OP-ED COLUMNIST Sticking Up for Rumsfeld By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Published: May 22, 2004 onald Rumsfeld has presided over the most foolish conflict since the War of Jenkins' Ear in the 18th century, and he is at the top of a military force that tortured prisoners. So Washington is humming with widespread calls, including one from this newspaper, for him to be fired. But those demands strike me as unfair and premature. Frankly, I'm astonished to be speaking up for Mr. Rumsfeld. But fairness must govern our handling of American defense secretaries as well as Iraqi prisoners. The central point is that we have no proof that Mr. Rumsfeld bears direct responsibility for the torture. So far the evidence is mixed about whether there was a policy of abusing prisoners to get intelligence. It's troubling that there was similar misconduct in Afghanistan, and that some of the techniques reflect expertise in torture. On the other hand, interviews with inmates and guards alike have suggested that most of the really horrifying abuses may have been limited to the night shift at one cellblock of one particular prison. The latest revelations from The Washington Post are horrifying; guards threw inmates' food into toilets and tortured them into renouncing their religion. So we need a thorough investigation. If Mr. Rumsfeld turns out to be complicit, he must go. But if, as Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba has said in his report (deservedly praised as tough and unsparing), the problems were at much lower levels, then why make a scapegoat of the defense secretary? It's true that the torture arose in a climate of administration contempt for the Geneva Conventions, particularly reflected in those shameful Justice Department memos outlining loopholes so the U.S. could evade responsibility for war crimes. But this disregard for ethics and law arose mostly from the White House and the Justice Department. The better argument for Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster is that he led us, poorly prepared and clutching the hands of a charlatan, Ahmad Chalabi, into a quagmire. His doctrine of underwhelming force hobbled our occupation and is partly responsible for the mess. According to a poll cited in The Financial Times, 58 percent of Iraqis now support Moktada al-Sadr, one of our enemies. But remember: this is not Mr. Rumsfeld's war. It is President Bush's. Mr. Rumsfeld is not a neo-conservative hawk. He is an old-fashioned conservative, a realist like the first President Bush, and he did not particularly press for war with Iraq. The real culprits are the neo-con ideologues who screamed for war: people like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby and the current President Bush himself. Mr. Rumsfeld did not display the wisdom of Colin Powell, who pushed back against Mr. Bush in the run-up to war. But neither was he a jingoist. According to Bob Woodward's new book, Mr. Rumsfeld spent meetings asking questions rather than taking positions. So why fire Mr. Rumsfeld for carrying out his boss's invasion? True, he has managed it poorly, and there's an argument for firing Mr. Rumsfeld for incompetence. But how do we justify retaining Mr. Cheney, who bears central responsibility for everything that has gone wrong, and George Tenet, who managed both to miss the 9/11 plot and to "find" slam-dunk evidence of Iraqi W.M.D.? Indeed, under the neo-cons the war would have been even more mishandled. Mr. Wolfowitz believed that a small number of troops could seize Iraq's southern oil fields and that Saddam's regime would then fall. What would firing Mr. Rumsfeld achieve? In its favor, it would send a message to the world that we are as appalled by our own war crimes as by Saddam's. But it would also leave a vacuum. The people immediately below Mr. Rumsfeld — Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Feith — are more culpable and would need to follow him out the door. Emptying the top three jobs in the Pentagon would be a nice gesture of accountability, but would also lead to paralysis and more Americans coming home in body bags. So until proof emerges that Mr. Rumsfeld was directly connected to the torture, it would be unfair to single him out. That's why only 20 percent of Americans say in an ABC poll that Mr. Rumsfeld should lose his job. Even Democrats oppose firing Mr. Rumsfeld by a ratio of two to one. The person who charted the course into Iraq and who bears ultimate responsibility is not Mr. Rumsfeld but Mr. Bush — and his bosses will get a chance to fire him in November.  source...

//-->

www.sfgate.com        Return to regular view

Washington -- House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco rejected Republican demands Thursday that she apologize for her strong condemnation of President Bush, as raw nerves over Iraq collided with raw politics on Capitol Hill.

Republican leaders accused Pelosi of taunting the troops, inspiring the enemy and putting American lives at risk by telling The Chronicle on Wednesday that Bush is an "incompetent leader'' who lacks the judgment, experience or knowledge to make good decisions.

Pelosi stood her ground, telling reporters that "the emperor has no clothes." With the violence in Iraq threatening to overshadow all other issues in the coming election season, each party claimed to possess the moral high ground in setting the rules for debate.

"She apparently is so caught up in the partisan hatred for President Bush that her words are putting American lives at risk,'' said House Majority leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. "This nation cannot afford the luxury of her dangerous rhetoric.''

Countered one Democratic leader: "Frankly, that's McCarthyism.''

The sharp response to Pelosi's words reflected the passion and political stakes over the situation in Iraq and came as Bush made a rare visit to the Capitol to rally Republicans. GOP lawmakers, who just this week had been fighting among themselves over how to proceed in Iraq, emerged from the closed- door meeting expressing optimism, though it appeared that Pelosi's comments might have done as much to bring Republicans together as Bush's visit.

The Speaker of the House, the Republican National Committee and the Bush- Cheney re-election committee, among others, issued statements excoriating Pelosi for both the tone and the substance of her remarks in The Chronicle. By evening, the Republican Party distributed an 11-page critique of Pelosi's liberal record as a member of Congress titled, "Totally San Fran: 17 years of San Francisco Liberalism.''

Pelosi told reporters, "The time has come to speak very frankly about the lack of leadership in the White House.

"So the emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality? Pull the curtain back.''

At the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said, "I don't think that such comments are worth dignifying with any response from this podium.''

But across the Potomac at Bush-Cheney re-election headquarters, campaign chair Marc Racicot said the comments were "a reprehensible attempt to blame America for the action of terrorists and represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the war on terror.''

Apparently sensing that the tone of her remarks will turn off many voters, Racicot called on John Kerry, the party's presumptive presidential nominee, to renounce them, even as he said that Kerry had already "come dangerously close'' to advocating the "blame-America-first'' attitude that he said marked Pelosi's comments.

Kerry said in an interview with La Opinion, a Spanish language newspaper, that Pelosi had the right to speak her own opinion, but he did not say whether he shared her assessments of Bush's lack of leadership ability.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said Pelosi "has the right to disagree with President Bush.''

"But her comments questioning the president's competence cross the line, '' Hastert said. "Was it incompetence that put Saddam Hussein in jail? Was it incompetence that disbanded the Taliban? Was it incompetence that spurred the fastest economic growth rate in 20 years? Was it incompetence that created the highest home ownership rate in history?''

Rep. Tom Reynolds, the chair of the House Republicans re-election committee, said, "If Nancy Pelosi has nothing to offer our troops, who are living and dying thousands of miles away, besides taunting them by saying they are dying needlessly and are risking their lives on a shallow mission, then she should go back to her pastel-colored condo in San Francisco and keep her views to herself.''

Pelosi lives in a red brick home in Pacific Heights.

Pelosi told reporters at her weekly news conference that it was Bush's "activities, his decisions, the results of his actions (that) undermines his leadership, not my statements. My statements are just a statement of fact.

"Understand that when our kids are in harm's way, we are united -- it is one team, one fight. But they cannot say that anybody who criticizes their failures to be not supportive of our troops. It is the very support of the troops that provokes the candor that we must have about what's happening with this war, the cost in lives ... the cost in dollars to the taxpayer, and the cost in reputation to our country.''

No Democrat offered a public challenge to Pelosi's comments, which were the strongest yet by a Democratic leader.

"In fact, what she said is what many people are thinking,'' said Rep. Robert Matsui, D-Sacramento, who heads the House Democrats campaign committee. "I think many Democrats want our leaders to speak out on these issues.''

Matsui echoed Pelosi's critique of Bush, calling developments in Iraq a sign of the president's "either being clueless, or being incompetent.''

As for the charge that such criticisms are inappropriate during a time of war, Matsui said: "Frankly, that's McCarthyism.''

E-mail Marc Sandalow at msandalow@sfchronicle.com.

