Request for Question Clarification by
hedgie-ga
on
07 Aug 2006 01:55 PDT
hi aslanian-ga
I see this is your first question here, and I do not want you to
feel that you are being ignored by the researchers.
Often, when it comes to questions of high public interest, like
this one, asker wants to see comments (views of GACs) rather than the
an 'official answer (by a GAR)'. The 'official answer', is more
difficult then a comment, since, like a good journalist, researcher is
supposed to put aside personal feeling and provide balanced, factual
answer. That can be quite hard, when one has a heart and reads the
news these days.
So, one reason why no GAR provided the answer so far is (probably),
to see (and let you se) how many and what comments will come.
The second reason may be this question is impossible to answer:
Even if by same special grace of G*d, the right answer would be
revealed to a researcher, that answer would not be accepted by most
people, it would be attacked by some and ridiculed by others...
So, to overcome the two problems described above, you may have to respond
to this RFC and say that you want a paid answer, and want it now (or when).
I have in the past tackled some impossible answers:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=441149
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=429154
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=740779
...
and even though I try to be factual and fair, some bias may be always
discerned (real or imagined) in an answer to a political question.
My answer to your question would be based on my answer to the
'Global Government'. Answer hat dealt with probable futures;
This answer would deal with 'how to influence the path of the near term future'.
Using the words from the (pretty good) comments you got so far,
the answer (obviously?) is
"Sheep of the word unite"
Since, as Nelson correctly noted, murder is a legal term, to limit
killing, we need to define legally what is justified (self-defense) and
what is murder. But to define something legally, one needs to parlament,
courts, and most important, the law-enforcement. To create all that,
global government really - that would be long term project
(project eagerly anticipated by it's opponents).
On a shorter time scale, to eliminate the main obstacle to rule of the law
on this planet, USans would have to vote-out the current coalition.
That would not be easy to do:
we have not only sheep, but also wolfs in the sheep clothing between
the voters and candidates.
Actually - half of the US voters appear to be a combination of the two,
something poetically shown in movie Dark Crystal
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083791/
The 'key question' (KQ) was clearly posed during the last elections:
Do you care for a 'global test'?
Answer by almost a half of the voters was clear NO.
So, US did flunk the 'global test'
(by not shoving up for the test,and today by sabotaging the work of the UN).
They did not do that because they believe 'they hate us because we are free'
but because they want cheap gas (as evidenced by this correlation):
http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/gasindex_files/NEWBUSHINDEX_28670_image001.gif
but they will not admit it, since they think that what they want is 'wrong'.
How to deal with this confused issue?
So, to bring this RFC to the end:
Do you want an 'answer', based on the few fragments mentioned above, and,
if so, when, (how many more days, or how many comments) later would you want it?
hedgie
