NASA scientists say it could be!
“These little clumps completely disappearing over the course of a few days, that is perfect evidence that it’s ice,” Smith said. “There had been some question whether the bright material was salt. Salt can’t do that.”
This is a huge prerequisite for eventual manned exploration there. Let’s keep our fingers crossed, shall we?
![Let’s Kill Hitler [HD]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hESmStH-L._SL160_.jpg)
I disagree with an assumption by Mr. Smith…
“Crumbs of bright material initially photographed in the trench later vanished, meaning they must have been frozen water that vaporized after being exposed, Peter Smith of the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in a statement Thursday.”
Just because it’s ice, does not make it water ice. It could be nitrogen-ice, methane-ice (unlikely), etc. The soil tests performed suggest that it is not water ice.
Did the ice disappear through melting and evaporation, or from sublimation? Sublimation would tend to point to non-water ice. That it took days to disappear speaks to the coldness of the environment, the likelihood of sublimation, as well as the likelihood that it is not water ice.
I’d like to be excited about this, but we’ve known about polar ice on Mars for a long time. Until we can prove the presence of H2O, I will remain cautious and observant.
Last week they stumbled across a meth lab and a McDonalds.
MacMartian Meth?
This kind of sums up my thoughts on the space program:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5smPcN8AoE
To: Chuck D
From: Whitey on the Moon
A song by Steve Camp (an artist whose works I have enjoyed) relates a similar opinion… “You say we beat the Russians to the moon, and I say you starved your children to do it.” Respectfully, I disagree with Chuck D and Steve Camp.
It’s not the government’s responsibility to feed anyone, or to make sure that a whiny acolyte of the church of entitlement gets a trouble-free ride through life. Chuck D needs a scapegoat for why he’s experiencing a hard life, as though the US government sought him out specifically to “keep him down”. Apparently “the man” trained rats to seek out and bite his sister. Apparently “the man” decided to raise the price of food, increase his rent, and deny him free medical aid. What a crock… the poor baby… someone forgot to inform him of the immutable constants in the universe: suffering, taxes, and death; and “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” Your paycheck seems a little light, Chuck? Maybe it’s to pay for that free food, free medical, free everything society you’re bitching about… Retard.
The armed services taught me time and time again “leadership by example.” I wonder how much of the profits from Mr. Camp’s or Chuck D’s musical talents went to help any suffering soul. If you see injustice or suffering and turn your back on it, you become a willing party to that situation. But it’s far too easy to pay our government to be the caring citizens that we should be… and then sit back and complain about the taxes and expenses that enable the government to take charge of our responsibilities for us. The roads didn’t pay for themselves, nor did the public education you ignored, nor the armed forces that help to guarantee your freedoms. You think rising rent is bad? Try a mortgage, home & fire insurance, and property taxes, jacka**. You don’t want to pay for NASA? Why don’t you exercise your civil rights and try voting… you know, those are the rights and privileges that MLK, Susan B. Anthony, and every soldier and sailor since the American Revolution fought (and many died) for. Too jaded or lazy to vote? You reap what you sow. Too busy fixing blame instead of fixing the problem? That makes you part of the problem.
You saprophyte… you crybaby… How about a nice hot cup of STFU? How about you stop rockin’ the gonja and make an effort to better the world you’re bitching about? Chuck D, you can pucker up and kiss my “Whitey on the moon”.
That goes double for Gil Scott Heron, the songwriter of the aforementioned song “Whitey on the Moon”.
Scott-Heron, is actually a very out spoken political activist. Unfortunately he also has a cocaine addiction. He has tried to do a lot for the people he feels he speaks for.
I knew my post would not be popular here with many people, especially Pete, but it really does speak for some of what I believe.
You say that ‘suffering’ is an immutable constant, but I disagree. Everyone will die, and everyone will pay taxes, but why does everyone have to suffer. Sure, there will be work, but work is not suffering.
There are millions of people on this earth that suffer, for no reason other than we refuse to help them. We put a robot on mars, but we just let 10,000 people starve to death today(estimates actually say that close to 4 million a year). Hooray for us!
I don’t see the connection between spending money on NASA vs spending the same money on feeding the poor.
You can’t stop suffering without equality and you can’t have equality because people are not equeal and do not want to be equeal.
What is suffering? Is it suffering to only have bread to eat? Is it suffering to be seperated from family? Is suffering relative?
Is the goal to stop the suffering and sustain life only? What about quality of life?
