Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Holding Passover as If Earth Really Matters

By Arthur Waskow, TheNation.com. Posted April 19, 2008.


Passover teaches us that spring cleaning is a time to simplify our lives.
Advertisement

The traditional Passover Haggadah teaches that in every generation some pharaoh will arise to destroy and that in every generation, every human being -- not just every Jew -- must look upon herself or himself as if it is we, not our ancestors only, who must go forth to freedom.

In this generation, what pharaoh do we face, what freedom must we seek, what action could we take -- not only Jews but all of us who face the dangerous pharaohs?

This year, the first Seder of Passover falls on Saturday night, April 19; Earth Day occurs three days later, on April 22. The environmental focus of Earth Day -- which has softened a great deal over the decades -- could be sharpened in connection with Passover and its reminder about contemporary pharaohs. Passover intertwines human freedom with the renewal of the earth: in the moment of spring, when new grain, new lambs and new flowers rise up against winter, not only a community of oppressed human beings but the earth itself rises up against pharaoh (in what we call the "plagues").

Today the global climate crisis threatens the whole planetary web of life, and there are some institutions -- pharaohs -- that make the crisis worse. They are bringing on us all the plagues of today -- rivers undrinkable, frogs dying, the Great Lakes drying, hurricanes worsening, glaciers melting, polar bears drowning, seacoasts rising, droughts consuming.

There is a close relationship between our individual profligate consumption of coal and oil and the behavior of these pharaohs -- Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Auto. They seduce us into our addictions while claiming that global "scorching" does not exist, or that if it does it is not the result of human misdeeds, or that even if it is, it will cost our economy too much to change. All this is the behavior of pharaohs protecting their power and wealth by making their products into our idols.

At Passover, eating matzo -- unleavened bread -- is connected to getting all leavening out of our houses -- yeast, fermented foods, souring agents. The Hassidic teachers of Jewish mysticism saw leavening not only as physical but metaphorically as the swelling up of excess in our own lives -- the pharaoh within each of us, swelling us up in grandiosity. In this sense, overconsumption is "leavening," and Passover is teaching us that spring cleaning is a time to simplify our lives.

Specifically, is coal-fired electricity "leavening," to be expelled from our houses and replaced by wind-stirred electricity? Is our own addiction to the overuse of oil, coal and gasoline a kind of leavening?

How could households and congregations sweep out this kind of leavening before, during or after Passover?

Passover is about not only personal change but also political and social change. Can we face the external pharaohs as well -- those institutions that are turning the great round earth into a narrow place -- Mitzrayyim (the Hebrew word for Egypt, which actually means "tight and narrow space")?

On the Sabbath before Passover (April 18-19), traditionally the prophetic reading in synagogue is from the Prophet Malachi. It ends with God promising to send Elijah the Prophet to turn the hearts of parents to children and the hearts of children to parents -- "lest the earth be utterly destroyed."

This 2,500-year-old prophetic call comes alive with new force in our generation -- calling for the old and young to work together -- to take on "Elijah's" mission -- to heal the earth from the danger of utter destruction.

For the Seder, families and congregations could use supplemental Haggadah readings on healing the earth, with the goal of inspiring efforts during the rest of Passover to work for earth-healing change at home and in public policy.

Beyond the conventional home and community Seders, we could do Speakout Street Seders for the Earth -- perhaps during the week before Passover -- to galvanize public attention and stir conversations at home Seders all over the country. Earth Day itself could be another venue for such events.

Could such Speakout Street Seders for the Earth gather people in many different cities to focus public attention on the need for change in public policy -- and on the pharaohs that stand in the way?

At Environmental "Protection" Agency regional offices, demanding that the EPA permit the states to adopt higher earth-healing standards on carbon emissions?

Or at ExxonMobil offices, demanding carbon taxes?

Or at Congressional offices, with the Warner-Lieberman climate bill coming up for votes about then, needing major improvements?

Could we bring matzo and bitter herbs, chant the plagues of today -- as we pour wine out of our cups?

Could we make such Street Seders not only a warning but also a time for joy? At the home Seder, we traditionally save a cup of wine to welcome Elijah. Perhaps at such Speakout Seders for the Earth we can, with joyful song and dance, welcome the Elijah in one another -- the Elijah who turns the hearts of parents and children to one another "lest the earth be utterly destroyed."

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: passover, earth day

Rabbi Arthur Waskow directs the Shalom Center 6711 Lincoln Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19119. He is the author of many books on Jewish thought and practice and the co-author of The Tent of Abraham: Stories of Hope and Peace for Jews, Christians, and Muslims (Beacon).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
earth day
Posted by: Lauren on Apr 19, 2008 7:23 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dude,

Earth day is a three day celebration - incorporating 4/20 of course.

I had a friend in Girl Scouts that explained passover to me one year. I was impressed by all the food laws in the jewish religion. Being a food scientist, I thought it was interesting how old, out of date, safe food practices were such a revered and respected part of her religion, while NO aspect of my religion was officially recognized in any way shape or form. Certainly not respected!

The prejudice I experience regularly like that is part of the practice, it builds strength of character. So I have to admit I enjoyed a small bit of vindictive pleasure to hear two women having a really hard time finding their special jewish holiday foods today. Usually the stores are packed with special displays, not so much this year.

They gave me a skanky look, dirty Indian, obviously not jewish. Not loved special by god like they are. They don't know WHAT to expect from freaky looking people like me. I smiled, I know god better then they do. God doesn't care about jewish food.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Lauren Posted by: asilsfable
» RE: earth day Posted by: yellow
Economics of civilization collapse & extinction. Pharoh dies too.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 19, 2008 8:10 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the economic effect of the extinction of the human race?
The denial of anthropic global warming is putting civilization in danger of collapse
and it is putting Homo Sapiens on the endangered species list.

The economic cost of the extinction of Homo Sapiens is infinite, and the cost of
the fall of civilization is very nearly infinite and way beyond any possible benefit
of any kind to anybody. Calculating a cost of global warming in money is
therefore the ultimate in foolishness. Money does not exist without people, but
people can exist without money. ANY such calculation is way beyond morally
wrong. Project 1 is avoiding extinction at any cost.

Nature's eventual wrath and retaliation includes:
1. The impending EXTINCTION of human life in maybe 1 or 2 centuries.

2. The downfall of civilization a lot sooner than our extinction. Maybe
civilization will fall within 30 years.

1. The Existential Risk that is virtually certain to happen if we don't mend our coal
burning ways is the same as the End Permian mass extinction: Hydrogen Sulfide
[H2S] bubbling out of a hot ocean killing everybody and almost everything. It is
possible to avoid it, but the power of wealth must be overcome. 5 groups of
paleontologists have come to the same conclusion independently. That is
sufficient evidence to take drastic action regardless. Reference list in next post.

Reference Book: "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. See a summary at:
http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4/23/
six-steps-to-hell-summary-of-six-degrees
-as-published-in-the-guardian

2. Reference Book: "The Long Summer, How Climate Changed Civilization" by
Brian Fagan, 2004 Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-02281-2
Summary: Smaller climate changes than we have caused already, caused the fall
of many civilizations.
Reference Book: "Collapse, How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" by Jared
Diamond. 99.99% of all people in the collapsing civilization die, including the
richest. Hunting the neighbors as food happens. We really really don't want to
go there.
See:
http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/
climate411/2008/01/14/global_winds/
The drought in Georgia, California, Australia, Greece, Turkey, the Sahel, China
and other places is part of the desertification that will soon cause agriculture to fail
and civilization collapses when agriculture fails. The rich have the privilege of
being the last to die of starvation, but their deaths will happen quite soon after the
deaths from starvation of everybody else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

At best, religion muddies the water to make it appear deep.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 19, 2008 8:19 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion adds confusion where clarity is needed.
Religion adds nothing positive and divides people into
feuding clans, easier for politicians like Pharoh Bush
to manipulate. Religion obscures the science.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion: Get over it so we can get on with saving this planet.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 19, 2008 8:25 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a sophomore undergraduate student in Physics, your homework in Probability
and Statistics class may include figuring out when the second coming would be
required, assuming that the bible was 100% true in the year zero. That is, when
would the bible be down to 50% true? The popular and professors' answer in
1965 was the year 500. The true answer: A friend of mine was born and raised in
Budapest, Hungary. As an adult, he came here and stayed. After 25 years, he
visited his home town of Budapest. He was unable to communicate with his high
school classmates because the Hungarian language had changed so much. The
correct answer is less than 25 years. The first gospel was not written down until
50 years after the alleged events and then in a different language. The people who
told the story were at about the same level of civilization as "wild Indians", I mean
Native Americans before Columbus got here. We have all played or seen played
the game called "Telephone" in which a story is passed down a line of re-tellers.
By the Sixth re-telling, the story has no resemblance to the original. The gospel
story had to have been re-told at least 6 times before it was mis-translated the first
time. [Note that whoever wrote it down the first time was free to write whatever
he wanted to. The storytellers were illiterate and unable to check his written text
by reading it. Besides that, he wrote in Greek rather than Aramaic.] Conclusion:
There is no truth anywhere in the bible, and there never was. There is no way to
know what "jesus" or "mohammed" or any other such character actually said or
did.

ALL of the jurisdictions that were formerly in the jurisdiction of religion have
been taken over by Science. There is no longer a need to debate the issue.
Religion is an unfortunate side effect of having evolved from a chimpanzee-like
animal in a very brief 6 or 7 million years. "God" will not save us from the
consequences of global warming or an asteroid impact or a tornado because there
is no such critter as "god.".] Ethics and morality are instinctive, not derived from
religion. Female instinct has greater force in morality than male instinct because
the female is in command of the sexual encounter. Look up "Sociobiology". The
origin of the Universe is the subject of Cosmology which is part of astronomy
which is part of the science of physics.
Religion is a SCAM. ANY religion, there are 10,000 to choose from at any one
time. People keep inventing new religions [for the benefit of the "prophet," of
course] and forgetting other religions. ALL preachers, priests, imams, rabbis,
iatolas, etc. belong in jail for "grand theft, bunko type".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Pearson Posted by: Rapunzel
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Apr 19, 2008 8:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Terrorist Posted by: donl51
We need scientists in charge, not religionists.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 19, 2008 8:28 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion is caused by any one or more of about half a dozen mental illnesses.
The truth about religion can be found in these books:

"The Neuropsychological bases of god beliefs" Dr. Michael A. Persinger MD,
psychiatrist 1987 "Religious people are just like my temporal lobe patients"

"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind" Julian
Jaynes Professor, Harvard University 1976 "Religious people are just like
schizophrenic patients"

"The Psychiatric Interview in Clinical Practice" Roger A. MacKinnon, M.D.,
Robert Michels, M.D. W. B. Saunders Co. 1971 "Religiosity is a common
symptom [of] schizophrenic patients"

"The God delusion" by Richard Dawkins. "Religion is caused by a kind of
computer virus that infects the living computer, the human brain."

"The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer, 2004 "Morality and Ethics
are now in the jurisdiction of Science and greatly improved thereby."

Many books in the new science called "Sociobiology": Morals and ethics are
instinctive and they evolved.

"God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger Scientific proof that god does
not exist.

"The God Part of the Brain" by Matthew Alper 1996. "The USA is anomolusly
religious because many early founder groups were religiously insane and fleeing
prosecution in Europe. Religion is a genetic disorder."

"The Accidental Mind" by David J. Linden, 2007 Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press. Religion is caused by the extreme klugeyness of the "designed"
by evolution brain. In particular, the narrative creation system cannot be turned
off. It generates false narratives that are believed by the generating person. This is
seen in experiments done in the laboratory. This book has the best explanation of
resistance to evolution: "There has also been an assumption that if one accepts the
idea that life developed without divine intervention, it necessarily follows that all
aspects of religious thought must be rejected. Those who take this line of
argument to extremes argue that when religious thought is rejected moral and
social codes will degenerate and "the law of the jungle" will be all that is left. It is
imagined by religious fundamentalists that those who do not share their particular
religious faith are incapable of leading moral lives." These suppositions are not
true many times over. Linden later mentions that the creationists [intelligent
design advocates] are exactly 180 degrees wrong rather than just a little wrong.
Being exactly wrong, they are unable to unlearn their error. See Sociobiology or
Sciobio.

"Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism" edited by Petto &
Godfrey, 2007. The ID and creationist crowd are trying to do away with science.
They see science as a "godless religion." Science is a process, not a religion.

"Manufacturing Belief" by Lewis Wolpert
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05/15/lewis_wolpert/

"The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris

"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", by Daniel Dennett
Let's do scientific research on religion and find out what causes it.

"Origins of the Modern Mind" by Merlin Donald 1991 "So what did you expect
from a brain that is based on the Chimpanzee brain?

"Atheism, A Case Against God" by George Smith

"God is not Great; how religion poisons everything" by Christopher Hitchens, 2007

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I notice fewer arguments in favor of biofuel since food riots began.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 19, 2008 8:38 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is a form of progress. Many posters are now aware that we
cannot replace fossil fuels with biofuel. Why did it take food
riots to convince them? They should have listened when I
said that 2 or 3 more Earths would be needed to replace fossil fuel
with biofuel.
Will something analogous happen with wind and solar power?
Hopefully without too many deaths? And hopefully before it is
too late to stop global warming because of too many thresholds
having been crossed. The food riots are a great lesson. Food
riots WILL happen in the USA if global warming is allowed to
continue. Wind and solar power are not adequate to put an end to
burning fossil fuel. I hope wind and solar power advocates come
to their senses soon enough. EFFECTIVE action has to be taken
immediately to stop the burning of coal first, because coal is the
biggest single source of CO2. People who advocate solar and
wind power are playing into the hands of the $100 Billion/year
coal industry because the coal fire must be kept burning to even
out the variability in wind and the lack of sunshine at night. Of
course, the coal industry keeps putting up front web sites and
funding books claiming that nuclear power is dangerous. Nuclear
power is the safest. I do not have a financial connection to the
nuclear industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

think about this for a second...
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Apr 19, 2008 8:43 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SCIENCE is what got us here...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eligion AND Science Got Us Here Posted by: AsteroidMiner
Wind stirred electricity: Rabbi keep your nose out of engineering.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 19, 2008 10:51 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How we will generate electricity is a decision for scientists and
engineers to make. Rabbis, preachers, priests, imams and any
other religionists should keep their noses out of it. Religions are
all about the same. They are all nonsense and none of them have
a clue about anything involving reality. Likewise, management
should stay out of it. Things work better when the engineers do
the engineering. Quit insulting the engineers. Religionists,
managers and politicians don't know anything about it or anything
at all, but they are always pressuring the engineers to do
something absurd. It is high time for the engineers and scientists
to be in charge, if you want to survive. Nature is threatening to
do away with the weed called Homo Sapiens. Mother Nature is
as subtle as a train wreck. It isn't just not nice to fool Mother
Nature. Nature cannot be fooled. We have proven that prayers
do not work. Religion is a form of magic. Magic doesn't work
in real life. Engineering and science work, so Rabbi go home and
let us engineers and scientists get it done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wind turbines are decorations, nothing more in most places.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 19, 2008 11:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wind energy wastes energy because the wind varies so much that
a "spinning reserve" is required in most locations. If you are
running the steam powered generator at the spinning reserve rate,
you may as well use the steam as your energy source and forget
about the wind. Wind turbines are decorations, not sources of
energy for the grid until we have room temperature
superconductors or super batteries. There are special locations
and circumstances where wind energy is useful, but wind cannot
replace coal and nuclear any time soon.
Those windmills are just nuisances that electric companies are
forced to put up with. They aren't really reducing the need for
coal because the wind is too variable. The coal fire has to be kept
burning to maintain a "spinning reserve." There is one and only
one practical way to replace coal fired power plants at the present
time. That one way is nuclear power. Nuclear power works for
base load and nuclear power is clean and safe. Nuclear fuel is
recyclable. There is no such thing as nuclear waste.
We don't have batteries that are good enough and cheap enough to
solve the problem of wind variability yet. We need research into
energy storage and room temperature superconductors. The
research will take an unknown amount of time. We don't have
that time. Batteries and room temperature superconductors
have been under research for a very long time already, so don't
expect any breakthroughs next week.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Arthur Waskow, you can greet whomever you like with your cup of wine.
Posted by: Richard House on Apr 20, 2008 12:57 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But why should anyone care about what you and your tribe (that has set itself apart from the rest of the human race) has to say? The issues are relevant but the vehicle in which you carry them are not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dear UndergroundGirl: Science has been discussing Global
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 20, 2008 3:10 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Warming for more than a century. Where have you been?
7 March 2008
The global cooling mole
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=536
By John Fleck http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/ and William
Connolley http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/

To veterans of the Climate Wars, the old 1970s global cooling
canard - "How can we believe climate scientists about global
warming today when back in the 1970s they told us an ice age was
imminent?" - must seem like a never-ending game of Whack-a-
mole. One of us (WMC) has devoted years to whacking down
the mole (see here, here and here, for example), while the other of
us (JF) sees the mole pop up anew in his in box every time he
quotes contemporary scientific views regarding climate change in
his newspaper stories.

The problem is that the argument has played out in competing
anecdotes, without any comprehensive and rigorous picture of
what was really going on in the scientific literature at the time.
But if the argument is to have any relevance beyond talking points
aimed at winning a debate, such a comprehensive understanding is
needed. If, indeed, climate scientists predicted a coming ice age,
it is worthwhile to take the next step and understand why they
thought this, and what relevance it might have to today's science-
politics-policy discussions about climate change. If, on the other
hand, scientists were not really predicting a coming ice age, then
the argument needs to be retired.

The two of us, along with Tom Peterson of the National Climatic
Data Center, undertook a literature review to try to move beyond
the anecdotes and understand what scientists were really saying at
the time regarding the various forces shaping climate on time
human time scales. The results are currently in press at the
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and Doyle Rice
has written a nice summary in USA Today, and an extended
version based on a presentation made by Tom at the AMS meeting
in January is on line.

During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different
from what you see today. There was far less integration among the
various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote
sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in
their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in
the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between
1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):

* 7 articles predicting cooling
* 44 predicting warming
* 20 that were neutral


In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you
believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were
doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that
increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any
changes we might see in climate on human time scales.

We do not expect that this work will stop the mole from popping
its head back up in the future. But we do hope that when it does,
this analysis will provide a foundation for a more thoughtful
discussion about what climate scientists were and were not saying
back in the 1970s.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Undrgrndgirl: Without science, you wouldn't know anything
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 20, 2008 3:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
was happening. You would have no warning.
Scientists have been against coal for a long time.
Engineers have been in favor of nuclear for a long time.
Without science, you wouldn't know anything at all.
Science is 500 years old. Prior to that, nobody knew anything
at all. Journalism has been failing to tell you the truth for a long
time. Capitalists in the coal business have been telling you lies
just like capitalists in the cigarette business. If you want
somebody to blame, blame yourself for failing to study science.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Israel is Pharoah; racism is his plague
Posted by: Anomalek on Apr 20, 2008 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amid all this collective self-congratulation about Judaism's profound commitment to human decency and vigilance against evil, I can't help but notice that I find NOT ONE SINGLE WORD about decades of grotesque indecencies visited upon Palestinians by Israel.

Yes, by all means, on the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, while a million non-Jewish children starve inside the Gaza Ghetto, lets all make sure that every Jewish household is talking about environmental policy and "earth-healing."

Yes, I agree, on the 60th anniversary of the spectacular ethnic cleansing by which Israel swept out its leavening - the cocneit is not mine; the campaign to cleanse Haifa of its 75,000 non-Jews was called, for example, bi'ur hametz ("Operation Cleansing the Leaven") - on this day of all days, let's all agree right here and now that every Jewish household, sitting down for seder, will keep their attention squarely focused on "earth-healing" and environmental plagues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Disconnected from reality Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Disconnected from reality Posted by: HoboHomo
The greedy Clintons
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 20, 2008 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For Bill and Hillary, the Passover spirit starts at home -- literally.

The Clintons are getting fawned praise from mainstream media for giving 10 percent of their $109 million income since 2000 to "charity."

At first glance, 10% is a worthy and commendable amount. However, as many things about Hillary and her hubby, you have to look beyond their press releases for the truth.

Here it is. As reported by Amanda Carpenter of TownHall.com, the Clintons gave most of their tax-deductible donations to THEMSELVES. Case at point -- Clinton tax returns that show $10,256,741 was donated to "CFF" -- the Clinton Family Foundation.

Carpenter noted that on the 2005 forms and those from previous years, Bill Clinton was listed as CFF president, Hillary Clinton had the title of secretary/treasurer and daughter Chelsea Clinton was a director.

'The 2006 tax forms also list Gloria Clinton as CFF CEO who was paid $252,500 for her "work" that year.

Of the $10 million-plus the Clintons donated to CFF, the foundation only parceled out $2.5 million to other charities. So what happened the remaining $7.5 million? A good question to ask the IRS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Commandment
Posted by: PaulK on Apr 20, 2008 4:59 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First off, let me say that I bought my neighbor's garbage bags. I'm not Jewish myself. However, plenty of Judaism carries over into Christianity. If my neighbor has really odd-sounding rituals that help him to remember his own good faith and heritage, so be it.

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

We have heard the paid shills of the oil merchants and the coal merchants, telling us in whispering campaigns that global warming was a myth, when they knew otherwise. Exxon/Mobil alone has poured vast sums into this shallow gesture. Likewise we have heard the paid shills of the biofuel merchants and the nuclear merchants, implying to us that their products saved more carbon dioxide than they spent in their life cycles.

God's law is binding upon everyone, even upon the king, and even upon the merchants. This is a rule made at the restoration of Jerusalem.

Let the above named merchants know that what they have done isn't right with God. Furthermore, Cain did wrong and tried to lie to God. Cain lost. How could Cain do otherwise?

If you wish to be outside of God and outside of God's people, completely outside, at Passover, then I can slightly comfort you by saying that perhaps God doesn't respect human anniversaries. On the other hand, you would still be fair game for the living God the other 364 days.

- - - -

As for the rest of us, we are aggrieved that we want to do right but our President, our Congress and our merchants do evil. We don't know what to do about this madness, we admit our helplessness and we throw ourselves at God's feet in shame and in humiliation. Our world could get quite sick. Our world could die with a carbon bomb making our atmosphere unbreatheable. For that matter our world (or most of us) could die with a global thermonuclear war. Or with runaway war robot production and a little programming glitch.

Perhaps God will spare a wicked nation and world which contains even a few good people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Cool. Posted by: PaulK
» RE: Cool. Posted by: Richard House
There is no such thing as nuclear waste. Fuel should be recycled.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 20, 2008 7:18 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't recycle nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and people steal it.
The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a
small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the
business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would have the
advantage of lasting many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost"
half a ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled
both their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear
"waste." It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States.
It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the
difficult process of enriching uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. Terrorists can't compete with Mossad and
Israeli dual citizens who are CEOs of companies like Numec. Israeli nuclear
weapons are exact duplicates of American nuclear weapons. All persons who
were "born of Jewish mothers" are citizens of Israel regardless of any other fact.
Since the US can't and shouldn't discriminate, the reprocessing of nuclear fuel in
the US stopped. That was the only politically possible solution at that time,
given that private corporations did the reprocessing. My solution would be to
reprocess the fuel at a Government Owned Government Operated [GOGO]
facility. At a GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and
religion would disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any
unauthorized place. Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

I have no financial connection with the nuclear power industry.
I am not being paid to post this.
I do not own nuclear industry stock.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is impossible for a reactor to become a nuclear bomb
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 20, 2008 7:24 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why a Nuclear Powerplant CAN NOT Explode like a Nuclear Bomb

Bombs are completely different from reactors. There is
nothing similar about them except that they both need fissile
materials. But they need DIFFERENT fissile materials and they
use them very differently.
A nuclear bomb "compresses" pure or nearly pure fissile
material into a small space. There is no other material in the
volume containing the nuclear explosive. The fissile material is
either the uranium isotope 235 or plutonium. If it is uranium, it is
at least 90% uranium 235 and 10% or less uranium 238. There is
no isotope separation problem if the fissile material is plutonium.
These fissile materials are metals and very difficult to compress.
Because they are difficult to compress, a high explosive [high
speed explosive] is required to compress them. Pieces of the
fissile material have to slam into each other hard for the nuclear
reactions to take place.
A nuclear reactor, such as the ones used for power
generation, does not have any pure fissile material. The fuel may
be 2% uranium 235 mixed with uranium 238. A mixture of 2%
uranium 235 mixed with uranium 238 cannot be made to explode
no matter how hard you try. A small amount of plutonium mixed
in with the uranium can not change this. Reactor fuel still cannot
be made to explode like a nuclear bomb no matter how hard you
try. There has never been a nuclear explosion in a reactor and
there never will be. [Uranium and plutonium are flammable, but
a fire isn't an explosion.] The fuel is further diluted by being
divided and sealed into many small steel capsules. The fuel is
further diluted by the need for coolant to flow around the capsules
and through the core so that heat can be transported to a place
where heat energy can be converted to electrical energy. A
reactor does not contain any high speed [or any other speed]
chemical explosive as a bomb must have. A reactor does not
have any explosive materials at all.
As is obvious from the above descriptions, there is no
possible way that a reactor could ever explode like a nuclear
bomb. Reactors and bombs are very different. Reactors and
bombs are really not even related to each other.
Reccomendation: Nuclear power is the safest kind and it just got
safer. Convert all coal-fired power plants to nuclear ASAP. See
the December 2005 issue of Scientific American article on a new
type of nuclear reactor that consumes the nuclear "waste" as fuel.

I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. Nobody is
paying me to post this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Been there, done that Posted by: suprmark
Nuclear power is the safest kind, bar none.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 20, 2008 7:32 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Odds of Dying from X according to the 2003 National Safety council

1 heart disease 1 in 5
2 cancer 1 in 7
3 stroke 1 in 24
4 motor vehicle accident 1 in 84
5 suicide 1 in 119
6 falling 1 in 218
7 firearm assault 1 in 314
8 pedestrian accident 1 in 626
9 drowning 1 in 1008
10 motorcycle accident 1 in 1020
11 fire or smoke 1 in 1113
12 bicycle accident 1 in 4919
13 air/space accident 1 in 5051
14 accidental firearm 1 in 5134
15 accidental electrocution 1 in 9969
16 alcohol poisoning 1 in 10048
17 hot weather 1 in 13729
18 hornet, wasp or bee sting 1 in 56789
19 legal execution 1 in 62468
20 lightning 1 in 79746
21 earthquake 1 in 117127
22 flood 1 in 144156
23 fireworks 1 in 340733

Causes that are missing from the above:
nuclear power plant accident
medical mistake
meteor impact
cold weather
starvation
dehydration
smallpox
war
terrorist strike
boredom

I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. Nobody is
paying me to post this. I have never worked for the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why terrorists can't rob radioactive materials from nuclear reactors
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 20, 2008 7:37 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Suppose a gang of terrorists tries to do a bank robbery type of
operation against a nuclear reactor. What problems do they
encounter that they wouldn't when robbing a bank?
1. There is no nuclear fuel within reach of any human.
2. The fuel is inside a containment building that is harder to
penetrate than a bank vault.
3. The fuel is inside a machine that was not made for human
access. Fuel isn't something in a fuel tank that the reactor takes
some of each minute. The fuel is an internal component of the
engine. Stealing fuel is more like stealing a piston out of an
engine than siphoning gasoline out of a gas tank. The robbers
would be like somebody trying to steal a piston out of an engine in
a busy Wal-Mart parking lot, not like somebody trying to steal a
cell phone out of an unlocked car in a dark alley. Fuel is removed
and replaced in a reactor at most once a year and often only once
every 10 years. Reactors could be built to be fueled once in the
reactor's lifetime. NASA's SNaPP reactors are fueled only once.
For example, the power sources on the Voyager spacecraft that
are now exiting the solar system have the same nuclear fuel they
had 30 years ago when they were launched. The Voyagers still
have power. Fuel that is removed from a reactor can be recycled
and put back into a reactor. The volume of the fuel doesn't
change as it is used.
4. The fuel is not like money in several ways:
a. The fuel is radioactive enough to kill the robbers immediately.
b. The fuel is far too heavy for the robbers to carry.
c. The fuel is sealed in steel capsules inside steel rods inside the
reactor core inside a coolant system, etc.
d. the temperature of the fuel is more than hot enough to burn
them.
e. If they got the fuel out, they would have to carry it in lead
containers that would weigh many tons.
f. etc.

To get fuel out, the reactor must first be shut down. The robbers
don't know how. The reactor must be allowed to cool. Cooling
takes time, like days. The fuel can only be removed by a robot.
The robot may not be present. The robbers don't know how to
operate the robot. The robbers don't have a way to move fuel
rods out of the containment building. The robbers would have to
have a big truck with a lead container to carry the fuel in. Big
trucks are not good getaway vehicles, especially when heavily
loaded.
IF the robbers knew how to do all of the required jobs, it would
still take them weeks to rob a reactor. Don't you think somebody
would notice when the people who work at the reactor didn't
come home for a few weeks? Do you think the cops and the
army are going to give the robbers weeks? The result of such an
attempted robbery would be robbers killed by bullets. Guards are
not needed. Fences are not needed. Guards and fences are there
purely because paranoid people want them there. Do not be like
a person who wears an aluminum foil hat to keep the government
from reading his or her thoughts. The government can't read
thoughts anyway, and terrorists can't steal fuel out of a nuclear
reactor.

I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. Nobody is
paying me to post this. I have never worked for the nuclear
power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

COAL contains so much URANIUM that cinders are a uranium mine
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 20, 2008 7:43 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Yucca Mountain is full of nuclear fuel that needs to be reprocessed. We used
to reprocess spent fuel rods until 1/2 ton of enriched uranium somehow wound up
in Israel.
2. Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal
fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is
U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% =
56 pounds of U235. An average 1 billion watt coal fired power plant puts out 56
to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium can go:
Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes
U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a
briefcase.
3. See the rest of Alex Gabbard's article. U238 can be bred into Plutonium and
Thorium can be bred into Uranium. We can fuel our nuclear power plants for
CENTURIES just by extracting uranium and thorium from coal cinders and
smoke.
4. See: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html

I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. Nobody is paying me to
post this. I have never worked for the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PLEASE GAMMA-RAY MY RASPBERRIES and lettuce and spinach
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 20, 2008 7:48 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gamma rays would kill the germs in spinach and lettuce as well as the mold in
raspberries.. The down side is that the corporations would use the gamma rays
as a panacea and leave the bird poop and deer manure on the spinach, unless
strictly regulated. Gamma rays are like the microwaves in your microwave oven
but shorter in wavelength. X-rays are in between light and gamma rays.
Nuclear "waste" is a good cheap source of gamma rays. X-rays would work, but
are needlessly expensive, requiring new tubes often and a lot of electricity.
Corporations would not replace the X-ray tubes often enough because they are
expensive.

I am so tired of all the "fresh" red raspberries in the grocery store being dark from
mold. Red raspberries are supposed to be light, bright red, not quite pink.
Neither the shoppers nor the grocers know what raspberries are supposed to look
like and taste like. They buy the moldy ones, thinking that darker means riper.
The dark ones lack the tartness and taste that raspberries are supposed to have.
Raspberries are very high priced because they spoil very quickly if not frozen.
So Please, seal the raspberries in air tight transparent containers and gamma ray
them within 1/2 hour of picking them. I picked and ate wild raspberries as a
child.

Likewise for strawberries.

A really bad taste thing happens to milk. A lot of the store-bought milk tastes of
the detergent the farmers use to wash the bulk tank. The detergent is very harsh
and intentionally toxic to kill germs. Detergent is a pseudo-estrogen. The fact
that the detergent is pseudo-estrogen means that it is a gender bender. It makes
boys into girls. All of the milk that comes in plastic bottles tastes like plastic. I
will not drink it. I have the advantage of knowing what milk is supposed to taste
like, having tasted milk that was still warm from the cow.

Your meat is also spiced with manure. The meat packers will slow down the
process line enough to keep the manure off of the meat when they are required to
hire legal workers. Instead, they steam treat the meat to kill the germs in the
manure.

I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. Nobody is paying me to
post this. I have never worked for the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Meltdown not physically possible in 2 new types of reactors
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 20, 2008 8:07 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two types of 21st century reactors that cannot melt down no matter how
badly they are treated. Safety is guaranteed by laws of physics.
In the pebble bed reactors, stopping coolant flow removes the space between
fuel pellets. The space between fuel pellets must be filled with moving water.
The water is the moderator to slow down the neutrons so that the reaction can take
place. No coolant flow, no reaction. These pebble bed reactors will never
experience a meltdown. It just can't happen because of laws of nature. The US
has 2 pebble bed reactors.
In the recommended and newly invented helium cooled reactor, the core is
made of high temperature [refractory] materials that simply will not melt if coolant
flow ceases. The core is cooled from a higher temperature by heating the
containment building, which also does not melt. The containment building heats
its surroundings in the case of coolant flow loss. The helium cooled reactor uses
helium as the working fluid to turn a turbine. Helium gas is the ideal fluid to turn
a turbine because it can be made very pure so that the turbine blades will last a
very long time.
Safety is assured in all US built reactors by the containment building, which is a
pressure vessel and which, as in the case of the now obsolete 3 mile island reactor,
can and did contain the overheated core. There were ZERO casualties.

American reactors are now too safe. Nuclear power is overpriced because of the
excessive safety. 20,000 to 30,000 Americans die each year because of those
poisons I listed below that come out of coal fired power plants. It is C O A L fired
power plants that kill 20,000 to 30,000 Americans each year. Nuclear power
plants kill ZERO Americans each year. It is COAL burning that will make us go
extinct in about 100 years if we keep doing it.

The problem is that we OVERSHOT on safety design because of people who
protest nuclear power. American reactors are TOO safe. It is C O A L fired
power plants that give you 100 times as much radiation. Coal is almost pure
carbon, except for the URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony,
Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron,
Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium,
Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc that are coal's impurities.
We could fuel our nuclear plants from the uranium and thorium in the smoke and
cinders from coal fired power plants. Coal cinders are an economically viable ore
for several of the listed impurities.

French reactors use American technology that is about 3 decades old.

I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. Nobody is paying me to
post this. I have never worked for the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Natural background has always been there.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 20, 2008 8:16 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Background radiation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

Background radiation is the ionizing radiation from several natural radiation
sources: sources in the Earth and from those sources that are incorporated in our
food and water, which are incorporated in our body, and in building materials and
other products that incorporate those radioactive sources; radiation sources from
space (in the form of cosmic rays); and sources in the atmosphere which primarily
come from both the radon gas that is released from the earth's surface and
subsequently decays to radioactive atoms that become attached to airborne dust
and particulates, and the production of radioactive atoms from the bombardment
of atoms in the upper atmosphere by high-energy cosmic rays. Since 1945 it also
comes from low levels of global radioactive contamination due to nuclear testing.

............shortened.............

Natural background radiation

Natural background radiation comes from three primary sources: cosmic radiation,
terrestrial sources, and radon. The worldwide average background dose for a
human being is about 2.4 mSv per year. This exposure is mostly from cosmic
radiation and natural isotopes in the Earth.

Cosmic radiation

The Earth, and all living things on it, are constantly bombarded by radiation from
outside our solar system of positively charged ions from protons to iron nuclei.
This radiation interacts in the atmosphere to create secondary radiation that rains
down, including X-rays, muons, protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and
neutrons. The dose from cosmic radiation is largely from muons, neutrons, and
electrons.

The dose rate from cosmic radiation varies in different parts of the world based
largely on the geomagnetic field and altitude.

Terrestrial sources

Radioactive material is found throughout nature. It occurs naturally in the soil,
rocks, water, air, and vegetation. The major radionuclides of concern for terrestrial
radiation are potassium, uranium and thorium. Each of these sources has been
decreasing in activity since the birth of the Earth so that our present dose from
potassium-40 is about 1⁄2 what it would have been at the dawn of life on Earth.
Some of the elements that make up the human body have radioactive isotopes,
such as potassium-40, so there is also a very small amount of internal radiation.

Radon

Radon gas seeps out of uranium-containing soils found across most of the world
and may concentrate in well-sealed homes. It is often the single largest contributor
to an individual's background radiation dose and is certainly the most variable in
the United States. Many areas of the world, including Cornwall and Aberdeenshire
in the United Kingdom have high enough natural radiation levels that nuclear
licensed sites cannot be built there—the sites would already exceed legal radiation
limits before they opened, and the natural topsoil and rock would all have to be
disposed of as low-level nuclear waste.

............shortened.............

The exposure for an average person is about 360 millirems/year, 80 percent of
which comes from natural sources of radiation. The remaining 20 percent results
from exposure to artificial radiation sources, such as medical X-rays and a small
fraction from nuclear weapons tests.

............shortened.............

Reference:
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There was no nuclear explosion at Chernobyl
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 20, 2008 8:24 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A friend of mine from Oak Ridge National Laboratory wrote to
me: "The reactor that had the accident at Chernobyl was very out-
of-date (1st generation) design that has to be precisely controlled
to prevent cooling water from boiling. Water carries away heat
and moderates far better than bubbles, and as bubbles form in
water, the reactor goes increasingly unstable. What caused
Chernobyl to blow its top was residual water in the core suddenly
going to high pressure steam and erupting into a steam explosion.
Since the building top was simply resting by its weight on the
walls, not a containment vessel at all, the steam explosion burped
the top off its position allowing outside air in, subsequently
igniting a carbon fire." The United States and other Western
countries DO NOT now build and do not now posses or operate
ANY reactors of such primitive design. Nor do we allow
containment buildings to have easily removable tops.
Containment buildings in the Western hemisphere are required to
be pressure vessels.
The Chernobyl accident released only 200 tons of
radioactive material, as much as a coal-fired power plant would
release in 7 years and 5 months. The Chernobyl accident had a
shorter "stack" than coal-fired power plants. The radioactive
material was released in a short time at ground level. That is why
the Chernobyl accident had impact. The Three Mile Island
incident did NOT release a noticeable amount of radiation into its
neighborhood because it had a good containment building and
because it was a more modern design.
The reason is that the Soviet Union didn't spend money on R&D
for nuclear safety. The US did. Over 60 years, American
reactors have become so safe it is ridiculous. We have way
overspent on nuclear reactor safety, driving up the cost of
electricity. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, coal fired electric
power plants kill 24,000 people per year in the US according to
Discover magazine. Reactors built in the US in 2008 are nothing
like the very first reactor ever, built in the US in 1944. Soviet
built reactors were just copies of the 1944 reactor.
The book: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
has more truthful information on this if you are interested. Don't
believe the urban legends that were started by coal companies.
Order the book from: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm
See: http://www.ecolo.org for more information on the book.
Most books on the subject in most libraries may be there because
of coal industry pressure.

I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. Nobody is
paying me to post this. I have never worked for the nuclear
power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Finding Truth, or urban legends, on the web
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 20, 2008 9:08 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "Web Dragons" by Witten, Gori and Numerico 2007.

The search engines do not understand the web pages they find for you. They are
just machines. They have no idea of whether or not the web pages they find tell
the truth. In the US, we have "freedom of speech," which means that nobody has
to prove that anything is true before publishing it. We also have a coal industry
that has a gross income of $100 BILLION per year. That $100 BILLION per year
could be easily sunk by the nuclear industry unless you can be persuaded that
nuclear power is dangerous. [The truth is that a coal fired power plant puts 100
times as much radiation into your environment as the nuclear power plant. The
truth is also that natural background radiation is 10 times what you get from a coal
fired power plant.] Do the coal companies have an incentive to lead you astray?
Yes. Is $100 BILLION per year enough incentive? Yes. Can the coal industry
afford to hire doctors, economists, environmentalists, website designers, computer
scientists, psychologists, advertising agencies, and lots of other people on $100
BILLION per year? Of course. Can the coal industry afford to set up hundreds
of web pages on hundreds of computers in hundreds of locations and "game" the
search engines on $100 BILLION per year? Yes. And they do.

How hard is it to find the truth on the web? Very hard. Most web sites have a
monetary reason for existing. People who know the truth and are willing to tell
you the truth don't have much economic reason to do so. It is hard to make money
by telling the truth. Nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence
or overestimating the gullibility of the average person. So how