This thread is for reader comments about the latest post at zombietime:
Got anything to say on this topic? You can say it here!
This thread is for reader comments about the latest post at zombietime:
Got anything to say on this topic? You can say it here!
1Anonymous on Jul 10, 2009 at 8:50 am:
I recall, many many years ago, taking a class in philosophy…the discussion came around to Paul Erlich (that biologist who at the time had written an article about “life-boat earth”). The “argument” Erlich used (this was to inflame the reader) was to compare the Earth to a “life-boat”, and that the “life-boat” had limited resources. Basically, inside the lifeboat were “us”, and the whole idea was that others wanted onboard…Erlich suggested (say, does this remind one of that BNP leader’s statements yesterday?) that people should be thrown overboard, so that a few could survive…yeah, that was the basic thesis…utterly disgusting. The prof of our philosophy class stated that the whole argument’s premise was based on a false dichotomy…a false dilemma…manipulatively designed to have people choosing to kill/murder others so as to “survive.” And, this is Holdren’s “colleague”?
Quote
2Anonymous on Jul 10, 2009 at 9:42 am:
The world view of Sodom and Gomorrah. Nuf said?
Quote
3Eben on Jul 10, 2009 at 10:25 am:
Makes my blood run cold.
Quote
4Vicious Babushka on Jul 10, 2009 at 10:31 am:
I have 9 children and 22 grandchildren. From my cold, dead uterus! Come and get me, “Planetary regime coppers”!
BWAHAHAHA!!!!
Quote
5np on Jul 10, 2009 at 11:42 am:
There is a capsule already for birth control that is implanted under the skin- it is called Implanon. It only lasts 3 years and of course is still voluntary but I got a little chill on the back of my neck when I read that!
Quote
6mbs on Jul 10, 2009 at 11:48 am:
Of course, now the manufactured “crisis” of the day is AGW, i.e., Anthropogenic Global Warming. One wonders what draconian measures Mr. Holdren will advocate in response to this “crisis.” We probably don’t have long to find out.
Quote
7mbs on Jul 10, 2009 at 11:49 am:
I meant to add to my comment above, and now Mr. Holdren is in a position, with enough support from the current administration, to implement whatever policies he comes up with. Scary thought.
Quote
8CattusMagnus on Jul 10, 2009 at 11:50 am:
Zombie, you are my hero for reporting this kind of thing.
“Is Holdren seriously suggesting that “some” people contribute to social deterioriation more than others, and thus should be sterilized or forced to have abortions, to prevent them from propagating their kind?” Yes he is. And I’m sure the people contributing to social deterioration are non-marxists and anyone with a spiritual inclination.
“Isn’t that eugenics, plain and simple? And isn’t eugenics universally condemned as a grotesquely evil practice?” No it’s not. I know several people of the liberal persuasion who think eugenics is just dandy.
While reading the report I kept thinking about Huxley’s Brave New World. I think Holdren would be the type to embrace that kind of society. I also kept thinking of how he must loathe Sarah Palin for bringing so many children in the world and not aborting the retarded one.
I will be recommending this report to other “pro-natalists” so they can see exactly who Obama is employing in our government. What a piece of work this Holdren is. He really should take his “planetary regime” bullshit and cram it.
Quote
9Anthony on Jul 10, 2009 at 11:59 am:
There may be as many as 28 “czars” in the Obama Administration.
Some of them aren’t much better than Holdren.
Quote
10True Resistance on Jul 10, 2009 at 12:16 pm:
If nothing happens to slow the rate of population growth, earth will eventually overpopulate.
Humans will kill each other for living space and food. Famine and disease will be rampant. To prevent this from happening, radical members of the elite class may try some of the things this book talks about. The programs very well may be cloaked in some kind of ethnic clensing program combined with a war for resources.
Overpopulation will happen locally before it happens globally. I’d be more concerned about the elites trying reduction out in large cities than in some rural community. You guys in L.A. watch out!
I’ve heared that the earth has nearly 6.5 billion people on it and growing. Does anyone have scientific figures for the actual population estimate and at what number earth would be truly over populated? These will be very important numbers to know in terms of predicting when a depopulation attempt might happen.
Quote
11Anonymous on Jul 10, 2009 at 12:18 pm:
‘I challenge John Holdren to publicly renounce and disavow the opinions and recommendations he made in the book Ecoscience; and until he does so, I will hold him responsible for those statements.’
He did that at the senate confirmation hearings in February. Check the transcript for the back and forth with Vitter.
Quote
12zombie on Jul 10, 2009 at 12:44 pm:
#11Anonymous
“He did that at the senate confirmation hearings in February. Check the transcript for the back and forth with Vitter.”
Please provide a link. I’ve searched and searched, and found no such transcript online. If you know the URL, please post it here, and I’ll include it in the report. Thanks.
Quote
13John on Jul 10, 2009 at 12:53 pm:
Zombie,
Wow, an amazing bit of reporting.
I’ve written something on the topic of Ginsburg’s statement which compliments what you’ve said. Haven’t published it yet and now I’m glad I waited. My piece tied Ginsburg to Paul Ehrilich and some statements in the Rockefeller Commssion report (1972) which are similar to some of the things you’ve found in this book.
Anyway, I intend to rely on some of your work (with credit of course) to flesh out my own on the connection between Ehrlich and abortion of undesirables. I’d be happy to show you what I’ve got but you’re a hard man to reach. If you’re interested just e-mail me and I’ll respond ASAP.
Quote
14Tony on Jul 10, 2009 at 1:02 pm:
Okay are we seriously suprised here?
Obama was associated professionally and personally with a admitted terrorist for years… (william ayers)
but that was okay
Obama’s “spristal advisor” and pastor to the church he went to for 20 years is a raving racist…(the “rev” wright”
nothing to see here folks move on..
Obama’s Sec of the Tres. is a tax cheat…
its okay we’ll figure it out
the list goes on and on, but a good protion of the public either doesn’t care or is happy about the “change”
I better shut up now before ward churchill is nominated to be the sec. of Education.
Quote
15Ghilmeini on Jul 10, 2009 at 1:05 pm:
Nice work Zombie!
Quote
16Skeptic on Jul 10, 2009 at 1:33 pm:
Gee, looks just like global warming. Doesn’t it?
Quote
17dude on Jul 10, 2009 at 1:45 pm:
Really nice work Zombie.
Quote
18Rob on Jul 10, 2009 at 2:18 pm:
“If nothing happens to slow the rate of population growth, earth will eventually overpopulate.
Humans will kill each other for living space and food. Famine and disease will be rampant.”
It has been posited by a statistician that the entire population of the Earth could be installed in the state of Texas, with a resulting density less than that of the island of Manhattan. So much for the “Population Bomb.”
The most casual perusal of the globe exposes the fraudulence of these scare-mongering “arguments,” and a few months spent driving around this country (to say nothing of the remainder of the planet) is enough to once again make evident the truth of the statement “Environmentalists live in cities.”
Quote
19Anonymous on Jul 10, 2009 at 2:35 pm:
Thanks for the great article, Zombie.
As a scientist, I think that the most instructive history lesson embedded in this story is the role of catastrophic prophecies in academic thought. There is a permanent niche in academia for people who declare in strongest terms that a disaster is nigh upon us and that our only hope is to give (who else?) academics unprecedented power to set national policy. The population control, anti-nuclear and climate change movements fit this pattern nicely. These “prophets”, who comprise a minority among scientists, make dire pronouncements because it is a great way to appear in the popular press, publish books, and get tenure. Their visions of despair and destruction usually fail to materialize. Consequently, “prophets” have historically been much more likely to go on NPR than to land a job at the White House — until recently.
Fortunately, it does not matter that John Holdren passionately believed in the overpopulation crisis three decades ago. He published in favor of this proposition, others published against it, and the people in charge (wisely) did nothing, because there were no hard facts to respond to. We can now only hope that Holdren has learned some caution and humility since 1977, and that he uses his policy-making power to respond to real, not predicted crises. If the standard of evidence required to deprive Americans of property and freedoms is relaxed to include the testimony of prophets, we are in for a long ride. With Waxman-Markey still alive and kicking up on the hill, I’m not holding my breath.
Quote
20Fenris on Jul 10, 2009 at 3:04 pm:
There must be something wrong with me. After reading this, my first reaction was “Great. Now the Jonestards are gonna latch onto it as evidence for the conspiracy-du-jour.”
Quote
21Ken on Jul 10, 2009 at 3:14 pm:
Something has to be done about overpopulation. Invasive, non-voluntary operations are unacceptable, however.
Quote
22Anonymous on Jul 10, 2009 at 4:34 pm:
Great work Zombie. I must say, I do not believe President Obama was a stranger to these views, either at Columbia or when he chose Holdren as a Czar. Why do I state this? Because I am not unfamiliar with the views. Although I did not associate the views with Holdren, I certainly associate them with Ehrlich. Yes, I had to read some of Ehrlich’s junk when in school. And not just in school, but in graduate school and law school. I find Obama interesting because I am the same age. I studied at top schools when he did and attended law school when he did. As it turns out, we appear to have taken similar classes. I find it impossible, when I read Obama’s Columbia newspaper reporting and his speeches in Russia and Europe, that Obama was not exposed to Holdren’s views long ago. In fact, I suspect Obama took more radical classes than I did and studied the theories more closely than I. Obama’s policies for dealing with Russia and nuclear weapons are straight out of 1982. They also mirror Holdren’s anti-nuclear views from that era. (Thanks for the links) One thing is clear from your reporting. Holdren is a monster. Perhaps that is why he ended up at Harvard. It certainly explains why he was at Berkeley. It matters not if Holdren disavows his own statements. It is what is in his heart and his head that allowed him to write what he did in the first place. Utter contempt for his fellow man. Elitism. Arrogance. The man thinks of himself as superior to others. If one tenth of that mindset remains, and that tenth helps shape any “plan” Holdren creates, then God help us.
Quote
23Horse on Jul 10, 2009 at 4:54 pm:
Perhaps the significantly adverse impact from AGW “solutions” and government “cost savings” with national health care are just new means to his original ends.
Quote
24Rob on Jul 10, 2009 at 4:56 pm:
I repeat, Manhattan (population 1,634,795) has a square mileage of 22.96, resulting in 71,201 bodies per square mile.
World population is estimated at 6,706,993,152, and the square mileage of Texas is 268,820.
If the entire WORLD lived in Texas, the population density would equal 24,950 people per square mile, or approximately 30% that of Manhattan. Overpopulation is a myth, perpetuated by urban “intellectuals” who could not conceive of anyone living anywhere but New York, London, Tokyo, Los Angeles etc etc etc.
Urban elites are enormously threatened by people who value self-sufficiency over in-group acceptance, as evidenced by the hysteria in response to Sarah Palin as a person. Erlich’s projections have been discredited for decades, and only in the ivory towers of academe has that fact been ignored. These were also the same people, remember, who militated against nuclear power in the ’70s on the basis of “Nuclear Winter” (We’re All Gonna Freeze To Death In The Dark.)
Every bit of this is part of the ongoing and concerted effort by the Left to destroy the West, and every victim of Public Education who believes in the fantasy of Death By Overpopulation has (and continues to be) sold a bill of goods.
Quote
25Anonymous on Jul 10, 2009 at 5:05 pm:
There is a case of bio-engineered corn crops that contained a type of birth control, reduced fertility. The corn has been grown, but no one knows why they would do such a thing? HMMM…. I will search for the source and post it back here when found.
Quote
26Scott on Jul 10, 2009 at 5:27 pm:
Zombie:
Once again, kudos for exposing the real Obama agenda. This guy is no different from the alarmist global warming people, as observed elsewhere in these comments. I think the Gramsci license plate on the bug posted a few weeks ago is evident in the appointment of people like Holdren and Chu. These people want power…not equality. They want control, not freedom for the people. It is interesting to me to compare and contrast, though, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s initial understanding of Roe v Wade…her interpretation of it was that government was seeking the power to control certain populations. Turns out, 36 years later and 40 million abortions + that Roe v Wade’s net effect has been to control certain populations. Black babies have a far higher propensity for abortion than whites. This Holdren person advocates for population control as decided by bureacrats like him. Amazingly, we have evidence that population control in China has been completely unsuccessful (given their immense population of 1.6 Billion and counting). They have succeeded, however, in reducing the number of females. So now Chinese males, in order to successfully mate, will immigrate to other countries.
The arrogance of these Obama appointees is stunning.
Quote
27Anonymous on Jul 10, 2009 at 5:35 pm:
Amazon has the book on sale if interested.
Quote
281conservativemom on Jul 10, 2009 at 5:47 pm:
Once again I repeat
God help us
Quote
29Jay on Jul 10, 2009 at 6:03 pm:
Unbelievable - and we are told that using God in any way (or in public) is a violation of our constitution. Helllooooo McFly, then what is this? God help us is right. I see this great country getting worst every day and all in the name of Obamanism/socialism and idiotism. If Holdren and company feel so strongly about the increase of our population being detrimental to our world, then it is men who think like this who need to be castrated. Now you’ve solved two problems: the reproduction of such thinkers and the deduction of our population.
Quote
30average_guy on Jul 10, 2009 at 6:42 pm:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg in an interview to be published this Sunday in the New York Times: “JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
LINK HERE: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=4
If the US Government takes over our healthcare system, how long after that do you think they’ll implement these policies?
Zombie, thank you, thank you, thank you for the doing the jobs that The Mainstream Media just won’t do.
Quote
31Zendo Deb on Jul 10, 2009 at 6:58 pm:
It seems that some of the book if available on line.
http://www.questia.com/library/book/ecoscience-population-resources-environment-by-anne-h-ehrlich-paul-r-ehrlich-john-p-holdren.jsp
Quote
32Anonymous on Jul 10, 2009 at 7:05 pm:
It has finally arrived. we can no longer trust any person in political position.
THE BEST LAW TO BE PASSED IS THAT CONGRESS MUST CLOSED EVERY OTHER YEAR.
LEAVES US WITH AT LEASTPROTECTION FROM THEM FOR 1 YEAR AT A TIME
Bob Lawley
Quote
33kev on Jul 10, 2009 at 7:24 pm:
I CANT BELEIVE WE HAVE THIS MONSTER IN CHARGE OF POLICY.MOST PEOPLE DONT EVEN KNOW WHO MARGARET SANGER IS .TOO MUCH IGNORANCE AND APATHY.
Quote
34Artruen on Jul 10, 2009 at 7:30 pm:
pretty amazing. Mengele immediately comes to mind. Along with a cold shiver.
Quote
35JSharke on Jul 10, 2009 at 8:14 pm:
There is a solution to overpopulation. More capitalism.
At the start of the Industrial Revolution, the technological and economic advances made possible by capitalism were responsible for the most explosive growth in population seen in human history. I can’t remember the exact figures, but it goes something like this: It took hundreds of thousands of years for the human population to reach a billion. After the Industrial Revolution, successive billions were added in a hundred years, then 75, then 50, then 25. This is merely a rough impression of the official figures but you get the general idea.
The reason for this exponential growth is of course the unprecedented gains in prosperity and living standards that capitalism brought us. Unlike pre-industrial times in which most children either died during birth or not long after, the industrial age saw these same children living past the age of ten and into full adulthood to reproduce themselves. Nobody but the most heartless, unfeeling, unhuman monsters could possibly want mankind to return to the misery, poverty and subsistence of the pre-industrial age.
But the early Industrial Revolution was still primitive in constrast to modern times. Life was a lot simpler, with far less in the way of “leisure” to occupy the time spent outside of working hours. Work was a lot more physically demanding and left far less energy for play. There was no internet, no TV, no Caribbean cruises, no video games. Education was far less accessible. It’s no surprise that in such times, raising a family was considered the most important goal in life and the degree of one’s perceived success was directly proportional to the size of the family raised. It’s no wonder that populations exploded - there was little else on which to spend the new found prosperity made possible by capitalism and industry.
However, the last few decades has seen a decline in the birth rates of one group in particuar - white Westerners. We are frequently told that whites are being outbred by other groups, particularly Muslims and Hispanics. The birth rates of Muslims and Hispanics living in the West dwarfs that of the native whites. Why is this? Well, most probably because are larger proportion of whites are more “modernized” than those groups, who enjoy the medical and technological benefits of capitalism but whose cultural mindsets are still firmly rooted in the “old world.” The European culture has grown more sophisticated, more complicated, more career and success driven - with the result that raising a family is not longer considered to be the most important goal in life. Those who do raise families tend to reproduce at a later age and have less children. Career now consumes a larger proprotion of the lives of native Westerners, most of whom happen to be white. Those Hispanics and Muslims who have lived in Europe and America for generations and have become Westernized are having smaller families than their less Westernized counterparts.
The truth is that modern Western culture has made raising a family less important than it was before. As a result, birth rates among Westerners are slowing, not accelerating. The Industrial Revolution hit mankind like a ton of bricks, figuratively overnight - and it hit a mindset and culture that was very much stuck in the old world, which meant that people were having all the babies that the hardship of nature had denied them in the past. It is not surprising that the population exploded. But that same technological revolution, over time, has in the West enriched lives to the point where a person sees his own life as an end it itself, not merely a vehicle to reproduce.
Thus, the most logical solution to overpopulation is of course more technology and prosperity, not less. We’re not only discovering how to feed people more efficiently with the resources we have, but also giving people something to aside from dropping as many sprogs as they can before their fertility dries up.
Of course leave it to the left to use overpopulation to denounce the economic freedom which has enriched us and to propose all kinds of oppressive, sinister, downright evil solutions involving totalitarian control. The opinions expressed by Holdren are not uncommon among leftists - I know, I grew up with them. The phrase “China has the right idea” and “we ought to ban people from having kids” are heard over and over again. Whatever motive the left may claim for their despicable views, a love of mankind surely cannot be one of them.
Quote
36Anonymous on Jul 10, 2009 at 8:29 pm:
you people are a bunch of fucking morons
Quote
37eddiebear on Jul 10, 2009 at 8:29 pm:
Wow. Just wow.
And not in a good way. I mean the junk this guy wrote, not you exposing it.
Quote
38Anonymous on Jul 10, 2009 at 8:34 pm:
I’m nauseous. Like a bag of chips, I couldn’t just read one of the quotes — I had to read them all.
I’m reading Mark Steyn’s book, America Alone. He details global demographics focusing on fertility rates. Of the developed countries, only the US has a replacement fertility rate of 2.11 (2005 statistic). The others are dying:
Russia 1.14
EU average 1.38
Japan 1.32
Canada 1.48
too depressing to go on.
OTOH, Pakistan 5.08 and Saudi Arabia 4.53.
We’re not facing over population. We’re facing a demographic, social, political, ideological sea change.
Quote
39Anonymous on Jul 10, 2009 at 8:56 pm:
I remember this book well-and that Holdren was a coauthor, along with those cranks the Ehrlich’s. The scanned passages are real. I remember it because, when I took Environmental Studies 101 as an undergrad back in 1981, this book was used as the main text.
Even in my feverish and paranoid lefty days-some of the stuff in this book shocked me. I remember, almost verbatim, several of the passages Zombie highlighted.
My favorite (or rather, least favorite) passage concerned the possibility of cheap and clean energy and other environmentally friendly possibilities for the future. After discussing how unlikely it was for any such energy source (i.e. Nuclear Fusion) to ever be developed, the authors breathed a metaphorical sigh of relief, because cheap and clean energy would only lead to more consumerism, with all of its attendant environmental and societal evils.
At that point I began to understand what environmental activism was really all about.
Holdren no doubt still believes the same things, and is laughing to himself about how portions of the public believe green tech and economic growth are compatible. He believes they aren’t-and that’s a good thing.
And it’s probably a fairly good bet Obama was exposed to this stuff, possibly this very text while in school. He is the same age as me, and if he took any introductory environmental studies courses at all, I believe “Ecoscience” was a pretty standard text.
Quote
40Papa Ray on Jul 10, 2009 at 9:17 pm:
I just sent this link to my Senator and Representative (or more correctly to their minions). I also sent the link to two newspapers (for all the good that will do). I also think drudge and other blogs should be advised of this.
I suggest that everyone do the same so they won’t just think I’m a lone kook (well, I am but I’m an ol’ kook).
Papa Ray
West Texas
Quote
41Troy Riser on Jul 10, 2009 at 9:46 pm:
According to an FBI informant present at the scene, Bill Ayres and his wife once sat around with fellow members of the Weather Underground and casually discussed the extermination of at least 25 million fellow Americans should they–the Weathermen and their like-minded friends–ever realize their revolutionary dream. Obama, throughout his long association and friendship with Ayers and his wife, must’ve had some inkling of their views, which neither has ever publicly or completely disavowed. Thus, it comes as no surprise a man such as Holdren would assume a prominent policy position within the Obama Administration. Further, via his own connections to ACORN, President Obama himself is associated with the Hudson Bay Network, the little-known but extremely well-organized and -funded radical leadership group responsible for formulating and driving much–if not most–of the policy agenda promoted by many supposedly unconnected ‘grass-roots’ organizations throughout the US. I know how conspiratorially what I write must read, and excuse me while I adjust my tinfoil hat, but it would be foolish to think hardcore Marxist ideologues would be without plan or leadership. The prospect of nationalization of health care and energy are the very least of our problems, in my view. These people are dangerous, delusional, driven, and now–thanks to a compliant press and an easily manipulated and malleable voting public–in charge.
Quote
42Anonymous on Jul 10, 2009 at 10:33 pm:
Combine that with health care reform and it is not only toxic for the young but for the old, infirm, “useless to society” folks as well. The most aggresive regime to implement eugenics was pre WWII Germany who forcibly euthenized 273000 prior to the ethnic cleansings. Dr Koop wrote about this in one of his papers - but it does get worse. In a blog post I wrote at this link, Rahm Emanuel’s brother is part of Hastings Institute which was founded by Daniel Callahan who wrote: “While the health care system should guarantee to the elderly access to health care and fight against diseases that take people prematurely, it should …most controversially, use age (approximately eighty) as a categorical standard for the withholding of public monies for life-extending treatments under the Medicare entitlement program”. Links to the research here: http://structuringchaos.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/its-only-pragmatic/
Quote
43Jeff S on Jul 11, 2009 at 12:04 am:
“…a concentration of world evil, of hatred for humanity is taking place and it is fully determined to destroy your society.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, 1976
Quote
44Mars vs Hollywood on Jul 11, 2009 at 12:48 am:
Here’s my favorite quote:
“Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime should have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
To enforce the agreed limits. Nothing can possibly go wrong with this plan.
Quote
45Ken on Jul 11, 2009 at 1:10 am:
#18 Rob:
“It has been posited by a statistician that the entire population of the Earth could be installed in the state of Texas”
Ok, maybe. But does that take into the consideration the fact that people need shelter, places for their possessions (livestock, cars, etc), and other structures (roads, schools, hospitals, monuments, ect)? I wonder if that statistican isn’t considering the bigger picture: Yeah, we all probably could squeeze into Texas…but only if we threw out every man-made structure on Earth and gave up all of our precious “personal space.” Remember, it’s not just people that take up space but also houses, apartments, farms, and other buildings we feel we need to survive. Also, violence and disease would free up some space, but don’t forget the number of new people being born that would replace those who died.
#26 Scott
“we have evidence that population control in China has been completely unsuccessful”
China’s One Child Policy has prevented almost half a billion new births (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/56392.php), and that’s in light of the fact that the policy isn’t binding to rural families, national minorities, or people in Hong Kong and Macao, who represent hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens (the national minorities alone constitute more than 123 million, according to Wiki “ethnic minorities in China”). Beyond all that, there are several exceptions to the policy and it is almost never enforced. Please spare me any source you can dig up, as I know this information firsthand. A study by UC Irvine found that: “the policy has proven remarkably effective, with actual birth rates decreasing nearly to the mandated levels”
“They have succeeded, however, in reducing the number of females”
This is largely untrue, though it has happened in the past. Selective abortion of female fetuses hasn’t been a problem since at least 1968. Chinese doctors, as a legal condition, are subject to prosecution if they reveal the sex of a fetus. Again, I know this firsthand. And, anyway, when it DID happen it China, it was merely a cultural defect of a traditonally Confucian society. That’s why it happens in South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, too.
Quote
46Ken on Jul 11, 2009 at 1:11 am:
A study by UC Irvine found that: “the policy has proven remarkably effective, with actual birth rates decreasing nearly to the mandated levels”
source:
http://today.uci.edu/iframe.php?p=/news/release_detail_iframe.asp?key=1597
Quote
47Ken on Jul 11, 2009 at 1:28 am:
“They have succeeded, however, in reducing the number of females”
I mentioned that this was untrue. As a source, Wiki says:
“Sex-selected infanticide appears to occur infrequently in China today”
Furthermore, there’s evidence that a Hepatitis epidemic in China is responsible for the lion’s share of male births in China:
for as many as 50 percent of the “missing women” in Egypt and West Asia; under 20 percent in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Nepal; and around 75 percent of the “missing women” in China.
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051109092603.htm)
Quote
48Ken on Jul 11, 2009 at 1:53 am:
Another source casting doubts on China’s so-called sex selective abortions:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/353/11/1171
“80 percent of women in a recent large study said they had no choice and just accepted the method recommended by the family-planning worker.4 The use of these long-term methods keeps abortion rates relatively low, with 25 percent of women of reproductive age having had at least one abortion, as compared with 43 percent in the United States”
(note: I spread this over several posts so that I wouldn’t fall prey to Zombie’s “your comment is awaiting approval” deal, which seems to apply to any post that includes more than one URL)
Quote
49Troy Riser on Jul 11, 2009 at 2:11 am:
Ken, I thought at first you were pulling that 43% figure from the air. It sounded fantastically improbable to me, so I did some checking. You aren’t making it up. It’s true. That’s the ghastliest number I’ve ever seen. Those ancient Babylonians who made child sacrifices to propitiate the gods? Pikers. Amateurs.
Quote
50Lilly on Jul 11, 2009 at 2:56 am:
Hi zombie,
thxs for the good work.
