While it does seem a stretch to offer an entire degree in something like "Naturopathy", some of this stuff really needs to be taught. Alternative medicine isn't really that popular as an alternative to effective, standard treatments, but rather for people with rare or untreatable diseases, after they have been told "Well, sorry, but there is no patented, FDA-approved treatment for your illness, and it's so rare no drug company is willing to invest the millions of dollars in finding one, so please go home and die." This happens more frequently than people realize.
The issue is separating the wheat from the chaff. There are those that study alternatives that show benefits, but will never get millions of dollars for a study to prove it since the compounds can't be patented, and then there are snake oil salesmen that sell... well, snake oil because they know they have a desperate audience looking for any hope and prayer to avoid their prognosis.
Wow don't question Obama around here, I guess. Magna cum laude puts him at the top 20% of his class. We'll assume it's true, even if Harvard never confirmed his ranking.
Looks like the neuro linguistic programming is pretty effective on/. moderators.
Like I said - almost nothing. Harvard has not confirmed the "magna cum laude" rank (which puts him only in the top 20%), only that he graduated. The source from the wikipedia quote you posted is... a reporter for The Guardian. But, we'll assume it's correct - so that tells us a little more, but everything else about his academic record is sealed. Obama tells us a something else about his Harvard career, when he describes his position as editor to the Law Review as being granted on the basis of affirmative action programs. Then, of course, he won President in the popularity race for that position by promising conservatives to look after their interests. Which probably worked out, considering he didn't write anything for the Law Review while President.
You missed the "when men are prepared for it" part. Obviously the men in Somalia were not. In fact, the situation in Somalia is not one of a government selected by the people, but a bunch of ruthless thugs fighting for power, and all groups so incompetent and despised that no one could gain enough power to actually run a functioning government.
listening to Obama speak and looking at what he did at Harvard
Obama has speechwriters, and, what, exactly, did he do at Harvard? We know he was named president of the Harvard Law Review (why and by who and what qualified him for that we don't know), and that he graduated from there. Other than that, nothing. He could have been right at the bottom of his class, and taking the easiest classes possible, for all we know.
And nowhere does Bernanke critique or hedge on the CPI.
Well sure he does - he disavows any responsibility for them, and never tries to defend them. He knows what Paul is say is right - that the CPI is false - it's smoke and mirrors. He won't say that, either, but he certainly knows better to defend them as accurate in that hearing.
Besides, you're making the same mistake that Paul points out that many other people do about inflation: It's not really about prices, that's just a side-effect. It's better defined as a measure of the money supply and the purchasing power of currency.
And if you want to bother with fringy sources like "shadowstats.com" or "truthistreason.net" go for it, but there's no way I'm wasting my time critiquing conspiratorial crap.
Shadow stats is far from "fringy", but why you feel the need to throw out ad hominems is beyond me, when all the information I posted has multiple sources for confirmation. Are you claiming that it's NOT true about the Libyan rebels oil company and central bank? It's general knowledge and there are many other sources. Sorry if that fact blows away the approved narrative that you were buying into before.
As for the inflation, the commodities graph of inflation that I posted is the same time period that the Federal Reserve distributed $16 trillion in fiat money around the world, so that's the correlation.
Yes, oil is up because we (or our proxies in the Middle East) are going to war with Iran. At least you acknowledge that it's a done deal and there is no amount of protest or outrage that will stop the elites from making sure that war happens. But that's not only an intentional move, but mostly a short-term blip with less influence than the long-term trend caused by MASSIVE INFLATION that will eventually become hyperinflation once the other major economies (Europe, China, etc.) have divested themselves of US reserve currency and start trading commodities instead, just like has already started happening.
The extra CO2 is demonstrably from humans, because the Carbon-13 ratio is changing along with the CO2 level. Plants have a 2% lower C-13 ratio than inorganic sources. The only source of enough plant-derived CO2 to explain the ratio shift is fossil fuels plus deforestation, i.e humans.
Go back and read the ONE peer-reviewed study on this. You're misinterpreting the results. Human deforestation and fossil fuel are only SOME of the sources, and all any of it does is confirm that, yes, humans are contributing to increasing CO2 concentration. It's not the smoking gun you religious types try to make it out to be, any more than the duckbill platypus is the smoking gun that the "intelligent design" idiots try to make it out to be.