Matthew 20:1-16 is very telling of the character of man especialy when it comes to equality.
I believe in helping people, but I don’t believe it is a job for my govt. Its a job for private organizations.
“This year, the U.S. had contributed $362.7 million to WFP just through May 4, according to the website. That figure does not include another $250 million above the planned yearly contribution that was promised by President George W. Bush in the wake of WFP’s April warning that a “silent tsunami” of rising food costs would add dramatically to the world population living in hunger. Nor does it include another $770 million in food aid that President Bush has asked Congress to provide as soon as possible.
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, with oil revenues last year of $164 billion, does not even appear on the website donor list for 2008.”
The WFP has been around for 30 years now and there is no decline in world hunger but there is prolonged suffering which in a way is counter-productive.
When you pack a few million people into tent camps with limited medical treatment and no running water do you realy improve their lot in life?
Suffering is immutable for two reasons: (1) we live in a world of disease, death, accidents, etc. (2) we (humans) have a flawed nature and choose to do wrong to ourselves and to others through thoughts, words, and deeds. (Don’t believe me? Turn on the evening news.) A woman may eat right and exercise and still contract breast cancer… this is suffering. Parents die in a car accident, leaving their children as orphans, who suffer the short-term and long-term effects of that immense loss. A crack addict shoots a cashier to death in a corner store for $250 and a pack of smokes. There’s all kinds of suffering. I admit I did not define the term clearly (and really still haven’t), but I haven’t been playing any games with semantics. However, I expected a reasonable acceptance of the existence of suffering. From Buddha to Christ and all points in between, the philosophies and faiths of this world accept the “immutable” existence of suffering. I’m not sure what suffering that you are referring to that can be avoided. There is certainly no global sense in which we can avoid suffering, much less choose to end. We can treat suffering. We can mitigate and lessen suffering. But what suffering does anyone have the power to cease? (These questions are rhetorical) Can you remove all diseases from existence? Can you stop mankind from aging? Can you prevent all murders, addictions, car accidents, and bar brawls? Can you end death? If you can, why haven’t you? If you can’t, what are you disputing?
I agree with Catalyst here… what does our space program have to do with starving children? We have funds enough for both. Who is this person or entity that you refer to that is somehow stealing money slated for relief and aid and giving it to NASA? Our government has, on behalf of our jaded and lazy selves, acted as our brothers’ keeper (I speak as someone who worked for a US foreign-aid agency, serving in Iraq, Sri Lanka, Ecuador, and other sites around the world). As a nation, we provide more aid (domestic and foreign) than any nation that has ever existed. No ten European nations combined can match what we give. Multiple hundreds of millions of dollars go within and without the US every year to clothe and feed and care for the sick from faith-based organizations alone.
In spite of what our government gives in our names, it is the responsibility of each one of us to help those in need in our communities. However, if you’ve delegated your responsibilities (and authority) as a citizen to the government, or live off the goodwill of your fellow citizens, what right have you to complain about how public revenues are spent? What I have to ask you now is this: what have you done to ease the suffering of any person? What soothing words have you spoken? What money have you surrendered? What time have you given? What sweat have you shed? What meal have you missed so that another could eat? What homeless man have you sheltered? What widow or orphan have you cared for? Again, these questions are rhetorical… and not an attack on Tasuja, but definitely a kick in the teeth to Heron. What the drug-laden “activist” fails to acknowledge is his hypocrisy. He has an entitlement attitude and a racist and accusatory message. He takes no responsibility for his own choices and blames whitey for the consequences. His sister is bitten by a rat and he hasn’t the money to pay for medical care… but that’s the fault of the crew of Apollo 11, not Heron’s fault for spending his paycheck getting high.
Personally, I do things to help. I could do more, but I give money and time to the less fortunate on a fairly regular basis and I carry a lot of guilt for not doing it more.
There is an amazing amount of suffering we can cease. For starters, how about the 1/3rd of the population that does not have enough food? How about the millions of people that die from diseases we can treat? Just because there are things we might not be able to help with, it is not an excuse to pretend there is not a mountain of things we can do.
One thing I find interesting in this discussion is that Catalyst says that it is the job of private organizations to help people while I assume he feels it is the job of government to put robots on mars. I am exactly the opposite, it is the job of private organizations to put robots on mars, while the government should be invovled in serving the people.
