Re: [Biofuel] re property taking supreme court
Brian, Her comments were exactly what I was trying to get across in the other thread. Now City Planners can use acquistion of Taxes as a means to take personal propery. There is a situation in Houston in which a family owned river front business is about to lose 300 feet of their property so a developer can build a marina and restaurant - by eminent domain. Guess we will all need powerful corporate lawyers to keep our homes. Larry On 6/24/05, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you so much for the link. The dissenting opinions of Justices O'Connor and Thomas are what I found most enlightening. I couldn't agree with them more. Brian - Original Message - From: S Chapin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 11:03 AM Subject: [Biofuel] re property taking supreme court Brian, http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf or go to Common Dreams .org and look for US Supreme Court link (right side somewhere). See also NYT article by Linda Greenhouse. Difference between public use and public purpose? Pfizer pharmacueticals will build a research complex. (who are BTW immune under the patriot act from lawsuits?) I wonder if under the same arguement public purpose could enable a community to declare a Wal-Mart eminent domain and turn it into a hospital?? S. Chapin ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next?
Brian, I suggest you write your U.S. Senator/Congressperson and express your View. Also Contact your State reps and request they pass legislation which will prevent Cities/Government from using eminent domain unless it is to remove blight. This issue is getting a lot of airtime on talk radio and the majority of the hosts/callers are against this ruling. It is un-believable that 5 judges could possible read the fifth amendment the way it has been twisted. Larry On 6/24/05, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure where to put this, but for those in the US it seems that an important story is being missed. Thought I would bring it here to see if anyone had any ideas of how to call more attention to the implications. Since fascism was mentioned in this thread, thought I'd just go ahead and mention it here. It seems that there were some folks in Connecticut approached by a corporation a few years ago and offered money for their homes. They made the decisions to keep their homes and pass up the money. The corporation then went to the town board and said that it needed these homes for their private development (I am guessing some sort of shopping mall or planned housing development for the wealthy, but really don't know). The town board decided to use eminent domain to tell the homeowners that their property was being taken, for the greater good of the community. The homeowners filed suit, saying that they understood eminent domain in the case of security or public use of land, but did not feel it applied when the use of the land was commercial development for a profit. Unless I misunderstood what I read, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 in favor of the town council two days ago. Private property is no longer a right if some government body decides that the land would better serve the public if a Wal Mart was placed on it. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like it fits with the US Constitution that I am familiar with. I have attempted to contact MoveOn.org about this, but can't seem to break through their website and figure out how to ask a question. As they are involved in the fight for America's courts, and it seems to me that this is a prime example of why we don't want the majority to have the ability to place anyone they want in the judicial system for life, it would seem like a no-brainer for them to publicize this decision. I would also think that the Democratic Party would jump all over it. But, everyone seems to be silent. So, I am bringing it here. Anyone have ideas on how to make sure that the people on the street know that there is no longer such thing as private property in this country? Again, sorry for using bandwidth here for a purely US cause. I just didn't know where else to look. Brian - Original Message - From: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 9:21 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next? Bears!? I should have known that, but liked the sentence too much to think. Of scavengers and hunters the headlines abound, despite the efforts to pin smiley faces to the heads of vultures. What has always mystified me about the parade of the right wing is how blind they are to the consequences of their crusade. Given that the crusade is obviously not about freedom or democracy or even capitalism, which would require a measure of cooperation, compromise, yikes even understanding, it begins to look (to me) like it is a corporate feeding frenzy fomented by a very few individuals so that they may be among the last left standing. They dont seem to get it that the top down system of control they dream of, regardless of the 'freedom' rhetoric, is inherently unstable... duh. The only glimmer of cognizance of this feature of totalitarianism is that they try to appeal to the masses, as they imagine them, be they the 'moral majority' 'silent majority' or whatever. What they dont know, couldnt know is that the pool of Nationalist fervor hatched after 9/11 doesnt carry over to worship of CEO's or respect for mega-corps. Inspiring fear and loathing towards those that 'hate our freedom' isnt working quite as planned either. Although the bigots are having a field day the people on the street want want to be able to take their sick kid to the doctor for less than a months wages. Anyway, my sense is that the efforts towards sustainable energy are getting some traction, for alot of reasons, and that the bulk of the work is coming from the bottom up. The organic food movement grew the same way, and now (somewhat disturbingly) organic produce can be had at Wal-Mart Superstores. Maybe GW's new drive for new nuke plants will inspire some fear and loathing. Kerr-Magee ads have been all over the place, maybe a Silkwood ad would be nice to see. Cheers, S. Chapin Keith Addison wrote: Hello
Re: [Biofuel] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next?
