Aid for AIDS Nevada severs connection with Canyon Ridge Christian Church

This just in from Aid for AIDS Nevada:

After evaluating Canyon Ridge Christian Church’s backing of Pastor Ssempa of Uganda and his support of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, we feel that it is in the best interest of our clients, supporters and staff to dissolve our relationship with the church immediately.    Unfortunately, we will be unable to continue to work with the church, as long as they are associated with Pastor Ssempa.   Since what he and the Anti-Homosexuality Bill represent violates the basic human rights that should be afforded to all Ugandans. Our mission is to provide client service programs that  assist in enhancing the physical health and psychosocial wellness of the individuals living with and affected by HIV/AIDS in southern Nevada, while promoting dignity and improving the quality of their lives.  We will further this mission without the support of Canyon Ridge Christian Church.”

More at Salon.com…

Print Friendly

  • Pingback: Box Turtle Bulletin » Aid For AIDS Nevada FINALLY dumps Canyon Ridge Christian Church

  • Timothy Kincaid

    Better late than never.

  • Visitor

    Mr. Throckmorton,

    No doubt this news brings great joy to your heart. Your continued campaign of fear mongering and self-promotion has forced yet another organization to bow to your twisted interpretation of events in Uganda. The direct result of your efforts with AFAN is that the families and children of those living with AIDS in Southern Nevada lose access to a group of people who have cared about them, marched in events and raised money for them, brought their children gifts at Christmas, and did so all without an ounce of judgment or condemnation.

    It has been clear for some time that you care nothing for those living with or affected by HIV/AIDS in either Uganda or the US, you only care about what drives traffic to your blog and elevates your name. I am sure you could not list for here even one thing you have personally done to help a single person living with HIV or explain how your efforts have in any way brought increased compassion and help to anyone affected by this terrible illness. I do not believe you can, instead, your efforts have resulted only in creating misunderstanding, distortion of the facts, and disruption to those actually doing something to help people while you hide behind a computer screen and attack any group who does not support your manipulation of this matter in Uganda for your own self-promotion.

    No doubt you will continue your efforts here rather than actually extending real help or compassion, but you can no longer pretend that you are doing any of this for anyone except yourself and anyone who views your blog should keep this in mind.

  • Michael Bussee

    :)

  • ken

    Visitor# ~ Aug 26, 2010 at 12:43 am

    “Your continued campaign of fear mongering and self-promotion has forced yet another organization to bow to your twisted interpretation of events in Uganda.”

    I have yet to see any of Warren detractors provide any evidence that Warren’s views of events in Uganda are “twisted” (with the one exception of Warren not delving deep enough in to a report of assault claims, however he has since corrected that mistake).

    “The direct result of your efforts with AFAN is that the families and children of those living with AIDS in Southern Nevada lose access to a group of people who have cared about them,”

    And hopefully many more people in Uganda will not be subject to the death penalty simply because they are gay.

    “No doubt you will continue your efforts here rather than actually extending real help or compassion, but you can no longer pretend that you are doing any of this for anyone except yourself and anyone who views your blog should keep this in mind.”

    If this were true, your post would have been deleted (sort of like what AFAN was doing on their facebook page). Nor do I think Warren pretending in his desire to help those in Uganda.

    He did not force AFAN to disassociate from Canyon Ridge what he (and others) have done is force them to look behind the curtain. And what they saw was not some comical charlatan, but something far darker.

    And I for one hope he continues his efforts. Hopefully, in time, the congregation over at Canyon Ridge will start wondering why so many of their partners are running from them and take a much closer look at Sempa, Bhati, and the bill in Uganda.

  • Michael Bussee

    I commend AFAN for their statemtent. I am convinced that both Southern Nevada Health Districr and Aid For AIDS Nevada are fine community service organizations with genuine concern for LGBT people and those with HIV — and that both organizations were simply unaware of the Ugandan Anit-homosexuality Bill, of Ssempa — or of Canyon Ridge Christians Church’s support of Ssempa.