The Ehrlichs not only defend their book from 1977 but they argue “…that perhaps the most serious flaw in The [Population] Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future”. (summer 2009)
http://www.ejsd.org/public/journal_article/10
Quote
51Lilly on Jul 11, 2009 at 3:10 am:
But another paper in the new issue of the EJSD suggests that the Ehrlich’s doom-and-gloom scenarios are unwarranted. Indur Goklany - co-editor of the EJSD - argues that “despite unprecedented growth in population, affluence, consumption and technological change, human well-being has never been higher.”
Reduced hunger and malnutrition, improved access to clean water and sanitation, higher literacy and schooling - all of these things mean that we now live longer and better lives than we did forty years ago - a stark contrast to the scenario painted in the Population Bomb.
Goklany concedes that the record is mixed for the environment - but argues that this justifies more, not less, wealth and technology: “Initially, in the rich countries, affluence and technology worsened environmental quality, but eventually they provided the methods and means for cleaning up the environment… After decades of deterioration, their environment has improved substantially.”
The main worry for Goklany and others is that the “policy preferences of some environmentalists and Neo-Malthusians, founded on their skepticism of affluence and technology, would only make progress toward a better quality of life and a more sustainable environment harder. Their fears could become self-fulfilling prophecies.”
http://www.ejsd.org/public/journal_article/11
Quote
52Joseph McGraw on Jul 11, 2009 at 4:03 am:
There exists very little truth and the word “science” gets used as if “it” is the ultimate arbiter of truth. O.J. Simpson’s attorneys made “scientific” arguments too. For the few of us from Chicago that know Obama’s advocacy for partial-birth abortions and murder of those born in spite of an abortion attempt, this affiliation is not a surprise.
Quote
53Shug on Jul 11, 2009 at 4:55 am:
Zombie you are a hero.
as usual you are doing the job the mainstream press isn’t doing.
while they are in Anchorage looking for dirt on Bristol Palin, you are doing real investigating and reporting
Bravo Sir or Maam as the case may be
Quote
54Starless on Jul 11, 2009 at 5:25 am:
#51 & #52 Lilly
Right on.
Holdren/Ehrlich-like ideas dovetail nicely into the Obama “sacrifice” mantra. Not necessarily that people will have to sacrifice through some form of eugenics but that we will be bullied and guilted into accepting the idea that consumption is inherently bad and that humans are parasitic creatures sucking the life out of Gaia. It is, in their estimation, our duty to revert to some sort of pre-industrial existence. It’s a surprisingly Luddite attitude among people who are supposedly “progressive”.
As people’s power consumption requirements increase and fossil fuel reserves become less reliable, instead of serious investment in advanced power generation (fusion reactors, solar power satellites) we get social programs telling people to tighten their belts and crappy, backstop incremental developments like hybrid cars. These are the sorts of guilt-assuaging solutions which only developed countries can afford and do very little to help people in developing nations. And that’s what it’s all about: controlling people through guilt, a method which was proven out very nicely in the US and Europe through the ’70s and ’80s.
The ivory tower Pale Blue Dot/Population Bomb/Carrying Capacity theories have had a couple of decades to prove themselves and have failed to do so. That doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily wrong but they have started to show a serious flaw. A flaw which Freeman Dyson articulates pretty well — that is that the immediate cost in misery of the policies which come out of environmentalist alarm-ism is measurable while the long-term consequences of anthropogenic global warming and human resource consumption is mainly theoretical.
Quote
55Ragspierre on Jul 11, 2009 at 5:58 am:
This was a truly important expose’ of the thinking that THE ONE has chosen to put at his counsel table.
Thanks, Zombie.
This gets sent to my family, friends, and neighbors…carefully. They have to be brought to this kind of information slowly in some cases, because they would simply find it incredible it they were hit with it at once.
Malthus had it wrong, but his descendants are working to make him right by use of force. Ehrlich has been proven wrong repeatedly by economists. And several nations, ironically including Iran, are not even reproducing their own population.
THE ONE, his power grabS, and the kind of people from whom he has accepted ideas over the decades, present us some frightful possibilities that have to be fought.
Quote
56sierra on Jul 11, 2009 at 6:18 am:
#11 Anonymous: By all accounts the only tough questioning at Holdren’s confirmation hearings came from Sen. Vitter, which can be found here, though not an official congressional link.
Most of Holdren’s response consisted of hedging his ability to make large ecological predictions. Much along the lines of: “I said global catastrophe could happen, not that it would happen.” The closest thing to a renunciation or disavowal of the sort of statements zombie documented here was this exchange, in response to a relatively weak statement by Holdren that 280 million Americans by the year 2040 “is likely to be too many”:
Vitter: “You think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?”
Holdren: “No, Senator, I do not.”
Based on this statement on the role of government, I suppose you could make a case that any prior statements in support of a eugenicist police state are implicitly disavowed, but I can be forgiven for being unsatisfied by the lack of something more explicit.
BTW: current U.S. population is 306 million, with a fertility rate just over replacement level. Any population growth America is currently experiencing is primarily due to immigration.
It’s gratifying to see another implicit disavowal of the 70s-era Malthusian hysteria over population growth. (As an impressionable kid growing up at the time, I can relate my own strong belief that humanity was doomed.) Holdren responded that policies that “ensure the well being” of citizens have the effect of lowering birth rates. In contrast, at the time much of the apocalyptic case appeared to be driven by Paul Ehrlich’s background as an entomologist. The now-familiar notion that humans would respond to a greater abundance of resources by lowering their birthrates, and not by reproducing unsustainably like bugs, was simply not a prominent part of the discourse.
One little tidbit from the hearings that I found amusing was Holdren’s acknowledgement that the likelihood of nuclear war had indeed decreased. This he attributed to “arms control agreements” rather than the more obvious: Reagan’s stated policy of “we win, they lose.”
Quote
57Lilly on Jul 11, 2009 at 6:39 am:
#12 zombie
“Please provide a link. I’ve searched and searched, and found no such transcript online. If you know the URL, please post it here, and I’ll include it in the report. Thanks.”
may this help? Start at about 115:
View Archive Webcast
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=9ba25fea-5f68-4211-a181-79ff35a3c6c6
Quote
58Sherab Zangpo on Jul 11, 2009 at 7:09 am:
I am absolutely shocked.
Thank you, Zombie, for publishing this.
Quote
59gus on Jul 11, 2009 at 7:33 am:
What the fuck has happened to this country. This guy is akin to Joesph Mengele.
How on earth could the President of the United States pick this man for anything?
Even the Conservatives who are posting don’t seem to see how evil this is.
Quote
60gus on Jul 11, 2009 at 7:40 am:
Has it occurred to any of you just how moronic Holdrens postulations were 30 years ago, yet our dimwitted Mulatto thinks he should be in charge of science.
Maybe Bill Ayers should run the Peace Corps?
For the love of God, the man in charge of the IRS didn’t pay his own taxes.
Quote
61Starless on Jul 11, 2009 at 7:44 am:
#10 True Resistance
Does anyone have scientific figures for the actual population estimate and at what number earth would be truly over populated?
One scientific number I’ve seen for Earth’s carrying capacity is 11 billion. This number completely ignores technological and scientific breakthroughs, though.
#45 Ken
in light of the fact that the policy isn’t binding to rural families, national minorities, or people in Hong Kong and Macao
That makes it so much better.
Translation: “China’s One Child policy is perfectly fine because only certain kinds of babies are targeted.”
Quote
62ehswan on Jul 11, 2009 at 7:49 am:
It is way too late for forced sterilization and abortions! There have been mass dieoffs of our species before we are on the brink of one again. One way or another there will be far fewer of us by the end of this century. It blows my mind that youall mostly seem to think that we have a right to dominate this planet at the expence of all other life forms. Have a nice day.
Quote
63gus on Jul 11, 2009 at 7:53 am:
Christ none of you seem to get it. We’re fucked.
Quote
64Druid on Jul 11, 2009 at 8:21 am:
In case it hasn’t been said…
5. He wrote all this a long time ago — he’s probably changed his views by now.
Holdren is a true believer today - as (former) Director of the Woods Hole Research Center he proudly boasts of his work “Ecoscience” in his current Curriculum Vitae listed as under the heading of “Recent Publications”-
http://tinyurl.com/ngd96e
Capture it while you can because it will be going away…
Quote
65Papa Ray on Jul 11, 2009 at 8:21 am:
Gus…a few of us do.
Buy more Ammo…
Papa Ray
West Texas
Quote
66Wm T Sherman on Jul 11, 2009 at 9:24 am:
I wrote my congressman (a Republican), but I don’t think it’s going to do any good. Holdren has all kinds of publications, awards, and credentials. Lots of people have his back. I predict that pointing out the nutty, arrogant, apocalyptic things he’s written over the years isn’t going to get traction. At least initially, we’re the ones who will be dismissed as cranks by the people with the power and influence, not him. Nothing has happened to Obama’s other, equally nutty cronies. No, they are all respected citizens. Like Holdren, they also get awards and prizes (e.g., William Ayers: Chicago citizen of the year).
If and when enough of the population wakes up to the real nature of this administration and Congress and what it’s costing them, and if and when the press turns on the Democrat elite, this and the other things will be brought up. Until then, all these cranks are bullet-proof. If a tipping point is ever reached, the press will pile on to Obama & Co. in a manner just as cynical and mindless as their slavish devotion is now. It would be somewhat better than things are now, but we musn’t ever forget the true nature of these media jackals. They are a force for obfuscation, propaganda, and self-aggrandizement.
Quote
67phxjay on Jul 11, 2009 at 9:37 am:
http://www.lifenews.com/int1206.html
Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, George Soros and other billionaires get together to put their money behind abortion.
May 25, 2009
by Steven Ertelt
“Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Some of the richest people in the world met secretly in New York recently and talked about their favorite causes. The group, which includes some of the most well-known business people in the world, adopted population control, which would undoubtedly include abortion, as their main cause.
The London Times indicates the rich elites spend 15 minutes each during the meeting talking about their favorite passions and issues and, led by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, they adopted reducing the world’s population as the main issue to put their money behind.
Patricia Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, indicated the billionaires would continue meeting over the next few months.
The newspaper indicated the meeting took place at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel Prize-winning biochemist and president of Rockefeller University, and that Gates was the organizer of the gathering.
The “billionaires club” meeting, according to the Times, included such notables as Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, George Soros and Michael Bloomberg.
They all have a history of promoting abortion and using their vast fortunes to benefit groups like Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business.
That Gates pushed the wealthy group into settling on population control as their “umbrella cause” isn’t surprising given that he outlined an ambitious project in February to reduce the world’s population by one billion, would eliminate one of out every projected nine people on the planet, or 11 percent.”
The Gates Foundation has given the Planned Parenthood Federation of America abortion business almost $12.5 million since 1998, including funds to persuade teenagers to support abortion and to lobby the United Nations to advance pro-abortion proposals.
The Gates foundation has also given nearly $21 million to the International Planned Parenthood abortion business over the last seven years. The funds have gone to promote abortions in third-world nations and to set up pro-abortion family planning centers in South America, Africa and eastern European nations.
Bill Gates and his wife have also spent millions promoting abortion closer to home.
Their foundation has given nearly $2 million to Planned Parenthood of Central Washington and Planned Parenthood of Western Washington to fund abortion centers. The Gates Foundation also gave the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada more than $1.3 million to promote abortions there.
Meanwhile, Warren Buffet had also made donations to Planned Parenthood in the name of Pampered Chef, a cooking sales program with a high participation from Christian women. After Berkshire Hathaway purchased Pampered Chef, it donated $11 million to pro-abortion organizations in 2002.
In the late 1990s, Buffett committed to a $20 million grant to International Projects Assistance Services (IPAS), which manufactures and distributes manual vacuum aspirators, used for performing abortions in impoverished countries.
Ted Turner, who has made his own pro-abortion donations over the years, was recently criticized for saying China was a good example of population control, even though it is rife with forced abortions and sterilizations.
Looking at other participants, Michael Bloomberg is a longtime abortion advocates and has pushed abortion as may by making medical students in New York City learn how to do abortions.
Oprah Winfrey strongly supported the candidacy of pro-abortion President Barack Obama and George Soros and spent millions pushing pro-abortion groups and candidates.”
Quote
68Wm T Sherman on Jul 11, 2009 at 9:48 am:
Hey phxjay, maybe they’ll sponsor a Margaret Sanger award.
Quote
69Gary on Jul 11, 2009 at 9:53 am:
Holdren’s potential for mischief is scary, but I’m more worried that a man who would appoint such a moronic monster is the one driving this bus which is our country.
I feel like I’m on that precarious mountain side bus run portrayed in “Romancing the Stone”.
Quote
70Anonymous on Jul 11, 2009 at 9:55 am:
It seems that Mr Holdren is following in the long line of famous Americans that believed in Eugenics. This does not surprise me at all. Most Americans believe in eugenics, they just don’t realize it. Bringing American style Democracy to other countries is an example of Eugenics. You either believe in what we tell you, or die!
Check American Eugenics Society, British Eugenics Society, Nazi racial beliefs. They are all linked. Why does this shock you? Are you so truly unaware of the United States History of Slavery, Imprisonment due to racial profiling (the Japanese during WW 2) Arabs now, Mexicans, Blacks, et all.
Wake up.
Quote
71phoenixgirl on Jul 11, 2009 at 9:56 am:
good job zombie! i hope obama fails……for him to succeed means America will fail.
Quote
72Lars on Jul 11, 2009 at 10:12 am:
From pg. 838 “Certainly there is no question that children of a small family can be cared for better and can be educated better than children of a large family, income and other things being equal. The law could properly say to a mother that, in order to protect the children she already has, she could have no more.”
This sounds like “The rich can have as many children as they want or legally are determined to be allowed to have, and the poor can only have one child or none.”
This is the eugenics agenda, but allows the rich to procreate irresponsibly with their inbreeding and genetic weaknesses ad infinitum.
Not a good blueprint for 1000 years from now, as the gene pool will shrink and produce weak minds and weak bodies.
Quote
73Tracy Twyman on Jul 11, 2009 at 10:14 am:
Zombie, good to see you exposing the eugenics agenda. Why exactly does the President need a “czar” for “science policy”? What article of the Constitution delegates “science policy” to the federal government? Or for that matter, the right of the President to create a “czar”? I guess now we see the purpose: killing as many of us as possible. That’s modern “science” for you, and modern government.
Quote
74Starless on Jul 11, 2009 at 11:23 am:
#73 Tracy Twyman
“Science czar” is what the media calls the position, but it is actually “Assistant to the President for Science and Technology”, a position which has been around in one form or another since FDR. The government has an important role to play in scientific research and technological development and the president should have someone who knows a thing or two about those things reporting to him. Remember when Bush 41 was amazed by a grocery store bar code reader? We want someone around to make sure the president knows about those sorts of things.
Reasonably decent Wiki article.
Quote
75Bob on Jul 11, 2009 at 11:25 am:
Too bad no one forced his mother to have an abortion before he was born.
Quote
76Steadyjohn on Jul 11, 2009 at 11:56 am:
Great work Zom! Ties in perfectly with the Ginzburg nonsense at NY Times tomorrow. Btw, as nearly as I can tell the entire book can be read at Questia (subscription required) http://www.questia.com/read/98156598
Quote
77B Sack on Jul 11, 2009 at 12:02 pm:
#70 “It seems that Mr Holdren is following in the long line of famous Americans that believed in Eugenics.
…
Check American Eugenics Society, British Eugenics Society, Nazi racial beliefs. They are all linked. Why does this shock you? Are you so truly unaware of the United States History of Slavery, Imprisonment due to racial profiling (the Japanese during WW 2)…”
For a full explanation of this very real phenomenom and how it exists EXCLUSIVELY on the left side of politics, see Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning by Jonah Goldberg.
For a short version note that the Progressive (modern Democrat) Party, of which Sanger, Long, Wells, FDR, Hoover, and other titans of liberalism were members, believed in various population control policies and the internment camps you spoke of, for law-abiding Japanese Americans, was thanks to FDR, the hero of the modern Left in the US. (Who are actively returning to using the “Progressive” moniker)
Quote
78jarjar on Jul 11, 2009 at 12:19 pm:
I think the guy was just making a hypothetical a la William Bennett. I’ll reserve judgment until I see the whole speech and its appropriate context.
Quote
79Anonymous on Jul 11, 2009 at 12:23 pm:
His mother should have aborted him…he is one of the undesireables in my opinion. Is he out of his mind? Abortion is murder, isn’t it, and taking a fetus/infants life without the mother’s concent should be given the same consequence as a rape would. A teen mother or single mother could raise her own child probably better then a stranger could. This guy is out of his freaking mind.
Quote
80Scott on Jul 11, 2009 at 1:02 pm:
Look, Obama was only 16 years old when Holdren wrote this stuff. Surely you don’t think Obama is responsible for stuff that other people wrote when when he was a teenager, do you? Criminey. And you people really hold a grudge. Sure, sterilization and stuff like that might be a little extreme, but Holdren wrote that crap was over 30 years ago. What’s next, dragging up all that Nazi stuff about a few million Jews, gypsies, the odd Poll here and there, not to mention offing a few hundred thousand handicapped children? Give me a break! No one would think of doing that kind of stuff today, not since we have fetal testing and legal and safe abortions. Palin should have thought about that.
Quote
81Scott on Jul 11, 2009 at 1:11 pm:
Sorry, odd “POLE,” not Polls. Sheesh, keyboards, brains, not even in the same room together.
Quote
82Queen of Meteors on Jul 11, 2009 at 1:19 pm:
#45, Ken,
You are missing a bit on the Manhattan analogy, so try this. The land area of the earth is 196,000,000 square miles and change.
Throwing out Antarctica (about 20% of the land mass) and other less than desirable places would still leave about 5 acres each for every man, woman, and child.
Quote
83eaglewingz08 on Jul 11, 2009 at 1:28 pm:
Sounds like Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Mr. Holdren had many similar views in common back in the day. Once again it shows liberals hate people idealize and deify nature and should be nowhere near the levers of power because they are untrustworthy stewards of their countries and mankind.
Quote
84memomachine on Jul 11, 2009 at 1:29 pm:
Hmmmm.
@ Ken (#45)
“Ok, maybe. But does that take into the consideration the fact that people need shelter, places for their possessions (livestock, cars, etc), and other structures (roads, schools, hospitals, monuments, ect)?”
Are you suggesting that they don’t have parking garages, hospitals, schools, monuments and etc in *Manhattan*? And consider that the density projected is *30%* of what Manhattan is today. So the premise is that you can fit 6.5 billion people in Texas at 30% of Manhattan’s current density. Isn’t that better than what Manhattan is like now? With Central Park?
And consider what technology could accomplish over time. Our technology only allows for buildings 2,600 feet or so high. Pre-9/11 the Twin Towers were the tallest in Manhattan and they were only 1,400 feet tall and not that many people lived there. Build taller buildings, basically arcologies, and you could dramatically increase the population density, make each arcology self-sufficient and increase the amount of land returned to the wilderness.
“I wonder if that statistican isn’t considering the bigger picture: Yeah, we all probably could squeeze into Texas…but only if we threw out every man-made structure on Earth and gave up all of our precious “personal space.” Remember, it’s not just people that take up space but also houses, apartments, farms, and other buildings we feel we need to survive. Also, violence and disease would free up some space, but don’t forget the number of new people being born that would replace those who died.”
*shrug* I think you need to re-read the premise and spend a bit more time contemplating it.
Quote
85memomachine on Jul 11, 2009 at 1:36 pm:
Hmmmm.
@ Scott (#81)
“Look, Obama was only 16 years old when Holdren wrote this stuff. Surely you don’t think Obama is responsible for stuff that other people wrote when when he was a teenager, do you?”
Ummmm. We’re holding Obama to account for putting a Eugenicist in charge of domestic science.
And the whole “Obama was X years old when blah blah blah…” is getting very old.
“Criminey. And you people really hold a grudge.”
Call me sensitive but forced sterilizations creeps me out. What if someone grabbed you in the middle of the night and forcibly sterilized you?
And yes, that has happened in the USA. In fact one woman was sterilized with the approval of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes when he was Chief Justice of SCOTUS.
“Sure, sterilization and stuff like that might be a little extreme, but Holdren wrote that crap was over 30 years ago. What’s next, dragging up all that Nazi stuff about a few million Jews, gypsies, the odd Poll here and there, not to mention offing a few hundred thousand handicapped children? Give me a break! No one would think of doing that kind of stuff today, not since we have fetal testing and legal and safe abortions. Palin should have thought about that.”
Got some bad news for you but I know any number of eco-freaks who think having a catastrophic disease wipe out 99% of humanity would be just dandy.
Quote
86J on Jul 11, 2009 at 1:37 pm:
It’s very important never to cite wikipedia as a source. It is a consensus encyclopedia, editable by anyone, and thus is more often than not incorrect.
Quote
87Anonymous on Jul 11, 2009 at 1:40 pm:
Liberal Fascism at work.
Quote
88Horatio on Jul 11, 2009 at 1:52 pm:
Most of you just seem paranoid, conspiracy theorists to me. Reading all the material that was available on this site, it seems apparent that Holdren et al were speculating on options in the event overpopulation becomes critically dangerous. (Despite the Texas calculations, overpopulation is already a serious problem in many areas of the world.) Their speculation ranged from mild to extreme measures and they made clear that they advocated the mildest measures at early stages to avoid any necessity for the more severe ones. You are focusing on the most objectionable measures and falsely claiming that the authors were advocating them.
Quote
89Kevin R. on Jul 11, 2009 at 1:59 pm:
He can disavow what he wrote in the book, but so what? The entire underlying premise of his beliefs is that the government can be used to force society to his liking. He can disavow certain policies in that regard - but he still holds the very totalitarian view that the government can be used to force society to his liking. That’s the entire premise he needs to disavow.
Quote
90Horatio on Jul 11, 2009 at 2:01 pm:
And the issue with overpopulation is not people per square mile - this is why the Texas numbers are beside the point. It is the problem of resources and delivering food and water to people. Even in the United States we are currently pumping water out of aquifers at a faster rate than nature can replenish them. We are using up our fresh water resources too quickly. It is not silly to be concerned about overpopulation. We can hope that the world population stabilizes at a sustainable level before the need to implement harsh population control.
Quote
91Joshua on Jul 11, 2009 at 2:08 pm:
#85 Memomachine: Please turn on your sarcasm detector and read #81 again.
Quote
92kcs on Jul 11, 2009 at 2:29 pm:
Amazing how the left describe Nazis as “conservative”, yet many of their ideas (this one will be haughtily disavowed by all good libs, of course, if it ever gets enough publicity) are straight from the Nazi playbook.
Quote
93Jonathan on Jul 11, 2009 at 2:35 pm:
John Holdren seems to be the latest generation of Nazi since the Nazi’s too wanted to sterilize and otherwise keep those they deemed “unfit” from reproducing. This man is a very dangerous man and it is disturbing indeed that President Obama appointed this man to anything. I find his comments and proposals outrageous and horrifying that anyone would advocate forced abortions or forced sterilization of an American citizen. Perhaps he needs to be reminded of those unalienable rights we are endowed by our Creator with “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. People like John Holdren are unworthy of being American citizens and should be stripped of their citizenship as well as immediately deported to somewhere isolated from the rest of humanity so they can do no further damage.
Quote
94J on Jul 11, 2009 at 3:03 pm:
Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEja-1emRic
Quote
95D on Jul 11, 2009 at 3:08 pm:
Read the comments at the BBC’s “Have Your Say” forum. Many, many green lefties are eager for a plague, a natural disaster, a war…anything that will wipe out a large part of humanity for the sake of keeping Mother Earth pristine. Given the track record of Pol Pot, Mao, Kin Jong Il and many others leftist do-gooders, I don’t think it’s wise to dismiss them as harmless crackpots.
Quote
96Horatio on Jul 11, 2009 at 3:19 pm:
OK. This has been strange and a little scarey. Now I’m going back to the real world.
Quote
97Ken on Jul 11, 2009 at 3:27 pm:
#61 Starless:
“Translation: ‘China’s One Child policy is perfectly fine because only certain kinds of babies are targeted’”
The point of the OCP is to slow down the birth rate among urban couples (that section of society with the fastest birthrate) while helping national minorities and rural families raise their populations. You make it sound like some genocidal eugenics law, or something. Actually, alot of urban Han Chinese (the majority) complain that OCP is reverse racism against them!
Quote
98Ken on Jul 11, 2009 at 3:31 pm:
“Perhaps he needs to be reminded of those unalienable rights we are endowed with by our Creator”
Such as what? Citizenship? Due process? Freedom of speech? You can’t possibly respect those precious rights since you just said:
“People like John Holdren…should be stripped of their citizenship as well as immediately deported”
Our rights are unalienable…but not if you’re John Holdren!
Oh, the irony…
Quote
99sierra on Jul 11, 2009 at 3:42 pm:
Joshua #91: memomachine offers a fair reading of Scott #81. What possible difference does it make how old Obama was when Holdren endorsed these ideas? A more worthy question is how old was Obama when, as President of the United States, he picked Holdren, with his track record of over-the-top apocalyptic reasoning, over many worthy others to be his science adviser? (If Holdren had been 16 years old when he articulated these ideas, that would explain a lot.)
I find it hard to make sense of one of Scott’s comments. If he means to suggest that “no one would think of doing that kind of stuff today,” meaning genocide in the wake of the Holocaust, he would simply be wrong, as demonstrated repeatedly in places like Bosnia, Sudan, Cambodia, and Rwanda. If the stuff “no one would think of doing” was forced sterilizations, clearly that would also be wrong, as Holdren himself demonstrates. Plus, how does the issue of forced sterilizations relate, in this context, to the availability of legal abortions that are offered to women as a choice?
Finally, Scott’s offhand comment: “Palin should have thought about that.” Meaning, Sarah Palin should have thought about aborting her Down’s baby prior to its birth. By Palin’s own admission, she did give it some thought, considered how much easier it would make her future, and wound up rejecting the idea. Scott doesn’t appear to share her moral qualms, or even to respect her “choice.” It seems the idea of eugenics is indeed alive and well, unlike so many babies.
Quote
100memomachine on Jul 11, 2009 at 4:03 pm:
Hmmmm.
@ Joshua (#91)
“#85 Memomachine: Please turn on your sarcasm detector and read #81 again.”
