| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
15 Jan 2008 05:49:13 PM |
| Object: |
It's apparently better to just die. |
Ridiculous and worse than offensive.
They own us.
Supreme Court Lets Stand Experimental-Drug Ruling
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 15, 2008; Page A02
The Supreme Court yesterday declined to consider whether dying
patients have a right to be treated with experimental drugs not yet
approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
The court, without comment or recorded dissent, let stand a ruling by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which said the
terminally ill have no constitutional right to drugs the agency
considers safe enough only for additional testing.
The challenge was brought by the Washington Legal Foundation and the
Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs.
The alliance is headed by Frank Burroughs of Fredericksburg and named
in honor of his daughter, Abigail Burroughs, who was diagnosed at 19
and died at 21 of a form of cancer rare in someone her age.
The young woman died in 2001, and the drug she was seeking was later
approved.
http://tinyurl.com/yramhm
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
| User: "Dag Yo" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
16 Jan 2008 02:56:27 PM |
|
|
"The Bush administration, representing the FDA, asked the Supreme
Court not to hear the case."
Sentences like that go against any reasoning I can come up with. I
just don't get it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
16 Jan 2008 01:12:09 AM |
|
|
, wrote:
Ridiculous and worse than offensive.
They own us.
Supreme Court Lets Stand Experimental-Drug Ruling
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 15, 2008; Page A02
The Supreme Court yesterday declined to consider whether
dying patients have a right to be treated with experimental
drugs not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
Doesn't really matter. It's not like a lot of us could afford them
anyhow.
What, you didn;t think your healthcare plan would actually PAY
for experimental treatments, or anything THEY consider to be
experimental.... did you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
16 Jan 2008 12:26:53 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:12:09 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
wrote:
, wrote:
Ridiculous and worse than offensive.
They own us.
Supreme Court Lets Stand Experimental-Drug Ruling
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 15, 2008; Page A02
The Supreme Court yesterday declined to consider whether
dying patients have a right to be treated with experimental
drugs not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
Doesn't really matter. It's not like a lot of us could afford them
anyhow.
In general experimental drugs used in trials are free to those being
tested.
Afterwards however the cost can be prohibitive even for the ones who
participated in the trials.
What, you didn;t think your healthcare plan would actually PAY
for experimental treatments, or anything THEY consider to be
experimental.... did you?
It's a part of the drug companies research and development.
But no, insurance companies do not in general pay for experimental
treatments or drugs.
In the case of drug companies the cost is somewhat understandable and
the insurance companies are also in the business to make a profit.
I have yet to see any politician or political activist come up with a
reasonable solution considering the circumstances that would alleviate
the problems without creating more.
It isn't always as much a problem of the money not being available to
help but one of the government spending it in areas where it shouldn't
be spent.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
16 Jan 2008 02:55:31 PM |
|
|
wrote:
What, you didn;t think your healthcare plan would actually PAY
for experimental treatments, or anything THEY consider to be
experimental.... did you?
It's a part of the drug companies research and development.
No. It's not. You're confused.
The story -- and the court case -- isn't about people trying to
get selected for a clinical trial, it's about people without hope
(using convential treatments) who want access to those
experimental drugs.
As other have pointed out, being part of a clinical trial means
that half the patients are taking placebos. These people don't
want that. They want the drugs. Not the clinical trail stuff, just
the drugs.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perfect Islam" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
15 Jan 2008 06:07:48 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Ridiculous and worse than offensive.
They own us.
Supreme Court Lets Stand Experimental-Drug Ruling
There is actually a valid(ish) scientific reasoning behind this:
If terminally ill patients can get experimental drugs without being in a
real randomized drug trial, they won't ever choose to enroll in a real
randomized drug trial (where they must meet requirements and take the
possibility of getting a placebo).
Of course, should people not eligible for such trials be given what they or
their doctors request? (I say yes.)
There is also the extreme liability on several parties' if something goes
wrong.
--
Perfect Islam
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
15 Jan 2008 09:00:09 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:07:48 -0600, Perfect Islam
<perfectIslam@notreal.org> wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
Ridiculous and worse than offensive.
They own us.
Supreme Court Lets Stand Experimental-Drug Ruling
There is actually a valid(ish) scientific reasoning behind this:
If terminally ill patients can get experimental drugs without being in a
real randomized drug trial, they won't ever choose to enroll in a real
randomized drug trial (where they must meet requirements and take the
possibility of getting a placebo).
Well, that sounds like a deal.
Some get the drug that may heal and the rest just have to take the
placebo, accept their lot in life and die.
Of course, should people not eligible for such trials be given what they or
their doctors request? (I say yes.)
I agree.
The government here has decided it has the right to gamble with
people's lives rather than allow the people to make the choice.
There is also the extreme liability on several parties' if something goes
wrong.
I'd sue the Hell out of them if I couldn't get the drug that might
save me.
Or maybe something else.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perfect Islam" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
15 Jan 2008 09:20:44 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:07:48 -0600, Perfect Islam
wrote:
Ridiculous and worse than offensive.