John, I am not a consitutional scholar either, but from what I have read and heard, the neigborhood was not blighted, yes New London has a high unenployment rate, but taking one persons private property and giving it to another (corporation) simply because the corporation can generate more Taxes for the city seems unjust. Also whats the difference between Pfizer and Walmart? Just because one does RD and the other sells cheap goods on the backs of cheap labor doesn't really matter. The supreme court just authorized the transferr of private land from one owner to another based on how much money the land would provide back to the city. (IMHO) Larry On 6/24/05, John Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar, nor am I exceptionally familiar with the details of the case, but from what I do know, your depiction isn't entirely accurate. In fact, NPR had a story on it this morning while I was putting down mulch in the garden. New London CT, the town in question, is an economic disaster, frankly. The unemployment rate in New London is double that for the rest of the state and is in serious need of economic redevelopment. Having driven through parts of New London several times over the past couple of years, I can confirm that vast areas of New London appear to be blighted. Anyway, according to the NPR story and other things I've read, the New London Development Corp wanted to redevelop a piece of waterfront along the Thames River that had recently been vacated by the Navy. At the same time, Pfizer announced it wanted to bring a $300 million dollar global RD center to New London. Thus, the NLDC's eventual plan included using Eminent Domain to take 90-odd homes. Of those 90-odd homes, all but 7 agreed to sell for fair market value. The remaining 7 home owners refused to sell for any price and filed a lawsuit. They lost. They then appealed to the Supreme Court and, on a 5-4 vote, lost. This isn't some Walmart or a mall or housing for the wealthy or even the end of private property in the US as you imply. It's about a city's right to take land for the greater public good, which consistant with prior rulings according to the Supreme Court majority decision, can include economic redevelopment if just compensation is provided. Do I feel bad about the 7 homeowners that don't want to move? Sure, but that doesn't change the fact the constitution allows the government to take land for the public good if compensation is provided. In my mind, talking land for a redevelopment project is no different that taking land for a bridge or a highway. I fail to see any change in the status quo here. jh Brian wrote: I'm not sure where to put this, but for those in the US it seems that an important story is being missed. Thought I would bring it here to see if anyone had any ideas of how to call more attention to the implications. Since fascism was mentioned in this thread, thought I'd just go ahead and mention it here. It seems that there were some folks in Connecticut approached by a corporation a few years ago and offered money for their homes. They made the decisions to keep their homes and pass up the money. The corporation then went to the town board and said that it needed these homes for their private development (I am guessing some sort of shopping mall or planned housing development for the wealthy, but really don't know). The town board decided to use eminent domain to tell the homeowners that their property was being taken, for the greater good of the community. The homeowners filed suit, saying that they understood eminent domain in the case of security or public use of land, but did not feel it applied when the use of the land was commercial development for a profit. Unless I misunderstood what I read, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 in favor of the town council two days ago. Private property is no longer a right if some government body decides that the land would better serve the public if a Wal Mart was placed on it. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like it fits with the US Constitution that I am familiar with. I have attempted to contact MoveOn.org about this, but can't seem to break through their website and figure out how to ask a question. As they are involved in the fight for America's courts, and it seems to me that this is a prime example of why we don't want the majority to have the ability to place anyone they want in the judicial system for life, it would seem like a no-brainer for them to publicize this decision. I would also think that the Democratic Party would jump all over it. But, everyone seems to be silent. So, I am bringing it here. Anyone have ideas on how to make sure that the people on the street know that there is no longer such thing as private property in this country? Again, sorry for using bandwidth here for a
Re: [Biofuel] New York : DA Drops The Charges Against Carol Lang