Page A - 18
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/21/MNG5F6PP2A1.DTL

Name:	Black Sands
To:	Nancy Pelosi
Re:	From a doctor friend of mine to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

Message:
Dear Nancy,

(Presumptuous, and probably crude of me to address you on a first name basis, but I’m a long time Marina constituent and met you once at a KTVU Christmas party in the Swig suite at the Fairmont. Somehow, this letter wouldn’t feel right addressed to Congresswoman P, or Minority Leader P, or Mrs. P. Just a way of saying I feel safe doing it this way, because that’s the feeling of warmth you’ve created for your SF constituents. Forgive me.)

To the point:

I am so profoundly disturbed by President Bush and his administration, that I literally fear the destruction of America (if not already a fait accompli) at a wide range of levels. This fear pre-occupies my attention for hours on end each day. I cringe at each death in Iraq, American or foreign. I truly believe these soldiers of conscience have been sent to the slaughter in vain; only to satisfy the personal desires of a literal madman. Most of them have been deluded into believing that their cause is just by the patently dishonest justification(s) of their Commander-in-Chief and his administration. As an American, whose father served on the shores of Normandy during D-Day, I find all of this grossly immoral, if not criminal (in the sense of Nuremburg). I never thought this possible, but I am currently embarrassed to be identified as an American.

I am a licensed psychiatrist. If someone came into my office and told me he was wielding the mightiest of military powers, because “I deeply believe, and know I am right, and that I confirmed it, not from my predecessor in these matters—my father, rather I confirmed it by communicating with a “higher” father, and in spite of all the bad news coming out of Iraq, I have complete faith that we’re on the right track,” I would be forced by professional ethics to consider hospitalization, serious medication, and long-term psychotherapy. I could elaborate at length, however, my point is this: I strongly believe the lunatics are running the asylum.

As you know, I could go on—the destruction of the environment, the massive job loss, the economy, the paranoid need for secrecy, the coddling of criminals (Who outed Plame?), the total loss of prestige and credibility in the world community (which quietly treats our President with head-shaking, tittering derision), the huge deficit, the inability to be contrite—let alone admit mistakes, lying to the United States Congress about the actual cost of the new Medicare Prescription Drug Program, the blatantly personal profiteering from being in control of the government and the national treasury, the blatant use of totally untruthful strategies for staying in power, the madness…….

They succeeded in impeaching Bill Clinton for a whole lot less. (“Nobody died when Clinton lied.”)

Everything in my gut, as a dedicated and deeply patriotic American citizen, as a trying-to-be-moral human being, as a psychiatrist, and as a pragmatist, fearing that the US is about to be destroyed, whether by “terrorists” or from the very core of the engine that powers it, I think that George W. Bush ought to be impeached by the US Congress, and I think that it should happen now, before the damage continues to the frightening inevitable.

(At last ) My question is, “On what grounds could this president be legitimately charged with High Crimes and Misdemeanors, justifying impeachment proceedings by the House?

If there are no such grounds, technically, wouldn’t you say the system is kind of flawed, given the Clinton impeachment?

I realize the impracticality of my proposal, right here, right now, at the near peak of the election campaign, wherein every debatable issue is tainted with politics, especially when there are only 6 months to go. But given the way events are currently unfolding, it seems that nearly every scenario involving this administration running the war and running internal affairs ends in disaster.

Those of us who are paying attention and who are thoughtful can clearly see the madness in operation. Our Constitution gives us the mechanism to prevent the takeover of government by zealous ideologues. I see what’s happening; you see what’s happening; the bulk of the world sees what’s happening (“the whole world hears ya”)—and 50% of the American people are blind to what’s happening. There’s something profoundly wrong here. I know in my gut, millions of thinking Americans know in their guts, honest legislators know in their guts, and I know that my congressional representative knows in her gut, that this current government is in violation of the Constitution and it’s spirit. It’s abundantly clear from so many objective sources that the lunatics are running the asylum and the lunatics are attempting to run the world. Surely we are being blindly ruled by madness and in the eyes of the people within Karl Rove’s purview, the emperor does have clothes.

Everything in my gut, personal and professional, tells me that the World and the United States might be saved from destruction and chaotic madness if George W. Bush were removed from office—although I fear that the current damage might have destroyed everything. We’ve ever strived for, stood for, or have achieved a highly elevated moral status as a country, as an example, and as a righteous philosophy.

I’m not making direct comparisons here, but I wish someone had had the foresight to confront Hitler when, in their guts, they knew that there was accumulative badness, before it was too late.

This president, for innumerable reasons, ought to be impeached. Thinking people—observant people—know that. And I know that my Representative knows that. The ideologue (I say madman) leading us today is a disaster to our country and the world. The sane and the righteous of our citizenry have the power and the means to right this horrible series of wrongs (if it is not too late). Let’s display the courage of our convictions and the guts to use the powers we are endowed with by the Constitution. Let’s get rid of this madman—this criminal liar—before he destroys us and the world order.

Help me, my Representative. Why can’t it happen before it’s too late to prevent the destruction of America as we know it? Is there a legal reason and a process by which we can impeach the current president?

****** *. ********, M.D.

Name:

Scotty

Message:
Gail Sutherland of Artists & Original Oil Paintings Online Gail Sutherland is a famous artist from Artists & Original Oil Paintings Online. Gail Sutherland works in watercolor and artwork is in the art category Watercolors ... Commissioning Art Projects. Gail Sutherland. View Gail Sutherland's Gallery ... www.ucanbuyart.net/gail_sutherland.html

Name:	Harry Scott
To:	Go Hillary

Message:

Name:	Pinko Legion For Change
To:	Littlepeople
Re:	Yer wantin' a cob up your rears...

In response to:
... We mean to see that you get it!

Message:
Thousands of ACT canvassers are at work right now telling the truth about Republican policies. They’re mobilizing Americans to vote for Change on November 2nd.

The clock is ticking on George Bush, Cheney and Republicans everywhere. We are going to round up all the Whitemen and send them to Gitmo. Americans are waking up and realizing the truth about Republican policies. With your help, ACT will knock on the front doors of 10 million homes in the 17 swing states that will decide our future.

We are the largest voter mobilization effort in American history and we need your help. Join us, support ACT and get involved in our historic effort. Together, we’ll elect responsible Democratic leadership to federal, state and local governments.

The clock is ticking…what are you doing to win in 2004? ACT now

Name:	American
To:	Crackpots ACTING UP for Socialism
Re:	U.S. Constitution

In response to:
With your help, ACT will knock on the front doors of 10 million homes in the 17 swing states that will decide our future.

Message:
Fools! This is NOT a democracy! Seventeen states will NOT decide our future! !

Name:	Mr. UK America
To:	Hi cupid

Message:
Hi cupid, congrats! Feels good using that poker knowing YOU made it, doesn't it? Making your own tools is one of the greatest pleasures of smithing. Tiny projects like hooks and staples and such are great practice and you can always find a use for them. Chain links are good too when you start working on your forge welds. Be sure to test a few to make sure you’re doing good welds. Just put a completed link in the vice and run a bar through it. Twist until the link breaks. If the material gives way before the weld you've got it!

If you've got questions, go ahead and post them here. I'm sure there's someone who can answer them! There's also a few other places to go as well. ABANA runs a listserve called TheForge. Go to their web site at WWW.ABANA.ORG to get info on subscribing. Jock Dempsy who has answered many questions here has his own page now at WWW.ANVILFIRE.COM. He's always happy to help. Hit the links page at all these sites. The resources are out there, use them all!

If you’re in the UK, did you know there's a British Artists Blacksmiths Association? Their web page is WWW.BABA.ORG.UK. Join if you can! Membership in organizations like BABA and ABANA will more than pay for themselves with educational opportunities and the contacts you will make. You'll probably discover there is a practicing smith near you who will be happy to help!

Best of luck and keep hammering!

Name:	Me Guy
To:	You Guy on all fours

Message:
Use the examples and the formula for the Chi-Square One-Sample Test found in the Madsen/Moore workbook to calculate Chi-Square for the following:

N = 100 high school choral teachers

Question: From which period of music do you prefer to select your choral literature?

Null Hypothesis: There will be no significant difference between the observed and expected preferences of high school choral teachers selecting Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, and Contemporary periods for choral literature.

Name:	Control
To:	Mr. UK
Re:	Class 1 Biospheric Violation. Classification: Aggravated.

