WIP

Listen to that dick - Bill Maher fawn over Israel's president Netanyahu a couple of years back on his HBO show, or watch just about everything he says on the issue! He is a Neocon apologist, regardless of how much distance he tries to put between himself and U.S. policies like the Iraq Invasion now. He likely has never had an original thought in his head on any subject. He is a classic narcissist and has been one ever since the 90's when he had his ABC show. He likes to smoke pot...therefore marijuana should be legalized. He likes to screw around, so marriage is old fashioned and should be abolished. He doesn't believe in God, therefore ALL religion and religious beliefs are bad and should be eradicated. But he has a priority list....which he likely copied off of Sam Harris, who wants to end religion in order of priority from bad religions to less harmful religions. So the list begins with: get rid of Islam the greatest threat to civilization; next comes Christianity..priority no.2; then maybe Judaism and Hinduism etc. I'm not sure if Maher puts in a good word for Buddhism, which Harris claims to be the only religious tradition that has positive benefits. Anyone who still follows Harris can check back with information on what he has to say about his "good religion" persecuting Muslim minorities in Myanmar! Simple fact is that it is not just 'Islam and religion in general' that are the problem here. Any belief system, including secular humanism can become a tool of oppression. Atheists who are nationalists, Eurocentric believers in what they call "values of the enlightenment" (Hitchens) can just as easily create or uphold the ideological underpinnings of oppressive fascism as any religion can! The only reason why fascist leaders usually uphold whatever the popular religion of the majority is, is because they want to incorporate as many cultural touchstones as possible when they try to rule any mass of people. Hail Dawkins!

