The Write Stuff

Shaking hands with Death.

02Feb10

Terry Pratchett is a man whom, until today, I didn’t not know was suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease. It seems the author had revealed it to the public but that information had escaped me.

Yesterday, (February first, 2010) Mr Pratchett wrote in The Guardian not about his disease and its effects but about his approaching death. He gave his views and opinions on euthanasia, and how when the time comes for him to die he’d like to do it by his own circumstances. Though I am between two minds on the idea, I found myself agreeing with the man. His logic was impeccable.

He recognises that legalising euthanasia would be a drastic measure, one not to be taken lightly. He wrote: “If we are to live in a world where a socially acceptable “early death” can be allowed, it must be allowed as a result of careful consideration.” He recommends a few measures for such consideration.

If a tribunal were to be set up to assess the mental capacity of the person with an incurable life-threatening illness requesting the early death then that would go a long way to help. If they were of sound mind, could prove that euthanasia was their own idea and that they weren’t under anybody else’s influence then perhaps euthanasia would be granted.

The tribunal would be made up of people who have gained the “wisdom” of life – over forty-five, under Terry’s recommendations. Lawyers would be permitter, of course.

But with the constant development of medicines and the medical services that are available is there any point to an early death? Well, there if of course the pride aspect. I person does not want to waste away inside their own body. They don’t want the restrictions and they don’t want their loved ones to see them in that position.

Another problem is the cost. I’m sure every effort is made by the medical services to facilitate a person with a debilitating disease but, sadly as in most walks of life the old idiom is true: money talks.

Family members cannot be expected to take the burden either. It is time consuming and stressful on an unhealthy level.

In Switzerland the medical practice of euthanasia is permitted. It is seen as a relief to those who suffer. Oftentimes people even travel hundreds of miles just to get a chance at ending their own life because they do not wish to continue living and hurting. Surely if it means that much to someone then they should be allowed control their own life, even if that means controlling their death.

Whatever about Terry Pratchett’s views, I find myself agreeing with both arguments. His point is that euthanasia is not the desperate act of dying men and women, it is a carefully thought through process. Organising an “assisted suicide” – a term Terry loathes – involves logic and planning; that which no rash, depressed terminal patient could achieve easily.

The counterargument is not based on the indisposed’s wishes but more so on ethical and moral judgements. Those who are against euthanasia seem to think that having one foot in the grave is better than having both.

“And so I have vowed that rather than let Alzheimer’s take me, I would take it. I would live my life as ever to the full and die, before the disease mounted its last attack, in my own home, in a chair on the lawn, with a brandy in my hand to wash down whatever modern version of the Brompton Cocktail some helpful medic could supply. And with Thomas Tallis on my iPod, I would shake hands with Death. [...]

[...] I would like to die peacefully before the disease takes me over. I hope that will not be for some time, because if I knew that I could die at any time I wanted, then suddenly every day would be as precious as a million pounds. If I knew that I could die, I would live. My life, my death, my choice.” - Terry Pratchett. The Guardian, 01/02/2010.

Filed under: Alzheimer's Diease, Switzerland, Terry Pratchett, The Guardian, actions, assisted suicide, blog, column, early death, euthanasia, illness, opinion, suicide | 17 Comments

A Dog’s Dish

01Feb10

CHINA – A new law may be passed which will stop the killing of dogs, cats and other domestic animals for food. It comes after increasing pressure has been put on the issue by the wealthy and well-to-do of the nation. It seems a new moral high ground has been built which dictates even the cuisine.

Using dogs for food is common place in North China. Today, a dog is thought of as a cheaper cut of meat, but still the demand is high. What I’d like to know is if it is wrong to end a tradition such as thing.

The idea of killing and eating a dog or cat in a Western society is outrageous. Not only is it illegal but the thought of such an action would have people in convulsions. But is there much of a difference between killing a cow for its meat and a killing a labrador?

