, "Do you use 'sustainability' or
'green' in making purchasing decisions?"

Fifty-four to 82 percent of them said yes, we do. They then asked, "What
does it mean? What does the word 'sustainability' mean?" Sixty percent of
them said, "Huh. I really don't know." And so they said in many of these
studies, "Well, what do you think it means?" Of all the answers they were
given, the number one answer was "natural." Second was "organic." Third was
"locally grown." Fourth was "humanely treated." And then it got into small
carbon footprint and so on.

So as those of us in universities begin to tackle sustainability, we say
there is a "food supply sustainability;" there is an "agriculture
sustainability;" And I like commissions like the Pew commission when they
said: "What does sustainability mean to animal agriculture?" And the Pew
Commission said: "The management of animal agriculture so that it can be
maintained indefinitely."

Now that doesn't mean forever. And so our task, as people who are involved
in agriculture is: We know things are going to change. We know how we're
doing at the moment. We want to be able to do the things that are necessary
to make sure that we are able to feed 9.1 billion people in the year 2050.

So to us, agricultural sustainability is food security: Can we continue to
do this the best we can, with all the science and technology we can put
into the action, can we continue to feed the world's hungry people?

[...]

Moderator: What do you believe are the biggest challenges facing the
industry? How do we change, or move toward that ideal, that place that you
might see out there that's sustainable?

MP: Yeah, getting from here to there is a tremendous challenge, and I'm
sympathetic to any producer who operates under a system that may or may not
be working well for them, but it's very hard to picture how to do it
differently. One of the key challenges -- just continuing with this oil
issue - T. Boone Pickens says we're going to have $350 a barrel oil within
10 years. We all saw what that did to the food system in 2008. It threw
everybody's input system through the roof. And transportation costs. You
had big growers out here, when the price of broccoli went from three
dollars per box to ten dollars per box to get it to New York City ...
buying agricultural land on the east coast to shorten the food supply.

So I think one of the metrics that's worth thinking about is, to what
extent you can squeeze fossil fuel out of your business model, and replace
it with the only source of sustainable energy we really have which is to
say solar energy. And the more sun in a system - the more energy that's
derived from sun and less from oil, you're moving in the right direction.
So I think that's very important.

But it's also very important for people to understand that I'm not an
agronomist. I'm not a scientist. I teach writing; I teach journalism. And
everything I have learned, I have learned by talking to producers and to
academics. This is where my information comes from. And I am out looking
for models, you know? Good, bad, medium.

And I think this is really where the university comes in. I think it is the
university's job to be the kind of antenna of the industry. The antenna,
you know, looking at what's next, testing new models. Figuring out, you
know, how productive could you be putting cows back on grass? How well
could local food systems -- foodsheds -- feed a given area? What happens to
agriculture at $350 a barrel oil? And it's a reason we all need to support
the university, as a place where those questions -- scary as they may be,
threatening as they may seem, get tried out. Where we do our test tube
experiments.

But as an organizing principle, think about that idea of ... just to take
you back to your grandparents' age. Pre-war farming: For every calorie of
fossil fuel energy we put into the system -- the farm system on the farm --
we got back two calories of food energy. Calories are just measurements of
food energy; they could be anything -- could be a Twinkie, could be oil.
The modern industrial food system, which I completely acknowledge its
achievements in terms of making food really, really cheap ... that is quite
an achievement, but you have to look at cost, also. As in everything in
life, it's a trade-off. That modern food system, it takes ten calories of
fossil fuel energy to produce one calorie of fast food, or processed food.

So that again ... can we count on that? I don't think we can.

[...]

I don't think it's about "Do we want?" This isn't about taste. This isn't
about "I like this kind of food and I like that kind of food." This is
about the fact that we're entering a kind of scary time characterized by
less fossil fuel, less water, climate change -- which is an enormous threat
to agriculture. It introduces a whole new level of uncertainty. There are
already wine makers in the Napa Valley ... they're already saying it's
changing their economy, and they have to adapt and figure out new
varieties.

So that change is coming whether we want it or not. And the challenge is,
do you kind of go into it willing to be experimental, or do you fight?

Now, let's take the oil example with the oil industry. Detroit did a
fantastic job of defending itself against change. And they have the
Congress of the United States, and all the representatives fighting back
all the forces that said, "You know, you really need better gas mileage.
This is a mistake." And they won. But they lost by winning.

