Vote: n/a
Comment by: PT (David Alexander) (Dec-15-2011) Web site
I believe that "forgiving" means, seeing the person hidden and lost in their own evil and self-destructive actions. And I am not saying that understanding is easy to come by, but it should be done if possible.
Vote: n/a
Comment by: City Worker (Dec-15-2011)
The decision to forgive and love, in spite of injustices and cruelties, is sometimes an act of bravery, a different kind of bravery than, e.g. the risking one's life in battle. I cannot, however, understand truly loving someone who has acted very cruelly -- to take an extreme example, I can't understand any decent person forgiving and loving Hitler. I've spent most of my life trying to come up with excuses in my mind for people's cruelties: ignorance, stupidity, a hard-knock life, weakness of spirit, survival instinct,..... And, I still do it. But I think one should sometimes stop going down that path.
Vote: n/a
Comment by: PT (David Alexander) (Sep-13-2008) Web site
I am glad you have been enjoying the articles recently. The search for quality is a never-ending mission. By the way, it is kind of hidden, but to make a comment on the survey, you would see a link AFTER you make your vote, on the bottom.
I think you are more optimistic than I am about the quantity of remaining oil, as well as the implications if we force extraction of oil from coal and shale: what happens to greenhouse gas output, water resources, and overall pollution could be an ugly picture (think "China x 10").
That said, I don't know the answer... to me "No clear winner" means that several energy sources will be in the mix, competitive with each other, with no one form dominating. At least, that is what I intended that choice to mean. Some of us will be around in 2050, some will not, but we all hope a good answer is found, along with a more conservation-minded spirit.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Vote: n/a
Comment by: auntiegrav (Sep-13-2008) Web site
Some good stuff lately, David. Thank you. Though I am usually argumentative, I think you are doing good work.
I didn't know where to leave a comment on the poll for energy sources, so here goes: Probably many chose "no clear winner" like I did, not because there is no clear "winner" except conservation, but because as one source is reduced, others take over, and the ultimate goal should be to not only diversify energy sources, but to clearly think about why we are using so much energy in the first place. Also, if we reduce our petroleum dependence by half due to high costs, then the remaining petroleum might meet half of our needs for the next 50 years, so my second choice would have been oil/natural gas. If we reduce our petroleum/gas use by 3/4ths, then we would have a very convenient backup for emergencies, which is what we should be considering. When the left runs around screaming the evils of oil companies, we don't get much dialog going on. In the meantime, it's the dialog that we need more than government, more than energy, and more than 'stuff'. Real dialog between neighbors and within communities (like the article on Willits and their energy audit illustrates) is critical to our children's survival.
Vote: n/a
Comment by: PT (David Alexander) (Sep-12-2008) Web site
This is also a PlanetThought, although it does not discuss temperature, energy production, or clean water and productive soil. That which can help make life on earth sustainable and happy, whether by improving the stability of food supply, or by improving the stability of our minds, that is a PlanetThought.
The volunteers of PlanetThoughts.org are happy to give you their best selection of news, opinion, reviews, stories, quotes, tips, and more. We hope you enjoy the reading... and thinking. Thanks!
Fossil Fuel
TheTeam
If you want to see the brave, look at those who can forgive. 
PT (David Alexander)
