Mark Stapleton

The author Chalmers Johnson makes a good case for military Keynesianism being the underlying problem of the US economy:

http://www.alternet.org/story/74620/?page=entire

The term refers to decades of profligate military spending by successive Governments (strongly ramped up by the current administration), with little benefit to the domestic economy, except to create jobs in the vast military sector.

It's a strange sight watching the US Federal Reserve slicing official interest rates like this. Three quarters of 1% yesterday and the promise of more to come. Here in Australia, the Reserve Bank is moving in the opposite direction, indicating that official rates might need to be lifted again in order to combat inflation.

It will be interesting to see if these rate cuts, combined with the Bush Government's fiscal rescue package, can stave off a precipitous economic collapse in the US.

This article from Robert Reich suggests 2008 will be difficult for the US. The predictions include house prices falling by 20-40% and consumer spending falling by an incredible $360 billion in 2008:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/.../reich_economy/

Most of the major global markets fell sharply yesterday and have since partially recovered. Some commentators are warning of the possible snowball effect, with panic as the catalyst. Will the European banks keep bailing America out?

The most powerful military in the world might be facing economic disaster. They need a big war badly.

Record: ECHEVARRIA, HOMER (HOMERIO) SAMUEL VALDIVIA

Sources: CD 87, pp. 1-8 SS 336, SS 443, SS 477, SS 523, SS 626; HSCA Reel 52, Box 29, Folder F (AMKW 29) re Homer Samuel ECHEVARRIA Valdivia; FBI JFK 124- 10027-10044, Lifton's pp. 43-44

Mary's

Comments: White, male Cuban. 32, 3' 9", 160 lbs, black hair, mustache, olive complexion. In Chicago, he maintained steady employment as Chicago transit authority bus driver. Son of Ebelia Echevarria, a "source" for the Chicago office of the FBI. Born at Jatibonico, Camaguay, Cuba. Employed by C. J. Simpson Drilling Co., resided briefly in Dallas at 10353 Denton Drive. Fled Castro's Cuba. Resided in Anniston, Ala 6 months. Had entered United States on July 6, 1960 at Miami, FL, via Cuvano Airlines flight No. 808. I&NS Alien Number is A-12 236 480 (201-767409)

Homer Echevarria - Taking Care of Kennedy

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...Care_of_Kennedy

B.........

Bernice ,

Thanks for that. (The Mary Ferrell database has listed HE's height as 3'9", btw.)

Is there a known photo of Thomas Mosely or Homer Echevarria?

Wim

Very good question, Wim.

I hope someone can oblige. I would very much like to see a picture of Homer Echevarria. I've never seen one. The fact that he mysteriously faded from view after the Chicago incident makes him interesting, imo. He might have been involved in the Tippit killing, imo, if he matches the 'short and bushy hair' description of Tippit's killer. Just a hunch.

Just as I thought. Photos of Echevarria are rare indeed.

Does anyone know when he died? Larry Hancock's 'Someone Would Have Talked' claims he was approached by the CIA in December 1964, when he and his father were interviewed by the agency. In February 1965 he was granted a provisional operational approval. However, this was cancelled in August 1965 due to a lack of interest in operational use.

That's all I've ever been able to learn about this enigmatic character. Very strange.

Is there a known photo of Thomas Mosely or Homer Echevarria?

Wim

Very good question, Wim.

I hope someone can oblige. I would very much like to see a picture of Homer Echevarria. I've never seen one. The fact that he mysteriously faded from view after the Chicago incident makes him interesting, imo. He might have been involved in the Tippit killing, imo, if he matches the 'short and bushy hair' description of Tippit's killer. Just a hunch.

According to this model from a group of Canadian scientists, the Arctic will be free of ice (in the summer), sometime between 2010 and 2015:

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/st...5d5&k=53683

And the scientists claim they are being conservative. It has the smell of authenticity because the US, Canada and others are already arguing about resource and shipping rights when the melt causes the opening of the Northwest Passages. In fact, they've melted already:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...st-passage.html

Another short piece in the media confirming scientists worst fears about the Greenland ice melt. Antarctica is melting, too:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...6-11949,00.html

Yes, it looks like Shlomo Zabludowicz and his son(s) were Israeli weapons manufacturers.

