Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: scotterb@maine.maine.edu
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 96 09:56:09 EST
In article <592spf$po5@nntp1.best.com>, jamesd@echeque.com says...
(criticisms of Russian government deleted)
James, I wasn't saying the government hadn't screwed up, but only that the
mafia can't be defended by saying the government has done a bad job. The
mafia is worse. And the answer is to strengthen rule of law and the
government, not to condemn it and praise the mafia!
>Those nations of the former Soviet Union that privatized rapidly, such
>as Estonia and the Czech Republic, have done vastly better than those
>that are privatizing slowly, such as Russia, or, those like the
>Ukraine that attempt to practice democratic socialism.
I think your information is a bit off. The Czechs are moving more slowly
than others, and the Ukraine's problems are very much tied to Stalin's
setting up of the SOviet Union in a matter which created dependent relations
for the Soviet republics, esp. important ones like the Ukraine. Others, like
Poland, backed away from "shock treatment" privatization when seeing the
political and economic results were worse than economists had promised.
Recently there was a Boston Globe article by William Pfaff explaining the
"bad advice" that economists gave the Russians, and the problems it caused.
>In the real universe those NICs that were most successful had the
>least state involvement.
Simply wrong. I suggest you look at Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and geez, all
the nics. Show me one without massive state involvment! I think you
asserting something that is simply untrue.
>The experience of Belarus suggests that nothing short of Stalinist
>levels of terror will make socialism work economically at even a
>barely acceptable level.
So at least we agree then that Sweden and Germany aren't socialist. That's
nice, some people try to make that bizarre claim! Communism/Socialism based
on a planned economy outside markets cannot work. We agree there.
>Japanese government meddling in the economy is very slight, compared
It was much higher in the initial phase when it was trying to carve itself a
niche in the world system and create a comparative advantage. I'm not
talking in terms of social welfare programs, but direct government
involvement in regulation, investment, and economic activity.
>Let us look at those countries that had a clear, abrupt, radical and
>dramatic change of economic policy: Estonia, Chile, and Peru.
Er, if you say these are the good examples...one of the most
repressive military dictatorships in Chile, Estonia which has had more
problems especially lately, and Peru which is also in a crisis, you had
better look harder.
>Like pretty much all your claims, this is totally false: The Czech
>republic reformed more rapidly than any other country of the former
>Soviet Empire with the exception of Estonia. (And Estonia, like the
>Czech republic, has been very successful.)
I don't know where you've been getting your information. Is it up to date?
Try the new edition of the Skidmore and Larson book on "International
Political Economy" (1995) for starters, and look at publications on Eastern
Europe to get a sense of where the Czechs place in rates of reform, and what
kind of outcomes each state is having. I think you are simply claiming that
the results you wish to see are the results which are occurring.
-scott
Subject: Re: Obnoxious Inaccurate Subject Header Snipped. Was Jesus...slande
From: bg364@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:24:16 GMT
Jayne Kulikauskas (jayne@mmalt.guild.org) wrote:
: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
: > But it is not in confirmity with the real world. It is not in conformity
: > with the reality of poverty, hunger, suffering and the destruction of
: > Nature that result from the increasing problem of global overpopulation.
: He is assuming that methods relying on
: periodic continence are not effective.
There's no need to assume this. The facts are out there. We've had this
debate with you a few months ago, and some highly qualified experts
contributed the latest statistical data. The problem with this method
(NFP) is that it is not very effective (less effective than condoms -- IF
used properly), and more importantly, EXTREMELY COMPLICATED TO PRACTICE.
A woman who uses this method must carefully observe her body, vaginal
emissions, etc., on a daily basis. Complicated and a waste of time.
There were problems with the stats Jayne provided. Something like one
third of volunteer participants in the study dropped out of the study --
obviously they had problems following the procedure. These who dropped out
were not factored into the results.
I provide this info not to persuade Jayne, a fanatical NFP cultist, but
to give some background for the people who are new to this debate.
: He is assuming that the
: world is overpopulated.
Empirical observation.
: He is assuming that overpopulation is the
: cause of poverty, hunger, suffering and destruction of Nature.
Yes, the main cause. This does not mean that there're no other causes.
: He
: must establish all of these premises in order to demonstrate that his
: conclusion is correct.
Most people know instinctively that all what I said is true. If you want
to have detailed proof, read a book about it.
: > These methods encourage poverty, hunger, suffering, the destruction of
: > Nature, AND VIOLENCE AND WARS that result from the increasing problem of
: > global overpopulation. These methods are false and hypocritical, part of
: > the agenda of evil patriarchal dominatation and destruction of the Earth
: > and of human societies.
: This is all rhetoric with no basis in fact. This paragraph contains
: the same unsupportable assumptions as the previous one, as well as
: another. For those unfamiliar with Yuri's theories, he believes that
: the Vatican has a plan to destroy the world. Yuri bases his theory on
: the belief of some Protestant denominations that the second coming of
: Christ will be preceeded by the destruction of the world. Yuri has
: decided that the Vatican is trying to destroy the world in order to
: force Jesus to return.
