Immigration protests and boycotts

[bigboyz05]

How do you feel about this? Are any of these protests occuring in your town or city? De Queen, Ark., about 50 miles north of Texarkana, had a large protest today.

[Mith242]

How do you feel about this? Are any of these protests occuring in your town or city? De Queen, Ark., about 50 miles north of Texarkana, had a large protest today.

Springdale had one of course. I think they've been having the largest rallies so far. We've talked about it a little over on the NWA forum. I'm disappointed that the compromise the other week failed. I can see points to both sides but I admit I probably lean to being more sympathetic to Hispanics. Those of you that have been around a while probably already know this from my posts. But I do think there needs to be something done, you can't just have an open border. But I also think immigrants play an important role in this country and don't have problems with making more Hispanics citizens. I know not everyone agrees with that, but that's my opinion.

Maybe I should actually post a little info as well. Sounds like there were around 3,500 to 4,000 in Springdale and around 2,000 in Ft Smith. I think Springdale had more people attend a rally they had the other week. I'd heard some estimates place that crowd 5,000 or above.

[bigboyz05]

I don't have a problem with Latin people being citizens either. My issue is with the fact that they come to this country and don't have the respect to learn English. Did you hear about this dj who made a Spanish version of the American anthem? Anyway I heard the president was thoroughly p!ssed.

[dimebag1980]

I don't have a problem with Latin people being citizens either. My issue is with the fact that they come to this country and don't have the respect to learn English. Did you hear about this dj who made a Spanish version of the American anthem? Anyway I heard the president was thoroughly p!ssed.

I was watching that on TV today while at the gym. I missed most of it, but I did hear mention of the Spanish version of the National Anthem. I can understand the President being angry, as the mere thought of it angers me. I realize and respect the fact that this is a nation built on immigration... but those immigrants came here seeking out not only the American dream, but the American experience as well! To fully understand the American experience, one must at least know the language somewhat. Of course there's going to be a learning curve, but in my opinion one of the prerequisites of citizenship in this country should be to at least have somewhat of an understanding of the English language. To even be able to read a Dr. Seuss book in English would be enough to me! Anything, just to get these people started down the right path.

[Mith242]

I've mentioned this before in another topic. First generation immigrants often don't learn English very well. But the second generation almost always ends up being bilingual. One aspect that doesn't help is that some of these people don't even know Spanish very well. They've had to drop out of school at sometimes very early ages to work to help support their family. But I can see the frustration it causes. But just remember it wasn't too long ago that there were areas of the Midwest were German was still spoken quite frequently.

[johnnydr87]

I see a little hypocrisy.

As Mith said, it is hard for first generation immigrants to learn English.

I personally have two immigrant parents: one from Germany (dad) and one from the Philippines (mom). That said, I guarantee they know the English language more thoroughly than 90% of Americans (as well as history, politics, etc.) However, they came from relatively fortunate backgrounds compared to the Hispanic immigrants. My mom was in the upper class in the Philippines and attended a private school where she was taught English concurrently at a young age. My dad came from Germany, which teaches English through grade school to students.

Although my parents knew English, we have had several family friends who didn't have the luxury of learning it growing up. In Chicago, for example, there are German/Italian/eastern European communities where 30s, 40s, 50s and older don't speak English! They are 1st generation immigrants just like the Hispanics. If you're going to condemn 1st generation Latinos for not learning English, you should be consistent and condemn all communities where the 1st generationers have not learned English.

I'm not accusing anyone of racism, but I have no doubt that there are undercurrents of racism in this anti-immigration movement (for some people, not all).

And if you think the sons and daughters of those 1st generation immigrants aren't learning English, you are simply out of touch with reality.

And, for anyone who thinks that "building a wall" or "sending all the illegals back" will be the solution.......Get real. This ultimately will boil down to money. Hispanics, illegal or not, now make up a huge chunk of the American economy. The rate of growth in Hispanic business is three times the national average. They for a huge cheap labor backbone that simply serves as the spine for many American businesses. If the American businesses lose this steady supply of cheap labor, they won't have any other group to make it up.

Here's what I posted in another forum:

Let's look at history. Throughout the course of history, there's always been some form of xenophobia. At the end of the day, has it really had that large of an effect?

Nope.

Most Democrats and the Republican businessmen are for illegal immigration to some extent (socially or economically or both). The Republican businessmen speak louder than any other group, pro- or anti-immigration. They, afterall, have the money. Therefore, Republican Congressman Frist and his cohort can condemn illegals till the cows come home, but they probably already know what the answer is:

Illegals are here to stay.

They just put a show on for any of the anti-immigrationists who make up their party.

As for the solution? I don't know. You can't just give them amnesty, although I personally wouldn't mind if they did get it (even though it took my family several years to gain citizenship). And of course you can't kick them out of prosecute any businesses that hire them, because then our economy would flounder.

[bigboyz05]

No, I don't take offense at all. I know you weren't intending to accuse anyone of racism. I was just saying that immigrants should make at least an attempt to know some of our language.

[dimebag1980]

In Chicago, for example, there are German/Italian/eastern European communities where 30s, 40s, 50s and older don't speak English! They are 1st generation immigrants just like the Hispanics. If you're going to condemn 1st generation Latinos for not learning English, you should be consistent and condemn all communities where the 1st generationers have not learned English.

I know I can't speak for everyone, but I do feel this way. Any immigrant who comes to this country, regardless of where they're from, should at least learn basic English. If Americans want to learn other languages, for whatever reason, we have the right to do that. But the notion that Americans might have to learn other languages just to communicate with other people in our own country is ridiculous. Why have a national language if no one is going to speak it or respect it?

[johnnydr87]

I know I can't speak for everyone, but I do feel this way. Any immigrant who comes to this country, regardless of where they're from, should at least learn basic English. If Americans want to learn other languages, for whatever reason, we have the right to do that. But the notion that Americans might have to learn other languages just to communicate with other people in our own country is ridiculous. Why have a national language if no one is going to speak it or respect it?

Just a note, the USA has no official language:

LANGUAGES: The United States has no official language, although English is the national language. Other languages include a sizable Spanish speaking minority as well as other various ethnic minority languages.

http://www.atlapedia.com/online/countries/unitedst.htm

I agree, English should be learned by immigrants. However, I don't think it's realistic for us to put that constraint on 1st generation Hispanics who move here in there 30s, 40s, etc.... especially in the context of our history. Basically every major immigration wave has been the same: the children of the immigrants learn English, but the grownups struggle to adjust.

I would have nothing against instituting English as the official language.

You throw around the term "American" somewhat carelessly. What defines an American, afterall? Our nation is one of immigrants. Unless you're Native American, you don't have to look far back into your family history to see when your ancestors had to traverse the Atlantic or Pacific and acclimate to the American life. And yes, a lot of them were illegal too.

[Aporkalypse]

Just a note, the USA has no official language:

http://www.atlapedia.com/online/countries/unitedst.htm

I agree, English should be learned by immigrants. However, I don't think it's realistic for us to put that constraint on 1st generation Hispanics who move here in there 30s, 40s, etc.... especially in the context of our history. Basically every major immigration wave has been the same: the children of the immigrants learn English, but the grownups struggle to adjust.

I would have nothing against instituting English as the official language.

You throw around the term "American" somewhat carelessly. What defines an American, afterall? Our nation is one of immigrants. Unless you're Native American, you don't have to look far back into your family history to see when your ancestors had to traverse the Atlantic or Pacific and acclimate to the American life. And yes, a lot of them were illegal too.

While I agree with your basic premise, I think the concern is that the current wave of immigrants is too homogenous in comparison to the mixture of immigrants from various European and Asian countries that was historically dominant. The fact that the current immigrants largely share a common culture and language is allowing them to isolate themselves in large communities as opposed to the small traditional enclaves in NYC, San Francisco Chinatown, etc that were so common in the past. The concern is that we're starting to see cities where English takes a backseat to Spanish. In Miami-Dade, for instance, if you are unable to speak Spanish it is very difficult for you to live and work there. If it is not necessary to learn or speak English to sustain themselves, few immigrants will attempt it. Without learning English and speaking Spanish exclusively at home their children are at a significant disadvantage and are on track to become day laborers as well. That's the concern, this one group is so dominant there's little incentive to assimilate.

[Phizzy]

Perhaps we should be as tough on immigrants as Mexico is. Did you know Mexico deports more people each year than the United States does, despite having far, far fewer people entering their country?

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

[johnnydr87]

While I agree with your basic premise, I think the concern is that the current wave of immigrants is too homogenous in comparison to the mixture of immigrants from various European and Asian countries that was historically dominant. The fact that the current immigrants largely share a common culture and language is allowing them to isolate themselves in large communities as opposed to the small traditional enclaves in NYC, San Francisco Chinatown, etc that were so common in the past. The concern is that we're starting to see cities where English takes a backseat to Spanish. In Miami-Dade, for instance, if you are unable to speak Spanish it is very difficult for you to live and work there. If it is not necessary to learn or speak English to sustain themselves, few immigrants will attempt it. Without learning English and speaking Spanish exclusively at home their children are at a significant disadvantage and are on track to become day laborers as well. That's the concern, this one group is so dominant there's little incentive to assimilate.

Yes, I see....

I'm really not sure what the solution is....

Instituting english as the official language would be one part of the solution.

But the truth is....part of the reason why America is not/will not experience the same difficulties as other first world countries such as Europe and Japan is because we have a steady stream of immigrants. Requiring English to be learned would not only stifle Hispanic immigration, it would stifle immigration across the board....and therefrom the American economy.

There is no simple solution

[Mith242]

Perhaps we should be as tough on immigrants as Mexico is. Did you know Mexico deports more people each year than the United States does, despite having far, far fewer people entering their country?

Source

Mexico does have immigration problems of their own. Just as many Mexican head north to the US for work, many from Central America also head northward to Mexico. Some are heading their way to the US as well but some are there to stay in Mexico for jobs. It may seem odd but there are a number of maquiladoras, factories run by American and other foriegn countries, that have jobs that are appealing to them.

[Mith242]

Yes, I see....

I'm really not sure what the solution is....

Instituting english as the official language would be one part of the solution.

But the truth is....part of the reason why America is not/will not experience the same difficulties as other first world countries such as Europe and Japan is because we have a steady stream of immigrants. Requiring English to be learned would not only stifle Hispanic immigration, it would stifle immigration across the board....and therefrom the American economy.

There is no simple solution

I agree there is no simple solution to this. There is the problem as Aporkalypse pointed out in that the stream of immigrants never seems to end and helps reinforce the old language and cultural aspects of the immigrants. But I do agree with Johnny's point as well. The US isn't having some of the problems other First World countries are having. I guess in a sense we've basically just traded problems. Can't really say one is better than the other. Although I do think in the long run the situation here will be better than the possible situations in Europe.

[Aporkalypse]

But the truth is....part of the reason why America is not/will not experience the same difficulties as other first world countries such as Europe and Japan is because we have a steady stream of immigrants. Requiring English to be learned would not only stifle Hispanic immigration, it would stifle immigration across the board....and therefrom the American economy.

There is no simple solution

I'm not sure that's true. Immigration from Eastern Europe and Muslim countries is a big problem in France and Germany, the former having uncontrolled riots recently because of this. Add immigrants to a mix of entitlement and 10% unemployment and the result isn't good.

By comparison, America has low unemployment and immigrants are generally filling unwanted jobs Americans are too educated for. This says a lot about our education standard and societal productivity which is a situation most Europeans would love to be in.

[Mith242]

Interesting point Aporkalypse. I hadn't thought about the religious aspect of this. Could you imagine the uproar if it wasn't Catholic immigrants coming in but Muslim?

[johnnydr87]

I'm not sure that's true. Immigration from Eastern Europe and Muslim countries is a big problem in France and Germany, the former having uncontrolled riots recently because of this. Add immigrants to a mix of entitlement and 10% unemployment and the result isn't good.

