babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » 'Specific' suggestions

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: 'Specific' suggestions
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 20 June 2002 11:34 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I promised SW that I would answer his questions in a more specific way. I did it only in a half-hearted way (that is why it took me so long) because I ***know*** that none of the suggestions I make here will have a snowball's chance in hell in the world we live in. I made them to illustrate that these steps could be taken (there is no hostile alien force preventing humanity from acting in a sane and responsible way) if there was a will to solve problems.

Political, military and business leaders of the US and Western countries do have the power to solve the world's problems. All they need to do is live up to their own stated rhetoric. The steps I will suggest would have the popular support if they were done in the spirit of honesty, solidarity and fairness, with full participation and contribution by the elite (instead of trying to do it 'on the backs of' the already disadvantaged).

So, before SW asks me if I see any of it as a 'realistic' alternative, my answer is NO.

It is more 'specific' than I was before, by pointing into the direction of gradually (not ***suddenly***, SW) reducing tension, hatred, injustice in the world.

It will probably be noisily criticized and attacked by Markbo, that is to be expected. I could make up his arguments for him in advance, they are that predictable. But why should I save him the work, let him sweat over his hot keyboard a little bit, just like I did.

I don't think I could add a lot more to it SW, or be even more specific, I would rather others got involved with their constructive comments and observations.

OK, after this long 'disclaimer' here come the answers to SW's questions.

--------------

"SW: Is that meaning the terrorism that departments of the government make, or the backlash from those? And what would they entail?"

Both. It entails killing thousands of innocent civilians (acceptable collateral damage) to achieve imperialistic objectives. It entails propping up murderous regimes that do the same in spades. And, of course, the backlash, just as you suggested.

SW: "Since we can't turn back the clock how do we correct this without stirring the pot further? "

We can learn from mistakes. The first step is recognizing that it was a mistake. The second is to see if we can undo it -- change our policy towards Russia and China from blatant and cynical (very short term) self interest to seeking out opportunities for supporting real democratic voices. Thanks to our past mistakes, there are a lot fewer of those now and they are a lot weaker. But they are not extinct - yet.

"SW: Bit of a tough one, but ok how would we change the way we use resources nation wide? "

As I suggested in the "Global warming…" thread, the environmental disaster reached the magnitude (See "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" I posted there) to warrant decisive action. We should ration the manufacture/use of non-essential products just like we did during the war. Use the liberated manpower to start massive cleanup of the environment. Not by throwing more destructive technology at the problems, but inventive and creative bio-methods to help the planet's immune system to repair itself. Again, the key concept is "gradually" reallocating our resources, instead of drastically changing direction that would cause a total collapse.

"SW: How could we change that without comprimizing the sovernty of that country? And if the answer is to refuse to deal with that country till standards are met, how do we ensure that they are being met and make up for the loss of resources on this side? "

In most cases withdrawing military/financial support from the dictatorships would do the trick (e.g. Saudi Arabia). Example: observe how the East European dictatorships all crumbled (all, except Romania, bloodlessly) within a few months of Gorbachev making it clear that the SU would not help them any more (with troops, weapons, money or even the threat of intervention). But the key concept here (as everywhere else) is doing it gradually, to make sure a sudden move doesn't make the 'climber fall to his death'. As far as 'making it up' for lost resources, we do not want to 'make up' see my comments on the environment. Again, no sudden change -- gradually, consistently and persistently.

"SW: I disagree that they Iraq/Kuwait conflict is resolved. Americans are still there enforcing a no-fly zone just north of Kuwait in Iraq."

Iraq was driven out of Kuwait which was the stated objective. They achieved it in a few months.

"SW: As well troop movement is monitored to ensure that there is no return attack by Iraq. Iraq feels that Kuwait is really part of Iraq that was stolen from them. So since the Gulf war, Iraq has only been muzzled by the U.S. and without that there would not be peace between Iraq and Kuwait. "

After the Gulf War the US not only denied use of captured Iraqi weapons to the Kurds and Shiites, but physically helped (by providing satellite intelligence) Saddam to brutally suppress the rebellion - the same rebellion Papa Bush actively encouraged during the war. With this act it prevented any chance of a better system emerging in Iraq, thus heavily contributing to current problems, that require their presence in the region (which, no doubt, was their objective)

"SW: Israel and Palestinian conflicts have raged for thousands of years. Not just 53. "

You are right in broad historical sense, but Israel as a state has existed only for the last 53 years and that is what I was talking about. If the US cut down their support of Israel to maintain their 'defensive' capabilities only, instead of making them a local 'superpower' armed to the teeth, politicians of Israel would be a lot more willing to find political solutions instead of the current 'gun-boat diplomacy'. But I agree, it would take a very long time of carefully backing out of the situation that was mostly created during the last 53 years of arrogance, brutality, stupidity and dishonesty. What they are doing now is anything but 'backing out' They are making it worse and worse with every move they make.