My point was not that Jews and Christians and other minority sects flourished in Muslim lands/ it was that during normal times of relative calm and no epidemics or famines, the prospects for minorities in Muslim lands....yes right in those caliphates that Christofanatics foam at the mouth about these days...life was better for minorities than it was in Christian Europe! Evidence can be observed both from the notable emigres to Muslim lands like the pivotal Jewish theologian & scholar - Moses Maimonides joining the migration out of reconquered Spain, to the fact that the general trend over the centuries was for Jews to leave Europe and migrate to Muslim territories. It's hard to encapsulate the entire history, and there certainly was a cycle of violence and oppression in different regions at times, but in Europe, the only thing that saved Jews from complete genocide and ethnic cleansing was the fact that the laws in most of Europe forbidding Jews to own land or property, led them to develop necessary trades and crafts that were essential in many cities....especially goldsmithing/ which transitioned to banking, as the town goldsmilth was usually the only person with a proper safe to secure gold or other valuables. Add to this, the fact that they did not have to observe the prohibition against usury, at a time when middle classes were beginning to rise out of feudalism, and their survival in Europe may have been due in large part to being handed the entire banking industry on a silver platter! *I just had to mention that one, because the big conspiracist point that constantly circulates around, about the Jews controlling the world banks...if true, is because the good Christians of Europe gave it away to Jewish goldsmith/bankers! Now, back to the Muslim World...the first Caliphs deemed Jews to be 2nd class (dhimmis)...like Christians, as People of the Book, and required to pay a special tax for dhimmitude. But, the part of the story that doesn't get mentioned in Islamophobic rhetoric, was that the dhimmitude tax was expected as a concession for not having to pick up the sword and fight on behalf of the Caliphate! Especially early on, when the Caliphs were more likely to have viewed themselves as religious leaders, they held the belief that the Islamic Caliphate had to expand (by force if necessary) to subdue the entire world. So, the average Muslim male would be required to fight in the Army of Islam in wars of conquest, and later on, more likely in the many wars to defend the Caliphate from foreign attack and internal wars and divisions. In that light, if the average Jew or Christian would have to go off and fight, or face the prospect of his sons and grandsons fighting, it was likely an easy choice to choose dhimmitude and pay the tax...except during those times of unrest, as mentioned, when....wherever you look, it's minorities who are not considered equal or the same as the general population, who are at risk of attack! This is nothing special about Islam vs. Christianity vs. Judaism vs Hinduism vs. Buddhism or even today vs secular humanism! Every population group that is viewed as separate and different (by race, religion, ethnicity...or even sexual orientation) can be at risk of attack, especially when times get tough. And for me, that is the main reason why self-examination of motives and tolerance of others have to be important values to have and to teach others...especially our children! The failing I see in the modern State of Israel, and even the attitude that many Jews elsewhere are taking, is that they are still wearing that Holocaust card as a shield of denial that because of being the persecuted minority for so long, and having endured an attempted eradication in Europe 70 years ago, they are immune from becoming the persecutors, and the agents of oppression, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Check every other statement by Netanyahu as a quick example. It goes off on a whole nother topic, but whatever the justifications are cited about how evil and unreasonable Palestinians are, the situation in Israel today is a government that is deliberately carrying out a strategy of gradual ethnic cleansing to expand Jewish territories. If there was a built-in safety switch to prevent Israeli leaders from becoming the oppressors and persecutors half a century ago, that inner compass has been lost on present generations who only know of a Holocaust as history, like everyone else, and have no first hand perspective on the events. Consider your sources! First one, I don't even trust the 700 club news service to tell me if it's raining outside, let alone provide any sort of useful analysis of....just about any issue! When it comes to Islam, their polarity is to only focus on every story that puts Muslims and their religion in a bad light because: a. they are Christian nationalist fascists who make a ridiculous claim of America being specially blessed by God and necessary to become a 'Christian' nation, and they are Christian Zionists...a strange animal that I couldn't figure out for years until I read the logic of this ideology which goes: the 2nd Coming and the Rapture are precipitated by an attempt of the enemies of Israel to gather and try to destroy them - making that final war in the Middle East a prerequisite of fulfilling their prophetic faith. Looking at the Christian Zionist movement in total, why not throw gasoline on the fire? And become a major contributor for funding of new Jewish settlements in the West Bank (which they do) and even financial support for the Temple Movement - the group that wants to destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque and replace it with the third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. But, why do people who believe all who do not profess belief in their version of Jesus the Saviour, want to give so much support to non-Christians? Because in that final battle of Armageddon, one third of the Jews in Israel will die, and the other two thirds will make a late-in-the-4th-quarter conversion to Christianity. If I was the average Jewish Zionist in Israel, I would be at least a little uncomfortable having these kinds of people as my allies! But, the extreme Zionists are well aware of what their Christian allies actually believe and think of them, but are willing to go along and be friends, because friends of this sort are hard to find! There are even one or two Christian Zionist ranchers in the U.S. who are trying to breed that 'perfect unblemished red heifer' who is essential to the orthodox Zionists of the Temple Movement as the inaugural sacrifice when that third temple opens its doors someday. Let's hope it can't happen; but a similar event took place in India some years ago, as rising Hindu fundamendalists demanded the destruction of a mosque they claim was built over their razed temple to the Hindu god - Rama. What a world! 2nd source: another anti-Islam blogger who repeats the same message that I first read more than 10 years ago. A little historical context would help, when evaluating most of these stories about how bad westerners are treated in Muslim countries. In general, I would say that the Muslim World responded with greater hostility to the progression of European colonization than most other regions of the world...especially Latin America! Partly because they are foreigners with foreign religion who speak foreign languages, but also it is claimed by some social historians that Muslim leaders and scholars as a whole, never recovered from their own loss of empire,when the last caliphate became totally corrupted and eventually collapsed. The response to the collapse drove both the waves of nationalism and secularism (which America tried to destroy because they tended to be left wing and non-compliant to U.S. interests) and the rebirth of fundamentalism. Some books I read awhile back, noted that at least up till the mid-19th century, there were no women shrouded in niqaabs or burqas even in most of Arabia. The rise of Wahabbism came in tandem with the rise of the Saud dynasty, and had the approval and support of the U.S. right from the beginning. ................................................................and, I'm out of time again! I'll have to look at the others later.

Maybe. It certainly is ancient history now. But, the refusal to swear an oath to the British Crown could just as easily been motivated from religious reasoning, rather than political loyalties....since the King of England was also the head of the Anglican Church. Whatever reasoning, the British governor who ordered the expulsion made no distinction between rebels or neutral Acadians....he wanted them all removed. And this was at a time when all travel by sea was a dangerous, life-threatening operation. In retrospect, it still was deliberate ethnic cleansing and likely an attempted genocide to "cull" the numbers of Acadians who were mostly sent off to other British colonies. At the time, Britain and France were competing colonial empires, who both thought they had the right to plunder new lands and kill, enslave or remove native populations when they established new colonies. So, it's not something to celebrate, whatever your heritage happens to be!

I don't see much point to an "amoral" perspective, unless you are either a fascist (might is right) or a psychopath.