Greg, Well said! Larry On 6/6/05, Greg Harbican [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, up till 9/11 most people entered the military for one of two reasons. The first and most popular reason is Education. They think that it will be an easy way the get an education, without having to work hard to get a scholarship or the need for a loan. The second reason, is that they want money for something and they currently don't have enough. I have heard some of their complaints, and almost always it's along the lines of When I signed up almost ___ yrs ago, there wasn't any war. I did it because I wanted to get 'an education' or 'the education benefit's or 'to get a job and skills for a job when I get out', not to kill people or get killed. Many of them think that they are using the military, for their own purposes/benefit, but, then when they are told that they can not get out when the going gets rough, they cry Not fair! The facts are: *The military is just like any other company trying to get you to join, in that it is going to push the fun exciting stuff, while under emphasizing the bad. *Anyone that thinks they can join the military and be subject to the possibility of being killed or having to kill, is living a dream that has no connection to reality. *Anyone that thinks that the military can't or will not alter their terms of enlistment in a time of crisis is dreaming. *Anyone that does not read the fine print on any contract before they sign, is a fool. *All it takes is some checking, to find out what being in the military is really like.There are to many people in ( and now out ) of the military to say what it was like. Any person, in any job, that think that they can take the good and leave the bad, has another think coming. Greg H. - Original Message - From: Michael Redler To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 12:44 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] New York : DA Drops The Charges Against Carol Lang To enter military service and then say, I dont want to go there! or I don't want to do that! is simply childish selfcenterdness (sp). Well Larry, if that were true, we would have an increasing number of self centered objectors instead of conscientious objectors. Most people who join the military, do so with a belief (faith) that their commander-in-chief will make the right decisions. When they don't, it is no exaggeration to look at it as a breach of contract. You have every right to object to improper use of the military (that would be YOU, if you are a soldier) due to the fact that your government did not work with you in good faith. Conscientious objectors are often examples of fearless objectivity and heroism. They see war during their time as a divisive instrument of policy and not a mechanism for self defense. Mike ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] New York : DA Drops The Charges Against Carol Lang
Mike, I agree that anyone should be allowed to PEACEFULLY protest, but I find it disturbing that individuals would protest military recruiters on college campuses(sp). I am retired military and feel a strong bond with our military. Feel free to protest the administrations positions/policies, but protesting military recruitment is dishonoring those who place their lives on the line in defence of the freedoms we enjoy each day. Military personnel are following the orders of elected civilian officials. Military personnel do not have the latitude to dissent (unless those orders are unlawful). If students, teacher, or other professionals want to protest the government, then protest against the government, not the Military which is following the orders of the Government which was elected by those students, teachers, and/or professionals. Larry On 6/2/05, Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Every once in a while, there is some good news about those who struggle against the current administration and their policies. Since we touch on the crisis in this forum, I thought some of you might be a little encouraged by this small victory. Mike _ DISTRICT ATTORNEY DROPS CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY FOUR CITY COLLEGE STAFF MEMBER TO DEFEND HERSELF IN STEP II HEARING At a peaceful protest against military recruitment on the City College of New York (CCNY) campus on March 9, 2005, campus security arrested three students and a staff member, and beat two of the students, and the college President, Gregory Williams, suspended the protesters without any investigation or hearing. Williams broadcast a statement claiming that all were guilty and that the College wouldn't tolerate violence. But after a month's suspension, all four returned to the College when the charges were dropped. On May 19, the District Attorney (DA) moved to dismiss the charges within 6 month's time through an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD). Clearly, there was no evidence to try the four. The massive outpouring of support for the City Four and the outrage at City College's attempt to stifle dissent has helped return the four to their rightful place in the College community, where they will continue to organize against military recruitment on campus. Carol Lang, the Theater Department's secretary, still faces disciplinary charges at a Step II hearing at 10 AM on Thursday, June 2, at the University's Central Office, 535 E. 80th St. (at York Avenue). A strong show of support for Carol is important to remind CCNY that the charges against her are unfounded and that she is entitled to receive back pay for days she was wrongfully forced to miss work. Lang should not lose pay or be punished for charges that, according to the DA, have no merit. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the full Biofuel list archives (46,000 messages): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Search the Biofuels-biz list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuels-biz/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] New York : DA Drops The Charges Against Carol Lang