"SW: So rather than the U.S. should do something, how would you go about doing something specifically?"

See the point I made above. The US should not do anything, just provide enough support to Israel to maintain their self-defence capabilities. Israel would have to dismantle their settlements, accept a Palestinian State and then act humanely and responsibly towards their own Arab population and their neighbors. It would be interesting to observe how quickly levels of hatred dropped after that.

"SW: Well I guess you could make a law forbiding media being privatly owned. But wouldn't that make the government the only source of information? Maybe you have another way to make media unbiased. I would like to hear what that is. "

Before the historically unprecedented 'consolidation' and concentration of all media outlets began, there were a lot of small, locally owned papers, radio stations, etc. Just like there is a law against monopoly and price-fixing, there should be a law against monopolistic media and 'news-fixing'. If Microsoft can be broken up (in principle) to smaller pieces, so could media giants.

"SW: I mean if the pool of workers becomes smaller, does it not mean that the jobs must become more attractive to bring in those workers who could work elsewhere? And so if wages rise isn't it assumeble that consumption would rise aswell? And in so doing, create a greater demand for goods and services rather than going the opposite direction?"

Sorry SW, I do not understand your question and what it has to do with what you quoted.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 20 June 2002 06:14 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"SW: I mean if the pool of workers becomes smaller, does it not mean that the jobs must become more attractive to bring in those workers who could work elsewhere? And so if wages rise isn't it assumeble that consumption would rise aswell? And in so doing, create a greater demand for goods and services rather than going the opposite direction?"

Sorry SW, I do not understand your question and what it has to do with what you quoted.


Well Zatamon you made the attempt and that is to your credit.

You said yourself that you haven't any realistic alternatives to current policies. And if nothing else it is an honest statement. But what is required are realistic alternatives to current policy.

As you well know it is easy to pick this apart and point out that it is not the correct direction to move in simply because it is unrealistic.

In a world where it is realistic, it looks to be a good starting point. But like dreaming of being 6'2 when you're 5'4 though a nice distraction, isn't going to change a thing. And so to dwell on it too long takes away time and effort that could be used to work out something that is viable.

Learning from our mistakes is how we got to this spot from where we started. And so this is something viable. As well it is something that is incorportated into our system of governing though I admit, somedays it is apparent that some of use haven't learnt much at all. But everytime it is a step. Sometimes forward, sometimes back, yet it is always movement. Take smart bombs for example. Though they are often called "not very smart" here because they at times kill the wrong people or kill more people than they were intended to, they are infact smart in the context that they are called.

The smart aspect isn't that they hit what they should, but that they hit what they are aimed at.
They use computers and they take everything literally. The difference is that rather than dropping hundreds of bombs and hope you hit the target you are aiming at, you drop one or two, and with a high percentage rate, they hit exactly what they are aimed at. And so the military doesn't have to blow up three blocks to hit one building.

But I want to clarify if I can the last bit you couldn't understand.

It has to do with unemployment rates. At any given time there is a pool of workers looking for employment.

As the numbers in that pool decrease, employers have a choice of either managing without a position filled or sweetening the deal to attract someone to that position.

With more people working, more people are making money. As they accumulate wealth, the upgrade their standard of living. The consume more. This creates demand for goods and services which then require workers to fill those demands. After a while it balances out and there is nolonger such a high demand for the same goods. Once everyone has a fridge, fridge sales drop off. After the honeymoon period, those fridges wearout and require repair or replacement which creates a demand for services.

Eventually this finds it's level and remains somewhat where it is with little blips going either way. But I think you know all this stuff.
What is important I think is finding ways to make this work better with less or even none of the problems that it now causes.


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 20 June 2002 06:56 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
SW: But what is required are realistic alternatives to current policy.
And that is where the problem lies, SW. Just because we wish for one, it does not mean that one exists. As a computer guy, you know that there are 'unsolvable' algorithms. I believe humanity is one of them. There is a basic 'design flaw' with us. We are a system with a positive feedback loop, oscillating out of control. However, for a very low percentage of humanity, it is fun while it lasts. With this cheerful thought, I resume working on a 'solvable problem' of an ASP/SQL website for one of my clients. Thanks for the feedback SW, I appreciate it.

