jfnewell7@...  sendis:

>
>
> --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, ro-esp <ro-esp@...> wrote:
> Ronaldo::: That's why I say we simply start by 2 or 5 dollars/euro's
>  a day, because that would be a huge improvement for those who have
> less already, and  it's safe to assume that it's not too much
>
> Jim:::To make the estimates easy, let us say 1000 American dollars
> per year. Let us also say 7 billion people. The total amount to be
> distributed would therefore be 7 trillion dollars per year, 70
> trillion in ten years.
>
> The total world economy at the moment is about 60 trillion dollars
> American per year. So that would be slightly more than ten percent
> of the Gross World Product per year. One question would be: Would
> this produce too much inflation?

would an economic growth of 10% per year be too much ;-)?

Of course it would create some inflation, especially if people
believe it will (...). Maybe the rich (or at least the panicky ones)
   will suddenly feel a need to buy gold and silver, which will make those
more expensive

At the other side: for farmers and others in poor nations it might suddenly
become (more) profitable to sell their products to their neighbours,
instead of
to big companies who would sell them in rich countries. maybe cattle fodder
would become too expensive...but then we need to reduce our stock anyway
Maybe items like tobacco,coffee, rubber, cotton would become more
expensive as well




>
> Old Jim::: There would also have to be coordinated adjustments of
> economic  policy by all nations,
>
> Renaldo::: I'm not sure what you mean...please give some examples
>
> Jim::: I can't give any accurate examples,

fair enough, just give a few examples of things you call "economic policy"


> For example, how would the effects of the distribution be different
> in a world with an international minimum wage as compared with a
> world in which there was wide variation in the minimum wage from
> country to country?

Well, if you have similar wages all over, you have less reasons to work
far away from your home. this will lead to less traffic(-jams)


                      enough for tonight. groetjes, Ronaldo

onquest@...  sendis:

>
> Hello all:
>
>    Just wanted to give what may be interesting to some the news that
>  i have left my birth country as it in my opinion is crazy, and not
> the home of the free anymore.  Still free enough to leave .. but not
>  free enough to keep much of the money you earn etc.

of course not! Spending less than your income ...your kind is the cause
of our ;-) economic crisis...!  ;-)

> I am now in the  "third" world as a tourist. I will be trying to make money

don't get arrested for it :-) you're not a bank...


>    Learning the culture here and seeing things from a different
> viewpoint is a great thing.

have you started to learn the local language already?

         groetjes, Ronaldo


--
http://www.esperanto.net

there`s an official summit, cop-15, to so-called tackle the climate-change...

and there.s a counter-conference, with it`s participants expecting
something that
will mainly please rich folk who are trying to get even richer... A
lot of heartbreaking
stories of peoples suffering diseases from energy-industries,
reporters not being
allowed access to the bella centre (cop-15) when they thought they
were accredited.
Bella centre seems to have room for only 1500 of the 2500
representatives anyway..
... hundreds of police raiding a sleeping
hall...danish government restricting access to an over the counter
(you can buy it
   without prescription stomach-acid-medicin - because it might be used
to alleviate
the effects of pepperspray and teargas....

any other listmembers around?

                                    groetjes, Ronaldo

--
http://www.esperanto.net

michel@...  sendis:


> Achmed: - "Why are you here?"
> Soldier Joe: - "To bring you democracy. Now you can vote!"
> Achmed: - "Can I vote for the Taliban?"
> Soldier Joe: - "Er, no. Sorry, only for our democracy."

only two parties and no national referenda, right?


> How about this: The United Nations expect all countries of the world
>  to have, at least once a decade, a democratic and universal
> election. If a majority then decides to have, or keep in power, a
> non-democratic regime based on e.g. the Muslim Sharia law, why not?
> Would that be the true spirit of democracy and tolerance?

It would if those who want something else have alternatives...

                 groetjes, Ronaldo

Dear Members,

Children, because of their size, innocence and vulnerability are more easily
harmed by any negative factors in their environment. Global warming, pollution,
hunger, war and disease are some of the larger problems that face children all
over the world and they are more affected by those problems than are adults.

Children are the future and it is the responsibility of adults to protect them
and ensure that they get the best footing in life. Unfortunately this is not
always the case in many nations around the world.

