It's a worthless pile of rocks.

As much as it has meaning culturally - it is as a symbol of a tyrant's vanity, purchased with the starvation and travail of his people.

The crime here is that local people are forcibly prevented from redistributing good stone into useful projects by the pimps who run the national prostitution racket of the tourism industry.

Holy Crap! I better get my ass down there and claim that 1/5 that's left. It might not be too long before it's useable land, perhaps the most inhabitable land left, certainly the most inhabitable unclaimed land on the planet....unless, that is, the ocean currents stop, then it might actually get COLDER there.

That's not science fiction fantasy or a problem we might face a thousand years down the road, it's a real predicted possibility in the near future...right now, in the middle of winter, it's well above freezing in the Arctic,

and it's cold arctic water that drives the ocean currents. If there's no cold water in the arctic, there's no ocean current, and the oceans 'die' fairly quickly, with everything else to follow shortly thereafter from toxic gasses if not starvation.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic/

The article linked above mentions Röpke and Eucken as champions of free market capitalism, so to speak. Ironically, Bernie Sanders is quite in line with many of Walter Eucken's core ideas. For instance, Eucken declared legal responsibility to be an absolute necessity for competition within a market economy. Meaning that under Eucken's notion of capitalism, US prisons would be filled to the brim with white collar criminals from Wall Street and just about every multinational corporation, including Volkswagen.

Ludwig Erhard, credited by many to be the main figure behind the German "Wirtschaftswunder" (nothing wonderous about it), postulated real wage growth in line with productivity and target inflation as an imperative for a working social market economy. Again, very much in line with Bernie Sanders. Maybe even to the left of Sanders. A 5% increase in productivity and a target inflation of 2% requires a wage increase of 7%, otherwise your economy will starve itself of the demand it requires to absorb its increased production. You can steal it from foreign countries, like Germany's been doing for more than a decade now, but that kind of parasitic behaviour is generally frowned upon. Minimum wage in the US according to Erhard would be what now, $25-$30? So much for Sanders' $15...

Sennholz further mentions the CDU as a counterweight to the SPD. Well, the CDU's "Ahlener Programm" in 1947 declared that both marxism and capitalism failed the German people. In fact, it put significant blame for Germany's descent into fascism at the feet of the capitalistic system and called for a complete restart with focus NOT on the pursuit of profit and power, but the well-being of the people. They called for socialism with Christian responsibility, later watered down and known as social market economy or Rhine capitalism.

As for the economic policies conducted by the occupation forces: German industry, and large corporations in particular, were shackled for the role they played during the war. If you work tens of thousands of slaves to their death, you lose your right to... well, anything. If they had stripped IG Farben, Krupp and the likes down to the very bone, nobody could have complained. No economic liberties for the suppliers behind a genocide.

Next in line, the comparison with Germany's European neighbours. Sennholz wrote that piece in '55, so you can't really blame him for it. Italy had more growth from '58 onwards, France had more growth than its devastated neighbour from '62 onwards. The third Axis power, Japan, had significantly more growth from '58 onwards.

Why did some European and Asian countries grew much more rapidly than the US? Fair Deal? Nope, Bretton-Woods. Semi-fixed exchange rates caused the Deutsche Mark and the Yen to be ridiculously undervalued compared to the Dollar, thus increasing German and Japanese competitiveness at the cost of the US. Stable trade relations created by the semi-fixed exchange rates plus the highly expansive monetary policy in the US – that's what boosted Germany's economy most of all. Sort of like China over the last two decades, except we were needed as a bulwark against the evil, evil Commies, so the US kept going full throttle.

Our glorious policians tried the same policies (Adenauer/Erhard) in East Germany after reunification, even though global conditions were vastly different, and the result is the mess we now have over there. The entire industry was burned to the ground when they set the exchange rate too high, thus completely destroying what little competitiveness remained. Two trillion DM later, still no improvement. A job well done, truly.

Anyway, if anything, Bernie Sanders' program is closer to post-war German social market economic principles than to the East-German bastard of socialism, state capitalism and planned economy imposed by an autocratic system. However, even that messed up system produced significantly less poverty, both in quality and quantity, than the current US corporatocracy. No homelessness, no starvation, proper healthcare for everyone – reality in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). And despite the fact that they were used as cheap labour for western corporations, no less. My first Ikea shelf was produced by our oppressed brothers and sisters in the East. The Wall "protected" the West from cheap labour while letting goods pass right through – splendid membrane, that one.

PS: Since that article was written in '55, I have to mention one of my city's most famous citizens: Otto Brenner. He was elected head of the IG Metal, this country's most influential trade union, in 1956 after having shared the office since 1952. The policies he fought for, and pushed through, during his 16 years in charge of the union are very much in line with what Sanders is campaigning for.

I'm overweight, had a heart attack 9 years ago when I was 30. I'm on low sodium diet, have 2 cordis brand stints in my chest. Grade 1 diastolic dysfunction from a little scar tissue on left ventricle.

I had severe depression and the heart attack at 30 messed my head up fierce in my thinking. First off I've never had a physical before then and I've never been sick. When my parents caught flus and I didn't they had me tested and I was a 1 in 10 or 100 thousand I forget that are immune to flu. Once a year I donate blood here in Ga that is sent to Emory in Atlanta I get paid $350 for my blood once a year.

But back to heart attack since I never had physical due to never sick I knew I was not eating healthy and used to smoke and nicotine is a vascular constrictor. It triggered the attack and was my last cigarette. It scared the addiction out of me and never had withdrawals.

But my severe mental depression although obese I became scared to eat, I went on starvation diet. I'd drink water but no food at all.

After 5th day I was so weak I couldn't move. Later I realized it takes a lot of calories to move my fatass. But I had a new danger that almost triggered cardiac arrest.

I live alone and was able to crawl to phone and call 911. They first thought it was another heart attack but heart was slowed but no problems. They did blood test and took 7 vials. About 6 hours later was the embarrassment.

Doctor came in, along with psychiatrist, nutritionist, and another counselor. I was hypokalemic. Which means potassium was dangerously low almost fatally low. Which was red flag for usually the stereotypical teenage girl with anorexia.

Took 2 IV bags of riggers lactate, shot of potassium, a little amphetamine to boost blood pressure up to normal and 24 hour observation on regular saline IV.

I still have severe depression due to weight. I have degenerative disc disease in my back so I can't get around very good. My diet is set at 1800 calories yet my I only lose 1 to 2 pounds a month. Extensive testing has shown my metabolism has come to a stop. So even though I eat very little calories and low sodium protein diet with barely any carbs with no metabolism the body only stores it as fat because at zero metabolism the body thinks it has to store instead of burn thinking its starving but its not.

But my cardiologist and general doc are trying an extremely dangerous and risky treatment to try and JumpStart my metabolism. I have to record my blood pressure hourly and go in once a week for ekg and blood enzyme test but they are using a drug not made for this as "off label" use and you aren't supposed to even use it with heart disease but that's the strict monitoring by both my doctors. The controversy is they are using adderall to force my metabolism up. Your body is forced to burn through energy stored, and the idea is once my metabolism kicks back in it should stay up on its own.

Tests look promising its my second week on it and I was averaging 1-2 sometimes 3 pound loss in one month. Now since the low dose adderall trial I lost 5 pounds in 1 week!!!

And that little victory has done wonders for my severe depression. I've actually got hope.

Perhaps in some minor 'unknown' areas for unknown reasons that could be true, but overall it's far from true. The rotting material creates exponentially more methane than any mechanism could trap. You and they don't even mention the mechanism that traps methane at all, the methane being released is from bacteria eating thawed organic material.

EDIT: Actually, your study quote did not say that "they've identified regions up north where the soil absorbs more methane the warmer it gets"...it said "numerical simulations predict" they exist, "but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear." This means places where methane capture outpaces release, or happens at all, have not been found-'location unclear'.

OK, you did say 'if we magically remove all the CO2 we've ever produced' (ignoring methane and other greenhouse gasses) in your second post. I missed the 'magic removal' part. My mistake, but that makes it a silly argument since we can't do magic. If we could, there would be no problem....and if I crapped diamonds I would be rich.

Well, in the context of talking to a person from 1912, if you explained to them that the 'progress' (by which I guess you mean population explosion and technical advancements) of the last century comes at the cost of the environment, nature, and may destroy the planet over the next century (at least for human survival), I would bet anyone with an IQ of 90+ will say 'selling (or even gambling) our permanent future for temporary industrial progress is a terrible idea, no thanks'.

Well, you must see that some of that great 'food production' is actually corn and grain for livestock, bio fuels, palm oils, etc., not human food stuffs. In order to make that 'food', forests are destroyed, removing entire eco systems that provided 'bush taco' (natural foods) which wasn't included in the equations about overall food production. Food HARVESTS of natural foods have declined rapidly worldwide, just look at the ocean. It may be unfishable in 15-20 years at current acidification rates. Kill the base of the food web, and the web falls apart. It's a rare place today that can support a human population without industrial agriculture and food importation, both of which have failed to solve starvation issues to date.

You can only be ignoring that data about it being catastrophic. I referenced it earlier. Just to mention ONE way, by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage. In most cases, there's absolutely no way to fix this. For instance, Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade, and that rate is expected to continue to accelerate. With no water, industrial agriculture fails instantly, and people die in 3 days or so. There's NO solution for this disaster, not a plan, not an idea, nothing. There are already immigration problems worldwide, how to solve that when the immigration increases exponentially everywhere?

The downvote was not for your opinion, it was for your dangerously mistaken estimations and conclusions, and insistence that, contrary to all human history and all scientific evidence, this time humans will find and implement a working solution to the problem in time (already too late IMO) that's not worse than the problem was, and so we should not be bothered by the coming massive shortages and upheaval that comes with them, because somehow in that upheaval we'll find and implement massive global solutions to currently insurmountable issues. We can't even slow down the rate of increase in CO2 emissions, it's unbelievable to think we'll turn that to a negative number in 20-30 years even if the tech is invented (which still leaves us in Mad Max times at best, IMO), much more so to think we could erase 100 years of emissions in that time. EDIT:...and I find that kind of dangerous unrealistic suggestion insulting.

There MUST be a miswording there, or bold faced, outright lie.
As temperatures rise, frozen underwater methane (methyl hydrate)is melted and RELEASED, not trapped. Not only that, as the ice on land disappears, it exposes permafrost that, as it melts, also emits methane. It's been happening for a while now, and is accelerating. Methane is FAR more damaging to the atmosphere than CO2, for longer times, so once this cycle takes off, we can expect exponential increase in the temperature rise.
It's POSITIVE feedback loop, not a negative one.
EDIT: Perhaps they mean when the Atlantic currents are disrupted and the lower ocean becomes colder...at that point it will have the ability to store more methane, but not the ability to capture it from the atmosphere since the upper ocean will be far warmer.
As for your misunderstanding of CO2, removing all CO2 production tomorrow won't remove any in the atmosphere, it will be there for quite some time before it could be absorbed in the ocean/forests, and that time period extends daily as the ocean becomes more acidic (making it impossible for diatoms to use the CO2 to make their shells) and the forests are removed. Once the ocean stops absorbing CO2, even the amount naturally created will be far too much for the atmosphere, and temps/CO2 levels will still rise even if we produce absolutely none. The tipping point was in the 70s-80s when we could have stopped CO2 production and made a difference. Now, it's too late unless we find a way to trap CO2 and keep it trapped. The systems are quite slow to react.
As for people "thriving", that's just ridiculous. There's been a food shortage world wide for quite some time now. The water shortage is becoming a bigger threat, and that's expected to increase exponentially as glaciers, snow packs, and aquifers rapidly disappear. Ocean harvests have drastically decreased, as have natural foods. We are thriving in the same way locusts 'thrive' when they swarm...but note that 99.9% of them die of starvation in the end.

OMFG. How have republicans thoroughly forgotten bailing out the banks was under Bush?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008
BUSH bailed out first the airlines, for nothing in return, then the banks, for nothing in return. Obama sadly continued that flawed policy, but did at least get partial ownership and concessions for our money, and got our money back. Bush simply gave it away with a smile and a nod.