And author Peter Oevig Knudsen writes that Danish businessman Johan Schroeder became part of an illegal arms trading deal which involved Mossad infiltration, via Shlomo, of Danish Marxist terrorist groups.

Shroeder was convicted but his sentence was suspended. The trial was public but the grounds for conviction were officially supressed:

http://blog.balder.org/?p=313

Filagree hamster, was it? Check in the ratatouille.

Looks like the speedboat incident didn't really happen the way the media/government alliance said it did. It seems the Navy is not going to play their game this time.

They almost had me believing the Iranian Revolutionary Guard would send out a few speedboats to sort out the 5th Fleet. They hate us for our freedom, btw.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/11/6314/

I hope this goes to trial. During the Presidential campaign would be best.

Redstone's comment that the Republicans are better for big business is outrageous, leaving the so-called integrity and independence of the media looking like a joke.

Media owners are part of big business, so Redstone should really have said 'the Republicans are better for us', because that's what he meant.

The worst scenario is HRC getting the nomination via an Oprah Winfrey style campaign. If that happens--and she becomes President--then America's a write-off. imo.

The Election ended tonight. If either Hillary Rodham Buh or O' bomb em wins absolutely nothing will change.

Do you think John Edwards is no chance?

I still think he's a chance to win the nomination because he ran second in Iowa. There's still a long way to go.

I think McCain will win the GOP nomination. He's the best political salesman out of that scary bunch.

A naval incident occured near the Sraights of Hormuz on the weekend involving Iranian and US forces:

http://www.thestreet.com/s/iranians-harras...E&cm_ite=NA

'hold of' the rich-Right-white-Christian-man's-burden-batton.

Peter,

I doubt conversion to Christianity is a strict requirement for admittance to the exclusive rich white man's club.

Great thread, though. Kudos to yourself, Paul and the other posters for making the picture clearer.

Lee,

Thanks for the kind words and the generous assistance you have provided over the few years we've been acquainted. Whatever you may have learnt from me pales in comparison to what I've learnt from your posts, particularly in relation to Dealey Plaza reconstruction. Don't forget to contact me if you ever visit Sydney so we can have a few beers and discuss the price of coconuts.

I'm pleasantly surprised at James' confidence about resolving the JFK matter in 2008. That would certainly make 2008 an important year.

Mush has asked Scotland Yard to investigate the assassination and come up with a report about it.

Yikes, you couldn't make this up...

Anyway, they're only to happy to oblige. Naturally.

Scotland Yard is not politicised in the slightest.

Besides, they do have considerable experience in the terrorism field. Such as shooting lone Brazilian electrical terrorists.

And handling such deadly emergencies as the decidedly dicey terrorist 7/7 bombings.

In other words they are highly qualified at applying necessary quantities of white paint to whatever they undertake.

I think Musharraf was impressed by the great job the Yard did in solving the Bob Woolmer case.

As I write, we have been told that the cause of death was head trauma caused when Bhutto dropped from her through-the-sunroof perch after having been shot. Immediately we are put in mind of the Rabin hit, and how evidence suggests that he might have been killed after initial shots were fired and he entered his security vehicle.

Who was inside her SUV?

Outstanding - the practical application of the key paradigm.

From the POV of the beneficiaries of the war on abstract nouns, the assassination is such a timely boon:

the nascent Caliphate gets nukes;

US special forces get bases on the Iran border;

India is compelled to move even further into the sea powers embrace;

the MIC gets a huge shot in the arm.

And that's only four. Yes, one sees at once why we can discount CIA involvement.

Paul

Good points Paul.

Although I just can't see the US allowing loose cannons control of the nukes. I reckon they have a team there just in case it gets too whacky. Not that we would ever hear about it.