They own us.
Supreme Court Lets Stand Experimental-Drug Ruling
There is actually a valid(ish) scientific reasoning behind this:
If terminally ill patients can get experimental drugs without being in a
real randomized drug trial, they won't ever choose to enroll in a real
randomized drug trial (where they must meet requirements and take the
possibility of getting a placebo).
Well, that sounds like a deal.
Some get the drug that may heal and the rest just have to take the
placebo, accept their lot in life and die.
But the drugs are experimental, the randomized drug/placebo trials are the
*only* reliable way to see if the drugs are doing *anything* (or even
harming the recipients). Without the scientific trials, they'd never move
out of the "experimental" stage, and then the masses of non-terminal (yet)
patients could miss out on a truly useful treatment (or never know if one
was detrimental).
Of course, should people not eligible for such trials be given what they
or
their doctors request? (I say yes.)
I agree.
The government here has decided it has the right to gamble with
people's lives rather than allow the people to make the choice.
There is also the extreme liability on several parties' if something goes
wrong.
I'd sue the Hell out of them if I couldn't get the drug that might
save me.
"Might" is a big word here. These are non-proven drugs which may do nothing
or actually cause more harm. I agree that this should probably be the
patients' choice, but the other side's argument has some scientific merit.
Or maybe something else.
heh :)
--
Perfect Islam
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
16 Jan 2008 12:02:23 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:20:44 -0600, Perfect Islam
<perfectIslam@notreal.org> wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:07:48 -0600, Perfect Islam
atheist@home.com wrote:
Ridiculous and worse than offensive.
They own us.
Supreme Court Lets Stand Experimental-Drug Ruling
There is actually a valid(ish) scientific reasoning behind this:
If terminally ill patients can get experimental drugs without being in a
real randomized drug trial, they won't ever choose to enroll in a real
randomized drug trial (where they must meet requirements and take the
possibility of getting a placebo).
Well, that sounds like a deal.
Some get the drug that may heal and the rest just have to take the
placebo, accept their lot in life and die.
But the drugs are experimental, the randomized drug/placebo trials are the
*only* reliable way to see if the drugs are doing *anything* (or even
harming the recipients). Without the scientific trials, they'd never move
out of the "experimental" stage, and then the masses of non-terminal (yet)
patients could miss out on a truly useful treatment (or never know if one
was detrimental).
I think one of the problems is the length of time it often takes for
the American government to approve a new drug.
But in the case of the terminally ill patient or the guardian of a
minor child who is terminal there isn't even a choice as to whether to
take the drug or not.
We do of course have the choice to smoke cigarettes which can lead to
debilitating and terminal disease, we can drink alcohol to excess
which can also kill us and in all too many cases someone else, and we
can jump out of airplanes and hope the chute opens.
In other words we have all sorts of legal choices to do things that
might kill us, but we don't have the choice to do the one thing that
might save us despite the fact that without it we would be doomed to a
certain death.
In the case of the non terminal, drug/placebo trials may be the best
way but in the case of the terminal, any risk of taking the drug,
considering the possible benefit, outweighs the risk of not taking it.
The patient should be allowed without question to try it.
<A thing we are apparently in agreement on>
Otherwise we are admitting that all citizens are simply wards of the
state, with distant bureaucrats, far removed from our situation who
don't have to suffer the consequences making life or death decisions
for us.
Of course, should people not eligible for such trials be given what they
or
their doctors request? (I say yes.)
I agree.
The government here has decided it has the right to gamble with
people's lives rather than allow the people to make the choice.
There is also the extreme liability on several parties' if something goes
wrong.
I'd sue the Hell out of them if I couldn't get the drug that might
save me.
"Might" is a big word here. These are non-proven drugs which may do nothing
or actually cause more harm. I agree that this should probably be the
patients' choice, but the other side's argument has some scientific merit.
Yes, might is a big word here.
The drug "might" save a human being who will otherwise surely die
without it.
Or maybe something else.
heh :)
Funny thing; revolution is usually a young persons game but the older
I get the more revolutionary I become.
I don't mean a violent overthrow of the federal government of course
but more a revolution at the ballot box and a total revamping of the
federal government.
The thing so many politicians promise but never deliver.
The U.S. federal government is corrupt to the core and a danger to
freedom.
That may sound paranoid but then it's the paranoid guy who is
generally the most alert and the hardest to sneak up on ;)
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
16 Jan 2008 02:44:11 PM |
|
|
<atheist@home.com> wrote in message
news:22fso353svbgmfe3iil9fqctla8l1rsbnd@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:20:44 -0600, Perfect Islam
<perfectIslam@notreal.org> wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:07:48 -0600, Perfect Islam
atheist@home.com wrote:
Ridiculous and worse than offensive.
They own us.
Supreme Court Lets Stand Experimental-Drug Ruling
There is actually a valid(ish) scientific reasoning behind this:
If terminally ill patients can get experimental drugs without being in a
real randomized drug trial, they won't ever choose to enroll in a real
randomized drug trial (where they must meet requirements and take the
possibility of getting a placebo).
