No real progress will be made until we are able to restore a basic respect for the rule of law. Without that restoration, those who make policy will continue to make decisions based on their primary goal of keeping and accumulating power and influence without regard for how their leadership or lack thereof might affect the rest of humanity.

http://www.gpln.com/oneissue.htm

Nuclear energy is being touted as the great panacea for global warming in some suprising quarters in Washington. What's next preemptive strikes on Iran for solar concentrator sites for defense purposes?

Part of the long-term programming that makes no action seem plausible is the ingenious sleight of hand that has attributed value to money, a symbol of wealth. So long as people think they have enough "wampum" to negotiate their desires (and in America, where obesity, depression, alcoholism, and varied other addictions are rampant, these desires are often anything but healthy to self or ecosystem) they do not feel the pressure to change their lifestyles. If, instead, a little sign coming from bees, one of nature's unpaid elemental services, reminds us that we are not a separate universe, but dependent upon the great Earth (MOTHER) and her resources, then maybe all those in search of a Calvinist view of God-loves-me-because-I-prosper might start singing some Hosannas to the great Mother. And pretty soon they will be paying Indigenous Indians to do some rain dances, because when the rains don't come, either do the crops. We depend on this nest called home, and the dislocated sense of wealth as an abstraction is so strong that kids today probably THINK food grows IN supermarkets. All you have to do is pay to play, and presto! free pass granted.

I went to a rally called "Sea of People" (http://www.seaofpeople.org) in lower Manhattan. Approximately 3,000-5,000 people listened to author and Step It Up organizer Bill McKibben, and various youth organizers.

What's all this placating fears of an inconvenient lifestyle if we go green. The fact is it's going to get harder whether we change or not. The difference will be our grand children's inheritance. They either get to have one or not.

The below snippet is from the article. Do not believe such "polls". ABC (Disney Corp.) and Time have deep corporate interests, and "Stanford" probably means the right wing Hoover think tank which is located there. It's not that difficult to slant polls, and any poll useful for the ends of the Competitive Enterprise Inst. was in all likelihood backed by it in the first place. Such polls simply cannot be believed.

================
"The American public has become convinced that global warming is a problem, and they say, 'Of course we should do something about global warming.' But many people haven't yet become aware that the kinds of recipes that will be talked about Saturday would cause a horrible impact on American lifestyles," said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank that is partially funded by energy corporations.

Ebell cited a poll conducted in March 2006 by ABC News, Time magazine and Stanford University, which found that although there was strong agreement that global warming was a problem and that the government should take prompt action, Americans roundly opposed any moves that would pinch their pocketbooks.

Of the 1,002 people questioned in the poll, respondents opposed a tax on gasoline by 68 percent to 31 percent and opposed an electricity tax by 81 percent to 19 percent. Instead, they favored less painful alternatives, such as tax breaks for companies to acquire wind and solar power technology, by 87 percent to 12 percent.

"They're willing to pay a couple of dollars a week, but not willing to seriously impact their lifestyles," Ebell said.

As for a gas tax, a bunch of us in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley decided to tax ourselves 50 cents a gallon for the gas we use. Our occasional meetings are a great deal of fun, and we've been able to give away thousands of dollars to promote bike paths in our town, to support a bike mechanics school for inner-city youth in Boston, support a solar energy project in El Salvador and many other projects. Check us out: http://www.voluntarygastax.org/

Public transit has an economic multiplier as high as 9 and saves tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Increased public transit use would also address many other problems: sprawl, drainage, congestion, insurance costs, oil wars...

http://www.freepublictransit.org

Siouxrose hit the nail on the head. "Cap and Trade"? tax pollution? Forget it, Americans just DON'T get it. And global warming has already started, it's not "for our grandchildren to inherit" it's here now, the last report from the IPCC was even softened up by the US, China, and Saudi Arabia. It's over now, not later. If we stopped all emissions completely warming would still continue from all the gases already trapped in the atmosphere!!!! Cutting back on everything is only the beginning. And fat America, even "well educated" america want it fast and easy, "their way, right away"
Going to the market for organic food while driving a Land Rover w/ a big diamond on their finger and plastic toys and do-dads everywhere. These people are so conscious alright, so good and smart.
Common Dreams preaches to the converted mostly, the brainwashing across america runs very very deep.

