Well, that's not good.
*promote the idea of preparing for another massive African famine that could make Ethiopia in the 80's seem like a walk in the park.
Sadly it seems there's little in the way of actual preparation, even the exceptionally minimal plans to stop the infestation aren't being funded.
It's disgusting that the planet can't come up with $76 million to stop a famine, but instead has given only $20 million and only promised another $10 million.

Well, that's one step in the right direction that you now admit the undeniable fact that global temperatures are rising....finally.
Interesting, then what is your theory, seeing as natural cycles would have our temperatures falling right now, but since the industrial revolution they've been trending higher. You can't blame volcanos, there've been no massive volcanic releases to cause it, only minor ones that barely register.

Yes, true, the Paris accord is too little too late, that's not somehow condemnation of the idea that global climate change is man made. Only one nation even questions that, and really only <1/3 of that nation.
Did you ever watch An Inconvenient Truth....I don't think so, because it said no such thing, I think you're repeating what a talking head told you it said. He did say we would probably see obvious effects by now...and we do. He did not say we would all be dead, not even in 100 years.

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are not still here, they are dead of famine and wars caused by, and causing, migrating populations. Most of East Africa is in severe drought as bad or worse than Ethiopia in the 80's, just like Gore warned would be increasingly more likely due to climate change, and India and Asia are threatened with losing their main sources of water because of accelerated glacial melting.

Didn't watch the video, but did skim the comments... Christ...

First off, moving to Canada and any other decent first world nation be it New Zealand, Australia, the UK, Iceland, Netherlands, Canada etc... not as easy as just packing up and moving. You need a very narrow set of skills to move to those countries. We looked into all this countries, and all of their entry requirements exceeded what we had to offer them. People always say if you don't like it leave, but that ignores several facts. It isn't we don't like it, we just think it can be improved, change isn't bad. Humanity isn't bad. Caring for those less fortunate isn't bad. Guaranteeing everyone a minimum level of affordable health care isn't bad. Working to insure that all workers get a living wage (the way we used to have before the employers/owners started getting greedy and redistributing more wealth to themselves), isn't a bad goal, in fact it's a very good thing. The famed clip from the Newsroom's first episode when he goes on about how America isn't great anymore but it used to be...

Of course the whole concept of American exceptionalism, or any nation exceptionalism is flawed. We are all humans on this planet. Being American doesn't make you superior to somebody born in China or Mexico, Ethiopia, Syria or anywhere else. Location of birth is an accident of timing... and if it is divine intervention by God that placed you here instead of Ethiopia where you may have starved to death with an inflated malnourished belly despite all your prayers, then God is an ass and not worth serving. So if he's not an ass, then it is pure accident that you are here and not there. To think oneself superior and better than somebody in another nation because of their location of birth, and the religion that comes with that location, is insanity. And I draw that all ways. The Muslims who despise Christianity for not being the true faith, and Christians who despise Islam for not being the true faith. You are your faith by accident of birth, be it location and/or parentage etc... all of which is getting away from the point. Which is simply that to say that Chinese worker doesn't deserve a job manufacturing something that you think you should be building is asinine and not respectful of their humanity and a complete lack of any sort of empathy. Christ, I have Aspergers and I have more empathy in my farts than the entire Tea Party Christian Right.

Yes we need to respect the individual, but "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one"... and that quote is in context and not just a cherry pick sample. If it benefits just one and damages the many, then it is not a good thing. Most every faith in the world has some variation of the Golden Rule, to treat others the way you want others (not that specific person, but people as a general whole) to treat you. Christianity's Christ went further and said the greatest commandment was love, to show love to one another. Greed and selfishness is not love. Collectivism has many faults as well, but it isn't tyranny, and is certainly better for society as a whole in the long run than unrestrained greed motivated individualism. Like Pink Floyd's song, On the Turning Away, says, we are all "just a world we all must share". We can't turn away from the coldness inside towards others. We need to lift all of humanity up. Perhaps showing the Muslims love instead of hate and bigotry would convince them that perhaps Christianity isn't the enemy, that perhaps it is the answer, but showing them hate, and bigotry... and denying refugees trying to flee a horrible civil war is bigotry and hatred, and the fact that a rather disturbingly large percentage of the right can't see that isn't bigotry and hatred is scary beyond measure. I again find it amazing that people could lack that much empathy without a neurological disorder.

To invade others, tell them how to live their lives, to force democracy on them if they aren't ready, to insult them and belittle their faith, and all that isn't world building. It isn't reaching out with empathy. It's hate. It's bigotry and as noted by artician, it's what helps drive people to fly into buildings. They know that they know that their faith is the right one, and the lack of empathy to see that people of the Muslim faith have just as much faith in their religion as Christians have in theirs, that they have the same amount of knowledge and comfort from god that they are the correct faith, is what drives extremism.

And oh my god the guns. Guns would have saved the Jews. American mainland can't be invaded because too many people own guns... ask the Branch Davidians how well having not only military grade weapons but also training on how to use them worked for them against a slightly militarized police force, let alone an actual military. Yes, it would be incredibly hard, and resistance would probably eventually wear any invading force down the way the Taliban wore the Soviets down, or the Viet Cong did against the US Military might. So perhaps that can be counted as a victory, but would be long fought. Look, I support gun ownership. All I really call for is 1) allowing the CDC get back to it's job of collecting the data and finding out what's really going on with gun violence, and 2) closing the gun show loophole unless the CDC's investigation shows that it has zero effect, 3) you have to have a legal ID to own a gun and can't be on the no fly list, 4) the existing background checks kept the same, but also add a drug test, the right wants drug tests for welfare, then we should be testing for gun owenrship too. (I see little reason for "assault weapons" but aside from perhaps having perhaps a slightly better background check, I don't know if a ban yet needs to be called for, but I'm in the middle here.) Once we have have better data points from the CDC then we can really tackle the issue of gun violence. Yes, it will take years to get those answers, but I find it insane that the Republicans refuse to allow the investigation to go on, which says to me that they are afraid of what the data will show.

Unless you are nearly a pure Native American, then you are a refugee to the US.

The primary problem here and around the world is poverty and lack of proper education. This drives people to crime and extremism in religion which makes them susceptible to acting out terrorist acts, be it in the name of Allah (as is the public perceived norm) or Christ (ala the Planed Parenthood terrorist attack, the 2011 Norway attacks, etc). We need to address the growing income and wealth gaps. The way to doing that isn't by giving those at the top even more tax breaks and losing regulations (which is funny thing to complain about, too many regulations here in the US, meanwhile the same people complain about the low quality Chinese goods that aren't safe due to low regulations and poor labor conditions etc). We need to push education, and proper STEM programs, not deflated science trying to force Creationism in via so called "Intelligent Design" or "teaching the controversy" stick to the actual science. Don't object to the "new math" if it's teaching better fundamentals of understanding what the numbers are actually doing even if it doesn't teach the shortcuts we were taught... and lots of the stuff people complain about is just the fact we don't skip right to the shortcut that works. Yes, it works, but it helps if they better understand the underlying fundamentals of the numbers and the actual math. Again, change isn't a bad thing, to object just because you don't understand or don't like it compared to the simplified shortcut we all learned doesn't make it bad. Reading also needs pushed, and understanding of logical fallacies and logical and faulty thinking.

I believe that a post scarcity world is impossible due to the nature of humanity. There are far too many greedy people that will never want the world to get to that point. However, that should be the noble goal. Post scarcity society has many issues, but perhaps by the time we actually got there we'd be able to solve them.

TLDR: Basically it all comes down to empathy. To view everything as the others view it. I get the fear and panic and all that the right has, and not just because I once upon a time was a right wing evangelical Christian who called those who received food stamps lazy bums, who said that Democrats and the liberals just wanted to keep the poor trapped so they would always need help. Yes, I was there and that helps, but I can still empathize with them without that past. I've never been a Muslim raised in a nation dominated by Islam, but I can still empathize with the way they see what the US is doing to them, the way they have to see people like Donald Trump and the scary amount of Americans that support him. It's easy to see why some are driven to extremism. I can empathize with that Mexican who just wants a better life and knows that Mexico can't give it to him so he has to risk it all to try and immigrate to the US. I can empathize with the Chinese worker who has been given an opportunity to build something, to escape the poverty... for while perhaps still poverty, less poverty than before, and I'm thankful that I got that opportunity, and I'm sorry that somebody in the US doesn't get to do it, but I'm a human too. Empathy. Learn it. It can be learned, neurological disorder or not.