Well, that sounds like a deal.
Some get the drug that may heal and the rest just have to take the
placebo, accept their lot in life and die.
But the drugs are experimental, the randomized drug/placebo trials are the
*only* reliable way to see if the drugs are doing *anything* (or even
harming the recipients). Without the scientific trials, they'd never move
out of the "experimental" stage, and then the masses of non-terminal (yet)
patients could miss out on a truly useful treatment (or never know if one
was detrimental).
I think one of the problems is the length of time it often takes for
the American government to approve a new drug.
The FDA under the Bush administration has become increasingly conservative
in their review process.
This is particularly the case for the newer "targeted therapies", such as
assorted MABs (monoclonal antibodies) and biologics.
<snip>
In the case of the non terminal, drug/placebo trials may be the best
way but in the case of the terminal, any risk of taking the drug,
considering the possible benefit, outweighs the risk of not taking it.
The patient should be allowed without question to try it.
There is a protocol known as a "compassionate use waiver", which allows
non-FDA approved therapies (most often in late stage clinical trials) to be
made available to terminal patients.
Unfortunately, it's often very difficult to get the companies developing
these therapies (often small to midcap biotechs) to sign off on these
waivers for any number of reasons, some of which are listed above.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
15 Jan 2008 11:05:23 PM |
|
|
rOn Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:20:44 -0600, Perfect Islam <perfectIslam@notreal.org> wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:07:48 -0600, Perfect Islam
atheist@home.com wrote:
Ridiculous and worse than offensive.
They own us.
Supreme Court Lets Stand Experimental-Drug Ruling
There is actually a valid(ish) scientific reasoning behind this:
If terminally ill patients can get experimental drugs without being in a
real randomized drug trial, they won't ever choose to enroll in a real
randomized drug trial (where they must meet requirements and take the
possibility of getting a placebo).
Well, that sounds like a deal.
Some get the drug that may heal and the rest just have to take the
placebo, accept their lot in life and die.
But the drugs are experimental, the randomized drug/placebo trials are the
*only* reliable way to see if the drugs are doing *anything* (or even
harming the recipients). Without the scientific trials, they'd never move
out of the "experimental" stage, and then the masses of non-terminal (yet)
patients could miss out on a truly useful treatment (or never know if one
was detrimental).
This dilemma has taken medical opinion back and forth over the last century or so.
There is the counter-argument that when virtually sure death is at stake, and there's a
reasonable hope to be had from a particular treatment, it's unethical to withhold it from those
bound to die otherwise. (It's a stronger case if the efficacy isn't a total unknown, i.e. the
drug is already known not to kill rather than cure more often than not.)
Of course, should people not eligible for such trials be given what they
or
their doctors request? (I say yes.)
But what about those eligible, but who decline to take a flyer with what is probably their last
weeks or months, for however noble the purpose? What of the idea of uncoerced consent?
Mind you, most of us would feel duly coerced by "play our gamble or die".
I agree.
The government here has decided it has the right to gamble with
people's lives rather than allow the people to make the choice.
There is also the extreme liability on several parties' if something goes
wrong.
I'd sue the Hell out of them if I couldn't get the drug that might
save me.
"Might" is a big word here. These are non-proven drugs which may do nothing
or actually cause more harm. I agree that this should probably be the
patients' choice, but the other side's argument has some scientific merit.
Scientific, perhaps, but not ethical, if the patient's choice isn't really free.
It bothers me that that doesn't bother the SCOTUS majority.
Or maybe something else.
heh :)
--
Apostate a.a. #1931
..sig currently undergoing maintenance
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perfect Islam" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
16 Jan 2008 07:37:40 AM |
|
|
Apostate wrote:
rOn Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:20:44 -0600, Perfect Islam
atheist@home.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:07:48 -0600, Perfect Islam
atheist@home.com wrote:
Ridiculous and worse than offensive.
They own us.
Supreme Court Lets Stand Experimental-Drug Ruling
There is actually a valid(ish) scientific reasoning behind this:
If terminally ill patients can get experimental drugs without being in a
real randomized drug trial, they won't ever choose to enroll in a real
randomized drug trial (where they must meet requirements and take the
possibility of getting a placebo).
Well, that sounds like a deal.
Some get the drug that may heal and the rest just have to take the
placebo, accept their lot in life and die.
But the drugs are experimental, the randomized drug/placebo trials are the
*only* reliable way to see if the drugs are doing *anything* (or even
harming the recipients). Without the scientific trials, they'd never move
out of the "experimental" stage, and then the masses of non-terminal (yet)
patients could miss out on a truly useful treatment (or never know if one
was detrimental).
This dilemma has taken medical opinion back and forth over the last
century or so. There is the counter-argument that when virtually sure
death is at stake, and there's a reasonable hope to be had from a
particular treatment, it's unethical to withhold it from those
bound to die otherwise. (It's a stronger case if the efficacy isn't a
total unknown, i.e. the drug is already known not to kill rather than cure
more often than not.)