I don't have time to address all of your points here, but I'll start with East Timor, because it's a rare example where foreign interference is necessary and warranted. In that case it was....once again, a relic of colonialism that precipitated the crisis. In all the years leading up to 1975, did any American or western leader tell the president of Portugal - okay, time's up! Time to close the empire and get out of Angola, Mozambique, East Timor and a few other small colonies they had scattered around the world? Portugal was the last of the overt colonial empires...as opposed to the present, far more subtle and difficult to fight version of economic colonization run by: installing proxy presidents and dictators, and managed by international banking and globalized trade agreements. Portugal still was running a political colonial operation in each of their colonies, and no surprise that revolutionary groups were actively fighting to remove their administrations. The U.S. tried to offer tacit support of the dictatorship in Portugal...just as they did with Europe's other Nazi ally - Spain, after the end of WWII, because...supposedly, these dictators were still necessary bullwarks against communism! So, they kept the situation festering for decades until Portugal's little empire collapsed overnight. In East Timor, this left a power vacuum, which the right wing genocidal government of Indonesia (remember, this was still the government that massacred hundreds of thousands of its own people in the overthrow of a leftwing government considered too friendly to the Soviet Union). Nevertheless, Australia could do nothing about the U.S.-sponsored Indonesia dictator, but they could send a small contingent of troops to East Timor, as Indonesia had no legal claim of any sort to the territory. Worth noting that they didn't have a legitimate claim to West Timor either, where they tried to ethnically cleanse primitive tribes and terraform the place for their own agricultural needs...but that was all water under the bridge by 1975! We have a very complicated, deceitful situation in Rwanda and that eastern Congo region, as the start of the genocide began with the U.S. supported coup leader who had the presidents of his own country and Burundi killed, so that he could march in and take over the country. The genocide was not all from the Tutsi minority, as presented by the U.S. to western media. Both sides were carrying out genocidal slaughter in the country. And what's worse, is the end result was the U.S. backed coup leaders being firmly in charge and the CIA using their forces,a long with Uganda's military in operations inside the eastern Congo. The genocide continues, and it is with the backing of Big Money mining operations and the U.S. Government. Lester Pearson's big failing was not recognizing that colonialization and it's effects have to be considered before you can even begin to talk about international armies acting as peacekeepers. Otherwise, who's peace is kept and for who's benefit?

I think they have always been suspicious of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell also, as being fake conservatives, who are just trying to play along and pretend they are leading the way. The voting records of both while in Congress, have shifted to keep up with the direction they perceive the Republican Party going in. So, I guess we can expect to see them wearing white hoods in torchlight marches before long! Both the right and the left in any country you happen to be in, will have politicians and prospective politicians who are only there to advance their own interests. They all have to pretend to be acting on principle and for the benefit of the nation as a whole; but that likely only fits a minority of politicians in the best of times. The situation for real democracy in America today is getting worse and is likely much worse than in Canada and many other representative democracies, after throwing the doors open to unlimited amounts of money to be used to finance campaigns and reward politicians after retirement. Under America's present regime of pay to play politics, real social activists from any political side have a hard time getting in the game in the first place. Most of them are already hand-picked by backroom operators before they start moving up the political ladder.....like a certain community organizer from Chicago a few years back.

Fasten your seatbelt! All indications from declining stock and bond markets, declining capital investment in the oil fields and an expected spike in federal debt, indicate another recession is on the way. Rather than declining, the latest projection from the year end was that the Federal Debt (not including unfunded liabilities) grew by 790 billion dollars, instead of the expected decline that had been forecast back in the fall.

All I can say is the costs involved in economic restructuring can be very high, and the longer they are delayed, the more the costs go up. A good example would be high speed rail. If you believed the Popular Science articles of the 70's, you could have expected North America to be chris-chrossed by high speed - magnetic levitation trains on special elevated or buried tracks by now. The technology was there in the 70's to build a rail system that could deliver travelers faster and more efficiently than air travel. BUT, the capital costs were deemed too excessive. But, even the more modest high speed rail lines were never built, as they have done somewhat in Europe, or right now in China, they are far ahead of the rest of the world already, with thousands of miles of light rail lines. If you wait until oil is too costly in both economic and environment terms to justify continued exploration and recovery (we're getting pretty damn close to it now!), the needed wealth to build the system has already been used up....and your future transportation network is a return to horse&buggy!

Isn't this the same problem every time when Hollywood remakes history? On the plus side, it can't be worse than the remake of the Scarlet Letter a few years back, that starred Demi Moore! The whole point behind the I Love Lucy reruns and other old sitcoms and variety shows, is to go back in time and have a snapshot at pop culture of the past. Otherwise what's the point? It would be different if it was a biopic on Lucille Ball - who definitely was not ditzy in real life. She was playing to what the expectations of a young housewife were in 1950's America at the time. Trying to change that, and it's worth asking: why bother trying to redo the story in the first place?

