While McClellan is indeed a backstabber, the repercussions of his actions will probably be for the better. Maybe with a man who worked alongside Bush pointing out the faults and disasters this administration brought, the 20% or so of the American public that still has faith in the incompetent president will finally realize the damage that has been done.
My main beef with this guy is that he continued to work with Bush for years, even commenting that the president's actions regarding Katrina would set the stage for his second term in office, and he didn't speak up until now? We needed this sort of criticism four years ago, not now when Bush is at the end of his second term. There have been plenty of whistle blowers, ones that spoke up in a timely manner. People whose words may not carry the same weight as McClellan's, but were on the scene when it really did matter.
This issue isn't as cut-and-dry as it may seem, but due to the circumstances regarding his criticism (primarily the timeliness of it) he's more of a sellout than a patriot. Though it's relieving that at least one neo-con is speaking out against Bush for once (even if he is doing it for the money).
Fenix, thank you for setting me straight; I concede the point. I never claimed I had insight, never claimed I had above-average intelligence or all the answers. All I wanted was for Cienna to refute my position. That's all; I had no illusions that it was perfect, I had no illusions that I was the most informed individual on this forum. I was putting forth my ideas for criticism like everyone else, and you have demolished them, just as it should be done.
"It is people like you, sir, who should be taken out back and whipped into bloody unconsciousness for contributing to hysteria and misinformation"
Interesting hostility on your part. Education furthers intellectual understanding more than torture, and you have educated me on this subject. If you really think I should be "whipped into bloody unconsciousness" for good measure, you might have some issues to be worked out.
Personal attacks aside, thank you again for correcting me on the subject, fenix.
I've taken a look at your link, a plug for a book by Graham Hancock. The first thing I saw set the tone for how legitimate this whole thing is: "According to their calendar, the Maya believed that their world would end on Dec 21, 2012." No, they did not.
What will happen on December 21, 2012 is a spectacular and rare event; the winter solstice where our sun will cross the point of the Galactic Equator - something that hasn't happened in 25,800 years. The Mayans were mathematically and cosmologically brilliant people. They did not believe 2012 was the end of all time, or the end of the world, merely the end of the Great Cycle (which, as all cycles do, start over once they end).
The Mayans calculated this conjunction, noticing the changes the earth's wobble created in the position of the stars. Using what is called the Long Count, they decided December 21, 2012 as the end of their Great Cycle and worked backward to see when the calendar would begin: August 11, 3114 BCE. The brilliance of this, however, was that the 5,125.36-day Great Cycle is actually one fifth of the Great Great Cycle, known scientifically as the Platonic Year; the length of the procession of equinoxes. The Mayans measured time in circles within circles within circles - there is no end, merely a new beginning. So strike one for that site.
Strike two: Hancock is a journalist. Now, I'm not saying journalists can't make a good argument (as David Strahan did in The Last Oil Shock), however this individual claims the "serious academics, who went through university adhering to strict scientific principals" are mistaken when they say there's not enough evidence to support the claims being made. If this man thinks he is more knowledgeable than university professors with years of experience in these fields, enough so to claim that "sane, regular people" should listen to him and not the professors, then his "theory" should be put under all the more scrutiny.
Strike three: No evidence is provided for the assumptions that he mentions; unfortunate, because we can't do a lot of arguing on those, which dictate the validity of his entire theory. However, there were a few that I'd like to address. The allegation that ancient cultures communicated with one another is completely unfounded; only circumstantial evidence such as pyramid building (which differ in appearance from culture to culture) or flood myths (which is almost as absurd as the argument that reptilian gods in multiple cultures support the Nibiru reptilian theory). Evolution does occur in small stages; it is a very slow, gradual process. There are times when the number of mutations is much higher than normally, such as with the cambrian explosion, however it works slowly for the most part. And I think we're all well aware of how dangerous our galactic neighborhood is - gamma ray bursts, asteroids, solar flares... we're well aware of the danger.
And about the dragons and unicorns... I would just LOVE to see evidence of that. I saw a picture of a one-horned goat once, but that's about it.
Now to the cataclysmic events he speaks of: Evidence has been provided for a solar polar shift to occur in 2012, not an earth pole shift. The sun's magnetic poles shifted in February of 2001, signaling the arrival of a solar maximum, and a second one is due in 2012. Pole shifts have occurred on earth, of course; they are a natural process of the planet. The intervals between shifts are varied, from tens of thousands of years to millions. The last polar shift occurred 780,000 years ago, and the reversal took place over thousands of years. So no cataclysmic shifting going on here; just a gradual process of the earth.
Hancock claims that mass extinctions and rapid evolution occur at the same time as cataclysms. Yes... at the same time as events such as a huge freakin' asteroid slamming into the earth, radical temperature changes, massive volcanic activity, or a sudden change in weather and climate. They do not, as far as we know, occur during equinoxes or solar magnetic reversals.
Cosmic rays cause mutation, says Hancock. Indeed; good thing that we have that thing called an atmosphere and magnetic field to shield us from the sun's more potent radiation and solar wind. If he's talking about gamma ray bursts, then that wouldn't cause mutations, it would just kill us all. This is a great quote, though: "Although scientists are unsure about where all the cosmic rays come from, the source might be the same as what powers the pole shifts." It's really unfortunate he doesn't cite some specific examples, because right now all I can do is laugh. The pole shifts on earth are caused by (get ready for it)... the earth! At least, that's the consensus so far. It's been found that external causes of magnetic field reversals are not likely, due to a lack of correlation between massive impacts and pole reversals, and so far we have not spotted any massive planet with an elliptical orbit swooping into the inner solar system out of nowhere to mess with the earth.
"The ancients were aware of the dangers of cosmic rays and cataclysms..."
They knew about cosmic rays? Really? Every culture has their doomsday stories, but I wasn't aware ancient cultures knew about radiation and "cosmic rays".
"I also believe that pyramids may have been designed as cosmic ray shelters."
I think we've all seen a cutaway diagram of a pyramid where the burial chamber and passageways are shown. I doubt 200 people (I'm being real generous here) could possibly fit into one of those to escape a "cosmic ray" blast. Speaking of which, who uses the term "cosmic ray" anyway? Someone who doesn't know what he's talking about? Perhaps.
I think it's safe to assume this individual's book will be a dud, if anything. It's hard for me to argue against it because there's no evidence or examples put forth, but this is just my initial impression of the material. I don't think the Bast theory is of any concern. I'm not assuming you believe it, Loudacris, I'm just giving an argument for the sake of the debate.
Honestly I don't think anything will happen in 2012. The whole fuss about the Mayan calendar ending is irrelevant; it's a circle. It doesn't end. When it reaches the end of one cycle it starts a new one. No doomsday or "age of enlightenment" or anything. In fact, the only reason December 21, 2012 is given any reverence by the Mayans is because it will be the the end of the first cycle on their calendar, which would be a noteworthy date. Though I do wonder if the Romans celebrated the completion of the first cycle of the Julian calendar when it was implemented.
As far as the whole Anunnaki, Nibiru, reptilian man-devouring alien stuff goes... I'd love to hear someone make a case for that theory. I tried debating with some people on Youtube about the subject, though most of them accused me of being a reptilian agent, trying to get humanity's guard down so the aliens could invade or whatever. Here's just a quick argument to get started, though:
The only possible candidate for a "planet X", otherwise known as Nibiru, would be a brown dwarf. Brown dwarfs are failed stars, gas giants like Jupiter that have much more mass and have much greater surface temperature. There's no way life can develop there, and if planetoids do orbit the brown dwarf, it is highly doubtful any one of those would possess the same atmosphere, temperature range, and gravity as earth (not to mention the same solar radiation exposure). Any one of those factors, if radically different would keep the reptilians from being able to survive on earth.
Also, Zecharia Stichen said the Sumerians recorded the earth "standing still" when Nibiru came about. This would obliterate all life on the planet, since we are currently moving about 1000 miles per hour. Suddenly stopping the rotation would not halt the atmosphere's movement, causing wind speeds so fast they would sweep everything not anchored to bedrock - trees, topsoil, buildings, animals - into the atmosphere. The accounts of the Sumerians are woefully inaccurate, because if such a planet did pass by close enough to gravitationally affect the earth, all terrestrial life would be wiped out. Switching the magnetic poles, as also proposed by the reptilian theorists, would cause massive earthquakes and volcano eruptions worldwide due to the movement of the core (this includes the 7 supervolanoes, guaranteeing total annihilation for surface organisms).
And if Nibiru has an orbit of 3600 years, no life would be possible beyond bacteria and perhaps some very simple oceanic life, because mass extinctions of that caliber at such short regular intervals would make it impossible for life to evolve on land as much as it has.
But, anyway, what does everyone else think about 2012? Doomsday, a time of enlightenment, nothing special?
I hate to be a nay-sayer, but it is highly doubtful that we will ever "colonize" mars. Setting up scientific research stations is a possibility, however resources are the biggest setback we face insofar as setting up a whole colony on another planet. Oil is, of course, declining worldwide, and we'll be hard pressed to find another kind of fuel that can generate as much energy and as cheaply as rocket fuel to propel shuttles past escape velocity.
With the monumental amount of money needed to transport a sufficient number of personnel and machines to Mars to even begin construction (even with the gradual habitat structure drops proposed, it would still take decades to build up a real colony), I doubt any one nation will be able to bear the full cost; designing, building and launching satellites cost enough money as it is. Perhaps the EU will be able to fund such a project, but the US? Doubtful, especially with the budget crisis we face today.
Let's put this in perspective: The cost of building the launchers and the Apollo spacecraft alone came to a total of roughly 67.5 billion dollars. Granted, this was in a timespan between about 1959 to the mid 70's, so if we were to be generous and use 1968 as a point of reference for inflation change, this cost would come out to be $419,070,607,461.38 today. And the missions themselves cost billions of dollars more - see the attached link for more expenditure figures.
Now, that cost is nothing compared to what we've spent in Iraq, however this was a figure for the journey to the moon. Mars is 35 million miles from earth - at its closest point, no less. It would take 6 months to arrive there with our current technology, as opposed to the four days it took for the Apollo shuttle to reach the moon. Obviously this brings in the issue of muscle and bone atrophy; even if humans find some way to enter a "stasis" like the Sci-Fi flicks, their muscles would still break down while suspended in zero gravity. Thus, the astronauts would need to stay awake and exercise to prevent muscle atrophy, as well as a number of other health issues that accompany extended exposure to zero gravity. This means they would need food and water (since they recycle their urine for oxygen, rather than for drinking water) for the whole 6 month journey, as well as supplies for when they arrive on the planet. This mandates a larger shuttle for storage space, which necessitates larger, more powerful rockets to carry them out of earth's gravitational pull.
Bone atrophy is even worse than muscle atrophy, because exercise does not reverse the calcium and bone cell loss caused by zero gravity. Some may propose that a rotating space craft may induce artificial gravity to prevent this, however such technology is highly controversial and there isn't much consensus on how the hell that would work in the first place. And, of course, this will require even more costly R&D;.
An interesting video on Youtube is a History Channel documentary called The Universe on colonizing space, and it outlines a number of valid complications in the plan to colonize Mars (Search "The Universe: Colonizing Space" - it's a 5 part video series. Very fascinating).
Solar winds also pose a problem that will require specialized equipment to survive; intense waves of radiation can wipe out a crew if they're not prepared; satellites that detect a solar wind would have to be posted in space to relay the information to the crew, and a special bunker would have to be built within the shuttle so they could escape the deadly radiation. This would also be an issue on Mars, since it has a very, very weak magnetic field to stop the solar wind. A bunker would have to be constructed there as well. In fact, the colonies might have to be built underground to shield the people from cosmic rays and violent sandstorms; living on the surface with prolonged exposure to radiation could render the inhabitants infertile - not a good way to run a colony.
Colonies built on Mars would have to have supplies flown in to keep the inhabitants alive while they figure out some way to obtain food from the planet. In fact, the first "colony" to be built on Mars would probably be no more than a single structure where a crew of 4 people live. There are a number of psychological problems that come with this, however on Devon Island in the Canadian Arctic they've already built a simulation ground that will be similar to this scenario: one small structure, a small crew to live there for months simulating scientific research. This might be a good training ground to prepare for that.
Also, going back to the gravity issue, Mars' gravity is 1/3 that of earth's; this could cause complications for the humans living on the planet. Their bone cell count would decrease, they would lose calcium, and if they live there for long enough, their bodies would have acclimated too much to the lower gravity to return to earth and function normally.
Once more, I'm not saying missions to Mars are impossible. But colonizing Mars is a whole other story, and we really should be focusing on the missions themselves rather than get ahead of ourselves and assume that we'll even get that far. Anything is possible, however at this moment the future for such elaborate scientific expeditions looks rather bleak, simply because of our economic situation. We really need to get things together here on earth before we spend a huge amount of money on colonizing another planet. The only feasible way we could fund such a project would be if the nations of the world joined in larger unions similar to the EU, to pool economies and funds. That is, unless the US recovers from its current rut enough to delve into these experimental and very costly expeditions.
Once more, what gaps? So far you've mentioned the 2006 oversupply, the OPEC tape, and the testimony of the sacred "various talking heads", yet you haven't elaborated how any of those invalidates my previous arguments or the information correlating to decreased oil production, or the fact that decreased production affects prices. Nope, no elaboration at all. How exactly are you supposed to "rub my nose" into these "gaps" if you don't even make an argument out of them?
Let me ask one last time: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN A DEBATE BEFORE? Because you sure as hell don't act like it.
"you keep creating straw men arguments."
Look up the definition of a "straw man" argument, please. Thank you.
"I'm not claiming anything about a God being complex or no"
I never said you did; you, however, are pulling a tactic I've seen again and again: asking where the "complex" laws of the universe came from to give the answer that "God done did it". I'm merely anticipating your coming argument and getting it out of the way so we won't have to waste any further time on that.
"If you're up to date on the latest evolution thinking"
Wow, that one came out from left field. Since when are we talking about evolution?
"I'm trying to follow such thinking"
No, you were talking about the cosmological constant, gravity, electromagnetism, and all the other laws of the universe. Biological evolution had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.
"I'm asking questions about evolution"
There's a pretty HUGE dichotomy between the theory of evolution and the physical laws of the universe - I really hope you realize that. No, you were not talking about evolution.
"you answer by attacking a God you don't believe exists"
Please explain how I can "attack" something I don't believe exists in the first place. No, seriously, explain it to me, it sounds fascinating.
"Hmm, sounds like, a fanatic."
Not really; I consider myself a moderate if anything. I'm not persecuting you, I'm not insulting you because of your faith, I'm not discriminating or hiring ninja assassins to murder you in your sleep. I'm trying to have a discussion with you, and if you think that's fanatical behavior, you've obviously never been to the DEBATE FAITH room on Stickam.
If god exists, then god is even more complex then the laws. Thus, the questions you have just asked would have to be applied to god as well, making god existing no more likely than the laws existing, by your logic.
Humans created the concept of complex. If conscious minds were not capable of fathoming complexity, then it would be a non-issue. The laws of the universe are not complex, nor are they simple. They are only either based on how we choose to describe them, how they appear to us. It is a subjective opinion we form, therefore it cannot be used as proof of god's existence.
"Every one of your debates fall back on this method of ad honimem [sic] and derogatory treatment of those who either disagree with you or refuse to engage with you."
Actually, no they did not. There were no ad hominem attacks, and I normally don't use sardonicism while debating. However, you started to bring sarcasm into the equation, therefore I matched. Look up "ad hominem", read your initial comment, and come back with an intelligible debate, please. If you won't prove that you're right and I'm wrong (which I'm perfectly fine with, if you make a good enough argument), there's no use in claiming such. If you can debate like a mature adult, then I will treat you with the respect you deserve. Currently I don't see any reason to respect you, with your method of arguing.
Also, here are some more figures: Ten minutes after I posted my comment, you had responed. In those ten minutes, I received a down vote. Each time you responded to my comments, a down vote occurred. This correlation indicates you're a liar, in addition to not being able to argue your way out of a paper bag.
I honestly don't care if you vote my comments down - I just expect you make a decent argument against what I am saying, because a down vote means I must be incorrect. So far you've only voted my comments down because you don't agree with them; that's a rather petty action, don't you think? If I'm wrong, prove me wrong. It's that simple.
As much as I'm sure you'd love to continue this pointless banter, I'm not on this website to waste my time and the time of the forum host to bicker with a person who can't make an intelligible argument, let alone stay on topic. Until you're interested in actually debating the issue at hand like an intelligent adult, don't bother me, and don't disrespect the forum's host by sidestepping the issue and posting inane comments.