I entirely agree, but I do see the scientific merit.
Of course, should people not eligible for such trials be given what they
or
their doctors request? (I say yes.)
But what about those eligible, but who decline to take a flyer with what
is probably their last
weeks or months, for however noble the purpose? What of the idea of
uncoerced consent? Mind you, most of us would feel duly coerced by "play
our gamble or die".
It is a gamble, but if no one chooses the trials, it'll always be a gamble.
Long term, it'd be better for the population if people chose the studies,
so that good treatments could be discovered, and bad (or non-effective)
treatments could be discarded. That is very cold comfort to terminally ill
now, of course.
--
Perfect Islam
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
15 Jan 2008 10:53:29 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:00:09 -0600, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:07:48 -0600, Perfect Islam
<perfectIslam@notreal.org> wrote:
wrote:
Ridiculous and worse than offensive.
They own us.
Supreme Court Lets Stand Experimental-Drug Ruling
There is actually a valid(ish) scientific reasoning behind this:
If terminally ill patients can get experimental drugs without being in a
real randomized drug trial, they won't ever choose to enroll in a real
randomized drug trial (where they must meet requirements and take the
possibility of getting a placebo).
Well, that sounds like a deal.
Some get the drug that may heal and the rest just have to take the
placebo, accept their lot in life and die.
Of course, should people not eligible for such trials be given what they or
their doctors request? (I say yes.)
I agree.
The government here has decided it has the right to gamble with
people's lives rather than allow the people to make the choice.
Gamble, you say?
Unh-uh. These are folks who are *going* to die, and the not-as-yet-approved drugs are a
desperate last stand. Denying them any right to such desperate measures surely leaves them to
die, by every expectation short of "miracles".
There is also the extreme liability on several parties' if something goes
wrong.
I don't actually understand that quibble, since see above.
I'd sue the Hell out of them if I couldn't get the drug that might
save me.
Or maybe something else.
atheist@home#1554
--
Apostate a.a. #1931
..sig currently undergoing maintenance
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
16 Jan 2008 12:58:25 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:53:29 -0500, Apostate
<godless.*****@yeehaw.org.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:00:09 -0600, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:07:48 -0600, Perfect Islam
<perfectIslam@notreal.org> wrote:
wrote:
Ridiculous and worse than offensive.
They own us.
Supreme Court Lets Stand Experimental-Drug Ruling
There is actually a valid(ish) scientific reasoning behind this:
If terminally ill patients can get experimental drugs without being in a
real randomized drug trial, they won't ever choose to enroll in a real
randomized drug trial (where they must meet requirements and take the
possibility of getting a placebo).
Well, that sounds like a deal.
Some get the drug that may heal and the rest just have to take the
placebo, accept their lot in life and die.
Of course, should people not eligible for such trials be given what they or
their doctors request? (I say yes.)
I agree.
The government here has decided it has the right to gamble with
people's lives rather than allow the people to make the choice.
Gamble, you say?
Unh-uh. These are folks who are *going* to die, and the not-as-yet-approved drugs are a
desperate last stand. Denying them any right to such desperate measures surely leaves them to
die, by every expectation short of "miracles".
You are correct of course.
They have condemned them to certain death by denying them the right to
make the choice.
And they also insist that those who are certainly dying from a painful
disease suffer the indignity and torture of a prolonged death rather
than allowing for a more dignified passage by suicide.
They are our masters and Jefferson's "Rights granted by a creator, <A
metaphore> are nothing to them.
There is also the extreme liability on several parties' if something goes
wrong.
I don't actually understand that quibble, since see above.
I'd sue the Hell out of them if I couldn't get the drug that might
save me.
Or maybe something else.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
15 Jan 2008 05:57:16 PM |
|
|
It's apparently better to just die.
It's frustrating. We're stuck with the Neanderthals Alito,
Thomas, Roberts, and Scalia until THEY die.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "V" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
15 Jan 2008 06:54:36 PM |
|
|
On Jan 15, 6:49=EF=BF=BDpm, wrote:
Ridiculous and worse than offensive.
They own us.
Supreme Court Lets Stand Experimental-Drug Ruling
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 15, 2008; Page A02
The Supreme Court yesterday declined to consider whether dying
patients have a right to be treated with experimental drugs not yet
approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
The court, without comment or recorded dissent, let stand a ruling by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which said the
terminally ill have no constitutional right to drugs the agency
considers safe enough only for additional testing.
The challenge was brought by the Washington Legal Foundation and the
Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs.
The alliance is headed by Frank Burroughs of Fredericksburg and named
in honor of his daughter, Abigail Burroughs, who was diagnosed at 19
and died at 21 of a form of cancer rare in someone her age.
The young woman died in 2001, and the drug she was seeking was later
approved.
http://tinyurl.com/yramhm
atheist@home#1554
I'm sure you will think that when the crude and NG runs dry.
The world is in a death spiral and politicians as well as industry are
pretending this problem does not exist. We can only blame ourselves,
for it is just how we have built our world over the years....too many
people, living outside of natures intended balance and not an infinite
supply of energy to fuel all our demands.