In response to:
Best of luck and keep hammering!

Message:
Put that damned fire out at once! You are polluting our atmospheric commons! I have informed the authorities, and the officers will be in contact with you later in the day. Remain at your residence until you are contacted.

Name:	Mother Jones
To:	Smarty Scotty
Re:	The Battle of Ardis Lane

In response to:
A converging storm of iron slammed into the batteries from front and flank. Wheels were smashed, men knocked down, horses sent screaming; to stay in the field was to sacrifice units needlessly. Accordingly, General Butterfield sounded the bugle, and we retired to Starbuck's for coffee and ice cream. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Message:
You are going to get a very brisk spanking, Scotty. We have very bad reports concerning you on file. Your orientation is not actionable, per se; but your actions are.

Name:	Dunkelman
To:	Can you hekp me?
Re:	54mm Napolianic

Message:
Thinking of taking up the game and was looking for information and opinions on which company makes the best figures .I have painted many figures in the past but gave it up when the toddlers thought they were cute.

Name:	You are MADE!
To:	Black Sands

In response to:
Liar!Help me, my Representative. Why can’t it happen before it’s too late to prevent the destruction of America as we know it? Is there a legal reason and a process by which we can impeach the current president? ****** *. ********, M.D. LIAR!

Message:
You vomitous LIAR!

Name:	kill Piccolo
To:	"cry-baby"raditzu's

In response to:
to get a very brisk spanking, Scotty. We have very bad reports concerning you on file. Your orientation is not actionable, per se; but your actions are.

Message:
Gokou and Gohan(Gokou's son), are on their way to Master Roshi's for a reunion. As they go there they reminisce about past times and it switches to Piccolo on a ledge. A man comes by while Piccolo is training. He is Raditzu, and he is Gokou's brother. He has come to check on Gokou nad is angry that Kakarotto, Gokou's saiyan name, has not finished what he had been sent to do. Exterminate all lifeforms on the planet Earth. Piccolo is angry and gets ready to fightr raditzu, who is at about 1000 more levels higher than he is. Tehn raditzu is aboout to kill Piccolo, but senses Gokou somewhere else. He arrives at Master roshi's island where he recognizes Gokou. He tells gokou that he is a saiyan, nad his mission is to destroy all life on the planets he is sent ot and sell them to Planet Brokers. Gokou tells Raditzu that he is an earthling, and then Raditzu notices Gokou does not have a tail. this ticks Raditzu off that a saiyan would give up their transforming power to live on such a weak planet. He takes Gohasn and Gohan sries since he's ,only 4 yrs. old. He warns Gokou that if he dosen't exterminate 100 earthlings by tommorow he would ever give Gohan back. He flies away to a barren area where he landed and killed a farmer, and shuts the "cry-baby"raditzu's name for Gohan into his space pod.

Back at Master roshi's Gokou is going to go fight Raditzu. Piccolo then arrives saying he heard everything and doaen't want Raditzu interfereing with HIS plans. SO they agree on the treaty nad head to where they sense Raditzu. Raditzu, meanwhile can't understand why his Scouter(A communicater and power-level reader ) is reading Gohan's power level at 710!! Then he senses something else. A power level of 310 and one of 330. It's Piccolo and Gokou! They arrive and Raditzu warns them that his power level is 1200 nad that he will exterminate them easily. Then Piccolo and Gokou take off their extra weighted clothing that brings Piccolo's PL up to 440 and Gokou's up to 510!! Then Gokou and Raditzu start bickering. Piccolo notices this is a trick to get Gokou mad. Raditzu teleports behind them both and elbows them in the head. They get up and charge Raditzu. He blocks every singlke punch or kick that they throw. Gokou jumps back for a rest. He asks where Gohan is. Raditzu replies'The little brat is in my pod." Raditzu then takes tyhem both by surprise, fliews up in the air and launches a Double Hands Beam at both of them. Gokou manages to dodge it but Piccolo dosen't. His left arm gets caught in the blast and is incinerated. Piccolo says their only last hope is Piccolo's special attack he's been working on to kill Gokou. He'll need 5 minutes so gokou raises his power level to 924 and flies up to do his famous Kamehameha Wave. As he launches it, raditzu smiles, sticks a hand in front of him, and erases the whole attack before it hits hiom with a Beam of his own. He yells SHIRE (DIE in japanese) and hits Gokou on a bullseye. gokou drops, limpless. Then Raditzu notices he forgot someone. Good old piccolo! Piccolo's PL is at exactly 1330!!! Raditzu is nervous, and then Piccolo lets it ri with a big smirk on his face. He pulls out his remaining arm and yells "Makkankosappo!"(It's easy to pronounce:Mack-can-coh-sap-po) Which means Screw Beam of the Devil. A giagantic explosion occurs and Raditzu's armor is all scorched and cracks. He's REEL mad. He tells Piccolo to say his prayers, when suddenly, Gokou grabs Raditzu's tail!! If you didn't konw, that is a saiyan's only weakness. Anyway, Piccolo tells Gokou to hold him for another 5 minutes while he powers up for another Makkankosappo. raditzu, as tricky as he is, pleads to Gokou that he will leave and never come back if Gokou lets go of his tail. Yeah, and s can fly. WAit-they can. Oops...well, Piccolo is on to Raditzu's scheme and knows how gullible Gokou is. He yells, "SON GOKOU, NOO!"

Name:	Arch Enema
To:	Black Liar

In response to:
Merci MOI!!

Message:
I am a licensed psychiatrist. If someone came into my office and told me he was wielding the mightiest of military powers, because “I deeply believe, and know I am right, and that I confirmed it, not from my predecessor in these matters—my father, rather I confirmed it by communicating with a “higher” father, and in spite of all the bad news coming out of Iraq, I have complete faith that we’re on the right track,” I would be forced by professional ethics to consider hospitalization, serious medication, and long-term psychotherapy. I could elaborate at length, however, my point is this: I strongly believe the lunatics are running the asylum. As you know, I could go on—the destruction of the environment, the massive job loss, the economy, the paranoid need for secrecy, the coddling of criminals (Who outed Plame?), the total loss of prestige and credibility in the world community (which quietly treats our President with head-shaking, tittering derision), the huge deficit, the inability to be contrite—let alone admit mistakes, lying to the United States Congress about the actual cost of the new Medicare Prescription Drug Program, the blatantly personal profiteering from being in control of the government and the national treasury, the blatant use of totally untruthful strategies for staying in power, the madness……. They succeeded in impeaching Bill Clinton for a whole lot less. (“Nobody died when Clinton lied.”) Everything in my gut, as a dedicated and deeply patriotic American citizen, as a trying-to-be-moral human being, as a psychiatrist, and as a pragmatist, fearing that the US is about to be destroyed, whether by “terrorists” or from the very core of the engine that Everything in my gut, personal and professional, tells me that the World and the United States might be saved from destruction and chaotic madness if George W. Bush were removed from office—although I fear that the current damage might have destroyed everything. We’ve ever strived for, stood for, or have achieved a highly elevated moral status as a country, as an example, and as a righteous philosophy. I’m not making direct comparisons here, but I wish someone had had the foresight to confront Hitler when, in their guts, they knew that there was accumulative badness, before it was too late. This president, for innumerable reasons, ought to be impeached. Thinking people—observant people—know that. And I know that my Representative knows that. The ideologue (I say madman) leading us today is a disaster to our country and the world. The sane and the righteous of our citizenry have the power and the means to right this horrible series of wrongs (if it is not too late). Let’s display the courage of our convictions and the guts to use the powers we are endowed with by the Constitution. Let’s get rid of this madman—this criminal liar—before he destroys us and the world order. Help me, my Representative. Why can’t it happen before it’s too late to prevent the destruction of America as we know it? Is there a legal reason and a process by which we can impeach the current president? ****** *. ********, M.D. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name:	Ventura County, CA
To:	you
Re:	This nutcase has no business being law enforcement

In response to:
You are really in trouble now. Do not under any circumstance attempt an unauthorized disposal of the lead figurines. Such an act will only complicate your difficulties, Scotty. You are in very serious trouble now.

Message:
There are a number of valid reasons why the insane should not be part of the law enforcement hired to maintain and enforce our laws. Not the least of which is the problems associated with the insane having immediate access to firearms and police records.