I have no connection with these Protestant denominations. The last time I
checked the Catholic doctrine, they still believed in the End Of The World
and the Second Coming. It is a matter of debate whether Vatican's actions
are conducted as a part of a deliberate policy to destroy the world, or
these actions are simply the result of blindly following the dogma that is
anti-Nature. The end result will obviously be the same.
See the light,
Yuri.
--
Yuri Kuchinsky | "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there
------------------------| is always Paradise: so say the most ancient
Toronto ... the Earth | and the most modern serpents." F. Nietzsche
-------- A WEBPAGE LIKE ANY OTHER: http://www.io.org/~yuku -----------
Subject: Re: Reducing Poverty (was Re: Hanson's latest and Yuri's added errors)
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 17:22:34 GMT
Enrique Diaz-Alvarez wrote:
I don't expect you to answer, ideologues rarely acknowledge facts.
But that's ok.
[edited]
>Wrong. The poverty rate dropped steadily from 1960 (~25%) till around
>1980 (~13%), It then stopped dropping significantly, coinciding with
>major cuts in programs for the poor during the Reagan years. The rest of
>your argument, based as it is on a bogus premise, is bunk.
The War on Poverty started after 1965, but funding has continued to
grow since. As a national effort the War on Poverty achieved full
swing about 1970, because that is when significant funding became
available. The actual figures on poverty for that period are in the
following table. Using 1960 as a baseline is certainly an error,
since there was no War on Poverty in 1960, or 1965 for that matter.
If we use 1970 as a base year, consistent with funding priorities, we
observe no statistically significant change to 1991, two decades
during which $5 trillion dollars was spent.
Even if we use 1965 as a baseline, we would have to explain why the
low levels of funding in the half decade from 65 to 70 were so
effective, when the much higher levels which started in 1970, and
stayed even under Reagan, were so ineffective.
% under the poverty line:
Year %
1960 22.2
1965 17.3
1970 12.6
1975 12.3
1980 13.0
1986 13.6
1989 12.8
1990 13.5
1991 14.2
Source: The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1994.
Domestic spending did increase under Reagan, in 1987 inflation
adjusted dollars, from $581 billion to $615 billion (source:
Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 1997). This does not constitute the "major cuts" in your
fictional narrative.
Many of the poor suffered a lot more after Reagan than during:
"The number of female-headed families in poverty has grown by 175,000
since Bill Clinton assumed the presidency. (Census Bureau, 10/5/95)
[R]eal wages of the median worker have fallen 4.6 % since 1979 -- and
more than half that drop, or 2.5 %, has come after Clinton's
inauguration." (Time, 1/29/96).
In fact the poorest 20 percent of Americans experienced a 6 percent
gain in real income in the 1980s and have suffered a 3 percent loss in
income in the 1990s. The poor did the best during the Reagan years.
In addition, and very surprising to ideologues, black Americans saw
their incomes grow at a slightly faster pace (11.0%) than whites
(9.8%) in the Reagan years (source: Bureau of the Census, "Money
Income and Poverty Status in the United States, 1995," Current
Population Reports (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census, 1995).
There are many legitimate criticisms of Reagan, but to ignore facts as
you have done is just plain silly. You should make efforts not to
allow your ideology to interfere with fact, it is particularly
unbecoming in an engineer.
Regards, Harold
----------
"Be studious in your profession, and you will be learned. Be industrious
and frugal, and you will be rich. Be sober and temperate, and you will
be healthy. Be in general virtuous, and you will be happy.
---Benjamin Franklin, Letter, 9 Aug. 1768
Subject: Re: Reducing Poverty (was Re: Hanson's latest and Yuri's added errors)
From: Enrique Diaz-Alvarez
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:05:18 -0500
Harold Brashears wrote:
>
> Enrique Diaz-Alvarez wrote:
>
> I don't expect you to answer, ideologues rarely acknowledge facts.
> But that's ok.
>
You are right, the best they can do is to choose them conveniently or
distort them.
They also tend to resort to ad hominem attacks when they perceive their
argument to be weak.
> [edited]
>
> >Wrong. The poverty rate dropped steadily from 1960 (~25%) till around
> >1980 (~13%), It then stopped dropping significantly, coinciding with
> >major cuts in programs for the poor during the Reagan years. The rest of
> >your argument, based as it is on a bogus premise, is bunk.
>
> The War on Poverty started after 1965, but funding has continued to
> grow since. As a national effort the War on Poverty achieved full
> swing about 1970, because that is when significant funding became
> available. The actual figures on poverty for that period are in the
> following table. Using 1960 as a baseline is certainly an error,
> since there was no War on Poverty in 1960, or 1965 for that matter.
> If we use 1970 as a base year, consistent with funding priorities, we
> observe no statistically significant change to 1991, two decades
> during which $5 trillion dollars was spent.
>
You have just offered proof that spending on poverty has a direct effect
on its rate; as spending levels per person rise through the late
sixties, the poverty rate drops. When spending stabilizes, so does the
poverty rate. Which, by the way, doesn't seem too difficult to
understand; if you put money on poor people's pockets, they become less
poor.
You are also making a ceteris paribus assumption that doesn't hold. The
late sixties were a booming time for the US economy; the 70's were
racked by recession, inflation and oil shocks.