Regimes supported

Juan Vicente Gomez, Venezuela, 1908-1935.
Jorge Ubico, Guatemala, 1931-1944.
Fulgencio Batista, Republic of Cuba 1952-1959.
Syngman Rhee, Republic of Korea (South Korea), 1948-1960.
Rafael Trujillo, Dominican Republic, 1930-1961.[citation needed]
Ngo Dinh Diem, Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), 1955-1963.
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran, 1953-1979.
Anastasio Somoza Garcia, Nicaragua, 1967-1979.
Military Junta in Guatemala, 1954-1982.
Military Junta in Bolivia, 1964-1982.[citation needed]
Military Junta in Argentina, 1976-1983.
Brazilian military government, 1964-1985.
François Duvalier and Jean-Claude Duvalier, Republic of Haiti, 1957-1971; 1971-1986.[citation needed]
Alfredo Stroessner, Paraguay, 1954-1989.[citation needed]
Ferdinand Marcos, Philippines, 1965-1986.[8][9]
General Manuel Noriega, Republic of Panama, 1983-1989.
General Augusto Pinochet, Chile, 1973-1990.
Saddam Hussein, Republic of Iraq, 1982-1990.
General (military), Suharto Republic of Indonesia, 1975-1995.
Mobutu Sese Seko, Zaire/Congo, 1965-1997.
Hosni Mubarak, Egypt, 1981-2011.
Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, Kingdom of Bahrain, 2012.
Saudi royal family, 2012.
Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan, 1991-2012.[10]
Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia, 1995-2012.[11]
Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Equatorial Guinea, 2006-2012.[12]

love lack of government? Go to ethiopia.

Hey, ya'll. I'm the truth. I wrote it in a book. And you all should send me money. Immediately. To my bank account in Ethiopia. I'm gonna buy lots of rice, ya'll, and feed all the hungry people and...

Actually, I've changed my mind. I'm just going to kill everyone in a flood. F you. Now send me my tithe.

Hey, ya'll. I'm the truth. I wrote it in a book. And you all should send me money. Immediately. To my bank account in Ethiopia. I'm gonna buy lots of rice, ya'll, and feed all the hungry people and...

Actually, I've changed my mind. I'm just going to kill everyone in a flood. F you. Now send me my tithe.

Hey, ya'll. I'm the truth. I wrote it in a book. And you all should send me money. Immediately. To my bank account in Ethiopia. I'm gonna buy lots of rice, ya'll, and feed all the hungry people and...

Actually, I've changed my mind. I'm just going to kill everyone in a flood. F you. Now send me my tithe.

@GeeSussFreeK, I'm not really misunderstanding you, so much as trying to point out that there's another way to look at the difference between Ethiopia and the US than the instinctive "US is better because we have Freedom^TM!" sort of view.

Clearly you've got a viewpoint on the history, and think I'm the one confused. But look at what you're saying, and think about what I said some more.

In Ethiopia, they're obeying property rights, it's just that the government has the property rights, and doesn't have any interest in selling them. That's their inalienable right as property owners, assuming you "respect" property rights.

In the US, they didn't respect property rights because a) they took the land from the native Americans, b) the settlers here did so under agreement from their respective monarchies, and with the understanding that said monarchy owned the title to the land, though eventually these colonists decided to steal that land from the crown, and c) once the colonists stole the land, they engaged in a proto-socialist activity whereupon they redistributed the land from those who used to own it (either the crown, or native Americans) to any common man who was willing to stake out the claim and work the land. None of the things you like about the US would exist if they had "respected" property rights.

So, rightfully one shouldn't look at Ethiopia and say "they should respect property rights", but instead "they should have a massive redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have-nots", at least if they're going to make the place more conducive to our conception of freedom.

>> ^NetRunner:

Not to be obnoxious, but you're arguing with yourself. First you say:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
You can't own land in Ethiopia, you can only lease it from the government.
Then:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I don't think I agree with your basic assertion that government owns all the land by default.
I'm not asserting that, you are. You can't lease what you don't own. You can't own what someone else owns. Those are property rights, no?
As for distribution vs. redistribution, I seem to remember reading somewhere that there was an indigenous population that lived in North America. Also that the "initial" land ownership was claimed by various monarchies in Europe, who sent colonies of people to assert that ownership...


That is why I hate talking via forums, if you try and condense what you want to say so it isn't so verbose, you get misunderstood. Not all systems are the same. The US system is NOT like the Ethiopian system in that government comes second, and people come first when rights are concerned. Or more to say, individuals are first, and groups second. I thought this would be clear, it apparently isn't. The Indians are all dead, that is how the story goes, can't change it. They weren't citizens anyway, nor were their property claims recognized. I didn't mean states "don't" own property, I was saying the idea when it comes down to a system that puts the individual first, it doesn't make since. SO it wasn't a case of redistribution in the since that is always meant, the relocation of citizens to citizens, but distribution of booty.

I think the least conflicting way of property rights, that also avails itself to massive wealth creations, and by consequence, hording, is that of initial claim. Just as one makes a claim to the first position in line at the post office. It is the most clearly understood universally that first come, first served. It results in unfairnesses at times, but dealing with those as they come seems like a better solution than having to make a moral derision on every land redistribution. First rights is the only means of rights language that seems to make since with property in the long term that I have been exposed to. I have tried several other models, but they all seem to break or be to arbitrary.

Not to be obnoxious, but you're arguing with yourself. First you say:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
You can't own land in Ethiopia, you can only lease it from the government.

Then:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I don't think I agree with your basic assertion that government owns all the land by default.

I'm not asserting that, you are. You can't lease what you don't own. You can't own what someone else owns. Those are property rights, no?

As for distribution vs. redistribution, I seem to remember reading somewhere that there was an indigenous population that lived in North America. Also that the "initial" land ownership was claimed by various monarchies in Europe, who sent colonies of people to assert that ownership...

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
You can't own land in Ethiopia, you can only lease it from the government. It is to that I am referring. Many other third world nations do not have things like titles to land, a major problem if you were trying to get a loan. No hand out suggested, mealy clear lines in which individuals establish ownership/control over objects might help their situation some, not all, but you have to start somewhere.
So what's needed, in your opinion, is redistribution of wealth. Again, government is respecting property rights -- it just has them all. To "start somewhere" with "individuals establish[ing] ownership/control" over land would mean government hand outs of land.
You know, like the US government did with various homestead acts .
Assuming by ownership of land you meant fee simple titles, and not allodial title
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
And my comments seem to be breaking in response to some of your posts today, wonder what that's about.

VS gets all cranky when you quote someone using the at sign to direct their comment at someone. Usually stripping it out (or just the code around it) fixes it.


I don't think I agree with your basic assertion that government owns all the land by default. Does the government also own your body by default as well? If not, why the arbitrary distinction? If so, grounds for abortion are possible, as well as many other oppressive things. So I don't buy the claim that, government "owns everything", nor would you I would wager. Furthermore, their is a difference between distribution and redistribution. If there is X amount of unclaimed land in the US, it can only be expected that people will make claims for it. The fact that in most cases, the land wasn't bought, but rather given by homestead acts, it served more like individuals submitting initial claims of ownership over them. In reality, this is splinting hairs anyway, as there isn't much in the way of unclaimed land anymore.

I have often thought of using an idea something similar to the Ethiopian model of property rights, however, as a means to limit the ease of transmitting wealth easily (allowing for large accumulations of it) from generation to generation. I thought it might be an interesting means to stop people from trying to horde wealth, and instead, be constantly trying to create new wealth. Instead, I think it works backwards from that. Things you don't own, you are slow to invest long term in. If I own a house, I paint the walls, put in tile floors and other things. When I rent, well honestly you probably can't do most of things, but even if you could, most wouldn't. Owning something is as primitive as it gets, and usually the means in which we use to grow things. You only truly want to grow things that are in your control. If we recognize this, we can use the strengths of it, and try to deal with its weaknesses as best we can.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

You can't own land in Ethiopia, you can only lease it from the government. It is to that I am referring. Many other third world nations do not have things like titles to land, a major problem if you were trying to get a loan. No hand out suggested, mealy clear lines in which individuals establish ownership/control over objects might help their situation some, not all, but you have to start somewhere.

So what's needed, in your opinion, is redistribution of wealth. Again, government is respecting property rights -- it just has them all. To "start somewhere" with "individuals establish[ing] ownership/control" over land would mean government hand outs of land.

You know, like the US government did with various homestead acts^*.

* Assuming by ownership of land you meant fee simple titles, and not allodial title
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
And my comments seem to be breaking in response to some of your posts today, wonder what that's about.


VS gets all cranky when you quote someone using the at sign to direct their comment at someone. Usually stripping it out (or just the code around it) fixes it.

^NetRunner

You can't own land in Ethiopia, you can only lease it from the government. It is to that I am referring. Many other third world nations do not have things like titles to land, a major problem if you were trying to get a loan. No hand out suggested, mealy clear lines in which individuals establish ownership/control over objects might help their situation some, not all, but you have to start somewhere.

And my comments seem to be breaking in response to some of your posts today, wonder what that's about.

The most ironic thing is that this clip is describing a former colony (India) acting as a neocolonial power. That's progress, I suppose.

@GeeSussFreeK, more of a problem with economic disparity, and studiously following property rights, I'd say. The already-rich have the property rights to the land, and they're using it to enrich themselves further. The poverty-stricken citizens of Ethiopia don't get any of the wealth, because they didn't have the skills to provide the labor, and didn't have any capital to invest or land to lease. That's capitalism.

Are you suggesting they deserved some sort of hand out?

Communist.