When people as uneducated and superstitious as you talk about invisible aliens or Wonder Woman plotting to take over the world, they're quietly discharged as honorably as possible, being recognized as holding the potential for public harm. When they spout off popular superstitions, however, their insanity is unfortunately granted acceptance by those who are just as insane as you.

The worse historic evidence that such nuts shouldn't be involved in any way with law enforcement is the last "Satanic Panic" which included the McMartin Preschool fiasco, the Northern California "Satanists" witch hunts, and the Florida witch hunts of which Janet Reno played a huge part.

Name:

Jack Horn

Message:
These occult religious superstitions held by the law enforcement people who believed "Satanists" were trying to take over the world and were rapeing and eating babies (most of these fine Christians demand that there are at minimum 300,000 babies eaten by "Satanists" every year in the United States) caused irrepairable harm.

Janet Reno believes these SRA stories (and denies utterly all scientific evaluations proving FMS) and was utterly convinced that the Branch Davidians would be the first group of "Satanists" uncovered which would prove to the world her religious occult beliefs. She did related inhuman acts against innocent parents, teachers, and religious leaders in Florida before becoming AG.

When finding no evidence for any of her occult beliefs, she wasn't in the least bit discouraged, of course. "Satanists" are rather slipery having supernatural powers, you see.

Lastly, we have a number of police detectives which travel the country feeding the ignorant population's fear of "Satanists" among their children. These nuts give lectures, promote freakishly disjointed religious books which advocate unevidenced claims and allegations (many of which are made against individuals who have been found to be entirely innocent (such as the McMartins)) and sow and sell fear and unhealthy uncritical hatred of non-Christians among the populace. (I dislike bringing up Nazi Germany but the brown shirts fomented exactly the same hatred and fear of non-Germans with particular interest to what they termed "the traditional enemy.")

It's not just a question of allowing the insane their delusions; it's allowing them to adversely impact the health and safety of the innocent populace which is at issue when nuts like Dain mouth off their rants. If they weren't in positions to do harm, they should be allowed to rant and scream about invisible demons and c. Otherwise they should be relieved of duty and, depending upon the prognosis of their problems, treated or left untreated.)

Name:

Devo

In response to:
That's MY job, kid.

Message:

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the HRC

Name:

Individual

In response to:
IRAMADI, Iraq - A videotape obtained Sunday by Associated Press Television News captures a wedding party that survivors say was later attacked by U.S. planes early Wednesday, killing up to 45 people.

There was no evidence of a wedding: no decorations, no musical instruments found, no large quantities of food or leftover servings one would expect from a wedding celebration," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Saturday. "There may have been some kind of celebration. Bad people have celebrations, too." But video that APTN shot a day after the attack shows fragments of musical instruments, pots and p ...

Message:
It sounds like cover-up city over there. If it is true that Kimmit is trying to cover-up the screw-up, both he and Rumsfeld should go, forthwith.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
Use the examples and the formula for the Chi-Square One-Sample Test found in the Madsen/Moore workbook to calculate Chi-Square for the following:

Message:
I don't see any expected value. How can you run a Chi-Square without an expected value?

Name:

W04

Message:

Issues & Insights

Monday, May 24, 2004

Ex-Navy Officer Pokes Holes In Kerry's Vietnam Resume

Assuming that doesn't happen and he's nominated I don't believe his candidacy can survive the actual truth of what he did in the '70s.

Related Resources:

Return to top of page

Name:

Scroll Mouse

In response to:
"...It sounds like cover-up city over there. If it is true that Kimmit is trying to cover-up the screw-up, both he and Rumsfeld should go, forthwith...."

Message:
Wow… Surprise, surprise. Individual takes the side of the enemy (again)

I am shocked!!!!

Name:	curley
To:	moe

Message:
why certainly... nyuk, nyuk, nyuk

Name:

Rob from NY

Message:
East Aurora rawks.

Name:	Johnny Kayak
To:	Individual
Re:	Taming the wild Northlands

In response to:
I don't see any expected value. How can you run a Chi-Square without an expected value?

Message:
Use plenty of KY, relax, and go for it!

Name:

Geoff

In response to:
"...It sounds like cover-up city over there. If it is true that Kimmit is trying to cover-up the screw-up, both he and Rumsfeld should go, forthwith...."

Message:
If it's true that Individual is Ann Lewis, it would surprise no one.

Name:	Wally Beavers
To:	Highbottom Strutters
Re:	Paycheck grabbing & power-tripping for all you're worth.

In response to:
We're better than you. We're Liberals.

Message:
Individual is a political tapeworm worm eating out the Donkey's guts.

Name:	RadicLibSpeek
To:	unsuspecting persyns

Message:

News Sports Business Entertainment Multimedia Marketplace NY Newsday.com

Hofstra Graduation

Author booed for anti-Bush remarks

Name:	Johny Kayak
To:	Individual
Re:	Mass Quantities of Gassy BS

In response to:
I don't see any expected value. How can you run a Chi-Square without an expected value?

TRANSLATION: ***INDIVIDUAL EXPECTS OR DESIRES TO SEE A PARTICULAR OUTCOME AND WILL MANIPULATE DATA, SAMPLES, METHODOLOGY, ET CETERA, AS NECESSARY TO SPURRIOUSLY OBTAIN THAT PARTICULAR OUTCOME.****

Message:
As mentioned before, chi square is a nonparametric test. It does not require the sample data to be more or less normally distributed (as parametric tests like t-tests do), although it relies on the assumption that the variable is normally distributed in the population from which the sample is drawn.

But chi square, while forgiving, does have some requirements:

The sample must be randomly drawn from the population.

Data must be reported in raw frequencies (not percentages);

Measured variables must be independent;

Values/categories on independent and dependent variables must be mutually exclusive and exhaustive;

Observed frequencies cannot be too small.

1) As with any test of statistical significance, your data must be from a random sample of the population to which you wish to generalize your claims.

2) You should only use chi square when your data are in the form of raw frequency counts of things in two or more mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories. As discussed above, converting raw frequencies into percentages standardizes cell frequencies as if there were 100 subjects/observations in each category of the independent variable for comparability. Part of the chi square mathematical procedure accomplishes this standardizing, so computing the chi square of percentages would amount to standardizing an already standardized measurement.

3) Any observation must fall into only one category or value on each variable. In our footwear example, our data are counts of male versus female undergraduates expressing a preference for five different categories of footwear. Each observation/subject is counted only once, as either male or female (an exhaustive typology of biological sex) and as preferring sandals, sneakers, leather shoes, boots, or other kinds of footwear. For some variables, no 'other' category may be needed, but often 'other' ensures that the variable has been exhaustively categorized. (For some kinds of analysis, you may need to include an "uncodable" category.) In any case, you must include the results for the whole sample.

4) Furthermore, you should use chi square only when observations are independent: i.e., no category or response is dependent upon or influenced by another. (In linguistics, often this rule is fudged a bit. For example, if we have one dependent variable/column for linguistic feature X and another column for number of words spoken or written (where the rows correspond to individual speakers/texts or groups of speakers/texts which are being compared), there is clearly some relation between the frequency of feature X in a text and the number of words in a text, but it is a distant, not immediate dependency.)

Name:	David Korn
To:	individual
Re:	more stats for your pea-brain to disemble

Message:
Pew Survey Finds Moderates, Liberals Dominate News Outlets

Aya Kawano E & P Staff

Published: May 23, 2004 4:00 PM EST

NEW YORK Those convinced that liberals make up a disproportionate share of newsroom workers have long relied on Pew Research Center surveys to confirm this view, and they will not be disappointed by the results of Pew's latest study released today.

While most of the journalists, like many Americans, describe themselves as "moderate," a far higher number are "liberal" than in the general population.

At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.

This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative.

The survey of 547 media professionals, completed this spring, is part of an important study released today by The Project for Excellence in Journalism and The Committee of Concerned Journalists, which mainly concerns more general issues related to newsrooms (an E & P summary will appear Monday).

While it's important to remember that most journalists in this survey continue to call themselves moderate, the ranks of self-described liberals have grown in recent years, according to Pew. For example, since 1995, Pew found at national outlets that the liberal segment has climbed from 22% to 34% while conservatives have only inched up from 5% to 7%.