Was that sarcasm? Honestly I’ve seen the same produced by some eco-freaks and they were absolutely serious.
Quote
101memomachine on Jul 11, 2009 at 4:35 pm:
Hmmmm
@ Horatio (#90)
“And the issue with overpopulation is not people per square mile - this is why the Texas numbers are beside the point. It is the problem of resources and delivering food and water to people. Even in the United States we are currently pumping water out of aquifers at a faster rate than nature can replenish them. We are using up our fresh water resources too quickly. It is not silly to be concerned about overpopulation. We can hope that the world population stabilizes at a sustainable level before the need to implement harsh population control.”
Not entirely so.
1. The actual population growth trend lines are significantly decreasing. In many areas of the world if it weren’t for poor rural people having lots of kids many countries would have decreasing populations.
2. I suggest it is much easier, and cheaper, to provide essential services with a high population density than a low population density. Consider electrification here in the USA. The cities were electrified long before the rural areas wth some rural areas not becoming fully electrified until well into the 1950’s. Plus with a higher population density some development schemes that would otherwise be inefficient or even impossible become useful. An example would be a stackable personal rail system where the rail car is similar to a conventional mini-van with an electric motor and *no battery* as this personal rail car would get it’s power directly from the rail system. Stack the rail system stories tall and instead of having one entry/exit point for skyscrapers or arcologies you could choose which floor to enter or exit any particular building. With all transportation based on electricity, provided by hugely scaled nuclear power plants, and stacked vertically traffic congestion and air pollution would be a thing of the past.
3. Additionally the reason why 6.5 billion humans have had such a powerful impact on the world ecology has largely been because of poverty and a lack of technology. Increased wealth and technology allows more efficient use of land which in turn reduces the stress on the environment.
4. By having high population densities, and planning for them, it would be possible to fund appropriately effective pollution management facilities.
etc etc etc
Basically if we were to house and employ all of humanity in Texas, or an equivalent space, that would be we could return the *rest of the planet* to it’s original pristine condition.
LOL. Now there’s some new “green” jobs for you. Tearing up old cities and returning them to grass and trees.
Quote
102Dick H. on Jul 11, 2009 at 5:36 pm:
In the 1980’s I taught an Environmental Assessment and Management course. There were several Environmental “Science” books available, all chock full of useful information. However, they were clearly advocates of positions that removed them from science, as I told some small number of sales people hawking their book. The worst one was G. Tyler Miller, Living in the Environment. I still have the 1994 edition(8th?) with notes, and the interesting one is on page 379 about “curtains of death,” a scientific? term lacking the appreciation that the gill nets referred to have large holes in them, designed to catch fish. This may be current because Sarah Palin, a commercial fisherman, seems to have received the vehement bigotry observed on and off towards commercial fishermen over the last half century in several Gulf states. There are even examples in scientific publications, mostly suggesting the superiority of recreational over commercial fishing. Without apologizing for commercial fishing, the craft is dying in “civilized” countries, with examples of their popularity as in Scotland where they burned antique wooden boats so they could fish no more.
The two books I used most and still refer to, both published near the time of Ecoscience, were never reprinted and are hard to find. In looking in my copy of Miller I found a fax from Ruth Hendricks, Project Administrator for the Princeton Educational Testing Service dated August, 1994. “You are invited to help set standards for a new examination entitled Environment and Humanity: the race to save the planet.” One of the references was to Miller with included example questions following the philosophy of the book. I know not what happened to this initiative. I grew up during WWII when there was a real race to save our country. Now I see a Nobel Prize winning Energy Secretary on TV who does not seem to understand the laws of thermodynamics.
Quote
103tessa on Jul 11, 2009 at 5:37 pm:
When I was a younger nurse I had a patient who was a week away from death. She was a lesbian, former professor, from a local liberal arts college. I was pregnant with my second child, though I had adopted one I had 3. She looked at me as I was changing her adult depends, and as clear, and as cold as a winter night said, “How many children will this be for you?” I happily said my third, she stated, “Aren’t you ashamed of yourself for overpopulating the planet?” I was so stunned, but I looked at her and said. “Aren’t you glad my parents had seven so you have someone to take care of you.” She died a sick, twisted wretch of woman, still spouting off her sickening theories, even though by following them she was left alone to die with strangers caring for her.
Quote
104Mo on Jul 11, 2009 at 5:48 pm:
Thank you so much for all your work here. (As always!) What a shame that blogs like yours have to do the job of the mainstream media. Can you imagine if the information you have presented here was given HALF the amount of print and media time that Michael Jackson’s death got? This guy would be forced to resign due to public outcry! No sane person would want such ideas even suggested, much less put into practice! No sane person would want a man with such ideas in the position he’s in!
And my God, what does this say about Obama, that he would choose such a person for this position? What is happening in my country is beyond belief. Horrifying, and beyond belief.
And few people seem to notice, let alone care.
Quote
105Stone K on Jul 11, 2009 at 5:56 pm:
Good lord… Like we needed REAL fuel to feed the truther/New world order sect…
Now they are going to look sane… God help us if we have to listen to them spout off about being right.
All kidding aside, Thanks for the reporting Zombie, top notch as always.
now lets see if it will be ignored and mocked by the “Media” at large.
Quote
106memomachine on Jul 11, 2009 at 6:14 pm:
Hmmmm.
@ Dick H. (#102)
“Now I see a Nobel Prize winning Energy Secretary on TV who does not seem to understand the laws of thermodynamics.”
Yeah there’s a lot of things about Steven Chu that seem odd, weird, crazy and exceptionally bizzare.
My fave? When asked what his opinion was about OPEC cutting production he replied that it was “not in my domain.”!
Secretary of the Department of Energy! WTF!?
Quote
107Anonymous on Jul 11, 2009 at 6:15 pm:
Free thinking is not a pretty thing, but enmity to it is far uglier. In the course of true research and scientific thought all scenarios must be considered, that is what I see the authors doing. Zombie’s line of thinking would have us penalized for free thinking (because it is not Politically Correct, ie, it mentions abortion and social control). I find that type of PC even worse than that practiced by the most leftist of democrats.
Quote
108Druid on Jul 11, 2009 at 6:48 pm:
88 Horatio
Most excellent Observations:
… Holdren et al were speculating on options in the event overpopulation becomes critically dangerous… they made clear that they advocated the mildest measures at early stages to avoid any necessity for the more severe ones…
Holdren et al [sic] are hysterically anti-war and about the history of war being about food and basic survival - their logical [sic] conclusion is to kill millions to avoid a potential war over resources. As long as they call the shots they are A-OK with it, as you are, typical illinois nazi.
Quote
109Mescalero on Jul 11, 2009 at 6:54 pm:
This miserable excuse of a scientist should have been taken out and shot as a war criminal years ago. Holdren is one with the Nazi doctors and Soviet Lysenkos, need I say more?
Quote
110Troy Riser on Jul 11, 2009 at 8:30 pm:
#107, Anonymous, who wrote, ‘Free thinking is not a pretty thing, but enmity to it is far uglier.”
I don’t believe anyone who believes in the sanctity of truth or the delightful symmetry of reason would argue against the notion of ‘free thinking’, which I would define as a way of exploring new ideas without the hindrance of social or cultural conventions and–at times–traditional mores. A rational being goes where the logic takes them. However, what Holdren proposes (or rather, proposed) isn’t so new. His is, in fact, an old tradition: the powerful over the powerless, the individual in complete, abject subservience to the all-knowing State, which Holdren idealizes as a supranational global entity no doubt to be ran and operated by enlightened band of philosopher-king technocrats very much like himself. And speaking of tradition, those we generally consider freethinkers were and are Humanists to a man–even Rousseau, that pitiable wretch. What Holdren represents–what most hardcore, self-styled environmentalists represent–is anti-Humanism, the belief that humankind is akin to a virus, a scourge, a blight. In their heart of hearts, these people are filled with self-loathing. With so little regard for their own humanity, it is no wonder so many Utopians consider mass sterilizations, forced abortions, and mass murder viable solutions to the ills of the world. In the final analysis, the problem is not one of overpopulation. The problem is corruption in developing countries, often combined with socialist or other types of top-down authoritarian systems inherently unable to efficiently harness and distribute resources. Hobbes was right, Marx was wrong. That’s the truth, the way of things.
My enmity to Holdren and those like him is not ugly, at all, ever. My enmity to him and his confederacy of hateful dunces and would-be kings is justified and right and–in its way–beautiful.
Quote
111chris edwards on Jul 11, 2009 at 8:38 pm:
well, if the liberals are on board with this then perhaps applying the principle to anyone who believes in global warming would be a good place to start
Quote
112Anonymous on Jul 11, 2009 at 9:53 pm:
Eugenics and population control have always been Leftist policies. A hatred of humanity would seem to me to be an essential handmaiden of such a human-hating belief system.
Quote
113Fred on Jul 11, 2009 at 9:57 pm:
So put Holdren and rev J. Wright in a room together. Start recording. Step back…
Quote
114Anonymous on Jul 12, 2009 at 12:34 am:
LUBOS MOTL SPOTTED THAT LAST DECEMBER..
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/12/crackpot-john-holdren-will-become.html
Quote
115Throbert McGee on Jul 12, 2009 at 12:54 am:
Zombie’s line of thinking would have us penalized for free thinking
“Penalized” how? Is zombie proposing jail-time or fines for people who go around saying that mass sterilizations and forced abortions would be a swell idea? Has zombie urged people to boycott the business of anyone who dares suggest that such intrusive measures by the State might someday soon be justifiable as a “lesser evil” than allowing human overpopulation to destroy the Earth’s ecosystems?
Nope. Zombie is at worst suggesting that “free thinkers” who advocate forcibly limiting other people’s reproductive activities ought to be socially ostracized, ridiculed, and perhaps excluded from consideration for the position of “Science Czar.”
And I regret to inform you that if you consider a bit of heckling to be a “penalty,” you are constitutionally unfit to participate in the free marketplace of ideas, and should come back later after you’ve butched up a little, Mary.
Quote
116Robert on Jul 12, 2009 at 1:29 am:
Great work Zombie. Thank you.
#103 Tessa - I’ve met similar people. It is always shocking.
I really enjoyed all the discussion here. One thing that didn’t overtly come up is the question of why we would EVER try to do anything about over population. It’ll correct itself naturally. There will be wars. There will be famine. There will be disease. Sure, technology will advance and allow for greater capacity. All these things will find (and always have found) a balance.
How could I be so cold and crass not to care about the future deaths of (pick a number) by war, disease and famine? The vast majority of the people who will die from the effects of overpopulation, tragic as it may be, will say that they would much rather have lived the lives they lived than to have never lived at all.
To me, its not even a question. Who would choose never to be born? No one. So who the hell do these monsters think they are to choose for them?
Life is hard. Then you die. But it was better than having never lived. If any of you want to control the population, you go first…
Quote
117Lonetown on Jul 12, 2009 at 2:48 am:
I only write to call bullshit on Ken and his pseudo-expertise on China and his claim their policy is for urbans. This from May 2007 NYT -BEIJING, May 21 — An intensive campaign to enforce strict population-control measures, including forced abortions, prompted violent clashes between the police and local residents in southwestern China in recent days, witnesses said Monday, describing the latest incident of rural unrest that has alarmed senior officials in Beijing.
Appears to be RURAL riots, forced abortions strict population control measures. IN AN AUTONOMOUS PROVINCE.
So BULLSHIT KEN, get a real life.
Quote
118TomB on Jul 12, 2009 at 3:27 am:
Starless writes:
“The government has an important role to play in scientific research and technological development and the president should have someone who knows a thing or two about those things reporting to him.”
And as this article shows, Holdren is not a good example of “someone who knows a thing or two about those things”. Unless by “these things”, you mean irrational scare mongering. Because that seems to be the only thing he’s good at.
“Remember when Bush 41 was amazed by a grocery store bar code reader? We want someone around to make sure the president knows about those sorts of things.”
This is what happens when someone’s idea of “research” is looking through wikipedia.
From Snopes (among others):
Claim: During a photo opportunity at a 1988 grocers’ convention, President George Bush was “amazed” at encountering supermarket scanners for the first time.
Status: False.
Quote
119Anonymous on Jul 12, 2009 at 3:33 am:
“81Scott on Jul 11, 2009 at 1:11 pm:
Sheesh, keyboards, brains, not even in the same room together.
”
As evidenced by the entirety of your previous post, #80.
Quote
120TomB on Jul 12, 2009 at 3:47 am:
The point of the OCP is to slow down the birth rate among urban couples (that section of society with the fastest birthrate) while helping national minorities and rural families raise their populations.
Ken, does the fact that an unelected, totalitarian government can dictate the reproductive choices of a person, or couple, bother you in the least?
“You make it sound like some genocidal eugenics law, or something.”
Anyway, since you’re quoting wiki:
The one-child policy is challenged in principle and in practice for violating human rights. Reported abuses in its enforcement include bribery, coercion, forced sterilization, forced abortion, and possibly infanticide, with most reports coming from rural areas.[37][38] A 2001 report exposed that a quota of 20,000 abortions and sterilizations was set for Huaiji County in Guangdong Province in one year due to reported disregard of the one-child policy. The effort included using portable ultrasound devices to identify abortion candidates in remote villages. Earlier reports also show that women as far along as 8.5 months pregnant were forced to abort by injection of saline solution.[39] There have also been reports of women, in their 9th month of pregnancy or already in labour, having their children killed whilst in the birth canal or immediately after birth. [40] Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute announced that the One child policy is “an ongoing genocide.” He argued that free market capitalism will solve the overpopulation and overconsumption problems of developing nations.[41]
In 2002, China outlawed the use of physical force to make a woman submit to an abortion or sterilization, but it is not entirely enforced.[26][42] In the execution of the policy, many local governments still demand abortions if the pregnancy violates local regulations.
The one-child policy includes eugenic regulations. Both partners have to be rigorously tested before they marry. If one spouse has an “unsatisfactory” physical or mental condition, ranging from dyslexia to schizophrenia, they are banned from marrying. The Chinese government claimed that these regulations are intended to “improve the quality of the Chinese population.” In the mid-1990s the Chinese government somewhat backed away on this policy.[43][44] According to a UNESCO debate, Chinese genetic testing is conducted with the consent of the individual and is not based on racist or sinocentric attitudes.[45]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
Quote
121Wansdyke on Jul 12, 2009 at 3:50 am:
It seems to me that the people commenting on this unaware of where the world is headed.
I wait to see the decisions they are prepared to make in future, and how they justify them.
I prefer avoidance or mitigation (of the future issues) - and would prefer a sensible debate about it - to avoid bad legislation being forced through because the debate is so poor.
Look at how much energy is expended to produce a 1000 calories of wheat and consider how long that can last for, and what will replace it and when (the answer is 6000 calories of fossil fuel).
Stop making us support dubious characters because there’s nothing else on the table
Quote
122Anonymous on Jul 12, 2009 at 4:04 am:
It appears to me that Obama is surrounding himself with individuals who have radical ideas about the governance of a populace, anyone of which could have us paralleling China in its cummunal control of births. Do we really want to go there. While Chinese citizens do/did not have weapons to back up their opinions against Communist governmental control, WE DO !
Radical idiots with big mouths and financial backing who insinuate themselves into positions of power must be watched very closely, and not given any leaway from the exact responsibilities of the position they have taken.
There is a reason we have chosen Congress to take charge of the laws of this country, even if by all accounts they seemly take forever to accomplish anything, is simply that radical changes can disrupt the status quo of a functioning economy and country. Every country which tries to change too radically end up in Civil War, which then literally ends up destroying not only the economy of that country, but the priciples upon which that country was established in the first place.
Obama, that smooth tongued idealog must be watched more closely than the rest, because he is surrounding himself with individuals who know how to manipulate the masses with lies, for in the end we may have to protect ourselves with lead, to shield ourselves from the idiocy of the selfrighteous.
Quote
123Starless on Jul 12, 2009 at 4:38 am:
#97 Ken
You make it sound like some genocidal eugenics law, or something. Actually, alot of urban Han Chinese (the majority) complain that OCP is reverse racism against them!
When a government codifies and enforces population control methods you’re engaging in a form of eugenics whether you’re doing it for “good” reasons or not. Maybe everyone can agree that there shouldn’t be so many Han Chinese in the world, but that doesn’t make OCP any less draconian than it is.
#118 TomB
And as this article shows, Holdren is not a good example of “someone who knows a thing or two about those things”. Unless by “these things”, you mean irrational scare mongering. Because that seems to be the only thing he’s good at.
I didn’t say anything about Holdren, I was talking about the position of Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. Holdren has the credentials but that doesn’t mean I agree with him nor do I think he’s the right man for the job. Don’t try to assign a position to me which I haven’t expressed and don’t hold.
This is what happens when someone’s idea of “research” is looking through wikipedia.
If I had been able to find a quickly linkable list of science advisors at a dot gov site (which I looked for), I would have used that. It happened that the wiki was pretty concise and accurate. I’m well aware of the pitfalls of Wikipedia, I’m also aware that some of it is actual accurate, so don’t try to school me on that.
Quote
124Gab on Jul 12, 2009 at 5:37 am:
This is fracking madness. Has any of you actually read the text without the so call explanation and tried to understand what was said and in what context? Of course not. It’s so much more fun to have one’s hanger and hatred fueled and directed at something.
Wansdyke, TomB thank you for your calm and leveled comment.
Quote
125TomB on Jul 12, 2009 at 6:02 am:
Don’t try to assign a position to me which I haven’t expressed and don’t hold.
Then perhaps in a thread discussing Holdren, it might be prudent to clarify your position?
If I had been able to find a quickly linkable list of science advisors at a dot gov site (which I looked for), I would have used that. It happened that the wiki was pretty concise and accurate. I’m well aware of the pitfalls of Wikipedia, I’m also aware that some of it is actual accurate, so don’t try to school me on that.
You missed my point. You embarrassed (dare I say “schooled”) yourself repeating the George Bush - scanner story, so you obviously aren’t that “well aware of the pitfalls of Wikipedia”, whether or not you got it from wiki.
Quote
126TomB on Jul 12, 2009 at 6:05 am:
TomB thank you for your calm and leveled comment.
WHAT!?
That, sir, is a comment beyond the pale and I demand you retract such libel immediately!
I am NEVER calm and level!
(for the sarcastically-challenged that seem to be rampant on this thread, that was a joke)
Quote
127Anonymous on Jul 12, 2009 at 7:22 am:
The solution is very simple. Let nature take her course. If we strip the planet bare, we cannot survive. So be it.
Quote
128Valerie on Jul 12, 2009 at 8:20 am:
I don’t believe that the Earth is overpopulated or ever will be. We think it’s overpopulated because of the way we view our resources; however, we actually have enough resources to feed tens of billions of people and give them enough land to live comfortably on, but we don’t. The problem is that many governments starve their poor while fill the food warehouses for the fat rich who buy thousands of shoes and dresses per individual, while golf courses and huge mansions on sprawling acres waste and destroy land that could be used to build schools, apartments, family homes, hospitals, new businesses, and the like. If you take the population density per square mile of NYC and apply it to Alberta, Canada, you could literally fill Alberta with the entire world’s population and leave the rest of the world empty (so I’ve read). Governments like North Korea close off their people from the outside world and force them to resort to centuries old ways of farming that are not as productive and high-yielding as modern farms - it should come as no surprise that they suffer from malnutrition and sadly starve to death. Look at how much food we waste every year - don’t you think that that amount could feed all the starving people in the world?
A sudden growth of population is actually good because necessity is the mother of invention. When you need to suddenly take care of thousands to millions of people congregated in one area, you begin to think of ways to meet their needs, whether they be new way to faciliate public transportation, new ways to process food, and so on. This in turn stimulates that economy and brings prosperity.
Population is not the problem - it’s our attitudes regarding ourselves, the human race, and how we distribute our resources, which actually come back to how we view ourselves and our lifestyles as more important than the lives of other people. Look at China - it has forced abortions, sex-selection abortions, and birth control, and now there are 32 million more men than women while there are more senior citizens than youth. Communism prevents people from starting their own businesses and implementing new ideas for resources and land management and ways to provide new jobs, yet pollution is generally left unchecked. Desertification is still going on, and many farmlands in China have no electricity, no running water, and people live the same way they did hundreds of years ago. The government does not bother with their education or anything else; is it any wonder why they die at younger ages?
Our problem is that we exploit others and our resources to make a profit for ourselves and we tolerate this attitude. We care only about our comfort and we have the nerve to say that other human beings are worthless simply because they are in poverty or because they don’t share our nationality. If we have an overpopulation problem, then it is with people in the developed countries who think the world should bow to them and their skin color.
If we really focused on HOW we use our resources and not WHO, we could easily eradicate poverty and starvation. I’m not socialist, so I’m not saying we should take away everyone’s excesses and give them away; I think we should eliminate waste and put our needs before our wants.
“How can there be too many children? That’s like saying there are too many flowers.” (Mother Teresa)
Quote
129in_awe on Jul 12, 2009 at 8:25 am:
My “Progressive” brother is completely on board with enforcing a family size limit on US citizens of 1 child. When I mention that is below the steady state level required for the US population he said that open borders would adjust for that. The implicitly intertwined nature of progressive policies should be recognized, despite our “transparency committed” administration’s efforts to obfuscate at every turn.
Quote
130TacoBill on Jul 12, 2009 at 8:40 am:
President Obama knows that our future depends the gentle guiding hand of a benevolent government. His compassion and multicultural background give our “Gentle Leader” a unique wisdom, a very special insight into the final solutions needed to create a harmonious Gaia. Those troglodytes, those Untermenschen who sneer and scoff at hope and change show themselves citizens of the last century, unable to affect personal growth and flourish in the new age of interdependence, diversity, and love. Our “Gentle Leader” has the will do deal with such issues if only we all accept his guiding hand.
Quote
131N. O'Brain on Jul 12, 2009 at 8:53 am:
Every day and in every way, Jonah Goldberg is proving to be a prophet.
This guy would’ve given Hitler a woody.
Quote
132memomachine on Jul 12, 2009 at 8:57 am:
Hmmmm
@ Wansdyke (#121)
“It seems to me that the people commenting on this unaware of where the world is headed.”
Considering the extent of the discussion so far that has to be the stupidest bit of nonsense I’ve read today.
“I wait to see the decisions they are prepared to make in future, and how they justify them.”
Ok I stand corrected.
“I prefer avoidance or mitigation (of the future issues) - and would prefer a sensible debate about it - to avoid bad legislation being forced through because the debate is so poor.”
What “future issues”? Overpopulation is a myth. Most population effects are largely due to poverty and a lack of mitigating technology.
“Look at how much energy is expended to produce a 1000 calories of wheat and consider how long that can last for, and what will replace it and when (the answer is 6000 calories of fossil fuel).”
So what?
“Stop making us support dubious characters because there’s nothing else on the table”
Ahhh the old leftist “Stop making us murder you”.
Quote
133Sherab Zangpo on Jul 12, 2009 at 9:34 am:
#130 TacoBill
“President Obama knows that our future depends the gentle guiding hand of a benevolent government. His compassion and multicultural background give our “Gentle Leader” a unique wisdom, a very special insight into the final solutions needed to create a harmonious Gaia. Those troglodytes, those Untermenschen who sneer and scoff at hope and change show themselves citizens of the last century, unable to affect personal growth and flourish in the new age of interdependence, diversity, and love. Our “Gentle Leader” has the will do deal with such issues if only we all accept his guiding hand.”
Allahu Akbar and Long Live Stalin and Heil Hitler, and whatever else applies…
Quote
134monkey musings on Jul 12, 2009 at 9:35 am:
What a tangled web Obama weaves. Not only does he have associations with the organizations mentioned but he was also on the Board of the Joyce Foundation that promoted the development of the Chicago Climate Exchange, the exclusive business set up to trade carbon credits.
See: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629
An excerpt:
“Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange–the rest of the story
By Judi McLeod Wednesday, March 25, 2009
“Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress” is a FOXNews story by Ed Barnes. In short, “While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.”
The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”
And that’s only the beginning of this tawdry tale, Mr. Barnes.
The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong.
For years now Strong and Gore have been cashing in on that lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming. ”
Quote
135Greg A on Jul 12, 2009 at 9:44 am:
For those who don’t believe this is a serious threat, Algore just repeated the need for “global governance” the other day.
These bastards are determined to get their way, given the liklihood that the governmental superiority they currently have is not likely to last beyond 2010.
Quote
136Joshua on Jul 12, 2009 at 9:54 am:
Well, I can’t speak for Scott at #80-81, but I certainly thought he was being sarcastic and satirizing the Obama claim that it doesn’t matter what Bill Ayers did, because Obama was 8 years old at the time (see http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/04/17/fact_check_on_clinton_attacks.php ). If Scott comes back to this thread, he can comment for himself as to whether he was being sincere or sarcastic.
Personally, I find it sick and bizarre that anyone such as Holdren who wrote favorably about forced abortions, forced sterilizations, and sterilizing the population via food and drinking water could be nominated for a high position in the U.S. government. Even if Holdren had been correct to say that the U.S. was at risk for overpopulation, it would never be right to espouse those positions.
Quote
137Steadyjohn on Jul 12, 2009 at 10:16 am:
How ironic the quotation heading Chapter 13 (Population Policies, p 737):
“Of all things people are the most precious.”
— Mao Tse Tung (Master of Genocide)
“Any set of programs that is to be successful in alleviating the set of problems described in the foregoing chapters must include measures to control the growth of the human population. The potential goals of such measures in order of possible achievement are:
Reduce the rate of growth of the population, although not necessarily to zero.
Stabilize the size of the population; that is, achieve a zero rate of growth.
Achieve a negative rate of growth in order to reduce the size of the population.
Presumably, most people would agree that the only humane means of achieving any of these goals on a global basis is by reducing the birth rate. The alternative is to permit the death rate to increase….”
Mao clearly mastered the “death rate increase” method!
Quote
138TomB on Jul 12, 2009 at 10:43 am:
Required reading in High School (hey, a man can dream), should be The Ultimate Resourse 2, by Julian Simon.
The short of it is that we, as innovative human beings, are the most precious resource on the planet.
Given the inventive mind of man, the sustainable population of the planet is almost limitless.
