January 3, 2015

Jim Wallis’ New Year’s Resolutions vs. the Pope’s

Religious Left icon Jim Wallis posted his ten 2015 New Year’s resolutions in Huffington Post. They are mostly admirable or benign if somewhat politically correct. Love more. Build racial bridges. Empower women. Embrace hope.

There’s also:

Question every act of war. Peacemaking is not finding another war to win, but getting underneath the conflicts to their causes. We must question each escalation of war and continue to ask our leaders why this keeps happening.

Wallis is a pacifist who prefers not to specifically admit it. But okay, hoping for alternatives to war is laudable, sort of like a beauty contestant who declares her hope for world peace.

There’s also this resolution from Wallis:

Stand up for the reality of climate change. If we say we love God and care for God’s creation, it is time to raise our voices over the crisis of climate change. It’s time to start turning around, and we must begin to do that.

On a cold January night it’s a little hard to resonate with Wallis’ resolve against higher temperatures. There has in fact been a 17 year “pause” in global warming, but true believers insist the crisis, according to their computer models, will resume sometime soon.

Maybe. But the remedy is unclear. Even the sweeping limitations on economic activity that true believers desire would not, according to computer models, significantly alter global weather. There’s also the issue that historically humanity has fared better under warmer temperatures than cold ones.

A New Year’s resolve against anticipated temperatures years or decades away seems a little ethereal and perhaps hubristic.

Should New Year’s resolutions focus on political goals or personal improvement? If the former, perhaps a Christian should include alleviating the plight of persecuted Christians and other persons of conscience globally. Advocacy for the unborn, the terminally ill and disabled also merits consideration. And working to reaffirm marriage and family, especially in defense of children, likewise seems appropriate.

Personally, and at odds with Wallis’ resolution against military conflict, I would resolve to support and pray for the military defeat of ISIS and its murderous allies in 2015.

But I’m inclined to think that New Year’s resolutions should stress striving by God’s grace for greater virtue and less selfishness instead of political advocacy. In this vein, check out Pope Francis’ suggestions for seasonal emphases, which don’t include global warming (although reputedly he’s addressing the topic next year). Instead they stress personal repentance, self-restraint, and direct giving to others.

Here’s the first one:

“Take care of your spiritual life, your relationship with God, because this is the backbone of everything we do and everything we are.”

And here are the rest:

– “Take care of your family life, giving your children and loved ones not just money, but most of all your time, attention and love.”
– “Take care of your relationships with others, transforming your faith into life and your words into good works, especially on behalf of the needy.”
– “Be careful how you speak, purify your tongue of offensive words, vulgarity and worldly decadence.”
– “Heal wounds of the heart with the oil of forgiveness, forgiving those who have hurt us and medicating the wounds we have caused others.”
– “Look after your work, doing it with enthusiasm, humility, competence, passion and with a spirit that knows how to thank the Lord.”
– “Be careful of envy, lust, hatred and negative feelings that devour our interior peace and transform us into destroyed and destructive people.”
– “Watch out for anger that can lead to vengeance; for laziness that leads to existential euthanasia; for pointing the finger at others, which leads to pride; and for complaining continually, which leads to desperation.”
– “Take care of brothers and sisters who are weaker … the elderly, the sick, the hungry, the homeless and strangers, because we will be judged on this.”

These suggestions make worthy resolutions for the New Year.

55 Responses to Jim Wallis’ New Year’s Resolutions vs. the Pope’s

  1. Namyriah says:

    “7. Stand up for the reality of climate change.” Sure, why not? Climate obviously does change over time, no one doubts that. However, Wallis and his ilk see this as a mandate for governments to tyrannize over people’s private lives, the price of fuel, what kind of vehicles are available, forcing people to sort their garbage into little piles to prove we “care for the planet.” If Wallis was honest – and he isn’t, as we all remember him LYING about the money his “Christian” organization receives from the atheist George Soros – # 7 would read as follows:
    “7. Ignore the scientific data, go along with the crowd of secularists who don’t believe in God but do believe they become virtuous by driving Priuses, not having children, and sorting their garbage into righteous little piles. You will get a buzz of self-righteousness by thinking that your godless friends are saying ‘I like Jim, he goes to church but he acts just like us.'”

