The well meaning cry of one young enough still to believe!

The majority rules in a democracy.

For well informed direction to their members of the parliament, the electorate needs accurate information, the media and individual effort in critically assessing.

But remembering I F Stone‘s dictum “Governments Lie“.

Because the press in the economy must make a profit, essential to avoiding take overs satisfying their shareholders, and if profit comes from more sensational opinion smeared ‘fact’ in the interest of advertisers and if by cosying up to leaders reporters get the latest Government spin then, that becomes the NEWS.

If powerful groups gain entry to the system as for example TEAM B and later clones, did in America then the electorate moves that way. The majority have interests other than making the tedious effort to find truth.

So we have an active body of people and organisations believing a capitalist economy runs best when little money is expended on the poor, just enough to serve as truth exhibit. The rich need funds to make the system work and to provide sufficient for the minimum of employees to produce the product. Sometimes these can be very few as the market is manipulated for the insiders, ENRON HIH AWB and more.

There is money in armaments, stock turnover is guarantied if wars can be found, often the threat alone is enough as is the need for some dignitary to boast better arms when visiting. Sometimes these same people believe might is right and it is their job to bring democracy and way of life to the uninitiated, used to be heathens, but that is passé, decide this can be done. Will be welcomed if only those currently in charge are overthrown, and democracy enforced. (As well as economic and strategic positioning.)

So Iraq. Divide the sum spent amongst the poor forgiving debt and ensuring the GDP enhancing effect provided by a war footing is provided by healthy economies not just hunger abatement, education and health, though these underlie GDP

Portraying terrorists as victims and wealthy countries as perpetrators is morally suspect and does not fit the facts.

“Terrorism … finds recruits from among the world's most impoverished and desperate people” Nahum says.

Not necessarily so. The S11 bombers were mainly from middle class families. The London bombers were first generation Brits. Bin Laden is a millionaire, and his home country Saudi Arabia – key sponsor of global terrorism – has one of the highest per capita incomes on earth. Most of the world’s poorest countries are not hotbeds of global terrorism, having more than enough domestic misery, violence and oppression to deal with.

The author also assumes that aid is a key part of the solution to global poverty. Maybe, but there’s evidence suggesting that aid does little good in eliminating poverty, and even some studies that suggest aid makes poverty worse. This does no mean that we should give no aid (I believe we should raise our aid budget to the 0.7% of GNP target), but it does mean we must be very clear and rigorous about exactly what circumstances and conditions are required to ensure that aid really makes a difference. There are good reasons for taking a cautous and hard-nosed approach to our aid programs. The size of our aid budget is not the measure of the extent of our compassion or our commitment to eliminating poverty.

The author says that: “countries that negotiate to needlessly exploit developing countries should be taken to account. We shouldn’t need to deprive the developing world of food in order to expand our wealth.” But who’s to decide what is “needless exploitation”? Who has the authority to bring them to account? If developing countries wish to trade their produce, who is Nahum to say whether and on what conditions they should not be permitted to do so? Beneath Nahum’s seeming compassion and concern is a blend of paternalism and compulsion that I find rather disturbing.

Congratulations on an accurate and sobering summation of the state of things. Spot on!!

"But John Howard and Peter Costello just don't get it. They cannot understand that poverty, climate change and terrorism are part of the same global equation."

They can't understand this at a national level either mate.

“Carbon trading is one thing, but what about a “Millennium Development” trading scheme? Those countries that are flagrantly flaunting the Millennium Development Goal provisions to spend their money on security provisions rather than aid should be penalised.”

Tell it to the pixies at the end of the garden

“And countries that negotiate to needlessly exploit developing countries should be taken to account”

By who – I reject the notion of “collective responsibility”.

As a voting member of this “country” I would suggest this is simply like flying a kite of righteous indignation.

“Perhaps Australians should be writing to the EU to encourage them to impose penalties for non-compliance to Kyoto,”

I think Australians should be writing to EU to encourage them to set aside their lamentable resistance to the free trade in agricultural products.
The EU’s stance. which they have held to since their formation, would help the third world and Australia’s economies through the balance of trade whilst reducing the cost of food products to EU consumers and maybe find new markets for the wine lakes and butter mountains which the regressive strategies of Brussels has produced.

I note the footnote

“…writes for thrills.” – I would suggest, ride a rollercoaster if “thrills” is what you want.
“…religion and politics junkie” “Rehab” is available and well overdue.