Calling for the Real Santa , Yes, its time to celebrate the true spirit of the
festival and what better way than to wake up the Santa inside you. Would also
appreciate if you could share your real life story of how have you helped
anyone, so that others also get that inspiration from you!

With the presentation 'Calling For The Real Santa' that  demonstrate how
sufferings is impacting our future around the World & how we as community
members can make a difference.....

Please Visit:

http://bit.ly/5Fkz67

Together Further is the Future!! Let this Christmas we all make a Difference.

Would also appreciate if you could please share this presentation & encourage
the real Santa's to come forward.

Hope you are with me.

Best Regards,

Abhishek

> From: how_to_end_poverty_worldwide [how.to.end.poverty.worldwide@...]
> Please read about my 28-year vision in the below link

John, the author of this email, says that he does not wish to start a discussion
and will only be a one-time poster. I'll answer this anyway: I welcome any one
with a vision for the future. Mankind is doomed the day we loose interest for
tomorrow.

However, to plan the future, we must understand the past. Humans, like any other
form of life on earth, work in the way that best improve the survival of the
genes. Those who don't, aren't here any more; it is as simple as that.

From our human behaviour, it is easy to understand that we specialized in the
survival of our genes by protecting those who look like us and gather as much
material goods that ensure our survival.

Unfortunately those primitive instincts needed to the gathering hunter aren't so
actual today. Not everyone with a light skin complection is from my gene pool.
In the industrial countries, more possesion doesn't mean better survival.

In my humble opinion, we should then react to that by agreeing that the future
is perhaps not an increase in material belongings but a better distribution of
what we have among everyone. This, of course, goes against our instincts ... and
that is the problem.

Best regards,
Michel Verheughe
Norway

Hi mike,

I cherish u re brave move to Asia but one thin Mike, i have been trying this
concecpt of world citezen passport for a long time nw but is like many counrty
does not accept it  so i dont nkow how to go about it nw and if it wort trying
again. well keep no doing what u know can benefit us and the world in general.


--- On Fri, 12/4/09, Mike <onquest@...> wrote:


From: Mike <onquest@...>
Subject: [WorldCitizen] Re: I have left america for adventure
To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, December 4, 2009, 6:21 AM


 




No i did not.. though i will try to use it to travel around asia a little in a
month or two.

Mike J.

--- In WorldCitizen@ yahoogroups. com, "jodemas2" <jodemas2@.. .> wrote:
>
>
> > --- On Fri, 11/27/09, Mike <onquest@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Mike <onquest@>
> > Subject: [WorldCitizen] I have left america for adventure
> > To: WorldCitizen@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Friday, November 27, 2009, 12:37 AM
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello all:
> >
> >
> >
> > Just wanted to give what may be interesting to some the news that i have
left my birth country as it in my opinion is crazy, and not the home of the free
anymore. Still free enough to leave .. but not free enough to keep much of the
money you earn etc. I am now in the "third" world as a tourist. I will be trying
to make money from the internet writing on websites that pay for content etc.
Also starting a privacy service for those that need privacy solutions,
(remailing/mail drop etc). Since i come from Michigan i am enjoying the warm
weather of the Philippines and the friendly people. I will be married after a
year of knowing a beautiful woman on december 5th at 9 am.
> >
> > Though i have not posted much i thought a couple of the members might like
to hear of my activities. Also some lighter information than all the talking
endlessly of things that in my opinion will never change as those that are in
power are corrupt as power corrupts etc.
> >
> > Learning the culture here and seeing things from a different viewpoint is a
great thing. After finally starting to get used to the weather i am not a sweat
faucet anymore. We have had a week straight of rain that brought cooler weather
but was boring as it included not going outside much. It is very possible to
live on very little money as long as one doesn't expect first world
comforts/food. It has reminded me of a lesson i learned in the army ... that
many people are so very spoiled and don't know how good they have it compared to
others in the world. But truly happiness is not what you have.. its the people
in your life. Material possessions don't matter as i have had them and not had
them, i am actually more happy without worrying about all my stuff. My entire
worldly possessions can be carried in three bags of varying sizes. It now is not
a big chore to move or go somewhere else. I have learned the difference between
need and want. We truly
> > don't "need" much in order to be happy.
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course this is just my opinion and you are all free to disagree with part
or all of it. Though i will admit my current opinions are based on my lack of
funds to have a lot of what i "want". So im sticking with only what i "need" for
now.
> >
> > Sorry for the intrusion into your debates and discussions on weightier
matters.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike Jansen
> >
>
> Mike, one thing I am and I think everyone else here would be very interested
in knowing is if you entered The Philippines on your WSA passport. I have done
so several times, although the very last time I tried (a few months ago), the
agent would not accept it.
>
> Joe
>