In India it is illegal and blasphemous to kill a cow. They’re a holy animal. A Jew would never eat pork, nor would a Muslim. For your average Western meat-eating consumer, taking beef out of a burger is a frightening thought.

Since pork and beef are eaten by a certain people, should we condemn the use of dog meat? I don’t think so. It is a cultural habit like any other. It is frowned upon because it is different. Pet dogs are not eaten. And the dogs that are slaughtered are raised on farms for that purpose. They’re killed at an age between 6 and 18 months, usually. To say this is wrong is to say every livestock slaughterhouse is immoral.

If the animals were mistreated, flea-bitten or sick then I’d give a resounding no to the action. If the population of dogs had fallen to a dramatic and dangerous level I’d be firmly against it also. But in many scenarios that isn’t the case. This is completely unlike the treatment of bears in Eastern Europe or rhinoceros and elephants in Africa.

If the idea of eating one domestic animal is appalling then all meats should seem appalling. Why don’t the people who turn their noses up at foreign customs kick the habit of McDonald’s and and prepare their own food? Why don’t they take it one step further and switch to vegetarianism?

Obesity in the West has gone beyond a problem and is now a joke. Judgement is easily passed on how others eat when in reality we consume too much of what is unhealthy and probably more fat-full and life-threatening than a serving of dog meat.

Dogs have been eaten in China since around 500BC; why the sudden change? With China growing as one of the largest economies of the world – often predicted to surpass America in the post-recession world – oftentimes East meets West. Integrating cultures and altering customs is a good way to build bonds with a foreign partner however, it can also have strong implications at home.

Organisations like PETA do wonderful work on behalf of animal rights. Big investors often donate to charity. I’m sure the two have mixed paths. It seems PETA has a knack for leaving their mark on fur.

Filed under: China, Food, PETA, animal rights, animal welfare, blog, column, customs, dog, dog meat, tradition | 14 Comments

Beggars can’t be choosers

31Jan10

IRELAND – A new bill has been issued to tackle the problem of begging in urban areas. The idea of this bill is to give more power to the Gardaí when dealing with beggars. The bill does not criminalise begging – as that is currently seen as unconstitutional – however it allows Gardaí to move beggars that obstruct entrances to residential and commercial premises. It also says that vagrants must stay 10 metres away from ATMs and private entrances.

The idea behind the bill is not to stop people begging, but to stop – in the words of Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern - “threatening, violent or obstructive” begging. The Mayor of Limerick, Kevin Kiely, supports the move because he feels begging can be “intimidating”.

I agree with the proposal. I don’t think it’ll solve begging issues in Ireland but, at least it’ll have some positive results.

Begging happens for a reason. This bill doesn’t deal with those reasons but, it will go in some way to help. The homeless, the unemployed, the mentally ill, drug addicts, desperate alcoholics – all of these people beg. Social issues are key to this problem and should be addressed.

Homeless shelters are few and far between. The supplies they’re given are scarce and the amount of willing workers is scarcer. Some only open for the Winter months because they can’t maintain the continuous demand.

The Simon Community are always working volunteers as there never seems to be enough.

Unfortunately, with the way the economy is at the moment it’s hard to image how this problem can be resolved. If the money was available, the ideal situation would be to have a secure centre for the homeless, where they can find food, shelter and company.

Working schemes and charity work could be made available to the residents and beneficiaries of these shelters.

Is this discriminatory? Should the beggars have the right to protect what they do? I don’t thinks so. It shouldn’t be that anybody walking down the street should be asked to depart with their money. Of course, it shouldn’t be that anybody should be in the position to have to ask them to depart with their money.

It isn’t unreasonable that you don’t trust someone you don’t know with your change. Often you’ll see a kind pedestrian taking the time to buy a homeless person a sandwich, a cup of tea, some clothing even. This is a much better kind of charity.

Whether or not this new bill will be enforced or not is really up to the Gardaí. For now the main issue should be to keep the streets safe, with crime rates rising and employment still at an uncomfortable level.

Filed under: Ireland, aid, begging, blog, charity, column, government, homeless, humans, society, unemployed | 7 Comments

Factions at work in Haiti

26Jan10

I’ve been avoiding the discussion of Haiti and the devastation that has ripped the country apart because I wanted to see how things would play out. Two weeks ago an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.0 erupted twenty miles from the capital city, Port-au-Prince. Immediately the United Nations predicted the deaths of over 40,000 people, and the damaged caused to be in excess of a billion American dollars.

However, it seems the death toll has risen to much high than expected – over 150,000 people have been confirmed dead since the 24th of January. 400,000 people are now homeless as a result of the earthquake.

Aid has come from all over the globe. The Americans, while they were initially slow to react, have shown themselves to be the biggest givers, followed by Europe, and then international charity organisations.

The European Union donated an immediate €5 million in emergency funding, and the French government added an extra €3 million to that sum.

Celebrities have also donated generously to the relief efforts. Brad and Angelina Jolie gave $1 million, Leonardo DiCaprio gave a further million, as did Sandra Bullock. Rapper Wyclef Jean’s charity organisation – though it’s been a subject of controversy in the past – has gained astonishing support, through the media and social networking sites, like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

While all this money is being raised it seems there is a great divide in the relief efforts, however. The American navy deployed their largest gunship to be used as a mobile hospital for injured victims of the quake, and they took control of the airport in a move to keep order.

Strange then they aid was frozen in the only airport in the city for almost three days. No explanation was given as to why aid wasn’t being sent through the barriers into the city. Even French charity workers were stopped in the airport overnight.

When the aid started to pass through it did so slowly, without armed protection in many cases to guard it along it’s routes. Many of the convoys are being attacked for their food and water supplies; even some tyrants are destroying the supplies to strike fear into the people. Crime rates are rising again and so mobs are forming to take control of the slums.

There is little cooperative effort being make between the US, the EU and the UN to stop this from happening. This is one of the worst aspects of the aftermath. A joint effort should be made to keep order and peace, and the public have been left vulnerable with the shattering of their government and police system.

A uniform body of defence should be established so as to gain the trust of people. There should not be divides on the allied front, fractions make support weak, and the vicious in society will respond violently against that.

A spokesperson for the United Nations gave an early plan of action to news sources. He said that aid would be delivered securely to the most needed. The idea of dropping food packs from helicopters wasn’t an option for them as they knew it would cause riots, and of course the weakest would be left with nothing. It also breeds dependance on aid.

The American army did not heed this advice however. Pictures showed American helicopters and aircrafts deploying large food packages on open plains. The people scrambled to be the first in, snatching up as much as possible. One particular picture showed a child’s face being cut from shrapnel blow at him from the downdraft of the helicopter. Another picture showed a man with a shotgun defending the large pile of food packs he had collected for himself.

If this continues more people will die, whether from violent acts or starvation. It is estimated that already 200,000 people have fled Haiti, however this is unconfirmed.

Without a strong united force to drive the relief efforts it is hard to imaging a successful outcome for Haiti in the near future. Reinstalling an proactive, trustworthy government should be a priority, as should enforcing law and order.

It’s early days yet; Haiti might be a success story for the history books.

Filed under: America, EU, European Union, Haiti, UN, United Nations, actions, aid, blog, charity, column, earthquake, epidemic, government, news, opinion | 4 Comments

The issue with full-body scanners

11Jan10

Since the attempted bombing of an America-bound flight on Christmas day there has been a global call for improved airport security, particularly by the Americans. It seems whatever they say goes. The newest method halting terrorism is the the full-body scanner which some airports have introduced on a trial basis. Many human rights activist groups have shown concern against these machines.

The idea of the full-body scanner is that it would x-ray the soft tissue of an individual so as to identify any explosive materials, weapons, and secret containers of chemicals, explosive or even drugs.

Sure, you might say, why not. The problem is however, that soft tissues are the layers of muscle and fat on a human’s body. This means a person genitalia will be perfectly visible as they pass through the machine.

What many human rights organisations have been saying is that this is an embarrassing invasion of privacy. A person who is self-conscious of their appearance would be exposing their nude body to strangers – unwilling if the idea is pushed ahead.

Another issue arising from this is in terms of child pornography. In Britain, a person under the age of 16 does not have the legal ability to consent or abstain to the scanning process. They would have to pass through like everybody else. Many believe these machines are in the arsenal of pedophiles and perverts.

A child should not be expected to be carrying a bomb, and if they are then it is a sickening issue that goes beyond national security. To expose a child’s genitalia is wrong, and in usual circumstances illegal – so can it be justified here? I think so.

Of course you could say that children should simple be exempt from the test but aside from the ethical issues there are also health issues. Persons with pacemakers, metal implants, brain conditions, weak health – and in some cases the elderly – can be vulnerable to the effects of a scan like this.

The exposure rate is minimal and the chances of suffering from the screening is low, however air travel is so common now that a person may be subject to the scan an unhealthy amount of times. There is always a risk and minorities still mean the worst can happen.

The EU Commission in 2008 was asked if there would be mandatory universal introduction of these machines. They disapproved of the idea, but now they’re being pushed to see the alternatives. It seems they’re caught between two minds and the possibility of approval is rising.

72.9% of the Guardian’s readers are against the introduction of these machines. That is only one sect of people, but it does represent public opinion. The Guardian tends to be a left-wing newspaper so it’s safe to say these people are not swayed by political agendas.

The concerns of the public have some backing. The machine is flawed by its inability to detect certain liquids, or semi-hard substances like Semtex (a plastic explosive).

Other machines can work just as well, and even better than the full-body scanners. Sniffer machines can detect explosive chemicals as a person passes under their sensor. Trained dogs can pick up thousands of different odours, including drugs and incendiaries. And while metal detectors aren’t fool proof, their failure rate is miniscule, and nothing a quick pat-down from security won’t solve.

I’m against the introduction of these machines, especially since there are many alternatives. The idea of this being universal to all airports across Europe (and even outside of the Union) is absurd. But ultimately it’s up to a given country’s government to decide on this. If instilled, it will make air travel a lot less comfortable but it’s something we’ll just have to put up with.

Filed under: EU, European Union, air travel, airports, column, ethics, full-body scanners, nation security, news, opinion | Leave a Comment

Rwanda’s Decision Making – Good or Bad?

09Jan10

Rwanda is one of the most beautiful and intriguing counties in Africa. An ever-growing population of over ten million people, the country has seen many highs and lows in modern history.

It became independent from Belgium in 1962, however the influence of the French culture in the country remained. France has been accused of taking part in the 1994 genocide in which over 800,000 people were murdered. The French are blamed for training the brutal soldiers. Only recently has the country started to find its feet.

Sadly however the Rwandan government applied to become part of the British commonwealth and their application has be accepted, much to the disapproval of France. I myself am against the idea. I believe the wonderful country should strengthen its own culture, heritage and economy, rather than take from another.

The British commonwealth contains 54 countries, accumulating to over two billion people throughout the world. The ruling country is England, under the control of Elizabeth II. It’s despairing to think that a third of the world’s population lives under the same crest.

I have no problem with monarchs; I think they’re a wonderful cultural icon, but in today’s mostly democratic world I think their political power or influence should be reduced, lest they be seen as brutish or undemocratic. There’s something ultimately communist-like about the idea of the ‘divine rite of kings’.

I loath the idea of a commonwealth – or an empire – because there’s something rather oppressive about it. A country’s reputation should be based on its own merits, not a membership. Even the EU seems daunting at times.

The main reason for Rwanda’s decision is to remove the French influence and legacy from the country. Many people believe that the commonwealth will be beneficial, while others think there’ll always be a air of France in the country.

Currently, Rwanda receives €70 million a year from the English government, no doubt to keep them sweet. Until last year French was the language taught in schools, but was changed overnight to English, not one of the Bantu languages like Kinyarwanda or Swahili. Other cultural aspects have changed, like the clothes the people wear, the food they eat, and the sports they play. Cricket and soccer are played all over the country.

It seems to me that Rwanda has just replaced one ruler with another, however they call it autonomous. The country’s leaders will do anything they can to oppose the French way of life.

With 80% of the people living the countryside I can’t help but think this is a move that will affect the liberty of the Rwandan people. Farming and land cultivation is the main way of life, and many of the civilians are content with that simple livelihood, especially because schools are full and literacy rates are improving every year.

A number of people say that the want for change is justified by not logical or practical. Surely it would be better for the country to manage their own economy, their own education, their own policies, and to be ultimately free.

With the fertile land and massive coffee yield the country possesses they could control a large percentage of the international market. Yes, First World countries could boycott them but if Rwanda fights for deals they could make deals that are mostly beneficial for themselves.

The people are content to let the government make all the policy decisions so long as it doesn’t affect them directly. They’re all for the benefits. Let’s hope that the Rwandan government will stay keen, and won’t simply replace one ruler with another. I’d hate to see a country like that lose it’s unique identity.

Filed under: Africa, Britain, England, Rwanda, actions, column, commonwealth, independence, opinion | Leave a Comment

Who was Veronica Guerin?

01Jan10

After Veronica Guerin was shot dead on her way home a rift began in how the public saw her. On one level she was martyred, becoming an icon of defiance for the media. She was praised for the work she’d done, in particular against the drug lords of Dublin.

On the other side, people knocked her. Even after she was attacked, her family threatened and she was shot in front of her son, she continued to chase the most dangerous criminals in Ireland. Whatever happened to her she remained ruthless, naming and shaming as only she knew how.

Both arguments are understandable.

Veronica had no fear of naming drug dealers like John Gilligan, Brian Meehan, Paul Ward and Patrick ‘Dutchy’ Holland. These very people were involved in her assassination, though. John Traynor, Guerin’s source, has been accused of betraying her.

Without Veronica Guerin it is difficult to imagine the foundation of the Criminal Assets Bureau, the body which allows the state to cease and suspend the assets of criminals and suspected villains. Of course a vast sum of money has been recovered by the bureau. Between its foundation in 1996 and 2006 the Criminal Assets Bureau collected €89 million in forced taxes.

Disliking her is just as easy. She broke many rules of ethics, but worse of all she put her life and lives of her family at risk. Does this outweigh the contribution her death made to the law system? That is where the problems arise.

I am undecided in this matter. I think Veronica was both admirable and foolish, courageous and arrogant. The sad circumstances of her death were the cause of many good things. Her death was prompted by her own actions, though.

Hopefully it’ll become easier to write a eulogy for her.

Filed under: Ireland, The Criminal Assets Bureau, Veronica Guerin, assassination, blog, column, criminals, drugs, ethics, journalism | Leave a Comment

Backbone

29Dec09

I wonder sometimes why world leaders side with America in many delegations. We’ve always seen it. Nobody stopped when America claimed ownership of Hawaii. Nobody stopped the building of Guantanamo Bay. Nobody stopped the American warplanes landing in Shannon. Nobody stopped the invasion of Afghanistan when their enemies were mostly in Iraq.

How has America earned this respect? Or is it fear? America’s strongest resource is its army. However there seems to be little backing this army except money. America had no involvement in World War One and only became part of the second World War because their gunships ships were bombed by Japanese kamikaze pilots. In the post-war era they played a tit-for-tat war with Russia and the USSR, but never acted upon their so-called enemy. Their efforts in Vietnam resulted in colossal failure. The Gulf War was fought against an enemy that they armed and funded just twenty years previous.