The survey also revealed what some are sure to label a "values" gap. According to Pew, about 60% of the general public believes it is necessary to believe in God to be a truly moral person. The new survey finds that less than 15% of those who work at news outlets believe that. About half the general public believes homosexuality should be accepted by society -- but about 80% of journalists feel that way.

When the question of which news organizations actually tilted left or right, there was one clear candidate: Fox News. Fully 69% of national journalists, and 42% of those at the local level, called Fox News "especially conservative." Next up was The New York Times, which about one in five labeled "especially liberal."

Not surprisingly, views of how the press has treated President Bush break down along partisan lines. More than two out of three liberals feel the press has not been tough enough on Bush, while half the conservatives feel the media has been too tough.

Still, a little over half of national journalists (53%) give national media coverage of the administration an A or B rating.

While the sample of 547 interviewees is not large, Pew says that this selection represents "a cross-section of news organizations and of the people working at all levels of those organizations." Newspapers were identified and circulation ranked using the 2003 Editor & Publisher International Year Book.

In an essay accompanying the survey, the directors of the sponsoring groups -- Bill Kovach, Tom Rosenstiel and Amy Mitchell --declare that broad conclusions about the political findings should be tempered by analyzing some of the details in the findings. For example, they identify strong "libertarian" leanings among jouurnalists, including doubts about the role of "big government."

Name:

Caring Green

Message:

The Gaia Hypothesis

The last half of this century witnessed incredible leaps in our understanding of planet Earth. Beyond the technological achievements, these decades have produced a substantial body of evidence in support of a revolutionary hypothesis, first posed by Alfred Wegener in the early 1900s, that the continents move around the planet, like ice cubes in a glass. The theory of plate tectonics, as it is now known, embodies a century or more of scientific research, bringing together the efforts of oceanographers, geophysicists, climatologists, palenotologists and more. It represents to my mind what the scientific method is all about and provides an awesome example of how science works.

Another example of how science works is a revolutionary hypothesis first proposed by an atmospheric chemist the the late 70s. This hypothesis, known as the Gaia Hypothesis, states that the Earth is alive. While perhaps agreeable to many an artistic or spiritual soul, the very statement of the hypothesis rankled some scientists. Still, two decades later, the Gaia Hypothesis is still with us.

Whether the Gaia Hypothesis will stand the test of time is uncertain. But its impact on how we think of our planet, how we view the processes that create our atmosphere and climate and oceans and even the mountains is unmistakable.

I think you will find it fascinating. Herein is described one of the more controversial scientific hypotheses of our time, the Gaia Hypothesis.

What is Gaia?

The Gaia Hypothesis proposes that our planet functions as a single organism that maintains conditions necessary for its survival. Formulated by James Lovelock in the mid-1960s and published in a book in 1979, this controversial idea has spawned several interesting ideas and many new areas of research. While this hypothesis is by no means substantiated, it provides many useful lessons about the interaction of physical, chemical, geological, and biological processes on Earth. Thus, it is a good starting point for our study of oceanography, providing a broad overview of the kinds of processes that will interest us throughout the semester.

Throughout history, the concept of Mother Earth has been a part of human culture in one form or another. Everybody has heard of Mother Earth, but have you ever stopped to think who (or what) Mother Earth is? Consider these explanations.

The Hopi name for Mother Earth is Tapuat (meaning mother and child), symbolized by a form of concentric circles or squares, as shown below. These forms symbolize the cycle of life, the rebirth of the spirit, its earthly path, and, possibly, its return to the spiritual domain. The lines and passages within the "maze" represent the universal plan of the Creator and the path that man must follow to seek enlightenment.

A more imposing definition of Mother Earth might be found in the Hindu goddess Kali. She is the Cosmic Power, representing all of the good and all of the bad in the Universe, combining the absolute power of destruction with the precious motherly gift of creation. It is said that Kali creates, preserves, destroys. Also known as the Black One, her name means "The Ferry across the Ocean of Existence."

The ancient Greeks called their Earth goddess Ge or Gaia. Gaia embodies the idea of a Mother Earth, the source of the living and non-living entities that make up the Earth. Like Kali, Gaia was gentle, feminine and nurturing, but also ruthlessly cruel to any who crossed her. Note that the prefix "ge" in the words geology and geography is taken from the Greek root for Earth.

James Lovelock has taken the idea of Mother Earth one step further and given it a modern scientific twist. (Are our modern Mother Earth "hypotheses" any more refined than ancient Mother Earth myths?). Lovelock defines Gaia "as a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet." Through Gaia, the Earth sustains a kind of homeostasis, the maintenance of relatively constant conditions.

The truly startling component of the Gaia hypothesis is the idea that the Earth is a single living entity. This idea is certainly not new. James Hutton (1726-1797), the father of geology, once described the Earth as a kind of superorganism. And right before Lovelock, Lewis Thomas, a medical doctor and skilled writer, penned these words in his famous collection of essays, The Lives of a Cell:

Viewed from the distance of the moon, the astonishing thing about the earth, catching the breath, is that it is alive. The photographs show the dry, pounded surface of the moon in the foreground, dry as an old bone. Aloft, floating free beneath the moist, gleaming, membrane of bright blue sky, is the rising earth, the only exuberant thing in this part of the cosmos. If you could look long enough, you would see the swirling of the great drifts of white cloud, covering and uncovering the half-hidden masses of land. If you had been looking for a very long, geologic time, you could have seen the continents themselves in motion, drifting apart on their crustal plates, held afloat by the fire beneath. It has the organized, self-contained look of a live creature, full of information, marvelously skilled in handling the sun.

Thomas goes even one step further when he writes: "I have been trying to think of the earth as a kind of organism, but it is a no go...it is most like a single cell."

Whether the Earth is a cell, an organism, or a superorganism is largely a matter of semantics, and a topic that I will leave to the more philosophically minded. The key point here is the hypothesis that the Earth acts as a single system - it is a coherent, self-regulated, assemblage of physical, chemical, geological, and biological forces that interact to maintain a unified whole balanced between the input of energy from the sun and the thermal sink of energy into space.

In its most basic configuration, the Earth acts to regulate flows of energy and recycling of materials. The input of energy from the sun occurs at a constant rate and for all practical purposes is unlimited. This energy is captured by the Earth as heat or photosynthetic processes, and returned to space as long-wave radiation. On the other hand, the mass of the Earth, its material possessions, are limited (except for the occasional input of mass provided as meteors strike the planet). Thus, while energy flows through the Earth (sun to Earth to space), matter cycles within the Earth.

The idea of the Earth acting as a single system as put forth in the Gaia hypothesis has stimulated a new awareness of the connectedness of all things on our planet and the impact that man has on global processes. No longer can we think of separate components or parts of the Earth as distinct. No longer can we think of man's actions in one part of the planet as independent. Everything that happens on the planet - the deforestation/reforestation of trees, the increase/decrease of emissions of carbon dioxide, the removal or planting of croplands - all have an affect on our planet. The most difficult part of this idea is how to qualify these effects, i.e. to determine whether these effects are positive or negative. If the Earth is indeed self-regulating, then it will adjust to the impacts of man. However, as we will see, these adjustments may act to exclude man, much as the introduction of oxygen into the atmosphere by photosynthetic bacteria acted to exclude anaerobic bacteria. This is the crux of the Gaia hypothesis.

How Does Gaia Work?

James Lovelock, in collaboration with another eminent scientist, the microbiologist Lynn Margulis, first explained the Gaia hypothesis as such: "Life, or the biosphere, regulates or maintains the climate and the atmospheric composition at an optimum for itself." Inherent in this explanation is the idea that biosphere, the atmosphere, the lithosphere and the hydrosphere are in some kind of balance -- that they maintain a homeostatic condition. This homeostasis is much like the internal maintenance of our own bodies; processes within our body insure a constant temperature, blood pH, electrochemical balance, etc. The inner workings of Gaia, therefore, can be viewed as a study of the physiology of the Earth, where the oceans and rivers are the Earth's blood, the atmosphere is the Earth's lungs, the land is the Earth's bones, and the living organisms are the Earth's senses. Lovelock calls this the science of geophysiology - the physiology of the Earth (or any other planet).