Mike, I understand your position but I must still disagree with the method being employed to reach the goal. Todd, I must agressively disagree with your perception. As someone who has been there gone through the enlistment process and served for 21 years. I know what goes on inside. I agree that a military recruiter will paint as rosey a picture of service as possible, but no one has to volunteer. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to enlist/accept a commision. It is interesting the much of the activism against the Military is located at Institutions of Higher Learning were discourse and discussion is supposted to be applauded, but the military which defends those rights are not allowed to have free expression. I am sure that every job/position/employment you accepted was void of manipulation. The only difference would be that you could simply leave. To enter military service and then say, I dont want to go there! or I don't want to do that! is simply childish selfcenterdness (sp). Protest the Government, Protest its policies, Work through your elected officials, but protesting a member wearing a Military uniform is dishonorable and violates that individuals right to free speech. Larry On 6/3/05, Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Larry, Military recruitment/recruiters are as much a part of the problem as are the policy makers. All one has to do is look at the deceptive, predatory and intimidating practices of recruitment to gain insight as to the manipulative mentality that must be well guarded against in all ranks/levels of a theoretically free society. Until recruitment practices across the board are void of manipulation, they are as much fair game for protest as is anyone or any segment of any institution that also manipulates, preys upon and deceives a nation's citizenry. Let those who wish to serve enter into service under no illusions, not under fog of promise or incomplete and/or inaccurate premise(s). Todd Swearingen Mike, I agree that anyone should be allowed to PEACEFULLY protest, but I find it disturbing that individuals would protest military recruiters on college campuses(sp). I am retired military and feel a strong bond with our military. Feel free to protest the administrations positions/policies, but protesting military recruitment is dishonoring those who place their lives on the line in defence of the freedoms we enjoy each day. Military personnel are following the orders of elected civilian officials. Military personnel do not have the latitude to dissent (unless those orders are unlawful). If students, teacher, or other professionals want to protest the government, then protest against the government, not the Military which is following the orders of the Government which was elected by those students, teachers, and/or professionals. Larry On 6/2/05, Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Every once in a while, there is some good news about those who struggle against the current administration and their policies. Since we touch on the crisis in this forum, I thought some of you might be a little encouraged by this small victory. Mike _ DISTRICT ATTORNEY DROPS CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY FOUR CITY COLLEGE STAFF MEMBER TO DEFEND HERSELF IN STEP II HEARING At a peaceful protest against military recruitment on the City College of New York (CCNY) campus on March 9, 2005, campus security arrested three students and a staff member, and beat two of the students, and the college President, Gregory Williams, suspended the protesters without any investigation or hearing. Williams broadcast a statement claiming that all were guilty and that the College wouldn't tolerate violence. But after a month's suspension, all four returned to the College when the charges were dropped. On May 19, the District Attorney (DA) moved to dismiss the charges within 6 month's time through an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD). Clearly, there was no evidence to try the four. The massive outpouring of support for the City Four and the outrage at City College's attempt to stifle dissent has helped return the four to their rightful place in the College community, where they will continue to organize against military recruitment on campus. Carol Lang, the Theater Department's secretary, still faces disciplinary charges at a Step II hearing at 10 AM on Thursday, June 2, at the University's Central Office, 535 E. 80th St. (at York Avenue). A strong show of support for Carol is important to remind CCNY that the charges against her are unfounded and that she is entitled to receive back pay for days she was wrongfully forced to miss work. Lang should not lose pay or be punished for charges that, according to the DA, have no merit. ___ Biofuel mailing list
Re: [Biofuel] New York : DA Drops The Charges Against Carol Lang
