Letters to The Crisis Papers
A note to our readers: We're eager
to hear from you, and to provide a forum for your words to be read by
others. Here are some helpful hints: Short, several paragraph letters
have the best chance of being accepted for publication. Sign the letter
with your name; we don't want to be giving out your email
to strangers. Unless you instruct us otherwise, we'll assume it's OK
with you if we post your letter, or excerpts from it.
Send your letters to us at:
This page has retained letters
for the past three uploads.
Thanks. -- The Editors
Below -- Letters
MARCH 18, 2014
About Bernard Weiner's Essay:
Cutting Through Fukushima Fog: Radiation in U.S.?
See Reid Tanaka's long letter,
"Shedding Light on Fukushima Fog,"
which we have included as a Guest
How do we go about getting global
attention to the need for more transparency on this
(Fukushima/radiation) issue? I want to take action, but don't know where
to begin. Writing letters to our local representatives, won't do
anything, unless it is done on a national/global level.
Gale M. Audia (PDA/Reno)
Bernard Weiner reponds:
Each person wanting to become more active on
this and other issues must start where they feel most comfortable.
Letters to local elected representative, urging governmental action
(maybe just establishing a radiation monitoring station in the area,
or writing to members of Congress urging more stringent national
oversight bodies) -- these can't hurt and can only help, especially
when the mail starts pouring in on an issue. But doing nothing but
expressing nervousness and anxiety and anger to your friends is no
longer an option. Action happens when enough citizens demand it.
Thanks for your comments.
Dear Mr. Weiner:
One of my correspondents pointed to your recent op-ed
titled "Cutting Through Fukushima Fog: Radiation in the U.S.?"
There are good sources of information about the
events at Fukushima and the efforts to stabilize and clean up the site.
One of the most comprehensive sources gets updated two or three times
per week at
Corrice, the owner of
that site, is a retired nuclear professional who spent time as a nuclear
plant operator, an environmental monitoring technician, and a health
physics design engineer. He has compiled several very readable e-books
about the accident and the aftermath.
WOW! Great piece!!!
Thanks for all the effort you have put into this
issue pulling together information from so many sources.
I assume you are fine with our re-sending it to
We all need to work on this topic full strength.
Thank you for the update. Obviously, the Northwest states will be the
last to let us know if it's safe or not safe, and then we still won't be
able to rely on that information. Your push helps us regular citizens to
There have also been numerous articles about Fukushima published on ANS
Nuclear Cafe, at Atomic Power Review, and on my own site at Atomic
For the authors at those locations, the terms
bequerel, sievert, and millirem are not mysterious
code words designed to obfuscate or confuse laypeople; they are terms of
art with specific, discoverable definitions that enable accurate
communications about risk and effect.
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Bernard Weiner replies:
I wasn't very clear about my intent. I wasn't
suggesting that writers should not use those scientific terms of
measurement. Given that most lay readers would not understand those
terms, good writing also would require plain-English descriptions
that all could comprehend. For example, how many bequerels would
equal five mammograms, or whatever? In other words, a nod in the
direction of bringing the lay readers into the discussion, so we're
all more or less on the same page when talking about radiation.
Thanks for writing.
I'm an American living in Japan; age 60, and with a background in
security, construction, banking, finance, governance and law. My highly
abbreviated (and sanitized) take on this subject:
(Increased radiation) is in the air, the water, the
soil, building and street surfaces, and the entire food chain. Even
worse, Fukushima-region vegetables and livestock are real cheap for food
vendors and restaurants to buy and use - and there's no problem with
them doing that, since the Japanese government doesn't restrict it with
anything more than rhetoric. Same with fish caught in Japan waters.
Doing more than nothing would literally wipe out at least NE Japan's
economy, and the Japanese government knows it. As icing on the public
threat-cake, there is precious little consumer protection law in Japan,
including no requirements to inform consumers where food comes from, or
even whether rad-con testing is performed.
I have made several attempts to obtain donated
equipment with which I would personally take rad-con measurements,
samples, archive them, publish the results, and submit samples to a
qualified lab(s). No takers - zero, zip, nada, bupkus: nobody wants to
support a direct action which would have sweeping impacts on Japan's
economy and even its government in general.
Think about it.
In the meantime: I thought that scientists and
scientific instrument companies could be counted on for some integrity,
especially when my solicitations for equipment were based on the
assumption that I would take on all the measurements - and all the
associated risks - "personally,"
and take those measurements at any location deemed a worthy measurement
target, including Fukushima per se. So at this juncture, I think it's
safe to say that pretty much "everybody"
is full of their own brand of digital-pulpit B.S. - all blow, no go.
But I guess none of this should surprise me, since we
live in an era marked by the largest single perpetual case of sweeping
global financial frauds in human history; and increasingly despotic
police-state governments which bail out fraud-bankrupt money-changers
using taxpayer monies.
Strangely, it occurs to me that some guy dressed in a
Darth Vader outfit is out there someplace laughing his ass off.
There endeth the short version of my POV. Apply to
affected area. Discontinue if rash occurs.
Toda-shi, Saitama, Japan
Just N/NW of Tokyo
My comment posted at TruthOut.org to your "Fukushima
Let's go back to square one.
We people born in the 20th century have accepted all
our lives that ionizing radiation, the kind emitted by unstable
radionuclides changing their status into a different atomic element, is
dangerous to cell function and health. Even dangerous to the genetic
integrity of species, including our own.
Why have we believed this? Speaking for myself, I
believed it because I heard the corporate media and Hollywood telling me
so. Why else would I believe it? I certainly didn't have the biomedical
expertise to figure it out for myself.
A big event occurred in my mind in March 2011 - the
televised debate between Helen Caldicott and George Monbiot. In that
debate Monbiot began by accepting the premise of radiation danger,
arguing that it would have to be managed in order to leave fossil fuels
in the groundin order to preserve earth's biosphere.
But Caldicott's strong assertions during the debate
motivated him to follow up with questions in the following days,
requesting references for certain statements.
Amazingly, Caldicott was unable to provide legitimate
scientific evidence for most of her assertions.
It hit me: "If CALDICOTT doesn't have information
about the underpinning of bio-radiation danger, then WHO DOES?"
So I studied up on the Herman Muller research in the
1920-30s regarding genetic mutation of fruit flies, which was the first
human attempt to examine bio-effects of radiation. Here's what I
1) Muller had no access to the electron microscope
for directly viewing cell chemical structure, let alone DNA strand
breaks. That research tool wasn't available until 1939.
2) Muller likewise had no access to a mass
spectrometer, the basic biochemical tool for detecting molecular changes
in organic material. Even crude spectrometers weren't available until
the late 1930s.
3) Muller's MINIMUM dose to the fruit flies was 2700
milliSieverts, in a single burst.
Regarding issues 1) and 2): Without the electron
microscope or mass spectrometer, the only biological features that
Muller could observe were gross changes in the
insects' appearance -- mostly eye color. No cellular variation was
Regarding issue 3): The amount 2700 mSv is a massive
dose. It is not indicative of biochemical behavior under doses that
occur on earth. Even the Hiroshima /Nagasaki bombs
produced an average exposure of 200 mSv among the survivors who were
monitored by the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, later the Radiation
Effects Research Foundation. Muller's minimum dose was 13 times greater.
My take: Muller's research, for which he received the
Nobel prize in physiology /medicine in 1946, has nothing to say about
cell-level biological effects of low or medium
exposures to radiation.
On to the Stewart /Mancuso study of the Hanford
nuclear workers, 1946-1978. It was surprising to discover that the
Stewart study, which was frequently referenced, had no
access to any medical treatment records of the Hanford employees. It
relied solely on their individual radiation exposure
rates, which were carefully recorded, and entries on local coroners'
death certificates regarding cancer as cause of death.
But even relying on notoriously unreliable coroners'
statements, the cancer death rate for Hanford workers was not
statistically significant at the 90% level of
confidence. That is, the recorded cancer death rate was so little
different for the nuclear workers that no
statistically valid conclusion could be reached.
Later, Stewart and Mancuso were forced to justify
their conclusions by asserting that the death rate for Hanford workers
should have been even lower than that of the general
population in Washington state, the control group, because Hanford
workers were initially very healthy due to the
stringent hiring practices. That's where the
Stewart /Mancuso study still stands today.
The recent Yablokov book about Chernobyl has been
thoroughly discredited by radiation scientists, not least because it
acknowledges that it takes no account of any medical history for the
relevant populations. It simply looks at death rates in the affected
areas in the decade before 1986, compares that to the death
rates in the two decades after 1986, and assumes that ALL excess deaths
in that vast area of Europe were caused by Chernobyl.
After this eye-popping experience, here's what
occurred to me: "As important as the issue of radiation exposure is, why
hasn't anyone done any genuine structured research
about it?" (As distinct from just waiting for some accidental discharge,
then rushing in to try to gather information about the
victims, after the fact, with no well-defined control group.)
It's gratifying to see that we are finally starting
to get off our duffs about this matter. A 2012 study published by the US
Department of Energy and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Center for Environmental Health Sciences
and publicized for us lay persons
by the MIT news office had a
A test population of mice were irradiated with about
400 times the average natural background dose for Americans. The test
subjects showed an average increase of 12 damage
events per cell per day, out of a base rate of approximately 10,000
damage events per cell per day from normal ongoing
biological processes. That is, their damage rate increased by only about
0.1% due to radiation exposure equal to 400 times the
Note carefully that I am not saying that low and
medium levels of ionizing radiation are known to be safe. I am saying
that humankind has not done the requisite
investigative research to understand anything about such exposure.
We should be asking our political leaders to organize
and fund structured, long-term, varied dosage, biological testing of
mammals. That's the only way we will know the
truth about the biomedical effects of radiation.
For more information about the MIT study and other
radiation research, see
Dear Dr. Weiner --
Your OpEd piece in Crisis Papers raises many
questions about TEPCO's dissembling and U.S. corporate media doing next
to nothing to inform concerned U.S. citizens about the dangers posed by
the continuing leaks of radioactive water from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi
solid fuel nuclear power plant operated by the Japanese monopoly
I watch English-language news broadcasts every night
originating at NHK television studios in Tokyo. These broadcasts have
faithfully followed the stories, almost daily, of TEPCO executives and
mouthpieces saying one thing; bowing deeply in regret; then coming back
the next day to explain that what was previously said was imprecise;
bowing deeply in regret; then coming back the next day to explain....
etc, etc, ad nauseum.
