Guardian: The survey predicts that Britain's population by 2060 will increase by 25% from the current figure of just over 61 million to almost 77 million.
Germany is the biggest country in the EU, with more than 82 million people, but it is likely to shed almost 12 million by 2060, says the report. The widely praised family policies and support of working women in France means that the French population will rise to almost 72 million by 2060.
With the British birth rate now at its highest in a generation - 1.91 children per woman according to the Office for National Statistics last week - the UK has less to fear about any "generation wars" brought on by the "demographic timebomb" of ageing and shrinking populations where those in work cannot support the pension needs of retired citizens.
Declining population is probably this biggest issue facing the West and Russia over the next century. Fortunately, the UK and that US are positioned for modest growth thanks to immigration and reasonable birth rates.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Frost? In August?!
Anthony Watts points out "another frost advisory before Labor Day."
It's been a cold summer across much of the US.
It's been a cold summer across much of the US.
Financial Times:
A horrible truth is beginning to dawn on the Democrats. Barack Obama is not the “once in a generation” political genius they thought they had discovered. On the contrary, he is a weak candidate for the presidency.
With a feeble economy, an unpopular war and the Republicans in disarray, the Democrats should win the presidential election in a canter. But Mr Obama, the Democratic nominee, is neck and neck with John McCain, his Republican rival. For sure, Mr Obama has some real assets – intelligence, grace, good looks, star quality. But history suggests that he is a very risky candidate.
Since 1968, the Democrats have won just three out of 10 presidential races. Their two successful candidates – Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton – were both white, centrist governors from the southern US. Whenever the Democrats nominated a liberal from outside the South – George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry – they lost.
Mr Obama is a northerner. He is a liberal.
Yep, the panic is setting in. Next comes the blame game, then the the excuses.
I seriously fear for what a few of the more radical Dems may do if they don't win this time around. They are truly getting desperate, and they had so much of themselves invested in this Obama character.
I expect we'll see the rebirth of the Weather Underground, or something worse. At least for a brief time.
With a feeble economy, an unpopular war and the Republicans in disarray, the Democrats should win the presidential election in a canter. But Mr Obama, the Democratic nominee, is neck and neck with John McCain, his Republican rival. For sure, Mr Obama has some real assets – intelligence, grace, good looks, star quality. But history suggests that he is a very risky candidate.
Since 1968, the Democrats have won just three out of 10 presidential races. Their two successful candidates – Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton – were both white, centrist governors from the southern US. Whenever the Democrats nominated a liberal from outside the South – George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry – they lost.
Mr Obama is a northerner. He is a liberal.
Yep, the panic is setting in. Next comes the blame game, then the the excuses.
I seriously fear for what a few of the more radical Dems may do if they don't win this time around. They are truly getting desperate, and they had so much of themselves invested in this Obama character.
I expect we'll see the rebirth of the Weather Underground, or something worse. At least for a brief time.
Byron York notes...
...Michelle Obama's Two Americas.
I suppose that individuals so inclined can make a case for either, but no genuine person can possibly make a case for both.
Which begs the question: Was Michelle being a populist demagogue then, or now?
I suppose that individuals so inclined can make a case for either, but no genuine person can possibly make a case for both.
Which begs the question: Was Michelle being a populist demagogue then, or now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)