tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16645996.post3409194083921140521..comments2023-07-04T21:12:47.972-05:00Comments on Why Am I Not Surprised?: Memories of Mexicochangeseekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18350201531677548579noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16645996.post-23489480516630938062007-04-16T06:43:00.000-05:002007-04-16T06:43:00.000-05:00Gosh! I wasn't aware we were having a troll party...Gosh! I wasn't aware we were having a troll party! :^) Enjoy yourselves, boys. I've got no time for you, but, from what I can gather, you're the proof that what I write (and do) is important enough to warrant agitation among those who consider my ideas frightening or dangerous. Ta ta! Busy day!changeseekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350201531677548579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16645996.post-85226230421996224042007-04-15T21:21:00.000-05:002007-04-15T21:21:00.000-05:00Ah, glad to see the twin pillars of leftism are al...Ah, glad to see the twin pillars of leftism are alive and well: projection and victimhood. Yes, by all means, let's ignore the fact that, as reported by BusinessWeek, the unregulated growth of Chinese industry (which Al Gore lobbies for exemption from the Kyoto standards, btw), has resulted in some of the worst environmental impact on our world to date. Three decades of communist expansion and industrial development has impacted China enough to account for those 7 out of 10 most polluting cities in the world I mentioned(which you conveniently are willing to overlook if it helps you point the finger at your preferred boogeyman: the United States). And according to the World Bank, that pollution costs China more than $54 billion + annually in environmental damage and health problems. <BR/>Some facts you may want to consider: China consumes 4.7 times as much energy as the U.S. to produce each dollar of GDP-- and 11.5 times as much as Japan and the country is getting <I>less</I> efficient, not more, as time goes by. Coal mines operate with zero environmental or safety concerns in order to keep the electricity flowing, near-zero emission controls which lead to all the acid rain, doubled auto emissions, and 80% of their sewage flows untreated into their waterways, while companies would rather pay fines than invest in expensive water-treatment facilities...oh, but let's overlook China because they're a "developing" nation and it wouldn't be "fair" to expect them to adhere to the pollution standards that American leftists are so eager to see their country subjected to...all for some kind of intra-national tax to "level the playing field." After all, is it "fair" that the poor, poor, pitiful Mexicans should be subjected to actually having to clean up their own smog <I>gasp! shock!</I> simply because it drifts into the United States and accounts for up to 30 percent of our nation's ozone? Why,heavens, no! They shouldn't be held accountable at all! After all, if only a couple tens of millions of Americans have to breathe in their waste material, why I'm sure that those dirty, nasty, oppressive capitalists (who build colleges and universities and employ <I>other</I> capitalists who like to pretend they're communists while paying their mortgage, car payment, and buying "organic" food at their local co-op) deserve it!<BR/><BR/><I>and we now admit to having at least one out of five of our children living in poverty, this society is hardly demonstrating its commitment, after the fact, to the young you seem so concerned about.</I><BR/>Ah, I see your modus operandi: if they're poor and "society" (not that you're a part of society and are willing to do something other than advocate abortion) makes no "commitment" to the poor, then they may as well be dead. This reminds me of a quote from a Dickens character: 'Well, if they're going to die (the poor), they might as well do it and decrease the surplus population.' <BR/>Suffice to say that I'm not surprised someone like you advocates flushing a baby down a toilet as a "choice," but chooses to make a home living on top (it would seem) of her own feces. Quite telling.the artfulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07496370799881439653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16645996.post-10060912939758162082007-04-15T14:07:00.000-05:002007-04-15T14:07:00.000-05:00Please excuse the glitch that was supposed to be a...Please excuse the glitch that was supposed to be a link to my post entitled "The Changeseeker's Manifesto" just a couple of posts ago.changeseekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350201531677548579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16645996.post-77185235746307055162007-04-15T14:01:00.000-05:002007-04-15T14:01:00.000-05:00“Bill”: The U.S., with about 4.5% of the world’s p...