Viewed from this angle, there are certain predictions and experiments that can be performed to refute or lend evidence to the Gaia hypothesis. In fact, it was the search for life on Mars that led to Lovelock's early ideas about the existence of Gaia. As part of a NASA team formed in 1965 to look for life on other planets, Lovelock was asked to propose hypotheses that would demonstrate whether life existed on a planet or not. One of these hypotheses was the idea that gases in an atmosphere on a "dead" planet would be in chemical equilibrium, that is, all the possible chemical reactions that could have happened would have happened and the gases of the atmosphere would be relatively inert. On the other hand, if life existed on the planet, gases in the atmosphere would not be in balance, and chemical reactions would be actively occurring.

VENUS	EARTH	MARS
N (<2%) CO2 (95%) No oxygen atmosphere in chemical equilibrium	N (77%), CO2( 0.03%) 21% Oxygen atmosphere not in chemical equilibrium	N (<3%) CO2 (95%) No oxygen atmosphere in chemical equilibrium

When they looked at the gaseous composition of Mars and Venus, they saw that the atmosphere was largely composed of the generally unreactive gas carbon dioxide. According to their hypothesis, both these planets would be dead. However, when they looked at Earth, they saw that the atmosphere was an unusual and unstable mixture of many gases. Thus, life was expected to be present on Earth (which we all know is true).

While perhaps not so dramatic, this example should give you some idea of how science works and how the Gaia hypothesis came into being (see handout). The fact that the gaseous composition of the Earth was not in chemical equilibrium, yet appeared to be maintained in a constant state, suggested some form of planetary regulation for the planet's atmosphere. Lovelock initially suggested that life itself maintained the composition of the atmosphere, but has broadened the concept to include the whole system of the climate, the rocks, the air, and the oceans as a self-regulating process.

To understand how the Earth might be living, let's take a look at what defines life. Physicists define life as a system of locally reduced entropy (life is the battle against entropy). Molecular biologists view life as replicating strands of DNA that compete for survival and evolve to optimize their survival in changing surroundings. Physiologists might view life as a biochemical system that us able to use energy from external sources to grow and reproduce. According to Lovelock, the geophysiologist sees life as a system open to the flux of matter and energy but that maintains an internal steady-state.

[updated 1999] Modern biology texts often provide the best descriptions of what defines like. Before you proceed, take a few moments to review the characteristics of living matter that I have summarized on a separate page. Read Characteristics of Living Matter here.

Redwood trees from the
National and State Parks
Electronic Visitor's Center

One useful analogy that has been proposed for understanding Gaia is the California redwood tree, Sequoia gigantea. These trees which stand in great groves along the northern coast of California and elsewhere can stand as high as 300 feet and weigh as much as 2000 tons. Some of them are more than 3000 years old.

Redwood trees are like Gaia because 97% of their tissues are dead. The wood of the trunk and the bark of the tree are dead. Only a small rim of cells along the periphery of the trunk is living. The trunk of the tree is similar to the Earth's lithosphere with a thin layer of living organisms spread across its surface. The bark, like the atmosphere, protects the living tissues, and allows for the exchange of biologically important gases, such as carbon dioxide and oxygen.

There is no doubt in my mind that a redwood tree is a living entity. Would you just call the outer layer the redwood tree and the rest of it dead wood? The same holds true for Gaia. While much of the Earth may be considered "non-living", the fact that all of these non-living parts are involved to some extent in living processes suggests that the whole Earth is alive, just like a redwood tree.

To better understand how the Earth functions physiologically, let's look at one example that has recently been proposed as evidence of Gaia. Let's compare mechanisms of temperature regulation in our bodies and on Earth.

All of us know that our body temperatures are maintained pretty close to 98.6 degrees F (37 degrees C). The maintenance of this body temperature is the result of feedbacks between the brain and various organs and systems of the body. Our bodies have developed different responses to increases or decreases in our core temperature. If it is too cold, our bodies produce heat by shivering; if it is too warm, our bodies sweat and remove heat through evaporation. Of course, humans have extended their ability to survive in extremes of temperatures by inventing clothing that insulates, heats, and even cools our bodies. Such clothing has allowed humans to explore the coldest waters of the polar oceans or the hottest regions of the world's deserts.

On Earth, temperature is regulated in a similar, albeit, more complicated fashion. We will examine how the sun warms the Earth in more detail in a later lecture, but for now we can gain some understanding by just considering the effects of the Earth's albedo. Albedo refers to the color of a planet and its ability to absorb or reflect light. Probably most of you have experienced the difference in temperature between a black asphalt street and a white sidewalk; the Earth's temperature regulation works in much the same way. Dark areas, such as mountains in summer, forests, or even the ocean, tend to absorb heat energy from the sun. Light areas, such as deserts, cloudy areas, or the polar ice caps tend to reflect the sun's energy away from the Earth.

As you can imagine, the albedo of the Earth is not constant. What kinds of changes occur over the Earth's surface that would affect the Earth's albedo?

One possible means by which global temperature is regulated is by clouds. If there are more clouds, more sunlight is reflected away from the earth, and the earth cools. If there are less clouds, more sunlight is able to reach the surface of the Earth and the earth warms. What factors control the abundance of clouds?

There are many factors that affect cloud cover over the planet. The interaction of the atmosphere with the ocean is one major factor. Think of how fog forms along the coast during early summer and you'll get the idea. Other factors, such as the rain shadow effect and weather fronts contribute to cloud cover over the planet.

Given that the oceans cover two-thirds of the Earth's surface, it stands to reason that anything that contributes to the formation of clouds over the ocean will have a major impact on the Earth's temperature. One such mechanism proposed in the last couple decades is the release of cloud-condensation nuclei (or CCN's) by marine phytoplankton, particularly coccolithophorids. Coccolithophorids are well-known for their beautiful calcareous skeletons that make up the White Cliffs of Dover in England.

Gephrocapsa sp, one of many species of
coccolithophorids living in the ocean

Clouds form when water vapor in the atmosphere condenses or freezes. However, for clouds to form, a particle or "nucleus" must be present to "gather up" the water into a droplet. These particles, called cloud-condensation nuclei, are the tiny particles in the atmosphere that lead to the formation of clouds. Water vapor condenses around these particles and clouds are formed.

One substance that can act as a CCN is dimethyl sulphide, or DMS. It has been known for quite some time that certain algae or phytoplankton (plant plankton that live in the ocean) release trace quantities of DMS. Production of DMS by phytoplankton may be sufficient to cause the formation of clouds, and recent research has been directed towards quantifying the amounts of DMS released into the atmosphere by organisms living in the sea.

Where this process becomes interesting for Gaia is the possibility that phytoplankton can control the temperature of the Earth by regulating the amount of cloud cover over the oceans. Imagine that! Phytoplankton, tiny single-celled plants in the sea, have their fingers on the Earth's thermostat! When the sun is shining brightly, phytoplankton grow rapidly (they're plants, remember?) and produce DMS, which leads to clouds. After a while, the increase in clouds lowers the temperature of the Earth, but it also blocks the sunlight to the phytoplankton. As a result, the phytoplankton grow more slowly, less clouds are formed, and the temperature of the Earth rises. The cycle continues to repeat in a self-regulating and balanced manner.

While much more research is needed, there is some evidence that phytoplankton could control the formation of clouds and the Earth's temperature to some degree. Regardless of whether this mechanism bears the test of time, it does give us pause to think of how living organisms and the Earth itself may interact with each other. It should make us sit and wonder how such a mechanism evolved. For sure, the idea that the whole Earth - the lithosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere - works together in a harmonious fashion has great intellectual, philosophical, and poetical appeal, if nothing else!

What Does Gaia Predict?

If indeed the Earth is a living organism and the sum of its biological, geological, chemical, and hydrological processes act in concert, what then might we expect of such an organism? How should such an organism act?

We've already mentioned the maintenance of non-equilibrium conditions in the atmosphere as one characteristic of a Gaian planet. We also looked at how organisms such as phytoplankton can transfer chemicals such as DMS into the atmosphere and thus, participate in the cycling of elements within the planet. Organisms are a vital part of all chemical cycles and I would like to introduce to you here the concept of biogeochemical cycles.

By their very nature (and as the name implies) biogeochemical cycles are a mechanism by which the Earth's elements are transformed and carried (in the physical sense) around the Earth. Because the Earth's mass (and material elements) are fixed, the Earth must recycle elements to make them available for other processes. Otherwise, the whole system would run down and the Earth would be just like the moon.

The most common biogeochemical cycles are the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, and the sulfur cycle. Living organisms are a vital part of these cycles. Tremendous masses of material are consumed, transformed, transported, and recycled by the actions of living organisms. In fact, the deposition of sediments in shallow waters is responsible for the uplifting of coastal shores.

Planetary processes governed by living organisms lend credence to the Gaia hypothesis, but they do not prove her existence. If, after a number of decades, a large body of evidence develops that supports the hypothesis that our planet is a living, self-regulating organism, then the Gaia hypothesis may be upgraded to a theory, much like the theory of gravity. Until then, Gaia is an idea that stimulates our thinking and generates scientific research that helps us better understand our planet and how it works.

As one last look at what Gaia might predict, I would like to offer an idea of my own. One of the biggest criticisms against the idea that Gaia is a "living" organism is the inability of the planet to reproduce. Certainly one of the hallmarks of living organisms is their ability to replicate and pass on their genetic information to succeeding generations. In the case of Gaia, this does not appear to be true, or does it?

I would like to propose that man himself is the means by which Gaia will reproduce. Man's exploration of space, his interest in colonizing other planets, and the large body of sci-fi literature that describes terraforming, lend strong evidence to the idea that Gaia is planning to reproduce. Imagine that man colonizes another planet. Imagine that the planet slowly begins to transform; the atmosphere changes, perhaps leading to the formation of ice caps; plants grow, creating clouds and changing the planet's albedo. No longer will this planet be a static, forbidden place. It will be transformed into a place of beauty -- a living, breathing, evolving entity. This indeed is the power of Gaia, and one of the more fascinating and compelling reasons to consider her existence!

Finally, beyond the scientific importance of what we have discussed here, we might do well to consider some of the more poetical thoughts of the originator of the theory. At the end of Chapter 1 in his first book, Lovelock writes:

"If Gaia exists, the relationship between her and man, a dominant animal species in the complex living system, and the possibly shifting balance of power between them, are questions of obvious importance...The Gaia hypothesis is for those who like to walk or simply stand and stare, to wonder about the Earth and the life it bears, and to speculate about the consequences of our own presence here. It is an alternative to that pessimistic view which sees nature as a primitive force to be subdued and conquered. It is also an alternative to that equally depressing picture of our planet as a demented spaceship, forever traveling, driverless and purposeless, around an inner circle of the sun."

Update Summer 1999

I first heard of the Gaia Hypothesis as a graduate student at the University of Southern California (USC) in the 1980s. Having taken a couple courses in Systems Ecology from Dr. James Kremer, I was more than accepting of the idea that systems have emergent properties that cannot be discerned from their individual components. Within that context, the Gaia Hypothesis made sense to me, perhaps more philosophical scientific, but sense, nonetheless.

Since the time of writing these notes in the summer of 1996 (just before I started teaching at Fullerton College), I have learned a lot more about the Gaia Hypothesis, both from the WWW and from conversations with Tom Morris, who teaches planetary biology at Fullerton College and hosts the Planetary Biology Home Page. It has also become somewhat of a theme of mine throughout all of my oceanography classes, not so much the hypothesis, but the idea that physical, geological, chemical and biological processes are interdependent, something that fits quite well with Gaian Theory.

Here then are a few more things that I have learned in the past three years that may further elucidate and validate this important idea.

The Many Faces of Gaia

One of the more interesting extensions of the Gaia Hypothesis has been its transformation from one hypothesis to multiple hypotheses. This is not uncommon in scientific work and it generally represents a healthy and lively application of the scientific method. This divergence of views arises as a result of the different approaches of individual scientists and their beliefs, in the sense of their view of what a body of evidence supports or doesn't support.

Recognition of the many Gaia hypotheses evolved from a symposium on the Gaia Hypothesis held in 1988. A group of geophysicists and others came together to discuss the hypothesis, an event in itself that helped fuel its acceptance. While there were (and still are) many detractors, Gaia did appear to gain a toehold with general acceptance of the idea that life at least influences planetary processes.

Certainly no one could argue against the evidence that dramatic changes occurred in Earth's early atmosphere as a result of the evolution of photosynthetic organisms approximately 3.5 billion years ago. The resulting oxygen holocaust, which established present-day oxygen concentrations about 2.5 billion years ago, radically changed physical, geological, chemical and biological processes on our planet. Rust is one good example of chemical alterations brought about by oxygen. A good biological example is the appearance of oxygen-breathing organisms, or aerobes, and the confinement (in a figurative sense) of non-oxygen breathing organisms, or anaerobes, to swamps and bogs and places deep in the Earth.

The idea that life influences planetary processes (i.e. has a substantial effect on abiotic processes) has become known as the weak (or influential) Gaia hypothesis. This hypothesis is generally supported by scientists today and, in fact, is probably most responsible for stimulating continued research on Gaia. Even the most conservative scientists agree that research on the way in which living organisms interact with non-living processes may yield useful information. Much of our modern-day climate research is based, to some degree, on this idea.

As a result of defining a weak Gaia hypothesis, the original Gaia hypothesis (i.e. that life controls planetary processes) became known as the strong (or optimizing) Gaia hypothesis. Few scientists are willing to support this hypothesis.

One of the reasons that the Gaia Hypothesis sparked such debate in scientific circles has to do with scientists' ability to test hypotheses. As we learned earlier, the traditional scientific method relies on refuting a hypothesis, proving it wrong, as the means for eliminating possible explanations. This method of falsifying a hypothesis was proposed by the Austrian-born Karl Popper in a 1934 publication called Logik Der Forschung or The Logic of Scientific Discovery. (Popper passed away in 1994 but he is still considered one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th Century. You can learn more about him by visiting the Karl Popper Web, http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/.) The single largest complaint lodged against the strong Gaia hypothesis is that experiments can't be designed to refute it (or test it at all, for that matter.)

Without going into all the details, suffice it to say that those arguments are valid. The strong Gaia hypotheis states that life creates conditions on Earth to suit itself. Life created the planet Earth, not the other way around. As we explore the solar system and galaxies beyond, it may one day be possible to design an experiment to test whether life indeed manipulates planetary processes for its own purposes or whether life is just an evolutionary processes that occurs in response to changes in the non-living world.

Useful Links:

For an excellent account of the scientific evidence and controversies and much greater detail than I have provided here, check out these web sites dedicated to the Gaia Hypothesis.

The Gaia Hypothesis
http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/gaia.html

The Gaia Hypothesis
http://www.slip.net/~farb/gaia_page.htm

Additional Reading:

To read more about the Gaia Hypothesis and related topics, check out these publications:

J. E. Lovelock, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, Oxford University Press, 1979
James Lovelock, Healing Gaia: Practical Medicine for the Planet, Harmony Books, 1991;
Lewis Thomas, The Lives of a Cell, Bantam Books, 1974.
The Gaia hypothesis: can it be tested? in Reviews of Geophysics 27:2, 223-235, 1989

Name:

Gaia

Message:

From Myth to 21st Century science . .

Today there is a growing hypothesis circling the globe:

"Our Planet - Mother Earth - is a Living Being
and all life forms are her offspring."

Therefore we humans could be said to be "Her" children,
with the inherent ability to become super-conscious adults.

---

This is the Gaia Hypothesis (pronounced Gay-a) named after the Greek word for the 'Earth Mother' - Gaea.

In 1979 James Lovelock, a British Scientist who worked for the NASA (USA) space program, reminded us of the idea that Planet Earth, like the Sun, is a conscious living being.

For just as our human body is composed of billions of cells working together as a single living being, so are the billions of life forms on Earth working together as a living super organism.

---

Looking at our Living Planet:

We can visualise the Equatorial rainforests functioning as the planet's lungs, exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide in concert with the oceans.

Observe the atmosphere functioning as a global respiratory system.

Imagine that our rivers and streams are like a circulatory system for the planetary body, bringing clean water and flushing the system.

Feel invisible currents of universal force that run longitudinally, latitudinally and diagonally around our planet. These unseen but sensed *Ley lines are like acupuncture meridians that carry this life force within the human body.

Notice that the whole planet "breathes" by contracting and expanding with the moon's gravitational pull.

Witness the seasonal cycles mirroring bodily changes, from the contraction of autumn to the inevitable rebirth of spring.

When we gaze upon the global ecosystem as a whole, we find that everything works in ordered splendour and unison, overlapping from the smallest of algae, bacteria and plankton to the migration of birds, caribou and whales..

Everything is intelligently self-regulating and acting coherently and wisely.. except human kind.

Here we are.. Homo Sapiens, forgetful progeny, mostly composed of 70% water and 30% earth, much like the surface of our mother, Gaia, Planet Earth.

As we approach the 21st century through the media of electronic communications and space photographs, we are coming to the realisation that all of humanity born on this blue and white, jewel-like planet are, like seed and spore, a product of Mother Earth.

Since our bodies are composed of the minerals and elements of the Earth, shouldn't we be known as Gaia's children?

For if our umbilical cord could be traced back from our mother's mother all the way back into the past, we would see that we have all come from Mother Earth.

"And the Lord God formed us of the dust of the ground and breathed into our nostrils the breath of life and we became a living soul." Genesis 2:7

Thus we are all the family of humanity, being global and planetary beings. Yet will we remember to utilise our mind, the full 100% of our brain and inner potential?

Can we feel the pulse of the Earth beneath our feet?

Feel a deeper reality? And comprehend this magnificence?

---

Today we witness widespread disaster and tragedy.

Wise, compassionate, visionary leadership is an essential necessity.

Humanity has become fragmented and separated,
brother and sister pitted against each other.

We need no prophetic visions to tell us where such conflict is leading us..

On Mother Earth, humans can be compared to the bacteria in and on our own bodies, basically benevolent, but when harmony and balance do not exist, the bacteria can cause illness that in some cases leads to the termination of the host.

This is particularly noticeable in the relationship of humanity to our planet. The question is asked, will we come to the self-realisation of who we really are?

---

We stand naked in time and space,
Illuminated only by the light of our own self-knowledge.

Can we plug into and attune to an even greater universal knowledge?

Can we Humans come to a deeper understanding
of the source from which we spring?

---

When working together for the benefit of the ecosystem as a whole, we blend in, to co-create and become dynamically one at the heart and mind of Gaia and beyond - by intelligently and intuitively aligning with her and her virtuous fecundity.

Opening into the new century, our greatest challenge is to understand, appreciate and feel our intimate relationship with Our Planet, Her peoples, Her Flora and Fauna and to strive to resolve all conflicts, especially those of greed, war, hunger, disease and suffering.

We must set about to renew and re-energise our water, clean up our air supply, afforest our barren marginal land and deserts with greenery and colour, and eliminate all toxic and harmful residues.

For we big brained creatures are a vital part of the created and future evolutionary growth of Our Planet, Gaia.

The study of ourselves as a conscious assembly of Gaia's elements reveals our inner relationship to the whole of creation, where we may open up and reconnect with our Cosmic inheritance.

---

As physical Beings of Conscious Essence,
We can embark on a Magnificent Quest,
Co-existing with Mother Earth...
Potentially Seeding our Solar System

- going Galactic -

and Beyond with Intelligence and Life..

---

Working in harmony with Nature, our growth and transformation can evolve us beyond Gaia, into the cosmic whole and possibly home.

This is the most wonderful challenge to befall us!

For we, each one of us, are an assemblage of the Big Bang and over time we've emerged from Mother Earth wearing bodies and are now making the connection with where we have come from.

We are the Universe finally discovering itself.

For the first time in Ages.

"Is it not written in your law?
I have said, 'You are Gods'"

John 10:34 The Bible

---

The Gaia hypothesis does not conflict with any of the major schools of religious thought: Christ, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, Moses, Zarathustra, Mohammed and Baha'u'llah may have been among the first blossoming flowers of Gaia.

In reflecting on the work of Plato and Pythagoras, we find their themes "know thyself (microcosm) and you will know the Universe (macrocosm)" particularly relevant in the understanding of this hypothesis.

---

Question:

.. if Gaia has squeezed us out of her planetary body and we can have an 'out of the body' experience what does this make us?

Does this mean we are more than we think we are?

And where does the essence of a rose go?'

---

REFERENCE

---

Gaia as the Ancient Greeks Saw Her

---

What Is Gaia?
Text by James Lovelock

Books by Lovelock:

Gaia A New Look at Planet Earth
(Oxford University Press)
The Ages of Gaia (Oxford University Press)
The Practical Science of Planetary Medicine (Allen and Unwin)

---

The Gaia Atlas of Planet Management
Edited by Norman Myers (Pan Books)

If you are practical, intelligent, have a good heart and wish to assist positive change, this superb book is for you. Solutions for a planetary society of tomorrow today.

---

Earthdance 432- page book
by Elisabet Sahtouris. ISBN: 0-595-13067-4 available at www.iuniverse.com
CDRom 90 minutes. Crises as Opportunity: An Evolutionary Leap of Humanity
@ wwwions.org/IONS/publications/sahtouris.asp

---

Gaia: A Way of Knowing

Edited by William Irwin Thompson
(Lindisfarne Press)

---

* Acupuncture Meridians / Ley Lines: [Back]

Stonehenge, Glastonbury, The Great Pyramids of Egypt and many Cathedrals of Europe are situated along these Universal Lines of Invisible Force.

Contents Spaceship Gaia Science Mysticism Immanence Dreamtime Meditation WWW Network Calendar Keywords Bibliography About.. Feedback

Pages maintained by www.light | Updated 31 July 1996

Name:	bOO
To:	tEXaS

Message:
sOCIALISM IS TRUTH!bOAT pEOPLE LOVvERs oF mInE.>.>.>>>>.>.>>>

Name:	lArRo fReEdOm
To:	sEX wItH mExIcAN lOvE sLavEs

Message:
jOHN kERRY IS A COMMUNIST

Name:	Sheckelstein
To:	MudHead

In response to:
can visualise the Equatorial rainforests functioning as the planet's lungs, exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide in concert with the oceans. Observe the atmosphere functioning as a global respiratory system. Imagine that our rivers and streams are like a circulatory system for the planetary body, bringing clean water and flushing the system. Feel invisible currents of universal force that run longitudinally, latitudinally and diagonally around our planet. These unseen but sensed *Ley lines are like acupuncture meridians

Message:
WAR IS NATURAL SELECTION.

Name:	Galway Finley
To:	Gaist Crackpots
Re:	Gushing Hogwash

In response to:
Notice that the whole planet "breathes" by contracting and expanding with the moon's gravitational pull (etc)

Message:
You might as well say that the exhaust manifold on an OTR cattle-truck engine is "alive" because it physically expands and contracts as it goes through its operating cycles.

Name:	Roxy Rokkar
To:	Fulminating Crackpots

In response to:
When we gaze upon the global ecosystem as a whole, we find that everything works in ordered splendour and unison, overlapping from the smallest of algae, bacteria and plankton to the migration of birds, caribou and whales.. Everything is intelligently self-regulating and acting coherently and wisely.. except human kind.

Message:
What a steaming load of crap!

Name:	Tooley O'Thule
To:	Crackpots
Re:	Big re-development plans for Earth

In response to:
We must set about to renew and re-energise our water, clean up our air supply, afforest our barren marginal land and deserts with greenery and colour, and eliminate all toxic and harmful residues.

Message:
I think you had better just leave all of that eco-management stuff to wise old Gaia herself.

Name:	Gaia
To:	Little Big-shot Crackots
Re:	Gonna re-do EVERYTHING!

In response to:
We must set about to renew and re-energise our water, clean up our air supply, afforest our barren marginal land and deserts with greenery and colour, and eliminate all toxic and harmful residues.

Message:
I can bust up ANYTHING you little farts can put together. ANYTHING AT ALL. I can and will reduce it utterly!

Name:	Lavaughn Deloach
To:	Gaga Gaia Goobers
Re:	Every living thing produces toxic waste and toxic chemical tools.

In response to: