Investigations into America's Most Powerful Secret Society
Fleshing Out Skull & Bones features 42 chapters from a dozen+ authors, plus many historical articles, providing a wide array of viewpoints into this very secret organization whose members increasingly affect world events. (720 pages)
Chapter titles include:
The September 11th Attack, the War on Terror and the Order of Skull & Bones • Memoir • Antithesis: Financing The Nazis by AntonySutton
Geronimo’s Bones by HowardAltman
A Role Model For His Daughters by CharlotteIserbyt
Secrecy and Our Constitution: Whom do they serve? by Dr.RalphBunch
Prescott Bush, $1,500,000 and Auschwitz by TobyRogers
The Secret Treaty of Fort Hunt by CarlOglesby
The War of ‘82 by DanielHopsicker
Reflections on the Yale Succession by SteveSewall
The Order of Skull & Bones and Illegal Finance: A Study of the Analytical Framework of Conspiracy Theory by JedediahMcClure
The House of Bush: Born in a Bank • The Hitler Project • Skull and Bones: The Racist Nightmare at Yale by WebsterGriffinTarpley and AntonChaitkin
Everything you ever wanted to ask, but were afraid to know • Blackmarket Bones • Prescott Bush, the Union Banking Corporation and The Story • The Tomb • Man, Magic and Yale • The Skeleton Crew • RTA Incorporated • A Shell Game • What Hath Women Wrought? by KrisMillegan
Through these doors pass the members of the Order of Skull & Bones, a small secret society founded at Yale University in 1832 that has risen to the top of American political and economic power. Three U.S.Presidents, two Chief Justices of the United States, over twenty U.S. Senators, and many congressmen, cabinet officers, judges and state officials are testimony to the power, privilege and prestige of Bones.
What do these elite secret society members have over us regular folks? Who are they? What do they do? Did members of Skull & Bones really finance Hitler Do they hold the bones of Geronimo in their Tomb? This book is your chance to investigate these questions and more.“These secret societies are behind it all,” my father told me many years ago, During the early ‘50s he was a CIA branch chief, head of the East Asia intelligence analysis office. “The Vietnam War,” he said soberly, “is about drugs.” Many years later I finally had some understanding of what Dad was talking about. I wish I had asked more questions. Such as, was he talking about the Order of Skull and Bones?
It’s a symbol used by pirates, poisons and the Nazis but it’s also a “fraternity” at Yale University. College kids having fun? Well, … ? Fifteen juniors are tapped each year. Around 2,500 Yale graduates have been members, mostly white males from wealthy Northeastern families: Bush, Bundy, Cheney, Dodge, Ford, Goodyear, Harriman, Heinz, Kellogg, Phelps, Pillsbury, Rockefeller, Taft, Vanderbilt, Weyerhaeuser and Whitney are some of the names on its roster. Minorities were brought into membership in
the 1950s, and the first women were admitted in 1991, The Order of Skull and Bones is a secret society begun at Yale by William Huntington Russell. His cousin Samuel Russell’s family enterprise was the largest American opium smuggler. When Russell & Co. worked with the world’s largest smuggler, the Scottish firm Jardine-Matheson, they were known as the Combination.Many New England and Southern families in the “China Trade” sent their sons to Yale, and many were tapped into Skull and Bones. From Yale, Bonesmen went into and were very influential in the worlds of commerce, communications, diplomacy, education, intelligence, finance, law and politics. http://www.fleshingoutskullandbones.com/
One thing that often gets overlooked in the climate policy discussions is the role of the global human population. I just visit the usual blogs; I don’t read the newspaper, try not to watch TV news, and in all ways try to avoid the mainstream media. They are absolutely horrible at reporting science news, and that’s almost exclusively what I’m interested in. Am I passing judgement on those that care that Paris Hilton got new sunglasses? Maybe, but that’s a discussion for a different time.
Right now, I’ll be talking about population. In the past year that I’ve been blogging, I’ve done posts on a variety of subjects. Perhaps my favorite was about the role of human respiration in contributing to global CO2 concentrations. This post is a follow-on to that post, so go read that one first.