    Furthermore, I strongly believe that many members of CRCC are fine, loving people who have gay people as family and friends, truly care about LGBT people and HIV — and are simply in the dark about theses things. If their leaders were giviing them the full story about Ssempa and the AHB, I believe that they would be very troubled by this information and might stop attending CRCC if their leaders continued to back Ssempa.

    Once SNHD and AFAN were alerted to the issue and once they educated themselves about the AHB, Ssempa and CRCC, they did the right thing — and they are to be commended for it. Both SNHD and AFAN found that they were “unable to continue to work with the church, as long as they are associated with Pastor Ssempa. Since what he and the Anti-Homosexuality Bill represent violates the basic human rights that should be afforded to all Ugandans.”I have contacted both SNHD and AFAN to thank them for taking such a stand.

  • Michael Bussee

    And I for one hope he continues his efforts. Hopefully, in time, the congregation over at Canyon Ridge will start wondering why so many of their partners are running from them and take a much closer look at Sempa, Bahati, and the bill in Uganda.

    Me too, Ken.

  • Michael Bussee

    I am encouraging everyone I know to personally thank AFAN — and to make a donation to support their work. I also am writing to CRCC to thank their marchers who took part in the AIDS walk — and to ask the church leaders to take the next step and oppose the AHB.

  • Eddy

    I’m pretty sure they’ve already said that they oppose the bill.–or, at the very least, that they feel it merits modification.

  • Michael Bussee

    I just received a very nice phone call from Jared — a representative at AFAN who helps coordinate their fund-raising efforts. He reiterated the statement posted above and was pleased at the positive response AFAN has been receiving. He was very open to learning more.

    He expressed his sincere appreciation to those who brought this matter to AFAN’s attention — and said that AFAN had not been aware of the full implications of this Bill or the situation with CRCC until this came up and they had a chance to really look into it. He agreed that many of the good people at CRCC may be similarly uninformed.

  • Michael Bussee

    I have also noticed an increase in the number of members of the AFAN Facebook group following the posting of their statement. A good sign, I think.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton Warren

    Visitor – Have you read the Anti-Homosexuality Bill?

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton Warren
  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    Eddy said:

    I’m pretty sure they’ve already said that they oppose the bill.–or, at the very least, that they feel it merits modification.

    Really Eddie … and where did they say that exactly … before now???

    I admit I was slightly sympathetic to your statement on the other thread on this .. that .. to me .. raised the basic question of how far we go with boycotts or refusals to associate or accept money from certain groups we might disagree with at some fundamental level .. but I am not sympathetic to your statement here ..re: that you’re ” pretty sure they’ve …” I am interested in facts .. not your assumptions or guess work.

  • James

    Michael,

    well done is your usual default-set work of isolating, painting a dirty picture and demonising CRCC, AFAN, Ssempa and the likes. I am pretty sure there is a handsome reward for this good work. Next in the line of casualities could be…may be Ssempa.

    Michael, I want to tell the truth AFAN won’t stop their marches with anyone at all. Not because of the aid, not because of the homo AIDS cases, not because anyother thing you can imagine of but BECAUSE the Values they hold and strongly cherish. Read the the statements on the blog and wait for marches come Nov/Dec, you will personally see this.

    Secondly demonising organisations or individuals does not help in any way. It will not. you should know what is going on currently about the bill in Uganda. Thankfully you are in America and I am in Uganda currently. You excel at pressurising but you score zero at civility. This fight against foreign aggression won’t stop in Uganda.

  • Eddy

    Dave–

    Where did they say it needs modification before now?

    From the July 18th topic thread re Canyon Ridge response. This is part of a statement that they have also posted on their website.

    He has, with other pastors in Uganda, publicly expressed objection to the death penalty in the Anti-Homosexuality bill and made recommendations to Parliament to remove the death penalty from the bill and reduce the severity of other penalties in it.

    This statement also appears on the Canyon Ridge website.