> From: jfnewell7 [jfnewell7@...]
> Since there is an attempt going on to encourage African nations to adopt an
> American private business type health care system, and there may be similar
> campaigns in other nations, it is important for people to understand what
happens
> with an American type health care system.

Thank you for this insight on the American health system, Jim. Right now, I am
at the hospital in Oslo where my wife is undergoing heart examination to
evaluate a possible operation (I had a cardiac arrest and she had a stroke).
Just to tell how our Norwegian system work: I will be parked for two days in the
hospital parking lot. It is not cheap but I keep my tickets and wll be refund
later on. No one should suffer financially from a health problem.

Incidentally, I read that an ICD like mine and operation, in the US is about
30,000 USD. Have you considered having an implantation somewhere else in the
world? While needed health care is free in Norway, cosmetic and e.g. eye
corrective operations are not. Some Norwegians then go to places like Turkey to
do such operations at a much lower cost. One thing is for sure; one should not
be afraid to go to a third country to perform operations. Health care is just as
good in any country if the place has a reputation for it. For example, many
retired Norwegians living in Spain will take the first plane home if they get
sick, but some of the best surgeons in the world are found in ... Barcelona in
Spain!

Best regards,
Michel Verheughe
Norway

It depends on the date from which the reduction will come. For example, a 50%
reduction from 2009 levels will be different than a 50% reduction from 2000
levels, because greenhouse gas emissions have increased something like 20% to
30% between 2000 and now (I don't remember the exact number I read).

A few years ago, according to a Scientific American article, the carbon sink was
about 50% of the total carbon emissions. Therefore, the 50% reduction would get
us back to no net increase in CO2, so your numbers seem right there.

There are a couple of complications, however. As the level of carbon dioxide in
the ocean carbon sink increases, the ocean should eventually start being able to
absorb less than now. I don't know whether or not that will be a large enough
problem to worry about practically.

In addition, there is increasing methane from melting methane hydrates in
permafrost and shallow oceans, and cutting down human carbon emissions won't
change that. There is enough carbon in methane hydrates to raise the world
temperature enough to destroy all life on earth. However, as top layers melt,
the mud remaining behind will act as an insulator, so as the boundary of the
melting goes deeper, the rate of melting should slow down. There should be less
melting when there are several tens of meters of mud on top of the methane
hydrate than when there are only a few meters of mud insulating the methane ice
combination.

Therefore, I don't know whether or not the melting of methane hydrates  will
render the 50% goal inadequate.

Jim

--- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, Richard Levicki <richardlevicki@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues
>
> We have launched a website for the Copenhagen Climate Change COP 15. We have
been confused by the targets and timeframes being proposed/requested by the
range of groups and governments. On our site are proposed the required targets
and time frames as we see them, funding mechanisms and some legal views for
agreement. These targets (including 50% global reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions by 2020), if implemented, would attempt to minimise the rise in
temperature to safe levels and therefore look to a target of less than 1°C
increase and a return to the concentrations of CO2 to pre-industrial 278 ppm.
These targets should be non negotiable; we must agree on required strategies,
within a precautionary approach to the conservation of the planet and to the
protection of people. That is returning earth to as close as possible, as soon
as possible to homeostasis and for us this is not a choice but a moral
imperative.
>
> Please also sign our petition, there is a link to it on the website.
>
> Please visit the site at www.ClimateChangeCopenhagen.org
>
> Apologies for cross posting and please forward this to any groups you feel
would be interested.
>
> Many thanks and regards,
>
> Richard Levicki and Joan Russow
> Global Compliance Research Project
>

Yet Another "9/11 Was An Inside Job" Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5tyb98gCQ8

5 star GENERAL Alex Jones......top right is free radio with lots of climategate
fraud, fed fraud, obama health fraud, 911 inside job ect.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/

5 star GENERAL David Icke's headline news......scrol down until you see
headlines news.
http://www.davidicke.com/content/blogcategory/30/48/

                              good day & god bless

Hooray, someone who knows what is going on.

--- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "jodemas2" <jodemas2@...> wrote:
>
> -- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, Michel Verheughe <michel@> wrote:
> >
> >
>
> > But why did Iraq invade Kuwait? For its oil fields, of course!
>
> >
>
> By "its" here, the correct interpretation would be "Iraq's".
>
> What prompted the invasion is that the Kuwaiti oil company had brought
slant-drilling equipment up to the border with Iraq and was essentially stealing
its (Iraq's) oil.
>
> Saddam then conferred with the Bush administration which assured him he would
be allowed to invade to reclaim the oil.  Their lie created the pretext for the
first invasion of Iraq.
>

I agree that there is not a certain answer, although perhaps when knowledge
becomes more advanced, there will be. I also doubt that a real infinity exists.

The only one of Cantor's proofs that I know is the one for rational and
irrational numbers.

Imagine a table with rational numbers on the left and an irrational number on
the right paired with each rational number. So we will have a list containing an
infinity of rational numbers paired with an infinity of irrational numbers. It
would be somewhat similar but not exactly for a list less than an infinity long.

Start with the first pair on the list.

Now, writing the number to the side, replace the first digit of the irrational
number with another digit. Then, for the second irrational number, replace the
first digit with another digit. Then, do the same for all subsequent pairs.

Now, we have generated an irrational number which is different from all the
irrational numbers on the list, because we introduced a different digit for
every irrational number on the list.

Actually, since we could replace each digit with any of nine other digits, we
could have any number of irrational numbers not on the list as we like.

So we have many more irrational numbers than rational numbers, because each
rational number was paired with a different irrational number, and there are
still a large number of irrational numbers which did not get included in the
list.

Therefore, the infinity of irrational numbers is larger than the infinity of
rational numbers.

Jim

--- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, Michel Verheughe <michel@...> wrote:
>
> > From: jfnewell7 [jfnewell7@...]
> > I already did prove you wrong, if Cantor is right.
>
> I don't think anyone is "right" or "wrong," Jim. I must have been 12 years
old, witnessing a fight between my mother and my older sister, when I understood
that we get entangled in words.
>
> What is infinity? Does it exist? Let's make it simpler: what is zero? Does it
exist? Until the 13th century, Europe was happy living without the number zero.
You had to apples, you sold one and ate the other. What was left? Nothing! Does
it make sense to write ... nothing? It is only with the need to add and subtract
negative angles to do astronomic navigation that the number zero, invented in
India and brought to Europe by the Spanish Maurs, became a need.
>
> But what's the difference between mathematic and the real world? Two apples
are always two apples, even if one is twice the size of the other. But two
inches is never exactly two inches because you can always measure it in a more
accurate way, to the nearest molecule, atom, particle and ... Quantum principle
of uncertainty.
>
> In my humble opinion, infinity doesn't exist. Then people answer: "Yes, it
exists, the tangent of 90 degrees is infinite!". "Okay," I answer "try to draw
an angle that is 90 degrees and not 89.99999999999999."
>
> I cannot understand Cantor's mathematics. But I understand Murphy's logic. If
time and space is infinite, what can happen must happen again and not once but
an infinite number of times. The question then is: is it really a new event or
the observation of the same one? I think it is the latter. It makes sense.
>
> Perhaps as much as 90 percent of the earth population believe in a religion
that says that the universe was divinely created but soul live for ever. How
many of them wonder about the fact that it doesn't make sense to have something
infinite to have a start. You cannot measure infinity, you cannot be "half way"
in infinity and you cannot be at the "beginning" of infinity. Otherwise it is
not infinity but a very big, huge, enormous number ... but not infinity.
>
> Best regards,
> Michel Verheughe
> Norway
>

I went back down the old messages, and I didn't say you were wrong, but I did
say something subtle in a format which is not standard, so it would be easy not
to understand.