lead yourself...stop producing carbon via travel and stop buying carbon intensive products. there is nothing anyone can do to stop you from doing so. you don't need to wait for anyone nor blame anyone for a lack of leadership

SKEPTICS STILL HAVE US WHERE THEY WANT US

The skeptics still have us on the defensive. Despite scientific consensus, more and more countries, corporations, and conservatives coming around, we are constantly beating off attacks on the validity of the science of global warming. The public is easily confused and misled about the complex and nuanced science of global warming. We remain on the defensive, pinned in this back and forth debate.

Fortunately, there are other, very good reasons to move away from fossil fuels that the average person can relate to and we can use to take over this debate – but we inexplicably ALMOST NEVER USE THESE ACES!

National Security
Very wide appeal. We are dependent on, and vulnerable to, a volatile region that doesn't like us very much. We should pound this message home – it has very wide appeal and its truth is obvious. If we were like many on the right, we could even label skeptics as anti-American traitors for allowing us to remain in danger to satisfy their own greed;)

The Economy
Fallacy - the economy will suffer, jobs will be lost. This is a major fear I often hear my fellow Americans state and is almost never allayed by environmentalists. l suggest the following: The economy will diversify; our money will flow back into our country, not out to foreign countries; this is a fallacy promoted by Fossil Fuel Fat Cats so they can keep lining their pockets – they do not have America's interest at heart – they have only their own and this is easily demonstrated.

Having our Cake and Eating it too
Al Gore has recently gleefully been labeled a huge hypocrite because of the energy consumption of his large house. Despite Gore's rebuttal, he still appears to many as a hypocrite because they think if he truly practiced what he preached he would live in a smaller, less energy consuming house. We are missing a huge opportunity here. Many believe that liberals and environmentalists want to take away their right to consume and achieve the lifestyle they desire. This fear is played upon constantly by anti-environmentalists. Al could use this opportunity to demonstrate that environmentalism and prosperity are not mutually exclusive; that he believes in the American Dream as much as anyone. His lifestyle in fact proves it.

Pollution & Environmental Degradation
That Fossil fuels pollute and damage the environment in many different ways (which should be listed and highlighted often) is obvious to your average American. Despite what many would have us believe, Americans care about the environment. If they can be shown that alternative energies offer a painless solution, they will be more inclined to accept them.

Multiple Solution
Skeptics love to pick on one or the other alternative energy solutions and say that it is not adequate to fulfill our energy needs. This is of course a deliberate misrepresentation. We need to show that we will move forward with a broad, developing mix of alternative solutions. The gov should energetically fund research. Cheney torpedoed alt fuel research during the 70s energy crisis.

One other thing, maybe its just me, but it still seems that those on the right side (by right I mean left;) of this debate still do not seem to understand the importance of repeating the message over and over and over again. The right has understood this for a long time. It is one of the major reasons they are so effective. Wake up, libs and progs, and go on the offense!

The debate as it stands today:

Muddle Global Warming Science
Attack the messenger
Economic costs will be high

Our Counter Attack

National Security
The Economy
Pollution & Environmental Degradation
Multiple Solutions
Having our Cake and Eating too