  • ken

    James# ~ Aug 27, 2010 at 7:50 am

    “well done is your usual default-set work of isolating, painting a dirty picture and demonising CRCC, AFAN, Ssempa and the likes”

    Ssempa was the one showing the dirty pictures James. He was the one demonizing gays. What Warren (et. al) have been doing is showing other groups exactly who CRCC is supporting.

    “Next in the line of casualities could be…may be Ssempa. ”

    Hopefully. But I suspect Canyon Ridge will withdraw 1st.

    “I want to tell the truth AFAN won’t stop their marches with anyone at all. ”

    No one wanted them to stop their Aids marches, nor have they said they would. Merely for them to disassociate themselves with Canyon Ridge and they have.

    “Secondly demonising organisations or individuals does not help in any way. ”

    And what do you think Ssempa has been doing in his anti-gay rants?

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    Eddie .. Oh .. OK .. I was unsure what you were referring to. My guess is that the AFAN found their statement inadequate … similar to what we have been discussing on that thread.

  • Eddy

    Thanks, Dave.

    Like most issues involving boycotts and external pressure, the rhetoric gets adapted per situation. I suspect that AFAN might not even be aware of Canyon Ridge’s statement but rather that they ‘read up’ on the controversy. In almost all such reading, Canyon Ridge is portrayed as being in favor of the bill because they have not withdrawn their support for Ssempa.

    Through the magic of ‘rhetoric’, one can honestly say BOTH that Canyon Ridge ‘supports the bill’ (although they believe some of the penalites are way too severe, they do seem to believe that Uganda has a right to criminalize homosexuality at least to some degree) and that Canyon Ridge ‘does not support the bill’ (they take exception to the bill as it has been presented and feel that it should not be passed if it isn’t toned down considerably).

    Anyway, while Canyon Ridge has spoken out against the death penalty provision of the bill, some of those who targeted AFAN conveniently left that out and made the proposed ‘death penalty’ a major part of their blast. (And, this is, in part, supportable. Canyon Ridge and the Ugandan pastors who recommended against the death penalty DID NOT clearly address persons with AIDS. From their silence on this specific, it is not completely unreasonable to question whether they support the death penalty for offenders with AIDS.)

    I presume that Canyon Ridge does not support the death penalty in any circumstance but I am not sure of that. I am even less sure of the Ugandan pastors. Could the silence on this significant specific be deliberate?

    I hunch that Canyon Ridge feels that they have been responsive. They did some digging. They talked to Ssempa. They got the Pastor’s Recommendations (for modification). But I feel they also see a bit of truth in Ssempa’s charge that both he and the bill are being misrepresented. They strongly resist being bullied into denouncing Ssempa totally and from withdrawing their support of his work in Uganda. The key there is the issue of totality. They admit they have concerns about the bill and about Ssempa’s involvement but, unlike us, they have a larger picture of Ssempa and his work. (The bill rightfully looms very large in our eyes but likely is not the sum total of Ssempa and his efforts at Makepeace.) Canyon Ridge likely sees the larger picture better than we do.)

    So, when the demands made to Canyon Ridge or to those they have affiliations with also include some rhetorical misrepresentations, it likely pushes Canyon Ridge in the opposite direction. It lends credence to Ssempa’s defense that he has been misrepresented and, at the very least, deters them from making any further public statements which would only become more blog fodder.

    Not only do we analyze and scrutinize every word but, based on our bias (mine too!), we interpret and sometimes spin both what’s been said and what hasn’t been said. Whether we like it or not, that is the dynamic we are now caught up in. (Note: I realize that I’ve stated that as a fact but I hope that it is clear that it is my opinion and, like any comment that goes towards motives that are unspoken, can only stand as an opinion rather than a fact.)

  • Michael Bussee

    Canyon Ridge is portrayed as being in favor of the bill because they have not withdrawn their support for Ssempa.

    Who is doing this? Have I? I don’t recall ever saying the church was “in favor” of it. I may be wrong, but I doubt strongly that the members of the church know much, if anything, about Ssempa or the Bill. Most probably just enjoy the music, preaching and Christian fellowship the Church provides. As a whole, I understand that CRCC is well-respected in its community, sincerely cares about HIV and does many good things for people in need — at home and abroad.

