[39] in peace2
Re: Columbia (news)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (M Chui)
Sat Jan 22 12:25:09 2000
Message-Id: <20000122172328.6907.qmail@hotmail.com>
From: "M Chui" <maisiechui@hotmail.com>
To: artmacom@micron.net, auyeung@MIT.EDU
Cc: peace2@MIT.EDU, jbarrera@MIT.EDU, zan@MIT.EDU
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:23:28 PST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Hi Art,
I caught the same lines as you, and am a little perplexed in rgds to who the
land actually belongs to and what kind of rights the U'wa have to this land.
At the same time, I'm torn by my other thoughts, being.. that since the
drilling is so close to their ancestral land, chances are, the drillers
won't be careful on where they trample and where their machinery spills..
therefore, it is better to contain the situation now than for that matter to
arise later when the damage is already done. But again, the arguement does
not look completely as tho its on 'legal' grounds.
And on the side, the Gore issue..
If he bought the stocks himself, I think it'd would definitely make him a
hypocrite. But, i read down some more and the fact is, he inherited those
shares. --From his dad that died December of 1998. Personally, i don't
think what his dad does/believes in, should be a reflection of the VP
himself. But i suppose, sure enough, that if he really thought of the
ramifications -of his sitting on those shares that arrived through
inheritance- would in turn suggest he approves, then perhaps he might've
gotten rid of them sooner than it coming out in the open now.
>Moreover, I also agree that Al Gore is an inherent danger on many >levels
>to the safe and secure exercise of individual rights - on a >global basis -
>so to keep him out of the Presidency is a good thing >all around.
Art, besides the article we read, what are your grounds for this reasoning?
...Alright, I wrote this to gain perspective, please don't burn me.
Thanks!
Maisie
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