“Bill”: The U.S., with about 4.5% of the world’s population, consumes 25% of its fossil fuel, 20% of its metals, and 33% of its paper, wasting 48 million tons of food suitable for human consumption annually, and producing more power plant emissions than 146 other nations combined (or about 75% of the world’s population). Each year, U.S. industries belch, pump, and dump more than 2.5 billion pounds of chemical pollution into the air, water, and ground. We produce ¾ of the world’s hazardous waste and transport two million tons of it annually to poor nations that so desperately need the cash that they can’t refuse. This practice has been largely banned in Africa and the Pacific Islands, so we are now shipping it primarily to Central America, mislabeled as “non-toxic” or “to be recycled”. The 2000 maquiladoras (factories set up along the Mexican-U.S. border under NAFTA) have turned the entire strip into an infamous cesspool of toxic waste and sewage, while making money hand over fist for transnational corporations, mostly based here, by exploiting the poverty-stricken Mexican workers. You, I gather, are for the corporations.<BR/><BR/>On the matter of abortion (not a topic I cover on this blog, but it’s apparently one of your hot-button items), I think it’s important to note that women are presently seeking abortions at approximately the same rate per capita as they did prior to the passage of Roe v. Wade. The difference is that, then, about 10,000 women a year died as a result of botched back-alley procedures (not counting the ones who were accidentally sterilized), while, now, only about 45 per year die of complications. Actually, about 40% of women seeking abortions report themselves to be either “Catholic” or “evangelical Christian,” so the issue is not whether it’s legal or illegal, “morally wrong” or not. In fact, upper class women have always had access to safe and private abortions (called D & C’s for dilation and curettage). The question is whether poorer women should have the same access. Regardless, since the number of families in the U.S. living at under HALF of the Federal Poverty Guideline increased 28% between 2000 and 2004 and we now admit to having at least one out of five of our children living in poverty, this society is hardly demonstrating its commitment, after the fact, to the young you seem so concerned about.<BR/><BR/>Apparently, you have been captured enough by this blog that you would create an identity just to comment here. My statement of belief as seen <A HREF="“www.whyaminotsurprised.blogspot.com/2007/02/changeseekers-manifesto.html”" REL="nofollow">here</A> is clear about what I support and do not. You make it equally clear that your stance is precisely the opposite of mine.changeseekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350201531677548579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16645996.post-35090550499292995582007-04-14T14:52:00.000-05:002007-04-14T14:52:00.000-05:00Ah, we seem to be at cross-purposes here, Change!P...Ah, we seem to be at cross-purposes here, Change!<BR/>Perhaps you can point out to me, without the use of hyperbole this time, why my factual, evidential post was "racist, classist, sexist, and elitist."<BR/><BR/>Is it not true that my country, America, leads the entire world in scientific and technological developments which not only pollute less, but go much further in cleaning up the environmental messes we do make than any other country on the face of the Earth? <BR/><BR/>Maybe you can take a look at how much a culture like India or China, where seven of the ten most polluted cities in the world can be found according to the World Health Organization, and tell us how wonderful it is for our Earth if we all return to a more primitive nature as that espoused by your wise, old Mexican sage.<BR/><BR/>Next, what "non-arguments" are you referring to that I'm supposedly making? <BR/>And I certainly hope that you CAN tell what I'm for by my speaking against what I oppose. Yes, I'm for letting babies live; yes, I'm for clean water; yes, I'm for technological advancements that allow us to sanitize our waste products rather than living in them; yes, I'm against communism and communists who murder hungry children. <BR/>Yes, it most certainly <I>is</I> telling what people are <I>for</I> by listening to what they're against...and by noting whom they lovingly quote. <BR/><BR/>After reading your profile, my only comment is that I shudder at the thought of our universities, colleges and institutes of "higher learning" are infested with moral relativists such as yourself. Thos who see nothing but evil in good while seeing only good where evil exists.bill sikeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10473277940537108140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16645996.post-87559376091065376912007-04-14T12:50:00.000-05:002007-04-14T12:50:00.000-05:00I'm choosing to leave this racist, sexist, classis...I'm choosing to leave this racist, sexist, classist, elitist diatribe posted so that my readers can understand why I have stopped allowing anonymous comments on this blog. Readers may easily see through the non-arguments presented to attack me more than anything else. It is always interesting to note, however, that you can tell what a person is FOR by what they are adamently OPPOSED to. When the United Fruit Company's hired killers burst through the jungle and pointed their guns at Che, it is reported that he said only, "Go ahead and shoot. You are only killing a man."changeseekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350201531677548579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16645996.post-22380234326297247462007-04-12T21:45:00.000-05:002007-04-12T21:45:00.000-05:00Hi, Change,I must say, you're looking pretty good ...Hi, Change,<BR/>I must say, you're looking pretty good for a 250-year-old! Don't look a day over 125!<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I must confess at the outset that I couldn't make it through the morass of your post about Mexico. I'm sure it's a fascinating place. Lots of history. Unfortunately, it's a country that's <I>extremely rich in natural resources,</I> yet it's controlled by a dozen or so absolutely corrupt families, an oligarchy, if you will. And the worse they run Mexico, oppress and murder the people (and the Mexicans themselves continue to sit idly by and do nothing) the better it is for the oligarchy. You see, those who flee to America send billions back to Mexico in remittance money to prop up the economy. The tune is about $11 billion annually now. Not sure if you mentioned all that good stuff or not. <BR/><BR/>I was struck by this particular paragraph: <I>...I asked, "Would it be possible to make the pipes capable of accepting toilet paper or is there just nothing to be done?" He smiled at me (the over-indulged child) and replied with a kindly, but pointed question, "Why would you want to put paper in the water supply when it isn't necessary?" And I'm caused to think of a paragraph I read years ago describing how people in the U.S. like to flush problems (and problem people) "down the toilet"--much like we went from dealing with our body waste (digging holes, spreading lye, filling it in and moving the outhouse) to disposing of it by sitting on an immaculate white ceramic "throne" and flushing, as though the waste, paper, process or problems never really happened.</I><BR/><BR/>This is a little confusing. When you say, "problem people being flushed," are you referring to the 1 million + babies, referred to as "problems" or "choices" or "my rights," flushed down our both metaphorical and literal toilets each year? If so, I commend you for taking the stand that even if you aren't sure life begins at conception, you're willing to err on the side of caution and give the nod to a culture of life rather than death. Fortunately, people like you and I recognize that even a human zygote fulfills all the criteria necessary to be called "biological life," those being: cell reproduction, ability to respond to stimuli, and metabolism. After all, what's the bumper sticker say, "If it's not a baby, you're not pregnant"? <BR/><BR/>As for the phrase, "...and flushing, as though the waste, paper, process or problems never really happened," that might need a little bit of explaining. What "problems" would these be, exactly? <BR/>And what's so bad about being so technologically advanced and concerned with a clean environment that we've developed <I>far beyond</I> simply defecating over a hole in the ground and we've even learned how to take raw sewage, sanitize it, recycle it, and even turn it into <I>drinkable water?</I> Are you saying we should return to a more primitive, more polluting nature? I disagree with you if that's the case. I'm a believer in preserving our environment and it's simply a whole lot more beneficial to that environment when we develop the technology to create power (nuclear) and build cars and factories that actually lead the entire world in creating less pollution and cleaning up the messes we make than any all-wise grandfatherly and indulgent-type from Mexico has suggested we do for our common Earth, don't you agree? <BR/><BR/>No, there's nothing "noble" nor "wise" about keeping your own waste matter close to you and living in it. <BR/><BR/>One more thing, I noticed several references to Castro's communist henchman thug, Che. Are we talking about the same Che Guevara who said, "Hatred...pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become ..."?<BR/>The same Che who sent hundreds or even thousands of men before a firing squad without trial in order to instill "public peace"? The same Che who witnesses say shot an 8-year-old boy to death for stealing a loaf of bread? Just wondering if we're talking about the same guy.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16645996.post-85623892824186772962007-04-07T10:12:00.000-05:002007-04-07T10:12:00.000-05:00Welcome back!Welcome back!Professor Zerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04909063513731044826noreply@blogger.com