    If the rank and file members of CRCC fully understood the Bill, I doubt that most of them would support it. In fact, I think most would be appalled by it. Some might support the Bill, some would not. There might be members who think it should be “toned down” and some who think it’s not tough enough.

    Futher, I have never suggested that the Church — as a whole — supports Ssempa or the Bill. I did not tell AFAN that they did. I don’t even know that the leaders of CRCC support it. I do know that they have not openly denounced the Bill and that is very troubling.

    Anyway, while Canyon Ridge has spoken out against the death penalty provision of the bill, some of those who targeted AFAN conveniently left that out and made the proposed ‘death penalty’ a major part of their blast.

    Again, who did this? I did not. I never made the death penalty part of my “blast”. I didn’t “blast” at all. I politely asked them to read the bill, do some research on their own and to consider cutting ties with CRCC. I also suggested that they might want to talk to the folks at Southern Nevada Health District to discuss why SNHD had made their decision.

    That the death penalty may be removed is great, but it’s the entire Bill I object to — not just that provision — since I see the Bill as a violation of basic human rights and human dignity and bacause I think it would severely hinder efforts to combat HIV. Major HIV/health organizations, .religious leaders and heads of state agree. I remain as strongly opposed to it as when it was first introduced and as opposed to “compromise” as when you first suggested “lighter sentences” and even insisted that people had no right to express opposition to the Bill since we “weren’t invited”.

  • Eddy

    Michael–

    Sorry…I was not speaking of you in the bulk of my response to Dave. The only part where I was is the paragraph where I spoke of being ‘for the bill’ or ‘against the bill’. My reference there goes to:

    and to ask the church leaders to take the next step and oppose the AHB.

    You are correct in saying that you did not say that they are in favor of the bill but your statement may have led some to believe that the church didn’t offer it’s statement re modifying the penalties.

    Others, though, have suggested that ‘support for Ssempa IS support for the bill’. The one group that I cited recently (possibly on a related post) even inquired of AFAN whether THEY supported the bill…I recall commenting that it ought to go without saying that they DO NOT.

    The essence of my comment to Dave was considering the impact of rhetoric as it applies to this situation. Most of it was speculative and identified as such.

  • Michael Bussee

    You are correct in saying that you did not say that they are in favor of the bill but your statement may have led some to believe that the church didn’t offer it’s statement re modifying the penalties.

    I did mention that there was some indication that the death penalty might be dropped and that the Bill was not yet law — and had not yet been fully discussed or modified by the Ugandan Paliament.

    That said, I did not feel it was my place to try to speak for the church’s position. I let them know of my own concern about the bill and about CRCC’s refusal to openly and clearly denounce it. I suggested that they might read the proposed Bill for themselves and I provided a link to the text.

    I assumed that AFAN would then most likely contact CRCC directly on their own to clarify the Church’s position — and I actually suggested tht they might want to do so. I also suggested that they might want to contact Southern Nevada Health District to discuss SNHD’s reasons for cutting ties with CRCC — since both organizations are active in the fight against HIV and both had connections with CRCC.

    Whether or not they did these things, I do not know. I would hope that both AFAN and SNHD were professional enough to check things out for themselves and not just react on impulse or give into pressure without doing their own research. I am guessing that may be part of the reason that AFAN did not react immediately. Both organizations told me they really knew nothing about this until it was brought to their attention — and that they intended to “look into it”.

  • Eddy

    Michael–

    Your complete statement that I was referring to (and that led to Dave’s first comment to me) was:

    I am encouraging everyone I know to personally thank AFAN — and to make a donation to support their work. I also am writing to CRCC to thank their marchers who took part in the AIDS walk — and to ask the church leaders to take the next step and oppose the AHB.