Also, I would assume that the readers of this group are mature enough to
not be impressed by numbers with lots of zeros. Your figure of $5
trillion spent on the poor in two decades, besides being an obvious
exaggeration that includes just about every cent spent on middle class
welfare, does not mask the fact that the US has spent far less money on
its poor than any other comparable industrialized country. It is not
surprising that the progress has been less than spectacular.
> Even if we use 1965 as a baseline, we would have to explain why the
> low levels of funding in the half decade from 65 to 70 were so
> effective, when the much higher levels which started in 1970, and
> stayed even under Reagan, were so ineffective.
>
> % under the poverty line:
> Year %
> 1960 22.2
> 1965 17.3
> 1970 12.6
> 1975 12.3
> 1980 13.0
> 1986 13.6
> 1989 12.8
> 1990 13.5
> 1991 14.2
>
> Source: The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1994.
>
> Domestic spending did increase under Reagan, in 1987 inflation
> adjusted dollars, from $581 billion to $615 billion (source:
> Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
> Year 1997). This does not constitute the "major cuts" in your
> fictional narrative.
>
To assert that the US government has _ever_ spent anything close to $600
billion a year on the poor is too absurd to warrant a response. Besides,
I know that _you_ know better, so I will not bother.
>
> Regards, Harold
> ----------
> "Be studious in your profession, and you will be learned. Be industrious
> and frugal, and you will be rich. Be sober and temperate, and you will
> be healthy. Be in general virtuous, and you will be happy.
> ---Benjamin Franklin, Letter, 9 Aug. 1768
--
Enrique Diaz-Alvarez Office # (607) 255 5034
Electrical Engineering Home # (607) 758 8962
112 Phillips Hall Fax # (607) 255 4565
Cornell University mailto:enrique@ee.cornell.edu
Ithaca, NY 14853 http://peta.ee.cornell.edu/~enrique
Subject: [fwd] Arctic Tundra Now Pumping More Carbon Into Atmosphere
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 09:10:19 -1000
Arctic Tundra Now Pumping More Carbon Into Atmosphere, Says U-M
Scientist
Contact: Sally Pobojewski
313-647-1844
pobo@umich.edu
University of Michigan
Arctic Tundra Now Pumping More Carbon Into Atmosphere, Says U-M
Scientist.
Lakes And Streams Are Major Carbon Transfer Point.
EDITORS: Color slides and prints of scientists working in Alaska's
Kuparuk
River basin during the Summer of 1996 are available on request.
FOR RELEASE AT 1:30 p.m. (PST) on SUNDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1996.
SAN FRANCISCO---The arctic tundra's vast carbon reservoir has sprung a
leak.
Recent experiments on Alaska's North Slope show that carbon molecules
have
started moving out of the tundra and into the atmosphere via a network
of
lakes, streams and rivers in larger amounts than ever before.
"Our latest data show that the arctic is no longer a strong sink for
carbon,"
said George W. Kling, University of Michigan assistant professor of
biology.
"In some years, the tundra is adding as much or more carbon to the
atmosphere
than it removes, although the total amount of carbon released to the
atmosphere
is still quite small.
"However, the amount of carbon stored in arctic tundra equals almost
one-third
of the total carbon in Earth's atmosphere," Kling added. "The concern is
what
will happen in the future as global warming increases and melting
permafrost
exposes more of this buried carbon to be respired and released into the
atmosphere."
Kling is one of several scientists working on the Gas Flux Study, part
of the
National Science Foundation's Arctic System Science (ARCSS) Program.
Kling's
research team studies how carbon dioxide and methane move between land,
water
and the atmosphere in the Kuparuk River Basin---an
8,100-square-kilometer area
of Alaska's North Slope extending from the Brooks Range to the Arctic
Ocean.
Kling and other scientists involved in the ARCSS Program presented data
from
this summer's field research during a special session of the American
Geophysical Union meeting held here today.
"We have known for some time that arctic lakes and streams are
supersaturated
with carbon dioxide and methane, and that this excess gas diffuses into
the
atmosphere," Kling said. "What we didn't know is just how much carbon is
entering the atmosphere through contact with surface waters."
Using new field measurements and computer models developed at the
Ecosystems
Center in Woods Hole, Mass., ARCSS scientists have been able to quantify
for
the first time the amount of carbon flux from the arctic tundra into the
global
ecosystem.
Kling's data show that for each square meter of tundra five grams of
carbon are
being lost from surface waters annually in the Kuparuk watershed. Of
that
amount, almost half of the carbon leaching out of the tundra into lakes
and
rivers is released directly to the atmosphere in the form of carbon
dioxide or
methane. Rivers carry the other half to the Arctic Ocean.
"Arctic plants are still taking in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
during
photosynthesis," Kling explained. "But instead of much of that carbon
remaining
locked up in soil, more of it is being respired back to the atmosphere."
Kling added that scientists still have a great deal to learn about the
complex
biogeochemistry of the arctic ecosystem. For example, how will rising
temperatures affect respiration rates in arctic soils? If the tundra
starts to
dry out, will that increase the amount of carbon dioxide released to
surface
waters or the atmosphere? What impact will increasing amounts of carbon
dioxide
and methane from arctic tundra have on global warming?