PS. If you have a fatal illness with only one cure available and you tell the doctor, “sorry, it is against my religion, I want another realistic alternative” – guess what happens?

PS2. ...or the captain of the TITANIC telling hist first officer, when he was warned about the iceberg on collision course: "I don't want to reduce speed or change direction. I want another realistic alternative!"

Wasn't there a movie in the 60-s called: "The ship of fools"? I am afraid, it is an accurate description of our species.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 21 June 2002 11:41 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry for the double post, I wanted to bring this thread forward to stand next to "Westen 'Superiority'" -- they go hand in hand. In this thread I wanted to demonstrate that our leaders do have the power to solve our problems if only they meant their own rhetoric.

Again, it was dismissed (by me first) as 'unthinkable' and 'unrealistic'. Which I believe is true.

However, it is important to think about why it is 'unthinkable' and whose interests are served by dismissing the ideas suggested in this thread.

Who benefits?


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 23 June 2002 11:27 AM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What I wanted to point out from the beginning and from a thread that was running months ago, is that it is unreasonable to rant and rave that someone stop the action they have taken to solve a problem, without having a reasonable alternative to that action.

I welcome others to sit idle and watch as they are thrown into oblivion. But please do not for a moment think that because you can not think of an alternative and dislike mine that I will be detered from the course I have choosen. To do nothing is a choice for come of us but not for all of us.


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 23 June 2002 12:27 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Slick Willie, you got it wrong again.

First of all, I respect anyone who makes the effort to try make the world a better place.

Far from trying to deter you from doing what you think is best, I encourage you and all other decent people with social conscience to try finding an alternative way.

I may disagree with specific choices (like supporting a war killing thousands of innocent civilians) and I would like to deter you from doing 'that' (alas, my actual powers are very limited), but it is a disagreement about specific actions, not a disagreement about your desire for a better life for all.

As far as my choice of 'doing nothing' is concerned, that is also far from the truth.

I am doing a lot -- the way I see my energies spent the most effective (for me) way.

First of all, I cut down on doing ‘bad thing’ with the life style I chose. It's a drop in the bucket, but it is my drop and my bucket and it is important to me.

Second, I work very hard to spread awareness of the true nature of the human condition and the historical forces that operate behind the scene.

What you call my 'rant and rave' is my attempt to make an impact by 'emotional communication', as I know from experience that it often works better than facts and logic.

However, I try to do both and I have had some success in getting my ideas across to people.

On occasion I encounter hostility and some people, sometimes, resent what I am trying to do, or how I am going about it. All that proves that I have a lot to learn and try again, maybe a different way, to get it better and better.

So I hope you take this post in the same spirit in which it was written and maybe see my attempts as 'trying to make the world a better place’, in my own way, just as you are doing it in your own.

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 23 June 2002 05:55 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So I hope you take this post in the same spirit in which it was written and maybe see my attempts as 'trying to make the world a better
place’, in my own way, just as you are doing it in your own.

Maybe you don't know. You're telling people to stop bombing. As much as you hate war, it does accomplish things. WWII was not won by convincing Hitler and the Nazis that they should chill on the Jews, give back the land, and quit killing everyone. I think that might have been tried but alas it failed. And so Germany got bombed back into the stone age. Many innocent people lost their lives. Say what you will, that ended Germany's war. It was not the way, that if anyone had their druthers, it would have worked out. But that is what Hitler forced upon his people, his country, and the rest of the world.

I agree that it would be far better if we could just talk and negotiate and work together on problems and find reasonable solutions to them.
But just the way life is, sometimes the people involved just aren't reasonable.

Something that was learnt back in WWII is that the U.S. is not a country to be trifled with. Every time you hit them, they hit you back ten times harder. Always. Without exception. That is why Japan was nuked. America wanted to make a clear statement to the Russians. And what better than to have a back stabber like Japan to show someone there are no lengths too far.

So while we do our best to understand other cultures and the problems they face, granted some created by ourselves, the rest of the world would do well to understand a few things about the West as well.


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 23 June 2002 06:20 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
SW: But that is what Hitler forced upon his people, his country, and the rest of the world.

OK, my question is: "who forced Hitler on the world?"

SW, the difference we seem to have is in scope.

You tell people: "if you have lung cancer, get a surgery and then chemotherapy".

I tell people: "don't smoke and you will not have lung cancer and then you don't need surgery and chemotherapy".

If they follow your advice, they may be cured and probably continue smoking (a friend of mine just did) and then guess what?

If they follow my advice, they will not have lung cancer in the first place…

Of course, when they are diagnosed with lung cancer, it is too late to stop smoking, and sometimes you do need surgery.

But it is not a long term solution!!!

You are familiar with the constant state of panic, emergencies and firefighting that goes on at corporations. They never catch their breath because there is no long term planning. Or whatever they have is meaningless fantasy.

Now multiply this a trillion-fold and you have our world. With much bigger problems than the ’bottom-line’ on the shareholders info-sheet.

With devastating technology and weapons that can destroy all life on Earth.

Shouldn’t we start thinking about LONG TERM SOLUTIONS, before we find ourselves without a long term prospect at all?

When I am saying "there is no solution" -- what I am saying: "there is no short term solution, only long term ones". If you define 'solution' the way I do, such as something that 'solves' a problem, not put it off to become a much larger problem tomorrow.

Of course there is a solution. We just have to accept it and stop trying to have our cake and eat it too. That, SW, due to the nature of reality, can not be done.


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 23 June 2002 06:21 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, deleted accidental double post.

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 23 June 2002 06:38 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I tell people: "don't smoke and you will not have lung cancer and then you don't need surgery and chemotherapy".

Then you'd be lying to them because its not that simple. They will still get cancer from other sources. So although its great to try to get the world to stop smoking, you still have to deal with how to treat people who have and will get cancer.

quote:
Shouldn’t we start thinking about LONG TERM SOLUTIONS, before we find ourselves without a long term prospect at all?

Well at least you acknowledge we have a long term prospect here. Maybe there's still hope for you. We have a long term plan thats the problem. Its too long for you. Your the one thinks we don't have the time to implement these solutions.

quote:

When I am saying "there is no solution" -- what I am saying: "there is no short term solution, only long term ones". If you define 'solution' the way I do, such as something that 'solves' a problem, not put it off to become a much larger problem tomorrow.

You have to define what is long term and what is short term. We have long term solutions to reduce our emissions between 2010-2012. We have long term solutions of bringing down dictatorships that will take decades.

WE have long term solutions to help poorer countries.

You have not offered alternatives to the solutions being offered, no incentive to not follow the path we are presently on.

quote:
Of course there is a solution. We just have to accept it and stop trying to have our cake and eat it too. That, SW, due to the nature of reality, can not be done.

THe only time you talk of solutions are with silly analogies that are unapplicable. Whats the cake, whats "eating" it and what's "having" it

Again you have not gone any further down the road of specific suggestions which your thread alludes to.

Only that solutions take a long time which aknowledges suffering by innocent people is necessary in the short run. That a long term solution will take time.

SOrt of exactly what we have now. Isn't it???


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 23 June 2002 06:54 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
change our policy towards Russia and China from blatant and cynical (very short term) self interest to seeking out opportunities for supporting real democratic voices.

What would be an example of a policy of supporting real democratic voices???

quote:
We should ration the manufacture/use of non-essential products just like we did during the war. Use the liberated manpower to start massive cleanup of the environment.

Liberated manpower is not necessary to start cleanup. We have thousands who need work but refuse to "cleanup" for their government pay.

What sort of effect do you think that this will have on our economy. Who will pay for all the lost jobs??

quote:

Not by throwing more destructive technology at the problems, but inventive and creative bio-methods to help the planet's immune system to repair itself.

Technology is helping, scrubber systems for coal fired plants, safer designs for nuclear plants. Cogeneration plants using natural gas producing electricity and steam. Fuel cell technology.

quote:
Again, the key concept is "gradually" reallocating our resources, instead of drastically changing direction that would cause a total collapse.

Reallocating exactly which resources to what directions. You have to be more specific. You want us to reallocate capital. The only way to do that is to exproprate it. If you expropriate it it will disappear. It will take flight to whatever part of the world doesn't expropriate it and there will always be that part of the world.

quote:
In most cases withdrawing military/financial support from the dictatorships would do the trick (e.g. Saudi Arabia).

Withdrawing military/financial aid from Saudi Arabia just give more incentive for that country to be overthrown by far more barbaric forces. Just like a perceived weak Saudi was incentive for Iraq to attempt an invasion. Or Bin Laden to take over etc... What evidence do you have that somehow more progressive forces would simply take over:??? Or are you just experimenting with people's lives to see what happens. and then after millions die and suffer you'll say: "Oops, I guess that didn't work how I thought it would"

quote:
But the key concept here (as everywhere else) is doing it gradually, [QUOTE]

Whats your idea of gradually?

[QUOTE]
Iraq was driven out of Kuwait which was the stated objective. They achieved it in a few months.


The stated objective was to stop Iraq from being a threat to the region. That has not been achieved.

quote:
With this act it prevented any chance of a better system emerging in Iraq, thus heavily contributing to current problems, that require their presence in the region (which, no doubt, was their objective)

Which better system was that? Are the Kurds known for their progressiveness?


quote:
If the US cut down their support of Israel to maintain their 'defensive' capabilities only, instead of making them a local 'superpower' armed to the teeth, politicians of Israel would be a lot more willing to find political solutions instead of the current 'gun-boat diplomacy'.

Or would their neighbors simply drive them into the sea? Like many have said they would like to?

quote:
See the point I made above. The US should not do anything, just provide enough support to Israel to maintain their self-defence capabilities. Israel would have to dismantle their settlements, accept a Palestinian State and then act humanely and responsibly towards their own Arab population and their neighbors. It would be interesting to observe how quickly levels of hatred dropped after that.

Or it would be interesting to observe how Israel is supposed to react when mortars and missiles are fired from an independant Palestinian state.Although I support an independant Palestinian state, don't try to fool anyone into thinking that the levels of hatred would diminish. That will still take generations.

Your comments on media ownership is interesting, I can't say that I disagree with a "one paper, one owner applying to each city" ideology. Has anybody made this work anywhere else?


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 23 June 2002 07:34 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Markbo: Then you'd be lying to them because its not that simple. They will still get cancer from other sources.
Markbo, you are wearing me down. I ***knew*** you would quibble with irrelevant details. You are a lot more intelligent than that, so it must be deliberate.

Look, I am not trying to brush you off, but I have to exert my energies where I have a reasonable hope for meaningful communication.

I have had several of those with you before, on topics that are not in your blind spot. This one is and I know it's futile.

I am sure we will find other topics in the future where we will have mutually enjoyable dialogs.


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 23 June 2002 09:36 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ration the manufacture/use of non-essential products just like we did during the war. Use the liberated manpower to start massive cleanup of the environment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberated manpower is not necessary to start cleanup. We have thousands who need work but refuse to "cleanup" for their government pay.


Environmental cleanup as it stands now is a joke. A comprehensive all-out effort to clean up the environment would require the marshalling of far more resources than we currently devote to the problem.

Making some guy do workfare to clean up litter definitely qualifies as grounds for refusal to work for "government pay" but it in no way equates to a massive widespread cleanup effort.

Tomorrow, if some country were to begin launching an attack on Canada, would you say that we need more evidence, or would you say, damn the cost, we need to fight for our survival?

I know I'd be saying the latter.

There is no difference. We need a war.

But not against other humans.

Against environmental destruction. Against perpetually high unemployment (by historical standards). Against the deterioration of human habitat as well as animal habitat.

And our survival is at stake.

So why are we balking? Why are we hesitating? Full employment in order to cure environmental destruction sounds like a win-win proposition to me.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot! We'll need higher tax rates on rich guys so we can pay for all this. They wouldn't like this reallocation of capital.

Well, there's always the printing press.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 23 June 2002 10:06 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dr.C. I am pleased you see my use of the ‘war’ analogy justified.

What I don’t understand is why people find it so difficult to accept the need for decisive action when it makes so much sense.

The moon program did not make any sense at the time and in the context it was undertaken (to ‘shame’ the Russians) and people loved it. There were billions of dollars for it.

The “Star Wars” research program launched by Reagan already ate up billions of dollars and it makes no sense at all, as any expert will tell you, or anyone with a bit of imagination and a sense of reality. The government had no problem finding the political will and the cash for it.

The “War of Terrorism” they are spending billions of dollars on now makes no sense at all, in terms of the stated objective, rather the contrary. People love it to death. Literally. Give up their hard earned freedoms and hard earned cash for it.

Yet, when it comes to vital necessities, like the air we breath, the water we drink, the food we eat, the climate we depend on – somehow 'we' can not generate either the will or the money it requires. We pay lip service to the cause and then put it off for next year or next decade, while accelerating the damage we do to our world.

We should treat it as the highest priority emergency of the world and it is consistently treated as one of the lowest.

Unless we treat it the same way as if we were under attack by a foreign power (the consequences of our stupidity) and attacked with the same determination as we attack each other, I hate to say it guys, but WE ARE SCREWED!

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca