London Times...Britain Blames US for failing World's Poor

[SINthysist]

Okay. I stopped reading because I blanch of some of the original premises.

First, being middle-aged, I was raised and cut my teeth on the edge of this Liberal Doom and Gloom, the earth is coming to an end, Racheal Carson's Silent Spring and Alvin Toffler's Future Shock were required reading along with 1984, Brave New World, and Farenheit 451 (Orwell, Huxley, Bradbury). I was indoctrinated, fully Democratic, and Green to the Gills.

Guess what?

We're still here.

Still creating solutions.

Still eliminating problems.

Still keeping people fed.








The End of the World Luddites never, ever, EVER factor in the advancements of technology and science (mainly because they are scared shitless of the former and at war with the latter for NOT conforming to their world view.).



For instance. Water is gettnig more expensive. OH! DUH! That just means de-salinization of Ocean water (which is really a very low-tech operation) suddenly becomes feasible. The greens never saw that one coming. Why?

They don't believe in the Laws of Supply and demand either...


They don't believe in pointing the finger at the people who are causing the problem. They believe in going after deep pockets. Now, they LOVE attorneys and the Legal Profession because unlike Science, if they don't like a law, they can get it changed...

 

[sexy-girl]

"The American way of life is not negotiable."

Mr. Hertsgaard reviews the history of the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 and subsequent international agreements on global warming. He quotes the senior President Bush, who in 1992 in response to efforts at Rio to address climate change declared that, "The American way of life is not negotiable." Now nearly ten years later junior Bush withdraws the United States from the

no offense but you still haven't learned anything i dont understand how america can be so arrogant this earth summit isn't just about you yet you ignore it ... bush isn't even going

also a large part of this earth summit was to make it appear that the world was interested in the parts of the world that have nothing ... how will they feel when bush ignores the whole thing

 

[SINthysist]

It's like this sg.

I, as a rural person raised in farming go absolutely apeshit when city-dwellers and ivory-tower dwellers begin lecturing the people who live on and manage the land on how to do it.

Similarly, at conferences such as this one, the people with the most problems, sit around, decide solutions, and try to tell the United States how much it needs to commit resource-wise to solve the problem, when the problem is usually tribalism and the non-promotion of education.

 

[SINthysist]

PS - History has proven that they hate us. They hate us. They hate us. They hate us. Bush going or not going has nothing to do with it.



Do you know why your side is REALLY pissed off that he is not going?



Demonstrations.



His appearance would have assured the protestors a lot of United States television coverage. Coverage of protests that they feel are more important than any words or agreements that would have come out of any meeting. The meetings are merely secondary to them because they are rag-tag bunch of little leftist-anarchists/terrorists with really looney, fringe ideas...

IMHO

 

[sexy-girl]

bush doesn't care whatsoever about environmental issues they are important to me hence his lack of caring about what is important to me annoys me

and its going to annoy the rest of the world that feel the same as me


bush has to be the least hard working president in history im sure instead of going to the earth summit he just will be playing golf or watching football in his texas ranch

 

[SINthysist]

Bush just ordered new policies on forest management this week. Our Senate and House are on vacation too. What's the point? Bush is working, just away from the White House. The hardest working man in American Politics (aka Bill Clinton) took lots of trips, vacations, and retreats. Took his whole family and entourage, too. Even hurt himself (wink wink) at the Sharks' Place. That's a real red herring of an arugument you have going there !



BTW - What's Tony Blair up to this weekend? Worrying about the environment?

 

[SINthysist]

One other thing you should be aware of sexygirl as to the real nature of the conference. (Numbers only to best of recollection.)

Promotors hawked 69,000 conference attendees.
Local Officals say 40,000 total (press, demonstrators, etc.)
Registration Officials say 8000 checked in (including press)

It's a non-event. Not even really important enough to send General Powell.

I would have sent Bill Clinton...





If I were George!

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Colin Powell is there. He's a good representative for the US.

 

[SweetCherry]

bump

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

It's a non-event. Not even really important enough to send General Powell.

We are there to listen anyway.

LOL. Bill Clinton would have been a good candidate to send. He's be over with the protestors playing his sax and pinching some idealistic young thing.

 

[SINthysist]

He'd say all the right things. They love him. It would have guaranteed United States Press further reminding the American People what Clintonism is really all about.

It would have been a real coup de grace so to speak...

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Where does all the money go?

How dare the United States put conditions on the money sent as aid. How they try to ensure that the money isn't stolen!

Money makes the world go 'round

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 22, 2002
12:25 p.m. Eastern


© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com


One of the great mysteries of modern America is why there has not been a taxpayer revolt. So much money is wasted by the federal government that the General Accounting Office cannot even estimate the damage.

The litany of wasteful spending has been documented time and time again, but there is one situation that is worth re-stating. Much of America's foreign spending is in the form of bribes to corrupt dictators – bribes the president and Congress are well aware of.

Perhaps the biggest thief in the world today is Yasser Arafat. The PLO chief, according to the CIA and British intelligence, has been stealing aid money for decades. This is no secret even in the Arab world, which supplies Arafat with most of his cash.

In June, a daily newspaper in Kuwait, the Al-Watan, published some documents it received from a Cairo bank showing that Arafat had deposited $5 million into his personal account. The newspaper reported the funds came from Arab aid that had been allocated for the Palestinian people, who are perhaps the most impoverished group in the Middle East.

Arafat, of course, denies any chicanery. So I guess he must have landed a big book deal or something. Maybe we can look forward to "Who Moved My Headquarters?" by Yasser Arafat. Or maybe, Yasser hooked up with Democratic National Committee chief Terry McAuliffe and got wealthy on the now bankrupt Global Crossing stock. Then again, Yasser might have been in on the conference call with Martha Stewart when she got out of ImClone. Maybe Yasser had that stock too.

There are all kinds of possibilities here, so we shouldn't be so quick to judge Mr. Arafat. After all, maybe the Palestinian Authority issues options when the suicide bombings are going really well. There are all kinds of explanations – and that's fortunate because Arafat's wife has a major mortgage payment each month for her lavish home in Paris.

I think Yasser learned his pilfering tricks from Boris Yeltsin. During the Clinton years, ol' Boris lived mighty large because the United States sent Russia more than 7 billion taxpayer dollars. Once the money hit Moscow, it disappeared so fast that Russia's chief financial auditor, Venianin Sokolov, said this in 1998: "There must be a stop to the huge foreign loans which are like a fix to a dope addict."

Sokolov flat-out accused Yeltsin and his pals of stealing the money saying, "All the money from the IMF and World Bank have never reached the real economic life of the country."

Under Putin, a half-hearted investigation was launched, but nothing ever came of it. There is no truth to the rumor that Janet Reno was hired as a consultant to that investigation.

And then there was Bill Clinton's Haitian holiday. Under his administration, the USA sent about $3 billion to Port-au-Prince, along with 20,000 military people. The result was interesting. According to the Palm Beach Post, yearly per capita income in Haiti dropped from $260 in 1994 to $225 in 1999, Clinton's last year in office. As that great sage Hyman Roth said to Michael Corleone in "The Godfather Two": "The money never reached the island, Michael."

So where did it go? Did Hillary have some kind of cattle futures deal in Haiti? Was McAuliffe playing golf with some Ton Ton Macoute over there? The head of the General Accounting Office, David M. Walker, told me the government cannot account for much of the $3 billion allotted for Haiti.

So the next time you read in the New York Times that the government desperately needs more money and must raise taxes on "the rich," think about Yasser, Boris and Aristide of Haiti. Those guys love all that taxation. They are extremely grateful that you and I work so hard to earn money that the U.S. government sends to them.

After all, why should the people who earn money get to keep it when there are corrupt politicians to be bribed? Priorities are priorities. And if you see Yasser Arafat at the Automatic Teller Machine ... please say hello to him for me.

 

[SINthysist]

I posted an article earlier which pointed out that every third-world tinhorn foghorn leghorn, including Putin and his predecessors all had estates and villas built with U.S. taxpayer funds...

We try to bribe world government exactly like we try to bribe voters.

I would like to see and end to, at least, the bribery of countries whom are taking the bribes but not "putting out" in return!

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Re: Orange Country Register/NY Times

Some wealthy nations, including the United States and some members of the European Union, are resisting. American officials say they have already agreed to increase foreign aid to the poor and that developing nations should eliminate corruption and strengthen democratic institutions before more aid is committed.

The United States, the world's biggest polluter, has also refused to commit to time frames for reducing greenhouse gas emissions or for converting to renewable energy sources, despite pressure from the developing world and the European Union.

Couple comments: First, time and time again, we've provided financial assistance and it is simply stolen and doesn't do any good for the poeple that need the aid. Second, we are still sending food aid to people. As stated in an article posted in another thread, 80% of the food relief floating around Africa now to help prevent starvation is from the United States. We are doing our part to help prevent starvation. Can you understand our reluctance when these dictators stand in line with their hands out and they say "forget the food, just give us the money" and then they become indignant when we say, "forget the money, but here's food to help prevent starvation?" They are also indignant when we say...we might be able to provide money, give us some assurances it's going to be used for the purposes that we designate it for.

As far as pollution is concerned. We are doing a lot to stem pollution. First, we've cut acid rain by 50%. 50% is a huge amount. We've done this through huge investments in cleaning equipment and greater efficiency. We also voluntarily (our country volunteered and made a law) to put catalytic converters on our cars at approximately $1,000 per car to capture pollutants and make the emissions from our vehicles much cleaner. Cars produced now in our country pollute less than half (might be more, it might even by 70% less if I remember correctly) than cars produced 20 years ago. No other countries are doing this are they? We've cleaned up our rivers, lakes and oceans by tremendous amounts also. One little river near where I live was clogged and light green colored with pollutants when I was a child, now it's clean and fish and other aquatic animals live there. To reduce dependence on fossil fuels we are putting R&D into hydrogen cells (for transportation) and alternative energy producing technologies. Hi-Tech windmills cover many western hills and have been there for 10-20 years. More are being put up every day. There's a large proposal being considered now for putting a giant bank of huge windmills off the eastern shore of the United States near Rhode Island and Massachussetts. We are also considering (in debate) starting up our nuclear energy program again also.

We spend a tremendous amount of time, effort and money on reducing pollution and we will continue to do so. We are not going to agree to the Kyoto protocol when China and other countries are exempt. But to say that we "do nothing" is a gross misstatement.

While we continue to make large investments to reduce pollution, why should we shackle our economy while others do not? I think our administration would consider it again if it applied to all countries and was verifiable (China often agrees to things and then disregards the agreements).

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

I forgot to mention our re-forestation program. We have more forests now than we've ever had. This is also good for the environment, though lots of them have been burning lately due to mismanagement (though President Bush has put into debate a program to manage the forests in the same way that Opposition Leader Tom Daschle has legislated for his home state).

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Any more news from Johannesburg this evening?