It seems to me that anytime anyone suggests that a policy or decision was a disastrous one - of which many, many are, right or left wing, as we all know looking back through history, the conservative supporters seem to take it personally. "How dare you suggest Iraq is a diaster, you bastard!"

Personally I think the real evil is:

1) the stuff that actually happens and the human tragedies that follow, whether or not anyone criticises it &
2) That people feel personally threatened into not questioning or criticising it so there is a far greater chance of more of the same happening in the future.

How can anyone take stuff personally that people who you don't know have done, without consulting you? Why is it so offensive to suggest that quite possibly the power mongers of this world are doing stuff that is ill-conceived, morally questionable and based on an understanding of the situation that is less than perfect?
 [  ]

I agree with you there Stephen, many feeling are quite ingrained. I've certainly seen and heard that too.. (racist responses to Affirmative Action - see below)

But it certainly would change their true feelings if the government legalized drugs. :-)

All those red-neck racists'd be shocked how fast they became their own despised "nigger-lovers" (their term, not mine) after a couple of pure MDMA tablets.

I see the drug war itself is a form of discrimination - criminalising one type of recreational drug manufacture, sale and use, whilst allowing another equally toxic substance to be manufactured, sold and used legally. It is no coincidence that dope, smack and coke tend to come from non-white countries either. The whole Rastafarian thing - Slaves. Oppression. Alcohol has always been connected to the church and to western culture and is seen to be equated with refinement, though it is still just a poisonous anaesthetic depressant served mixed with a range of flavoured
water.

The original opium prohibition was a direct attack on the Chinese recreational lifestyle, because white men feared the opium dens were attracting their women folk. Cocaine also went from being a cure-all to an evil powder that destroyed the lives of anyone who came within three feet
of the stuff. Laws were changed and subsequently media reports transformed the public perception of previously accepted substances into demonised poisons. Legislation can change attitude.

Another example - smoking was the norm 50-60 years ago. Every office, home, public bar was thick with a pall of toxic fumes. People accepted that everyone and 'bottom-of-a-birdcage breath" - now they're suing and throwing people out on the footpath to puff.

Laws change attitudes - eventually - but attitudes change laws much quicker... The old 'idea whose time has come" concept. Once enough people wake up to something, the walls come tumblin down and any one left behind is just a fool. I don't know what the critical mass is for racism, but I guess it is probably tied in with when they can legally share a spliff, a line and
a couple of pills withe their black and yellow brothers and sisters without fear of arrest, or of mixing with criminals, and if not, then at least maybe to work and study in the same jobs, schools and neighbourhoods together in reasonably balanced numbers. Oh yeah, and when they start having babies together more - so the mixed race kids bring the familes together for Christmas.

**********************************************

This is true, but I was meaning more in terms of a person's inner attitude. And I'm certainly not saying that those laws weren't necessary. Government can change all it wants. It can legislate til the end of the world. But that legislation will not change a person's true feelings.
I've seen proof of that on more than a few occasions.

Stephen
 [  ]

I've heard that argument before - "earth has had cataclysmic climate change before that had nothing to do with humans" - So what? That is no argument for what is happening now, it is merely a statement of the obvious.

It doesn't mean that next time won't have a lot to do with humans. It just means that cataclysmic change can happen. It is an argument to be very aware of the possibility, not to disregard it because nature might do it anyway if we don't. That is the "I might get hit by a bus" argument to not quitting smoking.

You don't have to be a scientist to realise that an ecosystem as complex as earth's, with all its species interdependence, symbiosis, seasonal dependence, chemical relationships etc etc, can be upset with the influence of ignorant, unevolved, greedy business interests who plunder and burn anything in their path, and politicians who let them, on the condition that political party donations are made, and who can't even set the smallest of targets of harm reduction and sustainability. (Kyoto)

I'm sure you've flown on occasions - the earth's surface is completely different than it was, every city is a sprawling, poison-spewing hazy blight, and the countryside is not much better. It is obvious that this kind of scale of change IS going to affect the balance of things on such a finely tuned planet. It is only a matter of how much and in what way - and as humans who can't even grasp the complexities of Middle East customs, politics and culture, we certainly are not going to be able to predict the planet's next move too accurately.

Whether the weather is changing or not, it still is fundamentally wrong to NOT do our absolute most to minimise our destructive impacts on the planet, so the argument should always be "how can we reduce our impact" not "stuff happened before and might or might not happen again so carry on business as usual"

With regard to scientists and funding, currently the largest single employer of scientists is the weapons industry, so if a few scientists are trying to get a droplet of funding for environmental research to help us understand what is happening, good on them, exaggerated claims or not. How exaggerated were the claims to spend billions of dollars in Iraq and the never ending war on terror, and the recently ending war on communism? Every few weeks we hear of a 'credible' warning of an impending massive Al Queda attack on US soil. I'm sure that boosts funding to the military/security industries exponentially.

If sociologists started making a fuss on the long term sociological impacts of the global sex slave trade and they need more funding to learn more about its complexities, are you going to argue that in the past, millions of people have been traded as sex slaves so don't worry about it? I hope not - slavery is a huge problem as is environmental degradation and natural resource depletion. Much greater than the problems that are currently getting the bulk of the funding war and terror.
 [  ]