"As average global temperatures continue to increase, we expect to see
the most
dramatic changes occurring in the arctic. To prepare for these changes,
we need
to know a lot more about controls on the exchange of carbon between
land, water
and the atmosphere than we do now."
Other scientists working with Kling on his part of the NSF Gas Flux
Study
include John Hobbie and Ed Rastetter of the Ecosystems Center in Woods
Hole,
Mass., Terry Chapin of the University of California at Berkeley, and
Walter
Oechel of San Diego State University.
# # #
____________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Wind Power
From: david@seaplane.celtic.co.uk (David Bryant)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 19:10:48 GMT
Dan Evens wrote:
>Will Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Dan Evens wrote:
>> >
>> > Mike Bergey wrote:
>> > > P.S. - Rod, our 10 kW wind tubines already produce energy cheaper than 1,200 MW nukes.
>> >
>> > How much land would 120,000 of your turbines cover?
>>
>> The land can continue to be used for agricultural purposes, such as
>> pastureland.
>>
>> >What would the environmental impact of these be?
>>
>> Very little, if any. Wind turbines produce no CO2, CO, SOx, NOx, PM10,
>> and so on, during operation.
>>
>> > How many birds would you kill in a year?
>>
>> Much less than just one oil tanker spill.
>>
>> >How much noise would it make?
>>
>> If a tree falls when no one is around, does it make a noise? :-)
>So, basically, you have not thought about any of these questions
>and have no substantive answers.
>The land can NOT continue to be used if it has a pillar or building
>on it with a turbine on the top. Spreading these things out to allow
>use "between" only means you get a bigger installation. Funny how
>"the answer to pollution is dillution" in the case of wind.
>As to environmental impact: What maintenance requirements do 120,00
>windmills have? How much lubrication oil is required? How much ground
>"this-n-that" is spewed out by the gears, bearings, etc. that the
>turbine involves? How much paint is required per year to keep the
>fool things from corroding to uselessness? How much metal is used
>in their construction? How much plastic? How much other materials?
>How often do various parts need replacing? How often will weather
>damage a turbine to the point it requires repair?
>You do need wind, so the entire area has to be cleared of any kind
>of trees, and probably most kinds of ground cover other than very
>short grass. Probably you need a bunch of grounds-keepers making
>sure that no trees are growing. Maybe you need to have some kind
>of "edging" material around each turbine to keep things from growing
>too close to the turbines.
>Less birds than an oil tanker spill? Since you don't know the number of
>birds in that, you don't know your own number either. A turbine
>blade swinging through the air is going to be very nearly invisible
>to the typical bird. There are significant wind installations in
>Califorina. Why don't you go get bird counts from those folkes.
>The rumour I hear is that they are significant. And those installations
>are in the few MW range, not the GW range.
>As to noise: In Toronto we have this little highway called the 401.
>At any given time there are a few hundred to a few thousand trucks on
>it.
>This noise can be heard many km away. Would 120,000 rotors make a
>roar that could be heard for tens of km? Would people want to live near
>this? Would you need (or produce by people refusing to live there)
>a tens of km exclusion zone?
>And, you should be able to answer this now if you have prototypes,
>WHAT IS THE AREA REQUIREMENT? How much land would 120,000 of your
>10kW rotors take up? If you seriously think you can get cows to
>graze under this thing, then break the footprint down into area
>the turbine actually fills, and spacing required to keep the
>blades from interfering with eachother.
>If comparisons are to be made between wind and nuclear, then you
>have to make them on the basis of one doing the job of the other.
>The place a wind turbine makes sense is in remote areas where
>it is difficult or impossible to get electricity in other ways.
>That cottage in the "north woods" is a great place for a wind
>turbine. There you don't as much care if you have some really
>still, windless days and no power because you are likely not going
>to the cottage to do intense electrical use things anway. And
>you can have your little portable petrol powered generator available
>if you do need electricity. You stick a turbine on the roof, and
>keep a few spare parts in the tool kit. You paint the puppy as
>part of your spring open-the-cottage ritual. No problem.
>But that kind of use is going to remain a rich man's plaything.
>--
>Standard disclaimers apply.
>In an attempt to decrease the junk e-mail advertising I get,
>I have made use of a junkmail address. To mail me, change
>junkmail to dan.evens in my return address.
>Dan Evens
I can only assume Dan that you have never been to a working
windfarm... We have one here in Wales UK with 103? 500KW turbines
set on a ridge on an area of land about one and a half miles by half a
mile. On any ordinary day with a fifteen mile an hour wind blowing [ its
a windy little island] there is no drifts of dead birds to be seen. In fact
you only have to wait for a while to see rooks perched on top of the
rotor housings. Small birds can be seen weaving in and out of the towers
and occasionally taking a short cut through the arc of the blades [ which
are about 40ft long and rotate once every three seconds]. All around can
be seen sheep grazing normally or huddling out of the wind behind the
towers. The regular swish swish swish of the blades as they pass the support
is not so loud that you cannot talk normally even in the middle of 103 turbines
and is lost in the sound of the wind in the forest when you are 800 yards
upwind or a little further downwind. By far the greatest indication of their
benign nature can be found by talking to the people in the town two miles
away and the Farmer who farms the land. A typical response in the town is
that they never think about it now although when it was built there was a lot
of fuss and no they can't hear it [ although they are in the valley]. The farmer
whose sheep graze among the turbines is a delight to talk with as he herds
his sheep among the towers. They lamb up there, right behind the towers
in the spring and in the five years its been operating there have been
no problems at all. He lives closest to the turbines about half a mile to
the west and says he only hears them now when there is an easterly
gale. On learning that I was a filmmaker and interested in all things
environmental he berated me at length about the market restrictions
they still have on radioactive sheep hereabouts as a result of Chenobyl,
although he seemed to believe it was the local Nuclear industry leaking
the odd curie as everywhere else in Europe restrictions had been lifted.