By comparison, America has low unemployment and immigrants are generally filling unwanted jobs Americans are too educated for.

I can say for a fact, it's true. I'm comparative government, we've learned that the U.S. won't face the same problems in the next decades as other first world countries because we have a steady supply of immigrant.

In Germany, there is a low birth rate. Due to this low birth rate, there will be less workers to support the massive social programs in the next few decades...so they will have to form some sort of solution. The U.S. will not have to worry about many of these problems because we have relatively loose immigration standards. One of the arguments for lax immigration is to support Social Security and other government programs with a steady supply of workers. Sometime around 2020 the amount of workers supporting Social Security in the US is supposed to be inadequate (that's what bush's whole SS crisis was about, although he overblew it).

The laws in Europe are frankly less open towards immigrants than America, resulting in more ostracization and disconnectedness (explaining the riots).

This says a lot about our education standard and societal productivity which is a situation most Europeans would love to be in.

I'm hoping your statement about our educational standards was a joke. Foreigners consistently outscore America in standardized tests. (There are lots of reasons for this. One of the main reasons is because a lot of foreign countries require a major test to get into high school, and there are many different types of high schools for different types of students.)

I just did a quick google search and came to this link: http://mwhodges.home.att.net/education-c.htm

America scored lower than 27 other countries. It can't be scapegoated on black, hispanics, or the usual suspects....because our top students still get far outperformed by their top students.

And this is just a side topic, but America is really falling behind other countries in the sciences. Scientists in America are starting to complain about this ever-louder, because we are already being outperformed by other countries and it is only a matter of time before some surpass us---if we don't reform our science education. By surpass us, I mean not only scientifically, I mean economically (and from there many other areas such as quality of life). A lot of the science troubles have been perpetuated by this administration and his most stalwart of followers (with denying global warming, stifling scientists who speak out about global warming or evolution, underfunding education, etc.)

[Aporkalypse]

I didn't type things right, I wasn't disagreeing with you - I just meant that Europe already has far bigger immigration problems than we ever will face for a different reason than the one you stated. In nations whose identity is entirely based on a single ethnicity immigration, even from former colonies, is a much bigger social issue. However, I was referring to the inherent socialistic infrastructure there and the very high unemployment which don't make it conducive to immigration the way free markets are. For this reason, the UK seems to be handling this much better than France and Germany.

What you speak of regarding low birth rates in the EU, not just Germany, is quite true. I find it interesting, though, that unemployment is so high despite this.

Since you're at a math and science school, I hope that if you ever make your own graphs you don't truncate the y axis the way the guy that tabulated these data did. I tend to attribute much of the problem to Hispanic immigration and a negative inner-city attitude regarding education, but that's hearsay. In addition, in the U.S. much of the education burden is shifted from high school to college. In nations like the U.K., France, and Japan high school is considerably more rigorous and college much less so. Part of this is the extreme pressure put on students between 12 and 17 trying to qualify for college as there is no chance for poorer performing students to move on if they don't do so, unlike the U.S. I know someone that became a physician after being a housewife for a decade by starting college at 28 and completing training at 40. That's unheard of in the UK where the decision to become one must be made at age 15 and you complete all of your training at 23. There are no opportunities to start anew which is exactly what the American educational system provides.

I think it is absurd to blame any lack of scientific achievement on the "current administration". This was just as significant a problem under Clinton and for that matter, Reagan. I strongly disagree with any anti-evolution stance in education but global warming data is inconclusive and conflicting at this time. American society has placed a premium on business and cultural careers at the expense of science and engineering. For instance, in Japan engineers outnumber lawyers 10:1, in the U.S. the inverse is true. This is why such a disproportionate amount of U.S. research is done by immigrants from other countries, including Asia. Engineers and physicians are commonly imported as well. Thankfully we have the economic and cultural allure to bring in the best and brightest from around the world, otherwise our own underproduction would be a problem.

[Mith242]

I didn't type things right, I wasn't disagreeing with you - I just meant that Europe already has far bigger immigration problems than we ever will face for a different reason than the one you stated. In nations whose identity is entirely based on a single ethnicity immigration, even from former colonies, is a much bigger social issue. However, I was referring to the inherent socialistic infrastructure there and the very high unemployment which don't make it conducive to immigration the way free markets are. For this reason, the UK seems to be handling this much better than France and Germany.

I wonder if it's also because the UK had a much better colonial system it seems than the other colonial powers. But yeah it just seems like immigrants are much more integrated into society in the UK than most other European countries.

[Aporkalypse]

I wonder if it's also because the UK had a much better colonial system it seems than the other colonial powers. But yeah it just seems like immigrants are much more integrated into society in the UK than most other European countries.

I lived there for a while, though it was several years ago now. There is very little tension with former colonists from India and Pakistan, Africa, and Hong Kong but they often are seen as second class citizens the way Mexican immigrants are here.

There was a great Sundance-type movie a couple of years ago called "Dirty Pretty Things" about immigrants in London and the illegal organ trade. It was quite good and I would recommend it.

[Mith242]

I lived there for a while, though it was several years ago now. There is very little tension with former colonists from India and Pakistan, Africa, and Hong Kong but they often are seen as second class citizens the way Mexican immigrants are here.

There was a great Sundance-type movie a couple of years ago called "Dirty Pretty Things" about immigrants in London and the illegal organ trade. It was quite good and I would recommend it.

I also think there is also a big difference the way immigrants are treated in the UK between London and most other places in the UK.

[Aporkalypse]

I also think there is also a big difference the way immigrants are treated in the UK between London and most other places in the UK.

That's probably true. In many ways London is a multicultural city, more like New York than another city in the UK. Most of my experiences are based on living in Oxford, which had about 100k residents.

[johnnydr87]

but global warming data is inconclusive and conflicting at this time.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is fact. Overwhelming.

Some scientists have voiced their disagreement over global warming, and who were found out to be on Exxon's payroll. Here's a website describing Exxon's strategy to hire scientists and media pundits to debunk global warming: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/articl...FTOKEN=18549286

Here's part of the transcript from PBS about Exxon's power to influence anti-global warming stances in the white house:

ROSS GELBSPAN: This is a copy of the memo that was sent from Exxon Mobil to the White House in February 2001. Around the time the President took office. And it says: "Global climate science issues for 2001, can Watson be replaced now at the request of the US?"

BRANCACCIO: Exxon asked the White House to use its influence to oust the scientist leading the international research team reporting to the UN. He was Robert Watson and he'd made an urgent call for the nations of the world to reduce emissions. Within a year he was no longer in his position.

ROSS GELBSPAN: It shows the influence of the fossil fuel lobby and basically calling the shots on the Bush administration's climate and energy policies.

BRANCACCIO: Exxon Mobil's reach is wider than most people realize. This month's cover article in MOTHER JONES magazine found that Exxon Mobil alone contributes to more than 40 policy groups that seek to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.

We contacted Exxon which said the groups it funds work on a wide range of issues, not just climate change. But Exxon continued, "We believe that the scientific evidence on greenhouse gas emissions remains inconclusive."

PRESIDENT BUSH: When we make decision we want to make sure we do so on sound science, not what sounds good but what was real.

You can read the various scientists who have been stifled for their publications on global warming by the Bush administration: http://www.pbs.org/now/science/scienceandpolitics.html . It's pretty long.

(In fact, if you're really interested you can find some in depth analysis at http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/ from a professor/research scientist...just search "NASA" and "global warming" for some entries about how Bush has stifled reports from top officials there.)

Finally, you can listen to this podcast by Bill Nye (the Science Guy) about this administration and its suffocation of science. He's no idiot. He's really smart and graduated from Cornell University (in addition to running the most successful science program ever): http://www.pointofinquiry.org/

It's illogical to believe that there is not enough "conclusive evidence" to support global warming. That's simply untrue, and the vast majority of scientists would agree.

There's a documentary coming out about global warming (). I recommend you watch the trailer...the before and after pics of Mt. Kilimanjaro, Patagonia, etc. are really interesting. The quality is top notch. The *bad* news is that Al Gore is in it. The right wing smear machines are already on their way to discredit it, but the truth is Al Gore has been a major environmentalist all his life, and as he said:

This isn't so much a political issue as a moral issue.

It should be hard to dismiss this many scientists as just crazy liberal, god-hating, atheists :-) ..... Apparently, some people still can (I'm not suggesting you.)

[Aporkalypse]

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is fact. Overwhelming.

Some scientists have voiced their disagreement over global warming, and who were found out to be on Exxon's payroll. Here's a website describing Exxon's strategy to hire scientists and media pundits to debunk global warming: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/articl...FTOKEN=18549286

Here's part of the transcript from PBS about Exxon's power to influence anti-global warming stances in the white house:

You can read the various scientists who have been stifled for their publications on global warming by the Bush administration: http://www.pbs.org/now/science/scienceandpolitics.html . It's pretty long.

(In fact, if you're really interested you can find some in depth analysis at http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/ from a professor/research scientist...just search "NASA" and "global warming" for some entries about how Bush has stifled reports from top officials there.)

Finally, you can listen to this podcast by Bill Nye (the Science Guy) about this administration and its suffocation of science. He's no idiot. He's really smart and graduated from Cornell University (in addition to running the most successful science program ever): http://www.pointofinquiry.org/

It's illogical to believe that there is not enough "conclusive evidence" to support global warming. That's simply untrue, and the vast majority of scientists would agree.

There's a documentary coming out about global warming (). I recommend you watch the trailer...the before and after pics of Mt. Kilimanjaro, Patagonia, etc. are really interesting. The quality is top notch. The *bad* news is that Al Gore is in it. The right wing smear machines are already on their way to discredit it, but the truth is Al Gore has been a major environmentalist all his life, and as he said:

It should be hard to dismiss this many scientists as just crazy liberal, god-hating, atheists :-) ..... Apparently, some people still can (I'm not suggesting you.)

Bill Nye the Science Guy? He's no idiot, though he is a comedian, but he's not an expert on anything we're discussing. Using him as a source is a lot like asking Connie Chung her opinion on the war in Iraq.

www.environmentaldefense.org?

Surely you jest. I'm no Bush backer but I disagree with this premise. I can clearly see you haven't reviewed the data and are terribly open to suggestion. The data regarding global warming is rather inconsistent. I'm not saying we aren't causing it and the theory behind it isn't sound, I'm just saying there is no data that clearly shows causality. As you should be aware, there can't be when changes in temperature in recent years are well within the range of "background noise" of the normal ebb and flow of temperatures and temperatures now are cooler than they were in Western Europe between 1200 and 1400.

[johnnydr87]

Bill Nye the Science Guy? He's no idiot, though he is a comedian, but he's not an expert on anything we're discussing. Using him as a source is a lot like asking Connie Chung her opinion on the war in Iraq.

www.environmentaldefense.org?

Surely you jest. I'm no Bush backer but I disagree with this premise. I can clearly see you haven't reviewed the data and are terribly open to suggestion. The data regarding global warming is rather inconsistent. I'm not saying we aren't causing it and the theory behind it isn't sound, I'm just saying there is no data that clearly shows causality. As you should be aware, there can't be when changes in temperature in recent years are well within the range of "background noise" of the normal ebb and flow of temperatures and temperatures now are cooler than they were in Western Europe between 1200 and 1400.

I realize there is a natural ebb and flow of global climate. But global warming is occuring much faster than these changes.

You're telling me that the overwhelming scientific consensus *isn't* that global warming is caused by us?

I have reviewed the data. So have NASA scientists. So have scientists from hundreds of universities.

You're acting like you know that the data is inconclusive. You don't.

Bill Nye is a good scientist. He has a deeper understanding of science and what defines it. He is involved with scientists from the top Universities and has a wider breadth of knowledge on the topic than you or I ever will have.

My dad is an academic. Honestly, his expertise is astronomy and physics (masters), but he has several friends from local Universities (UALR and others) who have deeper knowledge of global warming. We often invite some over (although I haven't been home in a while) to just discuss these matter. Global warming is real.

I have done research at Drexel University at the fuel cell laboratory, a top 50 engineering school. (You might know this, but just in case, fuel cells are an alternative energy that utilize chemical energy for electrical energy. Hydrogen fuel cells have zero emissions, besides water.) The overwhelming consensus there is that global warming is caused by us too.

(My science fair revolved around global warming and alternative energy. I read several books on the matter.)

But really, you can brush me off as some highfalutin' teenager--I really don't mind. But you cannot brush off the scores and scores of scientist who say rapid global warming is caused by us.

Clearly you haven't bothered to look at any of my links, because you would see there are multitudes of high-profile scientists who believe global warming is caused by us. At least one of the links I gave you showed how the Bush-hired NASA press secretary purged anything about global warming from a NASA scientist's lecture. Another showed how the Bush administration purged reports of global warming from the EPA.

You name 2 high profile scientists who believe global warming is a bunch of hocus pocus, and I can find 20 who believe we have caused it. I'll admit, it would be a much harder job for me, because not every scientist (who believes we're the cause) has published papers on global warming. Environmental scientists, chemical engineers, etc. have more relevant things to worry about, such as which components of a fuel cell reduce electro-osmotic drag or whatever.

And just for eye candy, Mount Kilimanjaro, then and now (from Columbia University):

From Wikipedia: Mount Kilimanjaro, at 5,895 m (19,340 feet), is the highest peak on the continent. Since 1912 the glacier cover on the summit of Kilimanjaro has apparently retreated 75%, and the volume of glacial ice is now 80% less than it was a century ago due to both retreat and thinning. In the 14-year period from 1984 to 1998, one section of the glacier atop the mountain receded 300 m (984 ft).(Wielochowski) A 2002 study determined that if current conditions continue, the glaciers atop Kilimanjaro will disappear sometime between 2015 and 2020.(Thompson, et alia)(OSU) A March 2005 report indicated that there is almost no remaining glacial ice on the mountain, and it is the first time in 11,000 years that barren ground has been exposed on portions of the summit.(Guardian)

Do not be so quick to brush off organization like environmental defense. If you'll brush off them, then at least look at PBS, which I later quoted....and essentially says the same thing as Environmental Defense. I know it's easy to brand these organizations as "hippy" and "crazy liberal"---it automatically discredits what they say without having to look at it. It also makes it easier for a person to use fossil fuels by just claiming, erroneously, that only the fringes of science and organizations think global warming is a threat.

The truth is, I doubt this post will convert you either. I can post opinions from high profile scientists, I can tell you about my personal alternative energy and global warming research with graduate students and professors, I can post images showing the effects of global warming in a mere 7 years from an Ivy League University, I can post links to the New York Times showing Bush stifling the EPA and NASA reports on global warming, I can post links showing that oil companies are paying scientists and media pundits to muddy the water on the debate so that it appears "inconclucsive"--but it's no use. You can give me vague generalities without ever really producing a strand of evidence, or without ever really having worked in the field yourself. I don't know what it is about topics such as the environment, but people who take the conservative view of the matter will rarely, if ever, change their opinion. Perhaps there is too much pride involved. I, personally, have changed my opinion on immigration and integration (to an extent) just on these debates here, and in school, I have changed my views on several topics, life affirmative action, just from debate with conservative friends. But what is it about some issues that will cause a person to defend it to his death, even if the overwhelming evidence shows the contrary? Is it because there's a risk of not appearing resolute--of being a "flip-flopper?" Ah, what a weakness. What a weakness.

Anyways, let's stick to urban development. It's a lot easier.

The bad thing about the internet is that it looks like I really hate you or something....but if we were in person, it would be clear that we just had simple differences of opinions. Too bad you (anyone) can't discern tone on the internet.