Interestingly, there was a recent (2006) paper in Biogeosciences Discussions by Prairie and Duarte titled Direct and indirect metabolic CO2 release by humanity that I was unaware of at the time of the last posting on this topic. (I believe that the paper should be free, but don’t know for sure.)
Abstract: The direct CO2 released by respiration of humans and domesticated animals, as well as the CO2 derived from the decomposition of their resulting wastes was calculated in order to ascertain the direct and indirect metabolic contribution of humanity to CO2 release. Human respiration was estimated to release 0.6 Gt C year?1 and that of their associated domestic animals was estimated to release 1.5 Gt C year?1, to which an indirect release of 1.0 Gt C year?1, derived from decomposition of the organic waste and garbage produced by humans and their domestic animals, must be added. These combined direct and indirect metabolic sources, estimated at 3.1 Gt C year?1, has increased 7 fold since pre-industrial times and is forecasted to continue to rise over the 21st century.
They estimate that human respiration contributes 0.6 gigatons of carbon per year, which is remarkable close to my back of the envelope calculation of about 2 gigatons per year. One of the conclusions that I drew from my previous post was that human respiriation is not a non-significant source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Even further, all anthropogenic sources of CO2 are a result of population growth - almost by definition. Below is a graph of estimated world population from 1950 to 2050 under a few different scenarios - of which I don’t know the difference. The data was obtained from the United Nations Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Why hasn’t population control been discussed in relation to climate change policy? I believe it is because it is construed by some as a form of eugenics. But is it?
Eugenics: The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.
So the answer is obviously “no”. The reasoning behind controlling the population is not selective breeding, but because we do not need more people. In a modern society it is not necessary to have twelve kids. I can understand that people want to have kids. It’s an evolutionary instinct to want to reproduce. (I am not an evolutionary biologist. I am not an expert in anything closely related to evolution - so no hate mail from the fundies please.) Three of the four scenarios provided by the UN population division eventually level off. For this to happen, the birth rate must equal the death rate. Since people are living longer with the advances in medical science, the solution needs to be to reduce the birth rate.
Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision and World Urbanization Prospects: The 2005 Revision, http://esa.un.org/unpp, Friday, December 28, 2007; 2:52:13 PM.
Prairie, Y. T. and Duarte, C. M.: Direct and indirect metabolic CO2 release by humanity, Biogeosciences Discuss., 3, 1781-1789, 2006.
"Global Warming" had a precursor in capturing the hearts and minds of the world. Michael Crichton, in his novel "State of Fear," brilliantly juxtaposes the world's current political embrace of "global warming" with the popular embrace of the "science" of eugenics a century ago. For nearly 50 years, from the late 1800s through the first half of the 20th century, there grew a common political acceptance by the world's thinkers, political leaders and media elite that the "science" of eugenics was settled science. There were a few lonely voices trying to be heard in the wilderness in opposition to this bogus science, but they were ridiculed or ignored.
Believers in eugenics argued that we could improve the human race by controlling reproduction. The most respected scientists from Harvard, Yale, Princeton and other bastions of intellectual rigor retreated to a complex on Long Island named Cold Spring Harbor. Their support came from the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman fortune working with the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, State and other agencies.
The "science" was not lacking important public supporters. Theodore Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Woodrow Wilson were enthusiastic believers. The theory won approval of Supreme Court justices, leaders in higher education and Nobel Prize winners. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was one of the most vocal adherents. She established the first "birth control" clinic in 1916.
They believed that "the best" human beings were not having as many children as inferior ones -- the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, Blacks, degenerates, the unfit and the "feeble minded." Sanger said "fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty." She spoke of the burden of caring for "this dead weight of human waste." H.G. Wells spoke against "ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens." Roosevelt said, "Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind." George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.
Twenty-nine states passed laws allowing sterilization. Ultimately, 60,000 Americans were sterilized -- some legally. The Germans were the most progressive. They had help. The Rockefeller Foundation funded the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and the work of its central racial scientists, one of whom was Josef Mengele.
