h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

But the thing is we do not need to build below sea level here. We have room without creating new land.

Even so, we won't be forever with the abundance of resources we have unless we somehow learn to conserve.

I wonder if we would have had half the disaster if the monies sent to Louisiana to build up the levees and the defenses had been used for that purpose.

We waste so much money by giving it away with out finding out if it is being used in the manner it was intended. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have a little boy to put his finger in our dikes.

ah.. excuse me.. "But the thing is we do not need to build below sea level here. We have room without creating new land." .. that's an excellent point, however there were quite a few people living in an area at or below sea level.
I think that a gouvernment, if that is really by and for it's people, should keep exactly that in mind, and make a choice: either move all those people to a safer place or protect them from this sort of disasters.

Now as you state "We have room without creating new land." you have this choice between moving people or protecting them.

The Netherlands isn't all that comparable to the largest river delta in the US; it's just not the kind of geographical feature you can build a dyke all the way around. The levees only guard along one or more sides of certain areas, and we're now seeing the disastrous consequences of doing landfill in the delta.

But you're right, Babette, in pointing out that living below, or perilously at, sea level is not that uncommon. As the climate continues to change, a number of countries, like Bangladesh and Vanatau, will be disappearing. And so will all of coastal Florida, The Tampa-St. Pete conurbation has come about (at 2 feet above sea level) on the premise that nothing really seriously bad, like a Katrina, will ever happen.

So I don't think it's much use to pursue the what-were-they-thinking angle, and get back to asking why the country that has been boasting for a century that it can do anything can't put one of its major ports back together.

"""I think that a gouvernment, if that is really by and for it's people, should keep exactly that in mind, and make a choice: either move all those people to a safer place or protect them from this sort of disasters."""

An excellent point. But somhow a very long time ago the government became a place for people to get rich by being politicians. They serve thier own interest more than they do ours. We are slow to pick up on this and keep voting the same people in election year after election year.

Yes they do good things for us now and then but only so they can say, "Look what I am doing for you. Keep me in office folks."

We need a lot of reform and we aren't going to get it until we start putting in new faces. By a quirk in our election rules in my city we could vote for our new mayor between two main opponents, both from the same party. Had they had the option of someone from another party runninbg we might have had a different mayor.

TGIF

Ah, but you've put your foot into another sticky subject, Lil--climate change. Many scientists agree it is happening, industry-sponsored scientists and political power brokers deny its existence. So if the latter is in power, what's the incentive to rebuild and protect countries affected by rising ocean levels?

so we have "the government became a place for people to get rich by being politicians" .. and also "industry-sponsored scientists and political power brokers deny (the) existence (of climate-change)"...

now who are those gouvernments (that is spelled correctly, isn't it? ) and industries supposed to be working for? isn't that (in the same order) the people (that's you lot) and their clients? (that's you lot).

So if I understand correctly, both these groups, gouvernments and industries, are supposed to protect your interests and say they protect YOUR interests while ....
help me thinking this straight??

So what's your point, Babette?

well, as I understand now you elect a gouvernment, that should be there for it's people. It isn't.
your industries, who should be concerned about their clients (you!) are mainly concerned about their annual report.

still you (as a nation) vote for the same gouvernment every time, and your industries keep growing (polluting if you like, I'll use the term growing).

Now if there's a real concern about all this the gouvernment would be changed, radically and the industries would go bankrupt if their products aren't paid for anymore.

wouldn't it be an idea that you people choose and show what you really stand for? as a nation?
and keep in mind that democracy does mean that minorities can have a voice, a vote, and an opinion, but the voice and opinion of the nation is by definition the voice and opinion of the majority.

I spent my first years in England, in the 70's, being accused of fomenting the Vietnam War. And now you want to hold me and Lentilla and Space Cadette and MoFoLo personally responsible for what W is doing! Some people just can't distinguish between the people who voted for the president and the people who didn't.

I can't answer for lurkers, Babette, but of those who are participating in this thread I think maybe ONE voted for George W. Bush. You are, as we say, preaching to the choir here. Your rebarbative remarks would be better directed to Americans who actually agree with the current administration's foreign policy.

Yes, there are Americans and Europeans who believe that whatever is good for corporations is good for the world. But I don't think there's anyone like that in this thread. We have ways of bringing about change, and we're doing what we can, but we 've learned that there is more to it than standing up and scolding our fellows.

Babette,

As much as I may complain about how life is on the wane here I still like where I live. Actually Like is not really strong enough. I love being a citizen here. I just want to see changes made. One thing I do not want is for our medical system to be socialized.

I do not think just because the medical care is "free" it justifies standing in line for hours to be seen by a doctor about my cold or pain in my side. Nor, and I base this on how it was relayed to me, would I like to call on a Monday to make an appointment about an ongoing possibly life threating condition, to be told that I have to call back on Thursday to make an appointment. They don't make appointments on Mondays. I can call my doctor day or night if I feel the need. During regular work hours I can call and they will take my name an telephone number and a nurse will call me in between patients and find out why I am calling. She will forward the message to the doctor if it requires his attention.

But different strokes for different folks. I don't necessarily agree with your world but if it suits you, that is fine with me. As long as you have a voice in your government and you are happy with your situation this is great. I just like our system better and I see flaws with it and I think we can do better if we use our votes wisely and let our representatives know our oppinions. But it boils down to mainly one thing, we the people need to get involved.

I do not always agree with the people at this thread. But they have been tolerant to let me have my say and to pummel me or praise me depending on how I say things and how they feel about what I say. And I do get an education on how they believe things are and why.

What we need is a seperate thread to discuss the differences between our nations. This thread is primarily a discussion of American Politics not world politics. Perhaps you could start one up and if you would not object I would contribute my views and understanding (or misunderstandings).

MoFoLo

There is a previously established a Global Politics thread here:

156?thread=1569163" >F38024?thread=519163&latest=1

We do have a thread about global politics, as it happens: right here.
F38024?thread=519163&skip=560&show=20

snap!

I think medicine would work best as a dual system. Years worth of studies show that in countries with "socialized medicine"- you can tell I hate calling it that, it's like a term that some insurance company snake-oil salesman came up with during the McCarthy Era to get the government to do what it wanted it to- chronic, lifestyle related diseases, while they're still there, aren't nearly as severe or prevalent. That's because preventative care doesn't make money. You make money off of the amputations and bypass surgeries that preventative care can head off.

My ideal system would be one where the government took care of preventative care through maybe the department of health, the same one who runs the vaccination program (oooh! Scary socialized medicine! ). I'd like to see them open up free or low cost clinics where everyone, regardless of who they are or where they come from, can get mammograms, blood pressure screenings, exercise prescriptions, nutritional counselling, birth control prescriptions, cholesterol screenings, pre-natal care, skin cancer screenings, dental checkups, eye checkups, annual physicals, colonoscopies, and of course, vaccines- all the things we should all get to keep us healthy. The insurance companies could still cover private practice visits and hospital money-makers like chemo, emergency care, or catastrophic injury, or any number of things that can go wrong even with all the prevention in the world. Pay the doctors in the free or low-cost clinics a fortune to draw in the best, and allow them private practice on the side. And if you're wondering where we could get money for this, I direct you to the SUVs exempt from the gas guzzler taxes, Congress's pay raises, the strategic zepplin program (though those are pretty cool...), the Bridge to Nowhere, the farmers they pay not to farm...

Here! Here!

This two phase plan makes a lot of sense. A LOT of sense. So much sense that I can't see it ever getting implemented. . .

Scan for President?

I would vote for you, but, you aren't old enough to run!

I don't hold you personally responsible for any of the USA actions, problems, or whatever, Lil. I just wanted to make the point that your gouvernment is the result of a democratic election (although the rest of the world had serious doubts whether the last presidential elections were actually a fraud).
And as MoFoLo noted "love to live here", as a collective, as the American people, you are responsible for this gouvernment.
Democratic society means you can have serious doubts on your current gouvernment, object against it, even try to change it with the next elections.. however for the time being you (USA citizens) cannot just say "nothing to do with me, I'm against it, it's our gouvernment".

summarizing .. why don't you americans get yourselves sorted out and vote for a gouvernment that doesn't waste natural resources, polute, support multi-nationals, ignore UN resolutions, deny church-state separation, ignore citizens after a disaster, mess up medical care... basically most of the issues I've seen discussed around here?

and summarised even shorter: "if you don't like it then change it"

Here's the fallacy in your argument, Babette: our system of government is not as purely democratic as you suggest. The people vote for a president and their votes are filtered through an entity called the electoral college, something which probably made sense in the eighteenth century when it was devised, but which pulls ~against~ the "will of the people" today. It is now almost routinely possible for a candidate to get the lesser popular vote but, by dint of achieving majorities in certain states, win enough ELECTORAL votes to take the election.

The other prong of your argument, that I am responsible for what the current administration does no matter who I voted for or how I feel about neocon policy -- I'm sorry, I can't accept that at all. That's the kind of thing people say when they defend ethnic cleansing:
"Your leaders (or ancestors) have done X. We hold you responsible. Therefore we are going to kill you, your wife, your kids, your neighbors and your animals. And burn your damn house down."