I didn't make that claim. Can you show me where I made it? I believe it is one of the reasons why heroin was banned in the US in 1924. The main reason for its current status is that it's one of the central pillars in the War on Drugs.

YOU..upthread:

There is another wonder drug. Heroin. It's highly addictive but it's the most powerful pain killer ever discovered. It's used in British hospitals as we speak for a multitude of conditions. Unfortunately, Bayer's patent expired some years ago so it could potentially be mass produced generically--hence no profit for big pharma. And it would cut into the profits of synthetically manufactured alternatives--big pharma loses again. Redressing this potentially disastrous state of

affairs was simple---it was rendered illegal. I know this must sound like a scary tale, but it's true.

And most died in their beds at an old age. Since you're moralising about their addiction, shouldn't you also advocate prohibition of tobacco and alcohol? Or is that just another lack of consistency in your position?

And died addicted to heroin. I'm not moralizing Mark, just stating a fact. Tobacco and alcohol are not the issus. Heroin is. For the record I don't think smoking nor drinking are good things either.

You Mark have simply created an false reality...a CT reality.

False.

Wrong

Well lets see, its major league addictive...benign...yea...right.

Let's see, so are legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco and a host of other drugs available on prescription. Yes, heroin is addictive like those others are---and benign (unlike those others). So where's your rebuttal.?

Whats to rebut? see below.

What an I to rebut? You said it was benign. I've shown that its not. Its addicitive. You agree.

Agrument over.

Do you know the difference between addictive and benign? Benign means of kindly or favourable disposition. You've just shown what was obvious. I agree it's addictive. I've shown it's benign. You didn't read the link to the Nick Davies piece:

Dr. Richard Brotman, who stated after his 1965 study that "Medical knowledge has long since laid to rest the myth that opiates observably harm the body".

Dr. Wills Butler, who ran the clinic in Shreveport in the twenties said none of his many patients showed any side effects or the Philidelphia Hospital study which concluded that the users suffered no physical harm of any kind.

There's stacks more, Craig. The drug is benign. I agree the argument is over.

Being addicted for life with limited chances for withdrawal is kindly or of a favourable disposition? Yes the argument is over and you lost.

Wow! now you think that a doctor would precribe heroin in place of aspirin?

In some cases, yes.

Great, cite some examples.

Amazing. It that were the case why not just perscribe morphine, which is available now.

I don't know. Are you a doctor?

Are you? If heroin works, then why not morphine, which is what heroin becomes in the human body.

As I'm sure you know, Heroin turns back into morphine once in the body. Morphine is not under patent. Into that false reality again. Snorting Heroin? Since Heroin as well as the the major drugs in its class are all generic at this point why would the generic drug companies care? They would have the rights to make and sell it cheaply. Another of your empty claims shot down. And again why are we discussing heroin?

I don't follow your hazy logic.

You claim was that heroin was banned because its patent expired and it was a threat to other drugs in its class. That is a baseless argument since the other drugs in its class are also without patent pretection. Heroin cannot be a threat since it has an equal footing as far as patent protection is concerned.

I agree the argument has drifted from the thread topic. You started the argument. You've shown you are not capable of understanding the fallacy of the war on drugs. People who think like you are the best friend drug barons ever had.

No Mark, you started the argument and you took the left turn. Exactly were have I made any statements about the war on drugs, pro or con? Sheesh there you go again making crap up out of whole cloth. You don't have a clue what my position is. Give it a rest.

Since this has drifted a fair way from the specific thread topic, I'll start a thread about decriminalising illicit drugs, including heroin.

Our debate here has shown that your claim that the illegality of heroin is the result of it being 'dangerous' is without basis. Actually alcohol, a legal drug, is far more dangerous.