Ultimately the "mental defectives" in Germany were brought to newly built houses where they were interviewed. They were then shown to a back room where they were gassed. Eventually the German program was expanded into a vast network that killed 10 million undesirables. After World War II many of the public adherents to the pseudoscience of eugenics went silent. Colleges removed the textbooks and stopped teaching it.
But not everyone went away. As recently as July 24, 2003 Tony Platt testified before the California Senate Judiciary Committee on S.R. 20 relative to eugenics. He agreed that the state should apologize for its actions.
One must ask, "How in the world did university researchers come to conclusions that defended this outrageous affront to society?" A look back at the research concluded that the researchers adjusted their outcomes to support the theory of those paying for the research. This is not unusual. It is very easy to believe that the settled science regarding climate change is just as suspicious, and indeed may be another example of pseudo-science capturing the imagination of politicians, actors and the media elite who have a desperate need to embrace some "science" which may force us to change the way we live our lives. H. L. Mencken once wrote, "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it." We see pictures of huge blocks of ice crashing into the sea from the Antarctic Peninsula, which comprises about 2 percent of the continent. The fact that the remaining 98 percent of Antarctica is growing by 26.8 gigatons of ice per year is ignored.
We are told today that human activity is causing a dramatic increase in carbon dioxide levels that is responsible for "global warming." While a congressional delegation was visiting the Antarctic expedition in January of 2003 we were shown the results of the Vostok ice-sheet cores where temperatures and CO2 levels were measured as far as 400,000 years ago. At that time, the level of CO2 was 280 parts per million parts of atmosphere (ppm), about what it was 20 years ago. The levels of CO2 and temperature rode up and down in consonance over 400,00 years. "Who," I asked, "was burning the fossil fuels 400,000 years ago?" I was treated as though I was rude.
It has been known for years that most CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. It is called "carbon sinking." The oceans typically contain 60 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. It is also known that colder waters dissolve more CO2 than warm waters. Which do you think is cause and which is effect? We currently have CO2 levels of about 380 ppm. A recent study completed at UC Davis concluded that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 300 million years ago was on the order of 2,000 ppm. Then this, "the same increase that experts expect by the end of this century as remaining reserves of fossil fuels are burned." If it is a given that human burning of fossil fuels is what will cause an increase of CO2 levels up to 2,000 ppm in the next 93 years, don't they owe us an explanation as to who burned those fossil fuels 300 million years ago? In fact we are being treated to a modern scientific shell game. The most prevalent and efficient greenhouse gas is not CO2; it is water vapor, which accounts for about 60 percent of the heat-trapping gases while CO2 accounts for about 26 percent. So, why are we being served a daily diet of our destroying the environment with our behavior as it relates to CO2? Because our behavior has little to do with the amount of water vapor, so it is a non-starter when it comes to those whose principal goal is ruling our lives.
In order to focus on you and what you are doing to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, which, as everyone knows will destroy the globe, we do not discuss the activities of termites. Fifteen years ago it was estimated that the digestive tracts of termites produce about 50 billion tons of CO2 and methane annually. That was more than the world's production from burning fossil fuel. Additionally, cattle, horses and other ruminant animals are huge producers of both CO2 and methane, but, being unable to respond to our demands on this issue, their activity is ignored.
When it comes to methane, another greenhouse gas, termites are responsible for 11 percent of the world's production from natural sources. Seventy-six percent comes from wetlands, which provide habitat conducive to bacteria, which produce 145 million metric tons of methane per year during the decomposition of organic material. It is curious that the very alarmists on climate change are alarmists on saving and increasing wetlands.
It becomes clear from the literature -- not to mention documentary films -- produced by the alarmists, that if human beings do not change the way we live the planet is doomed. This is not the first charge against human behavior. Many of you will remember the "scientific" studies 30 years ago about the destruction of the ozone layer, particularly at the poles, that would reduce the atmosphere's ability to stop infrared rays from the sun. We would see increasing incidence of skin cancer and increasing temperatures. It was theorized that this was caused by the increased production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that were used -- as Freon -- in refrigeration units.