I would worry that any grassroots effort to bring in proportional representation would be another exercise in futility, as any Ontario voter can recall from the last time McGuinty ran on the issue, and yes- he did put it up for plebiscite, but his government provided almost no supporting information, so that the anti-PPV propaganda had most voters believing it was an attack on democracy! Short story is that, for any proportional voting system to get passed, the support groups have to recognize that they have NO real allies in any of the major parties! Any political party that has enough base of support to win seats through traditional divide-and-rule will not be open to proportional representation, that will weaken the odds of governing with majority government (with a minority of voters). So, any more referendums better be prepared to be kneecapped or shot in the back by politicians pretending to be on your side!

There never seems to be a candidate who is too stupid to be put up for public office by these tea party types. But, apparently even they have limits....if this article from Daily Beast in the fall can be taken at face value. According to the story, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas raised the stupid meter so high that most Tea Party group officials started telling him to just retire...and don't even think of running for president.

Except that this blithering idiot didn't really understand the issue anyway....and neither did the other "drill, baby drill" parrots! Because, the latest real information on what's happening with the global oil business, is that falling world demand (especially in China) was the main contributing factor for the collapse in oil prices/ that, and a lack of will by OPEC and other major oil producers to scale back their oil production...as they usually do when they want to keep prices in the comfort zone...their comfort zone, not ours...led to the collapse in oil prices. This lengthy interview with Arthur Berman in Oilprice.com explains much of the factors behind the price changes, as well as providing some necessary insight into the still-existing crisis facing the oil industry: the costs of production and refining of new oil will continue to increase, and has already reached levels where the global economies go into recession because of those prices. So, every time the price of oil goes over $100 a barrel (where the producers of shale, tar sands, and deep sea oil need them to make a profit) economies go into recession and demand for oil drops. And when demand drops, oil prices fall, and at below $50 a barrel, the price is already too low to keep producing...let alone start up new ventures in unconventional oil development! This may not be good news for the economy; but in the long run it is good news for everyone! Think of it as the world being forced to take the bitter medicine of having to move away from an until-now cheap/ but environmentally destructive source of energy and products (plastics, fertilizers etc.). In the long run, we don't have a choice about ending the petroleum age. It will end one way or another...whether the prices are too high or too cheap. And it would be smart to start planning for the future. Too bad consumer capitalistic economies are not designed for long term planning. Some way, somehow, it will all need a complete overhaul!

Noted! It appears that this news was kept secret for many years. That Toronto Star article indicates that this commando group was very small in size, and used only for high priority operations. So, that probably wouldn't weigh heavily regarding the issue of local relations. My point is that in general, there was a change in how Canadian forces were used and the way locals viewed them, from the Chretien Government to the Harper Administration.

The expulsion of the Acadians was a clear example of ethnic cleansing, and possibly even genocide; as the letters from some of the British officials of the time doubted that they would survive the journey and life in the swamps of southern Louisiana. They didn't want mass execution of civilians,but they seemed to have been trying to accomplish the task indirectly. When it came to dealing with the natives, the governors of British North America/later Canada had to take a go-slow approach, since we did not have near the numbers to achieve the kind of Indian Wars that went on in the U.S. at the end of the Civil War. But, afterwards, as new Canadians increased in numbers, natives out west discovered that they didn't have as much control over most of their lands as they thought they had. It's a toss-up when it comes to who has the worst history when it comes to dealing with Aboriginal issues. The residential schools are an example of cultural cleansing - "taking the indian out of the indian," and leaving behind an empty shell and shattered communities. So, what's the takeaway? Canadians have been just as bad as Americans? I'll buy that; but I don't see any gain in "your country is worse than my country!"