If I were the CEO of a company and knew that in the near future, my main product would be more expensive and harder to acquire, I would immediately begin looking for a solution to a looming problem. One example: A man I worked for knew that mercury would soon be banned in California in the product his company made. What did he do? Years before it became a reality, he began looking at alternatives to mercury. It didn't take long, and he avoided the hassle of waiting until the last minute to comply with the law. He was proactive.
If it weren't for people who are able to think ahead, our air force would still be making bi-planes. If it weren't for sewers, we'd still have human waste running along the streets.
My point is this: Why can't the oil companies apply the same thinking? They know that their resource is becoming harder to come by and soon there will be none worth the expense of squeezing from the Earth. If I were the CEO of an oil company, I would have begun years ago to research other viable forms of energy. It's said that Necessity is the Mother of Invention. Well, the necessity certainly exists and these big oil companies certainly have the money to put into researching new forms of energy production. And if they were also taking the threat of climate change and limiting damage to the planet, they wouldn't look at nuclear power as an alternative.
If I were a shareholder who had faith that my money was invested in a responsible company, I would be asking these kinds of questions. What are your plans for the future? Am I going to have to take my money elsewhere, where there are people capable of looking ahead and acting before it's too late?
I know this sounds naïve. But I think it would be so easy. If I had the money and resources I would be thinking about the future of my company and the direction it would soon need to take if it were to survive.
And the argument about the government being unwilling to subsidize this type of research is indeed possible. All of our major Universities are subsidized by the government to find cures, or medicines, and who knows what else. Many of the hard work is done at the university level and it's big pharma that snatches up these new ideas to turn into profits.
So again, I ask the question. Why aren't the oil companies capable of looking ahead and admitting that soon they would be a company that doesn't deal with oil for energy needs but some other source or combination of sources for supplying energy? I suppose the answer is greed and running the machine until the wheels come off.
The ideas of the Apollo Alliance that I first heard of three yeas ago make complete sense. They unite the environmentalists and blue collar workers in a common cause. It would create many jobs right here in the USA – not some other country. And what's wrong (well, what isn't wrong) with the government? This would increase our national security immensely, and again, it would employ people in meaningful jobs that are both needed and good for the environment.
I don't understand it. It seems like a "no brainer" to me.

Nice to see so many people truely concerned. I was just talking about this topic last night with a friend, She mentioned Gore and his several homes. We did agree that the wealthy are the largest polluters. Poor people don't travel anywhere, buy used or don't buy at all, and live in reasonable sized homes. People don't need to water their lawns. I told my mother this just last summer and she said we have an image to keep up. I told her see wasn't impressing me, I can see watering the flowers and tomato plants though.

This capitalist free enterprize system isn't working towards a clean environment, or we would already have solar power made available for everyone and not just the well off. There are so many things that could have been done all along. I get the sad feeling that nothing is going to change rapidly enough, as too many people are worried about their jobs in so many sectors. People and their man made world, you've got it now. Good Luck.

That's because you and many, many others are not making the choices necessary to see that it does steer towards an outcome you prefer. Capitalism means you will have to decide what you want, actually act in accordance with this in your own life, and others will have to do so as well, to get the outcome you like.

You can all change it rapidly today. Throw away your car keys, and deal with the drawbacks. Never ever purchase another airline ticket or mexican vegetable, and deal with the drawbacks. All this and so much more can cause immediate drastic change as soon as you all do it. Surely the earth is more important than your convenience in getting to work, the fun of a vacation or family vist by airliner, or being able to get greens in January. Is the earth more important to you than these things, or not? Every action you take shows us your value judgement on these issues.

Apparently for a lot of people, their personal desires are more important than the earth.

Hybidoma: The answer to your question is simple - NO large publically traded company thinks long term. All they look at is the bottom line on a quarterly basis. That means they can only think ahead by about 3 to 6 months. And what planning is done is not for the long term health of the company or the planet. It's all about profits and greed. Period!

And Mtn Goat is right mostly. The only thing we truely have control of today is our own individual contributions to the problems of global warming. But I also believe that we all have to go one step further. We have to UNITE to force the governments all over the world to stop REWARDING those that are making the largest contributions to global warming. These companies, particularly oil, coal, and energy producers MUST be taxed to the hilt. And no more "corporate welfare"!!!!

you are the one rewarding them. you reward them with your dollar and your tacit approval shown by the exchange. they can always dodge govt force. they will work every angle to keep selling what their customers want. note that last sentence...what their customers want.

customers hold the whip hand. they cannot make you buy fast food, coffee, a big car, greens in winter, chinese tools, televisions, an airline ticket, or watelmalan peasant dresses shipped here in diesel belching cargo ships.

but it requires you to make the hard choices. waiting for someone else to make you do what you don't choose to do already is nonsensical. prove you all value the earth more than your own wants and make drastic change, today.

"What's all this placating fears of an inconvenient lifestyle if we go green. The fact is it's going to get harder whether we change or not...."

But as someone who has tried it, a low carbon, car-free, urban lifestyle is ANYTHING but inconvenient! When me and my wife moved to a urban community with a downtown job, where I could walk or use transit wherever I needed to go (and there were a whole lot more places to go than the suburbs), I found it profoundly liberating! I had feed myself from from a 3000 lb ball and chain - which was relegated for occasional weekend outings only. And as far as raising kids in such an environment, because so much of nearby includes public parks and parents don't have to drive the kids to shopping malls or other suburban crap, the kids have a blast.

The only shortcoming is the quality of the schools, but that is the fault of the suburbanites who for the usual racist reasons, fled, with their tax base, to suburbia.

well, that and not everyone wants to live in an urban area.

not everyone is willing to put up with the crowding, crime, noise, and other drawbacks in order to be close to downtown. myself for example. there are few things of interest in urban areas.

I'm not interested in nightlife, don't care about market streets or easy access to music or museums, and I despise crowds, and apartments, and condos, and homes on teensy tiny lots. It may be some would be urban dwellers are kept out of urban areas by cost, I suspect they are the ones buying the suburban homes where they are OK with crowded zoning.

anything i need in the city I am quite satisfied with the occasional visit to enjoy. there are many many like me. not everyone wants to live in the city, hence we don't avoid it because of racism, we avoid it because we don't like city life.

I thought it was over 13,000 rallies

I live in a poor village of South Vietnam. I haven't taken a hot shower for three years. I walk or ride a bicycle to get where I'm going. There are open air markets in every town and the foods available are the seasonal ones. The strangest thing I see are houses made with thatched roofs with a satellite dish coming up through the roof. So it's much easier to live a greener lifestyle here.
But that's not what I was writing about. What I was writing about is why is it that the big oil companies won't face the truth now and begin to look for new, green ways to supply energy. If it was my company, I certainly would have begun to do so years ago. I wouldn't want my business to depend on war or corruption to keep going. There is a future for green energy and we would be a lot closer to it if these huge companies were more concerned with the Earth and its future than just the next three to six months.
I know, I'm being too naïve.

they already do look for other sources. they are in buisness to return value to shareholders, not just sell oil. they spend a lot of money on research in alternatives...but until people decide to quit waiting for someone else to take action for them, and take it themselves, their actions prove the complaints about oil are more smoke than fire...a lot more.

Not one oil company can make you continue to drive and burn gas if you refuse to do so. Not one can force you onto an airplane. Not one is making anyone buy coffee from distant lands or japanese steel.

Oil companies will switch when consumers actually make it clear they simply will not purchase gasoline. Since people like waiting for someone else to make them do something they won't choose, every day is another wasted day as these consumers refuse to actually change en masse as they point fingers everywhere else.

"not everyone is willing to put up with the crowding, crime, noise, and other drawbacks in order to be close to downtown."

Well, then assuming you have to commute to a distant job, and drive a car a considerable distance for routine chores, you have chosen to put a bigger carbon footprint on the planet. Hopefully the cost of such a decision will soon become prohibitive.

Actually, my city neighborhood is the quietest place I've ever lived - no car-clogged suburban strips or freeways, so the loudest noise is children playing.

I am starting to tire of the affluent, bourgeois-elite that seem to be the main readership of Common Dreams.

the disadvantage to living outside of the city is the lack of diversity in people, true - i miss certain neighborhoods of los angeles, for instance, where thai, mexican, indian, persian, turkish, italian, japanese restaurants with good food and cheap are on the same intersection - however - and this is a big however - in my rural life the diversity of SPECIES goes through the roof - any given day i encounter 40-50 kinds of animals and frankly i havent a clue how many plants. i drive my vehicle once a week and feel pretty crappy about it - both for the gas burned as well as the financial cost of owning a vehicle which i would rather spend as time simply being in this fantastic and beautiful world. fortunately i love my work and fell it is necessary besides, otherwise i'd be up a river in northern bc learning how to whittle myself a house and dog.

PJD - no kidding my friend - but i must say that i lived in downtown seattle (actually the international district) for years and the noise there was pretty bad - plenty of trucks, cops and other nastiness rolling through the neighborhood - i visit once a month and i cannot wait to get out - i do with a lot less company out of town - and i have to really scramble for odd work here and there (although i do it at home - so not too much driving) to keep the cell phone full of cash - and my old van likes its regular cash infusions too - but life is a-okay and as long as i am free to do what i believe is right in each circumstance that presents, though i hate the circumstance, (the iraq war, the refinery in my neighborhood, seabird extinction) i must count myself free and my life meaningful. and i am as far from bourgeois as you can get (i certainly aint a townie!)

"Well, then assuming you have to commute to a distant job, and drive a car a considerable distance for routine chores, you have chosen to put a bigger carbon footprint on the planet. Hopefully the cost of such a decision will soon become prohibitive."

Anyone who flies by jet meets my carbon footprint for a year in one trip across the country. And worse if they go farther.

I note here you are hoping the lifestyle that I prefer gets too expensive for me, so I will live according to your goals. Is your judgement so important you wish people you don't agree with carry more burdens to arrive at your desired outcomes?

What do you think is going to happen to all the small towns across the nation if you get your wish? Is the loss of so many chosen lifestyles OK with you to satisfy your own values?

"Actually, my city neighborhood is the quietest place I've ever lived - no car-clogged suburban strips or freeways, so the loudest noise is children playing."

I'm glad you have a place you like. I would never dream of intentionally attempting to price you out of it because I don't like what you choose. Apparently, this respect for your choices and defense of your right to not be interfered with in living that way, is not reciprocated.

"I am starting to tire of the affluent, bourgeois-elite that seem to be the main readership of Common Dreams."

I tire of people assuming it's an elite who just want to live their lives free of other people's goals for them as if they are children or tools to be used to some end.

PJD, I agree with you here. Many people forget that the vast majority of the population has almost no choice as to where to live. The people who are able to choose are those with money or, as in my case, a desire to go and help the poor. But not many folks would choose to live where I am living today.
But the people! So simple in their needs. And they are always smiling. They are always helping the family. It's amazing. And how hard they work and study!
In the bible it is said that the meek shall inherit the Earth. I believe this to be true. As I said in an earlier post, if the world were to run out of petroleum tomorrow, the poor people would hardly be affected. They do almost everything by physical labor and use different types of bicycles to move heavy equipment. They don't need pick up trucks. They do it themselves. And you don't see anyone who is fat or overweight. Their health is excellent, so long as dengue fever or malaria doesn't afflict them. And they waste nothing. Never in my life have I witnessed such a comprehensive system of recycling.
I think the wealthy and arrogant are today's dinosaurs. The third world will soon become the place to be.

Of course many have little choice. They live in third world conditions barely above iron age subsistence. they use backbreaking manual labor which creates little surplus and thus have no opportunity to use surplus to multiply effort. They don't use pickup trucks or machines not because they don't need them..but because they cannot afford them. Because they cannot afford the tools to multiply their output, they spend more time working and less time pursuing other dreams because they must.

If one's vision of humanity is subsistence living and a peasant worldview, i'm sure this is all well and good. after all, humans have spent 99% of history living this way...and suffering from the consequences. Me, I expect more from life.

Now, if you want to live this way there's no way in heck I'll support anyone who wants to make it illegal to do so. Living close to the earth so to speak is as legitimate a choice as any other. Problem is, many here are not interested in returning the favor and allowing others to choose not to live this way.

All these rallies calling on governments to "do something" are based on ignorance of the fact that there is no proof that CO2 has any effect on climate. If ALL CO2 emissions could magically be stopped immediately, the change in global temperature in 50 and 100 years would scarcely be measurable. Plans to cut carbon emissions would waste huge sums of money to no practical effect, money that would be better spent on health, etc.
Nature puts about 35 times as much CO2 into the atmosphere each year as mankind does. (Our addition of CO2 is about 1% of what is already in the atmosphere.) Ask yourself how Nature is supposed to distinguish between sources.
The anti-global-warming movement gives a chance to feel good, but how many enthusiasts have any knowledge of the subject beyond seeing Gore's flawed movie? (It is full of exaggerations and deceptions, as anyone who has done some independent research would know.)
I am paid by oil or any other company. I have just done a of independent reading (hundreds of pages), and my respect for science drives me to try to introduce some reality into the discussion. The big climate scare is based only on computer programs, and IPCC reports are as much political as scientific, intended from the start to find proof of anthropogenic global warming and ignoring research that does not support this aim.

Mt. Goat,

But the whole point of hybridoma2001's post is that people living such a lifestyle are much happier, and, with access to medical care, they probably live longer than the USAns with big air-conditioned houses and pickup trucks - and between rice plantings and harvests they probably even have a lot more leisure time! How many typical USAn workers these days are even allowed a two week vacation?

A large part of the people in my area may have big new pickup trucks and big TV's in their houses, but they work 60 hour or more a week and have no life outside of work and sitting, exhausted in front of their TV's.

And, why should they "multiply their output" if they are producing enough for their families and communities? Why should they hop on the Capitalist treadmill?

It's the lever with which socialists hope to move society more to their liking. Note that even if warming science is correct, science does not tell us about politics...people choose to see that. As you see here, both explicitly and implicitly, this situation is read as a tool to be used to impose specific political goals on people using warming as the lever.

After all, not one piece of scientific work says carbon emissions are causing warming therefore we must become socialists. That inference is a chosen way to respond..not a scientifically mandated method.

"And, why should they "multiply their output" if they are producing enough for their families and communities? Why should they hop on the Capitalist treadmill?"

In order to actually aid in what they are using..instead of pretending that they are self sufficient. The medicines and care they receive was not created by people taking time off here and there from sowing rice to spend zillions of man hours in the specialties needed to create the care and medical products they use.

Such work requires sufficient surplus from farms, to have many many people not farming at all. To do something different and do nothing but that something different. Without the creation of surplus to enable this to happen, neither the learning nor the infrastructure nor the mining nor the research nor the production to do any of this can exist.

I appreciate your post and your question is a good one, but we can see from your inclusion of medical care that they are not living only on what they produce, they are living on what other non farmers produce...and for that, surplus is a requirement. IF it is intended they actually support what they use, instead of living off the development done by others.

I was notified of this protest by my local Democratic party. I saw a great and humorous sign that said, "Save some gas, get off your A..." (similar to a donkey). This is encouraging. It is a start, but only a start. The rally had many of the younger crowd out along with some older people in my locality. John Edwards helped get this off the ground. Thank you.

I never said that small towns can't replicate the minimized vehicle usage of compact urban neighborhoods. However, due to Wal-Mart and other big boxes, small-town America is in pretty bad shape - most of their formerly vibrant main streets being mostly abandoned to the big boxes on the bypass.

And, I am always amused that, as a city slicker, I can usually identify many more local plants, trees and birds than a typical rural resident, who can't seem to get interested in the outdoors unless there is an internal combustion engine and a gun somewhere in the picture.

As far as choice, certain choices should NOT be allowed any more than we allow murder or theft.

As far a I'm concerned, everyone who isn't actively pursuing measures to minimize their their motor vehicle use or other fuel use has Iraqi blood on their hands.

Mt. Goat,

I agree in the necessity of producing surplus value s teh basis of an economy.

I also understand that technology and energy usage was supposed to to have increased productivity, and allowed all this leisure time for US workers - Walter Cronkite used to predict this in the 1960's show "The Year 2000". But in reality, work hours and the necessity to have two-worker households have only increased, while real wages have stagnated or declined - while ever more fossil fuels are used anyway - the purported source of that productivity. I work for MSHA and I am appalled at the the hours that non union (now the majority of) coal miners are required to work - a 60 mile drive to the portal, 10-12-hour days underground, for 10 days, then two days off. Don't like it? Go work at the Wal-mart on the by-pass! At one time, miners laid their lives on the line fighting for the 8-hour day. Now they're clueless.

The reason is obvious, If Cronkite had understood Capitalism, why would the benefits of productivity go the workers? Why not reap the benefits of increased productivity PLUS bust the unions and drive the workers harder!

the benefits of production do go to workers. there is not one rich person wearing 100,000 hats at once, eating 3.2 million hamburgers a year, driving a thousand cars at once, living in a home drawing 16 megawatts (with one notable exception perhaps), etc etc.

every piece of the money in the bank accounts of the rich is exchanged for goods and services dispersed elsewhere. the material wealth of the US households are at at an time high somewhere in the region of 60 trillion bucks.

people are working harder because they refuse to be static. it is a failure of values and choices and self restraint...not economics itself. if everyone was satisfied with what they could have 20 years ago, we'd be done, as the actual cost of most basics is quite low.

but no. people want cars, xboxes, pdas, ipods, clothes, bling. i know so many people who bitch about health care while spending money elsewhere and complaining about debt it makes my head explode when i think about it.

what we have is the failure to inculcate the idea that spending is, actually, literally, and exclusively...PERSONAL responsibility. As is control of our desires. I don't buy much if any of that stuff.

We have a family of four and a decent income, but i refuse to stuff someone elses pocket so my daughter can have the latest cellphone. she can get one herself when she moves out. this is not cruel, it's just recognition of the reality of who controls spending...each persons own mind.

channel one in the classroom - teaching kids to know their own mind?

personal responsibility has to start somewhere. nobody quits drinking without getting a ration of sh*t from his or her pals for probably quite some time - and thats if the person's lucky enough to have courageous friends - which are, of course, harder to come by in a world where social institutions prefer something else- this a game for dopes only. the job is only necessary if you want the toys - i dont mean welfare - i mean you do things for people in your neighborhood - something useful - something the community can get behind - and then they do. live from home. learn it. geez.

channel one teaching kids to know their own minds, take responsibility for why, and ACT on their own minds...without waiting for others to agree and make them do it. good for everyone.

MtnGoat! But that's not entirely true. These people don't work from dawn to dusk. They have plenty of time in their day to relax and talk. In fact, they relax too much. You might say they are enjoying themselves too much.
MtnGoat, it's not all negative. These people are poor but they have so many other gifts to share.
You would have to be living here to understand. All I'm saying is they love their land and family and they love to learn and are concerned about the environment and waste. They aren't a bunch a cavemen. They have a very ancient culture. And they save money. They aren't tempted with credit cards. They buy something when they have saved the money to do so. And many might not want a pick up truck. They are happy with their buffalo and friends to get a job done.
Inefficient? Yes. But nobody breaks their back or is whipped. The job will get done -- eventually.

That's fine by me. I'm glad they are happy! I'd make the point that this must be chosen and it cannot be imposed externally for the people to actually be happy, as they are living as they want to live by and for their own values...not someone elses.

We had a huge turnout, and it was pouring rain (we had to move our rally inside.) People care about this subject all right... big time. This winter has been creepy. First it wouldn't get cold... we had mosquitoes on New Years Day. Then it became colder than usual for about a month. That's it - just February. Then record hot temperatures - in the 80s - for about two weeks in March, and now we're back in winter again, hard freezes every night. The Winter wheat is devastated, the fruit crops are devastated, the spring flowers have died, the blossoms are gone. Kinda hard to miss these days, isn't it? I mean, you'd really have to try very very hard to keep yourself from noticing that the weather has gone off the deep end this year. Everywhere. No one is exempt now.

Mt. Goat,

You failed to adress my question - workers such as those coal miners in mentioned don't get a choice over their work hours, they either do what their boss tells them to do or they are fired! If they are fired, they can lose their transportaton to the repossessor and their homes to foreclosure. An possibly even have trouble feeding their family. This is how working poeple live.

Forget Vietnam, first, please spend some time in eastern Kentucky or West Virginia.