    So, while you may have said all of the following somewhere

    I did mention that there was some indication that the death penalty might be dropped and that the Bill was not yet law — and had not yet been fully discussed or modified by the Ugandan Paliament.

    it was not a part of the comment that elicited my first comment that elicited Dave’s comment that elicited my response that elicited your comment that elicited my response that elicited your latest comment….

    In short, I stand behind my statement:

    You are correct in saying that you did not say that they are in favor of the bill but your statement may have led some to believe that the church didn’t offer it’s statement re modifying the penalties.

  • Maazi NCO

    After evaluating Canyon Ridge Christian Church’s backing of Pastor Ssempa of Uganda and his support of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, we feel that it is in the best interest of our clients, supporters and staff to dissolve our relationship with the church immediately.

    I am not sure what impact Warren’s campaign of getting US pentecostal christian groups will have on Ugandan evangelicals, but I am confident that it will have ZERO impact on the strong domestic campaign to beat back the gay activism choreographed by the Euro-American Gay Lobby. Ugandan evangelicals may have set the ball rolling, but the entire country— i.e. Ugandans of all ethnicities and religions—- have bought into the idea that there is a dire need to tighten legislation dealing with deviant sexualities, especially now that gayism-obsessed Obama adminstration is in office. Sorry guys, the genie is out of the bottle. A version of the Bahati Bill in one form or another—at a time of our parliament’s choosing—will find its way into Uganda’s stature books. No amount of foreign-directed propaganda will sway us from doing what we need to do to preserve our culture, customs and traditions.

  • Michael Bussee

    …your statement may have led some to believe that the church didn’t offer it’s statement re modifying the penalties.

    Then allow to clarify: I do not know if CRCC offered such a statement to AFAN — or if AFAN followed through on my suggestion that they contact CRCC directly. I sincerely hope that they did — to make an effort to determine CRCC’s position for themselves. That would have been the responsible and reasonable thing for them to do, especiialy before cutting off an ally and donor in the fight against AIDS.

    I would imagine that if they did speak direcly with representatives of CRCC, that those leaders probably told AFAN that they had suggested “modifying the penalities” — and that if they had, that AFAN did not think “modifications of penalties” was enough to continue the relationship with CRCC. Some folks find the entire Bill repulsive, even without the death penalty.

  • Maazi NCO

    That the death penalty may be removed is great, but it’s the entire Bill I object to — not just that provision — since I see the Bill as a violation of basic human rights and human dignity and bacause I think it would severely hinder efforts to combat HIV.

    Mike,

    Ugandans do not recognize gayism as a “human right” and sodomy is a dangerous sexual behaviour that degrades human dignity and health. Even in gay-friendly Western nations, sex deviants are banned from donating their extremely risky blood to hospitals because apart from intravenous drug addicts, sex deviants are the highest vectors of sexual transmitted diseases. Uganda will never legalize gayism in the name of fighting AIDS for the same reason that it will never legalize intravenous drug use and prostitution in the name of fighting AIDS.

    That said, I did not feel it was my place to try to speak for the church’s position. I let them know of my own concern about the bill and about CRCC’s refusal to openly and clearly denounce it. I suggested that they might read the proposed Bill for themselves and I provided a link to the text.

    Mike Bussee,

    You and Warren seem to believe that intimidating US evangelicals into denouncing their Ugandan counterparts will somehow have an impact on the law-making process of our parliament. This exposes your deep ignorance of Uganda and her people. But then what did I expect from a man who is a citizen of a nation where popular media and some public officials routinely refer to Africa as a “country”?

  • Maazi NCO

    Some folks find the entire Bill repulsive, even without the death penalty.

    Ugandans don’t give a damn what American folks think. Let these hypocritical folks go and lobby the US government to stop buying crude oil from pro-American Gulf Arab States that use death penalty by hanging to keep gayism at bay.

  • stephen

    Ugandans don’t give a damn what American folks think. Let these hypocritical folks go and lobby the US government to stop buying crude oil from pro-American Gulf Arab States that use death penalty by hanging to keep gayism at bay.

    So stop taking our aid.

  • Maazi NCO

    So stop taking our aid.

