The problem with depleted uranium is that when it strikes a target, it produces a toxic dust that remains in the area even after the fighting has stopped. The people who have to somehow live in the wake of the battle are now inhaling a lethal substance that some studies have shown to have negative health effects. Do some research on depleted uranium exposure to learn more.
I don't think that the main point is that it is unpublished. The point is that most people will not know that depleted uranium is being used or that it can have negative effects on the health of the people that must survive post war conditions. This information should be made widely dispersed to the public so that they can know exactly what is being carried out in their name and with their money.
As to your last comment, look into the concept of moral relativism for the answer.
Do you actually believe that the biotech companies have posters on the wall saying 'What natural system can we fuck up today?'
Exaggerations aside, it is truly naive to believe that the intention of creating genetically modified organisms is for 'feeding the poor'.
The only feeding going on is that of the wealth of multinational agri-businesses.
So called 'Golden Rice' is as far as I know the first entry in this big scam.
Anyone can do the research and discover that in order to ingest the RDA of vitamin A, approximately 15 pounds of this pyrite must be eaten!
In addition to that, absorption of vitamin A is dependant upon fat and protein in the diet, dependencies which I think may be lacking in the diet of the world's poor.
The only way to begin to address starvation of the poor is to attack the root causes of their being poor.
Genetically engineering special food only claims to correct the symptom and, in fact, worsens the actual illness.
Actually, industrial hemp can not be used to produce the same psychoactive effects as its close relative marijuana.
In fact, industrial hemp contains a relatively high level of CBD, a chemical that inhibits any effects that the plant's modicum of THC could have on a person.
I do not really feel like arguing the validity of the 'stepping stone' myth regarding marijuana, but I tend to think that it is greatly overstated by its supporters.
> How would I compile, say, Lisp into Java bytecode?
This is how.
Not much on Lisp, but quite a bit for Scheme.
There are also many other languages listed at that site that have been made to work inside of Java.
I know that JPython is very popular!
> How would I get Ada to access classes that were written in Java?
Someone moderate this post up.
It is the first one that I have seen that gets at the heart of the discussion at hand and clearly explains what the issues are.
If the choice is really so bad, write in "None of the Above'.
There is a movement about to make this a valid choice for elections.
If the 'None of the Above" wins, the election if forfeited and new candidates are selected.
It is a novel idea, if nothing else, and it guarantees that the person in office is who the people really think that they want.
That sounds a lot like Sun's vision for its Jini technology.It is an interesting idea, if nothing else.It is inevitable that some technology of this sort will find its way into modern households.
Thanks for the response. I have some replies to a few of you comments.
assuming that the 1979 treaty exists
It certainly does exist. Responding to China's compliance with this agreement, they have so far and it is not in their best interests to act otherwise. In my previous post I mentioned that 42% of China's exports go to the United States. It is in their best interests to respect the 1979 agreement. The only thing that PNTR would guarantee is that the United States could not use trade to enforce its domestic policies on China. With respect to the WTO standing with us, it would only be useful to us if our dispute with China involved China limiting access of US goods in their Country. I argue that this is irrelevant in that most of the people of China are too poor to afford any of the items they will import from the US.
Now, this whole issue of the yearly MFN vote is just nonsense.
Not so. Many Chinese activists have noted that when China's MFN status comes up for vote, conditions improve somewhat, the government backs of a little, and people are more able to seek out information and make gains in the area of defeating oppression. The vote could be effectively used to push China towards reform. Think of it as a form of checks and balances.
...they seem very receptive to the idea of conforming to international regulations if we grant them PNTR.
"Seem" is the key word here. I am very doubtful that the amount of oppression and environmental degradation in China would not increase if the US grants them PNTR. Passage of PNTR would basically be a reward where no reward is warranted. I can only imagine the ways in which labor camps "encourage" workers to be more productive. Should the US really support and further this type of behavior?
Thanks for the comments about Cuba. The sooner that the people of the United States wake up see how ridiculous the situation is, the better! Hopefully the whole Elián Gonzáles fiasco is helping more people to realize that the US policy towards Cuban is ridiculous and shameful.