Now they’re fighting a war that’s going into its ninth year, with no end in sight as the troops numbers have been increased. This is a war that has had an influence on the global economy, being a contributing factor to the world recession.

It is this fear that allows global warming to continue at an alarming pace.

I cannot fathom how the world falls at the mercy of one country. Clearly their bark is bigger than their bite, as despite the fact that they’ve a huge arsenal their victories are few.

Today, in defiance of America, Vladimir Putin said Russia would build weapons to counteract America’s missile defences. He also asked for detailed information about those defences. This may seem like a bold, threatening move, but Putin says that he wants to strike a new deal for the safe control of arms.

The Russians have received bad press and fierce opposition of late because of their plans, but I cannot see why they should considering the American’s have been doing the same for years. The Cold War remained cold because America wouldn’t dare face their equal – not that they’d ever call themselves equal.

I think it is Russia’s independence that is the cause of the criticism. The were bold enough to try new politics. Mind you communism was eventually a failure but, it provided them with a cloud of mystery. Russia grew powerful, self-supplying and intriguing to the other nations of the world.

My problem is not with America as such. I do oppose many of their policy decisions and actions but, my problem lies with idiocy of other world leaders. People of such positions should not allow themselves to be intimidated or coerced. Countries like France, England and Germany have no fear of being attacked by America, so why side with them when they’re wrong? And if you think your country is second to another, why bother ruling it? Strength of character is needed.

Filed under: America, Ireland, Russian, Vladimir Putin, behavior, blog, column, government, opinion, politics | 6 Comments

A Time and Place

28Dec09

TV3 have come under fire from the public, politicians and other media organisations for their shameful post-Christmas news report which revealed that the Minister for Finance, Brian Lenihan, has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

The station had a seven minute broadcast on St. Stephen’s Day which told of the minister’s condition. According to Ursula Halligan, the information was made available to them on Christmas Eve but out of respect to the minister and his family they waited to bring it to the public’s attention.

With such a delicate matter TV3 should have allowed the minister to break the news. The public does have a right to know if a leading member of state is capable of completing his term, however a courtesy should have been given to Brian Lenihan to make a public statement.

Brian Lenihan has said that he was planning to wait until the new year to make a statement. That choice should have been respected. He could have controlled the matter, perhaps minimising the effects on his friends and family.

Joan Burton, TD with Labour, has had her share of run-ins and arguments with Brian Lenihan, but even she has expressed her anger at TV3 and given her sympathies to the minister and his family.

She said: “I think it’s a terrible intrusion into Brian and his family’s privacy and especially at Christmas. The man has young, teenage children.

“It’s certainly not a departure in the media that I would welcome. I’m really shocked that a story like that would be broadcast at Christmas. I just want to wish Brian well.”

As well as being inappropriate, the report was quite unprofessional. They spoke about the minister in the past tense, as if he was incapacitated or dead. Nothing they said could be verified by the minister themselves. And not knowing the location or severity of the cancer they made the bold statement that this is “a very serious matter.” More serious is how they handled it.

In defence of the news bulletin, Andrew Hanlon said “TV3 has handled the matter with sensitivity and compassion. We had the story on Christmas Eve and we decided to hold it for two days to enable him to inform members of his family.”

Knowing the family had no knowledge of Mr Lenihan’s condition TV3 still went ahead.

Mr Hanlon went on to say, “We believe this to be a story of national importance. He is the most important minister in the Government at the moment.”

It is ridiculous to assume that the minister would become indisposed over the next fortnight and become unable to fulfil his duties. Whatever information TV3 had, and however important it seemed to them, moral judgements should have been made to ascertain whether the story should be broadcast.

Filed under: Brian Lenihan, Ireland, TV3, actions, blog, cancer, column, ethics, morals, news, opinion, politician, politics, unprofessionalism | Leave a Comment

Blinded by Smoke

13Dec09

The introduction of a carbon tax in Ireland has two major benefits for the country. The first, in terms of the economy, means there will be a greater tax intake, resulting in expenditure which will benefit all sectors; hopefully the money will be distributed in order of need, rather than being wasted by preference. The second advantage is that people will get tired of having to pay more for fuel and the additional cost of a having a high emissions vehicle will drive them to buy a newer, more fuel efficient vehicle. The product of this will be a lower carbon footprint.

Ireland, along with the twenty-six other European Union states, is tied to a promise which says that our carbon emissions are to fall drastically by 2010. If we do not comply with this we will be fined heavily, taking from the country’s treasury, damaging our economy. I’m glad to see we’re fulfilling our side of the deal, for a long while it looked like all the wrong decisions were being made.

I am all against the use of non-renewable fuels for the sake of energy. It is nice to have wood, or coal, or turf burning in the winter months, but to have millions of vehicles depending on oil, heating dependant on gas, and electricity depending on coal and turf is just infuriating, to say the least.

If, for example, an electricity station dependant on coal was closed not one person would have to lose their job. Electricians, technicians, mechanics, security workers, cleaners, all person who rely on the plant for work could fill a position at the new station – perhaps some additional training would be required, but a lot of that is state funded anyway.

What about the coal miners? Well, coal by nature is below ground. Any unharvested soil can be restored to it’s original uses for farming. Coal miners could change profession and with some incentives to wet their palate they mightn’t have to leave their area to find new work. The restoration of the land would be a job in itself, requiring years of labour – filling in ground, developing soil, planting foliage, etc.

In West Virginia, the coal mining capital of America, they perform the worst form of mining, mountaintop surface mining. Essentially what happens is the topsoil – the richest, most nutritious part of the soil – is stripped to reveal the inside of a mountain, which is again stripped, layer by layer, until coal is reached. That is then harvested.

The only reason this process is used is because it saves time. It means that forests are felled, animals driven from their habitat, fertile soil erased and a mountain or hill or patch of a land is stripped away. These are not small patches either. Surface mining is done by the hectare or square mile or kilometre in order to get the maximum yield, and the most atrocious devastation. When all the coal in a area has been mined the workers are simply told to pack up and go.

I went in search of restored land and found that grass has been planted to cover the hilltop carcass. Because the soil is infertile now weeds strive and there is no rich foliage or trees to redeem the damage caused. Apparently this is “wonderful” and “beautiful”.

If you consulted the West Virginia Coal website about my statements they would say they are not “based on fact or supported by the truth.” Well, these lies are taught in schools across the world. They say surface mining methods are “essentially the same as highway construction.” Hardly. A highway is a thin strip that runs on top of land. When the West Virginia mining companies are done there is no land on which a highway can stand.

On the website I could find no pictures of the vast mining fields. No doubt even they are ashamed to show the world. [Below I’ve attached some pictures to show what they’re hiding and denying.]

It is the ignorance of these people that allows global warming to continue at the rate it does. Sitting down with them will not help. Listening to them will no bring positive results. If you know something is right, act upon it. People need to act against global warming.

I have no vendetta against miners. Thousands of people in America alone depend on the mine for work, money, fuel. However, I do believe that there are alternatives that can benefit these people the same ways.

All I’ve said has been said before thousands of times. Somebody is bound to listen or it’ll be too late.

The United Nations Climate Change Conference is currently taking place in Copenhagen. This meeting of world leaders and scientists has come under the most scrutiny of any other meeting. Somewhere between 40,000 and 100,000 protestors met in Copenhagen to rally support for this event. The vast majority of people think that if some progress isn’t made before the end of the conference then progress will never be made. Sadly, I’m beginning to believe it.

Follow Cop15 here: www.youtube.com/user/Cop15

Watch this video, if you can: http://www.youtube.com/user/Cop15#p/c/433D8FE26B7269CA/0/NVGGgncVq-4

See the arogance: http://www.wvcoal.com/