Huguenot

Snopes on Bees & Einstein One tried-and-true method for getting people to pay attention to words is to put them into the mouth of a well-known, respected figure whom the public perceives as being an expert in the subject at hand. To make a point about whether our current political leaders are taking us down the right path, dig up an analogous quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln. Or, to comment on the nature of war (e.g., when it should be fought, how it should be fought, or the consequences of fighting it), find a relevant example credited to Robert E. Lee or George S. Patton. Thus is it that recent concerns over a significant and mysterious decline in the population of pollinating honeybees (a phenomenon attributed to everything from global warming to insecticides to radiation from cell phone towers, and now thought to be the result of a fungus) have seen a resurgence in repetitions of a quote attributed to Albert Einstein, citations claiming the noted scientist once said "If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live." This truly sounds alarming: Bees are disappearing for reasons we can't yet explain, and a certified genius such as Einstein noted long ago that if all the bees disappeared, we'd soon be following them into extinction. If the intent of propagating this quote is to get our attention, it's certainly been working. Did Einstein sagely foresee an environmental crisis we're only just now beginning to notice? To answer that last question (without denying the importance of the honeybees), we have to consider the related question of "Did Einstein really say this?" First off, searches of Einstein's writings and speeches and public statements, as well as of (scholarly) compilations of Einstein quotations reveal nary a reference to the "four years" phrase or any other statement mentioning bees (save for a brief comparison between humans and colony insects such as ants and bees). The compiler of The New Quotable Einstein also found no Einsteinian source for this quote and lists it as "Probably Not by Einstein." Secondly, even though Einstein died in 1955, assiduous searching of a variety of databases of historical printed material (e.g., books, newspapers, magazines) has so far failed to turn up any mention of this quote (attributed to Einstein or anyone else) antedating 1994, when it suddenly started popping up in newspaper articles reporting on a protest in Brussels staged by beekeepers: A pamphlet distributed [in Brussels] by the National Union of French Apiculture quoted Albert Einstein. "If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live. No more bees, no more pollination ... no more men!" The beekeepers' warnings had some heavyweight expert support. A pamphlet distributed by the National Union of French Apiculture quoted Albert Einstein. "If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live," Einstein was quoted as saying. "No more bees, no more pollination ... no more men!" Finally, Einstein was, of course, a physicist and not an entomologist or botanist (or any other form of biologist). It's puzzling to imagine a context in which he would have made the statement about bees now attributed to him, or why he would have been perceived as saying something noteworthy that was unknown to his fellow scientists. The best answer probably lies in examining the context in which the earliest citations of this putative quote (that we've found so far) appeared: a January 1994 political protest staged by European beekeepers over the issues of competition from lower-priced honey imports, artificially high prices for sugar (used as winter feed for bees), and a proposed reduction of tariffs that would make imported honey products even cheaper. A key part of that protest was beekeepers' issuing dire predictions that as beekeepers go, so go the bees ? and as bees go, so go the food crops and other plants on which we depend: The beekeepers claimed that if they were forced out of business, the honey bee could be eradicated in Europe since wild hives were already being decimated by a parasitic mite called varroa. So far Scotland has escaped the devastating pest, but the threat elsewhere remains. "Within a few years all the wild colonies will die out," warned John Potter from Norwich. "The honey bee is threatened with a rapid decline." If the bees became extinct, the protesters said the impact would go well beyond the livelihoods of the EU's 16,000 full-time beekeepers and the some 430,000 part-timers. Crops such as apples, pears, beans and oilseeds need bees for pollination. British beekeepers estimate that 85 per cent of Europe's wildflowers are pollinated by bees and the death of the flowers could have a major impact on wildlife. "It's going to be a chain reaction," said Mr Potter. All in all, this looks like a classic case of a useful quote's being invented and put into the mouth of a famous person for political purposes.

Few rational people would disavow people the right to believe what they choose, so long as that doesn't involve imposing the consequences of that on others who don't share those beliefs. Clearly the indoctrination of children doesn't meet those criteria.

I don't think Declan was being offensive or interfering with someone else's business - he was just observing that with such a shortage of Catholic schools, if Amelie aske her friend why this specfic type was required it might allow them to expand the pool of schools meeting their critera. As for 'none of your business' - that's the kind of snotty domineering tone that you're accusing others of. I think if you're going to ask people favours, common decency requires that you treat honest enquiries with respect. That's part of the 'social contract'. I can only imagine that we've had that kind of aggresive response because there aren't any acceptable reasons for indoctrinating children, and so the zealots are going all defensive on our ass.