Tim, Greg, Todd, et al. I remember the day I enlisted and the process, guess it just pays to ask questions. I knew about the reserve requirement if I did not complete 6 years on active duty. (I enlisted for 4 years active, two reserve). I also knew what the guys who enlisted for three years would have to serve. Predatory, Come on, the recruiter comes and tries to sale the military. He paints a rosey picture. If you ask do some research (kick the tires, look under the hood) you can get a pretty good picture of what life will be like and it is not that bad of a life. (of course you may have to fight in a war, but Duh! that is what a military is for) Intimidating, Of Course, any new experience is going to be intimidating. Larry On 6/3/05, Tim Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Greg, I know you addressed this to Todd but I thought I would give you a first hand account. As mentioned before I was in the military. Deceptive - On the day I was out processed I discovered that all those young men and women who had served less than three years, would have to serve a minimum one year in the national guard or reserves. None of them were informed of this when they signed up on the two year enlistment program nor were they told during their 2 years of active duty. Then we were all informed that if you did not serve a minimum of six years that we would all be placed on inactive ready reserve and could be called back at any time by the military should our service be required. Again there was never any mention of this in recruitment or while on active duty. Because I did serve six years, it didn't affect me but it all came as a great surprise just the same. Quite Deceptive. Predatory - I was recruited from High School. The military is composed mostly of 18 - 24 year old men and women. And knowing that many young 18 year old boys and girls lack life experiences to make the most informed decisions (especially when deceptive means are employed) then I would consider that predatory. Intimidating - Well, I don't see that I was intimidating except for the mountain of legalese and paperwork that was involved in my signing the dotted line. Maybe Todd can elaborate more eloquently but this was my experience. Best wishes, Tim Todd, could you elaborate on deceptive, predatory and intimidating ? Greg H. - Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 09:31 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] New York : DA Drops The Charges Against Carol Lang Larry, Military recruitment/recruiters are as much a part of the problem as are the policy makers. All one has to do is look at the deceptive, predatory and intimidating practices of recruitment to gain insight as to the manipulative mentality that must be well guarded against in all ranks/levels of a theoretically free society. Until recruitment practices across the board are void of manipulation, they are as much fair game for protest as is anyone or any segment of any institution that also manipulates, preys upon and deceives a nation's citizenry. Let those who wish to serve enter into service under no illusions, not under fog of promise or incomplete and/or inaccurate premise(s). Todd Swearingen ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] New York : DA Drops The Charges Against Carol Lang
Keith, I knew, from previous veiwing on this list, that I would definetly be in the minority. However, discussion and sharing opinions is the best part of living in any democracy. How else would we ever get new ideas, solutions. I guess it is just the Red State in me, but I am proud of the US and its existing positions within the world community. I have experienced life in other countries and found some to be very enjoyable, others however were very repressive. I do enjoy the discussion an look forward to more and others. Larry On 6/3/05, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, well... I'm aware this will probably chuck the cat in with the pigeons but I'm undeterred. It's not directed at anyone in particular. This discussion could only happen in America, while the rest of us (that is, most of us) look on bemused. An American list member who demands respect for his views on the basis of his military service will not get that respect from the majority of list members, and he ought to be aware of that. From some he might get the very opposite of respect. For me, it's simply not significant. It doesn't even mean he necessarily knows better, on the contrary, it could as easily mean he's incapable of seeing it straight. Where else in the world is military service placed on such a pedestal of pride? Where else is the military held in such high esteem? I don't wish to be insulting, but the only possibilities that come to mind are perhaps China, or North Korea, and maybe South Korea to an extent, because of North Korea - but at least they have a real enemy (and the last thing they want is to fight it out). Food for thought, no? One then has to ask, where else in the world does the military get such a grotesquely huge slice of the budget? (China? North Korea?) Especially of such a huge budget. And why? The Cold War ended 15 years ago. Grotesque? ... U.S. military spending, in billions of dollars per day: 1.08 Ratio of U.S. military spending to the combined military budgets of Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria: 26 to 1 Percentage of U.S. share of total global military spending in 1985: 31 Percentage of U.S. share of total global military spending in 2000: 36 Yes, grotesque. Is this something to be admired? Look at these figures: Debt relief for the 20 worst affected countries would cost between US $5.5 billion to $7.7 billion, less than the cost of ONE stealth bomber. Basic education for all would cost $6 billion a year; - $8 billion is spent annually for cosmetics in the United States