    • yolo says:

      They don’t actually care about the environment, they never have. If they did, they would express as much opposition towards wind turbines that kill rare birds as oil wells that don’t. What is environment? Is it a world without human beings or is it a world with human beings that organize the inherently disorganized? The people who believe that it is a world without human beings have a negative, abortive perception of other human beings. They see irreparable depravity in human beings, not in nature even though the state of nature is the state of war; wolves devour animals, tornadoes devour trees, earthquakes devour ground, and all devour people. They believe that there is no free will and we are all a mistake of the green world, a disease. People who believe that the environment is a world with human beings believe that any landscape can be made beautiful, believe that the natural resources that we develop are a gift from God necessary for our survival, and believe that each human being has the potential or opportunity for salvation. Left “Christianity” does not believe that salvation is real. I pity them.

      • yolo says:

        Sorry, meant to write: “If they did, they would express as much opposition towards wind turbines that kill rare birds and harm people as oil wells that don’t.” http://www.wind-watch.org/

      • Greg says:

        Wow! So succinctly – and correctly said.

      • Walker Brault says:

        You know what kills more birds than wind turbines do? Cats. Wind turbines kill a very small number of birds compared to almost every other factor. Why is this? It’s because before every wind farm is set up, they have to undergo a environmental survey. If the wind farm is in, or too close to a migration path, then the farm can’t be built.

        Your extremely broad generalizations couldn’t be father from the truth for the vast majority of people. The statements also have almost no correlation between those who believe climate change is factual and those that don’t.

        • yolo says:

          Now you make no sense at all. Then why are ANY birds protected by law? Why is there a Migratory Bird Treaty? To protect birds, which is why there is enforcement every single year, except against wind “energy” companies. Have you ever seen a cat kill an eagle? I have never. I have never seen a healthy eagle fly into a house or barn, but wind turbines slaughter them. If you have many birds-of-prey in your area and cell phone towers, you may notice that they roost on top of them! I guess in urban areas they roost on top of buildings. That’s good for them, actually. Guess what? They attempt to roost on top of wind turbine generator boxes (nacelles). That’s why so many of these rarer birds are slaughtered and why wind “energy” companies fight in court to prevent anyone from knowing exactly how many dead birds they find under these structure.

        • James Stagg says:

          Walter, Walter, remember what I said before. You quote facts not in existence.

  2. Dan Horsley says:

    I wonder if the people in Chicago, at this very minute, would really be upset if the average temperature went up by, oh, 5 degrees? As the article points out, human beings do seem to prefer warmth to cold. The state of Florida has now passed New York as the 3rd largest state, and I’m just betting that warm weather has played a big role in the state’s phenomenal growth.

    I wonder, does the left realize just how delusional it is? “Temperatures are rising!” is something most people regard as GOOD news, not a doomsday scenario.

    • Walker Brault says:

      You seem to be forgetting the difference between climate and weather. Weather is what’s happening right now, i.e. the frigid temperatures while climate is the weather patterns of a long period of time, i.e. Minnesota being snowy, the Amazon rainforest continuing to have rain, and the Sahara desert to be dry. Climate change is not about what’s happening in your specific part of the world, it’s about how everything is changing.

      “Temperature are rising!” isn’t about us, it’s about how all of creation around us can react to it. The rate of change in climate that’s occurring right now is and will continue to cause the current extinction rate to be at the same level or higher than all of the other mass extinctions in earth’s history.

      • Tiger says:

        Liberalism is like acne – most people outgrow it.
        Global warming is not science. It’s dogma, something taken on faith. The True Believers feel it is their mission to force that dogma on the rest of us. It’s not about science, it’s about nut jobs trying to force their dogmas on others.

        • Walker Brault says:

          So apparently 97% of scientific studies are wrong when they show that climate change is caused by humans. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

          • yolo says:

            The scientific consensus on a variety of topics during 1970s was acknowledged to be thoroughly wrong by the 1990s. Even eggs are healthy today.

          • Walker Brault says:

            20 years is almost nothing in the scientific world. Fortunately, climate change has been research for much longer than that. We’ve known about the greenhouse gas effect since the 1860s. The longer an area is researched, the better the information is and climate change has been around for a long time. If you’re so confident that climate change is a conspiracy, why not provide us with all the resources that you have supporting your claim. Or are we supposed to take it on faith?

          • James Stagg says:

            That is a silly statement about 1860 and is unsupportable by fact. You are taking climate alarmist talk on faith, only. There are no predictive signs of catastrophe, except some out-of-date computer models that could not even predict the 18-19-20 year hiatus on “warming”.

            Did you believe in global cooling, when it was the “liberal faith” of the 1970’s?

            Don’t remain a fool; correct your basic ignorance.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Just curious, but what harm could come from trying to correct the wrong environmental practices that created such things as pollution to our ground water, et al …?

            Alarms should be clanging loudly if only to awaken the dead-wrong people who think we can sustain the same policies that created the mess.

            Religious, and non-religious people live on some degree of hope, and it is my hope that we will all realize, and correct our faults before they become our fate.

          • Walker Brault says:

            If you don’t believe me on the 1860 thing, do a quick search for John Tyndall.

            Various things that are all currently happening because of and will continue to happen with climate change:

            Sea level is rising, 17 centimeters in the last century, but the rate for the last decade was more than double.

            What could possibly be causing this sea level rise you ask? The ice sheets melting. From 2002-2005, Greenland lost 36-60 cubic miles of ice and Antarctica lost 36 cubic miles. Both of these measurements were per year.

            Furthermore, both the Arctic sea ice and most glaciers around the world are also retreating.

            Also, as I mentioned before, we’re experiencing a rate of species extinction seen only 5 times ever in the history of earth, all leading up to or during a mass extinction where up to 95% of all species went extinct.

            I could go on and on, but the results are there, you’re simply ignoring them.

            That hiatus you talk about, actually happens quite a bit. However, global temperatures didn’t actually stop increasing, the rate just decreased by .07°C.

            Did you know that the 10 warmest years on record all happened since 1998, which just so happens to be after this “hiatus”.

            As to the global cooling, I wasn’t alive at that point so I wasn’t ever able to believe it. However, the article most cited by people who discredit climate change because of this “global cooling” was one that stated that IF aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 fold, then we MIGHT be seeing a downward trend in global temperatures possibly leading to another ice age. And yes this would have been exactly the case, except that aerosol levels dropped.

            And you could hardly say that there was a consensus that global cooling was fact, from 1966 to 1979 there were a grand total of 7 articles written in peer reviewed journals that talked about global cooling trend, contrarily, 42 articles were written about a global warming trend. Only one time in this period were there more articles written about global cooling than global warming in a year.

          • James Stagg says:

            Hahahahahahaha! Do you still REALLY believe that garbage?

        • MarcoPolo says:

          Similarly then, you must be comforted knowing that Religion is not Science, but merely Dogma?

          The Liberals I know have only gotten more resilient in their knowledge, as opposed to outgrowing any adolescent condition.

          • James Stagg says:

            No, libs have become more dogmatic in their ignorance. Check out the actions of the chief lib in the WH.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            So why has President Obama caved to the Big Banks, the Pharmaceutical industry, the Insurance industry and the National Rifle Association?…
            Because he was NOT LIBERAL ENOUGH!

            The Religious Right (especially during Ralph Reid’s tenure), became a force to fear if one didn’t follow the scorched earth policies of their agenda. Attempting to overturn a woman’s right to choose was just one of the more insanely regressive ideas that so called, Conservatives sanctioned.

            This is truly a “Goldilocks” scenario.
            Some think it’s too hot, some think it’s too cold. It reminds me of what my father used to say:
            “As a rule, man is a fool,
            when it’s hot, he wants it cool,
            when it’s cool, he wants it hot,
            he always wants, what it is not!”

            Good luck to anyone who plans on living past the next fifty years. It ain’t pretty now, and it’s only going to get more ugly!

      • yolo says:

        The climate was warmer during “Medieval” Europe, when actually Europe was flourishing allowing a renaissance.

        • Walker Brault says:

          So what does that have to do with what I just said?

          The medieval warming period that you refer to occurred between 950 and 1250. This means that it ended about 200 years before the Renaissance started.

          The Renaissance actually occurred during what is known as the Little Ice Age where the temperature was actually colder.

          The medieval warming period was also colder than the 1961-1980 average and much colder than the temperatures since.

          • James Stagg says:

            You really need to read more, Walker.
            1. The European renaisance began in the 12 th Century…..that’s 1100 ad for you. It was WARM.
            2. The medieval warming period was 1-2 degrees WARMER than 20th Century temperatures.
            You should not exhibit your ignorance when the facts are so easily checked with Google.

            Go for it, yolo, you are right.