I first visited the site about five years ago and most recently this year
and the turbines are always turning even when it is still in the valleys..
I have no idea how much power has been generated in those last five
years but it must be equivalent to a pretty big mound of coal... and that
in a country where pretty big mounds of coal were invented.
-- --
David Bryant:david@seaplane.celtic.co.uk: Animals are not brethren; they are not
underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and
time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.-Henry Beston.
Subject: Re: Brashears on Hanson
From: "D. Braun"
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:25:22 -0800
On 14 Dec 1996, John McCarthy wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> > If you make an absolute of recycling, you will indeed require
> > coercion. My own opinion, and I have references to a CMU study by
> > Lester Lave with the same conclusion, is that recycling, except as
> > done for profit, is a bad idea. We are not running out of anything
> > that isn't substitutable at reasonable cost. If you think we are, say
> > what and why.
>
> Dave Braun replied:
>
> Biological diversity. Using more and more resources tends to impact
> ecosystems, and reduces biological diversity, whether one is talking about
> coal, oil, timber, or fish.
As usual, you completely misunderstand
>
> This is a rather vague justification for a demand for a major
> reorientation of American society. Timber and fish grow all the time;
Actually, it is quite specific. Where will biodiversity come from once it
is gone? Where will the $ come from to restore ecosystems so disturbed
that many species were extinguished? Where will the $ or technology come
from to replace the "free" ecological services, such as clean water,
clean air, the utilitarian pool of future drugs and foods that biological
diversity represents, and climatic buffering come from?
> it is just a question of adjusting the harvesting and planting more so
> as to restore the system to balance when it gets out of balance. Coal
How does one restore the 98% of primary forest in the lower 48 states?
It's gone--- and with it, some extinct species we know of, and many we do
not; with it, salmon runs unique in the world; with it, billions of bdf of
the highest grade softwood lumber in the world; with it, a major
repository of fixed carbon; with it, the scientific knowledge which could
have been derived from research. This is one example of an irreplaceable
resource sacrificed for development. Common sense demands that the
remianing primary forest in the US are not cut--- however, politics, and
worn economic models pollute the decision process.
"The market" does not value all costs and benefits. The value of some
"insignificant" insect, fungus, or plant is not zero because the value is
unknown; however, economic models treat it as zero. Is that why the
Endangered Species Act sticks in the craw of the growthmaniacs? Because it
is based on science, and not wishfull thinking?
Using more and more resources impoverishes ecosystems which until now have
been little disturbed. Why is this concept so hard to grasp? By the time
we run out of coal and oil, the amount of disturbance to air, water and
soil world wide will be much greater than it is now. As an example of
"adjusting harvesting", many world fisheries simply stop due to economic
extinction of stocks. Recycling and using fewer resources reduces stress
on world ecosystems. That is simple common sense.
> Coal and oil won't be in short supply for some time, and then they will
be replacable by nuclear energy.
> If you impoverish society, you will get a lot less money for promoting
> biological diversity. Saving the California condor is costing a lot
> of money, but an efficient economy can afford it.
You turn common sense on its head. Preserving biological diversity
enriches society.
I expect you will cut the entire post, once again. Poor debating
technique, John. Your soliloquies are boring.
Dave Braun
> --
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
Subject: GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS 961216
From: gsenet@nac.net (Phil Reynolds)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:01:27
961216
GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* NJ CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL MUSIC
* HESS TO PAY 5.3 MILLION FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE CRIME
* EPA AND OSHA TO INVESTIGATE CHEMICAL ACCIDENTS
* NJARA NORTHEAST DISTRICT MEETING 961218
* CALENDAR OF EVENTS 961216
* THE MEETING OAK - NEWS ABOUT GSENET
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
NJ CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL MUSIC
In Conjunction With The Annual ANJEE Conference
(Alliance for NJ Environmental Education)
to be held this year at Stockton State College
You Are Invited To Attend The Sixth Annual
NJ CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL MUSIC
To Be Held Again This Year at the
Days Inn, Rt. 30, Absecon (1/4 mile East of GSP, Exit 40)
From 7:45 - 12:00pm on the evening of Friday, January 10, 1997
Registration Fee: Free
Pay for your own drinks an tip server.
Ties will be confiscated at the door. Orange socks not required, but
always welcome.
-=*=-
Purpose:
To learn how to promote environment and natural resource awareness
amongst our State's youth through music - a very easy-access,
non-invasive, non-threatening and positive medium.