You said that there is little evidence that humanity is uniting. Since I think
we are talking long term, I would interpret that as a statement that humanity
isn't going to unite in the future. My step might not have been what you were
thinking to begin with. You might have been talking entirely about the present.

So my reply was that some people are uniting to save the ecosystem. I kind of
left it at that because I don't know whether that will give us enough people for
the reforms to work, or not. I wasn't saying you are wrong in thinking that
adequate unity won't come about. I was saying I think it is a maybe --- you
might be wrong or you might be right.

However, I wasn't really focusing on right or wrong. I was opening a longer
discussion. I was focusing on trying to see the trends which are occurring. I
see the near future part of the trend - a slow increase in the number of people
working to save the environment - but I am unclear about the more distant parts
of the trend. So I can't predict even ten years out.

But there is another implication. If there is a trend towards more unity, is
there anything we can do to strengthen the trend?

Since you mentioned it, we do see the Republicans using some Orwellian methods.
"Compassionate conservative" is one such formulation.

Jim

--- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Shepherd" <gshepher@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Yes, I am aware that old words can take on new meanings, just as new
> words are constantly being invented. Nor do I want to sound like some
> kind of language purist, who is opposed to creative use of language.
> However, having read Orwell, I am also hyper-sensitive to the misuse of
> words for the purposes of obfuscation, as in the Ministries of Peace or
> Truth.  I am not accusing anyone of  attempting to deliberately
> misinform people. However, to argue that I am wrong about humanity
> 'uniting' against the dangers of climate change, by redefining what is
> meant by the word, 'uniting' is surely a dubious method of argumentation
> at best.
>
>
>
> World Peace and Unity,
> Gary
>
>
>
> Gary K. Shepherd
>
> Senior Library Specialist
>
> Acquisitions
>
> Morris Library
>
> Southern Illinois University
>
> Carbondale, IL 62901
>
> 618-453-2781
>
>
>
> From: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of jfnewell7
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 11:13 AM
> To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WorldCitizen] Re: Scientific research
>
>
>
>
>
> In terms of communicating established knowledge, such as in textbooks,
> newspaper articles, etc., I would agree with you. I would note that in
> practice, the meanings people apply to words are in fact more diverse
> than you would prefer. The reason, I think, is that people define as
> word by the contexts within which they have seen, read, heard, or used
> the word, and the past history of perceived-usage of a particular word
> will be different for each person. But it is helpful to try to keep
> definitions stable.
>
> However, in terms of discovering new knowledge, the situation is
> completely different. There, modifications of definitions, as part of
> the creative thinking, can be quite helpful. On the message board, this
> is relevant because, for those who are interested, I am trying to
> communicate information they can use to increase their creative thinking
> skills. It is possible that some people on the message board could
> discover new knowledge, and creative thinking skills are part of that.
>
> I will give you an example of a definition modification which might seem
> strange to you. The Remote Associates Test is the best test of creative
> thinking skills at the moment. In it, groups of three words which people
> normally don't associate together are given, and the person taking the
> test must find the idea which connects them in a rare kind of
> association. Now, subjects who do quite well on the test have been asked
> how they came up with their answers. A number of subjects reported that
> they defocus the words so that the definitions become very nebulous.
>
> Interestingly, in an old interview, Einstein was asked how he worked. He
> said that he turned the older theoretical words into something very
> nebulous and floating, and then worked with those nebulous clouds of
> meaning.
>
> So doing things with definitions seems to be helpful in creative
> discovery of new knowledge.
>
> Jim
>
> --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com> , "Gary Shepherd" <gshepher@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Sorry again, but I can't go along with the idea of words being used
> any
> > which way we want, no matter what Humpty Dumpty said in Alice in
> > Wonderland. Words have definitions, and we really need to try to pay
> > attention to them, or else our efforts to communicate can break down
> > into chaos. If I say 'cat' and what I mean is 'goat' and you say 'cat'
> > and what you mean is 'airplane', then we are going to have problems
> > coming to agreement about whether cats can fly or give milk. That is
> why
> > I tend to be persnickety about such things.
> >
> >
> >
> > World Peace and Unity,
> > Gary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of jfnewell7
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 6:24 PM
> > To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [WorldCitizen] Re: Scientific research
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You of course may use the word "uniting" that way if you wish.
> >
> > As for me, in my work, I often try to take an idea and see it as
> partly
> > wrong and partly right. Often that leads to new knowledge because
> people
> > tend to think in terms of abstractions which are not precise.
> >
> > But that is just one of my personal methodologies.
> >
> > More often than not, I'm not presenting a worked out system to the
> > message board and trying to promote it. Rather, I am thinking while I