Wow so you're claiming it's false? Really? You're not actually saying he didn't say it and the interview doesn't exist, are you? Surely you can't be that stupid.
And your own technique is a very common one, where you dismiss arguments by claiming it's all "conspiracy theory" and claiming any sources are not credible through ad hominems and guilt by association ("exclusively on crackpot websites").
Well, why would anyone but those you can label as "crackpots" point out that statement by Ted Turner anyway. And of course any other propagation of ideas for depopulating the planet - seen so far by most as very extremist - is going to be downplayed by those promoting the idea to avoid being discredited themselves for promoting extremist ideas. None of that supports your outrageous claim of "fraud, plain and simple." To the contrary, your own dismissal of my assertion and defense of the very groups and powerful, wealthy people advocating depopulation makes your own agenda questionable to an objective observer.
I've actually downloaded the 2009 UNFPA report and guess what, your alleged quote doesn't appear in it.
Not sure what you are talking about, specifically. You can find the UN Population Division Policy Brief right here, and the quote is actually the very first header on the first page. If you're referring to the quotes from the "Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate" report, the first quote starts on the bottom of page 21, and the second on page 25. It's all right there.
As for Ted Turner's quote, it (along with the entire context and his views) was first published in an interview given in 1996 to the magazine of the American conservation organisation The Audubon Society, hardly a publication many would consider "crackpot". I'm sure you can find the whole thing if you actually want to.
I'd really like a citation for that little statistic in there...
Since you asked, most Americans don't grasp it yet, but the truth is that the global elite are absolutely obsessed with population control. In fact, there is a growing consensus among the global elite that they need to get rid of 80 to 90 percent of us. The number one commandment of the infamous Georgia Guidestones is this: "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature." Unfortunately, a very high percentage of our global leaders actually believe in this stuff.
This philosophy is now regularly being reflected in official UN documents. For example, the March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief begins with the following statement:
What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?
This agenda showed up again when the United Nations Population Fund released its annual State of the World Population Report for 2009 entitled "Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate".
1) "Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendants. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time."
2) "No human is genuinely "carbon neutral," especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way."
3) "Strong family planning programmes are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns."
The population control agenda is also regularly showing up in our newspapers now. In a recent editorial for the New York Times entitled "The Earth Is Full", Thomas L. Friedman made the following statement:
You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we’ll look back at the first decade of the 21st century — when food prices spiked, energy prices soared, world population surged, tornados plowed through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were displaced and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all — and ask ourselves: What were we thinking? How did we not panic when the evidence was so obvious that we’d crossed some growth/climate/natural resource/population redlines all at once?
But Friedman is quite moderate compared to many others. For example, James Lovelock stated in an interview with the Guardian earlier this year that "democracy must be put on hold" if the fight against global warming is going to be successful and that only "a few people with authority" should be permitted to rule the planet until the crisis is solved.
The Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola is openly calling for climate change deniers to be "re-educated", for a world government to be established and for humans to be forcibly sterilized and for the majority of humans to be killed.
This agenda is even being taught by professors at many top universities. Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka is a very prominent advocate of radical human population control. In an article entitled "What nobody wants to hear, but everyone needs to know", Pianka said:
*First, and foremost, we must get out of denial and recognize that Earth simply cannot support many billions of people.
*This planet might be able to support perhaps as many as half a billion people who could live a sustainable life in relative comfort. Human populations must be greatly diminished, and as quickly as possible to limit further environmental damage.
*I do not bear any ill will toward humanity. However, I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.
The 'climategate' scientist has been cleared of wrongdoing by a number of investigations."
In other news, mortgage banks have been cleared of wrongdoing by a number of investigations... by the MBAA, the NAMB, investigators at the Federal Reserve and the IMF, and many other independent organizations.
And if you think that eugenics (the science) has in any way been proven false, then you are completely mistaken.
But it's an excellent lesson in why we need to separate scientific findings from policy debates, which necessarily need to include much more considerations and a great many more factors must be weighed as trade-offs.