Quote
139FreedomIsn'tFree on Jul 12, 2009 at 10:45 am:
Does anyone remember the Notre Dame speech in which Obama said there should be more adoptions…? Maybe this relates to Holdren’s comments about single Mothers having their babies taken away and adopted out.., etc. It is another appointment by Obumbles given to someone who has a screw loose. A very serious anti-American screw. This just reflects badly on Obama. The choices he has made- or the choices he has allowed REM or AXELORD to make (”I’m tired, REM, why don’t you choose the sci-tech czar this week?”) in most cases seem to be like Hitler appointing the architect, Speers, to be head of munitions for the 3rd Reich.
Join the online American Grand Jury and legally take Obumbles out!! A nation is a terrible thing to waste.
Quote
140Anonymous on Jul 12, 2009 at 10:54 am:
I don’t know what the answers to our problems really are. I do feel that pertinent education has been withheld and that is more of a cause of problems than anything. I do know that I chose not to have children because I love children so much and did not want mine to be in THIS world.
Quote
141Ecclesiastes on Jul 12, 2009 at 11:29 am:
TomB,
Seconded on The Ultimate Resource II. The text is free on the web. It’s an excellent demolition all of the eco-nut running-out-of-resources myths. The Wired essay on the Doomslayer is pretty good too.
Does anyone remember National Security Memorandum 200 that Kissinger gave Ford? It’s been described as “Kissinger’s 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide” and it was made official US policy. We’ve been here before. Don’t tell me it couldn’t happen.
Quote
142zombie on Jul 12, 2009 at 12:10 pm:
OK, everybody:
I finally was able to view and get a transcription of Holdren’s confirmation hearings, which some of his defenders say is where he made statements disavowing his earlier views. I have now made a significant update to the original post incorporating the video and the transcript, but for completeness’ sake, I’ll post the full text of the update here, to make sure everyone sees it:
————————————
5. He wrote all this a long time ago — he’s probably changed his views by now.
You might argue that this book was written in a different era, during which time a certain clique of radical scientists (including Holdren) were in a frenzy over what they thought was a crisis so severe it threatened the whole planet: overpopulation. But, you could say, all that is in the past, an embarrassing episode which Holdren might wish everyone would now forget. I mean, people change their opinions all the time. Senator Robert Byrd was once in the KKK, after all, but by now he has renounced those views. Perhaps in a similar vein John Holdren no longer believes any of the things he wrote in Ecoscience, so we can’t hold them against him any more.
Unfortunately, as far as I’ve been able to discover, Holdren has never disavowed the views he held in the 1970s and spelled out in Ecoscience and other books. In fact, he kept writing on similar topics up until quite recently.
The closest Holdren has come to retracting any of these statements was in a single sentence he spoke during his confirmation hearings. Under questioning from Senator David Vitter, Holdren did backpedal a bit concerning a different statement he made in the ’70s about government-controlled population levels. Does this single sentence count as an across-the-board disavowal of every single specific recommendation he made in Ecoscience as well as in many other books and articles? My opinion is Not even close, but I’ll let you decide for yourself. You can view the video of the confirmation hearings here (introductory page here), but be warned that it is an extremely long streaming video that doesn’t work in all browsers, and the answer in question doesn’t come until the 120th minute.
Because most people won’t or can’t view the entire video, here’s a transcript of the relevant part, and you can decide for yourself if his statement counts as a disavowal of his quotes cited in this report:
[Starting at 120:30]
If you want the full context of this exchange between Vitter and Holdren, a complete transcript of their entire question-and-answer session can be found posted here.
I’m not sure just how seriously we should take a statement made by someone during what is essentially a job interview. A few words spent reassuring the interviewer that you don’t really believe all those things you spent thirty years elaborating in detail — what else should we expect? That Holdren would say, Yes, I think the government should lower the U.S. population down to 280 million? Of course he wouldn’t say that during the interview, despite what he may or may not really believe internally.
But yes, it is possible that Holdren has changed his views and his philosophy. Yet we’ll never know until he announces his change of heart publicly. And so I say:
Quote
143Eric on Jul 12, 2009 at 12:18 pm:
re 121 Wansdyke
“Look at how much energy is expended to produce a 1000 calories of wheat and consider how long that can last for, and what will replace it and when (the answer is 6000 calories of fossil fuel).”
This is bullshit from greenies like Pimental. The energy inputs for a MJ of corn are 0.1 MJ for ammonia (H3+N, not fossil fuels) and 0.1MJ for farm machinery. Others are negligable.
Quote
144zombie on Jul 12, 2009 at 1:00 pm:
If Throbert McGee or any other Russian speakers are here, it seems that someone has translated my entire Holdren report into Russian!
Is it an accurate translation, or did they add things about me or whatever?
Quote
145zombie on Jul 12, 2009 at 1:04 pm:
I’m just now realizing that the Russian translation is all over the Russki-sphere! Who knew? Why are they so interested in Holdren? Is the word “czar” in his title what draws them in and intrigues them?
Quote
146sierra on Jul 12, 2009 at 1:09 pm:
Various commenters who complain that the negative reaction to Holdren’s book Ecoscience displays a hostility to the free and open exchange of ideas should be aware that Holdren himself is openly hostile to those skeptical of his views on climate change. He calls these people “dangerous.”
See also John Tierney’s piece from December, which asks: “Does being spectacularly wrong about a major issue in your field of expertise hurt your chances of becoming the presidential science advisor?”
Quote
147SPayne on Jul 12, 2009 at 1:28 pm:
If these environmentalist gangsters lived the way my household does, there would be abundance everywhere. But NOOOOOOOOOO! They’re important! They’re the party! They get 8 SUVs-per-household; in trillion-dollar gated estates; serving endangered fish at their daughters’ wedding receptions; going shopping in private jets. People in the west take all this newspeak like “KooKoo’s Nest” medication, meanwhile jihadists double their numbers as quickly as possible. “We” want to elimiminate minds and bodies; they just want to eliminate their own daughters’ clitores.
Quote
148sierra on Jul 12, 2009 at 2:33 pm:
Come to think of it, the idea that Holdren now considers climate-change skeptics “dangerous” is really quite amusing. Questioning our ability to understand mankind’s effect on such a complex, dynamic system as the Earth’s climate, or suggesting that various policy proposals to mitigate CO2 emissions are misguided, that’s “dangerous.” But floating the idea that women be forcibly sterilized, or that their children be taken away from them for reasons ecological, or that an armed global police organization needs to enforce these diktats, well, that’s all worthy of discussion. Great.
Quote
149Anonymous on Jul 12, 2009 at 3:43 pm:
What a freakin monster.
Quote
150Anonymous on Jul 12, 2009 at 5:03 pm:
I do not doubt the intensions of this administration.
they have already overran all constionality in there quest for government power. One thing missed in all discussions on abortion. (IF YOU CONTINUE TO THROW AWAY YOUR FIRSTBORN YOUR SOCIETY HAS LOST THE BEST OF IT’S REPRODUCTIVE BASE) Take away all moral issues and you still defeat yourself. David E Foley
Quote
151Joseph A. Miller on Jul 12, 2009 at 5:12 pm:
First of all, I would like to commend the writer of zombietime on his thorough argument. The crux of the issue, to me, is whether Holdren was saying: A. What SHOULD be done, or B. What governments, in extremis, might CONSIDER doing. Having only read excerpts from Ecoscience, this is not entirely clear to me. But in any event, Dr. Holdren’s response to Sen. Vitter seems a sufficient disavowal of extreme policies, and since Congressional testimony is taken under oath, I have no reason to doubt him on this point. The author disagrees with me on this point, as is his right.
Many other statements in this thread, however, I find disturbing. There are assertions that the “Left” (however that is defined), stands against freedom. Many of these statements come from people who are (I assume) strong supporters of such politicians as ex-Senator Rick Santorum, who has advocated government regulation of MARRIED, HETEROSEXUAL sexual relations to make sure they are solely for reproductive purposes. Santorum has said that concerns for “the family” brush aside all considerations of personal sexual freedom, and that the State has the RIGHT to regulate the private sexual freedom of its citizens. Presumably, the power of the state would be used to crush not only homosexual behavior but any sexual foreplay by married straights (since it isn’t “reproductive”). How is this not totalitarianism in its most intrusive form?
I would also remind you that it was CONSERVATIVES who enforced the laws against “race mixing” and “miscegenation”. (Twenty mostly southern states had laws against interracial marriage until the Supreme Court struck them down in 1967.) How does the state reserve the right to prohibit such unions? “Racial purity” was a conservative obsession for many years, and the evidence is abundant on this point.
Several others on this thread are presumably: A. Enemies of birth control (and many on the Right are pressing aggressively for the restriction of ALL birth control options). B. Advocates of forcing pregnant rape or incest victims to carry their pregnancies to term. C. Opponents of emergency contraception. How is that not imposing the will of the “State” on the most intimate areas of human life? Others on this thread are perhaps big advocates of “abstinence-only” sex “education”, which is an utter and demonstrable failure. How is the promotion of such ignorance a defense of freedom?
Other “defenders of freedom” have told me over the last eight years that the Government has the right to: A. arbitrarily imprison anyone it sees as a security threat, B. Use torture as a weapon against terrorism, INCLUDING THE TORTURE OF CHILDREN (John Yoo), C. send “terror” suspects to nations such as Uzbekistan where they will be subjected to the most hideous, medieval tortures imaginable, D. declare that anyone who questions the necessity or legality of the Iraq War is a traitor, E. Lie about the reasons for that war, and F. Reserve the right to illegally spy on any American at any time. And some of you have the temerity to accuse the Left of fascism?
Further, many on this thread attack the science behind concerns about global climate change. How many of you “defenders of science” are Young Earth Creationists who assert, contrary to all evidence and all reason, that the Earth is 6,000 years old? How many of you are, like your hero Palin, believers in witchcraft (which necessitates receiving an exorcism to protect one’s self from it) or convinced that there are centers of “demonism” throughout the U.S.? Many of you are all for science when it saves your life, creates new jobs, or delivers new technology for you to use, but whenever scientific evidence goes against your preconceived notions, you go berserk. How can I respect that?
Finally, the Obama Derangement Syndrome on the part of many posters is simply appalling. No, Obama did NOT support allowing babies born alive during abortions to be killed (Illinois had a law against that before he joined the state legislature). No, he is NOT for unlimited late-term abortion, as an interview with CBN demonstrated. No, he is NOT a Marxist. (He taught at the University of Chicago, for God’s sake, a hotbed of intellectual conservatism!) Would a Marxist have appointed people like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner? Hardly! I criticize Obama because he’s letting the Wall Street fat cats call the shots on the economic recovery efforts. Unhinged right-wingers call Obama a “socialist” for proposing to raise the top tax rate on the upper 5% from 36 to 39.5; for temporarily nationalizing LESS THAN ONE PER CENT of the economy, and for proposing a government option for health care insurance (one which DOES NOT call for the government to “take over” health care.) Again, how can I take the people who make such unfounded assertions seriously?
I am against forced abortion. So is President Obama. I say let people choose the size of their families. So does President Obama. I am for true personal freedom in private sexual matters. So is President Obama. In my view, Holdren’s nomination is not a threat to freedom nor is it advocacy of totalitarianism. I might have chosen someone else. But the response to this nomination is so extreme and over the top as to make me glad that I left the Republican Party and the conservative movement 18 years ago. I think I made the right choice.
Quote
152Ken on Jul 12, 2009 at 5:18 pm:
#117
Found your article. Seems like the villagers were unhappy about having to pay the tax that all of us who have kids in China have to pay (which isn’t even part of the OCP, but the National Tax Law):
“The new tax, called a ’social child-raising fee,’ was collected even though most violators had already paid fines in the past, the people said. According to an account on Longtan, a Web forum, officials in Bobai County in Guangxi boasted that they collected 7.8 million yuan in social child-raising fees from February through the end of April. Many families objected strongly to the fees and refused to pay.”
That NYT article also helps to dispell the myth of wide-spread forced abortions here in China:
“Coercive measures, including forced abortions and sterilizations, were common in the 1980s, when the so-called one-child policy was first strictly enforced. More recently, many parts of China have been relying more on financial penalties and incentives to limit the growth of its population, which is 1.3 billion.”
That’s your own source, don’t forget.
Remember that enforcment of the OCP, like every other law in China, varies from province to province. It isn’t binding in, say, Xinjiang, where the vast majority of residents are national minorities. It generally doesn’t apply to rural couples who have a daughter as their first child, though might apply if their first child is a boy but maybe not if the parents are only children themselves. There are a million exceptions to the policy…when it is even enforced, that is. Here’s a nice report (in Chinese) from Wang Ximing, PhD that explains some of the effects the policy has had on some rural areas:
http://www.xbnc.org/Article_Show.asp?ArticleID=2770
I think it can be summed up rather nicely with just one of his sentences: “Jihua shengyu dui butong diqu de nongcun jiating de yingxiang shi butong de,” or “The influence of the policy concerning rural families in different areas is not uniform.”
Quote
153Ken on Jul 12, 2009 at 5:21 pm:
#120
“Ken, does the fact that an unelected, totalitarian government can dictate the reproductive choices of a person, or couple, bother you in the least?”
I live here, I know how crowded it is, I know how little space there is in urban areas, so it doesn’t bother me at all if the government prevents births. I follow the laws even though, as a “minority” and spouse of a single child, I don’t have to. This law enjoys a huge amount of support here, BTW. Something like 75%. The only thing I don’t like is hearing about forced abortions and sterilizations and whatnot. That’s totally invasive and contrary to our guiding ideology in this country. Any official who approves that should be executed.
“Anyway, since you’re quoting wiki:”
Zombie cites Wiki all the time, I figured I could, too. The first half you quoted is about forced abortions, which I’ve already commented on. I’ve also already quoted a source that give figures to support the notion that the aboriton rate in China is drastically low. I’ve also already mentioned that sex selective abortions are illegal and could lead to life imprisonment for any doctor who provides them. Doctors don’t reveal the sex during ultrasounds. The issue here isn’t the law itself but the ways selfish local leaders enforce it. That’s a whole other issue.
“The one-child policy includes eugenic regulations. Both partners have to be rigorously tested before they marry. If one spouse has an ‘unsatisfactory’ physical or mental condition, ranging from dyslexia to schizophrenia, they are banned from marrying.”
Absolutely, unequivocally, totally 100% FALSE. I married in China and was never subject to any medical test of any kind. I even called the paichusuo (local police station) to ask if a medical check-up was needed, they said no. Your own source said China has “backed away” from practices like that, but if you need another source:
http://people.rednet.cn/PeopleShow.asp?ID=280098
At the very bottom it says: “As of 2003, the pre-marital health check has changed from mandatory to voluntary…” It continues to say that the check-up is suggested but not mandatory.
Quote
154Ken on Jul 12, 2009 at 5:24 pm:
And, in English:
“Ever since the new regulations on marriage registration were introduced on October 1, 2003, stipulating that pre-marital physical check-up is no more compulsory, the rate of pre-marital physical check-ups which become no longer compulsory has plummeted nationwide”
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200603/18/eng20060318_251612.html
Quote
155Ken on Jul 12, 2009 at 5:25 pm:
And ANOTHER:
“The new regulations no longer request people to show their medical examination certificates for marriage registration”
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200603/03/eng20060303_247615.html
Quote
156W. Earl Allen on Jul 12, 2009 at 5:35 pm:
Re: Joseph Miller, post 151.
I am not, and have never been, either a Republican or a Democrat. I find both parties equally culpable for destroying the protections of freedom provided in the Constitution.
If President Obama was truly against the use of force in controlling population, he surely should not have appointed John Holdren his science adviser. Appointing Holdren shows us all that Obama is not at all interested in the data and logic of science, but in the perversion of science for political ends.
Quote
157Ken on Jul 12, 2009 at 5:42 pm:
And, furthermore:
http://chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-07/11/content_5432238.htm
“Less than 40 percent of the population is restricted by the family planning policy to having one child, a senior official with the National Population and Family Planning Commission said yesterday”
-couples can have two children if they are both only children
-more than 11 percent of the population, mostly minority groups, is free to have two or more children
-In many rural areas, couples are allowed to have a second child if their first is a girl This applies to 52.9 percent of the (national) population.
Lonetown & TomB: Do some more research before you post.
Quote
158Panzerkardinal on Jul 12, 2009 at 6:29 pm:
Does anyone here find it ironic, that the people John Holdren are talking about eliminating is Obama and his family?
Obama’s mother was a single mother. So under Holdren’s plan she either would have been forced to be sterilized, abort Obama or give him up for adoption.
Obama’s father left his first wife and child, then abandoned his second wife and child, then turned to alcohol and died in poverty. This certainly could be categorized as someone who “contribute to social deterioration”. Thus his father would have been either forcibly sterilize or Obama would have been aborted.
Quote
159Scott on Jul 12, 2009 at 6:36 pm:
To Ken:
It is obvious you are passionate about China studies, specifically about overpopulation. But let’s get some perspective on the China issue…of the roughly 6 Billion alive on our planet, 1.3 Billion live in China. That is 4-5 times the population of the United States of America. That is overpopulation. Now, there have been about 33-34 million male births during the past 4 years, and about the same (almost identical!) number of female births…so I suppose your position that population control and the ratio of males to females could be construed as accurate in this context. So they’ve managed to socially engineer a lower birth rate, but at what cost? Right now, there are 5.4 workers per 1 elderly person in China. In just 40 years, that will shrink to 1.6 workers per elderly. This is because they were busy trying to control their already out of control population, and now have a new problem: how to pay for the aging. And, they aren’t in the same relative economic position as Europe or the United States so the strain of that elderly population will be felt strongly there in 2050. Indeed, I maintain my position that social engineering population is man at the height of his arrogance, and Holdren is just another Al Gore or James Hansen…just with a concentration on population studies.
Here is a more simplistic (but effective) way to look at this. I’ll cede that the planet is overpopulated to Mr. Holdren. I volunteer HIM to commit suicide to reduce the strain on our natural resources. Same for Global Warming nutcases. I volunteer Al Gore reduce our carbon footprint. His suicide will reduce carbon by 1 very wealthy, hypocritical bureaucrat with multiple houses and carbon-belching vehicles. If you think my proposal is outrageous and inappropriate, you are correct. But aren’t they doing the same for the rest of us who are NOT in positions of power and influence?
These people of science who believe they know more than the rest of us simply create problems by dictating our eating, driving, living, even reproductive habits. And I’ve found, whenever someone is telling me that I shouldn’t (fill in the blank: eat, drive, smoke, do whatever they say) that I need to watch what THEY’VE done in their lives. It is almost always a situation of “do as I say, not as I do”. And they would always, by virtue of their education and notoriety, be in positions of power to control the rest of their fellow man.
That, Ken, is tyranny. None of us, including you, should stand for it.
Quote
160May on Jul 12, 2009 at 7:03 pm:
How can you, with a straight face, call the kettle black. You would not fight for the life that is being taken by abortion…you want it to be a right to abort…. yet, you would make a moral judgement about this person with whom you disagree. Why do you worry so much about any human right, if you do not passionately care about ALL human rights. All these rights come from God, not an arrogant decider that your antiethics prefer over another’s antiethics. Thanks for the information. Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back. You have a responsibility to take yourself out first, before you allow someone to take out a helpless innocent. What a pharisee!
Quote
161Anonymous on Jul 12, 2009 at 7:13 pm:
these paragraphs are describing certain scenarios, but I don’t read any endorsement of the scenarios, just descriptions. Not saying this guy isn’t to these ideas, but you can’t infer that from the provided examples. The same things could be written as a warning about a future society.
Quote
162Ken on Jul 12, 2009 at 7:55 pm:
#159
“It is obvious you are passionate about China studies”
I’m just someone who lives in China who feels that much of the “facts” passed around about this country in the West are false or at least not wholly accurate. TomB claimed that China’s One Child Policy was an example of eugenics because of the health exam. He obviously didn’t know what he was talking about and I cited four sources, in two different languages, to refute his claims. If anything, that proves that people like to pontificate about things they know nothing about. It also casts doubt on other claims people make about the OCP.
“That is overpopulation”
Uh, yeah. Obviously…
“a new problem: how to pay for the aging”
Certainly is a problem. One the government will try to fix and one that I am not qualified to comment on since I have done no research into it. It’s also off topic and I don’t care much about it so I wont mention it on here.
“I maintain my position that social engineering population is man at the height of his arrogance, and Holdren is just another Al Gore or James Hansen…just with a concentration on population studies”
I think you’re misunderstanding what it is that I usually do on this board. I usually do my best to try and dispel the lies that people, knowingly or unknowingly, spread about China. I do it here specifically because I like this board and its content and because I expect there to be a considerable number of people on here who believe inaccuracies about China. I could do it elsewhere but I choose to do so here and most of the regulars are probably used to it by now. I knew this post would have at least some comments on China’s policy. As I expected, most of those comments were poorly informed, so I did my best to give a clearer picture of what really goes on in China and why. I’m not concerned, whatsoever, with population control elsewhere, overpopulation outside of China, Obama, or anything like that. I don’t even know who John Holdren is. I’m just here to combat the garbage that flies around about China. Wouldn’t you do the same if some Albanian used lies and half-truths to criticize America?
“That, Ken, is tyranny. None of us, including you, should stand for it”
Maybe. But I’m not here to debate that with you. And for all you know I could agree with you! Either way, China is over populated and its One Child Policy works and isn’t as evil or draconian as everyone thinks it is. Whiffle on all you want about “tyranny” and whatnot, but don’t forget that the policy is supported by the majority of China’s population:
“China’s ‘one-child policy’ is overwhelmingly accepted. Roughly three-in-four (76%) approve of the policy, which restricts most couples to a single child”
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=261
Is it tyranny when 3 out of 4 agree with the policy? Again, I’m only referring to China, here. It might be tyrannical to do something similar in a country where a policy wasn’t needed…but in China? Hell, even Pat Robertson says China needs the OCP!
Quote
163BP on Jul 12, 2009 at 7:58 pm:
Does anyone know precisely when Holdren hooked up with the Heinz people, and was it during the time that he was authoring a book fantasizing about mass delivery of sterilants through the food system or was it some time after that?
Quote
164miskatonic on Jul 12, 2009 at 8:45 pm:
Ken #153
“I live here, I know how crowded it is, I know how little space there is in urban areas, so it doesn’t bother me at all if the government prevents births.” [...] “The only thing I don’t like is hearing about forced abortions and sterilizations and whatnot.”
Ken, there’s a serious contradiction there. The way the government prevents births is by forced sterilizations and forced abortion. If all it were doing were passing out birth control pills and free abortions it would be like Europe, which is to say neither genocidal nor growing in population (in fact with these voluntary methods Europe’s birth rate is falling faster than yours). You either have a problem with both the government and the forced abortions, or you have a problem with neither. The fact of the matter is that if you have a pregnancy after having the government’s max number of children, and you can’t pay exorbitant fines, your pregnancy is aborted against your will. That is precisely how the Chinese government prevents births differently than Europe. That’s a fact, whether it be after one child or two.
Furthermore modern urban overcrowding, including that in China, is caused by modern economic policies and not by scarcity of land or other resources. In particular distorted distribution of wealth and policies supporting economic centralization tend to artificially concentrate wealth in urban areas, forcing rural people to move from rural to urban areas. This is a pressing issue all over the world, India and the US included for example. People who study development in India work on economic solutions (microfinance for example) that curb crowding by creating the ability for rural dwellers to make a living without moving. Without dealing with the root causes, your government can forcibly kill as many fetuses as it likes and the overcrowding will not stop happening until your population is decimated.
“I’ve also already mentioned that sex selective abortions are illegal and could lead to life imprisonment for any doctor who provides them. Doctors don’t reveal the sex during ultrasounds.”
The first point is true, they are illegal. Nevertheless by forcibly limiting children, your government creates massive incentives for them to occur, and thus they do still occur secretly. Furthermore until relatively recently the birthrates were skewed significantly, and it is likely to create serious social problems when those males come of age. Had China used methods similar to those in Europe (subsidized voluntary birth control), or even in Iran post the Iran-Iraq war (propaganda and positive financial incentives), the picture would be brighter.
“The issue here isn’t the law itself but the ways selfish local leaders enforce it. That’s a whole other issue.”
When you find godlike government officials, please clone them. Until then, well, this is the number one biggest difference between how you see the world and how most of the rest of the posters here see the world. The fact of the matter is that, ***ALWAYS***, when laws are too intrusive upon common citizens, people in power will abuse them. This is basic human nature. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The more intrusive the laws, the more horrifically they will be abused.
By the way, the way to limit the corruption of local leaders is local democracy, elections for local officials, because the people affected by them are the best capable of sniffing out corruption. China is avoiding this despite the fact that it would make local government run more smoothly, because the elite fear that this step could eventually threaten their own positions by demonstrating to the populace how well democracy works.
“’The one-child policy includes eugenic regulations. [...]‘
Absolutely, unequivocally, totally 100% FALSE. [...]”
The eugenics regulations are implicit. If you are a member of the political elite, your genetics are favoured. If you are not, your genetics are disfavoured. It is eugenics on a class level. It is not natural genetic selection based on who can find a mate, and feed and educate children. Since forced abortions and forced sterilizations are involved, this is absolutely eugenics.
Quote
165Mark on Jul 12, 2009 at 9:00 pm:
Wow.
What this guy wants is not too far away from the dystopic classic Soylent Green.
Quote
166miskatonic on Jul 12, 2009 at 9:02 pm:
“’a new problem: how to pay for the aging’
Certainly is a problem. One the government will try to fix and one that I am not qualified to comment on since I have done no research into it. It’s also off topic and I don’t care much about it so I wont mention it on here.”
It is a very closely related problem. In China people traditionally have children so that they are cared for in old age. Your government forcibly prevented them from having children. Now they are likely to have serious economic problems in old age. These issues are intimately related.
“I’m just here to combat the garbage that flies around about China. Wouldn’t you do the same if some Albanian used lies and half-truths to criticize America?”
The difference is that if an Albanian were giving potentially valid criticism about America, I would consider it an perhaps change my position. You do not appear to be thinking critically about the issues or the criticisms, as evidenced by your comment that you support the government’s policies but are against forced sterilization and abortion, a fundamental component of those policies.
“’That, Ken, is tyranny. None of us, including you, should stand for it’
Maybe. But I’m not here to debate that with you.”
You debate extremely selectively. You debate specifically the avenues of an argument that you believe you can support, and avoid discussion of the points where your arguments are weak, such as future care for the elderly, and the forced abortion and forced sterilization aspects of China’s birth control policies.
“Either way, China is over populated and its One Child Policy works and isn’t as evil or draconian as everyone thinks it is.”
You already mentioned how terribly crowded your city is. The One Child Policy had been in place for decades. Therefore, it does not work, by your own account. The economic explanation is superior, as it accounts for the evidence. Your position is riddled with internal inconsistencies.
“Whiffle on all you want about “tyranny” and whatnot, but don’t forget that the policy is supported by the majority of China’s population:
‘China’s ‘one-child policy’ is overwhelmingly accepted. Roughly three-in-four (76%) approve of the policy, which restricts most couples to a single child’
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=261
Is it tyranny when 3 out of 4 agree with the policy? Again, I’m only referring to China, here. It might be tyrannical to do something similar in a country where a policy wasn’t needed…but in China? Hell, even Pat Robertson says China needs the OCP!”
Was it tyranny when 3 out of 4 Americans believed that blacks should be kept as property, and kept them so?
(And by the way, Pat Robertson is a loon and a charlatan.)
Quote
167Ken on Jul 12, 2009 at 9:15 pm:
#164:
“The way the government prevents births is by forced sterilizations and forced abortion”
Complete lie. I’ll quote this source again since you must have missed it the first time:
::There is heavy reliance on long-term contraception…The use of these long-term methods keeps abortion rates relatively low::
(http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/353/11/1171)
If you wont even read what I say why should I argue this with you? I’ll have more to say later.
Quote
168rs on Jul 12, 2009 at 9:26 pm:
The only thing that could surprise me anymore is a politician or academic who believes in liberty.
Quote
169Ken on Jul 12, 2009 at 9:50 pm:
“The fact of the matter is that if you have a pregnancy after having the government’s max number of children, and you can’t pay exorbitant fines, your pregnancy is aborted against your will.”
Another complete lie. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/03/04/22369.aspx
Article describes the penalties for not following the policy if it’s binding to you. It also notes that fines are based on household earnings and, thus, wouldn’t be excessive enough so as to be unpayable.
“In particular distorted distribution of wealth and policies supporting economic centralization tend to artificially concentrate wealth in urban areas, forcing rural people to move from rural to urban areas”
True enough. The hinterland needs to be more developed and people need to stop flooding into the urban areas. China has vast amounts of largely unsettled land that could be used to ease up urban overcrowding, but if that happened it would aggravate another issue: People would start complaining that Han are flooding into their areas to dilute their culture, etc etc. Also, I don’t think we should be so naive as to believe that that would happen anytime soon, though the overcrowding issue needs to be addressed NOW and not when we have enough resources to fund large-scale development projects in rural areas.
“The more intrusive the laws, the more horrifically they will be abused”
Alright. Well, then, I’m open to your suggestions. What would you like China to do? You seem to think that the only forms of birth control available in China are abortions or sterilizations, which isn’t true. Birth control is avaiable in any hospital. There are condom vending machines on the streets. The government has subsidized birth control since the beginning of the OCP, anyone who wants it need only ask. Abortions and sterilizations exist but most opt for IUDs or other contraceptives. What else could possibly be done?
“By the way, the way to limit the corruption of local leaders is local democracy, elections for local officials, because the people affected by them are the best capable of sniffing out corruption”
No argument there.
“If you are a member of the political elite, your genetics are favoured. If you are not, your genetics are disfavoured”
By whom? And who has acess to the genetic information of the parents? I’ve already cited several sources that prove that no medical examination of any kind is required before marriage in China. That was the major issue upon which TomB’s claim of “eugenics” was hinging on. It’s just not true.
“You debate extremely selectively. You debate specifically the avenues of an argument that you believe you can support, and avoid discussion of the points where your arguments are weak”
Yeah, obviously. Don’t you hate it when people open their mouths about things they know nothing about? So do I. That’s why I don’t do it. When I do more research on the “care for the elderly” issue I’ll have more to say about it. I’m well into middle age now so I probably should start caring about it.
“You already mentioned how terribly crowded your city is. The One Child Policy had been in place for decades. Therefore, it does not work, by your own account”
I live in a minority region where the OCP doesn’t apply.
“Was it tyranny when 3 out of 4 Americans believed that blacks should be kept as property, and kept them so?”
You said it was an invasive policy that unfairly dictated the lives of the people who live under it. I’m just curious as to why so many people would support it if it was so horrible. As for the moral equivalency you drew with slavery: You’re talking apples and oranges. The opinion of OCP was drawn from a cross-section of Chinese society, unlike any particular number of people who may have supported slavery in the past. I’m sure that if enslaved black themselves were allowed to give an opinion then disapproval rates would have been higher. Even in China can give their opinion on OCP if they want. Most of them have and the results are clear.
Quote
170Ken on Jul 12, 2009 at 10:06 pm:
#164
Here’s China’s family planning law:
http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/database/poplaws/law_china/ch_record052.htm
Nowhere in there do I see anything about the government using forced abortions or forced sterilization as their primary means of population control. However, I do note article 19:
“Article 19. In implementing family planning, the primary emphasis shall be on contraception”
And article 39:
“Article 39. Staff of state organs who commit one of the following acts in the course of family planning activities shall, if the act constitutes a crime, be referred for criminal prosecution; or, if the act does not constitute a crime, be subject to both administrative penalties and confiscation of any illegal gains.
(1) Infringing on a citizen’s personal rights, property rights or other legitimate rights and interests.
(2) Abuse of power, dereliction of duty or graft.
(3) Seeking or accepting a bribe.
(4) Withholding, reducing, redirecting or embezzling family planning program funds or social compensation fees.
(5) Distorting, under-reporting, fabricating, modifying or refusing to report statistical data on population or family planning.”
Chapter 6 describes the penalties for breaking the law. Don’t see any of the things you mentioned in there. If forced abortions DO happen in secret, I’d say that’s the fault of the doctor or official who chose to undertake them, not a flaw in the policy itself, which is clearly against just that. The solution to that is the election of local officials, something we seem to agree on, not scrapping the policy.
Quote
171zombie on Jul 12, 2009 at 10:17 pm:
#151 Joseph A. Miller:
Unfortunately for you, you are fighting against imaginary strawmen. You apparently see all non-supporters of Obama as stereotypical right-wing knuckle-dragging Neanderthals, or at least fascistic ultra-repressive social conservatives.
You are way way WAY off-base.
Just because someone doesn’t support Obama or his policies, doesn’t mean that person also is a Young Earth Creationist or someone who wants the government intruding in people’s bedrooms.
Speaking for myself, I can say, in response to your baseless accusations and assumptions:
a. I know very little about Santorum, but if he indeed wants the government to intrude on people’s private sexual behavior, or pass laws against non-reproductive sex, then I very strongly DON’T support him or those policies, which I would find absurd. (I’m basing this on your assertion that he has proposed such laws — I haven’t bothered to look it up.)
b. Not only am I not a Young Earth Creationist (i.e. someone who thinks the world is 6,000 years old), but I have been an extremely vigorous defender of evolutionary theory, both on the internet and in print. In fact, I’m an expert of certain aspects of evolutionary science, but due my need to remain anonymous I cannot reveal any more than that. But of all your assumptions, this one (that Obama opponents are necessarily creationists) is the most wrong.
c. I do not support abstinence-only education. On the other hand, I don’t support promiscuity-only education either, which is more the norm these days. (And which I personally endured during my school days — an early example of a far-left public school district pushing for explicit and anti-monogamy sex education.) The same thing is happening in England right now by the way.
d. Most of your list of the ills of the Bush era has been debunked and re-debunked a zillion times, but you obviously live in that liberal bubble world where you unquestioningly believe the distortions and lies told by the MSM to demonize Republicans. If you haven’t let a syllable of reality break in to your world in the last 8 years, nothing I say here will change your mind, so I won’t even try. (OK, I can’t resist just one attempt: Were you aware, for example, that the vast majority of “renditions” for which there is any evidence they ever actually happened took place during the CLINTON administration in the ’90s — not during the Bush administration? No, you apparently didn’t know that. Rendition is mainly a Democratic policy — which you [as do most liberals] blame on Republicans.)
And on and on it goes.
You seem like a good candidate for waking up to the new political orientation I plan to spring on the world sometime later this year (well, sometime in the next three years, at least) — a new way to define one’s political beliefs that doesn’t rely on outdated stereotypes.
There is no other way to describe people like me, who are pro-freedom and pro-America, yet who do not consider ourselves “right-wing,” nor “left-wing.” I believe those labels are now irrelevant and useless, and yet you are still laboring under the anachronistic paradigm of there being only two political orientations possible, the one you identify with being “good” and the other one being “bad” in all areas.
I can’t speak for my commenters, but I suspect that many of them feel as I do. So stop tilting at windmills and stop characterizing people you know nothing about as being ignorant villains and hypocrites.
Quote
172Joseph A. Miller on Jul 12, 2009 at 11:38 pm:
zombie, I did NOT characterize you as a creationist or as someone who is an advocate of the intrusive right. I said that I suspected many of your COMMENTERS were. Believe me, after you’ve argued online with enough of them you get a sense of it. If you read my statement carefully, I used words like “many”–not all– to describe Obama’s opponents in such terms.
I read several of the pages you excerpted, and on page 789, Holdren, et al, say that extreme measures will hopefully not be necessary. He specifically says that he favors moderate methods of dealing with population control. I think he was outlining a worst case scenario in the preceding pages, and I think he has changed his mind since 1977. People do.
No, my accusations against the Bush Administration have NOT been “debunked”. That’s simply a false statement. Yes, I know that rendition started under Clinton, but it was greatly enlarged and abused by Bush. (http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/timeline/timeline_1.html)
The torture of prisoners was been widely used (more than 100 are suspected to have died under torture, not the 8 falsely reported by Cheney’s friends) and there were many abuses, excruciatingly well documented, especially by Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/30/accountability/index.html).
Yes, the Iraq War WAS based on lies. Add up how many times Bush officials simply flat out lied in asserting that Saddam “without any doubt” had WMDs. Recall Cheney’s attempts to falsely link Saddam to 9/11, a link that even Bush ultimately had to deny. A good chronology of these lies may be found here: http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline
And NEVER try to tell me that Bush and his friends didn’t scream that anyone who questioned Bush was a traitor. Fox News, fed by Cheney and company, practically barked it out 24/7. If I had the time, I could give you many horrible examples of this. Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, and all the other right wing liars were savages to people like me, and I have a long memory for people who call me traitor. Hannity, btw, was one of Bush’s favorite “news” figures.
My ire was directed at many of your COMMENTERS, not you. I was positive in my remarks about you personally. I am not foolish enough at my age (I’m closer to 60 than 50) to think that the Democrats hold all the answers. But the attack on intellect, the attack on reason, the attack on science, and the attack on reality itself by the Radical Right must be stopped. Don’t kid yourself–I would bet that many of your commenters despise people like you. I used to be a conservative Republican; I know whereof I speak. I am for a reality based politics. That’s all. And for the record, I wouldn’t have appointed Holdren either.
Quote
173Anonymous on Jul 13, 2009 at 2:42 am:
Where were you people when the Furher needed you? We may have hung people who were “just following orders” at Nuremburg; but their ideals and ideas are alive and well in the United National Socialist States of America. All hail Obama, Zeig! Zeig! Zeig! I can almost here all you zombified idiots screaming Heil, with every breath that Obama breathes. I thought Bush was bad, and he didn’t have half a brain. Now we have someone who is far beyond dangerous and is soon to destroy what little humanity is left in this nation; Obama has a brain, which makes him truly dangerous. He willing follows Brezinsky of his own free will. I fear for myu children and yours. How long before we must condemn this system which has become monsterous and insideous, do we have the strength to kill it, before it kills us all. Wake up you people, fear not the goat herders and destitue of the Arabic World, fear instead the den of vipers whose tongues are ever sticking out of Washington, as the size up what is left of the world in order to devour it.
Quote
174Anonymous on Jul 13, 2009 at 4:39 am:
I am wondering if this new science czar is aware of the work of Harry Hamilton Laughlin …
Quote
175Anonymous on Jul 13, 2009 at 5:17 am:
What wonderful news — no more unwanted pregnancies — a simple way to only have wanted children –
The major problem on Earth is Overpopulation but the sheeple can’t see it.
Although late in coming we should be celebrating and supporting it fully.
Quote
176Anonymous on Jul 13, 2009 at 5:29 am:
“The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births…
Excellent news for people everywhere especially in poverty countries but of course the Roman Catholic Church and the abstinence only morons will not support it because of ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Quote
177Anonymous on Jul 13, 2009 at 5:44 am:
Seriously you think overpopulation only matters on how much space a person has to live?
How much space does it take to support one person with food and energy? Not living space. Right now the estimate is at 9 billion people the earth would not be able to generate enough food to support them.
Do I believe there are people that are hurting our society more than others, yes I do. These people are living off our welfare dollars.
Do I think that I would benefit society if people who did not make X dollars should not be allowed to raise their children? Yes I do. I also think that parents of children under 18 should be tried for any crime their child commits as well, looser pays (lawsuits the looser has to pay for both parties legal fees etc), line item veto, term limits in congress.
None of this will happen.
Quote
178Anonymous on Jul 13, 2009 at 6:29 am:
If you don’t believe any of this is true go to maafa21.com and check out more evidence of this mentality.
Quote
179NH on Jul 13, 2009 at 6:38 am:
Thank you for this research!
What is happening today is so obvious that it can be summed up in a few words: George Orwell’s Nightmare.
If this and recent comments praising eugenics by Ruth Bader Ginsberg don’t alarm you, you are not thinking.
Everything, through forced legislation under threat of martial law, and scare tactics such as global warming, is in the process of being put under federal control; education, food, water, health, energy, money (cashless — no transaction will go untaxed) and then will be placed under global control via some corresponding UN treaty — I have been saying this for years.
If you don’t have your card with the ‘chip’ you will not be able to buy or sell… (the bible got that right!)
States now need ’states rights’ reaffirmed more than ever to escape this Orwellian nightmare that is about to be realized.
Witness the kind of pure NUT-JOBS that are working within the Obama administration! Obama himself is fully invested in this
planetary philosophy.
Quote
180NH on Jul 13, 2009 at 6:49 am:
@Joseph Miller: Obama is just so bad for everything else, it doesn’t matter what he SAYS. He’s a liar….
And it was CONSERVATIVES who freed the slaves and DEMOCRATS who believe in segregation, euthenasia, etc etc. Please read your history!
Visit the national black republicans website…. they have it all written there.
Quote
181Joe H on Jul 13, 2009 at 7:38 am:
Hello zombietime,
I’m the one who linked both your original piece and Infowars in the same blog.
You are right, your analysis did come first and I apologize if I gave the wrong impression.
Joe
Quote
182Mr. H on Jul 13, 2009 at 8:27 am:
Idiots….I’ve read the book everyone is referring to….the article has taken a lot (if not everything) out of context. What someone is willing to admit is plausible and what they actually would do are two different things. This man is not saying that he would do these things, but that they are merely plausible and something the world would/may have to do under certain circumstances. It’s people like you who try to re-interpret things to make it sound horrific. Just because this man is now in a powerful position does not mean he would enforce these bogus ideals. Please don’t be such jackasses….political views aside, common sense should have kicked in a long time ago. And what makes you think that just because this man wrote about the subject he would ever have the power to just make it so without having to seek approval or consent? I just take joy in the fact that none of you assholes will ever be president or make any type of decisions. Have a good day.
Quote
183Anonymous on Jul 13, 2009 at 8:47 am:
Start by steralizing these people.
Quote
184Tyris on Jul 13, 2009 at 9:34 am:
NINJA’d: Well, looks like Zombie beat me to it. I tried to send this about 5 hours ago, my time, but my ISP was being a pain. Now on lunch break, I have the time to post it. As expected, Zombie’s already covered most of the bases, but I figured I’d post this anyway.
—
Josef #151
I don’t know, Mr Miller, whether you are trying to follow in the footsteps of Mr P.T. Barnum with an elaborate shell game, or whether you are following in the footsteps of Mr. Quixote de la Mancha as you tilt at windmill giants that exist only in your presumptions, but one of the reasons Zombie’s post is so effective and informing is that it deals specifically with the facts and evidence available.
You state your own view as to what the ‘crux of the issue’ is and then come to a seperate conclusion. “I no longer think it’s productive, Senator, to focus on the optimum population of the United States” is not a disavowal of Holdren’s own extreme policies. Despite being under oath, it in no way renounces what he had previously claimed. He just says that “I don’t think it’s a good idea to focus on this right now.”
But this minor little bait-and-switch is just the beginning of your work. Let’s continue:
“Many of these statements come from people who are (I assume) strong supporters of such politicians as ex-Senator Rick Santorum” … followed by a cute little rant I have no desire to copy and paste the entirety of, since the basic premise is already false. You see, the difference between, say, Zombie and yourself, is that Zombie quotes directly from the source, only what they’ve said, and sets it out while giving his/her opinion on the matter. You, however, don’t even have quotes. You just immediately build up a large, complicated strawman based upon your own assumptions of what the opposition does or does not believe. The greater irony is that the example you give is of an EX-Senator… one who no longer has any grip on the levers of power, while giving a pass to a newly appointed representative of the government. Why is that?
“I would also remind you that it was CONSERVATIVES who enforced the laws against “race mixing” and “miscegenation”.”
Really? In 1967? Wow, that’s nice. I’d bet many conservatives here weren’t even born by that point. For that matter, since you’re on things that those ‘conservatives’ did, and I already doubt the veracity of your claim, where do you stand on the deplorable actions of LIBERALS from a previous age, in regards to, say, the detainment of Japanese-Americans into camps during WWII? Or are you too busy pointing fingers while trying to establish a moral high ground? This whole “moving of the goalposts” is a fun game, isn’t it?
“Several others on this thread are presumably” If you quoted directly, sir, you wouldn’t have to presume. As it is, this portion of your rant is equally useless.
“Others on this thread are perhaps big advocates”, followed by another strawman, in the same paragraph as the above quote. I like how you fail to quote anyone, and just build up a nice house of cards on assumption. Please continue, it’s good to have a contrast to hold up next to the original poster to see the difference in quality.
“Other “defenders of freedom” have told me over the last eight years” This post hasn’t existed for 8 days, let alone 8 years. And here you go with assumptions and lack of reference material. But, hey, you manage to trot out the old pile of liberal memes and talking points that they’ve managed to get wrong, so I suppose this wasn’t about an educational comparison as much as it is about trying to promote your ’side’ as more intelligent than its opposition.
“Further, many on this thread attack the science behind concerns about global climate change.” Hey, finally, at least something relevant. No quotes, but, you know, I did see a little bashing of the Anthropocentric Global Climate Change Myth. With good reason. And you almost would have had some minor intellectual points here if you had followed through and offered up positive support of it, but then you run off and state “How many of you “defenders of science” are Young Earth Creationists who assert, contrary to all evidence and all reason, that the Earth is 6,000 years old?” My response would be: A) How many aren’t? -and- B) What would it matter if they aren’t trying to push their beliefs on you at the expense of more of your hard-earned money being stolen by the government to fund it?
“believers in witchcraft (which necessitates receiving an exorcism to protect one’s self from it) or convinced that there are centers of “demonism” throughout the U.S.?”
Who cares, if they aren’t pushing that on you or into law? They could believe in little space aliens abducting people or that George Bush has a weather control ray that aims hurricanes at certain cities for conspiratorial reasons so long as they don’t try and extort others to fund their beliefs.
“but whenever scientific evidence goes against your preconceived notions, you go berserk. How can I respect that?”
How can we respect someone who goes off and accuses people who have made no such claims as having done so? For that matter, how many people here have gone beserk and frothed at the mouth while slamming on their keyboard in a hastily-written neanderthal-like response to your post?
“No, Obama did NOT support allowing babies born alive during abortions to be killed”
More bait and switch? Or just sophistry? The law would have simply allowed abortionists to let them die. But ‘be killed’ is your wording.
“Unhinged right-wingers call Obama a “socialist” for proposing to raise the top tax rate on the upper 5% from 36 to 39.5; for temporarily nationalizing LESS THAN ONE PER CENT of the economy, and for proposing a government option for health care insurance (one which DOES NOT call for the government to “take over” health care.) Again, how can I take the people who make such unfounded assertions seriously?”
Hmm. Still not seeing direct quotes here. Besides, and I don’t have to presume, you’re saying that “Unhinged right-wingers” are using those specific reasons. If we were to do as you, and ASSUME this was truth, how does that apply unless you are attempting to label the people here “unhinged right-wingers”? I’ll be nice and “assume” that you aren’t, in which case you’re labelling some group of people who aren’t participating as doing something you disagree with. No surprise there. But how many of those “unhinged right-wingers” are being nominated for positions of power by the President? Oh right, none of them. I could go into detail as to how you’ve cherry-picked small portions to focus on rather than the overall effect, but I have no need to as you’ve already fallen under either category error (at best) or random ad hominem (at worst).
“But the response to this nomination is so extreme and over the top as to make me glad that I left the Republican Party and the conservative movement 18 years ago. I think I made the right choice.”
It’s not extreme to get rather annoyed at someone who sees no problem with using science and polticis in heavy-handed fashion to force compliance upon the entire human population in limiting their reproductive choices. You’ll notice no one has talked about harming Holdren, or President Obama, or their children, or their ability to have children, or anyone else. The reverse is not true in Holdren’s case, however, as he has published works that show no self-criticism or self-reflection on the morality and ethics of controlled sterilization of human populations, among many other disturbing ideas.
Quote
185Thinkboutit on Jul 13, 2009 at 9:53 am:
This is all in time with what has been said to happen “Prophetic end times”
I know we don’t agree with what they are doing, but God is the one who sets up and He is the one who takes down in positions.
We cannot stop what has already been fortold.
If you read Revelations, you will see this.
Thank you Z for putting the truth out there for us to see..
But we dont fight against Flesh and Blood..
THANK GOD JESUS IS COMING BACK SOON..
to Rule and Reign in His Righteousness and HOLINESS..
GOD IS GOOD.. those who trust in Him will have His Peace
thru it all…
Bible is the Ultimate Final Truth
Quote
186KennX on Jul 13, 2009 at 9:57 am:
Thank you for posting the scans of these documents… as they refute basically your entire point. Did you happen to look at the footnotes for each of the ‘quotes’ that you mention? No? I didn’t think so. You will see that none of them are by Holden… In fact, why do you think that Holden (a physicist) would be writing the biology part of a textbook when the other authors are biologists? Don’t you think that what they had HIM actually contribute to their book was information about energy resources rather than subjects for which he has no expertise?
Can you name ANYTHING like this in ANY of the numerous writings HE has published? You are citing a part of a 32 year old book that he contributed to… And then only quoting areas where the Ehrlichs wrote or quoted others.
LAME.
Using the same tactic:
“Happy shall he be, that taketh
and dasheth thy little ones against
the stones.” –Psalms 137:9
Direct quote from the Bible… which is the Word of God. Since Jesus and God are One…
Jesus promotes killing infants by smashing their heads open on the rocks… Right?
Oh, you don’t like that comparison?
I guess you are just upset that THIS administration uses real scientists instead of the lunatic fringe who believe the world is 6,000 years old.
Quote
187Frank Creed on Jul 13, 2009 at 10:23 am:
I wonder what I thought would heal the world’s woes thrity years ago? Sensationalism, or substantive problem?
Quote
188zombie on Jul 13, 2009 at 10:40 am:
#185 KennX
Please, I encourage you to write some more comments. Nothing better exposes the idiocy of left-wing ideologues than their own words.
Quote
189Anonymous on Jul 13, 2009 at 12:27 pm:
I read your article and it scared the bejabbers out of me. I knew we had crazies but this guy takes the cake - he even looks evil. I wonder if he has children? Probably not and I thank God if he doesn’t.
I think we need a new Constitution - based on the old one but brought up todate - for instance, we no longer need the Amendment to give women the right to vote - or to free the blacks - or…….but we need a new something as a light people can follow and rally around. We have so many organizations asking for money that each one doesn’t have enough - but if we combine our forces……….there
Quote
190Kristopher on Jul 13, 2009 at 1:48 pm:
Do dumbasses like Holder even think about the long-term effects of their policies?
Maybe someone should rent them a copy of Matt Judge’s Idiocracy.
Exactly what is their shiny ecofriendly ZPG world going to look like when demographics and illegal immigration replaces that 52% of the votors with a majority of third-worlder immigrants?
Does this idjit have a clue about what happens to environmental issues in the third world? Or what happens to lefty loudmouth minorities?
Quote
191nadadhimmi on Jul 13, 2009 at 5:05 pm:
I think Obama will euthanize (murder) anyone that looses the ability to pay taxes to his regime. Other than “people of color” that is.
Quote
192average_guy on Jul 13, 2009 at 6:27 pm:
#185 KenX:
That verse from Psalms is out of context and distorted. To put it in proper context, give us verses 7 through 9, or maybe the whole nine verses of Psalm 137.
Interestingly, and possibly OT, On Don Maclean’s American Pie album there is a song titled “Babylon” that is based on this Psalm. http://www.don-mclean.com/?p=10
BTW KenX, this imprecatory Psalm is telling about how Babylon is repaid for what they did to the people of Israel while they were in captivity, a measure of justice for Israel after they had suffered many atrocities. The comparison you made is simply not valid.
Quote
193Ken on Jul 13, 2009 at 7:26 pm:
I love Don Maclean.
Quote
194Anonymous on Jul 14, 2009 at 7:14 am:
Did I miss the statement in which you received permission from the publisher to print long excerpts? I think you violated copyright laws.
Quote
195zombie on Jul 14, 2009 at 3:18 pm:
# 193 Anonymous
Then sue me.
Better yet, encourage Holdren to sue me, since he’s the copyright holder.