> > interact with the message board members, with the goal of trying to
> > squeeze out a new discovery, whether large or small, in everything.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com> , "Gary Shepherd" <gshepher@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Sorry, but I can't let you get away with violating a word that way.
> > The
> > > word 'uniting' means for everyone to join together into one group -
> it
> > > comes from the word for 'one' after all. If part of the people are
> > > uniting, and part are not, what you have is division, not unity. And
> > > that is exactly what it seems the threat of global climate change is
> > > causing: people to divide into factions. That is not necessarily a
> bad
> > > thing - diversity of opinion is important. But it does reveal that
> the
> > > idea of an outside threat causing people to unite is problematic.
> > Unity
> > > will have to come as a positive force, from within the group, not as
> a
> > > negative, "let's-get-together-so-we-can-defeat-the-common-enemy"
> kind
> > of
> > > thing. Otherwise, as soon as the common enemy is defeated, the
> > > motivation for unity disappears.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > World Peace and Unity,
> > > Gary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > > On Behalf Of jfnewell7
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 3:39 PM
> > > To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: [WorldCitizen] Re: Scientific research
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that is a little too far on the pessimistic side. It is true
> > > that many people have not reacted to the climate emergency by seeing
> > it
> > > as a danger common to everyone that everyone needs to join together
> to
> > > overcome. However, there are a number of people who see it as a
> threat
> > > to all humanity.
> > >
> > > So part of humanity is uniting, while part isn't.
> > >
> > > It might be helpful to do some research to try to determine why the
> > > climate emergency causes some people to want to unite, but doesn't
> > cause
> > > other people to unite. It might be that there is something that
> could
> > be
> > > corrected in the culture which would cause those people to no longer
> > > resist uniting. Perhaps, for example, they are making some logical
> > > mistakes, and with some new kinds of educational initiatives, they
> > could
> > > correct their logic. Or perhaps the problem is something emotional
> > that
> > > they could correct if they became aware of it.
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> > > --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com> , "Gary Shepherd"
> <gshepher@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > One would think the dangers of climate change would be exactly
> this
> > > kind
> > > > of common enemy. Unfortunately, so far there is little evidence
> that
> > > > humanity is uniting against it.
> > > >
> > > > World Peace and Unity,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Gary K. Shepherd
> > > >
> > > > Senior Library Specialist
> > > >
> > > > Acquisitions
> > > >
> > > > Morris Library
> > > >
> > > > Southern Illinois University
> > > >
> > > > Carbondale, IL 62901
> > > >
> > > > 618-453-2781
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > [mailto:WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > > > On Behalf Of jfnewell7
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:45 PM
> > > > To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: [WorldCitizen] Re: Scientific research
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not really a silly thought because others have commented that if
> we
> > > were
> > > > invaded, we would suddenly all start working together. Actually,
> it
> > is
> > > > unlikely that any species advanced enough to be able to travel to
> > > earth,
> > > > which is far beyond our technology now, would be warlike, because
> at
> > > > some point, their research would have shown that reincarnation and
> > > karma
> > > > are real.
> > > >
> > > > But let us go in a different direction than that with your idea.
> > Often
> > > > an idea which wouldn't work in one situation will work with just a
> > few
> > > > revisions. In other words, an idea which isn't quite adequate can
> be
> > a
> > > > stepping stone to an adequate idea. Another reason for saying that
> > > your
> > > > idea is not silly.
> > > >
> > > > What about something other than an intelligent species threatening
> > all
> > > > of humanity? All humanity, for example, is threatened by the
> > > increasing
> > > > emergence of new strains of diseases - due to increasing
> population
> > > > size, the increased rate of evolution of disease organisms caused
> by
> > > > anti-disease-organism drugs, and the increase of chemicals which
> > cause
> > > > mutations in the environment. Such a danger is just like being
> > invaded
> > > > by a species from another planet in the sense that it is just as
> > much
> > > of
> > > > a threat to everyone together. Then add other threats to everyone
> on
> > > > earth.
> > > >
> > > > Could we define those as a strong enough enemy so that humanity
> > would
> > > > all rally together?
> > > >
> > > > Jim
> > > >
> > > > --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com> , Michel Verheughe
> <michel@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: jfnewell7 [jfnewell7@]
> > > > > > If people were taught a way to change their perceptions like
> > that,
> > > > and they were
> > > > > > willing to change their perceptions, then nobody in the world
> > > would
> > > > be a
> > > > > > foreigner any longer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps Hollywood should stage a invasion from outer space to
> > gather
> > > > us together, Jim ... just a silly thought! :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Michel Verheughe
> > > > > Norway
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

