The best way for America to protect its image is to take the moral high ground and condemn the act and those who did it. I am tired of our government not following through on accountability for wrong doings. I am fine with protecting president Bush from prosecution (although not right either but former presidents often did this), but we should go after Gonzales, Rove, and other masterminds of the CIA torture strategy.

At least prosecute them and then give them a presidential pardon. It would make Obama look bad of course. But we should do something that speaks to the world and to future generations that you cannot break our fundamental laws and principles. Obama just condemning the act then saying we need to move on is inadequate.

The most disturbing part of this video, in my opinion, are the small children visiting and "learning" from this museum. Yes, this current generation is fucked up, but slowly these assholes are ruining future generations as well.

We remove all the oil from the ground!
We use some of the Oil.
We put some of the oil, in the form of Plastic, back into the ground and oceans for future generations.

It's like reforestation, Doing our part to ensure a future for our children's children...

http://www.earthhour.org/home/

This year, Earth Hour has been transformed into the world’s first global election, between Earth and global warming.

For the first time in history, people of all ages, nationalities, race and background have the opportunity to use their light switch as their vote – Switching off your lights is a vote for Earth, or leaving them on is a vote for global warming. WWF are urging the world to VOTE EARTH and reach the target of 1 billion votes, which will be presented to world leaders at the Global Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen 2009.

This meeting will determine official government policies to take action against global warming, which will replace the Kyoto Protocol. It is the chance for the people of the world to make their voice heard.

Earth Hour began in Sydney in 2007, when 2.2 million homes and businesses switched off their lights for one hour. In 2008 the message had grown into a global sustainability movement, with 50 million people switching off their lights. Global landmarks such as the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, Rome’s Colosseum, the Sydney Opera House and the Coca Cola billboard in Times Square all stood in darkness.

In 2009, Earth Hour is being taken to the next level, with the goal of 1 billion people switching off their lights as part of a global vote. Unlike any election in history, it is not about what country you’re from, but instead, what planet you’re from. VOTE EARTH is a global call to action for every individual, every business, and every community. A call to stand up and take control over the future of our planet. Over 74 countries and territories have pledged their support to VOTE EARTH during Earth Hour 2009, and this number is growing everyday.

We all have a vote, and every single vote counts. Together we can take control of the future of our planet, for future generations.

VOTE EARTH by simply switching off your lights for one hour, and join the world for Earth Hour.

Saturday, March 28, 8:30-9:30pm.

to paraphrase Rush Limbaugh -

you want to keep one or two Republicans around as an example to future generations of what NOT to do.

obviously this is not the point.

the common thread here is that none of these things or anything resembling them should be followed with the kind of absolute certainty (or determined uncertainty, you're welcome agnostics) that most are characterized by.

or, to put it more simply, a rabid, preachy environmentalist is just as deserving of a swift kick in the ass as a rabid, preachy mormon. rigid dogma is unattractive, no matter what it's about.

>> ^Peroxide:
Dude environmentalism?
WHAT!
So in order to not be religious I have to pollute and poison the world for future generations?
You are a jerk.

Dude environmentalism?

WHAT!

So in order to not be religious I have to pollute and poison the world for future generations?

You are a jerk.

On the vast desert of the red planet Mars, dwells the strange and beautiful creature known as Marsman, perhaps. Today Nasa robots and rovers threaten what might possibly be his habitat, although if it's not, they don't. Marsman require vast areas of land and are typically found behind rocks and out-of-focus areas. Remember, it's up to us. Marsman is a crucial part of the eco-system, if he exists. So let's all help keep Marsman possibly alive for future generations to enjoy unless he doesn't exist.

now THIS clip should be shown in a classroom...

propaganda vs facts, now you choose, and for those who will continually prefer anything but facts will be artificially selected to be kicked in the nuts, repeatedly, to prevent them from breeding so that future generations will have a high probability not to experience this "science vs bullshits" confusion we are having right now

We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work ... After eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!

--Henry Morgenthau

Treasury Secretary under FDR, after 2 terms of FDR's "New Deal".


The Scamulus is an expensive rain dance. Obama does his rain dance today on a pile of taxpayer money and LO!--it rains...3 years from now!

It took 18 months for Reagan's tax cuts to take effect; the difference between those cuts and Obama's scheme is when the economy recovers this time, people won't end up with more money in their pockets: Obama's taxocrats will be there to seize it.

If Obama's Stimulus is really the only way to revive the economy, then what explains those periods of HUGE growth when taxes were low and government interference was minimal? If government's spending future generations' money is so great, why stop at a trillion? How about 5 trillion more?



http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/top-10-reasons-to-oppose-the-stimulus

I don't buy the "doggie style" argument.

It's more likely that full breasts are a sign of health, along with an ability to feed offspring. A girl with no boobs would be less likely to raise offspring successfully, especially if their small breasts were due to a lack of nutrition from disease and such.

Men who were attracted to women with tiny boobs (in the distant past) would have been less likely to pass their DNA on to future generations.

ctrlaltbleach,

I can understand how you could come to the conclusion that without a god, life would become meaningless. For in the end, we are but a tiny spec in the vast wasteland that is the universe, and in the long run our impact on the grand scheme of things will most likely be very close to negligible.

However, while looking very far into the future paints a bleak picture, looking towards the near term you can find meaning everywhere. From making the world a better place for our friends, family, and future generations. You can find meaning by doing what you feel will improve this world that you live in now, instead of finding meaning that has to do with the next world (if there is an after-life).

Also, being an atheist doesn't mean that you can't have hope that there is an afterlife and a god, anymore than the belief that you won't win the lottery doesn't prevent you from hoping that you will.

How amazingly, incredibly cool. What sucks is we have the technical capability to create a digital library that contains every scrap of video, audio, text... anything that can be digitized. We have that ability now. The only thing stopping us the legal system. Imagine how many gems like this will be lost to future generations trying to understand us because we didn't have the foresight to archive them. Sigh.

Richard Werner is being so careful and restrained yet still the host whips out the 'conspiracy theory' card. Cheap.

I prefer more direct criticisms myself, like the ones in this research paper. Fractional Reserve Banking as Economic Parasitism.

I can only hope that in 100 years our future generations will look back in disbelief at this economic nightmare and wonder how it persisted for so long. 100 years might be overly optimistic though.

Ultimately, the decisions that we as individuals, as nations, and as a species make on a day to day basis become matters of philosophical quandary. I sleep so that I'm refreshed for waking. I eat so that I'm nourished for activity. I work for money to maintain a lifestyle. I read this book or partake in this sport or befriend this or that individual, group, or nation because it will purportedly increase or better my (or our) position(s). The decision to go to war--to commit violence--is no different. Yet, one's philosophical perspectives on the meaning of such violence (again, as individuals and as nations) will serve under the constructs that constitute that philosophy. In other words, if we live and die for today -- with no heed to the sustainability of future generations -- then we (as other documented societies have done in the past) will outstrip our resources and secure our inevitable collapse. However, if we see life as a collective endeavor, which includes all the countless generations that preceded, and the countless more to come, such that our momentary role is to serve as custodian to one another, the planet, to life itself, then the manner in which we attack one another may take on a very different attitude, as we realize that no war has ever directly increased our "success" in this endeavor--rather, only the meaning that such "wars" have seemed to offer.

If we gain a larger perspective that sees life as ongoing and continuous, not limited by resources but only by our attachment to life working in a particular fashion, then our manner of going to "war" may be very different, indeed.