Just as eugenics was used to justify mass sterilizations, ultimately climate change is being used to justify eliminating about 80% of the global human population.
Oh I remember the angst from my teenage years quite well. But the fact of the matter is, kids that grow up in supportive households tend to develop mostly healthy relationships with their peers, rather than shallow friendships.
Here in the United States I think we need to do something about obesity first...
The UK (where this study was conducted. Using government funding. That was so scarce they had to cut education funding for students) has an obesity problem too. In fact, it's the "fatest" country in Europe.
Sounds to me like she'll be fine. If she's getting the kind of validation from you that you say she is, she won't look for it elsewhere. If you're really that worried about it, though, why not just get rid of the TV?
Universal healthcare is not just the mark of a civilized society
Which is why it can't work in the US: you can't really claim they are a civilized people. Compare, for example, the behavior of the New Orleans residents to Katrina with that of the (civilized) Japanese when the latest tsunami hit.
and that the larger the peers’ body-mass, the lower the chance the individual will be anorexic.
What a revelation! Fat people hang out with other fat people? Who could have known that? Why, it's as if bird of a feather flock together!
Maybe if they would put these high-paid researchers (doing useless research) into the classrooms teaching, they wouldn't have needed to institute those austerity measures that were so severe that students were in the streets rioting about it.
As a matter of fact, I did get one, once I found the right link at Newark.com. $55 for the Model B, not bad.
Too bad they don't have the "buy one / give one" available yet, because that's what I was planning to do. But, you know, keep complaining about "loud mouth yanks" all you want, and we'll keep being 2 to 5 times as generous as people in the UK, anyway.
This is bullshit. You'll never get one of these, or if you do, you'll go through hours of trying and end up spending $150 or so for each "$25" computer. What a scam.
Wouldn't this be a game-changer for encryption, though (if they can actually make it work, that is)? I mean, brute-force decryption seems like exactly the kind of computational task that a quantum computer could easily handle. So a brute-force attack on a key that may take hundreds of years on a current supercomputer could be done in a few minutes. No password would be safe from any organization with access to that kind of computing power. Or am I understanding the potential?
Slashdot Mirror
While it does seem a stretch to offer an entire degree in something like "Naturopathy", some of this stuff really needs to be taught. Alternative medicine isn't really that popular as an alternative to effective, standard treatments, but rather for people with rare or untreatable diseases, after they have been told "Well, sorry, but there is no patented, FDA-approved treatment for your illness, and it's so rare no drug company is willing to invest the millions of dollars in finding one, so please go home and die." This happens more frequently than people realize.
The issue is separating the wheat from the chaff. There are those that study alternatives that show benefits, but will never get millions of dollars for a study to prove it since the compounds can't be patented, and then there are snake oil salesmen that sell ... well, snake oil because they know they have a desperate audience looking for any hope and prayer to avoid their prognosis.
Wow don't question Obama around here, I guess. Magna cum laude puts him at the top 20% of his class. We'll assume it's true, even if Harvard never confirmed his ranking.
Looks like the neuro linguistic programming is pretty effective on /. moderators.
Like I said - almost nothing. Harvard has not confirmed the "magna cum laude" rank (which puts him only in the top 20%), only that he graduated. The source from the wikipedia quote you posted is ... a reporter for The Guardian. But, we'll assume it's correct - so that tells us a little more, but everything else about his academic record is sealed. Obama tells us a something else about his Harvard career, when he describes his position as editor to the Law Review as being granted on the basis of affirmative action programs. Then, of course, he won President in the popularity race for that position by promising conservatives to look after their interests. Which probably worked out, considering he didn't write anything for the Law Review while President.
Thoreau had not seen modern-day Somalia.
You missed the "when men are prepared for it" part. Obviously the men in Somalia were not. In fact, the situation in Somalia is not one of a government selected by the people, but a bunch of ruthless thugs fighting for power, and all groups so incompetent and despised that no one could gain enough power to actually run a functioning government.
And yet Dubya was still elected....
Which only validates his point, since the voters were given the choice between Dubya and Kerry, they chose the least incompetent.
listening to Obama speak and looking at what he did at Harvard
Obama has speechwriters, and, what, exactly, did he do at Harvard? We know he was named president of the Harvard Law Review (why and by who and what qualified him for that we don't know), and that he graduated from there. Other than that, nothing. He could have been right at the bottom of his class, and taking the easiest classes possible, for all we know.
And nowhere does Bernanke critique or hedge on the CPI.
Well sure he does - he disavows any responsibility for them, and never tries to defend them. He knows what Paul is say is right - that the CPI is false - it's smoke and mirrors. He won't say that, either, but he certainly knows better to defend them as accurate in that hearing.
Besides, you're making the same mistake that Paul points out that many other people do about inflation: It's not really about prices, that's just a side-effect. It's better defined as a measure of the money supply and the purchasing power of currency.
And if you want to bother with fringy sources like "shadowstats.com" or "truthistreason.net" go for it, but there's no way I'm wasting my time critiquing conspiratorial crap.
Shadow stats is far from "fringy", but why you feel the need to throw out ad hominems is beyond me, when all the information I posted has multiple sources for confirmation. Are you claiming that it's NOT true about the Libyan rebels oil company and central bank? It's general knowledge and there are many other sources. Sorry if that fact blows away the approved narrative that you were buying into before.
As for the inflation, the commodities graph of inflation that I posted is the same time period that the Federal Reserve distributed $16 trillion in fiat money around the world, so that's the correlation.
Yes, oil is up because we (or our proxies in the Middle East) are going to war with Iran. At least you acknowledge that it's a done deal and there is no amount of protest or outrage that will stop the elites from making sure that war happens. But that's not only an intentional move, but mostly a short-term blip with less influence than the long-term trend caused by MASSIVE INFLATION that will eventually become hyperinflation once the other major economies (Europe, China, etc.) have divested themselves of US reserve currency and start trading commodities instead, just like has already started happening.
If you really believe that the inflation numbers quoted by the Federal Government are accurate, you are truly naive. Not even Ben Bernanke himself believes it, although he doesn't come out and say so, he certainly won't defend those numbers.
The extra CO2 is demonstrably from humans, because the Carbon-13 ratio is changing along with the CO2 level. Plants have a 2% lower C-13 ratio than inorganic sources. The only source of enough plant-derived CO2 to explain the ratio shift is fossil fuels plus deforestation, i.e humans.
Go back and read the ONE peer-reviewed study on this. You're misinterpreting the results. Human deforestation and fossil fuel are only SOME of the sources, and all any of it does is confirm that, yes, humans are contributing to increasing CO2 concentration. It's not the smoking gun you religious types try to make it out to be, any more than the duckbill platypus is the smoking gun that the "intelligent design" idiots try to make it out to be.
The reference is all over the net. The Audubon Magazine website itself doesn't seem to know about it: http://www.audubonmagazine.org/search/node/ted%20turner [audubonmagazine.org]
Wow so you're claiming it's false? Really? You're not actually saying he didn't say it and the interview doesn't exist, are you? Surely you can't be that stupid.
And I stand in awe at the lack of a sense of humor from AGWists when someone makes fun of your religion.
And your own technique is a very common one, where you dismiss arguments by claiming it's all "conspiracy theory" and claiming any sources are not credible through ad hominems and guilt by association ("exclusively on crackpot websites").
Well, why would anyone but those you can label as "crackpots" point out that statement by Ted Turner anyway. And of course any other propagation of ideas for depopulating the planet - seen so far by most as very extremist - is going to be downplayed by those promoting the idea to avoid being discredited themselves for promoting extremist ideas. None of that supports your outrageous claim of "fraud, plain and simple." To the contrary, your own dismissal of my assertion and defense of the very groups and powerful, wealthy people advocating depopulation makes your own agenda questionable to an objective observer.
I've actually downloaded the 2009 UNFPA report and guess what, your alleged quote doesn't appear in it.
Not sure what you are talking about, specifically. You can find the UN Population Division Policy Brief right here, and the quote is actually the very first header on the first page. If you're referring to the quotes from the "Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate" report, the first quote starts on the bottom of page 21, and the second on page 25. It's all right there.
As for Ted Turner's quote, it (along with the entire context and his views) was first published in an interview given in 1996 to the magazine of the American conservation organisation The Audubon Society, hardly a publication many would consider "crackpot". I'm sure you can find the whole thing if you actually want to.
I'd really like a citation for that little statistic in there...
Since you asked, most Americans don't grasp it yet, but the truth is that the global elite are absolutely obsessed with population control. In fact, there is a growing consensus among the global elite that they need to get rid of 80 to 90 percent of us. The number one commandment of the infamous Georgia Guidestones is this: "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature." Unfortunately, a very high percentage of our global leaders actually believe in this stuff.
This philosophy is now regularly being reflected in official UN documents. For example, the March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief begins with the following statement:
This agenda showed up again when the United Nations Population Fund released its annual State of the World Population Report for 2009 entitled "Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate".
The population control agenda is also regularly showing up in our newspapers now. In a recent editorial for the New York Times entitled "The Earth Is Full", Thomas L. Friedman made the following statement:
But Friedman is quite moderate compared to many others. For example, James Lovelock stated in an interview with the Guardian earlier this year that "democracy must be put on hold" if the fight against global warming is going to be successful and that only "a few people with authority" should be permitted to rule the planet until the crisis is solved.
The Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola is openly calling for climate change deniers to be "re-educated", for a world government to be established and for humans to be forcibly sterilized and for the majority of humans to be killed.
This agenda is even being taught by professors at many top universities. Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka is a very prominent advocate of radical human population control. In an article entitled "What nobody wants to hear, but everyone needs to know", Pianka said:
CNN Founder Ted Turner
The 'climategate' scientist has been cleared of wrongdoing by a number of investigations."
In other news, mortgage banks have been cleared of wrongdoing by a number of investigations ... by the MBAA, the NAMB, investigators at the Federal Reserve and the IMF, and many other independent organizations.
I don't get why this hasn't been buried as a troll yet.
And if you think that eugenics (the science) has in any way been proven false, then you are completely mistaken.
But it's an excellent lesson in why we need to separate scientific findings from policy debates, which necessarily need to include much more considerations and a great many more factors must be weighed as trade-offs.
Just as eugenics was used to justify mass sterilizations, ultimately climate change is being used to justify eliminating about 80% of the global human population.
Oh I remember the angst from my teenage years quite well. But the fact of the matter is, kids that grow up in supportive households tend to develop mostly healthy relationships with their peers, rather than shallow friendships.
Here in the United States I think we need to do something about obesity first...
The UK (where this study was conducted. Using government funding. That was so scarce they had to cut education funding for students) has an obesity problem too. In fact, it's the "fatest" country in Europe.
Sounds to me like she'll be fine. If she's getting the kind of validation from you that you say she is, she won't look for it elsewhere. If you're really that worried about it, though, why not just get rid of the TV?
Universal healthcare is not just the mark of a civilized society
Which is why it can't work in the US: you can't really claim they are a civilized people. Compare, for example, the behavior of the New Orleans residents to Katrina with that of the (civilized) Japanese when the latest tsunami hit.
FTFA:
What a revelation! Fat people hang out with other fat people? Who could have known that? Why, it's as if bird of a feather flock together!
Maybe if they would put these high-paid researchers (doing useless research) into the classrooms teaching, they wouldn't have needed to institute those austerity measures that were so severe that students were in the streets rioting about it.
As a matter of fact, I did get one, once I found the right link at Newark.com. $55 for the Model B, not bad.
Too bad they don't have the "buy one / give one" available yet, because that's what I was planning to do. But, you know, keep complaining about "loud mouth yanks" all you want, and we'll keep being 2 to 5 times as generous as people in the UK, anyway.
This is bullshit. You'll never get one of these, or if you do, you'll go through hours of trying and end up spending $150 or so for each "$25" computer. What a scam.
So were the leaked emails about the Wikileaks founder that posted leaked emails posted on email leak site Wikileaks?
Wouldn't this be a game-changer for encryption, though (if they can actually make it work, that is)? I mean, brute-force decryption seems like exactly the kind of computational task that a quantum computer could easily handle. So a brute-force attack on a key that may take hundreds of years on a current supercomputer could be done in a few minutes. No password would be safe from any organization with access to that kind of computing power. Or am I understanding the potential?