They never grew cannabis there....if they do now, it's been a more recent development. I don't know how much opium poppies were grown at different periods in history, but widespread consumption among locals was not likely part of local daily life, except in the cities. Just like to Coca leaf growers in Columbia, it was something of value as trade for products they wanted and didn't make themselves. I don't think there were any water irrigation projects prior to the members of JFK's Peace Corps who were sent over there to 'improve their lives.' An underlying point in this drama, which almost never mentioned, is that the climate has been gradually drying out in that region of eastern Iran, Afghanistan and southern Caucusus for decades. Just like East Africa, this region may be on the leading edge of climate change, and started showing changes in weather patterns earlier than most areas in the world....except for the Arctic of course. It was always relatively dry, compared to more productive agrarian regions, but over the centuries, that also served to protect the people living in areas like this, because the most productive and richest lands are also of interest to foreign invaders and subject to being plundered. Afghanistan was never of interest throughout history, except for its strategic location of being the only overland route Persia - through the Himalayas and India. That is until the recent discovery of rich deposits of rare earth metals and minerals discovered in the eastern region...so, all bets are off now! The life expectancy number you quoted - 31, is more likely the average life span, and not life expectancy. This is important to distinguish, because in most poorer regions of the world, in the days before antibiotics and the germ theory of disease became practiced, infant mortality numbers were very high, and many pregnant women died during childbirth and soon after, because of less-than-hygienic methods for childbirth. Even back a little more than 100 years ago, when my father was born on the South Gaspe shore of Quebec, it has been estimated that one out of every three children born did not live to see their fifth birthday because of lethal diseases etc.. But, historically, those who survived birth and early childhood had close to equal life expectancy as modern people do! And, they had better quality of life: less sickness, less dementia, almost no obesity or related 'lifestyle' diseases. Maybe it was sort of a 'survival of the fittest,' but, the people who ran the gauntlet and survived, were often healthy and fully mobile until near death. This is a shocking fact to most people, because our health and medical establishments deliberately present a lot of misleading information about health and life expectancy. If it was a quality of life issue, it would be case closed on modernity: because most people today, who are living past age 70, are sicker and more debilitated - both mentally and physically than previous generations were! I can see evidence of this every weekend, when I go visit my almost-97 year old mother at her nursing home. She was living independently (maybe too independently!) until four years ago, when she had a fall and broke her hip, and has needed full time nursing care ever since then. What's shocking to me, is that...as our population ages, more and more younger people (60's and 70's) are coming in to her home requiring full time care also. The pressure on the facility and the staff....many have quit over the last 10 years, because they have more and more work and less time to get their jobs done, and are working longer and longer shifts. Add to that, that the numbers of residents with dementia is increasing disproportionately, and putting an even greater demand on nursing facilities, and the presentation of our quality of life improving because of new technologies, new medicines and overall progress - is either a myth or a fraud! Those peasants in Afghanistan 50 to 100 years ago, were likely a lot more happy and satisfied with their lives than we are...let alone present Afghanis! For me, this explains the extravagant and unqualified hospitality that used to be the cultural norm there. If they weren't happy and were living miserable lives of drudgery, they would not have been so open and friendly to strange foreigners wandering along their roads...inviting them in to rest and have meals etc., and expecting no reward in return. In general, rural folk tend to be more hospitable and friendly to strangers than city-dwellers....though I'm not sure how friendly the average farmer or rancher would have been to hippies 40 or so years ago! Add to that, that for the Afghans, this would be a total culture shock, as these strange foreigners didn't even speak their language, so only the most rudimentary communication would have been possible. This is not the culture of people who are not happy and living in misery. It's funny how the pattern appears remarkably similar in other poorer regions of the world where cultural colonists have come in to 'bring them into the 20th century' and give them all the benefits of modernity! Unfortunately, from what I recall reading back before Harper became PM, the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan suffered few casualties...even though they were stationed right in the middle of Taliban Country - in Kandahar, and it was mostly because Chretien likely only sent the troops there as a concession for keeping our troops out of Iraq...much to the chagrin of Bush&Co. Apparently, the generals in charge, were told to be careful, get to know the place, and had a free hand when it came to any operations conducting searches or seizures. For that reason, the local Taliban or anti-government fighters, were ignoring Canadian troops and flagged convoys, and watching for Americans to shoot at. But, all that ended when Colonel Harper took over and wanted more troops, and with tanks and heavy weapons over there, conducting the types of operations the Americans were doing. So, I doubt that by the time we left, that Canadian soldiers were seen in a much different light than U.S. soldiers.

But, the part you are forgetting here, is that the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan looks almost exactly like the Soviet strategy to calm things down and maintain Afghanistan as a Soviet ally. The Soviets likely created this "Northern Alliance" in the first place, since much of the fight against the pro-Soviet Government fell along ethnic lines, and rather than a "Democracy vs. Communism" fight, it could have easily been described as a fight between the Pashtun majority in the south, and Uzbeks, Tadziks, and Kazakh's in the north......doesn't that sound familiar? I would bet a large number of those Soviet conscripts you mentioned, were motivated to go and fight - because they were fighting on behalf of their own people who lived on the other side of political boundaries drawn up arbitrarily, and dividing and separating tribes and families......now, doesn't that sound familiar also! The Soviets had no choice other than pull out, because their economy collapsed during its so called "Restructuring," that introduced Neoliberal capitalism and collapsed and sold off everything in the state economy that was of value. But, even if the Soviet Union had stayed together and kept functioning, they would not have been able to keep a lid on the situation in Afghanistan either! For much the same reasons that the U.S. has a crocodile by the jaws today and is afraid to let go. After a brief time in the first year, when the majority of Pashtuns wanted an end to Taliban rule, the U.S and allies destroyed whatever goodwill they had by riding through the cities, rural farms and villages...busting down doors, occasionally shooting people suspected of being Taliban members; when the intelligent thing to do would have been to ignore most of the Taliban, and just go after whatever foreign Arab fighters were left in the country....since they would almost certainly be Al Qaeda. But, after pissing off the locals, the Taliban...or what qualifies as Taliban now, is back at it again and shooting at them, and trying to overthrow the Government. And the situation will be back to the sectarian war that really took off during the Soviet Occupation and never really ended.

You missed the whole point! The root causes do not come from their religious training...that provides the later justifications for what they do or plan to do....just like Manifest Destiny was wrapped in Godtalk to justify ethnically cleansing the continent of Indians and taking half of Mexico. Looking at the radicalizing of Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. right now, I am seeing a big change from what even fundamentalists were saying 20 or more years ago! After toning down the Onward Christian Soldiers rhetoric after the Vietnam War debacle, rightwing Christianity is telling us God is on the side of the fight against Islam, regime change, fighting for "Christian" armies, and doing whatever warcrime is necessary to win the battle against Islam. Set up the right conditions, and I can see the Christian terrorist coming along as soon as they find themselves on the losing end of some of these wars.

Except those paleontologists and geologists also note that most animals (and plant species also....let's not forget them) become extinct during climate change events that cause large scale extinctions. Most extinctions have been caused by large scale volcanic activity...that's how important maintaining a proper balance of CO2 levels is for long term flourishing of life. Of five - what are considered 'mass' extinction events (prior to the one we are already beginning now) the major contributing factor has been sudden spikes in sequestered carbon and methane gas release caused by a rapid warming in global average temperatures....it's important to note that even the most famous extinction...because it took out the dinosaurs, was actually the 2nd largest extinction in planetary history. The Cretaceous/Tertiary Event approximately 63 million years ago, has now been determined to have had a strong volcanic contributing factor (it wasn't just the asteroid that did it) when India slammed into the continent of Asia and resulted in large volcanic flows leaving behind a desolate rocky formation today called the Deccan Traps. Prior to the Cambrian "Explosion" when most groups of animal species arose, there is another extinction during the long age that Earth could only support microbes. I forget the exact era in geologic history it happened, but from what little can be determined about age of one-celled organisms, the introduction of photosynthesizing cells that left behind oxygen as a waste product, killed off most of the anaerobic bacteria that were living above ground at the time. So, this one would be the only other extinction where a single species was the root cause of extinction! But, everything worked out in the end, as new life flourished. The danger of planetary volcanic extinctions is that they carry the potential of wiping out life on Earth...at least complex life, maybe not the microbes. Some paleontologists believe that the Permian/Triassic Extinction 250 million years ago, almost did the job and ended life on Earth. So, it's not something to make light of and definitely not something to pass off as part of some natural cycle of life...like these idiot oil-funded climate change denying lobbyists do all across right wing media. The Earth supports a complex biosphere as long as it is able to maintain a careful balance, which has included the gradual increase of carbon sequestration over the millenia - in response to the Sun's increasing warming and energy release. Eventually, carbon levels won't be reduced enough to prevent overheating and ending life on Earth. But, by natural processes, that would take another 500 to 1 billion years before that time came along! The human race and a whole lot more species could come and go before that time. What we are doing right now, is a chemical experiment on the natural life support system of this planet. Past evidence tells us that it's when GHG levels suddenly rise and temperatures increase, that extinctions become a problem...and large numbers of plants and animals die off and the ecosystems have to rebuild themselves. But, if our present gamble with how much stored carbon can be returned to the atmosphere fails, then we or future generations are screwed! So much for children and future generations watching everything fall apart, and so much for any sort of legacy. Only a complete nihilist can be satisfied with these prospects. And only the delusional and self-deluded can keep living in denial of the obvious!

If there were Canadian oil service companies working in Libya, that would be just a minor offense compared to what Canadian gold and nickel and other ventures are doing in our name, as they leave behind depleted mines here for new opportunities in the Third World. A little light reading for anyone interested in the subject: Digging for Gold, Mining Corruption One of Africa’s Poorest and Most Embattled Countries is Prey to Canadian Mining Companies Searching for the Last Great Gold mine Canadian mining doing serious environmental harm, the IACHR is told Operations in nine Latin American countries continue with explicit Canadian state support, says report Canadian mining firms worst for environment, rights: Report Canadian mining companies are far and away the worst offenders in environmental, human rights and other abuses around the world, according to a global study commissioned by an industry association but never made public.