Is the issue rampant across all borders of this earth, yes. Does that mean it is ok to pretend like we are doing the best we can, no. Just because my neighbor commits a bigger crime than me, it does not mean I am not guilty.
As far as the bible is concerned, I think it is pretty clear: Ephesians 5:28 He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.
Why do you work? So that you will have something to share with those in need.
If private industry puts robots on the moon outside the scope of a regulated govt. entity do you believe that it would bennefit us more or less as a nation?
Private industry is self serving when it can be self serving.
Privately ran 501c3 organizations and the like do not need govt funding to do their jobs no matter what their overpayed bloated directors and CEOs want us to think.
The fact that public and private funds are used by 501c3 organizations to lobby for more funds is apalling to me. The company I worked for was a CAP (Community Action Project) and they spent several hundred thousand dollars on lobbyists to ensure that they kept their funding… Spending a ninety-nine cents to make a dollar is moronic.
So, the private industry, that is self serving is what we depend on to help those in need, while the government that is supposed to be for the people should be leading the way in research and innovation?
Does that not seem backwards to you?
Why do we have socialized space exploration, and private health care?
“Private industry is self serving when it can be self serving” such as space exploration. Its hard to be self serving when handing out blankets, food, training, etc. It becomes easy to be self serving when you lobby for funding such as CAP, HeadStart, Housing Project, Family and Childrens Services etc so that they can line their pockets with unreasonable salaries by increasing their state/fed funding vs helping people.
http://www.nonprofitwatch.org/
http://www.charitywatch.org/
Alright, I think we’ve a few mutual misunderstandings here. My objections are with Herron’s attitude, not yours. I also believe that we should help those in need; but I differ from you in an understanding of how much we do help those in need and in the expectation of who bears the responsibility for providing that help.
Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I can gather from your commentary is that you don’t object to NASA, but that the US government (seems to have) set a priority for its resources to giving to this agency above the greater good of caring for and protecting human life (whether that life is in the US, among adjacent nations, or worldwide). I also expect that you believe that our government is responsible for not just protecting its citizens from tyrannies foreign and domestic but also responsible to clothe, house, feed, educate, and medically treat its citizenry. If my expectation is incorrect, please correct me. If it is correct, I sincerely applaud your humanitarian idealism but I disagree solely on the means.
Point One: The prioritizing of funds for NASA above the “greater good”… the sheer weight of funds that we (the US govt) spend annually on disaster relief, food programs, medical aid, foreign economic stimuli, education, infrastructure, etc. (domestic and foreign aid combined) utterly dwarfs what we spend on NASA. In 2005 the US government slated approximately 37.5 billion dollars to NASA. In that same year, USAID, just ONE of many government funded humanitarian aid agencies, had a budget in excess of 24 billion… and served the needs of the people of more than 100 countries on 5 continents. This doesn’t include our massive domestic programs (of which there are quite a few), the Peace Corps, Dept of State programs, Dept of Commerce programs, Dept of Agriculture programs, FEMA, and the list goes on for days… and this doesn’t include non-government aid that US citizens provide through agencies such as The American Red Cross, The Salvation Army, the giving of thousands of churches and private citizens, etc. Tasuja, we do give. We send trillions of dollars, millions of tons of food, clothing, medicine, and equipment, and our best and brightest sons and daughters to care, not just for our own, but the world… As a nation we lead the world in giving as well as caring for human life and dignity. If NASA was in any way competing for funds, or robbing funds from humanitarian endeavors, I would be squarely in your camp and supporting you. However, it’s just not so. NASA’s funding is a drop in the bucket compared to the ocean of aid the US government provides. If we gave only one trillion in aid each year, NASA’s funding is less than 4 percent by comparison… and dropping. Not to mention that the benefits from NASA programs in scientific knowledge, technology, communications, etc. give back to us and the world in perpetuity. Is a human life worth more than a trip to the moon? Without a doubt. Is NASA starving the needy? Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Point Two: Responsibility… the government is not responsible to provide welfare and relief to its citizens. That is the responsibility of each citizen (see Good Samaritan reference below). That the US is heavily involved in these concerns speaks to our humanity, in both the positive and negative connotations of the word. We want to help our own and we want to help our neighbors, which is noble. However, we have delegated our personal responsibilities to our government… in essence, we pay taxes so that someone else can care in our stead. Also, such gifts should be voluntary, but because we’ve made our government responsible we are taxed instead of asked (and whether or not there is an immediate need)… and our funds don’t always benefit the needy in our local communities. In some cases this amounts to theft, at best, or extortion, at the worst. Playing Devil’s advocate I would have to argue that NASA amounts to the same thing (enforced taxation toward a goal we may or may not agree with) but we do have the power to vote to remove or continue such aims. Playing Devil’s advocate again, the government’s taxation (and the US Treasury) is a useful means by which to collect, centralize, and disperse funds from every corner of the US toward whatever need we mean to address. I agree with Catalyst in that I’d rather an accountable government agency run such a program (NASA); that we all take part in its glories and tragedies; and benefit as a nation from the advances and experiences than surrender these to a self-serving private organization or corporation.
