I agree, Kat. But pointing the finger at 'them' is a useful way to avoid responsibility for ourselves. More importantly, it diverts our attention from figuring out how to be truly effective.

If not for 'pregnant chads', Gore may have been president for 4 years, but it is unlikely he would have won a 2nd term, simply because we liberals refuse to grapple with the inherent short term conflict between 'economic prosperity' and protection of the environment.

What we need in this country is for some one to stand up and acknowledge that we can not 'have it all.' And then to push for policies that equalize the 'sacrifice.'

Social policies, economics and environmental issues, in this small world with finite resources can no longer effectively be viewed as separate but related. "Think Gobally. Act Locally" may be a catchy, and now trite bumper sticker, but it is what is necessary. Regionalism will no longer insure the long term survival of a particular tribe, much less of our species or a viable planet for most currently extant species.

We have reached the limit of our resources on this planet. It may be, from an evolutionary perspective, that we have run our course. The tribalism (regionalism) that fosters survival of the 'fittest', now may bite us in the ass ( or may have already done so)and insure all of our doom. There are strong parallels among the debate about rebuilding New Orleans and the delta region, and mining coal, fishing the seas, etc. It may be that only Orwellian measures can save us. But do we want to be saved under those conditions?

I don't think I am connecting the dots very well here, but it is the best I can do. My forte, and my weakness as well, is I am an intuitive thinker. The relationship and interconnectedness of point a to point b is what I get, and what is important to me, as opposed to what and where point A and point B actually consist of.

So, yeh, Kat. I agree. But what each of us has real exuecutvie over is ourselves.