    Stephen,

    Very soon the Obama government will start begging our government to allow US oil companies a piece of the action. I am assuming that you have read about our newly discovered oil reserves in the newspapers? Your aid is a complete joke, which has not helped anyone. The sooner the Ugandan State ditches your “aid” the better. We are better off with money earned from our own resources (even if corruption is endemic) than surrendering our sovereignty to foreign imperialists in exchange for nonsensical aid.

  • Michael Bussee

    You and Warren seem to believe that intimidating US evangelicals into denouncing their Ugandan counterparts will somehow have an impact on the law-making process of our parliament.

    Actually, I am smarter than that. I know that Africa is a continent, not a nation. I know that Uganda, as a sovereign nation, makes its own rules and I believe that Uganda will do what Uganda feels is best for Uganda. I just hope they will realize that this Bill will actually do more harm than good. And I see nothing wrong with educating, urging — and, yes, even pressuring health organizations, religious/humanitarian organizations and poltical leaders to oppose it. .

    What you call “gayism” may not be a human right. But freedom of speech is. Freedom of religion is. Freedom of the press is. Freedom of assemby is. Freedom from cruel or unusual punishment is. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is. Life, liberty and the pursuit if happiness are. I strongly believe that this BIll violates every one of those basic human rights. And those rights are not worth one drop of your oil.

  • Maazi NCO

    What you call “gayism” may not be a human right. But freedom of speech is

    Why not lead a campaign to get Germany, Czech Republic and Austria to strike down laws that criminalize anti-semites who exercise their freedom of speech to trivalize or deny the Jewish Holocaust? Why is the hypocritical Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International not leading the charge against these European nations for violating freedom of expression? Gayism is a sex crime in most African nations. Freedom of speech and assembly cannot be used to justify the formation of organizations that promote criminal offences.

    And those rights are not worth one drop of your oil.

    I doubt the US government or any other western government buy into your naive ideas. If these governments did, then no middle-east nation would be able to sell their crude oil in Western markets and there would be no Western-led scramble for oil reserves in Nigeria, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Uganda and Ghana.

  • Michael Bussee

    Freedom of speech and assembly cannot be used to justify the formation of organizations that promote criminal offences.

    It’s only a “crime” for two consenting adults to have gay sex because you make it a crime. Those of us who live the USA, know that it is not.

  • Jayhuck

    Maazi,

    Ugandans do not recognize gayism as a “human right” and sodomy is a dangerous sexual behaviour that degrades human dignity and health. Even in gay-friendly Western nations, sex deviants are banned from donating their extremely risky blood to hospitals because apart from intravenous drug addicts, sex deviants are the highest vectors of sexual transmitted diseases.

    First, you don’t have to be gay to commit sodomy and second, many gay people don’t actually take part in that act.

    Your use of the fact that gay men cannot donate blood in this country does not bolster your argument – in fact, there is a great deal of feeling that this will soon be overturned and gay men will again be able to donate – as it should be

  • Jayhuck

    Maazi,

    No pun intended but oil is going the way of the dinosaur – there won’t be much oil left for anyone to use in the not-too-distant future so you better hold onto those reserves you guys have. The future will be in other, less destructive and harmful, fuels which Id like to think the US and other countries are helping to pioneer

  • hazemyth

    Freedom of speech and assembly cannot be used to justify the formation of organizations that promote criminal offences.

    There’s a distinction between promoting criminal activity and promoting the decriminalization of an activity. Lobbying for the legalization is exactly the sort of use for which these freedoms were intended. How else could laws be changed? People favoring the legalization of homosexuality should have that right, regardless of your disapproval — or the disapproval of the majority of Ugandans, for that matter. If people are not allowed to speak about (or organize on behalf of) unpopular positions, then speech is not really free.

    And before you insinuate any double standard, I am opposed to anti-Holocaust-denial laws, as well.

  • Maazi NCO

    There’s a distinction between promoting criminal activity and promoting the decriminalization of an activity….People favoring the legalization of homosexuality should have that right, regardless of your disapproval — or the disapproval of the majority of Ugandans, for that matter

    Hazemyth,

    You are entitled to your own libertarian viewpoint. But most Africans insist that any organization formed to promote the legalization of a crime — be it narcotics possession, paedophilia, bestiality, bribery or gayism— must not be allowed to the exist. Its as simple as that. We don’t accept that the libertarian world view of the West is inherently superior to our own world view.

    And before you insinuate any double standard, I am opposed to anti-Holocaust-denial laws, as well.

    Why are you hypocritical westerners not out on the streets demonstrating against the violation of freedom of speech in Germany, Austria and Czech Republic? Why are you people only obsessed with Uganda’s violation of the misnomer called “gay rights”? And please don’t bother to respond with rubbish propaganda about a mythical gay genocide about to break out in our country. Death penalty was opposed by several Ugandans even before busybody foreigners decided intervene. I repeat again—why are westerners not carrying placards protesting against human rights violation in the aforementioned European nations?

  • Maazi NCO

    It’s only a “crime” for two consenting adults to have gay sex because you make it a crime. Those of us who live the USA, know that it is not.

    Mike Bussee,

    Well, I could argue that a man and four women who consent to polygamous marriage are “bigamist criminals” because Western nations make it so. But in Africa, we know that polygamy is NOT a crime.

    No pun intended but oil is going the way of the dinosaur….The future will be in other, less destructive and harmful, fuels which Id like to think the US and other countries are helping to pioneer

    Jayhuck,

    You sound like a tree-hugging Green Peace activist. Yes, conventional light crude oil will eventually become non-existent. But that will take several years for that to happen. In any case, there are huge reserves of natural gas that lay unexploited and these will still be available in places like Nigeria after light crude oil reserves have run out in 30 to 40 years. In addition to the gas reserves, there are huge deposits of unconventional heavy oil or oil tar sands that are just beginning to gain attention after decades of being neglected in favour of exploiting light crude oil. These unconventional heavy oil/sand oil tar reserves in places such as Alberta (Canada) and the Orinoco Belt (Venezuela) are more than double the total reserves of conventional light crude oil currently consumed by the world. It is quite possible that in your lifetime you may not get to pop a bottle of champagne and celebrate the triumph of toyish electric cars over the fossil-fuelled vehicles. Even Barack Obama knows these facts, but as a politician he has to pay lip service to the liberals who are his greatest fans.This explains why Obama is making “green speeches” while his energy officials are out in the world discreetly scrambling for “non-green” energy resources.

  • hazemyth

    Naturally, we’re all entitled to our viewpoints…

    In defense of mine, I’m suggesting that such broadly construed freedom of speech is quintessential to democracy. That’s not merely idealism, it’s a practical issue. How can people exercise their sovereign power if they might be prohibited from advocating their own policy positions? What would you do if Ugandans decided that your political beliefs were criminal? How could you go about changing that, if merely advocating your own beliefs were a crime?

    As for your last point, I’m not answerable for ‘westerners’ and I don’t think I’ve demonstrated any hypocrisy here.

  • Jayhuck

    Maazi,

    You sound like a tree-hugging Green Peace activist.

    Well, I’m not – just a realist, but I must say you are becoming very good at name calling

    Look – we all know the world’s oil reserves are finite – that is a fact – From what I’ve read, as our population and demand for this resource sores, and as countries as huge as china and India demand more of it – the reserves will become increasingly depleted – even if I don’t see the end of oil in my lifetime, it will become so expensive as to be unattainable by most people.

    So put your stock in oil if you like Maazi – I won’t

  • Jeff Hames

    AFAN (Aids for AIDS of Nevada) has long list of issues that all seem to lead back to its Executive Director. Its recently become more and more apparent after the theft of funds by the staffer that worked under the Executive Director, wrongful terminations of other staff, the silencing of clients with Zero Tolerance Policy that was just recently change, attempts at banning clients, attempts at temporary restraining orders against clients and past staff by the Executive Director. The list goes on and on.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X