That's the thing, Gore didn't identify a problem, he just mainstreamed it.
The science behind global warming is dubious at best, the politics behind is quite real, but the science is questionable. NASA has reevaluated their data on the world climate, and the hottest years across the world was not 1998 as was previously thought, but right in the middle of the dust bowl years. In 1998 many northern Russian weather monitoring stations were down because there was not money in the Russian economy for the extensive climatology as the Ruble had just crashed. The data was not adjusted to account for the missing measurements until very recently.
I spoke with my climatology professor about this for a thesis I was writing and he is in the growing number of climatologists who believe that man is far too small and insignificant to affect the environment. Man only accounts for 1% of "greenhouse gases." Most of the rest is animals digestion, plant decay, and volcanic eruptions.
So for Nobel Prize to take a stance with a man who says "there is no other side of the global warming debate," is very irresponsible and eliminates much of the legitimacy of the formerly revered prize.

Really? In the past seven years we have managed to prevent a terror attack on our soil. Our economy has been strong, jobless rates are as low as they have been since WWII. We have made massive technological advancements. We have tamed a civil war in Iraq, and Iraq has the strongest economy ever, Baghdad is seeing the highest percentage of people with basic services that it ever has. The al Qaeda has been depleted. Anti-Western terrorism is generally down.
We have seen so much in the past few years, I am glad that an American has won the prize  based on mainstreaming a scientific theory (how that qualifies him to win a peace prize is past me). But it is far from being more than a blip on the radar in terms of positive events that we can attribute to America.

hmmm... - none, actually.
and a return of Communism is out of question today in Russia.
most of the people here are quite happy with Putin's Authoritarianism.

I am asking just because I don't know - not trying to insight anything brutal here.

Why are alot of Putin's harshest critics dying, especially journalists? They are dying from snipers, falling out of high windows, getting poisoned from Polonium.

Could Russia be making a turn to Fascism rather that Stalinism?

I can understand Russia desiring a return to Communism - I am sure that many view the Cold War as Russia's hay day, when it took on America. Except America crushed the Russian economy, and forced the Ruble to get so badly devalued that inflation came to rates not seen since the Second War.

I have a feeling that there are a lot of Alliances being formed, Russia is Allying with Communist/Social countries (China, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, DPRK, Iran), Democratic/Capitalist countries (USA, Australia, UK, EU, Canada, India) It seems like a large war is becoming more likely.

All I can say at this point, is that I hope Kasparov isn't killed by the secret police, and that he wins the election (if he gets the nomination)

I have a question, I was speaking with a Ukrainian woman who just moved to America, and is very supportive of Putin, and his beginning to strangle democracy and personal liberties.

Which type of person (economically, and socially) supports a return of Communism to Russia?

I have visited Cuba, which I despised because of the Communist dictator. I lived in a very socialized country for 17 years, and I dislike Socialism more than anything. I am not rich by any means, I may be upper middle class, but far from rich, and I am not an academic. I obviously do not grasp what could possibly be good about giving away the rights to free speech, to control your own destiny, and  not have the government exert its will on your being.

I'd still like to get more input, but what I'm really leaning toward is "Is Undergrounf Man crazy, or is the society that his is in crazy."

Another I thought had to do with Underground Man either being agorophobic or misanthropic... but I don't think I can write 5 pages on that...

I would still appreciate some fresh ideas , ould you elaborate on "reason"?

My advanced writing class has me writing a paper on any theory or significant topic in NFU...

Some suggestions the teacher gave were isolation, what it means to be a writer, etc...

What do you think is a topic that I could write 5 pages on... All suggestions are appreciated...

Do you believe that socialism and anarchism are nearly the same?

I personally think not. However socialism must lead to anarchism.

Just look at the French riots. I consider France to be very socialist. When you give the people all they could ask for at the expense of rich... and the poor are leeching off the rich, the tensions will be strong. Eventually the people want the government to be dissolved, leading to anarchism. Then when anarchism inevitably takes hold, someone will step up from the common masses, and reintroduce socialism.

It is a vicious circle.

Shower upon him every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, so that nothing but bubbles of bliss can be seen on the surface; give him economic prosperity, such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with the continuation of his species, and even then out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick.  He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element.

This quote come from Notes from Underground. I know it means more than socialism, but I believe this is a scathing criticim to socialism. Can anyone find anything else on this topic from Dostoevsky?

What show was that on? I am a huge fan of 24. Love seeing the terrorists lose.

I would love to hear Sutherland recite Anton Chekov.

Now, if you replace "respect" with worship, then again, your statement makes much sense. A man of perception cannot worship himspelf

Now, I don't remember the passage well. In TBK I remember something about a missionary to the "Mohamedans" (Muslims). I believe that there may have been some mention of self-worship, in the Islamic religion. Am I correct? Because if I am remembering right, this would be very important.

Would you say that any form of self worship should be considered to be a sense of sacrilege?

If so then what can we make of the newer Episcopalian church? The more non-traditional view takes more of a stand that "it is what is in you that is important." The same with Buddism.

And what holds true of our perceptions of others should hold true for our perception of ourselves.

The key word is should, and I believe that the flaws of the characters are more telling than anything else.

I believe that what you said above is how it ws meant to be percieved by Dostoevsky. The Bible says, "Judge by the same measure that you wish to be judged." I flawed characted would obviously not follow this tenet, simply because he is flawed.

I would have to agree that the imperfect in FMD's work were often well respected, Alyosha was a flawed in so many senses. He was strong in following the ways of Saint Alexis, but I believe that he weaknesses and flawed, although not dominent, were important. I think one of Alyosha's biggest flaws was that he was unable to defend himself, and seemed to need to help everyone. He would be viewed as a saint today, but that certainly does not mean he was perfect.

Of course FMD was Christian, do you think that he might actually believe that Christ was the only person deserving of respect? I doubt it, that would not be Christian.

I have kind of been thinking out loud, and I believe that it is likely that your hypothesis is correct. I believe that I will write my essay on this, and will most likely post it here after I am done. But any more thoughts will still be appreciated... as you can see, my mind needs direction.  

Can a man of perception respect himself at all?


Is this at all true? Are all men ugly to themselves? Is this simply based on Christianity?

Seems like a perfect Catch-22. Either you have no perception, or no self respect.

I think that I will write an essay on this for my advanced writing class. Please give your input.

For Tzar: Are there any similarities?
----------------------
And here is a general question: Does Underworld Man compare to any of FMD's other characters?

Does Notes From Underground compare to any other novel by FMD?  Morally? Philosophically?

Hi, its been a while since I have posted. I am currently in University, and am taking advanced writing. I lucky that the professor chose NFU as a major work. Not much is new for me, I tried blogging, and it quickly became overwhelming. Having to make 2-3 long articles per day, that are good quality, takes a few hours, so I stopped.

Obviously there have been several changes, I am sad to see Underworld Man go. He was very insightful, but I am sure there is a long backstory to that, that I will learn in time. I'll probably hang around here a little more now that I have decided to pick up FMD again.

Jeff

I have read the first two parts of Underground after putting FMD down for about a year. The only person that I could ever draw a paralell with Underworld Man was Raskolnikov. Could he have been an inspiration? Very similar? I personally think (after reading only two chapters) that the theme in C&P (Is Raskolnikov, of is society crazy?) is in Notes From Underworld.

How many of you agree with my hypothesis?