The simple reason is that they are mis-informed about both issues. PNTR advocates falsely state if the United States does no grant PNTR to China that they will not have all of the trade benefits that China will extend to other countries, most notably WTO benefits. The US and China made an agreement in 1979 that clearly states that China must extend any trade privileges to the US that it gives to other countries. This agreement still applies if the US does not grant PNTR to China, in fact, the US gives away nothing if it does not grant PNTR to China. Anyone who states otherwise regarding this agreement either has not done the proper research or is trying to skew the facts. Quite the opposite is true if the United States does pass the bill for Chinese PNTR. The first thing that the US gives away is its yearly review of trade with China based on Chinese violation of US laws such as labor laws, human rights laws, and environmental laws. The second thing that the US gives away is the ability to enforce any domestic laws relating to labor, human rights, and the environment. This is because if the US grants PNTR to China, it will have to recognize a full WTO relationship with China. As we have seen many times before, the WTO overturns domestic laws that it deems "detrimental to free trade" and would cripple US ability to sway China based on trade. Not to mention that China is a potential threat to US national security. The United States is responsible for 42% of Chinese exports, and is in essence funding China's military mobilization. If China invades Taiwan and the US enters the battle to support them, China has indicated that it would strike out against the US. US importing of Chinese goods would only increase if China were granted PNTR. Why would the US even consider doing this?
Enter multi-national business interests. Until now, many corporations have held back on opening up factories in China because if the US were to restrict Chinese trade, they would stand to lose a lot of money. If PNTR is granted to China then there is a free ticket for these corporations to open up shop in China. With the lax Chinese labor laws, many companies will close manufacturing plants in countries that have better worker's rights to move to China and increase their profit, leaving many unemployed in countries with labor standards. It seems that everything pertaining the the US government these days is wrapped up in big business. It is also these big businesses that limit access to the truth about these issues. They all spread around the same lies that the politicians believe because they are paid to. It seems that Marx's predictions about capitalism are becoming a reality in the very times in which we live. It saddens and embarrasses me that the experiment in democracy that is the United States has been turning into nothing more than a corporate illusion almost from the nation's beginning.
The embargoes against Cuba are another matter altogether. The United States has tried everything it could possibly to do remove Fidel Castro from power. Yet he is still there, out lasting eight, soon to be nine, US presidents. This reflects the general attitude of the US towards Cuba since Cuba fought Spain for its independence one hundred years ago. That attitude is of control without ownership. The US wants control over the Cuban economy and will try anything to gain it. Cuba has set the dangerous precedent of having an economy and government that benefit those in need, an idea that the US can not reconcile. Those who deserve help the most in Cuba receive it, unlike our backwards system of further rewarding those who repress others and already have too much.
This is just a brief analysis of these situations as I see them from various resources that I have come across. Here are a few of the better ones:
Finally, I believe that this is a big issue right now because Bill Clinton feels that he has to leave some sort of legacy. So far the only thing that he will really be remembered for is scandal and he knows it. Clinton has been a major supporter of PNTR and would love to see this pass and be the final major contribution of his presidency. I believe that if PNTR is granted to China, the US will come to regret it and Clinton will be seen for the liar that he is. Many of the people who voted for Clinton did so because of his policies on gay rights and China. Since entering office, he has changed his stance on both. It is high time for the people of the United States to begin to put their government back where it belongs, in the hands of the people. On November 7, 2000, I urge the people of the United States to elect Ralph Nader as president. Only after we take back our government and force it into democracy can we begin to make meaningful change.
Your point seems valid, in theory, but in reality, it is not the case.The European ban was originally put into place partly due to the fact that supposedly untreated beef from the US in reality contained hormones.So much for labelling!Besides, I do not think that the US wants to label its beef and would probably use the WTO to fight for this.So that would eliminate any choice that the consumer would have regarding hormone treated beef.Additionally, many people feel a moral objection to treating cows with such hormones since it is cruel to the animal.This is the general consensus among the people of Europe.I am of the opinion that to introduce hormone treated beef into the European market would cause beef sales to decline, so everyone loses.The consumers are stuck with a product that they do not want, European farmers lose money, and the health and ideals of the people are compromised.
Thank you for the links you have provided, I will have to check them out when I get a chance.I might also add that the ZNet link I provided contains many economic issues and links to many more.The differences between your opinion and mine illustrate exactly why there is so much controversy surrounding the WTO.Most people (myself included) agree that the global market is important and needs to experience growth and evolution for humankind to prosper and close in on world wide equality for all.Some people will say that the WTO is the way to go, but many argue that a different approach is required altogether.