I also apologize to you. The rhetorical questions I posed in my previous post were not intended to offend or to call you (Tasuja) to account for your acts of charity. I meant the questions for everyone, and in part to examine what we give and why. It’s a check on hypocrisy. Are you practicing what you preach? Are you leading by example? When you (speaking to everyone) expect others to give, do you give? I’d be willing to bet that we all give a few bucks to the veteran on the corner and put some spare change in the Salvation Army pot at Christmas-time. But what is your motivation and responsibility? When we give our spare change, do we give a fraction of a fraction from our abundance, and feel content in making our institutions (and thereby our fellow taxpayers) bleed to make up the difference? When we give our meager change are we truly meeting the immediate need of a fellow human being (as with the Good Samaritan), or buying off our sense of guilt? I, a cynic, tend to see the latter. I also see the same attitude concerning a belief in the government’s responsibility to care for the needy. By our payment of taxes some believe we are assuaged, and then attack our government for not caring more. But taxing does not release one from responsibility, and expecting our institutions (that are reflections of its citizenry) to care on our behalf is a selfish dismissal of that responsibility.
I’m enjoying this topic… we started with a trip to Mars, and then moved to philosophy, ethics, and politics. Well done, gents.
That is a great point, Tasuja. It does indeed seem backward to me too. However, having experienced both private and socialized health care, I’d rather suffer the expense of private health care than the inadequacies and stagnation of socialized care. With “socialized” space exploration, many benefit. In private/corporate space exploration, only the owners/stock-holders benefit. (Just my opinion… your mileage may vary)
Heinlein had a concept in one of his novels (Time for the Stars) in which an organization called the Long Range Foundation (LRF) funded the first major exploration of local G-type stars. I like the concept in principle, but I fail to see how such an organization would survive when churches wither on our street corners. If you won’t give selflessly to support your faith, then why would give you give to a secular organization?
Their motto was “Bread cast upon the waters.” I’m sure some of you will recognize this quote, but the bottom line is that we are too selfish to plan for our children.
Don’t think for a minute that a healthy space program isn’t helping our children. If you are even slightly green, developing the infrastructure to move our resource gathering and our heavy industry off-planet makes sense because it saves on pollution, energy, and real-estate. I know from talking to Tasuja that he would favor environmental regulation by the government; why not take it one step further and recognize that long-term goals in space also reduce our pollution overhead here on Earth? I’m not talking about the carbon footprint bullshit that Al Gore made up, I’m talking about heavy metals in our water, sulfur compounds in the air, and ground level ozone.
We could even argue for a healthy space program in terms of survival for our nation state. Every single nation or empire that has ceased to expand has entered into decline. There is no such thing as a status quo; we expand, or we die. We certainly have room to improve as a nation, but by and large, we have the best thing going on the planet. I would rather export our way of life to the stars than having to bribe a Chinese Kommissar or a Japanese customs agent to do so.
To guarantee our nation’s future, I am willing and able to sacrifice the poor who would rather whine in half-baked rap songs than helping themselves. Opportunities exist to elevate yourself out of your situation, most of those funded with my unwilling tax dollars. Use them, rather than wallowing in cocaine and pseudo-angst about the single greatest mechanical achievement in the history of our race.
It should be known that I am not against space exploration. My point was really more along the lines of: I have a hard time getting excited about mysterious disappearing solids on mars, while people die of hunger on earth everyday.
Are there good things that have come from the space program, sure, will there be more, sure. What good does that do when we already fail to use what we have to better ourselves as human beings.
In another blog on this site, people talk about the star trek universe and all of its good qualities. Well, it is only good, because people care. Everyone is selfless there, they banded together for the greater good, and the whole is more than the sum of it’s parts.
With our current mindsets and attitudes, I see a future where we can not only shit all over people on earth, but we can do it on mars as well! What a breakthrough for mankind!