There are plenty of other beliefs that are part of the community that the forum represents that have no natural right to be expressed - such as racism, sexism and paedophilia. I see no reason why religious bigotry can't be included in that list. However, as you say: according to current mores it was perfectly reasonable to ask, and perfectly reasonable to be challenged. Not perfectly reasonable to suggest that being asked a reasonable question is INCREDIBLY RUDE. She even goes on to say that asking the question is presumptuous, arrogant and bigotted. The huge irony being, of course, that saying someone can't challenge religion is actually presumptuous, arrogant and bigotted. These are some of the many crimes of religion that say it has no place in a reasonable society. She's only being hoist by her own petard ;-)

Hmph. *folds arms* There are plenty of things that have seemed socially acceptable at some point that don't bear up under scrutiny. Paedophilia was popular pre 15th century, just because everyone was doing it didn't make it right. Just because some people think religious indoctrination of children is reasonable doesn't mean it is. We're shocked when we see it at Waco, but miss the abuse in our own backyard. Having said that, Catholicism has no reputation for child abuse at all.

I can't think of anything more political than religion, and I can't think of any more political religion than catholicism. As Declan mentioned, it's a poor friend if you can't ask them what particular benefit they believe a catholic school is going to bestow, nor why they believe that indoctrinating their child is a reasonable thing to do. I should be honest with you, asking for a recommendation for a catholic school on a public forum is INCREDIBLY RUDE. It's like asking recommendations for places you can get away with drink driving.

Hmmmm. Sounds like heresy (women thinking for themselves, whatever next?). Burn her, burn her.... ;-)

We have dualit toaster, but the wife being Canadian has no blinking respect for it. Heartbreaking... I feel so betrayed.

Nobody suggests otherwise SteveT, I think what other posters are discussing is what actually influences the price someone 'is willing to pay for it'.

Hi Steady Eddy, if you are making sweeping unsubtantiated attacks on the council accusing them of defrauding the public then it may have been directed at you, but it's nothing personal. In the real world our councillors do a pretty good job of engaging everyone practical in the debate. That doesn't mean we don't need to keep a little pressure on. They're also aware that there are natural limitations to that consultation process in terms of both time and expense. If Les Alden doesn't recognise that the relentless consultation and research investment he recommends will effectively bankrupt the council, then that kind of exaplains how Labour has such a terrible reputation for fiscal management. Les would be wiser to realise that there are always some people who won't read the papers, won't read their post and don't see posters. You can't please everyone - God forbid he would be elected and live to regret that empty promise. There will always be disgruntled onlookers accusing them of negligence for not supporting pie in the sky solutions that are unworkable financially and practically. It's a shame that these onlookers should be so rude when they do it. There is nothing on this thread that have suggested councillors are underinformed or failing in their requirement to engage local people in the decision making process. There have, however, been a number of unpleasant insinuations that verge on a slur from certain other quarters. If our councillors were engaging in that kind of behaviour then that would be cause for kicking them out!

Dan Brown thought they were a neat little commercial opportunity too. It was a rubbish book though - took around 4 hours out of an already desperately short life. Personally I think consistency between faiths is more likely to reflect a lack of imagination in dealing with the 'bigger questions' than evidence of insight. Crash and rebirth is an oft explored poetic metaphor... This is the way the world ends This is the way the world ends This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper When Eliot was questioned about the easy application of this to almost every catastrophic phenomena (it was actually about the Gunpowder Plot) he became quite irritated, but the fact he was asked so often tells its own story.

What is a 'failure' rate? Are all terminated marriages 'failed', are marriges without kids 'failed'? I'm thinking some marriages reach a natural conclusion, seems a bit unfair and judgmental to call hem 'failed'.

I can't remember the actual figure, but I think the total number of 'domiciles' in the UK is around 25m, with a population of over 60m. Hence in that sense demand is already outstripping supply - the issue is the density of residents per domicile, the size, the quality and the location. These attractiveness of these various attributes are defined culturally rather than economically, ensuring that supply and demand has far lower influence on price than the amount people are willing to sacrifice to gain social status.

cross-post with Strawbs...

It's difficult to say maryline, unless we have more details... Why doesn't he wish to pay you wages - does he suggest that you have done something to deserve this treatment? Just to check - was your position a legal one?

There's an awful lot of people on this forum claiming to speak 'for all the community' having done little work to support such an assertion. It may well come as a surprise to them that their views are not broadly shared by other residents. There also seems to be a local councillor who's done an lot of research in to the case making valid observations, has presented well argued cases backed up with accurate data, and has given every reasonable opportunity to the community to make their point heard. It's not a failure of democracy that suggests that the 'ban the bumps' brigade haven't been heard. It's not because someone hid the ballot papers. Democracy means that they have been heard, and their unsupported, unresearched and frankly weak motor-lobby jibes haven't carried the day. As for the comment about 'politicking', JB doesn't serve Peckham, so he can't answer you. Pretty clear that one??? Incidentally, I won't vote Lib Dem or any other party until one of them agrees to address the parlous voting system in our democratic system. I don't support any party. I can see a reasonable bloke trying to do a good job though.

I notice their ads say something about "taking territories"? If that isn't "control, coercion, capitulation, and power", I don't know what is? I could probably drop the "allegiance" on the basis that this seems more about subjugation. You can kind of sympathise with local people who have no desire to be conquered.