When it comes to this subject of peak oil, we can't depend on the
President to come clean with the public. All his energies are spent
just trying to keep the oil flowing. He can't admit that the oil will
stop in the not so distant future, no matter what we do. It is a
problem beyond his as well as all of our control.
As they say in 12 Step programs - admitting you have a problem is step
1. And our country cannot admit it, after all, admitting this problem
would raise hell with our retirement funds. And until we can admit it,
we cannot begin on our long road to a 'semblance' of recovery.
And in the big picture, we can't fix the problem, we can only postpone
the inevitable. But buying a little more time would make things much
more livable in the not so distant future than the current path we are
headed in.
It would be one thing if we all reverted back to rural living, burning
trees for fuel and housing and living within our comfortable means
allotted to us by nature, as our ancestors did back in the day. But
ten billion people can't burn the trees! (Ten billion people is a
conservative estimate of world population in the not so distant
future. We are at 7 people billion now.)
The World Coal Institute estimates world energy reserves as follows:
"At current production levels coal will be available for at least the
next 155 years compared to 41 years for oil and 65 years for gas."
http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=3D21
Even though this was written a few years ago and it is based on
'current production and consumption' it gives the same haunting
message to the generations to come.
Lets say we stop using crude for our cars, trucks, trains and just use
it for airplane fuel and petrochemical use.
=46rom this list we can see that we are still massively depend on crude
for our non sustainable lifestyle.
There is no replacement for crude...crude is in the details of our
life.
So even if we all stop driving we will just be postponing the
inevitable that our artificial way of living is going to change in the
not so distant future.
A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of over 6000
items) One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline.
The rest (over half) is used to make things like:
Solvents Diesel Motor Oil Bearing Grease
Ink Floor Wax Ballpoint Pens Football Cleats
Upholstery Sweaters Boats Insecticides
Bicycle Tires Sports Car Bodies Nail Polish Fishing lures
Dresses Tires Golf Bags Perfumes
Cassettes Dishwasher Tool Boxes Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet Caulking Petroleum Jelly Transparent Tape
CD Player Faucet Washers Antiseptics Clothesline
Curtains Food Preservatives Basketballs Soap
Vitamin Capsules Antihistamines Purses Shoes
Dashboards Cortisone Deodorant Footballs
Putty Dyes Panty Hose Refrigerant
Percolators Life Jackets Rubbing Alcohol Linings
Skis TV Cabinets Shag Rugs Electrician's Tape
Tool Racks Car Battery Cases Epoxy Paint
Mops Slacks Insect Repellent Oil Filters
Umbrellas Yarn Fertilizers Hair Coloring
Roofing Toilet Seats Fishing Rods Lipstick
Denture Adhesive Linoleum Ice Cube Trays Synthetic Rubber
Speakers Plastic Wood Electric Blankets Glycerin
Tennis Rackets Rubber Cement Fishing Boots Dice
Nylon Rope Candles Trash Bags House Paint
Water Pipes Hand Lotion Roller Skates Surf Boards
Shampoo Wheels Paint Rollers Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings Luggage Aspirin Safety Glasses
Antifreeze Football Helmets Awnings Eyeglasses
Clothes Toothbrushes Ice Chests Footballs
Combs CD's Paint Brushes Detergents
Vaporizers Balloons Sun Glasses Tents
Heart Valves Crayons Parachutes Telephones
Enamel Pillows Dishes Cameras
Anesthetics Artificial Turf Artificial limbs Bandages
Dentures Model Cars Folding Doors Hair Curlers
Cold cream Movie film Soft Contact lenses Drinking Cups
Fan Belts Car Enamel Shaving Cream Ammonia
Refrigerators Golf Balls Toothpaste Gasoline
Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half
gallons of oil and more than 250 cubic feet of natural gas per day
each!
(net source)
We may not exactly see the end of our free flowing energy as we know
it - but some of our descendants will in the not so distant future.
This is the legacy they will inherit from us. But before the energy
dries up completely massive changes in our world will have taken
place.
Our population has grown to levels where it has passed the point of no
return for supporting a sustainable human population as we know it
today when it comes to their energy demands.
And leading the pack of over consumers is the USA.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption
Consumption is ingrained in us and we know no other way. And even if
we wished to amend our ways, how could all our retirement funds take
the hit? America is built on borrowed money, spending and consumerism.
And what does all that consumerism lead to?
It leads to the mess we are in now and the bigger mess the world will
be in once India and China pick up momentum to copycat the envious
lifestyle that they have held in high esteem as the 'American Dream'
You see, the problem is not with the earth having enough land for all
its people - the problem is with earth providing ad infinitum for all
the needs the people crave.
The more people born, the more heat is produced from their life and
all their cravings, As such, the warmer and more polluted the earth
gets and the more energy they all use and the earths resources are
depleted.
Fueling the problem of consumption is the games the Federal and World
banks play with interest rates. They manage the economies in ways to
fuel consumption and mask the real trend. Witness the recent cries for
Federal bankers to lower interest rates...so the stock market can go
up...fueled by spending of the consumer.
It is drug habit that Greenspan got us hooked on and we just can't get
away from.
Our economy is not based on sustainable health - it is based low
interest credit to encourage compulsive spending, debt and living a
life of constant consumption with a 'disposable mentality' when it
comes to durable goods.
All this consumption to artificially fuel our economy to make our
retirement funds only go up contributes to more and more global
warming and the depletion of our natural resources. Then the
governments juggle the numbers to make the inflation figures seem
artificially low, so everyone's retirement portfolio will make them
happy so they will continue to buy and consume more...and on it
goes....IT IS ALL WE KNOW
You see, no other animal destroys its environment except mankind. We
are the only ones that do not accept and live within our comfortable
means. We not only debt with our finances we debt with our
environment. What we are borrowing in terms of petroleum, coal and
natural gas takes millions of years for nature to make. Yet we are
using it all up in just a few hundred years...we can never pay it
back.
I think our countries future will be....'America...a Democratic,
Communist Nation Under God.'
And maybe I am using the wrong word with communism? Maybe it should be
Nationalism? Socialism? I don't know since I have little interest in
politics.
As far for what I means, it could be compared somewhat to Plato's
Republic. Where the republic came first and people came second. But
with the US, the injection of Democratic values as well as a spiritual
foundation that supports our country would 'hopefully' separate us
from the atheist based communists that have been run as
dictatorships.
Without energy our country is open for takeover ... no jets...no
tanks...no transport on the ground or in the air. Luckily we will
still have nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers as long as
the uranium holds out. But the jets on the flattop all use jet fuel.
All the supplies for those subs and carriers petroleum dependent. So
long before the crude dries up the government must 'secure a supply'
of crude for it own needs.
Other countries such as Russia that have a good supply of crude may
not be so kind to keep on selling it to us and we need a 'local and
continual' source somewhat within our borders. You see, jet fuel as
well as gasoline deteriorates and cannot be stored indefinitely. So we
must always be producing some of it to replace the stale stuff to
supply the military. But, that's why we elect politicians to deal with
these troubles
As our world changes and our drug supply dries up, things will only
get worse. And the bigger the city - the bigger the hellhole it will
become. And this time RIGHT NOW is the defining moment as to whether
most of our population will die off or not in the crisis that awaits
us in the not so distant future.
When it comes to the future, I see people living in miniature houses
(the lucky ones that survive that is, after all most of the population
died off long ago from starvation, freezing to death or from the
riots) with roofs shingled completely with solar material.
They drive up to their house on an electric scooter that is recharged
from their solar roof. If they are higher up the totem pole they may
have a solar golf cart. But in either case, luck must still be on
their side for without the sun shinning to charge it, their
transportation sits idle. (Not much lead left to build big
batteries...China gobbled it all up, so we have to make due with very
small storage cells.)
They work for the government and in exchange the government feeds and
clothes them from their warehouses. You see, we have become a sort of
'Communist Democracy' for without that bold leap and a desire 'to put
our country first' Russia or China would have stepped in to acquire
some new real estate.
The warehouses are fed from government owned coal fired steam
locomotives. Diesel dried up long ago, so it was either wood or coal
to fuel the trains. It did not take our government long to realize
this. the electric plants only had to shut down sporadically for 8
months so until they could build the first of a large fleet of steam
locomotives.
This was a 'slight' government oversight. They never figured that the
coal fired power plants were fed with 'diesel powered' locomotives.
They kept concentrated on the prediction that we had a hundred of
years of coal left, but were oblivious as to how that coal is
delivered to the power plant. But all these changes have some bright
spots in them. As the coal producers were able to hire many more
workers to manually mine coal, as the diesel powered mining equipment
sit idle from lack of diesel fuel.
Now some of the states or bigger cities had the foresight to build one
or two electric rail trolleys for public transport. Your only problem
is getting to the main road to catch the trolley and then it is a
straight ride to the government warehouse.
What happened to Private industry & Money?
Money is nothing more than stored energy. But since the crude dried
up, the 'real energy' behind the money has vanished...and so did
private industry. What about the coal mines...all government owned. If
you want to eat you work..it is that simple.
So, what is money good for nowadays...to wipe your *****?
Not really, the government supplied toilet paper works better than
that.
Martha Stewart syndrome died out long ago, now people are happy to eat
rice and beans and get a clean glass of water to drink.
After all, the government can't afford to fool around decorating
everyone's house, they can hardly produce enough food to keep a
fraction of the population alive. Yes, tractors, reapers and farming
is very crude intensive...but no one bothered to think about that as
they continued to squander the worlds petroleum resources.
On a positive note, since most of the population died off from
'natural causes', the government does not have to worry about passing
'population control' any longer. They tried to get that universally
opposed program passed for many years, but the public just would not
go for it...too UN-American...goes against our religious
upbringings...too controversial and all of the rest. We can still hear
the cries now...Communist!...Atheist!...Baby
Killer....Hitler....Impeach the President!!!!
Such objections are only subjective and prejudicial states of mind.
As such, all problems related to 'controversial subjects' such as this
are problems created in the mind...the mind of ego based, prejudicial
man. If you find yourself being distracted with such thoughts as 'too
controversial' just ask yourself if the proposed controversy is true,
false or I don't know?
This introspective method may help you become truth based and not ego
based. You will have made a 'choice divorced of need'...you wont 'need
your ego' to support the truth...the truth will be able to stand on
its own.
But nature helped us humans out with that hard decision - for nature
does not discriminate nor find the truth too controversial or
provocative or opinionated to be true. And in the end, nature settled
the dispute of population control with even handed justice of 75% of
our population dying off, ever reminding us all that nature does not
bow to man...it is always man that bows to nature.
But, people hold no grudges against nature and are more in harmony
with nature and enjoy a simpler life nowadays. People pick pine
needles from trees to make their tea, since there is no jet fuel to
import any Darjeeling tea or coffee. Once in a while people are able
to kill a bird, a rat or cat to supplement their diet - so we still
can find a place of gratitude in our life for such gifts.
Of course one problem still haunts the world?
The last remaining buckets of crude will soon be gone and they have
still not found out how to make the tires for the solar powered golf
carts and scooters without that critical ingredient of crude oil?
Add it all together and you have 'America...a Democratic, Communist
Nation Under God.' as the 'best fit ' equation.
And for dessert add 'politics as usual' and we can see nothing
substantive will be done in the US to fix our energy woes until it is
too late. (Really it can't be fixed, we can only slowed down the
inevitable at this point.)
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
BTW, do I like communism?
No, I like things EXACTLY as they are. But what I like doesn't
matter...neither does what you like matter. That's the point, for the
US to survive, we must put 'what matters to our country' on the front
burner. And as our country survives so do we survive.
Alan Watts used to say, it doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't
matter what you like, it doesn't matter what you hope for...all that
really matters is what IS.
Sure we keep our treasured paper money, our guns, and what have you.
The atheists can still be atheists and the Christians, Muslims and
Jews can still worship as they like...that is why we would be a free
democracy...of sorts.
But the difference is, instead of the ego based decisions that
politicians and the titans of business get sucked into, they will put
the long term viability as top priority over personal profit. We must
all pull together and stop pulling in counterproductive directions.
The gov needs to cut the fat and stop all this foolish sickness that
they are addicted to in Washington. Hire yourself some truth based
philosophers and futurists as Socrates suggested in the Republic as an
oversight committee to keep you guys on track.
One important thing would be to add an addendum to the constitution or
bill of rights or whatever other documents that outlines what we are
'now' all about...something that is clear advice that we can all look
to and not the 1000 page BS that politician use to hide their
sickness.
And yes,...hiding behavior is a signpost of die-ease.
And put it right upfront in the addendum as to why things changed...we
were energy whores and had no other choice.
But realize this, throughout history many great nations that once were
are not around any longer. Hopefully the US will understand this and
start accepting the truth that something has to give and it can't be
business as usual...it doesn't matter what you like...it doesn't
matter what you hope for...all that really matters is what is.
See:
http://www.algore.org/forum/al_gore_news_and_events/gores_work_combat_climat=
e_crisis/why_dont_we_do_anything_about_global_
http://www.amazon.com/Out-Gas-End-Age-Oil/dp/0393058573
http://www.amazon.com/Hubberts-Peak-Impending-World-Shortage/dp/0691116253
http://www.lastoilshock.com/
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/
http://www.amazon.com/Resource-Wars-Landscape-Conflict-Introduction/dp/08050=
55762
http://www.amazon.com/Long-Emergency-Converging-Catastrophes-Twenty-First/dp=
/0871138883
http://dieoff.org/
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
Futurist
Urban Homesteader
Agnostic minister of secular humanism to the mind-
manacled...spiritually sick...defiance based atheist.
AA#2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
15 Jan 2008 10:28:54 PM |
|
|
Ridiculous and worse than offensive.
They own us.
Supreme Court Lets Stand Experimental-Drug Ruling
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 15, 2008; Page A02
The Supreme Court yesterday declined to consider whether dying
patients have a right to be treated with experimental drugs not yet
approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
The court, without comment or recorded dissent, let stand a ruling by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which said the
terminally ill have no constitutional right to drugs the agency
considers safe enough only for additional testing.
The challenge was brought by the Washington Legal Foundation and the
Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs.
The alliance is headed by Frank Burroughs of Fredericksburg and named
in honor of his daughter, Abigail Burroughs, who was diagnosed at 19
and died at 21 of a form of cancer rare in someone her age.
The young woman died in 2001, and the drug she was seeking was later
approved.
http://tinyurl.com/yramhm
atheist@home#1554
The entire federal judiciary is scared to death of a single 8 1/2 X
11" sheet of paper.
It shouldn't be too surprising that their decisions don't make any
sense on any other issue as well.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
16 Jan 2008 01:00:40 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:28:54 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
Ridiculous and worse than offensive.
They own us.
Supreme Court Lets Stand Experimental-Drug Ruling
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 15, 2008; Page A02
The Supreme Court yesterday declined to consider whether dying
patients have a right to be treated with experimental drugs not yet
approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
The court, without comment or recorded dissent, let stand a ruling by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which said the
terminally ill have no constitutional right to drugs the agency
considers safe enough only for additional testing.
The challenge was brought by the Washington Legal Foundation and the
Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs.
The alliance is headed by Frank Burroughs of Fredericksburg and named
in honor of his daughter, Abigail Burroughs, who was diagnosed at 19
and died at 21 of a form of cancer rare in someone her age.
The young woman died in 2001, and the drug she was seeking was later
approved.
http://tinyurl.com/yramhm
atheist@home#1554
The entire federal judiciary is scared to death of a single 8 1/2 X
11" sheet of paper.
It shouldn't be too surprising that their decisions don't make any
sense on any other issue as well.
Why, they are gods.
Didn't you know that?
Every decision they make is brilliant, wise and absolute.
And nobody can stand against them.
Consider; <Hypothetically> if five members of the nine member U.S.
Supreme Court decides an issue it doesn't matter if ten thousand
professors of constitutional law, a hundred thousand attorneys
specializing in constitutional law, two thirds of congress and the
majority of citizens disagree, the decision stands.
Alexander Hamiliton argued they would be the least offensive branch
because they would have no enforcement authority while Jefferson
argued they would become the most dangerous.
Jefferson was right of course and the people and the Congress are now
subservient to the whims of any five members of the court.
The only thing that can rein them in is a constitutional amendment
allowing a majority of the house and two thirds of the Senate to
overide any decision they make.
Until then the country will continue to slide that slippery slope of
rule by judicial decree.
atheist@home#1554
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
15 Jan 2008 08:54:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:54:36 -0800 (PST), V <vfr44@aol.com> wrote:
On Jan 15, 6:49?pm, wrote:
Ridiculous and worse than offensive.
They own us.
Supreme Court Lets Stand Experimental-Drug Ruling
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 15, 2008; Page A02
The Supreme Court yesterday declined to consider whether dying
patients have a right to be treated with experimental drugs not yet
approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
The court, without comment or recorded dissent, let stand a ruling by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which said the
terminally ill have no constitutional right to drugs the agency
considers safe enough only for additional testing.
The challenge was brought by the Washington Legal Foundation and the
Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs.
The alliance is headed by Frank Burroughs of Fredericksburg and named
in honor of his daughter, Abigail Burroughs, who was diagnosed at 19
and died at 21 of a form of cancer rare in someone her age.
The young woman died in 2001, and the drug she was seeking was later
approved.
http://tinyurl.com/yramhm
atheist@home#1554
I'm sure you will think that when the crude and NG runs dry.
The world is in a death spiral and politicians as well as industry are
pretending this problem does not exist. We can only blame ourselves,
for it is just how we have built our world over the years....too many
people, living outside of natures intended balance and not an infinite
supply of energy to fuel all our demands.
What the hell are you talking about?
We will all be dead and long gone before the world runs out of oil.
And that has nothing whatsoever to do with the article posted.
It isn't even a reasonable tangent.
I have another 12 step program for you V.
(1) Turn toward the door.
(2) Walk to the door.
(3) Open the door.
(4) Walk through the door.
(5) Don't let the door hit you in the *****.
(6) Go away and find six more things to do with your life besides
usenet.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
15 Jan 2008 10:26:08 PM |
|
|
We will all be dead and long gone before the world runs out of oil.
The price will be so high in less than one generation that very few
people will be able to afford to burn it in SUVs.
Al Gore will be able to fly around in Lear jets, however.
Gore made most of his money _after_ his two concession speeches.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malrassic Park" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
15 Jan 2008 09:31:16 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:54:47 -0600, wrote:
I'm sure you will think that when the crude and NG runs dry.
The world is in a death spiral and politicians as well as industry are
pretending this problem does not exist. We can only blame ourselves,
for it is just how we have built our world over the years....too many
people, living outside of natures intended balance and not an infinite
supply of energy to fuel all our demands.
Define "nature's intended balance." If man did not violate "nature's
intended balance," would he be living in tepees and yurts?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: It's apparently better to just die. |
15 Jan 2008 10:50:04 PM |
|
|
On Jan 15, 7:31=A0pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:54:47 -0600, wrote:
I'm sure you will think that when the crude and NG runs dry.
The world is in a death spiral and politicians as well as industry are
pretending this problem does not exist. We can only blame ourselves,
for it is just how we have built our world over the years....too many
people, living outside of natures intended balance and not an infinite
supply of energy to fuel all our demands.
Define "nature's intended balance." If man did not violate "nature's
intended balance," would he be living in tepees and yurts?
Maybe replace "nature's intended balance" with "range of human
interactions with the environment that allow life to continue
generally"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