And we have to make sure agriculture -- big agriculture, little
agriculture, all different types of agriculture -- doesn't find itself in
that boat.

[...]

Moderator: Myra ... what do you see as the challenges you're going to face,
and how do you think we might be addressing those?

MG: On the macro scale, of course, knowing that our fossil fuel resources
are limited and are going to get more expensive, going to get more limited.
We're going to get huge water problems in the state. Climate change
terrifies me, especially as an organic farmer, because we don't have these
silver bullets to deal with pests. And everyone talks about climate change
making pests a much bigger problem.

I also think when you're a business owner, you also have to look at
financial sustainability. And have to look at making an ethical profit, so
you can afford to pay your workers a living wage, and get them to return to
the farmers that they stay in business. And I think especially in
California, what's happening now is that retail has consolidated so much
that the last thing I heard was five major retailers own eighty percent of
the supermarket space, and there's so many different farmers, and we have
no power in these negotiations. There's an auction system for a lot of this
business, and you're seeing our margins get really squeezed, and so I think
our agenda for financial survival is something that we need to balance with
these long term threats. And it would be great, like you were saying, in
universities like this, where you're not trying every day to make ends meet
and make your payroll and make your company happy, to have some help with
some of those big issues that we'll be facing in the future.

[...]

GS: There's no question that fossil fuels, and the emissions that are
called greenhouse gases, are a huge problem. EPA did a study in 2009, and
they said, "Where is most of the fossil fuel used, and in which sectors are
the most greenhouse gas emissions created?" Number one on that list was the
electricity generation. Number two on that list was transportation. Number
three on that list was manufacturing. Number four on that list was eight
percent of fossil fuels from agriculture.

It's very, very difficult for those of us in agriculture - and I have owned
a wheat farm; I own part of a natural beef company; I own a laboratory
testing company that serves the food industry. Why do we out of our eight
percent have to make the price of food increase in order to save fossil
fuel? No. Let's don't have a "meatless Monday." Let's have a "no
electricity Tuesday." Let's have a "nobody can drive a car Thursday." Why
do we focus on eight percent of fossil fuels? I want to feed people. And to
tell them we're going to solve their problems by making the cost of food
higher?

Thirty-one states increased the level of poverty in this last economic
downturn. Increasing the price of food is not the route by which to provide
food security to us and the world.

[... ]

MP: It's not as if this system is working so well for farmers. If you look
at ... what dairy farmers are doing -- the fact that hog farmers today are
losing forty-six bucks for every hog they're growing. Corn and bean farmers
this year are projected to lose eight dollars per acre on what they're
planting. This regime, based on high efficiency, expensive inputs and
overproduction -- sometimes done in the name of feeding the world -- does
not really serve the farmer very well. We're producing ourselves into a
hole. And yes, there is a larger population coming, but according to the
UN, last year, we grew enough food in the world to feed -- as things stand
now -- to feed 11 billion people, if we used it as food.

We didn't. We put a lot of it in our cars, in our gas tanks. And we fed a
lot of it to animals.

So we have to look at this question of overproduction. It's almost like
built into the DNA of how we do it in America. All of our foreign policies
are about "faster, quicker, cheaper." Has that really served us? Has it
served us as eaters, and has it served us as growers?

The people who have managed to get out of that commodity trap ... figured
out another product -- something that was, at the time you started, a
really specialized niche, and found new markets. They built new markets.
The problem is, over time, you're another commodity, and it's hard to keep
innovating that way.

Also, cheap food. We all like cheap food. But if you look at what cheap
food has done to us, it's not all good. It's true that we spend less than
any people who have ever lived on this planet on food. As a percentage of
income, it's under 10 percent. I don't know what other industry boasts
about the fact that their products are so cheap. And cheap food has given
us all sorts of health care problems. Three quarters of the money we spend
on health care in this country goes to treat preventable, chronic diseases.
And not all of those are food related, but most of them are.

So we can pay the farmer, or we can pay the doctor. We're moving toward
paying the doctor ... and wouldn't it be better to pay the farmer?

Moving Into:  TOTAL WELLNESS



Enjoy this lovely photo of butterflies courtesy of Tim Jones.  Thanks for
sharing, Tim.



From: Tim Jones [mailto:deforest@...]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 4:21 PM
To: Nature Images:
Subject: Sleepy Oranges



Sleepy Orange Eurema nicippe



Hays County, Texas

11-09-09

Nikon D2x, 70-200mm + 2x extender

250s, f18, flash

Tim

--

<http://www.groundtruthinvestigations.com/>









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 1:47 PM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] A New World Architecture


A New World Architecture
George Soros
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/soros52

NEW YORK - Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the
collapse of communism, the world is facing another stark choice between two
fundamentally different forms of organization: international capitalism and
state capitalism. The former, represented by the United States, has broken
down, and the latter, represented by China, is on the rise. Following the
path of least resistance will lead to the gradual disintegration of the
international financial system. A new multilateral system based on sounder
principles must be invented.

While international cooperation on regulatory reform is difficult to
achieve on a piecemeal basis, it may be attainable in a grand bargain that
rearranges the entire financial order. A new Bretton Woods conference, like
the one that established the post-WWII international financial
architecture, is needed to establish new international rules, including
treatment of financial institutions that are too big to fail and the role
of capital controls. It would also have to reconstitute the International
Monetary Fund to reflect better the prevailing pecking order among states
and to revise its methods of operation.

In addition, a new Bretton Woods would have to reform the currency system.
The post-war order, which made the US more equal than others, produced
dangerous imbalances. The dollar no longer enjoys the trust and confidence
that it once did, yet no other currency can take its place.

The US ought not to shy away from wider use of IMF Special Drawing Rights.
Because SDRs are denominated in several national currencies, no single
currency would enjoy an unfair advantage.

The range of currencies included in the SDRs would have to be widened, and
some of the newly added currencies, including the renminbi, may not be
fully convertible.  This would, however, allow the international community
to press China to abandon its exchange-rate peg to the dollar and would be
the best way to reduce international imbalances. And the dollar could still
remain the preferred reserve currency, provided it is prudently managed.

One great advantage of SDRs is that they permit the international creation
of money, which is particularly useful at times like the present. The money
could be directed to where it is most needed, unlike what is happening
currently. A mechanism that allows rich countries that don't need
additional reserves to transfer their allocations to those that do is
readily available, using the IMF's gold reserves.

Reorganizing the world order will need to extend beyond the financial
system and involve the United Nations, especially membership of the
Security Council. That process needs to be initiated by the US, but China
and other developing countries ought to participate as equals. They are
reluctant members of the Bretton Woods institutions, which are dominated by
countries that are no longer dominant. The rising powers must be present at
the creation of this new system in order to ensure that they will be active
supporters.

The system cannot survive in its present form, and the US has more to lose
by not being in the forefront of reforming it. The US is still in a
position to lead the world, but, without far-sighted leadership, its
relative position is likely to continue to erode. It can no longer impose
its will on others, as George W. Bush's administration sought to do, but
it could lead a cooperative effort to involve both the developed and the
developing world, thereby reestablishing American leadership in an
acceptable form.

The alternative is frightening, because a declining superpower losing both
political and economic dominance but still preserving military supremacy is
a dangerous mix. We used to be reassured by the generalization that
democratic countries seek peace. After the Bush presidency, that rule no
longer holds, if it ever did.

In fact, democracy is in deep trouble in America. The financial crisis has
inflicted hardship on a population that does not like to face harsh
reality. President Barack Obama has deployed the "confidence
multiplier" and claims to have contained the recession. But if there is a
"double dip" recession, Americans will become susceptible to all kinds
of fear mongering and populist demagogy. If Obama fails, the next
administration will be sorely tempted to create some diversion from
troubles at home - at great peril to the world.

Obama has the right vision. He believes in international cooperation,
rather than the might-is-right philosophy of the Bush-Cheney era. The
emergence of the G-20 as the primary forum of international cooperation and
the peer-review process agreed in Pittsburgh are steps in the right
direction.

What is lacking, however, is a general recognition that the system is
broken and needs to be reinvented. After all, the financial system did not
collapse altogether, and the Obama administration made a conscious decision
to revive banks with hidden subsidies rather than to recapitalize them on a
compulsory basis. Those institutions that survived will hold a stronger
market position than ever, and they will resist a systematic overhaul.
Obama is preoccupied by many pressing problems, and reinventing the
international financial system is unlikely to receive his full attention.

China's leadership needs to be even more far-sighted than Obama is. China
is replacing the American consumer as the motor of the world economy.
Since it is a smaller motor, the world economy will grow slower, but
China's influence will rise very fast.

For the time being, the Chinese public is willing to subordinate its
individual freedom to political stability and economic advancement. But
that may not continue indefinitely - and the rest of the world will never
subordinate its freedom to the prosperity of the Chinese state.

As China becomes a world leader, it must transform itself into a more open
society that the rest of the world is willing to accept as a world leader.
Military power relations being what they are, China has no alternative to
peaceful, harmonious development.  Indeed, the future of the world depends
on it.

We need to follow Chomsky --
As always, he tells it like it is, and pulls no punches.

-----Original Message-----
From: globalnetnews-summary-owner@...
[mailto:globalnetnews-summary-owner@...] On Behalf Of
TradingPostPaul
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 1:22 PM
To: globalnetnews-summary@...
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] Noam Chomsky: 'US Foreign Policy is
Straight Out of the Mafia'


Noam Chomsky: 'US Foreign Policy is Straight Out of the Mafia'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/07/noam-chomsky-us-foreign-policy
by Seumas Milne
   Published on Saturday, November 7, 2009 by the Guardian/UK


Noam Chomsky is the west's most prominent critic of US imperialism, yet he
is rarely interviewed in the mainstream media. Seumas Milne meets him

Noam Chomsky is the closest thing in the English-speaking world to an
intellectual superstar. A philosopher of language and political campaigner
of towering academic reputation, who as good as invented modern
linguistics, he is entertained by presidents, addresses the UN general
assembly and commands a mass international audience. When he spoke in
London last week, thousands of young people battled for tickets to attend
his lectures, followed live on the internet across the globe, as the
80-year-old American linguist fielded questions from as far away as
besieged Gaza.

But the bulk of the mainstream western media doesn't seem to have noticed.
His books sell in their hundreds of thousands, he is mobbed by students as
a celebrity, but he is rarely reported or interviewed in the US outside
radical journals and websites. The explanation, of course, isn't hard to
find. Chomsky is America's most prominent critic of the US imperial role in
the world, which he has used his erudition and standing to expose and
excoriate since Vietnam.

[Noam Chomsky: 'Obama's campaign rhetoric was completely vacuous'
Photograph: Rex Features]Noam Chomsky: 'Obama's campaign rhetoric was
completely vacuous'

Like the English philosopher Bertrand Russell, who spoke out against
western-backed wars until his death at the age of 97, Chomsky has lent his
academic prestige to a relentless campaign against his own country's
barbarities abroad - though in contrast to the aristocratic Russell,
Chomsky is the child of working class Jewish refugees from Tsarist pogroms.
Not surprisingly, he has been repaid with either denunciation or, far more
typically, silence. Whereas a much slighter figure such as the Atlanticist
French philosopher Bernard Henri-Lévy is lionised at home and abroad,
Chomsky and his genuine popularity are ignored.

Indeed, his books have been banned from the US prison library in
Guantánamo. You'd hardly need a clearer example of his model of how
dissenting views are filtered out of the western media, set out in his
1990's book Manufacturing Consent, than his own case. But as Chomsky is the
first to point out, the marginalisation of opponents of western state
policy is as nothing compared to the brutalities suffered by those who
challenge states backed by the US and its allies in the Middle East.

We meet in a break between a schedule of lectures and talks that would be
punishing for a man half his age. At the podium, Chomsky's style is dry and
low-key, as he ranges without pausing for breath from one region and
historical conflict to another, always buttressed with a barrage of sources
and quotations, often from US government archives and leaders themselves.

But in discussion he is warm and engaged, only hampered by slight deafness.
He has only recently started travelling again, he explains, after a
three-year hiatus while he was caring for his wife and fellow linguist,
Carol, who died from cancer last December. Despite their privilege, his
concentrated exposure to the continuing injustices and exorbitant expense
of the US health system has clearly left him angry. Public emergency rooms
are "uncivilised, there is no health care", he says, and the same kind of
corporate interests that drive US foreign policy are also setting the
limits of domestic social reform.

All three schemes now being considered for Barack Obama's health care
reform are "to the right of the public, which is two to one in favour of a
public option. But the New York Times says that has no political support,
by which they mean from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies." Now
the American Petroleum Institute is determined to "follow the success of
the insurance industry in killing off health reform," Chomsky says, and do
the same to hopes of genuine international action at next month's
Copenhagen climate change summit. Only the forms of power have changed
since the foundation of the republic, he says, when James Madison insisted
that the new state should "protect the minority of the opulent against the
majority".

Chomsky supported Obama's election campaign in swing states, but regards
his presidency as representing little more than a "shift back towards the
centre" and a striking foreign policy continuity with George Bush's second
administration. "The first Bush administration was way off the spectrum,
America's prestige sank to a historic low and the people who run the
country didn't like that." But he is surprised so many people abroad,
especially in the third world, are disappointed at how little Obama has
changed. "His campaign rhetoric, hope and change, was entirely vacuous.
There was no principled criticism of the Iraq war: he called it a strategic
blunder. And Condoleezza Rice was black - does that mean she was
sympathetic to third world problems?"

The veteran activist has described the US invasion of Afghanistan as "one
of the most immoral acts in modern history", which united the jihadist
movement around al-Qaida, sharply increased the level of terrorism and was
"perfectly irrational - unless the security of the population is not the
main priority". Which, of course, Chomsky believes, it is not. "States are
not moral agents," he says, and believes that now that Obama is escalating
the war, it has become even clearer that the occupation is about the
credibility of Nato and US global power.

This is a recurrent theme in Chomsky's thinking about the American empire.
He argues that since government officials first formulated plans for a
"grand area" strategy for US global domination in the early 1940s,
successive administrations have been guided by a "godfather principle,
straight out of the mafia: that defiance cannot be tolerated. It's a major
feature of state policy." "Successful defiance" has to be punished, even
where it damages business interests, as in the economic blockade of Cuba -
in case "the contagion spreads".

The gap between the interests of those who control American foreign policy
and the public is also borne out, in Chomsky's view, by the US's unwavering
support for Israel and "rejectionism" of the two-state solution effectively
on offer for 30 years. That's not because of the overweening power of the
Israel lobby in the US, but because Israel is a strategic and commercial
asset which underpins rather than undermines US domination of the Middle
East. "Even in the 1950s, President Eisenhower was concerned about what he
called a campaign of hatred of the US in the Arab world, because of the
perception on the Arab street that it supported harsh and oppressive
regimes to take their oil."

Half a century later, corporations like Lockheed Martin and Exxon Mobil are
doing fine, he says: America's one-sided role in the Middle East isn't
harming their interests, whatever risks it might bring for anyone else.

Chomsky is sometimes criticised on the left for encouraging pessimism or
inaction by emphasising the overwhelming weight of US power - or for
failing to connect his own activism with labour or social movements on the
ground. He is certainly his own man, holds some idiosyncratic views (I was
startled, for instance, to hear him say that Vietnam was a strategic
victory for the US in southeast Asia, despite its humiliating 1975
withdrawal) and has drawn flak for defending freedom of speech for
Holocaust deniers. He describes himself as an anarchist or libertarian
socialist, but often sounds more like a radical liberal - which is perhaps
why he enrages more middle-of-the-road American liberals who don't
appreciate their views being taken to the logical conclusion.

But for an octogenarian who has been active on the left since the 1930s,
Chomsky sounds strikingly upbeat. He's a keen supporter of the wave of
progressive change that has swept South America in the past decade ("one of
the liberal criticisms of Bush is that he didn't pay enough attention to
Latin America - it was the best thing that ever happened to Latin
America"). He also believes there are now constraints on imperial power
which didn't exist in the past: "They couldn't get away with the kind of
chemical warfare and blanket B52 bombing that Kennedy did," in the 1960s.
He even has some qualified hopes for the internet as a way around the
monopoly of the corporate-dominated media.

But what of the charge so often made that he's an "anti-American" figure
who can only see the crimes of his own government while ignoring the crimes
of others around the world? "Anti-Americanism is a pure totalitarian
concept," he retorts. "The very notion is idiotic. Of course you don't deny
other crimes, but your primary moral responsibility is for your own
actions, which you can do something about. It's the same charge which was
made in the Bible by King Ahab, the epitome of evil, when he demanded of
the prophet Elijah: why are you a hater of Israel? He was identifying
himself with society and criticism of the state with criticism of society."

It's a telling analogy. Chomsky is a studiedly modest man who would balk at
any such comparison. But in the Biblical tradition of the conflict between
prophets and kings, there's not the slightest doubt which side he
represents.