"...it depends on whether you term knowledge and technology as resources, in which case I'd have to claim it's fundamentally unbounded."
I would argue that your point is totally dependent upon how knowledge and technology are used.How long has technology had the knowledge to utilize renewable resources to sustain the Western lifestyle?How available are these solutions to consumers?The corporate machine refuses to acknowledge that we can do things in a non-destructive way because it does not serve its primary interests, maximum profit.So to counter your point, I would say that even though technology and knowledge offer the possibility of unbounded resources they will not be able to as long as amoral greed is in charge.
"If a corporation comes in and taps that resource, it can create whole new sectors of an economy, helping to create jobs and increase cash flow *into* the region."
Does this auto-magically mean that the quality of life for these people will increase?If there is one lesson that I have learned from history, it is that whenever a dominating culture forces its way into the lives of a smaller, more isolated group of people, it is generally not to the benefit of these people, their culture, or their environment.I am not saying that there are not nations in this world that would not benefit in many ways from globalization or a demonstration of what works for other nations.The problem lies in the fact that, historically, instead of seeking to help these nations and allow its people to preserve their identity, the more powerful nation forces its own culture upon them to serve its own interests and causes them great suffering.
1. The WTO *is* evolving, that is the purpose of these meetings. However, it happens slowly (you try getting 135 countries to agree on something and you'll figure out why).
The WTO is meeting to try and lengthen its already far-reaching ability to lessen our quality of life in the name of free trade.
2. If you want information go to the WTO website (http://www.wto.org) - I got it first try.
Try here. It contains many thought provoking ideas and informative (not disinformative) links.
3. The WTO *is* open, the entire set of rules is online, the reason most people don't think it's open is because they've never researched what it does. (The information is there, the people are ignorant).
The WTO is closed in the sense that average citizens have no say whatsoever in what policies the WTO should adopt.The organization exists to carry out the will of large multinational corporations.The only voice that you and I have is to protest (Seattle).All of the WTO's decisions are made in secret!
4. The only voting people attending the meetings are the representative from the member countries (usually the trade minister from the respective country). It is up to the trade minister to bring a balanced viewpoint.
I would think that the trade minister would have more of a vested interest in the concerns of corporations rather than in the welfare of the Earth.
5. Bill Gates is not even attending.
See my previous response.Seeing as he is a co-chair of the event, I believe that it would be in his best interest to attend.
You ask "What do those rioting people rage against?"The short answer is that the protesters in Seattle are fighting against a body that exists outside of any nation's government for one purpose: to create globalized free trade for multinational corporations to increase their profits at the expense of the citizens of the world.For a more in depth analysis of what is going on in Seattle, try ZNet for starters. I truly believe that everyone should be concerned about the WTO's power due to its ability to drastically alter our lives without us having any say whatsoever.
I sincerely suggest that you research what the WTO has stood for in its past actions.It serves the interests of huge multinational corporations above and beyond anything else.There are many examples of how the WTO is the weapon utilized to force unsustainable and detrimental policies upon sovereign nations in the name of "free trade"From 1988 until August of this year, Europe banned the import US beef because it contains growth-enhancing hormones.The WTO declared the ban illegal since it was detrimental to free trade.Regardless of whether or not you feel that injesting animal hormones is safe can you honestly say that it this is fair?Is it really the responsibility of the WTO to decide that it knows what is best for the health of the European people?I definitely do not think so. It is because of decisions like this that the WTO is "getting in the neck" and rightfully so.
I agree that a denial of service attack against the WTO may not be the most productive form of protest possible, but I am confused by your statements in the third paragraph.It seems to me that you are stating that the WTO is somehow unlike allowing "the most powerful nations, such as the US and power blocks such as the EU, to carve up the global economy behind closed doors."In truth, the WTO is much worse.Since the WTO is the puppet of short sighted and self minded multinational corporations that are generally aloof from the citizens of the world, the only say that we have is through protest. What kind of freedom is that?To suggest that the only alternative to the WTO is a Cold War is misinformed.The WTO is operating behind closed doors, and it is the goal of the protesters to try and inform everyone of this and to ensure that the WTO does not increase its already disturbing amount of influence over our lives.