The argument about prohibition of certain drugs impacts heavily on the overall debate about healthcare, imo, because of the massive financial and social cost to the community of enforcing prohibition. It would be far more useful spending this money on real healthcare for those who need it. Those who rely on the tabloid media for their information are unaware of this massive price they have been paying, and the massive global criminal enterprise they have been subsidising. They think it is just part of the cost of maintaing law and order in society.

Once again, the mainstream media is complicit in decieving the public on a grand scale.

Like I said I know little about heroin and why it was banned, nor do I really care. But an expired patent many many years ago is hardly the reason it is illegal in the US today.

Really? Since you're sure the expiration of the patent is not the reason for heroin being declared illegal, then maybe you can tell me the real reason why it is illegal.

The reason as far as I can tell is that it is deemed too dangerous.

http://opioids.com/heroin/heroinhistory.html

Amazing about the asprin though. Patent expired about the same time and my gosh how much money has been made since with it as a generic?

Now how about YOU source your claim its the patent that caused it to be banned.

The patent for heroin was granted in the US in1898. The usual length is 20 years, so I assume it expired in 1918. I read that Bayer lost trademark and other rights as a result of Germany's loss to the allies in 1918. The US banned it with the Heroin Act ut in 1924. That's pretty neat timing, imo.

So in other words you have simply made an empty claim...why am I not suprised. You are too much of a CT mark.

I have? Where?

Right here. You have nothing that supports your claim heroin was banned because its patent expired.

I didn't make that claim. Can you show me where I made it? I believe it is one of the reasons why heroin was banned in the US in 1924. The main reason for its current status is that it's one of the central pillars in the War on Drugs.

In fact, if you look, Bayer quit making Herion in 1913. They quit becaause they had marketed Heroin as non addictive when it fact it was highly addicitive, and they had created scores of people who would be addicited to the drug they had created for the rest of their life.

And most died in their beds at an old age. Since you're moralising about their addiction, shouldn't you also advocate prohibition of tobacco and alcohol? Or is that just another lack of consistency in your position?

You Mark have simply created an false reality...a CT reality.

False.

Actually it was banned after a rigged Congressional Committe heard a lot of phony testimony about the evils of this drug:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,506559,00.html

Heroin's not dangerous, it's benign. A study by Philadelphia General Hospital in the 1920's concluded as much. It causes much less damage to vital organs than alcohol or tobacco and the gap between a therapeutic dose and a fatal one is unusually wide. It's used in the UK on mothers experiencing difficulty in child birth. So much for heroin being dangerous. Are they going to inject a pregnant woman with a drug which they think is dangerous?

Well lets see, its major league addictive...benign...yea...right.

Let's see, so are legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco and a host of other drugs available on prescription. Yes, heroin is addictive like those others are---and benign (unlike those others). So where's your rebuttal.?ut

What an I to rebut? You said it was benign. I've shown that its not. Its addicitive. You agree.

Agrument over.

Do you know the difference between addictive and benign? Benign means of kindly or favourable disposition. You've just shown what was obvious. I agree it's addictive. I've shown it's benign. You didn't read the link to the Nick Davies piece:

Dr. Richard Brotman, who stated after his 1965 study that "Medical knowledge has long since laid to rest the myth that opiates observably harm the body".

Dr. Wills Butler, who ran the clinic in Shreveport in the twenties said none of his many patients showed any side effects or the Philidelphia Hospital study which concluded that the users suffered no physical harm of any kind.

There's stacks more, Craig. The drug is benign. I agree the argument is over.

That other things arr also addicitve is beside the point. We are talking about Heroin. What are you trying the change the subject? And why are we talking about the legality of heroin in the first place?

I think it's banned because it's a dangerous medicinal foe for many existing drugs, including aspirin, and because the current black market for heroin and other illegal drugs is so lucrative. Heroin and other drugs are making a lot of money for people who can influence lawmakers. Politicians, after denouncing a drug like heroin as the devil's drug etc, etc, often claim they are bound by international treaties to maintain the current drug laws. That's crap, too:

http://www.ccguide.org.uk/sin_conv.php

A dangerous foe? Are you kidding? Asprin? You owe me a new keyboard...I just spewed diet coke all over it. Most everything else in the same class is way out of patent protection as well...so much for that argument. Sheesh, you really believe this crap?