So, forgive me for not thinking that making new houses should be a priority, while we cannot take care of the one we have now.
My apologies on my previous posts. I just don’t have the time to articulate what I think and fully comprehend what is being said. I’ll respectfuly bow out of this discussion as I can only cause confusion with my current lack of focus.
btw, good points all around.
Hear, hear. That is something I can agree with.
A depressing amount of hard SF is about this very topic. Kim Stanley Robinson’s trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars) explores how this happens. Instead of embracing the frontier in the same spirit that Britain did in the course of its Empire or the US did with Manifest Destiny, the colonization of Mars turns into a morass of legality, real estate deals, and ultimately, revolution.
Zulu massacres and dead Apaches aside, both of these experiences galvanized the nations in question and raised the standard of living overall. We can learn from those same mistakes and reap the benefits. And at least in our local neighborhood, we don’t have natives to enslave, infect, or sell firewater to. Maybe we have a chance to overcome history’s shackles.
What I’d hate to see if that we’re held back from our potential by those who refuse to contribute. We need not proceed at the pace of the slowest, not when the future of our race is at stake. I think Dez makes the most interesting point in saying that (paraphrase) our social ills will never truly be eliminated, no matter how altruistic we, as a society become. Our manifold desires to become rebellious will trump the goodness of others. If we can concede that this is true, we might as well proceed with programs that benefit those that plan for the future and those that have a stake in their children and their children’s children.
Dez’s point is more like a cop out. Why help those people when they won’t ever change. In reality, it is just a justification for the rest of us to never change.
We have no idea what the world would become if people really changed, so we sit here and say “I am only one man” or “Even if I help, they wont appreciate it”.
It is the exact attitude that will keep us from ever progressing as a society. What good is the future of our race if we never progress more than having neater technology? Look at my fancy space ship, yeah, I know you are hungry and have a disease we cured 30 years go, but check out how shiny it is!
Until people stop talking about sacrificing the poor, or refering to anyone that is struggling as someone that ‘refuses to contribute’, we will never progress. You talk about the future of our children, and their children, but I say to you I would rather them be earthbound and working to better our society, than be like me, but on Mars. To me, that would signify progress as a race more so than putting a man on mars will.
Have you changed your mind on voting and the franchise, then?
Seriously though, let’s frame the argument another way. What was one of the greatest benefits of opening the New World for colonization? Let’s not talk about the economics of a new mercantile class, let’s not talk about enriching the treasuries of nation-states. Focus on the fact that the poor and the disenfranchised had an opportunity to go somewhere else and make a better life. The Irish couldn’t do it in their own country (potato famines, British nobles, etc.), German peasants couldn’t do it in the Rhineland (clashes between Catholic and protestants), and hordes of British couldn’t do it in their country, either, whether it was religious conflict, debt, or political disagreements.
Opening the frontier isn’t about pointing to shiny new tech…it’s about the growth and development of our race. The benefits that we receive by pushing outward are more than just good public relations. It lifts morale, it provides spin-offs that raise our standard of living, and it gives men and women across the globe something to hope for. I want to see the days of pride in our achievements replace our current sense of entitlement. I want to see people talking on street corners about our future as a race, and not dwelling on our past mistakes. I want to see us make progress to get off of this rock that we call home, not just for scientific progress or economic gain, but because it opens up untold opportunities for all of us.
My language of “sacrificing the poor” was intentionally offensive to further draw out the conversation. Everything worth doing requires some degree of sacrifice, and the business of government is to provide the greatest good for the greatest number (yes, I just hauled out Bentham and Mill). Focusing our efforts on a relatively small (percentage, per capita) demographic that does nothing for our future as a nation is a no-win situation in the long-term, even though it may make us feel warm and fuzzy in the short term.
I would prefer, counter to Dez’s statements, to provide my own support for those in need via non-government social organizations (tithes to churches, donations to local charities, etc.). I don’t think it is the business of government to do this via my unwilling proxy, but I do think it is the business of government to secure our nation’s future. Helping someone that won’t help themselves doesn’t do any of us any good; advancing scientific knowledge and raising the average standard of living does.
…the business of government is to provide the greatest good for the greatest number
What a horrible thought. The majority can look to each other for strength but if not the government, who will look out for the marginalized?
(In my previous post the quote HTML tag did not work as I thought it would.)
Youch, starting to sound like a regulation vs deregulation discussion now.
“Dez’s point is more like a cop out. Why help those people when they won’t ever change. In reality, it is just a justification for the rest of us to never change.”
I challenge you to locate any comment of mine that exemplifies your quote, Tasuja. Where have I ever said, “help no one because they won’t change”? I have never taken a position of not rendering aid. Time and time again I have stated that it is your (speaking to everyone) responsibility to help those in need. Where I differ with many is that I don’t feel my responsibility to help ends with paying my country to help people in my name. You are confusing our dispute over the meaning of “suffering” with the issue of responsibility.
In truth, you are the one proposing that we never change. Your position exemplifies “Don’t expand our scientific knowledge, because someone is hungry. Don’t develop new technologies while any single soul is suffering. Do nothing to improve our lot in life while someone else does not have what we have.”
You are concerned that space exploration takes food out of the mouths of the needy, yet fail to acknowledge how much we do give in aid… more than 25 times more money is budgeted to aid than space exploration. Only the DoD gets more money than aid programs and agencies. Think about that for a minute… think about the vastness of that wealth given in good will to the world… and no one is saying “don’t give” or even “give less” but merely let us invest an additional separate fraction of that wealth in our future. It’s akin to giving $10 so that a corner panhandler can eat a decent meal while allowing yourself only 40 cents for gas to drive home. Oh, but wait, shame on me for denying him the additional 40 cents.
I’m glad Dr. Carver didn’t share your point of view, or we’d have no blood plasma or peanut butter… both used extensively in our aid programs. Other scientific advances, such as inoculations, curb pandemics and treat or prevent childhood diseases. Think of what something as simple as penicillin has done. But no… science is the enemy, robbing the hungry. You seem to believe we can’t afford to spend any money to the advancement of science. I believe we can’t afford not to advance science.
Would you be surprised to find out how aerospace programs have helped us to aid the needy? I bet you would… but I’m also betting you’d fail to acknowledge those advances as well.
Dez, that comment was in response to Pete’s summary of you. It was not taken directly from anything you said, but from what Pete said you were saying.
I have already said that we should continue to explore, invent, advance, I never stated otherwise. I also have given credit to the advances that have come out of those programs in the past, so please do not label me as someone opposed to science or progress.
I really dont even have a problem with the amount of money spent by the govt on the space program (almost 20 billion in 2008).
My point was really more of “What good does technology do us if we never become better people.”
Pete makes a reference to the zulu massacre and dead indians, well, if we ever colonize mars the only reason we wont kill everything there, is because someone else has beat us to it. We are no more advanced than we were then, we just have bigger ships and larger cannons.
Your point is taken… my apologies. As it was worded, the comment led me to a different conclusion. Thanks for clarification.
As for, “What good does technology do us if we never become better people.”… this is a good question. However, I think you’re making technology the scapegoat. It is incumbent upon ourselves to become better people, whether there are technological advances or not. Technology does not make anyone better or worse. Technology cannot make that choice for us. Technology is merely a tool. When a man shoots another man, the police don’t arrest the gun. When a surgeon saves a patient, the family thanks the doctor, not the scalpel. We have to choose to be better people. The issue is not with technology, but with each person’s willingness to change for the better.
I have lately become very opinionated when it comes to humanity and what we are doing with what we have. A few things came together at once with this post, and with that song and felt it was as good a time as any to vent some.
I watch the world around me and see that we all fail to make the world a better place. There are things we can do, and things we should be doing, but we all fail. We retreat back to our homes and watch or plasma screens and blame the poor for being poor.
We all fail to appreciate the gifts we have been given and pretend like we have it just as badly as someone else and yet we managed to overcome our plight. It is simply not true. I was given a lot more opportunity than many other people, and in all honesty I have failed to live up to it.
However, I understand that since I started from a different place, my failure looks like success for a lot of people. If I started in a poor, single parent home, and put the same amount of effort, I am sure I would be poor, uninsured, and part of the ‘problem’.
This has rambled on long enough. In the end, lets all just hug and imagine what that ice could be made of.
Being opinionated isn’t a fault, Tasuja. Presenting an opinion, and not having the ability or will to back it up, is a fault. So kudos to you for hanging in the fight. It can’t feel easy to stick to your guns when you’re surrounded and fighting alone.
The world needs more pirates.
I hear there’s an untapped supply of Martian McMeth to plunder… me hearties!
There are many visual similarities between meth heads and pirates.