Oh yes, I’d love the publicity! Then, after I win because excerpts like this fall squarely under the concept of “fair use” and can be reprinted for the purpose of review or analysis, I can have a big laugh.
Quote
196zombie on Jul 14, 2009 at 3:21 pm:
And to everyone who has been frozen out of this thread for the last day or two — apologies! zombietime experienced a traffic avalanche overload due to incoming links from literally thousands of blogs, and I guess my servers melted down. This is the first time I’ve been able to access my own site in over 24 hours. Hopefully things will calm down a bit now.
Quote
197J on Jul 14, 2009 at 4:34 pm:
Green Jobs Czar Van Jones Is a Communist and Black Nationalist with an arrest record
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/07/green_jobs_czar.html
Quote
198Formercorpsman on Jul 14, 2009 at 6:29 pm:
Superb work Zombie.
Quote
199Citizen Zyro on Jul 14, 2009 at 8:13 pm:
everytime holdren opens his mouth somewere on the earth charlton heston is screaming “ITS PEOPLE!!!!” but seriously this guy is so extreme he rivals scientology on the crazy scale and the fact that our “great” jack off president is apointing czars seriously and actually makes me fearful. i am affraid a second holocaust is on the horizon…..
Quote
200Laura on Jul 14, 2009 at 9:53 pm:
Things like this make me deeply, deeply sorry that I had two children instead of ten.
Quote
201ann on Jul 14, 2009 at 10:02 pm:
If the Erlich’s sincerely believed in their false overpopulation views, then they would be able to apply the ‘golden rule’ If they are asking others to “jump” the boat and sacrifice for societ’s good, then they would be the first in line. How selfish is it to ask others to die when you wouldn’t ask it of yourself or you wouldn’t be here sharing opinions in the first place of someone somewhere thought you were causing overpopulation? No, overpopulation is a myth, and the leaders of forced methods would not apply their own thinking to themselves first, which is the first red flag of its insincerity and falsehood, like all other injustices.
Also, Holdren’s statement that the Constitution doesn’t give a right to reproduce, well if we continue in that line of thinking, it doesn’t give a right to forced abortion, either. The Constitution writers wrote in a context that was clearly against forced and compulsory solutions. The Constitution writers were also mostly Christian and would never supported such horrifying solutions.
Yes, overpopulation is a myth. visit http://www.pop.org/20090117803/our-president or just http://www.pop.org Anyone who honestly searches to find out, will discover its a myth. Thanks for exposing Holdren for his horrifying thoughts on population control. I’ve also heard the Texas fact of everyone in the world fitting there, I just haven’t done the research/math to doublecheck it, is highly likely since TX is so huge.
Quote
202Starless on Jul 15, 2009 at 5:05 am:
#125 TomB
Then perhaps in a thread discussing Holdren, it might be prudent to clarify your position?
Instead of jumping to conclusions based on a comment which was intended to be informative, try looking up the thread at post 54 and you should get a pretty clear idea of where I stand on Holdren.
You missed my point. You embarrassed (dare I say “schooled”) yourself repeating the George Bush - scanner story, so you obviously aren’t that “well aware of the pitfalls of Wikipedia”, whether or not you got it from wiki.
WTFever. I didn’t miss your point. I didn’t claim Wikipedia was definitive — that would be why the link I provided has the qualifier “Reasonably decent” not “super accurate so you can quote it until the end of time”. This is a discussion on a blog post, not a graduate school course.
My point to Tracy Twyman was:
1. “Science czar” is a made up MSM headline term.
2. There has been a presidential science advisor for 60-some years.
3. Because the feds spend hundreds of billions of dollars on science and technology, it’s important for the president to have someone to advise him on the topic.
As far as Bush 41 is concerned, I saw the video at the time and the guy sure looked amazed. Whether he really was or not, I really don’t care and it wasn’t the core of the comment anyway. If you’re offended as a conservative that I wrote something less than complimentary about a Bush, then I’ll remind you that the Bushes are blue-blood, Ivy League liberal pretenders to the conservative throne.
If you want to have an actual discussion, then try to discuss instead of throwing grenades. If you’re just trolling for a flame war, I’ll happily get just as nasty as you.
Quote
203Anonymous on Jul 15, 2009 at 7:48 pm:
Ken, (the original)
You sound like a Communist party apparatchik. I am sure that China’s policy of forced sterilization is a success. Everything is hunky-dory over there, nothing to worry about. Amerika should try it!
Your sources get there information from whom? China? The U.N.? Where do they get there info>? How come most of the babies adopted in the United States are girls? How come there is kidnapping rings in China which operate only to make money of of stealing young women and girls?
Some history: In China traditionaly Men were more valuable. Why? The family name lived on.
Combine that with China’s family planning from the 1960’s onward. (Families penalized severely if they had more than one child) and what do you have? More boys than girls.
Dont believe me? Look. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953508
Quote
204Atash on Jul 15, 2009 at 8:19 pm:
Thank you for posting this excellent page. I had heard the claims that Mr. Holdren and his associates did not really write any of the controversial statements attributed to them. Thanks to your scholarship I see that these activists are lying.
Apparently the scheme of using ecology as a cover story for totalitiarian economic and social control was the brainchild of Robert Heilbroner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Heilbroner ). Apparently he was concerned that Communism as a means of economic and social control would fail, and that therefor a new paradigm would be needed, that would seem to be compatible with a democratic capitalistic (in the “corrupt, crony” sense) society.
Quote
205Amy on Jul 15, 2009 at 9:08 pm:
Ok, we get it ken you work for the Chinese govt. You’re doing a great job btw, hope they approve you for a second child for all the propaganda you are working so hard to sell! Over-population IS a myth, if you want to get a good perspective on it watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU&feature=related
Quote
206Amy on Jul 15, 2009 at 9:21 pm:
I just had a thought. What else can Ken say but positive things about China? I mean if he’s in China using their internet, he could get arrested for denouncing what is happening there (hey, another positive about China right?). Freedom of speech is just SO unproductive, first you get critics, then you get bad press, pretty soon you have a full-fledged civil war on your hands and then it’s nothing but work, work, work to get all those peasants back in line!
Quote
207J on Jul 15, 2009 at 9:41 pm:
Harsanyi: Science fiction czar
http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_12837799
Quote
208Anonymous on Jul 16, 2009 at 3:38 am:
read the whole book jackass
http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009/07/description_misrepresented_as.php
Quote
209sail ron on Jul 16, 2009 at 9:18 am:
Obama needs to stop all this spending and start reducing the size of government and get rid of his Czars what is he paying them. and where does he get them does he even know there background or does he even care.
Sail ron
Quote
210Jennifer Morse on Jul 16, 2009 at 10:07 am:
what has Holdren done or said since 1977? if he is really a dangerous anti-natal anti-human zealot, he must have done something to show it more recently than thirty years ago. if he hasn’t done or said anything of note since 1977, that says, well, he hasn’t done much and isn’t ready for the responsibilities of Czardom (whatever those may be.)
Quote
211Formercorpsman on Jul 16, 2009 at 11:02 am:
Again, an excellent job. Keep it coming.
Very thorough.
Quote
212Lilly on Jul 16, 2009 at 2:59 pm:
From the forerunner book:
Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions
Book by Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, John P. Holdren; W. H. Freeman, 1973
Chapter 8: (p. 256)
Population Limitation
Involuntary Fertility Control. The third approach to population control is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because societies may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. Some involuntary measures may prove to be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some socioeconomic measures that have been proposed.
One idea that has been seriously proposed in India is to vasectomize all fathers of three or more children. This was defeated not only on moral grounds but on practical ones as well: there simply were not enough medical personnel available even to start on the eligible candidates, let alone deal with the new recruits added each day! But India’s government may well have to resort to some coercive method sooner or later, unless famine, war, or disease takes the problem out of its hands. There is little time left for educational programs and social change, and the Indian population is probably too poor for economic measures (especially penalties) to be effective.
Other proposals include compulsory sterilization of mothers after two or three children, or compulsory implantations of steroid capsules at puberty with removal for childbearing by official permission only, perhaps combined with baby licenses. These are technically feasible, but suffer from a number of drawbacks. Technically impossible today, although theoretically feasible, are suggestions that sterilants or fertility-reducing agents be added to staple food or drinking water. These possibilities are generally the least acceptable to most people, although they might have advantages over the others in being far easier and more economical to administer and much less likely to be discriminatory in their consequences.
Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1970s, we may well find them demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.
Population Control: The Outlook. No form of population control, even the most coercive or repressive, will succeed for long unless individuals understand the need for it and accept the idea that humanity must limit its numbers. Therefore, the ultimate key to population control lies in changing human attitudes concerning reproductive behavior and goals in all societies.
Quote
213ladycatnip on Jul 16, 2009 at 3:12 pm:
zombie,
Thank you for your countless hours of research and digging - this is amazing. This man is e.v.i.l. and espouses beliefs that are completely from the pit of hell. “Planetary Regime”; forced abortions; single women having their kids taken away; drinking water containing sterilization drugs…Obama’s choice pick for Science Czar. That says volumes about Obama.
Quote
214Ken on Jul 16, 2009 at 3:14 pm:
#203:
“You sound like a Communist party apparatchik”
You must be new to this blog…
“I am sure that China’s policy of forced sterilization is a success”
China doesn’t have a policy of forced sterilization. I’ve already quoted the law. If you don’t believe me: TS for you.
“Your sources get there information from whom? China? The U.N.? Where do they get there info”
I don’t know, maybe you should ask them? People quote sources to prove that they’re not lying. But the source of a source is something else. If you’d like to find out where their info comes from I suggest that you ask them. I quoted mine, so obviously I wasn’t just making it all up.
“How come most of the babies adopted in the United States are girls?”
Because naive Western morons believe the garbage floating around about China and think they’re “rescuing” baby girls by adopting them. How self-important of them.
“How come there is kidnapping rings in China which operate only to make money of of stealing young women and girls?”
To make money by selling women and girls into prostitution or forced marriages, duh! What does that have to do with the OCP?
“In China traditionaly Men were more valuable. Why? The family name lived on”
Learn something about China, will you? Asian women don’t even change their names when they get married and parents have the legal option to choose either the husband or wife’s family name when their kids are born. My kid has my wife’s family name.
“More boys than girls”
I think I already mentioned that that was due largely to the hepatitis epidemic. The researcher said that that accounted for more than 75% of China’s “lost women.” The source is up there somewhere in this thread.
#205
“we get it ken you work for the Chinese govt”
I’m not even a Chinese citizen, how could I work for the government? Although it would be nice to get paid for this.
“hope they approve you for a second child for all the propaganda you are working so hard to sell”
I count as a “minority” and my wife is an only child and she comes from a rural family, so I can have as many kids as I want. Ever heard of Rabiya Kadeer? She’s got 11 kids. Approval for children…what a joke. You morons will believe anything.
“What else can Ken say but positive things about China? I mean if he’s in China using their internet, he could get arrested for denouncing what is happening there”
::eye roll:: Oh god. I wont even bother with this one. I’ll just suggest that you learn Chinese and then go read Tianya or the Myspace BBS. You’ll see plenty of people denouncing the government.
Quote
215Lilly on Jul 16, 2009 at 3:25 pm:
Very interesting too is the Holdren/Commoner controversy:
Holdren early on exhibited an unlovely tendency to try to enforce ideological conformity on his fellow scientists and activists. Back in 1972, he and Ehrlich disagreed with environmentalist Barry Commoner on whether population or technology was worse for environment. This dispute exploded into the public when Commoner disclosed a letter Ehrlich and Holdren had sent to numerous scientific colleagues revealing that the two had pressed Commoner not to debate in public which of the factors was most important because that would undermine the realization of environmental goals.
Commoner was outraged that the two wanted to shut down debate and enforce an environmentally correct united front. If this is what Holdren would attempt to do to an errant fellow environmentalist, it’s no surprise the fury he visits upon those who don’t accept the environmental litany of doom, such as Bjorn Lomborg, author of TheSkeptical Environmentalist.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/03/holdren-obama-science-opinions-contributors_0203_ronald_bailey.html
The practices to silence people with whom they disagree haven’t changed.
Quote
216Marauder on Jul 16, 2009 at 3:47 pm:
“Sure, I could imagine a bunch of drunken guys sitting around shooting the breeze, expressing these kinds of forbidden thoughts; who among us hasn’t looked in exasperation at a harried mother buying candy bars and soda for her immense brood of unruly children and thought: Lady, why don’t you just get your tubes tied already?”
Actually - me. I’d probably think, “Lady, why don’t you stop being such a crappy parent?”
John Holdren is a ghoul, and it scares me that Obama seems to love radicals who believe in blowing things up (Bill Ayers) and forced abortions (this guy) and shouting for God to damn America (Jeremiah Wright). I blame the mainstream media and celebrity culture that Obama got elected - all anyone wanted to say was, oh, wouldn’t it be so nice to have a black president, and this one makes such good speeches! Most people didn’t care that he was a freshman senator whose only feasible accomplishments were two autobiographies. If he was Barry O’Bama, a white guy of the same age and with the same credentials, the idea of his becoming president at this stage of his political career would have been a joke. Maybe in another ten or fifteen years, people would have said, when he’s actually DONE something. Now we’re stuck with a president who’s not only inexperienced, but also seems to have an unending supply of creepy associates.
Quote
217Ken on Jul 16, 2009 at 5:11 pm:
“Now we’re stuck with a president who’s not only inexperienced, but also seems to have an unending supply of creepy associates”
Now I finally get to say what’s been said to me more times than I could possibly count:
If you don’t like, leave.
Quote
218ladycatnip on Jul 16, 2009 at 5:44 pm:
#60 gus
“Has it occurred to any of you just how moronic Holdrens postulations were 30 years ago, yet our dimwitted Mulatto thinks he should be in charge of science. Maybe Bill Ayers should run the Peace Corps? For the love of God, the man in charge of the IRS didn’t pay his own taxes.”
We are experiencing the fatigue factor. Obama has bombarded this nation with one thing after another (change!), a string of candidates that are highly questionable and controversial - after a while we just snooze. Business as usual. Obama gets his way or he bullies, threatens and intimidates and of course most folks are pretty sheep-like and fall into lockstep behind him. No one wanted to question his associations as a candidate, and no one is questioning his choices as our president.
We’d better wake up.
Quote
219Lilly on Jul 16, 2009 at 10:05 pm:
#zombie
From the Senate hearing everyone gets the impression “that he was only 26 years old when he had hold such views”. This is correct insofar as it is related to the question of senator Vitter:
“One is from 1971, an
article with Paul Ehrlich, titled Global Ecology, in which you predicted
that, “some form of eco-catastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems
almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.” Do you
think that was a responsible prediction?”
But we should take into consideration that he was 33 years old when “Ecoscience…” was published. So, when did he stop to hold such views?
Quote
220Anonymous on Jul 17, 2009 at 1:11 am:
Considering that most black babies are without father,wouldn`t Holdren`s plan pretty much make that race vanish in due time?
Quote
221Steve on Jul 17, 2009 at 3:16 am:
Why did all senators vote his comfirmation in unaniminty ? He got every single repub vote ! Something here makes no sense !
Quote
222cmb on Jul 17, 2009 at 7:11 am:
Funny, you don’t seem to have any evidence at all that Holdren is recommending, advocating, or doing anything but mentioning possibilities that might exist. In fact, some governments have adopted them on their own.
That must be why you had to waste time redefining each thing he said. =)
Quote
223greg muthafucken pro life till the day i die jacob on Jul 17, 2009 at 8:55 am:
in private they’re anti human, self hating, cancerous trash trying to justify the extermination of their fellow man, but in public they pretend to be the exact opposite. your not “elite” oprah, your not “elite” obama, or soros, gates or buffet. elite means your rockefeller, rothschild, warburg, windsor, oranje nassau. your just puppets and functionaries carrying out their orders and your own family was drinking flouridated water well before the world ever knew who you were or before you became “elite”. once they’re finished with you, you’ll be exterminated as well. the rest of us may be slaves, but at least we die on our feet than live on our knees sucking cock. haha
Quote
224Anonymous on Jul 17, 2009 at 9:40 am:
Ken, Why don’t you respond to this you Communist stooge.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953508
Quote
225ThurmanG on Jul 17, 2009 at 9:46 am:
Since when does merely mentioning many aspects of an issue constitute advocacy of or “belief in” each of those aspects? Your analysis of and hysteria about what you claim are “his beliefs” are wholly unsupported by the passages you reference as proof of your claims. By your reasoning a medical textbook’s author would be recommending that all people receive all of the treatments and surgeries and medications “recommended” by the book… Perhaps the bible, by your reasoning, “recommends” every action by every one of it’s characters; certainly a disturbing thought but fortunately the reasoning behind your premise is complete nonsense so there’s nothing to worry about.
Quote
226Marauder on Jul 17, 2009 at 11:27 am:
“Now I finally get to say what’s been said to me more times than I could possibly count:
If you don’t like, leave.”
Honey, take it up with the people who said it to you, not me. Besides, some loser from the Chicago political machine isn’t enough to make me leave the country my ancestors fought to preserve.
Quote
227Shii on Jul 17, 2009 at 2:29 pm:
So, let’s just get this straight. Obama’s science guy wrote a book that described possible solutions for overpopulation without resorting to anarchy and starvation. The solutions included stuff that’s currently implemented in China.
You’re freaking out about this?
Well, I guess that’s what Republicans love to do.
Quote
228Richard on Jul 17, 2009 at 3:50 pm:
The statements Holdren made reveal a fundamental stupidity that is not easily outgrown.
People such as Holdren have an immature view of the world. They easily fall for predictions of doom, particularly when these claims express or imply moral failures on the parts of others (never themselves). A common theme is the fallibility of mankind as being hopeless in trying to improve the world without the control and direction of these self-appointed superior beings. The opportunity to express moral outrage and the prospect of taking heroic, world-changing actions intoxicate them. Their self-praise and flimsy rectitude dictate that neither they nor anyone else examine their assumptions and predictions with facts and logic. They demand we quickly reverse whatever malignant process is at hand, with them being among the privileged few who will exercise that power. For all their moralizing, they lack a fundamental moral vision that respects the rights of others, honors inquiry and values truth.
Quote
229sunni amorosa on Jul 17, 2009 at 3:53 pm:
Read it. It is scary. I am so scared. Why is Obama hiring this man Joh Holdren? Help us o Lord.
Quote
230Morrisminor on Jul 17, 2009 at 9:45 pm:
Alarmist and fanatics seem to seek out each other to justify panic and outrage
Quote
231Noah Vaile on Jul 18, 2009 at 7:40 am:
Evil. Evil, evil, EVIL. All the euphemisms and intellectualizations result in nothing more than a homicidalist wrapped in sheepskin. This is what our nation has come to. Elections have consequences.
Quote
232Anonymous on Jul 18, 2009 at 8:25 am:
It is in fact a very good situation that global economy is already collapsing, influence of international organizations falling, resources are depleting and global population is also on the brink of natural collapse, regardless how ugly that might be in practice.
That should finish off progressive ideology before new Holocaust or Pol Pot’s Cambodia on global scale is generated.
It is sad that such a loon is in charge of US science policy.
However it is good that actually there is no time left to build international agreements needed for implementation of such a madness.
The reality is that US and global economy in general is already broke and American international influence is diminishing.
The faster it all goes to hell, the better.
Quote
233DDGIBBS on Jul 18, 2009 at 9:37 am:
Sounds like Soylent Green enforced by the Gestapo. Can it be the Anti-Christ is now a CZAR ???
Quote
234mindboggled on Jul 18, 2009 at 1:59 pm:
Disgraceful, Barbaric and another “CZAR” in this incredibly uncivilized so called Governmental try for total power over the people!!!! It never once in my lifetime, with all the many experiences and atrocities that have occurred, ever entered my concepetion that anything even close to this kind of inconcievable horror could come to the soil of our Beloved Country. Please God Bless America!!!!
Quote
235Anonymous on Jul 19, 2009 at 7:32 am:
this guy is insane and should be monitured by the FBI and CIA. He is a pottential terrorist. Anyone who suggests these as policys should be imedditly removed from office and permintently never allowed to hold a public office.
I have a friend whoes husband died recently in an accident. They have a 9 year old boy. If I am reading this right, she will be forced to give up her child and then go through a adotion process and prove she can take care of her own child in order to get him back. Does This seem right to you. And what about gays and lesbiens that have children and what about men who are single parents. Also who decieds who is undesirable. If any one else had said these perposels the would have been immediatly under investigation by the FBI and CIA. President Obama is the only reason this man is not under investigation. I say the czar program is unconstitutionall and should be banned. I also call for the immediat removal from office President Obama and his staff and any one he appointed to office. That is as far as I will go.
Quote
236Pastor Dave Smith on Jul 20, 2009 at 7:03 am:
Sir,
I do a “New for Discerning Christians” article in our church bulletin. I’d like to permission to share a small portion (quoting Holdren) for one of the articles. May I? I am horrified that a man like that could slip through and be appointed to a government position! God help us all!
Quote
237zombie on Jul 20, 2009 at 8:23 am:
#236 Pastor Dave Smith:
Go right ahead. You are free to quote from Holdren or the essay. Heck, thousands of other blogs and news sites used whole portions of my essay without even asking. You’re the first person to ask permission! And as for quoting from the book — that’s permissable too, under a legal principle called “Fair Use” whereby one can cite sections of a printed work in order to review or analyze it.
Quote
238Anonymous on Jul 20, 2009 at 11:50 am:
Excellent job zombie. Keep up the good work!
This man, Holdren, is a monster.
Quote
239Anonymous on Jul 21, 2009 at 9:30 am:
Here are some interesting things I found about this wack jobs, Ehrlich & Holdren: http://parrotpatriot.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/paul-ehrlich-and-john-holdren-the-elite/
Quote
240Anonymous on Jul 21, 2009 at 3:05 pm:
@ Rob #24
You can’t dispute the math of dividing people by square miles, but those people have to eat. And they eat vegetables and grains, which require farmland, and meat, which requires grazing land, all of which are at or nearing capacity and there is less each year (desertification) and they aren’t making any new arable land to speak of.
Those people also need water, (not salt water), which comes from rivers and lakes, which are not all located in Texas, but are spread across the globe. Unfortunately, most people don’t live in places like Wisconsin, where water is plentiful, but in places where it is becoming increasingly rare. In your posited Texas that holds everyone on Earth, where will the water be trucked in from?
Also, all those people buy TVs and cars and clothes, and washing machines, and that requires mining equipment and factories and warehouses (which aren’t located in Manhattan) and that requires two things: 1) Space for the industrial facilities, and 2) resources to build the stuff, and the stuff to make the stuff with. That must be mined and harvested.
All of these things is what is leading to deforestation, desertification, etc. Go to Google Maps and look at satellite maps of rain forests in Brazil and Indonesia, looks at the clear cut scars, look at how little is left and how fast its being cut down.
The issue of physical space is a red herring. There is about 45 million square miles of land on Earth, excluding Antarctica and excluding land that is under water. By your own figures, at the density of Manhattan, the Earth could “hold” 3 trillion, 384 billion people and some change. Can you even conceive of the number of Earths’ resources that would require?
The population of Manhattan requires many thousands of times its own area in resources to support it.
Your little theory is specious, illogical, and irrelevant. Try reasoning at a level beyond that of a seventh grader, you might like it.
Quote
241Anonymous on Jul 21, 2009 at 3:06 pm:
@ Rob 24 And yes, I know you aren’t literally talking about putting people in Texas, but that doesn’t change the logic of my response to your “argument.”
Quote
242Morgen on Jul 21, 2009 at 10:36 pm:
The Washington Times article quotes an Administration official as saying:
“Dr. Holdren addressed this issue during his confirmation when he said he does not believe that determining optimal population is a proper role of government.”
However, this statement directly contradicts a Memo that Holdren authored to then President Bush where he directly advocates for an increased government role in education and family planning (contraception AND abortion) for the specific purpose of managing population growth. See:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/energy-climate%20challenge%20(aspen%20inst.%202000).pdf#page=15
I tipped this to the Washington Times reporter as well. Thought you and your readers would be interested in this. (Great work on this story!)
Quote
243Anonymous on Jul 22, 2009 at 6:45 am:
Obama doesn’t really believe in choice for women. He said that if one of his daughters “made a mistake” he didn’t want her “punished with a baby.”
If one of his girls gets pregnant, will she feel like coming to dad for help?
Quote
244Anonymous on Jul 22, 2009 at 6:49 am:
President Obama’s own mother got pregnant with him when she was a teeager. If his mother had thought like Obama, he would have been aborted instead of elected President.
Quote
245LonMax on Jul 22, 2009 at 11:56 am:
Holy crap, you and your followers are morons. Ever heard of Snopes?
http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009/07/description_misrepresented_as.php
Do some research, and stop misrepresenting fact. Thumbs down on stumble…. hopefully it will never bring me back…
Quote
246zombie on Jul 22, 2009 at 4:07 pm:
#245 LonMax
Thanks for linking to that “Bioephemera” blog post, LonMax, because it represents the “best shot” the Left has given to refute my post. And when you actually read what she has to say, you’ll see their “best shot” misses the mark entirely. I especially recommend you go to the comments section of her post and read comments #26, #39, #44, #52, #53, #55, as well as many others, in which her readers dissect and refute her essay.
Read the full text, not just the headlines.
Quote
247sierra on Jul 22, 2009 at 6:42 pm:
Wow, zombie, thanks for linking that post. Jessica’s comment #55 pretty much does it for me, especially the paragraph starting “Fortunately…” To paraphrase: I’m glad Holdren was wrong. But it’s really understandable why he presented all those ghastly scenarios in an effort to scare us into thinking he was right. (She also presents two alternative ways authors of “Ecoscience” might have written their book, to which I’ll add a Third Way: get your data analysis right to begin with before you start going off the deep end on making predictions and recommendations.)