When Freon was invented it was considered a miracle gas. It replaced, in refrigeration units, a combination of toxic gases that, if released, actually killed people. But the settled science concluded that human activity was a threat to the planet. We outlawed the production of CFCs and thousands of people across the world died from eating rancid food due to the loss of refrigeration.
The world's production of CFCs peaked at 1.1 million tons per year. If 100 percent of that was released it would have added 750,000 tons of chlorine into the atmosphere. That is insignificant compared to the 300 million tons the oceans yield annually by the evaporation of seawater alone. But that couldn't be controlled so the alarmists went after us.
Indeed, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in June of 1991 produced some of the highest levels of chlorine and bromines in history and led to some of the lowest ozone levels ever recorded. You would not know that today. The earth survived.
Today, if there is a settled science, it is adduced by climatologists who have been observing and studying the world for decades. Many are retired and not seeking government grants for research and thus not inclined to reach outcomes that are politically popular. Most have been through more than one alarmist cycle of doom. The predictions by scientists in Time magazine's "Another Ice Age?" in 1974 and Newsweek's "The Cooling World" in 1975 come to mind. The latter article stated that scientists "are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climactic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic."
But wise old heads believe that we are going through normal cycles of heating and cooling that we have seen over hundreds of millions of years as the earth heats and cools when the activity of the sun changes. The earth is heated by the sun. The sun is impacted by magnetic forces creating outbursts called sunspots, which increase the heat it imparts. During the coldest period in the Little Ice Age, which ended near the end of the 19th century, sunspots almost completely disappeared for 70 years. The earth cooled. Sunspot activity has been declining for a number of years and is expected decline by 40 percent over the next decade. The world is about to enter a cooling period. Be prepared to change your lifestyle.
Rep. John Linder is a Georgia Republican who serves on the House Ways and Means Committee.
What you have read here is a collection of a few of the major points in an expansive history. Population control today - and the corresponding environmental movements - grew out of the post WWII shift from eugenics to Malthusian programs. The line connecting eugenicists to population control is unmistakable. Population reduction is being used by the elite as a weapon of war against competition, as an assurance of continued domination.
Michael McNamara /The Arizona Republic Husband and wife Barry Kluger and Hope Kirsch pose with their Hummer H3 in Scottsdale, AZ (mccain-arizona-no-tree-hugg)
A bumpy road for proud Hummer drivers
by Julian Cavazos - Jul. 23, 2008 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
The Hummer has always been impossible to miss, a selling point when the road behemoths first hit American highways in 1992. But in a time of decreasing sales of SUVs and trucks, rising gas prices and increased concern of global warming, that spotlight may be getting uncomfortable. The Hummer has become an icon of unnecessary extravagance, a car that thumbs its grille at a changing world. Nationally and in Phoenix, sales have gone down more than 30 percent through the end of April. But whether you love or hate the Hummer depends on your view. Don Harris' view is from the driver's seat, and he loves what he sees. He recalled what it was like driving his Hummer off the lot when he bought it in 2003. "You could see everything," said Harris, 69. "I was set up high so I got more security. It's a comfortable feeling, and the kids loved it." But Jack Clifford, 56, looks at the Hummer from the ground up. Clifford cringes each time he sees the vehicle, which has roots in the military. "I really, really dislike them," said Clifford, who lives in Casa Grande. "If ever anything was meant to be ostentatious and showy, just for the sake of being showy, the Hummer is it. There can't possibly be another thing in this world that screams out, 'Hey, look at me. You down there, look up here. Ha ha, mine is so much bigger than yours.' "The anti-Hummer people are becoming more vocal. Online, numerous Web sites and blogs express antagonism and mockery toward the brand. On at least one site, visitors can post degrading comments, buy anti-Hummer merchandise and see links to negative news articles. One can also see a photo of obscene hand gestures aimed at a Hummer. Hummerdinger.com, a parody site, hummerdinger lists fake news briefs about Hummers, using humor to skewer the vehicle. Sharon Dick, 62, of Glendale, dislikes the metal beasts but channels her anger into a vigorous game of "SlugHum," a variation of "SlugBug," played when Volkswagen beetles were popular.