It's not hard to believe you are so misinformed. Yes, prescription heroin would be fierce competition for many other drugs. aspirin included.

Wow! now you think that a doctor would precribe heroin in place of aspirin?

In some cases, yes.

Amazing. It that were the case why not just perscribe morphine, which is available now.

I don't know. Are you a doctor?

As I'm sure you know, Heroin turns back into morphine once in the body. Morphine is not under patent. Into that false reality again. Snorting Heroin? Since Heroin as well as the the major drugs in its class are all generic at this point why would the generic drug companies care? They would have the rights to make and sell it cheaply. Another of your empty claims shot down. And again why are we discussing heroin?

I don't follow your hazy logic.

You trust your Government too much, Craig.

Now I know you are cognitively impaired. I don't trust my government to to a proper job of providing tags for my cars let alone run things like health care. You spend too much time thinking as a CT Mark.

Yet you trust them to conduct foreign wars with no valid pretext. You support them strongly in this. You also appear to support draconian domestic laws which impinge on civil liberties and drug laws which underpin massive criminal enterprises. I may think like a CT but it's debatable whether you actually think at all.

Mark, in case you have missed it this thread is about healthcare. If you are left without an argument, the proper thing to do is quit and not try and change the subject to something eles. So much for your attempts at rational thought.

I agree the argument has drifted from the thread topic. You started the argument. You've shown you are not capable of understanding the fallacy of the war on drugs. People who think like you are the best friend drug barons ever had.

Like I said I know little about heroin and why it was banned, nor do I really care. But an expired patent many many years ago is hardly the reason it is illegal in the US today.

Really? Since you're sure the expiration of the patent is not the reason for heroin being declared illegal, then maybe you can tell me the real reason why it is illegal.

The reason as far as I can tell is that it is deemed too dangerous.

http://opioids.com/heroin/heroinhistory.html

Amazing about the asprin though. Patent expired about the same time and my gosh how much money has been made since with it as a generic?

Now how about YOU source your claim its the patent that caused it to be banned.

The patent for heroin was granted in the US in1898. The usual length is 20 years, so I assume it expired in 1918. I read that Bayer lost trademark and other rights as a result of Germany's loss to the allies in 1918. The US banned it with the Heroin Act ut in 1924. That's pretty neat timing, imo.

So in other words you have simply made an empty claim...why am I not suprised. You are too much of a CT mark.

I have? Where?

Actually it was banned after a rigged Congressional Committe heard a lot of phony testimony about the evils of this drug:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,506559,00.html

Heroin's not dangerous, it's benign. A study by Philadelphia General Hospital in the 1920's concluded as much. It causes much less damage to vital organs than alcohol or tobacco and the gap between a therapeutic dose and a fatal one is unusually wide. It's used in the UK on mothers experiencing difficulty in child birth. So much for heroin being dangerous. Are they going to inject a pregnant woman with a drug which they think is dangerous?

Well lets see, its major league addictive...benign...yea...right.

Let's see, so are legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco and a host of other drugs available on prescription. Yes, heroin is addictive like those others are---and benign (unlike those others). So where's your rebuttal.?

I think it's banned because it's a dangerous medicinal foe for many existing drugs, including aspirin, and because the current black market for heroin and other illegal drugs is so lucrative. Heroin and other drugs are making a lot of money for people who can influence lawmakers. Politicians, after denouncing a drug like heroin as the devil's drug etc, etc, often claim they are bound by international treaties to maintain the current drug laws. That's crap, too:

http://www.ccguide.org.uk/sin_conv.php

A dangerous foe? Are you kidding? Asprin? You owe me a new keyboard...I just spewed diet coke all over it. Most everything else in the same class is way out of patent protection as well...so much for that argument. Sheesh, you really believe this crap?