I consider all the ghoulish stuff about forced abortions & sterilizations focused on here as tangential. I always thought your reputation as a scientist should be based on making accurate predictions based on your analysis of the relevant data. This point comes back to me again: compared to the intricacies of the Earth’s climate, the motivations that govern whether humans procreate turn out to be fairly simple, though not quite as simple as Ehrlich and Holdren imagined. To the extent that people have sufficient resources and that their well-being in old age is independent of their children’s direct material support, they have fewer children. Population growth can be characterized as a temporary problem for developing countries until their poeple achieve that basic level of security. The population of many developed countries, especially in Europe, is collapsing. America’s population is essentially flat when controlled for immigration. This is the basic point that Holdren and Ehrlich got wrong. Not just a little wrong, as in wrong on some of the outlying details, but thumpingly, ridiculously wrong on basic demographic trends, on the central ideas they put forth.
I would have liked to see a question from Vitter framed around this point: “Given how ass-pullingly wrong you were about such a large question that is central your expertise in ecology, does that failure inform the level of confidence you assign to your current predictions over the effects of climate change?”
Quote
248sierra on Jul 22, 2009 at 6:53 pm:
Sorry, it’s #56.
Quote
249Sandra on Jul 23, 2009 at 12:08 pm:
I have no problem understanding Obama picking this schizophrenic as his science Czar. He has just picked another one who is worse, and thinks animals should have the right to file lawsuits, chimps should be able to take the stand and by sign language, testify. What is next. Why can’t Obama just pick some “normal” people? He doesn’t know any. Who could possibly take this nut case seriously on any issue whatsoever? I just want to send illegal immigrants back to Mexico. He probably wants to gas them all in a closed room. SICK MAN!!!!!!
Quote
250Darcy on Jul 23, 2009 at 3:45 pm:
I think the proof is already at congress with this public health care plan that Obama is trying to push though in such a hurry. It will cover abortion and so if you think about it abortion will be covered by a government health plan so it won’t hardly cost the government anything to force abortions on woman that the government sees as an unfit parent. personnally I think John Holdrens mother and Obamas mother should have had an abortion. It would have saved America a lot of grief.
Quote
251Mark_GA on Jul 23, 2009 at 9:03 pm:
Well, Holdren seems “half right”. There are too many humans on the planet. However, we don’t need to have the government do anything about it (or most any other over-hyped crisis - global finance, AGW (sic), etc). The planet will take care of itself. When any ecosystem reaches an unsustainable condition, some natural agent will balance it out (e.g., plagues, flu, unsuspected predators - zombies?-food/water shortage, or our most base instinic to kill each other) and reduce the offending species to a sustainable level. Or, a random event will occur - ask the dinosaurs. First, kill all the lawyers, which takes care of most of the Legislative Branch, then elect some politicians with the grace and fortitude to resurrect American freedoms and help the world help itself.
Quote
252Scott on Jul 24, 2009 at 8:31 am:
To Ken (the Chinese Population Expert)
Check this out, sir. Perhaps you just care to correct disinformation, but population control and its popularity is pretty much disinformation, as the Chinese have apparently been taught to believe one child only is the way to go. Now they will be taught a dfferent view because of the reasons I outlined above. Cheers!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6726244.ece
Quote
253gcdaz on Jul 24, 2009 at 1:45 pm:
Linked to your site. You might have to have someone else start your car for a while. I’m glad you got hold of this and exposed it. I cannot believe the Senate did not ask one question about this book.
Quote
254quakergirl on Jul 25, 2009 at 3:23 am:
This book written by Holdren in the Obama admin. as well as Ehrlich in the Bush admin. proves that the Rockerfeller eugenicists were behind both parties. The Rockerfellers invented eugenics in this country in the early 1900s. They are behind the support of “pro-choice” which is what turned me against pro choice, knowing how the movement started and who is putting the money into it and why- to de populate the planet. Even though if you put all the people on the planet on the continent of Australia there would be room for every person to have 1 acre. And the rest of the planet would be empty. “Population control” is a madman’s rejection of the will of God and all Christian and other religion’s values. Overpopulation is a myth, perpetuated by urban “intellectuals. Why not go to the moon if it gets crowded on the earth? Although it is centuries away from being crowded.
Quote
255Anonymous on Jul 25, 2009 at 7:53 am:
Chilling….and to think that this is one of the Czars who’ll be mandating our healthcare if their plan passes.
Quote
256Anonymous on Jul 25, 2009 at 1:39 pm:
Earth not overpopulated you say? Maybe you can pile everyone in Texas but then it takes an average of 7 acres of land to sustain each person on earth.
“The U.S. has 3.794 million square miles, of which 3.54 million square miles is land area (for a fast growing U.S. population of 300 million people as of the end of year 2006).
That is only 8.09 acres per person in the U.S.
However, only about a quarter of that is arable land.
That means there are only about 2.02 acres per person of arable land in the U.S.
In 2006, there was 1.15 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 6.68 billion people).
By 2039, there may be only 0.59 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 13 billion people)”.
Source: CIA Factbook
Quote
257karl fuchs on Jul 25, 2009 at 4:23 pm:
Population control should start by deporting all illegal aliens and treasonous, insane scum such as John Holdren and his ilk. Are any of you folks still wondering why the forefathers of our republic included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights? Wonder no more!
Quote
258BCM on Jul 25, 2009 at 5:34 pm:
I want to thank you for an excellent, well-written, well-researched, and informative site. Unlike most screaming bloggers, you remained respectful, direct, and logical as you laid out your solid and reasonable criticisms.
I found myself alternately agreeing with you and with Holdren as I read your offering. I know that sounds strange, but I hope I can explain.
First, I’m a child of the ’60’s. I read Paul Erlich’s “Population Bomb”, and was a great fan of “Soylent Green” (in which Edward G. Robinson’s character was born in 1951, the same year as me). To me there’s no doubt that those predictions of the human population exploding have proven correct. There are more and more worldwide demands for energy, food, water, shelter, and all the resources that we consume, and right now there is the reality of more than a billion people without access to clean water. We have seen on TV, but are unlikely to have personally experienced yet, the starvation, disease, and suffering that afflicts our less fortunate brothers and sisters in Africa and other places. That is no reason to assume that we are immune from it, however.
What Erlich predicted in that book has come to pass…but only to an extent. The US is at 300 million population now. What’s to stop it from hitting 600 million or even a billion?
The stark answer is…nothing. I won’t predict the year, but I will predict we’ll get there eventually. It’s inevitable.
To back that up, I offer the following facts. The US population from the census was:
1950 - 150,520,798
1960 - 179,323,175
1970 - 203,302,031
1980 - 226,545,805
1990 - 248,709,873
2000 - 281,421,906
We know the population is over 300,000,000 now, and although we won’t have final figures for another year or two, it is clear that our population has more than doubled in my lifetime, and it will double again within the lifetimes of most of those who are reading this now.
One line I remember from Erlich’s work was that there were only two ways to control population. One can either decrease the birth rate or increase the death rate. It’s brutal, but absolutely true. It would be nice if there were other, more benign methods, but those are the only two choices available. Of the two, decreasing the birth rate is far more palatable than intentionally creating wholesale deaths through war or other means.
Within that context and having read that work, I ask the reader whether s/he believes there is ever a point where the population becomes a threat that must be dealt with? Leaving aside all racial or social arguments, don’t sheer numbers dictate that at a certain point a population becomes unsustainable? That’s why China had to act to limit births. They simply had no choice but to do something.
On the other hand, I absolutely agree with the site author that the options mentioned (I don’t think recommended is a fair word to use here) are draconian and are not the type of society that I would want to live in. There is no such thing as civil liberties if someone can drag a woman off for a tubal or an abortion, or a man off for a vascectomy. I can never see myself accepting that.
In defense of both Erlich and Holdren, they were/are academics, and they were looking at a very large picture when speaking of the future. In a sense what they wrote has proven to be a prophetic warning of what has already happened, and what can only get worse without voluntary birth control and family planning.
We’re still not at a point here in the U.S. where such things can even be contemplated, but just as China was forced to act, so will we be eventually.
Using the same sense of fairness that the site author used when approaching this subject, I have to suggest that Holdren was doing what scientists do, which is to look at trends and try to evaluate and predict what will be, along with offering unpleasant but unavoidable solutions if the numbers get beyond control. While I don’t believe Holdren’s words are an accurate reflection of his views on liberty, I also think President Obama made a horrible choice in selecting a man with as much published baggage as Holdren has. It detracts from Obama’s agenda, and from his credibility.
While I applaud Mr. Obama’s efforts to bring science instead of religious fundamentalism into decisionmaking, his primary decision of choosing Holdren in the first place is a disaster. Holdren should be asked to resign, and an equally qualified scientist should replace him. We need the independent, scientific view at the Presidential advisory level, but we don’t need it to come from a man like Holdren. His previously published work will always understandably create suspicion toward every recommendation he makes.
I also believe that those readers horrified by what he wrote must ask themselves what can be done to avoid the doomsday scenario presented. If the population grows to a point where the basic needs of the citizens can no longer be provided because of the sheer weight of numbers, I think we can all agree that would be a disaster that would require action, no matter how unpleasant.
The best we can hope for to avoid that inevitability is some measure of voluntary limitation on family size.
Thank you again for a thought-provoking site.
Quote
259noname on Jul 25, 2009 at 7:04 pm:
Hmm, very sad indeed. Reproduction must be controlled, and he was perfectly correct in his statements. Unlike most civilized countries, the US population growth is exponential. Simple minds may not be able to comprehend what that means, and with the US education in the state that it is in, I can understand why this country is on a collision course with disaster.
Quote
260REW on Jul 25, 2009 at 7:27 pm:
This guy is a total wack job . It`s people like him that should not multiply , in fact he is a TERRORIST .
Quote
261Anonymous on Jul 25, 2009 at 8:42 pm:
truth is there are to many people on the planet the world population should be maintained at around 500 million. I had a vasectomy when I was twenty three because I wanted to do my part to clean up the gene pool. My parent should not have had children and Im sorry to say that all my sibling have child that are nothing more than a bunch of degenerate monky’s flinging their poo at each other I at least had the common sense to have my self serilized my mother still does not speak to me that was ofer twenty years ago. The truth is there are many people on this earth for what ever reason just should not have childern but its not up to the govronment to deside who does and who does not.
Quote
262J. Hartshorn on Jul 25, 2009 at 10:30 pm:
Found your site after being referred to it by my brother. So far have only read your piece on Holdren.
Wow, you must have studied hard in your undergraduate course on logic / rhetoric, because you employ every trick in the book to twist the situation into a huge controversy out of absolutely nothing.
I am preparing a response, including a full logical critique of your page, as well as snippets from my discussions with my brother, who got suckered into believing rhetoric like this, and references to the original book, which I will check out of the library next week. It may take some time for my full response, because there are so many twisted bits of logic in your page, and I do have more important things to do. I fear that others reading this will be similarly fooled, however, so I will contribute what I can, in hopes that it will make some small difference.
For now, I will only point out four errors in your first two sentences:
1. ’says’ should be ’said’; i.e., ’said’ in 1977. This is what you’re talking about right? What he said in that book, not in a speech >after< being appointed to be Obama’s Science and Technology advisor? really, this is almost two linked errors.
2. ‘needed’ - He never ’said’ (see above) that such measures (were? are? your headline edits these clarifying words) ‘needed’, he merely said that some countries “may ultimately have to resort to them”. Quite different, no?
3. “Book he authored” - he actually co-authored the book. So, you are trying to place the ‘blame’ for everything on him, rather than on all three authors. Why? Because he’s the one talking to Obama. So, you are deliberately distorting the truth, in order to make the controversy not only seem current (#1 and #2), but also to intensify its focus on Holdren.
4. “Advocates for” - again, the book never ‘advocates’ for these measures. It merely describes measures that have been proposed (and failed, for ‘moral’ as well as practical reasons, as clearly stated in the book), and states that while some people may demand such controls to avoid even more horrible circumstances, the authors (note the plural) advocate [exact phrase: "A far better choice in our view is to..." (788)] use of non-coercive measures to obviate coercive measures.
While you are waiting for the remainder, it would be helpful for your readers, I think, for you to state clearly exactly what your point is. In other words, why are you writing all of this anyway? Are you arguing that Holdren is not fit to serve? That Obama is a Eugenicist? In other words, what are _you_ advocating? Or are you just stirring the pot?
I look forward to you answering these questions, and those to come, rather than moving on to simply creating a new controversy out of nothing. If you are committed to finding the truth, I think you won’t find that burdensome at all.
Sincerely,
J. Hartshorn / California
Quote
263zombie on Jul 26, 2009 at 10:29 am:
#262 J. Hartshorn
I strongly recommend that you spend a LOT of time trying to debunk my essay. Days, weeks — months if necessary. Better to have you doing that than something actually useful. What’s my goal with this essay? To keep people like you busy for as long as possible so you have less time and resources to promote the agenda of the Obama Administration.
I am not saying that Obama is a eugenicist. Nor am I saying that Holdren is unfit to serve. In fact, I want Holdren to stay in office while most people continue to find him and his worldview distasteful, because by so doing he will tend to discredit Obama, and “drag down” his administration by being an unnecessary distraction.
But it is not my role to render opinions about who should have what job. All I am doing is supplying some “data points,” and allowing other people to come to their own conclusions. Some, like you, will read the excerpts from Ecoscience and not be disturbed in the slightest. Others will come to different opinions.
You’re confusing me with some kind of pundit who rants and raves and makes demands and condemns people and tries to twist policy. I don’t do that. I just supply the facts. I let others cope with or use those facts how they see fit.
And no, I didn’t take logic or rhetoric back in college. Sorry.
As for me “twisting the situation into a huge controversy out of absolutely nothing” — I didn’t turn this into a “huge controversy.” I am just one person, someone with no connections, no identity, no professional role, no credentials, not even a name. A “huge controversy” can only exist if thousands of individuals each personally choose to be outraged by something. I can’t force people to do anything — I’m not some kind of dictator. The controversy arose due to the evidence presented, not because I emotionally bullied people. If it was so easy to just “create a huge controversy” on a whim by snapping one’s fingers, then everyone would do it. How many bloggers go to extreme lengths to stir up emotions and controversies with every post? Most. Millions. And how many actually succeed in making a controversy? Very very few. Just a couple per year at most. Why? What distinguishes the successful blog posts from the countless unsuccessful ones? In almost all cases, because there’s something to the claims being made. The post must be able to stand on its own.
If you don’t like what I wrote, feel free to write an opposing opinion — I encourage you. It’s a free country. And if your rebuttal is vigorous and entertaining, then maybe it will get some attention too. Good luck.
But I should warn you: I too am working on a follow-up post about Holdren, and it will contain much much more damning information — so your task is about to get a lot bigger. By the time your rebuttal of my original essay comes out, it will be old news, and these newer more disturbing facts will make your analysis of the old facts be a moot point.
Quote
264J. Hartshorn on Jul 26, 2009 at 12:00 pm:
You are right, it wasn’t you alone who made it into a big controversy; there were others as well and I should have distributed that criticism. Which I am in the process of doing. So, I would like to retract that criticism.
so you _didn’t_ study logic in college…that was my other explanation for all of the errors. Which you didn’t respond to, btw…(and my reference to your college years was sarcasm, you realize of course).
You say you merely present facts, but as your ‘anatomy of the photograph’ blog shows, ‘facts’ change based on how they are cropped. And you’ve done a lot of cropping of the 1977 text.
I’m glad you admitted your goal is to drag town the Obama Administration; I was assuming that, but didn’t want to falsely accuse you. I think that’s referred to as an ‘ulterior motive’, and generally considered poor form when it comes to presenting facts and making arguments.
As for keeping me busy so I can’t ‘promote the Obama agenda’ (curious as to what you think that is exactly), don’t worry. I know a red herring when I smell it. And this one surely stinks.
so, have fun stirring the pot and sprinkling in ‘facts’. If the Senate can confirm his nomination, I doubt you’ll have much effect.
peace,
j.
Quote
265zombie on Jul 26, 2009 at 5:19 pm:
#264 J. Hartshorn;
You say I’ve “done a lot of cropping of the 1977 text,” referring to my earlier Anatomy of a Photograph essay as an illustration of your point. But there’s a big and fundamental difference between “cropping away” all the context as was done in that instance and in other cases where quotes truly were taken out of context, compared to what I did in my Ecoscience essay, in which I focused on specific passages but in every instance then provided the full context of each quote to let the reader decide if the context changed the meaning. That is totally unlike an unethical photographer who presents a cropped photo and then never shows you what was cropped off; if he showed you a cropped photo and then also showed you the uncropped original photo to demonstrate that nothing significant was missing, then that would in no way be unethical. In fact, the only reason that critics like you are able to criticize my presentation to begin with is because I provided the full context to which you can refer.
I in fact pre-emptively addressed this very complaint of yours in the essay itself, correctly predicting that naysayers would falsely claim that I had taken the quotes “out of context” — so I pointed out that I had done no such thing. But apparently that hasn’t stopped plenty of you from baselessly accusing me anyway.
And as to your other point, that me opposing the Obama Administration was some sort of secret “ulterior motive” that I was trying to hide from the reader — puh-leeze. Why would I possibly publish this essay if I was a supporter of the Obama Administration? What other motivation could I possibly have to write and publish this except to discredit the Obama Administration? That’s not an “ulterior” motive, that’s an up-front motive — one which is plainly evident from the essay itself and from the numerous anti-Obama posts elsewhere on my Web site. But just because I have a motive to damage the administration’s credibility in no way detracts from the truth (or lack thereof) of the essay itself. Whatever my motivation, the facts must stand or fall on their own.
As for your mystification concerning what I mean by “the agenda of the Obama Administration” — well, it can’t be summed up very concisely since it is so broad-ranging (and I’m sure people will be writing entire books about it for decades to come), but I’m referring to the “obvious” criticisms that his detractors don’t like: An appeasement-based and weak-willed foreign policy which emboldens the world’s ill-intentioned bad guys; a socialistic (if not flat-out socialist) domestic economic policy, of increased government control over companies and industries affecting all citizens; out-of-control deficit-creation, tax increases, and wild spending sprees which will cripple our economy for many years to come; and an overall “identity politics” neo-Marxist social policy of government-sponsored political correctness. That’s the shorthand version; anything more detailed would require several more essays unto itself.
Concerning your last comment: the Senate confirmed him, and basically no one realized it. The confirmation hearings went almost completely unnoticed by the American public. So while I obviously will have “no effect” in preventing him from being confirmed, I’ve already had a great deal of effect in molding public opinion about Holdren’s role in the administration, since the controversy over my essay is practically the only publicity Holdren has gotten.
Quote
266Anonymous on Jul 26, 2009 at 5:54 pm:
I think comment #36 pretty much sums this up.
Quote
267Boris on Jul 26, 2009 at 7:50 pm:
John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar!! Tell me, do you include “jewish” people in your scheme???
Quote
268J.P. Smith on Jul 27, 2009 at 10:55 am:
fascinating report and responses…is this still open for more comment?
Quote
269zombie on Jul 27, 2009 at 11:28 am:
#268 J.P. Smith
You just commented! So — of course it’s still open for more comment. Jump right in!
Quote
270J. Hartshorn on Jul 27, 2009 at 11:52 am:
Hello again -
I would like to apologize for attempting to comment under different names. I was trying to understand why an earlier comment I submitted never appeared, whether because you were censoring my comments in particular, or just because it was too long. So I tried both under different names, and a smaller section of my full response. This was perhaps disingenuous, although since your real name is not attached to this blog, I don’t think I can be criticized too much.
Of course, you have a right to not post comments, since it’s your blog. It would be helpful to know what you base that decision on, however. I will look to see if you have posted anywhere your criteria for editing responses. Or, you could briefly re-state it in this comment section.
Looking forward to continuing the discussion,
J. Hartshorn / California
Quote
271zombie on Jul 27, 2009 at 4:09 pm:
#270 J. Hartshorn
I don’t censor comments or block comments. However, the WordPress blogging template has a doohickey that “holds for moderation” any comment with two or more links in it, as a way of filtering out spam comments. It’s supposed to send me a notification email whenever a comment enters the “moderation queue,” but the problem is for some reason it usually fails to do so. Hence, I’m not even aware that a comment is awaiting for me to approve it (if it’s a real comment) or reject it (if it’s just spam, which is the case 99% of the time). I’ll go check now and see if a comment is waiting approval. I shouldn’t have to check manually like this, but I cant’ figure out how to make the notification system work properly.
Quote
272zombie on Jul 27, 2009 at 4:15 pm:
Hmmm, no comment is awaiting approval. Not sure what (if anything) happened to your earlier comment, but maybe try reposting it and it will go through this time (provided it doesn’t have three or more links in it — in which case you should break it up into s two smaller comments).
The only time I delete comments is when someone posts something truly egregious — such as advocating violence — or moby comments when someone purposely says something completely offensive while pretending to be their political opponent (e.g. “Howdy y’all, I’m a bible-toting cowboy and I’ll gonna shoot all them jewish liberals with my shiny big gun!”, etc.).
Quote
273Anonymous on Jul 27, 2009 at 8:54 pm:
NOT!
Quote
274RK on Jul 27, 2009 at 9:40 pm:
I give him the benefit of time passing…… I’m just thinking about how different my ideas are now compared to even 4 years ago, so I can definitely see myself looking back on some of my reports in thirty years and thinking, “I can’t believe I wrote that”….. Therefore, I truly don’t view this as a reason for alarm. Also, I’m okay with our government consisting of people who I don’t agree with because this government is supposed to represent the entire country, and I know for sure every person in this great nation does not share my beliefs… that is something I am thankful for.
Quote
275Anonymous on Jul 27, 2009 at 9:54 pm:
http://www.overpopulationisamyth.com/
Quote
276Anonymous on Jul 28, 2009 at 9:37 am:
Thank you, thank you for getting this information out and doing what our “mainstream” media refuses to do. Slowly but surely Americans are learning what Barack Hussein Obama is really about and it should scare the hell out of every one of us. We’ve got our own little Hitler running our country…now what?
Quote
277Anonymous on Jul 28, 2009 at 10:08 am:
Thank you for your thoroughness. Seem self-defeating that citizens must wade through such a labyrinth of information to home in on the truth. Things would be better if we had more trust in our leaders.
Quote
278Anonymous on Jul 28, 2009 at 7:19 pm:
This is a funny blog making fun of the Elhrich’s:
http://parrotpatriot.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/elitism-is-the-bomb/
Quote
279Padraig's Ghost on Jul 28, 2009 at 9:24 pm:
The Far Left Death Cult is now in power and will be putting their imprint on the National Heath Care Act before the Congress Critter’s. The cowards in congress will then rubber stamp the act after some histronics for the masses… Some of these people that are making the dark vision of the godless dystopia a reality are British Historian Lisa Jardine (nee Lisa Anne Bronowski), Princton Professor Peter Singer (a son of Austrian Jews who got out Eurpoe escaped the Holocaust in the 1930’s), 60’s wackos Paul R. and Anne H Ehrlich (Hell even their names make them sound like NAZI’s), PETA founder and four star wacko Ingrid Newkirk, and John Holdren (President Obama’s National Science Advisor and disciple of aforementioned 60’s wackos the Ehrlich’s) to name but a very few . Forced Abortion, Forced Euthanasia (infanticide, parricide???????????), sterilization, etc may well be the wave of dark future. Will they serilize poor people like several Southern States did in up until the 1970’s to poor black people or the Germans did to non-arians? These people are as scary and as evil as the German NAZI’s were. We will also see a sharp increase in funding of Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood. How ironic that the First African American president will increase funding to an organization founded by a human monster like Sanger who called for the serilization and eventual extermination of black people! See the quote below!
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with
social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most
successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal.
We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro
population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if
it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
– Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255
Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith
Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in
Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth
Control in America . New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
http://www.gateway.org/content/pdf/quotes.pdf
BE AFRAID, VERY AFRAID OF THE ORWELLIAN NIGHTMARISH REALITY OF THE LIBERAL COLLECTIVIST/FABIAN SOCIALISTS COME TO FRUITRITION!!!!!!!!!
1969: VICTOR CHARLIE IN THE WIRE,
2009: VICTOR CHARLIE IN THE WHITEHOUSE
Quote
280BJ on Jul 30, 2009 at 12:49 am:
Zombie -
see if you can source this Holdren quote that is making the rounds across the blogs today…
““The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,”
page 235 in chapter 8 of the book, which is titled “Population Limitation.”
This is setting the groundwork for legalized infanticide.
Quote
281zombie on Jul 30, 2009 at 7:57 am:
#280 BJ
The quote is real. The name of the book is actually “Human Ecology,” on page 235. I’m going to have a new report up about Holdren next week which discusses many other quotes from that book which are MUCH more egregious — as well as quotes from other books. This story isn’t fading away — it’s just getting started.
Quote
282S on Jul 30, 2009 at 6:03 pm:
Hi, I was just reading that on page 273 of the book he also talks about how newborns develop into humans (as in, they aren’t human as newborns and young babies), with the right socialization and such and if they don’t receive these things they develop into deficient humans. Can you check that out and scan those pages to confirm? Unbelievable, isn’t it!!!
Quote
283capitalistpiglet on Jul 30, 2009 at 7:57 pm:
Zombie, I heard a news item on my local radio today (David Boze Show, Seattle, KTTH) about Holdren, saying he advocated trees being given rights in court. Did you break that story? Is it verified?
Quote
284Anonymous on Aug 2, 2009 at 7:10 am:
BCM said “…What Erlich predicted in that book has come to pass…but only to an extent. The US is at 300 million population now. What’s to stop it from hitting 600 million or even a billion?
The stark answer is…nothing. I won’t predict the year, but I will predict we’ll get there eventually. It’s inevitable….”
The population goes up because of IMMIGRATION! Immigrants have large families, 2nd and 3rd generation Americans do not. The actual USA population growth for AMERICAN CITIZENS is about zero, as is that of England and most of Europe. this is why immigrants are brought in from third world countries. Get your facts straight please.
Quote
285something to think about on Aug 2, 2009 at 2:43 pm:
Because of many odd experiences that I have had in the last three years, I no longer laugh at people who are paranoid about things like an “invasion from aliens” or other things. For over 6 years as I gathered more and more evidence of government malfeasance, I could not make sense of some of their actions. I could not understand why they would want to kill off the majority of the population of earth. Doing this would put the “elite” in the crosshairs of their primary money source, the Chinese. For those of you who don’t know, the phrase “guarranteed by the full faith and credit of the USA” actually means guarranteed by the PEOPLE of the USA who will WORK TO PAY OFF THESE DEBTS! If we are all dead, then who will pay off those debts? Even if HIllary Clinton deeded all our property to the Chinese, it is not enough to pay back the trillions that these monsters have run up. If we are all killed, who will pay those debts? There are only a couple of logical conclusions that might be drawn: One, that there won’t be any reason to “fear” the Chinese (i.e. they are dead, they are compliscent or they are afraid of something that our “elite” can use on them. Two, something or someone with even more power than the elite is holding a gun or a promise on them.
Once you get to the part about somebody or something holding a promise on the elite of this world…you get to the question of WHO THAT FORCE COULD BE…listing the possibilities makes for a short list:
1. one of them made a breakthrough that permits them to live forever or solves all their problems.
2. They have somewhere else to go and we aren’t important to that plan…begs the issue of “where,” but I have some answers to that as well.
3. They really did make a treaty with malevolent aliens in the 40s (through the Germans) or 50s (Eisenhower) and they are not either slaved to that group of aliens (rumored to have mind control devices that can be implanted) or they have been threatened, promised and told to get rid of the rest of us to permit the aliens to take over this planet.
I am starting to believe that #3 is very possible for many reasons. One, the unexplained JUMP in technology since the 50s where the rate of change was big innovation about every 20 years. The rate now is big innovation about every 2 years and I don’t think that we have gotten that much smarter.
Two, after carefully reading the stories of abductees like Karla Turner or Tucker and others, I cannot reconcile the issue of a planet about to fall apart and aliens stealing ovum and sperm. If the planet were falling apart, why would the aliens seen by these people be trying to make alien-human crosses? Surely, they know more about the planetary cycles than we do. Three, stories out of India seem to confirm that there were structures on the moon and that we have been lied to about that…Why would our government not tell us about finding structures on the moon? Four, an astronaut that wants us to go to Mars mentioned that there is a monolith on Phobos, one of the smaller planets in our galaxy. This fact has already been confirmed. Five, a man who served in Kennedy’s cabinet as a legal advisor, reported over and over that we already had the ability to go to the moon and Mars and that we had set up colonies there that the Rockefellers were in control of. We the citizens had paid for those colonies but we weren’t going to be permitted to go there without the approval of the “elite” including Rockefeller. Six, many UFO experts with actual experience with aliens and who were beginning to speak out about unethical and illegal agreements between factions in our government and MALEVOLENT ALIENS have ABRUPTLY DIED in the last 20 years. They began to become scarce when videos, pictures and other “proof” of aliens occupying underground facilities in New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Texas and other “warm” states began to surface. In particular, those that were going to talk about the epidemic of “missing” children in the USA and every country that we have invaded or signed up for a “free trade” agreement has begun to experience this specific problem. English police have begun to talk about this problem and they note that, despite all the cameras, the children’s kidnappings have never been captured.
Now, I strongly recommend that everybody get a copy of Pale Horse, Pale Rider by William Cooper (one of the UFOlogists that died, but in a terrible shootout with police–well, they mostly shot him), Karla Tucker’s books on abduction and finally, the surprisingly great coverage of lots of ET-related things by a young man who began reporting on this issue when he was 12 years old. He is much older now, but the clarity of what he has written is amazing. His books are: the Dulce papers, Secrets of the Mojave and the Omega files. His name is: Branton, please buy the books from Amazon or send him a contribution because his work is invaluable.
One thing that he uncovered, that has been echoed by other contactees, is that there are both good and bad ETs out there. Our government was actually warned, according to everything that I have read, by friendly ETs–NOT TO DEAL WITH THE ETS that currently occupy underground bases around the country. Our government did not listen because of their arrogance and the Shadow Government’s desire to be able to RULE THE EARTH by force.
If you can’t believe what I am suggesting…ask yourself these questions:
1. What are all those things up in the sky that no one can explain?
2. Why has John Leonard Walton (?) been able to photograph huge ships (clearly not satellites) stationed above our equator if such things don’t exist?
3. Why have some people been able to strip out the jamming from NASA footage and obtain pictures of what look to be streets, dome homes and lakes on the surface of mars? (Not the one that NASA has on their site, but the feeds from the other parts of Mars that we canont see.
4. WHY IS ABOUT 6 TRILLION DOLLARS GONE MISSING FROM OUR DOD AND OTHER BUDGETS THAT NOBODY CAN FIND? Where did that money go?
5. What was the CIA and other intelligence groups doing that required them to sell trillions of dollars of drugs for “black projects” that they don’t even list in Congressional reporting? What are they keeping so secret? You know that it can’t possibly be just spying etc., because who would they spy on?
6. Why hasn’t our government told us the truth about global warming? It is not being caused by “hydrocarbons,” it is being caused by galactic rays that apparently affect the earth in the same way about every 26,000 years. These are the same forces that are weakening our magnetosphere and making the potential for celestial objects crashing into us—seriously high.
Please read what I have written and read some of the accounts that I recommended. Although I have long believed that we could not be alone in the Universe, I was not a real UFO person before the last 3 years. I did not believe Icke either until I got irrefutable proof or a hell of a good hallucination about 2 years ago. There is something very bizarre going on that would cause our government officials to begin treating us like cattle and as though we aren’t even of the same species…perhaps we aren’t or perhaps they believe that they aren’t…either way, simple greed doesn’t explain their absolute determination to inject everyone with these vaccines and others that will cause infertility and early death. There has to be more than that to this situation. After all, the super wealthy have been at this about 400 years and this is the first time that they have wanted to kill off everybody.
MK
Quote
286something to think about on Aug 2, 2009 at 2:52 pm:
One other thing that I should mention for those of you who DON”T Make an effort to keep up. BIRTH RATES HAVE DROPPED LIKE A STONE OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS. THE FIGURES OF SIX BILLION PEOPLE ON THE PLANET ARE WRONG. Not only are there fewer than that…you have to actually go to the various countries and check their websites, do not depend on US numbers. In addition to the drop in birth rates world wide to about 2 to 3 children per family…for the first time in history, it seems that more boys are being born than girls. I have noticed this in every country in the world. It is not natural.
Furthermore, in addition to the odd happenings with population..there are a few facts that are really pertinent…80 percent of the world’s wealth is in the hands of a few thousand people. Those people own multiple houses, uncounted numbers of cars, boats and airplanes/jets etc. The rest of the world owns relatively few cars, boats etc. Many don’t have electricity in their homes. The primary cause of global warming (which is not actually CO2) is supposed to be carbon dioxide and the biggest sources of C02 are: shipping from China, electrical generation (USA) and motor vehicles. Killing off all the poor people in the world will not change the fact that the globe is warming as are Mars, Venus, Pluto, Saturn etc. EITHER THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THOSE PLANETS DRIVING CARS…or the cause for the warming is something else. The Something Else has already been determined by scientists. There are about 3,000 scientists worldwide (and the number is growing) that have stated that C02 is not the cause of global warming—cosmic radiation is the cause.
MK
Quote
287serial birther on Aug 3, 2009 at 7:30 am:
Gee….all this baby talk has got me thinking about babies….again….I think I go find my husband and work on another one!!!..we are Quiverfull…..
Quote
288anonymous on Aug 3, 2009 at 10:01 am:
it’s embarassing that there are so many imbeciles out there who will believe everything they read on the internet…
Quote
289John on Aug 5, 2009 at 4:44 am:
If people like John Holdren really believed there is an over population problem on the planet that needs to be “fixed”, they would or should be the first in line to make an early, unscheduled exit from the planet earth. What these people really want is the power to determine who will actually live. They want the power to establish the criteria which would determine who has social value. A world populated with a billion John Holdren clones would be perfect in their eyes, but one unwed teenage mother living in poverty, is one to many.
Now we have a president who wants to establish national healthcare which would in effect give a yet to be created government agency the power John Holdren envisions. When this agency can determine who will receive what care as he has proposed we will all be doomed. His proposed plan would limit care to those who are to old, based on guidelines to be established by this agency. God help us, if we give the government the power Obama desires, to determine if the care people need will be cost effective, or to great a financial drain on the system. George Orwell may have missed his predictions by a few years, but he was on the right track.
Quote
290Anonymous on Aug 6, 2009 at 11:13 am:
Thanks for the research. I believe you. Verify right? I’ll check the book.
All my other research collaborates this association with obama. RADICAL
Quote
291Rhiesa on Aug 6, 2009 at 11:48 pm:
I honestly don’t see the problem with those examples. The world would be a better place if population controls were put in place, the irresponsible had their children removed and placed in families that could provide and ‘undesirables’, those who undermined the intellectual advancement of the human race, were eliminated.
Of course, I say this knowing that if such a purge happened I’d be part of the elite that remained. Nevertheless, why shouldn’t the intelligent few be the only ones who can live? Those who have a passion for knowledge and enlightenment, those who are perhaps a higher form of human allowed to live in a world closer to balance.
It isn’t beneficial to allow the stupid close minded masses to slow humanity. I would say it’s more immoral to allow them to destroy us all than to preemptively remove them from the equation.
Quote
292zombie on Aug 7, 2009 at 9:11 am:
Everyone: please note that there is a new essay about Holdren’s unsavory views now posted at zombietime; check out this latest zomblog entry.
Quote
293Wernher on Aug 10, 2009 at 5:16 pm:
Holdren did NOT RENOUNCE ANYTHING.
His answer in plain english was: I no longer care about the number of people in the US, because I now hope for a planetary regime in the future which will basically make the US obsolete anyway. The people of the whole world need to adapt to my nightmarish fantasies out of hell.
On a sidenote: Do you remember “James Bond - Moonraker”?
The villain there named HUGO DRAX wants to kill off the earths population completely except the chosen few perfect specimen of man which are allowed to live on.
He even looks quite like Holdren!
Interesting, not?
Quote
294Lupe Weaver on Aug 11, 2009 at 9:44 am:
I do believe in abortion but, not like this. I believe a woman or young girl that has been raped should not by any means be forced to have a baby. Also, a female that has a mental illness that might torture or kill her baby later should be made to have an abortion. But, to do it just for the hell of it is completely out of the question. This country needs to start fighting back and praying full time until something definite comes out for us. Remember that with God all things are possible. And God is much more stronger and powerful than the devil. So think about this and lets all do something about getting our beloved country back. I am PROUD of being an AMERICAN!
Quote
295Earthmum on Aug 11, 2009 at 4:43 pm:
Fertility reducing chemicals are already in our water supplies, in the form of Fluoridation, supposedly to keep out teeeth in good order, which is an outright lie.
Fluoride causes underactive thyroid, brittle bones and teeth, fertility problems, and can be a carcinogen.
It lowers the IQ, and makes people more pliant.
Quote
296Earthmum on Aug 11, 2009 at 5:00 pm:
Having read what ’something to think about’ wrote, I would add that people need to read Zecharia Sitchin’s books on the translation of the Sumerian tablets, in which he speaks of a planet Numira (or red planet) on an eccentric 3,600 year orbit, which is once again approaching Earth and can be seen in the sky at present.
It was depicted as the winged planet because of it’s wing like wake, and the Sumerians talk of Annunaki (the old gods) those who came down from the heavens, and the Nefilim mentioned in the Bible.
It is possible that at the last pass of this planet some aliens were left here, while some left with the planet, and they were purported to come to mine for gold.
Some ‘Gods’ bred with humans.
Is it all connected to the date 2012 when the Mayan Calendar ceased?
Quote
297Sparks on Aug 11, 2009 at 7:42 pm:
Please inform John Holdren,to wait a few short years,maybe 3 to 5 yrs.from now! He will not have to incorporate these socialist/marxist ideas–for the Bible says that a third of mankind will be destroyed–that will be approximately 2,000,000,000 people out of the 6,000,000,000 living on earth today–He will get his wish,but not like he thinks–hopefully he will be one of the 2 billion—!!!
Sparks
Quote
298Gary on Aug 11, 2009 at 8:39 pm:
Looks like Holden will be Obama’s Joseph Goebbels. Which czar gets to be Himmler?
Quote
299Jake on Aug 12, 2009 at 12:08 am:
How long will it be before we are forced to raise our hand and say “Heil, Obama!” and salute “people” like Holden? This all reminds me too much of Germany, late 30’s! The pieces are slowly coming together here and now, as it was then. America is a land that is most likely in permanent decline, and if not, soon will be due to short-sighted (actually quite ignorant) politicians sent to Washington who are so inept they most likely couldn’t earn enough to feed themselves and their families were it not for a government job with overblown benefits.
They’ve allowed the backbone of our wealth and strength, that of manufacturing, to move permanently overseas. If war ever comes to America, we can’t even make our own gloves! With nearly $800 billion going to bail out banks and insurance companies who hand out money to cronies as if it were penny candy in the form of bonuses for destroying America, the first step of the plan has been put in place - that of creating financial subserviance through massive taxation (soon to come) of the people. We’ve put these kinds of people in charge of the capitalist country that has essentially funded the whole world in one way or another - the country that for 234 years has always represented the world’s greatest hope?
If they can do all of this (and they already have) without requiring a single vote from a single American, forced abortions, sterilization and determining who should live and die will be quite easy. Most of these politicians have never successfully run ANYTHING in their private lives - yet we are on the verge of allowing them to DICTATE to us the kind and amount of healthcare we are worthy to receive? Unfortunately, they’re going to get what they want - and the American people are going to get screwed. Wake up America!
Our population has been fooled by a smoothe talker (as Hitler fooled the people of his country), and he has placed around him the most extreme, dictatorial, dangerous minds this country has to offer, just like back then - and there is little time to reverse it. Half of you will agree with me. The other half of you will see it see it - only after it’s too late!
I suggest America demand a one person - one vote election to determine if the U.S. goes to Universal Health “Care.” I also suggest the same thing to determine political term limits - since special interest money (that is almost never in the interest of the American public) is what ultimately gets them elected and there is no way they will ever vote themselves out of power. After all, it’s mostly these same people who are now going to vote in a new health care system, whether you like it or not. As a physician, I can tell you undoubtedly - you will NOT.
Quote
300Anonymous on Aug 12, 2009 at 12:18 pm:
lol lol a modest proposal lol
Quote
301John Grover on Aug 12, 2009 at 3:15 pm:
Why are we supposed to get all lathered up over Holdren who is no more than a pimple, and never even mention the most powerful and influential eugenicist of all time? Are we that afraid of the person who ran with the Nazis, championed their “noble effort” and founded Planned Parenthood —Margaret Sanger?!
As usual, the US Press is scratchin’ somethin’ that doesn’t itch….
Quote
302Sswens on Aug 13, 2009 at 4:03 am:
Great piece of work zombie, premier obama and all the other socialist Are flat out Sick. i am sick and tired of there Agenda, this was an eye opener just one more in a long line of them!
Quote
303mia on Aug 14, 2009 at 10:16 am:
we do need less babies.
force sterilization on men and woman.
it is already a crime to let poor people have children who will only starve,die of desease,have no clean water….
Quote
304Anonymous on Aug 14, 2009 at 11:09 am:
“79Anonymous on Jul 11, 2009 at 12:23 pm:
His mother should have aborted him…he is one of the undesireables in my opinion. Is he out of his mind? Abortion is murder, isn’t it, and taking a fetus/infants life without the mother’s concent should be given the same consequence as a rape would. A teen mother or single mother could raise her own child probably better then a stranger could. This guy is out of his freaking mind.”
I disagree. If abortion is murder and a mother is forced into an abortion, this should be given the same consequence as first degree murder with special circumstances, not rape.
Quote
305Shawn on Aug 15, 2009 at 3:18 pm:
#303 mia wrote…
“we do need less babies.
force sterilization on men and woman.
it is already a crime to let poor people have children who will only starve,die of desease,have no clean water….”
Good job, now go throw yourself off a bridge along with Holdren. Mia should go since she can’t spell “disease” and capitalize the first letter of every sentence which is an obvious weakness to a master race. As someone who can spell with good grammar, I believe myself to be superior and that it would be way too undesirable if she ever had babies. We just cannot risk having more men or women reproducing with such weaknesses in their communication abilities passing along their defects.
Who is with me?
[Sarcasm intended]
Quote
306momtomany on Aug 15, 2009 at 8:34 pm:
I am so disgusted. I cannot even believe someone who would write these things would
even be considered! I don’t care that it was 30 years ago, the man is wretched, horrible, I am speachless…..
Quote
307Padraig's Ghost on Aug 16, 2009 at 11:05 am:
I posted reponses to on several other sites concerning the President Obama’s staff, Health Care Reform and the Communitarian-Fabian Society connection over the past several days. The comments were in turn were posted for all to see on the internet. I checked back on each of them to see if any other parties commmented on them. My posts are now gone! I am wondering is someone has already initiated a form of censorship on the internet? I fear we may already be living in Orwell’s 1984!
Quote
308Deb on Aug 16, 2009 at 4:02 pm:
I became interested about Holdren after seeing Glen Beck on 8/15/09. I’m a 51 yr old white woman. I do often think about indiscriminate population growth and how it affects our health care system, crime, unemployment, etc. I don’t think mainstream USA considers anything but “the right to life”. It is obvious to ME that “something” has to change. I’m no brainsurgeon….but take a look around. I’m a nurse and have worked with the developmentally disabled, psychiatric and the elderly all in the long term care setting. I am and will always be empathetic to ANY patient entrusted into my care, and care for them exactly as dictated by my profession. I had a child when I was 17, made up my last year of high school and went on to have 3 more children….but NOT until I was able to afford them. I’ve never been on welfare and neither have any of my children. BUT….I see mothers on welfare having children indiscriminately and NOT raising them with optimal quality of life. It seems (from 1st hand observations), that many of these women not only feel entitled to have as many children as they want….but it’s not a problem for them to allow society to pay for their birth, repeated trips to emergency rooms, and their education…..all the while not WORKING.
Also first hand observations: While working for a private psychiatric facility I was in a position to counsel a mentally ill man who already had 6 kids, about a vasectomy (which public aid in Illinois WILL pay for). He seemed open to the idea until he re-entered the millieu that night and other mentally ill patients talked him out of anyone “messin with his manhood”. My concern was that he was engaging in unprotected sex with a female patient who already had 7 children that her relatives were raising. WHAT MADNESS allows 2 mentally ill patients with 13 children (who they do NOT support) to not only pro-create….but to DEMAND that society pay for their DECISIONS to do so? And lets all think about who’s probably raising these children (& why), and what quality of life they have.
Working with the developmentally disabled (for 25 years)….I encountered patients with 0-5 IQ’s being hospitalized repeatedly (4-5 times a year), in intensive care units….so they can return to their life of tube feedings, diaper changes, and drooling.(They commonly live into their 50’s and 60’s) I cared for them as if they were my OWN children…..but often wondered HOW society can continue to support such activity on a widespread basis. It was my LIVELIHOOD and I was grateful to be in the position of caring for them. One of my sons, my ex-husband, 2 brothers, and a sister continue to earn their living taking care of the developmentally disabled, and they too, take wonderful care of them. BUT…it’s a STATE facility….and society is footing the bill.
I currently know first hand of a woman on disability, in her 50’s, (diabetic), who concurrently has psychiatric issues as well. She has recently driving with a revoked license and borrowed her sons car only to roll over on a gravel road and require extracation from the vehicle. She was treated and released at the hospital only to return the next day requiring surgery on her arm. Her simply disgusting boyfriend is encouraging her to sue the hospital for not recognizing the injury the first day!
My father had a sub arachnoid hemorrhage at age 80. Neurosurgeons were able to save him. He is currently doing quite well but in a nursing home at tax payers expense as he had no long term care insurance and no assets. This was 3 and a half years ago. The initial 6 months of surgery, intensive care, rehab, and long term care totalled over 1/2 MILLION dollars. This all paid for by medicare and his blue cross blue shield supplemental. He did NOT have a living will. I love my father and he lives at the facility where I now work. He does have quality of life but can not walk independently nor will he ever live independently. He spends every minute I’m not WITH him….missing me. Not what I want for MYSELF at that age….but it is what it is. What would be the result if I went door to door to see who is WILLING to contribute to paying for his room and board and medical care, and forcing society to pay for his and MILLINOS of other elederly who are in his exact position? I currently observe the elderly in their last 6 months to last year of life being hospitalized in intensive care units repeateldy to save LIFE at ALL COSTS. I also observe great humane relief of suffering offered by Hospice for the elderly. I would HOPE that that is the extent of what Obama’s end of life counseling is about. I intend to have a living will in place that would prevent me from being put in my father’s positon.
What perplexes me MOST….is that in this supposed GOD worshiping society…..that LIFE to most means only LIFE as we see it. Religious and spiritual people in this country….need to start REALIZING that LIFE goes on after whatever existence we have HERE. If people REALLY believed that…..maybe they wouldn’t CLING SO TIGHTLY to the END….at ALL COSTS.
My 2 cents. No solutions (that are acceptable to mainstream)…..would like to see some REAL alternative suggestions rather than hysteria that Obama is going to promote “death panels”. I did NOT vote for Obama….but I do appreciate that he is acknowledging the OBVIOUS problem that we can NOT continue to support those that do not contribute to society (or even TRY)….at the level that it occurs now….nor the compounded levels we are reaching. These are incidents isolated to MY OBSERVATION…..how many MORE are occurring simultaneously is astounding.
Do the math.
Quote
309SteadyJohn on Aug 17, 2009 at 7:23 am:
For some odd reason Cliff Kincaid at AIM has to quibble with Zombie about the Holdren revelations.
http://is.gd/2lekw
Kincaid writes today:
“Does Obama’s science adviser advocate compulsory abortions and putting chemicals into the water supply to sexually sterilize human beings? Some well-known conservative bloggers and columnists have repeated this information, based on revelations on a website strangely called Zombietime. But an analysis by Accuracy in Media has determined that some of the most sensational charges against Dr. John P. Holdren fall short of the mark….What Is Zombietime?
The website Zombietime attracted attention by seeking to prove the most sensational charges against Holdren with actual excerpts from the book that are reproduced for everyone to see. Its headline screamed, “John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet.” The subheadline was, “Book he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population.” The author of the piece about Holdren is anonymous and there seems to be no way to contact or even know the identity of the person or persons behind the website.”
Quote
310Cat on Aug 17, 2009 at 3:19 pm:
It seems to me that Zombie hasn’t read much scholarly material and doesn’t understand that Dr. Holren was making hypothesis about very real problems. The man was doing his job as a scholar, he was hypothetizing ways to help, he was not dictating policy. If you don’t think overpopulation is a problem, try visiting India, China, many countries in Africa. Have you ever been anywhere where you experienced starvation up close and personal? I’m not saying that a government should dictate all birth policy, but neither was Dr. Holdren. Maybe Zombie should calm down and re-read a bit. Zombie seems a bit over the top paranoid. Chill dud.
Quote
311Jakob Frankenstein on Aug 17, 2009 at 5:37 pm:
But Cat, is the problem really that there are too many people, or too much poverty? Isn’t it clear that developed countries will naturally reduce their rate of, um, replenishment, as their wealth increases and they urbanize?
Instead of examining how to give people more access to better quality of life they are blaming what are in effect the “end users” for not designing better lifestyles. I find that mean-spirited, misanthropic, and selfish. What was it Maurice Strong, that great humanitarian, said about free or cheap energy? Something like it would be disastrous to allow it to get in the hands of the average bloke.
Quote
312Mary Watkins on Aug 20, 2009 at 12:26 pm:
tHANKS ZOMBIETIME for telling it like it is . I think the more i read about Holdrens idea to control the overpopulation of people and creat the perfect smartest race, he should start with the sterialization of the far left democrats. That would be perfect place to start and end with such an idiotic idea!!!!!! Leave it to our great leader to surround himself with such talented people that are so moral and on the up and up!!!!!!!!!!!! Keep up the good work and keep exposing these frauds, THanks!!!!!!!!
Quote
313Anonymous on Aug 20, 2009 at 6:42 pm:
People are so stupid. Does anyone really think American society is going to change dramatically because of one person being in a particular seat of power? George W. was in the most powerful chair in the world, and even he couldn’t bring the country to ruin (he tried real hard though, huh?)
There is only one rule that is consistant throughout our world, and it has existed since before civilization.
The intelligent, motivated person prospers while the ignorant, lazy person fails.
If you want to be successful, and define life on your own terms, then learn what is necessary to do so, and then DO IT! It doesn’t matter what country you are in, what the economy is like, who your leader(s) are, what your upbringing was like. If you want something badly enough, you’ll find away, and if not you’ll find an excuse, and it doesn’t make one shred of difference whether the Democrats or Republicans are in the White House. You want to know what single thing people are best at…
complaining.
Quote
314Anonymous on Aug 21, 2009 at 12:29 pm:
hmm… and George Bush used to do coke….
Quote
315Anonymous on Aug 21, 2009 at 1:49 pm:
fricking conservative whack jobs- you all need to stop listening to those moron conservative commentators (e.g Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc), who with their 3rd grade education, pass off this crap as truth.
get a life- learn to read- think critically.
Quote
316David M Doan on Aug 22, 2009 at 6:48 pm:
Bah humbug—these two authors should stop drinking the kool-aid they discovered in the 60’s at Woodstock. It was never meant to control the population, except by the word of God. We don’t need to have these idiots to try to control the population. May they burn in HELL for what they are proposing !!!
Quote
317roger on Aug 25, 2009 at 1:19 am:
JUST PLAIN “EVIL”!!!
Quote
318Mike M on Aug 25, 2009 at 5:30 am:
Wake up you IDIOT ‘liberals’! YOU now find yourselves squarely in the camp that advocates the very atrocities that you regularly accuse so-called ‘extreme right wing zealots’. Take OFF the rose colored glasses and LOOK at what Holdren really is - an exterminator. They are at the pinacle of elitism believing that THEY are somehow especically ~qualified~ to decide life and death for every person on the planet. For example, real ‘Liberals’ ~used to~ decry ‘big brother’ and would simply be apoplectic at the very notion of ANY president advocating a health plan that FORCES YOU to hand over YOUR private medical records to a federal agency - WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE LIBERALS? Real ‘Liberals’ used to complain about the ‘imperialistic’ mistreatment of all the poor people in the third world and here YOU are