I've been hearing that BS since 3 years into his first term. It's just that, BS. A quick google search, ignoring political sites and sticking with non-partisan factual numbers, and not blindly putting the entire cost of the Iraq war on Obama because Bush kept it's costs 'off the books', will show you quite clearly you're wrong. He's not been good on debt, but a large part of the deficit he did run in his early years are due to the tanked Bush economy, and WAY less taxes coming in without spending cuts. I'll remind you again, republicans turned down a budget that had $10 in cuts for every $1 in new taxes, a budget that would have erased the deficit....but you still blame Obama?

Heard that before too...that Democrats forced lowering banking standards for home loans and securities through the republican held congress and against the wishes of the republicans and Bush...absolute BS not worth refuting, they simply didn't have the majority to 'force' anything.

How many people died of exposure, drowning long after the storm, starvation, lack of water, unsanitary conditions at shelters in NJ? As for rebuilding, Jersey insisted they would do it without FEMA, and even though they had the money, they haven't rebuilt a lot of what's damaged, but still probably a larger percentage than New Orleans.

Clinton absolutely did not have intelligence that Bin Laden was planning an imminent attack on American soil, Bush did. Clinton did not allow Bin Laden's relatives to leave the country after an attack, it's reported Bush did. Clinton had an opportunity to kill Bin Laden, with unknown amounts of collateral damage in a country we weren't allowed into (so an act of war), and decided to not start a war on flimsy 'intelligence'...a good plan now that we know how that goes.

I'm pretty sure you have sand up your ass, and a sever case of cranial rectosis.

If Israeli attacks weren't fully funded proxy attacks from larger nations like the USA, you might have a point.
If Iran and Syria had not 'supported' Hezbollah, there would be no Palestinian area today, only Israel.
The reality is that if "Palestine" could defend itself like any other nation, Israel would be 1/2 it's size and not constantly expanding, and there would be hundreds of thousands more Palestinians who had not been killed by Israel and the isolation/starvation they caused.

It seems you're saying that any nation not busy expanding into it's neighbors is 'weak' and should be invaded? Maybe I read wrong?

I can't believe that guy actually shouted 'Freedom.'

If there's one thing we the west represent right now it is anything but freedom. Freedom to have CCTV's watching us round the clock, freedom to have our computer activity spied on, freedom to be phone and email tapped, freedom to choose between working zero hour work contracts or starvation, freedom, freedom, freedom. Nothing but freedom. Freedom to label as a traitor and ostracise Snowden from all western countries for SHOWING US HOW FREE WE REALLY ARE. But thank god all this freedom we've given up is ensuring our safety from, for example, people being massacred for making satirical comments.

If our whistleblowers aren't free, WE AREN'T FREE.

Was he being sarcastic for fuck's sake? How are people so ignorant of the things that are done in our name?

All well and good, but the reason why all the oversight costs piles up is because this plane isn't a solution to a military problem, it's a solution to an economical problem.

It's government stimulus, pure and simple. Get a whole bunch of different contractors from different companies and hand them money to build parts for a warplane that covers roles that are already covered. Keep those guys ticking over to prevent a collapse of the arms industry (or to prevent them developing products for sale to buyers the US might not consider kosher).

And then, because you're dealing with different companies, you need to coordinate, ensure compatibility, oversea each company to make sure they are on time/program/budget etc etc.

You build a plane under one roof, the entire process is overseen by the company and the government get's to check up on them. Far simpler. One department doesn't deliver inside that company, their management has to fix the problem or default on the contract. One company holds up the whole plane, do the other companies get penalised? Of course not, their staff sit around drawing wages with their thumbs up their asses waiting. And the government keeps paying.

Additionally, the planes the F35 is supposed to replace are all better at their jobs because they are specialised. You put every topping ever conceived on that government pizza and no one will like it (apart from perhaps the homeless who would eat anything to stave off starvation). Build a new warthog, improve on the materials, give it better armaments etc and put the tried and true design back to work. That's the core of the super hornet program, right?

When you look at the state of the world, the only real threats currently to America are the bloody terrorists (which, as you note, isn't exactly an existential threat), and the flexing of military might in 2nd world countries not withstanding, there is very little need for a frankenplane that doesn't do anything particularly good.

China and Russia? Lol, the US has 75% more combat aircraft and 400% more combat helicopters. Factor in China's pretty sparse air assets, in an air war, including force multipliers such as electronic warfare/early warning/air co-ordination and carriers, the US would be able to show down both nations handily with it's existing fleet.

I really do appreciate the point you're making, but that just adds insult to injury. The awful waste built in to the program is even more appalling when you consider that the F35 is a plane no one really needs, or even wants.

This is getting old.
If production were simple, ie not requiring extra water and fertilizer, everyone who's hungry would farm, and there would be 'bush taca' (wild food) to gather and eat. You can't make a living stealing from subsistence farmers, you go hungry between farms that way.
I point out that historically you are wrong. I cite specific examples illustrating that you are wrong. Still you come back insisting that somehow men with guns can't starve people out who want to farm. That somehow the mass starvations under Stalin, Mao, and North Korea weren't even related to the mass theft at gunpoint of farm crops and land from farmers. You insist that it's not what is today stopping farmland from productivity in places like the DRC, Liberia, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and many more. I give up.

the tech to replace oil and coal and gas exist today
But also
we can't get to the moon with NASA today, or get on a concord
I give up.

78% less glacier doesn't mean ...
I think those numbers are small, and it's likely that there will be less than 22% of glaciers left in 100 years
I cited the actual science from the IPCC with their own projections. You take the very, very worst of the multiple scenarios the IPCC run. Not content with that, you take the most extreme range of error within that extreme scenario. Not content with that, you then inject your PERSONAL BELIEF that even that position of science is likely to optimistic.

I give up. If you refuse to listen to fact and reason that's up to you. Just don't pretend your any better than the other side ignoring the actual science just from a different end of the spectrum.

@newtboy
I think the people of Kiribati would disagree that it's not time to panic!
If you'd read my post I didn't claim the people of Kiribati weren't in a position to panic. I actually went further in agreeing with you, to the point that they should have been panicked a hundred years ago in 1914 already. The distinction being that what ever the climate does wasn't going to save them. 200 hundred years of cooling and sea level decline from 1914 would still have them on an island a few feet on average above sea level and still a disaster waiting to happen.

California alone, which produces over 1/4 of America's food,
Here we do have a difference of fact. I don't know what measure you've imagined up, but the cattle in texas alone are more than double the food produced in California. The corn and other crops in any number of prairie states to the same. You can't just invent numbers. Yields across crops have been increasing steadily year on year in North America for decades.

The violence is often CAUSED by the lack of food, making the 'men with guns' have a reason to steal and control food sources. If food were plentiful, it would be impossible for them to do so.
I'm sorry, read more history, you are just wrong on this. 10 guys with guns against 10 farmers with food and the farmers lose every time. The guys with guns eat for the year. The farmers maybe even are able to beg or slave for scraps that year. The next year maybe only 5 farmers bother to grow anything, and next harvest there are 15 guys with guns. Look at the Russian revolution and that's exactly the road that led to Stalin's mass starvations and lack of food. It's actually why I am a Canadian as my grandfather's family left their farm in Russia with the clothes on his back after the his neighbours farm was razed to the ground enough times.

The thugs SELL that food, so it doesn't just disappear
Food doesn't create itself as noted above. The cycle is less and less food as the thugs destroy all incentive to bother trying to grow something.

adopting new tech, even quick adoption, absolutely CAN be an economic boon
I agree. I hadn't realized that adoption of new tech was that simple. I was under the impression one also had to take the time to, you know, invent it. The existing technology for replacing oil and coal cost effectively doesn't exist yet. Electric cars and nuclear power are the closest thing. The market will adopt electric cars without us doing a thing. Switching from coal to nuclear though, even if universally agreed and adopted yesterday, would still take decades for a conversion. Those decades are enough that even if we got to zero emissions by then(~2050), the sea level and temperature at 2100 aren't going to look much if any different(by IPCC best estimates).
So I repeat, if you want meaningful emission reductions, you have no other option but restricting consumption across the globe. That hasn't been accomplished in the past without setting of wars, so I keep my vote as cure is worse than disease.

The 78% glacial mass loss was worst case if CO2 emissions are still accelerating in 2100. The mountains with the glaciers will still be bulking each winter and running off each summer, just to a 78% smaller size in the depth of summer. As in, absolutely not 78% less run off. And they are not 'my' numbers as you wish to refer, but the IPCC's numbers. Your effort to somehow leave question to their veracity is the very campaign of 'doubt' in the science the video is talking about.

Then slow down with theories of our impending demise, the IPCC doesn't support it. You want to talk about not denying the science, then you don't get to preach gloom and doom. Don't claim a large percentage of farmland is going to be lost to sea level rise by 2100. Don't claim coastlines are going to be pushed back 10 miles by a worst case 1 foot rise of sea level by 2100.

We are talking about advancements solving problems like a maximum sea level rise of a foot in the next 100 years, with best guesses being lower than that. I think it's modest to suggest our children's children will have figured out how to raise the dikes around places like New Orleans by a foot in the next 100 years.
The concord and moon trips are no longer happening because they are expensive. We can do them if we needed to, and more easily than the first time around. Finding out people aren't willing to pay the premium to shave an hour off their flight doesn't mean the technology no longer exists. Just because America no longer needs to prove they can lift massive quantities of nuclear warheads into orbit doesn't mean we couldn't still go to the moon again if it was needed. There's just no reason to do it, the tech exists still none the less.
Yes, there are social problems that confound the use of new technology. You fail to notice that is also the problem with feeding everybody. Food production isn't the problem, but rather the men with guns that control distribution. Stalin's mass starvation of millions was a social problem, not climate change or technology. Mao's was the same. North Koreas the same. All over Africa is the same. We have more than enough food, and plenty of charities work hard to send food over to places like Africa. Once the food gets there though the men with guns take most of it and people still starve. The reason Africa has so many crop failures is the violent displacement of the farmers. Exactly the same problem that saw millions starve in Russia, China and North Korea.
You are right that a changing climate could compound Africa's ag industry a bit, but it's a small hit compared to the violent displacement problem. Also, don't neglect to consider to impact of meaningful CO2 emission restrictions around the globe. A large scale global economic downturn probably means a lot more war, bloodshed, and starvation. If you do not reduce emissions enough to trigger that downturn and instead just 'marginally', you get stuck with both because Africa is still going to see virtually the same climate changes through the next hundred years.

And if you are worried about losing the glaciers in the Himalayas by 2100 there is very good reason to believe that's gonna be alright:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S41/39/84Q12/index.xml?section=topstories

my god...
i have to agree with your assessment and i have been watching putin and his politics for awhile.
that man is one savvy player but as you stated..he knows when to open the table up.
im not giving him a free pass for some serious fucked up shit he has done but we cant ignore his political chops.

i think we all see whats starting to play out and we think to ourselves "no way they would go that far.that would be suicide,on multiple levels".
nevermind the deaths...
or the injured and disabled.
nevermind the collapsed economies leading to death,disease and starvation.
the political fallout alone would ruin many political players...forever.

but i posted a report awhile ago and it has always stuck in my head.its not all conspiratorial and shadow government stuff.its the real power elites and they truly dont care.

the man makes the case that all wars have been bankers wars.
that debt is the new currency and war is their favorite way to enslave a people.
and they have been doing it for centuries.
with globalization and sovereign boundaries not as traditional as they have been,due to the internet and mass communication.
nationalism and religion are not quite the motivating force they once were.

if you look at what russia has been doing with its oil reserves and how it has been dealing with its debt and military.the interview you shared takes on whole new dimensions..and those dimensions are frightening.

its the bankers.
http://videosift.com/video/all-wars-are-bankers-wars-what-school-history-never-taught

later that night 5 lions died of starvation