1974, about whether the Tefal electric waffle iron represented a threat to self-expression through music piracy ;-)

What are you talking about reggie? You think that a global caliphate with a medieval theocracy supported by escalating terrorist strikes on soft 'western' civilian targets is a 'good strategy'? Training educationally sub-normal teenage boys in suicide attacks, subjugation of women to the level of farmyard animals is progressive? It takes an extraordinary overdose of relativism to suggest that this is comparable with western strategies. That's what disturbs me with 'Stop The War' organisations, they've utterly lost the plot on issues like this.

All of it good sense, and not one bit of it that could be exploited with a unilateral instant pull-out of the armed-forces. Afghanistan needs a new strategy, but 'Troops Out Now' is a daft one.

I don't think that's an easy question, and I think it's too polarised - you're not reviewing the alternative. The question is, which would have created more global mayhem: Option 1: a successful, 'untouchable', well resourced, well connected growing terrorist organisation with a successful track record of high profile attacks on major targets, in a failed state where it goes unpunished. Option 2: a stifled, incoherent, poorly funded terrorist organisation with weak communcations channels pegged back in both the countries where it provisionally has the most support: Pakistan and Afghanistan I can see why traditional strategies would favour the second position. Clearly there has been a rise in talk about radicalism recently, but it's difficult to know what would have happened without Afghanistan. My bet is that most of it focuses on Iraq, which I'm not discussing. In addition, it's impossible to tell whether the radicalisation necessarily leads to more attacks in the west, as the lack of resources means that potential attackers go unfunded and undirected. Would no UN involvement in the Afghanistan conflict have actually resulted in fewer, but much more effective attackers? Fewer coalition soldiers have been killed in the last decade in Afghanistan than civilians died at the World Trade Centre. It's difficult to count Afghanistan civilian casualties in isolation. It needs to be remembered that there is an essentially civil war underway in Afghanistan, much as is taking place in the north-Western frontier in Pakistan. The Taliban currently kill 700-1000 civilians annually, but many of these are women, school teachers and aid-workers who are murdered for their opposition to the regime and theocracy. They would also have been murdered had the United Nations forces not been present. This figure may well be less than those murdered whilst the Taliban regime was in ascendancy.

Everyone isn't incensed by the news, because the issue isn't as clear cut as you make out. The rail service is a network, and the objective of the changes is to increase the total amount of passengers serviced across South London, rather than simply the service affecting East Dulwich. The misrepresentation of the situation by an enraged minority may well be putting people right off the support.

No, but there is the practical challenge that there were a number of criminals based in the Afghan back-yard waging death and destruction against civilians in the west for ideological reasons. These attacks showed no sign of abating, were likely to escalate if the criminals operated with impunity, and the local Taliban regime demonstrated no willingness to curtail their activities, since it shared their goals if not their methods. The 'provocation' revolved around several thousand years of malpractice and religious mistrust, and offered no hope of a practical resolution since it resolved around the creation of a greater global caliphate and the subordination of the population to an extremist medieval theology. Hence, from reggie's perspective, there was no reasonable hope of 'amending our ideology' to meet their requirements. After a significant number of horrific attacks and foiled attacks resulting in the deaths of thousands, it was clear that 'do nothing' wasn't an option. Regime change was the best of a host of extremely unattractive ideas, and the task of disarmament is virtually insurmountable given the rugged terrain and the desire of competing wealthy suppliers to see America's nose rubbed in the mud. The mess with the various warlords nationally is a reflection of a strategy that genuinely tried to 'do the right thing' and felt that sponsoring a murderous bunch of thugs wouldn't go down well with the electorate back home. A case of biting off more than one can chew. Either way, the presentation of the conflict as a crusade that needs to be terminated forthwith really isn't helping matters. And of course 'altering our ideology' isn't really going to help unless we welcome tyranny.

Louisiana backing Huguenot? That'll be the day. I remain totally isolated on this one, for good reason.

Is Wootton Basett the most important issue? Where do you draw the line? Do you think we should leave Northern Ireland to the IRA and Srebrenica to Mladic and his goons? Or are those too close to home to ignore? Would you just like to ignore Afghanistan because they're far enough away and muslim? It may be that our differences are more fundamental. I believe that we have a responsibility to intercede with our neighbour if he slaps his wife around. If we accept that underlying premise, then there's no logical statute of limitation based on how far away their house might be, or what religion they are. There's also a complete abdication of responsibility if we don't do anything about it because he might give us a slap too. Clearly intercession doesn't make you safer, and it might get messy. We have an additional incentive if every now and then he likes to slap our own wives around, and then go running home and close the door. Combine that with the fact he is using his home as a base from which persuade the easily led that wife-slapping is a good thing, and it's kind of in our own self-interest to intercede. I think 'Stop The War' campaigners don't take on that responsibility and consequently invent hundreds of ways to prove that the neighbour isn't a wife-beater. The overwhelming guilt trip that approach creates means that in a bizarre volte-face they turn their wrath not on the wife-beater, but on the altruistic neighbour who argues for intervention. It's quite frankly naive to suggest that the man is beating women because you've provoked him, and downright ridiculous to suggest that wife-beaters don't exist and that all the violence would stop if we stopped drawing attention to him. Maybe put your cards on the table - what do you think it's all about reggie?