Eco- Imperialism - Green Power. Black Death.

In the introduction to the book Eco-Imperialism: Green power, Black death by Paul Driessen, we read of the "ideological environmental movement."

This, we are told, imposes the views of mostly wealthy, comfortable Americans and Europeans on mostly poor, desperate Africans, Asians and Latin Americans. It violates these people's most basic human rights, denying them economic opportunities, the chance for better lives, the right to rid their countries of diseases that were vanquished long ago in Europe and the United States.

Worst of all, in league with the European Union, United Nations and other bureaucracies, the movement stifles vigorous, responsible debate over energy, pesticides and biotechnology. It prevents needy nations from using the very technologies that developed countries employed to become rich, comfortable and free of disease. And it sends millions of infants, children, men and women to early graves every year.

This ideological environmental movement, we are thus informed, is a powerful $4 billion-a-year US industry, an $8 billion-a-year international gorilla. And WWF is one of the major players. Like the profit-making international corporations it so freely criticises – into which it has crawled into bed, taking their money – the WWF itself is a massive international corporation,. Its declared income for 2008 was €447 million, including €107.7 million for its international arm.

A human-centric approach



In contrast to the wildlife-centric approach of the WWF, and the environmental activism of Greenpeace, the World Rainforest Movement (WRM) and organisations such as Survival International, take a human-centric approach.

Securing the land rights of indigenous people, and rigorously enforcing them, they argue, is the best way of preventing damaging exploitation of the forests. And, as Survival International illustrates, environmental degradation and human rights abuses often go hand-in-hand.

There is nothing cuddly about the WWF

But why does the story matter so much? Because it goes to the heart of what is truly the most shocking and evil aspect of the Global Warming Industry: the way democratically unaccountable – but quite astonishingly well-funded – activist groups like the WWF (annual income: £400 MILLION) have been able to subvert the scientific process, and coax and bully politicians into making policies which will benefit the environment barely one jot, but which will fleece the taxpayer, increase energy bills, and make a handful of filthy rich investors even richer. If this scheme ever comes off – and it still might, if Americans are foolish enough to vote for Cap and Trade – then the WWF will have the financial clout of decent mid-ranking economy and a political influence as great as any G8 nation. For WWF, read New World Order.

Ten facts about climate change

1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a "stable" climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.

3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.

4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.

5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).

6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.

Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that "the IPCC review process is fatally flawed" and that "the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz".


7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).


The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism "one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism". If Kyoto was a "first step" then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali roadmap”.


8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.


9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.


10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.



LAYING TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS



Myth 1 Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.

Fact 1 Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.

Myth 2 During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.

Facts 2 The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-20 C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past.

Myth 3 AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes "hockey stick" curve and its computer extrapolation).

Facts 3 The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.

Myth 4 Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.

Facts 4 Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling.

Myth 5 Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.

Facts 5 A 20 C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.

Myth 6 Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.

Facts 6 No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 10 C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration.

Myth 7 Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.

Facts 7 The sun's output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth's climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80 C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change.

Myth 8 Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.

Facts 8 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.

Myth 9 Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.

Facts 9 SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase.

Myth 10 The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.

Facts 10 Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.

Robert M. Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience.

12 Facts about Global Climate Change that You Won't Read in the Popular Press

What will it take for the media to let go of their biases and begin doing their job, reporting the truth?

1. Temperatures have been cooling since 2002, even as carbon dioxide has continued to rise.

2. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas and by itself will produce little warming. Also, as CO2 increases, the incremental warming is less, as the effect is logarithmic so the more CO2, the less warming it produces.

3. CO2 has been totally uncorrelated with temperature over the last decade, and significantly negative since 2002.

4. CO2 is not a pollutant, but a naturally occurring gas. Together with chlorophyll and sunlight, it is an essential ingredient in photosynthesis and is, accordingly, plant food.

5. Reconstruction of paleoclimatological CO2 concentrations demonstrates that carbon dioxide concentration today is near its lowest level since the Cambrian Era some 550 million years ago, when there was almost 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today without causing a “runaway greenhouse effect.”