Each time Dick sees a Hummer, she slugs her husband. "Back then, the (VWs) were such a novelty that everybody made fun of them," Dick said. "Seeing Hummers makes me want to bring to people's attention that these things aren't good for us to have. I'm making fun of them because they're ugly and use huge amounts of gas. Nobody needs to drive around a tank." Dick did see one positive attribute in Hummers. "The only good thing I can think about them, if you can park next to them a lot, sometimes you get shade," Dick said. Hummer owners are just as passionate about their vehicles as the Hummer haters. They love the vehicle's advantages, which to them are well worth the high cost of filling up. For them, public opinion is hardly an obstacle. Hummer owner Gerry Wiebers, 45, of Scottsdale, doesn't think others should judge him. He just purchased his second one for his wife. "As long as it meets the emission test, what difference does it make?" Wiebers said. "I could care less about what people think. I really don't think it's anybody's business." For him, safety is a concern. Wiebers, who owns an H2 and an H3, said he bought his two Hummers for their relative indestructibility. He likes the feeling that his large vehicle would protect him in an accident"I had somebody hit me a few months ago, and I almost didn't even hear it," Wiebers said. "You don't see many people hauled off in a hearse taken out from a Hummer." That reasoning works in reverse for those encountering Hummers. Few cars could stand up to a Hummer in an accident. "I had a number of close calls with these vehicles while driving, and I was certain it was because the vehicles were not built for driving in heavy traffic," said Patience Hoag, 47, of Phoenix. "The drivers simply could not see me." Environmentalists complain about the Hummers because of the fuel inefficiency. The first Hummers (H1s) and H2s weigh more than 8,500 pounds, so the vehicles are not covered by federal regulations requiring fuel-mileage figures for cars and light trucks. However, IntelliChoice, an automotive-research site, lists the H2's mileage as 11 mpg in the city and 13 mpg on the highway. Consumer Reports magazine did its own tests and found the H2 averaged 10.7 mpg. Sandy Bahr, regional chapter director for the Sierra Club, considers Hummers to be a waste of valuable resources. "It's the ultimate symbol of inefficiency," said Bahr, who drives a hybrid. "We ought to be thinking about the next generation, about having clean air and what kind of planet we'll have." Then there's the financial impact. With gas at $4-plus per gallon, it costs about $128 to fill the H2's 32-gallon tank. Those numbers did not dissuade Barry Kluger, 54, of Scottsdale, from buying a Hummer. The public-relations-agency owner moved to the Valley three years ago from New York City, away from 700-square-foot homes and small cars. His East Coast friends complain about him owning one. "Our East Coast friends are these green people," Kluger said. "Ever since we moved to Arizona they said we've become these gas guzzlers. Our friends say, 'You got to get green, save a lot of money.' New York tends to be more liberal and more energy conscious."(mccain arizona no-tree-hugg) Hummers go back to 1979, when vehicle manufacturer AM General began making high mobility, multipurposed, wheeled vehicles, or HMMWVs (pronounced Humvees), for the U.S. Army. In 1992, the civilian version of Humvees, known as Hummers, became available to the public. The H1, H2 and H3 models now are manufactured and sold by GM. In the immediate future, Hummers still will be made based on demand, said Nick Richards, Hummer communications manager. Last year, 55,986 Hummers, including 12,431 H2s, were sold in the United States. In the face of rising gas prices, Kluger's wife, Hope Kirsch, 53, tries to conserve miles by running several errands each trip. "I'll make sure I am doing three things instead of just one," said Kirsch, an attorney. "I'm mindful of where I travel, and try to stay in my neighborhood."
This week, NOW talks to director Chris Paine about his upcoming documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" The film looks at the hopeful birth and untimely death of the electric car, an environmentally-friendly, cost-saving salvation to some, but a profit barrier to others. In a film that has all the elements of a murder mystery, Paine points the finger at car companies, the oil industry, bad ad campaigns, consumer wariness, and a lack of commitment from the U.S. government. "[The film] is about why the only kind of cars that we can drive run on oil. And for a while there was a terrific alternative, a pure electric car," Paine said. In 1996, General Motors (G.M.) launched the first modern-day commercially available electric car, the EV1. The car required no fuel and could be plugged in for recharging at home and at a number of so-called battery parks. Many of the people who leased the car, including a number of celebrities, said the car drove like a dream. "...the EV1 was a high performer. It could do a U-turn on a dime; it was incredibly quiet and smooth. And it was fast. I could beat any Porsche off the line at a stoplight. I loved it," Actress, Alexandra Paul told NOW. After California regulators saw G.M.s electric car in the late 1980s, they launched a zero-emissions vehicle program in 1990 to clean up the state's smoggy skies. Under the program, two percent of all new cars sold had to be electric by 1998 and 10 percent by 2003. But it was not to be. A little over 1,000 EV1s were produced by G.M. before the company pulled the plug on the project in 2002 due to insufficient demand. Other major car makers also ceased production of their electric vehicles.In the wake of a legal challenge from G.M. and DaimlerChrysler, California amended its regulations and abandoned its goals. Shortly thereafter, automakers began reclaiming and dismantling their electrics as they came off lease.Some suggest that G.M. -- which says it invested some $1 billion in the EV1 -- never really wanted the cars to take off. They say G.M. intentionally sabotaged their own marketing efforts because they feared the car would cannibalize its existing business. G.M. disputes these claims.Take a trip with us this week as we find out more about why the electric car slipped off the road. Next time on NOW. "Who Killed the Electric Car" appears in theaters in New York and Los Angeles on June 28th and in other theaters throughout the country sometime this summer.For more on the film, visit WhoKilled the Electric Car?
In 2000, countries like Germany made a major commitment to increase the use of renewable energy and begin to get off oil. We elected George Bush and Dick Cheney -- who gave us a secret energy task force, a war in Iraq and the same old energy policies.
Eight years later, gas prices are soaring above $4 a gallon and the nation stands at a crossroads.
We can either “go big” and follow Barack Obama’s 2007 blueprint to create a new energy economy -- or we can rely on John McCain’s sudden 2008 urge to drill for offshore oil -- a distracting idea which won’t reduce gas prices but will boost oil company profits.
The facts are clear. Only one candidate has a detailed plan that is at Apollo moon-mission scale, using technologies that work right now -- Barack Obama. Clean energy isn’t pie in the sky -- the Germans created 250,000 jobs in less time than it will take for John McCain and Big Oil to drill for oil offshore -- and bring it to market. Failing to invest in new energy means we will continue to fall behind in the competitive race for new jobs and manufacturing. That’s not the road to smart energy independence; it’s a backwards formula for more Exxon dependence.
The goal of the Towards Carfree Cities conference series is to bring together people from around the world who are promoting practical alternatives to car dependence - walking, cycling and public transport, and ultimately the transformation of cities, towns and villages into human-scaled environments rich in public space and community life. The focus is on strategy, collaboration and exchange, assisting the practical work of conference participants - whether it be organising carfree days, promoting urban cycling, or building the carfree cities of the future.
In February 2007, World Carfree Network's Steering Committee chose Portland, Oregon, USA as the location of the 2008 conference, hosted by Shift. Portland's proposal can be found here. -->
TOWARDS CARFREE CITIES VIII:
Rethinking Mobility, Rediscovering Proximity
Portland, Oregon, USA
June 16-20, 2008
Towards Carfree Cities made its North American debut in Portland, Oregon from June 16 - 20, 2008. The theme was "Rethinking Mobility, Rediscovering Proximity". Please also visit the conference website at carfreeportland.org.
Photo courtesy of Paul Adkins (Bike Friday)
Schedule:
Monday, June 16: Depaving project
Tuesday, June 17: Public Day and Carfree Art Show opening at City Hall
Territory size shows the proportion of all cars in the world that are
found there. In 2002 there were 590 million cars in the world. That
is one for every ten people. There are 140 million cars in the United States
and 55 million in Japan. This contrasts with just nine million cars in China
and 6 million in India. Western European territories dominate the top ten list
of the most cars per person. New Zealand, however, is at the top of this list,
with 61 cars per hundred people. As 23% of the population of New Zealand are
under 14 years old, that is almost a car per person for everyone old enough
to drive. In contrast, in the Central African Republic, Bangladesh and Tajikistan
there is one car for every 2000+ people.
"... the car still defines a lifestyle. Americans still buy cars by the millions,
whether they are in gridlocked LA or in the middle of Kansas miles from the
nearest town." Paul Harris, 2006
Sources are carefully selected to include only data published by the most prestigious institutions in the world, such as the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, its data branch FAOstat, the OECD and others (click here for a list of sources). We are currently working on dedicated pages where you can learn more and find sources for each topic. List of sources and methods currently online:
In the United States, throughout all 24 hours of every day of the year -- year after year -- we have an average of 2,000,000 automobiles standing in front of red stoplights with their engines going, the energy for which amounts to that generated by the full efforts of 200 million horses being completely wasted as they jump up and down going nowhere."
Fuller and oil geologist Francois de Chandenèdes, calculated the amounts of heat and pressure nature uses to convert Sun into life and, over time, into fossil fuels. At current kilowatt/hour electric rates, it costs nature a million dollars a gallon to make petroleum. In this very real "cosmic accounting system" people are burning several million dollars worth every week going to work. "It doesn't take a computer to tell you that it will save both Universe and humanity trillions of dollars a day to pay them handsomely to stay at home," says you-know-who.
After World War II, the G.I. Bill offered returning vets an all-expense-paid trip to college. Many took it. And those educated minds made the United States the most prosperous nation this world had ever known. What if humanity no longer needs the few watts of muscle-power an individual can generate? What if we no longer need people to work at jobs they consider meaningless? What if we put the whole world on the G.I. Bill and make educational tools available in every home (via VCR, Internet, etc.).
Sure, some will go fishing. But others ``will start thinking `What was it I was thinking about when they told me I had to "earn my living" -- doing what someone else had decided needed to be done? What do I see that needs to be done that nobody else is attending to?' One person with a better rice strain or improved transistor can pay for the life-support of the next 1000, or even 100,000 people. (And what's wrong with fishing, says Fuller, it clears the mind. ``And that's what we need: people to think clearly.)
International Programs Center, U.S. Census Bureau, the total population of the World, projected to 06/27/08 at 17:49 GMT (EST+5) is 6,706,285,906
Culture creates the conditions to develop carfree spaces, and the bicyclist culture in Portland is rich and varied, running from the grungy Zoobombers to bike geeks like Mia Birk, all of whom were on vivid display Friday for a scorching Summer Solstice.
The Towards Carfree Cities conference wrapped up with a choice of mobile workshops around town, including the Transportation Geeks Bike Ride put on by Birk’s company, Alta Planning & Design. We pedaled down special bicycle boulevards, past bike traffic signals, colored lanes, bike boxes (which Clarence Eckerson with Streetfilms was very excited about), contra-flow lanes, and other traffic engineering feats before ending where all journeys here seem to, at a brewpub.
But for all the traffic improvements, we were still faced with many car-clogged roadways and dangerous intersections, although made a bit less so by the tendency of most Portland motorists to yield to bicyclists with a friendly wave and smile.
As the shortest night of the year began, colorful cyclists seemed to take over the streets, pedaling in small groups and huge, slow-moving packs. Four different Pedalpalooza rides all started around 9 o’clock in the hip southeast section of the city: Sexy Cyclist Karaoke 2 Karaoke, Dropout Bike Club’s monthly ride, Bowie vs. Prince Mobile Dance Party, and Solstice Ride.