Here are some links that should help arm and inform:
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with depleted uranium is that when it strikes a target, it produces a toxic dust that remains in the area even after the fighting has stopped. The people who have to somehow live in the wake of the battle are now inhaling a lethal substance that some studies have shown to have negative health effects. Do some research on depleted uranium exposure to learn more.
I don't think that the main point is that it is unpublished. The point is that most people will not know that depleted uranium is being used or that it can have negative effects on the health of the people that must survive post war conditions. This information should be made widely dispersed to the public so that they can know exactly what is being carried out in their name and with their money.
As to your last comment, look into the concept of moral relativism for the answer.
Do you actually believe that the biotech companies have posters on the wall saying 'What natural system can we fuck up today?'
Exaggerations aside, it is truly naive to believe that the intention of creating genetically modified organisms is for 'feeding the poor'. The only feeding going on is that of the wealth of multinational agri-businesses. So called 'Golden Rice' is as far as I know the first entry in this big scam. Anyone can do the research and discover that in order to ingest the RDA of vitamin A, approximately 15 pounds of this pyrite must be eaten! In addition to that, absorption of vitamin A is dependant upon fat and protein in the diet, dependencies which I think may be lacking in the diet of the world's poor. The only way to begin to address starvation of the poor is to attack the root causes of their being poor. Genetically engineering special food only claims to correct the symptom and, in fact, worsens the actual illness.
Actually, industrial hemp can not be used to produce the same psychoactive effects as its close relative marijuana. In fact, industrial hemp contains a relatively high level of CBD, a chemical that inhibits any effects that the plant's modicum of THC could have on a person.
Check out The Ultimate Web Resource for Hemp.
I do not really feel like arguing the validity of the 'stepping stone' myth regarding marijuana, but I tend to think that it is greatly overstated by its supporters.
This is how. Not much on Lisp, but quite a bit for Scheme. There are also many other languages listed at that site that have been made to work inside of Java. I know that JPython is very popular!
> How would I get Ada to access classes that were written in Java?
Look here.
Someone moderate this post up. It is the first one that I have seen that gets at the heart of the discussion at hand and clearly explains what the issues are.
If the choice is really so bad, write in "None of the Above'. There is a movement about to make this a valid choice for elections. If the 'None of the Above" wins, the election if forfeited and new candidates are selected. It is a novel idea, if nothing else, and it guarantees that the person in office is who the people really think that they want.
That sounds a lot like Sun's vision for its Jini technology.It is an interesting idea, if nothing else.It is inevitable that some technology of this sort will find its way into modern households.
assuming that the 1979 treaty exists
It certainly does exist. Responding to China's compliance with this agreement, they have so far and it is not in their best interests to act otherwise. In my previous post I mentioned that 42% of China's exports go to the United States. It is in their best interests to respect the 1979 agreement. The only thing that PNTR would guarantee is that the United States could not use trade to enforce its domestic policies on China. With respect to the WTO standing with us, it would only be useful to us if our dispute with China involved China limiting access of US goods in their Country. I argue that this is irrelevant in that most of the people of China are too poor to afford any of the items they will import from the US.
Now, this whole issue of the yearly MFN vote is just nonsense.
Not so. Many Chinese activists have noted that when China's MFN status comes up for vote, conditions improve somewhat, the government backs of a little, and people are more able to seek out information and make gains in the area of defeating oppression. The vote could be effectively used to push China towards reform. Think of it as a form of checks and balances.
"Seem" is the key word here. I am very doubtful that the amount of oppression and environmental degradation in China would not increase if the US grants them PNTR. Passage of PNTR would basically be a reward where no reward is warranted. I can only imagine the ways in which labor camps "encourage" workers to be more productive. Should the US really support and further this type of behavior?
Thanks for the comments about Cuba. The sooner that the people of the United States wake up see how ridiculous the situation is, the better! Hopefully the whole Elián Gonzáles fiasco is helping more people to realize that the US policy towards Cuban is ridiculous and shameful.
The simple reason is that they are mis-informed about both issues. PNTR advocates falsely state if the United States does no grant PNTR to China that they will not have all of the trade benefits that China will extend to other countries, most notably WTO benefits. The US and China made an agreement in 1979 that clearly states that China must extend any trade privileges to the US that it gives to other countries. This agreement still applies if the US does not grant PNTR to China, in fact, the US gives away nothing if it does not grant PNTR to China. Anyone who states otherwise regarding this agreement either has not done the proper research or is trying to skew the facts. Quite the opposite is true if the United States does pass the bill for Chinese PNTR. The first thing that the US gives away is its yearly review of trade with China based on Chinese violation of US laws such as labor laws, human rights laws, and environmental laws. The second thing that the US gives away is the ability to enforce any domestic laws relating to labor, human rights, and the environment. This is because if the US grants PNTR to China, it will have to recognize a full WTO relationship with China. As we have seen many times before, the WTO overturns domestic laws that it deems "detrimental to free trade" and would cripple US ability to sway China based on trade. Not to mention that China is a potential threat to US national security. The United States is responsible for 42% of Chinese exports, and is in essence funding China's military mobilization. If China invades Taiwan and the US enters the battle to support them, China has indicated that it would strike out against the US. US importing of Chinese goods would only increase if China were granted PNTR. Why would the US even consider doing this?
Enter multi-national business interests. Until now, many corporations have held back on opening up factories in China because if the US were to restrict Chinese trade, they would stand to lose a lot of money. If PNTR is granted to China then there is a free ticket for these corporations to open up shop in China. With the lax Chinese labor laws, many companies will close manufacturing plants in countries that have better worker's rights to move to China and increase their profit, leaving many unemployed in countries with labor standards. It seems that everything pertaining the the US government these days is wrapped up in big business. It is also these big businesses that limit access to the truth about these issues. They all spread around the same lies that the politicians believe because they are paid to. It seems that Marx's predictions about capitalism are becoming a reality in the very times in which we live. It saddens and embarrasses me that the experiment in democracy that is the United States has been turning into nothing more than a corporate illusion almost from the nation's beginning.
The embargoes against Cuba are another matter altogether. The United States has tried everything it could possibly to do remove Fidel Castro from power. Yet he is still there, out lasting eight, soon to be nine, US presidents. This reflects the general attitude of the US towards Cuba since Cuba fought Spain for its independence one hundred years ago. That attitude is of control without ownership. The US wants control over the Cuban economy and will try anything to gain it. Cuba has set the dangerous precedent of having an economy and government that benefit those in need, an idea that the US can not reconcile. Those who deserve help the most in Cuba receive it, unlike our backwards system of further rewarding those who repress others and already have too much.
This is just a brief analysis of these situations as I see them from various resources that I have come across. Here are a few of the better ones:
Finally, I believe that this is a big issue right now because Bill Clinton feels that he has to leave some sort of legacy. So far the only thing that he will really be remembered for is scandal and he knows it. Clinton has been a major supporter of PNTR and would love to see this pass and be the final major contribution of his presidency. I believe that if PNTR is granted to China, the US will come to regret it and Clinton will be seen for the liar that he is. Many of the people who voted for Clinton did so because of his policies on gay rights and China. Since entering office, he has changed his stance on both. It is high time for the people of the United States to begin to put their government back where it belongs, in the hands of the people. On November 7, 2000, I urge the people of the United States to elect Ralph Nader as president. Only after we take back our government and force it into democracy can we begin to make meaningful change.
I would say that communism is a political model and its economic analog is socialism.
Your point seems valid, in theory, but in reality, it is not the case.The European ban was originally put into place partly due to the fact that supposedly untreated beef from the US in reality contained hormones.So much for labelling!Besides, I do not think that the US wants to label its beef and would probably use the WTO to fight for this.So that would eliminate any choice that the consumer would have regarding hormone treated beef.Additionally, many people feel a moral objection to treating cows with such hormones since it is cruel to the animal.This is the general consensus among the people of Europe.I am of the opinion that to introduce hormone treated beef into the European market would cause beef sales to decline, so everyone loses.The consumers are stuck with a product that they do not want, European farmers lose money, and the health and ideals of the people are compromised.
Thank you for the links you have provided, I will have to check them out when I get a chance.I might also add that the ZNet link I provided contains many economic issues and links to many more.The differences between your opinion and mine illustrate exactly why there is so much controversy surrounding the WTO.Most people (myself included) agree that the global market is important and needs to experience growth and evolution for humankind to prosper and close in on world wide equality for all.Some people will say that the WTO is the way to go, but many argue that a different approach is required altogether.
-Larry
I have a couple of comments about this response.
"...it depends on whether you term knowledge and technology as resources, in which case I'd have to claim it's fundamentally unbounded."
I would argue that your point is totally dependent upon how knowledge and technology are used.How long has technology had the knowledge to utilize renewable resources to sustain the Western lifestyle?How available are these solutions to consumers?The corporate machine refuses to acknowledge that we can do things in a non-destructive way because it does not serve its primary interests, maximum profit.So to counter your point, I would say that even though technology and knowledge offer the possibility of unbounded resources they will not be able to as long as amoral greed is in charge.
"If a corporation comes in and taps that resource, it can create whole new sectors of an economy, helping to create jobs and increase cash flow *into* the region."
Does this auto-magically mean that the quality of life for these people will increase?If there is one lesson that I have learned from history, it is that whenever a dominating culture forces its way into the lives of a smaller, more isolated group of people, it is generally not to the benefit of these people, their culture, or their environment.I am not saying that there are not nations in this world that would not benefit in many ways from globalization or a demonstration of what works for other nations.The problem lies in the fact that, historically, instead of seeking to help these nations and allow its people to preserve their identity, the more powerful nation forces its own culture upon them to serve its own interests and causes them great suffering.
-Larry
I must disagree with you:
1. The WTO *is* evolving, that is the purpose of these meetings. However, it happens slowly (you try getting 135 countries to agree on something and you'll figure out why).
The WTO is meeting to try and lengthen its already far-reaching ability to lessen our quality of life in the name of free trade.
2. If you want information go to the WTO website (http://www.wto.org) - I got it first try.
Try here. It contains many thought provoking ideas and informative (not disinformative) links.
3. The WTO *is* open, the entire set of rules is online, the reason most people don't think it's open is because they've never researched what it does. (The information is there, the people are ignorant).
The WTO is closed in the sense that average citizens have no say whatsoever in what policies the WTO should adopt.The organization exists to carry out the will of large multinational corporations.The only voice that you and I have is to protest (Seattle).All of the WTO's decisions are made in secret!
4. The only voting people attending the meetings are the representative from the member countries (usually the trade minister from the respective country). It is up to the trade minister to bring a balanced viewpoint.
I would think that the trade minister would have more of a vested interest in the concerns of corporations rather than in the welfare of the Earth.
5. Bill Gates is not even attending.
See my previous response.Seeing as he is a co-chair of the event, I believe that it would be in his best interest to attend.
-Larry
He is a co-chair with Phil Condit, CEO of Boeing. -Larry
You ask "What do those rioting people rage against?"The short answer is
-Larrythat the protesters in Seattle are fighting against a body that exists outside of
any nation's government for one purpose: to create globalized free trade for
multinational corporations to increase their profits at the expense of the
citizens of the world.For a more in depth analysis of what is going on in Seattle,
try ZNet for starters. I truly believe that everyone should be concerned about the
WTO's power due to its ability to drastically alter our lives without us having
any say whatsoever.
I sincerely suggest that you research what the WTO has stood for in its past actions.It serves the interests of huge multinational corporations above and beyond anything else.There are many examples of how the WTO is the weapon utilized to force unsustainable and detrimental policies upon sovereign nations in the name of "free trade"From 1988 until August of this year, Europe banned the import US beef because it contains growth-enhancing hormones.The WTO declared the ban illegal since it was detrimental to free trade.Regardless of whether or not you feel that injesting animal hormones is safe can you honestly say that it this is fair?Is it really the responsibility of the WTO to decide that it knows what is best for the health of the European people?I definitely do not think so. It is because of decisions like this that the WTO is "getting in the neck" and rightfully so.
I agree that a denial of service attack against the WTO may not be the most productive form of protest possible, but I am confused by your statements in the third paragraph.It seems to me that you are stating that the WTO is somehow unlike allowing "the most powerful nations, such as the US and power blocks such as the EU, to carve up the global economy behind closed doors."In truth, the WTO is much worse.Since the WTO is the puppet of short sighted and self minded multinational corporations that are generally aloof from the citizens of the world, the only say that we have is through protest. What kind of freedom is that?To suggest that the only alternative to the WTO is a Cold War is misinformed.The WTO is operating behind closed doors, and it is the goal of the protesters to try and inform everyone of this and to ensure that the WTO does not increase its already disturbing amount of influence over our lives.
Here are some links that should help arm and inform:
- Greenpeace USA
- ZNet
- WTOWatch.org
-Larry