Despite Alex Jones’ suggesting as much somehow I doubt they’re outgunned by startups and Yahoo’s green news section.

Alex Jones—a far right radio host and author—promulgates the view that climate change is caused by variations in the sun’s activity. This despite the fact that the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC states that the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the effect due to greenhouse gases. But a person like Alex Jones doesn’t let facts get in the way of a good story. He’s got books to sell.

He also falls into a nasty group of sociopaths who push the idea that man-made climate change is a conspiracy by scientists to get grants for their work. The same line of attack used against scientists when they were showing us that smoking causes cancer, CFCs lead to ozone depletion and that certain pollutants cause acid rain.

PR firms headed up by corporate investors, CEO’s and Directors of huge multinational companies are aggressively pushing global warming propaganda as they have come to realize that the green agenda is forging the next big commodities market.

http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2008/210408Yahoo.htm

And beside, even with your argument you neglect to take power and fear into account. For most of this period of history in which you note peace exisiting between Jews and Arabs, the Jews had no independent state. And neither had Arab nationalism or Zionism existed. The conflict is relatively modern because reasons to fear one another are relatively new.

It is not possible to go into the entire history here but both sides have reasons for their claims and their actions. You are right that it is the Israelis who need to be taking the first step, and many others are right to say that the Israelis have been hugely hypocritical in their treatment of the Palestinians. But Israel is not turning a cold shoulder on the Palestinians due to a belief in their racial superiority. They do so due to their philosophy of an ‘Iron Wall’ (Jabotinsky coined the concept in the 20s if you want to look it up). Basically they fear doing what might be construed as a sign of weakness. They fear creating a hole in this wall that their enemies will flood through, creating a new holocaust.

That said however, the ‘iron wall’ is flawed for too many reasons to state. There are only two outcomes of the Israeli-Palestinian problem. The first is death and misery, which I’m sure you’ll agree no one wants. The second is that Palestinians are given the ‘right of return’, even if only as a symbolical gesture, and that two states are created on the pre-1967 border with Jerusalem acting as a joint Capital guarded and enforced by UN Peacekeeping troops and also a UN police force. This solution will be incredibly difficult; it will require huge funds being invested into the new states to ensure that they are a success; and it will require a great deal of international pressure, perhaps even outright force to ensure. But that is the way forward.

At the end of the day Rompuy will not be an asset to the EU, he will be an asset to the leaders of other nations i.e. he will provide little vision or ideas. He will simply chair meetings, ensure everyone is heard and then suggest a compromise.

The Lisbon Treaty was said to be an answer to Kissinger’s question “If I want to call Europe who do I call?” These people do not answer this call. In fact if they walked into a room with Hu Jintao and Barrack Obama I think few people would know who they were. The press would certainly pay them little attenion. In sum, they provide no strength to Europe on the global level, and little vision inside Europe.

“Plagiarism is the deliberate attempt to deceive the reader through the appropriation and representation as one’s own the work and words of others. Academic plagiarism occurs when a writer repeatedly uses more than four words from a printed source without the use of quotation marks and a precise reference to the original source in a work presented as the author’s own research and scholarship. Continuous paraphrasing without serious interaction with another person’s views, by way or argument or the addition of new material land insights, is a form of plagiarism in academic work.”
You can read more on it here if you like.

I think you missed the “pro-plagiarism” argument all together; it is not about having an original thought that had never existed before, but about being pro-knowledge/pro-community. For example, Even though Thomas Edison is well known for creating the light bulb, he was actually not its inventor. The “light bulb” itself had been around for some time; Thomas only invented the first practical light bulb. If Thomas Jefferson was not required to list every person who ever added to the light bulb, why should society care if I like your idea, but want to change it a bit to make it my own? Sure corporations may get a hold of your idea and use it in their next commercial, but you should be entitled to the same rights. The idea is that you can also take from the corporation, it’s a communal thing.

It was an act of war. Are you saying the Holocoast was a terrorist attack too? Because if that’s the case, the death toll was a lot higher than the atom bombs.

Countless lives were save and America remains free today, even though it is constantly attacked, because those bombs were dropped.

Was there another way? I would like to think so.