The rides converged into one as they ascended volcanic Mt. Tabor just after midnight, still several hundred strong and acting as if they owned the night, which they really seemed to. But not everyone agrees with that pecking order, as we learned when a motorist threw a box of tacks into the street, flattening several bike tires.
Bike geeks at the Steel Bridge, a railroad bridge with added bike path.
I’ve been listening to transportation geekspeak for the last week, and not just in the conference sessions. People such as Dave Snyder – the longtime San Francisco Bicycle Coalition director who then started Transportation for Livable City before landing at SPUR – and many others on this trip live and breathe this stuff, with even some drunken late night conversations descending into topics like LOS reform, separate bike lanes vs. simple lines, federal ISTEA laws, and the state of the political movement pushing these issues.
So the late night bike rides with young, carefree, carfree Portlanders was a welcome chance to just pedal, dance, and enjoy the city. Some of this is not about struggle, but about love. Atop Mt. Tabor, the Solstice Ride celebrated a couple of Portland crunchies who had met on this ride two years ago and gotten married on it a year ago was renewing their vows this year. Punks can be cute, too.
But the Dropout kids weren’t really having much of that, instead sectioned off for a photo shoot that involved the women being topless and many of the guys with pants down – with many of the private bits already adorned with painted messages and designs. It seems to be a thing here. Earlier in the week at the Mt. Tabor Saloon’s weekly tricycle races, there was also a young crowd of bike punks, with the winner of the races – beautiful young Lady G, who had also been on the more earnest Depaving Ride a few hours earlier – completing some of her laps sans shirt.
Portland doesn’t have the same level nightlife of San Francisco, so they tend to make their own fun here, and the result seems to be a large community of bicyclists that has become very engaged with the struggle for street equity. And there are enough of them to cover multiple events and fronts.
Today, even though much of the community is focused on the Ciclovia, which consists of a six-mile loop of roadways closed to cars, there’s also a Zoobomb Century ride, a tweak on the normal Sunday Zoobomb (in which groups of people bomb down the hill from the Zoo on little kids bikes, which they lock into big clunks) involving repeated trek up the light rail then down the mountain until they reach 100 miles.
Denny Carr, MFA
Photographer and Video Artist
BIKE !!!! hase lepus trike (stroke-paralysis)
age 61 eco-friendly no-car
"I am a stroke survivor and deal daily with a speech disorder called Aphasia. This disorder is a result of my stroke in 2005. I am thankful God has given me the ability to express myself through my images and films." For more information, visit these websites: http://www.azimagery.com/
political and economic power. Three U.S.Presidents, two Chief Justices of the United States, over twenty U.S. Senators, and many congressmen, cabinet officers, judges and state officials are testimony to the power, privilege and prestige of Bones.
"I 
After California regulators saw G.M.s electric car in the late 1980s, they launched a zero-emissions vehicle program in 1990 to clean up the state's smoggy skies. Under the program, two percent of all new cars sold had to be electric by 1998 and 10 percent by 2003. But it was not to be. A little over 1,000 EV1s were produced by G.M. before the company pulled the plug on the project in 2002 due to insufficient demand. Other major car makers also ceased production of their electric vehicles.In the wake of a legal challenge from G.M. and DaimlerChrysler, California amended its regulations and abandoned its goals. Shortly thereafter, automakers began reclaiming and dismantling their electrics as they came off lease.Some suggest that G.M. -- which says it invested some $1 billion in the EV1 -- never really wanted the cars to take off. They say G.M. intentionally sabotaged their own marketing efforts because they feared the car would cannibalize its existing business. G.M. disputes these claims.Take a trip with us this week as we find out more about why the electric car slipped off the road. Next time on NOW. "Who Killed the Electric Car" appears in theaters in New York and Los Angeles on June 28th and in other theaters throughout the country sometime this summer.For more on the film, visit 
![[logo]](http://www.worldcarfree.net/img/logo1.jpg){kind=logo}
> Global warming crusader Al Gore repeatedly claims the 
Posts
