The environmentalists made a huge mistake when they emphasized our "destruction" of the earth, as reasons for conservation, etc. As many of the LW's point out, we cannot destroy the earth; all we can destroy is what we like about it. At least what some of us like. Republicans and their upper middle class and wealthy supporters think that they can always buy access to "nice" places, while excluding the rest of us. Bush and his allies would love to see our national parks and wildernesses turn into playgrounds for the well-to-do, while the rest of us stagnate in overpopulated warrens.

The great dieback will happen in this century, and the human population will be cut down to a reasonable level, if we are lucky and don't go extinct.

All Mormon boys become Eagle Scouts. The problem is that scouting leadership attracts the worst sort of homosexual, the ones that prey on pubescent boys. There are a number of scandals involving coverups of perversion in the Boy Scouts by Mormon leadership. The Mormon church uses its "control" of its followers to prevent exposure and prosecution of perverts. Locally a wealthy Mormon leader put up anti-homosexual billboards a few years ago, and then more recently attacked parents of perverted boys for going public. BTW, wealth equals power in the LDS church. It's kind of like the coverups by the bishops of the Catholic church. Living in an area that is more Mormon than Salt Lake, I am quite familiar with the strengths and corruption of the Mormon religion. It is frequently a powerful source for good, but like any centrally controlled organization it desperately tries to cover up its failures, which are many.

Well, the equity has disappeared from the value of peoples houses, so their ability to finance spending from that source has gone away. Now, it appears that the value of securities is evaporating, so that is no longer a source of feel-good wealth. The price of gas and other forms of energy are going up. At least we will import fewer Chinese goods as the spending spree ends. I wonder how the tycoons of Wall Street will manage to transfer their losses to the middle class, as they so often do.

By far the highest correlation of breast cancer (and other internal cancers) is with latitude. The further north or south of the equator you live determines the probability of most internal cancers. Even in the US the breast cancer rate is much higher in Minnesota than Alabama. The huge increase in the use of sunblock raises the probability of cancer, because sunblock does just what it says it does, block the UVB rays that produce vitamin D in the skin. It is becoming evident that vitamin D is the most important preventative against internal cancers. The amount needed might be as high as 3000 or more IU per day, not the pathetic 400 that the government recommends. Most Americans don't even get that, with their anti-sun fetish. Even if UV causes skin cancer, which has never been proven, it is much easier to detect and cure most cases of skin cancer than internal cancers. As for melanoma, it is just as likely to appear on parts of our bodies that almost never see the sun as our exposed skin surfaces.

Before we get excited about bisphenol A, it might be wise to do something that dramatically reduces the probability of cancer, like getting a little sun exposure. Just wait three hours before washing or swimming so you don't wash it off before it is absorbed.

Empires conquer in order to assure the continued high status of its citizens who benefit from the conquering. Since we are not going to leave until the oil is gone, the costs of the war and occupation should be borne by those who benefit. That should be the direction that the majority of Americans who are paying for the war in blood and treasure demand. It is foolish to demand that we leave Iraq, all of the major politicians of both parties will not ever do that. But we should make Big Oil pay for the exercise.

We should be teaching the American people that the Iraq oil will not benefit them in lower prices or greater availability. Oil is a fungible commodity, it will go to the highest bidder. But we can tax the hell out of the oil companies, not by taxing gasoline, but by taxing their incomes.

However, it will be a cold day in hell when that happens.

The purpose of a 40 YO man dating 20 YO women is to use their youthful reproductive system to put his genes into another generation. All this bullshit about having someone to talk to intelligently is secondary to procreation. 40 YO women are over the hill reproductively. They might be fun to hang out with, but they are useless for the main reason we have two sexes. We men can father children until we are quite old. Why shouldn't we?

Our daughters were born in 1970 and 1974. My wife breast fed both of them exclusively for 6 months, when they started getting other stuff. Never bought "baby food", just ground up whatever we were eating. At one year our second daughter, when offered the breast at bedtime, closed my wifes shirt, basically saying that period was over. She would rather eat whatever we were eating. The La Leche League had occasional breast-feeding parties, where the husbands sat next to their wives, while they breast fed their babies. We men looked at each other silently wondering what the hell we were doing there.

Tits have two functions, the first to attract the male and the second to feed the baby. Those who don't like to see a woman suckling her baby in public have those two functions confused. And those who equate breast-feeding with elimination, and to banish women to the toilet for breast-feeding are truly sick. The females who have that attitude probably have ugly tits, besides.