The United States, the United Nations, and possibly many other political entities throughout the world point to the amount of money they are paying to fight this horrendous crime. Why is there such disparity in the results they provide?
(PRWEB) April 17, 2005 -- Some may define "first world 'civilizations' " as those that are "industrial." They may further define this to mean a culture developed to value "industry," i.e. that which values work that produces revenue. Further development may also be defined as that which values profit: the margin of revenue over "cost." In such definition, where stands modern-day slavery?
Keeping in mind the terrorism required to maintain such a practice, someone whose love was abducted into this horror before her eyes was soon after offered assistance to "rescue" the victim. The catch was that "firepower" would be available and, yes, funds would need to be provided for this assistance. The person approached declined, at that time, primarily because she was very much aware that the subject victim was so against "firepower" that he would defer to remaining subjected to his horror rather than his rescue involving "firepower." She was also concerned about how paying for such services may impact additional terrorism.
Ironically, while admitting that she was not reading relating communications, the person who'd offered these services claims to be distributing them to others.
The United States, the United Nations, and possibly many other political entities throughout the world point to the amount of money they are paying to fight this horrendous crime. Why is there such disparity in the results they provide? Is this possible evidence that funds being allocated to fight such atrocities and injustice may actually be having just the opposite effect? Is reassessing value structure in order?
|