6. Temperature changes lead, not lag, CO2 changes on all time scales. The oceans may play a key role, emitting carbon dioxide when they warm as carbonated beverages lose fizz as they warm and absorbing it as they cool.

Rick Perry: ‘Gravity Is Only A Theory’

August 21st, 2011 · Pat Landers

PORTSMOUTH, NJ—Texas governor and GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry clarified his position on gravity at a campaign stop today, and simultaneously expressed his distrust of the scientific community. “We cannot blindly trust that gravity will remain constant,” said Perry, “when our best understanding of it is just a theory.” He called on Congress to pass a gravity independence act mandating structural reinforcements enabling existing and future landmarks to withstand possible surges in gravity up to six times its normal intensity, in addition to bedrock tethers to prevent landmarks from escaping into orbit during a total loss of gravity. Perry also pushed for a Great Lakes emergency containment system in order to, “protect the bounty and splendor of America’s principal shipping waterways from the unknowable moods of gravity.” Perry added, “It is shameful that due to partisan politics, the current administration has continued to treat gravity as a fact, gambling our shared history as Americans on what is nothing more than science’s best guess.” Hewing to his record as a fiscal conservative, Perry assured those gathered that the entire cost of gravity independence could be defrayed by further budget cuts in education.

Climate Change Act Reconsidered

A public meeting held in the UK House of Commons on the 30th of November 2011

Solid facts presented by four witnesses with impeccable credentials.

Guidelines for Mailing Lists

Consider the cost to readers of any post. If even an obviously inappropriate message is distributed, one that just takes readers a few seconds to scan and then skip, the total time used is still large. With 350 readers, a post that takes an average of 3 seconds for each reader to deal with means a total of 17.5 minutes is used (350 readers x 3 seconds / mail = 1,050 seconds / 60 =17.5 min.). This is probably the minimum time expenditure on any message that is even selected for scanning. So, on a list with 350 subscribers, if you spend 17 minutes preparing a message, there will be a balance between your time investment and that used by readers, even if they only scan your message and make no response.


Disregarding these guidelines or a lack of self discipline in following them will result in defensive attention management. That is, certain authors will not be read at all by many readers. Most mail programs allow a rule to be set which then automatically directs all mail from a given address to the trash. (This is normally not available in the List Digest Mode.) This has the unfortunate effect of fractionating the joint awareness that permits the readership to function as a group.


Do not broadcast requests for information you can obtain from a known source. Requests such as, "What are the contents of book Foo published by Bar" are not appropriate. This information can normally be obtained by typing the title or some keywords into Google or some other search engine. An alternative is to search the previous messages for a key word or phrase. This can often be done from a List's web interface.




B. When replying to a message:


1. Do not change the subject line (unless you are changing the subject). Such changes make it harder for some mail readers to follow the threads in a discussion. If you are changing the subject, consider using the "was" construction:
New Subject (was: Old Subject)


2. Include enough of the original message to provide a context. Remember that electronic mail is not as immediate as a telephone conversation and the recipient may not recall the contents of the original message, especially if he or she receives many messages each day. Including the relevant section from the original message helps the recipient to recall the context of the discussion.


3. Include only the minimum you need from the original message. Quote only the smallest amount you need to make your context clear.


4. Use some kind of visual indication to distinguish between text quoted from the original message and your new text - this makes the reply much easier to follow. ">" is a traditional marker for quoted text, but you can use anything provided its purpose is clear and you use it consistently.


5. Never post a "me too" message or one that says you "agree" or "disagree" with the original post. Use e-mail to the poster for this type of response. Posts should contain information of interest to all readers, not just the original author.


6. Do not post responses to posts you feel are inappropriate or abusive. If you feel that the author is saying something worth reading, but in an inappropriate way, respond to the poster. Tell the author what you think is incorrect about the post. If possible, suggest how to accomplish the objective in an appropriate way. If you have responded to a person a few times without the desired effect, and you feel that the group as a whole could benefit from a solution to the problem, only then should you post. The nature of your message should be a suggestion, if possible, of how such problems can be avoided in the future.


7. Do not type your message in all-uppercase - it is extremely difficult to read (although a short stretch of uppercase may serve to emphasize a point heavily). Uppercase indicates shouting in email messages.


8. Use correct grammar and spelling. Electronic mail is all about communication - poorly-worded and misspelled messages are hard to read and potentially confusing.


9. Do not reply to a previous message by manually entering the address of the List and then adding a subject line. This will not include often hidden headers that many mail reading programs use to thread a discussion. Therefore, your reply will become detached from the ongoing discussion, instead of appearing in the thread. This can result in readers incorrectly skipping your reply, because it appears to be a new topic. 




C. If you start a new topic:


1. Do not reply to a previous message to get the address of the List and then change the subject line. This will include often hidden headers that many mail reading programs use to thread a discussion. Therefore, your new topic will become attached to the middle or end of an ongoing discussion, instead of appearing as a new thread. This can result in readers incorrectly skipping your new topic, because it appears as a continuation of one they are no longer interested in following. You can copy the address of the List into the "To" field of a new message.


2. Always use your Subject line to state the topic of your message as completely as possible. Statements should always end with periods, questions with question marks (typically), and high energy, high impact declarations with exclamation points.




D. User names:


1. Each email address should have one and only one user. If a post is a joint product, indicate this at the beginning and end. Some mail reading programs allow certain names to be automatically selected. Help the reader by using the same name at all times. This will improve the chances that people will read your posts.


2. A "Personal name" is an arbitrary string that many mailers will allow you to define, which is attached to your e-mail address as a textual comment. Always provide a personal name, if your mail system allows it - a personal name attached to your address identifies you better than your address can on its own.


3. Use a sensible personal name: "Guess who" or other such phrases are annoying as personal names and hinder the recipient's quick recognition of you and your message.




E. Uniform Resource Locator (URL) formats:


When putting e-mail and web addresses inline into a sentence (or, in fact, anytime), you might wish to enclose them in angle brackets "<>", especially to avoid problems where they might absorb surrounding punctuation into becoming underlined and clickable, such as at the end of a sentence. Angle brackets are also useful for long URLs that break across lines.




F. Yahoo Terms of Service are generally applicable:


1. Do not post content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable


2. Do not impersonate any person or entity or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity


3. Do not forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to disguise the origin of any content transmitted through the Yahoo! Service


4. Do not post content that you do not have a right to make available under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships


5. Do not post unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation


6. Do not post any material that contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment


7. Do not violate any applicable local, state, national or international law


8. Do not "stalk" or otherwise harass another




G. Sources:


Click title of this article for Comp.groupware FAQ Guidelines


http://www.ucalgary.ca/it/help/articles/email/etiquette


http://www.penmachine.com/techie/emailtrouble_2003-07.html


http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173.html

Market Stalinism

The phrase ‘anti-globalization movement’ is a coinage of the US media and activists have never felt comfortable with it. Insofar as this is a movement against anything, it’s against neoliberalism, which can be defined as a kind of market fundamentalism—or, better, market Stalinism—that holds there is only one possible direction for human historical development. The map is held by an elite of economists and corporate flacks, to whom must be ceded all power once held by institutions with any shred of democratic accountability; from now on it will be wielded largely through unelected treaty organizations like the IMF, WTO or NAFTA. In Argentina, or Estonia, or Taiwan, it would be possible to say this straight out: ‘We are a movement against neoliberalism’. But in the US, language is always a problem. The corporate media here is probably the most politically monolithic on the planet: neoliberalism is all there is to see—the background reality; as a result, the word itself cannot be used. The issues involved can only be addressed using propaganda terms like ‘free trade’ or ‘the free market’.

violence may be invisible, but it remains inscribed in the very logic of our economic common sense

However tawdry their origins, the creation of new media of exchange – coinage appeared almost simultaneously in Greece, India, and China – appears to have had profound intellectual effects. Some have even gone so far as to argue that Greek philosophy was itself made possible by conceptual innovations introduced by coinage. The most remarkable pattern, though, is the emergence, in almost the exact times and places where one also sees the early spread of coinage, of what were to become modern world religions: prophetic Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism, and eventually, Islam. While the precise links are yet to be fully explored, in certain ways, these religions appear to have arisen in direct reaction to the logic of the market. To put the matter somewhat crudely: if one relegates a certain social space simply to the selfish acquisition of material things, it is almost inevitable that soon someone else will come to set aside another domain in which to preach that, from the perspective of ultimate values, material things are unimportant, and selfishness – or even the self – illusory.

States are, after all, ultimately forms of violence

There is another factor here that is even less remarked, but I think equally important. Everyone knows that faced with a broad and potentially revolutionary coalition, any governments’ first move will be to try to split in it. Making concessions to placate the moderates while selectively criminalizing the radicals — this is Art of Governance 101. The US government, though, is in possession of a global empire constantly mobilized for war, and this gives it another option that most governments do not. Those running it can, pretty much any time they like, decide to ratchet up the level of violence overseas. This has proved a remarkably effective way to defuse social movements founded around domestic concerns. It seems no coincidence that the civil rights movement was followed by major political concessions and a rapid escalation of the war in Vietnam; that the anti-nuclear movement was followed by the abandonment of nuclear power and a ramping up of the Cold War, with Star Wars programs and proxy wars in Afghanistan and Central America; that the Global Justice Movement was followed by the collapse the Washington consensus and the War on Terror. As a result early SDS had to put aside its early emphasis on participatory democracy to become a mere anti-war movement; the anti-nuclear movement morphed into a nuclear freeze movement; the horizontal structures of DAN and PGA gave way to top-down mass organizations like ANSWER and UFPJ. From the point of view of government the military solution does have its risks. The whole thing can blow up in one’s face, as it did in Vietnam (hence the obsession, at least since the first Gulf War to design a war that was effectively protest-proof.) There is also always a small risk some miscalculation will accidentally trigger a nuclear Armageddon and destroy the planet. But these are risks politicians faced with civil unrest appear to have normally been more than willing to take — if only because directly democratic movements genuinely scare them, while anti-war movements are their preferred adversary. States are, after all, ultimately forms of violence. For them, changing the argument to one about violence is taking things back to their home turf, what they really prefer to talk about. Organizations designed either to wage, or to oppose, wars will always tend to be more hierarchically organized than those designed with almost anything else in mind. This is certainly what happened in the case of the anti-nuclear movement. While the anti-war mobilizations of the ‘80s turned out far larger numbers than Clamshell or Abalone ever had, but it also marked a return to marching along with signs, permitted rallies, and abandoning experiments with new forms of direct democracy.

A globalization movement?

The phrase ‘anti-globalization movement’ is a coinage of the US media and activists have never felt comfortable with it. Insofar as this is a movement against anything, it’s against neoliberalism, which can be defined as a kind of market fundamentalism—or, better, market Stalinism—that holds there is only one possible direction for human historical development. The map is held by an elite of economists and corporate flacks, to whom must be ceded all power once held by institutions with any shred of democratic accountability; from now on it will be wielded largely through unelected treaty organizations like the IMF, WTO or NAFTA.

The empire of debt

The fact that we have cast such institutions in a language of freedom does not mean that what we now think of as economic freedom does not ultimately rest on a logic that has for most of human history been considered the very essence of slavery.

An Investment Manager's View on the Top 1%

Unlike those in the lower half of the top 1%, those in the top half and, particularly, top 0.1%, can often borrow for almost nothing, keep profits and production overseas, hold personal assets in tax havens, ride out down markets and economies, and influence legislation in the U.S. They have access to the very best in accounting firms, tax and other attorneys, numerous consultants, private wealth managers, a network of other wealthy and powerful friends, lucrative business opportunities, and many other benefits. Most of those in the bottom half of the top 1% lack power and global flexibility and are essentially well-compensated workhorses for the top 0.5%, just like the bottom 99%. In my view, the American dream of striking it rich is merely a well-marketed fantasy that keeps the bottom 99.5% hoping for better and prevents social and political instability. The odds of getting into that top 0.5% are very slim and the door is kept firmly shut by those within it.

Johan Galtung, Peace & Conflict Pioneer, on How to Stop Extremism that Fueled Shooting

So Breivik talks cultures where the Nazis talked race. But otherwise, the similarity is almost point to point.

But you see, then, when again you ask the question, "What does it remind you of?" there is a horrifying answer, which will be very difficult for Norway to process. This is exactly the ideology of the Washington-led attack on Muslim countries. There’s a civil war in Europe. It’s called "clash of civilizations,".... The road is greased by failed states and by local groups taking command those failed states, so that in these failed states, the local groups, be they Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, these groups can launch decisive attacks on the Christian Western mainland, and particularly then U.S. And 9/11 is then interpreted in that context. And point three, makes no sense to have any dialogue. These people, you cannot talk with them. Terrible as it is, the only language they understand is violence. Well, my country, Norway, is a part of that: sharpshooters in Afghanistan killing Taliban.

Individuals Tending to Savagery

MEXICO CITY -- An anti-technology group calling itself "Individuals Tending to Savagery" was responsible for a package bomb that injured two university professors just outside Mexico City, a prosecutor said Tuesday.The explosion at the Monterrey Technological Institute's campus in the State of Mexico on the outskirts of the capital Monday injured two professors, one of whom was involved in robotics research. Neither suffered life-threatening injuries.

"The ITS is a movement that, in accordance with its ideals, opposes any development of neo- or nanotechnology anywhere in the world, and they are linked to attacks in several different countries of Europe, including Spain and France," Castillo said.

Monckton shows IPCC Pachauri is dishonest

Lord Monkton shows how Pachauri was told about bad graphs and dishonest conclusions but stills continues to ignore this advice.

Really amazing, because Lord Monckton asks Phil Jones if the warming trend is accelerating and he says no. He then asks additional climate body's, and they ALL state no! Then he asks the US scientists to evaluate the SAME data, and they state YES (in other words, the flat out lie!).

Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller

Fraud by leading "scientists" of the global warming scam exposed.

Member Communications

Communications among members of human biopreservation organizations and others interested in life-extension technologies has been deficient for a large number of reasons. This page is made available as a supplementary communication channel for discussion of these issues.

I will attempt to respond to any questions or comments posted here in a timely manner. Off topic comments will be deleted.

Users should be aware that this is a publicly accessible page. Names of persons should not be used and names of organizations should be avoided, unless essential for understanding. Private communications should be transmitted by email, Skype, or instant messaging client.


Added April 18, 2011:

I have suggested the elimination of arbitrary censorship on a List. It is clear that my suggestion was not clearly understood. The first feedback I have received argues that the principle I wish to apply is that a committee should have decision authority over publication to that List. This misses both the idea of Rule of Law and the principle of Freedom of Speech.

There has been no opportunity for me to clear up these misunderstandings. Since I am not directly involved in the discussion among the Board Members, nor am I posting to the List in question.

My view is that arbitrary censorship has no role in a democratic organization. Members can email me for a copy of the censored message (Please examine my Candidate Statement on the Files page first.)


Added April 26, 2011:

The Moderator of the List in question has mischaracterized my objection as not wanting to be moderated. What I objected to was surreptitious censorship. The censorship not only deleted text, but also included replacing text without attribution. This is, perhaps, the worst form of mutilation of a text as defined under the Copyright Law. Mutilation of text is characterized as a violation of the author's Moral Rights under that Law. Moderation would have resulted in the message being returned as being inappropriate for the List in some way. These violations were concealed, since I was not informed that they had taken place.

Restricting oil production to ensure a higher price.

The Texas Railroad Commission’s mandate was to “prevent waste”, which from the beginning was a mixture of the legitimate engineering issue of efficient field management and the more controversial economic goal of restricting production in order to ensure that producers received a higher price.

Perhaps a more interesting conclusion in this article is the association between oil price shocks and economic downturns. The conclusion is that whoever controls the price of oil controls the economy as a whole.

Is the World ready for direct democracy?

Please support my "idea" on Google Moderator (Click title above).

The old Mac server running Manila is showing 2629 hits 15-2-2011 at 11:35 AM.
8502 at 20-2 at 1:58 PM

This abstract now has 4523 reads (update 20-2: 4576; 1-3: 4626; 13-4: 4750):

http://dss.secureid.org/discuss/msgReader$14