"New rules developed in cooperation with the federal government require drilling companies to list the chemicals they use for fracking...disposed of via deep well injection...." Out of sight, out of mind? Just how long were the studies conducted in ruling out toxic migration? Do you honestly suppose current technology can "see" that far down in the ground the specific contamination moving into, and with, water in every direction it moves? I'd say sometimes glacially, but considering anthropogenic global warming and what it's been doing to 90%+ of the world's glaciers, I'll substitute in "a snail's pace."

That aside, you failed to mention artificial earthquakes.

It seems to me that profits cloud your judgment. There is posterity to consider; and what with advancement in anti-aging, perhaps many people who were thinking in terms of a few decades will literally live to regret their fracking a few more decades after that.

It may be that science and technology will be able to go in then and clean up the mess, but that's quite a gamble just for the sake of making a few more bucks right now when there are perfectly better alternatives available (all that drilling and all that water, I think about geothermal) if we will only think more cooperatively rather than laissez-faire.

Hi Ed,

Michael Hudson and others argued for the Baltics to go more along the lines of what might be termed the Icelandic route. What's your view on that? If you agree they should have, is it too late?

Here some debate on the subject that seem quite relevant to your article: http://www.econmatters.com/2012/07/krugman-vs-cfr...

Thanks!

cont.:

When David again pointed out the incorrect statement about the APA's official position, Alan then asked David what Wayne said that was incorrect. That appeared to be Alan not hearing David.

When David asked, "Are you going to let me talk," Alan didn't hear Wayne interrupting? Well, he finally couldn't help hearing it.

It is frustrating to deal with someone like Besen. Wayne Besen is intellectually dishonest. It's blatant.

David very passionately expressed the truth about homosexuals abusing boys and creating confusing unwanted same-sex attraction (SSA), which boys will be outlawed by SB 1172 from obtaining professional help in California for that unwanted SSA if that law is allowed to take effect at the end of 2012.

A confused, homosexually raped boy with resultant SSA is more than fine with Wayne Besen.

Besen is claiming David Pickup is being dishonest about David's firsthand knowledge that the abuse that David suffered caused David's own orientation confusion. How does one deal with a guy like that? Besen is lucky that David isn't litigious about it.

David is more interested in focusing upon getting the law straightened out so that wounded boys and girls who've been abused or neglected or smothered, or whatever, and are suffering unwanted same-sex attraction as a direct result of it are not blocked from the help they want and will benefit them.

cont.:

David Pickup very correctly stated that Wayne Besen was "cherry picking" the research. When David correctly stated that the APA (American Psychological Association) admits that it has no proof of any harm done by authentic Reparative Therapy, Besen ignores that Besen had said that there is causality and that the APA says there is harm.

The truth is that some SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts) include working on the de-feminization of some males via sports. In addition though, they use sports on the lesser- and non-effeminate as a means to promote a particular type of male bonding (non-sexual) that has been absent in so many lives. Besen is suggesting that such efforts are intended only to toughen-up. They clearly are not.

Also, when a researcher gathers data and then interprets that data, it doesn't make the data out of bounds for others to interpret differently. Besen is more than suggesting that NARTH has no right to have a different interpretation from some researcher's report on that researcher's data. Besen's view flies in the face of the whole point of peer-review.

Wayne Besen would have you falsely believe that there are no people who have changed and stayed that way, but David Pickup supplied the URL: voices-of-change dot org.

Besen says that "basically, anyone with a degree says that what you [David] do is harmful...." Besen said that even after David Pickup corrected him earlier about that. The APA doesn't say that. They merely speculate and some within their membership say it's risky in their opinion -- without any evidence whatsoever, only self-reporting by homosexuals who were not stable before the therapy. No cause and effect concerning harm has been established. Besen ignores that, avoids that, on purpose. They also have no proof that Reparative Therapy is ineffective. They couldn't because it is effective, per the people who have undergone it and are glad they did, as David Pickup so correctly stated. David Pickup knows them personally from his own practice. Those people are not being paid to say they've changed. Everyone of them should be offended by Wayne Besen and should stand right up publicly and denounce Wayne Besen for the false-propagandist that he so clearly is.

Besen says that "most" of the members of NARTH have "strip mall" degrees. Has he looked at NARTH's board and where they went to school. Anyway, I don't put much stock in all of that. I'm interested in the facts, and the fact is that people can and do change. There's nothing Besen can do about it, and he's losing the debate. The more people get to hear David Pickup and others like him, the better.

The following is my response to the video:

My response is primarily given in the order the topics came up in the video and may require listening to the video for full context.

"...paid to say they changed"?

Besen said that the reason NARTH didn't supply enough people quickly enough was because those people don't exist; however, people were supplied whom Besen does nothing but claim are mostly paid to say they've changed. There are many people who have come forward who are not now professionally counseling others.

Regardless though, what is inherently wrong with people who have had problems themselves and who have discovered the way to overcome to then make a living helping others to do the same thing? Are we to muzzle the oxen? A worker deserves his or her wage.

People don't rush forward because of people such as Wayne Besen who tell huge lies about them and treat them as if they can't possibly exist while telling the truth about their own experiences overcoming. His manner is bullying. It is intended to intimidate and to silence the opposition not because that opposition is wrong but rather because it is right. He is persecuting those who have changed. He's doing that because he is unstable in his homosexuality and fears that the truth will be known and accepted.

Besen mentions Rekers but didn't say that the homosexual who was with Rekers said that Rekers did not have sex with him and did not request sex with him. Regardless, the fact is that sexuality is fluid. The major associations that Besen touts say that. He touts them out of one side of his mouth and then denies them out of the other.

Besen says "real credentials," as if the people at NARTH haven't been "credentialed." Besen is selective in the people he consults. He has not talked with geneticists who know that the definitive science is still out on homosex and genetics and very much so.

My previous comment, which apparently didn't go in for moderation but was publicly posted, was removed. Perhaps you didn't like the link.

However, for those who don't know it, all Intense Debate moderators may edit a comment to explain the reason for a removal or edit. If they don't want links in their commenting, they can set it to not allow the comment to post if it contains a website address.

Anyway, I will now post my entire blog post as my comment here. We shall see whether FOX will unduly censor me, as the Huffington Post did (at first).

There is nothing in my commentary here that could possibly be out of bounds, what with the subjects covered and commentators' comments right on FOX radio and TV, etc.

The European equivalent of United States Notes would solve nearly every economic problem they're facing. They could wipe away all of the debt at once and without causing hyper anything. The problem with their economy is usury and the minds behind it. It's an obstacle. Bottom-up democracy could take it's place completely.

Ethnic Jews are definitely not Palestinian aborigines.

The US Constitution says treaties are the supreme law of the land. The UN Charter is a treaty. The US is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The Council's decisions are binding under international law and the US Constitution. The General Assembly and the Security Council have passed "Responsibility to Protect" resolutions. It is under those that the Libyan operation was undertaken.

You may not like it, but under the secular, mundane law of the world and US, it's legal and binding.

The wording of the Charter has problems though. It's ambiguous in places regarding Security Council military actions.

Lastly, I'm a total pacifist and called upon the US to remain in a non-violent, humanitarian-only role.

This is just one deal: 1,000 sq miles of Ethiopian, raw, fertile land for 150 pounds a week plus free roads and tax breaks. I can guarantee that there's huge corruption involved. There is zero way that this deal is good for the common people of Ethiopia. Government officials are going to get filthy rich(er) while the common people will end up in urban squalor.

Where's the general revenue for the government to pay for services for the people?

The rich nations are "buying" land to grow food to feed their own populations, not Ethiopia's. This is a crime that ought to be stopped. It's no better than militant, imperial colonialism of the past.

Not only that, but they're going to grow things using all the wrong methods for maintaining the soils and ecosystem and environmental health.

It's a crime. It's a greedy, neoliberal-economic, state-capitalist crime against the poor, oppressed people of Ethiopia.