alone. Installation of water and sanitation for all would cost $9 billion plus some annual costs; - $11 billion is spent annually on ice cream in Europe. Reproductive health services for all women would cost $12 billion a year; - $12 billion a year is spent on perfumes in Europe and the United States. Basic health care and nutrition would cost $13 billion; - $17 billion a year is spent on pet food in Europe and the United States. $35 billion is spent on business entertainment in Japan; $50 billion on cigarettes in Europe; $105 billion on alcoholic drinks in Europe; $400 billion on narcotic drugs around the world; and $780 billion on the world's militaries. -- From: Globalization Facts and Figures http://learningpartnership.org/facts/global.phtml It's not something to be admired. Yet Americans are so proud of it. A majority of Americans thinks the US spends 24% of its budget on foreign aid instead of the actual figure, less than 1% - and most of that is tied to direct US benefit. And then there's this: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article.htm $1 trillion missing : Military waste under fire 05/18/05 San Francisco Chronicle (Among other things, they LOST 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units.) Grotesque and bizarre. I'm not bashing the US, I'm not even trying to stop the discussion - please, go ahead, thrash it out, no problem. But please be aware of how peculiarly American it is. Pondering that a bit might add some perspective which might otherwise be lacking. A couple of other things to ponder. Vietnam vets, or some of them anyway, seem to have a rather different view of military service. I'm reminded of a previous discussion here involving Vietnam vets when one of them boasted about the Purple Heart he'd won. Have a look in the archives if you like. Why are benefits for soldiers' families being cut, and those for disabled soldiers too, IIRC, even as their numbers are soaring? Does the government they serve accord them the same respect their fellow Americans do? Are they perhaps just dispensable cannon-fodder, to be cashed in for a few votes or for the sake of a suspect ideology or perhaps for Haliburton's bottom line? Is all this respect perhaps making such things a lot easier than they should be? Is it misplaced? Is the military
Re: [Biofuel] A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy
Jason, I have to disagree with assumptions with respect to N. Korea. While North Korea and South Korea were talking about steps which could lead to re-unification and during the Clinton Presidency, North Korea was still developing the technology and infrastructure to build nuclear weapons. North Korea's leadership is determined to have a nuclear weapon regardless of the concerns of the world community. Larry On 6/2/05, Richard Littrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Jason, On the face of it your suggestion seems like it should work but in practice it has not. The reason N Korea is starving it's people and almost killing itself to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the Bush administration had developed a policy along the lines you suggest. Because they think we might strike first they (and apparently Iran as well) have concluded that they better get a bomb to deter us. It is not past policy but present policy that has brought about the situation with N. Korea. Prior to the axis of evil speech these countries were moderating. North and South Korea were talking about steps that could lead to reunification. Hardliners the world over were on the defensive. Now, with the US looking like a lose cannon, countries that saw nuclear weapons as unacceptably costly are reconsidering. It is not easy to have a nuclear weapons program even with outside help. It requires huge resources and only a country that is very rich or very frightened will undertake such a program. By being unpredictable we engender that fear. North Korea dos not expect to be able to defeat the US in a nuclear war but they know they don't have to. The destruction of an American city by a nuclear bomb would be unacceptable to this country. A first strike by a US administration that brought about such a result would bury that political party even if we won in the end. To borrow your analogy how long do you think your neighbors would put up with you if, in addition to having a gun in your house, you took to shooting at passers by because they looked suspicious or belonged to groups you were enemies with? You get to keep a gun in your house only as long as your neighbors feel sure you would only use it on someone who actually broke into your house first. A good offense is the best defense but what you suggest is not a good offence. A good offence would be to do everything possible to forge alliances to stop nuclear arms proliferation. Scaring other countries and isolating ourselves while being unreliable in our treaty obligations does not do this. As one who works in the mental health field I am well aware of the seductiveness of crazy behavior. In the short run it gives a person a lot of power because people around you are frightened and don't know what to do about you but in the long run they figure out how to isolate you and take back their power. Then the road to regaining the trust and respect of those around you is long and painful and usually not worth the initial transient benefits of the power play, which is partly what makes it crazy behavior. The same is true for countries, even very powerful ones. Rick Littrell Jason Schick wrote: Dear Keith, This is not disturbing to me at all. What it does is warn our enemies, and we do have legitimate enemies, that we will not necessarily wait to be struck first. For example, the posturing that N. Korea has been allowed to get away with is a product of our past policies. I don't think anyone can argue that N. Korea is anything but a despicable and corrupt regime that is nothing short of criminal. Under our past policies, N. Korea could be pretty much assured that we would not act unless they actually struck us first. They have felt free to defy not only the US but the entire free world all while starving there own people. Why should we give a dictator like that the advance knowledge that we aren't going to do anything? It's kind of like the gun that I have in my home. My neighbor may not be armed but the burglar is going to have to assume that we both are because he doesn't know. I think the best defense has always been a good offense and that is how I view this policy change. I enjoy the list. Thanks a lot. Jason Schick ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the full Biofuel list archives (46,000 messages): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Search the Biofuels-biz list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuels-biz/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
[Biofuel] Bio Diesel Pump
Before I ask my question, I did search the archives but did not find any information regarding my specific question. I am building a BD processor - based on the appelseed design - and I intend to use a Northern Industiral Clear water Pump - 760GPH, 1 1/2in ports. I would like to neck the ports down to 3/4 in, but not being a plumber or fluid mechanic, I wanted to know if this would case and pressure problem. I will be processing 40gallons (US). The static head will be approx 5ft. Any help would be appreciated. tks, Larry ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Bio Diesel Pump
Jules Thank you for the info. I will have two elbows after the discharge (both at the five foot height). I will also be modifying the discharge from the reactor to accomodate a 1 1/2 feed to the pump. Appreciate the help. Larry On 5/11/05, Jules Veres [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi!You should not reduce the suction side ,only the discharge,ohtervise the pump will cavitate.The 5 ' rise should be ok but try to limit you're elbowes specially right after the discharge! - Original Message - From: Larry Foranmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 2:53 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Bio Diesel Pump Before I ask my question, I did search the archives but did not find any information regarding my specific question. I am building a BD processor - based on the appelseed design - and I intend to use a Northern Industiral Clear water Pump - 760GPH, 1 1/2in ports. I would like to neck the ports down to 3/4 in, but not being a plumber or fluid mechanic, I wanted to know if this would case and pressure problem. I will be processing 40gallons (US). The static head will be approx 5ft. Any help would be appreciated. tks, Larry ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuelhttp://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlhttp://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] cell phones and safety
Kim, I continue to be amazed by the disregard for others demonstrated by most drivers. I commute 30 miles to and from work each day. I see people reading books, talking on phones, and/or putting on makeup while driving. Our society seems to think that multi-taksing extends into their driving time. Talking on the phone take more attention than having a conversation with another passenger, but people still do not seem to care. I can see that laws similar to drunk driving laws will need to be enacted before people understand the gravity of their actions. Larry On 5/6/05, Kim Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greetings Friends, I find myself in need of doing a little preaching today. Sorry, but for me, this is the best way I can deal with the horror of last night. Last night a young women of 21 or so was driving down the highway talking on her cell phone and definitely driving with no care and attention to what she was doing. I guess she thought that by staying mostly on the shoulder, it was safe to drive and talk. Then she dropped her cell phone and reached for it. A man, barely 10 years her senior who was riding his bicycle, died because of her actions. Her life will never be the same, either. As for me, I can not work to erase the memory of what I saw until he has had his day in court. Please, turn your cell phones off while driving. It was not just that she dropped that cell phone. She did not see the cyclist, because she was distracted by her conversation. He was plainly visible long before he was hit, I know, I watched the accident about to happen and it did. Bright Blessings, Kim ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] BioDiesel in San Antonio Texas
I am new to the quest for alternative fuels and would like to know if there are any groups/individuals already producing Homebrewed Biodiesel in San Antonio, Texas. Thanks for the help. Larry ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