Also, here is a chance either to learn who are the people who can
present such a program to your camp, center, club, school group, etc.,
or to spread the word if you have contributions or a program to offer.
Program:
After a hard day at the ANJEE Conference, or as a stand-alone
event, participants can:
1. If you are an Environmental Musician, promote and present your
stuff (let Larry know if you plan to do so), or
2. Help sing along when appropriate, or
3. Merely come and listen and learn about environmental music, or
4. Gather sources for presentations to your school assembly, class,
club, campfire, fund raiser, environmental fair, etc., or
5. Get zoned on Days Inn quality beverages, or
6. Any combination of above.
Last year near Rutgers in New Brunswick, we had 12 fine musical
presenters and a good number of attendees. What will we have this
year? Come, see and hear.
Invited Guest Presenters:
Tom Callinan, Tanya Oznowich, Jim Albertson, Two of a Kind, Valery
Vaughn, Dave Street, Elaine Silver, Kevin Kopp, Jeffery Folmer,
Brackish Brothers, Kitty Dove, Dave Orleans, Wally Grumand, Bob & Fifi
Killian, Glen Waldeck, Patricia Del Camp, Debbie Lawton & Gary
Struncius, Kevin Peter, Magpie, Karen Day, The Clearwater Singers,
Steve Stanne, Travis Jeffrey, Mick Jaeger, Bob Dylan, Van Morrison,
Harry Coniff, Pete Seeger...
Please Contact Larry Sarner, 609-748-2031, if you
* know of others who should be invited to present
* plan to attend as a presenter
* for any questions (not that he necessarily has any answers).
-=*=-
If you want information on the main ANJEE daytime conference
contact Tanya Oznowich at 609-984-9802; or for just a brochure call
Larry above.
What to bring:
The song book: Rise Up Singing (This is a great book for many
occasions and has a good body of environmental music. Over 1200 songs.
It can be ordered from Sing Out, POB 5253, Bethlehem, PA 18015, or
call 610-865-5366. $18 for one, including shipping).
Or just bring an energetic singing voice, an attentive listening
ear.
Preparation:
To have some basis for common ground, how about a core curriculum
to study beforehand? The following five songs are suggested (page
numbers refer to the above mentioned book):
A Place in the Choir (All of God's Creatures (p 241) &
River (p 226), both by Bill Staines
The Garden Song (Inch by Inch) (p 52) by Dave Mallet
Somos el Barco (p 242) by Lorre Wyatt
Mary Ellen Carter (at least the chorus) (p 203) by Stan Rodgers
Habitat, Habitat (not in the book) by Bill Oliver
-=*=-
Larry Sarner
NJ FG&W; - I&E;
POB 418
Port Republic NJ 08241
609-748-2031
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
HESS TO PAY 5.3 MILLION FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE CRIME
From: GROUP PRESS 202-260-4355
DECEMBER 13, 1996
OIL COMPANY TO PAY $5.3 MILLION FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE CRIME
On Dec. 10, Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp. (HOVIC), the refining arm
of Amerada Hess Corp. of Woodbridge, N.J. and New York, N.Y., agreed
to pay a total of $5.3 million in fines and restitution when it
entered a guilty plea to felony charges of violating the federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act by illegally transporting
hazardous waste.
HOVIC admitted that between Dec. 11, 1991 and Feb. 9, 1992 it
falsely declared that 1,402 55-gallon drums containing 617,980 pounds
of "spent" refinery catalyst contained non-hazardous waste. The drums
were then knowingly shipped via Puerto Rico, Texas, and Louisiana to
Arizona where the catalyst was used as a source of alumina in the
manufacture of Portland cement. Some of the drums contained levels of
the chemical benzene which were 43.4 parts per million (ppm). That
level is more than 85 times the EPA regulatory limit of .5 ppm.
Levels of benzene above .5 ppm are considered to be hazardous to
human health and the environment. Benzene exposure can cause liver
and kidney damage and it is a known carcinogen.
The case was investigated by EPA's Criminal Investigation Division,
the FBI, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the Texas
Water Commission.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
EPA AND OSHA TO INVESTIGATE CHEMICAL ACCIDENTS
From: GROUP PRESS 202-260-4355
DECEMBER 13, 1996
EPA AND OSHA WORK TOGETHER TO INVESTIGATE CHEMICAL ACCIDENTS
EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) are
working together to identify and publicize root causes of chemical
accidents and develop recommendations for preventing similar accidents
in the future. Both OSHA and EPA have authority to investigate major
chemical accidents.
Under a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the two agencies, EPA
and OSHA will cooperate to jointly investigate major chemical
accidents and releases for root causes and will publish the results of
these investigations in joint reports.
Chemical accidents or releases characterized by one or more of the
following circumstances will be candidates for joint investigation: 1)
one or more fatalities; 2) hospitalization of three or more people; 3)
property damage estimated at $500,000 or more; 4) a serious threat to
worker health or safety, public health, property or the environment;
5) significant off-site consequences such as large-scale evacuations,
closing of major transportation routes, substantial environmental
contamination or injury to domestic or wild animals; or 6) significant
public concern.
