Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (33933)	7/8/2002 4:55:10 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

John, Yes it is weighty stuff, but consider the following passage: "However, it makes more sense to consider the two as a single, continuous ?30 years? war? between the United States and Germany, with truces and local conflicts scattered in between." This piece is sheer idiocy, not scholarly research. Consider that we did not enter the war until 1917 and were not exactly a world class power. I doubt he (or you) could point to any substantial memoranda or research done by the German high command on the American threat prior to 1915. Remember the US was not considered a world power until after the Spanish American war and then a second rate power at that. The US was considered naive and isolationist and was guilty on both counts. Of course this doesn't fit the 'we are the center of the Universe' philosophy of current scholars :-) John

To: JohnM who wrote (33933)	7/8/2002 6:33:21 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

July 8, 2002 "Reason" Turkey Lurkeys Wanted By Jeremy Lott Following in the grand apocalyptic tradition of Paul Ehrlich, William Butler Yeats, and Chicken Little, the World Wildlife Fund is set to release a report on the state of the planet tomorrow. The prognosis, warns the London Guardian, is not good. Countless species will perish, global warming will intensify, and most vital resources will be exhausted by the year 2050. A ridiculous link from the article reads "Earth to expire? Talk about it online." The next few weeks will see environmental writers right, left, and faux center argue over the data, the methodology, and, most importantly, each other's motives. Lefties will denounce skeptics as shills for industry. Skeptics will fire back that they don't call it the World Wildlife Fund for nothing. Meanwhile, us environmental ignoramuses will continue to muddle about with vague intuitions about the extent of The Problem or what is to be done about it, diagnoses largely informed by our politics. Those to the left of center tend to magnify the problem and favor government solutions. Conservatives try to "put things in perspective" and argue that spilled oil can actually make quite the balanced diet for otters, penguins, and baby seals. One problem is that two sides are talking past, rather than with each other. Most environmentalists aren't able to understand how changes quite apart from the government (e.g. energy saving devices and cloning) can reduce pollution and rescue species. Conservatives, for their part, are unable to interpret the apocalyptic milieu from which such dire warnings as this current report spring. From a religious perspective, the absolute accuracy of apocalyptic pronunciations (see Revelation) is not nearly as important as the overall sentiment, in this case that we ought to be concerned about how we affect nature. What this melodrama needs is a Turkey Lurkey to sternly remind everyone that the sky is not falling and that we can muddle through.