Hello again, Babette,

>>"You know nothing about me so don't write tripe. I haven't just holidayed in the USA, I visit once a year, sometimes twice. I have a brother and sister who live there. I work there at the UN so I am quite familiar with their statistics. I support the MDG goals of abolishing poverty by 2015 except I disagree with some of the methods, e.g. abortion and population control."

     How are you quite familiar with their statistics when you said that hunger doesn't exist in the United States, when the former presidents of both political parties admit it? How is it that all I need to do is google "UN statistics poverty" to see the high rate of food-insecurity in the United States? And how is it that now you're "quite familiar with their statistics" now, when you said, and I quote, "You are wrong about UN statistics, or the UN is wrong on this one as it was on climate change." According to the US Department of Agriculture, 15% of Americans do not have enough food to eat: USDA.gov.

     And also... Your annual trip to America is not an indication of how 300 million Americans are living. Even though I've been to all the great cities, and lived in a fair number, I don't claim that my personal experience is fully indicative of the nation. Even if I've seen a million different people, that's less than 1% of the country. So, "tripe" or not, your personal experiences at your brother's and sister's houses do not trump national and international statistics.

>>"But the Latin meaning of fetus is 'small young', and the pro-aborts persist in calling it a fetus even at 9 months gestation. Their terminology is based on location, not development, e.g. if it is inside the womb it is fetus, if outside they reluctantly call it a baby, although one abortionist when accused of not trying to save a baby born alive after an abortion said 'I am here to perform an abortion, not put some woman's fetus in a humidicrib'! So even after it is outside the womb, abortionists are reluctant to admit it is a baby, and think they have a right to kill depending on the mother's whim and the fee they are getting."

     I'm not going to argue for partial birth abortion, since I don't believe in it. But, there is a period in gestation where the unborn becomes conscious, or, aware -- even if not "self-aware," specifically. At this point, it deserves the same rights as any other individual. Otherwise, it deserves the same rights as any other object. It doesn't matter if it is "human" or "non-human," "baby" or "fetus." These are emotional terms that really apply. Besides, I could easily turn the tables on you: what about a lump of less than a thousand cells, only in gestation for a week, inside the womb of a fifteen year old who was raped? Do you really think that you're saving a life by bringing a handful of cells to consciousness? Or, actually, do you think you're destroying one, by taking the girl's, and forcing a life of misery, poverty, and grinding labor onto her? After all, we certainly know that the unborn here is definitely not a conscious being.

     Partial birth abortions are also illegal in the United States. The Supreme Court of the US, allegedly packed with anti-Christians and abortion fanatics according to conservative groups, upheld this law. I'll make a deal with you. I'll oppose partial birth abortions if you support abortions of the unborn that are not yet conscious -- that is, aware of their environment, or "awake." This point would be somewhere in the late second trimester, but I leave this question up to the neurophysicists and the like.

>>"Unemployment in Australia is now less than 5% - the Labor government is boasting about it."

     That is not the REAL unemployment rate. Do you think when you see the news, and they say "The unemployment rate is... blah blah," that they mean the ACTUAL unemployment rate? No, they don't. They mean a subclassification, known as U1-U6, which measures the unemployment of particular industries and age groups. When I say "unemployment rate," I mean the percent of people who are looking for work but cannot find it. This is the real unemployment rate. When news agencies say it, they mean "men and women aged 25-55, who have been unable to find work within the past 4 to 8 weeks, have applied for unemployment, and are not agricultural workers." (The U4 is worded like this, which is the most widely reported.) Of course, as you can see, that's not the actual unemployment rate, because it excludes, well, lots of people. The real unemployment rate, as I have shown earlier, is closer to 16% in Australia. If only our governments could get their story straight, and report one accurate number, but actually, I think they get a benefit by confusing people.

See here: Wikipedia: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics

     It's the same exact thing in Australia. See here: Couriermail.com.au

     To quote it: "Taking account of these 'hidden unemployed' brings Australia's real rate of unemployment to 11.7 per cent, much higher than the official rate of 5.7 per cent, it says." And you don't trust that Capitalist-driven Labour government, do you? In China, "government officials inspired by the working class" create poverty, but when it's done in Australia, it creates prosperity?

>>"Many of our homeless and Aborigines were provided with housing - they prefer to sleep 'rough' and wander away from sheltered accommodation."

     That's not true. The Australian paper I quoted earlier said the reason why Aborigines were arrested most often was "failure to move on." If they really "like it rough," it would be impossible to be arrested for that, wouldn't it? Besides, you're aware that Aborigines were never provided with land or, that is to say, anything from the Australian government? "The white people never thought of paying US rent for the whole country that they took from our ancestors. Leave us this tiny corner where our homes are. Why should we pay rent for it at all? We regard that little bit of land as ours still." -- IndigenousRights.net.au

     Are you familiar, also, with the Day of Mourning, where the Australian Aborigines protest the land that was taken from them? What about the Australian protests against Invasion Day? Are you aware that British colonialism, in North America and India, in Australia and Africa, was with a complete disregard for the local peoples? Every history book will tell you this. It doesn't just happen in Australia, but all over the world: "The Penan have long struggled against loggers and plantation developers in Sarawak, the Malaysian state that occupies the northwestern part of Borneo. The Penan, along with other forest groups, have won a string of court cases over the past decade that have recognized their land rights, but these have been largely ignored by the state government..." (MongaBay.com)

     It's a complete joke to talk about the "benefits" that aboriginal people receive from governments that have oppressed or enslaved their people. Look at the Native American, in North and South America. South America still has governments that resemble apartheid: domination of the government by the foreign ancestors of a very few Capitalist and colonialist exploiters. And I don't know if you ever read Gandhi, but he wasn't too thrilled about his people being dominated by a foreign, Capitalist Monarch.

>>"The man who won India's independence was Mahatma Gandhi with his creed of non-violence. The INA were incidental - the British realised after fighting the Nazis they had no moral argument for denying India self-government, although when I see the mess in Pakistan I think the Brit. decision may have been premature, maybe they should have given more time for Jinnah and Nehru to talk."

     During the Bombay Mutiny, Gandhi was urging support for the British government -- just like during both of the world wars, enlisting Africans whom he considered racially inferior to be slaughtered by the Germans. The British government admitted that it had lost military control over the situation, and because of this act, India gained its independence. Gandhi's non-violent resistance was a decades-long campaign, and at the final moment, when the people finally rose up and demanded their freedom, he became a coward, and told everyone to obey their masters. It doesn't erase his positive accomplishments, but he was outdone by the Communists in freeing India. Compared to those who first raised the flag of the Indian nation, Gandhi falls into obscurity.

     And are you going to support anything else Gandhi said? Probably not. Just like African Imperialism, Gandhi is an "intellectual currency." Use him to prop up your argument. Who cares if he said he wanted the abolishment of British rule all across the globe. Who cares if he said he wanted to abolish Capitalism and institute Democratic Socialism. Who cares if he said "I like your Christ, but I don't like your Christians"? Who cares if he hated the church, capitalism, and the state, right? But if you have to deny the participation of Communists in the liberation of your nation, then you obviously don't value your liberation very much. And now you pull Gandhi from his grave and throw him into the middle of your argument as a shield, "No, wait! This is the guy who freed India!" With such a callous attitude, obviously you don't really care about the person Gandhi or what he tried to accomplished. It's just better to attribute the independence of India to Gandhi instead of some Socialists, Anarchists, and revolutionary unionists.

Sincerely,
Andy Carloff

"If children are to be brought into the world by chance--inert, undernourished, victims of hereditary diseases-- to be brought into a world to live their lives as dependent and indigents; if, in short, this differential birth rate is to be still further widened between classes, the doom of this nation is already written. If our New Dealers turn a deaf ear to the cries of the Forgotten Woman, they are attempting to solve the problem of economic security without due consideration for the basic human factors involved in that problem, which must be recognized."
          --Margaret Sanger, 1935
          "National Security and Birth Control," Part III