The MOU establishes general policy for procedures and coordination
between the two agencies to ensure effective investigation and
reporting and to avoid duplication of effort. EPA will pursue
supplemental agreements with states having OSHA-approved State Plans
in order to coordinate investigations where the state administers
their own occupational safety and health program. Joint reports
developed by the two agencies will include a description of the
accident and response; observations and findings; any laboratory test
results; discussion of the accident's probable root causes and
contributing factors; a list of further planned activities; and
recommendations for enhancing chemical safety, increasing emergency
preparedness and preventing chemical accidents.
Copies of the EPA/OSHA Memorandum of Understanding on chemical
accident investigations will be available on EPA's Internet home page
at http://www.epa.gov/swercepp/.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
NJARA NORTHEAST DISTRICT MEETING 961218
Date: Dec 15, 1996
From: Joe Miele
The Northeast District of the New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance
(NJARA) will be holding its monthly district meeting on Wednesday,
December 18, 7:00 PM - 8:45 PM at the Clifton Public Library on Piaget
Ave, Clifton, NJ.
Topics for discussion will include:
The fur trade and what we can do to keep the pressure on the abusers.
The tame deer hunt at Lewis Morris Park: what has happened, what is
happening, and what will happen in the days to come.
Fundraising: How we can bring in some regular income to assist us in
our quest for animal liberation.
All are welcome to attend and share your thoughts, ideas, and
concerns.
If possible, please bring a vegan dessert for our annual holiday
celebration.
For directions to the meeting or for more information please call:
Joe Miele at (201) 368-8271, Jim Sieradzki at (201) 546-7695 or the
NJARA office at (908) 446-6808.
-=*=-
NJARA is a community based, non-profit, educational organization
working toward a peaceful, nonviolent co-existence with our earthly
companions, both human and nonhuman. Through our programs of
promoting responsible science, ethical consumerism, and
environmentalism, we advocate change that greatly enhances the quality
of life for animals and people, and protects the earth.
Peace,
Joe
********************************************
Tom, Tom the Piper's son
Saved a pig and away he run
So none could eat the pig so sweet
Together they ran down the street.
********************************************
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
961216
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 18
"Northeast District of the New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance
(NJARA) monthly district meeting"
Clifton NJ, contact: 201-368-8271
[Details in Bulletin #4 - News & Press Releases]
Dec 21,22
"Christmas Tree Sale"
Weis Ecology Center - NJ Audubon Society
Ringwood NJ, contact: 201-835-2160
Jan 10
"NJ Conference on Environmental Music"
Absecon NJ, contact: 609-748-2031
[Details in Bulletin #4 - News & Press Releases]
Jan 10 & 11
"12th Annual Conference - Exploring the Ties That Bind: A Sense
of People, A Sense of Place"
Alliance for NJ Environmental Education
Pomona NJ, contact: 609-984-9802
[Details in Bulletin #4 - News & Press Releases]
Jan 12
"Winter Creature Comforts"
Sterling Forest Resources
Tuxedo NY, contact: 914-294-3098
Jan 28
"ENVIRONMENTAL/NATURE BOOK DISCUSSION GROUP"
Paramus NJ, contact: 201-427-6863
Apr 18-20
"3rd Mid-Atlantic Environmental Conference - What Works for Sustainable
Communities"
Ramapo College of New Jersey
Mahwah NJ, contact: 201-529-6440
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* THE GARDEN STATE ENVIRONET *
* Tel 201-586-4128 GSENET@NAC.NET Fax 201-627-8616 *
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
* BBS: 201-627-9213, 8N1, ANSI, 14400 *
* EcoNet Conference: (g)o env.nj *
* Listserver: majordomo@igc.apc.org subscribe gsenet-L *
* WWW Site: http://www.nac.net/~users/gsenet *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
=END=
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
THE MEETING OAK - NEWS ABOUT GSENET
EMAIL DELIVERY DELAY
As the following indicate, the email handled by IGC has been
somewhat erratic over the past few days (to say the least!). If you
have not received the daily Garden State EnviroNews, the Table of
Contents for these issues are posted below. You can also find these
issues on the web site, http://www.nac.net/~users/gsenet or drop me an
email request if you want a specific article or the entire issue
emailed to you.
Thanks,
Phil Reynolds, cc&bw;
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/* Written 3:46 PM Dec 13, 1996 by support3 in igc:igc.netnews */
/* ---------- "Email Delays 12/13" ---------- */
Email between the internet and IGC is substantially delayed right now.
We've fixed the problem that caused this, but delays will continue
until our mail server catches up with the backlog of messages.
Messages are just delayed - they are not getting lost. We expect the
system performance to return to normal over the weekend. We
apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT: Be sure to include the text of this message if you reply.
==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--
Brian Wood Institute for Global Communications
User Support PeaceNet * EcoNet * ConflictNet * LaborNet * WomensNet
support3@igc.apc.org http://www.igc.apc.org/ (415) 561-6100
==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--
** Topic: E-Mail Delivery Delay Update **
** Written 3:15 PM Dec 15, 1996 by support7 in cdp:igc.netnews **
The mail delivery problem has greatly improved.
By last night private e-mail messages were being delivered normally
(no delays). Most mail list messages are also being delivered quickly
although we've gotton a couple of reports of problems with delays
for IGC mail lists that are attached to conferences.
The technicians are still working on this.
Our sincere apologies for all the frustration these mail delivery
delays have caused for you. We have appreciated your patience
during this crisis!
Patti Pearson (IGC User Support)
Institute for Global Communications http://www.igc.apc.org/
Voice: +1-415-561-6100 Fax: +1-415-561-6101
PeaceNet * EcoNet * ConflictNet * WomensNet * LaborNet
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
961212A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* GOVERNMENT TO TIGHTEN WETLANDS REGULATIONS
* NRC PROPOSES $180,000 FINE AGAINST SALEM
* NRC REGULATIONS ON RELEASE OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
* POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH POSITION IN STREAM ECOLOGY
* ENVIRO-NEWSBRIEF 961211
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
961212B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* MAHOGANY WEEK
* WETLANDS VICTORY!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
961213
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* SAVE TORNE MOUNTAIN
* ATLANTIC CITY BOARDWALK PROTEST
* STARTING UP: HANDBOOK FOR NEW ORGANIZATIONS
* AMERICANS FOR OUR HERITAGE & RECREATION
* EPA 800 # FOR COMMENTS ON HEALTH STANDARDS
* NEW CORPORATE WATCHDOG WEB SITE!
* ENVIRO-NEWSBRIEF 961212
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
961214
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* FARNEY HIGHLANDS TRAIL NETWORK
* OPPOSITION TO DOE PROPOSAL TO USE PLUTONIUM
* ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY UPDATE 961212
* ENVIRO-NEWSBRIEF 961213
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
961215
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* TAKE STOCK IN THE OCEAN
* STERLING FOREST AND THE RAMAPO RIVER WATERSHED
* FILES RECENTLY POSTED TO GSENET BBS
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* THE GARDEN STATE ENVIRONET *
* Tel 201-586-4128 GSENET@NAC.NET Fax 201-627-8616 *
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
* BBS: 201-627-9213, 8N1, ANSI, 14400 *
* EcoNet Conference: (g)o env.nj *
* Listserver: majordomo@igc.org subscribe gsenet-L *
* WWW Site: http://www.nac.net/~users/gsenet *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
=END=
Subject: Re: Obnoxious Inaccurate Subject Header Snipped. Was Jesus...slande
From: wf3h@enter.net (bob puharic)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 05:25:09 GMT
jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) wrote:
>I'm pleased to see that somebody knows where to look up Catholic
>doctrines.
hey even we atheists read the opposing viewpoints!
>While I am pleased that Bob has quoted this source, he does not appear
>to have understood what the CCC said on this topic. He left
>out the first half of paragraph 2370 which says,
>"Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based
>on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity
>with the objective criteria of morallity. These methods respect the
>bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them and favour
>the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast. . ."
no, i understood it precisely. the RCC forbids artificial
contraception but does not forbid natural family planning.
>Then follows the part of the paragraph that Bob quoted and a brief
>explanation of why there is a distinction made between artifical and
>natural methods.
the former is prohibited
I
>In my observation, this distinction between kinds of methods is based
>on abstract, philosophical considerations that do do not seem
>meaningful to many people. I suspect this is why the majority of RCs
>in Western countries do not follow this teaching.
yep, i absolutely agree. celibate rich men making rules for families
trying to survive in the everyday world does seem kind of abstract.
>It is quite clear in the CCC that there is no RC prohibition against
>birth control, in itself, but against certain methods of achieving it.
>Paragraph 2399 even contains the statement that "the regulation of
>births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and
>motherhood."
well, i think youre being a little disingenuous here. certainly
ARTIFICIAL birth control is condemned, both here, and in "Humanae
Vitae" by P. Paul VI...a position formulated originally by John Paul
II when he was head of the committee assigned to investigate it. your
"certain methods" leaves a WHOLE lot of room to play with.
>>you know, it's funny...at the cairo and beijing conferences when
>>discussions took place about family planning, the holy see allied
>>itself with Iran and Iraq in opposing wider distribution of family
>>planning information.
>Are you sure that it was the distribution of information that the Holy
>See was opposing? Just down the page from your quote is paragraph
>2372 which says:
>"The state has a responsibility for its citizens well-being. In this
>capacity it is legitmate for it to intervene to orient the demography
>of the population. This can be done by means of objective and
>respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive
>measures.
but that's EXACTLY what these states do in prohibiting, according to a
fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia, birth control, family
planning, etc. Iran has recently turned 180 deg as its economy
collapsed under the weight of the children born as a result of this
policy (cf "the Economist")
>The RC Church is strongly opposed to forced sterilization and
>contraception.
it is opposed to artificial contraception, period. cf "humanae vitae".
I suspect this is behind the stand taken at the Cairo
>and Bejing conferences. It promotes, however, the spread of family
>planning methods that it finds acceptable.
PRECISELY.
>This is just like the kind of argument that people used to make
>against atheists. They would say that the Soviet Union was an
>atheistic country therefore atheists were allying themselves with the
>enemies of their country who were evil killers.
i think it shows a mind set...ally oneself with authoritarian regimes
against democracies merely to pursue an ideological agenda shows both
fanaticism and obsession.