It's not hard to believe you are so misinformed. Yes, prescription heroin would be fierce competition for many other drugs. aspirin included.

You trust your Government too much, Craig.

Now I know you are cognitively impaired. I don't trust my government to to a proper job of providing tags for my cars let alone run things like health care. You spend too much time thinking as a CT Mark.

Yet you trust them to conduct foreign wars with no valid pretext. You support them strongly in this. You also appear to support draconian domestic laws which impinge on civil liberties and drug laws which underpin massive criminal enterprises. I may think like a CT but it's debatable whether you actually think at all.

Review of National Treasure: Book of Secrets:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/re...ltreasure2.html

The reviewer is concerned by the reference to the JFK assassination:

We live in a time when many people believe in some pretty outrageous conspiracy theories, and films like these have fun with that mindset but may also reinforce it, in a way. The "Book of Secrets" alluded to in the movie's title turns out to be a scrapbook that is passed on from one president to another, and no one else is allowed to read it—and according to FBI agent Peter Sadusky (Harvey Keitel), this book contains information on the John F. Kennedy assassination and various other alleged conspiracies. In an age of increasingly vocal so-called 9/11 "truthers," is this an attitude that ought to be encouraged?

I'm not surprised that a writer for a publication titled "Christianity Today" would have a problem with this or any other Book of Secrets that isn't the New Testament.

Religions (the "organized" is understood) are not concerned with "truth." They sell "revelation." And never the twain shall meet.

Humankind descended from monkeys ... hmmm ... In an age of increasingly vocal so-called evolutionary "scientists," is this an attitude that ought to be encouraged?

Religion is simply politics by other means. Ask Mike Huckabee; imagine getting caught in his One True Crossfire (how about that Christmas ad, replete with crucifix)!

I consider myself to be a spiritual man. I accept the reality of the Divine Presence. I attempt -- and almost always fail -- to emulate Gandhi, who said, "I am a Muslim and a Hindu and a Christian and a Jew and so are all of you."

Like the countless wars waged in its countless names, religion is a racket.

Remember Woody Allen's take on a classic concept: "If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in his name, He'd never stop throwing up."

Agree 100% Charles. And I can't believe Huckabee's a serious contender--a genuine bible bashing fruitcake. Mmm..wait a minute, there's one already in the White House--serving his second term!

I changed my mind. I believe it.

After the attempt to kill her a few weeks back, with 139 others dying in that blast, Bhutto must have known she was on borrowed time. She had courage.

Perhaps the assassins wanted to make certain they didn't stuff it up this time.

Like I said I know little about heroin and why it was banned, nor do I really care. But an expired patent many many years ago is hardly the reason it is illegal in the US today.

Really? Since you're sure the expiration of the patent is not the reason for heroin being declared illegal, then maybe you can tell me the real reason why it is illegal.

The reason as far as I can tell is that it is deemed too dangerous.

http://opioids.com/heroin/heroinhistory.html

Amazing about the asprin though. Patent expired about the same time and my gosh how much money has been made since with it as a generic?

Now how about YOU source your claim its the patent that caused it to be banned.

The patent for heroin was granted in the US in1898. The usual length is 20 years, so I assume it expired in 1918. I read that Bayer lost trademark and other rights as a result of Germany's loss to the allies in 1918. The US banned it with the Heroin Act in 1924. That's pretty neat timing, imo.

Actually it was banned after a rigged Congressional Committe heard a lot of phony testimony about the evils of this drug:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,506559,00.html

Heroin's not dangerous, it's benign. A study by Philadelphia General Hospital in the 1920's concluded as much. It causes much less damage to vital organs than alcohol or tobacco and the gap between a therapeutic dose and a fatal one is unusually wide. It's used in the UK on mothers experiencing difficulty in child birth. So much for heroin being dangerous. Are they going to inject a pregnant woman with a drug which they think is dangerous?

I think it's banned because it's a dangerous medicinal foe for many existing drugs, including aspirin, and because the current black market for heroin and other illegal drugs is so lucrative. Heroin and other drugs are making a lot of money for people who can influence lawmakers. Politicians, after denouncing a drug like heroin as the devil's drug etc, etc, often claim they are bound by international treaties to maintain the current drug laws. That's crap, too:

http://www.ccguide.org.uk/sin_conv.php

You trust your Government too much, Craig.

Mark : "I agree that wealth redistribution and improvements to global education and healthcare will make the planet more harmonious, but while we wait decades, or even centuries for this to happen, species are becoming endangered and extinct at an ever increasing rate."

John : I never argued that "global education and healthcare will make the planet more harmonious" though it certainly could be an outcome. Rather, as Peter repeadedly and pointedly on many occasions in many posts argues, it's time to ACT.

As far as I can tell, nobody's disagreeing that it's time to act. However, you claim that Australia's population should be multiplied tenfold. You haven't explained why this is a desirable course of action.

Mark : "One of the main causes is habitat loss. In countries like Indonesia and Brazil, rainforest clearing is the problem. Human population growth is causing the extinction of other species, pure and simple."

John : Core issues : "rainforest clearing is the problem. Human population growth is causing the extinction of other species, pure and simple." Beg to disagree.

Rainforests are cleared to expose minerals. Starving treasure seekers flock to live short dangerous lives, killing Native peoples (negative population growth) and ecosystems in the process and washing delicate soil foundations into the Amazon. The result is, among other things, a drop in world Oxygen levels, ie reduction in fundamental resources which makes for an argument that there are too many people.

Rainforests aren't cleared solely for the purpse of extracting minerals. That is one of the reasons. Others include housing, agriculture, roadbuilding and logging:

http://library.thinkquest.org/26993/amazon.htm

Mark : "It's easy to dismiss those who claim the planet is overpopulated as doomsayers, but what then is the optimum human population level which would guarantee relative prosperity and sustainability for the planet's inhabitants?"

John : I agree, it is very easy indeed.

Optimum? : That which is self sufficient, sharing, green and sustaining, ie. the product of 'Right (correct) Thinking". A naturally achieved harmony.

Nice words, John, but vague. What's the optimum level of human population? In numbers, I mean. If I am to be dismissed as doomsayer, then you're also putting Peter Lemkin in that category, because he opines (post #22) that the current world population of 6.5 billion is well over the earth's carrying capacity of about 2 billion. Looks like you're in the minority, but I'll refrain from labelling you.

Mark : "You claim Australia can potentially sustain a population of 250 million (I disagree), but why is a tenfold increase in our population desirable or necessary? And what happens when the population reaches that level? Will it then become necessary to expand it even further for economic reasons? Will we then require an even larger gene pool to save us from disaster?"

John : My 'claim' is illustrative of 'thinking outside the box'. ACTION : easing population pressures elsewhere, developing self sustaining green technologies.

As Peter states, there is no water shortage here. There is an established dogma that counetracts non profit raising endeavours that can provide global solutions, and in turn change economies to ethics driven ones and lo : there are indeed profits to be made. (me) : "Generally it has been found that prosperous educated nations that have equal rights for men and women naturally move towards ZPG. (re-emphasis)"

In the process, problems are being solved, population growths stabilised

???? How is multiplying the population of Australia by ten an example of thinking outside the box? Why is it desirable?

Mark : "There doesn't seem to be any reason or logic behind our apparent desire to cover the surface of the planet with only one species. It's seems that religion has seared this madness into mankind's psyche."

John : Who has this desire? I'd like to have some harsh words with this person!

Religion or Ethical Spirituality? Religion, yes maybe, elaborate please?

My personal opinion is that religion has instilled in us the notion that as we occupy primacy among the species, our species should multiply, seemingly without limitataion. Reality has now caught up with us, and I notice the Pope is now making statements about environmental degradation. As I see it, problems like rainforest clearing can be sheeted home to the relentless expansion of human population.