DDT is not agent Orange - not to my knowledge anyway. It was freely used and was eliminating malaria until Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring". Now we have mosquitoes and malaria. I have suffered from malaria in India, you have not, and I can assure you that a spray of DDT in your garden is preferable.
At last you are conceding there is no starvation in Australia. For starvation in the USA thank Obama and his failed spend like a wastrel policies.
There was no capitalism in Africa - their problems are a tribal system, war, corruption. They did better under their colonial masters. I am not recommending going back to that system, but moving forward to democracy.
DDT, Agent, Orange, etc., were all chemicals produced by the Monsanto Corporation, sprayed indiscriminately across fields in Southeast Asia, and each on their own capable of producing serious cancers, diseases, etc.. DDT is a well-documented substance. I have already provided you with a list of 50 or so references and studies that have been conducted showing its toxicity to animal-life and humans. I've asked you to debate the people on Wikipedia, because obviously, if you're right, they'll have to submit and change the Wikipedia entry to saying, "DDT is an acceptable bug-spray for your garden." By the way, you can only know that DDT is preferable to malaria if you've experienced DDT, and even then, it may be years before the cancers show themselves.
First, I did not say starvation doesn't exist in Australia. I've already produced multiple articles for you showing that it does in fact exist. For example, "homeless" aborigines being arrested on their own land.
Second, I already showed you statistics of the poverty rates in the United States during the Republican Party's administration. They were slightly to somewhat-slightly higher than when the Democratic Party had control. (An average of 15%-16% for Reagan, an average of 13-14% for Clinton.) I've already pointed this out, though. You can't simply say "Obama is responsible for poverty," you know, when it's existed for the past few thousand years. Again, I'm suspecting you're dishonest and actually don't care about the hungry. After all, how much could you really care about them if you never recognized the reasons why they're hungry?
And what reference makes you think this about the histories of all the people of Africa? Sure, the Egyptians did so much better under their Colonial, British administrators, that the British exported EVERYTHING they could get their hands on made before colonial rule, from blocks used in pyramids to ancient sarcophagi. The exploitation of Africa, however, goes back to the 1500's, which is also when their problems became multiplied. Starvation did not exist in Africa until the European intervention, and even the most Capitalist economists admit that, like Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes (see their book, "The Economics of Underdeveloped Countries").
The pattern of Capitalist exploitation in Africa, during the 1500's, was the same as that of South and North America, China, India, etc.. Ironic, that you're talking about how inferior the Africans were compared to their European masters -- the people who came up with that opinion hold it identically about you and Indians in general.
What does democracy mean to you? Does it mean equal enforcement before the law for all infractions? It should. So, if someone steals something from you, they get locked up. If it's something small, maybe for a day, but if it's thousands of dollars, maybe for a week or two. Now, how unequal, if that law should be enforced against those who commit infractions against you. Law certainly is the greatest demonstrator of inequality, which is why those who want to abolish inequality, must also abolish government. Are you really going to suggest that the law is equally enforced, when natives lost their land in Australia, Timor, India, Africa, America, etc., and that they cannot appeal to have their property returned, or its thieves punished? And while there is some freedom in these places today, there are still victims.
So it is with Africa. The land was communally held for thousands of years, guaranteeing work and food for all. All land was seized, instigating the hundreds of years of absolute poverty that we equate Africa with today. And, if land couldn't be seized, they instituted a tax, that could only be paid with money by the White, Capitalist settlers. Sounds really equal, doesn't it? Judges did not enforce laws against whites raping or murdering natives, whether India or America, China or Vietnam, Cuba or Haiti. Nor does it stop Capitalists from shooting workers, like Carnegie, nor does it stop Presidents from offering the military to execute any mass of workers who refuse to work, as President Theodore Roosevelt did. If you want Democracy, you have to abolish Capitalism. How are you going to have society manage itself in terms of politics, but everyone must have a king or a queen when it comes to economics?
>>Why don't you do something worthwhile like this instead of rambling on about Anarcho? I have suffered malaria
>>The Holy See delegate affirmed that he is "pleased to see such progress made over the last decade in malaria control efforts."
And I've suffered starvation. What are you doing about it?
Why don't I just grab the next random article I see in googlenews, forward it to you, and ask you why you haven't stopped it.
I'm not here to pass judgment against you, Babette, or even to receive your judgments. This is an e-mail. I know you don't see me walking across it carrying bags of food for the poor. That's because... it's an e-mail. You talk. Exchange ideas, etc.. In an e-mail. Does that make sense?
Yes, I've experienced DDT and decades later no malaria and no cancers.
You are just being silly that if I don't see starvation in all my travels around Australia, I have to search for it. I have better things to do helping those I can see who need help, not food.
As for Aborigines, they are not starving - probably arrested for being drunk or child abuse. They are over-weight and one of their main health problems is diabetes - caused by overweight and junk food.
So, DDT stopped malaria, and doesn't cause cancer? I'm sorry, Babette, but I don't think your reasoning here is very sound or scientific. Again, please refer to the numerous studies I have pointed to. Very few people in the world genuinely advocate the use of DDT, and so far, I have yet to observe anyone with a decent understanding of organic chemistry advocating such an opinion.
Help with what? Homes? Jobs? Land? The same thing that provides those needs fights poverty and starvation. A human being is not poor in food for one reason and then poor in housing for another -- it drives back all to the socio-economic organization that the person belongs to. And what help do you imagine you could be giving them, if you don't treat the condition that causes their misery? Have you heard the phrase, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"?
Yes, if only they would abandon their native culture of junk food, treating alcohol as a religious sacrament, and being so afraid of sex that they develop gender roles and other unhealthy ideas. Oh, wait, that's not the native culture -- that's typical Western, Christian, Imperialist Capitalism.
As far as the articles I've cited, in terms of the arrests of Aborigines, they have been detained for "failure to move on" as the number one cause for arrest. Do you understand that this is neither "being drunk" or "child abuse"?
Come on, Babette... Don't you think you're being a bit harsh? A newspaper shows Aborigines being arrested on their own land for trespassing, and you respond that they were "probably arrested for being drunk or child abuse." This is a racist opinion. How do you know that it's being drunk or child abuse? You don't know. You don't have references or any articles suggesting it. No, instead, I sent you a handful of articles saying that the reason why they're being arrested is "failure to move on." How do you think people are going to react when some Aborigine is arrested, and your first impulse is "Oh, they were probably drunk or abusing their children!" Pretty much, you'll be assumed to be a Racist. You do know this, don't you?
There is a "statute of limitations" not only in law but in history. Actually from a pre-historic point of view, the Aborigines probably walked across the Asian landmass which was joined to Australia and grabbed the vacant landmass in tribal fashion. No individual ownership - they hunted and fished and walked on when they had exhausted the resources in one area - and there were tribal wars.
I don't expect to see you walking around handing out food bags, but I do expect a coherent written plan as to how you intend to implement anarchy -besides abusing long dead dictators and Popes that is.