No, I'm saying that we've been played for fools by buying into this Christian vs. Muslim battle! Think for a second: if Islam and Muslim populations seek to exterminate all other religions, how the hell were Christians...and many other smaller sects, including Jews, able to survive and flourish in Muslim nations for centuries? Egypt and Iraq and some other Arab nations had large Jewish populations for centuries until the modern state of Israel was created, and Egypt and much of the rest of the Arab World responded with Pan-Arabism and forced them into exile....mostly ending up in Israel as the most hawkish and vengeful segment of the modern Israeli State! It's interesting to note that Iraq's very large Christian population wasn't imperiled until Dubya had this great idea of doing what his father failed/did not want to accomplish - overthrowing Saddam. And the attacks on Christians and other minorities who are still caught in the middle of the sectarian war between Shias and Sunnis, which has led to deaths and ethnic cleansing out of most of Iraq today, was never considered an important issue by the so called Christian leaders of the United States! Otherwise they would have done something to stop it. It's all just a game for resources and other pieces on a global geopolitical chessboard, and 99% of what's written about these issues in MSM is bullshit! Ending the problem of "Islamism" would be very simple: get out of their countries, stop trying to control all of the oil coming from the oil-producing nations, and let them manage their own affairs however they settle, on their own! The present Sunni/Shia conflagration is mostly a U.S./western creation, and ISIS or whatever, it will all have to run its course, and the best way for it to end with as little bloodshed as possible, is to remove the issue of outside interference! Looking at it from an historical perspective, I find it interesting that the 20th century began with the continuation of a trend towards secularization and declining interest in religion in most of the Muslim World....including Arabia. But, after oil was discovered, and Israel is founded, and the last caliphate disintegrates, a gradual decades-long re-entrenchment of fundamentalism begins to take hold, and is strengthened by U.S. alliance with Islamists against nationalistic left wing movements in most Muslim nations. So, the problem is largely blowback for stepping in without having any regard for consequences in the future.

I don't want to misrepresent his theories and findings on terrorists and their motivating factors, but the problem is that he is not at all interested in being a celebrity scientist like Sam Harris, Stephen Pinker, Dawkins, and others who spend most of their time writing books and appearing on TV, who are usually the go-to guys as "expert" opinion on this and other issues where religion and politics intersect. I first came across Atran, when he challenged Sam Harris, Carolyn Porco, and a couple of physicists whose names I forget, but were all part of a panel discussing how the scientific community should deal with religious beliefs and believers. Let's just say that Atran was the odd man out on the panel of "new atheists, who spent most of their time talking about the evils of religion and how all the world's problems can be solved by convincing everyone to abandon their beliefs in God and other supernatural concepts. Since most of his work is found only in scientific...mostly anthropology journals, most of his ideas online are presented by others to support their thinking or try to knock them down. Here's one example in a review of a book he wrote a few years back in New Scientist - HOW TO CATCH THE JIHADI BUG which takes on the presentation that terrorists are motivated by their religious training: His main finding is that terrorist organisations tend not to be the sophisticated, well-ordered hierarchies that we commonly suppose, but loose networks of friends and family who die not just for a cause but for each other. Who gets radicalised is often quite random: "Someone gets the jihadi bug, and friends follow, gathering force from sticking together." Understanding these social dynamics, Atran believes, is key to tackling terrorism. Talking to the Enemy is recommendable not just for its vivid insights into the motivation of terrorists, but also for its study of Islamic radicalisation and the anthropology of religion in general. It is worth reading for its demolishment of many of the simplistic ideas put forward by self-declared "scientific atheists" such as Sam Harris, Steven Weinberg and Richard Dawkins, who see religion as the root of intolerance and campaign with missionary zeal for its eradication. Dawkins has argued, for example, that suicide bombers are brainwashed in religious schools. Yet none of the 9/11 hijackers or the Madrid train-bombers attended a religious school, and the one London Underground bomber who did so attended only briefly. Indeed evidence shows that in Muslim communities the deeper a person's religious scholarship, the less likely he or she is to be involved in jihadist activities. The suggestion by Harris and others that the world would be less violent without religion - and especially without Islam - also looks hollow when you consider the crimes against humanity committed by atheists. Prior to 2001, for instance, one of the most prolific dispensers of suicide terrorism was the secular Tamil Tigers. In trying to understand, or predict, terrorist activity, it makes scientific sense to look beyond religion, such as to the social dynamics of particular friendship networks and the recruitment strategies of jihadist organisations whose agendas are usually avowedly political. The scientific atheists' disregard of evidence when making their case "makes me almost embarrassed to be an atheist", says Atran. He is on strong ground: gathering data first-hand is not something Atran seems shy of, even if it means risking his own life. In other words, like so many other subjects, this one too, is a lot more complex than presented in mainstream media, and solving the problem is not going to happen just by attacking other peoples' religions.

Okay, now I get the reference! No doubt, the assassins were a pretty scary lot! But, I would still like to read more about the background of the Ismaelis and what was going on there at the time. It's a subject area I am only vaguely familiar with. Yes, and the number I posted yesterday - 10,000 crucifixions by Roman jurisprudence in total, is a conservative estimate! There are some historians who believe the total number may have been ten times that figure. But, the reason why I find the proliferation of this form of torture/public execution so significant, is because it was so ineffective at achieving its desired goal: suppressing potential uprisings against Roman and Roman-appointed authorities. The threat of being hoisted up and mounted on a cross, may have prevented unrest from boiling over for a little while, but it only worked for a very short time....something that today's authoritarians, with their drones, secret prisons, use of torture, teargas and stun grenades might want to think about today! A good name to look up on this subject would be anthropologist - Scott Atran, who's specialty is not specifically in psychology, but he has done most of his work in the Middle East and has interviewed prospective suicide bombers and advocates for recruiting suicide bombers. His theory is that the religious language is like gift-wrapping: it doesn't actually provide the motivation for the bombers or the rebell8ious terrorist groups who have recruited them. The basic scenario is that the first ingredient is a group or a local population who feel they have lost all control over their lives and there are no ways of casting off their government or get rid of security forces or the walls or checkpoints that regulate their daily lives. And, that daily routine continues getting bleaker and bleaker, with no end in sight. The authorities can't be voted out, and they can't realistically be overthrown (always the first step before suicide attacks), so they feel humiliated by their situation and decide that the only way to fight back is to end their lives, but do so in a method that will exact revenge on their oppressors. And after that, they pull the religion card. And it's not just Muslims who will look up verses or theological justifications for suicide attacks against an enemy! The Quranic verses cited, only refer to fighting against insurmountable odds against an enemy, knowing that there is no way to escape death. And we sure as hell have lots of those kinds of martyrs in our historic folklore also! I'm not sure what the theological justification was for Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka to turn to suicide attacks, but I'm sure the same pieces can be put together. A "fanatic" is going to find some reason to seek revenge in a suicide attack. Over here, it seems we are seeing something very similar in the acts of domestic violence and attacks on police that are often referred to as "suicide by cop." Not that the suicide attackers should be validated for what they have done; but the smart approach would be to do something about the underlying contributors to the problem; not just keep adding more extreme punishments and walls of security to try to stop the attackers once they are determined to carry them out.

As noted on the flu shot thread, there's a difference between how serious and lethal diseases should be dealt with, and ones like the flu virus, which is a minor inconvenience to the majority of people, and most only need to take precautions if they are going to be in close contact with people who are at-risk of serious illness from the flu. But, when it comes to these kinds of diseases, parents shouldn't have an easy option to opt out of vaccinating their children, unless they can show the child will be at risk by the vaccine.....and I don't count any stupid thing that Jenny McCarthy has said in the last 10 years to qualify as evidence! When the anti-vaccination campaign started up some years ago, there were a lot of medical experts warning that a lot diseases we no longer have to deal with....would be back with a vengeance, and this is one more example. Epidemiologists refer to the phenomena as Herd Immunity...where enough people have had the vaccination, so the odd antivaxxer can legitimately claim that 'I don't vaccinate my children and they're perfectly healthy.' Well, now we are reaching a point in some communities, where there are enough fanatic fundamentalists or antivaxxers to break down the protection of herd immunity, and prevent the disease from coming back and spreading. This is extremely dangerous in the U.S., where so many people don't have adequate access to healthcare. Just through claims of religious exemption and over-emphasis on personal rights, the entire community is put in danger, when the disease could be eliminated at such a low cost, compared to most other medical expenses.

And that's another amendment you would be smart to add to the Constitution!

I figured you would say that! But, anyone who actually does claim to have concern for those who come after us and have to inherit this world, need to stop living in denial and consider the prospects of slow extinction to be pretty much the same as fast extinction....like the asteroid or comet hitting the Earth we see almost on an annual basis coming out of Hollywood! If it were the asteroid that was coming and going to kill us all in....let's say six months, there would be no limit to what people would be willing to do or to sacrifice to get Bruce Willis or whoever up there and destroy that meteor and save the planet! But, if we're told this world is going to continue to degrade, and extinctions will continue increasing, life will keep getting more and more difficult, until at some point, this planet cannot support humans or most other creatures....it just doesn't motivate people to take much of an interest....and I don't consider giving money to "green" charities, buying a solar panel or windmill, or marching to stop pipelines or marching to somehow bring atmospheric CO2 levels back to 350ppm to be quite the same thing as addressing an obvious systemic problem.