The fact is, you cannot trust Large Corporations or
their "press relations" representatives to tell the truth. It requires a
free and unfettered press to do the job, despite the smoke screens and
barriers to the truth erected by "evil doers" who are protected by
"official secrets gag laws" in places like Japan and U.S. Thank you for
doing your best to bring "the truth" to a largely apathetic U.S.
audience -- one that is so completely familiar with being lied to. It
requires a "newspaper (or website) of record" like the one that supports
you to get past the self-serving corporatist "press information" that
poses as fact.
I urge you to look into the liquid-fuel Thorium
Energy Community, of which I am an enthusiastic supporter. Missing in
all this reporting on Fukushima is a look at alternative "Liquid Fuel
Nuclear Power" science from a chemical-based energy process proven in
the 1960's at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee under the
direction of Dr. Alvin Weinberg, and scuttled for political reasons by
the Nixon Administration.
There would be no discussion about "hydrogen
explosions" or "nuclear contaminated cooling water" had the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission developed the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor of Dr.
Weinberg's design. Developed for "peaceful purposes" because it produces
no Plutonium (for weapons), this remarkable design of Dr. Weinberg's was
shelved for decades -- until Wired Magazine ran a remarkable article
that rekindled interest in this non-solid-fuel source of nuclear power.
I urge you to look into Thorium Molten Salt Reactor (ThMSR)
science, many of whose supporters are listed in this e-mail.
Stephen J. Colvin (a concerned citizen who cares
about how much cesium is in the sushi that I eat)
are a weekly political journal webcast focusing on Activists.
My name is Rick Spisak, News Director of PNN
I have connected with a video journalist who has
visited the Fukushima site several times a year with a German Public
Television unit. He's based in Asia. I invite
you to listen to his recent interview. [Fukushima Feb 15th].
Unfortunately he points out that all the incentives
are against the Commercial Media covering the story. Since the stories
of Hanford and New Mexico are also missing from Mainstream media we have
little reason to hope that Mainstream Media will
perform its duties to inform.
Leaving those responsibilities to Citizen Journalists
like us (you, me, other activist lay people).
Rick Spisak, News Director of PNN
Very nice, Bernie! I'm glad you mentioned the diffusion of radiation
molecules in both water and air. The Pacific Ocean is vast, as is the
…We are all bombarded by radiation by cosmic rays
from space (and from radon) all the time. It is known that one
experiences more radiation exposure when flying or living at a higher
altitude. But how much is too much? There are some official limits on
what a person can absorb when working with radioactive materials. But
there is no
agreement in the scientific community regarding
how little radiation is too little to worry about.
This makes it pretty hard to formulate a
science-based opinion about how much additional radiation exposure from
something like Fukushima is too much. I personally understand why
government officials are uneasy making any pronouncements about this.
But, let's assume for the sake of discussion that
less radiation exposure is always better. (Although, confusingly, here's
some evidence to the contrary):
"Small amounts of radiation are actually beneficial.
this was demonstrated by a study done by Johns Hopkins on 88 thousand
shipyard workers. Half worked on nuclear subs and were exposed to
radiation and the other half did similar work on non radioactive subs.
The radiation workers had less cancer and heart disease than the
non-radiation workers. The more radiation that the worker got the lower
the adverse effects. Another study done in China found the same. A good
selection of articles on low level radiation is
Let's also assume that the harm to us here on the
West Coast that we are primarily worried about is an increase in cancer
rates (putting aside for the moment the poor people close enough to the
disaster to get a form of radiation poisoning.)
I have recently read the magisterial review of the
history of cancer and cancer treatments, "The Emperor of All Maladies"
by Siddhartha Mukherjee. With apologies to Dr. Mukherjee, I think that
we can generalize about the cause of cancer. It is when a gene in one of
your cells goes off the tracks, due to damage or mutation, and starts a
process of uncontrolled growth of cells that do not contribute to the
functioning of the body, but rather (eventually) interfere with it.
One of the things that can cause cells to go rogue is
damage caused by radiation exposure. If you are unlucky, any given
cosmic ray might hit you in the wrong place and cause a cell to start
replicating chaotically. Of course, the more radiation you are exposed
to in addition to normal background radiation, the more likely one of
these "strikes" might happen to you.
For all the reasons you mention in your piece, I have
no expectation that the US Government is going to put any economic
pressure on Japan to clean up the Fukushima site faster or better than
they are doing. (It isn't like they're doing nothing.
PBS Newshour featured several stories about
Fukushima yesterday, including one about people testing fish that swim
directly in the plume of waste water still escaping (from the leaking
In sum, I certainly think it's worth being informed
about this, but in all humility, I am more worried about population
growth and climate change.
Bernie, this is powerful. I have to say that it makes me very
pessimistic about all aspects of it: willingness to discover,
willingness to act, knowledge to act. But you at least have pushed the
window open a little more, and I hope you are getting lots of response.
This is a conversation that needs to happen. Thanks for doing it.
Dr. Weiner: Thank you for writing and posting this.
Given the massive lobbying power and money of the
energy industry, I strongly doubt the U.S. government will make public
anything it knows about Fukushima's radiation, unless it's time to issue
an evacuation order along the West Coast.
It's in the energy industry's vested interest to keep
things quiet for a number of reasons:
1) to prevent opposition to existing plans to build
new nuclear power plants;
2) to prevent public outrage over existing nuclear
power plants and their potential hazards ;
3) to avoid as long as possible the need to
decommission the existing power plants;
4) to continue passing along the costs of
decommissioning or upgrading these plants to the ratepayers;
5) to try and decrease the public's demand for wind
and solar power, for fear that people or communities will drop off the
nation's power grid and cause the utilities to lose customers;
6) to keep their stock prices up.
Our salmon who come here to spawn, go there to grow up.
It ain't rocket science. I just wonder if those
four-year-old salmon just won't show up because they will have died or
if they will come with a present and how big that present will be?
I should worry about this more than big fucking
earthquakes, tidal waves, and volcanoes? (All of which could happen here
on the "Left Coast")
Or the greenhouse gases that will destroy this
Or the crap fossil fuel extraction and use releases
Or maybe a train carrying oil could crash and burn,
incinerating people in my city.
What about mercury in fish? That poisonous crap has a
half-life of FOREVER.
I hate posts like yours. They seem to be
disrespectful of the people who lost everything in the catastrophe. You
know, like getting shredded up and drowned by a giant flood of
The Fukushima power plants are a huge expensive mess
to clean up, and a handful of people may die from the radiation
released, but for gods sakes man, 16,000 humans perished and thousands
more are missing because of water.
Furthermore, who the hell knows how many
non-radioactive toxins were spilled? Things much worse than the stuff
leaking out of the nuclear power plant, stuff that's undetectable by
Geiger counters, stuff that will only be noticed when the grass won't
grow, farm animals don't thrive, and clusters of birth defects and
cancer are detected.
Thank you for your thoughtful article.
Helen Caldicott, MD, has characterized Fukusall as
"Random, Compulsory Genetic Engineer for the rest of time." Given the
ever increasing frequency of nuclear disasters surely more "accidents"
are bound to happen beyond those already here such as Three Mile Island,
Cherbonyl and Fukushima. These nuclear power plants and atomic bombs are
"Death Machines" and need to be shut down or eliminated. Thousands of
tons of nuclear waste continues to pile up from these power plants and
nuclear bomb production activities -- further threatening life on the
planet for thousands of years. The latest WIIP plutonium accident in NM
is a more recent disaster - and it has a half-life of about 25,000 year
so it will take about 250,000 years before it decays to background
Polluting the ocean with radionuclides that can be
bio-accumulated by up to a factor of 1,000 in animal
and sea life should be a huge warning bell. What if something happens to
the plankton (a mutation) and it stops producing oxygen?
I have a Ph.D. with a minor in theoretical physics
and like this I am aware of Wolfgang Pauli, a Nobel Laureate, comment on
fissioning the atom being a BLACK MASS that will cause matter to come
against humanity because fissioning produces 1942 toxic radioactive
substances in nuclear power plants when they come unglued.
Spraying sea water on the Fukushima cores "weaponized"
the radiation by helping it to become airborne over greater distances in
the form of fullerenes - - buckyball fullurenees. Further, ocean spray
as mist can carry this radiation hundreds of miles inland from
shorelines in concentrations 841 times that found in the seawater
according to a UK study of nuclear power plant pollution off its coast
The ObamaNation of desolation is beholden to nuclear
power; see his home state of IL in this regard.
Bernard Weiner replies:
Dear Morbid: R
Thanks for adding to our knowledge pool --
especially your pointing to the awful ramifications of pouring sea
water ("ocean spray as mist") onto the melting cores, and the
negative effects by so doing. I hadn't thought of that quite that
Actually, one of the main reasons I wrote this
Fukushima piece was precisely to generate an exchange of
information, since so much has been hidden for far too long. I'm a
mere layman with regard to nuclear power plants, but in just a few
days i've heard from nuclear physicists, engineers, navy personnel,
etc., all contributing important facts and insights, no doubt with
more to come. Thank you for writing
Our world leaders and their corporatist cronies, can
no longer be entrusted to tell us the truth. It is only a natural
progression, for the trade winds and ocean currents to bring that
radiation close to the West Coast if not directly contacting it. The
contamination of the food chain in the Pacific itself, threatens our
existence on this planet. We live in a very fragile environment, that
depends on everything being just right. This obviously has upset the
apple cart. Our beautiful planet will never be the same!
Arianna Marie Cigoliini
Thank you, Dr. Weiner. Most informative and disturbing news, tying a lot
of dots together.
When and if humans begin to understand en masse that
the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are essentially unmalleable,
there is that outside chance that it won't be too late to use the brains
we were born with and act accordingly.
P.S. The only seriously confusing statement in your
essay was reference to "respectable U.S. news outlets." I had no idea
Now there are reports of die-offs of scallops and oysters off the west
coast. I did read that the starfish die-off is happening on the east
coast as well, which, I suppose, lets Fukushima off the hook.
A sampling from more than 200 letters to Truthout.org.
That, by now, so much of our leadership is still
rationalizing and defending nuclear energy says what? I mean, about
humanity. Perhaps we should be more seriously discussing spiritual
existence after the death of humanity on Earth. We're only one
generation away from extinction or near extinction. The President just
o.k.'d $6.5 billion for a nuclear plant (can't find a dime for one new
vocational high school or mass funding for solar and wind energy) and,
then, gave the green light to Viet Nam to start building nuclear plants
off the coast of the South China Sea.
has been reporting on Fukushima DAILY for almost 3 years.
For all concerned,
Enenews gets its information from the mainstream
media, actual released scientific studies and abstracts, and interviews
Enenews also has a wonderful community of commenters
who add a MOUNTAIN of information every day.
Enenews also has a Forum of people with radiation
monitors all around the world who post their results.
Enenews also has a Forum of people who watch
Enenews has proven itself to be an above-board,
highly respectable source of news on Fukushima.
Their cover is that there is nothing to worry about, and hence we don't
need monitoring. Which is false and they know it. What the problem seems
is that there aren't many people able to read radioactivity and be able
to do spectral examination to determine what is causing the radiation
they are able to read on their counters except -- wait for it -- the USA
military. They do have and are using the equipment and know where and
what radioactivity is out there.
There is a paper out in the Asia Pacific Journal
titled "Mobilizing Nuclear Bias: The Fukushima Nuclear Crisis and the
Politics of Uncertainty." Through the Freedom of Information Act there
are some facts in there that make this clear. They knew Tepco was
incorrect and that there was major meltdown happening from what they was
reading. That the USA is not telling the American people the numbers is
wrong, but we should be used to these people using our money to futher
themselves and nothing for the people that pay for them to have that
This goes along the same line that if the earth was
about to be hit by a meteorite, the people would be the last to know,
and would only know once the government is safe and secure. And with the
way the USA Goverment is covering for Japan is the good ol' boy system
at work, and the USA is teaching them how to control their society.
Cutting off their internet and controlling what is allowed to get out.
Who is the USA loyal to , the American people or the Japanese goverment?
The answer is apparent.
As for the nuclear engineers out there, after several
conversations with these people, their knowledge is appalling and shows
the depth of lack of understanding and just shows that humans shouldn't
be messing with anything radioactive. They are either actually stupid or
outright misleading people.
I'm old and have lived my life, but the life of those
just starting out will be dealing with this. Sad future that we have
left. Man Sucks…
Chernobyl taught that entombing (the reactors) in
concrete was not the way to go, didn't work and is crumbling. Chernobyl
is also only a part melt down of one reactor, and the coruim is confined
to the building, Here are three cores melted down and they still haven't
found the material. Chernobyl is a good read to attempt to understand
what is happening at fukushima.
Several years after the Chernobyl disaster, the Russians drilled into
the reactor and sent in a camera. The only thing remaining: a few pipes
and graphite-moderator blocks. The entire core had melted. And it was a
It held 190 tons of fuel. The three melted reactors
at Fukushima held 257 tons. Chernobyl was a reactor sitting in a
warehouse. It had no containment whatsoever. The steam explosion blew
the lid off and destroyed the reactor building. The core was open to the
atmosphere. The graphite caught fire. The Fukushima cores melted through
the reactor vessel and the containment vessel and ate their way into the
Nice article! It sickens me that TEPCO and the Japanese Government
really don't care about the people they have contaminated with
radiation! The people should know that just after the reactor meltdown
started, an American internet company and the factory that makes a
natural mineral radiation detox product called Zeolite offered a full
shipping container load of Zeolite to both TEPCO and the Japanese
Government for FREE! This free shipment of zeolite was enough to safely
remove the radiation from thousands and thousands of peoples bodies both
in Japan and on the American aircraft carrier called the Ronald Reagan
where many sailors are now extremely sick from radiation poisoning! The
fact is both TEPCO and the Japanese Government REFUSED THE FREE ZEOLITE!
These people should be thrown in prison for crimes against humanity but
here we are years later and they are still screwing everything up by
poisoning our planet, lying about everything and getting away with it!
THIS HAS TO STOP!
The meltdown is already complete. Those three cores have already melted
down into the earth below the nuclear plant; and if they hit the water
table, we're all fracked. But they are already emitting extremely high
and dangerous levels of several lethal forms of radiation, which is in
turn radiating dust and being blown, and falling out, all over the
Northern Hemisphere. There was talk of building a "diaper" underneath
them to prevent their further descent, but nothing has been done to
accomplish it; and, thus, they continue to descend deeper and deeper
Mr. S. Wolf Britain
The GE horrible design of the Fukushima reactors that a first-year
design student would know better than to do, places all the spent fuel
rods on the 4th floor, in an unstable building that has leaked 300 tons
of radioactive water daily below the building and in the Pacific since
the original 3/11/11 quake. AND there is an underground stream from the
mountains behind the site and natural runoff into the sea, with sandy
soils--i.e. liquifaction conditions. One more quake and the largest nuke
reactor on earth melts down with America's west coast in the direct
Suzanne De Cornelia
Bad design, absolutely. And that is about all you got right. 300 tons of
groundwater passes through the power plant property every day. Some of
it leaks into the basements of the reactor buildings and leaks out. If
the underground stream were to liquify the soil it would have done it
already because the plant was built over 40 years ago. The decay heat is
.02% of what it was when the reactors were shut down; the average decay
heat in the spent fuel rods in the #4 spent fuel pool is .01%. If the
spent fuel pool were to collapse and all the remaining spent fuel rods
spilled out onto the ground there wouldn't be enough heat to melt
It has liquified the soils, the soils are 'mushy' as
stated repeatedly by those visiting the site.
Date: Aug 27, 2013: Arnie Gundersen, Fairewinds chief
engineer: "The big problem is the nuclear reactors themselves have
cracked floors. The buildings in those reactor buildings have cracked
floors. And groundwater is getting into those buildings, and becoming
contaminated, and then leaking out. So, in addition to what’s in those
tanks, the physical plant itself is contaminating the groundwater as
So what Tepco tried to do is to build a wall along
the water. They injected basically a concrete type of a compound and
made the ground less porous....a poor idea — because what happened is
the mountain that’s behind Fukushima continues to pour the water into
the ground. Now it’s got no place to go. So now the groundwater’s rising
and rising and rising and likely over-topping this wall, certainly going
around it on the sides. So we’ve got radioactive water that can no
longer be stopped from getting in the ocean.
It’s worse than that though. The radioactive water
has made the site seismic-response different. The buildings that were on
dry land are now on MUSHY land. So that if there were to be another
earthquake, the seismic response of these buildings — which was already
marginal — is further compromised because the ground that they are now
on is wet soggy soil, when before it had been firm.
Suzanne De Cornelia
Information about Fukushima should be more forthcoming and perhaps it's
possible to eventually get various countries and their agencies to
collaborate on some sort of long term cleanup and mitigation plan.
But the greater problem in this and many ecologically
threatening events and practices is mankind's tendency to think only in
terms of borders. Probably the single worst educational tool used for
centuries is the Political Map. Such maps define boundaries and instill
a sense of ownership over various parts of the planet and with that a a
sense that when things happen "on someone else's property" everything
will be fine as long as "they" take care of it. And if "they" don't take
care of it, then "they're" the ones who will have to live with it.
This kind of thinking has to stop.
It is this worldview that has created a debate about
climate change where none ought to exist because of a "can't see it from
my house" way of thinking --that if something happens on the far side of
the planet, it may be bad for "those people" but the rest of us needn't
Indeed, our current policies of shipping carbon
abroad is the very essence of this thinking. We tell ourselves that we
will use the so-called "clean fuels" while the "dirty" fuels derived
from tar sands and other sources are shipped to places like China, South
Asia or Africa where "they" will burn it in "their" backyards so there's
no need to worry about what happens here despite the fact that the
atmosphere encompasses ALL backyards and whatever is pumped into it will
affect us all.
The REAL globalism shouldn't be about commerce or
economics but rather about the fact that whatever anyone does to this
planet anywhere will have consequences for people everywhere and that
environmental threats do not respect political borders and cannot be
made to stay in the "backyard" from whence they originated.
Voice of Reason
Dr. Weiner: Finally, a well written, intelligent article on this
disaster. I will look forward to a follow-up article in time. No one in
the mainstream seems to take any notice of the precarious and dangerous
situation in Japan. I even wonder whether they will ever actually host
the Olympics in four years.
A sampling from more than 250
letters to Facebook
WHY? Isn't it obvious. The 'lies' that we are told act as pacifiers.
They (Governments) Have NO solutions!!
Just like the U.S., the free world is lining up in
support of censorship. Of course if General Electric was held
responsible for their design errors here, Japan wouldn't have to hide
anything. Why isn't the U.N. getting involved?
I worked for the Boston Edison Co at Pilgrim Nuclear Plant, spills,
accidents no supervision and massive cover ups. I pumped radioactive
waste. We'll see more and bigger problems here in the states. I'm sure
Thank you for a very informative article. The
apathetic response internationally from world leaders is seriously
unbelievable and alarming.
Well now, isn't that unsettling.....I smell the
mighty dollar blocking the appropriate concern and monitoring.
Pam Holt |
Most people I talk to think everything at Fukushima is over and done
with. I recently spoke with a group of retirees and asked them and none
of them was aware of the leakage into the Pacific Ocean going on
everyday. It is because six media giants control almost all of the media
in the USA. Fox is controlled by two foreign nationals -- that was
unheard of a generation ago.
They've had to release 100's of tons of radioactive water into the ocean
because they are still trying to find a way to quickly & easily store
all that waste water in tanks of which they're running out of - good
luck & good night …..One reason: they , nor the world , don't know what
exactly to do about this safe , clean energy plant that is in a meltdown
situation . As for me , no more Pacific seafood for a few decades or
And why isn't the US government protesting the secrecy law in Japan? Why
aren't the rest of the world governments demanding transparency?
Instead, President Obama passed new "guidelines" for the EPA increasing
"acceptable" levels o radioactivity OUR water and soil, a move that was
denounced by scientists in the U.S. warning of the potential increase of
cancer for people exposed to these new levels.
I believe that now we all have Fukushima molecules in our
lungs, next to the Chernobyl molecules who were starting to feel lonely.
Shiva Layananda Pashstupati
Why isn't' the UN involved in this global catastrophe with an
international response in terms of money and work?
Certainly it can't have anything to do with the corporate media in
I live in Northern California and every time I bring this up I get
called a 'chicken little' because they say, there's no scientific proof
yet that its a problem for us. Maybe not yet, but how could it not
eventually be a problem for us.
Joel Christian Cook
The full story isn't as dramatic as the hysteria being invented by
conspiracists. The real story is that the leak is so well-contained that
even the emergency workers who were in the damaged reactor and their
radioactive cooling water pools haven't come down with any tumors or
cancers at all. None of them died.
John T. Steiner
"Experts" often believe that the "non-experts" are too stupid to be
involved, while repeating "public-engagement" mantras.
MARCH 18, 2014
About Ernest Partridge's Essay:
Russia -- An Appreciation
Very good, Sir
As a Russian immigrant and an honest America, I salute you.
Thank you. Russia is a great country who has suffered
much over the years from without and from within. My mother is an
escapee from the Bolsheviks.
Russia is a great country that is unfortunate enough to have dictators
with imperial ambitions for most of its history.
Sergey Yesenin: Selected poems
"My heart will rise as throbbing sun,
Then I will say, in whispered shout:
"I'm just like you, O fallen one
I also have now no way out."
On crooked streets in Moscow bright,
My loving dog has fled the rod;
My measly house has stooped in fright:
I am to die, thus deemed my God"
Translation Hadi Deeb"
Well Said, and Valuable. By valuable,
I meant "highly educational." Having lived through the "cold war" and
read books designed to scare the hell out of me when I was a kid, in re
"Communism," this article ties many dots together for me, and gives me a
remarkable glimpse into my own brainwashing. Thanks for posting!
If we could get most people to ignore the power mongering politicians
and their media echo chamber and just communicate with each other across
international boundaries, we could create the kind of world we want.
This essay is but one example of how this can be done.
Bravo. That needed to be said.
McCain's gas station remark is self
Today's evil empire isn't out to get
the communists, it's out to get the Russians themselves. In fact,
historian A Sutton wrote that Wall Street put the bolshies in power
there in order to destabilize Russia.
It's always been about Russia the
Rival power or people. Like Churchill said, WW2 wasn't against Nazism,
it was against the German people per se.
Ditto the bankster's war on Russia and
John Paul Leonard
Very interesting. but I suspect that there are several different kinds
of RUSSIAN life, some less cultured than this. still in all, this is a
And he covered pretty much everything, except that they alone in the
world were willing to give SNOWDEN refuge.
The Smirking Chimp
I don't remember what year it was when some Soviet pilot stole one of
their brand-new, top-of-the-line fighter planes and flew it to Japan,
where he then sought sanctuary.
As I recall, all the top military brass couldn't wait to dissect the
plane and learn something about the then-current state of Soviet arms
technology. I also heard that after examining it, they were stunned by
how well the Soviets had managed to match the performance of our
fighters, but using what we considered outdated, antique technologies.
They specifically mentioned the plane's much greater weight than the US
counterpart, but noted that the extra horsepower it's' engine provided
more than made up for the weight difference. There was a bunch of other
stuff, about the Soviets using cast iron for all sorts of things that
would be titanium or aluminum in our version. The bottom line being that
although it was obvious several of their technologies were years behind
ours, they had compensated for them quite amply, and the plane was
considered by them to be a damn fine piece of engineering, given what
the designers had had to work with, and very much a match for any plane
we were fielding at the time.
I guess they were stunned because it had always been assumed that if the
Soviets fielded a plane that performed as well as one of ours, they were
convinced it could only have been because they stole the technology from
us and reverse-engineered it. What they found apparently told them
otherwise, that they just had really good, competent designers and
engineers who found solutions to some problems that we just hadn't
thought of, because we didn't have to deal with the lack of some items
and materials we just took for granted. Strength through adversity,
Anybody who attempts to label Russia as backward doesn't know much about
Russia, or Russians. They also usually don't take kindly to being
labeled backward, but then again, who would?
Their list of eminent scientists alone is pretty imposing. The fact that
most of them were able to match scientific achievements of the West,
using at the time what was considered here as substandard equipment,
computers, and facilities, might make them BETTER than their western
counterparts, all things considered. Certainly it shows their
determination and ability to focus, if nothing else. I have nothing but
respect for the state of Russian science and technology. They also make
extremely good weapons. But since most of those were ostensibly designed
to be used for the destruction of our military, it becomes hard for the
average American to think of the tech involved in creating them as
innovative or clever, due to an inherent bias people seem to have
against things designed to kill them.
Who'd have thought
Perhaps it was this guy, very interesting
Belenko was born in Nalchik, Russian SFSR in a Ukrainian family.
Lieutenant Belenko was a pilot with the 513th Fighter Regiment, 11th Air
Army, Soviet Air Defence Forces based in Chuguyevka, Primorsky Krai. His
name became known worldwide on September 6, 1976, when he successfully
defected to the West, flying his MiG-25 "Foxbat" jet fighter to
Hakodate, Japan. This was the first time that Western experts were able
to get a close look at the aircraft, and it revealed many secrets and
The Smirking Chimp
Putin's tactical genius has allowed Obama to stiff-arm the NeoCons and
Russo-phobes twice already, once on Syria and again on Iran. (Too bad
the Norwegians on the Nobel Committee hate Russians.) I wish the
inveterate Putin-bashing could stop for at least five friggin' minutes.
The USSR fought and largely defeated Hitler along a 2,000-mile front
while the US and Brits were gallivanting around in North Africa. Can we
at least credit the Soviets with the friggin' win in World War II? If
not for that victory, Churchill and his later compatriots might well be
Coalition of the Unwilling
The Smirking Chimp
Yeah! But what do they know about the
Kardashians and Honey Boo Boo, March Madness and the Super Bowl?
Stalin and waiting in line for bread helped sully the Russian mystique
you and I are fascinated by, Ernest, and, I have never read a better
writer than Fyodor Dostoevsky. See: It was we Russians who invented the
world's biggest microchip! This is sour grapes, acknowledging that a
country exists whom we could never best in a war.
The T-34 tank together with Adolph's underestimation of it did as much
to defeat Germany as Eisenhower or Patton, together with their armies.
Its sloping frontal armor was the prototype for all the tanks around the
world that followed it, including the incomparably inferior, ramshackle
Sherman, our mainstay during the war, the one the German 88mm cannon
could shoot right through at point blank range. The T-34 was more
dependable than the panzers and its parts were mass produced and easily
to replace, it started reliably in sub-zero weather.
It was so successful and such a factor in the Big War that the Russians,
dependent on tank warfare, once owned a million of them, to defend the
motherland in the Cold War. The Pentagon has been fixated on fighting
Russian successors to the T-34 in the Fulda Gap, invading the rest of
Europe, discounting the counterinsurgencies we have been fighting and
losing since 1945.
The Smirking Chimp
MARCH 15, 2014
About Ernest Partridge's essay:
Thinking Like a Russian.
I am in the process of writing
something similar. Russia has been attacked more than by Napoleon and
Hitler. I tabulate Russia has been invaded about 15 times, 4 times by
Poland. I think Russia must be the most invaded nation on the planet,
and the USA the least.
I also suspect that there is a racism
in the US mind vis-a-vis Russia. They are thuggish, uncivilized, brutal,
etc., as a stereotype. But that confounds USSR and Russia. For most of
its history, the USSR was controlled by non-Russians. Both had capitols
in Moscow, but they are very different political beings.
I fear that a conventional land or air
war, would show how weak Russia really is, and they would have to revert
to missile war. Missile war would take about 30 minutes to become
I think Obama and the EU are
unnecessarily and foolishly playing with catastrophe, when we have
enough troubles without making more.
Ernest Partridge Replies"
Thanks for your informed
comment, with which I largely agree, of course.
I seem to recall that ethnic
Russians constituted slightly less than half of the population of
the Soviet Union.
As you probably know, Stalin
was Georgian, as was his immediate successor, Malenkov. Khrushchev
was Ukrainian. I don't know about some of the others -- Brezhnev,
Andropov, Chernyenko. Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin are all Russian.
As was Lenin.
As for the nature of the "next
war," I'm not so sure. Historically, Russia has excelled in land
war, As Napoleon and Hitler learned to their sorrow, the Russians
absorbed and exhausted the invaders in the vastness of the Russia
territory. The Wehrmacht was crushed by those magnificent T-34 tanks
and Stormovik fighter-bombers.
But times, technology, and
consequently military tactics and strategies have changed. Yet
military leaders of all sides insist on fighting the previous war,
and often lose as a consequence. Still, I am inclined to believe
that if the US and NATO were foolish enough to engage in a land war
on Russian soil, they would not prevail. Thus if a missile and
nuclear war were to follow, it would likely be initiated by the
If not God, then perhaps the
Russian people will forbid it -- along, let us hope, with some
cooler heads in the West (Obama and Kerry, apparently not included).
Putin's grip on the Russian masses and the media is not Stalinistic.
The Russians of my acquaintance, unlike most Americans,
have learned not to
trust their media. The memory of the overthrow of the USSR
and the counter-revolution of 1991 is still fresh. Note the anti-war
protests in Moscow last week.
Neither governments are in full
control of events. And that is hopeful.
It’s all about money
Most of us in AMERICA cannot relate to the dilemma facing
the UKRAINE. our border disputes are so long ago, the TEXAS/MEXICO or
“54-40 or fight!” and none have histories going back centuries. and mix
in a little ISLAM to boot.
On the surface, this is a no-brainer.
the US had an ounce of sanity, and desire for a stability in the region
(not bloody likely!) we would get the hell out of RUSSIA’S back yard.
" ... On our side, the neo-con warriors – McCain, Palin,
Graham, Bolton, FOX News ..." etc.
is impossible to understand what motivates these people. It
seems to be the cold-war mind set that took us into VIET NAM, which is
mostly only paranoia.
However, we need to look a little deeper. US foreign
policy has less to do politics abroad and more to do with control of
wealth and power. the USD is in decline globally. If
it were to collapse, such as seems immanent, the role of the US is bound
to collapse with it. I see the US as grasping at
straws to achieve two goals: to maintain our imperialism abroad (which
includes oil production and pipelines,) and to institute martial law at
It’s all about money, big money.
The Smirking Chimp
About Ernest Partridge's Essay:
Talk to a Climate Change Denier.
From OpEd News:
Eric, there are
many very knowledgeable people - including IPCC experts, a group you
seem to consider beyond reproach - who have doubts about the theory that
manmade CO2 is determining global climate patterns.
Secondly, there is a perfect right fro everyone to look at the arguments
and evaluate them for their logic and their honesty. Take, for
example, your survey of the climate scientists. The original and much
quoted '10 000 experts' survey I seem to remember, sent a questionnaire
to 10 000 experts but only received about 3000 back. How many people
have been surveyed? I'd say 3 000. However, on the basis of the
responses, the researcher then threw away (excluded) about 90% of what
was left. How many people is that? I'd call it a rather unrepresentative
survey, skewed by the selection of who is eligible to be considered a
Or take that claim about he Himalayas melting. Who can judge that? You
say we have to rely on experts to tell us. They say the snows will be
gone in about 30 years. (This was written before global temperatures in
all but the Arctic region cooled off.)
Who wrote it? The IPCC, that body your challenge question suggests is
the impartial arbiter. Do you now know this story? Or about other claims
made by the IPCC (e.g. on the Amazon drying out) that originated with
green campaigners - not 'climate scientists' at all.
But now you take to the internet to attack, broad-brush, all those (like
me) who have troubled themselves to think a little longer and harder
than evidently the IPCC did, about these kinds of issues.
Ernest Partridge Replies:
Taking Mr. Cohen's points in
(a) He says "there are many very knowledgeable people - including
IPCC experts ... who have doubts about the theory" of anthropogenic
climate change (ACC). Very well, please identify these dissenting
IPCC experts and explain why, if they disagree, they signed on to
the IPCC report. In fact, as the late Stephen Schneider reported in
his book, "Science as a Contact Sport" (National Geographic, 2009),
the IPCC reports, as consensus documents, are systematically
conservative and cautious.
(b) I don't question the "right" of "everyone to look at the
arguments and evaluate them for their logic and their honesty." But
as Sen. Moynihan famously remarked, "everyone is entitled to their
own opinion, everyone is not entitled to their own facts."
(c) I am intrigued by the claim that 3,000 of the 10,000 surveyed
"experts" responded to the "the original and much quoted survey."
What survey was that? Not the "survey" that I cited. What validation
does Cohen have of the claim that only 30% were "returned" and,
still worse, that "the researcher threw away... about 90%"?
Remarkable! Now why should I believe this. "I seem to remember" just
does not cut it as responsible rebuttal.
In fact, I cited, "not a survey," but
study of 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific publications, 97%
of which affirm ACC, and the remainder either deny or are
unconvinced. If this is the study that Mr. Cohen has in mind, it is
not the case that 90% were "thrown away." Instead, publications that
did not deal with the issue of ACC (in fact, 66%) were not included.
Seems to be a reasonable requirement that study of ACC related
publications not include non-ACC related papers. (See also Tom
"Scientists agree (again): Climate Change is Happening But if
that is not enough to convince Mr. Cohen, he might consider this:
In more recent survey found
that in 2013 alone, of 8974 peer-reviewed scientific articles about
climate change, just ONE rejected ACC.
(d) Who can validate the claim of Himalayan melting? Answer:
Scientists who study the issue and publish in peer-reviewed
journals. But less formally, there is abundant photographic
evidence. (Google: "Himalayan Glaciers Melting," click on
Images for Himalayan Glaciers Melting). Take a look. Who do
you believe, the ACC deniers or your own lyin' eyes?
(d) I am not aware that any IPCC scientists claimed that the Amazon
was "drying out." If they did, please cite. "I seem to
remember" won't do.
And finally, my name is Ernest, not "Eric."
MARCH 3, 2014
About Ernest Partridge's Essay:
Debate Creationism vs. Evolution? Why Bother?
From OpEd News
Here's my argument FOR creationism:
A man finds a Rolex watch in the beach sand. He does
not exclaim and say: "What wonderful random forces brought this watch
into being". He KNOWS it was created. Yet.... the human body, infinitely
more complicated than a Rolex watch is a result of RANDOM coincidences?
I can't believe that.
Granted, much of the Bible is not scientifically
accurate, many of the verses are parables. Jesus, himself, taught in
parables. The Bible should not be interpreted as a science book, but a
book of spiritual guidance. Just my opinion.
Reply to Bob Gormley:
"Yet.... the human body, infinitely more complicated
than a Rolex watch is a result of RANDOM coincidences?"
You're selling the universe short.
J. Edward Tremlett
Reply to Bob Gormley:
But while the Rolex watch just wears out and stops
working if a watchmaker doesn't fix it, the human body constantly
rebuilds itself, at least until it has fulfilled it's biological
function to replicate. So the creation is within, not an external force,
and has been going on for billions of years before anyone decided to
cobble together a bible, or manufacture an outside Agent.
This Ham has as much credibility in his dating and
superstitions as Harold Camping, so why is he still getting air time?
Reply to Bob Gormley:
I didn't find even one bit of science in what you
said. Just gut feelings. I suppose you were born knowing everything. The
while science of biology is based on a study of evolution and this also
If you want to present your ideas using facts I would
like to see them. By the way I am a biologist and a physician.
Reply to Hosea McAdoo:
Right, I didn't use one bit of science, I didn't need
to. Yep, I was born knowing everything (sarcasm). Maybe there is a
higher science you aren't aware of. " The while science of biology is
based on a study of evolution and this also includes medicine." I have
no idea what the previous sentence intends to be saying.
Prove to me that the human body is a product of
random occurrences. You can't, no one can. It's just a theory based on
faith , just like creation.
Reply to Bob Gormley:
Judging from the text and context, I think the
statement should read:
"The whole science of biology is based on a study of
evolution and this also includes medicine."
It was Theodosius Dobzhansky who said that "Nothing
in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." That is one of
the great virtues of evolutionary theory - that it singularly,
elegantly, and flawlessly explains all the observations of biology. That
is why virtually every biologist, ecologist, geneticist, paleontologist,
etc, believe evolution to be true - because it explains so much, and has
not been falsified in 150 years, and counting. Indeed, all new
scientific discoveries, particularly in genetics, support and confirm
Maybe I can't "prove" to you that "the human body is
a product of random occurrences"; but I can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of a reasonable, and reasonably intelligent, person that
chimps and humans have a common ancestor. The bible doesn't predict that
fact of nature; but evolution does...
Reply to Bob Gormley:
Perhaps the best way to deal with this apparent
dilemma is to decouple science from religion (or metaphysics). Riddles
are interesting (were we born 15 minutes ago with a memory was always a
favorite when I was young) but science rests on uncertainty whereas
faith (religion) is not so stymied by the possibility of being "wrong".
Let the compelling need to explore, to be curious and test rigorously
proceed uninhibited by the need some have for ending the conversation
with unwavering belief.
In any case the best resolve is to reconciling these
matters as forming human nature - the desire for certainty (comfort in
say the hereafter) and curiosity (the creative play of exploration).
They can co-exist as long as fundamentalism (scientism / creationism) is
Biblical literalism is a form of epistemological
fundamentalism, which is motivated by a psychological need for rational
"certainty". It is not enough to recognize that you have good empirical
evidence and coherent logic supporting your tentative conclusions. These
people need to believe that their knowledge is rationally certain, not
subject to doubt, and their conclusions are not subject to change in the
light of new evidence or a more coherent explanation of the evidence.
Young Earthers are far from alone in the camp of
epistemological fundamentalists. Darwinists believe in evolution by
random mutation and natural selection, even though there is zero
evidence in the fossil record that those mechanisms drove evolution. The
evidence of the fossil record contradicts Darwinism, but fundamentalists
continue to hold onto that rock that their faith is built upon. They
invent all kinds of Rube Goldberg logic to convince themselves that the
evidence really "does" support their theory.
Global warmers are "certain", beyond the possibility
of reasonable doubt, that humans burning fossil fuels are causing the
Earth to warm up. Are they aware that we live in the geological era
called the Holocene, which is an interglacial period within the
Pleistocene era of ice ages and interglacials? Earth has been undergoing
dramatic global cooling and global warming cycles for the past 3 million
years. What caused the global warming that ended all those previous ice
ages? Were our ancestors who walked with dinosaurs burning too much wood
in their caves?
Lots of people have their certainties, and are
convinced that they know things "for sure".
Mark Twain said, "It ain't what you don't know that
gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that ain't so."
Everybody has their "facts". Some of them might even
be true. Rational understanding recognizes its inherent uncertainty. But
then rational understanding is not built from "facts" that are true "fer
sure". It is built from logically coherent explanations of the evidence.
Young Earthers, Darwinists, and global warmers have
two things in common. They are certain of the truth of their theories,
and their theories do not explain the evidence.
Ernest Partridge Replies
With all due respect, I submit that you simply
do not understand how science works. Those who do understand the
history and methodology of science, will conclude, contrary to
popular opinion (yours and Bob Gormley's included), that science is
not "just another dogma."
You assert that "Young Earthers, Darwinists,
and global warmers have two things in common. They are certain of
the truth of their theories, and their theories do not explain the
evidence." While that "certainty" may apply to some naive
"Darwinists and global warmers," most of these individuals are as
ill-informed as "young earthers" and they too do not understand
science. Few if any active scientists are included in this category.
For these scientists, the evidence validates their theories -- your
dogmatic assertion has that connection totally reversed. Again,
that's how science works. If a paper submitted to a scientific
journal is not supported with replicable evidence or citation of
same, it will surely fail peer review and never be published in such
a journal. And justly so, for such a paper would not be
The widespread belief, prominent among the OEN
responses to my essay, that "science is just another dogma" is
refuted by these fundamental features of science:
Scientific activity is public and
replicable. "Once-only" anecdotal or hearsay "evidence" does
not qualify as science.
Science is cumulative, building upon
Science is systemic, coherent and
comprehensive. Its components are mutually supportive.
Relativity theory and evolution are prime examples of these
Science is empirical and experimental.
Scientific assertions (contrary to
your claim) are fallible and falsifiable.
The order of scientific inquiry
proceeds from evidence to conclusion. Dogmatists already
"know" the truth, and thus seek out "evidence" to support
their foregone and unassailable conclusions.
In science, as in criminal justice,
the burden of proof is on the affirmative.
I haven't the allowable space to expand upon
and explain these criteria. Fortunately, I have done so in my essay,
"Is Science Just
However, one of these criteria,
"falsifiability" deserves elaboration for it bears directly on your
comments. Put simply, for an assertion to be scientifically
acceptable it must implicitly describe what it would be like to for
that assertion to be false. If the assertion is well-grounded, then
evidence will show that such a conceivable falsification does not
exist in the real world. We know what kind of geological and DNA
evidence would refute evolution. We also know what kind of evidence
would refute anthropogenic global warming. But that data can not be
found in the rocks or genes or ice cores or tree-rings, etc. Thus
evolution and global warming pass the falsification test. But both
these theories remain in principle forever open to falsification
should verifiable contrary evidence be forthcoming. Thus, due to
its fundamental structure, science is non-dogmatic. Even so, some
scientific principles are sufficiently established to be well beyond
reasonable doubt. These include gravity, heliocentrism, Newton's
Laws of Motion, relativity and evolution.
As for Darwinism, this is not current science.
The theory of evolution is current science, which has "evolved" from
Darwin's work more than a century and a half ago. Darwin, for
example, knew nothing about mutations or DNA. But he did correctly
note that there is variation within species. That, along with
natural selection, served to explain "the origin of the species." A
great deal of (falsifiable) scientific research since then has
enriched and advanced Darwin's original insights. As for your claim
that "the evidence of the fossil record contradicts Darwinism," this
is flatly false as any competent historical geologist would tell
Regarding climate change, I must be brief.
More than 98% of the thousands of active climate scientists endorse
anthropogenic climate change. I have often asked the deniers to
explain how these thousands of scientists can be wrong. Those who
bother to reply offer no plausible explanation. For much more about
this, see my "How to Talk to a Climate Change Denier."
Reply to Derryl Hermanutz:
Good points. Like I said none of us can prove what we
believe in. I can't prove creation, but I can see what makes the most
sense to me based on what data I have available to me. Likewise,
Darwinists can't prove the theory of evolution either.
I think the mistake some people have is that science
is the only valid method to determine the truth. Science AND spiritual
insight helps make a better decision.
Are scientists locked in a box? Are science deniers
locked in a box?
Reply to Derryl Hermanutz:
Sorry, Derryl, but to lump believers in evolution
together with Young Earthers as "epistemological fundamentalists" is
very wrong, verging on a category error.
In the first place, biologists and other scientists
START with the observed and observable evidence, and fashion an
explanation (evolution) that is the basis of prediction and is subject
to falsification. Young Earthers, by contrast, start with an ancient
text (that did not have the benefit of "modern", heliocentric,
knowledge) and try to make the observations fit their belief system.
These are two very different epistemological approaches.
Your observations related to the disciplines of the
biological sciences and climate science seem to be devoid of actual
knowledge of the facts and the evidence. To say that "there is zero
evidence in the fossil record that [random mutation and natural
selection] drove evolution", and that "the fossil record contradicts
Darwinism", is spectacularly uninformed. The fossil evidence for
evolution, by itself, is extremely compelling; and when conjoined with
the genetic evidence, it is incontrovertible. You would do better to go
find the rabbit fossil in the Pre-Cambrian rock strata than so
disrespectfully to disparage the considered epistemological judgments of
hundreds of thousands of highly educated scientists.
Oh; and the theory of evolution explains "the
evidence" better than anything you can offer. Thought experiment for
you; on a piece of paper, write down everything you "know" about
biology. Maybe two pieces of paper? In either case, ask yourself: which
explains these observations better: evolution, or the bible? Beware;
it's a trick question...
Creationism and evolution both require blind faith. To date, neither one
can tell us how the world actually came into being, and hence, how
people came into being. Woops. If you believe in one or the other, then
you have the "proof" that YOU need. However, the proof that you need is
not always identical to the proof that other people need.
Ultimately, I think that it is fair to say that the
jury is still out on both philosophies. It will remain out for the
remainder of my life, and no doubt your lives as well.
Which begs the question: Why worry about things that
we have little or no understanding of? Just live life as you see fit and
get on with living. How it all started does not change the fact that it
all will, most likely, end in death or self destruction.
In the beginning time did not exist although God did.
So he created the laws of physics including the speed of light and what
people call gravity which is actually the property of mass curving
space-time. (He may also have formed multi-universes, since Heaven is
not to be found in ours.)
The rest evolved (as part of an eternal plan?) when
time stared to pass, once the so called big-bang began. The Bible is an
old-fashioned means for explaining this, so that less broad-minds could
grasp some of the reality (which is a big subject, itself).
Does this theory conflict with either creationists or
evolutionists? Can anyone show that this simple theory is wrong?
I Forgot to answer the question. The reason for providing explanations
about how the universe got going is so that we can find our place in it
with better assurance, and consequently be better at organizing our
lives to meet what should be mankind's universal needs.
Very well said, Ernest! Thank you! Hopefully the next time such a debate
is held, your excellent points can be incorporated into the arguments
You depict Ham as belligerently ignoring the
possibility of being wrong, and yet you make the same mistake yourself.
"Why bother"? Please, bother. How can you critically analyze your own
theories and interpretations without counterarguments? Debates such as
this aren't supposed to figure out who is right and who is wrong.
Perhaps debates like this exist for us to analyze our own faults,
weaknesses in our theories on origins.
If there is a reason at all not to bother to have
this discussion, let it be because neither side has a credible concrete
fact to their name. They are both globally leading theories and should
be dealt with in respect. So please, show some respect.
Reply to Ben Piña:
I have to respectfully disagree with your premise(s).
If you had bothered to READ THE ARTICLE, you'd have seen that the last
quarter of it gave several reasons for evolutionists "to bother" to
debate creationists. Maybe you just missed them; but they are pretty
obvious, and actually very well prepared by the rest of the article.
Indeed, in an important way, Mr. Partridge extends and improves the
debate with some important concepts that Mr. Nye did not emphasize in
the live debate..
Debates such as this ARE supposed to figure out who
is right and who is wrong. By "such as this", I mean a debate between
two points of view that are mutually exclusive; it is not possible for
the world to simultaneously be 6000 years old and 4.5 billion years old.
Someone is right, and someone is wrong. When both sides give their best
arguments for their belief, critical listeners can decide which is the
stronger argument, and thus who is right and wrong.
Evolutionists are well known for saying, "Sure, I'll
change my mind; just show me a rabbit fossil in Pre-Cambrian strata!"
But if you saw the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, you will
remember Ken Ham being asked, "What evidence could change your mind
about evolution/age of the earth?", and he basically said "Nothing can
change my mind." While you may admire the strength of his religious
faith, that is an untenable attitude for any scientist to maintain.
Finally, while I can agree that the Young Earthers
have no "credible concrete fact to their name", scientists have a great
deal of evidence that is as solid as a rock. In fact, it IS rock! You
could learn a lot from rock!
It was refreshing to see Ken Ham make mincemeat of
the intellectually dishonest Bill Nye. The ridiculous notion that
'happenstance' and millions of years just so happened to develop the
minute details of life itself flys [sic] in the face
of intelligence. Anyone who gave a 'thought' to the majesty of life
itself from the insect world, to animals, to humans and somehow embraced
evolution is not thinking in the first place. That alone should make the
deniers of a creator pause and reflect and perhaps ask God to reveal
himself since you apparently cannot see the forest for the trees for the
evidence of creation before your very eyes. If the deniers still want to
believe you came from primordial soup then we should still be seeing
that today but since it's never happened, it's a figment of the deniers
About Bernard Weiner's Essay,
"Crisis in Capitalism: Who Are the REAL 'Takers'?"
engendered more than 600 reader responses. Here is a sampling of some of
You make good points on what can be done from a Keynesian approach to
our economic situation to rectify the long recession, and many others
have made similar proposals. But how will you ever implement these
We are living in the era of "Citizens United" where money is the main
determinant of a candidates success. Those holding economic power today
will not allow candidates to even broach the subject of taxation to
alleviate the crisis. And in an information environment where mainstream
broadcast media is firmly in the grasp of the corporations, your message
will only be heard on the internet. No candidate with a platform
supporting your proposals will receive the funding to wage a winnable
campaign and the media will turn a blind eye and deaf ear to such a
On top of these factors, sad to say, the American public is either
dumbed down or too afraid to fight the economic forces that are
pauperizing our society. I can even see the possibility of a fascist
movement arising from our economic and political dysfunction, as
suggested from the likes of Chris Hedges. Such a movement will have a
nationalist economic program that is antithetical to your advised
As I see it our prospects are for either a prolonged recession of
economic stagnation resulting in the end of the middle class or a Tea
Party fascism that will destroy the essence of our republic, with an
equally disastrous economic outcome, but with a police state to keep
Bernard Weiner replies:
it's going to come easily. And, as I wrote, this major
social/political transformation can happen only if and when there is
a bottom-up popular/populist demand for it that not even unfriendly
politicians can ignore. I share all your reasons why this
"revolution" cannot possibly take place -- but not to try would be a
moral abdication of our responsibility as citizens and humans.
Thanks for writing.
Dear Dr. Weiner,
I read your essay with interest, and I agree with you that we're
approaching a tipping point in America, as we were in the 1930s.
Unfortunately, many of the solutions you suggest are simply the same old
fixes to patch up capitalism a little longer that started with
Roosevelt. While I can understand concerns about the form that a
revolution might take, I believe you know as well as, and perhaps better
than, most that it's capitalism itself that is the problem, and fixing
it is no solution.
In the long view, it's all part of the process. As a reminder, both
socialism and communism are, in most of the world, longstanding and
recognized political forces, and so are they here in America as well. It
is true that the American oligarchy has resisted and attacked us
fiercely, and we're currently in somewhat of a disarray -- but we're not
gone. As a communist, I submit to you that we know revolution is coming.
We hope for a peaceful one.
People are getting hungrier. It's just a question of when - and we're
Thank you for your timely and thought-provoking essay.
Bernard Weiner replies:
getting hungrier. It's just a question of when..." Yep! And who
knows, maybe all the fix-it patches will weaken it further.
A little humor: "Capitalism is that economic system where man
exploits man. In communism, it's just the reverse."
Thanks for writing.
Have you looked into the work of Richard D. Wolff and Gar Alperovitz?
I say this because, unless we advocate for democratizing the workplace -
as the Worker Cooperative does - and leave Capitalism's few at the top
in place to make all the workplace decisions, human behavior tells us
that the few at the top are free to exploit. At Worker Coops there is a
fettering of Capitalism at the local level, within the workplace ...
through the workplace votes.
What are your thoughts regarding this?
Brian Marc Schatz
Bernard Weiner replies;
Alperovitz are filled with good ideas. Question is how to implement,
on a large enough scale, to make a difference. Thanks for writing.
Great article in Truthout on Capitalism and I guess what would be
considered a pitch for socialism. To bad you got it wrong, but you
already know that.
When ideology overrules common sense then you get what you ask
for...right? And, what you are asking for makes no sense.
Americans do need help and part of that help would be to get the
government out of the way, out of their pocketbooks, and then you would
see money actually flow back into the system. But, you already know
We both know that a RESET is coming. Most likely sooner than later, and
when this one hits people are going to die based on past history.
Fingers will point and the true crisis will be upon us.
Welcome to the Fourth Turning. The Crisis Turning. Hope you and your
family are prepared?
Bernard Weiner replies:
like you were interested in having a civil debate -- based on a
well-reasoned set of principles -- and then you had to blow it up
with your insulting closing line. Sad. But thanks for taking the
time to write.
You are right on target, Bernard. Our economy is crawling along because
the 1% are not and do not need to spend their money. The rest of us are
suffering and the Republicans are insisting on cuts to the 99% who
spend. It is insanity and pure greed. Also stupidity, as you point out.
I love your "basic income" ideas. Our income tax system needs to be
turned back into a true progressive system. Keynesian economics always
works and "trickle down" economics is a farce.
"In our own time, we're still suffering the after-effects of a
semi-permanent economic depression fueled by greed and the lack of
tough, appropriate regulation of the finance and banking sectors."
I disagree. These don't need regulated - they need to be completely
replaced. The money system needs to recreate how money is circulated and
it needs to be operated like the public utility it is. Bitcoin may
succeed or fail butsomething will replace the current system.
Capitalism is a work in progress, an experiment, and a game at best.
Like all games, limits are set when the ideal size of the playing field
has been established. Since money must be fluid and moving, like blood,
like a shark, to stay alive; the rules --about how much can end up
inactive in one place before the play is over-- need to be arrived at. I
think it's small to vilify the system or its winners. Remember, it's a
game in which 'fair' and 'unfair' have yet to be established. --
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with socialism - other than so many
people being ignorant of it. Take a close look at the Scandinavian
countries - Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, all doing very well in
spite of their social inclinations. There is nothing wrong with sharing
the pie with everyone. The problem with capitalism is: destructive greed
- I have mine, you look after yours. Lack of social conscience.
Great article. One more suggestion, a massive infrastructure program
which includes fixing the bridges, school and creating a smart grid.
Also the country needs a massive buildout of solar farms and wind
turbines via/vis an infrastructure bank.
wtf? Rachele Maddow is not progressive; she is a corporate tool, who
only says what her corporate masters let her say. never disses the fake
left like Obummer and Hilary. Abbey Martin and Thom Hartman -- they are
progressive, and regularly skewer our fake liberals and fake liberal
media corporate conservatives.
AWESOME piece that really gets to the heart of it:
What do we all
really know is right and what do we want?, and if we don't get it we
will get revolution. Amazing encapsulation in such a short summary. Keep
it up, Mr. Weiner. I have been reading and supporting all Progressives
since 2006. You are right on target. And I hope to read more of you.
No one and I mean NO ONE ever asks the question "where is the money
coming from?". If your philosophy can't answer this question your
philosophy is useless.
(Responding to RichardRichardTS:)
troll and I mean NO CONSERVATIVE TROLL will ever acknowledge the 1% have
all the money they need plus all the money everyone else needs.
If your philosophy blinds you to what is plainly visible your philosophy
Did You Read The Whole Article?
The billions that
went to bail out the banksters & ensure their year-end bonuses came from
the US Treasury. Take money from all the various Pentagon black budgets.
Put a sales tax on stock market transactions. Restore the tax cuts the
uberwealthy got from babyBush. Close out subsides to Big Oil, Big
Agriculture, Big Pharma. There's plenty of money, flowing like a river
in springtime. Redirect that river. End the steady privatization of
legitimate government functions. We have a choice before us: Barbarism
i agree. we do not
have capitalism in this country. crony capitalism, as you describe, is
failing all of us because tax dollars, the people's money,are trickeled
upward and disappear into the pockets of the power elites in DC and
their chosen cronies. great for them bad for us. and the divide just
gets wider and wider with each consecutive administration.
The solution is free-markets. Keynesian "economics" doesn't fix shit.
Government is the cancer here, not the solution.
Until we do have free-markets, I'm for some genuine austerity. Cut more
taxes for everyone, repeal hundreds of thousands of regulations, abolish
federal agencies, (including, but not limited to-the CIA, NSA, FBI, DEA,
DHS, DOE, ATF, ICE, etc.) end all subsidies, end all foreign aid, end
all foreign bases, end every war, end the drug war, and so on.
If you libertarians would put the joint down and get straight and run
the wish list of libertarianism to its conclusion they just might see
that it IS Feudalism. I call it Nuevo Feudalism.
I can speak about
this philosophy because I was a Libertarian for decades being in at the
beginning and rationalizing it's faults. It is a faith.
The problem with a totally free market is simple
Them as has, gets.
If you have a lot of money, it is easy to get more
As an engineer I call this positive feedback.
Also as an engineer I know that this is inherently unstable.
Such a system simply concentrates the money to fewer and fewer people.
As a student of history I also know that it doesn't normally get that
As described by
Adam Smith the system simply moves in that direction until the rich use
their financial power to change the rules to ENSURE that the plebs don't
A totally free market leads straight to an aristocracy.
there is no capitalism in this country. not for a long time. when
beltway politicians take public dollars and funnel them to wealthy
corporations in the guise of subsidies, tax breaks, tax credits and a
WHOLE different tax rate for their kind of money,a free market
capitalist system does not exist.
I will never shut up! I will never roll over and play dead -- not when
so much is at stake. People's lives are being put at risk just for
greed. The planet that keeps us alive is being destroyed for profits by
It's one thing to want to be filthy rich, it is another thing thinking
polluting, poisoning and destroying our food air and water, oceans to be
rich is OK. It's not as if these rich MFkers aren't able to be more
responsible for protecting people and the planet! They have enough money
to do that. But they are lunatics. They think they are immortal! That's
what is so horrible - the destruction that goes along with their
endeavors to attain wealth- leaving a trail of destruction and death
behind them, and that's NOT OK! There can be such a thing as responsible
...This is our form of Capitalism: for every job there are 3 people
looking for a job and hundreds of thousands have stopped looking. tens
of thousands perhaps millions are considered disposable trash. People
have no value but corporations want the same rights as people and now as
nations but in reality the majority is considered disposable garbage. So
what will people do? Starve and die in the gutter? Die quietly in the
night? This is the corporate mentality and the corporate agenda they are
working for. A complete lack of regard for people's lives yet the NSA is
so busy spending tens of billions supposedly there to "protect" us!!!!!!
THIS IS A GREAT
AND THE 1% ARE THE BIGGEST TAKERS OF ALL. PREDATORY PARASITES WHO WOULD
LET MILLIONS DIE AS THEY SUCK OFF OUR ECONOMY!!!!!
...This form of Capitalism is not tempered as it is in other developed
nations where workers get paid a good wage as in Germany for example
where Walmart is forced to pay its workers much more and unions are
represented in the govt. The form of capitalism in the U.S. is killer
Capitalism and behaves in a predatory way that hurts people, the economy
and the environment. This cannot be sustained without destroying our
nation, people and the planet. There needs to be a balance for a healthy
society to survive. There needs to be a moral base, it can't just be
feed them poison, let them starve and kill the planet -- that is what is
happening and this is insanity. This is why the world is being faced
with extinction. The last two issues of the New Yorker have an extensive
article about this by Elizabeth Kolbert -http://www.newyorker.com/repor...
...I noticed that other than Sen Bernie Sanders of VT we don't hear
anything from the progressive caucus in Congress, so what's the deal? I
called one of the reps and asked why they never speak out and the person
on the phone seemed very uncomfortable and wanted to get off the phone
right away. That person sounded scared. I wonder what kind of threats
they are experiencing?
Get to the point: tax the rich like we did in the 1960s. It is this
simple. All of the bluster and bulljive generated is a diversion from
this simple truth.
Most people don't even get what pitchforks represent! And as far as a
populist revolution, good luck. Our society is amusing itself to death,
drugged on video games, pop culture, porn, sports, Facebook and the
internet in general.
I totally agree with Dr. Weiner's points (couldn't have put it better
myself) but your points are also stated well. Until the people wake up
en masse, very little is going to change. It may take incremental steps
unless something totally unexpected happens. One step that might help us
get started in this cause is to reverse the terrible Citizens United
decision by the SCOTUS. It's hard for the masses to buy the same amount
of "free speech" that the plutocrats can with just a stroke of the pen.
There are several states which have come forth and have stated they
support a constitutional amendment to overturn this decision. That might
be a starting point….Bernie Sanders is working toward its repeal as
well. I think there are several groups working toward ending it.
Mr. Weiner is merely arguing for reform within the present (hopelessly
corrupted) system. That this is so is proven by his dismissal of
socialism as "highly unlikely," a tacit denunciation of the only
effective antidote to the infinite evil of capitalism. Then by citing
Democratic Party activists he tries to evoke a sense of hopefulness in a
political process that has repeatedly proven itself nothing more than a
cruel charade since the 1963 coup that elevated Lyndon Banes Johnson to
the presidency. Thus Mr. Weiner reveals himself as yet another
propagandist for the capitalist status quo. Nevertheless those of us who
are socialists should be heartened by the escalating efforts of our
opponents: the One Percent aristocracy Mr. Weiner so obediently serves
is clearly frightened. The pivotal question is whether its legions of
soldiers and federalized cops will follow orders or stand down in 99
Percent solidarity, as their Petrograd counterparts did at the Neva
River bridges on 8 March 1917.
...The USian One Percent -- like its counterparts in pre-revolutionary
France and Tsarist Russia -- is arrogance personified. Hence they
believe all they need do is throw us bones of pseudo-placation -- Mr.
Weiner's or Ms. Maddow's sorts of reassurances, more candidates like
Obama the Orator who promised change and then became Barack the
But while the Ruling Class quakes at Socialist Kshama Sawant's victory
in Seattle and recognizes in it the potential of a nationwide third
party movement, their arrogance blinds them to the fact our hunger will
no longer be assuaged by their lies and manipulations even as we
ourselves are awakening to the implications of our 99:1 numerical
The historical parallel is Tsarist Russia, with this period in our
development analogous to the time between 1905 and 1917. Beyond the
obvious institutional differences, the grass-roots conditions are eerily
similar. Our 1905 was the Occupy Movement. No one can say what year will
be our 1917 or what spark will ignite it, as did a spontaneous strike by
the 5,000 women of the Lesnoy Textile Works, who boiled into the streets
of Petrograd to protest the firing of five Bolshevik union organizers
and so began the revolutionary process that, eight months later,
culminated in what John Reed so aptly described as Ten Days That Shook
(About the extremely wealthy and their supporters:) It's called
psychopathy, you can't assume they have a shred of decency in them,
their brains literally function differently. They do not, nor can not
comprehend the suffering of anyone. They have no conscience, if they cry
it's only for themselves or for getting caught. They don't genuinely
love anyone, they don't feel empathy, or compassion. Lack humanity.
Violent revolution is our only alternative!
It's a sad truth: We, as a society, are still a long ways from that
violence, but from a cold, historical perspective, revolt against
ruthless government oppression has only been surrendered after a bloody
conflagration. If the general population were capable of comprehending
how the ruling elite perceive us, it would be quite frightening.
Not that long ago we were openly referred to as the Great Unwashed, Joe
Six Pack, John and Mary Lunchbucket and "little people". Now we are
simply a product "American people". A term of rank disparagement bereft
of our patriotic stature and role as citizens. "We The People" bleed,
suffer and die for our country and when we return we are treated as
I clearly don't understand even though I repeatedly try. The wealthy
became wealthy by squeezing the middle and lower classes until they have
drained every red cent they possibly can from them through deception,
fees, fines, overcharges, cornering us into contracts, raising the cost
of oil production, redrawing voter districts, and so on. They don't own
everything, why can't we charge them a rich man's wages for the services
they need from us to survive. Why aren't we cleaning the air and water
and handing their companies, corporations, and share-holders inflated
bills for the associated damages. It's like we are paralyzed or
something. I'm tired of seeing quarterly earnings with skyrocketing
profits and then having them raise prices when they are down just a bit
to guarantee profits next quarter.
I hate to see a revolution, but it seems the 1%er's and politicians just
don't understand the seriousness of their terrorist crimes against the
people. I guess they think their black belt classes and body guards will
protect them. I think we can do this peacefully and quietly. It is
(Respone to timetoriot:)
I hope someone
comes up with a better viable alternative than the "violent revolution"
you so cavalierly advocate.
The "establishment" has all the heavy weapons and spying capabilities.
You sound like an "agent provocateur" that wants the people to stick
their neck out so it can be easily whacked off… I wonder who you really
Well we could also resort to many multitudes of calls to Obama and our
reps and big protests as they have done and are doing in the Ukraine and
Korea where tens of thousands of protesters are coming out not just once
but over and over and I don't mean camping out, I mean consistent large
protests on an ongoing basis and tens of thousands of calls to Obama
202-224-3121 and your rep 202-224-3121- I believe big public out cries
make a difference. But no one should expect instant results - violence
does not achieve good results….
Corporations are on a big free ride at the expense of the majority, our
environment, our health, safety and welfare and our economy and the very
survival of the planet! All they want is to take the money and run with
zero interest in the consequences of their actions.- And now
corporations want the same rights as nations minus any oversight,
regulations, accountability, protections, rights or laws for the people
via the TPP- and on top of no accountability for anything they also want
the right to sue ANYONE OR ENTITY that impinges on their profits no
matter how harmful to anything and everything!!!! This is a corporate
free for all and Obama- Yes Obama has agreed to fast track this very
destructive trade agreement that will have and is already having
devastating impacts on nations like Canada and Australia.
History suggests that the 99% are 'farting-against-thunder' (pardon the
base expressionism) if we're hoping that the 0.01 are going to want to
relinquish - even a fraction of their ill-gotten gains to engender a
more financially-pluralist society. Avarice grounded in self-interest is
more often than not horribly intoxicating, dulling any vestiges of
compunction of even the brightest intellects. I fear that, once again,
‘le-guillotine’ will be the final solution to stop the madness of
...It worked when Mother Jones led a parade of children cross country to
remind Teddy Roosevelt that children,t he future cirizens of America,
needed food and shelter. NOW!
Ir worked in cities where the city bought back the housing with eminent
domain. It will work when even more media actually start telling the
truth about climate change, fracked water, GMO foods.
We need to cut the war money and do like ancient Greece. If the general
lost he had to leave the country and people voted whether to go to war
Governments have to get the money out to smaller groups too. When that
happens the quality of work improves and for the cheats and dissemblers
have no where to hide then in smaller groups.
The French Revoultion was gutting its own people and, one day, the one
straw too many broke that camel. A war against Iran or in Africa -- in
our time, that could be that straw.
People need to remember that all those soldiers with no jobs do know how
to use all kinds of weapons. Everything starts with one unexpected
moment -- there's a Mr. Bouazizi in every nation. When there is no hope
-- then that's starts the revolution and that kind of movement is really
hard to stop.
The prez is all talk. He's still pushing the Trans Pacific Partnership
Agreement. And siding with corporations every chance he gets. His
bullshit doesn't register as anything but empty platitudes. Sen. Sanders
has a much more credible take on capitalism. The Pope I think is
Now capitalism has reached the metastatic phase; there's nothing left to
devour but itself.
PITCHFORKS ! it is un-American to allow remedial misery to continue. the
swiss have proposed that everyone gets a basic monthly income.
Absolutely NOT Hard-Line Capitalism, and definitely not Starbucks'
Breakfast Blend. My vote is for the Capitalism With a Human
Face/Democratic Socialism Blend.
David J. Capers
Corporate capitalism has failed over 90% of us. Time for a
What's with this "new blend"? It's sounds like a trick to me. I'll vote
for straight socialism. That has the most "human face" to me!
The bank bailout is admittedly around $800 billion starting with Bush
and ending with Obama, this is a min. estimate. what if we had
capitalized from the bottom up instead of the other way. Give every
family in the US 1 million bucks, what is that 200 million? Homes saved
and paid off, college paid, auto's bought, businesses started etc.etc
etc. This puts the size of the theft (done with full intention) in real
perspective. This country is been completely taken over by criminals.
Rama Singh Khalsa
The discussion in this article is good, and pretty sound, from a very
simplistic, thirty-thousand foot level, but from the very first sentence
there is a huge issue. That is, there is not a crisis of capitalism,
there are two crises caused by capitalism: the accumulation crisis and
the ecological crisis. Capitalism as a world-system has been on a
decline since the 1970s, but what continues, in the guise of capitalism,
is the neoliberal economic mind-set that Obama is all about, and so will
be any President in this country until the people wake the hell up from
their opulence-induced haze. Obama has made things way, way worse, and
he will do more before he leaves, such as the TPP. Look it up. We have
to merge the crises of capitalism into a dialectic unity and then we can
really begin to get at the real issues, which are labor,
territorialization, resource extraction, and financialized capital.
Millionaires are receiving billions in taxpayer-funded support every
year that helps them pay for everything from child care to bad debts to
boats and vacation homes. People who individually earned more than a
million dollars in 2009 even managed to collect a total of nearly $21
million in unemployment insurance.
(Charles Dickens:) "In pure capitalism, things like child labor laws,
Social Security, anti-discriminatory hiring practices and a minimum wage
have no place. Capitalism rejects all government intervention in
economic matters." If you think that is a good thing, remember that
Oliver Twist is based on a real life story. http://money.howstuffworks.com/capitalism1.htm
Brian Schatz To fix and repair Capitalism, I like what Richard D Wolff
and Gar Alperovitz have to say.
Democratize the workplaces and the banks.
Examples are: Worker Cooperatives (Evergreen, Mondragon, Arizmendi,
Isthmus) and State Banks (the Bank of North Dakota)….
And with Capitalism, we have always had a mixture of market based
capitalistic exchanges with socialistic entities. All countries using
capitalism have this mixture with some having more and some having less.
The Ron and Rand Paul Libertarians pine for a day of pure Capitalism
where every exchange is done in the market. Everything is privately
owned. Everything, even the military, the police and the fire
department. There is no government except for the courts and for the
If you want to travel down a road, you will have to pay a toll. If the
proprietors rig all the roads they own and raise your price, you hire a
In a Libertarian World it will be lawsuit land where Joe is suing Mary
because her road was too expensive for the fire truck to come down, so
her house burned down and she prepaid them with her yearly fire fee but
didn't know they were boycotting that expensive road and took the long
way around to save money.
Mr. Bernard Weiner,
Have you ever asked
yourself why - despite experiencing the Keynesian policies of Roosevelt
- America ended up in the hands of 1% ? Have you learned any lessons out
of this ? Keynesian policies are only knee jerk reactions - compromises
- by ruling classes which will be reversed at the most immediate
instance. If you are for a change you have to overthrow the system and
remove these classes.
Else this cycle of fooling and looting by capitalists will continue.