In the United States, the top executives and major shareholders of corporations
bribe both the Democrats and the Republicans, because their strategy is to
control both political parties.

I would expect the same thing to happen internationally if the system were such
that the corporations could bribe elected representatives. That includes
something like the system of legal bribery in the United States, in which the
bribes are usually campaign contributions, high paying jobs upon leaving office,
and jobs for relatives and friends.

Jim

--- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Shepherd" <gshepher@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> That is an interesting question. The Corporation party (whatever it
> might actually be called) is likely to have a great deal of money, and
> money can be translated into power. However, the Agrarian Party would
> have a lot more voters, since there are so many small farmers in the
> world. Also, people tend to have a much more positive picture of farmers
> than they do of corporations, so the Corporation Party will have an
> uphill battle as far as public relations goes.  So the two might balance
> each other out over all.  Of course, the Labor Party is going to have
> some say in that confrontation.
>
>
>
> World Peace and Unity,
> Gary
>
>
>
>
>
> From: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of jodemas2
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 12:42 PM
> To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WorldCitizen] Re: Religion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:WorldCitizen%40yahoogroups.com> , "Gary Shepherd" <gshepher@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > When people are finally free to form or join whichever political
> parties
> > they wish, they are probably going to create an amazing variety of
> them
> > . I imagine that because groups like small farmers have mutual
> interests
> > that transcend geography, then things like a world-wide Agrarian Party
> > would be a good bet. Such a party might for instance, contend against
> > parties representing urban dweller for proper use of scarce supplies
> of
> > fresh water. Ecological parties might dispute with parties
> representing
> > business interests over proper regulation of the environment. Parties
> > protecting the rights of indigenous peoples might contend with parties
> > representing large ethnic groups over use of ancestral lands.
> >
> >
> >
> > World democracy is likely to be very interesting.
> >
> >
> >
> > World Peace and Unity.
> >
> > Gary
> >
>
> Gary, the telling question is if the Agrarian Party will be able to
> counterbalance the influence of the Corporation Party.
>
> Joe
>

"International politics is so very complex and irrational"

Nope...you just don't know the real agenda....and that is depopulation and New
World Order. Once you know this international politics is transparent. Indeed,
it is just a pantomime for the masses while the Illuminati in the background run
everything.

--- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@...> wrote:
>
> Good point. International politics is so very complex and irrational, that I
don't think we can fix it in tiny steps. We need to solve the problem in large
chunks. To do that,  we need bold new ideas that would bring about much more
positive relations among nations. The ideas also need to be in a framework
overall plan so that people can see clearly exactly how the reforms would work
to better their lives.
>
> Jim
>
> --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, ro-esp <ro-esp@> wrote:
> >
> >   jfnewell7@  sendis:
> >
> > > Political leaders often have several reasons for the same action.
> > >
> > > I think another reason was that Saddam wanted to unite the Islamic
> > > nations into a single powerful nation,
> >
> > It doesn't matter what saddam wanted...it matters that he got to his
> > position by
> > help from the so-called free world in the first place..
> >
> > but we're getting way offtopic here
> >
> >             groetjes, Ronaldo
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.esperanto.net
> >
>

Just to let people know...I have tried the world passport at Frankfurt,
Heathrow, Stanstead and Sydney. So far without luck but without being pushy
either. I have written to Angela Merkel, Gordon Brown and Kevin Rudd to provide
the remedy of a letter for my human rights violations. We will see what happens.
If others are travelling on the passport and it is working please send visas
back to WSA so we can copy more of them in sending them to guvment leaders to
promote the passport.

Thanks

Peter

> From: Gary Shepherd [gshepher@...]
> I think this does point out something that is not often remembered about
> the Sept. 11 attacks: that the intent of the attackers was not simply to
> kill as many people as possible

Gary, Sept 11 was a provocation in hope of retaliation that would trigger a
global war. And we were stupid enough to retaliate with two different wars. ...
They won!  :-(

Best regards,
Michel Verheughe
Norway

Guys,
you do know that all these 'terrorist' attacks are done by our own guvments dont
you? Al-Quaedia is a figment of the imagination of CIA and MI5.

They don't want to end wars...they need them to destroy the products that our
society produces....the report from Iron Mountain is quite clear on this.

> From: jfnewell7 [jfnewell7@...]
> So the question is --- could you even think of a possible ecosystem, designed
in
> detail, where there would be zero situations in which greater intelligence
would
> give an animal a better chance of surviving and having offspring?

I think we are misunderstanding each other, Jim. Of course, no one object that
biological evolution shall not move in an ... entropic way into more complex
systems. My point was: There is no reason that such complex systems end up like
the intelligence we attribute to the human race today. Please allow me to quote
from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, chapter 23, 1st paragraph.

"Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he
had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - while all the
dolphins had ever done was muck around in the water having a good time. But
conversely, the dolphins had always believed they were far more intelligent than
man - for precisely the same reason."

My question then is: Do you consider dolphins to be only a link to higher
intelligence that leads to the understanding and wish to explore the universe?

I think that evolution on another planet could lead into something equally or
more complex than the present human one but not necessarily the same way.
Perhaps ET is happily mucking around in the sea of his distant planet, not
giving a second thought about what's life elsewhere.

Best regards,
Michel Verheughe
Norway

Don't think to defend your failures, but focus to learn from it.

> From: Daniel Branch [dbranch.branch@...]
> You may be right,Jim.In fact,I wouldn't be surprised if China have
> aspirations on being the"top dog" once the United States decline in
> power and influence.

Daniel and Jim, you seem to forget one thing: China's progress was only possible
because of a totalitarian communist regime. What will happen the day the young
Chinese want democracy? Perhaps what happened with the Soviet Union and
Yugoslavia: a splitting of the country into different regions. Today, China sees
a very uneven distribution of wealth; the standard of living in Shangai is
several times that of the provinces of central Asia.

What will happen to China when it is divided into several independant countries?
Nobody knows but the economical power will certainly be less than today. Let us
just hope that it happens as a peaceful revolution and not a blood bad as we
have seen in the former Yugoslavia.

Best regards,
Michel Verheughe
Norway

Quote:I think there is a 95% chance that soon,China will be the
world's only superpower.

You may be right,Jim.In fact,I wouldn't be surprised if China have
aspirations on being the"top dog" once the United States decline in
power and influence.

On 12/1/09, ro-esp <ro-esp@...> wrote:
>   dbranch.branch@...  sendis:
>
>
>  > >Such a new world order can only be brought about by a strong
>  > > European leader with dictatorial powers that would allow him or her to
>  > > have the authority to bring about the controls to reform the global
>  > > economy and restore prosperity to the world.
>  >
>  > It's uncertain as to whether or not,the European people would rally
>  > around a single dictator.
>
>
> hmm, maybe if he screams "islamic criminal invasion" loud enough.... but I
>  don't see any strong leader (and i'm not sorry for that). The EU has just
>  last month appointed some of the least "colourful" people they could find as
>  their leaders
>
>
>                                  groetjes, Ronaldo
>
> --
>  http://www.esperanto.net
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------
>
>  "I have believed that the only way peace can be achieved is through world
government" (Jawaharal Nehru)
>
>  For more information: www.worldservice.org and info@...
>  Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>