          • Walker Brault says:

            The renaissance of the 12th century is not THE renaissance that most speak of. THE renaissance is when we saw da Vinci and Brunelleschi and that didn’t start until the late 14th century.
            There are so many other obvious causes to the 12th century renaissance that there is no one other than you claiming that it was because of a time of warm temperatures that the renaissance happened. (This is also completely contradicted by the larger, more well known renaissance happening during a relatively cold time.)

            I assume the study that you cite is the one headed by Michael Mann. This study found that GLOBAL temperatures were actually much lower than they are presently. They did however find that temperatures in North America were at a level similar to temperatures of 1990-2010. One area being warmer doesn’t mean that the entire planet was warmer, and global temperature being cooler doesn’t mean that some area will necessarily be warmer.

            As you said, the facts are so easily checked with Google.

          • yolo says:

            He just needs to get beyond the rehash that is taught by most World History “educators,” assuming that he isn’t a ‘religious’ atheist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqzq01i2O3U#t=323

      • John S. says:

        I remember living through the “coming ice age” in the 60’s and 70’s, the “global warming” of the 2000’s so I guess I’ll take my chances on “climate change” in the teens of the new millenium.

    • MarcoPolo says:

      Dear Dan Horsley,
      Your assumption regarding Florida’s temperate attractiveness is accurate. But do you know that the only areas safe for habitation in the coming decades (or centuries), will be many miles inland from the current coastline?

      • James Stagg says:

        Yup, another “true believer”! Did you know there is more ice in the Artic and Antartic than last year? Actual measurements! Where is all that “extra” sea water going to come from?

        • MarcoPolo says:

          You really don’t understand the Science of the Earth do you, James Stagg?

          Start with Archimedes principle…

          One doesn’t last long with their head buried in either the sand, or the water!

  3. eMatters2 says:

    Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis is a Leftist false teacher, so I would expect him to go along with the “climate change” program, which is just an unprecedented government power grab that will harm those it claims to want to help.

    He is also a pro-abortion extremist who supports the Democrats’ agenda of taxpayer-funded abortions. I mock people like him who pretend to care for the least of these.

    • MarcoPolo says:

      If the women who wish not to be pregnant were dependent upon you, (eMatters2), then the world would probably be the way you would like it? Over populated!!!

      • Ray Bannister says:

        Hogwash, it doesn’t work that way. Simple truth is, if abortion was not so easy to get, fewer women would get pregnant – either they’d be more diligent about using birth control, or (I know this horrifies lefties) they might occasionally say “No!” to the drunk guy they just met at the bar. Lefties are very dense about math, they think that “1 million abortions = 1 million fewer human beings walking around.” Doesn’t work that way – and, incidentally, killing a million humans is something anyone with a heart ought to oppose.

        • MarcoPolo says:

          Not to burst your bubble, Ray, but one million abortions means EXACTLY one million fewer humans beings! That’s simple arithmetic.

          Again, your logic fails to support the argument, suggesting that fewer pregnancies would occur if abortions were less conveniently available.
          “Do you walk to school, or carry your lunch?”

          You may want to meet a more diverse crowd of people in order to realize that your mindset is not very tolerant or open for correction.

          • Jason P Taggart says:

            It’s funny that liberals always take the stand that there are just too many human beings on earth. It’s understandable – being around liberals could definitely turn you against human beings. Their best trait is, they don’t have kids, so they do the world a favor by taking themselves out of the gene pool.

            There’s a great deal of hatred for humanity among leftists. Abort unborn babies, use sex to spread viruses instead of creating human life, turn sex into a method for spreading death instead of life. The left is one big death cult. Give them enough political power, they start euthanizing adults.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I didn’t hear you thanking me personally for not procreating…Maybe you’ve sent a card to that effect, so I’ll go check the mailbox!

            Do your Liberal friends know how you feel about them? Seriously!
            That you would broad-brush an entire intellectual group seems short-sighted, so I’m sincere when I ask what your Liberal friends think of your opinion?

            To correct something you said: I don’t hate Humanity. But it’s people, especially stupid people. Now they, I detest!

            Sex is for more than making babies, and if you’re only having sex for procreation, then I must ask… WHY?
            True, it’s none of my business, but it doesn’t hurt to ask! And don’t make any laws that prevent me from euthanizing myself when I so choose… Thank you very much!

      • eMatters2 says:

        Over-population is a myth. Entire societies (Japan, France, Germany) are dying out because of low birth rates. The “Christian” Left solution is to destroy them in the womb.

        • MarcoPolo says:

          Your lack of concern regarding Over-Populating the Earth might change if the Progressives across the globe decided to make lots of babies!
          So that old standby statement of “Make Love, Not War!” could help you change your mind.

          I’m sure this won’t surprise you, but I shudder to think that Christian Fundamentalists might continue to pump out families the size of soccer teams. But that’s a human right!

          Regarding sex, my father used to say to my sisters: “Don’t take seriously, what is poked at you in fun!” In other words, Have fun, but DON’T get pregnant!

          Here’s wishing us all luck!

  4. yolo says:

    You’re comparing the church with an agitator. He’s not exactly the person that you want with you next to your hospital bed. That says a lot about his contribution or lack thereof to your personal salvation.

  5. Beau Jackson says:

    If REVEREND Wallis is so concerned about his Mother Earth, let him build a windmill farm, he is such a blowhard that by himself he could generate enough electricity to keep DC humming.

  6. Walker Brault says:

    “Question every act of war. Peacemaking is not finding another war to win, but getting underneath the conflicts to their causes. We must question each escalation of war and continue to ask our leaders why this keeps happening.”

    “I would resolve to support and pray for the military defeat of ISIS and its murderous allies in 2015.”

    These are not contradictory statements as the author claims them to be. One is stating that we need to question when war is necessary and if there are any better options. IT doesn’t state that we should never go to war, simply that we need to think before we continue to do so. The second is simply a goal that can only be resolved through military force. You can be pro-send-our-troops-out-less and pro-war-against-ISIS, they are not two contradictory things. Wallis isn’t calling for the complete disbanding of our army, he’s calling us to think if all of these are something we as a country need to risk the lives of millions of young people for.

    Yes ISIS is something that needs to be stopped, but that won’t come only by military defeat. If we only defeat them militarily, they will come back later with even more power. We saw this with Al-Qaeda. We went into Afghanistan in the ’90s, left it in shambles and then came back a decade later to try (quite arguably unsuccessfully) to fix it.

    What we need is a complete defeat of ISIS. We need world leaders, especially those from Middle Eastern and other Islamic countries, to step up and say enough is enough, you don’t represent Islam. I could go on and on, but defeat of ISIS will not come solely by the hands of militaries and governments, we need the people.

  7. Jason P Taggart says:

    I just drove past our local Bally’s health club, the parking lot is full, as it usually is in January. People are gung-ho to keep their New Year’s resolutions to lose 30 lbs, or get six-pack abs, or otherwise delude themselves into thinking they are sexy, young, and immortal. Someone ought to tell them that a self-absorbed jerk with a sexy body is still a self-absorbed jerk, and the Grim Reaper awaits them all, no matter how much they can bench press.

    • MarcoPolo says:

      Well Jason, you’re a real beam of Sunshine this new year!
      How’s your fitness program going? I mean, after all, God gave you a “temple”, so shouldn’t one at least try to care for it?

    • Kyle says:

      It is a curiosity to want to prolong their miserable lives of eating foods that God designed for grazing animals, not human beings, nitpicking over every calorie and fretting about their HDL and LDL. Get neurotic over your health, you still end up dead. My idea of hell would be having to listen to health scolds talk about their boring exercise and diet regimens.

      • MarcoPolo says:

        Spoken like a truly ravenous carnivore!
        Jason and Kyle are starting to sound envious of those who actually DO care for their bodies.

  8. Jeremy Long says:

    Regarding # 6, “Support and empower women and girls”: Has anyone noticed that the people who push for “equality” are very selective about what “equality” involves.

    We have two different privately-run garbage companies in my area, so
    there are trucks running 4 days per week, and in all the time we’ve
    lived here, I’ve never seen ONE WOMAN working on those trucks, either as drivers or picker-uppers. Should women be complaining that they are
    under-represented in that line of work? How about roofers? I’ve never
    seen a female roofer in my life – do you hear women complaining? Heck,
    no – your typical brain-dead feminist harpy (forgive all the redundancies there) casts her jaundiced eyes on the world and determines there are not “enough” women as company CEOs, not “enough” directing
    movies, not “enough” as university department heads. These narrowminded shrews don’t have enough gray matter to observe that “men have all the best jobs!” is balanced out with “men have all the worst jobs!”

    If they really want “equality,” at least be consistent. Start pushing for
    more women picking up garbage, and more white guys on pro basketball

  9. Retired man says:

    At least Wallis mentioned Jesus once. That’s one more mention than on this page

    • Kyle says:

      The religious left mentions Jesus very often. Of course, it’s not the Jesus of the New Testament, it’s a faux Jesus who (purely a coincidence) has the same opinions as a member of the left.

  10. Veritas says:

    Climate change is predicted by computer models but none account for the current stall, thus how reliable are these models as the basis for policy.?.. Every policy that limits energy or increases the cost, raises the cost of feeding the poor, and providing for their improved existence. Ethanol? Increased corn prices, increased fossil fuel prices, limited ability of poor to access food that requires transport, and health care and most other things. People alive now matter more than speculation and lives are at stake.
    Most environmental initiatives are anti-human life because they are against the use of resources.
    President Obama himself asked African leaders to not fuel their economic growth with fossil fuels…how absolutely arrogant for a man who travels on a whim by personal jumbo jet all over the world while Africans largely live I abject poverty.
    He is not alone in this hypocracy… Christians should be utterly ashamed to be this blind to reality.

    • Walker Brault says:

      Maybe if everyone took their heads out of their butts they’d realize that science is actually far beyond what’s currently out there, but the government (federal state and local) is stopping it from happening. We have discovered a way to create oil from algae, a way which is far more productive than corn ethanol. The only reason that corn ethanol is still a thing is because it’s being subsidized. Most environmentalists aren’t asking for people to not use resources, they are asking for the resources to be used less. We need to check what we’re using the resources for and ask ourselves if we really need this. For most environmentalists, the problem isn’t developing countries, it’s the good old USA. Obama is not a scientist, he doesn’t speak for the environmental community.

    • MarcoPolo says:

      It is sadly true that transportation is involved to the extent that it is, in delivery of food, either to the poor, OR the rich.

      Locally grown foods should be what we consume. Sure, it’s a global economy. But that isn’t practical when it comes to food distribution and consumption.
      Climate change may, or may not be on YOUR list of concerns, but sustainability of resources will always be a challenge, and we could work smarter, not harder!

      As Walker Brault points out, Corn is subsidized, and therefore the “Big Agriculture” industry is in bed with the politics of power.
      Sugar or Algae can yield SO much more energy per kilo than corn, yet the established power-players would rather sustain their full pockets, than to create a healthier arrangement for sustaining our society.

      • Veritas says:

        Whether climate change is anyone’s priority or not, few who debate it on this forum are educated enough on the topic to argue the true scientific merits of the studies and I am very interested in scientific inquiries of all type… however, the question is not always what is happening around us but also what can we do about it? The policies we put in place as a society have implications upon the lives in that society. To make policy decisions that cause more harm to the poor than bend fit are I’ll advised and I moral and are usually to the benefit of someone who is making the push. My objetting are to these sorts of “solutions”
        most pomitting will admit that many of the Kyoto protocols and their like on climate change will have little impact on the trajectory of the climate but we must do something. … I disagree! Many times a cancer therapy will do nothing for the actual outcome or life span of the patient. It may actually increase their suffering through side effects and time in the hospital and away from the comfort of home….. these the general opinion has pushed hard against for obvious reasons. …not s Ok with many policy solutions to climate change. It may cause more human suffering in the futile attempt to stem the change than to adapt to it…. but thone who advocate these ideas are public ally shouted down

        It is our moral requirement that we as Christians examine thsee circumstances. Few do and go along with the flow and take one or the other side.

        Most people of good conscience are not anti human but are for sustainability but the political groups on both sides tend to be driven by radical elements with no regard for those who may suffer. The same is more obvious when military solutions are promoted for other problems…the people in opposition are usually just the opposite crowd. Same dilemma.

        Sustainability and human suffering go in step, locally grown food is only practical in some regions, not all. Mountainous areas or as in the popular southwest of the US, desert regions are poorlying suited to food production but people live in great numbers there worldwide.

        All decisions we make have good and bad consequences. All too often they are made for the wrong reasons, despite the good intentions of most of the people involved. Caveat emptor is too often not

        • MarcoPolo says:

          Of course there will be regions that need food delivered because of not being able to produce their own.
          I agree with much of what you say. I just ask you to re-read your posts, and correct the typo’s before sending them ‘out there’?
          Thank you!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *