The American Spectator

Sean| 1.26.11 @ 9:08AM

This is a great start by Rand. It remind me why the Republican establishment was all for his opponent Trey Grayson. Old Trey would never put their feet to the fire with 500 billion in cuts in year one.

log in or register to reply

Mimi| 1.26.11 @ 9:15AM

There is HOPE for America....When we can elect these new and Conservative Problem solvers. We need to support them and show gratitude. Always , in the nick of time America has these new people show up and edge the NATION away from a cliff and on to GREATNESS....AMERICA is truly BLESSED!!!

log in or register to reply

Steven Earl Salmony | 1.26.11 @ 10:40AM

DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION: FACT OR FICTION?

Please see below a note from a friend on the widely shared and consensually validated pseudoscience regarding human population dynamics and human overpopulation (in quotation marks), followed by my comment on the scientific finding regarding food supply and human population numbers from the research of two outstanding scientists, Russell Hopfenberg and David Pimentel.

"I agree that the Theory of Demographic Transition is just that, a convenient theory that holds out the promise of lower fertility in nations in due time if they just hop on the capitalistic development bandwagon.

It's a non-threatening and positive theory and it's potentially good for business for the developed world.

All one need do is take a look at population growth statistics,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....rowth_rate
(2009 CIA table)

and per capita income statistics of countries,

http://www.nationmaster.com/gr.....per-capita

and one can observe that a relatively wealthy country does not necessarily have a low population growth rate. Examples are US, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Luxembourg, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Kuwait, Bahrain and more. It can also be observed that many of the more developed and thus more wealthy and educated countries, mostly in Europe, have below

replacement fertility (Italy, Germany, Japan). Many countries with a predominant religion furthering large family size have larger population growth rates like the Arab countries.

The following paper, jstor.org/pss/2947709 concludes that

"..that indicators of education, health, and family planning program effort have a significant independent effect on fertility" and that "No significant impact can be attributed to indicators of economic development once family planning efforts and social development indicators are held constant."

Yet the National Geographic January 2011 issue on "Population - 7 Billion" features the Demographic Transition Theory, though it does briefly admit that fertility in some countries has fallen dramatically without significant economic development. Bangladesh is a major example.

As I see it, in the absence of religious or social pressures, most people would prefer smaller families as they can better provide for them. Given the education and means to control their fertility they will readily try to do so.

In many developing countries, the ubiquitous radio is the major source of news and entertainment. The presence of only a few radio stations makes this an ideal medium for education and behavioral change. Organizations such as Population Media Center and Population Communications International have been very effective on a per dollar basis in getting listeners to their culturally-sensitive soap operas educated on family planning advantages and seeking means to help them control their fertility."

The food availability-population growth finding from the research of Hopfenberg and Pimentel
shows us that there is NO demographic transition, NO population stabilization, NO benign end to population growth a mere four decades from now. That is the problem with the theory, which is preternatural not scientific and descriptive not predictive. Scientific evidence directly contradicts the demographic transition theory and indicates that human population dynamics could be essentially similar to the population dynamics of other species. More food equals more human organisms; less food equals less human organisms; and no food equals no humans. Skyrocketing absolute global human population numbers in the past 65 years provide bold and unmistakeable evidence of this fact. I fear that when the explosive growth of the food supply for human consumption we have witnessed during my lifetime can no longer be sustained by a planet with the size, composition and ecology of Earth, and comes to an end much sooner than any one of us would want, I believe this relationship between food and population numbers will become much easier for the people to see. And at that future moment in space-time people are not, definitely not going to like what they are seeing, I suppose. I also believe that at that time those with responsibilities to assume and duties to perform will look back in anger and utter disbelief at what those in my not-so-great generation have overlooked and denied, for a variety of self-serving excuses.

log in or register to reply

Steve| 1.26.11 @ 12:35PM

It seems to me that Rand Paul is the closest politician to "getting it." Even Paul Ryan's response to the SOTU was lame. I hope the Republican's follow Rand Paul's bold lead in cutting spending. John Boehner's 60 billion in cuts is a joke. We have to cut whole departments out of government.

log in or register to reply

jersey mark| 1.26.11 @ 1:33PM

Yes to cutting whole departments starting with Education and Energy. Two-thirds of the folks believe the Federal Government is doing to much, or trying to but not to well. Obamacare with its 132 bureaucracies cannot be implemented. We must move back to the time when we depended upon eachother for whatever help we need rather than the Government.

log in or register to reply