Aggrad02

I went an googled Richard Paey and his case is truely outrageous. How did the prosecutors get re-elected after this fiasco. How has he not gotten another trial/or appeal. Thanks, Dustan

But the diplomacy surrounding the issue seemed a bit fuzzy when Bush was asked about his call for a deadline on U.N. action on Kosovo. "First of all, I don't think I called for a deadline, I thought I said (timetable)," Bush said. Responding to the reporter, who could not be heard, Bush responded, "I did, what exactly did I say? I said deadline? OK ... Then I meant what I said." http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/10/bus...rope/index.html Aside from being funny. This shows that Bush sometimes has no input into the policies he is advocating. If you cannot remember whether you said timetable or deadline, then you obviously are not the one making the policy or considering them.

Micheal, Very well put. --Dustan

About a hundred years worth in the ground. If we can ever extract it from sea-water thousands of years worth. If we build breeder reactors and make plutonium we will have even more years of fissile material. If we ever learn to drill deep enough we can get not only uranium from the magma but lots of heat and heat is what we really need. Heat = Energy. In addition to all of this we still have solar and wind to fill in niches. Not to say anything of five hundred years worth of coal, just in North America alone. Ba'al Chatzaf Thanks for the info, I'm also in favor of finding cleaner and more efficient ways to burn coal. The drilling into magma part sounds a little scary though Dustan

Examples?

Actually they have all been right. In the 50's Hubbert predicted that the US would peak in oil production around 1970, then the US peaked in oil production at 11.3 million barrels per day in 1970. The US has produced less and less oil every year. Some other stats (From Biodiesel America by Tickell): 20% of our daily oil comes from just 14 oil fields. They average 44 years in age. With the massive increase in technology the new fields found in the last few decades will never produce more than 250,000 barrells a day. "Bettery technology has not, however led to substantial increases in the amount of oil being discovered. 'We can find a needle in a haystack,' says fifty-year petroleum veteran geologist Colin Campbell, 'but it is still a needle.' While worldwide discovery in the 1960's had reached a high as 55 billion barrels per year, discovery in the 1980's ranged from a high of 41 billion barrells to a low of 19 million barrells per year and falling. Today we discover less than 7 billion barrells per year and falling. Today we discover less than one barrell for every four we use" (Biodiesel America, Josh Tickell, p.38) 70% of our oil comes from fields that were found before 1970. Suadi Arabia claimed to have 170 billion barrells of oil in 1989, it increased its Ultimate Recoverable Reasources to 258 billion barrels in 1990 with out any new discoveries. 1990 to 2002 in produced 35 billion barrels of oil but still claims it URR as 258 billion barrels with no new discoveries. The Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia produces 55-65% of all Saudi Arabia oil (largest OPEC member), and 5.5% of the world's. The oil field is on a steady decline. It produced 6.5 million barrels a day in 1990, it produces 4.5 million barrels a day and is falling. When pressure in an oil field startes to decrease, oil producers inject water or steam to keep the pressure high. Right now the Saudi's are having to pump 7million barrels of water to get the 4.5 million barrels out. China's oil deman is growing by 10-13% per year. No new oil refineries have been built in three decades. (Probably because they would not live long enough to realize a profit) BP changes its name from British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum. There were 2 Billion people on planet earth in 1950. There are now 6 billion people on the earth. It is simple. oil is not unlimited. Population and demand continue to increase while production and discoveries decrease, mean the amount of oil is decreasing. Economics point that oil is going to continue to get more and more expensive until it is gone or other fuels replace the production. --Dustan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_hilton Born in New York City, New York, Hilton is the oldest of four children of Richard and Kathy Hilton. Her younger sister is Nicky Hilton, and her younger brothers are Barron Hilton II, and Conrad Hilton III. On the maternal side of her family, Hilton is a niece of two child stars of the 1970s, Kim Richards and Kyle Richards. By marriage, she also is related to Zsa Zsa Gabor and Elizabeth Taylor. Her paternal grandparents are hotel chairman Barron Hilton, and his wife, the former Marilyn Hawley; Hilton's paternal great-grandparents were Hilton Hotels founder Conrad Hilton and his first wife, Mary Barron. When Conrad Hilton died in 1979, he left nothing in his will to his children or other descendants. Barron Hilton contested this decision and prevailed in court in 1988. The value of Paris's inheritance has been variously estimated at between $30 and $50 million.[1][2] Hilton moved between several exclusive homes in her youth, including a suite in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in Manhattan, Beverly Hills, and the Hamptons. She attended her freshman year of high school in Rancho Mirage, California at the Marywood-Palm Valley School and her sophomore and junior years of high school at the Dwight School in New York, but dropped out,[3] and eventually earned a GED.[4]

We are better off building hundreds if not thousands of fission reactors to generate electricity. Then the only need we would have for petroleum is as a feedstock for plastics. We have more than enough petroleum right at home for that. Being hooked on oil has caused us to dig a hole in which we find ourselves. The First Law of the Hole: stop digging. The Second Law of the Hole: put the shovel down. It may take us ten or more years to site and build a hundred nuclear generating stations but it will be well worth it. Once we have enough electricity the so-called hydrogen economy can happen. Ba'al Chatzaf Burn Environmentalists, not oil. I am very much in favor of nuclear power. Anything to get us off the oil drug. I haven't done a ton of research on nuclear, but I know that nuclear power will be limited by how much uranium there is in the world (just like oil once it runs out it is gone). How much uranium is there? Thanks, Dustan

Also here is another question: What philosophically can anyone come up with that they don't like about Paris Hilton? Some would probably liken her to the playboy version that Fransico D'Acona fabricated in Atlas. But that is not true. Even though she is an heiress, she has many business ventures of her own as well as being an actress, singer, author and designer. She has basically turned her name into a brand. Last year she earned $7 million dollars. How easy would it be for someone who is set to inherit all of that money to sit around and do nothing. From her actions she clearly put her self-interest first. Also I've never heard her harm anyone, most of the people around find success as well. --Dustan

With Objectivism, we have so much focus on providing a moral justification for wealth that we forget that most wealthy people are just people. Some react well and others become spoiled. I have met people who fit the above description to a tee. Even if they lose everything, they somehow imagine that they are innately superior to the rest of mankind. There is no merit involved in this sentiment, only upbringing. This gets really irritating to be around, so I personally avoid people like that. I usually end up shooting off my mouth and ticking them off, anyway. I believe Ms. Hilton shows signs of becoming a real-life Anson Hunter (the protagonist of the story). A month or so in the clinker might be a wake-up call to reevaluate her life and her reach, but I doubt it. I see great loneliness in her old age. (I speculate, I know, but hell, I felt like thinking out loud.) Michael Michael I mostly agree with you. I am not a fan of Paris Hilton nor do I hate her. I don't even know her, or pay attention to her antics and press coverage. I have two problems with what went on. The first is that the action of the justice department in L.A. (whether it was the sheriff's fault or the judges or maybe the city prosecutor) have been ridiculous. I am sure there has been lots of pressure from the media, her parents/connections, her fans and the people that hate her, so the decisions are greatly influenced, but that is where the blind eye of justice should triumph. The judge was right in his sentence, and the sheriff was probably right in letting her out to house arrest. But ego and politics get involved and it turned into a circus. Also people should be treated as people. No matter how degrading you make think her sex life his, it is hers. That joke/comment by Silverman makes my blood boil. To attack someone like that in public is just uncalled for. In elementary school I was picked on continously because I was "fat" and it the way that it made me feel was horrible and I would never wish that on anyone. Also throwing her in jail and then taking her out and then throwing her back in again is not how we should treat people. Did she commit a crime, yes. Did she deserve her sentence, yes. Does she deserve to be treated like a political yo-yo. No one should be treated this way. Also it seems the people who hate/wish her to be humiliated are jealous. Why else would you get pleasure from this. If someone is self-confident then they shouldn't be affected by the Paris Hiltons of the world. For everyone who is getting pleasure out of this can you please tell me why? Is it because you are jealous of her attractiveness, her wealth, her publicity? Are you transferring you hate of someone like her from your high school days? Sorry for the rant, but that Silverman piece really ticked me off, Dustan

That jaded little self is probably right. Maybe that is why Paris didn't seem too concerned in the first place and maybe the reason that the sheriff didn't submit the medical papers that the judge ordered. Maybe they weren't any medical conditions to report. But if that was the case then I think the judge should have punished the sheriff as well. I'm sure that with a little time and all of the press coverage things will be brought to light. Dustan

I believe like you do that she should probably serve all 45 days, but it is really disgusting how the parites envolved have handled the case. Hilton is the ony one who seemed to act (in the beginning) like an adult. She showed up, didn't complain and started doing her time. The sheriff sent her home. Then the judges throws her back in jail. I can understand why she would be emotionally upset. It also wasn't like she was being released early, she was sent to home confinement, basically imprisonment at home. I know this isn't as harsh as imprisonment at jail, but still fullfils the sentence. If this was another person the judge wouldn't have worried about it.

I haven't really followed this case because I can careless what happens to Paris Hilton. But I was a little surprised when they let her out early yesterday and even more surprised today when the judge sent her back, it has become some kind of legal circus. Our government is made up of checks and balances and separation of powers between the branches of government. In Hilton's case the judge deemed her guilty of violating her probation and sentenced her to 45 days in jail and released her into the custody of the sheriff's department, which was responsible for caring out the sentence. The judge judges and sentences, the sheriff's department enforces. After three days in jail the sheriff's department determined that due to some as yet to be unidentified illness, that they would release Hilton to home confinement with an ankle bracelet to finish her sentence. The sheriff was still enforcing the sentence. Today the judge decided that he did not approve of the way the sheriff was enforcing the sentence and decided to bring Hilton back to court where he informed her he was sending her back to jail to to finish her sentence instead. So which branch of government is overreaching their powers? The sheriff who decided to enforce the sentence the way he saw fit (and within the law) or the judge who wanted the sentence to be carried out one specific way within the law. Should the sheriff be held in contempt of court? Should the judge be investigated by an ethics panel for interfering with enforcement? Where does the rights of Paris Hilton stand in all of this? Is it ethical to be shifting someone around while the judge and the sheriff have a power struggle. Hilton was very emotionally shaken because of all of this, and this shouldn't have happened. Also the judge requested medical documents from the sheriff's department, and the sheriff didnot provide any in a timely manner for the judge. This is not Hilton's fault, is it ethical to send someone back to jail because another branch of government was derelic? What will happen if Hilton is truly ill and something happens because of her confinement? --Dustan

Right now I am reading a book called Biodiesel America by Josh Tickell. It is really good and very informative so far and I will tell y'all about it when I am done. You can also get more infromatation at www.biodieselamerica.com. It has a really good Q&A. --Dustan Oh Goody! We can pay for our biodiesel fuel twice! Once at the pump and twice when we pay taxes to fund the subsidy for biodiesel fuel. Ba'al Chatzaf Actually using food plants to produce fuels is pushing the price of those crops (corn and soybean) up to a point that they will in the future no longer qualify for subsidy. Also it would be better to pay for our fuels twice in that way than to pay for them three times over with regular mideast oil (once at the pump, once with subsidies, and once with security measures such as the Iraq war to make sure we get the last bit of oil that is left).

Right now I am reading a book called Biodiesel America by Josh Tickell. It is really good and very informative so far and I will tell y'all about it when I am done. You can also get more infromatation at www.biodieselamerica.com. It has a really good Q&A. --Dustan

This is a very long thread, but have y'all been talking about the security dangers of having to buy our oil from OPEC countries such as Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia? While a battle of ideas is nice and essential in the war against al-qaeda, pulling the funding out from under them by becoming energy self sufficient would be huge.

In an article in the New York Times entitled "Chastising Putin, Bush Says Russia Derails Reform" printed on June 6, 2007, Bush was quoted while speaking in Prague on freedom. It is as follows: "Freedom is the design of our Creator, and the longing of every soul" Mr. Bush continued "Freedom is the best way to unleash the creativity and economic potential of a nation. Freedom is the only ordering of a society the leads to justice. And human freedom is the only way to achieve human rights." I can put my finger on it but there is something that is a little disturbing about the way he was using freedom or maybe it was the way that he presented his idea. Does anyone else think anything is wrong about the way he presented freedom? I am atheist so the first line I disagree with, but it is very similar to the Declaration of Indpendence (that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness). Also I don't think freedom is the longing of every soul as there are millions of people around the world that are not angered at being repressed. The second line I agree with but he could have said it better. Something along the linese of "In a free society creativity and economic potential become realized" The next line is the one that gives me the most chills. How do you order a society to be free. I guess it is the word order that is most disturbing. Does this line have the same meaning as "a free society is the only society that can be just"? The last line also makes me a little uneasy. Instead of trying to achieve human rights shouldn't we respect them. By achieving human rights aren't we the ones that determine what a right is and when it is achieved.? Instead shouldn't recognize and respect unalienable rights (those rights that are not awarded by human will but that are fundamental). Maybe I'm just being too picky. Dustan

Bidinotto, Morgan Freeman as Hugh Ankston is brilliant. I didn't see it coming, but once I did I got goosebumps.

I don't know much about the law, but here are some random ideas. It seems like the majority of the time that a defendent is deemed too metally ill to stand trial it is at the request of the defending attorney. Maybe by motioning for a stay of trial the defendent is waving his trial by jury in this case. Also it may have to do with the cruel and unsual punishment clause of the constitution. Punishing someone who is mentally ill is usually deemd cruel and unusual, therefore what is the point of a trial. And finally people who are a threat to society (criminals in jail, mentally ill, and people who are contagious, like the TB guy) are generally removed from society. If someone is not mentally fit to stand trial then the judge cannot release them into society for the same reason. And lastly if someone is to mentally ill to stand trial, then I suppose that they would be too mentally ill to even request a trial by jury. Let me know your thoughts --Dustan

Jeff, If you read my statement right before I ask the question "Where is my right to clean air", you will see that it was not about someone smoking outside down the block from me. The statement before my question was this: "I am also for similar restrictions of smoking in public places and restrictions of business and factories to pollute water. I am not sure how an objectivist could support polluting." It is not my responsibliity to have to clean up for everyone. I have a right to my life, my life depends on oxygen and clean air, which are things that are not owned (such as food), but transcient. To say that someone can pollute and poison me because it gives them pleasure and that I have to buy a gasmask to protect myself is absurd. Air and water are not property (except in the cases of containable water and water rights), and therefore cannot be treated as if they were (i.e. doing with them as you please.) Overpollution is the same type of aggressiveness as physical aggressiveness, just more subtle. For example, if anyone was to attack me with their fist I would defend myself, in the same way if someone was to attack me with pollution (blowing smoke in my face, polluting my local water source) I would also defend myself. As for the foster kids. The government has taken responsibility for those children. That responsibility is not given to the foster parents but intrusted to them. When those families decide to be foster families they have invited the government into their home, their home is no longer private because they have a ward of the state (someone else child) living in their home. They have to go through several different forms of qualifications as well as continued visits from social workers to make sure the home is safe, this is just item added to the checklist. Whether or not the government should be involved in taking responsibility of children is for a different discussion, but since they have they are responsible for making them safe, and keeping them away from poison smoke is keeping them safe. Also be very careful about saying "that certian rights outweigh other rights", that is not objectivism, that is utilitarianism. Objectivist ethics are all built upon preceding premises, if two ideas are in contradiciton then look at the premises of those ideas and see where they lead to. In your example of right to privacy versus the right to clean air. What are the objectivist premises behind both? The right to privacy is built upon property rights. The right to clean air is built upon the right to life. But air is not property, and just because you do something in you home does not mean that it is ok. Do I have the right to shoot someone in my home and not have to worry about getting arrested because that would be an invasion of my right to privacy? Of course not. --Dustan

I'm not sure if y'all have discussed this yet and how it plays into this debate, but is anyone here familiar with economist Stephen Levitt's research and article on abortion and crime? Here are the two articles, they are very interesting: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Pap...galized2001.pdf http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Pap...ttReply2004.pdf --Dustan

Hey Michael, I guess the way I see it is that it is not discrimmination against the smokers, but due diligence by the government, since they are the ones who have taken on the responsibility of these children. I also believe that the government shouldn't be involved in the regulating of private homes, but they shouldn't put these foster kids into homes where they will be poisoned. Passing a law against smoking around minors wouldn't be a bad idea either, but it won't happen. We already have laws against pregnant women who do drugs, what is the difference? We have laws against minors smoking, what is the difference in them smoking first hand or smoking second hand all day? We have laws against parents abusing their children in various ways (physical abuse, giving them alcohol), why isn't slow poisoning considered abuse? Just stuff to think about. --Dustan

I am at work rigtht now so this is going to be quick and not overly intellectual, but: I am pro rights and freedoms for almost everything. But I think that those rights do not extend to the right to pollute (water and air). Since these things are transcient, unlike land, I do not think that you have the right to pollute them anytime and anywhere that you feel like it since you do not own them and they are used and affect other people. Second hand smoke is poison, the purpose of our government is to protect our rights, I think this law will protect the rights of foster children not to have to breath poisoned air. I am also for similar restrictions of smoking in public places and restrictions of business and factories to pollute water. I am not sure how an objectivist could support polluting. Where is my right to clean air? Would you be for people also polluting our water sysytem, or what about spraying tear gas around, or what about mustard gas? Just because tabacco smoke does not kill quickly doesn't mean that it isn't similar. Dustan

Don't worry Gonzalo Im sure from reading your post that your English is just fine for this forum. I hope you have an insightful time reading the posts here, I have found many of them very intriguing and insightful myself. Welcom to OL. Dustan

Welcom to OL, I hope you find what you are looking for here. Dustan